| |
Main
Date: 29 Sep 2008 20:58:59
From: [email protected]
Subject: Controversy in Steinitz vs Gunsberg Match
|
This is a continuation of an old discussion on my question of whether
there were any major chess events without controversies. One of the
proposed non-controversial matches was Steinitz vs Gunsberg for the
world championship. I just ran into a report of a slight controversy
regarding the match which I did not know about, so I thought it might
be of interest to others.
Before the match, Steinitz announced that he would play a particular
defence to the Evans Gambit which he used in a cable match against
Tschigorin at least 4 times. He seemed to live up to the challenge in
game 12, and Gunsberg won from the given position to close the gap to
4-3-5 in the match. Steinitz then announced that he was not bound to
the agreement, since Gunsberg did not play the Evans in the first
games of the match; when Gunsberg had white next in game 14, Steinitz
did not use the defence.
Not a great controversy, since Gunsberg did not press him on the
matter, but it may have had a significant effect on the match outcome.
Steinitz' defence had few supporters other than Steinitz, and Gunsberg
may have thought he could save the opportunities until he really
needed a win. If he realized that these would have to be played in the
first four games with white, I am reasonably certain he would have
tried it, and might well have picked up some extra points in this
close match,
My source on this is the Chicago Inter Ocean of Jazn 6, 1891 and Jan
11, 1891, but I am sure there are more authoritative sources on the
issue. In any case, I feel this is an interesting little largely
forgotten tid-bit regarding the match.
Jerry Spinrad
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2008 16:17:25
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Controversy in Steinitz vs Gunsberg Match
|
On Oct 2, 7:50 am, [email protected] wrote:
> It's interesting to note that had the Capablanca-Alekhine 1927 rules
> been in effect for Alekhine-Euwe 1935, Alekhine would have retained
> his title, since he had a +6 -5 =5 edge after sixteen games.
Wow!
Thank you, Taylor,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2008 13:03:32
From:
Subject: Re: Controversy in Steinitz vs Gunsberg Match
|
On Oct 2, 3:34=A0pm, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 2, 3:50 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Oct 1, 12:12 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > =A0 It's interesting to note that had the Capablanca-Alekhine 1927 rule=
s
> > been in effect for Alekhine-Euwe 1935, Alekhine would have retained
> > his title, since he had a +6 -5 =3D5 edge after sixteen games.
>
> Therein is the THING!
> Funding had been provided from all over Holland, and games were meant
> to be played all over Holland.
> If the match had ended after 16 games, as above, then many venues
> would be disappointed.
> That must be the reason for the 6 wins OR 15=BD points concept.
An interesting point; you could very well be right. The match was
played in 13 different towns, as far as I can make out.
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2008 12:34:23
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Controversy in Steinitz vs Gunsberg Match
|
On Oct 2, 3:50 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 1, 12:12 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> It's interesting to note that had the Capablanca-Alekhine 1927 rules
> been in effect for Alekhine-Euwe 1935, Alekhine would have retained
> his title, since he had a +6 -5 =3D5 edge after sixteen games.
Therein is the THING!
Funding had been provided from all over Holland, and games were meant
to be played all over Holland.
If the match had ended after 16 games, as above, then many venues
would be disappointed.
That must be the reason for the 6 wins OR 15=BD points concept.
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2008 07:50:03
From:
Subject: Re: Controversy in Steinitz vs Gunsberg Match
|
On Oct 1, 12:12=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 30, 10:06=A0pm, Offramp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think the Alekhine matches 1929 to 1937 had something similar - best
> > of 30 games and 6 wins.
>
> =A0 As near as I can make out from Skinner & Verhoeven's "Alexander
> Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946," the 1929 and 1934 matches with
> Bogolyubov were simply for best of 30 games, i.e. first to 15=BD points
> wins. No 6-win requirement, though of course this was moot as Alekhine
> scored 11 wins in 1929 and 8 in 1934.
