Chess Notes

12082. When did Steinitz become world champion?

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

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

Also:

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

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

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

12083. ‘Tournament champion’

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

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

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

12084. Cohn v Chigorin

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

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

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

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d6 3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 e4

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

12085. Mexico

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

12086. Anti-Turton

White to move

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

Jens Askgaard (Køge, Denmark) writes:

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

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

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

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

12087. Ordinal numbers (C.N. 12033)

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

From Dmitriy Komendenko (St Petersburg, Russia):

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

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

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

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

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

12088. Robert Hübner (1948-2025)

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

12089. The writings of Robert Hübner

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

12090. Keres v Alexander

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

12091. Staunton and Saint-Amant

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

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

Our correspondent adds:

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

12092. Howard L. Dolde

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

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

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

Larger version

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

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

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

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

Addition on 23 January 2025:

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

12093. The death of T.W. Barnes

John Townsend (Wokingham, England) writes:

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

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

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

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

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

A transcript of Barnes’ death certificate follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12094. S.S. Boden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12095. A bishop ending

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

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

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

12096. The Monrad system

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

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

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

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

12097. A worthy opponent

From Norsk Schakblad, March 1925, page 37:

Acknowledgement: Cleveland Public Library

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

12098. Lasker on the Ruy López

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

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

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

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

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

12099. Simultaneous displays by Lasker

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

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

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

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

12100. The three shortest ever chess book reviews

Two words.

One word.

No words.

12101. Wallace, Liverpool and Rubinstein

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

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

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

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

Liverpool Post & Mercury, 25 February 1925, page 10

Liverpool Echo, 25 February 1925, page 7

Liverpool Post & Mercury, 26 February 1925, page 11

Liverpool Post & Mercury, 27 February 1925, page 13

Liverpool Post & Mercury, 28 February 1925, page 9

Liverpool Post & Mercury, 28 February 1925, page 11

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

12102. Duchamp and Le Lionnais

From Oliver Beck (Seattle, WA, USA):

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

12103. Backgammon

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

12104. Quote-pruning

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

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

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

From John Townsend (Wokingham, England):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 268:

“Paul understandably doubted Staunton’s intentions”

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

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

Page 270:

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

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

Page 271:

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

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

“... potshots at Morphy ...”

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

“... his unseemly behavior ...”

Page 272:

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

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

Page 273:

“Howard Staunton had a deeply flawed personality.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12106. Abraham v Janine

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

Acknowledgement for the scan: Cleveland Public Library

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

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

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

12107. Praeceptor Germaniae

Javier Asturiano Molina (Murcia, Spain) asks:

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

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

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

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

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

12108. Kostić v Caruso

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

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

After just five words Vatnikov deployed ‘once’:

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

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

12109. Chess and music

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

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

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

12110. Hunting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12111. The Chess Wheel

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

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

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

12112. Notation

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

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

12113. Streets

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

The third paragraph of the article:

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

12114. Definitive

In descriptions of chess books, has the word ‘definitive’ ever been used legitimately by a publisher, author or reviewer – and to which volumes could it be applied with justification?

See Hype in Chess.

12115. Alekhine v Vidal

Juan Carlos Sanz Menéndez (Alcorcón, Spain) draws attention to page 51 of the Bultlletí de la Federació Catalana D’Escacs, March-April 1935:

The Alekhine game against Joan Vidal played in Barcelona on 26 January 1935:

1 d4 d5 2 c4 Bf5 3 cxd5 Nf6 4 f3 Bxb1 5 Rxb1 Nxd5 6 e4 Nb6 7 Ne2 e6 8 Nc3 Be7 9 Be3 c6 10 Be2 Bh4+ 11 g3 Bf6 12 O-O h5 13 a4 h4 14 g4 e5 15 d5 cxd5 16 exd5 Bg5

17 f4 exf4 18 Bxf4 N8d7 19 a5 Nc8 20 Qd2 Bxf4 21 Qxf4 f6 22 Bb5 O-O 23 Qf5 Nc5 24 Ne4 Nxe4 25 Qxe4 Nd6 26 Qe6+ Kh8 27 Bd7 Ne4 28 Qxe4 Qxd7 29 Rf5 g6 30 Rf2 Rae8 31 Qf3 Re5 32 Rd1 Rg5 33 h3 Qd6 34 Rdd2 Re8 35 Rfe2 Ree5 36 Rxe5 Rxe5 37 Kg2 f5 38 Qf2 Rxd5 39 Qxh4+ Kg7 40 Re2 Rd2 41 Rxd2 Qxd2+ 42 Qf2 Qxf2+ 43 Kxf2 fxg4 44 hxg4 Kf6 45 Kf3 Ke5 46 Ke3 b5 47 axb6 axb6 48 Kf3 Drawn.

Our correspondent adds the report on the event on page 1782 of Els Escacs a Catalunya, February 1935:

‘Aquesta vegada ha efectuat dues session: la primera tingué lloc el dia 26 a dos quarts d’onze de la nit en l’Ateneu Barcelonès, on es congregà una veritable multitud freturosa de seguir les incidències de la sessió. Varen ésser-li oposat a 43 jugadors de diverses categories i a dos quarts de sis de la matinada, després de set hores consecutives de joc, acabà la sessió amb el resultat de 33 partides guanyades, quatre empatades i sis de perdudes (+ 33 =4 –6). Els vencedors foren: Claret (Manresa), Dr. Julià (R. López), Vivet (Caixa de Pensions), Sererols (Comtal), Morera i Mansoso (Terrassa). Els qui empataren foren : Vidal (P. Nou), Mestres (Terrassa), Abrahams (Barcelona) i Serra Vinyes (Badalona).’

12116. Staunton world champion

From page 3 of the Newcastle Daily Chronicle, 27 July 1874:

Chess is not mentioned until the latter part of the report, but the statement that Staunton ‘has consequently been recognised as the champion chess player of the world’ is noteworthy and is being added to Early Uses of ‘World Chess Champion’.

