Introduction

The guys at Ostend did things in the grand style. Ostend (1905) was a double-round 14-player tournament for twenty-six rounds in all, and the 1907 event was a six-player, quadruple round-robin Championship section and a thirty-player Master group.

But those events were run along usual lines. The event held from June 5th - July 12th, 1906, featured a novel sectional organizational system devised by Isidor Gunsberg, who directed the play.

Gunsberg explained everything in a long article in the <Manchester Guardian>, reprinted by A.J.Gillam in his book on the tournament (1). It was based on sound principles derived from his thirty years of experience as a practical player. The idea was logical, well-thought-out, and had never been tried:

<"The Masters' Tourney

Thirty-six players took part in this competition -- a number very considerably of any previously gathered together in a similar tourney. Various new practices were embodied in the rules governing this completion. In the long and hard experience which my career as a chess player for thirty years has vouchsafed to me, I had formed certain ideals, and as I was placed in power I honestly and conscientiously endeavored to put ideals which I had conceived into practical execution, even though by so doing I should, whilst trying to benefit others, created the inevitable difficulties for myself which the introduction of any novel idea to such a sensitive and nervous constituency as the competitors in a chess tournament generally produces.

I strongly disapprove of the practice of conducting a tournament on the basis of giving a few prizes to the foremost players in a tournament and leaving the bulk to go away empty-handed. Of course, the best players deserve the highest reward; yet at the same time, there is a vast amount of good work done by many excellent players who just fail to win any of the higher prizes. In fact, the tournament itself would be no tournament without these strong players. The rank and file are just as necessary to chess life, and do just as good service, as the pawns in a game, especially when it is considered that the master who proves himself the King of the Tournament today may have to take his place amongst the pawns tomorrow".>

In short:

+ The first four stages of the tournament had the players divided into four groups (A to D)

+ In the first stage, group A played B and C played D. The lowest three scorers in each group were then eliminated.

+ In the second stage, group A played C and B played D. The lowest two scorers in each group were then eliminated.

+ The third stage now had four groups of four players. group A played D and B played C. This completed the round-robin across all the groups. No players could be eliminated in this section.

+ In the fourth stage, the group members played the other masters in their own group. The seven lowest players were then eliminated.

+ The nine players with the highest overall scores advanced to the fifth and final stage which was an all-play-all.

Whilst the elaborate system may have appealed in theory, in practice, it proved unpopular with the competitors.

"It may be added that as the tournament proceeds the objections of the players, whether among the successful ones or not, to the peculiar arrangements adopted increase. It is safe to say that after this trial the sectional system will never again be adopted." (2)

One correspondent described the system as a "weary pilgrimage to the shrine of first honours" (3). The main problem with the sectional system was put by the "British Chess Magazine thus: "It would certainly seem an injustice that some players should be compelled to retire whose scores are higher than others in different sections".(4)

One grave flaw in the system was the difficulty in trying to balance the strength of the groups. Balla in Group A was an unfortunate victim of the group system. Despite scoring five points (+2-1=6) he was eliminated. Yet, Wolf (3.5 points in Group D); Chigorin (4.0 points in Group D); Spielmann (4.5 points in Group C); and Swiderski (4.5 points in Group D) went through with lower scores.

Additional prizes had to be added at the last minute when it became evident that the scores of some of the players who would be eliminated were practically equal.

Group A

Zoltan von Balla, Ossip Bernstein, Joseph Henry Blackburne, Amos Burn, Oldrich Duras, Walter Montagu Gattie, David Janowski, Paul Saladin Leonhardt, Gerard Oskam

Group B

Wilhelm Cohn, Hans Fahrni, Leo Forgacs, Walter John, Paul Johner, Georg Marco, Geza Maroczy, Akiba Rubinstein, Peter Petrovich Saburov

Group C

Moritz Lewitt, Boris Maliutin, Frank Marshall, Jacques Mieses, Julius Perlis, Ehrhardt Post, Rudolf Spielmann, Hugo Suechting, Richard Teichmann

Group D

Mikhail Chigorin, Arturo Reggio, Georg Salwe, Carl Schlechter, Vladimir Sournin, Rudolf Swiderski, Jean Taubenhaus, Heinrich Wolf, Eugene Znosko-Borovsky

-----

This collection will contain the available games of the tournament, and provide crosstables and a brief recap of the play in each stage, For a more detailed list of pairings, results, and standings, see Game Collection: Ostend 1906 -- Details of Games and Results

Stage 1, played from June 5-14, consisted of two nine-round Scheveningen-style tournaments, in which the players of Group A played all the members of Group B and Group C met Group D. The bottom three scores in each group were removed from the tournament, while the other six advanced to Stage 2. Ties for the final advancement slot were resolved by the <Berger system>, a forerunner of what is known as Sonnenborn-Berger today.

