Edward Winter
Henry Edward Bird (See C.N. 9527 below.)
From The Chess Wit and Wisdom of W.E. Napier, which has a selection of quotes from Napier’s Amenities and Background of Chess-Play (published in three ‘units’, the first two in 1934 and the third the following year):
28. ‘He [Bird] earned the rebuke of playing impulsively in tournaments. It was disrespect and scandalous, some thought; but if there is genius in chess, Bird of all players had it, I think, in greatest abundance.’
78. ‘No chess book, I think, can be complete without a page of homage to Master Bird. If I had only one page to rejoice in, it should own up to a kindly veneration for all his adventures and misadventures, his farce and comedy and drama of the chess board. The roots of his chess were deep sunk in the tradition of Labourdonnais and McDonnell; he played Morphy; and half a lifetime afterwards we see him at Hastings, playing a thorough-bred game which Pillsbury declared was too beautiful to annotate. A long stretch, that – and brim-full of enthusiasm. He adored chess, – the play itself, I mean, which is not common among masters.
I saw him once at Simpson’s Divan but not to speak to. I brought away an impression of fulminating chess, of hearty laughter and liberty and beefsteak. He romped.
Once I asked Teichmann what he thought of Bird’s chess; “Same as his health”, he replied, – “always alternating between being dangerously ill and dangerously well.”
England will not know his like again.’
Wanted: games drawn under the 50-move rule. The only example that comes immediately to our mind is S. Lipschütz-H.E. Bird, New York tournament, 9 April 1889, which lasted 159 moves and was described as a ‘long and weary game’ by Steinitz in the tournament book.
(554)
This was the final position of the brilliancy prize game Bird v Mason, New York, 1876, in which White has just played his knight from e5 to g6:
According to page 86 of The Book of Chess Lists by A. Soltis (Jefferson, 1984) Mason resigned in view of 50...Kg7 51 Nxe7+ Kxh6 52 Nxc8. What about 52 Rg6 mate?
Page 257 of Chess Explorations noted that the identical oversight had occurred on page 10 of Les Prix de Beauté aux Echecs by F. Le Lionnais (Paris, 1951).
James Mason on page 439 of the October 1892 BCM:
‘Mr Bird is about the only player of note who now believes in the Sicilian.’
(1434)
The moves 1 e4 c5 2 b4 go back to the seventeenth century (Greco), but at least two more recent masters have claimed parenthood. On pages 232-233 of Chess Novelties (London, 1895) Bird gave this game under the heading ‘Bird’s Wing Attack’:
Henry Edward Bird – H.
Occasion?
Sicilian Defence
1 e4 c5 2 b4 e5 3 f4 d6 4 Nf3 Bg4 5 Bc4 Nc6 6 O-O Nd4 7 Nxd4 Bxd1 8 Bb5+ Ke7 9 Nf5+ Ke6 10 Nc3 cxb4 11 Nd5 Nf6 and White mated in two moves.
Marshall too was to seek credit. On page 120 of his book Chess Masterpieces (New York, 1928) he wrote of 2 b4: ‘I believe this move is my own invention. It may not be absolutely sound, but it always leads to an interesting game, affording plenty of opportunities for attack.’
This may be contrasted with Napier’s low opinion of the opening (given in Lasker’s Chess Magazine, March 1906, page 211):
‘Known “to the Trade” as the wing gambit. It is easily defined as capital offence against common sense in chess. It is comparable with pitching one’s young to the crocodiles, so the devil may not get them. Black justifiably puts the pawn in his pocket. If out of the troubled waters that ensue he fishes nothing, it is because he fishes ill in the shallows.’
Another ‘Wing Gambit’ is 1 e4 e6 2 Nf3 d5 3 e5 c5 4 b4 (see, for example, page 235 of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice by D. Bronstein and T. Fürstenberg). The databases that we have been able to check contain no pre-1960s examples, except for a case by transposition: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 b4 cxb4 4 d4 d5 5 e5 Nc6 (P. Keres v A. Remmelgas, Correspondence game, 1935). However, the game below appeared on pages 44-45 of the January 1898 BCM:
Henry Holwell Cole – P.R. Clifford
Telephone match, 18 December 1897
French Defence
1 e4 e6 2 Nf3 d5 3 e5 c5 4 b4 cxb4 5 d4 Nc6 6 Bd3 h6 7 O-O Bd7 8 Be3 Nge7 9 Nh4 g5 10 Nf3 Qc7 11 a3 Nf5 12 axb4 Bxb4 13 c3 Ba5 14 Qb3 Nxe3 15 fxe3 Bb6 16 Na3 Na5 17 Qb2 Nc4 18 Bxc4 dxc4 19 Nd2 O-O 20 Rf6 Kg7 21 Raf1 Qc6 22 Naxc4 Bd8 23 R6f2 f5 24 exf6+ Bxf6 25 Qa3 Rae8 26 Ne5 Be7 27 Rxf8 Resigns.
If no other nineteenth-century specimens come to light would ‘Cole’s Gambit’ be a good name for the 1 e4 e6 2 Nf3 d5 3 e5 c5 4 b4 line?
(2217)
Two chess enthusiasts in a tea-shop, playing for a shilling. They are joined by a man who constantly offers advice and observes, ‘I didn’t expect to find you chaps playing for filthy lucre’. One of the players replies, ‘It isn’t the filthy lucre we object to; it’s the filthy looker-on.’
Source: American Chess Bulletin, October 1913, page 236.
(Kingpin, 1998)
Jim Hayes (Kilkenny, Ireland) points out that the ‘looker-on’ joke was published by Bird on page 119 of his book Chess History and Reminiscences (London, 1893). Bird gave the punch-line as being his reply to Boden. The quip has also been attributed to Blackburne; see CHESS, January 1952, page 79 (and Chess Review, March 1951, page 82).
The next page of Bird’s book has more Victorian merriment:
‘Boden and Bird were favourite opponents for 25 years and though very opposite in styles were, in the long run, singularly even in their series. It was the practice of both to resign at the proper moment. Bird, once it was thought, gave up too early. “Oh, it is hopeless,” said he, “I have my misgivings, I cannot contend against such forebodings, one Boden is too much for me.’
(Kingpin, 1999)
London, 1899 Pen-portraits has, from pages 210-213 of La Stratégie, 15 July 1899, our translation of a text by ‘André de M.’, which includes the following:
‘Lee was able to take defeat with a smile on his lips, but the same could not be said of the elderly Bird; it was truly painful to see him dragging himself to his board, leaning on a cane and bent double under the weight of years and gout.’
(2637)
From page 126 of Modern Chess and Chess Masterpieces by H.E. Bird (London, 1887) comes a remark about 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4:
‘I sometimes play this, but not always; it depends upon the state of mind I am in, and whether I want a lively and critical game or a steady contest – one, in fact, in which my adversary considers that I treat him with becoming respect. A well-known and esteemed reverend gentleman once objected that I would not make so silly a move against one of the greatest players.’
(2984)
This problem is taken from page 96 of Modern Chess and Chess Masterpieces by H.E. Bird (London, 1887):
Mate in four
(2985)
From page 5 of Modern Chess and Chess Masterpieces by H.E. Bird (London, 1887):
‘… Zukertort has good-naturedly and not unkindly expressed the opinion that if I had been less experimental and less hazardous in my play I might have secured higher positions in tournaments; and Mr Minchin in his great and very successful work [the London, 1883 tournament book] did me more than justice; if, however, I have had less success than some other players, I have derived more amusement and real pleasure from the combinations of the game, besides which if I am not original in chess I am nothing.’
(3085)
Michael McDowell (Westcliff-on-sea, England) sends the following problem by H.E. Bird, from Loyd’s column in the Scientific American Supplement, 20 October 1877 (page 1502):
Mate in four.
Regarding Bird, Loyd wrote in the same column:
‘... [we] cannot close without adding our tribute to his skill as a composer of chess problems of great beauty and merit ... and are particularly pleased to find a player like Mr Bird, who has encountered the champions from almost every clime, gives it as his candid opinion that he has never known a good problemist who was not a fine chessplayer.’
