Late Knight
by Richard Forster

The Mysterious Match (Part II)

In our previous column we gave what little information is available
on the somewhat mysterious match between Amos Burn and Rev.
John Owen in Liverpool 1874/1875. By the end of 1874 the score
stood at 8:4, the winner being the first to score eleven wins. Here
now are the seven remaining games, all of them very attractive
battles. They are given in the order of their date of publication,
although that is not always evidence of their true order. 

The spectacular game below appeared under the heading "played
recently in the match now pending between Mr. Burn and Mr.
Owen."

John Owen-Amos Burn Liverpool, Match (16?) January 1875
Queen's Gambit Accepted

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4 e5 4 d5?! 

Practice has shown 4 Nf3 to be the correct move here.

4 ... f5 5 Nc3 Nf6 6 Bxc4 fxe4 

McDonnell twice played 6 ... Bc5 against de Labourdonnais during
their 1834 matches, but within a few years it was recognised that
the text move was not only an improvement but actually gave
Black a pull.

7 Nxe4? 

Steinitz recommended 7 Nge2 and considered that the capture of
the black e-pawn was then only a matter of time.

7 ... Nxe4 8 Qh5+ g6 9 Qxe5+ Qe7 10 Qxh8 Qb4+ 11 Kf1 Qxc4+
12 Ne2 Bg4! 13 f3 Nc6! (See Diagram) 

In this sort of position Black can easily afford this spectacular
development. Nor was this the first time he had ventured the move
during the match, Owen having tried his 7th move once previously.
In Steinitz's words, "the situation is replete with intricate
complications of the rarest beauty".

14 Bf4 

There is nothing in 14 fxg4 0-0-0. For example 15 Bf4 Qxd5
(threatening mate with 16 ... Qd1+!) 16 Re1 Qc5 and wins (17 Bg3
Nd2 mate). Neither is 14 Bh6 0-0-0 15 Bxf8 Qxd5! 16 Re1 Bxf3!
17 gxf3 Nd2+ 18 Kg1 Nxf3+ 19 Kf2 Nxe1 20 Rxe1 Qf5+ any
good. For 14 dxc6 see below.

14 ... 0-0-0?

The consistent follow-up to the previous moves but, as will be seen
in the note to move 17, White can escape. Simply 14 ... Qxd5! 15
fxg4 (If 15 fxe4 Bxe2+ 16 Kxe2 Qxe4+, and White is absolutely
helpless.) 15 ... 0-0-0 16 Re1 Qc5 would have won.

15 Qxh7 

Threatening mate in one, and thus winning an important tempo.

15 ... Ne7 

15 ... Nd4 allows the defensive shot 16 Qxc7+!

16 Rc1 (See Diagram)

16 ... Nxd5! 

This beautiful move was also planned against 16 fxg4. Now not 17
Rxc4? Ne3+! and 18 ... Rd1 mate, no matter what White plays.

17 Qxg6? 

Owen does not stand up to the heavy pressure and succumbs to
Burn's flamboyant play. 

17 ... Qxe2+ 18 Kxe2 Nxf4+ and White resigned in a few moves.
Instead of the weak 17 Qxg6 he could have survived the onslaught
with the multipurpose move 17 Qh4! defending e1 (and thus
threatening to take the black queen) and attacking the bishop at g4
and the rook on d8 at the same time. Both sides have to play very
carefully to avoid immediate defeat: 17 ... Qxe2+! 18 Kxe2 Nxf4+
19 Kf1 Nd2+ 20 Kf2 Nd3+ 21 Ke3 (All the king moves are more
or less forced.) (See Diagram)

21 ... Bf5! 22 Kxd2 Nf4+ 23 Qxd8+! Kxd8 resulting in an
interesting ending with two rooks and a pawn for three pieces.
Black's minor pieces are somewhat stronger than White's rooks,
but the game would have been far from over. [The Illustrated
London News, 13.2.1875] 

It is quite surprising that Burn did not give this game or the next
one in his own column in the Liverpool Weekly Albion. 

