From 1896 to 1911 the Anglo-American Cable Match was a highlight on the chess calendars of Great Britain and the United States, attracting some of the best players from both nations. Thirteen matches in all were played, and to say the results were even is an understatement: each side won 6 matches (with one match drawn) and each side scored exactly 64 points in the 13 matches. This was a competitive and hard-fought series all the way, with very few short draws or quick victories.

The matches were played over two days at the relatively fast time limit of 20 moves per hour, though transmission times slowed this down a bit. Two four-hour sessions were played each day with an one-hour interval between, starting at 3:00 PM (London time) or 10:00 AM (New York time). Unfinished games after the fourth session were to be adjudicated, though this was rarely necessary as the two sides could usually agree as to the results. There were some minor changes to these conditions throughout the series, but they remained fairly consistent throughout.

In general, the players were required to be "native-born", though this requirement was relaxed for children born to citizens who were overseas at the time, such as Hermann G Voigt or George Alan Thomas .

The prize at stake was the Sir George Newnes Cup, which was to remain in the permanent possession of the first team to win three matches in a row. When Great Britain accomplished this feat in 1909-1911, the series ended. A picture of the Cup can be found at http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/index... (scroll down a bit; thanks to <The Focus> for pointing this out).

Match 1, March 13-14, 1896: USA 4½, GBR 3½ (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

1 Pillsbury 0 Blackburne
2 Showalter 1 Burn
3 Burille 1 Bird
4 Barry 1 Tinsley
5 Hymes 1/2 Locock
6 Hodges 1/2 Mills
7 Delmar 1/2 Atkins
8 Baird 0 Jackson

The first match proved a pattern for what was to come, as the lead seesawed back and forth. Lawrence put the British up, but Bird evened things up by blundering his king. Showalter put the Americans ahead, Blackburne evened the match, then Barry clinched it with the last game to finish.

Match 2, February 12-13, 1897: GBR 5½, USA 4½ (GBR White on the odd-numbered boards)

1 Blackburne 1/2 Pillsbury
2 Locock 0 Showalter
3 Atkins 1 Burille
4 Lawrence 0 Barry
5 Mills 1/2 Hymes
6 Bellingham 1/2 Hodges
7 Blake 0 Delmar
8 Jackson 1 Helms
9 Cole, Henry 1 Teed
10 Jacobs 1 McCutcheon

The second match saw the rosters expand to ten players, which seemed to favor the British as their one-point victory was due in large part to a sweep on the bottom three boards.

Match 3, March 18-19, 1898: GBR 5½, USA 4½ (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

1 Pillsbury 1/2 Blackburne
2 Showalter 1 Burn
3 Barry 1 Caro
4 Hymes 1/2 Atkins
5 Hodges 1 Bellingham
6 Delmar 0 Mills
7 Baird 1/2 Locock
8 Young 0 Jackson
9 Robinson 0 Jacobs
10 Galbreath 0 Trenchard

Once again, British depth told the story. The Americans scored 4-1 on the top five boards, but could only manage 1/2-point on the bottom five. Board 7 was possibly the least interesting game in the entire series, Baird producing nothing from his last 45 moves except a very long scoresheet.

Match 4, March 10-11, 1899: USA 6, GBR 4 (GBR White on the odd-numbered boards)

1 Blackburne 1 Pillsbury
2 Atkins 0 Showalter
3 Lawrence 0 Barry
4 Jackson 0 Hodges
5 Mills 1/2 Hymes
6 Jacobs 1/2 Voigt
7 Locock 1/2 Johnston
8 Wainwright 1/2 Marshall
9 Bellingham 1/2 Newman
10 Trenchard 1/2 Baird

Since Great Britain had won two matches in a row, a victory this year would give them permananet possession of the Newnes Cup--but the Americans put an emphatic stop to that with their usual good performance on the top boards and a solid job by the lower. Notable among the newcomers was a young Frank J. Marshall, who showed some promise.

