Apr-14-19
 | | keypusher: Guessing the final result is wrong? |
|
Apr-14-19
 | | Sally Simpson: ***
Hi K.P.
The result seems to be correct. How Judd lost is not known. See here: (page 232) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id... *** |
|
Feb-27-22
 | | jessicafischerqueen:
<keypusher>, <Geoff> On pages 217-218 of his "Essays in American Chess History" (2002), John Hilbert also reports that Steinitz won this game, citing a score from "The Philadelphia Times, June 13, 1897," which includes an annotation after 34.Qxf6+: <The remaining moves are not recorded , but Mr. Judd in some way managed to lose the game.> =================
Mr. Hilbert also notes that the game was additionally published in "The Field, May 29, 1897," citing <jnpope> as the source for this information. |
|
Feb-27-22
 | | jnpope: [Source "London Field, 1897.03.29, p838"]
Quotes in the right spot? Yes. Good.
From the <Field>: "Here the game ends, White having lost it ultimately through a blunder. He must have put the queen en prise, for otherwise it is difficult to see how he could possibly have lost it. The issue is to be regretted, as Mr Judd played the game in masterly style." |
|
Feb-27-22
 | | MissScarlett: <[Source "(London) Field, 1897.03.29, p.838"] > would be ideal. I'm just thankful <Jess> didn't see fit to replace my <Times-Democrat> source. |
|
| Feb-27-22 | | Z free or die: Why would the Vienna source be better unless it was from Steinitz himself and also contained the info the Field does. That info should go into a comment at the end of the game PGN. As an aside, I'll mention that the Field source pre-dates the game. (I like to include a Note tag saying that the game date was inferred from the Source date when applicable). |
|
| Feb-27-22 | | Z free or die: Thanks for vetting that <Missy>. One of my points was that the Vienna newspaper coverage is a thin gruel usually; if WSZ didn't have it, then it's not likely to show up in the press with more details. (That's my general impression - I'd be interested to hear if anyone has counter-examples). * * * * *
Isn't the general rule to give priority to the first source? The Field could then be included as a secondary Source. . |
|
Feb-27-22
| | MissScarlett: It's not actually the earlier source, because the correct <Field> date is May 29th, not March 29th. The <Times-Democrat> source is April 25th. I doubt there is a Vienna source because Judd is the direct (only?) source : <In the course of a very interesting letter recently to hand from U. S. Consul General Max Judd at Vienna, that distinguished player tells us that Steinitz had been in the Austrian capital for several weeks, and while quite as eccentric as ever, he surely shows no sign of mental trouble. Mr. Judd says that he had won a small majority in off-hand play against the veteran, but, of course, takes no particular credit to himself therefor on that account under the circumstances. He inclosed a pretty specimen of their play, which we give below.> I believe the chess editor of the paper at the time was James DeBenneville Seguin. It's possible that Judd sent a similar note to Hoffer at the <Field>, but more likely, in my opinion, that the latter picked the game up from the <Times-Democrat>. |
|
Feb-27-22
| | MissScarlett: <Isn't the general rule to give priority to the first source? The Field could then be included as a secondary Source.> <Jess> doesn't need more encouragement. One is generally enough. |
|
| Feb-27-22 | | Z free or die: Ha - wiseguy!
OK, I would agree, provided the Field ref is given with the final comment about how the game ended (again, unless the org source had that important detail). |
|
Feb-27-22
| | jnpope: Yet another botched Source tag :-p |
|
Feb-27-22
| | MissScarlett: That's what the kibitzing section is for. I'm not in favour of encumbering the PGN with ever more miscellanea. Comparing Hoffer's notes to those of the <Times-Democrat>, they're sufficiently different for me to waver on my belief that Hoffer lifted the game from that source. Regarding the dating of the game, the <Times-Democrat>'s introduction refers to it as being played in the <early part of the present month>, whilst the <partie itself certainly does not seem to show any symptoms of mental aberration in the latter>. We're also told that <White ultimately lost by a blunder.> |
|
| Feb-27-22 | | Z free or die: <<Missy> I'm not in favour of encumbering the PGN with ever more miscellanea.> Miscellanea?!?!
The position at the end of the score has White clearly winning by a large margin! The comment is essential to preventing the casual reader from thinking the score result is incorrect. * * * * *
Speaking of "casual reader", I asked a friend to come over and look at another game ending with <"...">. I innocently asked them what the dots meant, and they gave what I think would be the most natural answer - <Click 'em to show the rest of the moves> That's the trouble with <...> - it's overloaded. . |
|
Feb-27-22
| | jessicafischerqueen:
<MissScarlett> I don't think adding another reference to the actual pgn would be encumbering anyone's reading experience eh. I'm with <Z> on this one. Who actually clicks on "View" in order to look at the source tag? Only a handful of people in the entire world, and they all appear to have congregated here in any case. Also I doubt it would put anyone off to notice there might be more than one source listed in a pgn. I have decided to follow <Z> on including compound sources, if applicable on new games I upload. This week I even went back and added compound sources to over a hundred games, since in that case I was already working on the player in question anyways. I didn't add anything to the pgn on this page though, as you noted. I figured I would wait to see what happened after I posted the information from Mr. Hilbert's book... |
|
Feb-27-22
| | MissScarlett: <Speaking of "casual reader", I asked a friend to come over and look at another game ending with <"...">.> What did this unfortunate make of <[Source "<Lahde> // ACB (Mar-Apr 1947)"]>? |
|
Feb-27-22
| | jnpope: If a source, such as a book, cites an earlier/original source then I think a compound entry is useful; also in cases where the secondary source offers something different but relevant to the game. |
|
Feb-27-22
| | MissScarlett: I'm not against their use per se, but I'm worried about <Jess> being led down the road of temptation. All chess players are somewhere on the autistic spectrum - chess historical types need especial attention. In this regard, <Chess Notes> is akin to a gateway drug. |
|
| Feb-28-22 | | Z4all: <<Missy> What did this unfortunate make of <[Source "<Lahde> // ACB (Mar-Apr 1947)"]>?> Cute, I must admit.
Of course, nerd that I am, it must be pointed out that <Source> tags, unlike generic or non-generic PGN comments, are well hidden from the casual user. If you want that drug, you've gotta to have dug it out. (The first sample is always free... so just let it be...) |
|
Oct-24-22
 | | fredthebear: Looks like 29.Qf4 or Qe5 instead of giving away the knight works nicely for White. Black having disconnected rooks can be a painful experience. |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 31...Qxe6