THE CONSULTATION CHESS MATCH

Kumara Times, Issue 621, 24 September 1878, Page 2

THE CONSULTATION CHESS MATCH

[to Taa ' ] ’ " Sib—We - repr®£ sentativea consultation match find fooft report which appeared in issue' Wd have inquired m V&n for the expression of a similar opinion in Eumkra, 'and have given it best. Men who* have the worst of a fight do not like reading the accbqnt of it, and no one needs to be'told that; 7 ', And it seems to us that the. “ facts,” of which they say “no mchfebif ’is ihade s, “in thb'report are as weighty as the intr6d«6ttoh"o!' their letter. _ Theysay-toatour 2sth move was “ incorrectly” described. Cannot a move which is obviotfsbe- correctly described, though insufficiently s6l It may have been not sufficiently' described ‘tb a person who knows nothing about chess ; but was not the move we made ...and intended obvious to the men of /Stafford, .jor to any novice at , chess, that the’'pawn meant to be taken at our S9th move, 1 a&d actually taken, was the one we did take, in preference to the. hy which we should have unmiataJiabW ipst a* piece? According to the., “Ernes' for. Playing the Game by Oonsultaiiqh,” the move made must agree mto’toe move’ ’ sent in writing—whieh-'it aa - Mr Brookfield, the -Stafford- 1 •umpire’,• testify, as he was present;^dl...the time. Mr Ball, the Kumara umpire, when he saw the -rule ■conce’rimg: a;Vove which ■ could bear two at once perceived that it .applied* ©ply fbithe 5‘ Rules for Playing the Game by Correspondences”,. The reason for the .penality. ; .itty«iatches;;pf this kind is obvious. In by correspondence or by telegrapKj is also correspondence), ’where’ ‘‘the - 'fcoriteMjlg t parties are perhaps ' 1 miles apart, an ihSivfficfently-describba l ' move, which ihay not bd’obvious, leads to much loss of time, and perhaps expense | too, and hence thq -p^na^v-is.necessary.. But in a consultation ga&e (not played hy * v -' * correspondence), where, the- partjps .aro' playing in the sama and on toe same floor, where also a minute is allowed for the transmission era move (and m pnr case, it took only half.a mihute), if^toidre,! had been any doubt Abbut-it,' hbw was it to ask the questkmj'and. rectify iti■ But no ; our opponents did,- nofc.nej&duoc/;;: want to ask. The movq actually, qnn. ; the board was the joint decision consulting party, ’to which the umpire and many other, geptlemeh|^ere '‘ : ' witnesses, while this' completely-described move of the wha i/ wj9te'it, and therefore toC übhatilting party ,/ipere not bound by it, ahd Consultation Rules to hnfombapenalty. ; To refer to tbe letter; ponents say—“4th; • * ! Stafford is nftt&tted.*' ; I ‘ test ’ move some mrfiCibus^ejri. ; standers said cunningly-devised for. de- r I ftrojipg Jast< i is the mat we have heard.pft this application of im andwe,^ thank it would Have bbbh’ more ' totoq, i honour of our oppoiientfif this statement hathhaytlr sebn thb ligh¥ v of }% day. If it had bgsl'‘ a / would have we consider, in- the first plaice to acquaint some person not one of the umpire Would have been the mpst- proper qaerson)—of c ., what they were about to .do. ’ But it'is |' well known that , pur own .urngir?. drew - their attentionj'to tKevfabt’ move . pent bore two interpretations, tfiht it was liable to> b& dbiatt with ■’ i manper.as toey dfealt Add,it «wpqt jte; dfinted tokt pup'., of' toe' to out it'haek r Feteh it babfc'£ '3 or words,to the.sameeffect, thaf he . immediately deapahiSed -asbchiid messenger to recall the / ' : te , Bfftßr it ; ahZT although the mOveTwas ifiet Iteteally deli-; vered when the.secohdm®ssenger amyed» . i we insisted oh. ;it^fplr. once delivered to the is’ nymous with thh aet of tUftkiftg ainioVe on* the board, bound ; and, in fact, the-more-delivered ' to toe adversary; takes move made on ' tho |mrd. * We insisted, therefore, bn, it., and it read “fe; K R ;1 ' truly then adopted the of it as suited us besty as at our 29th move,-- tlib ‘ “Correspondence ” an--. plied to our mpye, mUBt ; beV' applied to'this move also. The slipj; with . the Q now inserted (and which now readf 33. K R takesQP)’ * , ’ :btit v> ' meantime we had - adapted it v 3& ' I E!: : 'R J takes K Kt P, and replied with . 34. K takes R. So much for the so-called. ■“ test m'ove.” The aboi^.h •• at their 33rd move tb take bur Queen’s Pawn “with impunity” applies exactly to their own position, at o.ur 29 th move. . ■ It is not neceteary to disbuss ,the .question as to which party ’ had the best iposition all through or at any time. The ‘ game has now been published, ‘.and your . • chess readers can judge for themselves ; we perceive our friends believe.that they could “at any stage of the game ” have “at least secured a draw.” This belief is : no doubt very encouraging. ‘ ~ i, In conclusion, we desire to express our opinion that the whoje matter of dispute rests upon this one question, Were we all bound by the “ Rules for Playing toe Game by Correspondence ?” We say we ‘ were not; but that we were bound by the ■ “ Lawk of Chess," the “ Regulations for Playing,” and the “Rules for Playing the Game by Consultation,” as given in -Staunton’s “ Chess Praxik,” which .book was to be our guide< iii any matter of dispute which might arise. We ;infringed none of these ruleajand no penally to have thrust upon us; and we, regardqt

as a weak attempt of oar opponents to cave themselves a losing game., If the ChesSfJSditor of the Australasian, to whom the question is to be referred, considers we are bound to apply the ■“Correspondence’’ rules to meet the question, then,lks we continued the game on the understanding that if we won it and the appeal against us, it was not tp score, we mus|j c by the stone reasoning, claim to play the gamp from pur 34th move, takmg the Kook; for we are then ■equal. This was why wp offered to ignore hpth omissions, and play the. game again from our.29fh.fnpve ; but at present we kave equally tke right to claim the gaine until the appeal fc decided and . the game playedput.. ' ,V < > . , bo havq. , r .. .. . W. ; r ', ■; - a!r, ... Kumars : September 24th, 1878.