Chess Notes

12082. When did Steinitz become world champion?

Bartlomiej Macieja (Lasek, Poland) refers to the feature articles Early Uses of ‘World Chess Champion’ and World Chess Championship Rules and draws attention to a further text, published a few days before the first Steinitz v Lasker match began. Page 24 of the New York Times, 11 March 1894 stated:

‘For 26 years the veteran has successfully defended the championship of the world.’

Also:

‘If a man who has held the world’s championship for 26 years accepts a challenge for a match which promises to him less remuneration than matches he contested before, he deserves some praise.’

The illustrated article was also published, with due credit, on page 3 of the Montreal Daily Witness, 13 March 1894.

Nineteenth-century references to the duration of Steinitz’s tenure are always welcome, regardless of the view adopted.

12083. ‘Tournament champion’

Shortly before the start of the Carlsbad, 1907 tournament, Emanuel Lasker wrote on page 10 of the New York Evening Post, 7 August 1907:

‘The only notable absentee is Dr Tarrasch, who has been hailed as “tournament champion” since he won the “champions’ tournament” at Ostend. What title will be conferred on the winner of this tournament [Carlsbad] is rather puzzling at present.

As the list of entries includes all those who played in the “champions’ tournament”, with the exception of Dr Tarrasch, and includes Maróczy and many of the ingenious young players who are coming to the front, the Carlsbad tournament must be considered to be of the same class as that of Ostend, and it seems illogical to award the title of “champion” to the winner of one tournament and withhold it from the winner of the other.’

12084. Cohn v Chigorin

Many books have the game between E. Cohn and Chigorin, Carlsbad, 1907, for which White shared the second brilliancy prize. Much has been written about 11 f4, a move upon which Emanuel Lasker remarked:

‘Mr Cohn frankly admitted that he did not see that he would lose a pawn by this move. That it turns out a “sacrifice”, and not a loss, is more good luck than good management.’

Lasker gave the game on page 9 of 12 October 1907 edition of the New York Evening Post, and his comments about the ‘Irregular Opening’ are noteworthy:

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d6 3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 e4

‘Players like Chigorin undoubtedly dread the usual routine of the queen’s pawn opening, because of the difficulty which, as Black, they must experience before they can hope to attain any kind of attack or superiority. By some curious process of reasoning they resort to outlandish manoeuvres, hoping that something beneficial might turn up, or that irregularity may help originality. And so this position arises, where White has freedom and Black confinement. And this at no cost to White of material or weakness on the right, left or centre of the board. Conceding such an advantage, the result is inevitable against correct play. The queen’s pawn opening is certainly very strong for White, as indeed are many other openings. But the philosophy which induces a player with the black pieces to hope to win with moves which it is impossible to conceive are the best available only increases the inherent difficulties that have to be contended against.’

12085. Mexico

Is there a reader in Mexico who has access to archival materials of the country and who would be prepared to undertake some chess research on behalf of a C.N. correspondent?

12086. Anti-Turton

White to move

1 d4 would be met by 1...Qe2, and White therefore deployed the anti-Turton motif with 1 Rd2. A correspondent gave this position (Lucarelli v Carra, Bologna, 1932 or 1933) in C.N. 681, but further particulars (and most notably the full game-score) have not been traced. The two surnames can be found in Italian chess literature of about a century ago (often, in the second case, with the spelling Carrà), but when was the position, if not the full game, first seen in print?

Jens Askgaard (Køge, Denmark) writes:

‘The position from the game Lucarelli-Carra appears on page 109 of Schackkavalkad by Kurt Richter (Stockholm, 1949), translated from the original Kurzgeschichten um Schachfiguren (Berlin, 1947):

The date is given as 1933. Instead of Black resigning after 1 Rd2 Rxd2 2 d4 Qe2 3 Bc1, the book says that White won easily thanks to his strong passed pawn on h6.

I would add that 2...Qe2 is a losing mistake for Black. Instead, he could have played the anti-anti-Turton move 2...Rf2, or 2...Bh2, which my computer suggests as the best move.’

The position was on page 101 of the 1947 original edition. Had Richter already used it elsewhere?

12087. Ordinal numbers (C.N. 12033)

C.N. 12033 asked when and where the practice arose of referring to world chess champions with ordinal numbers.

From Dmitriy Komendenko (St Petersburg, Russia):

‘In Soviet sources I have found no instances of Botvinnik being called “the sixth world champion” during his first term (1948-51), although quite often he was called “the first Soviet champion”. The description “sixth world champion” can be found in articles published in 1951 in advance of his match against Bronstein, one example being a summary of the history of the chess matches on page 5 of the 15 March 1951 edition of the newspaper Советский спорт:

Frequent use of ordinal numbers seems to have begun with Smyslov. For instance, in an article on page 31 of the 16/1957 issue of Огонёк Flohr wrote, “Smyslov wants to be the seventh champion of the world in chess history”.

Other examples from 1957 can be quoted, such as the 19/1957 edition of Огонёк, page 31, where the writer, again Flohr, called for three times hurrah to celebrate the new, seventh world champion:

Starting with Tal, the practice became increasingly common. On page 3 of Советский спорт, 11 May 1960 an article by Gideon Ståhlberg, who was the chief arbiter of that year’s title match, was headed “The eighth world champion”:

A production by the Central Studio for Documentary Film (ЦСДФ) had the same title with reference to Tal. The tradition had been established and continued with Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, etc.’

12088. Robert Hübner (1948-2025)

The late Robert Hübner’s great strength as a player and analyst should not cause his legacy as a chess historian and critic to be overlooked. The C.N. search window can be used to locate a number of items which refer to his forensic skills.