RESULTS OF STAGE 1

Group A (44.0)        B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9
                      Jo Ma Fa Ru Jo Ma Co Fo Sa
A1 Burn                1  1  1  0  ½  ½  1  1  1 7.0 Advanced
A2 Janowski            1  0  ½  1  1  ½  1  1  1 7.0 Advanced
A3 Leonhardt           0  ½  0  1  ½  1  1  1  1 6.0 Advanced
A4 Bernstein           1  0  0  ½  1  1  0  1  1 5.5 Advanced 
A5 Blackburne          0  0  ½  ½  1  1  1  ½  1 5.5 Advanced
A6 Balla               0  ½  ½  ½  ½  ½  1  ½  1 5.0 Advanced
A7 Duras               0  1  1  0  0  ½  1  ½  1 5.0 Eliminated
A8 Oskam               0  0  0  0  0  ½  0  ½  1 2.0 Eliminated
A9 Gattie              0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1 1.0 Eliminated

Group B (37.0)        A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9	
                      Bu Ja Le Be Bl Ba Du Os Ga
B1 Johner              0  0  1  0  1  1  1  1  1 6.0 Advanced
B2 Maroczy             0  1  ½  1  1  0  ½  1  1 6.0 Advanced
B3 Fahrni              0  ½  1  1  ½  0  ½  1  1 5.5 Advanced
B4 Rubinstein          1  0  0  ½  ½  1  ½  1  1 5.5 Advanced
B5 John                ½  0  ½  0  0  1  ½  1  1 4.5 Advanced
B6 Marco               ½  ½  0  0  0  ½  ½  ½  1 3.5 Advanced
B7 Cohn                0  0  0  1  0  0  0  1  1 3.0 Eliminated
B8 Forgacs             0  0  0  0  ½  ½  ½  ½  1 3.0 Eliminated
B9 Saburov             0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 0.0 Eliminated

Cohn fell short of qualifying, but found a striking finish as White against Oskam:

click for larger view

22.Bb8! encouraged resignation, the point being <22..>Rxb8 23.Qxb8!>.

Group C (43.5)        D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9
                      Sc Zn Sa Sw Ch Ta Wo So Re
C1 Perlis              0  0  1  ½  1  1  1  1  1 6.5 Qualified
C2 Marshall            ½  1  0  1  0  ½  1  1  1 6.0 Qualified
C3 Teichmann           1  ½  ½  0  ½  ½  1  1  1 6.0 Qualified
C4 Mieses              0  1  ½  0  1  1  0  1  1 5.5 Qualified
C5 Suechting           ½  ½  0  ½  1  1  0  1  ½ 5.0 Qualified
C6 Spielmann           ½  0  ½  1  ½  0  ½  ½  1 4.5 Qualified
C7 Post                0  0  1  1  0  0  1  1  0 4.0 Eliminated
C8 Lewitt              ½  0  0  0  1  ½  ½  0  ½ 3.0 Eliminated
C9 Maliutin            0  0  0  ½  0  1  ½  0  ½ 2.5 Eliminated

Group D (37.5)        C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
                      Pe Ma Te Mi Su Sp Po Le Ma
D1 Schlechter          1  ½  0  1  ½  ½  1  ½  1 6.0 Advanced
D2 Znosko-Borovsky     1  0  ½  1  ½  1  1  1  1 6.0 Advanced
D3 Salwe               0  1 ½   ½  1  ½  0  1  1 5.5 Advanced
D4 Swiderski           ½  0  1  1  ½  0  0  1  ½ 4.5 Advanced
D5 Chigorin            0  1  ½  0  0  ½  1  0  1 4.0 Advanced
D6 Taubenhaus          0  ½  ½  0  0  1  1  ½  0 3.5 Declined
D7 Wolf                0  0  0  1  1  ½  0  ½  ½ 3.5 Advanced
D8 Sournin             0  0  0  0  0  ½  0  1  1 2.5 Eliminated
D9 Reggio              0  0  0  0  ½  0  1  ½  0 2.0 Eliminated