12117. Staunton and friendship

From page 7 of the Newcastle Courant, 15 December 1876 (chess columnist: William Mitcheson):

The marked text reads:

‘The late Mr Howard Staunton had the gift of making serviceable friends in a very brief acquaintance, and he had also the unenviable gift of throwing them off when they had served his purpose.’

Does that claim hold up under scrutiny?

12118. ‘Abraham v Janine’ (C.N. 12106)

Christian Sánchez (Rosario, Argentina) submits the full game, from pages 50-51 of Hohe Schule der Schachtaktik by Kurt Richter (Berlin, 1956):

Courtesy of the Cleveland Public Library, below are both pages from original 1952 edition of Richter’s book:

Wanted: earlier appearances of the game, and details of the occasion.

12119. Alekhine in Who’s Who (C.N.s 741 & 9316)

Christian Sánchez writes:

‘Successive editions of Who’s Who present the evolving, succinct autobiography of their subjects. Through Alekhine’s entries, we can trace the timeline of significant events in his life: when he became a grandmaster, considered himself a challenger, claimed to have earned his doctorate in law, married, moved home and, even, took up bridge.

Below, firstly, is his entry on page 29 of Who’s Who 1926 (London, 1926):

“ALEKHINE, (Aljechin) Alexander, chess master, writer, and at present, student of Paris University, for Law Doctorate; b. Moscow, 1 Nov. 1892; s. of A. Alekhine, Maréchal de Noblesse of Voronej’s Government Nobility, and Member of the Douma, and A. Prokoroff, d. of the Moscow Industrial Magnate. Educ.: the Imperial High Law School for Noblemen, the Pravovedenie, Petrograd. After taking his law degree in 1914, entered the Foreign Office; his career was interrupted by the Revolution, when he emigrated to France; served voluntarily in the Great War as Red Cross representative at the front (Sign of the Red Cross, the Military Cross of St Stanislas, and the St George’s Cross); as chess player he got the title of Master at the age of sixteen, 1909, and the title of Great Master in 1914; has to his credit more than twenty international Tournaments, and holds the world’s record for Blindfold Chess (New York 1924, and Paris 1925); challenger of Capablanca for the World’s Championship in chess. Publications: Chess in Soviet Russia, 1921; New York Tournament Book, 1924; Hastings Tournament Book, 1922; publications in French and foreign periodicals; My Best Hundred Games. Recreations: riding, canoeing, tennis. Address: 211 rue de la Croix-Nivert, Paris XV.”

Changes or additions in subsequent editions:

1927: –;

1928: “Doctor of Law of Paris University; m. Nadejda Fabritsky, widow of General V. Vassilieff; [My Best Hundred Games], 1908-1923; N.Y. Tournament Book, 1927.”

1929: “Chess Champion of the World since 1927; My Best Games of Chess, 1927.”

1930: –;

1931: “Defended his title successfully 1929; Produced a World’s record score in San Remo Tournament, 1930; bridge.”

1932: –; 1933: –

1934:“on visiting Iceland, made Knight of the Order of Falcon; On the Way to the World Championship, 1932; ping pong.”

1935: “m. Grace Wishaar, widow of Captain Archibald Freeman; [Blindfold Chess] Chicago 1933; [Defended his title successfully 1929] and 1934; Le Château, St. Aubin-le-Cauf, Seine Inférieure, France.”

1936: –

1937: “[Chess Champion of the World], 1927-35; on visiting French Africa was made Commandeur of the Nichum Iftikar (sic: Nichan Iftikhar) and Knight of the Ouissan Alaouit (sic: Ouissam Alaouite); Zürich Tournament Book, 1934.”

1938: “Nottingham Tournament Book, 1936; Deux Cents Parties d’Échecs, 1937.”

1939: “Chess Champion of the World; won the world’s Title from J.R. Capablanca in 1927; defended it successfully in 1928 [sic] and 1934; lost it against Dr Euwe in 1935 and regained it from him in 1937; London Tournament Book, 1932.”

1940: –; 1941: –; 1942: –; 1943: –; 1944: –; 1945:–

1946: Obituary: 24 March 1946. Shown in C.N. 9316.’

12120. Marshall by John Hix

The ‘Strange as it seems’ feature by John Hix on page 15 of the Omaha World-Herald, 21 April 1931:

12121. Skittles games between Capablanca and Kostić

From Ben R. Foster’s chess column on page b7 of the St Louis Globe-Democrat, 18 July 1915:

Statements by and about Kostić require particular care. What is known about the ‘200 skittles’ claim?

12122. Capablanca and Kostić in Buenos Aires

Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) provides this photograph from an unnumbered page of Fray Mocho, 28 August 1914:

Larger version

A red dot marks Kostić.

Can a better copy of the photograph be found?

12123. Newspapers online

Viewing old newspapers online inevitably brings occasional disappointments as a result of illegibility:

Liverpool Post & Mercury, 7 April 1923, page 4.

12124. Newspapers online

Viewing old newspapers online inevitably brings occasional disappointments as a result of legibility:

Illustrated Police News, 9 January 1897, page 7

Evening Express, 18 July 1922, page 4

Liverpool Echo, 22 September 1942, page 4

12125. A knight on K6

From Christian Sánchez (Rosario, Argentina):

‘Your feature article A Knight on K5, K6 or Q6 gives the earliest date for the quote as 1929. In the notes to the move 15...QR-Q1 in the Lasker-Capablanca game (St Petersburg, 1914, round 18), page 66 of The Grand International Masters’ Chess Tournament at St Petersburg, 1914 (Philadelphia, [1914]) quotes Louis van Vliet in the Sunday Times:

“Why allow Kt-K6, while it could be prevented by B-B1? The great Anderssen used to say: ‘Once get a Kt firmly posted at K6 and you may go to sleep. Your game will then play itself!’ (V.)”.’

