Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Paris Tournament

Ignatz von Kolisch19/22(+18 -2 =2)[games]
Simon Winawer17.5/22(+17 -4 =1)[games]
Wilhelm Steinitz17.5/22(+16 -3 =3)[games]
Gustav Neumann19/24(+17 -3 =4)[games]
Cecil De Vere12.5/22(+12 -9 =1)[games]
Jules Arnous de Riviere9.5/20(+9 -10 =1)[games]
Celso Golmayo Zupide8/22(+8 -14 =0)[games]
Hieronim Czarnowski8/20(+7 -11 =2)[games]
Samuel Rosenthal8/16(+6 -6 =4)[games]
Sam Loyd6.5/24(+6 -17 =1)[games]
Emile D'Andre2.5/20(+2 -17 =1)[games]
Martin Severin From5/16(+5 -11 =0)[games]
Eugene Rousseau3/22(+3 -19 =0)[games]
* Chess Event Description
Paris (1867)

Paris, France; 4 June 1867—11 July 1867

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Wins Place/Prizes ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 1 Kolisch •• 10 1½ 10 11 11 11 11 ½1 11 11 11 11 20 1st 5000 fr + Sèvres vase 2 Winawer 01 •• 10 01 11 11 11 11 1½ 11 11 11 10 19 2nd 2500 fr + Sèvres vase 3 Steinitz 0½ 01 •• 0½ 11 11 11 1½ 11 11 11 11 11 18 3rd 2000 fr + Sèvres vase 4 Neumann 01 10 1½ •• ½1 11 11 ½1 ½0 11 11 11 11 17 4th 1500 fr + Sèvres vase 5 De Vere 00 00 00 r0 •• 01 11 11 01 11 11 11 11 14 5th 1500 fr 6 De Riviere 00 00 00 00 10 •• 01 11 11 11 1½ 00 11 11 6th 1000 fr 7 Golmayo Zupide 00 00 00 00 00 10 •• 01 11 00 11 11 11 10 8 Czarnowski 00 00 0½ ½0 00 00 10 •• 11 11 01 01 11 9 9 Rosenthal ½0 0r 00 ½1 10 00 00 00 •• 0½ 00 11 11 6 10 Loyd 00 00 00 00 00 00 11 00 1½ •• 11 00 01 6 11 D'Andre 00 00 00 00 00 0½ 00 10 11 00 •• 11 10 6 12 From 00 00 00 00 00 11 00 10 00 11 00 •• 00 5 13 Rousseau 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 01 11 •• 5 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Format: Only won games were scored; draws did not count.

Paris, the French capital, was host to a world's fair exhibition in the summer of 1867 (1). Among the enormous buildings erected to house new developments in science, technology (of which the Krupp Cannon was the most impressive display), and art, a master chess tournament was organized from June 4th to July 11th. It was held at the Grand Cercle, 10 boulevard Montmartre, not far from the 1.2 kilometer row of machinery for the exhibition.

Thirteen chess masters were invited to participate in double rounds, with a time limit of six minutes per move and draws counting as zero for both players. The participants included Ignat Von Kolisch from the Austrio-Hungarian empire, Wilhelm Steinitz and Sam Loyd playing on behalf of the United States of America, Symon Winawer and Hieronim Czarnowski from Poland, Gustav Neumann from Germany, Cecil Valentine De Vere from England, Jules De Riviere, Samuel Rosenthal, Emile D'Andre, and Eugene Rousseau from France, Celso Golmayo Zupide from Cuba, and Martin Severin From from Denmark.

There was no formal organization to international events at the time, so beyond the matches and time controls being set, players seemingly encountered one another during the tournament according to availability and inclination. The games in this collection have been organized according to the dates attached. Twenty games whether decided by forfeit or missing in record have been omitted from this collection as they are absent from the database. The prize purse was distributed among the top six finishers, with Kolisch earning 5000 Francs for first place, Winawer 2500 Francs for second, Steinitz 2000 Francs for third, Neumann and De Vere 1500 Francs each for fourth and fifth places, and De Riviere 1000 Francs for sixth. The top four finishers also received a Sèvres vase as an additional prize. Kolisch immediately liquidated his antique porcelain and invested in real estate which soon made him an extremely wealthy man, allowing him to be a generous patron to chess for decades afterwards.

Missing Information
The following twenty of games were not available; some may have been forfeits: Kolisch 11 From; Winawer 11 De Riviere; Steinitz 11 Rosenthal; De Vere 11 From; De Riviere 11 Czarnowski; Golmayo Zupide 11 Rosenthal; Czarnowski 11 Rosenthal; Rosenthal 00 D'Andre; D'Andre 11 From; From 00 Rousseau.

