AMarch 09 1902
 |
The Standard Union, Brooklyn, New York, Sunday, March 09, 1902
America and Great Britain in Mimic Warfare.
Cable Chess Match at Academy of Music This Week.
Great Struggle of Intellects For the Possession of the Newnes Trophy to Commence Again, America's “Straight” having Been Broken By a Draw Last Year—Experts From All Over the Country to Participate—The Players and Their Records.
The seventh annual international cable match between the United States and Great Britain will be contested on Friday and Saturday of this week. In the assembly rooms of the Academy of Music, eight of America's chess experts will make moves, which will be transmitted by cable to the Cafe Monico in London, where eight Britishers will receive them and send their replies by the same means.
 |
For the first time in the history of the cable matches, not all ten games will be contested by cable. Pillsbury and Marshall, if they can reach London from Monte Carlo in time, will play their games over the board. The American team will play under the auspices of the Brooklyn Chess Club, while the British Chess Club will conduct the affair in London.
The United States will be represented by Harry N. Pillsbury, American chess champion, of Philadelphia, Pa.; Jackson W. Showalter, former American champion, of Georgetown, Ky.; John F. Barry, Boston's recognized best player; A. B. Hodges, of Staten Island; Edward Hymes, of New York; H. G. Voigt, S. W. Bampton and C. J. Newman, of Philadelphia, Pa.; and F. J. Marshall and C. S. Howell, of Brooklyn. The substitutes will be Hermann Helms, of Brooklyn, and Eugene Delmar, of New York, both of whom have played in the cable matches heretofore.
 |
The cable matches are unique in many respects. The spectacle in the Academy is well worth seeing. On the stage erected in the Assembly rooms sit the players poring over the boards before them, rapt in study of the games which are to decide the chess supremacy of the two countries, oblivious to the gaze of the spectators who, by the way, are in themselves an interesting feature of the affair. Not all of those who watch the moves on the big exhibition boards are chess players. Some of them are friends or relatives of the players and some are laymen, who, attracted by the oddity (to them) of the contest, sit watching the players for hours, wondering vaguely what there can be in the movement of the little wooden pieces that so fascinates the devotees of the games and forgetting that they themselves are being fascinated without having any knowledge of the mysteries of the contest. A number of the fair sex are found among the spectators. Last year two or three of the wives of the players proved their faithfulness by patiently watching the play all through both days. And the players themselves—they are not fanatics nor lunatics, but professional and business men, who find in chess a relaxation from business cares and a real enjoyment and fascination such as the scientist or the student experiences in following any particular line of investigation.
 |
Of the eight contestants who will play by cable, Showalter has a farm in the Blue Grass regions of Kentucky; Hodges is a bookkeeper, Barry an attache in a court of law, Hymes a lawyer and formerly a partner of Emanuel Friend; Voigt, Newman and Bampton, business men of Philadelphia, and Howell an editor and manufacturing ma in a New York publishing house. While the room in which the players sit is kept as quiet as possible, there are frequent outbursts of enthusiasm, when fortune smiles on America, one of the players makes a telling move or a win is scored for our side.
Last year at a critical stage in the contest, when a win or loss on one of the boards meant success or defeat for America, one of the ladies present, rising from her seat suddenly, exclaimed: “I don't know a thing about chess, but I am awfully excited.” As the signs “Won by America” or “Won by Great Britain” go up on the great exhibition boards, hope and despair alternate, there are periods of suppressed excitement, outbursts of applause, and all through the match participants and spectators are impressed with the realization that an international battle of intellects is being waged and that it is Yankee ingenuity and pluck against British persistency and stolidity; and perhaps not till the last hour of play will the mimic fight be won or lost, and the players and their friends jubilant in victory or resigned in defeat.
Of the six matches played since 1896, the Americans have won three, the Britishers two, and one was drawn. On points, the Americans have scored 30½ against 27½ secured by the British. The 1896 match was contested on eight boards, the five subsequent matches on ten. None, but native-born players of each country are eligible for participation, a provision which bars several strong players in this country, notably Napier, Lipschuetz and Finn.
The contests are for the possession of the handsome chess trophy presented by Sir George Newnes, the English patron of sports.
