Emil Kemeny : a life in chess 9780786473595, 0786473592

Citation preview

Emil Kemeny

Emil Kemeny A Life in Chess JOHN S. HILBERT

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers Jefferson, North Carolina, and London

Frontispiece: Emil Kemeny (courtesy of Edward Winter)

LIBRARY

OF

CONGRESS CATALOGUING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Hilbert, John S., 1953– Emil Kemeny : a life in chess / John S. Hilbert. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7864-7359-5 softcover : acid free paper 1. Kemeny, Emil, 1860–1925. 2. Chess players—United States—Biography. 3. Hungarian Americans—Biography. I. Title. GV1439.K396H55 2013 794.1092—dc23 [B] 2013007271 BRITISH LIBRARY

CATALOGUING DATA ARE AVAILABLE

© 2013 John S. Hilbert. All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying or recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Edited and designed by Robert Franklin Typeset by Wanda Dishmon On the cover: Emil Kemeny, Hungarian–American chess master, editor and publisher (Wikimedia Commons); background (iStockphoto) Manufactured in the United States of America

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers Box 611, Jefferson, North Carolina 28640 www.mcfarlandpub.com

For Olimpiu Urcan and Joost van Winsen, two excellent friends and fine chess historians

Table of Contents Preface 1 A Note on Sources and Annotations Introduction 5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

3

In Buda, in Pest... A New York Reputation: 1890–1891 New York Master: 1891–1892 Philadelphia’s Finest Domination: 1893–1895 Showalter–Kemeny: 1896 U.S. Championship Match At the Franklin, and Two Summer Meetings The Final Years in Philadelphia Kemeny, Writer St. Louis and Chicago Back in Budapest Appendix: “International Chess Tournaments” (1904) Tournament and Match Record 325 Crosstables 327 Bibliography 332 Index to Openings—ECO Codes 335 Index to Kemeny’s Games by Opponent 336 Index to Others’ Games 337 General Index 338

vii

319

7 16 48 76 102 142 167 219 253 282 308

Preface The idea of producing a book on Emil Kemeny (né Kemény) came to mind over a decade ago while researching material on chess in Philadelphia, the city near where I grew up. I had come across his annotated games in the Philadelphia Public Ledger, and had been impressed with his style of analysis in a period when few annotators took the trouble to give more than cursory notes. The notes are not up to the standards of today’s detailed variations augmented by computer analysis, the cumulative weight of which supposedly unlocks a game’s treasures, but for his period Kemeny offered highly instructive commentary. His efforts found praise from various quarters, enough so to pique my interest in just who this Hungarian was. I became more curious about him when I noticed how often he appeared at the head of crosstables in the United States’ three major chess cities of the times: New York, Philadelphia and Chicago. For readerly ease, I have followed a few standard conventions (and see A Note on Sources and Annotations). Variations of “Buda-Pest,” “Buda Pesth” and the like have been given as “Budapest,” at least for matters datable to after the merger in 1873. Eastern European names can be a challenge and while I have done my best to give names as they would likely appear today, such as “Jacobi” instead of “Jacoby” for the chess master by that name who died in Budapest in 1913, opinions differ and the final choices here are my own. Indeed, the name “Kemeny” itself is subject to reappraisal. Jeremy Gaige in Chess Personalia (1987) lists it as “Kemény.” However, I have since learned that an unpublished 1994 supplement to Gaige’s work drops the accent on the name’s second “e.” As Kemeny did not make use of the accented é in his name in his own publication, American Chess Weekly, or elsewhere, to my knowledge, and as his signature in his personal copy of Chess in Philadelphia (1898) does not include the accent, I have used the form “Kemeny” throughout. Western name order is used as well, and thus “Kemény Emil,” while proper in Hungarian, appears here as “Emil Kemeny.” This book could not have been completed without the help of many chess friends. I wish particularly to thank Olimpiu Urcan and Joost van Winsen, who have given considerable help and assistance to its production over the years. I also wish to thank György Blahó for the many extensive emails he exchanged with me early on in this project, ones that gave me the confidence to attempt to tackle for an English speaking readership something of chess in Budapest so long ago. Iván Bottlik very kindly traced down the sad remains of Kemeny’s grave and also helpfully hunted through chess sources. Thanks too are due Neil Brennan, Walter Árpád Földeák, Michael Negele, Gábor Gyuricza, Robin Hilbert, Jeff Kramer, Tomasz Lissowski, Kathy McCrory, Russell Miller, Edward Winter and Fabrizio Zavaterelli for their assistance. If I have forgotten anyone I ask forgiveness, and plead that the passing of over a decade from conception to writing has caused more difficulties than this failing alone.

1

A Note on Sources and Annotations Citations for historical chess games are often given little thought and, worse, often omitted. The databases of the chess world, useful as they are for their primary purposes, exist largely as if citations do not matter. Even casually interested readers should expect reasonable accuracy for their investment; source notes should be expected as a mark of an author’s honest effort. For anyone interested in verifying the provenance of chess scores, and in particular their accuracy, citations are essential. In this work I have provided multiple citations for scores and, where warranted, annotations. (No effort was made to provide sources for all printings of a game.) The citations do, however, provide multiple functions. First, they trace chronologically, and thus historically, the spread of each game out to the general chess world. Game scores were often first published locally in one or more sources, and then copied through what chess editors called “exchanges” with fellow editors, who often but not always would credit their sources. Thus (with a few sensible exceptions) I give annotations and game comments chronologically, to show the development of comment regarding games. Secondly, on occasion, either for reasons of space or judgment, some publications failed to give full and accurate scores. Sometimes this was acknowledged explicitly; sometimes the ambiguous “and wins” appeared, leaving doubt whether the players stopped recording the moves or the chess editor stopped including them. Other editors would at times print out as if played on the board the moves of an announced mate. Over time, and as games were republished, they were often stripped of such qualifiers as “and wins” or “announced” (but not played) mates. In this book, readers will find clear references within games regarding the differing lengths of scores offered by publications. Similarly, where possible, announced mates are distinguished from mates played out over the board. In short the intention has been to provide the reader with as accurate and complete a coverage as possible. A few changes have nevertheless been made for uniformity and ease of use. The most obvious is the conversion from English descriptive notation to standard algebraic notation. Annotations from the past are rife with variations of “King’s wing,” “Queen’s flank,” and so forth. These particular terms have been standardized here to “kingside” and “queenside.” Annotations from a single source are credited to that source at the end of the game score. Annotations from multiple sources are distinguished within each game by a short internal reference within brackets (e.g., “[—Tribune]”), with full citations appearing in chronological order

3

4

A NOTE

ON

SOURCES

AND

ANNOTATIONS

after the game (with those aforementioned sensible exceptions). Annotations by Kemeny himself are indicated, when confirmed. Annotations by Steinitz, in particular, given his status in Kemeny’s chess world, are identified in the headings to the games to alert the reader. In most instances Steinitz’s notes appeared in his International Chess Magazine, although other sources are cited when relevant. When multisource annotations are present but the main annotator is unknown, a reference indicates which source has been considered the primary one, for purposes of accuracy and content. Game annotations in brackets and initialed “JSH” are my additions, based on computer analyses using Fritz 13. I have limited such intrusions for the most part to positions where tactical opportunities were missed, by player or annotator, that could have significantly changed the game’s course, and merely to give readers a little additional information to consider. I have not done this with every game. An argument can be made for not including such comments at all, but for this volume I felt some computer-driven remarks would add to the reader’s pleasure—if only to encourage him or her to disagree with me.

Introduction Kemeny was, and is, something of an enigma. Several early games in Budapest have come to light, but mostly from English sources. Examination of Hungarian materials through the kind assistance of Eastern European chess historians and researchers Iván Bottlik, Gábor Gyuricza, Walter Árpád Földeák and György Blahó unfortunately produced little else for both Kemeny’s early and late years in Budapest. While a smattering of his games turned up for the period 1878–1881, surprisingly, only one has been found from then until his appearance in New York in 1890. The “missing years” include Kemeny’s life from age 21 through 28, years crucial in a chess player’s development, especially during the nineteenth century. Yet nothing remains. A reticent man, Kemeny never spoke in print about his life or chess development. He simply appeared on the New York chess scene at a time when doing so successfully invariably led to exposure in a growing chess press. Similarly, although perhaps more understandably, no games have been recovered from after his return to Europe in 1906, although he lived another 19 years, until the age of 65, dying in 1925. Thus this book about a chess player, born somewhere in Budapest’s past and who died in the same city years after his return, is largely an American affair, an account of his play and writing between 1890 and 1905. As for his play, Kemeny held major club titles in every American city in which he lived. When in form he dominated the many strong players he faced, especially in Philadelphia and Chicago, where on occasion he won with scores of 22–0 with 2 draws, and 18–1. Lopsided as they sound, these are not the results of simultaneous performances. They are tournament results against fields with players who in part were, and who held their own with, the nation’s best players. Like Steinitz and Lipschütz, the latter a fellow Hungarian, Kemeny easily could have taken a high board on the American team in the Anglo-American Cable Match series, had foreign-born players been permitted to compete. For example, Hermann Voigt, a strong Philadelphia player who between 1899 and 1909 played for the American side in all eight cable matches, mostly on board six, but as high as board two, had a record of 3–0 with 5 draws in those international contests. Kemeny’s tournament and match games with Voigt, 11 of which are included in this volume, show him ahead with a record of 7–3 with 1 draw. Kemeny’s strength is obvious. Kemeny was as dangerous over the board as he was quiet and well mannered away from it. In this volume the reader will find highly combinative, attacking chess, not always sound, but almost invariably entertaining, with wins against players as diverse as Jacob Halpern, Samuel Loyd, J. Moore Hanham, Albert Hodges, Eugene Delmar, S. Lipschütz, Jackson Whipps Showalter, and Harry Nelson Pillsbury. Readers will also find all 15 games of Kemeny’s 1896 bid for the United States Chess Championship against Showalter, as well as dozens of his more successful tournament and match games played largely during the 1890s, the most

5

6

INTRODUCTION

dynamic of American chess decades during the nineteenth century. Little remembered but highly entertaining play in the early years of the twentieth century, both in St. Louis and Chicago, is also featured. Important, too, is Kemeny’s contribution to chess writing. For a player who in 1891, according to a reporter for the New York Herald, was remarkable as one “who cruelly murders the Queen’s English,” Kemeny transformed himself into one of the nation’s finest chess writers. From his early annotations in the prestigious Philadelphia Public Ledger to his later writing in the equally prominent Chicago Tribune, Kemeny developed a congenial style, one that never abused his subject (a habit all too frequent among his fellow chess columnists) and one that found its sole purpose in advancing the game he loved. His American Chess Weekly, although short-lived, prefigured the broader acceptance of Helms’ and Cassel’s American Chess Bulletin, and led to Kemeny’s producing a full tournament book, Monte Carlo 1903. Reprinted as recently as 1983 with a title page that ignores Kemeny’s authorship altogether, Monte Carlo 1903 stands as the only complete record of one of the world’s most important early twentieth century chess events. Above all Kemeny wanted to advance chess in his adopted country. He did so at considerable personal sacrifice which, combined with generally weak health that nearly cost him his life on several occasions and did cost him more than one tournament victory, ultimately cost him his home. In later years, so he wrote a good friend, he often thought of America, and “how far off the land is, he so much loved to live in.”

1

In Buda, in Pest... “[Cafés and coffeehouses] are the public clubs of the people. About their cold marbletopped tables the whole city spends a very large portion of its day, sitting for hours over cards, transacting business, meeting friends or pouring over the files of newspapers. In Budapest there is plenty of time to do all this—to gamble, to play chess and checkers— and the coffee-house is the most comfortable, the cheapest and the most convenient place to do it in.”—Frank Berkeley Smith, Budapest: The City of the Magyars (1903), page 199

Emil Kemény, or Kemeny, as his name appeared throughout his years in the United States, was born on January 13, 1860, in Buda or Pest or possibly Óbuda (Ancient Buda)—the cities that merged politically in 1873 to form that most dynamic and turbulent creation since known as Budapest. So little was mentioned about his family during his years in America that it was only with his death that the American chess public learned he had a brother named Alexander living in Hungary. The rest of his family is a mystery. We do not know if Kemeny began his chess life at home or elsewhere, but it is likely that very early in his chess development he knew the Budapest café chess scene. Unfortunately records of chess activity in Budapest in the 1870s and 1880s are sparse. The 2010 booklet A Short History of Chess in Budapest, by Jakobetz László, mentions that organized chess in Pest began in coffeehouses, and notes that the Pesti Sakk-kör (the Pest Chess Circle) was founded in 1839. It then mentions the famous threesome of József Szén, János Jakab Löwenthal and Vince Grimm and their two correspondence game wins against the players of the Café de la Régence. The Pesti Sakk-kör was repressed following the Hungarian Revolution of 1848–1849, and was not reestablished until 1864, when the problem composer Ferenc Erkel became its president. During Erkel’s reign (from 1864 to 1893, and thus including all of Kemeny’s early years), we learn only that “This period saw the birth of further chess circles and associations, as well as a boost in the publishing of chess books and chess columns” (page 5). But we know more. Chess was played throughout the city for decades in the coffeehouses and cafés. According to György Blahó, a Hungarian chess aficionado who has made a personal study of the subject, coffeehouse and café life in Buda and Pest, has a notable history. By the end of the eighteenth century, chess life in Hungary had transferred itself from private homes and the palaces of the aristocrats to more public places, and by 1825, to the cafés. Indeed, the Hungarian triumvirate of Grimm, Szén and Löwenthal who defeated the players of Paris were identified with the Café Wurm, much as their opponents were associated with the Café de la Régence. Unfortunately, such café chess life left few traces, its energy spent in the living of life, not its recording. It was in such cafés that Kemeny likely first developed his chess talent. Café life in Hungary, and especially in Buda and Pest, involved much more than American readers might think. Café life was not simply eating and drinking. It was a life of social, political and intellectual opportunity, where people came to read the newspapers, write, talk,

7

8

EMIL KEMENY

conduct business, found societies, and establish political parties. And, of course, to relax. People played cards. Billiards. And chess. Men came to write literary works, to compose music, to escape their wives and to find new ones. In the beginning Buda and Pest faintly emulated Viennese café life, but toward the end of the nineteenth century, its richness rivaled that of the Austrian city. Every café had its resident chess expert, as well as onlookers and those who arranged games between the expert and newcomers. Players lived, in a fashion, from winning small sums, much as they did in other European cities, and to a much lesser degree, in New York. When Kemeny moved from the chess life of Buda and Pest to that of New York’s Lower East Side, he may have felt quite at home. From the cafés to the Pesti Sakk-kör was only a matter of time for Kemeny. In 1877 he joined the Pest Chess Circle, meeting stronger and stronger opponents. In Vienna, Pest and Buda many very talented players and composers developed, demonstrating their talent and continuing their careers in chess and other ventures. Forgotten names such as Ferenc Erkel, Emil Récsi, István Capdebo and Gyula Makovetz (who won Graz 1890 ahead of Johann Hermann Bauer and a young player named Emanuel Lasker—defeating the latter in the process) appeared in the press. Better remembered are Ignaz Kolisch, Miksa Weiss, Izidor Gunsberg, Adolf Schwarz, Dr. Samu Jacobi, Hugó Fähndrich, Dr. József Noa, S. Lipschütz (who left for the United States early in Kemeny’s time) and Lipót Hoffer. Whether Kemeny played against most of these figures or not, he certainly could not have grown up in Buda or Pest unaware of them, or untouched by the rich, diverse chess history his native land offered. And he would have been aware early on in their careers of the two men who half a generation later overshadowed most of them: Rudolf Charousek and Géza Maróczy. Like many emerging talents before and after him, Kemeny first came to the chess world’s notice through spectacular wins. The wins of others, that is. The earliest recovered Kemeny game was played at the Pesti Sakk-kör when he was 18. His older and better known opponent, Hugó Fähndrich, born in Budapest and 27 at the time, was active in Vienna and Budapest chess circles in the late 1870s and long after. He organized and managed tournaments. In 1898 he co-authored the Vienna 1898 tournament book with Marco and Halprin. Fähndrich’s playing career spanned many decades. The game that follows shows both players missing tactical shots, but play was certainly interesting enough for publication.

Kemeny–Hugó Fähndrich [C59] Pesti Sakk-kör, August 26, 1878 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. e¥d5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. d¥c6 b¥c6 8. Be2 h6 9. Nh3 B¥h3 10. g¥h3 Bc5 11. d3 Qb6 12. Rf1 0–0–0 13. Nc3 Nc4 14. Na4 Qa5+ 15. c3 e4 16. N¥c5 Q¥c5 17. d4 Qd5 -Dk®-D-® 18. B¥c4 [JSH: Missing 18. Qa4, when continuations like 18. ... Nd6 0-D-Dp0- 19. Q¥a7 Rdg8 20. c4 Qe6 21. Bf4 are a disaster for Black.] 18. ... -DpD-h-0 Q¥c4 19. Qe2 Qe6 20. Qa6+ Kb8 21. Bf4+ Ka8 22. a4 Nd5 D-DqD-D- 23. Bg3 e3 24. f3 Rhe8 25. Ke2? Qg6? 26. Rac1 Nf4+ -Dn)pD-D 27. Ke1 Nd3+ 28. Ke2 Rb8 29. b4 (see diagram, facing D-)-D-DP page) Nf4+ 30. Ke1 [JSH: 30. B¥f4 Qg2+ 31. Kd3 Qd2+ 32. Kc4 costs the queen.] 30. ... Rb6 31. Qc4 Nd3+ 32. Ke2 Nb2 P)-DL)-) Qe2+ 0–1 (Neue Illustrirte Zeitung, November 17, 1878).

$-GQIRDAfter 17. ... Qd5

In addition to Fähndrich, another of Kemeny’s early opponents was Dr. Samu Jacobi. Born on December 27, 1844, Jacobi was fifteen

1. In Buda, in Pest...

9

years Kemeny’s senior. Several published games between the two have survived, suggesting perhaps many more were played. Like any ambitious learner, Kemeny sought out stronger players to improve his game. Jacobi was an active member of the Pesti Sakk-kör and one of its strongest players. Here is a game from around the time Kemeny played Jacobi that shows how the older man handled complex tactics. It was one of a short, three game match, won by Jacobi 3–0: Dr. Zsigmond Vidor–Dr. Samu Jacobi [C20], Pesti Sakk-kör, Match Game 1881. 1. e4 e5 2. c4 Bc5 Kemeny–Fähndrich 3. Nf3 d6 4. Be2 f5 5. e¥f5 Nc6 6. d3 B¥f5 7. 0–0 After 29. b4 Nf6 8. Nh4 Be6 9. Bh5+ g6 10. Be2 0–0 11. Bh6? [JSH: Either 11. Bg5 or 11. Nc3 would be better than the text; Black now sets in motion some sharp tactics that leave him with a won game.] 11. ... Ne4! 12. Be3 N¥f2! 13. B¥f2 R¥f2 14. R¥f2 Q¥h4 15. Qf1 Rf8 16. Bf3 R¥f3! 17. g¥f3 Bh3 18. Qe1 Qg5+ 19. Kh1 B¥f2 20. Q¥f2 Qc1+ 21. Qg1 Q¥b2 22. Nc3 Bg2+ 23. Q¥g2 Q¥a1+ 24. Qg1 Q¥c3 0–1 (Illustrated London News, March 19, 1881). Several years later, Géza Maróczy too found in Jacobi an important early opponent.

k®-DrD-D 0-D-Dp0QDpD-Dq0 D-D-D-DP)-)-D-D D-)n0PGP -D-DKD-) D-$-DRD-

It may have been Jacobi who sent the following game, and others, to Patrick Thomas Duffy, then chess editor of the Illustrated London News, who introduced Kemeny to English readers:

Dr. Samu Jacobi–Kemeny [C31] Pesti Sakk-kör, 1879 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. e¥d5 e4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Bb5+ c6 6. d¥c6 b¥c6 6. ... N¥c6, bringing another piece out, is the correct move here. 7. Bc4 Bc5 8. Nge2 Bf5 9. d4 e¥d3 10. c¥d3 0–0 11. d4 Bb6 12. 0–0 Re8 13. Kh1 Bg4 14. Qb3 Re7 15. Rd1 B¥d4 16. Be3 Highly ingenious. Of course, 16. R¥d4 would have been bad, because of Black’s reply, in 16. ... Q¥d4, and mate, should the queen be captured. 16. ... c5 If 16. ... R¥e3, White wins the f-pawn and recovers the piece at once. 17. B¥d4 c¥d4 18. R¥d4 Nbd7 19. Ng3 Rb8 20. Qc2 Qb6 21. Nb5 Too hazardous. 21. Rd2 seems preferable. 21. ... a6 22. Rd6 Qc5 23. Rc6 He must now submit to the sacrifice of a rook and two minor pieces for the queen, or the loss of a clear piece. 23. ... Q¥c6 24. B¥f7+ K¥f7 25. Q¥c6 a¥b5 26. f5 Rbe8 27. h3 Re3 A very pretty combination is here initiated, but it is unsound; and White, happily, hits the blot at the right moment. 28. Kh2 Ne5 29. Q¥b5 The saving clause. 29. ... B¥f5 30. N¥f5 Neg4+ 31. h¥g4 N¥g4+ 32. Kg1 Re1+ 33. Qf1 R¥f1+ 34. R¥f1 Ra8? 35. Nh6+ 1–0 (Illustrated London News, September 27, 1879) A few weeks later the next game appeared. Kemeny does well until he slips at move 17, under pressure of attack.

rh-1-DkD 0-D-®p0p -DpD-h-D D-D-D-D-DLg-)lD DQH-D-DP)-DNDP) $-GRD-DK After 15. ... B¥d4

-D-DrD-D D-Dn®k0p -DQD-h-D DpD-DPD-D-D-DlD D-D-D-HP P)-D-DPD $-D-D-DK After 27. h3

10

EMIL KEMENY

Dr. Samu Jacobi–Kemeny [C01] Pesti Sakk-kör, 1879 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Bd3 This mode of conducting the attack is decidedly inferior to 3. e¥d5. 3. ... Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Ne2 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. 0–0 Be7 8. Be3 0–0 9. Nd2 Qb6 10. a3 f6 Very weak indeed. Black’s last chance of breaking through is on the other side, although it would not be prudent to capture b-pawn rDlDrDkD at present. 11. Nf4 Rf7 12. B¥h7+ K¥h7 13. Qh5+ Kg8 14. Ng6 Rf8 15. f4 c¥d4 16. c¥d4 Re8 17. Nf3 Nd8 [JSH: A 0pDng-0- blunder; best was 17. ... f5 18. Qh8+ Kf7 19. Qh5 Kg8 and it is up -1nDp0ND to White to find more than the repetition of moves in the position.] D-Dp)-DQ 18. Ng5 Well played. White conducts the attack with much spirit -D-)-)-D and enterprise. 18. ... f¥g5 Forced because of the threatened mate, )-D-GND- and now the important file is open to the adverse rook. 19. f¥g5 -)-D-DP) Nf7 20. R¥f7 K¥f7 21. Rf1+ Bf6 22. g¥f6 Qb5 23. Ne7+ $-D-DRI- Kf8 24. Qh8+ Kf7 25. Q¥g7 mate 1–0 (Illustrated London News, October 18, 1879). After 17. Nf3

Some six months later the following game against Hugó Fähndrich also appeared in the Illustrated London News.

Hugó Fähndrich–Kemeny [B24] Pesti Sakk-kör, 1880 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. d3 d5 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Nge2 d4 8. Nb1 0–0 9. B¥f6 B¥f6 10. f4 e5 11. f5 Bg5 12. Nd2 g6 A bold, but probably premature, attempt to break through. 13. 0– rDlD-®kD 0 g¥f5 14. e¥f5 Ne7 15. g4 Nd5 16. B¥d5 Be3+ 17. Kh1 0-D-DpDp Q¥d5+ 18. Ne4 b5 19. Rf3 Threatening to win the queen; from -D-D-D-D this point to the end the game is highly interesting. 19. ... Kh8 Dp0q0PD- 20. Qe1 Bb7 21. b3 b4 22. Qh4 f6 23. Raf1 a5 Black’s -D-0NDPD pawns are not well placed for the endgame in being so far advanced. D-DPg-D- 24. Ng1 Qc6 25. Rh3 Rf7 26. Nf3 Rg8 27. Qh5 Rgg7 P)PDND-) 28. Nh4 Rc7 [JSH: Kemeny missed a fine shot here: 28. ... c4! $-DQDRDK 29. b¥c4 (or 29. g5 c¥d3 30. c¥d3 B¥g5 31. Nf3 Qc2 32. Nd6 Bd5) 29. ... Qa4 30. g5 B¥g5 31. Rg1 B¥e4+ 32. d¥e4 Q¥c2 and White is finished.] 29. Ng2 Bg5 30. Rg3 Qa6 Intending ... B¥e4, etc. After 18. ... b5 31. Re1 Bd5 32. N¥g5 R¥g5 33. Qh6 Rcg7 An oversight, of course: he should have first played ... Qc6. 34. R¥e5 Qc6 -D-D-D-i 35. R¥d5 White plays all this in capital style. 35. ... Q¥d5 DlD-Dr®p 36. Q¥f6 Kg8 37. Kg1 R¥g4 38. Nf4 Qa8 38. ... R¥g3+, fol-DqD-0-D lowed by the move in the text, looks stronger, but White still main0-0-0PDQ tains the attack by Nh5, etc. 39. Qe6+ Kh8 40. Ng6+ R7¥g6 -0-0NDPH 41. f¥g6 R¥g6 42. R¥g6 h¥g6 43. Q¥g6 Qf3 44. Qe8+ Kh7 DPDPg-DR 45. Qe4+ Q¥e4 46. d¥e4 Black sought, or at all events did not PDPD-D-) attempt to avoid, the exchange of queens here, seeing that his king D-D-DRDK can stop the adverse e- and h-pawns, but overrating the strength of his own. 46. ... c4 47. Kf2 a4 48. Ke2 d3+ 49. Kd2 d¥c2 50. b¥a4 Black resigned after this, the winning move. The young After 28. Nh4

1. In Buda, in Pest...

11

player may be told that if White had played 50. K¥c2 instead of the -D-D-D-D move in the text he would have lost the game: 50. ... c¥b3+ 51. a¥b3 D-D-D-Dk a3 52. h4 Kg6 53. Kb1 Kf6 54. Kc2 Ke5 55. h5 Kf6 56. Kb1 Kg5 -D-D-D-D 57. e5 K¥h5 58. e6 Kg6 59. e7 Kf7 60. e8Q+ K¥e8 and now Black D-D-D-Dbrings up the king, captures the adverse pawn, and queens the bp0pDPD-D pawn, winning. 1–0 (Illustrated London News, May 29, 1880). DPD-D-DKemeny’s next opponent was Dr. Zsigmond Vidor (also somePDpI-D-) times given as Lustig Vidor), then in his mid-forties. As a young D-D-D-Dman, Dr. Vidor had won an exciting game against one of the legends of early chess in Pest. The game features a double rook sacrifice. ZukAfter 49. ... d¥c2 ertort’s detailed annotations show the contest could have legitimately ended in a draw had Szén played differently at move 19, with variations more complex than the four move mate ending the battle, but the game is a fascinating period piece and a joy for anyone attracted to tactical fireworks. Dr. Zsigmond Vidor–József Szén [C33], Pest, August 2, 1856. 1. e4 e5 2. f4 e¥f4 3. Bc4 Qh4+ 4. Kf1 g5 5. d4 Bg7 6. Nf3 Qh5 7. Nc3 d6 8. Nd5 Kd8 9. h3 Very weak. 9. h4 was the right continuation. 9. ... Be6 Black should develop his knights. 10. Qd3 10. Qe1 was more to the purpose. 10. ... c6 11. Qb3 b5 12. Qb4 c¥d5 13. Q¥d6+ Nd7 14. e¥d5 b¥c4 The course actually adopted should prove satisfactory. Black could, however, simplify matters with 14. ... Bf8 15. Qc6 Rc8 16. Q¥b5 Nb6. 15. d¥e6 f¥e6 16. Kf2 g4 An ill-considered move, which gives the opponent a splendid opportunity to display his brilliant qualities of combination. 16. ... Qg6 was the strongest rejoinder. 17. h¥g4! Q¥h1 17. ... Qd5 would enable Black to decide the contest by his numerical superiority. 18. B¥f4! Q¥a1 19. Ng5 Ngf6 Black, notwithstanding that he is three pieces ahead, cannot do more than draw, as [the] following variations seem to show: 19. .. B¥d4+ (If 19. ... Rc8 or 19. ... Q¥b2, White wins with 20. N¥e6+ Ke8 21. N¥g7+ Kf7 22. Q¥d7+ Ne7 (22. ... Kg6 23. Qf5+ K¥g7 24. Be5+ etc.) 23. Qe6+ Kf8 24. Bh6) 20. Ke2 e5 (Or 20. ... Ne7 21. N¥e6+ Ke8 22. Nc7+ Kf7 23. Qe6+ Kf8 24. Bh6+ Bg7 25. B¥g7+ K¥g7 26. Q¥e7+ Kg6 27. Qe4+ etc.) 21. Ne6+ Ke8 22. Ng7+ Kf7 (22. ... Kd8 23. Bg5+ Kc8 24. Qc6+ Kb8 25. Ne8! Bb6 26. Nd6!) 23. Q¥d7+ Kg6 24. Nh5 e¥f4 25. Qf5+ Kh6 26. Q¥f4+ Kg6 27. Qf5+ and draws. White mates in four moves: 20. Nf7+ Ke8 21. Q¥e6+ Kf8 22. Bd6+ Kg8 23. N discovers mate 1–0 (The Chess Monthly, May 1880, pages 269–270; annotations by Zukertort). Vidor’s draw against Kemeny, below, appeared in the Chess Monthly immediately after his win against Szén. Kemeny was fortunate to draw the game, said to have been “played some time ago at Budapest.”

Kemeny–Dr. Zsigmond Vidor [C42] Budapest, 1880? 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4? Bc5 3. ... N¥e4 is the best reply; 3. ... Nc6 would bring about the Two Knights Defense; the text move is altogether inferior. 4. N¥e5 0–0 5. d4 Bb6 6. Bg5 d6 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. c3 This loses the e-pawn, which could have been preserved with 8. B¥f6 Q¥f6 9. c3 and 10. Nbd2. 8. ... Qe8! 9. 0–0 N¥e4 10. Bf4 c6 11. Re1 d5 12. Bd3 f5 13. Nbd2 Qd8 14. Qb3 Kh8 15. Ne5 Nd7 16. Nf1 N¥e5 17. B¥e5 Re8 18. Ne3 R¥e5 Ingenious, but absolutely unsound. 19. d¥e5 N¥f2 20. K¥f2 Qh4+ 21. Kf1 Rf8 22. N¥g4 Apparently ven-

rD-1rD-i 0pD-D-0p -gpD-D-D D-DpGpD-D-)nDlD DQ)LH-DP)-D-)P) $-D-$-IAfter 18. Ne3

12

EMIL KEMENY

turesome, but in fact not only safe, but by far the best way to meet the hostile attack. 22. ... f¥g4+ 23. Ke2 Rf2+ 24. Kd1 g3 25. h¥g3 Q¥g3 26. c4 This results in the loss of a piece; White should continue with 26. Be2, 27. Qc2, and 28. Qd3. 26. ... Ba5! 27. Rh1 [JSH: This should have lost for White.] 27. ... Rd2+ [JSH: 27. ... Qe3!] 28. Kc1 R¥d3 29. Rf1 [JSH: Another error, although unpunished by Black.] 29. ... h6 [JSH: Missing 29. ... Kg8 and after 30. Q¥b7, then 30. ... Rc3+! 31. b¥c3 (31. Kd1 Qd3+ mates) 31. ... Q¥c3+ 32. Kb1 Qd3+ 33. Kb2 Bc3+ 34. Kc1 and Black wins back both rooks: 34. ... Q¥f1+ 35. Kc2 B¥a1.] 30. Qc2! d¥c4 31. Q¥c4 After 26. ... Ba5! Rd8 32. a4 Q¥e5 33. Ra3 Bd2+ 34. Kb1 Bg5 35. Rd3 Re8 36. Qc3 Qe4 37. Qc2 Bf6 38. Rd7 Q¥c2+ 39. K¥c2 Re2+ -D-D-D-D 40. Rd2 R¥d2+ 41. K¥d2 B¥b2 42. Rf7 Bd4 43. R¥b7 0-DRD-0- Bb6 44. Kd3 Kh7 45. Rd7 h5 46. Kc4 Kh6 Treating the -gpD-D-i endgame with the accomplished skill of Szen’s school; 46. ... c5 D-D-D-Dp would be sheer loss of time, as after 47. Kb5, Black would be obliged PDKD-D-D to sacrifice the pawn at once with 47. ... c4, on account of the threatrejoinder 48. a5. D-D-D-D- ened And the game was abandoned as drawn after a few more moves. -D-D-DPD The probable continuation is: 47. Rd6+ Kg5 48. R¥c6 h4 (If 48. ... D-D-D-D- Kg4 or f4 or h4, then 49. Rg6.) 49. R¥b6 There is nothing better. 49. ... a¥b6 50. Kb5 Kf5! (But not 50. ... Kf4 51. K¥b6 Kg3 (51. ... After 46. ... Kh6 g5 52. a5 g4 53. a6 h3 54. g3+ K¥g3 55. a7) 52. a5 K¥g2 53. a6 h3 54. a7 h2 55. a8Q+ Kg1 56. Qa1+ Kg2 57. Qb2+ Kh1 58. Qc1+ Kg2 59. Qd2+ Kg3 60. Qe1+ Kg2 61. Qe2+ Kg1 62. Qg4+ Kf2 63. Qh3 Kg1 64. Qg3+ Kh1 65. Qf2 and mates on the next move.) 51. K¥b6 g5 52. a5 g4 53. a6 h3 etc. 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (The Chess Monthly, May 1880, pages 270–271).

-D-D-D-i 0pD-D-0p -DpD-D-D g-Dp)-D-DPD-D-D DQDLD-1P)-D-®PD $-DK$-D-

The following is another game in which Kemeny is once more the “opponent.” It was said to have been played in the Budapest Chess Club’s “Winter Tournament.” Many interesting possibilities were missed in the game’s second half.

Antal Hoffmeister–Kemeny [C44] Pesti Sakk-kör, Winter Tournament, 1880 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 e¥d4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. c3 d¥c3 5. ... d6 is the correct move here. 6. B¥f7+ K¥f7 7. Qd5+ Ke8 8. Qh5+ Kf8 9. Q¥c5+ d6 10. Q¥c3 Nf6 11. Bg5 h6 12. B¥f6 g¥f6 13. Nh4 Kf7 14. Nd2 Re8 15. Qe3 Re5 16. 0–0–0 Be6 17. Nf5 B¥a2 Black appears unable to rD-1-D-D resist the bait of a pawn. It is a weakness which, however amiable, 0p0-DkD- carries with it its own punishment. [JSH: Kemeny overlooks 17. ... -Dn0l0-0 B¥f5, and after 18. Q¥h6 Be6 19. Qh7+ Kf8 20. f4 Rc5+ 21. Kb1 D-D-®ND- Qe7 22. Qh8+ Bg8 White’s attack is over.] 18. b3 Nb4 19. Kb2 -D-DPD-D a5 20. Nc4 Rc5 21. Qh3 [JSH: Missing 21. Nf¥d6+! when after D-D-!-D- 21. ... c¥d6 22. N¥d6+ Kg8 23. Q¥c5 White should win quickly.] P)-H-)P) 21. ... Qh8 A hopeless position indeed for the most powerful piece D-IRD-DR in his army. 22. Rd5 N¥d5 23. e¥d5 a4 [JSH: This should have been immediately disastrous.] 24. K¥a2 [JSH: 24. Qh5+ Kf8 25. Re1 After 17. Nf5 wins easily.] 24. ... a¥b3+ 25. K¥b3 Rb5+ 26. Kc3 Rc5

1. In Buda, in Pest...

13

27. Nd4 [JSH: 27. Qh5+ still wins.] rD-D-i-D 27. ... b5 [JSH: Black had 27. ... Ra3+!, D-0-DqDwhen after 28. Nb3 b5! it is White who -D-H-D-D is advised to take the perpetual: DpDPD-!29. Qe6+ Kg7 30. Qd7+ Kg6 31. Qg4+ -D-DrD-D Kf7 32. Qe6+.] 28. Qd7+ Kg8 DKD-D-D29. Nf5 R¥c4+ 30. Kb3 Qh7 -D-D-)P) 31. Qe6+ Kf8 32. Q¥f6+ Qf7 D-D-$-D33. Q¥h6+ Kg8 34. Qg5+ Kf8 35. Re1 Re4 Ingenious, but futile. After 27. Nd4 After 36. N¥d6 36. N¥d6 Rb4+ [JSH: Black’s last mistake. 36. ... Q¥f2! when 37. N¥e4 Qa2+! 38. Kc3 Ra3+ 39. Kd4 Qb2+ 40. Kc5 Qc2+ 41. Kd4 Qb2+ splits the point.] 37. K¥b4 c¥d6 38. Re6 Ra4+ 39. Kb3 Rf4 40. Qd8+ Kg7 41. Re7 and wins. 1–0 (Illustrated London News, June 19, 1880).

rD-D-D-1 Dp0-DkD-D-0-0-0 D-®PD-D-DNH-D-D D-I-D-DQ -D-D-)P) D-D-D-DR

Another Kemeny game appeared in the Illustrated London News only six or so weeks later, “played in the Tourney” of the Budapest Chess Club:

Kemeny–Dr. Samu Jacobi [C59] Pesti Sakk-kör Tournament, 1880 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. e¥d5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. d¥c6 b¥c6 8. Be2 h6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ne5 Qd4 11. f4 Bc5 12. Rf1 Qd6 13. c3 Bb6 14. d4 0–0 The moves on both sides have, thus far, been all in accordance with the “books.” Here, if 14. ... e¥d3, then 15. Q¥d3 Qc7; and Black has the better game. 15. Be3 Be6 16. Nd2 Rad8 17. g4 Nd5 A well-timed move, -D-®-®kD which deprives White of time to advance his pawns on the kingside. 0-D-Dp018. N¥e4 The alternative move, 18. Bg1, does not look more prom-gp1lD-0 ising. 18. ... N¥e3 19. Qd3 To exchange queens would cost him h-D-H-Da piece. 19. ... Ng2+ 20. Kd2 N¥f4 21. R¥f4 Nc4+ 22. Kc2 -D-)N)PD N¥e5 23. d¥e5 Q¥e5 All this has been exceedingly well played D-)-h-Dby Dr. Jacobi. He now comes out of the rally with his pawn recovered P)-DLD-) and a fine attack in hand. 24. Qf3 Bc7 25. Nf6+ 25. Rf1 loses $-DQIRDthe exchange at once, whereas the move in the text gives some hope of an attack if the piece is taken. 25. ... Kh8 26. Nh5 Bd5 After 18. ... N¥e3 27. Qf2 Be4+ 28. Kc1 Bd6 A quiet but very forcible move, leading to a fine termination. 29. h4 Evidently failing to observe the purport of Black’s last move. 29. Qe3 seems to be his only chance -D-®-®-i of prolonging the game, but Black should win in that case also. Sup0-g-Dp0pose 29. Qe3 Bc5 30. Q¥e4 Be3+ 31. Kc2 B¥f4 32. Q¥e5 B¥e5 and -DpD-D-0 Black has won the exchange. Instead of 29. ... Bc5, Black might play D-D-1-DN 29. ... Rfe8, with a fine game. 29. ... Q¥c3+ 30. b¥c3 Ba3 mate. -D-Dl$PD 0–1 (Illustrated London News, July 31, 1880). Although Kemeny drew the following game against Dr. Jacobi, it probably saw publication because of the simple mate in three the former missed near the end. The next example we have of Kemeny playing 1. c4 comes nearly twenty years later:

D-)-D-DP)-DL!-) $-I-D-DAfter 28. Kc1

14

EMIL KEMENY

Kemeny–Dr. Samu Jacobi [A22] Budapest, 1881 1. c4 e5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4. c¥d5 N¥d5 White’s position is now similar to that of the second player in the Sicilian game, having the advantage of the move, however, he is enabled to prevent 5. Kt to Kt 5th, a very important maneuver in the opening named. 5. a3 Nc6 6. g3 Bc5 6. ... Be7 is preferable here. Indeed, as a general rule, the bishop is not well placed in close games when posted at c5. 7. Bg2 Be6 8. Nge2 0–0 9. 0–0 Qd7 10. d4 e¥d4 11. e¥d4 Bb6 12. Be3 Rad8 13. Qc2 Rfe8 14. Rad1 Bf5 15. Qc1 Better, apparently, than 15. Qd2, the only other resource to prevent Black winning a pawn by 15. ... N¥e3 and 16. ... R¥e3. 15. ... N¥c3 16. b¥c3 h6 17. Rfe1 Na5 18. c4 c6 19. Qc3 c5 20. d5 He cannot play 20. d¥c5 because then would follow 20. ... Q¥d1 21. R¥d1 R¥d1+ 22. Bf1 Bh3 etc. 20. ... Qa4 21. B¥h6 g¥h6 22. Qf6 R¥e2 We should have preferred retreating the bishop to g6; and should White then play 23. Nf4, exchanging rooks and playing ... Qc2, etc. 23. Q¥f5 Rde8 24. Rf1 N¥c4 25. d6 Nd2 [JSH: This should lose.] 26. Bd5 Qd4 27. R¥d2 Q¥d2 28. B¥f7+ Kh8 29. Qf6+ Kh7 White can here mate in three moves by 30. Bg6+ Kg8 31. Qf7+ etc., but -D-DrDkD missed the opportunity, and the game, after some exchanges, was 0pD-DpD- abandoned as drawn. 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Illustrated London News, May 7, 1881).

-g-)-D-0 D-0LDQDqD-D-D-D )-D-D-)-D-hr)-) D-DRDRI-

Then, nothing. Seven years go by. Kemeny was 21 when Duffy published the game above. He was 28 when he played the game that follows. The time between remains a mystery. Very little regarding chess in Budapest, or even chess in Vienna (aside from the great 1882 international tournament), appeared in the English press during these years. This dearth of published information included even The Chess Monthly, despite Hoffer’s being one of several players who After 26. Bd5 had reestablished the Pesti Sakk-kör in 1864 after it had disbanded in 1849 following the Hungarian Revolution. The little about chess in Budapest that does appear aside from the few games in the Illustrated London News is mentioned by Hoffer and Zukertort. We learn, for instance, in their May 1880 issue that Dr. Jacobi had won three games against Dr. Vidor in a short match. This issue also brought Kemeny’s game against Vidor, given above, as well as Vidor’s 1856 win over Szén. The March 1881 issue reported that on January 30, 1881, the annual general meeting of the Pesti Sakk-kör had taken place, with Ferenc Erkel, “the celebrated composer of Hungarian music,” re-elected president and Dr. Lipót Spitzer elected vice-president. The March 1882 issue reported on the next year’s annual meeting, revealing only in addition that the chess problem composer Mór Ehrenstein was then Hoffer’s source for information on chess in Pest. In 1883 Kolisch was elected to honorary membership in the Pesti Sakk-kör; the same year Dr. Jacobi proposed an international chess tournament to be held in Budapest in 1885. Nothing came of it, despite formation of a committee to carry out the preliminaries. The May 1883 Chess Monthly noted a winter tournament had taken place at the club; Jacobi and Adolf Figdor had tied for first and second, followed by A. Steiner and Ottó Titusz Bláthy; no mention of Kemeny. A similar tournament took place the following year, reported in the March 1884 issue, with Jacobi first, Géza Kálnitzky second, Adolf Figdor third, and Károly Taraba fourth. Then information from even this source dried up. Not until February 1890 does more information appear, at a time when besides the annual reelection of Ferenc Erkel as president, there was a retrospective on the club. Again, no mention was made of Kemeny, who a few months later conducted his first match in New York City, against Halpern.

1. In Buda, in Pest...

15

One suggestion regarding Kemeny’s whereabouts during the period 1881–1888 was found by Michael Negele, and involves a small note appearing in Brüderschaft (Brotherhood) for December 22, 1888, at page 414. There a brief remark appears under the subheading “From Pest,” to the effect that Emil Kemeny recently reappeared in the city, and that he had been living in Szeged. When he had been a resident of Pest and a regular player in the community, he had been a powerful player, behind only Dr. Samu Jacobi and Hugó Fähndrich. As the note follows a tortured path, twisting through undated matters reported from a Hungarian source gleaned in a German weekly chess publication, it is impossible to say precisely when Kemeny returned to Pest, although the game below suggests he was there by June 1888. Szeged is located along Hungary’s southwest border with Romania, and sits along the river Tisza. In March 1879 a massive flood literally swept the city away, as the Tisza’s overflow destroyed all but 250 of the city’s 5,400 buildings. More than 150 lives were lost, and the city, the site of a thousand years of culture, had literally to be rebuilt. This is the place where Kemeny is said to have lived for at least part of the 1880s. Although pure speculation, perhaps he moved to Szeged for employment, which might well have been available in the rebuilding of the city, which took several years. While there, his life may have been largely devoid of the first class chess he had been able to practice while living in the late 1870s and early 1880s in Pest. Little as it is, this is the information we have regarding a crucial period in Kemeny’s life. The last Kemeny game to have been found so far from his time in Budapest was this tussle with a player who himself was forging a chess reputation. Both players fought tenaciously:

Kemeny–Adolf Albin [C00] Budapest Tournament, June 25, 1888 1. e4 e6 2.  d4 d5 3.  Bd3 d¥e4 4.  B¥e4 Nf6 5.  Bg5 Be7 6.  B¥f6 B¥f6 7.  Nf3 c5 8.  c3 c¥d4 9.  c¥d4 Qb6 10. Qd2 Bd7 11.  Nc3 Nc6 12.  Rd1 Rd8 13.  0–0 Ne7 14. Ne5 B¥e5 15.  d¥e5 0–0 16.  Qg5 Ng6 17.  B¥g6 f¥g6 18. Ne4 Bc6 19.  R¥d8 R¥d8 20.  Nd6 Rf8 21.  Qe7 Bd5 22. Ne8 Rf7 23.  Qd6 Qa5 [JSH: 23. ... Q¥b2 24. a3 Rf5 was much better for Black.] 24. a3 h5 25. Qb4 Qd8 26. Nd6 Qg5 27. g3 Rf3 28. Qd4 h4 29. Ne4 Qf5 30. Re1 Qh3 31. Rc1 Rf5 32. Rc8+ Kh7 33. Rc3 Rh5 34. Rc7 Rf5 [JSH: Perhaps Kemeny hoped for 34. ... h¥g3, when 35. Nf6+! Kh6 36. Qe3+ Rg5 37. Ng8+ Kh7 (37. ... Kh5? 38. Qe2+ Kh4 39. h¥g3+ R¥g3+ 40. f¥g3+ Q¥g3+ 41. Kf1) 38. Nf6+ would draw.] 35. Rc3 Rh5 36. Rc7 Rf5 37. Rc3 Kh6 38.  Qe3+ g5 39.  g¥h4 Q¥h4 40.  Ng3 Rf3 41. Qe2 R¥c3 42.  b¥c3 g6 43.  Nf1 Qf4 44.  Ne3 Bf3 45. Qb5 Bc6 46. Qe2? [JSH: White had 46. Qc5 when the drawing chances are much better; for instance, if 46. ... Qf3, then 47. Kf1 Qh1+ 48.  Ke2 Qf3+. Instead, he actively seeks the exchange of queens, which only increases his difficulties.] 46. ... Kg7 47. Qg4 Q¥e5 48. Qd4 Q¥d4 49. c¥d4 b5 50. Kf1 a5 51. Ke2 Bd5 52. Kd3 Kh6 53.  Ng4+ Kh5 54.  Ne5 g4 55.  Ke2 g5 56. Kf1 b4 57. a¥b4 a4 58. Nd3 Bc4 59. Ke2 a3 60. Kd2 B¥d3 0–1 (Süddeutsche Schachzeitung, 1888, page 119).

-D-D-D-D 0p$-D-0k -D-DpDpD D-Dl)-Dr -D-!ND-0 )-D-D-)q -)-D-)-) D-D-D-IAfter 34. Rc7

-D-D-D-D 0pD-D-D-DlDpDpi DQD-)-0-D-D-1-D )-)-H-D-D-D-)-) D-D-D-IAfter 45. ... Bc6

16

EMIL KEMENY

The game above is said to have been played in a Budapest tournament during the summer of 1888, but no tournament crosstable, or even remarks regarding results, have been found. The historical record once more, goes silent. At some point following his loss against Albin, Kemeny went to America. What he did and precisely where he lived between 1881 and 1888 remains uncertain, although he may well have spent the full time in Szeged, employed in the general upsurge of opportunities that followed that city’s flooding in 1879. In any case, one can only wonder how much stronger his chess might have become had these crucial years in his life been filled with national and international tournament and match play.

2

A New York Reputation: 1890–1891 “We understand that this is Mr. Kemeny’s first set contest with a master of known name and prowess, so that he has every reason to look forward to a distinguished future.”—Miron Hazeltine, speaking of Kemeny’s match with J. Moore Hanham. New York Clipper, Oct. 17, 1891

Often beginnings are obscure. So it is with new beginnings. Hazeltine’s comment, quoted above, appears to suffer from the confusion obscurity brings, as Kemeny’s match with Hanham in 1891 took place more than a year after he faced another New York–based opponent. Precisely when Kemeny came to the United States is unknown, although early to mid–1890 appears likely. That Kemeny came to America with a chess reputation is also clear. The Albany Evening Journal, July 26, 1890, for example, wrote that the Hungarian was “but a recent arrival from Austria, and a player of considerable repute.” The occasion for the Evening Journal’s remark was a match played between the new immigrant and an earlier one, Jacob C. Halpern, then champion of New York City’s Columbia Chess and Checker Club. Kemeny had not long before become a member. Undoubtedly Kemeny strove to make his chess reputation in his new homeland. How better to do that than by challenging his club’s champion? That Halpern accepted the challenge is some indication that Kemeny’s strength had already been seen in the club rooms, likely in offhand games. The Columbia Chess Club began life May 1, 1887, with 20 members. Within two months membership exploded to 100. The early membership list of the Columbia included some players of present and future renown, certainly within New York chess. Many of the strongest were also immigrants. S. Lipschütz, three years younger than Kemeny and also from Hungary, was one of the first members, as was Charles Devidé, born in Vienna, and John S. Ryan, born in Ireland. A young Charles B. Isaacson joined, as did the older Frank M. Teed. The first Columbia club championship saw six entrants, including Gustav Henschel Koehler, a figure well-known in New York chess circles in years to come, although then not yet 22. The Columbia quickly began a magazine as well, the Columbia Chess Chronicle, and indeed the very first

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

17

Jewish Market, Lower East Side, New York City, 1890s. Kemeny moved there from Budapest early in 1890 and was intimately familiar with scenes like this (Library of Congress).

18

EMIL KEMENY

game published by the magazine, in its inaugural issue of July 2, 1887, recorded Gustav Koehler defeating Halpern in the club’s first championship tournament. The Columbia Chess Club listed its address as No. 1, Second Avenue, New York, and stood open for business seven days a week, noon to midnight. Located at the southern end of Second Avenue, at the corner of Second Avenue and Houston, the Columbia was in Manhattan’s Lower East Side. In the last quarter of the 19th century, Eastern European Jews such as Kemeny had settled in the area in greater and greater numbers, displacing German immigrants of an earlier time. The Lower East Side rapidly became the home of Jewish immigrants seeking a new life in America. While in the 1870s roughly 40,000 Eastern Jews had come to the United States, the 1880s saw about 200,000 come, and the following decade 300,000. Roughly 70 percent settled in New York City, and by the early 1890s, 290,000 lived there. Within the Lower East Side, “ethnic subdivision was the rule.” Hungarians “occupied blocks north of Houston and east of Avenue B.” Not surprisingly, crowding quickly became a central issue. By 1890, the Lower East Side “had 524 people per acre, the highest density in the city. Within ten years the figure would rise to seven hundred per acre, a rate that topped Bombay’s as highest in the world” (Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace, Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898, pages 1,114 and 1,117). The horror such congestion brought has been vividly recorded in Jacob Riis’s How the Other Half Live. It was to this world Kemeny came, and it was through chess he sought his escape. Kemeny’s match opponent, Halpern, was born in Poland on September 10, 1845. At 44, Halpern was 14 years older. He had regularly appeared at the Columbia for several years, participating in club handicap tournaments and playing on the higher boards in team matches against other local clubs. Curiously enough, the Columbia Chess Chronicle did not mention Halpern for almost a year before it ceased publication in February 1890. For a study of Kemeny, the timing of the publication’s cessation is particularly frustrating, coming as it did only a few months before play began in the Kemeny–Halpern match. Had the publication continued, a more complete record regarding Kemeny’s entrance into the Columbia’s circle would have survived. Some information, though, can be gleaned from other sources. The Albany Evening Journal, for March 1, 1890, reported on the New York State Chess Association’s championship tournament held in Manhattan on Washington’s birthday, February 22. Halpern competed, finishing 31 ⁄ 2–1 1⁄ 2. Later that year the Columbia held its championship tournament. Thanks to Otto F. Jentz, a member of the club, Edward S. Huntington, chess editor of the Boston Weekly Post, was informed of the Columbia’s tournament, a double round affair among eight players. Halpern won easily, scoring 13 wins and 1 draw, finishing a full three points ahead of his nearest rival (Boston Weekly Post, July 4, 1890). Accordingly, Jacob Halpern became the current champion of the Columbia only a few weeks before he played Kemeny. The Columbia Chess Club shortly thereafter underwent a small modification. Following its July 10, 1890, monthly meeting, the club changed its name to the Columbia Chess and Checkers Club (Albany Evening Journal, July 26, 1890), although for most purposes it simply remained known as the Columbia Chess Club. In any event, the same issue of the Evening Journal reported the match between Halpern and the newcomer was “attracting considerable interest.” Little is known about the match conditions, other than that the games were played at the Columbia’s rooms and that a $15 purse would go to the man first scoring seven points. The precise date the first game started is unknown, although from the context of reports we can tell the match began in July and was over early in August. The match started well enough for Kemeny. In the first game Halpern dropped a pawn early and then blundered with 33. ... Rh5, dropping a piece. A few moves later the older man resigned.

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

19

Kemeny–Jacob Halpern [C11] Match Game 1 Columbia Chess and Checker Club, July 1890 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bd3 Bb4 5. Bg5 h6 6. B¥f6 Q¥f6 7. Nf3 c5 8. e¥d5 e¥d5 9. 0–0 B¥c3 10. b¥c3 c4 11. Re1+ Be6 12. B¥c4 A very neat win of a pawn. 12. ... d¥c4 13. d5 0–0 14. d¥e6 f¥e6 15. Qd6 Nc6 16. Q¥e6+ Q¥e6 17. R¥e6 Rad8 18. Rb1 Rd7 19. Re4 Rfd8 20. Rbe1 b5 21. Kf1 a6 22. a3 Rd6 23. Ke2 Kf7 24. Ke3 Rd1 25. Ke2 R1d6 26. Ra1 Re6 27. R¥e6 K¥e6 28. Ke3 Rd5 29.  Nd4+ Kd6 30.  f4 g5 31.  Rf1 g4 32.  Rd1 Ne7 To prevent Nf5. 33.  Ke4 [White’s thirty-third move embarrasses the defense and may be regarded as ranking Mr. Kemeny as an ingenious devotee of the royal -D-D-D-D game—Toledo Daily Commercial, July 13, 1890.] 33. ... Rh5 Bad; ... D-D-h-DKc5 at once is better. 34. Nf5+ Kc5 If 34. ... Ke6 35. Rd6+ [JSH: pD-i-D-0 35. Ng7+ grabs the rook at once.] 35. ... Kf7 36. N¥h6+ king moves, DpDrD-D37. N¥g4 and wins.] 35. N¥e7 R¥h2 36. Rd2 Rh1 37. Nf5 h5 38. g3 Ra1 39. Ne3 R¥a3 40. f5 1–0 (Albany Evening Journal, -DpH-)pD )-)-I-DJuly 26, 1890).

-DPD-DP)

The second match game was either a draw or a second win for D-DRD-DKemeny. The third was a disaster for Kemeny. He could have resigned much sooner, had he trusted his opponent not to blunder in return. After 32. ... Ne7 As it turned out, Halpern did not. The annotations are attributed to J. H. Todd, a member of the Columbia club and also, previously, a member of the editorial staff of the Columbia Chess Chronicle. Todd appears to have been in contact with both Rogers at the Albany Evening Journal as well as an older brother of Max Judd, Maurice Judd, who edited the chess column in the Toledo Daily Commercial. Kemeny’s play already was reaching a larger audience than New York alone.

Kemeny–Jacob Halpern [C02] Match Game 3 Columbia Chess and Checker Club, July 1890 1. e4 e6 2.  d4 d5 3.  e5 c5 4.  c3 Nc6 5.  Nf3 Qb6 6.  Be2 6. Bd3 is more frequently played. 6. ... Bd7 7. 0–0 c¥d4 8. c¥d4 Nge7 9. b3 Nf5 10. Be3 10. Bb2 appears better. 10. ... Rc8 11. Nc3 White having an embarrassed game loses a pawn. 11. ... N¥e5 12.  N¥e5 R¥c3 13.  Rc1 R¥c1 14.  Q¥c1 Bd6 15.  Nf3 0–0 16.  Bd3 Bb5 17. B¥f5 A bad game made worse. 17. ... B¥f1 18. B¥h7+ K¥h7 19. Ng5+ Kg8 20. K¥f1 Another blunder; 20. Q¥f1 is much better. Mr. Halpern now wins cleverly. 20.  ... Be7 21. Nf3 Qa6+ 22. Kg1 Q¥a2 23. g4 Q¥b3 24. g5 Qc4 25. Qd1 Rc8 26. Ne1 Bb4 27. Nd3 Bd6 28. g6 f¥g6 29. Qg4 Re8 30. Q¥g6 Qb5 31. Bf4 B¥f4 32. N¥f4 Qd7 33. Qh5 Qf7 0–1 (Albany Evening Journal, July 26, 1890; Toledo Daily Commercial, July 27, 1890, with annotations above by J. H. Todd). The fourth game was published in the Toledo Daily Commercial. Internal references, however, as well as the alternation of first move in the match, make it clear the player’s names were inadvertently reversed in the Daily Commercial. The error has been corrected here. Kemeny missed an opportunity at move 13, but thereafter was never really in the game.

20

EMIL KEMENY

Jacob Halpern–Kemeny [C59] Match Game 4 Columbia Chess and Checker Club, July 1890 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 4. d4 and 4. d3 are equally played. 4. ... d5 The invariable reply. 5. e¥d5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. d¥c6 b¥c6 8. Be2 Approved by Freeborough and Steinitz. 8. Ba4 is to be avoided although recommended by Staunton. 8. ... h6 9. Nf3 Steinitz strongly recommends 9. Nh3 followed thus: 9. ... B¥h3 10. g¥h3 Qd5 11. Bf3 e4 12. Nc3 Qe5 13. Bg2 with the advantage. 9. ... e4 10. Ne5 Steinitz disapproves of this move, as 10. Ne5 Bd6 11. f4 leaves Black a better game with ... g5. Freeborough gives for Black; 10. Ne5 Qc7 11. f4 Bd6 12. d4 0–0 13. c3 with the better game. Black’s tenth move, though in many books, is weak. 10.  ... Qd4 11.  Ng4 11. f4 is preferred by Zukertort and Anderssen. 11. ... B¥g4 12. B¥g4 e3 This may not be better than ... Bc5 or ... Nc4, but White’s thirteenth move should have cost him the game; Bf3 (Freeborough) or Be2 (Bird) would have been better for White. 13. f3? Rd8? Black has lost his chance to win, and the game resolves itself into a rough-and-tumble fight in which the older rD-Dkg-® dog comes out on top. [JSH: Todd did not offer variations, but con0-D-Dp0- sider, for instance, the position after 13. ... N¥g4! 14. f¥g4 0–0–0 -DpD-h-0 15. d3 Bb4+ 16. c3 e2 17. Qc2 Q¥g4, etc.] 14. Qe2 N¥g4 15. f¥g4 16. d3 Be7 17. Q¥e3 Q¥g4 18. Qe2 Qd4 19. Nc3 0–0 h-D-D-D- h5 20. Be3 Qe5 21.  0–0 Bd6 22.  Bf4 Qd4+ 23.  Be3 Qh4 -D-1-DLD 24. h3 Qg3 25.  Qf3 Qh2+ 26.  Kf2 f5 27.  Rh1 Qe5 D-D-0PD- 28. Rae1 h4 29.  B¥a7 Qf6 30.  Kf1 Rde8 31.  Bf2 R¥e1+ P)P)-DP) 32. B¥e1 Re8 33.  g4 Qh6 34.  g¥f5 Qc1 35.  Ne4 Bg3 $NGQI-DR 36. Qe2 Qf4+ 37. Kg2 B¥e1 38. Nf6+ g¥f6 39. Q¥e8+ Kh7 40. Q¥e1 Qg5+ 41. Kf1 Qf4+ 42. Ke2 Q¥f5 43. Q¥h4+ Kg7 After 13. f3 44. Qg4+ 1–0 (Toledo Daily Commercial, August 3, 1890, with annotations by J. H. Todd). The fifth game showed some interesting dynamics, as White had rook, knight and pawn for queen, but in the end neither player risked much and the game was drawn after White’s fifty-second move. The notes were again provided to Maurice Judd by J. H. Todd.

Kemeny–Jacob Halpern [B01] Match Game 5 Columbia Chess and Checker Club, July 1890 1. e4 d5 2. e¥d5 Q¥d5 3. Nc3 Qd8 4. d4 Bf5 Not so much thought of now as 4. ... Nf6 (although disapproved by Gossip). 4. ... g6 is another favorite defense. 5. Be3 The text move would be correct had Black played 4. ... Nf6; but 5. Nf3 is given as the correct continuation for White on this move. 5. Qf3 may be played. 5. ... Nf6 6. h3 In this defense White should secure the better development by the proper moves; White’s fifth and sixth moves appear to neglect the opportunity of the opening. 6. ... e6 7. Bd3 B¥d3 8. Q¥d3 a6 9. 0–0–0 White has given up his white bishop and now castles on the queenside. These moves are against the maxims of the game, with no sufficient reasons appearing for violating them. 9. ... Nd5 10. Nf3 White now leaves his remaining bishop en prise of a knight. It is contrary to the maxims of the modern school. 10. ... Nc6 11. a3 b5 12. Ne5 Na7 13. Na2 Bd6 14. c4 N¥e3 15. Q¥e3 b¥c4 16. N¥c4 0–0 Bishops are cheap apparently in this

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

21

game. 17. Nc3 Nb5 18. Ne4 Qe7 19. a4 Na7 20. d5 Nc8 21. Rhe1 e5 22. g4 Qd7 23. b3 f6 24. Kb2 Rb8 25. Ka2 Rb4 26. Nc5 Qe8 27. N¥d6 N¥d6 28. N¥a6 Nc4 29. N¥b4 29. Qc3 would have been sound play for White. 29. ... N¥e3 30. R¥e3 Qd7 31.  Nc6 Ra8 32.  Re4 Qd6 33.  Rc4 g6 34.  f3 Kg7 35. Nb4 Kh6 36.  Nc2 Rd8 37.  Ne3 Qb6 38.  Rc3 Rd7 -D-Dq®kD 39. Kb2 Qa6 40.  Rd2 Kg5 41.  Kc2 Qb7 42.  Rc4 Qb6 D-0-D-0p 43. Ng2 Rd6 44. f4+ e¥f4 45. N¥f4 c6 46. b4 Qa7 47. Kb3 ND-h-0-D Qe3+ 48. Rd3 Qe1 49. Kb2 c¥d5 50. N¥d5 Qe5+ 51. Kc2 D-DP0-DQa1 Black could not take knight, as White could pin his queen and P®-D-DPD win. 52. b5 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Toledo Daily Commercial, August 3, 1890, with DPD-!-DP annotations by J. H. Todd). The sixth game was a disaster for Kemeny. He blundered on his fifth move, never recovered, and resigned after White’s twentyfourth. This clearly was the lowest point in the match for him. The game is one of only a few from this event that can be dated precisely.

KD-D-)-D D-DR$-DAfter 28. N¥a6

Jacob Halpern–Kemeny [B01] Match Game 6 Columbia Chess and Checker Club, July 26, 1890 1. e4 d5 2. e¥d5 Nf6 3. Nf3 N¥d5 4. d4 Bg4 5. Bc4 Nb6?? [JSH: A blunder throwing away the game.] 6. B¥f7+ K¥f7 7. Ne5+ Ke8 8. Q¥g4 Qd6 9. Nc3 N8d7 10. N¥d7 N¥d7 11. 0–0 Nf6 12. Qf4 a6 13. Ne2 Rd8 14. c3 Kd7 15. Qf3 Qd5 16. Q¥d5+ N¥d5 17. Nf4 e6 18. Re1 Bd6 19. Nd3 Rhf8 20. Bd2 h6 21. c4 Nf4 22. B¥f4 R¥f4 23. N¥f4 B¥f4 24. Re4 1–0 (Toledo Daily Commercial, August 10, 1890). The seventh game is missing from the record, but as noted earlier it was either a win for Kemeny or a draw. In either case, at this point Kemeny trailed Halpern by a game, and had shown little to warrant much faith in his successfully meeting the challenge before him. It was at this moment, however, that Kemeny showed admiral tenacity. The next game caused Huntington of the Boston Weekly Post to remark, “It is said that Mr. Halpern is better posted in the book science of our game, his opponent possesses rather more original chess talent.”

Jacob Halpern–Kemeny [C59] Match Game 8 Columbia Chess and Checker Club, July 30, 1890 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 This is the popular method of continuing the attack, and it brings on a lively game; but the more conservative move of 4. d4 gives really a more enduring advantage to White. 4. ... d5 Safest! 4. ... N¥e4, as sometimes played, gives Black a hard game. We notice that this Two Knights Defense is adopted much more frequently in New York than in Boston. Here there seems to be an unjust prejudice against it. 5. e¥d5 Na5 Mr. Kemeny naturally refuses, in a match game, the intricate dangers of 5. ... N¥d5. 6. Bb5+ 6. d3 is, on the whole, a better continuation. White, to be sure, by the text gains a pawn, but also gives his opponent a chance for a counter attack. 6. ... c6 7. d¥c6 b¥c6 8. Be2 Best. Staunton’s old move of 8. Qf3 is unsound, and e2 is the strongest post for the bishop. 8. ... h6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ne5 Qc7 The game has followed the book lines so far; but here 10. ... Qd4 is considered a little stronger; also 10. ... Bd6 gives a good attack. If 10. ...

22

EMIL KEMENY

Qd4, the proper answer is 11. f4, instead of 11. d4. 11. d4 11. f4 is more common and somewhat better, followed by d4. 11.  ... Bd6 12. Ng4 [So far, it is the old style of defense regularly played, but 12. 23f4 is “book.” The Rev. C.E. Ranken suggests 12. Bf4—Toledo Daily Commercial, August 17, 1890.] 12. ... B¥g4 13. B¥g4 Rd8 14. Qe2 Bf4! 15. Be3 0–0 Notwithstanding the loss of a pawn, Black has now the best position, and can continue his counterattack on several different lines. 16.  Bf5? c5 17.  c3 c¥d4 18.  c¥d4 B¥e3! 19. Q¥e3 19. f¥e3 followed by Nc3 and castling seems much stronger, as the e-pawn can be sustained. 19. ... Nd5! This is good After 20. Qe7 enough; but it looks as if 19. ... Nc4 might have given a quicker win. How would White reply? 20. Qe2 e3! [JSH: Much better was 20. ... Nf4, with a winning position; for example: 20. ... Nf4 21. Qd1 R¥d4 22. Nd2 Qe5.] 21. f¥e3 N¥e3! Exceedingly good play; Black initiates a very fine attack. [JSH: Not so; Black overlooks 21. ... Qc1+ 22. Qd1 Q¥e3+ when White can resign.] 22. Q¥e3 This looks bold indeed, but White has made up his mind to a bloody fight, and sees the death of his bishop must come shortly. 22. ... Rfe8 23. Be4 Nc4! 24. Qe2 f5 25. Nc3 f¥e4 26. 0–0 Qc6 27. Rad1 Nd6 28.  Kh1 Rb8 29.  d5 Qc4 30.  Rfe1 30. Q¥c4 N¥c4 31. Rd4 would have given White a strong game, for Black cannot play 31. ... N¥b2 on account of the reply 32. N¥e4, whereupon Black must lose material in stopping the advance of the d-pawn, as his knight is penned up. 30. ... Qb4 31. Rd2 e3 A very subtle move, the force of which White does not see. 32. Rd3 32. Rc2 might have turned out better, but White’s game looks pretty well broken up. 32. ... Nf5 33. a3? [JSH: 33. g3.] 33. ... Qh4! This is finely played. Black is not fishing for pawns, but is looking to -®-DrDkD a neat checkmate. 34. Kg1 0-D-D-0Of course the reader will -D-D-D-0 perceive the threatened loss D-DPDnDof the White queen by 34. ... Ng3+. 34. ... R¥b2 -1-D-D-D This move was plainly visi- )-HR0-Dble, but it is nevertheless -)-DQDP) very pretty and artistic. D-D-$-DK White has nothing left. It is After 33. a3 said that Mr. Halpern is better posted in the book science of our game, his opponent possesses rather more original chess talent. 35. Qf1 Rf2 The coup de grace; if White had played 35. Qf3, Black would win beautifully by ... Qf2+ 36. Q¥f2 e¥f2+ and mates next move. If 35. Qd1 Black mates in two. 36.  Qe2 R¥e2 37. R¥e2 Qc4 0–1 (Boston Weekly Post, August 15, Jacob Halpern. Kemeny’s first match opponent in the United 1890).

-D-®-®kD 0-1-Dp0-D-D-D-0 h-DnDLD-D-)pD-D D-D-D-DP)-DQ)P) $ND-I-DR

States. Born in Poland and thus a fellow immigrant, Halpern was 14 years older than Kemeny. He lived the rest of his life in the United States, dying in 1924 (New York Tribune, June 30, 1895).

After eight games the score stood even, 3–3 with 2 draws, with Huntington’s source noting that “The members of the club are watching the progress of this match with absorbing interest, as the rivalry between

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

23

the two players” was quite intense (Boston Weekly Post, August 8, 1890). Club members who were fortunate enough to witness the ninth game saw a tactical slugfest that was probably the match’s most interesting game. W. H. K. Pollock praised Kemeny’s 18. Nc6 as an “exceptionally bright combination.” Kemeny took a 5–4 lead and needed only two more points to claim victory.

Kemeny–Jacob Halpern [C44] Match Game 9 Columbia Chess and Checker Club, August 1890 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  d4 e¥d4 4.  Bc4 Here we have the gambit form of this opening, which is pleasant to see in these days of close games and hard figuring for small advantages. We were glad to notice, in the games of this match, that both contestants used the open cut and thrust style of fight without resorting to much sneaking. 4.  ... d6 [It is rather mean treatment to shut up one’s own bishop thus—Baltimore News.] This close form of defense is unnecessary. 4. ... Bc5 can be played. 5. c3 Trying to force the fight, but 5. N¥d4 would have been better for this form of the game. 5. ... Ne5 [Nor is this the right way to develop one’s game, though after 5. ... Bg4 6. Qb3 Na5 7. B¥f7+ Ke7 8. Qa4 K¥f7 9. Ng5+ White’s game is preferable—Baltimore News.] Undue timidity. Better have met White’s challenge and, with careful play, obtained the advantage; however, this move is good enough, for it will enable Black to get rid of a bad piece. 6. c¥d4 N¥c4 7. Qa4+ c6 8. Q¥c4 Be7 9. d5 This does not seem like a wise course. White has now a center. By this move both sides are left with single, weak pawns on the d-file. 9.  ... c¥d5 10.  e¥d5 White has established a troublesome pawn which cannot easily be dislodged. 10.  ... Nf6 11.  Nc3 Bd7 12.  0–0 0–0 The positions are quite equal at this point. There is little, if any, choice between the two. 13. Bf4? Nh5 14. Be3 f5 This is premature and gives White a chance. Black should first take steps to remove his opponent’s queen from her present diagonal; or, better, moved his own king. 15. Nd4 f4 16. Bd2 White, with all this waste of moves of the bishop, does not suffer much loss in position. 16. ... Rf6 17. Rfe1 Rg6 18. Nc6 [An exceptionally bright combination—Baltimore News.] A clever rD-1-DkD upset of all Black’s plans. 18. ... b¥c6 19. d¥c6+ d5 Why not ... 0pDlg-0p Be6 at once? This trouble was all brought on by Black’s weak move -D-0-DrD of 14.  ... f4. 20.  N¥d5 Be6 21.  R¥e6 R¥e6 22.  c7! Qd7 D-DPD-Dn 23. N¥e7+ Kh8 This loses a piece and the game, though White -DQH-0-D would probably win on any line. 24. c8Q+ [JSH: Pollock’s Baltimore News ended its coverage with this move.] 24. ... R¥c8 25. Q¥c8+ D-H-D-DQ¥c8 26.  N¥c8 White has conducted the last five moves with P)-G-)P) sharp penetration. He took the correct line of play for a sure win. $-D-$-I26. ... Re2 27. Re1 R¥e1+ 28. B¥e1 The game was continued After 17. ... Rg6 for six more moves, but it was a useless prolongation of a hard fight. 1–0 (Boston Weekly Post, August 22, 1890; Baltimore News, August 17, 1890). Black played for early domination of the center along open lines in game ten. White couldn’t get his pieces coordinated, or his king out of the way, and quickly found himself in a difficult position. After defending for a number of moves, Halpern lashed out with 34. Qd7, but soon found his king facing a mate in four, when he resigned.

24

EMIL KEMENY

Jacob Halpern–Kemeny [C59] Match Game 10 Columbia Chess and Checker Club, August 1890 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. e¥d5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. d¥c6 b¥c6 8.  Be2 h6 9.  Nh3 B¥h3 10.  g¥h3 Qd5 11.  Bf3 e4 12. Qe2 Bb4 13. a3 0–0 14. Bg2 Bd6 15. Nc3 Qd4 16. Kf1 -D-DrDkD Rfe8 17. b3 Bf4 18. Rb1 Rad8 19. Ke1 Nb7 20. Nd1 Qc5 0-D-Dp0- 21. Ne3 Nd5 22.  c4 N¥e3 23.  d¥e3 Be5 24.  Bd2 Bf6 -DpD-g-D 25. b4 Qg5 26.  Qg4 Qe5 27.  Qe2 Rd3 28.  Kf1 Red8 D-)-1-Dp 29. Be1 Nd6 30. Qg4 Re8 31. c5 Nc4 32. a4 R¥e3 33. Rc1 P)nDpDQD h5 34. Qd7 Rd3 35. Q¥c6 e3 36. f¥e3 Q¥e3 37. Bf3 Nd2+ D-D-®-DP 38. Kg2 N¥f3 39.  Bf2 Nh4+ White resigns. The ending has -D-D-)L) been well conducted by Black. 0–1 (Kansas City Journal, August 23, D-$-GKDR 1890). After 33. ... h5

Kemeny needed only one more point to win the match, which he quickly garnered. He had trailed Halpern after seven games, but finished off his opponent with four straight wins.

Kemeny–Jacob Halpern [C50] Match Game 11 Columbia Chess and Checker Club, August 6, 1890 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d3 Black’s previous move having converted the debut into a Two Knights Defense, White should have adopted the approved book reply, 4. Ng5! As the opening shapes itself, it ultimately becomes a species of Giuoco Pianissimo. 4. ... Bc5 5. Nc3 d6 6. 0–0 Ne7 7. h3 h6 8. Be3 Bb6 9. d4 This seems premature. 9. Ne2 and 10. c3 should have preceded this advance, so as to keep up a strong center after the exchanges. 9.  ... e¥d4 10.  B¥d4 B¥d4 11.  N¥d4 0–0 12.  Qe2 Ng6 13.  f4 c6 14. Kh2 Qc7 14. ... Qb6, forcing the adverse king knight into an unfavorable location at b3, was the natural move. 15. g3 b5 16. Bd3 Qd7 17. Qg2 a6 18. Nf3 Bb7 19. e5 Better, apparently, was 19. Rae1 (or d1) as a preliminary to this, for—19. ... Nh5 Here Black, we believe, misses a chance of rather more than equalizing matters. Suppose, instead, 19. ... d¥e5 20. f¥e5 (20. B¥g6 f¥g6 would, obviously, only strengthen the attack.) 20. ... Nh5 21. Be4 f5 22. e¥f6 R¥f6! and should speedily have a strong attack. 20. Rad1 d5 21. b4 Qe7 This turns out very unfavorably, as blocking out the knight rD-D-®kD (at g6) from e7. Cf. the position after his twenty-fifth move. 22. a3 23. Rb1 a¥b4 24. a¥b4 f5? 25. Nd4 N¥e5? Unsound, DlD-1-0- a5 of course; but he had to lose something. If, e.g., 25. ... Qd7 to defend -DpD-D-0 the f-pawn, then 26. Qf3! 26. Rfe1! The coup juste—freely translated DpDphpDn “a settler.” 26.  ... Ra3 27.  R¥e5 Qc7 28.  Nce2 [JSH: -)-H-)-D 28. Nd¥b5!] 28. ... Bc8 29. Nb3 Kh8 30. Qf3 Qf7 31. Ned4 D-HLD-)P Nf6 32.  N¥c6 g5 33.  Re7 Qg8 34.  Qe3 Bd7 35.  Nbd4 -DPD-DQI Not caring, we suppose, to wait for the cyclone beginning with Qe5. DRD-DRD- 1–0 (Boston Weekly Post, August 29, 1890, reprinting annotations by James D. Seguin, originally appearing in the New Orleans TimesDemocrat). After 25. ... N¥e5

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

25

Thus Kemeny pocketed his $15 prize for defeating Halpern. As paltry as the amount appears, keep in mind that this was an age when a chess editor like J. W. Millen, of the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette (as quoted in the Boston Weekly Post, January 9, 1891), could baldly state few could make a living at the game: “In chess the professionals are as one to a million. Even among the best players but few drop their regular pursuits. There are not in the whole world twenty men who can make $10 a week over the chess board....” Accurate or not, and most likely close if not accurate, Millen’s perception of the plight of the chess professional was widespread, certainly in the United States. Through his association with the Columbia, Kemeny likely made many of his early New York chess contacts. Some of the strongest players in the city came to the club, over time. Albert B. Hodges, for instance, who figured prominently in New York and national chess circles in the years to come, gave a 15 board simultaneous exhibition at the Columbia club in December 1890, finishing 12–2 with 1 draw (Boston Weekly Post, December 19, 1890). Kemeny had met Hodges months earlier, at least very shortly after the conclusion of his match with Halpern. In fact, two days after the match concluded, Kemeny faced Hodges in an offhand game played at the Columbia. Hodges was born and raised in Nashville, Tennessee. Along with Showalter and later Pillsbury, he belonged to a small cadre of native-born chess players who could hold their own with men such as Max Judd, S. Lipschütz, and Kemeny himself, who were their contemporaries and who had made their way to the United States from Europe. In two years’ time, Hodges became the first American to defeat a young Emanuel Lasker, who played with overwhelming success a series of exhibition games against New York’s strongest players at the Manhattan Chess Club shortly after arriving in this county. More to the point here, though, Hodges distinguished himself a few weeks after the game below was played, winning over Lipschütz at that year’s New York State Chess Association midsummer tournament held at Chittenango, New York, at the end of August. Hodges’ fine form at Chittenango was perhaps honed through many practice games, such as this one. Once again, the obscure J. H. Todd can be thanked for the score’s preservation:

Kemeny–Albert Beauregard Hodges [C44] Offhand Game Columbia Chess Club, August 8, 1890 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 e¥d4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. c3 d3 This is a sterling continuation, rendering the development of the White pieces rather more difficult than 5. ... d¥c3. There is but little matter published upon the variation, however, as it is not often adopted in serious play. 6. 0–0 6. b4, followed by Qb3, is the usual continuation. 6. ... d6 7. h3 Nf6 8. B¥d3 0–0 Black’s game is now preferable. The development has not been on orthodox book lines altogether. 9.  Bg5 h6 -D-D-®-D 10. Bh4 g5 11.  Bg3 Nh5 12.  Kh2 N¥g3 13.  f¥g3 Ne5 D-D-1-i14. N¥e5 d¥e5 15.  Qf3 Be6 16.  Nd2 f6 17.  Rad1 Qe7 18. Nc4 Rad8 19. b4 Bb6 20. a4 a6 21. a5 Ba7 22. g4 c5 pg-DL0-0 23. Ne3 c¥b4 24.  Nd5 B¥d5 25.  e¥d5 b¥c3 26.  Bf5 D-DP0-DBd4 27.  Be6+ Kh8 28.  Qe4 Qh7 29.  Bf5 Qc7 30.  Be6 -D-DQDPI Rd6 31.  Rb1 Kg7 32.  h4 g¥h4 33.  Kh3 b5 34.  a¥b6 D-0-D-DR¥b6 35. R¥b6 B¥b6 36. K¥h4 Qe7 37. Qf5? Be3 38. Rb1 -D-D-DPD Bg5+ 39.  Kh3 Rd8 40.  Bc8? e4 A very pretty move, this. D-D-DRD41. Rb7 Q¥b7 42. B¥b7 c2 0–1 (Kansas City Journal, September After 36. ... Qe7 6, 1890).

26

EMIL KEMENY

Kemeny apparently did not attend the NYSCA’s Chittenango midsummer meeting at the end of August 1890. An unidentified chess column in the author’s possession suggests he was still busy with chess, but in New York City: “Mr. Emil Kemeny played six simultaneous games at the Columbia Chess and Checker Club, August 25, scoring 41 ⁄ 2.” Early that fall, the Columbia received some publicity in the Baltimore News for September 28, 1890, which described the club’s circumstances: “Perhaps the most democratic club (not in a political sense) is the Columbia, of New York. Their President, Dr. Jentz, and genial secretary, Mr. Todd, are always on hand to welcome visitors and play a game. Though the location on Second Avenue is far from central, street car communication is always convenient. They have 75 to 100 members, a number of whom are fine players, and a good attendance evenings, though their fall season has hardly begun.” The club started its annual handicap tournament November 1, 1890. A month later, on December 5, 1890, the Boston Weekly Post listed the seven leaders, but Kemeny was not among them. It is possible he was busy with other matters common to a recently arrived immigrant in the New World, either becoming settled or working hard to find a secure position. He clearly could not go far on chess earnings. Indeed, the sources examined say nothing of Kemeny’s whereabouts, chessically or otherwise, until late spring of the following year. The year 1891 saw a significant change involving the Columbia. It ceased to exist, after a fashion. As reported in the New York Tribune several years later, in its June 30, 1895, issue, “Up to March 14, 1891, there existed in this city a chess club which styled itself ‘The Columbia Chess Club,’ an organization which was prosperous until the managers, especially one of them, who ran the concern, became less and less fit to carry on the affairs of the club, and as there seemed to be no other way left for the respectable members of the club to get rid of those obnoxious members, a meeting was called on the date given, the Columbia Chess Club was dissolved, and on the same night the City Chess Club was established in the rooms of the old concern, with Dr. O. F. Jentz as its first president.” Some parties showed great enthusiasm over the new club, but in retrospect their expectations can be seen to have been comical. That, or the reporters involved took preening for fact. The New York Times for March 29, 1891, for instance, suggested that some in the City Chess Club were already “contemplating the issuance of a challenge to the chess clubs of the world for a team match. Having, as it has, all the experts of the three disbanded clubs—the New York, Harlem, and Columbia—the new club can easily hold its own with the Manhattan Chess Club, and will probably take rank as the strongest chess club in America.” Such comments were often penned by unknowledgeable reporters listening to overenthusiastic, and weaker, club players. The new City Chess Club did, however, for several years show great vitality. The same Times article noted in passing that many past and present members were to be thanked for the club’s success, including “the late F. G. Janusch, Charles Nugent, W. S. Huntington,” and several others. By 1895, the City Chess Club could boast among its members Frank M. Teed, August Vorrath, Eugene Delmar, Albert Hodges and Jackson Whipps Showalter. Of course, few of the stronger players in the city were members of merely one club. Notable, too, among the ranks by then were Samuel W. Bampton, W. J. Ferris, and Herman Voigt. The latter three all played significant roles in Kemeny’s later story, as they were long-standing, active members of Philadelphia’s Franklin Chess Club. But in 1891 Kemeny played for, and at, the newly minted City Chess Club. One of the players he faced was W. S. Huntington. Mentioned above as a loyal club member, Huntington is little remembered today. His name does not appear among the legions of chess players recorded in Jeremy Gaige’s extraordinary Chess Personalia. It is possible, although purely speculative, that W. S. Huntington was related to Captain Edward S. Huntington, a name equally

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

27

obscure to American chess but for his chess editorship of the Boston Post column at the time. The Boston Post, as we have already seen, took a decided interest in the Kemeny–Halpern match, publishing several of the games and providing specific dates for some of them. A relationship between the two Huntingtons might well explain why a chess column so far away from the site of play had in fact greater detail and coverage than many local newspaper columns. In any event, W. S. Huntington continued to play chess for the City Chess Club well after Kemeny had left the club and city. He later played for the club in the 1895 Metropolitan Chess League. In 1891 Huntington and Kemeny played a match in the City Chess Club’s rooms. In publishing game four of the contest, Maurice Judd of the Toledo Daily Commercial mentioned that the match would go to the first to reach five points. After four games, Kemeny was leading 3–1.

Kemeny–W. S. Huntington [C55] Match Game 4 May 1891 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. 0–0 h6 5. d4 e¥d4 6. N¥d4 Bc5 7. Nf5 0–0 8. Be3 B¥e3 9. f¥e3 Ne5 10. Nd2 d6 11.  Qe2 Be6 12.  Rad1 N¥e4 13.  N¥e4 B¥c4 14.  Qh5 B¥f1 15. R¥f1 f6 16. Rf4 Qe8 17. Qh3 Kh7 18. N¥h6 g¥h6 19. R¥f6 Ng6 20. Re6 Qd8 21. Qh5 Qh4? [JSH: A faulty combination, after which Black could resign.] 22. Q¥g6+ Kh8 23. g3 Qh3 24.  Nf6 And White mates in five.—JSH 1–0 (Toledo Daily Commercial, May 24, 1891).

rD-1-®-D 0p0-D-Dk -D-0RDn0 D-D-D-DQ -D-DND-D D-D-)-DP)PD-DP) D-D-D-I-

May 1891 also saw Kemeny win a small chess problem solving competition at his home club. According to Steinitz, writing in his After 21. Qh5 May 31, 1891, New York Tribune column, “The subjoined problem formed recently the subject of a solving tournament in the City Chess Club of New York, for a gold chess badge, which was won by Mr. E. Kemeny.” Samuel Loyd New York Tribune, May 31, 1891* White to Mate in Three

A few weeks later, on June 14, 1891, the Providence Sunday Journal reported that “A match, five games up, has just been completed between W. S. Huntington and E. Kemeny, both of the City Club. The young Hungarian won in a canter, as Mr. Huntington, who once was one of the strongest players of the New York Chess Club, could score but a single game.” The same column added that “Mr. Kemeny gave a further proof of his capacity by encountering simultaneously the full strength of the City Club with the fine score of 12 won, 3 lost, 1 drawn. Among his victims we notice the name of S. Loyd, the problem composer.”

wdwdwdwd Iwdwdbdw pdwdkdwH dwdwdw!w wdRdBdw4 dw0wdwdw pgwdwdwd $wdwhwdw White to mate in three

*Solution: 1. Rd4 R¥h6 (1. ... B¥a1 2. Bf5+ Ke5 3. Qg7 mate; 1. ... Rf4 2. R¥e1 a1Q 3. Bf5 mate) 2. Bb1 a¥b1Q (2. ... B¥a1 3. B¥a2 mate) 3.  R¥a6 mate (New York Tribune, May 31, 1891). The problem also appears in The Puzzle King: Sam Loyd’s Chess Problems and Selected Mathematical Puzzles, ed. Sid Pickard (Dallas: Pickard and Sons 1996), No. 161, page 55.

28

EMIL KEMENY

That summer Kemeny attended the NYSCA’s midsummer meeting at Skaneateles, New York, where the first competition for the Staats-Zeitung Cup took place. The cup had been donated for play by Oswald Ottendorfer, publisher of the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung. Valued at $500 when presented, a figure which in present-day dollars is equivalent to over $10,000, it would become the permanent property of the club whose representative captured it three times. Skaneateles 1891 saw Kemeny represent the City Chess Club in the competition. We are fortunate that in an age when many smaller competitions were given little press, Howard J. Rogers, secretary of the NYSCA, saw fit to prepare, with the assistance of half a dozen annotators including among them Steinitz, Delmar, Hodges and Lipschütz, the association’s official record: History and Report, 1878–1891, New York State Chess Association, edited by H.J. Rogers. The document, roughly 100 pages, gives extensive details regarding the NYSCA’s history as well as of the first Staats-Zeitung Trophy competition. Five individuals came forward as club representatives for the double–round robin event: Kemeny, for the City Chess Club; Hanham for the Manhattan; Hodges for the Staten Island Chess Club; A.E. Blackmar for the Brooklyn Chess Club; and Rogers for the Albany Chess Club. Rogers participated in the inaugural cup competition, but for reasons allied to his NYSCA duties forfeited all his second round games. Between coverage in multiple New York papers as well as Roger’s History and Report, all seven of Kemeny’s games have been saved. His first opponent was Abel Edward Blackmar. Born in Newark, New Jersey, on August 21, 1852, the 38-year-old Blackmar had been pressed into service by Brooklyn with little notice. Blackmar had a distinguished career outside chess, as his February 16, 1931, New York Times obituary made clear. An 1874 graduate of Hamilton College, Blackmar graduated from Columbia Law School four years later. While at Skaneateles, Blackmar was a partner in Baldwin & Blackmar, a Nassau Street–based law firm. His career took him from work as a practicing lawyer to the other side of the bench, culminating in April 1921 with his appointment as presiding justice of the Appellate Second Division, New York State court system. By the time he died, his early association with chess had largely been forgotten.

Able E. Blackmar–Kemeny [B01] Staats-Zeitung Cup Competition NYSCA, Skaneateles, July 21, 1891 1. e4 d5 2. e¥d5 Nf6 3. Nc3 3. d4 is best; and if queen or knight should retake pawn, White could follow with 4. c4, obtaining a good attack. 3. ... N¥d5 4. N¥d5 Q¥d5 5. Nf3 e5 6. d3 Nc6 7. c3 White had already obtained the poorer position in the opening, and this weak move creates a hole in the center which soon becomes a target for Black’s attack. 7. Be2 preparatory to castling was in need. 7. ... Bg4 8. Be2 0–0–0 9. Be3 B¥f3 Not so good as 9. ... Bf5, which would win the pawn without entailing any loss of position. If in reply White plays 10. Qa4, then 10. ... B¥d3 11. Rd1 Qe4, etc. 10. B¥f3 Q¥d3 11. Q¥d3 Evidently playing for a draw. A more satisfactory continuation would have been 11. Qa4 Qg6 12. B¥c6 Q¥c6 13. Q¥a7 Q¥g2 14. Qa8+ Kd7 15. 0–0–0+ Bd6 16. Qa4+ and though a pawn behind White’s position is to be preferred. 11.  ... R¥d3 12.  Ke2 Rd8 13.  B¥c6 b¥c6 14. Rhd1 Bd6 15. Kd3 Inviting defeat. It would have been better to have kept the king in proximity to the pawns on that wing. 15. ... Bc5+ 16. Kc4 B¥e3 17. f¥e3 R¥d1 18. R¥d1 Rd8 19. R¥d8+ K¥d8 20. b4 f5 21. h4 Kd7 22. a4 h6 An error, which gives White an opportunity to draw. Black should have played 22. ... g6, followed by ... h6 and ... g5. 23. h5 Kd6 24. b5 Had White continued with 24. a5 Black could do no more than draw. 24. ... f4 (if 24. ... a6 25. g3) 25. e¥f4 e¥f4 26. Kd4. The concluding moves are played with accuracy by

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891 Black. 24. ... c¥b5+ 25. K¥b5 Kd5 26. Ka6 f4 27. e4+ K¥e4 28. K¥a7 Kd3 29. Kb7 e4 30. a5 e3 31. a6 e2 32. a7 e1Q 33. a8Q Qe4+ 0–1 (Albany Evening Journal, September 12, 1891, with annotations above by Rodgers, History and Report, pages 78–79).

29

-D-D-D-D 0-0-D-0-Dpi-D-0 D-D-0pDP P)KD-D-D D-)-)-D-D-D-DPD D-D-D-D-

Kemeny’s good work continued in his second game, against J. Moore Hanham. The Major, as he was often known, will be discussed in more detail shortly, but was a very dangerous player, then 51 years of age. So little time was available for the midsummer meeting, the game that follows was played the same day as the one above against After 23. ... Kd6 Blackmar. The annotations are by Brooklyn’s Charles A. Gilberg, the chess problemist and chronicler of the Fifth American Chess Congress. Gilberg gave the game only through Black’s thirty-seventh move, as did Roger’s Albany Evening Journal, while other contemporary, daily sources provided a few more moves. The remainder of the game was unrecorded or some error in the score prevented publication—not entirely uncommon occurrences in nineteenth century game scores. More is the pity in this case, as the game’s final position does not show Black with an overwhelming advantage.

Major J. Moore Hanham–Kemeny [A03] Staats-Zeitung Cup Competition NYSCA, Skaneateles, July 21, 1891 1. f4 d5 2. d4 An inversion of moves in the late Preston Ware’s Stonewall Opening, for which the Major shows a marked predilection and plays with considerable success, although it is founded upon unsound principles and in this instance, at least, confines the queen rook and bishop to long and disastrous inaction. 2. ... e6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Bd3 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. Nd2 Bd7 7. Ngf3 Qb6 The Black queen is here relegated to a position of comparative uselessness in the coming conflict. 7. ... Be7 seems to be the natural and better move. 8. Ne5 Rc8 9.  Ndf3 h6 10.  0–0 Bd6 Again, ... Be7 would have saved a move and improved Black’s defense. 11. Bc2 0–0 12. g3 Rfd8 13. Rf2 Be8 14. N¥c6 B¥c6 Black should have taken the knight with queen, followed, in the event of White replying with 15. Ne5, by 15. ... Qc7. The move adopted results in the loss of an important pawn. 15. Rg2 Ne4 16. g4 White has cleverly developed a strong attacking position on the kingside, while his adversary has been uselessly massing his forces on the opposite wing. 16.  ... f5 His position is very uncomfortable, and it is difficult to find a satisfactory defense, but this advance still further compromises his exposed king’s quarters. 17.  g¥f5 e¥f5 18.  Nh4 Be7 19.  Qh5 Bd7 20. N¥f5 B¥f5 21. Q¥f5 Qc6 22. c4 Tempting, but unfavorable in results. 22. Bd2, in order to liberate the queen rook with the aim of ultimately bringing it to g1 would have been a better continuation. Of course it is evident that Black could not capture the bishop on account of Qh7+, etc.; and if 22. ... Rf8 White replies with 23. Qg4, retaining a strong attack. 22. ... Qf6 23.  Q¥f6 After which White’s attack collapses. If instead of the text move, White had played 23. B¥e4 then 23.  ... d¥e4 24. Q¥f6 B¥f6 25. d5 b5 breaks up White’s pawns and leaves Black with the better game. 23. ... N¥f6 24. e4 c¥d4 25. c¥d5 Bc5 26. Bd3 Re8 27.  b4 A fatal diversion. Black must regain his minus pawn, but this is certainly an ill-considered method of yielding it up, since after the exchanges that necessarily follow, White is left with four isolated pawns that must fall in succession. 27.  ... B¥b4 28. Bb2 N¥e4 29. B¥d4 Bc5 30. B¥c5 N¥c5 31. d6 Rcd8 32. Rd1 N¥d3 33. R¥d3 Re1+ Which insures the d-pawn, and with it the game. 34. Kf2 Re6 35. d7 Re7 36. Kf3

30

EMIL KEMENY

Rd¥d7 37. R¥d7 R¥d7 9 [And Black wins. Albany Evening Journal, August 29, 1891; History and Report, pages 67–68.] 38. h4 Kf7 39. h5 Rd5 40. Kg4 Kf6 41. Rb2 b5 and Black won 0–1 (History and Report, pages 67–68, with annotations above by Charles A. Gilberg; New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, July 22, 1891; New York Sun, July 22, 1891; Albany Evening Journal, August 29, 1891). Kemeny must have felt confident, leading the Staats-Zeitung trophy competition 2–0 after the first day of play—and all the more so after his first round encounter with Hodges:

Albert B. Hodges–Kemeny [B01] Staats-Zeitung Cup Competition NYSCA, Skaneateles, July 22, 1891 Includes annotations by Steinitz 1. e4 d5 2. e¥d5 Nf6 3. Nf3 3. d4, a move first adopted by Morphy against Anderssen, leads to an earlier development of the attack and is the proper continuation. 3.  ... Bg4 4.  Nc3 N¥d5 5.  Bc4 e6 6.  h3 Bh5 7.  Qe2 Evidently threatening to win a piece by B¥d5. 7. ... c6 8. B¥d5 c¥d5 9. Qb5+ This attack is premature, and should have been preceded by g4, when Black could not have successfully replied, as in the text, with 11. ... f6. 9.  ... Qd7 10.  Ne5 Q¥b5 11.  N¥b5 f6 12.  Ng4 Kd7 13.  d4 Nc6 14.  Be3 Nb4 15. Kd2 Bg6 16. Rhc1 h5 17. Nh2 e5 18. a3 Nc6 19. Nf3 Be4 20. c4 a6 21. c¥d5 B¥d5 22. Nc3 B¥f3 23. d5 Nd4 24. B¥d4 B¥g2 Better than taking the bishop, which would have been followed with Na4, recovering the piece or winning the exchange with the superior position. 25. Na4 Rd8 26. Bb6 B¥d5 Well played, Black has secured a preponderance of pawns, and wisely surrenders the exchange to terminate his opponent’s attack. 27. B¥d8 K¥d8 28. Nb6 Bc6 29. Rc2 Kc7 30. Nc4 Bc5 31. Rg1 g5 32. Ne3 Bd4 33.  Kd3 Kd7 34.  Ke2 Ke6 35.  Rd2 Rg8 36.  Ng2 Possibly with the intention of forcing exchanges or winning a pawn by Nf4+, but Black frustrates that design by instituting an attack which soon decides the issue of the contest. 36. ... Bb5+ 37. Ke1 Rc8 38. Kd1 Kf5 39. Re1 Bc6 40. Ne3+ Kf4 41. Ke2 Bb5+ [and wins—New York Sun, July 23, 1891.] Mr. Kemeny has conducted the ending with masterly precision, and has carefully avoided the little tempting traps which promised to afford his opponent some slight relief. 42. Kd1 Kf3 43.  Rg1 [JSH: Steinitz gave the resulting position in his International Chess Magazine, June 1891, page 181.] Steinitz wrote that “Kemeny’s play has, however, -DrD-D-D been worthy of his score in the main, and especially his conduct of DpD-D-D- the endgame has been of a remarkably fine character. As an instance, pD-D-0-D I diagram the position which he arrived at in his first game against DlD-0-0p Hodges, by most skillful play, which he showed especially in working his king right into the enemy camp. The game then proceeded”: -D-g-D-D up 43. ... Ba4+ Black avoids the tempting 43. ... B¥e3, whereupon )-D-HkDP White would have released himself by the reply 44. Rg3+. 44. Ke1 -)-$-)-D Rc1+ 45.  Nd1 R¥d1+ 46.  R¥d1 B¥f2+ 47.  Kd2 B¥d1 and D-DKD-$- Black wins in a few moves with his pawns on the kingside. 48. R¥d1 e4 49.  Kc2 e3 50.  Rd3 g4 resigns 0–1 (History and Report, After 43. Rg1 pages 76–77, with annotations by Gilberg; International Chess Magazine, June 1891, page 181, with annotations by Steinitz). Three games played against his three strongest opponents, all won, and all won with the black pieces! How could Kemeny have been in a better position? His fourth game, completing

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

31

the first round of play, was against Howard J. Rogers, who, like Blackmar, had a distinguished career outside chess. Born on November 16, 1861, in Stephenstown, New York, Rogers developed his multifaceted life as a lawyer, an educator, and eventually as a Red Cross executive. He was admitted to the bar in 1887, four years before Kemeny and he met over the board and the same year he married Anne North Turner of New Haven, Connecticut, the woman he widowed forty years later. At the time Rogers met Kemeny, he also was the extremely active secretary of the NYSCA and chess editor of two Albany, New York, columns. In their game, Kemeny may well have been tired, as it was the third game of the day.

Kemeny–Howard J. Rogers [C23] Staats-Zeitung Cup Competition NYSCA, Skaneateles, July 22, 1891 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Nf3 Transposing the game into a Giuoco Piano. 3. ... Nf6 4. N¥e5 0–0 5. 0–0 d6 6. Nf3 N¥e4 7. d4 d5 8. Bd3 If 8. d¥c5 d¥c4 9. Q¥d8 R¥d8 10. Be3 Na6 with a slight advantage. 8. ... Bb6 9. Nc3 N¥c3 10. b¥c3 Bg4 10. ... Be6 is better; this leads to the loss of a pawn. 11. Re1 Nd7 12. a4 c6 13. Ba3 Re8 14. R¥e8+ Q¥e8 15. B¥h7+ White has had a mortgage on this pawn ever since his tenth move. 15. ... Kh8 16. Bd3 Nf6 17. h3 Bh5 18. g4 Bg6 -D-D-D-D 19. B¥g6 f¥g6 20. Ng5 Ne4 21. N¥e4 Q¥e4 22. Qd3 Re8 DpG-g-D23. Q¥e4 R¥e4 24. Kf1 Bd8 The correct move, blocking White’s pD-DkD-D pawn and threatening a win of a pawn. An interesting endgame fol)-DpD-0lows. 25. Re1 R¥e1+ 26. K¥e1 g5 27. Ke2 Kh7 28. Ke3 Kg6 29. Bc5 a6 Black has been aiming for a blocked position which is -DP)-DPD now assured. 30. c4 Bc7 31. c¥d5 c¥d5 32. Kd3 Kf6 33. c4 D-I-D-DP Ke6 Of course 33. ... d¥c4+ would let White through and lose the -D-D-D-D game; nor can White now play 34. c¥d4+, for Black’s reply 34. ... D-D-D-DK¥d5 would give him an effectual blockade of the board. 34. Bb4 After 46. ... Be7 g6 35. a5 Bd8 36. f3 Bc7 37. Kc3 Bd8 38. Kb3 Bc7 39. Be1 Bd8 40. Bd2 Bf6 41. Kc3 Bd8 42. Kd3 Be7 43. f4 g¥f4 44. B¥f4 g5 45. Bc7 Bf6 46. Kc3 Be7 47. Bb6 Although White is a pawn ahead and the bishops are of the same color, it is impossible for him to force a way through. 47. ... Bf6 48. Kb4 Be7+ 49.  Bc5 If 49. c5, Kd7 imprisoning the bishop. 49.  ... Bf6 50.  Bf8 B¥d4 And the game was declared drawn. 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (History and Report, pages 80–81). Thus, at the end of the first round of play, Kemeny found himself in clear first place, with 31 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2 points, followed closely by Hanham at 3–1. The other three competitors, starting with Hodges, were at least two points behind Kemeny with only four games left to play. Matters must have looked even better when the next day Blackmar made an elementary blunder at move 20, allowing Kemeny to checkmate him in two moves.

