May 2, 1892.] 



KNOWLEDGE. 



99 



" T. Wells."—!. BR6 will not solve the March problem. ' 

 The move fails against one defence only, viz. : 1. . . . K 

 to Bo. 



(,'. T. liliiushiiiil. — Thanks for the problem ; it is printed 

 below. 



PROBLEM. 



By C. T. Bl\xshakd. 



Black. 







^7h 



m 



■ 1^ 



%i-^^ 



ii 



i!i?«,^^ ^H^^^W 



White. 



White to play, and mate in two moves. 



CHESS INTELLIGENCE. 



The result of the Amateur Championship Tournament 

 of the British Chess Association was as foUows : — 



1. E. Jones-Bateman ... ... ... 9^ 



2. H. W. Trenchard 7" 



3. E. 0. -Jones 6i 



Mr. .Jones took the third prize after a tie with Mr. Herbert 

 .Jacobs, who is fourth. The other competitors were Dr. 

 Smith, Messrs. ^Yard-Hlggs and Gibbons, all of whom 

 met with some success in the recent City of London Club 

 Tournament. 



It will be seen that Mr. Jones-Bateman won with a good 

 deal to spare, Mr. Trenchard being rather a bad second. 

 This is the first occasion on which the winner has not 

 been a member of the British Chess Club. Mr. .Jones- 

 Bateman is the present holder of the L'iwenthal Cup, 

 which carries with it the championship of the St. George's 

 Chess Club. 



THE CH.\MPIONSHIP TOCENAMENT. 



At the conclusion of the National blasters" Tournament 

 Mr. G. Newnes, M.P., the president of the British Chess 

 Club, offered prizes amounting to £50 for a two-game 

 tournament between the five leading London players. The 

 masters selected were Messrs. Bird, Blaekburne, Gunsberg, 

 Laslvcr, and Mason. As in the previous tournament, Mr. 

 Lasker again came out first, and, but for his willingness to 

 accept draws with Mr. Mason, could no doubt have increased 

 the distance between himself and ilr. Blaekburne, whom he 

 defeated by very fine play in both games. Mr. Blaekburne, 

 moreover, was extremely fortunate in winning his second 

 game with Mr. Bird, a game which he played only to draw 

 by perpetual check. He was also a little lucky in winning 

 two games from Mr. Mason, both of which looked like 

 certain draws. On the other hand, his first game with Mr. 

 Bird was a fine specimen of counter-attack. Mr. Mason 

 played as well as he usually does, while the other two com- 

 petitors were apparently out of form. The foUo wing was 

 the score: — 



1. E. Lasker .. 



2. J. H. Blaekburne 

 H. James Mason 



1. 1. Gunsberg 

 5. H. E. Bird 



6i 



R 

 1 



2-!- 

 1 



The prizes were divided on the Sonneboru-Berger system. 

 i.e., according to the i-nlw of the games won by each player, 

 estimated by the scores of the players from whom they 

 were won. On this system Mr. Lasker, who did not lose a 

 single game, came out easily first, and his performance 

 confirms the estimate of his capacity given in this column 

 last month. ^ 



THE UNIVERSITIES WEEK. 

 The boat-race week was, as usual, crowded with matches 

 in which the Oxford and Cambridge teams were engaged. 

 The first contest, between past members of the two clubs, 

 was decided on the Tuesday at the St. George's Chess 

 Club. The old Oxonians, who missed the services of 

 Messrs. W. M. Gattie and G. E. Wainwiight, gained a 

 rather imexpected victory over their more mathematical 

 opponents. The score was : — 



Oxford. C'.\3iBRmGE. 



1. C- D. Locock (Uni- r. Rev. A. B. Skipworth 



versity Col.) (un- (St.Catherine's)(un- 

 finished) — finished) — 



2. E. M. -Jackson (New v. W. H. Gunston (St. 



College) ^ .John's) ^ 



3. Rev. L. W. Lewis '■. J. N. Keynes (Pem- 



( Lincoln) "i; broke) % 



4. H. F. Lowe (Balliol) l" -■. W. Deightou (St. 



-John's) 



-5. R. W. Barnett (Wad- v. Rev. -J. F. Sugden 



ham) 1 ( Trinitv Hall ) ... 



6. E. Anthony (Ch. Ch.) <•. F. P. Carr (St. Catli.) 1 



7. Rev. W. Cooper(Wad- r. E. L. Kearney (St. 



ham) 1 Catherine's) 



8. Rev. W. M. Le r. W. R. Fisher (St. 



Patoiu-el (Balliol)... ^ -John's) ^ 



41 2-L 



^2 2 



On the same evening a combined team of present 

 members of the two Universities, assisted by Mr. E. M. 

 -Jackson, suffered a defeat at the hands of a City of London 

 team by 13 — 7. 



On the Thursday following, the Oxford and Cambridge 

 match took place at the British Chess Club. Cambridge 

 were the favourites, and fully justified the fact, not allowing 

 their opponents to win a single game. In the absence of 

 clocks the rate of play was much slower than usual, and 

 only one game was played at each board. The following 

 was the score : — 



Oxford. C.ambridoe. 



1. D. Madgavkar (Bal- '■. H. E. Atkins (Peter- 



holj house) 1 



2. R. Lynam (non. col.) ^ c. H. S. Buliock(Corpus) | 



3. F.E. -Jelly (Magdalen) k r. F.G. Scovell(Queen's) i 



4. A.B.Hinds (Ch. Ch. I ^ r. E. Young (Corpus) ... i 



5. G. A. Heginbotham r. W. C. Sandford 



(Pembroke) (Queen's) 1 



0. P. L. Osbom (Mag- '•. E. B. James (Caius) 1 



dalen) 



7. P. Sergeant (Trinity) /■. J. H. Pereival (Trin. 



Hall) 1 



Total 



Total 



* Tlie game on No. 3 board was adjudicated by the umpire (Mr. 

 James Innes MinchinJ as drawn. 