See note (e) below in the full column published on page 17 of the 31 May 1914 edition of the Sunday Times:

12126. Abraham v Janny (C.N.s 12106 & 12118)

Peter Anderberg (Harmstorf, Germany) provides page 315 of Schachjahrbuch 1923 by Ludwig Bachmann (Ansbach, 1924):

No occasion is mentioned for the Abraham v Janny game, but there are now the players’ initials.

12127. Another Staunton obituary

Further to C.N. 12116, below is the obituary of Howard Staunton on page 4 of The Scotsman, 29 June 1874:

Beyond such curiosities as ‘a native, we believe, of Warwickshire’, ‘educated at Eton and Oxford’ and ‘the conqueror of Murphy’, the text illustrates how mainstream obituaries of Staunton might focus on Shakespeare and not chess. The English-language Wikipedia article on Staunton does the reverse.

Possible reasons for the decline in Staunton’s standing as a Shakespeare authority were given by, in particular, Richard Allen in C.N. 5603. See Howard Staunton and William Shakespeare and Chess.

Attacks on Howard Staunton includes chess observations by, among others, Fred Reinfeld, Al Horowitz and Larry Evans. Remarks by Evans are discussed in detail in The Facts about Larry Evans, and here is another one:

Reno Gazette-Journal, 18 April 1987, page 33

12128. The Menchik sisters

No information is available on whether any chess outlet has ever paid money to getty pictures for a large, clean copy of the above photograph. Nor do we know why it is believed to show Vera Menchik, as opposed to her sister Olga.

Complementing the images of the sisters in The Vera Menchik Club, below is a photograph from page 14 of the (London) Daily Chronicle, 13 January 1926:

12129. Levitzky v Marshall, Breslau, 1912

Wanted: more detailed local (i.e. Breslau/Wrocław) information about Marshall’s ‘Gold Coins’ Game, and also about the loser.

Other games where a queen moves to KKt6 (i.e. g6 or g3) are discussed in The Fox Enigma.

Frank James Marshall by Frederick Orrett (see C.N. 9722)

Regarding the alleged gold coins episode, the English-language Wikipedia page on the game currently cites, of all things, a 2006 book published by Cardoza:

‘Eric Schiller wrote, “others say they were just paying off their wagers”.’

C.N. 12063 referred to the existence of a Wikipedia project group created to ‘improve information on chess-related articles’. The project group states:

‘Print sources are generally considered reliable, but certain authors such as Eric Schiller and Raymond Keene have a reputation for unreliability.’

12130. Edgar Pennell and the skewer

Recent C.N. items referring to Wikipedia are a reminder that its entry on the chess term skewer does not currently name the man who coined it, Edgar Pennell.

The photograph on page 275 of CHESS, 14 April 1937 (C.N. 8894) had already appeared widely in the press, in the United Kingdom and the United States. From page 6 of the Liverpool Daily Post, 16 June 1936:

The originator (probably by 1937) of the chess word ‘skewer’ was shown in the Liverpool Daily Post, 30 January 1939, page 6:

Pennell’s name was seldom seen in chess literature, although page 153 of the May 1955 BCM reported that in Cheltenham on 19 March, during the National Chess Week, he had participated in a Chess Brains Trust, alongside C.H.O’D. Alexander, J.M. Aitken and J. Bronowski. The subjects included ‘Is chess a waste of time?’ and ‘Why are lady chessplayers outclassed by men, even in Russia?’.

From John Townsend (Wokingham, England):

‘An article in the Staffordshire Sentinel (31 January 1939, page 6) referred to Edgar Pennell as “a native of Bucknall”. This is Bucknall, Staffordshire, near Stoke-on-Trent. Since the birth of an Edgar Pennell was registered in the district of Stoke-on-Trent in the third quarter of 1902 (G.R.O., birth indexes, volume 6b, page 192), and the death of an Edgar Pennell was registered in 1985 in the district of Windsor and Maidenhead (death indexes, volume 19, page 68) which included the date of birth of 21 June 1902, there is no doubt that this is the skewer man.

Edgar Pennell’s birth certificate shows that he was born on 21 June 1902 at Eaves Lane, Bucknall; his parents were Ernest Pennell, a schoolmaster, and Bessie Ethel Pennell (formerly Mann). The birth was registered on 21 July 1902.

His marriage to Leah Bailey was registered during the first quarter of 1927 in the district of Liverpool (source: G.R.O. marriage indexes, volume 8b, page 234).

Edgar Pennell’s death was registered on 3 June 1985 in the district of Windsor and Maidenhead (volume 19, page 68). His death certificate shows that he died on 2 June 1985 at Upper Orchard, Mill Lane, Cookham, Berkshire. His date and place of birth were given as 21 June 1902 and Bucknell [sic], Staffordshire. He was a retired school teacher. The informant was named as Alwin Gilbert Allen, whose qualification was “Causing the body to be cremated”, and his usual address was The Bungalow, Odney Common, Cookham, Berkshire.

The cause of death was entered as:

“Myocardial Infarction
Coronary Atheroma
Certified by Julia Mercer MBBS.”

His wife was a couple of years younger and died on 24 November 1992 at Sandpipers Residential Home, Worster Road, Cookham, Berkshire. Her will was proved at Winchester on 29 December 1992, the estate not exceeding £125,000.’

12131. Rubinstein photograph

We are authorized to show this portrait of Akiba Rubinstein which is held by the Jewish Museum of Belgium:

12132. Max Ritter von Gomperz

Michael Lorenz (Vienna) has provided an extract from ‘a balance sheet in the probate file of the Austrian banker, industrialist and chess patron Max von Gomperz (1822–1913) which shows that every month he paid 174 Kronen in support of chessplayers’:

Larger version

Our correspondent draws attention to the obituary and photograph of von Gomperz on pages 290-293 of the October-November 1913 Wiener Schachzeitung.

