ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. CHESS. H. M. (Sydenham).-We shall publish your sui-mate next month, if it is not printed elsewhere in the interval. Have L. H. L. (Penge).-Please re-examine your problem. you not overlooked the following attack:-1 R takes Q; I B takes R; 2 Kt to B 8 ch; 2 K to R sq; 3 Q to R 7 ch; 3 B takes Q; 4 Kt to Kt 6 double check and mate. V. GORGIAS.-Many thanks for the problems. It gives us sincere pleasure to "assist" at any compliment to Mr. Healey and Mr. Moore, but the other name is unknown to us. R. H. D. R. (Bayswater).—Castling is certainly permissible in a problem. It is another question whether any trouble should be wasted upon such a shallow artifice. When Herr Kling had recourse to it, the idea was new, or at least not hackneyed, and was therefore successful, but unless you can "whip" his "Ambuscade," we recommend you to avoid it altogether. R. W. J. (Lancaster).-We still have grave doubts about the accuracy of the problem. Please look at the following line of play; i Kt to Q Kt 3; Black's best answer appears to be 1 Q to Kt 7, then follows 3 Q takes Q, and we believe there is a mate in two more moves. T. L. (Dublin).-After mature consideration, we can see no utility in a controversy about the dummy Pawn. So far as we know, it was first suggested in this country in 1851, in a twopenny publication called the Chess Player, and was illustrated by an absurd problem, aptly enough baptised by the composer "Revolutionary." The problem, which in 1851 passed current for a tolerable joke, was in 1862 "adduced" as a serious argument, and appears to have convinced some worthy people that it embodied an excellent principle. To J. M. R., who enquires, "Could not a game be invented to show the usefulness of the regulation?" we answer, yes; and more, the players might be invented also. The wonder is, that the double event has not been "managed" long ago. PUZZLED.-Hear, oh Rusticus, this is what Puzzled says-"In this position, White: K at Q Kt sq, Q at K B 7, P at Q Kt 2; Black: K at K R 2, Q at Q Kt sq, B at K Kt 2; my opponent took my Pawn with his Queen, giving, as he said, mate, but I took his Q as his B could not move, in consequence of discovered check. Who wins?" How can we tell? It is all your doing, Rusticus, Civis and Suburban, and you really must settle it. H. MEYER.Thanks for the problem, it shall be examined. R. W. J. and J. N. K.-We shall examine the defence you point out in No. 333. F. W. L.-Thanks for the problems. Number 1 is good, and we believe correct; but in number 2, White on the second move, instead of offering the sacrifice of Rook, may play 2 K to Q 6, and mate next move. M. Barbier intends to deal with the whole subject as speedily as his other and more serious occupa. tions will permit. J. N. K.-In number 2, if Black play, B to Q B 5, how is the mate accomplished? Number 6 can be solved by IQ to QR sq, instead of 1 B to K B 8. A. T. (Newport).-You have not numbered your problems, so we can only hope you will be able to comprehend which we refer to by the following solution : 1. R to Q R 7 2. Kt to Q 3 3. B takes P 4. K to R 3 5. P to B 4 mate 1. P to Q 4 2. P takes Kt best 3. P moves 4. P moves J. A. M. (Fakenham).-Accept our best thanks for the problems. We are very pleased to hear from you again. C. W. M. D.-In Number 41, if, after 1 Kt takes K B P, Black plays 1 R to B 7, we see no mate in two moves; and number 28 admits of a solution commencing 1 R takes R. W. R. M. GRANT.--Please send us number 1, with the position described as (W K for White King, &c.), we have lost all confidence in the adhesive pieces after our recent experience. J. M. (Brighton).-Look at number 2 again. Suppose Black plays 1 K to R 7, and White's answer is 2 Kt to K B 4; Black can play 2 R takes R, and then-? H. J. C. ANDREWS.-We are much obliged for your courteous letter. It is consolatory to know that some of our readers understand the difficulty attending the examination of problems. D. O. WOLLASTON JUN. (Ipswich).-Thanks for the problem, if found correct it shall be inserted. W. COATES (Cheltenham).-The problem is good, and by no means a "soft shell." We mistook you for a gentleman bearing the same name to whom we lent the book in question some years ago. W. N. (St. Neot's).-It is impossible for any editor to guarantee the accuracy of problems, the utmost he can do is to bestow upon each a careful examination. Mr. Andrews, a composer of great experience, informs us that he has known a position to be well sifted by four or more of the best examiners in England, and yet, after publication, a flaw has been discovered. We are not at all offended at your remarks, and freely sympathise with you in your natural vexation, nevertheless, we have a little commiseration for our own. J. H. F. (Newcastle). Thanks for the problem, and the games. Is it the price of coal that makes the """. canny town" so dull. Why don't you W. M.? The W stands for worry, the M for-a conundrum. WHIST. D. AND F. (Playing out of turn).