Chess Items.

Otago Witness, Volume 02, Issue 2420, 2 August 1900, Page 53

Chess Items.

The competitors in the Paris International tournament were : Lasker and Mieses for Germany ; Burn, Mason, and Mortimer for Britain ; Brody, Marco, Maroczy, and Schlechter for Austro-Hungary ; Marshall, Pillsbury, and Showalter for the United States of America; Didier and Rosen foi France; Marquis of Sterling for Mexico; and Janowski and Tchigorin for Russia. There were no representatives of Italy, Spain, or Scandinavia. La Strategic says Brody and Marshall are the young masters of the future.

Mr Laws, in the British Chess Magazine, takes us in hand regarding our opinions about the motto and sealed envelope system in problem tourneys. While xmwilling to assume the position of affecting to contravene such high "authority, backed as it is by the opinion of Messrs A. F. Mackenzie, Blackburne, Glynn and others, it may be said — we hope without arrogance— that the matter of concealing the names of composers from the judges in so far as the knowledge may create any bias in the minds of the judges in problem tourneys is a negligible matter as compared with securing judges oi competent ability and knowledge and freedom from fads of any kind. As regards the judges in the Otago" Witness Problem competitions, the last matter that would be considered would be the name or standing of the composer, and it can hardly be doubted that it would also be so with Mr Laws himself or any other lover of the art, acting in a like office. The motto system savours of suspicion. To err is human, to suspect is small-minded. Judges in all cases should be above suspicion. He may often err, but in what way will concealment prevent them from so doing ? Were they inclined to favour individuals, the motto system would not prevent them doing so, for unless the names of the judges are also concealed, nothing could prevent a competitor communicating with them and calling attention to his own personal merits or the merits of his compositions. We yield the point, therefore, in deference to authority — not to conviction that it is of consequence, but because it really is not of any greai, consequence.

We commend the efforts of the managers of the Paris tourney, who sought to minimise the miniber of drawn game 3by annulling the first drawn game played between any two players. It is certainly hard lines now foi the "wood shifters," "stone-wallers," and "drawing masters," who would reduce our noble game to the level of draughts. The hardy combatants who lely upon their staying powers will also 'suffer, for a one round tourney, with liberal hours for relaxation, will reduce the mental strain of the competitors to a minimum.

So we are to have a British National Federation of Chess Players at last. We wish the association every success, and hope it will find local supporters, which it should do if it conducts its proceedings in a fair way and recognises provincial talent as well 'as metropolitan supremacy.

A contest on the "mimic board," United States v. Canada, has for some time been in progress. One hundred players on each side are playing a match by correspondence.

A well-known, English playei once defined a gambit as "an opening in which a player sacrifices a piece or pawn to obtain a lost game." The Evans Gambit is now " a mere survival in the books," for it has been advisedly described by an American player as "a yellow fever attack — dangerous in the middle and critical at both ends."

Before visiting- Paris,' Pillsbury played 20 simultaneous games blindfold at Philadelphia, winning 14 and losing only one. We should think this would remain "a record" for some years to come.

The Amateur v. Professional Invitation tourney has biought about a match between Mr S. Passmore and F. J. Lee of five games vp — draws not to count.

Something "went wrong with the works" of the losers' clocks at Paris, and- the British Chess Club dispatched fresh ones from London, although we learn that the winners' clocks kept all right.