Unix, Fedora, Windows, Ubuntu, iOS, Samsung - DriverGetNet

World Chess Champion Wilhelm Steinitz and his Challenger Johannes Zukertort- colourized

World Chess Champion Wilhelm Steinitz and his Challenger Johannes Zukertort- colourized submitted by CzechMateGameOver to chess [link] [comments]

This position arose in round 8 of the Steinitz - Zukertort 1886 World Chess Championship, Steinitz with the White pieces. Zukertort played ...Bf6, missing a winning idea. Can you find what the former WCC contender missed?

This position arose in round 8 of the Steinitz - Zukertort 1886 World Chess Championship, Steinitz with the White pieces. Zukertort played ...Bf6, missing a winning idea. Can you find what the former WCC contender missed? submitted by texe_ to chess [link] [comments]

On this day in 1886, Wilhelm Steinitz defeated Johannes Zukertort 12½-7½ in New Orleans to win the first-ever "official" world chess championship!

On this day in 1886, Wilhelm Steinitz defeated Johannes Zukertort 12½-7½ in New Orleans to win the first-ever submitted by city-of-stars to chess [link] [comments]

On this day in 1886, Wilhelm Steinitz defeated Johannes Zukertort 12½-7½ in New Orleans to win the first-ever "official" world chess championship!

On this day in 1886, Wilhelm Steinitz defeated Johannes Zukertort 12½-7½ in New Orleans to win the first-ever submitted by pier4r to Chessnewsstand [link] [comments]

On this day in 1886, Wilhelm Steinitz defeated Johannes Zukertort 12½-7½ in New Orleans to win the first-ever "official" world chess championship!

On this day in 1886, Wilhelm Steinitz defeated Johannes Zukertort 12½-7½ in New Orleans to win the first-ever submitted by TurboBear10137 to Louisiana [link] [comments]

Johannes Zukertort (1842-1888): Played Steinitz in the First World Chess Championship, 1886

Johannes Zukertort (1842-1888): Played Steinitz in the First World Chess Championship, 1886 submitted by brianolive to Colorization [link] [comments]

Steinitz - Zukertort world championship match analysis by Gata Kamsky

Steinitz - Zukertort world championship match analysis by Gata Kamsky submitted by -inversed- to chess [link] [comments]

Miniaturas inmortales: Campeón mundial habemus. Steinitz - Zukertort, Ne...

Miniaturas inmortales: Campeón mundial habemus. Steinitz - Zukertort, Ne... submitted by chesstourscl to u/chesstourscl [link] [comments]

Nice advance of connected pawns - Zukertort vs Steinitz

Nice advance of connected pawns - Zukertort vs Steinitz submitted by Mawklan2020 to chess [link] [comments]

#shorts #binomo #forex #binance #gateio #btc #kriptopara #coin #shibainu #trader #trading

#shorts #binomo #forex #binance #gateio #btc #kriptopara #coin #shibainu #trader #trading submitted by crytoloover to coinmarketbag [link] [comments]

The Rise and Fall of the King's Gambit: An essay.

My last essay on the Caro-Kann didn't get much attention (which to be honest had quite a few mistakes in anyway so I'm not too bothered), but a few people enjoyed it, so here's another one going in depth on the history of the King's Gambit. I wrote this essay a couple of years ago for my local chess club.
The King's Gambit is a chess opening that starts with the moves 1.e4 e5 2.f4. The opening has been around since the 15th century and is one of the oldest chess openings.
Part one: The Rise
In 1561, Italian master Gioachino Greco published an early account of the King's Gambit in a book titled “Il Puttino”. He declared the opening to be “the most dangerous opening in the game of chess.” Greco's suggestion of 2.f4 led to the opening being named the King's Gambit, due to the fact that the King's Knight's pawn was advanced two squares.
Greco believed that this advantage could be used to gain a deadly attack on Black’s position, by quickly developing and striking directly at Black’s king.
Greco also noted that the King’s Gambit was an excellent way to gain the initiative, as it forced Black to play defensively and gave White the leverage to dictate the flow of the game. Greco believed that if White were able to control the center of the board and keep their pawn alive, they would be well-positioned to win the game.
Greco’s account of the King’s Gambit was extremely influential, and his treatise on the subject remains a classic to this day. It is still studied by modern players, as it provides valuable insight into the strategic nuances of this opening.
In the 18th century, the opening was popularized by the great French masters Philidor and de la Bourdonnais. They both wrote extensively about the King's Gambit and used it in some of their games. Philidor was an important figure in the development of modern chess theory and the King's Gambit was no exception. In his work “Analysis of the Game of Chess”, published in 1749, he laid out the principles of the opening, placing strong emphasis the importance of developing pieces quickly and controlling the center of the board.
De la Bourdonnais, who lived in the early 19th century, was also a key figure in the development of the King's Gambit. In 1821, he wrote a book called “Analysis of the King's Gambit” which became a classic in the study of the opening. He suggested that White should try to open lines near the King, attack Black's pawns, and try to control the center of the board. He also recommended that White should try to develop their pieces quickly and not waste moves.
The work of these two players has been hugely important in the study of the King's Gambit and continues to influence the way it is played today. I strongly suggest that readers look further into their work if they are still curious about this opening.
The King’s Gambit had a significant impact on the evolution of chess theory in the 19th century. It was used to great effect by Steinitz and Anderssen to demonstrate the importance of positional play and prophylaxis, which are methods of preventing an opponent’s attack before it can fully develop. It was also used as an example of how an aggressive opening can lead to a quick victory and it was used by many other top players of the time, including Paul Morphy, Adolf Anderssen, and Johannes Zukertort.
However, the biggest critic of the King's Gambit was yet to enter the scene - Bobby Fischer.
Part Two: The Fall
Fischer argued that the King's Gambit was too passive and lacked sufficient strategical depth. He believed that it was too easy for Black to gain an advantage, and that White was often put in a passive position with few options. He also felt that the King's Gambit lacked the ability to create a dynamic, complex game. Fischer argued that the King's Gambit was a primitive opening with no real chance of success against a modern player.
Fischer further argued that the King's Gambit was an illogical opening. He believed that the opening made little sense strategically, even though it allowed White to gain a large advantage in space and development, he felt the extra pawn was not adequate compensation. He also felt that it created a weakness in the White King's position, which could be exploited.
In short, Bobby Fischer disliked the King's Gambit because he felt it was outdated, unsound, and illogical. He argued that it was too easy for Black to gain an advantage, and that White was often put in a passive position with few options in the main lines. He believed that the opening lacked strategical depth, and created a huge weakness in the White King's position.
Although Fischer made some very good points, I don't fully agree with Fischer's analysis for a few reasons:
First and foremost, White has the advantage of having the first move, which gives them the opportunity to seize the initiative. This can be difficult for Black to counteract, as they are forced to react to White’s moves. Furthermore, the King’s Gambit is a very aggressive opening, which requires Black to be extremely precise in their defense. If Black is not careful, they can easily fall victim to a swift attack by White.
Another factor that makes it difficult for Black to get an advantage in the King’s Gambit is that the opening is very complex and requires a great deal of knowledge and experience to play. Even experienced players can struggle against the King’s Gambit, as there are a large number of possible variations and lines of play. This makes it difficult for Black to anticipate White’s moves and counter them effectively.
The King’s Gambit is still used by some players today, including grandmasters such as Vladimir Kramnik and Viswanathan Anand. However, it is less common than in the 19th century due to the development of more sophisticated defenses thanks to chess engines that can easily counter the attack.
The King's Gambit is an interesting opening that has been around for centuries. While it is not as popular as some of the other openings, it is still very much alive and can be a very dangerous weapon in the hands of an experienced player. Thanks for reading! As always any constructive criticism would be met with open arms. If I missed anything let me know!
submitted by SmugBoi1922 to chess [link] [comments]

