DINNER AND CHESS

At Purssell's, people used to eat chops, smoke cigars or pipes,

play chess, and talk cricket all at the same time, which seems to

contradict the assumption that it is impossible to do two things at

once. Some say they cannot play chess before dinner, others

not after dinner. Too much dinner is considered a fair excuse

for losing at chess, but no dinner at all is not a valid plea.

According to the Rev. A. B. Skipworth, who should be an

authority on the subject, professional chess players are not

supposed to dine at all, but our great friend, the genial Mars,

dissents from this view. Staunton, Boden, Steinitz, Mars and

Skipworth himself are essentially diners, and Bird has been

accused of a tendency that way.

The professionals so called are very few, compared with former

years, yet they find the beef for many a Chess Editor, who barely

supplies the salt.

It is not a desirable thing in England like it was in India,

Arabia and Sweden to have the reputation of being great in

chess, nor is it supposed now, as it was in the Arabian manuscript,

the Treasure of the Sciences, and Olaus Magnus' work to imply

any particular proof of wisdom and discretion or evidence of fitness

for other things and one is not likely to secure a patron, or a

post, much less a wife by it. An example of how professional chess

players are regarded and can be treated now-a-days is afforded

by the gradual extinction of the class, and absence of the only

two young masters from their native country. The British

Chess Magazine managers are not ignorant of the significance of

the course which they have and are still taking against chess

masters. The Rev. W. Wayte and the Rev. J. Owen, both of whom

have known for forty years, were captains of the respective

teams in a proposed monster match North v. South which took place

at the Great Western Hotel, Birmingham, on the 28th of January

last, the inception of which shows how enthusiasm and ability

can be treated by those who assume the management and control

of these contests. At the very outset before any disposition or

inclination of any kind in the matter was evinced by the masters

the self-appointed inceptors took upon themselves the very

superfluous and invidious task of barring all professionals, and the

Chairman who seems to have joined it recently, is the same

chess patron who would not support my proposal for the Jubilee

Tournament of 1887 (successfully carried out with the aid of the

Times) on the ground "that it was not within the province of

any player, however eminent and enthusiastic to usurp the

functions of the executive appointed for the purpose (whether

paid executive chose to take action or not). May we ask are the

parties who agitated this monster tournament, those who were

specially appointed for any such purpose. Who first thought of

the happy idea of covering amateurs' expenses, and of excluding

just those players likely to furnish the best and most instructive

and amusing games, such in fact as the public most like to see.

Does this abundance of contests answer one good end, does it

even divert attention from the fact that it is absorbing the funds,

if not strictly taking the place of the 1892 International Chess

Tournament which we are under engagement to our own public

and still more to foreign chess players to provide in return for

Breslau, Amsterdam and Dresden hospitality and meetings.

To return to dinners, next to them, headaches, stomach aches,

and indigestion often explain the loss of a game, whilst an acute

attack of gout is considered rather advantageous than otherwise.

------

Chess History and Reminiscences · 第 50 / 67 题