It appears White spotted the Ra3+ Rc3 idea and played 52.Kg4 to avoid it. 52...Kd5 gaining a tempo on the Rook with the Ra4+ Rc4 idea won it. White had to give up the Rook for the pawn. However 52. g6 appears to draw.

click for larger view

https://books.google.com/books?id=k...

Read the first section as the appetizer that it is, and please make note of the footnote on page p92.

Then continue on to the tale of Madrid... I wait for you below.

It well might be an allegory of the <Grimshaw--Steinitz> game, El Dorado being the Divan, and the good Herr being Black of course!

<Within sits the Don in all his majesty ; without stands the professional in all his glory. Thus are the games played, and at the conclusion of the contest a fee is handed to the professional, who, with a graceful bow, retires, to pursue his avocations. I approve of this arrangement,...>

Steinitz being the professional (which stirred up a controversy all its own back in the day).

<he entered it, and meeting his old friend, Herr Quartz, a well-known maestro, politely requested his opinion as to a position in the Evvanso Gambit over which he himself had expended much fruitless labour. The Herr, ever liberal in dispensing his information, at once acceded to the request. >

Again, Steinitz was well known at being liberal and encouraging with amateurs.

<Just as we were leaving, Herr Fieldwitz, who knows all published games by heart, and, moreover, is a wag in his way,>

Well, knowing all published games by heart (and being a wag in his wag) would describe Steinitz well, even if the record shows he does forget a game from time to time (call that foreshadowing).

But wait - is Herr Fieldwitz the same fellow as Herr Quartz?!

As for the game discussed, well, it's a bit of a stretch to claim MacDonnell was foreshadowing the Grimshaw game, though it's possible (after all, the story is due to Earnshaw).

But on rereading this fanciful piece by the light of day, I realize it's easy to become confused with who's saying what, and who's who (or who might be who).

I now think the unknown Black player wasn't the Herr as I did last night, but rather Don Furioso Burdanno.

Moreover, later there's a part which I missed, where Herr Fieldwitz (who must be Steinitz, right?) gets the Queen to change his name to <William Surewitz>.

My conclusion? That the kind gentleman McDonnell is a card.

There's a connection between the <Irish Sportsman> and the <Sheffield Independent>, as they both published this game with Steinitz identified as Black.

But there's a deeper connection between the two papers, chess-wise that is.

What is it?

Here's a hint:

https://www.chessarch.com/excavatio...

(I'm being a bit cryptic for those who like challenges. I'll be back later with the answer)

The author of Ink Wars also identifies McDonnell as someone who likes a good yarn.

I read the William Surewitz bit as well (without a doubt a dig at Steinitz) He was bragging he now has the same initials as Shakespeare, Walter Scott and the room filled with merriment when being reminded he also had the same initials as Bill Sykes (the main villain in Oliver Twist).

When doing a spoof report on a league match I made up a game played by this lad Hugh R Brechin a silly mate right out of the opening. Hugh was OK about it, it fitted in with the ridiculous events I was describing in the non-existence chess match.

I like how the <Neues Wiener Tagblatt> did it for this game, by publishing it on April's Fools Day!

<1910-04-01 - Neues Wiener Tagblatt (Tages-Ausgabe) - p11

https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/... >

https://www.chessarch.com/excavatio...

< hope you left clear evidence that the game was a spoof somewhere nearby.>

<Aye, it may be a joke to you, but it's his nose. He can't help having a hideous great hooter! And his poor little head, trembling under the weight of it!>

Could I please (pretty please with sugar on it) ask you to take another crack at finding the earlier issue they refer to, where they posted notice of this game.

That also includes the issue with Grimshaw's original letter, dated July 25th (so maybe published Aug 2nd or Aug 9th)?

The only version of the letter I've seen is the one quoted in Steinitz' writings. Obviously finding the original would be very nice.

OK, thanks for digging out this find.

Didn't I do that a week ago?

I must have misplaced it when I was collating my notes. Oooph!

The <Leeds Mercury> did indeed start out as a Saturday weekly, before becoming a daily in 1861. The history of the paper is outlined at BNA:

<By 1900 week-day editions contained ten pages, but on Saturdays it included twelve pages and an additional supplement, all priced at only 1d. >

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive...

I believe that during the entirety of its chess column run there was only one editor <James White> - is this him?

James White

There's many references to him out there, most of which I've yet to review, but there's an extensive writeup with a portrait of him Gittins' <Chess Bouquet (1897)> p117:

https://books.google.com/books?id=5...

OK, let me rephrase it then, copying this excerpt from the link shown previously:

<Miss F.F. Beechey has assumed control of the chess column in the Sheffield Independent, formerly conducted by Bird.

Mr. T.R. Rowland, of Dublin, has started a chess column in the Irish Sportman.>

1884.02.04 - Daily American (Nashville TN) - p?

Might as well answer this one now. The two columnists, of the <Irish Sportsman> and <Sheffield Independent> went on to marry each other:

F.F. Beechey-Rowland also wrote <Chess Blossoms>, which I was going to weave into the riddle, but I was already nerded-out enough as it was.

Here's a nice article on F.F., with some choice photographs:

https://www.chess.com/blog/introubl...

Wonder if the Grimshaw--Steinitz controversy was responsible for them getting together?!? They married in June 1884 soon after she took over the column!

We lately saw a game published in one of our chess columns at home represented as being played in 1880 between Herr Steinitz and Mr. Grimshaw, the English problemist. The game has just been shown to Herr Steinitz in America, who says such a game was never played, and further stated he has not seen Mr. Grimshaw for nine years. Captain Mackenzie drew Steinitz’s attention to the game.

A week later, in the Leeds Mercury Weekly Supplement of 02/08/1884, an explanatory letter from Walter Grimshaw himself was published, seemingly in response to previous week’s comments. The quoted date of Grimshaw’s letter was 25/07/1884, the day before the publication date of the piece he was commenting on! Either White had sent Grimshaw an advance copy of what he proposed to publish, or else “25” is a misreading of “28” or, more probably, “29”. The piece including Grimshaw’s letter was as follows:

EXPLANATORY. – In reference to the remarks we made last week on the subject of the game between Mr. Grimshaw and Herr Steinitz, we have received the following letter of explanation from Mr. Grimshaw, which we publish with pleasure, hoping some of our American exchanges will copy the remarks and give them the same publicity as was given the previous statement: -

Whitby, July 25th [sic, 29th?]

Dear Sir, - Your paragraph in last Saturday’s Weekly Supplement respecting a game I played with Steinitz (which, I presume, was taken from an American paper) omits to state that Steinitz told Captain Mackenzie that he lost a game with Grimshaw about nine years ago. That statement is quite correct, as it was the only time I ever saw him or played with him. This game was played at the Divan in London. I won the game, but did not keep a record of it. A gentleman who was present it appears did so, and sent a copy of it to the Illustrated London News in 1880. The mistake seems to have been made by the American papers stating that it was played in 1880. If you refer to the Glasgow Herald or Detroit Free Press of nine years ago, you will find an account of our encounter and the amusement it caused at the time. “Mars,” in the Sporting and Dramatic News for March 8th says he was present at the Divan, and saw the game played. I may say that I never expected to see the game in print, and was surprised to find that any one had taken the trouble to copy it; as for my part, I could not have recollected the moves. – I am yours &c. W. GRIMSHAW."