Overall scores after Stage 1

7.0: Burn, Janowski

6.5: Perlis

6.0: Johner, Leonhardt, Maroczy, Marshall, Schlechter, Teichmann, Znosko-Borovsky

5.5: Bernstein, Blackburne, Fahrni, Mieses, Rubinstein, Salwe,

5.0: Duras, Suechting

4.5: John, Spielmann, Swiderski

4.0: Chigorin

3.5: Marco, Wolf

---

Intergroup play continued in Stage 2, with Group A vs. Group C and Group B vs. Group D. Scores were carried over, and final placement was based on the total of points scored in the first two stages. In each group, the bottom two scores were removed. Ties were resolved using the Berger system, based on results in both stages.

Stage 2 Results

Group A (64.0)    C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Stage Prev Total
                  Ma Te Pe Sp Mi Su 	
A1 Burn            0  ½  1  1  ½  ½  3.5   7.0  10.5 Advanced
A2 Leonhardt       ½  1  ½  ½  ½  1  4.0   6.0  10.0 Advanced
A3 Janowski        0  0  1  ½  0  1  2.5   7.0   9.5 Advanced
A4 Bernstein       1  ½  ½  0  1  ½  3.5   5.5   9.0 Advanced
A5 Blackburne      ½  0  1  ½  ½  1  3.5   5.5   9.0 Eliminated
A6 Duras           0  1  0  0  1  1  3.0   5.0   8.0 Eliminated

Group B (53.0)    D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 Stage Prev Total  
                  Sc Sa Zn Sw Wo Ch 		
B1 Maroczy         ½  ½  0  1  1  1  4.0   6.0  10.0 Advanced
B2 Rubinstein      ½  0  ½  1  1  1  4.0   5.5   9.5 Advanced
B3 Johner          0  1  ½  0  0  ½  2.0   6.0   8.0 Advanced
B4 Fahrni          0  0  1  0  0  ½  1.5   5.5   7.0 Advanced
B5 John            ½  0  ½  1  0  ½  2.5   4.5   7.0 Eliminated
B6 Marco           0  ½  ½  0  1  0  2.0   3.5   5.5 Eliminated

Group C (59.5)    A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 Stage Prev Total	
                  Bu Le Ja Be Bl Du 
C1 Marshall        1  ½  1  0  ½  1  4.0   6.0  10.0 Advanced
C2 Teichmann       ½  0  1  ½  1  0  3.0   6.0   9.0 Advanced
C3 Perlis          0  ½  0  ½  0  1  2.0   6.5   8.5 Advanced
C4 Spielmann       0  ½  ½  1  ½  1  3.5   4.5   8.0 Advanced
C5 Mieses          ½  ½  1  0  ½  0  2.5   5.5   8.0 Eliminated 
C6 Suechting       ½  0  0  ½  0  0  1.0   5.0   6.0 Eliminated

Group D (57.5)    B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 Stage Prev Total 	
                  Ma Ru Jo Fa Jo Ma 	
D1 Schlechter      ½  ½  1  1  ½  1  4.5   6.0  10.5 Advanced
D2 Salwe           ½  1  0  1  1  ½  4.0   5.5   9.5 Advanced
D3 Znosko-Borovsky 1  ½  ½  0  ½  ½  3.0   6.0   9.0 Advanced
D4 Swiderski       0  0  1  1  0  1  3.0   4.5   7.5 Advanced
D5 Wolf            0  0  1  1  1  0  3.0   3.5   6.5 Eliminated
D6 Chigorin        0  0  ½  ½  ½  1  2.5   4.0   6.5 Eliminated

Blackburn, in the high-scoring Group A, had the misfortune to be eliminated despite having more points than four other players from the other groups who advanced to the next stage.

