The tournament started with a controversy. The committee had invited Lasker, Blackburne, Napier, Schieffers and, according to the tournament book, “others”, but they were unable to participate. Not invited was Janowski because according to de Riviere, Janowski had publicly stated that if invited he would decline because de Riviere was the tournament director.
Also not invited was Gunsberg. His crime was that he had written an article in a London newspaper criticizing the penalizing of drawn games particularly if the players involved have no chance of a prize; they couldn’t be blamed for being satisfied with a draw.
Chigorin’s situation was was appalling. He was invited and accepted and his name was listed as one of the participants in the various papers issued by the committee. Chigorin made the long and arduous trip of nearly 1,900 miles from St. Petersburg to Monte Carlo and when he arrived the president of the committee, Prince Dadian, either directly ordered Chigorin’s exclusion or intimated that he would not remain president of the committee and possibly withdraw his patronage (i.e. prize money) and go home that very day unless de Riviere barred Chigorin from participating. Action was taken accordingly and Chigorin was informed he was out. Wolf filled the vacancy created by Chigorin’s expulsion.
The reason for Chigorin getting kicked out of the tournament was that “in spite of the many acts of generosity on the part of the Prince, (Chigorin) had shown persistent animosity in the press, (publishing) articles which the Prince considers injuste et inaigne (unfair and unjust).” The tournament book added that the Prince had “won golden opinions” among the players because he was courteous and had charming manners, so his hostility towards Chigorin was not without just cause. It also hinted that the Prince was a nice guy because he was willing to indemnify Chigorin for his trouble in making the trip.
It was also said the Chigorin had hinted that perhaps the games weren’t actually played and the Prince’s opponents were unknown, perhaps even non-existent! Endeavoring to belittle the Prince’s achievement Chigorin unjustly upheld him to ridicule and contempt.
According to Chigorin he wasn’t aware of anything he did that warranted such drastic action. He stated that he had seen a couple of the Prince’s games where the brilliancy prizes he had been awarded were unsound and he published the games with copious notes pointing out how the Prince should have lost.
Chigorin also related that the previous year in Kiev and allegedly in either a theater or a circus, he had passed by the Prince without taking any notice of him.
The tournament book commented that the only representatives of France were Taubenhaus and “a Col. Moreau, the latter hitherto unknown to fame, whom, however, the committee accepted to make up the required number. Not much is known of the player hitherto unknown to fame, Col. Moreau.
Some have questioned whether the chess player Colonel Moreau and the French officer Moreau were the same person. The little known retired French Army officer had acquired some wealth as a businessman and, also, at the Monte Carlo casino, but had scant skill as a chess player. It has also been claimed that he helped sponsor the tournament and invited several of the players, himself included. It was his first and last tournament.
One source commented that so bad was his play that against the “Drawing Master” Carl Schlechter, Moreau played the notoriously drawing French Defense Exchange Variation, and still lost.
Emil Kemeny, writing in American Chess Weekly in 1903, gave Moreau a break when he stated, “Colonel Moreau, who finished last is perhaps stronger than the score would indicate, but he is not used to Tourney play, and too old to stand the continuous strain.” Moreau did win 75 francs for his efforts.
Kemeny’s estimation of Moreau’s ability may not be far off. This tournament was so strong that even losing 26 games gives Moreau an estimated rating of 2382 according to Chessmetrics. Of course, that means nothings since he lost all of his games, but playing over a few of them seems to confirm Kemeny’s comment that Moreau was better than the results indicate.
Colonel Charles Paul Narcisse Moreau (September 14, 1837, Paris – July 6, 1916) was a French soldier and mathematician. He served in the artillery and as an officer of the French Legion of Honor. He introduced Moreau's necklace-counting function into mathematics.
Just to be clear: In combinatorial mathematics, Moreau's necklace-counting function is where μ is the classic Mobius function, counts the number of "necklaces" asymmetric under rotations that can be made by arranging n beads the color of each of which is chosen from a list of α colors.
One respect in which the word necklace may be misleading is that if one picks such a "necklace" up off the table and turns it over, thus reversing the roles of clockwise and counterclockwise, one gets a different "necklace", counted separately, unless the necklace is symmetric under such reflections. This function is involved in the cyclotomic identity.
Documents detailing Colonel Moreau's military career say he was promoted to lieutenant on October 1, 1861. He served in Mexico from May 1863 to March 1867 during the French intervention in Mexico and received a couple of awards.
In August 1868 he was promoted to captain and served in Africa from January 1869 to August 1870, when he returned to take part in the Franco-Prussian War. He participated in the battle of Sedan in September 1870, and was taken prisoner; he was released in June of 1871.
He then served Algeria from August 1871 until November 1873. In 1886 he was promoted to lieutenant colonel, and in 1890 was promoted to colonel. He was made an officer of the French Legion of Honor in 1893.
Tarrasch won the tournament after several losses in the opening rounds. Geza Maroczy, who had won the tournament the previous year, came in second. Harry N. Pillsbury, whose health in the last few years had been steadily declining, managed only third place in what would be his penultimate international tournament.
Final Standings:
1) Tarrasch 20.0-6.0
2) Maroczy 19.0-7.0
3) Pillsbury 18.5-7.5
4) Schlechter 17.0-9.0
5) Teichmann 16.5-9.5
6) Marco 15.5-10.5
7) Wolf 14.0-12.0
8) Mieses 13.0-13.0
9) Marshall 12.0-14.0
10-11) Taubenhaus and Mason 10.5-15.5
12) Albin 8.0-18.0
13) Reggio 7.5-18.5
14) Moreau 0.0-26.0
No comments:
Post a Comment