Match 5, March 23-24, 1900: USA 6, GBR 4 (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

1 Pillsbury 1/2 Blackburne
2 Showalter 1/2 Lee
3 Barry 1 Atkins
4 Hodges 1 Bellingham
5 Hymes 1/2 Mills
6 Voigt 1 Lawrence
7 Marshall 0 Jackson
8 Bampton 0 Jacobs
9 Newman 1/2 Ward
10 Delmar 1 Trenchard

The USA made it two victories in a row with another solid performance on the higher boards. Pillsbury remained winless in five cable games against Blackburne, and Showalter was finally slowed after four wins in a row. However, Barry kept his winning streak intact, Hodges contributed a second victory, and Hymes made in five draws in a row.

Match 6, April 19-20, 1901: USA 5, GBR 5 (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

1 Pillsbury 1 Blackburne
2 Showalter 0 Mason
3 Barry 1/2 Lee
4 Hodges 1/2 Mills
5 Hymes 1 Atkins
6 Voigt 1/2 Bellingham
7 Marshall 0 Ward
8 Bampton 1/2 Jackson
9 Newman 1 Jacobs
10 Howell 0 Michell

It was now the USA's turn to be within one win of retaining the Newnes Cup permanently, but the British just hung on with a tie match that broke several streaks. Pillsbury finally collected a win on board 1 over Blackburne, but Showalter suffered his first loss and Barry his first draw. On the other hand, Hymes ended his run of draws with a victory, but it was not enough.

Match 7, March 14-15, 1902: USA 5½, GBR 4½ (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

1 Pillsbury 1/2 Lawrence
2 Barry 1/2 Mason
3 Marshall 0 Atkins
4 Hodges 1 Lee
5 Hymes 1/2 Mills
6 Voigt 1/2 Bellingham
7 Delmar 0 Trenchard
8 Newman 1/2 Blake
9 Howell 1 Michell
10 Helms 1 Girdlestone

The United States started a new winning streak, in a year that saw regulars like Blackburne, Jackson, Jacobs and Showalter missing. Some new blood had to be found, and the USA replacements worked out better. An unusual feature saw Pillsbury and Marshall, who had just finished a tournament in Monte Carlo, hopping across the Channel and playing their games over-the-board in London.

Match 8, April 3-4, 1903: USA 5½, GBR 4½ (GBR White on the odd-numbered boards)

1 Lawrence 1/2 Pillsbury
2 Blackburne 0 Barry
3 Mills 1/2 Hodges
4 Atkins 0 Marshall
5 Bellingham 1 Hymes
6 Trenchard 0 Voigt
7 Michell 1 Newman
8 Jacobs 1/2 Delmar
9 Gunston 1 Howell
10 Hooke 0 Helms

The Americans fielded the same team as the previous year, and another narrow victory gave the Americans 4 wins in the previous 5 matches. They were still one win short of the three-in-a-row clause., but the aged and ill Blackburne was no longer the same force and the British seemed to have nobody coming forward to take up the slack.

Pillsbury and Marshall once again played their games in London, the latter pulling off a patented swindle to get his first cable match win.

With all the momentum on the American side, it looked like 1904 might see the end of the series. But then free enterprise intervened.

In both 1904 and 1905 the teams were ready to play, but at the last moment the cable companies refused to carry the moves in a dispute over compensation. For some time it seemed the series would come to an untimely end, but eventually matters were worked oout and the next match was held in 1907--by which time some things had happened.

Match 9, February 22-23, 1907: GBR 5½, USA 4½ (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

1 Marshall 1/2 Burn
2 Barry 0 Atkins
3 Hodges 1/2 Lawrence
4 Voigt 1/2 Blackburne
5 Morgan 0 Richmond
6 Fox 1/2 Lee
7 Bampton 1 Ward
8 Wolbrecht 1/2 Holmes
9 Howell 1 Michell
10 Robinson 0 Wainwright

With the death of Pillsbury and the inactivity of several other familiar faces, fully half the American team changed. Burn got his pipe going in time to strengthen the British side, and the bottom game went their way when Robinson blundered a rook by falling for an elementary trap in the French Defense.