> =A0 For the Euwe match of 1935, it was a bit more complicated:
>
> =A0 "The principal details were published in the Times on the 3 and 4
> October 1935 where it was stated that the match would consist of 30
> games and the title would go to the player who first scores 15=BD
> points, with at least six wins. If after 30 games Alekhine has a
> majority of points, but not necessarily six won games, the match is to
> be given up as a draw and Alekhine retains the championship. If Euwe
> is ahead after 30 games have been played but without six wins, then
> the match will be continued until either Euwe wins six games or
> Alekhine equals his score. In the latter case Alekhine retains the
> title and the match is drawn."
>
> =A0 The 1937 rules were as above, I believe, except of course that Euwe
> had the incumbent champion's rights.
It's interesting to note that had the Capablanca-Alekhine 1927 rules
been in effect for Alekhine-Euwe 1935, Alekhine would have retained
his title, since he had a +6 -5 =3D5 edge after sixteen games.
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2008 18:24:54
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Controversy in Steinitz vs Gunsberg Match
|
On Sep 30, 11:13 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> First to win one game (too small a sample);
>
> First to win a hundred games (too tiring);
>
> First to score X points, draws counting;
the usual
> First to score X points, draws not counting;
probably too tiring
I think the obvious solution for scoring matches would be something
like this:
The winner is the first person to do one of the following:
Score 6 (or 8, or some small number X) points, draws not counting, or
Score 12 points, if the challenger, or 12 1/2 points, if the champion
(or 15 or 15 1/2, or some larger number) points, draws counting.
If there are a lot of draws, then the champion has the 1/2 point
advantage to keep it from going on forever - 24 games or 30 games is a
somewhat reasonable upper limit for a World Championship match.
But if the game can be won by wins, then no advantage to the champion
is required.
To make things even more finely balanced, if a point is reached where
both players have 12 points, first the player with more wins as Black
wins, and only if this factor is equal does the champion keep his
title on a tie.
So there are optional rules that ought to be less controversial than
what Fischer had tried to propose, which would achieve two (or three)
objectives -
the first one (or the first two): have the match decided by wins and
not draws _if possible_ without being drawn out too long, with a fixed
upper limit on length if there happen to be too many draws;
the last one: reduce the advantage given to the champion to the
minimum necessary to ensure a definite result in a contest of limited
length.
Fischer's proposal, IIRC, was a clumsy one that tried to have the
match decided by wins, but which did not really address maximum
length, and which gave the champion too great an advantage. Simply
because Fischerrandom chess and the Fischer time controls are both
positive innovations doesn't mean that in this area we can't do
better.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2008 09:12:33
From:
Subject: Re: Controversy in Steinitz vs Gunsberg Match
|
On Sep 30, 10:06=A0pm, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> I think the Alekhine matches 1929 to 1937 had something similar - best
> of 30 games and 6 wins.
As near as I can make out from Skinner & Verhoeven's "Alexander
Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946," the 1929 and 1934 matches with
Bogolyubov were simply for best of 30 games, i.e. first to 15=BD points
wins. No 6-win requirement, though of course this was moot as Alekhine
scored 11 wins in 1929 and 8 in 1934.
For the Euwe match of 1935, it was a bit more complicated:
"The principal details were published in the Times on the 3 and 4
October 1935 where it was stated that the match would consist of 30
games and the title would go to the player who first scores 15=BD
points, with at least six wins. If after 30 games Alekhine has a
majority of points, but not necessarily six won games, the match is to
be given up as a draw and Alekhine retains the championship. If Euwe
is ahead after 30 games have been played but without six wins, then
the match will be continued until either Euwe wins six games or
Alekhine equals his score. In the latter case Alekhine retains the
title and the match is drawn."
The 1937 rules were as above, I believe, except of course that Euwe
had the incumbent champion's rights.
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2008 22:13:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Controversy in Steinitz vs Gunsberg Match
|
On Sep 30, 10:06=A0pm, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> It is a pity Fischer (who could have quoted a precedent) didn't use
> these Steinitz Gunsberg conditions. The same conditions that he said,
> but only if the score reached 12-12 and no one has score 10 wins.
> Something like that.
In the case of Mr. Steinitz, he was
considered the reigning world champion, and
that gave him a big advantage in negotiating
terms in some twenty or so matches.
