Chess Notes

The subject of our latest feature article.

12262. Check and checkmate

White played 39 Bxh6 Be5+ 40 Bf4 mate.

As discussed in Check and Checkmate, Bogoljubow v Trott, Southsea, 1950 was depicted in the animated film War Is Over!, written and directed by Dave Mullins.

Peter Trott (Paddock Wood, England) has sent us his father’s score of the game:

1 e4 c5 2 Ne2 Nc6 3 Nbc3 d6 4 g3 g6 5 Bg2 Bg7 6 d3 e6 7 Nf4 Nge7 8 O-O O-O 9 Re1 Rb8 10 Nce2 b5 11 c3 Qa5 12 a3 b4 13 Bd2 bxa3 14 Rxa3 Qb6 15 Bc1 Bd7 16 Ra2 Rfc8 17 g4 Na5 18 h3 Nb3 19 Be3 e5 20 Nd5 Nxd5 21 exd5 f5 22 gxf5 Bxf5 23 Ng3 Rf8 24 Kh2 Rb7 25 Rg1 Kh8 26 Ra3 Bd7 27 Ne4 a5 28 Bf3 Be8 29 Rg2 h6 30 Be2 a4 31 Qg1 Nd4 32 cxd4 Qxb2 33 dxc5 Qxa3 34 Nxd6 Rb8 35 Nxe8 Rfxe8 36 Rxg6 Rg8 37 Qg4 e4 38 Qh5 Rge8 39 Bxh6 Be5+ 40 Bf4 mate.

We are also grateful to Peter Trott for this photograph taken shortly after the game started:

See too Efim Bogoljubow.

An earlier photograph courtesy of our correspondent:

From left to right: A.H. Trott, H. Meek, O. Penrose
London Boys’ Championship, January 1947

Addition on 3 January 2026:

Two further photographs of his father from Peter Trott:

The board position occurs a number of times in databases, the earliest game being Richter v Engels, Bad Oeynhausen, 1938.

Regarding this shot taken on Southsea pier (in, we believe, April 1951), Leonard Barden (London) informs us:

‘The man on the right is Donald G. Mackay, and the one in the centre looks like Stephen Hawes.

Trott’s chess career effectively terminated at Beverwijk, 1953, where he finished joint last on 1/11, including a particularly brutal defeat by Donner. After that his name virtually disappeared from competitive chess.’

12263. Alekhine v Lilienthal (C.N. 3348)

From Michael Sharpe (Toronto, Canada):

‘C.N. 3348 discusses the game Alekhine v Lilienthal, Hastings, 1933-34 and its possible significance in encouraging Euwe to challenge Alekhine for the world championship title. The moves of Alekhine’s winning combination in that game are of interest:

Position after 50 Rf6-h6

In his 1969 autobiography, Zhizn shakhmatam, pages 30-32 Lilienthal gives the concluding moves as 50. ... Kf5 51 Rh4! Kg6 52 Rc8 Qxc8 53 h8(Q) Qe6+ 54 Kb1 Qe1+ 55 Kc2 Qe2+ 56 Kc3 Resigns. That continuation also appears in the Hungarian version of his autobiography, Életem, a sakk (page 65), the German translation Schach war mein Leben (pages 45-46) and in the English translation published in 2024, Chess Survivor (pages 48-49).

However, in their book Alexander Alekhine’s Chess Games, 1902-1946 (1998), pages 482-483, Skinner and Verhoeven give the conclusion as 50...Kf4 (rather than 50...Kf5), followed by 51 Rc8 Qxc8 52 Rh4+ Kg5 53 h8(Q) Qe6+ 54 Kb1 Qe1+ 55 Kc2 Qe2+ 56 Kc3 Resigns. Their book provides a number of sources for the game, including The Times, 30 December 1933 (quoted in Britbase) and Tarrasch’s Schachzeitung, 15 January 1934, pages 119-123. Additional sources which I have located: F. Reinfeld (Chess Review, January-February 1934, pages 13-14; Deutsche Schachzeitung, January 1934, pages 21-22 (notes by M. Blümich); BCM, February 1934, pages 84-85 (notes by J.H. Blake); L’Echiquier, February 1934, pages 396-397, as well as several Hungarian sources: Budapesti Sakkujság, 15 February 1934, page 10, and Magyar Sakkvilág, February 1934, page 44. Budapesti Sakkujság was a magazine to which Lilienthal contributed at least one annotated game in 1934 (1 May 1934 issue, pages 92-93). Endre Steiner annotated the Alekhine v Lilienthal game in the chess column in Magyar Hirlap, 21 January 1934, page 28. All these sources give the moves indicated by Skinner and Verhoeven, i.e. 50...Kf4 (rather than 50...Kf5), followed by 51 Rc8 Qxc8 52 Rh4+ Kg5 53 h8(Q) Qe6+ 54 Kb1 Qe1+ 55 Kc2 Qe2+ 56 Kc3 Resigns.

Alekhine’s attacking line beginning with 51 Rc8 was flawed, as Lilienthal could have drawn, after 51...Qxc8 52 Rh4+, with 52 ... Kf3!, whereas 52...Kg5 as played in the game loses. I am not sure when the drawing resource of 52...Kf3 was first published – none of the above sources has that variation in the notes – but page 418 of the 2002 book Alexander Alekhine II Games 1923-1934 gives the variation 52...Kf3 53 h8(Q) Qe6+ 54 Kb1 Qe1+ 55 Kc2 Qf2+ 56 Kc3 Qc5+ 57 Kd2 Qf2+ 58 Kd3 Qe3+ as drawing.’

12264. Assiac/Heinrich Fraenkel

From the ‘William Hickey’ column on page 6 of the Daily Express, 1 May 1935:

12265. Morphy cartoons in Le Charivari

Jean Fontaine (Montreal, Canada) refers to page 170 of the New York edition of F.M. Edge’s 1859 book on Morphy:

Page 152 of the London edition is almost identical.

Mr Fontaine comments:

‘Gallica’s digitized archives of Le Charivari cover the months of Morphy’s first stay in Paris. I have found five Morphy-related cartoons by the French caricaturist Cham (a pseudonym of Charles Amédée de Noé, 1818-79), including both pictures described by Edge:

1 November 1858, page 3

14 November 1858, page 3

21 November 1858, page 3

28 November 1858, page 33

16 January 1859, page 3

What Edge calls “cuts” seem to be lithographs. Cham apparently had only a vague idea of Morphy’s looks, name (misspelled Morphi and Murphy) and fast play (the mandatory joke about chess being a slow game). His humour sometimes involves French wordplay, exploiting the double meaning of “échecs”, “dame” and “battu”.’

12266. 1960

Ross Jackson (Raumati South, New Zealand) sends the following (Punch, 3 February 1960) from his collection:

The cartoon, by Norman Mainsbridge (1911-93), is being added to From Former Times (Chess).

12267. Milan Vidmar

Thomas Herbst (Nuremberg, Germany) recommends publication of an English edition of the chess autobiography Goldene Schachzeiten by Milan Vidmar (Berlin, 1961). Pages 242-243 are shown in C.N. 8293.

It is a longstanding need (mentioned in our 1999 article Wanted), and an enterprising publisher might even combine the German volume with Vidmar’s Pol stoletja ob šahovnici (Ljubljana, 1951).

12268. Skittles and speed

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:

12269. Errol Flynn

Olivia de Havilland and Errol Flynn

From page 5B of the Sunday Sun (San Diego), 29 August 1937:

In many other newspaper paragraphs on the topic that year, Errol Flynn was called ‘Anglo-Irish’, a twofold error.

Chess and Hollywood has so many references to his reputed interest in chess that we have just produced a separate feature article, Errol Flynn and Chess.

12270. The Encyclopaedia of Chess by Anne Sunnucks

The conclusion of B.H. Wood’s column about the first edition of Sunnucks’ encyclopaedia on page 42 of the Illustrated London News, 30 May 1970:

‘Of course there is scope here for divergencies of opinion and you may well disagree with me. Perhaps the Women’s World Championship really does deserve more than three times as much space as the World Championship itself. Perhaps Lisa Lane merits more space than Spassky or Smyslov ..!

Yet Miss Sunnucks has assured herself of immortality, for her Encyclopaedia will undoubtedly be in print, its inadequacies rectified and its faults eliminated, a century hence, by then the accepted standard work of reference on the subject. This thought may console her for some of the criticism this first edition will receive.’

