1. R-B5, Kt-Kt5; 2. Q-Kt8 ch, K-Kt3; 3. Q-K6 ch, K-R2; 4. Q-Kt8 ch, and
drawn by perpetual check, as Black cannot capture the Queen with K or R
without losing the game.
A good chess problem exemplifies chess strategy idealized and
concentrated. In examples of actual play there will necessarily remain
on the board pieces immaterial to the issue (checkmate), whereas in
problems the composer employs only _indispensable_ force so as to focus
attention on the idea, avoiding all material which would tend to
"obscure the issue." Hence the first object in a problem is to extract
the maximum of _finesse_ with a sparing use of the pieces, but "economy
of force" must be combined with "purity of the mate." A very common
mistake, until comparatively recent years, was that of appraising the
"economy" of a position according to the slenderness of the force used,
but economy is not a question of absolute values. The true criterion is
the ratio of the force employed to the skill demanded. The earliest
composers strove to give their productions every appearance of real
play, and indeed their compositions partook of the nature of ingenious
end-games, in which it was usual to give Black a predominance of force,
and to leave the White king in apparent jeopardy. From this predicament
he was extricated by a series of checking moves, usually involving a
number of brilliant sacrifices. The number of moves was rarely less than
five. In the course of time the solutions were reduced to shorter limits
and the beauty of quiet (non-checking) moves began to make itself felt.
The early transition school, as it has been called, was the first to
recognize the importance of economy, i.e. the representation of the main
strategic point without any extraneous force. The mode of illustrating
single-theme problems, often of depth and beauty, was being constantly
improved, and the problems of C. Bayer, R. Willmers, S. Loyd, J.G.
Campbell, F. Healey, "J.B." of Bridport, and W. Grimshaw are, of their
kind, unsurpassed. In the year 1845 the "Indian" problem attracted much
notice, and in 1861 appeared Healey's famous "Bristol" problem. To this
period must be ascribed the discovery of most of those clever ideas
which have been turned to such good account by the later school. In an
article written in 1899 F.M. Teed mentions the fact that his
_incomplete_ collection of "Indians" totalled over three hundred.
In 1870 or thereabouts, the later transition period, a more general
tendency was manifest to illustrate two or more finished ideas in a
single problem with strict regard to purity and economy, the theory of
the art received greater attention than before and the essays of C.
Schwede, Kohtz and Kockelkorn, Lehner and Gelbfuss, helped to codify
hitherto unwritten rules of taste. The last quarter of the 19th century,
and its last decade especially, saw a marked advance in technique, until
it became a common thing to find as much deep and quiet play embodied in
a single first-class problem as in three or four of the old-time
problems, and hence arose the practice of blending several distinct
ideas in one elaborate whole.
In the composition of "two-movers" it is customary to allow greater
elasticity and a less rigorous application of the principles of purity
and economy. By this means a greater superficial complexity is attained;
but the Teutonic and Bohemian schools, and even English and American
two-move specialists, recognize that complexity, if it involves the
sacrifice of first principles, is liable to abuse. The blind master,
A.F. Mackenzie of Jamaica, however, with a few others (notably T.
Taverner, W. Gleave, H. and E. Bettman and P.F. Blake) have won some of
their greatest successes with problems which, under stricter ruling,
would not be allowed.
Bohemian (Czech) composers have long stood unrivalled as exponents of
that blending of ideas which is the distinguishing trait of the later
problem. Such is their skill in construction that it is rare to find in
a problem of the Bohemian school fewer than three or four lines of play
which, in economy and purity, are unimpeachable. Amongst the earliest
composers of this class Anton Konig, the founder of the school, Makovky,
Drtina, Palct and Pilnacek deserve to be honourably mentioned, but it
was not until the starting of a chess column in the weekly journal
_Svetozor_ that the merits of the new school were fully asserted. It was
in 1871 that Jan Dobrusky contributed his first composition to that
paper: he was followed by G. Chocholous, C. Kondelik, Pospisil, Dr
Mazel, Kviciala, Kesl, Tuzar, Musil and J. Kotrc; and later still,
Havel, Traxler and Z. Mach were no unworthy followers of Dobrusky.
The faculty for blending variations is not without "the defects of its
qualities," and consequently among the less able composers a certain
tendency to repeat combinations of similar companion ideas is
discernible at times, while the danger that facile construction might
usurp the place of originality and strategy was already apparent to
Chocholous when, in an article on the classification of chess problems
(_Deutsche Schachzeitung_, 1890), he warned the younger practitioners of
the Bohemian school against what has been dubbed by H. Von Gottschall
_Varianten-leierei_, or "the grinding out of variations." When this one
reservation is made few will be inclined to dispute the pre-eminence of
the Bohemian school. To some tastes, however, a greater appeal is made
by the deeper play of the older German school, the quaint fancy of the
American composer Samuel Loyd, or the severity and freedom from "duals"
which mark the English composers.
The idea of holding a problem competition open to the world was first
mooted in connexion with the chess congress of 1851, but it was in 1854
that a tourney (confined to British composers) was first held. Since
then a number of important problem tournaments have been held.
_History of Chess._
The origin of chess is lost in obscurity. Its invention has been
variously ascribed to the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Scythians,
Egyptians, Jews, Persians, Chinese, Hindus, Arabians, Araucanians,
Castilians, Irish and Welsh. Some have endeavoured to fix upon
particular individuals as the originators of the game; amongst others
upon Japheth, Shem, King Solomon, the wife of Ravan, king of Ceylon, the
philosopher Xerxes, the Greek chieftain Palamedes, Hermes, Aristotle,
the brothers Lydo and Tyrrhene, Semiramis, Zenobia, Attalus (d. c. 200
B.C.), the mandarin Hansing, the Brahman Sissa and Shatrenscha, stated
to be a celebrated Persian astronomer. Many of these ascriptions are
fabulous, others rest upon little authority, and some of them proceed
from easily traceable errors, as where the Roman games of _Ludus
Latrunculorum_ and _Ludus Calculorum_, the Welsh recreation of
_Tawlbwrdd_ (throw-board) and the ancient Irish pastime of _Fithcheall_
are assumed to be identical with chess; so far as the Romans and Welsh
are concerned, the contrary can be proved, while from what little is
known of the Irish game it appears not to have been a sedentary game at
all. The claims of the Chinese were advocated in a letter addressed by
Mr Eyles Irwin in 1793 to the earl Charlemont. This paper was published
in the _Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy_, and its purport was
that chess, called in the Chinese tongue _chong-ki_ (the "royal game")
was invented in the reign of Kao-Tsu, otherwise Lin-Pang, then king, but
afterwards emperor of Kiang-Nang, by a mandarin named Han-sing, who was
in command of an army invading the Shen-Si country, and who wanted to
amuse his soldiers when in winter quarters. This invasion of the Shen-Si
country by Han-Sing took place about 174 B.C. Capt. Hiram Cox states
that the game is called by the Chinese _choke-choo-hong ki_, "the play
of the science of war." (See also a paper published by the Hon. Daines
Barrington in the 9th vol. of the _Archaeologia_.) Mr N. Bland,
M.R.A.S., in his _Persian Chess_ (London, 1850), endeavours to prove
that the Persians were the inventors of chess, and maintains that the
game, born in Persia, found a home in India, whence after a series of
ages it was brought back to its birthplace. The view, however, which has
obtained the most credence, is that which attributes the origin of chess
to the Hindus. Dr Thomas Hyde of Oxford, writing in 1694 (_De Ludis
Orientalibus_), seems to have been the first to propound this theory,
but he appears to have been ignorant of the game itself, and the
Sanskrit records were not accessible in his time. About 1783-1789 Sir
William Jones, in an essay published in the 2nd vol. of _Asiatic
Researches_, argued that Hindustan was the cradle of chess, the game
having been known there from time immemorial by the name of
_chaturanga_, that is, the four _angas_, or members of an army, which
are said in the _Amarakosha_ to be elephants, horses, chariots and foot
soldiers. As applicable to real armies, the term _chaturanga_ is
frequently used by the epic poets of India. Sir William Jones's essay is
substantially a translation of the _Bhawishya Purana_, in which is given
a description of a four-handed game of chess played with dice. A pundit
named Rhadhakant informed him that this was mentioned in the oldest law
books, and also that it was invented by the wife of Ravan, king of Lanka
(Ceylon), in the second age of the world in order to amuse that monarch
while Rama was besieging his metropolis. This account claims for chess
an existence of 4000 or 5000 years. Sir William, however, grounds his
opinions as to the Hindu origin of chess upon the testimony of the
Persians and not upon the above manuscript, while he considers the game
described therein to be more modern than the Persian game. Though sure
that the latter came from India and was invented there, he admits that
he could not find any account of it in the classical writings of the
Brahmans. He lays it down that chess, under the Sanskrit name
_chaturanga_, was exported from India into Persia in the 6th century of
our era; that by a natural corruption the old Persians changed the name
into _chatrang_, but when their country was soon afterwards taken
possession of by the Arabs, who had neither the initial nor final letter
of the word in their alphabet, they altered it further into _shatranj_,
which name found its way presently into modern Persian and ultimately
into the dialects of India.
Capt. Hiram Cox, in a letter upon Burmese chess, written in 1799 and
published in the 7th vol. of _Asiatic Researches_, refers to the above
essay, and considers the four-handed game described in the Sanskrit
manuscript to be the most ancient form of chess, the Burmese and Persian
games being second and third in order of precedence. Later, in the 11th
and 24th vols. of the _Archaeologia_, Mr Francis Douce and Sir Frederick
Madden expressed themselves in favour of the views held by Hyde and his
followers.
In Professor Duncan Forbes's _History of Chess_ (1860) Capt. Cox's
views, as founded upon Sir William Jones's Sanskrit manuscript, are
upheld and are developed into an elaborate theory. Professor Forbes
holds that the four-handed game of _chaturanga_ described in the
_Bhawishya Purana_ was the primeval form of chess; that it was invented
by a people whose language was Sanskrit (the Hindus); and that it was
known and practised in India from a time lost in the depths of a remote
antiquity, but for a period the duration of which may have been from
3000 to 4000 years before the 6th century of the Christian era. He
endeavours to show, but adduces no proof, how the four armies commanded
by four kings in Sir William Jones's manuscript became converted into
two opposing armies, and how two of the kings were reduced to a
subordinate position, and became "monitors" or "counsellors," one
standing by the side of the White and the other of the Black king, these
counsellors being the _farzins_ from which we derive our "queens." Among
other points he argues, apparently with justice, that _chaturanga_ was
evidently the root of _shatranj_, the latter word being a mere exotic in
the language of the inhabitants of Persia.
Van der Linde, in his exhaustive work, _Geschichte und Litteratur des
Schachspiels_ (Berlin, 1874), has much to say of the origin-theories,
nearly all of which he treats as so many myths. He agrees with those who
consider that the Persians received the game from the Hindus; but the
elaborate _chaturanga_ theories of Forbes receive but scant mercy. Van
der Linde argues that _chaturanga_ is always used by the old Indian
poets of an army and never of a game, that all Sanskrit scholars are
agreed that chess is not mentioned in really ancient Hindu records; that
the _Puranas_ generally, though formerly considered to be extremely old,
are held in the light of modern research to reach no farther back than
the 10th century--while the copies of the _Bhawishya Purana_ in the
British Museum and the Berlin Library do not contain the extract relied
upon by Forbes, though it is to be found in the _Raghunandana_, which
was translated by Weber in 1872, and is stated by Buhler to date from
the 16th century. The outcome of van der Linde's studies appears to be
that chess certainly existed in Hindustan in the 8th century, and that
probably that country is the land of its birth. He inclines to the idea
that the game originated among the Buddhists, whose religion was
prevalent in India from the 3rd to the 9th century. According to their
ideas, war and the slaying of one's fellow-men, for any purposes
whatever, is criminal, and the punishment of the warrior in the next
world will be much worse than that of the simple murderer; hence chess
was invented as a substitute for war. In opposition to Forbes,
therefore, and in agreement with Sir William Jones, van der Linde takes
the view that the four-handed game of the original manuscript is a
comparatively modern adaptation of the Hindu chess, and he altogether
denies that there is any proof that any form of the game has the
antiquity attributed to it. Internal evidence certainly seems to
contradict the theory that Sir William Jones's manuscript is very
ancient testimony; for it mentions two great sages, Vyasa and Gotama,
the former as teaching _chaturanga_ to Prince Yudhishthira, and the
other as giving an opinion upon certain principles of the game; but this
could not well be, seeing that it was played with dice, and that all
games of hazard were positively forbidden by Manu. It would appear also
that Indian manuscripts are not absolutely trustworthy as evidence of
the antiquity of their contents; for the climate has the effect of
destroying such writings in a period of 300 or 400 years. They must,
therefore, be recopied from time to time and in this way later
interpolations may easily creep in.
Von der Lasa, who had, in an article prefixed to the _Handbuch_ in 1864,
accepted Forbes's views, withdrew his support in a review of the work
just noticed, published in the September and November numbers of the
_Deutsche Schachzeitung_, 1874, and expressed his adherence to the
opinions of van der Linde.
Altogether, therefore, we find the best authorities agreeing that chess
existed in India before it is known to have been played anywhere else.
In this supposition they are strengthened by the names of the game and
of some of the pieces. _Shatranj_, as Forbes has pointed out, is a
foreign word among the Persians and Arabians, whereas its natural
derivation from the term _chaturanga_ is obvious. Again _al-fil_, the
Arabic name of the bishop, means the elephant, otherwise _alephhind_,
the Indian ox. Our earliest authority on chess is Masudi, an Arabic
author who wrote about A.D. 950. According to him, _shatranj_ had
existed long before his time; and though he may speak not only for his
own generation but for a couple of centuries before, that will give to
chess an existence of over a thousand years.
_Early and Medieval Times._--The dimness which shrouds the origin of
chess naturally obscures also its early history. We have seen that chess
crossed over from India into Persia, and became known in the latter
country by the name of _shatranj_. Some have understood that word to
mean "the play of the king"; but undoubtedly Sir William Jones's
derivation carries with it the most plausibility. How and when the game
was introduced into Persia we have no means of knowing. The Persian poet
Firdusi, in his historical poem, the _Shahnama_, gives an account of the
introduction of _shatranj_ into Persia in the reign of Chosroes I.
Anushirwan, to whom came ambassadors from the sovereign of Hind (India),
with a chessboard and men asking him to solve the secrets of the game,
if he could, or pay tribute. Chosroes I. was the contemporary of
Justinian, and reigned in the 6th century A.D. Professor Forbes seems to
think that this poem may be looked upon as an authentic history. This
appears, however, to be somewhat dangerous, especially as Firdusi lived
some 450 years after the supposed event took place; but since other
Persian and Arabian writers state that _shatranj_ came into Persia from
India, there appears to be a consensus of opinion that may be considered
to settle the question. Thus we have the game passing from the Hindus to
the Persians and thence to the Arabians, after the capture of Persia by
the Caliphs in the 7th century, and from them, directly or indirectly,
to various parts of Europe, at a time which cannot be definitely fixed,
but either in or before the 11th century. That the source of the
European game is Arabic is clear enough, not merely from the words
"check" and "mate," which are evidently from _Shah mat_ ("the king is
dead"), but also from the names of some of the pieces. There are various
chess legends having reference to the 7th and 8th centuries, but these
may be neglected as historically useless; and equally useless appear the
many oriental and occidental romances which revolve around those two
great central figures, Harun al-Rashid and Charlemagne. There is no
proof that either of them knew anything of chess or, so far as the
latter is concerned, that it had been introduced into Europe in his
time. True, there is an account given in Gustavus Selenus, taken from
various old chronicles, as to the son of Prince Okar or Otkar of Bavaria
having been killed by a blow on the temple, struck by a son of Pippin
after a game of chess; and there is another well-known tradition as to
the magnificent chess-board and set of men said to have been sent over
as a present by the empress Irene to Charlemagne. But both tales are not
less mythical than the romance which relates how the great Frankish
monarch lost his kingdom over a game of chess to Guerin de Montglave;
for van der Linde shows that there was no Bavarian prince of the name of
Okar or Otkar at the period alluded to, and as ruthlessly shatters the
tradition about Irene's chessmen. With respect to Harun al-Rashid,
among the various stories told which connect him with chess, there is
one that at first sight may seem entitled to some degree of credit. In
the annals of the Moslems by Abulfeda (Abu'l Fida), there is given a
copy of a letter stated to be "From Nicephorus, emperor of the Romans,
to Harun, sovereign of the Arabs," which (using Professor Forbes's
translation) after the usual compliments runs thus:--"The empress
(Irene) into whose place I have succeeded, looked upon you as a _Rukh_
and herself as a mere Pawn; therefore she submitted to pay you a tribute
more than the double of which she ought to have exacted from you. All
this has been owing to female weakness and timidity. Now, however, I
insist that you, immediately on reading this letter, repay to me all the
sums of money you ever received from her. If you hesitate, the sword
shall settle our accounts." Harun's reply, written on the back of the
Byzantine emperor's letter, was terse and to the point. "In the name of
God the merciful and gracious. From Harun, the commander of the
faithful, to the Roman dog Nicephorus. I have read thine epistle, thou
son of an infidel mother; my answer to it thou shalt see, not hear."
Harun was as good as his word, for he marched immediately as far as
Heraclea, devastating the Roman territories with fire and sword, and
soon compelled Nicephorus to sue for peace. Now the points which give
authority to this narrative and the alleged correspondence are that the
relations which they assume between Irene and Nicephorus on the one hand
and the warlike caliph on the other are confirmed by the history of
those times, while, also, the straightforward brevity of Harun's reply
commends itself as what one might expect from his soldier-like
character. Still, the fact must be remembered that Abulfeda lived about
five centuries after the time to which he refers. Perhaps we may assume
that it is not improbable that the correspondence is genuine; but that
the words _rukh_ and _pawn_ may have been substituted for other terms of
comparison originally used.
As to how chess was introduced into western and central Europe nothing
is really known. The Spaniards very likely received it from their Moslem
conquerors, the Italians not improbably from the Byzantines, and in
either case it would pass northwards to France, going on thence to
Scandinavia and England. Some say that chess was introduced into Europe
at the time of the Crusades, the theory being that the Christian
warriors learned to play it at Constantinople. This is negatived by a
curious epistle of St Peter Damian, cardinal bishop of Ostia, to Pope
Alexander II., written about A.D. 1061, which, assuming its
authenticity, shows that chess was known in Italy before the date of the
first crusade. The cardinal, as it seems, had imposed a penance upon a
bishop whom he had found diverting himself at chess; and in his letter
to the pope he repeats the language he had held to the erring prelate,
viz. "Was it right, I say, and consistent with thy duty, to sport away
thy evenings amidst the vanity of chess, and defile the hand which
offers up the body of the Lord, and the tongue that mediates between God
and man, with the pollution of a sacrilegious game?" Following up the
same idea that statutes of the church of Elna, in the 3rd vol. of the
_Councils of Spain_, say, "Clerks playing at dice or chess shall be
_ipso facto_ excommunicated." Eudes de Sully, bishop of Paris under
Philip Augustus, is stated in the _Ordonn. des Rois de France_ to have
forbidden clerks to play the game, and according to the _Hist. Eccles._
of Fleury, St Louis, king of France, imposed a fine on all who should
play it. Ecclesiastical authorities, however, seemed to have differed
among themselves upon the question whether chess was or was not a lawful
game according to the canons, and Peirino (_De Proelat._ chap. 1) holds
that it was permissible for ecclesiastics to play thereat. Among those
who have taken an unfavourable view of the game may be mentioned John
Huss, who, when in prison, deplored his having played at chess, whereby
he had lost time and run the risk of being subject to violent passions.
Among authentic records of the game may be quoted the _Alexiad_ of the
princess Anna Comnena, in which she relates how her father, the emperor
Alexius, used to divert his mind from the cares of state by playing at
chess with his relatives. This emperor died in 1118.
Concerning chess in England there is the usual confusion between legend
and truth. Snorre Sturleson relates that as Canute was playing at chess
with Earl Ulf, a quarrel arose, which resulted in the upsetting of the
board by the latter, with the further consequence of his being murdered
in church a few days afterwards by Canute's orders. Carlyle, in _The
Early Kings of Norway_, repeats this tale, but van der Linde treats it
as a myth. The _Ramsey Chronicle_ relates how bishop Utheric, coming to
Canute at night upon urgent business, found the monarch and his
courtiers amusing themselves at dice and chess. There is nothing
intrinsically improbable in this last narrative; but Canute died about
1035, and the date, therefore, is suspiciously early. Moreover,
allowance must be made for the ease with which chroniclers described
other games as chess. William the Conqueror, Henry I., John and Edward
I. are variously stated to have played at chess. It is generally
supposed that the English court of exchequer took its name from the
cloth, figured with squares like a chess-board, which covered the table
in it (see EXCHEQUER). An old writer says that at the coronation of
Richard I. in 1189, six earls and barons carried a chess-board with the
royal insignia to represent the exchequer court. According to Edmonson's
_Heraldry_, twenty-six English families bore chess rooks in their coats
of arms.
