C, B is playing with D. A requests the cards to be placed. The adversaries demur, and a bystander enunciates the following proposition: "You may ask your partner to draw his card, but not your adversary." Á replies, "If the cards have not been gathered, or touched for gathering, I may ask each and every one to place his or their cards, but if they have been gathered or touched, I may ask no one." The bystander says, "I'll bet you a sovereign you can never ask your adversary to draw his card. I accepted the bet, subjec. to your decision. Have I to pay the bystander, or does his sovereign become my property?—Ans. Rule 85 is as follows :-" Any one during the play of a trick, or after the four cards are played, and before, but not after they are touched for the purpose of gathering them together, may demand that the cards be placed before their respective players. "Draw your card, partner,” is an improper and irregular demand. The formula, "Draw your cards," should always be employed. The bystander therefore loses the bet. J. E. B. (Dummy deals).—The authority for our statement is found in the Second Edition of "J. C."-it is as follows :-" 1*, Dummy's partner, has not the choice of dealing for himself or for Dummy; he must deal for Dummy ;" and if you refer to page 195, also of the Second Edition, you will find a new chapter on Double Dummy, which apparently you have overlooked, and in this he says "It should be borne in mind that Dummy, and not his partner, deals at the commencement of the rubber. This is a penalty, not a privilege. It is true that, if his partner deal, 14 cards, instead of 13, are known to the adversaries; but, on the other hand, when Dummy deals, an adversary has the great advantage of leading up to the exposed hand. To lead through it, is never any great advantage, and is often disadvantageous. Were Dummy to deal every hand, the odds in his favour would disappear. For this reason, if his adversaries are of unequal strength, they will do well to place the stronger player on his right hand. It is very easy to lead up to the exposed hand, and much more difficult to lead through it." WHIST (Revoke).-Will you be good enough to decide the following; whether a revoke can be counted before the trump card is turned up for the next deal, or whether it must be claimed before the cards are cut for the next deal?-Ans. A revoke cannot be claimed after the cards are cut for the next deal. DAMON (Dealer's duty).—1. Will you tell me if the dealer at Whist has a right to meddle with any cards but his own after they are dealt, and the trump card has been turned; or indeed at any time during the deal? It would probably take more space than you would care to spare in order to give a definition of a mis-deal. A and M are partners, H and W their adversaries. A deals, and turns up the trump card on the cards lying before H, his left hand adversary. A contends that he has a right to move the cards, bringing the trump, and the cards with it, to himself, passing his own to W, W's to M, and M's to H, and that, after this process, if each player have thirteen cards it is not a mis-deal.-Ans. 1. The facts are not clearly stated. If the dealer commenced by giving the first card to any player, other than the one to his left; or, if the trump card came in due order to the right hand player, in either case there would be a mis-deal. But if all that is meant is that the dealer placed the packs between the players, instead of in their front, the packs might be moved, by the dealer, to their proper places, or he might put any card to the right pack, when there was a doubt as to which pack the card belonged. Turning the trump card on an adversary's pack would not make a mis-deal. As to what constitutes a mis-deal the code gives plain rules. 2. (Taking up a played card).-Has a player a right to take up his card again if he can do so before another is played, or if he be the last player before the trick is gathered? H contends that he has, because no one is injured by it but himself, and he, of course, subjects himself to the usual penalty for exposing a card.-Ans. H cannot take up his card again when once played. B. B. (Looking at last trick). A and B play against X and Z, A wins a trick and leads again; when it is B's turn to play, he asks to see the last trick. Can he do so? X and Z contend that he cannot see the trick until he has played.-Ans. B has a right to see the last trick before he plays. Every player has a right to see the last trick, and they can do so before or after playing. H. E. H. (Leading out of turn).-A and B are partners. A, out of turn, leads the Ace of Hearts; the opponents command a lead of Clubs from B, and, subsequently, claim to treat the Ace of Hearts as an exposed card. Have they this right, or not? Ans. No. You can only have one penalty, and that you have taken. COLONEL.-Your question is answered above, under initials H. E. H. T. Dowson (Betting on the laws).