Hướng dẫn chơi Binomo Forex trên điện thoại [Mới nhất 2019] - Binomo Việt Nam

Hướng dẫn chơi Binomo Forex trên điện thoại [Mới nhất 2019] - Binomo Việt Nam submitted by binomovietnam to u/binomovietnam [link] [comments]

Chess.com olympiad dream teams and observations

Source: https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-olympiad-dream-teams
"Now there are many arguments, and not just in chess, about how good players of the past really are. But for this article, we try to avoid that speculation and just look for success in a player's own time. That said, we also try for a chronological balance, going for strength across eras instead of putting every egg in a 19th- or 21st-century basket."
  1. Somehow the author listed Kasparov with 6 titles and Karpov with 5. They have 6 each (with disputed ones). Even if one saying "the PCA line is the legitimate one" then Kasparov should have 6 and Karpov 3, rather than 5.
  2. United States (Fischer, Caruana, Nakamura, Morphy, Reshevsky). Fischer, ok, Morphy ok, Reshevsky ok. About the recent players (although Caruana is pretty solid) I would consider then also Kamsky (that in the 90s was really strong, reaching good stages in WCh cycles), R. Fine (2. at avro 1938) that chessmetrics says he was the best player in the world between 1940 and 1941, or also Isaac Kashdan that helped a lot the US to win golds pre ww2 at the olympiad ("#2 (20 different months between the November 1932 rating list and the June 1934 rating list )" says chessmetrics). One could consider also Steinitz.
  3. Hungary (Polgar, Portisch, Leko, Rapport, Maroczy). Again it seems quite the recency bias. Szabó) - 3 times candidates. Ribli 2 times candidates. "Maroczy beats Gyula Breyer, GM Gyula Sax, GM Laszlo Szabo, GM Zoltan Ribli, and Benko" , yes Maroczy, Portisch, Leko yes but why the others beat Szabo and Ribli?
  4. Poland (Rubinstein, Tartakower, Najdorf, Duda, Wojtaszek) . Krasenkow may be part of the team too, maybe taking one place instead of Duda or Wojtaszek. Janowski was mentioned but somehow not put in the team (despite acknowleding him being a WCh challenger)
  5. England (Short, Adams, Blackburne, Staunton, Nunn). Zukertort maybe? (Zukertort is listed somehow for Poland and not for England where he lived later on)
  6. I could continue but that is already enough.
All in all the article is not bad but I had the feeling that the author looked mostly at the recent players in the last two decades plus very notable players of the past, without checking or acknowledging other players pre 1980
submitted by pier4r to chess [link] [comments]