As regards the individual pieces, the king seems to have had the same
move as at present; but it is said he could formerly be captured. His
"castling" privilege is a European invention; but he formerly leaped two
and even three squares, and also to his Kt 2nd. Castling dates no
farther back than the first half of the 16th century. The queen has
suffered curious changes in name, sex and power. In _shatranj_ the piece
was called _farz_ or _firz_ (also _farzan_, _farzin_ and _farzi_),
signifying a "counsellor," "minister" or "general." This was latinized
into _farzia_ or _fercia_. The French slightly altered the latter form
into _fierce_, _fierge_, and as some say, _vierge_, which, if true,
might explain its becoming a female. Another and much more probable
account has it that whereas formerly a pawn on reaching an eighth square
became a _farzin_, and not any other piece, which promotion was of the
same kind as at draughts (in French, _dames_), so she became a _dame_ or
queen as in the latter game, and thence _dama_, _donna_, &c. There are
old Latin manuscripts in which the terms _ferzia_ and _regina_ are used
indifferently. The queen formerly moved only one square diagonally and
was consequently the weakest piece on the board. The immense power she
now possesses seems to have been conferred upon her so late as about the
middle of the 15th century. It will be noticed that under the old system
the queens could never meet each other, for they operated on diagonals
of different colours. The bishop's scope of action was also very limited
formerly; he could only move two squares diagonally, and had no power
over the intermediate square, which he could leap over whether it was
occupied or not. This limitation of their powers prevailed in Europe
until the 15th century. This piece, according to Forbes, was called
among the Persians _pil_, an elephant, but the Arabs, not having the
letter _p_ in their alphabet, wrote it _fil_, or with their definite
article _al-fil_, whence _alphilus_, _alfinus_, _alifiere_, the latter
being the word used by the Italians; while the French perhaps get their
_fol_ and _fou_ from the same source. The pawns formerly could move only
one square at starting; their powers in this respect were increased
about the early part of the 16th century. It was customary for them on
arriving at an eighth square to be exchanged only for a _farzin_
(queen), and not any other piece; the rooks (so called from the Indian
_rukh_ and Persian _rokh_, meaning "a soldier") and the knights appear
to have always had the same powers as at present. As to the chessboards,
they were formerly uncoloured, and it is not until the 13th century that
we hear of checkered boards being used in Europe.
_Development in Play._--The change of _shatranj_ into modern chess took
place most probably first in France, and thence made its way into Spain
early in the 15th century, where the new game was called _Axedrez de la
dama_, being also adopted by the Italians under the name of _scacci
alla rabiosa_. The time of the first important writer on modern chess,
the Spaniard Ruy Lopez de Segura (1561), is also the period when the
latest improvement, castling, was introduced, for his book (_Libra de la
invention liberal y arte del juego del Axedrez_), though treating of it
as already in use, also gives the old mode of play, which allowed the
king a leap of two or three squares. Shortly afterwards the old
_shatranj_ disappears altogether. Lopez was the first who merits the
name of chess analyst. At this time flourished the flower of the Spanish
and Italian schools of chess--the former represented by Lopez, Ceron,
Santa Maria, Busnardo and Avalos; the latter by Giovanni Leonardo da
Cutri (il Puttino) and Paolo Boi (il Syracusano). In the years 1562-1575
both Italian masters visited Spain and defeated their Spanish
antagonists. During the whole 17th century we find but one worthy to be
mentioned, Giacchino Greco (il Calabrese). The middle of the 18th
century inaugurates a new era in chess. The leading man of this time was
Francois Andre Danican Philidor. He was born in 1726 and was trained by
M. de Kermur, Sire de Legal, the star of the _Cafe de la Regence_ in
Paris, which has been the centre of French chess ever since the
commencement of the 18th century. In 1747 Philidor visited England, and
defeated the Arabian player, Phillip Stamma, by 8 games to 1 and 1 draw.
In 1749 he published his _Analyse des echecs_, a book which went through
more editions and was more translated than any other work upon the game.
During more than half a century Philidor travelled much, but never went
to Italy, the only country where he could have found opponents of
first-rate skill. Italy was represented in Philidor's time by Ercole del
Rio, Lolli and Ponziani. Their style was less sound than that of
Philidor, but certainly a much finer and in principle a better one. As
an analyst the Frenchman was in many points refuted by Ercole del Rio
("the anonymous Modenese"). Blindfold chess-play, already exhibited in
the 11th century by Arabian and Persian experts, was taken up afresh by
Philidor, who played on many occasions three games simultaneously
without sight of board or men. These exhibitions were given in London,
at the Chess Club in St James's Street, and Philidor died in that city
in 1795. As eminent players of this period must be mentioned Count Ph.J.
van Zuylen van Nyevelt (1743-1826), and the German player, J. Allgaier
(1763-1823). after whom a well-known brilliant variation of the King's
Gambit is named. Philidor was succeeded by Alexandre Louis Honore
Lebreton Deschapelles (1780-1847), who was also a famous whist player.
The only player who is known to have fought Deschapelles not
unsuccessfully on even terms is John Cochrane. He also lost a match
(1821) to W. Lewis, to whom he conceded the odds of "pawn and move," the
Englishman winning one and drawing the two others. Deschapelles'
greatest pupil, and the strongest player France ever possessed, was
Louis Charles Mahe de la Bourdonnais, who was born in 1797 and died in
1840. His most memorable achievement was his contest with the English
champion, Alexander Macdonnell, the French player winning in the
proportion of three to two.
The English school of chess began about the beginning of the 19th
century, and Sarratt was its first leader. He flourished from 1808 to
1821, and was followed by his great pupil, W. Lewis, who will be
principally remembered for his writings. His literary career belongs to
the period from 1818 to 1848 and he died in 1869. A. Macdonnell
(1798-1835) has been already mentioned. To the same period belong also
Captain Evans, the inventor of the celebrated "Evans Gambit" (1828), who
died at a very advanced age in 1873; Perigal, who participated in the
correspondence matches against Edinburgh and Paris; George Walker, for
thirty years chess editor of _Bell's Life in London_; and John Cochrane,
who met every strong player from Deschapelles downwards. In the same
period Germany possessed but one good player, J. Mendheim of Berlin. The
fifth decade of the 19th century is marked by the fact that the
leadership passed from the French school to the English. After the death
of la Bourdonnais, Fournie de Saint-Amant became the leading player in
France; he visited England in the early part of 1843, and successfully
met the best English players, including Howard Staunton (q.v.); but the
latter soon took his revenge, for in November and December 1843 a great
match between Staunton and Saint-Amant took place in Paris, the English
champion winning by 11 games to 6 with 4 draws. During the succeeding
eight years Staunton maintained his reputation by defeating Popert,
Horwitz and Harrwitz. Staunton was defeated by Anderssen at the London
tournament in 1851, and this concluded his match-playing career. Among
the contemporaries of Staunton may be mentioned Henry Thomas Buckle,
author of the _History of Civilization_, who defeated Kieseritzki,
Anderssen and Lowenthal.
