Edward Winter
From the privately distributed 1994 edition of Chess Personalia by Jeremy Gaige:
As reported by, for instance, R.N. Coles on page 289 of the July 1976 BCM, Löwenthal died on 20 July 1876, at St Leonards-on-Sea (adjoining Hastings).
Later the same day, the Evening Express (Liverpool) announced on page 3:
Confirmation of the date and place is provided by page 5 of the Hastings & St Leonards Observer, 29 July 1876, which recorded that Löwenthal had ‘died on Thursday week, at St Leonards-on-Sea’.
Below is the notice of his death on page 3 of the Daily News (London), 21 July 1876:
Addition on 28 May 2026:
From John Townsend (Wokingham, England):
‘Löwenthal’s death certificate confirms the date of death as 20 July 1876 and states that he died at “23 Gensing Road, St Mary Magdalen”. This contradicts, and therefore invalidates, the place of death which was indicated in the National Probate Calendar for 1876 (“Burlington House St Leonard’s-on-Sea”). (“St Mary Magdalen” is the name of the parish.)
A conflict between information on a death certificate and that on the National Probate Calendar can arise. Where the clash cannot be resolved, the death certificate should, in general, take precedence, and especially in this instance where the informant was “present at the death”.
“23 Gensing Road, St Leonards” was the residence of the informant, Mary Ann Eldridge, who was “present at the death”. The 1881 census shows that a family of Eldridges were living at that address, so she was probably closely related to them. However, since there were three Mary Ann Eldridges in that family, further research would be needed to identify the informant with any certainty.
Löwenthal’s age was given as 66 and his occupation as author. Cause of death was “Asthma, certified by J.H. Wadd, M.R.C.S.”, though no indication is given as to the duration of that affliction. The death was registered on 22 July 1876, the registrar being Benjamin Tree.’
Ignacio Vidau Cabal (Gijón, Spain) asks how many games Morphy and Löwenthal contested in New Orleans in 1850. Some sources state two, others three.
C.N. 1015 pointed out that extensive research by David Lawson on pages 24-35 of his 1976 biography of Morphy had demonstrated that there were three games. On the other hand, although Paul Morphy, partidas completas (Madrid, 1993) by the error-prone Rogelio Caparrós purports to give the scores of three games, two of them (the draw on page 19 and the Morphy win on page 20) are virtually identical. The score of the third game has never been found.
(2081)
See also Paul Morphy.
J.J. Löwenthal
Jerry Spinrad (Nashville, TN, USA) sends a copy of an item entitled ‘A Great Game of Chess’ in Liberator, 27 June 1851. It consists of two quotes, and the first, from the Cincinnati Nonpareil, stated that Löwenthal was about to participate in the London, 1851 tournament. It concluded:
‘The man who comes off victorious in the game receives the purse and is crowned the King Player of the world. Mr Löwenthal has gone to try for the crown and – the purse.’
We are always glad to receive such early references, whether or not a specific term like ‘world championship’ is used.
The second quotation in the Liberator column comes from the New Orleans Bee and concerns the early meetings between Löwenthal and Morphy. It will be noted that asterisks were used to disguise the name of the American:
‘Mr Löwenthal is a very great chessplayer. He was in New Orleans about a year ago, and wrested the laurels from some of the finest masters of the game. But, strange to say, he was beaten by a youth of 12 years who, but a few months previous, had never played a game. The youth in question – Master M***** – is the son of a highly respectable citizen of New Orleans, himself an enthusiastic amateur of the noble game of chess. The boy was accustomed to look over the board while his father was playing. As soon as he comprehended the moves, he began to play. He first beat his father, then his uncle – a player of remarkable force – then, in a contest with Rosseau [sic – Rousseau], the chess champion of the South, he gained a signal advantage; and finally he amazed Löwenthal himself, by winning from him a majority in a given series of games. He has perhaps the most wonderful genius for chess ever witnessed. At his tender age he may be considered a first-rate player. His movements are prompt, astonishingly accurate, and the result of close and vigilant combination. He solves problems with amazing facility. None of the mysterious intricacies of these enigmas, however involved and numerous the moves, baffle his concentrated and patient attention. If he continues advancing in force as he grows older, he will become the wonder of the age ere he attains manhood.’
