The Process of Creation:
Correspondence Play and the
Growth of Chess in Texas a Century Ago
by Neil R. Brennen
(posted 9 May 2005)
|
|
|
For
Javascript Replay of all the games (in a separate window) click
here
You can't give enough praise to the accomplishments of the
Texas Chess Association and its officers in promoting the Royal
Game in the Lone Star State. One glance at an issue of Texas
Knights will show the health of chess in Texas. Attendance
at tournaments is up, clubs are flourishing, scholastic chess
is booming, and correspondence chess continues popular among
the chessplayers of Texas. The state has its own respected home-grown
master chessplayers such as Selby Anderson and David John. The
chess fan, be he hardened tournament warrior, casual player,
or scholastic tyro, has a wide range of activities from online
play to over-the-board championships to satisfy his chess needs.
In short, the game of chess is doing well in Texas. But it wasn't
always prospering so, and more than a century ago most Texas
chessplayers were limited to one form of the game - correspondence
chess.
In 1900, the population of Texas was approximately three million, spread out over more than 267 thousand square miles. That means there were fewer than twelve people per square mile in Texas a century ago. In an age when transportation was by rail and horseback, chessplayers were few and far-between. The larger population centers, such as San Antonio and Houston, had active chess clubs. Often the local newspapers had chess columns. But for the average Texas chess enthusiast not living within a few miles of a chess club, his only way of getting serious competition was by means of correspondence play. The Pillsbury National Correspondence Chess Association, a forerunner of the present-day Correspondence Chess League of America, had several Texas players among its members within a couple of years of its founding in 1896.
Win or lose, Texas correspondence players were
delighted with their experiences in the PNCCA, and they desired
a state organization to promote both postal chess and what they
called "board chess." Eventually the scattered correspondence
players came together in Dallas and formed the Texas State Chess
Association on June 24, 1898. The first President of the TSCA
was Otto Monnig, Sr, and L. R. Walden, founder of Walden's Commercial
College in Austin, became Vice-president. A musician with the
melodious name of W. B. Schimmelphennig was elected Secretary.
Both Walden and Schimmelphennig were correspondence chess enthusiasts.
In an article titled "Chess in Texas" by "a Texan" on page 171
of the 1898-1899 volume of American Chess Magazine, the
Texas Pillsbury contingent was recognized for their efforts
in starting the TSCA, with Walden and Schimmelphennig being
given "first credit." Another correspondence player and TSCA
founder, Thomas J. Middleton, publisher of the Ellis County
Mirror, was particularly cited in the article for being
"very original in his games, always seeking new lines of play.
He has originated a reply to the King's Gambit, wherein Black
sacrifices a Bishop on the sixth move, that has attracted some
notice among Texas players."
The first activities for the new Association were holding an
over-the-board Championship and advertising a correspondence
tournament for Texas players. The Texas State Fair donated a
loving cup worth $50.00 for the first Texas Championship, and
the tournament was held on the Fair grounds from October 11-14,
1898. The tournament, apparently an eleven player round-robin,
was won by Otto O. Ballard of Dallas, a transplanted Texan hailing
from Indiana. According to the tournament report on page 200
of the 1898-1899 American Chess Magazine, L. R. Walden
then issued a challenge to the newly-crowned champion to play
a match by correspondence. While the over-the-board championship was in its planning stages,
the TSCA's first correspondence tournament was in full swing,
with eighteen players in four sections sending moves back and
forth. Thomas Middleton was the first player to score blood.
His miniature win over J. Bundy was published on page 125 of
the American Chess Magazine for 1898- 1899.
Thomas Middleton - Bundy [C50]
TSCA Correspondence Tournament, 1898
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 Nf6 5.Bg5 d6 6.h3 h6 7.Bh4
0-0 8.Nbd2 Be6 9.c3 Bxc4 10.Nxc4 b5 Black's tenth move was
ill-advised, and lead to defeat. 11.Ne3 Bxe3 12.fxe3 g5 13.Nxg5
d5 14.0-0 hxg5 15.Bxg5 dxe4 16.Bxf6 1-0
American Chess Magazine 1898-1899, p. 125
Two games from the second Texas correspondence tournament appeared
in a later issue of the American Chess Magazine. They
appeared in the "Notes and Comments" column, designed for amateur
players, and they appeared with brief comments by the magazine's
editors. The notes originally appeared in paragraph form, but
have been incorporated into the gamescores for this article.
The opening of the second game will look familiar to the students
of Henri Grob and Michael Basman, although it was played before
both these theorists were born.