Overall scores after Stage 2

10.5: Burn (Advanced)

10.0: Leonhardt (Advanced), Maroczy (Advanced), Marshall (Advanced)

9.5: Janowski (Advanced), Rubinstein (Advanced)

9.0: Bernstein (Advanced), Teichmann (Advanced), Blackburn

8.5: Perlis (Advanced), Johner (Advanced), Spielmann (Advanced), Duras, Mieses

7.0: Fahrni (Advanced), John

6.0: Suechting

5.5: Marco

-----

Stage 3 saw the final phase of intergroup play with four players in each group, Group A - Group D and Group B vs. Group C. There were no eliminations following Stage 3. Instead, following Stage 4 the group designations were dropped and the nine players with the highest overall scores advanced to the finals in Stage 5

Results of Stage 3

Group A (72.0)    D1 D2 D3 D4 Stage Prev Total	
                  Sc Sa Zn Sw 
A1 Janowski        0  1  1  1  3.0   9.5  12.5
A2 Bernstein       1  1  1  0  3.0   9.0  12.0
A3 Burn            0  ½  0  1  1.5  10.5  12.0
A4 Leonhardt       0  0  0  ½  0.5  10.0  10.5

Group B (61.5)    C1 C2 C3 C4 Stage Prev Total  
                  Te Ma Pe Sp		
B1 Maroczy         ½  1  ½  ½  2.5  10.0  12.5
B2 Rubinstein      ½  1  ½  1  3.0   9.5  12.5
B3 Fahrni          ½  ½  ½  1  2.5   7.0   9.5
B4 Johner          0  0  0  ½  0.5   8.0   8.5

Group C (67.0)    B1 B2 B3 B4 Stage Prev Total
                  Ma Ru Fa Jo	
C1 Teichmann       ½  ½  ½  1  2.5   9.0  11.5
C2 Marshall        0  0  ½  1  1.5  10.0  11.5
C3 Perlis          ½  ½  ½  1  2.5   8.5  11.0
D4 Spielmann       ½  0  0  ½  1.0   8.0   9.0

Group D (65.5)    A1 A2 A3 A4 Stage Prev Total 
                  Ja Be Bu Le		
D1 Schlechter      1  0  1  1  3.0  10.5  13.5
D2 Salwe           0  0  ½  1  1.5   9.5  11.0
D3 Znosko-Borovsky 0  0  1  1  2.0   9.0  11.0
D4 Swiderski       0  1  0  ½  1.5   7.5   9.0

13.5: Schlechter

12.5: Janowski, Maroczy, Rubinstein

12.0: Bernstein, Burn

11.5: Marshall, Teichmann

11.0: Perlis, Salwe, Znosko-Borovsky

10.5: Leonhardt

9.5: Fahrni

9.0: Spielmann, Swiderski

8.5: Johner

-------------------

Stage 4

This stage, held from June 29th - July 2nd, consisted of play within each group that completed the round-robin among the remaining players. The top nine overall scorers are advanced. It is not clear if the leader within each group advanced, but in the event, there were three qualifiers from Groups A and C, two from Group B, and one from Group D.

Swiderski made a spirited effort to qualify by sweeping Group D, but fell a half-point short. Maroczy was also perfect in Group B while Group C was a tie-breaker's nightmare. The big surprise of Group A was Janowski's collapse, foreshadowing his poor performance in the finals.

Results of Stage 4

Group A           A1 A2 A3 A4 Stage Prev Total
A1 Bernstein       X  ½  1  1  2.5  12.0  14.5 Advanced
A2 Burn            ½  X  ½  1  2.0  12.0  14.0 Advanced
A3 Janowski        0  ½  X  0  0.5  12.5  13.0 Advanced
A4 Leonhardt       0  0  1  X  1.0  10.5  11.5 Eliminated

Group B           B1 B2 B3 B4 Stage Prev Total  		
B1 Maroczy         X  1  1  1  3.0  12.5  15.5 Advanced
B2 Rubinstein      0  X  1  ½  1.5  12.5  14.0 Advanced
B3 Fahrni          0  0  X  1  1.0   9.5  10.5 Eliminated
B4 Johner          0  ½  0  X  0.5   8.5   9.0 Eliminated

Group C           C1 C2 C3 C4 Stage Prev Total	
C1 Marshall        X  ½  0  1  1.5  11.5  13.0 Advanced
C2 Teichmann       ½  X  ½  ½  1.5  11.5  13.0 Advanced
C3 Perlis          1  ½  X  0  1.5  11.0  12.5 Advanced
C4 Spielmann       0  ½  1  X  1.5  9.0   10.5 Eliminated

Group D           D1 D2 D3 D4 Stage Prev Total 	
D1 Schlechter      X  0  1  ½  1.5  13.5  15.0 Advanced
D2 Swiderski       1  X  1  1  3.0   9.0  12.0 Eliminated
D3 Znosko-Borovsky 0  0  X  1  1.0  11.0  12.0 Eliminated
D4 Salwe           ½  0  0  X  0.5  11.0  11.5 Eliminated

