Berlin (1881) – Chessgames vs The world

Berlin (1881) – 2e DSB Congress


17-player RR⁽¹⁾    August 29 – September 17, 1881   in Berlin, at Germania  Restaurant,  34,  Taubenstrasse.

Time Control: 15 moves/hour⁽²⁾, sealed envelop adjournments.  

Playing sessions: 9am – 1pm, 4-8pm, every day except Sundays and holidays, one game/day. 

Entrance Fee: 30ℳ  ( £1 10s )       Prizes: 1200ℳ, 600, 400, 300  ( £60, 30, 20, 15 ).

Prize winners: Blackburne, Zukertort, (Chigorin, Winawer), Mason⁽³⁾ 

Links:  Chessgames,   Wikipedia,  EDO chess,   Tournament Book⁽⁴⁾,  O’Keefe timeline


   (1) Originally 18-players, but Karl Pitschel dropped out after three rounds.
   (2) Only the Master’s Tournament used this time control, the Hauptturnier used 20 moves/hour.
   (3) Wittek and Mason were tied, but Wittek was obligated to leave Berlin, and so resigned the playoff to Mason.
        Chigorin and Winawer agreed to split the 3-4th prizes without playing a playoff.
   (4) Link to WorldCat.org record. Also see BCM v1 (Oct 1882) p317/326, etc. 


Here is the BCM version of the xtab from BCM v1 (Oct 1881) p312/321:

BCM v1 (Oct 1881) p312.321 - RR xtab

And here are the Z-base xtabs made with SCID:

Berlin (1881)
Berlin GER, 1881.08.29 - 1881.09.17
                                Age Nat    Score     B Z W C M W M S B P P S R W N S S
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1: Blackburne, Joseph Henry     39 ENG  14.0 / 16   X 1 1 1 0 = 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  (+13 -1 =2)
 2: Zukertort, Johannes Hermann  38 GER  11.0 / 16   0 X = 1 = 1 1 1 = 1 0 0 1 1 = 1 1  (+9 -3 =4)
 3: Winawer, Szymon              43 POL  10.5 / 16   0 = X 0 1 0 1 = 1 1 1 0 1 1 = 1 1  (+9 -4 =3)
 4: Chigorin, Mikhail            30 RUS  10.5 / 16   0 0 1 X 0 0 0 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  (+10 -5 =1)
 5: Mason, James                 31 ENG   9.5 / 16   1 = 0 1 X = = 0 = 1 0 1 0 1 1 = 1  (+7 -4 =5)
 6: Wittek, Alexander            28 GER   9.5 / 16   = 0 1 1 = X = 1 = 0 1 0 = 1 0 1 1  (+7 -4 =5)
 7: Minckwitz, Johannes          37 GER   8.5 / 16   0 0 0 1 = = X 1 = 0 0 1 = 1 1 1 =  (+6 -5 =5)
 8: Schwarz, Jacques             25 AUT   8.5 / 16   0 0 = = 1 0 0 X 1 1 = 1 0 = 1 = 1  (+6 -5 =5)
 9: Berger, Johann Nepomuk       36 AUT   8.0 / 16   = = 0 0 = = = 0 X 0 0 1 1 = 1 1 1  (+5 -5 =6)
10: Paulsen, Louis               48 GER   8.0 / 16   0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 X = 1 = 1 = = 1  (+6 -6 =4)
11: Paulsen, Wilfried            53 GER   7.5 / 16   0 1 0 0 1 0 1 = 1 = X 0 = = 0 = 1  (+5 -6 =5)
12: Schallopp, Emil              38 GER   7.0 / 16   0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 X 1 0 1 0 1  (+7 -9 =0)
13: Riemann, Fritz               22 GER   6.5 / 16   0 0 0 0 1 = = 1 0 = = 0 X 0 1 = 1  (+4 -7 =5)
14: Wemmers, Carl                36 GER   6.5 / 16   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = = 0 = 1 1 X 1 1 1  (+5 -8 =3)
15: Noa, Josef                   24 HUN   5.5 / 16   0 = = 0 0 1 0 0 0 = 1 0 0 0 X 1 1  (+4 -9 =3)
16: Schmid, Carl Friedrich       41 GER   3.5 / 16   0 0 0 0 = 0 0 = 0 = = 1 = 0 0 X 0  (+1 -10 =5)
17: Schuetz, H. von              25 GER   1.5 / 16   0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 X  (+1 -14 =1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
136 games: +57 =31 -48

And for completeness, here are the nullified games played by Pitschel:

