|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Feb-03-07
 |
| BishopofBlunder: <cu8sfan: In my book about the chess champions one of the early championships is MacDonnell - De La Bourdonnais. What's the status of that tournament as the first chess championship?> Since there was no organization to sanction the sport of chess then, the first (or any) World Championship, or champion, is mostly a matter of public opinion. Apparently, Steinitz lobbied the most for it, so he gets it. |
 |
Feb-04-07
 |
| gauer: Check again!
sambo: For white the best I could find was a mate in three. IIVFr is a hint... |
|
| Mar-13-07 |
| Petrosianic: Labourdonnais-McDonnell is recognize as a sort of unofficial world championship. In other words, it wasn't a world championship, but it's generally agreed that it was a meeting of the two best in the world at the time. And it's a good thing it wasn't a championship, it would have been horribly confusing. Because it wasn't a match, it was a *series* of matches. Labourdonnais had the best aggregate score for all the matches combined, but McDonnell won the final match. |
|
| May-27-07 |
| Calculon: <sambo>for black: 1. ... Qb2 a) 2. Bxb2 Nb3# b) 2. Kxb2 a1=Q# for white the best I could find was a mate in three White mates in 2 with 1) Rf7 and Black can't stop 2) Bb2# |
|
Aug-16-07
 |
| Karpova: <In his December 1999 column, an item about the age factor in chess masters, Evans was asked a question which included a reference to a match (against Steinitz) which Zukertort was said to have played, at the age of 44, in 1892. As we pointed out in the February 2000 issue (page 8), this was unlikely, given that Zukertort had died in 1888. That could have been the end of the matter, but Evans’ response on the same page was as emphatic as it was false: ‘Edward Winter has an exaggerated notion of his own importance and, as usual, makes mountains out of molehills (obviously 1892 was a typo instead of 1872).’ He continued to construct his own mountain in the July 2001 column: ‘Does Mr Winter truly believe it [i.e. the date 1892] was anything more than a typographical error? I think not.’ An interesting question. The date 1892 that appeared in the December 1999 issue was obviously wrong, but was it, as Evans assured his readers, an obvious typo for 1872? Definitely not, for the simple reason that 1872 is also wrong. Since the Steinitz-Zukertort match under discussion was specified as having been played when Steinitz was 50 and Zukertort was 44 (although their actual ages were 49 and 43 respectively), the event was ‘obviously’ their world championship match of 1886. A normal writer would be embarrassed to discover that in endeavouring to correct one wrong date (1892) he had categorically and disparagingly put forward another one (1872) which in reality was even further from the right one (1886).>
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... |
|
Sep-23-07
|
| gauer: Just noticed that Game Collection: 1st World Championship Match has this listed as a 24 game match, when the claim is that games 10, & 2 of the final four scores were missing. Is this the case, or was the match really only 20 rounds. Also of note is that colour alternation may or may not have been preserved, until possibly the final couple of games, where the Challenger / Trailer was forced to play for a win, earlier, in the match, to stay alive. Just speculation, though, & it would be interesting to hear more of how the pre-match conditions were arranged. |
|
Sep-23-07
 |
| Gypsy: <gauer> Match was first to 10 wins. Exactly 20 games were played. There also was a 9:9 clause for declaring the match drawn. Later this was lowered to 8:8. |
|
Feb-22-08
 |
| Knight13: Zukertort winning 4 games in the row at the beginning of the match did NOTHING to hurt Steinitz's confidence, huh. After that, Steinitz pretty much wiped Zukertort off the board! Personally, I prefer Zukertort over Steinitz (that is, if I was alive in 1886) |
|
Apr-18-08
|
| Knight13: I bet after the 5th game of this match people started betting bunch of money on Zukertort that he's gonna win, thus losing lots and lots of money at the end. |
|
| Apr-18-08 |
| Petrosianic: You bet that they bet? That's just too weird!
|
|
Jul-20-08
 |
| talisman: who played a match for the world championship and couldn't make the drop down list? next question.
who deserves to be on the drop down list more?