15.5: Maroczy

15.0: Schlechter

14.5: Bernstein

14.0: Burn, Rubinstein

13.0: Janowski, Marshall, Teichmann

12.5: Perlis
---
12.0: Swiderski, Znosko-Borovsky

11.5: Leonhardt, Salwe

10.5: Fahrni, Spielmann

9.0: Johner

-----

Stage 5 was played from July 3rd-12th, consisting of a round-robin among the remaining nine players (who thus played a double round-robin within themselves). Maroczy came in with the lead and promptly won his first two games to stretch it to 1.5 points. However, he was unable to win another game for the rest of the tournament. Schlecter steadily made his way to the top, and had a point lead going into the last round; however, he also had the bye in that round. This gave Maroczy a chance to catch up, but he grew disconcerted by time pressure, missed a simple winning shot, and went on to lose.

Results of Stage 5

             1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9     Prev Total			
1 Schlechter X ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 6.0 15.0 21.0
2 Maroczy    ½ X ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 4.5 15.5 20.0
3 Rubinstein 0 ½ X ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 1 5.0 14.0 19.0
4 Teichmann  ½ ½ ½ X 0 1 1 1 ½ 5.0 13.0 18.0
5 Bernstein  ½ 1 0 1 X 0 ½ ½ 0 3.5 14.5 18.0
6 Burn       ½ ½ ½ 0 1 X ½ 0 1 4.0 14.0 18.0
7 Marshall   0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ X ½ 1 3.5 13.0 16.5
8 Janowski   0 0 0 0 ½ 1 ½ X 1 3.0 13.0 16.0
9 Perlis     0 0 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 X 1.5 12.5 14.0

