Talk:Adolf Anderssen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Chess Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.

I've removed this:

In 1850 he went over a 2600 Elo rating system as the first player.

Elo hadn't been born in 1850, and there was no rating system in use in Anderssen's time. I imagine that what is meant is that somebody in recent years has done some calcuations and some guess work and come to the conclusion that if the Elo system had been in operation in the 19th century, Anderssen would be the first 2600+ player. If that's what's meant, that's what the article needs to say (with the name of who has worked this out, and preferably a source). --Camembert

(incidentally, for all I know, it may have been Elo himself, in his The Rating of Chessplayers Past & Present - I just don't have a copy. --Camembert)
You are right. I'll add it back to the article with a reference. Bubba73 (talk), 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not an "A" class

I don't think this is an A class article because it doesn't seem to be complete enough. There are sections on his bavkground and early life, then three tournaments. I think it probably needs to be filled in. Bubba73 (talk), 20:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, therefore I rated it B. Alhough Anderssen's life was rather simple outside of tournaments. :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unofficial World Champ until 1871?

An anonymous editor has been claiming that Anderssen was unofficial World Chess Champion until he lost a match with Johannes Zukertort in 1871. I know no evidence of this. The general consensus is that Wilhelm Steinitz became unofficial champion 5 years earlier, in 1866. Since Steinitz was the world's leading player from 1866 onwards, the 1871 Anderssen-Zukertort match was irrelevant in deciding who was the world's leading player. I offer 3 sources:

The World's Great Chess Games", Reuben Fine, (McKay, 1976): dates Steinitz's reign as world champion from 1866, in the sections on both Steinitz and Anderssen. Does not even mention the Anderssen-Zukertort match.

From Morphy to Fischer", Israel Horowitz, (Batsford, 1973) discusses whether Steinitz was world champion after his 1866 match with Anderssen, deciding he never claimed the title (instead dating his reign from the 1886 Zukertort match). But Horowitz also doesn't even discuss the Anderssen-Zukertort match, in fact he doesn't mention Anderssen after 1866 at all.

"The Centenary Match, Kasparov-Karpov III", Raymond Keene and David Goodman 1986, p. 1-2, says that some people date Steinitz' reign as world champion from his 1866 Anderssen match. (Also deciding it is officially dated from the 1886 Zukertort match). Again there is no mention of Anderssen-Zukertort 1871.

So that's 3 sources indicating the Anderssen-Zukertort match was irrelevant to the world title, unofficial or otherwise. If you're going to indicate that anyone regarded Anderssen as the world's leading player past 1866, or that Anderssen-Zukertort match was any sort of title match, you will need to produce evidence. Peter Ballard 07:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Later, the anonymous editor gave the following reference to support the claim that Anderssen was the world's leading player until 1871: http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/andersse.htm . But that only says that Anderssen and Zukertort played a match in 1871. It does not say it was a world championship match, official or unofficial. Peter Ballard 05:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, read, I said he lost in 1866, then Steinitz played the loser of the match Steinitz, thus 1866 is not championship year, you must remember that in those days Morphy was the king, but he had psychological problems. Even so, everybody knew he was the best, so what, he did not play.

Then in 1868 Steinitz beat Zukertort again and that was for the unofficial championship, there is no other way to explain this, it's only words, but they knew better. Keep in mind many of the sources you gave me are not 100% accurate, many of these things have been lost in time and never really reported properly, so even top historians dont know all the details.

Sorry, I don't understand. Your sentence "I said he lost in 1866, then Steinitz played the loser of the match Steinitz" does not make sense to me. Then you said "Then in 1868 Steinitz beat Zukertort again" when they didn't even play in 1868, to my knowledge. If you want to debate this, you will need to make yourself clearer. Peter Ballard 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I also couldn't follow that reasoning. Perhaps we are running into a language barrier here. Still, as far as I know, Anderssen was never considered a world champion. Many think he was the best active player at certain times, but in the somewhat peculiar world of early chess history this isn't the same as being considered world champion. Quale 02:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some considered Anderssen to have regained the (unofficial) world title after he won the Baden-Baden 1870 tournament ahead of Steinitz. I'm happy to write that some thought that, and hence considered the Anderssen-Zukertort 1871 match an unofficial world title match, but only if there is evidence, i.e. a citation. Especially since I've got 3 cites above (Fine, Horowitz, Keene) who all consider Steinitz the leading player from 1866 onwards, despite the Baden-Baden result. Peter Ballard 01:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think what the anonymous editor is saying is that Anderssen lost a match to Zukertort in 1866, before he (Anderssen) lost the Steinitz match. But I know of no evidence of this. Looking at chessgames.com, Anderssen + Zukertort played 8 games in 1866 (Anderssen black every time, Anderssen led 5-3), 25 games in 1865 with Zukertort leading 19-6, and 4 games in 1866 with Zukertort leading 2.5-1.5. So that's pretty impressive by Zukertort, but I've never heard of them being called world championship matches, unofficial or otherwise. Zukertort is white in most of those games and I wonder whether they were training games or the like. So I still want a secondary reference (i.e. a chess historian calling them matches for an unofficial world championship or similar). Wikipedia can't just do WP:Original Research and contradict what chess historians say. Peter Ballard 00:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
According to google (which I admit isn't everything), chess historians pretty well completely ignore the Anderssen-Zukertort games before 1867. Peter Ballard 02:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, it does not matter what historians ignore or not, you know that these things get lost in time really fast and at the time it was not really important. We all know Morphy was the man, they all knew nobody could ever beat Morphy. (May be Lasker but he did not come onto the scene before 1890) So, assuming Morphy was to live until 1930, are they going to wait for him to die to play for the world championships? The current championship years for Zuky and Anderssen are correct! In a metaphor... it's better to be than not to be. Assuming you compose good song, you die, i disover it 100 years later, so you are dead big deal, song is there forever!
You can not say "it does not matter what historians ignore or not". That is using WP:Original Research. Wikipedia policy is that Original Research is not allowed, you must use WP:Reliable Sources. So I am reverting the changes again. Peter Ballard 23:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
In the history, the anonymous editor wrote: " http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/andersse.htm heres the evidence again, anderssen was the best until 1871". At the risk of repeating myself: that link simply says Anderssen played a matches with Zukertort in 1868 and 1871. Nowwhere does it say he was the best after 1866. In fact you have not offered a single source which says Anderssen was the best active player after 1866. So to say so is WP:Original Research. Peter Ballard 05:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. May I ask you what is your rating ? I am fide master with over 2300. FM (with international play and victories)

I have wiki account with over 2000 edits, but I am not doing them from the public library since local library had lots of problems and I do not want to be linked to somebdoy else and I am slowing down with edits - since so much effort goes wasted and you are never appreciated. Just give me an email, I will send you more information on the match. I already gave you 2 links. Pay attention. Kindly, keep in mind that Zuky lost to Anderssen, and this was the unofficial championship match. It's like Karpov in the 1990's, nobody was able to beat him in a match (except Nigel Short qualifier) and Anderssen came in first, second or third, (always) in any tournament, so stop deleting the fact that he was not the leading player. And we know Mophy was still the best (in general). Nobody could have beaten him, he was way ahead of his times.

My rating is about 1900, but what does that matter when it comes to Wikipedia editing? You can contact me by following the links from my user page, but I'd rather you present your evidence here for all to see. If editing is a problem, you can email me and I'll cut-and-paste from the email to this page.
To my knowledge you have only presented one link: http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/andersse.htm . All that says is that Zukertort and Anderssen played a match in 1871. It does not say it was for the World Championship, official or otherwise. You have not provided a single reference that it was an unofficial world championship match. If you have 2000 edits, then surely you understand the Wikipedia policies of WP:Reliable Sources and WP:No Original Research, don't you? I have provided 3 WP:Reliable Sources (Reuben Fine, Ray Keene and Israel Horowitz) that say that Steinitz was the strongest active player after 1866. If you can produce a WP:Reliable Source saying that Anderssen-Zukertort 1871 was an unofficial WC match, or that Anderssen was regarded as the world's leading player 1867-71, then we can change it. But it must be a WP:Reliable Source, not your WP:Original Research. Peter Ballard 02:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
No, its not original research, it is well known, besides wikipedia has that term confused.
Wikipedia has what term confused? "Original Research" or "unofficial world chess champion"? Peter Ballard 03:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
http://www.chess.com/article/view/johannes-zukertort there are many articles like this one, its a well known fact and anderssen kept on winning all the tournament he attended, first to third place, i said a lot! He was the leading player!
The article http://www.chess.com/article/view/johannes-zukertort just says that Anderssen and Zukertort played some matches. It does not describe them as world championship, official or otherwise. I repeat, you need a source (that is, a reference) that says Anderssen was the leading player after 1866. Or even a source which says that Anderssen and Steinitz were roughly equal 1866-1870, in which case we can add words to that effect to the article. Not tournament results, but a secondary source who interprets the results, as explained in WP:No Original Research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Just like I've produced 3 secondary sources saying Steinitz was stronger than Anderssen after 1866. Peter Ballard 03:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you have the link to steinitz lasker 4 games match, that was before their championship? Would you say at least 6 games are necesseary for championship?
Who cares what I say? We need to look at what the historians say. Otherwise we are engaging in WP:Original Research. Peter Ballard 03:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
See Wilhelm Steinitz - some of Steinitz' contemporaries described Steinitz as champion as a result of his 1866 match win over Anderssen. In the late 1870s and early 1880s others suggested Zukertort had a better claim, because he was winning contests while Steinitz was inactive. AFAIK no-one described Anderssen as being "world champion" or anything similar after the 1866 Steinitz-Anderssen match, despite the fact that Anderssen finished ahead of Steinitz in tournaments until Vienna 1873.
Unfortunately the most obvious "objective" secondary source, Chessmetrics, is no help at all because its ratings for that period are all over the place - see the monthly ratings option on that page. The problem is that Chessmetrics penalises players for the shortest lay-offs, while chess competition at that time was very sporadic. As a result a mediocre player who won a match against an even more mediocre player in a month when nothing else happened shows up as number 1 - who the hell was Berthold Suhle? Philcha (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)