Wood wrote similarly in his first reaction to the book on page 288 of CHESS, 12 May 1970, as quoted in C.N. 9280:

‘... the book provides pleasant browsing for many an evening and, its faults rectified, will probably be in print a century hence.’

The prediction was wisely omitted from his column on page 11 of the Daily Telegraph, 18 March 1978, which gave an overview of chess encyclopaedias. The highest praise was awarded to Shakhmatny Slovar (Moscow, 1964). Anne Sunnucks’ The Encyclopaedia of Chess (a ‘grandiose title’) was deemed ‘a worthy though uneven production’ which was ‘only partially revised’ in 1976:

‘Her extraordinary achievement of allocating the women’s world championship more than twice as much space as the world championship itself remains unaltered though these two sections follow consecutively so that the imbalance could have been rectified.’

Turning to the most recent (1978) single-volume reference work, Wood commented:

‘To give his book the same title: The Encyclopaedia of Chess (Batsford, 1977) ... struck me as confusing and a little unkind on Harry Golombek’s part.’

The titles of Sunnucks’ Encyclopaedia and Golombek’s Encyclopedia differed by one letter, both spellings being acceptable in British English.

The Daily Telegraph column also mentioned the Dictionnaire des échecs (Le Lionnais and Maget), the Dizionario enciclopedico degli scacchi (Chicco and Porreca) and An illustrated Dictionary of Chess (Brace); six in all, ‘with a seventh by Paul Langfield on the way’. (That one never materialized, but see C.N.s 23 and 74 in The Chess Chamber of Horrors.) Wood made errors in the title and date of the Russian volume and in the date of the Italian one.

From the final paragraph of his 1978 article:

‘It is strange how all the authors have started from scratch. You would expect them to consult their predecessors, each building on the work that has gone before. This would not be plagiarism, but just natural efficiency. Instead, they more or less ignore each other. The result is big gaps and even steps backward.’

‘Building on’ is not the term to convey what Nathan Divinsky did to Golombek’s book in 1990.

See also our recent feature article Wolfgang Heidenfeld, as well as Chess and Women.

12271. Internet chess broadcasters

As shown in Chess Broadcasts on the Internet, C.N. 9085 gave our choice of the five best online chess hosts/presenters in English. Eleven years on, a new list is now offered (in alphabetical order): Jan Gustafsson, Jovanka Houska, Yasser Seirawan and Peter Svidler. How we wish that a fifth name could be added: Daniel Naroditsky.

12272. Unchessy

‘Chessy’ exists, but so does ‘unchessy’. Donald Whitlock (Solihull, England) notes that the word appears in Alekhine’s second Best Games volume (Alekhine v Lundin, Örebro, 1935 – page numbers vary), in connection with the possibility of 7...Qb6:

‘This counter-attack aims at an immediate material win at the cost of time and, eventually, space – a dangerous and, to my mind, unchessy idea ...’

The original language of Alekhine’s annotations is often uncertain.

12273. Emanuel Lasker on blindfold chess

‘The impression that one gathers from the perusal of the games [a series between Schlechter and Mieses] is a disappointment. Chess sans voir cannot compare, in brilliance or profundity, with the chess played before the board. The fact cannot surprise. Why should man, in his enterprises, not employ the most favourable conditions that he can procure? There are enough tasks to be performed only with extreme effort, and hardly then. To surmount difficulties artificially created is a trick, a “tour de force”, a waste of good energy, and, in a measure, irreligious.

Men born blind often find happiness in playing chess by the sense of touch. Let playing sans voir be reserved for them and for tyros, who do not matter! The chessmaster should indulge in it only on insignificant occasions.’

Source: New York Evening Post, 5 February 1909, page 6.

12274. Health

From Lasker’s column on page 9 of the 17 April 1909 edition of the New York Evening Post:

‘Chessmasters, as a rule, do not sufficiently consider their health. The brain has not, as yet, developed an organ to give warning of overstrain; probably because in previous ages the brain had a leisurely life. Fatigue of the body makes pain and forces you to seek rest; fatigue of the brain shows itself merely by an indisposition to think and, perhaps, by depriving you of sleep. The brain worker must therefore use the intellect in order to keep himself efficient, whereas he who works with muscle is protected by instinct.

If chessmasters, in more instances than one should expect, have failed to show a wise regard for their health, part of the blame falls upon the chess world. Chess amateurs are invariably astonished when a master refuses an invitation to play, and they are hurt when the master makes a habit of refusing. I remember that there was a general outcry in the chess press against me when, at Havana, in 1893, I did not accept a match with Walbrodt; no-one said that I had had an uninterrupted course of hard chess, two tournaments in London, a match with Blackburne, another with Bird, many match-games in the United States, also much travelling, all between March and December 1892. Other chessmasters have had similar experiences, for instance Harwitz [sic], whose chess life was a lot of work and of abuse with little pay. He retaliated by abandoning chess. The strongest opponent of Morphy lived the last 25 years of his life out of sight of the chessboard.

Let the chess world ask less, even, if need be, admire less, but be more ready with sacrifice; let the chessmaster be allowed as much leisure as an artist. Then he will bring forth conceptions subtle and strong.’

12275. Supremacy

An article on page 8 of the New York Evening Post, 19 December 1908:

‘Chess is an old game, yet all the paraphernalia of tournaments, matches, magazines, and chess columns in the newspapers is a modern development. The first notable chess match, that between [McDonnell] and Labourdonnais, took place less than 100 years ago; the first international chess tournament took place in London less than 60 years ago, and the first periodical (the Illustrated London News) to deal regularly with chess commenced about the same time.

Although Hebrew literature is studded with allusions to chess, there is nothing to indicate the comparative ability of Jewish and Gentile players. For all practical purposes, modern chess began with the 1851 tournament. Since then, many others have taken place, many matches have been played; all the records have been kept, and the relative and comparative merits of the principals are well understood.

In the first tournament several Jews took a prominent part, the most notable being Szén, Harowitz [sic – and Harrwitz was not a participant] and Horwitz. Soon after, the Jewish players asserted unmistakable superiority over the players of the rest of the world, and have maintained that position almost unchallenged. In 1866, Steinitz wrested the title of chess champion of the world from Professor Anderssen, and retained it for 28 years. Before Steinitz became a chessplayer he was a student in a Jewish seminary, with the evident intention of becoming a rabbi. His most dangerous challengers were coreligionists – Zukertort and Gunsberg.

Emanuel Lasker, a German Jew, defeated Steinitz in 1894, and now he has more firmly established his title by his success over Siegbert Tarrasch, another German Jew, the only player whom the chess world considered to be a dangerous challenger. In order to firmly establish the idea of the pre-eminence of Jews in chess it should only be necessary to mention Szén, Löwenthal (Morphy’s editor), Horwitz (author of end-games), Harowitz [sic], Steinitz, Zukertort, Rosenthal, Winawer, two Laskers, Tarrasch, Janowsky, Schlechter, Bernstein, Rubinstein, and Gunsberg. Of equal eminence the rest of the world can only point to Morphy, Pillsbury, Anderssen, Maróczy, Marshall, Blackburne and Staunton.

The supremacy of Jews in chess might be demonstrated in another way. An international tournament today without Jews would not be recognized or acknowledged, while one composed entirely of Jews would only miss Maróczy and Marshall. How is this supremacy to be accounted for? First and foremost, I believe it is due to the general abstemiousness of the race. I do not mean merely the abstinence of the present or past generation, but the inherited effect of the abstinence which has prevailed among all the Oriental races. I attach the utmost importance to this because, obviously, where and when the strain is great, every resource of mental reserve counts. If it is true that we are more abstemious, and it is an uncontested claim, then we have an undoubted advantage. Upon this phase of the subject I am not conjecturing, but am very much impressed by personal experience and contact with the greatest players of the day.

Temperance is not the only beneficial factor which Jews inherit. I attach great importance to the peculiar faculty for dialectics which Jews possess. By this I mean the ability to distinguish minute differences. This faculty has been acquired through association with the Talmud and its commentaries. I would not be surprised if upon investigation the supremacy of Jews in high finance were traced to the same cause.

Chessplayers know to what an extent the process of refinement has been going on. This faculty enables the possessor to estimate correctly the finest points that come up for argument: bishop or knight of about equal value, when one is preferable; the doubled or isolated pawn, when it is and when it is not a disadvantage, etc.

