760
CHESS
merly the theory had been enriched by such enthusiasts as Dr Max Lange, Louis Paulsen, Professor Anderssen, Neumann, Dr Suhle, Falkbeer, Kieseritzky, Howard Staunton, Dr Zukertort, W. N. Potter, and Steinitz, foremost amongst them being Louis Paulsen. The openings were thoroughly overhauled, new variations discovered and tested in practical play over the board. These are now tempi passati. The masters who find flaws in old and discover new variations bring them to light only in matches or tournaments, as new discoveries have now a market value; new discoveries may gain prizes in matches or tournaments. For the same reason the romantic school is extinct, and the eliminating process alluded to above has resulted in the retention of a small repertoire only, sufficient for practical purposes in important contests. Gambits and kindred openings containing elements of chance are avoided, and the whole stock which a first-class player requires is a thorough knowledge of the Ruy Lopez, the Queen’s Pawn Openings, and the French and Sicilian Defences—openings which contain the least element of chance. The repertoire being restricted, it necessarily follows that the scope for grand combinations is also diminished, and only strategy or position play remains. The romantic school invariably aimed at an attack on the king’s position at any cost; nowadays the struggle is to obtain a “minute” advantage, and the whole plan consists in finding a weak spot in the opponent’s arrangement of forces, or to create such a weak spot—and this is the theory of the modern school, conceived and advocated by Steinitz (mentioned under “ End Games ”). But it is a curious fact that Steinitz founded the modern school rather late in life. He felt his powers of combination waning, and being the “ world’s champion,” and eager to retain that title, he started the new theory. This novel departure revolutionized chess entirely. The attacking and combination style was sacrificed to a sound, sober, and dry style; but Steinitz, strange to say, was not even the best exponent of his own theory, this position falling to younger players, Dr Siegbert, Tarrasch, Schlechter, Mr Amos Burn, and Dr Emanuel Lasker. Pillsbury and Janowsky adhere to both styles, the former in a high degree, and so did the late Dr Zukertort and Charousek, whilst Tchigorin is a free-lance, with a style of his own. The old charm of the game has gone— in match and tournament play at least—and beauty has been sacrificed to exact calculation and to scoring points. This is to be regretted, for the most beautiful games occur still if a player resorts to the gambits. One of the finest games in the Hastings tournament was played by Tchigorin against Pillsbury, and this was a King’s Gambit Declined; Charousek won a Bishop’s Gambit against Dr Lasker in the Nuremberg tournament; and some brilliant games occur in Queen’s Gambit Declined, if either white or black sacrifices the KP. Another reason why gambits should be adopted by players in tournaments is that competitors would necessarily be readily prepared for the regulation openings, so that the gambits might take them by surprise. After all, the new school is a natural consequence of the progress of the game. Paulsen, Anderssen, and Tchigorin devoted a lifetime to the Evans gambit, and volumes of analyses were written on it, and then comes Dr Lasker, revives an obsolete defence, and the Evans gambit disappears ! Dr Zukertort achieved a great success with 1 Kt to KB 3 in the London tournament, 1883, and since then this or the kindred 1 P to Q 4 opening has become the trusty weapon in serious encounters. Dr E. Lasker wrote Common Sense in Chess, and gave the best defences of the Buy Lopez (a certain form of it) ; and the “ common sense ” was demolished in the Paris and Nuremberg tournaments, and old forms of that remarkable opening
have to be refurbished. Any number of similar instances could be cited, but those mentioned will suffice to show the reason for the cautious style of the present day —the Moltkes have replaced the Napoleons. The former versatility of style could be revived gradually if club tournaments were organized differently. The players should be compelled to adopt one single opening only in a two-round contest, each player thus having attack and defence in turn. The next season another opening should form the programme, and so on. Even in international tournaments this condition might be imposed, and the theory would be enriched; full scope would be given to power of combination and ingenuity, whilst the games would be more interesting. The raison d’etre of tournaments being to further the progress of the game, the su es go fi°nj if would seem, might be seriously considered. Lovers of the game generally give special prizes for brilliant games, but these prizes are only an allurement to those competitors who no longer hope to gain any of the regular prizes. So as a last resource, having nothing to lose, they adopt a more enterprising style, even at the expense of soundness. The club trophies and the sums devoted to brilliancy prizes might be devoted to a more useful purpose—namely, as prizes for essays on the Openings, so as to induce experts to devote their leisure to the advancement of the theory. All these suggestions, however, could only be thoroughly carried out by a powerful central authority such as a British Chess Association. If amateurs like Sir George Newnes, Captain A. S. Beaumont, and Mr F. G. Neumann should take steps to reconstitute such an administrative body, a new era for English chess would dawn. There are still amateurs who devote their energies to the theory of the game; but so long as innovations or new discoveries are not tested by masters in serious games, they are of no value. A case in point may be cited. Steinitz used to keep a number of new discoveries ready to be produced in masters’ contests, the result being that his novelties were regularly demolished when it came to a practical test. The mistake was that he did not try his novelties over the board with an opponent of equal strength, instead of trusting to his own judgment. Literature. Chess literature has grown pari passu with the popular progress of the game. Gossip’s Manual and Wormald’s Openings were the last old-form works. No sooner did the Westminster Papers (the chief monthly magazine) cease publication, than the Chess Monthly was started in its stead by Hoffer and Zukertort, and was continued singlehanded by the former after Dr Zukertort’s death. It ceased publication after seventeen years’ existence. The former Huddersfield Magazine was converted into the British Chess Magazine, and this is now the only English monthly periodical. The demand for such a publication diminished as the daily press opened its pages to regular chess columns. After the famous London tournament in 1883, the Standard, Morning Post, and Daily News led the way in this matter, other papers following suit; and within recent years the Times has had an occasional chess column in its daily and a regular column in its weekly issue. The provincial papers devote still more space to chess than the London press, especially in their Saturday issues. The principal towns have two or more chess columns. Scotland has chess columns in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and Glasgow ; Ireland in Belfast and Dublin; and Wales in the Cardiff Evening Express. There are chess columns in every important town in Canada, in New South Wales, Victoria, Melbourne,