12133. The Mouthless Dead

The latest book featuring the Wallace murder case is an elegant novel by Anthony Quinn, The Mouthless Dead:

The phrase ‘the mouthless dead’ is from the first line of a posthumously published poem by Charles Hamilton Sorley (1895-1915).

12134. Prison warders

In the United Kingdom a number of individuals convicted of capital offences played chess against prison warders. The following appeared under W.H. Wallace’s name on pages 8-9 of John Bull, 14 May 1932:

‘I see clearly in the freedom of my bedroom the faces of the warders of the death-watch at the condemned cell – the faces that will never leave me, day or night, until the end comes.

I see myself again playing chess with them. ... I wonder – do they still play chess? I taught them.’

Wallace described on page 19 of John Bull, 30 April 1932 how he was publicly perceived:

‘I was not only “the man Wallace” but “another Rouse”.

He was referring to Alfred Arthur Rouse (1894-1931), the ‘blazing car murderer’. A report about Rouse on page 1 of the (London) Evening Standard, 7 March 1931 stated:

‘In the condemned cell he is guarded day and night by two warders. During the daytime he has exercised in the small prison yard and in the cell he plays draughts and chess with the “death guard”.’

From the front page of the (Sunday) People, 8 March 1931:

Page 6 of the Evening Express (Liverpool), 7 March 1931 described Rouse as ‘an expert chess and draughts player’. Journalists often misapply ‘expert’ and ‘champion’ to prisoners and prodigies.

Another case was John George Haigh (1909-49), the ‘acid bath murderer’. From page 3 of the Daily Herald, 21 July 1949:

Chess and Murder mentions Neville George Clevely Heath (1917-46), who ‘played a certain amount of chess with the warders, two of whom were in his cell day and night’. Concerning William Joyce (1906-46), C.N. 11446 related that, before being hanged for high treason, ‘in the condemned cell he has played chess with the prisoner officers’.

From page 1 of the Evening Despatch (Birmingham), 31 August 1948:

The article was on pages 314-315 of the September 1948 BCM:

Acknowledgement for the BCM scan: Cleveland Public Library

12135. Close and closed

Whether referring to openings, games or positions, the terms ‘close’ and ‘closed’ tend to be vague and interchangeable. With openings, for instance, they have traditionally been applied when 1 e4 did not occur – in contrast to 1 e4 e5 (open games) and 1 e4 answered by a move other than 1...e5 (semi-open games). However, would many writers nowadays specifically classify 1 d4 f5 2 e4, for example, as a ‘close’/‘closed’ game? To what end?

When a position is to at least some extent blocked, ‘closed’ may seem more logical than ‘close’, with the bonus of avoiding ambiguity, since ‘it was a close game’ normally suggests a narrow victory.

Where is the best guide to such terminology, and are there languages with concepts or nuances unknown in English?

12136. Lasker on Maróczy

From Emanuel Lasker’s column in the New York Evening Post, 2 May 1908, page 9:

‘Maróczy has the emotional nature of the Magyar, and is therefore as variable as his moods. He can play all styles, the highest and the lowest, and neither his upper nor his lower limits have yet been determined. Hence he is somewhat of a riddle, that could be solved only if he pitted himself against the foremost masters in match play, but he resolutely declines to do so. Perhaps he likes to remain a mystery.’

12137. Abrahams v Maróczy

A good copy of this photograph would be welcome:

Evening Express (Liverpool), 6 January 1930, page 5

12138. Gerald Abrahams

The shot of Gerald Abrahams in C.N. 12137 is a reminder of an unresolved matter in C.N. 10985: given that Abrahams was born in 1907, how can the National Portrait Gallery, London put ‘1933’?

12139. Abrahams on Yates

On page 6 of the Liverpool Post & Mercury, 14 November 1932 Gerald Abrahams paid tribute to F.D. Yates:

From page 6 of the following day’s newspaper:

Yates’s loss to Sir George Thomas in Canterbury (1930) has been widely published. For a group photograph of participants in the tournament, see C.N. 4350.

12140. Staunton’s early life

C.N.s 12116 and 12127 prompt an addition to Predicaments for Chess Writers: the task of writing just a factual line or two about Howard Staunton’s early (pre-chess) years.

12141. Staunton and friendship (C.N. 12117)

From John Townsend (Wokingham, England):

‘In C.N. 12117, the chess columnist William Mitcheson stated that Howard Staunton “threw off” friendships when they were no longer of service to him. No evidence for his assertion was offered, and no examples were provided.

It cannot be doubted that Staunton made enemies, but the same could be said of other top players who have been world champion or regarded as the world’s best, or who have achieved great fame. The examples of Steinitz and Alekhine spring to mind, while Lasker and Capablanca acquired reputations for making challenges difficult to mount, resulting in tensions. Is there not something special about the position of a champion which provokes envy, rivalry and hostility? They are there to be shot at.

In the case of Staunton, he was, in addition, a forthright man. The art critic Thomas Jefferson Bryan, in comparing him with Saint-Amant, preferred Staunton’s openness and made the following observation:

“Mr Staunton cares not to appear other than he is. I make no pretensions to etiquette, but common sense induces me to prefer his sincerity – and I confess his mode of behaviour is the more pleasing to me – for we cannot accuse him of carrying his politeness to an undue excess.” (Source: Chess Player’s Chronicle, 1846, page 147.)

In a letter to the City of London Chess Magazine (January 1875, pages 12-13), von der Lasa referred to Staunton’s own remarks about his associations with five notable chess figures:

“Staunton’s letter of November last [1873] was altogether written in a most friendly tone, and spoke likewise in affectionate terms of other players. ‘I was sorry’, he wrote, ‘to lose Lewis and St Amant, my dear friends Bolton and Sir F. Madden, and others of whom we have been deprived, but for Jaenisch I entertained a particular affection, and his loss was proportionately painful to me. He was truly an amiable and an upright man.’”

In the case of the problemist Reverend Horatio Bolton, a Norfolk clergyman, he had been a friend since at least 1840, when the two contested a correspondence match, and he was referred to as a friend in a letter as late as 1873, the year of Bolton’s death.

