New Stories about Old Chess Players

New Stories
about Old
Chess Players
Jeremy P. Spinrad



When Blindfold Chess Became Easy
Blindfold chess always seems to be a bit of a showstopper, and many
blindfold exhibitions have been hailed as being among the worlds great
intellectual feats. My favorite account of this type comes from the London
Times, March 27, 1843:
The Courier Franais states that a new chess-player has appeared,
who bids fair to rival Philidor and de Labourdonnais. This person,
named Laigle, the proprietor of the Caf de la Paris, at Valenciennes,
whilst sitting in a closet off the room in which the chess-board was
placed, answered the moves of four antagonists with a degree of
sagacity and promptitude which excited the admiration of the
numerous visitors attracted by this singular contest. After 42 moves,
the four players confessed they were mated, and the fortunate victor
received the well merited eulogium of the numerous admirers of his
talent.
What makes this account special is both the modesty of the achievement
(winning one blindfold game against anonymous opponents), and what I
found when I tried to discover more about this potential rival to Philidor.
There are two games of Laigle in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games,
both also played in 1843, in which Laigle and Kieseritzky both played sans
voir against each other. I include the games below; read them over if you have
a strong stomach. I will not pretend to understand the first. Laigle makes no
effort to attack as white, and Kieseritzky makes a sacrifice on move 9 that is
given an exclamation mark, but looks ridiculous to me. Laigle does not accept
the sacrifice for some reason, reaches a dead lost position, and resigns on
move 16. And that is the good game! In the second game, Laigle misses a fork
that any child would see on move 5; the play is truly weak. Laigle can only be
considered a rival to Philidor if we factor in the information that Philidor
would be dead when the two played each other.
Laigle-Kieseritzky, both playing blindfold, Paris, 1843: 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.c3
Nc6 4.e3 e6 5.Be2 Qb6 6.0-0 Nf6 7.d3 Bd6 8.Nbd2
file:///C|/cafe/spinrad/spinrad.htm (1 of 12) [3/24/2006 1:42:54 PM]
New Stories about Old Chess Players
8Bxf4?? 9.e4?? Both moves are
incomprehensible. 9.exf4 simply wins a
piece, with no compensation for Black.
9Be3+10.Kh1 Ng4 11.h3?? (better
11.Qe1) 11h5?! (11Nf2+wins)
12.Nh2?? (again, 12.Qe1!) Nf2+13.Rxf2
Bxf2 14.b3 Bd7 15.Bb2 c4 16.Nhf3?
White might still have a fighting chance
after 16.exd5 exd5 17.dxc4 0-0-0 (not
17dxc4? 18.Nxc4 Qc7 19.Nd6+)
18.cxd5. 16cxd3 0-1
Kieseritzky-Laigle, both playing blindfold, Paris, 1843: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3
Nf6 4.Bf4 Be7 5.Nb5?! c6 6.Nc7+?
6Kf8?? Missing 6Qxc7! 7.Bxc7
Bb4+8.Qd2 Bxd2+9.Kxd2, and after
either 9Ne4+, Na6, or dxc4, Black is
slightly better. 7.Nxa8 Na6 8.e3 b6
9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Bxa6 Bxa6 11.Nc7 g6??
12.Nxa6 Bb4+?? Getting the idea a bit
too late. 13.Nxb4 1-0
Let us pose a little research question
before continuing. Could this be in the
Encyclopedia because this was the first
known example of people playing two
games against each other at the same time, with both playing blindfold? It is
just a guess, but it might explain the poor quality of the games. Even with that
excuse, Laigles play is execrable.
The lavish praise heaped upon this unworthy recipient came despite the fact
that stories of blindfold prowess date from long before Philidors time, as we
will review below. Some of the history is debatable, but there is at least some
reason to believe that each of the following events took place. Many of these
claims of blindfold feats come from an article entitled Blindfold Chess that
appeared on pages 283-285 of Living Age, Feb 1, 1862.
