http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kneipp...

<RookFile: I guess the article implies that Steinitz became anti-semitic near the end of his life.>

We would have to look at his pamphlet for that.

You mean the non-existing one? Spoken like a lawyer :-)

<PercyB> <Considering the circumstances this could be one of Steinitz's more impressive results:>

<The pamphlet had been returned from the printers and he was about to arrange for its general circulation when he became so demented that his wife had him committed. The pamphlets, with the exception of one copy, were destroyed by his family. This pamphlet contains some twenty pages. The title page reads:

“My advertisement to Anti-Semites in Vienna and Elsewhere: by ‘A Schacher June.’ (Mercenary Jew:) or An Essay on Capital, Labor, and Charity.”>

< Fame, I have already. Now I need the money. >

-- Steinitz

http://tinyurl.com/6b33x5

It may be downloaded for free as a PDF file -- it is in the public domain.

(If you are interested in such historic works, you might also see my posting of this same date on the Adolf Anderssen board.)

Best wishes to all!

(: Bishop Berkeley :)

In François André Philidor 's 1813 presentation of the rules of Chess, we find:

"When a Pawn has been pushed forward into the adversary's royal line, it may be exchanged for the Queen, or any other Piece *lost* in the preceding part of the game. As soon as a Pawn reaches any square on that line, it is to be taken off, and the Piece chosen placed on the square where it stood..."

[p.3, here]: http://sbchess.sinfree.net/a_eigc2....

There are a number of ways to read this! Must a "Piece" have been lost earlier in the game to be exchangeable for a "royal" Pawn? I think that would be the most natural reading of this. We read that the Pawn *may* be exchanged, not that it *must* be exchanged, yet we are told that it "is to be taken off" -- here again, ambiguity.

Here are Philidor's rules:

http://sbchess.sinfree.net/EI_index...

As a partly-relevant aside, I note Philidor's point-valuation of the pieces:

http://sbchess.sinfree.net/a_eigc4....

Pawn: 3.75 ("3 3/4")
Knight: 9.25
Bishop: 9.75
Rook: 15
Queen: 23.75
King (in the attack or defense): 6.5
King ("from the principle of the game"): "invaluable"; Pawn, if it did not have the power of promotion: 2

Now, if we try to translate these values into modern valuations, we would divide each value by 3.75 in order to set the Pawn to a value of 1. Then we would have:

Pawn: 1
Knight: 2.47
Bishop: 2.60
Rook: 4.00
Queen: 6.33
King (in the attack or defense): 1.73
King ("from the principle of the game"): "invaluable";

Pawn, if it did not have the power of promotion: 0.53

I hope I got the arithmetic right!

Somewhat different from the usual valuation (Pawn: 1, Knight/Bishop: 3, Rook: 5, Queen: 9, King: "invaluable") I seem to recall that Robert James Fischer placed the value of the Bishop at 3.25.

One worthwhile observation about Philidor's valuation: he notes that the Pawn's value changes as it advances: it starts near 2 and increases to 3.75 as it approaches the "royal rank". Surely "dynamic valuation" of the pieces is more accurate than "static valuation"!

All of this from <SBC>'s "Forgotten Philidor" page:

http://sbchess.sinfree.net/forgotte...

One other modest rules variation: Chess enthusiast, student of Philidor's writings, and American founding father and 3rd President Thomas Jefferson learned the following from Benjamin Franklin:

1818. "When Dr. Franklin went to France on his revolutionary mission, his eminence as a philosopher, his venerable appearance, and the cause on which he was sent, rendered him extremely popular. For all ranks and conditions of men there, entered warmly into the American interest. He was therefore feasted and invited to all the court parties. At these he sometimes met the old Duchess of Bourbon, who being a chess player of about his force, they very generally played together. Happening once to put her king into prise, the Doctor took it. 'Ah,' says she, 'we do not take kings so.' 'We do in America,' says the Doctor. "At one of these parties, the emperor Joseph II, then at Paris, incog. under the title of Count Falkenstein, was overlooking the game, in silence, while the company was engaged in animated conversations on the American question. 'How happens it M. le Compte,' said the Duchess, 'that while we all feel so much interest in the cause of the Americans, you say nothing for them?' 'I am a king by trade,' said he." (TJ to Robert Welsh, enclosure, 4 December, Ford.12.109)

http://www.monticello.org/reports/q...

Best wishes to all!

"Moving the new piece didn’t find acceptance in every part of Italy according to Adriano Chicco, but Ponziani and del Rio allowed it in their books. Again from The War of the Chessmen:

"A Pawn, upon reaching the eighth rank, takes the office of any of its pieces already captured; and, if none have yet been captured, remains suspended and without denomination until one is captured (but may not become a Bishop on the same color of squares as its companion, since this would contradict the foundation of the game). Philidor rightly complains of his fellow- Frenchmen, who in certain cities allow a simultaneous plurality of Queens, so that as many Pawns as arrive on the last rank become as many Queens, on the premise that equality of merit should bring with it an equal reward...."

(: Bishop Berkeley :)

"The regulation which enjoins a plurality of Queens is not, however, by any means of general prevalence. In Italy, at the present day, the Pawn, on reaching the 8th square, is replaced by a second Queen, whether the former one is on the board or not; but this was not always the case there, and according to Major Jaenisch, throughout the whole of the North of Europe, in Russia, in Scandinavia, in Germany, as well as in the classic Italian authors, Del Rio, Lolli, and Ponziani, the rule obtains that a Pawn having reached the 8th square, is exchanged for a Piece from among those the player has lost. Two Queens, two Bishops of the same colour, three Rooks, three Knights, are not permitted; and if a player advances a Pawn to an extreme square of the board, it must remain inactive till one of his Pieces is taken by the enemy, upon which it instantly assumes the rank of that Piece, and is brought into action again.--(See the Introductory Article on the Laws of the Game of Chess, in the"Analyse Nonvelle," vol. i. p. 28.)"

I wonder if there are any chess problems with an "inactive" pawn on the eight rank awaiting an exchange in order to promote.

Elsewhere Staunton states the rule for promotion:

"XXI. ,
Every Pawn .which has reached the eighth or last square on the chess-board, must be immediately exchanged for a Queen or any other Piece the player may think fit, even though all the Pieces remain on the board. It follows, therefore, that he may have two or more Queens, three or more
Rooks, Bishops, or Knights."

The pawn had to be immediately promoted according to British rules.

" Chess is a scientific game and its literature ought to be placed on the basis of the strictest truthfulness, which is the foundation of all scientific research. "