June 1, 1886.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



263 



which is repugnant to all the notions of the family whist-player — 

 viz. leading from a suit which is exhausted in the enemy's strong 

 trump hand. With live trumps hearted by the King, Knave ; four 

 Hearts lieaded by the Ace, King ; and a guarded Queen of Spades 

 in one hand, with the Ace of Spades in the ether, the enemy 

 made only five tricks in all — viz. one in trumps, two in Spades, and 

 two in Hearts. Without entering into details of play, it is certain 

 that, had the methods of family-w-hist been pursued by myself and 

 partner, the enemy would have made three tricks in trumps, two in 

 Spades, and three in Hearts, or eight tricks instead of live— a differ- 

 ence of fo\n' points in scoring, since it would have altered our " two 

 by cards " for us into " two by cards " for them. 



I will not assert that the success actually achieved was assured 

 by the course pursued. M3' judgment of the chances at the third 

 trick, though sound in principle, might well have been inconsistent 

 with the reality. My opponent on the left mirjht have been able to 

 ruff, the Knave lying with his partner. The odds were about five 

 to two against this ; hut although, whenever 3'ou are sure to be right 

 five times out of seven in following a particular course, you ought 

 certainly to follow it, you must i-eraember that you are equally sure 

 to be wrong twice out of seven, in the long run, on that course. 

 That is wltat the family whist-pla}"er seems unable to understand. 

 " If you had not done so and so," he will point out, " such and such 

 splendid results would have been obtained." And if you answer, 

 " That was only the case becau.so the cards chanced to lie in such 

 and such a way, which there was no means of knowing," he will 

 answer (or think, if he do not say it), " A bad workman complains of 

 his tools, and a bad whist-]3layer of his cards." But there is, in 

 fact, nothing more certain than that, in the long run or majoritj' of 

 cases, you gain at whist by steadily playing according to the best 

 view you can form of the chances, while yet jou must inevitably 

 lose by so doing in a certain proportion of games played. Thus 

 that crux for the family whist-player, the lead of the King from 

 King, Queen, and others, turns out unfavourably in about two 

 hundred cases out of five hundred and fifty; therefore it is not the 

 wrong course, but the right. 



Now I think it cannot be doubted that a game played in this 

 way, with constant attention to the various points arising as the 

 game proceeds, and with constant reference alike to the evidence 

 already obtained and to the chances in regard to such points as 

 still remain in abeyance, must be a far more attractive game, and 

 therefore far more valuable as a recreation, than that family- whist 

 in which the only point considered is how to make, at once, all such 

 strong cards or points as chance may have thrown into the hand. 



For this reason, were there no other, I should be an advocate of 

 scientific whist, as against the chance game called, by those who 

 take part in it, "Whist," but more correctly — though perhaps less 

 euphoniou.slj- — denominated " Bumblepuppy " by thoic who know 

 the real game. 



A GOOD JOKE, OR NONE? 



If the following from the Australasian (in which uncommonly 

 good whist is given, by the way) is really a good joke at my 

 expense, I can see no reason why it should not be presented to the 

 readers of Knowledge for their enjoyment, which may be enhanced 

 if I mention that I retain the opinion at which the Australasian 

 smiles : 



"We must direct the attention of every person who can enjoy 

 the fun of an unintentional joke to the following example with 

 which Mr. Proctor presents his readers : The ' echo ' in modern 

 conventional whist is the intimation by which a player announces 

 that he has been keeping his eye on the table, and has noticed his 

 partner's 'Peter' or call for trumps. In the nature of things, 

 then, it is evidently impossible that the 'echo' can be heard as 

 often as the 'call' to which it is a response. Yet Mr. Proctor 

 gravely asserts that ' occasion arises oftener for the echo than for 

 the Peter.' This is certainly one of the most delightful examples 

 of an unconscious blunder, of the nature of an Irish bull, with 

 which it has ever been our good fortune to meet in a book written 

 by an Englishman." 



This occurs in a review of my " Home- whist," I hope I shall not 

 in any way impair the joke by mentioning what I have rather in- 

 sisted upon in "Home-whist," that the " echo " is enjoined by the 

 signalling school, not only in response to the Peter, but also to the 

 tramp lead from strength. Since trumjis are led from strength at 

 least ten times as often as the Peter is displayed, it appears to me 

 not at all miraculous that in actual play I have at least thrice as 

 often had occasion to note the echo in either its negative or positive 

 form, as the Peter or signal for tramps. 