Most Dominant World Chess Champion

With Magnus looking like he will retain his title against Ian Nepomniachtchi, I wanted to see which players excelled most when the stakes were the highest, the world chess championship matches.
I looked at all matches from Steinitz-Zukertort through the current Magnus - Nepo match, including the split in the 90s between PCA and FIDE, to see which players had the best records, which spoiler alert, had some of the expected greats at the top.
UPDATE 2: Removed all Tiebreaker Games from Results
Highest Game Winning Percentage (Rank - Player - WP% - W-L-D)
  1. Emanuel Lasker - 44.12% (45-15-42)
  2. Wilhelm Steinitz - 37.39% (43-43-29)
  3. Bobby Fischer - 33.33% (7-3-11)
  4. Alexander Alekhine - 28.70% (33-20-62)
  5. Mikhail Tal - 26.19% (11-12-19)
  6. Vassily Smyslov - 26.09% (18-17-34)
  7. Mikhail Botvinnik - 25.99% (46-41-90)
  8. Max Euwe - 23.64% (13-18-24)
  9. Magnus Carlsen - 19.64% (11-2-43)
  10. Tigran Petrosian - 18.84% (13-11-45)
Lowest Game Losing Percentage
  1. Magnus Carlsen - 3.57% (11-2-43)
  2. Garry Kasparov - 11.68% (31-23-143)
  3. Jose Capablanca - 12.50% (7-6-35)
  4. Bobby Fischer - 14.29% (7-3-11)
  5. Anatoly Karpov - 14.64% (45-35-159)
  6. Emanuel Lasker - 14.71% (45-15-42)
  7. Vladimir Kramnik - 15.38% (8-8-36)
  8. Tigran Petrosian - 15.94% (13-11-45)
  9. Viswanathan Anand - 16.49% (18-16-63)
  10. Alexander Alekhine - 17.39% (33-20-62)
Highest Drawing Percentage
  1. Magnus Carlsen - 76.79% (11-2-43)
  2. Jose Capablanca - 72.92% (7-6-35)
  3. Garry Kasparov - 72.59% (31-23-143)
  4. Vladimir Kramnik - 69.23% (8-8-36)
  5. Anatoly Karpov - 66.53% (45-35-159)
  6. Tigran Petrosian - 65.22% (13-11-45)
  7. Viswanathan Anand - 64.95% (18-16-63)
  8. Boris Spassky - 60.29% (12-15-41)
  9. Alexander Alekhine - 53.91% (33-20-62)
  10. Bobby Fischer - 52.38% (7-3-11)
Highest Margin of Victory (Winning % - Losing %)
  1. Emanuel Lasker - 29.41% (45-15-42)
  2. Bobby Fischer - 19.05% (7-3-11)
  3. Magnus Carlsen - 16.07% (11-2-43)
  4. Alexander Alekhine - 11.31% (33-20-62)
  5. Anatoly Karpov - 4.18% (45-35-159)
  6. Garry Kasparov - 4.06% (31-23-143)
  7. Tigran Petrosian - 2.90% (13-11-45)
  8. Mikhail Botvinnik - 2.83% (46-41-90)
  9. Jose Capablanca - 2.08% (7-6-35)
  10. Viswanathan Anand - 2.06% (18-16-63)
Most World Championship Match Wins (Rank - Player - Record - WP)
T1. Emanuel Lasker - 6-1 (85.71%)
T1. Garry Kasparov - 6-1-1 (81.25%)
T3. Magnus Carlsen - 5-0 (100.00%)
T3. Mikhail Botvinnik - 5-3 (62.50%)
T3. Viswanathan Anand - 5-4 (55.56%)
T3. Anatoly Karpov - 5-4-1 (55.00%)
  1. Alexander Alekhine - 4-1 (80.00%)
  2. Vladimir Kramnik - 3-1 (75.00%)
  3. Tigran Petrosian - 2-1 (66.67%)
UPDATE: Adding a Ranking of Highest Game Scoring (WP% + 1/2 Draw %/Total Games)
Highest Scoring Game Percentage
  1. Emanuel Lasker - 64.71% (45-15-42)
  2. Bobby Fischer - 59.52% (7-3-11)
  3. Magnus Carlsen - 58.04% (11-2-43)
  4. Alexander Alekhine - 55.65% (33-20-62)
  5. Anatoly Karpov - 52.09% (45-35-159)
  6. Garry Kasparov - 52.03% (31-23-143)
  7. Tigran Petrosian - 51.45% (13-11-45)
  8. Mikhail Botvinnik - 51.41% (46-41-90)
  9. Jose Capablanca - 51.04% (7-6-35)
  10. Viswanathan Anand - 51.03% (18-16-13)
UPDATE 3: Adding a Ranking of the Largest Gap between the World Champ as #1 Player vs. the Average Top 10 (I used the next rating report immediately following the championship match. I used Chessmetrics for pre-2005 rating reports.)
Largest Gap Between Champ as #1 vs. Top 10 (Rank - Player - Diff - Year)
  1. Jose Capablanca - 178 (1921)
  2. Emanuel Lasker - 169 (1894)
  3. Wilhelm Steinitz - 151 (1886)
  4. Emanuel Lasker - 149 (1897)
  5. Bobby Fischer - 141 (1972)
  6. Emanuel Lasker - 121 (1910)
  7. Garry Kasparov - 119 (1990)
  8. Mikhail Botvinnik - 108 (1948)
  9. Emanuel Lasker - 107 (1910)
  10. Emanuel Lasker - 106 (1908)
UPDATE 4: Adding a Ranking of the Highest Winning Percentage in Decisive Games (shoutout to @Meteor_Runner for the idea)
Highest Winning Percentage in Decisive Games (Rank - Player - WP - Record)
  1. Magnus Carlsen - 84.62% (11-2-43)
  2. Emanuel Lasker - 75.00% (45-15-42)
  3. Bobby Fischer - 70.00% (7-3-11)
  4. Alexander Alekhine - 62.26% (33-20-62)
  5. Garry Kasparov - 57.41% (31-23-143)
  6. Anatoly Karpov - 56.25% (45-35-159)
  7. Tigran Petrosian - 54.17% (13-11-45)
  8. Jose Capablanca - 53.85% (7-6-35)
  9. Viswanathan Anand - 52.94% (18-16-43)
  10. Mikhail Botvinnik - 52.87% (46-41-90)
My big takeaways:
  1. Magnus having by far the lowest losing percentage in championship games wasn't suprising, but how much lower he is was eye opening, some of that can be attributed to computers, but his skill to maintain no weaknesses in his position, really highlights his ability to grind positions.
  2. I never really considered Alexander Alekhine a top tier champion, but after this he has to be in the second tier of champions (Top Tier: Lasker, Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen) with Karpov, Botvinnik, Capablanca.
  3. I tend to agree that Kasparov had the greatest chess career, but Karpov is so close to him in all their matches (overall Kasparov was +2 in their 5 championship matches).
  4. Surprised Tal (not included above) ranked near the bottom in losing percentage and margin of victory.
Let me know your initial thoughts, or if there is another metric you'd like to see.
submitted by chriswmac33 to chess [link] [comments]