Below is the sketch by Loyd which accompanied the tribute:
Henry Edward Bird
(3862)
The obituary of John Ruskin on page 65 of the February 1900 BCM commented:
‘Here we think of Ruskin as a votary of chess – for he was an enthusiastic lover of the game – that is of chess of a sort, for he would have none of the pawn-gaining, wood-shifting, snail-creeping chess. He loved only the “grand style”, the sweeping majesty of a game by Morphy or the glittering beauty of a blindfold gem by Blackburne. He regarded chess from its artistic side – as indeed was to be expected of him. He never played chess in public or in any club, reserving it as a relaxation in his own home; but he took great interest in published games of a brilliant description, and was specially fond of Bird’s bright games of years ago, and on more than one occasion wrote to that master.’
...‘John Ruskin and Chess’ by B. Goulding Brown, BCM, May 1923, pages 169-171, with a few corrections on page 202 of the June 1923 issue. The most detailed of the articles on Ruskin, it included the following extract from a letter to Hoffer dated 4 July 1884:
‘I’ve only begun saying what I have to say about the temper of chess. I think, in general, great players should never give odds but openings, leaving weak points on purpose to show, or find, new forms of the game, and should name the move after which they mean to play their best. Above everything, I want to know, in the great games, where either of the players is first surprised. Andersen (sic) and Morphy seem to me the only ones that never are – they are only beaten by getting tired and making mistakes, or Morphy in trying a new opponent’s style.’
Goulding Brown pointed out that page xviii of Chess History and Reminiscences by H.E. Bird (London, 1893) recorded that Bird had received 28 letters from Ruskin since 1884. An excerpt from one of them, dated 15 December 1886, was cited in the BCM article:
‘I find Blackburne’s games intolerably and unpardonably dull – and am more and more set on my old plan of choosing a set of beautiful games – Cochrane, Kennedy, Barnes, Macdonnel [sic] and the like – with some of your lovely short ones. I find even Morphy a little dull in his security!’
Numerous other chess-related quotes from Ruskin’s pen were presented by Goulding Brown, who concluded:
‘The upshot of it all is that Ruskin loved chess as a game and an art, but hated it as a science.’
(4045)
Morgan Daniels (Bury St Edmunds, England) submits the following item from page 5 of The Times, 25 June 1885:
(4466)
The Chess Masters of To-day by Leopold Hoffer gives the full text of his article, from pages 753-765 of the Fortnightly Review, December 1886, together with, as shown below, Bird’s reaction on pages 147-155 of the April 1887 BCM:
Below is the text by Bird published on pages 471-472 of the March 1887 Fortnightly Review:
1 P-KB4 (A Guide to Bird’s Opening) by R.E. Robinson (Liverpool, 1950):
On page 13 of his introduction Robinson wrote:
‘The hitherto unpublished photograph of Bird which forms the frontispiece has been reproduced from an original photograph kindly sent to me for the purpose by the Rev. H.E. Bird of Southsea, a nephew of the Master.’
(4178)
C.N. 3231 mentioned that in a review of 1 P-KB4 (A Guide to Bird’s Opening)on page 290 of the September 1950 BCM J.M. Aitken wrote:
‘In scope and contents this book is so much out of the ordinary run that it can fairly be termed unique. It contains 248 examples of Bird’s Opening, selected from over a century of tournament chess …’
In C.N. 2051 (see pages 322-323 of Kings, Commoners and Knaves) John Nunn asked which player originally commented that he had never beaten a healthy opponent. Some readers subsequently drew attention to the following assertion by B.H. Wood in the 1949 Illustrated London News which was anthologized on page 10 of The Treasury of Chess Lore by Fred Reinfeld (New York, 1951):
‘It was old Burn, veteran British master of the ’90s, who was heard to remark plaintively towards the end of his long life that he had never had the satisfaction of beating a perfectly healthy opponent.’
The same passage (with a repetition of the word ‘never’) was reproduced by Wood on page 78 of CHESS, January 1952, but it has not been possible to find any link between the quote and Amos Burn.
Now, however, we note that page 2 of Chess Pie, 1936 had an article entitled ‘Humours of Chess’ by E.B. Osborn (‘Literary Editor of the Morning Post’). It concerned H.E. Bird (‘most lovable of all the old masters’), with whom he was personally acquainted. Osborn remarked:
‘Dear Old Bird would say that he had hardly ever beaten a healthy player.’
The question which thus arises is whether B.H. Wood, writing over a decade later, had the Osborn article in mind but mistakenly referred to Burn instead of Bird.
(4189)
On 27 January 2020 Olimpiu G. Urcan added to his Patreon page [no longer online] a set of letters from Ruskin to Bird. A sample extract, reproduced with permission:
From Chris Ravilious (Eastbourne, England):
‘By coincidence, the subject of chess book covers with a black square at h1 received a brief mention on page 38 of the October 2006 issue of CHESS. The three books mentioned there are Morphy’s Games of Chess (the Löwenthal edition of 1860), Bird’s Chess Masterpieces (1875) and F.V. Morley’s My one Contribution to Chess (1947). John Sexton’s suggested explanation for these oddities, that they arose through a misapplication of standard black-on-white print technology to the gilt inlay used on these book covers, is almost certainly correct. There may well be other examples.’
Looking further into the matter, we note that gilt inlay often resulted in the board error. For example, it occurred in subsequent editions of the Löwenthal book, including, even, the 1985 Batsford reprint. It is also worth comparing the front cover and the title page of another book by Bird, The Chess Openings, Considered Critically and Practically (London, 1878):
Further cases of a dark h1 square on front covers using gilt inlay include Chess: Its Theory and Practice by Captain Crawley, The Book of Chess by George H. Selkirk and Traité-manuel des échecs by Henri Delaire.
Another cover oddity concerns books by James Mason (The Art of Chess, The Principles of Chess and Social Chess). They had a 7x7 chessboard:
(4650)
From page 201 of the Chess Monthly, March 1891:
‘For 12 months past I have been engaged in the early hours making a complete analysis, with comparative sections, of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and my interest in the task, which has been a mighty one, has increased as I have gone on, and in a month or two I hope to be able to publish.’
We have found no trace of such a treatise appearing in print.
On page 48 of The Knights and Kings of Chess (London, 1894) G.A. MacDonnell wrote of Bird:
‘Fortunately, he bethought him of the Bible, and naturally became intensely interested in the question of figures, as set forth in the Books of the Kings and Chronicles. Then the prophecies of Isaiah attracted his attention, and filled him with delight. They awoke the spiritual in his soul, and caused him to exclaim, “How magnificent”.’
(5331)
Joost van Winsen (Silvolde, the Netherlands) sends the following from the Canadian publication the Western Advertiser, 27 December 1875:
‘Mr Bird, the eminent English chessplayer, is by profession a railway accountant. He has been in this country several times before the present visit. In 1860 he was in Canada, as a junior partner of Coleman, Turquand, Young & Co., London accountants, and was engaged on the accounts of the Great Western Railroad of Canada, and afterward on the New York Central. In 1865 he again came to America for the same firm, and spent some months amalgamating the books and preparing reports on the Atlantic and Great Western but retired on account of differences which arose in London as to the extent of information and mode of stating the traffic and accounts and the requirements of that road.’
Our correspondent comments:
‘Bird’s “present visit” to America, from 1875 to 1877, is well known. For instance, he played a match with James Mason, participated in the Café International Tournament of 1876 in New York, was a contestant in the Fourth American Chess Congress of 1876 in Philadelphia and the same year attended the Clipper Free Centennial Tournament in New York.
The other two visits – in 1860 and 1865 – are less familiar (of course, Bird also left England for America in 1889 to compete in the Sixth American Chess Congress).’
Henry Edward Bird
Mr van Winsen also submits the following game, played at the New York Chess Club and published in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin of 24 February 1866:
George Henry Mackenzie – Henry Edward Bird
New York (date?)