Closely allied to this faculty in dialectics is a superior psychological instinct which enables Jews to forecast more successfully the nature of the strategy which they will have to encounter. This instinct has been produced by the political and social conditions of the past and present. Even in an out-of-the-way book like Smith’s Wealth of Nations we find the assertion that cunningness and superior mental qualities are nourished and developed whenever and wherever physical conditions are insuperable or political and social conditions are harassing and unfair.

The causes which militate against America and England producing the greatest chessplayers are the causes of Russia, Germany and Hungary giving to the world the foremost players of the day. And as the Jews are always worse off than the people round them, they naturally turn for supremacy to fields where there are no arbitrary obstacles.

The study of chess needs neither university nor professor. The man who has the ability can demonstrate it to the world without possibility of quibble or question. And this is how the Jews obtain revenge for the unfairness with which they have to contend in the affairs of the world. Those who are jealous of this supremacy and wish to remove the cause must confine themselves to removing the obstacles which stand in the way of the development of the Jews. Those who think it is a pity that such splendid talent should be spent on a game rather than on things which might benefit mankind materially must concentrate their energies in seeing to it that the Jews shall enter into the affairs of the world confident of fair and just treatment.

In America and England, Jews have not much to complain about. Neither country has produced a great Jewish chessplayer. Yet they are producing their share of useful men in all walks of life. If what I have asserted is true, it is an extraordinary fact that in two fields in which Jews are pre-eminent, finance and chess, the qualities which contribute towards success are the same. And to nullify the assertion that Jews only concern themselves in subjects offering material gain, in the sordid affairs of life, we can point to the poor chess master, endowed with the finest talent, pursuing an ideal, demonstrating principles, amusing and interesting the chess world while suffering poverty in inverse ratio to his eminence and worth.’

Information about Harry Rosenbaum (1876-1951), who later took the surname Rowson, is given on pages 75-77 of the final volume (Berlin, 2022) of the Emanuel Lasker trilogy by Richard Forster, Michael Negele and Raj Tischbierek.

See also Chess and Jews, which covers a few points of detail in Rosenbaum’s article.

12276. Kasparyan brilliancy

The above, from The Middle Game in Chess by Reuben Fine (New York, 1952), was shown in C.N. 5155, and is discussed in a section entitled ‘Blackburne and Kasparyan’ in Joseph Henry Blackburne.

On the question of when the Kasparyan position first appeared in print, Christian Sánchez pointed out in C.N. 5193 that ‘Kasparyan-Manvelyan’ had been given, by Irving Chernev, on page 231 of Chess Review, November 1939.

Now, Vitaliy Yurchenko (Uhta, Komi, Russian Federation) sends the following from volume two (on 1936) of Шахматный Ежегодник (Moscow, 1938):

Larger version

The introduction, which states that the simultaneous exhibition was in Yerevan, adds that the diagrammed position was reached after Black erred by playing ...Be4-d5, instead of ...Rh8-e8.

12277. Poems

As shown in Chess and Poetry, C.N. 2881 cited a quatrain from page 86 of Some Problems For My Friends by D.G. McIntyre (Cape Town, 1957). Courtesy of Michael McDowell (Westcliff-on-sea, England), we now reproduce the book’s poetry section (pages 85-87):

12278. Chess in decline

So many chess publications have made claims about the increasing popularity of chess that it may be almost refreshing to note the following, from page 2 of the Morning Herald (London), 28 November 1840:

It is based on a feature in Le Charivari, 15 November 1840, page 2:

‘Les Echecs n’ont de partisans bien zélés que dans la jeunesse de 50 à 80 ans. C’est que le roi des jeux, comme tous les rois de la terre, est très majestueux, mais n’est pas toujours divertissant. Aussi, à part ceux qui en ont fait une science à force de mémoire et de calcul, tels que MM. Labourdonnais, Deschapelles, etc., les disciples de l’art de Philidor deviennent-ils de jour en jour moins nombreux. Le roi des jeux perd sa cour, et M. Laîné avait raison, les royautés s’en vont. ... Bon voyage.’

12279. Ståhlberg on Schackvärlden

Richard Forster (Winterthur, Switzerland) notes the following remarks by Ståhlberg quoted on page 337 of volume one of Gideon Ståhlberg – An Epoch in Swedish Chess by Peter Holmgren (Kuusalu, 2024):

‘Schackvärlden is also a curious phenomenon. In certain circles, it is called Annonsvärlden (The Ad World), which is easy to understand, as it must be acknowledged that it is sometimes quite difficult to find the chess players among all adverts for coffins, box bottom beds and ladies’ hairdos. Once something about chess has been found, the language often overwhelms the reader. The magazine is published in three languages: Swedish, which differs considerably from standard prose but is usually understandable; Esperanto, which only a few people master; and a strange mixed language, which, after its originator, the well-known Finnish chess journalist Arnold Hinds, could be called Hindish.’

The book gives an English translation of Ståhlberg’s full article, from pages 10-11 of the January 1936 Tidskrift för Schack.

12280. Touching squares and pieces

An addition to J’adoube, from page 2 of Bell’s Life in London, 3 May 1835:

12281. Crown and Adams

Copying usually goes hand-in-hand with incompetence, we remarked in C.N. 9452.

This scan of ours at the top of the feature article Gordon Crown has been lifted by Elisa Rolle to illustrate an article on Weaver W. Adams.

Another addition to Chess: Mistaken Identity.

12282. Thomas Olsen

C.N.s 8950 and 8951 discussed the chess writings of Thomas Olsen in the 1930s and 40s, and on 18 February 2026 we posted from page 169 of CHESS, August 1944 his tribute to Vera Menchik, from whom he had taken chess lessons.

From the Margate, 1937 page on BritBase:

‘Thomas Carl Morrell Olsen (7 May 1912-14 April 1987) was a journalist, author and wine writer, according to his gravestone. He was appointed acting editor of CHESS Magazine when founder/editor B.H. Wood travelled to Argentina for the 1939 Buenos Aires [Olympiad] and he wrote for the magazine at other times during WW2. At his death a trust was set up in his memory to fund annual lectures at St Bride’s Church, off Fleet Street, London. He was for 15 years the wine correspondent of the Sunday Telegraph and also wrote under the nom de plume John Morrell.’

John Townsend (Wokingham, England) provides complementary information:

‘Thomas Carl Morrell Olsen was born in Scotland in the district of Pollokshields, near Glasgow (source: Scotland’s People website, indexes of births). His date of birth, 7 May 1912, is attested both by the 1939 Register of England and Wales and by the General Register Office’s index to deaths. Morrell was his mother’s former surname.

According to The Author’s & Writer’s Who’s Who (Volume 5, 1963, page 370), he attended Glasgow High School. His connection with the Glasgow area is reflected in the fact that he was at one stage on the London staff of the Glasgow Herald and London editor of the Kemsley Glasgow newspapers. During a long journalistic career he worked for a number of English papers, including the Yorkshire Post and the News Chronicle. (Source: Newspaper World, Issues 2684-2710, 1949, page 296.)

By 1936 his name appeared in electoral registers in the London area, viz. Holborn (1936 and 1937) and Hampstead (1939).

The 1939 Register of England and Wales finds Thomas C.M. Olsen, a journalist, at 47 North Promenade, in the seaside town of Withernsea, in the East Riding of Yorkshire. He may have been with other family members, though most of the other entries on the page are unavailable (for security reasons).

The Probate Calendar for 1987 gives his address as Valserine, 16 Thornhill Gardens, Thames Ditton, Surrey, and his date of death as 14 April 1987. Probate was granted at Brighton on 9 September, his estate being valued at £96,247. His death in the General Register Office indexes cross-refers to his correct date of birth (7 May 1912), but the entry is incorrectly indexed under the surname of Owen.

The annual “Tom Olsen Lecture” in association with St Bride’s Church has a webpage.’

12283. Backwards

‘I read biographies backwards, beginning with the death. If that takes my fancy I go through the rest. Childhood seldom interests me at all.’

Source: Diary entry, 3 June 1985, on page 143 of Writing Home by Alan Bennett (London, 1994).

Here, we shall adopt Alan Bennett’s approach as we look at a book published by New in Chess, The Real Paul Morphy: His Life and Chess Games by Charles Hertan. Its imprint page says ‘Second edition: October 2024’. The present item is also being incorporated into a new feature article, The Real Paul Morphy by Charles Hertan (which includes C.N.s 12018, 12105 and 12217).

In working backwards, we shall say nothing about Hertan’s opinions, speculations, annotations or prose style, or about his coverage of the Staunton-Morphy affair. The first two words of the heading to the Preface (page 11) are ‘Morphy Scholarship’, and that will be our focus.

The book ends with a cursory ‘Index of Names’ (pages 378-384); there is no index of players or openings. Among the defects are the misspelling of Journoud’s name (multiple times throughout the book), numerous inconsistencies and Hertan’s unawareness of how accents work in French and Spanish. The index also reveals curious imbalances, such as fewer entries for Philip Sergeant, a Morphy scholar, than for Willy Hendriks.

Sergeant’s two Morphy books are in the unordered ‘Bibliography’ (pages 375-376), with his forename misspelt both times. Immediately before that, the two editions of F.M. Edge’s book on Morphy are listed, but regarding the UK edition there is a misprint in the title, and the wrong publisher is named. Overall, a hypothetical proof-reader would have made at least 20 or 30 amendments to the index and bibliography.

Most monographs on Morphy are ignored. Regarding David Lawson’s biography, only the out-of-print 1976 edition is there, with no mention of the still-available 2010 paperback (University of Louisiana at Lafayette Press). Why might that be?

Chapter 10, the final one (pages 363-374), is entitled ‘Conclusion: Morphy’s Legacy’ and largely consists of 25 or so quotes about Morphy. Such dumping grounds are a copy-paster’s paradise; the abundance of unattributed quotations online enables any insouciant compiler to avoid the exertion of research and, even, typing. The first entry is 16 lines by Capablanca with no date or source given and naturally no mention of Capablanca on his Predecessors. Sometimes Hertan is more specific, as in the item headed ‘Max Euwe (‘64’ Shakmatny, June 24, 1937)’. That source and quote are copy-pasted from Lawson’s book, except that Lawson used the spelling Shakhmatny.

Chapter 9 (pages 349-362) is entitled ‘Mental Decline, Reanalyzed: The Final Years’ and has quotations, often long, from a letter from Woodbury in the Hartford Times, 15 March 1873; a letter from Maurian in the Watertown, NY Re-Union, December 1875; another Maurian letter, in the New York Sun, written on 28 April 1877; a letter from Meredith (name misspelt as ‘Merideth’ three times in Hertan’s book) in the Cincinnati Commercial, written on 16 April 1879; a report in Turf, Field and Farm, 22 April 1881; a letter from Morphy in L’Abeille on 1 August 1882; an article in the New York Tribune, 22 March 1883. Such scholarly-looking references may impress a superficial browser (a book-of-the-year judge, perhaps) but all those nineteenth-century texts used by Hertan were researched and presented in Lawson’s book 50 years ago.

Hertan’s entire coverage of Morphy’s death (page 362) comprises a chunk from Lawson and a chunk from Regina Morphy-Voitier.

In the same chapter, Hertan muddles the title and date of Reuben Fine’s book on chess psychology, and this is his description of Fine, also on page 355:

‘... an invitee to the exclusive AVRO tournament which decided the World Championship in 1948, following Alekhine’s death’.

There is no sign that anybody with a good knowledge of chess history had involvement in the publication of The Real Paul Morphy.

Chapter 8 is the last that we shall discuss here, by showing in full its final three pages (346-348). Passages written or quoted by Lawson are marked by us in red.

Furthermore, page 348 above provides a stark illustration of Hertan’s inaction. When reporting/repeating what ‘Sheriff W.C. Spens wrote in the Glasgow Weekly Herald of July 1884’ did he not wonder why a weekly publication was identified only by a month? Lawson’s 1976 book gave a complete date (19 July 1884) although, curiously, the unmentioned 2010 paperback edition had only ‘July 1884’, as did Hertan. Why might that be?

Here, though, the major point is that in blindly copy-pasting that text of Lawson’s Hertan did not realize that the quoted words had nothing to do with Sheriff Spens or the Glasgow Weekly Herald. They were by Leopold Hoffer on page 79 of The Field, 19 July 1884. When Lawson makes one of his rare errors (for another case, see C.N. 12204) Hertan simply repeats it, even though such publication references can easily be double-checked online nowadays.

In 1976 the Lawson book was an enormous advance in Morphy scholarship. With the Hertan volume the direction is backwards.

12284. P.W. Sergeant at Oxford University

Clare Hopkins (Archivist, Trinity College, Oxford, England) writes:

‘I have checked Philip Sergeant’s results in the University Calendar. In Hilary Term 1893 he achieved a First in the Part One Honour Moderations examination. In Trinity Term 1895 he was awarded a Third in his finals.’

It is the custom at Trinity that every new undergraduate writes an entry in his own hand, according to a fixed formula that has changed over the years. Sergeant entered Trinity in October 1891, as a scholar. To win a place in the scholarship examination was a valuable award, and his tuition fees and accommodation were paid for four years. At that time all the scholars read Literae Humaniores, which was the subject now called Classics, comprising Latin and Greek literature, philosophy, and history.’

Courtesy of the President and Fellows of Trinity College, Oxford we reproduce Sergeant’s handwritten entry in the Admissions Register, 1891:

Larger version

12285. Alekhine and other spellings (C.N. 4310 & 5311)

From Javier Asturiano Molina (Murcia, Spain):

‘I have checked the persistent use of the spelling “Alekine”, except on the cover and in the caption of the photograph on page 5, in the booklet Alekhine vs. Euwe Return Match 1937 by M.M. Botvinnik (Chess Digest, Dallas, 1973). Editor: Ken Smith. Translator: Roy DeVault.’

The spelling Alekine was part of the (inconsistently applied) ‘house style’ of Chess Digest.

In C.N. 1022 Hugh Myers commented:

‘I was looking up a game in Chess Digest’s 1973 book of San Remo, 1930 and I noticed that they correctly spelled the names of some of the participants!’

12286. Problem in the Daily Express

From the ‘William Hickey’ column:

Daily Express, 16 March 1935, page 6

Daily Express, 22 March 1935, page 8

The four-mover, by Charles Planck, was published on page 36 of the January 1885 BCM, with the solution on page 112 of the March 1885 issue.

12287. Book recommendations

The above is a notable YouTube video by Daniel Naroditsky with advice on chess books to acquire and how to use them.

Concerning recent publications, we add, one not to miss is George H. Mackenzie A Chess Biography with 1,297 Games by John S. Hilbert (Jefferson, 2026).

Larger version

12288. Capablanca v Znosko-Borovsky (C.N. 8631)

C.N. 8631 discussed Capablanca’s loss to E. Znosko-Borovsky (St Petersburg, 1913), and we now give Emanuel Lasker’s annotations on page 11 of the New York Evening Post, 17 January 1914:

12289. Astrology (C.N. 6480)

As shown in C.N. 6480, page 72 of Chess Pie, 1922 carried a chart entitled ‘Capablanca’s Horoscope’.

Brian Harley’s chess column on page 22 of The Observer, 29 November 1925 annotated the Cuban’s loss to Ilyin-Genevsky at Moscow, 1925, and also had the following:

‘A correspondent points out that Capablanca’s horoscope given in Chess Pie, 1922 specially warns him against 1925, “when an evil and disruptive aspect between Saturn and Mars will occur. All undue risks and extremes should then be avoided, and the greatest forethought exercised”. There must be, after all, something in the old science; Capablanca’s second defeat, by one of the less strong Russians, Verlinsky, occurred last week.’

Astrological readings by R. Hanna on page 90 of the August 1982 CHESS were mentioned unappreciatingly in C.N. 216.

12290. Smyslov footage

Courtesy of Sovexportfilm Archive, Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) sends brief 1957 footage of Vassily Smyslov with his stepson, Vladimir Selimanov (1939-60).

12291. Bronstein photographs

Olimpiu G. Urcan also provides four photographs of David Bronstein giving a simultaneous display in Slobodskoy in 1958. They are reproduced with permission from the Archive of Slobodskoy Museum and Exhibition Center.

12292. Letters from Edward Lasker

John Williamson (Houston, TX, USA) has forwarded us two letters which his late father, Robert L. Williamson, received from Edward Lasker in 1975:

12293. Erich Eliskases

Further to our recent feature article on Erich Eliskases, Tim Bogan (West Hollywood, CA, USA) draws attention to a comment by Bent Larsen on page 35 of Larsen’s Selected Games of Chess 1948-69 (London, 1970):

‘Do you know Eliskases? Until 1939 the Austrian candidate for the world championship, now a strong and solid grandmaster, but a little too passive in his play, without the fighting spirit and ambition of his youth. Against such players I like to play the Dutch, as often they potter about too much so that you can just sit and build up an attack on the king’s side.’

