| Monte Carlo (1902) |
|
After the success of the first international chess master tournament held at Monte Carlo (1901), the original organizers, Prince Andrey Dadian of Mingrelia and Jules Arnous de Riviere, assembled an even larger gathering for the follow up event. Twenty-two of the world's best chess players were invited to compete in the round robin tournament held from February 1st to March 12th. Two of the invited players, Joseph Henry Blackburne and Jean Taubenhaus, dropped out at the last minute, after the schedule of rounds and pairings had been published, but a strong field remained in attendance for the 21 devised rounds, including David Janowski (the winner in 1901), Siegbert Tarrasch, Harry Nelson Pillsbury, Carl Schlechter, and Richard Teichmann. The time control for the tournament was 30 moves in two hours followed by 15 moves for every succeeding hour. The scoring format for the tournament was kept the same as the previous year, where ¼ of a point was given to each player for a draw played. The two players were then required to replay the game with colors reversed, where a win was worth ½ a point, a draw worth another ¼ point, and a loss worth 0. Although Janowski played valiantly as he had the year before, he was unable to reproduce his victory here. Instead, the Hungarian chess master Maróczy, winner of the "minor" tournament at Hastings (1895), took first prize with his accurate and convincing play. He edged out Hastings (1895) winner Pillsbury by one quarter of a point and was awarded 5000 francs. Janowski came in third and ended up losing so much money at the casinos over the course of the tournament that his third place prize was only a mere train ticket home to Paris. It should be noted that 25 games are omitted from this collection because the scores are incomplete or have never been recovered. Monte Carlo, Monaco, 1 February - 12 March 1902 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Pts
1 Maróczy * 1 ½ 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 0 1 ¾ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14¾
2 Pillsbury 0 * 1 ½ 1 1 ¾ ¼ 1 ¾ 1 1 1 1 ¼ 1 1 0 1 1 14½
3 Janowski ½ 0 * 1 0 1 1 ¾ 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 ¾ 1 1 14
4 Teichmann 0 ½ 0 * ½ 1 ½ 1 0 1 ¾ 1 ½ ¾ 1 1 1 ¾ 1 1 13¼
=5 Schlechter 1 0 1 ½ * 0 ½ 0 0 1 1 ½ ¾ ½ ½ ¾ 1 1 1 1 12
=5 Tarrasch ½ 0 0 0 1 * 1 0 0 ¾ ½ 1 1 ½ ¾ 1 1 1 1 1 12
=5 Wolf 0 ¼ 0 ½ ½ 0 * 1 1 ¾ ¼ 0 1 1 1 ¾ 1 1 1 1 12
8 Chigorin ½ ¾ ¼ 0 1 1 0 * 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 11½
9 Marshall 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 * 0 1 0 1 ¼ 0 1 1 ¾ 1 1 11
10 Gunsberg 1 ¼ 0 0 0 ¼ ¼ 0 1 * 1 ½ 0 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 10¾
11 Napier 0 0 1 ¼ 0 ½ ¾ 1 0 0 * 1 ¼ ¼ ½ 0 1 1 1 1 9½
12 Mieses ¼ 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 0 1 ½ 0 * 0 1 1 ¾ 1 ¼ 1 1 9¼
13 Mason ½ 0 1 ½ ¼ 0 0 0 0 1 ¾ 1 * 0 ½ 1 0 ½ 1 1 9
14 Albin 0 0 0 ¼ ½ ½ 0 0 ¾ 0 ¾ 0 1 * ¾ 0 1 1 1 1 8½
15 Marco 0 ¾ 0 0 ½ ¼ 0 0 1 0 ½ 0 ½ ¼ * 0 1 1 1 1 7¾
16 Von Popiel 0 0 0 0 ¼ 0 ¼ 1 0 ½ 1 ¼ 0 1 1 * 0 1 0 1 7¼
17 Von Scheve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 * ½ ½ 1 5
18 Eisenberg 0 1 ¼ ¼ 0 0 0 0 ¼ 0 0 ¾ ½ 0 0 0 ½ * 1 0 4½
19 Reggio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ½ 0 * 1 2½
20 Mortimer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 * 1
In the crosstable, <¾> indicates the player won a replayed draw, <½> that the replay was drawn, <¼> that he lost the replay.The prizes have been fixed at 5,000f., 3,000f., 2.000f., 1,500f., 1,000f., and 600f. Mr. F. G. Naumann, of London, has contributed 3.000f. towards the prize money. The non-successful competitors will receive consolation prizes amounting in the aggregate to 3,500f. (5) Naumann was the President of the British Chess Federation (1904-05). The Monte Carlo (1903) event continued the tradition. References: (1) Wikipedia article: Monte Carlo casino, (2) Wikipedia article: Monte Carlo chess tournament, (3) For a complete and in depth study of this tournament, visit here: http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/Mont..., (4) http://www.montecarlocasinos.com/, (5) Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer, Monday 3 February 1902, p. 5.Original collection: Game Collection: Monte Carlo 1902, by User: suenteus po 147.