Evans’ Gambit Accepted
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Bc5 6 O-O d6 7 d4 exd4 8 cxd4 Bb6 9 Nc3 Na5 10 Bd3 Ne7 11 h3 O-O 12 d5 Ng6 13 Qc2 c5 14 Kh2 c4 15 Be2 Ne5 16 Nxe5 dxe5 17 f4 Bd4 18 fxe5 Bxe5+ 19 Bf4 Bxf4+ 20 Rxf4 Qc7 21 g3 Bd7 22 Raf1 b5 23 Bd1 Rae8 24 Qf2 Qb6 25 Qf3 f5 26 Bc2 b4 27 Ne2 b3 28 axb3 cxb3 29 Bd3
29...g5 30 Qh5 gxf4 31 gxf4 Kh8 32 e5 Bb5 33 Bxf5 Rxf5 34 Qxf5 Qg6 35 Qxg6 hxg6 36 Re1 Bxe2 37 Rxe2 Nc4 38 d6 Rb8 39 Re1 Kg7 and wins.
‘Are any more games known from Bird’s first two visits to America, and especially from the 1860 one?’, asks Mr van Winsen.
(5376)
Michael Clapham (Ipswich, England) writes:
‘The advertisement leaf at the back of Bird’s Modern Chess and Chess Masterpieces (London, 1887) includes an advertisement for “H.E. Bird’ s Chessmen”, which were “considered a great improvement on Staunton’s design”. What do these pieces look like, and in what ways were they considered an improvement?’
(5379)
Frank Camaratta (Toney, AL, USA) provides this label from the box of the Bird chessmen:
Our correspondent also draws attention to the front cover of Bird’s book Chess Novelties (London and New York, 1895):
Finally, Mr Camaratta refers to the ‘uncanny resemblance’ between the Bird chessmen and the pieces shown in an advertisement issued by Will H. Lyons:
(5383)
Eduardo Bauzá Mercére (New York, NY, USA) refers to this victory by Anderssen over Bird:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 O-O 7 e5 Ne8 8 Nxd4 Nxd4 9 Qxd4 d5 10 Nc3 c6 11 Bd3 Be6 12 Qf4 f5 13 exf6 Rxf6 14 Qg3 Bd6 15 Qh4 h6 16 Be3 Qc7 17 Ne2 g5 18 Qa4 b5 19 Qd4 c5 20 Qc3 c4 21 Bd4
21...b4 22 Qd2 cxd3 23 Bxf6 Nxf6 24 Nd4 Bd7 25 Qxd3 Kh8 26 Qg6 Bxh2+ 27 Kf1 Qc4+ 28 Qd3 Rf8 29 Qxc4 dxc4 30 Re7 Bd6 31 Re2 Ng4 32 Rd1 Bc5 33 c3 Rf4 34 f3 Bxd4 35 cxd4 Bb5 36 Ke1 Nf6 37 Re5 Ba4 38 b3 cxb3 39 axb3 Bxb3 40 Rb1 Bd5 41 Rxb4 Kg7 42 Re7+ Kg6 43 Rxa7 h5 44 Ra6 h4 45 Rbb6
45...g4 46 Kf2 h3 47 Kg3 Kg5 48 Rxf6 Rxf6 49 Ra5 Rf5 50 f4+ Kg6 51 gxh3 gxh3 52 Rb5 Be6 53 Re5 Bd7 54 Re3 Rd5 55 Rd3 Kf5 56 Kf3 Bc6 57 Kg3 Ke4 58 Rd1 Bd7 59 Re1+ Kxd4 60 Re7 Kc3 61 Re2 Rd2 62 Re5 Rg2+ 63 Kf3 Bc6+ 64 Ke3 h2 and wins.
Our correspondent notes that a number of books – the Wildhagen and Pickard monographs on Anderssen (pages 92 and 208 respectively) and Levy and O’Connell’s Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games (page 362) – state that the game was played in London in 1862, whereas the correct date is 14 July 1866. Taken from the Illustrated London News, it was published on pages 176-178 of volume II of Chess World (dated 1867, but covering 1866) with the following introduction:
‘The famous German master Anderssen arrived in London on 14 July, for the purpose of playing the match which has been arranged between him and Mr Steinitz. Although somewhat fatigued by a long journey, Mr Anderssen, with characteristic gallantry, on visiting the Grand Cigar Divan that afternoon, accepted the invitation of Mr Bird to a friendly passage d’armes, and the result was the very instructive game which follows.’
We wonder who first suggested that the game had been played in 1862. Its placing on pages 228-229 of Adolf Anderssen by Hermann von Gottschall (Leipzig, 1912) certainly gave that impression.
(5582)
Hastings, 1895
Clockwise from the top left: I. Gunsberg, C. Schlechter, N.W. van Lennep, G, Marco, H.E. Bird, W. Steinitz.
The above detail comes from a photograph discussed in a number of C.N. items. See, in particular, C.N. 5836.
(5836)
Observations by Steinitz in his International Chess Magazine:
August 1886, page 236:
‘If any further proof were needed of the unreliability of tournaments as a test, the ridiculous contrast between the scores of Bird and Burn in their late match, as compared with their tournament record in the last London contest, would be sufficient in itself. Here are two players who, about a fortnight before the tournament, made exactly even games out of about 19 or 20 played in their match, and yet in the tourney the one comes out at the top of the list in the general contest and ultimately only loses first honors in the tie, while the other is actually the very lowest in the score among 13 competitors. I have a high opinion of Mr Burn’s genius, and I believe that his even score with Mr Bird was only due to his having been previously out of practice for many years. But there can be no doubt that Mr Bird was not in the proper place due to his skill, when he emanated at the tail end of the contest, which is a hard downfall from his position in last year’s Hereford tournament where he tied for second and third prizes with Schallopp. But such is tournament fate. Anderssen once said to me: “To win a tournament, a competitor must in the first place play well, but he should also have a good amount of luck.” I quite agree with that, but it naturally follows that there must be also ill-luck in tournaments, of which many instances could be cited, notably that of Winawer, who, after having tied for first and second prizes in Vienna, and just a few weeks before he came out chief victor in Nuremberg, did not win in London a single prize out of eight (to include the special one for the best score against the prize-holders). All this would tend to show that, at least, a single tournament, especially one consisting of one round only, cannot be regarded as a test.’
September 1886, page 275:
‘... The Telegram of the 14th ult. freely admits that a match is a test of superiority between two players at least for the time being. Yet in one and the same breath the editor professes to believe that the contrast in the respective match and tournament scores between Bird and Burn might as well be turned as evidence against matches as a test. Now, as is well known, I am not very fond of Bird, while Burn is an intimate friend and former pupil of mine of whom I am very proud. But though I stated that in my opinion Burn, if in good practice, was the superior player, it surely is the barest justice to Bird’s total record and reputation to say that his even score in the match represents a closer measure of his relative force than the gulf of 11 places which divided the two parties in the tournament ...’
Regarding the seesaw, or windmill, manoeuvre, the earliest instance of the word ‘seesaw’ found so far appeared on page 251 of the American Chess Magazine, September 1897:
‘A pretty so-called seesaw of checks finishes the game ...’
John Simpson (Oxford, England), the Chief Editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, notes an earlier, different, use of the term on page 263 of the Chess Player’s Chronicle, 1849:
‘This see-saw is pretty enough. White evidently must not accept the proffered donum.’
The proffered donum was the black rook, the note being appended to Black’s 38th move. The full game, from pages 262-263 of the Chronicle, was:
Henry Edward Bird – Elijah Williams
Occasion?
French Defence
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 exd5 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 Bd3 Bd6 6 O-O O-O 7 c3 Ne4 8 Nbd2 f5 9 c4 c6 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 Qb3 Kh8 12 Qc2 Nc6 13 a3 h6 14 b4 a6 15 Nb3 Qf6 16 Bb2 g5 17 Nfd2 g4 18 f4 gxf3 19 Rxf3 Qh4 20 Rh3 Qg5 21 Re1 Rg8 22 Nf3 Qg7 23 Ne5 Bxe5 24 dxe5 Be6 25 Bc1 f4 26 Rh4 Raf8 27 Bxf4 Ng5 28 Kh1 Ne7 29 Nd4 Bf7 30 e6 Bg6 31 Bxg6 Qxg6 32 Qxg6 Rxg6 33 Bxg5 Rxg5 34 Rxh6+ Kg7 35 Rh3 Re5 36 Rg3+ Ng6
37 Rc1 Rc8 38 Rf1 Rf8 39 Kg1 Rxf1+ 40 Kxf1 Re4 41 e7 Kf7 42 Nf5 Rf4+ 43 Rf3 b6 44 Kf2 a5 45 bxa5 bxa5 46 Kg3 Rxf3+ 47 Kxf3 Ne5+ 48 Ke3 Nc4+ 49 Kd4 Nxa3 50 Kxd5 Nb5 51 Nd6+ Nxd6 52 Kxd6 Ke8 53 Kc5 and White won.