Kemeny–Able E. Blackmar [C78] Staats-Zeitung Cup Competition NYSCA, Skaneateles, July 23, 1891 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  Bb5 a6 4.  Ba4 Nf6 5.  0–0 5. d3 is more frequently adopted by the masters. 5. ... Bc5 6. d3 d6 7. Be3 Ba7 Losing time and placing the rook in an awkward position. 7. ... B¥e3 8. f¥e3 Ng4 9. Qe2 0–0 10. h3 Nh6 would equalize matters

32

EMIL KEMENY

and permit the advance of the f-pawn. 8. B¥a7 R¥a7 9. Ne1 0–0 10. B¥c6 b¥c6 11. f4 Qe7 12. Nc3 Ng4 13. Qf3 Not so good as 13. Qe2. 13. ... e¥f4 14. Q¥f4 f5 Well timed, and in the event of 14. ... f5 15. Nf3 f¥e4 16. Q¥e4 Q¥e4 17. N¥e4 Bd7 there is no apparent advantage on either side. 15. Nf3 Rb7 16. Rae1 Excellent play, which virtually determines the result of the game in favor of White. 16.  ... f¥e4 17.  R¥e4 R¥f4 18.  R¥e7 Nf6 19. Rfe1 Rfb4 19. ... h6 to prevent the entrance of the adverse knight would have offered him better chances. 20. Ng5 Bf5 A blunder; White now mates in two moves. 21. Re8+ N¥e8 22. R¥e8 mate. 1–0 (History and Report, pages 79–80, with annotations by Gilberg). Leading the field 41 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2 with what turned out to be only two games left, and both of those as White, Kemeny must have felt confident that the Staats-Zeitung cup was about to grace the rooms of the City Chess Club. That was not to be; inexplicably, Kemeny stumbled. Was it hallucination, as suggested by the annotator at White’s move 18 in the game below? Was it some sort of hubris, a feeling that the tournament was his to win, that prompted Kemeny to sacrifice his knight against Hodges? Hodges was at his most dangerous as a defensive player, waiting for his opponent to commit an error. Here, Kemeny obliged:

Kemeny–Albert B. Hodges [C62] Staats-Zeitung Cup Competition NYSCA, Skaneateles, July 23, 1891 1.  e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  Bb5 d6 Recommended by Mr. Steinitz in Modern Chess Instructor, but at variance with the popular verdict which is in favor of 3. ... Nf6. 4. d4 Bd7 5. 0–0 e¥d4 Mr. Steinitz’s preference for 3. ... d6 for Black, is based on the reason that it will shortly admit of the advance of ... f5, and with that aim in view he recommends here 5. ... Nge7. 6. B¥c6 b¥c6 7. N¥d4 Nf6 8. Nc3 Be7 9. f4 0–0 10. Qe2 An ill-considered move, entailing loss of time and position. He should have played 10. Qd3, following with the development of the king’s knight to the kingside. 10. ... Re8 Taking prompt advantage of White’s error. 11. Nf3 Bf8 12. Qd3 N¥e4 13. N¥e4 Bf5 14. Nfg5 d5 15. N¥f7 A clever conception too rashly followed up. 15.  ... B¥e4 16.  Nh6+ This needless sacrifice must have been actuated by some singular hallucination. The simple exchange of queens would have yielded him a perfectly even game. 16.  ... g¥h6 17.  Qg3+ Bg7 18.  f5 Qf6 19. Bd2 c5 20. Rae1 B¥f5 21. Qf3 Qd4+ 22. Kh1 22. Be3 would have been immediately fatal, as follows: 22. ... R¥e3 23. Q¥e3 (23. R¥e3 Re8 24. Rfe1 R¥e3 25. R¥e3 Q¥e3+ 26. Q¥e3 Bd4) 23. ... Q¥e3+ 24. R¥e3 Bd4 etc. 22.  ... Q¥d2 23.  R¥e8+ R¥e8 24.  Q¥f5 Kh8 25. Qg4 Q¥c2 26. h4 Rg8 27. Qd7 B¥b2 28. Q¥d5 Bd4 29. Kh2 Qd3 and wins. 0–1 (History and Report, pages 77–78, with annotations above by Gilberg; New Yorker StaatsZeitung, July 24, 1891). Kemeny faced Hanham in the tournament’s last and decisive game. Perhaps it was difficult for Kemeny to realize how quickly his chances were fading. Credit must be given Hanham, who found himself in excellent form at Skaneateles. Not only did he win the cup tournament, but he also won the Handicap Tournament’s First Class with a score of 6–1 with 1 draw. After that Hanham in turn defeated the winners of the Pawn and Two Class as well as the Knight Class, giving those odds, thereby becoming overall winner of the Handicap Tournament. First prize was $25. The decisive game was annotated in some detail by Steinitz for his New York Tribune column, and then republished in his magazine. Both players suffered under the handicap of playing three difficult games a day, but Hanham had the tougher circumstances as he also had to play his games in the Handicap. His win

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

33

over Kemeny gave the major two tournament victories at the same venue, almost simultaneously. The History and Report introduced the game to its readers by saying that “Black’s play after the gain of the exchange was dictated by plain common sense and nothing more was required. But, as is often the case, a very pretty position arises at last as the outcome of mere prudent play. It is a regular block position, in which White cannot stir. He had only a few waiting moves with his pawns, and when these are exhausted he cannot escape actual mate. After 36. b4, the only feasible move for White, the announcement of mate requires only simple calculation if Black answer 36. ... Bf3, to complete the block, and then continues with a waiting move like ... Re7 or ... Kh8.” Kemeny’s opening choice was suspect, allowing Hanham to transpose into his pet variation of the Philidor Defense.

Kemeny–Major J. Moore Hanham [C41] Staats-Zeitung Cup Competition NYSCA, Skaneateles, July 23, 1891 Includes annotations by Steinitz 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 d6 3.  Bc4 [Recommended as best in the Modern Chess Instructor. Apparently it is not as aggressive as 3. d4, but its tendency is to prevent Black from getting an open diagonal for his king bishop and to confine the same for a long time, which object is, we believe, better effected by the text move—Steinitz.] 3. d4 is the usual continuation. The text move is recommended by Mr. Steinitz, but from this point both players diverge from his lines of treatment. 3. ... c6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. d4 [As Black has loosened his d-pawn by his third move, the present advance is fair play, but generally 5. d3 is a shade better, and the pushing of the d-pawn further should be reserved until preparations are made by c3 for forming a center—Steinitz.] 5.  ... Qc7 [Mr. Hanham persistently favors Philidor’s Defense for the second party in the King’s Knight Opening, though he stands quite alone among modern public players with his partiality for that debut. But in the course of his continuous practice of this defense he has developed some new ideas which no doubt are difficult to disprove considering that Black’s plan of action is altogether of a waiting character. The last move is one of his innovations, but as it previously makes necessary the weakening of the d-pawn, it will hardly reconcile leading masters with the cramped position which Black obtains by this defense—Steinitz.] 6. Be3 Nf6 7. 0–0 0–0 8. Qd3 Nbd7 [A line of development which was first recommended and practiced by an English amateur, Mr. Lord, already on Black’s third move in reply to 3. d4. Mr. Hanham usually adopts it at various stages of his opening— Steinitz.] 9. Rad1 a6 [Preparing a neat little trap—Steinitz.] 10. Ne1 Ng4 11. Ne2 e¥d4 12. Q¥d4 [White does not perceive the opponent’s clever design. 12. B¥d4 was the correct reply. If then 12. ... b5 13. Bb3 c5 14. Bd5. But it is also worthy of notice that if 12. N¥d4, then 12. ... Nde5, followed by the exchange of both bishops for the knights, with the superior game, for White will be compelled to retake with the f-pawn when Black captures the queen bishop, and thus an ugly isolated and doubled center pawn will be formed on White’s e-file— Steinitz.] If then White seems to have been serenely unconscious of the snares prepared by his wily adversary, and of the three pieces with which he can capture the pawn, he selects the one that will involve him in the greatest difficulties. He should have taken the pawn with the bishop. 12. ... b5 13. e5 But Black’s last move aroused him to a sensibility of the threatened loss of the king’s bishop, and to avert that catastrophe he is now compelled to offer a lesser sacrifice. Had he played 13. Bd3 or Bb3, then would have followed 13.  ... c5 14. Qd5 Bb7 15. Qf5 N¥e3 16. f¥e3 c4 winning the piece. 13. ... Nd¥e5 14. Bd3 f5 [Simplification by exchanging both bishops was, we believe, more conducive to a speedy and at any rate an easier

34

EMIL KEMENY

victory, considering that Black, besides being a pawn ahead had the additional strong advantage of two bishops against two knights— Steinitz.] 15. h3 Nf6 16. c4 c5 17. Qc3 d5 At first glance this seems tempting, but is in reality a mistake, of which, however, his opponent fails to take proper advantage. 18.  c¥d5 [White could have now freed his game by 18. c¥b5, in which case Black obviously could not advance 18. ... d4, as White could capture that pawn with knight or bishop—Steinitz.] For had White here captured the bpawn instead, Black could not have advanced the d-pawn, for the reason that it could have been taken with impunity by either knight After 17. ... d5 or bishop; the penalty to Black for recapturing being the loss of his queen. 18. ... N¥d5 19. Bc4 [19. Qc1 would have probably turned out a better resource in this predicament—Steinitz.] 19. ... N¥c4 20. R¥d5 f4 [Very strongly pressing at the adverse most vulnerable point—Steinitz.] 1. B¥f4 [The loss of the exchange which this entails was compulsory, as Black’s attack would have become still stronger if he had retreated the bishop, for Black would then attack the rook by ... Bb7, followed by ... f3, breaking up the kingside—Steinitz.] A choice between Scylla and Charybdis. If 21. Bc1, Black replies with ... Bb7, following with ... f3, and makes a dangerous rent in the king’s quarters. 21. ... R¥f4 22. Qg3 Bd6 23. R¥d6 Q¥d6 24. N¥f4 Nd2 Which was, however, probably overlooked by White when he played 21. B¥f4. But in either event his game was beyond repair. 25. Qe3 Bd7 26. Nf3 N¥f1 27. K¥f1 c4 28. Ne1 Re8 29. Qc1 h6 30. Ne2 Bc6 31. Nc2 [A pointless move, which lays him badly open—Albany Evening Journal.] 31. ... B¥g2+ 32. Ke1 Qd3 33. Ne3 B¥h3 34. b3 Bg4 35. Ng3 c3 0–1 (Annotations by Steinitz New York Tribune, August 2, 1891, reprinted International Chess Magazine, July 1891, pages 220–221; History and Report, pages 68–69, with unattributed annotations above).

rDlD-®kD D-1-g-0p pD-D-h-D Dp0phpD-DPD-D-D D-!LG-DP P)-DN)PD D-DRHRI-

Thus Hanham took first prize in the tournament, finishing 5–1 with 2 draws, and the Manhattan Chess Club celebrated its first possession of the Staats-Zeitung Cup. Kemeny finished half a point back, at 5–2 with 1 draw, with Hodges finishing third just a further half point behind. Blackmar and Rogers were badly outclassed. Having established himself as the strongest player at the City Chess Club, and having performed well, if in the end with some disappointment, at Skaneateles, Kemeny decided to expand his metropolitan chess horizons. Not long before the NYSCA midsummer event, in May 1891, the venerable Manhattan Chess Club had finally crowned its current champion when Hanham defeated Albert Hodges 2–1 in a playoff for the club championship. The tournament’s conclusion had drawn significant attention from two of the greatest players in the world. Steinitz annotated all three playoff games first for his column in the New York Tribune and then republished them in his International Chess Magazine, while Isidor Gunsberg annotated them for readers of New York’s The World. Steinitz mentioned in his May 31, 1891, Tribune column that S. Lipschütz apparently had challenged the winner of the Hanham–Hodges playoff to a match with stakes of $250 a side, but nothing came of it. James Moore Hanham was born on January 4, 1840, in Woodville, Mississippi, and so was almost exactly 20 years older than Kemeny. As the American Chess Bulletin for January 1924 noted, Hanham’s family was of New England extraction, which apparently explains why someone born in Mississippi would in his early twenties find himself fighting with the Union forces in the American Civil War. The young Hanham enlisted with the Sixth Regiment, New York Volunteers, as a member of Company H. He received his commission as an ensign on April 25, 1861, less than two weeks after South Carolina forces fired on Fort Sumter, beginning the conflict. He was subsequently promoted to lieutenant and eventually to Major. Hanham

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

35

lived a long life, nearly outliving Kemeny, dying shortly before his eighty-fourth birthday, on December 30, 1923, in New York City. He stayed active and interested in chess to the end, the Bulletin remarking that his death “came a few days after a visit to the rooms of the Manhattan Chess Club.” The New York Times for January 1, 1924, said at his death that Hanham was “the oldest chess player of master rank” in the country. Hanham’s chess playing was at its zenith when Kemeny and he arranged a match, the older man with a great deal more experience than his Hungarian opponent. Some sense of his play can be grasped by the fact that he finished second, at 141 ⁄ 2–51 ⁄ 2 half a point behind Delmar, in a double-round tournament at the Manhattan Chess Club in 1885, as well as second behind the same player in another tournament at the club that year. Hanham had an advantage over many American players in that he did have some international experience. He had played at London and Nottingham in 1886, as well as in the grand Sixth American Chess Congress of 1889, and while his results had not been very good, he did gain a great deal of experience, with wins to his credit, in the latter affair, over Blackburne, Burn, Judd and Showalter, among others. But it was in club events that he excelled, and at no time did he play stronger than in 1891, when he won not only two tournaments at Skaneateles but also earlier in the year the Manhattan Chess Club championship. Just when Kemeny and Hanham first discussed the topic of a match is unknown, although it appears fairly certain Kemeny’s supporters were proposing it well before Hanham was aware of it. This is not surprising, since Hanham was a well-established figure on the metropolitan chess scene and Kemeny the newcomer. Gunsberg, the world championship candidate who had lost a hard-fought match with Steinitz 101 ⁄ 2–81 ⁄ 2 only a few months before, reported in his chess column in The World on June 14, 1891, that “a representative of The World” (most likely himself) had approached Hanham the Saturday before at the Manhattan Chess Club, indicating that another newspaper had announced that a match between Hanham and Kemeny had been arranged by the City Chess Club. Shown the clipping, Hanham said “I don’t know anything about it, and I have not received any notice yet, either verbally or in writing. But I am perfectly willing to play Mr. Kemeny, or anybody else the City Club may select, for stakes of a reasonable amount or for a purse.” Although nothing developed for several months, Gunsberg added his hopes that such a contest would take place. It is quite likely that Gunsberg knew Kemeny, or certainly knew about him, as the championship contender and columnist had himself been born in either Buda or Pest just six years before Kemeny. The match was soon arranged, although play had to wait. Just two weeks later Gunsberg announced that Hanham was spending the month of July in Elston, Virginia, a guest of the Lynchburg Chess Club, where he would be happy to meet fellow chessmen. According to the Albany Evening Journal for September 12, 1891, Hanham and Kemeny agreed the match winner would be the first player to reach five points. A curious feature was that the first two draws would not count. The prize was $100, a significant increase over the pot raised for Kemeny’s match the year before against Halpern. The games, as befitting the champions of the Manhattan and City Chess Clubs, were played alternately at the rooms of the two organizations. According to the Newark Sunday Call, September 13, 1891, the match began at the rooms of the City Chess Club on Monday evening, September 7. Kemeny’s playing a well-known and well-respected figure on the New York chess scene guaranteed that his play reached a much larger audience than it had before in his adopted country. Many of the games appeared in several newspapers, including the New York Sun, New York Tribune, New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, Albany Evening Journal, and New Orleans Times-Democrat. Of particular interest are the introductions to most of the games that Hartwig Cassel wrote for the Sun. Cassel’s coverage of Kemeny’s match with Hanham was another indication of the importance of the games to the New York chess community. Not surprisingly, the match

36

EMIL KEMENY

would be marred by errors on both sides, while highlighting aspects of each player’s playing style. Hanham’s idiosyncratic path would be seen as early as the very first move of the match. The Sun, providing its readers with the first game score on September 9, wrote, “The first game in the match between the chess experts, J. M. Hanham, and E. Kemeny, although unfortunately marred by a palpable error on the part of the Hungarian, who was in danger of forfeiting the game by exceeding the time limit, was an exceedingly fine one. The complications arisen by a dashing sacrifice, quite contrary to Hanham’s style, produced some fine maneuvers on both sides.” The Newark Sunday Call noted Kemeny resigned after four and a half hours. The Newark Sunday Call’s chess editor wrote in his September 20 column, “At present the most important thing in the chess world is the Hanham-Kemeny match. These two men are among the best players in their respective clubs—the Manhattan and the City—and their match is looked on which much interest by club members. Each side has its partisans.”

Major J. Moore Hanham–Kemeny [A00] Match Game 1 City Chess Club, New York, September 7, 1891 1. c3 A very unusual, if not eccentric opening, an inversion of the well-known defense analyzed by Herren Kann, of Vienna, and Caro, of Berlin, and first played, we believe, by Wilfried Paulsen vs. Mason at the Nuremberg congress of 1883. Schallopp, however, remarks of it that inasmuch as 1. ... c6 yields the second player a good defense, as much more should it avail him as the first player. 1. ... e5 In the game in question, the opening proceeded: 1. ... e6 2. e4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. d4 Nc6 5. Nf3 arriving at a sort of French Defense position. Major Hanham’s present continuation clearly indicates his desire to reach a situation analogous to his well-beloved Philidor. 2. e4 d5 3. d3 Bc5 3. ... d¥e4 4. Qa4+ Bd7 5. Q¥e4 Nc6 seems preferable as gaining development for Black. 4. Qc2 Nf6 5. Be2 Nc6 6. Nf3 Be6 7. 0– 0 Qd7 8.  Nbd2 0–0–0 8. ... 0–0 looks much more prudent. 9.  b4 d¥e4 10.  d¥e4 Bd6 11. Nb3 Ne7 12. b5 c5? Played, possibly, in the hopes that after 13. b¥c6, in reply, by 13. ... N¥c6 Black would re-establish his knight at c6—but as this was not forced, the move was simply a piece of hazardous play, exposing his king’s position. 13. c4 13. ... Ng6 14. Be3 Qe7 15. Rad1 Ng4 16. R¥d6! A pretty stroke, yielding nearly a full equivalent for the sacrificed exchange with a fine attack and the disruption of the adverse -Dk®-D-® queenside. 16. ... Q¥d6 17. B¥c5 Qc7 18. B¥a7 b6 19. c5! Seemingly forced. White menaced 20. Na5, when if 20. ... 0pD-1p0p B¥b3 b¥a5 (or 20. ... b¥c5) 21. b6!, while if 20. ... Q¥c5, 21. Q¥c5 b¥c5 -D-glDnD 22. b6, in either case with a powerful, if not winning, attack. The DP0-0-D- play all along here is very lively. 20. a¥b3 Q¥c5 21. Qa2 Rd6 -DPDPDnD 22. Ng5 [JSH: Missing the powerful 22. b4! If Black takes the b4 DND-GND- pawn, 23. Rc1+ K-moves 24. B¥b6 follows, and if 22. ... Qc3 23. Ng5 PDQDL)P) Nh6 24. Qa6+ Kd7 25. B¥b6. Either way Black can resign.] 22. ... D-DRDRI- Nh6 23. Bc4 Rf8 24. Qa6+ Kd7 25. Bd5 Ne7 26. Bc6+ N¥c6 27. B¥b6 Qc2 28. Qb7+ Ke8 29. Qc8+ Ke7 30. Qc7+ After 15. ... Ng4 Rd7 31.  Q¥c6 Rc8! Best. 31.  ... Q¥c6 would be bad if only as undoubling White’s pawns. 32. Q¥c2 R¥c2 33. b4 f6 34. Nh3 Nf7 35. Bc5+ Kd8 36. b6 Nd6 37. Ra1 Nc8 38. f4 Rb7 39. f¥e5 f¥e5 40. Rd1+ (see diagram, facing page) 40. ... Rd7? A fatal error, losing a piece and, practically, the game, which otherwise might have turned out a remise. 40. ... Ke8 was, of course, proper, and then if 41. Rd5 N¥b6 etc. 41. R¥d7+ K¥d7 42. b7 Kc7 43. b¥c8Q+ K¥c8 44. Ng5 h6

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

-Dni-D-D DrD-D-0p -)-D-D-D D-G-0-D-)-DPD-D D-D-D-DN -DrD-DP) D-DRD-I-

37

45. Nf7 Kc7 46. N¥e5 Re2 47. Bf8 R¥e4 48. B¥g7 h5 49. Nd3 Re3 50. Nf4 Re4 51. g3 Kd7 52. Bf8 h4 53. Kg2 Ke8 54. Bc5 Kf7 55. Kf3 h¥g3 Too plain a trap for a veteran like the Major! 56. h¥g3 Rc4 57. g4 Kf6 58. Nd3 Ke6 59. b5 Kd5 60. Be3 Rc3 61. Nf4+ Ke5 62. b6 Rb3 63. g5 Kf5 64. Ne2 Kg6 65. Nc1 Rb4 66. Nd3 Rb3 67. Ne5+ Kf5 68. Nc6 Rb1 69. Na5 1–0 (New Orleans Times-Democrat, September 13, 1891, with annotations above by James D. Séguin).

The Newark Sunday Call for September 13 reported: “The second game was played in the Manhattan Club rooms on WednesAfter 40. Rd1+ day evening. Kemeny opened with the Centre Gambit, which Hanham accepted. Kemeny played an attacking game throughout, and won in great style after two hours’ play, making the score one each.” In fact, the position was essentially even after White’s twenty-sixth move, but Black blundered, retaking with the wrong pawn, and resigned almost immediately. The times given are taken from The World for September 11, 1891, and show Kemeny playing much more slowly than his opponent.

Kemeny–Major J. Moore Hanham [C21] Match Game 2 Manhattan Chess Club, September 9, 1891 1. e4 e5 2. d4 e¥d4 3. Nf3 Bc5 4. Bc4 d6 5. 0–0 Nc6 5. ... c6 looks much better. 6. c3 d¥c3 7. N¥c3 Nf6 8. Bg5 0–0 9. Nd5 Bg4 10. N¥f6+ g¥f6 [0:30; 0:10] 11. Bh6 Re8 12. Qb3 Qd7 12. ... Be6 seems best; as also, does the same move at 14; and at 13, instead of ... R¥e4, ... Ne5 is surely better. 13. Nh4 R¥e4 14. Bd5 Nd4 15. Q¥b7 Ree8 [0:55; 0:32] 16. Bc4 Rab8 17. Qa6 d5? Looks like a blunder; even a novice should have seen the consequences. 17. ... Rb6 seems best. [JSH: Gunsberg in The World, September 11, 1891, suggested “Black should have played 17. ... Be2 with the following probable continuation, 18. B¥e2 N¥e2+ 19. Kh1 Qg4, and White’s attack is exhausted.”] 18.  Q¥f6 Bf8 19.  B¥f8 R¥f8 20.  Qg5+ Kh8 [1:00; 0:39] 21.  Qf6+ Kg8 22. Bd3 c5 23. Rfe1 Bh5 Though 23. ... Rb6 looks best, Black has no assuring resource. 24. Re7 Qc6 25. Qg5+ Bg6 [1:29; 0:52] -®-D-®kD 26.  B¥g6 f¥g6?? [JSH: A blunder throwing away the game; Black 0-D-$-Dp had to capture 26.  ... h¥g6.] 27.  Qh6 and wins [1:39; 0:55] 1–0 -DqD-DpD (New York Clipper, October 17, 1891). D-0pD-!The match stood 1–1 after two very uneven games, each player -D-h-D-H making errors despite playing at his home club. Although the play D-D-D-Dwas clearly bedeviled, commentators found the games of sufficient P)-D-)P) worth to include them in their publications. Steinitz, the country’s $-D-D-Imost important chess voice, included no fewer than six of the match After 26. B¥g6 games in his August 1891 International Chess Magazine.* The New York Sun for September 14, 1891, stated, “The third game of the match now pending between Hanham and Kemeny showed a vast improvement on the part of both players in comparison to the two earlier games, as it was free from gross *Late publishing plagued Steinitz’s magazine production, especially in the last year of its publication, which accounts for games played in September appearing in the August issue.

38

EMIL KEMENY

errors. Hanham, who had the move, again played the so-called Indian opening, which leads in fact to the conceding of the initiative to the second player, and generally brings about a position of the Philidor’s Knight game, with the difference, however, that White, which conducts the defense, is a move ahead. Kemeny developed his forces in excellent style. His fifth move, ... f5, was very well timed. Hanham, after a short-lived attack on the queenside, had to submit to the isolation of his d-pawn, and, as pointed out in the notes, should have lost it. Kemeny did not seize the opportunity, and Hanham, who played the middle part of the game in his old style, not only saved the pawn but might have emerged with the superior game, owing to the exposed position of the adverse king. His premature next rook move, however, led to a speedy loss of the game, while by reserving this rejoinder he not only would have avoided defeat, but would have retained the attack with certainly drawing, if not winning chances. The score is now Kemeny 2, Hanham 1.” For the first time, a home club saw its champion prevail.

Major J. Moore Hanham–Kemeny [C26] Match Game 3 City Chess Club, New York, September 11, 1891 With annotations by Steinitz 1. e4 e5 2. d3 The opening derives its name from its having been brought to notice in the games played by the late Mr. Cochrane, one of the most brilliant players of the old school, against some Indian Brahmins who generally favored the text move when first players. Mr. Hanham often adopts this opening, which is by no means a weak one. 2. ... Nc6 3. c3 Bc5 4. Nf3 But we believe that the main tendency of White’s second move should be the early advance of the f-pawn, which may lead to a formation of a center for White that might ultimately effect freedom for his king bishop. By the move adopted White blocks this useful advance for a long time at least. 4. ... d6 5. Be2 f5 This move gives Black now an indisputable superiority of position. 6.  Nbd2 Nf6 7.  0–0 0–0 The crowding and blocking system by 7. ... f4 might have been advisable here and could have been followed up with a harassing advance of the pawns on the kingside. 8. b4 Bb6 9. a4 a6 Better than 9. ... a5, whereupon after 10. Nc4, Black could not capture the b-pawn twice on account of the ultimate adverse attack by Qb3. 10. Nc4 Ba7 11. b5 Ne7 12. Bg5 Be6 13. Ncd2 h6 14. B¥f6 R¥f6 15. b¥a6 b¥a6 16. d4 White at last tries to release his bishop, but owing to previous mismanagement of his position the attempt subjects him to other and greater inconveniences than the confinement of that piece. 16. ... f¥e4 17. N¥e4 Rf4 18. Ng3 e¥d4 19. c¥d4 Bd5 20. Qd3 Qe8 21. Bd1 Qf7 22. Rc1 Bb6 23. Re1 Better than 23. Bc2 and laying a fine trap. 23. ... Kf8 Black, however, sees through it. If 23. ... 24. B¥f3 R¥d4? 25. R¥e7 Q¥e7 26. Qb3+ and wins a piece. -D-Dri-D B¥f3 But for all that we would have preferred 23. ... Nc6, with a more D-0-D-0Q direct attack against the d-pawn. 24. Re3 a5 Again ... Nc6 was the -g-0-1-0 more proper play. 25.  Ne2 Rf6 26.  Nc3 Bc4 27.  Qh7 Nf5 0-DlD-D- 28. Ne4 N¥e3 29.  f¥e3 White has very cleverly managed to PD-)-D-D improve his position. His weak d-pawn is now fortified, and he can D-D-)ND- soon prepare an attack on the open f-file. This was stronger than -D-DLDP) 29. N¥f6 Q¥f6 30. f¥e3 which would have allowed Black to gain D-$-D-I- time by 30. ... Bg8 or ... Bf7. 29. ... Bd5 Obviously Black could not play ... Rf5 or ... Rg6 on account of the rejoinder R¥c4. 30. N¥f6 Q¥f6 31. Be2 Re8 32. Rf1 An extraordinary error. After 31. ... Re8

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

39

32. Ne5 first, as suggested by the New York Sun, would have won. We believe the following was a likely continuation: 32. Ne5 Qg5 [JSH: This move loses for Black; with 32. ... Ke7, the position appears relatively even—e.g., 32. ... Ke7 33. Rf1 (33. Ng4 Qf7 34. Rf1 Qg8 ) 33. ... Qg5 34. Ng4 Rf8 35. h4 Q¥h4 36. Q¥g7+ Rf7 and no win is in sight.] 33. Ng6+ Kf7 34. Rf1+ Ke6 35. Nf4+ Kd7 36. h4 and wins. 32.  ... Be4 33.  Ng5 Q¥f1+ 34.  K¥f1 B¥h7 35. N¥h7+ Kg8 36. Bh5 R¥e3 37. Bg6 B¥d4 and wins 0–1 (International Chess Magazine, August 1891, pages 237–238, with annotations above by Steinitz). Gunsberg, apparently to clarify a point raised by a reader, remarked in his September 13, 1891, The World column that “The pending match between Messrs. Hanham and Kemeny has been erroneously referred to as between the representatives of their respective clubs. These gentlemen, however, do not represent anyone but themselves.” The New York Sun for September 16, 1891, explained how time pressure colored play in game 4: “After a hard fight, which lasted nearly four hours, Major Hanham succeeded in turning an apparent defeat into a well-earned victory.... The game was unquestionably the best played so far, as it abounded in highly interesting positions, and was marked at certain junctures by play of the highest order on both sides. Of course, it was not correct throughout, but just the absence of this element produces bright and sparkling games, whereas the correct play is unavoidably of a dull character. When the players began their fourth game [the play appeared to be] bringing about a draw, but Hanham put himself at a disadvantage right at the start by the premature advance of his c-pawn, which gave Kemeny an opportunity of isolating the adverse d-pawn, of which he promptly availed himself. On the twenty-ninth move Hanham made a diversion with his queen, threatening the White c-pawn. Kemeny by a deep and beautifully conceived stratagem provided first for an outlet for his king, and then at the cost of a pawn gained an entrance with his rook on the seventh line, whereupon Black’s game looked hopeless, the more so as he was hard pressed by time. In this difficult position the veteran gave a proof of the powerful resources at his command, for he selected the best defense, which not only freed his kingside from all danger, but gave him the attack. Kemeny, who had thus far played an up-hill game, was now in his turn driven by want of time, and in forming a pretty combination to liberate his knight by leaving his queen en prise, which, however, could not be taken with impunity, overlooked that Black could capture the rook. As soon as Hanham reached out his hand to administer the deadly check Kemeny resigned the game, which, although it ended in favor of his opponent, reflects great credit on the younger master. It seems that Kemeny would have no difficulty in defeating Hanham if the time limit were fifteen moves an hour instead of twenty. The score stands Hanham 2, Kemeny 2.” While the game featured ups and downs, review suggests a draw was not a discreditable outcome. Kemeny, however, misalculated on his thirty-seventh move and allows Black a mate in seven. Gunsberg remarked in The World for September 16, 1891, from which the elapsed time for the players is taken, that the game was hard fought, and that “Kemeny, pressed for time, lost his rook while laying a trap for his opponent.”

Kemeny–Major J. Moore Hanham [C11] Match Game 4 Manhattan Chess Club, New York, September 14, 1891 Includes annotations by Steinitz 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bd3 c5 [4. ... b6 is the correct move here—Sun.] 5. e¥d5 c¥d4 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. B¥d7+ Q¥d7 8. d¥e6 Q¥e6+ [8. ... f¥e6 was preferable and would have saved him a great deal of trouble—Sun.] 9. Nce2 If we recollect rightly the

40

EMIL KEMENY

whole variation up to this occurred in a game between Zukertort and Blackburne. White effects the isolation of the adverse d-pawn, but the latter can be well supported, and is rather strong in such a position. 9. ... Nc6 10. Nf3 Bb4+ [0:30; 0:15] 11. Bd2 Bc5 [Black’s last two moves are well judged play. He blocked the d-file by his previous check which was by no means a wasted move, as might appear. Delmar pointed out the following fine resource for Black: 11.  ... d3 12. c¥d3 0–0 followed by ... Rad8—Sun.] 12.  0–0 0–0 13.  Nf4 Qd7 14. Nd3 Bb6 15.  Bf4 The text move shows already that this is time lost. 15.  ... Rad8 [0:40; 0:26] 16.  Bg5 Qf5 17.  B¥f6 Q¥f6 18.  Qd2 Qd6 19.  a3 f6 “Re1 [JSH: Steinitz gives only “R–Ksq.”] was better than White’s last move, and the same may be said of this rejoinder, more especially as the latter leaves a weak spot at e6. 20. Qf4 Qd7 [0:56; 0:46] 21. Rfe1 Bc7 22. Qh4 Qd5 23. Nf4 B¥f4 24. Q¥f4 Qb5 25. h3 [Excellent and brilliant play—Sun.] There is some enterprise in this move after some dreary maneuvering on both sides, but the correctness of White’s venture in giving up the pawns on the queenside is doubtful. 25.  ... Q¥b2 [1:26; 1:25] [So far Black had conducted the defense admirably under the most adverse circumstances. Here, however, he could have simplified matters by ... d3, avoiding all further trouble—Sun.] 26. Rab1 Q¥c2 27. R¥b7 Ne5 There was no necessity for giving up the valuable d-pawn that we can see, and Black could have preserved it by ... Qg6. 28. N¥d4 28. N¥e5 f¥e5 29. Qg3 would have given White a much stronger attack. 28. ... Qc8 Black could now have equalized matters again by 28. ... Qc4, preparing the strong defense ... Rf7, while attacking the knight twice. 29. R¥a7 Ng6 30. Qe4 As Mr. Kemeny afterward pointed out that 30. Qe3 was much better and White then retained a pawn ahead with a very good game. 30. ... Rfe8 [1:55; 1:50] 31. Ne6 Compulsory, but this is just the mischief. The knight cannot get out again without serious loss. 31. ... Rd7 32. R¥d7 Q¥d7 33. Qc4 Qf7 Black’s two last moves were strongly to the point. He threatens now ... Nf8. 34. f4 f5 35. g4 f¥g4 36. f5 Desperate, but he had nothing good. If 36. h¥g4 N¥f4 and wins. 36.  ... Nh4 37.  Ng5 Committing suicide in preference to slow death. White may have had some faint hope that Black might capture the queen in a -D-DrDkD hurry, but of course this was rather too much even for a faint hope. D-D-Dq0p [JSH: White in fact blunders in a superior position; 37. Re3! preserves -D-DND-D the pressure. The f-pawn is immune, for if 37.  ... N¥f5 or 37.  ... 38. Ng5 wins outright. After 37. ... g6 38. f6! and play might D-D-DPD- Q¥f5, go 38. ... Nf3+ 39. Kf2 Nd2 40. Qd4 etc.] 37. ... R¥e1+ [1:58; 1:50] -DQD-Dph 0–1 (New York Sun, September 16, 1891; International Chess Magazine, )-D-D-DP August 1891, pages 238–239).

-D-D-D-D D-D-$-I-

With the match tied once again, play returned for the third time to the rooms of the City Chess Club. Spectators looking for After 36. ... Nh4 fireworks found them, although the club’s champion suffered his second loss in a row, allowing Hanham to take the lead. The New York Sun for September 18, 1891, told its readers that the fifth game “afforded much pleasure to the numerous spectators. Hanham’s opening move was again a paradox. It was a little insignificant move—a3—but this move has a history. In the famous match played in Paris between Paul Morphy and A. Anderssen, the German professor was at a loss which opening to chose against his young opponent, whose profound book knowledge and unprecedented memory gave him a decided advantage over all his rivals. Anderssen hit upon a3 as first move, expecting the reply e5. Anderssen then turned the game into a Sicilian Defense by 2. c4. The first move was of valuable assistance in this opening, for it prevented the entrance of the hostile knight at b4. Anderssen’s selection of this line of play was amply justified by the result, for honors were evenly divided between him and his great antagonist in the games of this

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

41

opening. At the tournament of Baden-Baden, when Anderssen had to play his last game against Paulsen, which was to decide whether Anderssen or Steinitz should carry off the first prize, the German master again resorted to the opening move, a3. He won the game and the tournament. When asked why he selected the above odd move, he replied ‘Because I had to avoid a draw brought about by a French Defense or Queen’s Gambit.’ It was at another historical time when the above-mentioned move was played. It was the decisive battle for the Emperor’s prize at Vienna in 1873, between England’s champion, Blackburne, and William Steinitz. The former replied with the king’s Fianchetto and Steinitz became Caesar. The Major had no such excuses as his illustrious predecessors. Kemeny played the best answer, namely ... d5, and White soon had the inferior game. The further development of the play is amply explained by the notes to the appended game. As usual, Kemeny was in trouble for time, which accounts for some weak moves on his part. The score is now Hanham 3, Kemeny 2.” The elapsed times appeared in The World for September 18, 1891; we learn as well that a third Hungarian in New York (along with Gunsberg and Kemeny), S. Lipschütz, watched the Wednesday night game. Samuel Loyd was umpire for Kemeny, and an M. Dale for Hanham. Gunsberg added that Hanham’s “penchant for odd opening moves,” brought forth “the disgust of his friends” this night. Kemeny again was in severe time trouble, and according to Gunsberg, could not adequately fight off both his foes: Hanham and the clock.

Major J. Moore Hanham–Kemeny [A00] Match Game 5 City Chess Club, New York, September 16, 1891 With annotations by Steinitz 1. a3 An opening introduced by Anderssen in his match against Morphy and afterward adopted by the editor in the tie match for chief prizes against Blackburne in the Vienna Tournament of 1873. We have, however, come to the conclusion since that it presents no advantages to neutralize our general objections against the advance of any wing pawn in the early part of the game. 1. ... d5 2. d4 c5 3. e3 e6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Be2 Nc6 6. 0–0 Bd7 7. c3 Weak and quite unnecessary. 7. ... c4 The best answer. It gives Black the superiority on the same wing. 8. Nbd2 Bd6 But he makes it difficult at least for himself to maintain his advantage by this development. 8. ... Be7 was much better. 9. e4 d¥e4 Rather than to allow his pawns to be broken, he ought to have retreated 9. ... Bc7 and then 10. ... Ng8 if White attacked by e5. 10. Ng5 Qc7 [0:16; 0:18] His right course was now 10. ... Na5. If then White captured the c-pawn Black could defend the center pawn by ... Bc6, and if 11. Nd¥e4 N¥e4 12. N¥e4 B¥h2+ 13. K¥h2 Qh4+ with a pawn ahead. 11. g3 e3 Again ... Na5 was much better. 12. N¥c4 e¥f2+ 13. R¥f2 h6 14. Nf3 Ne4 15. Rg2 g5 This advance promises little and only compromises the kingside, whereas 15. ... Ne7, with the view of ... Bc6, offered more prospects. 16. Bd3 Nf6 17.  Qe2 0–0–0 18.  b4 18. N¥d6+ Q¥d6 19. Ne5 would have been very strong as Black could not well exchange knights for if 19.  ... N¥e5 20. d¥e5 Qc5+ 21. Be3 Q¥e5 22. Bd4 and wins. 18. ... Nd5 19. Bb2 Rde8 20. N¥d6+ Q¥d6 [0:41; 1:00] 21. c4 Nc7 22. b5 Nd8 23. a4 g4 White threatened Ba3, followed by Qb2, and then Black’s queen was in danger on account of the further menace by c5 and Bc4. The text move was his best resource under the circumstances, but it further weakens his kingside. 24.  Ne5 h5 25. Qf2 Qb4 [1:12; 1:30] 26. d5 Rhf8 27. Q¥a7 e¥d5 [JSH: At this point White has a huge advantage but his next move throws most of it away.] 28. N¥d7 [JSH: Much better was 28. c¥d5 opening the c-file, when Black is helpless; only a computer would be capable of playing on with 28. ... Bc6, when after 29. d¥c6 b¥c6 30. Bf5+ Re6 31. Rc2 Black’s best hope

42

-Dkhr®-D !phlDpD-D-D-D-D DPDpH-Dp P1PD-DpD D-DLD-)-G-D-DR) $-D-D-IAfter 27. ... e¥d5

-D-h-D-D DpDkDpD-D-®-D-D DP!nD-Dp PD-D-DpD D-D-D-)-D-DRG-) D-DqDLIAfter 36. Bf2

EMIL KEMENY is to delay mate.] 28. ... Re1+ 29. R¥e1 Q¥e1+ 30. Bf1 K¥d7 [1:30; 1:45] 31. c¥d5 This seems best now. If 31. c5 instead, Black would have replied ... Qe3+, followed by ... Kc8. 31. ... Re8 32. d6 Nd5 33. Bd4 Re6 Black loses valuable time. 33. ... Ne3 would have forced exchange of bishops and queens with a good game, as White’s d-pawn was bound to fall afterward. 34.  Qc5 R¥d6 35. Re2 Qd1 [1:46; 1:56] 36. Bf2 Ne6 A grave error from which he cannot recover. 36. ... b6 was obviously the proper play. [JSH: As so often happens, Black, who had been defending well and making use of all the chances White has been giving him, goes wrong when equality is nearly at hand. With the simple 36. ... Q¥a4! removing the pawn but also removing White’s access to a7, Kemeny would have made further progress on Hanham’s part problematic. For instance, after 37. Rc2 b6 38. Qc8+ Ke7 39. Qf5 Ne6 40. Rd2 Qb3 Black has given his king cover and should be able to hold the position. With 36. ... Ne6, Kemeny begins a short series of poor decisions leading to his quick resignation. His bane, time trouble, likely accounted for these weak decisions.] 37. Qa7 Nd8 38. Re1 Qd2 39. a5 Rf6 40.  a6 Kc8 [1:56; 2:00] 41.  Qc5+ Kd7 42.  a7 [1:59; 2:03] 1–0 (International Chess Magazine, August 1891, pages 244–245, with annotations by Steinitz).

Now trailing 3–2, Kemeny appeared at the Manhattan Chess Club on Friday evening, September 18. Something of his strength of character shows through in his selection of the then unusual 1. Nf3 with which to open this crucial match game. Cassel wrote in the Sun for September 21, painting a detailed word picture of the back and forth nature of the contest: “The saying that games of chess, like books, have their fate received another illustration by the unexpected turn in the Hanham–Kemeny match. Irregularity seems to be the order in this contest. Kemeny, who had the move, selected an out-of-the-way opening, namely 1. Nf3, introduced by the late J. H. Zukertort. As usual, the game drifted into a Queen’s Gambit Declined, the beaten track of which was left by Hanham on the fourth move in playing ... c6, which is favored by Rosenthal, but condemned by every other authority. Kemeny then betrayed his lack of insight into this opening by an early exchange of pawns, which not only gave his opponent the majority of pawns on the queenside, but in consequence of which the latter also took possession of the open e-file, indefinitely postponing the advance of White’s e-pawn. A few moves later, Kemeny found himself in a serious predicament. He could not castle on the kingside without a pawn being doubled, while to castle on the queenside would have subjected him to a harassing attack. In consequence Kemeny delayed castling. Hanham isolated the adverse b-pawn, and Black had to mass his pieces on the queenside to protect the pawn. Hanham, by a beautiful piece of strategy, forced Black to castle on the kingside, and shifted his attack now from the kingside to the queenside and then back again. White’s pieces were helplessly stapled on the left corner of the board, when Hanham, by a brilliant tactical stroke, won two pawns. Kemeny then made a desperate attempt to obtain some kind of an attack with queen and knight, the only pieces he had in play, and now the unexpected happened. Hanham probably under the impression that he could win the knight, attacked it with his king, whereupon Kemeny checked, winning a clear piece. Now another fierce struggle commenced. Although a piece ahead, Kemeny had by no means a won game. His pieces were still unavailable for attacking purposes for a long time to come. His bishop was hemmed in

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

43

by his own pawns, while Hanham’s pieces were well posted, and he had a dangerous passed pawn on the h-file. Kemeny, who by the foregoing stroke of good luck had regained confidence, played admirably, and step by step brought his forces into action. Hanham, irritated by his previous error, missed his strongest continuation which, as pointed out in the notes would have given him a draw with possibilities of winning. Kemeny finally regained a pawn and he was bound to win, slowly but surely. When Hanham made a diversion with his bishop, not noticing that the adverse knight guarded the outlet for his king. Kemeny instantly solved the one-move problem by mating with the rooks. The game lasted nearly six hours and a half.”

Kemeny–Major J. Moore Hanham [D45] Match Game 6 Manhattan Chess Club, New York, September 18, 1891 1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. c4 c6 Played by Rosenthal against Zukertort, but inferior to ... c5. 5. Nc3 Be7 6. Bd2 Nbd7 7. c¥d5 Worse than a blunder. 7. ... e¥d5 8. Bd3 Bd6 9. Qc2 0–0 10. Ne2 Re8 11. Ng3 Nf8 12. Bc3 a5 13. a3 Bd7 14. Nf5 14. Ne5 looks more promising. 14. ... Bc7 15. Rc1 Ne4 16. Ng3 f5 17.  B¥e4 f¥e4 18.  Ng1 Ng6 19.  N1e2 b5 20.  b4 a¥b4 21. a¥b4 21. B¥b4 would have been far better. 21. ... Ra4 22. Ra1 rD-1rDkD R¥a1+ 23. B¥a1 Qe7 24. Bc3 Bd6 25. Qb2 Ra8 26. 0–0 D-glD-0p Ra4 27. Rb1 Qf8 28. Nc1 Qa8 29. Qd2 Nh4 30. Kf1 Qf8 -DpD-DnD Threatening ... Bh3. 31. Nce2 g5 32. Ng1 Bg4 33. Qb2 Qa8 DpDpD-D34. h3 Fatal, but White had no good moves at his disposal. 34. ... -0-)pD-D Be6 35.  N3e2 Nf5 36.  Nc1 Be7 37.  Nge2 Qf8 38.  Kg1 )-G-)-HBd6 39.  Be1 Nh4 40.  Ng3 B¥h3 Finely played. The bishop -DQDN)P) cannot be taken because of ... Qf3. 41. Qe2 B¥g2 42. Qg4 Kh8 D-$-I-DR 43. Nh5 h6 44. Qe6 Bf3 45. Nf6 Ra7 46. Nb3 Kg7 Throwing away a hard-earned victory which he might have secured by 46. ... After 20. ... a¥b4 Rf7 instead. 47.  Ne8+ Kh8 48.  N¥d6 Re7 49.  Qc8 Q¥c8 50. N¥c8 Rc7 51. Nb6 Bg4 52. Ra1 Nf3+ 53. Kg2 h5 If -D-D-1kD 53. ... N¥e1+ then 54. R¥e1 Rb7 55. Na8 Ra7 56. Ra1. 54. Bc3 Rf7 55. Kg3 Bf5 56.  Ra8+ Kg7 57.  Nc8 h4+ 58.  Kg2 h3+ D-D-D-Dp 59. Kh1 Rf6 60. Ra7+ Kf8 61. Nc5 Nh4 If 61. ... B¥c8, then -DpglD-D of course 62. Ra8. 62. Nb6 Rh6 62. ... Kg8, as pointed out by Dr. DpDpD-0Mintz, was his best plan here. White would have been compelled to r)-)pD-h retreat the rook to a2 (not either knight to d7, because of ... B¥d7 D-D-)-HP followed by ... R¥f2) whereupon Black would have good drawing if -!-D-)PD not winning chances. 63.  Nbd7+ Ke8 64.  Ne5 h2 65.  Nf7 DRH-G-IRf6 66.  Ne5 Rh6 67.  Rg7 Rh5 68.  Ncd7 Rh6 69.  Nb8 Nf3 70.  Nb¥c6 Bh3 71.  Rg8 mate. 1–0 (New Yorker StaatsAfter 40. Ng3 Zeitung, September 21, 1891, New York Sun, September 21, 1891, with unattributed annotations). Kemeny had tied the match, 3–3, after a lively game full of errors. He returned to his home club on Monday night, September 21, 1891, to face Hanham’s fourth marshalling of the White pieces, only to encounter 1. a3, as in the fifth game. This time, however, the Hungarian prevailed.

44

EMIL KEMENY

Major J. Moore Hanham–Kemeny [A00] Match Game 7 City Chess Club, New York, September 21, 1891 With annotations by Steinitz 1. a3 Anderssen played this first against Morphy and various other experts, including the editor, afterward adopted occasionally in important games. But we have since come to the conclusion that the strict adherence to the principle of not moving a wing pawn early is a sound guide in the development. The text move is no exception from this rule and not alone [sic: only—JSH] does it not present any advantage, but it rather tends to weaken the queenside. 1. ... d5 2. d4 c5 3. e3 Nf6 4. c3 Though apparently a move ahead for the purpose of protecting the gambit pawn, White could not yet capture it with comfort. If for instance 4. d¥c5 e6 5. b4 a5 6. Bb2 a¥b4 7. a¥b4 R¥a1 8. B¥a1 b6 and recovers the pawn with the better game. The move in the text is an attempt to steal a march for the purpose of capturing the pawn and holding the same, but it has no other good object, and it rather hampers his game. 4.  ... e6 5.  Nf3 Nc6 6.  Nbd2 Bd7 7.  Bd3 Bd6 8.  0–0 0–0 9.  Re1 e5 10. d¥e5 N¥e5 11.  N¥e5 B¥e5 12.  Nf3 With slight exceptions the position is almost identical with the one that arose in the same number of moves in the sixth game of last year’s contest between Messrs. Steinitz and Gunsberg. In that game Gunsberg was playing White and Steinitz Black. 12. ... Bd6 13. c4 Not good, as it establishes a majority of three to two pawns on the queenside for Black, while White’s majority on the other wing is worth very little, especially for the ending. 13. ... Bc6 14. c¥d5 N¥d5 15. e4 Nf4 Well and deeply calculated. 16. B¥f4 If 16. e5 B¥f3 17. Q¥f3 N¥d3 18. Q¥d3 B¥e5 with a pawn ahead. 16. ... B¥f4 17. Qc2 Qe7 18. Qc3 Rad8 19. g3 19. Rad1 was decidedly better on this and the next move. 19. ... Bc7 20. Rac1 Ba5 With very good judgment Black effects simplification much in his own favor. 21. Q¥a5 R¥d3 22. Nh4 b6 23. Qa6 Qd7 24.  a4 The sacrifice of the pawn does not mend matters. -D-®-®kD 24. Qc4 was the natural and much superior defense. 24. ... B¥a4 0pg-1p0p 25. Ra1 b5 26.  Nf5 Re8 27.  g4 This weakens the kingside -DlD-D-D without improving his game on any point in the least. 27. Rac1 was D-0-D-Dbetter resource. 27. ... Re6 28. Qa5 Rg6 29. Ne3 Rd2 29. ... -D-DPD-D aQb7 threatening ... Ra6 would have won more speedily. 30.  h3 )-!LDN)- 30. b3, with the view of following it up accordingly either by Q¥a7 -)-D-)-) or by Rad1 presented here good prospects of prolonging the defense. D-$-$-I- 30. ... h5 31. Nd5 R¥d5 Prompt and vigorous. The sacrifice of the exchange virtually settles the game. 32. e¥d5 h¥g4 33. Qd2 After 20. Rac1 He could not hold out much longer either by h4, as Black would have answered ... g3. 33. ... g¥h3+ 34. Kh1 If 34. Kf1, then also -D-D-DkD 34. ... Qg4, threatening ... h2. 34. ... Qg4 35. Rg1 Qf3+ 36. Kh2 0-DqDp0- Rg2+ 0–1 (International Chess Magazine, August 1891, pages 239– -D-D-DrD 241, with annotations above by Steinitz).

!p0PD-DlD-D-DpD D-D-D-DP -)-D-)-D $-D-$-IAfter 32. ... h¥g4

City Chess Club members must have been pleased, as Kemeny now took the lead 4–3. One more victory would bring him the match over his respected opponent. The one victory, however, proved more than elusive. Cassel wrote of the eighth game: “When, after nearly six hours’ play, Kemeny resigned the eighth game of his match with Hanham, the score was a tie. The veteran, flushed with victory, accepted the tribute offered by his friends with

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

45

his usual modest demeanor. The play of both men was of a high order and puzzling and intricate positions were plentiful. After the first moves it appeared as if Kemeny would have the best of the argument, for Hanham had weakened his kingside by an advance of his g-pawn, and the contingent of the City Chess Club looked for another short victory by their champion. But matters took an unexpected turn by Hanham boldly giving up a pawn on the eighteenth move. The veteran displayed an excellent judgment of position by this sacrifice, and, although it was impossible for him to master all the possibilities arising from the combination, he was sure of obtaining an attack which would satisfy every chess player. Kemeny accepted the offered pawn amid great excitement. Hanham at once set sail for White’s bishop, which was pinned by the adverse rook, but failed to avail himself of an opportunity to win the exchange. Kemeny defended himself most tenaciously and apparently had succeeded in releasing himself when Hanham, by a well-forestalled [JSH: sic; -foreseen? -conceived?] series of exchanges, brought his rook into the fray, and, attacking knight and rook’s pawn won the latter. The game now stood in favor of Black, but still the result was questionable. Hanham’s advanced rook’s pawn might fall, and even in the case of White losing one or two of his pawns on the kingside for it, it was a difficult win for the Major. But the veteran did not propose to miss his golden opportunity. He timely brought his knight into the thick of the battle with the double effect of cutting off the adverse king and supporting his passed pawn. Kemeny then hit upon an ingenious device. He offered an exchange of knights involving also a clever trap, for had Hanham continued by endeavoring to queen his rook’s pawn, Kemeny would have given up his rook for it, and White’s now passed d-pawn could not have been stopped. The Major, however, was on his guard, and he met the scheme in the most effective way, namely, by approaching the adverse d-pawn with his king, whereupon it had to fall. Kemeny then brought out an almost inexhaustible stock of resources, but to no avail. Hanham finally, with king, rook and two pawns against king and rook, gradually worked ahead, till after the eightieth move Kemeny could no longer offer resistance. The game was the best contested of the series, and reflects almost as much credit upon the defeated as upon the winner.” Although the Sun indicated it was giving the complete game score, only the first 55 moves were published. Apparently Kemeny played on for another 25 or 30 moves, depending on which source is followed. The Sun indicated resignation at move 80; the International Chess Magazine, at move 85.

Kemeny–Major J. Moore Hanham [D05] Match Game 8 Manhattan Chess Club, New York, September 23, 1891 With annotations by Steinitz 1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. c4 b6 5. Nc3 Bd6 6. Bd2 0–0 7. Bd3 Bb7 8. 0–0 Nbd7 9.  Rc1 c5 10.  c¥d5 e¥d5 11.  Ne2 The development has been of an ordinary character. But at this point we consider it absolutely imperative for White to exchange also the other pawn in order to weaken the adverse queenside. 11. ... Ne4 Much stronger was 11. ... c4 with a strong majority of pawns on the queenside, which could soon be made still more formidable by ... b5. 12. d¥c5 N¥d2 13. Q¥d2 b¥c5 14. Ng3 g6 15. Rfd1 15. Rfe1, where he moves to afterward was decidedly better. But he could not advance 15. e4 at once on account of the rejoinder 15. ... B¥g3 followed by ... d¥e4. 15. ... Nf6 16. Qc2 Qe7 17. b3 Rac8 18. Re1 The time lost here is of serious importance. 18. Nd2 was much superior. 18. ... c4 Exceedingly clever play, which deserves success. 19. b¥c4 d¥c4 20. B¥c4 Ba3 21. Rcd1 21. Rb1 Would not help him much on account of 21. ... Bd5 22. Nd2 Bb4

46

EMIL KEMENY

23. Ngf1 B¥c4 winning the exchange at least. 21. ... Ba6 The New York Sun rightly suggest here instead 21. ... B¥f3, followed by ... Qb4, winning the rook for the bishop, as White has nothing better than to defend by Rc1. 22.  Rd4 Qc5 23.  Nd2 Bb4 24.  Rc1 B¥d2 25. Q¥d2 Qa3 26. Rc3 Qa5 27. Nf1 Rc5 28. Rb3 A failure at a critical moment. The same rook should have moved to 28. Rcd3 and if then 28. ... B¥c4 -D-D-®kD 29. R¥c4 Q¥d2 30. N¥d2 R¥c4 31. N¥c4 Rc8 32. Nd2 Rc2 33. a4 0-D-DpDp maintaining the pawn with a very good position. 28.  ... B¥c4 lD-D-hpD 29. R¥c4 Q¥d2 30.  N¥d2 R¥c4 31.  N¥c4 Rc8 32.  Nd2 Black’s play since our last comment has been remarkably strong 1-®-D-D- Rc2 and to the point. 33. Nf1 R¥a2 34. f3 a5 35. e4 a4 36. Rb8+ -DL$-D-D Kg7 37. Ne3 Nd7 38. Ra8 Ne5 39. Kf1 a3 40. Ke1 Nd3+ D-$-)-D- 41. Kd1 Nb4 Black’s play in this ending is remarkably accurate, PD-!-)P) and he has handled the passed pawn and his rook and knight with D-D-DNI- great skill for winning objects. 42. Nd5 If 42. Ra4 Ra1+ 43. Kd2 a2 44. R¥b4 Rd1+ and should win. 42. ... N¥d5 43. e¥d5 Kf6 After 27. ... Rc5 Best in order to stop the dangerous advancing adverse d-pawn in proper time at e6. 44. g4 If 44. Re8, 44. ... R¥h2 followed by ... a2 wins with ease. 44. ... Ke5 45. h4 K¥d5 46. Ra4 h6 47. h5 g¥h5 48. g¥h5 Ke5 49. Kc1 Ra1+ 50. Kc2 f6 51. Ra5+ Kf4 52. Ra6 Kg5 53. Kb3 Rf1 54. f4+ R¥f4 55. K¥a3 K¥h5 Black has an easy task, especially as White’s king is far away and can be easily cut off from coming near the other side. 0–1 and 0–1 in 85 moves (International Chess Magazine, August 1891, pages 241–242, with annotations above by Steinitz; New York Sun, September 25, 1891). Under other circumstances, with such back-and-forth as this match had seen, the two protagonists might have called it a draw. A match between Hodges and Albin, for instance, played two years later, in August 1893, and also for a prize of $100, included a clause to split the money and declare the match drawn if the score reached 4–4. But that was not the case for Hanham and Kemeny. On Monday evening, September 28, 1891, the two men sat down at the City Club for their ninth game. Cassel told readers of his Sun column the details: “Major Hanham accomplished the task of defeating Kemeny in their set match. He fully ratified the expectations of his friends, and deserves great praise for the pluck with which he fought when the score had taken a most trying turn, and for wrenching the final game from his opponent on the latter’s own ground. To Kemeny also is credit due: he did all that his friends could hope for in reason. It was his maiden effort against a first-class player, and despite his lack of experience he made an excellent score. Hanham had the move in the ninth game, and he opened by advancing the d-pawn twice, followed by double step of the f-pawn. This peculiar opening is the invention of the late Preston Ware of Boston, who introduced it at the Fifth American Chess Congress, and afterward at the Vienna tournament in 1882. It is not a very good opening, as it leaves White’s e-pawn weak, but it is not easy to meet, as shown by the fact that Ware drew a game with Mackenzie and won another from Steinitz. Hanham soon obtained the better development, when Kemeny, in consequence of a premature knight move, lost a pawn on the fourteenth move. He then took desperate chances of breaking through on the kingside, but the veteran first displaced the hostile knight and then captured a second pawn. Black’s game was well nigh untenable, and on the twenty-sixth move he was confronted with a choice of evils, namely, to lose a third pawn or the exchange or a piece. Kemeny chose the latter way, whereupon the game was practically over. The Hungarian deferred the inevitable as long as he could, but on the forty-eighth move his last chance of obtaining some kind of an attack dwindled away, and so he resigned both the game and the match. He

2. A New York Reputation: 1890–1891

47

was the first to congratulate Hanham on his well-earned victory.” New York Sun, September 30, 1891. The times for the game are taken from the same day’s The World.

Major J. Moore Hanham—Kemeny [D00] Match Game 9 City Chess Club, New York, September 28 1891 With annotations by Steinitz 1. d4 d5 2. f4 The late Mr. Ware, of Boston, is the author of this opening, which he played with succession one game against Steinitz in the Vienna tournament of 1882, and he also drew a game against Mackenzie on the same occasion and with the same initial moves. The opening has otherwise found little favor among masters and justly so, for it leaves at once the e-pawn weak, as well as the squares at e3 and e4. But Mr. Hanham, who has had his early chess training in Boston, occasionally favors it and plays it with great skill. 2. ... c5 3. e3 Nc6 4. Nf3 e6 5. c3 Bd7 The bishop ought to be left at home in this opening for a long time, and Black should take care to leave the d-file open, as a menace to the adverse d-pawn, in case White pursue the usual plan of trying to get rid of his weak e-pawn by advancing it. Consistent with this idea, Black should also later on develop the king bishop at e7, and not at d6. 6. Bd3 Nf6 7. Nbd2 Bd6 8. Ne5 0–0 9. 0–0 Qe7 10. Ndf3 10. ... Ne4 [0:10; 0:20] A deplorable error for Black, which costs him a most important pawn. He does not recover from the loss. 11. N¥d7 Q¥d7 rD-D-®kD 12. B¥e4 d¥e4 13. Ng5 c¥d4 If 13. ... f5, White clearly wins a 0pDl1p0p piece by the reply 14. d¥c5. 14. N¥e4 White’s correct utilization of -Dngph-D the opponent’s mistake deserves very high praise. 14.  ... Bc7 D-0pH-D15. e¥d4 Ne7 [0:15; 0:40] 16. Qf3 b6 17. b3 f5 The weakening -D-)-)-D of his own e-pawn, which is caused by this advance, goes far from mending matters for his position and inferiority of force. 18. Nf2 D-)L)NDBd6 19.  Bb2 Rac8 Defensive maneuvering was more in order, P)-D-DP) and 19. ... Rae8 was better for that purpose. 20. Rae1 Nd5 [0:40; $-GQDRI0:50] 21.  g3 g5 Desperate, and in fact, suicidal. There was no After 10. Ndf3 prospect of compensation for the second pawn herewith sacrificed. 22. c4 Nc7 23. f¥g5 Qg7 24. Nh3 h6 25. Qh5 h¥g5 [0:49; 1:25] 26.  Q¥g5 Rce8 27.  Re2 27. Q¥g7+, followed by 28. c5, -D-D-®-D would have been even more effective here than later on, when actu- 0-h-®-ially done. 27. ... Re7 28. Q¥g7+ K¥g7 28. ... R¥g7, and if 29. d5 -0-gpD-D Rg6, would have still prolonged the fight, whereas the text move is D-D-DpDquite disastrous. 29. c5 White wins a piece in a very clever manner. -DP)-D-D 29. ... B¥g3 30. h¥g3 Kf7 [0:55; 1:37] 31. c¥b6 a¥b6 32. Ba3 DPD-D-)N Rg8 33. R¥f5+ Obviously 33. B¥e7 was the simplest and shortest PG-DRD-) way of winning. 33.  ... Ke8 34.  Rg5 Reg7 35.  R¥g7 R¥g7 D-D-DRI[1:00; 1:40] 36.  Kg2 Kd7 37.  Nf4 Rg8 38.  Bb2 b5 39.  d5 e¥d5 40. Be5 Na6 [1:05; 1:50] 41. N¥d5 Rg5 42. Nf4 Nb4 After 28. ... K¥g7 43. Rd2+ Kc6 44. Bc3 Na6 45. b4 Nb8 [1:15; 1:55] 46. Ne6 Rg6 47.  Nd8+ Kb6 48.  Bd4+ [1:18; 1:59] Practically it was all over long ago, but this must carry conviction to the most obstinate opposition. If Black move 48. ... Ka6, White will mate in a few moves by answering 49. Rd3. And if 48. ... Kc7, White wins easily by 49. Be5+ followed by B¥b8 or Nf7. 1–0 (New York Daily Tribune, October 4, 1891, with annotations above by Steinitz; New York Sun, September 30, 1891).

48

EMIL KEMENY

That Kemeny was the first to congratulate Hanham for pulling victory out of apparent defeat by winning the last two match games suggests a temperament on the Hungarian’s part completely in accord with the absence of ever a negative word appearing in the press regarding Kemeny’s behavior during play. While we will later see Kemeny’s more humorous side, unlike so many masters, we will never see him berate an opponent or make excuses for his play. Reaction to the match was mixed. Rogers, writing in his Albany Evening Journal column for October 3, 1891, remarked that “The match is not especially creditable to either player, and we know that both of them can put up much better chess than most of these games show.” Miron Hazeltine, the long-time chess editor of the New York Clipper, was less critical in his October 17, 1891, column: “The Hanham-Kemeny match resulted in favor of the veteran Major, but how closely they are matched is shown by the record. Five victories carried the match. They came to four all, and the Major won the deciding game. We understand that this is Mr. Kemeny’s first set contest with a master of known name and prowess, so that he has every reason to look forward to a distinguished future.” (One can only wonder what Jacob Halpern, Kemeny’s first match opponent, thought of such statements by Hazeltine.) But Steinitz, in writing about the match as a whole in his October 4, 1891, New York Tribune column, perceptively observed, “The contest is one of the closest on record and the strength of the players was so nearly balanced that both parties come out with honors from the struggle. Major Hanham’s pluck and spirit in winning the last two games when his opponent was one ahead with only one more to win deserves special praise. As a matter of course blunders were committed on both sides, but they were of no graver character than often occur between the best masters. Such breakdowns are unavoidable in exciting contests and under time pressure.” Kemeny had, even in losing the match, not only established his chess reputation in New York City, but had earned respect for his play from the world champion, then, and for many years, one of the finest judges of chess talent in both Europe and the United States. Within a year and a half of his starting playing in the United States, the Hungarian immigrant had placed himself among the strongest amateur players in the country.

3

New York Master: 1891–1892 “The City Chess Club of New York is much elated over the winning of the Ottendorfer chess trophy by their representative, Emil Kemeny, in the tournament at Skaneateles. The handsome cup is on exhibition at the rooms, 126 Second avenue, and admiring visitors congratulate the young Hungarian on his success.”—Brooklyn Standard-Union, August 20, 1892

Although the extraordinary finish to his match with the Manhattan’s champion, Hanham, saw Kemeny lose the contest, 5–4, this hardly ended his chess play for the year. Indeed, the match’s conclusion did not end his chess play for the week, as the very next night saw the City Chess Club’s champion involved in competitive chess once again. On Tuesday, September

3. New York Master: 1891–1892

49

29, 1891, Kemeny and 19 others entered a “free for all” handicap tournament taking place at the club’s rooms. Cassel recognized the psychological shift from tense match play between club champions to intraclub competition, and mentioned the distinction in his remarks on the City Chess Club event in his October 1, 1891, New York Sun article: “There is a certain charm,” he wrote, “about all chess contests which are fought en famille. A match such as the one just completed between Hanham and Kemeny is of too great an importance to the principals and their backers. If the principal loses, the whole club gets a ‘knockout,’ which is, to say the least, not pleasant. But when members of the same club meet over the checkered board, then all is serene and pleasant. A stranger visiting the City Club on Tuesday night would have noticed the comfortable looks of the City men.” According to Cassel, games were “won and lost in a sportsmanlike fashion” in the Handicap, and some interesting chess played. Cassel then gave the result of each of the four rounds. Although the use of Swiss System chess was allegedly introduced in this country about 1947, with the United States Open of that year, generations before that a modified knockout system was used in club and state competitions. Odds were given in the City Club event, to make the competition interesting for everyone, duffer and master alike. In the first round Kemeny defeated a player named Lehmaler, and although odds were surely given none were noted in the Sun for October 1, 1891, which reported the event. Halpern lost his first round game to an unknown and found himself out of the running. In the second round Kemeny won again, this time against a player named Yeaton. Cassel provided the game. Yeaton played well enough until an unfortunate king move landed him in overwhelming difficulty.

Kemeny–Yeaton City Chess Club Handicap, Round 2 September 29, 1891 Remove White’s Queen’s Knight 1. e4 d5 2. e5 Bf5 3. h4 Threatening to catch the bishop; but Black evidently has been there before. 3. ... h6 4. g4 Bh7 5. d3 c5 6. f4 e6 7. Bg2 Nc6 8. Be3 Nb4 9. a3 Nc6 10. Nf3 Nge7 11. B¥c5 Ng6 12. Be3 Be7 13. g5 h¥g5 14. h¥g5 Bg8 15. R¥h8 N¥h8 16. Qe2 Qd7 17. b4 0–0–0 As it is generally the case in games played at heavy odds, Black’s persistent efforts to bring about an exchange of pieces get him finally into trouble. He has now to castle in face of the coming attack. -DkD-Dlh 18. b5 Nb8 19.  c4 d¥c4 20.  Rc1 Q¥b5 21.  R¥c4+ Nc6 22. Nd4 Qa5+ 23. Bd2 Q¥a3 24. N¥c6 b¥c6 25. Qe4 Rd5 0-D-gp026. R¥c6+ Kd7 [JSH: A bad square for the king, and equivalent to -DRDpD-D resignation; Black should have played 26. ... Kd8. Instead, in a few D-Dr)-)moves White’s queen and bishops cut Black to pieces while Black’s -D-DQ)-D queen’s bishop and knight, occupying g8 and h8, merely look on.] 1-DPD-D27. Qc4 Rc5 28. R¥c5 Q¥c5 29. Qa4+ White now finishes off -D-G-DLD with a few ponderous strokes. 29. ... Kc7 30. Ba5+ Kb8 31. Qe8+ D-D-I-DQc8 32. Qb5+ Qb7 33. Q¥b7 mate. 1–0 (New York Sun, October 1, 1891, with annotations by Cassel). After 26. R¥d6+ By the third round only four players were left. Kemeny defeated his opponent to stand 3–0, while a player named Doyle quickly ended F. Huntington’s hopes. Kemeny faced Doyle

50

EMIL KEMENY

the next night, Wednesday, September 30, and defeated him in 80 moves to win the City Chess Club Handicap tournament. Cassel’s Sun column also mentioned that the club would “enjoy a very lively season,” including numerous events. Simultaneous exhibitions by W. S. Huntington, Jacob Halpern, Sam Loyd, W. J. Ferris (the last named a strong Delaware player also associated with Philadelphia’s Franklin Chess Club), and Kemeny were expected. Kemeny was in fact scheduled to give two simultaneous exhibitions at the club, one on November 7 and another on November 21, 1891. The City Chess Club championship would take place between November 15, 1891, and March, 1892. Two chess problem solving tournaments would also be sponsored by the club. Cassel may have confused the City Chess Club events and their starting dates, or else the club changed times. Gunsberg had, as early as September 18, 1891, reported that the first City Chess Club championship had begun on September 15, with entrants including J. Eisenmann, J. Halpern, L. Hein, W. S. Huntington, E. Kemeny, S. Loyd and C. Nugent. Games were played throughout October, including one Kemeny played against the well-known problemist, Sam Loyd. Samuel Loyd was born in Philadelphia on January 30, 1841. He won his reputation through his development of numerous puzzles and games, and although remembered today by chess players primarily for his hundreds of extraordinary chess problems, Loyd also competed in many chess tournaments and matches. His practical success, however, did not compare to his reputation for problem composition. Loyd played at Paris 1867, a double–round robin won by Kolisch 21–3, over Winawer and Steinitz, 191 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2, but finished far down in the tournament crosstable with a score of 61 ⁄ 2–171 ⁄ 2. His score against the top six finishers was a sorry 0–12. Loyd could, however, as a club and local New York player, perform with far greater success. In 1886 he finished third, behind Delmar and Hanham, in a New York Chess Club tournament. In the game that follows, Loyd allows Kemeny to develop overwhelming pressure on the e-file, finally mismanaging the tactics involved after a problem-like escape. The score is given as it appeared in The World, Gunsberg’s column, but note the game variation that appeared in the New York Recorder, one of Loyd’s own chess columns, which gives an alternative line for moves 7 through 14, and which cuts off at the crucial point, 18. Nd5.

Kemeny–Samuel Loyd [C62] City Chess Club Championship New York, 1891 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 e¥d4 4. ... Bd7 to be followed by ... Nge7, seems to be Black’s best continuation. 5.  0–0 A novelty which consideration. We, however, prefer 5. N¥d4 at once. 5. ... rD-1kgn® deserves Bd7 6.  B¥c6 B¥c6 6.  ... b¥c6 would have been preferable. 0p0-Dp0p 7. N¥d4 [JSH: Here Loyd’s Recorder and Gunsberg’s The World differ. -Dl0-D-D Loyd’s version in the New York Recorder, November 7, 1891, runs: D-D-D-D- 7. Re1 Nf6 8. Bg5 Be7 9. N¥d4 Qd7 10. N¥c6 Q¥c6 11. e5 d¥e5 -D-0PD-D 12. R¥e5 Rd8 13. Qe2 Rd7 14. Nc3 Kd8, and now returns to The D-D-DND- World’s version: 15. Re1 Kc8 16. R¥e7 R¥e7 17. Q¥e7 Re8 18. Nd5, P)PD-)P) but cuts the game off at this crucial point.] 7. ... Qd7 He cannot $NGQDRI- well afford to lose time by retiring the bishop, for White could then play e5, which pawn he was bound to recover with the better game. 8. Nc3 Nf6 He ought to have castled here or on the next move. After 6. ... B¥c6

3. New York Master: 1891–1892 9. Re1 Be7 10.  N¥c6 Q¥c6 11.  e5 d¥e5 12.  R¥e5 Rd8 13. Qe2 Rd7 14. Bg5 Kd8 15. Re1 Kc8 An ingenious device which ought to have led him out of all difficulties. 16. R¥e7 R¥e7 17. Q¥e7 Re8 18. Nd5 Q¥d5 A stupendous blunder! 18. ... Kb8 was his move. White had nothing better than 19. Qb4 whereupon after 19. ... N¥d5 20. R¥e8+ Q¥e8 21. Qd2 f6 the game would have been even. [JSH: Much better for White is 19. Q¥c7+ Q¥c7 20. R¥e8+ N¥e8 21. N¥c7 K¥c7 22. Kf1, but of course this is nowhere near the decisive finish Black allows with his move.] 19.  Q¥e8+ N¥e8 20. R¥e8+ Kd7 21. Rd8+ Ke6 22. R¥d5 K¥d5 23. Bd8 1– 0 (The World [New York], October 18, 1891, with annotations above by Gunsberg).

51

-DkDrD-D 0p0-!p0p -DqD-h-D D-DND-G-D-D-D-D D-D-D-DP)PD-)P) D-D-$-IAfter 18. Nd5

The Sun for October 20, 1891, indicated the seven player City Club championship was well underway. Halpern led with 5–1, Loyd stood at 7–2, and Kemeny was not far behind. C. Nugent, W. S. Huntington and two others were trailing. According to Luke D. Broughton, chess editor of the Brooklyn Standard-Union, in his November 21 column, the City Chess Club championship ended Saturday, November 14, 1891. Halpern gained the club title, finishing the seven player, double-round event with a score of 81 ⁄ 2–31 ⁄ 2, followed by Sam Loyd, second, with 8–4, and Kemeny, third, at 7–5. One reason for Kemeny’s poor showing in the City Chess Club championship was the play of a young man known only from his appearance in this event, in which he finished with a respectable 6–6 score. His name was L. Hein, his first name not appearing in any surviving reference. Hein not only defeated Kemeny, but also momentarily, and near the end of the championship, knocked Halpern out of the lead. Gunsberg wrote in his November 13, 1891, The World column: “One of the recent sensations in local chess circles was the game through which the expert, J. Halpern, lost his lead in the pending championship tournament of the City Chess Club. His adversary, Mr. L. Hein, a young player of great talent, has proved his strength before by defeating the City Club’s star, E. Kemeny, and he will undoubtedly win a tournament in the near future. Halpern adopted a French defense against his young opponent, but the latter’s aggressive tactics were too much for the veteran, who found himself a pawn behind on the thirty-fifth move. Still Halpern flattered himself that he would be able to escape with a draw, as both players remained with bishops of opposite colors on the board.” Gunsberg then gave the position after 40 moves: L. Hein–Jacob Halpern City Chess Club Championship New York, 1891

41. Ke6 Bd8 42.  Kd7 Bc7 43.  Ke7 winning a second pawn. Halpern vainly endeavored to check the rush of the adverse passed pawns, but had to succumb on the fifty-third move. 1–0 (The World (New York), November 13, 1891). Gunsberg had earlier published Hein’s victory over Kemeny, in which the latter attempted an unwarranted attack, only to find himself on the losing end of a bishop for five (!) pawns endgame. Chances such as Kemeny took in this game help explain why the old Columbia Chess Club champion of the year before did not repeat his success in the club’s new incarnation.

wdwdwdwd dpgwdBdw wiwdw0wd 0wdKdP0w Pdw)wdPd dwdwdwdw w)wdwdwd dwdwdwdw After Black’s 40th move

52

EMIL KEMENY

Kemeny–L. Hein [C21] City Chess Club Championship New York, 1891 1. e4 e5 2. d4 e¥d4 3. c3 d¥c3 4. Bc4 Bc5 Mr. Steinitz recommends here 4. ... c¥b2 5. B¥b2 d6 to be followed by ... Nh6. 5. Nf3 He might have recovered one of the pawns by 5. B¥f7+ followed by Qh5+, if Black takes the bishop. 5.  ... c¥b2 6.  B¥b2 Bb4+ 7. Nbd2 7. Nc3 was better. The queen gets subsequently posted at d2, where she has less scope than at d1. 7. ... B¥d2+ 8. Q¥d2 Nf6 9. e5 d5 10. 0–0–0 Ne4 11. Qe3 c6 12. Bd3 Bf5 13.  Nd4 Bg6 14.  f3 Qg5 A clever rejoinder which breaks the force of White’s attack. 15. f4 Q¥g2 16. Rhf1 Q¥h2 17. f5 Bh5 18. Nf3 B¥f3 19. R¥f3 Qh6 20. Rf4 Nc5 Another pretty wrinkle. White, however, having sacrificed so much, should in our opinion have gone one step further and, giving up the exchange, take his chances with the attack ensuing from Q¥c5. 21. Bc2 Nba6 22. Kb1 Nb4 23. e6 f¥e6 24. Re1 N¥c2 25. K¥c2 0–0–0 26.  Be5 Ne4 27.  Q¥a7 Qh2+ 28.  Kb1 Nc3+ 29.  Ka1 Q¥a2+ Black simplifies matters. With five pawns for the piece he is bound to win. 30. Q¥a2 N¥a2 31. K¥a2 e¥f5 32. R¥f5 Rhf8 33. Rg5 g6 34. Rg3 Rde8 35. Ra3 Rf2+ 36. Kb1 Rf5 37. Bg3 R¥e1+ 38. B¥e1 Rf1 39. Re3 d4 and Black finally won. 0–1 (The World [New York], October 4, 1891, with annotations by Gunsberg). Hein’s victory over tournament-leader Halpern gave added drama to the last round encounter between Halpern and the new leader, Loyd. The tournament ended Saturday, November 14, with the following game, in which Halpern announced mate in six. Loyd resigned, and the former took the club championship by half a point: Halpern–Loyd [C44], City Chess Club Championship, November 14, 1891. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 e¥d4 5. e5 Ng8 6. c¥d4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 d5 8. Bb5 Nge7 9. 0–0 B¥c3 10. b¥c3 0–0 11. Ba3 Bd7 12. Bd3 Re8 13. Ng5 Bf5 14. B¥f5 N¥f5 15.  Qh5 Nh6 16.  f4 Qd7 17.  f5 Nd8 18.  h3 Qc6 19.  f6 Ne6 20. N¥e6 Q¥e6 21. Qg5 1–0 (The World [New York], November 16, 1891). On Saturday, November 21, 1891, Kemeny entertained 12 members of the Brooklyn Chess Club in a simultaneous exhibition. In mentioning that morning Kemeny’s planned entertainment, the chess editor of the Brooklyn Standard-Union clarified how such performances took place at that club: “In an exhibition of this kind twelve chess tables are placed in a circle; a selected team of club members occupy the outside seats, the expert going from board to board within the circle. This method of play seems to be a stimulant to rapid thought; the mind of the expert, concentrated upon the games, retains all twelve so vividly that, after going to the other eleven and returning to the first, it is as though he had not left it, the position being perfectly familiar. Very brilliant combinations often occur in games of this kind.” Kemeny finished the evening 10–2, although his path to that result was not an easy one. The exhibition received a fair write-up in the Sun two days later, November 23, 1891. Cassel wrote “On Saturday evening the initial entertainment and reception of the season of the Brooklyn Chess Club was held, E. Kemeny of the City club playing simultaneously against twelve members. For some reason or other the strongest players were either absent or came too late. The team of twelve which was encountered by the visitor was not a strong team, and as a member of the Brooklyn Chess Club remarked, Kemeny had somewhat of a soft snap. “Kemeny scored first blood, Breckenridge throwing up the sponge after losing his queen. Kistler, who lost a piece on the sixteenth move, soon followed suit, and when, a short time later, Park’s king was driven into the enemy’s camp, and Prudon’s monarch met a like fate, things looked decidedly one sided, the score being Kemeny 4, Brooklyn 0.

3. New York Master: 1891–1892

53

“Young Souweine enlivened up matters a little by defeating the single player in good style. As will be seen by the following score, he might have shortened matters by playing ... Qh6 on his twenty-first move, thus threatening ... Q¥h2 mate and also ... Q¥c1+.” Arthur Jacob Souweine, born Christmas Day, 1872, was only 18 when he won against the visiting master.

Kemeny–Arthur Jacob Souweine [C42] Simultaneous Exhibition (1 of 12) Brooklyn Chess Club, November 21, 1891 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. N¥e5 d6 4. Nf3 N¥e4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Be7 7. 0–0 0–0 8. c4 Bg4 9. Nc3 N¥c3 10. b¥c3 d¥c4 11. B¥c4 Nc6 12. Bd3 B¥f3 13. Q¥f3 Bd6 14. Qg4 Qf6 15. f4? [JSH: The question mark appears in the original, and for good reason—the move throws away Kemeny’s advantage. Much better was taking advantage of the semi-open and open files: 15. Rb1 Rab8 16. Re1 rD-D-®kD with great pressure; Kemeny’s move overlooks Black’s simple tactical 0p0-Dp0p shot.] 15. ... N¥d4! 16. f5 Nc6 17. Bf4 Ne5 18. B¥e5 B¥e5 -Dng-1-D 19. Rac1 B¥c3 20.  Kh1 Be5 21.  Rf3 [JSH: Another blunder.] D-D-D-D21. ... Rad8 [JSH: As Cassel suggested, 21. ... Qh6 wins out of hand because of the double threat at h2 and c1.] 22. Re3 Rd4 [JSH: 22. ... -D-)-DQD R¥d3! Black again misses a sure thing, for if 23. R¥d3 Black again has D-)LD-D23. ... Qh6.] 23. Qe2 Bf4 0–1 (New York Sun, November 23, 1891). PD-D-)P)

$-G-DRI-

As happens with simultaneous exhibitions, Kemeny’s 10–2 After 14. ... Qf6 record inspired the publishing of only two games in full: the two he lost. In addition to Souweine’s win, Cassel gave his readers the exhibition player’s game against Chinnock, although not before adding that after his loss to Souweine, “Then Kemeny had his inning again. Bonn and Colwell succumbed to the Hungarian’s attack. Dr. Broughton spoiled a very well-conducted game by a final blunder, and cried off almost simultaneously with Murray, whose queen was caught in the middle of the board. ‘Grandpapa’ Shepard, who had lost a piece right in the early part of the game, fought bravely against odds, but had to join the losers. At 11:30 o’clock Kemeny resigned to Chinnock.”

Kemeny–C. E. Chinnock [C31] Simultaneous Exhibition (1 of 12) Brooklyn Chess Club, November 21, 1891 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e¥d5 N¥d5 5. d4 N¥c3 6. b¥c3 e4 7. Bc4 f5 8.  Ne2 Qf6 9.  0–0 c6 10.  Ng3 g6 11.  Rb1 Nd7 12.  Bb3 Nb6 13.  c4 Bg7 14. Kh1 Be6 15. d5 Rd8 16. Qe2 c¥d5 17. c¥d5 B¥d5 18. B¥d5 R¥d5 19. Ba3 Kf7 20. c4 Rd3 21. Bb2 Qe7 22. N¥f5 g¥f5 23. Qh5+ Ke6 24. g4 Qf7 25. B¥g7 Q¥h5 26.  g¥h5 Rc8 27.  Rb5 N¥c4 28.  Rc1 Ne3 29.  Rg1 Rc2 30.  Re5+ Kd7 31. Bf6 Ng4 0–1 (New York Sun, November 23, 1891). In the evening’s last game, against Frederick Rose, Kemeny sacrificed a knight, no doubt to make the game more interesting for his opponent and the spectators. Rose had been the treasurer for the Sixth American Chess Congress two years earlier, and just before Kemeny’s simultaneous exhibition was played, donated an 1889 Congress set to the club. The club

54

EMIL KEMENY

planned on having each piece stamped for identification, and keeping the set intact. Even then, mementos of the great 1889 tournament were becoming scarce. Cassel annotated a snippet of Kemeny’s game against Rose:

Kemeny–Frederick Rose Simultaneous Exhibition (1 of 12) Brooklyn Chess Club, November 21, 1891

rdb1w4wd 0pdwgw0p wdpdkdwd dwdn)ndw wdBdNdwd dwdwGQdw P)Pdw)P) $wdwdRIw

The game between Kemeny and Rose was by far the most interesting of the evening. It was a King’s Bishop opening, but soon assumed the character of a Two Knights Defense, Kemeny having sacrificed his knight at f7. In the [accompanying] position, Kemeny played 17. Rad1 and the game proceeded 17. ... Nf¥e3 18. Q¥e3 Kf7 19.  Nd6+ Kg8 20.  B¥d5+ c¥d5 21.  R¥d5 which left White with three pawns against a piece. Black could have accomplished a draw at any time, but Rose was determined to win, and lost finally. 1–0 (New York Sun, November 23, 1891).

The following game was said to have been played in the City Chess Club’s Thanksgiving Day tournament. Details regarding such an event could not be found. The game appeared in the Providence Sunday Journal for December 6, 1891, and so comes from a Rhode Island source rather than a local New York one, although it is attributed to the New York Sun. It is conceivable the game was instead played in the on-going City Chess Club championship or perhaps in the club’s Handicap event that year.

After Black’s 16th move

W. S. Huntington–Kemeny [A00] Thanksgiving Day Tournament City Chess Club, November 1891 1. b4 A whimsical opening. Sometimes called the Hoboken gambit. It is not to be recommended, as it weakens the queenside. 1. ... c5 Of course, Black is bound to recover this pawn; but 1. ... d5 is preferable. 2. b¥c5 e5 3. Bb2 Nc6 4. Nf3 B¥c5 5. N¥e5 Qb6 6. Nd3 B¥f2+ 7. N¥f2 Q¥b2 8. Nc3 Nb4 9. Rc1 d5 10. Nd3 N¥d3+ 11. c¥d3 Nf6 12. Rb1 Qa3 13. e3 0–0 14. Be2 b6 15. 0–0 Qe7 16. d4 Bb7 17. Qe1 Ne4 18. N¥e4 d¥e4 19. Rb5 Rac8 20. Re5 Qd6 21. Qh4 Rc2 22. Re7 But 22. Bg4, a move suggested by P. J. Doyle, would have been superior to the move above. 22. ... Bd5 23.  R¥a7 R¥d2 24.  Qg4 Be6 [JSH: 24.  ... Qh6 putting -D-D-®kD pressure on White’s weak e3 was better.] 25. Rf6 White made this $-D-Dp0p move under the impression that he would lose the bishop after -0-1l$-D 25. Qh5 g6 overlooking the fact that he could continue with 26. Qb5 D-D-D-D- But even in this case Black had a winning attack. 25. ... Qb4 Of -D-)pDQD course 25.  ... B¥g4 would win a clear piece, but Black prefers to D-D-)-D- pursue a more elegant and decisive course. 26. R¥e6 Rd1+ Black PD-®LDP) here announced mate in seven moves. 27.  Bf1 R¥f1+ 28.  K¥f1 D-D-D-I- f¥e6+ 29.  Ke2 White might have spoiled the combination by interposing the queen at f4. 29.  ... Qc4+ 30.  Ke1 Rf1+ 0–1 After 25. Rf6 (Providence Sunday Journal, December 6, 1891).

3. New York Master: 1891–1892

55

Of course, chess in New York was not simply amateur confrontations. About the time Kemeny was defeating Huntington, Mikhail Chigorin arrived on board the steamer La Champagne early Sunday morning, November 29, 1891. Cassel found Chigorin looking quite healthy, and anticipating his approaching world title match with Steinitz in Havana, which finally began January 1, 1892. Chigorin must have been in fairly good health, as the match was hard fought throughout and the result undecided until the last two games, when Steinitz broke a 101 ⁄ 2–101 ⁄ 2 tie with two wins in a row. A few days later, on a Thursday, the two principals met at the home of Dr. A. Friedland, an intimate friend of Chigorin, who offered the men $100 “for one game between the two masters. The offer was declined by both men, who considered it unfair toward the Havana Chess Club to play each other anywhere else before the beginning of the great match in that city.” Such ethical niceties have not always ruled meetings between chess masters. While Chigorin enjoyed New York, Kemeny began play in the City Chess Club’s handicap tournament, the first conducted there since the club had changed its name. According to the December 8, 1891, Sun, contestants were divided into six classes, the first, or scratch, class, composed of Kemeny, Huntington and Halpern. Five prizes totaling $60 were offered. Cassel gave the ending Kemeny played against Hartley, the sole member of the sixth class, against whom players of Kemeny’s strength conceded the heavy odds of rook, pawn and move. Kemeny finished off his opponent as follows:

Hartley–Kemeny City Chess Club Handicap, New York, 1891 Rook, Pawn and Move Odds Kemeny, Black, played 21. ... R¥e2 and in reply to 22. B¥e7 announced mate in six: 22. ... R¥g2+ 23. Kh1 R¥h2+ 24. K¥h2 Qh6+ 25. Kg1 Qg6+ 26. Bg5 Q¥g5+ 27. Kh1 Qg2 mate. 0–1 (New York Sun, December 8, 1891). Kemeny’s cumulative score in the Handicap at that point was reportedly (see below) 8–4, well behind Huntington’s 5–0. Another game played in this event was given in the pages of the Brooklyn Standard-Union with Kemeny’s opponent identified only as “Mr. F.” We know from the list of 20 competitors in the City Chess Club Handicap, and the odds given, that Kemeny’s opponent was a player named Fuld, whose third class status entitled him to pawn and two moves odds. The odds were hardly enough:

wdwdwdwi 0pdwhw0p w1wdwdwd dwdw0bdw w)wdwhwG !B)w0Pdw wdw4NdP) $wdwdRIw After White’s 21st move

Fuld–Kemeny City Chess Club Handicap, New York, 1891 Place White’s Pawn at e4; Remove Black’s f Pawn 1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Be3 Qb6 5. b3 Nc6 6. c3 c¥d4 7. c¥d4 Bb4+ 8. Ke2 White very unwisely preferred to give up his castling rather than lose the d-pawn. If 8. Nbd2, Bc3. 8. ... Bd7 9. Ne1 Nge7 10. g4 0–0 11. f3 B¥e1 12. K¥e1 N¥e5 13. Be2 Rac8 14. h3 Bb5 If 15. B¥b5, N¥f3+ with a strong attack. 15. Rf1 B¥e2 16. Q¥e2 Rc1+ 17. B¥c1 Q¥d4 18. Qe3 Q¥a1 19. Nc3 N7c6 20. Ne2 d4 21. N¥d4 Forced. Moving the queen would involve loss of the bishop or the exchange by ... N¥f3+. 21.  ... N¥d4

56

EMIL KEMENY

22. Rf2 If 22. Q¥e5 it would not only be the loss of the lady, but Black could announce mate in four moves. 22. ... Rc8 23. Kd1 Nd3 0–1 (Brooklyn Standard-Union, December 12, 1891). On January 2, 1892, the Brooklyn Standard-Union reported several scores in the City Chess Club Handicap. Kemeny was said to be leading with a score of 20–2 (this might well have been in error, as an earlier report placed him at 8–4). Whatever his precise score, he could not sustain the pace, and much later it was reported in the April 17, 1892, Baltimore Sunday News that Halpern had won the $20 first prize with a record of 311 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2, with Nugent second, winning $12, at 31–5. Huntington took third prize ($8) at 30–6, while Kemeny finished fourth, at 29–7, pocketing $6 for his efforts. By now Kemeny’s games were fairly frequently published in the metropolitan press. The following game, once more against his strongest competition at City Chess Club, shows time pressure errors on both sides. It is unclear what event this is taken from. Possibly it is one of Halpern’s few losses in the Handicap tournament.

Jacob C. Halpern–Kemeny [D31] City Chess Club, 1891 1. d4 d5 2.  e3 Nf6 3.  c4 e6 4.  Nc3 c6 5.  c¥d5 c¥d5 6.  Bd3 Nc6 7.  Nf3 Bd7 8. a3 a6 9. 0–0 Bd6 10. Bd2 e5 11. d¥e5 N¥e5 12. N¥e5 B¥e5 13. f4 Bc7 14. Ne2 0–0 15. Ng3 Bb6 16. h3 Re8 17. Re1 Ne4 18. B¥e4 d¥e4 19. Bc3 Be6 20. Qh5 Rc8 21.  f5 Bb3 22.  Qg4 R¥c3 23.  b¥c3 Qd3 24.  Qf4 f6 25.  Rac1 Re7 26. Qf2 Bc5 27. a4 B¥a4 28. Nh1 b5 29. Qa2+ Kf8 30. Qe2 Re5 31. g4 Rd5 32.  Q¥d3 R¥d3 33.  c4 Ba3 34.  Rb1 b¥c4 35.  Rb8+ Ke7 36.  Ng3 c3 37. Rb7+ Kd8 38. Kf2 c2 39. Ne2 Rd2 40. R¥g7 Bb5 0–1 (New York Sun, December 24, 1891). Kemeny made excursions to other chess clubs in the city, as his simultaneous performance on November 21 to the Brooklyn club has shown. Indeed, before the end of 1891, the Hungarian immigrant was regularly playing chess at the Brooklyn Chess Club. Three days before the New Year Kemeny played W. F. Eno, a figure about whom little is known. He does not appear in Gaige’s Chess Personalia, although he was very important to Brooklyn chess, especially in the 1880s and through Kemeny’s period in New York. W.F. Eno hailed from Manchester, England. At 16, so a report in the Brooklyn Standard Union for January 2, 1892, noted, Eno witnessed a 19-year-old Blackburne give his first blindfold exhibition. Assuming these ages are accurate, this meant Eno was born about 1844, making him 47 or 48 when he sat across the board from Kemeny. Eno lived in the United States, where business occupied his time for over a dozen years, from the ages of 25 to 38. He became a member of the exclusive Danites Chess Club, which later was absorbed by the Brooklyn Chess Club, and from that date Eno devoted his club time to that entity. He won the championship of the Danites in 1884-85 and he also won the championship of the Brooklyn Chess Club in 1887 and again in 1891. He played in the 1891 midsummer handicap tournament of the NYSCA at Skaneateles, finishing only half a game behind Hanham, who won first prize. In short, Eno could be a dangerous player. An added skill he brought to the club was his ability to speak and write Russian, which allowed him at one time to correspond directly with Chigorin to make arrangements for the latter’s appearance in Brooklyn.

3. New York Master: 1891–1892

57

W. F. Eno–Kemeny [B01] Brooklyn Handicap Tournament Brooklyn Chess Club, December 28, 1891 1. e4 d5 This gambit seems to be a favorite at the present time. If it is not well answered Black soon gets the better game. 2. e¥d5 Nf6 3. d4 N¥d5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be2 Be7 8. 0–0 0–0 9. Be3 b6 10. a3 Bb7 11. Qc2 Ng4 12. Rad1 N¥e3 13. f¥e3 Bg5 14. Rd3 a5 Mr. Kemeny afterwards remarked that this was a weak move; had White replied 15. d5, he would have had rDqD-®kD a winning position. 15.  e4 Bh6 16.  Nd1 Ne7 17.  Nf2 f5 Dl0-D-0p 18. Rdd1 f¥e4 19. N¥e4 Nf5 20. h4 There was no good defense. -0-D-D-D Of course, Black has a win from this on; his play is very ingenious. 0-D-)-D20. ... Be3+ 21.  Kh2 If 21. Kh1, 21. ... B¥e4 and wins a piece. 21. ... Bf4+ 22.  Kh3 e5 23.  d¥e5 Qc8 24.  Nh2 Ne3+ -DPDNgL) 25. Bg4 25. ... h5! Excellent. If 26. B¥c8 Black mates in three )-D-h-DK moves. 26.  Nf6+ R¥f6 27.  R¥f4 h¥g4+ 28.  Kg3 R¥f4 -)QD-DPH D-DRDRD29. Qd2 Re4 0–1 (Brooklyn Standard-Union, January 2, 1892). After 25. Bg4 Kemeny began play early in the new year when he appeared for the City Chess Club in a team match against Brooklyn. On November 14, 1891, the Brooklyn Standard-Union reported arrangements had begun for a double-round team match between the clubs. Match rules were published in the Standard-Union on December 5. The teams were composed of 12 players, with the first round played at the rooms of the Brooklyn Chess Club the evening of January 16, 1892. The second round was to be held at the City Club’s rooms two weeks later. The “trophy” played for would be “an engrossed score, to be paid for by the club losing the match.” Draws were to count half a point. Dr. Otto Frederick Jentz, City’s president, would be umpire for the first round, with his counterpart in Brooklyn, Charles A. Gilberg, umpire for the second. As for pairings, it was announced that “The players of each team” were “to be divided into three classes, each class to be paired with members of the same class in the opposing team.” Another feature of the match, mentioned later, in the February 6 New York Clipper, was that the visiting team would play White in all 12 games. As announced, the first round in the City–Brooklyn match took place at the latter’s rooms at 201 Montague Street on Saturday night, January 16. The host club brought forth a strong contingent, anchored by Albert Hodges, Philip Richardson, William de Visser, Charles Gilberg and W. F. Eno. City had Kemeny, Halpern, and Sam Loyd, but did not have the depth its Brooklyn counterpart could bring to the tables. The February 6 New York Clipper reported the rooms of the Brooklyn club “were thronged with visitors,” who witnessed the play. Somewhat surprisingly, City won the round only by the close score of 61 ⁄ 2–51 ⁄ 2. Halpern defeated Philip Richardson, winning a nice game in 32 moves that saw publication two days later in the Sun. Kemeny won his game against Charles Thompson, the second game to finish that night. Kemeny in fact had something of a walkover. According to the Sun, Thompson was a replacement for Frank Teed, “who is [the Brooklyn Chess Club’s] star player, [and who] disappointed his fellow clubmen. As he was expected to be on hand, he was paired against Kemeny, and subsequently his place was filled by Thompson, who was altogether outclassed by his opponent. ... Kemeny won as he pleased from Thompson.” The concluding round of the City–Brooklyn match took place a week sooner than planned, on Saturday night, January 23, 1892, at the City Chess Club, 11 ⁄ 2 Second Avenue.

58

EMIL KEMENY

Prepared for a tougher fight than before, the Brooklyn team put forth an impressive effort with the White pieces. As the Standard-Union reported it, the games started at 8:40 that night, and game after game fell to the visiting Brooklynites. City’s top four boards suffered a dismal 1–3 record, with Richardson gaining revenge over Halpern, Hodges defeating Huntington, and de Visser downing Loyd. Only Kemeny proved successful, this time defeating W. F. Eno, as Frank Teed again failed to show for his club. Brooklyn handed City a resounding defeat in the second round, 9–3, to win the match with an overall score of 141 ⁄ 2–91 ⁄ 2. Kemeny alone, among the City men’s first class players, had managed a 2–0 match score. Early in January 1892, the suggestion was made to hold two tournaments at the Brooklyn Chess Club, one for all club members below the first class, and the other, among the elite, for the club championship. The Standard-Union of January 30, 1892, mentioned that Hodges, Delmar, Kemeny, de Visser and Blackmar were among those expected to play, so at least by this date Kemeny had become a member of the Brooklyn organization. Within the week it was hoped that Richardson as well as Teed would enter, and it was expected an invitation would be offered to an out-of-town club player, William H. K. Pollock. At the same time a Brooklyn handicap tournament was being played, the February 13 Standard-Union reported that 59 players were competing. The same issue mentioned Kemeny had given an eight board simultaneous exhibition on Wednesday night, February 10, at the Staten Island Chess Club (Hodges’ home club), finishing 8–0. To add to the mix of players and reporters now at the Brooklyn Chess Club, Major Hanham joined, as did the young Hermann Helms. But before the Brooklyn club championship could take place, the next NYSCA championship tournament was held on Washington’s Birthday, February 22, 1892, at 54 Union Square, home of the Manhattan Chess Club. Entry for the tournament was $1, and the time limit 30 moves an hour. The Monday event started at 10:00 that morning, and went on 14 hours until midnight. An innovation for this event was that strong players were paired early, much to the delight of their weaker brethren, who believed this increased their chances of a high finish. Indeed, round one saw Delmar vanquish Lipschütz as well as Hodges defeat Hanham. Unfortunately for Kemeny, he found himself paired against one of the Baird brothers: D. G. Baird. David Graham Baird was the younger of the two chess playing Baird brothers. His older brother, John Washington Baird, having been born in 1852 and he on December 3, 1854. A native New Yorker, D. G. Baird had joined the Manhattan Chess Club at its inception on November 24, 1877, and would remain a member for life. A lawyer by profession, he participated in the Sixth American Chess Congress, the strongest event of the century in the United States, and although he finished no higher than fourteenth out of the 20, he had the distinction of beating Amos Burn and Max Judd each twice, as well as finishing above Hanham and other amateur American players who had filled out the field. In the years shortly after Kemeny’s meeting with him at the 1892 NYSCA championship, Baird participated in New York 1893 (the event won by Pillsbury, not the one dominated 11–0 by Lasker) as well as New York 1894 (won by Steinitz). In 1898 he traveled to Vienna where he played in the masters tournament won by Tarrasch after a playoff with Pillsbury. His last event was New York 1911, Marshall’s triumph half a point over Capablanca. D. G. Baird died at his home in Elizabeth, New Jersey, on October 8, 1913, two months shy of his fifty-ninth birthday, leaving a widow and six children. Kemeny’s meeting with Baird was unfortunate. Losing a pawn out of the opening, he never was really in the game. A faulty tactical shot at move 20, apparently overlooking White’s quiet twenty-second move, eventually left Kemeny with only a pawn for his bishop and no opportunities to complicate the game.

3. New York Master: 1891–1892

59

David G. Baird–Kemeny [C66] NYSCA Championship, Round 1 New York, February 22, 1892 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 d6 5. d4 e¥d4 6. N¥d4 Bd7 7. Nc3 Be7 8. N¥c6 b¥c6 9. Bd3 0–0 10. h3 Ne8 11. Qe2 f5 12. e¥f5 B¥f5 13. B¥f5 R¥f5 14. Qc4+ Kh8 15. Q¥c6 Rb8 16. Nd5 Nf6 17. N¥f6 B¥f6 18. c3 a5 19. Re1 Be5 20. Qe4 B¥c3? 21. Q¥f5 B¥e1 22. a3 [JSH: Taking away the bishop’s retreat square. In a few moves, White winds up with a bishop for a pawn; Black could have safely resigned here.] 22.  ... Qe7 23. Be3 Rf8 24. Qc2 B¥f2+ 25. B¥f2 c5 26. Re1 Qf6 27. Qe2 h6 28. Bg3 Qg6 29. Kh2 d5 30. Qe7 Rc8 31. Re6 Qh5 32. Be5 Rg8 33. g4 1–0 (New York Sun, February 23, 1892).

-®-1-D-i D-0-D-0p -D-0-D-D 0-D-grD-D-DQD-D D-)-D-DP P)-D-)PD $-G-$-I-

After 20. Qe4 With the loss to Baird, Kemeny’s chance to win the NYSCA title effectively ended. But more chess had to be played. In the second round he defeated a player named Lisle, and in the third, W. J. Ferris, the Delaware champion he later often encountered at the Franklin Chess Club in Philadelphia. But in the fourth and final round, as noted in the New York Sun for February 23, he lost to a player named Stubbs, finishing with a disappointing 2–2. From the Brooklyn Daily Eagle of the same date we learn Lisle was a member of the newly formed Gotham Chess Club, while Ferris was also one of Kemeny’s fellow City club members. Stubbs, like D. G. Baird, was associated with the Manhattan. Albert Hodges, whose good form had been announced that morning, when he mated Hanham in 38 moves, won the organization’s 1892 title. On March 5, 1892, the Standard-Union announced the start, that day, of the Brooklyn Chess Club’s 1892 championship tournament. A hundred dollars in cash and property was assured for prizes: $45 to the winner, $30 to the runner up, and a $25 chess set presented by President Gilberg to the third place finisher. Pollock, known then as “the Baltimore expert,” had agreed to come and play, and the prizes and honors had attracted a very strong field indeed, including Hodges, Hanham and, of course, Kemeny. In all a 10 player, double–round robin tournament, requiring 18 games by each competitor, was played. The tournament was made even longer because second round draws were replayed. As it happened only one game was drawn in the first round, and with the rule requiring replays of second round games following draws, that draw alone remained in the tournament’s final crosstable. As the Brooklyn Chess Club championship began, Kemeny continued his association with the City Chess Club. Only two games a week were required in the Brooklyn event, so there was plenty of time for chess elsewhere. A telephone contest was planned with the Providence, Rhode Island, Chess Club, involving three consultation games. Kemeny was scheduled to handle one of the boards, in conjunction with Edward N. Olly, the other pairs being Delmar with A. E. Blackmar, and Hodges with W. F. Eno, but the Providence club had trouble making arrangements, according to the Standard-Union columns of March 5 and 12, and the matter was allowed to drift off. That spring Kemeny played some blindfold chess, although unlike for some other players soon to make the national scene, such as Harry Pillsbury and Julius Finn, he never made blindfold play one of his mainstays. The occasional blindfold game was something many masters of the time could engage in, to some degree. Sam Loyd was aware of this, and introduced a Kemeny game in the New York Herald for April 17, 1892, writing: “The power of playing blindfold chess, as the feat is termed of conducting a game without sight of board or men, is

60

EMIL KEMENY

not so rare as is generally supposed. For, while it may be that there are only a dozen noted professionals who can play a dozen games simultaneously, it is safe to say that there is not a chess club in the world which cannot boast of from one to a score of amateurs who can readily play sans voir. The following brilliant game which was played a couple days ago at the City Chess Club, shows what a clear conception of the board is necessary to achieve a fine finish.” The game does have a charming conclusion, especially when it is kept in mind the player of White had no sight of the board:

Kemeny–Fuld [C30] Blindfold Game City Chess Club, April 1892

rD-D-®kD 0-DnDp0-1pD-h-0 DpD-0-D-DPDP)P) DL)-DQDP)-H-D-D $-D-I-DR After 15. d¥c4

rD-D-®-D 0-DN1pi-DpD-DpD D-D-0-)-D-DQ)-D DL)-D-DP)-D-D-D $-D-I-DR

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Bg4 5. h3 B¥f3 6. Q¥f3 Nf6 7. c3 0–0 8. d3 c6 9. Be3 b5 10. Bb3 Nbd7 11. Nd2 Qb6 12. B¥c5 d¥c5 13. g4 h6 14. h4 c4 15. d¥c4 b¥c4 [JSH: This loses: 15. ... e¥f4 16. Q¥f4 (16. c¥b5 Ne5 17. Qe2 Nf¥g4 18. b¥c6 Q¥c6 19. 0–0–0 Ne3 gives Black a fine game) 16. ... Ne5 17. Rh3! (17. Q¥e5?? Qe3+ 18. Kf1 (18. Kd1 Rad8–+) 18. ... Q¥d2 is good for Black.] 16. N¥c4 Qc5 17. g5 h¥g5 18. h¥g5 N¥e4 19. Q¥e4 g6 20.  Nb6! Kg7 21.  N¥d7 Qe7 and Kemeny announced mate in eight moves. [JSH: No variations were given to substantiate Kemeny’s mate in eight claim, but computer analysis does find such a mate. It is impossible to know precisely what Kemeny had in mind, but the following pretty variations are possible: 22. f5 g¥f5 23. Rh7+! Kg6 (23. ... K¥h7 24. Qh1+ Kg7 25. Qh6+ Kg8 26. Nf6+ Q¥f6 27. g¥f6 and mate next move.) 24. Qh4 f4 (24. ... Q¥g5 25. Rg7+) 25. Rg7+ K¥g7 26. Qh6+ Kg8 27. Nf6+ Q¥f6 28. g¥f6 and mate next move.] 1–0 (New York Herald, April 17, 1892; New York Clipper, May 1, 1892).