(3684)
From page 149 of How to Play Chess Like a Champion by F. Reinfeld (New York, 1956):
‘Staunton was pompous and bombastic, a self-appointed dictator of the chess world. On one occasion a rival published a statement that he had won the majority of his games with Staunton. The next time they met Staunton thundered, “You can’t print that!” His rival stammered feebly that the statement was true. “What’s that got to do with it? Of course it’s true!”, Staunton raged. “But you still can’t print it!”’
(4030)
See Falkbeer, Staunton and Löwenthal.
From opposite page 96 of the 1859 US edition of F.M. Edge’s book on Morphy
From the entry on Löwenthal on page 122 of the Dictionary of Modern Chess by Byrne J. Horton (New York, 1959):
‘One of Löwenthal’s famous quotations is: “The judicious violation of general principles marks the master-mind”.’
What is the exact source of this observation?
(4297)
We now see the following (a game between Morphy and Julien) on page 415 of Morphy’s Games of Chess by J. Löwenthal (London, 1860):
The wording is thus slightly different: ‘In Chess, as in military tactics, it is the judicious violation of general rules that more especially marks the master-mind”.’
(6581)
Dan Quigley (Augusta, GA, USA) asks about an encounter involving Löwenthal and Staunton (London, 1856) which may be found listed in databases as a consultation game:
1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 f4 d5 4 fxe5 Nxe4 5 Nf3 Bg4 6 Be2 Nc6 7 Bb5 Bb4 8 Qe2 Ng5 9 Qf2 Bxf3 10 gxf3 O-O 11 Bxc6 bxc6 12 Ne2 f6 13 h4 Ne6 14 c3 Ba5 15 d4 fxe5 16 dxe5 d4 17 Bd2 Qd5 18 Rf1 Bb6 19 Qg3 d3 20 Nc1 Rad8 21 Nb3
21...a5 22 c4 Qxc4 23 Bc3 Bd4 24 Nxd4 Nxd4 25 Kd2 Ne6 26 f4 Nc5 27 Rae1 Ne4+ 28 Rxe4 Qxe4 29 Rf2 Rf7 30 Qe3 Qf5 0-1.
Our correspondent also mentions a database where 21...a6, and not ...a5, is given.
We note that the game was published on pages 28-29 of the 1859 Chess Player’s Chronicle:
Löwenthal’s partner (‘Alter’) was John Owen.
Another consultation game (Löwenthal and Barnes v Staunton and Alter) was on pages 26-28 of the Chronicle, with this introduction on page 26:
With regard to the Illustrated London News, Rod Edwards (Victoria, BC, Canada) kindly informs us that the game under discussion was in Staunton’s column on page 258 of the 8 March 1856 issue (with 21...a5). Mr Edwards adds:
‘After Staunton and Barnes’ 30...Qf5, Staunton stated in the Illustrated London News that “The remaining moves were not recorded, but the game was won by White”. It should be borne in mind that Staunton and Barnes had the white pieces.
It was one of a series of consultation games played between Staunton and Löwenthal in which each player had various allies. Sometimes the allies even switched partners. The series was announced on page 187 of the 16 February 1856 Illustrated London News, where the result of the first two games was given. Cumulative scores were provided periodically, and the last tally that I have found was in the 13 September 1856 magazine (page 281): “Staunton and Co.” had nine wins and “Löwenthal and Co.” five, with two games drawn. However, consultation games between Staunton and Löwenthal with various allies continued to be reported sporadically until the 4 July 1857 issue (page 22).’
(6455)
Carl Boor (Columbus, OH, USA) asks why 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e5 5 Nb5 a6 is often called the Löwenthal Variation and whether Johann Löwenthal ever played it.
As regards terminology, the chapter on the ‘Lowenthal Variation’ on pages 140-144 of Beating the Sicilian 2 by John Nunn (London, 1990) began:
Page 202 of the tenth edition of Modern Chess Openings (Evans/Korn, 1965) stated that 4...e5 ‘was originated in the game Macdonnell-Labourdonnais in 1839 and later enlarged upon by Löwenthal’. The year 1839 was naturally wrong (Alexander McDonnell having died in 1835), and on page 174 of the eleventh edition (Korn, 1972) the comment on 4...e5 became:
‘This thematic move was originated in a game MacDonnell-Labourdonnais in 1934 and later enlarged upon by Löwenthal.’
The same sentence appeared on page 208 of the twelfth edition (Korn, 1982), except that the correct date, 1834, was given at last.
