| Mar-29-04 |
| shr0pshire: "William Ewart Napier was born in 1881 in England. His family moved to America, eventually residing in Brooklyn, N.Y. Napier join the Brooklyn Chess Club about the same time as Frank Marshall. The Brooklyn Chess Club was a strong club, boasting such members, besides Napier and Marshall, as Harry Nelson Pillsbury and Jackson Showalter. Napier was still a teenager. At age 16 he played a match against Marshall, winning 7 games, losing 1 and drawing 3. He became the club champion. As champion, he was sent to 1897 NY State Chess Association where he played, and defeated, Wilhelm Steinitz. Oddly enough Napier married Harry Nelson Pillsbury's neice.
He played in relatively few tournaments and his carreer was very short. In the 1902 Monte Carlo Tournament, his first strong one, he won the Rothschild Brilliancy Prize for his game against Chigorin. He also played at Hanover in 1902 with good results. In 1904 he played in the famous Cambridge Springs tournament where he lost to Lasker in a game renouned for it remarkable play by both sides. He won City of London Chess Club's National Tournament in 1904 and a few weeks later became the first British Chess Federation Championby defeating Henry Atkins, a very strong player, in match play.
He drew a match with Meises, lost a match to Teichman and beat Marshall in a Rice Gambit-themed match.
Then he just gave up competive chess to become an insurance executive.
He lived until 1952."
That excerpt was taken from:
http://www.angelfire.com/games/SBCh... |
 |
| Mar-29-04 |
| Kenkaku: Another interesting fact is that Pillsbury and Napier were best friends. |
|
| May-23-04 |
| offramp: Napier & Pillsbury were ages ahead of their time. |
|
| Jan-17-06 |
| BIDMONFA: William Ewart Napier NAPIER, William Ewart
http://www.bidmonfa.com/napier_will...
_ |
|
| Nov-28-06 |
| Maatalkko: Only four kibitzes? Chernev made this guy sound like hot stuff. A mysteriously forgotten player. |
|
| Dec-08-06 |
| OJC: Napier's match win over Marshall (+7-1=3) in 1896 is very impressive. Though Marshall was young (not yet 20), Napier was over 3 years younger and less experienced. |
|
| Dec-08-06 |
| OJC: It's worth mentioning too that Napier had the better of it in each of the three draws and Marshall had to fight hard to draw in each game (including a nice Q-sac stalemate). |
|
| Jan-31-07 |
| blancacapa: Anyone who has read "Paul Morphy and the Golden Age of Chess", a delighful collection of Napier's reflections on the game and it's great players, many of whom he knew personally, will appreciate that, besides being a fine player himself, he was possessed of an exquisite literary style. |
|
| Jan-31-07 |
| SBC: <blancacapa>
<"Paul Morphy and the Golden Age of Chess"> I'd posted some links to excerpts from Napier's book on L R Eisenberg 's page |
|
May-04-08
 |
| Karpova: A feature article from Edward Winter: <The Chess Wit and Wisdom of W.E. Napier>
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...
The article contains quotes from the three units of <Napier’s Amenities and Background of Chess-Play> (later adapted into a single volume called <Paul Morphy and The Golden Age of Chess>) |
|
| May-26-08 |
| brankat: At the time of the match against F.Marshall, William Napier was only 15 years old! |
|
| Jan-17-09 |
| WhiteRook48: why is the Napier-NN game a notable game? Almost anyone can beat NN. :-) |
|
Apr-20-09
 |
| whiteshark: <In the laboratory, gambits all test unfavorably; but the old rule wears well, that all gambits are sound over the board.> -- William Napier
As far as possible, true! |
|
| Apr-20-09 |
| Raisin Death Ray: This guy decided he would rather be an insurance agent than a chess player. And people say Fischer was crazy! |
|
Jan-17-10
 |
| Richard Taylor: I immediately think of the Mathematician (of the Naperian logs or nepers base e) ...I saw his famous game in book at local library and it intrigued me..amazing game by them both. I wondered vaguely if he was related to the other Napier. |
|
Jan-17-10
|
| Richard Taylor: <Raisin Death Ray: This guy decided he would rather be an insurance agent than a chess player. And people say Fischer was crazy!> But there is mostly no money in chess, especially in those times. Charles Ives, who was a great and innovative composer, got little recognition, so he worked in Insurance and then started an Insurance Company and became a billionaire. Napier maybe had less ability than Lasker or he wasted a better income. maybe he liked working in insurance. he may have enjoyed other intellectual activities - if he was family man, Chess is or would not be a good life. |
|
Jan-17-10
|
| Richard Taylor: It's not as if he "failed" at chess - he won quite lot of prizes and did well in many tourneys at a high level...and even when he went into Insurance he kept up chess. (This I gleaned from Wikipaedia.)
It seems he wasn't massively obsessed like Fischer. |
|
