Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Châtelet" to "Chicago"

Chapter C: O. H. Cl. Br. I. S (6)

Text size

White. Black.
1. P-K4 1. P-K4
2. KKt-B3 2. QKt-B3
3. B-Kt5 3. P-QR3
4. B-R4 4. Kt-B3
5. P-Q4 5. PxP
6. P-K5 6. Kt-K5
7. Castles 7. B-K2
8. R-K sq 8. Kt-B4
9. BxKt 9. QPxB
10. KtxP 10. Castles
11. Kt-QB3 11. P-KB3

Even game.

SCOTCH GAMBIT.

White. Black.
1. P-K4 1. P-K4
2. KKt-B3 2. QKt-B3
3. P-Q4 3. PxP
4. B-QB4 4. B-B4
5. P-B3 5. Kt-B3
6. PxP

The position here arrived at is the same as in the Giuoco Piano
opening above.

EVANS GAMBIT.

White. Black.
1. P-K4 1. P-K4
2. KKt-B3 2. QKt-B3
3. B-B4 3. B-B4
4. P-QKt4 4. BxKtP
5. P-B3 5. B-B4
6. P-Q4 6. PxP
7. Castles 7. P-Q3
8. PxP 8. B-Kt3

White has for its ninth move three approved continuations, viz. B-Kt2, P-Q5, and Kt-B3. To take one of them:--

9. P-Q5 9. Kt-R4
10. B-Kt2 10. Kt-K2
11. B-Q3 11. Castles
12. Kt-B3 12. Kt-Kt3
13. Kt-K2 13. P-QB4
14. Q-Q2 14. P-B3
15. K-R sq 15. B-B2
16. QR-B sq 16. R-Kt sq

This game may be considered about even.

KING'S KNIGHT'S GAMBIT (PROPER).

White. Black.
1. P-K4 1. P-K4
2. P-KB4 2. PxP
3. KKt-B3 3. P-KKt4
4. B-B4 4. B-Kt2
5. Castles 5. P-Q3
6. P-Q4 6. P-KR3
7. P-B3 7. Kt-K2

Black has the advantage.

ALLGAIER-KIESERITZKI GAMBIT.

White. Black.
1. P-K4 1. P-K4
2. P-KB4 2. PxP
3. Kt-KB3 3. P-KKt4
4. P-KR4 4. P-Kt5
5. Kt-K5 5. KKt-B3
6. B-B4 6. P-Q4
7. PxP 7. B-Kt2
8. P-Q4 8. Castles
9. BxP 9. KtxP
10. BxKt 10. QxB
11. Castles 11. P-QB4

Black has the better game.

KING'S BISHOP'S GAMBIT.

White. Black.
1. P-K4 1. P-K4
2. P-KB4 2. PxP
3. B-B4 3. P-Q4
4. BxP 4. Q-R5 (ch)
5. K-B sq 5. P-KKt4
6. KKt-B3 6. Q-R4
7. P-Q4 7. B-Kt2
8. P-KR4 8. P-KR3
9. Kt-B3 9. Kt-K2
10. K-Kt sq 10. P-Kt5
11. Kt-K5 11. BxKt
12. PxB 12. QxKP
13. Q-B sq 13. P-B6
14. P-P 14. Q-Kt6 (ch)
15. Q-Kt2

Drawn game.

SALVIO GAMBIT.

White. Black.
1. P-K4 1. P-K4
2. P-KB4 2. PxP
3. KKt-B3 3. P-KKt4
4. B-B4 4. P-Kt5
5. Kt-K5 5. Q-R5 (ch)
6. K-B sq 6. Kt-KR3
7. P-Q4 7. P-B6
8. Kt-QB3 8. P-Q3
9. Kt-Q3 9. PxP (ch)
10. KxP 10. B-Kt2
11. Kt-KB4 11. Kt-B3
12. B-K3 12. Castles
13. QKt-Q5 13. Q-Q sq
14. P-B3

White has a slight advantage.

MUZIO GAMBIT.

P-K4 P-KB4 KKt-B3 B-B4
1. ---- 2. ----- 3. ------ 4. ----
P-K4 PxP P-KKt4 P-Kt5

White. Black.
5. Castles 5. PxKt
6. QxP 6. Q-B3
7. P-K5 7. QxP
8. P-Q3 8. B-R3
9. B-Q2 9. Kt-K2
10. Kt-B3 10. QKt-B3
11. QR-K sq 11. Q-KB4
12. R-K4 12. Castles
13. QBxP 13. B-Kt2
14. Q-K2 14. P-Q4
15. BxBP 15. Q-Kt4
16. P-KR4 16. Q-Kt3
17. KtxP 17. KtxKt
18. BxKt 18. B-B4
19. QR-KB4 19. B-K3
20. BxB 20. PxB
21. R-K4 21. RxR (ch)
22. KxR 22. R-B sq (ch)
23. K-Kt sq 23. Kt-Q5

And Black has the better game.