Von der Lasa acknowledged that Staunton was responsible for “animosities” in the world of chess and attributed the cause to “his great irritability of temper”, which resulted from his heart problem.

In the world of Shakespearean studies, Staunton enjoyed a long and rewarding friendship with the scholar James Orchard Halliwell-Phillipps. Their correspondence (see C.N. 11993) ended only with Staunton’s death in 1874, having begun in 1855 or earlier. Their exchanges are respectful and nearly always cordial. These qualities are not diminished by the odd blunt remark made by Staunton; neither is their friendship jeopardized by it.

Finally, it is relevant to mention here his wife Frances, to whom he was married for 25 years. The impression left is that their marriage was harmonious, since no evidence is known that during that time the two of them even quarrelled, let alone had a serious rift.’

12142. S.S. Boden’s father (C.N. 12094)

Also from John Townsend:

‘C.N. 12094 discussed inter alia the disappearance of S.S. Boden’s father, James Boden, who, after a career as a nonconformist minister, died at Hoxton, Middlesex, in December 1851, and it was suggested that his family were not proud of him when he died. The possibility was mentioned, speculatively, that he may have spent some time in the lunatic asylum at Hoxton.

In census returns, it was common practice in certain institutions, including prisons and hospitals, to refer to inmates or patients by their initials only. An example of that is the nineteenth-century chessplayer John Brand (“JB”), a lunatic in the 1851 census. (For details, see page 75 of my book Historical notes on some chess players.)

On that analogy, an entry for “Warburton’s Licensed Madhouse” in the 1851 census at West Hackney is of interest (National Archives, HO 107/1504, page 544). This institution comes immediately after the entry for 10 De Beauvoir Crescent. Living at the madhouse was a man who was referred to in the census as “JB”, described as a patient, unmarried, aged 55, a clergyman, whose place of birth was not known. James Boden’s occupation matches well with that of “JB”, even though the age appears to be wrong by five years. Edward P. Beverley MRCS, aged 23, unmarried, was “resident surgeon” at the madhouse.

So the question is: was James Boden, father of S.S. Boden, the man referred to as “JB”, and was he a patient at Warburton’s Licensed Madhouse? That would account for his detachment from the rest of his family.

Can any light be thrown on this?’

12143. Anatoly Karpov

A 1970s portrait (courtesy of the State Russian Museum and Exhibition Centre Rosphoto):

12144. The Quaade Gambit

Position after 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Nc3

Further to C.N.s 8587 and 8589 (see A Chess Gamelet), Jens Askgaard (Køge, Denmark) writes:

‘An article about Louis Quaade was published on pages 49-51 of the Danish magazine Skakbladet 2016/1. The author, Michael Agermose Jensen, found an entry for Quaade in the Danish census for 1880. Quaade is listed under his full name, Louis Magnus Johan Christian Carl Quaade, born in 1825 and unmarried, as “Patient no. 913” at Oringe. Here, “Oringe” refers to Oringe Psychiatric Hospital. Oringe is a small peninsula, where the hospital was built, and Vordingborg is the adjacent town.

Jensen also speculates that Quaade was assumed to be Dutch owing to the confusion of names Oringe => Orinje => Oranje. He mentions the Danish chessplayer Orla Hermann Krause, who was employed as a doctor at Oringe from 1901, and wonders whether he ever met Quaade.

I have found a family history, Den Danske Quade-Quaade-Qvadeslægt, published by Carl Anton Frederik Qvade in 1928. In the book the parents of Louis Quaade are given, on pages 86-89, as Peter Friedrich Quaade (1779-1850) and Christiane Gustava Quaade, née de Tuxen (1792-1866), which differs from the information at Geni.com. There, Louis Quaade’s father is named as Georg Joachim Groothschilling Quaade, who was his brother according to the family history.

The bibliography of Louis Quaade can be found on pages 95-96. He was born in Helsingør [Elsinore] on 17 March 1825 and was accepted at Landkadetakademiet [today, known in English as the Royal Danish Military Academy] in 1840. He was promoted to Second Lieutenant in 1846 and to Premier Lieutenant [First Lieutenant] in 1849, and he fought in the First Schleswig War, 1848-50. Permission to leave the army in 1860 owing to frailty was granted, and he was simultaneously promoted to Kaptajn [Captain]. He died in Oringe on 13 September 1906.

If Quaade was an army captain, why would the Oxford Companion to Chess refer to him as a sea captain? I believe that this is another translation error. In the German army, the rank Kapitän is not used – the corresponding rank is Hauptmann. A German Kapitän would indeed refer to a sea captain.’

12145. Orange

The previous item reminds us of some cutting-edge reportage about Gerald Abrahams on page 5 of the Liverpool Echo, 24 August 1950:

12146. The London Rules

In the column on page 3 of the Manchester Guardian, 14 August 1922 by ‘a chess correspondent’ the London Rules were not welcomed:

When the text was published the same day on page 11 of the Liverpool Post & Mercury, the heading stated ‘By J. Gunsberg’.

12147. Walter de Havilland

From Stephen Wright (Vancouver, Canada):

‘Your feature article on Alekhine v Kimura mentions the English player Mr Havilland. I do not think that it has been widely realized that this was Walter de Havilland, the father of the film stars Olivia de Havilland and Joan Fontaine. In later life his home was in British Columbia.’

On his British Columbia Chess History website our correspondent has written an article about Walter Augustus de Havilland (1872-1968).

12148. W.H. Wallace’s chess books

Quoting from page 234 of Checkmate The Wallace Murder Mystery by Mark Russell (London, 2021), our feature article Chess and the Wallace Murder Case notes that in May 1931 W.H. Wallace, awaiting his appeal against execution, requested a list of books – chess being one of the subjects.

