We, along with tens of thousands of others in the area suffered major flooding of our home. A local TV news crew even filmed our house and interviewed my wife.
Some parts of the city were without power for nearly two days. Fortunately, we had power.
Needless to say, the losses we suffered were substantial, but not nearly so bad as some of out neighbors.
We are a long way from returning to normal and as an aside, for anybody who has to deal with an insurance company...good luck! Obviously, blogging has been on hold, but here is a post I had ready before the storm...
In 1882, Wilhelm Steinitz played a match in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania against Dion Martinez, but it was actually more of a mismatch!
Dion Martinez (June 6, 1837 – March 11, 1928, 90 years old) had emigrated from Cuba somewhere between 1873 and 1875 and settled in Philadelphia.
In 1885 he became the first president of the Franklin Chess Club. His son Charles S. Martinez (1868-1941) was also a prominent player.
Martinez (Dion) was regarded as one of the strongest players in Philadelphia and he played a short matches against James Mason, losing ine and winning one.
Besides losing to Steinitz in 1882, he also lost to Steinitz again in 1982 (2.5-3.5) and he took another beating (1-10) in 1883. The following year he was badly whipped by Johannes Zukertort (3.5-9.5).
Martinez was 52 years old at the time when the June 16, 1889 edition of the New York Times described him as follows: "Dion Martinez of Philadelphia is rather an elderly gentleman, tall and dignified. He was regarded as one of the strongest chess players in Philadelphia, but has not practiced much for two years past, and financial adversities have tended to detract his mind from the game."
In the 1882 match against Steinitz, victory went to the first to score 7 wins, draws not counting. The time control: 30 moves in 2 hours and then 15 moves every 1 hour. The purse was $250 for each player.
The match came about when a Mr. D. S. Thompson (a Philadelphia businessman) visited Simpson's Chess Divan in London where he met Steinitz and suggested a visit to Philadelphia.
Steinitz agreed based on, among other stipulations, the following terms: 1) seven or nine games, four games each week
2) stakes on each side to be $250 per side plus $500 traveling 3) Steinitz to stay in Philadelphia 45 days and to play only with members of the Philadelphia Chess Club.
Steinitz would also give exhibitions of blindfold and simultaneous play, so that all the members of the club would have an opportunity to play him.
Martinez was willing to play Steinitz and even put up $100 of his own money towards the $500 necessary. In 1882, $100 had the purchasing power of nearly $3,000 today.
Today’s game was the 6th game of the match. It was the shortest in the match and lasting only 21 moves, it was completed in an hour and a half. Martinez played a variation of the Evans Gambit, which he evidently had not studied too closely. It was noted that in the match the only games in which Martinez had a chance were those in which he was compelled to play safely.
Dion M Martinez–Wilhelm Steinitz0–1C51Match, Philadelphia623.11.1882Stockfish 16
C51: Evans Gambit Accepted 1.e4 e5 2.f3 c6 3.c4 c5 4.b4 Popular at
the time, Emanuel Lasker dealt a heavy blow to the Evans with a modern
defensive idea...returning the P under favorable circumstances. The opening
was out of favor for much of the 20th century, although John Nunn and Jan
Timman played it in some games in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and in the
1990s, Garry Kasparov used it in a few games which prompted its brief revival. xb4 No self-respecting player of the day would have dreamed of declining the
gambit with 4...Bb6. Due to the loss of a tempo involved, most experts
consider declining the gambit to be weaker than accepting it. 5.c3 c5 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 b6 9.b2 Even at the time this game was
played it was known the best move is 9...d5. 9.d5 a5 10.b2 e7 11.d3 0-0 12.c3 and white is doing well. 9...f6 10.e5 The NY Times
annotator noted that this is a "good play when you give odds, perhaps, but
bad play in an even game, and can only be explained on the theory of a mistake.
" 10.bd2 0-0 11.e5 g4 12.h3 h6 13.exd6 cxd6 14.d5 is at least equal.
Felgendreher,H (2223)-L'Hostis,S (2064) FRA 2008 10.d5 is probably
white's best. e7 11.xf6 gxf6 12.a4 with a difficult position to evaluate.
Black's K-side is badly weakened; white has more space, but his B is bad and
it's going to be diffucult to get at black's K. 10...dxe5 Opening up the
position while he is uncastled seems risky, but chess is often a game where
exceptions to the rule are the rule. Black is actually better here. 11.a3
Quite logical because it keeps black's K in the center, but in fact, after
this move white finds himself in serious trouble. 11.dxe5 Shows why black
is better. xd1 12.xd1 e4 13.f1 g4 14.d5 xf3 15.gxf3 c5 and
thanks to his Q-side P-majority black has a decisive endgame advantage. 11...e6 What a surprise...black allows doubling of his e-Pawns. 12.bd2 12.xe6 fxe6 13.b3 d5 14.dxe5 e4 Black's centralizes pieces and Q-side
P-majority add up to a decisive advantage. 12...e4 This is even stronher
than capturing on d4 13.e1 A totally unsound sacrifice...it's hard to
envision what white had in mind here, but it's clear he miscalculated the
coming sequence. 13.e5 hard;y salvages the game though. xd4 14.xc6 bxc6 15.xe6 fxe6 16.b3 Baiting a trap! 0-0-0 and black is safe. 16...xd2 17.xe6+ d8 18.e7+ e8 19.xf6+ f8 20.e7+ g8 21.xg7# 13...exf3 14.b3 xd4 15.xf3 xf2+ 16.h1 0-0-0 White may have overlooked this
escape to safety. The remainder of the game is a pathetic display by white. 17.xe6 fxe6 18.f1 e4 This leads to a pretty finish. 19.xf2 xf2+ 20.g1 d1+ 21.xd1 xd1+ White resigned. 0–1
