The following article from The British Chess Magazine
furnished by the writer has been regarded with much interest,
we are tempted to re-produce it.
THE CHESS MASTERS OF THE DAY, IMPARTIALLY
CONSIDERED BY AN OLD ENGLISH PLAYER.
An article appeared in The Fortnightly Review of December,
1886 bearing the signature of L. Hoffer, Secretary of the B.C.A.,
entitled "The Chess Masters of the Day." We are informed
that the British Masters, who have read it are unanimous in
condemning its tone and spirit; and a short letter of protest has been
inserted in the March number of the same magazine, from H. E.
Bird, specifying their principal objections to it! In a letter to
us, Mr. Bird, incidentally, mentions that the article bears the
semblance of having been prepared by more than one writer; and
he suggests that a confusion of ideas may account for the
discrepancies in it? He then proceeds to question Mr. Hoffer's
authority for adding B.C.A. after his name, presumably for the
purpose of giving weight to the article which it is contended does
not meet with the general approbation of members of the British
Chess Association, or other real lovers of chess and friends to its
cause and advancement. The remarks of Mr. Bird, which we
understand, are heartily concurred in by all the British Chess
Masters, we give precisely in his own words.
------
However entertaining and amusing the article which appears
in The Fortnightly Review, entitled "The Chess Masters of the
Day," bearing the signature of L. Hoffer, may prove to the
general reader, there are reasons why it is not likely to pass the
more observant chess friend and true lover of the game without
grave misgivings and deep regret; and it is probably not very
rash to predict that, notwithstanding, the smile that may be
evoked here and there at the expense of the unhappy lampooned
Chess Masters, the feeling most predominant at the close of
reading the article will be very near akin to extreme
disappointment?
It is but fair, at the outset, to observe that the writer does
not seem to claim that his article is a disquisition on the game
of chess; that it is not so may, at once, be granted; but, it is
unfortunate that even as a record of what it purports to be,
viz., "The Chess Masters of the Day," a few lines will suffice
to show that it is not sufficiently connected, reliable, or complete
to form a chapter in chess history, or to be of any lasting interest
from a descriptive Chess Master's point of view.
Having first generalised the main contents of the article, we
may then proceed to point out its shortcomings, as well as the
more serious objections to it.
Of the 13 pages and 533 lines to which the article extends,
more than three-fourths are devoted to foreign players; that
apportioned, by the author, to panegyric of his present colleague,
Zukertort and to sneers, and personalities bordering on
vituperation of his past friend, the World's Champion, Steinitz,
being about equally balanced.
To the English Chess Masters mentioned, four in number,
Blackburne, Burn, Bird, and Mackenzie, the space allotted is less
than a fifth of that given to four foreign Masters, Zukertort,
Steinitz, Rosenthal, and Lowenthal. The writer himself also
figuring somewhat conspicuously.
The reason for the introduction, and at such length, of the
name of the distinguished Hungarian player, Lowenthal, into an
article presumably by title intended for living Masters, is not at
all apparent--he died in 1876. Anderssen, far more successful
if not far greater as a chess-player considered by many, including
the writer of this article, as King of all chess-players, who lived
till 1879, is not even mentioned. The selection may seem to
have been made for effect, and for the purpose of reproducing
certain too oft repeated jokes and quaint notions commonly
attributed to Lowenthal; that highly agreeable and justly popular
gentleman having apparently been regarded (if the expression
may be permitted) as a very convenient peg on which to hang
some funny sayings and ideas.
Horwitz, who died in 1884, is also in the article, supplying
further pleasantry. There will not be wanting, however, many
chess-players who will consider a description of Anderssen's play,
and great Championship and Tournament Victories of 1851, 1862,
and 1870 of at least equal interest.
Rosenthal of Paris, next to Steinitz and Zukertort, absorbs the
largest space among living players, more in fact than all the
British Masters combined; here again supposed witticisms and
pleasantries open up at the expense of the volatile and amiable
Polish player; no other plausible explanation appears to offer
for the prominency and length of space devoted to Rosenthal.
The name of a much greater though more demure Master,
happily still in the flesh, Von Heydebrand Der Lasa, considered
by many, including Morphy, as the finest chess-player of his
time, and certainly one of the most distinguished of foreign
writers, is not even mentioned.