John Owen-Amos Burn Liverpool, Offhand Game, January
1875 Queen's Gambit Accepted

"The following beautiful skirmish was contested some time ago
between the Rev. J. Owen and Mr. Burn, twice the champion of the
Counties Chess Association. Up to the 14th move it is identical
with one of the games in a match now in progress between the
same opponents, and this brilliant partie seems to have been played
chiefly with the view of testing a novel line of attack and defence
that had occurred on the former occasion." (Steinitz)

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4 e5 4 d5 f5 5 Nc3 Nf6 6 Bxc4 fxe4 7 Nxe4
Nxe4 8 Qh5+ g6 9 Qxe5+ Qe7 10 Qxh8 Qb4+ 11 Kf1 Qxc4+ 12
Ne2 Bg4 13 f3 Nc6 14 dxc6

The deviation from the game above, but Black's attack is too strong
in any case.

14 ... 0-0-0! 15 Bh6 Qd3! 

If 15 ... Bxh6 16 cxb7+, but now both 16 ... Qd1+ and 16 ... Bxh6
are threatened, and White must lose something. 

16 cxb7+ Kxb7 17 Re1 Bxh6 18 Qe5 Bxf3 

Stronger still was 18 ... Qxf3+! 19 gxf3 Bh3+ 20 Kg1 Be3 mate.

19 Qe6 Bxe2+ 20 Rxe2 Rf8+ 21 Ke1 Qb1 mate. [The Field,
London, 10.4.1875]

The next encounter was given by Burn as a "game played the other
day". The fact that a wild King's Gambit was chosen is a strong
clue that the game did not belong to the official series.

Amos Burn-John Owen Liverpool Match, January 1875 King's
Gambit

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4 Qh4+ 4 Kf1 d5 5 Bxd5 c6 6 Bb3 g5 7 Nf3
Qh5 8 d4 Ne7 9 h4 Ng8(?)

"Black now intended to play 9 ... Ng6, but seeing, after touching
the piece, that white could capture 10 Bxf7+, followed by 11
Nxg5+, he played the knight back to g8 thus losing two moves."
Burn. 

10 Nc3 Be6 11 Bxe6 fxe6 12 Nxg5 Qg6 13 Bxf4 h5 14 Rh3 Nd7
15 Qd3 0-0- 0 16 Qc4 Re8 17 Nb5 e5 18 dxe5 Nxe5 19 Nxa7+
Kb8 (See Diagram)

20 Rb3! Kxa7 21 Bxe5 Rxe5 22 Qd4+ Rc5 23 Ra3+ Kb6 24
Qd8+ Kb5 25 Ra5+ Kc4 26 Ra4+ Kb5 27 Qa5 mate. [The
Liverpool Weekly Albion, 23.1.1875]

John Owen-Amos Burn Liverpool, Match (18), November 1875
Irregular Opening 

1 e3 c5 2 b3 g6?! 

Hardly the best move in this position, but the source of a highly
original and fascinating battle.

3 Bb2 f6 4 Nf3 

Potter advocated 4 f4 here.

4 ... Bg7 5 c4 Nh6 6 Nc3 Nc6 7 Ne4 b6 8 Ng3 Bb7 9 a3 Qc7 

"He skilfully prepares to Castle on the Queen's side, leaving the
mass of pieces on his opponent's King's side to attack but an empty
citadel." Potter.

10 Be2 Nd8 11 Qc2 a6 12 h4 Ndf7! 

Defending g5 and allowing the kingside to be kept closed on the
next move (otherwise 14 Nxg5! would be possible).

13 h5 g5 14 Bd3 g4 15 Nh4 Ng5 (See Diagram)

A funny position! 

16 0-0-0 e6 17 Rdg1 

Potter preferred 17 Rhg1.

17 ... 0-0-0 18 e4?! 

