Chapter C: O. H. Cl. Br. I. S (7)

_Development in Play._--The change of _shatranj_ into modern chess took place most probably first in France, and thence made its way into Spain early in the 15th century, where the new game was called _Axedrez de la dama_, being also adopted by the Italians under the name of _scacci alla rabiosa_. The time of the first important writer on modern chess, the Spaniard Ruy Lopez de Segura (1561), is also the period when the latest improvement, castling, was introduced, for his book (_Libra de la invention liberal y arte del juego del Axedrez_), though treating of it as already in use, also gives the old mode of play, which allowed the king a leap of two or three squares. Shortly afterwards the old _shatranj_ disappears altogether. Lopez was the first who merits the name of chess analyst. At this time flourished the flower of the Spanish and Italian schools of chess--the former represented by Lopez, Ceron, Santa Maria, Busnardo and Avalos; the latter by Giovanni Leonardo da Cutri (il Puttino) and Paolo Boi (il Syracusano). In the years 1562-1575 both Italian masters visited Spain and defeated their Spanish antagonists. During the whole 17th century we find but one worthy to be mentioned, Giacchino Greco (il Calabrese). The middle of the 18th century inaugurates a new era in chess. The leading man of this time was Francois Andre Danican Philidor. He was born in 1726 and was trained by M. de Kermur, Sire de Legal, the star of the _Cafe de la Regence_ in Paris, which has been the centre of French chess ever since the commencement of the 18th century. In 1747 Philidor visited England, and defeated the Arabian player, Phillip Stamma, by 8 games to 1 and 1 draw. In 1749 he published his _Analyse des echecs_, a book which went through more editions and was more translated than any other work upon the game. During more than half a century Philidor travelled much, but never went to Italy, the only country where he could have found opponents of first-rate skill. Italy was represented in Philidor's time by Ercole del Rio, Lolli and Ponziani. Their style was less sound than that of Philidor, but certainly a much finer and in principle a better one. As an analyst the Frenchman was in many points refuted by Ercole del Rio ("the anonymous Modenese"). Blindfold chess-play, already exhibited in the 11th century by Arabian and Persian experts, was taken up afresh by Philidor, who played on many occasions three games simultaneously without sight of board or men. These exhibitions were given in London, at the Chess Club in St James's Street, and Philidor died in that city in 1795. As eminent players of this period must be mentioned Count Ph.J. van Zuylen van Nyevelt (1743-1826), and the German player, J. Allgaier (1763-1823). after whom a well-known brilliant variation of the King's Gambit is named. Philidor was succeeded by Alexandre Louis Honore Lebreton Deschapelles (1780-1847), who was also a famous whist player. The only player who is known to have fought Deschapelles not unsuccessfully on even terms is John Cochrane. He also lost a match (1821) to W. Lewis, to whom he conceded the odds of "pawn and move," the Englishman winning one and drawing the two others. Deschapelles' greatest pupil, and the strongest player France ever possessed, was Louis Charles Mahe de la Bourdonnais, who was born in 1797 and died in 1840. His most memorable achievement was his contest with the English champion, Alexander Macdonnell, the French player winning in the proportion of three to two.

The English school of chess began about the beginning of the 19th century, and Sarratt was its first leader. He flourished from 1808 to 1821, and was followed by his great pupil, W. Lewis, who will be principally remembered for his writings. His literary career belongs to the period from 1818 to 1848 and he died in 1869. A. Macdonnell (1798-1835) has been already mentioned. To the same period belong also Captain Evans, the inventor of the celebrated "Evans Gambit" (1828), who died at a very advanced age in 1873; Perigal, who participated in the correspondence matches against Edinburgh and Paris; George Walker, for thirty years chess editor of _Bell's Life in London_; and John Cochrane, who met every strong player from Deschapelles downwards. In the same period Germany possessed but one good player, J. Mendheim of Berlin. The fifth decade of the 19th century is marked by the fact that the leadership passed from the French school to the English. After the death of la Bourdonnais, Fournie de Saint-Amant became the leading player in France; he visited England in the early part of 1843, and successfully met the best English players, including Howard Staunton (q.v.); but the latter soon took his revenge, for in November and December 1843 a great match between Staunton and Saint-Amant took place in Paris, the English champion winning by 11 games to 6 with 4 draws. During the succeeding eight years Staunton maintained his reputation by defeating Popert, Horwitz and Harrwitz. Staunton was defeated by Anderssen at the London tournament in 1851, and this concluded his match-playing career. Among the contemporaries of Staunton may be mentioned Henry Thomas Buckle, author of the _History of Civilization_, who defeated Kieseritzki, Anderssen and Lowenthal.

In the ten years 1830-1840 a new school arose in Berlin, the seven leaders of which have been called "The Pleiades." These were Bledow (1795-1846), Bilguer (1815-1840), Hanstein (1810-1850), Mayet (1810-1868), Schorn (1802-1850), B. Horwitz (b. 1809) and von Heydebrandt und der Lasa, once German ambassador at Copenhagen. As belonging to the same period must be mentioned the three Hungarian players, Grimm, Szen and J. Lowenthal.

Among the great masters since the middle of the 19th century Paul Morphy (1837-1884), an American, has seldom been surpassed as a chess player. His career was short but brilliant. Born in New Orleans in 1837, he was taught chess by his father when only ten years of age, and in two years' time became a strong player. When not quite thirteen he played three games with Lowenthal, and won two of them, the other being drawn. He was twenty years of age when he competed in the New York congress of 1857, where he won the first prize. In 1858 he visited England, and there defeated Boden, Medley, Mongredien, Owen, Bird and others. He also beat Lowenthal by 9 games to 3 and 2 drawn. In the same year he played a match at Paris with Harrwitz, winning by 5 to 2 and 1 drawn; and later on he obtained a victory over Anderssen. On two or three occasions he played blindfold against eight strong players simultaneously, each time with great success. He returned to America in 1859 and continued to play, but with decreasing interest in the game, until 1866. He died in 1884.