The British got another break on board 5 when Mordecai Morgan forfeited on time, under the misapprehension that the control was 40/2 rather than 20/1. The Americans did have some consolation in Howell's brilliant win (played live in London).

So how seriously did the players take this event? Marshall participated though he was in the middle of his world championship match with Lasker!

Match 10, March 13-14, 1908: USA 6½, GBR 3½ (GBR White on the odd-numbered boards)

1 Blackburne 1/2 Hodges
2 Atkins 1/2 Voigt
3 Lawrence 1/2 Helms
4 Richmond 1/2 Delmar
5 Wainwright 1/2 Stadelman
6 Ward 1/2 Howell
7 England 0 Schwietzer
8 Michell 0 Wolbrecht
9 Palmer 0 Libaire
10 Sergeant 1/2 Robinson

The 1908 meeting was probably the weakest of the series thus far, with many top players on both sides missing. In the end, it was the Americans who pushed the right buttons and scored the most lop-sided victory thus far.

Match 11, March 26-27, 1909: GBR 6, USA 4 (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

1 Marshall 1 Blackburne
2 Barry 1/2 Lawrence
3 Hodges 1 Ward
4 Voigt 1 Wainwright
5 Howell 0 Blake
6 Helms 0 Michell
7 Schwietzer 0 Wahltuch
8 Stadelman 1/2 Holmes
9 Mlotkowski 0 Sergeant
10 Ruth 0 Jacobs

With the teams closer to full strength, Great Britain again showed their traditional depth: they scored only 1 draw on the top four boards, but collected 5½ on the bottom six!

Marshall later related how he announced mate in five against Blackburne and received the reply, "Saw it; gone home."

Match 12, March 11-12, 1910: GBR 6½, USA 3½ (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

1 Marshall 1 Blackburne
2 Barry 0 Atkins
3 Hodges 1/2 Lawrence
4 Voigt 0 Wahltuch
5 Wolbrecht 0 Yates
6 Stadelman 0 Wainwright
7 Schwietzer 1/2 Ward
8 Black 1 Blake
9 Rosenfeld 0 Thomas
10 Meyer 1/2 Michell

The British won their second match in a row, duplicating the Americans' record margin from 1908. They had some strong, upcoming players on their side with Yates and Thomas playing for the first time. Atkins' win was widely considered the best game of the match, and possibly of his career.

On a sad note, Sir George Newnes, whose Cup had helped kick off the nonsense, died in 1910. Perhaps it was appropriate that the next match would be the last.

Match 13, April 21-22, 1911: GBR 6, USA 4 (GBR White on the odd-numbered boards)

1 Burn 1 Marshall
2 Atkins 1/2 Hodges
3 Lawrence 0 Fox
4 Wahltuch 1 Barry
5 Yates 1 Voigt
6 Richmond 0 Black
7 Ward 1 Walcott
8 Thomas 1 Neill
9 Michell 1/2 Schwietzer
10 Cole 0 Meyer

Three times before, a team had been on the brink of gaining perpetual possession of the Newnes Cup. The fourth time was a charm.

It was the top half of the team which really let the Americans down this time, as Marshall, Barry and Voigt, heroes of many previous matches, all lost their games. First-time players Walcott and Neill also lost, killing any chance of a comeback. (By the way, Neill's name is usually given as <B Milnes>, but this was actually a pseudonym of Benjamin Milnes Neill.)

The 65 players who participated are listed below, with their records. The player's name is followed by his (country), year, (board number), result and opponent. By the way, <Albert Hodges> was the only player to come out for all 13 matches, and he was also able to remain undefeated the entire way (5 wins, 8 draws). Other players with at leat 10 appearances were Atkins and Barry (12), Blackburne (11), Lawrence and Voigt (10).

