< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 · Later Kibitzing> Feb-19-13

FSR : As <whiteshark> noted, Edward Winter discusses the game at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... (scroll down to #5381). What reportedly happened is that White picked up his bishop and put it - rather than his knight - on c3. Since he had made an illegal move, the rules then in force required him to move his king instead. It is not clear whether Black (a) played 3...Qe4#, (b) saw the mate but chose not to execute it, instead torturing his opponent for a while before winning (perhaps with 3...Qe5+, which wins easily), or (c) simply overlooked the mate and played something else. In any case, the cross-table shows that Black won. Mar-27-13 ughaibu : Concerning my question, on page one: Lindemann vs Echtermeyer, 1893 does anyone know if the Horowitz(?) game is in the database? Aug-10-13 GumboGambit : Maybe White was thinking Nc3 Qxe2 Qxe2 wins the Queen and advances development. Nov-29-13

Phony Benoni : Don't you just hate these games when two-thirds of the moves are theory? Nov-29-13 paramount : <The congress book indicates that Black did not mate immediately after white's third move, but preferred to play a bit with White before making the kill. No moves are supplied.> So this game is fake.....cmoon Nov-29-13

Phony Benoni : <paramount> I think the note is a bit misleading. The quote in the tournament book does not mention that additional moves were made, but only indicates that Black preferred to let White wriggle for a bit before mating him. I'd take that to mean that, instead of playing <3..Qe4#> instantly, he went through the motions of thinking about the move while White sat there sweating. But here's the actual quote. Somebody who can handle German without Goggle Translate can let us know if there are any subtle nuances here. <Um mit einem Scharz zuschhessen, bringen wir die vorstehende kurze Partie. Weiss wollte 3.Sc3 spielen, ergriff aber in der Hitze des Gefechtes den Lc1 und pflanzte ihn nach c3, zur Strafe musste er also den Königszug machen. Schwarz konnte jetzt durch 3...Dd5 matt setzen, zog es aber vor, den Gegner erst noch zappeln zu lassen, ehe er ihn endlich erschlug.> Nov-30-13 Karpova : <Phony Benoni>

You are correct. Basically, White intended to play Nc3 but grabbed the ♗c1 instead. So he had to make a move with the king. Now, he probably already knew that he was lost. That Black decided to let him flounder ( <zappeln> ) merely indicates that he didn't play 3...Qe4# a tempo. It does not suggest that he played other moves. Although the <No moves are supplied.> seems to indicate additional moves, it may very well have been a misunderstanding of the German original text. Nov-30-13 paramount : <phony>

<The quote in the tournament book does not mention that additional moves were made, but only indicates that Black preferred to let White wriggle for a bit before mating him.> Of course if you strayed from the mating move 3...Qe4# , it would be interesting to see the another mating line. Of course black still would win with 3...Qe5+/Qe6+, it would be a slaughterhouse but beside 3...Qe4 i dont see any imminent checkmate. It would be interesting to see the real moves there.... Nov-30-13 Karpova : <paramount: It would be interesting to see the real moves there....> There is nothing to suggest that the actual move wasn't 3...Qe4#. The game score looks perfectly fine. Nov-30-13 paramount : <karpova>

<there is NOTHING TO SUGGEST that the actual move wasnt 3...Qe4#.> I didnt suggest anything.

<The congress book INDICATES that Black did not mate immediately after white's third move, but preferred to play a bit with White before making the kill. No moves are supplied.> Look closely the annotation, Mrs! Who suggested what. Aint me! <The score looks perfectly fine> Of course it is. What do you expect...1-0? lol

If what you meant the moves...so we'll never know. Maybe Qe4# is the move maybe not. The annotation indicates that. Nov-30-13 Karpova : <paramount>

Thanks to <Phony Benoni> , we got the actual quote from the the tournament book: <[...] zog es aber vor, den Gegner erst noch zappeln zu lassen, ehe er ihn endlich erschlug.> This does not mean that Black played any other move than 3...Qe4#, but merely that he didn't play 3...Qe4# immediately after 3.Ke2. Nov-30-13 paramount : <Karpova>

< This does not mean that Black played any other move than 3...Qe4#, but merely that he didn't play 3...Qe4# immediately after 3.Ke2.> cant catch what you are trying to say.