—We wrote to you privately` but you gave a wrong address, and our letter was returned. The subject is one worthy of discussion, and we shall be glad to hear from you. We object as strongly as you do to betting about the laws, but we cannot say a bet is void so long as each side had a chance of winning. We cannot advise whether your view was correct without more facts, and you must bear in mind that if we once treated bets as jokes, the old nuisance of betting on every possible event would be revived, and when the matter was decided the loser would declare that it was only a joke, and thus the honest men would pay, and the dishonest would get out of their engagements. J. R. (E. J. U. S. Club). (Leads).—At whist, having Ace and King only of a suit, which of the two cards should be led first? -Ans. We do not think the lead is given in any book. It is of course a forced lead. The lead of Ace and King is generally understood to mean that the player has no more. The lead of King Ace does not convey that information, therefore we should lead Ace King and not King Ace. The inference drawn as above suggested has, we suppose, come from practice. ECARTÉ. S. (Dealing out of turn).-If A deals out of turn, and B discovers the error after the trump card is turned, and before discarding or playing, the right dealer must deal, and the cards improperly dealt are left on the table and played with as they stand the next hand. This has always been the law and practice so far as we know. In a note to Law 15, in "Cavendish," that gentleman points out the practice, and an objection to it, and thereupon he invents a new law, to the effect that, after the trump card is turned, the deal must stand. It is an unfortunate habit that Cavendish has, of endeavouring to make the laws of this island different to the laws of the Continent. We know of no authority in support of his views. The law, as we have stated it, is universal in all parts of the world where Ecarté is played. See "Major A.," Law 5; "Bohn's Handbook," Law 12; "Hoyle's Games," by G. H., Longman and Co., 1853, p. 176; "Académie des Jeux," par Van Tenac, Law 32, p. 106. ECARTE PLAYER, Junior Athenæum (Revoking at Ecarté). -1. Is there such a thing as a "revoke at Ecarté? 2. Provided there is a revoke, is there any penalty for revoking? 3. Supposing a player has played a wrong card (i.e., not followed suit), and the game is stopped at once before another card be played, is that a revoke ?-Ans. The best authority on Ecarté published in this country is Major A.'s book. He says, "No revoke is allowed, and a trick must be won if a superior card is held; there is no under-play or surprise; the cards are to be taken up again, and he who has revoked or under-played counts one point less than he would have scored." This is, in our opinion, the law on the subject. The French law, as stated in Académie des Jeux, par Van Tenac, is as follows :—“ Si un joueur a renoncé ou sous-forcé, dès qu'on s'en aperçoit, chacun reprend ses cartes pour jouer de nouveau. Dans ce cas, le joueur qui à renoncé ou sous-forcé ne gagne qu'un point s'il fait la vole, et rien s'il fait le point." Bohn's Hand-book, p. 252, law 2, says, "When a player revokes or under-forces, he is obliged to re-take his card, and the hand is played over again; but a player committing this fault does not score if he make the point and only scores one if he makes the vole. We think the word "this ought to be either of these." Cavendish gives the same, rule 43, "If a player renounces when he holds a card of the suit led, or if a player under-forces, his adversary has the option of requiring the hands to be taken up and played again or not. In either case, &c., following the above law. We are not aware of any authority that gives the player not in fault any option in the matter. In our judgment the cards must be re-played. In answer to 3, the player is in time to rectify his error, and thus save his revoke. The Westminster Papers. 1st MARCH 1874. THE CHESS WORLD. "The whisperings of our petty burgh." THE first number of a new journal, called the City of London Chess Magazine, appeared last month, edited by Mr. Potter, of the City of London Chess Club, assisted by several of our strongest metropolitan players. In a preface, distinguished for the good taste displayed in the references to his contemporaries, the editor informs us that he has founded his principal hope of public support upon his exclusive devotion to the subject of Chess, but that he does not intend to rely upon devotion alone. We are not aware that there exists any considerable number of amateur Chess players who are unable to enjoy the study of a game or a problem if these are supplemented by amusements of a different description without additional cost. But whether they exist or not, we are quite sure that there is plenty of good work for a new Chess missionary, and if our contemporary's absolute devotion to Caissa should gain the goddess's exclusive affection, and lead to a happy union, we shall be the first to acknowledge his wisdom in announcing "no cards." The first number contains eight Games and eight problems, besides the correspondence games between London and Vienna so far as they have proceeded, an article entitled "Analytical Excursions," by Herr Zukertort, "News of the Month," &c. The Annual Dinner of the City of London Chess Club was held on the 11th ult., Mr. Rabbeth, the President, in the chair. The vice-chair was occupied by the late President, Mr. Gastineau. The gathering comprised upwards of sixty members and visitors, including