12089. The writings of Robert Hübner

In his ChessBase ‘Two Knights Talk’ conversation with Arne Kähler on 17 January 2025, Johannes Fischer described Hübner as ‘an absolutely brilliant writer’ and expressed astonishment that so little of his output has appeared in English.

12090. Keres v Alexander

This photograph of Paul Keres and C.H.O’D. Alexander is reproduced courtesy of the Hulton Archive. It was taken during Hastings, 1954-55, but the board position is unrelated to their game in the tournament.

12091. Staunton and Saint-Amant

As cited in C.N. 8134, G.H. Diggle’s review of The Kings of Chess by William Hartston noted the inclusion of a cartoon depicting ‘Staunton’s final victory over Saint-Amant, with his supporters singing the National Anthem in the background’.

Dominique Thimognier (Fondettes, France) draws attention to the cartoon’s appearance on page 151 of Les Cahiers de l’Echiquier Français, issue 49, September-October 1935:

Our correspondent adds:

‘La Revue Caricaturale published the work of major French caricaturists, including the celebrated Honoré Daumier. The chess cartoon, by Charles Vernier, appeared in the 5 January 1844 edition. It is shown on the Bordeaux website Séléné, although with a notice which appears incorrect regarding the place of first publication (not Bordeaux but Paris).’

12092. Howard L. Dolde

Source: the conclusion of Chernev’s Chess Corner on page 237 of Chess Review, August 1952.

Such presentation of quotes, lacking any context (e.g. Capablanca’s age at the time, and whether the words were written or spoken), was a trait of past chess writers, even good ones. Today, the absence of a source leaves any writer open to scepticism.

Capablanca’s remark was discussed on pages 85-86 of our 1989 monograph, as well as in C.N.s 6172 and 9630. Below is the full (faint) column in which it first appeared, on page 8 of the sixth section of the Pittsburgh Gazette Times, 7 May 1916:

Larger version

The columnist, who focussed very much on chess problems, was Howard Louis Dolde (1884-1943).

From page 6 of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 7 September 1943:

We note too that the previous day, page 17 of the newspaper had referred to a coroner’s report on the cause of death:

For other information on Dolde, see an article by Neil Brennen on pages 276-287 of the 8/2002 Quarterly for Chess History.

Addition on 23 January 2025:

Courtesy of the Cleveland Public Library, below is an extract from page 82 of the April 1910 American Chess Bulletin:

12093. The death of T.W. Barnes

John Townsend (Wokingham, England) writes:

‘Thomas Wilson Barnes had the best record of any of the British players against Morphy in offhand games. Born in Ireland about 1825 (source: 1871 census), he qualified as a barrister at the Middle Temple, but was non-practising for a number of years.

Like Deschapelles, as well as being an exceptionally strong chessplayer he excelled at whist. When Barnes led trumps, the game was over, said an obituary.

The same obituary (“Whist Jottings”, Westminster Papers, 1 September 1874, pages 99-100) described in detail the symptoms of his last illness:

“His illness has been a long and painful one. This time last year he weighed 16 stones; he went abroad and his strength seemed suddenly to leave him. With difficulty he got into a cab. He gradually wasted away, until he became 7 st. 8 lb., and this was the last time he was weighed (two months since), and he was certainly much less weight at the last. Physicians were in vain. No one really knows the cause of his death; some have suspected a cancer in the stomach, and, unfortunately, he would not give permission to have a post mortem, so that the real cause will remain a matter of surmise. Our impression is that he died from ‘banting’. From being an enormous eater he suddenly stopped his food, taking meat only once a week; and soon, from want of use, his stomach refused to fulfil its functions. He died in peace, and desired kind remembrances to all his friends. To us his last words were whispered, ‘Kind, kind to the last; God bless your wife and little ones’. He lost his voice ten days before his death, and for 12 days he ate nothing ...”

“Banting” was a low carbohydrate diet system, named after its originator, William Banting.

A transcript of Barnes’ death certificate follows:

“When and where died: 20 August 1874, 68 Cambridge Street
Name and surname: Thomas Wilson Barnes
Sex: Male
Age: 49 years
Rank or profession: Barrister at Law
Cause of death: ‘Malignant disease of the Stomach some months Certified’
Signature, description and residence of informant:
Jane Simpson Present at the Death Madden Rectory Armagh Ireland
When registered: Twenty second August 1874
Signature of registrar: WP Griffith (?) Registrar”
Source: General Register Office, Deaths, Sept. quarter 1874, St George
Hanover Square, Vol. 1A, page 225)”

The cause of death, “Malignant disease of the Stomach some months Certified”, seems, to a medical layman such as myself, to account for the symptoms of rapid weight loss which have been alleged by some to be the result of “banting”.

The Calendar of Wills and Administrations (Dublin) for the year 1874 contains the following entry:

“Barnes Thomas Wilson
Effects under £5,000
15 October
The will of Thomas Wilson Barnes late of Middle Temple and 68 Cambridge Street London Barrister-at-Law deceased who died 13 August 1874 at 68 Cambridge Street was proved at the Principal Registry by the oaths of Reverend Samuel Simpson of Derrynoose Rectory County Armagh Clerk and Alexander Duke Simpson of Belfast Captain 13th Foot two of the Executors.”

Although there is the above entry in the calendar, the actual will has not survived, owing to a fire in Dublin in 1922.

For some reason, the date of death given above is one week earlier than that contained in the death certificate.

