Talk:Adolf Anderssen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAdolf Anderssen has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 12, 2008Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 13, 2017, and March 13, 2024.

Later Tournament Results[edit]

The reason given for Andersson's improvement is the adaptation of the round-robin format in the 60s and 70s, but that's not the reason for his excellent tournament results at all! In fact, Andersson (and he is the only world champion for which this is true, for a variety of reasons), actually continued improving his play until he was in his early fifties!

There are sources saying he studied positional and endgame play (such as GM Yasser Seirawan's "Winning Chess Tactics"), but really, I'm a USCF expert, and it's very obvious for me looking at his games; after losing the match to Morphy, Andersson seriously re-dedicated himself to chess, and his play was markedly improved. It still wasn't enough to beat a young Steinitz, but it explains his results against the much stronger players of the 1860s and 70s, something none of his contemporaries from the 50s were able to boast of.

76.126.237.65 (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Lev[reply]

Elo[edit]

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)[reply]

not an "A" class[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Unofficial World Champ until 1871?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Anderssen's grave[edit]

It's of course in Wroclaw, see among many other sources the English article from the (chess history) "Ken Whyld Association" (please read the article, it's all there). The other internet source has it wrong, sorry, probably because of the existing different cemetaries (in both cities) having an identical name. The former and the new grave are both on the former Oswitz cemetary, renamed after the war. Anderssen's grave was moved from its original place to the "honorary alley", given a plaque in different languages. Very nice gesture from the Polish chess federation that even renewed it after the first one had been stolen (see the ref. article on the KWA website). --DaQuirin (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, Wikipedia's Osobowicki Cemetery has moved from Warsaw to Wroclaw...  ;) --DaQuirin (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTIFY: the following discussion was moved from my discussion page --DaQuirin (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry what are you trying to say, please more details. Green Squares (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please stop deleting my reference to www.findagrave.com this website has the information about him. Thank you. Green Squares (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is on? You linked Deutsche Schachzeitung again (why?) and your added ref contains only one relevant (additional) new factoid - that turns out to be a mistake (about the grave being in Warsaw). Could you try to explain your edit? --DaQuirin (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your contributions on Adolf Anderssen's grave. Unfortunately you deleted the ref for the transfer of Breslau/Wroclaw to Poland after WW II. Non-German, non-Polish readers an explanation of why the Polish CF re-buried a German master, and it needs a ref. Can you please reinstate the ref or insert a better one. -- Philcha (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this information is needed (for "Non-German, non-Polish readers"), I am fine with it. Though I think it odd (for encyclopedic reasons) to include a ref to an article - though it's an interesting one - that has obviously no direct link with Adolf Anderssen. So the info could maybe be better summed up in the text itself with a link to our Wrocław#Poland article where all this is presented in detail. --DaQuirin (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of WP's zillion style guideliens is that articles should be as free-standing as possible. Please reinstate the ref. -- Philcha (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I tried to explain. Please revert as you like, I quit for a while - too much effort spent here for slow progress, as it seems, see above my nonsensical discussion about a misled ref... --DaQuirin (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish[edit]

He was Polish. Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The city where Anderssen was born and lived has had several names and owners over the centuries - see Wrocław. During Anderssen's lifetime it was part of the province of Lower Silesia in Prussia, a state that was German-speaking and became part of Germany. His name is German, not Polish. Most of Lower Silesia, including Breslau which was then renamed Wrocław, became part of Poland only after World War II.
In general the only sensible approach is to use the nationality of the area during the person's life. Otherwise the number of competing claims is unmanageable, for example we'd have to debate whether Viswanathan Anand was British, since until 1947 the British empire ruled the area where he was born! There are factors that can complicate this policy, such as emigration, change of citizenship, or evidence of membership of an ethnic minority. However none of these applies to Anderssen. Hence he was German. --Philcha (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in tournament results[edit]

Adolf Anderssen#Tournament Results In the table, it appears someone misspelled one's name. It says 'Alexander Alexander', but I am almost sure nobody has a name in which the first and last names are identical. |haosys| 23:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was true - here --Philcha (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on 1860[edit]

Here's link from wiki.answers, only educated, selected people are allowed to edit here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Paul_Morphy_never_play_Wilhelm_Steinitz Morphy was considered champion until 1860, in reality morphy was already best player in 1857 when he won american championship, remained topdog until death!