An historical note regarding 4...e5 was provided on page 355 of La defensa siciliana by Carlos A. Palacio (Havana, 1973), in a chapter headed ‘Variante Lowental [sic] – Labourdonnais’:
Löwenthal’s match against Morphy in 1858 was played in London, not Paris. The Sicilian Defence occurred twice:
Both games were annotated by Löwenthal in his book Morphy’s Games of Chess (London, 1860), but his observations contain nothing of relevance to the ‘Löwenthal Variation’ appellation.
We recall no games by Löwenthal which began 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e5 5 Nb5 a6, but in 1865 the Chess Player’s Magazine (of which he was the editor) had an article in six instalments, ‘The Sicilian Opening’. The fifth part (pages 162-164) discussed a line which began 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 (‘best’) 4 Nxd4 e5 5 Nf3 (‘best’) Nf6, and page 164 contained this comment:
‘In the above variation we may observe that White might also have played 5 Nb5. But that move is far less potent when Black has advanced his king’s pawn two squares than when he has only moved it one step.’
Then the article turned to the ‘second defence’ (2...e6), the ‘first defence’ having been 2...Nc6. The following moves were given: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nc6 5 Nb5.
When the article was resumed on page 193 of the following issue, Löwenthal was named (with an incorrect reference to the ‘ninth game’, instead of eleventh, of his match against Morphy):
The awkward presentation, in conjunction with different positions in which 5 Nb5 could be played, offered scope for complications and misunderstandings about the use of Löwenthal’s name, but the whole matter seems murky. Wanted: early uses of the term ‘Löwenthal Variation’ with reference to a) 4...e5 only and b) 4...e5 5 Nb5 a6.
Source: BCM, August 1926, page 346.
We can cite only one nineteenth-century game which reached the diagrammed position: the eleventh match-game between de Rivière and Journoud (Paris, 1859). Staunton annotated it on page 19 of the 7 January 1860 Illustrated London News, and we are grateful to Rod Edwards for supplying a copy:
(6580)
Georges Bertola (Bussigny, Switzerland) draws attention to a game on pages 18-20 of the Chess Player’s Magazine, January 1867:
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 Bg7 5 O-O h6 6 d4 d6 7 Nc3 Ne7 8 b3 Bg4 9 Nd5 O-O 10 Qd3 Nbc6
11 e5 Bxf3 12 Nf6+ Bxf6 13 exf6 Bh5 14 Bxf4 Bg6 15 Qh3 Nf5 16 Bxg5 hxg5 17 Rxf5 Nxd4 18 Qh6 Nxf5 19 Qxg6+ Kh8 20 Qh5+ Kg8 21 Qxg5+ Kh8 22 Qxf5 and wins.
It was merely stated that the game was ‘recently won by a Lady’ and that Black was Löwenthal (the magazine’s Editor). Mr Bertola asks whether White’s identity is known and whether any earlier game-scores exist in which a prominent player was defeated by a woman.
(7681)
Following J. Löwenthal’s death, page 69 of the Westminster Papers of 1 August 1876 referred to autobiographical information provided by the master to Men of the Time. Below we reproduce his full entry on page 665 of the ninth edition of that book, which was by Thompson Cooper and was published in London in 1875:
(7707)
Below is the start of an article by G.H. Diggle which was published in the May 1985 Newsflash and reprinted on page 21 of volume two of Chess Characters (Geneva, 1987):
‘The autopsy on the late world championship contest continues. An eminent “ex-Soviet” grandmaster has now declared categorically that “the infamous match ended, appropriately, in shame”. To which “the two Ks” may well reply, in the famous words of a lady witness who made court-room history, “He would, wouldn’t he?”
But throughout the ages, long chess matches have always “come in for some stick”. Löwenthal and Williams, 1851 (L. 7, W. 5, drawn 4) lasted only 16 games but, with no time-limit and Williams at the board, occupied nearly two months. Staunton (annotating the eighth game) maintains an ominous silence for the first 20 moves, but finally erupts:
“It can hardly fail to strike the most unobservant reader that in this match there is scarcely any combination on either side. Mr Williams, with his habitual imperturbability, contents himself by keeping his game together, and exchanging his pieces as opportunity serves, satisfied to await the chances which a 12 or 14 hours’ sitting may turn up. The Hungarian, in despair of infusing anything like fire into such an unimaginative opposite, resigns himself to the far niente tactics of the enemy, and like him resolves to wait and watch also. The remarkable thing is that with all this wariness and lack of enterprise, with hours upon hours devoted to the consideration of the shallowest conceptions, the games abound with blunders. In a game shortly preceding this one, Mr W. leaves a bishop en prise. In the present, we find Mr L. very generously giving up his queen, and in the very next game Mr W. loses his queen in a similar manner.” [London, 1851 tournament book, page 277.]