QUEEN'S GAMBIT.

White. Black.
1. P-Q4 1. P-Q4
2. P-QB4 2. PxP
3. P-K3 3. P-K4
4. BxP 4. PxP
5. PxP 5. B-Q3
6. Kt-KB3 6. Kt-KB3
7. Castles 7. Castles
8. P-KR3 8. P-KR3
9. Kt-QB3 9. P-QB3

The game is about equal, though White has a somewhat freer position.

The following is a selection of noteworthy games played by great masters:--

KING'S BISHOP'S GAMBIT.

White. Black.
Anderssen. Kieseritzki.
1. P-K4 1. P-K4
2. P-KB4 2. PxP
3. B-B4 3. Q-R5 (ch)
4. K-B sq 4. P-QKt4
5. BxKtP 5. Kt-KB3
6. Kt-KB3 6. Q-R3
7. P-Q3 7. Kt-R4
8. Kt-R4 8. Q-Kt4
9. Kt-B5 9. P-QB3
10. P-KKt4 10. Kt-B3
11. R-Kt sq 11. PxB
12. P-KR4 12. Q-Kt3
13. P-R5 13. Q-Kt4
14. Q-B3 14. Kt-Kt sq
15. BxP 15. Q-B3
16. Kt-B3 16. B-B4
17. Kt-Q5 17. QxKtP
18. B-Q6 18. QxR (ch)
19. K-K2 19. BxR
20. P-K5 20. Kt-QR3

White mates in three moves.

PHILIDOR'S DEFENCE.

White. Black.
Barnes. Morphy.
1. P-K4 1. P-K4
2. Kt-KB3 2. P-Q3
3. P-Q4 3. P-KB4
4. PxKP 4. BPxP
5. Kt-Kt5 5. P-Q4
6. P-K6 6. B-QB4
7. Kt-B7 7. Q-B3
8. B-K3 8. P-Q5
9. B-KKt5 9. Q-B4
10. KtxR 10. QxB
11. B-B4 11. Kt-QB3
12. Kt-B7 12. QxP
13. R-B sq 13. Kt-B3
14. P-KB3 14. Kt-QKt5
15. Kt-QR3 15. BxP
16. BxB 16. Kt-Q6 (ch)
17. QxKt 17. PxQ
18. Castles 18. BxKt
19. B-Kt3 19. P-Q7 (ch)
20. K-Kt sq 20. B-B4
21. Kt-K5 21. K-B sq
22. Kt-Q3 22. R-K sq
23. KtxB 23. QxR

And White resigns.

BISHOP'S GAMBIT.

This pretty game was played in the tie match for first prize at the Budapest tournament, 1896.

QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED.

This game was played in the St Petersburg tournament, 1895, a fine specimen of Lasker's style. The final attack, beginning with 21. with Kt-Q5, furnishes a gem of an ending.

RICE GAMBIT.

The Rice Gambit (so called after its inventor, Prof. Isaac L. Rice of New York), whether right or not, is only possible if Black plays 7. B-Q3. Paulsen's 7. B-Kt2 is better, and avoids unnecessary complications. 8. P-Q4 is the usual move. Leaving the knight _en prise_, followed by 9. R-K sq, constitutes the Rice Gambit. The interesting points in the game are that White subjects himself to a most violent attack with impunity, for in the end Black could not save the game by 22. P-B8 claiming a second queen with a discovered check, nor by claiming a knight with double check, as it is equally harmless to White.

GIUOCO PIANO.

As a matter of fact, Bardeleben left the board here, and lost the game by letting his clock run out the time-limit; but Steinitz, who remained at the board, demonstrated afterwards the following variation leading to a forced win:--

White. Black. White. Black.
Steinitz. Bardeleben. Steinitz. Bardeleben.
25. ...... K-Kt sq | 31. Q-Kt8 (ch) K-K2
26. R-Kt7 (ch) K-R sq | 32. Q-B7 (ch) K-Q sq
27. Q-R4 (ch) KxR | 33. Q-B8 (ch) Q-K sq
28. Q-R7 (ch) K-B sq | 34. Kt-B7 (ch) K-Q2
29. Q-R8 (ch) K-K2 | 35. Q-Q6 mate.
30. Q-Kt7 (ch) K-K sq |

This game was awarded the prize for "brilliancy" at the Hastings tournament, 1895.

RUY LOPEZ.

This brilliant game, played at the Munich tournament, 1900, would be unique had the combinations occurred spontaneously in the game. As a matter of fact, however, the whole variation had been elaborated by Maroczy and Halprin previously, on the chance of Pillsbury adopting the defence in the text. The real merit belongs to Pillsbury, who had to find the correct defence to an attack which Halprin had committed to memory and simply had to be careful to make the moves in regular order.

SICILIAN DEFENCE.

This brilliant game occurred at the Paris tournament, 1900.

EVANS GAMBIT.

This game is most remarkable and brilliant. The _coup de repos_ of 19. QR - Q sq is the key - move to the brilliant final combination, the depth and subtlety of which have never been equalled, except perhaps in the following game between Zukertort and Blackburne:--

ENGLISH OPENING.

This game, played in the London tournament, 1883, is one of the most remarkable productions of modern times, neither surpassed nor indeed equalled hitherto.

_End Games._--A game of chess consists of three branches--the opening, the middle and the end game. The _openings_ have been analysed and are to be acquired by the study of the books on the subject. The _middle game_ can only be acquired practically. The combinations being inexhaustible in their variety, individual ingenuity has its full scope. Those endowed with a fertile imagination will evolve plans and combinations leading to favourable issues. The less endowed player, however, is not left quite defenceless; he has necessarily to adopt a different system, namely, to try to find a weak point in the arrangement of his opponent's forces and concentrate his attack on that weak spot. As a matter of fact, in a contest between players of equal strength, finding the weak point in the opponent's armour is the only possible plan, and this may be said to be the fundamental principle of the modern school. In the good old days the battles were mostly fought in the neighbourhood of the king, each side striving for a checkmate. Nowadays the battle may be fought anywhere. It is quite immaterial where the advantage is gained be it ever so slight. Correct continuation will necessarily increase it, and the opponent may be compelled to surrender in the end game without being checkmated, or a position may be reached when the enemies, in consequence of the continual fight, are so reduced that the kings themselves have to take the field--the end game. The _end game_, therefore, requires a special study. It has its special laws and the value of the pieces undergoes a considerable change. The kings leave their passive role and become attacking forces. The pawns increase in value, whilst that of the pieces may diminish in certain cases. Two knights, for instance, without pawns, become valueless, as no checkmate can be effected with them. In the majority of cases the players must be guided by general principles, as the standard examples do not meet all-cases.

The handbooks as a rule give a sprinkling of elementary endings, such as to checkmate with queen, rook, bishop and knight, two bishops, and pawn endings pure and simple, as well as pawns in connexion with pieces in various forms. Towards the end of the 19th century a valuable work on end games was published in England by the late B. Horwitz; thus for the first time a theoretical classification of the art was given. This was followed by a more comprehensive work by Professor J. Berger of Gratz, which was translated a few years later by the late Mr Freeborough.

A few specimens of the less accessible positions are given below:--

_Position from a Game played by the late J.G. Campbell in 1863._

BLACK.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |BP | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |WP | |BP | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |BK | |BP | | |WB | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|WP | | |WP | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | |BP |BP |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |WP | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | |BK | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
WHITE.

Obviously White has to lose the game, not being able to prevent the pawns from queening. By a remarkably ingenious device White averts the loss of the game by stalemating himself as follows:--

1. B-Q2, P-Kt7; 2. B-R5, P-Kt8 = Q; 3. P-Kt4 stalemate.

_Position by Sarratt, 1808_.

BLACK.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|BP |BP |BP | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | |BK |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|WP |WP |WP | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | |WK | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
WHITE.

White wins as follows:--

1. P-Kt6, RPxP; 2. P-B6, P(Kt2)xP; 3. P-R6 and wins by queening the pawn. If 1. ... BPXP then 2. P-R6, KtPXP; 3-P-B6 and queens the pawn.

_Problems._--A chess problem[1] has been described as "merely a position supposed to have occurred in a game of chess, being none other than the critical point where your antagonist announces checkmate in a given number of moves, no matter what defence you play," but the above description conveys no idea of the degree to which problem-composing has become a specialized study. Owing its inception, doubtless, to the practice of recording critical phases from actual play, the art of problem composition has so grown in favour as to earn the title of the "poetry" of the game.