Do you mean he smoked first or say, danced first before making move?? If that so, that is so rude from Echtermeyer toyed his opponent like that. Nov-30-13 Karpova : <Phony Benoni>

The finding by <whiteshark> is interesting, as this game was discussed by Winter in C.N. 5381 - http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... In the database is the Chernev version <1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Ke2 Qe4#> In the tournament book <1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Ke2> is given and then follows the annotation you already reproduced here. Then, there is the 'Deutsche Schachzeitung' version, again <1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Ke2> but claiming that Black overlooked the mate. The game as it is given here appears to be a mixture of all three. Winter gives the following possibilities:

<Black

i) gave mate with 3...Qe4

ii) sadistically eschewed 3...Qe4

iii) overlooked 3...Qe4>

Option ii appears problematic as the annotation could even more likely mean that Black waited with his move, not necessarily that he made a different move (as you already noted). The picture used is that of a fish that was caught, when he is still wriggling and the fisherman waits until he slays him (they actually follow it quite well, as the annotation says <erschlug> , <erschlagen> = to slay or to strike dead). In light of the evidence, it would probably be most correct to shorten the game and make it <1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Ke2> . This would spoil the fun a bit though. But at least the annotation should be changed. I propose to either delete the annotation, or to formulate a new one and present the matter more clearly. In case the game score remains the same, move 3.Ke2 should be annotated. E. g.

<White intended to play 3.Nc3. By accident, he moved the Bc1 to c3 instead. 3.Ke2 was the penalty move. The sources are ambiguous about the further course of the game, but Black won according to the tournament crosstable. Black either i) played 3...Qe4#, ii) sadistically waited before he finally played 3...Qe4#, iii) sadistically passed over 3...Qe4# and went for a slower win instead, or iv) overlooked 3...Qe4#. Option i: Chernev, 'Wonders and Curiosities of Chess', New York, 1974, p. 119 Options ii & iii: Kiel, 1893 tournament book, p. 60 (in the original "[...] zog es aber vor, den Gegner erst noch zappeln zu lassen, ehe er ihn endlich erschlug.") Option iv: 'Deutsche Schachzeitung' of September 1893, p. 283 All information retrieved from Edward Winter's C.N. 5381 (www.chesshistory.com)> What do you think? The new annotation appears to be very long. Nov-30-13

Phony Benoni : <Karpova> It does seem very complicated. To my mind, the word "sadistically" is " seems far too strong. Both players may have been taking the whole affair lightly after the penalty move. Indeed, the fact that Lindemann didn't resign immediately out of sheer disgust indicates to me that he was ready to joke about it. Or maybe he didn't see the mate either. Maybe this isn't any simpler, but here goes:

<White intended to play 3.Nc3, but by accident moved the Bc1 to c3 instead. The rules at the time required that an illegal move be retracted and replace with a legal king move, so 3.Ke2 was the penalty. What happened next is unclear. The usual account is that Black simply played 3...Qe4#. (See, for example, Irving Chernev, 'Wonders and Curiosities of Chess', New York, 1974, p. 119.) However, some contemporary accounts indicate that Black did not play the mate, either because he did not see it ("'Deutsche Schachzeitung' of September 1893, p. 283), or from a desire to let White wriggle for a while (Kiel, 1893 tournament book, p. 60 (in the original "[...] zog es aber vor, den Gegner erst noch zappeln zu lassen, ehe er ihn endlich erschlug." If additiona moves were played after 3.Ke2, they have not been recorded."> ==========

Another question is not just "What was Echtermeyer thinking", but "How do we know what Echtermeyer was thinking?" The "Deutche Schachzeitung" was edited by Hermann vVon Gottschall, the tournament book by Johannes Metger. Both played in the Meisterturnier and were thus present on scene, but I think Metger might have had a better opportunity to ask Echtermeyer about the incident since they were both from Kiel. The final thournament standings are interesting.

