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):
|