|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Sep-24-21
 | | MissScarlett: Wanna bet? |
|
| Sep-24-21 | | Z truth 000000001: Oh, <missy>, you know how tight I am with the cash! On a side note, we know the match was scored 3.5-1.5. I have a source with 2 wins for Lasker, 3 draws. But I've also seen on the net that there was only one draw. Do we have this info anywhere?
. |
|
Sep-24-21
| | MissScarlett: I once started - I'm not sure why - a collection: Game Collection: Lasker - the missing games which may still require attention. I may have got the idea from this post: Jose Raul Capablanca (kibitz #6588) |
|
| Sep-25-21 | | Z truth 000000001: Game Collection: Lasker - the missing games is a jolly good resource, much better than that Morphy--Staunton crap foisted upon us elsewhere. |
|
| Sep-25-21 | | chesshistoryinterest: Interesting discussion on this history.
The source: "New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8420, 22 November 1890, Page 4", given by zanzibar on 30 May 2016 looks fairly convincing. It seems to imply that Englisch lost 3 games. That being so, he must also have won one (either Game 2 or Game 3) with the other being a draw. As at 1890, New Zealand was still a colonial possession of Britain, only semi-independent. I would say that virtually all overseas information such as this published by a New Zealand newspaper would be sourced from a British newspaper source. Therefore, it might be worth checking British newspaper materials around this date for further information. |
|
Sep-25-21
| | MissScarlett: The Field, September 27th 1890, p.493:
<A short match was arranged by Herr Neumann, President of the New Vienna Chess Club, between B. Englisch of Vienna and E. Lasker of Berlin, during the latter's stay in Vienna, on his return journey from Graz. The conditions were : The best out of five games, twenty moves per hour; one game to be played daily, beginning on the 14th, and concluding on Sept. 18. The players to receive for a won game 7 florins, for a draw 5 florins, and for a lost game 3 florins. Lasker won the match by 3½ to 1½. Herr Bauer informs us that Englisch is quite out of form. In the first game he lost two pawns, in the fourth the exchange, and in the last a pawn, all by oversights.> |
|
| Sep-25-21 | | Z truth 000000001: I'll try to dig out some of my researches, but from the top of my head, there was one game (a KGA iirc) where Englisch had a clear edge and blundered to a loss, but Lasker munificently offered him a draw instead (the draw being accepted of course). . |
|
| Sep-25-21 | | chesshistoryinterest: MissScarlett, great find.
This gives more credence to this source.
I wonder if "Herr Bauer" is the same person who lost to Lasker's famous 2-bishop sacrifice at Amsterdam 1889; but also finished second above him in the just completed Graz 1890 tournament.For some reason, this item won't come up for me when I search "The Field" in the online British newspaper archive. Do you have a link, or is this subscriber only content? Z truth 000000001, useful to know. This makes it possible that one of the three games referred to that Englisch blundered in may nevertheless have been a draw. Do either of you know what the book by Forster, Negele and Tischbierek on Lasker says on this event? I haven't seen this book. |
|
| Sep-25-21 | | chesshistoryinterest: I just remembered the other source I used to investigate this some time ago:
"Chess Sparks" by J.H.Ellis (1895) has a chronicle near the back, and on page 154 says "1890 Match at Vienna - Lasker v. Englisch, won by Lasker, 3 to 1, and 1 draw".
Just about every other book I've seen giving Lasker's record says it was +2-0=3. Is there actually any original record giving this latter score?
Be interesting to know which is correct. |
|
Sep-25-21
| | MissScarlett: <For some reason, this item won't come up for me when I search "The Field" in the online British newspaper archive. Do you have a link, or is this subscriber only content?> See Biographer Bistro (kibitz #22027). <Do either of you know what the book by Forster, Negele and Tischbierek on Lasker says on this event? I haven't seen this book.> I have the first English volume, but I am, as they say, temporarily separated from my library. I can't quite recall if I looked at this, but I suspect I have. The book doesn't treat Lasker's career in a step-by-step chronological fashion so this detail may not even be addressed. |
|
| Sep-25-21 | | chesshistoryinterest: Thanks. I looked at: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive... , but on closer inspection, it looks like a "Findmypast" website requiring a subscription. But it would seem you can search it for free to see if the item you want is there. I didn't find it, so presume they have not entered all issues yet. Your post of kibitz #22027 would also indicate a subscription is required, so thanks for posting the information. I was thinking the Forster, Negele and Tischbierek book was the "ultimate" book on Lasker, but maybe you could be right. |
|
Sep-25-21
| | MissScarlett: The <Field> is there from 1853 until the end of 1911. Searching for text is an imperfect process to say the least. You can access the holdings of all the individual titles using the pull down menu at the bottom of the front page. Of course, it helps to know what/when you're looking for. |
|
| Sep-25-21 | | chesshistoryinterest: Now I did find it. Lasker had come up as "Laster" and Englisch as "Engliocb". Hmmm. |
|
Oct-04-21
| | MissScarlett: <Do either of you know what the book by Forster, Negele and Tischbierek on Lasker says on this event?> Only that (p.29) Lasker won the match by 3.5-1.5 but not the breakdown of games - the sources given are <DSZ, October 1890, p.311; DWS, 21 December 1890, p.428.> |
|
Oct-04-21
 | | keypusher: So have the scores of the missing games come to light? I'm on tenterhooks! |
|
Oct-04-21
| | MissScarlett: I doubt anything has changed since Berthold Englisch (kibitz #44). |
|
| Oct-05-21 | | chesshistoryinterest: <MissScarlett: Only that (p.29) Lasker won the match by 3.5-1.5 but not the breakdown of games - the sources given are <DSZ, October 1890, p.311; DWS, 21 December 1890, p.428.>> Thanks for that. Given the existence of <Z truth 000000001>'s great find of 30 May 2016 and the great reputation of Forster and Negele, I'm a bit surprised these latter didn't investigate this more, but maybe that wasn't their focus. Maybe <Z truth 000000001> is able to find out more. |
|
| Oct-05-21 | | Z truth 000000001: Yes, <CHI>, I put it on the back burner, but I'll try to warm it up again soon. . |
|
Oct-06-21
| | MissScarlett: The <DSZ> reference is here (https://play.google.com/books/reade...) but it doesn't, it appears, get us any further. |
|
| Oct-06-21 | | Z truth 000000001: We need to talk about google play...
Let's start here - why? |
|
Oct-06-21
| | MissScarlett: It works for me. |
|
| Oct-06-21 | | Z truth 000000001: But, unfortunately, not the rest of the world... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googl... |
|
| Oct-06-21 | | Z truth 000000001: Anyways, what's wrong with Google Books?
It gives better info on the source, and allows easier referencing to other editions of a cited periodical. |
|
| Oct-06-21 | | Z truth 000000001: Ta - got some work to do, I'll check back later. Thanks. |
|
Oct-06-21
| | MissScarlett: <Anyways, what's wrong with Google Books?> Not sure, but the buck stops with Mark. Wasn't aware there was any difference in terms of availability. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id... How's this? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