|
|
| page 1 of 9; games 1-25 of 211 |
     |
 |
|
| page 1 of 9; games 1-25 of 211 |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-05-15
 | | Pawn and Two: <zanzibar> Thanks. I have started reviewing the Monte Carlo 1902 tournament book with our Chessgames database, to see if we have complete game scores. I have only completed my review for the first two rounds, but I have already found one game where our database was missing the final two full moves. I have submitted a correction, and will follow up if necessary. |
|
| Jul-06-15 | | zanzibar: <Pawn and Two>
Just curious - are you actually playing over the entire games? Or just checking the colors, results and move lengths? Either way, it's over and above the line of duty.
* * * * *
I checked over the list of replays against the BDE (Brooklyn Daily Eagle) info. Your list was exactly correct, and actually necessary to fill the few gaps in the BDE coverage. I'll post a list on my blog later.
Another point, again above and beyond...
Do you have the dates of adjourned game play?
Since we've gone this far, I plan to attempt to include this information in the post I mentioned. |
|
| Jul-06-15 | | jnpope: The Field for March 1902 is now available. |
|
Jul-06-15
| | Pawn and Two: <zanzibar> I am checking the colors, results and move lengths, and then reviewing the last few moves of each game to determine if they match the tournament book. I have reviewed 4 rounds so far, and I have found 2 incorrect game scores. In round 2, the final 2 full moves were missing from Mieses vs Albin, and in round 4, final 3 full moves were missing from Popiel vs Pillsbury. I have submitted corrections slips, and I will follow up if necessary. I am expecting more differences to be found, especially in the later part of the tournament. I have already noticed one interesting example from round 19, Maroczy vs Mieses, where our database shows 56 moves for the game, while the tournament book states that the game lasted 101 moves. Unfortunately, the tournament book gives only the first 56 moves, and a diagram for the final position. I believe the tournament book contains at least some information regarding the dates for the adjourned games. I review for that information after I complete my game score review. |
|
| Jul-06-15 | | zanzibar: <P&2> Very good, and interesting points. The <Maroczy--Mieses> game should have a note in that case. Would it be too much trouble to leave a note here for the games you submit corrections? I have all the BDE coverage, and now the Field info as well. I might be able to crosscheck some of the games that way as well. I think I can post a zip-file of all the PDF's and jpg's (for the Field) on google drive for the interested. Might save some time. |
|
Jul-07-15
| | Pawn and Two: <zanzibar> I have completed 15 rounds of my review. Corrections will be needed on a few additional games. After completing my review, and submitting any necessary corrections, I will make a summary of the requested corrections here. I notice that in some of the latter rounds of this tournament, there are games where only a few moves are provided. I will provide details here of those partial games. |
|
| Jul-08-15 | | zanzibar: <Pawn and Two> Great. I know it's a lot of work. I did a little on my part too, and have a full blown chronology of all the games, which I think should agree with all the information you provided: https://zanchess.wordpress.com/2015... Of course, because of the gaps in the BDE coverage, I'm unsure of the dating of all the adjournments. |
|
Jul-09-15
| | Pawn and Two: <zanzibar> I am slowing down a bit, but I will soon have the initial review of the games completed, and then I will provide a summary. |
|
| Jul-09-15 | | zanzibar: <P&2> No rush on my end, but one more favor if I may... Could you take a quick look at the stubs (aka missing/unplayed games) I listed here? https://zanchess.wordpress.com/2015... The question is both for correctness, and if any of the <CG> missing games are available in the tournament book. Thanks, as always. |
|
Jul-11-15
| | Pawn and Two: <zanzibar> Here is a review of the first 7 missing/unplayed games from your list. Teichmann vs Mason - Feb. 26th - your information is correct. Albin vs Teichmann - March 1st - your information is correct, the tournament book states, "Albin made an ineffectual stand against Teichmann." Marco vs Mason - March 1st - your information is correct. Albin vs Mason - Feb. 25th - From the tournament book, "The last game going, and given up by the spectators as a certain draw, was finally won by Albin by a pretty combination." 