The Prussian Masters are entirely omitted; Paulsen, most
modest and distinguished, certainly, one of the greatest players
and not second to any but Blackburne as a blindfold artist, why
is he forgotten? Bardeleben, winner of the Vizayanagram
All-comers' Tournament, Criterion, London, 1883, is another
unaccountable omission. Where is the incomparable Schallopp, the
present Prussian champion? His welcome visits from Berlin,
and performances unsurpassed for brilliancy at Hereford in 1885,
as well as London and Nottingham this year, are still pleasurably
remembered by us all. The absence of Paulsen, Bardeleben,
Schallopp, and Riemann, all living Masters of the highest
excellence, has the effect of excluding Prussia altogether, and
makes a portentous void, as it would do in any article on chess.
Tchigorin of St. Petersburg would probably, at the present
time, be equal favourite against any player in the world except
perhaps Steinitz. Though behind the Champion in Tournament
record, the young Russian player has been successful against him
in three out of four individual contests.
Tchigorin is leader of the Russian Chess Committee in the
St. Petersburg Chess Club now conducting the telegraph match
against the British Chess Club. His absence from a list of the
greatest living Masters is a grave oversight, and this most likely
is accidental; the omission of the only great Russian chess
representative, we have had the honour of welcoming to our Chess
Circle, could hardly have been intended.
Coming to players of the past in our own country, Great
Britain is made to occupy a very far back seat, and in this
respect at least Russia, Prussia, and England, through their
representatives, may join in mutual sympathy and condolence.
There can be no jealousy where all are ignored! We are
tempted to ask, "What can be thought or said of an article which,
professing to portray and describe Chess Masters, devotes near a
page to Lowenthal and more to Rosenthal, yet not a line to
Staunton or to Buckle?" Can the Reviewer have forgotten that
Staunton and Lowenthal were contemporary; if not, what can be
the explanation of such an omission?
Howard Staunton's name is certainly not second to any,
however illustrious, ever known in chess, he will ever be
remembered as the greatest chess-player of his day; and was
the most vigorous and entertaining of chess writers. Having
witnessed his play during 1845 to 1849, when he was still in full
force, deep impressions remain with us of his extraordinary
powers of combination, his soundness and accuracy. Although
comparison of chess-players, who lived or were in practice at
different times appear of little use or value, we yet have been
tempted once more to compare Staunton's, Anderssen's, Morphy's
and Steinitz's best games without arriving at any conclusion
except that Anderssen's style still appears more inventive and
finer than any other, while Steinitz is pre-eminent for care and
patience.
H. T. Buckle, writer and author, who died in 1862, was for
many years the strongest amateur player, mostly considered a
shade weaker than Staunton, but regarded by many as equal,
like Steinitz in style, sound and safe, running no risks, exactly
the reverse of that of Bird, who became his opponent on equal
terms in 1852.
All chess admirers, not in this country alone, but throughout
the world, would like to have seen the names of Staunton and
Buckle, and the more recent ones of Boden and Wisker as much
as those of Lowenthal and Horwitz. Less convenient for
facetious observation, it is yet more than probable that the grand
chess researches, works and sayings of the English champion and
Shakespearian Editor, and the Diary Chess Extracts of the highly
accomplished author of "The History of Civilization," (in which
reference is made to the relief and enjoyment afforded by chess),
would have interested the chess public fully as much as the
description of Lowenthal's shirt front, Rosenthal's grammar,
Winawer's inodorous and unsavoury cigars, or the fact that the
author had played billiards with M. Grevy, the President of the
French Republic, and that he was in a position to contradict the
statement that Zukertort came over in two ships. There are
many old players and admirers, and perhaps some young ones,
who would have felt both gratified and interested at a brief,
descriptive sketch of de La Bourdonnais and McDonnell, and
their great and never to be forgotten contests; Staunton and St.
Amant's championship match, England v. France, which
occasioned more genuine interest and enthusiasm than any other
chess event of this century, would also have been a welcome and
pleasing addition.
Coming to English players, the absence of the name of the
Rev. G. A. MacDonnell, one of the most accomplished writers,
experts, and masters of the game, cannot be satisfactorily
explained. He is (though rarely practising) full of vigour.
Independently of his skill as a player, he is regarded as a living
institution in chess. For a quarter of a century, with the late
Mr. Boden, and Bird still living he has been one of the foremost
amateurs; as a writer, he has contributed as much to the
amusement and edification of chess readers as any author known. He
always has been, and is still highly popular, with many intensely
so; his geniality is so great, as well as his wit, that his society
is eagerly sought, and always enjoyed. The omission of the name
of such a notable, worthy representative and general favourite,
is alone sufficient to detract from the value of the article to no
inconsiderable extent; if really intended as a trustworthy narrative
and record of the world's Chess Masters.
