CHESS, simply defined, is an intellectual pastime. It recreates not so much by way of amusement properly so termed, as by taking possession of the mental faculties and diverting them from their accustomed grooves. The cerebral organ, after being much occupied in business, or greatly worried by cares, or in any way beset by painful reflections, finds in the absorbing and abstracting properties of chess that temporary relief which lighter pastimes will not always afford. The reason of this is not far to seek. Cares are caused by looking forward to or apprehending tilings to come, and, as such, are neutralized by that fore-sight which the conduct of a game of chess demands. Again, mental perturbations, however much varied, can but be the employment of the imagining and reasoning facul-ties in the digestion of the particular cause of annoyance or pain ; but these same faculties are required, and their exclusive exercise demanded, in providing for the emergen-cies of the intellectual combat, and in solving the ever varying problems that arise in the course thereof It is very commonly supposed that chess is a difficult game, whether to acquire or practise This, however, is a mistake. The moves may be learned in half an hour, and a week's practice will evoke a sufficient amount of skill to afford pleasure both to the learner and his tutor The intelligent novice will soon be convinced that an ignorant manipulation of the pieces does not conduce to success, and he will seek for instruction in the right manner of opening the game; the various debuts are after all simple, and he will find no difficulty in acquiring them one after the other. Six months will suffice for this purpose if his understanding be not enslaved by obstinacy, indolence, or self-esteem, and the rest goes with his natural capacity. A merely average in-telligence is sufficient for a very fair amount of proficiency and strength : while intellect not much above the common mean will suffice (assuming here natural aptitude) to lead right up to the second class of players, viz., those to whom the masters of the game can only concede the small odds of "pawn and move." Those wishing to improve will find it very beneficial to play upon even terms with players stronger than themselves; for a persistence in taking odds, besides having a discouraging and debilitating effect upon the weaker player, takes the game out of its proper grooves, and tends to produce positions not naturally arising in the ordinary course of the game as developed from the recog-nized openings. In fact, the reception of odds incapacitates a player from acquiring an insight into the principles of the science of chess, and from comprehending the latent meanings and conceptions upon which combinations and a proper plan of warfare are founded; while, upon the con-trary, playing on even terms throws the combatant at once upon his own judgment, and by causing him to study his opponent's play, leads necessarily to a material improvement in his own style.

To turn now to the elements of the game. The accom-panying diagrams represent chess boards, and it will be perceived that they respectively consist of sixty-four checkered squares
In diagram 1 the chessmen are arranged as they should be at the commencement of the battle, while diagram 2 shows the denomination of the squares according to the English and German systems of notation, to be explained hereafter. Under diagram 1 are the names of the various " Pieces," for so the superior officers are termed—each side, white and black, having a king, a queen, two rooks, two knights, and two bishops. The eight common men in front are called Pawns.

MOVES OF THE DIFFERENT CHESSMEN.—Briefly described, the powers of the various pieces and of the pawns are as follows.

The king may move in any direction—forward, back-ward, laterally, or diagonally ; but he can move only one square at a time. Under certain conditions he has once in

BLACK. Hook. Knight. Bishop. Queen. King. Bishop. Knight. Rook. WHITE.

DIAGRAM 1.—Showing the arrangement of the pieces at the commencement of a game.

the game a peculiar privilege called castling, which will be explained further on.

The queen moves in any straight or diagonal direction, whether forward, backward, or laterally. There is no limit to her range, except when her progress is stopped by any piece or pawn. She is the most powerful piece on the board, for her action is a union of those of the rook and

BLACK.
a b c d e f g ft

a b c de f g h
WHITE

DIAGRAM 2.—Showing English and German Methods of Notation.

bishop. At the commencement of the game the queen always stands upon a square of her own colour.

The rooks move in straight lines—forward, backward, or laterally; they cannot move diagonally. Their range is, like the queen's, unlimited.

The bishops move diagonally in any direction whether backward or forward. They have an unlimited range, with the same exception as before. It is evident that bishops standing originally on differently coloured squares can never meet.

The knights have a mode of moving which it is not easy to describe. Their range is not unlimited, like that of the pieces just noticed, but is restricted in a particular way. They move from one corner of any rectangle of three squares by two to the opposite corner; thus, in diagram 3, the white knight can move to the square occupied by the black one and vice versa. To illustrate the move further, suppose that in diagram 2 a knight stands on the square marked K4 counting from the white side of the board; that knight can move to any of the following squares, viz., to K B 2, Q 2, K Kt 3, Q B 3, K Kt 5, Q B 5, K B 6, and Q 6. The squares which the knight appears to pass over in moving may be occu-pied by other pieces, but his move has no thing whatever t3 do with those intervening squares. A knight may thus vault over any piece or pawn, whether adverse or friendly; the knights are the only pieces which possess this privi-lege. It will be perceived that the locus of the knight, unlike that of the bishop, changes colour at every move.

The king, queen, rooks, and bishops may capture any foeman which stands anywhere within their respective ranges; and the knights can capture the adverse men which stand upon the squares to which they can leap. A capture is effected by the piece which takes occupying the square of the piece which is taken, the latter being then removed from the board. The king cannot capture any man which is protected by another man.
The motions and capturing powers of the pawns are as follows: —Each pawn for his first move may advance either one or two squares straight forward, but afterwards one square only, and this whether upon starting he exercised his privilege of moving two squares or not. A pawn can never move backwards. He can only capture diagonally,—that is to say, if any adverse piece or pawn stand upon the first diagonal square, either to right or left, such adverse piece or pawn can be captured and removed from the board, the captor taking its place, but a pawn cannot take any man standing directly in front of it. In other words, a pawn moves straight forward except when he captures, in which case he moves diagonally, and for capturing purposes he can only, even for his first move, advance one square. When a pawn arrives at an eighth square, viz., at the extreme limit of the board, he may be promoted, that is to say, he may, at the option of his owner, become a queen, rook, bishop, or knight; and it matters not how many queens or other pieces a player may have on the board at one time.

CHECK AND CHECKMATE.—The king can never be captured, but when any piece or pawn attacks him, he is said to be " in check," and the fact of his being so attacked should be announced by the adverse player saying" check," whereupon the king must move from the square he occupies, or be screened from the check by the interposition of one of his own men, or the attacking piece must be captured. If, however, the king, being thus in check, cannot move to another square without being still in check, and there is no piece or pawn which can be interposed, and the checking piece or pawn cannot be taken, then it is " checkmate," whereupon the game terminates, the player whose king has been thus checkmated being the loser. The position of the king when in check being the same as that of any piece when exposed to be captured, with the only difference that the king cannot be taken, it follows that the pawn gives check just in the same way that he captures, viz., diagonally. One king cannot give check to the other, nor cau a king be moved into check.