(8075)
G.H. Diggle wrote an article about Löwenthal on pages 308-314 of the July 1976 BCM.
Part of an article ‘Sketches from the Chess World’ by Ernst Falkbeer on pages 53-54 of the June 1881 issue of Brentano’s Chess Monthly:
The article was translated from the Deutsche Illustrirte Zeitung, and we wonder whether the details about the memory episode can be verified.
The Morphy v Löwenthal match conditions did indeed stipulate that the games were the joint property of the players, as reported in Löwenthal’s column in the Era, 18 July 1858, page 13:
See too page 284 of the Chess Monthly, September 1858 and page 108 of David Lawson’s biography of Morphy.
Below is the first column by Falkbeer to give a game from the Morphy v Löwenthal match (Sunday Times Supplement, 8 August 1858, page 4):
We have yet to find anything of relevance to the Falkbeer/Dufresne matter in any columns in the Era or Sunday Times from 1858, in Max Lange’s book on Morphy (London, 1860), which was translated and adapted by Falkbeer, in the collection of Morphy’s games by Löwenthal (London, 1860), or in any periodicals published in 1851.
(8717)
Rod Edwards forwards a paragraph from J. Löwenthal’s column on page 5 of the Era, 1 December 1861:
‘Mr Paul Morphy. Now that so many distinguished players have had an opportunity of displaying their powers in this country, and under the eye of our most eminent amateurs, an opportunity has been afforded of comparing Mr Morphy’s play with that of others of the highest pretensions, and the conclusion which is come to on all hands, even by these eminent players themselves, is that Mr Paul Morphy stands on a pedestal far above any other living player. We ourselves have long maintained this opinion; but we will not conceal that we have been most anxious to see Europe vindicate its old prestige. However, at present, it must be admitted that America boasts the Chess Champion of the World. Mr Morphy’s games have exhibited in the very highest degree a pre-eminence of skill in every branch. His extraordinary quickness of perception, his power of combination, the accuracy of his strategy, and the genius and originality which characterizes the whole conduct of his play, combine to render him a perfect prodigy of power as a chessplayer. It is hoped that efforts will be made to secure Mr Morphy’s presence in London during the Grand Congress next year. We feel sure that every chess amateur in the country will hail his coming with satisfaction.’
(9358)
John Townsend writes:
‘In my 2014 book Historical notes on some chess players, freemasons’ records were among the biographical sources for the chapter about Jacob Sarratt. The Library of Freemasonry in London was used, and since then many membership records of masons have been made searchable online at the genealogical website ancestry.co.uk (England, United Grand Lodge of England Freemason Membership Registers, 1751-1921).’
Below is the entry on Löwenthal, one of ten nineteenth-century chess personalities who were listed as masons:
John Jacob Löwenthal: Lodge of United Strength: initiated, 11 February 1868; 20 Camden Road; gentleman; resigned in 1870; Grosvenor Lodge, Pimlico: 1869-76.
(10101)
Black to move
This position was discussed briefly by Staunton when he published a consultation game against Löwenthal in the Illustrated London News column referred to in C.N. 11473 (30 May 1857, page 529):
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 d5 4 Qa4 Qd6 5 exd5 Qxd5 6 Bc4 Qd6 7 O-O Bd7 8 Qb3 Nh6 9 Na3 Qf6 10 Bd5 Na5 11 Qc2 Bxa3 12 bxa3 Qd6 13 Re1 f6 14 Bb3 Bc6 15 Nd4 Nxb3 16 Qxb3 Bd5 17 Nb5 Bxb3 18 Nxd6+ cxd6 19 axb3 Nf5 20 d4 Rc8 21 dxe5 dxe5 22 f4 O-O 23 fxe5 Rxc3 24 exf6 Rc2 25 fxg7 Rf7 26 Re4 Rxg7 27 g3 h5 28 Rf4.