1. Henry Ernest Atkins (GBR): 1896 (7) D-Delmar; 1897 (3) W-Burille; 1898 (4) D-Hymes; 1899 (2) L-Showalter; 1900 (3) L-Barry; 1901 (5) L-Hymes; 1902 (3) W-Marshall; 1903 (4) L-Marshall; 1907 (2) W-Barry; 1908 (2) D-Voigt; 1910 (2) W-Barry; 1911 (2) D-Hodges. +4 -4 =4 .500

2. David Graham Baird (USA): 1896 (8) L-Jackson; 1898 (7) D-Locock; 1899 (10) D-Trenchard. +0 -1 =2 .333

3. Samuel Warren Bampton (USA): 1900 (8) L-Jacobs; 1901 (8) D-Jackson; 1907 (7) W-Ward. +1 -1 =1 .500

4. John Finan Barry (USA): 1896 (4) W-Tinsley; 1897 (4) W-Lawrence; 1898 (3) W-Caro; 1899 (3) W-Lawrence; 1900 (3) W-Atkins; 1901 (3) D-Lee; 1902 (2) D-Mason; 1903 (2) W-Blackburne; 1907 (2) L-Atkins; 1909 (2) D-Lawrence; 1910 (2) L-Atkins; 1911 (4) L-Wahltuch. +6 -3 =3 .625

5. George Bellingham (GBR): 1897 (6) D-Hodges; 1898 (5) L-Hodges; 1899 (9) D-Newman; 1900 (4) L-Hodges; 1901 (6) D-Voigt; 1902 (6) D-Voigt; 1903 (5) W-Hymes. +1 -2 =4 .429

6. Henry Bird (GBR): 1896 (3) L-Burille. +0 -1 =0 .000

7. Roy Turnbull Black (USA): 1910 (8) W-Blake; 1911 (6) W-Richmond. +2 -0 =0 1.000

8. Joseph Henry Blackburne (GBR): 1896 (1) W-Pillsbury; 1897 (1) D-Pillsbury; 1898 (1) D-Pillsbury; 1899 (1) W-Pillsbury; 1900 (1) D-Pillsbury; 1901 (1) L-Pillsbury; 1903 (2) L-Barry; 1907 (4) D-Voigt; 1908 (1) D-Hodges; 1909 (1) L-Marshall; 1910 (1) L-Marshall. +2 -4 =5 .409

9. Joseph Henry Blake (GBR): 1897 (7) L-Delmar; 1902 (8) D-Newman; 1909 (5) W-Howell; 1910 (8) L-Black. +1 -2 =1 .375

10. Constant Ferdinand Burille (USA): 1896 (3) W-Bird; 1897 (3) L-Atkins. +1 -1 =0 .500

11. Amos Burn (GBR): 1896 (2) L-Showalter; 1898 (2) L-Showalter; 1907 (1) D-Marshall; 1911 (1) W-Marshall. +1 -2 =1 .375

12. Horatio Caro (GBR): 1898 (3) L-Barry. +0 -1 =0 .000

13. Harold Godfrey Cole (GBR): 1911 (10) L-Meyer. +0 -1 =0 .000

14. Henry Holwell Cole (GBR): 1897 (9) W-Teed. +1 -0 =0 1.000

15. Eugene Delmar (USA): 1896 (7) D-Atkins; 1897 (7) W-Blake; 1898 (6) L-Mills; 1900 (10) W-Trenchard; 1901 (7) L-Trenchard; 1903 (8) D-Jacobs; 1908 (4) D-Richmond. +2 -2 =3 .500

16. Philip Remington England (GBR): 1908 (7) L-Schwietzer. + 0 -1 =0 .000

17. Albert Whiting Fox (USA): 1907 (6) D-Lee; 1911 (3) W-Lawrence. +1 -0 =1 .750

18. John Galbreath (USA): 1898 (10) L-Trenchard. +0 -1 =0 .000

19. Thomas Bolton Girdlestone (GBR): 1902 (10) L-Helms. +0 -1 =0 .000

20. William Hewison Gunston (GBR): 1903 (9) W-Howell. +1 -0 =0 1.000

21. Hermann Helms (USA): 1897 (8) L-Jackson; 1902 (10) W-Girdlestone; 1903 (10) W-Hooke; 1908 (3) D-Lawrence; 1909 (6) L-Michell. +2 -2 =1 .500

