The Kibitzer
by Tim Harding

A History of The City of London Chess Magazine (Part 2)

This month's Kibitzer column continues our look at chess in
London, England, in the mid-1870s through the eyes of  magazine
editor and chess master William Potter. The source material is the
second volume of his City of London Chess Magazine (published
February 1875 to January 1876).

Before continuing with the story, I want to thank the two readers
who answered my query last month regarding the item about Mr
Tilton who stayed up all night studying chess problems rather than
retire to bed with his (possibly adulterous wife). I can now fill in a
few of the details.

First, Peter Marshall emailed to say, "This was the great New
England scandal involving the famous divine Henry Ward Beecher
charged with adultery with Tilton's wife. Much has been written on
this case (I think a very recent book??) and Beecher's career was
ruined, even though he was not found guilty. But I don't remember
about the injured husband being a chessplayer!"

Then Eugene Kramer of Rochester, New York, provided more
details: "In your wonderful article on the London Chess Magazine,
you ask if any of your readers can tell you more about the Beecher-
Tilton case. Long before Clinton-Lewinsky, even before Charles
Stuart Parnell and Mrs. O'Shea - there was Henry Ward Beecher
[1813-1887] the high-profile Protestant minister, lecturer, and
author from Brooklyn, New York, and Mrs. Tilton."

According to Encyclopedia Britannica's on-line edition, "Beecher,
always considered an emotional and sensual man, became in the
1870s the subject of rumours alleging immoral affairs, and he was
sued in 1874 by his former friend and literary prot‚g‚ Theodore
Tilton, who charged him with adultery with his wife. Two
ecclesiastical tribunals exonerated Beecher, though the jury in the
civil suit failed to reach agreement, as have later students of the
evidence."

Now, on to 1875 and the chess scene in London.

The first issue of volume 2 was apparently for February (as the
magazine had begun in February 1874). Very early on in the news
items, I came across the following intriguing paragraph.

"A self-registering Chessboard has long been a want in the chess
world, but if the information we have received on very good
authority be correct it need be so no longer. We are informed that
Dr. G. F. W. Baehr, Professor at the Polytechnic School, Delft,
Holland, has, after much trouble, succeeded in inventing a board
which registers each move as it is made. Its mechanism is so
simple that it is not likely to get out of order even with rough
treatment, and the cost price will be low enough to enable all
lovers of the game to purchase it...We shall be glad to hear of the
invention having been properly tested by competent judges, and a
report made, so that the Chess public may have a guarantee that it
will satisfactorily answer the intended purpose... We think there is
nothing like bringing such claims to a practical issue...That such a
Chessboard would be an inestimable boon to match-players is clear
enough, while even in ordinary games the players would like such
an easy method of scoring their moves, so that they might play
them over afterwards and see where they had gone astray. Not the
least advantage to be derived from the invention, if it answer its
purpose, would be the preservation of beautiful and instructive
games played by great masters such as are now daily lost for want
of being registered."

It would have been a wonderful invention, had it really been so
easy as it sounded, but the technology of 1875 could not have been
up to such a task. It is hard to imagine that any real useful "self-
registering board" was possible before the invention of the
computer and modern sensory board!

Later in the year, the magazine published a letter from two
Dutchmen who had been called upon to give an independent
report. It seems that the pieces had to be placed in holes in the
centre of each square, making a mark on a piece of paper, the same
size as the board, to be placed between board and table. Then a
knob at the side of the board had to be turned before a move for the
opponent could be registered. At any time after the game, the
marks on the paper could be transcribed to create a game score in
the usual notation. The verdict seems to have been that the
invention was ingenious and did work, but was perhaps not very
practical, especially for match games played with clocks.

As reported in the previous Kibitzer, the editor of The City of
London Chess Magazine, William M. Potter, had published a
largely sympathetic obituary on the death of Howard Staunton.
Now, a few issues later, came a second appreciation of that titan of
English chess, from none other than Heydebrand von der Lasa,
editor of the Handbuch des Schachspiels.

Writing in November 1874 from Copenhagen, where I believe he
was serving as a diplomat, the German master and historian had
this to say about Staunton.

