B-B4

b-b4, kxb; 10. p-kt7, p-k7; 11. p-kt8 = q ch, and wins by the simple process of a series of checks so timed that the king may approach systematically. the fine points in this instructive ending are the two bishop's moves, 3. b - k6, and 9. b - b4, the latter move enabling white to queen the pawn with a check. _position by f. amelung._ black. +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | | | | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | | |bp | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | | | | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | | | |wp | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | | | |bp | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | | | | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |bk | | | |wk | |wr | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | |bb | | |br | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ white. white with the inferior position saves the game as follows:-- 1. p-r6, pxp; 2. k-b3 dis. ch, k moves; 3. r-r2, or kt2 ch, kxr; 4. k-kt2 and draw, as black has to give up the rook, and the rp cannot be queened, the black bishop having no power on the white diagonal. extremely subtle. _position by b. horwitz._ black. +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |wq | | | | | | |br | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | |wb | | | | |bq | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | |wk | |bk |bp | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | |wp | | | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | |wp |bp |wp | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | | |wp | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | |bb | | | | | | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | | | | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ white. the main idea being to checkmate with the bishop, this is accomplished thus:--1. b-k4 ch, k-r4; 2. qxr, qxq; 3. k-b7, q-b sq ch; 4. kxq, bxp; 5. k-b7, bxp; 6. b-kt6 mate. _position by a. troitzky._ black. +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | |br |bk |bb | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | |bkn|bp | |wp | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | |wp | |wkn| | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | |wp | |wk | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | | | | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | | | | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | |br | | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | | | | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ white. white wins as follows:-- 1. p-r8=q, r-r7 ch; 2. k-kt5, rxq; 3. kt-q7 ch, k-kt2; 4. p-b6 ch, k-r2; 5. qpxkt, r-r sq; 6. kt-b8 ch, rxkt; 7. pxr=kt mate. _position by hoffer._ black. +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | |br | | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | |bq | | | |bp |bk | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | |wq |bkn| |bp | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | |wr | | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |wp |wp | | | | | | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |wkn| |bkn| | | | | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | | |wp |wp | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | | | | |wr | |wk | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ white. a position from actual play. white plays 1. r-b5 threatening to win a piece. black replies with the powerful kt-kt5, threatening two mates, and finally white (mr hoffer) finds an ingenious sacrifice of the queen--the saving clause. the following are the moves:-- 1. r-b5, kt-kt5; 2. q-kt8 ch, k-kt3; 3. q-k6 ch, k-r2; 4. q-kt8 ch, and drawn by perpetual check, as black cannot capture the queen with k or r without losing the game. a good chess problem exemplifies chess strategy idealized and concentrated. in examples of actual play there will necessarily remain on the board pieces immaterial to the issue (checkmate), whereas in problems the composer employs only _indispensable_ force so as to focus attention on the idea, avoiding all material which would tend to "obscure the issue." hence the first object in a problem is to extract the maximum of _finesse_ with a sparing use of the pieces, but "economy of force" must be combined with "purity of the mate." a very common mistake, until comparatively recent years, was that of appraising the "economy" of a position according to the slenderness of the force used, but economy is not a question of absolute values. the true criterion is the ratio of the force employed to the skill demanded. the earliest composers strove to give their productions every appearance of real play, and indeed their compositions partook of the nature of ingenious end-games, in which it was usual to give black a predominance of force, and to leave the white king in apparent jeopardy. from this predicament he was extricated by a series of checking moves, usually involving a number of brilliant sacrifices. the number of moves was rarely less than five. in the course of time the solutions were reduced to shorter limits and the beauty of quiet (non-checking) moves began to make itself felt. the early transition school, as it has been called, was the first to recognize the importance of economy, i.e. the representation of the main strategic point without any extraneous force. the mode of illustrating single-theme problems, often of depth and beauty, was being constantly improved, and the problems of c. bayer, r. willmers, s. loyd, j.g. campbell, f. healey, "j.b." of bridport, and w. grimshaw are, of their kind, unsurpassed. in the year 1845 the "indian" problem attracted much notice, and in 1861 appeared healey's famous "bristol" problem. to this period must be ascribed the discovery of most of those clever ideas which have been turned to such good account by the later school. in an article written in 1899 f.m. teed mentions the fact that his _incomplete_ collection of "indians" totalled over three hundred. in 1870 or thereabouts, the later transition period, a more general tendency was manifest to illustrate two or more finished ideas in a single problem with strict regard to purity and economy, the theory of the art received greater attention than before and the essays of c. schwede, kohtz and kockelkorn, lehner and gelbfuss, helped to codify hitherto unwritten rules of taste. the last quarter of the 19th century, and its last decade especially, saw a marked advance in technique, until it became a common thing to find as much deep and quiet play embodied in a single first-class problem as in three or four of the old-time problems, and hence arose the practice of blending several distinct ideas in one elaborate whole. in the composition of "two-movers" it is customary to allow greater elasticity and a less rigorous application of the principles of purity and economy. by this means a greater superficial complexity is attained; but the teutonic and bohemian schools, and even english and american two-move specialists, recognize that complexity, if it involves the sacrifice of first principles, is liable to abuse. the blind master, a.f. mackenzie of jamaica, however, with a few others (notably t. taverner, w. gleave, h. and e. bettman and p.f. blake) have won some of their greatest successes with problems which, under stricter ruling, would not be allowed. bohemian (czech) composers have long stood unrivalled as exponents of that blending of ideas which is the distinguishing trait of the later problem. such is their skill in construction that it is rare to find in a problem of the bohemian school fewer than three or four lines of play which, in economy and purity, are unimpeachable. amongst the earliest composers of this class anton konig, the founder of the school, makovky, drtina, palct and pilnacek deserve to be honourably mentioned, but it was not until the starting of a chess column in the weekly journal _svetozor_ that the merits of the new school were fully asserted. it was in 1871 that jan dobrusky contributed his first composition to that paper: he was followed by g. chocholous, c. kondelik, pospisil, dr mazel, kviciala, kesl, tuzar, musil and j. kotrc; and later still, havel, traxler and z. mach were no unworthy followers of dobrusky. the faculty for blending variations is not without "the defects of its qualities," and consequently among the less able composers a certain tendency to repeat combinations of similar companion ideas is discernible at times, while the danger that facile construction might usurp the place of originality and strategy was already apparent to chocholous when, in an article on the classification of chess problems (_deutsche schachzeitung_, 1890), he warned the younger practitioners of the bohemian school against what has been dubbed by h. von gottschall _varianten-leierei_, or "the grinding out of variations." when this one reservation is made few will be inclined to dispute the pre-eminence of the bohemian school. to some tastes, however, a greater appeal is made by the deeper play of the older german school, the quaint fancy of the american composer samuel loyd, or the severity and freedom from "duals" which mark the english composers. the idea of holding a problem competition open to the world was first mooted in connexion with the chess congress of 1851, but it was in 1854 that a tourney (confined to british composers) was first held. since then a number of important problem tournaments have been held. _history of chess._ the origin of chess is lost in obscurity. its invention has been variously ascribed to the greeks, romans, babylonians, scythians, egyptians, jews, persians, chinese, hindus, arabians, araucanians, castilians, irish and welsh. some have endeavoured to fix upon particular individuals as the originators of the game; amongst others upon japheth, shem, king solomon, the wife of ravan, king of ceylon, the philosopher xerxes, the greek chieftain palamedes, hermes, aristotle, the brothers lydo and tyrrhene, semiramis, zenobia, attalus (d. c. 200 b.c.), the mandarin hansing, the brahman sissa and shatrenscha, stated to be a celebrated persian astronomer. many of these ascriptions are fabulous, others rest upon little authority, and some of them proceed from easily traceable errors, as where the roman games of _ludus latrunculorum_ and _ludus calculorum_, the welsh recreation of _tawlbwrdd_ (throw-board) and the ancient irish pastime of _fithcheall_ are assumed to be identical with chess; so far as the romans and welsh are concerned, the contrary can be proved, while from what little is known of the irish game it appears not to have been a sedentary game at all. the claims of the chinese were advocated in a letter addressed by mr eyles irwin in 1793 to the earl charlemont. this paper was published in the _transactions of the royal irish academy_, and its purport was that chess, called in the chinese tongue _chong-ki_ (the "royal game") was invented in the reign of kao-tsu, otherwise lin-pang, then king, but afterwards emperor of kiang-nang, by a mandarin named han-sing, who was in command of an army invading the shen-si country, and who wanted to amuse his soldiers when in winter quarters. this invasion of the shen-si country by han-sing took place about 174 b.c. capt. hiram cox states that the game is called by the chinese _choke-choo-hong ki_, "the play of the science of war." (see also a paper published by the hon. daines barrington in the 9th vol. of the _archaeologia_.) mr n. bland,