Theodor von Scheve vs Adolf Albin (1902)

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

Kibitzing

Theodor von Scheve vs Adolf Albin
Monte Carlo (1902), Monte Carlo MNC, rd 13, Feb-24
Benoni Defense: Old Benoni. Russian Variation (A44) · 0-1

White to move.

ANALYSIS [x]

0-1

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

FEN COPIED

explore this opening	find similar games	3 more von Scheve/Albin games
	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: To flip the board (so black is on the bottom) press the "I" key on your keyboard.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Mar-05-19		jnpope: Curious thing about the Monte Carlo 1902 Scheve-Albin game, the various sources below all claim this game should be a Spanish: <v. Scheve-Albin . . . Spanish . . . Albin gewann.> Wiener Schachzeitung, v11 n5/6, May/Jun 1908, p139 (Marco) <Scheve v. Albin (Ruy Lopez), Albin won.> London Standard, 1902.03.03, p10 (Special Correspondent report) <Scheve v. Albin . . . . . Ruy Lopez . . . . . Albin won.> London Field, 1902.03.01, p286 (Hoffer) <[...] Von Scheve lost to Albin (Ruy Lopez) in 40 moves.> Leeds and Yorkshire Mercury, 1902.02.25, p5 (Reuter's report) So what game is this? Could it be from the 2nd Paris Masters Tournament and played on 27 October 1902? <MM. von Scheve et Albin: Partie du PD, gagnée par M. Albin en 42 coups.> Le Monde Illustré, 1902.11.01 (Janowski) That Scheve-Albin game is not published in Le Monde Illustré for 1902 or in La Stratégie for 1902, but perhaps it turns up in 1903... more research is needed. Is there a Scheve-Albin game floating around that is a Spanish with Albin winning in 40 moves that is possibly the missing Monte Carlo 1902 game?

Mar-05-19		zanzibar: <jnpope> are you doing the 2nd Masters? Also, do you have access to <La Strategie> volumes other than v1 & v2? If so, how so, and which volumes? (In so many words, I really wish I could get access as well)

Mar-06-19		jnpope: Yes, I'm working on producing a tournament page on the 2nd Paris masters tournament. I own some rare books including La Stratégie for 1902, but sadly, not 1903. Once the weather improves I will make another trip to visit the White Collection to inspect the 1903 volume of La Stratégie and other magazines not scanned by Google.

Mar-11-19		zanzibar: <jnpope> you might be interested in the one or both of the following: https://zanchess.wordpress.com/2019... https://zanchess.wordpress.com/2019... .

Mar-11-19		jnpope: Great! Hopefully your PGN file will find a way to being uploaded so the games, and perhaps a tourney page for the event, can live here at CG.

Oct-25-21		jnpope: I finally got a chance to get to Cleveland and I did get a chance to look at the first three months of <La Stratégie> for 1903. I was able to locate 5 of the 8 missing games from the 2nd Paris Masters Tournament for 1902, including the complete version of Janowski-Silbert. http://www.chessarch.com/research/i... So I'm down to just three missing games (perhaps just two if I re-classify this game as being the Scheve-Albin game from that event). I'm still leaning towards this game being from that event and not from Monte Carlo 1902, being that this is a Queen's Pawn game, which the Paris game was, and all contemporary sources state that Scheve-Albin game from Monte Carlo 1902 was a Spanish/Ruy Lopez game (and I doubt all the correspondents were wrong as this game doesn't even come close to having a position that looks remotely like a Spanish game).

Oct-30-21		Chessist: Georg Marco owned all the game-scores for Monte Carlo 1902, how could he have mixed up the game when it was first published in the WSZ 1908?