Barnes was buried in Brompton Cemetery on 25 August 1874. Source: the Royal Parks website.’

12094. S.S. Boden

John Townsend also provides ‘some random notes on the life of S.S. Boden’:

‘Samuel Standidge Boden was born on 4 May 1826 at West Retford, Nottinghamshire. Although some sources, including the Oxford Companion to Chess, have specified East Retford, the place of birth is clear in his baptism entry in the register of the independent chapel at Chapel Gate, East Retford (source: National Archives, RG 4 /3217, folio 7):

“Samuel Standidge, son of James and Mary Frances Boden, was born 4th of May 1826 in the parish of West Retford, and baptized July 27th in the same year. Jas. Boden.”

The chapel was nonconformist, and the officiating minister was his father, James Boden, whose father, in turn, James Boden, was a well-known Congregationalist minister at Sheffield and elsewhere.

James Boden junior was baptized on 28 August 1791 at Hanley Tabernacle, Staffordshire, an independent chapel (National Archives, RG 4/1871). He preached at Retford for a few years before moving with his work, and the 1841 census shows him as an Independent Minister, together with his family, including the 14-year-old Samuel, at “Riding Fields”, Beverley (National Archives, HO 107 1229/43, page 44).

Later that year, James Boden senior died. His will styled him “Reverend James Boden, Minister of the Gospel, of Sheffield” (National Archives, PROB 11/1953/196). James Boden junior was named as a legatee, but not the future chessplayer, Samuel, who was a grandson.

The loss at Chesterfield of Charlotte Boden, widow of the elder James, followed on quickly in 1843. James Boden junior, father of Samuel, had lost both parents within two years. During 1843 and 1844, he was mentioned a few times in the local press in connection with a chapel in Beverley and with the Mechanics’ Institute. The last reference I have to his duties as a minister in Beverley is a document noted in the catalogue of the archives at Hull History Centre, L DCFS/6/2/2/59/3: “Resolutions concerning the employment of Mr Boden at Lairgate Chapel during the illness of Rev. John Mather”, dated 1843, an item which I have not examined.

The Hull Advertiser, 24 November 1843, page 4, carried a news item about the Mechanics’ Institute, Beverley, in which he is recorded as having proposed a vote of thanks. Similarly, there is a reference to him in the Hull Advertiser, 8 March 1844, page 3, when he was reported as having delivered a lecture on magnetism to the Beverley and East Riding Mechanics’ Institute, of which he was one of the vice-presidents. Thereafter, I have no more information about James Boden until his death in 1851.

His wife, Mary Frances Boden, moved to Hull, her native town, with or without her husband. Rev. William Wayte, writing in the BCM (February 1882, page 56), affirmed Samuel Boden’s association with Hull:

“Before he came to London, Mr Boden was known as the strongest player of the Hull Chess Club”;

Some chess writers erroneously gave Hull as Boden’s birthplace.

An obituary of Samuel Boden in the Chess Player’s Chronicle (18 January 1882, page 31) notes that he started life as a railway clerk and it later makes the following observation:

“On coming into some property, through the death of a relative, he devoted himself to art. This necessarily left him but little time for chess and its practice.”

The Westminster Papers (1 September 1876, page 89) states:

“About 27 years ago there came to London from Hull a young gentleman, then 25 years of age, whose immediate destiny was a desk in the offices of the South Eastern Railway at Nine Elms.”

There seems to be an inconsistency in this last remark, since Nine Elms was in the South Western Railway Company. A document noted in the catalogue of the National Archives, RAIL 411/665, offers the possibility of some information concerning Boden’s railway career among records of the staff of Nine Elms. The document has not yet been examined.

Later in the Westminster Papers article, it is asserted that “the death of a distant relative some years ago” enabled him to “relinquish railway accounting”.

The known sources of his inheritances through the deaths of relatives were twofold. Firstly, his maternal grandfather, John Thornton, a gentleman, died in Hull in 1845, leaving a will which was written on 20 August 1844, a codicil being added on 29 July 1845, with probate granted on 28 August 1845 (National Archives, PROB 11/2027/205). The dwelling house at the time of the testator’s decease was given to his daughter (Boden’s mother) during her life:

“ ... upon trust to permit my said daughter Mary Frances Boden to have the use and enjoyment thereof during her life exclusively of her present or any future husband and without being in any manner subject to his debts control interference and in all respects as if she was a feme sole and after her decease I direct the same to sink into and be considered as part of my residuary personal estate and to be applied and disposed of accordingly ...”

She received a lifetime interest in other properties. The will mentions property in Hull, including in Albion Street and Storey Street. S.S. Boden was not one of the biggest winners from this will, but he stood to benefit in the long term through his mother, whom, in the event, he outlived by only three years. In addition, a trust fund was set up for the benefit of his mother and her children, and, more specifically, he was given a lump sum of £400 at the age of 21:

“... upon trust to pay thereout to each of the sons of my said daughter Mary Frances Boden (including the said John Thornton Boden and Edward Boden) who may have attained the age of 21 years or as and when they shall respectively attain that age the sum of four hundred pounds ...”

The date of Boden’s coming of age was 4 May 1847, but it is open to question whether he gave up his alleged job as a railway employee shortly after coming of age.

The second known inheritance came not from “a distant relative”, but from his father. The following facts are taken from his death certificate (General Register Office, Deaths, December quarter 1851, Shoreditch, Vol. 2, page 327). James Boden died on 8 December 1851 at 11 Albert Place, Shepherdess Walk, Hoxton New Town (Middlesex); male, 62 years, gentleman; cause of death: “Typhoid Fever Peritonitis Pleuritis Pneumonia Gangrine, 24 Days Certified”; informant George Booth, present at the death, of the same address; registered 10 December 1851.