The summaries of the previous matches and the scores of this year's players and substitutes in the other matches in which they have played are appended:
1896
America Great Britain
H. N. Pillsbury .......0 J. H. Blackburne ........1
J. W. Showalter .......1 A. Burn .................0
C. F. Burrille ........1 H. E. Bird ..............0
J. F. Barry ...........1 S. Tinsley ..............0
E. Hymes ..............½ C. D. Locock ............½
A. B. Hodges ..........½ D. Y. Mills .............½
E. Delmart ............½ H. E. Atkins ............½
D. G. Baird ...........0 E. M. Jackson ...........½
Total .................4½ Total ...................3½
1897
H. N. Pillsbury .......½ J. H. Blackburne ........½
J. W. Showalter .......1 C. D. Locock ............0
C. F. Burrille ........0 H. E. Atkins ............1
J. F. Barry ...........1 T. F. Lawrence ..........0
E. Hymes ..............½ D. Y. Mills .............½
A. B. Hodges ..........½ G. E. Bellingham ........½
E. Delmer .............1 J. H. Blake .............0
H. Helms ..............0 E. M. Jackson ...........1
F. M. Teed ............0 B. H. Cole ..............1
J. L. McCutcheon ......0 H. Jacobs ...............1
Total .................4½ Total ...................5½
1898
H. N. Pillsbury .......½ H. Blackburne ...........½
J. W. Showalter .......1 A. Burn .................0
J. F. Barry ...........1 H. Caro .................0
E. Hymes ..............½ H. E. Atkins ............½
A. B. Hodges ..........1 G. E. Bellingham ........0
E. Delmar .............0 D. Y. Mills .............1
D. G. Baird ...........½ C. D. Locock ............½
F. K. Young ...........0 E. M. Jackson ...........1
A. K. Robinson ........0 H. Jacobs ...............1
J. A. Galbreath .......0 H. W. Trenchard .........1
Total .................4½ Total ...................5½
1899
H. N. Pillsbury .......0 J. H. Blackburne .......1
J. W. Showalter .......1 H. E. Atkins ...........0
J. F. Barry ..........1 T. F. Lawrence .........0
A. B. Hodges ..........1 E. M. Jackson ..........0
E. Hymes ..............½ D. Y. Mills ............½
H. G. Voigt ...........½ H. Jacobs ..............½
S. P. Johnston ........½ C. D. Locock ...........½
F. J. Marshall ........½ G. E. Wainwright .......½
C. J. Newman ..........½ G. E. Bellingham .......½
D. G. Baird ...........½ H. W. Trenchard ........½
Total .................6 Total ...................4
1900
H. N. Pillsbury .......½ J. H. Blackburne .......½
J. W. Showalter .......½ F. J. Lee ..............½
J. F. Barry ...........1 H. E. Atkins ...........0
A. B. Hodges ..........1 G. E. Bellingham .......0
E. Hymes ..............½ D. Y. Mills ............½
H. G. Voigt ...........1 T. F. Lawrence .........0
F. J. Marshall ........0 E. M. Jackson ..........1
S. W. Bampton .........0 H. Jacobs ..............1
C. J. Newman ..........½ W. W. Ward .............½
E. Delmar .............1 H. W. Trenchard ........0
Total .................6 Total ..................4
1901
H. N. Pillsbury .......1 J. H. Blackburne .......0
J. W. Showalter .......0 J. Mason ...............1
J. F. Barry ...........½ F. J. Lee ..............½
A. B. Hodges ..........½ D. Y. Mills ............½
E. Hymes ..............1 H. E. Atkins ...........0
H. G. Voigt ...........½ G. E. Bellingham .......½
F. J. Marshall ........0 W. W. Ward .............1
S. W. Bampton .........½ E. M. Jackson ..........½
C. J. Newman ..........1 H. Jacobs ..............0
C. S. Howell ..........0 J. Mitchell ............1
Total .................5 Total ..................5
Grand Total ..........30½ Grand Total ............27½
Players Won. Lost. Dr'n.
Pillsbury ......... 1 2 3
Showalter ......... 4 1 1
Barry ............. 5 0 1
Hodges ............ 3 0 3
Hymes ............. 1 0 5
Voigt ............. 1 0 2
Marshall .......... 0 2 1
Bampton ........... 0 1 1
Newman ............ 1 0 2
Howell ............ 0 1 0
E. Delmar ......... 2 1 1
H. Helms .......... 0 1 0
 |
The American Cable Match Committee is composed of S. H. Chadwick, S. H. Cragg, secretary of the Brooklyn Chess Club, and J. Herbert Watson.
The arrangements are practically the same as last year. Shortly before 9 o'clock on Friday morning the Brooklyn and British Chess Clubs will exchange greetings via the cable, and will transmit the names of their respective teams in order of play, after the drawings for attack and defense have been made. At 9 o'clock the first moves will be transmitted and play will continue until 2 P. M., each move being recorded on a large board hung behind each player, enabling the spectators to follow closely the progress of the games. Some arrangement will be made to cable the moves in the Pillsbury and Marshall games to this side, so that their progress can be watched by the players and onlookers in the Academy. At 2 o'clock an adjournment of one hour and a half will be taken and play will then go on until 6:30 P. M., when the night adjournment will occur. The contest will recommence at 9:30 A. M. Saturday and last until 6 P. M., with one adjournment of ninety minutes at 2 P. M.
 |
American interests in London will be cared for by L. Hoffer, while Isaac L. Rice, of Manhattan, will act as British umpire on this side of the water. Baron Rothschild will again serve as referee and adjudicator. The time limit will be twenty moves an hour. The time consumed in the transmission of moves is, of course, not counted against either player.
