passage are evidently made to furnish a pretence for introducing the
notice of the London and Edinburgh match; and they share the fate of
all such forced work. They are absolute nonsense. The probability
that a decidedly superior will overcome an inferior player, is not
at all diminished by the circumstance that the match is played by
correspondence. On the contrary, we should rather be inclined to
say that the chance of an inferior player's escape in a single
game or so is almost extinguished where the match is played by
correspondence; because the time given for deliberation increases
the improbability of his antagonist's erring from carelessness, or
not taking in the whole position of the game, which sometimes occurs
in playing over the board. But there is an inconsequence in the
whole argument which surprises us to find in anything sanctioned
by a person of Mr Staunton's unquestionable powers of mind. The
loss of the match by London is not to be wondered at, it is said,
because it was a match by correspondence; and the immediate cause
of their losing it was the commission of a ridiculous and vexatious
blunder! To make this anything like logic, it would be necessary to
hold that ridiculous and vexatious blunders are more likely to be
committed when the player has time and opportunity to consider his
moves, and to make experiments upon their effect, than where he is
under the necessity of moving at once in presence of an adversary,
and possibly of spectators, apt to get impatient at long delay. It
is plain that the game's being played by correspondence was the
very circumstance calculated to render the London Club's particular
excuse for losing all the more untenable.
It is quite true, however, that at a particular stage of the game
opened by the London Club, (being one of the two games with which
the match commenced,) the London Club might have won the game, by
playing other moves than they did. This may be said of every game;
but it is as unusual as it is unhandsome for the unsuccessful party,
merely because he has missed such an opportunity of winning, to
refuse all credit to his adversary for afterwards defeating him. In
the third game, which was drawn, the Edinburgh Club would have won
if they had played a different 51st move from that which they did.
But this did not lead them to make depreciatory remarks about their
antagonists: all that their report bears on this point is, that the
London Club "conducted a difficult defence with great skill and
dexterity, and finally succeeded in drawing the game."
Further, the remarks above quoted are calculated to produce an
erroneous idea respecting the situation and conduct of the two
clubs in the second game. The sophistry consists in mixing up two
entirely separate and unconnected things. In this same game in which
the London Club failed to observe that they had a winning position,
they applied to have two of their moves recalled after they were
despatched, and the Edinburgh committee refused their request. Now
the obvious tendency of all that the English writers say upon the
subject is to create the impression that if the London Club had been
allowed to recall these two moves, they would have retained their
winning position. This is plainly the only construction that the
passage in the _Quarterly Review_ is capable of bearing. It is the
only construction which would justify his remarks, or make them at
all intelligible. But it is quite incorrect. The only moves which
the London committee wished to recall were the 27th and 28th; but
they have never attempted to show that if they had been allowed to
do so, they could have won the game. It has been demonstrated, over
and over again, that they could not. In fact, the moves they wished
to recall were as good as any others then in their power. They might
have drawn the game if these moves had been played; and they could
have done no more had they been allowed to recall them. This matter
was set at rest while the match was still pending, by a proposal
which emanated from the Edinburgh Club. When the Londoners lost the
game, Mr Lewis insinuated, though he did not expressly state, that
if they had not been held to the 27th and 28th moves, they would
have won the game. A member of the Edinburgh Club then offered to
play a back-game with any one or more of the London Club, in which
the London players were to be allowed a new 27th move instead of
the one they had made, and wished to recall; and also another
back-game in which the Edinburgh player was to take the London side
_at an earlier stage of the game_, with the view of showing that,
by playing differently, the London Club might have won it. This
proposal was under consideration of the London Club _for several
weeks_, during which they satisfied themselves that the recall of
the 27th and 28th moves would be of no use, and, accordingly, it was
declined. It is surely not very uncharitable to surmise that it was
during this period, and on the suggestion of their opponents, that
they discovered that the error was not in the 27th move which they
had proposed to recall, but in the 26th, which they had examined and
adhered to. In his first publication of the games, Mr Lewis gives
no back-game on this 26th move; and it is believed that no member
of the London Club was aware, till the game was finished, that by
playing differently at the 26th move they might have won it. But Mr
Lewis admits that the game could not be won by a mere alteration
of the 27th or 28th move; and any one who says that it could, is
either speaking in ignorance of the subject, or is making a wilful
misrepresentation. The likelihood of the remarks of the English
writers producing an erroneous impression arises from their mixing
up these two separate and distinct things: 1st, that at a previous
stage of the game, the London Club had a winning position which they
did not discover, and failed to avail themselves of; and, 2d, that
the Edinburgh Club would not allow them to retract the 27th and
28th moves. These two facts have no longer any possible connection
with each other when it is known that, at the 27th move, the London
Club had ceased to have a winning position, and that the recall
of that move would have been of no use to them. The failure, at a
previous stage of the game, to maintain the winning position which
they had, is simply one among several illustrations which occurred
in the match, of the truth that the London Club, "in the pride and
plenitude of its strength," did not always play as well as it was
possible to have done. How such things show that superiority on
the part of London, which they are brought forward to establish, we
confess ourselves unable to understand, unless we were to adopt the
principle of the _Chess-Players' Chronicle_, that it is the best
players who are most likely to commit errors in conducting a match
by correspondence!!