I will analyse every world championship game ever played (Day 8)

And here is game 8.
What happened so far: In game 7 Steinitz attacked Zukertorts weak d-pawn and Zukertort couldn't withstand the pressure.
[pgn][Event "Steinitz - Zukertort World Championship Match"] [Site "St. Louis, MO USA"] [Date "1886.02.08"] [Round "8"] [White "Wilhelm Steinitz"] [Black "Johannes Zukertort"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [UTCDate "2020.05.26"] [UTCTime "20:29:27"] [Variant "Standard"] [ECO "C67"] [Opening "Ruy Lopez: Berlin Defense, Rio Gambit Accepted"] [Annotator "https://lichess.org/@/reallynotbatman"]
  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 { The berlin defense } 4. O-O Nxe4 5. Re1 (5. d4 Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. dxe5 Nf5 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8) 5... Nd6 6. Nxe5 Be7 { In the 4th and the 6th game, Zukertort played the less popular } (6... Nxe5) 7. Bd3 { Blocking the d-pawn, Steinitz will play b3 and develop the queens bishop to b2 or a3 } (7. Bf1 Nxe5 8. Rxe5 O-O) 7... O-O 8. Qh5 { Threatening mate, the book move is Nc3 } (8. Nc3 Nxe5 9. Rxe5 c6 10. b3 Ne8 11. Bb2 d5 12. Qh5 Nf6 13. Qh4 h6 14. Rae1 Bd6 15. R5e2 Be6 16. Nd1 Nd7 17. Qh5 Nf6 18. Qh4 Nd7 19. Qh5 Nf6 { As seen in Torre-Gelfand 1994 }) (8. Bxh7+? Kxh7 9. Qh5+ Kg8 10. Re3 Nxe5 11. Rh3 f5 { Black is winning }) 8... f5 { If black wants to draw, he could play: } (8... g6 9. Nxg6 (9. Nxc6 dxc6 10. Qf3 Be6 { Black enjoys a small advantage }) 9... hxg6 (9... fxg6 10. Bxg6 Rf7 11. Bxf7+ Nxf7 { White has a strong attack }) 10. Bxg6 fxg6 11. Qxg6+ Kh8 12. Qh6+ Kg8 13. Qg6+ Kh8) 9. Nc3 (9. Nxc6 dxc6 10. c3) 9... Nxe5 10. Rxe5 g6 11. Qf3 (11. Qe2 Bf6 12. Nd5 { Exchange sacrifice } (12. Re3 c6 { Black controlls d5 }) 12... Bxe5 13. Qxe5 { b3 followed by Bb2 is a strong threat } 13... Qe8 14. Qf4 (14. Nf6+? Rxf6 15. Qxf6 Qe1+ 16. Bf1 Qxf2+!! 17. Kxf2 Ne4+ 18. Kf3 Nxf6 { Black is a pawn ahead }) 14... Qe1+ 15. Bf1 Qe4) 11... c6 12. b3 Nf7 13. Re2 (13. Bc4 d5 14. Nxd5 cxd5 15. Rxd5 Qb6 (15... Qc7 16. Bb2 Be6 17. Qc3) 16. Bb2 Bf6 17. Rb5 Qd8) 13... d5 (13... Ng5! { The white queen has very few squares } 14. Qg3? (14. Qe3 Ne6 15. Bb2 d5 { Black controlls the center }) (14. Qf4 Ne6 15. Qf3 (15. Qc4 d5) 15... Nd4 16. Qe3 Nxe2+ 17. Qxe2) 14... f4 15. Qh4 (15. Qg4 d5 16. Qh4 Nf3+) 15... Nf3+ 16. gxf3 Bxh4) 14. Bb2 Bf6 (14... Ng5) 15. Rae1 Qd6 16. Re8 (16. h3? Ng5 17. Qg3 f4 18. Qh2 Bxh3 19. gxh3 Nf3+) 16... Bd7 17. Rxa8 Rxa8 18. Nd1 { Steinitz offered a draw after this move, but Zukertort declined } 18... Ng5 19. Qe2 Re8 20. Qf1 Bxb2 (20... Rxe1 21. Qxe1 d4 { Keeping some pieces on the board, black can try to push for a win }) 21. Rxe8+ Bxe8 22. Nxb2 { 1/2-1/2 The game is a draw. } { This draw might be a bit early. Black controlls the center and he can play c5 to activate his bishop. The g5-knight is well placed and could support f4 followed by f3, creating a weakness around the white king } 1/2-1/2 [/pgn]
Links to lichess Studies with all games:
Steinitz vs. Zukertort 1886
submitted by GlitterDeath666 to chess [link] [comments]

Reserve Bank of India has released a list of 34 forex brokers; which has been declared illegal

List of unauthorized forex trading apps and websites - RBI

Friends, recently the Reserve Bank of India has released a list of 34 forex brokers; which has been declared illegal.