22. Albert Hodges (USA): 1896 (6) D-Mills; 1897 (6) D-Bellingham; 1898 (5) W-Bellingham; 1899 (4) W-Jackson; 1900 (4) W-Bellingham; 1901 (4) D-Mills; 1902 (4) W-Lee; 1903 (3) D-Mills; 1907 (3) D-Lawrence; 1908 (1) D-Blackburne; 1909 (3) W-Ward; 1910 (3) D-Lawrence; 1911 (2) D-Atkins. +5 -0 =8 .692

23. Harry Holmes (GBR): 1907 (8) D-Wolbrecht; 1909 (8) D-Stadelman. +0 -0 =2 .500

24. George Archer Hooke (GBR): 1903 (10) L-Helms. +0 -1 =0 .000

25. Clarence Seaman Howell (USA): 1901 (10) L-Michell; 1902 (9) W-Michell; 1903 (9) L-Gusnton; 1907 (9) W-Michell; 1908 (6) D-Ward; 1909 (5) L-Blake. +2 -3 =1 .417

26. Edward Hymes (USA): 1896 (5) D-Locock; 1897 (5) D-Mills; 1898 (4) D-Atkins; 1899 (5) D-Mills; 1900 (5) D-Mills; 1901 (5) W-Atkins; 1902 (5) D-Mills; 1903 (5) L-Bellingham. +1 -1 =6 .500

27. Edward Mackenzie Jackson (GBR): 1896 (8) W-Baird; 1897 (8) W-Helms; 1898 (8) W-Young; 1899 (4) L-Hodges; 1900 (7) W-Marshall; 1901 (8) D-Bampton. +4 -1 =1 .750

28. Herbert Jacobs (GBR): 1897 (10) W-McCutcheon; 1898 (9) W-Robinson; 1899 (6) D-Voigt; 1900 (8) W-Bampton; 1901 (9) L-Newman; 1903 (8) D-Delmar; 1909 (10) W-Ruth. +4 -1 =2 .714

29. Sidney Johnston (USA): 1899 (7) D-Locock. +0 -0 =1 .500

30. Thomas Lawrence (GBR): 1897 (4) L-Barry; 1899 (3) L-Barry; 1900 (6) L-Voigt; 1902 (1) D-Pillsbury; 1903 (1) D-Pillsbury; 1907 (3) D-Hodges; 1908 (3) D-Helms; 1909 (2) D-Barry; 1910 (3) D-Hodges; 1911 (3) L-Fox. +0 -4 =6 .300

31. Francis Joseph Lee (GBR): 1900 (2) D-Showalter; 1901 (3) D-Barry; 1902 (4) L-Hodges; 1907 (6) D-Fox. +0 -1 =3 .375

32. Edward Libaire (USA): 1908 (9) W-Palmer. +1 -0 =0 1.000

33. Charles Locock (GBR): 1896 (5) D-Hymes; 1897 (2) L-Showalter; 1898 (7) D-Baird; 1899 (7) D-Johnston. +0 -1 =3 .375

34. Frank Marshall (USA): 1899 (8) D-Wainwright; 1900 (7) L-Jackson; 1901 (7) L-Ward; 1902 (3) L-Atkins; 1903 (4) W-Atkins; 1907 (1) D-Burn; 1909 (1) W-Blackburne; 1910 (1) W-Blackburne; 1911 (1) L-Burn. +3 -4 =2 .444

35. James Mason (GBR): 1901 (2) W-Showalter; 1902 (2) D-Barry. +1 -0 =1 .750

36. John McCutcheon (USA): 1897 (10) L-Jacobs. +0 -1 =0 .000

37. Leonard B Meyer (USA): 1910 (10) D-Michell; 1911 (10) W-Cole, Harold. +1 -0 =1 .750

38. Reginald Pryce Michell (GBR): 1901 (10); W-Howell; 1902 (10) L-Howell; 1903 (7) W-Newman; 1907 (9) L-Howell; 1908 (8) L-Wolbrecht; 1909 (6) W-Helms; 1910 (10) D-Meyer; 1911 (9) D-Schwietzer. +3 -3 =2 .500

39. Daniel Yarnton Mills (GBR): 1896 (6) D-Hodges; 1897 (5) D-Hymes; 1898 (6) W-Delmar; 1899 (5) D-Hymes; 1900 (5) D-Hymes; 1901 (4) D-Hodges; 1902 (5) D-Hymes; 1903 (3) D-Hodges. +1 -0 =7 .563

40. Stasch Mlotkowski (USA): 1909 (9) L-Sergeant. +0 -1 =0 .000

41. Mordecai Morgan (USA): 1907 (5) L-Richmond. +0 -1 =0 .000

42. Benjamin Milnes Neill (USA): 1911 (8) L-Thomas. +0 -1 =0 .000

43. Charles John Newman (USA): 1899 (9) D-Bellingham; 1900 (9) D-Ward; 1901 (9) W-Jacobs; 1902 (8) D-Blake; 1903 (7) L-Michell. +1 -1 =3 .500

44. Wilfred Charles Palmer (GBR): 1908 (9) L-Libaire. +0 -1 =0 .000

45. Harry Nelson Pillsbury (USA): 1896 (1) L-Blackburne; 1897 (1) D-Blackburne; 1898 (1) D-Blackburne; 1899 (1) L-Blackburne; 1900 (1) D-Blackburne; 1901 (1) W-Blackburne; 1902 (1) D-Lawrence; 1903 (1) D-Lawrence. +1 -2 =5 .438

46. George William Richmond (GBR): 1907 (5) W-Morgan; 1908 (4) D-Delmar; 1911 (6) L-Black. +1 -1 =1 .500

47. Alfred K Robinson (USA): 1898 (9) L-Jacobs; 1907 (10) L-Wainwright; 1908 (10) D-Sergeant. +0 -2 =1 .167

48. Herbert Rosenfeld (USA): 1910 (9) L-Thomas. +0 -1 =0 .000

49. William Allen Ruth (USA): 1909 (10) L-Jacobs. +0 -1 =0 .000

50. George Schwietzer (USA): 1908 (7) W-England; 1909 (7) L-Wahltuch; 1910 (7) D-Ward; 1911 (9) D-Michell. +1 -1 =2 .500

51. Edward Guthlac Sergeant (GBR): 1908 (10) D-Robinson; 1909 (9) W-Mlotkowski. +1 -0 =1 .750

52. Jackson Whipps Showalter (USA): 1896 (2) W-Burn; 1897 (2) W-Locock; 1898 (2) W-Burn; 1899 (2) W-Atkins; 1900 (2) D-Lee; 1901 (2) L-Mason. +4 -1 =1 .750

53. Samuel Leigh Stadelman (USA): 1908 (5) D-Wainwirght; 1909 (8) D-Holmes; 1910 (6) L-Wainwirght. +0 -1 =2 .333

54. Frank Melville Teed (USA): 1897 (9) L-Cole, Henry. +0 -1 =0 .000

55. George Alan Thomas (GBR): 1910 (9) W-Rosenfeld; 1911 (8) W-Milnes. +2 -0 =0 1.000

56. Samuel Tinsley (GBR): 1896 (4) L-Barry. +0 -1 =0 .000

57. Herbert Trenchard (GBR): 1898 (10) W-Galbreath; 1899 (10) D-Baird; 1900 (10) L-Delmar; 1902 (7) W-Delmar; 1903 (6) L-Voigt. +2 -2 =1 .500

58. Hermann G Voigt (USA): 1899 (6) D-Jacobs; 1900 (6) W-Lawrence; 1901 (6) D-Bellingham; 1902 (6) D-Bellingham; 1903 (6) W-Trenchard; 1907 (4) D-Blackburne; 1908 (2) D-Atkins; 1909 (4) W-Wainwright; 1910 (4) L-Wahltuch; 1911 (5) L-Yates. +3 -2 =5 .550

59. Victor Leonard Wahltuch (GBR): 1909 (7) W-Schwietzer; 1910 (4) W-Voigt; 1911 (4) W-Barry. +3 -0 =0 1.000

60. George Edward Wainwright (GBR): 1899 (8) D-Marshall; 1907 (10) W-Robinson; 1908 (5) D-Stadelman; 1909 (4) L-Voigt; 1910 (6) W-Stadelman. +2 -1 =2 .600

61. George H Walcott (USA): 1911 (7) L-Ward. +0 -1 =0 .000

62. William Ward (GBR): 1900 (9) D-Newman; 1901 (7) W-Marshall; 1907 (7) L-Bampton; 1908 (6) D-Howell; 1909 (3) L-Hodges; 1910 (7) D-Schwietzer; 1911 (7) W-Walcott. +2 -2 =3 .500

63. George H Wolbrecht (USA): 1907 (8) D-Holmes; 1908 (8) W-Michell; 1910 (5) L-Yates. +1 -1 =1 .500

64. Fred Dewhirst Yates (GBR): 1910 (5) W-Wolbrecht; 1911 (5) W-Voigt. +2 -0 =0 1.000

65. Franklin Knowles Young (USA): 1898 (8) L-Jackson. +0 -1 =0 .000

Sources:

http://www.365chess.com proved an excellent source for games, even compiling results by tournament. However, their player information must be appproached with caution, and sometimes the dates given are incorrect.

Chess Results, 1747-1900 and <Chess Results 1901-1920> compiled by Gino di Felice were a helpful source to verify players' names and results--though I do wish he wouldn't insist on using the term <Radiomatch>, which is both inaccurate and anachonistic.

If you want greater detail than the summary provided above, there are <Great Britain versus America : cable matches 1895-1901> and <Great Britain versus America : cable matches 1902-1911>, both edited by Terry Gillam and published by The Chess Player in 1997. Both are about 75 pages long. However, I did not consult them.

There are accounts from contemporary periodicals available online through Google Books. The <American Chess Magazine> (with which I was not acquainted previously) is chatty and profusely illustrated; the <British Chess Magazine> is both stately and lively, and feels a bit more objective; and the <American Chess Bulletin> is interesting reading as well. I think you'll enjoy the accounts from all three.

Archival copies of news reports from the <New York Times> and the <Brooklyn Daily Eagle> are also available, and I'll be popping in some links as I find them. Thanks to <Calli> and <TheFocus> for showing the way to these resources.

1896: British Chess Magazine, 1896, p.151: http://books.google.com/books?id=5Y... New York Times: (2/24/96), http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra... (3/14/96), http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra... (3/15/96), http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra... (3/15/96 editorial), http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...

1897: British Chess Magazine, 1897, p.81: http://books.google.com/books?id=eR...

1898: American Chess Magazine, v.1, p.547 http://books.google.com/books?id=53... British Chess Magazine, 1898, p.150 http://books.google.com/books?id=73...

1899: American Chess Magazine, v.2, p.419: http://books.google.com/books?id=02... British Chess Magazine, 1899, p.146: http://books.google.com/books?id=ln...

1900: British Chess Magazine, 1900, p. 144: http://books.google.com/books?id=Gp...

1901: British Chess Magazine, 1901, p.202: http://books.google.com/books?id=1H...

1902: British Chess Magazine, 1902, p.166: http://books.google.com/books?id=S3...

1903: British Chess Magainze, 1903, p.202: http://books.google.com/books?id=0X...

1907: American Chess Bulletin, 1907, p.69: http://books.google.com/books?id=3C...

1908: American Chess Bulletin, 1908, p.84: http://books.google.com/books?id=uS...

If you discover some errors or unearth more online sources, please leave a note at my forum.