Chess Informant "The Best of the Best 1000"

Hi all,

I just purchased the Informant's "Best of the Best" book, hoping to get some enlightenment from the fabled publisher. As expected, it really does seem like an extraordinary book. However, right off chapter one I got pretty confused and I'm hoping someone in the forums here could help.

The heading on each chapter has a rather elaborate table that lists all 10 games plus a plethora of information. Unfortunately, the book does not provide a 'legend' that explains all the elements of the table.

I get that it shows a list of games and who won with that color, but after that... Does anyone have a clue what the row of names on top are supposed to be? How about the numbers in the second, middle, and last columns?

Thanks!

Can you show a scan of the table?

I'm guessing but it might be the judges names on the top
and the scores they gave to the corresponding games.

Every book from about vol. 4 onwards gave the 10 best games (from the previous issue)
and the 10 best TN's. They usually gave the judges names and what game they awarded the points too.

As you can imagine a lot 'political thinking' went into awarding the points.

The first 'best game' was Fischer - Stein, Sousse Interzonal (1967).

Which is all rather strange because Fischer walked out of Sousse '67 and
his games were annulled...So in theory this game did not happen.

'Chess Brilliancy' by Damsky, an excellent book, goes into greater detail
about the games up to 1998 and the bias some of the judges displayed.
This really is a good book full of not just all the Informator games but nearly
every best game prize winner from other and older tournaments up to 1998.

Fischer - Stein, Sousse Interzonal (1967).

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I'm guessing but it might be the judges names on the top
and the scores they gave to the corresponding games.

Every book from about vol. 4 onwards gave the 10 best games (from the previous issue)
and the 10 best TN's. They usually gave the judges names and what game they awarded the points too.

As you can imagine a lot 'political thinking' we ...[text shortened]... g5 49. g3 Ra8 50. Rb2 Rf8 51. f4 gf4 52. gf4 Nf7 53. Re6 Nd6 54. f5 Ra8 55. Rd2 Ra4 56. f6[/pgn]

30. Be4?!
Littlewood found forcing win in 5 moves with 30. Nh4.

30. Be4 does not slip the win out of the hands, though, it just takes now more time.

31...Ra6! is better, but 32. Rad1 is good enough even in that case (Fischer in his book).

Still on thread, I recommend "Mammoth book of chess" for that purpose (huge amount of evergreen modern games),

Here's a pic:

http://tinyurl.com/y7ycuoyk

Originally posted by greenpawn34
[b]I'm guessing but it might be the judges names on the top
and the scores they gave to the corresponding games.[b]

OK. It makes sense now: Judges listed across the top; the number of points awarded to each game; and a total points per game.

Originally posted by vandervelde
Still on thread, I recommend "Mammoth book of chess" for that purpose (huge amount of evergreen modern games),

As far as I know there has only been one Evergreen game ever played.

Originally posted by ketchuplover
As far as I know there has only been one Evergreen game ever played.

You fail to see the forest because of a tree...

Originally posted by ketchuplover: As far as I know there has only been one Evergreen game ever played.

vandervelde, medieval punk rocker: You fail to see the forest because of a tree...

The game commonly referred to as The Evergreen Game was played by Adolf Anderssen and Jean Dufresne in July 1852. Anderssen won this game, but Dufresne won other fine games against Anderssen. The game is reported here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_Game

However, look at this gem: Anderssen - Dufresne, Berlin 1851

That's immortal game.😛
edit--> I just remembered: Andersen played it against Kieseritzky.

Hi Moonbus,

That game you posted Anderssen - Dufresne, Berlin 1851.

Good to see that you have not fallen into the trap by calling it Anderssen - Lange 1859
This would have been perfectly understandable because Black is given as Lange (1859)
in many renowned sources., Vukovic's 'Art of Attack' being just one of them.

Max Lange analysed this game with Anderssen in 1859 adding a possible finish.
The analysis appeared in a German book. A non German speaking writer saw
the names and analysed finish thus coming to the conclusion it was an Anderssen - Lange game.

It just takes one writer in these circumstances to spread the wrong word around the globe.

The game finished, according the Anderssen's and Lange's analysis.

Originally posted by vandervelde
That's immortal game.😛
edit--> I just remembered: Andersen played it against Kieseritzky.

It is quite a tribute to Anderssen that two games with capital letters are attributed to him.

Originally posted by moonbus
It is quite a tribute to Anderssen that two games with capital letters are attributed to him.

I believe most of RHP-members would settle with Kieseritzky's role, who lost more than one famous game 🙂,