                                              1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
                    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total   SB
1  Schlechter      ** ½½ ½1 0½ 0½ 1½ ½1 11 11 0 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 - - 1 ½ - - ½ 1 - 1 - ½ - 1 - - - - - - 21.0/30
2  Maroczy         ½½ ** 1½ ½½ 10 0½ 1½ 11 ½1 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 0 - - 1 1 - - - 1 - ½ - 1 - - - - - - 20.0/30
3  Rubinstein      ½0 0½ ** ½½ ½1 1½ 1½ 01 ½1 1 ½ 0 0 1 1 ½ ½ 1 - - 1 1 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 19.0/30
4  Teichmann       1½ ½½ ½½ ** ½0 ½1 ½1 11 ½½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 0 - - ½ 1 - - - - ½ - - - - 1 1 - - - 18.0/30 233.50
5  Bernstein       1½ 01 ½0 ½1 ** ½0 1½ 1½ ½0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 - - 1 1 - - ½ 1 - - - - 0 - 1 - - - - 1 18.0/30 223.25
6  Burn	           0½ 1½ 0½ ½0 ½1 ** 0½ ½0 11 1 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 - - ½ ½ - - ½ ½ - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 18.0/30 208.75
7  Marshall        ½0 0½ 0½ ½0 0½ 1½ ** 1½ 01 1 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 - - 0 1 - - - - ½ - - - - 1 1 - - - 16.5/30
8  Janowski        00 00 10 00 0½ ½1 0½ ** 11 1 1 1 0 ½ ½ 1 - - 0 1 - - 1 ½ - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 16.0/30
9  Perlis          00 ½0 ½0 ½½ ½1 00 10 00 ** ½ 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 0 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - 14.0/30
10 Swiderski        1  0  0  1  1  0  0  0  ½ * 1 1 ½ 0 1 1 - - 1 0 - - ½ 1 - 0 - 1 - ½ - - - - - - 12.0/22 133.75
11 Znosko-Borovsky  0  1  ½  ½  0  1  0  0  1 0 * 1 1 1 0 ½ - - 0 ½ - - ½ ½ - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 12.0/22 127.75
12 Salwe            ½  ½  1  ½  0  ½  1  0  0 0 0 * 1 ½ 1 0 - - ½ 1 - - 1 ½ - 0 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 11.5/22 127.00
13 Leonhardt        0  ½  1  1  0  0  ½  1  ½ ½ 0 0 * ½ 0 0 - - ½ ½ - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 11.5/22 114.50
14 Spielmann        ½  ½  0  ½  1  0  0  ½  1 1 0 ½ ½ * 0 ½ ½ 1 - - ½ ½ - - - - 0 - - - - ½ 1 - - - 10.5/22 119.75
15 Fahrni           0  0  0  ½  1  0  ½  ½  ½ 0 1 0 1 1 * 1 ½ 0 - - ½ 0 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 10.5/22 106.50
16 Johner           0  0  ½  0  0  0  0  0  0 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 0 * 1 1 - - ½ 0 - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 -  9.0/22  72.00
17 Blackburne       -  0  ½  0  -  -  ½  -  1 - - - - ½ ½ 0 * - ½ 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1  9.0/15  69.25
18 Duras            -  1  0  1  -  -  0  -  0 - - - - 0 1 0 - * 1 0 - - 1 ½ - - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1  8.0/15  69.75
19 Mieses           0  -  -  -  0  ½  -  1  - 0 1 ½ ½ - - - ½ 0 * - 1 0 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - -  8.0/15  67.50
20 John             ½  -  -  -  0  ½  -  0  - 1 ½ 0 ½ - - - 0 1 - * ½ 0 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 -  7.0/15
21 Chigorin         -  0  0  ½  -  -  1  -  0 - - - - ½ ½ ½ - - 0 ½ * - 0 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - - - - - -  6.5/15  56.50
22 Wolf             -  0  0  0  -  -  0  -  0 - - - - ½ 1 1 - - 1 1 - * 1 0 - 0 - ½ - ½ - - - - - -  6.5/15  48.75
23 Suechting        ½  -  -  -  ½  ½  -  0  - ½ ½ 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - 1 0 * - - - 1 - - - - 1 ½ - - -  6.0/15
24 Marco            0  -  -  -  0  ½  -  ½  - 0 ½ ½ 0 - - - 0 ½ - - 0 1 - * ½ - - - - - - - - ½ 1 -  5.5/15
25 Balla            -  ½  ½  -  -  -  -  -  - - - - - - ½ 0 - - - ½ - - - ½ * - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1  5.0/ 9
26 Post             0  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - 1 0 1 - - - - - - - - 0 1 - - - * 0 - - - - 1 0 - - -  4.0/ 9
27 Taubenhaus       -  -  -  ½  -  -  ½  -  0 - - - - 1 - - - - 0 - - - 0 - - 1 * ½ - 0 - - - - - -  3.5/ 9
28 Lewitt           ½  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - 1 ½ - - - - ½ * - - - 0 ½ - - -  3.0/ 9  23.00
29 Cohn             -  -  -  -  1  0  -  0  - - - - 0 - - - 0 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - * - - - - 1 1 -  3.0/ 9  21.00
30 Maliutin         0  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - ½ 0 0 - - - - - - - - 0 ½ - - - - 1 - - * - 0 1 - - -  3.0/ 9  14.75
31 Forgacs          -  -  -  -  0  0  -  0  - - - - 0 - - - ½ ½ - - - - - - ½ - - - - - * - - ½ 1 -  3.0/ 9  13.00
32 Sournin          -  -  -  0  -  -  0  -  0 - - - - ½ - - - - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 - 1 - 1 - * - - - -  2.5/ 9
33 Reggio           -  -  -  0  -  -  0  -  0 - - - - 0 - - - - 0 - - - ½ - - 1 - ½ - 0 - - * - - -  2.0/ 9   8.50
34 Oskam            -  0  0  -  -  -  -  -  - - - - - - 0 0 - - - 0 - - - ½ - - - - 0 - ½ - - * - 1  2.0/ 9   4.25
35 Gattie           -  0  0  -  -  -  -  -  - - - - - - 0 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - - - 0 - 0 - - - * 1  1.0/ 9
36 Saburov          -  -  -  -  0  0  -  0  - - - - 0 - - - 0 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - 0 0 *  0.0/ 9

One of Gunsberg's primary aims was to ensure that all of the players receive some recompense for participating in the tournament even if they fell outside of the prizes.

<"At the farewell banquet. M. Pécher (President Tournament Committee) in the chair, M. Marquet, the lessee of the Kursaal, was present, as well as the prize-winners and the Committee. M. Marquet distributed the prizes, and, in complimenting MM. Pécher and De Lannoy upon the success of the Congress promised to endow next year's Congress with 40,000 fr.

