without much display of ill feeling, some of which may be attributed to mismanagement. Mismanagement is, at all events, the mildest term we can apply to the contents of Herr Lowenthal's letter to Herr Kohtz, dated the 19th September 1866, which is now in our hands. This remarkable letter was written in reply to a question addressed to Herr Lowenthal, whether the joint productions of two authors would be excluded from the then recently announced Tourney. If Herr Lowenthal can remember the terms of his reply to that question, now well known to German Chess players, we should think he will be among the first to admit they have some grounds for doubting the impartial conduct of "Association Tourneys." It is no part of our policy to prolong this controversy upon the late Problem Tourney, and further than the publication of any explanations Herr Lowenthal has to offer, we do not intend to continue it. We gained our object when we relieved the names of honourable persons from the stigma attaching to them from the misconduct of the Tourney, for which they were in no way responsible, and had given a fair hearing to the complaints of men who felt themselves aggrieved.

We believe our course has commended itself to every lover of fair play, and to their consideration we leave the reply which has appeared in the columns of the Sportsman. That reply comes from an official hand, yet it neither denies nor excuses the mismanagement of which the Association stands accused. The answer vouchsafed is, that German Chess players eat sauer-kraut; that the British Chess Association is dead, and that it died as bankrupt in purse as its management has long been in capacity.

One of those pleasant réunions of Chess players, inaugurated some years ago by Mr. Gastineau, of the City Club, and continued by Mr. Rabbeth, his successor in the office of President, took place at the house of Dr. Ballard, in Manchester Square, on the 1st ultimo. Most of the leading London players were present, and Herr Zukertort displayed his singular blindfold powers in a contest against eight players simultaneously. The blindfold player won against Major Martin and Messrs. Marett and Lindsay; lost to Messrs. Vyse, Lawrence and Maas, and drew against Messrs. Salter and Coburn.

The Glasgow Herald of the 22nd. ultimo, contained a letter from Mr. R. S. Moffatt, in which we find ourselves classed with several other editors as members of a clique, whose common bonds of sympathy are mutual admiration and praise of the City Club. Mr. Moffatt writes of the personnel of London Chess journals with more confidence than is warranted by his knowledge, but we shall not follow him into that part of the subject further than stating that he is mistaken in supposing the Chess editor of the Westminster Papers to be connected with any other magazine, either as regards its cover or its contents. Herr Zukertort, to whom Mr. Moffatt's strictures obviously refer, is the editor of the special part of this journal wherein his name appears, and we are, of course, guided by his advice and acknowledged experience as to the importance or otherwise of communications whose subjects fall within his province. But he is not concerned in our action, either as regards the admission or exclusion of matter to or from our pages. If Mr. Moffatt's variations in the Evans Gambit had been addressed in the first instance to us, they would have been readily inserted as expressions of opinion upon a subject generally interesting. That much Mr. Moffatt or any other correspondent has a right to expect from us, and if we had denied his right, there might be some grounds for complaint. But the variations, when we first saw them, were already printed, publicity had been secured, and it is quite another thing to expect us to quote and review an article which had appeared in a contemporary without something more than a cursory examination. We do not suppose that Mr. Moffatt expected us to do anything of this kind, but the delay in examining his variations having been explained, it is altogether unjustifiable to charge us with a desire to ignore them. Nor does Mr. Moffatt's resentment of our contemporary's "chaff” justify him in ascribing to Herr Zukertort any motive for the delay but the very sufficient reasons assigned for it. Every one who knows Herr Zukertort acknowledges his perfect honour, his contempt for cliques, and his readiness at all times to further the interests of Chess without fee or reward. If Mr. Moffatt possessed half the knowledge of Chess journalism he seems to profess, he would know that Chess cliques are things of the past. When Chess journals appealed to a clientèle of one or two hundred local readers cliques flourished, and their members fattened in reputation if they starved in purse. In our times the readers of a Chess journal are numbered by thousands, spread over the civilised continents of the world, and every reader is a critic to the manner born. In the light of such publicity no clique can stand, and Mr. Moffatt is himself a living witness to the truth of these remarks. If there was any foundation for his charges against the City of London Magazine or ourselves, neither would long survive them. For ourselves, we intend to be found alive long after Mr. Moffatt's variations have been reviewed by Herr Zukertort.

The News of the Week announces the conclusion of the Handicap Tourney of the Dundee Chess Club, and that the prizes have fallen to Messrs. Lowson, G. B. Fraser, and W. N. Walker, in the order named. Their respective scores were 71, 61, and 51. The editor of the News of the Week offers a silver medal as a prize for the winner of a Tourney by Correspondence. The conditions are set forth in his column for the 8th ult.

A match between the Cheltenham Club and the Bristol and Clifton Chess Association was played, at the rooms of the former, on Saturday the 22nd ult. Eighteen players-nine on each side-took part in the contest which, bating an hour's adjournment for refreshment, was continued from 3.30 to ten o'clock in the evening. The result, a decisive victory for Cheltenham, is very creditable to a club numbering only twenty

two members. The Bristol and Clifton Chess Association possesses over a hundred members, some of whom are reckoned among the best players in the provinces. The following is the full score.

The Hon. Secretary of the Caissa Correspondence Club has issued a report of the transactions of that Society for the quarter ended 31st March last. This club has been in existence for some years, and save for a short interval last year, has been steadily pursuing the objects for which it was organized, yet it now numbers only fourteen members. Surely the authors of the anxious inquiries for correspondence adversaries that one so often reads in the Chess columns cannot be aware that in this club they have the very thing they seek? The subscription is, we believe, only five shillings per annum, and the Secretary is C. F. Green, Dundrum Lodge, Co. Dublin. The report states that five games have been finished since the issue of the last one, that twelve games are in progress, and that Miss Francillon, of London, is at the top of the score list, with three won games, and none lost or drawn.

The first part of Mr. Kunkel's translation of the German Handbuch, published by Mr. Hanshew of Frederick, Maryland, has just reached us. This instalment of the work extends to forty-four pages, and contains the Allgaier and Centre Gambits, with full translations of the very valuable notes. This fact alone should commend it to English readers, and the book being issued at an exceedingly low price, we can cordially recommend it to them. The English notation has been adopted by the translator, and though the algebraic form in which the moves are printed, may puzzle those unaccustomed to it at first, a little application will soon conquer that difficulty.

The new American Chess Magazine has been issued, and is spoken of favourably by our American contemporaries.

Mr. J. B. Munoz, of New York, has completed a curious task, upon which he has been engaged for some time past. He has composed a series of Chess problems, twenty-six in number, representing on the diagrams the letters of the alphabet. The diagrams and pieces have been drawn in Indian ink, and the whole collection forms a picture 22 by 28 inches, which is now in the lithographer's hands. We should think that every lover of problems will be desirous of possessing such an unique specimen of the art. Mr. Munoz's problems have, we are informed, passed the critical examination of several analysts, who speak highly of their merits. The price of the lithograph is 10s, and intending subscribers can address Mr. J. B. Munoz at Box 5,281, Post Office, New York.

The pressure of much important matter compels us to postpone our notices of foreign exchanges. We must, however, find space for the following problem, dedicated to our problem reviewers, by the Rev. A. C. Pearson. We offer a copy of Mr. Cook's "Synopsis" for the best solution of this problem, but we except Messrs. Andrews, Nash and Thomas from the competition. The problem is intended as a compliment to that triumvirate of skilful analysts, and we are desirous of seeing other contributors associated with it.

Dedicated to " Our Problem Reviewers."
By A. CYRIL PEARSON.

BLACK.

In how few moves can White mate?

We have received the following letter from the Secretary of the Philadelphia Chess Club. We have not seen the communication signed "Č." referred to, and are therefore entirely ignorant of the remarks which

have provoked the censure of the committee of that club. We sincerely hope, however, that no individual crotchets will be permitted to mar the success of the work in which the Philadelphia Chess Club is now engaged, the promotion of an International Tourney to which Chess players throughout the world are looking forward with the greatest interest.

To the Editor of THE WESTMINSTER PAPERS.

DEAR SIR,-At a special meeting of the Board, held 21st April 1875, the following resolutions were adopted :-

Whereas, a communication from Philadelphia, headed " American Chess Association," and signed " C.," and purporting to speak for the Philadelphia Chess Club, having appeared in the Chess column of the Spirit of the Times, 17th April 1875,

Resolved-That the aforesaid communication is a purposed fabrication in so far as the writer of it speaks for the Philadelphia Chess Club.

Resolved-That we caution the public against communications, not attested by the Secretary, which purport to speak for the Philadelphia Chess Club. Yours truly, G. REICHHELM, Secretary.

THE LATE PROBLEM TOURNEY.

To the Editor of THE WESTMINSTER PAPERS.

SIR,-As one of those whose names have been held up to the scorn of problem composers in all time, and whose decisions have been characterised either as suggestive of suspicion or indicative of incapacity, I venture, with becoming diffidence, to offer a few remarks on the letter of Herr Berger which appeared in your last number. The first point to which I must direct attention is the mistake Herr Berger has made in confounding the committee who awarded the prizes with the British Chess Association, an error which invalidates the most serious part of his impeachment of that committee, and materially affects some of the charges hurled broadcast against it. When the Tourney was originally started, the British Chess Association sought and obtained the assistance of certain gentlemen, connected with it neither by membership nor any other tie, to form a committee for the adjudication of the prizes, their position in the English Chess world being a sufficient guarantee of their ability for the task. The sole duty of this committee was to examine and award; further functions, or further authority, it had none. The conduct and management of the Tourney remained, from first to last, in the hands of the Association;* all documents and papers were retained in its possession, and it was the sole controller of all the business arrangements relating to the matter. Now it is evident that these two bodies are liable to very different kinds of charges, the one being responsible for the awards, the other for the management of the Tourney. But what does Herr Berger do? He impugns the awards and arraigns the management, but instead of bringing two criminals to the bar, he empties all his vials of wrath on the unfortunate committee, who are cursed with a judgment differing from his in matters of taste. As one of that committee I shall examine all of his letter that fairly relates to it, but, having nothing to do with the Association, I must consider it beyond my province to touch on such matters of management as "the stoppage in the publication of sets, ""the ninth rule of the programme,' """the other reasons besides inaccuracy," and also the treatment of "Es is ja so schwer," which, so far as I am personally aware, was never submitted to the judges at all. For answers to these, Herr Berger must go to the British Chess Association.

So far as the first and second prize sets are concerned, the verdict of the committee seems pretty generally endorsed, and is admitted as correct even by Herr Berger himself, although apparently he cannot restrain a sneer at an International Tourney where violations of the laws of naturalness and beauty can be ascribed to the set that takes the first prize. I confess I am lamentably ignorant of the laws of beauty and naturalness, especially such as govern Chess problems; but in any case the composers, and not the judges, are answerable for such faults, and upon them such a sneer must fall. The award for the third prize, however, meets with anything but unanimous approval, and there is an equal want of unanimity as to what set does deserve it. Herr Berger decides in favour of "Why so, prithee?" and supports his opinion by such strange assertions as to make it a matter of speculation on whose side the incapacity with which he brands the judges actually lies. Selecting Nos. 2 and 5 of that set, he makes the astounding statement that they must be considered as well-nigh perfect productions of problem art. I at once dismiss No. 5 from my consideration, for a simple three-mover, with a fourth move added, can scarcely be considered a triumph of art, Herr Berger in the affirmative notwithstanding; nor will the opinion of two problem masters of Austria weigh down the universally expressed opinion of its uninteresting and obvious solution. With No. 2 I shall be compelled to deal rather fully, not on account of any superior merits it may possess, but solely because on it Herr Berger bases his views of what constitutes the best class of problems. That we should thoroughly investigate his views is important, for they are put forward with the indisputable authority of ascertained facts, and applied with the unyielding rigour of fixed laws, so that if the least doubt be thrown upon them they are of no value whatever, and Herr Berger's indignation, instead of arising from an injured sense of right, in one who knows what right is, will be convicted of imposture, and appear to the world as the offspring of a conceited imagination. Speaking of No. 2, he asserts that it is of the highest class of problem composition, and, from the language he employs in its praise, it is but fair to infer that he regards it, as I intend to take it, as a representative of its class. It is true that he endows the class with qualities that I am unable to find in the problem, such as a series of quiet moves skilfully conceived, or the embodiment of a beautiful variety of ideas, but that is probably owing to my uneducated taste, and the problem possesses them despite my blindness. Be this, however, as it may, I venture to assert that the great characteristic of the class in general, and this problem in particular, is that the attack relies on waiting moves to bring about the mate. Every move but one or two the defence can possibly make is already provided for in the position, the excepted moves are really the only defensive moves that can be made, and are the only defences the attack has to encounter. How different this from a problem where the attack is entirely unknown and unseen, where the defence before the first move is free and unshackled, and even after it is made appears to have abundant resources of escape, meeting combination by combination, and subtlety by subtlety. I am well aware that in both cases the defence is ultimately compelled to lend itself to the purposes of the attack, but

* In other words, of Herr Lowenthal, the manager of the Association.-ED.

there is no comparison, especially from a composer's point of view, between a defence that sullenly and helplessly marches to a foreseen fate, and a defence that, seeing through a sudden attack plays to meet it, and by that play, subtle though it be, contributes to its own defeat. If I err here it is in good company, for I am not afraid to say that the finest problems of the greatest masters are those in which the defence is an active and not a passive one. As an illustration of my arguments, and with a view of bringing them to a practical test, I ask all candid readers to compare No 2, "Why so, prithee?" the representative of Herr Berger's highest class, with the special prize three-mover of "Where's the Master," just as they stand on their diagrams. In the former it is evident that all Black's moves, P to K 7, P or B to K Kt 3, or Kt to K 2, are already useless for defensive purposes; and if Black could not play K to R 4, the conditions of the problem might be altered to "Black to play and White to mate in two moves." K to R 4 then is the only defensive move Black can make, and it is the only one White has to provide for. This it does prettily enough, by playing 1 Q to R6 (providing thereby two moves not at present open to Black, but which are exactly the same in principle, and met by precisely the same attack as K to R 4), but after that everything comes cut and dry, stale and insipid; Black can do absolutely nothing but move to his doom. Turn now to the other problem. Here Black can make several moves without the slightest disaster being involved; nothing seems impending, he is free from immediate danger, and it would be well nigh impossible by stopping up any number of Black's moves to turn the position into one of such conditions as we could the other. But notice how everything changes with the first move; a mate is threatened in two more moves; it is seen, and measures are taken to prevent it by Kt takes P. Now everything is changed for the attack, and his plans are completely frustrated, but in so frustrating them the defence has laid itself open to a blow from quite an unexpected quarter that descends with fatal effect. If the defence of B to B 6 be employed, there is an equally sudden and startling change of attack from what was originally contemplated. It is without the slightest misgiving then that I appeal to all problem composers and students, as to which of these two problems, or the different classes they represent, is the better? and if immediate proof be wanted as to their relative merits, it is to be found in the fact that two movers of the class Herr Berger puts at the top of composing art are not only the easiest made, but are very unpopular amongst Chess critics, Herr Berger himself, as I shall have occasion to show, not excepted. I have, perhaps, dwelt at too great length on this matter, but my object has been to prove, first, that Herr Berger holds ideas in regard to Chess problems from which, although he lays them down as laws, other men must be reasonably expected to differ without being charged with ignorance or partiality; and, secondly, that inasmuch as his article is entirely founded on his own belief in his own infallibility, it is unworthy of consideration when that infallibility is shown not to exist. Taking the sets all round, I find err Berger agrees with us in four cases out of seven, and where he does not we have other opinions in our favour. Thus our English critics placed "Why so, prithee?" sixth, whilst he places it third, so that the Committee can claim to have struck the happy medium between such widely different estimates. Again, the set "Hoc Ardua," had it been correct, was generally admitted worthy of the third place, except by the Americans, who would have put "The best laid schemes" before it, so that there also the Committee was not very far wrong. Putting everything together, I cannot see what fault can be found with the Committee so far as the awards for sets are concerned.

Coming now to the decisions in the special prizes, the only one on which any serious difference of opinion exists is the two mover. The award for the four mover happening to agree with Herr Berger's, is admitted to be a correct one. The three mover does not quite please him, but he simply contents himself with asking us the principles on which No. 3 of "Where's the Master," can be proved to be the most precious pearl of the Tourney. Such mathematical demonstrations of matters of taste I might leave to his superior genius, and no doubt he can effectually perform the feat, for our edification, by showing the indubitable superiority of the three movers in "Es is ja so schwer" and "Wenn die Hoffnung," over that which commended itself to our eyes. The nearest approach that I can make to such proof positive is in regard to Herr Berger's carping at the R on K 6, which, in connexion with the Black Kt at K 5, is the only possible manner of blocking up that square. It now remains for me to consider our critic's strictures on the two mover. The reason why I do so at length, instead of dismissing it with the three mover, is on account of the grave charge against the Committee which he connects with it. We cannot be expected to say why we thought such or such a problem was the best, we simply believed it to be so, and acted according to our judgment. Herr Berger may if he likes assert we were incompetent to form a judgment, that is simply a matter of opinion, on which the world at large must decide, and treating it as such I should ignore his clamour. But when he proceeds to charge the judges with partiality, or as an alternative interpretation, tampering with the envelopes, then a different matter is involved, upon which some action must be taken. Now, treating this problem critically, wherein is it deficient? It is true that there were problems with more brilliancy and greater ideas, but with one exception, "Fortiter in re," there was none that in any way approached it for accurate, skilful and elegant construction, qualities which ultimately gave it the advantage over some of its more gifted rivals. And more, in it we have to deal with a quiet move, skilfully conceived, a forced mate accomplished without any threatening whatever, and all involving a beautiful variety of ideas. Why, Herr Berger's definition of a first class problem fits it exactly, and yet he is not satisfied. Whether this be inconsistency or not I leave to others to judge, but when he confesses his inability to perceive the merits of a two-mover which embodies his ideas of perfection, and on that inability builds a disgraceful charge against a Committee of which he is in utter ignorance, then he not only places himself on the horns of a dilemma, but also lays himself open to the imputation of bolstering a bad case by scurrillous abuse. What evidence, I ask, has Herr Berger for his insinuation that the committee acted unfairly or dishonestly? Is it from a comparison of the merits of the problems? then I want the inferiority of "Imagine" conclusively established. Is it the invention of an excited brain? then I demand a full and ample apology. Having thus dealt with his criticisms, if criticisms they can be called, I might decline to follow him into any of the questions he puts at the end of his article. If he chooses to play the part of grand inquisitor, he is quite welcome to do so, but the Committee certainly will not be his victim, nor does it mean to allow itself to be impertinently cross-examined by every one who imagines he has the right to do so. To conclude with Herr Berger, therefore, I maintain that, as in five decisions of the ten he endorses the Committee's verdict, and only disagrees in the others on grounds that are at least open to question, it is at once childish and absurd to make such points of difference the occasion of an unmannered and an unmerited attack.

LONDON, 23rd May 1875.

I am, Sir, yours faithfully,

J. W. ABBOTT.

* There is no such alternative interpretation to any candid mind. The natural interpretation is, that some members of the committee may have been made aware of the authors' names, either by common report or by the authors themselves, and it is one that has the merit of being entirely consistent with the facts of the case. We do not believe that Mr. Abbott has any intention of imputing charges to Herr Berger which that gentleman never dreamed of making; the latter, in fact, makes no charge in this connection, although he certainly suggests one. The proper answer to that suggestion is the high character of the gentlemen who made the award with those who know them, and their inability to avoid acquiring the information unless they had secluded themselves from the society of Chess players during the progress of the Tourney.-Ed.

THE COMPROMISED DEFENCE AND ITS ASSAILANTS.

By J. H. ZUKERTORT.

THE analytical essay on the compromised defence in my article, Forty Years in the Life of a Favourite, gave rise, shortly after its appearance, to a controversy on its merits. I may point out with satisfaction that the soundness of the variations given for the defence against the different established attacks was not challenged in any quarter-unless I except some general remarks of anonymous correspondents in the Chess column of the Sportsman. These gentlemen did not attempt to refute a single variation by analysis, but considered their private opinions on the matter of sufficient value and importance without further support.* The partisans of the Evans Gambit admitted that the compromised defence met the old attack satisfactorily, but it would fail, they attempted to show, against other lines of play, which were at White's disposal. These new attacks or rather revivals† of long abandoned variations were proposed, and analyzed invariably in favour of the first player in the Chess column of the Sportsman, and were afterwards re-published in the American and Australian Chess press. They met there a partial refutation, but I may venture to suggest, that both parties, the Sportsman for the attack, and the Toronto Globe for the defence, failed to make the best of their respective cases. It may be, therefore, of some benefit to the students of our Favourite, if I endeavour in the following variations to analyze the new attacks and their proper defences.

In the first instance it was suggested that White should, after the moves :

* In the Sportsman of the 16th September 1874, T. W. G. writes: "For my own part I never thought much of the Counter Gambit ; nor, it seems, does Herr Anderssen, for he remarks that Black ought to be satisfied if he makes a drawn game." T. W. G. is of course entitled to think whatever he likes, but his quotatation of the Autos epha will hardly produce any effect, when I mention that Anderssen, since 1871, INVARIABLY chose the compromised defence whenever he had to defend the Evans Gambit in a serious contest.

+ See later on, at the head of the variations.