In the case of the 1972 match, Mr. Spassky
was the reigning champion, but it was FIDE
that controlled match negotiations throughout
the championship cycle, from start to finish,
just as they did in other cycles.
As for quoting precedents-- one might just
quote Mr. Lasker's conditions dictated to Mr.
Capablanca (who rejected them for obvious
reasons). The whole idea of "precedent" is
laughable in this respect, and immediately
brings to mind blunders which in most
cases also have a preceding example, if
not dozens.
Now, what Mr. Fischer could have done
was to play exhibition matches for huge
sums of money -- something which he
apparently believed was the true measure
of things -- with conditions acceptable to
his various victims, each of whom would
have been well-compensated financially
for acquiescing to such conditions. In
fact, we saw in 1992 that the loser could
easily pull in a million dollars or so.
Ever since the time when powerful
computers were first made available, it is
remarkable that chess people have still
not yet mastered the issue of a fair and
rational terms for these matches. It would
seem to be an elementary math problem:
just plug in every conceivable format and
then look objectively at what is spat out...
First to win one game (too small a sample);
First to win a hundred games (too tiring);
First to score X points, draws counting;
First to score X points, draws not counting;
First to win as White (arbitrary and too small);
First to win as Black (ditto);
First to win two-in-a-row (arbitrary); etc.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2008 19:06:32
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Controversy in Steinitz vs Gunsberg Match
|
There was something else unusual about this match - the conditions for
winning it.
I believe it was the best of 20 games or 10 wins.In the event of a
10-10 POINTS tie, play continues until one player has won 10 games.But
In the event of a 9-9 WINS tie, Steinitz keeps the title. (The Fischer
condition).
So after game 18 the score was 10-8 to Steinitz, +6 -4 =8.
If Gunsberg had won games 19 & 20, play would have continued until one
player had 10 wins.
I think the Alekhine matches 1929 to 1937 had something similar - best
of 30 games and 6 wins.
It is a pity Fischer (who could have quoted a precedent) didn't use
these Steinitz Gunsberg conditions. The same conditions that he said,
but only if the score reached 12-12 and no one has score 10 wins.
Something like that.
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2008 18:15:20
From: John Townsend
Subject: Re: Controversy in Steinitz vs Gunsberg Match
|
A pity that Steinitz didn't announce that he would play his variation of the
King's Gambit as white - where the king is played to e2! We might have seen
an even closer match then ...
Best wishes,
John Townsend,
Howard Staunton Research Project:
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk/index_files/Page324.htm
> This is a continuation of an old discussion on my question of whether
> there were any major chess events without controversies. One of the
> proposed non-controversial matches was Steinitz vs Gunsberg for the
> world championship. I just ran into a report of a slight controversy
> regarding the match which I did not know about, so I thought it might
> be of interest to others.
>
> Before the match, Steinitz announced that he would play a particular
> defence to the Evans Gambit which he used in a cable match against
> Tschigorin at least 4 times. He seemed to live up to the challenge in
> game 12, and Gunsberg won from the given position to close the gap to
> 4-3-5 in the match. Steinitz then announced that he was not bound to
> the agreement, since Gunsberg did not play the Evans in the first
> games of the match; when Gunsberg had white next in game 14, Steinitz
> did not use the defence.
>
> Not a great controversy, since Gunsberg did not press him on the
> matter, but it may have had a significant effect on the match outcome.
> Steinitz' defence had few supporters other than Steinitz, and Gunsberg
> may have thought he could save the opportunities until he really
> needed a win. If he realized that these would have to be played in the
> first four games with white, I am reasonably certain he would have
> tried it, and might well have picked up some extra points in this
> close match,
>
> My source on this is the Chicago Inter Ocean of Jazn 6, 1891 and Jan
> 11, 1891, but I am sure there are more authoritative sources on the
> issue. In any case, I feel this is an interesting little largely
> forgotten tid-bit regarding the match.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2008 07:34:24
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Controversy in Steinitz vs Gunsberg Match
|
On Sep 30, 1:49 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 30, 6:33 am, Offramp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 30, 4:58 am, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > This is a continuation of an old discussion on my question of whether
> > > there were any major chess events without controversies. One of the
> > > proposed non-controversial matches was Steinitz vs Gunsberg for the
> > > world championship.