Berlin (1881)+
Berlin GER, 1881.08.29 - 1881.08.31
                           Age Nat    Score     B C W P
--------------------------------------------------------
 1: Berger, Johann Nepomuk  36 AUT   1.0 /  1   X . . 1  (+1 -0 =0)
 2: Chigorin, Mikhail       30 RUS   1.0 /  1   . X . 1  (+1 -0 =0)
 3: Winawer, Szymon         43 POL   1.0 /  1   . . X 1  (+1 -0 =0)
 4: Pitschel, Karl          52 AUT   0.0 /  3   0 0 0 X  (+0 -3 =0)
--------------------------------------------------------
3 games: +3 =0 -0

Getting back to the comparison of the databases suggested by the title <Chessgames> vs. <The World>. Or should that be <The World> vs <CG>?

Actually, it probably is more accurate to say <365chess> vs <CG>, since I compared the PGN of the tournament from each source. Only after spotting a difference did I then call up the game in <ChessBase> and <New In Chess>, or <CG> and <NIC>.

This is somewhat akin to the ε²-technique I’ve mentioned before. Well, not really, given that I don’t know what source was used for any of these online databases. One can assume, somewhat naively and hopefully both, that the tournament book was used. But may not. And which tournament book, the original 1883 Leipzig, Veit & comp. edition or the 1979 Edition Olms? Or perhaps the edition Edward Winter refers to as being the Olomouc edition, aka Moravian Publishers?

See http://en.chessbase.com/post/edward-winter-s-che-explorations-28-.

Winter’s article suggests that the Moravian edition has been transcribed into algebraic notation. Since I don’t have access to any editions I can’t say if the Olms edition is a facsimile copy of the 1883 Leipzig edition. There is very little I can say, really, with definiteness, as few of the games were published in any contemporaneous literature to which I have access.

Dealing with these realities, I am forced to believe that both the <CG> and <365> copies of the tournaments are reasonable projections of one or another of these editions. In the hope of love and harmony one can hope the two copies are “congruent”, i.e. identical. Certainly there is some latitude in the Event/Site tags, as well as in the player names, as each site uses different conventions. Such differences are ultimately of little significance,  although they do create additional rote work necessary prior to making a meaningful comparison.

A meaningful comparison refers to the colors,  Round, Date, movelist, and Result. The items capitalized being PGN tags, of course.

Ignoring the Date at the moment, here are my notes for the handful of games with different movelists. There are four games that differ, three of which seem to resolve in <CG>’s favor upon close examination. Again, it would be helpful to have original sources, but even original scores can be in error. So, some element of judgement, guided by the engine’s eval, is always needed in this line of work:

==========================================================================
Berlin (1881)
==========================================================================
365 vs CG - i.e. 365 first, CG second
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1881.08.29   B43  24     (R1)  0-1   Zukertort -- Paulsen, W.

Move 16.Rd2 vs 16.Rf2; CG appears to be right. Likely a typo in original?

CB,NIC agree with 365chess.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/kibitzing?kid=G1152045&reply=3

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1881.09.06   C22  31     (R9)  1-0   Winawer -- Riemann

Tpos 26...Qf7, 27...Ne6; CG appears right.

NIC/CG have 26...Ne6; CB/365 have 26...Qf7.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1881.09.07   C22  37     (R10)  1-0   Paulsen, W. -- Berger

32.R1e2 vs 32.R5e2;  CG is right. The CG move should immediately lose,
                     but these aren't the strongest players, and if 365
                     line is adopted Black would overlook a clear M-1.

CB/CG with 32.R5e2; NIC/365 have 32.R1e2

See also: http://en.chessbase.com/post/edward-winter-s-che-explorations-28-

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1881.09.10   C25  32     (R13)  0-1   Riemann -- Zukertort

25.Rfe1 vs 25.Ree1;  CG looks right since 25.Rfe1 allows 30.Rh2.

CB/365 with 25.Rfe1; NIC/CG have 25.Ree1

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1881.09.13   C63  35     (R16)  1-0   Berger -- Riemann

21...Rc8 vs 21...Re8;  CG is certainly right again, as 365's
                       move allows immediate knight fork.

CB/NIC/365 all with 25.Rc8; CG stands alone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1881.09.13   C01  27     (R16)  1-0   Blackburne -- Schwarz

Tpos: 3.Nc3, 4.exd5 and missing moves 27...gxh5 28.Rxh5;  365 is better.

CB/NIC/365 all agree; CG stands alone on this one for both Tpos, extra.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

zz

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s