Oct-30-21		jnpope: <<Chessist: Georg Marco owned all the game-scores for Monte Carlo 1902, how could he have mixed up the game when it was first published in the WSZ 1908?> Good question. Better question is why would he identify the game as a Spanish in the WSZ? <v. Scheve-Albin . . . Spanish . . . Albin gewann.> Wiener Schachzeitung, v11 n5/6, May/Jun 1908, p139 (Marco) And why do all the contemporary accounts from Monte Carlo 1902 identify the Scheve-Albin game as being a Spanish (see Mar-05-19)? At this point I would say that I'm leaning (like 50.1% probability) that this game is the Paris 1902 game. But I won't force my _opinion_ about this game upon anyone without more evidence. Ideally I would like to find a Scheve-Albin Spanish game played circa 1902 or to find another source for this game in a 1902-1903 newspaper account identifying it as being played in Paris before I launch a campaign to change its attribution from Monte Carlo to Paris.

Feb-19-23		KEG: An indifferently played game that comes to an effective end with von Scheve's blunder on move 24 (he missed a simple tactical finesse). Albin immediately took advantage with his 24...Nxg4! von Scheve played on for another 16 moves, and tried a hopeless exchange sacrifice on move 32 to try to get back in the game. But von Scheve's efforts after his error on move 24 were all to no avail, and he finally abandoned the hopeless struggle after move 40. There had been considerable discussion about whether this game was in fact confused with a game from Paris 1902 between the same players. I have not examined this issue closely, and will assume in my comments here that the game score is correct. My skepticism about the claim that this game is from a tournament in Paris in 1902 is heightened by the fact that Albin won this game (the only game he ever won from von Scheve) while von Scheve won both games he played against Albin at Paris 1902. These three are the only games of which I am aware between these two players. 1. d4 von Scheve tied for first at Monte Carlo 1901, in part by winning a fair number of games as White after playing 1.d4. In this tournament (Monte Carlo 1902), however, von Scheve had miserable results, finishing in 17th place (out of 20). 1... c5 Perhaps based on what von Scheve had accomplished at Monte Carlo 1901 with 1. d4, it appears that Albin wanted to mix it up here from the start. This did not work, and for much of the early play von Scheve had the better of the position (before his error on move 21 and his blunder on move 24). 2. d5 e5?! click for larger view A "normal response," but 2...Nf6 or 2...e6 are perhaps sounder. My musings notwithstanding, the text was a favorite of Alekhine, and has recently been played by Irina Krush. 3. e4 d6 4. Nc3 click for larger view 4... g6 Sharp (and somewhat hyper-modern) play by Albin. The move has, in fairness to Albin, found its adherents. But 4...Nf6 or 4...Be7 or maybe 4...Bd7 seem sounder. 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. Be3 a6 7. a4 click for larger view White is surely better here, and Albin should probably have just begun developing with 7...Ne7 or 7...Nd7. Alternatively, he might have tried 7...Bg4 or 7...Nh6. But instead he plaed: 7... b6 This Stonewall formation is not my cup of tea, though it--whatever its theoretical merits--might prove difficult for White to pierce. 8. Qd2 This can't be best. 8. Nd2 (with a subsequent Nc4 in mind) looks far better. Alternatively, 8. Bd3 or 8. Be2 appear to be sensible developing moves. 8... h6 Still pursuing his questionable plan. 8...Nd7 or 8...Ne7 seem clearly better. 9. h3 A needless prophylactic move. 9... Nd7 10. Be2 click for larger view 10... Ndf6 10...f5 might have been a decent way for Albin to seek counterplay. 11. Nh2 Much too slow. 11. 0-0 or 11. Rb1 look like better prospects if White seeks any real edge. 11... g5 Still playing for his semi-Stonewall formation. 11...Ne7 seems more sensible. My misgivings notwithstanding, the position after 11...g5 was: click for larger view White is plainly better, but the position is complicated and there remain lots of play for both sides.

