Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 26 - AUS-CHI.pdf/807

This page needs to be proofread.

CHESS 751 The success of this tournament was mainly due to the enthusiastic Monte Carlo, 1901.—First, Janowsky ; second, Schlechter ; efforts of the late Dr Max Lange. third and fourth, Scheve and Tchigorin ; fifth, Alapin, followed Hastings, 1895.—First, Pillsbury ; second, Tchigorin ; third, by Mieses and Blackburne ; Gunsberg, Marshall, Mason, Marco, Lasker ; fourth, Tarrasch ; fifth, Steinitz ; sixth, Schitfers, fol- and Winawer not being placed. This tournament was originated lowed by Bardeleben and Teichmann. This tournament is by the Societe des Bains de Mer, M. Blanc, the director, entrusthistorical for the advent of Pillsbury, the American champion, ing the veteran master, M. Arnous de Riviere, with the carrying and Maroczy, the Hungarian champion ; Lasker being only third; out of the scheme. A novel rule was introduced, viz., the first Tarrasch, after four successive first prizes, being only fourth ; drawn game to count each, to be replayed, and in case of a draw and Steinitz, fifth ; whilst Schlechter, Blackburne, Marco, Janow- again to count ^ each, and in case of win J to the winner. Theosky, Mason, Walbrodt, Mieses, Bird, and Gunsherg were not placed retically this seems logical, but in practice it did not work as at all. Hastings must be considered the beginning of the greater well, the result being just the contrary to what was expected. tournaments. It is also a curious fact that Maroczy, the eminent Some players indulged in too many draws. Otherwise the Hungarian, was refused admission to the minor tournament tournament was a success. because his name was not known to the committee. Fortunately Problems. a vacancy gave him a chance of showing his skill. He won the first prize. A chess problem has been described as “ merely a posiNukemberg, 1896.—First, Lasker ; second, Maroczy ; third and fourth, Pillsbury and Tarrasch; fifth, Janowsky; sixth, tion supposed to have occurred in a game of chess, being Steinitz, followed by Schlechter and Walbrodt. Remarkable for none other than the critical point where your antagonist the first appearance of Charousek, and for the fact that Dr announces checkmate in a given number of moves, no Tarrasch was again low in the list, and Blackburne, Tchigorin, matter what defence you play.” Correct enough so far as Marco, Winawer, and Charousek not placed at all. Charousek it goes, the above description conveys no notion of the was just as obscure at Nuremberg as Maroczy was at Hastings. Dr Tarrasch detected the genius of the youthful candidate, and degree to which problem composing has become a specialized study of late years. At first but a modest adjunct of the admitted him to the tournament. Budapest, 1896.—First, Tchigorin ; second, Charousek ; third, game proper, owing its inception doubtless to the practice Pillsbury ; fourth and fifth, Janowsky and Schlechter ; sixth and seventh, Walbrodt and Winawer. Remarkable features: Maroczy of recording critical phases from actual play, wherein the not placed at all, and Dr Tarrasch only receiving a special prize issue turned upon some particularly subtle and instructive manoeuvre or strikingly brilliant move, the art of the for the best score against prize-winners. Berlin, 1897.—First, Charousek ; second, Walbrodt; third, problem composer has grown in favour until its numerous Blackburne ; fourth, Janowsky ; fifth, Burn, followed by Alapin, Marco, and Schlechter. Tchigorin, Winawer, and Teichmann not devotees justifiably style it the “poetry” of the game. placed, whilst Englisch had to abandon the tournament and The growing perception of the fact that the construction return to Vienna ill. He never recovered, and died a few weeks of problems, being in the nature of an “ art,” was governed later. by certain aesthetic rules of taste, had the effect of graduVienna, 1898.—First, Dr Tarrasch ; second, Pillsbury ; third, ally lessening their practical utility to players of the game, Janowsky ; fourth, Steinitz ; fifth, Schlechter ; sixth and seventh, and in course of time the positions themselves ceased to Burn and Tchigorin ; eighth and ninth, Lipke and Maroczy ; tenth, Alapin. Blackburne received a special prize. Dr Tarrasch bear necessarily any but the remotest resemblance to such achieved a remarkable victory in this important tournament. as would be likely to arise in the course of play. The Pillsbury’s chances were better than his, but he managed to run of this change, the first step in the evolution of the him neck and neck, and beat him in the tie match which followed. reason Although Lasker did not compete, the tournament was quite as chess problem, is not far to seek. A good chess problem exemplifies chess strategy idealimportant as that at Hastings. Cologne, 1898. — First, Burn; second, third, and fourth, ized and concentrated. In the finest extant examples of Charousek, Cohn, and Tchigorin; fifth, Steinitz; sixth and actual play there will necessarily remain on the board seventh-, Schlechter and Showalter, followed by Berger and both white and black pieces immaterial to the issue Janowsky. It is curious that Cohn stood first up to the last round ; in the end he gave way. Charousek, who was con- (checkmate), whereas in the “ idealized ” problematic valescent and played against the advice of the doctors, made a presentation of the same combination the composer, being slip in one of the games, a serious drawback in so short a contest. free to select his own materials, employs only indisLondon, 1899.—First, Dr Lasker ; second, third, and fourth equal, Janowsky, Maroczy, and Pillsbury ; fifth, Schlechter; sixth, jiensable force so as to focus attention on the idea, Blackburne; seventh, Tchigorin ; eighth, Showalter ; ninth, avoiding all material which would tend to “ obscure Mason. A very important tournament, organized under the the issue.” Whilst the element of difficulty is a highly auspices of the British Chess Club. It was a two-game tournament, desirable one in a chess problem, it must be due and a one-round tournament was held simultaneously. In the latter solely to the intrinsic depth of ideas and the artistic Marco, Mieses, and Marshall of America competed with some wellknown British amateurs. Marshall won the first prize. The chief manner in which it is expressed. Hence the use of otiose tournament was noteworthy for the fine games which occurred, force is rigorously eschewed, and the first object in a and for the fact that Janowsky sacrificed the second prize by problem composed in accordance with modern theories is trying to win a game against Steinitz when with an easy draw in to extract the maximum of finesse with a sparing use of hand he could have secured it. Munich, 1900.—Tie between Maroczy, Pillsbury, and Schlech- the pieces. “ Economy of force ” must be combined with ter for the three chief prizes ; fourth, Burn ; fifth, Marco ; sixth, “ purity of the mate,” in the chief lines of play at least. Cohn ; seventh and eighth divided between Berger, Janowsky, A proper understanding of what is meant by “ economy of Showalter, and Wolf. Lasker did not compete, but a new star was found in Wolf of Vienna, whilst France was represented by force ” will help to a better appreciation of the lines upon a talented amateur, M. Billecard. It was a close contest between which the evolution of the chess problem has proceeded. A Pillsbury, Maroczy, and Schlechter. Marozcy abandoned the very common mistake until comparatively recent years was contest owing to ill-health, and the two others fighting out the that of appraising the economy of a position according to tie made even games, and divided first and second prizes. A the slenderness of the force used, regardless of the fact big “Haupt” tournament with twenty-two entries was held, that economy is not a question of absolute values. The and several other tournaments. Paris, 1900.—First, Dr Lasker ; second, Pillsbury ; third and only true criterion is the ratio of force employed to the fourth, Maroczy and Marshall; fifth, Burn ; sixth, Tchigorin ; sum total of meritorious play in the course of the solution. seventh, Marco and Mieses. Schlechter, with an equal score to The earliest composers strove to give their productions the latter two, did not obtain a prize, because his total was made every appearance of real play, and indeed their composiup by a large number of drawn games, and under the rules this total was of inferior quality to the totals made up of won games. tions partook of the nature of ingenious end-games. The Marshall was unexpectedly successful; he beat both Lasker and entire interest is usually centred in a single forced line of Pillsbury, and for some time he had expectations of a higher play. It was usual to give Black a predominance of force, place even than the one he eventually obtained. This was a two- and to leave the White King in apparent jeopardy. From game tournament, and a number of very fine games were produced. Janowsky, Showalter, and Mason were not placed. this critical predicament he was extricated by a long series Didier, a French amateur, showed more talent than steadiness. of checking moves, usually involving a number of brilliant