"In the August number of your Magazine I have met with an
interesting article on our deceased friend Staunton. The paper
begins with a parallel between that accomplished master and the
late Mr. Buckle. In my opinion, the latter, though very correct in
his calculations, and perhaps, in a serious match, a safer player
than Staunton, was, nevertheless, inferior to him if we take the
whole style of play into consideration. A certain monotony prevails
in all the games of Buckle, and the defensive move of K's P 1 in
the beginning occurs rather too often. Staunton's play undoubtedly
belonged to a higher and a more varied order of combinations.

"Your scale of appreciation of the play of the two celebrated
amateurs, though it equally tends to deny Buckle's superiority, does
not hold good as far as the indications of time are concerned. You
cannot fairly compare Buckle, when playing in Berlin, to Staunton
shortly after the London tournament in 1851. Buckle's visit to
Berlin took place already eight years earlier. He then played some
games with Bledow, against whom he lost the majority, but none
of the games have been preserved. With me Buckle did not play
more than three very indifferent games, of which he lost the first
and last and won the second...

"From certain remarks towards the end of your article I see that you
do not hesitate in declaring that Staunton could sometimes show
very unkind feelings in his intercourse with distinguished amateurs
as soon as he, for some reason or other, did not like them. These
animosities must have exercised a somewhat injurious influence on
the common cause of Chess, which Staunton otherwise was always
ready to promote."

Von der Lasa makes a good excuse for Staunton.

"His only excuse, I think, lay in his great irritability of temper,
undoubtedly the result of physical sufferings. The fact is that for
many years he had been subject to a disease of the heart; this does
not appear to be universally known, but to me it seems the clue to
some of his peculiarities and several hitherto unexplained
incidents. An attack, for instance, of this illness was, I presume, the
real cause why, in the middle of the famous match with St. Amant,
when in the beginning he had won nearly every game, his strength
of a sudden gave way and the opponent got a temporary chance to
retrieve his losses."

Staunton's heart condition apparently dated from 1841 when he
suffered a serious bout of pneumonia. The match with St. Amant
was played in 1843.

Von der Lasa's memoir continues: "It will offer, perhaps, some
interest to you if I make you acquainted with the following episode
relating to Staunton's state of health, and in reference to his
proceedings towards Anderssen-

"After the London tournament, Staunton wished very much to re-
conquer his previous ascendancy by a new encounter with the
winner of the first prize, but as much as I could ascertain, it was
constant ill-health that made him postpone the execution of his
plan. In 1853, during a visit to Belgium, he had not yet entirely
abandoned the idea of the projected match, and when at that time
he heard that I had been, some weeks before, in Breslau, and had
myself made there a few games with my far-renowned countryman,
he came to see me at Brussels with the object, as it appeared to me,
not only of playing some games, but also of obtaining, from what I
would say about Anderssen's play, such information as might serve
him to fix his determination on the eventual challenge. During his
stay in Brussels, you know, I enjoyed the pleasure of making with
Staunton a dozen of games. One of these games was played on the
19th September late in the evening; you find it reproduced in the
Chess Chronicle, 1853, page 293.

"In the outset the game was in favour of Staunton, but playing then
negligently he lost it somewhat abruptly. The next morning he
wrote me a note saying - 'I have got so severe an attack of my old
enemy, palpitation of the heart, that I dare not undergo the
excitement of Chess; I hope to be more myself to-morrow'. And
again next day - 'I regret to say I am still suffering, and think it
better to wait another day before I have any mental labour . It was
not sitting late that brought on the attack, but nervous irritability at
feeling how sadly I have fallen off in mental vigour of play.'

"This incident made it evident that Staunton's physical state did no
more allow him to play important games. His project of a meeting
with Anderssen fell to the ground, and from this time, I believe, he
did not engage in any serious match. In the course of years he
frequently alluded to his shattered health, and for the last time he
mentioned it on the 29th November, 1873, in a letter which I got
from him in return for my sending him a copy of the first portion of
Bilguer's Handbook. 'I have myself,' he said, 'been engaged on a
work of the same nature... Many sheets of it were in type this time
last year, when I was attacked by my old complaint,   and was
compelled to lay it aside. The sight of your book will tempt me to
resume my own, I hope'.

"Having been during more than thirty years on friendly terms with
the deceased, I intend to write some words in his memory for the
German public, as I have done after Jaenisch's death and for W.
Lewis in the Schachzeitung, 1873, page 128. If I am rightly
informed the above-mentioned Chess treatise to which Staunton
devoted the last time of his life is about to be published. I will wait
for its appearance, as it may be accompanied by valuable
biographical information.