MM. Pécher responded for the Committee and Mr. Hoffer for the Foreign Committee and the Masters. It might be added that ...950 fr. have been distributed at the conclusion of the first part of the tournament, 1,545 fr. at the second stage, and 2,100 fr. at the third stage...

Special remunerations for exceptional games and additional prizes have been provided by donations from Professor Rice, 700 fr.; Mr. F. G. Naumann, 600 fr.; Baron Rothschild of Vienna. 5001 fr.; MM. Pécher, 200 fr.; and 100 fr. each from Herren Oppenheim, Hallgarten, Rosenfeld, and from Professor Reinhold Begas of Berlin, and Baroness Greindl of Ghent; and 50fr. each from Mr. W. M. Gattie, Herr Oskarm, Signor Reggio. and M. Subouraff."> (5)

The tournament committee paid for board and lodgings. The prize winners' rewards were then calculated using the <Tietz system> devised by Viktor Tietz the Carlsbad tournaments' organizer. The prize fund allocate to the prizewinners was in proportion to the points they collectively accrued against the total number of possible points. The remaining money left in the prize fund (board and lodgings and prizewinners having already been apportioned) was divided amongst the non-prize winners. They received about 25 francs (£1) per game (£130 or $155 in 2022 values).

The prize winners

1st: Schlechter (4,000 francs, £160 and a gold medal). Schlechter's prize would be the equivalent of £20,700 or $24,640 in 2022 values (6). It appears that Schlechter did not submit any of his games for subsidiary prizes. .

Schlechter was the one competitor who accepted all things and all arrangements with equanimity amounting almost to indifference. Everything was right for him and nothing amiss, and this man, who apparently paid such little regard to his interests, was the winner of the first prize. Schlechter also showed us the generous side of his nature by declining to compete for any of the brilliancy prizes, for which he undoubtedly would have had the best chance. "I have won enough", he said. "Let others get something too." (7)

The well-known chess journalist Leopold Hoffer considered Schlechter vs Janowski, 1906 Schlechter's best game in the tournament and well worthy of a brilliancy prize.

2nd: Maroczy (2,500 francs, £100)

3rd: Rubinstein (1,500 francs, £60)

4th-6th: Bernstein, Burn, Teichmann (each 833 francs, £33)

7th: Marshall (600 francs, £24)

8th: Janowski (500 francs, £20)

9th: Perlis (400 francs, £16)

The exceptional games prizes

Blackburne vs W John, 1906 (125 francs)

Janowski vs Salwe, 1906 (125 francs)

Swiderski vs Marshall, 1906 (125 francs)

Burn vs P Johner, 1906 (100 francs)

Maroczy vs Blackburne, 1906 (100 francs)

P S Leonhardt vs H Suechting, 1906 (50 francs)

H Wolf vs G Marco, 1906 (50 francs)

Janowski vs J Mieses, 1906 (50 francs)

J Perlis vs Salwe, 1906 (50 francs)

A Reggio vs E Post, 1906 (50 francs)

Swiderski vs Spielmann, 1906 (50 francs)

Spielmann vs Taubenhaus, 1906 (50 francs)

H Wolf vs W John, 1906 (50 francs)

Burn vs Znosko-Borovsky, 1906 (50 francs)

Venue

"The tournament took place in Club Privé within The Kursaal, part of a substantial complex of halls and pavilions on the Ostend seafront. The rooms which were at the disposal of last year's tournament not being available, M. Marquet placed the magnificent atrium of the Privat Club in the Kursaal at the disposal of the players. It is a lofty circular of noble dimensions, which even the rich Casino at Monte Carlo cannot rival. The staircase in the centre, constructed entirely of onyx, is a chef-d'oeuvre (a masterpiece - e.d) of architecture in itself. The players are arranged around the hall, which is simply an ideal one for chess players. All the players had to be duly elected members of the private club under the rules." (8)

Missing games

There is no complete tournament book. Georg Marco, the editor of the "Wiener Schachzeitung", published one volume of games, but he was unable to complete the project and the many game scores have subsequently been lost. The games had to be found by painstakingly scouring newspaper columns, most of the work being done by A.J.Gillam and Nick Pope.

Other tournaments

Ostende 1906 was a true festival of chess. There were two amateur tournaments, a woman's tournament, a Rice Gambit Tournament, and a Patron's tournament.