It seems to be a source of melancholy consolation to the English
players, that their Club committed a "ridiculous and vexatious
blunder." We are sorry that, in our strict regard for truth, we must
deprive them even of that comfort. The losing of the disputed game
was not a ridiculous blunder, however vexatious. On the contrary,
the series of moves by which they lost the chance of winning, was
at first a very promising attack, and had the additional temptation
of appearing brilliant and enterprising. If any chess-player will
set up the men at the 27th move of the London Club, or glance at
the diagram given in Mr Staunton's periodical for May 1850, he will
see that nothing but the utmost skill and caution on the part of
Edinburgh could have successfully warded off the attack. The London
Club had not contemplated the defence which they met with; and if,
in these circumstances, they were seduced into an ingenious but
unsound attack, it may be conceded that they manifested want of
circumspection, an important qualification in a chess-player; but
they cannot be accused of committing a ridiculous blunder. They
talk of having "thrown away" a rook. They did no such thing. The
rook was played not by mistake, but for the very purpose of being
taken in the course of their dashing but unsuccessful attack. And in
Mr Lewis's analyses, it will be found that many of his methods of
winning, at previous stages of the game, involve this very sacrifice
of the rook.
The refusal of the Edinburgh Club to allow the recall of the 27th
and 28th moves loses all its importance when it is known that it did
not affect the fate of the game. But we should in any circumstances
be sorry to believe that, in so refusing, they had done what
deserved the censure bestowed on them by the _Quarterly_ reviewer.
In considering the propriety of their conduct, there are only two
lights in which the request may be viewed. They were either asked
to do what the London Club had a right to demand, or they were
asked to grant a favour to the London Club. We do not know that the
former view is supported by any of the English writers. Even the
_Quarterly_ reviewer does not say that the London Club had a _right_
to recall the moves; and on this question of right it appears to
us that there cannot be the least shadow of a doubt. The letter
containing the moves was despatched to the Post-office. It was held
by the Post-office for the party to whom it was addressed, and was
entirely beyond the control of the party sending it. The piece,
in every sense, was therefore "let go" by the player; and the 8th
Article of Sarratt's laws of chess, by which it was agreed that the
games should be played, provides that "as long as a player holds
a piece, he is at liberty to play it where he chooses; but when
he has _let it go_, he cannot recall his move." Accordingly, the
London Club never attempted to contest the question of right. They
stated that they had "no hesitation in acceding to the Edinburgh
Committee's construction," and adhering to the moves. In fact, the
construction put on the point by the Edinburgh Club was not only
assented to by the London players at the time, but several members
of the committee admitted afterwards, that it was unquestionably the
right way of dealing with the case, and no member of the London Club
ever hinted a complaint on the subject, except what was insinuated
by Mr Lewis in the publication referred to.
Were the Edinburgh Club "_to blame_" for not granting the favour
which was asked of them? On this question we think there is quite
as little doubt as the other. We have a strong and decided opinion
as to the necessity of strict play in _all_ games. It is the only
fair and rational system; for once allow indulgence, and it is
impossible to fix the limit at which it should stop. But we think
that the remark applies with peculiar force to the game of chess,
in which rigour is absolutely essential to the acquisition of the
habits fitted for the proper playing of the game. Above all, in an
important match at chess, anything but the strict game is entirely
out of the question. A high-spirited antagonist will scorn to ask
a favour, or even to grumble about the commission of a blunder.
