London, England (November 1887-1888)
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Score
——————————————————————————————————————————
1 Donisthorpe • 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 8
2 MacDonnell 1 • 1 1 … … 1 1 … + 6
3 Smith 0 0 • … 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 5½
4 Minchin 0 0 … • ½ ½ 1 1 … + 4
5 Mills 0 … 0 ½ • … 1 … 1 + 3½
6 Gattie 0 … ½ ½ … • … … 1 + 3
7 Mackeson 0 0 0 0 0 … • 1 1 + 3
8 Salter 0 0 0 0 … … 0 • 1 + 2
9 Rabson 0 … 0 … 0 0 0 0 • + 1
10 Trenchard - - 0 - - - - - - • 0
——————————————————————————————————————————
Unplayed games: (+) win, (=) draw, (-) loss, and (…) unscored.
Introduction
In the Ruskin competition Donisthorpe has scored 6; Smith, 5½; "Hiber," 5; Minchin, 4; Mills, 3½; Gattie, 3; Mackesson (sic), 3; and Salter, 2. Several games still remain to be played. (1)
In the Ruskin Class, "Hiber" scores 5 games out of 5, and Donisthorpe 6 out of 7. (2)
The Ruskin prize, however, has not been decided, owing to Mr. MacDonnell's inability to play Mr. Donisthorpe. (3)
Dispute
The tournament for the Ruskin prize in the British Chess Association Congress is at a standstill, and has been so for some months past. It is quite time for the committee to take the matter in hand and arrange for the competitors to play out their games within a reasonable period. The management of tourneys should never be confined to any one man, no matter how capable or independent he may be, but should always be assigned to a committee, and the best of all committees for such a purpose is the whole body of competitors, or a select number chosen therefrom by the competitors themselves. The signal success that attended the recent tournament at the Grand Divan was, no doubt, owing in a great measure to the adoption of self-government. (4)
___
To the Editors of the Chess-Monthly.
32, Pembridge Villas, W., May 25, 1888.
Dear Sirs,—In the report of the meeting of the Executive Council of the B.C.A., which appeared in your May issue, I see that "Mr. Hoffer was requested to convey to Professor Ruskin the thanks of the B.C.A. for the generous donation of his works, &c." In the year 1887 A.D., in the month of November, on the 29th day of that month, I sat down, together with eight other competitors, to contend for the Ruskin prize. Within the appointed time I completed all my engagements with a loss of only one game (no draws). The next best score of Dr. Smith's, who won five games clear. I was congratulated on having carried off so choice a guerdon—amongst others, by Mr. Hoffer himself; and from that day to this I have not ceased to congratulate myself. Imagine then my surprise when I was suddenly informed that a claimant had arisen, after a lapse of half a year, in the person of a gentleman who succeeded in winning only four games, and who bases his claim on the chance that had he played all his games he might possibly have beaten me! Amongst other opponents whom he would have to meet were Mr. Mills and Mr. Gattie, names not suggestive of a walk over. Now, Sirs, the B.C.A. is already a little too famous for leniency in the matter of discipline; surely if any consideration is given to this extraordinary demand, at such a date, its leniency will blossom into preposterous laxity. I have not written to the B.C.A. on the subject, because the first lesson taught in Chess is to wait patiently while other are making their moves, even though they take an unconscionably long time over them.
I am, yours obediently,
Wordsworth Donisthorpe.