That was Larsen’s note to 1 d4 f5 in his game against Eliskases at Mar del Plata 1958, and he mentioned that his annotations had appeared in Skakbladet, February 1959, pages 28-30.

12294. Rapid early progress

From John Donaldson (Berkeley, CA, USA):

‘I wonder if your readers might be able to confirm that Arthur Dake is the greatest prodigy in chess history. Paul Morphy, José Raúl Capablanca, Samuel Reshevsky and Arturo Pomar are four contenders who immediately come to mind and they certainly meet the standard definition of a prodigy: a highly talented child or youth. So do Boris Spassky and Bobby Fischer, who held the record for youngest grandmaster in the 1950s and qualified for the Candidates as teenagers. Fischer may well have the distinction of having made the greatest leap forward – from roughly 1700 in the summer of 1955 to 2600 three years later.

Today, with close to 50 players having achieved the grandmaster title before their 15th birthday and a handful having made it by age 12, it would seem that the greatest prodigy is currently an active player. But what if the criteria for greatest prodigy were not achieving the grandmaster title but, instead, being the player who defeated a reigning world champion in the shortest time span since learning the rules of the game?

Arthur Dake, who learned to play at the Portland (Oregon) Chess Club in April 1927, shortly after turning 17, defeated Alexander Alekhine at Pasadena, 1932, just five years and four months later. Is this a record?

Dake also won the Marshall Chess Club Championship in 1931 and the same year was a member of the United States team that took first at the Chess Olympiad in Prague. He was also a key contributor on the American teams that won gold in the 1933 and 1935 Olympiads. In the latter event, Dake scored 15½ out of 18 on board four, the highest percentage score (86%) in that Olympiad, which marked the end of his career as an active player.

Has anyone ever made more rapid progress after learning to play than Arthur Dake?’

12295. J.H. Blackburne

The above, from C.N. 8014, is one of the most familiar portraits of J.H. Blackburne, being the frontispiece of the January 1922 edition of the BCM.

Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) has sent us this fine version, from the archives of the Novgorod State Museum:

12296. IQPs

In the position below, from the 12th-round game between Matthias Blübaum and Fabiano Caruana at the Candidates Tournament in Pegeia on 12 April 2026, does Black have an isolated queen’s pawn?

Position after 23...Rf7-c7

In a discussion with Fiona Steil-Antoni and Jon Ludvig Hammer, Hikaru Nakamura contended on his YouTube channel (from approximately 17:40) that the d5 pawn is not ‘isolated’, given that there is a white pawn on d4.

The video shows that Nakamura is not alone in that view, which rests on a distinction between the literal meaning of ‘isolated pawn’ and practical play involving the d-pawn. Have other authorities expressed themselves?

A new feature article, Isolated Pawns, has been produced.

12297. FIDE, Kramnik and Naroditsky

‘28 October 2025’, exactly six months ago, is the date on a statement from ‘Yolander Persaud, Chairwoman, Ethics & Disciplinary Commission’. It includes the following:

As shown in C.N. 12237, posted on 5 November 2025, the first paragraph is ill-phrased and prejudicial.

Regarding the second paragraph, a so-called ‘Original statement’ contained, properly, no reference to David Llada, whose name was subsequently copy-pasted in, ungrammatically and irrelevantly, from a different FIDE case.

The earlier version concerning the Naroditsky case read:

Given that the faulty texts by Yolander Persaud were still online, in an e-mail message dated 27 February 2026 we drew the relevant C.N. material to her personal attention, asking when she intended to correct the mistakes (the ill-phrased and prejudicial remarks and the erroneous inclusion of Mr Llada’s name).

No reply – and no corrections.

12298. G.H. Mackenzie in Scotland

From John S. Hilbert (Amherst, NY, USA):

‘Finding as many games as possible played by a master can be challenging. And never ending. My recently released book, George H. Mackenzie: A Chess Biography with 1,297 Games (McFarland, 2026) illustrates just how quickly the chimera of completeness can evaporate.

Admittedly, I had no illusion of completeness with Mackenzie, or indeed with any other player I have written about. The mega databases of newspaper columns from the nineteenth century, relative to the Mackenzie project, are constantly growing, with at least one now allegedly reaching a billion pages (newspapers.com). As newspapers are added, the chances grow that more games can be discovered, played by almost anyone.

The most common reason for missing games is missing newspapers, including failing to research the large collections of chess material and, most notably in the United States, the John G. White Collection in the Cleveland Public Library. One of the easiest ways games can be missed by even the most dedicated researcher is when a game from a minor event is published only long afterwards. Unless you are willing to examine every page of every newspaper, magazine and book, a daunting task for anyone no matter how many years they devote to the pursuit, games will be missed.

A case in point. In my Mackenzie book I covered his winning of the Scottish Chess Championship at Glasgow in July 1888, finishing 5-1 (four wins; two draws). As I then recounted on page 549:

“A few days after winning the Scottish Championship, Mackenzie went to Edinburgh, where he was engaged for several days’ play at the Edinburgh Chess Club, then housed in rooms at the Philosophical Institution. It is possible that David Forsyth, who as noted above attended the Scottish championship in Glasgow, was responsible for arranging the master’s short stay. Mackenzie had played offhand chess in the city 25 years earlier, before he left for America, but appears not to have returned until this time. Undoubtedly much had changed since his last visit. On the afternoon of July 27 Mackenzie played two consultation games against a team of four players, winning one and drawing the other. That evening he gave a 12 board simultaneous against the club members, finishing 11-1. He also conducted exhibitions the next day, finishing 16-2, as well as two days later, on July 30, in the afternoon (5-1) and evening (9-1). His stay was extended from three days to four. Curiously enough, all three games found from Mackenzie’s visit to Edinburgh were games played against David Forsyth. Edinburgh Evening News, July 28, 1888; Mackenzie, p. 549, citing to The Scotsman, July 28, 1888; The Scotsman, July 31, 1888; and Glasgow Weekly Citizen, July 28, 1888.”

I then gave the three games recovered against David Forsyth (Games 942-944), later listing all four of Mackenzie’s 1888 simultaneous exhibitions in Edinburgh (page 664). Today I can share yet another game Mackenzie played in Edinburgh in his first simultaneous display, where he finished 11-1. Perhaps not surprisingly, it is his loss, against George P. Galloway. Played at the end of July 1888, it did not appear in print until 14 months later, at the end of September 1889, and then only when Galloway contributed the score and notes, in the Glasgow Weekly Herald, 28 September 1889, page 7:

George Henry Mackenzie (simultaneous) – George P. Galloway
Edinburgh, 27 July 1888
Centre Game

“One of 12 simultaneous games played by Captain Mackenzie, in the Edinburgh Chess Club, on 27 July 1888. For the score and notes we are indebted to Mr G.P. Galloway.” 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 Qxd4 Nc6 4 Qe3 g6 “4...Nf6 or 4...Bb4+ might also be played; but the text move is as good as any.” 5 Bd2 Bg7 6 Nc3 Nf6 7 Be2 O-O 8 O-O-O Re8 9 Qf4 “To prevent Black’s threatened move of ...d5.” 9...d6 10 h4 Nd4 11 h5 Nxe2+ “This capture is necessary to prevent White obtaining an overwhelming attack on the kingside.” 12 Ngxe2 Nxh5 13 Rxh5 “Unsound. 13 Qh2 would have given opportunities of attack.” 13...gxh5 14 Rh1 Qf6 15 Qe3 “15 Qh2 might again have been played with advantage. Black could not take ... the f-pawn without loss.” 15...d5

Position after 15…d5

16 Nxd5 The engine finds this to be the losing move in an essentially equal position. With 16 Nf4 Rxe4 17 Nfxd5 Rxe3 18 Nxf6+ Bxf6 19 Bxe3 Bxc3 20 bxc3 Stockfish 17 considers the position more or less equal. As with his exchange sacrifice at move 13, here Mackenzie was likely playing for complications, or at least to make the game interesting for both performer and his opponent. After the text, and despite Black’s 22...Bb2+, as Galloway notes (and where the engine suggests at least a dozen better moves), Black does not let slip his winning chances. 16...Qxb2+ 17 Kd1 Bf5 18 f3 Rad8 “Captain Mackenzie thought that Black ought to have played 18...Qa1+. The text move, however, is perfectly safe, and, with accurate play, a win for Black is scored.” 19 Qb3 Qxb3 20 axb3 c6 21 Ne3 Bg6 22 Kc1 Bb2+ “This does not turn out well. 22...f5 at once was much stronger.” 23 Kxb2 Rxd2 24 Nf4 f5 25 Nc4 Rd7 26 exf5 Bxf5 27 Rxh5 Bg6 28 Rg5 Kg7 29 Ne5 Kf6 30 Rxg6+ Kxe5 31 Rg4 Ree7 32 Nd3+ Kf5 33 Rg8 Rg7 34 g4+ Kg5 35 Rf8 Rdf7 36 f4+ Kh4 37 Ra8 Kxg4 38 Ne5+ Kxf4 39 Nxf7 Rxf7 40 Rxa7 Rg7 41 Kc3 h5 42 Kd3 h4 43 Ra1 Rg3+ “And after a few more moves White resigned.”