The Amateur Masters are not so numerous that they need have
been passed over. The Rev. W. Wayte is alike distinguished for
his honorary writings in support of chess, and his brilliant
victories, at times, against the finest players, extending over a
long period, not very far short of the experience of the writer of
these lines. He is, in addition to his many well-known scholarly
qualifications, a very distinguished amateur chess master, a liberal
supporter of the game, and by many looked up to as the head of
the circle. His name would grace any article. Mr. Minchin's
national and international services are too well-known to require
comment and he would deprecate any reference to them; still I
must express the opinion that he has earned the gratitude of the
entire chess-playing world for his disinterested services in
promoting and so largely contributing to the success of great and
popular gatherings. Mr. Thorold's eminence as an exponent, and
modesty and courtesy as an opponent, are known to all; whilst
Mr. Watkinson, though now out of practice, was an equally
forcible player, and has rendered inestimable benefits to the cause
of chess by conducting, for many years, a journal of the highest
class; which has never wounded the susceptibilities of a member
of the circle. The life-long services of the Rev. Mr. Skipworth
ought not to be forgotten; he is, when free from his official duties,
quite formidable as an adversary, and is ever ready and willing
to test conclusions with the best of players. The Rev. C. E.
Ranken, too, a very strong player and analyst, has, in many ways,
been of great service to the cause of chess.
Should the reader's stock of astonishment be at all limited,
heavy draws will have been already made upon it; yet another
call, however, remains, and that the most recent and in many
respects the most unaccountable. The advent of a new chess
master after a lapse of twenty years is in itself an event of
considerable interest in the chess world. W. H. K. Pollock was
early last year admittedly a master, in the opinion of many
considered competent to judge. In August of last year he won
the first prize in the "Irish Chess Association one game Master
Tournament," winning from Blackburne, Burn, and six leading
Irish players. He is most modest and very chivalrous, always
ready to play on convenient occasions for pure love of the game
and credit of victory alone. This is truly a strange omission.
The author's assertion with regard to Morphy is that "He
was head and shoulders above the players of his time." What
precise degree of superiority that may imply in chess is not easy
to define, and must be left to the imagination of the reader. As
a matter of fact Mr. Hoffer never saw Morphy; and his statement
is based upon his published games and public chess opinion;
which, it is true, mostly awards Morphy the highest place in
modern chess history; his title, however, is principally based
upon his victories over Anderssen and Lowenthal, the former
in bad health, and not in his best form at the time! Staunton
and Buckle, the best English players of their day, never
encountered Morphy. Against Harrwitz he won five to three, and
fourteen to six against Barnes. Morphy's record, though great,
is not superior to Staunton's before, and Steinitz's after him.
There do not appear sufficient grounds for estimating one more
highly than the other. Foreign critics sometimes as well as
English ones have been apt for purposes of inferential comparison
to exalt one player and proportionately disparage another; thus
chess critics, with whom Staunton does not stand in the highest
favour in the past, or Steinitz in the present, too often indulge
in the most extravagant statements as to Morphy's immeasurable
superiority, not based on conclusive grounds; when the games and
evidence are closely and impartially tested.
The rapidly advancing chess skill of so many young amateurs
in the present day is a great stimulus to the rising generation of
chess-players, especially to such as aim at a high state of
proficiency; and, though this may be regarded as one of the most
interesting and popular features in the pursuit the author of the
article in question makes no reference to this branch of the
subject. The gradual introduction of the game as a mental
recreation into seats of learning and industrial establishments,
and the formation of many Working Men's Chess Clubs are now
well known; the result is that for the first time within the
recollection of present players several amateurs have come to
the front scarcely inferior in force to the new Master, Pollock,
whilst some in style may compete with him! Anger, Donisthorpe,
Guest, Hooke, Hunter, Jacobs, and Mills, with the most successful
of the past University Chess Teams, Chepmell, Gattie, Gwinner,
Locock, Plunkett, and Wainwright, are names scarcely less
familiar than those of the half dozen older masters left, who form
the remnant of the little band of twenty recognised masters living
in 1854.