George Booth was already living at 11 Albert Place on 31 March 1851, the day of the 1851 census, where he was described as a watch finisher; aged 37 and born in the City of London, he lived there with his wife, Louisa, and two children (National Archives, HO 107/1535, page number illegible). The nature of his relationship with the deceased, James Boden, is unknown.

James Boden was buried at the church of St John the Baptist, Hoxton, on 11 December, the officiating minister, by whom the ceremony was performed, being his own son, Edward Boden, of Huddersfield. The 1851 census finds Edward Boden in Huddersfield, described as born at Retford, aged 28, “B.A. Camb. Vice-Principal” of the Collegiate School there (National Archives, HO 107/2295, page 41). A minor discrepancy between the age of 61 in the burial register and of 62 on the death certificate is of no consequence.

The Huddersfield Chronicle (20 December 1851, page 8) reported that “on Thursday morning last” at the distribution of prizes at the Collegiate School “the Rev. Mr Boden was unavoidably absent, having been called to Ripon by the bishop to take priests’ orders”. It seems a little odd that the report made no mention of his having presided at his father’s burial, or, indeed, of the death of a minister who was formerly a widely-known figure in Yorkshire church circles. When James Boden senior had died, there had been an insertion in Gentleman’s Magazine, as there had been for his widow, Charlotte Boden.

James Boden died without a valid will, and, accordingly, letters of administration were granted in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury to Samuel S. Boden, of Thavie’s Inn (source: Indexes to death duty registers, National Archives, IR27/60, folio 14). The assets of an intestate are divided between the closest relatives according to set rules; in this instance, one would expect the widow to receive the lion’s share, with smaller portions going to the several children. For those requiring full details of the assets thus inherited by Boden the chessplayer, inspection of the appropriate death duty register in IR 26 at the National Archives at Kew should satisfy their curiosity; the letters of administration will be found in PROB 6.

Boden’s residence for a number of years, Thavie’s Inn, situated at Holborn, was originally used exclusively by lawyers, but by this time was available as accommodation for anyone willing to pay the going price. In fact, S.S. Boden is to be found there at the time of the 1851 census (National Archives, HO 107/1527, page 36). He lived in a boarding house run by Anne Cocker, a 53-year-old single woman, born at Hathersage, Derbyshire. Through an error in enumeration, Boden’s name has been recorded as “Samuel S. Bax”, but other details make it obvious that it should read “Samuel S. Boden”: he is described as a boarder, unmarried, aged 24, a gentleman, born at Retford, Notts.; above all, corroboration is provided by the “Thavie’s Inn” which appears in the indexes to death duty registers (see above); moreover, Boden was associated with Thavie’s Inn during Morphy’s time in England, viz.:

“We have the pleasure this month of completing the publication of the series of games contested in 1858 between Mr Morphy and Mr Boden. The following game, hitherto unpublished, was played between these eminent masters, at Mr Boden’s Chambers, in Thavie’s Inn, on the evening of 9 July 1858. The Rev. S.W. Earnshaw, to whom we are indebted for it, was present on the occasion, and recorded the moves.”

(Source: the Westminster Papers, 1 April 1876, page 241.)

Spare a thought for Boden’s father. What happened to him? He became detached from his wife and the rest of his family, and his death in 1851 was hushed up, suggesting that his family was not proud of him. Since he died in Hoxton, my first thought was that he may have spent some time in the lunatic asylum at Hoxton, but I have so far found no evidence of that. He may have had a change of career, a marital break-up, moved to another area, become an insolvent debtor, or become ill in some other way. Various possibilities remain open.

G.A. MacDonnell quotes Boden as recalling when he first met Bird at the Divan in the Strand, in The Knights and Kings of Chess, (London, 1894), page 44. That implies that Boden had himself started to visit there by 1846.

In 1847 Hull hosted the anniversary of the Yorkshire Chess Association (Chess Player’s Chronicle, 1847, pages 159-164). In fact, two Bodens attended: “Mr Boden, from Settle”, presumably, John Thornton Boden, elder brother of S.S. Boden, and “Boden”, by inference a Hull member, who is taken to be S.S. Boden himself. He won a game there from Harrwitz, who was playing blindfold and simultaneously, which earned him this favourable comment from Staunton:

“ ... Mr Boden, one of the most promising players of the Northern clubs.”

Boden took a number of years to come to his best as a player, his peak arriving in 1858. In 1851, he won the London “Provincial” tournament. He beat Rev. John Owen convincingly in a match in 1858, but his match play successes were otherwise limited. His reputation seems to have exceeded his actual achievements. Morphy’s description of him in 1858 as the strongest English player can be valid only if one excludes Löwenthal on the grounds that he was not naturalized until 1866, and Staunton, because he had retired, since it could be argued that both were stronger than Boden in 1858.

By the time of the 1861 census, he had moved to 57 Pratt Street in the parish of St Pancras (National Archives, RG 9/116, page 64). Here he was a bachelor and lodger and described as an “artist (landscape)”. Also living in St Pancras at that time was the Irish master Francis Burden, who for a time lodged with Cecil De Vere’s mother. The two of them are both associated with having given the young De Vere instruction in chess, but it is not known that Boden ever lodged with Mrs De Vere, and he probably coached De Vere at the Divan.