1 Pries 6.0

2 Echtermeyer 5.5

3 Weis 5.5

4 Lindemann 5.0

5 Junge4.5

6 Christophersen 4.0

7 Ney 3.0

8 Hinrichsen 2.0

9 Tetens 0.5

So if Lindemann had won this game he would have tied for first, and even a draw would have put him in tie for 2nd, ahead of Echtermeyer. I mention this simply to show we have two fairly good players here instead of two random NNs, which makes it more likely that Echtermeyer did indeed see 3...Qe4#. Dec-01-13 Petrosianic : I don't see any good reason to think that Echtermeyer didn't see Qe4. If the Congress book shows Qe4 but verbally claims that other unspecified moves were played, I'd go by the official score, and regard the verbal account as puffery. Dec-01-13 Karpova : <Phony Benoni>

I agree with you on the strength of the players. And that both players took the matter more lightly after the accident, also appears most likely to me. The "sadistically" was a left over from C.N. 5381. Your suggestion looks very good to me, I would only slightly change the tournamnet book account: <White intended to play 3.Nc3, but by accident moved the Bc1 to c3 instead. The rules at the time required that an illegal move be retracted and replaced with a legal king move, so 3.Ke2 was the penalty. What happened next is unclear. The usual account is that Black simply played 3...Qe4#. (See, for example, Irving Chernev, 'Wonders and Curiosities of Chess', New York, 1974, p. 119.) However, some contemporary accounts indicate that Black did not play the mate because he did not see it ("'Deutsche Schachzeitung' of September 1893, p. 283). The tournament book is more ambiguous, claiming that Black let White wriggle for a while (Kiel, 1893 tournament book, p. 60 (in the original "[...] zog es aber vor, den Gegner erst noch zappeln zu lassen, ehe er ihn endlich erschlug.")), indicating either a pause before playing 3...Qe4# or preference for a slower win. If additional moves were played after 3.Ke2, they have not been recorded. Information was retrieved from Edward Winter's C.N 5381.> I think we should mention C.N. 5381 as the source for the sources. <Petrosianic>

The tournament book doesn't show it but follows 3.Ke2 up with the annotation, see C.N. 5381. Dec-01-13

Phony Benoni : <Karpova> That looks very good. Thanks for taking an interest. By the way, the position after <3.Ke2?



click for larger view is so bad for White that Black wins easily even without the immediate mate. After <3...Qe5+> , White has only the choice of losing his queen immedately (4.Kf3 Qh5+), or getting mated (4.Kd3 Na6 is mate in 6 according to Bozo 0.5, my little chess engine that sometimes can). Dec-30-13

OBIT : While the Fool's Mate takes fewer moves, I got to wondering if this game has a shorter checkmate in terms of distance traveled by the pieces, where distance is measured by how far a piece has to go to reach its destination square. (Note that I am considering a pawn to be a piece here, so that I don't have to say "pawn or piece" every time.) For example, the distance traveled by a queen moving from d1 to e2 is √2 ≈ 1.414, a knight moving from g1 to f3 travels √5 ≈ 2.236, a bishop moving from a1 to h8 travels 7√2 ≈ 9.899, etc. Alas, in a Fool's Mate with the moves 1. f3 e6 2. g4 Qh4#, the total distance traveled by the pieces is 4+4√2 ≈ 9.657, while in this game, the total distance is 8+2√2 ≈ 10.828.