By the time Kemeny’s blindfold game had been played, much of the play in the 1892 Brooklyn Chess Club had taken place. Because Pollock had traveled all the way from Baltimore to participate, a special concession was made to his circumstances and all his games were finished within ten days, between March 6 and After 21. ... Qe7 March 15, 1892. His performance was outstanding. Although he stumbled at the start, standing only 2–2, he lost only one more game in the first round of play, finishing 6–3, and then for his second time through the field, although initially giving up draws to outsiders Olly and Russell, he won those return games and finished the second round 9–0, to garner an overall record of 15–3. Pollock’s whirlwind demolition of the Brooklyn Chess Club came as no real surprise to anyone, but undoubtedly his achieving his fine showing quickly reduced the field to guessing who might win second place. In the end, the bottom four players of the ten, E. Olly, George Russell, D. J. Finlay and A. J. Souweine, really stood no chance. Against the top six, Pollock, Kemeny, Hodges, Hanham, Delmar and Blackmar, they managed an unenviable 2–46 record. In bemoaning the gulf between veterans and youngsters in the tournament, the chess editor of the Brooklyn Standard-Union gave the shortest game of the tournament, but without identifying the players. He made clear only that the winner was one of the six veterans, and the loser, by implication, one of the four outclassed players:

3. New York Master: 1891–1892

61

Veteran–Unknown [C36], Brooklyn Chess Club Championship, 1892.  1.  e4 e5 2.  f4 d5 3.  e¥d5 Q¥d5 4.  Nc3 Qe6 5.  Nf3 e¥f4+ 6.  Kf2 Bd6 7. Bb5+ Kd8 8.  Re1 Be5 9.  R¥e5 1–0 (Brooklyn Standard-Union, April 30, 1892). The tournament really was about six men. And of those six, Kemeny had the greatest success from the very start. His first two games were against two of his strongest competitors, and he performed well. In fact, he could not have started better, as his very first game won him the tournament’s first brilliancy prize. And his opponent was none other than Eugene Delmar. By 1892 Eugene Delmar was already a chess institution in New York. Born in the city on September 12, 1841, the 50-year-old Delmar had come of age during America’s love affair with Paul Morphy. One of the first clubs Delmar frequented, back in the late 1850s, and very shortly after Morphy’s triumph at the First American Chess Congress, was the Morphy Chess Rooms. Delmar played in the very first Free Tournament at the Morphy, and spent his time giving a young Philip Richardson some early chess lessons. He played James Leonard, when that poor young man was an up and coming sensation in New York. He played George Mackenzie and indeed every great player born, raised or visiting New York for the better part of fifty years. He could be aggressive off the board as well, as seen in feuds he had, both directly and through chess editor friends, with players like Sam Loyd and Max Judd. Delmar’s local exploits during the thirty-odd years of his chess career prior to the 1892 Brooklyn championship are too numerous to recount, but a few highlights are in order to understand something of the achievements of the player Kemeny faced when he sat down across the board from Delmar. The New Yorker had played in the Sixth American Chess Congress, with only the two adopted Americans, Lipschütz and Judd, reaching a higher position than he did among the American players. Delmar won the NYSCA championship in February 1887, and then again in February 1890. In case there was some doubt as to his chess fitness, he won it again the next year, in February 1891. That July, at Skaneateles, he faced Pollock in a match, defeating him 5–3. Delmar’s command of tactical complications was well respected. Unfortunately, for Delmar, it was Kemeny who found the tactical shot that resulted in his winning the game that follows, for which he was awarded the brilliancy prize. (Delmar, however, would have his revenge.)

Eugene Delmar–Kemeny [C62] Brooklyn Chess Club Championship March 1892 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 e¥d4 5. N¥d4 [5. Q¥d4 is frequently played; the continuation being 5.  ... Bd7 6. B¥c6 B¥c6 7. Bg5 f6 8. Bh4 Nh6 etc.—BSU.] 5.  ... Bd7 6. B¥c6? [This exchange is not advisable—World.] 6.  ... b¥c6 7. 0–0 Nf6 8.  Nc3 Be7 9.  f4 Bro. Gunsberg, who does not advise the exchange at [move] 6, now advises a Queen’s fianchetto— BSU. 9. ... 0–0 10. h3 Ne8 11. e5 [Of doubtful value; probably with the object of preventing the advance of the f-pawn—BSU.] 11. ... d¥e5 12.  f¥e5 Bc5 13.  Ne4 Bg4! [A very clever rejoinder— World.] 14. Q¥g4 Q¥d4+ 15. Kh1 f5 16. e¥f6 N¥f6 17. Qe6+ Kh8 18.  Ng3 [Had White played N¥f6, it would have been an almost even game, White having, perhaps, a slight advantage in the

rD-D-®-i 0-0-D-0p -DpDQh-D D-g-D-D-D-1ND-D D-D-D-DP P)PD-DPD $-G-DRDK After 17. ... Kh8

62

EMIL KEMENY

position of the pawns. He evidently overlooked the following move, to which there is no defense—BSU.] [JSH: Better than 18. N¥f6 would have been 18. N¥c5, when a variation like 18. ... Q¥c5 19. Be3 Qd5 20. Q¥d5 c¥d5 21. Bd4 leaves White in good shape.] 18. ... Nh5 19. R¥f8+ R¥f8 20.  Be3 N¥g3+ 21.  Kh2 Q¥e3 22.  Q¥e3 B¥e3 23.  K¥g3 Bf4+ 24. Kg4 g6 25.  Rd1 [25. h4 would have averted the mate, but the game, however, was beyond redemption—World.] 25. ... h5+ 26. Kh4 Kg7 27. g3 Bd6 28. g4 g5+ 29. K¥h5 [If 29. K¥g5 Black wins in two with 29. ... Be7+ 30. K¥h5 Rh8 mate—BSU.] 29. ... Be7 0– 1 (BSU = Brooklyn Standard Union, March 19,1892; The World [New York], March 20, 1892, with annotations above by Gunsberg). Having defeated in brilliant fashion one strong contender for the title, Kemeny found himself immediately facing one just as strong in his second game. William Henry Krause Pollock was born in Cheltenham, England, on February 21, 1859, and so was only 11 months older than Kemeny. The two men were well matched in talent as well as age, but Kemeny clearly lacked his contemporary’s chess experience. Pollock was educated at Clifton College and Somersetshire College, Bath. In 1882 he qualified as a licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin. Chess, however, had already captured his imagination. More than that, according to the Brooklyn Standard-Union for March 26, 1892, Pollock, although a student of medicine, had “no love for his profession,” and so “he left it to follow the pleasant but unprofitable pathway of Caissa.” Learning the game in 1878, he entered the Master Tournament of the British Chess Association in 1885, finishing a respectable fourth behind Gunsberg, Bird and Guest. That same year he won the Irish championship. The next year showed mixed results, although he again secured his national title, this time with an impressive 8–0 score. He also joined the City of London Chess Club, and gained further experience facing such internationally known players as Blackburne and Zukertort, with some success. In 1889 Pollock crossed the Atlantic to participate in the Sixth American Chess Congress, where like Delmar he finished in the middle of the crosstable. He won the brilliancy prize for one of his games against Weiss, and the game was republished as a classic in the lengthy obituary appearing in the November 1896 British Chess Magazine at the time of Pollock’s early death from consumption. That unfortunate conclusion, however, was several years off at the time Pollock was establishing himself in the United States. Pollock moved first to Baltimore, where he edited an interesting chess column in the Baltimore Sunday News. He also participated in the 1891 United States Chess Association championship held at Lexington, Kentucky, tying for first with the home favorite Showalter but losing the playoff. It was during this period Pollock participated, on an accelerated schedule, in the 1892 Brooklyn Chess Club championship, about which his performance the British Chess Magazine several years later said found him “defeating all the best New York players of that day except Lipschütz and Steinitz.” Pollock would be remembered as an artist at the board, one known for his brilliancies rather than consistently successful tournament appearances. He did, however, have several tournament successes, and his performance in Brooklyn in 1892 must be added to that list. Unfortunately, of his 18 conclusive games and uncounted draws, very few have been recovered from this event, despite significant coverage of the tournament in Brooklyn newspapers. Perhaps the rapidity with which his schedule was finished worked against having many of the games appear in the weekly chess columns. A game he may well have wished never surfaced was his first round encounter with Kemeny, his second game of the tournament. In an even position, Pollock blundered and Kemeny quickly took advantage of the lapse. And the press did cover the play:

3. New York Master: 1891–1892

63

Kemeny–W. H. K. Pollock [A85] Brooklyn Chess Club Championship March 1892 1. d4 f5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 [White’s best plan is to adapt the King’s fianchetto and to play later on e4—World.] 4. ... Bb4+ [This and the subsequent exchange of the bishop for the queen’s knight is not favorable for Black—World.] 5. Nc3 c5 6. Be2 0–0 7. 0–0 B¥c3 8. b¥c3 b6 9. Ba3 d6 10. Qc2 Qc7 11. Rad1 Bb7 [Not good as the sequel shows. 11. ... Nc6 would have been better—World.] 12. d5 e5 [If 12. ... e¥d5 instead, then likewise 13. Q¥f5 threatening Qe6+; 12. ... Ne4 might, however, have been considered here—World.] This was not well considered; 12. ... e¥d5 rDlD-®kD would not have been weaker nor led to a worse position. 13. Q¥f5 0-h-1-0p e4 A very weak move, which led to a compromised position. 13. ... -0-0Nh-D Qd7 or 13.  ... Bc8 or possibly 13.  ... b5 would have been better. D-0P)QD14. Ng5 Bc8 15. Ne6 Qe7 16. f3 Na6 17. f¥e4 Nc7 18. e5 [White conducts the game with great skill. The position is very inter- -DPD-D-D esting—World.] 18. ... N¥e6 18. ... d¥e5 would have been best. There G-)-)-Dwas no defense from this on. 19.  e¥f6 R¥f6 20.  Qe4 Qb7 PD-DLDP) 21. R¥f6 [JSH: Sufficient to win but a sharper and more convincing D-DRDRIdemolition of Black’s position would be first to force Black’s queen After 18. e5 off b7, gaining a tempo by the attack on Black’s a8 rook when White plays d¥e6. For instance, 21. B¥c5! b¥c5 (21. ... d¥c5 22. d¥e6 with mate in two should Black take White’s queen) 22. R¥f6 g¥f6 23. Rb1 rDlD-DkD and if, say, 23. ... Qe7, then 24. d¥e6 and the rook is doomed.] 21. ... 0qD-D-0p g¥f6 22. Rf1 Qg7 [JSH: Stronger resistance was offered by 22. ... -0-0n®-D Ng5 23. Qf4 Qe7 24. Q¥f6 Q¥f6 25. R¥f6; the text move allows D-0PD-DWhite to end resistance immediately.] 23.  d¥e6 1–0 (The World -DPDQD-D [New York], March 20, 1892, with annotations by Gunsberg; Brooklyn G-)-)-DStandard-Union, March 19, 1892; with annotations by Pollock).

PD-DLDP) D-DRDRI-

Pollock’s own Baltimore News column added on March 20, 1892, that “a majority of the games in the championship tournament are After 20. ... Qb7 watched by a large and critical audience, which usually contains some distinguished players from the other metropolitan clubs.” Hanham, Hodges and Kemeny were named the favorites after the first round (nine games), as both Pollock and Delmar at 6–3 were already considered outsiders. Kemeny also benefited from Hodges’ blunder in their first round game. The Staten Islander overlooked a tactical shot on his twenty-fifth move in a position that, while difficult, was hardly lost.

Albert B. Hodges–Kemeny [C67] Brooklyn Chess Club Championship March 1892 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  Bb5 Nf6 4.  0–0 N¥e4 5.  d4 Nd6 6.  B¥c6 b¥c6 7. d¥e5 Nb7 8. Bf4 We prefer 8. Bg5 Be7 9. B¥e7 Q¥e7 10. Re1 0–0 11. Nc3 with a strong bid for superiority in the endgame. 8. ... Be7 9. Nc3 Nc5 9. ... 0–0 would allow 10. Ne4. 10. Nd4 0–0 11. Qd2 Ne6 12. N¥e6 Rad1 at once seems better. 12. ... f¥e6 13. Rad1

64

EMIL KEMENY

Rb8 14. b3 Bb4 Black has played the opening to perfection. 15. Bg3 Qe7 16. Rfe1 h5 17. Re4 Rf5 18.  Kh1 c5 19.  f3 Bb7 20.  Re3 Bc6 21.  Qd3 B¥c3 22.  Q¥c3 h4 23. Bf2 h3 24. g¥h3 Qg5 25. Bg3? Fatal. White should have -®-D-DkD played 25. Rg1 when if 25. ... Q¥e3 26. Q¥e3 R¥f3 27. R¥g7+ and 0-0pD-0- draws. 25.  ... Q¥e3 26.  Q¥e3 R¥f3 0–1 (Brooklyn StandardUnion, May 14, 1892; annotations from New York Clipper, August 18, -DlDpD-D 1892, citing the Albany Evening Journal).

D-0-)r1-D-D-D-D DP!-$PDP PDPD-G-) D-DRD-DK

Kemeny had an exceptional result in the first round, finishing in first place with 7–2, with losses to Blackmar and Hanham, but winning from the rest of the field. The tournament, however, was anything but easy for him, or for any of the competitors, save Pollock. And unlike Pollock, who in the second round had only two After 24. ... Qg5 draws, both with outsiders, Kemeny found himself facing much stiffer competition as a result of the draw replay rule. It is unclear whether the following game was played in the first or second round, given that it was published nearly a year after the tournament was played, but clearly it was a hardplayed affair against a strong opponent. It must have added to the strain of competition Kemeny faced. Hanham with Black established a pawn at e4 on his fifteenth move and 69 moves later pushed it to the next square. More than that, in the final, unusual position, considered equal by computer evaluation, Kemeny, with two rooks, bishop and no pawn, held Hanham’s queen and four pawns. The game must have been a source of great curiosity for the tournament’s many spectators. Kemeny was quite lucky to escape with a draw, and to play Hanham a third game. Possibly time pressure was involved:

Kemeny–Major J. Moore Hanham [D05] Brooklyn Chess Club Championship March 1892 1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e3 Nf6 4. c4 Be7 5. Be2 0–0 6. 0–0 b6 7. c¥d5 e¥d5 8. Nc3 Bb7 9.  Bd2 Nbd7 10.  Rc1 a6 11.  Qc2 Bd6 12.  Rfd1 Re8 13.  Be1 Nf8 14. Bd3 Ne4 15. B¥e4 d¥e4 [JSH: Now Black has an advanced pawn pushing against the White center, as well as a nicely positioned bishop pair, although he quickly gives the latter up.] 16. Ne5 f6 17. Nc4 Rc8 18. Qb3 Kh8 19. N¥d6 Q¥d6 20. Ne2 Ng6 21. Bb4 Qd7 22. Ng3 f5 23. Bd2 Ne7 24. Qc4 a5 25. Qe2 Nd5 26. Qh5 g6 27. Qg5 Qg7 28. Ne2 h6 29. Qg3 g5 30. a3 Qf7 31. Nc3 Nf6 32. Qh3 Qg6 33. Nb5 Nd5 34. Nc3 Kh7 35. N¥d5 B¥d5 36. Rc3 a4 37. Rdc1 c6 38. Re1 Qf6 39. Qg3 Rf8 40. Qh3 Rc7 41. g3 Rg8 [JSH: rD-1rhkD Black has gained space, and White’s bishop is horrible, but how Dl0-Dp0p should Black try to make more of the position?] 42.  Kf1 Rf7 p0-g-D-D 43. Ke2 [JSH: Weak; now Black opens up the f-file and White finds D-DpD-D- himself drifting into more difficulties.] 43. ... f4 44. Rec1 f¥g3 -D-)LD-D 45. Q¥g3 Rgf8 46.  Be1 Qe6 47.  Kf1 b5 48.  Kg1 Rf3 D-H-)ND- 49. Qg2 R8f6 50.  R3c2 g4 51.  Kh1 Rg6 52.  Ba5 Qd7 P)QD-)P) 53. Rg1 Rg5 54.  Bd2 Rh3 55.  Qf1 Rgh5? [JSH: White has D-$RG-I- drifted into a lost game, but this move reduces Black’s advantage. After 55. ... Qf7! White might as well resign. One painful alternative might be 56. Qg2 Rgh5 57. Bb4 g3 58. f¥g3 Qf3 and mate in a few After 15. B¥e4

3. New York Master: 1891–1892 more moves. Not surprisingly, both sides miss opportunities in the remainder of the game.] 56. Rg2 Qf7 57. Rc1 Qf3 58. Kg1 Qf6 59. Bb4 Qd8 60.  Kh1 Qc7 61.  Qg1 Bc4 62.  Re1 g3 63. R¥g3 Be6 64. Qg2 R¥h2+ 65. Q¥h2 R¥h2+ 66. K¥h2 h5 67.  Rh1 Bg4 68.  Kg1 Kg6 69.  Kf1 Qf7 70.  Rhg1 Kf5 71. Rh1 Qc4+ 72.  Kg1 Qc1+ 73.  Kh2 Q¥b2 74.  Rf1 Qe2 75. Rgg1 h4 76.  Be7 Qf3 77.  Rh1 Bh3 78.  Rfg1 Q¥f2+ 79. K¥h3 Q¥e3+ 80.  Kh2 Q¥d4 81.  B¥h4 Qb2+ 82.  Rg2 Q¥a3 83. Rf1+ Ke5 84. Rd1 e3 85. Rg5+ Ke4 86. Rg4+ Kf5 87. Rg5+ Ke4 [JSH: The final position in this curious contest deserves its own diagram.] 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Brooklyn Standard-Union, March 4, 1893). While Kemeny stood with an excellent record of 7–2 at the end of the first round, he also realized he had already lost his second round game to the man who had just finished the event 15–3. To simply tie Pollock, Kemeny had to win his eight remaining games, an almost impossible feat. The precise ordering of his remaining games remains unknown, but apparently for some time he avoided losses. He had to find some luck to make a run for Pollock’s score and, at least against Hodges, he did find an unexpected bonus. But first, the two men played a second round game where neither took chances and, with balanced pawn structures in a minor piece endgame, neither side had realistic chances of winning. In effect, with the rule requiring replaying of second round draws, their real contest was left to another day.

65

-D-D-D-D D-DqD-Dk -DpD-D-0 DpDlD-®pD-)pDpD )-D-)-Dr -)RG-)-) D-D-DQ$K After 55. Qf1

-D-D-D-D D-D-D-D-DpD-D-D DpD-D-$pD-DkD-G 1-D-0-D-D-D-D-I D-DRD-DFinal position

Kemeny–Albert B. Hodges [D02] Brooklyn Chess Club Championship March 1892 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 Be7 4. Bd3 Nf6 5. 0–0 0–0 6. Qe2 c5 7. c3 Nc6 8. Nbd2 Qc7 9. Rd1 Bd7 10. Nf1 e5 11. d¥e5 N¥e5 12. N¥e5 Q¥e5 13. e4 d¥e4 14. B¥e4 Bf5 15. Bd3 Q¥e2 16. B¥e2 Rad8 17. Be3 Nd5 18. Bf3 Be6 19. B¥d5 B¥d5 20. Rd2 b6 21. b3 f5 22. Rad1 -D-g-DkD Be6 23. R¥d8 R¥d8 24. R¥d8+ B¥d8 25. f4 a5 26. Nd2 0-D-D-0p a4 27.  c4 a¥b3 28.  a¥b3 Kf7 29.  Kf2 Bf6 30.  Ke2 Ke8 -0-DlD-D 31. Kd3 Kd7 32. g3 Kc6 33. Bg1 b5 34. Be3 b¥c4+ 35. b¥c4 D-0-DpDKb6 36. Nb3 Be7 37. Bd2 Bd7 38. Bc3 g6 39. Be5 Bc6 -D-D-D-D 40. Kc3 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Brooklyn Standard-Union, May 14, 1892).

DP)-G-DPD-D-)P) D-D-DNI-

The replay game between Kemeny and Hodges deserved a great many interested spectators. As early as move 9, when he advanced his h-pawn, Kemeny let it be known he wanted a sharp struggle. Two After 24. ... B¥d8 moves later he sacrificed a knight. Although the Standard-Union appeared to be under the impression Hodges did not have a losing game, computer analysis suggests that even with his material superiority, Hodges was lost for nearly twenty moves before Kemeny’s spectacular blunder at move 43. The ultimate outcome was even more inexplicable.

66

EMIL KEMENY

Kemeny–Albert B. Hodges [C62] Brooklyn Chess Club Championship March 1892 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  Bb5 d6 4.  d3 Bd7 5.  c3 g6 6.  Be3 Bg7 7.  Nbd2 Nge7 8. Ba4 0–0 9. h4 Very bold, and must have surprised Black. 9. ... h6 We question the utility of this move: ... f5, ... Bg4 or ... h5 would have been rD-D-Drg better. 10.  h5 g5 11.  N¥g5! Exceedingly brave against a player 0p0-1nDk like Mr. Hodges, and of doubtful soundness. 11. ... h¥g5 12. B¥g5 -D-0lD-) f6 13.  Bb3+ Kh7 14.  h6 Bh8 15.  Be3 Qe8 16.  Nf3 Ng6 D-D-0p)- 17. Qe2 Be6 18. Bc2 Nd8 19. 0–0–0 Nf7 20. Nh4 N¥h4 Nf5, probably; 20. ... Rg8 at once might have been better. -D-DP)-$ Fearing 21. R¥h4 Rg8 22.  g4 Qd7 23.  Rg1 f5 24.  f4 Obviously if D-)PG-D- 24. e¥f5, then 24. ... B¥f5. 24. ... Qe7 25. g5 25. ... f¥e4 [JSH: P)LDQD-D After this move White is clearly winning.] 26. d¥e4 Bf6 27. Qh5 D-I-D-$- If 27. g¥f6 R¥g1+ 28. B¥g1 Q¥f6 and the game is equalized. 27. ... B¥g5 28. f¥g5 Rg6 29. Rh2 Rag8 30. Rhg2 Nh8 31. Bd1 After 25. g5 Rf8 32. Qh4 Qd8 33. Bh5 Bf7 34. B¥g6+ N¥g6 35. Qg4 B¥a2 36.  Rf2 R¥f2 37.  B¥f2 Qe7 38.  Be3 Be6 39.  Qf3 -D-D-D-D b6 40.  Rf1 c6 41.  Qf6 Qd7 42.  Rh1 d5 43.  Q¥g6+ [JSH: 0-DqD-Dk Throwing the win away; Kemeny obviously wanted a spectacular -0pDl!n) finish, but the simple 43. Rd1 would have maintained the pressure D-Dp0-)- and kept White’s large advantage. Oddly enough, Kemeny’s chess -D-DPD-D blindness is not the most remarkable element of this game. That is D-)-G-D- reserved for Hodge’s “move” after Kemeny’s forty-fourth.] 43.  ... 44. h7 1–0 Just why Black resigned he doesn’t know. White -)-D-D-D K¥g6 has only a draw at best. The sacrifice must have rattled Mr. Hodges D-I-D-DR (Brooklyn Standard-Union, June 25, 1892). Kemeny’s luck, however, could not go on indefinitely. At some point he lost two more games. The first loss came against Delmar, who took revenge for his first round defeat. After 42. ... d5

Kemeny–Eugene Delmar [D05] Brooklyn Chess Club Championship 1892 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. e3 e6 4. c3 Nf6 5. Bd3 Nc6 6. Nbd2 c4 7. Bc2 Bd7 7. ... b5 would probably have saved time. 8. 0–0 Be7 9. e4 0–0 10. Re1 10. Kh1, followed by f4, would have made White’s game more open and been better for the ending. 10. ... b5 11. e5 Ne8 12. Nf1 f5 13. e¥f6 B¥f6 14. Ng3 a5 15. Be3 b4 16. Qd2 Qb6 17. Rac1 a4 18. Bb1 a3 19. Ng5 White threatens Qc2 and N¥h7. 19. Ne5 looks inviting, but only leads to exchange of pieces. 19.  ... B¥g5 20.  B¥g5 g6 21.  Ne2 a¥b2 22.  Q¥b2 e5 23. Be3 e4 24. B¥e4 Nf6 25. Bf3 Qa5 26. Rb1 26. Rc2 seems better, yet the last move forces the exchange of queens. 26. ... Q¥a2 27. c¥b4 Bf5 28. Nc3 Q¥b2 29. R¥b2 Ne7 30.  Bg5 Ra7 31.  B¥f6 R¥f6 32.  Rbe2 Kf8 33.  B¥d5 Bd3 34.  Re6 N¥d5 35. Re8+ Kg7 36.  N¥d5 Rd6 37.  Nc3 Rb7 38.  R8e7+ [JSH: 38. R-K7ch as given.] 38. ... R¥e7 39. R¥e7+ Kf6 40. R¥h7 R¥d4 41. b5 Bf5 42. Rc7 Be6 43. f3 Rd3 44. Ne4+ Ke5 45.  Kf2 45. Nc5 would have been stronger. 45.  ... Rb3 46.  Rc5+

3. New York Master: 1891–1892

67

Kd4 47.  Rc6 Bd5 48.  R¥g6 B¥e4 49.  f¥e4 R¥b5 50.  Kf3 c3 51.  Rd6+ Kc4 52. Ke3 Rb2 53. Rc6+ Kb3 54. Rg6 Rb1 55. Rb6+ Ka2 56. Rc6 Kb2 57. Kf4 Rf1+ 58. Kg4 c2 59. h4 c1Q 60. R¥c1 K¥c1 61. Kg5 Kd2 62. g4 62. h5 might have altered the result. 62. ... Ke3 63. Kh6 Rf4 64. Kh5 K¥e4 0–1 (Brooklyn Standard-Union, April 30, 1892). Against Blackmar, Kemeny weakened near the end and then made a horrendous blunder, resigning immediately. This second loss during the tournament’s second round made it impossible for him to catch the already finished Pollock:

Able E. Blackmar–Kemeny [C45] Brooklyn Chess Club Championship 1892 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 e¥d4 4. N¥d4 Bc5 5. Be3 Qf6 6. c3 Nge7 7. Qd2 a6 Anticipating Nb5. 8. N¥c6 B¥e3 9. Q¥e3 d¥c6 10. Be2 10. Bd3 or c4 seems at first glance a better development, though Steinitz favors the text move. 10. ... 0–0 11. 0–0 Qg6 12. f4 f5 13. e5 Be6 14. c4 Rad8 15. Nc3 b6 16. Rad1 c5 17. b3 Nc6 18. Bf3 Nd4 19.  Bd5 Qf7 20.  Rf2 b5 21.  B¥e6 Q¥e6 22.  c¥b5 a¥b5 23.  Rfd2 Qb6 24. Kh1 Rd7 25. Ne2 b4 26. Qd3 Qe6 27. N¥d4 R¥d4 28. Qe3 Ra8 [JSH: Black should have exchanged rooks first.] 29. R¥d4 c¥d4 30. Q¥d4 R¥a2?? White wins in a few moves. [JSH: A terrible blunder; after 31. Qd8+ Kf7 32. Rd7+ Black avoids mate only by giving queen for rook.] 1–0 (Brooklyn Standard-Union, May 14, 1892). Like Pollock, Hodges and Blackmar, Kemeny had a perfect 8–0 against the four bottom dwellers, Olly, Russell, Finlay and the young Souweine. The disparity in skill resulted in few of the games seeing print, although two of Kemeny’s efforts have survived. (Compared to nine games against his five strongest opponents.) George Russell, Kemeny’s opponent in the game that follows, finished eighth, with a record of 5–13. Russell had won the championship of the Rhode Island Chess Association the year before, as reported in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle for February 26, 1891, and had been introduced to the Eagle’s readers on March 11, 1892, as “a noted Rhode Island player.” He had apparently recently moved to Brooklyn, as references after that for several years indicate Brooklyn as his home. Several years later, in August 1899, Russell had the distinction of winning the final game in the Brooklyn–Chicago correspondence match, begun June 1897, when he forced stalemate on the ninety-first move of his game with the Rev. Leander Turney “by a pretty sacrifice of the queen,” to give Brooklyn the match, 61 ⁄ 2– 51 ⁄ 2. The full score of the marathon correspondence draw appeared in the August 7, 1899 Eagle. As for his game against Kemeny, below, Russell played well through the first 27 moves, but then ruined his position with two thoughtless moves.

George Russell–Kemeny [C54] Brooklyn Chess Club Championship 1892 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. 0–0 d6 6. c3 0–0 7. Be3 Bb6 8. Nbd2 Be6 9. Bb3 d5 10. B¥b6 a¥b6 11. e¥d5 N¥d5 12. Ne4 Nf4 13. B¥e6 f¥e6 14. Ne1 Ne7 15. Qc2 Qe8 16. a3 Qg6 17. Ng3 Nf5 18. Rd1 Rad8 19. Qd2 c5 20. N¥f5 R¥f5 21. Qe3 Rg5 22. g3 Rh5 23. Rd2 Rf8 24. Ng2 Nh3+ 25. Kh1 Ng5 26. f4 Qf5 27. Qe2 Qh3 28. Nh4? [JSH: Better is 28. Ne3 e¥f4 29. g¥f4.] 28. ...

68

EMIL KEMENY

e¥f4 29. Rf2?? [JSH: Losing immediately.] 29. ... f¥g3 30. R¥f8+ K¥f8 31. Nf3 N¥f3 0–1 (Brooklyn Standard-Union, July 9, 1892). D. J. Finlay finished the 1892 Brooklyn championship next to last, with a dismal 21 ⁄ 2–151 ⁄ 2 record. His two wins were against the even more hapless Souweine, who finished below him at 1–17. Finlay regularly appeared whenever visiting masters came to the Brooklyn club to give simultaneous performances. A loss by him to Emanuel Lasker appears as Game No. 255 in Ken Whyld’s The Collected Games of Emanuel Lasker (1998). That game was from Lasker’s September 23, 1893, performance at the Brooklyn Chess Club. At an earlier Lasker simultaneous exhibition, held December 10, 1892, Finlay drew with Lasker, according to the Eagle of two days later, although the game has not survived. That year Finlay served on the Brooklyn After 28. ... e¥f4 Chess Club’s entertainment committee, with F. Rose and J.D. Elwell, and thus was likely involved in at least some of the planning for the appearance of both Steinitz and Chigorin in the club, discussed later. In the one game preserved between the two men, Finlay gifts Kemeny a tempo the former could not spare, and the stronger player pushes through his queenside attack.

-D-D-®kD DpD-D-0p -0-DpD-D D-0-D-hr -D-D-0-H )-)PD-)q -)-$QD-) D-D-DRDK

Kemeny–D. J. Finlay [C00] Brooklyn Chess Club Championship 1892 1. e4 e6 2. f4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Nf3 c4 5. d4 c¥d3 6. B¥d3 Bc5 7. Nc3 Bd7 8. Ne2 Qb6 9. Rf1 Nc6 10. c3 0–0–0 [JSH: Giving White a target; better would have been to keep the king in the center and see how things developed.] -DkD-Dr® 11. b4 Be7 12. a4 Nh6 13. a5 Qc7 14. Bd2 f5 [JSH: Locking 0p1lg-0p the center gives White all the play; compare the text over the next -D-DpD-h few moves with the following line: 14. ... f6 15. a6 b6 16. e¥f6 B¥f6 17. Ned4 e5.] 15.  Ned4 Rdg8 16.  N¥c6 B¥c6 17.  b5 Bd7 )PDp)pD- 18. Qb3 18. ... g5 [JSH: A blunder; Black has no time for a kingside -D-D-)-D demonstration.] 19.  b6 Qb8 20.  a6 Bc6 21.  a¥b7+ B¥b7 DQ)LDND- 22. b¥a7 Qa8 23. Qb6 Kd7 24. Nd4 Rg6 25. Bb5+ Kc8 -D-G-DP) 26. c4 Rd8 27. c¥d5 R¥d5 28. Rc1+ Rc5 29. R¥c5+ B¥c5 $-D-IRD- 30. Q¥c5+ 1–0 (Brooklyn Standard-Union, April 23, 1892). After 18. Qb3

One final game of Kemeny’s from the 1892 Brooklyn Chess Club championship has survived, a win against Hanham. Hanham continued playing long after the conclusion was inescapable.

J. Moore Hanham–Kemeny [D05] Brooklyn Chess Club Championship 1892 1. e3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bd3 e6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Nbd2 0–0 6. 0–0 c5 7. c3 b6 8. Re1 Bb7 9. Nf1 Nbd7 10. Ng3 Ne4 11. Nd2 f5 12. Nd¥e4 f¥e4 13. Bc2 Bd6 14. Qg4 Qf6 15. Rf1 Obviously the best move was 15. Qe2, though it gives White a cramped game. 15. ... Ba6 16. Bd2 B¥g3 The necessity for this exchange only lies in a desire to pre-

3. New York Master: 1891–1892

69

vent an attack. 17.  Q¥g3 B¥f1 18.  R¥f1 Rf7 19.  Ba4 Nf8 20.  Bb5 c4 21.  Ba4 a6 22. Bd1 Nd7 23. Be2 Qe7 24. Qc7 Rf6 25. Be1 Qd8 26. Q¥d8+ R¥d8 27. f3 e¥f3 28. B¥f3 h6 29. Bg3 Nf8 30. Re1 Nh7 31. Be5 31. Bc7 would have won the bpawn, but in that event ... Rb8 [JSH: After, say, 31. ... Rdf8 32. Bb6.] would have left the White queenside at the mercy of Black. 31. ... Rf7 32. e4 Rb7 33. Bg4 Nf8 34. h4 b5 35. a3 a5 36.  Bf4 b4 37.  a¥b4 a¥b4 38.  Bd2 b¥c3 A very ingenious move. Most players would have depended upon the concentration of power on the White b-pawn and played ... b3. The text move practically deprives White of the use of a piece. 39. B¥c3 Kf7 40. h5 Nh7 41. e¥d5 e¥d5 42. Bf5 Nf6 43. g4 Rdb8 44. Re2 Re7 45. Rf2 Ke8 46. Kg2 Ne4 47.  Bg6+ Kd7 48.  B¥e4 R¥e4 49.  Rf7+ Re7 50.  Rf5 Kc6 51.  Kf3 Rbb7 52. g5 Rf7 53. Kg4 R¥f5 54. K¥f5 h¥g5 55. K¥g5 Kb5 56. Kf5 Re7 57. Kg6 Ka4 58. Kg5 Kb3 59. Kg6 Kc2 60. Kg5 Rf7 61. Kg6 Rb7 62. Kf5 If 62. Kh7 g5+ would win. 62.  ... R¥b2 63.  B¥b2 K¥b2 64.  Kg6 c3 65.  K¥g7 c2 66.  h6 c1Q 67. h7 Qg5+ 68. Kf7 Qh4 69. Kg8 Q¥d4 70. h8Q Q¥h8+ 0–1 (Brooklyn StandardUnion, July 23, 1892). Kemeny had played magnificently, but Pollock’s 15–3 finish proved just too much for him. The Hungarian immigrant scored a very fine 14–4, including splitting his games with Pollock, and finishing second two points ahead of Blackmar, Hanham and Hodges, all tied for third through fifth at 12–6. (A long delayed playoff, abandoned in part by Blackmar, resulted finally in Hodges’ being awarded third prize.) Delmar finished sixth with 11–7. This turned out to be Kemeny’s last major New York club tournament, and while he had not captured first place, he had confirmed his high standing in the state. Even now he clearly was one of the strongest players in the country. A club championship, of course, especially in the 19th century, took time. The Brooklyn tournament required players to complete two games weekly, but with 18 games needed, it is not surprising the tournament took over two months. During this time, of course, chess life continued, both in New York and elsewhere. The year’s first two months featured the titanic struggle between Steinitz and Chigorin in Havana. According to Steinitz’s account in the last issue of his International Chess Magazine, an estimated 1,900 fans witnessed Chigorin’s heartbreaking collapse in game 23, when he was perhaps a few moves away from tying the match. As it happened, both contestants for the world’s throne made their way to New York, and were very much in evidence as the Brooklyn Chess Club championship unfolded. Chigorin stopped first in New Orleans, where he was engaged for a week, having left Havana on March 10. Two days later, Steinitz made an appearance at the Manhattan Chess Club’s annual dinner, receiving hearty applause for his latest victory. Although there is no record of Kemeny attending the dinner, several of his soon-to-be Brooklyn opponents, including Hodges, Delmar and Hanham, were among the seventy or so attendees. Not long after Pollock completed his accelerated schedule in the Brooklyn championship, Steinitz appeared at the club. On Saturday night, March 26, he conducted a three board blindfold simultaneous exhibition against highly ranked, selected opponents: Philip Richardson, Able Blackmar (a last minute substitution for Frank Teed), and William M. DeVisser. Steinitz lost to Blackmar through an oversight, but won his other two games. According to the account in the Brooklyn Standard-Union for April 2, 1892, Steinitz was not in good physical health. He was “hardly over five feet in height, and owing to an arrested development of one of his limbs, has a bent-over appearance, which makes him seem still shorter.” Steinitz wore glasses and relied on a cane, but when two of his three blindfold games had finished, and only a complicated endgame against Richardson remained, he “seemed to require no effort, for he walked about chatting with the spectators until it was his turn to move when he would seem to stop

70

EMIL KEMENY

and think for a moment, call out his move, and continue his conversation.” After the performance, which ended at 10:45 that night, 18 gentlemen made up a party for a late night dinner at the Clarendon Hotel. Included were Steinitz, Brooklyn Club president Charles Gilberg, Steinitz’s three opponents, and Albert Hodges, Henry Chadwick and Kemeny. In the meantime, Chigorin, who had arrived in New York on the day Steinitz gave his blindfold exhibition in Brooklyn, agreed to make an appearance at the Brooklyn club. He arrived there four days later, on Wednesday evening, March 30, and the same Brooklyn Standard-Union column that had described Steinitz’s performance and person noted that Chigorin was “about five feet seven inches in height, with very dark hair and fair skin, high forehead, and with a general air of prosperity about him that is quite pleasing to chess-players. He has a bright, kindly eye, that looks directly into the questioner and his handshaking has that warm, brotherly pressure that draws one to him.” Chigorin quickly finished his 12 board simultaneous performance with a score of 8–3 with 1 draw. The Russian’s score may seem mediocre, until one realizes that his losses were to players the caliber of Eno, Hanham and Pollock, and that the single draw, at table three, was against Kemeny. Halpern, now also a Brooklyn club member, was among the losers, as was George Russell and D. J. Finlay. Unfortunately Kemeny’s game has not survived, although Eno’s win appeared in several sources: Chigorin–Eno [C30], Brooklyn Chess Club Simultaneous (1:12), March 30, 1892. 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. d3 0–0 7. f5 Na5 8. Bb3 N¥b3 9. a¥b3 a6 10. Bg5 c6 11. Qe2 Re8 12. Nd1 b5 13. Ne3 h6 14. B¥f6 Q¥f6 15. g4 Qd8 16. h4 Qb6 17. Ng2 d5 18. g5 h5 19. g6 f¥g6 20. f¥g6 Bg4 21. 0–0–0 a5 22. c3 b4 23. Rhf1 b¥c3 24. b¥c3 Q¥b3 25. Qc2 a4 26. Rd2 Rf8 27. Nh2 Ba3+ 0–1 (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March 31, 1892). Chigorin, too, was feted afterward at the Clarendon. Besides tournament games and visits by world-class players, Brooklyn’s top players were also involved in the “continuous tournament” the Brooklyn Chess Club had pioneered. Essentially designed to promote frequent and wide-ranging play among members, the Brooklyn continuous tournaments ran every three months, and required players to meet a minimum number of different opponents (usually 12) and a minimum number of games (usually 40) during the quarter. Odds were given, or received, depending on the class to which one was assigned. Prizes were awarded for best percentage of wins, most games played, and the like. The events promoted social chess, and the masters were not exempt from play. Indeed, it was an opportunity for the rank and file membership to face off against clearly superior opponents. Kemeny’s appearances in these events were sporadic, but he was active at the time of the 1892 Brooklyn championship. The April 23, 1892, issue of the Brooklyn Standard-Union, for instance, reported Kemeny’s “continuous tournament” record as 14–4, while Hodges had a superb 24– 3, and Pollock a prolific 42–11. But the very next week, the Standard-Union did not show Kemeny’s name in the standings. Hermann Helms that week, for instance, stood at 97–19, while another member already had a record of 141–54. By May 16, Pollock’s record stood at 44–15, Hodges’ had not changed, and Kemeny was at 29–17. The continuous tournament ended June 1, with Hodges disqualified for insufficient games, and Helms the winner with 83 percent (120 wins, 24 losses). The top four percentage finishers received prizes, as did the top four who won the most games. It appears a J. Sabater won the prize for most wins, with a record of 439–321. Kemeny did not win a prize, but the point of such an event was clearly more for the social pleasure of participating than anything else. Although not published until early July, the following fragment, called an “interesting ending” from a Kemeny game, was likely played in the Brooklyn continuous tournament from the year’s second quarter, as there is no evidence Kemeny played in the next cycle.

3. New York Master: 1891–1892

71

Mr. E–Kemeny Brooklyn Chess Club Continuous Tournament 1892 Pawn and Move Odds 1. e¥d5 Q¥b2 2. d¥c6 Qc1+ 3. Bd1 d3 4. Nf3 Rae8+ 5. Kf2 Qe3+ 6. Kf1 d2 Threatening ... Bd3 mate. 7. Bb3+ Kh8 8. Bc4 Qe1+ 9. N¥e1 d¥e1Q+ [JSH: 9. ... Bd3+ 10. Kg1 Rf1 mate is a move faster, but all roads lead to mate here.] 10. Q¥e1 Bd3+ 11. Kg1 R¥e1 mate 0–1 (Brooklyn Standard-Union, July 2, 1892).

rdwdw4kd 0pdwdwdp w1ndwdpd dwdndbdw wdw0Pdwd dw)wdw!w P)wdBdP) $NdwIwHR

On Saturday, May 28, 1892, a team of ten players representing the City Chess Club faced an equal number of opponents from the Junior Chess Club of Philadelphia. The Junior Club members had traveled to New York for a team match. Despite its name, the Juniors had nothing to do with youngsters. At least, by this time it didn’t. White to Move Originally formed in the mid–1880s from a nucleus of strong Philadelphia players, the Juniors were prominent among those who dominated Philadelphia chess during the years Kemeny was there. The Juniors, with players of the quality of Samuel Bampton, Walter Penn Shipley, J. P. Morgan, John W. Young and W. J. Ferris, traveled by train the one hundred miles to face their counterparts at the City Chess Club, led by Kemeny, Hodges, Hanham, Halpern and company. The match resulted in a slim victory by the City Club, 6–4. Kemeny did his part by defeating Bampton, a player to be frequently seen in later chapters. The annotations for Kemeny’s win over Bampton are taken from Gustavus C. Reichhelm’s chess column in the Philadelphia Times. Reichhelm had been born in Western Pennsylvania, in Pittsburgh, on November 6, 1839. While only 52 when Kemeny played Bampton in the City–Junior ten board match, Reichhelm had long been a fixture in Philadelphia chess, conducting among other publications a chess column in the Philadelphia Bulletin from 1861 to 1870, as well as what eventually became a 20 year run as chess editor for the Times. A few years later, with the assistance of his good friend Shipley, Reichhelm published a memorable history of chess in the Quaker City: Chess in Philadelphia (1898). Considered by many, including Shipley, to be the dean of Philadelphia chess, Reichhelm for decades played and promoted the game. A bachelor, something of an eccentric, and at times a curmudgeon at odds with Steinitz and others, Reichhelm contributed extensively to chess in his adopted city. He could at times be quite partisan, and was quite capable of irritating others, intentionally or not. Reichhelm introduced his coverage of the interclub match by saying that “With all the ‘cracks’* in New York, except Lipschütz and Delmar opposed to them, the Juniors made a fine score, and we trust that in the return play they will put forth their full strength and include Messrs. M. Morgan, A. K. Robinson and H. Voigt.” His column for June 12, 1892, made it sound as if the Juniors had taken on not an individual chess club, but rather the combined forces of New York City’s elite players. He published Shipley’s draw with Hodges, emphasizing that the Philadelphia player stood better throughout, and also Bampton’s loss to Kemeny, remarking that but for a blunder, Bampton had a won position. *A “crack” as used by Reichhelm referred to a first class or master strength player, although not necessarily a professional one. He placed the term in quotation marks to reflect its status as slang. Reichhelm had little love for New York players over his long and eccentric chess life and the somewhat derogatory connotation here is not surprising.

72

EMIL KEMENY

Samuel Warren Bampton–Kemeny [C50] Juniors Chess Club (Philadelphia)–City Chess Club (New York) Match, Board 1 May 28, 1892 The game between Bampton and Kemeny, showing how the former could have won, but didn’t: 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Bc5 4. Nf3 d6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. 0–0 Ne7 7. Be3 Bb6 8. Ng5 0–0 9. B¥b6 a¥b6 10. f4 Mr. Bampton, with his customary vivacity, makes a dash. 10.  ... e¥f4 11.  R¥f4 Ng6 12.  Rf1 Ne5 13.  Bb3 h6 -D-D-D-D 14. Nf3 Bg4 15.  Ne2 N¥f3+ 16.  g¥f3 Bh3 17.  Rf2 Nh5 Dp0-®-Dk 18. Qd2 Qh4 19. f4 Ra5 20. Qe3 Kh7 21. f5 g6 22. f¥g6+ 23. Kh1 Happily working the adversary’s fulsome attack to -0-0LD-0 K¥g6 his own advantage. 23.  ... Rg5 24.  Rg1 f5 25.  Nf4+ N¥f4 D-D-DP1- 26. R¥f4 R¥g1+ 27. Q¥g1+ Qg5 28. Qf2 Re8 29. e¥f5+ Kh7 -D-D-$-D 30. Be6 Re7 31. Qf3 Cutting blocks with a razor. Mr. Bampton D-DPD-Dl didn’t play Qg3 because he didn’t want Kemeny to escape with a P)PD-!-) draw, whereas in point of fact on 31. Qg3 Rg7 32. f6 actually gives D-D-D-DK White the win. Well, White was so anxious to avoid a possible draw that he forfeits his position by it. 31. ... Rg7 And Black wins. 0– After 30. ... Re7 1 (Philadelphia Times, June 12, 1892, with annotations by Reichhelm). Reichhelm’s column the following week mentioned that “The Juniors have not yet been advised by the New York ‘City’ team as to when the return games in Philadelphia will be played. The Juniors were minus three of their best players in their New York visit, and it is all the more important that the second half of the contest (without which no team match is complete) shall be played.” There is no evidence such a “second half” was ever contemplated, let alone played. Indeed, Reichhelm’s own Chess in Philadelphia (pages 53– 54) lists the matches and club championships played by the Juniors from 1885 through 1898, and in fact lists the May 28, 1892, 6–4 loss by the Juniors to the City Chess Club as the last match the two clubs played. Kemeny’s chess life was clearly quite active in the first part of 1892, as in addition to playing in the various events for the Brooklyn and City clubs, he continued to play the occasional blindfold game against club members. The following fragment is an example of one such game played at the City Chess Club:

wiwdwdw4 0pdwdwdr wdwdwdpd dw0bdndw wdwdwdQ) dw)wgP)w P)wdwdwd $wdwdRdK White to Move

Anonymous–Kemeny Blindfold Game, Kemeny giving City Chess Club, 1892 Pawn and Move Odds The following interesting position occurred in a game played blindfold by Mr. Kemeny in the City Chess Club of New York against a good player, Mr. Kemeny conceding pawn and move. 1. Q¥g6 R¥h4+ [JSH: This should win for White, as will be seen; correct was 1. ... N¥h4 2. g¥h4 R¥h4+ 3. Kg2 Rh2+ 4. Kg3 R8h3+ 5. Kg4 Rg2+ etc.] 2.  g¥h4 N¥h4 3.  Qd6+ Kc8 4.  Qf6 If 4. Q¥d5 Ng6+ and wins the queen next move. 4. ... Rh7 5. Qf8+ Kd7 6. Qa8 White was afraid his queen would be trapped, and

3. New York Master: 1891–1892

73

remarked that he would give Black a chance to mate if he could. 6. ... N¥f3+ 7. Kg2 Rg7+ 8. Kh1 If 8. Kh3 Be6 mate 8. ... Ng1+ 9. Kh2 Rg2+ 10. Kh1 Re2+ [JSH: The column ends the game here, saying “...Re2 discovered mate,” but White can delay with one more move: 11. Rf3 B¥f3.] 0–1 (Brooklyn Standard-Union, July 16, 1892). At the end of June 1892 the City Chess Club moved into new rooms at 126 Second Avenue. According to the Brooklyn Standard-Union for June 18, 1892, “The old quarters were too contracted for this prospering club, and though the associations about the old rooms, where the New York and Columbia Clubs flourished for so many years, must be pleasant yet the march of progress is as potent in chess clubs as in other departments of life.” The Brooklyn club had moved into new rooms some months before as well, and with the summer heat present, “All the members agree in the statement that the new [Brooklyn Chess Club] rooms are the coolest place in the city.” Summer weather also meant the approach of the NYSCA midsummer congress, once again held in the lakeside resort town of Skaneateles. H. J. Rogers announced the congress would run August 1 through 6, 1892, with play starting August 2. The Standard-Union for July 9 had very positive words for the location: “This delightful town is situated at the head of the lake which bears its name, and those who desire the sport can find good boating, fishing and diving. It is 18 miles southwest of Syracuse, and can be reached on the fast trains of the New York Central road in seven hours” from New York City. Despite his membership in the Brooklyn Chess Club, Kemeny stayed loyal to the City Chess Club, representing that at Skaneateles in play for the Staats-Zeitung Cup. Although a large entry was not expected, Kemeny’s nemesis, Hanham, representing the Manhattan, was presumed to be Kemeny’s major competitor, and that is how it turned out. W. F. Eno represented Brooklyn for the Cup’s second year of competition. Professor M. L. Deyo was the Albany Chess Club man, while Buffalo was represented by George H. Thornton. Four of Kemeny’s eight games from this double–round robin tournament have survived, including both his games against Hanham. Kemeny handed his old antagonist a resounding defeat in their first encounter, played August 3, 1892.

Kemeny–J. Moore Hanham [D30] Staats-Zeitung Cup Competition NYSCA, Skaneateles, August 3, 1892 1. Nf3 e6 2. d4 d5 3. c4 Nf6 4. e3 b6 5. Be2 Bd6 6. b3 0–0 7. 0–0 Nbd7 8. Bb2 Bb7 9. Nbd2 c5 10. Ne5 [Steinitz prefers developing Ndf3, and Bd2 for White; and Be7 for Black—Clipper.] 10. ... Rc8 11. Rc1 d¥c4 [Better double the adverse pawns at once by ... B¥e5, then ... Ne8 and to c7 would strongly assist forming a counterattack on the queenside, beginning with ... a6—Clipper.] -DrD-®kD 12. B¥c4 B¥e5 13. d¥e5 Nd5 [By the exchange Black as secured slightly the better game—ACM.] 14.  e4 Ne7 [14.  ... Nf4 seems 0l1nhp0p preferable—ACM.] 15.  f4 Making a threatening pawn phalanx. -0-DpD-D 15. ... Qc7 16. Qe2 Rcd8 [His field of action was on the queen- D-0-)-Dside, where he has a majority of pawns. He should have prepared for -DLDP)-D advancing . ... a6 by 16. Ra8. Anyhow, it was better to select the other DPD-D-Drook for the post chosen. His next move, also, was waste of time, PG-HQDP) which assists the adverse attack. The knight was more useful at e7 D-$-DRIfor the purpose of retreating to c8 to prevent Rd6, or to drive off the hostile rook eventually—Clipper.] 17. Nf3 Ng6 18. g3 Rfe8 After 16. Qe2

74

EMIL KEMENY

19. Rcd1 Nb8 20. R¥d8 R¥d8 21. f5 [This move may well be termed the beginning of the end—ACM.] 21.  ... Nf8 22.  Ng5 Bc8 [If 22.  ... h6 23. N¥f7 K¥f7 24. f¥e6+ Ke8 25. Qh5+ g6 26. Q¥h6 Qe7 27. Rf7 and wins—Clipper.] 23. Qh5 h6 [It seems impossible to suggest a satisfactory defense for Black; among other things White threatens the pretty continuation of 24. N¥f7, if 24. ... Q¥f7 25. f¥e6 Q¥h5 26. e7+ Be6 -hl®-hkD 27. e¥d8Q wins. Also 24. f¥e6 f¥e6 25. B¥e6+ B¥e6 26. R¥f8+ K¥f8 0-1-Dp0p 27. N¥e6+ and wins. If 24. ... B¥e6 25. B¥e6 wins—ACM.] 24. f¥e6 -0-DpD-D B¥e6 25. R¥f7 [The finishing stroke—ACM.] A beautiful stroke. D-0-)PHQ 25. ... B¥f7 26. N¥f7 Kh7 27. Ng5+ Kh8 28. e6 [All this forcible and very pretty; the termination is replete with fine and -DLDPD-D isskillful play—Clipper.] 28.  ... Rd4 29.  B¥d4 c¥d4 30.  Qe8 DPD-D-)- Qc5 31.  e7 Nbd7 32.  Qf7 and wins 1–0 [1:43; 1:37—ACM] PG-D-D-) (Philadelphia Times, September 4, 1892; New York Clipper, October, D-D-DRI- 18, 1892; ACM = American Chess Monthly, no. 6, 1892, page 150). After 23. Qh5

One of Kemeny’s two wins against Eno remains. Eno had a won game at one point, but badly mismanaged affairs.

W. F. Eno–Kemeny [C29] Staats-Zeitung Cup Competition NYSCA, Skaneateles, August 5, 1892 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5 4. d3 d¥e4 5. f¥e5 Ng4 6. N¥e4 Nc6 7. Be2 Ng¥e5 8. Nf3 N¥f3+ 9. B¥f3 Be7 10. 0–0 0–0 11. c3 f5 12. Ng3 Ne5 13. Be2 c5 14. Qc2 Bg5 15. Bd2 B¥d2 16. Q¥d2 Be6 17. Rf2 Qd7 18. b3 c4 19. d4 c¥b3 20. a¥b3 Ng4 If 20.  ... B¥b3 21. Qb2 wins a piece. 21.  B¥g4 f¥g4 22. R¥f8+ R¥f8 23. c4 b5 24. d5 b¥c4 25. b¥c4 Bf7 rD-D-DkD 26. Qd4 Ra8 27. Ne4 The turning point of the game. Had White 0-DqDl0p advanced his pawns he might have won. 27.  ... Rb8 28.  Nc5 -D-D-D-D Qf5 29. Nd3 Bg6 30. Nf2 Rb1+ 31. R¥b1 Q¥b1+ 32. Qd1 D-DPD-D- a5 33.  Q¥b1 B¥b1 34.  Nd1 a4 35.  Nc3 a3 36.  d6 Kf7 -DP!-DpD 37. Kf2 a2 38.  N¥a2 B¥a2 39.  c5 Ke6 40.  Kg3 Bd5 D-D-D-H- 41. Kf2 Kd7 42.  g3 Kc6 43.  Ke3 Be6 44.  Kd4 Bd7 -D-D-DP) 45. Kc4 g6 46.  Kd4 Kb5 47.  Kd5 Bc6+ 48.  Ke6 K¥c5 $-D-D-I- 49. d7 B¥d7+ 50.  K¥d7 Kd4 51.  Ke6 Ke3 52.  Kf6 Kf3 53. Kg5 Kg2 54.  K¥g4 K¥h2 55.  Kh4 Kg2 56.  Kg4 h6 57. Kh4 Kf3 58. g4 g5+ 59. Kh3 Kf4 0–1 (Brooklyn StandardAfter 26. ... Ra8 Union, September 3, 1892). Kemeny scored a perfect 4–0 in the first round of Cup competition, but even though Hanham was two full points behind him with only four games remaining, the race was not over.

J. Moore Hanham–Kemeny [C50] Staats-Zeitung Cup Competition NYSCA, Skaneateles, August 1892 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  Bc4 Bc5 4.  Nc3 Nf6 5.  d3 d6 6.  a3 Losing time; inferior to Ne2, followed by c3, which would accomplish the same object. 6. ... Be6 7. Bb5 0–0 8. Ne2 Ne7 9. c3 Ng6 10. Ng3 d5 11. 0–0 d¥e4 12. d¥e4 Q¥d1 13. R¥d1

3. New York Master: 1891–1892

75

Bb3 14. Re1 Ng4 15. Nh1 c6 16. Be2 f5 A strong move; Black has by far the best of the game. 17. Nd2 Bc2 [JSH: The losing move, as now the knight on g4 will not have sufficient protection; best was 17. ... Be6 (adding protection to g4) 18. e¥f5 B¥f5 19. Bc4+ Kh8 20. h3 Nf6 and Black plays on.] 18. b4 Bb6 19. Ra2 19. ... N¥f2 20. N¥f2 f¥e4 21. Bc4+ This check completely upsets Black’s scheme, as it opens the rook rD-D-®kD on the dangerous pawn. 21.  ... Kh8 22.  Nd¥e4 B¥e4 0pD-D-0p 23. R¥e4 Rad8 24.  Be3 Bc7 25.  Rd2 Ne7 26.  R¥d8 27.  Bc5 b5 28.  Bb3 Rf5 29.  Be6 Rf6 30.  B¥e7 -DpD-DnD B¥d8 B¥e7 31. R¥e5 1–0 (New York Clipper, October 18, 1892).

D-g-0pD-D-DPDnD )l)-D-D-)-HL)P) $-G-$-IN After 17. Nd2

Martin Lewis Deyo was born in Ghent, New York, on December 28, 1845. He lived a very long life, dying in Pasadena, California, on March 15, 1943, at 97. He may well have remembered this game for a long part of his long life, as it decided who won the Staats-Zeitung Cup. White had a win on several occasions, and the game could logically have been drawn as late as five moves before Deyo resigned.

Professor Martin Lewis Deyo–Kemeny [D30] Staats-Zeitung Cup Competition NYSCA, Skaneateles, August 1892 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Be2 b6 6. Nf3 Bb7 7. 0–0 0– 0 8. b3 8. Bd2, followed by Rc1, is preferable. 8. ... Nbd7 9. Bb2 Ne4 9. ... c5 or 9. ... Rc8 first would establish a balance of position, whereas danger may be signaled here to his battle order of pawns. However, White does not take in the situation: 10. N¥e4 followed by Nd2 and f3 would have formed a strong center with a majority of pawns on the queenside. 10. c¥d5? e¥d5 11.  Rc1 f5 12.  N¥e4 Neither this nor White’s thirteenth move yield favorable results. 12. ... f¥e4 13. Ne5 N¥e5 14. d¥e5 c5 15. Bg4 Qe8 16. Be6+ Kh8 17. Qg4 Rd8 18. Bd7! Very pretty; if 18. ... R¥d7 (or 18. ... Q¥d7), 19. e6 unmasks a mate threat at g7 and winning at least the exchange. 18. ... Qg6 19. Q¥g6 h¥g6 20. e6 Rf5 A serious loss of time, which allows White to effectively free his game. 20. ... Ba6 first would have hampered the adverse development. 21.  f3! Ba6 22. Rf2 e¥f3 23.  R¥f3 R¥f3 24.  g¥f3 Rf8 25.  f4 25. Kg2 was much superior. 25.  ... Bd3 26.  Be5 g5 27. Kf2 Kh7 28.  Rg1 Bg6 29.  Ke2 g¥f4 30.  e¥f4 Bh5+ 31.  Ke3 d4+ 32.  Kd3? White has played a great part of this game very well, but does not manage the play of his king as skillfully. 32. Ke4, to enter at d5, would have greatly increased his advantage. At move 33 he again should have marched his king to the front at c4. Professor D. was evidently, perhaps unduly, suspicious of the advance of The Staats-Zeitung Cup, presented in September 1890 to the New York State Chess Association for annual competition by Oswald Ottendorfer, publisher of the New Yorker Staatszeitung. The 18 inch high silver trophy was an elaborately embellished rook. Kemeny won it for the City Chess Club at Skaneateles 1892 (Albany Sunday Express, October 11, 1890).

76

EMIL KEMENY

Black’s d-pawn. 32.  ... Bg6+ 33.  Kd2 Rf5 [JSH: A blunder White fails to refute; Black should have played 33. ... Rg8.] 34. Bc6 [JSH: 34. Be8 wins for White: 34. ... B¥e8 35. R¥g7+ Kh6 36. R¥e7.] 34. ... Rf8 Time was costly now, and ... Rh5 was -D-D-®-D imperative. He imperils his game by the omission. 35. Be4! B¥e4 0-DLg-0k 36. R¥g7+ Kh6 37. R¥e7 Rg8 38. R¥a7 Rg2+ 39. Kc1 d3 -0-DPDlD 40. Rd7 Rc2+ 41. Kd1 Fatal. Dangerous as it may look, 41. Kb1 best, and he could sustain no harm by 41.  ... d2 42. e7 Rc1+ D-0-G-D- was [JSH: 42. ... d1Q+ 43. R¥d1 Rd2+ 44. Kc1 Rc2+ 45. Kb1 Rd2+ draws; -D-0-)-D there is no win for White with best play.] 43. Kb2 and should win. DPD-D-D- 41. ... Bf5! 42. Rd6 If he had calculated as deeply as his opponent, PD-I-D-) he would have looked for his own safety first by 42. Rg7. 42.  ... D-D-D-$- Bg4+ 43. Ke1 Re2+ 44. Kf1 Bh3+ 45. Kg1 Rg2+ [JSH: Now the logical outcome is a draw: 46. Kf1 Re2+ 47. Kg1 Rg2+ etc. With After 33. Kd2 a choice of but two legal moves, White picks the wrong one.] 46. Kh1 Rf2 47. e7+ Kh7 48. Rg6 Defends ably, but it is too -D-D-D-D late to mend matters. 48. ... d2 49. Rg7+ Kh6 50. Rg6+ [JSH: D-D-D-D- with 50. ... K¥g6 51. e8Q+ Kf5 52. Qf7+ Ke4 53. Qc4+ Ke3 54. Qc3+ -0-$PD-i Ke2 55. Qc4+ Ke1 56. Qe4+ Re2 to follow.] 0–1 (New York Clipper, D-0-G-D- October 1, 1892). And so Kemeny won the game and the Cup, finishing with 61 ⁄ 2– -D-D-)-D 1 1 ⁄ 2 to Hanham’s 6–2. Eno, in third place, finished 0–4 against the DPDpD-Dl two players ahead of him, and 3–5 overall. Thornton and Deyo PD-D-Dr) rounded out the field. The Staats-Zeitung Cup in its second year of D-D-D-I- competition went to the City Chess Club. At City’s first annual dinner, held at their rooms on Tuesday After 45. ... Rg2+ evening, September 27, 1892, with such luminaries as Pollock, Loyd, Gilberg and Steinitz on hand, much discussion was devoted to what incentives might be offered local players about to face a new star on the chess horizon. The European about to visit was named Emanuel Lasker. As for the company on hand, “regret was expressed,” as the Brooklyn Standard-Union noted in its October 1, 1892, column, “that the winner of the Staats-Zeitung cup, Emil Kemeny, was unable to be present.” Kemeny was missed. And for good reason.

4

Philadelphia’s Finest “E. Kemeny, the brilliant Hungarian player, has gone to Philadelphia and thus deprived the Brooklyn Club of one of its ablest representatives.”—New Orleans Daily Picayune, November 14, 1892

Philadelphia sits a hundred miles south of New York City. In late 1892 the city was flourishing and stood as one of the nation’s finest with all that meant: industry, arts, wealth and poverty, commingled along the banks of the Delaware River. William Penn’s city of Brotherly

4. Philadelphia’s Finest

77

Love, its Quaker background still present but long reduced, competed economically with its Eastern seaboard neighbors, and did so quite well. Its might, as with the might of any major American metropolis, centered on commerce, and commerce meant distribution as well as production. A city with a flourishing sea trade, it had also become a major railroad terminus. The city had its chess history as well, and the chess culture it developed in the years preceding Kemeny’s move to Philadelphia formed a context for the Hungarian’s stay—a stay that, in the end, outlasted any of his other homes in the United States. Before public chess clubs flourished in Philadelphia, the city’s foremost player was Charles Vezin (1781–1853). Vezin came to the United States in 1812, an unfortunate year for voyaging to America. The future Philadelphian lost his money and, for a short time, his freedom, when as a passenger in an American vessel the English held him prisoner. Released, and now penniless, he made his way from Baltimore to Philadelphia, where according to Reichhelm’s account he made “a new start in life, and gradually accumulated enough money to enable him to engage in the importation of German, Belgian and French goods,” a business he continued until his death. Vezin attracted others to the game, and for many years headed the lists of Philadelphia players (Chess in Philadelphia, page 23). In 1844, Vezin had the opportunity to play the much younger Charles Henry Stanley (1819–1901), an Englishman then residing in the United States and considered by many the strongest player in the country before Morphy. The two contested 21 games, and while Vezin lost, he did so by the otherwise creditable score of 7–11 with 3 draws. The chessic fortunes of the Athenaeum, at the corner of Fifth and Adelphi streets, the Philadelphia library where chess was played in early years, grew and fell over time. It was not until 1852 that a young man by the name of Hardman Philips Montgomery (1834–1870) arrived on the scene. Soon known as “Phil” Montgomery, to distinguish him from another Montgomery active in the club, the young University of Pennsylvania student developed rapidly. In 1856 and 1857, he led the team of Philadelphia players who defeated New York 2–0 in two correspondence games. Montgomery represented Philadelphia’s interests at the First American Chess Congress, New York 1857. There he defeated W. S. Allison of Minnesota, in the first round, 3–1, only to fall behind 2–0 in the second, against Louis Paulsen. Trailing and outmatched, Montgomery resigned to Paulsen rather then continue play. Paulsen eventually lost to the youth from New Orleans, Paul Morphy. Morphy’s victory in this event, of course, followed by his successful play in Europe, led to a chess renaissance throughout the United States, including Philadelphia. One result of the Morphy mania was that on October 10, 1858, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin began carrying a weekly chess column. Originally the column was edited by Dr. Samuel Lewis (1813–1890), a well-respected physician born and originally raised in Barbados until he was brought to Philadelphia by his relative and guardian, the Rev. William Prescod Hinds in 1834. Lewis had the assistance of another Philadelphian, Francis Wells (1825–1886). Chess received a direct impetus in Philadelphia when Paul Morphy visited in November 1859, playing four blindfold games simultaneously at the Academy of Music, winning them all. The next year, on December 5, 1860, the formation of the Philadelphia Chess Club took place. The club had one large room and an anteroom on the second floor of S.E. Thirteenth and Chestnut streets. Montgomery continued for a time as the city’s star player. He practiced law in Philadelphia and New York, and eventually moved out west. He died at the young age of 35 on January 22, 1870, in Maryville, California. By 1861, however, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin’s chess column had come under the editorship of the man who would be associated with chess in Philadelphia for the next 45 years: Gustavus Charles Reichhelm. Reichhelm (1839–1905), although born in Pittsburgh, had long been associated with Philadelphia. At his death, Philadelphian Walter Penn Shipley

78

EMIL KEMENY

wrote an extensive obituary for his fallen friend, which appeared in the December 1905 American Chess Bulletin. After remarking that American chess had received a double loss in that S. Lipschutz had passed away on the same day as Reichhelm, November 30, 1905, the Bulletin reprinted Shipley’s obituary of his fellow chess column editor. The son of a homeopathic physician, Reichhelm received an excellent education in Philadelphia, and was accomplished in Latin, French, German, mathematics and history, besides being a musician “of marked ability.” For a time Reichhelm earned his living as a piano tuner, but for many years worked as an advertising manager for one of the Philadelphia papers. Reichhelm became interested in chess in November 1859, when Morphy visited the city. His progress was rapid, and two years later he was editing the Evening Bulletin column, which he continued to do until 1870, when the paper stopped running a chess column. In 1864 Reichhelm won a series of games, 8 to 4, played with Montgomery, thus establishing himself as one of the strongest, if not the strongest, player in the city. He had some success with George H. Mackenzie, then acknowledged by general acclamation as the United States champion, when the latter visited Philadelphia in 1864 and 1865. But in formal matches with Mackenzie in 1866 and 1867, Reichhelm was handily defeated. As he later wrote in his Chess in Philadelphia (1898), referring to himself in the third person, “About this time Mr. Reichhelm concluded that match playing was not his forte. With increasing years and experience he has been able partly, but never wholly, to overcome the nervous excitement which attends him when playing games on which a great deal depends” (pages 10–11). In 1874, Reichhelm won one game and drew five in a series with the young genius James Mason. Reichhelm had much less influence as a player than he did as a chess editor. Between 1861 and 1905, a period of 44 years, he edited at least one chess column in Philadelphia except for a short period between 1870, when the Evening Bulletin column was discontinued, and 1873, when The Chess Record began. By 1880 he had a column in the Philadelphia Times, which ran for more than twenty years, until the paper was absorbed by the Philadelphia Public Ledger. At his death, Reichhelm was still writing about chess, then in the Philadelphia North American. He had, in fact, taken over the North American’s column from Kemeny himself. For many decades he was the voice of Philadelphia chess. Although other players of promising talent appeared in Philadelphia, including the sadly and soon lost George Derrickson and James Warner, the voice that remained, decade after decade, was Reichhelm’s. He often assumed, rightly or wrongly, that he spoke for the collective chess will of Philadelphia’s players. In this context, two facets of Philadelphia’s chess heritage are significant for an understanding of the milieu in which Kemeny soon find himself: the development of organized chess in Philadelphia, and the growth of rivalry with other chess centers, first and foremost New York. In New York City, a large immigrant population gave impetus to the growth of chess in cafés as well as in dedicated chess resorts, whereas the growth of organized chess in Philadelphia was much less broad-based. According to Reichhelm’s account, the first appearance of chess tables in a public setting occurred in 1847, when the Athenaeum moved to Fifth and Adelphi streets. The organization, originally “merely a reading-room association for newspapers and periodicals ... with some feeble look towards a library,” as recounted in The Book of the First American Chess Congress (page 351), set aside a room and placed in it four chess tables. As in New York, during the Morphy phenomenon a host of new clubs were formed in and around Philadelphia. Reflecting back on the long gone boom, Reichhelm wrote, “We all considered ourselves invincible in those days.” In addition to the Philadelphia Chess Club, where Montgomery was president and first champion, chess soon was being played at the city’s Mercantile Library. In years to come a healthy and sometimes heated competition developed between the Mercantile players and

4. Philadelphia’s Finest

79

those of the Philadelphia Chess Club and its successors. Reichhelm played chess at the Mercantile as early as 1864. Shortly after a third move, however, the original Philadelphia Chess Club dissolved, and according to Reichhelm the leading Philadelphia players “had their headquarters at the Press Club” until 1874. Something of a resurgence in organized chess began after the Civil War, and by 1870 Reichhelm could report chess being played at the Press Club on Walnut Street, the Mercantile Library, Tenth near Market, and at other locations, including the German Chess Club, the Hotel de Saxe, the Commercial Rooms, and at Schuetzen Halle. On December 30, 1870, the last Evening Bulletin chess column appeared, Reichhelm reporting that in all, from 1859 through its conclusion, the column published an astonishing 775 problems and 2,640 chess games. The Philadelphia Chess Club was reborn on November 2, 1874, with club rooms at 10 West Penn Square. Reichhelm was elected recording secretary. Not long after, in a bid to attain greater national attention, the Philadelphia chess community hosted the Third American Chess Congress, in conjunction with the 1876 National Centennial celebrations. Receiving no support from the greater New York chess community, Philadelphians found little reason to speak well of that community’s chess organizations in general, and Reichhelm, in particular, found himself a lightning rod, if not also the lightning, in making known the City of Brotherly Love’s dissatisfaction with its northern neighbor. The second Philadelphia Chess Club did not survive 1877, and until 1880, Reichhelm records the center of Philadelphia chess life as the Mercantile Library. In February 1880, the third Philadelphia Chess Club was organized. Dion M. Martinez, a name that will reappear later in this biography, was the new club’s president. It was this club that in 1882 invited William Steinitz for an engagement at its rooms, and it is here that the first matches Steinitz played in the United States, against Martinez, were conducted. The Philadelphia Chess Club once more dissolved, either in late 1884 or early 1885. In October 1885 the Franklin Chess Club was organized, with Martinez again elected president. The Franklin became for many decades the most important organization representing Philadelphia chess. It is this organization, and its principle members, that Kemeny came to know quite closely, and it is within this organization that he would see his greatest successes. Kemeny’s move from New York to Philadelphia represented the greatest gain in chess strength from the one city to the other in the nineteenth century. New York lost not only an exceedingly strong chess player, but, as soon became apparent, one of the most well regarded annotators in the country. Kemeny’s role in promoting chess in his new home city was immediate and multifold. However Kemeny felt about his move, it is certain he now found himself on the other side of a long-standing chess rivalry. The chess communities of Philadelphia and New York had clashed for decades, and while there were a great number of individual friendships between opposing players, the sense of city pride and competitiveness was well-established and encouraged. Individual matches, team competitions, and disagreements over handling national tournaments had both fixed and focused the tension between the two chess communities. The intercity rivalry was decades in the making. A two game match by telegraph took place during the Christmas holidays in 1859 between a Philadelphia committee comprised of Montgomery, W. G. Thomas, P. P. Randolph, Dr. Samuel Lewis and Lewis Elkin and a New York group including T. Lichtenhein, Daniel Fiske, J. Thompson, Colonel Mead and F. Perrin. As Reichhelm remarked, “This game was played on the evenings of December 18, 21, 22 and 28. It was on the last recess, between the 22nd and 28th, that Mr. H. P. Montgomery’s remarkable analytical ability was brought to bear upon the position. His analysis occupied about ten closely written pages, demonstrating to his admiring colleagues that the win was indeed forced.” The game, with Reichhelm’s comments from Chess in Philadelphia (page 63):

80

EMIL KEMENY

Philadelphia–New York [C54], Telegraph Match Game, December 1859. 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  d4 e¥d4 4.  Bc4 Bc5 5.  c3 Nf6 6.  e5 d5 7.  Bb5 Ne4 8. c¥d4 Bb6 9. Nbd2 A novelty in this situation. 9. ... 0–0 10. B¥c6 b¥c6 11. Qc2 N¥d2 Better to have played 11. ... Bf5 here. White could not take 12. Q¥c6 without loss of position. 12. B¥d2 Bg4 13. Ng5 g6 14. Qc3 f6 15. h3 Bf5 16. Nf3 Be4 17. Bf4 f¥e5 18.  B¥e5 Qe7 19.  0–0–0 c5 20.  Rhe1 c¥d4 21.  B¥d4 c5 22.  Be5 Rae8 23. Bg3 Qb7 24. Ne5 d4 25. Qc4+ Bd5 26. Qa4 Re6 27. Ng4 h5 28. R¥e6 B¥e6 29. Qc2 Kh7 29. ... Bf5 is again the better move. 30.  Re1 From now to the end the Athenaeum players conduct the game with full mastership. Mr. H.P. Montgomery, especially, had analyzed the position in every detail, between the third and final sittings. 30.  ... Bf5 31. Qd2 h¥g4 32.  h¥g4 Qd5 To hinder by a counter attack the contemplated Qg5. 33. Rh1+ Kg8 34. g¥f5 Q¥f5 [JSH: The losing move; Black had 34. ... R¥f5 when 35. Qh6 allows Black to draw with 35.  ... Qc4+ 36. Kb1 Qd3+ 37. Kc1 (37. Ka1 Rh5) 37.  ... Qc4+.] 35. Qh6 g5 36. Bd6 Another important link of the chain in the Athenaeum analysis. [JSH: Actually much stronger is 36. Rh5! and if 36.  ... Bd8, then 37. Bd6 Re8 38. Qh8+ Kf7 39. Rh7+.] 36.  ... Rf6 37.  Qh5 Qg6 38.  Qh8+ Kf7 39.  Re1 wins. The grand coup, worthily winding up a brilliantly earned victory. 1–0 Adding acrimony to the rivalry between the two cities were events such as the match between the young chess genius, James A. Leonard, of New York, and William Dwight (later General Dwight of the Union Army) in Philadelphia in March 1861. This author has recounted the event in considerable detail in The Tragic Life and Short Chess Career of James A. Leonard, 1841–1862 (2006), and will not do so again here, other than to say the match ended prematurely with Leonard returning to New York and claiming he had been the victim of duplicity during his trip. The Philadelphians involved, including Reichhelm in a peripheral role, denied any wrongdoing, but a battle of words raged for a time between Miron Hazeltine, chess editor of the New York Clipper and Leonard’s friend, and the chess editors of the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. Nor did the intercity conflict end with the start of the nation’s disastrous Civil War. Many years later, and several years after his move to Philadelphia, Kemeny obtained a copy of Reichhelm’s limited edition Chess in Philadelphia. The author is fortunate enough to possess this volume, autographed by Kemeny. The only penciled comment in the whole work is a block-lettered “GOOD” placed on the inside margin next to the following game, another contest played by telegraph between the two cities, and another win for the Philadelphians. According to Reichhelm, it was the only game played between the two cities at the time. W. G. Thomas, J. G. Whiteman and G. Reichhelm played for Philadelphia, while F. E. Brenzinger, E. Chamier and W. Johnston consulted for New York. New York–Philadelphia [C84], Telegraph Match Game, 1863. 1.  e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d4 e¥d4 6. e5 Ne4 7. 0–0 Be7 8. N¥d4 Nc5 9.  Nf5 A departure from the usual track. 9.  ... 0–0 They cannot take the bishop, otherwise N¥g7+, followed by Bh6 wins. 10. B¥c6 This simplification is to Black’s advantage. Perhaps White hoped to win on account of the doubled pawns. 10.  ... d¥c6 11.  N¥e7+ Q¥e7 12. Bf4 Bf5 13. Nc3 Rad8 14. Qe2 Ne6 15. Be3 c5 An important move. The advantage of position is such that Black may be almost said to have a forced win at this point. 16. f4 Nd4 17. B¥d4 c¥d4 18. Ne4 Qe6 19. Nc5 Qb6 20. Nd3 c5 21. b3 Qc6 22. g4 Created by the necessities of the position. To stand still is to die. 22. ... Qg6 The only instance where the Black allies were divided in opinion. Mr. Whiteman proposed 22. ... Bc8, with the view of afterwards moving it to b7. Messrs. Thomas and Reichhelm, however, favored the move in the text, as being more immediately beneficial. Mr. Thomas remarked that you often make a move in chess on the same principle as in buying a horse, namely, on

4. Philadelphia’s Finest

81

its general appearance. All proficient chess players will appreciate the point of Mr. Thomas’ remark. Mr. Whiteman’s move, however, was also a good one and would undoubtedly have won. 23.  h3 h5 24.  Rf3 In the hope of Black’s playing ... h¥g4 at once. 24.  ... Be4 25. Rff1 h¥g4 26. h¥g4 Qh7 27. Qh2 Obtaining momentary relief by sacrificing a pawn. 27. ... B¥d3 28. c¥d3 Q¥d3 29. Rae1 Qg6 30. Rf3 f5 31. g5 Rfe8 32. Rh3 Kf7 The position already impregnable becomes bomb-proof. 33. Re2 b5 34. Kf1 c4 35. Qg2 Rd7 36. Ke1 d3 37. Ree3 Qb6 38. g6+ Ke6 39. Qb2 The game was played in the rooms of the telegraph office on Chestnut near Fourth Street. In the inner room, with glass doors, sat the playing committee. In the outer room were a large assemblage of chess players who followed the game, on a chess table provided for them, with keen interest. After New York had moved 39. Qb2, the excitement was at its height, and the players in the outer room soon discovered that Philadelphia could finish the game at one stroke. But would the Committee see it? The players rushed to the glass door to see what they could. The view was satisfactory. One enthusiastic player shouted “It’s all right. Thomas has his finger on the square.” 39. ... Rh8 This move is a crusher. On its reception our umpire, Mr. Charles H. Stanley, telegraphed over “The Paulsen Committee resigns. They join me in congratulations on the splendid play by which your victory has been achieved. Adieu.” 0–1 Chess in Philadelphia (pages 63–64). As pleasantly recounted as this account is, at least for the Philadelphians, the loss rankled in New York. The addition of Mackenzie to the ranks of the New York players, which occurred not long after the game above was played, changed dramatically the perceived balance between the two cities. But the discord continued, often under the surface but occasionally breaking out. Philadelphians were disappointed, to say the least, in the lack of financial contribution the New York players and clubs made to the 1876 Centennial Congress, hosted by the former. Four years later, in 1880, the scandal accompanying the Ware–Grundy revelations following the Fifth American Chess Congress in New York did not go unnoticed in Philadelphia. (Ware claimed Grundy paid him to draw their last encounter, only to double-cross him by winning their agreed draw, thus allowing Grundy to tie with MacKenzie for first place.) By that decade’s end, however, the enormous national and international success of the Sixth American Chess Congress, also hosted in New York, and the tournament book produced by William Steinitz, another addition to New York’s chess scene, marked the balance of chess power as having heavily swung in favor of Philadelphia’s rivals. It was into this chess environment that Kemeny found himself transplanted. Rumors of his coming move to Philadelphia began appearing in the chess press in September 1892. Reichhelm in his Philadelphia Times column for September 4, 1892, commented that “Mr. Kemeny, the recent winner of the New York State cup at Skaneateles, NY, is in this city and he contemplates taking up his residence here. Mr. Kemeny will be a strong addition to the class A contingent of this city and a most clubbable and gentlemanly member of the home club.” In New York, talk of possible events involving Kemeny were at best uncertain. Six days after the report in Philadelphia, the Brooklyn Standard-Union wrote, “There has been talk of arranging a match between Hodges and Kemeny, and the City Chess Club is willing to make a purse in the event of a contest, but, as Kemeny is likely soon to move to Philadelphia, the probability of a meeting between these two brilliant players is rather doubtful.” One unfortunate matter regarding the timing of Kemeny’s move was his missing the first appearance of Emanuel Lasker in New York. Lasker had sailed from England on September 28, arriving in New York harbor on October 6, 1892. His schedule included three game exhibition matches with eight of the city’s strongest players at the Manhattan Chess Club. In discussing who would meet Lasker across the board, the American Chess Monthly for October 1892

82

EMIL KEMENY

Emanuel Lasker (left) and Gustavus C. Reichhelm, December 27, 1892, in Philadelphia. Kemeny would know both men well (from Chess in Philadelphia by Gustavus C. Reichhelm, assisted by Walter Penn Shipley [Philadelphia, 1898]).

noted that “Emil Kemeny, the champion of the City Chess Club, of New York, has accepted a position with a railroad company in Philadelphia.” In discussing Lasker’s likely opponents during his time in the sister-city of Brooklyn, the New York Times added that “the brilliant Hungarian player has gone to Philadelphia and thus deprived the Brooklyn club of one of its ablest representatives.” But it was the brief mention in the American Chess Monthly that gives one of the few hints regarding Kemeny’s work away from the chessboard, work that had attracted him to Philadelphia. What sort of a “position with a railroad company in Philadelphia” Kemeny had accepted remained for a time vague. It was not learned until the end of the winter, as Kemeny was playing in the Franklin Chess Club’s championship, that he was “a clerk in the office of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company” (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 18, 1893). The Pennsylvania Railroad Company had its earliest beginnings in the 1820s, when the new-fangled mode of transportation had just begun to capture the imagination, and soon the landscape, of America. But it was not until April 13, 1846, that the railroad began to take its more modern form, obtaining its charter and continuing work on what became, by 1852, the first trans-state railroad connection linking Philadelphia to the western-most reaches of Pennsylvania. In competition for the bounty of western resources, the Keystone State had created its iron-equivalent to New York’s Erie Canal. Following the Civil War the company continued its expansion, buying up smaller railroads when not building its own growing lines, and creating in the process a railroad conglomerate that eventually absorbed hundreds of separate

4. Philadelphia’s Finest

83

corporate entities. In 1885 passenger service from New York to Washington was introduced, and two years later, New York to Chicago, by way of Philadelphia. By the time Kemeny arrived at his employer’s offices, Pennsylvania Railroad Company trains were running to New York, Delaware, Pittsburgh, and at least as far as Chicago, more than 900 miles away. Only decades later did it emerge that Arthur Hale, one of many prominent members of the Franklin Chess Club, had arranged for Kemeny’s hiring by the mammoth railroad corporation. Nearly 30 years after Kemeny’s move to Philadelphia, Shipley recounted in his January 1, 1922, Philadelphia Inquirer column, subtitled “The Great Kemeny,” the long-ago story of the Hungarian’s transition to Philadelphia: “It was William Ferris, who entered the Franklin Chess Club one afternoon with the remark that he had played the whole of the night before. Somebody asked him where, Ferris replied in New York. There the matter dropped, for the Happy Dasher [Samuel W. Bampton] had just left his queen en prise in a tournament game, and everybody wanted to see whether the sacrifice was sound. It was at supper later that Ferris unbosomed himself to a select coterie of friends. It appeared that he had discovered a Bohemian chess club down on Second avenue. Ferris was fond of discovering Bohemian places of all kinds. There was a restaurant downstairs and a chess room upstairs. Ferris was so fascinated by the place, and the players, that he stayed until bedtime, then went to his hotel, and being unable to sleep, dressed and went back to Second avenue to have another look at the place. To his surprise it was still open. “There was one man there, a nice chap, who did not seem a bit sleepy and played with him until near morning. Asked his new friend’s name, Ferris thought it was Kemeny, but was not sure. Asked the score, he said it was pretty bad, and added that his friend was coming over here to work. “The idea of anybody who would gamble with you until morning, really working, seemed funny. Yet it was barely a fortnight later that it was announced in the club that Emile [sic] Kemeny, of New York, had been elected to membership, and that Arthur Hale had placed him in the Pennsylvania Railroad office at Broad street. Shortly afterwards a tall distinguished looking foreigner dropped in at the Franklin and put his name down for the championship tourney. His early successes combined with his modest demeanor won him friends.” We will return to Arthur Hale and the remainder of Shipley’s article, in time. As for the club Kemeny “dropped in at” in the fall of 1892, the Franklin had then been in existence only eight years, yet it had progressed significantly. Glimpses of the club and its changing location and highlights can be found in Chess in Philadelphia. Beginning life in October 1885 in the second story rooms of a building next to the corner of South Penn Square, the Franklin joined the long-standing battle with New York, winning a short correspondence match 1 1 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2 in 1886. The winners of the Franklin’s early championship tournaments will be met as they appear across the board from Kemeny, but just where in the city he would meet them had by no means been established with the club’s formation. In 1886 the organization moved to a room at Walnut and Juniper streets, only to move the next year to a third floor room at 1037 Walnut Street. In 1888, the club moved again, this time to Eleventh and Sansom streets, above the Lending Library of the unfortunate William C. Wilson. Wilson ran a private, subscription lending library, where he was brutally murdered in August 1897. It was these rooms, above Wilson’s Library, that the Franklin called home at the time Kemeny first knew the club. Chess did not spare Kemeny much time for adjusting to his new home and clerking responsibilities. Entering the lists for the 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club championship, Kemeny quickly met many of the city’s, and the nation’s, finest players outside the New York arena. The club championship each year began shortly after the chess season opened, usually in late November or early December, and played at a leisurely rate, with frequent breaks for other club activities, extended each year well into the late winter or early spring. The 1892-93 event

84

EMIL KEMENY

proved no exception. On this occasion, 10 competitors entered the double-round affair. Each player contested 18 games. Kemeny’s worth as an opponent was not underestimated. Reichhelm, for instance, writing in his Philadelphia Times column for December 11, 1892, said, “Mr. Emil Kemeny, champion of the City Club of New York ... has only lately made his home in this city. He is a powerful player, whom many judges regard as the most dangerous man in the lists.” The 1892-93 Franklin championship introduced a challenge cup to honor the tournament victor: “The George W. Childs Chess Cup is on exhibition in the window of Bailey, Banks & Biddle, Twelfth and Chestnut streets, and is attracting considerable attention on account of the odd design and the handsome inscription. It is of solid silver, and it is shaped like a massive rook, one of the pieces used in chess. The cup has been presented by Mr. Childs to the Franklin Chess Club, of the southeast corner of Eleventh and Sansom streets, to be played for annually in a tournament, open to all chess players residing in this city, the winner to have his name inscribed, with the year, and to be regarded as the champion chess player of Philadelphia” (Philadelphia Public Ledger, December 14, 1892). That the Philadelphia Public Ledger noted this act of generosity on Childs’ part might not have been surprising, as Childs owned the newspaper. Nevertheless, it was an oddity the matter was even mentioned, as Childs routinely gave extensive benevolence with the simple request that his actions not be noted. George William Childs (1829–1894) was born in Baltimore to a poor family. Starting work at age 12 in a Baltimore bookstore, by 18 Childs had already joined and left the navy, moved to Philadelphia, and had again entered the book trade. He took his savings in 1847 and opened an office as a publisher in the same building as the Philadelphia Public Ledger, announcing that one day he intended to own the paper. And he did, purchasing the struggling enterprise for $20,000 during the Civil War, in December 1864. Eventually a multimillionaire publisher, Childs, as his obituary in the February 3, 1894, issue of the New York Times recounted, was known worldwide for his charitable contributions. The Times wrote “It is not extravagant to say that thousands of men owed to him their relief from painful situations. His benevolence began at home, among his own employees, and radiated to every part of the country. ... He insured the life of every editor, reporter, clerk and head of department in his employ, allowed them proper vacations, and paid their salaries while away. He provided them with doctors and medicine when sick, and in every other way looked after their welfare and their comfort.” Childs did this during an age of extreme “employment at will,” a doctrine used to institutionalize the lack of employer concern, let alone responsibility, for providing livable working conditions. Providing the Franklin Chess Club with a cup worth a few hundred dollars to honor their champions was a small kindness for a man of such large heart. Kemeny received a rude introduction to Philadelphia chess when he began play in the Franklin’s 1892-93 championship. He immediately faced Herman Voigt (1857–1922), then defending Franklin champion. Voigt had won the tournament the last two years, and had every intention of being the first man to have his name engraved on the Childs Cup. Although Voigt was born in Germany and lived his first 14 years there, his father was a naturalized citizen of the United States, and had retained his American citizenship. Thus Voigt was considered a native born American citizen, although he didn’t see his “native” land until 1871, when he came to rejoin his father, who had returned to this country the year before. The curious yet technically accurate nature of Voight’s citizenship had significant implications for his participation, in the years to come, in the Anglo-American Cable Matches, as a requirement for play included native born status for members of the American team (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 7, 1898).

4. Philadelphia’s Finest

85

Voigt played on the American cable team for ten straight matches, between 1899 and 1911, not losing a game until his last two appearances, and before that holding a solid, 3–0 with 5 draws record. Had relations been better between the Brooklyn Chess Club, the hosts for each cable match, and the Franklin Chess Club—another symptom of the on-and-off squabbles between New York and Philadelphia players—Voigt likely would have played even sooner for the team. As with many players, though, Voigt was most dangerous at his home club. Consider the following game, annotated by Reichhelm: Pillsbury–Voigt [D60], Franklin Chess Club, January 1904. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 0–0 6. Nf3 Nbd7 7. Bd3 c5 8. c¥d5 N¥d5 9. B¥e7 Q¥e7 10. N¥d5 e¥d5 11. 0–0 c4 A declaration for a queenside attack, which White regards lightly. 12. Bc2 Nf6 13. Ne5 b5 14. Qf3 a5 15. Rfe1 Ra6 16. Kh1 Qe6 17. Rg1 Ne4 A move well taken. If Pillsbury wins the pawn he must expect ... f6. 18. Qe2 f5 19. a4 Made to weaken the Black pawn chain. At the same time it makes White’s game more difficult. 19.  ... b4 20.  g4 b3 21.  g¥f5 Q¥f5 22.  B¥e4 Q¥e4+ 23.  f3 Qc2 24. Qe1 A bid for direct attack. 24. Q¥c2 was the conservative move. 24. ... Qf5 Of course he cannot play 24. ... Q¥b2 on account of 25. Rg2. 25. Qh4 Raf6 26. Rg5 Qh3 27. Qf2 Bf5 28.  Rag1 g6 29.  R1g3 Burning his bridges behind him. 29.  ... Qh6 30.  Kg1 Intending h4, and on ... Q¥h4, R¥g6+ etc. 30.  ... Qg7 31.  Qd2 Qc7 32.  h4 [JSH: A serious error; 32. Qc3 blocking the c-pawns advance was best.] 32.  ... c3 Fine play, as it makes White’s queen inoperative. 33. b¥c3 Must. 33. ... Rb6 34. Qb2 h6 35. R¥f5 Hobson’s choice. 35. ... R¥f5 36. f4 Kh7 37. Kf2 Qe7 38. Rg4 h5 39. Rg5 R¥g5 40. h¥g5 Qe6 41. e4 Qh3 42. Qa3 Qh2+ Again remarkable. Black must take one or the other pawn with a check. 43.  Ke3 Qg1+ 44.  Kf3 Qf1+ 45.  Kg3 Qe1+ 46.  Kh2 Qf2+ 47. Kh3 Qe3+ 48. Kg2 Q¥e4+ 49. Kg1 Rb7 0–1 (North American, January 10, 1904). Between 1891 and 1909 Voigt won the Franklin title an impressive five times. According to his good friend and fellow competitor, Shipley, Voigt was “a man of a large, vigorous physique ... while a strong and pleasing personality, buoyant and happy disposition brought him the esteem and love of hosts of friends. The best players of the day counted it a pleasure to be his antagonist. Well we remember how his entry into the Franklin Chess Club with his hearty greeting, ‘Here comes the boss player—can beat anything in the room,’ would at once bring to life all that was best in his chess friends” (Philadelphia Inquirer, February 16, 1922). A contractor by profession, Voigt was used to directing projects and work jobs. He was, quite literally, comfortable as the boss. He clearly brought many of his personal and professional traits to the game. One can only wonder how Kemeny, in all accounts a modest, self-effacing personality, although one with his own sense of humor and quiet force of character, received such a whirlwind sitting down at the board across from him. Perhaps not well, as in their first tournament game encounter Kemeny, playing Black, uncharacteristically dropped a pawn on his fifth move. Kemeny worked hard to regain ground, opting for a double rook and pawn endgame at move 21. Some weak play on the newcomer’s part allowed Voigt to improve his position, and saw Kemeny drift into a lost endgame. Given a chance to see his hard work defending pay off when Voigt stumbled at move 34, Kemeny returned the favor a few moves later and lost. Reichhelm, in publishing the game, remarked that “Mr. Emil Kemeny, champion of the City Club of New York, and as their representative winner of the Staats-Zeitung Cup at Skaneateles last summer, has only lately made his home in this city. He is a powerful player, whom many judges regard as the most dangerous man in the lists.” If so, his initial encounter with Voigt hardly showed it.

86

EMIL KEMENY

Herman G. Voigt–Kemeny [C65] 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club Championship December 1892 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 Be7 5. Nc3 0–0 A lapse of memory on Mr. Kemeny’s part. He now has a terrible up-hill game to fight. 6. B¥c6 d¥c6 7. N¥e5 Re8 8. d3 Bd6 9. Nf3 Bg4 Willing to double himself up for the sake of the open file. Mr. Voigt, however, is playing on the basis of being a good Dutch pawn ahead. 10. Bg5 Qd7 11. Re1 c5 12. Bh4 Nh5 13. Bg3 Re6 14. Nd5 Rae8 15. Ne3 Rg6 16. N¥g4 Q¥g4 17. Nh4 Q¥d1 18.  Ra¥d1 Rge6 19.  Nf5 g6 20.  N¥d6 c¥d6 21.  f3 rD-DrDkD N¥g3 22. h¥g3 d5 23. Kf2 d4 24. f4 Ra6 25. a3 Rb6 26. b3 0p0qDp0p Rbe6 27.  a4 b6 28.  g4 Kg7 29.  g5 h6 30.  g¥h6+ K¥h6 g4 Kg7 32. Rh1 Kf6 33. Rh6 Ke7 34. f5 [JSH: Forcing mat-Dpg-h-D 31. ters too soon; either 34. Rdh1 or 34. Kg3 is better. But after fighting D-D-D-G- for chances for nearly 30 moves, Kemeny weakens just as his oppor-D-DPDlD tunity arrives.] 34. ... g¥f5 35. R¥e6+ f¥e6 36. e¥f5 Rh8 [JSH: D-HPDND- Missing his last chance; 36.  ... Rg8 was decidedly his best move.] P)PD-)P) 37. Re1 Rh2+ 38.  Kf3 R¥c2 39.  R¥e6+ Kf7 40.  g5 Rd2 $-DQ$-I- 41. Ke4 Re2+ 42.  Kd5 Re3 43.  Rc6 Rf3 44.  Rc7+ Ke8 45. Ke6 Kd8 46. R¥a7 R¥d3 47. g6 and wins. 1–0 (PhiladelAfter 11. Re1 phia Times, December 11, 1892, with annotations by Reichhelm). A happier occasion was Kemeny’s game against Mordecai Morgan (1862–1931; a private communication from Morgan’s great-granddaughter, Lynne Raughley, August 10, 2000, indicated that Morgan had died on September 21, 1931). Morgan was involved with chess in the Philadelphia area as early as 1884, when he won a simultaneous exhibition game against Zukertort during the latter’s American tour. An early director of the Franklin, Morgan won the Junior Chess Club championship in 1889, finishing with an 181 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2 record. He also won that club’s title two years later. He would win the 1895-96 Franklin championship with a sparkling 121 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2 record, conceding a draw only to Charles J. Newman. The following game, although flawed, shows something of Morgan’s tactical insight, especially his eighteenth and twentieth moves; the annotations are Kemeny’s: C. Hinrichs–Mordecai Morgan [C54], Franklin Chess Club Championship, 1894. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. 0–0 Bb6 7. Nbd2 Ne7 8. Re1 Ng6 9. Nf1 c6 10. Ng3 Ng4 Premature attack! Black probably expected White to play h3. The correct answer of White, d4, proves that Black’s early attack, ... Ng4, was only loss of time. 11.  d4 h6 12.  h3 Nf6 13.  d¥e5 d¥e5 14.  Be3 Qc7 15. Qc2 0–0 16. Rad1 B¥e3 17. R¥e3 Nf4 18. Ne2 White overlooked the threatening sacrifice combination of Black, otherwise he would have played Kh2 or Bf1, instead of 18. Ne2. 18. ... B¥h3 19. g¥h3 [JSH: 19. N¥f4 e¥f4 20. Re2 Bg4 is much better for White.] 19. ... N¥h3+ 20.  Kg2 N¥f2 Beautiful play! White cannot capture the knight on account of 21. K¥f2 Ng4+, winning both rooks. There is no doubt that Black saw clear the win on his eighteenth move, when he sacrificed the bishop. [JSH: And White resigned after 46 moves.] 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 24, 1894). Morgan finished second in the Continental Correspondence Chess tournament (1894– 1898), half a point behind Charles W. Phillips of Chicago. Morgan’s Chess Digest, a four volume work (1901–1905) incorporating thousands of chess games by opening, attracted much attention at the time. In the Franklin championship game that follows, Morgan overlooks the win of a piece at his eleventh move, and Kemeny is fortunate to finish off the game as he does.

4. Philadelphia’s Finest

87

Mordecai Morgan–Kemeny [C24] 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club Championship December 1892 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Qe2 The old way of handling this game. 3. ... Bc5 4. Nf3 The move on the surface, 4. B¥f7+, followed by 5. Qc4+, regaining the piece, is poor play, as White suffers great loss of time in his development. 4. ... Nc6 Innocent as this move looks it’s wrong. 4. ... d6 is the stroke. 5. Ng5 d5 He cannot castle, for then 5. N¥f7, etc., loses the exchange for Black. 6. e¥d5 N¥d5 7. d4 B¥d4 8. 0–0 0–0 9. c3 Bb6 10. Rd1 Be6 11. Qe4 Playing too fine and overlooking that B¥d5, followed by Qd3, would have won a piece. 11. ... Nf6 The saving clause. After his escape Mr. Kemeny plays excellently. 12. R¥d8 Ra¥d8 13. Qe1 B¥c4 14. Na3 14. Nd2 looks better. 14. ... Bd3 15. Be3 e4 16. B¥b6 a¥b6 17.  f3 e¥f3 18.  N¥f3 Rfe8 19.  Qg3 Re2 20.  Nd4 A mistake. 20. ... N¥d4 21. Q¥d3 Rd2 A fine stroke. Mr. Kemeny -D-DrDkD now wins. 22. Qc4 Ne2+ 23. Kf1 Re8 24. Nb5 [JSH: The real Dp0-Dp0p disaster; White should have brought his rook into the game with -0-D-h-D 24. Re1. The text loses immediately.] 24.  ... Nd5 [JSH: With the D-D-D-Dthreat of ... Ne3+. White is lost, as too many pieces swarm around his king; Kemeny’s deft knight movements finish Morgan off shortly.] -DQD-D-D 25. Ke1 R¥b2 26. N¥c7 Nef4+ 27. N¥e8 N¥g2+ 28. Kd1 H-)-D-DNge3+ 29. Kc1 N¥c4 0–1 (Philadelphia Times, December 18, 1892, P)-®nDP) $-D-DKDwith annotations by Reichhelm). After 23. ... Re8 No sooner, it seemed, had the Franklin championship begun, than it stopped for the arrival of the young German Emanuel Lasker, and the usual series of exhibition games and simultaneous séances unfolded. Lasker had stormed the Manhattan Chess Club, winning his exhibition series against the best players there with a phenomenal 21 wins (one by default), only 2 losses, and 1 draw. He had fared as well against other opponents. For two weeks at the Franklin, December 20 to January 3, Lasker played two exhibition games against each of five selected Philadelphia players. As strong as Kemeny was, it is not surprising that as a newcomer he was not selected to face Lasker. Lasker also gave two simultaneous performances in the city, one on December 29, 1892, the other on January 2, 1893, finishing the first 4–0 with 15 draws (the result clearly skewed by Lasker’s bet that he would not lose a single game), and the second 12–4 with 4 draws. Of his ten more serious games, Lasker overwhelmed his opponents, 9–1. Lasker returned to New York City before leaving for Havana, and the Franklin championship resumed play after a two week lull. Despite the break, and a chance perhaps to adjust a bit more to his new surroundings, Kemeny continued to struggle over the board. On Thursday evening, January 12, 1893, he faced another difficult adversary, Samuel Warren Bampton (1863–1952). Bampton, although only three years younger than Kemeny, outlived his chess friend by over a quarter of a century, and was likely the last man living who played in the Franklin’s inaugural championship of 1885-86. Although he finished well down in that crosstable, Bampton played a perennial role as a strong championship contender throughout Kemeny’s years in the city, finishing as high as second in the 1894-95 event with a score of 161 ⁄ 2–51 ⁄ 2. It seems highly likely that Kemeny knew Bampton from several years earlier, though the latter’s membership, like Voigt’s, in the City Chess Club of New York. A many time Junior Chess Club champion, Bampton also won the Pennsylvania State Championship tournament in 1897. Kemeny’s win over Bampton from the Junior–City Chess Club match played a few months before his move to Philadelphia appeared in the previous

88

EMIL KEMENY

chapter. Here is an example of Bampton’s play in another Franklin championship, annotated by Kemeny: Bampton–Elihu S. Maguire [C00], Franklin Chess Club Championship, 1893-94, January 1894. 1. e4 d5 2. e5 e6 3. f4 Nh6 4. Nf3 Nd7 5. Be2 Be7 6. c3 b6 7. 0–0 0–0 8. Kh1 f5 9. e¥f6 N¥f6 10. d4 Nf5 11. Ne5 Bb7 12. Qd3 Ne4 13. Nd2 Nfd6 14. Qh3 Bc8 15. Ndf3 Nf5 16. Bd3 Rf6 17. Ng4 Rf8 18. Nfe5 Ned6 19. Be3 Qe8 20. Rae1 Nf7 21. Bd2 N¥e5 22. N¥e5 g6 23. g4 Nd6 24. f5 The sacrifice of a pawn gives White some attack, but it is not perfectly sound. 24. ... e¥f5 25. Bh6 25. Qg2 seems to be preferable. Black could not play then ... f¥g4. 25. ... f¥g4 26. N¥g4 R¥f1+ 27. B¥f1 Ne4 28. R¥e4 To follow up the attack, it was necessary to sacrifice the exchange. 28. ... d¥e4 29. Bf4 B¥g4 A disastrous error. White forces now the win in a few moves. 29. ... Qc6 was proper. 30. Bc4+ Kg7 31. Qh6+ Kf6 32. Be5+ Black resigns after this move, for White mates on the next move with Qb4. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 15, 1894). More was revealed about Bampton upon his selection to the American cable team in 1900. Helms, writing in his Brooklyn Daily Eagle column for March 8, 1900, told his readers that the new man “was born in Philadelphia, September 3, 1863. In June, 1880, he graduated second from the Hancock Grammar School, were he was always first in mathematics. Since 1887 he has been connected with the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. “Bampton first learned the moves of chess when 14 years old from his father, but his chief preceptor was Henry Chadwick, the well known authority on baseball and cricket. He took an interest in problem solving about 1881 and developed at once into a quick and brilliant solver. The well known problem composer, W. E. Tinney, gave him the nickname of ‘Happy Dasher,’ because of his quickness in detecting the key move of any problem. He started to play hard chess in the year 1885, being one of the original corporate members of the Franklin Chess Club. The following year he joined the Junior Chess Club of Philadelphia, and, with but one exception, has participated in every tournament of both these clubs. He has captured first prize in the Junior Chess Club for the past six years (with the exception of the last year, when he tied for first with D. Stuart Robinson of Philadelphia) and this, notwithstanding the fact that such well known players as M. Morgan, D. Stuart Robinson, J. W. Young, W. P. Shipley and other strong players competed in several of the tournaments. In the championship tournament of the Franklin Chess Club, with but a few exceptions, he was a prize winner.” Bampton was in three cable matches, in 1900, 1901 and 1907, losing, drawing and winning in turn. In early 1893, Kemeny found himself the center of attention in Philadelphia chess, but not on the board’s winning side. Reichhelm in giving Kemeny’s first game against Bampton mentioned that it was likely that week’s most exciting game, and that the Happy Dasher “broke through the lines of the stalwart Hungarian, Kemeny, and won in excellent style.” Kemeny had time trouble in the game, we are told, although just what the time limit was is unknown.