Henry Edward Bird (Scientific American Supplement, 20 October 1877, page 1502)
(5853)
Regarding Anderssen, page 385 of Kings, Commoners and Knaves quoted a remark by Bird in an article on pages 148-155 of the April 1887 BCM that he was the ‘king of all chess players’.
From a 20-board simultaneous display against the Chess Bohemians:
Henry Edward Bird – W.S. Daniels
London, 6 October 1894
Two Knights’ Defence
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Nxd5 6 Nxf7 Kxf7 7 Qf3+ Ke6 8 Nc3 Ne7 9 d4 b5 10 Bb3 c6 11 a4 b4 12 Ne4 Kd7 13 dxe5 Kc7 14 Nd6 Be6 15 Bg5 h6 16 Bh4 g5 17 Bg3 Nc8 18 Ne4 Be7 19 O-O-O g4 20 Qe2 Kb7 21 Nd6+ Nxd6 22 exd6 Bg5+ 23 Kb1 Re8 24 Qd3 Qd7 25 a5 Rab8 26 Rhe1 Bf5 27 a6+ Ka8
28 Qxd5 cxd5 29 Bxd5+ Rb7 30 Rxe8+ Qxe8 31 axb7+ Kb8 32 d7+ Bf4 33 Bxf4+ Qe5 34 Bxe5 mate.
Source: Hampstead & Highgate Express, 10 November
1894, page 3.
(5892)
Eduardo Bauzá Mercére quotes from page 143 of The Globe (Buffalo), January 1877:
‘Mr Bird, the celebrated English chessplayer, has been spending a few days in our city during the past month, and has been contesting with our players, but few of whom have had any degree of success with him. Mr Richmond has been most successful, although Mr Bird has won a large majority of games contested with him.’
A game was given on page 160 of the February 1877 issue:
Henry A. Richmond – Henry Edward Bird
Buffalo, 1876
Giuoco Piano
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 d3 Nf6 5 Be3 d6 6 h3 a6 7 Nc3 h6 8 O-O O-O 9 Bxc5 dxc5 10 a3 Qd6 11 Ne2 Ne7 12 Ng3 Ng6 13 Kh2 Kh7 14 Nf5 Bxf5 15 exf5 Ne7 16 Nh4 b5 17 Bb3 Qd4 18 g4 Qxb2 19 Nf3 Rad8 20 g5 hxg5 21 Nxg5+ Kg8 22 Qf3 Qd4 23 Ne4 Nxe4 24 dxe4 c4
25 Rg1 Qd2 26 Rxg7+ Kh8 27 f6 Qf4+ 28 Qxf4 exf4 29 fxe7 Kxg7 30 exf8(Q)+ Kxf8 31 Ba2 Rd2 32 Rc1 Rxf2+ 33 Kg1 Re2 34 Bb1 Rxe4 35 c3 Re3 36 Bf5 c5 37 Bc8 a5 38 Ba6 b4 39 axb4 axb4 40 cxb4 cxb4 41 Bxc4 Rc3 42 Rxc3 bxc3 Drawn.
(5956)
CHESS, 15 July 1964, pages 338-339, reproduced two photographs (dated, it was suggested, circa 1890) submitted by Miss E.G. Bell of Worthing:
She believed that the above photograph was taken in the garden of a chess club in Nightingale Lane, Balham, the man in the Bath-chair being identified as H.E. Bird.
CHESS stated that the other photograph (below) ‘was taken at a presentation to Mr W.T. Marshall, Hon. Sec. of the Nightingale Club, a cousin of Miss Bell, who still holds the set and board which were the subject of the presentation. Swinford Ward is in this picture.’ (We take that to be a reference to H. Swinburn Ward, whose photograph appeared on page 56 of the February 1901 BCM.)
On page 360 of the 20 August 1964 CHESS a reader, Alfred Milner, suggested that in the first photograph J.H. Blackburne was ‘the gentleman in a white trilby watching the games’, and he noted that the man on the extreme left in the first photograph seems to be seated second from the right in the other shot.
Assistance with identifying any figures will be appreciated. The CHESS item was apparently wrong regarding the estimated date, for we note the following on page 251 of the June 1908 BCM, in Bird’s obituary:
‘The last public appearance of Mr Bird was on 22 June 1901, when he was present, in a Bath-chair, at a garden party given by Doctor and Mrs Dunstan to the members of the Nightingale Lane Chess Club on the occasion of the presentation of a testimonial to Mr W.T. Marshall, the club’s secretary.’
(5972)
From page 23 of My one Contribution to Chess by F.V. Morley (New York, 1945):
‘Bird had written books. When he was in a difficulty he used to say: “It’s all in my book – I’m sure the answer to that is in my book.”’
Wanted: nineteenth-century corroboration of the Bird remark (which appeared on page 29 of the London, 1947 edition of Morley’s work).
(6106)
From page 251 of the June 1908 BCM, in the obituary of H.E. Bird:
‘He claimed to be the chess champion of the world at lightning speed – say, at 1,000 moves per hour.’
Can relevant citations be found in Bird’s writings?
(6536)
Page 166 of The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played by I. Chernev (New York, 1965) gave a famous quote ascribed to Bird, regarding Steinitz:
We do not recall the remark in Bird’s books, but the following appeared on page 177 of the Chess Amateur, March 1913, in an article about Steinitz by R.J. Buckley:
The article was reproduced on pages 132-135 of the June 1913 American Chess Bulletin.
However, in the April 1982 Newsflash (see C.N. 4554) G.H. Diggle wrote regarding W.N. Potter:
‘But his eccentric opening play fascinated Steinitz, on whose own style (Dr Lasker tells us) Potter had a great influence. “Put all the pieces into a hat”, said Steinitz, “and shake them out on to the board, and you have Potter’s style exactly.”’
This discrepancy was mentioned on page 44 of William Steinitz, Chess Champion by Kurt Landsberger (Jefferson, 1993). Can it be explained?
(6554)
On page 27 of The World’s Great Chess Games (New York, 1951) Reuben Fine wrote:
‘Incidentally, Bird was an outstanding accountant and became an authority on railway finance; in 1866 he published a book entitled An Analysis of Railways in the United Kingdom.’
And from page 27 (the entry on Bird) in The Encyclopaedia of Chess by Anne Sunnucks (London, 1970):
‘After the tournament [London, 1851] he had to abandon chess temporarily in order to concentrate on his profession, which was accountancy. During his lifetime he worked his way up from clerk to a partner in the firm and was the author of a book on railway finance, An Analysis of Railways in the United Kingdom, published in 1866.
Bird’s publications concerning the railways were referred to in an advertisement at the end of his book Chess Practice (London, 1882):
Page 284 of the July 1884 BCM reported that Bird ...
‘... is about to publish some Tables on the Railway Interests of England, which he believes to be of value and which, if he can keep the publication in his own hands, he hopes will be remunerative.’
In its obituary of the master the June 1908 BCM stated (page 251):
‘In his profession as an accountant Mr Bird ranked deservedly high, and as an authority on the details of railway accounts there was hardly a man in England his equal.’
Do readers own any of Bird’s publications regarding the railways?
(6558)
Wijnand Engelkes (Zeist, the Netherlands) sends us, courtesy of his colleague Johan Koning ter Heege, two entries concerning Bird on pages 221 and 222 of A Bibliography of British Railway History compiled by George Ottley (London, 1983):
(6591)
Kevin Harrison (Hunters Hill, NSW, Australia) asks about the authenticity of the Danish Gambit miniature H.E. Bird v Emanuel Lasker, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1892: 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 Bc4 cxb2 5 Bxb2 Qg5 6 Nf3 Qxg2 7 Rg1 Bb4+ 8 Ke2 Qh3 9 Bxf7+ Kd8 10 Bxg7 Ne7 11 Ng5 Qh4 12 Ne6 mate.