Unnecessarily weakening the dark squares. But Black's experiment
seems to have been successful in any event, for White has not been
able to exploit Black's awkward kingside development.

18 ... Nhf7 19 Ne2 Ne5 20 f3 Rhg8! 21 Rf1 f5!? 

Seizing the initiative.

22 Bxe5? 

Giving up this bishop is suicidal. 22 exf5 was indicated.

22 ... Qxe5 23 exf5 Qa1+ 24 Qb1 Qxa3+ 25 Kc2 gxf3 26 gxf3
d5! 27 Nc3 

Potter suggested that White had to sacrifice the exchange with 27
f4! dxc4 28 Bxc4 Bxh1 29 fxg5 or 29 Rxh1. Indeed, he would have
reasonable chances then, but Black has a much stronger
continuation of his attack in 28 ... b5! and after 29 fxg5 bxc4 or 29
Bd3 Rxd3! and 30 ... Be4 White must lose.

27 ... Bxc3! 28 dxc3 

Forced, because 28 Kxc3 allows 28 ... dxc4 and 29 ... Qb4+.

28 ... dxc4 (See Diagram)

29 bxc4 

On 29 Bxc4 Burn could have destroyed White's defences with 29
... Nxf3!, when the white knight must stay at h4 to defend g2. The
threats 30 ... Rd2 mate and 30 ... Nxh4 and 31 ... Rg2+ would have
been decisive.

29 ... Qa4+ 

"Except under immediate coercion we could not consent to let the
King escape from a spot where he must feel so very uncomfortable,
and if our eyes told us there was nothing to be done we should
sternly ask them if they had ever heard of Ananias and Sapphira.
Of course, very often our eyes should be right, and we should be
wrong. Here, however, our medii of optical perception, which we
admit for a time warred with our instincts, must give us in best, for
to the move of 29 ... Bc6 there seems no good reply, for example:
29 ... Bc6 30 Qxb6 Ba4+ 31 Kb1 Rxd3 simply, and White's checks
are worth nothing, for the King always safely gets to f6, where he
can be checked no more. On the other hand, if White play 31 Kd2,
his days are shortened considerably by 31 ... Rxd3+ followed by 32
... Rd8+ [in fact, Black should insert 31 ... Qa2+ before taking on
d3, because in Potter's variation White's king escapes to f4]. 

Suppose, then, we try 30 Qa1 (apparently best) Ba4+ 31 Kd2 Qb3
32 Qb1 (32 Rd1 seems of little use, for Black evidently gets the
best of it if he only play 32 ... exf5) Qxc4 33 Ke2 Qxc3 34 Bxa6+
Kc7 35 Qc1 Qe5+ (here Black would evidently get a winning
position by exchanging Queens, and playing then ... b5) 36 Kf2
(covering with 36 Qe3 would be bad on account of 36 ... Qb2+) 36
... exf5. Here we may leave Black with two passed Pawns ahead,
and with some meat left on the bone in other respects." Potter.

To this fine piece of analysis we can add the improvement 32 Ke2!
instead of 32 Qb1, but after 32 ... Rxd3! 33 Kxd3 Rd8+ 34 Ke3
Qxc4 Black's onslaught cannot be parried in the long term.

30 Kb2 Qd7 31 Rd1?! 

Better was 31 Bc2 according to Potter.

31 ... Nxf3 32 fxe6 Qa4 

Here Potter mentions the strong move 32 ... Qe7! instead, taking
care of White's e-pawn in time 

33 e7! Rde8 34 Bc2? 

Now this move is superfluous. Potter's first suggestion 34 Nf5 fails
to 34 ... Rg2+ 35 Bc2 Rxc2+! 36 Qxc2 Qxc2+ 37 Kxc2 Be4+ and
wins, but 34 Bxh7 is a better continuation, leading to an unclear
situation after 34 ... Rxe7! etc.

34 ... Qxc4 35 Nf5 Qb5+ 36 Bb3 Rg2+ 37 Kc1 (See Diagram)

37 ... Qe2?