His later years were occupied primarily by art. His whereabouts on the 1871 and 1881 censuses remain to be discovered. He died on 13 January 1882, at 3 Tavistock Street, Bedford Square, Middlesex, described as “artist (painter)”, his age entered (incorrectly) as 56 (General Register Office, Deaths, March quarter 1882, St Giles district, volume 1B, page 453). His name was entered incorrectly as “Samuel Standridge Boden”, instead of Standidge. The cause of death was “Enteric Fever 20 days Pneumonia 4 days Certified by Charles Elam F.R.C.P.”, the informant being Joseph Wurgler, present at the death, of 3 Tavistock Street. In the 1881 census, Joseph Wurgler was a Swiss-born lodging house keeper, living at that same address with his wife and daughter (National Archives, RG 11 325, page 15), so he is taken to have been Boden’s landlord. According to the National Probate Calendar, Boden’s personal estate amounted to £2,628 2s., probate of his will being granted on 14 April to the executors, his brother Reverend Edward Boden and the chessplayer Thomas Hewitt, a solicitor.’

12095. A bishop ending

From pages 51-52 of the January-February 1907 Wiener Schachzeitung:

The position was picked up by the BCM (November 1907, page 489) ...

... and, with great enthusiasm, by Emanuel Lasker in his New York Evening Post column, 18 December 1907, page 6:

12096. The Monrad system

Carl Fredrik Johansson (Stockholm) enquires about the origins of the Monrad pairing system, and we offer some initial jottings.

An article by K.D. Monrad entitled ‘Et nyt Turneringssystem’ (A New Tournament System) was published on pages 40-41 of the April 1925 issue of the Danish magazine Skakbladet, with a follow-up article by him on page 81 of the July 1925 edition. There was extensive discussion of the system in Norsk Schakblad, beginning on pages 130-132 of the September 1925 number (contributions by Erling Wold and O. Trygve Dalseg) and continuing in December 1925, pages 180-181 (Erling Wold) and January-February 1926, page 13 (O. Trygve Dalseg).

All the above material can be conveniently viewed online: see Skakbladet and Norsk Schakblad.

About K.D. Monrad, further information will follow, with readers’ assistance. For the time being, we note a reference on page 102 of the 6/1981 Skakbladet:

12097. A worthy opponent

From Norsk Schakblad, March 1925, page 37:

Acknowledgement: Cleveland Public Library

For other examples of this technique, see C.N.s 3221, 3224 and 6040 in Chess Jottings.

12098. Lasker on the Ruy López

Firstly, the text of C.N. 3058 (given on pages 325-326 of Chess Facts and Fables):

‘If you have Black, and your opponent plays 3 Bb5, your best move is to offer him a draw.’

This remark by Emanuel Lasker appeared in the Boston Transcript of 31 January 1903, an item quoted on page 130 of the March 1903 Checkmate. The Boston newspaper commented:

‘And although this was a bit of pleasantry, Dr Lasker did say in all seriousness that where the second player in almost any other opening might hope for a win, it was good judgment in the Ruy to hope for a draw. The suggestion that the chess world was waiting for some man who should begin an exhaustive analysis of the Ruy early enough in life to complete it, he dismissed with a deprecatory shrug. “I’m afraid he would have to continue it in the hereafter”, he said.’

We have wanted to verify the Checkmate passage in the Boston newspaper and to add the page number, but so far only a similar, not identical, text has been found, on page 1 of the Boston Evening Transcript, 2 February 1903:

12099. Simultaneous displays by Lasker

By way of introduction to the now familiar simultaneous game F.W. Dunn v Emanuel Lasker, London, 21 January 1908, which began 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Nd4, Lasker’s column on page 7 of the New York Evening Post, 28 March 1908 stated:

‘Simultaneous chess, which has now become so popular, both here and in Europe, is capable of furnishing entertainments and instruction to the amateur chessplayer. But in order to make it so, it is necessary that the single performer – usually a master – should consider the interests of his opponents, and instead of measuring his success by the high score he can make, he should endeavor to play all sorts of combinations, calculated to exercise the ingenuity of his spectators. One should not try to play perfect chess on such occasions, for, to begin with, under the condition of play, one cannot succeed in doing so and, on the other hand, by introducing novelties that may lead to lively, though perhaps unsound, attacks, one not only avoids unduly prolonging the performance but also presents to the spectators many interesting and exciting positions. This sort of simultaneous chess also appeals to the opposing players, who usually prefer being defeated in a fair fight rather than being gradually and dismally ground down by the proverbial pawn plus.

Dr Lasker’s popularity as a simultaneous performer is largely due to his following this method of procedure. Always endeavoring to make his exhibitions both entertaining and instructive, he rarely follows the orthodox lines of play, but by varying at some point endeavors to create interesting situations that shall throw his opponents [sic] on his own resources, and enable him to exercise his ingenuity in finding the best reply.’

A comprehensive chronicle of his simultaneous displays from 1893 to 1940 is provided on the Emanuel Lasker Online website.

12100. The three shortest ever chess book reviews

Two words.

One word.

No words.

12101. Wallace, Liverpool and Rubinstein

Any chess-related information about William Herbert Wallace (1878-1933) and the Wallace Murder Case is of interest, and here we show a number of local newspaper cuttings from the time when he was a member of the Central Chess Club in Liverpool.