Wallace’s conviction was quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 19 May 1931, and we are grateful to Rod Stringer (Liverpool, England) for providing documentation from later that month:

Larger version

Larger version

Larger version

The other book (Modern Chess Strategy, published anonymously by the Daily Express) was discussed in C.N. 1743. See Chess Jottings. Publication was announced on page 5 of the Daily Express, 17 January 1931, i.e. three days before Julia Wallace was killed:

12149. Staunton’s early life (C.N. 12140)

John Townsend (Wokingham, England) writes:

‘In C.N. 1453 (the July-August 1987 issue of your magazine), the late W.D. Rubinstein raised some pertinent questions regarding the origins of Howard Staunton and his early life. In what follows, these questions are considered again today in the light of discoveries made during the intervening period.

“Is anything more now known about the ancestry of Howard Staunton than when Keene and Coles’ biography appeared in 1975? According to the account in the Oxford Companion to Chess, ‘nothing is known for certain about Staunton’s life before 1836’.”

Nothing more is known for certain, but important clues have come to light in three areas:

1. Staunton has been found on the 1861 and 1871 censuses; in both cases, his place of birth was entered as Keswick (in the county of Cumberland).

In the 1851 census, his birthplace had been recorded as “Westmorland”; that is, the county alone was named, without a village, town or parish, which is unusual.

His age on all three censuses is fairly consistent and suggests birth about 1810.

Westmorland is not strictly consistent with Keswick (Cumberland), although it could be deemed consistent if he was born in a Westmorland parish close to Keswick, since those supplying the census information were encouraged to name the nearest town of consequence.

In my opinion, the information that he was born in Keswick, or Westmorland, though possibly correct, needs to be treated with caution, since Staunton himself is the sole source of it. The same applies to his father being named as William Staunton, gentleman, on his marriage certificate: it may, or may not, be true.

2. There is strong evidence that Howard Staunton was referred to as Charles Staunton, or Charles Stanton, in 1838-39, during the period when he was secretary of the Westminster Chess Club.

Detailed discussion of this last topic appeared in my two books, Notes on the Life of Howard Staunton (pages 1-15) and Historical Notes on Some Chess Players (pages 109-135). For readers who do not have access, in what follows I offer a summary of those discussions.

Chess sources show that during most of 1839, the Westminster Chess Club met at 26 Charles Street, St James’s Square, with Howard Staunton as its secretary. In those days, a “rates” system was operated in England by which the occupiers of property were required to contribute towards various services provided by the parish. 26 Charles Street was divided into several apartments, one of which was occupied by a man named “Charles Staunton” in two rates documents, and spelt “Charles Stanton” on two other occasions. Another source, Robson’s Court Guide (1840 edition) names the occupier as Howard Staunton, Esq., so there is an obvious inference that Charles Stanton/Staunton was a name used at that time by the famous chessplayer.

In addition, Charles Stanton, Esq., was a subscriber to William Greenwood Walker’s 1836 book about the McDonnell v Labourdonnais games. As no other chessplayer by the name of Charles Staunton, or Charles Stanton, is known at that time, it seems likely that this is another reference to Howard Staunton. Some commentators have doubted this conclusion because there is also a separate entry for “H. Staunton, Esq.”. One needs to bear in mind the unusually high frequency of errors in Walker’s book. His namesake, George Walker, described it as “disfigured by ten thousand errors of press”. There are other instances of subscribers appearing twice; for example, on page 280 the members of the Bristol Chess Club are all listed twice, the second list being slightly different. If both entries referred to Staunton, it would mean the name Charles Staunton, or Charles Stanton, was used by him at least during the period 1836-39, perhaps longer, and it may be a clue to his origins. The evidence of the rate-books is strong, not least because they are an official and objective source, and the information they contain is not dependent on Staunton himself, as is the case with certain other sources.

The lives of several individuals by the name of Charles Staunton, or Charles Stanton, have been explored and compared with known facts about Howard Staunton; most have been discarded as impossible or unlikely, though in one or two cases without any certainty.

One clear candidate remains, and there is significant evidence, but no proof, that he was Howard Staunton.

William Charles Stanton is referred to in a land tax document of 1830 (“W.C. Stanton”), when he resided in Motcomb Street, near Belgrave Square. Later he moved to Coleshill Street, and by 1834 was at Selwood Place, Brompton. He had two children with a woman, Mary Frailing, being referred to in 1834 as “Charles Staunton”. The parish register baptism entries read as if the children were born in wedlock, but no evidence of a marriage has been found. Mary Frailing was buried at Brompton on 14 November 1834, referred to as “Mary Fearling Staunton”, aged 25; the cause of her death is not known.

William Charles Stanton continued to appear in the rate books of Brompton for a short time, until September 1835, after which no further information about him is known. My theory is that he became Howard Staunton, who is first mentioned by that name in 1836.

The elder child, Agnes Staunton, went to school in Fulham and was married at Paddington in 1848 at the age of 18, her father being named as “Charles Staunton”. She had several children and died in Naples in 1888.

The other child, Charles Staunton, was brought up at Putney by Jemima Freeling, his aunt. He became an assistant schoolmaster, then a journalist, and later worked for a building society. His literary and historical pursuits resembled those of Staunton, and he submitted several questions to the periodical Notes and Queries. He was a sub-editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. He had an outgoing personality and gave addresses on a variety of subjects. In 1859, he offered himself as a Tory candidate for a parliamentary election in Brighton, in the event that no other candidate could be found. Recently, much more information has come to light about this Charles Staunton’s final years, in Somerset. He died in Taunton in 1867.

A clear link between William Charles Stanton (sometimes referred to as Charles Staunton) and Howard Staunton remains to be established.

3. Since the time of Professor Rubinstein’s query, more has been learned about Staunton’s life between 1845 and 1849. This has included details of addresses where he lived. During 1847 and 1848, he resided at 6½ Park Place, Fulham Road (Chelsea), his landlord being Thomas Tombleson, a builder and a Battle of Trafalgar veteran, who paid the rates there.