Strong, but wrong. As Burn noted after the game, he could have
won with 37 ... Qa5!

38 Bc4! 

Exploiting the fork on d6 to gain time for counter-play. Much
weaker is 38 Bf7 Rxe7 39 Bc4 Qe5 40 Nxe7+ Qxe7 41 Qf5+ Kb8
42 Qf4+ Ka7 and Black is clearly better.

38 ... Qe5 39 Qd3! Kb8? 

Baffled by White's sudden counter-threats, Burn loses the thread.
Correct was 39 ... Qf4+ with the likely continuation 40 Ne3
(weaker is 40 Kb1 Rd2 41 Nd6+ Kb8!) Kb8 41 Qd6+ (not 41
Qd8+ Ka7) 41 ... Qxd6 42 Rxd6 Rd2! 43 Rxd2 Nxd2 44 Rd1 Bf3!
45 Rxd2 Rxe7 and after 46 Nd5 or 46 Nf5 Black should be able to
draw with 46 ... Re1+, as indicated by Potter.

40 Qd6+ Ka7 41 Qxe5 Nxe5 42 Bd5! (See Diagram)

Showing good judgement. Despite being a pawn down, White has
much the better of the endgame owing to his strong passed pawn.
Winning the exchange with 42 Rd8 Rxe7 43 Nxe7 Nxc4 would
have been much weaker. The brilliant point of Owen's move is
shown after 42 ... Rf2 43 Bxb7 Rxf5 44 Rd8! Rxe7 45 Be4! and
the mate threat on a8 wins a piece. 

42 ... Bxd5 43 Rxd5

Black is lost. The final attack is conducted by Owen with
impeccable technique.

43 ... Nf7 44 Rd7+ Kb8 45 h6! Re2 46 Rhd1 Kc8 47 Ra7 Kb8 48
Rdd7 Ne5 49 Rdb7+ Kc8 50 Nd6 mate. [City of London Chess
Magazine, December 1875, p. 341]

Below is the final match game which gave Burn victory by 11 wins
to 6.

John Owen-Amos Burn Liverpool, Match (20), December 1875
English Opening

1 c4 e5 2 e3 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nc6 4 Nf3 d5 5 cxd5 Nxd5 6 Bb5 Nxc3 7
Bxc6+?! 

Black's bishop pair and open lines more than compensate for the
slightly damaged pawn structure. Owen should have recaptured on
c3 immediately.

7...bxc6 8 bxc3 e4! 9 Ne5 Bd6! 10 Nxc6 Qd7 11 Qa4? (See
Diagram)

Surprisingly this leads to the loss of his knight, but after 11 Nd4
Ba6! Black also has a clear advantage.

11...Bb7! 12 Qxe4+ Kf8! 13 Ne5

Owen had relied on this knight move, but Burn's calculations had
gone further. 

13 ... Bxe4 14 Nxd7+ Ke7! 

Revealing the final point of 11 ... Bb7: the knight is trapped. White
obtains only two pawns in return, and despite stubborn resistance
and a daring king march Owen cannot avoid the loss of the game
and the match.

15 Nc5 Bxc5 16 d4 Bd6 17 f3 Bd3 18 e4 f6 19 Kf2 Rab8 20 Re1
Rb5 21 f4 Kd7 22 e5 fxe5 23 dxe5 Bc5+ 24 Kf3 Bc4 25 Ke4 c6
26 f5 Bd5+ 27 Kf4 Bxg2 28 e6+ Ke8 29 Rd1 Rf8 30 a4 Rb3 31
Ke5 Bh3 32 Rd3 Rxf5+ 33 Ke4 Rh5 34 Bg5 Bxe6 35 h4 Bd5+ 36
Kf5 g6+ 37 Kg4 h6 38 Re1+ Kf7 39 Rf1+ Kg8 40 Rf6 Kg7 41
Rxd5 cxd5 42 White resigns. [Turf, Field and Farm, 21.1.1876]

The next two match games appeared in The Field half a year after
the termination of the match. In both cases the introduction reads
"played in the late match", so we can assume that they also belong
to the 1874/1875 match because nothing is known of any other
official series during this period.

Amos Burn-John Owen Liverpool Match, 1874/1875 Owen's
Defence

1 e4 e6 2 d4 b6 3 g3 Bb7 4 Bg2 Nf6 5 Nd2 c5 6 c3 cxd4 7 cxd4
Bb4 8 f3 Nc6 9 Ne2 0-0 10 0-0 Ba6 11 Nb3 e5! 12 d5 Nd4 13
Nexd4 

A somewhat desperate exchange sacrifice, after the opening has
been no success at all for White.

13 ... Bxf1 14 Bxf1 exd4 15 Qxd4 a5 16 a3 Bd6 17 Bb5 

A better try was 17 e5 a4 18 exd6 axb3 19 Bg5 with fair chances.

17 ... Qe7 18 Kh1 a4! 19 Bxa4 Be5 20 Qc4 

Black is also better after 20 Qb4 Qxb4 21 axb4 Rfc8.

20 ... Ne8? 

The straightforward 20 ... Rfc8 21 Qb5 Rc2 gave him a big
advantage.

21 f4 Nd6 22 Qb4 (See Diagram)

22 ... Qf6! 23 Kg1 

Of course the bishop cannot be taken because of mate on f1, but
better was 23 Nd2! and 24 Bc2 to untangle the uncomfortable
position on the queenside and support the centre.

23 ... Nxe4! 24 Qxe4 Bxb2 25 Bxb2? 

Slightly better was 25 Rb1 Bxc1 26 Rxc1.

25 ... Qxb2 26 Rb1? 

Allowing a final little combination, but after 26 Qb4 Rfe8 Black
should win too.

26 ... Rxa4! White resigned. [The Field, 8.7.1876]

The Field merely states: "The following game was played in the
late match between Messrs. Burn and Owen."

Amos Burn-John Owen Liverpool, Match, 1874/1875 King's
Fianchetto

1 g3(!) 

"Necessary. Any other move loses to 1 ... b6." Burn.

1 ... e5 2 Bg2 d5 3 d3 Nf6 4 f4 exf4 5 Bxf4 Bd6 6 Bg5 c6 7 Nc3
Nbd7 8 Nf3 0-0 9 e4 Qb6 10 Qd2 d4 

Owen is not interested in poisoned pawns and prefers to play for
the initiative. Once again the game has taken an unusual course
early in the opening.

11 Nd1 Ng4 12 0-0 Nc5 13 Kh1 Ne6 14 c3 f6 15 Bf4 Nxf4 16
gxf4 Ne3 (See Diagram)

17 Nxd4!? 

A well-motivated exchange sacrifice. White gets rid of Black's
most dangerous piece and gains much space in the centre.

17 ... Nxf1 18 Bxf1 c5 19 Nf3 Bg4 20 Nh4 Qc7 21 f5 Qf7 

The consistent follow-up to his previous moves, but the bishop at
g4 will be in trouble all too soon and should have returned home
again.

22 Ne3 Qh5 23 Qf2 Qg5 24 Nd5 Rae8 25 Bg2 g6 26 Rg1! 

Winning some material.

26 ... gxf5 27 Bh3 Kh8 28 Nxf5 Bxh3 

Losing without a fight. He could still have put up stiff resistance
with the temporary queen sacrifice 28 ... Qxf5! 29 exf5 Re2 etc.

29 Nxd6 Re5 30 Rxg5 Rxg5 31 Nf4 Bd7 32 Nxb7 f5 33 Qxc5
Rfg8 34 Nd6 Black resigned. [The Field, 4.11.1876]

Readers able to shed more light on the intricacies of the mysterious
match are warmly invited to communicate them!

My thanks go to Nick Pope, Alan Smith and Ken Whyld for
supplying a substantial amount of material for this article.