Dickason - L. Walden [D35]
TSCA Correspondence Tournament, 1898
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bf4 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.c5 White's
move is unusual and too conservative. 6.cxd5 is more effective.
6...Nh5 7.Bg3 Nxg3 Black erred in opening the h file
after castling, and in giving up the d pawn. 8.hxg3 Bf6 9.Qd3
h6 10.g4 Nd7 11.Rh5 Premature; he should have played 11.0-0-0
and advanced his Kingside pawns. 11...e5 12.Nxd5 Re8
Black should have played 12...c6 and if 13.Nxf6+ (if 13.Ne3
exd4 etc.) 13...Nxf6 etc. 13.dxe5 Bxe5 14.Ng5 g6 15.Nxf7
Kxf7 16.Rxh6 Qg5 Black would have done better by 16...Nf8
, which might have won. 17.Rh7+ Kg8 18.Qh3 Nf8 19.Rh4 Bxb2
20.Qb3 Qxh4 Black's 20th should have been 20...Be6 and White
would have had three pieces en prise. 21.Nf6+ Kg7 22.Nxe8+
Kh6 23.Qxb2 Bxg4 24.Qg7+ Kh5 25.Qxf8 Rc8 26.Ng7+ Black should
have won after 16th move of White. 1-0
American Chess Magazine 1898-1899, p.234
W. Schimmelphennig - Waddell [B00]
TSCA Correspondence Tournament, 1898
1.e4 g5 Black evidently was not acquainted with the openings,
or he would not have played so compromising a move as his first.
2.Bc4 Bg7 3.d4 h6 4.Qf3 e6 5.e5 d5 6.Bb3 c5 7.c3 c4 8.Bc2
Ne7 9.Na3 a6 10.Ne2 Ng6 11.Ng3 Rf8 12.Nh5 Bh8 13.g3 f5 14.g4
White overlooked the winning of a piece, 14.exf6 winning the
Knight. There were too many possibilities in the middle game,
and the positions were frequently of the kind that make players
desire to sacrifice something. 14...b5 15.h4 Nxh4 16.Rxh4
gxh4 17.Bxh6 Rg8 18.g5 Ra7 19.Nf6+ Bxf6 20.exf6 Kd7 21.Qh5 Kc6
22.f7 Rh8 23.g6 Qf6 24.g7 The winning of the two Rooks for
pawns in the ending was very clever, and thereafter Black should
have resigned. 24...Rxf7 25.Qxf7 Qxf7 26.gxh8Q Kc7 27.Qg7
Qxg7 28.Bxg7 Bd7 29.0-0-0 Be8 30.Rh1 Kd7 31.Rxh4 Ke7 32.Rh7
Kf7 33.Bh6+ Kf6 34.f4 Nd7 35.Bg5+ Kg6 36.Rh6+ Kf7 37.b3 Nb6
38.Bxf5 1-0 American Chess Magazine 1898-1899, p.235
The organ of the PNCCA in 1900 was Hermann Helms'
weekly chess column in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, and
games by some of the Texas members were published in the Eagle's
pages. Among the regular Texas correspondents with Helms was
L. R. Walden of Austin, who was playing in the Southern Division
section of the club's Grand National tournament. In a game against
a fellow Texan, T. Hyde of Hyatt, Walden announced a mate in
34 moves, and submitted the game for the special prize for the
longest mate. This sounds like an odd practice to modern chessplayers,
but it was common in the 19th century; as Helms' observed in
his column, "Every well-regulated tournament by correspondence
has its announced prize set aside" for the longest announced
mate. However, the committee that had to examine such tortured
analysis was oftentimes driven "frantic," as Helms put it, at
finding the announcement was not correct. According to Helms,
these frequent stumbles in calculating the mate made "the trophy
to be acquired a sort of will-of-the-wisp affair." As was often
the case in such long variations, there was a slip in Walden's
analysis, as pointed out by annotator C. S. Howell in Helms'
Brooklyn Daily Eagle column of May 27, 1900.
T. Hyde - L. Walden [C51]
PNCCA Grand National, 1900
Notes by C. S. Howell
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.0-0 6.d4
is generally played nowadays. 6...d6 7.d4 Bb6 Lasker's
Defense, a refutation of his dictum, "The best defense to the
Evans Gambit is to decline it." 8.dxe5 This recovers
the pawn, but his Queenside pawns remain weak for the ending.