most of the notabilities of the game residing in London. After the usual loyal toasts had been given and received, with due honours, the President, in proposing the toast of "The City of London Chess Club," dilated with considerable eloquence and evident sincerity upon the practical uses of Chess, and the remarkable intellectual superiority of Chess players when compared with their less accomplished neighbours. A cynical person might object to this sort of thing, and remind us that we cannot eke out our real stature by setting ourselves upon stilts. But after all, who is injured or even offended by it? Not the less accomplished neighbour at all events, for, being ignorant, he never knoweth it; and for the cynical person we have no consideration whatever. The President then proposed the health of Mr. Gastineau, the late President, and one of the most popular of the honourable line who have filled that high office. The next toast was the health of Mr. Lowenthal, who, in a speech remarkable for its length and its ability, referred to some matters which, although apparently personal to himself, are not without interest to the general body of Chess players. From his speech we gather that the true cause of his retirement from Land and Water was not (as was generally reported) shattered health, but the refusal of the authorities of Land and Water to devote a weekly page of the paper to Chess. And as the immense quantity of games, problems, intelligence, &c., at his disposal could not be condensed into half a page, he felt compelled to retire from the position of editor. Whatever the cause may have been, every Chess player will be glad to learn that Mr. Lowenthal's health is apparently good and even robust. Before resuming his seat Mr. Lowenthal, after paying the tribute of a separate compliment to every eminent person in the room, including happy allusions to Mr. Cochrane's "genial skill," and Mr. Macdonnell's "inheritance" of genius from his "great namesake," proposed the health of the visitors, coupling with the toast the name of Mr. Cochrane. Mr. Cochrane returned thanks, and referred incidentally to the awful calamity now afflicting our fellow subjects in India. The health of the several officers of the Club was then proposed in separate toasts, whereupon Mr. Sutton proposed them all over again, under the generic title of "The Committee," of which body, if we are not mistaken, they are all ex officio members. Nevertheless Mr. Sutton's speech was a pleasant one to Chess players, for, said he, the love of Chess could not exist in a mind that was not artistic and refined, and the highest form of Chess player was more than mortal. The last train, which like time and tide waits for no man, obliged us to leave about this time; but it is said that the pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious joke culminated in the speech of Mr. Macdonnell. Before concluding our report, we must compliment the management upon their considerate regard for the comfort of the guests, and if we have not accepted without flinching the superabundant ideality of the speakers, we can assure our readers that it is impossible to disparage their genuine enthusiasm for the game of Chess. The second annual Chess match between the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge will be played at the City of London Chess Club on the 27th instant, the evening before the boat race. Herr Steinitz has been the guest of the Liverpool Chess Club during the last few weeks, and during his visit played, looking over the boards, against several of the members simultaneously. The Chess department of the Newcastle Weekly Chronicle is now edited by Mr. J. Charleton, who gives each week a smartly written editorial article, original problems, and games under the title of "Old Gems Reset." The Newcastle Chronicle has a large circulation, and we can recommend it to problem composers as an excellent medium for the dissemination of their "ideas." The Huddersfield College Magazine, edited by Mr. J. Watkinson, and the Norvicensian, edited by Mr. C. W. M. Dale, deserve our "peppercorn " of praise, and we pay it accordingly. In the January number of La Strategie there appeared the first part of an article from the pen of Mons. Delannoy, under the title of "Souvenirs," which has only to be known to command the admiration of the Chess playing fraternity. Delannoy is a familiar name to the readers of the Chess periodicals of France, and his numerous articles, contributed in the youth of the present generation, to the Palamede, and later to the Nouvelle Regence and the Strategie, have stamped him as one of the most graceful and facile writers known in the literature of our Game. To every habitué of "The Divan," where London Chess players most do congregate, M. Delannoy is well known, and his play, which is characterised by great vitality and resource, often attracts a gallery of spectators, even when stronger but slower players are engaged in the room. The first part of the article under notice refers to the past, and comprises the writer's reminiscences of the Café de la Regence and Parisian Chess players. The continuation, which appeared in the February number of La Strategie, deals with the present, and should