In the ten years 1830-1840 a new school arose in Berlin, the seven
leaders of which have been called "The Pleiades." These were Bledow
(1795-1846), Bilguer (1815-1840), Hanstein (1810-1850), Mayet
(1810-1868), Schorn (1802-1850), B. Horwitz (b. 1809) and von
Heydebrandt und der Lasa, once German ambassador at Copenhagen. As
belonging to the same period must be mentioned the three Hungarian
players, Grimm, Szen and J. Lowenthal.
Among the great masters since the middle of the 19th century Paul Morphy
(1837-1884), an American, has seldom been surpassed as a chess player.
His career was short but brilliant. Born in New Orleans in 1837, he was
taught chess by his father when only ten years of age, and in two years'
time became a strong player. When not quite thirteen he played three
games with Lowenthal, and won two of them, the other being drawn. He was
twenty years of age when he competed in the New York congress of 1857,
where he won the first prize. In 1858 he visited England, and there
defeated Boden, Medley, Mongredien, Owen, Bird and others. He also beat
Lowenthal by 9 games to 3 and 2 drawn. In the same year he played a
match at Paris with Harrwitz, winning by 5 to 2 and 1 drawn; and later
on he obtained a victory over Anderssen. On two or three occasions he
played blindfold against eight strong players simultaneously, each time
with great success. He returned to America in 1859 and continued to
play, but with decreasing interest in the game, until 1866. He died in
1884.
Wilhelm Steinitz (b. 1836) took the sixth prize at the London congress
of 1862. He defeated Blackburne in a match by 7 to 1 and 2 drawn. In
1866 he beat Anderssen in a match by 8 games to 6. In 1868 he carried
off the first prize in the British Chess Association handicap, and in
1872 in the London grand tourney, also defeating Zukertort in a match by
7 games to 1 and 4 drawn. In 1873 he carried off the first prize at the
Vienna congress; and in 1876 he defeated Blackburne, winning 7 games
right off. In 1872-1874, in conjunction with W.N. Potter, he conducted
and won a telegraphic correspondence match for London against Vienna. In
Philidor's age it was considered almost incredible that he should be
able to play three simultaneous games without seeing board or men, but
Paulsen, Blackburne and Zukertort often played 10 or 12 such games,
while as many as 14 and 15 have been so played.
In 1876 England was in the van of the world's chess army. English-born
players then were Boden, Burn, Macdonnell, Bird, Blackburne and Potter;
whilst among naturalized English players were Lowenthal, Steinitz,
Zukertort, who died in 1888, and Horwitz. This illustrious contingent
was reinforced in 1878 by Mason, an Irish-American, who came over for
the Paris tournament; by Gunsberg, a Hungarian; and later by Teichmann,
who also made England his home. English chess flourished under the
leadership of these masters, the chief prizes in tournaments being
consistently carried off by the English representatives.
To gauge the progress made by the game since about 1875 it will suffice
to give the following statistics. In London Simpson's Divan was formerly
the chief resort of chess players; the St George's Chess Club was the
principal chess club in the West End, and the City of London Chess Club
in the east. About a hundred or more clubs are now scattered all over
the city. Formerly only the British Chess Association existed; after its
dissolution the now defunct Counties' Chess Association took its place,
and this was superseded by the re-establishment by Mr Hoffer of the
British Chess Association, which again fell into abeyance after having
organized three international tournaments--London, 1886; Bradford, 1888;
and Manchester, 1890--and four national tournaments. There were various
reasons why the British Chess Association ceased to exercise its
functions, one being that minor associations did not feel inclined to
merge their identity in a central association. The London League was
established, besides the Northern Chess Union, the Southern Counties'
Chess Union, the Midland Counties' Union, the Kent County Association;
and there are associations in Surrey, Sussex, Essex, Hampshire,
Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Somersetshire, Cambridgeshire,
Herefordshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Staffordshire,
Worcestershire and Lancashire. All these associations are supported by
the affiliated chess clubs of the respective counties. Scotland (which
has its own association), Wales and Ireland have also numerous clubs.
Still, England did not produce one new eminent player between 1875 and
1905. First-class chess remained in the hands of the veterans Burn,
Blackburne, Mason and Bird. The old amateurs passed away, their place
being taken by a new generation of powerful amateurs, so well equipped
that Great Britain could hold its own in an amateur contest against the
combined forces of Germany, Austria, Holland and Russia. The terms
_master_ and _amateur_ are not used in any invidious sense, but simply
as designating, in the former case, first-class players, and in the
latter, those just on the borderland of highest excellence. The
professional element as it existed in the heydey of Simpson's Divan
almost disappeared, the reason being the increased number of chess
clubs, where enthusiasts and students might indulge in their favourite
pastime to their heart's content, tournaments with attractive prizes
being arranged during the season. The former occupation of the masters
vanished in consequence; the few who remained depended upon the passing
visitors from the provinces who were eager to test their strength by the
standard of the master. Blackburne visited the provinces annually,
keeping the interest in first-class chess alive by his simultaneous play
and his extraordinary skill as a blindfold player--unsurpassed until the
advent of Harry Nelson Pillsbury (1872-1906), the leading American
master since Morphy.
Germany has produced great chess players in Tarrasch, E. Lasker, Lipke,
Fritz, Bardeleben, Walbrodt and Mieses, besides a goodly number of
amateurs. Austria produced Max Weiss, Schlechter, Marco and Hruby, to
say nothing of such fine players as the Fleissigs, Dr Mertner, Dr
Kaufmann, Fahndrich, Jacques Schwarz and others. Hungary was worthily
represented by Maroczy, Makovetz and Brody, Maroczy being the best after
Charousek's death. Russia, having lost Jaenisch, Petroff and Schumoff,
discovered Tchigorin, Janowsky, Schiffers, Alapin, Winawer and
Taubenhaus. France showed a decline for many years, having only the
veteran M. Arnous de Riviere and the naturalized M. Rosenthal left,
followed by Goetz and two good amateurs, MM. Didier and Billecard. Italy
had only Signer Salvioli, although Signer Reggio came to the fore.
Holland had a fair number of players equal to the English amateurs, but
no master since the promising young van Lennep died.
The first modern International Chess Tournament held in London in 1851
was the forerunner of various similar contests of which the following is
a complete table:--
_Tournaments_.
1851. London. 1 Anderssen, 2 Wyvill, 3 Williams.
1857. Manchester. 1 Lowenthal, 2 Anderssen.
1857. New York. 1 Morphy, 2 L. Paulsen.
1858. Birmingham. 1 Lowenthal, 2 Falkbeer.
1860. Cambridge. 1 Kolisch, 2 Stanley.
1861. Bristol, 1 L. Paulsen, 2 Boden.
1862. London, 1 Anderssen, 2 L. Paulsen, 3 Owen.
1865. Dublin. 1 Steinitz, 2 MacDonnell.
1866. Redcar. De Vere.
1866. English Championship Cup. De Vere.
1866. British Chess Association. 1 Steinitz, 2 Green.
1867. Paris. 1 Kolisch, 2 Winawer, 3 Steinitz.
1867. Dundee. 1 Neumann, 2 Steinitz, 3 De Vere and MacDonnell.
1868. English Championship Cup. 1 Blackburne, 2 De Vere.
1868. British Chess Association Handicap. 1 Steinitz, 2 Wisker,
3 Blackburne.
1870. Baden-Baden. 1 Anderssen, 2 Steinitz, 3 Blackburne and Neumann.
1870. English Championship Cup. 1 Wisker, 2 Burn.
1870-1871. City of London Handicap. 1 Potter, 2 De Vere.
1871-1872. City of London Handicap. 1 Steinitz, 2 Keats.
1872. London. 1 Steinitz, 2 Blackburne, 3 Zukertort.
1872. English Championship Cup. 1 Wisker (becoming permanent holder
of the cup), 2 De Vere.
1873. Vienna. 1 Steinitz, 2 Blackburne, 3 Anderssen.
1876. London. 1 Blackburne, 2 Zukertort, 3 Potter.
1878. Paris. 1 Zukertort, 2 Winawer (after a tie with Zukertort),
3 Blackburne.
1880. Wiesbaden. 1, 2, and 3, a tie between Blackburne, Englisch and
A. Schwarz.
1881. Berlin. 1 Blackburne, 2 Zukertort, 3 Tchigorin and Winawer.
Tchigorin made his first public appearance in this contest.
1882. Vienna. 1 Steinitz and Winawer, 3 Mason.
1883. London. 1 Zukertort, 2 Steinitz, 3 Blackburne.
1883. Nuremberg. 1 Winawer, 2 Blackburne, 3 Mason. This tournament is
a milestone in modern chess history. The prizes being
comparatively small, it was thought that it necessarily must
be a failure, the munificently endowed London tournament
having just been completed. But, strange to say, whilst in
London fourteen players competed, there were nineteen entries
in Nuremberg. Winawer, not placed in the former, won the first
prize in the latter.
1885. Hamburg. 1 Gunsberg; the next prizes were divided by Blackburne,
Mason, Englisch, Tarrasch and Weiss.
1885. Hereford. 1 Blackburne, 2 and 3 Bird and Schallopp.
1886. London. 1 Blackburne, 2 Burn, 3 Gunsberg and Taubenhaus.
1886. Nottingham. 1 Burn, 2 Schallopp, 3 Gunsberg and Zukertort.
1887. Frankfort. 1 Mackenzie, 2 Blackburne and Weiss.
1888. Bradford. 1 Gunsberg, 2 Mackenzie, 3 Mason and Bardeleben.
1889. New York. 1 Tchigorin and Weiss, 3 Gunsberg.
1889. Breslau. 1 Tarrasch, 2 Burn, 3 Weiss.
1890. Amsterdam. 1 Burn, 2 Lasker, 3 Mason. There were only nine
competitors, Lasker unexpectedly losing to van Vliet by a trap.
1890. Manchester. 1 Tarrasch, 2 Blackburne, 3 Bird and Mackenzie.
1892. Dresden. 1 Tarrasch, 2 Makovetz and Forges. Blackburne received
a special prize.
1894. Leipzig. 1 Tarrasch, 2 Lipke and Teichmann.
1895. Hastings. 1 Pillsbury, 2 Tchigorin, 3 Lasker. This tournament
is historical for the first appearance of Pillsbury, the
American champion, and Maroczy, the Hungarian champion.
1896. Nuremberg. 1 Lasker, 2 Maroczy, 3 Pillsbury and Tarrasch.
1896. Budapest. 1 Tchigorin, 2 Charousek, 3 Pillsbury.
1897. Berlin. 1 Charousek, 2 Walbrodt, 3 Blackburne. Englisch had to
abandon the tournament and return to Vienna ill. He never
recovered and died a few weeks later.
1898. Vienna. 1 Tarrasch, 2 Pillsbury, 3 Janowsky. Tarrasch
achieved a remarkable victory in this important tournament.
Pillsbury's chances were better than his, but he managed
to run him neck and neck and beat him in the tie match
which followed.
1898. Cologne. 1 Burn, 2 Charousek, Cohn and Tchigorin.
1899. London. 1 Lasker, 2 Janowsky, Maroczy and Pillsbury.
Janowsky sacrificed the second prize by trying to win a
game against Steinitz when with an easy draw in hand he
could have secured the second place for himself alone.
1900. Munich. Tie between Maroczy, Pillsbury and Schlechter for
three chief prizes.
1900. Paris, 1 Lasker, 2 Pillsbury, 3 Maroczy and Marshall.
1901. Monte Carlo. 1 Janowsky, 2 Schlechter, 3 Scheve and
Tehigorin. A novel rule was introduced at this tournament,
viz. the first drawn game to count 1/4 to each player, to be
replayed, and in case of a draw again to count -1/4 each, and
in case of win -1/2 to the winner. Theoretically this seems
logical, but in practice it did not work well.
1902. Monte Carlo. 1 Pillsbury and Maroczy, 3 Janowsky.
1902. Hanover. 1 Janowsky, 2 Pillsbury, 3 Atkins.
1903. Monte Carlo. 1 Tarrasch, 2 Maroczy, 3 Pillsbury.
1904. Monte Carlo. 1 Maroczy, 2 Schlechter, 3 Marshall.
1904. Cambridge Springs, 1 Marshall, 2 Lasker and Janowsky.
1905. Ostend. 1 Maroczy, 2 Tarrasch and Janowsky.
1905. Scheveningen. 1 Marshall, 2 Leussen, 3 Spielmann.
1906. Stockholm. 1 Schlechter and Bernstein, 3 Mieses.
1906. Ostend. 1 Schlechter, 2 Maroczy, 3 Rubenstein.
1906. Nuremberg, 1 Marshall, 2 Duras, 3 Schlechter and Fleischmann.
1907. Vienna, 1 Mieses, 2 Duras, 3 Maroczy and Vidmare.
1907. Ostend. 1 Bernstein and Rubenstein, 3 Mieses.
1907. Ostend. 1 Tarrasch, 2 Schlechter, 3 Janowsky and Marshall.
1907. Carlsbad. 1 Rubenstein, 2 Maroczy, 3 Niemzowitch and Leonhardt.
In the absence of any recognized authority to confer the title of chess
champion of the world, it has usually been appropriated by the most
successful competitor in tournaments. On this ground Tarrasch claimed
the title in 1907, although Lasker, who had twice beaten Steinitz, the
previous champion, in championship matches, in addition to such masters
as Bird, Blackburne, Mieses and Marshall, was well qualified to assume
it. Accordingly in arranging the programme for the tournament at Ostend
in 1907 it was agreed that the winner of this contest should receive the
title of tournament champion, and should play a match with Lasker for
the championship of the world. Tarrasch having proved successful at
Ostend, the match between him and Lasker was played at Munich in
September 1908, and resulted in the victory of Lasker by 8 games to 3
and 5 draws.
Chess has developed various schools of play from time to time. The
theory of the game, however, did not advance in proportion to the
enormous strides in its popularity. Formerly the theory of play had been
enriched by such enthusiasts as Dr Max Lange, Louis Paulsen, Professor
Anderssen, Neumann, Dr Suhle, Falkbeer, Kieseritzki, Howard Staunton, Dr
Zukertort, W. N. Potter and Steinitz, foremost amongst them being Louis
Paulsen. The openings were thoroughly overhauled, new variations
discovered and tested in practical play over the board. These are now
things of the past. The masters who find flaws in old variations and
discover new ones bring them to light only in matches or tournaments, as
new discoveries have now a market value and may gain prizes in matches
or tournaments. The old "romantic" school consequently became extinct,
and the eliminating process resulted in the retention of a small
repertoire only, sufficient for practical purposes in important
contests. Gambits and kindred openings containing elements of chance
were avoided, and the whole stock which a first-class player requires is
a thorough knowledge of the "Ruy Lopez," the "Queen's Pawn Openings,"
and the "French" and "Sicilian Defences"--openings which contain the
least element of chance. The _repertoire_ being restricted it
necessarily follows that the scope for grand combinations is also
diminished and only strategy or position play remains. The "romantic"
school invariably aimed at an attack on the king's position at any cost;
nowadays the struggle is to obtain a minute advantage, and the whole
plan consists in finding or creating a weak spot in the opponent's
arrangement of forces; such is the theory of the modern school,
conceived and advocated by Steinitz. But it is a curious fact that
Steinitz founded the modern school rather late in life. He felt his
powers of combination waning, and being the world's champion and eager
to retain that title, he started the new theory. This novel departure
revolutionized chess entirely. The attacking and combination style was
sacrificed to a sound, sober and dry method; but Steinitz, strange to
say, was not even the best exponent of his own theory, this position
falling to younger players, Siegbert Tarrasch, Schlechter, Amos Burn and
Emanuel Lasker. Pillsbury and Janowsky adhered to both styles, the
former in a high degree, and so did Zukertort and Charousek; Tchigorin
being a free-lance with a style of his own. The old charm of the game
disappeared--in match and tournament play at least--and beauty was
sacrificed to exact calculation and to scoring points. This is to be
regretted, for the most beautiful games still occur when a player
resorts to the gambits. One of the finest games in the Hastings
tournament was played by Tchigorin against Pillsbury, and this was a
"King's Gambit Declined." Charousek won a "Bishop's Gambit" against Dr
Lasker in the Nuremberg tournament; and some brilliant games occur in
the "Queen's Gambit Declined," if either White or Black sacrifices the
KP. Another reason why gambits should be adopted by players in
tournaments is that competitors would necessarily be readily prepared
for the regulation openings, so that the gambits might take them by
surprise. After all, the new school is a natural consequence of the
progress of the game. Paulsen, Anderssen and Tchigorin devoted a
lifetime to the Evans Gambit, volumes of analyses were written on it,
and then Lasker revives an obsolete defence, and the Evans Gambit
disappears! Zukertort achieved a great success with "1. Kt to KB3" in
the London tournament, 1883, and this, or the kindred "1. P to Q4"
opening, has since become the trusty weapon in serious encounters.
Lasker wrote _Common Sense in Chess_, and gave the best defences of the
Ruy Lopez (a certain form of it); but the "common sense" was demolished
in the Paris and Nuremberg tournaments, and old forms of that remarkable
opening have to be refurbished. These instances will suffice to show the
reason for the cautious style of modern times. The Moltkes have replaced
the Napoleons.
The old versatility of style could be revived if club tournaments were
organized differently. The players might be compelled to adopt one
single opening only in a two-round contest, each player thus having
attack and defence in turn. The next season another opening would form
the programme, and so on. Even in international tournaments this
condition might be imposed; the theory would be enriched; full scope
would be given to power of combination and ingenuity; whilst the game
would be more interesting.
There are still amateurs who devote their energies to the theory of the
game; but so long as innovations or new discoveries are not tested by
masters in serious games, they are of no value. Steinitz used to keep a
number of new discoveries ready to be produced in masters' contests, the
result being that his novelties were regularly demolished when it came
to a practical test. The mistake was that he did not try his novelties
over the board with an opponent of equal strength, instead of trusting
to his own judgment alone.
The British Chess Federation was instituted in 1904, its first congress
being held at Hastings in that year, when a British championship, a
ladies' championship and a first-class amateur tournament were played.
These competitions have been continued annually at the congresses of the
federation, with the following results:--
_British Championship_.
1904, Hastings, 1 H.E. Atkins and W.E. Napier, 3 J.H. Blackburne.
1905. Southport. 1 H.E. Atkins, 2 G.E.H. Bellingham and J.H. Blackburne.
1906. Shrewsbury. 1 H.E. Atkins, 2 R.P. Michell, 3 G.E. Wainwright.
1907. Crystal Palace. 1 H.E. Atkins, 2 J.H. Blackburne, R.P. Michell,
E. G. Sergeant and G. E. Wainwright.
_Ladies' Championship_.
1904. Hastings. 1 Miss Finn, 2 Mrs Anderson and Mrs Herring.
1905. Southport. 1 Miss Finn. 2 Mrs Anderson and Mrs Houlding.
1906. Shrewsbury. 1 Mrs Herring, 2 Mrs Anderson, 3 Miss Ellis and Mrs
Houlding.
1907. Crystal Palace. 1 Mrs Herring and Mrs Houlding, 3 Mrs Anderson.
_First Class Amateur Tournament_.
1904. Hastings Section A. 1 W.H. Gunston, 2 H.F. Cheshire and F.
Brown.
Section B. 1 G.E. Wainwright and C.H. Sherrard,
3 W.P. M'Bean.
1905. Southport Section A. 1 Dr Holmes, 2 J. Mortimer, 3 H.G. Cole
and J.E. Purry.
Section B. 1 F.E. Hammond, 2 F. Brown. T.J. Kelly
and C.H. Wallwork.
1906. Shrewsbury. 1 G. Shories, J. F. Allcock, P. W. Fairweather and
E. D. Palmer.
In 1896 and following years matches between representative players of
Great Britain and the United States respectively were played by cable,
with the following results:--
1896. America won by 4-1/2 games to 3-1/2
1897. Great Britain " 5-1/2 " 4-1/2
1898. Great Britain " 5-1/2 " 4-1/2
1899. America " 6 " 4
1900. America " 6 " 4
1901. Drawn
1902. America " 5-1/2 " 4-1/2
1903. America " 5-1/2 " 4-1/2
1907. Great Britain " 5-1/2 " 4-1/2
1908. America " 6-1/2 " 3-1/2
1909. Great Britain " 6 " 4
Since 1899 cable matches have also been played annually between
representatives of English and American universities; of the first six
three were won by England, the remaining three being drawn. In England
chess matches have been played annually since 1873 between the
universities of Oxford and Cambridge, seven players on each side. Up to
1907 Oxford won eleven matches, Cambridge twenty-one, and three were
drawn.