8...dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.Nxe5 Nf6 11.Ba3 Rather a doubtful
sacrifice. 11...Nxe4 12.Nd3 Nd6 13.Re1+ Be6 14.Bxe6 fxe6
15.Nd2 0-0 16.Nf3 Rf6 17.Nde5 Ba5 18.Bb4 Bxb4 19.cxb4 a5 20.bxa5
Rxa5 21.Nd4 Rd5 22.Rad1 c5 23.Ndf3 Rxd1 24.Rxd1 N6f7 25.Nxf7
Nxf7 26.Rd7 e5 27.Rxb7 Rd6 28.Kf1 g5 29.Ke1 Ra6 30.Rc7 g4 31.Nd2
Rxa2 32.Rxc5 Kg7 33.g3 White now confines his own King and
his pawns. 33...Kf6 34.Rc1 Kf5 35.Nc4 h5 36.Ne3+ Ke4 37.Rc2
Rxc2 Black here announced mate in 34 moves. He may possibly
get a mate within that number of moves and certainly should
win the game, owing to the adversary's weak 33.g3, but it is
equally certain he cannot win on the play which he outlines
in his main variation, herewith given: 38.Nxc2 Ng5 39.Kf1
Nf3 40.Kg2 Kd3 41.Nb4+ Ke2 42.Nd5 Ng5 43.Nf6! Nh3 44.Nxh5 Nxf2
45.Nf6 Ke3 46.Nh5 Ne4! 47.h3 gxh3+ 48.Kxh3 Kf3 49.Kh4 Nd2 50.Kh3
White can now draw easily by 50.Nf6 as can very readily be seen.
White's g pawn, which is fully as valuable as the other's e
pawn, is in a position to be quite troublesome. Several sub-variations
are submitted but these cannot be given consideration while
the trunk-line is impaired. 50...e4 51.Nf4 e3 52.Ne6 Ne4
53.Nd4+ Kf2 54.Nc2 e2 55.g4 Ng5+ 56.Kh4 Nf3+ 57.Kh5 Nd4! 58.Nxd4
e1Q 59.Nf5 Qh1+ 60.Kg6 Kf3 61.Nd4+ Kf4 62.Ne6+ Kxg4 63.Kf6 Qe4
64.Kf7 Kf5 65.Ng7+ Ke5 66.Ke7 Qb7+ 67.Kf8 Qd7 68.Ne8 Kf5 69.Ng7+
Kg6 70.Ne8 Qf7# 0-1
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, May 27, 1900
Although his mate announcement was flawed, Walden still managed to win the game against Hyde. However, he was less fortunate in two games with O. Wiggers of Nashville, Tennessee. The annotations to the first game were by Wiggers, with additional comments by Brooklyn chessplayer A. E. Swafield.
O. Wiggers - L. R. Walden [C45]
PNCCA Grand National, 1900
Annotations by O. Wiggers and A. E. Swafield
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Be3 Qe7 5...Qf6
or 5...Qh4 are the usual moves. 6.Nf5 Qxe4 7.Nxg7+ Kd8 8.Nd2
Qe5 9.Nc4 Bb4+ 10.c3 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qxc3+ 12.Bd2 Qxg7 13.g3 Qd4
14.Ne3 Ne5 If 14...d5 15.Bg2 Be6 16.Nxd5 Bxd5 17.Bxd5! and
Black cannot play 17...Qxd5 on account of 18.Bg5+!; But 14...d6
or; 14...Nf6 was preferable to the move made. - Swafield 15.Be2
Nd3+ 16.Bxd3 Qxd3 17.Qf3 Ke8 18.Qd5 A curious position!
White is two pawns down, and yet courts an exchange of Queens,
and whether Black accepts or not, he must lose in material!
- Swafield. 18...Qxd5 19.Nxd5 c5 19...Rb8 20.Nxc7+ Kd8
21.Bf4 and White will win another pawn; nevertheless, we think
it better than giving up the exchange. - Swafield 20.Nc7+
Kd8 21.Nxa8 b6 22.0-0 Bb7 23.Nxb6 axb6 24.Rfe1 h5 25.Bf4 Bc6
26.Rab1 b5 27.Bd6 c4 28.a4 Rh6 If 28...bxa4 29.Rb8# 29.axb5
White outplays Black and wins extra pawns back. 29...Bd5
If 29...Rxd6 30.bxc6 Rxc6 31.Rb8+ Rc8 32.Re8+ Kxe8 33.Rxc8+
winning the Knight and can in time prevent the pawn on the c
file from queening. 30.Bc5 Re6 31.b6 Kc8 32.Red1 Bb7 33.Bd6
To foil pawn strengthening in the center. 33...Nf6 34.Rb4
Nd5 35.Rxc4+ Kd8 36.Bc7+ Kc8 If 36...Nxc7 White wins in
a few moves. 37.Rdc1 Bc6 38.Bf4 Kb7 Black plays stubbornly
and hopes to draw, as Bishops are of opposite colors. 39.Rb1
Ne7 40.Rc5 d5 41.Ra5 Nc8 42.Be3 f5 43.Rba1 43.Ra7+ seems
a quicker way to win. For instance, 43...Nxa7 (If 43...Kb8
44.b7!) 44.bxa7+ Kc7 45.Rb8 d4 46.Bd2 (Better than 46.Bf4+
as Black replies 46...Kd7 and then ...Re8.) 46...Re2 47.Ba5+
Kd7 48.a8Q Bxa8 49.Rxa8 d3? 50.Rd8+ and wins. 43...Kb8 44.Bf4+
Kb7 45.Ra8 Nd6 45...Re1+ seems better than the text move.