Galloway had won the minor tournament at the Scottish Chess Association in August 1885 (Glasgow Weekly Herald, 15 August 1885, page 7). Later that year he was elected one of the two vice-presidents of the Edinburgh Chess Club (Glasgow Weekly Herald, 26 December 1885, page 7). He was known to play correspondence chess and to compose problems. Long active in Edinburgh chess, Galloway, a Scottish solicitor, lived until 1912, his health preventing chess appearances in the last year or two of his life. He was considered one of the Club’s strongest players, active in both club and Scottish Association activities. According to a report of his death on page 7 of the Falkirk Herald, 20 March 1912, Galloway “was held in the highest esteem, alike as a fine player and as a quiet and genial companion”.

The private-circulated 1994 edition of Jeremy Gaige’s Chess Personalia gives more information than does the 1987 McFarland book:

Am I sorry I missed this game for the book? Of course. Am I sorry to have found it now? Not at all. I welcome any game played by Mackenzie which is not in the book. That is one of the points of pursuing chess history: to add to the sum of available knowledge. Finding forgotten games is, or at least should be, one of the enjoyable, cooperative aspects regarding one of the world’s most competitive games.’

12299. New York, 1880

Larger version

This was the frontispiece of the New York, 1880 tournament book, with no names given. On page 291 of his recent book on G.H. Mackenzie, John Hilbert noted ‘Mackenzie (right) is seated opposite Grundy’.

A full key is sought.

12300. What?

Addition on 16 May 2026:

The first reader to send the solution was Lorenzo Barsi (Florence, Italy).

12301. Augustin Neumann

Alan Smith (Stockport, England) forwards a game won against L. Fleischmann (Leó Forgács) by Augustin Neumann (Vienna, 15 February 1905):

Národní Listy, 16 April 1905, page 10

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O 9 h3 Bb7 10 d4 Nd7 11 Nbd2 Kh8 12 Nf1 Bf6 13 g4 g6 14 Ng3 Bg7 15 d5 Ne7 16 Bc2 Qc8 17 Nh4 c6 18 dxc6 Qxc6 19 f3 d5 20 Qe2 Qb6+ 21 Be3 d4 22 Bf2 Qf6 23 Ng2 dxc3 24 bxc3 Rac8 25 Red1 Nb6 26 Be1 Qc6 27 Ne3 Bh6 28 Bb3 Qc5 29 Rd3 Nc4 30 Ng1

30...f5 31 Bf2 fxe4 32 Nxc4 exd3 33 Qxe5+ Qxe5 34 Nxe5 Bg7 35 Nf7+ Rxf7 36 Bxf7 Bd5 37 Bxd5 Nxd5 38 Rd1 Rxc3 39 Nd2 Bh6 40 Nb1 Rc1 41 White resigns.

12302. Samuel Reshevsky in the Netherlands

Regarding the early years of Samuel Reshevsky, Philip Jurgens (Ottawa, Canada) notes that numerous reports in the Dutch press of 1920 can be viewed online at the Delpher website by entering ‘Rzeschewski’ under Tijdschriften (magazines) and Kranten (newspapers). The results include the front page of Het Leven. Geïllustreerd, 9 March 1920:

Larger version

12303. Morphy v Deacon

On page 19 of the Illustrated London News, 17 December 1859 Howard Staunton published two games purportedly played between Morphy and Frederick Deacon:

Morphy vigorously denied having played the games, and Staunton vigorously supported Deacon.

David Lawson’s monograph on Morphy (pages 244-257 of the 1976 hardback and pages 253-268 of the 2010 paperback) discussed the Morphy v Deacon controversy at length, concluding, as had P.W. Sergeant, that the games were spurious. See also Lawson’s brief comments in ‘A Morphy Sidelight’ by Manfred Zitzman on pages 266-268 of the September 1969 Chess Review.

Fifty years after the first appearance of Lawson’s book, is there no new documentation or argumentation?

12304. Morphy and Edge

The Morphy v Deacon controversy arose long after Morphy and F.M. Edge had broken off relations. When exactly did that rupture become known – to Howard Staunton, for example?

12305. Rua Alexander Alekhine

As shown in Street Names with Chess Connections (C.N. 7174), in 2011 Wijnand Engelkes (Zeist, the Netherlands) submitted a photograph which he had taken in Estoril, Portugal:

Our correspondent now reports that Google Maps shows the sign has been defaced:

12306. Ratings

Rod Edwards’ Edo Historical Chess Ratings is a website to which immense labour has been devoted.

12307. James Tarjan’s grandmaster medal

John Donaldson (Berkeley, CA, USA) writes:

‘James Tarjan of Portland, Oregon recently donated the medal he received for becoming a grandmaster to the World Chess Hall of Fame in Saint Louis, Missouri. He was given the medal by Ed Edmondson of the United States Chess Federation, who told him that only 100 such medals were made for FIDE, in the early 1950s, and that his was the last, number 100. Tarjan’s title was ratified at the 1976 FIDE Congress in Haifa, but he recalls that Edmondson may have presented the medal to him a few months later.

Trying to confirm whether Tarjan’s medal was indeed the last to be awarded is not as straightforward as one might hope. Few online mentions of the FIDE medal can be found, but there is a website which shows an identical one, awarded to Miroslav Filip.

Verification in a number of sources, including Wikipedia’s List of chess grandmasters, indicates that there were 27 players in the initial class of FIDE grandmasters, in 1950. Efim Bogoljubow and Svetozar Gligorić followed in 1951. Another 26 players were awarded the title between 1953 and 1959, with 40 more between 1960 and 1969, bringing the total to 95. Adding the 44 who became grandmasters between 1970 and 1975 indicates that 139 players received the title before Tarjan.

That calls into question Edmondson’s remark to Tarjan that he received the last of the 100 medals. How is the discrepancy to be explained?

One clear point is that 1976 was the last year when FIDE awarded such medals. Larry Christiansen, who earned his title in 1977, received a certificate, a practice that continues to this day.’

Is there a reliable chronological list of grandmasters since 1950, by year of award?

FIDE has a history page which asserts:

‘1950. FIDE established the title of International Grandmaster (titles were awarded to 27 chess players: Bernstein, Boleslavsky, Bondarevsky, Botvinnik, Bronstein, Duras, Euwe, Fine, Flohr, Gruenfeld, Keres, Kostic, Kotov, Levenfish, Lilienthal, Maroczy, Mieses, Najdorf, Ragozin, Reshevsky, Saemisch, Smyslov, Stahlberg, Szabo, Tartakower, Vidmar).’

That makes only 26. Rubinstein is missing.

12308. Morphy and Deacon

Regarding the Morphy-Deacon controversy, which began in 1859-60, C.N. 12303 asked:

Fifty years after the first appearance of Lawson’s book, is there no new documentation or argumentation?

That question can be answered already now in at least one respect: Paul Morphy The Pride and Sorrow of Chess by David Lawson goes awry over what P.W. Sergeant wrote.

Lawson’s chapter 18, ‘The Deacon Games’ (pages 244-257 in the 1976 hardback and pages 253-268 in the 2010 paperback), quoted much (valuable) material from primary nineteenth-century sources but had the following on page 255/page 265:

‘We now come to the final stage of the Morphy-Deacon affair. As Sergeant says in the Preface to his Morphy Gleanings on the question of the genuineness of the “Evans” game given on page 65 as a Morphy game, it has been “for very many years relegated to the category of spurious”.’

The final paragraph, on page 257/page 268:

‘In light of the new evidence and information that we now have on the so-called Morphy-Deacon games, it would seem that they should remain, in the words of Philip W. Sergeant, “in the category of the spurious”.’