Wilhelm Steinitz (b. 1836) took the sixth prize at the London congress of 1862. He defeated Blackburne in a match by 7 to 1 and 2 drawn. In 1866 he beat Anderssen in a match by 8 games to 6. In 1868 he carried off the first prize in the British Chess Association handicap, and in 1872 in the London grand tourney, also defeating Zukertort in a match by 7 games to 1 and 4 drawn. In 1873 he carried off the first prize at the Vienna congress; and in 1876 he defeated Blackburne, winning 7 games right off. In 1872-1874, in conjunction with W.N. Potter, he conducted and won a telegraphic correspondence match for London against Vienna. In Philidor's age it was considered almost incredible that he should be able to play three simultaneous games without seeing board or men, but Paulsen, Blackburne and Zukertort often played 10 or 12 such games, while as many as 14 and 15 have been so played.

In 1876 England was in the van of the world's chess army. English-born players then were Boden, Burn, Macdonnell, Bird, Blackburne and Potter; whilst among naturalized English players were Lowenthal, Steinitz, Zukertort, who died in 1888, and Horwitz. This illustrious contingent was reinforced in 1878 by Mason, an Irish-American, who came over for the Paris tournament; by Gunsberg, a Hungarian; and later by Teichmann, who also made England his home. English chess flourished under the leadership of these masters, the chief prizes in tournaments being consistently carried off by the English representatives.

To gauge the progress made by the game since about 1875 it will suffice to give the following statistics. In London Simpson's Divan was formerly the chief resort of chess players; the St George's Chess Club was the principal chess club in the West End, and the City of London Chess Club in the east. About a hundred or more clubs are now scattered all over the city. Formerly only the British Chess Association existed; after its dissolution the now defunct Counties' Chess Association took its place, and this was superseded by the re-establishment by Mr Hoffer of the British Chess Association, which again fell into abeyance after having organized three international tournaments--London, 1886; Bradford, 1888; and Manchester, 1890--and four national tournaments. There were various reasons why the British Chess Association ceased to exercise its functions, one being that minor associations did not feel inclined to merge their identity in a central association. The London League was established, besides the Northern Chess Union, the Southern Counties' Chess Union, the Midland Counties' Union, the Kent County Association; and there are associations in Surrey, Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Somersetshire, Cambridgeshire, Herefordshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Staffordshire, Worcestershire and Lancashire. All these associations are supported by the affiliated chess clubs of the respective counties. Scotland (which has its own association), Wales and Ireland have also numerous clubs.

Still, England did not produce one new eminent player between 1875 and 1905. First-class chess remained in the hands of the veterans Burn, Blackburne, Mason and Bird. The old amateurs passed away, their place being taken by a new generation of powerful amateurs, so well equipped that Great Britain could hold its own in an amateur contest against the combined forces of Germany, Austria, Holland and Russia. The terms _master_ and _amateur_ are not used in any invidious sense, but simply as designating, in the former case, first-class players, and in the latter, those just on the borderland of highest excellence. The professional element as it existed in the heydey of Simpson's Divan almost disappeared, the reason being the increased number of chess clubs, where enthusiasts and students might indulge in their favourite pastime to their heart's content, tournaments with attractive prizes being arranged during the season. The former occupation of the masters vanished in consequence; the few who remained depended upon the passing visitors from the provinces who were eager to test their strength by the standard of the master. Blackburne visited the provinces annually, keeping the interest in first-class chess alive by his simultaneous play and his extraordinary skill as a blindfold player--unsurpassed until the advent of Harry Nelson Pillsbury (1872-1906), the leading American master since Morphy.

Germany has produced great chess players in Tarrasch, E. Lasker, Lipke, Fritz, Bardeleben, Walbrodt and Mieses, besides a goodly number of amateurs. Austria produced Max Weiss, Schlechter, Marco and Hruby, to say nothing of such fine players as the Fleissigs, Dr Mertner, Dr Kaufmann, Fahndrich, Jacques Schwarz and others. Hungary was worthily represented by Maroczy, Makovetz and Brody, Maroczy being the best after Charousek's death. Russia, having lost Jaenisch, Petroff and Schumoff, discovered Tchigorin, Janowsky, Schiffers, Alapin, Winawer and Taubenhaus. France showed a decline for many years, having only the veteran M. Arnous de Riviere and the naturalized M. Rosenthal left, followed by Goetz and two good amateurs, MM. Didier and Billecard. Italy had only Signer Salvioli, although Signer Reggio came to the fore. Holland had a fair number of players equal to the English amateurs, but no master since the promising young van Lennep died.

The first modern International Chess Tournament held in London in 1851 was the forerunner of various similar contests of which the following is a complete table:--

_Tournaments_.