Kemeny–Samuel Warren Bampton [B01] 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club Championship January 1893 1. e4 d5 2. e5 [This premature advance of the pawn enables Black to establish a strong center—Ledger.] The evasion of the offered Center Counter Gambit is not good form and usually leads to positions in the French opening, wherein the second player has the better of it. 2. ... c5 [White cannot now play 3. d4, on account of 3. ... c¥d4 4. Q¥d4 Nc6 5. Bb5 Qa5+ 6. Nc3 Bd7 7. Q¥d5 and Black castles with a powerful attack. Staunton in his analysis

4. Philadelphia’s Finest

89

gives 2.  ... d4 3. f4 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 with an even game—Ledger.] 3.  f4 Nc6 4.  Nf3 Bg4 5. Be2 e6 6. 0–0 Nge7 6. ... Nh6 is the usual form of knight development. 7. d3 in this defense. The players of the old school would have rushed up with c3 and d4, but Mr. Kemeny wisely tempers the game with a modern school continuation. 7. d3 Nf5 8. c3 Be7 9. Na3 h5 An impending “happy dash,” but it must be confessed that for reasons above stated the weight of the present position is with Black. A surer development was ... a6. 10. Nc2 Qc7 11. Ne3 g6 12. N¥f5 g¥f5 13. h3 0–0–0 [This sacrifice, though brilliant, its soundness is questionable—Ledger.] As properly consequent upon Black’s bold rook’s pawn thrust, and the game enters on its brilliant stage. 14. h¥g4 h¥g4 15. Ne1 This loses the game. [JSH: But see comment after White’s next move.] [It is astonishing that a player of Mr. Kemeny’s ability should have overlooked the correct move. Had he played 15. Ng5 he could with proper play have got out of all difficulty—Ledger.] On the pivot. According to the light of much analysis to which this position has been subjected, White could have secured the better game through Ng5 at this point. This, however, was difficult to see in the actual conflict and Mr. Kemeny retired the knight, consequently on the lines of private judgment. On 15. Ng5 might have followed 15. ... B¥g5 16. f¥g5 Q¥e5 17. Bf4 -Dk®-D-® Qg7 18. d4 etc. 15. ... Bh4 [Mr. Bampton plays the endgame with 0p1-DpDgreat ingenuity; in fact, from this point Black’s game is analytically correct—Ledger.] 16.  g3 [JSH: Astonishing and inexplicable; why -DnDpD-D Kemeny made the move is unknown. Did he touch the wrong pawn? D-0p)pD16. d4 was necessary.] 16. ... B¥g3 17. Kg2 [JSH: There are no good -D-D-)pg moves but this one is worse than most, as the sequel shows.] 17. ... D-)PD-DQe7 18. Nf3 [If 18. K¥g3, Black mates in three moves—Ledger.] It’s P)-DLDPD all one. 18. ... g¥f3+ 19. R¥f3 Rh2+ 20. Kg1 Qh4 and wins. $-GQHRI0–1 (Philadelphia Times, January 22, 1893, annotations above by After 15. ... Bh4 Reichhelm; Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 14, 1893). The happenstance of tournament game publication gives at this point much too dark a picture of Kemeny’s play in his first Franklin championship tournament. Kemeny had won several games by the month’s end, and was among the leaders along with his two conquerors at 4–2, according to Reichhelm’s report in the Philadelphia Times for January 29, 1893. Although only five of his nine first-round games in this double-round event saw publication, in the second round seven of his nine games were published, suggesting something of Kemeny’s improving form. His last published first round game was against Joseph Palmer Morgan (1866–1899). No relation to Mordecai Morgan, J. Palmer Morgan, as he was usually known, lived a short life, unfortunately dying before his thirty-third birthday. No cause of death has been found, but Reichhelm, in mentioning his death in the Philadelphia Times for November 12, 1899, indicated that J. Palmer Morgan had participated as a Class A player in almost all the Franklin and Junior events from 1888 “until about a year ago.” Although speculative, as no suggestion was made the young man had lost interest in chess, his absence from the events and company he loved might have been caused by a long illness. In 1890, Morgan made a trip to Havana with fellow Franklin member A. K. Robinson. The trip was of sufficient chess interest to warrant mention in Reichhelm’s chronology of chess events in the city. In 1895, Morgan drew two set games with the visiting Adolf Albin, and the following year he achieved his best tournament result, finishing second in the 189697 Franklin championship with a score of 71 ⁄ 2–21 ⁄ 2 behind Voigt, but ahead of Shipley, D. Stuart Robinson, Bampton and seven others. Morgan had taken the lead early in the 189697 event, starting with a blazing 31 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2, only to fall off to Voigt in the end. The young man

90

EMIL KEMENY

had been less successful in the 1892-93 contest, although strangely enough, given how weak his play was against Kemeny in the game that follows, he defeated Voigt in the same event, 2–0. The game was considered one of the most “brilliant” so far played in the tournament. At the time, “brilliancy” often meant finding the correct tactical refutation of inferior play.

Kemeny–J. Palmer Morgan [C77] 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club Championship January 17, 1893 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. c3 Be7 7. Nbd2 0– 0 8. Nf1 Kh8 9. Qe2 Ne8 10. Bd2 f5 11. Bc2 f¥e4 12. d¥e4 Be6 13. Ne3 Qd7 14. Rd1 Bd8 15. h4 Ne7 16. h5 Ng8 17. Nf5 Qf7 18. g4 c6 At this point both players were greatly pressed by the time limit, having only two minutes to make as many moves. Black’s game is, however, very critical. 19. Bg5 Bf6 20. N3h4 Very well played. If 20. ... B¥g5, then 21. Ng6+ h¥g6 22. h¥g6+ and wins. [JSH: Black’s next two moves are disastrous.] 20. ... B¥f5 21. g¥f5 Qe7 [JSH: Simply suicide.] rD-Dn®ni 22. Ng6+ Brilliant and sound from this point, Black’s game is DpD-Dq0p beyond all hope. 22. ... h¥g6 23. h¥g6+ Nh6 24. B¥h6 g¥h6 pDp0-g-D 25. R¥h6+ Kg8 26.  Bb3+ d5 27.  R¥d5 Another of Mr. D-D-0PGP Kemeny’s fine strokes. 27.  ... c¥d5 28.  B¥d5+ Rf7 29.  Qh5 -D-DPD-H Pretty; threatening 30. Rh8+ B¥h8 31. Qh7+ and mate next move. D-)-D-D- 29. ... Qc7 30. g¥f7+ 1–0 White: 1:24; Black: 1:12 (Philadelphia P)LDQ)-D Public Ledger, January 18, 1893, with annotations above; Brooklyn D-DRI-DR Standard-Union, January 25, 1893; New York Clipper February 11, 1893). Kemeny’s next opponent was Walter Penn Shipley (1860–1942). Only five months younger than Kemeny, Shipley became the Hungarian’s longest-lasting connection to his years in the United States, and, in the end, one of his oldest friends. They still exchanged letters, although with little frequency, nearly 30 years later, and it would be Shipley who in his Philadelphia Inquirer column announced Kemeny’s death, and wrote the most moving tribute for his old friend. But at the time of their first tournament game, Kemeny had been in Philadelphia for only a few months. There is a good chance he was well known to Shipley long before he arrived, however, given that Voigt, Bampton and Ferris, at least, held dual allegiances with the City Chess Club in New York and the Franklin. Shipley kept up-to-date on chess events throughout the United States, and of course Kemeny’s achievements would have been known to him long before they met. The little we know of Kemeny’s congenial nature, his learning, and his sense of humor, is largely if not exclusively filtered through the eyes of Philadelphia’s most famous chess-playing Quaker lawyer. Shipley had already begun to build a name for himself in East Coast chess circles, and indeed his reputation as a fair, honest and talented chess player, as well as patron and organizer, only increased with time. Shipley later held the Franklin Chess Club’s presidency more than a quarter-century, and not only assisted Reichhelm with his Chess in Philadelphia but ghostwrote his last chess column in the North American as Reichhelm was dying. It was Shipley who helped Harry Nelson Pillsbury as disease destroyed that extraordinary genius’s abilities, and it was Shipley who Steinitz, Lasker and Capablanca, to name only the finest players, sought for assistance. For half a century Shipley was the quiet, gentlemanly driving force behind chess in Philadelphia. As the man who took over Pillsbury’s chess column in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and who wrote that column for nearly four decades, Shipley became the chronicler of the After 21. g¥f5

4. Philadelphia’s Finest passing of many Philadelphia chessplayers, most of whom had been his fellow club members and friends. Shipley, like Voigt, won the Franklin Chess Club championship five times. Unlike Voigt, Shipley for unstated reasons declined to play on any of the Anglo-American cable match teams, despite clearly standing among the half dozen best players in the country for a generation or more. He competed successfully in correspondence play as well as over the board. He was the central figure in the Continental Correspondence Chess Association, which introduced through its championship tournament the concept of preliminary rounds prior to a final round-robin tournament by mail. In their first tournament encounter, Kemeny, playing White, won a pawn from Shipley and pressured him throughout, despite bishops of opposite colors. However, on his fifty-third move, Kemeny failed to press his opponent and the game ended in a draw. “The game between Mr. W. P. Shipley and Mr. Emil Kemeny,” Reichhelm remarked, “was a battle royal and remarkably well played on both sides.”

Kemeny–Walter Penn Shipley [A80] 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club Championship, January 1893

91

Walter Penn Shipley, as seen in the 1890s when Kemeny knew him. A Philadelphia lawyer and chess player, Shipley befriended Kemeny and helped him with many projects. Thanks to Shipley’s chess column in the Philadelphia Inquirer, we know something of Kemeny’s final twenty years in Budapest (courtesy of Jeff Kramer).

1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f5 This resolves the opening into Hollandish opening, a partie adopted by Morphy against Harrwitz. 3. e3 Nf6 4. c4 Lasker is apt to give a slower development to this kind of game by deploying the pawn only one square and running the queen’s knight to d2. 4.  ... b6 5. Nc3 Bb7 6. Be2 Be7 The bishop to e7 instead of d6 is another distinguishing ear mark of modern play. 7.  0–0 0–0 8.  d5 As already indicated by White’s fourth move, Mr. Kemeny is prepared to play a game of combination of which the present move is the first advance. While not new in a general sense, this stroke is a deviation in the present position. 8. ... e¥d5 9. c¥d5 Na6 10. Nd4 Ne8 11. Bd2 Nd6 12. Rc1 Rc8 13. b4 A gambit pawn and a very deep stroke. 13. ... N¥b4 14. Qb3 a5 15. Nc6 Finely followed up. Black cannot take the knight without submitting -D-®-D-D to a dangerous discovered check. 15.  ... Qe8 16.  N¥b4 a¥b4 17. Nb5 Not Q¥b4 on account of ... Ne4. 17. ... Kh8 18. N¥c7 D-D-D-ip Qd8 19. Nb5 N¥b5 20. R¥c8 Q¥c8 21. B¥b5 Qc5 22. B¥d7 -0-DLDpD B¥d5 Appearing to be an advantage, which, however, is met by the D-g-DpDnext move. 23.  B¥b4 B¥b3 24.  B¥c5 B¥c5 25.  a¥b3 g6 -D-D-D-D 26. g3 Rd8 27.  Be6 Kg7 28.  Ra1 With bishops on different DPD-)-)colors, White’s pawn ahead, does not promise much, but Mr. -D-D-)-) Kemeny has a certain swing in the game which promises and does D-D-DRIembarrass Black considerably. 28. ... Kf6 29. Bc4 Rd7 30. Kf1 Kg7 31. Ke2 Kf6 32. Ra6 Kg7 33. Bb5 Re7 34. Kd3 Rc7 After 27. ... Kg7

92

EMIL KEMENY

35. Bc4 Rd7+ 36.  Ke2 h6 Against the “principles.” He should have kept the pawn unmoved. 37. Bb5 Re7 38. Kd3 Rc7 39. Ra8 Kf6 40. Ra6 Kg7 41. Be8 Threatening to win a pawn by B¥g6, following with b4. 41. ... g5 42. Ra2 Kf6 43. Bb5 Kg7 44. Ra4 Kg6 45.  g4 f4 46.  e¥f4 B¥f2 47.  f5+ Kf6 48.  Ra8 Bg1 49. Rg8 h5 Another adroit finesse on Mr. Shipley’s part. A less -D-D-D-D able player would have lost even now. 50. Rg6+ Ke5 51. Re6+ D-®-D-DKf4 52.  f6 h¥g4 53.  Re7 [ JSH: Computer analysis suggests -0-DR)-D Be8! when 53. ... Bc5 54. f7 b5 (54. ... Bf8 55. Rg6) 55. Rg6 and DLD-D-0- 53. Rg8 should win.] 53.  ... Rc8 54.  Be8 Bc5 55.  Re4+ Kf3 -D-D-ipD 56. Re5 Rd8+ 57. Kc4 Kg2 58. f7 58. R¥c5+ and f7 wouldn’t DPDKD-D- do on account of the saving clause of ... Rd4+ and ... Rf4. 58. ... -D-D-D-) Rd4+ 59. Kb5 Rf4 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Times, January 29, 1893, D-D-D-g- with annotations by Reichhelm). In the same column giving Kemeny’s draw with Shipley, Reichhelm reported that the first round of the Franklin championship was drawing to a close. Voigt and Bampton led, but the elder statesman of Philadelphia chess cautioned his readers, commenting that nothing “can be prognosticated concerning the final result, as there may be many slips between now and then.” Voigt stood at 6–1, while Bampton, with one game more played, tallied 61 ⁄ 2–11 ⁄ 2. Despite an otherwise mediocre record of published games (21⁄2–21⁄2), Kemeny’s overall record was a much healthier 61 ⁄ 2–21 ⁄ 2, as he had knifed his way through the remaining club players. Mordecai Morgan stood a point behind Kemeny, while Shipley, with only seven completed games, was at 4–3. The latter’s record soon improved to 6–3, and like Kemeny he remained in the hunt. The tournament’s second half, which began February 4, 1893, proved more to Kemeny’s liking, bolstered as it was by Voigt’s loss of his two remaining first round games, leaving him, at 6–3, half a point behind the newcomer. Because games were played between the players independently of any tournament round schedule, determining the standings at any given time becomes difficult, and when updates were published in local papers they frequently showed contestants had not played an equal number of games, making comparison harder still. Kemeny defeated Mordecai Morgan in their second round game. In doing so he won many fans in the club, not because they wished Morgan defeated, but because of the style in which Kemeny put his opponent down. Shipley, in writing about the game nearly 40 years after it was played, mentioned that when Kemeny “did up Mr. Morgan in twenty-one [sic; 25 moves] moves, he became a hero.” Shipley and others were impressed with Kemeny’s rare combination: strong play and “modest demeanor.” According to the Ledger, “Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Emil Kemeny, the holder of the StaatsZeitung Chess Cup, defeated Mr. M. Morgan in the tournament for the George W. Childs Cup, at the rooms of the Franklin Chess Club. The game was an exceptionally brilliant one. Mr. Kemeny announced a mate in five moves on the twenty-sixth move.” The game enjoyed some currency in Kemeny’s old haunts, appearing in the March 25, 1893, issue of the Brooklyn Standard-Union.

After 52. ... h¥g4

Kemeny–Mordecai Morgan [E14] 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 7, 1893 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. c4 b6 5. Nc3 Bb7 6. c¥d5 e¥d5 7. Be2 Nbd7 8. 0–0 Be7 9. Bd2 0–0 10. Rc1 c5 11. Ne5 a6 12. f4 Ne4 13. N¥e4 d¥e4

4. Philadelphia’s Finest

93

14. Bc3 c¥d4 15. N¥d7 Q¥d7 16. B¥d4 b5 17. B¥g7 Q¥d1 18. Rf¥d1 K¥g7 19. Rc7 Bf6 20. R¥b7 B¥b2 21. Bh5 Rac8 22. Rdd7 Bc1 23. Kf2 Rc2+ 24. Kg3 B¥e3 25. B¥f7 Rd2 Mr. Kemeny here announced mate in five moves: 26. Bd5+ Kf6 27. Rd6+ Kf5 28. B¥e4+ K¥e4 29. Re7+ Kf5 30. Re5 -D-D-®-D mate. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 8, 1893). DRDRDLip Less pleasurable for Kemeny was his second game with “the pD-D-D-D Boss,” Herman Voigt. Losing both games to his formidable opponent DpD-D-Din the 1892-93 club championship might have led to Voigt’s being -D-Dp)-D a “problem” opponent for Kemeny but that did not prove true. D-D-g-IVoigt’s win here, though, did allow him to resume the tournament PD-®-DP) lead. The Ledger wrote, “One of the most important matches in the D-D-D-Dtournament for the George W. Childs Chess Cup, now in progress at the rooms of the Franklin Chess Club, was played last night After 25. ... Rd2 between the two leaders, Messrs. Kemeny and Voigt. The game, a Ruy Lopez, being won by the latter. On the fifteenth move Mr. Kemeny made a premature advance of e5. Mr. Voigt pressed his adversary, and won on the thirty-seventh move. Mr. Voigt now leads, with the score of 71 ⁄ 2–21 ⁄ 2.”

Kemeny–Herman G. Voigt [C77] 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 10, 1893 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 Bc5 6. c3 d6 7. Nbd2 0– 0 8.  Nf1 Ne7 9.  Ng3 Ng6 10.  h4 Ng4 11.  d4 e¥d4 12.  c¥d4 Bb4+ 13.  Kf1 h6 14. Bc2 Re8 15.  e5 Ba5 16.  B¥g6 f¥g6 17.  Bf4 d¥e5 18.  N¥e5 N¥e5 19.  d¥e5 Be6 20. Rc1 Q¥d1+ 21. R¥d1 B¥a2 22. Ne4 Rad8 23. Rc1 Rd4 24. f3 Rf8 25. g3 Bd5 26. Ke2 B¥e4 27. f¥e4 R¥e4+ 28. Kf3 R¥e5 29. Kg4 Rb5 30. Rhd1 h5+ 31. Kh3 R¥b2 32. Rd7 Rf7 33. Rd8+ Rf8 34. Rd7 Re8 35. B¥c7 Ree2 36. g4 B¥c7 0–1 [1:31; 1:46] (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 11, 1893). On Saturday night, February 25, 1893, Kemeny faced Bampton for the second time, and exacted revenge for his first round defeat by the “Happy Dasher.” Bampton began an early kingside demonstration but in the end it was Kemeny’s queenside work that decided the game.

Samuel Warren Bampton–Kemeny [D02] 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 25, 1893 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 c5 4. c3 e6 5. Nbd2 Be7 6. e3 0–0 7. Bd3 c4 8. Bc2 b5 9. 0–0 Bb7 10. Qe2 Nbd7 11. Ne5 Rc8 12.  h4 Bold and premature; White’s game is not sufficiently developed on the kingside for the move in the text. 12. ... Bg3 is the correct preparatory move. 12. ... Ne4 The correct reply. 13. h5 f5 14.  Rad1 Ndf6 15.  Kh2 15.  ... Qe8 16.  h6 g5 17. N¥e4 N¥e4 18. Bg3 Rf6 19. Rh1 R¥h6+ The natural result of White’s 12th move. 20. Kg1 R¥h1+ 21. K¥h1 N¥g3+ 22. f¥g3 g4 23. Kg1 Bf6 24. N¥g4 Desperation! White’s game was vir-

-Dr1-®kD 0lD-g-0p -D-Dph-D DpDpHpDP -Dp)nG-D D-)-)-DP)LHQ)PI D-DRDRDAfter 15. Kh2

94

EMIL KEMENY

tually lost. 24. ... f¥g4 25. Q¥g4+ Kh8 26. Rf1 Qe7 27. Qh5 Rf8 28. Qh6 Qg7 29. Qh5 Bc6 30.  Rf4 h6 31.  Bg6 Kg8 32.  Qg4 Bd7 33.  Qh5 Bg5 34.  R¥f8+ Q¥f8 35. e4 Be3+ 36. Kh2 Bg5 37. Qg4 Qg7 38. Bh5 e5 39. Qf3 e¥d4 40. c¥d4 Qf6 41. e5 Q¥f3 42. g¥f3 Bc1 43. b3 Bb2 44. Bg6 B¥d4 45. f4 Be6 46. Be8 Bf5 47. g4 If 47. B¥b5, Black plays 47. ... c3 and wins. 47. ... c3 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 27, 1893). By February 27, 1893, determining leadership in the race for the club title was at best difficult. The Ledger recorded Bampton had played the most games, and with two remaining stood at 101 ⁄ 2–51 ⁄ 2. Shipley, on the other hand, had been able to complete only ten games, and had a 7–3 record. Voigt had played little lately, too, and was one point ahead of Shipley, but with one more game played. J. Palmer Morgan had an excellent score of 91 ⁄ 2–31 ⁄ 2. Kemeny, who had played a great deal of tournament chess that month, led the field at 101 ⁄ 2–31 ⁄ 2. Kemeny won his next game against Arthur Hale (1859–1940). As noted earlier, Hale was responsible for Kemeny’s obtaining a clerk’s position with the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Although Hale’s chess prowess failed to earn him a spot in Jeremy Gaige’s Chess Personalia, Arthur Hale may well have been the Franklin Chess Club member at the time with the most distinguished family. His great grandfather, Enoch, was the brother of the Revolutionary War’s Captain Nathan Hale, captured by the British and hanged as a spy in September 1776 at the age of 21. Arthur’s grandfather, named Nathan after his famous uncle, moved the family to Boston, and was proprietor and editor of the Boston Daily Advertiser. Arthur’s father, Edward Everett Hale, was a Unitarian pastor first in Worcester and later Boston for more than half a century. An ardent and vocal abolitionist, Arthur Hale’s father during his long stay on the American scene was also active in the public education movement, and served as an editor for numerous journals. He authored and edited more than 60 books during his lifetime, on a variety of topics, including travel, sermons, fiction, history and biography. Chess played a role in Arthur Hale’s upbringing. Born in Boston on August 22, 1859, he grew up in a household where chess was an encouraged pastime. His aunt, Lucretia Peabody Hale, a prolific author herself, published a story in the first volume of The Atlantic Monthly (volume 1, 1858, pages 431–445) entitled “The Queen of the Red Chessmen.” A romance in which chess pieces become animated, the story predates by 13 years Lewis Carroll’s better remembered Alice and her adventures with a red queen. As a teenager attending Harvard, Arthur Hale, who became quite adept at shorthand, used that system to play postal chess with his cousin, Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Perhaps not surprisingly, given his talented family’s background, Hale’s cousin, too, gained national and international recognition not only for her fiction, such as the anthologized classic “The Yellow Wallpaper” (1892), but at the time more so for her work as lecturer, feminist and social reformer. In Gilman’s posthumously published autobiography (1935), she recalled playing chess, both over the board and through the mail, with her cousin Arthur (The Living of Charlotte Perkins Gilman, pages 31–32). Arthur Hale received many advantages early in life, graduating from Harvard in 1880 with honors in mathematics. But in 1882, at the age of 23, he gave up his position with a firm in Boston to become an apprentice in the shops of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Three years later, and thanks to his expertise in shorthand as well as a gift for gathering and organizing information, he became the private secretary of the company’s general superintendent of transportation. He continued up the corporate ladder and, at the time he befriended Kemeny, served as the railroad’s Special Agent for the general superintendent. It was while in this capacity that he arranged Kemeny’s clerk’s position, bringing the Hungarian chess master to Philadelphia, and more specifically to the rooms of the Franklin. Chess long interested Arthur Hale, both over the board and postal play. He participated

4. Philadelphia’s Finest

95

in Shipley’s Continental Correspondence Chess Association Tournament from 1894 through 1898, and had the honor of scoring the highest percentage of anyone in the preliminary round, winning his section, which included Herman Voigt and John L. McCutcheon, the latter of French Defense variation fame. He finished the finals with a respectable 7–7. His first Franklin Chess Club championship was in 1888-89, although he found himself badly outclassed. He returned to club championship play in Kemeny’s first appearance in the tournament, and also played in three club championships after the 1892-93 event. His best finish was in 1893-94, when he took sixth place, scoring 13–11. Although never in contention for the club title, Hale did have his moments. In 1892-93 he won a game from Shipley that kept the latter from tying for the championship. In 1893-94, also a double–round robin, he defeated both Shipley and Voigt, 11⁄ 2–1⁄ 2 each. Hale’s play was not nearly so effective against Kemeny when the two men met in the Franklin’s 1892-93 championship. Nor would his results improve in future encounters, Kemeny holding a 5–0 record against his benefactor. Hale played 1. e3, an unfortunate pet line of his, and despite thus handicapping himself, the game was essentially even when Hale badly blundered on move 24. The game put Kemeny at 11 1 ⁄ 2–31 ⁄ 2, with only four games remaining.

Arthur Hale–Kemeny [A00] 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club Championship, March 1, 1893 1. e3 f5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 b6 5. Nf3 Bb7 6. Be2 Be7 7. b3 0–0 8. 0–0 Ne4 9. Bb2 d5 10. N¥e4 f¥e4 11. Ne5 Nd7 12. N¥d7 Q¥d7 13. Rc1 Rf6 14. f3 Raf8 15.  f¥e4 R¥f1+ 16.  B¥f1 Bg5 17.  Rc3 d¥e4 18. Qg4 Bf6 19.  Rc2 Qd6 20.  c5 Qd7 21.  c¥b6 c¥b6 22. Bc4 Bd5 23. B¥d5 Q¥d5 24. Ba3?? [JSH: Blundering in -D-D-®kD an even position; 24. h3 should have been played.] 24.  ... Qa5 0-D-D-0p 25. b4 [JSH: Significantly worse than 25. Q¥e6+ Kh8 26. h3 Q¥a3 -0-Dpg-D 27. Q¥e4 but White was probably still under the influence of having D-DqD-Dmade the blunder the move before.] 25. ... Q¥a3 26. Q¥e6+ Kh8 -D-)pDQD DPD-)-D27. Q¥e4 Bg5 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 2, 1893).

PGRD-DP)

On January 1, 1898, Hale was made superintendent of telegraph D-D-D-Ifor the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. In later years he moved to Washington, D.C., where he daily commuted to his office in BaltiAfter 23. ... Q¥d5 more, and where he served the railroad industry in ever increasing positions of importance. In 1913, for instance, he worked as General Agent for the American Railroad Association, and was an expert interviewed at length by the New York Times regarding national issues involving railroad productivity and utilization. In 1916, Hale switched allegiances from rail to coal interests, and at the time of his death, on February 29, 1940, was chairman of the Coal Exporters Association and “maintained a country home near Rowlandsville,” Maryland, according to his March 2, 1940, New York Times obituary. The Ledger for March 7, 1893, reported Kemeny and Voigt tied at the Franklin at 111 ⁄ 2– 1 3 ⁄ 2, with J. Palmer Morgan at 10–4 and Shipley at 9–4. But at this point Voigt lost form. On March 11, Shipley defeated him, giving Kemeny the lead. Two days later, Morgan also won from Voigt, taking their own miniseries 2–0. Although Voigt won his final game, he no longer was in competition for the championship. But Kemeny had his own battles, and his most serious one was off the board. On March 18, 1893, the Ledger stated, “The tournament is drawing to a close, and unabating interest is

96

EMIL KEMENY

manifest among the chessites of this city in the result. A sad and entirely unlooked-for incident happened on Wednesday [March 15] that may change the result of the tourney. Mr. E. Kemeny, who is well in the lead, was suddenly taken ill with pneumonia, accompanied by possibly fatal complications. Mr. Kemeny is a high class player, and last year was the winner of the StaatsZeitung cup. He is a Hungarian, and at present is a clerk in the office of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. His misfortune will undoubtedly elicit the forbearance of the club to the extent of extending the time in which, if he recover, he may finish the remaining games in which he is scheduled to play.” Kemeny’s health was never robust, and on more than one occasion while in the United States he found himself in very bad shape. Kemeny’s fellow club members were willing to postpone the end of the tournament in hopes he would survive and resume play. Eleven days later, on March 30, 1893, the Ledger stated that “Mr. E. Kemeny has recovered sufficiently from his recent illness to resume playing in the George W. Childs Cup tournament, and yesterday afternoon played a match with Mr. M. Livingston, which he won.” Like Arthur Hale, Max Livingston was better known outside chess circles than within them.* He was born in Hagen, Westphalia, Prussia, on January 16, 1845, and attended the gymnasium in Bielefeld, Westphalia. At 16 he came to the United States, where he lived for a time in Amesbury Mills, Massachusetts. He there became a friend of the poet, John Greenleaf Whittier. In 1863 he moved to New York City, studying social and economic issues for two years. In 1865 Livingston moved to Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, where he lived for the next twenty years. During that time he joined the Engineers’ Society of Western Pennsylvania, after having attended Western University in Pittsburg. Three years after moving to Pittsburg, Livingston married a young woman named Laura, a daughter of Baron von Weydemeyer, reportedly General John C. Frémont’s Chief of Staff at the start of the American Civil War. With his brother, Julius I. Livingston, he formed the firm of Livingston Bros., a petroleum refining business. He and his brother were pioneers in producing what was called “high-grade, non-explosive burning oil.” Standard Oil absorbed the brothers’ firm in 1874, and Max was made superintendent of the Pittsburg works, but ten years later, in 1884, he was transferred to Philadelphia as general superintendent of the Manufacturing Department of the Atlantic Refining Company at Point Breeze. It was in the coming years that Livingston took a strong interest in chess in Philadelphia, and by 1891 he had been elected as one of the Franklin’s directors. He served in that capacity for many years. Livingston was severely outclassed in the 1892-93 Franklin tournament, managing only a 2–16 score. His two points came against the last place finisher, P. T. Hoban. But the next year, in the 1893-94 championship, he improved his score to 6–18. He played in various club events, although not the club championship, throughout the remainder of the decade. Although owing his living to Standard Oil, Livingston was known as a dedicated student of Karl Marx, and held the conviction, expressed repeatedly over the years, that in the great “combinations,” such as Standard Oil, the concentration of labor and capital could be harnessed for the benefit of either the corporation or society as a whole. He was reported to be “an enthusiastic and skillful chess-player and a member of the Franklin Chess Club.” Unlike so many professional chessplayers, the professional engineer, Livingston, was reported to be “a well-beloved husband, the happy father of a devoted family, the center of a host of genial friends” and to be “possessed of ample means for all the comforts and many of the luxuries *This brief summary of his life is culled from Proceedings of the Engineers Club of Philadelphia, volume (July 1906), pages 202–204. Pittsburgh was for a time spelled without the h.

XXIII

4. Philadelphia’s Finest

97

of life. He enjoyed a standing at the head of his profession and the confidence of the corporation which he had served for more than a quarter of a century.” Unfortunately he suffered from a severely painful facial neuropathy, tic douloureux, for which he underwent many serious and difficult surgical operations. On February 16, 1906, “while visiting his brother, Julius, in New York, he complained of a slight indisposition and lay down for a few minutes’ nap, from which, it is believed, he never awakened. When his daughter went to call him, she was dismayed to find him dead.” His death was said to have been caused “by some valvular derangement of the heart or else by an attack of his old enemy upon his brain.” Livingston was survived by a widow, two daughters and two sons.

Max Livingston–Kemeny [C40] 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club Championship March 29, 1893 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. d3 Nc6 4. e¥f5 d5 5. Be2 B¥f5 6. 0–0 Nf6 7. h3 Bd6 8. Bg5 0–0 9.  Nc3 Be6 10.  Nb5 Be7 11.  b3 d4 12.  a4 Nd5 13.  B¥e7 Q¥e7 14. Qd2 a6 15. Na3 Nc3 [JSH: Loss of time. The immediate 15. ... Nf4 is much better.] 16. Nb1 Nd5 17. c4 [JSH: Forcing Black to rD-D-®kD go where he wishes, and seriously weakening d3.] 17.  ... Nf4 Dp0-1-0p 18. Kh2 Qf6 19.  Ng1 Qg6 20.  g3 N¥e2 21.  Q¥e2 Bf5 pDnDlD-D 22. Rd1 e4 23.  d¥e4 B¥e4 24.  Nd2 [JSH: Blocking his own D-Dn0-Dqueen’s escape.] 24. ... Bd3 25. Qe1 Rae8 [JSH: White could as well resign.] 26. Ne4 B¥e4 27. Rd2 d3 28. Qe3 Ne5 29. Re1 PD-0-D-D Bc6 30. Qd4 Ng4+ 31. Q¥g4 R¥e1 32. Q¥g6 h¥g6 33. R¥d3 DPDPDNDP -DP!L)PD R¥f2 mate. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 30, 1893).

$ND-DRI-

The same Ledger issue that gave Kemeny’s win against Livingston After 16. ... Nd5 mentioned that “Mr. Walbrodt, the young Berlin champion, came over from New York yesterday. He is the guest of the Franklin Chess Club, with which he continues today a week’s engagement, consisting of seven match games and two simultaneous performances. He will play every night this week in the rooms of the club at Eleventh and Sansom streets.” Carl Walbrodt’s visit to the Franklin gave Kemeny more time to recover from his illness, as the tournament as a whole, close to the end as it was, was suspended for two additional weeks. Interestingly, there is no evidence Kemeny met Walbrodt across the board, although the former quickly was showing himself the strongest player in the club and city. Whether this was due to health or due to Walbrodt’s limited appearance is unknown. The visit of a traveling international master, though, was often an occasion for long-standing club players to test their mettle, and such opportunities were highly prized. Kemeny’s reserved personality may have made him reluctant to seek such a chance at the expense of one of his new clubmates. Championship play resumed Tuesday evening, April 11, 1893. The consequences of Kemeny’s second game with J. Palmer Morgan were articulated at the time of its publication the next day, and also suggested how close the tournament had become: “The game was especially significant as both players had a chance to win the cup. Mr. Kemeny’s victory makes him almost a sure winner, for, if he wins or draws with Mr. Shipley, he will win first place. If, however, he loses to Mr. Shipley, he may tie with the latter for first place.”

98

EMIL KEMENY

J. Palmer Morgan–Kemeny [C29] 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club Championship April 11, 1893 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5 4. d3 Nc6 5. f¥e5 N¥e5 6. d4 Nc6 7. e5 Ne4 8. Nf3 Bg4 9. Bb5 Bb4 10. Qd3 0–0 11. 0–0 Bf5 12. Qe3 f6 13. Nh4 f¥e5 13. ... N¥d4 is much better. 14. B¥c6 b¥c6 15. N¥f5 R¥f5 16. R¥f5 e¥d4 17. Qh3 d¥c3 18. b¥c3 B¥c3 19.  Rb1 Qd6 20.  Be3 Re8 21.  Qf3 Bf6 -D-DrDkD 22. Qh3 Nc3 23.  Rb3 c5 24.  Qf3 c4 25.  R¥f6 Q¥f6 0-0-D-Dp 26. Q¥f6 Ne2+ 27. Kf2 g¥f6 28. Rb7 28. Ra3 would possibly secured a draw, but in his anxiety to win White fumbled it. -D-D-0-D have Pawn grabbing is a bad thing. 28.  ... Nc3 29.  Kf3 N¥a2 D-DpD-D- 30. R¥a7 Nb4 31.  c3 Nc2 32.  Bf2 Ne1+ 33.  Kg3 Nd3 -DpD-D-D 34. R¥c7 N¥f2 35. K¥f2 Rb8 36. Rc5 Rb3 37. R¥d5 R¥c3 DRD-G-D- 38. Rc5 Kf7 39. Ke2 Rc2+ 40. Kf3 c3 41. h3 Kg6 42. Kg3 PDPDnIP) Rc1 43. Kh2 f5 44. Kg3 Kf6 45. Kf4 c2 46. Kg3? 46. ... D-D-D-D- f4+ 47.  Kg4 f3 48.  Kg3 Ke6 49.  Kf2 Kd6 50.  Rc8 h5 51. g¥f3? Rh1 52. Kg2 c1Q 53. R¥c1 R¥c1 54. Kg3 Ke5 0– After 27. ... g¥f6 1 [2:13; 2:30] (Philadelphia Public Ledger, April 12, 1893). The championship ended when Shipley and Kemeny agreed to a draw after 22 moves, including a three-fold repetition of position. Both players missed a crucial blunder on Kemeny’s part after his seventeenth move, which should have given Shipley the point and an equal share of the Franklin championship. Instead, the Ledger noted “Mr. Emile [sic] Kemeny, by playing a draw with Mr. W.P. Shipley yesterday afternoon, secured the first place in the Franklin Chess Club tournament, and in consequence thereof will have the honor of seeing his name placed first upon the handsome cup donated by Mr. George W. Childs to be annually competed for in local tournaments. Several more games are yet to be played to decide the winner of the second and third prizes.”

Walter Penn Shipley–Kemeny [C67] 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club Championship April 17, 1893 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Nd6 Usually considered premature, but Lasker invariably plays it and prefers it to 5. ... Be7. 6. d¥e5 This ingenious line of play—sacrifice of a clear piece—is the invention of L.D. Barbour, of Philadelphia.* 6. ... N¥b5 7. a4 Nd6 Lasker’s line of play here is 7. ... d6 8. a¥b5 N¥e5 9. N¥e5 d¥e5 10. Qe2 which brings the game back to even. 8. Bg5 f6 Only move. 9. Re1 Be7 If 9. ... *JSH: This move had appeared at least three times in the Sixth American Chess Congress, 1889, including the game Burn–Gossip. In annotating that game for the tournament book, Steinitz indicated that New York’s John W. Baird had first played the move against A. Vorrath in the Manhattan Chess Club tournament in 1887 (International Chess Magazine, January 1887, page 25). Steinitz merely wrote of the sacrifice, “New but not true, albeit its good result in the present game. Of course, modern practice has another view of the resulting positions and the move has seen extensive play quite recently.” JSH: The score for this game was taken from the Ledger column pasted in Shipley’s personal scrapbook, now at the White Collection in Cleveland. At move 13 Shipley added in his own handwriting that “Likely 13. Nb5 was stronger.” Computer analysis agrees.

4. Philadelphia’s Finest

99

N¥e5 10. N¥e5 Be7 11. B¥f6 White wins. 10. e¥d6 c¥d6 11. Qd5 f¥g5 12. Nc3 If 12. N¥g5, 12. ... Qa5 should win. 12. ... Ne5 13. N¥e5 13. ... d¥e5 14. Q¥e5 Kf8 [JSH: 14. ... Kf7 at once was far better, as the sequel shows.] 15. Nd5 Bf6 16. Qd6+ Kf7 17. Nc7 Rb8?? [JSH: Allowing White a quickly winning shot, -®l1-D-® which White promptly misses.] 18. Qd5+ If 18. Ra3, 18. ... b6, fol- 0pHpDk0p lowed in most cases by ... Bb7, probably wins for Black. [JSH: Winning -D-!-g-D for White was 18. Nb5! and once White’s knight settles in at d6, the D-D-D-0game is over: 18. ... B¥b2 (18. ... Ra8 19. Qd5+ Kg6 (19. ... Kf8 20. Nd6 PD-D-D-D and mate in four.) 20. Qd3+ Kh6 (20. ... Kf7 21. Nd6+ Kf8 22. Qd5) 21. Qh3+ Kg6 22. Nd6 Qf8 23. Qd3+ Kh6 24. Nf5+ Kg6 25. Ne7+ D-D-D-DKf7 26. Qd5+ Ke8 27. Nc6+ etc.) 19. Rad1 and one possible line runs -)PD-)P) 19. ... Rf8 20. Q¥b8 Kg8 21. Q¥a7, when Shipley would have had a $-D-$-Iwon game. After White’s 18. Qd5+ the championship was Kemeny’s.] After 17. ... Rb8 18. ... Kg6 19. Qd3+ Kf7 20. Qd5+ Kg6 If 20. ... Kf8, 21. Re8+ and wins the queen in exchange for a rook and a knight, and, although Black remains three pieces ahead, his chances are poor. The text move forces a draw. 21. Qd3+ Kf7 22. Qd5+ 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, April 18, 1893). Kemeny finished with an excellent score of 14–4, a full point ahead of Shipley, who was followed by Voigt, Bampton, and the two Morgans. This first Philadelphia test of Kemeny’s skill left some questions unanswered, however, as the race was tight, and among the top four finishers, Kemeny had managed only a 2–4 score, polishing off the remaining field 12–0. Shipley and Voigt had both played their chief rivals very well, 4–2, but had not as convincingly dominated the other players. Although Kemeny had not played against Walbrodt earlier during the master’s visit, the next chess player to visit Philadelphia did see the city’s new champion sit down to play him. Harry Nelson Pillsbury, then 20 years old and more than two years from what would be his astonishing triumph at Hastings in 1895, had just finished a come-from-behind match victory over fellow Boston player John F. Barry. Pillsbury arrived in Philadelphia on Monday, May 29, 1893, and quickly showed his strength. During his week’s visit, he defeated Voigt, Shipley, Mordecai Morgan, J. Palmer Morgan, and others. He also gave a four board simultaneous blindfold exhibition on May 31 (3–1, his loss coming against Arthur Hale in 14 moves “owing to an error”). A simultaneous exhibition his last night, Saturday, June 3, played against 13 players, saw Pillsbury finish 8–4 with 1 draw. According to the Ledger, in giving the individual results of his Saturday evening simultaneous exhibition two days later, “The consensus of opinion among the chess players here is that [Pillsbury] has talent of the highest order, and that in a short time he will rank in class A among the world’s champions.” This opinion was largely based on Pillsbury’s having done as well as the “German masters” (probably a general reference to Walbrodt, Lasker and Steinitz, at least) who had played in Philadelphia. Such a statement, too, was not surprising, coming from a group that not only had failed to best Pillsbury in even one individual game, but had in fact lost every individual game to him except for Kemeny’s. On Tuesday afternoon at 2:00, May 30, 1893, Kemeny and Pillsbury met for the first time. A Ruy Lopez ensued, with Pillsbury playing 3. ... g6, a move he played later in the year against tournament opponents, including Showalter, Hodges and Lasker, and at various times referred to as the Barnes Defense, the Fianchetto Defense, and, not surprisingly, the Pillsbury Defense. According to The Oxford Companion to Chess (second edition), the move had first been played against Samuel Loyd by Martin Severin From at Paris 1867, then examined by

100

EMIL KEMENY

Albert P. Barnes in the Canadian Spectator on July 3, 1880, and then played by Steinitz in 1883. Kemeny conservatively continued 4. d3, and obtained no advantage out of the opening. Indeed, with 15. 0-0-0, Kemeny stood somewhat worse against his young opponent. In a game that saw errors on both sides, a draw by repetition of moves was agreed after Pillsbury’s forty-first. Kemeny missed a likely win at move 38. It may have been the only losing position Pillsbury had in an individual game that week.

Kemeny–Harry Nelson Pillsbury [C60] Exhibition Game Franklin Chess Club, May 30, 1893 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. d3 [JSH: Hodges and Lasker exchanged on c6, while Showalter played 4. c3; Kemeny’s move was played by Walbrodt at Hastings 1895, the game ending in a draw in 26 moves.] 4. ... Bg7 5. c3 d6 6. Nbd2 Nge7 7. Nf1 Bd7 8. Ba4 h6 9.  Qe2 0–0 10.  h4 Nd4 11.  c¥d4 B¥a4 12.  b3 Bd7 13.  d¥e5 d¥e5 14. Bb2 Nc6 15. 0–0–0 Be6 16. Ne3 b5 [JSH: Better was 16. ... a5, as Black would have had the attack and all the play; instead, Pillsbury’s next few moves rD-1-®kD give Kemeny some kingside options.] 17.  h5 g5 18.  Nf5 B¥f5 0p0-Dpg- 19. e¥f5 Re8 20. Rhe1 Qd5 21. Qe4 Rad8 [JSH: Now Kemeny his weak d-pawn, and many -DnDlDp0 advances exchanges severely reduce the chances rD-DrDkD D-D-0-D- for both players.] 22.  d4 Q¥e4 -D-DPD-) 23. R¥e4 e¥d4 24.  R¥e8+ R¥e8 0-0-DpgDPDPHND- 25. N¥d4 N¥d4 26.  B¥d4 B¥d4 -DnD-D-0 PG-DQ)PD 27. R¥d4 Re2 28.  Rd2 R¥d2 DpDq0P0P D-IRD-DR 29. K¥d2 Kg7 30.  Ke3 Kf6 -D-DQD-D 31. Ke4 g4 32.  b4 g3 33.  f3 c6 DPDPDNDAfter 16. Ne3 34. a3 Ke7 35. Kf4 Kf6 36. Ke4 PG-D-)PD Kg5?? 37.  Ke5 a6 38.  f6?? [JSH: D-IR$-D38. f4+ K¥h5 (38. ... Kg4 39. f6 K¥h5 -D-D-D-D After 21. Qe4 40. Kd6 and wins) 39. Kd6 Kg4 40. f6 D-D-DpDpDpD-D-0 wins.] 38.  ... K¥h5 39.  Kf51 Kh4 1 DpD-IPiP 40. Kf4 Kh5 41.  Kf5 Kh4 ⁄ 2 – ⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, May 31, 1893).

-)-D-D-D )-D-DP0-D-D-DPD D-D-D-D-

Pillsbury was not the only player indulging in blindfold chess in Philadelphia in 1893. Although Kemeny was not known for blindfold performances like many masters, he could easily play at least one game without sight of the board. In an age when strong players After 37. ... a6 were accustomed to giving odds to weaker opponents, either for purposes of inducing wagers or for purposes of keeping some interest alive in otherwise one-sided contests, Kemeny did so as well. According to the Public Ledger, “The following very interesting game was played blindfold recently at the Franklin Chess Club by Emil Kemeny, holder of the George W. Childs cup for this year, Mr. Kemeny conceding the odds of queen’s knight. Mr. Lasker yesterday pronounced it a very brilliant game. Mr. Kemeny’s opponent was a local amateur. Before playing the game remove White’s queen’s knight.”

4. Philadelphia’s Finest

101

Kemeny–Amateur Franklin Chess Club, 1893 Blindfold Game at Odds; Remove White’s Queen’s Knight 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. Nf3 Bg4 4. Be2 B¥f3 5. g¥f3 d¥e4 6. c3 White would willingly sacrifice one or two pawns to gain the attack. 6. ... Nc6 7. Be3 Nf6 8. Qb3 Nd5 Black thought that White could not safely take the pawn, for the queen would have no retreat. 9. Q¥b7 Nde7 10. Bb5 Kd7 Black ought to have played 9. ... Nce7; now, of course, he cannot protect the knight otherwise than with ... Kd7. [JSH: Black already had nothing better than 10. ... Rb8 11. B¥c6+ N¥c6 12. Q¥c6+ Qd7; the text move should be a disaster.] 11. 0– 0–0 Rb8 12.  d¥e5+ [JSH: Kemeny returns the favor; instead, 12. B¥c6+ N¥c6 13. d¥e5+ Bd6 14. R¥d6+ Ke7 14. R¥d8 R¥b7 16. R¥h8 ends things.] 12.  ... Ke6 13.  Bc4+ Kf5 [JSH: 13. ... K¥e5.] 14. f¥e4+ K¥e5 15. f4+ Kf6 16. e5+ Kf5 17. Qa6 Qc8 18. Bd3+ Kg4 19.  Be2+ [JSH: A computer, not a blindfold player, could be expected to find 19. Rdg1+ Kh5 20. Q¥c8 R¥c8 21. Be2+ -®qD-g-® Kh6 22. f5+ g5 23. R¥g5 N¥f5 24. Rhg1 Be7 25. Rg6 or 25. Rh5 0-0-hp0p mate.] 19.  ... Kf5 20.  Qd3+ Ke6 21.  Qd6+ A most brilliant -DnDkD-D sacrifice of the queen, which actually forces the mate. 21.  ... D-D-)-Dc¥d6 22. R¥d6+ Kf5 23. Bd3+ Kg4 24. Rg1+ Kh3 If 24. ... Kf3 25. Rg3 mate; 24.  ... Kh4 25. Bf2+ Kh3 26. Bf1+ K¥h2 -D-D-)-D 27. Rd2 and mates in three moves. If 24.  ... Kh5 25. Rg5+ D-)QG-DKh4 26. Bf2+ Kh3 27. Bf1+ K¥h2 28. Rh5+ Qh3 29. R¥h3 mate P)-DLD-) 25. Bf1+ Kh4 26. Bf2+ Kh5 27. Rg5 mate 1–0 (Philadelphia D-IRD-DR Public Ledger, October 25, 1893, Brooklyn Standard-Union, November After 20. ... Ke6 18, 1893). Of interest here, too, is that the Philadelphia Public Ledger had begun late in October 1893 to attribute annotations to Kemeny. The same column that published this Kemeny game published his notes to Lasker–A. K. Robinson (won by Lasker in 25 moves). Emanuel Lasker made his second appearance in Philadelphia late that month, and perhaps it was that event or else the start of the Tarrasch–Chigorin match in St. Petersburg, which Kemeny annotated in full for the Ledger, that really saw Kemeny’s arrival in the city as a writer. In any event, annotations were now attributed to him in that source. Although a later chapter is devoted to Kemeny as annotator, it is worthwhile to mention here that although he published analyses of many hundreds of games in the Ledger between 1893 and the end of the century, there is no evidence he ever conducted a typical chess column in that newspaper. Annotated games appeared on no weekly schedule—some months saw more than 20 games published, one at a time, while others, few or none. Furthermore, close examination suggests Kemeny did not pen the introductions to the games he provided for readers. Why Kemeny never conducted a formal, weekly Ledger column remains unknown. Perhaps the newspaper did not want to commit to a regular chess feature, instead inserting annotated games when space allowed. Perhaps Kemeny did not want the task. For the moment, however, he remained focused predominantly on establishing his place in Philadelphia chess, and his second Franklin Chess Club championship did just that.

102

EMIL KEMENY

5

Domination: 1893–1895 “The Franklin Club tournament, which combined the contest for the George W. Childs cup with that for the Dr. Persifor Frazer cup, was decided last night, as far as first honors were concerned, and Mr. Emil Kemeny, the winner of last year’s contest, was victorious again.... Mr. Kemeny, for the second time, becomes champion of the Franklin Chess Club and of Philadelphia. Mr. Kemeny is one of the best players in this country....”—Philadelphia Public Ledger, April 6, 1894.

Kemeny’s performance in the 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club championship did more then give him the club’s crown. The Franklin connections he developed even before his arrival provided his job as a clerk with the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. His first months in town also brought him in contact with Dion M. Martinez (1837–1928), the Cuban-born chess player who had moved to Philadelphia and who had first played a match with Steinitz in December 1882 at the Philadelphia Chess Club, shortly after the champion had arrived in America. Martinez supplied chess material for the Philadelphia Public Ledger before Kemeny began annotating games for that newspaper. He very likely suggested Kemeny take over this role for the Ledger, or at least didn’t object to him doing so. And as we have seen in chapter 4, Kemeny also became acquainted not only with the Franklin’s strongest players, such as Voigt, Shipley and Bampton, but with its most influential members outside the realm of chess, such as Arthur Hale and Max Livingston. Chess allowed Kemeny to integrate his talents, including chess and, eventually, writing, into his new community. The Brooklyn Standard-Union of October 28, 1893, noted, “A chess department has been started in the Philadelphia Ledger, under the management of Emil Kemeny. The selection of Mr. Kemeny is fitting, in view of the fact that he is the present champion of the Franklin Chess Club, and was the winner of the George Washington Childs chess cup last spring. Mr. Kemeny is one of the most brilliant players in this country; he is a Hungarian, and his residence in the United States only dates back a few years; yet his winning of the New Yorker StaatsZeitung chess cup, in 1892, for the City Chess Club, of New York, and other victories, in Brooklyn and New York, have made him well known to our players. He has a deep knowledge of the game and is capable of doing first-class work for the Ledger.” The Standard-Union’s choice of the term “chess department” rather than “chess column” for Kemeny’s writing in the Ledger was apt, as the Ledger during Kemeny’s association with it never ran a chess column in the conventional sense. The chess material Kemeny supplied never appeared on a weekly basis, never supplied a chess problem, and never provided a forum for regular correspondence with chess players, the defining marks of a nineteenth century chess column. What almost invariably appeared were single, annotated games, introduced by a paragraph or at most two. The annotations starting in late October 1893 were identified as by Kemeny, but the introductory paragraphs never were, and it is my opinion they were not written by the Hungarian. Kemeny was an extremely modest man, as his later writing will attest, and the praise heaped on his own name and play in game introductions clashes jarringly with his character. It seems likely that during the 1890s Kemeny became increasingly comfortable with his writing in English, but that in the Ledger he limited it to annotations, leaving the general game descriptions to Martinez or another person knowledgeable about chess.

5. Domination: 1893–1895

103

Kemeny began quite well in the Franklin championship of 1893-94. The 13 contestants were obliged to play 24 games each. The tournament began later than most Franklin championships, and Kemeny’s first published game was played Christmas day. He received a very nice holiday present when Voigt, one of his strongest opponents, blundered on his ninth move. Voigt struggled on valiantly, but there was little chance Kemeny would go wrong. By move 15 Kemeny had consolidated his position and Voigt could have resigned. It is likely all the Ledger annotations in this tournament were by Kemeny.

Kemeny–Herman G. Voigt [B32] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship, December 25, 1893 1. e4 c5 2.  d4 c¥d4 3.  Nf3 Nc6 4.  c3 The sacrifice of the pawn gives White a strong attack, but by correct defense, the majority of pawns ought to decide in favor of Black. 4. ... d¥c3 5. Bc4 g6 6. N¥c3 Bg7 7. 0–0 Nh6 8. h3 0–0 9. Bf4 d6 Mr. Voigt failed to observe that after White’s eighth move, 8. h3, the knight on h6 had no move. It was necessary to play 9.  ... Kh8, to be enabled to retreat Ng8. 10.  Qd2 Be6 11.  B¥e6 f¥e6 12. B¥h6 R¥f3 Very ingenious play! If White takes the rook, Black gains a powerful attack with Ne5, followed by Qc8. Mr. Kemeny being a piece ahead did not accept the sacrifice. The line of play White adopted leads probably to the shortest win. 13. B¥g7 Rf7 14. Bh6 Qb6 15. Be3 Qd8 16. f4 Qd7 17. Rad1 Raf8 18. e5 d5 19. Ne4 b6 20. Ng5 Rg7 21. b4 h6 22.  Nf3 Rgf7 23.  a3 Kh7 24.  h4 Qe8 25.  Rc1 Black is a piece behind, and is unable to stand White’s powerful attack, commencing with h5. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, December 26, 1893, with annotations by Kemeny). Two days later Kemeny scored another victory over a serious competitor, who misplayed an essentially even position. His victory over Bampton was annotated by James Mason for the British Chess Magazine, undoubtedly because of the concluding combination. The game appeared in other sources as well. The Ledger wrote, “A game which abounded in brilliant plays was decided last night in the Franklin Chess championship tournament, between Mr. E. Kemeny and Mr. Warren Bampton. The former opened the game with d4. Mr. Bampton compromised his game somewhat by forcing the exchange of bishops. His opponent soon started the attack and had the superior position. Mr. Bampton played the defense up to the twenty-fifth move skillfully. On this move, however, he played his knight to e4, which enabled Mr. Kemeny to sacrifice the knight and force the win in brilliant order.”

Kemeny–Samuel Warren Bampton [D00] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship, December 27, 1893 1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3 b6 [Black’s play on the queenside is not well timed. The king’s pawn should be got out first, and measures taken to deal with White’s Ne5, occurring at an early stage in the opening—Mason, BCM.] 4. Nf3 e6 5. 0–0 c5 6. c3 Be7 7. Ne5 [Nearly always a good move in such a position. The knight cannot easily be driven back by a pawn; and his exchange at e5 gives the first player an important open file—Mason, BCM.] 7. ... 0–0 8. f4 Ba6 [Getting rid of the dangerous White bishop; but his knight is badly placed, afterwards. 8.  ... Bb7, so as to be able to play ... Ne4, would be stronger—Mason,

104

EMIL KEMENY

BCM.] [Black forces the exchange of bishop, but the move cannot be recommended, for the knight on a6 is not well posted—Kemeny, Public Ledger.] 9.  B¥a6 N¥a6 10.  Nd2 Nc7 11. Qf3 Nce8 12. g4 [Safe and sound. Black ought to be able to reply 12. ... Nd7, so as to throw forward his f-pawn; but as it is, of course that move would lose—Mason, BCM.] 12. ... c¥d4 13.  e¥d4 Nd6 14.  g5 Nfe4 15.  Qh3 N¥d2 16.  B¥d2 Nf5 [Protecting the epawn and perhaps with a view to ... Nh6 on occasion—Mason, BCM.] 17. Rae1 Re8 18. Rf3 Bf8 19. Ng4 [Necessary, to prevent Black from playing g6 followed by Bg7—Kemeny, Public Ledger.] 19. ... Rc8 20. Kh1 Be7 21. Qh5 g6 22. Qh3 Kg7 23. Nh6 Nd6 [Evidently, 23. ... N¥h6 would be bad. The difficulties of the position rapidly increase; but the defense is uncertain—Mason, BCM.] 24. Re5 [White intends to play his bishop to e1 and then to g3 or h4 followed by f5. The rook is necessary on e5 to support the attack—Kemeny, Public Ledger.] 24. ... Rh8 25.  Be1 Ne4 [JSH: This loses immediately; Black should have played either 25. ... Rc7 or 25. ... Rf8 further guarding -Dr1-D-® 26. N¥f7 [A pretty as well as a forcibly winning move—Mason, 0-D-gpip f7.] BCM.] 26. ... K¥f7 27. Q¥e6+ Kf8 [If 27. ... Ke8 then White -0-DpDpH wins as follows: 28. R¥d5 Nd6 29. R¥d6 Q¥d6 30. Q¥c8+ for he D-Dp$-)- is a pawn ahead, and holds the superior position—Kemeny, Public -D-)n)-D Ledger.] 28. f5 B¥g5 29. f¥g6+ Bf6 [Permits White to mate on D-)-DRDQ the move, but Black could not prevent White from mating in a few P)-D-D-) moves—Kemeny, Public Ledger.] 30.  Qf7 mate 1–0 (Philadelphia D-D-G-DK Public Ledger, December 28, 1893, annotations by Kemeny; Providence [Rhode Island] Sunday Journal, January 28, 1894; BCM = British Chess After 25. ... Ne4 Magazine, April 1894, page 171). Little is directly known about Kemeny’s next opponent. Oliver Perry-Smith appeared more often in the society pages of Philadelphia’s newspapers than he did in relation to chess. What little we know about him comes from an article about his son* of the same name, an accomplished climber and skier. We learn that the mountaineer’s father, Kemeny’s opponent, “was a noted athlete, rowing, boxing and horsemanship being among his skills. He also wrote poetry. Educated at St. Paul’s School, he was a member of the First City Troop [of Philadelphia], and at the outset of the Spanish-American War was commissioned Captain in Fitzhugh Lee’s 7th Army Corps. He died in Havana in 1899 at the age of 38. His widow remarried and went to live in Dresden,” where the younger Oliver Perry-Smith began his climbing exploits. A small notice in the New York Times for February 12, 1899, reported that “Captain Oliver PerrySmith, Commissary of Subsistence, United States Volunteers, Second Division, Seventh Army Corps, died on board the United States ship Missouri at 1:35 o’clock A.M. today [February 11, 1899] of acute paunchymatous [sic] nephritis.” The Perry-Smith family was clearly well-to-do, as the younger Perry-Smith later returned to the United States and lived off a trust fund. Very few chess games by Perry-Smith are available, and perhaps understandably so. Kemeny’s opponent appeared, with decidedly limited success, in all five Franklin championships held between 1893 and 1898. He also appeared in various rapid transit events, tournaments held by the Junior Chess Club, simultaneous exhibitions and the like, according to Chess in Philadelphia. His only chess to appear in that volume, however, was said to be taken from the Ledger for May 19, 1898, shortly after Perry-Smith had been nominated Commissary of Subsistence, with a rank of captain; the game was a miniature against Ali Ferrouh Bey, described as “the Turkish Minister.” For the record: *“Oliver Perry-Smith: Profile of a Mountaineer,” by J. Monroe Thorington (American Alpine Journal 1964, pages 99–121).

5. Domination: 1893–1895

105

Oliver Perry-Smith–Ali Ferrouh Bey [B00], Washington, D.C. 1.  e4 b6 2. Bc4 Bb7 3. Nf3 B¥e4 4. Ng5 Bg6 5. h4 f6 6. h5 B¥c2 7. Bf7 mate. 1–0 (Chess in Philadelphia, page 111). Curiously enough, Kemeny was lucky to score the point against Perry-Smith, as the score below shows. His knight sacrifice at move 17 was not sound, and required Kemeny to work hard to avoid loss. However, Perry-Smith fumbled the ending, and on move 71 allowed Kemeny to reach a winning game. It is possible Kemeny was getting himself into form early in the event, as there is no evidence he had been playing any serious chess for many months before this tournament. The game below was reported to be Kemeny’s third victory, which put him at 3–0. It could just as easily have been 1–2. His comments suggest Kemeny was quite politic in emphasizing Perry-Smith’s good play, despite his eventually blundering the game away.

Kemeny–Oliver Perry-Smith [C21] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship, December 30, 1893 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. f4 d¥e4 4. f¥e5 Be7 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Be3 B¥c3+ 7. b¥c3 Ne7 8.  Bc4 Nd5 9.  B¥d5 Q¥d5 10.  Ne2 0–0 11.  0–0 Bg4 12.  Nf4 Qd7 Black could not play 12.  ... B¥d1 for White answers 13. N¥d5 and Black’s bishop and c-pawn is attacked. White would win at least the exchange. 13. Qe1 Nc6 14. Qg3 Ne7 15. h3 Bf5 16. Nh5 Bg6 17. Nf6+ Sacrifice of the piece was not sound. Progress of game shows that Black was enabled to stand the attack and remain a piece ahead. 17. ... g¥f6 18. e¥f6 Nf5 19. Qg5 Kh8 20.  Bf4 Rg8 21.  Be5 Rae8 22.  Rf4 Nd6 23.  Raf1 Bf5 24.  Qh5 B¥h3 25.  Rh4 Bf5 26.  Rff4 e3 27.  Rh2 Black threatens to play ... e2. 27.  ... Bg6 28. Qe2 Qb5 29. Q¥e3 Qb1+ 30. Rf1 Q¥c2 31. Qh3 Q¥a2 32. g4 Qe6 33. Kf2 a5 34. Rfh1 White’s attack is over, but the early advance of the h-pawn enabled him to play 27. Rh2. Now White -D-DrDri threatens a mate in two moves, namely 35. Q¥h7+ B¥h7 36. R¥h7 Dp0-DpDp mate. 34.  ... Ne4+ 35.  Ke3 Ng5 36.  Qh4 [JSH: White could -D-Dq)lD have resigned many moves ago but not doing so now pays off.] 36. ... 0-D-G-hQ¥f6 Black intended to protect the knight, which could not be -D-)-DP! played away on account of the threatening mate. Mr. Perry-Smith D-)-I-Doverlooked, however, that White could take the knight, for the queen -D-D-D-$ is pinned. Black should have sacrificed the knight and play ... Qc4. D-D-D-DR [JSH: Actually 36. ... Be4! should end the game; the bishop move frees the rook to defend the knight, among other things.] 37.  Q¥g5 After 36. Qh4 R¥e5+ 38. Q¥e5 Q¥e5+ 39. d¥e5 Re8 40. Kd4 Re6 41. Re1 Kg8 42. g5 Kf8 43. Rb2 b6 44. c4 Ke7 45. c5 Kd7 46. Rc1 RD-DrD-D Rc6 47.  Kd5 Bh5 48.  Rc3 Bg6 49.  c¥b6 R¥b6 50.  Rd2 D-D-DPDp Kc8 51. Rc5 a4 52. Ra5 Rb4 53. Kc5 Re4 54. Kc6 Rc4+ 55. Kb5 Rc2 56. Rd4 Rb2+ 57. Kc5 Kb7 58. Rd¥a4 Rc2+ -DpD-DlD 59. Kd4 Kc6 60.  Ra6+ Kd7 61.  Ke3 c6 62.  Ra8 Ke6 $-D-D-)63. Kf4 Rf2+ 64.  Ke3 Rf1 65.  R4a5 Kf5 66.  Ke2 Rc1 -D-I-i-D 67. Kd2 Rc4 68.  Kd3 Re4 Mr. Perry-Smith played from his D-D-D-Dthirty-ninth move with masterly skill. The present move, however, -D-D-D-D seems inferior to ... Rg4. He certainly failed to observe that ... Re4 D-D-D-Denables White to play e6+. 69. e6+ Kf4 70. e¥f7 Re8+ 71. Kd4 After 71. Kd4 R¥a8 The game was equalized, and Black easily secures a draw, with

106

EMIL KEMENY

... B¥f7. Black somehow overlooked that the exchange of rooks causes the loss of the Black bishop. 72.  R¥a8 B¥f7 73.  Rf8 K¥g5 74.  R¥f7 h5 75.  Ke4 Kg4 76.  Rg7+ Kh3 77. Kf3 h4 In this position Mr. Kemeny announced mate in six moves. [JSH: 77.  ... h4 78. Rg2 c5 79. Rc2 c4 80. R¥c4 Kh2 81. R¥h4+ Kg1 82. Rh5 Kf1 83. Rh1 mate.] 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 2, 1894, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny had little problem meeting Arthur Hale in this event, as the following game shows. “Mr. Emil Kemeny, the holder of the George W. Childs Cup, scored another victory in the Franklin Chess Club tournament by defeating Mr. Arthur Hale in a well contested game. Mr. Hale had the preferable game after the opening moves, but he endangered his chances somewhat by beginning the attack too soon. His opponent soon gained a pawn, and later on the exchange, in consequence of which Mr. Hale was obliged to surrender after White’s thirty-seventh move.”

Kemeny–Arthur Hale [C13] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship, January 1894 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. B¥f6 B¥f6 6. e5 Be7 7. Qg4 0–0 8. Bd3 f5 9. Qh3 c5 10. d¥c5 Nc6 11. f4 B¥c5 12. 0–0–0 Qb6 White did not select the best move when he castled on the queenside. Black has the open c-file, and will gain a powerful attack. The move selected by Black, however, seems too early. White is now enabled to exchange knight for bishop. 13.  ... Bd7, followed by ... Rac8, was probably the better continuation. 13. Na4 Be3+ 14. Kb1 Qd4 15. Ne2 Q¥a4 16. Q¥e3 d4 Not good. It is usually dangerous to advance the pawn, for it will be difficult to protect it. 16. ... Bd7 was still preferable. 17. Qd2 b5 Black intends to play ... Nb4, and the present move is necessary to prevent White’s reply, Bc4. White could win a pawn now by playing b3, but Black would gain a powerful attack. White’s answer to the present move seems to be the safest play. 18. c3 Rd8 19. c¥d4 Bb7 20. Bc2 Qb4 21. Bb3 Qe7 22. d5 e¥d5 rD-®-D-i 23. B¥d5+ Kh8 24. Qe3 R¥d5 White’s bishop on d5 defended 0lD-1-0p the game very much, and it was necessary for Black to get rid of it. sacrifice of the exchange, however, is not recommendable. If -DnD-D-D The Black intends to regain the exchange, he must lose the f-pawn. It DpDL)pD- seems that ... Rac8 was preferable. 25. R¥d5 Nb4 26. Rd4 Rc8 -D-D-)-D 27. Nc3 a5 28.  Rhd1 Nc6 29.  Rd7 Qe6 30.  Qc5 Rg8 D-D-!-D- 31. R1d6 Qc4 32. Q¥c4 b¥c4 33. R¥b7 Nb4 34. e6 Re8 P)-DNDP) 35. e7 Kg8 36. Rd8 Kf7 37. R¥e8 After White’s thirty-seventh DKDRD-DR move Black resigned, for if ... K¥e8 White plays Nb5, followed by Nd6+ and queening the pawn. 1–0 White: 1:39; Black 1:46 (PhiladelAfter 24. Qe3 phia Public Ledger, January 3, 1894 with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny’s next opponent, Elihu S. Maguire, is even more obscure than Perry-Smith, Hale or Livingston. Gaige in Chess Personalia, aside from giving his first name (Maguire is most often referred to as “E. S. Maguire” in the few contemporary sources that note him), mentions only that he was believed to have died in Philadelphia sometime between 1900 and 1920. Maguire finished 12–12 in the 1893-94 Franklin championship, just below Arthur Hale’s 13–11 score, although he defeated Hale in both their games. Maguire dropped out of the next year’s championship, as did a number of players, but reappeared in the following two events. His best

5. Domination: 1893–1895

107

result was third place in 1896-97, behind Voigt and J.P. Morgan, but ahead of Shipley, Charles Newman, D. Stuart Robinson and Bampton. Maguire started the 1893-94 Franklin well. The Philadelphia Inquirer for December 20, 1893, gave his draw with Voigt, adding, “Mr. Maguire suffered his first defeat in the Franklin Chess Club’s tournament last evening when he played Mr. E. Kemeny. Mr. Maguire selected the Philidor Defense. His game became inferior after the opening moves, and his opponent was enabled to sacrifice the exchange and a knight and force a brilliant win.” One can note, too, given the publication dates of the games, that many were annotated either the night they were played or the next day. This makes it all the more remarkable that Kemeny’s work did not show more errors in evaluation, as he was also working days as a railroad clerk.

Kemeny–Elihu S. Maguire [C41] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship, January 3, 1894 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 4. Bc4 Nb6 5. Bb3 Nf6 6. 0–0 Bg4 7. Re1 Be7 8. c3 0–0 9. Nbd2 Re8 10. Nf1 Nfd7 11. Ng3 Bh4 12. h3 B¥g3 13. f¥g3 Bh5 Black had the inferior game already, but it seems ... B¥f3 was preferable. The progress of the game shows that Black has difficulties to save that bishop. 14. g4 Bg6 15. h4 h6 If Black plays ... e¥d4 White gains the bishop by 16. Bg5, followed by e5 and h5. The move Black selected saves the bishop, but compromises the game to a great extent. 16.  h5 Bh7 17. g5 h¥g5 18.  N¥g5 Re7 19.  Rf1 Nf6 20.  R¥f6 g¥f6 21. N¥f7 Brilliant and sound. White wins back his rook with a rD-1-DkD winning position. 21.  ... R¥f7 22.  Qg4+ Kf8 23.  Bh6+ and wins. The win is forced, for after 23. Bh6+ Black must play 23. ... 0p0-®pDl Ke8 then 24. B¥f7+ K¥f7 25. Qg7+ Ke8 26. Q¥h7 and Black cannot -h-0-0-D guard the f-pawn nor stop White’s h-pawn. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public D-D-0-HP -D-)PD-D Ledger, January 4, 1894, with annotations by Kemeny).

DL)-D-D-

Three weeks passed before Kemeny played his sixth tournament P)-D-DPD game, following his 5–0 start. His erratic playing schedule may have $-GQD-Ibeen influenced by chess events of worldwide importance, in part playing out under the auspices of the Franklin club and several of After 20. ... g¥f6 its members. On August 31, 1893, Lasker formally challenged Steinitz to a match for the world’s chess championship. Shortly thereafter Lasker concluded his well-known 13–0 performance at New York 1893, the master’s tournament held September 30–October 14, 1893, at the Manhattan Chess Club. Lasker had more difficulty raising money than winning tournaments. In mid–January, Steinitz reluctantly agreed to a $500 reduction in stakes. The Steinitz–Lasker match location was also still unsettled, with Steinitz replying in late January 1894 to a letter by Shipley offering the Franklin Chess Club’s assistance in bringing part of the contest to Philadelphia. Kemeny acted as stakeholder for Philadelphia’s portion of the world’s championship, a fact demonstrating his integrity, and the high opinion his fellow club members held him in. To what extent further he might have been involved in the match preparation is unknown, although he clearly developed a relationship with Lasker. It is possible he traveled to New York on match related business or was too busy to play regularly in the club championship. Whatever actually delayed Kemeny’s next game for three weeks, championship games between other Franklin members continued to be published, and annotated, in the Ledger. Here the titleholder inflicts one of only two losses Morgan had in the event. As the Ledger’s

108

EMIL KEMENY

introduction said, “Mr. Emil Kemeny scored his sixth straight victory in the Franklin Club tournament last night, when he defeated Mr. Morgan, one of the strongest players in this tourney, in a well contested game. Mr. Kemeny played the Queen’s Pawn Opening, and started the attack on the kingside. In the early part of the game his opponent defended the game well, but, with his seventeenth move, ... Kh8, compromised his position to a great extent. Mr. Kemeny, who played the attack skillfully, gained a piece on the twenty-first move....”

Kemeny–Mordecai Morgan [D05] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship, January 24, 1894 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 b6 5. 0–0 Bb7 6. c3 Bd6 7. Ne5 0– 0 8. f4 Nbd7 9. Nd2 c5 The game was well played so far. In the present position it seems Black should have played ... Ne4 instead of ... c5. 10. Qf3 a6 11. g4 Ne8 12. Qh3 Ndf6 13. Qg2 White on his tenth move played Qf3, to prevent Black from ... Ne4. The present move has the same object. It certainly would relieve the Black game very much if he could play ... Ne4, and it seems that White selected the strongest line of play when he tried to prevent it. 13. ... Nd7 14. Rf3 f5 15. Rh3 Qe7 16. Ndf3 B¥e5 17. f¥e5 Kh8 The Black game was endangered to a great extent already, and Mr. Morgan was pressed on time, when he played ... Kh8. White had a powerful attack, but it is doubtful whether he could force a win. The present move of Black, howrD-Dn®-i ever, enables White to win in short order. 18. g¥f5 e¥f5 19. Qg6 DlDn1-0p The winning move. Black must sacrifice a piece to prevent White p0-D-D-D from mating. 19. ... h6 20. Ng5 Black must answer ... Nf6, and D-0p)pD- White wins the knight. 20. ... Nef6 21. e¥f6 N¥f6 22. B¥f5 -D-)-D-D Bc8 23. B¥c8 Ra¥c8 24. Bd2 Qe8 25. Q¥e8 Rc¥e8 26. Rf1 D-)L)NDR Kg8 27. Nf3 Ng4 28. Re1 1–0 White: 1:30; Black: 1:10 (PhiladelP)-D-DQ) phia Public Ledger, January 25, 1894, with annotations by Kemeny).

$-G-D-I-

The first player to nick Kemeny’s record did so during his seventh tournament game, giving him a score of 61 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2. Although listing After 18. ... e¥f5 standings in a tournament in which participants conducted games in part at their own pace was difficult, the same Ledger column that published Kemeny’s draw with Shipley reported that Bampton stood next, at 5–1, with Shipley at 4–1 with 2 draws, Mordecai Morgan at 5–2 with 1 draw, Voigt at 5–2 with 3 draws, and C. Hinrichs at 6–3. The writer introducing the game for Kemeny’s annotations wrote as follows: “A well contested and highly interesting game between Mr. Shipley and Mr. Kemeny, the cup holder, on Saturday afternoon, resulted in a draw, after four hours play. Mr. Shipley, having the move, opened with a Scotch Gambit. His opponent in the early part of the game forced the exchange of queens. The contest was followed up with utmost care on both sides, and, after forty moves were made, no one had any chance to win, and a draw was agreed upon.”

Walter P. Shipley–Kemeny [C44] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship, January 27, 1894 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  d4 e¥d4 4.  Bc4 Bc5 5.  c3 d¥c3 6.  B¥f7+ K¥f7 7. Qd5+ Ke8 8.  Qh5+ Kf8 Black could have played 8.  ... g6, which play was probably

5. Domination: 1893–1895

109

better, though it opens the diagonal, and gives White an attack on the rook. 9. Q¥c5+ d6 10. Q¥c3 Nf6 11. Bg5 N¥e4 The present move forces the exchange of queens, and equalizes the game perfectly. Probably it was the best line of play for Black. 12. B¥d8 N¥c3 13. N¥c3 N¥d8 14.  Nb5 c6 Black could not protect his pawn, for if he plays 14.  ... Ne6, White answers 15. Rc1, etc. 15. N¥d6 Be6 16. Ne5 Ke7 17. Ndc4 Kf6 18. f4 Re8 18. ... B¥c4, followed by ... Re8, was decidedly better. Black endangers his game with the present and following move. 19. Nd6 Re7 20. 0–0 White could play here with advantage 20. Rd1. The Black game would become then compromised to a great extent. 20. ... g6 21. Ne4+ Kg7 22. b3 Nf7 23. N¥f7 B¥f7 24. Nd6 Rd8 25. N¥f7 R¥f7 After the exchange of minor pieces, the game is perfectly even, and, -D-®-D-D since both sides played careful, the game ended in a draw. 26. g3 0pD-®Nip h5 27. Rae1 Rd5 28. Rf2 h4 29. Rfe2 g5 30. f¥g5 R¥g5 -DpD-DpD 31. Kg2 h¥g3 32. h¥g3 Rd5 33. Re7 Rd2+ 34. R1e2 R¥e2+ D-D-D-D35. R¥e2 b6 36. b4 c5 37. b¥c5 b¥c5 38. Re5 Rc7 39. Kf2 Kf6 40.  Rh5 c4 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 30, -D-D-)-D DPD-D-D1894, with annotations by Kemeny).

PD-D-DP) $-D-DRI-

Nothing is known for certain about C. E. Wolbert, Kemeny’s next opponent. Wolbert did not play in any other Franklin tournaAfter 25. N¥f7 ment during Kemeny’s years with the club. Although badly outclassed in this event, Wolbert did score wins against Bampton, Hale and Maguire, finishing at 51 ⁄ 2–181 ⁄ 2. Only one of his two games against Kemeny has survived. It appears Kemeny did not take his opponent seriously—not a wise course of action in any case. The Ledger stated that “An interesting game was played on Tuesday night in the Franklin Club tournament which resulted in a victory for the cupholder, Mr. E. Kemeny. Mr. Wolbert played the first part of the match very well, and his opponent who sacrificed two pawns for the attack, came very near losing the game. Mr. Wolbert’s sixteenth move enabled Mr. Kemeny to gain the exchange, and after twelve moves more the cupholder scored another victory.”

C. E. Wolbert–Kemeny [B01] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship, January 30, 1894 1. e4 d5 2.  e¥d5 Nf6 The usual move is ... Q¥d5. The line of play Black selected gives him a strong attack, but the sacrifice of two pawns is certainly not sound. 3. Nc3 c6 4. d¥c6 e5 5. c¥b7 B¥b7 6. Bb5+ Nbd7 7. B¥d7+ Q¥d7 8. Nf3 e4 9. Ng5 9. Ne5 was preferable. White’s move, Ng5, enables Black to gain some advantage by forcing back the knight to h3. 9. ... h6 10. Nh3 Bd6 11. 0–0 Ng4 12. N¥e4 Very fine play. Black’s attack is now over. White gains the piece back on the next move with f3. 12. ... B¥e4 13. f3 0–0–0 Hazardous play. But Black being three pawns behind had to play so to keep up the attack. 14. f¥e4 Bc5+ 15. Kh1 Ne3 16. Qf3 16. Qh5 would probably win in short order, for White captures the bishop and Black’s knight has no retreat. 16. ... N¥f1 17. Q¥f1 Rhe8 18. d3 f5 19. Bf4 f¥e4 20. d¥e4 R¥e4 Black could well afford to exchange queens, since he has the exchange for two pawns, and White’s position is inferior. 21.  Qa6+ Qb7 22. Q¥b7+ K¥b7 23. g3 23. Bg3 was better. The move selected loses a piece. 23. ... g5 24. N¥g5 h¥g5 25.  B¥g5 Rde8 26.  c3 Re2 27.  h4 R¥b2 28.  h5 Ree2 White resigns now, for he cannot prevent Black from mating on h2. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 1, 1894, with annotations by Kemeny).

110

EMIL KEMENY

Kemeny’s next published game was against another forgotten player of the Franklin, this one by the name of “C. Hinrichs.” Nothing could be learned about him, except that in the same year he won a game against Kemeny in the latter’s 14 board simultaneous Franklin exhibition. Kemeny’s simultaneous performance took place sometime in 1894, and with decidedly mixed results, as he finished with a relatively poor 4–4 with 6 draws. Kemeny rarely gave such exhibitions. Large displays require a great deal of physical stamina, a gift Kemeny did not have. As for his 1894 performance at the Franklin, it should be remembered it was not unusual for very strong players to take a board against their peers, and this at least in part accounts for Kemeny’s showing. In this instance, besides losing to Hinrichs, Kemeny lost to Bampton, while drawing with Mordecai Morgan, D. Stuart Robinson, and Voigt. As for his tournament game against Hinrichs, “One of the finest games thus far in the Franklin Club tournament was the contest between Mr. Hinrichs and Mr. E. Kemeny. Mr. Hinrichs declined to accept the offered King’s Gambit, played a safe defense, and he had, up to the twentieth move, a good game. Then his opponent started a powerful attack on the kingside and forced a beautiful win by the sacrifice of a rook. Mr. Hinrichs surrendered after his opponent’s thirty-second move.” As often was the case during this era, terms such as “finest” or “most brilliant” often refer to the most sparkling tactical displays rather than well-defended chess. Here Kemeny’s opponent goes wrong in the middle game, after which no endgame was necessary.

Kemeny–C. Hinrichs [C30] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship January or February 1894 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. c3 Bg4 6. b4 Bb6 7. b5 The attack White started on the queenside is not promising. Black defends his game correctly. 7. ... B¥f3 8. Q¥f3 Na5 9. Be2 Nf6 10. Na3 Qe7 11. d3 c6 12. b¥c6 N¥c6 13. Nc4 White had no better line of play than to develop his knight to a3 and c4. This line of play gives White a chance to castle. 13. ... Bc5 14. Be3 B¥e3 15. N¥e3 0–0 16. f5 Better than Nf5. The present move of White’s starts the attack on the kingside, which terminated in a brilliant victory. 16.  ... Qc7 17.  0–0 Ne7 18.  Rac1 Qa5 18.  ... Qc5 at once was proper. The present move was only loss of time. It is obvious that White, having a powerful attack on the kingside, need not care to protect the attacked a-pawn. rD-D-®-i 19. g4 Qc5 20. Kh1 d5 21. g5 d¥e4 22. d¥e4 Nh5 Best! If plays Q¥h5, Black answers ... Q¥e3 with an even game. 0pD-DpD- White 23. f6 Ng6 24.  f¥g7 N¥g7 25.  Ng4 Nf4 26.  Nf6+ Kh8 -D-D-H-D 27. Qg4 Qe3 27. ... N¥e2 was probably better. White then could D-D-0-)n play Qh3, but Black could defend his game better after the capturing -D-DPh-! of the bishops. 28. Qh4 h5 29. B¥h5 Ng¥h5 30. Rce1 Qd2 D-)-1-D- 31. R¥f4 The winning move! To escape mate Black must sacrifice PD-D-D-) his queen. 31. ... Q¥e1+ 32. Q¥e1 There was no escape for Black. D-D-$RDK If 32. ... N¥f6, 33. g¥f6 threatening mate. If 32. ... N¥f4, 33. Qh4+ and mate in two moves. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 2, After 30. Rce1 1894, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny easily defeated A. L. Gillespie, who was badly outclassed in the event, finishing 2–22. “The game in the Franklin Club tournament between Mr. E. Kemeny and Mr. A. L. Gillespie was won by the former. Mr. Gillespie had the inferior game soon after the opening

5. Domination: 1893–1895

111

moves and had to sacrifice a piece on his twentieth move. He then played a skillful defense, but it was to no avail. His opponent forced the win with a brilliant sacrifice of a knight.”

Kemeny–A. L. Gillespie [C23] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 1894 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. b4 B¥b4 4. f4 The sacrifice of the b-pawn and f-pawn gives White a lively attack, but it is not perfectly sound. 4. ... Nf6 4. ... Nc6 was probably better. 5. Qf3 0–0 6. f¥e5 Ne8 7. c3 Ba5 8. Ne2 d6 9. Ba3 Bb6 10. Rf1 Qe7 11. d4 Nc6 12. Nd2 Bd7 13. 0–0–0 Nd8 14. Nf4 c5 15. Nd5 Qh4 16. h3 Be6 17. g3 Qh6 18. Ne7+ Kh8 19. d5 Bd7 20. e6 B¥e6 Black is forced to sacrifice a piece. White threatens Nf5, followed by e7. 21. d¥e6 rD-hn®kD N¥e6 22. Qg4 Nf6 23. Qe2 Rae8 24. Nf5 Q¥h3 25. Nf3 0pDlDp0p Qg4 26. N¥d6 Nd8 27. e5 Nd7 28. N¥e8 R¥e8 29. R¥d7 -g-0-D-D Q¥d7 30. Ng5 Rf8 31. Qe4 g6 32. N¥h7 The decisive stroke! D-0N)-DAfter this sacrifice White forces the win in a few moves. 32.  ... -DL)PD-1 K¥h7 33. Qh4+ Kg7 34. Qf6+ Kg8 35. Q¥g6+ 1–0 (PhiladelG-)-DQDP phia Public Ledger, February 9, 1894, with annotations by Kemeny).

PD-H-DPD D-IRDRD-

Livingston also fell before Kemeny, as the latter continued to win game after game. “Mr. Kemeny had rather an inferior game After 16. h3 against Mr. Livingstone, and it is doubtful whether he would have scored a victory if his opponent had played on the fourteenth move Ne4. As it happened the cupholder won a piece and his opponent had to surrender on the twenty-eighth move.”

Max Livingston–Kemeny [C40] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 1894 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. e¥f5 e4 4. Nd4 4. Ne5 was probably preferable. 4. ... Nf6 5. d3 d5 6. g4 Bc5 7. Be3 Bb6 8. h3 0–0 9. Nd2 c5 10. N4b3 d4 11. Bg5 e3 12. f¥e3 d¥e3 13. B¥e3 Re8 14. Nc4 14. Ne4 was proper; White would then hold an even game. The move selected enables Black to win a piece. 14.  ... Nd5 15.  Qf3 N¥e3 16. Kf2 White could not save his piece; if he plays N¥e3, Black replies ... c4, attacking both knights. [JSH: 16. N¥e3 c4 17. d4 c¥b3 18. Bc4+ Kh8 19. c3 is in fact much better for White than the text, which loses immediately.] 16. ... N¥c4 17. d¥c4 Nc6 18. Bg2 Be6 19. Qc3 Qh4+ 20. Kg1 Bf7 21. Nd2 Re2 22. Rf1 Nd4 23. Nf3 Qg3 24. Rh2 Bc7 25. Rd1 N¥f3+ 26. Q¥f3 Q¥h2+ 27. Kf1 B¥c4 After Black’s twenty-seventh move, White must sacrifice the queen in order to prevent mate. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 17, 1894, with annotations by Kemeny). Having won his first game with White against Maguire in 23 moves, Kemeny won his second, with Black, even faster. “Mr. E. Kemeny scored last evening an important victory when he defeated Mr. E. S. Maguire in the second round of the Franklin Club tournament. Mr. Maguire having the move, selected the Queen’s Pawn opening. His opponent sacrificed

112

EMIL KEMENY

a pawn in the opening, and one more on the fifteenth move, in order to gain a powerful attack. The cupholder was once more successful, as he regained both pawns, and, after the twentieth move, his opponent’s game was compromised to such extent that he had to surrender.”

Elihu S. Maguire–Kemeny [D04] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 20, 1894 1. d4 d5 2.  e3 Nf6 3.  Nf3 c5 The sacrifice of a pawn is not sound; 4. ... e6 was Black’s proper play. 4. d¥c5 e6 5. Bb5+ Nc6 6. Ne5 Qc7 7. Nd3 e5 8. h3 Be6 9. b4 0–0–0 10. B¥c6 b¥c6 11. Qe2 d4 12. e4 Nd7 13. f4 f5 14. N¥e5 N¥e5 15. f¥e5 d3 Beautiful play! Black must sacrifice this pawn in order to stop White’s threatening move, Qa6, as well as to gain a powerful attack. 16. c¥d3 Q¥e5 17. Bb2 -Dk®-g-® There was practically no better move than Bb2. If White played Black would continue with ... Qg3+. 17. ... Qg3+ 18. Kd2 0-1-D-0p e¥f5, Kf1 followed by Nd2 was probably a better defense. 18.  ... Bc4 -DpDlD-D 19. Kc1 White had no escape. Black forces the win in a few moves. D-)-)pD- 19. ... B¥d3 20. Qf3 Qg5+ 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, Feb-)-0PD-D ruary 21, 1894, with annotations by Kemeny).

D-D-D-DP PDPDQDPD $NG-I-DR

Kemeny’s second game with Voigt was marred by the latter’s highly speculative, and unsound, knight sacrifice on his fourteenth move. “Mr. E. Kemeny, the winner of last year’s George W. Childs After 15. f¥e5 Cup contest, scored an important victory last night when he defeated Mr. Hermann Voigt in a well contested game. Mr. Voigt opened with 1. f4 and probably the strongest moves were made up to the fourteenth move when Mr. Voigt made an ingenious sacrifice of a knight. The sacrifice, however, was not perfectly sound, and his opponent, who played the defense skillfully, soon got the best of the argument, and Mr. Voigt had to surrender after the thirty-second move.”

Herman G. Voigt–Kemeny [A03] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 25, 1894 1. f4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. b3 c5 5. Bb2 Nc6 6. Bd3 Bd7 7. 0–0 Be7 8. Ne5 0–0 9. a3 To prevent Black from playing ... Nb4. 9. ... 10. Qf3 Rc8 Necessary, to be enabled to play ... b5 with the -DrD-®kD a6 continuation ... c4. 11. Nc3 b5 12. Qh3 c4 13. N¥d7 Q¥d7 D-Dqgp0p 14. N¥d5 Very ingenious play, but not perfectly sound. White pDnDph-D must have overlooked Black’s strongest defense ... Q¥d5. 14.  ... DpDpD-D- Q¥d5 14. ... e¥d5 would lose, on account of White’s reply 15. Bf5. -DpD-)-D 14. ... c¥d3 would give good winning chances for White. The game )PHL)-DQ would then proceed 14.  ... c¥d3 15. N¥f6+ B¥f6 16. B¥f6 g¥f6 -GP)-DP) 17. Rf3. 15. B¥f6 c¥d3 16. Bc3 f5 17. c¥d3 Q¥d3 18. Rf3 $-D-DRI- Bf6 19.  Rg3 B¥c3 20.  d¥c3 Q¥c3 21.  Rf1 Qf6 22.  Qh5 Ne7 23. Rh3 h6 24. Rg3 Rfd8 25. h3 Rd3 26. Kh2 Kh7 After 13. ... Q¥d7 27. Qe2 R¥b3 28.  Rd1 Nd5 29.  Rd4 R¥e3 White’s attack

5. Domination: 1893–1895

113

was over when Black played ... f5. The present beautiful move leads to the shortest win. It is obvious that Black regains the rook on the next move. 30.  R¥e3 Q¥d4 31.  Rg3 N¥f4 32. Qf3 Rc1 The final stroke! To escape mate on the move, White must play away his rook from g3. But it will be captured on g4, as well as on g5, g6 or g7. White resigned after this move. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 26, 1894, with annotations by Kemeny). The day after his win over Voigt was published, Kemeny signed a letter stating he had received from Shipley a sum of $200, contributed from Franklin members. Half the money had been subscribed by Shipley, Voigt and Bampton alone. Kemeny indicated in his letter that should Lasker win the match, Kemeny would receive $300, the original amount as well as the extra hundred dollars to be divided between the men proportionately to their contributions (The Steinitz Papers, ed. Kurt Landsberger, 2002, page 169). Late in March, Kemeny wrote to New York’s William M. de Visser, enclosing Charles A. Gilberg’s check for $200, also contributed to Lasker’s backing (Steinitz Papers, pages 177–178). “One of the finest games thus far played in the Franklin Club tournament was that between Mr. S. Warren Bampton and Mr. E. Kemeny, the winner of last year’s George W. Childs Cup contest. Mr. Bampton opened with 1. d4 and started the attack on the kingside. He had a good game, but sacrificed a pawn too early. Mr. Kemeny defended skillfully and his opponent had to sacrifice a piece and the exchange in order to maintain the attack. But after the cupholder’s twenty-eighth move Mr. Bampton was forced to surrender.”

Samuel Warren Bampton–Kemeny [D02] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship March 1894 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6 4. e3 Be7 5. Bd3 0–0 6. Nbd2 c5 7. c3 Nc6 8. Ne5 Bd7 9. g4 Rc8 10. g5 N¥e5 11. d¥e5 Ne8 12. h4 Nc7 13. h5 White planned for the attack correctly, and he had probably the preferable game. This early sacrifice of an important pawn was not necessary. Black is enabled to defend his game and remain a pawn ahead. 13. Qg4 or 13. Rg1 was preferable. 13. ... B¥g5 14. h6 g6 15. Qg4 B¥f4 16. Q¥f4 f6 17. 0–0–0 f¥e5 18. Q¥e5 Qf6 -DrDl®-i 19. Nf3 Be8 20. Rh2 b5 21. Rg1 c4 22. Bc2 Na6 23. Rhg2 0-D-D-Dp Nc5 24. Qh5 Kh8 Black’s defense, especially from the twentieth -D-Dp1p) move, is exceedingly fine. White now is unable to keep the attack, DphpD-DQ except by sacrifice of a piece. If White plays 25. Qe5, Black answers 25. ... Nd7. 25.  B¥g6 B¥g6 26.  R¥g6 Nd3+ 27.  Kd2 h¥g6 -DpD-D-D 28. R¥g6 Q¥f3 The final stroke! White can gain the queen now D-)-)NDby playing 29. Rg8+. Black must answer 29. ... R¥g8 and White cap- P)LD-)RD tures the queen. Black, however, forces then the win in a few moves D-I-D-$with ... Rcf8, followed by ... R¥f2+, etc. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public After 24. ... Kh8 Ledger, March 5, 1894, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny mated Oliver Perry-Smith in a miniature. “Mr. E. Kemeny yesterday scored another victory in the Franklin Club tournament, when he defeated Mr. O. Perry-Smith in fourteen moves. Mr. Perry-Smith having the move, opened with the Ruy Lopez, which game is considered a very safe one. In the early part of the game, however, he played for the win of a pawn, which proved disastrous. His opponent was then enabled to mate on the fourteenth move.”

114

EMIL KEMENY

Oliver Perry-Smith–Kemeny [C65] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship March 6, 1894 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. B¥c6 White plays to win the epawn. But this endangers his game to a great extent. 5.0–0 was the proper play. 5. ... d¥c6 6. N¥e5 Qd4 7. Be3 Q¥e5 8. d4 Q¥e4 9. d¥c5 Q¥g2 10. Kd2 Bg4 11. Qg1 0– 0–0+ 12. Kc3 Qe4 [JSH: Another way is 12. ... Nd5+ 13. Kb3 Qe4, and after 14. Qe1, the amusing 14. ... Bd1, when after 15. Ka3 Q¥c2 16. Q¥d1 N¥e3 White has nothing better than to resign. The text move, however, is good -Dk®-D-® enough to win, even without White’s next blunder.] 13.  Nd2 0p0-Dp0p White’s game was beyond repair already. The present move, however, -DpD-h-D enables Black to mate in two moves. 13. ... Nd5+ 14. Kb3 Qb4 D-)-D-D- mate. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 7, 1894, with annota-D-D-DlD tions by Kemeny).

D-I-G-DP)PD-)q) $ND-D-!R

Kemeny also won his second round game against Arthur Hale. “Mr. E. Kemeny, the holder of the George W. Childs cup, scored an important victory last night, when he defeated Mr. Arthur Hale in a well contested game. Mr. Hale had a perfectly even game when After 12. Kc3 he entered with his sixteenth move, a combination that caused the loss of a pawn. He played then a very skillful defense but it was of no avail. Mr. Kemeny was enabled to force the win after thirty-seven moves.” In fact, the selfimprisonment of White’s rook from move 22 through 25 is a textbook example of misreading the position. Black imprisons his queen’s bishop, but only in order to maintain the bind on White’s rook and bishop—not a bad trade.

Arthur Hale–Kemeny [D46] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship March 11, 1894 1. e3 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 c6 5. d4 Bd6 6. Bd3 Nbd7 7. 0–0 0– 0 8. b3 Qe7 9. e4 d¥e4 10. N¥e4 N¥e4 11. B¥e4 Nf6 12. Bg5 h6 13. B¥f6 Q¥f6 14. Qe2 g6 15. Rfd1 15. Rad1 was preferable. 15. ... Bd7 16. Ne5 White overlooked that he could not capture the bishop on the 18th move, on account of the a1 rook being attacked. 16. ... B¥e5 17. d¥e5 Q¥e5 18. Rac1 Rad8 19. Rd3 Bc8 20. Re3 Qg5 21. Qc2 f5 22. Rg3 [JSH: This move takes the rook off the crucial e-file, where it was aimed at Black’s momentarily backward pawn, and after White’s next move the rook locked out while the e-pawn advances. Better was the imme-Dl®-®kD remains diate 22. Bf3 and White’s rook is exactly where it’s wanted; compare 0pD-D-D- this position to the one after White’s 25th move in the game.] 22. ... -DpDpDp0 Qf6 23. Bf3 Kh7 24. Rh3 [JSH: More time wasted with the rook; D-D-Dp1- now Black’s backward pawn becomes an advanced pawn.] 24.  ... -DPDLD-D e5 25.  g3 This move compromises the White game to a great DPD-$-D- extent, for the rook is now out of play. 25. ... e4 26. Bg2 Qd4 PDQD-)P) [JSH: 26. ... f4 would have pointed out the White rook’s embarrassD-$-D-I- ment; for instance, 27. Rh4 g5 28. Rh5 Kg6 and the exchange is lost.] 27.  Qe2 Qd2 28.  Qe3 Q¥e3 29.  f¥e3 Rd2 30.  Ra1 After 21. ... f5 Rfd8 31.  Bf1 g5 32.  b4 Rb2 33.  b5 Rdd2 34.  g4 f4

5. Domination: 1893–1895

115

35. e¥f4 g¥f4 36. Rh4 Kg6 37. Re1 e3 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 12, 1894, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny’s win over Hale gave him, since his draw with Shipley in his seventh game, a string of ten consecutive wins. He now stood 16–0 with 1 draw. Of course, in a double–round robin tournament of 13 competitors, several of whom were decidedly weak, the opportunity to create an impressive score was present for more than one player. Mordecai Morgan, for instance, stood at 14–2 with 1 draw, while Shipley’s record was 12–3 with 2 draws. Either Morgan’s or Shipley’s scores would ordinarily be good enough to win a club championship, and yet Kemeny was two full points above his nearest competitor. At this point, however, the Steinitz–Lasker world championship had begun in New York, on Thursday evening, March 15, 1894. Kemeny annotated the games in detail for the Ledger. Unfortunately, Franklin tournament games were thus undoubtedly crowded out of the newspaper. Kemeny continued his winning ways, at some point during his last seven games giving up a draw to Mordecai Morgan, but, other than his draw with Shipley in the first round, he gave up no other half point. He finished in style, defeating Shipley, who had a respectable 17–7 tournament (which was a score of plus ten, and yet good enough only for fourth place). The last game published in the Ledger from the tournament announced Kemeny’s first prize finish. “The Franklin Club tournament, which combined the contest for the George W. Childs cup with that for the Dr. Persifor Frazer cup, was decided, as far as first honors are concerned, last night, and Mr. Emil Kemeny, the winner of last year’s contest, was victorious again. There were 13 contestants ... Kemeny performed a remarkable feat in playing 24 games without losing any and only drawing two, one with Mr. Shipley and the other with Mr. Morgan. In winning this contest, Mr. Kemeny for the second time, becomes champion of the Franklin Chess Club and of Philadelphia. Mr. Kemeny is one of the best players in this country.... A very interesting game in the local tournament was the following contest between Messrs. Kemeny and Shipley.” Curiously enough, Kemeny did not annotate his tournament-winning performance. This may have been because of space limitations, as his annotations for the seventh game of the world championship appeared in the Kemeny in the Ledger, 1894 same column. At least a line drawing (shown at right) of Kemeny appeared with the score of his victory.

