Ostend (1906) – Working Notes – version comparisons

This is a comparison of Phony’s version of Ostend (1906) vs. my working copy – short of the new games my version is missing from Marco’s book.

First – this is a working notes document, and really intended for just Phony.  Next, there are statements like <Phony bad> or <Z bad>, which aren’t value judgements of either myself or Phony, but are rather indications of which version of the game I prefer.

The list which follows have games that should be reexamined. I’ve supplied my primary sources, Phony has generally used Gillam as his source. There are differences in the games, which may result from the sources, or the transcriptions. I’ve edited out many obvious discrepancies due to my own bad data entry errors. Not having Gillam I can’t point out similar such errors from Phony, but it’s natural to assume a couple examples are contained in the following.

Some of the discrepancies involve a value judgement  (e.g. maybe indicated by <Phony bad?>, which I remind the reader is a judgement on the game, not the worker who supplied it), where the difference is due to Macro, or other sources Gillam used, vs. my sources (e.g. Dutch newspaper accounts, DSZ, ACB, etc.). Usually the “?” indicator means I checked my source, and found the moves correct. Rarely, there may be a clear mistake in Phony’s score, well- at least accounting to my interpretation – and thus a clear <PB wrong> is used.

OK, with all that song and dance here is a list of games that I believe should be rechecked:

Pass 2 4/9/2018

Spielmann–Schlechter: xtra move, 30…Kd7 – Marco notes some columns omitted it.
BCM v26 N8 (Aug 1906) G2740 p332/351 (Notes from ‘New Orleans Times’)

Perlis–Salwe: extra moves, …22 to 35; BDE and Macro both have xtra vs AH source (PB preferred)
1906-06-07 – Algemeen Handelsblad – p6c4 / BDE 1906-06-25 p16c2   –  https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010649464:mpeg21:a0089

Swiderski–Spielmann: Tpos 3,4 (PB bad)
1906-06-09 Algemeen Handelsblad p6c4   – https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010649468:mpeg21:a0030
1906-06-08 De Telegraaf p2c1   – https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:110558872:mpeg21:a0043

Wolf–Suechting: xtra moves, at move 30 + end (…Bxa3 cxd5+) (PB bad?)
DSZ v61 N11 (Nov 1906) G-7578 p326/336

Salwe–Mieses: xtra moves at end, …43 to 46, clearly a draw, though Marco agrees with PB. (PB bad?)
1906-06-12 De Telegraaf p2c5   – https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:110558878:mpeg21:a0076

Maroczy–Oskam: xtra moves at end, …18 to 19. (PB bad?)
TjND v14 N8 (Aug 1906) G1262 p172/186

Fahrni–Duras: Tpos 2-4 (PB bad?)
CCzS (1906-7) G23 p53/60

Leonhardt–Cohn: xtra moves at end, …28 to 31. (PB right but unsourced)
ACB v3 N10 (Oct 1906) p208

Salwe–Marshall: Z-source problematic to start, but synchs with PB up to move …48, then AH source is good (Z preferred)
1906-06-12 Algemeen Handelsblad p7c4   – https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010649479:mpeg21:a0106

Swiderski–Maljutin: 27.Rc1 vs 27.Qc1 (PB wrong (no question, hanging Q))
ACB v3 N12 (Dec 1906) p247

Cohn–Oskam: 9…Nb6 vs 9…Nf6 (PB wrong?)
1906-06-12 Algemeen Handelsblad p7c4  – https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010649479:mpeg21:a0106

Mieses–Taubenhaus: Tpos 9-11 (PB wrong?)
DSZ v61 N10 (Oct 1906) G-7568 p300/310

Burn–Forgacs: xtra moves at end, …18 to 19. (PB wrong? (obvious finish unnecessary))
ACB v4 (Jun 1907) p113

Fahrni–Oskam: entire game vs end fragment (PB preferred)
1906-06-14 Algemeen Handelsblad p7c2   – https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010649477:mpeg21:a0189

Post–Wolf: xtra moves at end (entire game), …28 to 45 (PB preferred)
DSZ v61 N11 (Nov 1906) G-7579 p328/338

Duras–Maroczy: PB composed version vs Narodni Listy complete version (Z preferred)
1906-06-20 N168 Narodni Listy p4

Johner–Salwe: 17.a4 vs 17.h4, not consequential (PB wrong?)
ACB v4 (Jun 1907) p113

Janowski–Mieses: 12.a3 vs 12.h3 (PB win), Tpos …12-15 (Z better)
1906-06-19 De Telegraaf p2c1   – https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:110558890:mpeg21:p002

Leonhardt–Teichmann: 14.Ncxe4 vs 14.Ndxe4 (PB wrong?)
1906-06-21 De Telegraaf p2c2   – https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:110558894:mpeg21:a0057

Duras–Suechting: entire game vs ending fragment (37-51) (PB preferred)
BCM v26 N11 (Nov 1906) p428/451

Burn–Marshall: 38.Qxa7 vs 38.Nxd3 (PB wrong?)
ACB v3 N11 (Nov 1906) p232

Johner–Znosko-Borovsky: 10.Qc3 vs 10.Qe3 (??)
1906-06-29 Algemeen Handelsblad p2c5   –  https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010649502:mpeg21:a0036

Wolf–John: Tpos 4-6, (PB wrong?)
1906-06-30 Algemeen Handelsblad p7c2   –  https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010649505:mpeg21:a0128

Bernstein–Marshall: 46…Rg1 vs 46…Rg8 (PB wrong)
1906-06-22 Algemeen Handelsblad p7c6    –  https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010649491:mpeg21:a0159

Burn–Spielmann: xtra moves 29…g6 30.Bc6 (PB wrong?)
BCM v26 N8 (Aug 1906) G-2737 p329/348 (Notes from ‘The Yorkshire Post’)

Maroczy–Marshall: xtra moves …25 to 28 (PB wrong? likely yes)
ACB v4 (Jun 1907) p115

Swiderski–Bernstein: PB omits “and White eventually won” note at end.
ACB v4 (Feb 1907) p29/37

Janowski–Schlechter: Tpos 2,3 (PB wrong?)
1906-06-30 De Telegraaf p2c3    – https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:110558910:mpeg21:a0055

Leonhardt–Janowski: xtra moves, Z has “White won in ~dozen”, (PB preferred)
1906-07-02 Algemeen Handelsblad p9c6    –  https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010335513:mpeg21:a0135

Rubinstein–Schlechter: 12…f6 vs 12…O-O-O (PB wrong?)
1906-07-12 Algemeen Handelsblad p10c3    –  https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010335531:mpeg21:a0116

CCzC – Casopis Ceskych Sashistu
TjND – Tijdschrift Nederlandse Schaakbond


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.