I did not know until Andy Soltis pointed it out that Akiva Rubinstein
beat S Tarrasch 8-0 with 12 draws, over the years 1911 to 1924-ish.

I suppose there are a few not-so-famous lop-sided results like that
from chess history - I mean Kasparov v Shirov and many others are too
well-known to mention. Short v Ljubojevic was highly in favour of the
four-eyed kebab-cruncher for a long time.

Any other less-well-known ones that anyone knows?

I might do a Fritz-generated .pdf of the R v T games; if anyone has
annotations to any of the games I'd like to see them.

I did not know until Andy Soltis pointed it out that Akiva Rubinstein
beat S Tarrasch 8-0 with 12 draws, over the years 1911 to 1924-ish.

Perhaps not that surprising if one reflects that Rubinstein was playing
someone 20 years his senior, who would have been already about 49 by 1911.
I think Tarrasch's best form was in the 1890s.

Regards,

John Townsend,
Howard Staunton Research Project:
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk/...es/Page324.htm

On Feb 24, 3:44 am, Offramp wrote:
I did not know until Andy Soltis pointed it out that Akiva Rubinstein
beat S Tarrasch 8-0 with 12 draws, over the years 1911 to 1924-ish.

I suppose there are a few not-so-famous lop-sided results like that
from chess history - I mean Kasparov v Shirov and many others are too
well-known to mention. Short v Ljubojevic was highly in favour of the
four-eyed kebab-cruncher for a long time.

Any other less-well-known ones that anyone knows?

Where did you find Soltis mentioning Rubinstein-Tarrasch? In his
book "Chess Lists" (2nd edition, McFarland & Co, 2002), he had a
section titled Difficult Opponents, in which he listed some of the
more lopsided career records: Janowski-Chigorin (+17 -4 =4), Korchnoi-
Tal (+13 -4 =27) and eight others. But he did not mention the
Rubinstein-Tarrasch imbalance. That was one of the omissions I
mentioned in my review of the book at ChessCafe (
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review348.pdf ). That list:

Capablanca-Marshall (+22 -2 =28)
Steinitz-Blackburne (+28 -10 =7)
Rubinstein-Duras (+10 -2 =1)
Larsen-Najdorf (+8 -2 =2 )
Botvinnik-Boleslavsky (+7 -1 =6 )
Botvinnik-Keres (+8 -3 =9)
Korchnoi-Polugaevsky (+21 -8 =30)
Petrosian-Taimanov (+8 -2 =10)
Pillsbury-Mason (+7 -0 =1)
Polugaevsky-Gligoric (+7 -1 =5)
Portisch-Miles (+7 -1 =13)
Polugaevsky-Seirawan (+5 -1 =3)
Polugaevsky-Tal (+4 -0 =1)
Smyslov-Euwe (+7 -1 =0)
Korchnoi-Szabo (+6 -0 =6)
Rubinstein-Tarrasch (+8 -0 =12)
Tartakower-Marshall (+7 -1 =11)
Teichmann-Spielmann (+13 -3 =12)
Vidmar-Bogolyubov (+5 -1 =4)

Most of these are equally or more lopsided than most of those Soltis
lists.

It's interesting how two players of nearly equal strength can have
such different records against the same opponent. For example,
Marshall served as punching bag for Lasker, Capablanca and Tarrasch,
who scored +12 -2 =11, +22 -2 =28, and +13 -7 =18 against him
respectively, a collective +47 -11 =57. Yet Rubinstein barely had a
winning record against Marshall, +11 -9 =16, while holding his own
quite well vs. Lasker (+1 -2 =4) and Capablanca (+1 -1 =7), and
clobbering Tarrasch.
Rubinstein also had a pretty tough time with Nimzovitch (+7 -6 =10)
while Capa did not (+5 -0 =6). Capa, on the other hand, had some
trouble with Tarrasch (+2 -1 =3). Spielmann played Capa even (+2 -2
=8), while Rubinstein had a good plus score (+17 -13 =10).

On Feb 24, 2:07 pm, wrote:
On Feb 24, 3:44 am, Offramp wrote:

I did not know until Andy Soltis pointed it out that Akiva Rubinstein
beat S Tarrasch 8-0 with 12 draws, over the years 1911 to 1924-ish.

I suppose there are a few not-so-famous lop-sided results like that
from chess history - I mean Kasparov v Shirov and many others are too
well-known to mention. Short v Ljubojevic was highly in favour of the
four-eyed kebab-cruncher for a long time.

Any other less-well-known ones that anyone knows?