Kemeny–Walter P. Shipley [C77] 1893-94 Franklin Chess Club Championship April 5, 1894 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. c3 g6 7. Nbd2 Bg7 8. Nf1 0–0 9. Qe2 b5 10. Bc2 d5 11. Bd2 Qd6 12.  Ng3 Nd8 13.  d4 N¥e4 14.  N¥e4 d¥e4 15. B¥e4 Rb8 16. d¥e5 B¥e5 17. Rd1 Qe6 18. Bd5 Q¥d5 19. Bh6 Qc5 20. B¥f8 B¥c3+ 21. b¥c3 Q¥f8 22. 0–0 Ne6

-®-D-DkD Dl0-DpDp pD-DnDpD Dp1-H-D-D-D-D-D D-)-D-DPD-DQ)P) D-DR$-IAfter 24. ... Bb7

116

EMIL KEMENY

23. Ne5 Qc5 24. Rfe1 Bb7 25. Nd7 [JSH: Kemeny misses a win here: 25. N¥f7 and if 25. ... Qc6 threatening mate, then 26. Nh6+ Kg7 27. Qg4 preventing mate while still attacking the knight, allowing time for White to remove his own threatened piece, i.e. 27.  ... Re8 28. Nf5+ Kf7 29. Nd4.] 25. ... Qc6 [JSH: Shipley returns the favor; with 25. ... Qg5 26. f3 Rd8 his queen would have come to the kingside to guard the dark square weaknesses.] 26. f3 Rd8 27. Nf6+ Kg7 28. R¥d8 N¥d8 29. Ne8+ Kg8 30. Qe5 Ne6 31. Nf6+ Kh8 32. Nd5+ Ng7 33. Qe7 h5 34. Qd8+ Kh7 35. Nf6+ Kh6 36. Qh8+ Kg5 37. Ne4+ 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, April 6, 1894; Brooklyn Standard-Union, April 14, 1894). Kemeny won the tournament with a 22–0 score with 2 draws. Although Mordecai Morgan finished with an impressive 20–4 score, he trailed Kemeny by a full three points. Voigt had rallied after his weak start to finish third, at 181 ⁄ 2–51 ⁄ 2. Kemeny had played in two Franklin championship tournaments, not only winning both but doing so with a cumulative record of 35 wins 3 losses and 4 draws. The transplanted Hungarian visited Brooklyn two weeks before winning his second Franklin title, travelling there to play in the first half of a team match for his old home club, City Chess Club of New York. The “inter-city club tourney,” as the Brooklyn Daily Eagle called the affair, was played between City and the Brooklyn Chess Club at the latter’s rooms. Charles Gilberg, Brooklyn club president, had just returned from a month spent in Cuba. He acted as master of ceremonies, welcoming the City club players who had arrived not only from New York City and New Jersey, but also from Philadelphia. Kemeny travelled with Voigt and Bampton to participate in the event. Instead of ranking all 12 players and matching them up that way, the players were grouped in threes, with the strongest group of three players competing against their opposites, although the pairings among the groups were determined by lot. Kemeny shared the top group with Voigt and Jackson Whipps Showalter, the very strong Kentucky player who will later play a central role in Kemeny’s story. Their three Brooklyn club counterparts were Pillsbury, Albert Hodges, and Philip Richardson. By lot, Kemeny was paired with Richardson. In charts of the match results, Kemeny is placed directly beneath Showalter on the City Chess Club side, ahead of Voigt, Samuel Loyd, and the rest. Play began at 8:30 Saturday night, March 24, 1894. Showalter defeated Pillsbury at 10:10, “much to the surprise of the Bostonian’s friends,” according to the next day’s Eagle. Voigt held Hodges to a draw. At night’s end, Brooklyn had won the match by the very close score of 5–4 with 3 draws. The City club’s top three had done all that could be asked of them, defeating their counterparts 21 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2. The lower boards lost the match to Brooklyn. Philip Richardson (1841–1920) is rarely remembered today, although well through the 1890s he was considered one of Brooklyn’s most dangerous players, and especially so when competing in team matches. Originally from England, Richardson’s family crossed the ocean and settled in Newburgh, New York, only to move once again, two years later, in 1854, to Brooklyn. His early chess years are associated with the growth in New York City chess after Paul Morphy’s appearance in the chess world, and most of his published games during his youth appeared in the New York Clipper, under the chess editorship of Miron Hazeltine. Richardson played actively from at least 1859 through 1900. When nearly 60, in 1900, he played a short match to a tie, 1–1 with 4 draws, with the exceptionally strong player S. Lipschütz. Kemeny’s win over Richardson follows. There has been some confusion regarding the exact score. Both the Newark Daily Advertiser and the Brooklyn Standard-Union end the game after White’s forty-second move, while the New York Sun gives the game through White’s fortyfourth.

5. Domination: 1893–1895

117

Kemeny–Philip Richardson [D05] City Chess Club–Brooklyn Chess Club Team Match, Round 1 Brooklyn, New York, March 24, 1894 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. Ne5 N¥e5 7. d¥e5 Nd7 8.  f4 c4 9.  Bc2 Bc5 10.  0–0 b5 11.  Kh1 Bb7 12.  Qe2 f5 13.  Nd2 Qe7 14. Nf3 h6 15. Nd4 a6 16. Qh5+ Kd8 17. Bd2 Kc7 18. a4 B¥d4 19. e¥d4 Bc6 20. a5 Rag8 21. b3 c¥b3 This exchange of pawns is scarcely expedient. The queenside should have been left as far as possible intact, and some such move as ... g5 adopted. 22. B¥b3 g5 23. Qe2 Qg7 23. ... Rg6 seems -DrD-D-D more to the purpose. 24. Rac1 Kd8 25. Rf2 Ke7 26. Rc2 Qg6 D-D-D-D27. Bc1 Rc8 Wherefore this removal? Why take away this force pDlD-DkD from the base of operations? The rook was needed where it was. )-DpD-028. Ba3+ Kf7 29. g4 Kg7 30. g¥f5 e¥f5 If 30. ... Q¥f5 31. f¥g5 Qe4+ 32. Rg2 and wins. 31. f¥g5 h¥g5 32. Qf3 N¥e5 If 32. ... -D-)-D-D N¥e5 33. d¥e5 g4 34. Q¥f5 R¥h2+ 35. K¥h2 g3+ 36. Kg1 g¥f2+ etc. DrD-D-D33. Q¥f5 Nd3 33.  ... Nc4 was superior. 34.  Q¥g6+ K¥g6 -D-G-DR) 35. Rf1 Rh3 36. Rg2 b4 37. c¥b4 N¥b4 38. B¥b4 R¥b3 D-D-DRDK 39. Bd2 Bb5 [JSH: 39. ... Kh7 40. R¥g5 Be8 was playable, at least After 39. Bd2 for a computer; the game continuation is a disaster.] 40.  R¥g5+ Kh7 41. Rf4 Rc6 42. Rh4+ Rh6 43. R¥h6+ K¥h6 44. Rg3+ 1–0 (New York Sun, March 26, 1894; Brooklyn Standard-Union, March 31, 1894 Newark Daily Advertiser, August 3, 1894, with annotations above by Cornelius Hymes). The second leg of the City Chess Club–Brooklyn Chess Club match took place Saturday, March 31, 1894. Kemeny did not play. Voigt and Bampton did, Voigt losing to Hodges and Bampton drawing with Olly. In this leg, Pillsbury repaid Showalter for his defeat the week before, and Brooklyn ended up winning 6–4 with 2 draws, for a combined score and match win of 131 ⁄2–101 ⁄2. The following month, Kemeny again visited Brooklyn, this time to play for the team he had played against the month before. Clearly, Kemeny still felt that as far as the greater metropolitan area was concerned, his first loyalty was to City Chess Club, and after that, to Brooklyn. Brooklyn and the Newark Chess Club of Newark, New Jersey, had organized a 10 player, two-round team match, the first leg of which was held in Brooklyn on Wednesday night, April 25, 1894. It is likely Brooklyn to that date had never fielded a stronger team: Pillsbury, Hodges, Kemeny, Richardson and Hanham played on the first five boards, facing the best of Newark, including the three Hymes brothers, Cornelius, Nathaniel and Edward. Cornelius Hymes (1859–1933), Kemeny’s opponent, was the oldest of the three brothers, Nathaniel (1863–1918) and Edward (1871–1938) following him into life as well as the chess world. Although the much younger Edward eventually became the strongest of the three, Cornelius had his own chess accomplishments. He was instrumental in the build-up of the Newark Chess Club, serving for a time as club president. He finished second in the New Jersey State Championships of 1887 and 1888, and from 1893 through 1899 edited the chess column in the Newark Daily Advertiser. (He annotated Kemeny’s game, above, against Richardson for his column.) Perhaps knowing the strength of his opponent, and knowing how difficult defeating him would be, even with White, Cornelius Hymes played a conservative game against Kemeny, and after 34 moves a draw was the result. Hymes himself, in annotating the game, indicated it was adjudicated a draw. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle announced earlier that same day that play would run from 8:00 to 11:30, after which the umpire would adjudicate games.

118

EMIL KEMENY

Cornelius Hymes–Kemeny [D02] Newark Chess Club–Brooklyn Chess Club Team Match, Round 1 Brooklyn, New York, April 25, 1894 1. Nf3 d5 2.  d4 e6 3.  e3 c5 4.  Bd3 c4 5.  Be2 Nc6 6.  c3 At such juncture, 6. b3 most often acts as a dissolver of the adverse center. Nothing peculiar in the position forbids it, and it doubtless would be better than the conservative text move. 6. ... Nf6 7. 0– 0 b5 8. Re1 Bd6 9. Nbd2 Bb7 10. Qc2 Qc7 11. b3 c¥b3 Intending to leave White’s c-pawn weak. On the whole, the exchange of pawns is rather to White’s advantage. 12. a¥b3 a6 13. Ba3 B¥a3 14. R¥a3 Rc8 15. Rc1 To prevent ... Nb4. 15. ... 0–0 16. Bd3 e5 17. d¥e5 N¥e5 18. N¥e5 Q¥e5 19. Nf3 Qe7 20. b4 Ne4 21. B¥e4 d¥e4 22. Nd4 f5 23. Qa2+ Kh8 24. Ne6 Rf6 25. Nc5 Rd6 26. Qe2 Better than 26. N¥b7 Q¥b7 27. Ra1 Rcc6. 26. ... Rcd8 27. Nb3 f4 The sacrifice of this pawn yields a strong attack, but scarcely compensating. 28.  e¥f4 e3 29.  Nd4 Best; if 29. Q¥e3 Rd1+ and mates; if 29. f¥e3 Rg6 30. g3 Qe4 and wins. 29. ... Rg6 30. f3 Bd5 31. Re1 Re8 32. Nf5 Qb7 33. N¥e3 B¥f3 34. Qf2 Adjudicated a draw. If 34. ... B¥g2 35. f5 Rg5 36. h4 and wins. 1⁄ 1 2 – ⁄ 2 (Newark Daily Advertiser, May 11, 1894, with annotations above by Cornelius Hymes; Brooklyn Daily Eagle, April 26, 1894; Brooklyn Standard-Union, April 26, 1894). Brooklyn’s overwhelming strength, however, could not be resisted, and the Newark team found itself outgunned in its own rooms. Brooklyn won round one 6–0 with 4 draws. The second match round was not contested until Monday evening, May 9, 1894, at the rooms of the Brooklyn Chess Club. Even without Pillsbury, Kemeny, Hodges or Hanham playing, Brooklyn still won, 4–2 with 4 draws, ending the match with a lopsided win, 14–6. At least in Brooklyn, Showalter acted as umpire. It is unclear if he did so as well for the first round. No reason was ever given for the absence of the four strongest club members, although perhaps the first round outcome showed their presence was clearly overkill. Certainly their absence made the second meeting somewhat more competitive. Kemeny continued annotating the Steinitz–Lasker world championship games for the Ledger, eventually covering all 19, the last appearing in the newspaper on May 29, 1894. His annotations, starting with this match, appear in much more depth than he had given before. He continued giving more detailed notes for the remainder of his tenure with the Ledger. The world championship match had finished in Montreal only three days earlier, and in general Kemeny had given close attention to the games in a surprisingly short period of time following their play. Indeed, many if not most of the games published in the Ledger with Kemeny’s annotations appeared within 24 hours of play. Such a tight turnaround virtually guaranteed occasional errors, but it simultaneously assured readers timely reports. Likely Kemeny took a break in the summer of 1894. No games annotated by him appear in the Ledger’s pages from June through the early days of September, when he annotated several games from the Tarrasch–Walbrodt match. October brought annotated games in the Showalter–Albin contest as well as from New York 1894, the masters’ tournament won by Pillsbury. November also brought several games between Mrs. Worrall and Mrs. Showalter. Kemeny’s annotations began to be a regular feature in one of the nation’s leading newspapers. The Franklin Chess Club’s 1894-95 championship tournament, its tenth, did not begin until Monday evening, December 10, 1894, when Arthur Hale defeated Elihu S. Maguire in 26 moves in a Dutch Defense (then called a “Hollandish Opening”). Kemeny annotated the game for the December 12 Ledger. Two days earlier he had noted that 12 players had entered the lists, including himself, but the tournament began with 14 players and was a double–

5. Domination: 1893–1895

119

round robin. Shipley did not play that winter, but the tournament was actually strengthened with the addition of several strong area players Kemeny had not faced before. His first opponent in the 1894-95 tournament was the second place finisher of the last, Mordecai Morgan. As usual, the game was hard fought. Morgan should have won. The Ledger said, “A highly interesting game in the contest for the George W. Childs Cup was played Tuesday evening, at the Franklin Chess Club, and resulted in a victory for Mr. E. Kemeny. Mr. Morgan played an excellent game and to the very end his opponent could gain no advantage. Mr. Kemeny declined after the twenty-first move to accept a draw, but by trying to force a win his game became inferior and it looked as if he would lose the battle. His forty-second, fortythird and forty-fourth moves, however, were well timed and saved his game. The game then should have resulted in a draw. Mr. Morgan, however, with his forty-fourth and forty-fifth moves entered a combination which was not sound, and the present cupholder was enabled to force a win after fifty-two moves were made. It required almost five hours to play this game, and it was much regretted that Mr. Morgan, after a gallantly-fought battle, lost the game in the very ending through an error, which otherwise should have terminated in a draw.”

Kemeny–Mordecai Morgan [D37] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship December 18, 1894 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 b6 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 Bb7 7. Be2 Nbd7 8. Rc1 c5 9. d¥c5 N¥c5 10. c¥d5 N¥d5 White could have played now 11. Bb5+, which forces Black to answer ... Kf8. The move selected, however, seems preferable, since Black does not intend to castle in this game. 11. Bb5+ would have been loss of time only. 11. B¥e7 K¥e7 Excellent play. Black safely plays his king to e7, for White’s queen bishop is exchanged. This move develops Black’s king rook. 12. 0–0 N¥c3 13. R¥c3 Q¥d1 14. R¥d1 Rhd8 15. Nd4 This move, it seems, was proper on White’s twelfth move to prevent the exchange of queens. 15. ... Rac8 16. Rdc1 e5 17. Nf5+ Kf6 18. Ng3 Ne6 19. R¥c8 R¥c8 20. R¥c8 B¥c8 21. Bg4 Black played the defense excellently, and White had hardly anything better than the exchange of pieces, which finally leaves White with a knight against bishop. This is supposed to be a slight advantage. White, in the present position, declined to accept a draw offered by Black. 21. ... g6 22. f3 Bb7 23. B¥e6 K¥e6 24. Kf2 f5 25. Ne2 Bc6 26. Nc3 Kd6 27. Ke2 Kc5 28. Kd2 Bb5 29. e4 This move seems to be too early, and it has the disadvantage to enable Black to play his king to -D-D-D-D d4—a very commanding position. It should be mentioned, however, 0-D-D-Dp that White’s game in the present position was not preferable, and -0-D-DpD there was no reason to make any effort to win. 29. ... f4 30. g3 Dli-0pDBc6 31. g¥f4 e¥f4 32. Nd1 White should have played Ne2, followed by Kc3, to prevent Black from playing ... Kd4. It should be -D-D-D-D admitted, however, that the Black pawns on the kingside would D-H-)PDbecome more threatening. 32. ... Kd4 33. h4 h6 34. Nf2 g5 P)-I-DP) 35. h¥g5 h¥g5 36.  Ng4 Bd7 37.  Nf2 Be6 38.  a3 Bc8 D-D-D-D39. b3 a5 40. b4 a¥b4 41. a¥b4 Bd7 42. Nd3 Black played After 28. ... Bb5 this game admirably, and in the present position he has the far superior game. The king and bishop are strongly posted, while the action of White’s king and knight is very much reduced. Black also threatens to gain the unguarded b-pawn, and to force a win by advancing the g-pawn. White’s present move is probably the best, for it forces a draw if Black continues with ... g4, as the progress of the game shows.

120

EMIL KEMENY

5. Domination: 1893–1895

121

42. ... g4 Black very likely could have caused some difficulty for White if he delays the advance of this pawn till the bishop is on c8. He could have gained that move quite easily. After the text move White forces a draw very nicely. 43. N¥f4 g¥f3 44. Nd5 K¥e4? Black probably overlooked that his opponent wins the bishop by playing Nf6+. Whatever Black had played, however, his opponent easily -D-D-D-D secures a draw. If, for instance, he had played ... Bh3 or ... Bb5, then D-DlD-DWhite answers Ke1, followed by Kf2. [JSH: 44. ... b5 45. Nc7 (45. Ne7 -0-D-D-D K¥e4 46. Ke1 Ke3 47. Nd5+ Kd4 48. Nc7 Kc4) 45. ... K¥e4 46. Ke1 D-DND-DKe3 47. Nd5+ Kd4 48. Nc7 Kc4 49. Kf2 Bc6 should win for Black.] 45. Nf6+ Kf4? A disastrous error, which loses the game. 45. ... -)-iPD-D Kd4 would have drawn the game easily, for White cannot defend D-D-DpDthe pawn. It seems that Black was under the impression that White -D-I-D-D could not stop the advanced f-pawn, and for that reason he gave up D-D-D-Dthe bishop on his forty-fourth turn. 46. N¥d7 b5 46. ... Kg3 would After 44. Nd5 not save the game, for White replies 47. Nf6, and if Black advances the f-pawn, then White plays 48. Ne4+, followed by the sacrifice of the knight. White then can capture the b-pawn and queen his pawn. 46. ... Ke4, however, would still have secured a draw, for White cannot defend his own b-pawn. 47.  Nc5 Kg3 48. Ke3 Kg4 49. Ne4 Kf5 50. K¥f3 Ke5 51. Ke3 Kd5 52. Kd3 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, December 20, 1894, with annotations by Kemeny). Two days later Kemeny faced Mordecai’s namesake, J. Palmer Morgan. The latter Morgan missed the 1893-94 championship. He appeared in the current tournament as well as one other before his young life ended in 1899. He split his games in this event with D. Stuart Robinson and Herman Voigt, but had no luck against Kemeny. The Ledger described the following as “a game of unusual interest” in Childs Cup play, one in which Kemeny “did not select the best defense and his opponent, by skillful play, obtained a powerful attack. Mr. Kemeny had a compromised position to defend, but his play from the fifteenth move to the end was of the highest order, and, after forty moves were made, he not only saved his game, but had a slight advantage. The game probably would have terminated in a draw, but Mr. Morgan on his forty-third move made an error which caused him to lose the contest. It required over four hours to play this game.” Once again, Kemeny’s tenacity was rewarded.

J. Palmer Morgan–Kemeny [C49] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship December 18, 1894 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. 0–0 0–0 6. d3 d6 7. Ne2 Ne7 8. c3 Ba5 9. Ng3 c6 10. Ba4 Ng6 11. d4 Qe7 It will be noticed that the first ten moves were alike on both sides, and there was no advantage on either side. The present move of Black’s seems to be inferior, and White now skillfully gains a very powerful attack. Black should have played ... Bc7, followed by ... d5, which would have equalized the position. 12. Bc2 Bc7 13. h3 Be6 14. Nh2 Qd7 15. f4 e¥f4 16. B¥f4 d5 17. e5 Ne8 18. Qe2 Opposite: Kemeny memorialized among his Philadelphia chess friends. Every player pictured was quite well known to the Hungarian, who played with them and against them for years. From the top row, left to right: S. W. Bampton, W. P. Shipley, J. W. Young, H. G. Voigt, J. A. Kaiser, M. Morgan, J. P. Morgan, Kemeny, D. S. Robinson, C. J. Newman, E. S. Maguire, and A. K. Robinson (from Chess in Philadelphia, by Gustavus C. Reichhelm, assisted by Walter Penn Shipley [Philadelphia, 1898]).

122

EMIL KEMENY

f5 An unpleasant necessity. White now has a passed e-pawn, and it is now difficult for Black to develop his game. 19. Rf2 It looks as if Bd2 or Bg5 was superior. The text move enables Black to exchange knight against bishop and continue ... g6, relieving somewhat his cramped position. 19. ... N¥f4 20. R¥f4 g6 21. Raf1 Ng7 22. h4 h5 Black was compelled to advance the h-pawn, for White threatened h5 with a powerful attack. rD-D-®kD The text move leaves the g-pawn weak, but by proper play Black is 0pgqD-hp enabled to defend the position. 23.  Qf2 Bd8 24.  Ne2 Be7 Qg3 Kh7 26.  R4f2 Qe8 27.  Nf4 Qf7 [JSH: 27. ... Bf7.] -DpDlDpD 25. 28. Nh3 [JSH: 28. Nf3 is far superior.] 28. ... Bd7 29. Nf3 Ne6 D-Dp)pD- Black had a very difficult game to defend. White’s attack was skill-D-)-$-) fully played, and only a most careful defense could avoid defeat. D-)-D-H- Black’s defense from the twenty-third move is extremely fine. P)LDQDPH 30. Nfg5+ N¥g5 31. N¥g5+ B¥g5 32. Q¥g5 Rg8 After the D-D-DRI- exchange of minor pieces Black seemed somewhat relieved, but there was some imminent danger in store yet. White namely threatened After 22. h4 g4, followed by h5, with crushing effect. Black’s present move, 32. ... Rg8, is of the highest order and practically saves the Black game. 33. Kh1 If White plays 33. g4 Black answers 33. ... Rg7. White cannot capture either pawn, for Black retakes, pinning the queen. 33. ... Rg7 34. g4 h¥g4 35. Q¥g4 If White had played h5, then Black answers ... Rh8. 35. ... Rh8 36. Qg5 Kg8 37. Bd1 Excellent move. Black threatened ... Rh5, followed by ... Rgh7, with a winning attack. [JSH: In fact much better for White is 37. Rh2, when after, say, 37. ... Rh5, 38. Qd8+ Qf8 39. Q¥f8+ K¥f8 40. Rg1 leaves White in good shape.] 37. ... R¥h4+ 38. Q¥h4 Rh7 39. Q¥h7+ Q¥h7+ 40. Rh2 Qe7 41. Rg1 Be8 42. Bh5 Kg7 43. B¥g6 A disastrous error, which causes the loss of the game. Black, having a queen and pawn against the two rooks, -D-DlD-D had the preferable game, yet he had hardly any winning chances. 0pD-1-i- The present move gives Black an easy win. White intended to conwith Rhg2, thus regaining the bishop, but he overlooked -DpD-DpD tinue Black’s threatening check on h4. 43. Rg3 first was proper. 43. ... D-Dp)pDL B¥g6 44. Rhg2 Qh4+ 45. Rh2 Qe4+ 46. Rgg2 f4 47. Rh3 -D-)-D-D f3 After this move White resigned. Black threatens ... f2, discovered D-)-D-D- check, followed by queening of the pawn, and if White plays Rf2, P)-D-D-$ then Black forces mate by answering ... Qe1+. 0–1 (Philadelphia PubD-D-D-$K lic Ledger, December 26, 1894, with annotations by Kemeny). After 42. ... Kg7

Much as New York had its Baird brothers, and Newark its Hymes brothers, Philadelphia had its own chess playing pair: Alfred K. Robinson and David Stuart Robinson. The latter at times played as “D. Stuart,” but the two were siblings. Both played in the 1894-95 Franklin championship. The elder brother, Alfred, met Kemeny very early in the new year. Born in Brooklyn, Alfred K. Robinson (1849– 1918) moved to Philadelphia in 1870. Robinson’s introduction to chess was unusual even for the era: it began only about the time he turned 30, in 1879, when he started playing at the Mercantile Library. While Reichhelm could at first give Robinson rook odds, by 1887 the younger man had improved so much that he captured the Franklin’s second championship with a score of 121 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2 ahead of Ferris, Newman, Voigt and Shipley. Robinson frequently played for the Franklin in team matches. Robinson was selected to play on the American Cable team in the Anglo-American Cable Match series for the 1898 event, the first after Brooklyn and Philadelphia had mended their differences that had kept the latter city from participating. At least half a dozen Franklin mem-

5. Domination: 1893–1895

123

bers that winter were possibilities for inclusion on the American team, but in the end the four “open” positions (since Pillsbury, Showalter, Hodges, Delmar, John F. Barry of Boston and Edward Hymes were sure to return) were filled with geographical nicety: D. G. Baird of Manhattan, Franklin K. Young of Boston, John A. Galbreath of New Orleans, and Robinson of Philadelphia. This geographical concern was abandoned in future team selections, and as the years passed two or three Philadelphians usually fiound themselves on the team. The partisan Ledger, not surprisingly, considered Robinson “the most important” addition to the American squad, adding on February 23, 1898, that “his business engagements did not permit him to participate in many tourneys, but his skill is recognized by all leading players. He excels in conservative, careful and accurate play, but whenever there is a chance for brilliant work he is quite certain to make use of it. He crossed swords with nearly all the leading players, and established a highly creditable record.” At the time of Robinson’s death, Shipley wrote in his April 7, 1918, Philadelphia Inquirer column that “Robinson was an exceptionally able player; while his style was conservative, nevertheless he could be exceptionally brilliant if the opportunity offered. He played in nearly all the matches between Philadelphia and New York and won a majority of his games. In his over the board play he confined himself in important games to practically two openings, the Ruy Lopez, when he had the attack and the French Defense when he was playing the Black pieces.” Kemeny’s first battle with Robinson was quite intense, despite the draw resulting. Something of the outcome of their second game, including its humorous conclusion, can be anticipated in this game. The Ledger claimed that “Mr. A. K. Robinson, one of the strongest local players entered in the Franklin Chess Club tournament, played an exceptionally strong game against Mr. E. Kemeny when these two experts met the other evening. Mr. Kemeny played the attack brilliantly, and it seems that he gained the preferable position up to his twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth moves, when loss of time enabled his opponent to regain lost ground. Mr. Robinson then had the superior position. Then a highly exciting middle game [took place], and it looked very much as if Mr. Robinson would win. Mr. Kemeny, however, with his forty-fifth move, saved the game. This move led to an exchange of queens, after which ... neither side could risk to play for a win, so the battle resulted in a draw after fifty-nine moves had been made. This game required almost six hours’ time to play, and was one of the best played in the tourney so far.” The draw also had implications for the jockeying for position in the tournament standings, as revealed several games later, when Voigt and Kemeny met.

Kemeny–Alfred K. Robinson [A85] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship January 1895 1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f5 3. c4 Nf6 4. Nc3 b6 5. Bf4 Bb7 6. e3 Bb4 7. Be2 Ne4 8. Qb3 Nc6 9.  0–0 B¥c3 10.  b¥c3 g5 This move seems too early. Black probably expected to win the exchange by forcing away the knight and then continuing with ... Nd2. Black, however, could not win the exchange, as the progress of the game shows. 11.  Be5 N¥e5 12. N¥e5 Nd2 13. Bh5+ Kf8 14. Qa3+ Kg7 15. Rfd1 Ne4 16. d5 White could not win the exchange by 16. Nf7, for Black replies 16. ... Qf8. 16. ... e¥d5 17. c¥d5 Nf6 18. d6 Beautiful play. Black cannot capture the bishop on account of d¥c7 followed by R¥d7+ and wins. 18. ... Qf8 19. Be2 Qe8 20. f4 c5 21. c4 h5 22. Qb2 g4 23. Bd3 Qe6 24. e4 This sacrifice of a pawn seems sound, since it prevents Black from developing his game. 24. ... f¥e4 25. f5 If. 25. ... Q¥f5, then White wins by continuing 26. Rf1, followed by 27. N¥d7, etc. 25.  ... Qe8 26.  Re1 Black cannot capture the bishop, on account of

124

EMIL KEMENY

White’s reply 27. Ng6, which would win in short order. 26. ... Rh6 An excellent move for the defense. It protects the knight and also enables Black to play his king to h7. 27.  Bc2 Kh7 28. Ng6 Qf7 29. Ne5 White’s twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth moves were premature. White lost two moves and gave Black a chance to develop his game. Black is a pawn ahead, and the White d-pawn and f-pawn are weak and isolated. White’s game becomes now inferior. White should have played Rad1 or a4, thus keeping up the attack. 29.  ... Qg7 30. Re3 Re8 31. Rae1 Ng8 32. B¥e4 B¥e4 Black should have played 32. ... Q¥e5. It seems that Black would remain at least with one pawn ahead after -D-DrDnD the exchange of queens. The line of play Black selected wins a pawn, 0lDpD-1k but leaves White with a strong attack. 33. R¥e4 R¥d6 34. Qc2 Nf6 35. R4e3 Rd4 36. Ng6 R¥e3 37. R¥e3 Ng8 The only -0-)-D-® way to stop White from playing Re7. 38. g3 Qf6 39. Nf4 Kh6 D-0-HPDp 40. Nd5 Qg5 41. Nf4 Ne7 42. f6 Fine play. Black cannot cap-DPDLDpD ture the pawn on account of R¥e7, and Black cannot retake, for D-D-$-D- White threatens mate on g6. 42.  ... Ng6 43.  Re8 Q¥f6 P!-D-DP) 44. N¥g6 Qd6 If Black plays 44. ... Q¥g6 then the game would D-D-$-I- proceed 45. Rh8+ Kg5 (If 45.  ... Kg7 then 46. Rg8+ winning the queen.) 46. Qc1+ Kf5 47. Rh6 and White at least draws the game. After 32. B¥e4 The present move is highly ingenious, and would have forced a win, if White had not Nh4, which saves the game. 45.  Nh4 Rd1+ -D-DRD-D 46. Kf2 Rd2+ 47. Ke1 R¥c2 48. Nf5+ Kg6 49. N¥d6 R¥h2 0-DpD-D- 50. Re2 Rh1+ 51.  Kf2 Rd1 52.  Nc8 Rc1 53.  Nd6 White -0-D-1Ni could not well give up the c-pawn. Notwithstanding he is a piece D-0-D-Dp ahead, he must be satisfied with a draw, since Black’s pawns are very -DP®-DpD threatening. 53. ... Rc3 54. Rb2 Rf3+ 55. Kg2 Rc3 56. Kf2 57.  Kg2 Rc3 58.  Kf2 Rf3+ 59.  Kg2 Rc3 The moves D-D-D-)- Rf3+ being repeated on both sides three times, the game was drawn. In PDQD-D-) fact, neither side could play for win without endangering his game. D-D-D-I- 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 5, 1895). After 44. N¥g6

Also very early in January 1895 Kemeny sat down across the board from William Jacob Ferris (1856–1917), a Franklin club member despite his residence in Delaware. Kemeny knew Ferris before arriving in Philadelphia, as the two had played against one another as early as February 1892, in the third round of the NYSCA championship event, a game Kemeny won. Ferris, like Bampton and Voigt, was also a fellow City Chess Club member. Perhaps better known for his correspondence play as well as for his management of the huge, 254 player team correspondence match between New York and Pennsylvania, won by the latter in 1904, he was also an accomplished over-the-board player. Although forgotten today, Ferris narrowly lost a match to Herman Voigt in 1897 by the score of 5–4 with 4 draws. One of Ferris’s wins over Voigt is here annotated by Kemeny: Herman Voigt–William J. Ferris [C14], Tenth Match Game, 1897. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. B¥e7 Q¥e7 7. Nb5 7. f4, followed by Nf3, is the usual play. The text move quite frequently leads to a strong attack, but by correct defense causes loss of valuable time. 7. ... Nb6 8. Qd2 a6 9. Na3 c5 10. c3 Nc6 11. f4 c¥d4 12. c¥d4 Qb4 13. Nf3 Bd7 14. Be2 Rc8 15. Nb1 White had hardly any better play. 15. 0–0 could not be played on account of 15. ... Q¥d2, followed by ... N¥d4. White’s queen’s knight is evidently badly placed, and the Nb5 play on seventh turn causes the loss of four moves. 15. ... 0–0 16. Nc3 Nc4 17. B¥c4 Q¥c4 18. b3 Better, perhaps, was 18. Ne2, followed by 0–0. 18. ... Qb4 19. Rc1 Rc7 20. Na4 White, it seems, could have played

5. Domination: 1893–1895

125

20. Ne4. Black could not well answer 20. ... d¥e4 on account of 21. Q¥b4 N¥b4 22. R¥c7. If Black plays 20. ... Q¥d2, then 21. Ned2. Any other reply of Black might enable White to continue with Nd6. The position thus arrived at would be more satisfactory for White. 20. ... Rfc8 21.  Ke2 Qb5+ 22.  Kf2 Qb4 23.  Qe3 Ne7 24.  Nc5 Nf5 25.  Qe1 Q¥e1+ 26. Rc¥e1 26. Rh¥e1 was not any better. Black would have answered 26. ... N¥d4, leading to a similar continuation, for if White continues 27. N¥d7, Black replies 27. ... N¥f3. 26. ... N¥d4 27. N¥d4 R¥c5 28. g4 Rc3 29. Rd1 Rh3 This is hardly the strongest continuation for Black. He should have moved 29. ... f6, followed eventually by ... Rf8 with the best chance to establish a strong center. 30. Kg2 Rcc3 31. Ne2 The knight was well placed and should not have been moved. 31. Rc1 was much better, for it was likely to give White command of the important c-file. 31.  ... Rce3 32.  Ng3 Rh4 33.  h3 g5 34.  Nh5 Bc6 35.  f¥g5 35. Rd4 should have been played, in order to prevent Black’s ... d4 move, which wins the exchange. The game, however, was past recovery. 35.  ... d4+ 36.  Kf2 B¥h1 37.  R¥d4 37. R¥h1 was not any better. Black’s reply would have been 37.  ... Rh¥h3 and, with the exchange and a pawn ahead, the win would have been quite easy. The text move threatens K¥e3 as well as Rd8 mate. Black, however, has an excellent reply, ... R¥h5, which finally leaves him a piece ahead. 37. ... R¥h5 38. g¥h5 R¥h3 39. Rd8+ Kg7 40. h6+ Kg6 41. Rg8+ Kh5 42. Rg7 Be4 The winning move, which causes White to surrender. He cannot play R¥f7, for ... K¥g5 and ... R¥h6 would follow. Any other play would enable Black to move ... Bg6, ... K¥g5, ... Kf4, capturing all the pawns on the kingside. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, October 20, 1897). Kemeny’s game with Ferris was full of interesting positions as well as missed opportunities. After a long struggle that, by Black’s sixty-sixth move, should have ended in a draw, Ferris made the last mistake. The Ledger wrote that “a strongly played game in the contest for the George W. Childs Cup, between Messrs. E. Kemeny and W. J. Ferris resulted in a victory for the present cup holder. Mr. Ferris played exceedingly well, and notwithstanding that he lost the exchange, he could have drawn his game had he not made an inferior move on his sixtyseventh play, which enabled his opponent to force a win. The game required almost six hours’ play.”

William J. Ferris–Kemeny [C30] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship January 1895 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 6. d3 h6 7. a3 Nf6 8. f5 Ng4 8. ... 0–0 was better. Black probably overlooked the excellent reply of White, 9. Ng5, which at once gives White the preferable game. 9. Ng5 h¥g5 10. Q¥g4 f6 11. Nd5 Ne7 12. Ne3 c6 13. Qf3 d5 14. Ba2 Superior to 14. e¥d5, which would ultimately cause the loss of the f-pawn. 14. ... d¥e4 15. d¥e4 Bd7 16. Bd2 Qc7 17. 0–0–0 b5 To prevent White from playing Nc4. 18. g3 18. h4 at once was probably stronger. Black’s game, however, is greatly endangered. The attack on the kingside is very powerful, and the queenside is weak. 18. ... 0–0–0 19. h4 g¥h4 20. g¥h4 g6 This loses a pawn, yet it was the best line of play. Black could not properly protect the g-pawn anyhow. 21. f¥g6 N¥g6 22. Q¥f6 Nf4 23. Qf7 23. Nf5, it seems, was preferable to the text move. Black now regains his pawn. 23. ... Ne2+ 24. Kb1 Ng3 25. Rhg1 N¥e4 26. Bc1 Nd6 27. Qg7 Nc4 27. ... B¥e3 28. B¥e3 Nf5 and 29. ... N¥e3 was probably better, and would have resulted in an even position. Black’s intention was to cut off the White bishop, but he overlooked that his opponent could answer 29. N¥c4, sacrificing the exchange. 28.  N¥c4 b¥c4 If 28.  ... B¥g1, then

126

EMIL KEMENY

-Dk®-D-D D-1lD-DpDpD-D-D D-D-!-$-Dpg-D-® )-D-D-DL)PD-D-D DKGRD-DAfter 30. ... Bd4

-Dkg-D-® D-DlD-DpDpD-DRD D-D-D-D-DpD-D-® )-D-D-DL)PD-D-D DKGRD-DAfter 35. ... Bd8

-D-D-D-D D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D D-D-D-DPD-D-DrD D-DkD-D-D-D-D-D D-DKG-DAfter 66. ... Rg4

29. Nd6+ followed by Q¥g1 and White is a piece ahead. 29. Rg5 R¥h4 30. Q¥e5 Bd4 31. Qg3 31. Q¥c7+ was proper. White then would gain the c-pawn, with some winning chances. [JSH: Kemeny overlooks 31. Qe1 , when after 31. ... Rdh8 (best) 32. B¥c4 Kb8 (32. ... Kb7) 33. Qb4+ Ka8 34. Qa4 White is clearly winning.] 31. ... Q¥g3 32. R¥g3 Be5 33.  Rg6 Rdh8 34.  Rg5 Bf6 35.  Rg6 Bd8 36. Bg5 Rh1 Black could not win the exchange by 36. ... Rg4, for White would answer 37. Bf6. The line of play Black selected is probably the best, and it wins the exchange by force. 37.  Kc1 R¥d1+ 38. K¥d1 Rh1+ 39. Kd2 Rg1 40. B¥d8 R¥g6 41. Bb6 Be6 42. Kc3 Rg4 42. ... Rg3+ followed by ... Rg4 it seems was better. White now had a chance to play Bd4. 43.  Ba5 [JSH: Better was 43. Bd4; the text move gives Kemeny an opportunity he unfortunately misses.] 43. ... c5 [JSH: Good enough, but 43. ... Rg5! would have made matters much easier; for example, 44. Bb6.c5 45. B¥c4 Rg3+ 46. Bd3c4 and White could have resigned.] 44.  b3 c¥b3 45. B¥b3 c4 46. Ba4 Rg5 Black should have played 46. ... Bd7, forcing the exchange of bishops. 47. Bb6 a5 48. Kb2 Rg3 An oversight, losing the a-pawn. 48. ... Kb7 or 48. ... Bd7 was proper. After this move the game should have terminated in a draw. 49. B¥a5 Kb7 50.  Bb4 Kb6 51.  Be8 Bf5 52.  Bf7 Rg2 53. B¥c4 R¥c2+ 54. Kb3 Rg2 55. Kc3 Rg4 56. Kb3 Rg3+ 57. Kb2 Bd7 58.  Kc2 Bb5 59.  Bb3 Bd3+ 60.  Kb2 Kb5 61. Bc3 Rg2+ 62.  Kc1 Bc4 63.  B¥c4+ K¥c4 64.  Be1 Rg1 65. Kd1 Kd3 66. a4 Rg4 67. a5 67. Kc1 would still have drawn the game; after the text move, however, Black forces the win. 67. ... Ra4 68. Bd2 Ra1+ 69. Bc1 R¥a5 70. Bb2 Rh5 71. Ke1 Rh1+ 72. Kf2 Rh2+ 73.  Kg1 R¥b2 74.  Kh1 Ke3 75.  Kg1 Kf3 76. Kh1 Kg3 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 8, 1895, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny’s next opponent was the future soldier, Perry-Smith. Although the Ledger’s introduction suggested the game was a “fine victory” for Kemeny, and that it was a “highly interesting game,” Perry-Smith found himself on the defensive and made a series of relatively weak moves that landed him in serious trouble.

Oliver Perry-Smith–Kemeny [C55] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship January 1895 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 Black could have played now 3. ... N¥e4, followed by ... d5. The selected move, however, seems safer. 4. Nf3 Bb4 5. d3 d6 6. Bd2 Bg4 7. h3 Bh5 8. g4 Bg6 9. Nd5 B¥d2+ 10. Q¥d2 N¥d5 11. B¥d5 Qf6 12. Qe3 h5 13. g5 13. 0–0–0 seems preferable in the present position. The text move weakens the kingside. 13. ... Qe7 14. h4 f5 15. e¥f5 B¥f5 16. 0–0–0 Rf8 17. Rde1 Nb4 18. Bb3 It seems White could have played now 18. B¥b7, and if 18. ... Rab8, then 19. Q¥a7. Black certainly would gain then some attack on the queenside, yet it is doubtful whether the sacrifice of two pawns was justified. 18. ... Be6 19. Kb1 B¥b3 20. a¥b3 Qf7 21. Rh3 Qd5 22. Nd2

5. Domination: 1893–1895

127

Kd7 23. Nc4 Rf4 24. c3 Nc6 25. Kc2 Raf8 26. Re2 Rf3 27. R¥f3 R¥f3 28. Qd2 Qf7 29. Qe1 Qf5 [JSH: White has played a series of inferior moves that have allowed Black to gain the initiative as well as absolute control of the half-open ffile. His options become fewer and fewer.] 30. Ne3 Qf4 31. ... Qh3 -D-D-D-D at once, it seems, was preferable. White then was unable to defend 0p0kDq0the h-pawn. 31. Ng2 Qg4 32. Qf1 Ne7 33. Re4 Qf5 34. Qd1 -Dn0-D-D White is unable to defend the f-pawn. If he plays 34. Re2, then Black D-D-0-)p wins with 34. ... Q¥d3+. 34. ... R¥f2+ 35. Re2 Nd5 36. Qd2 -DND-D-) Necessary, for Black threatened ... R¥g2 followed by Ne3+ winning the queen. 36.  ... Rf3 37.  Ne1 Rh3 38.  Rf2 Nf4 39.  Ng2 DP)PDrDWhite’s game was beyond repair. The present move, however, pre- -)KDR)-D cipitates defeat. White could not protect the h-pawn. 39. ... R¥d3 D-D-!-D40. Qe2 Re3+ 41.  Kd1 Qb1+ Forcing a mate in four moves. After 29. Qe1 42. Kd2 R¥e2+ 43. R¥e2 Qd3+ If 44. Kc1, then 44. ... N¥e2 mate. If 44. Ke1, then 44.  ... Q¥e2 mate. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 9, 1895, with annotations by Kemeny). A day or two after his game with Perry-Smith, Kemeny played John Welsh Young (1866– 1940). Young lived in Philadelphia his whole life. An aging Shipley wrote about his longtime friend and clubmate in his Philadelphia Inquirer chess column, a tribute reprinted in the American Chess Bulletin in 1941. As Shipley wrote, Young was for more than 50 years “one of the Editor’s warmest friends. He died suddenly and unexpectedly in his sleep, the result probably of a blood clot.” Shipley mentioned in passing that Young “was well known as a grower of roses at Enfield, Pa., and also as an expert chess player.” Young had descriptive flair with language, as well. It was, in fact, Young who stood in for Shipley in an early column to write the tribute to the passing of Reichhelm, and thus it was Young who described the older man as “Uncouth in appearance, shy in manner, enthusiastic in temperament, Reichhelm devoted his life to the study of the royal game. To him chess was father, mother, brother, sister, lover, wife, children, all. It is impossible to those who did not know him to grasp the completeness of his devotion.” In the game that follows, Kemeny blundered on his thirteenth move, and should have quickly lost. However, as with so many games, the players continued and after a time Kemeny fought his way back, only to once more give his opponent a won game. Young, perhaps winning for too long, and growing complacent, finally overlooked a tactical ploy that allowed Kemeny to win immediately. The Ledger described matters as follows: “The game played in the contest for the George W. Childs cup, between Messrs. E. Kemeny and J. W. Young, was a very interesting one. Mr. Kemeny in the opening made a premature move, and his opponent, by skillful play, obtained a winning advantage in the early part of the game. Mr. Kemeny then exerted himself to his utmost to avoid defeat, but it would have been of no avail if his opponent on his thirtieth or thirty-second turn would have adopted the best line of play. As it happened Mr. Kemeny was enabled to resist, and after his opponent’s forty-first move he had a surprise on hand, when he forced a neat win by means of sacrificing the rook. The score is inserted below.”

Kemeny–John Welsh Young [C13] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship January 1895 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. B¥f6 B¥f6 6. e5 Be7 7. Qg4 0–0 8. Bd3 f5 9. Qh3 c5 10. d¥c5 Nc6 11. f4 B¥c5 12. Nf3 12. a3 was preferable.

128

EMIL KEMENY

The move selected enables Black to continue with Nb4, forcing the exchange of bishops. 12. ... Nb4 13.  g4 Premature play, which endangers the game to a great extent. 13. Nd2 was proper. 13. ... N¥d3+ 14. c¥d3 Qb6 15. Ne2 f¥g4 16. Q¥g4 Be3 17. d4 Q¥b2 18. Rd1 R¥f4 Excellent play. Black played the game with remarkable skill, and he took full advantage of his opponent’s premature thirteenth move. White in the present position cannot play 19. N¥f4 on account of the threatening mate on f2. 19. Q¥f4 Probably the best line of play. Though White’s game is almost hopeless, he is enabled to render some resistance after the sacrifice of the queen. 19. ... B¥f4 20. N¥f4 Bd7 21. 0–0 b5 Black’s play up to this move could hardly be improved. The present move, it seems, is loss of time only. Black, it seems, tried to save the b-pawn, which was not necessary. 21.  ... Rf8 at once was proper. 22. Nd3 Qc2 23. Nc5 Be8 Excellent play. Black was obliged to sacrifice the e-pawn, otherwise he could not well develop the bishop. If he had played 23. ... Rd8, then White continues 24. N¥d7, followed by Rc1 and Rc8+, with a winning attack. 24. Rd2 Qf5 25. Rg2 Qf4 26. R¥g7+ Kh8 27. N¥e6 Qe3+ 28. Rf2 White, after the loss of the queen, played the game quite ingeniously, and in the present position it is doubtful whether Black could force a win if White plays 28. Kg2 instead of 28. Rf2. The text move enables Black to force a win, as the progress of the game shows. 28. ... Bg6 29. Nfg5 Rf8 Excellent play, which decides the game in Black’s favor. This move was overlooked by White when rD-D-D-i he made his twenty-eighth move, Rf2. White cannot play 30. N¥f8 0-D-D-$p for the game would proceed 30.  ... Q¥g5+ 31. Rg2 Qc1+ 32. Kf2 -D-DNDlD K¥g7 and wins. 30. Nh3 R¥f2 Black could now win as follows: 30. ... Qc1+ 31. Kg2 Be4+ 32. Kg3 Qe3+ 33. Kg4 R¥f2 and wins. DpDp)-H- 31. N¥f2 Be4 32.  Kf1 Bf5 32.  ... Bf3 would win at once. -D-)-D-D 33. Re7 B¥e6 34. R¥e6 Q¥d4 35. Re7 Qb2 36. Rd7 Qc1+ D-D-1-D- 37. Ke2 Qb2+ 38. Kf3 Q¥e5 39. R¥a7 d4 40. Ng4 Qd5+ PD-D-$-) 41. Kf4 d3?? Black on his thirtieth and thirty-second moves missed D-D-D-I- a speedy win, yet the line of play he adopted was quite satisfactory, since queen and pawn ought to win against rook and knight. The After 29. Nfg5 present move, however, proves disastrous. White now forces a win. 42. R¥h7+ K¥h7 43. Nf6+ Kg6 44. N¥d5 d2 45. Nc3 b4 46. Nd1 White wins easily, for the king captures the pawns and the White a-pawn cannot be stopped. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 11, 1895). Shortly after managing to avoid defeat against Young, Kemeny won against Maguire. “A lively fought battle in the contest for the George W. Childs Cup between Messrs. E. S. Maguire and E. Kemeny resulted in a fine victory for the present cup holder. Mr. Maguire opened with d4, which was met in a rather unique manner, by the offering of a pawn sacrifice. Mr. Kemeny soon gained a powerful attack, and, notwithstanding his opponent defending skillfully, he was enabled to force a win after thirty-three moves were made. The game required about three hours’ time to play.”

Elihu S. Maguire–Kemeny [A40] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship January 1895 1. d4 e5 It is doubtful whether this sacrifice is sound or not. Black gets a quick development and some attack if White captures the pawn. It is, however, a rather risky experiment and it looks as if White could have accepted the offered pawn without any immediate danger. 2. d5 Bc5 3. e3 Nf6 4. Nf3 d6 5. Nc3 0–0 6. Be2 c6 This move enables Black to

5. Domination: 1893–1895

129

quickly develop the queenside. It is doubtful, however, whether it was the strongest continuation, for it greatly relieves the White position and even gives White some attack on the open d-file. 7. a3 c¥d5 8. N¥d5 N¥d5 9. Q¥d5 Nc6 10. b4 Be6 11. Qd2 Bb6 12. 0–0 Rc8 13. Bb2 f5 14. Rfd1 Bc7 This cuts off the file for the queen rook. Black, however, had hardly any better line of play. 14.  ... Ne7 could not be played on account of 15. Ng5. 15. Bb5 g5 16. B¥c6 b¥c6 17. e4 Quite ingenious play. Black cannot capture the pawn, for White takes the g-pawn. 17. ... f4 18. h3 g4 18. ... h5, it seems, was a stronger continuation. 19. h¥g4 B¥g4 20. Kf1 Qe8 21. Re1 Qh5 22. Qd3 Be6 If Black had played now 22. ... Qh1+ White had answered 23. Ke2 Black, then, could not continue 23. ... Q¥g2, for White replies 24. Rg1 and wins. 23. Ng1 f3 This sacrifice of a pawn seems perfectly sound. It opens the f-file and Black will gain -DrD-®kD a powerful attack by doubling his rooks on that file. 24.  Re3 0-g-D-Dp 24. N¥f3, it seems, was preferable. 24. ... f¥g2+ 25. K¥g2 Rf6 -Dp0lD-D 26. Rg3+ Kh8 27. Re1 [JSH: 27. Qe2 was better, but after 27. ... Qf7 D-D-0-Dq 28. Nf3 Rf8 White won’t be able to hold on. White keeps digging a deeper hole for himself.] 27.  ... Rcf8 28.  f3 Rh6 29.  Bc1 -)-DP0-D Qh2+ 30.  Kf1 Rhf6 Better than 30.  ...  Q¥g3 for White would )-DQD-Dreply 31. B¥h6 and if Black continues 31. ... Bb6, then White answers -GPD-)PD 32. Ke2. [JSH: However, Black can play 32. ... Qh2+ 33. Kd1 Q¥h6 $-D-$KHwith a piece to the good and an easy win.] 31. Rg2 Bh3 32. N¥h3 After 23. Ng1 R¥f3+ 33. Nf2 A disastrous error, which loses at once. 33. Q¥f3 was proper, and White then could have made some real resistance, having a rook and knight against the queen. After the text move, Black forces a mate in two moves. 33. ... R¥f2+ 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 12, 1895). Kemeny managed to survive against Bampton. Once again it was the player who made the next to the last mistake who won. The Ledger explained that “An exceedingly interesting game played in the contest for the George W. Childs cup resulted in a brilliant victory for the present cupholder. Mr. Kemeny in the opening sacrificed a pawn, which, however, was not sound; his opponent took full advantage, and by fine play was enabled to hold that pawn and also to establish a powerful attack. Mr. Kemeny then had a very difficult game to defend, and, notwithstanding he played with utmost care, he could not stop his opponent from exchanging queens, after which he won an additional pawn. Mr. Bampton then had a winning position, and, in fact, he should have won. But his thirty-second move was a fatal one as it enabled Mr. Kemeny to escape. The game should have ended in a draw. Mr. Bampton, however, being two pawns ahead played for a victory, overlooking the brilliant win Mr. Kemeny had in prospect. It was a narrow escape, but it must be admitted that Mr. Kemeny played the final part of the game with masterly skill.”

Kemeny–Samuel W. Bampton [B01] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship January 1895 1. e4 d5 2. d4 This sacrifice of a pawn is not justified. Black, by proper play, can stand the attack and remains a pawn ahead. 2. ... d¥e4 3. Nc3 Bf5 4. f3 Nf6 5. Bg5 Nbd7 6. Bc4 e¥f3 7.  N¥f3 e6 8.  0–0 c6 9.  Qe2 Bd6 10.  Rad1 Qc7 11.  Kh1 0–0–0 12. Be3 Loss of time. 12. Bb3, followed by Na4 and c4, was proper. It should be admitted, however, that White had already the inferior game, Black being a pawn ahead with a safe posi-

130

EMIL KEMENY

tion. 12. ... Nd5 13. Bg1 This retreat was dangerous, since it enabled Black to play ... Nf4 with a strong attack. However, it was necessary to guard the h-pawn. 13. ... N7f6 14. Bb3 h6 15. Na4 g5 16. c4 Nf4 17. Qd2 Ne4 18. Qe3 h5 19. c5 Be7 20. Nc3 This move, it seems, was necessary, since the Black knights were very threatening. It renders, however, but little relief to the White game, since Black has time to support the attack with the pawns on the kingside. 20. ... N¥c3 21. b¥c3 h4 22. Bf2 Necessary, for Black threatened ... Nh5 followed by the sacrifice of the knight on g3. White’s game would then become hopeless. 22. ... Rh7 23. Kg1 g4 23. ... Rdh8 first was probably better. It seems that Black’s attack then would become irresistible. The text move, however, is good enough, for White has hardly any defense. 24. N¥h4 Though not perfectly satisfactory, it was the only line of play to avoid immediate defeat. Black threatened ... Bg5 with a winning attack. 24. ... B¥h4 24. ... Bg5, it seems, was preferable. White could not answer 25. N¥f5, for Black continues ... Ne2+, followed by ... Q¥h2 mate. White could not play 25. Bg3 either on account of ... Nh3+ followed by ... B¥e3. The text move, however, is a safe line of play and leads to a winning advantage, as the progress of the game shows. 25. B¥h4 N¥g2 Beautiful play, winning an additional pawn, with a powerful attack on the open h-file. 26. K¥g2 R¥h4 27. Rf4 Highly important for the defense, for it cuts off the Black queen. 27. ... Rdh8 28. Rh1 Rh3 29. Qe5 Forced; Black threatens ... g3, which would win at once, if White had retreated the queen to c1 or d2. 29. ... Q¥e5 30. d¥e5 Re3 Attacking the e-pawn, and also threatening ... Be4+. It seems, however, that ... g3 was more powerful. 31. Rd1 Best. White had no chance to guard the hpawn or e-pawn, and it was the proper play to occupy the open d-file. 31. ... Re2+ 32. Kf1 Rh¥h2 Premature play, which gives away a well deserved victory. -DkD-D-® Black did not pay full attention to White’s thirty-first move, other0pD-DpD- wise he would have played ... Re¥h2 or ... R¥e5. 33. Rfd4 White -DpDpD-D promptly takes advantage of Black’s last move by doubling the rooks. D-)-)lD- White threatens mate, which Black is unable to guard, since the cannot be retreated to h8, for the Black rook on e2 would -D-D-$pD rook remain unguarded. 33. ... Ref2+ 34. Ke1 b6 A disastrous error. DL)-D-D- Black overlooked the exceedingly fine win White has on hand. He PD-DrD-) should have drawn the game by giving perpetual check on e2,f2, D-DRDKD- and g2. 35. Rd8+ Kb7 36. R1d7+ Ka6 37. Bc4+ b5 If 37. ... Ka5, then 38. R¥a7 mate. 38.  Ra8 Beautiful play. Black now is After 32. Kf1 unable to escape mate. 38. ... b¥c4 39. Rd¥a7+ Kb5 40. Ra5 mate 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 30, 1895).

-D-$-D-D 0-DRDpDk0pDpD-D D-)-)lD-DLD-DpD D-)-D-DPD-D-®-® D-D-I-D-

After nine rounds, Kemeny stood at 8–0 with 1 draw. Herman Voigt had played one fewer games but his record was a perfect 8– 0. They met with Voigt playing Black, and the German’s favorite Sicilian Defense made an appearance. Philadelphia players had accepted the Sicilian at an early date, in significant measure because of Voigt’s partiality for it, and it was played frequently at the Franklin well before many other American clubs found it to their liking. The Ledger stated, “The game between Emil Kemeny and Herman G. Voigt in the Franklin Chess Club’s tournament for the After 37. Bc4+ George W. Childs cup was won by the former, after a brilliant contest, which was watched with keen interest by the other members owing to the fact that these two players were in the lead. Mr. Voigt having succeeded in winning eight consecutive games, while Mr. Kemeny had just as many to his credit, but had one drawn battle charged against him. Mr. Voigt selected the Sicilian Defense, which is con-

5. Domination: 1893–1895

131

sidered a safe game. He developed his queen too early, however, which gave him the inferior position. Mr. Kemeny took the fullest advantage of this, and played to the very end an excellent game. He won a pawn on the thirty-second move, and ten moves later was enabled to announce a mate in three moves.”

Kemeny–Herman G. Voigt [B34] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship January 1895 1. e4 c5 2.  d4 c¥d4 3.  Nf3 Nc6 Black could defend the pawn by playing ... e5. White cannot capture the e-pawn on account of ... Qa5+, winning the knight. Black’s move 3. ... Nc6, however, seems preferable, for it develops the game better. 4. N¥d4 g6 5. Be3 Bg7 6. c3 Nf6 7. Bd3 d6 8. h3 In general it is not advisable to advance the h-pawn in the early part of the game; in the present position, however, it was necessary to prevent Black from playing ... Ng4. -DrD-®kg 8. ... Bd7 9. Nd2 a6 10. 0–0 Rc8 11. Rc1 0–0 12. f4 Ne8 DpD-0pDp 13. N4f3 Qa5 Premature play. This and the following move put pDn0-hp1 the Black queen out of play. The Black game now becomes inferior D-D-D-Hand so remains to the end. 14. Nc4 Qh5 15. Be2 Be6 16. Ng5 -D-DP)-D Qh4 17. Nb6 Rd8 18. Kh2 Bc8 19. g3 Qh6 20. Qd2 Nf6 D-)-GL)P Necessary, for White threatened N¥c8 followed by N¥f7 and f5, win- P)-!-D-I ning the queen. Black’s present move prevents this line of play. It D-$-DRDmust be observed, however, that the Black game is poorly developed, the queen and bishop being closed in. 21. N¥c8 R¥c8 22. Bf3 After 22. ... Bh8 Bh8 23.  Kg2 [JSH: White misses the best moment for his center break: 23. e5! and if 23. ... d¥e5 24. N¥f7! then 24. ... R¥f7 25. f¥e5 Qf8 26. e¥f6 e¥f6 27. Bd5, and White wins the exchange.] 23. ... -Dr®-Dkg Qg7 Seemingly this is a safer place for the Black queen than h6. The DpD-0p1Black position, however, remains inferior. White, of course, cannot pDn0-DpD force any win by advancing the e-pawn or f-pawn. By careful play, D-D-D-Dhowever, the superior position must lead to a win. 24. h4 Necessary -D-DP)L) to retreat the knight. It was also good for the attack, as it threatened D-)-G-Dto open the h-file. 24. ... h6 25. Nh3 h5 26. Nf2 Rfd8 27. g4 P)-!-DKD h¥g4 28.  N¥g4 N¥g4 29.  B¥g4 f5 A disastrous move, over- D-$-DRDlooking the fact that White will win that pawn by Qd5+. It seems, however, there was no way of saving the game. White threatened Kf2 After 29. B¥g4 followed by Rh1 and Rcg1 and then h5 with a winning attack. 30. e¥f5 g¥f5 31. Qd5+ Qf7 32. Q¥f5 Q¥f5 33. B¥f5 Rb8 -®-D-irD 34. Be6+ Kh7 35.  Kh3 Bf6 36.  Rg1 d5 37.  Bf5+ Kh8 DpD-0-DR 38. Rg6 Rg8 Forced. White threatened Rcg1, followed by Rh6 mate. 39. Rh6+ Kg7 40. Rh7+ Kf8 41. Be6 Rh8 [JSH: Mercifully pDnDLg-D ending the carnage.] 42. Rg1 White announced mate in three moves. D-DpD-D-D-D-)-) 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 2, 1895). Now leading the tournament, Kemeny turned his attention to David Stuart Robinson (1859–1921), younger brother of Alfred K. Robinson, who had been the only player so far to nick Kemeny’s score in the 1894-95 event. Often going by “D. Stuart,” possibly to

D-)-G-DK P)-D-D-D D-$-D-DAfter 41. Be6

132

EMIL KEMENY

distinguish himself in chess circles from his much older brother, D. Stuart Robinson lived his whole life in Philadelphia. At Robinson’s death, Shipley wrote that he had been admitted to the Philadelphia bar in 1889. Robinson was first a member of the firm Beck, Robinson & Kane (Beck later in life became United States Solicitor-General, and Kane, a United States district attorney). Shipley added that “Mr. Robinson was counsel for the Fairmount Park Association, the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, and he was also trustee and attorney for large Pennsylvania coal interests. He possessed in a high degree a logical mind, was a quick and accurate thinker, a warm friend and a hard fighter, but when he fought he always fought honestly and fairly. He was one of the early members of the Franklin Chess Club, serving on its directorate many years.” Robinson died unexpectedly on July 7, 1921, of a stroke. According to Shipley, Robinson played in nearly every Franklin championship, starting with this one, and running through 1908. He won the club championship the very year he died, and represented the club in many matches played against other clubs. He excelled at simultaneous and blindfold chess as well. Kemeny knew Robinson was a strong opponent, and he took great care with his game. The result was another victory for the defending champion. The Ledger noted: “A beautifully played game between Messrs. D. Stuart [Robinson] and E. Kemeny, in the Franklin Chess Club’s tourney, on Saturday night, resulted in a well-earned victory for the latter. Mr. Kemeny, in the early part of the game, gained a slight positional advantage, which he was able to maintain to the very end. Mr. Stuart played the defense very skillfully, but it was of no avail, and he surrendered after fifty-two moves. This game required almost six hours to play and was watched with keen interest, for both are among the leaders in the contest.”

David Stuart Robinson–Kemeny [C54] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 2, 1895 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 Nf6 5. c3 0–0 6. 0–0 d6 7. Be3 Bb6 8. Qe2 Bg4 9. Nbd2 Ne7 10. Bb3 Ng6 11. g3 The opening moves are well played on both sides. White’s present move, however, seems inferior. It weakens his kingside. Probably White intended to prevent Black from playing ... Nf4. It looks as Nc4 or h3 or d4 were superior to the text move. 11.  ... Qe7 12.  Rfe1 Rad8 13.  Qf1 h6 14.  h3 This move seemingly relieves the White position, though the kingside remains somewhat weak. Black of course could have prevented this line of play by moving ... Qd7, but this would have prevented the retreat of the bishop. 14.  ... Bc8 15.  Rad1 Nh7 16.  Kh2 17.  d4 f5 18.  e¥f5 B¥f5 19.  Ng1 e4 20.  Nc4 d5 -D-®-®-i Kh8 21. N¥b6 a¥b6 22. Rd2 Bc8 23. Bd1 Nf6 24. a3 c6 25. c4 DpD-D-0- Qc7 26. b3 Be6 27. a4 Bc8 28. Rb2 Be6 White could not -0pDlD-0 well make any move on the kingside. Black by playing his bishop D-DpD-Dq to e6 and back again gave White a chance to advance his pawns on PDP)pD-D the queenside, thus weakening that side also. 29.  Be2 Qf7 DP!-)-)P 30. Rc1 Ne7 31.  Qe1 Nf5 32.  Qc3 N¥e3 33.  f¥e3 Qg6 -D-D-$-I 34. Rf1 Nh5 35. B¥h5 Q¥h5 36. Rbf2 White defended the D-D-DRH- game very skillfully; now he seemingly commands the open f-file. 36. ... Rf3 Beautiful play. If White plays 37. N¥f3 then the game After 36. Rbf2 would proceed 37. ... e¥f3 38. R¥f3 B¥h3 39. Rf8+ Kh7 and Black

5. Domination: 1893–1895 would hold a safe drawing position with some winning chances. If 40. R¥d8 then Black gains the advantage of having the White rook and king closed in by 40. ... B¥f1+. [JSH: White can resign after 41. Kg1 Qe2.] 37. R¥f3 e¥f3 38. Rf2 If 38. R¥f3 then Black wins by playing ... B¥h3. 38. ... Rf8 39. Qb4 Kg8 40. Qe7 Bc8 41. Qb4 Be6 42. Qd6 Re8 43. c5 43. c¥d5 was not better, on account of 43.  ... B¥d5, attacking the e-pawn and b-pawn. 43.  ... b¥c5 44. d¥c5 Bf5 45.  Qf4 Be4 White cannot play 46. N¥f3 on account of 46. ... Rf8 winning a piece. 46. g4 Qh4 47. Qg3 Qg5 48. Qf4 Qe7 49. b4 A disastrous error, which enables Black to gain an important move, ... Rf8. 49. Qd6 was proper. It must be admitted, however, that White had a very difficult position to defend. 49. ... Rf8 50. Qd6 Qg5 51. b5 Q¥e3 52. Kg3 Qe1 The final stroke, which forces White to surrender. He cannot play 53. Ne2 for Black answers 53. ... Q¥e2, followed by 54. ... f¥e2 (after 54. R¥e2) and queening the pawn. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 5, 1895).

133

-D-DrDkD DpD-1-0-DpD-D-0 D-)pD-DPD-Dl!PD DPD-)pDP -D-D-$-I D-D-D-HAfter 48. ... Qe7

-D-D-®kD DpD-D-0-Dp!-D-0 DP)pD-DPD-DlDPD D-D-1pIP -D-D-$-D D-D-D-H-

Kemeny’s second game with the older Robinson brother has a story with it, one that only came to light almost 13 years later to the day after it was played. It highlights Kemeny’s personality, showing how he remained polite even under ordinarily trying circumstances, Final Position and how he imaginatively managed to convince his opponent to accept the obvious without directly expressing the irritation he must have felt at his opponent’s reluctance. The simplified position that appears at the end of the game below became the subject of a story Shipley shared with his readers years later in his Philadelphia Inquirer column of February 19, 1908, while annotating the fourteenth match game between Tarrasch and Lasker, which ran 119 moves. In that contest, Tarrasch, a bishop ahead but in a dead drawn rook and bishop versus rook endgame, continued to play on for 50 moves despite having no chance to win. Shipley wrote that “the continuation reminds us very much of a game played in one of the Franklin Chess Club championship tournaments between Emil Kemeny and a strong member of the Franklin Chess Club. Kemeny had a king and his opponent had king and pawn, Kemeny, however, having the opposition. Kemeny mildly suggested that the game was a draw, but his opponent remarked that he was a pawn ahead and that no doubt the game was a draw if Kemeny made the best moves, but so was the game from the start and that he proposed to continue. Kemeny had about two hours extra time to spare, so he remarked certainly he would be glad to continue the game, and it being his move, his clock going, he left the room, bought a newspaper, returned, [and] sat down in a comfortable chair by the window to look over the news of the day. His opponent fidgeted around for ten or fifteen minutes and then called Kemeny’s attention to the fact that it was his move and that his clock was going. ‘Oh, yes,’ said Kemeny, ‘I know that, but I was just a little tired; thought I would take a rest of an hour or so, and look over the paper. Before my time is run out I will make a move.’ A smile went around among the other players in the room, and about ten minutes later Kemeny’s opponent remarked that he guessed after all that the position was only a draw and he was quite content to have the game so scored. Kemeny bowed politely and said it was entirely agreeable to him to have the game scored as drawn or to have it continued.”

134

EMIL KEMENY

Alfred K. Robinson–Kemeny [C65] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 1895 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. Qe2 Bc5 4. ... Bd6 is given as best. The text move loses a pawn without any positional advantage. 5. B¥c6 d¥c6 6. N¥e5 0–0 6. ... Qd4 was of no use. White would have answered 7. Nd3. 7. d3 Qe7 8. Nf3 Bg4 9. 0–0 Nd7 10. Be3 f5 11. B¥c5 N¥c5 12. e5 Ne6 13. c3 B¥f3 14. Q¥f3 f4 15. d4 Ng5 16. Qg4 f3 17. g3 h5 The sacrifice of an additional pawn was hardly justified, yet Black intended to keep up the attack at any hazard. 18. Qh4 g6 Loss of time only. 18. ... Rf7 or f5, followed by ... Raf8, was proper. 19. Nd2 Rf5 20. Ne4 Raf8 21. Rfe1 Kg7 22. Re3 Kh6 23. Rd1 Qe6 24. N¥g5 White now could have played 24. g4, winning the exchange. 24. ... R¥g5 25. Qe4 Rgf5 26. d5 White could not play 26. Rdd3 on account of Black’s answer 26. ... Rf4. White then could not capture the rook, because 27. ... Qg4+ and wins. It is questionable, however, whether the continuation selected by White was the best line of play. It seems that White reduced his winning chances by giving up the strong center pawns. [JSH: Kemeny overlooks in his analysis that after 27. ... Qg4+, White has 28. Kf1, and if 28. ... R¥f4, then 29. Q¥f4 Q¥f4 30. e6 wins. It is unclear what Kemeny believed would be winning for Black after 27. ... Qg4+.] 26. ... c¥d5 27. Q¥d5 Q¥d5 28. R¥d5 Re8 29. Rdd3 Re¥e5 30. R¥e5 R¥e5 31. R¥f3 Re2 32. Rf7 R¥b2 33. R¥c7 R¥a2 34. R¥b7 Kg5 34. ... g5 was preferable, it seems. 35. Rf7 h4 36. Kg2 a5 37. Kh3 h¥g3 38. h¥g3 a4 39. f4+ Kh6 40. Ra7 White now could have continued 40. g4, threatening mate in two moves. Black would have been obliged to defend with 40. ... g5. White then plays 41. Rf6+, followed by 42. f¥g5. It is doubtful, however, whether the advantage thus gained would have been sufficient to win. 40. ... Ra1 41. Ra6 a3 42. Kg4 42. f5 was not dangerous. Black would have replied 42. ... a2, and White could not gain the pawn. 42. ... a2 43.  Ra7 Rc1 44.  R¥a2 R¥c3 45.  Ra6 Rc5 -D-D-D-D 46. Kh3 Rf5 47.  Re6 Kg7 48.  Kg4 Rf7 49.  Re5 Kf6 D-D-DkD- 50. Ra5 Rb7 51. Ra6+ Kf7 52. Kh4 Rb5 53. Kh3 g5 This RD-D-DpD move forces the exchange of a pawn, after which Black easily draws DrD-D-D- the game. 54. Kg4 g¥f4 55. g¥f4 Rc5 56. Rh6 Ra5 57. Rb6 -D-D-)-D Rc5 58. Rb4 Ra5 59. Rb7+ Kf6 60. Rb8 Kf7 61. Rh8 Rb5 D-D-D-)K 62. Rh5 After the exchange of rooks it is obviously a draw, for the -D-D-D-D Black king holds the opposition. But White had no winning chances D-D-D-D- since the 53rd move was made. 62.  ... R¥h5 63.  K¥h5 Kf6 64. Kg4 Kg6 65.  Kf3 Kf5 66.  Ke3 Kf6 67.  Ke4 Ke6 68. f5+ Kf6 69. Kf4 Kf7 70. Kg5 Kg7 71. f6+ Kf7 72. Kf5 After 53. Kh3 Kf8 73. Kg6 Kg8 74. Kf5 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 16, 1895, with annotations by Kemeny).

-D-D-D-D D-D-DkD-D-D-D-D DrD-D-DR -D-D-)KD D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D D-D-D-DAfter 62. Rh5

The older Robinson must have felt that Kemeny managed, somehow, to barely escape his clutches for the second time, and perhaps this accounts for his pigheadedness in insisting on playing out the simple ending. In Kemeny’s second game with Young, the latter could have resigned after 11 moves. Instead, he played on another 10. The Ledger’s introduction, however, as often was the case, offered friendly consolation for the loser. Doing so was common courtesy, and especially useful for not creating hard feelings among a small, local net-

5. Domination: 1893–1895

135

work of players who expected to contest among themselves for years. “The game between Messrs. John W. Young and E. Kemeny in the Franklin Chess Club’s cup tournament,’ the Ledger stated, “was finely played, and resulted in a well-deserved victory for the latter. Mr. Young played the attack with vigor, and on his eleventh move made a brilliant sacrifice of a bishop. This line of play looked very promising, but Mr. Kemeny defended skillfully. He was enabled to win the bishop, and soon gained an additional piece. The position was then so much in his favor that Mr. Young felt obliged to surrender on his twenty-second turn.”

John W. Young–Kemeny [C51] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 1895 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb6 5. b5 5. a4, followed by c3, is probably a more conservative line of play. 5. ... Na5 6. N¥e5 Qf6 6. ... Qg5 is the usually adopted move. The text move, however, seems very satisfactory. 7. B¥f7+ Kf8 8. d4 d6 9. B¥g8 d¥e5 10. Bd5 c6 Best. The two White bishops are extremely dangerous, and Black adopts the best line of play in forcing the exchange rDlD-i-® of one of them. 11. f4 To keep up the attack, White is obliged to 0pD-D-0p sacrifice the bishop. He is one pawn ahead, and gets two more. It seems this line of play would give White the preferable game, if Black -gpD-1-D had not on his twelfth turn, ... Qg6, to his disposition. 11. ... c¥d5 hPDL0-D12. d¥e5 12. f¥e5 could not be played on account of 12. ... Qh4+. -D-)PD-D 12. ... Qg6 The winning move. White cannot play 13. Q¥d5 on D-D-D-Daccount of Black’s reply, 13. ... Q¥g2, followed by ... Bg4 and ... Rd8, PDPD-)P) winning in all variations. 13.  Qf3 Q¥e4+ 14.  Q¥e4 d¥e4 $NGQI-DR 15. Nd2 Bf5 16. Ba3+ Kf7 17. c3 Rhd8 18. h3 This loses an After 10. ... c6 additional piece. The White game, however, was beyond repair. 18. ... R¥d2 19. K¥d2 Nc4+ 20. Ke2 N¥a3 21. g4 Be6 After this move White resigned. Black has the material advantage, and gains now an irresistible attack. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 18, 1895, with annotations by Kemeny). Arthur Hale fared no better against the Frazer and Childs Cup holder, the game ending in mate in 22 moves. The Ledger wrote, “Mr. E. Kemeny scored a fine victory when he defeated Mr. A. Hale in the local tournament for the George W. Childs Cup. Mr. Hale, in the opening, overlooked his opponent’s neat combination, which terminated in the loss for him of a pawn. Mr. Kemeny, after gaining the advantage, lost no time, and forced a win in the very shortest order.”

Arthur Hale–Kemeny [D46] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 1895 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. e3 c6 4. ... c5 is probably preferable, since it gives a quicker development. The text move, however, has the advantage of supporting the center. 5. Nc3 Bd6 6. Bd3 Nbd7 7. 0–0 0–0 8. Qe2 e5 9. d¥e5 N¥e5 10. h3 10. N¥e5 it seems was proper. The game would have thus become even. Now Black gains some advantage. 10. ... Be6 11.  b3 Overlooking Black’s combination, which wins a pawn. Ne5 was still proper. 11. ... N¥d3 12. Q¥d3 d¥c4 13. Qc2 White could not play 13. b¥c4 on account

136

EMIL KEMENY

of ... Bh2+, winning the queen. 13. ... Nd5 Excellent play. Black not only wins the pawn, but gains a powerful attack through this well-timed move. 14.  b¥c4 Nb4 15.  Qe2 Nd3 White cannot capture the knight, on account of ... Bh2+, winning rD-1-®kD the queen. The White c-pawn is now lost, and Black, by playing ... 0pD-Dp0p Nd3, gained a winning position. 16. Nd2 [JSH: Actually the losing -DpglD-D move. White blocks his second rank, leaving his queen unable to at c3 once Black exchanges off the bishop that could have D-D-D-D- recapture defended at b2. White’s pieces are desperately in one another’s way, -hPD-D-D and resignation after this move would have been understandable.] D-H-)NDP 16. ... Be5 17. Nde4 B¥c4 18. Rd1 f5 19. Nc5 B¥c3 20. Rb1 PD-DQ)PD Qd5 21. Ba3 21. N¥c5, it seems, was preferable. If Black continues $-G-DRI- ... Rad8, then White replies Qc2. White’s game, however, was beyond repair. 21. ... Nf4 The final stroke. Black now forces the After 15. Qe2 exchange of queens and remains with a piece ahead and a winning position. White in this position played 22. Qc2, overlooking the mate on the move. 22. Qc2 Q¥g2 mate. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 19, 1895, with annotations by Kemeny). A much better effort was made by J. P. Morgan, who with the Black pieces held out against Kemeny for 41 moves. The game is remarkable for Kemeny’s reducing his opponent to useless bishop moves, while he marches his king from f1, via a6, to d7, winning a rook. The game was republished in a number of sources, including the Brooklyn Daily Eagle for March 6, 1895, Helms remarking that “S. G. Ruth, a director of the Brooklyn Chess Club, was visiting Philadelphia last week, where, at the Franklin Chess Club, he witnessed a remarkable game. It occurred in the George W. Childs’ cup tournament and is a beautiful specimen of E. Kemeny’s prowess.” The game was also reprinted by Shipley years later, in his Philadelphia Inquirer column for December 28, 1913. The Ledger’s introduction stated that “One of the best games played in the George W. Childs cup series was the game between Messrs. J. P. Morgan and E. Kemeny, in which the latter was victorious. The game, a double Ruy Lopez, was evenly contested, and though Mr. Kemeny played skillfully, he could gain but little advantage. On the twenty-third move, however, he made a beautiful sacrifice of an exchange, which forced his opponent into a very inferior position, perfectly paralyzing the kingside. The finest part of the game, however, was the ending. While his opponent had no less force than two rooks, a bishop and five pawns, Mr. Kemeny undertook to march his king right into his opponent’s quarter, forcing a beautiful win. Mr. Kemeny’s play in this game, from start to the ending, was of the highest order, and this victory was probably the finest he ever achieved. The full score is appended.”

Kemeny–Joseph Palmer Morgan [C49] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 1895 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. 0–0 0–0 6. d3 d6 7. Ne2 Ne7 8. Ng3 c6 9. Ba4 Ng6 10. c3 Ba5 11. d4 Bb6 11. ... Bc7 it seems is preferable, for it guards the e-pawn. Black, however, intended to play ... Re8, which makes ... Bc7 unnecessary. 12. h3 Re8 13. Bc2 d5 14. N¥e5 N¥e4 15. N¥e4 d¥e4 16. Qh5 The best line of play. White now attacks the e-pawn, and the queen commands a domineering position. Black, it seems, has hardly any better reply than ... Qh4, forcing the exchange of queens. It is

5. Domination: 1893–1895

137

obvious, however, that Black looses time. 16. ... Qh4 17. Q¥h4 N¥h4 18. Bg5 Ng6 18. ... g6 was not good, for White would answer 19. B¥e7, and would ultimately gain the e-pawn. 19. N¥g6 h¥g6 20.  Rfe1 f5 21. Rad1 White, by playing 21. f3, could have won the epawn. This line of play, however, would have been bad on account of the powerful attack Black would gain by playing ... c5. The text move was proper. 21. ... Be6 22. f3 Excellent play. Black cannot answer 22. ... B¥a2, for the bishop has no retreat if White replies 23. b3. Black cannot play ... Bd5, for White continues 23. f¥e4, and would finally win the isolated e-pawn. The answer Black made, 22. ... e¥f3, looked satisfactory, but it enables White to win most brilliantly, as the progress of the game shows. 22.  ... e¥f3 23. R¥e6 Brilliant and sound. Through this ingenious sacrifice -D-DrD-D White obtains a most powerful attack. 23. ... R¥e6 24. Bb3 Rae8 0pD-Dk025. Re1 Kf7 26. g¥f3 c5 Black did not see the line of play his -gpDrDpD opponent had in view, otherwise he had not advanced a pawn on D-D-DpGthe queenside. It is true, Black had a difficult position to defend, for neither rook nor king nor pawn on the kingside could be moved -D-)-D-D without immediate loss of the game. Black, however, could have DL)-DPDP played ... Bc7 and ... Bb8, etc. White’s only chance of win was then P)-D-D-D the majority of pawns on the queenside. 27. d¥c5 B¥c5+ 28. Kf1 D-D-$-IBb6 29. Bd5 Bc5 30. Re2 With this move White starts his most After 26. g¥f3 ingenious combination, which leads to a beautiful win. While the Black forces are fully paralyzed, White plays his king over to the enemy’s quarter, thus forcing a win. 30.  ... a5 31.  a4 b6 [JSH: -D-DrD-D Black has few options. If 31.  ... Bd6, then, after the exchanges, DpD-Dk032. B¥e6+ R¥e6 33. R¥e6 K¥e6, White has 34. Bd8 and if 34. ... -D-DrDpD Kd5, then 35. b3 before taking the a-pawn.] 32. Ke1 [JSH: Black is 0-gLDpGessentially in zugzwang. He cannot move king, rooks, or pawns, so PD-D-D-D he is reduced to shuttling his bishop back and forth while White D-)-DPDP takes his king from f1 all the way via a6 to d7.] 32. ... Bg1 33. Kd2 Bc5 34. Kd3 Bg1 35. h4 This move was necessary, to gain the -)-DRD-D move. Had White played Kc4 at once, then Black would answer ... D-D-DKDRc8+, and would very likely escape defeat. 35.  ... Bc5 36.  Kc4 After 31. a4 Bg1 37. Kb5 Bc5 38. Ka6 Bg1 39. Kb7 f4 40. Re4 Necessary to prevent Black from cutting off the rook by means of ... Be3. 40. ... Bc5 41.  Kc7 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 28, 1895, -D-DrD-D with annotations by Kemeny). DKD-Dk0-

-0-DrDpD

As mentioned above, Kemeny’s win against J. P. Morgan reached 0-gLD-Gfar and wide. A few years later, in 1898, James D. Seguin received PD-DR0-) the score from James McConnell, Jr., who had recently visited D-)-DPDPhiladelphia and to whom Kemeny had given the score. Seguin, writ-)-D-D-D ing in his New Orleans Times-Democrat column for May 22, 1898, said D-D-D-Dthat “We think that the curious march of the White king into the enemy’s lines in the latter part of the game is a feature that might After 40. ... Bc5 well not occur in a thousand successive parties.” After Kemeny’s excellent performance against Morgan, his luck finally ran out. His opponent, Ferris, playing Black in a Ruy Lopez, discovered a way to win a bishops of opposite colors endgame. It was the first loss Kemeny had suffered in a Franklin championship since losing three games in the 1892-93 championship, two years earlier.

138

EMIL KEMENY

Kemeny–William J. Ferris [C48] 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club Championship February or March 1895 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. Nc3 d6 5. d4 Bd7 6. B¥c6 B¥c6 7. 0– 0 Be7 8. Qe2 e¥d4 9. N¥d4 Bd7 10. Be3 Ng4 11. Rad1 Ne5 12. h3 0–0 13. f4 Nc6 14. Nf3 Re8 15. Nd5 a6 16. Qd3 Bf8 17. Bc1 Ne7 18. Nc3 f6 19. Ne2 Kh8 20. Ng3 Bc6 21. c4 b5 22. b3 Ng6 23. Nd4 b¥c4 24. b¥c4 Bb7 25. Nde2 a5 26. Nc3 Ba6 27. Nf5 Qd7 28. Nd5 Rab8 29. Ba3 Ne7 30. Nf¥e7 B¥e7 31. f5 Bf8 32. Rc1 Qd8 33. Rfe1 Re5 34. Nf4 Bc8 35. Re2 Qe8 36. Rce1 Qf7 37. Qg3 Kg8 38. Qc3 Ba6 39. Rc1 Bc8 40. Nd3 Re8 41. Nf4 Bb7 42. Ne6 Bc8 43. Nd4 c5 44. Nb5 B¥f5 45. Rd2 R¥e4 46. N¥d6 B¥d6 47. R¥d6 Rbe8 48. Rd5 Re3 49. Q¥a5 B¥h3 50. Rd2 Qg6 [JSH: 50. ... Qh5! is more efficient. If, for example, 51. Q¥c5 (51. g¥h3 Rg3+ and mates in five), -D-DrDkD then 51. ... Re1+ 52. R¥e1 R¥e1+ 53. Kf2 Qh4+ 54. g3 Rf1+ 55. Ke3 D-D-Dq0p Q¥g3+ 56. Kd4 Rf4+ 57. Kd5 Rf5+ etc.] 51. B¥c5 Re2 52. R¥e2 -D-D-0-D R¥e2 53. Qd8+ Re8 54. Qd2 h5 55. Kh2 Bg4 56. Re1 !-0-D-DR¥e1 57. Q¥e1 Qc2 58. Qf2 Q¥c4 59. Bd6 Be6 60. a3 Qc6 61.  Qc5 Q¥c5 62.  B¥c5 Bd7 63.  g3 Kf7 64.  Kg2 -DPD-D-D Ke6 65. Kf2 g5 66. Bd4 Kf5 67. Bc3 Kg6 68. Bd4 f5 G-D-®-Dl 69. Be5 f4 70. g¥f4 Kf5 71. Ke3 h4 72. Bc7 g4 73. Kf2 PD-$-DPD D-$-D-IBc6 0–1 (Brooklyn Standard-Union, March 30, 1895). After 50. Rd2 By now, however, the Franklin’s 1894-95 tournament had run into trouble. Two players had already left. Mordecai Morgan had done so after only four games (11 ⁄ 2–21 ⁄ 2), while Maguire had departed after playing nine (3–6). But the two biggest surprises were Alfred Robinson (91 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2, including his two draws with Kemeny) and Kemeny himself, who had been leading 13–2. It is unclear, from the tournament crosstable (see Crosstable, below, page 329), why the final number of games varied from player to player (ranging from a low of 20 to a high of 23), but apparently games against Kemeny, Robinson and Maguire from the first round were included, but not those of Morgan. In any event, D. Stuart Robinson claimed the 1894-95 Franklin championship, finishing 17– 5, ahead of Bampton and Voigt, with Ferris finishing in fourth at 13–8. If Kemeny, at 13–2, had simply resigned his remaining games without play, he would have tied Ferris for fourth and fifth place. Had he been permitted to finish his games later, as he was after his illness two years earlier, a modest 4–3 finish would have placed him in a tie with D. Stuart Robinson for first place. Instead, Kemeny withdrew from the tournament. What caused Kemeny and Robinson to drop out? Dion M. Martinez, who took over the Ledger column for a time, mentioned in passing on March 20, 1895, that “Kemeny had to withdraw from the tournament on account of his temporary absence in Europe, and A.K. Robinson has also abandoned the lists by reasons of business engagement.” Paradoxically, more information appeared in a Brooklyn source than in the Philadelphia newspapers. The Brooklyn Standard-Union of March 9, 1895, told its readers that “Emil Kemeny of Philadelphia, winner of the George W. Childs cup in 1894, and leader in the cup tournament now in progress, has been called home to Hungary. He will sail next week. He remarked to S.G. Ruth, who has just returned from Philadelphia, that the business which necessitated his trip was of a very favorable nature and he would only be away a short time. Mr. Kemeny is ... the leading player of the quiet city, and his absence will be felt.” No knowledge of what Kemeny’s business was, or how it was favorable to him, has ever surfaced.

5. Domination: 1893–1895

139

Nor was his schedule at the Franklin the only chess Kemeny missed because of his temporary return to Europe. Kemeny had already missed one New York chess event earlier, in February. As the New York Times for February 11, 1895, had reported, the City Chess Club played the Manhattan Chess Club in the Metropolitan Chess League that weekend. “The Manhattan Chess Club put their full strength in the field,” the Times reported, “but the City Chess Club was handicapped by the absence of their strongest players. Kemeny and Bampton were sick with the grip, while Ferris telegraphed from Wilmington, Del., that it would be impossible for him to reach this city in time. Thus Voigt was the only non-resident member who took part in the fray.” Exactly when Kemeny returned from Europe is unknown, although annotations attributed to him appear next in the Ledger on August 26, 1895, when he began annotating games from the great Hastings tournament. Kemeny annotated Pillsbury’s wins over Janowski, Steinitz and Gunsberg, as well as Pillsbury’s loss to Lasker. Hastings had, of course, created a sensation. Pillsbury’s win over Gunsberg on September 2, 1895, assured him first prize in his first international tournament. Chess players in the United States had waited 35 years for another Morphy, and in Pillsbury, they believed they had found one. At his victory dinner at the Rouch Gallery in Brooklyn the next month, Pillsbury was presented with a gold watch by Dr. Persifor Frazer, president of the Franklin Chess Club. Not long after his hero’s welcome in New York, the young sensation visited Philadelphia for a short exhibition, arriving Monday, October 28, and leaving Thursday, October 31, 1895. On the night of his arrival he played a game at the Franklin with D. Stuart Robinson, forcing his Philadelphia opponent to resign in 25 moves. Tuesday evening he defeated Voigt in 35 moves. The next night he played a chess and checkers simultaneous exhibition, finishing 11– 2 with 2 draws in chess, and 5–1 with 1 draw in checkers. Kemeny faced Pillsbury on Tuesday afternoon, October 29, 1895, and his win over the victor of Hastings was greatly appreciated by the members and guests who witnessed it. None of the local games against Pillsbury appearing in the Ledger was annotated, not even Kemeny’s own victory over the champion of Hastings. The Philadelphia Public Ledger for October 31, 1895, provided the score, but without notes. It introduced the game as follows: “An unusually large crowd of members and invited guests gathered at the Franklin Chess Club on Tuesday afternoon to witness the contest between Mr. Pillsbury, the new world’s champion, and Mr. Emil Kemeny, the local champion chess player. The game was a well-contested one, and resulted in a brilliant victory for the local expert. Mr. Kemeny opened with an Evans Gambit, and, by skilful play, managed to force his opponent into a very inferior position. Mr. Pillsbury defended his game very carefully; but it was of no avail. Mr. Kemeny on his twenty-seventh turn brought about a brilliant sacrifice of the queen, which virtually decided the battle in his favor.” Questions surround this game. One is quite straightforward: Kemeny missed a one move mate on move 33, as first noted by Edward Winter in Kings, Commoners and Knaves (pages 262–263). Other questions concern the annotations the game received from contemporary sources outside Philadelphia. The best annotations were attributed to the New York Evening Post, as republished in the Providence (Rhode Island) Sunday Journal for November 10, 1895. The Albany Evening Journal also gave the game serious consideration in its December 14, 1895 issue. And perhaps most curious of all, Miron J. Hazeltine, long-time chess editor of the New York Clipper, gave the game in his November 16, 1895, column, including with it what can only be Franklin K. Young’s annotations, or annotations inspired by that gentleman’s “system” of chess, possibly taken from his Boston Herald column. Young (1857–1931), a student of military science in his youth, wrote several books attempting to reduce the science of chess to military-like terminology with what today can only be characterized as ludicrous success. For those

140

EMIL KEMENY

who have never been exposed to Young’s rambling faux science, some of the annotations below will be enlightenment enough. The game itself did great credit to Kemeny, although not to his opponent. The Albany Evening Journal described it as “A gem from Philadelphia,” and indeed it is. Annotations from that source are identified below as “—AEJ.” The New York Evening Post’s annotations are noted as “NYEP,” while Hazeltine’s puzzlement with the Boston notes as appearing in his New York Clipper column are given as footnotes.

Kemeny–Harry Nelson Pillsbury [C51] Franklin Chess Club Offhand Game October 29, 1895 [Played in the Franklin Chess Club, Mr. Pillsbury’s defeat is noteworthy, as indicating that leading American players have accepted Boston ideas in chess, and are fast acquiring the Boston Theory of play, which has won fame for Mr. Pillsbury both here and in Europe.* In fact, Mr. Pillsbury was “hoist by his own petard.” It will be seen that he lost by neglecting the rules of the Boston theory of play, while Mr. Kemeny followed implicitly the teachings laid down in the “Minor Tactics of Chess,” the text book of the Boston school of chess—Boston Daily Standard.] [A gem from Philadelphia, in which the famous “Boston Defense” to the Evans Gambit is brilliantly defeated by the champion of the Quaker City—AEJ.] 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  Bc4 Bc5 4.  b4 B¥b4 5.  c3 Bd6 [This defense is the invention of the Hungarian player Szen, who is noted for the correspondence match which he won together with Lowenthal and Grimm against Paris about 50 years ago. After the death of Szen his defense to the Evans fell into desuetude until revived and ameliorated by some Boston players, notably Mr. Stone. Pillsbury successfully adopted it at the Hastings tournament against Bird and Schiffers—NYEP.] 6. d4 Nf6 7. 0–0 0–0 8. Nbd2 [Steinitz in a game against Strong and allies consulting continued here with 8. Re1—NYEP.] 8. ... Qe7 9. Bd3 [The quiet but masterly combination of White’s eighth and ninth moves shed a good deal of light on the principles of play to deal with this latterly most successful defense to the gambit—AEJ.] [To make room for the knight which he intends to play to f5 via c4 and e3. White’s strategy is excellent, though evidently prepared beforehand. It is worthy of note that the attempt to break through in the center by f4, which at first glance would seem White’s most natural course to pursue, generally results in Black’s favor—NYEP.] 9. ... Ne8 10. Nc4 f6 11. Ne3 g6 [Black is compelled to weaken his kingside, as he could not afford to let the adverse knight take command of the important square f5. His game, however, is now horribly cramped—NYEP.] [According to the Boston theory of chess play all games are won and lost on the pawn line. This move is, therefore, in this situation a violation of strategic principle, as Black’s kingside is thereby falsely deployed, and his king fatally exposed—AEJ.] 12. Nd5 Qd8 13.  Be3 Be7 [It is this peculiar retreat of the king’s bishop that is generally most puzzling to the attack. In the present game, however, before Black can release his queen’s bishop by ... d6, his position has suffered almost irreparable damage—AEJ.] 14.  Nd2 d6 15. f4 [White has now completed a formation, known in the Boston theory of chess play as the “open primary base 1A.” It is equivalent, in strategics, to an oblique line of attack against a single adverse flank, and wins in all variations.†] Ng7 16.  f5 g5 17.  h4 [Most cleverly *What in the name of Caissa, at whose altar we have so long served, does that mean? Perhaps Bro. Young can explain. We would sit patiently at the feet of any prophet who will instruct us—Hazeltine, New York Clipper, November 16, 1895 [original footnote]. †Oh, please re-read our part of the introduction—Hazeltine, New York Clipper [original footnote].

5. Domination: 1893–1895

rDl1-®kD 0p0-g-hp -Dn0-0-D D-DN0P0-D-)PD-D D-)LG-DPD-H-DP) $-DQDRIAfter 16. ... g5

rDlgqDkD 0p0-D-®p -D-0-0-D h-DN0PD-D-)PD-! D-)-G-DR PD-H-IPD D-D-D-DR After 26. ... Q¥e8

rD-g-D-i 0p0-D-$-D-0-0-G h-DN0PD-D-)ND-D D-)-D-DPD-D-IPD D-D-D-DAfter 35. Ne4

141

played, this and move 20—AEJ.] [Mr. Kemeny, having obtained the superior position, now presses the attack with energy—NYEP.] 17. ... g¥h4 [If 17. ... h6 then 18. h¥g5 and Black is compelled to retake 18. ... h¥g5, whereupon the position would be even more against Black as in actual play—NYEP.] 18. Qg4 Kh8 [Obviously the only move to meet the threatened Bh6—NYEP.] 19.  Q¥h4 Qd7 [Again compulsory, as White threatened to bring his rook to bear against the h-pawn—NYEP.] 20. Kf2 Bd8 21. Rh1 Ne8 22. Rh3 Na5 [Hoping for a chance of ... c6—AEJ.] 23. Rah1 Rf7 24. Be2 [The beginning of a combination as brilliant in conception as rDlgnD-i successful in execution—NYEP.] 24. ... 0p0qDrDp Rg7 25. Bh5 Kg8 To prevent Bg6— -D-0-0-D NYEP 26.  B¥e8 Q¥e8 27.  Q¥h7+ h-DN0PD[This is the more brilliant, as there was -D-)PD-! the distraction of other strong moves, viz., N¥f6+, or Bh6—AEJ.] [The crown- D-)LG-DR ing move in the combination initiated PD-H-IPD by his twenty-fourth move—NYEP.] D-D-D-DR 27. ... R¥h7 [If king moves then After 23. ... Rf7 28. Q¥g7+—NYEP.] 28.  R¥h7 B¥f5 [If 28. ... Qa4 then White mates in two moves; if 28. ... Qf8, White wins queen rD-g-D-$ and bishop for rook—NYEP.] 29. e¥f5 0p0-DkDq Qf8 30. Rh8+ Kf7 31. R1h7+ Qg7 -D-0-0-G 32. Bh6 Q¥h7 33. R¥h7+ [JSH: Rf8 h-DN0PDmates—the one move mate Kemeny -D-)-D-D missed, as noted by Winter in Kings, D-)-D-DCommoners (pages 262–263).] 33.  ... PD-H-IPD Kg8 34. Rg7+ Kh8 35. Ne4 [Black resigns, as after 36. N¥f6 B¥f6 37. N¥f6, D-D-D-Dthe mate, by Rh7, cannot be averted— After 32. ... Q¥h7 NYEP.*] 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, October 31, 1895; Providence Sunday Journal, November 10, 1895 providing annotations above from the NYEP = New York Evening Post; AEJ = Albany Evening Journal, December 14, 1895).

Kemeny’s victory over Pillsbury, played at the end of October 1895, is the last published game of Kemeny’s the author could find until near the end of February 1896, almost four full months later. This may be somewhat surprising, not because Kemeny did not take breaks from serious chess, but rather because his next published appearance would be a match for the United States championship. *White’s game is an unimpeachable charm, but so little is Mr. Pillsbury recognizable that we are inclined to wonder whether a modicum of Bro. Devide’s psychology, or Bro. Tarrasch’s hypnotism was not brought to bear on its conduct— Hazeltine, New York Clipper [original footnote].

142

EMIL KEMENY

6

Showalter–Kemeny: 1896 United States Championship Match “The most important chess played in the United States during the present week, and undoubtedly the most exciting, was that in the two games—the second finished late yesterday—of the Showalter—Kemeny championship match.”—Philadelphia Inquirer, February 27, 1896 “Emil Kemeny of Philadelphia never had, nor will he probably ever have, such an opportunity of winning the chess championship of the United States as he has in his present match with J.W. Showalter.”—Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March 17, 1896

Kemeny’s playing a match for national honors comes as something of a surprise, given the last few years of his life up until 1896. As we have seen, Kemeny arrived in the U.S. about 1890 and stayed in New York, making as his first home club the City Chess Club of New York, an establishment in close approximation to the Lower East Side, a neighborhood where many immigrants from Eastern Europe began their lives in the New World. Kemeny in fact had little match experience when he played for the national title, having played Halpern in 1890 and Hanham in 1891, but no others against strong competition since. It is not surprising that Showalter, as we shall later learn, did not consider Kemeny a serious title threat. One thing we do know is that when Kemeny sat down at the chessboard in February 1896 to contest the United States championship, he did so as a naturalized United States citizen. As early as September 21, 1891, Kemeny had made known his intention to seek United States citizenship when he appeared before the Superior Court of the City of New York. Finally, on January 21, 1896, accompanied by his friend and benefactor Arthur Hale, Kemeny was sworn in as a citizen of his adopted country in the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. At the time, according to court records, Kemeny lived at 1452 Cherry Street, Philadelphia. His opponent, Jackson Whipps Showalter, had in the previous eight or nine years established himself as one of the strongest players in the country. The two men were almost exact contemporaries. Born February 5, 1860, in Minerva, Kentucky, Showalter was 23 days younger than Kemeny. Showalter would die on his seventy-fifth birthday, outlasting Kemeny by nearly 10 years. The two men met in Philadelphia, both 36 years old and in the prime of their chess days, for a contest that saw one continue his winning ways and the other begin redefining his career. Kemeny’s meeting with Showalter in the early months of 1896 is crucial to an understanding of his chess life, and undoubtedly helped forecast the direction his life would take for at least the next ten years. For this reason, Showalter must be seen as clearly as possible at that moment, in Philadelphia. His record, truly an impressive one, made him a decided favorite for the match against Kemeny. Readers of the British Chess Magazine had met Showalter in 1892, a few years before his championship match with Kemeny took place, but American players and followers of the game had come to know him even earlier. Known best as “Jack” Showalter, the Kentuckian was the youngest of three brothers, all of whom played chess. His brothers practiced law, one in Chicago, the other down in Texas. Showalter lived in Georgetown, Kentucky, where his family owned a large, productive farm and tobacco business.

6. Showalter–Kemeny: 1896 United States Championship Match

143

Showalter owed his early expertise with the game to extensive correspondence play—perhaps one of the best ways at the time for someone outside the major metropolitan centers, East Coast or otherwise, to hone an ability at chess. According to the British Chess Magazine, Showalter spent much of the period 1883 to 1886 on a cattle ranch on the Rio Grande. In 1887, he spent six months in New York City, where he effectively received his “advanced” training in chess, meeting some of the strongest players in the county. He did not desert his first love, however, as the following example shows. Note, too, the tactical lapses. Showalter still had much to learn. The game was introduced as “a game played by correspondence between President Wendel, of the Wilkes-Barre Club, and J. W. Showalter, the rising young player of New York”: Wendel–Jackson Whipps Showalter [C52], Correspondence Game, 1887. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 B¥b4 5. c3 Jackson Whipps Showalter. United Ba5 6. d4 e¥d4 7. 0–0 d¥c3 8. Qb3 Qf6 States chess champion and Kemeny’s 9. e5 Qg6 Perhaps 9.  ... Qf5 is a better move, 1896 championship match opponent. The Kentucky Lion, as he was known, but both are recognized by authorities. 10. N¥c3 was a force in United States chess for Nge7 11.  Ne2 b5 Anderssen’s move. Why decades (courtesy of Edward Winter). should not 11. ... Nd8 be a good move? 12. Bd3 Qe6 13. Qb2 Ng6 14. Nf4 N¥f4 15. B¥f4 h6 16. B¥b5 Better, we think, than 16. Rac1, which is the regular book move. The latter gives Black more time. 16. ... Rb8 17. Qe2 g5 18. Bg3 g4 19. B¥c6 Q¥c6 20. Nh4 Rb4 21. Rfc1 Qe6 22. Rab1 Rd4 23. Qc2 d5 A splendid move. 24.  e¥d6 0–0 25.  d¥c7 Re8 26.  Qc6 A very interesting position, White, offering exchanges, wishes to win another pawn. [JSH: This loses out of hand, but Black somehow misses his way.] 26. ... Qe2?? [JSH: 26. ... Rd1+ wins at once.] 27. Q¥h6 Bd2 A surprise for White and a very brilliant stroke. 28. Qc6 B¥c1 29. Q¥c1 Rd2 30. h3 g¥h3 31. Qc3?? [JSH: Curiously, 31. g¥h3 B¥h3 and tactically White is covered on the crucial f1 and g2 squares. Now Black sees the value of ... Rd1+.] 31. ... Rd1+ 32. Kh2 [JSH: 32. R¥d1 Q¥d1+ 33. Kh2 Re1.] 32. ... R¥b1 33. Qf6 h¥g2 34. Qg5+ Kh7 35. N¥g2 Qg4 0– 1 (Baltimore Sunday News, July 30, 1887). Showalter would teach chess to Nellie Marshall, whom he married in February 1887. In an age when few women played publicly, she ranked as one of the nation’s strongest. Born in Donerail, Kentucky, in 1872, and educated at the North Middletown Seminary in that same state, Nellie Marshall was a direct descendent of Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court, according to the San Francisco Call for January 26, 1896. In August 1896, the Showalters had a son. The Gilded Age thrived on organization. Chess players were hardly immune. Several state chess associations formed in the late 1880s, and at the Ohio State Chess Association’s second annual meeting, held on February 22, 1888, W. C. Cochran put forward a resolution calling for a committee to contact other state chess associations. The purpose was to form a national organization. Encouraged by the response, the committee invited state delegates that September to a meeting in Cincinnati. Matters developed rapidly. On September 4, 1888, at the Cincinnati Library Club,

144

EMIL KEMENY

Cochran called the meeting to order. Thus was formed the United States Chess Association (USCA), complete with constitution and powers to hold an annual tournament for the organization’s title. The first USCA championship tournament was immediately held, September 4–7. Six state association representatives competed in a double–round robin event. Max Judd played, but could only attend for two days. His last place finish, at 2–8, included six forfeits. Hanham represented the NYSCA, and Charles A. Moehle, now of Minnesota (and formerly of New York), competed along with representatives of Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky. Kentucky, of course, was represented by Showalter. Play took place at Cincinnati’s Cuvier Club, which on the very day play started offered its clubhouse. Showalter dominated the event, finishing 9–1, to become the first United States Chess Association champion. He was in the enviable position of an improving player blessed with excellent practical results. Although he had been playing for only a few years, Showalter participated in the greatest nineteenth century chess tournament held in the United States: the Sixth American Chess Congress, otherwise known as New York 1889. Steinitz did not play, but helped organize the event and also produced the tournament book that still stands as a monument to the art of tournament book production. As is well known, Chigorin and Weiss tied for first in the double-round marathon held over two months, from March 25 to May 2, 1889. They played a short, tied match and left it at that. Lipschütz and Judd scored higher than Showalter, who handicapped himself by arriving late for his first game of the first round (the first 19 games), forfeiting his first game with Judd. Showalter’s final score of 18–20 fails to show, however, how much his play improved from the first to the second round. Then, he won games against Blackburne, Burn, Delmar and Pollock, among others. Kemeny, of course, had not arrived in the United States in time to seek entry to such an event. No player of national significance attended the Second USCA congress held at the Hotel English, Indianapolis, Indiana, August 6–9, 1889. The little known William Haller, of Missouri, defeated the even more obscure Albert White of Ohio and W. H. Ripley of Indiana to take the title. The organization’s problem, highlighted by the Indianapolis disappointment, was its domination by “Western” chess players, including large numbers from Cincinnati, its first home, St. Louis and Chicago. New Jersey, for instance, had only one member, the problemist Eugene B. Cook, and there were only two members from Pennsylvania. Kemeny did not join. And while New York could boast 20 members, aside from Lipschütz and Loyd no first class metropolitan masters were affiliated. Participation picked up for the Third USCA congress, held in St. Louis, February 4–11, 1890. Unfortunately, despite its being his home city, Max Judd could not attend. The championship tournament was a double–round robin with seven participants. Showalter’s main competition was from W. H. K. Pollock and S. Lipschütz. Despite their presence he amassed the extraordinary score of 111 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2, Pollock alone withstanding the growing strength of the man soon known as “the Kentucky Lion” of chess. Showalter’s extensive play, from correspondence chess to New York metropolitan play and through his participation at New York 1889 and St. Louis 1890, clearly showed his improvement. At St. Louis, Showalter makes short work of a dangerous opponent, one who would soon hand Showalter a stunning match defeat. The game shows Showalter’s improving sight of the board, and the combination winning a piece is nicely handled: Jackson Whipps Showalter–S. Lipschütz [C62.], Third USCA Championship, St. Louis, Missouri, February 1890. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 [Mr. Steinitz, in his Modern Chess Instructor, gives this as the best defense to the Ruy Lopez—SL.] 4. d4 Bd7 5. B¥c6 B¥c6 6. Nc3 e¥d4 [Losing valuable time. Black should have prepared for castling by ... Nf6—SL.] [The d-pawn is not “meant to be captured” in this defense. Mr. “Showalter, however, considers that if 6. ... Nf6 7. Qe2 will make him take it. I played 6. ...

