"Their ratings coming into the tournament were 1640 and 1658 respectively, but the rating system was quite different in 1959. Those would probably be equivalent to 1200-1300 today."

I do have a citation for the crosstable on the collection page, but just to make it clear:

CN-3295: http://en.chessbase.com/post/edward...-

(

<CG> munches link above. Add a trailing "-" to the url, or copy this

en.chessbase.com/post/edward-winter-presents-uns-
olved-che-mysteries-6-

Ah that doesn't work either, due to <CG> line truncating. OK, as they say in Maine "You can't get there from here!"

)

and also here:

and this link:

http://turot.altervista.org/matto-d...

which has the Oct 20 1959 CL article, makes mention of a 1936 US Open game involving a master that took only 5 moves.

W C Arnold (kibitz #1)

As for Mayfield - Trinks, Spence does not include it in his tournament book.

We do know this:

1) Mayfield and Trinks were paired round 12 of the US Open at Omaha, 1959;

2) Mayfield is credited with winning the game;

3) Koltanowski reported that the result was a three-move win for Mayfield.

RE: Question about Koltanowski...

Well, who was the TD at Omaha?

I do not know the the exact method used in 1959 to report results, but in a large Swiss System tournament such as the US Open it probably involved one or both players notifying the tournament direction staff by handing in a copy of the score at a designated location. We know of such collections of scoresheets because Spence often speaks of having been given access to them..

Normally, there is no question about the scores. But this in not a normal game, and should set off some red flags.

Trinks was not a very good player, but he was experienced and no idiot. It seems very unlikely he would fall for this unawares.

This was the final of a 12-round tournament. Unless you've played in one, you don't know how grueling that is. Players are known to get goofy in the last round. I know. I've been there.

Since the directing staff in all likelihood did not observe the game, there was nothing to stop the players from handing in this score as a joke. Or for Mayfield alone to do so when Trinks didn't show up, having left the tournament early without telling anybody. I've been in that situation too, and it is very tempting to hand in the score of Morphy vs. Duke or something.

At this point the game, incredible though it might appear, seems to be legit. If only because of Koltanowski (and the lack of any contravening evidence).

On the other hand, it could easily be as <phony> says, turned in as a scoresheet but not actually played on the board.

Or Trinks could have deliberately played it out, just wanting to have a day off.

2) +1.11 (35 ply) 2.d4 h6

3) +1.03 (34 ply) 2.h4 gxh4 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qd3 Nc6 6.Bg5 h3 7.gxh3 f5 8.Nc3 Qd7 9.Rg1 fxe4 10.Qxe4 Qf5 11.Qxf5 Bxf5 12.O-O-O Bf6 13.Bxf6 Nxf6 14.d5 Ne5 15.Nxe5 dxe5 16.Rg5 Bg6 17.Bb5+ Nd7 18.Rxe5 a6 19.Bxd7+ Kxd7 20.a3 Raf8 21.Rde1