Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Henry Bird

HENRY BIRD (born Jul-14-1829, died Apr-11-1908, 78 years old) United Kingdom [what is this?] Henry Edward Bird was born in 1829 in Portsea, Hampshire, in England. He learned chess at age 15 by watching players at "Raymond's Coffee House."1 By 1848 he was noticed as a promising newcomer in what would later become known as "Simpson's Divan" in London.2 He was admitted to the strong London (1851) international tournament, where Bernhard Horwitz eliminated him in the first mini-match. Bird became fond of unusual experiments over the board. In several games against Ernst Falkbeer in 1853 he tried <1.f4>, with dismal results. Nonetheless, this particular experiment would eventually become famous as "Bird's Opening." Before 1878, Bird's career as an accountant prevented him from devoting much time to chess,3 but in the fall of 1866 he distinguished himself in an informal match against Wilhelm Steinitz at the Westminister Club.4 The first to 11 wins would triumph, and despite playing the games in the evening after a full day's work, Bird proved a tough opponent. After 17 games he was called away to America by his employers, and the contest remained unfinished with Steinitz leading only by +7 -5 =5. After this match Bird was recognized as an amateur of master strength,4 and he garnered invitations to very strong international tournaments such as Vienna (1873), Paris (1878), Vienna (1882), Nuremberg (1883), London (1883), Hamburg (1885), Hastings (1895), and London (1899). Though he generally gave a decent account of himself, his results were inconsistent and he rarely found himself near the top of the table. Despite his inability to win such strong events, in any given game Bird could prove dangerous even to the world's strongest masters. At Nottingham (1886), he used his own "Bird's opening" to defeat Johannes Zukertort in a wild tactical scramble that was typical of his romantic style: Bird vs Zukertort, 1886. He boasted wins over virtually all the best players of his era, including Steinitz, Zukertort, Horwitz, Falkbeer, Adolf Anderssen, James Mason, George Henry Mackenzie, Cecil Valentine De Vere, George Alcock MacDonnell, Joseph Henry Blackburne, Simon Winawer, Amos Burn, Isidor Gunsberg, David Janowski, and Emanuel Lasker. Bird added to his legacy with several notable publications, including "The Chess Openings, Considered Critically and Practically" (London 1877), "Chess Practice" (London 1882), "Modern Chess and Chess Masterpieces" (London 1887), and "Chess History and Reminiscences" (London 1893). Notes 1Tim Harding, "Eminent Victorian Chess Players- Ten Biographies" (McFarland 2012), p.111 2 Ibid., p.112 3 Ibid., p.121 4 Ibid., pp.115-117 Bird occasionally played consultation chess on the teams of Bird / Zukertort, Bird / Blackburne, Bird / Dobell, Bird & H Chesire, Blackburne / Bird / MacDonnell, Bird / H W Trenchard, Bird / Winawer / Blackburne, Zukertort / Bird / Hoffer, Bird / Hewitt, Colborne / Bird, Allen & Bird, Henry Bird / Frederick Womersley & Bird / Allies. Wikipedia article: Henry Bird (chess player) Last updated: 2020-12-03 05:46:07

Try our new games table.

page 1 of 27; games 1-25 of 663  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. C F Smith vs Bird   1-0 23 1848 Casual game B21 Sicilian, 2.f4 and 2.d4 2. Bird vs G Medley 0-1 29 1849 London C00 French Defense 3. G Medley vs Bird 1-0 42 1849 London A13 English 4. G Medley vs Bird 1-0 52 1849 London D35 Queen's Gambit Declined 5. Bird vs G Medley 1-0 33 1849 London C00 French Defense 6. Bird vs G Medley 0-1 24 1849 London m2 C01 French, Exchange 7. G Medley vs Bird 1-0 47 1849 London D35 Queen's Gambit Declined 8. Bird vs G Medley 1-0 21 1849 London C00 French Defense 9. Bird vs G Medley 1-0 63 1849 Ries' Divan Tournament B45 Sicilian, Taimanov 10. G Medley vs Bird 1-0 36 1849 Ries' Divan Tournament A85 Dutch, with c4 & Nc3 11. G Medley vs Bird 1-0 53 1849 Ries' Divan Tournament C01 French, Exchange 12. Bird vs A Simons 1-0 50 1850 Bird - Simons C64 Ruy Lopez, Classical 13. Bird vs C F Smith   1-0 18 1850 Casual game C38 King's Gambit Accepted 14. C F Smith vs Bird 1-0 20 1850 Casual game C38 King's Gambit Accepted 15. Bird vs C F Smith   0-1 27 1850 Casual game C60 Ruy Lopez 16. Bird vs C F Smith   1-0 35 1850 Casual game C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense 17. Bird vs C F Smith 0-1 15 1850 Casual game C40 King's Knight Opening 18. Bird vs C F Smith   1-0 30 1850 Casual game C38 King's Gambit Accepted 19. C F Smith vs Bird 0-1 21 1850 Casual game B53 Sicilian 20. Bird vs H Buckle   1-0 31 1850 Odds Game (Pf7) 000 Chess variants 21. Bird vs C F Smith   1-0 20 1850 Casual game C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense 22. C F Smith vs Bird 1-0 23 1850 Casual game C38 King's Gambit Accepted 23. C F Smith vs Bird   1-0 25 1850 Casual game C38 King's Gambit Accepted 24. Bird vs C F Smith 1-0 21 1850 London C64 Ruy Lopez, Classical 25. Bird vs Pinkerley 1-0 24 1850 Odds game (Ra1) 000 Chess variants  page 1 of 27; games 1-25 of 663

REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Bird wins | Bird loses

< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 11 ·  Later Kibitzing> Sep-01-07    GamerMan: Bird played a lot of the (surprise) Bird Opening (or whatever it use to be called before bird got the name), a key point being that the king is vulnerable. Perhaps this vulnerability was far more easily exploited by the tactical morphy, over the strategic steinitz. Dec-11-07    parisattack: I was not particularly impressed with Taylor's book - although it had some good games, ideas in it. I'd like to see a systematic exposition of Bird's. One can't be picky here, though - in a collection of 6k books I think I have perhaps 10-12 on Bird's - my favorite is Robinson's from the 50s. To me (my experience with the opening) the killer is the e3 weakness. You can't avoid it and you can't do much about it. You have to work around it and get the initiative quickly so black can't make it count. They say Bird's is inflexible because of the 'finger in the pie' nature of f4, and that's true. You won't see Kramnik playing it this week! But white has a lot of different setups, variations, motifs and that means something. Those are the things I'd love to see someone systematize. There are quite a few move order tricks for white (Taylor does cover a few of those) ... The opening has enormous possibilities, is fertile ground for study and research. Dec-16-07    Karpova: <From page 201 of the Chess Monthly, March 1891: ‘For 12 months past I have been engaged in the early hours making a complete analysis, with comparative sections, of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and my interest in the task, which has been a mighty one, has increased as I have gone on, and in a month or two I hope to be able to publish.’> <On page 48 of The Knights and Kings of Chess (London, 1894) G.A. MacDonnell wrote of Bird: ‘Fortunately, he bethought him of the Bible, and naturally became intensely interested in the question of figures, as set forth in the Books of the Kings and Chronicles. Then the prophecies of Isaiah attracted his attention, and filled him with delight. They awoke the spiritual in his soul, and caused him to exclaim, “How magnificent”.’> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... (scroll down to 5331) Dec-18-07    playground player: Could we have a picture of Bird, please? Dec-21-07    parisattack: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Dec-23-07    playground player: Thank you! Jan-05-08    Nightlamp: Hi all, I'm currently doing research on H.E. Bird, hoping to write a book on him some day. I already found quite a lot of material, but any help, especially concenring 19th century newspapers and magazines (British, American) would be very much welcomed! You can send me an email : joriscuypers77@hotmail.com Kind regards Feb-09-08    brankat: This year marks 100 years of H.E.Bird's passing. Feb-21-08    Riverbeast: One of the most overrated chess 'celebrities' in history. If you look at enough of his games, it becomes clear he was no stronger than around 2200. Feb-22-08    Knight13: <Riverbeast> True. I ran a test on Deep Junior 9 got all of his games go through rating estimation and guess what? It assigned him almost an EXACT RATING OF 2200 (he was a bit 2200+ but definitely not under it though) But he DID have win over pretty much all the best players of hus times (not really in a match but individual wins, I mean) Feb-22-08    paladin at large: Bird seems to have understood himself and his strength, according , at least, to the following observation. In one of the many Bird's Opening games Bird had with Blackburne, kibitzers noted how inferior the Bird Opening was. However, it was a system Bird knew well. Bird was simply outclassed by Blackburne - Bird's record in this database was 5+ 23- 4=. However, three of the five wins were with the Bird's Opening. Bird demonstrated his further grasp of that opening in another game where Blackburne with White chose the Bird's Opening. Bird proceeded to get a winning position which he only lost through a horrible blunder. Feb-22-08    paladin at large: Here's the game - Blackburne vs Bird, 1892 Feb-22-08    Knight13: <paladin at large> In the 19th century everyone loved tactics, massive pawn in the center dominating the whole board. Bird's Opening is a quite opening and much less tactics, plus it weakens the White king or something so the kibitzers back then must've thought it as boring and stupid, and plus no other masters playing it, they concluded that 1. f4 is probably not a good opening (which isn't true). Feb-23-08    paladin at large: <Knight13> Thanks. I was refering to current kibitzers. I have no opinion on how good the Bird Opening is - the point I was trying to make was that Bird was justified in trusting in his own personalized approach in playing Blackburne. Appreciate the time you have devoted to Bird's games. Feb-23-08    Knight13: Yesss!! FINALLY A PICTURE OF HENRY EDWARD BIRD! It's been AGES. Thanks, <Chessgames.com>! Feb-23-08    MichAdams: An early example of the comb-over hairstyle. Feb-23-08    Voltaic: and one perfectly