46.Be3 Nb5 47.R1a7+ White now wins by force. 47...Nxa7
48.Rxa7+ Kc8 49.Rc7+ Kd8 50.Bf4 Bd7 White threatened Rxc6.
51.Bg5+ Ke8 52.b7 Re1+ 53.Kg2 1-0
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March 11, 1900
Hermann Helms noted in his introductory description of the second encounter between Wiggers and Walden that the players followed the opening of a recent tournament game of Pillsbury's against Didier in the Paris 1900 tournament, although in this correspondence battle White managed to keep his Queen and scored the point.
O. Wiggers - L. R. Walden [C67]
PNCCA Grand National, 1900
Annotations by A. E. Swafield
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Re1 6.Qe2
is a stronger continuation. 6...Nd6 7.dxe5 Nxb5 8.a4 d6
If 8...Nxe5 9.Nxe5 Nd6 10.Bg5 f6 11.Bxf6 0-0 (or if 11...gxf6
12.Qh5+ Kf8 13.Ng6+ hxg6 14.Qxh8+ Kf7 15.Qh7+ Kf8 16.Re3
etc.) 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Ng6 losing the Exchange. 9.axb5 Nxe5
10.Nd4 If 10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.Qxd8+ Bxd8 12.Rxe5+ would virtually
draw. 10...0-0 11.f4 Ng4 12.f5 Nf6 13.Bg5 Re8 14.Nc3 Bd7
15.Nce2 Ne4 15...c5 seems better and frees Black's game.
16.Bxe7 Rxe7 16...Qxe7 followed by Qg5, should have been
played, a favorable position resulting therefrom. 17.Nf4
Nf6 18.Qf3 Rxe1+ Allowing White control of the e file and
giving Black a cramped game. 19.Rxe1 Qc8 20.Nd5 Nxd5 21.Qxd5
Kf8 To prevent 22.Re7. 22.f6 A move which ultimately
wins; Black's counter attack comes too late. 22...c6 23.Qg5
gxf6 24.Qxf6 Kg8 25.Re3 Bg4 26.Rg3 Kf8 27.Qxd6+ Ke8 27...Kg8
would have prolonged the game somewhat, but would not have changed
the result, as after 28.bxc6 Black seems to have nothing better
than 28...f5 or(28...h5 , giving up the Bishop. If Black
plays; 28...Qd8 White plays 29.Rxg4+ Kh8 30.Qh6 Qxd4+
(best) 31.Rxd4 Rg8 32.Qf6+ and mates next move. If Black
plays; 28...bxc6 29.Nxc6 is sufficient.) 28.Re3+ Be6
29.Nxe6 fxe6 30.Rxe6+ Kf7 31.Re7+ 1-0
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, June 24, 1900
Another Texas player, Thomas Middleton of Waxahachie,
avenged his fellow Texan's loss to Wiggers in the following
game. It was an uphill struggle for Middleton. Hermann Helms
presented the game as a "turning of the tables" and made it
a cautionary tale of winning a won game for his Eagle readers:
"An apparently beaten player should not be treated too lightly
by an opponent on the eve of victory. When about to wind up
the contest, the prospective winner should exercise as much
circumspection as he does while handling his most difficult
combination. This is a maxim it is well to bear in mind on all
occasions, as many are the games lost as a result of neglecting
to do that very thing." The columnist noted that Black "pull[ed]
the game out of the fire through his opponent's failure to fully
realize his peril." Middleton himself annotated the game for
the readers of the Eagle, and it appeared in the July
8, 1900 issue of the column.
O. Wiggers - Thomas Middleton [C00]
PNCCA Grand National, 1900
Annotations by Thomas Middleton
1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 c5 3.g3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bg2 d5 6.d3 Nf6 7.e5
Nd7 8.0-0 0-0 9.c3 b6 10.d4 a5 This move and the one preceding
were merely made on the chance of gaining the exchange, but
later on they lead to the loss of both pawns. 11.Re1 f5 12.exf6
Rxf6 13.Bg5 Rg6 14.Bf4 Nf8 15.Nbd2 cxd4 Following F. K.