Those two observations are inconsistent, but Lawson’s last paragraph seems to have been accepted at face value by chess historians, whose interest in Staunton-Morphy was focussed on the absence of a match between them in 1858 and not on Frederick Deacon. In the C.N. debate, Deacon’s name appeared once only, and in passing: in C.N. 1932 Louis Blair wrote, ‘The Morphy-Deacon controversy makes it clear that Morphy was capable of speaking up for himself publicly without prodding from Edge.’

Lawson’s view that the two Morphy-Deacon games (a King’s Gambit and an Evans’ Gambit) were spurious was reflected in the chapter on Morphy contributed by him to a book that we edited, World Chess Champions (Oxford, 1981). From page 26:

Not long afterwards, the entry on ‘Spurious games’ on page 320 of the first (1984) edition of D. Hooper and K. Whyld’s Oxford Companion to Chess referred in categorical terms to ...

‘... the claims made by Deacon and Gossip in the 19th century. They would analyse with great masters testing various lines of play, would select one of these, doctor it, and present it as a game won against a famous player. In this manner Frederick Deacon (fl. 1860) claimed victories against Morphy and Steinitz thus becoming both notorious and unpopular.’

The ‘Spurious games’ entry on page 385 of the second (1992) edition of the Companion was no less certain:

‘A few players have published games they falsely claim to have won against a leading master. Such fraudsters may have analysed with masters and selected variations which they claim were victories. Thus Frederick Horace Deacon (1830-75) claimed wins against both Morphy and Steinitz.’

Although in some areas the Oxford Companion to Chess may be regarded as pro-Staunton and anti-Morphy, in the Deacon case Staunton’s strong words in the Illustrated London News in defence of Deacon were implicitly rejected out of hand. Deacon was written off as a ‘fraudster’.

Now to the penultimate paragraph of C.N. 12303:

David Lawson’s monograph on Morphy (pages 244-257 of the 1976 hardback and pages 253-268 of the 2010 paperback) discussed the Morphy v Deacon controversy at length, concluding, as had P.W. Sergeant, that the games were spurious.

That, we now note, is incorrect because, remarkably, Lawson misrepresented Sergeant.

On pages 64-65 of his book Morphy Gleanings (London, 1932) Sergeant published a two-page contribution on the Morphy v Deacon case from B. Goulding Brown:

Some points of detail will require comment and discussion in due course, but for now we are merely placing Goulding Brown’s full contribution on record. Below are the book’s only remarks about Deacon by Sergeant himself, in a footnote to his Preface (page v):

Thus Sergeant, confining himself to the one alleged Morphy v Deacon game that Goulding Brown showed, wrote that the text had been ...

‘... kindly contributed by Mr B. Goulding Brown, who has, to my mind, made out a good case for the genuineness of the game, for very many years relegated to the category of spurious.’

That is very different from Lawson’s version of what Sergeant wrote. The Englishman did not state, or even suggest, that the two games were spurious. He referred to only one of the games and said that although it had been regarded as spurious, on the basis of Goulding Brown’s analysis it might be genuine.

A critical review of the complex Morphy-Deacon case is needed, and for ease of reference a skeleton feature article has already been put online.

12309. The gymnasium of the mind

From Vitaliy Yurchenko (Uhta, Komi Republic, Russian Federation):

‘Your article Chess: the Gymnasium of the Mind asks how far back it is possible to trace (mis)attribution of the “gymnasium of the mind” remark to Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924).

On page 25 of his book О чём молчат фигуры (Moscow, 2007) Yuri Averbakh states that the phrase was attributed to Lenin by the Soviet chess master and organizer Yakov Rokhlin (1903-96), specifically to promote chess in the USSR.’

Further details are sought.

12310. G.K. Chesterton

In an article on page 772 of the Illustrated London News, 20 May 1911, G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) referred to ‘those little books which boys buy for their debating clubs and which tell you how to argue on any side of any subject under the sun’. He called them ‘highly immoral little works’, adding:

‘But here I wish not merely to criticize these text-books of clockwork controversy, but to point out one peculiar thing that springs from them. These disputants have learned so long and so elaborately that there are a certain number of arguments on each side that they cannot deal with any new argument at all. They know the correct move in answer to the correct gambit; they know the orthodox parry to the orthodox lunge; but if anyone opens attack along another line, they still make use of the old move or parry, though it is checking nothing and parrying nothing. If the game were as definite as chess, they would be mated in six moves. If the game were as practical as fencing they would be run through the body.’

12311. Maróczy, Kagan, Tarrasch and Mieses

Below are some images gratefully received from Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore).

Géza Maróczy:

Österreichs Illustrierte Zeitung, 14 October 1900 (front cover)

Bernhard Kagan:

Sport im Bild, 3 March 1916, page 106

Siegbert Tarrasch and Jacques Mieses:

Sport im Bild, 2 June 1916, page 302

12312. Morphy v Deacon

John Townsend (Wokingham, England) writes regarding The Morphy v Deacon Case:

‘I should like to consider some uncertainties in the published evidence against Frederick Deacon.

David Lawson in his book Paul Morphy The Pride and Sorrow of Chess achieved a high standard of scholarship, and his detailed coverage of the subject of “The Deacon games” is no exception (pages 244-257/pages 253-274). Nevertheless, in the matter of the two Evans’ Gambits, Lawson omitted to make any mention of Staunton’s Illustrated London News column of 7 January 1860 and the revealing information it contained:

“M. De R., Paris, is mistaken. The game he played with Mr D., which we have, is not that mentioned, although the opening on both sides is similar.”

This reply is important because it establishes that Staunton warned Arnous de Rivière at an early date that the latter had confused the two Evans’ Gambit games. Staunton was already in possession of the score of the game played between de Rivière and Deacon and he could see that it was not the same Evans’ Gambit as the one purported to have been played between Morphy and Deacon, which had been published on 17 December 1859.

The insertion is written in the third person. That was normal for replies or notices to correspondents, although the second person was also sometimes used. The sequence of exchanges between Staunton and de Rivière seems to have been as follows:

1. Illustrated London News column on 17 December 1859. 2. Letter from de Rivière to Staunton (assumed to be commenting on 1). 3) Illustrated London News column on 7 January 1860 (with short reply to letter). 4) Illustrated London News column on 18 February 1860, noting de Rivière’s “opinion”. 5) Illustrated London News column on 10 March 1860, acknowledging receipt of something.

Staunton’s column on 7 January 1860 indicates that de Rivière was the one who was in error at that stage, although various uncertainties remain. Staunton did not publish the letter – why would he? – but his reply quoted above, although confined to a brief item among the notes “To Correspondents”, could hardly have been more prompt or more public.

It is not clear what action, if any, de Rivière took on receipt of this alert. Staunton does not refer specifically to any second letter from him. It is even possible that de Rivière overlooked the Illustrated London News column of 7 January 1860 and was subsequently unable to admit it without losing face, but that seems unlikely. Later, the Illustrated London News column of 10 March 1860 did contain a short note to de Rivière, “A. De R. Paris – Received with thanks”, but it is not known what had been received.

Transcriptions of the scores of the two Evans’ Gambit games shown in your feature article:

• P. Morphy v F. Deacon. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Ba5 6 d4 exd4 7 O-O Nf6 8 Ba3 d6 9 e5 Ng4 10 exd6 cxd6 11 Re1+ Ne7 12 Qxd4 Bb6 13 Qxg7 Bxf2+ 14 Kf1 Rf8 15 Nbd2 Bxe1 16 Rxe1 Qb6 17 Ne4 Bf5 18 Nf6+ Nxf6 19 Qxf6 Be6 20 Bxe6 fxe6 21 Qxe6 Qb5+ 22 Kg1 Qd7 23 Qxd6 Qxd6 24 Bxd6 Rf7 25 Ng5 Rg7 26 Ne6 Kd7 27 Nxg7 Kxd6 28 Re6+ Kd7 29 Rh6 Rc8 30 Rxh7 Rxc3 31 Nf5 Ke6 32 Nxe7 Rc7 33 Ng6 Resigns. (Source: Illustrated London News, 17 December 1859.)

  Staunton commented on 29...Rc8:

  “Played under the misconception that he could give up the Kt and regain the piece by bringing the rook to QB 2nd.”

  This annotation suggests that Staunton had access to comments by the loser. That would tend to support the impression that this was a real game, as opposed to mere analysis (of the kind Steinitz later maintained that Deacon was capable of indulging in as part of a deception).