1851. London. 1 Anderssen, 2 Wyvill, 3 Williams.
1857. Manchester. 1 Lowenthal, 2 Anderssen.
1857. New York. 1 Morphy, 2 L. Paulsen.
1858. Birmingham. 1 Lowenthal, 2 Falkbeer.
1860. Cambridge. 1 Kolisch, 2 Stanley.
1861. Bristol, 1 L. Paulsen, 2 Boden.
1862. London, 1 Anderssen, 2 L. Paulsen, 3 Owen.
1865. Dublin. 1 Steinitz, 2 MacDonnell.
1866. Redcar. De Vere.
1866. English Championship Cup. De Vere.
1866. British Chess Association. 1 Steinitz, 2 Green.
1867. Paris. 1 Kolisch, 2 Winawer, 3 Steinitz.
1867. Dundee. 1 Neumann, 2 Steinitz, 3 De Vere and MacDonnell.
1868. English Championship Cup. 1 Blackburne, 2 De Vere.
1868. British Chess Association Handicap. 1 Steinitz, 2 Wisker,
3 Blackburne.
1870. Baden-Baden. 1 Anderssen, 2 Steinitz, 3 Blackburne and Neumann.
1870. English Championship Cup. 1 Wisker, 2 Burn.
1870-1871. City of London Handicap. 1 Potter, 2 De Vere.
1871-1872. City of London Handicap. 1 Steinitz, 2 Keats.
1872. London. 1 Steinitz, 2 Blackburne, 3 Zukertort.
1872. English Championship Cup. 1 Wisker (becoming permanent holder
of the cup), 2 De Vere.
1873. Vienna. 1 Steinitz, 2 Blackburne, 3 Anderssen.
1876. London. 1 Blackburne, 2 Zukertort, 3 Potter.
1878. Paris. 1 Zukertort, 2 Winawer (after a tie with Zukertort),
3 Blackburne.
1880. Wiesbaden. 1, 2, and 3, a tie between Blackburne, Englisch and
A. Schwarz.
1881. Berlin. 1 Blackburne, 2 Zukertort, 3 Tchigorin and Winawer.
Tchigorin made his first public appearance in this contest.
1882. Vienna. 1 Steinitz and Winawer, 3 Mason.
1883. London. 1 Zukertort, 2 Steinitz, 3 Blackburne.
1883. Nuremberg. 1 Winawer, 2 Blackburne, 3 Mason. This tournament is
a milestone in modern chess history. The prizes being
comparatively small, it was thought that it necessarily must
be a failure, the munificently endowed London tournament
having just been completed. But, strange to say, whilst in
London fourteen players competed, there were nineteen entries
in Nuremberg. Winawer, not placed in the former, won the first
prize in the latter.
1885. Hamburg. 1 Gunsberg; the next prizes were divided by Blackburne,
Mason, Englisch, Tarrasch and Weiss.
1885. Hereford. 1 Blackburne, 2 and 3 Bird and Schallopp.
1886. London. 1 Blackburne, 2 Burn, 3 Gunsberg and Taubenhaus.
1886. Nottingham. 1 Burn, 2 Schallopp, 3 Gunsberg and Zukertort.
1887. Frankfort. 1 Mackenzie, 2 Blackburne and Weiss.
1888. Bradford. 1 Gunsberg, 2 Mackenzie, 3 Mason and Bardeleben.
1889. New York. 1 Tchigorin and Weiss, 3 Gunsberg.
1889. Breslau. 1 Tarrasch, 2 Burn, 3 Weiss.
1890. Amsterdam. 1 Burn, 2 Lasker, 3 Mason. There were only nine
competitors, Lasker unexpectedly losing to van Vliet by a trap.
1890. Manchester. 1 Tarrasch, 2 Blackburne, 3 Bird and Mackenzie.
1892. Dresden. 1 Tarrasch, 2 Makovetz and Forges. Blackburne received
a special prize.
1894. Leipzig. 1 Tarrasch, 2 Lipke and Teichmann.
1895. Hastings. 1 Pillsbury, 2 Tchigorin, 3 Lasker. This tournament
is historical for the first appearance of Pillsbury, the
American champion, and Maroczy, the Hungarian champion.
1896. Nuremberg. 1 Lasker, 2 Maroczy, 3 Pillsbury and Tarrasch.
1896. Budapest. 1 Tchigorin, 2 Charousek, 3 Pillsbury.
1897. Berlin. 1 Charousek, 2 Walbrodt, 3 Blackburne. Englisch had to
abandon the tournament and return to Vienna ill. He never
recovered and died a few weeks later.
1898. Vienna. 1 Tarrasch, 2 Pillsbury, 3 Janowsky. Tarrasch
achieved a remarkable victory in this important tournament.
Pillsbury's chances were better than his, but he managed
to run him neck and neck and beat him in the tie match
which followed.
1898. Cologne. 1 Burn, 2 Charousek, Cohn and Tchigorin.
1899. London. 1 Lasker, 2 Janowsky, Maroczy and Pillsbury.
Janowsky sacrificed the second prize by trying to win a
game against Steinitz when with an easy draw in hand he
could have secured the second place for himself alone.
1900. Munich. Tie between Maroczy, Pillsbury and Schlechter for
three chief prizes.
1900. Paris, 1 Lasker, 2 Pillsbury, 3 Maroczy and Marshall.
1901. Monte Carlo. 1 Janowsky, 2 Schlechter, 3 Scheve and
Tehigorin. A novel rule was introduced at this tournament,
viz. the first drawn game to count 1/4 to each player, to be
replayed, and in case of a draw again to count -1/4 each, and
in case of win -1/2 to the winner. Theoretically this seems
logical, but in practice it did not work well.
1902. Monte Carlo. 1 Pillsbury and Maroczy, 3 Janowsky.
1902. Hanover. 1 Janowsky, 2 Pillsbury, 3 Atkins.
1903. Monte Carlo. 1 Tarrasch, 2 Maroczy, 3 Pillsbury.
1904. Monte Carlo. 1 Maroczy, 2 Schlechter, 3 Marshall.
1904. Cambridge Springs, 1 Marshall, 2 Lasker and Janowsky.
1905. Ostend. 1 Maroczy, 2 Tarrasch and Janowsky.
1905. Scheveningen. 1 Marshall, 2 Leussen, 3 Spielmann.
1906. Stockholm. 1 Schlechter and Bernstein, 3 Mieses.
1906. Ostend. 1 Schlechter, 2 Maroczy, 3 Rubenstein.
1906. Nuremberg, 1 Marshall, 2 Duras, 3 Schlechter and Fleischmann.
1907. Vienna, 1 Mieses, 2 Duras, 3 Maroczy and Vidmare.
1907. Ostend. 1 Bernstein and Rubenstein, 3 Mieses.
1907. Ostend. 1 Tarrasch, 2 Schlechter, 3 Janowsky and Marshall.
1907. Carlsbad. 1 Rubenstein, 2 Maroczy, 3 Niemzowitch and Leonhardt.

In the absence of any recognized authority to confer the title of chess champion of the world, it has usually been appropriated by the most successful competitor in tournaments. On this ground Tarrasch claimed the title in 1907, although Lasker, who had twice beaten Steinitz, the previous champion, in championship matches, in addition to such masters as Bird, Blackburne, Mieses and Marshall, was well qualified to assume it. Accordingly in arranging the programme for the tournament at Ostend in 1907 it was agreed that the winner of this contest should receive the title of tournament champion, and should play a match with Lasker for the championship of the world. Tarrasch having proved successful at Ostend, the match between him and Lasker was played at Munich in September 1908, and resulted in the victory of Lasker by 8 games to 3 and 5 draws.