Young's advice to capture opponent's d pawn with c or e pawn,
as the case might be. 16.Nxd4 Nxd4 17.cxd4 Bd6 18.Be5 Rg5
19.Rac1 Bxe5 20.dxe5 Qd7 21.Nc4 A neat move that immediately
turns the scales in his favor. 21...Ba6 22.Qd2 Qd8 The
position has become quite complex, the pinning and counterplay
of the pieces being very interesting. 23.Nxb6 The Knight,
of course, cannot be taken, because of the isolated Rook on
the Kingside. 23...Rb8 24.Rc6 The same objection still
holds good. 24...Bb7 25.Rd6 Qe7 26.f4 Rg6 27.Qxa5 h5 28.Re3
h4 29.Qc3
29...d4 With two pawns down Black must
resort to desperate measures. He sacrifices another pawn, but
exposes the adverse King thereby, besides ridding himself of
a piece that has been sadly out of play since the start. 30.Qxd4
Bxg2 31.Kxg2 Qb7+ 32.Qe4 Qc7 33.Qc4 Qb7+ 34.Qc6 Qf7 Still
avoiding the exchange of Queens, which he cannot afford. 35.Qe4
hxg3 36.Rxg3 Rh6 37.b3 Qh5 38.h3 Ng6 39.Nd7 Rc8 40.Rd2 Nh4+
41.Kh2 Kh8 42.a4 Nf5 43.Rc3 Realizing the perilous state
of affairs, including the two hostile passed pawns, Black accepts
the situation philosophically. 43...Rxc3 44.Qa8+ Kh7 45.Nf8+
Kh8 46.Nxe6+ Kh7 47.Ng5+ Qxg5 48.fxg5 Rhxh3+ 49.Kg1 Rc1+ 50.Kg2
Rch1 51.Rd8
51...Ne3+ Black here offered the following
demonstration of a perpetual check and consequent draw: 51...Ne3+
52.Kf2 Ng4+ 53.Ke2 Re3+ 54.Kd2 Rh2+ 55.Kd1 Nf2+ 56.Kd2 Ng4+
and draws. White accepted the moves up till his fifty-fifth
where he played Kc1. The latter's next move, overlooking the
check on e3, of course loses the game. 52.Kf2 Ng4+ 53.Ke2
Re3+ 54.Kd2 Rh2+ 55.Kc1 Rc3+ 56.Kd1 0-1
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, July 8 and August 19, 1900
Tennessee players in addition to the amusingly-named Mr. Wiggers were causing problems for the Texas PNCCA members a century ago. Middleton's French defense was destroyed by A. T. McQuigg Jr. of Lynneville in a PNCCA game. According to Helms, White sacrificed his weak d pawn on the seventh move. Black accepted the sacrifice, but forfeited his right to castle. "The King thus exposed forthwith became sport for the White forces and was quickly humiliated" as Helms wrote in his June 10, 1900 column.
A. T. McQuigg - Thomas Middleton [C02]
PNCCA 4th Grand National, Southern Div., 1900
Notes by Hermann Helms
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Nbd2 Allowing
the d pawn to go, presumably with premeditation. 6...cxd4
7.cxd4 Nxd4 8.Nxd4 Qxd4 9.Bb5+ Bd7 Better than moving the
King at once. 10.Bxd7+ Kxd7 11.Qe2 Bb4 He must develop
the Kingside at any cost; 11...Nh6 is the alternative. 12.0-0
12.Qb5+ would not do, for after 12...Kd8 13.Qxb7 Qxe5+ 14.Kf1
Qb8 with the better game. 12...a6 Black would be safer
by 12...Bxd2 exchanging his Bishop for the Knight, even though
by doing so he brings the White Rooks more quickly into action.
Then might come ...a6, followed duly by ...Ne7 and ...Nc6. White
would still have fine opportunities for attack, but he would
find the defense more difficult to negotiate than appears at
first sight. 13.Nb3 Qh4 14.Rd1 Qd8 A reversal of moves
now proves at once fatal. He should have retreated the Bishop
by 14...Bf8 before bringing the Queen home.; Curiously, if 14...Be7
then 15.Rd4 corners her majesty. Qg4 should not have been permitted
at the time. 15.Qg4 Bf8 16.Rxd5+ Ke8 17.Rxd8+ And White
won after 30 moves. 1-0
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, June 10, 1900
Middleton disagreed with Helms' assessment of the opening in
his game with McQuigg, and submitted a challenge to the Eagle
readers: "If any of the players are sufficiently interested
in this opening, I would take the position at my eleventh move
and play it into the mid-game to beat this sacrifice of the
d pawn." The historical record is silent regarding any acceptance
of Middleton's challenge.
The second TSCA over-the-board Championship was held in San Antonio in October 1899, and the winner was a "young Dallas grocery-merchant" named John Ford. Originally from Mississippi, Ford had moved to Texas in 1898, and like most TSCA members, he was also active in the PNCCA. And like his fellow Texan L. R. Walden, he also submitted a gamescore for the special prize of longest announced mate in the PNCCA's second Grand National tournament. Ford's mate was five moves longer than Walden's, and more importantly, it was grudgingly accepted as sound by the annotator. This game from the Southern Division of the Grand National helped secure Ford the championship of the division.
R. A. Hart - John Ford [C55]
PNCCA Grand National, 1900
Annotations by C. S. Howell
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 We consider the conservative
4.d3 better. The sacrifice of the pawn, entailed by 6.O-O, is
not sound. 4...Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.0-0 d5 6...Nxe4 can be
played with safety. The text move, we believe, is novel, and
of doubtful efficiency. 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Re1+ Be6 9.Bg5 Qd7
10.b4 Be7 11.b5 Bxg5 11...Nd8 is better. The text loses.
12.bxc6 Qxc6 13.Nxg5 13.Qb3, threatening Bb5, Bxd5, and
Nxg5 would have won a piece and the game. 13...Qxc4 14.Nxe6
fxe6 15.Rxe6+ Kf7 16.Re4 Rhe8 17.Rxd4 Qe2 By this clever
move Black more than equalizes the position. 18.Qxe2 Rxe2
19.Kf1 Rae8 20.Rd1 Rc2 21.Na3 Rxc3 22.Nb5 Rc5 23.Rxd5 Clever
play that should have drawn. 23...Rxd5 24.Nxc7 Red8 25.Nxd5
Rxd5 26.Rb1 b6 27.f4 Rd4 28.g3 Rc4 29.Rb2 Rc5 30.Kf2 b5 31.Kf3
a5 32.h4 h5 When your opponent has the majority of pawns
on one side, and you on the other, the correct principle is
to establish your majority, and bring your King to the side
of the board on which he has the majority. By violating this
principle, White loses this game. White's 32nd move, h4, allows
Black to play ...h5 and thus hold three pawns with two. His
two pawns to one on the other side then determine the issue.
33.Rg2 b4 34.Ke4 Rc3 35.Kf5 a4 36.Kg5 Rc5+ 37.f5 b3 38.axb3
axb3 39.Kxh5 Rxf5+ 40.Kg4 Rb5 41.Rb2 Kg6 42.Kf3 Kh5 43.g4+ Kg6
Of course 43...Kxh4 loses the Rook to 44.Rh2+ Kg5 45.Rh5+ 44.Ke4
Kf6 45.Kd4 Rb4+
46.Kd5 Black announced mate in 39 moves,
as follows: 46...Rxg4 47.Rxb3 Rxh4 48.Rf3+ Kg5 49.Ke5 Kg4
50.Rf1 g5 51.Rg1+ Kh5 52.Kf5 Rf4+ 53.Ke5 Kg6 54.Ra1 Rb4 55.Ra6+
Kh5 56.Kf5 g4 57.Ra1 Kh4 58.Rh1+ Kg3 59.Rg1+ Kf3 60.Rf1+ Kg2
61.Ra1 g3 62.Ra2+ Kh3 63.Ra3 Kh2 64.Ra8 g2 65.Rh8+ Kg3 66.Rg8+
Kf2 67.Rg7 g1Q 68.Rxg1 Kxg1 69.Ke5 Kf2 70.Kd5 Ke3 71.Kc5 Rd4
72.Kb5 Kd3 73.Kc5 Kc3 74.Kb5 Rd5+ 75.Kb6 Kb4 76.Kc6 Kc4 77.Kb6
Rd6+ 78.Kb7 Kb5 79.Kc7 Kc5 80.Kb7 Rd7+ 81.Kc8 Kc6 82.Kb8 Rd8+
83.Ka7 Rf8 84.Ka6 Ra8# 0-1
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, August 5, 1910
However, the effort of trying to bust two such long-variation mates as those announced by Walden and Ford wore on the temper of C. S. Howell, and prompted some sour remarks in the annotations to Ford's win. "This has been the second announced mate of over thirty moves that it has been our pleasure (?) to examine." Howell wrote. "In the other one we demonstrated not only that the mate could not be accomplished, but that the game could be drawn. In this case we will not attempt to cook the mate, for Black can probably win in thirty-nine moves, but we wish to state that we do not believe such a position as this can be analyzed to a mate within the time limit allowed by the association, unless the player went without sleep and food, and moreover we consider the entire task a futile one. The object of a chess game is to win, not to make it a problem. The composers give us enough trouble in that line. Did anyone ever hear of Morphy or Lasker or any of the really great masters announcing a mate in thirty moves? … The rule is not conducive to good chess."
Ford "consider[ed] himself aggrieved" by Howell's remarks, according
to Hermann Helms, and so the Eagle published a letter
from the Texan. "From the tenor of Mr. Howell's notes," Ford
wrote, "his attempt to cook the mate has evidentially spoiled
his temper. As for overstepping the time limit, Mr. Hart can
testify that I always answered on time. In none of my correspondence
games have I ever taken over the limit. As for Morphy and Lasker
never announcing mate in thirty moves, Morphy did not play correspondence
chess and neither does Lasker…. The mate was really very easy
and took only a few hours' time, as the position is a simple
endgame, a win for Black. All you have to do is to see how long
White can prevent the queening of the pawn. When it queens,
it must be taken with the Rook. That leaves Black with King
and Rook versus King, and in such positions the Rook can always
mate in sixteen moves, as Mr. Howell will find if he will study
some good elementary work on the endings."
This little donneybrook between Howell and Ford ended quickly
when a third chessplayer, G. A. L'Hommede of Chicago, submitted
a cook of Ford's analysis to the Eagle. It appeared in
the same column as Ford's letter, immediately beneath it.
R. A. Hart - John Ford [C55] Analysis
PNCCA Grand National, 1900
After 51.Kf6 (Ford gave 51.Rg1+ in his
analysis) Kh5 52.Kg7, "Black will have some difficulty
in winning at all", according to L'Hommede. And there the matter
stopped.
Chance was to reunite Ford and Howell a year
later, when the PNCCA held an East versus West match. The Texan
and the New Yorker played into a line of the Ruy Lopez that
was the subject of much debate at the time. Harry Nelson Pillsbury,
the United States Champion, publicly disputed analysis by Boston
players John Barry and Franklin K. Young that 4. 0-0 was a "weak"
move, and Howell sided with Pillsbury. Hermann Helms stated
in his column that Howell had "assailed the Boston contingent
in hammer and tongs fashion" over the opening analysis.
And hammer and tongs is a good description of
the Howell-Ford game. The twenty-year old Clarence Seaman Howell,
although forgotten today, was one of America's top players at
the start of the twentieth century. Earlier in 1901 he had played
in the New York State Chess Association tournament in Buffalo,
New York, and had held US Champion Pillsbury to a draw in one
of their two games. Howell would in future years play in the
annual cable matches between the United States and Great Britain,
win the championship of the Brooklyn Chess Club, and capture
the New York State championship. He wasn't as easy for Ford
to deal with as the local Dallas players or his usual correspondence
opponents had been.
C. S. Howell - John Ford [C67]
PNCCA East vs West Match, 1901
Annotations by C. S. Howell
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 I am quite prone to
making this "weak" move. 4.d4 was analyzed to some extent by
Messrs. Napier, Chadwick, and myself at the Brooklyn Chess Club
about a year ago. It is undoubtedly strong, but personally I
prefer castles. There is one point strongly in favor of d4,
however, and that is that for several moves Black's replies
are almost forced, but even with this advantage it is difficult
to see how White can do more than get the customary Ruy Lopez
bind. 4...Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.dxe5 Played to in some measure
test the value of this variation. It has been said that the
defense to the Ruy Lopez stands or falls on 5...Nd6, and as
it seems likely it stands against 6.Bxc6, new developments in
the attack are worth studying. From a personal standpoint I
prefer 6.Bg5 , but as I may be saving some of my knowledge on
that variation for a subsequent cable match, I refrained from
playing it in this game. 6...Nxb5 7.a4 d6 8.e6 Bxe6 It
is pretty nearly settled that 8...fxe6 is better than ...Bxe6.
Against the text White's attack with the f pawn on Knight and
Bishop is likely to become irresistible. 9.axb5 Ne5 10.Nd4
c5 Probably not best, but it is difficult to see what is
good. White threatens to push the f pawn down rapidly, and something
must be done to stem the tide. 10...Qh4 , followed by ...Ng4
and ...Nf6 in reply to f4, might have been tried. 11.Nxe6
fxe6 12.f4 Nf7 13.Re1 e5 14.Nc3 Be7 15.Nd5 Playing directly
for an ending and preparing to demolish Black's Queenside. If
Black now castles, b6 gives White a promising game. The solidity
with which this Knight occupies d5 shows that Black's development
has been faulty. 15...b6 16.b4 Endgame tactics in the
opening. 16...cxb4 If 16...0-0 17.bxc5 bxc5 (if 17...dxc5
18.fxe5 etc.) 18.b6 Qd7 (obviously 18...axb6 loses
a piece.; if 18...a6 19.Nc7 followed by Rxa6; or if 18...a5
19.Nc7 Rb8 20.Rxa5 Rxb6 21.Na6 etc.) 19.Nc7 Rab8 (19...Rac8
20.Rxa7 with good chances.) 20.bxa7 etc. 17.Be3 0-0
18.Bxb6 axb6 19.Rxa8 Qxa8 20.Nxe7+ Kh8 21.Qh5
Nh6 22.fxe5 dxe5 23.Qxe5 Qa2 Not good, in view of subsequent
events, but attractive on the face of it. 23...Qa4 , a much
worse looking move, was probably better. It is possible that
I have overlooked better moves for Black throughout this annotation,
but I believe his game is logically lost in the opening, owing
to the holes which exist at d5 and e6, and the weak point on
the c file, as well as owing to the fact that White can disintegrate
his Queenside pawn position. After 24.Qd6 Black might have played
24...Qxc2 25.Ng6+ hxg6 26.Qxf8+ Kh7 27.Qxb4 and White's win
is very difficult. 24.Qd6 Qf7 25.Qxb6 Nf5 A peculiar
feature of the position is that after 25...Re8 26.Qe3 Black
must move his Rook away on account of Ng6+. 26.Nxf5 Qxf5
27.h3 Although White has steadily played to demolish Black's
Queenside pawns and establish a winning ending, the position
may be said to illustrate "luck in chess". Material becomes
even, Queens are on the board, and, under ordinary circumstances,
the result would be a draw. But it happens that Black's King
is behind pawns in a mating position, and although he may advance
his b pawn first, owing to White's remarkable command of the
board with his Queen at d6, Black's game is irretrievably lost.
Another lucky circumstance- it happened that I could take the
b6 pawn and guard the f2 square. Again, after Qd6, which attacks
Black's Rook and covers b8, I also cover all checks. Really,
it is not luck, but it is the nearest thing to it that can be
met in chess. 27...Qxc2 28.Qd6 Qf2+ 29.Kh2 h6 30.b6 1-0
The act of a gentleman who knows when he is beaten. Black might
have continued for some time, but must ultimately lose. If 30.b6
Rf6 31.Re8+ Kh7 32.Qd3+ Rg6 (if 32...g6 33.b7 Qf4+ 34.Qg3
etc.) 33.Rh8+ Kxh8 34.Qxg6 followed by Qg3 and Qc7 winning.
Mr. Ford wrote that he saw that I was determined to push on
the b pawn and not send my Queen pawn hunting, so he gave up.
My opponent also wrote, "To your Qd6 I have no adequate reply."
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, October 6, 1901
While this was a one-sided loss for Ford, it was just such experiences
as this that the Texas players had been seeking in correspondence
chess - the chance to meet "foemen worthy of their steel." And
it was Ford's fellow Texan Thomas Middleton who summed up the
feelings of the correspondence players in the Lone Star State.
As a newspaperman he was used to speaking his mind on paper,
so when Middleton sent a letter to Helms' chess column on the
origins and future of Texas chess in January 1900 it had all
the punch of a newspaper editorial: "I have at all times realized
that the Pillsbury National Correspondence Association was the
great force to popularize the game away from the established
chess centers, and with the Eagle to spread the work
of the association, we may expect big results. Here in Texas
we already have a fine state interest which we attribute primarily
to the Pillsbury Association. True, we have no 'masters', but
we have the material of which they are made, and let us hope
they are already in the process of creation."
And Texas chess today owes much to this "process of creation." The excitement for chess created by the correspondence players such as Walden and Middleton led over time to the diversity and richness of the current Texas chess scene. Chess breeds chess, it seems, to judge from the examples of these long-forgotten correspondence players and their desire to found a state association. Despite their limited access to over-the-board chess, Texas chessplayers of a century ago managed to practice, and perfect, their pastime with all the enthusiasm shown by TCA members today. With a little help from the US Postal Service, of course.
© 2005 Neil R. Brennen. All rights reserved.
This article was first published in the January-February 2005
issue of Texas Knights.
|