When contacting us by e-mail, correspondents are asked to include their name and full postal address and, when providing information, to quote exact book and magazine sources. The word ‘chess’ needs to appear in the subject-line or in the message itself.
To the range of reports on Reuben Fine’s absence from the 1948 world title match-tournament set out in Interregnum, Christian Sánchez (Rosario, Argentina) adds the following from page 123 of Chess World, 1 June 1948:
A number of items (most recently C.N. 10442) have mentioned A History of Chess by Jerzy Giżycki (London, 1972). The original Polish edition was Z szachami przez wieki i kraje (Warsaw, 1960):
John Roycroft (London) writes:
From the index (page 416):
Below is page 297 of volume one of the chess encyclopaedia which Giżycki co-wrote with Władysław Litmanowicz, Szachy od A do Z (Warsaw, 1986):
Afterword (4 June 2017): see, however, C.N. 10472 below.
A portrait from opposite page 152 of L’Echiquier, April 1929:
From pages 164-165:
The additional studies mentioned were published on pages 168-170 of the same issue.
Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) forwards a report from page 1 of the 5 March 1948 issue of the Daily Trojan, a USC student publication digitally available in the University of Southern California Historical Collection:
Mr Urcan also notes that the website mentioned in the previous item has the full text of Reuben Fine’s PhD dissertation, ‘A quantitative study of personality factors related to bronchial asthma in children’ (April 1948).
See too our feature article Reuben Fine, Chess and Psychology.
C.N. 10468 showed the statement on page 344 of The Spy Who Loved by Clare Mulley (London, 2012) that Jerzy Mikolaj Ordon Giżycki ‘ended his days writing books on chess’, but Michael Mark (London) notes that she appears to have mixed up two people with the same name. Indeed, the Jerzy Giżycki who married Krystyna Skarbek was about 20 years older than the well-known chess writer Jerzy Giżycki.
Robert Coffman (St Paul, MN, USA) takes up the reference in C.N. 3402 (see page 223 of Chess Facts and Fables and Chess Prodigies) to two young composers, brother and sister, who were named as Simon and Blanca [sic] Fleischman [sic]. On page 178 of the Scientific American Supplement, 19 January 1878 Sam Loyd wrote that ‘they have both developed a remarkable aptitude for chess’.
Our correspondent notes this composition on page 63 of The Globe, July 1875:
From the following page:
The solution was on page 80 of the August 1875 issue.
Page 34 (Section III) of the Buffalo Evening News, 22 March 1957
Pages 1 and 2 of the Buffalo Courier-Express, 2 September 1930
The Globe chess column mentioned by Mr Coffman is also in the Jack O’Keefe Project. Problems by Simon Fleischmann appeared in October 1875, November 1875, February 1876 and November 1876. The last of these included, on page 112, a reference to his sister:
A game previously unknown to us:
Bobby Fischer (simultaneous) – Robert W. Moore
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 e6 7 Qf3 Be7 8 O-O-O Nbd7 9 Rg1 O-O 10 g4 Qc7 11 Be3 b5 12 g5 Ne5 13 Qh3 Ne8 14 f4 Nc4 15 Bxc4 Qxc4 16 a3 g6
17 f5 exf5 18 exf5 Ng7 19 Qf3 Bxf5 20 Nd5 Rae8 21 Nf6+ Bxf6 22 gxf6 Be4 23 Qf2 Nf5 24 Nxf5 Bxf5 25 Bh6 Re2 26 Qxf5 Qa2 27 White resigns.
Source: Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA), 9 July 1961, page 6E (syndicated column by G. Koltanowski).
The 50-board display is discussed, with Robert W. Moore named as one of the three winners, on pages 66-67 of The Unknown Bobby Fischer by J. Donaldson and E. Tangborn (Seattle, 1999).
An older appearance of the Al Horowitz remark about 40 good moves comes from his column on page 34 of the Saturday Review, 31 October 1959:
The full column was reproduced on pages 41-42 of Horowitz’s book All About Chess (New York, 1971).