We have no reason to doubt it. The game was published on page 48 of the October 1892 issue of N.T. Miniati’s Chess Review:
(7326)
Hans Renette (Bierbeek, Belgium) notes that the Bird v Lasker lightning game was also published on page 7 of the Leeds Mercury, 24 September 1892, introduced by this paragraph:
‘The following brilliant skirmish was played at the County Hotel, Newcastle, on the occasion of the presentation of the “Newcastle Chronicle Chess Trophy”. It is only fair to state that about a dozen games were rattled off in the space of two hours, and of these Herr Lasker won the majority. He made the remark afterwards that his arm, not his head, ached; such was the rapidity of the moves and the large amount of woodshifting.’
(7332)
From a C.N. item on 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Be2:
Bird’s involvement with 3 Be2 is well known. For instance, he played it against Max Weiss at Bradford, 1888. When the game was published on pages 312-313 of the October 1888 International Chess Magazine Steinitz commented (inaccurately) on 3 Be2:
‘An oddity invented by Mr Bird. We do not think it has any sufficient attacking merit to compensate for the P.’
Pages 41-48 of Bird’s book Chess Novelties (London, 1895) had coverage of 3 Be2, which was called ‘The Lesser, Little, or Limited Bishop’s Gambit’. Bird wrote: ‘There is no opening from which the writer has derived more interesting or enjoyable games than this, which he has played with much zest for ten years.’ In a list of openings on page 10 the name was ‘Bird’s Little Bishop’s Gambit’.
(7583)
H.E. Bird’s comment on 12...Ne7:
‘Patching up a game, as Boden used to good-humouredly term it, is at times practicable; it is uncommonly difficult, however, to see how to mend this. Like the sailor’s knife, “it requires a new handle and a new blade”.’
Source: Modern Chess and Chess Masterpieces by H.E. Bird (London, 1887), page 74.
(7996)
From page 15 of the Sunday Times, 16 February 1908 (Louis van Vliet’s chess column):
‘We are sorry to learn that the aged chess master Mr H.E. Bird has been ill for some time at 16 Chetwode Road, Upper Tooting. Mr H.A. Richardson, of the St George’s Chess Club, suggests that it would be a real kindness if some of his old friends were occasionally to pay the old gentleman a visit, just to show that he is not quite forgotten.’
Less than two months later Bird died. Funds raised for him at the beginning of the century had eased his last years. The financial appeal had attracted international attention; see, for instance, page 4 of the January 1901 Checkmate and page 158 of the May 1901 Deutsche Schachzeitung. Further details were given on pages 13-14 of the January 1917 BCM.
Page 29 of the hardback edition (1977) of Harry Golombek’s Encyclopedia of Chess illustrated the Bird entry with a picture of Buckle:
The book gave Bird’s year of birth as 1830, the date commonly (unquestioningly) accepted until publication of Eminent Victorian Chess Players by Tim Harding (Jefferson, 2012). Based on detailed research, it reported on page 108 (see too page 364) that Bird was born in Portsea, Hampshire on 14 July 1829 and was baptized on 7 August 1829 (as well as on 28 December 1838).
(8346)
From page 264 of the June 1932 BCM:
‘It is interesting to hear from Newark, New Jersey that George P. Northrop, chess editor of the Newark Evening News, is of the same family on the maternal side as the famous old English master, H.E. Bird, after whom his father, C. Bird Northrop, and also his son were named.’
(8362)
Excerpts from A Chess Gamelet:
In addition to noting the discrepancies over the identity of the players, the occasion, the conclusion of the game and the question of whether odds were given, Thomas Niessen (Aachen, Germany) remarks that such a game (I.O. Howard Taylor v N.N., 15 August 1874) had been published on page 155 of the Dubuque Chess Journal, March 1875 and on pages 57-58 of Taylor’s Chess Skirmishes (Norwich, 1889). The book included information about a similar game played by Bird which appeared in Wit and Wisdom, 5 January 1889 (a copy of which is sought).
Mr Niessen mentions too that the Bird version of the game was given on page 122 of 666 Kurzpartien by Kurt Richter (Berlin-Frohnau, 1966) as having occurred between Brech and Bogilow in Aachen, 1938:
(8573)
Hans Renette (Bierbeek, Belgium) provides an extract from G.A. MacDonnell’s column in the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, 6 April 1889, page 109:
Although ‘Bradford, 1888’ was stated, Mr Renette adds that a similar finish was given by Bird on page 257 of his book Chess Novelties (London, 1895) with ‘Huddersfield, 1886’:
Our correspondent believes that 1885 would be correct given that, as reported on page 174 of the May 1885 BCM, Bird gave a simultaneous display in Huddersfield on 28 April 1885.
(8577)
Page 146 of Chess Novelties by H.E. Bird (London, 1895) referred to ‘the 149-move deciding game, Bird and Potter, City of London great handicap, 1879, the longest game on record’.
From page 133 of the Chess Player’s Chronicle, 1 June 1879:
The Potter v Bird game, which did indeed last 143, and not 149, moves, is of considerable interest:
1 f4 f5 2 b3 Nf6 3 Bb2 e6 4 Nf3 Be7 5 e3 O-O 6 Be2 c5 7 O-O Nc6 8 Ne5 Qc7 9 Nxc6 Qxc6 10 Bf3 Qc7 11 c4 a6 12 Nc3 Ra7 13 g3 b6 14 d4 cxd4 15 exd4 Bb7 16 a3 Bxf3 17 Qxf3 Ng4 18 h3 Nh6 19 Rad1 Bf6 20 Rf2 Nf7 21 d5 Raa8 22 Kh1 Nd6 23 Re2 Rae8 24 Rde1 Qb7 25 Kg2 Bxc3 26 Qxc3 Rf7 27 Kh2 Ne4 28 Qd4 exd5 29 cxd5 Qc7 30 b4 Qd6 31 Qd3 h5 32 h4 Rfe7 33 Be5 Qg6 34 d6 Re6 35 Qf3 b5 36 Kg2 Kh7 37 Rd1 Rc8 38 Rd3 Rc4 39 Rb2 Rxe5 40 fxe5 Nxg3 41 Qxg3 Rg4 42 Rf2 Qe6 43 Re3 g6 44 Kh2 Rxg3 45 Kxg3 Kg7 46 Rg2 Qc4 47 Kf3 Qd5+ 48 Kf2 f4 49 Re1 Kf7 50 Rg5 Qd3 51 Rgg1 Ke6 52 Rg5 Kf7 53 Rgg1 Ke8 54 e6 Qd4+ 55 Kf3 Qd5+ 56 Kxf4 dxe6 57 Rd1 Qf5+ 58 Ke3 Qe5+ 59 Kf3 Kd7 60 Rgf1 g5 61 hxg5 Qxg5 62 Rg1 Qf6+ 63 Kg3 e5 64 Rgf1 Qe6 65 Kf3 Qc4 66 Rg1 Qf4+ 67 Ke2 Qe4+ 68 Kf2 Qh7 69 Ke3 h4 70 Rgf1 h3 71 Kf3 Qh4 72 Ke3 h2 73 Rf7+ Ke8 74 Rff1 Kd7 75 Rf7+ Ke6 76 Rff1 Qh6+ 77 Ke2 Qh5+ 78 Ke3 Qg5+ 79 Ke2 Qh5+ 80 Ke3 Kd7 81 Kf2 Qh3 82 Ke2 Qb3 83 Kf2 Qxa3 84 Kg2 Qxb4 85 Kxh2 Qc4 86 Kg3 b4 87 Rh1 Qf4+ 88 Kg2 Qf7 89 Rhf1 Qg6+ 90 Kf3 b3 91 Ke3 a5 92 Rg1 Qh6+ 93 Kd3 Kc6 94 d7 Kxd7 95 Kc3+ Kc6 96 Kxb3 Qf4 97 Rc1+ Kb5 98 Rb1 a4+ 99 Ka3+ Ka5 100 Rgc1 Qf8+ 101 Ka2 Qf7+ 102 Ka3 Qe7+ 103 Ka2 e4 104 Kb2 Qb4+ 105 Ka2 Qd2+ 106 Ka1 Qd4+ 107 Ka2 Qd5+ 108 Ka3 Qd6+ 109 Kb2 e3 110 Kc3 Qd2+ 111 Kc4 e2 112 Rb5+ Ka6 113 Rbb1 Qf4+ 114 Kd3 Qe5 115 Kc4 Qe4+ 116 Kc3 Qe3+ 117 Kc4 a3 118 Kb4 a2 119 Ra1 Qd2+ 120 Kb3 Kb5 121 Rh1 Qb4+ 122 Kc2 Qc4+ 123 Kd2 Ka4 124 Rac1 Qb5 125 Rh4+ Ka5 126 Rhh1 Qb2+ 127 Kd3 Kb4 128 Rh4+ Kb3 129 Rhh1 Qe5 130 Rhe1 Qb5+ 131 Kd2 Ka4 132 Rh1 Qb2+ 133 Kd3 Kb3 134 Rhg1 Qe5 135 Rh1 Qb5+ 136 Kd2 Ka4 137 Rh4+ Ka5 138 Rhh1 Qe5 139 Rhe1 Qe4 140 Kc3 Ka4 141 Rh1 Qe3+ 142 Kc2 Qd4 143 Rhe1 Kb4 144 White resigns.