I acknowledge gratefully the valued assistance of Liverpool Chess Club, which kindly gave me access to images of certain Staunton letters in their archives.

These included two 1846 letters addressed from 6 Park Place, Fulham Road (Chelsea); it is assumed that 6 was the number before the property was divided into two separate addresses, so, effectively, Staunton’s residence in Park Place has been extended backwards by about one year.

More important is an entirely new address, 15 Brompton Row, Fulham Road, which appears on two 1845 letters owned by the Liverpool Chess Club. This address was in the parish of Brompton, being very close to Knightsbridge. It is his earliest known residence in Brompton. Searches in rate-books and London directories strongly suggest that it was a lodging house at that time. Brompton Row is an interesting street because it was much favoured by actors, an occupation thought to have been pursued by Staunton. Still, there is no proof that Staunton was an actor, despite this and other evidence.

“Have the Westmorland parish registers for the spring of 1810 ever been searched for a record of his birth?”

Births were not routinely recorded in parish registers, although the baptism registers do sometimes include the date of birth.

I am not aware of any factual basis which supports Staunton’s having been born specifically in the spring of 1810. Since the 1861 and 1871 censuses both give Keswick as his place of birth, parish registers for the county of Cumberland need to be considered too.

In C.N. 1471, Ken Whyld noted that he and David Hooper had examined the Westmorland parish registers for every male child born of a father named William in the period March-September 1810.

This search was limited to the county of Westmorland. I am not aware that Whyld published details of this work, hence the sources used are not known. I suspect that the International Genealogical Index was used, in which baptism records are indexed.

In that part of the country at that time, it was common for baptisms to take place many months and sometimes even two or three years after birth. This can be seen clearly in the baptisms of Crosthwaite (which included the town of Keswick). It is insufficient to consider only baptisms during the year 1810; a more realistic approach would be one which covered baptisms between 1810 and 1813, and even then it may be a mistake to assume that Staunton was born in 1810.

The variant Stainton is common in both Cumberland and Westmorland, where Staunton and Stanton are uncommon. I myself have used the International Genealogical Index as a finding aid to studying Staunton, Stanton and Stainton baptisms in the counties of Cumberland and Westmorland, but not in any systematic way. I did not find any Staunton, Stanton or Stainton baptisms that struck me as likely candidates to be Howard Staunton, having paid closer attention to those parishes in the vicinity of Keswick. It cannot be ruled out that his baptism was under a name which is not recognizable as his.

It is worth noting in passing that transcripts of the parish registers of Crosthwaite, which included Keswick, were printed as far as the year 1812: Henry Brierley and Francis Haswell, The Registers of Crosthwaite, 1562-1812, four volumes, Penrith, 1928-31. These include full details of several illegitimate baptisms during 1810 and 1811 which I have tried, without success, to link with Staunton.

“If he was not the illegitimate son of the fifth Earl of Carlisle, how did the rumour arise that he was, given that the Earls of Carlisle were not really household names among the English aristocracy?”

That seems a fair point, although it does not constitute evidence that the fifth Earl of Carlisle was the father. According to Tim Harding in Eminent Victorian Chess Players (page 35), the rumour that Staunton was a natural son of the fifth Earl of Carlisle was first printed in Frederic Boase’s Modern English Biography in 1901. Actually, in Boase it is more a statement of fact, as the word “rumour” is not used: “natural son of 5 earl of Carlisle (1748-1825)”. It is not known where the information came from.

“The fifth Earl (1748-1825) would have been 62 when Staunton was born. According to the Dictionary of National Biography he was a playwright of some note and was Chancery guardian to Lord Byron, which might be of relevance, given Staunton’s literary pursuits. There is no mention of Howard Staunton in his will. Could Staunton possibly have been the illegitimate son not of the fifth Earl, but of one of his sons – for instance of his third son Lord Frederick Howard, who was born in 1785 and was killed at Waterloo? Has any research been done with their wills?”

It is not easy to disprove this. However, the will of (Major) Frederick Howard (National Archives, PROB 11/1578/439) is quite short and mentions no children or anyone who could be interpreted as Howard Staunton.

If one were to fancy a son of the fifth Earl of Carlisle to be Staunton’s father, a better choice would be the sixth Earl, George Howard (1773-1848). He was a prolific begetter of (legitimate) offspring during the periods both before and after 1810, though it is not known whether he also had any illegitimate children. In those days, his title was Viscount Morpeth, as he did not become Earl until 1825. He had close associations with Cumberland, having been MP for the county for a number of years. His will was also very short: he left everything to his son (National Archives, PROB 11/2106/138).

There is no evidence that the fifth Earl or either of his two sons mentioned above was Staunton’s father.’

12150. Enrique Sánchez of Walthamstow (C.N. 8683)

C.N. 8683 gave the following, from page 166 of CHESS, April 1940:

No further information about Enrique Sánchez was available, but now John Saunders (Kingston-upon-Thames, England) writes:

‘It would appear that Enrique Sánchez died in Walthamstow in April 1943, aged 17. I provide a number of images by way of corroboration:

(1) Death register record, showing the date and location of the registered death:

(2) Image taken from the Queens Road Cemetery (Walthamstow) Register. This shows that Enrique Sánchez, aged 17, was buried in the cemetery on 29 April 1943, with the purchaser of the plot being Percy Friedberg, of 238 Queens Road, Walthamstow, E17, who himself was buried in the same plot a year later, followed by Percy’s widow Beatrice in 1953:

Larger version

(3) A further image from the cemetery register indicates that Enrique Sánchez died at 238 Queens Road, which shows that he was lodging with Mr and Mrs Friedberg at the time of his death:

Larger version

Although I cannot prove definitively that the chessplaying Enrique Sánchez and the person who died in 1943 were one and the same, the circumstantial evidence seems overwhelming. Further research into Percy and Beatrice Friedberg shows that they were very active in socialist politics in London and took an interest in Spanish politics, so it is highly likely that they would have been ready to house a young refugee from the Spanish Civil War. That said, their September 1939 census record confirms that Enrique Sánchez was not staying with them at that time.

