Bath, England (28 July-2 August 1884)
1 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 Score Place/Prize
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1 Fedden • ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 7 1st-3rd £5 6s 8d
2 Loman ½ • 0 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 0 1 7 1st-3rd £5 6s 8d
3 W Pollock 1 1 • 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 1st-3rd £5 6s 8d
4 Blake ½ 0 1 • 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 6½
5 Burt ½ 0 1 0 • ½ 1 1 0 1 1 6
6 Coker 0 0 0 1 ½ • 0 1 1 1 0 4½
7 Locock ½ 0 0 1 0 1 • 0 1 1 0 4½
8 May 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 1 • 0 1 1 3½
9 Huntsman 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 • 1 0 3
10 Lambert 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 1 3
11 Pierpoint 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 • 3
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Time Control: 20 moves per hour.
Introduction
Class I. (Division 2.) Open to British Amateurs not qualified as above, but too strong for Class II, on subscription of £1 1s. First prize, £10. Second prize, £4. Other prizes may be given if more than six competitors. (1)
Class I. Division II. First prize, £10; second, £4; third, £2; and £3 in consolation prizes. (2)
£3 in consolation prize money
Conclusion
In Division B of Class I. there were eleven entries, Messrs. Blake, Burt, Coker, Fedden, Lambert, Locock, Loman, May, Pierpoint, W. H. Pollock, and Huntsman. Here also the contest was an exceedingly close one, and to the last it was doubtful what would be the issue. As will be seen by the score-sheet, the result was that three players, Messrs. Fedden, Loman, and Pollock, tied for the highest places, Mr. Blake being only a half point behind them, and Mr. Burt the same distance behind him. As there was no time to play off all the ties, the winners divided the first three prizes. (3)
In Class I., Division II., eleven competitors took part, and the result was a tie and division of the prizes between Messrs. Fedden, Loman, and W. H. K. Pollock, in equal shares of £5. 6s. 8d. each. (4)(5)
It appears the competitors tried to resolve the tie for first place after the tournament's director, Skipworth, had left the venue making this tie-break an unsanctioned and unsupervised contest. In this ad hoc playoff both Fedden and Pollock defeated Loman and relegated him to third place, leaving the remaining game between Fedden and Pollock to determine first and second place. Fedden appears to have won the game, however, Pollock claimed a win due to Fedden overstepping the time-limit, but with no tournament director present there was no official ruling on the result of the game, leaving some sources, like the Bristol Western Daily Press, to claim that Fedden and Pollock were still tied for first place. Other sources, like the Bath Herald, supported Pollock's claim and gave him first place honors, and the Field appeared to supported Fedden's claim by publishing the final game as being a win for Fedden.
Being that Skipworth never "corrected" the report given in the British Chess Magazine regarding the prize distributions to this event, it can only be surmised that the official position of the Counties' Chess Association was that the event ended in a three-way tie for first place. It is worth mentioning that Skipworth found the time to correct that report in the British Chess Magazine regarding the prize distributions for the Class III event, so his silence on this matter was intentional and not an oversight. (6)
Unsanctioned Playoff
1 2 3 Score
—————————————————————————
1 Fedden • 1 1 2*
2 W Pollock 0 • 1 1
3 Loman 0 0 • 0
—————————————————————————
* Final results disputed by Pollock
In the second division of the 1st Class Messrs. Fedden, Loman, and Pollock come out equal for the first three places and the ties have to be played off. (7)
This contest came to a very remarkable termination, for Messrs. Fedden, Loman, and Pollock each made a final score of seven. In playing off the tie another dead heat resulted, each player winning one game. The prizes were therefore divided between them. (8)
Class I. Division II.
First and Second prize Mr. W. H. K. Pollock, Bath Chess Club. Mr. N. Fedden, Bristol and Clifton Chess Association.
Third prize Mr. Loman, Amsterdamn. (9)
Class I. Division II.—1st and 2nd, Mr. W. H. K. Pollock, Bath Chess Club, and Mr. N. Fedden, Bristol and Clifton Chess Association, 7 games; 3rd, Mr. Loman, Amsterdamn, 7. (10)
There were thus three competitors whose scores, being higher than any of the others, were equal; they had consequently to play extra games to determine the order in which the prizes should be awarded, and the results showed the following to the final winners:—
First prize and Second prize Mr W. H. K. Pollock, Bath Chess Club. Mr N. Fedden, Bristol and Clifton Chess Association.
Third prize Mr Loman, Amsterdam.
An unfortunate dispute occurred between the two first-named, Mr Pollock claiming that Mr Fedden exceeded the time limit, and thereby lost; whereas Mr Fedden argues that he won the game and, therefore, the first prize. (11)
Class I. division II.—First prize, Mr. W. H. K. Pollock, Bath Chess Club; 2nd, Mr. N. Fedden, Bristol and Clifton Chess Association; 3rd, Mr. Loman, Amsterdam. (12)
The Counties Chess Association.
The proceedings of the above-named congress terminated on Saturday. We wish we could add, amidst general satisfaction, but, unfortunately, such a statement would be incorrect. More than one cause of disagreement has arisen, and not the least felt was the fact of the working executive leaving the city early on Saturday, long before the whole of the competitions had been concluded. Many opinions adverse to this conduct were expressed during the day, and its ill effect was particularly felt in the deciding game in Class I., Division II., when, Mr. Pollock claiming that his opponent, Mr. Fedden, had exceeded his time limit, there was no one having even pretensions to authority to whom the question in dispute could be referred for settlement. From our knowledge of the two gentlemen named, we are fully satisfied that, whichever may be in error, he is acting in perfectly good faith as to his belief in his rights, and this fact renders more regrettable still the absence of the managers of the congress. Into the merits of the case it is not our place to enter. But the decision of the right to possession of the first or second prize is as nothing compared with the bad opinion of the association which will be formed by many. We are sorry such will happen, but it is inevitable, and we can only express a hope that this feeling will not materially interfere with the future success of an organisation which has for many years past, in the face of much discouragement, of secret hostility, and open adverse criticism and even opposition, continued to do good service towards popularising and extending the practice of the Royal game. (13)
Sources
(1) British Chess Magazine, v4 n43, July 1884, p285
(2) British Chess Magazine, v4 n44/45 August/September, 1884, p326
(3) British Chess Magazine v4 n44/45, August/September, 1884, p325
(4) Chess-Monthly, v6 n1, September 1884, p5
(5) London Field, 1884.08.09, p205
(6) British Chess Magazine, v4 n46, October 1884, p366
(7) Chess Player's Chronicle, v8 n215, 13 August 1884, p72
(8) London Morning Post, 1884.08.06, p6
(9) Bath Chronicle, 1884.08.07, p3
(10) Western Gazette, Fourth Edition, 1884.08.08, p6
(11) Bristol Western Daily Press, 1884.08.04, p7
(12) Bath Herald, 1884.08.06, p2
(13) Bristol Mercury, 1884.08.04, p8
Kibitzing