LITERATURE OF THE GAME.--The first known writer on chess was Jacobus
de Cessolis (Jacopo Dacciesole), whose main object, however, though he
gives the moves, &c., was to teach morals rather than chess. He was a
Dominican friar, and his treatise, _Solatium Ludi Scacchorum,
scilicet, Libellus de Moribus Hominum et Officiis Nobilium_, was
written before the year 1200. It was afterwards translated into
French, and in the year 1474 Caxton, under the title of _The Game and
Playe of Chesse_, printed an English translation of the French
version.
In 1490 we have the _Gottinger Handschrift_, a work containing nine
different openings and fifty problems. The author of this manuscript
is not known. Then comes Vicent, a Spanish writer, whose book bears
date 1495. Only the title-page has been preserved, the rest of the
work having been lost in the first Carlist war. Of Lucena, another
Spanish author who wrote in or about 1497, we are better informed. His
treatise, _Repeticion des Amores y Arte de Axedres_, comprises various
practical chess matters, including 150 positions, illustrated by 160
well-executed woodcuts. Various of these positions are identical with
those in the _Gottinger Handschrift_.In the 16th century works upon
the game were written by Damiano, Ruy Lopez and Horatio Gianutio della
Mantia; in the 17th century by Salvio, Polerio, Gustavus Selenus,
Carrera, Greco, Fr. Antonio and the authors of the _Traite de
Lausanne_; in the 18th century by Bertin, Stamma, Ercole del Rio,
Lolli, Cozio, Philidor, Ponziani, Stein, van Nyevelt, Allgaier and
Peter Pratt; in the 19th century by J.F.W. Koch and C.F. Koch,
Sarratt, John Cochrane, Wm. Lewis, Silberschmidt, Ghulam Kassim and
James Cochrane, George Walker, A. MacDonnell, Jaenisch, Petroff, von
Bilguer, von der Lasa, Staunton, Kling and Horwitz, Bledow, Dubois,
Kieseritzki, Max Lange, Lowenthal, Dufresne, Neumann, Suhle,
Zukertort, Preti and others.
English chess owes much to W. Lewis and George Walker. But to Howard
Staunton must be ascribed the most important share in creating the
later popularity which the game achieved in England. Staunton's first
work, _The Chess Player's Handbook_, was published in 1847, and again
(revised) in 1848. For want of further adequate revision many of its
variations are now out of date; but taking the handbook as it was when
issued, very high praise must be bestowed upon the author. His other
works are: _The Chess Player's Text-Book_ and _The Chess Player's
Companion_ (1849) (the latter being a collection of his own games),
the _Chess Praxis_ (1860), republished in 1903, his posthumous Work,
_Chess Theory and Practice_, edited by R.B. Wormald (1876), and
various smaller treatises. The laws of the game as laid down in the
_Praxis_ formed the basis of the rules adopted by the British Chess
Association in 1862. Besides editing _The Chess Player's Chronicle_
and _The Chess World_, he was the chess editor of _The Illustrated
London News_ from 1844 till his death in 1874.
Among continental chess authorities von Heydebrandt und der Lasa (more
usually known by his second title) stood pre-eminent. The German
_Handbuch_ was completed in 1843 by von Bilguer, who died before the
first edition was completed. The second, third, fourth and fifth
editions (the last published in 1874) were edited and revised by von
der Lasa.
Among the more important modern works the following may be mentioned:
Vasquez, _El Ajedrez de memoria; La Odisea de Pablo Morphy_ (Havana,
1893); Bauer, _Schachlexikon_ (Leipzig, 1893); Jean Dufresne, _Kleines
Lehrbuch des Schachspiels_ (6th ed., Leipzig, 1893); E. Freeborough
and Rev. C.E. Ranken, _Chess Openings, Ancient and Modern_; Arnelung,
_Baltische Schachblatter, &c._ (Berlin, 1893); Bachman, _Geistreiche
Schachpartien_ (containing a number of brilliant games) (Ansbach,
1893-1899); E.H. Bird, _Chess History and Reminiscences_ (London,
1893); _The Steinitz-Lasker Match_ (1894); _Chess Novelties_ (1895);
Max Lange, _Paul Morphy_ (1894); C. Bardeleben and J. Mieses,
_Lehrbuch des Schachspiels_ (very useful); Jas. Mason, _The Principles
of Chess in Theory and Practice_ (1894); _The Art of Chess_ (1895);
_Social Chess_ (Horace Cox, London); Dr Tarrasch, _Dreihundert
Schachpartien_ (Leipzig, 1895); Dr Eugen V. Schmidt, _Syslematische
Anordung von Schacheroffnungen_ (Veit & Co., Leipzig, 1895); Numa
Preti, _A B C des echecs_ (Paris, 1895); C. Salvioli, _Teoria generate
del giuoco degli Scacchi_ (Livorno, 1895): W. Steinitz, _Modern Chess
Instructor_ (New York, 1895); L. Hoffer, _Chess_ (Routledge); E.
Freeborough, _Select Chess End-Games_ (London, 1895); Euclid, _The
Chess Ending King and Queen against King and Rook_ (London, 1895);
Tassilo von Heydebrandt und der Laaa, _Leitfaden des Schachspiels_ and
_Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Schachspiels_ (Leipzig, 1897); Dr.
Lasker, _Common Sense in Chess_ (London, 1896); Oscar Cordel,
_Neuester Leitfaden des Schachspiels_ (Berlin, 1896); and a vast
number of other publications.
Further, _The London Tournament Book_ (1883); _Twelve Tournament Books
of the German Chess Association_ (Veit & Co., Leipzig); _The Hastings
Tournament Book_ (London, 1896); _The Vienna_ _Tournament Book_, by
Halprin and Marco (1900); _The Nuremberg Tournament Book_, by Dr
Tarrasch; _The Book of the London Congress_, by L. Hoffer (Longman,
1899); _The Paris Tournament Book_ (Paris, 1900), by Rosenthal, &c.
The following are some of the best works in English on chess
problems:--"J. B." of Bridport, _Chess Strategy_ (1865); F. Healey, _A
Collection of 200 Chess Problems_ (1866); _English Chess Problems_,
edited by James and W.T. Pierce (1876); H.J.C. Andrews, E.N.
Frankenstein, B.G. Laws, and C. Planck, _The Chess Problem Text-Book_
(1887); A.F. Mackenzie, _Chess: its Poetry and its Prose_ (Jamaica,
1887); J.A. Miles, _Chess Stars_ (self-mates), (1888); James Rayner,
_Chess Problems_ (1890); B.G. Laws, _The Two-Move Chess Problem_
(1890); _The Chess Bouquet_, compiled by F.R. Gittins (1897); Mr and
Mrs T.B. Rowland, _The Problem Art_ (2nd ed., 1898); E.B. Cook, T.
Henery and C.A. Gilberg, _American Chess-Nuts_ (1868); Samuel Loyd,
_Chess Strategy_ (1878); W.H. Lyons, _Chess-Nut Burrs and how to open
them_ (1886); C.A. Gilberg, _Crumbs from the Chess Board_ (1890);
_Canadian Chess Problems_, edited by C.F. Stubbs (1890); W. Pulitzer,
_Chess Harmonies_ (1894); G.E. Carpenter (N. Preti of Paris), _200
Chess Problems_ (1900).