The game was annotated in depth by Steinitz in the Field column of 31 May 1879, page 632, his closing comment being, ‘the final combination is very ingenious’.
For subsequent lengthy games, see a ‘Chess Records’ webpage by Tim Krabbé.
(9048)
Henry Edward Bird – Oscar Gelbfuhs
Vienna, 22 July 1873
1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 d3 exd3 4 Bxd3 Nf6 5 Nf3 e6 6 Ng5 g6 7 h4 Bh6 8 h5 Bxg5 9 fxg5 Nd5 10 hxg6 Qe7 11 Rxh7 Rxh7 12 gxh7 Qb4+ 13 Kf1 Qh4 14 Bg6+ Ke7 15 Qh5 Resigns.
(Sources: Deutsche Schachzeitung, November 1873, page 328, and page 17 of the Vienna, 1873 tournament book.)
See ‘The Swiss Gambit’.
Hans Renette asks what grounds Bird had for stating that ‘Blackmar has invented two gambits’ (C.N. 9084). Readers’ suggestions are invited as to the second gambit.
The full article in question is shown below, from the Chess Amateur, June 1913, pages 270-272 (‘Memories of the Masters. H.E. Bird’ by Robert J. Buckley). The Blackmar comment is near the bottom of page 271.
(9299)
Rick Kennedy (Columbus, OH, USA) refers to pages 84-89 of The American Supplement to Cook’s “Synopsis” edited by J.W. Miller (London, 1885), which had analysis of two gambits attributed to Blackmar: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 f3 and 1 d4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 f3. From page 84:
(9306)
Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) has sent us two photographs, taken in early 1894, of H.E. Bird, I. Gunsberg and J.H. Blackburne:
Our correspondent’s source is as specified in C.N. 9296, where forgotten portraits of Lasker and Blackburne were presented. The first shot of Bird, Gunsberg and Blackburne above was included, from a different source, on page 132 of Tim Harding’s fine book Eminent Victorian Chess Players (Jefferson, 2012).
(9527)
An uncreased copy of this photograph was published on page viii of Hastings 1895 by Colin Crouch and Kean Haines (Sheffield, 1995).
(10018)
As shown on page 38 of volume two of Chess Characters (Geneva, 1987) G.H. Diggle wrote in the April 1986 Newsflash:
‘In the June 1887 BCM is a review of H.E. Bird’s Modern Chess, Part V, a shilling booklet of 36 pages devoted entirely to the Evans Gambit. Yet the reviewer, Edward Freeborough, devotes seven pages to dissecting Bird’s analysis, winding up however on a cheerful note: “... the student will certainly not be dissatisfied with his shilling’s worth. There is plenty of provender: he must supply his own digestive organs.”’
(9636)
A familiar consultation game played by F.W. Womersley, in partnership with Bird, was against Blackburne and Aloof (Hastings, 17 February 1897). Gerard Killoran (Ilkley, England) has sent us its appearance on page 6 of the Morning Post, 22 February 1897:
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 Be7 4 h4 d5 5 exd5 Bg4 6 Be2 Nf6 7 Nc3 O-O 8 d4 Nh5 9 O-O Nd7 10 Ne4 h6 11 Ne5 Bxe2 12 Qxe2 Ng3 13 Nxg3 fxg3 14 Qg4 Nxe5 15 dxe5 Qxd5 16 Bxh6 Qxe5 17 Rae1 Bc5+ 18 Kh1 Qxb2 19 c3 Qxc3 20 Rc1 f5 21 Rxf5 Rae8 22 Rxf8+ Bxf8 23 Qd1 Qe5 24 Bd2 b6 25 Rc3 Bc5 26 Qb3+ Kh8 27 Rxg3 Bd6 28 Qd1 Rf8 29 Rh3 Rf2 30 Be3 Rxa2 31 Bd4 Qe2 32 Qxe2 Rxe2 33 g4 Re4 34 Bf2 Rxg4 35 h5 Kh7 36 h6 gxh6
37 Bxb6 Ra4 38 White resigns.
Details of the Hastings Chess Festival programme were also related on pages 90-91 of the March 1897 BCM. Pages 91-92 had the Aloof and Blackburne v Bird and Womersley game, with notes by James Mason. (The conclusion was ‘34 B-B2 RxP. The game was continued some moves further and Black won.’)
In both the Morning Post and the BCM the opening moves were 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 Be7 4 h4, but page 365 of Joseph Henry Blackburne A Chess Biography by Tim Harding (Jefferson, 2015) stated that h4 was played on move three:
The Morning Post and the BCM reported that the game involving Womersley occurred first, and that the Falkbeer Counter-Gambit game was played in the evening.
The endnote on page 554 of Harding’s book:
An example of ‘London’ as the venue, instead of Hastings, is on page 265 of Unorthodox Chess Openings by Eric Schiller (New York, 1998), in a section about 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 h4. Finally, Harding was incorrect to write that the game involving Blackburne and Womersley can be found in Mr Blackburne’s Games at Chess by P. Anderson Graham (London, 1899).
(9669)
Black to play
It seems extremely unlikely that Black, a former world championship challenger, missed an immediate, elementary win with 6...Qh4+, but that was the claim on page 104 of Adventure in Chess by Assiac (London, 1951):
As will be seen below, the move order given by Assiac was wrong; the white queen went to a4 on move six, not seven.
The next problem with Assiac’s account is that he mentioned only Bird and Gunsberg, whereas it was a consultation game, and one of the most famous. From page 18 of Chess Review, October 1933, in an article entitled ‘Curious Chess Facts’ by Irving Chernev:
The same text was on page 47 of Chernev’s book Curious Chess Facts (New York, 1937), and he presented an expanded version on page 52 of Wonders and Curiosities of Chess (New York, 1974):
Chernev also gave it on page 15 of 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (New York, 1955). The score had been published too on page 276 of 200 Miniature Games of Chess by Julius du Mont (London, 1941) and was referred to as ‘the famous nine-mover’ on page 120 of the same author’s Chess More Miniature Games (London, 1953). See also page 12 of 666 Kurzpartien by Kurt Richter (Berlin-Frohnau, 1966). The game’s status as the shortest consultation game ever played had already been proclaimed in 1897, as shown by page 148 of the May Deutsche Schachzeitung:
The game was dated 1896 on page 883 of the Handbuch des Schachspiels (Berlin and Leipzig, 1922), whereas 1892 was given on page 649 of 500 Master Games of Chess by S. Tartakower and J. du Mont (London, 1952). In reality, it was played in the Hastings Chess Festival on 15 February 1897. The BCM did not publish the score but offered a description on page 90 of its March 1897 issue which shows that it was not a nine-mover at all:
‘The attraction of Monday afternoon was a consultation game, Messrs Bird and Dobell against Messrs Gunsberg and Locock. White adopted Bird’s favourite P-KB4, which Black turned into a From Gambit. The game caused much amusement to the company, as so early as the ninth move the White allies were in difficulties, owing to a peculiar oversight threatening the loss of a rook, and might have resigned after the 18th move, although the game was continued for several more moves before White resigned.’