6. Showalter–Kemeny: 1896 United States Championship Match

145

f6 twice in one master tournament, but do not recommend the defense—WHKP.] 7. N¥d4 Bd7 [Again 7. ... Nf6 is the better move—SL.] [Black’s game is clearly strained, moving the queen’s bishop three times in seven moves is quiet enough to cause this—WHKP.] [Why not, instead of thus losing a clear move, 7. ... Qd7 8. Nf5 g6 9. Qd4 f6 10. Ng3 Bg7 and duly thereafter ... Ne7?—NOTD.] 8.  0–0 Nf6 9.  f4 Be7 [Dangerous! 9.  ... c5 followed by ... Bc6 would have given Black a fair game—SL.] 10.  e5 d¥e5 11.  f¥e5 Ng4 [A miscalculation! Black had foreseen White’s fourteenth move rD-1kD-® of N¥g7+, but overlooked ... N¥c7+, whereby he wins a piece. 11. ... 0p0lgp0p Ng8 was the only move to save the game—SL.] [JSH: Black loses after -D-D-h-D 11. ... Ng8 12. Qh5 g6 13. Qf3 f5 14. e6. Somewhat better is 11. ... D-D-)-DBg4 12. Qd3 Nd5 13. Qb5+ c6 14. Q¥b7 Qc8 allows Black to play -D-H-D-D on, at least.] 12.  e6 [Mr. Showalter takes prompt advantage of Black’s error in a way which goes to show that he saw the alter check D-H-D-Dwhich Black overlooked—SL.] [Beautiful play and evincing great fore- P)PD-DP) sight previously. Note that White does not actually win the piece $-GQDRIuntil the 19th move—WHKP.] 12.  ... B¥e6 13.  N¥e6 Q¥d1 After 11. f¥e5 14. N¥c7+ [Winning a piece by force, and as consequence, the game— SL.] 14. ... Kd7 15. R¥d1+ K¥c7 16. Nd5+ Kd7 17. Nf6+ Kc7 18. Bf4+ [All this is in the highest style—WHKP.] 18.  ... Kc6 -D-®-D-® 19. N¥g4 f6 20. Rd3 Bc5+ 21. Be3 B¥e3+ 22. N¥e3 Rad8 0-$-D-D23. Rc3+ Kb6 24.  Nc4+ Ka6 25.  Re1 b6 26.  Re7 g6 -0-D-0pD 27. Rc7 h5 28. Ra3+ Kb5 29. Ra¥a7 [And it is mate in five— DkD-D-Dp SL.] [JSH: There is a pretty mate one move faster starting with the -DND-D-D unexpected 29. Nd6+! after 29. ... R¥d6 30. c4+ Kb4 31. Rb3+ Ka4 $-D-D-D32. R¥a7 mate.] 1–0 (United States Chess Association, Third Annual P)PD-DP) Report, pages 38–39, with annotations by S. Lipschütz [SL], W. H. K. D-D-D-IPollock [WHKP], and the New Orleans Times-Democrat [NOTD]). Showalter tried his hand at match play later that year, but lost After 28. ... Kb5 his first serious effort, to Max Judd, 7–3 with no draws—an inauspicious start for the nation’s most active match player during the 1890s. Showalter won the fourth and final USCA championship tournament in his home city, August 4–7, 1891, when the annual congress and tournament were held in Lexington, Kentucky. Surprised in the first round by Pollock, Showalter fought back to tie his vanquisher 5– 1 in the short, single–round robin tournament, and then won the single playoff game to take his third USCA title in three tries. One game he won along the way was against Warwick H. Ripley, a 40 year old Indianapolis lawyer and long-time Indiana state champion: Jackson Whipps Showalter–Warwick H. Ripley [C51], Fourth USCA Championship, Lexington, Kentucky, August 1891. 1.  e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 B¥b4 5. c3 Bc5 6. d4 e¥d4 rD-hkD-® 7. 0–0 d3 In conjunction with ... Ba5 on the fifth move this defense has been advocated for some time; but after the actual retreat of that 0p0lh-0bishop it subjects Black immediately to the loss of all the material -D-1-D-0 which White has sacrificed. 8. e5 White might have won back his D-g-DpDpawns at once with a very good game by 8. Ng5 Nh6 9. N¥f7 N¥f7 PDLD-D-D 10. B¥f7+ K¥f7 11. Qh5+ followed by Q¥c5, etc. 8. ... d5 9. e¥d6 DN)pD-DN Q¥d6 10.  Nbd2 f5 This was sure to turn out weak in the long -D-D-)P) run; it reduces his option of castling and weakens his center; 10. ... $-GQ$-IBf5 was much better. 11.  Nb3 Bd7 12.  Ng5 Nd8 13.  a4 h6 14. Re1+ Ne7 15. Nh3 Ne6 This costs a piece, but his game was After 15. Nh3

146

EMIL KEMENY

already in a critical condition, as his opponent threatens N¥c5 followed by Ba3. 16. B¥e6 B¥f2+ If 16. ... B¥e6 17. N¥c5 Q¥c5 18. R¥e6 Q¥c3 19. Bd2 with an equally irresistible attack. 17. N¥f2 B¥e6 18. Nd4 Bd7 19. Ba3 c5 20. N¥d3 b6 21. Qh5+ g6 22. Qh4 Black is surrounded in all directions and his pieces are hopelessly tied up. Mr. Showalter has formed his attack admirably. 22. ... Kf8 23. Ne5 Nd5 White threatened Nc4 or N¥d7+, followed by Qf6+, winning. 24.  c4 Nf6 25.  N¥d7+ He could also have won by 25. Q¥f6+ Q¥f6 26. N¥d7+, after which he would come out two pieces ahead. 25. ... N¥d7 26. Ne6+ Kf7 27. Rad1 Qc6 27. ... Q¥d1 28. R¥d1 K¥e6 gave better hopes of prolonging the fight. 28. Bb2 A well aimed finishing stroke. He threatens R¥d7+, followed by Qf6. 28. ... Q¥e6 White announces mate in four. There is a little flaw in the announcement. No doubt, after 28. ... Q¥e6 29. R¥d7+, which is evidently the intended solution, if 29. ... Q¥d7, White mates by 30. Qf6+ Kg8 31. Q¥h8+ Kf7 32. Qg7 mate. But if 28. ... Q¥e6 29. R¥d7+ Kg8, the mate can be delayed by one move, by Black’s playing ... Rh7 or ... g5. 1–0 (United States Chess Association, Fourth Annual Report, pages 21–22, with annotations attributed to the New York Tribune, issue not specified [JSH: Thus likely by Steinitz]). The game against the strong master, Pollock, that gave Showalter his third title, was annotated by Steinitz for his Tribune column readers: Jackson Whipps Showalter–W. H. K. Pollock [C55], Fourth USCA Championship, Lexington, Kentucky, August 1891. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 e¥d4 5. Ng5 Quite a refreshing novelty. 5. ... Ne5 5. ... d5 6. e¥d5 N¥d5 7. 0–0 turns into a variation which is given in favor of White in Modern Chess Instructor with the following main continuation: 7. ... Be6 8. Re1 Qd7 9. N¥f7 K¥f7 10. Qf3+ and wins either B¥d5 or R¥e6 accordingly. 6.  Q¥d4 N¥c4 7.  Q¥c4 d5 8.  e¥d5 Q¥d5 If 8.  ... N¥d5 9. Nc3 with a strong attack. 9. Qe2+ Be7 10. 0–0 h6 11. Re1 0–0 The only other alternative was 11. ... Qd8, after which he could not castle for a long time and the opponent could develop his attack still more effectively. 12. Q¥e7 He could also have proceeded very advantageously with 12. Nc3, for if 12. ... Qa5 13. Q¥e7 h¥g5 -D-DrDkD 14. Re5, etc. 12. ... h¥g5 13. Q¥c7 Bd7 14. Nc3 Rfe8 15. R¥e8+ 0-!-Dp0- R¥e8 16. Be3 Qe6 17. Q¥b7 Bc6 18. Qc7 Best. If 18. Q¥a7 -DlDqD-D Black would win by replying 18. ... Qg4. 18. ... Nh5 19. Rd1 This D-D-D-0n excellent move breaks the attack and White’s superiority of material -D-D-D-D asserts itself after the exchange of queens, which is practically forced, D-H-G-D- in consequence of this development. 19.  ... Nf4 20.  Rd6 Rc8 P)PD-)P) 21. R¥e6 R¥c7 22. B¥f4 g¥f4 23. Rd6 Kf8 He would have $-D-D-I- probably made a better fight by advancing 23. ... f3, which White was compelled to take, and then the broken kingside would have afforded some attacking opportunities for Black that might have After 18. ... Nh5 enabled him to give some trouble, in spite of White’s superiority on other wing. 24. f3 White properly closes the door against the -DRD-D-D the entrance of the adverse pawn. 24. ... Ke7 25. Rd4 g5 26. Kf2 0lD-D-®- Ke6 27. Ke2 Ke5 28. Rd8 g4 29. f¥g4 B¥g2 30. h4 Bc6 -D-D-0-D 31. h5 f6 32. Kf2 Rg7 33. Rc8 Bb7 34. h6 A pretty position. D-D-i-DP Evidently Black dare not take either the pawn or the rook without -D-D-0PD losing immediately. 34. ... Rh7 35. Rc5+ Kd4 36. Rh5 f3 A D-H-D-D- fatal error. He could still have made some hard struggle by 36. ... P)PD-I-D Bc6 followed soon by ... Bd7 attacking the adverse g-pawn. D-D-D-D- 37. Nb5+ Ke4 38. Nd6+ Kf4 39. N¥b7 K¥g4 40. Rh1 f5 41. Nd6 Re7 42. h7 Re2+ 43. Kf1 R¥c2 44. h8Q 1–0 (New York Tribune, August 23, 1891, with annotations above by Steinitz). After 33. ... Bb7

6. Showalter–Kemeny: 1896 United States Championship Match

147

Showalter had mixed results the following year, when match play took precedence over tournaments. Against Judd, he won 7–4 with 3 draws, avenging his earlier loss against the St. Louis master. Far less fortunate was Showalter’s first match against Lipschütz, announced by Steinitz in his March 20, 1892, New York Tribune column. The men played for $750 a side (Showalter receiving $150 for expenses), the first to win seven games claiming the title. Slightly delayed due to Mrs. Showalter’s illness, play began April 20 and concluded May 23, 1892. The result was a disaster for Showalter, Lipschütz winning 7–1 with 7 draws. Steinitz hailed Lipschütz as American champion and the match a victory for “the Modern School” in chess. In giving the last game on May 25, 1892, Steinitz noted that Showalter asked for a rematch, but that Lipschütz replied “that he could not fix any time for the present, but that he would be willing to give his adversary a chance for revenge within twelve months.” Showalter’s revenge waited three years. Most important for Showalter was the extensive experience he gained playing so many highly skilled opponents. In December 1892, and then after a postponement until April 1893, he played a young Emanuel Lasker, losing 6–2 with 2 draws (one not played). Although he lost this match badly, too, Showalter had the pleasure of playing the following game, which Steinitz called a masterpiece: Jackson Whipps Showalter–Emanuel Lasker, Match Game 5, Kokomo, Indiana, April 1893. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. B¥f6 B¥f6 6. e5 Be7 7. Qg4 The editor brought this key move of attack to the present form of opening first into vogue in a similar position in his match against Senor Vasquez in 1888. 7. ... g6 Radically defective for many reasons. On principle a “hole” on the king’s side is most dangerous in the early part of the opening before minor pieces are exchanged. Furthermore, six Black pawns are now placed on white squares, and the adverse bishop of the same color can be made powerfully active in different directions for forming an attack with the help of the advancing pawns. 7. ... Bf8 would have been non-committal and a good waiting policy, but 7. ... 0–0 appears to us sound, and we believe that with time and patience Black could extricate himself and retain a slight advantage for the ending on account of his two bishops as may perhaps be shown by the following continuation, which, we think, assures a very feasible line of attack at White’s disposal and one very difficult to defend, 7. ... 0–0 8. Nge2 Kh8 9. Nf4 Qd7 10. Nh5 Rg8 followed as soon as possible by ... f6, and with a view of retaking with the pawn (not with the bishop) should White exchange pawns. 8. h4 h5 The g-pawn is much weakened by this advance. As usual the queenside attack was the best defense against the adverse kingside attack. He should have proceeded with 8. ... c5 and if 9. h5 Rg8 10. h¥g6 h¥g6 (P¥P) etc. 9. Qf4 c5 10. d¥c5 B¥c5 11. Nf3 a6 Objectionable on general principles, and moreover there, as all the black pawns are now placed on White squares. Preferable was 11.  ... Nc6, and if 12. Nb5 Qb6 or 11. ... Qb6 12. Na4 Qb4+ (not 12. ... B¥f2+ 13. Ke2! and wins a piece) 13. Q¥b4 B¥b4+ etc. 12. 0–0–0 Qc7 He could not play 12. ... B¥f2, as this would cost a piece by the reply 13. Ng5 threatening mate. 13.  g4 h¥g4 Still he could not take the f-pawn, and an ambush of an exceedingly brilliant combination, conceived by Showalter and detected by Lasker, covers the reason. If 13. ... B¥f2 14. Ng5 Bc5 15. g¥h5 R¥h5 (or 15. ... g¥h5 16. Qf6, followed by Be2) 16. R¥d5 e¥d5 if he declines the capture it will not much improve his prospects, for White after withdrawing his rook will soon enter with one of his knights at e4, with a winning position. 17. N¥d5 Qa5 18. Q¥f7+ Kd8 19. Qg8+ Kd7 20. Qe6+ Kd8 21. Nf7 mate. 14. Q¥g4 Rh5 15. Qg3 Nd7 16. Re1 Bb4 16. ... Be7 was, we believe, a more propitious defense. 17.  Ng5 B¥c3 18.  b¥c3 Nc5 19.  Be2 R¥g5 His best resource, as he could not stand the advance of the h-pawn. 20. h¥g5 Ne4 21. Qe3 Q¥c3 He could not derive satisfaction either from 21. ... Q¥e5 22. Bd3 Bd7 best, for if queen takes either pawn White will answer B¥e4 and after the exchange of queens he will gain the blocking check with

148

EMIL KEMENY

Rh8) 23. B¥e4 d¥e4 24. f4 Qg7 25. Qd4 etc. 22. Q¥c3 N¥c3 23. Rh8+ Ke7 24. Bd3 The starting of a profound and beautiful combination. 24.  ... N¥a2+ 25.  Kb2 Nb4 26. B¥g6 A panorama of winsome ideas opens to the mind’s view. rDlD-D-$ The present position should be compared with the one presented DpD-ipD- later on, after White’s thirty-first move, and it should be borne in that Showalter had to forestall all the intermediate and subpD-DpDpD mind sequent intricacies, either by calculation or position judgment. D-Dp)-)- 26. ... f¥g6 27.  Reh1 Kd7 28.  R1h7+ Kc6 29.  Rg7 a5 -h-D-D-D 30. R¥g6 a4 31. Rgg8 Kc7 He would also come too late with D-DLD-D- 31. ... a3+ 32. Kb3 Kc7 (best) 33. g6 Nc6 (or 33. ... a2 34. Rh1) 34. g7 -IPD-)-D Ne7! 35. Re8 Kd7 36. R¥e7+. 32.  c3 Nd3+ If now 32.  ... a3+ D-D-$-D- 33. Ka1 Nc2+ 34. Ka2. 33. Ka1 N¥e5 34. f4 Nc6 35. g6 Ne7 36. Rg7 A capital finish to a masterpiece of a game. White next After 25. ... Nb4 takes off the knight, followed by g7. 1–0 (New York Tribune, April 23, 1893, with annotations above by Steinitz). Showalter had been exceptionally active in both match and tournament play from 1893 on. He finished tied for third-to-fifth, with Delmar and Lee, behind Emanuel Lasker’s astonishing 11–0 performance at New York 1893. Two months later, in another New York tournament, he finished third, behind Pillsbury and Hodges. At Buffalo in the summer of 1894 he won a small tournament at the NYSCA midsummer meeting, drawing and winning, in that order, his two games with Pillsbury. Earlier in the year he defeated Hodges in a match, only to turn around and lose one to him before going to Buffalo. He won a long match against the visiting Adolph Albin that ran from the end of September to the end of December, by a score of 10–7 with 8 draws. Although he would not be in contention for the February 1895 NYSCA championship crown, Showalter did have the pleasure of assuring that his then-recent nemesis, Hodges, would not win it either: Jackson Whipps Showalter–Albert B. Hodges [C66], New York State Chess Association Championship, Round 4, New York City, February 22, 1895. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 Be7 Notwithstanding the fact that the knight gets into something of an embroilment by 4. ... N¥e4, instead, at this point, we have always preferred that line of defense in this variation of the Spanish Attack. If the Steinitz–Zukertort match of 1886 proved any one thing, it is, to our mind, that 4. ... N¥e4 leads to early equality. The Handbuch distinctly marks the text play as inferior. 5. Nc3 Best, as threatening to win a pawn. 5.  ... d6 6.  d4 Leading to a relatively lively form of the opening; but 6. B¥c6+, forthwith, and then 7. d4, is even more forcible. 6. ... e¥d4 7. N¥d4 Bd7 8. B¥c6 b¥c6 9. b3 Probably a shade stronger than f4. 9. ... 0–0 10. Bb2 Re8 11. Qd3 Bf8 12. Rae1 Rb8 13. Nde2 c5 14. Ng3 Ng4 Apparently premature, although initiating an ingenious counter-attack; 14. ... g6 seems opportune. 15. f4 c4 16. Qf3 Of not 16. Q¥c4 for then 16.  ... Qh4! etc. 16.  ... d5 A little -®-1rDkD course examination will show that this pawn cannot be taken. 17. h3 Nor 0-0lDp0p now 17. e¥d5 because of 17. ... R¥e1 18. R¥e1 Bc5+ when if 19. Kf1 -D-D-D-D (19. Kh1 Nf2+ 20. Kg1 Nd1+ winning the bishop at b2.) 19. ... N¥h2+ D-g-D-D- winning the queen. 17. ... Bc5+ 18. Kh1 d4 19. Nd1 c¥b3 The -Dp0P)nD position is very difficult and complicated at this juncture, but we DPD-DQHP venture to suggest that 19. ... c3 followed by 20. ... Bb5 was stronger PGPD-DPD than the text, if only as Black then menaces a greater variety of D-DN$RDK assaults and White’s strong twenty-first move is neutralized. As it is Black is not only driven back, but loses a pawn besides. 20. a¥b3 After 19. Nd1 Qh4 21. Ne2 Nf6 22. N¥d4 Bg4 23. Qf2 All this is masterly

6. Showalter–Kemeny: 1896 United States Championship Match

149

play on the part of White. 23. ... Qh5 24. e5 B¥d1 25. R¥d1 Ne4 26. Qf3 The coupe juste, practically clinching his superiority to a win 26. ... Q¥f3 If 27. ... Qg6, the knight will be cornered by 27. Rfe1. The game is now practically over, as White remains a pawn ahead. 27. R¥f3 Red8 28. Rdd3 Rb4 29. c4 B¥d4 30. R¥d4 R¥d4 31. B¥d4 h6 The game is virtually over; and Black’s ensuing tactics seem a recognition of the fact. 32.  Re3 c5 33. R¥e4 c¥d4 34. R¥d4 R¥b3 35. Rd8+ Kh7 36. Rd7 a5 37. R¥f7 a4 38. e6 a3 39. Ra7 Kg6 40. g4 R¥h3+ 41. Kg2 Rc3 42. f5+ Kg5 43. R¥g7+ Kf4 44. Ra7 Re3 45.  Kf2 Re4 46.  R¥a3 K¥g4 47.  Re3 1–0 Mr. Showalter has played this game throughout in genuine masterly style (New Orleans Times-Democrat, March 3, 1895). Although Lipschütz, in their rematch at the end of 1895, had a 3–1–1 lead over Showalter after five games, the Kentucky player surged onward, pulling away in the last nine games to win 7–4 with 3 draws. Whatever confusion might have existed regarding the title—the years 1893 and 1894, in particular, are filled with confusion and controversy regarding first Lipschütz and Showalter, and then Hodges—by the end of 1895 general opinion held that Showalter had bested all, save one. Pillsbury, however, who had become the sensation of the chess world earlier in 1895 by winning the grand international tournament at Hastings, was not at present interested in pursuing a national title match. Pillsbury’s absence from national title competition left the field open for other contenders, and Kemeny soon became a challenger. The match between Showalter and Kemeny was arranged on fairly short notice. The New York Tribune for February 2, 1896, indicated Showalter had been called home to Kentucky for some unexplained reason, and also stated negotiations were pending between Kemeny and Showalter for a match, seven games up, for $750 a side. Two weeks later, on February 16, 1896, the Tribune added that only the week before “the match had been the subject of much discussion in metropolitan chess circles. While it is generally admitted that Kemeny is a player of great skill and ingenuity, Showalter is generally looked upon as the favorite.” As we have seen, Showalter’s career even in early 1896, before he traveled to Europe to compete, included a great deal of tournament and match play. Compared to the Kentuckian, Kemeny’s match experience since coming to the United States six years before was small. In all likelihood, many may have wondered whether he would rise to the challenge and give Showalter a match at all. The terms were set. The match and national title would go to the first man winning seven games, draws not counting. Each side put up $750 as stakes, the winner to collect $1,500. (Close to $40,000 in 2012 dollars.) Shipley and no doubt many other of Kemeny’s Philadelphia friends held stakes in the match. Dr. Persifor Frazer, Franklin Club president, served as match referee. The games would be played in Philadelphia, alternating between the Franklin Chess Club and the Union League. The Franklin Chess Club was then housed at the Betz Building, at the northeast corner of Broad Street and South Penn Square. The first match game was played here, as well as all subsequent, odd numbered games. Standing 220 feet tall and including 13 stories, not counting its basement, the Betz Building’s lower stories were of granite, and its upper stories, limestone, the structure itself having a steel frame (Carpentry and Building, January 1893, page 6). Built in the early 1890s, the Betz Building, later called the Lincoln Building, was one of two 13-story structures demolished in 1926 to make way for the Lincoln-Liberty Building, completed in 1932. This later became the Philadelphia National Bank Building, standing today. The Union League, where even-numbered match games were played, was housed in an impressive building at Broad and Samson, two blocks south of the Franklin Chess Club. Philadelphia’s Union Club had formed in November 1862 as a measure of support for the Union during the Civil War. Union Clubs throughout the north formed to raise men and money for the cause. During the Philadelphia Union Club’s first year of existence, membership

150

EMIL KEMENY

climbed from 60 to over 900. The organization finally opened its headquarters, the handsome building where Showalter and Kemeny played, after the war’s conclusion, on the night of May 11, 1865. Years later, on December 23, 1879, the club held a reception for General Grant, after his around the world tour. Reception rooms, a library, a billiard and pool room, a smoking room and a piazza were present, as well as a large reading room on the second floor, housing the more popular newspapers and periodicals of the day. A large banquet room, with valuable paintings and statues, stood at the end of the long center hall, and beyond that, a large ball room where Philadelphia’s social and political elite entertained. Considered first and foremost a men’s club, the Union League offered its members overnight accommodations as well. When first opened, the only game allowed was chess (Philadelphia Inquirer, January 11, 1892). Anyone who believed the Showalter–Kemeny match would not show fighting chess was wonderfully mistaken from the start. Showalter’s willingness to meet Kemeny in the latter’s home city for the championship gave the railroad clerk a chance to reach a national audience for his chess, and he was not going to give Showalter the match easily. In fact, on the third move of the first game Kemeny introduced 3. ... d5 in the Petroff, a move only later played by Marshall, with some success. While both men appeared eager to fight, as with the opening game in many matches, the play was uneven. As the local Philadelphia Inquirer for February 25, 1896, described it, “Showalter, the American chess champion, and Emil Kemeny, the local expert, began their championship match at the rooms of the Franklin Chess Club yesterday. After six hours’ play the game was adjourned until this afternoon at 2:30. Showalter won the toss and in the second move Kemeny turned it into a Petroff defense. At first the play was very even, but later became irregular. Showalter was tired from his long trip and Kemeny seemed nervous. The play was very close throughout. Twice Mr. Showalter missed rare chances of winning out, in the twenty-first and twenty-sixth moves, while Kemeny practically lost the game in his forty-first move. Kemeny sealed his last [forty-fifth] move.” In fact both men played hard, regardless of exhaustion or nerves, and not surprisingly the quality of play was uneven. The Inquirer, however, had published its blurb on the first session just hours after adjournment, and closer examination reveals no win for Showalter on either move twenty-one or twenty-six. Showalter’s move, 26. Rc7, did, however, lead to an unbalanced position that must have fascinated spectators at the Franklin. Kemeny by sacrificing the exchange with 32. ... Rc7 could have forced a line leading to perpetual check, and perhaps that would have been the wisest course for a master playing in his first serious match in years, especially against as aggressive an opponent as Showalter. Instead, he kept the position complicated, refusing on the next move to enter a line allowing Showalter to force the draw. As adjournment approached, both men missed better continuations, and finally Kemeny’s 37. ... Rf8? gave White a significant advantage which he soon increased. Perhaps the most accurate voice reporting on the game was that of Herman Helms, chess editor of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Helms wrote (February 25) that during the first day’s session “Kemeny resorted to the Petroff defense and made use of a novelty on the third move. A spirited game resulted, during the course of which Showalter sacrificed the exchange for a pawn. Later on he picked up two more pawns and at the time of adjournment he stood to win another. The result was that the Kentuckian had a winning game with which to start in today on resumption of play.” The next day Kemeny played very hard, but to no avail. Helms summed it up well when he wrote in the Eagle the next day that “It took Showalter [an additional] forty-one moves to force a win in the first game of his match with Kemeny, the contest lasting in all eighty-six moves. At the time of Monday’s adjournment the Kentuckian had a position that seemed good for a speedy win, but the defense adopted by Kemeny yesterday was so stubborn and ingenious that it required all of Showalter’s skill to prevent a draw. Shortly after resumption

6. Showalter–Kemeny: 1896 United States Championship Match

151

of play queens were exchanged, thus giving Kemeny a chance to operate with his rook. After picking off Showalter’s dangerous passed pawns he gave up this piece for a bishop. Two bishops, of opposite color, remained on the board and, through two pawns to the good, Showalter barely managed to emerge the victor. First blood, therefore, went to the present champion.” Oddly enough, a local paper made the first major blunder in simply reporting the results. The Inquirer on February 26 wrongly published that the game finished with “the local expert winning,” but the chess community soon learned the truth.

Jackson Whipps Showalter–Kemeny [C43] U.S. Championship Match, Game 1 Franklin Chess Club, Philadelphia, February 24, 25, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 d5 4. d¥e5 N¥e4 5. Bd3 f5 6. 0–0 Be7 7. c4 c6 8. Qc2 0–0 9. c¥d5 c¥d5 10. Nc3 N¥c3 11.  Q¥c3 Nc6 12.  a3 Be6 13.  b4 Rc8 14.  Qd2 a6 15. Bb2 Qe8 16.  Rac1 Qf7 17.  Rc2 Rfd8 18.  Rfc1 Ra8 19. Nd4 N¥d4 20. B¥d4 Rac8 21. Bb6 R¥c2 22. Q¥c2 Rf8 23. f4 g5 24. Qd2 g¥f4 25. Q¥f4 Qg6 26. Rc7 [JSH: Sending the rook on a dangerous mission, from which it does not come back alive. The move leads, however, to fascinating complications and the position becomes quite unbalanced, affording more winning chances.] 26. ... Bd8 27.  R¥b7 Bc8 28.  B¥d8 B¥b7 29.  Be7 Rf7 30. Bf6 Bc8 31. Qd4 Qg4 32. Qc3 32. ... f4 [JSH: With the exchange for a pawn, Kemeny may not have been thinking in terms of a draw, but here Black could have played the remarkable 32. ... Rc7! when after 33. Q¥c7 Qd4+ 34. Kf1 (34. Kh1 Qa1+ and mate follows) 34. ... Q¥d3+ 35. Ke1 Qe3+ 36. Kd1 Qd3+ 37. Kc1 Q¥a3+ 38. Kc2 (38. Kd1 Qd3+) 38. ... Qa4+ 39. Kc3 Qa1+ and White cannot escape the checks.] 33. Be2 Qd7 [JSH: Had Kemeny played 33. ... Q¥e2, White could have forced perpetual check with 34. Q¥c8+ Rf8 35. Qe6+ Rf7 36. Qe8+ etc. That Kemeny did not play 33. ... Q¥e2 suggests he was looking for more than a draw. His move, however, is a mistake; White could now obtain a significant advantage.] 34. Bf3 [JSH: Stronger was 34. Bh5! when despite being the exchange up, Black is in trouble. All his pawns are weak and White’s attack is taking on serious proportions. If 34. ... Rf8 the move 35. Qd2 highlights Black’s weaknesses; for example, 35. ... Qf5 36. Bf3 Be6 37. h3.] 34. ... Qa7+ 35. Kf1 Be6 36. Qc6 Qd7 37. Q¥a6 Rf8? [JSH: Black does not have time for this; he should immediately place his queen on the open c-file in order to take advantage of White’s exposed king. 37. ... Qc7! 38. Qe2 (38. Q¥e6 Qc1+ 39. Ke2 Qc2+ and White cannot escape the checks.) 38. ... Qc1+ 39. Qd1 (39. Kf2 Rc7) 39. ... Q¥a3 40. B¥d5 Qa6+ 41. Ke1 B¥d5 42. Q¥d5 Qb7 etc.] 38.  h3 Rc8 39. Kg1 d4 40. Qd3 Bf5 41. Bd5+ Kf8 42. Be4 Be6? [JSH: Now White is winning. A curious alternative line: 42. ... B¥e4 43. Q¥e4 f3 44. Q¥f3 Rc3 45. Qa8+ Rc8 46. Qe4 d3 47. Bg5 d2 48. Qf4+ Ke8 49. Q¥d2 Q¥d2 50. B¥d2 and White had four pawns for the exchange.] 43. B¥h7 Rc7 44. Bg6 Qd5 45. Qd2 [adjourned].

-D-D-®kD DpD-g-Dp pG-DlDqD D-Dp)pD-)-D-!-D )-DLD-D-D-D-DP) D-$-D-IAfter 25. ... Qg6

-DlD-DkD D-D-DrDp pD-D-G-D D-Dp)pD-)-D-DqD )-!LD-D-D-D-DP) D-D-D-IAfter 32. Qc3

-D-D-DkD D-DqDrDp QD-DlG-D D-Dp)-D-)-D-0-D )-D-DLD-D-D-DP) D-D-DKDAfter 37. Q¥a6

152

-D-D-i-D D-®-D-D-D-DlGLD D-Dq)-D-)-0-0-D )-D-D-DP -D-!-DPD D-D-D-IAfter 45. Qd2 (adjourned)

EMIL KEMENY 45. ... Qc4 [sealed] 46. Kh2 Qc1 47. Q¥d4 Rd7 48. Qc5+ Q¥c5 49. b¥c5 Rc7 50. Bg5 Kg7 51. Bh5 R¥c5 52. B¥f4 Rc3 53. Bf3 R¥a3 54. Bg5 Kg6 55. Bf6 R¥f3 [JSH: Kemeny gives back the exchange to reach a bishops of opposite color ending, but three pawns down. Showalter wears him down.] 56. g¥f3 Kf5 57. Kg3 Bf7 58. f4 Bh5 59. Be7 Be8 60. Ba3 Bh5 61. Bc1 Be8 62. Bd2 Bh5 63. Bc1 Be8 64. Kf3 Bh5+ 65. Ke3 Be8 66. Kd4 Ke6 67.  Kc5 Bh5 68.  Kc6 Be8+ 69.  Kc7 Bg6 70. Kd8 Bh5 71. Be3 Bf7 72. Bf2 Bh5 73. Bg3 Bf7 74. f5+ K¥f5 75. Ke7 Ba2 76. h4 Bc4 77. Kf8 Kg6 78. Bf4 Bb3 79. Ke7 Kf5 80. h5 Bc2 81. e6 Bb3 82. h6 Kg6 83. Kd7 Bc2 84.  e7 Ba4+ 85.  Kd8 Kf7 86.  Be5 1–0 [4:45–4:55] (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, February 25, 26, 1896).

The second game must have disappointed Kemeny as much as the first. The Inquirer for February 27, 1896, reported that “Play in the match between Emil Kemeny and Jackson W. Showalter for the chess championship of the United States was resumed yesterday afternoon at the Union League. Mr. Kemeny opened the game with e4, and Mr. Showalter defended with the well-known Russian defense, Petroff, which eventually was turned into the Four Knights Game. In the early game Mr. Kemeny pressed the attack vigorously and on the eighteenth move won the exchange and an advantage in position which should have won the game. Showalter, by very skillful end play and great judgment, forced a draw at the forty-first [sic] move by a perpetual check which Kemeny could not avoid without loss of the game.” Instead of standing even in the match, Kemeny trailed 11 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2.

rD-D-DkD 0-0qDp0p -0nDrg-D DLDpD-D-H-)-DlD D-)-G-DPDP!-)P) DRD-DRIAfter 15. ... Re6

-D-D-D-D ®-0l!p0k p0-D-DqD D-DpD-0-D-)-D-D D-)-D-$PDPD-)-) D-D-$-IAfter 27. Qe7

Kemeny–Jackson Whipps Showalter [C48] U.S. Championship Match, Game 2 Union League, Philadelphia February 26, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Bc5 5. 0–0 0–0 5.  ... d6 is more in line. 6.  N¥e5 This move is generally played before castling. 6. ... Re8 7. Nf3 [0:07] 7. ... N¥e4 [0:08] 8. d4 N¥c3 9. b¥c3 Be7 10. Be3 Bf6 11. Qd2 d5 12. Rab1 Bg4 13.  Ne1 Qd7 14.  Nd3 b6? Overlooking 15. Nb4 which wins the exchange. 15. Nb4 Re6 16. Bf4 [JSH: Even stronger is 16. c4! when the center opens and Black is in serious trouble; if 16. ... a6 then 17. N¥a6 and if 17.  ... d¥c4, 18. d5 ties Black up.] 16. ... a6 17. B¥c6? [JSH: Better is 17. N¥a6, and if 17. ... R¥a6 18. B¥a6 White’s king’s bishop is still on the board, the exchange still in his pocket, and the win a high probability.] 17.  ... R¥c6 18. N¥c6 Q¥c6 19. Rfe1 [1:06] 19. ... Bf5 [1:12] 20. Re3 h6 21. Rbe1 Kh7 22.  Qe2 Ra7 23.  g4 Bd7 24.  g5 B¥g5 25. B¥g5 Qg6 26. Rg3 h¥g5 27. Qe7 Be6? [JSH: A serious error, which, unfortunately for Kemeny, goes overlooked.] 28. R¥g5 [JSH: The Inquirer only remarked that 28. Q¥g5 was “much better” than the move played. Both Kemeny and the Inquirer missed 28. Re5! when Black has no defense against Re¥g5 the next move, as the pawn at f7 must protect Black’s bishop.] 28. ... c5 A

6. Showalter–Kemeny: 1896 United States Championship Match

153

fine move which neutralizes the attack and leaves Black with a drawn in hand. [JSH: Kemeny is still in good shape, but his advantage dwindles away.] 29.  R¥g6 R¥e7 30.  Rg3 [1:56] 30. ... Rc7 1:50] 31.  Re2 a5 32.  f4 g6 33.  Rge3 Kg7 34.  Kf2 Kf6 35.  Re5 b5 36. Ke1 c¥d4 37. c¥d4 Rc4 38. Rd2 Rc3 39. Kf2 Rh3 40. Re3 R¥h2+ 41. Ke1 Rh1+ 42.  Ke2 Rh2+ 43.  Ke1 Rh1+ 44.  Ke2 Rh2+ 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 [2:46–2:50] (Philadelphia Inquirer, February 27, 1896, with annotations above; Brooklyn Daily Eagle, February 27, 1896). When the players returned to the Franklin Chess Club, Showalter again had White. Kemeny quickly fell into an inferior position and found no way to escape. The New York Sun reported on March 1, 1896, that “Showalter and Kemeny met at the Franklin Chess Club in order to contest the third game of their match. Kemeny again selected the Petroff Defense.... Subsequent play, although interesting, let White get the superior game. Kemeny had first to be contented with the isolation of his d-pawn. Later on he lost the exchange and two pawns and the game was practically over after white’s thirty-sixth move, when the contest stood adjourned. In the evening Showalter won after forty-three moves.”

Jackson Whipps Showalter–Kemeny [C43] U.S. Championship Match, Game 3 Franklin Chess Club, Philadelphia, February 29, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 e¥d4 4. e5 Ne4 5. Q¥d4 d5 6. e¥d6 N¥d6 7. Bd3 Nc6 8. Qf4 Be7 9. 0–0 0–0 10. Nc3 Ne8 [At his tenth move Kemeny played ... Ne8, which gave the champion the better game—Philadelphia Inquirer, March 2, 1896.] 11.  Ne4 Bd6 12. N¥d6 Q¥d6 13. Qh4 f5 14. Bc4+ Kh8 15. Ng5 Qg6 16. Bf4 Nd6 17. B¥d6 c¥d6 18. Rad1 h6 19. f4 Bd7 20. Rf3 Rad8 21. Rfd3 Bc8 22. c3 Ne7 23. Re1 Qf6 24. Nf7+ R¥f7 25. Q¥f6 R¥f6 26. R¥e7 Bd7 27. Rg3 g6 28. Bf7 [JSH: Kemeny could have resigned; instead, he reaches adjournment and even returns for the evening session.] 28. ... R¥f7 -Dl®-®-i 29. R¥f7 Kg8 30. Rf6 Be8 31. R¥f5 Bf7 32. Ra5 a6 33. f5 0pD-h-0Re8 34. Kf2 Bc4 35. R¥g6+ Kf7 36. b3 [adjourned] 36. ... -D-0-1-0 Bb5 [sealed] 37. c4 b6 38. Ra3 Bd7 39. g4 h5 40. h3 h¥g4 D-D-DpH41. h¥g4 Bc8 42. R¥d6 Re4 43. Rd8 1–0 [1:58–2:15] (Brooklyn -DLD-)-! Daily Eagle, March 1, 1896; New York Sun, March 1, 1896). D-)RD-DTwo days later, at the Union League, Kemeny finally scored against Showalter. Myron Hazeltine, longtime columnist for the New York Clipper, consolidated some of the annotations he found when publishing the game, and those notes are given here.

P)-D-DP) D-D-$-IAfter 23. ... Qf6

Kemeny–Jackson Whipps Showalter [C48] U.S. Championship Match, Game 4 Union League, Philadelphia, March 2, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 Black’s simplest way to overcome the initiative is 3. ... Bb4 4. N¥e5 B¥c3 5. d¥c3 d6 6. Nf3 N¥e4 etc. Even at the next move we prefer ... Bb4— Reichhelm, Clipper. 4. Bb5 Bc5? 5. N¥e5! N¥e5 6. d4 Qe7 7. d¥c5 Q¥c5 8. Be3 Qe7 The inopportune moves of the queen, also adopted by Brooklyn Chess Club vs. Washington, give White an advantage in position, as they enable him to proceed with a well aimed attack

154

EMIL KEMENY

without running the risk of a counter demonstration—Clipper. 9.  0–0 0–0 10.  Bg5 c6 11. Be2 d6 12. f4 Ned7 12. ... Ng6 was far better—Seguin, Clipper. 13. Qd4 h6 14. Bh4 c5 15. Qd3 Nb6 16. Rad1 g5 Mr. Showalter must have been out of sorts in some way on this occasion, for even thus early there is very little doubt that White rDlD-®kD will win. Still, on this particular move, Bro. Seguin questions 0pD-1p0- whether he had anything really much better—Clipper. [JSH: 16.  ... -h-0-h-0 Re8 17. Q¥d6 Q¥d6 18. R¥d6 Bg4 (18.  ... N¥e4 19. N¥e4 R¥e4 Rd8+ is worse) 19. B¥f6 B¥e2 20. N¥e2 g¥f6 21. Ng3 loses as D-0-D-D- 20. well.] 17. f¥g5 Nh7 18. Q¥d6 Q¥d6 19. R¥d6 h¥g5 20. Bf2 -D-DP)-G Be6 21. B¥c5 Nd7 21. ... Rfd8 22. e5—Clipper. 22. Bd4 Rfd8 D-HQD-D- 23. e5 Ndf8 24.  Ne4 R¥d6 25.  N¥d6 b6 26.  Bh5 Rd8 P)PDLDP) 27. Bc3 [JSH: More forceful is 27. R¥f7 R¥d6 (27. ... B¥f7 28. B¥f7+ D-DRDRI- Kg7 29. e6+ Nf6 30. Nf5+ Kh7 e7) 28. R¥f8+ N¥f8 29. e¥d6.] 27. ... Rd7 28. Ne4 Kg7 29. Be2 Rc7 30. Bd3 Nd7 31. Nd6 Rc5 After 16. Rad1 32. N¥f7 1–0 [1:50–2:10] (New York Clipper, April 18, 1896, with annotations above collected by Hazeltine). Under the match’s conditions, the fifth game should have begun two days later, on Wednesday, March 4. However, the Inquirer for March 5, 1896, reported that “No game was played between Showalter and Kemeny in the championship chess match yesterday. Under the conditions, each player has the privilege of taking a day, and Showalter yesterday took the benefit of this rule. The match will be continued on Saturday.” On that day the two men faced each other at the Franklin Chess Club, and for the first time in the match the spectators were treated to a Ruy Lopez. The New York Sun for March 8 stated, “After an interval of four days Showalter and Kemeny resumed play in their match today, when the fifth game was contested. The Kentuckian having the move in the odd numbered games, he opened the proceedings with 1. e4. Kemeny did not care to play a Russian defense, and on bringing out his queen’s knight on his second turn White selected a Ruy Lopez for the opening, Black selecting the 3. ... Nf6 defense. After 5. ... Qd6, Showalter selected the variation 6. B¥c6 instead of 6. d¥e5 N¥b5 7. a4, thus regaining the piece. Now Kemeny ought to have proceeded, 8. ... Bc5. Lasker, in Common Sense in Chess, maintains that 8. ... Nc5 is a losing continuation. Eventually Black had to give up the d-pawn, when White threatened to continue 22. Rh3 Qf7 23. Nh6 Qg7 or e7 24. f5, winning a piece. Later on White won another pawn and the game stood adjourned after the thirtieth move of White. In the evening session Kemeny had to give up another pawn, and after thirty-nine moves Showalter won. The sixth game is scheduled to be played on Monday.”

rDl1-®-i 0-0pD-Dp -DpDn0-D D-D-DND-D-D-DQD D-G-D-DP)PD-)P) $-D-DRIAfter 17. Bc3

Jackson Whipps Showalter–Kemeny [C67] U.S. Championship Match, Game 5 Franklin Chess Club, Philadelphia March 7, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Nd6 6. B¥c6 b¥c6 7. d¥e5 Nb7 8. Nd4 Nc5 9. Nc3 Ne6 10. Ne4 Be7 11. Nf5 0–0 12. Qg4 Kh8 13. Bd2 f6 14. Bc3 f¥e5 15. B¥e5 Bf6 16. N¥f6 g¥f6 17. Bc3 Rg8? [JSH: Black, already in trouble, understandably attempts to make use of his open lines for attack, but ... Rg8 pushes White’s queen to a strong position. 17.  ... Qe8 might have been better, seeking an exchange of

6. Showalter–Kemeny: 1896 United States Championship Match

155

queens and keeping the rook on f8 to help defend his most glaring weakness, the pawn at f6: 18. Rad1 Qg6 19. f3 (19. Q¥g6 h¥g6 and Black has at least reduced White’s attack and improved his pawn position) 19.  ... Qf7 20. Rfe1 Rb8.] 18.  Qh4 Rg6 19.  f4 Qf8 20.  Kh1? [JSH: Better is 20. Rf3 Ng7 (20. ... Qc5+? 21. Ne3) 21. Rh3.] 20. ... d5 21. Rf3 d4 22. N¥d4 Rh6 23. Qf2 Ng7 24. Re1c5 25. Nb3 Bb7 26. Rg3 Re8 27. R¥e8 Q¥e8 28. N¥c5 Bc6 29.  Rd3 Nf5 30.  Qe1 [adjourned] 30.  ... Qg8 [sealed] 31. Ne4 Qg4? [JSH: Now White flushes out Black’s king.] -D-DqD-i 32. B¥f6+ Kg8 [JSH: Resignation was more sensible but since the 0-0-D-hp evening session had just started, perhaps Kemeny felt obliged to play -DlD-0-® a few more moves for the spectators.] 33.  Qb4 Q¥f4 34.  Rd8+ D-H-D-DKf7 35.  Ng5+ [JSH: 35. Qc4+ mates in six, but there was hardly need for Showalter to calculate such a variation: 35. ... Kg6 36. Rg8+ -D-D-)-D Ng7 37. R¥g7+ Kf5 38. Qc5+! K¥e4 39. Re7+ Qe5 40. Q¥e5 mate.] D-G-D-$35. ... Q¥g5 36.  B¥g5 Re6 37.  Qc4 Ng7 38.  h4 Kg6 P)PD-!P) D-D-D-DK 39. Rg8 1–0 [2:40–2:35] (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March 8, 1896). Kemeny again pulled close when play resumed on Monday, After 28. ... Bc6 March 9, at the Union League. He did so in a finale that must have left spectators breathless. As the Sun described it the next day, -D-$-D-D “Kemeny and Showalter played the sixth game of their chess match 0-0-DkDp in this city today, when the former opened the contest, in which Showalter relied on the now popular Russian defense, Petroff.... -DlD-G-® Beginning with 19. Re2, the Hungarian played beautifully, and, after D-D-DnDgiving up a pawn, he left his bishop to be taken. He next sacrificed -!-DN1-D a rook and on playing 27. Qg6+ he threatened mate on the move D-D-D-DP)PD-DP) and Showalter resigned.” Helms, writing on March 10 in the Eagle, was more lavish in his D-D-D-DK praise: “Kemeny surprised Showalter yesterday with as pretty a comAfter 34. ... Kf7 bination as has yet been brought about in the championship match at Philadelphia, and won the sixth game in such dashing style as will tend to make the Kentuckian hereafter look well to his laurels. Showalter again defended with the Petroff, and the usual four knights opening developed.... His position became much stronger, thanks to Showalter placing his queen out of play at a3, where it remained the greater part of the game. The manner in which Kemeny forced the win, which involved the sacrifice of two pieces, was most interesting, as will be seen from the appended score.”

Kemeny–Jackson Whipps Showalter [C48] U.S. Championship Match, Game 6 Union League, Philadelphia, March 9, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 [A favorite defense since it was so brilliantly adopted by Pillsbury in the Hastings tournament—Chess in Philadelphia.] 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Bc5 4. ... Bb4 is somewhat better. 5. N¥e5 N¥e5 6. d4 Bd6 [This brings a very cramped position: 6. ... B¥d4 at once is preferable, followed by ... Nc6—Clipper.] 7. f4 Nc6 8. e5 Bb4 9. e¥f6 Q¥f6 10. Be3 Qh4+ [Losing time when he had none to spare. 10. ... d5 is best—Chess in Philadelphia.] 11. g3 Qe7 12. Kf2 B¥c3 13. b¥c3 0–0 14. Qf3 Qa3 [Goodbye, Madame! Your room is better than your company on the kingside—to White—Clipper.] 15. Bd2 Ne7 16. f5 f6 17.  Rae1 d5 18.  Bd3 c6 19.  Re2 [White, though with the better game, has been judiciously conservative; but now he takes the reins in hand, and, with a grand burst of

156

rDlD-®kD 0pD-h-0p -DpD-0-D D-DpDPD-D-)-D-D 1-)LDQ)PDPG-I-) D-D-$-DR After 18. ... c6

rD-D-®kD 0pDl$-0p -hpD-0-D D-D-DPDQ -D-)-D-D 1-DpD-)PDPG-I-) D-D-$-D-

EMIL KEMENY speed, rounds the goal to victory—Clipper.] [Mr. Kemeny plays the ending finely and with full mastership—Chess in Philadelphia.] 19. ... Bd7? [JSH: 19. ... Rf7 20. Rhe1 Bd7 21. Bc1 Qd6 22. a4 Nc8 23. a5 b5 was better for Black.] 20. Rhe1 Nc8 [We do not see that 20. ... Rae8 would be much worse—Clipper.] 21. c4! Nb6 22. Qh5 d¥c4 23. Re7 c¥d3?? [Of course, Black cannot afford this, but it seems to be one of those positions which come like a revelation, which only genius discovers, and from which there is no escape—Clipper.] [JSH: Showalter’s blunder allows mate. 23.  ... Rae8 was best, with 24. B¥c4+ allowing a series of exchanges to a level position: 24. ... N¥c4 25. R¥d7 R¥e1 26. K¥e1 N¥d2 etc. The blunder allows Kemeny a dramatic finish.] 24. Bh6 A beautiful stroke, and one which was earned by the previous play [Chess in Philadelphia, page 105]. 24. ... d2 25. R¥g7+ Kh8 26. R¥h7+ K¥h7 27. Qg6+ 1–0. [1:40–1:55] 1–0 (Chess in Philadelphia, page 105; Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March 10, 1896; New York Clipper, April 18, 1896).

Showalter ground Kemeny down in their seventh game, taking two days and a total of nine hours to realize his advantage. After the first day, the Sun reported, March 12, “Although both players varied their tactics in the opening from those adopted on Saturday, a very similar position arose in the middle game stage. Kemeny’s g-file was After 23. ... c¥d3 again opened, and White managed to get his queen’s bishop on the diagonal, threatening the f-pawn, although he brought this bishop into play by means of playing 10. b3 instead of Nc3, Ne4, Bd2, Bc3, etc., moves he made on Saturday. Some pretty fighting for position ensued and finally Kemeny was compelled to offer the exchange of queens. There were now bishops of opposite color on the board, and things might have gone all right for Black but for a highly ingenious rook’s move, namely 29. Rg5, on the part of White. Showalter gained thereby a pawn, and when the game was adjourned, at 8 o’clock, Kemeny’s case looked hopeless. In the evening the latter managed to improve his position, and after 46 moves the game was adjourned to be resumed tomorrow at 2:30 o’clock.” That same day Helms opined in the Eagle, “Clever play by both men brought about a somewhat doubtful situation, in which each player had a rook, besides his bishop, to manipulate. This was the state of affairs when the game was adjourned at 10 o’clock.” Showalter gathered the point the next day, making the score Showalter 4, Kemeny 2 with 1 draw.

rD-D-®kD 0-DlD-hp -Dp1-0-D D-0pD-D-DPD-)-D DPDQD-DPG-H-DP) D-D-$RIAfter 20. ... Ng7

Jackson Whipps Showalter–Kemeny [C67] U.S. Championship Match, Game 7 Franklin Chess Club, Philadelphia March 11, 12, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Be7 6. Qe2 Nd6 7. B¥c6 b¥c6 8. d¥e5 Nb7 9. Nd4 0–0 10. b3 Nc5 11.  Bb2 Ne6 12.  Nf5 f6 13.  N¥e7+ Q¥e7 14. e¥f6 g¥f6 15. Nd2 d5 16. Qe3 c5 17. f4 Qd6 18. Rae1 Bd7 19. c4 c6 20. Qd3 Ng7 21. Ne4! Bf5 22. N¥d6 B¥d3 23. Rf3 d¥c4 24. b¥c4 Rab8? 25. Bc3? [JSH: A nice line for Showalter was 25. R¥d3 R¥b2 26. Rg3! Rd8 27. Ne8 Rb7

6. Showalter–Kemeny: 1896 United States Championship Match

157

28. N¥f6+.] 25. ... Bb1? [JSH: Better is 25. ... Bc2 and now after 26. Rg3 Black has 26. ... Rb1, exchanging the rook that in the game lands on the seventh rank, making Kemeny’s life miserable.] 26. Rg3 Kh8 27. Re7 Nf5 28. N¥f5 B¥f5 29. Rg5! Bd3 30. R¥c5 [JSH: Releasing the tension for too little. Much better is 30. Re6! Rb1+ 31. Kf2 Rf1+ 32. Ke3! Bg6 33. B¥f6+ Kg8 34. R¥c6 and Kemeny -®-D-®-i could have resigned.] 30. ... Rb1+ 31. Kf2 Rc1 32. Bd4 Rc2+ 0-D-$-Dp 33. Kg3 B¥c4 34.  R¥c6 R¥g2+ 35.  K¥g2 Bd5+ 36.  Kf2 -DpD-0-D B¥c6 37. R¥a7 Kg8 38. a4 Rf7? 39. Ra6 Bd7 40. a5 Kg7 D-0-D-$41. Rd6 Bf5 42. a6 Be4 43. Ke3 Bg2 44. f5 Rf8 45. a7 Bh1 46.  Kd3 [adjourned] 46.  ... Bf3 [sealed] 47.  Kc4 Rf7 -DPD-)-D 48. Rd8 Kh6 49.  a8Q B¥a8 50.  R¥a8 Kg5 51.  Ra5 Kg4 D-GlD-D52. Kd3 h5 53.  Ke4 Re7+ 54.  Kd5 Rd7+ 55.  Ke4 Re7+ PD-D-DP) 56. Kd5 Rd7+ 57.  Kc4 Rf7 58.  Rd5 Kf4 59.  Kc5 Ke4 D-D-D-I60. Kd6 Rf8 61.  Bb6 Rc8 62.  Rb5 Kf4 63.  Ke7 Rc6 After 29. ... Bd3 64. Bd4 Kg5 65.  B¥f6+ 1–0 (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March 13, 1896). Knowledgeable readers would not have been surprised by the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Friday, March 13, statement that the next match game “will be played Monday. Play tomorrow was postponed, as Showalter is a member of the American team which begins an international match with the Englishmen that day.” The delay had been anticipated, but the reason Showalter was playing on the team and Kemeny was not had nothing to do with playing strength, and everything to do with birth. Much of American chess had long been focused, through the fall of 1895 and into the next year’s spring, with the coming Anglo-American cable match. The year before a match had been conducted between the British Chess Club and the Manhattan Chess Club. The time for play had been insufficient, and all eight games were declared draws. S. Lipschütz had played for the Manhattan on board one. But for the series inaugurated in 1896 between the British Chess Club and the Brooklyn Chess Club, one leading to decades of play across the Atlantic, the British wanted only “native” players to compete. The inducement for this stipulation was the expensive challenge cup Sir George Newnes was willing to donate for play. The Brooklyn club agreed, and in doing so effectively barred several of the nation’s finest players from competing for their adopted country. Strong native-born players America had—Pillsbury, Showalter, Hodges, John Barry of Boston and Edward Hymes of Newark. But the birth stipulation barred Kemeny, Lipschütz and Steinitz from ever representing their chosen homes. As if the birth-versus-residency controversy was not enough, a challenge also came to Brooklyn’s right to field a team representing the nation. Reichhelm, writing in the name of the Franklin Chess Club’s directors to Josiah T. Marean, president of the Brooklyn Chess Club, demanded Brooklyn “disavow the intention of representing all America” without having sought the concurrence of the nation’s other prominent chess clubs—especially, of course, the Franklin itself. Reichhelm threatened to write Brooklyn’s English counterpart, the British Chess Club, to proclaim Brooklyn’s team was in fact not representative of America but only of certain players and clubs (Eagle, November 9, 1896). The Franklin’s complaints were met with “amusement and not a little indignation” by the match organizers. This exchange spoiled relations between the Franklin and the Brooklyn club, as least for the present. In this mixed atmosphere of disenfranchised players and bickering clubs, the Showalter– Kemeny United States championship match was briefly suspended. One wonders whether the irony of a national title match being interrupted in order for the title holder to play on a national team from which the national challenger was barred crossed anyone’s mind.

158

EMIL KEMENY

Showalter had been expected to take the 6:00 A.M. train from Philadelphia to New York in order to make his appearance. Players were supposed to be present in the playing hall at 9:30 sharp, but when Showalter “had not shown up at 9:45 the match committee made provisions to substitute Herman Helms, the Brooklyn Chess club champion. This arrangement had scarcely been completed, however, when Showalter hurried into the room, and amid general applause took his place beside Pillsbury” (Eagle, March 13, 1896). Showalter faced the strong English master Amos Burn (1848–1925). The American champion early gained an advantage, and after 24 moves stood two pawns to the good. On his fiftyninth move, Showalter announced a mate in eight, and Burn resigned. The Brooklyn-sponsored team won the match in the country’s name, scoring 41 ⁄ 2–31 ⁄ 2. The title match resumed Monday afternoon, March 16. What happened next is recorded in the Eagle for March 17, 1896: “Emil Kemeny of Philadelphia never had, nor will he probably ever have, such an opportunity of winning the chess championship of the United States as he has in his present match with J. W. Showalter. The champion, flushed with victory in the great cable match, seems inclined to continue his experimenting with the Philadelphian, whom, it is known, he holds rather cheaply. Kemeny, however, is a player of great skill and ingenuity, who has improved much since he left New York several years ago, and he may, before the match is over, surprise the Kentuckian. “Yesterday the latter again defended with the 4. ... Bc5 variation of the four knights game which ran into the same lines, by a transposition of moves, as did the fourth game of the match. Showalter improved on his previous play by posting his king’s bishop on d6 instead of f6 and obtained a much better development thereby. Kemeny’s queenside pawns were weak and Showalter again set sail for them and, as happened once before, his queen was led astray. Kemeny profited by the absence of protection to the Black monarch, instituted an energetic attack and before Showalter knew what had happened he was forced to resign. The record to date is Showalter 4, Kemeny 3, drawn 1. Following the score of the eighth game:”

Kemeny–Jackson Whipps Showalter [C48] U.S. Championship Match, Game 8 Union League, Philadelphia, March 16, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Bc5 Mr. Showalter tried this continuation—unsuccessfully then, also—in the fourth game of the match. Unless he seeks variety, even at a risk, it is difficult to understand why he should discard the well-established and sound reply, 4. ... Bb4. 5. N¥e5 0–0 6. 0–0 Re8 7. Nf3 N¥e4 8. d4 N¥c3 9. b¥c3 Be7 Or perhaps, 9. ... Bd6, with a view to ... b6 speedily. 10. Ne1 d5 11. f4 Bd6 12. Qh5 f5 13.  Nf3 g6 14.  Qh3 Bd7 15.  Bd2 Na5 16.  Bd3 Nc4 17. B¥c4 d¥c4 18.  Ne5 Be6 19.  Rae1 c5 20.  Be3 B¥e5 -D-DrDkD 21. d¥e5 Qa5 22. Bf2 Rad8 23. Bh4 Rd2 [With 21. ... Qa5 0pD-D-Dp and 23. ... Rd2, Black went in for capturing pawns on his adversary’s -D-DlDpD queenside, while White proceeded with a fine attack on the kingside, 1-0-)pD- and when the game was adjourned, after thirty moves, Kemeny had -DpD-)-G decidedly the best of the position, in spite of having sacrificed two D-)-D-DQ pawns for the attack—Sun.] 24. Rd1! This and the following surPDP®-DP) render of the a-pawn, also, are most excellently judged by Mr. D-D-$RI- Kemeny. The attack is well worth the sacrifices. 24.  ... R¥c2 25. Rf3 Q¥a2? 26. Bf6 Rd2 27. R¥d2 Q¥d2 28. Qh6 Qd7? After 23. ... Rd2 [JSH: Black needed to force back White’s rook out of the kingside

6. Showalter–Kemeny: 1896 United States Championship Match

159

attack: 28. ... Qd1+ 29. Rf1 and only now 29. ... Qd7; the text move allows White time Black cannot afford to give him.] 29.  h4 Qf7 30.  Rg3 Re7 He has the full equivalent of the exchange in his pawns plus, if he could but induce White to exchange off his formidable bishop at f6 [adjourned]. 31. h5! Far better, of course, than breaking up his strong attack by 31. B¥e7, instead. 31. ... Qf8 32. Qg5 [It -D-D-DkD was pointed out after the game that White, apparently, might prob- 0pD-®qDp ably have won more speedily here by 32. R¥g6+! h¥g6 33. Q¥g6+ -D-DlGp! Rg7 34. B¥g7 Q¥g7 This was about the best and only continuation D-0-)pDat Black’s disposal. If for instance 35. Q¥e6+ Qf7 36. Q¥f7+ K¥f7 -DpD-)-) 37. h6! Kg6 38. e6! and wins. But the text play is good and sound enough for all winning purposes. If 34. ... Qf7, then 35. Qh6 Qe8 D-)-D-$36. Bf6 Qd7 37. Qg6+ Kf8 38. h6 Qd1+ 39. Kh2 Bf7 40. h7 B¥g6 -D-D-DPD 41. h8Q+ Kf7 42. Qg7+ Ke6 43. Qe7+ Kd5 44. Qd7+ and wins the D-D-D-Iqueen—Sun.] 32.  ... Rg7 33.  B¥g7 K¥g7 34.  h¥g6 h6 After 30. ... Re7 35. Qh4 b5 36.  Qh5 b4 37.  Rh3 Kh8 38.  Qg5 Kg8 39. R¥h6 Aside from the question of forces, Black can neither stop nor impede the advance of the adverse g-pawn without obviously fatal loss. 1–0 (Minneapolis Journal, April 18, 1896, taking score and notes from the New Orleans Times-Democrat; Sun = New York Sun, March 17, 1896; Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March 17, 1896). Helms wrote of the ninth game on March 19 in the Eagle that following another Ruy Lopez, “Both men played well, and there were no special features except that on his fifteenth move Kemeny offered a bishop as bait, the capture of which would entail the loss of the queen. Of course, Showalter saw this and refrained. Heavy exchanges followed and the players remained with knight, bishop and equal pawns apiece. The balance of the time was expended in jockeying for position. When adjournment was had at night the Kentuckian had, if anything, a bit the better game, being in position to break through on the queenside and weaken the Black d-pawn.” Kemeny weakened in the endgame, and Showalter increased his lead to 5–3 with 1 draw.

Jackson Whipps Showalter–Kemeny [C67] U.S. Championship Match, Game 9 Franklin Chess Club, Philadelphia, March 18, 19, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Be7 6. Qe2 Nd6 7. B¥c6 b¥c6 8.  d¥e5 Nb7 9.  Nd4 0–0 10.  b3 f6 11.  e6 c5 12.  e¥d7 c¥d4 13.  d¥c8Q R¥c8 14. Bb2 c5 15. Nd2 Qd5 16. Rad1 [JSH: Kemeny would not have minded 16. Q¥e7? Rfe8.] 16. ... Rfe8 17. Nf3 Bd6 18. Qb5 Qf7 19. Rfe1 Be5? [JSH: 19.  ... R¥e1+ 20. R¥e1 Bb8 21. Qd3 was better for Black.] -DrDrDkD 20. Ba3 Nd6 21.  Qa6 [JSH: 21. N¥e5 N¥b5 22. N¥f7 R¥e1+ 23. R¥e1 K¥f7 would suit Black.] 21. ... Qb7 22. Q¥b7 N¥b7 0nD-Dq0p 23. Kf1 Bd6 24. R¥e8+ R¥e8 25. Re1 Kf7 26. R¥e8 K¥e8 -D-g-0-D 27. Nd2 Kd7 28.  Ke2 Kc6 29.  h4 Kd5 30.  Kd3 Nd8 DQ0-D-D31. Ne4 Ne6 [adjourned] 32. g3 [sealed] 32. ... Be7 33. f4 f5 -D-0-D-D 34. c4+ Kc6 35. Nd2 Bd6 36. Nf3 h6 37. h5 Be7 38. Ne5+ DPD-DNDKc7 39.  Bc1 Bf6 40.  Nf3 Nd8 41.  a3 a5 42.  Bd2 Nc6 PGPD-)P) 43. Ne1 Kd7 44. Nc2 Be7 45. Be1 Ke6 [adjourned] 46. Bd2 D-DR$-I[sealed] 46. ... Kd7 47. Ne1 Bf6 48. Ke2 Kc7 49. Nd3 Kb6 50. Kf3 Nd8 51.  Ne5 B¥e5 [JSH: An unfortunate decision, as After 19. Rfe1

160

EMIL KEMENY

-D-h-D-D D-D-D-0-i-D-g-0 0-0-HpDP -DP0-)-D )PD-DK)-D-G-D-D D-D-D-D-

the bishop is valuable in protecting Black’s pawns, almost all on black squares, and as the remainder of the game shows.] 52. f¥e5 Ne6 53.  g4 Ng5+ 54.  Kf4 f¥g4 55.  K¥g4 Ne4 56.  Bf4 Ng5 57. Kf5 d3 58. Kg6 Kc6 59. Bd2 a4 60. b¥a4 Nf3 61. e6 Kd6 62.  Kf7 Ne5+ 63.  K¥g7 K¥e6 64.  a5 N¥c4 65. a6 Kd5 66. B¥h6 Kc6 67. Bf4 Nd6 68. Kg6 c4 69. a7 Kb7 70. h6 1–0 [4:35–4:35] (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 20, 1896).

The tenth game was a marathon. And a nightmare for the challenger. Kemeny fought against a bad position almost the entire game. On March 24, the Sun wrote, “The tenth game of the chess match between Showalter and Kemeny began this afternoon at the Union League, it being Kemeny’s turn to open the contest. The Hungarian selected a Queen’s Gambit, but which the Kentuckian declined to accept. The latter played the first three moves as against Burn in the cable chess match, but then he played 4. ... Nd7 instead of 4. ... Bd6, as essayed against the Briton. This gave today’s game a different aspect altogether. White, contrary to the general development in this close opening, at once pushed his e-pawn, which was not a wise thing to do, as he lost valuable time, being almost obliged to replace the queen’s knight on c3 after the exchange of pawns, following 5. e4. Shortly afterward Showalter got in some fine work with both his knights and the king’s bishop, the upshot being that he gained a pawn at his seventeenth move. It appears that Kemeny could not prevent the loss of a pawn in that position, for if 17. Qf3 Bf5 18. Nd4 N¥e3 19. N¥f5 N¥f5+ winning a pawn with a very fine position. Now a series of exchanges followed, and when the game was adjourned at 8 o’clock, Showalter had still the pawn to the good. White had scarcely any other play at his disposal at the evening session but to offer the exchange of queens. After sixty-four moves the game was adjourned, to be resumed on Monday.” Somehow, Kemeny managed to keep playing and a draw finally was agreed after 84 moves. After 51. Ne5

Kemeny–Jackson Whipps Showalter [D31] U.S. Championship Match, Game 10 Union League, Philadelphia, March 21, 23, 1896 1. d4 [JSH: The first and only excursion during the match to an opening on the other side of the board.] 1. ... d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. Nf3 Nd7 5. e4 d¥e4 6. N¥e4 Ngf6 7.  Nc3 Bd6 8.  Bd3 0–0 9.  0–0 e5 10.  Re1 e¥d4 11.  N¥d4 Ne5 12.  Bf1 Neg4 13. g3 Bc5 14. Be3 N¥e3 15. f¥e3 Ng4 16. Nc2 Qg5 Ne4 N¥e3 18. N¥e3 B¥e3+ 19. Kh1 Qh6 20. Qd3 Bb6 rDlD-®kD 17. 21. Rad1 Bg4 22. Be2 Rad8 23. Qc2 R¥d1 24. B¥d1 Ba5 0pD-Dp0p 25. Rf1 B¥d1 26.  Q¥d1 Qe6 27.  Rf4 f5 28.  Nc5 Qe7 -DpD-D-D 29. Nd3 Bc7 30.  Rf3 g6 31.  Qe1 Q¥e1+ 32.  N¥e1 Re8 D-g-D-1- 33. Nd3 Re2 34.  Rf2 Re3 35.  Rd2 Re4 36.  Nc5 R¥c4 -DPD-DnD 37. N¥b7 Bb6 38.  Nd8 Kg7 39.  Ne6+ Kf6 40.  Nf8 h6 D-H-)-)- 41. Nd7+ Ke6 42. Nf8+ Kf7 43. Nd7 Ke6 44. Nf8+ Kf7 P)ND-D-) 45. Nd7 Ke6 46. Nf8+ Kf6 47. Nd7+ Ke6 48. Nf8+ Kf7 $-DQ$LI- 49. Nd7 Ke6 50.  Nf8+ Kf7 51.  Nd7 Bc7 52.  b3 Rc3 53. b4 Rc4 54. a3 Rc3 55. a4 Rc4 56. Nc5 Bb6 57. Na6 Ke6 58.  a5 Bd4 59.  Rd1 g5 60.  Re1+ Kd7 61.  Rf1 Ke6 After 16. ... Qg5

6. Showalter–Kemeny: 1896 United States Championship Match

161

62. Re1+ Kd5 63. Nc7+ Kd6 64. Na6 Rc2 [adjourned] 65. Rd1 [sealed] 65. ... Ke5 66. Re1+ Kf6 67. Nc7 f4 68. g¥f4 g¥f4 69. b5 c¥b5 70. N¥b5 Be3 71. Na3 Rc1 72. R¥c1 B¥c1 73. Nb5 Be3 74. Kg2 Kg5 75. h3 Kh4 76. a6 Bc5 77. Nc3 f3+ 78. K¥f3 K¥h3 79. Ne4 Be7 80. Nf2+ Kh4 81. Ne4 Bb4 82. Kg2 Kg4 83. Nf6+ Kf5 84. Nd5 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March 24, 1896). Despite having several days off, Kemeny tired dramatically by -D-D-D-D the end of the eleventh game. The match had been hard fought 0-D-D-Dthroughout, and the Hungarian’s suspect stamina now ruined what- PD-D-D-0 ever chances he might have had to pull off an upset. The Sun for D-D-D-DMarch 29 wrote, “After five days’ rest, Showalter and Kemeny -g-DND-i resumed play in their chess match at the Franklin Chess Club this D-D-DKDafternoon, when the former again opened the contest, the eleventh -D-D-D-D of the series, with a Ruy Lopez.... Just before the adjournment at 8 D-D-D-Do’clock Showalter won another pawn, the game having arrived at a very critical stage. Showalter was obliged to offer the exchange of After 81. ... Bb4 queens, thereby losing a pawn, and after thirty-six moves it looked as if the game would end in a draw, owing to the fact that bishops of opposite colors were left on the board. However, Kemeny made a blunder and lost the game after forty-three moves.” Helms in the Eagle noted that Kemeny’s misstep cost him a rook. With his lead now 6 to 3, Showalter needed only one more win to end the match.

Jackson Whipps Showalter–Kemeny [C67] U.S. Championship Match, Game 11 Franklin Chess Club, Philadelphia, March 28, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Be7 6. Qe2 Nd6 7. B¥c6 b¥c6 8. d¥e5 Nb7 9. b3 0–0 10. Bb2 f6 11. Qc4+ Kh8 12. Nbd2 f¥e5 13. N¥e5 Nd6 14. Qg4 Bf6 15. Rae1 Nf7 16. N¥f7+ R¥f7 17. Qc4 Rf8 18. Ba3 d6 [18. ... Re8 19. Qf7 Ba6 20. c4 d5 21. R¥e8+ Q¥e8 22. Q¥c7—New York Sun, March 29, 1896.] 19.  Q¥c6 Rb8 20.  Qc4 Bb7 21.  Qd3 rDl1-®-i Rf7 22. Re3 Be5 23. Rh3 h6 24. Bb2 Qe7 25. Nf3 Be4 0-0pD-0p 26. Qd1 Rbf8 27. N¥e5 Q¥e5 28. Rg3 Qc5 29. Qg4 Bf5 -DpD-g-D 30. B¥g7+ Kh7 31. Qd4 Q¥d4 32. B¥d4 B¥c2 33. Rc1 Be4 D-D-D-D34. b4 Rb8 35. a3 a6 36. Re1 Bf5 37. Rge3 Bd7 38. h3 Rb5 39. Re7 Kg6 40. R1e3 Rbf5 41. h4 R¥e7? [JSH: A blun- -DQD-D-D der, losing; Black had 41.  ... R¥f2 GPD-D-D43. Rg3+ Kh5.] 42.  R¥e7 Rf7? [JSH: PDPH-)P) -D-D-D-D Compounding the blunder; relatively D-D-$RID-0l$rD- better was 42.  ... Rd5 43. R¥d7 R¥d4 After 18. Ba3 pD-0-Dk0 44. R¥c7, although the game is as good as over anyway. Showalter’s next move D-D-DrD- ends matters abruptly.] 43. h5+ 1–0 (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March -)-G-D-) 29, 1896).

)-D-$-D-D-D-)PD D-D-D-IAfter 41. h4

The first 11 match games had seen Showalter break Kemeny’s serve only twice—draws in games one and ten. In the remaining nine, White won nine to zero. The match become a wide-open slugfest, the kind of open chess in which Showalter excelled. That

162

EMIL KEMENY

Kemeny was also comfortable in such positions, accounts for his willingness to enter them, and thus in part for his loss. In game 12, Showalter again managed to keep Kemeny from scoring, and in the end Kemeny wisely took a draw through repetition of moves.

Kemeny–Jackson Whipps Showalter [C48] U.S. Championship Match, Game 12 Union League, Philadelphia, March 30, 31, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Bc5 5. N¥e5 N¥e5 6. d4 Bd6 7. f4 Nc6 8. e5 Bb4 9. e¥f6 Q¥f6 10. Be3 d5 11. 0–0 B¥c3 12. b¥c3 Bf5 13. Rb1 0– 0 14. Bd3 b6 15. Qh5 g6 16. Qg5 Q¥g5 17. f¥g5 B¥d3 18. c¥d3 Rfe8 19. Rf3 Re7 20. Kf2 Rae8 21. Rb5 Rd7 22. g4 Nd8 23. Rb1 Ne6 24. Re1 Rde7 25. Bc1 c5 26. d¥c5 b¥c5 27. Re5 d4 28. c4 Rb7 29. Kg3 Rb1 30. Rf1 Reb8 31. Ree1 Ra1 32. Bf4 R¥e1 33. R¥e1 Rb2 34. h4 R¥a2 35. Rb1 Kf8 36. Kf3 N¥f4 37. K¥f4 Re2 38.  Rb5 Re3 39.  R¥c5 R¥d3 40.  Rc8+ Ke7 41.  Rc7+ Ke6 42.  R¥a7 Rd1 43. Ra6+ Kd7 44. Ke4 d3 45. Ke3 Rh1 46. K¥d3 R¥h4 47. Ra7+ Ke6 48. Ra6+ [adjourned] 48. ... Ke7 [sealed] 49. Ra7+ Ke6 50. Ra6+ Ke7 51. Ra7+ Ke6 52. Ra6+ Ke7 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, -D-DrDkD April 1, 1896).

0-D-®pDp -D-DnDpD D-0pD-)-D-D-DPD D-)PDRDPD-D-I-) D-G-$-DAfter 26. ... b¥c5

-D-D-D-D D-D-DpDp RD-DkDpD D-D-D-)-DPD-DP® D-DKD-D-D-D-D-D D-D-D-D-

For this match, the unique occurred in game 13. Kemeny, on the edge of overall defeat and playing Black, won his fourth match point. It was the only time frequenters of the Franklin, and not the Union League, saw him win. And it was Black’s only win in the match. Helms anticipated the finish at adjournment, describing the matter in the Eagle for April 2: “Unless the unexpected happens this afternoon Kemeny will win the thirteenth game of his match with Showalter, making the score as follows: Showalter, 6; Kemeny, 4; drawn, 3. The whole match is another illustration of the necessity of untiring vigilance. It was always considered a foregone conclusion, except in Philadelphia, that Showalter would win the match offhand, and the Kentuckian has had chances enough to do so, but these he has neglected.” After the tenth move, Helms added, “Showalter allowed himself to be outplayed and Kemeny with a pawn to the good has much the better of it and should win.” All the Eagle added the next day, in publishing the full score, was that “By good play Kemeny defeated Showalter in the thirteenth game of the chess match now in progress at the Franklin Chess Club, Philadelphia, last night. When the game was adjourned on the day previous Kemeny had the better position and won after fifty-one moves.”

After 48. Ra6+

Jackson Whipps Showalter–Kemeny [C67] U.S. Championship Match, Game 13 Franklin Chess Club, Philadelphia, April 1, 2, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Be7 6. Qe2 Nd6 7. B¥c6 b¥c6 8. d¥e5 Nb7 9. b3 0–0 10. Bb2 d5 11. Nbd2 Nc5 12. Nd4 Bd7 13. f4 f5 14. Rad1 Ne6 15. Kh1 N¥d4 16. B¥d4 c5 17. Bb2 Qe8 18. Rf3 Be6 19. Rg3 Rb8

6. Showalter–Kemeny: 1896 United States Championship Match 20. Nf3 Rb4 21.  c4 d¥c4 22.  Bc3 Rb6 23.  b¥c4 Qa4 24. Nd2 Rd8 25.  Rc1 Q¥a2 26.  Qd1 Ra6 27.  h3 Qa4 28. Qh5 Qe8 29. Q¥e8+ R¥e8 30. Ra1 R¥a1+ 31. B¥a1 Rd8 32. Bc3 h6 33. Re3 g5 34. g3 Kf7 35. Kg2 Bc8 36. Kf2 Ke6 37.  Ke2 g¥f4 38.  g¥f4 Rg8 39.  Ba5 Rg2+ 40.  Kd3 Bb7 41.  B¥c7 Rf2 42.  Bb8 R¥f4 43.  B¥a7 Rf2 44.  Re1 Rh2 45. Rb1 R¥h3+ [adjourned] 46. Kc2 [sealed] 46. ... Be4+ 47. N¥e4 f¥e4 48. Bb8 Rh2+ 49. Kc3 Bg5 50. Rb6+ Kf5 51. e6?? [JSH: Winning a rook, but not Black’s. This ends the game immediately.] 51.  ... Bf6+ [JSH: Followed, of course, by 52. Kb3 Rb2+ winning White’s rook.] 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, Philadelphia, April 3, 1896).

163

-D-Dq®kD 0-0-g-0p -®-DlD-D D-0-)pD-DpD-)-D DPG-DN$PD-DQDP) D-DRD-DK After 23. ... Rb6

-G-D-D-D

The fourteenth game ended in a draw, as Kemeny could make D-D-D-Dno headway. Helms wrote that Kemeny “had the move and opened -$-D-D-0 hostilities with the four knights’ game. For variety he castled on his D-0-)kgseventh turn, reserving f4 until the next move, his opponent meanwhile likewise placed his king in safety. Showalter retreated his bishop -DPDpD-D to e7 and developed it again at f6, obtaining thereby an equal posi- D-I-D-Dtion. Kemeny then made a demonstration on the kingside, but this, -D-D-D-® being well parried by the Kentuckian, resulted only in heavy D-D-D-Dexchanges. When the intermission occurred a draw seemed to be the After 50. ... Kf5 legitimate outcome of the game. Each player had a rook and bishop and four pawns, with the bishops of opposite color. Kemeny, with a passed e-pawn to work with, tried hard for a win, but to no purpose,” and the game was drawn that evening after one move.

Kemeny–Jackson Whipps Showalter [C48] U.S. Championship Match, Game 14 Union League, Philadelphia, April 4, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bc5 5. N¥e5 N¥e5 6. d4 Bd6 7. 0–0 0–0 8. f4 Nc6 9.  e5 Be7 10.  e¥f6 B¥f6 11. Ne2 d5 12.  f5 Bd7 13.  B¥c6 -DrD-DkD B¥c6 14.  Ng3 Re8 15.  a4 b5 D-DRD-0p 16. Qg4 [JSH: Sacrificing a pawn to see -G-D-D-D if he can build up some kind of attack, D-0-)-Dbut the position really doesn’t warrant -D-0-D-D it.] 16.  ... b¥a4 17.  Bh6 Kh8 D-D-D-D18. Bd2 Rb8 19. Bc3 Bb5 20. Rfe1 After 15. ... b5 Qd6 21. Nh5 Bd7 22. N¥f6 Q¥f6 -)lD-DP) 23. Re5 R¥e5 24.  d¥e5 Q¥f5 D-D-D-I25. Q¥f5 B¥f5 26. R¥a4 B¥c2 27. R¥a7 Rc8 28. Ba5 c5 Final position 29. R¥f7 Kg8 30. Rd7 d4 31. Bb6 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, April 5, 1896).

rD-1rDkD 0-0-Dp0p -DlD-g-D DpDpDPDPD-)-D-D D-D-D-H-)PD-DP) $-GQDRI-

The fifteenth game ended the match. As the New York Sun for April 7, 1896, stated, “Showalter beat Kemeny in the fifteenth game of the chess match today, and as he thereby reg-

164

EMIL KEMENY

istered his seventh win, he won the match by a score of seven to four, four games ending in draws. The last game of the match, a Ruy Lopez, was played up to the thirteenth move exactly like the thirteenth of the series. Showalter proceeded on somewhat different lines of attack, namely, by pushing the e-pawn to e6. He next initiated an attack by means of 15. g4. Shortly after the Kentuckian brought his rooks and knight into play and so cleverly as to win the exchange. Meanwhile Kemeny did the best he could under the circumstances, but when mate was threatening he resigned at his thirty-third turn.”

Jackson Whipps Showalter–Kemeny [C67] U.S. Championship Match, Game 15 Franklin Chess Club, Philadelphia, April 6, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Be7 6. Qe2 Nd6 7. B¥c6 b¥c6 8. d¥e5 Nb7 9. b3 This continuation of the opening—which has been wholly “book” so far—seems, if anything, an improvement on the more usual moves, 9. Nc3 or 9. Nd4, either yielding White simply an equality. 9. ... 0–0 10. Bb2 d5 11. Nbd2 Nc5 12. Nd4 Bd7 13. f4! f5 If this be the only mode of stopping the menaced advance of the adverse f-pawn, it would certainly seem to indicate that Black’s conduct of the variation involves somewhere a grave if not vital defect. Of course, if, instead, 13. ... Ne6 then 14. f5 is even more effective. 14. e6 Be8 15. g4 f¥g4 16. Q¥g4 Bf6 17. Rae1 Ne4 His position, already inferior, is made markedly worse by this miscalculation. The possibility of rD-1l®kD White’s fine nineteenth move seems to have been wholly overlooked. 0-0-D-0p But we confess we see no satisfactory response. 18.  N¥e4 d¥e4 19. Nf5! Which forces at least the exchange, and practically the -DpDPg-D game. 19. ... Bg6 20. e7 B¥e7 21. N¥g7! Bf6 22. Ne6 Qe7 D-hpD-D- 23. N¥f8 K¥f8 24. f5 Bf7 25. B¥f6 Q¥f6 26. R¥e4 Rd8 -D-H-)QD 27. Qh4 Qd6 28. f6 Qc5+ 29. Kh1 Bh5 Obviously, not 29. ... DPD-D-D- Bd5 instead, for after 30. Qh6+ White would force mate. 30. Qf4 PGPH-D-) Rd7 31. Qh6+ Kg8 32. f7+ B¥f7 33. Rg1+ And Black resigns D-D-$RI- the game and the match, for after 33. Rg1+ Bg6 34. R¥g6+ h¥g6 35. Q¥g6+ Rg7 36. Re8+ Qf8 37. R¥f8+ K¥f8 38. Q¥c6 and wins. After 17. Rae1 1–0 (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, April 7, 1896; Weekly News and Courier [Charleston, SC], April 22, 1896, with above annotations).

-D-®-i-D 0-0-DlDp -DpD-)-D D-1-D-D-D-DRD-! DPD-D-DPDPD-D-) D-D-DRDK

Although most had expected Kemeny to lose, the final score, 7 to 4 with 4 draws, certainly was a respectable showing. Both men missed opportunities, but both men seized them as well. Showalter played several games with Herman Voigt following the match, but was soon called home to Kentucky. The next month he traveled to Boston, where he played the young John F. Barry (1873–1940), 13 years Kemeny’s junior, in another title match under the same terms as those with the Hungarian. Barry, a native-born American who had just played successfully on fourth board for the American team After 29. Kh1 in the Anglo-American cable match, lost against Showalter as well, by a score of 7–2 with 4 draws. The close showing of Kemeny and Barry against Showalter, playing the champion under nearly identical terms and only a month apart, is as close a chess comparison as one can get for the times regarding playing strength. That Kemeny finished somewhat better against

6. Showalter–Kemeny: 1896 United States Championship Match

165

Showalter than did Barry is not surprising, given the former’s experience and ability. Between 1896 and 1911, Barry played in all but one of the 13 international cable matches (he missed 1908), holding down fourth board on three occasions, third board on four, and second board no fewer than five times. His final record was 6–3 with 3 draws, although in his first five appearances, between 1896 and 1900, the time more relevant here, he scored a spectacular 5– 0. One can only imagine that Kemeny, had he been permitted to play for his adopted country, would have had similar or perhaps better results. Little of Kemeny’s chess play is recorded for the rest of the year. On May 30 (in that age, the date was always Memorial Day), Kemeny played his old New York opponent on board four in the annual Manhattan–Franklin club match. These matches ran almost continuously for 22 years, through 1916, and although the Manhattan came to take a commanding lead over the Franklin, in the early years the two clubs played one another quite closely. The inaugural event, in 1895, was conducted by telegraph, and had seen the Franklin win 71 ⁄ 2–61 ⁄ 2 despite Kemeny’s absence in Europe. The Manhattan’s team in 1896 had its revenge, traveling to Philadelphia and defeating the Franklin by an identical score. Kemeny scored one of the Franklin’s four wins. He developed a space advantage out of the opening over his old nemesis, Hanham, and by move 25 had a beautiful, centralized knight against his opponent’s much weaker bishop. Hanham locked the kingside and center, but Kemeny had all the play on the queenside. The score, unfortunately, is corrupt following White’s forty-third move. The game appeared in the Ledger, but without annotations. Whoever inserted it (possibly Martinez) said it was “one of the best contested games,” taking “nearly six hours play.” Board order in this match did not indicate relative playing strength. Players were matched according to perceived strength, but in no particular board order.

Kemeny–J. Moore Hanham [A85] Franklin Chess Club–Manhattan Chess Club Memorial Day Match, Board 4, Philadelphia, May 30, 1896 1. d4 f5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 d5 5. e3 c6 6. Be2 Be7 7. 0–0 0–0 8. Bd2 Bd6 9. Rc1 Nbd7 10. Ng5 Re8 11. f4 Nf8 12. Nf3 Re7 13. Ne5 g6 14. Be1 Rg7 15.  Bh4 h6 16.  B¥f6 Q¥f6 17.  Bf3 g5 18.  g3 Ng6 19. Bg2 Ne7 20. Qh5 B¥e5 21. d¥e5 Qg6 22. Q¥g6 N¥g6 rD-D-hkD 23. Ne2 Bd7 24.  c¥d5 c¥d5 25.  Nd4 Nf8 26.  Rc3 a6 0pDlD-®27. Rfc1 Rb8 28. b3 g4 29. Kf2 Re7 30. Ke2 Kf7 31. Kd2 -D-DpD-0 Ke8 32.  Rc5 h5 33.  b4 h4 34.  Ke2 h3 35.  Bf1 Kd8 D-Dp)p036. Kd2 Re8 37. b5 a¥b5 38. B¥b5 B¥b5? 39. R¥b5 Ra8 40. Rc2 Re7 41. Rcb2 Ra6 42. Rb6 R¥b6 43. R¥b6 [JSH: -D-H-)-D And White won on move 67.] 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, June D-D-)-)P)-D-DL) 1, 1896).

D-$-DRI-

Little remains from the second half of the year. The summer, After 25. ... Nf8 as was often the case in urban areas during the years prior to air conditioning, brought something of a halt to club play. Kemeny was on hand later to open the Franklin’s 1896-97 season, however. According to the Ledger, “At the first club night at the Franklin Chess Club on Saturday, Mr. Emil Kemeny gave a simultaneous exhibition against seventeen competitors, winning fifteen games and drawing two. One of the shortest and best of the games played was the following.”

166

EMIL KEMENY

Kemeny–Amateur [C55] Franklin Chess Club Simultaneous (1 of 17) November 28, 1896

rDl1n®kD 0p0php0p -g-D-D-D D-DP)-D-DLD-D-D D-D-DNDP)-D-)P) $NGQDRIAfter 9. ... Ne8

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 e¥d4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. c3 Nf6 6. 0–0 0–0 7. c¥d4 Bb6 8. d5 Ne7 9. e5 Ne8 10. d6 Ng6 11. Nc3 [JSH: Overlooking the deadly 11. Bg5.] 11. ... Nh4 12. Ng5 g6 13. N¥f7 R¥f7 14. Qd5 N¥d6 15. e¥d6 Qf8 16. Bh6 c6 17. Qg5 Qd8 18. Rae1 White threatens Q¥d8+ followed by Re8 mate, and Black has no valid defense. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, November 30, 1896, page 19). Finally, Hazeltine saw fit to include one of Kemeny’s minor efforts as entertainment for his Clipper readers in his first issue after Christmas. He remarked, “We confess to a lively pleasure in dropping for a moment match and tournament games, and giving an American game in casual practice at the Franklin Chess Club.”

Kemeny–Amateur [C44] Franklin Chess Club Casual Play, 1896 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 f5 4. d4 f¥e4 5. N¥e5 N¥e5 6. d¥e5 d6? Loses a pawn. Should play ... Qe7 first. 7. e¥d6 c¥d6 8. Qa4+ Kf7 9. Q¥e4 Nf6 10. Bg5 Be6 11. B¥f6 Q¥f6 12.  Be2 d5 13.  Qd3 Bc5 14.  0–0 Rhf8 15. Nd2 Kg8 16. Nf3 Rad8 17. Nd4 Kh8 18. Kh1 Bc8 19. f4 -D-®-®-i Qh6 20.  Rad1 Bd6 21.  g3 Bh3 22.  Rf2 Bc5 23.  Bf3 g5 0pD-D-1p 24. f¥g5 Q¥g5 25.  Re2 Qf6 26.  Re3 Bf5 27.  Qe2 Bg6 -D-DRDlD Re6 Qg7 29. R¥g6! Q¥g6 30. Ne6 Rde8 If 30. ... Rfe8, D-gpD-D- 28. then 31. Qe5+ followed by B¥d5, with a winning attack. 31. N¥f8 -D-H-D-D B¥f8 32. Qg2 d4 33. c¥d4 b6 34. Qd2 Qf7 35. Rf1 Q¥a2 D-)-DL)- 36. Bc6 Qc4 37.  Rc1 Re2 38.  Qf4 Qg8 39.  Qf3 R¥b2 P)-DQD-) 40. Bd5 Qg7 41. Rf1 If 41. Rc8, then 41. ... Rb1+ forces a drawn D-DRD-DK by perpetual check. 41.  ... Be7 42.  Be6? [JSH: He should have played 42. Qf5, with the threat of Qc8+.] 42. ... Qg5? [JSH: 42. ... After 28. ... Qg7 Q¥d4 43. Qa8+ Kg7 44. Qg8+ Kh6 and if 45. Bf5 to block ... Qe4+, Black has 45.  ... Qg7.] 43.  h4 Qd2? White announces mate in -D-D-D-i eight moves. [JSH: Black was lost in any event, but threatening mate 0-D-g-Dp paradoxically allows mate: 44. Qa8+ Kg7 45. Rf7+ Kh6 46. R¥h7+! -0-DLD-D K¥h7 47. Qg8+ Kh6 48. Qh8+ Kg6 49. h5+ Kg5 50. Qg7+ K¥h5 D-D-D-1- 51. Bg4 mate.] 1–0 (New York Clipper, December 26, 1896).

-D-)-D-) D-D-DQ)-®-D-D-D D-D-DRDK After 43. h4

Perhaps this light fare, with mutual mistakes and missed opportunities, stands symbolically for Kemeny’s year. It had been a mixed one. Although he lost his match with Showalter, he had shown great sprit in playing as he did. His chess had reached a national stage, and even in losing he confirmed his rank as one of the strongest masters in the United States.

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

167

7

At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings “Chess in Philadelphia is making head way. There are more players than used to be but a few years ago, and, generally speaking, they play better.”—Emil Kemeny, American Chess Magazine, July 1897, page 84

Curiously enough, given the match the two men fought in 1896, Kemeny’s chess play in Philadelphia began in 1897 with the reappearance of Showalter, who had in the interim tasted international chess for the first time the previous summer, at Nürnberg. Although he did not place well, Showalter had the satisfaction of defeating a young Janowski as well as the veteran Chigorin. It would by no means be the Kentuckian’s only appearance in European events. At the start of 1897, however, Showalter was again at the Franklin Chess Club. There he gave a 15 board simultaneous exhibition, finishing 12–0 with 3 draws. Showalter also played a series of two exhibition games each with D. Stuart Robinson, Walter Penn Shipley, and Emil Kemeny. Showalter wanted practice against strong opposition before his first championship match with Pillsbury, shortly to begin. And successful practice he received, when playing the first of two games against Kemeny. In seeking more than the position afforded, the Hungarian passed up a chance to draw through exchanges at move 28, instead initiating a series of moves that ultimately let Showalter triumph. “The first chess game of the present series between J. W. Showalter and Emil Kemeny,” the Ledger announced, “was played yesterday afternoon, at the Franklin Chess Club, and resulted in a victory for the Kentuckian, after forty-seven moves. He chose the Berlin Defense to the Ruy Lopez. Kemeny selected a very aggressive line of play, giving up a pawn on the twenty-sixth and an additional one on the thirty-first turn. The latter proved to be unsound, and Showalter by skillful play was enabled to bring about an exchange of pieces, thus remaining two pawns ahead. It required about five hours’ time to play the game.”

Kemeny–Jackson Whipps Showalter [C66] Franklin Chess Club Game, Exhibition Game 1 January 15, 1897 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  Bb5 Nf6 Lasker prefers this to moving the pawn to a6. 4. 0–0 Be7 5. Nc3 d6 6. d4 e¥d4 7. N¥d4 Bd7 8. B¥c6 b¥c6 9. f4 Crossing the Rubicon. With this untheoretic move from a conservative standpoint White shows that he is going to wage an aggressive campaign. 9. ... 0–0 10. Nf3 Rb8 11. b3 Re8 12. e5 Ng4 13. h3 Nh6 14. Be3 Nf5 15. Bf2 a5 This move shows Black’s aptitude over the board. His tactics are now to open the a-file. This may be called Showalter’s trademark. 16. Ne2 c5 17. Qd3 g6 18. Rad1 a4 19. g4 a¥b3 Good. If now 20. g¥f5 then 20. ... B¥f5 followed by [JSH: ... P¥P in original] with more than compensating position. 20. a¥b3 Ng7 21. Ng3 Bb5 To weaken the adverse b-pawn. 22. c4 Bc6 23. f5 Bf8 24. Ne4 B¥e4 25. Q¥e4

168

EMIL KEMENY

R¥b3 26.  B¥c5 g¥f5 27.  g¥f5 Qa8 At last making the long sought for move, but the game is not over yet. 28. Qg4 [JSH: Simplifying the position likely would have led to a draw. Consider the following line: 28.  Q¥a8 R¥a8 29.  e¥d6 c¥d6 30.  B¥d6 B¥d6 31. R¥d6 N¥f5 32. Rf6 Ne3 33. Rf2 N¥c4 34. Rg2+ Kf8 35. Ng5 and a draw is reasonable.] 28. ... h5 29. Qg2 d¥c5 30. f6 Qe4 31. e6 A poor move, an oversight, in fact. The proper play was Rd7, menacing R¥f7. 31.  ... R¥e6 32.  Rde1 Re3 33.  f¥g7 Bd6 34. R¥e3 Q¥e3+ 35. Kh1 Rg6 36. Qd2 Qe4 37. Qd5 Qe2 38. Rg1 R¥g1+ 39.  K¥g1 Bf4 40.  Kh1 Qf1+ 41.  Ng1 Be3 After 27. ... Qa8 42. Qg2 Q¥g2+ [JSH: Philadelphia Times, January 24, 1897, gives 42. ... Q¥g1+.] 43. K¥g2 B¥g1 44. K¥g1 K¥g7 45. Kf2 Kf6 46. Kf3 Kf5 47. h4 c6 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 16, 1897, with annotations by Kemeny).

qD-DrgkD D-0-Dphp -D-0-D-D D-G-)PD-DPDQD-D DrD-DNDP -D-D-D-D D-DRDRI-

Kemeny’s second game against Showalter went much better. As it happened, no other Philadelphia player managed to slay the visiting Kentucky Lion. As the Ledger worded it, “The second game between Champion Showalter and Emil Kemeny at the Franklin Chess Club, which was adjourned on Wednesday, was finished yesterday, and resulted in a well-deserved victory for the local expert. When play was resumed the position was but slightly in Kemeny’s favor, but by skillful play he succeeded in gradually gaining the upper hand. He won a pawn on the thirty-seventh move, and an additional one on his forty-second turn. Kemeny forced an exchange of knights on the forty-fifth move, and a peculiar ending was established. Showalter had a bishop against bishop and two pawns, but had he succeeded in giving up the bishop for the f-pawn, he could have easily drawn the game. The local player, however, prevented this, and on his sixtieth turn Showalter was obliged to surrender.”

Jackson Whipps Showalter–Kemeny [D40] Franklin Chess Club Game, Exhibition Game 2 January 20–21, 1897 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 c¥d4 6. Q¥d4 Nc6 7. B¥f6 g¥f6 8. Qh4 Bb4 9. e3 d¥c4 10. B¥c4 Bd7 11. 0–0 B¥c3 12. b¥c3 Ne5 13. Be2 Ng6 14. Qb4 Bc6 15. Rfd1 Qe7 Black had considerable difficulty in developing the game. Castling on the queenside was too dangerous, and White, with Qb4, tried to prevent ... 0–0. 16. Rd6 0–0 17. Rad1 Rfd8 18. c4 R¥d6 19. R¥d6 Rd8 20. c5 This play looks quite promising, but by proper defense the pawn will become weak. Of Black was obliged to advance the e-pawn first, otherwise he -D-D-D-D course had no good place for the queen. 20.  ... e5 21.  h4 R¥d6 0-DnHpDp 22. c¥d6 Qe6 23.  h5 Nf8 24.  Nh4 f5 25.  g4 f¥g4 LD-)li-D 26. B¥g4 Q¥a2 27. Bf3 Qa4 Black thus forces the exchange of D-D-0-DP queens at the cost of a pawn, yet he had hardly a better continuation. -D-DPD-D Qg4+, followed by h6, was threatening, and Black had no better D-D-D-D- play to prevent it. 28. Q¥a4 B¥a4 29. B¥b7 Kg7 30. Nf5+ -D-D-)-D Kf6 31. e4 Bb3 Best. Black now threatens the advance of the aD-D-D-I- pawn. White was obliged to reply Kf1 or Ba6, as shown in the continuation. 32. Ba6 Be6 33. Ne7 Nd7 34. Nc6 Nc5 35. Nb8 N¥e4 36.  d7 Ke7 37.  Nc6+ White could not well play Bc8, After 33. ... Nd7

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

169

threatening Nc6+, for Black would have replied ... Bd5, stopping the knight from making that move. 37. ... K¥d7 38. N¥e5+ Kd6 39. f4 f6 40. Bd3 Ng3 41. Nf3 N¥h5 42. B¥h7 N¥f4 43. Kf2 Nh3+ 44. Ke3 Ng5 45. Bc2 N¥f3 The exchange leaves Black with two pawns ahead, yet the win is an extremely difficult one. If White succeeds in sacrificing the bishop for the f-pawn then the game is drawn, for the king stops the a-pawn. 46. K¥f3 Kc5 47. Ke3 Kb4 48. Kd2 f5 The winning -D-D-D-D move. If White now captures the pawn then the bishop prevents the 0-D-D-DWhite king from getting into the corner. The continuation is a very -D-Dl0-D neat and instructive win. 49. Kc1 Kc3 50. Kb1 f4 51. Be4 Kd4 D-D-D-D52. Bg2 Bd5 53. Bh3 f3 54. Bg4 f2 55. Bh3 Bc4 56. Kb2 Ke3 57.  Kc3 Be2 58.  Bg2 a5 59.  Kc2 a4 White has no -i-D-D-D defense. His king must remain on the queenside to stop the advance D-D-D-Dof the a-pawn and Black easily wins with ... Kf4, followed by ... Kg3. -DLI-D-D The White bishop is then forced away and Black wins by queening D-D-D-Dthe f-pawn. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 22, 1897, with After 48. Kd2 annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny’s movements over the next few months are unclear, and it is possible that he returned to Europe for a short period, perhaps in the second half of 1896 or the first half of 1897. The record is simply too vague to tell. While his annotations continued to appear frequently in the Ledger, his efforts in August and much of September 1896 were devoted almost exclusively to annotating games from the great Nürnberg tournament (Lasker winning, over Maróczy, Pillsbury, Tarrasch, et al.) which had taken place in July and August that year. His annotations could as easily have been written in Europe as in Philadelphia. In any case, it is clear that he did not play competitive chess in Philadelphia, or apparently anywhere else, following the termination of his match with Showalter in April 1896 until the end of May 1897. He did not play in the Franklin’s 1896-97 championship, a single–round robin tournament won by Herman Voigt with a score of 91 ⁄ 2–11 ⁄ 2, two full points ahead of J. P. Morgan. Kemeny did, however, participate in the May 31, 1897, Franklin–Manhattan team telegraph match, and in doing so met Showalter yet one more time. This was the third meeting between the two clubs, and when play was called at 11:00 that night, only seven of the games had been concluded: two wins for Philadelphia, and five draws. Steinitz, match referee, had his hands full adjudicating seven games, including the key game on Board 14 between Kemeny and Showalter. The story of the telegraphic match between two of the nation’s strongest chess clubs appeared in the first issue of American Chess Magazine, in June 1897. There we learn that “Kemeny claimed a win against Showalter and got the verdict. The game was a Ruy Lopez, Kemeny playing the same variation against Showalter which the latter repeatedly had adopted against him in the match. A draw position had been arrived at when Showalter, under the impression that he must win in order to save the match, effected a break which cost him the game.” The game is the last known meeting between the two masters.

Kemeny–Jackson Whipps Showalter [C67] Franklin–Manhattan Chess Club Telegraphic Match Board 14 May 30, 1897 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Be7 6. Qe2 Nd6 7. B¥c6 b¥c6 8. d¥e5 Nb7 9. b3 The usual, and probably the best, continuation is 9. Nd4, followed

170

EMIL KEMENY

by b3. The play selected develops the queenside quite rapidly, but the White knight is prevented from occupying the important d4 square. 9. ... 0–0 10. Bb2 Nc5 11. Nbd2 Ne6 12. Rad1 d5 13.  Nd4 N¥d4 14.  B¥d4 Bf5 Well played. White cannot well answer 15.  Nf3 on account of ... Bg4, nor can he properly guard the c-pawn. The move c4 is pretty nearly forced, which enables Black to establish a passed pawn on the d-file. Black was enabled to select this continuation through White’s ninth move. At that stage Nd4 should have been played, as pointed out above. 15. c4 c5 16. Bb2 d4 17. Ne4 a5 18. Ng3 Qc8 19. N¥f5 Q¥f5 20. f4 h5 An important move. White threatened g4, followed by f5, with a pretty dangerous attack on the kingside, which continuation is stopped now. 21. Rd3 rD-®-DkD Rfd8 21. ... a4, it seems, was the proper play. The move selected is D-0-gp0- too conservative. Black, with 21. ... Rfd8, wanted to prevent White -D-D-D-D from b4, in reply to Black’s ... a5 play. The text move enables White 0-0-)qDp to move a4, stopping the advance of the a-pawn.22. a4 An impormove. Though it renders White’s b-pawn weak, it was the best -DP0-)-D tant play he had at his disposal. White can sufficiently guard the b-pawn, DPDRD-D- and it was necessary to stop the advance of Black’s a-pawn, which PG-DQDP) would have given Black a promising attack on the queenside. 22. ... D-D-DRI- Ra6 23. Bc1 Rb8 24. Bd2 Bd8 If there is any winning chance at all for Black it rested with the ... f6 play. Black should have tried After 21. ... Rfd8 to obtain the command of the open e-file. The play he selected, namely, 23. ... Rb8, 24. ... Bd8, followed by ... c6, is inferior, and -D-D-DrD enables White to turn the tables. Black desired to guard his a-pawn D-D-D-D- with his bishop. By doing so he compromised his position, and -gpD-ipD White is enabled to start a kingside attack, which proves successful. 0-0-D-$- 25. Qf3 c6 26. Qh3 Q¥h3 Forced, for if he moves ... Qg6 or ... PDP0-)-D Qe6, White continues with f5. 27.  R¥h3 Bc7 28.  Rff3 g6 DPD-D-DP 29. Rd3 Ra7 30. Rhf3 Kg7 31. h3 h4 To prevent the g4 play. -D-G-D-D 32. Be1 Rh8 33.  Bd2 f6 Black should have answered ... Rb8. move selected proves disastrous. It weakens Black’s g-pawn, and D-D-D-I- The White is enabled to start a winning attack by advancing the g-pawn, and by the subsequent command of the open g-file. 34.  e¥f6+ After 40. ... Bb6 K¥f6 35. g4 h¥g3 36. R¥g3 Rh5 37. Rg4 Ra8 38. Rdg3 Rg8 39.  Rg5 R¥g5 40.  R¥g5 Bb6 At this point play was stopped and the game was adjudicated by referee Steinitz in favor of White. The win is forced by f5, which forces Black to answer ... Rg7 or ... Kf7. White then plays R¥g6 followed by f¥g6. Black’s king is obliged to remain on the kingside in order to stop the advance of the h-pawn. The White king is then able to move to the queenside capturing the pawns, which gives him a win. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, June 3, 1897, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny wrote in the July 1897 issue of American Chess Magazine that “Chess in Philadelphia is making headway. There are more players than used to be but a few years ago, and, generally speaking, they play better. The principal resort is the Franklin Chess Club. This organization fairly represents the chess strength of the City of Brotherly Love. The membership does not exceed one hundred, yet there is no difficulty at all in selecting a pretty strong team of fifteen or twenty. The Mercantile Library chess organization has about one hundred members. Since the chess-room is open to all members of the library, we find a much larger number indulging in play. Besides these two organizations, within the last few years, there was formed the University of Pennsylvania Chess Club, the Northwestern Chess Club, the Steinitz Chess

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

171

Club, and pretty nearly every branch of the YMCA has its chess fraternity.” The Hungarian used every opportunity to boost chess in his adopted city. That summer Kemeny participated in the nineteenth New York State Chess Association midsummer congress held Monday, August 2, through Saturday, August 7, at the Murray Hill Hotel, Thousand Islands, New York. The venue, a bucolic setting “situated in the Thousand Island region of the St. Lawrence River,” near Clayton, New York, according to the American Chess Magazine, would provide an excellent retreat not only for the New-Yorker Staats-Zeitung Cup competition as well as the class tournaments, but for an interstate team event between New York and Pennsylvania players. The first of eventually three annual interstate team competitions held by the NYSCA at their midsummer meetings, the idea had been suggested during the spring of 1897 by the Franklin’s Walter Penn Shipley. The first competition featured strong players and proved entertaining for both participants and spectators. Pillsbury played in the team event, but not as a club representative for the Staats-Zeitung Cup. Only three players competed on behalf of their clubs in the Cup competition, but they were very special players indeed: William Steinitz represented Staten Island, at the invitation of NYSCA secretary and Staten Island club member Albert B. Hodges; Lipschütz represented the Manhattan Chess Club; and 16-year-old chess phenomenon William Ewart Napier represented the Brooklyn. Seven-man teams were selected for the interstate competition. The terms of play required each Association to contribute fifty dollars toward expenses. Each player faced all seven opponents from the other state, in turn. Curiously, while the final score between Pennsylvania and New York was calculated, prizes were awarded for individual performance, not team score. Play in the interstate match began August 3, 1897. New York was represented by five strong players, Pillsbury, Hodges, William M. de Visser, Eugene Delmar, and Hanham, as well as the far lesser known S. G. Ruth and H. H. Schieffelin. Pennsylvania was led by Kemeny, followed by Shipley, Bampton, Charles J. Newman, John W. Young, John L. McCutcheon and D. Stuart Robinson. The first round saw Kemeny in poor form, and lucky to earn a draw against William M. de Visser. The son-in-law of problemist Charles A. Gilberg, de Visser for many decades was associated with chess both in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Born in New Orleans but a long-time resident of New York, he was 42 years old when he faced Kemeny at Thousand Islands. When the game below was played, the Sicilian Defense was not universally well regarded.

Kemeny–William M. de Visser [B22] Pennsylvania–New York Interstate Team Match, Round 1 NYSCA Midsummer Congress Thousand Islands, New York, August 3, 1897 1. e4 c5 The gist of this lies in its application. On discovering that the “Sicilian” was a favorite with the Philadelphians, our contributor observed that the New Yorkers would do well to drop some no account studies and work up this living issue. To show practical faith in his own reasoning, he confronts their greatest player with their own favorite. 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 c¥d4 4. c3 d5 The chess world is slowly, but we think surely, coming to recognize the value of this move early in almost any defense. 5. e¥d5 Q¥d5 6. c¥d4 Bg4 7. Be2 e6 8. Nc3 Bb4 9. 0–0 B¥c3 10. b¥c3 Nge7 11. Rb1 b6 12. c4 Qd7 13. d5 No doubt Mr. Kemeny speedily regretted this move as premature; for, after it, struggle he never so deftly, he can make no substantial impression on the splendidly conducted defense. 13. ... e¥d5 14. c¥d5 Q¥d5 15. Q¥d5 N¥d5 16. Bb5 Bd7 17. Ba3 0–0–0 18. Rbc1 Kb7

172

EMIL KEMENY

19. Rfd1 Be8 20. B¥c6+ B¥c6 21. Ne5 Ba4 22. Rd3 Nf4 23. Re3 Rde8 This move seems quite useless. 24. Bd6! Rc8 25. Rce1 White, despite his pawn minus, has now succeeded in acquiring the best position he has had since his mistake. 25. ... Be8 26. g3 Ne6 27. f4 f6 28. Nd3 Nd4 29. Nb4 Nf5 30. Re7+ Ka8 31. Na6 N¥d6 [JSH: de Visser heads for a draw in a won position: 31. ... N¥e7 32. R¥e7 Ba4 should win for Black. If 33. Nc7+, then Black’s king boldly goes forth with kDrDlD-® 33. ... Kb7 34. Ne6+ Kc6 35. Bb4 (or a3) Rhe8 and Black’s king, 0-D-$-0p after the coming exchanges, is safe enough.] 32.  Nc7+ Kb8 N0-G-0-D 33. Na6+ Ka8 34. Nc7+ Kb8 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (New York Clipper, August D-D-DnD- 28, 1897).

-D-D-)-D D-D-D-)PD-D-D-) D-D-$-I-

The second round started later the same day. Kemeny played Hodges in a Queen’s Gambit Declined, eventually losing, although the game has not been found. His third game was against his longtime match opponent Hanham. Kemeny made short work of the After 31. Na6 Major’s Philidor Defense. As the Ledger wrote, “The game between Messrs. Kemeny and Hanham in the recent Inter-State tournament was an interesting one on account of the brilliant termination. Major Hanham once more adopted his favorite Philidor Defense, and he not only held his own, but gained a decided advantage, his opponent having a weak and isolated e-pawn. Had he on his twentieth turn

The August 1897 midsummer meeting of the New York State Chess Association at Thousand Islands in New York included a team match between New York and Pennsylvania. New York won 251 ⁄ 2–231 ⁄ 2. Front row, the Pennsylvania team, left to right: John W. Young, D. Stuart Robinson, Walter Penn Shipley, John L. McCutcheon, Samuel W. Bampton, Kemeny, and Charles J. Newman. Back row, the New York team, left to right: William M. de Visser, Schieffelin, Eugene Delmar, Albert B. Hodges, Harry N. Pillsbury, Ruth, and J. Moore Hanham (American Chess Magazine, August 1897).

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

173

moved ... Qe7 or ... N¥d5 his adversary would have had a pretty hard struggle to escape defeat. As it happened, Major Hanham selected a more aggressive move, ... Qg3, overlooking the brilliant reply Mr. Kemeny had on hand. The latter played 21. B¥f7+, offering the sacrifice of a bishop. The sacrifice was sound and Mr. Hanham declined to accept it. This, however, precipitated the defeat, and six moves later he was obliged to surrender. The ending was an exceptionally neat one.” The win brought Kemeny’s personal score up to 11 ⁄ 2–11 ⁄ 2.

Kemeny–J. Moore Hanham [C41] Pennsylvania–New York Interstate Team Match, Round 3 NYSCA Midsummer Congress Thousand Islands, New York, August 4, 1897 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 4. Bc4 Be7 5. Nc3 c6 6. Be3 Ngf6 7. 0–0 0–0 8. Qe2 Qc7 9. Rad1 a6 10. a3 Necessary, for Black intends to continue ... b5, ... c5, and eventually ... c4, winning the bishop. 10. ... b5 11. Bb3 Rb8 Major Hanham’s own variation to the Philidor Defense. It would seem loss of time, but evidently he finds the play necessary, especially since he intends to follow up with ... Nb6 and ... c5. 12.  Nd2 Nb6 13. d¥e5 13. f4 could hardly be played on account of 13. ... e¥d4, followed by ... c5 and ... c4. 13.  ... d¥e5 14.  h3 White could not move 14.  f4 on account of 14.  ... Bg4, if then 15. Nf3, Black captures the f-pawn. 14. ... c5 15. Nd5 Nf¥d5 16. B¥d5 c4 17. f4 Perhaps the best continuation for White would have been 17. B¥b6, but even then Black obtains the preferable game, having two bishops, and ... R¥b6, followed by ... Rg6, surely would lead to a promising kingside attack. The play White adopted is rather risky, for it leads to the isolation of the e-pawn, which should be lost in time. 17. ... e¥f4 18. B¥f4 Bd6 19. B¥d6 Q¥d6 20. Nf3 White could have played now 20. N¥c4, followed by 21. B¥f7+, winning the queen. Black, however, would have answered 20. ... N¥c4, and he would have gotten rook and two pieces for the queen, altogether disadvantageous for White. 20. ... Qg3 20. ... Qe7 or 20. ... N¥d5 was the proper play. The text move looks promising, but it enables White to win brilliantly, as the continuation shows. 21.  B¥f7+ Kh8 Had Black played 21. ... K¥f7, then 22. Ne5+, followed by 23. R¥f8, would have -®lD-®kD won speedily. Had he played 21. ... R¥f7 then White’s continuation D-D-Dp0p would have been 22. Rd8+ Rf8 23. R¥f8+ [JSH: This only draws. The immediate 23. Ng5+ was White’s move.] 23. ... K¥f8 24. Ng5+ Ke7 ph-D-D-D 25. Rf7+ followed by Qh5 or Qd2, with a winning attack. If. 24. ... DpDLD-DKe8 or ... Kg8, then 25. Qh5, followed by Q¥h7 and Rf7. The move -DpDPD-D selected by Black, 21. ... Kh8, while seemingly safer, enables White )-D-DN1P to win in a canter. 22. e5 B¥h3 23. e6 Rbe8 Forced, for White -)PDQDPD threatened 24.  e7 and if 24.  ... R¥f7 then 25.  Rd8+, mating next D-DRDRImove. 24. B¥e8 R¥e8 25. Ne5 B¥g2 26. Nf7+ Kg8 27. Q¥g2 After 20. ... Qg3 Causes Black to surrender. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, August 16, 1897, with annotations by Kemeny). The third round had been a boon for Pennsylvania, as a team. They routed their New York counterparts 6–1, the only point scored against them being, not surprisingly, a win by Pillsbury against his most recent victim, D. Stuart Robinson. It was the high water mark for the Quaker City chessists, as the next four rounds saw them slowly drop from their 12–9 lead. The most dramatic individual swing was Bampton’s. After starting out 3–0 against the weaker

174

EMIL KEMENY

New York players, he lost four in a row to finish the tournament with a disappointing 3–4. But no one player was responsible for Pennsylvania’s final showing. New York’s contingent simply was too strong, and no state team in the nation could have defeated them that summer. That Pennsylvania ended up making as good a showing as it did is remarkable. In round four Kemeny won a Queen’s Pawn Opening against S. G. Ruth, and then in the fifth round had White against Eugene Delmar. The two had last met formally five years before in the 1892 Brooklyn Chess Club championship, where they divided their games. Delmar was one of the strongest players in New York for decades, and would continue to be a dangerous opponent until the end of his life, in 1909. In the game that follows, Delmar sacrifices a piece at move 21 but his attack never really materializes and he drifts into a lost position. The end, with White’s knights dominating the position, must have made a very pleasing picture for Kemeny.

Kemeny–Eugene Delmar [A40] Pennsylvania–New York Interstate Team Match, Round 5 NYSCA Midsummer Congress Thousand Islands, New York, August 5, 1897 1. d4 b6 2. e4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb7 4. Bd3 d5 5. e5 Better, perhaps, was 5. Nc3, and, if Black moves ... Bb4, then e¥d5 and castles. 5. ... Be7 6. 0–0 Nd7 7. Be3 c5 8. c3 c4 This play leads to a blocked position on the queenside, giving White a chance to attack the kingside. 9.  Bc2 b5 10.  Ne1 g6 11.  f4 h5 12.  Qf3 Nh6 13.  h3 Qb6 14.  g4 A somewhat hazardous continuation, which exposes White’s kingside, yet there was hardly any other line of play to pursue the attack. 14.  ... h¥g4 15.  h¥g4 a5 16.  Nd2 a4 17.  a3 Block’s the queenside, and enables Black to castle on that side. The rD-DkD-® play, nevertheless, was justified, for Black threatened ... b4, with a 0lDngpD- chance to break through on the queenside. 17. ... 0–0–0 18. Ng2 -1-DpDph Rdg8 19.  Rfb1 White’s intention was to continue Nf1–g3, Kf1– DpDp)-Dp e2, followed then by Rh1 and Rag1. White had a slight advantage in -Dp)-)-D position, for the Black forces on the kingside were somewhat D-)-GQDP crowded. To maintain this advantage it was necessary to prevent P)LD-DPD Black from playing ... f5. Had White moved Kf2 Black might have ... f5, for if e¥f6 Black plays ... N¥f6, and if g5 then ... $ND-HRI- answered Nfg4+ and ... N¥e3, with at least an even position. If White can hold the present position he will obtain a powerful attack by the subseAfter 13. ... Qb6 quent advance of the f-pawn. 19. ... Rg7 20. Nf1 Rhg8 21. Ng3 Nf5 A highly ingenious sacrifice, which gives Black a most promising attack. White, it is true, is not forced to accept the offer, for he may -DkD-DrD move Kf2 or Bf2, but Black by continuing ... N¥g3 would at least DlDngp®- equalize the game. 22. g¥f5 g¥f5 23. Bf2 f6 Much stronger was -1-DpDph ... Nc5. If White captures the knight, Black answers ... B¥c5, followed DpDp)-D- eventually by ... Q¥c5, and Black would win one of the knights with pDp)-)PD an almost irresistible attack. If, however, White does not capture )-)-GQH- the knight, then ... Ne4 would follow, compelling White to answer -)LD-DND B¥e4 which would enable Black to enforce the attack by continuing $RD-D-I- ... f5 (or d5)¥e4, ... Qd8, and ... Bh4. The continuation selected gives White ample time for a safe defense, the surplus piece finally forcing a win. 24.  Re1 f¥e5 25.  f¥e5 Nf8 26.  Kf1 Qd8 After 21. Ng3

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings 27. Ke2 Nh7 28. Nf4 An important move for the defense. It prevents the eventual advance of the Black f-pawn, and also enables White to guard the knight at g3 with the rook. 28. ... Ng5 29. Qe3 Qd7 Black intends to continue with ... Ne4, and it was necessary to first guard the e-pawn. 30. Rg1 Ne4 31. B¥e4 d¥e4 32. Ngh5 R¥g1 33. R¥g1 R¥g1 He could not play ... Bg5 on account of Nf6, winning the exchange. 34. B¥g1 Bg5 35. Qg3 Qe7 Black’s attack was virtually over and there was hardly any prospects of escape, yet this move hastens the defeat, White being enabled to capture the valuable e-pawn. 36. N¥e6 Bc1 37. Qg8+ Kd7 38. Nf6+ Causes Black to surrender. He cannot move ... Kc6 on account of d5 mate. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, September 24, 1897, with annotations by Kemeny).

175

-D-D-DQD DlDk1-D-D-DND-D DpD-)pDN pDp)pD-D )-)-D-D-)-DKD-D D-g-D-GAfter 37. ... Kd7

The win left Kemeny at 31 ⁄ 2–11 ⁄ 2. In the individual standings, Kemeny trailed Pillsbury, who after drawing against Shipley, had run off four straight wins. A win by Kemeny would leave the two men tied for first place at 41 ⁄ 2–11 ⁄ 2, with one round left. The game’s drama was not lost on the spectators, and undoubtedly drew the most attention. At first it appeared Pillsbury would win, but an exchange of rooks reduced his advantage. A few moves later Kemeny should have won, but blundered away an easily winning advantage at move forty. As so often happens when a player losses a great advantage in a game, his subsequent play further reduced a relatively even position to a loss. The Ledger reported that “the game between Messrs. Pillsbury and Kemeny in the recent inter–State contest was an interesting one. It was a Queen’s Gambit Declined. Pillsbury succeeded in establishing a powerful center attack, while his opponent had the advantage on the queenside. For a number of moves it looked as if Pillsbury would win, for by his Nf4 play on his twenty-first turn his center pawn became very threatening. To force away the knight Kemeny adopted bold tactics involving the sacrifice of a pawn. Soon an exchange of queens and rooks took place, and though Pillsbury was a pawn ahead and his knight was quite active, there was no apparent win for him. On his thirty-seventh turn he selected a rather hazardous continuation, when he move Nh3, for this placed the knight too far away to be of any assistance to the endangered queenside. Mr. Kemeny promptly advanced the c-pawn, and he should have won the game. On the fortieth turn, however, he failed to select the proper continuation. He moved 40. ... Be4 instead of 40. ... Bc4. He had still good chances, but overlooked the winning combination Pillsbury had on hand, and on his forty-seventh turn was obliged to surrender. He then could not avert the loss of a piece.”

Harry Nelson Pillsbury–Kemeny [D55] Pennsylvania–New York Interstate Team Match, Round 6 NYSCA Midsummer Congress Thousand Islands, New York, August 5, 1897 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 b6 6. Nf3 Bb7 7. c¥d5 e¥d5 8. Bd3 Nbd7 9. 0–0 0–0 10. Rc1 c5 11. Re1 c4 The opening moves were the usual ones. The ... c4 play of Black is in conformity with Steinitz’s modern theory. Black obtains the majority of pawns on the queenside, but he is subjected to a pretty strong attack, since White gets a powerful center. 12. Bb1 a6 13. Ne5 b5 14. f4 Ne4 14. ... Rc8 was a more conservative play, yet the ... Ne4 play was quite necessary. White’s e-pawn is rather weak, and

176

EMIL KEMENY

he might if Black does not play 14. ... Ne4 continue N¥d7, followed by e4; furthermore, the ... Ne4 move cuts off White’s bishop, which certainly was quite threatening. 15. B¥e7 Q¥e7 16. B¥e4 d¥e4 17. Qc2 f5 18. a4 N¥e5 Forced, for otherwise Black would be unable to guard his pawns on the queenside. The exchange of knights gives White two connected passed pawns. 19. f¥e5 b4 19. ... Bc6 was hardly satisfactory. White might have answered d5 and e6, followed by Ne2 and Nf4 or Nd4, and the advanced pawns would become very threatening. The ... b4 move, however, has its disadvantages. It is quite difficult to guard the advanced bpawn and c-pawn. 20. Ne2 Rac8 21. Nf4 Qf7 The start of a rather hazardous combination. Black intends to force away the knight from f4 by moving ... g5. He -DrD-®kD could not do it at once for White would have obtained a considerDlD-1-0p able advantage by answering Nh5 followed by Nf6+. 22. Qd2 g5 pD-D-D-D This play causes the loss of a pawn, yet in all probability it was the and most promising continuation Black had on hand. He could D-D-)pD- best not well play ... a5 guarding the b-pawn, for d5 was threatening. P0p)pH-D 23. Nh3 Qe7 24.  Qe2 Bd5 25.  Qh5 Rc6 Black might yet D-D-)-D- play ... g4, saving the pawn, yet this would have enabled White to -)QD-DP) place his knight at f4, leaving Black with a very inferior game. The D-$-$-I- play selected by Black is the most promising one. White cannot well gain the pawn without exchange of queens, and in the endgame After 21. Nf4 Black’s majority of pawns on the queenside is of great advantage. 26. Q¥g5+ Q¥g5 27. N¥g5 f4 28. Nh3 f¥e3 29. R¥e3 Rc7 -D-D-D-D 30. Nf2 Rf4 31. g3 31. Nd1, followed eventually by Rg3 and Ne3, D-®-D-D- was in all probability better. The text play leads to an exchange altopD-D-D-D gether disadvantageous to White. 31.  ... Rf3 32.  R¥f3 e¥f3 D-Dl)kDp 33. Nd1 Kf7 34. Kf2 Ke6 35. Ke3 Kf5 36. Nf2 h5 37. Nh3 P0p)-D-D 37. Nd3, followed by Nf4 or Ne1, was much better. The move D-D-Ip)- selected temporarily puts the knight out of play, enabling Black to the upper hand by advancing the c-pawn. 37. ... c3 38. Nf4 -)-D-H-) gain [JSH: A blunder that should give Black the game.] 38.  ... c¥b2 D-$-D-D- 39. Rb1 Rc3+ 40. Kd2 Be4 A disastrous mistake, which causes the loss of the game. 40.  ... Bc4 should have been played, which After 36. ... h5 would have left White without valid defense. He then could not play 41. R¥b2 for ... f2 and ... f1(Q) would follow. Nor could White -D-D-D-D play 41. e6; the answer would be ... f2. If then 42. e7, Black moves D-D-D-D- ... Rc1 and White cannot queen his pawn for f1(N) would mate on pD-D-D-D the move. Perhaps the most satisfactory defense for White would D-Dl)kDp have been 41. Nh3, but even this would have given Black the better, P0-)-H-D if not winning game, by replying ... Rd3+, followed by ... R¥d4. D-®-Dp)- Black thus gets the two center pawns and he remains ahead with the -0-I-D-) passed b-pawn. 41. R¥b2 f2 42. Ke2 Rf3 43. Kf1 b3 44. e6 DRD-D-D- Kf6 Much better was 44.  ... Bc6, followed eventually by ... B¥a4 and ... Bb5+. At any rate Black would have had the passed b-pawn and a-pawn. The play selected loses at once, Black having overlooked After 40. Kd2 the splendid continuation White had on hand. 45. d5 Ke7 45. ... Bd3+ 46.  N¥d3 R¥d3 followed by ... R¥d5 was, perhaps, better. Black might have played ... Bc2, which was also better than the text play. 46.  Rd2 Kd6 47. e7 The winning move. Black cannot capture, on account of Re2 winning the bishop, which virtually ends the battle. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, August 19, 1897, with annotations by Kemeny).

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

177

Pillsbury’s victory over Pennsylvania’s strongest player ensured his overall victory in the tournament. At 51 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2 with one round remaining, no one could overtake him. As it turned out, had Kemeny defeated Pillsbury, Hodges would have won the tournament with a score of 6–1, with Kemeny and Pillsbury half a point behind, as all three men won in the last round. Kemeny took his final point against Schieffelin to finish 41 ⁄ 2–21 ⁄ 2, enough for the best score by a Pennsylvania player. Kemeny’s finish, though, was only good enough to tie him for third place with de Visser, behind Pillsbury and Hodges. The final tally gave New York the win, 251 ⁄ 2–231 ⁄ 2. Had Kemeny not blundered against Pillsbury, the teams would have ended tied at 241 ⁄ 2 points each. October saw elections at the Franklin Chess Club, and Kemeny was named club librarian, one of the few positions he held in the organization. Other than in exceptional cases, as in Shipley’s later holding of the Franklin presidency for 25 years, American clubs in the nineteenth century rarely sought their strongest players as club executives. Those roles were usually held by members who could support the club’s financial interests, and who had connections among society well beyond the confines of the chess club’s walls. Albert Hodges visited the Franklin later that month, and played two games, including one against Kemeny. The Ledger noted that their “game was a double Ruy Lopez. Mr. Kemeny hardly selected the strongest defense, for his adversary won a pawn as early as the eleventh move. The game from this point was highly interesting. Mr. Kemeny endeavored to establish a kingside attack, but his opponent’s careful play prevented this. On his twenty-eighth turn, Mr. Hodges won an additional pawn, and it was expected that he would capture the game. The local player, however, succeeded with his thirty-first move in attacking the kingside; subsequently won the c-pawn and b-pawn, and, though he was obliged to give up the a-pawn, it equalized the game, and when forty-three moves were made a draw was agreed upon.” In fact as analysis shows, Hodges missed converting his overwhelming advantage when he moved a rook instead of playing 34. h3. Further inaccuracies resulted in a drawn conclusion.

Albert B. Hodges–Kemeny [C49] Offhand Game Franklin Chess Club, 1897 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. 0–0 0–0 6. d3 d6 7. B¥c6 b¥c6 8. Ne2 h6 9. c3 Ba5 Better, perhaps, was 9. ... Bc5, since the text move enables White to continue 10. Qa4, winning a pawn. 10. Qa4 Bb6 11. Q¥c6 Ba6 Loss of time. 11. ... Bg4 at once was much better. 12. c4 Rb8 13. Qa4 Bc8 14. Qc2 Bg4 15. Ne1 Qd7 16. Kh1 Nh5 17. f3 f5 Quite brilliant, though ineffective, since White is not obliged to capture the bishop. Of course, should White play 18.  f¥g4, then Black would obtain a winning attack with 18. ... f¥g4. 18. b4 f¥e4 -®-D-®kD 19. d¥e4 Qe7 20.  Bd2 Be6 21.  Nd3 Bd4 There was hardly 0-0qDp0any better play since 22. c5 was threatening. The move leads to an exchange, and Black’s pawn at d4 will become extremely weak. -g-0-D-0 22. N¥d4 e¥d4 23. b5 A powerful and well-timed move. It pre- D-D-0-Dn vents Black from ... c5 supporting the d-pawn. 23. ... g5 24. Nb4 -DPDPDlD Qg7 25. Nc6 Rbe8 26. Qd3 Nf4 27. B¥f4 R¥f4 28. N¥d4 D-DPDPDg4 29. f¥g4 Much better was 29. Ne2, followed by f4. White also P)QDNDP) might have played with better result 29. N¥e6. The text move gives $-G-HRDK Black pretty good chances of escape. 29. ... R¥g4 30. Nf5 B¥f5 31. e¥f5 Qb2 Of course he could not play 31. ... R¥g2, for f6 and After 17. f3

178

EMIL KEMENY

f7+ would have followed, winning easily. 32. Qf3 Ree4 33. f6 Kf7 [JSH: Kemeny has in fact been fighting a lost cause for some time now, but this move makes White’s task much easier. Better was 33. ... Rgf4 34. Qg3+ Rg4 35. Qh3 h5 even though White still should win.] 34. Rab1 [JSH: Throwing away most of his advantage; Hodges should have played 34. h3 opening h2 for his king but also preventing Black from blocking with the rooks along the rank. If 34. ... Rgf4 then 35.  Qh5+ Kf8 (35.  ... K¥f6 36.  R¥f4+ R¥f4 37. Q¥h6+ Kf5 38. Re1 and Black cannot protect his king against the looming g4+).] 34. ... Qe2 A powerful move. White, though After 33. f6 two pawns ahead, cannot afford to exchange queens, for Black would win the g-pawn or c-pawn and also the f-pawn. 35.  Qh3 Re5 36. Rg1 h5 37. c5 Hardly sound, since Black can safely capture the pawn. Yet White had hardly any better continuation, Black threatening ... h4 followed by ... Re3. 37.  ... R¥c5 38. Rbe1 Q¥b5 39. Qe3 Re5 40. Q¥a7 At this point a draw was offered and accepted. Black’s continuation would be ... Qa4, followed eventually by ... Qf4. White cannot exchange queens, for Black would win the f-pawn with the superior game. 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, October 23, 1897, with annotations by Kemeny; the same annotations were reprinted in American Chess Magazine, November 1897, pages 371–372).

-D-D-DkD 0-0-D-D-D-0-)-0 DPD-D-D-DPDrDrD D-D-DQDP1-D-DP) $-D-DRDK

Kemeny played in a handicap “continuous” tournament that fall at the Franklin. The “continuous” tournament system was introduced at the Brooklyn Chess Club. Players were given handicap levels, could challenge whoever they wished on any given night, and would continue to play games in the event until a time limit had been reached, usually three months. Some minimum number of games would be required for one’s score to be included for prizes, and prizes would be given to the players making the best percentage score. To keep interest alive among the less successful, special prizes were given, such as for players who contested the most games, results not counting. In Brooklyn, at least, some players contested hundreds of games each cycle. A new tournament would start up the day after the previous one ended, and hence the tournaments were termed “continuous.” In the game that follows, Kemeny gave rook odds to his unnamed opponent.

Kemeny–Amateur Franklin Continuous Tournament 1897 Remove White’s Queen Rook 1. e4 e5 2. d4 e¥d4 3. c3 d¥c3 4. Bc4 c¥b2 5. B¥b2 This opening leads to a very lively attack, but involves the sacrifice of two pawns. By correct defense Black ought to win. In the present game White gives the odds of the queen rook, and it is quite justified to make additional sacrifice to obtain an attack. 5. ... d6 6. Nf3 Nf6 7. e5 d5 Loses a piece, as the continuation shows. Black could have played 7. ... d¥e5. It is quite likely that he feared the B¥f7+ reply, followed by Q¥d8. Black, however, overlooked that he then may answer ... Bb4+, followed by ... R¥d8. 8. e¥f6 d¥c4 9. Qe2+ Quite necessary. White wins a piece, yet if exchange of queens takes place he is still the exchange and two pawns behind, and his adversary would win easily. 9.  ... Be6 10.  f¥g7 B¥g7 11.  B¥g7 Rg8 12.  Bb2 R¥g2 13. Nc3 c6 Too conservative. Black should have played ... Qe7, followed eventually by ... Bb4 or ... Nc6. 14. Ne5 Qe7 Necessary, for White threatened N¥f7, followed by Qf3+ and

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings Q¥g2. 15. Ne4 Rg8 Probably to avoid the closing in of the rook with Ng3. Better was ... Bd5, followed eventually by ... Nd7. 16. N¥c4 Qb4+ Causes loss of time. Better was ... B¥c4. White, it is true, may continue Nf6+, followed by Q¥e7+ and N¥g8+, thus winning the exchange, but Black still remains two pawns ahead, quite sufficient to force a win. 17. Kd1 Qa4+ 18. Kd2 Qb4+ 19. Bc3 Qe7 20. Ncd6+ Kf8 He could not play 20. ... Kd8 on account of 21. Bf6 winning the queen. Nor was 20. ... Kd7 any better. White would have answered 21.  Nf6+ and if 21.    ... K¥d6, then 22.  Qe5 mate. 21. Bf6 Qd7 [JSH: Now White is easily winning; 21. ... Qc7, while better than the text move, is insufficient as well.] 22.  Qh5 Rg6 He had no better defense. White threatened 23.  Qh6+ Rg7 24. Q¥g7 mate. 23.  Q¥h7 R¥f6 24.  Qh8+ Ke7 25.  Q¥f6+ Kf8 26. Rg1 [JSH: Bringing in the last reserve.] 26. ... Bf5 Black tried to relieve his position by the sacrifice of the bishop. If White answers 27. Q¥f5 Q¥f5 28. N¥f5, Black has some chances of escape. The play enables White to force a win in eight moves. The mate was announced: 26. ... Bf5 27. Qg7+ [JSH: Overlooking, perhaps understandably, the faster 27.  Nc5! Qe8 28.  N¥f5, and Black cannot escape.] 27.  ... Ke7 28.  Q¥f7+ Kd8 29.  Rg8+ Kc7 30.  Rc8+ Kb6 31. Qb3+ Ka5 32.  Qa3+ Kb6 33.  Qb4+ Ka6 34.  Nc5 mate. 1–0 (American Chess Magazine, December 1897, pages 437–438, with annotations above by Kemeny; New York Clipper, December 18, 1897).

179

rh-D-irD 0pD-1pDp -DpHlG-D D-D-D-D-D-DND-D D-D-D-DPD-IQ)-) D-D-D-DR After 21. Bf6

rh-D-i-D 0pDqDpD-DpH-!-D D-D-DlD-D-DND-D D-D-D-DPD-I-)-) D-D-D-$After 26. ... Bf5

Shortly before Christmas, 1897, Kemeny played at least one game against the young Louis Charles Karpinski. Born in Rochester, New York, on August 5, 1878, the 19-year-old was a veteran of New York State chess events, including Buffalo 1894, where in the third class he finished first with a score of 61 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2, conceding a draw in the final round when his prize was no longer at issue. Young Karpinski was the star player of the Oswego Chess Club. The club was rightly proud of him when during an offhand game against Kemeny in Philadelphia the next year, the Hungarian made a slip. Karpinski’s local newspaper introduced the game: “The following game of chess was played in Philadelphia last week at the Franklin club. Mr. Karpinski’s opponent in this game is one of the strongest players in the country and to win even a casual game from him would be a creditable performance for any amateur.”

Louis Charles Karpinski–Kemeny [C67] Offhand Game Philadelphia, December 1897 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Be7 6. Qe2 Nd6 7. B¥c6 b¥c6 8. d¥e5 Nb7 9. Nc3 0–0 10. Nd4 Nc5 11.  Rd1 Qe8 12.  Nf5 d6? 13.  e¥d6 B¥d6 14. N¥d6 c¥d6 15.  R¥d6 Ne6 16.  Be3 a5 17.  Qc4 Bb7 18. Rad1 Qb8 19. Ne4 Ba6 20. Nf6+ g¥f6 21. Qg4+ Kh8 22. R¥e6 f¥e6 [JSH: 22. ... Qc8 23. Re4 Q¥g4 24. R¥g4 Be2 should secure half a point for Kemeny. His move loses immediately.] 23. Rd7 Rg8 White mates in four moves beginning with 24. R¥h7+. 1–0 (Oswego Daily Times, December 27, 1897).

r1-D-®-i D-D-DpDp lDpDR0-D 0-D-D-D-D-D-DQD D-D-G-DP)PD-)P) D-DRD-IAfter 22. R¥e6

180

EMIL KEMENY

A few months later Karpinski lost a match to a young Frank Marshall. The Oswego youth would soon go on to play for Cornell University, where he represented his school in the Triangular College Chess League, against teams annually fielded by University of Pennsylvania, Brown and Cornell. Karpinski, in fact, was instrumental in organizing the collegiate league. He played unsuccessfully at Buffalo 1901 before starting his career at the University of Michigan, where over the next four decades he in turn became a professor of mathematics, an historian of the same subject, and in retirement an acknowledged expert on maps. On January 6, 1898, Kemeny began play with 11 others in the thirteenth Franklin Chess Club championship, this one actually for 1897-98, although why the tournament had not started several months earlier, in the fall of 1897, is unclear. A possible explanation is that Major W. C. Wilson, a long-time member and officer of the Franklin, had been murdered the August before, and Reichhelm, at least, was of the opinion that “this cast such a gloom over the club that no event took place for several months” (Chess in Philadelphia, page 22). When organized activities did resume at the Franklin, 12 men entered the single–round robin championship tournament. According to the crosstable appearing in Chess in Philadelphia, all 12 completed their playing schedules. As before, competition was for the Persifor Frazer cup (as had been the case since 1893) as well as the George W. Childs cup (since 1894), for the championship of the Franklin as well as of Philadelphia. A gold medal was given the first prize winner, and prizes as well for second and third, as noted in the American Chess Magazine (January 1898, page 476). The same source indicated an entrance fee of five dollars would be charged, with $2.50 returned to each competitor completing his schedule. The time limit was 40 moves in two hours, with an additional 20 moves an hour thereafter. Kemeny began the tournament with an excellent performance against Joseph Palmer Morgan. The Ledger hailed the game, writing that “a splendidly played game in the first round of the Franklin Chess Club annual championship tourney, between Emil Kemeny and J. Palmer, resulted in a brilliant victory for the former. ... Up to the sixteenth move the game remained pretty even. Palmer at that stage moved Nf1, which, while it looked satisfactory, compromised his position. The continuation from this point to the end was a brilliant one. Kemeny, by a well-timed advance of the center pawns and the sacrifice of a rook, brought about a speedy victory. Without apparent error or mistake on Palmer’s part, his game collapsed within ten moves. The game ranks among Kemeny’s best efforts.” While Morgan’s play was hardly as good as the Ledger suggested, Kemeny did conclude the game powerfully. The two men would never face each other again in a Franklin championship. The following year Morgan did not play, and the year after that, on November 2, 1899, he died shortly before his thirtythird birthday.

Joseph Palmer Morgan–Kemeny [D00] 1897-98 Franklin Chess Club Championship, Round 1 January 1898 1. e3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bd3 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. f4 This move in connection with c3 forms the stone wall opening. It makes it extremely difficult for Black to make any headway in the center. The play, however, has the disadvantage of weakening the e-pawn. 5.  ... e6 6. Nd2 Bd6 7. Qf3 Black intended to continue 7. ... c¥d4, and White would be obliged to retake with the c-pawn, for otherwise 8. ... B¥f4. 7.  ... Qc7 8.  Nh3 Either 8. Nh3 or 8. Ne2 was necessary, otherwise Black continues 8. ... c¥d4. 8.  ... Bd7 9.  0–0 0–0–0 White had a pretty strong center and his forces were bearing on the kingside. Black therefore quite safely castles on the queenside. This play will enable Black to start a kingside attack.

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

181

10. b3 h5 11. a4 Ng4 Black’s position on the queenside was not endangered, and he therefore was fully justified in pursuing the attack on the kingside. The text move prepares the f6 and e5 continuation, which proves so effective. 12. Ba3 c¥d4 13. B¥d6 Q¥d6 14. c¥d4 14. e¥f4 was, perhaps, better. White then might have continued with Rfe1. the text play in connection with Rfc1 had a queenside attack in view, which, however, does not prove satisfactory. 14.  ... f6 15.  Rfc1 Kb8 16.  Nf1 White feared the g5 play. He then could not capture, for Q¥h2+ would follow. The play, however, was inferior. Black’s main threat consisted in e5, and not in g5. By the advance of the e-pawn Black brings his queen knight into action with telling result. White should have played 16. Bb5 instead of 16. Nf1. It must be admitted, however, that Black’s position at this stage of the game was the superior one. 16.  ... e5 17. d¥e5 f¥e5 18. Bb5 There was hardly any better play. Black threatens e4, winning a piece. 18. ... d4 Excellent play, which com- -i-®-D-® pletely demolishes White’s center and gives Black an irresistible 0pDlD-0attack. 19.  Ng5 There was hardly any better play. If Black moves -Dn1-D-D 19. ... Rf8 in order to guard against the threatening 20. Nf7, then DLDp0-Dp White continues 20.  Ne4, and he secures a satisfactory position. PD-D-)nD Black, however, had a brilliant continuation on hand, which forces a win in short order. He plays 19. ... d¥e3, permitting White to move DPD-)QDN 20. Nf7, attacking queen and both rooks, and White’s game becomes -D-D-DP) hopeless. 19. ... d¥e3 20. Nf7 Qd4 21. Rd1 Black threatened $-$-DNIe2+, followed by Nf2+, winning the queen or mating in two more After 18. Bb5 moves. White might have played 21. Qe2 at once, which was, perhaps, better. Black, however, in that case wins also. The continuation would be 21. ... Q¥f4, followed by Nd4 and Rf8. 21.  ... Qb6 22.  Qe2 Nd4 23.  R¥d4 e¥d4 24. N¥h8 R¥h8 Black might have played 24. ... B¥b5, followed eventually by exchanging queens and R¥h8. The play selected, however, leads to a quicker win. 25.  B¥d7 d3 26. a5 Which hastens defeat, for after 26. ... Qd4 he is obliged to surrender. White should have played 26. Q¥d3, Black then continues 26. ... e2+ 27. Ne3 Rd8 and he will come out a piece ahead. 26. ... Qd4 Causes White to surrender. If he moves Rd1 then e¥d2 followed by e1(Q) wins. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 13, 1898, with annotations above by Kemeny; Philadelphia Times, January 16, 1898). Charles John Newman figured more prominently in chess circles the year following the 1897-98 Franklin championship, when he was chosen for the first of his five appearances for the American team in the annual cable match with Great Britain. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle of February 27, 1899, introduced him to its readership thus: “Charles John Newman was born at Richmond, Va., April 24, 1856. His father, the Rev. Louis C. Newman, now deceased, was one of Philadelphia’s leading chess players from 1850 to 1870. Newman entered the class of 1877 of the University of Pennsylvania and afterward went to Leipzig, Germany, for the purpose of completing his musical education. He remained there three years and after receiving his diploma returned to this country. Since that time he adopted the teaching of music as a profession, giving special attention to harmony and composition. As a chess player he has been for many years one of Philadelphia’s leading masters, excelling especially in ingenuity and brilliancy. His first appearance in an important contest was in 1883 in the match, Philadelphia C.C. vs. Manhattan C.C., playing two games with J. M. Hanham and making an even score. In 1885 he took part in the last championship tournament of the [Philadelphia] Chess Club and secured the championship and first prize. In the three matches between the Franklin C.C. and Manhattan, Newman made the best score of any man on the Franklin team, winning two and a half out of three games played. In February 1897,

182

EMIL KEMENY

he captured second prize in the championship tournament of the Pennsylvania State Chess Association.” Late in 1898 Showalter once more visited the Franklin, and among others he played Newman. It is likely the game given here impressed Showalter enough to garner his vote to include Newman on the Cable Match team a few months later: Charles J. Newman–Showalter [C33], Offhand, Franklin Chess Club, 1898. 1. e4 e5 2. f4 e¥f4 3. Bc4 d5 4. B¥d5 Qh4+ 5. Kf1 g5 6. Nc3 Bg7 7. d4 Ne7 8. Nf3 Qh5 9. h4 h6 10. Kg1 g4 11. Ne1 c6 12. Bc4 Ng6 13. Ne2 Be6 14. B¥e6 f¥e6 15. B¥f4 N¥f4 Black must now submit to some disadvantage in position. 16. N¥f4 Qf7 17. g3 Nd7 18. e5 h5 19. c3 0–0–0 20. Qb3 Rde8 21. Ned3 Qf5 22. Re1 Bh6 23. Kg2 B¥f4 24. N¥f4 Nb6 25. Rhf1 Qf7 26. a4 Qd7 27. a5 Nd5 28. N¥d5 Q¥d5+ 29.  Q¥d5 c¥d5 30.  Rf6 Rh7 31.  Ref1 Kd7 32.  Rg6 Ree7 33.  Rff6 a6 Black’s game is absolutely lost now. 34.  Rh6 Kc6 35.  R¥h7 R¥h7 36.  R¥e6+ Kb5 37. Rd6 Kc4 38. Kf2 Rf7+ 39. Ke2 and wins. 1–0 (Philadelphia Times, October 2, 1898). In the flawed game that follows, Kemeny weathers Newman’s attack, and in doing so finds opportunities upon which, when his opponent falters, he quickly capitalizes.

Kemeny–Charles J. Newman [C67] 1897-98 Franklin Chess Club Championship, Round 2 January 1898 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Be7 6. Qe2 Nd6 7. B¥c6 b¥c6 8. d¥e5 Nb7 9. Nd4 0–0 10. b3 Nc5 11. Bb2 Ne6 12. Nf5 d5 The opening moves thus far were identical to those of the seventh game of the Showalter–Kemeny match. on the twelfth move, however, the latter played f6. The text play is rDl1-®kD more conservative, and ought to prove satisfactory. 13. e¥d6 c¥d6 now should have played 13. ... B¥d6, which would have given 0-0pgp0p Black a satisfactory position, notwithstanding the weak pawns on the -DpDnD-D queenside. The move selected enables White to win the g-pawn. D-D-)ND- 14. B¥g7 Black cannot well capture the bishop, for 14.  N¥e7+ -D-D-D-D would follow. 14.  ... Re8 15.  Bb2 Had White continued DPD-D-D- 15. N¥e7+, followed by 16. Bb2, Black would have been unable to PGPDQ)P) obtain any attack, yet the win would have been a doubtful one. Black $ND-DRI- will have the command of the open e-file, and, since the bishops were of opposite colors, he had the best chances for drawing the After 12. Nf5 game. The play adopted by White enables Black to gain an additional move, Bf6, with a very promising attack. 15. ... Bf6 16. Nc3 Of he could not play 16. B¥f6, for Black answers 16. ... Q¥f6, rDl1rD-D course attacking rook and knight. The text play was perhaps the best, for 0-D-Dpip it develops the queenside. [JSH: Kemeny overlooks 16.  B¥f6 Q¥f6 -Dp0-g-H 17. N¥d6 Rd8 18. N¥c8 Q¥a1 19. Ne7+ Kh8 20. c3!, which in fact D-D-D-DQ appears to be White’s strongest continuation.] 16.  ... Nd4 -D-h-D-D 17. Nh6+ Kg7 18. Qh5 Re5 [JSH: Black’s move should lose; the DPH-D-D- more interesting line is 18. ... Ne2+ 19. N¥e2 B¥b2 20. Rab1 Qf6 PGPD-)P) 21. R¥b2 Q¥h6 (21.  ... Q¥b2?? 22.  Q¥f7+ K¥h6 23.  Q¥e8) $-D-DRI- 22. Q¥h6+ K¥h6 23.  Nd4 when Black can at least keep playing.] 19. Q¥f7+ White might have played 19. Qd1 attacking the knight. If then 19. ... c5 White answers 20. Ng4. Black, however, maintains After 18. Qh5

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

183

a pretty powerful attack. The continuation selected involves the sac- rDl1-D-D rifice of a piece. White, however, gets an additional pawn, and the 0-D-DQDp exchange for it. Considering the exposed position the Black king -Dp0-g-i gets in, the play seems perfectly sound. 19.  ... K¥h6 20.  Bc1+ D-D-D-®Rg5 21. B¥g5+ He could not move 21. f4 on account of 21. ... Rf5, nor could he play 21.  h4 for 21.  ... Nf3+ and 22.  ... N¥h4 would -D-h-D-D have followed. Another tempting play was 21. Ne4, but Black answers DPH-D-D21. ... Ne2+ and 22. ... N¥c1 and gets the superior game. 21. B¥g5+ PDPD-)P) was, therefore, the only continuation. [JSH: White’s 21. B¥g5+ gives $-G-DRIaway most of his advantage. 21.  h4 Nf3+ 22.  Kh1 N¥h4 23.  Ne4! After 20. ... Rg5 and wins.] 21. ... B¥g5 22. f4 Bf6 23. Rae1 Bf5 24. Ne4 [JSH: Overlooking 24. Re8! Q¥e8 25. Q¥f6+ Qg6 26. Q¥d4 and wins.] 24. ... Bh4 25.  Ng3 25.  g4 looked quite tempting, but it was hardly sound. Black would have answered 25.  ... B¥g4, and if rD-D-D-D 26. Ng5, then 26.  ... Qg8. White then may play 27.  Qf6+ and 0-D-D-Dp 28. Q¥d4, but Black, by answering 27. ... Kh5 and 28. ... h6, will -1pD-D-i win. The move selected was more conservative, but proved satisfac- D-DpD-Dtory. 25. ... Bg6 26. Qc4 Qb6 27. Kh1 B¥g3 28. h¥g3 d5 -D-hl)-D 29. Qc3 Be4 He could not play 29. ... N¥c2 on account of 30. f5, DP!-D-)White winning two pieces for the rook. Nor could he move 29. ... PDPD-DPD B¥c2, for 30. Re5 or 30. Re7 would have enforced the attack. 30. f5 A powerful move, Black cannot capture the f-pawn on account of D-D-$RDK the subsequent Qf6+. White’s f-pawn now becomes threatening, and After 29. ... Be4 he has also the Rf4 and Rh4+ continuation on hand. 30. ... Rg8 31. Rf4 N¥f5 Proves disastrous as the continuation of the game shows. Black should have played 31. ... Rg5. But even then White -D-D-DrD had the advantage, for he would have answered 32. g4, threatening 0-D-D-Dp 33. Qh3+ as well as 32. f6. 32. R¥f5 B¥f5 33. Qf6+ Bg6? Much -1pD-!li better was 33. ... Rg6, in which case White would have answered 34. D-DpD-DQ¥f5, still maintaining the superior and in all probability winning -D-D-D-D game. White, however, could not proceed with 34. Qh4+, followed DPD-D-)by 35. Re7+, for Black answers 34. ... Kg7 and 35. ... Kf8. If then PDPD-DPD White continues 36.  Q¥h7, then 36.  ... Rh6+ 37.  Q¥h6+ K¥e7 D-D-$-DK would follow, Black coming out a piece ahead. 34. Qf4+ The move selected by Black enables White to force a mate in five moves, which After 33. ... Bg6 was announced. The mate is accomplished as follows: 34. Qf4+ Kg7 35. Re7+ Bf7 36. R¥f7+ Kg6 (36. ... Kh8 37. Qf6+ Rg7 38. Q¥g7 mate [or 38. Rf8 mate]) 37. Qf5+ Kh6 38. R¥h7 mate. Had White played 34. Qh4+, the win would have been somewhat in doubt. The continuation then was 34. Qh4+ Kg7 35. Re7+ Bf7 36. Qg5+ Kf8 37. Qf6 Rg7 38. Rd7 h5 39. Rd8+ Q¥d8 40. Q¥d8+ Be8 and Black remains with rook and bishop against the queen. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 20, 1898, with annotations by Kemeny). The rest of January was not nearly so kind to Kemeny. In the third round he faced Herman Voigt, who evened their tournament record to 3–3. “The game between Messrs. Kemeny and Voigt in the annual championship tourney of the Franklin Chess Club,” wrote the Ledger, “resulted in victory for the latter. The game was a Giuoco Piano. Voigt adopted a variation involving the loss of a pawn, and to maintain an attack he was obliged to sacrifice a piece. The play was not sound and should have caused the loss of the game. Mr. Kemeny,

184

EMIL KEMENY

however, on his 29th move, made a serious error. He moved 29. ... Rfd6, overlooking a threatening check, which proved disastrous. To escape immediate defeat he was obliged to give up his queen. This enabled him to prolong the battle, but his game remained a hopeless one, and on the 54th move he was obliged to surrender.” Kemeny did in fact have a winning game when he made his blunder. Perhaps he continued playing another 25 moves to punish himself for it.

Herman G. Voigt–Kemeny [C55] 1897-98 Franklin Chess Club Championship, Round 3 January 1898 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 5. d3 is more conservative and probably better. 5. ... e¥d4 6. 0–0 6. c¥d4, followed by 7. Bd2, should Black play 6. ... Bb4+, is the usual continuation. White also might have played 6.  e5, followed by 7.  e¥f6, should Black move 6. ... d5. The play adopted sacrifices a pawn without obtaining sufficient advantage in position. 6. ... N¥e4 7. Re1 d5 8. c¥d4 Be7 9. Bd3 f5 9. ... Nf6 was, perhaps, safe. Black then castles with a pretty good game. 10. Nc3 0–0 11. Bf4 g5 Somewhat risky, yet quite justified. White is pretty nearly forced to sacrifice the bishop, since the advance of f-pawn and g-pawn becomes quite threatening. 12. B¥c7 Q¥c7 13. N¥d5 Qd6 14. Bc4 Kh8 15. Rc1 Be6 Which causes the loss of the g-pawn. Black might have avoided this by 15. ... Bd8, followed by Be6 or Bd7 at once. The play selected, however, neutralizes White’s attack more speedily, and for that reason seems satisfactory. 16.  N¥e7 N¥e7 17.  B¥e6 Q¥e6 18. N¥g5 Qg6 19. Nf3 Nd5 20. Ne5 Qg7 21. Qf3 Rad8 22. Rcd1 Necessary, since 22. ... Nd2, followed by 23. ... Nf4, was threatening. 22. ... Ng5 Better, perhaps, was 22. ... Rd6, followed by Rh6, in which case the knight to g5 continuation would come in with telling effect. 23.  Qg3 f4 24.  Qg4 Nf6 25.  Qh4 Obviously he could not capture the pawn, on account of Nh3+ winning the queen. 25. ... Nfe4 Loss of time. 25. ... Nd5, followed eventually by f3, was much better. 26.  f3 Nd6 27.  Kh1 Rf6 28.  Ng4 Nf5 29.  Qh5 Rfd6 A disastrous mistake, which loses the game. Black overlooked -D-®-D-i the threatening 30. Re8+. Instead of 29. ... Rfd6 Black should have 0pD-D-1p moved 29. ... Rff8. This move, followed by 30. ... Qg6, leads to an -D-D-®-D exchange of queens, Black remaining with a piece against two pawns, by careful play, should win, especially since the White dD-D-DnhQ which, pawn is rather weak. 30. Re8+ Qg8 There was no better play. If -D-)-0ND 30. ... R¥e8, then 31. Q¥e8+, followed by 32. Qe5+, winning either D-D-DPD- knight or rook. Black’s game then becomes hopeless, for he will lose P)-D-DP) the f-pawn, White coming out three pawns ahead with a winning D-DR$-DK attack. [JSH: 30.  ... R¥e8 31.  Q¥e8+ Qg8 32.  Qe5+ Qg7 33.  Q¥f5 Nf7 34. Re1 Qg6 35. Q¥f4 is likely the variation Kemeny was seeing.] After 29. Qh5 31. R¥g8+ R¥g8 32.  d5 Rgg6 33.  Kg1 He could not play 33. Ne5 at once, for 33. ... Ng3+ and 34. ... Rh6 would have followed, making the win somewhat doubtful. 33. ... Kg8 34. Ne5 Ne3 35. Rd2 Nf7 He could not save the exchange. If 35. ... Rg7 then 36. Qe8 mate would have followed. Any other rook move causes the loss of the knight. Black’s game becomes hopeless now. 36.  N¥g6 h¥g6 37. Qh3 Ne5 38. Qc8+ Kg7 39. Qc7+ Nf7 40. Q¥b7 a5 41. Rd4 g5 42. g3 Nf5 43. Re4 f¥g3 44. h¥g3 N¥g3 45. Rg4 Ne2+ 46. Kf2 Nf4 47. R¥g5+ Kf6 48. Rg4 N¥d5 49. Rd4 Ke6 50. Qc8+ Kf6 51. Qc5 Ke6 52. Re4+ Kf6 53. Qd4+ Kf5 54. Qg7 Causes Black to surrender. he cannot save the knight at f7, for if 54. ... Rf6 then 55. Qg4 mate. If 54. ... Rd7 then 55. Qg4+ and 56. Q¥d7, or if 54. ... N on f7 moves

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

185

then 55. Qe5+, followed by 56. Q¥d6. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 25, 1898, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny’s poor form in the Franklin championship ironically accounts in part for our knowing something of the background of his next opponent, Julius Adam Kaiser. The Franklin and Brooklyn clubs had made up after the Franklin’s irritation at Brooklyn’s assumption it could field a team representative of the nation against England without assistance from other prominent American clubs. After Kaiser defeated Kemeny in the game below, Shipley sent the score to Helms, who published it in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on January 30, 1898, noting that on the results of the tournament “will depend in a large measure the choice of the Franklin Club’s candidates for the American team to be submitted to the selection committee” later that month. Helms had in particular been impressed with Kaiser’s combination starting on move 28 of the game (see below). After the game, Kaiser stood at 3–1 in the tournament, half a point behind D. Stuart Robinson’s exceptional 31 ⁄ 2–11 ⁄ 2 start. As it happened, Kasier and Robinson met in the next round, and Kaiser’s victory gave him the early lead in the event. With a record of 4–1, Kaiser, according to Helms, had to be a leading contender for one of the slots for Philadelphia’s contribution to the Cable team. Kemeny’s loss to him was a kind of litmus test, validating Kaiser’s strength: “His recent defeat of Emil Kemeny,” Helms wrote in the Eagle for February 20, 1898, “who gave Showalter such a good fight for the United States championship two years ago, was a splendid example of what he is really capable of, this being the first time he had ever played a match game with the Hungarian expert.” Helms included a brief account of Kaiser in the same article: “Mr. Kaiser was born at Washington, D.C., July 22, 1845, and was educated at the Washington Seminary and Gonzaga College of that city. On September 8, 1863, he entered the engineer corps, United States Navy, as third assistant engineer. He served on the monitor Sangamon, blockading in the James River, Va., and off Charleston, until the close of the war, being on active duty until July, 1873, when he was placed on the retired list, owing to injuries received while on duty on the United States steamship Ashuelot during a cruise in Chinese waters; but he is still in the service of the United States Navy.” Helms added Kaiser had composed about 100 chess problems, had competed extensively, and successfully, between 1880 and 1885 with the strong amateur player Otho E. Michaelis, then a resident of the Philadelphia area, and that he had “won a fine game from Steinitz on even terms, which was widely published both in this country and abroad.” Although Kaiser had moved to Philadelphia in October 1870, and so had been a resident for nearly thirty years, he had “only recently resumed his active playing in the Franklin Chess Club,” although he had long been its member. Kasier was “engaged in business with W. H. Hurley, Jr., & Co., bankers and brokers in Philadelphia.” As it turned out, Kaiser was not selected for the Cable team. His 4–1 standing in the Franklin’s tournament turned out to be his high water mark, which he finished with a less than exceptional 61 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2 score. Kasier’s momentary good form had caught Kemeny just as the latter entered the longest slump he ever had in a Franklin championship. Reichhelm’s as well as Kemeny’s annotations appear below:

Kemeny–Julius A. Kaiser [C14] 1897-98 Franklin Chess Club Championship, Round 4 January 28, 1898 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. B¥e7 Q¥e7 7. f4 a6 8. Qg4 f5 9. e¥f6 [Which gives Black the open f-file and a pretty good place for the

186

EMIL KEMENY

king knight. The play, however, was perhaps the best White had. Black’s e-pawn will remain weak—Ledger.] 9. ... N¥f6 10. Qg3 [Better was 10. ... c5 followed by Nc6—Ledger.] 10. ... Nc6 11. 0–0–0 [Somewhat risky play, yet White, having a kingside attack in view, could hardly select any other play—Ledger.] 11. ... 0–0 [With these moves each player has shown his full hand and the game begins in earnest—Times.] 12. Be2 Bd7 13. Qe3 Qd6 14. g4 Ne8 15. Nh3 b5 16. Rdf1 [A serious mistake, which endangers White’s game. He should have played Rhf1, which might have been followed up by Bd3 and Ng5. White overlooked the Qb4 reply attacking the d-pawn, which forces him to retreat his rook to d1. White thus loses two moves in a critical position—Ledger.] 16. ... Qb4 [Demonstrating that White was guilty of a serious loss of time. The rook must return—Times.] 17. Rd1 Na5 [From now on Mr. Kaiser has the better game, and he plays it well—Times.] 18. Ng5 Qd6 19. Rhf1 Nf6 20. h3 b4 21.  Nb1 Rac8 22.  Nf3 [22. Nd2 was much better—Ledger.] 22.  ... Ne4 23. Ne5 Bb5 24. B¥b5 [White had hardly any better play, since 24. ... B¥e2 and Nb3 was threatening. The move selected opens the a-file, and Black’s attack becomes very dangerous— Ledger.] 24. ... a¥b5 25. Nd2 N¥d2 26. Q¥d2 Nc4 27. Qd3 [White’s game was compromised at this stage, and the defense was a difficult one. The move selected was hardly satisfactory, since the Black knight occupies a commanding position. Better, perhaps, was 24. N¥c4, followed by 25.  c3—Ledger.] 27.  ... Ra8 28.  Kb1 [28.  Qb3 should have been played, followed eventually by Nd3, but even then Black obtains a winning game by continuing Ra4, Rfa8, and eventually Qa6. The move selected enables Black to win brilliantly by sacrificing the rook—Ledger.] 28.  ... R¥a2 [A sound stroke. If rD-D-®kD White now takes the rook, then ... Qa6+ and ... Ra8—Times.] D-0-D-0p 29. N¥c4 [He could not play 29. K¥a2 on account of 29.  ... 30. ... Ra8, and White could not escape mate without sacri-D-1pD-D Qa6+, ficing the queen—Ledger.] 29.  ... b¥c4 30.  Qe3 Qa6 31.  Kc1 DpDpH-D- c3 [A pretty move—Times.] 32.  b¥c3 b3 [Well played. White -0n)-)PD cannot capture on account of Qa3+, followed by Qb7 mate— D-DQD-DP Ledger.] 33. Kd2 R¥c2+ 34. Ke1 b2 35. Rf2 R¥f2 36. Q¥f2 P)PD-D-D Qa2 [Stronger, perhaps, was 36. ... Qa1. The text move, however, DKDRDRD- leads to a similar result—Ledger.] 37.  Qc2 Ra8 [The proper play was 37. ... R¥f4, which would have won speedily. Black anticipated After 28. Kb1 the Rb1 answer, in which case Black would win at once, by continuing 38. ... Q¥b1+ and 39. ... Ra1. White, however, plays 38. Kd2, -D-D-®kD which prolongs the battle, and to some extent makes the win a D-0-D-0p doubtful one—Ledger.] 38.  Kd2 Rb8 39.  Rb1 Qa3 40.  f5 [A -D-DpD-D somewhat hazardous play, yet White’s game was hopelessly D-DpD-D- compromised. Black threatened c5 as well as Rb3. White, being -D-)-)PD obliged to have his queen and rook in such position as to guard the queening of the pawn, could hardly offer much resistD-)-D-DP against ance—Ledger.] 40.  ... e¥f5 41.  Q¥f5 Qd6 42.  Qe5 [White q0QD-D-D gives Black an easy win, for after the exchange of queens he will D-DRI-D- win the e-pawn, while White cannot capture the b-pawn without exchanging rooks, in which case Black wins, being a pawn ahead. After 37. Qc2 Better, perhaps, was 42.  Qf2, and if Black answers 42.  ... Qg6 then 43. Qe1, but even then the game was a pretty hopeless one— Ledger.] 42. ... Q¥e5 43. d¥e5 Kf7 44. Ke3 c5 45. Kf4 Ke6 46. h4 Rb3 47. h5 Rb8 48. g5 h6 49. g¥h6 g¥h6 50. Ke3 K¥e5 51. Kd3 c4+ 52. Kc2 d4 53. c¥d4+ K¥d4 54. Rd1+ [He could not play 54. R¥b2, for 54. ... R¥b2+, 55. ... Kd6 and 56. ... Kc6 would follow and Black would be enabled to queen the c-pawn—Ledger.] 54.  ... Ke3

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

187

55. Re1+ Kf2 56.  Rb1 Ke2 57.  Kc3 Rb7 [A neat win. White cannot capture either pawn. If 58. K¥c4, then 58. ... Kd2 and 59. ... Kc2 would follow. If, however, 58. R¥b2, then 58. ... R¥b2 59. K¥b2 Kd2 would force a win. White cannot move his rook, and if 58. Kc2 then 58.  ... Rb3 would be the reply. White then must move his rook and Black wins with 59. ... b1(Q)+, followed by 60. ... R¥b1 and 61. ... Kd2—Ledger.] [JSH: Only Reichhelm in the Times added the moves 58. Kc2 Rb3, with the conclusion: “And Mr. Kaiser wins. The end position is artistic, Mr. Kemeny is compelled to move rook, and exchange follows and the pawn queens.”] 0–1 (Ledger = Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 29, 1898, with annotations above by Kemeny; Times = Philadelphia Times, February 6, 1898, with annotations above by Reichhelm). Kemeny lost to Shipley in round five, completing the worst stretch of losses—three in a row—that he ever suffered in a Franklin championship. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle for February 15, 1898, in giving the full standings in the tournament through round five, added that “Kemeny, considered by all the strongest player in Philadelphia, ... is at present only ninth in a list of twelve with a record of 2 to 3, [which] proves what a powerful combination the Franklin Club possesses.” In fairness to the Hungarian, Helms immediately added that “Kemeny, however, who is ineligible for the match against Great Britain on account of foreign birth, has up to date played all of his strongest opponents and will probably score most of his remaining games.” Kemeny certainly did not face the strongest of opposition in his next game, which was played in round six against a player who has come down to us only as “C. Smyth,” one of three Smyths listed in the index to Chess in Philadelphia. Nothing is known of his life, and only the bare minimum of references in Reichhelm’s book suggests Smyth played several times in the Franklin championship, with little effect, and that he lost several times in team matches. One team match victory, however, has survived, and suggests Kemeny may have met C. Smyth socially as early as the middle of 1892, when Smyth accompanied nine other Philadelphian’s from the Junior Chess Club for a ten board match on Saturday, May 28, at the rooms of the City Chess Club. Kemeny defeated Bampton that day, but surely was introduced to all the players. His fellow club man, August Vorrath, met C. Smyth on a more intimate basis, though hardly to the New Yorker’s satisfaction: C. Smyth–August Vorrath [A34], Junior CC–City CC Team Match, May 28, 1892. 1. c4 c5 2. e3 Nc6 3. Nf3 e6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Be2 h6 6. b3 d5 7. c¥d5 e¥d5 8. d4 c¥d4 9. N¥d4 Bb4 10. Bb2 Ne4 11. Rc1 Qa5 12. N¥c6 b¥c6 13. Qd4 Be6? [JSH: This was the moment to take White’s a-pawn, and not two moves later, as will be seen. 13. ... Q¥a2, and if, for instance, 14. Q¥b4, then 14. ... Q¥b2 15. 0–0 N¥c3 16. Q¥c3 Q¥c3 17. R¥c3 Bd7 leaves Black a solid pawn to the good.] 14. 0–0 B¥c3 15. B¥c3 Q¥a2?? [JSH: 15. ... N¥c3 16. R¥c3 0–0 17. Ra1 gives White the better position, but not a win, as the text move does. The powerful dark squared bishop ensures that White dominates.] 16. Q¥g7 Kd7 17.  Bg4 Rhg8 18.  B¥e6+ [JSH: 18.  Q¥f7+ mates in a few moves.] 18.  ... K¥e6 19. Qe5+ Kd7 20. Qf5+ Ke8 21. Bb4 Rg6 22. Qe5+ Kd7 23. Qe7+ Kc8 24. Qf8+ 1–0 (Chess in Philadelphia, page 101). Despite Smyth’s relative anonymity, Kemeny was lucky not to meet his fourth consecutive loss. As early as his ninth move, Smyth had a continuation that would have netted him two pawns and, with moderate accuracy, a straightforward win. Quite possibly disheartened, Kemeny failed to make his own luck a few moves later, when he let slip by an advantageous continuation. When White offered up another disastrous move later in the game, Kemeny did see it, and the game ended shortly thereafter.

188

EMIL KEMENY

C. Smyth–Kemeny [D07] 1897-98 Franklin Chess Club Championship, Round 6 February 1898 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 A move introduced by Tchigorin at the Hastings Tourney. The play does not seem satisfactory, for it prevents Black from c6 or c5, moves considered essential with the proper defense of the Queen’s Gambit. However, the Nc6 move in many variations gives Black a pretty good game, and the fact that St. Petersburg adopted it in a correspondence game against Vienna would indicate that it stood the test of a careful analysis. 3. Nf3 d¥c4 Had White moved 3. Nc3, then d¥c4 would be the proper reply. In the present position it is premature. Black should have moved 3. ... Bg4, followed by e6 and eventually by Bb4. The text play gives White a decided advantage. 4.  e3 Bg4 5.  B¥c4 e5 Inferior play, which causes the loss of a pawn, as White’s proper reply, Qb3, shows. Black should have played 5. ... e6, but even then White’s game was the preferable one. 6. Qb3 Bb4+ This gives White a pretty quick development, but Black had no better play. White threatened B¥f7+, followed by B¥g8. 7. Bd2 B¥d2+ 8. Nb¥d2 e¥d4 9. e¥d4 A very conservative play, which, however, proves quite satisfactory. Stronger, perhaps, was 9. B¥f7+, followed by B¥g8 and Q¥b7. [JSH: A case where pawn grabbing ensures the win: 9. B¥f7+ Kf8 10. B¥g8 R¥g8 11. Q¥b7 Bd7 12. N¥d4, and if Black takes the knight, 13. Qb4+, should have decided matters.] 9. ... Nh6 10. d5 Na5 11.  Qb5+ c6 12.  d¥c6 N¥c6 12. ... b¥c6 might have saved the pawn, but White continues 13.  Qe5+, followed eventually by exchanging queens, and he obtains the superior game for the ending. The move adopted loses the b-pawn, but gives some chances for a queenside attack. 13. Q¥b7 Bd7 14. Qb3 0–0 15. 0–0 Rc8 16. Rac1 Qf6 17. Qc3 Qg6 18.  Ne5 N¥e5 19.  Q¥e5 Rfe8 20.  Qg3 Qf6 21.  b3 Nf5 22.  Qf4 Qd4 An unpleasant necessity. Black cannot play 22. ... g5, for 23. Ne4 would follow, with a winning game for White. Black could not well move 22. ... Bc6 or 22. ... Qg6, on account of 23. Bd3 or 23. g4, both leading to an exchange of queens and minor pieces, White coming out with a winning endgame. The text move was, perhaps, best. 23. Q¥d4 N¥d4 24. Rfe1 Ne2+ An exchange of pieces would seem disadvantageous, since the opponent maintains his surplus pawn, yet in the present position the play is quite justified. Black, by getting his rook to the seventh row, improves his game, for he has pretty good chances to regain the pawn. 25. B¥e2 R¥c1 26. R¥c1 R¥e2 27. Rc2 A disastrous mistake, which loses the game, as the continuation shows. The proper play was 27.  Rd1, in which case Black would be obliged to answer 27. ... Kf8 or 27. ... f5. White certainly -D-D-DkD overlooked the Bf5 and Bd3 continuation of Black. 27.  ... Bf5 0-DlDp0p 28. Kf1 He had no satisfactory play. If 28. Rb2, then Re1+ and Bd3 -D-D-D-D would win easily. 28. ... Bd3 29. Rc8+ Overlooking that Black D-D-D-D- interposes the rook, with discovered check, followed by R¥c8. Better -D-D-D-D was 29. Rc3, in which case Black 29. ... R¥d2+. The continuation DPD-D-D- then was 30. Ke1 Re2+ 31. Kd1 Ba6, and Black remains a piece ahead PD-Hr)P) with a winning game. 29. ... Re8+ 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, D-$-D-I- February 14, 1898, with annotations by Kemeny). After 26. ... R¥e2

Even though he won against Smyth, the game did not suggest an improvement in Kemeny’s form. In round seven Kemeny played D. Stuart Robinson, and finally managed a satisfactory game, his first since the second round. The Ledger commented that “In the Franklin Chess Club’s championship tournament, Kemeny played a rather erratic game, and after losing three straight and unexpectedly winning another, he finally steadied down and won from D. Stuart [Robinson] in the seventh round of the tour-

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

189

ney. Mr. Stuart selected the Giuoco Piano opening. On his tenth move he failed to make the strongest move, and his opponent quickly took advantage of it by moving 10. ... Nh5, which forced Stuart to weaken his kingside by the advance of the g-pawn. Kemeny soon obtained the attack, and he pursued it most vigorously. His twelfth move, ... Qf6, led to an interesting complication involving the sacrifice of a piece. The play was an ingenious one and quite sound, for even had Stuart on his sixteenth turn played 16.  B¥f4 instead of the inferior 16.  B¥f6, Kemeny would have been able to hold his own. As it happened he obtained an exchange and three pawns for a piece, which gave him a winning advantage. Kemeny succeeded in establishing a powerful attack, and by skillful and accurate play succeeded in winning in the shortest order.”

D. Stuart Robinson–Kemeny[C54] 1897-98 Franklin Chess Club Championship, Round 7 February 1898 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 This variation of the Giuoco Piano is somewhat conservative, yet it is, perhaps, more satisfactory than the 5. d4 and 6. e5 continuation, in which White obtains a strong center position, which, however, is difficult to maintain. 5.  ... d6 6.  Qe2 0–0 7.  Be3 Bb6 8.  Nbd2 Ne7 9.  0–0 Ng6 10.  Bb3 Loss of time. Had White made this move on the eighth turn, in order to prevent the exchange of bishop against knight, it might have been justifiable. In the present position the more aggressive 10. d4 move was in order. 10. ... Nh5 A powerful move, which compels White to weaken his kingside by playing 11. g3. White could not answer 11. N¥e5, for 11. ... Nhf4 12. B¥f4 N¥f4 13. Q-moves d¥e5 would win a piece. 11. g3 Bg4 11. ... Bh3 looks quite tempting, but it certainly was inferior to the text play. 12. d4 Qf6 Black at this stage had various continuations on hand. 12. ... Kh8, followed by f5, looked quite promising. 12. ... Qd7 and Rae8 was also satisfactory. The move selected is more aggressive, though it is questionable whether absolutely sound. Black evidently was aware that the next move cuts off the retreat of the knight at h5, and that White threatens h3, followed by Bg5. 13. h3 B¥h3 Black might have played 13. ... B¥f3, followed by Q¥f3, should White answer 14. Q¥f3, which leads to an even game. If White plays 14. N¥f3, then, of course, Qe7 or h6 would have been the continuation. the move selected leads to a brilliant variation. Black sacrifices a piece for the exchange and at least two pawns. 14.  Bg5 Ngf4 He could not play 14. ... B¥f1, attacking the queen, for 15.  Q¥f1 would be the answer, and Black would lose his queen. 15. g¥f4 N¥f4 16. B¥f6 Which leads to an rD-D-®kD exchange of queens. White wins a piece, but his opponent gets the 0p0-Dp0p exchange and three pawns for it, which gives him a winning advan- -g-0-1nD tage. Far superior was 16. B¥f4, followed by 17. Kh1. Black then gets D-D-0-Gn only two pawns and the exchange, which would make the outcome -D-)PD-D of the game a rather doubtful one. Black, however, was hardly in any DL)-DN)l danger, for he might have continued 17. ... Bg2+, followed by Qg4+ P)-HQ)-D and Qh5+, etc., drawing by perpetual check. If, however, Black plays $-D-DRI17. ... B¥f1 then he obtains an equivalent in material, and the question would be whether the exposed position of the White king would After 14. Bg5 prove dangerous or not. In the latter case the open g-file might give White a powerful if not winning attack. 16.  ... N¥e2+ 17.  Kh2 B¥f1 18. Bg5 e¥d4 19. c¥d4 N¥d4 20. R¥f1 Better, perhaps, was 20. N¥d4, followed by 21.  R¥f1, in which case White would maintain the two bishops. Black, however, would

190

EMIL KEMENY

then win the b-pawn, coming out exchange and four pawns for the piece. 20.  ... N¥b3 21. N¥b3 Rae8 22. Nfd2 f5 23. e¥f5 R¥f5 24. Bh4 Re2 25. Kg2 d5 To prevent White from 26. Nc4, followed by 27. N¥b6. The move selected is of importance, since the bishop enforces the attack. 26. Bg3 c5 27. Rd1 c4 Weakens the d-pawn, but forces the White knight into inferior position. 28.  Nc1 Re6 29.  Nf3 g5 30. b3 Re4 31.  b¥c4 d¥c4 32.  Rd2 h5 33.  Re2 R¥e2 -D-D-DkD 34. N¥e2 h4 35. Bb8 He could not play 35. Bh2, for 35. ... h3+ 0pD-D-D- 36. Kg3 Bc7+ 37.  K¥h3 R¥f3+ might have followed. The move -g-D-D-D selected, however, does not prove satisfactory, as the progress of the D-D-D-D- game shows. 35. ... g4 36. Nfd4 Rd5 37. Ne6 Rd2 38. N6f4 -D-D-Hp0 c3 39.  Be5 c2 40.  Bb2 Bc7 A brilliant move, which causes D-D-D-D- White to surrender. Black threatens 41. ... h3+, followed by 42. ... PGp®N)KD Rd1+ should White move 42.  Kh1. If, however, White moves D-D-D-D- 42. Kg3, then R¥e2 would follow. White’s position is a hopeless one. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 22, 1898, with annoAfter 40. Bb2 tations by Kemeny). In the eighth round Kemeny playing one of his oldest Philadelphia friends, Samuel W. Bampton. Said the Ledger: “A lively game in the eighth round of the Franklin championship tourney between Messrs. Kemeny and Bampton resulted in victory for the former. Bampton selected the Ruy Lopez Attack, and a lively battle ensued. On the ninth move he sacrificed the exchange, which, however, was soon regained. As the exchange of queens and pieces took place, and when twenty-three moves were made Kemeny was a pawn ahead. The bishops being of opposite colors a draw was anticipated. Kemeny’s only chance to win rested with the advance of the c-pawn. Bampton had an easy road to travel, and he could have held his own without much exertion. He, however, felt too confident, and did not pay sufficient attention to his opponent’s maneuvering. Thus it happened that Kemeny succeeded in getting two passed pawns on the queenside, which proved sufficient to force the win.”

Samuel Warren Bampton–Kemeny [C67] 1897-98 Franklin Chess Club Championship, Round 8 February or March 1898 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Be7 6. Re1 f5 6. ... Nd6 is the proper play. The text move gives White a promising attack. 7. d5 Nb8 8. N¥e5 0– 0 Black has no better play. White threatened Qh5+, Nc3 or d6, all leading to a winning attack. 9. R¥e4 Quite brilliant, but it leads only to an exchange of White, however, had hardly any better play. If 9. d6, then rhl1kD-® pieces. N¥d6 with a somewhat cramped but pretty safe position. Any other 0p0pg-0p play would be answered with d6, and Black obtains a good game. -D-D-D-D 9. ... f¥e4 10.  d6 B¥d6 11.  Qd5+ Kh8 12.  Nf7+ R¥f7 DLDPHpD- 13. Q¥f7 Nc6 14. B¥c6 This capture develops the Black game. -D-DnD-D White, however, could not otherwise regain the pawn. Besides that, D-D-D-D- Black threatened Ne5 as well as Nd4. 14. ... d¥c6 15. Nc3 Bd7 P)PD-)P) He could not guard the e-pawn. If 15.  ... Be5 then White would $NGQ$-I- answer 16. Bg5, followed eventually by N¥e4. The text move was, perhaps, the best. 16. N¥e4 Qe8 Which brings about an exchange After 8. N¥e5 of queens, leading to a pretty even position. Black had other plays,

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

191

like 16.  ... Be8 or Be5 on hand. Neither of them, however, gave any winning chances. 17. Q¥e8+ R¥e8 18. f3 Bf5 Which enables White to exchange knight against bishop, leading to an end game with bishops of opposite colors, which should result in a draw. Black, however, had no better play. If 18. ... Be5 then 19. c3, followed by Bd2 and Re1, would bring about an even game. 19. N¥d6 c¥d6 20. Bf4 d5 21. Rc1 Had White played 21. c3, then 21. ... Re2 might have given Black a winning advantage. The text move in connection with Kf1 brings about an exchange of rooks, after which a draw would be readily enforced. 21. ... Re2 22. Kf1 R¥c2 23. R¥c2 B¥c2 24. Ke2 Kg8 25. Bb8 a6 26. Ba7 Kf7 27. Ke3 Ke6 28.  Bc5 Bb1 29.  a3 Bc2 30.  h4 g6 31.  b4 h5 32.  g3 Bd1 33.  Bb6 Kd6 34. Bd4 Better, perhaps, was 34. Kf4, followed by g4. If White keeps his bishop at b6 there seems no possibility for Black to make any headway. 34. ... Kc7 35. Kf4 b6 36. g4 a5 37. g¥h5 g¥h5 38. Ke3 A fatal error, which, it seems, gives Black a winning game. White should have moved 38. Ke5. He could well -D-D-D-D afford to give up the f-pawn, for Black could be easily stopped from D-i-D-Dadvancing the c-pawn. Another play to secure a draw was 38. Be5+. -0pD-D-D If then Kb7, White proceeds with Bd6, Ke3 and Kd4. The play 0-DpD-Dp selected enables Black to play Kb7, Ka6 and Kb5, after which the c-)-G-I-) pawn can be advanced, Black obtaining two powerful connected pawns. 38. ... a¥b4 39. a¥b4 Kb7 40. f4 Bg4 41. Kd3 Ka6 )-D-DPD42. Kc3 Kb5 43.  Bg7 c5 44.  b¥c5 b¥c5 45.  Bf6 d4+ -D-D-D-D 46. Kd2 He could not sacrifice the bishop for the two pawns, for D-DlD-DBlack still maintains the h-pawn, which easily forces a win. 46. ... After 37. ... g¥h5 Kc4 47. Be7 Kd5 48. Bf6 Bf5 Well played. The move prevents White from f5, followed by Bg5, which would enable him to offer a prolonged resistance. 49.  Kc1 Ke4 50.  Be7 c4 51.  Bc5 Kd3 52.  Bb6 c3 53.  Ba5 Kc4 54. Kd1 d3 Which causes White to surrender. Black threatens Bg4+, followed by d2+ and queening of the pawn, which cannot be stopped. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 3, 1898, with annotations by Kemeny). Little is known about Kemeny’s next opponent, Jacob H. Rhoads. We know from Chess in Philadelphia that Rhoads was a frequenter of the Franklin’s city rival, the Mercantile Library Chess Association, as in 1898 Rhoads was listed as a member of its executive committee. We learn his first name, Jacob, only from his listing as an opponent of Kemeny in a January 1900 simultaneous event, reported by Reichhelm in his Philadelphia Times column for January 14, 1900. The same source names him as “the veteran player,” so he likely was older than many of the club’s players. Clearly he was outclassed in the Franklin’s 1897-98 championship, losing all his games. He played in the February 22, 1897, inaugural event of the Pennsylvania State Chess Association with better results, defeating a player named Dearborn in the first round, while drawing with Elson and Magee, two accomplished Philadelphia players, in the next two. He played for the Mercantile in that club’s loss to the Franklin in a 16 board match in 1897, going down to defeat at the hands of Herman Voigt. He appeared in various minor, intraclub events between February 1896 and sometime in 1898, while his best result in a Mercantile Library tournament was in 1897, when he finished 111 ⁄ 2–91 ⁄ 2. Rhoads was long involved in Philadelphia chess. The April 16, 1911, issue of Shipley’s Philadelphia Inquirer column lists him as winning a game against Bampton in that year’s Franklin–Mercantile match (won by the latter, in a close contest). The November 1917 American Chess Bulletin lists Rhoads as vice-president of the newly formed Chess Club of the Central YMCA of Philadelphia. Columns in the Inquirer show he played for his new club in numerous team matches over the period 1918 to 1920. When Rhoads died is unknown.

192

EMIL KEMENY

Kemeny–Jacob H. Rhoads [C41] 1897-98 Franklin Chess Club Championship, Round 10 March 1898 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Be7 4. d4 e¥d4 Better, perhaps, is 4. ... Nd7, followed by c6 and Nf6. 5. N¥d4 Nf6 6. Nc3 a6 Loss of time. 6. ... 0–0 or 6. ... Nc6 was preferable. 7. 0–0 c5 Better, perhaps, was 7. ... 0–0. The text move weakens the d-pawn. 8. Nf3 Bg4 9. e5 White on his eighth turn should have played Nde2, which would have enabled him to continue Bf4, Qd2, and Rad1, with pretty good chances to win the d-pawn. In the present position e5 was perhaps the best play, since Black threatened Nc6, followed by Nd4 or Ne5. 9. ... d¥e5 10. Q¥d8+ B¥d8 11. N¥e5 0–0 12. Be3 Bc7 An ingenious move, which gives Black a pretty promising counter attack. 13. N¥g4 N¥g4 14. B¥c5 B¥h2+ 15. Kh1 Rc8 16. Rad1 Bc7 17. Rfe1 Nc6 18. Bd5 Be5 Better was 18. ... Re8, followed by 19. ... Rad8. The text play enables White to continue Na4 and Nb6. Besides that, the bishop is somewhat exposed. White threatens B¥c6, followed by f3 and R¥e5. 19. Na4 Re8 20. B¥c6 b¥c6 21. Nb6 Bd6 Black could not save the exchange. If 21. ... Rab8 or Ra7, then 22. Nd7, followed by f3, winning a piece. The text move leads to the same rD-DrDkD result. White, however, cannot play R¥e8+, followed by R¥d6, on D-D-Dp0p account of Re1 mate. Nor would R¥e8+ and B¥d6 prove satisfactory; pHpD-D-D Black would answer N¥f2+ and N¥d1. [JSH: 21.  ... Rad8 22.  Nc4 23. R¥d1 Bf6 24. Kg1 Ne5 25. Nd6 Rd8 would have avoided D-G-g-D- R¥d1 defeat. The text move leads to a quick loss.] 22. N¥a8 White might -D-D-DnD have played 22. B¥d6. Black’s answer would be 22. ... N¥f2+ and D-D-D-D- 23. ... N¥d1. The move selected, however, leads to speedier win. P)PD-)PD 22. ... R¥e1+ 23. R¥e1 B¥c5 24. Re8+ Bf8 25. Nb6 Nf6 D-DR$-DK He could not play 25. ... N¥f2+. White’s answer would have been 26. Kg1, followed by 27.  Nd7. 26.  Rc8 g6 27.  R¥c6 Kg7 After 21. Nb6 28. Nc4 He might have played 28. R¥f6, followed by 29. Nd7+ and 30. N¥f8. The text move, however, is safer. 28. ... Ne4 29. f3 Nc5 30. b4 Nd7 31. c3 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 12, 1898, with annotations by Kemeny). Although Kemeny put together an admirable winning streak, he could not overcome his poor start in the 1897-98 Franklin Chess Club championship, certainly not in such a relatively short event. Herman Voigt won the title along with the Childs and Frazer cups with a score of 9–2, with Shipley and D. Stuart Robinson half a point behind. Kemeny and Charles Newman finished a distant fourth and fifth, at 7–4. Either Philadelphia’s players were getting stronger, as Kemeny suggested in another context, or else his own play required more frequent practice against strong opposition to keep him in good form. Times were changing. During the tournament, and specifically on February 15, 1898, the United States battleship Maine exploded in Havana harbor, killing 260 of its crew. The Spanish-American war eventually claimed the life of Franklin member Captain Oliver Perry-Smith, as mentioned in Chapter 5. In chess matters, the next month the United States lost the nowannual Anglo-American Cable Match by a score of 51 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2. A loss the next year threatened to forever pass possession of the Newnes Trophy to their opponents. Only one member of the Franklin participated in the close loss, but it was the first appearance of a Philadelphiabased player: A.K. Robinson. Unfortunately, he lost on ninth board to Herbert Jacobs. The Americans had substituted four players on boards seven through ten, and it turned out a disaster: only one draw in the four games. The American team had strength, but not depth:

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

193

Great Britain won 41 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2 on the lower five boards, while the Americans won 4–1 on the top five. Something significant would have to change in order to make the full team competitive for the great push the next year not to lose the trophy. Kemeny witnessed the defeat, as the Brooklyn Daily Eagle for March 20, 1898, noted: “Prominent among the well known players present during the match were W. Steinitz, ex-champion of the world; Simon Lipschütz, exchampion of the United States; Emil Kemeny, the Philadelphia professional; Walter Penn Shipley ... and many others.” Whether anyone at the time noticed the unfortunate irony of three of the six strongest players living in the United States reduced to spectator status while the match debacle unfolded is unknown, although certainly likely. Kemeny continued to annotate games for the Ledger. Whether he was working still as a clerk for the Pennsylvania Railroad, the position the Franklin’s Arthur Hale obtained for him when he first moved to Philadelphia, is unclear. He did not play for the Franklin against the Manhattan in their annual match in 1898 for the simple reason that no match was played. The Eagle reported May 19, 1898, that the Manhattan club wanted to postpone the contest because several of their strongest members were out of town, including Showalter, Jasnogrodsky, Hanham, Halpern and the Baird brothers. The New York club had requested a postponement until “next fall,” to which the Franklin agreed, but as it turned out, no match took place until May 1899. A glimpse of lighter chess at the Franklin is seen in the following curiosity. The score was taken from a notebook identified as the property of James McConnell, Jr., of New Orleans. McConnell came from a distinguished New Orleans family. He and his father excelled in both chess and law. The elder McConnell (1829–1914), a judge, played his fellow townsmen, Paul Morphy, as early as 1849, and several of his games with the famous master are extant. In the 1870s he played many offhand games, with some success, against the New York–based professional George H. Mackenzie. For many decades McConnell Sr. remained one of the South’s strongest players. His son, James Jr., whose manuscript miniature against Kemeny appears below, was at the time of its play a young lawyer. An 1887 Tulane Law School graduate, the younger McConnell practiced law in Louisiana for nearly half a century. Like his father, James McConnell had on more than one occasion held the title of Louisiana state chess champion (New Orleans Times-Picayune, August 22, 1934). The game might stand for the hundreds if not thousands of offhand games a player like Kemeny contested at local clubs. Kemeny’s published games, like those of any player, represent but the merest fraction of the ones he played. The manuscript in which the McConnell game appears, last known to be in the possession of John Paul Phillips, gave the game’s date and location.

James McConnell, Jr.–Kemeny [A00] Franklin Chess Club Offhand Game April 30, 1898 1. a3 d5 2. d4 c5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 e6 5. c3 Bd6 6. Be2 Nf6 7. Nbd2 Qc7 8. Nf1 e5 9. d¥e5 N¥e5 10. Ng3 0–0 11. 0–0 Be6 12. Ng5 Rad8 13. f4 Neg4?? [JSH: Dropping a piece and losing at once. Kemeny should have retreated the knight to 13. ... Nc6.] 14. N¥e6 f¥e6 15. B¥g4 N¥g4 16. Q¥g4 Rf6 17. f5 1–0 (James McConnell, Jr., Manuscript, Game 5). Kemeny’s next serious chess was played at the NYSCA’s midsummer meeting at Lake Keuka, New York, August 8–13, 1898. Located in the Finger Lakes, southwest of Syracuse, the

194

EMIL KEMENY

Grove Spring Hotel at Lake Keuka offered a relaxing vacation spot for the organization’s members. The American Chess Magazine for September 1898 wrote that “the hotel, the lake, the beautiful scenery, delightful air—cool, clear and energizing—the general feeling of good fellowship which prevailed, and particularly the presence of so many ladies ... made the gathering so congenial that all voted it one of the best that have yet been held.” A best of six game match was contested for the Staats-Zeitung Cup between Lipschütz for the Manhattan and a young Frank Marshall for Brooklyn, but only three games were played, Lipschütz winning them all. A general tournament was held as well, but the main feature of the meeting, as the year before, was the Pennsylvania–New York team match event. Unlike 1897, however, when New York’s team was headed by Pillsbury, who led the New York squad to a 251 ⁄ 2–231 ⁄ 2 victory, the 1898 Lake Keuka event proved a lopsided, 30–19 win for Pennsylvania. Kemeny and Voigt led the victorious forces, reinforced by Bampton, D. Stuart Robinson and John W. Young (five of the seven team members were Franklin Chess Club players), while Lipschütz, Delmar, Hanham and Marshall, among others, including Gustav Koehler, that year’s New York State champion, played for New York. John L. McCutcheon of Pittsburg also appeared for Pennsylvania. The American Chess Magazine’s report offered Kemeny a compliment, stating that “Kemeny has been a resident of Philadelphia so long that he has become an essential part of the chess of that city; his games are always studies and in every game he plays there are always bits of genius.” Kemeny’s first round draw with Marshall has not survived, but in the second round he had White against Lipschütz. Kemeny ran into some trouble with his king’s knight, first displacing it to c6 and allowing Black’s queen to infiltrate his position, and then failing at a critical moment to exchange it for Black’s king’s bishop. Whatever “bits of genius” Kemeny’s play could show, it had yet to appear at Lake Keuka:

Kemeny–S. Lipschütz [C67] Pennsylvania–New York Interstate Team Match, Round 2 NYSCA Midsummer Congress Lake Keuka, New York, August 1898 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Be7 6. Qe2 Nd6 7. B¥c6 b¥c6 8. d¥e5 Nb7 9. Nd4 0–0 10. b3 Bc5 11. Bb2 Qh4 12. g3 Qh3 13. Nd2 Re8 14. N4f3 d5 15. Rfe1 Bg4 16. Qf1 Qh5 17. Nd4 R¥e5 18. N¥c6 R¥e1 19. Q¥e1 f6 20. Qf1 Re8 21. Re1 Bh3 22. R¥e8+ Q¥e8 23. Q¥h3 Qe1+ 24. Qf1 Q¥d2 25. b4 Bb6 26. Bc1 Q¥c2 27. Ne7+ Kf7 28. N¥d5 Q¥a2 [JSH: Stronger is 28. ... B¥f2+ 29. Q¥f2 Q¥c1+ 30. Kg2 Qc6, but White’s next move gives Black a significant advantage.] 29. Nc3? [JSH: After 29. N¥b6 a¥b6 30. Qd3 Nd6 31. Q¥h7 White is at least still in the game. The text move loses.] 29. ... Qe6? [JSH: Lipschütz -D-D-D-D could have played 29. ... Qb3, and after 30. Qd3 Q¥b4 31. Qd7+ 0n0-Dk0p Qe7 Kemeny might well have resigned.] 30. Ne2 Qc4 31. Qd1 -g-D-0-D Q¥b4 32. Nf4 Qb5 33. Qg4 Nd8 34. Qh3 Qe5 35. Qd7+ D-DND-D- Qe7 36. Qd5+ Kf8 37. Ba3 c5 38. Nd3 Ne6 39. Kg2 g6 -)-D-D-D 40. f4 Kg7 41.  Kf3 Nc7 42.  Qe4 Q¥e4+ 43.  K¥e4 c4 D-D-D-)- 44. Nc1 Kf7 45. Bd6 Nb5 46. Bb4 Ke6 47. Kf3 a5 48. Be1 qD-D-)-) f5 49. Ke2 Kd5 50. Na2 Ke4 51. Bc3 Nd4+ 52. Kd2 Nf3+ D-G-DQI- 53. Kc2 N¥h2 54. Be1 Nf1 55. Kc3 Kf3 56. K¥c4 N¥g3 57. Nc3 h5 58. Nd5 Bd8 0–1 (New York Daily Tribune, August 14, 1898; New-Yorker Staats-Zeitung, August 14, 1898). After 28. ... Q¥a2

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

195

Perhaps Kemeny’s loss to Lipschütz woke him up. Much as he did earlier in the year in the Franklin Club championship, after a fairly shaky start Kemeny reeled off a series of wins, beginning with the third round against E. Levy, a Manhattan club player said to have long experience in chess. Next Kemeny met Arthur Jacob Souweine. We have met Souweine before, in Chapter 3, when as an 18-year-old he scored a point off Kemeny in one of the latter’s simultaneous exhibitions at the Brooklyn Chess Club in 1891. The American Chess Magazine noted Souweine by that August had been away from chess for a year and a half. And it showed. He finished the team match at 11 ⁄ 2–51 ⁄ 2, although his score did include a draw with Voigt.

Kemeny–Arthur Jacob Souweine [C00] Pennsylvania–New York Interstate Team Match, Round 4 NYSCA Midsummer Congress Lake Keuka, New York, August 1898 1. e4 e6 2.  d4 d5 3.  Be3 This move, introduced by Alapin, forms a pretty strong variation. By the sacrifice of the e-pawn, White will be enabled to develop the queenside more satisfactorily. The play is quite sound. rD-Dkh-® If Black intends to maintain the pawn he is obliged to move ... f5, 0p0-Dp0p leaving the pawn at e6 weak. 3. ... d¥e4 4. Nd2 Nf6 5. c3 Be7 -D-DlD-D Better was 5. ... b6, followed by ... Bb7. 6. Qc2 Nbd7 7. Ne2 Had D-D-D-)q he played 7. N¥e4 at once, then 7. ... N¥e4 8. Q¥e4 Nf6 would have -DPGNg-) given Black a pretty good game. The text move in connection with Ng3 is much stronger. 7. ... e5 8. Ng3 e¥d4 9. B¥d4 Nf8 Better D-DLDPDwas 9. ... 0–0 or 9. ... Bc5. The move adopted compromises the posi- P)QD-D-D tion. 10.  Nd¥e4 Be6 11.  0–0–0 N¥e4 12.  N¥e4 Bg5+ DKDRD-DR 13. Kb1 Qd5 14. c4 14. ... Qf5 15. Bd3 15. ... Qg4 16. f3 After 19. ... Qh5 Qh5 17. g4 Qh6 18. h4 Bf4 19. g5 Qh5 20. B¥g7 Threatening B¥h8, as well as Nf6+ and N¥h5. Black’s game is hopeless. 1–0 (American Chess Magazine, October 1898, page 185, with annotations by Kemeny). Born in Görlitz nine months after Kemeny, Gustav Henschel Koehler was at the time he faced Kemeny New York State champion. He later held the New Jersey title on two occasions. In later years, during the First World War, he edited the chess column in Newark’s Sunday Call. Helms called the following example of Koehler’s play a “fine game,” mentioning it had been played the week before its publication. Gustav H. Koehler–Nicolai Jasnogrodsky [C51], Manhattan Chess Club, November 1895.  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb6 5. a4 a6 6. 0–0 d6 7.  Ba3 Nf6 8.  b5 Ne7 9.  Re1 0–0 10.  d4 e¥d4 11.  e5 d¥e5 12.  R¥e5 Re8 13. Ng5 Ned5 14.  R¥d5! N¥d5 15.  Qh5 Re1+ 16.  Bf1 Nf6 17.  Q¥f7+ Kh8 18. Bf8 Ne8 19. Na3! Re5?? [JSH: The exclamation mark on White’s nineteenth move is by Helms. The double question marks are mine, on behalf of the computer. Computer analysis suggests Black should cold-bloodedly continue with 19. ... R¥a1 20. Qh5 Q¥g5 21. Q¥g5 Be6, giving him a small edge in this position, but it is hard to imagine a flesh-and-blood player calmly doing so. The move selected is a disaster for Jasnogrodsky, but allows for an interesting finish for Koehler and readers.] 20.  Bc4 Be6 21.  N¥e6 [JSH: 21.  B¥e6 R¥e6 22. N¥e6 Qf6 23. B¥g7+ is also attractive, and faster; Koehler takes a slower road.] 21.  ... Qf6 22. Nd8 Q¥f7 23. N¥f7+ Kg8 24. N¥e5+ 1–0 (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 7, 1895).

196

EMIL KEMENY

The Ledger wrote that “the game between Koehler and Kemeny in the recent inter–State match was a Two Knights’ Defense, and resulted in a victory for the latter. Kemeny in the middle game obtained a kingside attack which, however, was soon neutralized. When thirtyfive moves were made, the position looked perfectly even, and a draw was expected. Koehler’s thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh and thirty-eighth moves were ill judged and enabled his opponent to make headway on the queenside. In order to save his game, Koehler sacrificed his h-pawn on the forty-second turn. This, however, made matters worse, for by brilliant play Kemeny speedily obtained a winning position. The game might have been shortened had Kemeny, on the forty-eighth or fiftieth turn, selected the strongest continuation. He, however, overlooked this, relying altogether on the rather difficult win he originally planned. The game was prolonged until the seventy-second move, when Koehler’s resources were exhausted and he was unable to prevent his opponent from queening the advanced b-pawn.”

Gustav H. Koehler–Kemeny [C55] Pennsylvania–New York Interstate Team Match, Round 5 NYSCA Midsummer Congress Lake Keuka, New York, August 1898 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 4. Ng5 is usually played. White then wins a pawn, but is subjected to a prolonged attack. The text move gives White a satisfactory game. 4. ... e¥d4 5. 0–0 d6 Black could not well capture the e-pawn, for Re1 would have given White the preferable game. If Black answers ... d5, White plays B¥d5 and Nc3. Another play for Black was ... d5 at once, which, however, is not as safe as the text move. 6. Ng5 Ne5 7. Q¥d4 h6 8.  Nf3 N¥c4 9.  Q¥c4 Be7 9. ... Be6 could not be played on account of 10. Qb5+ and Q¥b7. 10. Nc3 0–0 11. Bf4 Be6 12. Qb5 Qd7 13. Q¥d7 Better than 13. Q¥b7, in which case 13. ... Rfb8 and ... R¥b2 would have given Black the better game. 13. ... B¥d7 14. Rad1 Nh5 15. Be3 Bg4 16. h3 B¥f3 17. g¥f3 c6 Necessary to prevent White from entering at d5. The play, however, weakens the d-pawn. 18. f4 f5 19. f3 g5 An aggressive continuation, which, however, does not prove fully satisfactory. White gets rid of the double pawn, and he is able to stand the attack. Better, perhaps, was ... a6, ... Rad8, ... Bf6 and eventually ... B¥c3, and Black had pretty good changes to win a pawn. 20. f¥g5 f4 21. Bf2 h¥g5 22. Kg2 Kf7 23. Rh1 The weak point of White’s game is the isolated hpawn. The present move prepares the h4 play, which would equalize the position. The play, however, is prevented by Black’s ... Rg8. 23. ... Rg8 24. Rhe1 Rg6 25. Ne2 Ng7 26. Nd4 c5 He could not play 26. ... Bf6, on account of White’s answer, 27. Nf5. Black would then be obliged to play 27. ... N¥f5 after which 28. e¥f5 rook moves and 29. R¥d6 follows, White having the better game. The move adopted forces away the knight from the important position it occupies, but it leaves the d-pawn extremely weak, and will enable White to enter at d5. 27. Nb5 a6 28. Nc7 Rh8 29. Nd5 Bf8 30. Rh1 Ne6 31. Nb6 Nc7 32. Nc4 Ke6 33. Nb6 Bg7 34. Nd5 Ne8 35. c3 Be5 36. b3 36. b4 might have been played at once, or if White is satisfied with a draw, he could have moved Nb6 and Nd5. The next move in connection with c4 and N¥f6 will give Black a decided advantage. 36. ... Rg7 37. c4 Nf6 38. N¥f6 B¥f6 39. Rhe1 Be5 40. Rb1 b5 A powerful move. White cannot answer c¥b5, for a¥b5 would give Black command of the open a-file. White’s best reply is Rbc1 but it does not relieve the queenside, as Black’s reply, ... b4, demonstrates. 41. Rbc1 b4 42. h4? Obviously a losing move, for Black gets the h-pawn and a powerful kingside attack, yet if there was an escape for White, it rested altogether with this move. Black threatened ... a5, ... a4 and ... a¥b3, followed eventually by ... Ra7, ... Ra2, etc., with a winning advantage on the queenside.

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

197

By moving h4, White expected to bring his king into safety, after which he might have defended the queenside, for he could have made use of both rooks. 42. ... g¥h4+ 43. Kh3 Bd4 A splendid move, which completely demolishes White’s defense. White cannot answer B¥d4, for ... Rg3+ and ... c¥d4 would follow. White’s only reply is Rg1 but Black even then obtains a winning advantage by moving ... Rg3+. [JSH: 43. ... Rg3+ 44. B¥g3 h¥g3+ 45. Kg4 Rh2 also works.] 44.  Rg1 Rg3+ 45.  B¥g3 h¥g3+ 46. Kg4 B¥g1 47. R¥g1 Ke5 48. Rd1 Rg8+ Black overlooked a rather easy win. He should have played After 41. ... b4 48. ... g2 and White could not play -D-D-D-® Rd5+, for he would be unable to stop D-D-D-Dthe g-pawn. White’s only reply would have been 49. Rg1 and Black pD-0-D-D then plays 49. ... Rh2 . The win then is then easily enforced. White D-0-i-Dhas no other move than 50. Kg5, after which 50. ... Rh3 is played by Black, which, in connection with Rg3+, virtually ends the game. -0PDP0KD 49. Kh3 g2 50. Kh2 [JSH: From this point on both players miss DPD-DP0opportunities, especially Kemeny, but Black wins in the end.] 50. ... PD-D-D-D Rg3 Again a quick win was missed by Black. He should have played D-DRD-D50. ... g1Q+ 51. R¥g1 R¥g1 52. K¥g1 Kd4 . Black then was bound to After 48. Rd1 get his king to e3, after which he wins the f-pawn and the passed pawn will win. The play selected makes the win a rather difficult one. 51. Rd5+ Ke6 52. Kg1 R¥f3 53. K¥g2 Re3 54. Kf2 R¥e4 55. Kf3 Re5 Better was 55. ... Re3+. If White plays 56. K¥f4, then 56. ... Re2 and ... R¥a2 wins. If, however, 56. Kf2 is answered then ... Re5 may be played by Black. 56.  Rd1 Rf5 57.  Re1+ Kd7 58.  Rd1 Kc6 59. Rh1 Rf6 He could not well play 59. ... d5, for 60. Rh6+ as likely to bring about a draw. 60. Rd1 a5 61. Rd2 a4 62. Rd1 If 62. b¥a4 then 62. ... Rf8, ... Ra8, ... R¥a4, ... Ra3 would have followed, Black winning easily. 62. ... a¥b3 63. a¥b3 Rh6 The only way to win. Black could not maintain his f-pawn, for in order to win he had to advance the dpawn, which was prevented by the White rook occupying the d-file. The text move will force White to guard the b-pawn, after which ... d5 may be played. 64. Rb1 d5 65. c¥d5+ K¥d5 66. K¥f4 Rh3 An important move, which prevents White from playing Ke3, Kd2, etc., stopping the advance of the Black pawns. 67. Rd1+ Kc6 68. Rb1 c4 69. Ke4 69. b¥c4 was not any better. 69. ... Kc5 would have followed winning easily. 69. ... Kc5 70. Rb2 c¥b3 71.  Rb1 Kc4 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, August 18, 1898, with annotations by Kemeny).