1860 ok http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?page=15&pid=16002&eresult=
Some policies, guidelines and conventions:
  • WP:V - this is so important that everyone uses the sort term and and expects others to understand it
  • The same applies to WP:NPOV.
  • Signs your items on Talk pages. The usual way is to type in ~~~~. My signature at the end of this line is produced when I type in the same symbols. --Philcha (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matches with Gustav Neumann in 1864-1866[edit]

According to the article Anderssen didn't play competitive chess between 1862 and 1866, but chessgames.com has a large number of games with Gustav Neumann in that time period. Nuemann's wikipedia page also doesn't mention a match with Anderssen in that time period. Does anyone have any information about the circumstances of these games? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.103.27 (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Adolf Anderssen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adolf Anderssen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adolf Anderssen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adolf Anderssen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haphazard development[edit]

I don't think Fine's criticism is really justified. Anderssen certainly understood the importance of rapid development and piece co-ordination, that's why he was one of the leading players of his time. In any case Anderssen's "haphazard development" should not be presented as an encyclopedic fact, only as Fine's opinion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WC "matches"[edit]

The lead says his matches in 1861 and 1862 against Kolisch and Paulsen were World Championship matches. But there is no reference except Mark Weeks' Chess page, which I do not regard as a reliable source because it is just a collection of results by an amateur chess historian. Without a better reference, they should be removed from the lead.

Then the table says he lost a 24 game match (10-14) to Gustav Neumann in 1866. If so, surely that match is very significant, in fact a bigger loss than to Steinitz later that same year (6-8), after which some writers say Steinitz was unofficial world champion! So why does no one say Neumann was unofficial world champion after that match? Chessgames confirms they played 24 games in Berlin in 1866 [1], but Chessmetrics makes no mention of the games [2]. I am not sure if I should mark them in the table as casual games, or just remove them altogether? Does anyone have any info on these games or matches at all? Adpete (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually quite like Mark Weeks, his research is excellent and well sourced (he'll often include scans from BCM etc). Personally I'm not averse to citing it in chess articles, but yes it is a self-published site. (So is Edward Winter's chesshistory.com). The distinction between casual games and "official" games was much more blurred back then, Anderssen lost a lot of games to lesser players like Berthold Suhle but how seriously was he taking these games? Were they considered "official"? We don't really know. In any case there was no "world champion", official or otherwise, so we should avoid that terminology where Anderssen is concerned. I tend to agree that the matches with Kolisch and Paulsen don't belong in the lead so if you want to remove them that's fine. That text was originally added by a banned editor (the lubek castling guy). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like and trust Weeks' work too, but he doesn't usually give sources. His text here: https://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/w$a$$mix.htm (heading "World Chess Championship" followed by "1861-62 Adolf Anderssen Matches", and nothing else) is not sufficient to deem them WC matches, in my opinion. I have removed those matches from the lead, but will continue to look for more info on them. I think they belong back in the lead if they were regarded as unofficial WC matches in some sense. Adpete (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I would say Edward Winter is higher up the reliability scale than Mark Weeks (at least in terms of WP:V and WP:RS), because he is a published journalist and author, and has some notable endorsers. He even has his own Wikipedia page: Edward Winter (chess historian). Adpete (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine quote[edit]

And where did he get it from? Looking at the dates, he can hardly have known Anderssen... Double sharp (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Staunton attributes the quote to a contemporary (1858) interview with Max Lange, but frustratingly I haven't been able to find the original. Possibly it's a loose translation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please stop making "unofficial world champion" claims?[edit]

The title didn't exist. We can say he was regarded as the world's leading player, but the phrase "world champion" was not applied to him. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Anderssen&oldid=1213593365"