From the Liverpool Post & Mercury, 27 February 1930, page 14:

Five years previously, Akiba Rubinstein had visited the city for a series of chess engagements. As marked in red below, two of the newspaper reports, on 27 February and 6 March, included the name Wallace:

Evening Express (Liverpool), 20 February 1925, page 6

Liverpool Post & Mercury, 25 February 1925, page 10

Liverpool Echo, 25 February 1925, page 7

Liverpool Post & Mercury, 26 February 1925, page 11

Liverpool Post & Mercury, 27 February 1925, page 13

Liverpool Post & Mercury, 28 February 1925, page 9

Liverpool Post & Mercury, 28 February 1925, page 11

Liverpool Post & Mercury, 6 March 1925, page 10.

12102. Duchamp and Le Lionnais

From Oliver Beck (Seattle, WA, USA):

‘I have come across an article written by Raymond Keene entitled “Chips with a pinch of salt: Duchamp and Le Lionnais” which appeared online in The Article (thearticle.com), dated 7 December 2024. It contains material taken from C.N. 9465 with no mention of you or Chess Notes. However, Mr Keene did credit me with at least some of it, describing me as “the late Oliver Beck of Seattle”.’

12103. Backgammon

From page 2 of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 10 March 1930:

12104. Quote-pruning

C.N. 3212 quoted William Hartston’s exact words about A History of Chess, on page 189 of The Kings of Chess (London, 1985):

‘The classic book on the subject; 900 pages of meticulous research, practically unreadable.’

12105. The Real Paul Morphy (C.N. 12018)

From John Townsend (Wokingham, England):

‘Pages 268-272 of psychotherapist Charles Hertan’s recent book The Real Paul Morphy: His Life and Chess Games (Alkmaar, 2024) contain material about the Staunton-Morphy controversy. For those needing a reminder, the controversy can be seen as comprising the following phases in 1858:

1. Morphy arrives in England and challenges Staunton to a match. The latter, who has retired from match play, accepts, but points out that he is under contract to produce an edition of Shakespeare’s works, and he needs time to brush up on his game.

2. Relations between the two belligerents deteriorate through unfriendly exchanges in the press and elsewhere.

3. At length, Staunton withdraws from the negotiations. Relations continue to be bad and never really improve.

I did not notice new information about the controversy in this part of the book, or signs of fresh research on the topic. Much of the content in those pages is concerned with the quoting of contemporary reports and documents which have appeared in print before. For good measure, the author treats us to some colourful remarks of his own which reveal a one-sided stance in favour of Morphy.

Treatment of the Staunton-Morphy controversy in Chess Notes, going back to the 1980s, has included contributions from, among others, Louis Blair, G.H. Diggle, Frank Skoff and Kenneth Whyld, and the quartet of feature articles below includes many lively exchanges:

Edge, Morphy and Staunton
A Debate on Staunton, Morphy and Edge
Supplement to ‘A Debate on Staunton, Morphy and Edge’
Edge Letters to Fiske.

The C.N. discussions have been conducted in an editorially impartial and even-handed manner, but it seems that even-handedness was not part of Mr Hertan’s objectives. He refers to Morphy sometimes as “Paul”, while the supposed villain of the piece has to make do with “Staunton”.

The following anti-Staunton language and sentiment is to be found:

Page 268:

“Paul understandably doubted Staunton’s intentions”

“... sucker punches received from Staunton in the press ...”

“... Morphy shared his concern that Staunton would try to evade the match, and pin the blame on Paul ...”

Page 270:

“... but Staunton being Staunton, he couldn’t resist taking more cheap shots at Morphy in his column ...”

“... his shoddy treatment of the American ...”

Page 271:

“These actions were certainly petty and ungracious on Staunton’s part”

“... the bitchy sniping of a humiliated champion ...”

“... potshots at Morphy ...”

“... rattled by Staunton’s antics ...”

“... his unseemly behavior ...”

Page 272:

“... Staunton’s catty, distasteful behavior ...”

“But Staunton’s defenders never threw in the towel.”

Page 273:

“Howard Staunton had a deeply flawed personality.”

This last remark is perhaps the most damning of these criticisms and is stated with the same certainty as if Mr Hertan had had Staunton on the psychiatrist’s (or psychotherapist’s) couch in his consulting-room. It almost reaches the level of conviction of Dale Brandreth, whom you quoted in Attacks on Howard Staunton:

“… the fact is that the British have always had their ‘thing’ about Morphy. They just can’t seem to accept that Staunton was an unmitigated bastard in his treatment of Morphy because he knew damned well he could never have made any decent showing against him in a match.”

Reference is made by Mr Hertan to the old criticism that Staunton unfairly accused Morphy of not having the stakes for the match. The latter was hurt by the comments. Staunton had had difficulties in the past with would-be match opponents who could not readily muster the stakes, an example being Daniel Harrwitz. He did not invent the problem of Morphy’s stakes. In his book Paul Morphy The Pride and Sorrow of Chess (New York, 1976) David Lawson devotes a chapter to the subject of Staunton and the stakes, which reveals that Morphy’s family, the intended source of the stakes, strongly disapproved of a match for money. It is only too clear from Charles Maurian’s letter of 27 July 1858 to D.W. Fiske that the family’s attitude most certainly was a problem which seriously threatened the match. Morphy had kept from Maurian the extent of this disapproval and the extraordinary lengths the family was prepared to go to, which Maurian now revealed:

“... they were ready to send some responsible agent to London whose duty it would be to let Mr Morphy know that he must either decline playing or continuing the match or that he will be brought home by force if necessary; that they were determined to prevent a money match by all means.” (Lawson, pages 120-121)

Hinc illae lacrimae. Clearly, this ruled out the family as the supplier of the stakes. It left poor Maurian close to his wits’ end. Fortunately, he acted promptly and, in a change of plan, secured the £500 from another source, the New Orleans Chess Club. He wrote again on 29 July 1858 with news that the amount had been raised. There had been real uncertainty until Maurian’s decisive action. Who can tell the exact time of arrival of the funds? Neither are we likely ever to know how much intelligence, if any, about Morphy’s family difficulties reached Staunton’s ears. At the times when he grumbled about Morphy’s lack of stakes, it is likely that the money was yet to appear or, at least, as far as he was aware. Staunton deserves the benefit of the doubt here. His remarks are likely to have been in response to a real difficulty over stakes rather than a smear which he had falsely concocted to discredit his young adversary. Morphy’s family’s disapproval strongly indicates that there was indeed a real problem over the stakes.