Where did you find Soltis mentioning Rubinstein-Tarrasch? In his
book "Chess Lists" (2nd edition, McFarland & Co, 2002), he had a
section titled Difficult Opponents, in which he listed some of the
more lopsided career records: Janowski-Chigorin (+17 -4 =4), Korchnoi-
Tal (+13 -4 =27) and eight others. But he did not mention the
Rubinstein-Tarrasch imbalance. That was one of the omissions I
mentioned in my review of the book at ChessCafe (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review348.pdf). That list:

Capablanca-Marshall (+22 -2 =28)
Steinitz-Blackburne (+28 -10 =7)
Rubinstein-Duras (+10 -2 =1)
Larsen-Najdorf (+8 -2 =2 )
Botvinnik-Boleslavsky (+7 -1 =6 )
Botvinnik-Keres (+8 -3 =9)
Korchnoi-Polugaevsky (+21 -8 =30)
Petrosian-Taimanov (+8 -2 =10)
Pillsbury-Mason (+7 -0 =1)
Polugaevsky-Gligoric (+7 -1 =5)
Portisch-Miles (+7 -1 =13)
Polugaevsky-Seirawan (+5 -1 =3)
Polugaevsky-Tal (+4 -0 =1)
Smyslov-Euwe (+7 -1 =0)
Korchnoi-Szabo (+6 -0 =6)
Rubinstein-Tarrasch (+8 -0 =12)
Tartakower-Marshall (+7 -1 =11)
Teichmann-Spielmann (+13 -3 =12)
Vidmar-Bogolyubov (+5 -1 =4)

Most of these are equally or more lopsided than most of those Soltis
lists.

It's interesting how two players of nearly equal strength can have
such different records against the same opponent. For example,
Marshall served as punching bag for Lasker, Capablanca and Tarrasch,
who scored +12 -2 =11, +22 -2 =28, and +13 -7 =18 against him
respectively, a collective +47 -11 =57. Yet Rubinstein barely had a
winning record against Marshall, +11 -9 =16, while holding his own
quite well vs. Lasker (+1 -2 =4) and Capablanca (+1 -1 =7), and
clobbering Tarrasch.
Rubinstein also had a pretty tough time with Nimzovitch (+7 -6 =10)
while Capa did not (+5 -0 =6). Capa, on the other hand, had some
trouble with Tarrasch (+2 -1 =3). Spielmann played Capa even (+2 -2
=8), while Rubinstein had a good plus score (+17 -13 =10).

That is a great post. Thank you very much.
There is a lot to think about.. A first thought is that final career
totals don't give the whole idea; the whole drama. Polugaevsky
mentions his problems with Hort. What he was talking about was a win
each with about 8 draws over 16 years - but Polugaevsky obviously
thought he should have scored much more. In the end it was 3-2 with
16= to Polu.
Also, Short-Ljubo ended up 11-5, with 9 draws. but I think there was a
series where Ljubo was struggling to get ½ a point.
What I like is where the player rated the same or within 100 points
less is scoring massively 'higher than expectation'.
A good example is Steinitz v Pillsbury in 1896, where Steinitz is
really totally and utterly at the end of his career, and Pillsbury is
a young man at the start of his victorious career, but WS walks all
over the great player.
Thanks again for your list, which really gives a lot to think about.

Soltis mentions it in his book "Why Lasker Matters".

On Feb 24, 1:20 pm, Offramp wrote:
On Feb 24, 2:07 pm, wrote:





On Feb 24, 3:44 am, Offramp wrote:

I did not know until Andy Soltis pointed it out that Akiva Rubinstein
beat S Tarrasch 8-0 with 12 draws, over the years 1911 to 1924-ish.

I suppose there are a few not-so-famous lop-sided results like that
from chess history - I mean Kasparov v Shirov and many others are too
well-known to mention. Short v Ljubojevic was highly in favour of the
four-eyed kebab-cruncher for a long time.

Any other less-well-known ones that anyone knows?

Where did you find Soltis mentioning Rubinstein-Tarrasch? In his
book "Chess Lists" (2nd edition, McFarland & Co, 2002), he had a
section titled Difficult Opponents, in which he listed some of the
more lopsided career records: Janowski-Chigorin (+17 -4 =4), Korchnoi-
Tal (+13 -4 =27) and eight others. But he did not mention the
Rubinstein-Tarrasch imbalance. That was one of the omissions I
mentioned in my review of the book at ChessCafe (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review348.pdf). That list:

Capablanca-Marshall (+22 -2 =28)
Steinitz-Blackburne (+28 -10 =7)
Rubinstein-Duras (+10 -2 =1)
Larsen-Najdorf (+8 -2 =2 )
Botvinnik-Boleslavsky (+7 -1 =6 )
Botvinnik-Keres (+8 -3 =9)
Korchnoi-Polugaevsky (+21 -8 =30)
Petrosian-Taimanov (+8 -2 =10)
Pillsbury-Mason (+7 -0 =1)
Polugaevsky-Gligoric (+7 -1 =5)
Portisch-Miles (+7 -1 =13)
Polugaevsky-Seirawan (+5 -1 =3)
Polugaevsky-Tal (+4 -0 =1)
Smyslov-Euwe (+7 -1 =0)
Korchnoi-Szabo (+6 -0 =6)
Rubinstein-Tarrasch (+8 -0 =12)
Tartakower-Marshall (+7 -1 =11)
Teichmann-Spielmann (+13 -3 =12)
Vidmar-Bogolyubov (+5 -1 =4)

Most of these are equally or more lopsided than most of those Soltis
lists.

It's interesting how two players of nearly equal strength can have
such different records against the same opponent. For example,
Marshall served as punching bag for Lasker, Capablanca and Tarrasch,
who scored +12 -2 =11, +22 -2 =28, and +13 -7 =18 against him
respectively, a collective +47 -11 =57. Yet Rubinstein barely had a
winning record against Marshall, +11 -9 =16, while holding his own
quite well vs. Lasker (+1 -2 =4) and Capablanca (+1 -1 =7), and
clobbering Tarrasch.
Rubinstein also had a pretty tough time with Nimzovitch (+7 -6 =10)
while Capa did not (+5 -0 =6). Capa, on the other hand, had some
trouble with Tarrasch (+2 -1 =3). Spielmann played Capa even (+2 -2
=8), while Rubinstein had a good plus score (+17 -13 =10).

That is a great post. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your courteous remark. It was not all that hard, since
I had already written much the same thing when reviewing the book in
2002.

There is a lot to think about.. A first thought is that final career
totals don't give the whole idea; the whole drama.

True. There are going to be some lopsided results for more or less
random reasons; for example, IM X, rated 2500, and GM Y, rated 2750,
might by pure chance get paired over several tournaments only in the
last few rounds, when Y had already clinched and was happy to make
short draws. So X ends up with a career even score against Y even
though he's not at all as good.
Age differentials matter a lot. Janowski had big career pluses
against Steinitz (+5 -2), Winawer (+10 -2), Blackburne (+6 -2 =4),
Chigorin (+16 -5 =5) and Burn (+11 -3 =3) in large part because he
caught them on the downside of their careers. In turn, against the
younger Rubinstein, Spielmann, Vidmar, Nimzovitch, Reti et al he did
poorly.

What I like is where the player rated the same or within 100 points
less is scoring massively 'higher than expectation'.
A good example is Steinitz v Pillsbury in 1896, where Steinitz is
really totally and utterly at the end of his career, and Pillsbury is
a young man at the start of his victorious career, but WS walks all
over the great player.

Well, Steinitz wasn't really quite washed up in 1896. After the St.
Petersburg tournament to which you refer, he had plus scores at
Nuremberg 1896, New York 1897, Vienna 1898, and Cologne 1898. Only in
his last event, London 1899, did he have a minus score.
Also, we can't be sure what the impact was of Pillsbury's
contracting syphilis at StP 1895-96. That disease was incurable then,
and I can imagine Pillsbury's composure might well have been badly
shaken when he found out during the tournament that he had contracted
it. It certainly could not have helped.

Thanks again for your list, which really gives a lot to think about.

BTW, here is Soltis' full "Difficult Opponents" from Chess Lists:

Janowski-Chigorin +17 -4 =4
Korchnoi-Tal +13 -4 =27
Pillsbury-Schlechter +8 -2 =9
Bogolyubov-Reti +19 -7 =4
Geller-Botvinnik +4 -1 =5
Capablanca-Nimzovitch +5 -0 =6
Boleslavsky-Kotov +7 -1 =5
Smyzlov-Szabo +6 -1 =10
Vidmar-Tartakower +10 -4 =14
Stein-Taimanov +4 -0 =6

However, all but two of these are wrong, especially Vidmar-
Tartakower, where the actual score was +11 -9 =17, hardly lopsided at
all. The others are off by smaller amounts; here are the correct
figures, as far as I could determine:

Janowski-Chigorin +16 -5 =5
Korchnoi-Tal +13 -4 =28
Bogolyubov-Réti +23 -8 =5
Geller-Botvinnik +4 -1 =7
Boleslavsky-Kotov +9 -1 =7
Smyslov-Szabo +6 -1 =11
Stein-Taimanov +5 -1 =7

The best source for this sort of information is "Life Maps of the
Great Chess Masters" by Nathan Divinsky (ICE, 1994). It's not perfect,
but nobody else has done anything remotely comparable, as far as I
know.