_Position by B. Horwitz._

BLACK.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | |WK | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | |BP | |WQ | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |BK | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
WHITE.

As a rule the game should be drawn. Supposing by a series of checks White were to compel Black to abandon the pawn, he would move K - R8; Q x P and Black is stale-mate. Therefore the ingenious way to win is:--

1. K-B4, P-B8 = Q ch; K-Kt3 and wins. Or 1. ... K-R8 (threatening P-B8 = Kt); then 2. Q-Q2 preliminary to K-Kt3 now wins.

_Position by B. Horwitz._

BLACK.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | |WK | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | |WKn| |BP | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | |WKn| |BK |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
WHITE.

Without Black's pawn White could only draw. The pawn being on the board, White wins as follows:--

1. Kt-B4, K-Kt sq; 2. Kt (B4)-K3, K-R sq; 3. K-Kt4, K-Kt sq; 4. K-R3, K-R sq; 5. Kt-B4, K-Kt sq; 6. Kt (B4)-Q2, K-R sq; 7. Kt-Kt3 ch, K-Kt sq; 8. Kt-B3 mate.

_Position by B. Horwitz._

BLACK.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | |BK |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | |WK | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | |BB | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | |WKn| | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | |WB | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
WHITE.

White wins with two pieces against one--a rare occurrence.

1. Kt-K6, B-R3; 2. B-Q4 ch, K-R2; 3. B-B3, B moves anywhere not _en prise_; 4. B-Kt7 and Kt mates.

_Position by O. Schubert._

BLACK.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | |BP | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | |BP |WB | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | |BK |WP | |WP | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | |WK | | |BKn|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
WHITE.

White wins as follows:--

1. P-Kt5, Kt-Kt5; 2. K-B3, Kt-K6; 3. B-K6, Kt-B8; 4. BxP, Kt-Q7 ch; 5. K-Kt4, KtxP; 6. P-Kt6, Kt-B3, ch; 7. K-Kt5, P-K5; 8. KxKt, P-K6; 9. B-B4, KxB; 10. P-Kt7, P-K7; 11. P-Kt8 = Q ch, and wins by the simple process of a series of checks so timed that the king may approach systematically. The fine points in this instructive ending are the two bishop's moves, 3. B - K6, and 9. B - B4, the latter move enabling White to queen the pawn with a check.

_Position by F. Amelung._

BLACK.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | |BP | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | |WP |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | |BP |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|BK | | | |WK | |WR | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | |BB | | |BR |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
WHITE.

White with the inferior position saves the game as follows:--

1. P-R6, PxP; 2. K-B3 dis. ch, K moves; 3. R-R2, or Kt2 ch, KxR; 4. K-Kt2 and draw, as Black has to give up the rook, and the RP cannot be queened, the Black bishop having no power on the White diagonal. Extremely subtle.

_Position by B. Horwitz._

BLACK.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|WQ | | | | | | |BR |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |WB | | | | |BQ | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | |WK | |BK |BP |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | |WP | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | |WP |BP |WP |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | |WP | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |BB | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
WHITE.

The main idea being to checkmate with the bishop, this is accomplished thus:--1. B-K4 ch, K-R4; 2. QxR, QxQ; 3. K-B7, Q-B sq ch; 4. KxQ, BXP; 5. K-B7, BxP; 6. B-Kt6 mate.

_Position by A. Troitzky._

BLACK.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | |BR |BK |BB | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | |BKn|BP | |WP |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | |WP | |WKn| | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | |WP | |WK |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | |BR | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
WHITE.

White wins as follows:--

1. P-R8=Q, R-R7 ch; 2. K-Kt5, RxQ; 3. Kt-Q7 ch, K-Kt2; 4. P-B6 ch, K-R2; 5. QPxKt, R-R sq; 6. Kt-B8 ch, RxKt; 7. PxR=Kt mate.

_Position by Hoffer._

BLACK.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | |BR | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | |BQ | | | |BP |BK |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | |WQ |BKn| |BP |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | |WR | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|WP |WP | | | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|WKn| |BKn| | | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | |WP |WP |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | |WR | |WK |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
WHITE.

A position from actual play. White plays 1. R-B5 threatening to win a piece. Black replies with the powerful Kt-Kt5, threatening two mates, and finally White (Mr Hoffer) finds an ingenious sacrifice of the Queen--the saving clause.

The following are the moves:--

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.

Previous Next

Comments

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Châtelet" to "Chicago"Chapter C: O. H. Cl. Br. I. S (6)

0%34 min left in chapter