Mr. Hoffer is of opinion that "a reasonable time" has been allowed by the Committee, of which the competitor whose case is defended by Mars, and who presumably is "Hiber," had ample opportunity to avail himself had he been so inclined. "Hiber" neither verbally nor by letter intimated to the Hon. Sec. of the B.C.A. that he intended to play out his unfinished games, and the natural conclusion was that he had resigned. Surely the competition could not be kept open for the sake of one neglectful competitor. In answer to Mars' veiled censure of the Hon. Secretary's managment, Mr. Hoffer begs to state that the masters' tournament, which is, as a rule, conducted under strict rules, passed off satisfactorily; but for the minor events of the B.C.A. Congress no hard and fast rules are possible. The elements constituting the minor contests consist of gentlemen who play chess for pleasure, and have other callings and family ties which preclude them from entering a tournament of some duration under stringent rules. It is, therefore, evident that a certain latitude must be allowed. Some enter for morning; some for evening play; some for both; others, under the condition that they be permitted to absent themselves for a few days to fulfil prior engagements, &c., and the Hon. Sec. is, as a rule, willing to trust to the good sense of teh competitors themselves without in the least interfering as soon as play commences. Irregularities happen, but they are all peacefully smoothe over, as in the case of the amateur championship tournament for the Newnes' B.C.A. challenge cup. But in chess, like in warfare, the difficulties of a "Hiber pass" (with apologies to the historians) will occasionally occur and cause delay.
The precedent of the Divan Handicap, quoted by Mars, is an exception. As a rule, in sport, competitors cannot be judges. At Simpson's, however, a few players collected subscriptions for a handicap, and were allowed by the subscribers to play for the small sum thus collected by the players, under conditions framed by themselves. In the usual course, a programme is issued, prizes are offered, and those who enter, as a matter of course, accept the conditions before they enter. If the Divan Handicap was such a "signal success" it might, perhaps, in some measure be due to the fact that no Hibers competed in that contest. (5)
___
To the Editor of the Chess-Monthly.
Sir,—The religious affix, A.D., with which Mr. Wordsworth Donisthorpe, in his letter to you last month, deigns to honour the glorious year 1887, The Donisthorpe-Ruskin year, scarcely atones for the inaccuracies and absurdities which he has crammed into his super-jovial epistle. Kindly permit me to correct some of his mistakes.
1. There were 10 competitors in the Ruskin tournament (See Chess-Monthly, page 101.)
2. There was no "appointed time for completing the tournament." (See Ch.-M., page 292, &c., &c.)
3. Granting, for a moment, Mr. Donisthorpe's score to be the best, "Dr. Smith's" was not "the next best."
4. I "did not succeed in only winning 4 games." I won 5 over the board, defeating Messrs. Salter, Minchin, Smith, Donisthorpe, and Mackeson. I also scored 1 of Mr. Gattie (who resigned to me by telegram), and 2 of Messrs. Rabson and Trenchard, who resigned, I believe, en bloc. Thus my score was 8 wins. I offered not to score against Mr. Gattie if he would play me at some time suitable to my convenience, and this offer I specially mentioned to the hon. secretary. The remaining competitor, Mr. Mills, I invited by letter to fix a time for playing me. Whereupon he called shortly afterwards at the British Chess Club and then and there offered to play me. I declined to do so on that day (1) because I had to leave the club early in the afternoon, (2) because I could not play in "the Ruskin" except by appointment.
5. I did not "base my claim to the prize on the chance that had I played all my games I might possibly have beaten" Mr. Donisthorpe. The fact being, that in single combat and in aggregate score I did beat Mr. W. Donisthorpe. My score was 8 wins and no defeat. Mr. Donisthorpe's score, 8 wins and 1 defeat.
In these facts and figures I base my claim to the prize. And now let us see whare are Mr. Donisthorpe's claims to the prize, as set forth in his letter to you.
1. That he sat down together with 8 other competitors to contend for the prize in the month of November—on the 29th of that month!
2. That "within the appointed time he completed all his engagements with a loss of only one game." "Completed all his engagements" is good.
3. That he "was congratulated on having carried off so choice a guerdon." (What guerdon?) "Congratulated, too, by Mr. Hoffer himself." (That's a settle.) And
4. "From that day to this he has not ceased to congratulate himself," &c. Delightful and profitable occupation!
These are Mr. Donisthorpe's claims to the prize; and I now ask the Committee kindly to decide between my facts and figures and Mr. Donisthorpe's claims.
A few words more. Mr. Hoffer affirms in the Chess-Monthly "that a reasonable time for completing the tournament had been allowed by the Committee, of which 'Hiber' had ample opportunity to avail himself had he been so inclined."
I ask—When was the "reasonable time" appointed? When was "the ample opportunty" afforded, &c.? Or, rather, I ask, these things being so, why were they kept secret from me and from the Chess public?
Mr. Hoffer further affirms "that 'Hiber' neither verbally nor by letter intimated to the hon. sec. that he intended to play out his unfinished games, and the natural conclusion was that he had resigned." The hon. sec. must have been bathing lately in Lethe. For I most distinctly and emphatically asservate that both orally and epistolarily I requested Mr. Hoffer to arrange for the completion of the tournament, and further informed him that I was prepared to obey the Committee might make in the matter. To these requests he turned a deaf ear. "The conclusion" (whose?) that I, being at the head of the poll and having beaten the favourite, "had resigned," may seem to some persons "the natural conclusion," but ot me it seems—"seems, sir, nay, it is"—an utterly preposterous one.
And now comes the strangest part of this little affair. Mr. Donisthorpe writes as if he had won "the choice guerdon." "Mr. Hoffer himself" congratulates the hero upon something or other. The Committee of the B.C.A. pass a vote of thanks to Mr. Ruskin for the gift of his book and his autograph. And yet nobody, so far as I can learn, knows for certain whether any official award of the prize has been made, or whether Mr. Donisthorpe deserves the self-congratulation in which, for some time past, he has "not ceased" to indulge. On these two points the Chess-Monthly at all events is oracularly silent.
I am, Sir, yours faithfully,
"Hiber." (6)
___
To the Editor of the Chess-Monthly.
Sir,—The facts, on "Hiber's" own showing, are these:
1. My score is 8 out of a possible 9.
2. "Hiber" won 5 games.
3. Mr. Trenchard resigned en bloc, which entitles "Hiber" to claim 6 wins.
4. "Hiber" had still to play Messrs. Mills, Gattie, and Rabson. (Mr. Rabson did not resign en bloc, and I defeated him.)
5. "Hiber" hibernated for six months before putting in his peculiar claim.
6. Messrs. Mills and Gattie both asked "Hiber" in my presence to appoint a day for play in the then current week, and he declined to do so.
Wordsworth Donisthorpe, British Chess Club. (7)
Conclusion
The Chess-Monthly records that Donisthorpe "won the Ruskin Competition at the B.C.A. Congress, 1887." (8) This appears to indicate that the Committee honored Donisthorpe's, and not MacDonnell's, claim to the prize.
Last published cross table
The following is the last known published table of results. Both sources omit Rabson's loss to Mills, but include Mills' win against Rabson. However, the summations given in the Chess-Monthly seems to be verification of Mills' win. (9)(10).
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Score
——————————————————————————————————————————
1 Rabson • … … … 0 … 0 … 0 … 0
2 Minchin … • 1 … ½ 1 … 0 … … 2½
3 Salter … 0 • … … 0 … 0 … … 0
4 Trenchard … … … • … … … … … 0 0
5 Mills 1 ½ … … • 1 … … 0 0 2½
6 Mackeson … 0 1 … 0 • … 0 0 0 1
7 Gattie 1 … … … … … • … 0 ½ 1½
8 MacDonnell … 1 1 … … 1 … • … … 3
9 Donisthorpe 1 … … … 1 1 1 … • 1 5
10 Smith … … … 1 1 1 ½ … 0 • 3½
——————————————————————————————————————————
Sources
(1) London Morning Post, 1887.12.19, p2
(2) Horncastle News and South Lindsey Advertiser, 1887.12.24, p7
(3) British Chess Magazine, v8 n3, March 1888, p140
(4) Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, 1888.05.19, p279
(5) Chess-Monthly, v9 n10, June 1888, pp292-293
(6) Chess-Monthly, v9 n11, July 1888, p328
(7) Chess-Monthly, v9 n11, July 1888, p329
(8) Chess-Monthly, v12 n4, December 1890, p98
(9) London Field, 1887.12.10, p890 (cross table)
(10) Chess-Monthly, v9 n4, December 1887, p101 (cross table)
Kibitzing