In 1266, a player named Buzecca was said to have played two blindfold
games while playing one over the board, scoring 2-0-1. Other early players
known for their blindfold skill include players include Ruy Lpez,
Mangiolini, Zerone, Medrano, Leonardo da Cutro, Paolo Boi (said to have
been able to play three games sans voir), Salvio, Saccheri (also able to play
three games), and others. Philidor played multiple blindfold games on
numerous occasions; perhaps his most impressive result was going 2-0-1
against three strong opponents including Count Brhl; apparently he would
also impress spectators by keeping up lively conversations during these
games.
file:///C|/cafe/spinrad/spinrad.htm (2 of 12) [3/24/2006 1:42:54 PM]
New Stories about Old Chess Players
Most of the strongest players of the mid-19th century played at least some
blindfold chess. Labourdonnais was known to be very strong, and played two
games easily (an incident that occurred when he tried to play three games
blindfold will be addressed later). Kieseritzky, Anderssen, McDonnell,
Buckle, Lwenthal, and others were known to play strong blindfold chess. I
give a reference in another article to a news story in which Bilguer played
three games, two of them blindfold, in 1840; later editions of the Handbuch
des Schachspiels seems to indicate that he played blindfold against two and
three opponents on multiple occasions.
Daniel Harrwitz, however, was the player most known for his skill in
blindfold chess in the early 1850s. He gave blindfold exhibitions regularly. I
found an advertisement for a three-game blindfold simul by Harrwitz in the
London Times of Dec. 19, 1850, and since there was no special news story on
this, I presume that it was fairly standard for him. In an earlier article we saw
a blindfold game of Harrwitz against the Duke of Brunswick.
There are glowing descriptions of Harrwitz conducting two blindfold games
at once as late as March 18, 1857 (though in this case at least the opponents
were themselves strong players, including Lecrivain, and he won both games),
and the news of it was widely reported in international papers such as the
London Times.
This wonder at small blindfold demonstrations changed circa 1857-58, thanks
to Morphy and Paulsen. Paulsen was playing large blindfold exhibitions in the
United States that remained unknown in Europe; he is said to have played ten
blindfold games at least three times in the years 1855-1857 (London Times,
Aug. 26, 1891), even though some people call a later ten-game exhibition a
record-breaking achievement. He also played multiple blindfold games on a
very regular basis. According to the St. Louis Globe Democrat of Oct 10,
1875, the following game comes from a ten-game blindfold exhibition at the
Chicago Chess Club, played in 1858, in which Paulsen won all his games
(though a correspondent informs me that Paulsen may have actually drawn
one of the 10 games in this exhibition).
Paulsen - Mr. K, notes from St. Louis Globe Democrat, Oct 10, 1875 (notes
in italics by Fritz 8): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 d5 Inferior to
4exd4. 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.dxe5 Be6 7.0-0 Bc5 8.Nbd2 0-0 9.Ne4 Bb6 10.Bg5
file:///C|/cafe/spinrad/spinrad.htm (3 of 12) [3/24/2006 1:42:54 PM]
New Stories about Old Chess Players
10Qd7 Lost time; 10Qe8 at once
was correct play. (No: 10Qe8??
11.Bxd5+) 11.Qe2 Qe8 12.Rad1 Nde7
13.Bd3 Ng6 14.Qd2 A trap into which
Black unwarily falls.
14Ncxe5?? 15.Nxe5 f5 Had
15Nxe5, White would have soon after
won by 16.Nf6+gxf6 17.Bxf6 etc.
