Sep-19-14
 | | sachistu: The colors should be reversed for this game, although Staunton in the tournament book indicates, by general agreement of the players, the players were to alternate White or Black. Thus, Wellman should have had White. Note: sites like Chessbase made this mistake, and also gave A.B. Hodges for the games in this tournament, which is clearly incorrect. Also, there seems to be some dispute about Wellman's first name, with Di Felice giving 'B' but Rod Edwards giving G.F. (citing Sericano's website). The sources I have checked (i.e. Chess Player's Chronicle) just list his last name. Anyone have any documention on this one? |
|
| Sep-19-14 | | ljfyffe: Not referring to the above, but it was possible in those days for the player having the first move to choose to play the Black pieces from the black side of the board. Non-algebraic notation had its uses. |
|
Sep-19-14
| | sachistu: In this particular case <ljfyffe> there was no reference to "the first player" or 'second player". I'm essentially quoting Staunton's comments in the tournament book. If you look at the assignments (White/Black) in their first two games, you'll see it was Wellman's turn to be White. However, if you look at the tournament book, the opposite happened; that is, Hodges had White. FYI...I am aware of the practice of the "first player to move" not necessarily being White. |
|
| Sep-19-14 | | ljfyffe: Re: FyI: I figured so and that is why I said "not referring to the above." Thanks for the further info, nonetheless, as chess history is my vocation. |
|
Sep-19-14
| | sachistu: Good to know <ljfyffe>. Actually, I probably should have read your bio before responding. (No offense taken or intended.) I wouldn't call myself a historian, but do try to research items in question. Would love to resolve the Wellman name question. It's ironic you mentioned the 'those days' practice of the White player not always making the first move. I was just recently following the discussion of Horwitz-Bird (or rather Bird-Horwitz!) 1851...interesting! |
|
| Sep-20-14 | | ljfyffe: Certainly no offense taken on my part. |
|
| Sep-20-14 | | morfishine: Confusing and Interesting at the same time. Who knows, maybe they got Wellman and Williams mixed up |
|
| Sep-20-14 | | ljfyffe: Not having access to the tournament book and so the order in which games were played, did the drawn game disrupt the proposed ordering of colours? You are saying Hodges had White in the first game, according to the tournament book--which game would that be? T's confusing, indeed. |
|
| Sep-20-14 | | ljfyffe: Excuse me, that should be you are saying the book has Wellman as White in the first game ...and so he should be White in the third game (the one above), but the book gives him as Black which means Hodges gets the point instead. |
|
| Sep-20-14 | | ljfyffe: What I'm thinking is (1) Wellman-Hodges (Sicilian) 0-1; Hodges -Wellman(QG) draw;
Hodges-Wellman (French) 1-0. And Hodges wins two and a half to a half.Which makes sense, and this is what you are saying, is it not? With Hodges getting White again because of the draw. |
|
| Sep-21-14 | | ljfyffe: Yes, indeed, Albert Beauregard Hodges was not born until 1861!(Landsberger: The Steinitz Papers). |
|
Sep-23-14
| | sachistu: Been away a few days <ljfyffe>. re: offense (sometimes the written word can be misinterpreted), so glad it did not come out 'wrong'. Yes, Wellman had White in the 1st game (Sicilian). Hodges had White in the 2nd (Queen's Gambit) which was drawn. And, no, the draw did not (was not supposed to) alter the pre-agreed order of colors. That is, the comment in the Tb said the players were to alternate "whether the games were won or drawn". Now it is true the Tb comment does refer to the "first move"; however, in all three games, the player's names are listed in the header e.g. White (Mr. W.)in the 1st game. White (Mr. H) in the 2nd and White (Mr. H) in the 3rd. The comment says "Mr. Wellman should have played first". Given the assignments listed in the Tb, I do not know how one could reach a different conclusion. |
|
| Sep-24-14 | | ljfyffe: I notice one site supposes a fourth game to decide the 2 out of 3 which, of course, was not necessary. So the players decided the colours themselves in the third game despite the rules. Guess we will never know why, then. Interesting. |
|
Sep-24-14