So is there a shorter checkmate than the Fool's Mate in terms of distance traveled? I considered the game 1. e3 Nc6 2. c3 Ne5 3. Ne2 Nd3#. The total distance is 2+4√5 ≈ 10.944. Nope, that one doesn't do it. However, I can modify the Fool's mate a bit to get a game that is a half-move longer but shorter in distance traveled: 1. e3 f6 2. Qg4 h6 3. Qg6#. Total distance: 5+3√2 ≈ 9.243, a new record! But wait, maybe the checkmate pattern in this game can produce an even shorter distance checkmate. Let's try 1. d3 e6 2. Qd2 e5 3. Qe3 Ke7 4. Qxe5#. Total distance: 7+√2 ≈ 8.414. Yes, this pattern beats even the shortest Fool's mate! What's more, I don't think it is possible to produce a game with a shorter checkmate in terms of distance.

Yes, this post will do nothing to improve your chess game. However, anyone who finds this trivia interesting may enjoy trying to figure out the shortest checkmate in terms of distance traveled by the pieces on the winning side. Of the games mentioned here, 1. d3 e6 2. Qd2 e5 3. Qe3 Ke7 4. Qxe5# is winning that one as well, but is there a shorter one? Jan-31-14 Francio : This guy seriously wanted to lose. May-19-15 ToTheDeath : I have taken the time to annotate this epic struggle with help from Rybka, Shredder, Deep Blue, Speak'N'Spell and an abacus. <1.e4?!> This premature thrust is the cause of White's future difficulties. Much better is 1.f3!, preparing to bring the king forward with 2.Kf2, 3.Ke3 etc., securing an advantage in the center. <1...d5!!!!> Black immediately exploits White's grave error, challenging the undefended pawn on e4, which so foolishly dashed ahead without backup like a lamb to the slaughter, or a moth to the sun. <2.exd5?> Another blunder, giving up the center. Much better was 2.Ke2!! preparing to regain the pawn by 3.Ke3, 4.Kxe4 etc, with initiative. <2...Qxd5?> An error, bringing the Queen out prematurely. Much stronger was 2...Kd7!! punishing White's inaccuracies and immediately putting his opponent on the ropes. <3.Ke2?!?!!?> At last White stumbles upon the right idea, but his timing is questionable. Much better to prepare this powerful king march with 3.f3!!!! when the Black Lady is denied the important outpost on e4. The players can be forgiven for their gross blunders as Steinitz had only just started to teach the principles of positional play, and the shallow, weak "develop" and "attack" style of Morphy , Anderssen et all was still all the rage. <3...Qe4#?!> This is playable, of course, but rather dull and unimaginative. Black could improve with <3...Kd8!!> when White would have nothing better than to try for a draw by repetition with 4.Ke1!! Ke8! etc. A deeply flawed game, but an important one for theory. - GRANDMISTER TTD Jul-10-16 garland : The original BongCloud attack. Aug-10-18 alshatranji : "preference for a slower win"? I don't believe this for a second. Black saw an immediate mate, and decided NOT to take it. Where did he get this luxury? It's not that White's position is lost immediately without the mate. In the next move, White can protect the king, and while his position is difficult, it is by no means hopeless, especially that material is equal. Black "did not see it" is a lot more likely in my opinion. Aug-10-18 alshatranji : The brilliant analysis by ToTheDeath ha made me reconsider this game. It brought the hidden depths of this little gem. Feb-19-19 stolf : There's an added twist. According to wiki's page on touch-move, the king-move remedy was not universal, since the British Chess Association had a different rule at this time. Instead, if a player made an illegal move, "he must, at the choice of the opponent, and according to the case, either move his own man legally, capture the man legally, or move any other man legally moveable." From this wording, it is not obvious whether in the third option, the player or the opponent chooses which "other man" is to be moved. I would have thought the player does, but who knows? Jul-17-20 Tonymec : Maybe this game was why the rules were changed to (the equivalent of) "must, on his own time, take back the illegal move, then move the touched piece legally, if possible; otherwise capture the touched enemy piece, if possible; otherwise play any legal move; and only then start the opponent's clock" (and of course, if there is no legal move, then it's either checkmate or stalemate and in both cases the game is over). IIRC this does not apply to Blitz where an illegal move loses the game (and e.g. a king left in check may be taken). Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 6)

search thread:

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 · Later Kibitzing>