Ascharin

     In the small St. Petersburg tournament of 1876, Andreas Ascharin, who hailed from Dorpat, the same city that gave us Lionel Kieseritsky, beat both the experienced Ilya Shumoff and a newcomer named Mikhail Tschigorin to win the event.

     Ascharin was a writer and journalist. One of his books was a compilation of chess humor, entitled: Schach-Humoresken

     In March 1890, Mr. Ascharin, Dr. Alex Helling, and Pastor N. Hugenberger, in a meeting held at the Restaurant Wirbitzk, were elected to the Commission to form a chess association. In the fall, C. v. Reisner and Paul Kerkovius were added to that commission and the Riga Chess Association (Rigaer Scachverein) was formed on Dec. 4, 1890.  Dr. Helling and Pastor Hugenberger (who had been president of the old chess club that met at the  Hotel Deutsches Haus) both died in 1891.  Ascharin invited international masters such as Steinitz, Tschigorin, Tarrash, Schiffers, Schallopp and Amelung to play at the Riga Chess Club.

     In 1877, after his little victory in St. Petersburg, Aschain lost a close 9 game match to Friedrich Amelung 5-4.  bn 1879, Tshcigorin had risen tremendously, easily winning the St. Petesburg tournament while Ashcarin languished in 6th place out of 9 contestants.

     As mentioned Andreas Alexandrovich Ascharin was the first chairman of the Rigaer Scachverein, the largest chess club in the Baltics.  He was a strong player who drew a match with Emil Schallop in 1890 and the beat Schallop 3-0 in 1893. In 1894, he drew a match with Emanuel Schiffers (+1-1=1).  He had, however, lost the following Evans Gambit match to Tschigorin in 1892 (0-3).  

 .

When they break modern principals it makes me think I could give Chigorin a better match than this Ascharin guy... but old time players were really dangerous with their attacks, so who knows.

Since many of the elements of positional chess or even chess strategy that we take for granted either hadn't been developed or at least weren't part of the Romantic ideal, how chess was conducted among these masters was very high caliber in one area but lacking in others.  When you stop and think about it, the principles of modern chess were built upon the realization that these attacks aren't justified without weakness and positional chess is partly built upon avoiding weaknesses, or choosing the least damaging ones, and denying attacks undermined Romanticism to some degree.

Yeah, I definitely have a big advantage having been given modern knowledge, I'm just giving my reaction, I don't mean disrespect to them.

I annotated the game on my own without an engine or any other help. Looking at my notes with an engine, of course I missed some things... but the engine helped me see that many moves weren't as bad as I thought. The moves I was most critical of, 17.d5 and 26.Nd2, were actually bad. It seems because black won (and he's Chigorin) I gave him too much credit. I didn't criticize any of his moves, but the engine points out some mistakes of course... but I honestly didn't hate any of his moves enough to dare question him

I also gave up on white too early. Engine says 44.Qd3 and white is back in the game.

My notes only:

Thanks. That was fun to play through and read the comments.  It would be nice to read Tschigorin's own annotations.

   In the OP, one might have noticed the name of "Paul Kerkovius" as one of the founders of the Rigaer Scachverein.

   Kerkovius was involved in a famous series of correspondence games played between Riga and various foreign chess clubs during an extended period of time.  At the conclusion, although delayed by the war a book was published by Helm and Cassel.  Due to the Riga's reputation for analyzing and compiling data, these matches, as well as the analyses, were considered very important at the time. The "Riga Defense," also referred to as the "Bohl Variation" were elevated from relative obscurity  into prominence thanks to this series of games.

     During a period of years, stretching from 1896 to 1910, a series of matches, consisting of two games each, were contested by the tournament committee of the Riga Chess Club with various clubs of high standing, including the Berlin, Moscow, Stockholm and Orel Chess Clubs. Moves in these games were exchanged by telegraph, but under a time limit and other conditions similar to those which obtain in correspondence chess. In other words, ample opportunity was afforded for the widest range of analysis.
     In the members of the Riga committee that club had the services of men who may well be said to have few peers in the art of dissecting a chess position and dragging forth to light its manifold possibilities. The list includes some names of world-wide renown in the field of end-game studies and problems.
     Every member of the committee is possessed of much more than the average intelligence and each is a man of parts wholly apart from chess. That such a company working in unison should produce results worth while and make contributions of lasting value to the analysis of the game goes without saying. Following is the roll of honor: Professor Dr. P. Bohl, Paul Kerkovius, Carl Behting, Robert Behting and August Lueth.