Contemporary reaction:

Apart from criticism of the cumbersome and exhausting <sectional> pairing system, there was a note of optimism that many strong younger players were establishing themselves (although the British press lamented the lack of any British player emerging who would eventually match the stature of Joseph Henry Blackburne).

<"When the games of this competition are published in full there will be a rich treat in store for chess players. There has not been tournament late years in which so many smart and brilliant encounters have occurred as in this competition. Anyone passing from board to board can easily divine the cause of the sprightly character of the play. The young and beardless competitors predominate in this tournament. Paul Johner, a member of the Manhattan Chess Club, New York, is only eighteen years of age, and he was paired against Herr Oldrich Duras, a famous Bohemian problem composer, also a young man. Johner won brilliantly. Then again Leo Forgacs, formerly known as Fleischmann, though not much over twenty, has proved himself a very dangerous opponent...Rudolf Spielmann is another youthful player, who plays a very strong game, and will very likely hold his own through the various stages of this competition. Ossip Bernstein and Walter John and several others are all young men - some of the competitors even call them boys - but they all play very good chess. Another one in the young brigade, who but for this tournament would, perhaps, have remained a stranger to international chess, is Dr. Julius Perlis Vienna."> (9)

<"A review of the whole tournament produces mixed emotions. The organization was open to debate as the knock-out system can be counted as a failed experiment - too many injustices happen within it... Among the games we know of, very few are really first class...Some games, especially between the strongest players, give the impression of unusual nervousness and strong variations in attitude.

The percentage of won games by the victor (70%) is rather low. This shows that none of the masters excelled, but also proves that play was not consistent, perhaps because of the many weaker players who took part in the early stages.

Of the young players, Akiba Rubinstein excelled, whereas Bernstein was not able to fulfill the hopes of his friends. David Janowski and Frank Marshall achieved far less than might have been expected. The achievement of the senior master Amos Burn was splendid..."> (10)

As for the victor O Bernstein vs Schlechter, 1906, according to the tournament's organizer Gunsberg:

<"He displayed combinative powers and imaginative enterprise of the highest order. Nothing can be imagined more different than the strategy which he adopted at Ostend to his former Fabian (11) conduct of play.

Game after game Schlechter won under 30 moves and in the most most beautiful style, and with an ease which clearly marks him out as a great master of the art of chess. Take, for example, his game against Rubinstein - Rubinstein vs Schlechter, 1906. Like in many other games there seemed nothing the matter with the position after about 20 moves; in fact, Rubinstein himself confessed that he was devoting a great deal of time to meditating as how he could avoid the draw. Half a dozen moves later he resigned. He had a lost game, but was totally unsuspicious of the fine piece of combative strategy which Schlechter evolved out of an apparently sterile position."> (12)

Notes

(1). "Ostende 1906", A. J. Gillam, Caissa Editions, 2005. "The Masters' Tourney" extract is from p.62-63.

(2)."Weekly Journal" (Hartlepool, UK), Friday 6th July 1906, p.11.

(3). "Westminster Gazette" (London, UK), Saturday 16 June 1906 p.18.

(4). "British Chess Magazine", July 1906, p.298.

(5). "Westminster Gazette" (London, UK), Saturday 21st July 1906, p.14

(6). See https://www.in2013dollars.com/

(7). Isidor Gunsberg in the "The Year Book of Chess 1907", quoted in Gillam ibid p.68.

(8). "The Field" (London, UK), Saturday 9th June 1906, p.56.

(9). "Weekly Irish Times" (Dublin, Ireland), Saturday 23rd June 1906, p.18

(10). Extract from "Münchner Neueste Nachrichten",(Munich, Germany) July 15th 1906, quoted in Gillam ibid p.433.

(11). A reference to the Roman statesman and general Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus. He was known as Cunctator, "The Delayer", arising from the strategy he employed against Hannibal during the Second Punic War

(12). Gunsberg quoted in "Carl Schlechter! Life and times of the Austrian Chess Wizard." Warren Goldman, Caissa Editions, 1994. p. 242.

The credit for this collection belongs to User: Phony Benoni.

This is a cloned collection using the original work of the late User: Phony Benoni (David Moody).

Before he died, David Moody uploaded the missing games to the database, compiled the results round by round and built the cross-tables. He also had written an unfinished draft of the introductory text. I - User: Chessical - have lightly edited his text and then added some further material.

Thanks to User: chesshistoryinterest for his corrections to the first draft and suggestions for improvements in presenting the results.