< "53. Schweizer Schachturnier in Zürich".>

Is the 53 referring to the number of Swiss Champion tournament titles?

And a couple more...

And was the internationalization begun in 1952-18 = 1934?

Who decided which international players were invited, and by what criteria?

Sometimes people are searching for the Swiss Championship for 1952 and others are trying to find the Zurich 1952 tournament.

Seemed like offering up the combined data is a simple no-cost solution. A number of pre-1900 tournaments use the <event_name, city> format for similar reasons, i.e. dual names so why not use both.

<And was the internationalization begun in 1952-18 = 1934?> Dunno. 1934 was in Zürich also, and may be the first.

I understand completely.

Some events are easier to untangle than others. The Germans were fairly consistent nationally.

The American Chess Congresses are a limited number and easily dealt with.

The British association numbers are a mess, but I think I've finally got a handle on things after spending a day charting things out in my spreadsheet. The big question is should ordinal numbering continue through an organization after it changes names, or does the count reset? Some contemporary reports reset the count and others did not. I'm in the reset camp.

Some corrections are in order (and perhaps an apology to Rod).

The Paine Tournament had 8 players and was a "a Four-game tourney", i.e. a quadruple round robin.

<Columbia Chess Chronicle> reports made during the event had C. F. Burille scoring:
3 games won and 1 lost (May)
6 games won and 1 lost (June)
7½ games won and 1½ lost (June)
9½ games won and 1½ lost (June)
15½ games won and 4½ lost (August)

The last report is Burille's winning total for 1st place (Snow got 2nd place with 14 wins and 5 losses); clearly participants were withdrawing as their chances of winning shrank with Burille playing 20 of 28 games and Snow playing 19 of 28 games.

Rod mentions that the <Boston Weekly Post>, 1888.04.27, p8, "gives a result of +9-1=1 for Burille in offhand games" against Young, which is just prior to the start of the Paine Tournament.

I conflated Burille's +9=1-1 tournament standing reported in June and the reported offhand totals with Young prior to the event as Burille's final score from that event. My revised theory is that the +13-1=1 score between Burille and Young are those offhand games mentioned in the <Boston Weekly Post> plus four additional wins Burille made over Young during the Paine Tournament.

I only have one of Burille's wins over Young from the Paine Tournament at the moment, so I concede the possibility that my theory is wrong and that somehow between the publication of the 27 April 1888 totals (+9=1-1) and the start of the Paine Tournament (before 9 May 1888; the publication date of the first leader-board totals) that Burille and Young somehow found time to play four additional "offhand games" to make the 8 July 1888* reported total (+13=1-1) to be solely offhand games.

I've got that new game discovered by <MissScarlett> along with some new 1901 US tour data for v2, and then a new Ali (automaton) game played against Maurice Judd and some additional Ali text for v1.

Seems like enough new material to warrant updates.

"I'm not sure how Missy would like to be acknowledged for the discovery, by CG username or are you willing to disclose your identity for the world to see?"

I have a short list of who I suspect Miss Sc. is and have come to the conclusion he/she is a 'they.'
Three people are posting under that banner. You can tell by the different styles, attitudes and sentence construction. They do it in shifts that is why it seems Miss Sc. appears to be on here 24/7.

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/...

Now in my database I have the White and Black "teams" given in the order of their individual sequences, but now that I've uploaded it here it seems silly to have two different "teams" composed of the same players; normally for a consultation game I will alphabetize the names for the purposes of PID consolidation and player identification.