(1) Wikipedia article: Paris 1867 chess tournament

Original collection: Game Collection: Paris 1867, by User: suenteus po 147

 page 1 of 6; games 1-25 of 136  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. De Vere vs S Rosenthal 0-1231867ParisA20 English
2. Loyd vs de Riviere 0-1501867ParisC50 Giuoco Piano
3. Steinitz vs H Czarnowski 1-0231867ParisC10 French
4. H Czarnowski vs Steinitz ½-½671867ParisA80 Dutch
5. de Riviere vs Loyd 1-0411867ParisC62 Ruy Lopez, Old Steinitz Defense
6. C Golmayo vs E D'Andre 1-0251867ParisC45 Scotch Game
7. S Rosenthal vs De Vere 0-1321867ParisC00 French Defense
8. E Rousseau vs G Neumann 0-1331867ParisC52 Evans Gambit
9. Winawer vs M S From 1-0401867ParisC30 King's Gambit Declined
10. De Vere vs Loyd 1-0431867ParisC62 Ruy Lopez, Old Steinitz Defense
11. M S From vs Winawer  0-1411867ParisC21 Center Game
12. G Neumann vs E Rousseau 1-0511867ParisC52 Evans Gambit
13. Steinitz vs de Riviere 1-0431867ParisB23 Sicilian, Closed
14. de Riviere vs Steinitz 0-1271867ParisC60 Ruy Lopez
15. E D'Andre vs C Golmayo 0-1541867ParisA03 Bird's Opening
16. M S From vs S Rosenthal 0-1481867ParisC21 Center Game
17. Loyd vs De Vere 0-1421867ParisC50 Giuoco Piano
18. G Neumann vs Winawer 1-0621867ParisC67 Ruy Lopez
19. E Rousseau vs Kolisch 0-1381867ParisC50 Giuoco Piano
20. Kolisch vs E Rousseau 1-0441867ParisC52 Evans Gambit
21. H Czarnowski vs E D'Andre 0-1161867ParisA01 Nimzovich-Larsen Attack
22. E D'Andre vs H Czarnowski 0-1151867ParisC50 Giuoco Piano
23. E D'Andre vs de Riviere 0-1411867ParisA06 Reti Opening
24. de Riviere vs E D'Andre ½-½601867ParisC61 Ruy Lopez, Bird's Defense
25. S Rosenthal vs M S From  1-0441867ParisC33 King's Gambit Accepted
 page 1 of 6; games 1-25 of 136  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Dec-15-13  martin moller: I might have some information on M.S.From the dane who attented the paris 1867 tournament. He only went because he had some other buisness to attent to in Paris.
Dec-15-13  thomastonk: <martin moller> That sounds great! I have already collected similar information on other players, and I would very much appreciate to see your information, too.
Dec-16-13  martin moller: Invitations to the Paris 1867 tournament was sent through Von der Lasa - Who was living in Copenhagen at the time - to Chairman of Copenhagen chess Club M.S.From, and he was only able to participate because he as Governor of prison, was able to inspect prisons in Paris at the same time, but he could not stay as long as the tournament lastet. According to a Danish biography on M.S.From (Skakspilleren Severin From 1828 - 95 af Claus Olsen)
Dec-16-13  thomastonk: <martin moller> Thank you very much.

If you have read my earlier posts, then you have seen that there is a problem with invitations. The first article of the official announcement of the tournament describes this tournament (and other events) as open for all chess players of all nations. So, is Olsen's biography speaking of a personal invitation, or could it also be the general announcement?

Dec-30-13  martin moller: My source is the Danish periodical : "Illustrerede tidende 1867.03.31". It seems like a general announcement.
Dec-30-13  thomastonk: Thank you again, <martin moller>!
Dec-16-14  suenteus po 147: This just goes to show how difficult and important research and source citation are to recording historical events. If I had known I was going to be published and come under such scholarly scrutiny, I might have skipped the introductions all together!
Dec-16-14  kia0708: None of them played Queen's Gambit Declined ! Amazing.
Mar-25-15  Raisin Death Ray: Why wasn't Paris Hilton in this tournament?
Apr-07-15  zanzibar: <suenteus po 147: This just goes to show how difficult and important research and source citation are to recording historical events. If I had known I was going to be published and come under such scholarly scrutiny, I might have skipped the introductions all together!>

I sympathize with <sp> here - his introductions were really private collections that were promoted outside the critical review we have in place today (afaik). In that sense they are really beyond criticism.

Except for the fact that here we are, with his intro as an "official" bio intro to an important tournament.

Having <thomastonk>'s notes is important, and the knowledgeable reader will want to peruse the forum comments to get the full, and correct, story.

<But the question now really goes to the <CG> biographers - how are we to update and revise the intro to this important tournament>>

How are we to mark it as needing revision vs. for instance, a <Tab> approved writeup fully voted in via the "modern" protocol?