Chess has become far more general than it formerly was
because it is better understood. Old fashioned notions that it
was too serious and necessitated an unreasonable absorption of
time, are passing away. A well-known amateur, whose games
please the public much and are greatly admired in Professor
Ruskin's letters has played many of his best specimens within an
hour, some in half that time. This same player states that he
recurs with great interest, though melancholy in its character,
to some games, he has played with those afflicted in various ways,
on account of the solace and consolation as well as pleasure it has
been found to afford him! The excellent contests some blind boys
made against him with their raised boards; the enjoyment
they expressed and felt, as conveyed to him by the master of the
Asylum, is vivid in his remembrance. Chess has proved highly
beneficial to such of the lower classes, as have been fortunate
enough to resort to it, in place of more exciting and expensive
indoor games. The mental exercise called into play is of the
most healthy character; and those who interest themselves in the
welfare of their less fortunate brethren may benefit them
and society, by assisting to diffuse a better knowledge of its
advantages for those at present uninterested in it.
There may be something in the author's opinion that no
extraordinary mental power is needed for chess excellence; but his
views, probably, would have been more valuable if less general,
and expressed with such qualifications as the history of its masters
suggests; his idea, however, that anyone of average capacity
may play average chess, is not in accordance with experience, if,
indeed, it is not decidedly in opposition to it. Some of the finest
players may appear to Mr. Hoffer to possess but average intellect;
but, whether he is right or not, one thing is certain, that many
with the greatest endowments and known powers of calculation
and thought have failed at it and some have been candid enough
to admit that they abandoned the game because dissatisfied with
their own progress and skill at it. Buckle in his opinion given
by MacDonnell in "Life Pictures," (the amusing and interesting
work of the latter), considers imagination and calculation
necessary, but discards any idea of superior mental capacity.
It is clear, however, that the qualifications necessary to be met
with cannot well be defined; we have never found any successful
attempt to do so. Franklin did not attempt it. We find by
experience that a likely man fails and an unlikely one succeeds.
Stock-brokers have been very successful--mathematicians quite
the reverse. Twenty or thirty eminent players, barristers and
solicitors, may be quoted to four engineers and accountants, the
latter, however, including one of the masters! The Church has
been very prolific as well as medicine.
>From the programmes of our more recent tournaments we find
the most distinguished names of supporters, and the British Chess
Association is honoured with those of Lord Tennyson, Lord
Randolph Churchill, Professor Ruskin, and Sir Robert Peel on its
presidential list. The late Prince Leopold was Patron of the St.
George's Club, and President of the Oxford University Chess Club.
The late J. P. Benjamin, Q.C., and formerly, Sir C. Russell were
among its admirers and supporters. Sir H. James and Sir H.
Giffard also honour the list; and a very brilliant amateur in past
days, (scarcely inferior to John Cochrane and Mr. Daniels), W.
Mackeson, Q.C., still honours the chess clubs with an occasional
visit, willingly taking a board and invariably running a hard
race of combination with the best performers. Earl Granville,
the Marquis of Hartington, the Marquis of Ripon, and the Right
Hon. H. C. Childers, M.P., have also appeared as patrons and
supporters.
Blackburne, Steinitz, and Zukertort, our three greatest
professional players, will not feel highly complimented to hear,
for the first time, that their excellence arises from twenty years
hard labour; and that inferentially their capacity, otherwise, is
but common. Memory, a quality not mentioned by the Reviewer or
by Mr. Buckle, must be essential in the playing of chess for hours
without sight of board or men; it must be also advantageous in
the ordinary game, when many variations have to be worked out;
or the earlier combinations might be forgotten when the latter
are maturing.
Steinitz is now residing in New York, (this fact might well
have been stated) and the attacks upon him in his absence,
moreover, can hardly interest or gratify chess readers. These
attacks are in the worst possible taste; being calculated to lead
to controversy with his friends and supporters, who are still
numerous, both here and abroad. They will arouse a well merited
and just sense of indignation for despite his faults of temper and
a disposition, at times, prone to be touchy and contentious, Steinitz
is a true artist, a painstaking, careful, conscientious, and
impartial annotator, whilst as a describer of play he is unrivalled.
Willing, at all times, to render full justice to the skill, style,
and play of others, he has been frequently heard to observe that the
"difference in force between the six leading chess-players
is so slight, that the result of a contest between two of them would
be always uncertain."