Edge wanted the chess world to believe that it was Staunton who asked for the stakes to be reduced from £1,000 to £500, but it is much more likely that any such request came from Morphy, in the light of the family circumstances alluded to above. Given a choice, Morphy would certainly have preferred no stakes at all (“... reputation is the only incentive I recognize”).

Another issue was Staunton’s contract with Routledge to produce an edition of Shakespeare, sometimes cited by his critics as an excuse for not playing a match. One might have hoped that the late Chris Ravilious had put this matter to bed for good by his article in CHESS (December 1998, pages 32-33), in which he showed not only that such a contract existed but also that it contained specific penalty clauses for failure to deliver parts of the work on time. Later, the contract appeared in print in Tim Harding’s book, Eminent Victorian Chess Players (Jefferson, 2012), on pages 338-339.

Our understanding of the character of the degenerate F.M. Edge, Morphy’s associate, has taken giant steps forwards in recent years, so it is disappointing that such material has not been drawn upon by Mr Hertan. Edge certainly contributed to the breakdown of negotiations for a match. Good relations between Morphy and Staunton were needed if the former wanted a match, but Edge pulled in the opposite direction.

As events turned out, if there was ever going to be a meeting of these two famous masters, it needed to be at the Birmingham tournament. Unfortunately, while Staunton played in this event, and did badly, Morphy went to some lengths to avoid such an encounter, even giving a phoney excuse for his non-attendance. (See my contribution in A Debate on Staunton, Morphy and Edge.) Staunton’s participation at Birmingham answers the frequent criticism, also raised by Mr Hertan, that he was afraid to meet Morphy: whether or not he was matched against Morphy in Birmingham, he must have known that it was likely he would lose there, and he was not afraid of that; in the event, he was beaten by Löwenthal.

The chief problem with Mr Hertan’s coverage of the Staunton-Morphy affair is that virtually all of it could have been written 50 years ago.

It may be a small slip on page 273 to give Frank Skoff the wrong USCF title (he had been President, not Director), but how could Mr Hertan offer, on the same page, such an obviously incorrect conclusion about the exchanges between Skoff and Whyld? As I have observed elsewhere, Whyld emerged from the debate severely battered.

Mr Hertan ends that paragraph by writing one thing which is true: that there are “hundreds of pages” of C.N. material on Staunton, Morphy and Edge. The problem is that he shows no signs of having read them.’

12106. Abraham v Janine

From page 301 of 1000 Checkmate Combinations by Victor Henkin (London, 2011):

Acknowledgement for the scan: Cleveland Public Library

Karel Mokrý (Prostějov, Czech Republic) points out the following from pages 420-421 of the earlier Russian edition, 1000 matovykh kombinatsiy (Moscow, 2003):

For Black, named as Джанни, one would expect to see Dzhanni or Gianni, but what is known about either player of the 1923 game, and about the occasion?

The position was also on page 358 of Tal's Winning Chess Combinations by Mikhail Tal and Victor Khenkin/Henkin (New York, 1979), labelled Abraham v Gianni (1923).

12107. Praeceptor Germaniae

Javier Asturiano Molina (Murcia, Spain) asks:

‘Is it known when and by whom Siegbert Tarrasch was given the title “Praeceptor Germaniae”?’

The following appears in Tarrasch’s Foreword to the second edition of his Dreihundert Schachpartien (Leipzig, 1909), page vii:

‘In den Münchener Neuesten Nachrichten hat Herr v. Parish zu meinem Erstaunen erklärt, daß ich längst den Ehrennamen “Praeceptor Germaniae” trage.’

We note the following on page 13 of the 10 December 1905 edition of the Munich newspaper:

‘Der Deutsche Schachbund hat das Tarraschbüchlein allen seinen Mitgliedern zum Geschenk gemacht und dadurch dokumentiert, daß es zu dem eisernen Bestande jedes Schachfreundes gehören sollte. Auch wir können nur wünschen, daß durch eine möglichst weite Verbreitung und durch ein ernstes Studium dieses Werkes die Vertiefung des Schachs in ähnlicher Weise gefördert werde, wie es durch des gleichen Autors „300 Partien“ geschehen, die ihm in der ganzen deutschen Schachwelt den Ehrentitel eintrugen: praeceptor Germaniae! v. P.’

12108. Kostić v Caruso

As shown in our feature article on Boris Kostić, C.N. 6951 reproduced a supposed loss to Enrico Caruso, given by A. Soltis on pages 93-94 of Chess to Enjoy (New York, 1978), with no place or date or source stipulated. B. Pandolfini put ‘1918’ on page 106 of Treasure Chess (New York, 2007), whereas some databases and page 55 of CHESS, September 2004 had ‘New York, 1923’, even though Caruso died in 1921.