-"A" plays a card out of turn, which card is covered by "B." Is B's card an exposed one, and liable to be called? To decide a bet of £100.-Ans. Law 63 says, "If any player lead out of turn, and the second or the second and third have played to the false lead, their cards, on discovery of the mistake, are taken back; there is no penalty against any one excepting the original offender." We respectfully protest against this kind of betting. A new hat is quite sufficient for folly of this kind. S. S. M. (The trump card).—The dealer leaves the turn-up card on the table until five tricks have been played. Can the adversaries call it ?-Ans. Certainly; it is not usual to call the trump card if it is not taken up immediately it ought to be taken up; but speaking strictly, it could be called if not taken up after the first trick is turned and quitted. B. (Leads).-With 10, 9, 8 and two others, the orthodox lead is the 10. If you think the lead wrong, we shall be glad to publish your argument on the subject. We are not of the number that believe the established leads are in all respects most conducive to trick making, and we see no reason why an attempt should not be made to improve upon the established practice. X. (Fresh cut or misdeal).--The cards are cut. In taking up the packs I join the two packs, but leave one card on the table, this card would have been the middle, not the bottom card. I claim a fresh cut; my adversaries claim that it is a misdeal. Am I entitled to a new cut or not?-Ans. We think you cannot make your adversary cut a second time. We do not think that when you left a card on the table it could be said that there was any confusion in the cutting, and unless you can make out that what you did amounted to confusion in the cutting it is a misdeal. SUBSCRIBER (Whist Literature).-The only work J. C. acknowledged to have written, is the Treatise accompaning the Club Code, edited by Baldwin, and published by Harrison, Pall Mall. Our publisher will send it to you, by post, for 3s 6d. G. R. (Dummy).-When you play dummy, dummy deals first. K.-Many thanks for the double dummy game, but Mr. F. H. Lewis reports that, except against the most wretched play, the game is not saveable. R. C. (Giving away a seat at Whist).-There is no such thing as giving a seat, or lending a seat, sanctioned by law or by courtesy, except when there are seven persons only in the room. Thus if there be a full table, and a seventh man enters, rather than let him sit out the whole evening one or other of the players may give the seventh an occasional rubber; also, when there are seven persons, and one of the six in the table chooses to give up his place to the seventh (having the next right to enter); but if there are eight persons in the room, no one of the six in the table has any right to lend his seat to the eighth comer without first offering the scat to number seven. It is not the man in the table that has anything to give away or lend. He can cease to play, but as soon as he has done so, his title is at an end, and the right becomes vested in number seven, and, as we said in our last number, to give away what belongs to another, without that other's consent, can never be right. CAPTAIN D. (Imperfect Cards, Intermediate deal).-The cards are dealt, and the trump card does not come to the dealer. The other pack is cut, and I say "deal under protest." The cards of the first pack are counted, and it is believed that they are right, and thereupon the trump card is turned, and the hand is played out, and we lose three by cards. It is now my deal. I deal, and it is then found that there were only 51 cards in our pack, and I claim to annul the last hand, on the ground that the first pack is imperfect, and we have therefore lost our deal, and I protested against the second deal.—Ans. The played hand must stand. There is no such thing as a protest at Whist, except as to the deal. If the first pack had been found imperfect before the second deal was completed, the protest would be good. The dealer could not turn up the trump card until the counting was finished, but the protest can have no effect after the new hand has begun to be played. You lose your deal from careless counting. I LOUDON (Calling for new cards).