Eduardo Bauzá Mercére (New York, NY, USA) sends two games published by Herman Steiner on page 7 of the second part of the Los Angeles Times, 20 October 1940. Both were played in the 1928 International Team Tournament.
Herman Steiner (USA) – Louis
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3 c4 d5 4 Nc3 Nbd7 5 Bg5 Be7 6 e3 O-O 7 Rc1 a6 8 cxd5 exd5 9 Bd3 Re8 10 O-O c6 11 h3 Bd6 12 Ne2 Nf8 13 Qc2 Bd7 14 Bf4 Bxf4 15 Nxf4 Ne4 16 Ne5 f6 17 Nxd7 Qxd7 18 Kh2 Qc7 19 g3 Rad8 20 b4 Qf7 21 a4 g5 22 Ng2 f5 23 f3 Nd6 24 Rce1 Re6 25 e4 f4 26 gxf4 gxf4 27 e5 Nc4 28 Bf5 Ng6 29 Rg1 Kh8 30 Bxe6 Qxe6 31 Qf2 Rf8 32 Nh4 Ne3 33 Nxg6+ hxg6 34 Qh4+ Kg7 35 b5 axb5 36 axb5 Nc2
37 Rxg6+ Kxg6 38 Rg1+ Kf7 39 Qh7+ Ke8 40 Qxc2 c5 41 dxc5 Qxe5 42 Rg2 Kd8 43 c6 Rh8 44 Qg6 bxc6 45 bxc6 Resigns.
Jacob Erhard Wilhjelm Gemzøe (Denmark) – Herman
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 d6 7 c3 b5 8 Bc2 Bg4 9 h3 Bxf3 10 Qxf3 O-O 11 d3 Re8 12 Nd2 Bf8 13 Nf1 Ne7 14 g4 Ng6 15 Bb3 h6 16 Qg3 Qd7 17 Nh2 c5 18 h4 Be7 19 h5 Nf8 20 f3 d5 21 Bc2 Bd6 22 Kh1 Ne6 23 Rg1 d4 24 Qh4 Nh7 25 Qf2 Nhg5 26 Qg2
26...c4 27 Rd1 Rac8 28 dxc4 bxc4 29 Bd2 d3 30 Bb1 Nc5 31 b3 Nge6 32 Qf1 Be7 33 Be3 Red8 34 bxc4 Bg5 35 Bxg5 hxg5 36 a3 Nf4 37 Ra2 Qa4 38 Qe1 Ne2 39 Nf1 Nxc3 40 Rad2 Nxd1 41 Rxd1 Qxa3 42 Ne3 Rb8 43 Nd5 Rb2 44 Qf1 d2 45 Ne7+ Kh7 46 h6 g6 47 Kg2 Rdb8 48 Qh1 Ne6 49 Nd5 Qb3 50 Nf6+ Kh8 51 White resigns.
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, 14 November 1922, page 17.
From page 70 of Chess Review, March 1952:
The players in the foreground are Samuel Reshevsky and Roy T. Black, the occasion being specified as a simultaneous display by the former at the Queen City Chess Club in Buffalo, NY. Roy T. Black’s game was the last to finish. A news item on page 67 stated that ‘34 players went down in defeat, while two [including Roy T. Black] held Reshevsky at bay to halve the points’.
Two local newspapers had slightly different information:
Buffalo Courier-Express, 14 February 1952, page 19
Buffalo Evening News, 14 February 1952, page 52
Both Reshevsky and Black had a win against Capablanca. At the end of a postcard dated 15 September 1988 Reshevsky reminded us of his record against the Cuban:
Roy T. Black’s victory over Capablanca was discussed in C.N. 6239.
Source: page 13 of “Among These Mates” by Chielamangus (Sydney, 1939).