Chess has developed various schools of play from time to time. The theory of the game, however, did not advance in proportion to the enormous strides in its popularity. Formerly the theory of play had been enriched by such enthusiasts as Dr Max Lange, Louis Paulsen, Professor Anderssen, Neumann, Dr Suhle, Falkbeer, Kieseritzki, Howard Staunton, Dr Zukertort, W. N. Potter and Steinitz, foremost amongst them being Louis Paulsen. The openings were thoroughly overhauled, new variations discovered and tested in practical play over the board. These are now things of the past. The masters who find flaws in old variations and discover new ones bring them to light only in matches or tournaments, as new discoveries have now a market value and may gain prizes in matches or tournaments. The old "romantic" school consequently became extinct, and the eliminating process resulted in the retention of a small repertoire only, sufficient for practical purposes in important contests. Gambits and kindred openings containing elements of chance were avoided, and the whole stock which a first-class player requires is a thorough knowledge of the "Ruy Lopez," the "Queen's Pawn Openings," and the "French" and "Sicilian Defences"--openings which contain the least element of chance. The _repertoire_ being restricted it necessarily follows that the scope for grand combinations is also diminished and only strategy or position play remains. The "romantic" school invariably aimed at an attack on the king's position at any cost; nowadays the struggle is to obtain a minute advantage, and the whole plan consists in finding or creating a weak spot in the opponent's arrangement of forces; such is the theory of the modern school, conceived and advocated by Steinitz. But it is a curious fact that Steinitz founded the modern school rather late in life. He felt his powers of combination waning, and being the world's champion and eager to retain that title, he started the new theory. This novel departure revolutionized chess entirely. The attacking and combination style was sacrificed to a sound, sober and dry method; but Steinitz, strange to say, was not even the best exponent of his own theory, this position falling to younger players, Siegbert Tarrasch, Schlechter, Amos Burn and Emanuel Lasker. Pillsbury and Janowsky adhered to both styles, the former in a high degree, and so did Zukertort and Charousek; Tchigorin being a free-lance with a style of his own. The old charm of the game disappeared--in match and tournament play at least--and beauty was sacrificed to exact calculation and to scoring points. This is to be regretted, for the most beautiful games still occur when a player resorts to the gambits. One of the finest games in the Hastings tournament was played by Tchigorin against Pillsbury, and this was a "King's Gambit Declined." Charousek won a "Bishop's Gambit" against Dr Lasker in the Nuremberg tournament; and some brilliant games occur in the "Queen's Gambit Declined," if either White or Black sacrifices the KP. Another reason why gambits should be adopted by players in tournaments is that competitors would necessarily be readily prepared for the regulation openings, so that the gambits might take them by surprise. After all, the new school is a natural consequence of the progress of the game. Paulsen, Anderssen and Tchigorin devoted a lifetime to the Evans Gambit, volumes of analyses were written on it, and then Lasker revives an obsolete defence, and the Evans Gambit disappears! Zukertort achieved a great success with "1. Kt to KB3" in the London tournament, 1883, and this, or the kindred "1. P to Q4" opening, has since become the trusty weapon in serious encounters. Lasker wrote _Common Sense in Chess_, and gave the best defences of the Ruy Lopez (a certain form of it); but the "common sense" was demolished in the Paris and Nuremberg tournaments, and old forms of that remarkable opening have to be refurbished. These instances will suffice to show the reason for the cautious style of modern times. The Moltkes have replaced the Napoleons.

The old versatility of style could be revived if club tournaments were organized differently. The players might be compelled to adopt one single opening only in a two-round contest, each player thus having attack and defence in turn. The next season another opening would form the programme, and so on. Even in international tournaments this condition might be imposed; the theory would be enriched; full scope would be given to power of combination and ingenuity; whilst the game would be more interesting.

There are still amateurs who devote their energies to the theory of the game; but so long as innovations or new discoveries are not tested by masters in serious games, they are of no value. Steinitz used to keep a number of new discoveries ready to be produced in masters' contests, the result being that his novelties were regularly demolished when it came to a practical test. The mistake was that he did not try his novelties over the board with an opponent of equal strength, instead of trusting to his own judgment alone.

The British Chess Federation was instituted in 1904, its first congress being held at Hastings in that year, when a British championship, a ladies' championship and a first-class amateur tournament were played. These competitions have been continued annually at the congresses of the federation, with the following results:--

_British Championship_.

1904, Hastings, 1 H.E. Atkins and W.E. Napier, 3 J.H. Blackburne.
1905. Southport. 1 H.E. Atkins, 2 G.E.H. Bellingham and J.H. Blackburne.
1906. Shrewsbury. 1 H.E. Atkins, 2 R.P. Michell, 3 G.E. Wainwright.
1907. Crystal Palace. 1 H.E. Atkins, 2 J.H. Blackburne, R.P. Michell,
E. G. Sergeant and G. E. Wainwright.

_Ladies' Championship_.

1904. Hastings. 1 Miss Finn, 2 Mrs Anderson and Mrs Herring.
1905. Southport. 1 Miss Finn. 2 Mrs Anderson and Mrs Houlding.
1906. Shrewsbury. 1 Mrs Herring, 2 Mrs Anderson, 3 Miss Ellis and Mrs
Houlding.
1907. Crystal Palace. 1 Mrs Herring and Mrs Houlding, 3 Mrs Anderson.

_First Class Amateur Tournament_.

1904. Hastings Section A. 1 W.H. Gunston, 2 H.F. Cheshire and F.
Brown.
Section B. 1 G.E. Wainwright and C.H. Sherrard,
3 W.P. M'Bean.
1905. Southport Section A. 1 Dr Holmes, 2 J. Mortimer, 3 H.G. Cole
and J.E. Purry.
Section B. 1 F.E. Hammond, 2 F. Brown. T.J. Kelly
and C.H. Wallwork.
1906. Shrewsbury. 1 G. Shories, J. F. Allcock, P. W. Fairweather and
E. D. Palmer.