-A player calls for new cards. It is my deal. My adversary presents the cards to me unopened, and asks me to choose the pack I will have. decline to do so, until the cards are first opened, and shuffled. Please explain the law and practice.-Ans. It seems to us that your adversary acted according to the laws and customs of the Whist table. You have the choice, and having the choice you are bound to exercise your right, and elect to take one of the packs. We know of no right on your part to have the cards first shuffled. The ordinary course is, after the election, for your adversary to make your pack, and your partner should make the adversary's pack. TRUMPS, Arlington, Royal Robber, Jim Lind and others have pointed out that Problem No. 85, by Mr. F. H. Lewis, is unsound if A leads Clubs. DUMMY WHIST. (What amounts to leading).- Dummy's partner touches a card, and draws it to him. It is not Dummy's turn to play. Before leaving hold of the card I claim that Dummy has led out of turn. Is this so? A bet of 5 depends on the result.-Ans. We think the card is not played until the hand leaves the card. THE WEST END CLUB, Boston, U.S. (Seeing last trick).— Your decision is required on the following point at Whist. Four rounds have been played, and all the tricks piled; the player asks to see the last trick, and then looks at the one before; claiming that he can see eight cards. He claims that a trick is not quitted till the leader has played his card; is he right or wrong?-Ans. After the three tricks were turned and quitted, no player could see more than the last trick so turned and quitted. The word quitted has nothing to do with the act of playing again. simply means to take away the hand after turning the trick. It is a common error to suppose that a player can see eight cards at any time. He can only do so by counting the four cards of the current trick before it is turned and quitted. Until that is accomplished he can see the previous trick, and thus see eight cards. To quit C. W. W. (U.S. Consulate). (Misdeal).—Is it a misdeal at Whist when the "turn up" falls upon the pile a little to the right of the dealer, instead of coming directly in front of him; though no mistake has been made, save that in placing the cards the piles were moved diagonally upon the table, instead of directly in front of each player.-Ans. The case sent is not clear. We presume our correspondent means that the trump card fell face downwards on one of the packs. If so it is a misdeal. Law 44, sub-section 2, says, "Should the dealer place the last (i.e. the trump) card face downwards on his own, or any other pack, it is a misdeal." If, on the contrary, the trump card is placed face upwards on either of the racks, it is no misdeal. J. R. (Play of the turn-up card).-Score love all. A deals, turning up King of Spades, and having Ace and three others of the suit in his hand (the Ace, King, 5 trumps); B, his partner, on getting in (by winning first or second trick), at once led a small trump. A (who had turned up the King), won the trick with his Ace, and returned a small trump. Was this correct play, or should he have returned the King?Ans. We should say that the best rule is to assume that your partner knows what he is about; that he has led trumps with reason, and because he is justified in so playing, and on these assumptions there can be but one line of play, viz., to return the King. THATCHED HOUSE CLUB. (End game).—I shall be much obliged if you will favour Z with your opinion on the following point in Whist. Towards the end of a game, when there were four cards left in each hand, I had the lead, and my hand consisted of the last trump (trumps being | Clubs), the Ace and Deuce of Hearts and a losing Spade, the winning Spade being in my left hand, and a winning Diamond in my right hand adversary's hand. We wanted three tricks to make the game. Hearts had not yet been touched, though some had been discarded. The last trump was marked in my hand. I led the small Heart. My partner having King, | Knave, and two others, finessed the Knave, which was taken by the Queen. My trump was forced out by a winning Diamond ; a Heart was then led, on which I had to put my Ace, and led the losing Spade, and we did not win the game. Of course, I think there can be no doubt my partner was wrong to finesse in Hearts at that stage of the game; but the question is, whether I was right to lead the small Heart. It appears to me that it was two to one, or nearly so, in favour of doing so; because if he has the King he makes it, or if he has the Queen, and the King is to his right, he makes the Queen; whereas, if I play out the Ace, and then a small one, the King is put down at once by the second player, if he has it, and then the winning Spade, which is in his hand. The chances in regard to leading the small Diamond first therefore appear to be as follows :—1. If my partner has the King, and puts it on, we win the game. 2. If he has the Queen, and the King is to his right, and not put on, we win. 3. If he has the Queen, and the King is to his left, we lose, whether the Ace is led first, or the small one. 4. If on leading the small one, the King is put on second, we lose; but the same would happen with much greater certainty if the Ace was led first, and then a small one. It appears therefore that in this case the general rule about leading the highest of two first should be disregarded. I should be much obliged if you would kindly say if you agree or disagree with this view, as I was unable to convince three or four players in this Club that I was right, a few nights ago.-Ans. The rule as to leading the highest of two in this position is not applicable. The problem is how to get three tricks, of which two are certain. With the information he possessed we think our correspondent took the best chance, and we should have done likewise. We should not have finessed third hand. The criticism of the play, by the outsiders, may have been from a greater knowledge than Z appears to have possessed. The discard of the Hearts, of which Z speaks so vaguely, may have made a difference. Again it may be that by the lead of the thirteenth trump the fourth hand may have been forced to discard the best Spade, or if not then so good a Heart that the Ace should be led; we certainly cannot, on the premises before us, think Z's play wrong. PIQUET. LEX.-You must pardon us. We give actual hands, and it is not always possible to get the exact hand, the discard, the take in, and the score. We do the best we can, and we have to thank our friends for permitting us to interfere with their game. We think it very likely that you could make up better hands, and we shall be glad of them by and bye, but at present we give what we see, i.e, actual hands, and nothing else. The Westminster Papers. 1st JANUARY 1874. THE CHESS WORLD. "The whisperings of our petty burgh." THE third match between Messrs. Bird and Wisker terminated in favour of the latter, with a score of ten games to eight and three draws. The result of the three matches gave an equal score to each, thus confirming the general opinion that there is little, if any, difference of force between them. They resolved, notwithstanding, upon a further trial of skill in a fourth match, which was finished just as we were going to press, the result being in favour of Mr. Bird, who won five games, Mr. Wisker three, and one draw. A match has been arranged between the Chess Clubs of Oxford and Cambridge, to come off in March or April next. Both sides indulge the hope that the next match will not prove such a hollow contest as the last one. Those of our readers who care for the Knight's Tour will find an interesting article upon the subject in No. 1,147 of the Leisure Hour. Bow Bells, a metropolitan weekly, has a Chess column. Editor and contributors are alike anonymous. The Luton Advertiser, of the 20th ultimo, contains the moves in a match by correspondence between J. S. C. and a gentleman whose bashfulness has prompted him to assume the nom de plume of "Not Philidor." We should not have imagined there was any extreme danger of a mistake in this case, but the precaution indicates a natural turn for the subtleties of Chess. A collection of Chess Problems, by W. J. and T. Pierce, has just been issued from the press. The book is noticed in another part of this Number, as is also the first part of a new edition-the fifth-of the German Handbuch, just published, by Veit and Co., Leipsic. Mr. Lowenthal's retirement from Land and Water is announced, and the cause ascribed is indisposition. The current number of the Chess Player's Chronicle however announces that the veteran has undertaken to assist the editors of that periodical during the coming year. The Recreationist (J. White, Leeds), contains the "R." Problem, which carried off the prize in the tourney organised by that magazine a few months ago. The prize winner is Mr. R. W. Johnson. The Felstedian is another of our public school magazines containing a Chess article. It is edited by Mr. G. B. Stocker, a very promising composer of problems. In connection with this school a Problem Tourney was organised a short time since, and eight competitors entered the lists. Mr. Duffy acted as referee, and awarded the prizes in the following order: 1st Mr. Haddon, 2nd Mr. Frederick, 3rd Mr. Forder. The prize problems are exceedingly good, and we hope to be able to place them before our readers next month. The Huddersfield College Magazine announces the formation of a Chess Club in the College. Mr. John Watkinson is the President. The observations upon the B. C. A. Tourney Problems, by the Société Philomatique of Bordeaux, are continued in the December number of La Stratégie. The same journal announces that the victors in the Café de la Regence Tourney are M. Chamier, 1st prize; M. Winawer, 2nd prize. With the December part the Deutsche Schachzeitung closes the 28th volume. The longevity of this Chess magazine is creditable alike to the proprietors and the Chess players of Germany. The Nordisk Skaktidende came this month as a double number (November and December) and contains some excellent games and problems by Danish and German players and composers. The Dubuque Journal for November, although late, is welcome. This part contains a portrait and biography of Mr. Ernest Morphy, the uncle of the immortal Paul, besides the usual number of games and problems. There are also some variations, by Mr. James Mason, upon a new attack in the Evans Gambit It is at this point the new attack is commenced, the proposed continuation being 8 Kt takes K P. Mr. Carpenter has concluded his notes upon the four-move problems of Kling's Euclid in the New York Clipper. His Resumé is so interesting that we take the liberty of reproducing it here. RESUME Classified with reference to accuracy of construction, the 30 4-moves stand as below arranged : Faulty. -Nos. 73, 83, 87 Total Certainly an exhibit very flattering to the author's accuracy and analytical skill. It is doubtful whether even J. B.'s 35 4-moves would come out of the examination with so fair a result. The smallness of he number of Defectives is remarkable. It must be remembered however that in the above lists many of the Perfects are but repetitions, each of several others, while some are of such a nature that it is almost impossible for two solutions to co-exist. Of the 4-moves, the finest are Nos. 67, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77 (one whole broadside), 79 (neat), 85 and 88. SIR,-I am afraid your readers will be disposed to say "Hold, enough!" of this subject, and to apply both to me and Mr. Thorold the amiable sentiment A plague on both your houses!" Nevertheless, I must crave space for a brief reply to Mr. Thorold's remarks. He does not approve of my attempt at the etymon of to lake, and of that I have no right to complain, and he quotes against me Mr. Earle and Dr. Morris as opponents, who are doubtless great authorities. Of the former gentleman's works, I haye but a very slight acquaintance; but Dr. Morris I know to have studied deeply the structure of our language, and I should never think of putting myself in competition with him on philological questions. But is it the same thing to say that an old English word lac is the origin of certain suffixes, as to affirin that a word still in use in the northern counties exclusively is a lineal descendant of the same old root? Surely not. Junius, or rather his learned editor, Lye, derives the word from the Icelandic Laikan; and Skinner suggests the A. S. plægan, or the German lachen, or the Danish leegen; and others have published other suggestions, thereby intimating that the matter is still sub-judice. Instead of continuing the search far away from home, I have suggested a derivation near at hand, which is too simple to satisfy Mr. Thorold, and he objects to it as fanciful. I never intended it as anything more than conjecture, nor did I expect it would satisfy everybody as it did myself. When certainty however is not to be attained, I do not see the harm of indulging the fancy within reasonable bounds. The quotation is somewhat hackneyed, but I hope I shall be pardoned for repeating it at the conclusion of my letter: "Si quid novisti rectius istis Candidus imperti, si non his utere mecum." C. R. BREE, M.D. To the Editor of the WESTMINSTER PAPERS. SIR,-I am much obliged to my friend, Mr. Thorold, for the information contained in his letter, which appeared in your last number, relative to a passage in Shakspeare, supposed by me to contain a reference to the game of Chess. I was not aware of the fact, which Mr. Thorold's citations prove, that the word mate is frequently used by writers of the Elizabethan era, in its primitive significance of destroy, conquer, confound. Such being the case, and bearing in mind the certainty that Shakspeare has no other mention of Chess in his text,* I am convinced that, in the passage in question, our great dramatist intended no allusion to the game. Yours faithfully, J. U. S. Club, 19th December 1873. H. A. K. * The reference in The Tempest is little more than a stage direction. REVIEWS. HANDBUCH DES SCHACHSPIELS.* EVEN the origin of Chess is not veiled in greater obscurity than its earliest literature. Forbes and Weber, both distinguished writers upon the Chatur-anga or primæval Chess, differ by many centuries in their estimation of the age of the first Chronicles, Papers, and Schachzeitungs of India, and in the works of the early Arabic and European writers, there are proofs, if proofs were needed, that the authors were entirely ignorant of their Asiatic predecessors. The Italian authors of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, knew little, if anything, of the labours of Lucena, Damiano and Ruy Lopez, and even Philidor's first edition of Analyse du jeu des échecs, published only 130 years ago, was entirely the result of that master's own experience, and owed nothing to the works of preceding writers. The numerous errors in Philidor's book become intelligible when we consider that he was deficient in the extended knowledge with which a study of the Italian school would have endowed him. The first step in the progress of Chess theory was made by English writers, for much, if not all, that had been written before Sarratt and Lewis was empirical. With these authors began the science of Chess, and the work so well commenced in England has since been carried out by our German cousins. The Chess literature of Germany dates from the beginning of our century. The works of an earlier date being somewhat similar in character to the book of Gustavus Selenus-a rather bald translation of Ruy Lopez's treatise. Allgaier and Koch were the first editors of Chess handbooks, but their works have exercised little influence at home or abroad. Allgaier's discoveries were for the most part mere experiments, never tested in practical play against a strong opponent. Koch possessed no Chess genius, and his book is purely a compilation, performed in a business-like manner. It is to the great Berlin masters, known in the Chess World as the Pleiades, that we are indebted for the marvellous progress of Chess science in recent years. The "Seven" having made many important discoveries in their analysis of the Two Knights' Defence, and the Counter Gambit in the K Kt Opening, Lieutenant Bilguer, by no means the strongest player, but certainly the most ardent student of Chess theory among the "stars," undertook to write a modern compendium of the game. But, diis alterum visum, soon after the publication of his treatise on the Two Knights' Defence, Bilguer died, September 1840, leaving an unfinished manuscript to his friend and fellow labourer, Von Heydebrand und der Lasa. This manuscript was the first edition of the work under notice, and a new era in Chess theory was inaugurated when von der Lasa, the greatest of all Chess analysts, produced in 1843 Bilguer's Handbuch, adopting in it the tabular system of Alexandre. To indicate the success of the work it is only necessary to refer to the number of editions which have been published. The second edition appeared in 1852, enriched by the fruits of the London Tournament of 1851. The third edition, very much enlarged, was published in 1858, and the fourth in 1864. The first part of the fifth edition appeared a few weeks ago, and we propose here to review its contents. As in previous Editions, the first part of the present one is devoted to a brief history of the game and biographical sketches of distinguished Chess authors; the only novelty being an explanation of the notation used in the Handbuch in the English and French languages, which, seeing that the book is not intended for the instruction of the tyro, but for the study of advanced Chess scholars, seems unnecessary. The treatise on the theory of the openings begins with the King's Kt's Game: 1 P to K 4, P to K 4, 2 Kt to K B 3; and the first article disposes of the weak and irregular defences-2 P to K B 3 (Damiano Gambit); 2 B to Q 3; 2 B to B 4; 2 P to Q 4; and 2 Q to B 3. The four former Editions gave in this last variation : The seventh move of Black can scarcely be considered his strongest line of play, and White, we think, would not obtain an even game against 7 Q takes P checkmate. The new Edition is not so confident as its predecessors regarding this variation. The next article is devoted to the Counter Gambit 1 P to K 4, 1 P to K 4, 2 Kt to K B 3, 2 P to K B 4, but as this opening has been abandoned long ago, it has little interest for advanced players. Philidor's defence, 2 P to Q 3, contains the defence analysed and recommended by Jaenisch in the Schachzeitung three years ago, viz., 2 P to Q 3, 3 P to Q 4, 3 Kt to K B 3, and since often adopted by * Ilandbuch des Schachspiels, by P. R. von Bilguer, Edited by von Heydebrand und der Lasa, (fifth edition.) |