The remark in C.N. 10475 about winning a won game reminds us of an excellent passage on pages 2-3 of Chess Springbok by Wolfgang Heidenfeld (Cape Town, 1955), an annotated collection of 25 games:
In the penultimate paragraph of the Introduction to Chess Springbok (page 3) Wolfgang Heidenfeld wrote that the book aimed to be ‘a chatty and amusing diary of failure’. Some gleanings:
The four pages of plates include this photograph:
The odds game below is from page 54 of the March 1921 American Chess Bulletin:
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Nc3 c6 4 d4 b5 5 Bb3 b4 6 dxe5 bxc3 7 exf6 Qxf6 8 bxc3 Qxc3+ 9 Bd2 Qe5 10 O-O Be7 11 Qf3 O-O 12 Bc3 Qg5 13 Qe2 Bb7 14 Rad1 d5 15 f4 Bc5+ 16 Kh1 Qe7
17 Qg4 f6 18 exd5 cxd5 19 Rxd5 Kh8 20 Rd3 Ba6 21 Rh3 g6 22 Re1 Qg7 23 Bd5 Bb7 24 Bxb7 Qxb7 25 Qxg6 Qg7 26 Bxf6 Rxf6 27 Re8+ Bf8 28 Rxh7+ Qxh7 29 Qxf6+ Qg7 30 Rxf8+ Kh7 31 Rf7 Resigns.
From page 9 of the Pall Mall Gazette, 27 May 1902:
This interview by Rhoda A. Bowles was reproduced by her on pages 344-346 of the August 1902 BCM. A photograph of her with Pillsbury’s wife is in C.N. 9458.
From the recent book W.H.K. Pollock. A Chess Biography with 523 Games by Olimpiu G. Urcan and John S. Hilbert (C.N. 10459) we note some matters of relevance to C.N. items:
Chigorin’s height has been discussed in C.N.s 1106, 7879 and 9718. A footnote on page 127 of the book has a quotation from the Brooklyn Standard-Union, 2 April 1892:
This may be compared with the description on page 186, cited from the October 1895 BCM:
From an annotation by Pollock in 1883 (page 209):
Page 413 has an 1894 game annotation by Pollock which reads:
This ‘rule’ has been discussed in C.N.s 7837, 7841, 8738, 8890, 9303, 9309 and 10087.
An 1889 note by Pollock on page 333:
The quote will be added to The Soul of Chess.
Concerning the ‘Chigorin Variation’ 1 e4 e6 2 Qe2, page 395 of the book gives the game Pollock v Halpern, Staten Island, August 1893, with this note after White’s second move:
Page 450 quotes from an article by Pollock in the Christmas 1893 issue of the BCM:
Page 473 has a book review by Pollock in the Baltimore Sunday News, 23 September 1893 which provides an addition to Chessy Words:
Eduardo Bauzá Mercére (New York, NY, USA) draws attention to a game on page 110 of La Stratégie, 18 April 1905:
Frank James Marshall (simultaneous) – Count Jean de
1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 Nf3 Nc6 4 Bc4 e6 5 Nxd4 d5 6 exd5 exd5 7 Bb5 Bd7 8 O-O Bc5 9 Re1+ Nge7 10 Nxc6 bxc6 11 Bd3 O-O 12 Qh5 Ng6 13 Nc3 f5 14 Bg5 Qb6 15 Be3 d4 16 Na4
16...dxe3 17 Nxb6 exf2+ 18 Kh1 fxe1(Q)+ 19 Rxe1 axb6 20 h3 Nf4 21 Bc4+ Kh8 22 Qg5 Nd5 23 a3 h6 24 Qg6 Rf6 25 Qg3 f4 26 Qf3 Raf8 27 Bxd5 cxd5 28 Qxd5 Bc6 29 Qc4 f3 30 gxf3 Rxf3 31 Kh2 Rf2+ 32 Kg3 Rg2+ 33 Kh4 Bf2+ 34 Kh5 Rf5 mate.
We add a report on the display from page 89 of the 17 March 1905 issue of La Stratégie:
From page 8 of All About Chess by I.A. Horowitz (New York, 1971):
I. Kashdan’s victory over C.H.O’D. Alexander (Stockholm, 12 August 1937): 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O d6 6 Bxc6+ bxc6 7 d4 Nd7 8 b3 Be7 9 Bb2 f6 10 Nh4 g6 11 Qe2 f5 12 dxe5 Bxh4 13 e6 Nf6 14 Qc4 c5 15 e5 Ng4 16 Qd5 Rb8 17 exd6 Bb7 18 d7+ Kf8 19 Qc4 Bf6 20 Bxf6 Nxf6 21 Qxc5+ Kg7 22 Nc3 Ng8 23 Rad1 h6 24 Rfe1 Ne7 25 Qe5+ Kh7 26 Na4 Rf8 27 f4 Rg8 28 Nc5 g5 29 Nxb7 Rxb7 30 c4 gxf4 31 Qxf4 Rg6 32 Qh4 Rb8 33 Re5 Qf8 34 Qf2 Rd8 35 Qc5 c6 36 Rf1 Qg7 37 Re2 Rg8 38 g3 Rxg3+ 39 Kh1 Rg6 40 Qb6 Rxe6 41 Rg1 Rxe2 42 Rxg7+ Rxg7 43 h4 Re1+ 44 Kh2 Re2+ 45 Kh3 f4 46 White resigns.
Alexander annotated the game on pages 567-569 of the November 1937 BCM. See too pages 41-44 of The Lost Olympiad Stockholm 1937 by W.H. Cozens (St Leonards on Sea, 1985).
No move in the game corresponds to Horowitz’s reference to a blunder losing a piece. As regards his assertion about the best-score prize offered by Turover, below is a paragraph from page 235 of the October 1937 Chess Review:
C.N. 2940 (see pages 261-262 of Chess Facts and Fables) quoted from this item on page 208 of Checkmate, December 1901:
We note that the text is barely different from what appeared on page 19 of the Chicago Tribune, 3 November 1901:
Details about the game, including the full score, are still sought. C.N. 2910 mentioned that the finish had been published in the Literary Digest, 25 November 1899.
From an article by Tartakower, ‘Secrets of San Remo, 1930’, on pages 421-424 of CHESS, 20 August 1939:
Concerning that game, see The Rubinstein Trap. With regard to Tartakower’s comments about the standings, it should be noted that before the 14th round Alekhine led with 12 points, followed by Nimzowitsch and Rubinstein (9 points). Alekhine won the tournament by a 3½-point margin.
A news item on page 8 of section two of the Pittsburgh Sunday Post, 19 November 1922:
Thomas Niessen (Aachen, Germany) has found three more Lasker games:
Happich – Emanuel Lasker (simultaneous)
1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 f4 d5 4 fxe5 Nxe4 5 Qf3 Nxc3 6 bxc3 Nc6 7 d4 Be7 8 Bf4 O-O 9 Bd3 Be6 10 Ne2 Qd7 11 O-O f5 12 Qg3 Kh8 13 Bg5 h6 14 Bxe7 Nxe7 15 Nf4 c5 16 Nh5 Rf7 17 Rf2 c4 18 Be2 Rg8 19 Qe3 Rgf8 20 Nf4 g5 21 Nxe6 Qxe6 22 Bh5 Rg7 23 Raf1 Rfg8 24 g4 f4 25 Qc1 Ng6 26 Qa3 a6 27 Rb1 Nh4 28 Qc5
28...Rc8 29 Rb6 Rxc5 30 Rxe6 Rc6 31 Rxc6 bxc6 32 e6 Re7 33 Bf7 Kg7 34 Re2 Kf6 35 White resigns.
Source: Aachener Anzeiger – Politisches Tageblatt, 30 November 1913 (evening edition).
Vopel – Emanuel Lasker (simultaneous)
1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 Nf3 e5 4 Bc4 Nc6 5 O-O d6 6 Ng5 Nh6 7 f4 f6 8 Nf3 Nf7 9 c3 dxc3 10 Nxc3 Be7 11 Kh1 O-O 12 f5 Bd7 13 Nh4 Rc8 14 Qh5 Nd4 15 Bd5 Bc6
16 Ng6 Bxd5 17 Nxf8 Bc4 18 Ne6 Nxe6 19 fxe6 Bxe6 Drawn.
Source: Aachener Anzeiger – Politisches Tageblatt, 14 February 1925 (midday edition).
Emanuel Lasker (simultaneous) – Dreyfus
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 dxc6 5 Nc3 Bg4 6 h3 Bxf3 7 Qxf3 Bc5 8 d3 Qf6 9 Be3 Qxf3 10 gxf3 Bd6 11 Ne2 c5 12 f4 f6 13 fxe5 fxe5 14 Rg1 g6
15 f4 b6 16 O-O-O O-O-O 17 Rdf1 Nf6 18 fxe5 Bxe5 19 Bg5 Rd6 20 Bf4 Bxf4+ 21 Nxf4 Nd7 22 Nd5 c6 23 Ne3 Rf6 24 Ng4 Rxf1+ 25 Rxf1 Rf8 26 Rxf8+ Nxf8 Drawn.
Source: Aachener Anzeiger – Politisches Tageblatt, 21 February 1925 (midday edition).
From John Townsend (Wokingham, England):
Rod Edwards (Victoria, BC, Canada) notes this item on page 2 of the Australasian Supplement, 21 February 1885:
The citation with ‘chesscat’ will be added to Chessy Words. Concerning another term discussed above, ‘cook’, see C.N.s 4341 and 6460.
Our correspondent found the ‘Chess Words’ column on the Trove website of the National Library of Australia. Its earlier publication in Land and Water will be appreciated.
The only substantial Land and Water material in our collection is a 75-page Victorian scrapbook with the columns from 17 May to 15 November 1873 and a four-page handwritten index. The first page:
A detailed description of the column was published by ‘J.G.C.’ on pages 365-366 of the October 1885 BCM:
C.N. 7076 (see too Chess and Hollywood) had a reference to Helmut Dantine (1918-82) from page 26 of the October 1945 Chess Review:
Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) provides some further material on the actor:
1) On page 36 of Hollywood, January 1943, Dorothy Haas wrote about Dantine:
The accompanying photograph:
Bogart and Dantine in Casablanca:
2) From the Long Beach Independent, 4 July 1943, page 16:
3) Modern Screen, June 1944, page 38 had this:
Dantine’s role in Passage to Marseille was featured on page 56 of the same issue of Modern Screen, with this photograph:
From page 91 (text by Jack Carson):
4) A photograph of Dantine and Bogart at the chessboard, with George Tobias and Philip Dorn, was on page 12 of the 14 January 1944 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune. As shown below, it also appeared on page 393 of Chess Life & Review, July 1979:
5) From the Olean Times Herald, 27 December 1949, page 7 (and in other newspapers in late December 1949):
Our latest feature article is The Single Bishop Mate.
Some extracts from ‘Reflections after Reykjavik’ by Gerald Abrahams on pages 84-90 of Encounter, March 1973:
The use by many people of the term “Art” in application to chess is explained by the circumstances that chess is not an “exact Science”, as mathematics and astronomy are exact. (That chess is “not mathematical” I hold to be platitude.) Chess is comparable to the inexact empirical sciences (sometimes called “arts” in the sense of crafts), e.g. engineering, clinical medicine, some fields of chemistry, etc. Because chess is inexact – because to the vision of the player (and vision in his faculty) the board is not always translucent, is more usually opaque, concealing fields of chance – there is scope for judgment. There is also scope for style and there is scope for varieties of excellence. These differences enhance the impression of conflict between players. But as chess approaches asymptotically its scientific ideal, opponents (in the sense of “belligerents”) become unimportant. It is as if two engineers were tunnelling through an Alp. Each is opposed only by the thickness of the mountain and the thinness of his tools. So the chessplayer has no opposition other than the inherent difficulties of the subject matter and the limitations of his own mind. The opponent’s moves are relevant as possibilities which he must anticipate and control, and frequently fails to anticipate and control. The opponent embodies the task. But the opponent is not an ordinary adversary. In chess there is no adversary comparable to the bull or a boxer in a ring, to a batsman, a bowler, a centre-forward or a goal-keeper. Two persons are operating on the same board: each playing his private game against himself. As each one loses, he blames not the other, but himself. Not protagonist and antagonist here, but (a semantically unique case) two protagonists, each accidentally helping to constitute a test for the mental adequacy of the other.
So it is in my theory. As to practice, I only know one great player who behaved as if chess was completely “objective”. That was Akiva Rubinstein – a talmudist turned chessplayer. He was been called the “Spinoza of Chess”. But if you told this to the average super grandmaster (who has no metaphysics in his mind or music in his soul) he would ask “What tournaments did Spinoza win?” ...’
The famous Kt-R4 in that game may have seemed to Spassky to be a gamble; but there was profound and original thought involved in it. One is reminded of that fact that the immortal attack with which Fischer, playing Black, defeated Donald Byrne nearly 20 years ago, commenced with a sacrificial Kt-R5. If Fischer has a style, under his versatility, it seems to be characterized by clever knight play, and there was plenty in this match. In this respect he resembles Alekhine rather than Capablanca ...
In this game Fischer gave the friendly critic many reasons for admiration. First, he showed that chess strategy can be dynamic: not only knowing what to do when there is nothing to do; but a line of thought in which the tactics and the shaping of the game are integrated in purposeful play, involving a clear vision of long and subtle variations. This is great chess.’
There are, roughly, two ways of trying to win at chess. The tradition of Morphy, Steinitz, Capablanca and Rubinstein is to develop well and subtly, seizing very slight initiatives, converting them to advantages and the advantages into victory. Like “unheard melodies”, the Sturm und Drang are in the mind only. The other method, the method of Lasker and Alekhine, is to unbalance the game, bringing about skirmishes and hard fighting. There the great combinations are more frequently visible.’
Even below the level of ideal chess, good players play the board. A good player will not speak of “laying a trap” for an opponent. He makes a move to which he sees that his opponent cannot make the obvious reply on account of some quite hard-to-see possibility. But he will never make the second best move merely because it gives an opponent an easy chance of error. Good players always make the move that they think to be the best, and they assume that an opponent will not make mistakes.’
My own theory is that Jews, through evolutionary processes, have become good at languages. To be good at languages it is desirable to reach maturity early, and grasp the accidence and syntax and important vocabulary at an early age, so that while the mind is still young the student can express himself fluently and with mastery.
Among languages I include mathematics, music and chess. Different inter se, these systems are only grasped creatively by those who early grasp the technique. The particular Jewish control of chess is one instance of this process realized.
As for Fischer’s control of chess, let it simply be said that from now onwards the phrase Grand Master is meaningless.’
A new feature article ‘From Former Times (Chess)’ collates C.N.s 10163, 10419 and 10479, together with this cartoon from page 187 of the September 1939 Chess Review:
Mention of Casablanca in the item on Helmut Dantine (C.N. 10495) prompts Edward Hamelrath (Dresden, Germany) to point out a reference to Conrad Veidt on page 379 of the Carlsbad, 1929 tournament book:
Conrad Veidt, Hollywood, February 1943, page 32
Chess in the Movies by Bob Basalla (C.N. 3986) mentions in connection with Veidt A Man’s Past (1927), Le joueur d’échecs (1938) and The Thief of Bagdad (1940).
In Le joueur d’échecs Veidt played the role of von Kempelen. Below are two photographs from the Sketch, 22 June 1938, page 599:
The photograph of participants in New York, 1915 discussed in a feature article was published on page 752 of the 8 May 1915 issue of Motography:
From page 808 of the 15 May 1915 edition:
See too Chess Masters on Film.