STALEMATE.—When the king is not in check, but his owner has no move left save such as would place the king in check, this is "stalemate," and the game is drawn.

CASTLING.—This is a peculiar move permitted to the king once in the game; it is performed in combination with either the king's rook or the queen's rook, and in either case by the king being moved two squares laterally, while the rook is placed on the other side of him. But the king cannot castle after having been' moved, nor with a rook that has moved, nor when any piece either white or black stands between him and the rook, nor if he is in check, nor when he has to cross over a square commanded by an adverse piece or pawn ; the rook can, however, move from or cross over such a square. It will be perceived that after castling with the king's rook the latter will occupy the K B square, while the king stands on the K Kt square, and if with the queen's rook, the latter will occupy the queen's square while the king stands on the Q B square. This move will easily be understood with the aid of diagram 2. .

TAKING- EN PASSANT.—This is a privilege possessed by any of the pawns under the following circumstances :—If a pawn, say of the white colour, stands upon a'fifth square, say upon K 5 counting from the white side, and a black pawn in the supposed case moves to Q 4 or K B 4 counting i from the black side, the white pawn can take the black pawn " en passant." For the purposes of such capture the latter is dealt with as though he had only moved to Q 3 or K B 3, and the white pawn taking him diagonally then occupies the square the capturerl pawn would have reached had he moved but one square.

DRAWN GAME. —This arises from a stalemate (noticed above), or from either player not having sufficient force wherewith to effect checkmate, as when there are only two kings left on the board, or king and bishop against king, or king and one or even two knights against king. The same consequence follows from either player being able to give perpetual check to the adverse king. There are also cases in which one of the players can call upon the other to give checkmate in fifty moves, the result of failure being that the game is drawn. The right to make this requisi-tion arises in various positions, to explain all of which would take up much space ; it is sufficient to say that when neither side has any pawns left on the board the player with the inferior force may make the fifty moves call.

OTHER CHESS TERMS.—A "minor piece" means either a knight or bishop. " Gaining the exchange" signifies giving a minor piece in exchange for a rook. A " passed pawn" is one that has no adverse pawn either in front or on either of the adjoining files. It may be as well to explain that a "file" is simply a line of squares extending vertically from one end of the boird to the other. There are therefore eight files, and they are respectively named after the pieces which occupy the first squares on either side, as, e.g., the " king's file," which extends from one king to the other, and so forth. An " open file " is one on which no piece or pawn of either colour is standing. " Gambit " is a word derived from the Italian gambelto, a tripping up of the heels ; it is a term used to signify an opening in which a pawn is sacrificed to obtain an attack. An " opening," or " d6but," is a certain set method of com-mencing the game ; there are regular and irregular openings. A " check by discovery " is given when a player, by moving one of his pieces, checks with another of them. " Double check," as its name implies, means attacking the king at once with two pieces,—-one of the pieces in this case giving check by discovery.

VALUE OF THE PIECES.—The relative worth of the chess-men cannot be definitely stated on account of the increase or decrease of their powers according to the position of the

gams, but striking an average, and taking the pawn as the unit, the following will be an estimate near enough for practical purposes :—pawn 1, bishop 3-25, knight 3'25, rook 5, queen 9'50. Three minor pieces may more often than not be advantageously exchanged for the queen. The knight is generally stronger than the bishop in the end game, but two bishops are usually stronger than two knights, more especially in open positions.

LAWS.—The laws of chess differ, although not very materially, in different countries. Various steps have been taken, but as yet without success, to secure the adoption of a universally authoritative code. In competitions among English players the particular laws to be observed are specially agreed on,—the regulations most generally adopted being those laid down at length in Staunton's Chess Praxis, or the modification of the Praxis laws issued in the name of the British Chess Association in 1862.

The following rules may be here indicated. The board must be so placed that each combatant has a white square in his right hand corner. A player touching any of his own men or those of his adversary (except accidentally) without previously saying "fadoube ," or " I adjust," or words to that effect, may be compelled to move or capture (as the case may be) the man so touched ; if this cannot be done he must move his king, but if that be likewise im-possible, there is then no penalty. If a player make a false or illegal move or capture, he must, at the choice of his opponent, and according to the case, move his own man legally, capture the man legally, or move any other man legally movable. In practice, the usual demand is that the offender shall move his king. After four moves have been made on each side, any such illegality is waived, and the game must be played out as it stands. Should the king be left in check, all the moves subsequently made must be retraced and the check replied to.

BLACK. P to K 4 Q Kt to Q B 3
(i.e., Queen's Knight to the third square of the Queen's Bishop's file.)
K B to Q B 4
(same as White's third move).

MODES OF NOTATION.—The English and German systems of notation (i.e., the manner of describing the moves made in a game) are different. According to the English method each player counts from his own side of the board, and the moves are denoted according to the names of the files and the numbers of the squares. Thus when a player for his first move advances the king's pawn two squares, it is described as follows :—" 1 P to K 4;" for the pawn has moved to the fourth square of the king's file. The following moves of the Giuoco Piano Opening, with the aid of diagram 2, will enable the reader to understand the principles of the British notation, wherein it may also be observed that only the initials of the pieces are now used:—

WHITE.
1. P to K 4
2. K Kt to K B 3
3.
(i.e., King's Knight to the third square of the King's Bishop's file.)
3. K B to Q B 4
(King's Bishop to the fourth square of the Queen's Bishop's file.)
4. P to Q B 3
(Pawn to the third square of the Q B file.)
5. P to Q 4
(Pawn to the fourth square of the Queen's file,)
6. P takes P
(Queen's Bishop's Pawn takes Pawn at the fifth square of the adverse Queen's file.)