A.Leonid Stein
B.J. Zukertort
C.Both
|
|
| Jul-21-08 |
| Petrosianic: <talisman> <who played a match for the world championship and couldn't make the drop down list?> Gunsberg?
I don't think the drop down list is meant to be a Hall of Fame, it's supposed to be a quicker way to access the players whose games are viewed most often. That's probably why Zukertort isn't there. People talk about this match a lot, but few actually play over the games. Do you use the drop down list, BTW? I rarely bother with it, I usually find it quicker to just type in a name manually. |
|
| Jul-21-08 |
| RookFile: It's amazing that Zukertort won 4 games in a row, and then crashed like he did. Drugs will do that to you, I guess. |
|
Jul-21-08
 |
| sneaky pete: <... to access the players whose games are viewed most often> Not true. Kibitzers who look up games by certain players or certain games by players tend to leave a scent mark, like <Good game> or <White should have played 25.Bxf7+ .. with a winning attack> or <Alekhine was drunk>. Nobodies like Zukertort or Stein have kibitzes on 50% or more of their games. The DD however lists dozens of players (yes, they are GM's, yes, they are rated over 2600) in whose games no one here seems really interested, with 10% or less kibitzed on. When you find a kibitz, it's usually something like: <Why is this game (a 15 move draw against Kramnik from 1992) one of his notable games?> (I know why that is, I'm responsible for it). |
|
Jul-21-08
|
| talisman: Nobodies like Stein...(long thoughtful pause). "I'm not going to say anything because i always admired your work with THE FLYING BURRITO BROS.". |
|
| Jul-21-08 |
| Petrosianic: <Not true. Kibitzers who look up games by certain players or certain games by players tend to leave a scent mark,> You're saying the Pulldown list is automated? I never knew that. <The DD however lists dozens of players (yes, they are GM's, yes, they are rated over 2600) in whose games no one here seems really interested, with 10% or less kibitzed on.> How do you access this list? I haven't seen it yet.
|
|
Jul-21-08
|
| sneaky pete: <talisman> That <nobodies> was irony (you know, like goldie or brownie, but then made of iron), because the cg.com administrators don't think them worthy of a spot on the dd list. <Petrosianic> Did you ever learn to read? |
|
| Jul-21-08 |
| Petrosianic: <Petrosianic> <Did you ever learn to read?> Did you ever learn to think? What would be the point of asking a question in print of someone who didn't know how to read? Engage brain before putting mouth in motion (or fingers in this case). To add insult to injury, I'm afraid the error was yours. I wasn't asking how to access the Drop Down Menu, I was asking if there was an easy way to see what percent of players games had been commented on (something that you did <not> in fact explain). I assumed you had enough of a life not to have gone through every single game of every single player on the DD list, and counted manually what percent of each of their games had been kibitzed. I see now that I was probably wrong about that. Carry on. |
|
Jul-22-08
 |
| Lutwidge: The Lloyd puzzle is really clever on a lot of levels. |
|
Jul-23-08
|
| talisman: <sneaky pete> irony is not knowing your namesake. |
|
Jul-23-08
|
| sneaky pete: <talisman> I do know him, I even cherish some Gram Parsons records on which he played, but I'm named after the original sneaky pete from the prohibition era. <Petrosianic> You don't know what a rhetorical question is, do you? |
|
Jul-31-08
 |
| nimh: Is it true that they used the historical board which Morphy did his feats on? |
|
| Jul-31-08 |
| Petrosianic: I don't think there's any one historical board that Morphy always played on, though I think it's true that the New Orleans leg of the match used a board that Morphy had used. I don't know what feats, if any, he'd done on that particular board. (it sounds rather messy when we describe it this way, actually). |
|
| Jul-31-08 |
| RookFile: I think he did a headstand on that board. |
|
Aug-02-08
|
| nimh: I mean the board he used in 1857 at the 1st American Chess Congress.
Did he use the single board for all the games? If yes, then it may be true; they even waited for Morphy's death before the first WC match was started. Playing on the Board would truly be a good way to commemorate the greatest genius up to then. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Steinitz-Zukertort World Championship