"Staunton's letter of November last was altogether written in a
most friendly tone, and spoke likewise in affectionate terms of
other players. 'I was sorry,' he wrote, 'to lose Lewis and St. Amant,
my dear friends Bolton and Sir T. Madden, and others of whom we
have been deprived, but for Jaenisch I entertained a particular
affection, and his loss was proportionately painful to me. He was
truly an amiable and an upright man.' I think you were justified in
the supposition that Staunton, had he lived longer, might have
come to refrain more and more from all offensive steps on his side.

"I beg to remain, Yours respectfully, Vd. Lasa"

It may be noted that neither Potter nor von der Lasa make any
reference to Paul Morphy, which may surprise those who like me
were brought up on the view that Staunton ducked a match with
the young American genius in 1857-8. On the contrary, it is clear
from their accounts that such a match was never a serious
possibility, given the state of Staunton's health and the literary
work he was engaged upon in the late 1850s.

Potter had, as we saw last month, published one of the recent
games that von der Lasa had played in Denmark. When sending his
magazines, he had requested some more games but the German
replied modestly

"As to your willingness to publish some of my own games, I regret
to state that I do not dispose of a single game played within the last
three or four years. Since a very long time, and almost since I left
Berlin in 1843, I have gradually retired from the practice of Chess.
The few games which, notwithstanding, I still make now and then,
are scarcely worth public attention, and it is not myself who ever
takes them down. However, induced by the wish of being agreeable
to you, I take the liberty to enclose a couple of old games, but even
these specimens of a time now nearly forgotten are unsatisfactory,
for all such parts of my old collections which were thought fit for
publication have been exhausted long ago."

Potter published the following game, which I did not find hitherto
in my database.

H. von der Lasa - Major Jaenisch Berlin, 1842 Kieseritsky
Gambit

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 h5?

The Long Whip variation, which is totally discredited now. Instead
5...d6 and 5...Nf6 are the critical lines.

6 Bc4 Rh7 7 d4 d6?

Zukertort said "Not good as White can now obtain a won game by
8 Nxf7! Rxf7 9 Bxf7+ Kxf7 10 Bxf4 This discovery, however, was
made years after this game was played." (Korchnoi & Zak's book
on the King's Gambit however cites a game Stanley-Fraser, London
1837! I wonder is that right?)

Zukertort indicated 7...f3 "but even after 8 gxf3 d6 9 Nd3 Be7 10
Be3 Bxh4+ 11 Kd2 I prefer White's game."

8 Nd3 (See Diagram)

8...Be7

Zukertort observes that Black could play 8...f3 which was tried in a
better-known game from the same date between the same players,

9 Bxf4 Bxh4+ 10 g3 Bg5 11 Qd2 Bxf4 12 Nxf4 h4 13 Nc3 h3

"By this and the preceding move Black has obtained a passed pawn
whilst White has brought all his pieces in action against the
opponent's none. This game being played between the two first
analytical writers of their age is a proof that skill will always
decide," wrote Zukertort. (See Diagram)

14 0-0-0 c6 15 Rde1 Ne7 16 Rhf1 Kd7 17 e5 Kc7

If 17...d5 White obtains an overwhelming attack by 18 Bxd5 cxd5
19 Ncxd5 Nxd5 20 Nxd5 Rg7 21 Nf6+ Kc7 (best) 22 Qc3+ Nc6 23
d5 Bd7 24 dxc6 Bxc6 25 Rd1 etc.

18 exd6+ Qxd6 19 Ne4 Qh6 20 Ng5! (See Diagram)

20...Be6 21 Nxh7 Bxc4

Black has no escape. If 21...Qxh7 22 Bxe6 fxe6 23 Nxe6+ and
wins the queen, or mates in two more moves.

22 Nd5+ Nxd5 23 Qxh6 Bxf1 24 Rxf1 Nd7 25 c4 1-0.

The second issue of the magazine reported the death of Mr Cecil de
Vere, who died of tuberculosis in his 30th year, alcohol probably
being a contributory factor to his early demise. "This is a serious
loss to the English chess world; for the deceased, as is well known,
was one of that body of strong players who have raised so high the
reputation of this country, being as they were the exponents of a
school of Chess, which, as we believe, for soundness, depth,
accuracy of calculation, and breadth of grasp cannot be matched
anywhere, Germany certainly not excepted."

De Vere had won the first official British Chess Championship at
the age of 21 and had performed creditably in the Paris 1867 and
Baden-Baden 1870 international tournaments. As chess
correspondent of The Field, he proved less successful. Potter's
obituary speaks of "his natural indolence... and irregular way of
life". The column, after about 15 months stewardship, had been
taken away from De Vere and bestowed upon Steinitz.

Cecil de Vere - Henry Bird City of London Chess Club
handicap, 24 November 1873 Ruy Lopez, Bird's Defence

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Nxd4 exd4 5 d3 c6 6 Bc4 Qh4?!
7 0-0 Nf6 8 e5 Ng4 9 Bf4 h5 10 Nd2 Qd8 11 Qf3 d5 12 exd6 Be6
13 Rae1 Qd7 14 Ne4 0-0-0 15 Nc5 Bxc4 16 Nxd7 Bd5 17 Nxf8
Bxf3 18 d7+ 1-0

Potter commented: "No notes seem to be required to the above
game. It is played by Mr de Vere in his usual straightforward style.
He always chose the nearest road to the end, and was not one to
delight in elaboration where none was required."

The following issue had another previously unpublished game, sent
in by the loser. Here is the finish.

Cecil de Vere - I.O. Howard Taylor Westminster Chess Club,
London, 1868 (See Diagram):

White: Kh1, Qg4, Nh5, Be2, Rc1, h3; pawns - b3, d5, e4, f5, g2,
h2
Black: Kh8, Qf2, Ba7, d7, Rc8, f7; pawns - a6, b5, c3, e5, f6, g7,
h7

29 Qg6! Kg8 30 Qxh7+ 1-0.

If 30...Kf8 (30...Kxh7 31 Nxf6#) 31 d6 Ke8 32 Qg8+ Rf8 33
Nxg7+ and mate in 2.

This issue also carried a favourable review by J. Wisker of the 2nd
edition of Robert B. Wormald's book The Chess Openings. "It is
certainly the best book on the openings that exists in English". In
view of the vastly increased number of published games nowadays,
it is amusing to see a writer in the mid-1870s complain of "the
accumulations of the past decade... The mass of materials has
become almost beyond management."

Wisker praises the section on the Two Knights Defence in
particular, but laments that the author "seems to fall into the old
error of attributing a decided preference" to (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3)
2...Nc6, saying "This is certainly more popular and more pleasant
than 2...Nf6, but the latter secures the second player an even game
with less trouble and danger." The Scotch Gambit "is one of the
weakest chapters in the book, chiefly on account of the insufficient
attention given to the variations arising out of 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3
d4 exd4 4 Nxd4, by far the most important branch of the gambit".
Strangely as it seems to us today, the concluding part of this book
on chess openings was devoted to problems! There may have been
marketing considerations at work here, but apparently Wormald
had a genuine interest in problems.

Towards the end of the year, Steinitz was allowed to re-review
Wormald's Chess Openings and he took a quite different view of
the book than Wisker had done, supporting his scathing opinions
by detailed analyses. He questioned Wormald's credentials to write
such a work and cited Lessing's celebrated verdict "What is new is
not true, and what is true is not new".

As usual, this issue includes correspondence from readers and
devotes several pages to problems and games played by amateurs
at odds etc.

The next issue of the magazine has a good deal of topical news of
no special interest to us nowadays. There follows a theoretical
article by Zukertort on the variation 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4
Ng5 Nxe4?! which I discussed back in Kibitzer 5.

In the games section, I find, among others, several from the 3rd
Oxford v Cambridge university match, a well-known game by
Steinitz against a London amateur, Seymour, and the following
correspondence game, annotated by Zukertort.

Beardsell - Keats England corr, circa 1874 Scotch Game

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Qh4 5 Nb5 Qxe4+ (See
Diagram)

6 Be2

According to Zukertort, Black's move order is incorrect and the
bishop check should have been given first. He wrote that now
White could obtain a winning advantage by 6 Be3 Bb4+ 7 Nd2
Bxd2+ (7...Qe5 8 c3 and 9 Nc4 after the Bishop retreats) 8 Qxd2
Kd8 9 0-0-0.

6...Bb4+ 7 Bd2 Kd8 8 0-0 Bxd2 9 Nxd2 Qf4 10 Nf3

10 c4 was played in the Vienna-London correspondence match.
Zukertort thinks White's move in the present game is "certainly not
stronger".

10...Nh6 11 Qd3 Re8 12 Rfe1 d6 13 Rad1 Bf5

A very ill-advised move, which drives the adverse Queen to an
important square, whilst Black's Queen has now no retreat. Black
could here obtain, I think, a safe position, with a pawn ahead, by
13...Qf6.

14 Qc3 f6 15 Rd4 Re4 16 g3 Qg4 (See Diagram)

17 Ne5 fxe5 18 Rxd6+

If 18 Bxg4 Black gets the better game after 18...exd4 19 Qd2
Rxe1+ 20 Qxe1 Nxg4.

18...cxd6 19 Bxg4 Rxe1+ 20 Qxe1 Bxg4 21 Nxd6 (See Diagram)

21...Kc7?!

Now Zukertort said "Black should bring his pieces into immediate
action, and not play to preserve a pawn". 21...Nf5 would draw at
least, he claimed, on the basis of detailed analysis. 22 Nb5+ Kb6
23 a4 Rd8? 23...Nf5 was the last chance.

24 f3 Bh3 25 Qe3+ Ka5 26 Nd6! Ka6 27 Qb3 Nd4 28 Qxb7+
Ka5 29 Qc7+ 1-0

The news items in May include the following paragraph: "La
Strat‚gie for April is not very interesting to those who expect to
find some account of French Chess doings. We suppose this is
because here is nothing going on in France worth recording. Chess,
in fact, seems struck with paralysis in the country of Philidor". A
bit sarcastic! Later in the year he was able to report that the seaside
resort of Trouville was popular with French chessplayers for their
summer holidays.

Several issues of the magazine carried articles by Potter in his
series "A few hints to receivers of odds". For readers who are
unclear what this means, there was a scale of odds giving
something like this

a) Pawn and Move. Black has no f-pawn. Moves alternate
normally.

b) Pawn and Two Moves. Black has no f-pawn and White makes
two moves (usually 1 e4 and 1 d4) before Black makes his first
move.

c) Knight odds. White begins without his queen's knight.

d) Rook odds. White begins without his queen's rook.

e) Queen odds. White has no queen and typically begins 1 b3.

Occasionally other odds, such as the exchange, were offered.
Generally, the giver of large odds relied on winning by attack or
capturing blundered pieces, while in the cases where the odds were
small the timidity and lesser experience of the odds-receiver would
be the cause of his defeat.

Around this time, the editor of the magazine played an odds match
against a London amateur named Fenton, alternating odds of pawn
and move and pawn and two moves. [An example of the play at
odds of pawn and two moves is given in the May Late Knight
column by Richard Forster which deals with William Potter.]

In this match, Potter won three at pawn and move (and drew one);
at pawn and two moves, he still managed to win two and drew
three. "That a player of the strength and experience of Mr Fenton
should not have scored a game is only to be accounted for as a
capricious dispensation of chance." Later in the year, Potter (who
seemed to have a special interest in odds chess opening theory)
played another match at odds of pawn and two moves, against a Mr
Bussy.

However, chess, unlike the Japanese game of GO, does not really
lend itself to handicapping (other than time) and the practice of
material handicaps seemed to die out towards the end of the 19th
century, although I am unclear exactly how and when this came
about. Here is one of the games from the match.

Fenton - Potter London, 1875 (pawn and move odds) Black
starts without his f-pawn.

1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Bc4 Nc6 4 Nc3 Bg4 5 f3 Bd7 6 Nge2 e5 7 0-0
h6 8 a3 g5 9 Be3 Ne7!? (See Diagram)

Zukertort observed that first 9...Bg7 was safer because White had
here the game in his hands by playing 10 f4 exf4 11 Nxf4 gxf4 12
Rxf4 Bg4 13 Rxg4 Nxg4 14 Qxg4 h5 15 Qe6 Qd7 16 Qf6 Rh7 17
Be6 and 18 Rf1. However, "Mr Potter remarks that combinations
of this kind are generally not to be feared from odds-receivers, and
must often be risked against them."

10 Qe1 Ng6 11 Rd1 Qe7 12 b4 c6 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 Ng3 Nh4 15
Rf2 b6 16 Rfd2 Be6 17 Ba6 Qc7 (See Diagram)

18 b5?

A terrible mistake that shuts out the bishop. Each piece exchange
now emphasises the difference in activity between the remaining
forces.

18...c5 19 Nd5 Bxd5 20 exd5 Bd6 21 Ne4 Nxe4 22 fxe4 0-0 23
Rf2 Qh7 24 Rxf8+ Rxf8 25 Bc1 c4 26 Kh1 Qf7 27 Be3 Nxg2!
(See Diagram)

28 Kxg2 Qf3+ 29 Kg1 Qg4+ 30 Kh1 Qxe4+ 31 Kg1 Rf3 32 Bf2
Qg4+ 33 Bg3 Bc5+ 34 Kh1 Re3! 35 Qf1 Re2 36 Rd3 cxd3 37
cxd3 Qd4 38 Bb7 Qxd3 39 d6 Rxh2+ 0-1.

In April of 1875, the American Chess Magazine began publication
and Potter reports on its first two issues. He found the first
disappointing, with too much reprinted material, but the second
was a great improvement (less so in the problem department). The
game annotations by James Mason were especially commended
"for he brings not only ability but conscientious hard work to the
task".

Potter goes on to comment on various other journals he receives,
including the Oesterreiches Schachzeitung which he finds (like
other unnamed continental magazines) strangely lacking in news of
events in their own countries. "There must be Chess events of
interest happening each month in the Empire of Austria such as
one would suppose both home and foreign readers would like to
hear about, but they go unrecorded. It seems to occur to none of
them that the daily life of Chess requires the stimulus and
encouragement of a public recognition."

It seems that these publications concentrated on problems and
master games, neglecting the amateur sphere which Potter was
serving so well in Britain. The corollary of this was that the City of
London Chess Magazine frequently gave space to games of low
quality, although they contained episodes instructive to the weaker
player when pointed out by good annotators like Potter himself and
Zukertort. However, some sparkling master games and occasional
quality amateur games were included too, making a well-balanced
magazine.

There was also a fair amount of space given to political wranglings
within London chess, including problems over the rules of the City
of London Club which was semi-associated with the magazine.
Potter himself, unwisely but perhaps inevitably, got dragged into
this. A special general meeting of the club was held on November
12, with a large attendance. There were at least three contentious
issues, which I won't go into here, but somebody with better
knowledge of the period and personalities may be able to explain
what at the distance of 125 years seems rather strange. Anyhow,
the upshot was that "Messrs. Blackburne, Hoffer, Steinitz and
Zukertort, with other members, have retired from the City Club".

Towards the end of 1875 Potter played a match against Zukertort,
at the West-End Chess Club, for stakes of ś20 a side. The
conditions were that the match would be won by the first player to
score five wins, but in the case of many draws (as proved to be the
case), after the first five draws (not counted) subsequent remises
were scored as half a point to each player.

It began on November 2 with a win for the latter and Zukertort
went on to win won fairly comfortably (+4 -2 =8). The match was
arranged and played in a most friendly spirit and, while it was still
going on, Potter commented "It is a pleasure for us to take part in a
contest conducted in such a manner, though we see little chance of
our coming out otherwise than second best". Zukertort at this time
was clearly among the top ten (if not the top two or three) chess
masters in the world so Potter must have been a fairly useful
player.

In view of the preponderance of 1 e4 e5 in the magazine (still the
fashion among most players at this time), it is interesting that both
masters employed closed openings in this match. The editor of the
City of London Chess Magazine had the satisfaction of winning the
following game, although at one point he nearly spoiled his
chances. Zukertort, when in serious trouble, found a very
interesting defensive exchange sacrifice - anticipating the "Soviet
school of chess" by about 60 years!

William Norwood Potter- Dr Johannes Zukertort London match,
1875 [Notes based on those by Potter] English Opening

1 c4 e6 2 e3 Nf6 3 b3 d5 4 Bb2 Be7 5 Nf3 c5 6 Na3 Nc6 7 Nc2 0-
0 8 Be2 Ne4 9 0-0 Bf6 10 d4 b6 11 Bd3 Bb7 12 Ne5 Bxe5 13
dxe5 f5 14 f3 Ng5 15 Qe1 dxc4 16 Bxc4 Na5 17 Bb5 Qe7 18 Qg3
Rad8 19 Bc3 Nc6 20 Rac1 Nf7 21 f4 Nh8?! 22 h4 a6 23 Be2 b5
24 a3 b4?! 25 axb4 cxb4 26 Bd4 Rc8 27 Bb6 Nf7 28 Bc4

It is evident that White now has a very good game, and may
reasonably hope to gain some advantage from the powerful
influence that his Bishops are able to exercise.

28...Nfd8 29 Rcd1 Nb8 30 Rd6 Rxc4

This sacrifice appears to be his best resource.

31 bxc4 Nf7 32 Bc5 (See Diagram)

32...Rc8

32...Qc7 is useless on account of the reply 33 Nd4! which would
prevent him from capturing the Bishop.

33 Rc6 Qd7 34 Rxc8+ Qxc8 35 Nd4!?

Here we differ most decidedly from Dr. Zukertort, who considers
that the pawn should have been taken... According to our judgment
Black gets many favourable chances thereby of drawing the game.
Potter gave no variations but it is understandable that he did not
want Black's queen to get active when it was not necessary to allow
it.

35...a5 36 Rc1?

36 Ra1 (Zukertort) was much stronger.

36...Nh6

Black now obtains strong counterplay.

37 Bd6 Nc6 38 Qe1 Ng4 39 Nf3 b3 40 Ba3 Qc7 41 Qc3 a4 42
Nh2?!

Maybe not best but Potter needed a win because of the state of the
match.

42...Nxh2 43 Kxh2 Qd8 44 g3 h6 45 Kg1 Qd7

Black threatens to get his queen on to the long white diagonal,
generating mating threats. (See Diagram)

46 Re1

Potter"Just in time to save immediate ruin - next move would be
too late." (No variations are given.) I think 46 Kh2 Na7 47 Qd4
Qc6 48 e4 should hold for White, so it's not really clear what
variations Potter feared. However, a draw was not sufficient for
him and his comments are based on that premise.

46...Na7?

According to Potter, this would have been an excellent move had
Re1 not already been played, "for the white queen would not have
had time to go to d4, and then...Nb5 would have been a terrible
blow". In the changed circumstances, ...Ne7 was required, with
drawing chances.

47 Qd4 Qc6 48 e4 fxe4

"This move was made without sufficient estimation of the strength
of white's kingside pawns."

49 Re3

The point of the earlier rook move. The black knight is now seen to
be misplaced.

49...Nc8 50 g4 Ba6

If 50...Nb6 51 g5 Nxc4 52 Qd8+ Kh7 53 g6+ Kxg6 54 Rg3+ Kh7
55 Qe7 wins (Potter).

51 g5 Qxc4 52 Qxc4 Bxc4 53 Rxe4 Bd5

"He must sacrifice the a-pawn on account of the imminent advance
of P to Kt 6." Potter now simply exploits the advantage of the
exchange in the endgame.

54 Rxa4 hxg5 55 hxg5 Kf7 56 Bc5 Ke8 57 Kf2 Kd7 58 Ke3 Kc7
59 g6 Nb6 60 Bxb6+ Kxb6 61 Kd2 Kb5 62 Ra7 Be4 63 Kc3
Bxg6 64 Kxb3 Kc5 65 Rxg7 Bf5 66 Rd7 Be4 67 Kc3 1-0.

The same, December 1875, issue that carried the announcement of
the Potter-Zukertort match, was also the penultimate number of the
magazine. It carried on its final page the following announcement,
which was probably no surprise to most of the readers after the
report of the special general meeting of the City of London Club.
Potter may also have had other reasons for wishing to step down,
but the resignation of several of his friends (including his principal
contributor) from the club would have made continuing as editor
very difficult.