| | sachistu: Do you mind sharing the site location <ljfyffe> that suggested a fourth game? To be frank, I did not read the Tb cover-to-cover. I was focused only on the specifics of that match. In more than one place, the Tb mentions that only 3 games were to be (and were) played. In the Tb, Staunton says "3rd and final game of the match". However, in scanning through the Tb pages, I see a reference to two drawn games between these two players (which seems really odd and confusing). Yes, in that tournament, the 'accepted rule' of draws not counting was in effect. The situation is further complicated by the fact that there was more than one event scheduled for this Congress. The 'Provincial' matches pitting members of British clubs against each other in basically a 'knock-out' format was just one of the events. Staunton's book of the 'tournament' is rather 'jumbled' (in my opinion) with the games not being arranged by event. Moreover, there were rules adopted by the players just prior to commencement that differed somewhat from the 'Prospectus' that was issued when gathering players for the event(s). Bottom line... I see nothing that would alter alter the fact that Hodges had White in the above game (which is the only point I was trying to make when initially making this post). Sorry about the long-winded post! |
|
| Sep-24-14 | | ljfyffe: What a relief to know you are confused too! And you have the tournament book! Hodges had to have White for sure as you point out. Draws did not count in the the 1851 International, but in the Provincials were another matter, I take it. Darn if I can remember the site but I don't think it makes any difference. Whoever posted it just assumed there had to be another game because he accepted the game above as having the colours correct and made the mistake worse by posting a virtual game. The name of the players were given, but the type of opening or defense was not. Most importantly, no moves were given!! |
|
Sep-24-14
| | sachistu: Well, now that's bizarre! re: draws...the rules applied to the 'Provincial' tournament were not exactly the same as the 'Grand' tournament, but the one reference I found (e.g. that draws were not to count)was apparently intended for all events at the Congress. |
|
| Sep-24-14 | | ljfyffe: That is what I suspected. Draws may not count. Could account for the colour not changing, but you pointed out they were susposed to anyway.
You see, I'm not sure about how things were handled to be quite honest. Your guess is as good as mine. Likely better, because you have the book to refer to. |
|
Sep-24-14
| | sachistu: Yes <ljfyffe>, the 'draw' condition does raise a specter of doubt. However, Staunton is very emphatic in his description of the games for this particular match. Only a selection of games were presented, so there is always some room for doubt. And that comment in another location of the Tb about "2 draws" troubles me. The only other option is to say Staunton was mistaken in his comments, but I'd have to see some independent verification before I would consider that. Unfortunately, we are not likely to find such. Thanks for all your feedback. Now, if you could just help out on Wellman's first name (or initials), I'd be a happy camper! :) |
|
| Sep-24-14 | | ljfyffe: You are trying to make me feel like a crappy hamper, aren't you? (Jokes I). The site is London Provincials 1851 365 Chess.com Tournaments that has Albert B. Hodges, as white, beating B.
Wellman in a game with no moves! Another site
(don't ask!) gives the score as 1 and half to one and half with the data possibly "incomplete" it said....The important point is the colours are wrong in game above which was your original thought. Obviously, B. Wellman is correct as Hodges name is given as Albert Beauregard which of course makes B. playing a man not yet
born!!! The question is, will I be a well man after all this((sorry, I cannot resist puns.) |
|
Sep-24-14
| | sachistu: I don't know about you, but after that, I feel a little crazy. Without wanting to sound harsh, I have little/no confidence in the 365Chess.com site. It seems a re-hash of Chessbase, with all errors that reference brings with it. Obviously, I have other games to research, so I'll just have to keep this one in mind if I happen to stumble on a reliable source. Unfortunately, many of the early English and German publications referred to players as 'Mr.' or 'Herr' just giving the last name (and sometimes truncating that to 'Mr.B' or 'Herr B', or if they really want to have fun with you, they list the first and last initials of the last name withe dashes in between letting you hazard a guess at the blanks. Feel I'm on Wheel of Fortune! |
|
| Sep-24-14 | | ljfyffe: Re-hash is right! Staunton's reliability? In his edition of Shakespeare, re Coriolanus, he accepts as correct text:"You are ambitious for poor knaves' caps and legs: you wear out a good wholesome forenoon in hearing a cause between an orange-wife and a fosset - seller". Other editors give "forset - seller" in which case the "or" of for, poor, forenoon, orange, and forset all line up. Not if fosset. Now what do you think of that?......Good-bye and good luck! |
|
Kibitzing