Feb-19-23		KEG: Post II 12. Nf1 I guess this explains 11. Nh2. But given von Scheve's upcoming 13. Ng3, the idea still strikes me as needlessly slow and as forfeiting White's edge. 12... Ne7 13. Ng3 Still operating on the slow track. 13. h4 was the only way for White to make serious progress here. 13... Ng6 click for larger view 14. Nf5? So this was the grand plan! Absurd. Albin now messes up von Scheve's hair, and gets a decent game with at least equal chances. 14... BxN Did von Scheve truly expect anything else? 15. exB Nh4 16. g4 click for larger view 16... Ng2+? Just when Albin was poised to get--if anything--the better game, he played this lemon. 17. Kf1 Nf4 18. BxN gxB 19. Re1 click for larger view 19... Kf8. Only making things worse for himself. 19...Kd7 or 19...Qc8 or even 19...Nh7 look better. 20. Kg2 Ng8 Further constricting his own position. After this weak move, Albin's position, though almost certainly not theoretically lost, was looking more and more miserable: click for larger view Beginning here, however, von Scheve drove his position into the ground, first giving up his superior chances (move 21) and then blundering away the game (move 24). 21. h4? "?"--(Tournament Book) von Scheve appears to have forgotten that he had a light-square Bishop while Albin was the one with a dark-square Bishop. The text gave Albin's Bishop free reign on the King-side. von Scheve would still have been better with 21. Bc4 or 21. Bd3 21... Bf6 All of a sudden, this Bishop takes on a major role, and any edge von Scheve may have enjoyed was kaput. 22. h5 Bg5 Compare the status of this Bishop now with its standing just two moves earlier. Albin still had no advantage, but he now had meaningful counter-play thanks to von Scheve's ponderous play. 23. f3 Nf6 With a fairly obvious threat (24...Nxg4) that von Scheve seems to have missed click for larger view There is still no reason von Scheve should have lost this game. But here, seemingly failing to notice Albin's threat, blew the game with one awful move.

Feb-19-23		KEG: Post III 24. Bd3? "??"--(Tournament Book) Overlooking the discovered attack and losing the game. 24... Nxg4! click for larger view It was not just that von Scheve had lost a pawn (though that was plenty bad enough) but that his King-side was now hopelessly shattered. 25. Reg1 This only (if possible) made matters worse for White. But even the "better" 25. Kf1 or 25. Nd1 or 25. Rh3 or 25. Bxa6?! likewise provided no real chances for White. 25... Ne3+ Ouch 26. Kf2 click for larger view The balance of the game is of little interest. While Albin's further play was hardly the most precise, he never gave von Scheve even the slightest hope to salvage the game. 26... c4 26...b5 was even more brutal. 27. Bf1? click for larger view Burying his own Bishop. If von Scheve wanted to play on, he has to try 27. Be4, unpleasant as the sequel would likely have been for him. 27... b5 This wins, of course, but Albin could just have grabbed the White f-pawn and perhaps had a shorter day at the office. 28. Bh3 Grimly trying to hold on to the White pawn stranded on f5. 28... Qb6 Again not the simplest or fastest way, but more than sufficient. 29. Ke2 b4 Needlessly complicating the winning process rather than playing 29...Rg8 or just playing 29...bxa4. 30. Ne4 f6 30...Ke7 was more accurate. But yet again it hardly mattered at this point. 31. c3?! von Scheve was in desperation mode by this point. With the move-30 time limit reached, he now had plenty of time to recognize the hopelessness of his cause. 31... a5 click for larger view 32. RxB?! Sheer desperation. "The last flicker before extinction." 32... hxR 33. Nxf6 click for larger view Perhaps von Scheve thought he would thus gain a pawn for the sacrificed exchange. If so, he was surely disillusioned after Albin's next move, and his already hopeless game went downhill from here (to the extent a dead lost position can be said to get "worse."

Feb-19-23		KEG: Post IV 33... Kf7 34. Ne4 Rxh5 click for larger view Down a pawn and the exchange and busted on the King-side, von Scheve might have spared himself the rest. 35. f6 Rah8 Albin could of course just have played 35...bxc3, but by this point he seems to have been playing on momentum waiting for von Scheve to call it quite. But the latter wanted to continue for a bit. 36. cxb4 axb4 click for larger view 37. a5?! A final frantic attempt. 37... Qxa5 38. Ra1?! Utterly going for broke: click for larger view 38... QxR 39. Qxb4 Qa6 40. Nxd6+ Kg6 click for larger view 0-1 Down a full Rook with no threats to speak of, von Scheve's resignation was quite understandable.

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.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

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

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 game 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.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.