Before releasing this list, RBI had done all checks regarding all transactions of all those forex brokers since February this year. Maybe this doesn't matter to you; Nevertheless, you should definitely check this list once.
So see if your forex broker is not on this list!
👉 Here's a full list of unauthorized forex trading apps and websites
  1. Alpari
  2. AnyFX
  3. Ava Trade
  4. Binomo
  5. e Toro
  6. Exness
  7. Expert Option
  8. FBS
  9. FinFxPro
  10. Forex.com
  11. Forex4money
  12. Foxorex
  13. FTMO
  14. FVP Trade
  15. FXPrimus
  16. FXStreet
  17. FXCm
  18. FxNice
  19. FXTM
  20. HotFores
  21. ibell Markets
  22. IC Markets
  23. iFOREX
  24. IG Markets
  25. IQ Option
  26. NTS Forex Trading
  27. Octa FX
  28. Olymp Trade
  29. TD Ameritrade
  30. TP Global FX
  31. Trade Sight FX
  32. Urban Forex
  33. Xm
  34. XTB
Thanks for Reading.
Please share your take on this.
submitted by PersonalFinanceSkill to IndianStockMarket [link] [comments]

Money Moves: The World Chess Championship Prize Fund Through the Years

Money Moves: The World Chess Championship Prize Fund Through the Years
For over a century, the World Championship has been the most prestigious match in the chess world. Unsurprisingly, those who participate in this spectacle are handsomely rewarded as fans from every country watch the world’s best players vie for the most coveted title in chess. However, the multimillion dollar stakes today are a far cry from the humble origins of the WCC. The burgeoning purse of the WCC reflects not only the surge of interest in chess as a sport, but also the development of chess as an economic institution.
WCC prize funds adjusted for inflation. Matches without financial data are excluded
The Beginnings of the WCC (1886 - 1948)
As many are aware, early WCC matches were independently negotiated between participants. This meant that the responsibility of organizing the prize money fell on the players themselves, and there were several different ways that players would go about raising the necessary funds. Some players, such as Janowski, were able to find wealthy patrons to sponsor them. Others, such as Lasker, were able to crowdfund money from passionate amateurs. While large-scale, state-sponsored chess programs had not yet begun, players like Bogoljubov were also able to get government ministries to partially cover their expenses. The large stakes associated with the WCC were not easy to raise, and several negotiations fell apart after the players disagreed on the financial aspects of the match. The prize funds during this era ranged from $30,000 to $400,000 (2021 USD).
However, the matches were more lucrative than the graph would suggest, especially for the World Champion. Players who held the title also held enormous leverage over negotiations, and as such, they would often demand large fees simply for playing. In his 1908 match against Tarrasch, Lasker demanded an appearance fee of 7,500 marks, which was more than the prize fund of 6,500 marks. It was also customary for organizers to cover the cost of travel and lodging for both players. Lastly, both players often received a cut of the ticket sales from spectators, which makes it difficult to accurately assess the value of the WCC.
It was Capablanca who would make the first attempts to establish formal procedures for the WCC. While playing in the 1922 London tournament, Capablanca created a list of conditions for future WCC matches that all the top players agreed to abide by, known as the London Rules. One key clause of the document was that the World Champion would not be compelled to defend his title for less than $10,000 (the equivalent of over $164,000 today). However, money remained a barrier to WCC matches and Alekhine would sometimes agree to play for much less than $10,000.
The Soviet Years (1948-1972)
Since Alekhine died while still World Champion, a tournament was organized in which Botvinnik was then given the title. The 1948 WCC and the ascent of Botvinnik marked the beginning of Soviet dominance of the sport. With the financial backing of the state, Soviet chess players were able to play while the Soviet government covered their training and travel expenses. The top players enjoyed comfortable lives—Petrosian and Botvinnik were known to have nice apartments and even their own summer homes.
Despite massive interest in chess from the Soviet public and the heavy influence of Soviet officials, the prize funds during this period reached an unprecedented low. Since all the WCC matches during this period were between Soviet players that were already being sponsored by the government, prize funds were non-existent. Instead, players were given small bonuses or gifts for winning the title. In 1969, Spassky was awarded a little more than $10,000 (2021 USD) for dethroning Petrosian. Mikhail Tal was awarded a Volga car, which he promptly gave away because he didn’t drive.
The Beginning of Big Money (1972 - 1993)
