Page:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu/118

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
CHESS
105

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 répertoire 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 répertoire 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 41/2 games to 31/2
1897. Great Britain ,, 51/2 ,, 41/2
1898. Great Britain ,, 51/2 ,, 41/2
1899. America ,, 6 ,, 4
1900. America ,, 6 ,, 4
1901. Drawn        
1902. America ,, 51/2 ,, 41/2
1903. America ,, 51/2 ,, 41/2
1907. Great Britain ,, 51/2 ,, 41/2
1908. America ,, 61/2 ,, 31/2
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