chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Lindemann vs Echtermeyer
Kiel (1893), Kiel GER
Scandinavian Defense: General (B01)  ·  0-1

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Annotations by NN.      [53 more games annotated by NN]

Get this game explained with Decode Chess
explore this opening
find similar games more games of Lindemann
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can display posts in reverse order, by registering a free account then visiting your preferences page and checking the option "Display newest kibitzes on top."

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE.  [CLICK HERE]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Nov-27-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Penguincw: I think that's the worst move white can play from that position:


click for larger view

excluding resgination (which is not really a "move").

Apr-01-12  BlackSheep: I enjoyed this battle of the titans , well played .
May-18-12  Oliveira: Very helpful piece of information brought out by <antharis>. But it is still very strange White didn't mate right away. So, I should suppose Lindemann was a real sportsman and alleviated the penalty for his opponent. Yet we're told that he still was able to win with ♕e4. Indeed, a mystery game!
May-18-12  Eisenheim: great - so everyone now things my opening with the white pieces is bad?
Aug-28-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: As CG.com mentioned 7 years ago, E Schiller vs H Pack, 1969 features a similar blunder by Black (see Schiller's comment for the explanation).
Aug-28-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: Another ...Ke7?? game, albeit not ending in mate: L Palau vs S Kalabar, 1927.
Feb-19-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: As <whiteshark> noted, Edward Winter discusses the game at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... (scroll down to #5381). What reportedly happened is that White picked up his bishop and put it - rather than his knight - on c3. Since he had made an illegal move, the rules then in force required him to move his king instead. It is not clear whether Black (a) played 3...Qe4#, (b) saw the mate but chose not to execute it, instead torturing his opponent for a while before winning (perhaps with 3...Qe5+, which wins easily), or (c) simply overlooked the mate and played something else. In any case, the cross-table shows that Black won.
Mar-27-13  ughaibu: Concerning my question, on page one: Lindemann vs Echtermeyer, 1893 does anyone know if the Horowitz(?) game is in the database?
Aug-10-13  GumboGambit: Maybe White was thinking Nc3 Qxe2 Qxe2 wins the Queen and advances development.
Nov-29-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  Phony Benoni: Don't you just hate these games when two-thirds of the moves are theory?
Nov-29-13  paramount: <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.>

So this game is fake.....cmoon

Nov-29-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  Phony Benoni: <paramount> I think the note is a bit misleading. 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'd take that to mean that, instead of playing <3..Qe4#> instantly, he went through the motions of thinking about the move while White sat there sweating.

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.

<Um mit einem Scharz zuschhessen, bringen wir die vorstehende kurze Partie. Weiss wollte 3.Sc3 spielen, ergriff aber in der Hitze des Gefechtes den Lc1 und pflanzte ihn nach c3, zur Strafe musste er also den Königszug machen. Schwarz konnte jetzt durch 3...Dd5 matt setzen, zog es aber vor, den Gegner erst noch zappeln zu lassen, ehe er ihn endlich erschlug.>

Nov-30-13  Karpova: <Phony Benoni>

You are correct. Basically, White intended to play Nc3 but grabbed the ♗c1 instead. So he had to make a move with the king. Now, he probably already knew that he was lost. That Black decided to let him flounder (<zappeln>) merely indicates that he didn't play 3...Qe4# a tempo. It does not suggest that he played other moves. Although the <No moves are supplied.> seems to indicate additional moves, it may very well have been a misunderstanding of the German original text.

Nov-30-13  paramount: <phony>

<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.>

Of course if you strayed from the mating move 3...Qe4# , it would be interesting to see the another mating line. Of course black still would win with 3...Qe5+/Qe6+, it would be a slaughterhouse but beside 3...Qe4 i dont see any imminent checkmate. It would be interesting to see the real moves there....

Nov-30-13  Karpova: <paramount: It would be interesting to see the real moves there....>

There is nothing to suggest that the actual move wasn't 3...Qe4#. The game score looks perfectly fine.

Nov-30-13  paramount: <karpova>
<there is NOTHING TO SUGGEST that the actual move wasnt 3...Qe4#.>

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

If what you meant the moves...so we'll never know. Maybe Qe4# is the move maybe not. The annotation indicates that.

Nov-30-13  Karpova: <paramount>

Thanks to <Phony Benoni>, we got the actual quote from the the tournament book: <[...] zog es aber vor, den Gegner erst noch zappeln zu lassen, ehe er ihn endlich erschlug.> This does not mean that Black played any other move than 3...Qe4#, but merely that he didn't play 3...Qe4# immediately after 3.Ke2.

Nov-30-13  paramount: <Karpova>
< This does not mean that Black played any other move than 3...Qe4#, but merely that he didn't play 3...Qe4# immediately after 3.Ke2.>

cant catch what you are trying to say.

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

If that so, that is so rude from Echtermeyer toyed his opponent like that.

Nov-30-13  Karpova: <Phony Benoni>

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)>

What do you think? The new annotation appears to be very long.

Nov-30-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  Phony Benoni: <Karpova> It does seem very complicated. To my mind, the word "sadistically" is " seems far too strong. Both players may have been taking the whole affair lightly after the penalty move. Indeed, the fact that Lindemann didn't resign immediately out of sheer disgust indicates to me that he was ready to joke about it. Or maybe he didn't see the mate either.

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 mention this simply to show we have two fairly good players here instead of two random NNs, which makes it more likely that Echtermeyer did indeed see 3...Qe4#.

Dec-01-13  Petrosianic: I don't see any good reason to think that Echtermeyer didn't see Qe4. If the Congress book shows Qe4 but verbally claims that other unspecified moves were played, I'd go by the official score, and regard the verbal account as puffery.
Dec-01-13  Karpova: <Phony Benoni>

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>

The tournament book doesn't show it but follows 3.Ke2 up with the annotation, see C.N. 5381.

Dec-01-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  Phony Benoni: <Karpova> That looks very good. Thanks for taking an interest.

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


click for larger view

is so bad for White that Black wins easily even without the immediate mate. After <3...Qe5+>, White has only the choice of losing his queen immedately (4.Kf3 Qh5+), or getting mated (4.Kd3 Na6 is mate in 6 according to Bozo 0.5, my little chess engine that sometimes can).

Dec-30-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  OBIT: While the Fool's Mate takes fewer moves, I got to wondering if this game has a shorter checkmate in terms of distance traveled by the pieces, where distance is measured by how far a piece has to go to reach its destination square. (Note that I am considering a pawn to be a piece here, so that I don't have to say "pawn or piece" every time.) For example, the distance traveled by a queen moving from d1 to e2 is √2 ≈ 1.414, a knight moving from g1 to f3 travels √5 ≈ 2.236, a bishop moving from a1 to h8 travels 7√2 ≈ 9.899, etc. Alas, in a Fool's Mate with the moves 1. f3 e6 2. g4 Qh4#, the total distance traveled by the pieces is 4+4√2 ≈ 9.657, while in this game, the total distance is 8+2√2 ≈ 10.828.

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.

Yes, this post will do nothing to improve your chess game. However, anyone who finds this trivia interesting may enjoy trying to figure out the shortest checkmate in terms of distance traveled by the pieces on the winning side. Of the games mentioned here, 1. d3 e6 2. Qd2 e5 3. Qe3 Ke7 4. Qxe5# is winning that one as well, but is there a shorter one?

Jan-31-14  Francio: This guy seriously wanted to lose.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 6)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
Chessman1's favorite games 2
by Chessman1
Irving Chernev, 'Wonders and Curiosities of Chess', p.119
from Short games by masters by rbaglini
A scandy! NOT the best
from Really Messed Up Games by hidude
Epauletted in three
from Big Al's Scandal Didn't Surprise Fredthebear by fredthebear
b3
from Checkmate miniatures by RookHook
1. e4 d5 2. ed5 Qd5 3. Ke2 Qe4#
from Chess Miniatures, Collection I by nionios
HAHA!!
from Pianoplayer's favorite games by Pianoplayer
1. e4 d5 2. ed5 Qd5 3. Ke2 Qe4#
from Chess Miniatures, Collection I by 3sun3moon
Take my king, please
from Humor in chess by Gregor Samsa Mendel
xlTOXIClx's favorite games
by xlTOXIClx
Irving Chernev, 'Wonders and Curiosities of Chess', p.119
from Short games by masters by Southernrun
Three Moves!!! Have a look at the kibitz to see what happened.
from Ware Art Thou, O' Fredthebear? Strange Days Here by fredthebear
HAHA!!
from Pianoplayer's favorite games by mgroupllc
Chess is 1% brilliancy and 99% insanity
from Blunderful by Tactic101
Just because I like these games doesnt mean that
by xeroxmachine
3. Are you flipping kidding me?
from weird positions by smalldreams
blunders1
by painho
Game 115
from Wonders and Curiosities of Chess (Chernev) by Qindarka
mate del tonto
from jaque mates famosos by viniloangel

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC