© 1997-2024
John Saunders


BRITBASE - British Chess Game Archive

Tournament: 6th Varsity Match • Venue: St. George's Chess Club, 20 King Street, London • Date: Thursday 11 April 1878
Download PGNList of Varsity Matches • Back to 1877 • Forward to 1879 • last edited: Wednesday October 11, 2023 10:53 AM

The 6th Varsity Chess Match between Oxford University and Cambridge University was held at St. George's Chess Club, 20 King Street, St. James's, London, on Thursday 11 April 1878 with Wilhelm Steinitz adjudicating unfinished games.

1877«     1878 Varsity Chess Match     »1879
Bd Oxford University Game 1 Game 2 Cambridge University
1b Francis Michael Wright (Queen's) 0-1 0-1 John Neville Keynes (Pembroke)
2w Robert Arthur Germaine (Brasenose) 0-1 0-1 William Hewison Gunston (St John's)
3b Henry Lee (Worcester) 0-1 1-0 James Thomas Chipperfield Chatto (Trinity)
4w Edward Herring Kinder (Brasenose) 1-0 0-1 William Henry Blythe (Jesus)
5b Charles Taylor (Christ Church) 0-1 - Charles Chapman (St John's)
6w Ascelin Spencer Perceval (Exeter) 0-1 0-1 James Fearn Sugden (Trinity Hall)
7b Charles Scott Malden (Trinity) 0-1 - William Henry Mudge Jennings (Corpus Christi)

Sources: Oxford-Cambridge Chess Matches (1873-1987), (compiled by Jeremy Gaige, Philadelphia 1987); ; Sergeant, Philip W, A Century of Chess (London 1934), p295-296 & 344 (ref'd as PWS); FreeBMD & other statutory records; Ancestry.com; FindMyPast.com; Who Was Who 1897-2007; Wikipedia. 4 of the 12 games played are available in the download.

The Field, 13 April 1878: "The sixth annual Inter-University trial of chess skill took place at the rooms of the St. George's Chess Club, 90, King-street, St. James's, on Thursday last, between seven representatives on each side, and, like last year, the match was consummated in that unassuming semi-public character which well befits the studious nature of our game.

"The large majority of the two teams had assembled punctually at two o'clock. Five of the games were started at once, and the full number of boards was set going in about half an hour's time. Some modifications had taken place in the composition of the teams in comparison with the list previously published, and the two presidents of the respective University chess clubs also agreed before the commencement to alter some of the rules of last year's contest, to the effect that the maximum of games to be played by each pair was reduced to two, that no adjournment was to take place, and that the match should terminate at half-past six o'clock.

"At the outset the probability of the victory was calculated by experts to be strongly in favour of the Cantabs, who were expected to muster their best strength, in order to neutralise their defeat of last year, which had also given their opponents the supremacy in the total score of the five previous matches, of which Oxford had won three, and Cambridge two. The impression in favour of Cambridge was deepened as soon as the final lists of the two rival teams became known, for the caniabe brought into the battle four previously well-tried champions, and amongst them the formidable J. N. Keynes, Fellow of Pembroke College, as leader; while the Oxonians had only one representative who had previously fought , and that one, F. M. Wright, had to be placed at the top of the list in the order of strength, though last year he had played for Oxford on the sixth board.

"Wright was clearly at a disadvantage by his high elevation to board No. 1, and his first round against an opponent, who was evidently well versed in the opening, and who had the first move (the toss having fallen in favour of Cambridge), was not calculated to encourage his expectations. He had dropped into an ingenious variation suggested by Falkbeer which his opponent evidently knew by heart, and the difficulty of his game led to an early breakdown by a blunder which left him open to a mate in two moves. The game will be found below. In the second round Wright opened with the K Gambit, which Keynes declined by 2...d5, again in accordance with Falkbeer's recommendations, and the Oxonian was evidently not up to the intricacies of this remarkably difficult counter-attack. After checking with the B at b5, and then exchanging his d-pawn for the c-pawn, he injudiciously retreated to e2, and soon drifted into a bad game; in fact he had a very narrow escape from an early disaster, owing to his opponent having missed a favourable opportunity of winning a P with an excellent game. After that, however, Wright played with care and judgment. In order to castle, he wisely gave up the P he had already gained; then he judiciously stopped the opponent's castling by a move of the QB to c3; and after effecting an exchange of queens, he manoeuvred well with his rooks and minor pieces, so that he ultimately had the best of the game. Both players showed at this stage a considerable power of original calculation. Keynes, however, by a well-timed and cleverly-conceived counter-attack, put the onus of a difficult game on the opponent, who ultimately fell exhausted into an error which cost him the exchange, and, after some stubborn resistance in the ending, the Oxonian resigned a well-fought game.

"No better did Oxford fare on board No. 2, where, as far as the conduct of the opening would afford a test, Germaine was clearly overmatched by Gunston. The latter had adopted the French defence of ...e6, which the Oxonian was evidently at a loss how to counteract. He pushed his pawns too far and had soon to submit to their being broken up by the Cantab's conduct of the oounterattack, which was up to the spirit of classical prescription. Gunston soon won a couple of pawns; then, in consequence of the pressure of a superior force and good play, he gained two minor pieces for the R, and made all resistance hopeless in the ending game, which he conducted with caution and skill. In the second game Germaine again exhibited a want of acquaintance with the openings, by adopting ...Qf6 as a defence on the 3rd move of the Ruy Lopez. Gunston took the attack promptly in hand, but he made his advantage doubtful by devising a scheme to catch the opponent's Queen, forgetting that he had to pay the heavy price of three minor pieces for it. Germaine, who had lost two pawns in addition, played remarkably well with his rooks and minor pieces, and he ultimately wrested the exchange from his adversary; but he had already lost several pawns, and his three pieces, which were not well posted, while his K was not secure, could not make a stand against the Q and pawns. At last an opportunity arose for the Cantab champion to threaten simultaneously mate and the loss of a R, of which Gunston availed himself, whereupon the Oxonian struck the flag.

"On board No. 3, Lee, for Oxford, was already known to metropolitan connoisseurs as a player of good talent, and his strength seems to have been relied upon by the Oxonians. In the first game, which we publish below, he obtained the best of the opening, but he was outmanoeuvred by Chatto in the middle part, and the Cantab, having instituted a vigorous counter-attack, finally announced a clever mate in four moves. In the second game, a centre gambit [1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 Bc4 according to an article in BCM, August 1898, p324], Chatto conducted the defence badly. He brought out the B to B4 on the third move, thus enabling the opponent to win the KBP by taking it with the B checking, and recovering the piece by the well-known sally of Qh5+. [I'm assuming that the moves would have been 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Bc5? 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+, etc - JS] Even then he omitted to make the best moves, and ultimately he lost an extra P; but after that his management of a difficult defence was highly creditable. He succeeded with great skill in securing a retreat for his K on the Q side, and he held the balance of positions without losing additional force. Lee ultimately gave up the P he had gained on the chance of an attack which fairly promised to recoup him with the better position. The game was continued up to the time fixed for the termination of the match; and but for the Cantab making a mistake just at his last move it would have been difficult for the umpire to adjudicate but, as it was, Mr Steinitz could have no hesitation in declaring the game to be won by Oxford. We publish a diagram of the position below, with the umpire's comments.

"On board No. 4 Kinder opened with 1.d4, to which Blythe replied 1...f5. The Oxonian obtained the best of the opening, and managed to open his QR file. By good manoeuvring he obtained a P, but then precipitated, exchanging all the pieces in a manner which left him with a P behind and with a B against the N. Both parties played the ending well, but ultimately, about five o'clock, Kinder had, by a clever manoevring with his pawns and king, obtained a decisive superiority, and the satisfaction of relieving his party from the fear of a complete defeat in the first round; for at that time the Cantabs had already scored four games, and this was was the first which was scored against them. In the next game Blythe opened 1.f4, and Kinder answered 1...d5. Soon after the opening, which developed itself into a Q fianchetto on the Cantab's part, Kinder committed a miscalculation, which cost him a clear R; and, though he fought bravely after that, he could resist the superiority of force when it was in a simple position.

"After exchanging queens on board No. 5, only one game was finished; which was the longest in point of time and number of moves of the whole match, having lasted four hours and extending to 59 moves. Chapman opened with 1.d4, to which Taylor replied the same. By a weak move Chapman early lost a P, but then Taylor was rather indiscriminate in effecting exchanges instead of using his opportunities of getting still more the best of the position witha P ahead. It came to an ending, which was well defended by the Cantab, with the N against the B, and a P behind. At last one of those chance occasions arose which are more likely to occur to the odd movements of the N than to the plain play of the B, and by a double attack on the K and B, the latter was caught, and the Cantab forced the game soon in consequence.

"On board No. 6 Sugden was the first to force a victory for the Cantabs at three all in the first game; which was made remarkable in the opening by the circumstance that both players had reversed the places of their K and Q without discovering the error until after the fifth move on each side. The umpire, having been requested to lay down the law in such a case, decided that the game had to go on. The second game, a Ruy Lopez, was weakly conducted by Perceval, and also soon decided in favour of the Cantab.

"On board No. 7 only one game was played, the opening being an irregular one; but it presented interesting features towards the middle part, owing to the Oxonian having ventured on the sacrifice of a rook for a strong attack. For a long time Malden justly avoided the temptation of winning the Q for three pieces; but in the course of a defence, which was well managed by Jennings, an opportunity sprang up to relieve the position by the sacrifice of the exchange, and the Cantab afterwards won without difficulty. The match was therefore won by the decisive majority of ten to two for Cambridge, the following being the detailed scores.

"A large and select number of spectators had assembled in the room to watch the contest with eager attention, the company including the Rev. Sir Gilbert Lewis, the Rev. Professor Wayte, the Rev. C. E. Ranken, M. de Berg, Consul-General of Russia, Col. Stirling, Capt. Beaumont, Capt. Ross, Dr Prior, Dr Pearl, messrs Anthony, Ball, Ball jun., Catley, Cross, Devereux, Francis, Gumpel, Minchin, Ponsonby, Potter, Preston, Puller, Salter, Shaw, Simpson, Steinitz, Strode, Wigram, Warner, and Zukertort.

"At eight o'clock the two teams were entertained at dinner by the members of the St. George's Chess Club at St. James's Hall, the Rev. Professor Wayte in the chair. In proposing the loyal toasts, the chairman alluded to the liberal support which the game received from H.R.H. Prince Leopold.

"Professor Wayte next proposed the health of the University teams, coupled with the names of the respective presidents of the Cambridge and Oxford Chess Clubs. He felt gratified to welcome the teams on behalf of the St. George's Chess Club, and expressed a hope that they would again meet under the auspices of their present hosts next year. That the game attracted men of high intellect was abundantly proved by the company present, which included one second wrangler and Smith's prizeman (Mr Ball, jun.), one senior of the tripos for moral sciences (Mr Keynes), and another gentleman, who was likely to gain the highest mathematical honours of the next examination (Mr Gunston). He congratulated the winners on their success, and thought it creditable to the two Universities that the honours of chess victory were hitherto equally divided between them.

"Mr Chapman, the President of the Cantabs, ackowledged in warm terms the hospitality of the St. George's Chess Club, and his full appreciation of the victory which the Cambridge University had achieved on this occasion. Mr Germaine, in returning thanks for the Oxford team, said that the Oxonians would always regard the development of their chess strength a legitimate object of their ambition; for the game reduced the chances to a minimum, and brought into action some mental faculties of a high character. He hoped that on the next occasion the Oxonians would be able to revenge in a friendly manner the defeat which they had this time suffered.

"Mr Minchin, the hon. sec. of the St. George's Chess Club, in proposing the health of the umpire, passed a high eulogism on Mr Steinitz, both as a player and a chess critic. He felt sorry to introduce an unpleasant subject on this festive occasion, but, on comparing the strict impartiality and honesty which Mr Steinitz had shown as a chess writer with the discreditable personalities which prevailed for such a long time amongst the greater portion of the metropolitan chess press, he could not help saying he felt ashamed at the contrast. As an English gentleman he deeply deplored that the British name for hospitality and public fairness should have been so grossly disgraced by the attacks on foreign competitors, who had gained the chess supremacy in fair and honest fight. Mr Minchin's remarks were received with loud cheers. Mr Steinitz, in responding, said he felt overpowered by the kindness shown to him, and thanked the Universities for the honour of electing him as their umpire.

"Mr Francis next proposed the health of the hon. members, coupled with the name of Herr Zukertort, who briefly responded. The chairman then gave the toast of the "Chess Press," coupled with the name of the Rev. C.E. Ranken, and remarked that the Chess Player's Chronicle ought to be supported by every patriotic chess player. Several other toasts followed.

Huddersfield College Magazine, May 1878, pps 217-220: "The sixth annual match between the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge came off on Thursday, April 11 [1878], at the rooms of the St. George's Chess Club in King Street, St. James's. Excellent arrangements had been made by Mr. Minchin, the indefatigable honorary secretary of the Club, both for the match itself and for the banquet which followed. The hours of play were from 2 to 6-30 p.m. Two games as a maximum were to be played by each pair of combatants, not three, as on previous occasions. The hour-glasses also were now, for the first time, not called into requisition; and we are glad to observe that this modification was amply justified by the improved pace which the University teams have now developed, through increased familiarity with the game. Nervousness, the result of inexperience, is, we are convinced, in many instances the chief cause of excessively slow play.

"The result of the previous matches had left Oxford with a score of three to two; and it was generally expected that Cambridge would this year redress the balance. University Chess appears to be liable to more violent fluctuations than University boating or cricket. The reason doubtless is that, the area of choice being so much smaller, the loss of one or two good men, out of a team of seven, more decisively affects the general result. The victory of Cambridge was even more complete than had been anticipated, and the balance of matches now stands even.

"The combatants being paired according to their strength, it will be seen that the advantage of Cambridge lay chiefly at the extremities of the scale. Their two best men were stronger than any whom Oxford could bring into the field, and their "tail" was less weak. At boards 3, 4, and 5 the players were more evenly matched, and some very interesting games were the result. At No. 5, the Oxford player, having a Pawn superiority in the end game, with a Bishop against a Knight, lost his Bishop by a divergent check: and, so far as we are aware, this was the only glaring oversight committed during the match. The general style of play was careful without being too laboured: and while the knowledge of the openings evinced continues to improve this was more especially observable in the three first players on the Cambridge side, the only ones who played last year.

"At eight o'clock the two teams were entertained at dinner by the St. George's Club, the Rev. Professor Wayte in the chair. Among the invited guests were Mr. Steinitz, Dr. Zukertort, and Mr. Gumpel, the inventor of the new (and by far the best) Chess automaton, "Mephisto." The material was such as to satisfy the most fastidious critics, and reflects the highest credit on the St. James's management.

"In giving the first toast, the Queen and the Royal Family, the Chairman observed that Prince Leopold had not only been an efficient member of the Oxford Club, but continued to be a liberal patron of the game. Chess, though a royal, was not a courtly game. In the only published game of Prince Leopold's he had seen-a consultation game in which H.R.H. had a very good partner—Royalty was beaten. (Laughter.)

"Professor Wayte next proposed the health of the University teams, and remarked on the distinctions gained by University Chess-players in other fields, both intellectual and athletic. Mr. Chapman, responding for the winners, proposed the toast of their entertainers, the St. George's Chess Club, to which the Chairman briefly replied. Mr. Germaine followed, returning thanks for Oxford, and gave the health of the honorary secretary, to whose exertions they were so much indebted. Mr. Minchin, after acknowledging this compliment, proposed the Umpire. Mr. Steinitz having responded, the toast of the Visitors was given by Mr. Francis, and acknowledged by Dr. Zukertort.

"The Chairman next proposed the toast of the Chess Press, and in so doing enlarged on the high qualifications of the Rev. C. E. Ranken as a Chess Editor-his varied knowledge of the modern languages in which Chess was written—his untiring zeal and industry—and the impartiality of his comments. "And now," he continued, "he would ask them—and especially his younger friends—to look at this question from another point of view. Germany possessed a Chess periodical now in its 33rd year of continuous existence. During the same period it was a fact, he must say little to the credit of English players, that the life of every English Chess Magazine had always been more or less intermittent. And why was this? Thirty years ago, when the Chess Player's Chronicle was edited by Mr. Staunton, players living far away from Clubs were content to give their 1s. or even 1s. 6d. monthly (for the price was afterwards raised) to get a sight of good games and problems. The multiplication of Clubs had, on the contrary, only served to increase the difficulties under which Chess periodicals were conducted. People did not care to take in a magazine, if they could see it at their Club. Now he need not say, that neither the Editor nor those who co-operated with him received anything for their services. But publishers were men of business, and if periodicals did not pay their way they could not be carried on. It was the case with all those magazines which appealed, not to the general public, but to a limited class, that those who were interested in the objects of these magazines did not think merely of themselves: they subscribed to the magazine, as a necessary condition of its existence. The members of the various learned societies kept afloat the transactions of those societies. The devotees of botany or astronomy were not satisfied if they could see the Botanical or Astronomical Magazine at their Club; they supported it with their subscriptions. And if they wished, as he (the Chairman) believed they did, that Chess should have its organ, he appealed to them to support it by the very moderate expenditure required." Mr. Ranken returned thanks, and other toasts followed.

The Times, Friday 12 April 1878: "The sixth annual chess match between Oxford and Cambridge was played yesterday at the rooms of the St. George's Chess Club, King Street, St James's. Of the five contests which have gone before, Oxford are accredited three victories and Cambridge two. As the Light Blues scored the unexpectedly easy victory of ten games to two yesterday, honours are now divided.

"The representatives for Cambridge were - J.N. Keynes, Pembroke; W.H. Gunston, St John's; J.T.C. Chatto, Trinity; W.H. Blythe, Jesus; C.Chapman, St John's (president); J.F.Sugden, Trinity Hall; and W. Jennings, Corpus. Those for Oxford were - F.M. Wright, Queen's; R.A. Germaine (president), H. Lee, E.H. Kinder, B.N.C. [Brasenose]; C. Taylor, Christ Church; A.S. Perceval, Exeter; and C.H. Malden, Trinity.

"The first board was occupied by Keynes and Wright. The former revived the Falckbeer [sic] variation of the king's bishop's opening, which gave him a strong attack, and, as the defence was not up to the mark, and Wright, in addition, made a great error, the last-named left himself open to a mate in two moves. The second game Wright opened with an ordinary king's gambit, which Keynes declined by pawn to queen's 4, as recommended by Falckbeer [sic]. Keynes had unquestionably the best of the opening, though a pawn behind; but he ultimately let the attack slip, which enabled his opponent to exchange queens and to equalize the game. Wright, by clever manoeuvring, transferred the attack to himself, and the game looked for a long while strongly in his favour. Keynes, however, instituted a vigorous counter-attack, which was not properly met by Wright, and the former so well utilized his knight against his opponent's bishop that he eventually won the game.

"Gunston proved much too strong for Germaine. In the first game the former adopted the French opening; Germaine played a bad attack against it, which compromised his line of pawns, and two of them fell in a short time. It came to an end game, after exchange of queens, which gradually reolved itself into a winning superiority for Cambridge. Gunston played a Ruy Lopez in the second game, weakly defended by Germaine, which enabled the Cambridge player to win the queen for three minor pieces. The Oxonian soon after lost two pawns, but managed to get up a strong attack, which won for him the exchange. The game seemed very difficult for the Cantab, but at the very last, assisted by a mistake, he won easily.

"Chatto opened his first game with a king's knight game, which Lee turned into Petross's [sic] defence. The former made a doubtful sacrifice for a feasible attack, but Lee for a long time kept the best position. Towards the middle of the game, however, he compromised his king's side to get a pawn on the queen's. Chatto very cleverly took advantage of this error in judgment, and, bringing his two rooks and queen to bear on the king's flank, he ultimately gave up one rook and announced a very pretty mate in four moves. Lee opened the second game with the Scotch gambit, which was badly defended by Chatto, who left himself open to the common sacrifice of a bishop for a king's bishop pawn, checking, which gave Lee the opportunity of recovering his piece and pawn previously given up, and also to gain an extra pawn. Chatto's defence after this was very well conducted, and he spun the game out till it came to an ending, remaining a pawn behind all the time. Just at 6.30, when, according to the rules, Mr. W. Steinitz, the umpire, was called upon to adjudicate on this the only unfinished game, Chatto made a mistake, which caused the umpire to decide against him without hesitation.

"Kinder opened his game against Blythe by pawn to queen 4, which the latter answered with pawn to king's bishop 4. [Dutch Defence] Kinder managed to get a strong attack on his queen's side with his pawns, whereby he won a pawn; but after that he was too hasty in his exchange of pieces, which made his game unnecessarily difficult, he having the bishop against his opponent's knight. By a judicious management of th pawns, however, he ultimately broke through and won by obtaining two passed pawns. The second game was a bad one; Kinder made a miscalculation whereby he lost a clear rook, and although he fought well, he had to submit.

"Chapman and Taylor had a close game; pawn to queen's 4 was played on each side. The latter won a pawn in the opening, but after this, too hastily exchanging his pieces, it came to a difficult ending, the Oxonian being a pawn ahead. The Cantab had a knight against a bishop, and, although theoretically the pawn ahead ought to win, the chances of committing an error are more against the player who has to watch the complicated movements of the knight. Such a chance did occur, and Taylor, catching the bishop by a double attack on the king and bishop, gained the victory.

"Sugden won his two games against Perceval in pretty good style, considering the place he occupied in order of strength, while at no.7 board Jennings defeated Malden after a hard-fought game."

Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle - Saturday 13 April 1878: "match between Chapman and Taylor lasted four hours and no less than 59 moves".

Further Info


by Rev. Edward Herring Kinder [BCM, July 1932, pp290-292]

Yes! But how to avoid egotism. Taught the moves, at twelve years of age, by my father. The first game I remember impressed on me a life-long lesson. A visitor condescended to "play with the boy." He was talking to my father all the time, paying no attention to the board, and I mated him. He was much upset, which seemed to me ridiculous, and I learned never to lose my temper over any game. I played a little chess at school. We played a match by correspondence with Felstead, and lost. When I went to Oxford I joined the University Chess Club. On the first evening one of the officers played a game with the new member. We had a strenuous game and at the end the president asked me whether I knew anything of books. I said " No." He added, if you spend an evening with "Staunton" you would play for the 'Varsity. Immediately I took Staunton's Handbook from the Library, spent an evening studying it, and played against Cambridge for five years, sharing that privilege with W. M. Gattie — the first amateur champion — and G. E. Wainwright. In those days University chess was far below the standard of to-day. Matches lasted a given time, and one, two or three games might be played. In my first match against Cambridge I played on board 4 (out of 7) against W. H. Blythe. I had White, and played the Queen's Gambit — hardly ever played at that time. The defence was the "Dutch." The game lasted 3 hours and 10 minutes — considered an unconscionable time then — and was published in the Chess Players' Chronicle with that of Keynes and Wright on the first board — "as the best two games in the match."

At Oxford I met W. Parratt, afterwards Sir W. Parratt. I only played twice with him. We each won one game. I now come to a link with the foundation of the Oxford University Chess Club in 1869, the Reverend C. E. Ranken, of Wadham, the founder and first president. In my time Mr. Ranken was Editor of the Chess Players' Chronicle. His name is probably hardly known to the present generation, but his initials C.E.R. still occur in the notes of "Chess Openings." Mr. Ranken several times brought teams to play us at Oxford. It was in these matches that I met the Rev. J. Coker, Rev. C. Coker, and Rev. W. Grundy, a past president who had lately "gone down." In one of these matches I had the good fortune to win against Signor Aspa, another almost forgotten. F. Madan, whom you mention in connection with the exhibition of "Carrolliana" 'lectured' me in mathematics. Two or three of us at the Club knew ourselves to be weak in Pawn endings. Instead of playing games we used to set up Pawn positions and improved our play practically, and to that I owe the winning of many a game. We did not learn about 'opposition,' etc., with the "Eze" with which readers of the B.C.M. do now.

When in Town for the 'Varsity matches, two well-known players — Mr. Wayte and Mr. Skipworth — took me under their wing and gave me the run of St. George's Chess Club. The umpires at the matches were Steinitz and Blackburne. About 1879 (?) I encountered "Mephisto," the chess automaton. I watched "two players polished off and entered the ring, roped off from a crowd of spectators. I had just read an article giving an analysis of a new move suggested in some opening. I played it. Mephisto looked up at me, with all the Satanic royalty of plumes, beard, moustache, extenso, and remained looking and nodding for what seemed some three minutes, to the spectators' amusement. I do not know that I was right, but I pictured the manipulator, in the room below, with his books on the table, searching them for the correct reply, which was not there. He made the wrong move and I won the game. Report said that Gunsberg was the manipulator, but I know not whether it were so.

Of the masters, from Lasker I have met most in simultaneous play, and give the palm for pleasantness to Blackburne. I met him six times without losing a game. My best effort was to get two games from him in one day. In the afternoon he played four blindfold; mine was a Scotch. In the evening he played 28 simultaneously. I accepted an Evans Gambit, which was the only game Blackburne lost.

"Where are the boys of the old Brigade"? With the exception of W. H. Gunston, I look in vain in the pages of the B.C.M. for news of them.

No, I have not been able to avoid egotism. You must deal leniently with years. I am 3½ years older than Blackburne was when he had to give up chess. My best chess has been by correspondence. [BCM appended a list of his correspondence chess results, 1902-1930.]

File updated

Date Notes
21 July 2020 Original upload.


All material © 2020 John Saunders