Without directly blaming these difficulties, Potter wrote:

"We beg to announce that, after the appearance of the January
number, which will complete the Second Volume, The City of
London Chess Magazine will cease to exist. The reason of its fairly
prosperous career being brought to a close is, that it has become
impossible for us any longer to spare the time which hitherto we
have willingly devoted to the service of Caissa. Our intention to
retire upon this account from the Editorship of the Magazine was
formed some time ago, and has been known in our own circle. Of
course it did not necessarily follow that the publication of the
Magazine would be discontinued, for there might, perhaps, have
been found some one with sufficient time and inclination to whom
we might have resigned our pen. However, the Proprietors, upon
our giving them notice of our being obliged to retire from our
Editorial position, have not seen their way to continue the
publication of the Magazine, and it must therefore be
discontinued."

"The City of London Chess Magazine does not go down under any
pecuniary difficulty. Though the result of its two years' working
may or may not show any profit - that appears to be at present
uncertain - yet it has paid its expenses, and the small capital which
the Proprietors invested therein will be returned to them, without
any deduction. Neither have the internal dissensions, which,
unhappily, have been fermenting in the Metropolitan Chess world,
been the cause of dissolution; though how they might have affected
the prosperity of the Magazine, if it had continued to appear, would
have remained to be seen. We think it very likely, however, that
they would have caused us to consider the advisability of our
present step, apart from the primary necessity imposed upon us by
our own private concerns; and certainly the fact of such dissensions
prevailing, and of our having become, unfortunately, personally
involved in them, cannot be said to have been without some effect
in clearing away any lingering hesitation as to whether or not we
could not have managed, though it would have been at a great
sacrifice, to remain at our post.

"With respect to the Problem Prizes offered by us, we shall take
means to have the decision of the judges announced in the various
Metropolitan Chess columns, after which they will be duly given as
awarded. We have nothing more to say at present, but next month
we shall very likely have a few words to add by way of farewell to
our readers. We have always looked upon them as our friends, as
likewise masters, whom we were proud to serve. We shall part
from them with regret, and there will be for some time a vacuum in
our thoughts which it will be difficult to fill; but as it is, so it is,
and next month we write - FINIS."

The final issue began with the result of the Zukertort-Potter match,
and then went on to other news, of London chess clubs in
particular. The Rev. A.B. Skipworth was standing down as Editor
of the Chess-Player's Chronicle and his successor was to Mr
J.Jenkin, a former editor of the Glasgow Herald.

Potter did indeed post a short closing message at the end of this
issue, but his real farewell was the foregoing announcement. I
should prefer to close this article with a news item carried at some
length on page 357, as follows

"Very sad news comes from America - viz. that Morphy has
become insane, and is confined in a lunatic asylum. This
intelligence does not surprise ourselves at all, for about two years
since a Chess-player well known in this country, who was then
lately from the States, gave us an account of a visit he paid to the
great American in New Orleans. According to our informant
Morphy presented the appearance of a man out of his mind, and his
mother, who was present at the interview, trembled at hearing the
visitor attempt to engage her son in conversation, for the game was
never allowed to be mentioned in Morphy's presence, nor was there
a Chess-board kept in the house, and, in fact, he had not played a
game for years...

"As to the probable causes of the aberration of perhaps the finest
Chess intellect that ever directed a game, there will, no doubt, be
much speculation. The Sportsman attributes it to blindfold play.
This we take to be extremely unlikely. It is not much to the point to
say that Labourdonnais in that way shortened his existence. The
French master tried it in the decline of his life with faculties all
unused; but when, as in Morphy's case, blindfold play commences
in youth, there is, we believe, little danger to be apprehended from
its practice, and it cannot be alleged that Morphy indulged therein
to excess... (Potter went on to say that regular blindfold play did
not seem to be doing Blackburne any harm!)

"Chess, of course, may have been the cause of Morphy's mental
fall; he may have loved it not wsiely but too well. A mind saturated
with one idea to the exclusion of all others is necessarily
predisposed to mania, and if a man allows himself to regard Chess
as the one fact of existence, thereby starving his mind, which, like
the body, requires a variety of food, then the texture of the
strongest brain must become weakened, and the reason sooner or
later be overthrown. Whether this was Morphy's case remains to be
seen.

"However, the disaster which has overtaken him may be accounted
for in another way. Success came to him too early and was too
complete. So far as Chess was concerned he had conquered the
world, and henceforth he had no motive in life."

* A selection of games from both volumes of the City of London
Chess Magazine are available for download at my own website.
The URL is http//www.chessmail.com/freegames.html.