As a chess-player he is far from lacking modesty. No "head
and shoulders" comparison or claim of superiority has ever been
made by Steinitz. He is exceedingly courteous to young aspirants,
and fairly communicative to all; he is, when vexed, as likely, (or
more so), to offend his best friends as strangers. With all his
shortcomings, however, it is doubtful whether any real admirer of
chess from its highest aspect will feel aught but regret at the
remarks applied to him; the space devoted to these attacks
(exceeding that allotted to all the English players) might well have
been devoted to chess in its social aspect, to its advantages and
prospects, or to some more agreeable phase of it than extreme
personality. Even another page or two of chess-players' jokes
and eccentricities would have been less objectionable.
The personalities and lack of impartiality in the article cannot
but be regarded as a very serious drawback; it is not written in a
tone which is likely to benefit chess or advance its cause; and it is
to be feared, that it will afford but little instruction or lasting
interest and pleasure to its readers.
NATIONAL CHESS.
CHESS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
BELFAST, (THE MOST RECENT MEETING).
As the events of the day or of the hour generally command
the most immediate interest in chess (as in many more important
things), we may commence notice of National Chess with the
memorable event which has most recently engaged public chess
attention, viz., the North of Ireland Chess Congress just
concluded in the City of Belfast. The history of First Class
Modern Chess Competition upon an emulatory scale in our country
may be almost said to begin with Ireland. We know that a little
band of chess enthusiasts assembled regularly in Dublin so early
as 1819, and that the knowledge of it had a material influence on
the advance of chess practice at the time, and so far as we can
gather the letter from Trinity College, Dublin, in 1850, was the
suggestion which first led to discussions which resulted in the
World's International Chess Tournament, (the first on record)
held in London in the succeeding year. There is little doubt
moreover among old chess players, and probably will be with
observant young ones either, that from the appearance of the
courteous and chivalrous A. McDonnell, of Belfast, in 1828,
may be dated the origin of genuine first class chess rivalry. It
was McDonnell's skill, courage, perseverance and gallant stand
against the famous Louis de La Bourdonnais, of France, in 1834,
and his successes against all the other competitors he met with,
and the encouragement that his example inspired, which first
established British claims to ability in chess, and an equal
reputation with the best of other countries in the exposition
of the game.
>From Greco's debut in Paris in 1626 to Philidor's first
appearance at London in 1746, (about 120 years) forms the first
of three previous epochs of chess progress; Philidor's own
distinguished career to 1795, a second, and the next quarter of a
century, to the first great correspondence match between Edinburgh
and London, when books on the game, literature, and the formation of
chess clubs first became conspicuous, marks the third epoch, from
Queen Elizabeth's time when probably chess first became the subject
of any considerable notice, or indication of approach to more
general practice and appreciation.
NOTE. The extent to which the 1851 and 1883 Tournaments were
aided by Indian feeling and support is another great and pleasing
feature. The names of Cochrane and Minchin stand foremost in
memory among the inceptors.
------
The wonderful Evans Gambit attack which has ever in its
manifold branches continued so intensely popular, had been
invented by Capt. W. D. Evans, in 1830.
It was played 23 times, the attack won 15, the defence 5, and
3 were drawn.
The Belfast amateur gained considerably in form in the latter
stages and at the conclusion, whether in brilliancy or depth, there
was not much to choose between them, though the great French
professional would seem to have been the more rapid player.
McDonnell died on the 14th September, 1834, aged 37, and
La Bourdonnais on the 13th December, 1840, aged 43, being about
five years before the appearance in the chess arena of the writer
of this article, and who now, owing to the hospitality and liberality
of Belfast has the honour and pleasure of taking part in a national
British competition in the native place of one who so greatly
contributed to the pioneering of these interesting tests of skill.
NOTE. The match between La Bourdonnais and McDonnell produced games
which for originality, enterprise and spirit have never been
surpassed. They commanded the admiration and enthusiasm of all
lovers of chess at the time, besides securing press notice and
arousing a taste for its practice, and a genuine emulation never
witnessed before this great example, and the appreciation of the
games is now as great as ever, and few modern matches can bear
comparison with them.
Different versions of the score have appeared; it was probably
finally La Bourdonnais 43, McDonnell 29, and draws 13.
------
The Chess Congress of the North of Ireland, which will sound
yet more familiar to many ears, under the title of the Belfast or
Belfast and Holywood Chess Congress (for it is to the spirit and
liberality of these two places that the meeting owes its origin)
commenced in the Central Hall, Belfast, on September 12th, and
concluded with one of Mr. Blackburne's marvellous blindfold
performances on September 24th, an ordinary simultaneous
competition of twenty-one games by Mr. Bird, on September 21st,
having also apparently afforded some pleasure and satisfaction.