Some players, I may remark, scarcely ever signal for trumps — 

 and one wishes the number were much greater, seeing that the 

 frequent signallers are invariably bad players. Yet, so long as the 

 present system (scarcely lionest in my opinion) is followed, each of 



a pair of partners who both avoid the Peter is bound to echo to his 

 partner's trump lead from strength when holding four trumps or 

 more, unless he has definitely explained that he does not wish to 

 follow the modern signalling methods in any respect. For if he 

 does not, due occasion arising, he misleads his partner. 



©\\v CI)C5j£j Column* 



By " Mephisto." 



iHE nineteenth game of the recently concluded 

 match between Steinitz, the " Champion of the 

 World," and Zukcrtort, the hero of the London 

 tournament, is in many respects a remarkable 

 contest. The opening moves of this game 

 demonstrate with forcible and realistic evidence 

 the decisive advantage gained by correct play in 

 the opening, or otherwise the opposite or dis- 

 advantageous effects produced by a faulty begin- 

 ning. Tlicse are truisms for which we have always contended ; but 

 very seldom have we had an opportunity equal to the present of 

 demonstrating these facts from the actual play of two great masters. 

 It is a remarkable occurrence, especially considering the gravity of 

 the occasion, that in such an important match-game the second 

 player obtained practically a winning advantage as a result of the 

 first nine moves. This the game will show. 



Steinitz having proved himself superior in jiure reasoning or 

 mathematical play, then follows up his advantage by imaginative 

 efiiorts, pleasing and vivacious in conception, and rendered all the 

 more impressive and beautiful (to the connoisseur) by the correctness 

 of play, biiscd on which, the combinations are superposed. If 

 there really was any need for demonstration, this game would 

 furnish the proof that the highest excellence can only be obtained 

 by a combination of pure reasoning, with imaginative combination. 

 The stronger and truer the former, the more effective and impressive 

 the latter. But neither quality by itself alone can elevate its 

 possessor to that highest state of perfection which commands our 

 admiration. 



Figuratively speaking, there may yet be found many children of 

 nature " who jirefer the proverbial blue Daniel and red lions " to many 

 a picture where the colouring is finer toned. In a less degree we 

 find many chess-players giving preference to games, which to them 

 seem to abound in combinations of the liveliest sort, which in reality, 

 however, are of a more or less commonplace kind, mostly unable to 

 endure analytical tests— i.e. resting and relying chiefly upon inferior 

 play, a kind of performance not requiring the very highest abilities. 

 We cannot, however, accord to the whole match the eulogium we 

 have bestowed upon this jiarticular game. It was evident that both 

 players were subject to spells of indisposition, daring which they 

 produced indifferent games ; for while Steinitz, unlike himself, lost 

 four games running by sheer blunders, Zukcrtort can hardly be said 

 to have done his play justice towards the end of the match. A few 

 very good games have, however, been played. Tliis match, in one 

 respect, teaches us the same lesson as the London tournament of 

 1883. That is this: high amounts of money do not in chess yield 

 results relatively superior to those obtained on occasions where 

 smaller sums were contested for. It is, of course, es.>.ential to offer 

 substantial prizes in tournaments and matches, to induce the best 

 possible competition ; but we should much rather like to see three 

 tournaments arranged for 1,S00Z. than one. The same remark 

 applies to matches. 



Bearing upon this subject, we may mention the efforts made at 

 present to arrange an international tournament in London for July 

 next, by the committee of the British Chess Association. We feel 

 con%'inced that if about 300/. were subscribed a very interesting 

 tournament would be arranged. 



Nineteenth game of the match, pLayed at New Orleans, March 21, 

 1886. 



White, ZUKERTOHT. Black, STEtNITZ. 



1. P to Q4 1. P to Q4 



(The reader will do well to lake Black's side of tlie board.) 



2. r to QBl 2. P to K3 



■A. Kt to QB.1 .S, Kt to KB3 



4. B to Kt.-j 4. B to K2 



The usual course followed in this opening by W^hite, is to place his 

 own game on a safe basis by castlins first ; whereas here White has 

 played three moves, which Black utilised for liis own development. 

 White's K side is still blocked. Such weak points are not neces- 

 sarily fatal in themselves ; with care they maj' be redeemed, or 

 even turned to advantage. We are, however, an.xious to impress 

 upon our readers that to have a difficult game to play is already in 