BTW- I know that the situation in 2005 could have been drastically different than today. Many of the "primary" sources, i.e. the contemporaneous chess periodicals, are now available via google books (typically from the collections of American Universities, like Harvard, Princeton, etc.).

So trying to get a reasonably accurate view is much easier today - especially if vetted on the Bistro.

It would be nice if <thomastonk> had a blog page where he collected and collated all his corrections in the above into its own intro.

Aug-18-15  Nosnibor: The original tournament book was compiled by Neumann and de-Riviere and according to Hindle and Jones in their excellent book published in 2001 of the chess career of Cecil De Vere all of the twenty games so omitted were by default which would of course explain why From conceded eight due to his local employment. It does not explain why Rosenthal defaulted the same amount of games. They also state that De Vere received no prize.Finally there was a big hoo-ha following the late admission of Kolisch to the event.Much to the chagrin of Steinitz he was allowed to enter three days after the tournament started and Steinitz had already drawn with Czarnowski which due to the rules meant a zero point. He and others eventually withdrew their protest excepting De Vere. Winawer could have tied for first place but for a careless loss to the tail-ender Rousseau.
Feb-09-16  zanzibar: Some chess hardware from the Paris 1867 Exhibition:

Fetching, in more ways than one.

Feb-10-16  offramp: <zanzibar: Some chess hardware from the Paris 1867 Exhibition:

Fetching, in more ways than one.>

A wonderful board and set. It sold for just under two million pounds. Unlike some exhibition chess sets (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings) this one looks usable, playable, as the pieces are very similar to Staunton-style pieces.

I would imagine that the French would be slightly chagrined that the ensemble was fabriqué in Birmingham.

Feb-10-16  zanzibar: <offramp> as long as it's spelled <fabriqué> I don't think they mind so much!
Feb-10-16  zanzibar: I would like to know, from <Nosnibor>'s post, on what basis <Hindle and Jones> make their assertion that all 20 missing games were defaults?

Paris (1867) (kibitz #21)

I starting to investigate this, as I'd like to make a complete PGN image of the tournament with stubs.

And I'd like the stubs to accurately state when a game is missing due to being a default vs. missing due to a lost scoresheet.

So far, I only know for certain that From's 8 games were forfeited when he withdrew early from the tournament (which caused some controversy, as mention in the tournament book, about how to score the unplayed and played games of his).

Feb-10-16  zanzibar: Speaking of tournament books, there are two versions available on google (both from the same original, but different scans from different libraries).



(Caveat Emptor - I may have the two mixed-up, don't think so, but...?)

Don't use the Harvard edition, afaict the OCR is utterly useless from it.

Inside, use the NYPL version, which was must better OCR'ed.

Feb-10-16  zanzibar: Dang nab shame I can't list this simple table out properly....

This is using the <CG> games for the tournament, with the draws treated as nulls (i.e. scoring 0 points):

Total wins ... nulls ... losses ... and total games:


Kolisch 18 2 2 22
Neumann 17 4 3 24
Winawer 17 1 4 22
Steinitz 16 3 3 22
De Vere 12 1 9 22
De Riviere 9 1 10 20
Golmayo 8 0 14 22
Czarnowski 7 2 11 20
Loyd 6 1 17 24
Rosenthal 6 4 6 16
From 5 0 11 16
Rousseau 3 0 19 22
D'Andre 2 1 17 20

What isn't counted here, and presumably affects the order are the forfeit scores. Only two players, Loyd and Neumann, had scores without any forfeit wins or losses.

This table should match that given on p LXXIX of the tournament book, and I believe does.

* * * * *

As for the "missing" games, after reading the tournament book (I read a little French, but used google translate to be sure), I agree with the previous poster:

<There are no missing games for this tournament>

All the games which <CG> doesn't have are forfeits, with known results (not entirely sure about the color pairing).

A complete, and accurate, version of this tournament is just a few stubs away.

Feb-10-16  zanzibar: A quick rundown of forfeits:

<From (-8)>, played 16 games, but exited the tournament before anyone else. If he's involved in a missing game, he's the one with the forfeit (see, esp, v Rosenthal).

<Rosenthal (-8)> also only played 16 games. His missing games all score as games forfeits (*).

<Czarnowski (+2 -2)> forfeited two against <de Riviere>, and picked up two against <Rosenthal>.

<de Riviere (+2 -2)> won forfeits from <Czarnowski>, but lost two forfeits against Winawer.

(*) Note the table on page LXXIV is ambiguous about the scoring of the forfeits for <Czarnowski--Rosenthal>. The table shows each picking up +2 from the forfeits. The above assumes that the placement of the player's row in the table is accurate. If so, then Czarnowski's placing higher than Rosenthal implies the forfeits score as Rosenthal losses.