Many credit Fischer for bringing large amounts of money into chess and making the sport a livable profession. And rightfully so. As the graph indicates, the 1972 WCC represents an enormous spike in the prize fund, a reflection of the political intrigue and global interest surrounding the match. While the initial prize fund of $125,000 was an enormous sum by all measures, Fischer’s constant demands for more money resulted in the prize fund doubling to $250,000. Adjusted for 2021 USD, this was the first match with a prize fund worth over $1 million.
The 1972 match set in motion a trend in which the prize fund climbed ever higher. This culminated in the 1990 Kasparov-Karpov match—the fifth and final match between the two rivals—which saw FIDE raise a prize fund of $3 million, the largest ever in WCC history (second-highest if one counts the $5 million 1992 Fischer-Spassky rematch). Even today, no WCC has come anywhere close to the nominal value of the 1990 match. Ironically, neither Kasparov nor Karpov received the vast majority of their winnings during this period as most of it was claimed by the state. In 1987, for instance, roughly 90% of the 2,280,000 CHF prize fund went to the Soviet Sports Committee.
The Modern Era (1993 - present)
By 1993, tensions between Kasparov and FIDE had come to a head. The World Champion and his challenger, the young Nigel Short, broke away from FIDE and ran their own WCC under the auspices of the Professional Chess Association. However, without FIDE to raise a prize fund, the burden of establishing a purse was once again placed on the players.
The match, whose prize fund was ultimately raised by The Times and Teleworld Holding, marks the beginning of corporate sponsorship in chess. By the 1990s, the Kasparov-Karpov matches had garnered enormous media attention around the world, and companies were eager to tap into this global interest to advertise their brand. In addition to sponsoring chess players and hosting exhibitions, companies began pitching in to fund Kasparov’s breakaway title. Intel stepped in to cover the $1.5 million purse and organization expenses of Kasparov’s 1995 match with Anand, while the company Braingames was founded to raise money for the 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik match. Today, as the logos of Coinbase and PhosAgro grace the playing hall of the Dubai Exhibition Center, corporate involvement remains as important as ever for financing the WCC.
In recent years, the prize fund has fluctuated between €1-2 million. The most lucrative WCC in the past two decades was the 2012 Anand-Gelfand match, whose $2.55 million purse was sponsored by Andrei Filatov, a Russian billionaire and friend of Gelfand. Compared to the figures from the Kasparov-Karpov years, the current purse of €2 million is a relatively modest amount, and the graph suggests that the prize fund has been on a downtrend in recent years. However, the graph does not address other forms of financial compensation, namely the increase in corporate sponsorships and general increase in tournament prizes. As chess continues to enjoy an explosion in its fanbase, it will be interesting to see how the WCC prize fund will change in the coming years.
Special thanks to Historical Currency Converter for providing conversion rates for older currencies. The Big Book of World Chess Championships by André Schulz also provided valuable prize fund data in the absence of publicly available data. The table of data is attached below:
Year Players 2021 USD Original Value
1886 Steinitz- Zukertort $146,177.97 800 GBP
1889 Steinitz-Chigorin $34,573.63 1,150 USD
1891 Steinitz-Gunsberg $91,183.19 3,000 USD
1892 Steinitz-Chigorin $60,788.79 2,000 USD
1894 Lasker-Steinitz $128,646.05 4,000 USD
1897 Lasker-Steinitz $55,028.50 300 GBP
1907 Lasker-Marshall $29,424.36 1,000 USD
1908 Lasker-Tarrasch $41,086.39 6500 Marks
1910 Lasker-Janowski $25,970.47 5000 CHF
1921 Capablanca-Lasker $386,297.49 25,000 USD
1927 Alekhine-Capablanca $158,959.20 10,000 USD
1929 Alekhine-Bogoljubov $88,528.61 25,200 Reichsmarks
1934 Alekhine-Bogoljubov $123,845.82 6,000 USD
1935 Euwe-Alekhine $201,889.78 10,000 USD
1948 Botvinnik $57,383.61 5,000 USD
1951 Botvinnik-Bronstein $106,380.38 10,000 USD
1966 Petrosian-Spassky $17,073.40 2,000 USD
1969 Spassky-Petrosian $10,551.08 1,400 USD
1972 Fischer-Spassky $1,654,240.43 250,000 USD
1978 Karpov-Korchnoi $2,375,611.04 560,000 USD
1981 Karpov-Korchnoi $1,467,034.88 800,000 CHF
1985 Kaparov-Karpov $1,583,870.85 1,000,000 CHF
1986 Kaparov-Karpov $2,200,905.58 1,400,000 CHF
1987 Kaparov-Karpov $3,531,115.45 2,280,000 CHF
1990 Kaparov-Karpov $5,742,332.18 3,000,000 USD
1993 Kasparov-Short $4,823,648.77 1,700,000 GBP
1995 Kasparov-Anand $2,722,332.68 1,500,000 USD
2000 Kramnik-Kasparov $3,212,415.80 2,000,000 USD
2006 Kramnik-Topalov $1,371,969.25 1,000,000 USD
2007 Anand $1,734,167.22 1,300,000 USD
2008 Anand-Kramnik $1,969,342.04 1,500,000 EUR
2010 Anand-Topalov $2,575,917.79 2,000,000 EUR
2012 Anand-Gelfand $3,071,952.88 2,550,000 USD
2013 Anand-Carlsen $2,968,240.92 2,500,000 USD
2014 Carlsen-Anand $1,201,798.64 1,000,000 EUR
2016 Carlsen-Karjakin $1,198,511.65 1,000,000 EUR
2018 Carlsen-Caruana $1,160,085.80 1,000,000 EUR
2021 Carlsen-Nepo $2,255,530.00 2,000,000 ​EUR
submitted by Polytroposphere to chess [link] [comments]

