| Results |
| |
| Crosstable scores |
| Name |
Edo |
Dev. |
Score |
/ |
Games |
| Wurm, Adolphus |
2324 | (59) |
21 | / | 24 |
| Blackmar, Armand |
2215 | (60) |
18 | / | 24 |
| Danziger, Isidore |
2090 | (71) |
14.5 | / | 24 |
| Labatt, Leon |
2145 | (55) |
12.5 | / | 24 |
| Wibray, James |
2017 | (62) |
12.5 | / | 24 |
| Dunn, M.F. |
2025 | (62) |
12.5 | / | 24 |
| Edwards, Charles |
2018 | (70) |
12 | / | 24 |
| Fass, M.J. |
1922 | (63) |
9.5 | / | 24 |
| Tennison, Otto |
1894 | (57) |
9.5 | / | 24 |
| Blanchard, James |
1976 | (56) |
9 | / | 24 |
| Buck, Charles |
1974 | (62) |
9 | / | 24 |
| Kaczoroski, F.C. |
1878 | (58) |
8 | / | 24 |
| Schuppert, William |
1900 | (72) |
8 | / | 24 |
|
| |
| |
Event table notes
|
| Event data |
| Name: 3rd New Orleans Chess, Checkers and Whist Club Tournament |
| Place: New Orleans |
| Start date: 1882 |
| End date: Nov. 1882 |
| |
| Notes: |
| The reported scores do not exactly add up to the correct total for a double-round 13-player all-play-all tournament. According to the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle of 15 Oct. 1882 (p.10), Danziger withdrew, but the list of results there shows Danziger's results as +11-13, which accounts for all 24 of his games. It is stated there that 'the games by him played are to be considered drawn'. One supposes that this means that unplayed games are counted as drawn. So Danziger's score in games played is not really known, nor which opponents he did not play. The totals for the other players given in the 15 Nov. 1882 issue (p.27), added to the 11 points for Danziger listed in the 15 Oct. issue, still do not total 156 as they should for a double-round 13-player all-play-all, but add to 152.5, so 3.5 points short. I am going to guess that theses 3.5 points are due to 7 unplayed games by Danziger, counted as a half point each as draws. His opponents will have received a half point for those games, too, and I don't know which opponents they are, so I will assume that Danziger's adjusted score is 14.5 and count all these games as played. This assumption could be wrong, of course. |
|
| |
| References |
| Periodicals |
| [BCC], vol. 1, no. 2, 15 Oct. 1882, page 10 |
| [BCC], vol. 1, no. 4, 15 Nov. 1882, page 27 |
| [CPC], vol. 6, no. 140, 4 Oct. 1882, page 472 |
| |