>
> > I seem to remember another sore point in that match - two in fact.
> > ISTR that in one game Gunsberg played a move that seemed to lose a
> > piece; he quickly moved his hand as if to take the move back, then
> > stopped. Steinitz took the piece without thinking, and it turned out
> > to be a mistake that lost him the game. Steinitz thought he had been
> > the victim of some sharp practice.
>
> Interesting - I don't know that one
>
> > The other unusual event was when a game was drawn towards the end of
> > the match in about 30 moves. The game was officially scored a draw,
> > but then Steinitz proposed continuing the game for a stake and giving
> > Gunsberg draw odds. Steinitz won the game.
>
> Yes, that was the final game; Steinitz of course accepted the draw
> since it clinched the match.
The first one is in fact mentioned here: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/che=
ssgame?gid=3D1054715
"Gunsberg reduced to 4-5 with this win in the World Championship
match. Steinitz on 20. Nh4: "Gunsberg touched the square at h4 with
his knight, and then retracted the move, and after taking some time to
consider and shaking his head as if he had made a mistake, finally
adopted the move. Thereupon I took the pawn, and on seeing my
opponent=92s reply, 21.Ne4, resigned. Then I taxed my opponent on the
manner in which he had made his twentieth move, which was calculated
to mislead, and I reminded him that in his match with Chigorin he had
in a similar case brought a charge against the Russian master.
Gunsberg apologized, and gave his word of honor that he had not done
it wilfully."
There is a fantastic site about the match:
http://www.chessarch.com/excavations/000C_guns_stei/1890gust.shtml
About that last draw:
"... A draw was agreed upon at the forty-second move, at which time
Steinitz was of opinion that he had the superior position, but
considered it wise to compound for a draw rather than risk the
possibility of a mistake which might have cost him the game and given
Gunsberg still a chance to draw the match. The two masters afterward
played out the game for a small stake between themselves, and after
about the twelfth move Gunsberg resigned."
Rather a more controversial - or a least discussible - match than one
might think at first glance!
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2008 05:49:56
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Controversy in Steinitz vs Gunsberg Match
|
On Sep 30, 6:33=A0am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 30, 4:58 am, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This is a continuation of an old discussion on my question of whether
> > there were any major chess events without controversies. One of the
> > proposed non-controversial matches was Steinitz vs Gunsberg for the
> > world championship.
>
> I seem to remember another sore point in that match - two in fact.
> ISTR that in one game Gunsberg played a move that seemed to lose a
> piece; he quickly moved his hand as if to take the move back, then
> stopped. Steinitz took the piece without thinking, and it turned out
> to be a mistake that lost him the game. Steinitz thought he had been
> the victim of some sharp practice.
Interesting - I don't know that one
> The other unusual event was when a game was drawn towards the end of
> the match in about 30 moves. The game was officially scored a draw,
> but then Steinitz proposed continuing the game for a stake and giving
> Gunsberg draw odds. Steinitz won the game.
Yes, that was the final game; Steinitz of course accepted the draw
since it clinched the match.
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2008 04:33:38
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Controversy in Steinitz vs Gunsberg Match
|
On Sep 30, 4:58 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> This is a continuation of an old discussion on my question of whether
> there were any major chess events without controversies. One of the
> proposed non-controversial matches was Steinitz vs Gunsberg for the
> world championship.
I seem to remember another sore point in that match - two in fact.
ISTR that in one game Gunsberg played a move that seemed to lose a
piece; he quickly moved his hand as if to take the move back, then
stopped. Steinitz took the piece without thinking, and it turned out
to be a mistake that lost him the game. Steinitz thought he had been
the victim of some sharp practice.
The other unusual event was when a game was drawn towards the end of
the match in about 30 moves. The game was officially scored a draw,
but then Steinitz proposed continuing the game for a stake and giving
Gunsberg draw odds. Steinitz won the game.
|
|