Now we add that on page 18 of the November-December 1996 issue of Chess Horizons (acknowledgement: Cleveland Public Library) Josef Vatnikov gave the game, stating, without evidence, that it was ‘played in New York in 1914’.

After just five words Vatnikov deployed ‘once’:

‘The great singer Enrico Caruso once said: “My favorite opening, playing Black, was the Philidor’s Defense.” In due time the famous Italian tenor played a lot of games with the Yugoslav grandmaster Bora Kostic, who was his chess trainer. “Caruso liked chess very much”, said Kostich, “I appreciated his chess ability. He could be on the offensive perfectly. Probably, many chess masters would envy his brilliant combinations.”’

There is no indication as to where any of this came from.

12109. Chess and music

From page 7 of the Sunday Sun (Newcastle), 12 February 1922:

The picture is a crude version of a photograph on Gallica mentioned in C.N. 9277.

Many newspapers reported in 1922 that Reshevsky and Joseph Schwarz intended to give each other lessons. The level of reportage is exemplified by page 3 of the Buffalo Evening Times, 6 January 1922:

12110. Hunting

Further to the role-playing exercises in C.N.s 11994, 12035 and 12060, readers are now invited to imagine themselves investigating supposed measures to ban chess in the Middle Ages, including, for example, oft-told stories about Bishop Guy of Paris having a chess board which was disguised by being folded.

Finding nothing in H.J.R. Murray’s books and articles, the investigator may try a search engine, the dubious reward being a plethora of similarly worded paragraphs such as this:

‘In 1125, Bishop Guy of Paris banned chess and excommunicated a few priests who were caught playing chess. A chess enthusiast priest then devised a secretive folding chess board. Once folded, it looked like two books lying together.’

That is merely a sourceless item on a sourceless Bill Wall webpage. Instead, Google Books may seem promising since it offers relevant (though not perfectly matching) texts, such as the following:

That passage is on page 348 of the 6 May 1865 issue of All the Year Round, ‘a weekly journal conducted by Charles Dickens’. With C.N. 12043 (‘figurehead romanticism’) in mind, no excited suggestion can be made that the article, entitled ‘Chess Chat’ and published on pages 345-349, was by Dickens himself. All the Year Round articles were usually anonymous. But who did write it, and on what historical basis?

With such questions unresolved, one’s eye may well be drawn to the last two paragraphs of the article, which abruptly move on from chess history to some general criticism of the game:

‘To play well at chess – “Cavendish” opines – is too hard work. It is making a toil of a pleasure. We resort to games as a relief, when we have already experienced enough – perhaps more than enough – brain excitement. Under those circumstances, we do not desire severe mental exertion, but rather repose of mind, which is not promoted by engaging in a contest of pure skill. To take up chess, as an amusement, after mental labour, is to jump out of the frying-pan into the fire. Chess, well played, is no relaxation, and ought not to be regarded as a game at all. It is not a game with first-rate performers, but the business of their lives. Chess is their real work; ordinary engagements are their relief. Sarah Battle “unbent” over a book.

But for what is all this intellectual tension, this toil and trouble, this stretch of thought? Simply to fill an otherwise unoccupied portion of human life. “Labour for labour’s sake”, says Locke, “is against nature. The understanding, which, as well as the other faculties, chooses always the shortest way to its end, would presently obtain the knowledge it is about, and then set upon some new inquiry.” But chess affords no information, leads to no purpose, effects no result, leaves no trace. It is a beautiful piece of mechanism, conducing to nothing. When the number of known combinations, problems, and solutions, shall have been increased a hundred-fold, the world will not be a jot the happier, the wiser, the better, or the richer. Those who like thus to occupy their leisure, have a perfect right so to do. If their striving and straining do no good, at least it does no harm. But it is difficult not to say to one’s self that the total amount of effort bestowed on chess, say only within the last hundred years, might have sufficed to gird the world with trans-oceanic telegraphs, or to work out the means of aërial locomotion.’

And so now there are two puzzles on the go: the origin of the religious claims and the authorship of the criticism of chess. For both matters, further burrows beckon, and C.N. readers’ company and assistance will, as ever, be appreciated.

12111. The Chess Wheel

C.N. 472 (see Chess Jottings) included the following comments by Dale Brandreth in a catalogue:

‘The Chess Wheel, V. Armen, English Opening. Similar to the circular slide rule. 65 variations. More a novelty than anything else. Rather humorous in that the author has boldly printed on the device that “patent pending for all chess openings and defenses on the wheel system”. What sublime effrontery and ignorance. Did he invent all these lines? No, of course not. Yet he has the gall to try to patent them. The chess world does not lack its buffoons either.’

Paul Calhoun (West Hartford, CT, USA) writes that the criticism is unfair, and he has sent us a PDF file which presents The Chess Wheel and includes commendations.

12112. Notation

Chess Notation mentions cases where the algebraic is less effective than the descriptive, e.g. the use of ‘Q-KKt6’ to record a queen sacrifice motif which in algebraic is either ‘Qg6’ or ‘Qg3’.

Another case is the remark attributed to Bent Larsen to the effect that with a knight on KB1 a player who has castled on the king’s side is safe from a mating attack. What exactly did Larsen say or write?

12113. Streets

Concerning Street Names with Chess Connections, the report below comes from page 6C of El Nuevo Herald, 12 August 2006:

The third paragraph of the article:

‘José Raúl Capablanca fue honrado por el Condado de Miami Dade, que anunció ayer en conferencia de prensa celebrada en el Cooper Park, que la calle 16 entre las avenidas 57 y 62 del S.W. llevará el nombre del ilustre jugador.’