(11477)
Which is the most recent chess event in which a player was, or could have been, fined for non-compliance with the rules?
In the nineteenth century such provisions were commonplace, and below are extracts from the conditions for a proposed match between Harrwitz and Löwenthal, on page 249 of the British Chess Review, 1853:
‘6. ... If either party be absent within half-an-hour of the time appointed for play, he shall be fined £1 for every such offence, the fine to be paid before or at the next meeting for play, under penalty of the forfeiture of the match; and if he be absent more than one hour beyond the appointed time, one game shall be added to the adversary’s score.’
‘10. Each party shall be allowed 20 minutes for deliberation on any move. In the event of either party taking more than 20 minutes, he shall be fined the sum of ten shillings for each additional ten minutes (the fine to be paid as in Condition 6). But neither party shall be allowed more than one hour over a move, and the party who does not play a move at the expiration of one hour shall forfeit the game to his opponent.’
(11486)
Charles Maurian’s chess column on page 6 of the Sunday Delta (New Orleans), 29 January 1860 reviewed J. Löwenthal’s book on Morphy:
From the final paragraph:
‘The notice to the reader which prefaces the work, and which is signed by Mr Morphy, was not written by him; he merely affixed his name to it, to recommend Mr L.’s book to his friends and to chess players. He is not, therefore, responsible for the following sentence: “But continued contests, during the past twelve months, [would] have precluded my concurring with so flattering a request,” &c. We suppose that, in the hurry of writing, the word concurring was mistaken for complying.’
The notice as it appeared in the D. Appleton, New York edition:
A slightly different text (and with ‘complying’) was in the edition published by Henry G. Bohn, London in 1860:
We have come across a much earlier version of the Morphy text (with neither ‘complying’ nor ‘concurring’, but ‘acceding’), on page 1 of the New-York Tribune, 12 May 1859:
Although dated 13 April 1859, the note already had the phrase ‘during the past twelve months’ which was in Löwenthal’s book over eight months later.
The significance of the date in the preparation of the message is apparent from page 193/page 208 of David Lawson’s book on Morphy:
‘On Wednesday, April 13, after visiting Löwenthal at his office at the Era, the two of them went to the London Chess Club.’
It is undisputed that Morphy was involved in Löwenthal’s book. With regard to the Appleton edition, Charles Maurian wrote on page 5 of the Sunday Delta, 23 October 1859:
‘The proof-sheets of a new collection of the games of Mr Morphy have been received in this country, and are now being read and corrected by Mr Morphy himself. These games will be accompanied by elaborate notes from the pen of Mr Löwenthal, the distinguished analyst and chess editor, and will comprise the whole of the contests in which Morphy has heretofore taken part, both in this country and Europe. We learn that Mr Löwenthal will take occasion to incorporate in this book a complete treatise on the game of chess, embodying the latest analyses of chess openings and endings. It is well known that a complete revolution has taken place of late years in the openings – especially in that class of games denominated, by chess authors, “close games”. The Sicilian Defense, long held by most chess authors as the best possible answer to the first player’s first move of P to K4, for a long time thought by Staunton to give the Defense a forced won game, is now proved to give the attack a better game, is consequently now fast falling into disregard, and is rapidly being superseded by Philidor’s Defense. Many other changes have taken place, new discoveries have been made, all of which will be examined, and the best known moves, both for attack and defense, given. Mr Löwenthal is certainly equal to the task he has undertaken, and we have no doubt that his book will be eagerly sought for, both for the theoretical part, the fruit of his own research and long experience, and for the practical portion, consisting in the inimitable games of our countryman. It is not improbable that the task of reading and correcting the abovementioned proof-sheets may detain Mr Morphy in New York for a week or two more, but he is expected in this city during the first week of November.’
The complex publication history of the Löwenthal book in New York and London was discussed in Chapter 3 of Lawson’s monograph. His focus was on clarifying how many games Morphy and Löwenthal contested in New Orleans in 1850. See C.N.s 1015 and 2081 in Paul Morphy.
Google Books has one copy of the Appleton edition of Löwenthal’s volume which lacks the Morphy text, possibly through a scanning error.
(12316)
See also The Chess Masters of To-day by Leopold Hoffer.
To the Archives
for other feature articles.
Copyright Edward Winter. All rights reserved.