Chess Items.

Otago Witness, Issue 2171, 3 October 1895, Page 38

Chess Items.

Few of her subjects derive a keener pleasure from the game of chess than does the Qaeen. Sha rarely plays chess herself, but she delights in watching the g'*me played by the members of her family, anil it is said she is not above the common weakness of a cheß3 player of showing how it should have been played.— Glasgow Weekly Herald. The Duke of York accepted the position of patrou of the Hastings International C«ngress at the Queen's request —Ibid. Nes'>tiatious have boen in progress for another cablo match between the London Chesi <'lub aud the Brooklyn Club, but on account or the difficulty of getting together the London players at this season of the year the matter has been pustponed for the present. B.C.M. states that "preparatory to taking part in the Hastings tournament Herr Lisker spent the greater part of July at Ilkley, Yorkshire, enjoying the beautiful scenery of Wharfedale, visitinj? the far-famed Bolton Abbey and otherplaces of interest in the neighbourhood. During hia stay the champion gave an exhibition of simultaneous play at the Spa Kydvo, and after nearly three hours' play against 10 opponents he succeeded in defeating 15 —the remaining name being drawn. We are eorry

to have to record tbe fact that Herr Lasker la not eDJoying the best of health, and we fear that the continuous physical strain which the Hastings tournament will involve may militate against his chance of succe-s." Result of the first four rounds of the Hastings International Toumavnont : — FFUST UOUND. White, Black. Winner. p urn v. Bcwdeleben Bardcleben Janowski v. Blackburne Blackburuo S-hlerhter v. Pullock Drawn Teichman v. Walbvodt Walbrodt Mason v. Th"a6ch Maaon Tchigorin v. Pillsbury Tchigorin Albin v. Bird Bird Lnsker v. Marco l^skor Tin ley v. Mieses ftueses Schiffera v. Ounsberg Schiffers Steinitz v. Vergani Stemitz SECOND RODNI). Tinsley v. Mason ey . Laskor v. Tchigorin Tchigorin Albin v. Bardeleben Adjourned Pillabury v. Tarrasch Pilkbury Bird v. Walbrodt Drawn Marco v. Pi .Hock Marco Miece3 v. Blackburne Mieses Gunsberg v. Burn Gunaberg Vergani v. Janoweki Janowski Steinitz v. Schlechter Drawn Schiffers v. Teichman Dnwn THIRD ROUND. PolWk v. Vergani Pollock Bluckburne v. Steinitz Steinitz Barn v. Sihiffers Not stated Janowski v. Tiusley Tindey Schlechter v. Laakcr lasker TeicVimaa v. Albia Drawn Blazon v. Tchigorin Not stated BAnleleben v. Bird Drawn Pillsbury v. Marco Drawn Walhroclt v. Gunsberg Dr.iwn Tanasch v. Mii-scs Drawn FOURTH ROUND. Tarrasch v. W»lbrcdt Ttrra c ch PilUbury v. Pullock Pi'lsbnry Bird v. BUckburne Not started Marco v. Burn Marco Mie^es v. J»nov*Bki Janowski Gimsberg v. Not stated Vevgani v. Teicbman Teicbinan Steintta v. Mason Steinitz Schiffer3 v. Tchigorin SchifTera Tinnlov v. Albin Not stated lUtrWlebeu v. Lacker Bauklerien The above is compiled fiora the British papers to band. The committee of nianngenient of tuo ilafiungs Intiiniational Tournaount demand £5 a giine for the right to publish the scores of the games T)liS G(i The (inly represent at ive of Greater lUUain who took part in the Ha»ting« content was Mr Pollock, who represented the Dominion of < anaaa.