• A. de Rivière v F. Deacon. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Ba5 6 d4 exd4 7 O-O Nf6 8 Ba3 d6 9 e5 d5 10 Bb5 Ne4 11 cxd4 Bd7 12 Qa4 Bb6 13 Rc1 Ne7 14 Nc3 c6 15 Bd3 Nxc3 16 Rxc3 O-O 17 Re1 Re8 18 Ng5 h6 19 Bh7+ Kf8 20 Nxf7 Kxf7 21 e6+ Bxe6 22 Rf3+ Nf5 23 Qc2 Qf6 24 g4 g6 25 Rxe6 Rxe6 26 gxf5 Re1+ 27 Kg2 Kg7 28 Bxg6 Bxd4 29 Rg3 Be5 30 Rg4 Rg8 31 Qd2 Bc3 32 Qf4 Qd8 33 Qg3 Bf6 34 Be8+ Bg5 35 Qc3+ d4 36 Rxd4 Bf6 37 Rg4+ Kh7 38 Bg6+ Resigns. (Source: Illustrated London News, 18 February 1860.)

  A note to 9 e5 reads:

  “Up to this point the moves are identical with a game between Mr Morphy and Mr Deacon printed in our Journal of 17 December; and, indeed, M. de Rivière writes to us expressing an opinion that this identity in the opening has led Mr Deacon into the error of confounding the games. M. de Rivière believes that the ‘Evans’ Gambit’ in question, published on 17 December, was really played betwixt him and Mr Deacon, while the present game was that won by Mr Morphy.”

  Thus Staunton presented de Rivière’s “opinion”, but without adding his own view. He did not support de Rivière’s “opinion” and, indeed, he did not change the players’ names contained in the score. Having already stated in the 7 January 1860 column that de Rivière was “mistaken”, perhaps he felt no need to repeat himself by contradicting de Rivière’s “opinion” a second time. He may have wished to spare de Rivière the embarrassment, or felt that there was already enough acrimony. The possibilities are various.

Despite Staunton’s timely warning, Lawson’s account gives the impression that the Evans’ Gambit played by de Rivière was the one submitted for publication by Deacon. In view of the 7 January 1860 column, that appears to be incorrect.

B. Goulding Brown made the point that, even if de Rivière’s “opinion” were correct and the two Evans’ Gambits had been transposed in the manner suggested by de Rivière, it still meant that Deacon had lost a game against Morphy. It is not clear whether de Rivière, who was a close friend of Morphy, was aware that Morphy had stated publicly that he had never played Deacon. Morphy’s statement, therefore, looks questionable, to put it mildly.

Deacon’s credibility was undermined by the suggestion that one of his two games was against someone other than Paul Morphy. Deacon maintained throughout that the two games played with Morphy (the Evans’ Gambit and a King’s Gambit) were correct as published on 17 December 1859.

At the height of the controversy, Anglo-American relations became very strained. It was Morphy who first inflamed the situation by declaring on 19 January 1860 that someone had been “guilty of deliberate falsehood”. The fiercest language subsequently, however, came from Staunton in the Illustrated London News column of 31 March 1860. This saw him at his most angry as he launched a ferocious attack, denouncing Morphy and the American press; he showed firm support for Deacon, and the column included a note from Deacon himself; both Englishmen stressed the veracity of the games. However, these exchanges on both sides contained more heat than light and little evidence on the status of the Deacon games.

Even more influential and unfavourable comment about Deacon appeared under the name of, or attributed to, Wilhelm Steinitz. It is worth noting that Steinitz was openly hostile to Howard Staunton, but was on friendlier terms with Paul Morphy, whom he had met. The two sources quoted by Lawson appeared during the years 1891, over 30 years after publication of the two games, and 1911, over 50 years later. The latter item appeared after Steinitz had been dead for a number of years, and was published in New Orleans – not the most logical place to look for impartial comment on the subject of Paul Morphy.

Steinitz’s speculation that Morphy was only analyzing with Deacon requires the two men to have met at the chessboard. Steinitz does not name any such occasion, whereas Deacon gave full details for his two games. If Morphy had merely been analyzing with Deacon, there is no reason why Morphy could not have acknowledged the meeting and named the occasion. What could he have to fear from doing so? However, Morphy did not mention any such occasion, either when they analyzed together or played chess. As he did not, it seems safe to conclude that analysis is not what took place.

In short, what Steinitz suggested conflicts with what Morphy said. It is therefore hard to recognize circumstances in which Steinitz’s speculation could ever be true. Nevertheless, his contribution to the debate will have influenced countless interested parties. If his evidence can be removed from the equation, is there really much left?

David Lawson’s chapter on Deacon contained other accusations against Deacon of inventing games, some of which were very vague, but I know of no instances where concrete facts, e.g. names, times and places, were given such as might allow an impartial examination of evidence.

The most striking aspect of the Morphy-Deacon affair is its odd nature, with two players presenting conflicting statements about the existence of games claimed to have been contested between them. It is difficult to account fully for this oddness. Had the incident occurred 15 years later, one would have immediately called to mind Paul Morphy’s obsessive ramblings and complaints of persecution. In fact, Morphy’s mental instability was considered in the twentieth century by the Cambridge scholar Bertram Goulding Brown, who staunchly defended Frederick Deacon (C.N. 12308). Before 1875, history reports no signs of insanity in Morphy, although any earlier symptoms could have been kept private and would not necessarily have reached our ears. Goulding Brown seems to have overstated the case for mental illness in Morphy as early as 1860; there is no evidence for it, although the possibility cannot be ruled out.

Frederick Deacon stated in a letter the exact time and place where he had played against Morphy and named a witness, but this failed to ignite any spark of recognition of the occasion in Morphy. Deacon himself expressed his opinion that the explanation lay in Morphy’s “forgetfulness”, but he did not build on this. Instead, the finger of suspicion was pointed at a softer target, Deacon himself, who could hardly have been expected to win a popularity contest against the illustrious Paul Morphy.

In summary, the Deacon affair contains significant uncertainties, some of which were not considered in David Lawson’s account. More evidence would be needed before any conclusions could be drawn.

I would like to express my acknowledgement and thanks to the excellent Chess Archaeology website for access to the Illustrated London News articles referred to in the text.’

Below, from newspapers.com, is the start of the Illustrated London News column (7 January 1860, page 19) referred to by Mr Townsend:

Also courtesy of newspapers.com in particular, on 23 May 2026 we added many newspaper and magazine texts (1860-1911) to The Morphy v Deacon Case.

12313. Deacon game-scores

The richest contemporary source of games published under Deacon’s name appears to be the Dutch periodical Sissa, mentioned by Steinitz in an article on pages 267-268 of the International Chess Magazine, September 1891 and available online via Google Books.

Regarding another Deacon case, his 1851 match against Edward Löwe/Lowe, see the account by G.H. Diggle in C.N. 7854, as well as his lengthier article, ‘A Crisis of 1851’, on pages 42-44 of the February 1940 BCM. Diggle had been allowed by J.H. Blake and the City of London Chess Club to examine Deacon’s papers. They included ‘a manuscript copy in Deacon’s writing of a tremendous letter written by him to the Committee of the Chess Tournament of 1851’ about being denied a match prize (unconnected to the international tournament) after his opponent withdrew on account of Deacon’s slow play. Diggle wrote of Deacon:

‘Whether he really did “win one and lose one” against Morphy or not, he was in the 50’s and 60’s an amateur of genuine brilliance.’

In the concluding paragraph Deacon was described by Diggle as ‘young, ambitious, desperately serious, gouging his eyes out over the board and sparing neither himself nor his opponent during his endless excavations’.

12314. Florin Gheorghiu (C.N.s 8974, 11289 & 11302)

Cristian-Florin Dănănău (Bucharest) informs us that his two-volume work, Diagonala infinită. Cariera lui Florin Gheorghiu, ilustrată cu 3549 de partide, has just been published:

The work is in Romanian, but with quotations in their original language.

A small number of signed hardback copies of both volumes are available direct from the author. The first volume (paperback only at present) can be acquired from Editura Universitară.

12315. Marco, Maróczy and Lasker in Szeged

Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) shares the following from page 427 of the Österreichs Illustrierte Zeitung, 10 March 1901:

Larger version

12316. A notice by Paul Morphy

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.

12317. Morphy games annotated by Staunton

At the beginning of 1860 Chess Praxis by Howard Staunton was published by Bohn (London). From page 453:

Six chapters totalling 167 pages contained Staunton’s annotations. No mention of any of them has been found in Charles Hertan’s The Real Paul Morphy.