depicted. Feb-25-08    Knight13: So... Every single one of Bird's games in this database to this day has been commented/kibitzed. Four hundred and sixty-seven games. Whoa...! Feb-29-08    Knight13: This game, Bird vs J Mason, 1876, beats "The Game of the Century" by a mile. Mar-11-08    WannaBe: And this Henry Edward Bird you cannot change!! Mar-11-08    Gypsy: <ChessDude33: I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned but what do people think about Henry bird saying Steintz would get trounced by Morphy? "I trotted Steinitz the closest heat he ever contested. He beat me 8 to 7, with 6 draws. This was in '67. In '58 Morphy beat me 10 to 1, with 1 draw. Steinitz claims that he is a better player than ever Morphy was, but I think my record with each is a fair test of the strength of the two. Steinitz claims that when I played with Morphy I was out of practice, but I cannot explain away my crushing defeat by that great player in any such way. I never played better chess in my life than when he beat me." ---henry bird Every since I read this quote it has fascinated me. It does slightly appear that Bird has a harder time against morphy than steinitz (perhaps age is the factor?). > What I think about it is that this statement woke up Steintz and, from that point on, he started to pay Bird a little more more atention. Their record after the quoted statement goes Bird-Steinitz +1 -9 =2. To me, the Bird Steinitz story is analogous to the story of Capablanca and Kostic: Kostic had a tournament record of +0 -0 =5 against Capablanca and decided to challenge Capa to a match. Kostic then resigned the match with the score running +0 -5 =0. Mar-12-08    Nightlamp: Henry Bird was perhaps a little overrated, being more of a master then a grandmaster, but one cannot deny he was a much then 2200. One can see this at his results : in some tournaments he played at equal strength of all time greats as Anderssen, Gunsberg, Lasker, ... He almost drew a match against Steinitz, who wasn't a weak player that year (1866). Bird was also quite appreciated by many people. Especially amateurs, one has to admit, but even Morphy considered him as the most genial player he ever met. Bird had his obvious weaknesses : his health, his very rapid play, his optimism, ... which alas make him a less stronger player then he could have been. To be convinced of his (grand)master strength : look at the Bird-Mason game from the NY Clipper 1876 tournament. Even today, many grandmasters can't play a game like that one. It is stupendous, in contrast, to see how many (very) bad games Bird played. The reasons for this were his quickness (there are witnesses who write he never stopped talking during offhand games, hardly looking at the board) and his stubborness towards the modern theory by Steinitz, who advocated a more positional form of chess. To analyse his games with a PC, which uses modern standards, isn't very relevant. If the same program analyses the games of Lasker, I guess he won't rate him over 2400. Mar-27-08    Knight13: <Henry Bird was perhaps a little overrated, being more of a master then a grandmaster> Who said he was a grandmaster? I've seen his games and he's not playing at GM level. <He almost drew a match against Steinitz, who wasn't a weak player that year (1866)> Yes. Steinitz wiped out Anderssen during that same year. <...and his stubborness towards the modern theory by Steinitz, who advocated a more positional form of chess.> He wasn't the only one who ignored Steinitz's theory, though. Many others did also, some even regarded Steinitz's positional stuff as garbage and stupid. Mar-28-08    Nightlamp: The title of grandmaster was used only years after Bird's life, so one can discuss endlessly about it, I think. If, however, one looks at the tournaments in the 19th century, Bird finished amongst the top 10 in many, many tournaments. In his best days he was amongst the 10-20 best players in the world. Nowadays there are more then 1000 GM's. It seems reasonable to me to accept that one who belongs to the top 20 in the world can be seen as a GM. Mar-28-08    Knight13: <players in the world. Nowadays there are more then 1000 GM's. It seems reasonable to me to accept that one who belongs to the top 20 in the world can be seen as a GM.> You forgot to add "...during that era." Grandmasters of the 19th century, but not necessarily mean they're 2500s though, since the term Grandmaster means highest title in some kind of a game and you can be #1 and be rated 2000 and you're still a "grandmaster" just because you're on the top level. Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 11) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 11 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines: No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members. Nothing in violation of United States law. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members. No trolling. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times. See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator. NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific player only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC