card or a lead from himself. The adversaries have still that option, and as A's card, improperly played, may have given most valuable information to his partner, I have no choice but to decide that it is liable to be called, in addition to the card led in error by B." The above case was, in the first instance, left to Mr. F. H. Lewis to decide; but, on the spur of the moment, he was unwilling to give an opinion, and he requested the matter to be left to us. On maturely considering the point, Mr. Lewis is of opinion that the above case decides the matter, on principle, and that, therefore, our decision is right, and, we may add, that we have reason to believe that Cavendish approves this decision. R. S. (Detached Cards).-A leads Hearts. 2nd player puts on Ace. I, 3rd player, have hold of the card I intended to playthe Heart Knave. Seeing the Ace, I do not intend now to put on the Knave, and I push it back in my hand, and draw out another card-the 2. My adversaries allege that they each saw the Knave, and that it was detached from the other cards. I do not think it was, as I only partly drew it away from the other cards; but in the meantime the last player has played, and I say, even if the card were detached, they cannot call my Knave after the 4th player has played before his turn. Am I right? I should also be glad of a definition of a detached card.Ans. It is a very easy thing to ask for a definition, and it is not always easy to answer. A fool could ask more questions in a month than the wisest man could answer in a life-time. To find fault with our law-makers for leaving many propositions imperfectly defined is, to our thinking, useless. As we live, month by month, it is clear that no human law-maker could have anticipated all the points that are raised by Whist players. The only guide we get from the books as to what is, and what is not a detached card, are as follows :--Cavendish 44-" Cards separated from the rest of the hand, but still held by the player, are not exposed: they are detached cards. A detached card, if named, is liable to be called." Law 60 says:---" A card detached from the rest of the hand, so as to be named, is liable to be called." If you hold your cards fan shape, in your left hand, you cannot detach a card except by dropping it, and catching it before it falls. The cards, so long as they are in one hand, are safe, but as soon as the 2nd hand begins to work, this 2nd hand can detach a card. Definition No. 1.-To detach a card you must use two hands. Then if the 2nd hand is not used until you have made up your mind what you will lead or play you cannot detach a card. Definition No. 2.-A man must be of a wavering disposition, or be a careless man, to detach a card. Thus, in endeavouring to take out one card, he may take out another; he may aim at the pigeon, and hit the crow. But putting these things on one side as puerilities, any man who draws with the 2nd hand any card away from the other cards, upwards, downwards or sideways, and no matter how small a distance he may move this card, provided any one at the table but himself can see it, the card so moved is a detached card. You say it depends on how a man holds his cards whether they can be seen or not. Of course it does. If you hold your cards upright it is difficult to detach a card so that any one can see it; but if you bend the tops of the cards forward, then your cards are more liable to be seen, and more likely to be detached. It is no good saying this is one law for the rich and the other for the poor. You cannot have your cake and eat it. If you will not take the trouble to hold your cards properly, why should you not be in a worse position than those who do take the trouble to hold the cards upright? The fact that a card is seen by one of the adversaries is prima facie evidence that the card is detached. If seen by both adversaries, the evidence is stronger. It is an improbable supposition that a man will look over your hand, and then tell you that he has done SO. We cannot say this has never been done. We do not know that pigs can fly. All we do know is that they are unlikely animals to do so. So a man who is such a cheat as to look at your hand is an unlikely bird to confess his fault. If one player said he had seen a card of ours, and that we had detached it, we should think him more likely to be right than we, and if two players alleged that they have seen the card, and that it was detached, we certainly should not argue the point, but play the card without discussion. We do not think the case is altered by the 4th player playing before the 3rd. PEMBRIDGE CLUB (Throwing down cards, scoring 3 instead of treble).-A and B, playing X and Z, go out first hand and call a treble; but A scores 3. Early in the next hand X, finding 2 by honours against him, and misled by the score, throws up his hand, and the other three players do the same. A and B claim a bumper. What is your decision ?-Ans. The claim appears to us good. The fact that a treble was claimed is admitted. There can, consequently, be no dispute about the first game; then, although A induced X and Z to throw down their cards by his mistake in scoring 3, there is no Whist penalty for his so scoring. The game is abandoned as lost, and, being given up, X and Z cannot recall what they have done. J. D. (Litemore).-We referred your letter to the writer, and he says he ought to have written, "with Q, 10 in own hand, on an 8 led, the inference must be that the lead is from Kv, 9, 8, with Kg or Ace. With Q and 9 in own hand, 8 led, the lead must be from Ace, Kv, 10, 8." Of course you will bear in mind that he speaks of regular players. The fashion of late has been to lead contrary to all rules. J. N. P.-If, in dealing, a card belonging to the other pack is found in your pack you must have the cards recut, and you deal again. In answer to many correspondents we have to state that the New Edition of "Cavendish on Whist" will not be ready until the end of the month. DOUBLE DUMMY. E. J.-We do not think the problem quite up to publication standard. Try again. E. N. F.-Mr. F. II. Lewis reports, that in his judgment No. 92 is sound. J. S. (Jamaica).—The Ending shall appear next month. PIQUET. W. AND C.-A deals. He gives to B 12 cards, and to himself 13. B elects to stand the deal, and instead of taking 5 cards, he only takes 4, thus leaving three cards in the stock. The stock consisted of 7 cards. A discards 3 cards and takes the 3 cards left, and thus plays with 13 cards. Who is in the wrong? and what is the penalty? It is necessary to add that B did not state he had left a card.-Ans. Law 4 says "if the elder or younger hand play with 13 cards he counts nothing." 5 says, "if in this position the elder hand elects to stand the deal, the younger hand must discard one more card than he takes in." This A did not do. Law 22 says "if the elder hand elects to stand the deal he must leave 3 cards for the younger hand." What B did seems to be all right, and A is clearly in the wrong. We understand that a player, whose opinion we highly value, says that B ought to have told A that he left a card, and he seems to think that the point about leaving a card, referred to by Mr. Clay, at pp. 43 and 44 of vol. 3, applies. We do not think it does. B does not leave a card. He takes what he is entitled to take; no more and no less. A, on the contrary, keeps a card more than he ought to do, and plays with 13 cards, so that, in our judgment, A is in the wrong, and can count nothing. The authority above referred to asks why is B not entitled to take in 5 cards? The answer is, that the elder hand must leave the younger three cards in the stock. S. AND H.-A gets 100 by what he holds, and by the play, and goes on playing until he gets to 105. The second player gets out of his double by the aid of the last card. Is the Elder Hand entitled to a single or double?-Ans. In two-handed games there is no surprise; mistakes not punishable by law should be rectified. If the fact be admitted that A got out before B saved the double, A is entitled to be paid for the double. If the fact is disputed, the hand must be replayed to ascertain the fact. CRIBBAGE. R. M. F.-In playing a game of Cribbage we have one card each left. My opponent ought to play first, but I play in mistake, and he pairs me, and takes three. I pegged him back, and took the three. Was I entitled to them or was he.-Ans. The last card should be taken up and played out in order. Sins of commission being worse than sins of omission, the chief offender is he who lays a trap, however inadvertently, by playing out of his turn.-G.W. The Westminster Papers. IST SEPTEMBER 1874. THE CHESS WORLD. "The whisperings of our petty burgh.” ON the 15th ult. a Chess column was commenced in the Sportsman. If we are to take the first number as a specimen, we are about to have a revolution in Chess. Mr. Wisker takes the conduct of the column, and he at once sets the example of shewing to his contemporaries the use of the telegraph. So far as we know no Chess Editor in England, except ourselves, ever heard of a telegram. Mr. Wisker therefore begins by attempting to educate the Chess Editors, and then he starts a special reporter. If things go on like this we shall lose Steinitz. He will have to go about the country on a bicycle, as special reporter for the Field. Yet another Chess column; the Hornet has started a column, with the ubiquitous Mr. Gossip for Editor. Mr. Gossip has a happy knack of treading upon other people's corns. He publishes a book, on the title page of which he gives his claims to the admiration of the world. He is a member of one club, and was the member of another. 300 or 400 people could lay claim to the same titles; but God forbid that they should all publish Chess books at 10s 6d each. At the time of the Vienna tourney one of the officers of the Association expressed his regret that two Englishmen were absent. These were Reader, can you guess?— Mr. Gossip and Mr. Wisker. The latter was, at the time, the holder of the Champion Cup, and he had some claim to the title of the first English Chess player of that day. What Mr. Gossip had done we never knew, and it was not until the Hornet made its appearance that we found Mr. Gossip dubbed as "winner of the First Prize 1873-4." But why, Mr. Gossip, do you not enlighten us? We poor mortals are obliged to know something of what is going on in the Chess world, but we cannot know everything. What this prize of 1873-4 is we do not know. We suspect the prize consisted in finding a publisher to adopt Mr. Gossip as Chess editor; another prize in finding those most energetic publishers (Messrs. Routledge) to bring out a book on Chess at 10s 6d. No other publishers could have made it pay. No others would have advertised it so well; and, lastly, Mr. Gossip induces the Hornet to give a Chess column. We take it these are the prizes of 1873-4; and Mr. Gossip has won them all. Mr. Gossip has written to us, calling attention to some remarks in the Sportsman, of which he complains. He thinks the Sportsman has stated that Mr. Gossip has been blackballed at some Club. We do not think the Sportsman meant what Mr. Gossip suggests; but, as some persons may so construe the paragraph, we are only too glad to give publicity to the fact that there is no foundation for the suggestion that Mr. Gossip has ever been blackballed. Now-a-days, all men who are known, or who are Jews, or stockbrokers, are blackballed as of course. So, if the event had come about before Mr. Gossip had written his book, it would have followed that Mr. Gossip was known, was a Jew, or a stockbroker. If Mr. Gossip claims any of these titles, he has no reason to be ashamed. An unknown person is never blackballed. To finish with Mr. Gossip, who seems determined to have all this month's number, Mr. Bird has challenged him-Mr. Bird to give Pawn and move. This will, we think, be a good match. We cannot place Mr. Gossip in the first rank, but, we think, he will be a tough customer at Pawn and move. However, even then Mr. Bird will, we think, be favourite. We trust the answer, in the Hornet, to Mr. Bird's letter was not written by Mr. Gossip. We cannot assume that any one knowing anything of modern Chess could be ignorant of Mr. Bird's existence, or Mr. Bird's reputation as a player. It is said that Mr. Gossip once proposed a match which, it was suggested, that the City of London Chess Club should arrange, the terms being that Mr. Gossip should play the best player of the Club, the winner to have £10, and the loser £5. We should be glad to play simultaneous games against the whole Club on these terms. the Treasurer take this suggestion into consideration? If he sees no pecuniary difficulty we will make other matters easy, for we will play the lot at Pawn and two moves. Will On the 12th ult., Herr Lowenthal was dubbed the "Prince of Chess Players," by the Daily News. This seems an interference by our contemporary with the rights of the Crown. If we are to have a Republic shall we still have honours to confer? Perhaps Sir Charles Dilke or friend Bradlaugh will explain. In the next decade is the Daily News to supersede Her Majesty, and confer any dignity it pleases. We have been taken to task for our inconsistency in fighting Mr. Staunton during his life, whilst, after his death, we speak in his praise. We have no objection to our comments being taken as texts on the subject. Staunton, in his death, may still teach. We fight as men should fight-in the open. We do not care for buttons on the foils, It seems but when the foe is at their feet, would the Chess player strike the dagger to his heart? necessary to say that we may disagree with another on some points, and yet admire many of his good qualities. Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone often fight, but can it be imagined that either fails to see some good qualities in his rival; and if either died, would not the other sing his praises? To compare small things with great, we, in like manner, often differed from Staunton, and we adhere to our views, but surely these differences should not prevent our admiring his good qualities. The Counties Chess Association meeting, at Birmingham, seems to have been a success. Mr. Burn, Editor of the Liverpool Albion, won the first prize. In home news there is little to add. Mr. Blackburne, played early in the month, 20 simultaneous games at the City of London Club, with the usual result. The City Rook players thrashed the Brixton Endeavour Club, but we should hardly have handicapped all the City players at a Rook. Mr. Disraeli has advised Her Majesty to grant to Mrs. Staunton £100, in consideration of her husband's services in the cause of literature. EUROPE.-A tournament, commenced at Pesth last December, finished in July. 1st prize, Herr Fahndrich, £6; 2nd prize, Herr Beer. Another handicap tourney has also come to an end; played at Rome. First prize, Signor Torreti; 2nd, Signor Sprega, 3rd, Signor Bellotti. AMERICA. By the courtesy of the Chess Editors of the Hartford Times, the Chicago Times, and Captain Mackenzie, to all of whom we desire to express our thanks, we were placed, early in the month, with full particulars of the Chicago Congress. The result we gave last month. The full score is as follows: Messrs. Kennicott and Elder having withdrawn from the Congress, before playing two-thirds of the requisite number of games, their respective scores were cancelled. The last meeting of the Congress was held for the purpose of electing the officers for the ensuing year, and the gentlemen elected were as follows:-Mr. J. A. Congdon, of Philadelphia, President; Messrs. W. W. Curran, Chicago, and D. M. Martinez, Texas, Vice-Presidents; Messsrs. J. Roberts and J. G. Whiteman, Philadelphia, Secretary and Treasurer. On the motion of General Congdon it was resolved that the next Congress should take place in Philadelphia, during the Centennial Celebration. Mr. Curran, the President of the Chicago Club, presented the prizes, and expressed his regret that they were not more considerable in amount; and, he added, this chiefly arose from the fact that the Committee had to retain so much money in hand for publishing the book of the Tourney. We can only repeat that when the book is published no one will read it, except those who have to do so as a matter of business; whereas, if the games had been sent to the journals at once, the whole of them would have been played over by the end of next month. The Philadelphian Intelligencer has taken the British Chess Association in hand. It tells us that the 6th prize has no less than two faulty problems; one of the 3-movers has two solutions, and the 5-mover has no solution at all. These facts were published, they say, in Europe six months ago. Whether the set "All's Well," will be thrown out, or whether the Committee will take another year for deliberation, is a subject of amusing conjecture. We can confirm our contemporary's statement, as to the unsoundness of the one problem, and the impossibility of the other; but we fail to see the joke. It may be good fun for the Bull, but how about the Frog? We suspected all along a fiasco at the hands of the Committee, and we endeavoured to get them to publish the problems before awarding the prizes; we tried to get this done a year ago, and we tried again on the day the prizes were settled; we never heard a reason urged against the proposition. In the first instance, the Committee decided that our view should be carried out; Herr Lowenthal, however, is the Master of the British Chess Association, and, whether by accident or design, the problems never were published according to our meaning of the term. We do not intend to insinuate that the problems were not published, in the legal sense; some were sent to provincial journals, and some to papers of large circulation. But this is not publication: and who kept any record of the fact whether the problems were found unsound by the correspondents of the different papers? Unless the Committee see, as is the fact, that Herr Lowenthal is their master and not their servant, then, we shall have the same miserable management to the end of time. The Intelligencer states, the winner of the 1st prize is Herr Bayer (we think it more probable that the 2nd set is the work of that distinguished composer), and it gives, as its opinion, that the 5th set, by Mr. T. M. Brown, is far superior to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th prize sets. On the other hand, Captain Mackenzie seems to think the Committee have thrown out a fine set, from a misapprehension. The Montreal Chess Congress has been over for a month, and we believe Professor Hicks won the 1st prize, Dr. Hulbert the 2nd, Mr. Van Bokum the 3rd, but the fact is, the Chess Editor of the Toronto Globe, to whom we all trusted to let us know the result, went for a holiday, and cares no more for us than if we had no existence, and utterly careless, we suppose, of the blessings that all European players have poured on his devoted head. This Journal publishes a recent Canadian discovery in the new defence of the Evans Gambit. After the moves 1 P to K 4, 1 P to K 4, 2 Kt to K B 3, 2 Kt to QB 3, 3 B to B 4, 3 B to B 4, 4 P to Q Kt 4, 4 B takes P, 5 P to B 3, 5 B to R 4, 6 P to Q 4, 6 P takes P, 7 Castles, 7 P takes P, 8 Q to Kt 3, 8 Q to B 3, 9 P to K 5, 9 Q to Kt 3, 10 Kt takes P, 10 K Kt to K 2, 11 Kt to K 2, 11 P to Kt 4, 12 B to Q 3, 12 Q to K 3, 13 Q to Kt 2. The Inventor plays, instead of the regular move, 13 Kt to Kt 3, the second counter Gambit 13 P to K Kt 4, and wins two games (after 14 Kt takes P? 14 Q takes P) in brilliant style. The Globe remarks, "We do not know whether this sacrifice is sound, but Black looks able to afford it, and it makes a very lively game." We consider this sacrifice not only unsound, but suicidal. We propose the simple continuation : and Black loses his two extra Pawns, and has the worst possible position. The Danbury News provides us with a Chessikin of an exquisite origin. In bringing it before our readers, we may use the favourite remark of a very well known metropolitan amateur: "Dev well played, Sir." Played in Hades. His Satanic Majesty playing the attack. We ask our readers to decide whether this brilliancy is superior to the following terrestrial, played by Herr Hoffer a few days ago. AUSTRALIA.-Our Australian files from the 23rd of May to 13th June are very tame, and the news therein contained appears in our August number. We suppose the Chess players have not recovered from the fight between New South Wales and South Australia. The South Australian gives the first game in the match for the Cup between Messrs. Fullarton and Masters, the former giving the odds of Kt, which ended in a draw after 50 moves; the 2nd game was won by the champion, after a severe struggle, and then the rest of the games seem to have been lost sight of, for the two next numbers contain nothing on the subject. The Adelaide Observer, in mentioning Zukertort's articles on the Evans Gambit, demurs to the opinion of our analyst on the Fraser-Mortimer attack, and considers it invincible. Zukertort still thinks that the second player has a won game, as proved by Anderssen in his analysis of the Evans Gambit (Neue Berliner Schachzeitung 1867, February and March), all the objections brought forward against Anderssen's variations being without foundation. REVIEW. THE CHESS PLAYER'S "Lasciate ogni speranza, ANY Chess player who undertakes to present to the community a Handbook up to the standard of the present Chess science ought to be sure of a hearty welcome. The task is such an enormous one, and the want so great, that the author may certainly expect the indulgence of the most severe critic. When we, therefore, chose the horrible words of the immortal Dante as the motto for our review of the "Chess Player's Manual," we could only do so after a careful study of the book. We were not swayed by any indifference to, or disbelief in, its merits. We failed to find any. Our readers shall judge for themselves. The title page informs us that the author is the holder of half-a-dozen Chess titles of questionable value. We wish Mr. Gossip had followed the example of the Editor of the Handbuch who does not tell us that he is ambassador, the holder of a dozen orders and real titles, and a member of about 100 Chess clubs. However, the course adopted by Mr. Gossip was perhaps dictated by modesty--he was afraid his name alone would not be more known in the Chess world than Thomson or Smith. The index of the contents of the "Manual" is too remarkable to be overlooked. The first part contains the King's Knight's Opening. We miss all irregular defences, as 2 P to K B 3, 2 Q to B 3, 2 B to B 4, 2 B to Q3, &c. The second part treats of the King's Gambit, where, again, many irregular forms are omitted. The third part is devoted to the King's Bishop's Opening, and in the fourth, Close Openings, we find the Vienna game! The Centre Gambit is altogether omitted. But let us go in medias res. On the second page of the introduction we are informed that Chess is styled "the Royal game,” because it was played by many Royal persons. The 13th page tells us that "Staunton says Castling is a European innovation, and that in the Middle Ages the King used. to be played two squares in any direction instead.” Fifty Chess writers, at least, told us that before Staunton. We read, at page 14: "Double check occurs when the King is attacked by two pieces at the same time, both by the piece moved and the one discovered." We may inform the author, double check can be effected without moving either of the two pieces which attack the adverse King. Page 16 contains a splendid definition, which we feel bound to give our readers verbatim :—“When two Pawns are on the same file, the front one (!) is called a Doubled Pawn." Page 23 says:-"The Rook is generally reckoned equal to a minor piece and two Pawns, i.c., a Bishop and two Pawns, or a Knight and two Pawns, although in an end game, when the other forces have been exchanged off, the minor piece and two Pawns ought, in most cases, to win, if the Pawns are united." The simple objection to this statement is that the Kook is not reckoned equal to a minor piece and two Pawns; that, in an end game, two Pawns and a minor piece will very seldom win against a Rook; that the Pawns in that case are stronger if not united, but divided by one file. Page 24 is a most valuable one. It contains the whole treatise of the "Manual" on the end game. The student is informed that, in end games, two Bishops are much stronger than two Knights. We always thought that the superiority of the Bishops was more conspicuous in the middle than in the end. The author says that in average situations the Queen wins against two Bishops, two Knights, or Bishop and Knight. We can hardly consider the simple mention of this ingenious discovery sufficient, and we would be very grateful if Mr. Gossip would be pleased to show us how he carries the victory in such a case. The thesis, "a Rook and Pawn cannot always win against a Rook," does not agree with our knowledge. A Rook will draw very often against Rook and Pawn; but Mr. Gossip does not seem to know that a Rook and Pawn cannot always win against a Bishop. The first lines of the following page are the ideal of shortness. How dull and wearisome are all other Chess books on the end game of Bishop and Knight against the King, requiring the student to go through many pages, and a dozen of variations. Mr. Gossip disposes of this end game in three lines :-"A Bishop and Knight can win against a solitary King; but this checkmate is very difficult, and unless carefully studied, will be found quite impracticable within the stipulated number of moves." How simple and instructive! 66 We read, at page 26: "When each player is left at the end of a game with a Bishop and Pawns, and the Bishops are of different colours, the game can nearly always be drawn, even though one of the players may have a considerable numerical superiority in Pawns." Does Mr. Gossip call one Pawn a considerable numerical superiority? With two Pawns ahead, we seldom allow our opponents to draw the game, and with three Pawns ahead we generally win. The pages 27-34, containing the Laws of the British Chess Association, are the only pages in the book without blunders, at least blunders which can be attributed to the author. The treatise on the Theory of the Openings begins with Philidor's Defence, which the author declares *The Chess Player's Manual. By G. H. D. GOSSIP. London: G. Routledge and Sons. |
