Hermann Helms (left)
and Hartwig Cassel,
taken from the 1905
American Chess Bulletin |
Hermann Helms and
Correspondence Chess Coverage
in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle
by John S. Hilbert
Few if any men have
given as much to the chess culture of the United States as did
Hermann Helms. Born on January 5, 1870, in New York City, and
dying in that same city a day after his ninety-third birthday,
Helms was actively involved with chess, chess play, and chess
reporting for an incredible seventy years. He has, directly
or indirectly, played a major role in several of the correspondence
chess essays I have written for this website. In June 1904,
as many know, Helms and his business partner, Hartwig Cassel,
released their first issue of the American Chess Bulletin,
publishing in that issue all 120 games from Cambridge Springs
1904, as well as the 7 Rice Gambit consultation games the international
stars played while staying at the Hotel Rider. Helms continued
to publish the Bulletin until the very month of his death,
in January 1963.
What fewer know is
that for nearly eleven years prior to the inaugural issue of
the American Chess Bulletin, Hermann Helms had pursued
a career as a chess columnist in the pages of the Brooklyn
Daily Eagle. His Eagle column would run, with minor
interruptions, until the paper folded in 1954, over sixty years
later. During his long and distinguished career as a newspaper
columnist, Helms would also make significant contributions to
a host of area papers and magazines, including the Evening
Post, New York Sun, New York Times, New
York World-Telegram & Sun, Pulitzer's Magazine, and
the Sunday World. It is unlikely anyone has ever shown
such dedication to reporting on the game over the course of
so many decades. He followed chess in many of its forms. Not
surprisingly, Helms was also a friend to correspondence chess.
He played it quite well, too.
When Helms ran his
first regular column in the Eagle, on October 25, 1893,
the Continental Correspondence Chess Association Tournament
was still in the organizational stage, with play beginning only
on January 1, 1894. Helms as well as his younger brother, Charles,
competed in the Continental, with seventy participants the largest
correspondence chess tournament yet held in the United States
and Canada. As early as in his March 7, 1894, column, Helms
published a game played in the third preliminary section of
the tournament, one of the first games finished, and won by
C.W. Macfarlane of Virginia over Dr. S.T. King of Brooklyn.
Helms continued his
coverage of correspondence chess in the pages of the Eagle
throughout the 1890s. Before the Continental had finished, indeed
just at the start of the tournament's final round in 1896, Helms
published in his March 26, 1896, column his announcement of
the formation of the Pillsbury National Correspondence Chess
Association in Chicago. Helms even gave the correspondence between
the organizers, led by Edward T. Runge, the PNCCA's first president,
and Pillsbury himself, who by way of letter dated March 23,
1896, just three days before Helms' Eagle column published
it, had given permission for his name to be used by the newly
forming group. For a time, then, both the Continental tournament
(the group had organized for the tournament, but in truth was
never a full-fledged Association with continuous membership,
regardless of its name) and the PNCCA held center-stage in correspondence
chess. As Helms would write that September, "At present there
are two organizations in existence, rivals in a certain sense,
but both doing excellent work in helping to spread the chess
gospel." Indeed, as with many organizations with fervently held
beliefs, the PNCCA was doing all it could to increase its membership
throughout the land.
In his November 27,
1896, column, Helms announced that three days hence, on December
1, 1896, the first tournament of the PNCCA would commence. Entrants
were still being accepted, though, upon payment of the fifty
cent dues and a like amount for entry in the tournament, with
interested parties urged to contact the PNCCA's Secretary, Edward
J. Napier, older brother of Brooklyn's Boy Wonder, William Ewart
Napier. In very small print, Helms published not only a letter
from the tournament committee, but all twenty-two of the detailed
rules for the first PNCCA event. Although scheduled to begin
December 1, the tournament in fact did not begin until December
5, when 111 participants-a new national and indeed continental
record for correspondence play in one event-were paired in eight
divisions. Every name and division was listed in the Eagle
on December 10, 1896. Helms himself played in the Eastern Division,
Section One. The Eastern Division was one of only two of the
eight divisions requiring further breakdown into sections, with
four sections filled with a total of 40 players. The Central
Division had two sections, with 22 players. A second, "auxiliary"
tournament, as it was referred to, was begun by the PNCCA October
1, 1897, not long after President Runge, due to declining health,
had turned over the management of the organization to Edward
Napier.
While Helms maintained
his regular Thursday column in the Eagle, reporting on
happenings around the chess world, in January 1900 Helms also
began a Sunday column devoted entirely to correspondence chess.
No doubt thanks to Helms's long-time support of correspondence
play, as well as his ability to devote precious column inches
to the subject, the thirty-year-old columnist had taken upon
himself the demanding task of writing about correspondence chess
news as "the official organ" of the PNCCA. The result was something
that should stagger the imagination of today's correspondence
chess enthusiast, who no doubt will look in vain for significant
coverage of his favorite pastime in his local paper.
Helms more than warmed
to the task, and during the year 1900 alone published over 80
correspondence chess games on behalf of the organization. Short
of publishing their own journal, it is hard to imagine where
else the PNCCA members could have found a more accommodating
outlet for their efforts. Helms's January 6, 1901, Eagle
column provided an index of every correspondence game published
the year before, the date of its publication, the player's names,
the opening, and the result. A summary of opening statistics
was also given, with the Ruy Lopez leading the way with 19 appearances,
followed by 7 French, 6 Scotch, and 5 Petroff, with many fewer
queenside openings being represented.
According to Helms,
the games had been selected by the Eagle (in other words,
by Helms) and the PNCCA game committee, largely "at random,
due regard being paid to quality." However selected, five of
his own games were published that year among the 85 correspondence
chess games in the Eagle. In fact, more than one of Helms's
games appeared in the pages of his Eagle correspondence
chess column only indirectly, as it were, by way of their appearance
in other contemporary sources. Take, for example, the following
game, with the introduction Helms gave it. Although Helms does
not give a date for the game, Bryce Avery in his Correspondence
Chess in America (McFarland 2000) notes at p.12 that the
first PNCCA Grand National ended in 1897, won by Dr. Otto Meyer
of Richmond, Virginia. It is likely the game below was started
sometime in late 1896, and concluded early the following year.
Helms - Lissner
[D00]
First
PNCCA Ch., Semi-Finals, 1897
The following
game was played in the semi-finals of the first championship
tournament between H. Helms of Brooklyn and M. Lissner, the
Manhattan problem composer, the notes being from the Illustrated
London News. 1.d4 d5 2.e3 e6 3.Bd3 Nf6 4.Nd2 Be7 5.f4
This is known as the stonewall variation of the Queen's pawn
game. The intention is to form a strong center, following up
with Nf3 and Ne5. Black can only succeed if he forcibly attacks
and breaks up this center of pawns by ...c5, etc. 5...b6
6.Qf3 c5 7.c3 cxd4 8.exd4 0-0 9.Ne2 Ba6 The object of developing
by ...b6 is to play ...Bb7. It is useful both for attack and
defense, and the exchange weakens Black's queenside too much.
10.Bc2 Bxe2 11.Qxe2 Nc6 12.Nf3 Qc7 13.Ne5 g6 14.0-0 Nh5 15.Nxc6
Qxc6 16.f5 A very forcible move. If either pawn captures,
Black loses a piece. 16...Rfe8 17.g4 Nf6 18.fxg6 fxg6
Position after 18. ... fxg6
19.Ba4 Very
clever. Black is almost compelled to take, and then follows
the pretty attack on the King's position, which soon settles
matters. 19...Qxa4 20.Qxe6+ Kh8 21.Bg5 Rad8 22.Rae1 Nxg4
23.Bxe7 Qd7 24.Qf7 It is merely a matter of a few moves
before the climax must come. If Black now plays 24...Rc8, then
follows: 25.Re6 Rc7 26.h3 h6 (He cannot play 26...Rxe7, because
of the mate at f8.) 27.Rfe1 and now it's all over with Black.
1-0
Brooklyn
Daily Eagle,
Jan. 21, 1900
While the game above
came to the pages of the Eagle by way of an English publication,
the next game first appeared in the Pittsburg Dispatch,
in a chess column started not long before by Helms's most accomplished
young friend, William E. Napier. Helms's introduction to the
game is included here. The notes are Napier's own from his second
column, which appeared October 22, 1900, just six days before
Helms republished it in the Eagle.
Professor R.B.
Lloyd - Helms [D37]
Third
PNCCA Ch., Semi-Finals, 1900
In giving the
first example of correspondence play, the Pittsburg Dispatch,
whose chess column is in charge of W.E. Napier, formerly of
Brooklyn, selects a game from the Eastern Division's semi-finals
in the third tournament, won by H. Helms of Brooklyn from Professor
R.B. Lloyd of Trenton, N.J. Introducing it, the exchange referred
to says: "The following game is from the Pillsbury National
Correspondence Association, third tourney, semi-finals. It is
an excellent specimen of Helms's play and will serve to show
that chess by mail is neither uninteresting nor unduly conservative."
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.e3 b6 6.Be2 Bb7 7.b3
White develops after the manner of Zukertort, but surrenders
the initiative in so doing. 7...Ne4 8.Nxe4 dxe4 9.Nd2 Bd6
10.Bb2 Qg5 11.Bf1 White's game is hopelessly immature. 11...f5
12.Qc2 a5 Anticipating an attempt on White's part to dislodge
the bishop on d6 by c5, also played with an eye to queenside
attack. 13.a4 0-0 14.g3 e5 15.d5 Nc5 16.0-0-0 c6 17.dxc6
Bxc6 18.Rg1 If 18.Nb1 Nd3+ 19.Bxd3 exd3 20.Qxd3 Bxh1 21.Qxd6
Bf3 22.Qe6+ Kh8 23.Rd7 and White stands better than in the text,
though the exchange minus. Or 18.Nb1 Nd3+ 19.Bxd3 exd3 20.Qxd3
Rad8 21.c5 bxc5 22.Qc4+ Kh8 23.Rhe1 with a fighting chance and
material even. 18...f4 19.Re1 fxe3 20.fxe3 Rf2 21.h4 Qh6
22.Kb1
Position after 22.Kb1
22…Rxd2 Well
conceived. Black gets more than an equivalent in pawns for the
exchange sacrificed. 23.Qxd2 Nxb3 24.Qd1 Nc5 25.Rg2 Nd3 26.Ree2
26.Bxd3, followed by 27.Rf2, is more promising. 26...Qe6
27.Qb3 Rb8 28.Rd2 Bb4 29.Rd1 Nc5 30.Qa2 Bxa4 31.Rd5 Bb3 32.Qa1
b5 This opens the b-file with immediately fatal results.
33.Rxe5 Qf7 34.Be2 bxc4 35.Rg5 c3 36.Bxc3 Ba2+ Winning
the Queen at least. 0-1
Brooklyn
Daily Eagle,
Oct. 28, 1900
In addition to his
duties as chronicler of the PNCCA, Helms of course published
a great deal more chess, including correspondence play not connected
with that organization. For example, he published a two game,
friendly correspondence match between two of the area's long-time
chessplayers. The match was somewhat unusual in that for the
winner, who was then in his mid-forties, it was his very first
effort at correspondence play. It was also unusual in that the
loser was in fact part of a consultation correspondence team
composed of himself and his brother.
The winner of the
first correspondence game below, William M. de Visser, was a
strong player in both New York and Brooklyn chess. De Visser
was born in New Orleans on November 5, 1855, and so was forty-six
years old when he began to play his first correspondence games.
Early in life he moved to New York. By the time of his death
in 1923, de Visser had been involved with the Manhattan Chess
Club for nearly forty years, and with the Brooklyn club almost
as long. De Visser's associations with chess extended well beyond
the board, though. His father-in-law was Charles A. Gilberg,
the well-known chess problemist and a driving force in the New
York chess community.
Something of de Visser's
strength as a chessplayer was demonstrated locally when on the
night of April 19, 1890, he was the featured simultaneous player
at the closing reception of the season at the Brooklyn Chess
Club. Unlike many club simuls of the time, de Visser's was played
against what was considered one of the strongest teams the Brooklyn
club could put up. He finished 10-1, with 1 draw. During the
club's 1891-92 season, which saw the membership climb to 125,
a series of players gave monthly simultaneous exhibitions, including
both de Visser and Philip Richardson, along with the likes of
Steinitz and Chigorin. Both de Visser and Richardson were honorary
club members, a distinction given to very few chessplayers of
the time.
In January 1894 Helms,
who by then had started his regular column in the Brooklyn
Daily Eagle, could write that "The following very interesting
game was played in New York last week between Messrs. W.M. de
Visser and Taubenhaus, the Parisian expert. Mr. de Visser is
one of the best known and strongest chess players that Brooklyn
can boast of, and he has many a time upheld the honor of this
city on the checkered battlefield. The game, an offhand one,
is a good specimen of his skill. de Visser - Taubenhaus,
New York, Offhand, January 1894, 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4
4.Nf3 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5 h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.d4 d5 9.Bxf4 Nf6 10.e5
Nh5 11.Be2 An ingenious time-saving device. In openings
of this character, especially when a piece is sacrificed, everything
depends upon the attack being pushed with the greatest vigor
and with the least possible loss of time. 11...Nxf4 12.0-0
Rg8 13.Rxf4+ Ke8 14.Qd3 Be6 15.Raf1 Qe7 16.Bxg4 Very fine.
If 16.Bxg4 Rxg4 17.Rxg4 Bxg4 18.Qg6+ etc. If 16.Bxg4 Bxg4 17.Nxd5
and wins. 16...Rd8 Probably as good as any move at his
disposal. If 16...Kd7, White, of course, wins the Queen by 17.Rf7.
If 16...Kd8, 17.Bxe6 and Black cannot retake on account of 18.Rxf8+.
17.Bh5+ Kd7 18.Rf7 White's play is exceedingly strong
and accurate. Black's Queen is lost, although he gets two rooks
in exchange. 18...Bxf7 19.Rxf7 Kc8 20.Rxe7 Bxe7 21.Bf7 Rg7
22.Be6+ Winning a most important pawn, after which Black's
game is hopeless. 22...Kb8 23.Nxd5 Bxh4 24.a3 Rf8 25.Bf5
Rg5 A blunder, as Mr. de Visser quickly demonstrates. 26.Nf6
Ka8 27.Qh3 Bg3 28.Qxh6 1-0 Brooklyn Daily Eagle,
January 10, 1894. Jean Taubenhaus (1850-1919), the Warsaw-born
master who had emigrated to France well before this game was
played, holds an Elo historical rating of 2480.
A few years later,
although de Visser was finding his place in the hierarchy of
Brooklyn chess challenged by young players such as Napier and
Marshall, he still was capable of a very delicious sting, as
the then-current Brooklyn Chess Club champion found out: "In
a game contested at the Brooklyn Chess Club recently between
W. M. de Visser and F.J. Marshall, the club's champion, lately
returned home from Montreal, de Visser showed some of his old-time
fire, bringing about a victory in the following clever style:
De Visser - Marshall [C29], Brooklyn Chess Club, 1898, 1.e4
e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.d3 Bg4 5.Be2 Bxe2 6.Ncxe2 dxe4 7.fxe5
Ng4 8.d4 e3 9.Nh3 Qh4+ 10.Ng3 Nxh2 11.Bxe3 Qxg3+ 12.Bf2 Qxg2
13.Rxh2 Qxh2 14.Qf3 Nc6 15.0-0-0 g5 16.Nxg5 Qh6 17.Qxf7+ Kd8
18.Be3 Kc8 19.Qe8+ Nd8 20.e6 Bg7 21.Qd7+ Kb8 22.Bf4 a6 23.Qxc7+
Ka7 24.d5 1-0 Montreal Daily Witness, Nov. 19, 1898.
Clearly de Visser was a player worth reckoning with for many
years.
De Visser's opponents
in the set of correspondence games given below were Philip Richardson
and his younger brother, Robert D. Richardson. While little
is known regarding Robert Richardson, other than that he was
born on February 20, 1848, over six years after his older brother
Philip, and that he likely was born in England, as his older
brother was born in London, Philip Richardson was long a fixture
on the New York chess scene. Indeed, born on November 12, 1841,
fourteen years and one week before de Visser, it is not surprising
to learn Philip Richardson's association with the local chess
community began well before de Visser's. Both Philip and Robert
were professional photographers, according to Helms's later
commentary in his December 1909 issue of the American Chess
Bulletin. The brothers moved to the United States with their
parents, arriving on March 2, 1851, "after a tedious and tempestuous
passage of seventy-one days" (Brentano's Chess Monthly,
March 1882, p.572). Three years later, in 1854, the family moved
to Brooklyn, where for many years the elder brother was a strong
player in the city. Philip was also known as a chess problem
composer, having won first prize in a New York Clipper
problem contest for what Helms noted was a twenty-three move
Self-Mate.
But it was for his
chess play that Helms and others admired Philip Richardson the
most. Richardson learned the moves from his father in 1856,
and the next year caught the Paul Morphy chess bug, which swept
the nation at the end of the 1850s. In 1859 he made his way
to the chess rooms at the corner of Fulton and Nassau Streets
in New York City, where he lost his first game, at rook odds,
to the dashing play of Eugene Delmar, who though only two months
Richardson's senior had greater chess experience. The next day,
however, Richardson returned and won every game at the same
odds against his opponent. Before long he was holding his own
with Delmar and the other city players. In 1860, James A. Leonard,
the brilliant young player who would die two years later, before
reaching age twenty-one, received much of his chess training
from Philip Richardson, and that year the two played a great
deal of chess at the Morphy Chess Rooms in New York.
Entering business
in 1863, Richardson largely gave up chess for the next four
years, until he returned to the game and entered a handicap
tournament at the old New York City Chess Club in 1867. The
tournament was won by George H. Mackenzie, with the out-of-practice
Richardson and his early opponent, Delmar, tying for second
place. Again business occupied much of Richardson's time for
the next six years, although he did play chess from time to
time. Here, for example, is an attractive early miniature he
played against Eugene Delmar over thirty years before playing
his first correspondence chess game: Richardson - Delmar
[C42], Café International, New York, 1871, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6
3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Nc3 Nxf2 5.Kxf2 Bc5+ 6.d4 exd4 7.Re1+ Kf8 8.Ne4
Bb6 9.Qd3 d5 10.Qa3+ Kg8 11.Bxd5 Qxd5 12.Nf6+ gxf6 13.Qf8+ Kxf8
14.Bh6+ Kg8 15.Re8 mate 1-0 The Turf, Field and Farm,
March 24, 1871.
An interesting tidbit
is how Richardson got his chess nickname. According to Brentano's
Chess Monthly, Richardson found time to visit the Café International,
where the game above was played. However, "His visits to that
place were always made on rainy days, owing to the fact that
he was a photographer and, consequently, was released from his
duties at the camera in stormy weather; the coincidence of storms
and his visits soon attracted notice, and he was promptly dubbed
'the Stormy Petrel' by Capt. Mackenzie, and this soubriquet
has clung to him to this day." In addition, Richardson was known
for an innovative attack, named, not too surprisingly, the Richardson
Attack, in the Evans' Gambit. Here, in what was said to be his
first use of the opening attack later to bear his name, Richardson
takes apart a player who became rather well-known in his own
right: Richardson - James Mason [C52], Cafe International,
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.0-0 Nf6 7.d4
0-0 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.dxe5 Nxe4 10.Qd5 Bxc3 11.Nxc3 Nxc3 12.Qf3
Na4 13.Qg3 Kh8 14.Bg5 Qe8 15.Rfe1 Nb6 16.Bd3 Qe6 17.Qh4 h6 18.Bf6
Kg8 19.Qg3 g6 20.Bxg6 1-0 Brentano's Chess Monthly,
March 1882, p.574. Not surprisingly, Brentano's could
report that Mackenzie, the nation's champion, in the early 1880s
named Philip Richardson "the most formidable antagonist he had
met in this country." Although Richardson never tried to tax
his ability to play blindfold chess, it was reported he could
face four strong antagonists simultaneously with considerable
success in this form of chess entertainment. With but a common
school education, Richardson taught himself and became quite
well-versed in English literature, philosophy, logic, the sciences,
and mathematics. He was, by all accounts, a universally admired
and accomplished amateur chessplayer.
Such were the men
that Helms wrote about in presenting the two correspondence
games that follow. When Philip Richardson teamed up with his
younger brother to face de Visser in correspondence play, he
was sixty years old and had by then moved from New York to Hyannis,
Massachusetts, where he would live until his death eighteen
years later, on September 29, 1920, at age seventy-eight.
Helms introduced
the first game to his readers in the Eagle as follows:
"William M. De Visser, best known to the chess world for his
strength in crossboard play and as an organizer, has concluded
his first game by correspondence. Opposed to him were the Richardson
brothers, Philip and Robert D., residing at Hyannis, Mass. The
former of these is the noted Brooklyn veteran, who has recently
made New England his home. The contest, one of a series of two,
was of a highly entertaining character, as will be seen from
the score and thorough analysis contributed to the Eagle
by the winner and appended herewith." The Richardsons' first
move, to say the least, is rather unusual.
Philip and Robert
D. Richardson - William M. de Visser [A00]
Correspondence
Match Game 1, 1902
1.h3 Mr. Richardson inaugurates the game on his theory
that his strongest attack is a well played defense. 1...e5
2.e4 Nc6 3.Nc3 Bc5 4.Nf3 d6 5.Na4 f5 6.Nxc5 dxc5 7.Bb5 Qd6 8.Qe2
Nge7 9.d3 0-0
Position after 9. ... 0-0
10.Bg5 It
is doubtful if the attack, which White might here begin by 10.Bc4+,
followed by Ng5, etc., would be enduring enough in a correspondence
game. By playing conservatively, White is at least consistent
with his original plan. 10...Nd4 11.Bc4+ Kh8 12.Nxd4 cxd4
13.exf5 Nxf5 Black might win a pawn here by ...Qb4+, but
the inferiority of position he would have justifies him in declining
the offer. 14.0-0-0 Castling on the kingside would have
subjected him to considerable attack by ...Qg6, etc. 14...Bd7
15.Rhe1 It would seem as if the other rook to this square
were better, but Mr. Richardson preferred this move for the
reason that he thinks that Black might gain time at a later
stage by attacking the h-rook with the bishop at c6, had the
h-rook remained at h1. 15...Rae8 16.g4 Qg6 17.Qd2 It
is questionable whether this is as good as 17.Bd2. The position
of this bishop is later on a source of weakness, as White is
obliged to lose time in bringing the bishop into safety before
the Queen can be put in action. 17...Nd6 18.Bd5 Though
this appears to lose time it is not really so, since it takes
away the protection of the knight, and also obstructs the movement
of Black's bishop later on. 18...c6
Position after 18. ... c6
19.Bb3 Had
White now retreated his bishop to g2 or h1, the following might
have occurred: 19.Bh1 Qf7 20.Qb4 Nb5 21.a4 a5 22.Qc5 b6 23.Qxb6
Qa2 24.Re2 Nc3 25.bxc3 dxc3 26.R on d1 moves, Rb8. 19...Rf3
20.Rh1 a5 21.Bh4 b5 22.a4 bxa4 23.Bxa4 Nb7 24.Bg3 It is
doubtful if this move is as good as 24.Bb3. It is a challenge
to Black to sacrifice the a-pawn, which, up to this time, could
not be taken without the loss of the Queen's bishop. 24...Nc5
25.Qxa5 This is now practically obligatory, for 25.b3 would
certainly be bad, and, if 25.Bb3, Black replies with 25...Rxd3,
etc. 25...Qd6 26.b4 Nxa4 27.Qxa4 Rb8 I am inclined to
think this is not the best move at this point, although the
result might justify it. I believe that 27...Qh6+, followed
by 28...Rb8, if White played 28.Kb1, or by 28...R3f8, if White
played 28.Rd2, is stronger and should win.
Position after 27. ... Rb8
28.Qa7 This
is an error, after which I believe White's game is lost. Mr.
Richardson characterizes it as a case of mental blindness. At
the time he believed that if Black replied 28...Qxb4, he could
capture the bishop, which, of course, cannot be done on account
of 29...Ra8. 28...Qxb4 29.Qa1 Neither can White now play
29.Bxe5 because Black then has a forced mate in ten moves, beginning
as follows: 29...Qb1+ 30.Kd2 Rxf2+ 31.Ke1 Qxd1+ etc. Undoubtedly
White's best move at this point was 29.Rhe1 and in the subsequent
analysis it would seem that Black is put at once on the defensive
and, with his best play, could hope for no more than a draw.
It is on account of White's possible move of 29.Rhe1 that I
consider that ...Qh6+ was better for Black on the twenty-seventh
move than the move actually made. 29...c5 30.Rhe1 c4 31.Bxe5
cxd3 32.Rf1 There is actually nothing to be done. If 32.Bxb8
Black plays 32...Rxf2; if 32.Bxd4, Black plays 32...dxc2; or
if 32.Rd2 Black plays 32...Rxf2. 32...d2+ 33.Rxd2 Ra3 0-1
Brooklyn
Daily Eagle, Oct. 5, 1902
annotations by de Visser
The second game of
the match ended in a draw. Philip Richardson annotated it for
Helms's readers. As the introduction to the game suggests, it
is unclear whether Robert D. Richardson played this game as
well. Helms does not mention the younger brother in introducing
this game, but it is just as likely that, with the two months
separating the appearance of the two games in print, Helms simply
forgot that Philip Richardson had some assistance during play.
In any event, Helms wrote that "The match of two games by correspondence
between William M. de Visser of Brooklyn and Philip Richardson
of Hyannis, Mass., has terminated in a victory for the former
by a score of 1½-½. The first game, won by de Visser, has already
appeared in the Eagle. The second, which was drawn, after
a hard fight, is presented herewith, annotated by Richardson."
William M. de
Visser - Philip and Robert D. Richardson [D25]
Correspondence
Match Game 2, 1902
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5 Not finding it in
the books, I adopted this to see what would come of it. 5.Bxc4
e6 6.Nc3 Ne4 Probably not as good as 6...c6. 7.Qb3
The best reply, apparently. 7...b6 7...Nd6 would allow
8.e4. 7...Qc8 is better, I believe. 8.d5 This is a little
premature. 8.g4 leads to a very interesting position, and 8.Ne5
is also better. 8...Nc5 With this move Black acquires
slightly the better game. 9.Qd1 If 9.Qb5+ c6 10.dxc6
Qc7, or if 9.Bb5+ c6 10.dxc6 Qc7 11.Qd1 a6, in each case having
a superior position.
Position after 9.Qd1
9...c6 This,
I believe, is the only move to preserve the slight advantage
Black may have. 10.Nd4 In my opinion best; if 10.dxc6
Qxd1+ 11.Nxd1 (11.Kxd1 Nxc6 12.Bb5 0-0-0+ followed by 13...Nb4)
11...Bd3. 10...exd5 11.Bxd5 Black will get an inferior
game if he takes the bishop. 11...Bd7 This is the best
move. Any other leads to inferiority. 12.Bf3 a5 With
an eye to the endgame. 13.0-0 Be7 14.Qc2 Qc8 15.Ne4 Nba6
16.Bd2 0-0 17.a3 a4 18.Bc3 Ra7 19.Rad1 b5 20.Nxc5 Bxc5 21.Be2
Rb7 22.Bd3 g6 22...f5 is very hazardous. 23.Qe2 Be7 24.Nf3
Nc5 25.Bb4
Position after 25.Bb4
25…Be6 If
25...Nxd3 (25...Re8 is better than the move actually made),
26.Bxe7 Re8 27.Bd6 wins. 26.Bxc5 Bxc5 27.Rc1 Bd6 28.Nd4 Bd7
29.Nxb5 Bxh2+ 30.Kxh2 Qb8+ 31.g3 cxb5 32.Be4 Rb6 33.Qd2 Rd6
34.Qb4 Bg4 To induce f3, which allows Black a strong attack.
35.Rc6 Rxc6 36.Bxc6 Be2 37.Re1 Bc4 38.Rd1 Qe5 39.Bf3 Qf5
39...Qf6 prevents the exchanges that follow. 40.Kg2 Rc8 41.Qe7
Kg7 42.Rd8 Rxd8 43.Qxd8 Qe5 43...Qd3 leads to an exchange
of Queens and a better chance for White. 44.Qxd3 Bxd3 45.Bd5
and if the bishop retains command of c6, Black cannot win. 44.Qd2
h5 45.Qc3 Qxc3 46.bxc3 Kf6
Position after 46. ... Kf6
47.Be4 This,
I think, is the only move to draw. 47...Ke6 48.Bc2 Kd5 49.f4
f5 50.Kf2 Kc5 51.Ke1 If 51.e4 Bb3 52.Bd3 fxe4 53.Bxe4 Kc4
54.Bxg6 Kxc3 55.Bxh5 b4 and wins. ½-½
Brooklyn
Daily Eagle, Nov. 30, 1902
Annotations by Philip Richardson
As both games between
de Visser and the Richardson brothers and Helms's own games
suggest, Hermann Helms provided correspondence chessplayers
an incredible service not only in writing a column used as the
official publication for the early PNCCA, but perhaps even more
so in following his own love of correspondence chess, and sharing
that pleasure with his readers. Helms has long been called the
Dean of American Chess. The variety of his chess interests,
and his active help in promoting so many of them for so many
decades, certainly suggest this title a well-deserved one. Correspondence
chessplayers in particular owe more than a passing nod to this
early proponent of chess by mail.
© 2003 John S. Hilbert, All Rights Reserved.
|
