The O2C Doeberl Cup and the Sydney International Open weren't 2 tournaments back to back, they were one 18 round tournament held over 10 days (with no rest days). Or at least that is how it felt to me.
But I am back in Canberra and will return to blogging about more mundane chess matters for the next couple of months.
However for now I would like to run a small contest. The diagram on the right comes from Chekhover - Veresov (USSR Ch 1934). What is remarkable about this game? The first correct answer in the comments section will win a copy of my upcoming report "The application of the 'Gibraltar' Rule at the 2008 O2C Doeberl Cup". And a second copy if anyone can post me the full score of this game (not the abbreviated version that lives in Megabase etc)
13 comments:
Just checked chessbase and chessgames and they only give 14 moves on both sites and record the result as a draw.
Garvin
I reckon that it is the longest game where both sides play the same moves. But I am only guessing.
Jeremy
Is this Kizov v Antic, Doeberl Cup 2008?
Black to move.
Is your report going to be subtitled; "The reasons it should never be attempted again!",?
Phil :)
ha :)
Is this Sarfarti v Jessop, Blind Simul, Wellington 1988?
For all the wit being displayed so far, there still hasn't been a correct answer. Keep searching, keep searching ...
The full score is – 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Bf5 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. Bf4 Nc6 7. e3 e6 8. Bd3 Bxd3 9. Qxd3 Bd6 10. Bxd6 Qxd6 11. O-O O-O 12. Rfc1 Rfc8 13. a3 a6 14. Ne2 1/2-1/2 – yet the tournament’s crosstable says Chekhover defeated Veresov (source: Rusbase).
Maybe the organisers thought Veresov should be penalised for his copycat moves?! Perhaps he didn’t bribe them enough. Maybe Veresov proposed a draw after 14. Ne2 and was penalised for speaking out of turn? But maybe Chekhover played 14. Ne2 and then proposed a draw, in which case HE should have been penalised for making the offer too early.
All these theories (and more) are swirling around my room and out the window.
Stephen
I've discovered the same thing (ie the published result is 1-0 and yet all the game scores I've seen are either incomplete or end in a draw). Therefore one final clue. If the game result is correct (as opposed to the tournament crosstable result being correct) then the game loses its significance.
So the significance of the game is that it ended in a draw by agreement but Chekhover was awarded the win post-match?
A behind the play incident?
OK. Time to put you out of your misery. Assuming that the tournament score is correct, and that the game score is of the game played in the 1934 USSR Championship, then the game is remarkable for the following.
In searching the position in my database (Megabase+updates), this was the only game that reached this position at move twelve, and had a decisive result. All other almost 100 games that reached this position (and they were all played after this one), have ended in a draw. Some even ended on move 12, without further play, while others played a couple of extra moves before agreeing to a draw (including Kizov v Antic, Doeberl 2008).
Post a Comment