Despite the advance of chess there seems to remain a good deal of misapprehension in regard to the game and its influence. I believe that there still exist those whose conception of a chess-player is a man of ascetic appearance, whose mind works in a groove, and who is continually puzzling out variations and combinations, oblivious of the affairs of the world. I have encountered (in both senses) a great number of chess-players, but have never met with one who answers this description. On the contrary, I have almost invariably found them to be alert and versatile--men who have a wide grasp of affairs, who are capable of expressing interesting opinions on a great variety of subjects and who are much less given to the common habit of loose thinking than others. They include many of the athletic, literary and musical tastes, though, singularly enough, I have met among them but few artists--I should say painters, for of artists in other directions there are plenty. I can, in fact, only recall one graphic artists, Boden, who was a first-class chess-player; though Sir J. E. Millais was fond of a game, Horwitz had some artistic ability and Sir Wyke-Bayliss plays enthusiastically in his infrequent leisure. Among literary men, however, there have been several good chess-players, the most notable, for he excelled in both capacities, being Buckle, the author of the "History of Civilization;" but the name of Ruskin and R. D. Blackmore are also memorable.

I should like, before bringing these discursive remarks to a close, to say a word about Zukertort, for his influence on the chess of the time, though he has been dead twelve years, is scarcely less marked than that of Steinitz or Blackburne. He was the rival of both these masters, and he had his triumphs against them, for he vanquished Blackburne, and won the great tournament of 1883, in which all three were engaged; but was defeated by Steinitz in the memorable match of 1886. The analytical work accomplished by Zukertort was scarcely less than that of Steinitz, and in many respects it helped to elucidate the complicated problems of the game. The controversies that occurred between these two masters were like the contact of flint and steel, and elicited sparks that helped to illuminate the way for lesser chess-players. Zukertort, like Blackburne, aided in popularizing the game by his wonderful blindfold displays, and though he never manifested the brilliance of the Englishman in this department, he had the distinction of playing the greatest number of games simultaneously, for he encountered a strong team of sixteen at the West End Chess Club, occupying two evenings in the performance of the feat; and this achievement held the record until the present year, when it was surpassed by Pillsbury. Zukertort was a thorough artist, who combined immense technical knowledge with a brilliant imagination, and probably no player ever displayed greater form than he did in the tournament of 1883. He was an exceptionally nervous man, of delicate constitution, and he was, moreover, perhaps a trifle vain. It is a thousand pities that he engaged in a contest with such a redoubtable match player as Steinitz was fourteen years ago. But for that Zukertort might have been alive to-day. His physique was not equal to the strain, his nervous system suffered a terrible reaction after his defeat; he never recovered his health, and died two years later.

But the rewards of chess are small, and it offers few temptations to those who would adopt it as a means of earning a living. Zukertort was compelled to pursue his profession to the end, and there was similar compulsion, apart from his indomitable self-confidence, to induce Steinitz to accept the challenge of Lasker. I believe, however, that whatever his circumstances, Steinitz would have played Lasker, for he had a fighting spirit that nothing could quell. There is little to recommend chess as a profession, and perhaps the present movement is, in some respects, the stronger because it is entirely supported by amateurs. The professionals grow fewer in number, and there is no accession to their ranks in this country; but it cannot be said that their achievements are not appreciated and it must always be remembered that it is to their exertions that the improvement in the science of the game is chiefly due.

Among the young players of the present time Pillsbury, the American champion, and Schlechter, the Austrian champion, are prominent. Last year it seemed probable that the French player Janowski might prove a formidable rival to Lasker for the championship. But Janowski, for the time, at least, has sunk into the background, partly, perhaps through departing from the patient and scientific methods advocated by Steinitz, and relying too much on his great resourcefulness and ingenuity to get him out of tight places at critical moments or to enable him to win by brilliant coups. Pillsbury is a fearless player, who has an admirable record of games with Lasker, and Schlechter is a young man whose gradual and steady improvement has brought him to the front and gives great hope for his future. Steinitz, who was an excellent judge, had a very high opinion of his play. Marcozy, the young Hungarian, whose record is even better than that of Schlechter, seems to have but indifferent health, and altogether it is probable that if Lasker has to fight for the championship in the next few years it will be with either Pillsbury or Schlechter.

Meanwhile, the chess movement in this country is rapidly gaining force. It has produced an abundance of clever young players, and it remains to be seen whether it can bring to the front a champion who is capable of following in the footsteps of the great men whose memory I have recalled. There are many others to whom I might have referred. A tribute is owed to Bird, the veteran enthusiast, who has probably played more games than any other living man, and who is now, after some fifty years of almost incessant play, in a condition of health that, I fear, precludes the possibility of his ever again enjoying his favorite pastime with the same zeal and spirit as of old. I might have mentioned Burn, who has long been in the front rank of English players, and on whom, since Blackburne's partial retirement, devolved the task, which he has manfully and creditably undertaken, of holding up the standard of English chess in International contests. But, after all, Blackburne is the player who has done most to earn the goodwill of English amateurs. He won the Championship of England in 1868, and since then has not only maintained that position, but has delighted us with his play, and has brought honor to this country in a long list of competitions with the experts of the world at home and abroad. He played some beautiful games in the tournament of 1899, but this year the failure of his eyesight has obliged him to abandon tournament play, it is to hoped but temporarily. If the present popularity of chess can give rise to another Blackburne, it will, in my opinion, have justified itself; but I have given other reasons, of a different kind, and not, I hope, without their potency, why it deserves to be regarded with satisfaction.

About the Author

This article by Antony Guest is from the journal THE LIVING AGE (Seventh Series, Volume IX, October, November, December 1900), which is in the public domain.

Content by Chess Samizdat

http://www.correspondencechess.com/samizdat/