I did wonder whether the 1943 death might have been the result of enemy action but could find no references to this. Also, the house where he died continued to be occupied after Sánchez’s death, so it seems improbable.

I could find no specific newspaper references to Enrique Sánchez apart from two columns written by T.W. Sweby, in 1988 and 1992. We learn that the young man’s full name was Enrique Sánchez Villardo and that he had a sister, born circa 1930, who was also a refugee. A search for details about her has proved unsuccessful. Sweby makes no mention of Sánchez’s early death, so either he was unaware or else my whole thesis is incorrect.’

Luton News, 30 December 1988, page 21

Dunstable Gazette, 14 October 1992, page 29.

John Saunders is the founder and archivist of BritBase.info.

12151. Moscow, 1994

Tony Bronzin (Newark, DE, USA) writes regarding Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess Part Four: Kasparov vs Karpov 1988-2009 (London, 2010):

‘I wanted to read Kasparov’s version of the behind-the-scenes happenings of the 1994 Moscow Olympiad, delineated so well in Inside Chess and barely touched upon in Chess Life. Since Kasparov devoted multiple pages to why the 1983 Pasadena match with Korchnoi did not take place and 30 pages to his version of what happened after game 48 of the first match with Karpov, situations where at least a case can be made that he was wronged, surely Kasparov would have at least said something about the 1994 Olympiad and why Karpov was not allowed to field a second Russian team. Not a peep ...’

We are grateful to Yasser Seirawan (St Louis, MO, USA) for permission to show the coverage (nine pages) in the 1/1995 issue of Inside Chess.

12152. Levitzky v Marshall, Breslau, 1912

A number of webpages (the above is one example) have a photograph of Levitzky in play against Marshall, with or without a claim that it was taken during the ‘Gold Coins’ Game. What is known about the provenance of the picture?

12153. Would

Concerning recourse to ‘would’ in historical narratives, an addition to Chess and the English Language comes from page 178 of The Killing of Julia Wallace by John Gannon (Stroud, 2012):

12154. Testing annotations

From the front cover of the October 1966 issue of CHESS:

The unnamed author was P.H. Clarke.

Concerning the observation by C.H.O’D. Alexander – ‘It passes one of the best tests of a well-annotated book: the winner’s moves are quite frequently criticised’ – that full review is sought. The words were not in the chess column on page 39 of the Sunday Times Magazine, 7 May 1961, where Alexander compared the Clarke book favourably to Selected Games of Mikhail Tal by J. Hajtun (London, 1961).

See too Chess Annotations.

12155. Chess by wireless

Eduardo Bauzá Mercére (New York, NY, USA) has sent us the following, from page 7 of the Minneapolis Journal, 18 June 1902:

We note that the game was published on, for instance, page 6 of the Weekly Irish Times, 21 February 1903:

1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Bc5 3 Nh3 d6 4 Qf3 h6 5 Bc4 Nf6 6 d3 Bg4 7 Qg3 O-O 8 Nd5 Bxh3 9 Qxh3 Nxd5 10 Bxd5 c6 11 Bb3 Nd7 12 O-O Qf6 13 Qxd7 Resigns.

A report about the game from page 9 of the Champaign County Gazette, 21 January 1903 [sic – the page was misdated 21 January 1902]:

See also Chess and Radio.

12156. Capablanca’s praise for Lasker

Page 273 of our monograph on Capablanca gave his words about Emanuel Lasker on page 12 of the New York Times, 11 January 1936:

‘He beat me in our game in the Moscow tournament last year, and he did it fairly and squarely, with no excuses. He still is the most formidable player I know in a single game or a short match. Of course his age would be too great a handicap for him in a long match.’

A remark by Walter Penn Shipley in his obituary of Lasker in the Philadelphia Inquirer, 9 February 1941, page 18:

‘José R. Capablanca had the greatest respect for the man who surrendered to him the world’s crown, and as recently as 1937 stated that although Dr Lasker on account of his age was hardly capable of doing his best in a match, nevertheless for a single game was still the most dangerous opponent in the world.’

12157. Alekhine v Bogoljubow (C.N.s 5667, 11355, 11359 & 11760)

Grandmasters of Chess by Harold C. Schonberg (Philadelphia and New York, 1972), page 191

In C.N. 11760 a correspondent showed, from a photograph taken on another occasion, that the official was P. Matzdorff. Now, Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) notes the following from page 5 of Wiener Bilder, 20 October 1929:

At the end of the caption, the name is given as ‘Paul Mazdorf’.

12158. Movement (C.N. 3781)

The text of C.N. 3781:

From page 32 of CHESS, November 1948:

‘According to an announcement by Grob, Bogoljubow has invented a new game of “movement”, using chessmen and the chessboard. The whole game lasts at most 35 moves.’

Nothing further has yet been found.

12159. Abe Yanofsky (C.N. 3881)

The report on page 47 of CHESS, 14 October 1938 which was quoted in C.N. 3881:

From page 25 of the Daily Mirror, 28 September 1938:

Later the same day, the London Evening News (page 6) had this:

At that time, ‘Abie’ Yanofsky was a normal spelling of his name.

12160. Annotations repeated

Is documentary information available on any codes or conventions applicable to chess columnists of past generations? How was it known when syndication was involved? On what legal and ethical basis could annotations be reproduced verbatim with or without acknowledgement?

An example from our feature article on Gerald Abrahams:

The Observer, 25 May 1930, page 25 (columnist: Brian Harley)

There are minor textual differences, such as Alekhin/Alekhine in note (b).

The heading in the Northern Whig and Belfast Post column stated that all communications should be addressed to the ‘Chess Editor, Northern Whig, Belfast’. Readers thus had no information as to who the ‘I’ was in note (h), ‘One of the most startling moves I have ever seen’.

See too Copying.