Winners' POV? Kinda. Nottingham 1886
I was initially going to write a proper Winner's POV post about this event, but after starting my proper research into it, it turned out to be a little disappointing. However, I said I would talk about it in the previous installment, so we'll at least give it a surface-level exploration.
The Nottingham 1886 tournament took place at the same time and venue of the Counties' Chess Association (CCA) congress of that year. The CCA, formed in 1865, served to act as the governing body of chess for the British population living outside of the metropolitan areas of London and such. Most of their endeavors don't really align with my blog (they claimed responsibility for opening up many chess clubs in the counties, which is a noble enough achievement), but for their 20th anniversary in 1885 they held an international tournament for the first time. I referenced it briefly in the London 1886 chapter (see here).
The CCA had no intention of holding another such tournament, likely influenced by the BCA congress ending less than a week earlier. However, the hosting Nottingham Chess Club took the opportunity for themselves and held the tournament under their own auspices. The chaos that ensued from trying to manage an international masters' tournament resulted in some unfortunate incidents: apparently at least 17 names were put down for the master event, many of whom could have competed instead in the "Class 1, Division 1" event of the CCA (which ultimately only had seven entrants). This large number lead to the withdrawal of Joseph Blackburne, George Mackenzie, and James Mason. In addition, Arthur Skipworth withdrew after the second round, leading to a bit of a mess in the schedule and the concept of rounds moving forward. Skipworth was at the head of the CCA, and a serial withdraw-er (recall his departure at the halfway point of the London 1883 tournament), so this drama certainly didn't help with the tournament's image.
Anyway, I suppose it's about time we actually start looking at the tournament itself. As this took place less than a week after the BCA tournament, it should come as little surprise that there are many of the same players:
The format was essentially that of the German congresses, with a 20 move per hour time control and three games played every two days. The prize fund was also much smaller, with the top prize being £40.
The Winner: Amos Burn
Burn is pretty much the only reason why I'm talking about the CCA at all. After his debut at the 1870 BCA Challenge Cup, this was the organization he played under until we met him in the previous chapter. He was this organization's strongest player by a wide margin, with results including: 1st in 1873, 1st in 1874, 2nd in 1875 (scoring 9/11, while 1st place managed an astounding 10.5/11), 1st in 1876, and 4th in 1883. Even though this event technically wasn't a CCA event, it's still fitting that Burn would win its top honours.
Now only six of Burn's games are readily available, and three of them are against relatively weaker players, which I give below. The game against Jean Taubenhaus received the brilliancy prize; hopefully my notes let you know my opinion on that.
Right, onto the good stuff. While the dates of each game is known, as mentioned the concept of "rounds" is a little out the window for this event, so let's look at the rest in an order that I think makes sense.
vs. Isidor Gunsberg
Gunsberg won their individual game at London, though allegedly there were some clock shenanigans at play; Burn reportedly forgot to stop his clock, resulting in him seeming to have very little time to handle the time trouble complications. I don't believe the game has been preserved, so it's impossible to tell just how disastrous any of the blunders were, but regardless I reckon Burn had some revenge to get.
Gunsberg tried to liven up this Exchange French by trying to castle Queenside, but it didn't work. I wish I had more to add, but that's really the whole story. See for yourself.
vs. Johannes Zukertort
Zukertort's bad form was very present during their game at London, with him falling for a rather elementary tactic to lose their game. Obviously in retrospect we know everything and can say this makes sense, as Zukertort's health never fully improved and he would die two years from now, but the reactions to his play at the time are kind of depressing. Anyway, let's look at the game.
Zukertort opted for the Scotch, and things got interesting when he sacrificed a pawn on move nine. After every series of exchanges, at least one of the players was left with a hanging piece, and both dared the other to incorrectly capture something and face ruin. Neither player made such a mistake, and one of the more professional games I've shown on this series (both players scored around 97% accuracy according to Game Review) ended with a repetition before the second time control.
vs. Emil Schallopp
Schallopp's 5/12 at London certainly left something to be desired for the sole German representative. His performance in the game against Burn also could have gone better, with the Englishman sacrificing the exchange on move 10 and coercing resignation on move 29. He redeemed himself well enough in this event, which we'll talk about more after this game.
Schallopp opted for the Exchange Spanish for this important game, including a weird stutter step with his d-pawn on moves five and six. It didn't really amount to much, and he was on the worse side of any equality right away. However, the critical moments came starting on move 15, when Schallopp offered up an entire Rook. Burn's Queen being stuck in the corner offered two chances for Schallopp to force a draw (which would change the final standings quite seriously). He tried to play for more, and ended up settling for less as Burn consolidated and collected yet another point.
That marks the end of Burn's games, but there are more interesting ones from this event that I'd like to share. Let's see what happened with the other prize winners.
Schallopp came second with a very respectable 7/9 score, dropping a game to William Pollock on the final day but winning the rest. Here's his game against Taubenhaus, which echoed his brilliancy prize game from London in that the opening was energetic yet incorrect. Taubenhaus fell asleep at move 10, and his next two moves suddenly allowed Schallopp's compensation to materialize. The sacrificed pawn was regained, and Schallopp's e-pawn flew up the board to snag an easy exchange and eventually the game.
Zukertort's play had doubtlessly declined to the lower echelons of the master level, but he was still a master, scoring 6/9 and beating everyone that wasn't a fellow prize-winner. Here's his game against Pollock, a Bishop's Gambit with all of the Romantic fireworks that we love and cherish. Zukertort's piece sacrifice leading up to the time control was played with the correctness we're used to, though both players made serious mistakes right after move 20. As is often the case, the better player was a little luckier in the end.
Also on 6/9 was Gunsberg, who would have taken clear third had he not drawn with tail-ender James Rynd. However, the final position with Rynd was completely lost for him, but the Irish champion offered him a draw. This is certainly not the worst possible outcome.
It feels like a waste to talk about a tournament with Henry Bird and not talk about a loss by Henry Bird. Gunsberg is our man for this particular job, though I have to be honest and say that this was a rather good game for Bird's playstyle. His opening was about as unsound and self-destructive as usual, but this game was a much better example of his colleagues' thoughts about him - his ability to create tactical chaos from positionally inferior situations - than most of what we've seen from him. Hopefully this helps balance the anti-Bird vitriol I tend to show in these posts, at least a little.
Conclusion
The main reason why I wanted to show off this tournament is Burn's score - 8/9 is quite a pretty sight indeed. Aside from that, this event felt kind of... frustrating to write about. I think the fact that this made my list of "events I have to cover" while being rather barebones in terms of documentation and surviving games lead to some level of disappointment. I'll have to vet my tournaments a little more before diving in, I suppose. Hopefully you all enjoyed this little look at this little chess association well enough.
The next tournament is going to be huge (like 3x this size), so get comfy. The turn of the decade is home to some rather hefty events, so if you think my upload frequency is slow now, you haven't seen anything yet (and you won't see anything because I'll be procrastinating writing. I love this hobby).