He submits in silence, and plays on in the hope of retrieving his
fault by redoubled care and attention. If, on the other hand, he
were to be expected to grant favours to his blundering antagonist,
it is plain that his very good qualities would be turned to his
disadvantage in the match. The Edinburgh Club played in the belief
that the rules of the game were to apply with equal strictness to
both parties; and though there was more than one instance in which
they would have been glad to recall a move, they never proposed
this, or even spoke of the occasions for it, except in answer to Mr
Lewis's observations on the proposed recall of the 27th move. In
the very game in which this move was made, the Edinburgh committee
had at a _previous_ point in the game made a move which they
discovered to be unsound, or at least doubtful. Their report bears
that "application was made to the Post-office to have the letter
containing it restored, but without effect. Finding this to be the
case, the letter was looked upon as delivered, the Post-office being
regarded as holding it, not on behalf of the Club from which it had
been sent, but on behalf of the Club to which it was addressed;
and therefore no attempt was made to countermand the move, by
transmitting another letter by the same post. The 8th article of
the laws was considered to be too clear and explicit to warrant a
recall." This conduct of the Edinburgh Club appears to us the manly
and proper way of dealing with such a circumstance, and infinitely
better than trying to make it the foundation of a complaint of
rigorous procedure on the part of their opponents.
The same thing happened again to the Edinburgh Club in the fourth
game. In consequence of having put up the game erroneously, they
sent an impossible move--that is to say, they directed a Knight to
be moved to a square already occupied by their King. They discovered
the mistake before the letter had left Edinburgh, but considered
themselves as having incurred the penalty of playing an impossible
move, which was, in the option of their adversary, either to move
the Knight to some other square, or to move their King. Of these
two, the move of the _King_ was infinitely the better play, and
therefore, in order to save time, a note was written on the outside
of the letter explaining the mistake, and stating that the Edinburgh
committee held themselves bound to move the _Knight_, which it was
presumed the London Club would enforce, as the more severe penalty.
The London Club did so; and yet Mr Lewis, in his notes to this
game, rather disingenuously, as it appears to us, represented the
London Club as having yielded an advantage to their antagonists, in
accepting the move of the Knight. This merely accidental blunder, on
the part of the Edinburgh Club, was one cause of their loss of the
fourth game.
Seeing that the Edinburgh Club thus on all occasions subjected
themselves to the most rigorous interpretation of the rules of the
game, we cannot hold the _Quarterly Review_ as justified in saying
that they were "to blame" in not allowing the London Club to retract
a move. But we appeal from the _Quarterly_ reviewer as a partisan of
England, to the _Quarterly_ reviewer, as an impartial enunciator of
general propositions respecting the game of chess. Hear what he says
about the absurdity of giving back moves:--
"Another advantage has arisen from the multiplication of clubs,
and consequent publication of accurate rules--viz., that the
strict game is now played, instead of those courteous surrenders
of advantages offered by a heedless adversary, which used often
to make winners of those who had received back two or three
leading pieces in the course of the game. These were a source
of endless unpleasant discussions, besides being in themselves
an absurdity. We confess we have no notion of rewarding an
opponent for his oversights. We would show him as little mercy
as Mr Smith O'Brien would to Lord Clarendon. Nay, we should be
moved hereto by a consideration of his benefit as well as our
own--for why should we teach him vacillation and heedlessness?"
Again, among a portentous list of narrow-minded delusions, he gives
as "Delusion the Fifth--
"'That it is illiberal to play the strict game.' To this we can
only reply, that other methods are but a miserable imitation.
People talk of the hardship of 'losing a game by an oversight,'
and so on. It is much harder to arrive at nothing but
'conclusions inconclusive,' and to have the game terminate in
an Irish discussion which of the two parties made the greatest
blunders."
We agree in every word of this; and we only wonder that so sound a
reasoner should himself fall under the delusion which he exposes--so
severe a censor should commit the very offence which he condemns.
On the whole, as regards the proposed recall of the 27th and 28th
moves of the second game, we think these three propositions are
conclusively established, 1. That neither according to the rules
of the game, nor upon any other principle which does or ought to
regulate the playing of matches, were the London Club entitled to
have their proposal acceded to. 2. That though it had been acceded
to, and these moves had been allowed to be recalled, the London
Club could not have bettered their situation, as the opportunity of
winning was already irretrievably lost in consequence of the 26th
move, which was not asked to be recalled, but, on the contrary,
was expressly adhered to. 3. That the impression which English
chess-players have so industriously attempted to create, that the
refusal on the part of Edinburgh to allow the 27th and 28th moves
to be recalled was what prevented the London Club from winning the
game, can only exist through a confusion between these moves and the
previous one, which the London Club had adhered to after a renewed
examination, not having even then discovered that it was unsound.