The Belfast meeting must, owing to the originality and
enterprise of its conception, and the complete success which has
attended it form a unique item in Great Britain's local chess
records, and will not form one of the least interesting and
significant features in the national chess history of this
generation, for it is the first occasion in the record of the
forty-eight counties gatherings held since the first of 1841, in
Leeds, that the idea has been conceived of adding a contest between
the greatest living masters in the country on terms the most
liberal and deeply appreciated.
The proceedings of the Congress, and the scores of the players
in the Tournaments have been reported from day to day in the
Belfast papers, and the games of the masters with some selected
from the amateur handicaps have also been given, and save that
the same have been presented without comment on the merits of
the play, description, or notes which are found so useful and
acceptable to the general reader, otherwise considered, from a purely
local point of view, nothing remained to be desired. From a
national chess point of view, however, it seems to have been too
lightly regarded by the Press, some trophy in the amateur
competitions to commemorate the name of Alexander McDonnell, a
native of Belfast, who did more in his time than any other man to
uphold British chess reputation, might also not have been
inappropriate on such an occasion. Personally I was surprised that
the name of McDonnell did not appear to be more vividly
remembered in his native city.
It seems desirable, if not indeed absolutely necessary before
describing the games contested by the four masters, Blackburne,
Bird, Lee, and Mason, to say a few words about the original
inception of the great matches in which it was at one time
proposed that two other eminent players, not British born should
participate, but who at the last moment sought certain undue
advantages beyond the very liberal bonuses provided, and even a
controlling influence never anticipated by the committee, and to
which of course it could not, with any full sense of propriety or
regard to originally avowed intentions and subscribers views consent.
Asking pardon for a slight digression I will first say a word or
two about the absentees in not an ill-natured way before coming
to the essence of the play.
It so happens that during the past few years the countries that
furnished us with visits from the chivalrous Anderssen, the
hospitable and princely Kolisch, the distinguished and retiring Szen,
the singularly modest Paulsen, the courteous and gallant Lowenthal,
the amiable, unassuming, and as some think incomparable Zukertort,
and the genuine and in many respects greatest of all chess artists,
Steinitz, have also domiciled with us two more recent additions of
chess experts, who arrived at the age when chess players most
excel, and playing under conditions of time and clocks most
favourable to them have each in turn achieved such remarkable
successes, that native players have retired entirely to the shade,
and a forty year Bird (competitor of Buckle, Staunton, Anderssen,
Morphy and Steinitz, and still the most successful representative
of the rapid amusement school), and a thirty year Blackburne,
perhaps the greatest all round chess genius who ever lived fade
into significance before these foreign champions who, with the
most commendable energy, combined with unbounded confidence
and assurance, attempt to, and well nigh succeed in placing chess
influence at their feet with a Boss the shows determination openly
and unequivocally expressed. The control of most of the London
chess columns, and a large number of the Provincial is also
in foreign hands and proves a very powerful weapon in advancing
personal interests.
NOTE. The chess of the Daily News, Evening News and Post,
Standard, Field, and Telegraph and nearly all the Provincial
papers are conducted by German players. No leading British
player has a regular chess column.
------
Gunsberg, the elder of the two (slightly it is feared on the wane
though still champion of many columns) and Lasker twenty-four
years of age, still at his height, are both wonderful performers,
and enjoy a vast popularity among their race, and in certain
circles, but in the long run it is not unlikely that either will
feel extremely dissatisfied if he can maintain for half the time
the sustained reputation of the oldest English players who so
contentedly and modestly at present occupy their retired back seats,
and there are not wanting reasons to believe that both Gunsberg
and Lasker became most anxious to enter for the prizes in the
Belfast competition at the very time when it was finally determined
to confine it to four leading national representatives.
------
NORTH OF IRELAND (BELFAST) CHESS CONGRESS,
MASTERS' COMPETITION.
The proceedings opened at the Central Hall, Rosemary Street,
Belfast, on Monday, with an admirable address from Dr. Barnett,
who wished the players a happy and harmonious time and
extended to them a hearty welcome.
No.1. Bird against Blackburne offered an Evans Gambit.
This game was the only one played without clocks; both players
seemed at ease, and glad to be free from the formality and
encumbrance of time regulators and it is a happy omen that it
proved one of the most interesting in the programme:
The following is the complete list of the masters' games: