But here's the actual quote. Somebody who can handle German without Goggle Translate can let us know if there are any subtle nuances here.

<The quote in the tournament book does not mention that additional moves were made, but only indicates that Black preferred to let White wriggle for a bit before mating him.>

I didnt suggest anything.

<The congress book INDICATES that Black did not mate immediately after white's third move, but preferred to play a bit with White before making the kill. No moves are supplied.>

Look closely the annotation, Mrs! Who suggested what. Aint me!

<The score looks perfectly fine> Of course it is. What do you expect...1-0? lol

cant catch what you are trying to say.

Do you mean he smoked first or say, danced first before making move??

The finding by <whiteshark> is interesting, as this game was discussed by Winter in C.N. 5381 - http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

In the database is the Chernev version <1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Ke2 Qe4#>

In the tournament book <1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Ke2> is given and then follows the annotation you already reproduced here.

Then, there is the 'Deutsche Schachzeitung' version, again <1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Ke2> but claiming that Black overlooked the mate.

The game as it is given here appears to be a mixture of all three.

Winter gives the following possibilities:

<Black
i) gave mate with 3...Qe4
ii) sadistically eschewed 3...Qe4
iii) overlooked 3...Qe4>

Option ii appears problematic as the annotation could even more likely mean that Black waited with his move, not necessarily that he made a different move (as you already noted). The picture used is that of a fish that was caught, when he is still wriggling and the fisherman waits until he slays him (they actually follow it quite well, as the annotation says <erschlug>, <erschlagen> = to slay or to strike dead).

In light of the evidence, it would probably be most correct to shorten the game and make it <1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Ke2>. This would spoil the fun a bit though.

But at least the annotation should be changed. I propose to either delete the annotation, or to formulate a new one and present the matter more clearly. In case the game score remains the same, move 3.Ke2 should be annotated.

E. g.

<White intended to play 3.Nc3. By accident, he moved the Bc1 to c3 instead. 3.Ke2 was the penalty move. The sources are ambiguous about the further course of the game, but Black won according to the tournament crosstable. Black either i) played 3...Qe4#, ii) sadistically waited before he finally played 3...Qe4#, iii) sadistically passed over 3...Qe4# and went for a slower win instead, or iv) overlooked 3...Qe4#.

Option i: Chernev, 'Wonders and Curiosities of Chess', New York, 1974, p. 119

Options ii & iii: Kiel, 1893 tournament book, p. 60 (in the original "[...] zog es aber vor, den Gegner erst noch zappeln zu lassen, ehe er ihn endlich erschlug.")

Option iv: 'Deutsche Schachzeitung' of September 1893, p. 283

All information retrieved from Edward Winter's C.N. 5381 (www.chesshistory.com)>

Maybe this isn't any simpler, but here goes:

<White intended to play 3.Nc3, but by accident moved the Bc1 to c3 instead. The rules at the time required that an illegal move be retracted and replace with a legal king move, so 3.Ke2 was the penalty.

What happened next is unclear. The usual account is that Black simply played 3...Qe4#. (See, for example, Irving Chernev, 'Wonders and Curiosities of Chess', New York, 1974, p. 119.)

However, some contemporary accounts indicate that Black did not play the mate, either because he did not see it ("'Deutsche Schachzeitung' of September 1893, p. 283), or from a desire to let White wriggle for a while (Kiel, 1893 tournament book, p. 60 (in the original "[...] zog es aber vor, den Gegner erst noch zappeln zu lassen, ehe er ihn endlich erschlug."

If additiona moves were played after 3.Ke2, they have not been recorded.">

==========
Another question is not just "What was Echtermeyer thinking", but "How do we know what Echtermeyer was thinking?"

The "Deutche Schachzeitung" was edited by Hermann vVon Gottschall, the tournament book by Johannes Metger. Both played in the Meisterturnier and were thus present on scene, but I think Metger might have had a better opportunity to ask Echtermeyer about the incident since they were both from Kiel.

The final thournament standings are interesting.

1 Pries 6.0
2 Echtermeyer 5.5
3 Weis 5.5
4 Lindemann 5.0
5 Junge4.5
6 Christophersen 4.0
7 Ney 3.0
8 Hinrichsen 2.0
9 Tetens 0.5

So if Lindemann had won this game he would have tied for first, and even a draw would have put him in tie for 2nd, ahead of Echtermeyer.

I agree with you on the strength of the players. And that both players took the matter more lightly after the accident, also appears most likely to me. The "sadistically" was a left over from C.N. 5381.

Your suggestion looks very good to me, I would only slightly change the tournamnet book account:

<White intended to play 3.Nc3, but by accident moved the Bc1 to c3 instead. The rules at the time required that an illegal move be retracted and replaced with a legal king move, so 3.Ke2 was the penalty.

What happened next is unclear. The usual account is that Black simply played 3...Qe4#. (See, for example, Irving Chernev, 'Wonders and Curiosities of Chess', New York, 1974, p. 119.)

However, some contemporary accounts indicate that Black did not play the mate because he did not see it ("'Deutsche Schachzeitung' of September 1893, p. 283). The tournament book is more ambiguous, claiming that Black let White wriggle for a while (Kiel, 1893 tournament book, p. 60 (in the original "[...] zog es aber vor, den Gegner erst noch zappeln zu lassen, ehe er ihn endlich erschlug.")), indicating either a pause before playing 3...Qe4# or preference for a slower win.

If additional moves were played after 3.Ke2, they have not been recorded.

Information was retrieved from Edward Winter's C.N 5381.>

I think we should mention C.N. 5381 as the source for the sources.

<Petrosianic>

By the way, the position after <3.Ke2?

click for larger view

So is there a shorter checkmate than the Fool's Mate in terms of distance traveled? I considered the game 1. e3 Nc6 2. c3 Ne5 3. Ne2 Nd3#. The total distance is 2+4√5 ≈ 10.944. Nope, that one doesn't do it. However, I can modify the Fool's mate a bit to get a game that is a half-move longer but shorter in distance traveled: 1. e3 f6 2. Qg4 h6 3. Qg6#. Total distance: 5+3√2 ≈ 9.243, a new record!

But wait, maybe the checkmate pattern in this game can produce an even shorter distance checkmate. Let's try 1. d3 e6 2. Qd2 e5 3. Qe3 Ke7 4. Qxe5#. Total distance: 7+√2 ≈ 8.414. Yes, this pattern beats even the shortest Fool's mate! What's more, I don't think it is possible to produce a game with a shorter checkmate in terms of distance.

<1.e4?!> This premature thrust is the cause of White's future difficulties. Much better is 1.f3!, preparing to bring the king forward with 2.Kf2, 3.Ke3 etc., securing an advantage in the center.

<1...d5!!!!> Black immediately exploits White's grave error, challenging the undefended pawn on e4, which so foolishly dashed ahead without backup like a lamb to the slaughter, or a moth to the sun.

<2.exd5?> Another blunder, giving up the center. Much better was 2.Ke2!! preparing to regain the pawn by 3.Ke3, 4.Kxe4 etc, with initiative.

<2...Qxd5?> An error, bringing the Queen out prematurely. Much stronger was 2...Kd7!! punishing White's inaccuracies and immediately putting his opponent on the ropes.

<3.Ke2?!?!!?> At last White stumbles upon the right idea, but his timing is questionable. Much better to prepare this powerful king march with 3.f3!!!! when the Black Lady is denied the important outpost on e4. The players can be forgiven for their gross blunders as Steinitz had only just started to teach the principles of positional play, and the shallow, weak "develop" and "attack" style of Morphy , Anderssen et all was still all the rage.

<3...Qe4#?!> This is playable, of course, but rather dull and unimaginative. Black could improve with <3...Kd8!!> when White would have nothing better than to try for a draw by repetition with 4.Ke1!! Ke8! etc.

A deeply flawed game, but an important one for theory.

Instead, if a player made an illegal move, "he must, at the choice of the opponent, and according to the case, either move his own man legally, capture the man legally, or move any other man legally moveable."