In 1896 and following years matches between representative players of Great Britain and the United States respectively were played by cable, with the following results:--

1896. America won by 4-1/2 games to 3-1/2
1897. Great Britain " 5-1/2 " 4-1/2
1898. Great Britain " 5-1/2 " 4-1/2
1899. America " 6 " 4
1900. America " 6 " 4
1901. Drawn
1902. America " 5-1/2 " 4-1/2
1903. America " 5-1/2 " 4-1/2
1907. Great Britain " 5-1/2 " 4-1/2
1908. America " 6-1/2 " 3-1/2
1909. Great Britain " 6 " 4

Since 1899 cable matches have also been played annually between representatives of English and American universities; of the first six three were won by England, the remaining three being drawn. In England chess matches have been played annually since 1873 between the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, seven players on each side. Up to 1907 Oxford won eleven matches, Cambridge twenty-one, and three were drawn.

LITERATURE OF THE GAME.--The first known writer on chess was Jacobus
de Cessolis (Jacopo Dacciesole), whose main object, however, though he
gives the moves, &c., was to teach morals rather than chess. He was a
Dominican friar, and his treatise, _Solatium Ludi Scacchorum,
scilicet, Libellus de Moribus Hominum et Officiis Nobilium_, was
written before the year 1200. It was afterwards translated into
French, and in the year 1474 Caxton, under the title of _The Game and
Playe of Chesse_, printed an English translation of the French
version.

In 1490 we have the _Gottinger Handschrift_, a work containing nine
different openings and fifty problems. The author of this manuscript
is not known. Then comes Vicent, a Spanish writer, whose book bears
date 1495. Only the title-page has been preserved, the rest of the
work having been lost in the first Carlist war. Of Lucena, another
Spanish author who wrote in or about 1497, we are better informed. His
treatise, _Repeticion des Amores y Arte de Axedres_, comprises various
practical chess matters, including 150 positions, illustrated by 160
well-executed woodcuts. Various of these positions are identical with
those in the _Gottinger Handschrift_.In the 16th century works upon
the game were written by Damiano, Ruy Lopez and Horatio Gianutio della
Mantia; in the 17th century by Salvio, Polerio, Gustavus Selenus,
Carrera, Greco, Fr. Antonio and the authors of the _Traite de
Lausanne_; in the 18th century by Bertin, Stamma, Ercole del Rio,
Lolli, Cozio, Philidor, Ponziani, Stein, van Nyevelt, Allgaier and
Peter Pratt; in the 19th century by J.F.W. Koch and C.F. Koch,
Sarratt, John Cochrane, Wm. Lewis, Silberschmidt, Ghulam Kassim and
James Cochrane, George Walker, A. MacDonnell, Jaenisch, Petroff, von
Bilguer, von der Lasa, Staunton, Kling and Horwitz, Bledow, Dubois,
Kieseritzki, Max Lange, Lowenthal, Dufresne, Neumann, Suhle,
Zukertort, Preti and others.

English chess owes much to W. Lewis and George Walker. But to Howard
Staunton must be ascribed the most important share in creating the
later popularity which the game achieved in England. Staunton's first
work, _The Chess Player's Handbook_, was published in 1847, and again
(revised) in 1848. For want of further adequate revision many of its
variations are now out of date; but taking the handbook as it was when
issued, very high praise must be bestowed upon the author. His other
works are: _The Chess Player's Text-Book_ and _The Chess Player's
Companion_ (1849) (the latter being a collection of his own games),
the _Chess Praxis_ (1860), republished in 1903, his posthumous Work,
_Chess Theory and Practice_, edited by R.B. Wormald (1876), and
various smaller treatises. The laws of the game as laid down in the
_Praxis_ formed the basis of the rules adopted by the British Chess
Association in 1862. Besides editing _The Chess Player's Chronicle_
and _The Chess World_, he was the chess editor of _The Illustrated
London News_ from 1844 till his death in 1874.

Among continental chess authorities von Heydebrandt und der Lasa (more
usually known by his second title) stood pre-eminent. The German
_Handbuch_ was completed in 1843 by von Bilguer, who died before the
first edition was completed. The second, third, fourth and fifth
editions (the last published in 1874) were edited and revised by von
der Lasa.

Among the more important modern works the following may be mentioned:
Vasquez, _El Ajedrez de memoria; La Odisea de Pablo Morphy_ (Havana,
1893); Bauer, _Schachlexikon_ (Leipzig, 1893); Jean Dufresne, _Kleines
Lehrbuch des Schachspiels_ (6th ed., Leipzig, 1893); E. Freeborough
and Rev. C.E. Ranken, _Chess Openings, Ancient and Modern_; Arnelung,
_Baltische Schachblatter, &c._ (Berlin, 1893); Bachman, _Geistreiche
Schachpartien_ (containing a number of brilliant games) (Ansbach,
1893-1899); E.H. Bird, _Chess History and Reminiscences_ (London,
1893); _The Steinitz-Lasker Match_ (1894); _Chess Novelties_ (1895);
Max Lange, _Paul Morphy_ (1894); C. Bardeleben and J. Mieses,
_Lehrbuch des Schachspiels_ (very useful); Jas. Mason, _The Principles
of Chess in Theory and Practice_ (1894); _The Art of Chess_ (1895);
_Social Chess_ (Horace Cox, London); Dr Tarrasch, _Dreihundert
Schachpartien_ (Leipzig, 1895); Dr Eugen V. Schmidt, _Syslematische
Anordung von Schacheroffnungen_ (Veit & Co., Leipzig, 1895); Numa
Preti, _A B C des echecs_ (Paris, 1895); C. Salvioli, _Teoria generate
del giuoco degli Scacchi_ (Livorno, 1895): W. Steinitz, _Modern Chess
Instructor_ (New York, 1895); L. Hoffer, _Chess_ (Routledge); E.
Freeborough, _Select Chess End-Games_ (London, 1895); Euclid, _The
Chess Ending King and Queen against King and Rook_ (London, 1895);
Tassilo von Heydebrandt und der Laaa, _Leitfaden des Schachspiels_ and
_Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Schachspiels_ (Leipzig, 1897); Dr.
Lasker, _Common Sense in Chess_ (London, 1896); Oscar Cordel,
_Neuester Leitfaden des Schachspiels_ (Berlin, 1896); and a vast
number of other publications.

Further, _The London Tournament Book_ (1883); _Twelve Tournament Books
of the German Chess Association_ (Veit & Co., Leipzig); _The Hastings
Tournament Book_ (London, 1896); _The Vienna_ _Tournament Book_, by
Halprin and Marco (1900); _The Nuremberg Tournament Book_, by Dr
Tarrasch; _The Book of the London Congress_, by L. Hoffer (Longman,
1899); _The Paris Tournament Book_ (Paris, 1900), by Rosenthal, &c.

The following are some of the best works in English on chess
problems:--"J. B." of Bridport, _Chess Strategy_ (1865); F. Healey, _A
Collection of 200 Chess Problems_ (1866); _English Chess Problems_,
edited by James and W.T. Pierce (1876); H.J.C. Andrews, E.N.
Frankenstein, B.G. Laws, and C. Planck, _The Chess Problem Text-Book_
(1887); A.F. Mackenzie, _Chess: its Poetry and its Prose_ (Jamaica,
1887); J.A. Miles, _Chess Stars_ (self-mates), (1888); James Rayner,
_Chess Problems_ (1890); B.G. Laws, _The Two-Move Chess Problem_
(1890); _The Chess Bouquet_, compiled by F.R. Gittins (1897); Mr and
Mrs T.B. Rowland, _The Problem Art_ (2nd ed., 1898); E.B. Cook, T.
Henery and C.A. Gilberg, _American Chess-Nuts_ (1868); Samuel Loyd,
_Chess Strategy_ (1878); W.H. Lyons, _Chess-Nut Burrs and how to open
them_ (1886); C.A. Gilberg, _Crumbs from the Chess Board_ (1890);
_Canadian Chess Problems_, edited by C.F. Stubbs (1890); W. Pulitzer,
_Chess Harmonies_ (1894); G.E. Carpenter (N. Preti of Paris), _200
Chess Problems_ (1900).

FOOTNOTE:

[1] The earliest known problem is ascribed to an Arabian caliph of
the 9th century. The first known collection is in a manuscript (in
the British Museum) of King Alphonso of Castile, dated 1250; it
contains 103 problems. The collection of Nicolas of Lombardy, dated
1300, comprises 192 problems.

CHEST (Gr. [Greek: kiste], Lat. _cista_, O. Eng. _cist, cest_,&c.), a large box of wood or metal with a hinged lid. The term is also used of a variety of kinds of receptacle; and in anatomy is transferred to the portion of the body covered by the ribs and breastbone (see RESPIRATORY SYSTEM). In the more ordinary meaning chests are, next to the chair and the bed, the most ancient articles of domestic furniture. The chest was the common receptacle for clothes and valuables, and was the direct ancestor of the "chest of drawers," which was formed by enlarging the chest and cutting up the front. It was also frequently used as a seat. Indeed, in its origin it took in great measure the place of the chair, which, although familiar enough to the ancients, had become a luxury in the days when the chest was already an almost universal possession. The chief use of chests was as wardrobes, but they were also often employed for the storing of valuables. In the early middle ages the rich possessed them in profusion, used them as portmanteaux, and carried them about from castle to castle. These portable receptacles were often covered with leather and emblazoned with heraldic designs. As houses gradually became less sparsely furnished, chests and beds and other movables were allowed to remain stationary, and the chest lost its covered top, and took the shape in which we best know it--that of an oblong box standing upon raised feet. As a rule it was made of oak, but it was sometimes of chestnut or other hard wood.

There are, properly speaking, three types of chest--the domestic, the ecclesiastical and the strong box or coffer. Old domestic chests still exist in great number and some variety, but the proportion of those earlier than the latter part of the Tudor period is very small; most of them are Jacobean in date. Very frequently they were made to contain the store of house-linen which a bride took to her husband upon her marriage. In the 17th century Boulle and his imitators glorified the marriage-coffer until it became a gorgeous casket, almost indeed a sarcophagus, inlaid with ivory and ebony and precious woods, and enriched with ormolu, supported upon a stand of equal magnificence. The Italian marriage-chests (_cassone_) were also of a richness which was never attempted in England. The main characteristics of English domestic chests (which not infrequently are carved with names and dates) are panelled fronts and ends, the feet being formed from prolongations of the "stiles" or side posts. There were, however, exceptions, and a certain number of 17th-century chests have separate feet, either circular or shaped after the indications of a somewhat later style. There is usually a strong architectural feeling about the chest, the front being divided into panels, which are plain in the more ordinary examples, and richly carved in the choicer ones. The plinth and frieze are often of well-defined _guilloche_ work, or are carved with arabesques or conventionalized flowers. Architectural detail, especially the detail of wainscoting, has indeed been followed with considerable fidelity, many of the earlier chests being carved in the linenfold pattern, while the Jacobean examples are often mere reproductions of the pilastered and recessed oaken mantelpieces of the period. Occasionally a chest is seen which is inlaid with coloured woods, or with geometrical parquetry. Perhaps the most elaborate type of English parquetry chest is that named after the vanished Palace of Nonesuch. Such pieces are, however, rarely met with. The entire front of this type is covered with a representation of the palace in coloured woods. Another class of chest is incised, sometimes rather roughly, but often with considerable geometrical skill. The more ordinary variety has been of great value to the forger of antique furniture, who has used its carved panels for conversion into cupboards and other pieces, the history of which is not easily unravelled by the amateur who collects old oak without knowing much about it. Towards the end of the 17th century chests were often made of walnut, or even of exotic woods such as cedar and cypress, and were sometimes clamped with large and ornamental brass bands and hinges. The chests of the 18th century were much larger than those of the preceding period, and as often as not were furnished with two drawers at the bottom--an arrangement but rarely seen in those of the 17th century--while they were often fitted with a small internal box fixed across one end for ready access to small articles. The chest was not infrequently unpanelled and unornamented, and in the latter period of its history this became the ruling type. It will not have been forgotten that it was in an old oak chest that the real or mythical heroine of the pathetic ballad of "The Mistletoe Bough" concealed herself, to her undoing.

