<Yes, if Chernev said the game was a McDonnell - La Bourdonnais; that is good enough for me.> I would like to explain to you in a friendly way why we won't improve this database or our knowledge on chess history in this way. Former generations had much less opportunities to read primary sources, and hence the authors - most of them no historians - wrote from their memories or filled gaps even by speculation. If we rely on these secondary sources, then we collect all their mistakes, and if we proceed in the same way, we will be someday on Winter's site as another bad example, too. But, nowadays most chess books and magazines from the 19th century can be read online, and so everybody can check the details himself, assumed he is willing to spend some time. Otherwise, cg is a good place to find someone who is willing and has even fun doing this.

W.G. Walker was at these McDonnell - La Bourdonnais matches and recorded them for history. What part of that do you not understand? That makes him the expert and Chernev a secondary source.

As have I.

Have you been cited at Winter's column? Have you added to chess history?

This is the same Winter of whom you said you would accept his authority.>

Here's another vote for <thomastonk>: he's a decent guy and a positive contributor to this site.

At least you were not a member of the Know-Nothing Party!

True story - 1970's, young man hitchhikes to San Fran for a chess tournament. After several nights ... sleeping on a bench and such ... he is taken in by none other than Chernev.

I personally saw ... with my own eyes ... walls covered with chess books and magazines ... he must have had thousands of them. He could go to any one of them and pull out a problem and show it to you.

He lived, ate and breathed chess. So - when some DING-DONG on this site says Chernev was a un-educated puke who made lots of mistakes ... and did not know beans about chess ... he is only showing his own total and complete IGNORANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ChessBase, USCF, (me) [and many others!!!] consider him to be the final authority on such matters.

I did a search at <Chess Notes>, and not surprisingly, your name doesn't turn up. So much for Winter citing your pages.

Let's see

Thomas Niessen

Highest rating achieved in database: 2495.

A J Goldsby

I didn't know that. That's what I like about this site, the pleasant revelations that sometimes occur.

However, I can still clearly remember when I only had around 15-20 books in my library. (This was back in the early 1970's.) A few favorites were:

#1.) "The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played." (Chernev)

#2.) "The Complete Chessplayer." (Reinfeld)

#3.) "1000 (best) Short Games of Chess" (Chernev)

#4.) "Capa's Best Endgames," (Chernev).

#5.) "The Chess Companion," (Chernev).

#6.) A Pamphlet on Staunton's Games. (I forgot who did it, I won this as a prize at a chess tournament, I lost it many years ago.)

#7.) A Dover reprint (soft cover, blue)of Paul Morphy's Games.

The rest were all opening books ... ... ... (King's Indian, Dragon, Benoni, two on the Grunfeld, etc.)

"Chess - The amateurs of chess in this country have to regret the loss of Alexander M`Donnell, Esq., who died last week at the early age of 37, after a short illness. This gentleman was not only the best chess player in the United Kingdom, but the best our country has possessed since Philidor. Indeed Philidor was a Frenchman, though the greater part of his life was spent in England, it may be fairly said that Mr. M`Donnell was the greatest English player upon record."

<Here the text continues about his talents, books etc. like the obituary above.>

<Paul Morphy considers the games of these two gentlemen the finest chess ever ..> Such statements were often made in the 1840s by earlier authors. Morphy begun the series of commented games with a compliment, and called the games "beautiful models of chess strategy". But prior to that he had already presented his true intention: "True, they have been published before ; but no satisfactory analysis has, to our knowledge, ever been appended to them." His comments do not follow the tradition to praise everything both men played. He clearly distinguished between the good and the bad parts of their games. The opening play, and in particular McDonnell's, is several times harshly criticized. Here is one example: "The great fault to be with M'Donnell's play in all these Sicilian and French openings, as also in the Queen's Gambits, is loss of time, which, against such a powerful antagonist as Labourdonnais, could ill be afforded by any player."

<... and went as far to annotate15 of them.> More than twice times as much: games annotated by Morphy.

<There is a picture of McDonnell in Edward Winter's site.> Mr Winter's feature article entitled "Alexander McDonnell" begins with these words: "No picture of Alexander McDonnell has ever been found, ...". But at the end of that article one can find at least an old picture of his grave.