It is now usual to express the notation as concisely as possible ; thus, the third moves of White and Black would be given as 3 B to B 4, because it is clear that only the fourth square of the queen's bishop's file is intended. In like manner White's fourth move would be described as 4 P to B 3, and Black's fourth move as 4 Kt to B 3. Sometimes instead of the word " takes " a cross is used, thus—6 P x P.
The German notation employs the alphabetical characters a, b, c, d, e, f, g, and h, proceeding from left to right, and the numerals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, running upwards, these being always calculated from the White side of the board (see diagram 2). Thus the White Queen's Rook's square is al ; the Black Queen's Rook's square, a8 ; the White Queen's square is dl; the Black Queen's square, d8; the White King's square, el; the Black King's square, e8, and so with the other pieces and squares. The German names of the pieces are as follows :—King, Konig; Queen, Dame; Rook, Thurm; Bishop, Laufer; Knight, Springer; Pawn, Bauer.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
The initals only of the pieces are given, the pawns
(Bauern) being understood. The Germans use the follow-
ing signs in their notation, viz.:—for " check " (+); " check-
mate " (t) ; "takes" (:); "castles on King's side" (0-0);
"castles on Queen's side" (0-0-0); for "best move" a
note of admiration (!); for "weak move" a note of inter-
rogation (t). The Giuoco Piano Opening moves just ren-
dered in the English will now be given in the German nota-
tion, which will make the latter easily intelligible :—
WHITE. BLACK.
1. e2-e4 1. e7-e5
S gl-f3 2. S b8-c6
Lfl-c4 3. Lf8-c5
c2-c3 4. Sg8-f6!
d2-d.4 5. e5-d4:
c3-d4 : 6. L c5-b4t
Both in the English and German notations the moves
are often rendered in a tabular form, thus :—1. „ ,° „ -.
P to K 4
e2-e4
1. ^ e5, the moves above the line being White's and
below the line Black's.
BLACK.
1. P to K 4
2. Q Kt to B 3
3. B to B 4
4. Kt to K B 3
5. P takes P
6. B to Kt 5 (ch)
7. B takes B(ch)
8. P to Q 4
9. K Kt takes P

10. Q Kt to K 2
11. Castles





ILLUSTRATIVE GAMES.—There are various text-books upon the beginnings and endings of games, to one or other of which the learner should have recourse. Some of them are mentioned further on; but it would be invidious to enter upon any comparison of merits, or to recommend any work in particular. The following are given as indicative illustrations of certain of the leading openings; but, necessarily, no attempt can be made here to impart detailed instruction on this important branch of the game :—
Giuoco Piano.
9. 10. 11.
WHITE. P to K 4 K Kt to B 3 B to B 4 P to B 3 P to Q 4 P takes P B to Q 2 Q Kt takes B P takes P Q to Kt 3 Castles (K's side)
WHITE. P to K 4 K Kt to B 3 B to Kt 5
BLACK. P to K 4 Q Kt to B 3 P to Q B. 3
Even game. Rug Lopez.
1.
2. 3.

595

i.
5. 6.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. 10. 11.
Even game.
9. 10. 11.
Scotch Gambit.
BLACK. P to K 4 Q Kt to B P takes P B to B 4 Kt to B 3
WHITE

WHITE.
7. Castles
8. P to K E 3
9. Kt to Q B 3
The game is about equal, though White has a somewhat freer position.
The two following games are brilliant specimens of the style of those eminent players, Herr Anderssen and Mr Paul Morphy. The manner in which White in the first game forces the victory, though losing piece after piece, scarcely finds a parallel in the records of chess strategy.
WHITE. Herr Anderssen.
1. P to K 4
2. P to K B 4
3. B to B 4
4. K to B sq
5. B takes Kt P
6. Kt to K B 3
7. P to Q 3
8. Kt to R 4
9. Kt to B 5

10. P to K Kt 4
11. R to Kt sq
12. P to K R 4
13. P to R 5
14. Q to B 3
15. B takes P
16. Kt to B 3
17. Kt to Q 5
18. B to Q 6
19. K to K 2
20. P to K 5
White gives
King's Bishop's Gambit.
BLACK. Herr Kieseritzki.
1. P to K 4
2. P takes P
3. Q to R 5 (ch)
4. P to Q Kt 4
5. Kt to K B 3
6. Q to R 3
7. Kt to R 4
8. Q to Kt 4
9. P to Q B 3

10. Kt to B 3
11. P takes B
12. Q to Kt 3
13. Q to Kt 4
14. Kt to Kt sq
15. Q to B 3
16. B to B 4
17. Q takes Kt P
18. Q takes R (ch)
19. B takes R
20. Kt to Q R 3
checkmate in three moves.
WHITE. Mr Barnes. 1. P to K 4 Kt to K B 3 P to Q 4 P takes K P Kt to Kt 5 P to K 6 Kt to B 7 B to K 3 B to K Kt 5 Kt takes R B to B 4 Kt to B 7 R to B sq P to K B 3 Kt to Q R 3 B takes B Q takes Kt Castles B to Kt 3 K to Kt sq Kt to K 5 Kt to Q 3 Kt takes B
Philidor's Defence.
BLACK. Mr Morphy.
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.
1. P to K 4
2. P to Q 3
3. P to K B 4
4. B P takes P
5. P to Q 4
6. B to Q B 4
7. Q to B 3
8. P to Q 5
9. Q to B 4

10. Q takes B
11. Kt to Q B 3
12. Q takes P
13. Kt to B 3
14. Kt to Q Kt 5
15. B takes P
16. Kt to Q 6 (ch)
17. P takes Q
18. B takes Kt
19. P to Q 7 (ch)
20. B to B 4
21. K to B sq
22. R to K sq
23. Q takes R
And White resigns.

END-GAMES AND PROBLEMS.—Considerable attention has been devoted by writers on chess to the examination of end-games, and many of the particular combinations of forces that are apt to occur have been fully and carefully analyzed. The study of and taste for problems have become very general in the chess community, especially within the last twenty years; and to minister to the growing public demand for such compositions is now an important function o' chess periodicals, and of the numerous serial publications that devote a column to chess. The six problems given below1 are prize-winners. The solutions (necessarily the leading variations only) will be found at the close of the article, p. 603.

VARIOUS THEORIES AS TO THE INVENTION OF CHESS.— The origin of the game of chess is lost in obscurity, a fact which has rather invited than repelled learned speculations on the subject. The invention of the pastime has been variously ascribed to the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Scythians, Egyptians, Jews, Persians, Chinese, Hindus,

1 PROBLEM NO. 1. By J. Kling.
(Adjudged the best two-move problem of the British Chess Association Tourney, 1872). BLACK.

WHITE.
White to play and mate in two moves.

PROBLEM NO. 2. By the Rev. George M'Arthur. (The prize problem of the Cambridge Tourney, 1860.) BLACK

WHITE.
White to play and mate in three moves.

Arabians, Arauoanians, Castilians, Irish, and Welsh. Not content with upholding the claims of nations or races, some have endeavoured to fix upon particular individuals as the originators of the game; and, amongst others, the following have found supporters:—Japhet, Shem, King Solomon, the wife of Ravan king of Ceylon, the philosopher Xerxes, the Grecian prince Palamedes, Hermes, Aristotle, the brothers Lydo and Tyrrhene, Semiramis, Zenobia, Attalus who died about 200 B.C., the mandarin Hansing, the Brahman Sissa, and Shatrenscha, stated to be a celebrated Persian astronomer. Many of these ascriptions are of course fabulous, others rest upon little authority, and some of them proceed from easily traceable errors, so where the Roman games of Ludus Latrunculorum and Ludus Galculorum, the Welsh recreation of Tawlbwrdd, i.e., throw-board, and the ancient Irish pastime of Fithcheall are assumed to be synonymous with chess; whereas, so fai 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, but most likely an open-air recreation. 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, which, according to Mr Irwin, means the " royal game," was invented in the reign of Kao Tsu, otherwise Lin Pang, then king, but afterwards emperor of Kiangnan, by a mandarin named Hansing, who was in command of an army invading the Shensi country, and who wanted to

PROBLEM NO. 3. By F. Healey. (One of the first-prize set of the Bristol Tourney, 1861.) BLACK.

PROBLEM NO. 5. By Lieutenant S. A. Sorensen. (One of the first-prize set of the British Chess Association Tourney, 1872, and also adjudged the best four-move problem of the Tourney.) BLACK.

WHITE.
White to play and mate in three moves.
PROBLEM NO. 4. By S. Loyd.
(One of the second-prize set of the Paris Tourney, 1867.)
BLACK.

WHITE.
White to play and mate in four moves.
PROBLEM No. 6. By Dr Conrad Bayer. (One of the first-prize set of the British Chess Association Touruey, 1862, and also adjudged the best problem in the Tourney.)
BLACK.

WHITE.
White to play and mate in four moves.

WHITE.
White to play and mate in five moves.

amuse his soldiers when in winter quarters so that they might no longer clamour to return home. According to the narrative, this invasion of the Shensi country by Hansing took place about 174 B.C. Captain Hiram Cox, in a com-mentary upon the above letter, states that the game is called by the Chinese cholce-choo-hong hi, literally, " the play of the science of war." (See also a paper published by the Hon. Daines Barrington in the 9th vol. of the Arcliceologia.) 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 he maintains that the game, after being bom in Persia, found a home in India, whence, after a series of ages, it was brought back to its original birth-place. The view, however, which has been most seriously put forward, and which has obtained the most credence, is that which attributes the origin of chess to the Hindus. Dr Hyde of Oxford, writing in 1694 (De Ludis Orientalibus), seems to have been the first to propound this theory. He, however, laboured under two somewhat serious disadvantages ; he appears to have been ignorant of the game itself, and the treasures of ancient Hindu knowledge contained in Sanskrit records were not accessible in his time. About 1783-89 Sir William Jones took up the mantle of Hyde, and in an essay published in the 2d 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 Amarahosha 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 was resident in Bengal, and was president of the Asiatic Society of that province; he commenced the study of Sanskrit to assist him in his judicial functions, and was the first who possessed real and profound knowledge of that language; he was, besides, well acquainted with and fond of chess, so that altogether he was more advantageously situated than Hyde for forming an opinion upon the matter. His essay is substantially a translation of and a commentary upon 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, as 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 and was invented in India, he yet, with commendable candour, 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 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, wherefore, they altered it farther into Shatranj, which name found its way presently into the modern Persian, and ultimately into the dialects of India.

So far Sir William Jones ; but Captain 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 above-mentioned Sanskrit manuscript to be the most ancient form of chess.—the Burmese and Persian games coming successively second and third in order of precedence. Later on, viz., in the 11th and 24th vols, of the Arcliceologia. Mr Francis Douce and Sir Frederick Madden expressed themselves in favour of the views held by Hyde and his followers.

This brings us to the issue of Professor Duncan Forbes's History of Chess, in 1860, in which Captain Cox's views, as founded upon Sir William Jones's Sanskrit manuscript are upheld and 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 (i.e., the Hindus); and that it was known and practised in India from a time lost in the depths of a remote antiquity, but, as he considers, 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, though certainly quite specula-tively, for he adduces no proof, how the four armies commanded by four kings in Sir William Jones's manuscript became converted into two opposing armies, on which conversion he says that 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, for the latter word he states is a mere exotic in the language of the inhabitants of Persia, defying all the ingenuity of their grammarians to make it their own.
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 at the hands of the learned Dutch author. Van der Linde argues that chaturanga is always used of an army, and never of a game, by the old Indian poets ; that all Sanskrit scholars are agreed that chess is mentioned in none of the really ancient Hindu records ; that the Puranas generally, though formerly considered to be extremely old, are held in the light of modern researches to reach no further back in reality than the 10th century,—while, moreover, the copies of the Bhawishya Purana which are in the British Museum and 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 ultimate 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. While putting forth nothing as positive which cannot be proved, he incbnes to the idea that the game originated among the Buddhists, whose religion was prevalent in India from the 3d to the 9th century. According to their ideas, war and the slaying of one's fellow man, for any purpose whatever, is criminal, and the punishment of the warrior in the next world will be much worse than that of the simple murderer; but they ministered to the combative propensities of human nature by inventing the bloodless warfare of chess as a harmless imitation of and a substitution for the carnage of the battle-field. In opposition to Forbes, therefore, and agreeing with Sir William Jones, Van der Linde takes the view that the four-handed game of the above-mentioned manuscript is a comparatively modern adaptation of the primal Hindu chess, and he altogether denies that there is any proof of the game in whatever form having the antiquity attributed to it. Certainly, internal evidences seem to contradict the view of Sir William Jones's manuscript being a 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 all games of hazard were positively forbidden by Menu. It would appear also that Indian manuscripts cannot be absolutely relied on in 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 from time to time re-copied, and in this way later interpolations might easily creep in.

Von der Lasa, who had, in an article prefixed to the Handbuch in 1864, accepted Forbes's views, withdraws his support in a review of the work just noticed, published in the September and November numbers of the Deutsche Schachzeitung, 1874, and expresses his adherence to the opinions set forth by 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,—a fact which naturally leads them to fix upon that country as its probable birth-place. In this supposition they are strengthened by the names of the game and of some of the pieces. Shatranj, as Forbes has well pointed out, is a foreign word among the Persians and Arabians, whereas its natural derivation from the term chaturanga will strike an ordinarily educated as well as a scholarly mind. Again, al-fil, the Arabic name of the bishop, means the elephant, otherwise aleph-hind, the Indian ox. As to how long chess has really existed, unless we choose to rely upon evident myths and old fables, we shall find no ground whatever for attributing to it the great antiquity that some have maintained. Our earliest authority is Masudi, an Arabic author who wrote about 950 A.D. According to him, shatranj had existed long before his time ; but the spirit of historic criticism will not permit of our unreservedly accepting his testimony in that regard. Say that he may speak not only for his own generation but for a couple of centuries before, and that will give an existence to chess of over a thousand years, a respectable period of time enough, and one to be satisfied with until a greater duration be proved.

CHESS IN EARLY AND MEDIEVAL TIMES.—The dimness which shrouds from view the origin of chess naturally obscures also its early history. All kinds of fables and legends lie in the way of the inquirer, and obstruct his progress, so that until a comparatively recent date a firm historical foundation is not to be found. 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, if indeed his reasons may not be said to amount to a demonstration of the correctness of his view. But how and when the game was introduced into Persia we have no means of knowing. True, the Persian poet Firdusi, in his historical poem, the Shahuama, gives an account of the introduction of shatranj into Persia in the reign of Naushirawan (Chosroes), to whom came ambassadors from the sovereign of Hind, i.e., India, with a chess-board and men, asking him to solve if he could the secrets of the game, and otherwise to pay tribute. Naushirawan was the contemporary of Justinian, and reigned in the 6th century of our era. Professor Forbes seems to think that this poem may be looked upon as substantially an authentic history and credited as such. This appears, however, to be somewhat dangerous, especially as Firdusi lived some 450 years after the supposed event took place. Other Persian and Arabian writers state that shatranj came into Persia from India, and there appears, as we have seen, such a consensus of opinion as may be considered to settle that part of the question. We have then the game passing from the Hindus to the Persians, thence to the Arabians after they took possession of Persia in the 7th century, and from whom directly or indirectly it came to various parts of Europe, at a time which cannot be definitely fixed upon, but which was either in or before the 11th century. That the source of the European game is Arabic is clearly enough deducible, not merely from the words " check " and " mate," which are evidently from Shah mat, but also from the names of some of the pieces, to be noticed further on. There are various chess legends having reference to the 7th and 8th centuries, but these may be passed by as presenting no appearance of historical verity; and equally unworthy of credence appear the many Oriental and Occidental romances which revolve around those two great central figures, Harun al Bashid 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 Pepin 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 Prankish 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 in an equally relentless manner the sceptical Dutch writer breaks down the tradition about Irene's chessmen. With respect to Harun al Bashid, 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, 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 liukh 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. It ran thus:—" 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 inarched 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 it to be not improbable that the correspondence is genuine; but the words " rukh" and "pawn"may have been substituted for other terms of comparison originally made use of.





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 supposition is negatived by a curious epistle of Cardinal Damianus, bishop of Ostia, to Pope Alexander II. written about 1061 A.D., 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, the tongue that mediates between God and man, with the pollution of a sacrilegious game 1" Following up the same idea the statutes of the church of Elna, in the 3d 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 Hois de France, to have forbidden clerks to play the game, and according to the Hist. Eccles. of Fleury, St Louis king of France condemned to a fine all who should play it. Ecclesiastical authorities, however, seem to have differed among themselves upon the question whether chess was or was not a lawful game according to the canons, and Peirino, De Prcelat. 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, where-by he had lost time and risked 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 mingle-mangle of the legendary and the possibly true. Snorre Sturleson relates that as Canute was playing at chess with Earl Uifr, a quarrel arose, which resulted in the latter upsetting the board, with the further consequence of his being mur-dered in church a few days afterwards by Canute's orders. Carlyle, in his recent work, The Early Kings of Norway, repeats this tale, but Van der Linde treats it as a myth ; and certainly the act imputed to the great-minded Dane seems altogether inconsistent with his character. The Ramsey Chronicle relates how Bishop Utheric, coming to Canute at night upon urgent business, found the monarch and his courtiers recreating themselves at dice and chess. There is nothing intrinsically improbable in this last narra-tive; but Canute died about 1035, and the date therefore is suspiciously early. Moreover, allowance must be made for the ease with which chroniclers turned other games, such as tables, &c, into chess. William the Conqueror, Henry I., John, and Edward I. are variously stated to have played at chess, but such assertions must be taken quantum valeant. Not devoid of plausibility h the allega-tion tha„ the Court of Exchequer derives its name from Eschiquier; though whether, in support of the same idea, we are to believe, as is stated by an old writer, that at the coronation of Richard I. in 1189, six earls and barons carried a chess-board with the royal insignia to represent the said court is another thing. According to Edmonson's Heraldry, twenty-six English families bore chess rooks in their coats of arms. Altogether, strewed about the chronicles and writings of the Middle Ages are many allusions to the game, but the subject cannot be further elucidated here; though a word or two about the pieces and the changes they have undergone may be worth adding.

The king seems always to have had the same move as at present; but it is said he could formerly be captured. There seems no recorded proof, however, of his ever having been subject to this liability in the real shatranj. His castling privilege is a European invention; in lieu thereof he formerly leaped two and even three squares, and also to his Kt 2d, which would be a knight's move. Castlmg dates no further back than the first half of the 16th century. The queen has suffered curious changes in name, sex, and power. In shatranj she 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 her becoming a female. Another and much more probable account has it that whereas a pawn on reaching an eighth square became a farzin, and not formerly 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, and there can be little doubt that her investiture therewith arose analogically through the similarity of the powers of promotion possessed alike by the pawns and the common men in draughts. 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 squares, which he could leap over whether they were occupied or not. One result of the peculiar motion of the bishops was that they could never encounter each other even when running on diagonals of the same colour. 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, alfiere, the latter being the word used by the Italians ; while the French no doubt 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 ; therefore, the plurality of queens is not, as some suppose, a new doctrine. The rooks and knights appear to have always had the same powers as at present. As to the chess boards they were formerly uncoloured, and it is not until the 13th century that we hear of checkered boards being used in Europe.

Child chess prodigy Samuel Reshevsky, aged 8, giving a simultaneous exhibition in France in 1920. He is shown defeating several chess masters at once.

MODERN HISTORY OF CHESS.—The remarkable, not to say revolutionary, changes which, commencing about the middle of the 15th century, transformed the mediaeval shatranj into our modern chess, took place most probably first in France, and thence made their way into Spain, where the new game was called Axedrez de la Dama, being also adopted by the Italians under the name of chess alia rabiosa. This revolution of the ancient method of play is contemporaneous with that tide of discovery which set in shortly after the conquest of Constantinople, and culminated in the introduction of typography, the discovery of America, the enunciation of the Copernican theory, &c. 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 (Libro de la invencion liberal y arte del juego del Axedrez), though treating of it as already in use, also gives the old mode of play, which consisted of a solitary leap of the king. Shortly afterwards, the old shatranj disappears altogether, the struggle for existence resulting as usual in the victory of the stronger. Of Lopez it may be said that he was the first who merits the name of chess analyst, as he gives reasons for his different variations in the openings, and for holding different opinions from his predecessor Damiano. 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, so that this period is rightly considered as that when international chess tournaments first took place. The following century yielded a great number of chess writers, but scarcely any great players ; and, in fact, during the whole 17th century, we find but one worthy to be mentioned, viz., the very ingenious Giacchino Greco (il Calabrese), whose recorded games abound in the most beautiful, but often not very sound, combinations. The middle of the 18th century inaugurates a new era in chess, for now the compilations and reprints of very indifferent writers were abandoned by the student and relegated to the collections of bibliophilists. Instead we find real chess-players and painstaking analysts. The leading man of this time was François André Danican Philidor. He was born the 7th of September 1726 at Dreux, near Paris, played chess very early, and was trained by the M. de Kemur Sir de Legal, the then star of the Café de la Régence, 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 in London his Analyse des Écliecs, a book which went through more editions and was more translated than a score of other works upon the game. In fact it was the chess Koran. During more than half a century Philidor travelled much in England, Holland, and Germany; but unfortunately he 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 a trio renowned in the history of chess as forming the Modenese school—Ercole del Rio, Lolli, and Ponziani. The style of these experts was less sound than that of Philidor, but certainly a much finer and, in principle, a better one. It may be added that as an analyst the Frenchman was in many points refuted by Ercole del Rio, who wrote under the nom de plume of 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, wh.'ch he visited every season from 1784 as the guest of the Chess Club in St James's Street ; and he died in that city on the 24th of August 1795. As eminent players of this period must be mentioned Count Ph. J. van Zuylen van Nyevelt (1743-1826), and the German J. Allgaier (1763-1823), after whom is called a well-known brilliant variation of the King's Gambit. Philidor's mantle was taken up by Alexander Louis Honore Lebreton Deschapelles (1780-1847), who possessed undoubtedly a great genius for the game, and was its champion for many years, notwithstand-ing that he lacked all knowledge of the theory. The only player who is known to have fought Deschapelles not unsuccessfully on even terms is the veteran John Cochrane. The Frenchman generally declined to play except at odds, and he was ever ready to handicap himself liberally. He 1 ost, however, a match (1821) to W. Lewis, to whom he con-ceded the pawn and move, the Englishman winning 1 and drawing the 2 others. Deschapelles's greatest pupil, and the strongest player France ever possessed, was Louis Charles Mahe de Labourdonnais—born in 1797—who was the leader of the French school from 1821 until his death in December 1840. His most memorable achievement was his contest with the English champion, Alexander Mac-donnell, in a series of matches which resulted in the French player winning in the proportion of 3 to 2 of all the games played.

The English school of chess commenced about the beginning of the present century, and Sarratt was its first leader. He flourished from 1808 to 1821, and was followed by his great pupil W. Lewis, who, however, exhibited his skill in practical play for a short time only, and will be principally remembered for his writings, which stamp him as a great and original chess analyst. His literary career belongs to the period from 1818 to 1848, and he died in 1869. A. Macdonnell has been already mentioned; he was born in 1798 and died in 1835. He was a very ingenious and brilliant player, but lacked soundness. To the same period belongs also Captain Evans, the inventor of the celebrated Evans Gambit (1828), who died at a very advanced age in 1873; Periga], who participated in the correspondence matches against Edinburgh and Paris; George Walker, for thirty years chess editor of BelVs Life in London, who is still alive; and John Cochrane, who has crossed swords with every strong player from Deschapelles downwards, and is still in constant play. In the same period Germany possessed but one player who was above the mediocrities of the time,—J, Mendheim, whose name is connected with Berlin chess, in which city he resided from 1810 to 1836. The fifth decennium of the 19th century is marked by the fact that the chess sceptre departed from the French school, and was grasped by the English. After Labourdonnais's death Fournie de Saint-Amant became the leading player in France; as such he visited England in the early part of 1843, and contended successfully against the best English players, including Howard Staunton ; but the latter soon took his revenge, for in November and December 1843 the 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 in matches upon even terms Popert, Horwitz, and Harrwitz, besides a number of strong amateurs to whom he conceded large odds. He had also two other matches with Harrwitz, one at pawn and two moves, and the other at pawn and move—the former being won by Staunton, and the latter lost by him. Staunton's services in the cause of chess literature are adverted to below. That they were very great, and that the game in England owes much of its present popularity to him is not to be questioned, as also that for thirty years he occupied a position in the English chess world possessed by none of his contemporaries. Staunton was defeated by Anderssen at the London tournament in 1851, and from that time his match-playing career concluded. He died suddenly on the 22d of June 1874, at the age of sixty-four. Among the contemporaries of Staunton, mention should certainly not be omitted of Henry Thomas Buckle, author of the History of Civilization. His remarkable powers as a chess-player were principally exhibited in games played only for recreation at Simpson's Chess divan, wherein he was successful over Kieseritzki, and used to concede odds to strong players such as Barnes, Bird, &c. He beat Anderssen in 1851—when the Breslau player was at the height of his strength—in a series of 15 well-contested games played between them, by a majority of one game, and he also about the same time defeated Lowenthal in a match.

In the ten years 1830-1840 anew 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, born in 1809 and now living in London, and last, but not least, the eminent player and chess author, Von Heydebrandt und der Lasa, at present the imperial German ambassador at Copenhagen. As belonging to the same period must be mentioned the three Hungarian players,—Grimm, who died in Turkish Asia, whither he had fled after the insurrection of 1848 ; Szen, known by his successful combats with Labourdonnais (who conceded the Pesth player pawn and two moves, but lost 11 games out of 12), his competition in the 1851 tourney, as also his general play with the strongest adepts of his time; and J. Lowenthal, lately deceased, whose career, however, belongs more naturally to the period of later British chess. Among other proofs of the skill of these Hungarians is the correspondence match in 1843-45 be-tween Pesth and Paris, won by the former.

The first modern international chess tournament, held at London in 185.1, marks the commencement of the present epoch, and was the forerunner of various similar contests between strong players of different nationalities. This tourney brought forward a player who, so far as beauty of combination goes, stands even to the present moment with-out a rival, viz., A. Anderssen, born in Breslau the 6th of July 1818. Before his appearance in England he had defeated all his German antagonists, and at the above-mentioned tournament he took the first prize, having successively beaten L. Kieseritzki, Szen, Staunton, and Mr Wyvill, M.P. Anderssen played the same year in the tournament of the London Club, and again took first honours. In 1857 he competed in the Manchester tourney, but lost in the last round to Lowenthal, who consequently won the first prize, Anderssen having the second. In December 1858 Anderssen was beaten by Morphy in a match played at Paris, the score being 7 games to 2 and 2 drawn. In 1860 the indefatigable Breslau player again visited Paris, and played successfully against J. Kolisch ; and he also defeated the latter in 1861 in a set match played at London by 4 games to 3. In the London tourna-ment of 1862, Anderssen took the first prize ; but in 1866 he lost a match to Steinitz, the winner's score being 8 to 6. In 1869 Anderssen came out first in the North German and Rhenish tournaments, and again in 1870 at the Baden-Baden congress ; but in the spring of 1871 he lost a match to Zukertort, score 5 to 2, and he took but the third prize at the Vienna congress of 1873. Altogether he has shown himself the most soldier-like of chess players, ever ready for the fight, and never caring to rest upon his reputation. Among those who may be reckoned as more or less owing their training to him are the following eminent players :— D. Harrwitz, J. Dufresne, Max Lange. B. Suhle, P. Hirschfeld, G. R. Neumann, E. Schallopp, S. Mieses, J. H. Zukertort, and many others.

Paul Morphy, who beat Anderssen by such a decisive majority of games, is considered by many competent judges, and probably with truth, to have been the strongest chess player that ever lived. His career was short but brilliant. Born in New Orleans on the 22d of June 1837, he was taught chess by his father when only ten years of age, and in two years time became a strong player, able to contend with success against his uncle Mr Ernest Morphy and Mr Eugene Rousseau, both high-class experts. 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, having defeated C. H. Stanley, L. Paulsen, and other strong American amateurs. In 1858 he visited Europe, and there met with a series of triumphs. He arrived first in England, and there defeated by large majorities Boden, Medley, Mongredien, Owen, Bird, and others. He also, in a match played in London, beat Lowenthal by 9 games to 3 and 2 drawn. In September of the same year (1858) he played a match at Paris with Harrwitz, whom he defeated by 5 to 2 and 1 drawn; and later on he obtained a victory over Anderssen as above stated. During his stay in Europe he on two or three occasions played without sight of board or men and simultaneously against eight strong players, each time with great success. He returned to America in May 1859, and here his chess career virtually finishes. He continued to play in his own circle, but with decreasing interest in the game, until 1866, when he totally abandoned its practice and has never played since.

Wilhelm Steinitz, born at Prague in 1836, and for the last fourteen years resident in London, took the sixth prize at the London congress of 1862. Immediately afterwards he defeated Blackburne in a match by 7 to 1 and 2 draws. In 1866 he beat Anderssen in a match by 8 games to 6 ; and in 1867 he took the third prize at the Paris tournament. In 1868 he carried off the first prize in the British Chess Association handicap, in 1870 the second prize of the Baden-Baden tournament, and in 1872 the first prize of the London grand tourney. In the last-mentioned year he defeated Zukertort in a match by 7 games to 1 and 4 draws. In 1873 he carried off the first prize at the Vienna congress ; and in 1876 he defeated Blackburne, winning 7 games right off. He has also won matches against Dubois, Mongredien, Deacon, and Bird, and in 1872-4 he, in conjunction with W. N. Potter, conducted and won a telegraphic correspon-dence match for London against Vienna.

One of the special characteristics of the present time is the extraordinary power of playing blindfold chess which we now so often see exhibited. In Philidor's age it was considered an almost incredible wonder that he should be able to play three simultaneous games without seeing board or men, but Paulsen, Blackburne, and Zukertort have often played 10 or 12 simultaneous blind-fold games, while even as many as 14 and 15 have been so played.

With the following summary of tournaments contested during the last 25 years, the modern history of chess may conclude :—
1851. London. 1 Anderssen, 2 Wyvill, 3 Williams, 4 Staunton, 5 Szen, 6 Kennedy, 7 Horwitz, 8 Mueklow.
1857. Manchester. 1 Lowenthal, 2 Anderssen. „ 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, 4 G. MacDonnell, 5 S. Dubois, 6 Steinitz.
1865. Dublin. 1 Steinitz, 2 MacDonnell.
1866. Redear. 1 DeVere.
,, English Championship Cup. De Vere.
,, British Chess Association. 1 Steinitz, 2 Green.
1867. Paris. 1 Kolisch, 2 Winawer, 3 Steinitz, 4 Neumann.
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.
,, English Championship Cup. 1 "Wisker, 2 Burn.
1870-71. City of London Handicap. 1 Potter, 2 De Vere.
1871-72. Do. 1 Steinitz, 2 Keats (at odds).
1872. London. 1 Steinitz, 2 Blackburne, 3 Zukertort.
,, English Championship Cup. 1 Wisker (becoming per-manent holder of the Cup), 2 De Vere.
1873. Vienna. 1 Steinitz, 2 Blackburne, 3 Anderssen, 4 Rosenthal.
1876. London. 1 Blackburne, 2 Zukertort, 3 Potter.

LITERATURE OF THE GAME. The number of works that have been written upon chess in various languages is very large ; and only a few of the principal books on this subject can be cursorily alluded to here. Confining ourselves to those authors who have treated of the practice and science of the game, we may begin with Jacobus de Cessolis, otherwise 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 the Ohesse, printed an English trans-lation of the French version. It has been held by many that this was the first book printed in England.

In 1490 we have Die Gottinger Handschrift, a work containing nine different openings and fifty problems. The author of this manuscript is not known. It is supposed that both he and Lucena were indebted to an earlier source, now unknown. Then comes Vicent, a Spanish writer, whose book bears date 1495. This is pretty well all we know about him, for only the title page has been pre-served, the rest of the work having been lost in the first Carlist war, forty years ago. Of Lucena, another Spanish author who wrote in or about 1497, we are better informed. His treatise (Repetición des Amores y Arte de Axedres) comprises various practi-cal chess matters, including 150 positions, illustrated by 160 well executed wood-cuts. Various of those positions are identical with those in Die Gottinger Handschrift. Damiano's work is an un-acknowledged reproduction of Lucena's. In the sixteenth century works upon the game were written by Damiano (as just mentioned), Ruy Lopez, and Horatio Gianutio della Mantia; in the seven-teenth century by Salvio, Polerio, Gustavus Selenus, Carrera, Greco, Fr. Antonio, and the authors of the Traite de Lausanne; in the eighteenth century by Bertin, Stamma, Ercole del Rio, Lolli, Cozio, Philidor, Ponziani, Stein, Van Nyevelt, Allgaier, and Peter Pratt; in the present century by J. F. W. Koch and C. F. Koch, Sarratt, John Cochrane, Wm. Lewis, Silbersclimidt, 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. The titles of several recent works by English writers are quoted below.

English chess owes much to W. Lewis and George Walker for their multifarious literary labours in the early part of the present century, the former being the best original analyst that England has yet produced. But to Howard Staunton must be ascribed the most important share in creating the popularity which the game has achieved in this country. His victory over St Amant in 1843, and his successful career as a match player during the ensuing eight years, tended in the first place to attract the popular attention, while his works gave a style and a shape to the practice of the game amongst his countrymen such as contributed much towards laying the basis of that high degree of excellence which now characterises chess playing 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, while later additions and discoveries naturally find no place therein; but taking the Handbook as it was when issued, very high praise must be bestowed upon the author for the good judg-ment, ability, and painstaking labour evidenced in the compilation of the work. If there be anything wanting in original analysis, this is more than compensated for by the care, acumen, learning, and research which enabled him to utilize and condense in a clear, intelligible, and attractive form all the stores of knowledge then accessible. 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),and various smaller treatises. As has been already stated, the laws of the game, as laid down in the Praxis, form the basis of the rules adopted by the British Chess Association in 1862, the main differences between the two codes arising from a mitigation in the Association laws of some of the severe penalties laid down in the Praxis, and the enactment of the "Dummy Pawn" rule, whereby a pawn on reaching an eight square may, if the player chooses, remain a pawn. In 1840 Staunton established the Chess Player's Chronicle, which periodical he continued to edit until 1856, while for four years—commencing in 1865—he carried on the Chess World. Moreover, he was the chess editor of the Illustrated London News during a period of thirty years, viz., from 1844 till his death in 1874. The services which he rendered to chess in thus popularizing the game and suc-cessfully engrafting it upon our periodical literature have been admitted in all quarters. In this respect also George Walker's work in Bell's Life in London, of which publication he was the chess editor for forty years, should not go without special acknow-ledgment. To Staunton's works must now be added his posthu-mous Chess Theory and Practice, edited and prepared for the press by R. B. Wormald, 1876.

Among Continental chess authorities Von Heydebrandt und der Lasa (more usually known by his second title) stands pre-eminent. The German Handbuch, the famous volume with which his name is inseparably associated, was commenced 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 success-ively edited and revised by Von der Lasa, and the book now stands a lasting monument of his genius and industry.

Of recent English works upon the openings the following may be mentioned :—The Book of Chess, by G. H. Selkirk, 1868 ; Key to the Chess Openings, by Thomas Long, 1871; Positions in the Chess Openings, by the same author, 1874; Chess Openings, by F. W. Longman, 1874; Synopsis of the Chess Openings, by Wm. Cook, 1874 ; The Chess Player's Manual, by G. H. D. Gossip, 1875; and The Chess Openings, by Robert B. Wormald, 1875. There has also lately appeared a selection of games, compiled by H. E. Bird, under the title of Chess Masterpieces, 1875 ; and likewise the following collections of problems, viz., Chess Problems, by J. Pierce, M.A., and W. T. Pierce, 1873; Supplement to Chess Problems, by the same authors, 1874; and English Chess Problems, a selection of chess problems by the best English composers living aud lately deceased, also put forth by the brothers Pierce, 1876.

Solutions of Problems at pages 596, 597.
(Note: These problems published above in this article.)
PROBLEM No. 1.
1. Q to Q R sq 1. Anything
2. R or Kt mates accordingly
B to Kt 5 Q to K B 5 (eh) Q or B mates
PROBLEM No. 2.
Q to B 7 &c.
Q takes P Q takes P (ch)
1. K to K 3
2. Any move.
If 1. K to Q 3
If 1. K to Q sq
If 1. R to R 3, or R to K B 8
1. B to K sq
2. Any move
PROBLEM NO. 3.
R to K R sq Q to Q Kt sq Q mates accordingly
Q to R 8 Q to K Kt 8 Q to Q 5 Q mates
PROBLEM No. 4.
1. PtoKt7
2. P moves
3. K takes either Pawn
R to K B 3 Kt to B 6 (ch) Q to Q 5 (ch) B mates
Kt to B 6 (ch) Q to Q 4 (ch) B mates
PROBLEM NO. 5.
1. Kt takes R
2. K takes P 3 Kt takes Q
If 1. Kt taKes Kt or R to K B 2
2. K takes P (best'
3. K takes R
PROBLEM NO. 6.
Kt from Kt 6 takes P 1. P takes P
Q to K 6 2. P takes Q
Kt to B 5 (double eh) 3. K to Q 5 (best)
Kt from K B 4 takes P Ich) 4. K moves Kt or B mates
If 1. Kt to B 6 (ch)
P takes Kt (ch) &e.
If 1. Kt takes Kt (ch)
B takes Kt (ch) &c.
(W. N. P.)


The above article was written by: . Norwood Potter, Editor of the City of London Chess Magazine.


Share this page: