The Westminster Papers.

1st AUGUST 1873.

THE CHESS

CHESS WORLD.

"The whisperings of our petty burgh."

THE great Congress of Chess players at Vienna, upon which the attention of our little world is now concentrated, was opened on the 20th ult. by Herr Kolisch, the Vice-President, in the absence of Baron A. de Rothschild. The rumours reporting the probable attendance of Mr. Morphy and Captain Mackenzie proved to be without foundation, for no champion appeared in the lists for the United States. European Chess however was represented by most of the renowned masters of our time, including Anderssen, Bird, Blackburne, Paulsen, Steinitz and Rosenthal; Vienna herself being championed by Dr. Fleissig, Herr Gelbfuhs, and several others. The regulations for play in the Tourney were adopted at this preliminary meeting, the following being the most important :

1. Each player to contest a match of three games with every other player.

2. The winner of the greatest number of matches to be entitled to the first prize of at least 2,000 florins; the other prizes going to the players next in order, according to the number of matches won.

3. A drawn match to count half a point to each player engaged in it.

4. A time limit of one hour for every twenty moves allowed to each player.

5. Play to be commenced each day at 10 a.m., to be continued until 2 p.m., resumed at 4 p.m., and continued until the game is finished.

Ritter van Discart, Herr Schlemann, and Dr. Biach consented to act as umpires, and to these gentlemen any disputes that may arise between the players will be referred. Play commenced on the 21st ult., the following being the pairing for the first round of matches:-Anderssen v. Meitner, Bird v. Gelbfuhs, Blackburne v. Paulsen, Rosenthal v. Dr. Fleissig, Steinitz v. Pitschel, Schwartz v. Heral. The sensible time limit, and the stringent enforcement of the regulations, brought the first series of matches to a termination on the 23rd, the following being the winners :-Anderssen, Blackburne, Bird, Rosenthal and Steinitz; the match between Schwartz and Heral was drawn, and therefore counts as one-half to each player. In this round Mr. Bird won easily of Herr Gelbfuhs, one of the games extending only to fifteen moves; and Herr Steinitz, who won his first game in a very off-hand manner indeed, gained his second just as easily, by his adversary, Herr Pitschel, exceeding the limit of time allowed for the consideration of his moves. Mr. Blackburne, opposed to the formidable Paulsen, had a more difficult feat to accomplish. The first game occupied the whole of Monday, but was eventually scored by the Englishman, who, winning again on Wednesday, scored his match. The second round was commenced on the 24th, the pairing being as follows:Anderssen v. Bird, Fleissig v. Paulsen, Gelbfuhs v. Heral, Blackburne v. Steinitz, Meitner v. Rosenthal, Schwartz v. Pitschel. The first named of each pair having the first move in the first game. These matches were completed on the 26th, and our correspondent telegraphs the following as the result :-Bird beat Anderssen the first game, and Anderssen beat Bird the second, Anderssen won the third; Blackburne beat Steinitz the first game, the second was drawn, and the third was won by Blackburne; Paulsen won of Dr. Fleissig, and the other winners of this round were Schwartz, Rosenthal and Paulsen: Heral and Gelbfuhs drew. The score therefore stands-Anderssen wins 2 matches, Rosenthal 2, Blackburne 2, Schwartz 12, Paulsen 1, Bird 1, Steinitz 1, Heral 1, Gelbfuhs 2. The third round commenced on the 28th ult., the players being paired as follows:-Blackburne v. Schwartz, Bird v. Heral, Fleissig v. Steinitz, Gelbfuhs v. Pitschel, Meitner v. Paulsen, Rosenthal v. Anderssen. Up to Monday night, the result of this round was as follows:-Rosenthal beat Anderssen 1 game, Blackburne beat Schwartz 1, Heral beat Bird 1, Paulsen and Meitner, Fleissig and Steinitz, Pitschel and Gelbfuhs drawn. The play will be continued day by day, Sundays excepted, until the termination of the Tourney, which may be fixed for the 27th or 28th of August. In our present number we place before our readers a selection of the games played up to the time of our going to press, and only obtained by some expenditure of time and money. If, as on previous occasions, an illustrious contemporary deigns to copy them, we trust that he will offer a better excuse for the act than that given by the man who said he only wanted the autograph which appeared in the hat he was detected in stealing.

The annual meeting of the Counties Chess Association will be held at Clifton, near Bristol, during the week commencing the 4th instant, Lord Lyttelton presiding. Prizes are offered for competitions in Class I., open to all provincial amateurs on becoming members of the Association, by a subcription of £1 Is, and in Classes II. and III. open to all provincial amateurs who subscribe ten shillings and sixpence. A challenge prize will be given to the person who first wins three times the Association's first prize in Class I.

The local

secretary is T. Castle, Esq., Acadamy of Arts, Clifton, who will be happy to give every information to intending visitors and competitors.

The return match between the clubs of Colchester and Chelmsford came off on the 9th ult., and resulted in a decisive victory for the Chelmsford players, who scored eleven games against their adversaries four. The players were the same as in the first match, except that Mr. Brightwell, of Colchester, was replaced by Captain Tyler of the 50th Regiment. Before separating, Mr. Gossip suggested the formation of an Eastern Counties Chess Association, and the project, which has been taken up by the clubs of Ipswich and Harwich, has been warmly received by the Chess players of these districts. The following is the full score of the match :

We have received the following letter from Mr. George Walker :

Pavitt

COLCHESTER.

CHELMSFORD.

I

Nicholas...
Meggy

I

Gossip
Wallace

2

Thorne

2

Hasler
Hasler, G.

2

Marriage
Williams
Carman

3

Tyler

II

201100

DEAR SIR,-The Chess verses alluded to at p 48 of your July number were written by me over fifty years back, and I believe were first published as garnish on the cover of an anonymous pamphlet, in which I gave the games in the match played by correspondence between the Clubs of Westminster and Paris, with notes. The concluding four lines of my rhapsody are omitted by you, and, as far as memory serves, run thus:

The Recreationist, of which Mr. White of Leeds is now the printer, publisher and Chess Editor, contains, this month, a number of fine problems. This little mazazine is excellently printed, and, at the price -fourpence-is a marvel of cheapness.

The Chess Record, Philadelphia (G. Reichelm, 323 Walnut Street, Editor), gives us a continuation of Mr. Ernest Morphy's Logic of Chess Openings," a translation of Herr Schwede's "Wrinkles for Composers," from the Deutsche Schachzeitung, and the usual careful selection of games and problems. We take from the Record a problem in the margin, by Mr. Carpenter, who considers it his best two-mover.

We learn from the New York Clipper that the judges in the Canadian Problem Tournament have reported that every set sent in for competition is unsound.

THE VIENNA PLAYERS.

Of the twelve renowned Knights of Caissa's Empire now assembled at Vienna, and from that circumstance predestined to a fame more lasting than any equal collection of human beings, from the twelve Cæsars to the Tichborne jury, most of them are well known to Chess Players of every clime.

Of Anderssen, crowned Monarch of Chess in 1851; Paulsen, like the British Gully, distinguished for his defeats, rather than for his victories; of Blackburne, who has realised in his career the mythical optical power of seeing through milestones; of Steinitz, who, when he defeated Anderssen in 1866, wiped out the stain of Sadowa in a city of London chop house; of Bird, who should be like Sir Boyle Roache's biped, playing at Vienna, as he actually is, and in New York, where he is anxiously expected; we need not and we shall not say anything; but of those members assumed to be unknown to our British readers we may say a word.

Dr. Meitner is a physician at Vienna, and he was first known to the Chess World in Morphy's time. He was a pupil of Hampe, and played, between 1860 and 1862, a great number of games with Steinitz, being then little inferior to that now redoubtable champion, but when he won, he did so by the most profound combinaHe has never played in an International Tournament, but he has always been well known in Germany as a first rate player.

Herr Schwartz made his debut at Pesth. His best practice was with Herr Hoffer. For some years past he has been one of the best Viennese players. His style is brilliant, but not sound.

Dr. M. Fleissig is a young player, known first to the Chess World about eight years ago. He was one of the first amongst the Viennese players who could play blindfold. This he succeded in doing to the extent

of playing six games at a time. He has a perfect knowledge of the openings, and of the literature of the game. He is also a physician.

Herr Gelbfuhs comes from Hungary. He plays daily, and has more practice than any of the others. He is very brilliant, and shews this quality more particularly when giving odds.

Herr Pitschels is from Dessau, in Germany. He played with Anderssen and the leaders of the Leipsic school twenty years ago. He also played in two of the last German Tournaments, but without success. He is a slow, steady player, but not sufficiently strong to take the first rank.

Dr. Meitner, Herr Gelbfuhs and Dr. Fleissig are on the Committee of the Vienna Club playing against London at the present time.

CLASSIFICATION OF PROBLEMS.

To the Editor of the WESTMINSTER PAPERS.

SIR,-There is nothing in Mr. Carpenter's definitions to indicate that he acknowledges any higher quality in the construction of a Chess problem than extreme accuracy of detail. In his subsequent remarks, he admits the possible existence of other qualities, but seems to consider them undefinable and secondary. By his system a problem must be accurate or nothing There are however other points in the construction of a high class problem. Mr. Menzies points out one of them as concentrativeness, exemplified in the number of pieces employed; another one is a natural position

of the men on the board.

If Chess problems are to be classified according to their imperfections, it is only fair to those composers who pay particular attention to the two last-named points to include them in the definition of a "perfect problem." It is obvious that a problem may be perfectly, painfully accurate, without concentration, or possess both properties, and yet be impossible in position-not Chess at all.-Yours, &c., E. FREEBOROUGH.

Continuation of Mr. Carpenter's reply to "X.," from the New York Clipper :

To the few that could unwittingly misapprehend their application, the statement made at the outset of the "Notes on Kling's EUCLID," of which the definitions of those terms form a part, that the Notes were to be confined solely to (1) Originality of conception, and (2) Accuracy of construction, must have been sufficient. As it is, there seems to be no refuge for "X." except to meet the charge of wilful perversion. In no other way can his loose-id communication be accounted for. "X." has taken an easy method to criticise, but it is one not to be commended. Another instance of this writer's plan for obtaining something at which to carp is furnished in his "summing up my Notes to the following two general principles: 1. In a Perfect Problem the Attack will never have more than one effective move at its disposal, at any point of the solution." So far, so good. This is an equivalent to what I have frequently laid down in my writings, that, "In a perfect problem the Attack has but one move, in the given position, or in any resulting position, that leads to mate." It would appear, then, that my definitions were not so "far from being lucid," but that even "X." could master them when he wished. But he must have something at which to carp, so he deliberately fabricates the second "general principle," viz. : 2. A perfect problem-may I say the most perfect problem?-will be that in which there is the greatest variety of play in answer to the attack. I must protest against having this "lucid" principle ascribed to me. "X." may not say "the most perfect problem "--at least, not with my permission. he say that, "the greatest variety of play by Black makes the perfect problem." To take his words literally, there could be but one perfect problem in existence. Even when allowing much for his loose-id style, there is no principle" that could be wider of the mark. Variety has nothing to do with perfection, except to cause it. A problem might have a hundred variations, and still be imperfect, or faulty, or unsound; indeed, it would be very likely to be one of these.

woman.

66

Nor may

It need hardly be said, after this, that there is no case in which "my system fails to apply." A flaw is a flaw, no matter where it occurs. “A spot, or a wrinkle, or any such thing," on the belle of the season, would be as conspicuous as on the foulest fish The transcendant beauty of the former, instead of hiding, would make it more glaring. Of course, all things considered, the advantage would be with the belle, provided the "wrinkle" did not extend too far; in which case, both would have to be rejuvenated. It may be that "X.'s" idea is to quibble at the meaning of the word " Variation," as used in my definitions; but I do not think it requires any argument to show that, in generalising, it is proper to make no distinction between leaders and variations, or sub-variations. As to accuracy of construction, all varieties of play may be considered as having an equal standing. As the leader counts, in estimating the number of variations, and as no two persons can always agree as to which variation is the leading one, it seems idle to make any distinction. Whether there be one or ten, the word "Variation" is employed to answer. There is much else in this pellucid effusion that might be noticed. For the present it must suffice to remark that it is not a little strange that, while criticising my definitions for not covering what I knew to be doubtful ground, and full of snares, “X.” should at last be compelled to call upon others for the solution which he himself could not furnish. Surely, if the definition of what "it" is, proves too much for "X.," though he deems it of vital importance, I may be excused for not going out of my way to meet difficulties which it was no part of my scheme to confront.

OUR PROBLEMS REVIEWED.