click for larger view60.c4 Qd7 61.cxd5 exd5 62.Qh4 Qe8 63.Bc5 Rf7 64.e6 Qxe6 65.Qd8+ Kg7 66.Bd4+ Rf6 67.Re3 Qf7 68.Re7 1-0 Marco vs Mieses - Feb. 25th - The tournament book states, "A good game with a pretty ending." 41....Ra3+
click for larger view42.Kf4 g5+ 43.Kxg5 Rd3 44.Nc5+ Kxe5 45.Rxd3 Bxd3 46.Nxd3+ Kd4 47.Nc1 a5 48.Na2 Kc4 49.Kh6 b4 0-1 Janowski vs Mieses - Feb. 27th - 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5. The tournament book states, "Janowski kept the pawn offered by Black, and played the game in his best form. The whole game was very instructive, but especially so the ending." 1-0 Popiel vs Wolf - Feb. 27th - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4...
click for larger view32....f5 33.Bxd5 Rxe1 34.Bxc6 Re3 35.Bxb5 f4 36.Be1 Rxe1 37.Bxc4 Re3 38.Bd5 Re2+ 39.Kb3 b6 40.a4 Kf6....58. 1/2-1/2 The tournament book notes Popiel could not prevent the sacrificing variation beginning with 32....f5, but it had a flaw in it that enabled White to draw. |
|
Jul-11-15
| | Pawn and Two: <zanzibar> Here are the next 6 games from your missing/unplayed list. Schlechter vs Albin - March 5th - your information is correct. Eisenberg vs Wolf - March 3 - When this game reached the following position: 
click for larger viewEisenberg proposed a draw, which he thought Wolf had accepted. The players then continued playing some additional moves, with Eisenberg assuming it was just analysis. In those additional moves Eisenberg tried a pawn sacrifice, and then followed it up with some weak moves. Later Eisenberg tried to claim the draw, but the clock had not be stopped, nor had the scoresheets been signed and handled in to the controller. Wolf claimed that he had continued the game, and after review the Tournament Committee awarded him the game. Mortimer vs Mason - March 3 - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5....0-1, 29 moves Eisenberg vs Popiel - March 4th - 1.e4 c5....0-1, 38 moves Scheve vs Mortimer - March 6th - 1.d4 d5 2.c4....1-0, 24 moves Tarrasch vs Eisenberg - March 6th - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5....1-0, 33 moves. |
|
Jul-11-15
| | Pawn and Two: <zanzibar> Here are the final 11 games from your list of missing/unplayed games. Eisenberg vs Mason - March 10th - not played - draw agreed Mason vs Eisenberg - March 10th - replay - not played - draw agreed - the tournament book shows both of these games under March 10th without further explanation. Schlechter vs Wolf - March 10th - 1.d4...., 1/2-1/2, 30 moves Wolf vs Schlechter - March 10th - replay - not played - draw agreed - the tournament book shows both of these games under March 10 without further explanation Mieses vs Scheve - March 10 - 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3....1-0, 52 moves Marco vs Napier - March 11th - not played - draw agreed Napier vs Marco - March 11th - replay - not played - draw agreed - the tournament book shows both of these games under March 11 without further explanation Mortimer vs Schlechter - March 11th - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6....0-1, 46 moves -
The tournament book indicates Schlechter played indifferently, allowing Mortimer at least two chances in the middle game to win a pawn. Mortimer did not take either pawn, and he finally came under a severe attack, losing the game. Eisenberg vs Scheve - March 11th - not played - draw agreed Scheve vs Eisenberg - March 11th - replay - not played - draw agreed - the tournament book shows both of these games under March 11th without further explanation Popiel vs Gunsberg - March 11th - replay - not played - draw agreed - Gunsberg vs Popiel and Popiel vs Gunsberg are both shown under March 11th |
|
| Jul-12-15 | | zanzibar: Again, thanks for your tireless and exemplary work <Pawn and Two>. I'll fold the above into my snapshot and post back later. |