* * * * *

Of the top four finishers, only Neumann did not pick up points from forfeited games.

All others (Kolisch, Winawer, and Steinitz) picked up +2 points "for free".

This might explain why Neumann offered défi's to each of the other three contestants who placed higher than he in the final rankings.

Quoting from p268 of Zavatarelli's book on Kolisch:

<Shortly after the Paris Tournament a paragraph appeared in ... La Stratégie (1867,p192), to the effect that the final position ... in the conflict was not accepted by all of them as a true measure of their skills. As proof of this ... Neumann had challenged each ... to a set match.>

There's more to the story, but c'est suffit, for now at least.

Feb-10-16  zanzibar: The long song and dance just above can be summarized simply... it agrees with the xtab shown in the intro.
Feb-10-16  zanzibar: FWIW - the tournament book shows a pseudo-Swiss listing on page LXXVI, using dates instead of round numbers.

There it can be seen that <From> last played on June 20th, while <Rosenthal>'s play ended on July 2th.

(Several of the French players seem to have taken a "mini-vacation" during the last week in June.)

The entire tournament stretched from June 4th to July 11th, with 33 days of play.

I decided to add all forfeits to July 12th, with R34.n, n = 1,2 - with White always winning the first encounter of the day by forfeit. A comment notifies the user that the game is a forfeit as does a Stub PGN tag.

Feb-10-16  zanzibar: I think it worth noting that Kolisch scored a very impressive 11/11 (100%) when playing Black, and a not quite so impressive 7/11 (64%) as White.
Feb-11-16  zanzibar: In de Riviere's tournament book there's a nice section giving all the color pairings played on a given day, with opening and number of moves plus results, from pages <lxiii/73> to <lxxv/85>.

(Note- the ordinary number is the page number in the pdf)

Most unfortunately, the results given are often incorrect. Best to use the summary table given on <p lxxvi/86> for that.

* * * * *

I want to emphasis that draws were scored as 0, the same as "-", actual losses (and forfeits). The only points gained were wins (or wins from forfeits), and these were marked with "|" in the tournament book tables.

Draws were marked with actual "0" to distinguish them from losses.

In SCID, I mark draws with "*".

Feb-11-16  zanzibar: The best discussion of the actual Paris Exhibition (1867) that I've found is here:

There's no better demonstration of how the cercle got put in the <Cercle International> than the panorama at the beginning of the above article.

Feb-11-16  zanzibar: < There was no formal organization to international events at the time, so beyond the matches and time controls being set, players seemingly encountered one another during the tournament according to availability and inclination. >

and other matters from the intro.

I have extracted the relevant passages from the tournament book concerning the rules and regulations. And while the seemingly laissez-faire scheduling might suggest the above, here are the rules:

< Art. 11. - A special committee will be appointed Commission spoke to adjust the order of play, judging disputes between players and put out of competition, if necessary, anyone would harm the progress of the Tournament in Pool Handicap.

Art. 12. - The advantage of the line between two players will be determined the fate for the first part; it will be for all alternative others.

Art. 13. - Ten shots at least on both sides, will be played per hour. However, additional time will be granted under the provided you pay twenty francs per quarter hour or fraction of quarter hour.

Art. 14. - Each player will play at least five games week.

Art. 15. - Any game played must, on pain of nullity, be delivery within three days by the winner to the Secretary, Commission, which shall have the sole right to publish, or authorize the publication. >

It's a google translate from the French original, and though I could tweak the translation, it's fairly easy to decipher the meaning. There was a schedule, maybe not published in a form like we have today, and certainly not according to a strict starting time or date. Nonetheless, the play was determined, as was a minimal pace (5 games/week).

Hopefully, I can make all my notes available via my blog for easier access.

Feb-11-16  zanzibar: Comparing <CG> to finds these games with differences:

1867.06.08 C52 32 (R5 ) 1-0 Kolisch -- Rousseau

1867.06.13 C38 40 (R10) 0-1 Steinitz -- Kolisch

1867.06.20 C31 32 (R16) 1-0 Steinitz -- From

1867.06.21 C65 40 (R17) 0-1 Neumann -- Kolisch

1867.07.01 C52 26 (R24) 1-0 Kolisch -- Loyd


All checked against the tournament book, and with one exception 365chess agrees, whereas <CG> is at odds.

The one game, is the <Steinitz--From> game, where the tournament book appears to have some uncertainty itself. <CG> matches the move count of 61 plies, whereas <365chess> truncates the game just before the score starts to go awry.


31. F pr. F, échec. | 31. T pr. F. (31. BxB+ RxB 32. RxN) 32. T pr. C.

Et les Noirs abondonnent.


From tb p158/260 Game #80.

search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

Copyright 2001-2023, Chessgames Services LLC