Pages 17-19 of Chess Strategy and Tactics by Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev (New York, 1933) gave Pillsbury v Tarrasch, Vienna, 1898, introduced as follows:
The term was repeated after 21...f6:
Page 190 of Chernev’s The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played (New York, 1965) had this position and note:
The heading to the game, on page 189:
The concluding note to Rubinstein v Salwe, Łódź, 1908 on page 28 of Chernev’s The Golden Dozen (Oxford, 1976):
An early occurrence of the ‘Bind’ term is on page 125 of the June 1909 American Chess Bulletin, in a note to 16...Qa5 in the eighth match-game between Capablanca and Marshall:
Position after 16 Nc3-a4
A feature on the inside front cover of the April 1958 Chess Review had a diagram after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 (Showalter v Pillsbury, eighth match-game, 1897) with a note which began:
On page 220 of the October 1965 Chess Life John W. Collins used ‘Pillsbury’s Bind’ to describe 4 Bg5 after 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 d5, but the usual term for an early Bg5 in the Queen’s Gambit Declined is the ‘Pillsbury Attack’. See, for instance, pages 78 and 93 of Dynamic Chess by R.N. Coles (London, 1956). A curiosity is that on page 35 of the Hastings, 1895 tournament book Gunsberg wrote regarding the Pillsbury v Tarrasch game, which began 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5:
A related term is ‘the Pillsbury set position’. From page 107 of the January 1908 Chess Amateur, in an openings article by William Cook:
Emanuel Lasker’s view of the Immortal Game:
The game was then given with detailed notes.
Source: pages 18-20 of the Chess Player’s Scrap Book, February 1907. The periodical, edited by Lasker, was discontinued later that year, after issue 6-7.
Page 68 of the May 1907 issue of the Chess Player’s Scrap Book gave the bare score of Morphy v the Duke and Count with the following introduction by Lasker:
Lasker’s butcher/artist remark has often been quoted sourcelessly (e.g. in P.W. Sergeant’s first monograph on Morphy) with reference to 8 Bxf7+, and not also 8 Qxb7.
A game played at the odds of pawn and two moves (remove Black’s f-pawn):
1 e4 ... 2 d4 c5 3 Qh5+ g6 4 Qxc5 Nc6 5 d5 e6 6 d6 b6 7 Qg5 Qxg5 8 Bxg5 Bxd6 9 Nf3 h6 10 Bd2 Nf6 11 Bd3 e5 12 Nc3 Nb4 13 a3 Nxd3+ 14 cxd3 Ba6 15 Ke2 Bc7 16 Rac1 Rc8 17 b4 Ke7 18 b5 Bb7 19 Nd1 d5 20 Bb4+ Ke6 21 Nd2 dxe4 22 dxe4 Nxe4 23 f3 Nxd2 24 Bxd2 Bd6 25 Ne3 Bxa3 26 Ra1 Bc5 27 Rxa7 Rh7 28 Ra2 Rd7 29 Rc1 e4 30 f4 h5 31 h3 Rd3 32 g4 hxg4 33 hxg4 Rh8 34 f5+ gxf5 35 gxf5+ Kf6 36 Rf1 Rh2+ 37 Rf2 Rxf2+ 38 Kxf2 Bc8 39 Ke2 Bxf5 40 Ra4 Bg6 41 Ra2 Bh5+ 42 Kf2 Be8 43 Rb2 Bd4 44 White resigns.
With no particulars other than the players’ names (Watts v De Vere) the game was on page 70 of the Chess Player’s Scrap Book, May 1907 with this introduction by Lasker:
The game is on page 110 of the monograph on Cecil De Vere, “The English Morphy?” by Owen Hindle and Bob Jones (Exmouth, 2001), White being identified as J.J. Watts and the occasion specified as ‘City of London Chess Club – 1871. Handicap Tournament’.
Another game in that book, De Vere’s short win over Minchin (‘Westminster Chess Club, 8 November 1871’ – see page 113), was given by Lasker on page 33 of the Chess Player’s Scrap Book, March 1907 without notes but with this introduction:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 O-O Nxe4 5 Re1 Nd6 6 Nxe5 Be7 7 Nc3 O-O 8 d4 Bf6 9 Bd3 h6 10 Nd5 Ne8 11 Qg4 d6 12 Qe4 g6 13 Nxf7 Rxf7 14 Qxg6+ Kf8 15 Bxh6+ Bg7 16 Qh7 Ne7 17 Qh8+ Ng8 18 Bh7 Resigns.
Page 74 of the Chess Player’s Scrap Book, May 1907:
We have prepared a feature article, The Immortal Chess Problem, on Konrad Bayer’s composition.
Copyright: Edward Winter. All rights reserved.