have a special interest for English Chess players. With a few masterly touches the writer presents us with a series of portraits of the most prominent habitués of the Divan, including Messrs. Aytoun, Boden, Bird, Blackburne, Dick, Hoffer, Horwitz, Lowe, Macdonnell, Wisker, and Zukertort. It is impossible to do the writer justice in a summary of an article distinguished for its grace and elegance, its wit without the semblance of coarseness, and its personality devoid of offence. Our readers should procure the number for themselves, and they can do so through Mr. W. W. Morgan, 67 Barbican, E.C. A propos of a remark which appeared in our usually well informed contemporary, the Austrian Schachzeitung, that the first problem tourney was that in connection with the Era (1856), it is worth recording that the first problem tourney was organised in this country in 1854. Mr. Grimshaw of York gained the first prize, and the late Silas Angas of Newcastle-upon-Tyne the second. As an interesting piece of "folk lore," we here reproduce Mr. Grimshaw's problem. The Austrian Schachzeitung has a curious problem this month in memoriam of Chang and Eng the Siamese twins. BLACK. WHITE. The match for 50 dollars a side recently played in Philadelphia between Messrs. Mason and Martinez ended in favour of the former gentleman, who scored four to his adversary's three, two being drawn. By the conditions of the match, however, the drawn games counted as a half game to each player, so that the official score stands, Mr. Mason 5, Mr. Martinez, 4. During his visit to Philadelphia, Mr. Mason (who resides in New York) contested several games with Mr. Elson, winning them all; and with Mr. Reichelm, the editor of the Chess Record, he contested in all seven games, losing one and drawing six. White to play and mate in four moves. From the Golden Age we learn that Mr. Belden, the accomplished Chess Editor of the Hartford Times, has been elected an honorary member of the Brooklyn Chess Club. We have received a copy of the Vox Populi, a Lowell newspaper, containing an excellent letter on the subject of Chess, from the pen of Miron Hazeltine, of New York. Miron gives a summary of the great fight at Vienna, and fairly divides the honours of the battle between Mr. Blackburne and Herr Steinitz. The Watertown Morning Despatch announces that Mr. B. M. Neill, of the Danbury News, has won a match of Mr. Ware, of Boston, with a score of nine to a "duck's egg" and one draw. Mr. Neill is a composer of fine problems, as most of our readers are aware, and his column in the Danbury News should be in the hands of all lovers of problems. A rumour had spread, and found some credence in America, that there was a youthful prodigy in Philadelphia, who had contracted a habit of scoring even games against Mr. Reichelm. We learn now from the IVatertown Re-Union that Mr. Reichelm had similarly contracted a habit of yielding the prodigy the odds of eight moves. This latter fact may be regarded as one of those proverbial circumstances that alter cases. The Maryland Chess Review announces a Problem Tourney, open to the world, in connection with that journal, with the following conditions and prizes: Problems to be original with the sender; to be ordinary mates, without other conditions, and the solutions, in not less than two nor more than four moves, which must accompany the diagrams. Each competitor will be allowed to enter three problems without entrance fee. All over that number will be charged for at the rate of fifty cents per problem. Each problem to bear a distinguishing motto, and not the author's name. Each competitor to send with his problems a sealed envelope containing his name and address, endorsed on the outside with the mottoes affixed to his problems. Contributions to be sent to J. K. Hanshew, P. O. Box 366, Frederick, Md. The following prizes are offered, all of which may be won by any competitor. Best four mover, 10 dolls.; best three mover, 5 dolls.; best two mover, 5 dolls. Besides the Prizes offered in Problem Tourney No. 1, a prize of 5 dolls. to the person entering the best original regular problem in the present volume. Problems that have before been published elsewhere cannot compete for this prize. Persons sending solutions to regular problems are requested to add their per centage value of each problem to the solution of the problem. Mr. A. D. Quint carried off the honours of the Hartford Chess Club Tournament, with a score of 20 games won and 8 lost. We present our readers, this month, with three remarkable problems, contributed by Mr. C. A. Gilberg, of Brooklyn, to the Christmas number of the Hartford Times. DEAR SIR, AS you have so courteously placed your columns at our disposal, we will once more avail ourselves of the permission by noticing your second review of our "Chess Problems." But first, in answer to your complaint of our having written to other editors, appealing against the charges contained in your first notice. We freely admit we did all in our power to vindicate ourselves, with as little delay as possible, from the grave and public charge of plagiarism you preferred against us; we certainly had no idea of waiting a month before challenging the truth and justice of such a charge; we however took this course out of no disrespect to you, Sir, but simply in our own defence. You now unreservedly withdraw the imputation, or repudiate having ever made it, and we are quite content to rest satisfied on that point. With respect to the unfortunate frontispiece problem, we owe you our especial thanks for the very careful analysis you have given, and we regret exceedingly that so many flaws should exist; this problem had undergone the severe tests of insertion in Land and Water and The Chess Player's Chronicle, without any suspicion being raised as to its accuracy, and others also gave much time to its examination. We think from the opinions expressed by yourself and the Oesterreichische Schachzeiting that this problem must be dethroned in any future edition, at the same time a White Pawn added at QB 5 will meet all the flaws, by cutting off Black's minor defence Q to B 7. Next, with respect to dual mates in two movers, we are not convinced that your principle of considering every move of Black, as equally good, to be sound; it seems to us that, although Black must die next move, that is no reason why he should lose all his presence of mind, and move anywhere, without mental effort, simply because he must move; if he must die, let him die kicking, or else let him be dual mated or worse, for he will deserve his fate. We shall be glad to read your promised further remarks on this subject without reference to any particular set of problems, and we hope some other composers will also give us the benefit of their opinions. We have tested the collection of J. B. of Bridport (the most accurate of all composers), and three out of nine (thus considered) are faulty; II out of 26 in Healey's Collection; and 10 out of 20 of Kling's two-movers are similarly afflicted. You are in error in some of the following cases :-In No. 10 you say, "If Black play R to K B 3, White can mate by Q to R 5, or B to R 4," but you have overlooked the fact that the B is pinned by the adverse R, and cannot move. In No. 35 add a Black Pawn on Q 5. You say, "In 132 White can also mate by Kt to R 5;" we cannot see the solution, but if true, it can be remedied by shifting all the pieces one file to the right, or by adding a White Pawn on R 5. Your second solution to 152 is so neat, that we feel inclined to let the problem remain as a double-barrelled one. In 129 the fault is not in the problem, but in the solution; it should be 1 Kt to B 7 instead of 1 Kt to Kt 8. The partnership problems, 277 and 279, are not "identical," as the solutions are altogether different; they would be better termed companion problems. With respect to your final severe remarks, we are not conscious of having deserved them. On the contrary, we tender you our sincere thanks for the evident care and pains you have taken in criticising our book. Of course we should not be human, and above all Chess men, if we were not desirous of praise; but we prefer honest and candid opinion, even when adverse, to any amount of "flabby" puffery. Our great desire now is to get all the problems as correct as possible, and we propose publishing a sheet of errata shortly. Accept our apologies for again taking up so much of your valuable space on the subject of our book, and believe us to remain, Yours faithfully, THE AUTHORS OF CHESS PROBLEMS. 5th February 1874. FORTY YEARS IN THE LIFE OF A FAVOURITE. BY J. H. ZUKERTORT. My sketch of our favourite's career was last month brought down to the introduction of Steinitz's defence in 1867, and its trial, against Anderssen, at the Baden Tournament of 1870. The best course for White, against it, is as follows: 9 P to Q 5 10 P to K5 9 Kt to K 2 12 B takes Kt 13 Q to Q 2 14 Q R to K sq 12 P takes B 13 P takes P Much stronger than taking the K or R P at once. White has now a fine attack, all his pieces are in full play, and Black's extra Pawn is small consolation for his poor position. A game, in which I conducted the attack against one of the strongest players of North Germany, three years ago, took the following brief course, after my 14th move, Q R to K square : 15 Kt to K 4 16 Kt takes P 17 P to Q 6 19 Q Kt to Q6 20 R takes Kt 21 Kt takes P ch 22 Kt to K 8 If 17 Q takes Kt, White wins by 18 P takes Kt, and 19 Q takes R P. 23 Q to B ch 25 R to K sq 3 24 Kt takes R In the position illustrated by the diagram, White has other attacks, such as 9 Kt to B 3, 9 B to Kt 2, and 9 R to K square; but these are all inferior to the move generally practised, 9 P to Q 5. 9 Kt to B 3-the move Morphy considered the best-does not give White any superiority if it is met by the usual answer, 9 B to Kt5; 10 B to Q Kt 5, 10 K to B square, leads to an equal game at least, as Anderssen proved in his analysis of a game played between Morphy and Schulten (Dufresne Anthologie 1863), and the Fraser-Mortimer variation Against 9 B to Kt 2, Black has a perfectly satisfactory defence in 9 B to Kt 5 or 9 Kt to K B 3, with the continuation 10 P to Q 5, Kt to K 2. Lastly, 9 R to K square may be adopted in skirmishes. It was first played by me in 1865, but only in games at odds, and it was afterwards adopted by several strong American players. Practise and theory were, as we have seen, so favourable to the chief attack (9 P to Q 5) in the classical |