|
Jul-13-15
| | Pawn and Two: <zanzibar> Thanks for the kind words. Based on my review of the tournament book and other sources, I have submitted move corrections for six games, and three of those corrections have already been made. I will review the tournament book for any information regarding specific adjourned games, and let you know what I find. I will post information and a diagram on the game page, for the 101 move draw between Maroczy and Mieses. |
|
Jul-14-15
| | Pawn and Two: <zanzibar> The tournament book shows the following games were adjourned: Rd.1 Replay - Teichmann vs Schlechter - adjourned after 56.Nb2 - Feb. 5th & Feb. ? (date not shown although Feb. 8th seems likely). Rd. 6 - Wolf vs Teichmann - Feb. 11th & 12th.
Rd. 6 - Chigorin vs Albin - Feb. 11th & 12th
Rd. 8 - Maroczy vs Teichmann - Feb. 14th & 15th
Rd. 8 - Scheve vs Tarrasch - Feb. 14 & 15th
Rd. 10 - Chigorin vs Maroczy - Feb. 18 & 19th
Rd. 12 - Janowski vs Chigorin - Feb. 21 & 22nd
Rd. 13 - Wolf vs Janowski - Feb. 24 & 26th
Rd. 16 - Reggio vs Janowski - Feb. 28 & March 1st
Rd. 17 - Teichmann vs Chigorin - March 3rd & 5th
Rd. 19 - Mason vs Janowski - March 6th & 7th - This game was adjourned after 65.Kxf3. The next morning, when Janowski did not show, his clock ran out, and the game was scored to Mason. Rd. 19 - Maroczy vs Mieses - March 6th & 7th - This game was adjourned, continued the next day lasting 101 moves, and then was given up as drawn. The following games were on your list of adjourned games, but the tournament book does not show either game as being adjourned; Rd. 13 - Marshall vs Popiel - Feb. 24th
Rd. 18 - Albin vs Maroczy - March 4th |
|
| Jan-21-16 | | zanzibar: <Pawn and Two> looks like I missed thanking you for this last post. -- Thanks. Maybe someday soon I'll dig out my notes to determine how far I got during the summer. |
|
Mar-11-18
 | | MissScarlett: Philadelphia Inquirer, December 8th 1901, p.3:
<PARIS, Dec. 7. - For the Monte Carlo chess tournament, Mr. McCutcheon, of Pittsburg, offers $200 for two prizes. He has discovered a variation to the French defense and wants it tested. One hundred dollars goes to the best attack and $100 to the best game adopting his defense.> These prizes were, apparently (Pillsbury vs Reggio, 1902 (kibitz #4)), awarded to Pillsbury vs Marshall, 1902 for the best attack and the best use of the defense to Gunsberg vs J Mason, 1902, from a grand total of four games. There has to be a suspicion, especially in light of the tournament position, that the Pillsbury-Marshall game was pre-arranged as to the opening, and, perhaps, even the result. |
|
| Mar-11-18 | | JimNorCal: "a suspicion, especially in light of the tournament position, that the Pillsbury-Marshall game was pre-arranged as to the opening, and, perhaps, even the result." Wait. What? If anyone knows more I'd be interested in the story. Also, looks like both Pillsbury and Maroczy were closely matched in this tournament, is there an account of the race to the finish worth noting here? |
|
| Mar-12-18 | | TheFocus: <JimNorCal: "a suspicion, especially in light of the tournament position, that the Pillsbury-Marshall game was pre-arranged as to the opening, and, perhaps, even the result." Wait. What? If anyone knows more I'd be interested in the story.> Perhaps <jnpope> will reveal this in his revised Pillsbury book. |
|
Mar-12-18
| | MissScarlett: I just thought I'd run this one up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted. |
|
Apr-16-18
| | MissScarlett: Reggio vs Teichmann, 1902 - This game has eluded inclusion. |
|
| Sep-05-18 | | jnpope: <There has to be a suspicion, especially in light of the tournament position, that the Pillsbury-Marshall game was pre-arranged as to the opening, and, perhaps, even the result.> Marshall was also responsible for Marco, Gunsberg and Mieses each winning brilliancy prizes. Has anyone looked into Marshall's health during this event? He was clearly off his game. That being said, I wouldn't read anything more into the Pillsbury win than Marshall being "off" for some reason. Why would Marshall play the McCutcheon? Well, the $100 (500 francs) McCutcheon prize would be worth close to 3k in today's money. Definitely worth more than the 396 francs he picked up in consolation money. I think he took a chance and failed (due to health perhaps?). |
|
| Sep-05-18 | | jnpope: Ok, the real reason I jumped into this thread was to ask if anyone ever figured out why Harding claimed Pillsbury won a prize for Pillsbury-Reggio? I ask because in doing some work on this event I found that <The Field>, 12 April 1902, states that M. de Armas had contributed 500 francs for prizes. And from <La Stratégie>, 1902, p101 (loosely translated) reads "The special prizes for the French parties and the prizes for the most brilliant parties remain to be distributed; for these last, a generous amateur of Havana has sent 500 francs, there will be three prizes of equal value." We know the Dadian brilliancy prize (500 francs) went to Mason for Mason-Janowski and the 500 francs from Rothschild went out for six additional brilliancy prizes (four 100 francs and two 50 francs), but I have found no distribution record of the 500 francs donated by de Armas. Are there three additional prize winning games out there and was Pillsbury-Reggio one of them? |
|
| Sep-06-18 | | jnpope: Ok, best guess is Harding's source was either the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 6 July 1902, or a source that used the report from the BDE. Helms definitely states Pillsbury won the McCutcheon prize for his game against Reggio (a statement he corrects the following week). So there was no mystery prize awarded to Pillsbury for his game against Reggio. But I still have this mystery of the de Armas money to solve... |
|
| Sep-06-18 | | jnpope: Ok, I think I may have solved the missing money donated by de Armas. When the tournament concluded it was reported by the <Journal de Monaco>, 18 Mar 1902, p1, that there would be seven prizes in the following amounts: 5000 francs, 3000, 2000, 1500, 1000, 750 and 500 (13750 total in place prizes). Apparently the Cercle des Etrangers had donated 14000 for place prizes (see <Deutsche Schachzeitung>, Jan 1902, p28), so they were sitting on a 250 francs surplus at the moment. Now, Kemeny reports in the <Philadelphia North American>, 30 Mar 1902, that the 5th-7th place prizes had been raised from 750 francs each to 1000 francs each (something not mentioned in the mainstream chess journals as they had already gone to press with the "official" distribution statement). So where did the extra 750 francs come from? Well, they had a 250 franc surplus and then there's that 500 francs from de Armas just sitting there, seven brilliancy prizes were already allocated from the donations of Prince Dadian and Rothschild, so I think the committee used those 500 francs from de Armas to supplement the increase in those three place prizes. Which would explain why there are no de Armas funded prizes (brilliancy or otherwise) turning up in the contemporary press. |
|
|
|
< 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:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- 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.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
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 Chessgames.com, 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 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