For the first time in the series of cable matches there will be no new raw material on the American team. The ten players will be the same that participated last year. The British team is as yet unknown, but it will probably be selected from the men that played last year and T. F. Lawrence, G. E. Wainwright and M. Jones.
Looking backward over the six matches played since 1896 the closeness of the struggle for the Newnes cup is surprising.
 |
Twice it has been in jeopardy and both times has been saved by a combination of supreme exertion and good luck. In 1899 the Britishers commenced play with two straight victories to their credit, and the firm determination to make it three straight and thus secure permanent possession of the trophy. The Americans, on the other hand, were no less determined to break the series and save the cup. American determination won, three victories and six draws being magnificently tallied. Again last year it was the Americans that had the chance to make it three straight, but the Britishers, realizing the peril in which the cup hung, called their best forces to their aid, found Mason to break Showalter's record and aided by Marshall's blunder and Howell's inexperience saved the day, drawing the match. Moreover, they broke the series. Some doubt has been expressed as to whether a drawn match really broke a “straight,” but there can be but one interpretation of the clause in the lead of gift, which reads: “The first club winning three successive matches,” etc., so that both teams now have an even chance for the trophy, and at least three more cable matches are assured.
 |
As for the records of the players who compose this year's team in past matches, Pillsbury, Showalter, Barry, Hodges and Hymes have played in all six contests and a cable match without any one of them would not seem like a cable match at all. Until last year Blackburne appeared to be Pillsbury's “hoodoo,” the American champion suffering two defeats and drawing three games in the first five contests. In the 1901 match, however, Pillsbury would not be denied and won his first game against Blackburne in fine style, making his total score 2½-3½. Two other records were broken last year. Showalter lost his first game and Barry, for the first time failed to tally a win. His game with Lee was scored as drawn under the agreement made at the close of the match. Barry has since published analyses to the effect that he really had a won game in the final position. Showalter in the six contests tallied wins twice against Amos Burn, once each against Locock and Atkins, drew with Lee and lost to Mason. Barry has won twice from Lawrence, and from Tinsley, Caro, and Atkins, drawing with Lee. His constant application to his games has won for him the distinction of being the hardest worker on the American team. He has lately been much in the public eye as the result of his fearless declaration that 4, Castles is weak in the Ruy Lopez attack. Hodges has yet to lose a cable game, and is counted on as one of the reliables. Hymes likewise has not been defeated, although twice he has been called upon to exert his utmost ingenuity to stem the tide. Last year he won his first game, after drawing five successive contests. The Philadelphia players, Voigt, Bampton and Newman, have more than held their own in the matches in which they have played.
 |
Voigt and Newman first came to the team in 1899, and have each won one game and drawn two. Bampton lost his first game, but drew the second, justifying the committee's decision to give him another chance. In this connection it is peculiar to note that since the first match, no newcomer has won his first game.
The two Brooklyn players, Marshall and Howell, have not done as well as the rest of the team. Marshall drew his first game after having victory within his grasp, lost the second game on time limit and lost last year by a surprising blunder. Howell has played but once, last year. Pressed by the time limit at a critical juncture, he sought relief in a wholesale exchange of pieces, and was left in a lost position. Although he fought thirty-four moves more, through part of the afternoon of the first day and all of the second day, he could not save defeat.
 |
Of the substitutes, Hermann Helms played in 1897, losing to E. M. Jackson, one of the most dangerous players on the British team, Helms has held the Brooklyn championship, and although out of the game for some time is still one of the strongest amateurs in the country, and certainly one of the finest correspondence players. His style is sound and persistent, while his chess ability is entirely natural. Delmar has played in four of the six former matches, winning two of his games, drawing one and losing one. His experience, added to his often-tested strength, makes him a dangerous adversary for any one. His over-the-board play is erratic, but he has always played steadily in the cable matches.
Making a forecast of this year's possibilities from past records, the American team seems to have more than an even chance of victory. Pillsbury having overcome his “hoodoo” and now being in fine fettle, should have little trouble with Blackburne, who is out of practice and passing rapidly to old age. Showalter, without practice and counting Mason as the player “whom he never could beat,” is doubtful although it would not surprise his friends if he reeled off one of his old style victories with a long announced mate at the end. At all events, anything he picks up will add to last year's score. Barry is looked upon as invulnerable and a victory can be expected from him. Hodges, on his record, cannot do worse than a draw, and the same remark applies to Hymes, Voigt and Newman. Bampton must be counted as doubtful, although he is now in best of practice and will only go down before decided superiority. Marshall's present fine form, as shown by his Monte Carlo games, would seem to point to victory for him. Howell is doubtful, but if he does draw or win, the result will but add to the score of last year. Moreover, this time he has the advantage of a previous experience. Taking the worst possible view of this rather optimistic but no more than logical resume of record possibilities, suppose Pillsbury, Barry and Marshall to win, Hodges, Hymes, Voigt and Newman to draw, and Showalter, Bampton and Howell to pick up but half a point between them, and the match will be won. This, of course, is working on the assumption, that the British team will be no better than last year, but it is difficult to see how it can be improved. Burn has been banished to Coventry, so that he is not likely to participate. Of course, there is the possibility that Pillsbury and Marshall will not reach London in time to play, but that is doubtful, as they need not arrive until Saturday morning, one day being sufficient for the over-the-board games. On the other hand, if they are detained at Monte Carlo, Mason is likely to suffer the same fate, and so weaken the British team.
The cable matches have never been properly supported by the public. An international contest of any other kind draws the attention of the world in general, but a chess match interests only a comparative few, and many people never hear of it, or if they do notice a newspaper account pass it by as of little importance. The yacht races between America and Great Britain attract world-wide attention, why not the cable chess matches? To be sure, chess does not interest so many people as yachting, but the fact that an international contest of any kind is going on should certainly draw more attention and support than the cable matches have received hitherto. It has been charged that the cable matches were not international contests between the United States and Great Britain, but merely interclub contests between the Brooklyn and British Chess clubs. Jealousy has always impelled the charge. The best players from all parts of the United States and Great Britain are engaged in the contests and they are international in every respect. It was necessary for some organization to manage the matches, and the greatest club in each country was selected for the purpose.
For two long days the brains of the native-born Americans will be pitted against the brains of ten native-born Britishers in a strenuous, taxing struggle for supremacy. May the best team win, but may that team be the American ten!
December 14 1902
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Brooklyn, New York, Sunday, December 14, 1902
Two notable games in the New York-Pennsylvania correspondence match were those between C. S. Howell of Brooklyn and S. W. Bampton of Philadelphia. As reported a week ago the Brooklynite secured one victory, in brilliant style, and drew the other, with a pawn in hand. The scores with comments by Howell, follow:
Samuel Warren Bampton (white) vs. Clarence Seaman Howell (Black)
Ruy Lopez: Berlin Defense
33. … and black mates in five more moves.
The mating continuations are the following:
33. NxB QxPch; 34. N-B2 Q-K7ch; 35. K-N or N2, R-N6ch; 36. K-R2 Q-R4ch; 37. N-R3 QxN mate.
Or 33. NxB QxPch; 34. K-N Q-N5ch; 35. K-B or B2, Q-K7ch; 36. K-N R-N6mate.
Winner's Comments
(a) Probably not as good as castles.
(b) The opening is played on rather unusual lines and Black merges with an open game, two bishops and all his pieces pointing in the direction of White's king, which is almost without protection.
(c) A costly error, but White's position is rather unpromising anyway.
(d) Apparently out of lines but answering many objects, saving a pawn and permitting the KB to check at QN3, if necessary. Also preventing White Q check at QB4, after Black's P-KB4.
(e) Of course if 24. NxB R-Q8ch; 25. K-K2 RxR; 26. NxR QxPch, etc.
(f) Shutting out action Black's KB, but that piece is now only needed indirectly in scheme of attack.
(g) Of course, N-K4, simply loses another pawn and leaves White in a hopeless position.
(h) Black can get two pieces for a rook by QxN, but the attack is too promising to be abandoned for mere material gain.
(i) White's replies are all practically dictated by Black's moves, always an advantage in attacking.
(j) These Q side diversions are as embarrassing to White as the direct attacking moves on the K side. Black's KB is here useful. White has not even the chance to sacrifice the exchange, for as soon as his QR leaves the first rank Black gets R-Q3ch, etc.
(k) If 31. PxR BxNch; 32. RxB QxRch and wins easily with R-K3, as soon as the king has been checked to N square. If 31. B-B2, BxN; etc., or 31. K-N R-K7, etc.
(1) If 32. BxR PxB and wins easily. If 32. Q-Q2 B-Q6ch; 33. K-N (best); R-K7, etc. Black's 31. R(K)-K6 rather prettily blocks defense of White's bishop and ends the game by sheer force. White defended a hopeless position as well as was possible. Black's great advantage is shown by the fact that he could afford to throw one of his pieces (RB) almost entirely out of play by 24. P-B5. The mate is rather odd, as the white bishop is kept out of it until the very last.
Clarence Seaman Howell (white) vs. Samuel Warren Bampton (Black)
Ruy Lopez: Closed
White has a pawn more, but Black's position is superior and White's extra pawn doubled. Black's clever play after move 22 neutralized White's 2 bishops and pawn plus.
