THE CONSULTATION CHESSMATCH

Kumara Times, Issue 620, 23 September 1878, Page 2

THE CONSULTATION CHESSMATCH

[to the editor.] ■ Sir— Your report of the recent chess match (Kumara v. Stafford), although quite as impartial as one could expect from art opponent, is still inexact and calculated (we do not say designedly) to mislead most readers. We say “ from an opponent ” because internal evidence clearly shows that report to have been written or inspired by our friend the enemy. Some most material facts are entirely unnoticed, and some things are stated aS facts, which, from our point of view, are merely the opinions, and decidedly erroneous opinions of the reporter—for instance no mention is made of the following,facts: Is. That when the Kumara players sent in their 29th move incorrectly described and we immediately claimed the right to inflict the penalty usual in such cases both umpires admitted the justice of our claim, is true the Kumara umpire for some inscrutable reason afterwards altered his mind, but that did not alter ours. 2nd. It was agreed on both sides that the point in dispute should he referred to the c.hess editor of the Australasian, whose decision should be final. , ; 3rd, The Kumara side were allowed to correct their 39th move and the play was resumed with the understanding that even if Stafford now lost the game it should not count for anything unless the Australasian decided against them, 4th. The 33rd move of Stafford is not stated. It was really a teat move—“ some malicious bystanders said cunningly devised for destroying Kumara’s last chance;” it ran thus “ (K R takes P) ” or King’s Rook takes Pawn. It so happened that there were two Pawns attacked by the said Rook, one of which, the Queen’s Pawn* could be taken with impunity, whilst the Knight’s Pawn could only be captured at the sacrifice of the Rook. The Kumara players, however, adopting the interpretation most favorable to them-, selves, made our Rook take the Knight’s Pawn, the very thing we wanted, as that was really, though certainly unintentionally, a deliberate approval of our own policy in the point raised by us when, at their 29th move (Knight takes Pawn) there being two Pawns within the range of the Knight, we claimed the right to make the Knight take which Pawn we chose. Of course we claim the game after this ; we leave it to the ingenuity of our opponents to get out of the dilemma. With regard to the statement that the Kumara players had gained the better position, we think that should have been put as a one-sided opinion rather than stated as a fact. Several onlookers thought we had the best of it it all through 1 We believe that we could at least secured a draw at any stage of the game, even if the Kumara team had not compromised themselves at their 29th and again at their 34th move. In conclusion, we tender our thanks for the courteous treatment received, and beg to express our admiration of, the unruffled good temper preserved by our opponents under very trying circumstances. Apologising for the unconscionable but unavoidable length of this communication, —We have, &c., Chas. P. Pierson, John Palmer, Robt. Cross (President of the Stafford Chess Club). Stafford, September 20th, 1878. [Our correspondents are evidently labouring under a misapprehension, as the report referred to was not wholly *’ inspired by an opponent,” but was compiled from notes kindtv furnished by disinterested spectators and thoroughly practical chessplayers. Ed. K. T.] ' .