I just realized I was criticizing him more for not playing actively enough, not that he was too romantic and sacrificing things

It would be interesting to see some of these games.

Do you have a sample of this chess humor?  I don't know any chess jokes. 

Thanks Batgirl!...great as always..... We chess players got more "paranoid" about weaknesses and defense as time went on....they had more fun in the old days....their method of play does reflect the Victorian era where scholars had to be gentlemen too....many of them may have been Masons (interesting research topic) and had a knightly code to live up to, the manner of play may have been just as important as winning or losing to some of them.

Carl Behting, from the photo above played several correspondence games that were recorded. One of the recorded games was a win v. Tschigoirin; one a draw v. Tschigorin; one was win, two were losses v. Aron Niemzowitsch (of Riga); one was a win v. Leo Tolstoy's son Sergei.

Of the team matches, here are all the games with the dates played  (they were heavily annotated, something I didn't include). All matches were 2 games: one as Black, one as White.

Against the Orel Chess Club:

Against the Moscow Chess Club:

Against the Stockholm Chess Club:

Against the Berlin Chess Club:

Against the Moscow Chess Club:

Against the Berlin Chess Club:

Here's a little bit about the Knightly virtues:

     Moses Sephardi was born in 1062 in Huesca, a town in the Kingdom of Aragon. He was born a Jew but converted to Christianity. He was the doctor to Alfonso I, King of Aragon and when he converted, Alfonso stood sponsor at his baptism on St. Peter's day - 29 June, 1106. He took the name Petrus Alfonsus. (for St. Peter and King Alfonso I). He wrote several works. One of them, Petri Alfonsi Disciplina Clericalis,  has been translated into several languages and is still preserved in its original manuscript. Petrus Alfonsus died in 1110.
     Petri Alfonsi Disciplina Clericalis means A Training-school for the Clergy by Petrus Alfonsus.
     The Disciplina Clericalis had been adapted over the years as a model for knights, as well as clerics, and within are listed the Seven Virtuous Disciplines: (De septem artibus, probitatibus, industriis)
     "Probitates haec sunt, equitare, natare, sagittare, cestibus certare, aucupari, scaccis ludere, versificare."
     This translates:
     "These things are advisable, riding, swimming, archery, fencing, hunting (or falconry), chess playing,  poetry (or music)"

I can't read that language, but it doesn't seem to be jokes. It seems more like stories.

Here are Carl Behting's correspondence wins against Tschigorin and Neimzowitsch:

Wow, so many games, thanks. I'll take a look at these.

Yeah. It took me a while to put them together.

Thanks for your reply....was interesting again.... Surprised me when I looked it up how many of our founding fathers were Masons "George Washington was a Mason, Benjamin Franklin served as the head of the fraternity in Pennsylvania, as did Paul Revere and Joseph Warren in Massachusetts. Other well-known Masons involved with the founding of America included John Hancock, John Sullivan, Lafayette, Baron Fredrick von Stuben, Nathanael Greene, and John Paul Jones. Another Mason, Chief Justice John Marshall, shaped the Supreme Court into its present form."....but.....the Free Masons seem to come a little later than the knightly virtues as enumerated by Petrus Alfonsus who died 1110....the earliest reference to Masons according to their website was "Regius Poem, printed about 1390, which was a copy of an earlier work."....wondering if they were all connected to the Knights Templar, who were founded roughly contemporary with Alfonsus around the early 12th century....they seem to be Knight Clerics, Paladin types....and were expected to be the Nobelist of types.

Masons, like most secret societies are a mystery to me.  I'm tempted to believe it's mostly a benign networking organization today.  Whatever it's medieval origins might be, it probably evolved.  The Knights Templar is also somewhat mysterious, but at least the origins seems to have had a point.  Would I be mistaken to gather both the Knights Templar and Charlemagne's Paladins were anti-Muslim institutions at the very heart?

I do know I loved la Chanson de Roland which I read in translation a long time ago.

It's crazy how sometimes seemingly useless or random analysis is useful.

I got that structure (d6 and f6 with the e pawn gone) in a blitz game (and I had d4 and e4 pawns), and because I annotated then checked my annotations, I knew some good piece placements. Like Nc3 was good even though I didn't like it at first, and how I shouldn't be worried leaving my bishop on c1 for a while. Also that it was more about maintaining my central space, and e5 wasn't super critical to go for quickly.