Subsequent writers overlooked that report and the fact that the game was published by Gunsberg in his column in the Pall Mall Gazette, 22 February 1897, page 9:
1 f4 e5 2 fxe5 d6 3 exd6 Bxd6 4 Nf3 g5 5 c3 g4 6 Qa4+ Nc6 7 Nd4 Qh4+ 8 Kd1 g3 9 b3 Qxh2 10 Nxc6 Qxh1 11 Ke1 Qg1 12 Ne5+ c6 13 Nd3 Bf5 14 e4 O-O-O 15 exf5 Nf6 16 Kd1 Qxf1+ 17 Kc2 Qxf5 18 Qxa7
18...Qxd3+ and Black won.
(9670)
Wanted: nominations concerning lengthy matches devoid of draws.
The best-known case may be Steinitz’s defeat of Anderssen (+8 –6 =0) in London in 1866. Twenty years later, also in London, there was a tied contest between Bird and Burn in which all 18 games were decisive. Detailed coverage can be found in the McFarland monographs on the two players, by Hans Renette and Richard Forster respectively. This chart is on page 200 of the latter work:
(10220)
See Chess Draws.
From Hans Renette:
‘An interesting amateur chessplayer of the nineteenth century was Henry Albert Reeves. The Ancestry website has a database entitled “India, Select Births and Baptisms, 1786-1947” which gives 3 August 1840 as his date of birth, Howrah (part of Calcutta) as his birth-place and 21 March 1841 as the date of his baptism.
Reeves took part in several chess contests in 1859, and in a knockout handicap tournament at Purssell’s, London he was one of 13 participants to receive the odds of pawn and two moves from the top three players (Ernst Falkbeer, Henry Edward Bird and Hesketh Hughes). Reeves reached the final and was narrowly beaten by Falkbeer. Later that year he defeated Hughes in a match at the same odds. He also played a match at the Philidorian Chess Rooms against Daniel Harrwitz, again receiving the odds of pawn and two moves. Harrwitz won +5 –3 =2.
One of Reeves’ earliest published games:
“Mr B.”-Henry Albert Reeves
London (Purssell’s), 1859
Bishop’s Opening1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Bc5 4 d3 b5 5 Bxb5 c6 6 Bc4 Qb6 7 Qe2 d5 8 exd5 O-O 9 Ne4 Nxe4 10 dxe4 Bxf2+ 11 Qxf2 Qb4+ 12 Bd2 Qxc4 13 Qf3 f5 14 exf5 Bxf5 15 Qb3
15...Qf1+ 16 Kxf1 Bd3+ 17 Ke1 Rf1 mate.
Source: Sunday Times, 6 March 1859, page 3.
Reeves withdrew from chess to concentrate on his studies and, later, his work as an orthopaedic surgeon. In 1876 he married Ellen Buckingham Mathews, a novelist who wrote under the pseudonym Helen Mathers.
In the mid-1880s Reeves became more active again in chess. He took part in a handicap tournament at the Divan, the first Congress of the British Chess Association and a tournament at the British Chess Club.
Henry Albert Reeves -Isidor Arthur Gunsberg
London (Masters’ Tournament, British Chess Club), 1886
Ruy López1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Nxe4 6 d4 b5 7 Bb3 d5 8 dxe5 Be6 9 Bf4 Ne7 10 c3 Ng6 11 Bg3 Bc5 12 Kh1 h5 13 h4 Be7 14 Bc2 Bg4 15 Qe1 Nc5 16 Nbd2 Bxf3 17 Nxf3 Nxh4 18 Nd4 Ne6
19 f4 Nxd4 20 cxd4 g6 21 e6 Rh6 22 f5 g5 23 Qe3 Bf8 24 Rae1 fxe6 25 fxe6 Rf6 26 Qd3 Qe7 27 Rxf6 Qxf6 28 Bxh4 gxh4 29 Qh7 resigns.
Source: The Field, 3 April 1886, page 412.
Two games in which Reeves played the Schliemann Defence against the Ruy López:
Henry Edward Bird – Henry Albert Reeves
London (Simpson’s), 1892
Ruy López1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 f5 4 Qe2 fxe4 5 Bxc6 dxc6 6 Qxe4 Bd6 7 d4 Nf6 8 Qe2 e4 9 Nc3 Qe7 10 Ng5 Bf5 11 h4 O-O-O 12 Be3 Rhe8 13 Qc4 Bb4 14 O-O-O h6 15 Nh3
15...Be6 16 Qf1 Bxc3 17 bxc3 Qa3+ 18 Kd2 Nd5 19 Ke1 Qxc3+ 20 Bd2 Qxc2 21 Rc1 Qxa2 22 Qc4 Qxc4 23 Rxc4 e3 24 White resigns.
Source: Standard, 11 July 1892, page 7.
Amos Burn-Henry Albert Reeves
London (Purssell’s), 1896
Ruy López1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 f5 4 Qe2 fxe4 5 Qxe4 Nf6 6 Qe2 e4 7 Ng5 d5 8 f3 Bd7 9 Bxc6 Bxc6 10 O-O Bc5+ 11 Kh1
11...O-O 12 Ne6 Qd6 13 Nxf8 Rxf8 14 Nc3 exf3 15 gxf3 d4 16 Nd1 Ng4 17 Ne3
17...Rxf3 18 White resigns.
Source: Nottinghamshire Guardian, 16 May 1896, page 7.
Reporting Reeves’ death on page 5 of the Sunday Times, 25 January 1914, Louis van Vliet stated (with regard to a tournament won by Teichmann):
“In 1896, as ‘Dr Farrow’, Mr Reeves entered for a tournament at ‘Simpson’s’ with the late H.E. Bird, F.J. Lee, and Teichmann, Müller Fenton, van Vliet, and several strong amateurs, for the express purpose of testing his variations in actual practice. But sad to say, he got very little chance, as with the exception of Bird, who had the courage of a lion, no-one ventured to play the Ruy López against him.”’
(10065)
H.E. Bird by Hans Renette (Jefferson, 2016) is one of the best-researched chess books that we have ever seen.
(10177)
From Hans Renette:
‘At the end of May 1889 Bird made a short visit to the Albany Chess Club, and pages 563-564 of my recent book on him quoted some articles in the local press. The articles had a few illustrations of low quality which are of interest but were not included in the book.’
Albany Evening News, 24 May 1889, page 8
Albany Evening News, 25 May 1889, page 8
Albany Evening News, 25 May 1889, page 8.
(10271)
From page 34 of the Chess Weekly, 4 July 1908:
‘[Bird] was the man that made P-KR4 famous, his sovereign counsel being “when in doubt, play your KRP two squares, sir”.’
Of course, P-KB4 was meant (see Black’s tenth move in the accompanying game):
The conclusion of that MacDonnell v Bird game had been given, with more particulars, on page 218 of the March 1889 Chess Monthly:
(10422)
The origins of the alleged ‘sovereign counsel’ quote remain unknown – it can only be said that the Editors of the Chess Weekly at that time were W.E. Napier, Magnus Smith and Charles Nugent – but Richard Forster (Zurich) believes that P-KR4 was indicated intentionally. He notes, for instance, Bird’s line 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Nxd4 exd4 5 O-O h5, as well as variations in the Sicilian Defence and the King’s Gambit, and cites this passage from page 271 of H.E. Bird by Hans Renette (Jefferson, 2016), in a section entitled ‘A Short Stop in Amsterdam 1880’:
‘Bird allowed himself his usual liberties in these games, such as recklessly advancing his a- and h-pawns, moving his king just one square aside, and playing 3...Nd4 against the Ruy López, but nevertheless crushed all opposition.’