Ecclesiastical chests appear to have been used almost entirely as receptacles for vestments and church plate, and those which survive are still often employed for the preservation of parish documents. A considerable variety of these interesting and often exceedingly elaborate chests are still left in English churches. They are usually of considerable size, and of a length disproportionate to their depth. This no doubt was to facilitate the storage of vestments. Most of them are of great antiquity. Many go back to the 14th century, and here and there they are even earlier, as in the case of the coffer in Stoke d'Abernon church, Surrey, which is unquestionably 13th-century work. One of the most remarkable of these early examples is in Newport church, Essex. It is one of the extremely rare painted coffers of the 13th century, the front carved with an upper row of shields, from which the heraldic painting has disappeared, and a lower row of roundels. Between is a belt of open tracery, probably of pewter, and the inside of the lid is decorated with oil paintings representing the Crucifixion, the Virgin Mary, St Peter, St John and St Paul. The well-known "jewel chest" in St Mary's, Oxford, is one of the earliest examples of 14th century work. Many of these ecclesiastical chests are carved with architectural motives--traceried windows most frequently, but occasionally with the iinenfold pattern. There is a whole class of chests known as "tilting coffers," carved with representations of tournaments or feats of arms, and sometimes with a grotesque admixture of chivalric figures and mythical monsters. Only five or six examples of this type are known still to exist in England, and two of them are now in the Victoria and Albert Museum. It is not certain that even these few are of English origin--indeed, very many of the chests and coffers of the 16th and 17th centuries are of foreign make. They were imported into England chiefly from Flanders, and were subsequently carved by native artisans, as was the case with other common pieces of furniture of those periods. The _huche_ or "hutch" was a rough type of household chest.

The word "coffer" is properly applied to a chest which was intended for the safe keeping of valuables. As a rule the coffer is much more massive in construction than the domestic chest; it is clamped by iron bands, sometimes contains secret receptacles opening with a concealed spring, and is often furnished with an elaborate and complex lock, which occupies the whole of the underside of the lid. Pieces of this type are sometimes described as Spanish chests, from the belief that they were taken from ships belonging to the Armada. It is impossible to say that this may not sometimes have been the case, but these strong boxes are frequently of English origin, although the mechanism of the locks may have been due to the subtle skill of foreign locksmiths. A typical example of the treasure chest is that which belonged to Sir Thomas Bodley, and is preserved in the Bodleian library at Oxford. The locks of this description of chest are of steel, and are sometimes richly damascened. It was for being implicated in the breaking open and robbing of just such a chest as this, to which the College de Navarre had confided coin to the value of 500 ecus, that Francois Villon was hanged on the gibbet of Montfaucon.

CHESTER, EARLS OF. The important palatine earldom of Chester was first held by a certain Fleming named Gherbod (fl. 1070), and then by Hugh of Avranches (d. 1101), a son of Richard, viscount of Avranches. Hugh, who was probably one of William the Conqueror's companions, was made earl of Chester in 1071; he had special privileges in his earldom, and he held land in twenty counties. He was called _Le Gros_ on account of his great bulk and _Lupus_ on account of his ferocity. However, he regarded St Anselm as his friend, and he showed the customary liberality to religious houses. His life was mainly spent in fighting the Welsh and in Normandy, and he died on the 27th of July 1101. Hugh's only son Richard, who was childless, was drowned in the White Ship in November 1120. Among subsequent holders were Ralph, or Randulph, de Gernon (d. 1153), who took a prominent part in the civil wars of the reign of Stephen, fighting first on one side and then on the other; and his son Hugh de Kevelioc (1147-1181), who shared in the rising against Henry II. in 1173. But perhaps the most celebrated of the early earls was Ralph, Ranulf, or Randulph, de Blundevill (c. 1172-1232), who succeeded his father Hugh de Kevelioc as earl in 1181, and was created earl of Lincoln in 1217. Ranulf married Constance, widow of Henry II.'s son, Geoffrey of Brittany, and is sometimes called duke of Brittany and earl of Richmond. He fought in Wales, was on the side of John during his struggle with the barons over Magna Carta, and was one of this king's executors; he also fought for the young king Henry III. against the French invaders and their allies. In 1218 he went on crusade to the Holy Land and took part in the capture of Damietta; then returning to England he died at Wallingford in October 1232. After speaking of Ranulf's unique position in the kingdom, which "fitted him for the part of a leader of opposition to royal or ministerial tyranny," Stubbs sums up his character in these words: "On more than one occasion he refused his consent to taxation which he deemed unjust; his jealousy of Hubert (de Burgh), although it led him to join the foreign party in 1223, did not prevent him from more than once interposing to prevent his overthrow. He was, moreover, almost the last relic of the great feudal aristocracy of the Conquest." Although twice married he left no children, and his immense possessions passed to his four sisters. The earl's memory remained green for a long time, and in the _Vision of Piers Plowman_ his name is linked with that of Robin Hood. In November 1232 the earldom of Chester was granted to his nephew John the Scot, earl of Huntingdon (c. 1207-1237), and in 1246, nine years after John had died childless, it was annexed to the English crown "lest so fair a dominion should be divided among women."

In 1254 Prince Edward, afterwards King Edward I., was created earl of Chester, and since this date the earldom has always been held by the heirs apparent to the English crown with the single exception of Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester. Since 1399 the earls of Chester have been also princes of Wales, although the act of Richard II. (1398), which created Chester into a principality to be held by the king's eldest son, was revoked by Henry IV.

CHESTER, an episcopal city and county of a city, municipal, county and parliamentary borough, and the county town of Cheshire, England, 179 m. N.W. of London. Pop. (1901) 38,309. It lies in a low plain on the Dee, principally on the north (right) bank, 6 m. above the embouchure of the river into its wide, shallow estuary. It is an important railway centre, the principal lines serving it being the London & North-Western, Great Western, Cheshire Lines and Great Central. The city is divided into four principal blocks by the four principal streets--Northgate Street, Eastgate Street, Bridge Street and Watergate Street, which radiate at right angles from the Cross, and terminate in the four gates. These four streets exhibit in what are called "the Rows" a characteristic feature of the city. Their origin is a mystery, and has given rise to much controversy. In Eastgate Street, Bridge Street and Watergate Street, the Rows exist on each side of the street throughout the greater part of its length, and may be described as continuous galleries open to the street, over and under which the houses lining the streets project, and which are formed as it were out of the front first-floor of the houses, approached by flights of steps from the roadway. The Rows are flagged or boarded under foot and ceiled above, thus forming a covered way, standing in the same relation to the shops, which are at their back, as the foot pavement does in other towns. In Northgate Street, on the other hand, the Row on the west side is formed as it were out of the ground floor of the houses, having cellars beneath, while on the east side the Row is formed at the same elevation as in the other three principal streets. In these streets are several examples of old timbered houses and some good modern imitations of them,--all combining to give a picturesque and individual character to the city. Among the most interesting of the ancient houses are Derby House, bearing the date 1591, Bishop Lloyd's house, and God's Providence House in Watergate Street, and the Bear and Billet in Lower Bridge Street; the three last date from the 17th century. There is also a chamber with stone groined roof of the 14th century in the basement of a house in Eastgate Street, and another of a similar character in Watergate Street. A mortuary chapel of the early part of the 13th century exists in the basement of a house in Bridge Street.

Chester is the only city in England that still possesses its walls perfect in their entire circuit of 2 m. The gateways have all been rebuilt at various dates; the north and east gates on the site of the Roman gates. The Grosvenor bridge, a single span of stone 200 ft. in length, said to be the largest save one in Europe, carries the road to Wrexham and Shrewsbury over the Dee on the south-west; while the old bridge of seven arches is interesting on account of its antiquity and picturesqueness. The castle, with the exception of "Caesar's Tower," and a round tower with adjacent buildings, in the upper ward, was taken down towards the end of the 18th century, and replaced by a gateway, barracks, county hall, gaol and assize courts.

The cathedral church of Christ and the Virgin Mary, which stands towards the north of the city within the walls, rose on the site of a church of extreme antiquity. It appears that the dedication of this church was altered, perhaps in the reign of Athelstan, from St. Peter and St Paul to St Werburgh and St Oswald, St Werburgh being a niece of St Etheldreda of Ely. In 1093 Hugh Lupus, earl of Chester, richly endowed the foundation as a Benedictine monastery. The bishops of Mercia had apparently a seat at Chester, but the city had ceased to be episcopal, until in 1075 Peter, bishop of Lichfield, removed his seat thence to Chester, having for his cathedral the collegiate church of St John. The seat of the see, however, was quickly removed again to Coventry (1102), but Cheshire continued subject to Lichfield until in 1541 Chester was erected into a bishopric by Henry VIII., the church of the dissolved abbey of St Werburgh becoming the cathedral. The diocese covers nearly the whole of Cheshire, with very small portions of Lancashire and Staffordshire. The cathedral does not rank among the most splendid English churches, but possesses certain details of the highest interest, and gains in beauty from the tones of its red sandstone walls and the picturesque close in which it stands. It is cruciform with a central tower 127 ft. high. The south transept is larger than the north. The nave is short (145 ft.), being of six bays; the southern arcade is Decorated, while the northern, which differs in detail, is of uncertain date. The basement of the north-western tower--all that remains of it, now used as a baptistery--is Norman, and formed part of Hugh Lupus' church; and the fabric of the north wall is also of this period. The north transept also retains Norman work, and its size shows the original plan, as the existence of the conventual buildings to the north probably rendered its extension undesirable. The south transept has aisles, with Decorated and Perpendicular windows. The fine organ stands on a screen across the north transept; but some of its pipes are upon the choir screen, both screens being the work of Sir Gilbert Scott. The style of the choir is transitional from Early English to Decorated, and its length is 125 ft. It is a fine example, and its beauty is enhanced by the magnificent series of ancient carved wooden stalls unsurpassed in England. The Lady Chapel, east of the choir, is of rich Early English workmanship. Of the conventual buildings the cloisters are Perpendicular. The chapter-house, entered by a beautiful vestibule from the east cloister, and lined with cases containing the chapter library, is Early English (c. 1240). The refectory, adjoining the north cloister, is of the same period, with Perpendicular insertions; it has been curtailed in size, but retains its beautiful Early English lector's pulpit. An early Norman chamber, with massive pillars and vaulting, adjoins the west cloister, and may be the substructure of the abbot's house. The abbey gateway is of the 14th century.

Within the walls there are several churches of ancient foundation; thus St Peter's is said to occupy the site of a church erected by Aethelflaed, queen of Mercia, and St Mary's dates from the 12th century. None, however, is of any special interest; but the church of St John, outside the walls, which as already stated became the cathedral in 1075, is a massive early Norman structure, with later additions, and, especially as regards the exterior, considerably restored in modern times. Its fine tower fell in 1881. It was a collegiate church until 1547, and there are some remains of the adjoining buildings. Among numerous modern churches there may be mentioned St Mary's without the walls, built in 1887 by the duke of Westminster, of red sandstone, with a fine spire' and peal of bells.

Among the chief secular buildings, the town hall replaced in 1869 the old exchange, which had been burnt down in 1862. The Grosvenor Museum and School of Art, the foundation of which was suggested by Charles Kingsley the novelist, when canon of Chester cathedral, contains many local antiquities, along with a fine collection of the fauna of Cheshire and the neighbourhood. The King's school was founded by Henry VIII. (1541), who provided that twenty-four poor scholars should be taught free of cost. It was reorganized as a public school in 1873, and possesses twelve king's scholarships tenable in the school, and close scholarships tenable at the universities. Among other schools may be mentioned the blue-coat school (1700), the Queen's school for girls (1878), the girls' school attached to the Roman Catholic convent, and the diocesan training college for schoolmasters. For recreation provision is made by the New Grosvenor Park, presented to the city in 1867 by the marquess of Westminster; Handbridge Park, opened in 1892; and the Roodee, a level tract by the river at the base of the city wall, appropriated as a race-course. An annual race-meeting is held in May and attendedby thousands. The chief event is the race for the Chester Cup, which dates from 1540, when a silver bell was given as the prize by the Saddlers' Company. Pleasure vessels ply on the Dee in summer, and an annual regatta is held, at which all the principal northern rowing-clubs are generally represented. The town gains in prosperity from its large number of visitors. The principal industries are carried on without the walls, where there are lead, shot and paint works, leather and tobacco factories, and iron foundries. The trade gilds number twenty-four. There is a considerable amount of shipping on the Dee, the navigation having been much improved in modern times. The parliamentary borough returns one member. The municipal council consists of a mayor, 10 aldermen and 30 councillors. Area, 2862 acres.