Before leaving the second game, we have this last additional remark
to make about it, that it is one of the erroneous assumptions and
inferences of the English writers, that the winning of that game
would have decided the match in their favour. It was the first won
game; and though it is true that the London Club _subsequently_
won the fourth game, which was the successor of the second, it
is also the fact that the fourth game, which was opened by the
Edinburgh Club, would not have been played if the second had
been won by London, who in that case would have had the opening
of the fourth. We do not mean to say that having to open was a
disadvantage. All we assert is, that, in point of fact, the game,
which the Edinburgh Club lost partly through a mistake in setting
up the men, and through another blunder, not very different in its
character, would not have been played at all if London had won the
second game. Besides, the fourth game would, in other respects, have
been played under very different circumstances. The opening of the
second game by the London Club was one which none of the Edinburgh
players had ever seen before, though, from this match, it now goes
by the name of the Scotch opening. They believed, however, from
their consideration of the second game, that the London Club had
not availed themselves of all the capabilities of the opening, and
they thought it would be a spirited thing to return it upon their
antagonists. This they did in the _third_ game. The event rewarded
their enterprising conduct. They gained a decided advantage; and
during the greater part of the _fourth_ game they believed that it
would never require to be finished, as they thought that by winning
the _third_ game they would gain the match. This accounts for the
carelessness with which they played the fourth game, though we
think nothing can excuse carelessness in playing chess. They were
ultimately disappointed in their expectation of gaining the third
game, as the London Club succeeded in drawing it; and this rendered
a fifth game necessary.
Down to the fifth game it appears plain enough, from the above
examination, that the Edinburgh Club had maintained, at the very
least, an equal position to their antagonists. The first game had
been drawn, with no advantage at any stage of it, in favour of
either party. The second had been won by Edinburgh, but was subject
to the observation that, at one point, London might have won had
they played as well as they _afterwards_ discovered they might
have done. The third game was drawn: but the advantage throughout
had been in favour of Edinburgh, though not sufficiently so for
winning; and, as was the case with London in the previous game,
Edinburgh failed to perceive that by moving differently at a certain
point, they would have been victorious. The fourth game was lost by
Edinburgh, partly through an accidental and what may be called a
mechanical blunder, and partly through another piece of carelessness
of a similar character. After a contest thus maintained down to the
commencement of the fifth game, it is beyond all question that the
palm of superiority, in point of play, must rest with the victor
in that game. And it was a game worthy to determine that question
as well as the match. The Edinburgh Club had again returned upon
their antagonists their own opening. In order to secure scope for
the action of their pieces, they showed considerable intrepidity
in disregarding the ordinary rules against doubled and isolated
pawns; and so admirably had they analysed the game, that for a
great many moves they knew that victory was certain, though all the
while the London Club, according to the confession of some of their
own members, were blind to the fate that was awaiting them; and
believed, on the contrary, that the game was in their own hands.
This fifth game will long be remembered by chess players as one
of the most remarkable in the annals of chess; and appears to us
conclusive, so far as regards the internal evidence derived from the
games themselves, that the superiority, in point of play, lay with
the Edinburgh Club, and that their winning the match was not a mere
accident.
It may be that there are other data for determining the relative
superiority of the two Clubs; but we cannot admit the correctness
of any of those mentioned by the _Quarterly_ reviewer or Mr
Staunton. It is true, as these gentlemen say, that the Edinburgh
Club was comparatively inexperienced. It had only been instituted
in 1822, and the match was begun in 1824. It comprehended, almost
exclusively, professional gentlemen actively engaged in business,
who had not, generally speaking, much leisure or opportunity for
seeking antagonists out of their own little circle of chess-players
at home. On the other hand, it cannot be disputed that there is
to be found in the metropolis of England, in greater abundance
than anywhere else, that combination of leisure with intellectual
power, which gives the promise of good chess-playing. But these
circumstances do not lead our minds to the conclusion to which Mr
Staunton and the _Quarterly_ reviewer have come, that the winning of
the match by the Edinburgh Club was an accident. We should rather
be inclined to hold, considering the character of the contest as
explained by us above, that they are a proof of the greater natural
chess-playing capacity of the members of the Club which won the
match under such disadvantages. Again, Mr Staunton asks where are
the previous exploits to which the Edinburgh players could point,
such as those that the members of the London Club had performed? The
answer is, None. They never had, and never sought the opportunity
of performing any great chess exploit, except beating the London
Club. But in so doing they made their own all the previous victories
of the London Club. The event showed that they might, without
presumption, have expressed the sentiment of Prince Henry--
"Percy is but my factor, good, my lord,
To engross up glorious deeds on my behalf;
And I will call him to so strict account,
That he shall render every glory up.
* * * * *
And all the budding honours on his crest
I'd crop to make a garland for my head."
With which valorous quotation we draw our remarks to a close,
submitting that the members of the Edinburgh Club are bound to
invite us to a special sitting at a board, which shall be garnished
with some other material more soft and digestible than chessmen.
THE INDUSTRY OF THE PEOPLE.