http://www.nathanielspens.com/pafn1...

Spens was also a prolific author:

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Nxe5 Be6 5. d4 Nf6 6. Nc3 Bb4 7. Be2 Nd5 8. O-O Nxc3 9. bxc3 Bxc3 10. Be3 Bxa1 11. f5 Bc8 12. Bb5+ c6 13. Nxf7 Kxf7 14. Qh5+ Kf8 15. f6 gxf6 16. Bc4 Qd7 17. Rxf6+ Ke7 18. Rf7+ Kd8 19. Qg5+ Kc7 20. Bf4+ Kb6 21. Qc5+ 1-0

[Event "?"]
[Site "Bristol"]
[Date "1906.??.??"]
[White "Cook "]
[Black "Mueller,A "]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A03"]
[Round "?"]

The first game is already in this database W Cook vs Locock, 1840, and the second one was played after Spens' death, if the year is correct.

However, the year 1840 is most probably wrong, too, since there has been a William Cook (1850-1917), chess player and chess author, as well as Charles Dealtry Locock (1862-1946).

The second game also seems to be a game of Cook Spens, provided there is no evidence to the contrary. The year of publication should be 1906. I think that if there is not an agreement, the game should be on the basis of Walter Cook Spens, a mere precaution.

Finally, I note that many games are known by their year of publication. I like his speech, clear and polished. I hope our disagreement be friendly and useful for chess.

Okay, as I wrote, I gave the link to show that the game is already in this database. Moreover, I also wrote that 1840 is probably wrong, and so we agree in this point. But this does not prove that 1887 is correct. Sources like Chesslab and 365chess contain too much mistakes to be reliable. Maybe we differ here, but my experience makes me think so.

<Moreover, William Cook is an obscure figure, probably false.> No, definitely not. He is the author of "Synopsis of the Chess Openings", which had four editions in London 1874, 1876, 1882 and 1888, and appeared with an American supplement also in Cincinatti 1884. This was a very well-known book in his time. Moreover, he wrote "The chess primer" (London 1880), and another successful book called "The chess player's compendium", which had five editions in Bristol and London between 1902 and 1910. His last book, I know, is "The evolution of chess openings" (Bristol 1910).

As a player he was for a long time champion of his area. I give only one quote from the "Birmingham Daily Post" of October 29, 1890: "Mr. William Cook, who for twenty years has by common consent held the position of the champion of the Midlands, and whose book on ''Chess Openings,'' remarkable alike for accuracy, completeness and clearness in exposition, is a classic, succumbed a few days ago to the superior prowess of Mr. H.W.Macaulay, ..."

His obituary can be found in the "British Chess Magazine" 1917, p 317-318. He is mentioned in the "Oxford Companian to Chess" as the author of a line in the Allgaier Gambit, and so on.

Now let me turn to Spens. He is always called Spens, Sherif Spens, W.C.Spens and so on, and never is the Spens missing, because this and only this is his family name. So, if you have a game, where the player is named only "Cook" or "Cook,W", then it is not Spens.

If you are still not convinced and if you think it is possible that Gossip made a mistake, then the following quote from the preface of Gossip's "Theory of the Chess Openings", 2nd edition, London 1891, has to be considered: "I have availed myself of the latest analyses contained in Part I. of Mr Steinitz Modern Chess Instructor, Cook's valuable Synopsis, ...". Furthermore, the title pages of 1884 American and the 1888 English edition of the "Synopsis", and hence the book Gossip is referring to, have: "By William Cook, A Member of the Birmingham Chess Club" and "By William Cook, of the Birmingham Chess Club".

So, the White player is William Cook. The year is still open.

The game comes with two hints that can help to identify the White player. The first, a family name "Cook", not quite seldom, and the second, the year 1906. Both do not point to Spens, of course, because his family name is not Cook and he died in 1900. So, there is not the slightest evidence that it could be played by him.

<The year of publication should be 1906.> I would call this an unproven conjecture.

<I think that if there is not an agreement, the game should be on the basis of Walter Cook Spens, a mere precaution.> Here I don't understand what you wrote, sorry. But if you suggest that the game should be assigned to Spens on the basis of your information, I would like to object emphatically.

<Development of the Club

The 19th and early 20th Century

[...]

In the same year of 1865 Edinburgh and Glasgow played a match over 12 boards with 6 players travelling either way - a novel way of solving the problems of home advantage! Edinburgh won the match with a team that included a 23 year old advocate called Walter Spens. He was to be a great proponent of the game and is remembered in the Spens Cup which he donated to Scottish Chess. A year later a similar match was again won by Edinburgh 15-13 but 25 years later the balance had swung rather heavily as Glasgow won a 1891 match by 17-2 .>

http://www.edinburghchessclub.co.uk...

Where this other picture of the man can be found:

http://www.edinburghchessclub.co.uk...