(Correct!) 16.Nxg6 Qxg6 17.Ng3 Qf7
18.b3 Inferior to c3. (Not really,
though best was 18.Rfe1) 18f4 19.Ne4
h6 20.Bh4 Rae8 21.Kh1 Qh5 Blacks
play after losing the piece has been
excellent. 22.Nf6+gxf6 23. Qxf4 f5
24.Rde1 Bd7

25.Rxe8?! Missing 25.Bd7! winning
the exchange (25Rf7 26.Bc4). 25Rxe8
26.Bf6 Kf7 27.Bb2 Be6 28.Re1 Bd5
29.Rf1 Rg8 With careful play Black
ought to have drawn the game from this
stage. (Fritz disagrees, has White about
+2.5) 30.f3 Be6 31.g4 Qh3 32.Qe5
(Immediately crushing was 32.Bc4! )
32Rg6 33.c4 c5 34.Qh8 Ke7 35.Qh7+
Bf7 36.Re1+Kf8 37.Qh8+Bg8 38.Rf1
Bc7 39.Be5 Bd8 40.Rf2 Bh4?? An
oversight which loses the queen (but
White was still winning). 41.Bf1, 1-0
Still, when Morphy came to England, the papers seemed more impressed by
the fact that he had gone 6-0-1 in a blindfold simul in New Orleans than by
his performance in the Chess Congress (New York 1857); they seemed to feel
that his American opponents were not very strong. His eight blindfold games
against reasonably strong opposition in Birmingham, Paris, and London
dazzled everyone; single blindfold games would never be considered so
impressive after these exhibitions.
It is amazing to see how quickly multiple-game blindfold simuls went from
being considered marvelous to commonplace. Suddenly, around 1862, many
people seem to be able to play at least six games sans voir. In addition to
file:///C|/cafe/spinrad/spinrad.htm (4 of 12) [3/24/2006 1:42:54 PM]
New Stories about Old Chess Players
Morphy and Paulsens repeated performances in the late 1850s, Harrwitz also
played an 8-board simul in late 1858 to attempt to regain some stature after
being beaten by Morphy (Morphy expressed the opinion that he could have
played twenty under Harrwitzs conditions). You may have heard of Paulsen
and Blackburne playing ten games each blindfold during the great 1862
tournament. These are just the tip of the iceberg; however, note that they were
all played by famous masters. In the years 1861 to 1863, at least four New
Yorkers you most likely have not heard of before were giving simultaneous
displays that would have been the sensation of the world just a few years
earlier.
The first of these blindfold players was a young man named Fitz Gerald
Tisdall. The Spirit of the Times chess column of September 10, 1859 notes
the recent appearance in Brooklyn circles of a young gentleman named
Fitzgerald [sic] Tisdall, aged nineteen years, who learned the moves some ten
or twelve months since; but who now with both facility and celerity can
conduct four or five games simultaneously without sight of men or board: and
that too with a force scarcely exceeded by our most skillful players. The
column then gives the following game, which was part of a four-board
simultaneous blindfold exhibition. Tisdall lost to Perrin, but won all the other
games. Perrin was a strong local player, and would have been tough for
anyone other than Morphy even in a single blindfold game. Although Tisdall
loses, the game is very well played on both sides compared to most seen in
these blindfold performances, until Tisdalls blunder on move 35. As
someone who has never played multiple blindfold games, I find it a bit
surprising that the blunder comes when there are only a few pieces left on the
board, rather than in the sharp positions which appear earlier in the game.
Tisdall-Perrin, notes from The Spirit of the Times September 10, 1859 (notes
in italics by Fritz 8): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.e5
d5 7.Bb5 Ne4 8.cxd4 Bb6 9.0-0 0-0 10.h3 f6 11.Nc3 fxe5 12.Bxc6 bxc6
13.Nxe5
13Nxc3 13Ba6 would also have
been a good move: as should White take
the pawn at c6 Black would win by
14...Qd6. Again 14.Re1 or Nxe4 would
without doubt bring White to grief: so that
14.Ne2 would appear to be his only
plausible move: when White would
certainly remain with a very fine game.
(After 13Ba6 14.Ne2? c5! Black would
have a strong initiative; better is 14.Nxe4
dxe4 15.Qb3+ Qd5 16.Rd1when grief does
not seemimminent. Perhaps best for
Black is 13...Nxf2!? 14.Rxf2 Rxf2 15.Kxf2 Qh4+ 16.Ke3 (not 16.Kf1??
Bxd4+) 16...Qg3+ 17.Kd2 Bxd4 18.Nd3 Qxg2+ 19.Qe2 Bxh3 20.Qxg2 Bxg2,
when with four pawns and the bishop-pair Black has plenty of compensation
for the piece.) 14..bxc3 Qf6 15.Be3 Ba5 16.Rc1
file:///C|/cafe/spinrad/spinrad.htm (5 of 12) [3/24/2006 1:42:54 PM]
New Stories about Old Chess Players
16Rb8? (better 16c5) 17.Qa4 Rb5
18.c4 dxc4 19.Qxc4+Kh8 20.Nxc6 Ba6
21.Qc2?! (21.Rfd1!+) 21Rf5 22.Nxa5
Bxf1 23.Rxf1 Rxa5 24.Qxc7 Although
he has lost the exchange, we do not
consider Whites game one which is
inferior to his opponent. 24Rxa2 25.d5
Ra1 26.Rxa1 Qa1+27.Kh2 a5 28.d6
Bf4 would strike us rather more favorably,
but anyhow the game looks like a dead
draw. Qe5+29.g3 a4 30.Qa7 Qxd6
31.Bd4 Qg6 32.Qxa4 Qe8 33.Qa7 Rf7
34.Qa1 h5

35.Be5?? This move is simply an
oversight to which the best of us are all
more or less liable. Its effect is, however,
the inevitable loss of a game which
otherwise from its very nature must have
been drawn. Rxf2+36.Kg1 Rf7 37.Bf4
Re7 38.Kf1 Qb5+39.Kg1 Kh7 40.Qf1
Qc5+41.Qf2 Re1+42.Kg2 Qd5+White
resigns.
Tisdall is one of those failures who gives up serious chess after a very
promising start. His obituary (New York Times, November 12, 1915) mentions
his role fighting on the side of law and order during the draft riots of 1863.
He became a Professor of Greek Language and Literature at the City College
of New York, where he taught for many years; there was a celebration of his
fifty years of service to the college on May 1, 1910. His name appears in the
paper from time to time, both for his academic work and his activities on
behalf of the Republican party. His name is not associated with chess in the
newspaper until his obituary, which talks of his fondness for the game and a
simultaneous exhibition he gave during a great chess tournament held in the
Academy of Music.
file:///C|/cafe/spinrad/spinrad.htm (6 of 12) [3/24/2006 1:42:54 PM]
New Stories about Old Chess Players
The next multiple blindfold displays in New York were given by J ames
Leonard. The New York Times reports the following performances by Leonard
in blindfold chess:
G On August 17, 1861, he won 3 blindfold games easily.
G On October 27, they report on an 8-game simul, in which Leonard
goes 5-2-1; opponents included reasonably strong local players
Chadwick and Gilberg.
G On November 9, 1861, there is an announcement that Leonard will
play ten games blindfold.
The Brooklyn Eagle has some other blindfold events of Leonard. On
November 21, 1861, a story on the Brooklyn Chess Club announces that
Leonard will play ten blindfold games there, and on J anuary 17, 1862 that he
will play a 6- or 8-game blindfold simul. He clearly was an extraordinary
blindfold player, and could easily do things that would have been the talk of
the world just a few years earlier. The game below comes from a 6 board
blindfold exhibit given at the Brooklyn Chess Club, and is taken from The
Albion, Dec 7, 1861. Leonard makes an interesting sacrifice in this game. It
could be refuted if his opponent is willing to give up his queen at the
appropriate time (his last chance is by moving Nf6 at move 17), but as with
many weaker opponents he cannot part with material and marches his king
into a checkmate in the center of the board.
Leonard-M, notes from The Albion Dec 7, 1861 (notes in italics by Fritz 8):
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4
Bb6 9.Nc3 This move is now frequently adopted and leads to a powerful
attack. 9...Nf6 10.e5 dxe5 11.Ba3 Nxd4 12.Nxe5 Be6 13.Re1 The
commencement of an ingenious combination. 13c5 14.Qa4+Nd7? Had
Black interposed bishop he would have lost a piece. (True, therefore best was
14Kf8=.)
15.Nxf7! A bold sacrifice but
apparently quite sound. 15Kxf7
16.Rxe6 Well followed up. 16Nxe6
17.Rd1 Kg6 He had no good move at
this juncture, if 17Ke7 White checks
with N at d5. (No, if 17Ke7 18.Bxe6!
Kxe6 19.Qg4+ Ke7 20.Qxg7+ Ke6
21.Re1+ Kd6 22.Qg3+ Ne5 23.Qxe5+ etc.
The least of evils for Black was 17Ne5.)
18.Bxe6 Qe7 19.Qg4+Qg5 20.Bf5+
Administering the coup de grace. Kf6
21.Rd6+Ke5 22.Re6#
However, certain people well-versed in chess history might argue that
Leonard was an exceptional case, and should be considered as one of the great
masters instead of seeing this as supporting the contention that blindfold chess
file:///C|/cafe/spinrad/spinrad.htm (7 of 12) [3/24/2006 1:42:54 PM]
New Stories about Old Chess Players
had become easy. Why havent you heard of him, if he was such a great
master? Leonard died shortly after being released from a prisoner of war
camp in Richmond later in 1862, at just 20 years of age. He may well have
been on his way to an extraordinary chess career; Napier includes a number of
his games and clearly viewed him as a top master in his book Paul Morphy
and the Golden Age of Chess. Recently, J ohn Hilbert has written a book on
this forgotten American master.
I do not believe that the same objection can be made to the next examples.
The New York Times has several articles that mention the blindfold
achievements of F. Eugene Brenzinger. On February 12, 1863, it is announced
that Brenzinger will play six or seven games without sight of the board at the
Paulsen Club; the club in New York frequented primarily by German-
Americans. It also reports on March 22, 1863, an interesting contest between
Brenzinger and members of the Brooklyn Club, unusually giving the names
of the two players he beat (Thompson and von Wagner) but not the two
players who beat Brenzinger. The Brooklyn Eagle adds more blindfold events.
On October 19, 1863, they announce that Brenzinger will play ten blind
games. On November 3, 1863, they report on an event in which Brenzinger
wins four out of eight blind games, and announce a forthcoming exhibition in
Brooklyn. He continued these blindfold exhibitions for a number of years.
Incidentally, if you come across games of a player with the name Brenzinger
in Germany at this time, it is likely to be his brother, rather than Eugene. A
correspondence game between the two is given in the Times of December 17,
1869; because of the slowness of mail in those times, the game had taken ten
years to play.
F. Eugene Brenzinger was a strong local player in standard chess. The Times
of March 29, 1863, reports a partial score of a match between Brenzinger and
the better known player Perrin; in a best-of-9 match, the score stood 2-2, with
the comment added that Brenzinger was not playing blindfold in these games.
Brenzinger had an excellent result in a strong Brooklyn tournament of 1870.
With the tournament nearly over, the leaders were approximately (some
records are hard to read) Brenzinger 27-1, J . Mason 20-1, Mackenzie 21-2,
Delmar 29-5, Perrin 19-6, Gilberg 25-8, White 18-11. Key remaining games
included Mackenzie vs. Delmar and Brenzinger, Delmar and Mason vs.
Brenzinger, two games between Perrin and Brenzinger, and Perrin vs.
Mackenzie and Mason. Final scores are not given, but Brenzinger took second
to the leading player in the country, George Mackenzie. I note that the
celebrated player Mason did not get a prize, although I cannot tell whether
this is because he was beaten in too many games or because he did not
complete the tournament. However, a game of the tournament in which
Brenzinger defeats Mason is published in the Times (March 15, 1870), so he
was certainly capable of wins over strong players.
Brenzinger also beat Mackenzie in their first individual game. I include this
game of the tournament, taken from the New York Times of Feb 18, 1870, at
the end of this column. I feel that Brenzinger plays quite well in this game,
and makes Mackenzie seem like a much weaker player. There are a good
file:///C|/cafe/spinrad/spinrad.htm (8 of 12) [3/24/2006 1:42:54 PM]
New Stories about Old Chess Players
number of other Brenzinger games in the Times, and I note that the Chess
Archaeology web-site has some games of a series between Mackenzie and
Brenzinger. Brenzinger also won the somewhat weaker autumn 1869
Brooklyn club tournament. Final records (from the Brooklyn Eagle) were
Brenzinger 27-5, Delmar 25-6, Perrin 27-8, Chadwick 22-9, Gilberg 23-11,
Merrian 21-12, von Wagner 21-13 (I omit the rest of the scores, since I have
not heard of the rest of the players). However, in a strong summer 1869
tournament held at the Caf Europa, he lagged well behind the leaders at the
last report I can find scores for; scores include Mason 42-6, Mackenzie 35-5,
Wernick 26-12, Delmar 30-14, Perrin 29-14, Stanley 24-9, Brenzinger 15-9,
von Frankenberg 12-2, Hellwitz 28-18. Mackenzie won two games over
Mason to get 1st prize in this tournament. I believe, from a brief note in the
Brooklyn Eagle, that Brenzinger rallied to finish 4th; they report that
Brenzinger and Delmar won 4th and 5th prizes respectively at a tournament at
the Caf Europe which ended around this time.
Besides Brenzinger, another local player apparently could play a large number
of blindfold games. The New York Times announces on October 14, 1863, that
a Mr. Borch will play ten games blindfold. On October 10, 1863, the Brooklyn
Eagle says that Borch will play ten games blindfold; a report on November 3,
on what was probably the same event, has Borch winning three of eight
games played. Borch seems to be quite obscure; he is not mentioned in
Gaiges Chess Personalia and I know nothing else about him despite his
blindfold feats, which once would have been considered quite astounding.
What made New York, hardly the center of world chess at the time, suddenly
become the Mecca for blindfold chess? The answer is that it probably was not
special in this regard; it is just much easier to access the key newspapers of
the time in New York than in other cities. If players like Brenzinger and
Borch could play this large number of blindfold games in New York and
remain unknown, the same thing was probably going on in many other cities.
However, unlike the earlier days when Laigles small feat was published
internationally, playing quite a few blindfold games had become merely local
news.
At least, that is my guess. I have very little information to back it up; merely a
few examples. Suhle gave an eight-board blindfold performance, winning
six and drawing two, while he was a student at the University of Bonn in
1859. The Wiener Zeitung of Oct 27, 1861 mentions in a short note that J .
Pinedo played six games blindfold in Amsterdam. Vienna itself had a six-
game blindfold exhibition by Fleissig reported in the Wiener Zeitung of J an
27, 1872. Blindfold chess became a common enough skill so that the Albion
of May 14, 1870 describes an 8 person (two teams of four players each)
alternating blindfold game. No discussion was allowed, so the eight players
had to be able to not only play blindfold chess, but also follow each others
plans without looking at the board. The New York Times mentions in just one
very brief note on October 29, 1863, which I quote in its entirety, another
blindfold player I had never heard of:
file:///C|/cafe/spinrad/spinrad.htm (9 of 12) [3/24/2006 1:42:54 PM]
New Stories about Old Chess Players
The Marseilles journals announce that M. Maczuski, the well-known
blindfold chess player, has settled in that town, and issued notice of his
intention to give lessons in the noble game.
I dont know much about Maczuski, or how many blindfold games he could
play at a time. I guarantee, however, that it was more than the two played by
Harrwitz in 1857 which made the London Times, and his very obscurity is
evidence that New York was not the only town in which big blindfold simuls
were being played. Gaiges Chess Personalia says Ladislas Maczuski was
probably born in Poland in 1838 and died in Nanterres, France in 1898, and
that information about him appears in four historical journal articles (BCM
1913 325-326, LEchiquier de Paris October 1948 88-89, LItalia Scacchista
1937 109-110, and Szachista 1913 12-13). Unfortunately, I do not have access
to these journals, so I do not know any more details of his life.
As opposed to Laigle, Maczuski could play some good chess. At the end of
the section, there is a nice little miniature in which he beat the champion-class
player Kolisch in just 15 moves, ending in a problem-like mate-in-3
combination. This is the only game of Maczuskis given in the Oxford
Encyclopedia of Chess Games; you can find a couple of losses on the net, one
to the famous Russian writer Turgenev, and one to Swedish player Hans
Lindehn.
Why did blindfold chess suddenly become so easy compared to earlier times?
Was it just the realization that the human brain could handle it, or was there
some other factor such as the growth of chess clubs or the explosion of
newspapers to publicize such events? I cannot answer the question. And was
this explosion of blindfold chess dangerous? There were some who thought it
was, but that issue will be the subject of another article.
It would be interesting to see how blindfold chess spread in other areas, but
the records are very hard to come by. For example, I cannot find any early
records of blindfold chess in my home state of Tennessee, and I have no idea
as to the state record for blindfold games played simultaneously. I know that
multiple blindfold demonstrations have been given in Nashville during my
time there (incidentally, with no publicity whatsoever, and by a player without
a particularly high rating, which shows how strange it is that the feat was so
highly regarded in the old days), but I have no idea what the records are here.
Finally, I add a little curiosity which indicates that after Paulsen and Morphy
showed the world it could be done, even chess unknowns tried their hand at
multiple blindfold exhibitions. The New York Times obituary of Sir Walter
Parratt on August 4 1892 mentions that he once played three games of
blindfold chess while playing a Bach fugue. No record is given of either the
game scores or the musical performance. I might have some doubts on the
quality of both of them, but if any of you readers wants to beat this record by
playing four games blindfold while performing Ramones songs, I will look
forward to attending the event.
file:///C|/cafe/spinrad/spinrad.htm (10 of 12) [3/24/2006 1:42:54 PM]
New Stories about Old Chess Players
Maczuski-Kolisch, Paris 1864: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qh4
5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Qd3 Nf6 7.Nxc6 dxc6 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 Nxe4 10.Qd4 Qe7
11.0-0-O Qg5+? (11Nxc3 12.Qxg7 Nxa2+13.Kb8 Rf8 14.Kxa2 Bd7=/+)
12.f4! Qxf4+13.Bd2 Qg4??
14.Qd8+! Kxd8 15.Bg5+Ke8 16.Rd8#
A precursor to the famous miniature
Rti-Tartakower, Vienna, 1910.
Brenzinger-Mackenzie, Brooklyn 1870
(from the New York Times, Mar 15, 1870):
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6
5.d4 exd4 6.e5 Ne4 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nxd4
Nc5 9.Nf5
90-0 If 9Nxa4 10.Nxg7+Kf8
11.Bh6 Kg8 12.Qg4 Nxe5 13.Qxa4.
10.Qg4 g6 11.Bh6 Re8 12.Nc3 d5
13.Nxe7+Qxe7 14.Qf3
14Nxa4? The decisive mistake.
Better 14Be6, Bf5, or Qxe5. 15.Nxd5!
Qxe5 16.Nf6+Kh8 17.Nxe8 Qf5 If
17Qxe8?? 18.Qf6+. 18.Qa3 Nc5
19.Qc3+f6 20.Qxf6+ Perhaps stronger
was 20.Nxc7 Rb8 21.Rfe1 Bd7 22.Nd5,
but with this and subsequent moves
Brenzinger aims at simplification that
makes the win a matter of elementary
technique. The remainder requires no
commentary. 20Qxf6 21.Nxf6 Bf5
22.Rfe1 Nd7 23.Re8+Rxe8 24.Nxe8
Bxc2 25.Re1 Kg8 26.Nxc7 Kf7 27.Ne8 Nc5 28.Nd6+Kf6 29.Be3 b6
30.Bxc5 bxc5 31.Ne4+Bxe4 32.Rxe4 Nb4 33.a3 Nd3 34.Ra4 Nxb2
35.Rxa6+Ke5 36.Ra7 c4 37.Kf1 Kd4 38.Ke2 Kc3 39.a4 Kb3 40.a5 c3
41.a6 c2 42.Rc7 and wins.
file:///C|/cafe/spinrad/spinrad.htm (11 of 12) [3/24/2006 1:42:54 PM]
New Stories about Old Chess Players

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us]
Copyright 2006 J eremy P. Spinrad and CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"The Chess Cafe" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.
file:///C|/cafe/spinrad/spinrad.htm (12 of 12) [3/24/2006 1:42:54 PM]