I will analyse every world championship game ever played (Day 4)

Here is game 4, have fun.
What happened so far: Steinitz started strong in game 3, but he underestimated Zukertorts kingside attack. The matchscore is now Steinitz 1:2 Zukertort.
[pgn][Event "Steinitz - Zukertort World Championship Match"] [Site "New York, NY USA"] [Date "1886.01.18"] [Round "4"] [White "Wilhelm Steinitz"] [Black "Johannes Zukertort"] [Result "0-1"] [UTCDate "2020.05.26"] [UTCTime "20:27:23"] [Variant "Standard"] [ECO "C67"] [Opening "Ruy Lopez: Berlin Defense, Rio Gambit Accepted"] [Annotator "https://lichess.org/@/reallynotbatman"]
  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 { The berlin defence } 4. O-O Nxe4 5. Re1 (5. d4 { This is the main variation of the Berlin and one of the most popular openings nowadays. } 5... Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. dxe5 Nf5 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8) 5... Nd6 6. Nxe5 Nxe5 7. Rxe5+ Be7 8. Bf1 { This was a novelty by Steinitz. It is stronger than the alternatives: } (8. Ba4) (8. Bd3) 8... O-O 9. d4 Bf6 10. Re1 Re8 (10... Nf5 11. c3 (11. g4? Nxd4 12. g5 Bxg5 13. Qxd4 Bxc1 14. Rxc1 Qg5+ 15. Kh1 Qxc1 { Black is winning }) 11... d5 12. Bf4 c6 13. Nd2 Nh4 14. Bd3 Bf5 15. Bxf5 Nxf5) 11. c3 Rxe1 12. Qxe1 Nf5 (12... Ne8 13. Bf4 d5 14. Nd2 (14. Bd3 g6) 14... Bf5 { Both whites and blacks position is very solid }) 13. Bf4 d6 14. Nd2 Be6 (14... g5 15. Be3 (15. Bg3 h5 16. f4 { white can sacrifice this pawn } 16... h4 17. Bf2 gxf4 { Blacks exposed king and weak pawn structure should be enough compensation for the pawn }) 15... h5 16. Ne4 d5 17. Nxf6+ Qxf6 18. Bd2 { White enjoys an advantage }) 15. Bd3 Nh4 16. Ne4 Ng6 { Black could keep his bishop pair with: } (16... Be7 17. Qe2 Ng6 18. Bg3 c5) 17. Bd2 d5 18. Nc5 { Not a good move, as black will play Bc8 followed by b6. White should play Ng3 where it might support a kingside attack. A modern player would also consider Nxf6+ and try to utilize the bishop pair in the endgame } (18. Ng3 Qd6 19. Qe3 Re8 20. f4) (18. Nxf6+ Qxf6 19. Qd1 Re8 20. Qb3 Bf5 21. Bf1 Qb6 22. f3 Qxb3 23. axb3 a6) 18... Bc8 19. Qe3 b6 20. Nb3 (20. Na6 Bb7 21. Nb4) 20... Qd6 { Developing the bishop is better } (20... Be6) 21. Qe8+ (21. Bxg6 hxg6 22. Qe8+ Kh7 (22... Qf8 23. Qc6) 23. Qxf7 (23. Re1 Qd7 24. Bf4 c6 25. Nc1 g5 (25... Qxe8 { The trade is good for white } 26. Rxe8 Bb7 27. Rxa8 Bxa8 28. Bb8) 26. Bg3 Qb7 { Black can avoid the trade }) 23... Be6 { The queen is trapped } 24. Bf4 Bxf7 25. Bxd6 cxd6) 21... Nf8 (21... Qf8? 22. Qc6 Be6 23. Qxc7 { White wins a pawn }) 22. Re1 Bb7 23. Qe3 Ne6 { preparing c5 } 24. Qf3 Rd8 (24... c5 25. Qf5 { Threatening Qxh7+ } 25... Nf8) 25. Qf5 Nf8 26. Bf4 Qc6 (26... Qd7? 27. Qxd7 Rxd7 28. Bf5 Re7 29. Rxe7 Bxe7 30. Bxc7 { White should win this endgame }) 27. Nd2 Bc8 28. Qh5 g6 29. Qe2 Ne6 30. Bg3 (30. Be5 Bxe5 31. Qxe5 Qd6 32. Qxd6 Rxd6 { With equality }) 30... Qb7 { Qa4 threatens the a-pawn } (30... Qa4 31. Nf3 Qxa2 32. Ne5 Rf8) 31. Nf3 { Also interesting is: } (31. Be5 Bxe5 32. Qxe5 c5 33. Nf3 { White can try to exploit the weak dark squares around the black king with Qf6, Ne5 and similar moves }) 31... c5 { Black can finally advance the c-pawn } 32. dxc5 { A bad move, this surrenders the center. } (32. Be5 Bxe5 33. Qxe5 cxd4?! 34. Nxd4) 32... bxc5 33. Ne5 c4 34. Bb1 (34. Bc2 Qxb2!? 35. Nxf7 { At first sight, this seems like a great move. However: } 35... Kxf7 (35... Rf8 36. Nh6+ Kg7 37. Ng4 Nd4!! 38. cxd4 Bxg4 39. Qxg4 Qxc2 40. Qd7+ Rf7 41. Qxd5 Qd2 42. Rf1 c3 { The strong c-pawn is more than enough compensation }) 36. Bxg6+ hxg6 37. Qxb2) 34... Bg7 35. Rd1 Bd7 36. Qf3 Be8 37. Nxc4 { A blunder } 37... dxc4 38. Rxd8 (38. Qxb7 Rxd1#) 38... Nxd8 { Defending the black queen } 39. Qe2 Ne6 { 0-1 White resigns. } 0-1 [/pgn]
Links to lichess Studies with all games:
Steinitz vs. Zukertort 1886
submitted by GlitterDeath666 to chess [link] [comments]

I will analyse every world championship game ever played (Day 20)

Here is game 20, have fun. Join ChessChampion for a daily update.
What happened so far: In game 19 Steinitz outplayed Zukertort and pushed his center pawns down the board. The matchscore is now Steinitz 9:5 Zukertort. Steinitz needs one win to secure the title.
[pgn][Event "Steinitz - Zukertort World Championship Match"] [Site "New Orleans, LA USA"] [Date "1886.03.29"] [Round "20"] [White "Wilhelm Steinitz"] [Black "Johannes Zukertort"] [Result "1-0"] [UTCDate "2020.05.26"] [UTCTime "20:36:01"] [Variant "Standard"] [ECO "C25"] [Opening "Vienna Game: Vienna Gambit, Steinitz Gambit"] [Annotator "https://lichess.org/@/reallynotbatman"]
  1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. d4 { This is the Steinitz Gambit invented by him in 1867 } 4... d5 (4... Qh4+ 5. Ke2 { The idea is to centralize the king, gaining an advantage in an eventual endgame }) 5. exd5 Qh4+ 6. Ke2 { The attentive reader of anarchychess might also know this variation as the "hyper-delayed Bongcloud" } 6... Qe7+ { This check seems a bit useless } (6... Nb4 7. Nf3 Bg4) 7. Kf2 Qh4+ 8. g3 fxg3+ 9. Kg2 (9. hxg3?! Qxh1 10. Bg2 Qh2 11. dxc6 Bd6 12. Qf3 { With chances for both sides }) 9... Nxd4 (9... Bd6 { Stopping hxg3 } 10. Qe1+ (10. dxc6 gxh2 11. Qf3 hxg1=Q+ 12. Kxg1 Qxd4+ 13. Be3) 10... Nce7 11. hxg3 Qxd4) 10. hxg3 Qg4 11. Qe1+ (11. Bf4 Qxd1 12. Rxd1 Nxc2) 11... Be7 12. Bd3 { Defending c2 } 12... Nf5 { A mistake. This might stop Rh4, but the only correct move was: } (12... Kf8! { Unpinning the bishop, thus stopping Rh4 } 13. Ne4 Qd7 14. c4) 13. Nf3 Bd7 14. Bf4 { Now black can't play 0-0-0 } 14... f6 { Defending against Ne5 } (14... O-O-O?? 15. Ne5 { Winning the queen }) 15. Ne4 { With the idea of Nf2 } 15... Ngh6 (15... O-O-O 16. Qa5) (15... h5 16. Nh4 Nxh4+ (16... g5 17. Nxf5 gxf4 18. Nxf6+) 17. Rxh4) 16. Bxh6 Nxh6 17. Rxh6 gxh6 (17... O-O-O { Black is lost } 18. Rh4) 18. Nxf6+ Kf8 19. Nxg4 { 1-0 Black resigns. } { Wilhelm Steinitz is the new world champion! } 1-0 [/pgn]
That were all 20 games of the first world championship. Next is the first Steinitz - Chigorin match from 1889.
Links to lichess Studies with all games:
Steinitz vs. Zukertort 1886
submitted by GlitterDeath666 to chess [link] [comments]

RBI Alert List : Using these apps and websites will land you in legal trouble. This list includes popular apps like Octa Fx, Olymp Trade, Binono etc.

RBI Alert List : Using these apps and websites will land you in legal trouble. This list includes popular apps like Octa Fx, Olymp Trade, Binono etc. submitted by cometweeb to IndiaSpeaks [link] [comments]

Is there a correlation between draw rate and game length ? Analysis of 909 World Championship games

Is there a correlation between draw rate and game length ? Analysis of 909 World Championship games
The recent 136-move win of Carlsen against Nepomniachtchi in Game 6 of World Chess Championship 2021 had me wonder : do decisive games tend to be longer than draws ?
So I looked at all world championship matches (starting from Steinitz-Zukertort 1886, including only PCA championships during the split title period 1993-2006, and not including World championship tournaments in 1948 and 2007) for a total of 909 games.
And here are the conclusions :
  • Drawn games are shorter on average (41.9 moves) than decisive games (46.2 moves).
  • However, the draw average length is heavily decreased by quick draws - if we exclude games of strictly less than 30 moves, average draw length rises to 49.3 moves, one move longer than average win length (48.3).
  • Extremely long games tend to be more drawn - 70% (21/30) of 80+ move games are drawn, against 57% (518/909) of all games. These are sufficient to explain the +1 move difference seen above - considering only 30-79 move games, decisive games are again longer than draws (47.2 moves against 46.7).
  • Thus, Carlsen's 136-move win was the exception rather than the rule (only one other 100+ move game has been decisive (Kasparov-Karpov 1990, Game 16, 102 moves), against six 100+ move draws). Though these conclusions can be considered unmeaningful due to lack of datapoints.
  • White tends to win a tiny bit faster than black on average (46.1 moves for White wins against 46.4 for Black wins), but this difference is rater insignificant.
  • TL;DR Very short games are generally draws ; otherwise, draws are about the same length as decisive games, although very long games have been more drawn. The graphic below shows repartition of WCC games depending on result and number of moves.
Result split in function of number of moves. For example, 99 WCC games ended in draws between moves 30 and 39.
submitted by Interesting_Test_814 to chess [link] [comments]

Jan Gustafsson and Peter Heine Nielsen's list of the 50 greatest chess players of all time

From chess24:
  1. Garry Kasparov
  2. Magnus Carlsen
  3. Bobby Fischer
  4. Emanuel Lasker
  5. Alexander Alekhine
  6. Anatoly Karpov
  7. José Raúl Capablanca
  8. Mikhail Botvinnik
  9. Viswanathan Anand
  10. Paul Morphy
  11. Vladimir Kramnik
  12. Tigran Petrosian
  13. Wilhelm Steinitz
  14. Vasily Smyslov
  15. Mikhail Tal
  16. Boris Spassky
  17. Max Euwe
  18. François-André Danican Philidor
  19. Fabiano Caruana
  20. Viktor Korchnoi
  21. Veselin Topalov
  22. Paul Keres
  23. Akiba Rubinstein
  24. Howard Staunton
  25. David Bronstein
  26. Adolf Anderssen
  27. Johannes Zukertort
  28. Louis-Charles Mahé de la Bourdonnais
  29. Bent Larsen
  30. Samuel Reshevsky
  31. Efim Bogoljubov
  32. Reuben Fine
  33. Levon Aronian
  34. Siegbert Tarrasch
  35. Vasyl Ivanchuk
  36. Carl Schlechter
  37. Harry Pillsbury
  38. Efim Geller
  39. Boris Gelfand
  40. Mikhail Chigorin
  41. Jan Timman
  42. Miguel Najdorf
  43. Szymon Winawer
  44. Peter Leko
  45. Géza Maróczy
  46. Gata Kamsky
  47. Lev Polugaevsky
  48. Lajos Portisch
  49. Sergey Karjakin
  50. Aron Nimzowitsch
Your thoughts/opinions?
submitted by benjaneson to chess [link] [comments]

versteghe schramsberg brut lg vacuum cleaner manual s747 devexpress grid sort multiple columns thank you for this moment lyrics bernina deco 600 embroidery machine ...

[index] [20761] [17260] [26124] [2897] [9138] [9005] [10233] [4325] [8356] [2004]