(10443)
Page 2 of the Newcastle Courant, 26 November 1898 had a pair of victories by Louis Zollner, against Bird and Blackburne, with the mere information ‘recently contested’:
Bird v Zollner: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Bc4 Nc6 4 d3 Bc5 5 O-O Nf6 6 Nc3 d6 7 Bg5 Ne7 8 Bxf6 gxf6 9 d4 exd4 10 Nxd4 fxe4 11 Qh5+ Ng6 12 Rad1 Bxd4 13 Rxd4 c6 14 Nxe4 d5
15 Re1 O-O 16 Nc3 Qb6 17 Nxd5 cxd5 18 Bxd5+ Kh8 19 Rh4 Nxh4 20 Re7 Bf5 21 Qh6
21...Rg8 22 Be6 Rxg2+ 23 Kh1 Rxh2+ 24 Kxh2 Qxf2+ 25 Kh1 Qg2 mate.
Blackburne v Zollner: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nxc6 bxc6 6 Bd3 Be7 7 O-O O-O 8 Nc3 d5 9 exd5 cxd5 10 Bg5 Be6 11 Qf3 Rb8 12 Rab1 h6 13 Bh4 Rb4 14 Bxf6 Bxf6 15 a3 Rb6 16 Na4 Rd6 17 Rbd1 Qc8 18 h3 c5 19 c3 Qc7 20 Bc2 c4 21 Qe3 Rb8 22 Rfe1 Qd8 23 Nc5 Rxb2 24 Nxe6 fxe6 25 Bg6 Qf8 26 Qc1 Bxc3 27 Rf1 Qf6 28 Bh5 Rdb6 29 Bf3
29...R6b3 30 a4 Bd4 31 a5 Bc5 32 a6 Qh4 33 Rd2 Rxd2 34 Qxd2 Rd3 35 Qa5 Bb6 36 Qb5
36...Rxf3 37 Qxb6 axb6 38 gxf3 Qd8 39 White resigns.
Newcastle Evening Chronicle, 17 April 1939, page 10.
(10877)
From page 101 of Lasker’s Manual of Chess (New York, 1927):
The text appears towards the end of the Second Book; page numbers vary in other editions.
Jean-Pierre Rhéaume (Montreal, Canada) points out that the game in question which began 1 f4 e5 2 fxe5 d6 3 exd6 Bxd6 4 Nf3 g5 occurred in the second Lasker v Bird match, i.e. in 1892 and not 1890.
The score was given on pages 485-486 of H.E. Bird by Hans Renette (Jefferson, 2016), with these notes by Steinitz from page 22 of the New York Daily Tribune, 25 September 1892:
Notwithstanding what appears in some publications and databases, the game continued until move 63, as reported in many contemporary sources, such as page 5 of The Scotsman, 31 August 1892 and page 12 of Lasker’s London Chess Fortnightly, 1 September 1892. The concluding moves (after 42...Bxh1) have not been found.
Page 68 of the recent Zenón Franco book on Lasker (C.N.s 11130, 11139 and 11140) has ‘40 Bb6 Bd5! 0-1’. As regards the opening, page 61 states:
The misspelling ‘Fromm’ is common, but the player’s name is not in doubt: Martin From (1828-95).
Some articles on the opening:
(11174)
C.N. 1554 mentioned that page 5 of a 1984 book by Nicolas Giffard, Les Echecs, attributed this quote to Oscar Wilde:
‘Si vous voulez détruire un homme, apprenez-lui à jouer aux échecs.’ [‘If you want to destroy a man, teach him to play chess.’]
A correspondent in Canada, C.D. Robinson, observed in C.N. 1566:
‘Surely this is not Wilde, but a neat compression of two sentences in H.G. Wells’ essay “Concerning Chess”: “You have, let us say, a promising politician, a rising artist, that you wish to destroy. Dagger or bomb are archaic, clumsy and unreliable – but teach him, inoculate him with chess!” The essay has been reprinted several times since its first publication in 1901, e.g. in Jerome Salzmann’s The Chess Reader (pages 194-198).’
See page 380 of Kings, Commoners and Knaves.
Wells’ essay had, in fact, first appeared on page 3 of the Pall Mall Gazette, 12 February 1895. Parts have often been quoted, and not least his observation, ‘though we revere Steinitz and Lasker, it is Bird we love’. Below is the full article in its original publication:
(11546)
Hans Renette writes:
‘Some items in the Bristol Times and Mirror shed light on a small provincial tour by Bird and Mackenzie in 1885 (discussed on pages 353-354 of my book on Bird) and the Englishman’s controversial attitude to professionalism and amateurism in chess.
Bird and Mackenzie intended to visit Cardiff (as noted in my book), though not Swansea. Instead, they spent three days in Bristol, but without playing any chess games. In a letter published on page 3 of the 11 September 1885 edition of the Bristol Times and Mirror Bird complained about the lack of an initiative to arrange games with “any chess admirers in friendly contest”:
The same issue had a brief news report on page 5:
The President of the Bristol and Clifton Chess Club, the Rev. J. Greene, responded on page 7 of the newspaper’s 14 September 1885 edition, criticizing Bird’s attitude to payment for “friendly contests”:’
(11561)
From August 2022 to November 2024 the English Chess Federation publication ChessMoves featured a series of articles by John Nunn entitled ‘Great British Chess Players’.
All are accessible online. The complete list (no articles in the December 2022 and August 2024 issues):
August 2022-November 2022: McDonnell, Staunton, Bird, Blackburne;
January 2023-July 2024: Burn, Gunsberg, Atkins, Sultan Khan, Thomas, Yates, Menchik, Alexander, Golombek, Wade, Penrose, Miles, Nunn, Speelman, Mestel, Chandler, Short, Adams, Sadler;
September 2024-November 2024: McShane, Jones, Howell.
(12165)
The Bird article was on pages 26-29 of the October 2022 issue of Chess Moves.
Two Bird entries in Where Did They Live?:
5 Heygate Street, London SE, England (The Chess Monthly, October 1887, page 35);
16 Chetwode Road, Upper Tooting, London SW, England (Chess Amateur, April 1908, page 190).
From Wikipedia and Chess:
On his YouTube channel, Ben Finegold often comments about the length of Wikipedia articles, and in a video on H.N. Pillsbury earlier this year [2025] he said:
‘I’m furious at how short the Wikipedia articles are for these great chessplayers.’
On any Wikipedia page the reader can see its length (in bytes) by clicking on ‘Tools’ and then on ‘Page information’. In the case of Pillsbury (English-language version), the current length is only 10,066 bytes.
The disparities in Wikipedia articles are also shown by these lengths:
Henry Edward Bird: 4,755;
Eric Schiller: 24,364.
(12228)
Earliest Occurrences of Chess Terms includes an entry for ‘Skittles’, together with ‘Skittling’; an addition regarding the latter is an article on page 87 of the Westminster Chess Club Papers, November 1868.
In a letter on page 3 of the Daily News, 30 May 1894 Samuel Tinsley wrote:
‘There is, as every experienced chessist knows, all the difference in the world between what is known as off-hand play or “skittles” and chess. Multitudes can enjoy the set-’em-up-and-knock-’em-down game; not everyone can play games that will in the main bear after analyses, and afford intellectual pleasure to the student as years go by; and certainly no-one can play good chess at less than the now well recognized 15 or 20 moves an hour.’
Tinsley’s letter was in a series of four published by the Daily News (London) in 1894 on the subject of fast chess:
29 May 1894, page 2
30 May 1894, page 3
31 May 1894, page 7
Bird’s first letter was also published in the Evening Standard, 29 May 1894, page 6.
See too pages 8-9 of Hans Renette’s monograph on Bird (Jefferson, 2016), which gave the first letter and mentioned the second and third ones.
The title ‘Senior Chess Master’ had been used in connection with a Bird letter on page 3 of the Morning Post, 4 September 1893 about draws and stalemate:
The heading of a brief notice on page 32 of the St James’s Budget, 17 April 1908:
(12268)
To the Archives
for other feature articles.
Copyright Edward Winter. All rights reserved.