-D-D-D-® D-D-D-®pD-0kD-D D-0-g-0-0PDP0-D DPD-DPDP PD-D-GKD D-$-$-D-

Kemeny’s sixth round game, and fourth win in a row, came against the stronger New York player, Delmar.

Kemeny–Eugene Delmar [C41] Pennsylvania–New York Interstate Team Match, Round 6 NYSCA Midsummer Congress Lake Keuka, New York, August 1898 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 [The attack by 4. d¥e5 N¥e4 5. Qd5 would be premature, for after 5. ... Nc5 Black threatens to gain important time for development by either 6. ... c6 or 6. ... Be6, followed by 7. ... d5. Any attempt by White to force matters by

198

EMIL KEMENY

6. Ng5 would fail: 6. ... Qe7 7. Bc4 f6!! 8. Qf7+ Q¥f7 9. N¥f7 b5 Black eventually remaining with two pieces for rook—ACM.] 4. ... Nbd7 5. Be3 Be7 6. Bd3 [6. Bc4 followed by Qd3 and a4 seems a more aggressive development. Black could hardly continue 6.  Bc4 N¥e4 7. B¥f7+ K¥f7 8. N¥e4 etc., as White obtains the first attack in the center—ACM.] 6. ... c6 7. Ne2 Qc7 8. c3 d5 [White in the present game adopted a very conservative line of play, which tempted Black to this aggressive move, which, however, is hardly satisfactory. White, of course, cannot play e¥d5 for ... e4 would win a piece for Black. The move has the disadvantage of weakening the Black e-pawn, and consequently White will make headway in the center—Ledger.] 9. Qc2 d¥e4 10. B¥e4 N¥e4 [Black’s eighth move fully equalized matters, but here he goes wrong. Simply 10. ... 0–0 reserving the capture of the bishop, gave a good game—ACM.] 11. Q¥e4 0–0 [It was far preferable to continue 11. ... e¥d4 12. B¥d4 (12. Bf4 Qd8 13. Bd6 Nf6 etc.) 12. ... f6 13. Nf4 Nb6 retaining equal forces, although White still has the better game—ACM.] 12. d¥e5 b6 13. Ned4 Bb7 14. Nf5 Rae8 [Better was 14. ... Rfe8—Ledger.] 15. 0–0–0 Bf6 [Seemingly this move is strong, for White has no means to guard the e-pawn. The play, however, proves disastrous, since White -D-Dr®kD with R¥d7 obtains a speedy and brilliant win—Ledger.] 16. R¥d7 0l1ngp0p Q¥d7 17. Qg4 Qe6 [He could not play 17. ... B¥e5 on account of -0pD-D-D 18. Nh6+ Kh8 19. Q¥d7—Ledger.] 18.  e¥f6 g6 19.  Nh6+ Kh8 D-D-)ND- 20. Q¥e6 [White could also win by 20. Ng5 Q¥f6 (20. ... Q¥g4 Ng¥f7+ R¥f7 22. N¥f7+ Kg8 23. Nh6+ etc.) 21. Qd7 etc. But it -D-DQD-D 21. was simply a question of methods, as either way wins easily—ACM.] D-)-GND- 20. ... R¥e6 21. Ng5 c5 [He could not save the rook. If 21. ... P)-D-)P) R¥f6 then 22.  Bd4 Kg7 23.  Ng4 wins—Ledger.] 22.  N¥e6 f¥e6 D-IRD-DR 23. Rd1 [White threatens Rd7, Rg7, Rg8+ and Nf7 mate. Black cannot capture the f-pawn, for then 24.  Re8+ kg7 25.  Rg8 mate After 15. 0–0–0 would follow. If Black plays ... Bc6, then 24. Bf5, 25. Be5 and 26. f7 mate could be the continuation—Ledger.] 1–0 (ACM = American Chess Magazine, September 1898, page 130, with annotations above by Pillsbury; Ledger = Philadelphia Public Ledger, August 15, 1898, with annotations above by Kemeny). Kemeny’s winning streak ended abruptly in the seventh and last round, when his old opponent, Hanham, took his measure. The lapse was particularly costly, as the American Chess Magazine noted: “Emil Kemeny was also a victim of weak play at a critical time. With a score equal to that of Lipschütz at the end of the sixth round Kemeny lost to Hanham, or he, too, would have been a participant in the highest prizes.” Lipschütz, at 51 ⁄ 2–11 ⁄ 2, took the $40 first prize for individual high score. Kemeny, finishing a point behind, could do no better than tie with Hanham and fellow Philadelphian, D. Stuart Robinson, for fourth and fifth prizes. Each of the three received a total of $5. Voigt and Bampton, at 5–2, tied for second-third. That fall Pillsbury opened the Franklin Chess Club’s 1898-99 season by giving a simultaneous blindfold performance on Sunday, November 6. According to the American Chess Magazine for the following month, “The eight players had their boards in one room, while Pillsbury sat in an adjoining room, which was kept dark. Messrs. D. Stuart [Robinson] and E. Kemeny alternately acted as tellers.” Pillsbury finished his exhibition with two wins and six draws—but his opposition was formidable. Two of the draws were given up to Voigt and Newman. The season’s main event, as usual, was the Franklin championship. The 1898-99 version, the club’s fourteenth, involved only eight players, but in general was one of the stronger championships. The few entries allowed for a fairer, double–round robin tournament. The championship became a closely contested race between four men: Voigt, Bampton, Newman and

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

199

Kemeny. Shipley, who eventually finished fifth, did so a full three points behind the fourth place finisher. The last three places were occupied by D. Stuart Robinson, Julius Kaiser, and George W. Dallas. Kemeny avenged his loss to Kaiser from the year before. But his 2–0 score against the older man was equaled by his three closest competitors. In fact, Kemeny’s 6–0 against the bottom three players was matched by Voigt and Newman. Of course, such consistent results against outclassed opponents only made it more obvious that the eventual winner had to defeat one or more of his serious rivals. Kemeny was the beneficiary of half a point, gifted to him by D. Stuart Robinson. The Ledger wrote “The game between D. Stuart and E. Kemeny, in the Franklin Championship Tourney, resulted in a victory for the latter. Stuart selected the Giuoco Piano opening, leading to an even position. An exchange of minor pieces and queens took place quite early in the game, leaving either side with two rooks and seven pawns, and it was expected that the game would terminate in a draw. Stuart had some attacking chances on the queenside, while his opponent tried to make headway on the kingside. On the thirtieth turn Stuart should have played h4, which would have neutralized the attack; he, however, moved b4. This gave Kemeny an opportunity to advance the g-pawn, which led to a winning attack. The decisive move was made on the thirty-second turn, when Kemeny sacrificed the g-pawn; he soon regained his pawn, won another one and his opponent was obliged to surrender on the forty-fourth turn. The moves are given below.”

D. Stuart Robinson–Kemeny [C50] 1898-99 Franklin Chess Club Championship December 1898 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 4. Ng5 wins a pawn, but gives Black, however, a promising attack. The text play is more conservative. 4. ... Bc5 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 Be6 7. Bd5 7. Bb3 was perhaps better. The d5 square should be reserved for the queen knight. 7. ... 0–0 8. h3 Ne7 9. B¥f6 9. B¥b7 would be of no advantage. Black would answer 9. ... Rb8, regaining the pawn. 9. ... g¥f6 10. Nh4 Ng6 11. B¥e6 The exchange of bishops and knights ends the attack. More promising was Nf5, followed eventually by Qh5 and g4. 11. ... f¥e6 12. N¥g6 h¥g6 13. Qd2 Kg7 14. Na4 Bb6 15. N¥b6 a¥b6 16. f4 e¥f4 17. Q¥f4 e5 18. Qf3 f5 19. 0–0 f4 20. c3 Qg5 21. a4 Rf7 To guard against White’s Rd1 followed by the d4 and d¥e5 continuation. 22. b3 Qh5 Black had no time for starting a kingside attack with ... Rh8, ... Rh5, ... Qh4 and ... Rg5, since White is threatening on the queenside. The text move was perhaps the best. If White captures the queen then ... g¥h5 follows, and Black obtains the open g-file. White cannot well play g4, for this would leave the h-pawn week. If White plays Qf2, then Black may continue ... g5, and eventually ... g4, with good attacking chances. 23. Kf2 as adopted in actual play was perhaps White’s best reply. It leads to an even game. 23. Kf2 Q¥f3+ 24. K¥f3 Kf6 25. Kg4 Ke6 26. c4 With the intention to prevent Black’s ... d5 play. The move was hardly satisfactory. The pawn should have been kept at c3, in order to enable White to advance the d-pawn. 26. ... Rh8 27. a5 b¥a5 28. R¥a5 b6 29. Ra7 Kd7 30. b4 White should have played 30. h4, in order to stop the advance of the g-pawn. Black then could make no headway on the kingside, for if ... Rh5 and ... Rfh7, White easily guards with Rh1 and Rh3. The text move gives Black the opportunity to establish a kingside attack. 30.  ... g5 31.  b5 Rh4+ 32.  Kf3 Had he played 32. K¥g5, then Black answers 32. ... Rh8, followed eventually by ... Rg8+ or ... Rg7+. The text move is hardly any better. Black is enabled to answer 32. ... g4+, which opens the g-file, leading

200

EMIL KEMENY

to a winning attack. 32. ... g4+ 33. h¥g4 Rg7 34. Ra3? Much better was 34. g3. Black then has a better answer [JSH: sic—“has no better answer” was likely intended.] than 34. ... Rh¥g4. White then continues 35. g¥f4, with some chances of escaping defeat. The text move enables Black to play ... Rh¥g4, subsequently winning the gpawn, which virtually ends the game. 34. ... Rh¥g4 35. Rg1 Rg3+ 36. Kf2 f3 37.  d4 R¥g2+ 38.  R¥g2 f¥g2 39.  Kg1 e¥d4 40. Rd3 Ke6 41.  R¥d4 Ke5 42.  Rd2 K¥e4 43.  Rf2 Ke3 White at this point surrendered. He cannot play 44. R¥g2, for 44. ... R¥g2+ follows, Black winning the adverse pawns. Any other move After 33. ... Rg7 would enable Black to play ... Rg4, ... Kd3, followed by ... R¥c4, winning easily. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, December 20, 1898, with annotations by Kemeny).

-D-D-D-D $-0kD-®-0-0-D-D DPD-0-D-DPDP0P® D-DPDKD-D-D-DPD D-D-DRD-

Kemeny soon gave back the half point gained from Robinson in his first game with Shipley. As the Ledger described it, “The game between Messrs. Shipley and Kemeny in the Franklin Chess Club’s championship tourney was a French Defense, and resulted in a draw. Shipley selected a variation, involving the doubling of the f-pawn, which, however, gave him the open g-file. On the thirteenth move he played 0–0–0, and his opponent started a queenside attack. The position soon became complicated and it looked as if Kemeny’s attack would prove a winning one. He, however, was pressed for time, and failed to select the strongest continuation. On the twenty-eighth turn he might have played Ba6+ and Bb7, which eventually would have won a pawn, or he could have moved 28. Qa2. The move selected was 28. Qb5, which caused loss of time, though it led to a very neat continuation. On the thirtieth turn Kemeny sacrificed the c-pawn, which, followed by Bb5 and Bc6, should have given him a winning game. Instead of Bc6, however, he moved Rc1, and Shipley had the opportunity to answer 32. ... Qd5, which neutralized the attack. At this stage Kemeny was a pawn behind, and the only continuation he had was 33. Rc6, followed by the sacrifice of the exchange. By answering ... f6 Shipley safely guarded his position, and his opponent was obliged to draw by perpetual check. The game abounded in intricate complications.”

Kemeny–Walter Penn Shipley [C11] 1898-99 Franklin Chess Club Championship December 1898 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 d¥e4 The usual play is 4. ... Be7. The text move in connection with ... Be7 and ... g¥f6 establishes a pretty variation. Black has the doubled f-pawn, and the development of the queenside will be a slow one, yet he has the open g-file, with good chances to obtain a kingside attack. 5. N¥e4 Be7 6. B¥f6 g¥f6 7. Nf3 f5 8. Nc3 c6 Necessary, to prevent White’s d5 continuation. 9. Bd3 Nd7 10. 0–0 Considering the open g-file, 10. 0–0 was somewhat risky. White, however, calculated that his opponent could not start an attack before castling queenside, in which case Black’s queenside may be attacked. 10. ... Nb6 10. ... Nf8 and 11. ... Ng6 was perhaps more aggressive; the text move, however, seems preferable, for it guards against White’s Ne2, c4 and d5 continuation. 11. Ne2 Qc7 12. c4 Bd7 13. Rc1 0–0–0 14. b4 If Black captures the b-pawn, then c5, and eventually a3 follows. Black could maintain the pawn, yet his king bishop would be displaced, and White’s attack on the queenside would become very threatening. 14. ... Kb8 15. Qb3 Rhg8 16. a4 Rg7 17. b5 c¥b5 18. a¥b5 Rdg8 19. g3 h5 19. ... f4 was perhaps more aggressive.

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

201

Black, however, desired to keep unobstructed the diagonals for his queen. 20.  c5 Nd5 21. Ra1 Threatening 22. R¥a7, followed eventually by b6+, winning the queen. Better, perhaps, was 21. Bc4. If Black answers ... Nf4, then 22. N¥f4 and eventually c6 or b6 may be played. 21. ... b6 22. c¥b6 N¥b6 23. Rfc1 Qb7 24. Ne5 Rc8 25. R¥c8+ Stronger, perhaps, was 25. Rc6. Black could not win a pawn or the exchange by answering ... B¥c6 or ... R¥c6. White would continue 26.  b¥c6, 27. Ba6 and eventually Rc1, winning the game. White with 25. Rc6 would have threatened 26. R¥a7, and if ... K¥a7, then 27. Qa2+, 28. R¥c6 and 29. N¥d7+, winning the queen. Perhaps the best answer Black had was 25. ... B¥c6; the game then would have proceeded as follows: 25.  Rc6 B¥c6 26.  b¥c6 R¥c6 27.  Ba6 Qc7 28. N¥c6+ Q¥c6 29. Rc1 Qd7 (or ... Qe8) 30. Rc8+ Q¥c8 31. B¥c8 K¥c8 and Black has a rook, knight and pawn for the queen, with pretty good drawing chances. 25. ... K¥c8 He could not play 25. ... B¥c8, for 26. Nc6+ wins. 25. ... N¥c8 would have been answered by 26. b6 and 27. Ba6, leading to a winning attack. In reply to 25. ... Q¥c8 White might have played 26. Rc1. The text move is best, for it gives Black a chance to move his king to d8 or to b8. 26. Nc6 B¥c6 27. b¥c6 Qc7 28. Qb5 28. Ba6+, 29. Bb7 followed eventually by Qa2, would have won the a-pawn. In order -DkD-D-D to win the pawn, however, White would have been obliged to 0-1-gp®exchange queens, and it is somewhat doubtful whether a win could -hPDpD-D have been enforced. [JSH: Decisive is 28. Nc3! throwing the last piece D-D-DpDp into the queenside attack: 28. ... Kd8 29. Nb5 Q¥c6 30. N¥a7 Qb7 -D-)-D-D 31. Qb5 Bg5 32. Nc6+ Ke8 (32. ... Kc8 33. Ra7) 33. Ra6 and wins. Kemeny apparently saw some of this; see his note after 30.  Ba6.] DQDLD-)28. ... Bd6 29. Qa5 Kb8 30. Ba6 30. Nc3 could not well be -D-DN)-) played, for ... B¥g3, and eventually ... R¥g3+, would follow, Black $-D-D-Ithen drawing by perpetual check. Had White, however, on his twentyAfter 27. ... Qc7 eighth turn played Qa2, then Nc3, and eventually Nb5, might have followed. White lost valuable time, which gave his opponent a chance to improve his game. 30. ... Q¥c6 31. Bb5 Better was 31. Rc1. If Black answers 31. ... Qd5, then 32. Q¥d5 follows. Black must play 32. ... e¥d5, and White continues 33. Nc3 or 33. Rc6. 31. ... Qb7 32. Rc1 An inferior move, which gives up all winning chances. Black answers ... Qd5 and White must answer 33. Rc6 in order to hold his own. Instead of 32. Rc1 White should have played 32. Bc6. If Black answers 32. ... Q¥c6, then 33. Q¥a7+ and 34. Rc1 follows. Black must play 33. ... Kc8 and 34. ... Nc4, and White, with 35. Qa2, will regain his piece, with the preferable position and pretty good winning chances. Should Black in reply to 32. Bc6 play 32. ... Qc7 or 32. ... Qe7, then 33. Bg2 would follow, after which Nc3, and eventually Nb5, would win for White. 32.  ... Qd5 33.  Rc6 f6 A powerful move, which secures a draw. White threatened 34. R¥b6+ a¥b6 35. Q¥b6+, and eventually Bc6. The text move will enable Black to interpose the rook, after which White’s attack is neutralized, and he can do no better than draw by perpetual check. 34. R¥b6+ a¥b6 35. Q¥b6+ Rb7 36. Qd8+ Ka7 37. Qa5+ Kb8 38. Qd8+ Ka7 39. Qa5+ Kb8 40. Qd8+ Ka7 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, December 26, 1898, with annotations by Kemeny; the same annotations were reprinted in American Chess Magazine, February 1899, pages 375–376). The first meeting between Kemeny and Herman Voigt was hardly flawless, and yet highly interesting. One can only imagine how the spectators responded to it. Voigt early led in the tournament, and until nearly the end looked the likely winner. The Ledger wrote: “The game between Messrs. Kemeny and Voigt in the Franklin Chess Club’s championship tourney was a Sicilian Defense, resulting in a victory for the former. Voigt, in the early part of the game, lost time by moving his knight to b4, a6 and c5, which gave his opponent

202

EMIL KEMENY

a superior development. The position soon became complicated, and with his twenty-first move Kemeny won a valuable pawn. He subsequently sacrificed the exchange, which, by correct continuation, should have given him a winning game. On the twenty-sixth move, however, Kemeny failed to make the proper play. Instead of 26. B¥b7, he moved 27. Ne4, being under the impression that his opponent could not capture the bishop without losing the queen. Voigt, however, could and did capture that piece, having on hand 28. ... Kg8. This neutralized the attack, Kemeny still being a pawn ahead. By sacrificing this pawn once more he established an attack, which would have won the game if it was not for a brilliant rejoinder on Voigt’s part. By sacrificing a rook on the thirty-first move he completely demolished the attack. The rook was regained on the thirty-fourth move, and it was expected that the game would terminate in a draw. He, however, moved 46. ... Kb8, overlooking the pretty continuation his opponent had on hand, which won him the battle. The game was not by any means a flawless one. Kemeny, having won a pawn, overlooked the winning continuation; moreover, he was taken by surprise by Voigt’s thirty-first move. Voigt, on the other hand, missed a draw on the thirty-sixth move as well as on the forty-sixth turn. Notwithstanding, the game was an exceedingly interesting one, and the ending was neat and instructive, being one that is rarely seen in actual play.”

Kemeny–Herman G. Voigt [B72] 1898-99 Franklin Chess Club Championship January 1899 1. e4 c5 2. d4 c¥d4 3. Nf3 Nc6 Better perhaps than 3. ... e5, in which case White continues 4. c3 d¥c3 5. N¥c3, with a pretty strong attack. 4. N¥d4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bc4 6. Be2 is considered better. The text move, however, is more aggressive. 6. ... g6 7. 0–0 Bg7 8. Be3 0–0 9. h3 Bd7 10. f4 Qb6 11. Qd3 Necessary since Black threatened to win a pawn by playing ... N¥e4, followed by ... N¥d4. The move selected prevents this play, for in reply to ... N¥e4, White would answer N¥c6, winning a piece. 11. ... Nb4 12. Qd2 Qc7 13. Bb3 Na6 14. Rae1 Nc5 Black by maneuvering with queen and queen’s knight lost valuable time and White had the opportunity to develop his forces. The attack on the White e-pawn is hardly of any value since Bf2 followed eventually by e5 may be played. 15. Bf2 Bc6 16. N¥c6 Q¥c6 17. Bd5 Qc7 [JSH: Weak, better was 17. ... N¥d5 18. e¥d5 Qc7 when after 19.  Bd4 B¥d4+ 20.  Q¥d4 Rfe8 Black can defend his weak point at e7. Clearly Voigt wanted more but his move brought less; now White can open the center and should do well.] 18. e5 d¥e5 19. f¥e5 Nfd7 20. e6 f¥e6 21. R¥e6 A brilliant move, which wins at least a pawn. Black cannot capture the rook for 21. R¥e6 N¥e6 22. B¥e6+ Kh8 23. Q¥d7 would win a piece. 21.  ... Kh8 22.  R¥e7 Qd6 23.  R¥g7 The sacrifice is perfectly sound and should lead to a winning game. 23. ... K¥g7 24. Bd4+ A promisrD-D-®kD rD-D-®-i ing continuation was 24. b4 to which 0p1n0-gp 0pDn$-gp Black has no better reply than 24. ... -D-DpDpD -D-1-DpD Ne6 in which case White continues D-hLD-D- D-hLD-D- 25. Ne4, B¥e6 and Ng5, with a pow-D-D-D-D -D-D-D-D erful attack. The text move, however, D-H-D-DP D-H-D-DP seems more decisive. [JSH: 24. Nb5! is P)P!-GPD P)P!-GPD best: 24. ... Qe7 25. Re1 Qd8 26. Nd6 D-D-$RI- D-D-DRI- ties Black up.] 24.  ... Nf6 25.  b4 Ncd7 26.  Ne4 He should have After 22. ... Qd6 played 26.  B¥b7 followed by Ne4. After 20. ... f¥e6

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

203

White then has two pawns to the good, and his attack becomes irresistible. By moving Ne4 White overlooked that his opponent may capture the bishop without losing the queen. His N¥f6 move will be answered by 27.  ... R¥f6 28.  R¥f6 Kg8, leading to a pretty even game. 26. ... Q¥d5 27. N¥f6 R¥f6 28. R¥f6 Kg8 29. c4 Perhaps the only way to maintain the attack. Had White moved 29. Qf4, Black might have answered 29. ... N¥f6 30. Q¥f6 Qd7, or better yet 29.  ... Re8 and an even game ensues. [JSH: Kemeny overlooked 31.  Qh8+ Kf7 32. Q¥h7+ Ke8 33. Qg8+ Ke7 34. Bc5+ Kf6 35. Q¥a8 and White is easily winning.] 29. ... Q¥c4 30. Rd6 Nf8 He could not play 30. ... Qf7 for 31. Bb2 would have followed. White then, with Qd4, obtains a winning attack. 31.  Qe3 With the intention to continue Qe5. White, however, overlooked the brilliant replay his opponent had on hand. By moving 31. ... Re8 Black completely neutralized the attack. White has no better move than 32. Q¥e8, in which case 32. ... Qc1+ 33. Kf2 Qf5+ regains the rook. It should be remarked that White had no better move than 31. Qe3, for if 31. Qf4 or Qg5, Black answers 31. ... Ne6. 31. ... Re8 32. Q¥e8 Qc1+ 33. Kf2 Qf4+ 34. Ke2 Q¥d6 35. Bc5 Qf6 36. a4 b6 Good enough. Black, however, might have played 36. ... Qb2+, drawing by perpetual check, or at least forcing the adverse king into inferior position. 37. Q¥f8+ Q¥f8 38. B¥f8 K¥f8 39. Kd3 Ke7 40. Kc4 Kd6 41. Kb5 Kc7 42. Ka6 Kb8 43. g3 Ka8 44. h4 Kb8 44. ... h5 would have apparently blocked the kingside. White, however, would have forced a win with 45. a5 b¥a5 46. K¥a5 Kb7 47. b5 Ka8 48. Ka6 Kb8 49. b6 a¥b6 50. K¥b6 and he will win the pawns on the kingside. 45. g4 Ka8 46. h5 Kb8?? He should have played 46. ... g¥h5, which would have drawn the game. White then could kD-D-D-D not win the adverse h-pawn without exchanging pawns on the queen- 0-D-D-Dp side, and the h-pawn does not win. Black, it seems, calculated that K0-D-DpD it was necessary to maintain the pawn at g6 in order to prevent the D-D-D-DP adverse king from entering the kingside. He evidently was not aware of the neat win his opponent now has on hand. 47.  h¥g6 h¥g6 P)-D-DPD 48. g5 An important move, for if Black has a chance to move ... D-D-D-Dg5, he will draw the game, notwithstanding White’s winning the g- -D-D-D-D pawn. 48. ... Ka8 49. a5 b¥a5 50. K¥a5 Kb7 51. b5 The key D-D-D-Dmove to the winning combination. It forces away the adverse king, After 46. h5 and White may continue Ka6, b6 and K¥b6, followed by the winning of the g-pawn. 51.  ... Kc7 52.  Ka6 Kb8 53.  b6 a¥b6 53. ... Ka8 would not have saved the game. White, of course, does not answer b¥a7 or b7+, but plays Kb5, followed eventually by K¥b6. 54. K¥b6 Kc8 55. Kc6 Kd8 56. Kd6 Ke8 57. Ke6 Kf8 58. Kf6 Kg8 59. K¥g6 Causes Black to surrender. If he plays ... Kh8 then Kf7 is the reply; if, however, ... Kf8, then Kh7 follows, and White queens his pawn. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 11, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny). The next game, against Charles Newman, saw Kemeny rejecting a draw offer at move 16. He pushed. He lost. The story is an old one for chess, known to every player who has sought to obtain more than a position offered; which is to say, a story known to every chess player.

Charles J. Newman–Kemeny [C56] 1898-99 Franklin Chess Club Championship January 1899 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 e¥d4 5. 0–0 N¥e4 6. Re1 d5 7. B¥d5 Q¥d5 8.  Nc3 Qh5 9.  N¥e4 Be6 10.  Bg5 Bb4 11.  N¥d4 Q¥d1 12.  Re¥d1 N¥d4

204

EMIL KEMENY

13. R¥d4 Be7 14. B¥e7 Better, perhaps, was Re1 at once. The text move leads to an even game. 14. ... K¥e7 15. Re1 Rhd8 16. Rb4 White at this stage of the game offered a draw, which was not accepted. Black expected to obtain some advantage rD-®-D-D on the queenside. 16.  ... b6 17.  Ng5 Rd2 18.  Rbe4 R¥c2 0p0-ip0p 19. N¥e6 f¥e6 20. R¥e6+ Kd7 20. ... Kf7 or 20. ... Kf8 would easily drawn the game. The text move gives up the pawns on -D-DlD-D have the kingside without obtaining adequate advantage on the queenD-D-D-D- side. 21.  Re7+ Kc6 22.  R¥g7 Re8 This move in connection -D-$ND-D with ... Ree2 proves disastrous. White gains the important Rf1 and D-D-D-D- f4 moves. Black should have played ... R¥b2, followed eventually by P)PD-)P) ... R¥a2, which still was likely to draw the game. 23.  Rf1 Ree2 D-D-$-I- 24. f4 R¥b2 25. f5 Kd6 26. f6 Re8 27. f7 Rf8 28. R¥h7 c5 29. g4 c4 30. g5 c3 31. Rh3 The winning move. If Black After 15. ... Rhd8 now continues 31.  ... c2, White answers 32.  Rc3, winning the advanced c-pawn. Nor can Black play ... R¥f7, followed by ... c2 and ... Rb1+, for R¥f7, Rc3 and Rf1 will be played by White. White could not play g6 and g7 on account of ... c2, followed by ... R¥f7, which would give Black a winning game. 31. ... Rb5 32. g6 c2 33. Rc3 Rg5+ 34. Rg3 Rd5 34. ... R¥g3+ 35. h¥g3 Ke7 or ... Ke6 would not have saved the game. White answers 36. g4, followed by g5 or Kg2 and the advanced pawns will win. 35. Rg2 Rc8 36. R¥c2 Causes Black to surrender. If 36. ... R¥c2 then 37. f8(Q)+ wins. If, however, 36. ... Rg5+, then 37. Rg2 or 37. Kh1 follows and Black is unable to stop the advanced pawns. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 1, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny). D. Stuart Robinson, Kemeny’s next opponent, brought an attack that Kemeny managed to weather. Another endgame ensued, and Kemeny brought home the point. The Ledger wrote, “The game between Messrs. Kemeny and D. Stuart [Robinson] in the second round of the Franklin Chess Club’s tourney was a French Defense, resulting in a victory for the former after a struggle lasting for nearly five hours. Kemeny in the early part obtained some advantage, but his twenty-first move was inferior and gave his opponent a chance to adopt aggressive tactics. Kemeny’s twenty-eighth move was evidently an oversight, which lost him a pawn, and his game became somewhat endangered. Had Stuart on the thirtieth move played ... Qe4 instead of ... Bb5 he would have had excellent winning chances. As it happened, he pursued a vigorous attack, which would have proved a success if it was not for the skillful defense his opponent offered. Kemeny succeeded in guarding his position; he captured the b-pawn, and later on the c-pawn, and neutralized the attack by enforcing the exchange of queens. The end game which followed was a very neat one, Kemeny winning in the shortest possible order.”

Kemeny–D. Stuart Robinson [C14] 1898-99 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 1899 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. B¥e7 Q¥e7 7. Nb5 Na6 Preferable is ... Qd8 or ... Nf8. The text move will prevent Black from advancing the cpawn, nor will he be able to dislodge the adverse knight. 8. c3 0–0 9. f4 f6 10. Nf3 f¥e5 11. f¥e5 Nb6 12. Bd3 Bd7 13. 0–0 Better, perhaps, was 13. a4. Black could not then play 13. ... Nc4 on account of 14. B¥c4 d¥c4 15. Na3, winning a pawn. 13. ... Nc4 14. B¥c4 d¥c4 15. Na3 15. a4 was still in order. The text play admits the ... b5 reply, which guards

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

205

the c-pawn, though it weakens the queenside. 15.  ... b5 16.  Qe2 Rf7 17.  Nd2 Raf8 18. R¥f7 R¥f7 19. Rf1 R¥f1+ 20. Q¥f1 Bc6 21. Nc2 White by exchanging rooks tried to reduce the game to an ending where he would have the advantage, Black having a weak e-pawn and a doubled c-pawn. The play would -D-D-DkD have been correct had he moved now 21. Qf4, so as to prevent his 0-0-1-0p opponent from obtaining the attack. The move selected, Nc2, might nDlDpD-D have been delayed; at any rate, it was inferior at the present stage. DpD-)-D21. ... Qg5 22.  Qf2 Nb8 23.  Ne3 Nd7 24.  b3 c¥b3 -Dp)-D-D 25. N¥b3 Qg6 26. Qd2 26. Qc2 was much better. White’s game H-)-D-Dwas somewhat endangered, and an exchange of queens would have P)-H-DP) at least equalized the position. 26.  ... Nb6 27.  Nc5 Nd5 D-D-DQI28. Nc2 28. N¥d5 would have been answered by 28. ... Qb1+ followed by 29. Kf2 B¥d5, and Black has a slight advantage. The text After 20. ... Bc6 move, however, is inferior, and should cause the loss of the game. White overlooked the ... N¥c3 reply. 28. ... N¥c3 29. Ne1 b4 Had Black played ... Nd5 or ... Ne4, then Qa5, followed eventually -D-D-DkD by Q¥a7, might have followed. The text move is, perhaps, the best. 0-0-D-0p 30. Na6 Bb5 Quite promising, but not satisfactory, as the pro- NDlDpDqD gress of the game shows. White can safely capture the b-pawn, D-D-)-Dnotwithstanding the threatening attack. Much stronger, it seems, -0-)-D-D was 30.  ... Qe4, threatening ... Q¥d4+ or ... Ne2+ and ... N¥d4. D-h-D-DWhite cannot well play Nf3, for ... Qe2, followed eventually by ... PD-!-DP) N¥e2+ [after Q¥e2], ... B¥f3 and ... N¥d4 was likely to win for Black. D-D-H-INor can White play Kf2. Black then answers ... Qb1, followed by ... Q¥a2. If White plays N¥b4 or N¥c7, then ... Ne2+ and ... N¥d4, After 30. Na6 followed eventually by ... Q¥e5, would give Black the better game. [JSH: An excellent line for Black would have been 30. ... Qb1 and if 31. N¥c7, then 31. ... Q¥a2. If White exchanges queens, Black’s out- -D-D-DkD side passed pawns should win.] 31. N¥b4 Ne2+ 32. Kf2 Qf5+ 0-D-Dq033. Nf3 Nf4 34. Qc2 Qf7 35. Qe4 A powerful move, which -DNDpD-0 threatens Qa8+ and an eventual exchange of queens. Black’s ... c6 DlD-)-Dis hardly good, for White safely captures the pawn. 35.  ... c6 -D-)QD-D 36. N¥c6 Nd3+ 37.  Ke3 h6 37.  ... g5 was hardly any better; D-DnINDWhite answers 38.  Nd8, followed eventually by Qb7 or N¥g5. PD-D-DP) 38. d5 This move, in connection with Q¥d5, leads to an exchange D-D-D-Dof queens and neutralizes the attack. White remains a pawn ahead. 38. ... e¥d5 39. Q¥d5 B¥c6 Better, perhaps, was 39. ... Q¥d5. After 37. ... h6 Black then remains with bishop and knight against two knights and has better chances to escape defeat. The play selected leaves White -D-D-D-D with a knight against a bishop, and being a pawn ahead, the win is a comparatively easy one. 40. Q¥f7+ K¥f7 41. K¥d3 g5 42. Kd4 0-D-D-DKe6 43. Ne1 Kf5 44. Nc2 He could not well play 44. Kc5, for -DlDPD-D 44. ... B¥g2 45. N¥g2 K¥e5 would have given Black excellent chances D-DND-0of escape. The text move wins; Black cannot play 44.  ... B¥g2 on -D-I-Dk0 account of Ne3+ and N¥g2. 44. ... h5 45. Ne3+ Kf4 46. Nd5+ D-D-D-DKg4 47. e6 h4 48. Ke5 Threatening Nf6 mate. Black cannot play PD-D-DP) ... h3, for 49. Nf6+ and g3 mate would follow. He must play ... Kh5 D-D-D-Dor ... B¥e5. In either case White wins speedily. 48.  ... Kh5 49. Nf6+ Kg6 50. e7 Kf7 51. e8Q+ B¥e8 52. N¥e8 K¥e8 After 47. ... h4

206

EMIL KEMENY

53. Kf5 h3 54. g4 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 15, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny benefited in the next game from Bampton’s trying for too much from the position. Kemeny’s own play was uneven, although helped at times by his opponents’ aggression. “The game between Messrs. Kemeny and Bampton,” the Ledger wrote, “in the second round of the Franklin Championship Tourney, was a Ruy Lopez, which resulted in a victory for the former. Bampton adopted the Alapin Defense, playing on the fourth turn ... Bb4. Kemeny, with his twelfth and thirteenth moves, started a somewhat premature attack, and he was obliged to desist for the time being, leaving the attack with his opponent. Bampton pursued the attack vigorously, but his opponent defended well, and by a timely exchange of queens brought about an even game. Had Bampton on his thirty-fourth turn played ... Rg7, he would have easily drawn the game; he, however, tried to make headway on the queenside, which proved disastrous. Kemeny succeeded in getting his king to d4, guarding the weak d-pawn. He soon won a pawn, and on the fifty-third turn an additional one, which gave him a winning advantage. Bampton was obliged to surrender on the fifty-sixth turn.

Kemeny–Samuel W. Bampton [C70] 1898-99 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 1899 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Bb4 5. 0–0 Nge7 6. d4 Better perhaps is 6. c3, followed by d4. White then will establish a strong center. 6. ... e¥d4 7. N¥d4 0– 0 8. Be3 b5 9. Bb3 d6 10. Bd5 Bb7 11. Bg5 Qc8 12. B¥c6 With the intention of continuing Nf5 and Qg4. The play, however, is prevented by Black’s ... Qe6 reply, and White must abandon the attack since ... Ne5 is threatening. Better was 12.  N¥c6. 12.  ... N¥c6 13. Nf5 Qe6 14. Ng3 Bc5 15. Nc3 Ne5 16. Nd5 B¥d5 17. e¥d5 Qg6 18. Be3 He could not well play 18. Bd2, for 18. ... f5 and eventually ... f4, would have given Black an overwhelming attack. The move selected leads to an exchange of bishops. White’s e-pawn will be weak, but he has the open f-file. 18. ... B¥e3 19. f¥e3 Qg5 19. ... Nc4 was perhaps better. If White answers 20. Qd4, then 20. ... Q¥c2 may follow. White loses a pawn, but Rac1 gives him good chances to hold his own. 20. Qd4 f5 21. Ne2 Rf6 22. Nf4 Ng4 23. Rf3 23. Rad1 was perhaps better. White, however, had to guard against the threatening ... Rh6 move. 23. ... Qh4 24. h3 Ne5 25. Rf2 g5 26. Ne6 g4 27. Raf1 c5 28. Qf4 Ra7 29. Qg5+ 29. h¥g4 might have been played. Black cannot answer 29. ... Rh6, for 30. Qg5+ follows. If, however, Black plays 29.  ... N¥g4, then 30.  Q¥d6 is White’s reply. The move selected is more conservative, and leads to an even game. 29.  ... 30.  N¥g5 g¥h3 31.  R¥f5 h¥g2 32.  R¥f6 g¥f1Q+ -D-D-DkD Q¥g5 33. K¥f1 Rd7 34. Ke2 a5 Better was 34. ... Rg7 followed even®-D-D-Dp tually by ... Rg2+. Black then at least would have drawn the game. pD-0N®-D 35. Ne4 Nc4 36.  b3 Nb6 37.  Rf5 [JSH: Missing the shot Dp0PhpD- 37. N¥c5 Rd8 (37. ... Rc7 38. R¥d6 R¥c5 39. R¥b6 R¥d5 40. c4) -D-D-!p1 38. Nb7, with advantage.] 37. ... Kg7 38. Kd3 c4+ 38. ... Nc8 D-D-)-DP at once was much better. The text move enables White to bring his P)PD-$PD king to d4, guarding the weak d-pawn, and White soon obtains a D-D-DRI- winning advantage. 39. Kd4 a4 40. Rf6 c¥b3 41. c¥b3 a¥b3 42. a¥b3 Nc8 43. Re6 Kf7 Which loses the h-pawn, as White’s Nf6 reply shows. Black, however, had a rather difficult game to After 28. ... Ra7

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings defend. White threatened Ng3, followed by Nf5+. 44.  Nf6 Re7 44. ... Rc7 was hardly any better. White answers 45. N¥h7 followed by Ng5+, and eventually continues Nf3, Ke4 and Nd4, with a winning game. 45. N¥h7 R¥e6 46. Ng5+ Kf6 47. N¥e6 Ne7 48. e4 Nc8 49. Nd8 This move, in connection with Nc6, practically keeps the adverse king out of play. Black cannot well play ... Ke7, for Nc6+, and eventually e5, would follow. 49.  ... Nb6 50.  Nc6 Na8 51. Na7 Nc7 52. Nc8 Ne8 The only way to guard the d-pawn, which, however, loses at once, since White answers 53. N¥d6. He regains the knight with e5+, coming out a pawn ahead. 53. N¥d6 N¥d6 54. e5+ Ke7 55. e¥d6+ K¥d6 56. b4 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 16, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny).

207

-DnD-D-D D-D-D-D-D-0Ni-D DpDPD-D-D-IPD-D DPD-D-D-D-D-D-D D-D-D-DAfter 48. ... Nc8

Although Kemeny had caught Voigt for a share of the lead, he quickly fell back in the next games. Shipley, uncharacteristically, had a bad tournament, winning only three games, with two of those against Dallas, who brought up the tournament’s tail end. But his third win, against Kemeny, had greater significance. Kemeny attacked, weakening his position, which later required he find a way to prevent the loss of a pawn. His solution, while entertaining for the spectators, did nothing to improve his tournament standing. According to the Ledger, “The game between Messrs. Shipley and Kemeny, in the second round of the Franklin Championship Tourney, now being played at the rooms of the Franklin Chess Club, was a Ruy Lopez, resulting in victory for the former. Kemeny adopted the 3. ... g6 Defense, and an even game ensued. An exchange of queens on the twenty-first turn gave him some attacking chances. Had he selected a more conservative continuation he might have obtained an advantage. As it happened he weakened his e-pawn and f-pawn by the advance of the g-pawn. In order to avoid the loss of a pawn, Kemeny made a sacrifice of a piece. This looked quite promising, but proved to be unsound. Shipley played carefully. He succeeded in exchanging rooks and minor pieces, coming out with a winning endgame.”

Walter Penn Shipley–Kemeny [C60] 1898-99 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 1899 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 Better is 3. ... Nf6. The move selected is answered by 4. c3, and eventually by d4, giving White the preferable game. 4. c3 Bg7 5. d3 Nge7 6. Nbd2 0–0 7. Nf1 d5 8. Ng3 d¥e4 9. N¥e4 Be6 10. Nc5 Qd5 11. N¥e6 Q¥e6 12. 0–0 Rad8 13. Qe2 a6 14. Bc4 Nd5 15. Re1 Qg4 16. h3 Qf5 17.  Bb3 Rfe8 18.  Ng5 h6 19.  Qe4 Qd7 20.  Nf3 f5 -D-D-DkD 21. Q¥d5+ Q¥d5 22. B¥d5+ R¥d5 23. d4 e4 24. Bf4 Re7 Dp0-®-g25. Nd2 g5 25. ... Kf7 was much stronger. The ... g5 move weakens the f-pawn and seriously endangers Black’s game. 26.  Bh2 Rd8 pDnD-Dp0 26. ... Kf7, followed eventually by ... Kg6, was in order. The move D-DrDpDselected is answered by g4 and Black’s e-pawn will become weak. -D-)pG-D 27. g4 B¥d4 Had Black played 27. ... f¥g4 then 28. h¥g4 would D-)-D-DP have followed. White then continues Re3 and Rae1 winning the P)-H-)PD e-pawn. The play adopted is quite promising, yet unsound, as $-D-$-IWhite’s correct defense proves. Instead of 27. ... B¥d4, Black might After 25. Nd2 have played 27. ..Rde8. If White answers 28. g¥f5, then 28. ... Kf7,

208

-D-®-DkD Dp0-®-DpD-D-D-0 D-D-D-0-D-h-DPD D-D-0-DP P)-D-D-G D-$-$NDK After 32. Nf1

-D-D-DkD Dp0-D-DpD-DnD-D D-D-D-0p -DRD-DP® D-D-G-DP)-D-DKH D-D-D-D-

EMIL KEMENY followed by ... Kf6 and ... K¥f5, would equalize the game. 28. c¥d4 N¥d4 29.  Rac1 f4 30.  Kh1 30. R¥e4 could not be played on account of 30. ... R¥e4 and 31. ... .Ne2+. Nor was 30. Ne4 any better. Black answers 30. ... Nf3+, winning the exchange. The move selected is perhaps the strongest White had. 30.  ... e3 31.  f¥e3 f¥e3 32. Nf1 Rf8 Better was 37. ... e2. If White answers 38. Ng3, then 38. ... Nf6 may be played. If White continues 39. R¥e2, then 39. ... R¥e2, ... N¥h2, and ... Rd2 would give him pretty good drawing chances. 33.  Bg1 Rf3 34.  R¥e3 Re¥e3 35.  B¥e3 R¥h3+ 36. Kg2 Rh4 37. Nh2 Ne6 38. Rc4 h5 39. Bf2 This move virtually ends the game. Black cannot save his rook. If he plays 39. ... Nf4+, then 40. R¥f4 follows, and White comes out a piece ahead, winning easily. 39. ... Nf4+ 40. R¥f4 R¥h2+ 41. K¥h2 g¥f4 42. g¥h5 Kg7 43.  Kh3 Kf6 44.  Kh4 Kf5 45.  Bd4 b6 46. h6 Kg6 47. Bg7 c5 48. Kg4 b5 49. K¥f4 c4 50. Ke4 a5 51. Kd5 a4 52. a3 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 20, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny).

A few days after the game above was played, news sources reported that Voigt’s eligibility for the American Cable team was still in question. Voigt had been born in Germany, but his father held United States citizenship. A further complication, however, After 38. ... h5 was that Voigt’s father had again become a citizen of a foreign country after the younger Voigt’s birth. Voigt was unquestionably an American citizen, but given the spirit rather than the letter of the Newnes trophy rules, the Americans felt compelled to clear his joining the national team with their opponents before assuming he was allowed to play (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 23, 1899). That morning in New York, news leaked of two developments equally hopeful for the American team: the British did not question Voigt’s inclusion, and Amos Burn would not play for the British. The next day’s Eagle announced that Voigt had been placed on the team, and that A. K. Robinson, Philadelphia’s representative the year before, had declined on business grounds to participate. Charles J. Newman had been substituted. Two other new team players were Frank Marshall, Brooklyn’s own champion, and Sidney Johnston, the strong Chicago player. The cable match, played the following month, saw the United States manage to keep the Newnes Trophy from permanently falling into British hands. Voigt, on board six, and Newman, on board nine, drew their games, and despite Pillsbury’s loss on first board to Blackburne, the Americans won 6–4. The Eagle for March 13, 1899, announced that after the cable match finished, the players and their out of town guests attended a reception at the rooms of the Brooklyn Chess Club. Kemeny appeared, as he had the year before, but oddly enough Bampton and A. K. Robinson accompanied him—two of the several Franklin club members who had declined to play because of other obligations. Bampton had perhaps indirectly contributed to Newman’s presence on the cable team when he defeated Kemeny in a ragged game, allowing Newman to reach a higher position in the Franklin tournament standings about the time cable team selections were made. Not surprisingly, the selection committee, based in Brooklyn, largely used their firsthand knowledge of Kemeny’s strength from his years in New York as a barometer to register the chess strength of Philadelphia players and their current form. The March 1899 issue of American Chess Magazine, at page 406, showed Voigt leading 71 ⁄ 2–11 ⁄ 2, and Newman at 7–3, with Kemeny and Bampton half a point further behind.

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

209

Samuel W. Bampton–Kemeny [C67] 1898-99 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 1899 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Nd6 6. d¥e5 A move introduced by Barbour, of this city. White regains the piece with a4. Should Black try to win a pawn White would obtain a decided advantage in position. By correct defense Black easily holds his own, and the variation selected is hardly as satisfactory as is 6. B¥c6, followed by 7. d¥e5. 6. ... N¥b5 7. a4 d6 8. a¥b5 N¥e5 9. Re1 Be7 10. N¥e5 d¥e5 11. Qh5 The usual move is 11. Q¥d8+, followed by 12. R¥e5. The text play avoids the exchange of queens, but is, however, rather favorable to Black. 11. ... 0–0 12. Q¥e5 Bd6 13. Qh5 Re8 14. Be3 Re5 15. Qe2 Qh4 16. g3 Qe7 17. Nc3 b6 A serious mistake, which causes the loss of the a-pawn and gives White a comparatively rDlD-DkD easy win. Black intended to develop the queen bishop via b7, over- 0p0-1p0p looking the rather obvious Qf3 reply. 18. Qf3 Rb8 19. R¥a7 Qe8 -D-g-D-D 20. Rea1 Bc5 21.  Ra8 Bb7 22.  R¥b8 Q¥b8 22.  ... B¥f3 DPD-®-D23. R¥e8+ R¥e8 24.  B¥c5 with an easy win for White. The play selected enables Black to offer some resistance. 23. Qf4 Better, per- -D-D-D-D haps, was 23.  ... Bd6. Black’s game, however, was pretty hopeless. D-H-G-)23. ... Qe8 24. Ra7 g5 24. ... R¥e3 would have been answered -)PDQ)-) with 25.  R¥b7; if then 25.  ... Re1+, White moves 26.  Kg2, and if $-D-$-IBlack plays 25. ... Qa8, then 26. Qf3 follows. The text move does After 17. Nc3 not improve the Black game, as White’s 25.  Qf6 reply shows. 25. Qf6 R¥e3 26. R¥b7 Re6 27. Q¥g5+ Rg6 28. Qf4 Bd6 29. Qf3 Kg7 30. Ra7 Rf6 31. Qg4+ Rg6 32. Qe4 Re6 33. Qg4+ Rg6 34. Qd4+ Be5 35. Qe4 Qe6 36. Nd5 B¥b2 37. Q¥e6 R¥e6 38. R¥c7 Re1+ 39. Kg2 Bd4 40. c3 Bc5 41. Kf3 Rb1 42. R¥c5 An ingenious move, which should lead to a speedy win. White, it seems, had the b4 and Nb4 continuation in view, which would lose on account of c¥b4 and b¥c3 or Rd1 and Rd8. White, however, has a winning continuation by playing b6, Ke2-d3-c2, which was overlooked in actual play. 42. ... b¥c5 43. b6 Kf8 44. Ke2 Ke8 45. Kd3 Kd7 46. Nf6+ He now could have won at once by playing 46. Kc2. If Black answers 46. ... Rb5, then 47. c4 and b7 -D-D-D-D follow. Black cannot play Re1 in reply to Kc2, for b7 follows; if then D-DkDpDp Re8 White answers Nf6+, winning the rook. White missed a neat -)-D-D-D win, and the text move should enable Black to draw the game. 46. ... D-0ND-DKc6 More conservative and probably better was 46.  ... Ke6. The move selected gives White excellent winning chances on the kingside. -D-D-D-D 47. N¥h7 K¥b6 48. Ng5 Rb2 Not good. The rook was better D-)KD-)placed at b1 than at b2, for it could easier stop the h-pawn. Black -D-D-)-) had the Rf2 continuation in view, which, however, would lose, for DrD-D-DWhite can afford to play N¥f7 and eventually give up the knight for After 45. ... Kd7 the c-pawn. White thus stops the adverse c-pawn and is enabled to advance Kf5-g6-g7, for White in due time will play Nc1 and Ne2. 49. Ke3 f5 50. h4 Kb5 50. ... Rb1, followed eventually by Rh1, was much better. The continuation selected loses, for White wins the rook and the knight will stop the c-pawn. 51. h5 Kc4 52.  h6 K¥c3 53.  h7 Rb8 54.  Nf7 Re8+ 55.  Kf3 Kd2 56.  h8Q R¥h8 57. N¥h8 c4 58. Ng6 c3 59. Nf4 c2 60. Ne2 Kd3 61. Nc1+ Kd2 62. Na2 Causes Black to surrender. He cannot queen the pawn, for 62. ... c1(Q) 63. N¥c1, 64. Kf4 and 65. K¥f5 follows. If, however, Black plays 62. ... Kd3, then 64. Kf4 follows. Black does not achieve any-

210

EMIL KEMENY

thing by playing his pawn on the kingside. 1–0 (American Chess Magazine, March 1899, page 413, with annotations by Kemeny). Ordinarily the publication of a chess player’s game in a chess column is the object of some pleasure, at least for the victor and his friends. The game that follows, however, was not published with that purpose, or under ordinary circumstances. It appeared nearly a year after it was played, as a remembrance for those who knew George Wharton Dallas. Dallas was not a first rate player at the Franklin. It is not clear why he entered the 189899 Franklin Championship, other than because of his love for the game; why he was permitted to enter, another question entirely, may be answered by his social standing in the club and city. Born on May 6, 1874, Dallas came from a highly respected Pennsylvania family. He was the youngest son of George Mifflin Dallas, who had in 1891 been nominated by President Benjamin Harrison for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, and who kept that post until his retirement 17 years later. Dallas’s father was himself the grandson of his namesake, George Mifflin Dallas, eleventh vice president of the United States, who served in the administration of James Knox Polk from 1845 to 1849, and for whom Dallas, both city and county, in Texas, are named. The young chess playing Dallas, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer for January 31, 1900, had graduated from the University of Pennsylvania law school in 1894 and “had won the highest honors in his class.” He joined the firm of Crawford, Loughlin & Dallas, and was “regarded as one of the rising men of the profession.” He died Monday evening, January 29, 1900, at the age of 25. According to his obituary, “His illness lasted for a long time, and was due to appendicitis.” The Inquirer a few days later, on February 2, 1900, remarked that Dallas had been buried the day before at St. James the Lesser, an Episcopal Cemetery in Philadelphia, adding that “About two years ago his health broke and he finally succumbed to a complication of diseases on January 29.” The promising young lawyer with the excellent pedigree had also been a promising chess player, according to the Ledger, in which Kemeny annotated one of his games from this championship: “The game between Messrs. Kaiser and Dallas in the Franklin Club Championship Tourney was a Queen’s Gambit Declined, which resulted in a drawn contest. Mr. Kaiser selected the ... c6 variation, and an even game ensued. On the eighteenth turn Mr. Dallas was obliged to advance the f-pawn, which weakened the e-pawn. This gave his opponent a slight advantage. By skillful play, however, Mr. Dallas was enabled to overcome the disadvantage, and when forty-one moves were made, a draw was offered and accepted.” George Wharton Dallas–Julius Adam Kaiser [D51], 1898-99 Franklin Championship. 1.  d4 d5 2.  c4 e6 3.  Nc3 Nf6 4.  Bg5 Nbd7 4. ... Be7 is usually played; the text move, however, is quite satisfactory, so White cannot win a pawn by continuing c¥d5 and N¥d5, for ... e¥d5 and ... N¥d5 would follow. If, then, White plays B¥d8, Black replies ... Bb4+, regaining the queen and coming out a piece ahead. 5. e3 c6 6. a3 Bd6 7. Nf3 Qc7 8. Bd3 h6 9. Bh4 d¥c4 10. B¥c4 b5 11. Bd3 Bb7 12. Ne4 12. 0–0, followed by e5, was, perhaps, better. The move selected leads to an exchange of the pieces. 12. ... N¥e4 13. B¥e4 f5 14. Bd3 14. Bc2 or 14. Bb1 would have enabled White to continue Bb3 or Ba2, attacking the adverse e-pawn, and was probably stronger than the Bd3 play. 14. ... 0–0 15. Bg3 e5 16. d¥e5 N¥e5 17. N¥e5 B¥e5 18. f4 Which weakens the e-pawn. White, however, had hardly a better continuation. Had he played 18. 0–0 then 18. ... f4 19. e¥f4 B¥f4 20. B¥f4 Q¥f4 would have given Black the preferable game. 18. ... Bd6 19. 0–0 Bc5 20. Qf3 Qe7 Better, perhaps, was ... Bb6. Black then threatens ... c5 and eventually ... c4. The text move loses time and gives White the opportunity to play Bf2. 21. Bf2 Bb6 22. e4 c5 23. Rae1 Qd7 24. Bb1 Qc7 25. Qb3+ Kh8 26. e5 Qc6 27. Qh3 Rae8 27. ...

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

211

Rad8 was, perhaps, better. White, however, by answering Rd1 could equalize the game. 28. Re2 b4 29. a¥b4 Ba6 30. Bd3 B¥d3 31. Q¥d3 c¥b4 32. B¥b6 Q¥b6+ 33. Kh1 Rd8 34. Qb3 Qb5 35. Rfe1 Rd3 He might have played 35. ... a5, followed eventually by ... a4. White, however, defends with Qe3, and the passed e-pawn may become dangerous. 36. Qc2 b3 37. Qc1 Qd5 38. Re3 Rd2 39. R3e2 Rd4 40. Qe3 Re4 41. Qf3 After this move a draw was offered and accepted. The position is an even one. Black may defend with ... R¥e2 and ... Rd8 or by playing ... Rd8 at once. 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 3, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny). One of Kemeny’s 1898-99 tournament games against Dallas did not appear in print until after the latter’s death in 1900. It reveals something of the details of Dallas’s participation in the 1898-99 Franklin championship: “George Wharton Dallas, whose death was announced in Tuesday’s Ledger [January 30, 1900], was a chess player of considerable ability, and a member of the Franklin Chess Club. He participated in last year’s championship tourney. Health was against him, and in prolonged struggles he could not do full justice to himself, but he made his best effort in every game, and in some of them he displayed remarkable skill. The game given below was contested in the second round of last year’s championship tourney. Play took place at Mr. Dallas’s residence. For a number of moves he had the upper hand, and the best his opponent could reasonably expect was to hold his own. The game lasted for four hours, and the continuous strain was too much and he weakened towards the end, which enabled his opponent to win.”

George Wharton Dallas–Kemeny [C44] 1898-99 Franklin Chess Club Championship [Home of George Wharton Dallas] 1898 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 e¥d4 4. Bc4 The safest play is 4. N¥d4. The text move in connection with c3 involves the sacrifice of a pawn, leads, however, to a lively attack. 4. ... Bc5 5.  c3 d3 Hardly as good as 5. ... d¥c3, though by giving up the surplus pawn Black materially neutralizes the attack. 6. B¥d3 d6 7. Bf4 Nf6 8. Nbd2 0–0 9. 0–0 Ng4 10. h3 Nge5 11. B¥e5 d¥e5 12. Nc4 Qf6 13. Qe2 Be6 14. b3 Rad8 15. Rad1 b5 16. Ne3 Ne7 The sacrifice of the b-pawn is hardly sound, yet the ... Ne7, Ng6 and eventually Nf4 continuation is quite promising. 17. B¥b5 Ng6 18. Nh2 Qg5 19. Nf3 Qf4 20. Bd3 R¥d3 White was a pawn ahead, and he managed to fortify his position. Black’s attack could not be maintained, except by the sacrifice -D-®-®kD of the exchange. 21. R¥d3 Q¥e4 22. Ng5 A powerful move; it 0-0-Dp0p attacks the queen and bishop, and, should Black move the queen, -D-DlDnD then N¥e6, followed eventually by Ng4 or Nc4, gives White a winD-g-0-Dning game. Black’s only reply is ... Nf4, bringing about an exchange of queens. 22. ... Nf4 23. N¥e4 N¥e2+ 24. Kh2 Bb6 25. g3 -D-DP1-D f5 26. Ng5 Bc8 27. Re1 [JSH: 27. Nd5 Bc5 28. Rd2 h6 29. R¥e2 DP)LHNDP h¥g5 30. R¥e5 should win.] 27. ... e4 28. R¥e2 White gives up PD-DQ)PD the exchange. Had White moved his rook from d3, then ... N¥f2 D-DRDRIwould have followed. White expected to win the d-pawn. 28.  ... After 20. Bd3 e¥d3 29. Rd2 Rd8 30. Nc4 Bc5 31. Ne5 B¥f2 32. R¥d3 He could not play 32. R¥f2 on account of 32. ... d2 and the pawn could not be stopped. 32. ... Re8 33. Ngf3 Bb7 34. Rd7 Bb6 35. Rd2 Thus far White, at least, held his own, and had he moved 35. c4 and eventually c5, he would have had some winning chances. The move selected is too conservative, and gives Black an opportunity to

212

-D-DrDkD 0l0RD-0p -g-D-D-D D-D-HpD-D-D-D-D DP)-DN)P PD-D-D-I D-D-D-D-

EMIL KEMENY start an attack. 35.  ... g5 [JSH: A better continuation for Black: 35. ... Bc5 36. Rd7 Bd6 37. Kg1 R¥e5 38. N¥e5 B¥e5 39. Kf2 Kf8.] 36. g4 [JSH: 36. Rd7 is still best for White. The remaining moves for both sides could be significantly improved. It should be remembered, however, that Kemeny had not intended to publish the game, its appearance coming only a year following the death of Dallas.] 36. ... Be3 37.  Rd7 f¥g4 38.  h¥g4 Bf4+ 39.  Kh3 B¥e5 40. N¥g5 Bf4 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 2, 1900, with annotations by Kemeny).

After 34. ... Bb6

In the end Kemeny made a race of the championship. He had assistance from Newman, who defended weakly and allowed Kemeny to gather the full point. As the Ledger wrote, “Perhaps the prettiest game in the Franklin Chess Club’s championship tourney was the one played Tuesday night between Messrs. Kemeny and Newman, and which resulted in a brilliant victory for the former. The game was a Ruy Lopez, Newman adopting the same defense he played against Bellingham in the cable match. Mr. Kemeny, however, pursued the attack more vigorously than the Englishman did, and by advancing the e-pawn in the twenty-sixth move he obtained a winning advantage. The endgame which followed was brilliant and instructive, Mr. Kemeny forcing a win by the sacrifice of a bishop.”

Kemeny–Charles J. Newman [C67] 1898-99 Franklin Chess Club Championship March 14, 1898

-D-D-D-D Dk0-g-0-0-DP0-D 0-0PDP)p PDKD-D-) DPD-D-D-G-D-D-D D-D-D-DAfter 35. ... Kb7

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Nd6 6.  B¥c6 d¥c6 7.  d¥e5 Nf5 8.  Q¥d8+ K¥d8 9.  Nc3 h6 10. b3 Be7 11. Bb2 Be6 12. Ne4 b6 13. c4 Kc8 14. a4 a5 15. Rad1 Rd8 16. R¥d8+ K¥d8 17. h3 c5 18. g4 Nh4 19. N¥h4 B¥h4 20.  f4 Bd7 21.  f5 Ke8 22.  Nc3 Bc6 23. Nd5 Rd8 24.  Rd1 Kf8 25.  Rd3 f6 26.  e6 B¥d5 27. R¥d5 R¥d5 28. c¥d5 Bg3 29. Kg2 Bd6 30. Kf3 Ke7 31. Ke4 Kd8 32. h4 Be7 33. g5 h5 34. Kd3 Kc8 35. Kc4 Kb7 White plays 36.  B¥f6, winning brilliantly. 36.  B¥f6 g¥f6 37. g6 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 17, 1899).

Of course, the second encounter between Kemeny and Voigt had the makings of a classic. Voigt had won the Franklin club championship four times, but only once, the year before, when Kemeny had been in the competition. Although their game did not take place in the final round, it was close enough to the finish to make the final outcome uncertain for some time. The Ledger, prior to Kemeny’s annotating the game, uncharacteristically went into detail regarding the tournament’s standings and the impact the game had: “The game between Messrs. Kemeny and Voigt in the second round of the Franklin Club’s championship tourney was a highly interesting one, and the outcome of it made the former a dangerous competitor for first honors. Kemeny in this tourney made a somewhat poor start; he lost the first game to Bampton, and drew with Shipley, which placed him a game behind Voigt. By defeating Voigt in the first round he succeeded in evening up matters, and a close race followed. Voigt won the remaining games of the first round, while Kemeny could

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

213

make no headway against Newman, and when he tried to win he took chances which caused his defeat. He thus started the second round badly handicapped, being a full game behind Voigt. Matters grew worse when he lost to Shipley. Voigt having drawn with Newman, was then 11 ⁄ 2 points ahead of him, and was pretty generally considered a sure winner. Had he won from Kemeny, the latter would have been out of the race, but even a drawn game would have pretty certainly secured first place for Voigt. Kemeny thus had a pretty hard up-hill fight. “Voigt having the first move selected the Ruy Lopez. An exchange of queens and rooks was soon brought about, reducing the game to an ending, with hardly any advantage for either side. Had Voigt selected the correct continuation, he could have readily drawn the game, but as it happened, he did not foresee the ingenious continuation his opponent had on hand, and Kemeny succeeded in bringing about a position where he could afford to make a brilliant sacrifice of a bishop, which decided the game in his favor. The outcome of this game reduced Voigt’s lead to 1 ⁄ 2 point. This was evened up when he drew with Bampton. Kemeny won his remaining games with Newman, Dallas and Kaiser, making a score of 101 ⁄ 2 to 31 ⁄ 2. Voigt won from Kaiser and D. Stuart [Robinson], giving him exactly the same score. Bampton has drawn with Shipley, and his final score is 91 ⁄ 2 to 41 ⁄ 2, which secures him third prize.”

Herman G. Voigt–Kemeny[C67] 1898-99 Franklin Chess Club Championship March 1898 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Nd6 The usual continuation of the Berlin Defense is: 5. ... Be7 6. Qe2 Nd6 7. B¥c6 b¥c6 8. d¥e5 Nb7. This play, however, of late has not proved quite satisfactory. Pillsbury, playing White, adopted the Re1 continuation against Tarrasch, and he obtained a decided advantage. The text move in connection with ... d¥c6 and ... Nc5 is nowadays given the preference. This variation leads to an early exchange of queens and leaves Black with a doubled c-pawn and a rather poorly placed king’s knight; it also prevents him from castling. This, however, is fairly equalized by Black coming out with two bishops against bishop and knight, which is considered a slight advantage in the end game. The variation seems quite sound, yet it requires pretty accurate and careful play on both sides. 6. B¥c6 d¥c6 7. d¥e5 Nf5 8. Q¥d8+ K¥d8 9. Bg5+ The proper play is 9. Rd1+, followed by Nc3, b3 and Bb2. The text move does not properly develop the bishop, and Black will gain the important ... h6 and ... g5 moves. 9.  ... Ke8 10.  Nc3 h6 11.  Bf4 Better, perhaps, was 11. Bd2. 11. ... g5 12. Bg3 Be6 12. ... N¥g3 would hardly be a good line of play. White’s bishop is not well developed rDlDkg-® and Black must keep his knight to prevent White from Nd4. 0p0-DpD13. Rad1 Be7 14. Rfe1 Loss of time. He should have played Nd4 -DpD-D-0 at once, followed by the doubling of rooks on the d-file. 14. ... Kf8 D-D-)n015. Nd4 N¥d4 16.  R¥d4 Kg7 17.  Red1 Rad8 18.  R¥d8 -D-D-D-D 18. Ne4 should have been played. White then threatens 19.  R¥d8 R¥d8 20.  R¥d8 B¥d8 21.  Nc5, followed by Nd3. 18.  ... R¥d8 D-H-DNG19. R¥d8 B¥d8 20. f3 Kg6 21. b3 Kf5 22. Ne2 c5 23. Kf2 P)PD-)P) Bd5 24. c4 Bc6 24. ... Be6 might have been played, followed even- $-D-DRItually by ... c6 and ... b5. White, of course, could guard with Ke3 After 12. Bg3 and Kd3. 25. Nc3 b6 26. h3 h5 27. Bh2 g4 28. h¥g4+ h¥g4 29. Ke3 Bg5+ Apparently loss of time, since f4 will force the retreat of the bishop. Black, however, desired to bring about the advance of the f-pawn, in order to reduce the activity of the adverse bishop. 30. f4 Bd8 31. Nd5 A powerful move. Black can-

214

EMIL KEMENY

not afford to capture the knight, for White’s center pawns become too strong. Black hardly has a better answer than ... f6, which, however, leads merely to an even game. 31.  ... f6 32. Kd3 Threatening Ne3+, followed eventually by N¥g4. A safer play was 32. N¥f6. If Black answers ... B¥g2, then Nh5, and eventually Ng3+ draws. If 32. ... B¥f6, then 33. e¥f6 K¥f6 34. g3 gives White a slight edge, though surely not a winning, advantage. 32.  ... f¥e5 33. f¥e5 Better than 33. Ne3+ followed by f¥e5 or N¥g4. Black would eventually win the g-pawn, remaining with a slight advantage on the queenside. 33.  ... Bg5 34.  e6 K¥e6 35. N¥c7+ Kd7 36. Nd5 Ke6 37. Ke4 Either 37. Nc7+ or 37. Bg3 should have been played; both players were quite certain to secure a draw. The text -D-D-D-D move leaves the knight pinned, and to some extent endangers the 0-D-D-D- position, though White still can draw the game. 37.  ... Bd8 Bb8 a6 39. Bf4 b5 40. Be3 Be7 41. Bf2 Bd6 He could -0lDkD-D 38. not well play 41. ... a5 at once, on account of White’s 42. a4 reply. D-0ND-g- Black then cannot answer 42. ... b¥a4, as after 43. b¥a4 B¥a4, White -DPD-DpD has 44. N¥e7 K¥e7 45. B¥c5+, which would give White the advanDPDKD-D- tage. 42. Be3 42. Be1 should have been played, in order to stop PD-D-DPG Black from advancing the a-pawn. White evidently was not aware D-D-D-D- of the threatening continuation. 42. ... a5 43. Bd2 a4 44. Be3 44. Bc1 was much better, though Black, at this stage, could hardly After 36. ... Ke6 be stopped from the eventual advance of the a-pawn. 44.  ... a3 45. Bc1 b4 46. Be3 Bf8 47. Bf2 47. Bc1 was perhaps better. Black then by maneuvering with his king’s bishop may gain the move, but he cannot at once play ... Ba4, as he does in the present case. This brilliant move, it seems, was entirely overlooked by White, otherwise he would have stopped Black from advancing his pawns. 47.  ... Ba4 48. N¥b4 He could not play 48.  b¥a4 b3 and one of the Black -D-D-g-D pawns queens. Black threatened ... B¥b3, followed by queening of D-D-D-D- the a-pawn. If there was a way to save the game it rested with; 48. Ne3 -D-DkD-D in which case Black would have answered 48. ... Be8, threatening ... D-0ND-D- Bg6+, ... Bb1 and ... B¥a2. The continuation was likely to be as 49. Kd3 Bh6 50. Ke2 Bh5 and Black wins. The play adopted l0PDKDpD follows: gives Black a speedy victory. [JSH: The power of the two bishops 0PD-D-D- undermines White’s 48. Ne3 attempt: 48. ... Bh6! 49. Nc2 Be8! and PD-D-GPD if 50. B¥c5 then 50. ... Bg6+ 51. Kd4 Bg7+ 52. Ke3 B¥c2 53. B¥b4 D-D-D-D- Bh6+ 54. Kd4 Bc1 55. Kc3 Bb1 56. g3 Bb2+ 57. Kd2 Be5 or 57. ... B¥a2. Computer analysis suggests White did have a saving line, one After 47. ... Ba4 that might well have delivered Voigt the championship: 48.  Bg3! when the b3 pawn remains invulnerable because White has Be5 covering the queening square, as well as Ne3-c2: 48. ... Bg7 (48. ... B¥b3 49. a¥b3 a2 50. Be5) 49. Ne3 Be8 (49. ... B¥b3 50. a¥b3 and if 50. ... a2 then 51. Nc2 a1Q 52. N¥a1 B¥a1 53. Bf2 Kd6 54. Kf5) 50. Kd3 Bg6+ 51. Kd2 Bh6 52. Bf2 (52. Ke2 Bb1) 52. ... Bb1 53. g3 Ke5 (53. ... B¥a2 54. Kc2) 54. Kd1. While not forced, the lines do show the complexity of the position and, more importantly, no clear winning line for Black after 48. Bg3.] 48. ... c¥b4 49. b¥a4 b3 Causes White to surrender. If he plays 50.  a¥b3, then ... Bg7 follows, and the a-pawn cannot be stopped. If, however, 50. Bd4 is played, then ... b2, followed by queening of the pawn. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 30, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny; the same annotations were reprinted in American Chess Magazine, July 1899, pages 39–40). The Ledger noted immediately after the game above that “The final game of the Franklin Chess Club’s championship tourney was played on Tuesday night [March 28] when Voigt

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

215

defeated D. Stuart. Voigt’s score now is 101 ⁄ 2 to 31 ⁄ 2, and he is tied with Kemeny for first place. According to the rules, the tie must be played off in a match, the winner of two games to be the champion. Drawn games do not count. The first game will be contested this evening.” The first three games were drawn, stretching the championship into April. They have not been found. In the fourth, Voigt, with White, played weakly and before twenty moves were made found himself in a lost position. Kemeny also played a weak move, 25.  ... Re6 (moving the rook to either e5 or e7 would have maintained a decided advantage), but Voigt didn’t find the saving line. Play could have been stopped earlier, but Voigt persisted until faced with mate. The Ledger wrote, “The fourth game in the Kemeny–Voigt match was played yesterday and resulted in a victory for the former. Voigt selected the Four Knights’ Opening, leading to an even development. On his twelfth and fourteenth moves he selected a rather inferior continuation, causing the loss of a pawn. In the subsequent play he sacrificed the exchange. Kemeny maintained the attack, and on the twenty-ninth turn won a piece, which virtually decided the game in his favor. Voigt was obliged to surrender on the thirty-eighth turn, when he could not avert a threatening mate. The score now is: Kemeny 1; Voigt, 0, and 3 games were drawn.”

Herman G. Voigt–Kemeny [C49] Franklin Chess Club Championship Playoff Match Game 4 April 11, 1899 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. 0–0 0–0 6. d3 d6 7. Ne2 Ne7 8.  c3 Ba5 9.  Ng3 c6 10.  Ba4 Ng6 11.  Bc2 The usual play is 11. d4 at once. The text move, however, leads to a similar variation, if followed by d4. 11. ... d5 12. Qe2 12. d4 should have been rDl1-®kD played, the text move gives Black a slight advantage. 12.  ... Nf4 0pD-Dp0p 13. B¥f4 e¥f4 14. e5 14. Nf5 would have fairly equalized the game, -DpD-h-D the text play loses a pawn. White, it seems, selected this play in order g-DpD-Dto obtain the open h-file or f-file, with some chances for a kingside -D-DP0-D attack. 14.  ... f¥g3 15.  e¥f6 g¥h2+ 16.  K¥h2 Bc7+ 17.  g3 D-)PDNHQ¥f6 18.  Rh1 Bg4 19.  Kg2 Rfe8 20.  Qd1 d4 Well played. P)LDQ)P) White intended to continue d4, followed eventually by Qd3 and $-D-DRIBd1, neutralizing Black’s attack. The text play prevents or at least delays this play. 21.  Rh4 This move; in connection with R¥g4 is After 13. ... e¥f4 hardly sound. White loses the exchange without any advantage in position. Better, perhaps, was 21. c¥d4, followed by d5 and d4. 21. ... rD-DrDkD h5 22. R¥g4 h¥g4 23. N¥d4 c5 24. Nb3 He had no other move. 24. Nb5 could not be played, on account of 24. ... Qc6+ and 0pg-Dp0p ... Q¥b5, nor was Ne2 any better. Black then continues ... Qf3+, fol- -DpD-1-D lowed by ... R¥e2, and White cannot capture the rook, for ... Qh1 D-DpD-Dmate would follow. [JSH: That is, if White plays 24. Ne2 Qf3+ 25. Kf1 -D-D-DlD R¥e2, White cannot recapture because of 26.  Q¥e2 Qh1 mate.] D-)PDN)24. ... Qc6+ 25. Kg1 Re6 Black could well afford to sacrifice the P)LD-)KD g4-pawn, for by dou-bling rooks on the open e-file his attack becomes $-DQD-DR irresistible. [JSH: 25.  ... Re5 26.  Q¥g4 Rae8 avoids the line White has on his next move. Kemeny’s move deserves a question mark.] After 20. Qd1

216

EMIL KEMENY

26. Q¥g4 [JSH: Missing 26. d4! when the fork threat at d5 interrupts Black’s plans: 26. ... Rh6 27. d5 Qd7 28. N¥c5 Qe7 still favors Black, but White is in a better position than in the game.] 26. ... Rae8 27. Nd2 Black threatened ... Re1+, as well as ... Rh6, leading to a mate. The text move guards against this. Black, however, has a winning continuation on hand. By playing ... Re2 he wins a piece. White cannot answer Rd1 on account of ... R¥d2, followed by ... Re1+, and rook or -D-D-DkD queen mates. 27. ... Re2 28. Ba4 b5 29. Ne4 R2¥e4 30.  d¥e4 b¥a4 0-g-Dp0After 25. Kg1 31. Re1 c4 32.  Re2 Rd8 33.  f4 -DqD-D-D Rd1+ 34.  Kg2 Qh6 Threatening D-D-D-D35. ... Qh1+ 36. Kf2 Qf1+ 37. Ke3 Rd3 mate. White has no valid pDpDP)QD defense. 35.  Qh3 cannot be played on account of ... Rg1+, and D-)-D-)eventually ... Rh1+ winning the queen. If, however, 35.  Qh4 is P)-DRDKD played, then 35.  ... Q¥h4 36.  g¥h4 B¥f4 wins. White’s Qc8+ is D-DrD-Danswered by ... Bd8. White’s game, after ... Qh6, is a hopeless one. 35. Qc8+ Bd8 36. Rc2 Qh1+ 37. Kf2 Qf1+ 0–1 (Philadelphia After 34. Kg2 Public Ledger, April 12, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny).

rD-DrDkD 0pg-Dp0-DqD-D-D D-0-D-D-D-D-DpD DN)PD-)P)LD-)-D $-DQD-I-

The match and hence the championship could have been decided in the fifth game, but Kemeny missed two winning endgame opportunities. The match had been protracted, as this game appears not to have been played until the end of April. The Ledger wrote, “The fifth game in the Kemeny–Voigt match was played last week and resulted in a draw. Kemeny selected the Queen’s Pawn Opening and obtained some advantage on the queenside; his twenty-second move, however, was inferior, and enabled his opponent to establish a strong attack, which became quite threatening. Kemeny had to lose the valuable b-pawn, but he won the d-pawn, which fairly equalized the game. An exchange of queens took place, each side remaining with a rook and three pawns. Kemeny’s passed c-pawn was somewhat threatening, yet by proper defense there was hardly any winning chance. The game was a well contested one and required nearly six hours’ play.”

Kemeny–Herman G. Voigt [D00] Franklin Chess Club Championship Playoff Match Game 5 April 1899 1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3 c5 4. c3 c¥d4 Better, perhaps, is 4. ... e6. The text play leaves White with the majority of pawns on the queenside, which, according to Steinitz, is an advantage. 5.  e¥d4 Nc6 6.  Nf3 Bg4 7.  0–0 e6 8.  Bg5 Be7 9. Nbd2 Qc7 10. Qc2 Rc8 11. Ne5 Bh5 The move selected is, perhaps, the best; it guards against B¥f6 and N¥g4. 12. N¥c6 b¥c6 13. B¥f6 g¥f6 14. f4 Bd6 15. g3 c5 16. d¥c5 White opens the diagonal for the adverse queen and bishop. The play, nevertheless, was superior to 16. Qa4+ . Black would have answered 16. ... Ke7 and ... c¥d4, leaving White with an isolated d-pawn. 16. ... B¥c5+ 17.  Kg2 f5 18.  Rae1 0–0 19.  Be2 B¥e2

-DrDkD-® 0-1-DpDp -D-gp0-D D-0pD-Dl -D-)-)-D D-)LD-)P)QH-D-) $-D-DRIAfter 15. ... c5

7. At the Franklin, and Two Midsummer Meetings

217

20. R¥e2 d4 21. c4 Bb4 22. b3 22. Rc1 should have been played, followed eventually by Nf3 and Qd3. White had a decided advantage on the queenside, especially since the Black d-pawn is rather weak. The move selected enables Black to play ... Bc3 as well as ... a5 and ... a4, with some attacking chances. 22. ... Rfd8 23. Qd3 a5 24. Nf3 a4 25. Ne1 a¥b3 26. a¥b3 Bc3 27. Nf3 White’s intention was to play his knight to c2, then to a3 and b5. Black’s present move prevents this, for -Dr®-DkD 27. Nc2 would be answered by 27.  ... Qb7+ and ... Q¥b3. White D-1-DpDp thus is forced to abandon this play and move Nf3 and Nd2, losing -D-DpD-D several moves. 27. ... Rb8 28. Rb1 Rb4 29. Rc2 Qb6 30. Nd2 D-D-DpDRb8 31. h3 Another play for White was 31. R¥c3 d¥c3 32. Q¥c3. The sacrifice of the exchange was hardly promising, however. The -DP0-)-D play selected is stronger. White cannot guard the b-pawn, but if Black DPgQD-)wants to win it he must give up the d-pawn, and whatever advantage -D-DRDK) there is it remains with White on account of the passed c-pawn. D-D-HRD31. ... Qa5 32. g4 f¥g4 33. h¥g4 B¥d2 34. R¥d2 R¥b3 He After 26. ... Bc3 could also have played 34. ... R¥c4. The outcome, however, would have been quite similar to the one in actual play. 35. R¥b3 R¥b3 36. Q¥d4 Qa8+ 37. Kh2 Rb1 38. Qd8+ Q¥d8 39. R¥d8+ -DRD-D-D Kg7 40. c5 Rc1 41. Rc8 h5 41. ... h6 was much better. The sac- D-D-DpDrifice of the pawn somewhat endangers the Black game. 42. g¥h5 -DPDpi-D Rc3 43. Kg2 Kf6 44. c6 Rc5 45. Kf3? [JSH: Missing 45. Rg8! D-®-D-DP Rc2+ (45. ... R¥c6 46. h6; 45. ... R¥h5 46. c7) 46. Kf3 Rc3+ 47. Ke4 -D-D-)-D Rc4+ 48. Kd3 and wins no matter which pawn Black takes.] 45. ... D-D-D-DKg7? 46. c7 f6 47. h6+ Kh7 48. Rf8 R¥c7 49. R¥f6 Rc5 50. Ke3? Much better was 50. R¥e6. Black cannot continue 50. ... -D-D-DKD Rh5 and ... R¥h6, for Ke3, R¥h6+ and Ke4 would give White a win- D-D-D-Dning game. Black, however, might have played ... Rf5, eventually After 44. ... Rc5 leading to a drawn game. [JSH: 50.  ... Rf5 51.  Kg4 Ra5 52.  f5 Ra1 53. Kg5 Rg1+ 54.  Kf6 actually wins.] 50.  ... Rc1 51.  Kd4 Re1 52. Kc5 e5 53.  f5 e4 54.  Kd4 e3 55.  Kd3 e2 56.  Kd2 Rh1 57.  K¥e2 R¥h6 58. Rf7+ Kg8 59. Ra7 Rh4 60. Kf3 Kf8 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, May 5, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny). The sixth game brought an end to the match. Voigt blundered shortly before adjournment, and there clearly was no point in continuing. The game does, however, have several interesting positions. The Philadelphia Public Ledger wrote, “The sixth game of the Kemeny–Voigt match was a Four Knights’ Game, which resulted in a victory for the former. Kemeny on his twelfth and sixteenth turns selected a rather unfavorable line of play, which enabled his opponent to establish a strong kingside attack. The position soon became complicated, and it looked as if Voigt’s attack would prove a winning one. Kemeny, however, on his twenty-fifth turn made a bold sacrifice of an exchange, which won him a pawn and relieved his position. Had Voigt been contented with a draw, he could have easily enforced it, but, being an exchange ahead, he tried to win. Kemeny, by a clever maneuver with his knights, supported the advance of the d-pawn. Voigt on his fortieth turn made an inferior move, which caused the loss of a rook. Had he played Ke2 instead of Kf3, the game would have been drawn. As it happened, Kemeny won the game and the match. The score was: Kemeny, 2; Voigt, 0, and four games were drawn.”

218

EMIL KEMENY

Herman G. Voigt–Kemeny [C49] Franklin Chess Club Championship Playoff Match Game 6 May 1899 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. 0–0 0–0 6. d3 d6 7. Ne2 Ne7 8.  c3 Ba5 9.  Ng3 c6 10.  Ba4 Ng6 11.  d4 Bc7 12.  Bc2 Bg4 The usual and proper play is ... d5, and Black brings about an even position. The play selected gives White an advantage. 13. h3 Be6 14. Nh2 Re8 15. f4 e¥f4 16. B¥f4 d5 This enables White to advance the e-pawn, which opens the diagonal for the White rD-1rDkD king’s bishop, and he obtains a pretty strong attack. Black, however, hardly any better play. 17. B¥c7 Preferable, perhaps, was 17. e5 0pg-Dp0p had at once. The exchange of bishops somewhat relieves the Black game, -Dp0lhnD for the queen can be brought into play. 17. ... Q¥c7 18. e5 Nd7 D-D-D-D- 19. h4 Quite forcible, yet it unnecessarily weakens the kingside. -D-)PG-D 19. Nf3 at once was, perhaps, stronger. 19.  ... c5 20.  h5 Ne7 D-)-D-HP Preferable to 20. ... Ngf8. Black keeps the f8 square for the other P)LD-DPH knight. 21. Nf3 h6 22. Nh4 c¥d4 23. c¥d4 Qb6 24. Kh2 $-DQDRI- Better, perhaps, was 24. Rf2. 24. ... Rac8 25. Qd3 [JSH: White would have done better to continue as intended earlier with possesAfter 16. B¥f4 sion of the f5 square: 25. Nhf5, and if 25. ... N¥f5 26. N¥f5 B¥f5 27. B¥f5 Rc7 28. Rc1 with a small advantage to White. Voigt, no -DrDrDkD doubt seeking to even the match immediately, attacks; in doing so 0pDnhp0- he allows Kemeny an interesting line.] 25.  ... R¥c2 25.  ... Nf8 -1-DlD-0 would have guarded against the threatening check, and, apparently, D-Dp)-DP Black’s game was not in danger. It must be admitted, however, that attack was with White, and continuations like Ne2, Nf4, fol-D-)-D-H the lowed by N¥e6 and R¥f8 were threatening. The text move sacrifices D-DQD-H- the exchange. Black gets the valuable d-pawn and completely neuP)LD-DPI tralizes the attack. The play was, perhaps, the best Black had on $-D-DRD- hand. 26. Q¥c2 Q¥d4 27. Nf3 Qf4 28. Qc1 Q¥c1 29. Ra¥c1 Nc6 30.  Ne2 Bg4 31.  Nf4 31.  Ned4 was, perhaps, better. If After 25. Qd3 Black answers 31. ... B¥f3 then 32. N¥f3 would follow. White should have endeavored to get rid of one of the knights. 31.  ... B¥f3 32. R¥f3 Nd¥e5 33. Rb3 d4 34. R¥b7 Rd8 35. Rc7 d3 -D-®-DkD 36. Rd1 White must have played 36. N¥d3 R¥d3 37. R7¥c6 N¥c6 0-D-Dp0-D-D-D-0 38. R¥c6 heading to an even game. Black’s d-pawn is somewhat D-$-DnDP dangerous, and White should have been satisfied with a draw. 36. ... -D-D-HnD d2 37. Kg3 To guard against the threatening ... Ng4+, followed D-D-D-D- by ... Ne3. 37. ... Nd4 38. Rc5 Nf5+ 39. Kf2 Ng4+ 40. Kf3 disastrous mistake, which loses the game, as Black’s ... Nfe3 reply P)-0-IPD A shows. He should have played 40. Ke2, in which case Black would D-DRD-D- have answered 40. ... Ng3+, followed by ... Ne4, but by proper play, White can hold his own. 40. ... Nfe3 41. Rc8 After this move After 39. ... Ng4+ the game was adjourned, but, White coming out a piece behind, surrendered before resuming play. 41.  ... R¥c8 [JSH: Apparently Kemeny’s sealed move.] 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, May 11, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny).

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

219

According to Chess in Philadelphia, pages 18–19, when George W. Childs in 1892, offered his “handsome silver cup” to the Franklin Chess Club for a contest open to any Philadelphia player, in perpetuity, it was believed some token should be offered that could become the personal property of at least one winner. Accordingly, Shipley “offered a $50 gold medal to any player winning the Childs Cup three times.” The next year, in 1893, Dr. Persifor Frazer presented the club with his own cup, “to become the personal property of the player winning it three times.” However, the Frazer Cup was not available for competition until 1894, and so Kemeny’s first club championship did not count toward its requirements. The American Chess Magazine (June 1899, page 512), simply mentioned that Kemeny “wins the George W. Childs cup for the third time and the Dr. Fraser cup. For his victory Kemeny receives a $50 gold medal.” The medal is the only known memento of the Franklin tournaments that Kemeny received for his years competing in them.

8

The Final Years in Philadelphia “Kemeny always gives a good account of himself, and this year proved no exception.”— American Chess Magazine, September 1899, page 101 (Referring to Saratoga 1899)

The 1898-99 Franklin Chess Club championship had taken so long to conclude that Kemeny hardly had time to lose form before the annual Decoration Day match with the Manhattan Chess Club took place at the Franklin’s rooms on May 30, 1899. The meeting was a social event, too, with luncheon being served shortly after the New Yorkers arrived. It had already been decided the visitors would play White on the odd numbered boards. The pairings were somewhat unusual. The team captains tossed for first choice and de Visser, the Manhattan’s captain, selected a man for board one. D. Stuart Robinson, the Franklin’s captain, responded by naming a player to meet de Visser’s board one choice, and in turn named Kemeny to board two, where he would play Black. De Visser not surprisingly selected Lipschütz as Kemeny’s opponent, and named Hodges to the next board, where he faced Kemeny’s recent playoff match foe, and now teammate, Voigt. In this manner all 14 boards were filled, playing strength being recognized in the pairings, not the board numberings. Lipschütz, of course, was an understandable selection to face the Franklin’s champion. He had defeated Kemeny the summer before at Lake Keuka. As it turned out, the fourth meeting between the Manhattan and Franklin forces was as hotly contested and evenly balanced as might have been wished. New York took an early 4–0 lead, and it was believed the best Philadelphia could do was to avoid a rout. But strong play thereafter led the Franklin to tie the score at 4 each. Two games were drawn, leaving the match at 5–5, when Jacob Elson, a veteran Philadelphia player active in the area for over thirty-five years, made a slip against Rocomora to let New York again take the lead, 6–5. It was at this moment the Kemeny game came to an end. As the Ledger described it, “One of the best contested games in the recent inter-city team match between the Manhattan and Franklin Chess Clubs was the Kemeny– Lipschütz game, which resulted in a victory for the former. Lipschütz adopted the Sicilian Defense, but did not succeed in fully equalizing the position. The Philadelphian maintained

220

EMIL KEMENY

the attack throughout the game, until an inferior move on Lipschütz’s part enabled him to win a piece, which virtually decided the game. Lipschütz surrendered on the forty-third turn.”

Kemeny–S. Lipschütz [B44] Franklin Chess Club–Manhattan Chess Club Team Match, Philadelphia, May 30, 1899 1. e4 c5 2. d4 c¥d4 3. Nf3 Nc6 [Black can guard the pawn with ... e5, since White could not play N¥e5 on account of ... Qa5+ and ... Q¥e5. The play, however, would hardly be advantageous for Black. White continues c3 and he obtains a decided advantage in position—Ledger.] 4. N¥d4 e6 5. Be3 [The variation beginning with 5. Nc3 is much more in vogue at present. The selection is merely a matter of individual preference, each line being equally playable by both sides—ACM.] [Better than 5. N¥c6, in which case Black answers 5. ... b¥c6, obtaining a pretty strong center—Ledger.] 5. ... Nf6 6. Bd3 d5 [The isolation of the d-pawn is not necessarily a serious weakness, if such it can be called. In this instance no ill results are directly traceable to it—ACM.] 7. e¥d5 e¥d5 8. 0–0 Bd6 9. Nf5 [9. Nd2 or c3 was perhaps more conservative. The play selected causes some loss of time, since the bishop will have to be retreated from f5. The play, however, leaves White with two bishops against knight and bishop, which is considered an advantage—Ledger.] 9. ... B¥f5 10. B¥f5 0–0 11. c3 Qe7 [Threatening ... Qe5, which White promptly guards against—ACM.] 12. g3 [Necessary, since Black threatened ... Qe5, attacking the bishop and the h-pawn with mate. The play does not weaken the kingside, since Black has no bishop commanding the white squares— Ledger.] 12. ... Rfd8 13. Nd2 Bc5 14. Bf4 [Rather better than taking the bishop, and enables him to avoid exchanging pawns—ACM.] [Better than B¥c5 or Re1, since an exchange of bishops would equalize the position. Black cannot well continue ... Bd6, for Re1 and Bg5 would follow—Ledger.] 14. ... d4 15. Re1 Qf8 16. c4 rD-®-DkD [16. c¥d4 would subject him unnecessarily to dangerous possibilities, 0pD-1p0p Black retaking 16.  ... N¥d4—ACM.] 16.  ... g6 17.  Bd3 Re8 -DnD-h-D 18. Ne4 N¥e4 19. B¥e4 Rac8 20. a3 a5 21. Qd2 a4 [White D-gpDLD- threatened to remove the support of the d-pawn by b4 and b5. The -D-D-D-D tide here begins to turn slightly in favor of the first player—ACM.] D-)-G-)- 22. Bc2 [22. Bd5 might have been played. Black, however, could P)-H-)-) have answered 22. ... b6 followed eventually by ... Na5 and ... Nb3. $-DQDRI- The text play was perhaps the safest continuation—Ledger.] 22. ... Ra8 23. Bh6 R¥e1+ [The exchange here is obligatory, else he loses the a-pawn. For the same reason he cannot move his queen out to After 13. ... Bc5 d6 on the following move. It behooves Black hereafter to handle situation with great care—ACM.] 24. R¥e1 Qd8 25. Qd1 Qf6 rD-D-DkD the 26. Qe2 [The a-pawn does not now tempt White. In fact, ... Ne4 DpD-hpDp in reply would be extremely difficult for him to meet—ACM.] 26. ... -1-D-DpG Ne7 [Necessary, since White threatened Qe8+, leading to a speedy D-g-D-D- win—Ledger.] 27. h4 [In addition to the obvious threat, this move pDP0-D-) forestalls any future intention of imprisoning the bishop by ... g5— )-D-D-)- ACM.] 27. ... Qb6 28. Be4 [28. Qe5 would have been answered -)LDQ)-D by 28. ... f6. Another play for White was 28. B¥a4. If Black plays D-D-$-I- 28. ... R¥a4, then 29. Qe5 wins, for Qg7 mate is threatening, as well as Qb8+ followed by mate. Black, however, would have answered; After 27. ... Qb6 28. B¥a4 with 28.  ... d3, followed either by ... R¥a4 or ... B¥f2+

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

221

with a winning game. The move selected is the best White had—Ledger.] 28. ... Rd8 29. Bd5 [Apparently ingenious enough, but in reality not good, as will be seen from the explanation at Black’s move thirty—ACM.] 29. ... N¥d5 30. c¥d5 [He could not play 30. Qe8+, for 30. ... Bf8 would follow—Ledger.] 30. ... f6 [Overrating White’s strength, he misses his opportunity; 30. ... d3 would neatly transfer the real burden of the game to his opponent’s shoulders. A highly interesting situation would have been brought about if White had continued 31. Qe8+, Black retorting 31. ... Bf8, whereupon nothing remains for him but to retreat 32. Qe3. Then an exchange of queens leaves the d-pawn at Black’s mercy. In the event of 32.  B¥f8, then 32. ... R¥e8 33. R¥e8 Black plays 33. ... Qb5 and the discovered check thereupon becomes impotent. Therefore, 31. Qd2 alone is open, and in that case Black, after the advance of his f-pawn finds the d-pawn still at his disposal, unless White prefers to part with his b-pawn— ACM.] 31.  Qf3 f5 32.  Re6 Qb3 [And here he errs beyond all recall. 32. ... Qc7 was absolutely necessary for his immediate safety. -D-®-DkD White’s play has been all that could be desired, and he now goes DpD-D-Dp straight to victory—ACM.] [Had Black played 32.  ... Q¥b2, then -1-DRDpG 33. h5 followed by h¥g6, would have led to a winning attack. The D-gPDpDtext move proves disastrous, as White’s Qe2 reply shows. Black might pD-0-D-) have played ... Qc7, followed eventually by ... Qf7, which would have given pretty good drawing chances—Ledger.] 33. Qe2 Bf8 [Loses a )-D-DQ)piece, but there was no better play. He could not play 33. ... Q¥d5 -)-D-)-D on account of 34.  Re8+ Kf7 35.  R¥d8 Q¥d8 36.  Qc4+ Ke8 D-D-D-I37. Q¥c5—Ledger.] 34. Re8 Q¥d5 35. B¥f8 [35. Qe7 would have After 32. Re6 been answered by 35. ... R¥e8 36. Q¥e8 Qf7. The play selected wins a piece and forces the exchange of rooks and queens, which virtually ends the game—Ledger.] 35. ... R¥e8 36. Q¥e8 Qf7 37. Q¥f7+ K¥f7 38. Bc5 [JSH: The American Chess Magazine ended the game here, saying Lipschütz resigned; the remaining moves appeared only with Kemeny’s version in the Ledger.] 38. ... d3 39. Kf1 Ke6 40. Ke1 Kd5 41. Be3 Kc4 42.  Kd2 b5 43.  Bh6 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, June 9, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny; ACM = American Chess Magazine, June 1899, pages 517–518). After Kemeny tied the match at 6–6 and the thirteenth game ended in a draw, only one board remained: Martinez–Schmidt. In what many considered an even position, Martinez overstepped the time limit, thereby giving not just the game, but the match, to the Manhattan club. After four meetings, the two clubs could hardly have been more evenly matched. They stood 2–2 in match results, while in individual games, the Manhattan led 281 ⁄ 2–271 ⁄ 2, the difference between the two clubs coming down to the ticking of one clock. The third and final NYSCA team match between New York and Philadelphia took place August 28 through September 3, 1899, at Saratoga Springs, New York. Hopes were high that a third team, one from Massachusetts, would join in play, but in the end the New Englanders failed to appear. Kemeny led the Franklin players (and Pittsburg’s McCutcheon, who played for Pennsylvania once again), scoring 41 ⁄ 2–21 ⁄ 2, but his efforts were hardly enough. Voigt played badly, making only an even score, and the three bottom boards for the team collectively managed only a 61 ⁄ 2–141 ⁄ 2 score. For New York, Lipschütz had an outstanding tournament, finishing 61 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2 to take the first individual prize, while Marshall equaled Kemeny’s score, and the two men divided the second ($25) and third ($20) prizes. New York defeated their rivals 261 ⁄ 2– 221 ⁄ 2. Thus ended the last, great NYSCA team match between the two most powerful chess cities, and states, in the country. In round one Kemeny defeated Louis Karpinski, a young member of the NYSCA who two years later competed at Buffalo 1901. In the next round, Lipschütz had his revenge for his

222

EMIL KEMENY

Decoration Day loss to Kemeny played a few months before. “The game between Lipschütz and Kemeny in the recent interstate contest held at Saratoga Springs was a Ruy Lopez,” the Ledger stated, “resulting in victory for the former. The game was strongly contested, and resulted in a pretty even ending. From the fortieth move to the fifty-second Kemeny had many opportunities to draw the game, but he partly avoided and partly missed them. Lipschütz thus won a pawn and the game. Lipschütz played the ending flawlessly.”

Kemeny–S. Lipschütz [C67] Pennsylvania–New York Interstate Team Match, Round 2 NYSCA Midsummer Congress Saratoga Springs, New York, August 29, 1899 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Be7 6. Qe2 Nd6 7. B¥c6 b¥c6 8. d¥e5 Nb7 9. Nc3 0–0 10. Bf4 10. Re1 is considered stronger. The text move is answered by ... Nc5, Black threatening ... Ba6. The White bishop will subsequently be attacked by ... Ne6. 10. ... Nc5 11. Rfe1 Ne6 12. Qd2 Rb8 13. Rab1 f6 14. e¥f6 B¥f6 15. Be3 a6 16. Nd4 N¥d4 17. B¥d4 d5 18. Ba7 18. Na4 might have been played, followed eventually by b4, weakening the Black c-pawns. Black, however, had the open b-file, and by playing ... a5, followed eventually by ... Ba6 or ... Rb5, he might have relived his position. The play adopted is hardly inferior to Na4. 18. ... Ra8 19. Bc5 Re8 20. R¥e8+ Q¥e8 21.  Re1 Qf7 22.  Ne2 Bd7 22.  ... B¥b2 could not be played on account of c3 winning a piece. 23. Nd4 Re8 24. R¥e8+ Q¥e8 25. Qe3 Q¥e3 26. f¥e3 Kf7 27. c3 g5 28. Nc2 h5 29. g3 Better perhaps was 29. h3. The move selected gives Black an opportunity to establish some attack on the kingside. 29.  ... Be5 30.  Bd4 Bd6 31.  Kf2 h4 32. b4 Kg6 33. Ne1 h3 34. Nf3 Kf5 35. Nd2 35. g4+ followed by Ne5 would have drawn the game, since bishops of opposite -D-D-D-D colors would remain on the board. 35. ... Be8 36. a3 Bh5 37. c4 D-0lD-D- d¥c4 38. e4+ Ke6 39. N¥c4 g4 40. Nd2 40. N¥d6 followed pDpg-D-D by Ke3 would have drawn the game. White, of course, could not D-DpDk0- play Ke3, for ... B¥g3 would follow. 40. ... Bg6 41. Be3 An infe-)-G-D-D rior move which gives Black an advantage, e5 should have been D-)-)N)p played, giving up the pawn. White then with a knight against bishop PD-D-I-) could easily draw the game, especially since the Black pawns are douD-D-D-D- bled. 41. ... Be5 42. Nc4 Bc3 43. e5 43. Bd2 would have still drawn the game. If Black answers ... Bd4+, then Be3 is played by White. If, however, ... Be5, then N¥e5 and Ke3 follow. The text After 34. ... Kf5 move compromises the White game and will cause the loss of the 43.  ... Bd3 44.  Na5 Bb5 45.  Nb3 B¥e5 46.  Bf4 -D-D-D-D e-pawn. Bb2 47.  a4 Bc4 48.  Nc5+ Kd5 49.  Nd7 Bc3 50.  B¥c7 D-0-D-D- Bd4+ 51. Ke1 Ke4 He could not well play 51. ... Bg1 and ... B¥h2, pDpDkDlD for White will move Kf2, and the bishop is closed in. Nor could he D-D-D-D- well play 51. ... Bc3+ and ... B¥b4, for in that case White has the -)NDPDpD Nf6+ continuation on hand, winning the g-pawn. The text move is )-g-G-)p the strongest play he had. 52.  Bb6 A disastrous mistake which -D-D-I-) loses the b-pawn and the game. Instead of Bb6 he should have played D-D-D-D- Bd6, and Black could make no headway. If he moves ... Kf3 or ... Kd3, then Ne5+ follows. If, however, Ke3, then Bb6 brings about an exchange. 52. ... Bc3+ 53. Kf2 B¥b4 54. a5 Bc3 55. Bc7 After 42. ... Bc3

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

223

New York State Chess Association midsummer meeting, Saratoga Springs, New York, August 28–September 3, 1899. Seated: K. H. Underhill (left), Aristides Martinez. Three men standing, lowest row at left: D.W. Waller, D. Stuart Robinson, Jacob Halpern. Six men next row up: J. V. Baker, John L. McCutcheon, S. Lipschütz, Walter Penn Shipley, John W. Young, Luke D. Broughton. Back rows combined, left to right: A. Wright, C. P. Weeks, A. W. Orvis, Louis C. Karpinski, J. P. Fay, D. F. Searle, J. H. Lurie, Kemeny, A. H. Bierwirth, a young Frank Marshall with head tilted, J. Wood (American Chess Magazine, September 1899).

Bd4+ 56. Ke1 c5 57. Bb6 Kd5 58. Bd8 Kc6 59. Nf6 Be6 60. Nh5 Bc3+ 61. Ke2 Kb5 62. Kd3 The game at this stage is hopeless. White cannot guard the a-pawn, and with two pawns to the good, Black forces a win quite easily. 62.  ... B¥a5 63.  B¥a5 K¥a5 64. Kc3 Kb5 65. Nf4 Bf7 66. Nd3 a5 67. Ne5 Be6 68. Nd3 a4 69. Nf4 Bf7 70. Nd3 a3 71. Nc1 a2 72. Kb2 Bc4 73. Ka1 Kc6 74. N¥a2 B¥a2 75. K¥a2 Kd5 76. Kb3 Kd4 77. Kc2 Kc4 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, September 15, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny). The game against Lipschütz had taken place Tuesday afternoon, after Kemeny had defeated Karpinski in the morning, and Lipschütz had similarly handled McCutcheon, despite the latter’s playing a French Defense. The next morning Kemeny faced his old match opponent Jacob Halpern and the two drew their game. That afternoon Kemeny drew with Marshall, the younger man having just a few months before begun something of an international reputation by winning the minor tournament at London 1899. Neither the Halpern nor the Marshall game has survived, although the latter game is known from reports in the Eagle to have been a Ruy Lopez. In the fifth round, Kemeny played Otto Roething, five years his junior. Roething was a

224

EMIL KEMENY

relatively strong New York amateur, the 1898 Cosmopolitan Chess Club champion (with a clean sweep of 9–0, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle of July 17, 1898), and would the following year lead the Manhattan Chess Club championship until overtaken in the end by Gustav Koehler. The Ledger wrote: “The game between Kemeny and Roething in the recent interstate contest held at Saratoga was splendidly contested and resulted in a victory for the former. Roething adopted a variation of the Ruy Lopez involving the temporary sacrifice of a piece and a fairly even game came about. On his fourteenth turn, however, he did not select the strongest move, and by playing Be3 instead of Bf4, he gave Kemeny an opportunity to gain the upper hand. The struggle from this point was a very interesting one. The critical stage came about on the twenty-third turn. The Philadelphian then could win a pawn, which, however, would hardly have secured a win. Instead of winning a pawn Kemeny selected a more forcible continuation, leading to the exchange of both pawns, which gave him a winning endgame. After thirty-three moves, Roething was obliged to acknowledge defeat. The game was entered in the competition for the special brilliancy prize.”

Otto Roething–Kemeny [C67] Pennsylvania–New York Interstate Team Match, Round 5 NYSCA Midsummer Congress Saratoga Springs, New York, August 30, 1899 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Nd6 6. d¥e5 The unusual continuation is 6. B¥c6 followed by d¥e5. The text move involves the temporary sacrifice of a piece, and leads to interesting complications. By correct defense, however, Black seems to obtain the preferable game. 6. ... N¥b5 7. a4 d6 7. ... Nd6 would win a pawn, but would badly compromise the Black game. The text move, followed by ... N¥e5, is the best play for Black. 8. a¥b5 N¥e5 9. Re1 Be7 If Black tries to maintain his pawn by playing 9. ... f6 White may continue Nh4, and he secures a powerful, if not winning, attack. The text move is superior. Black gives up the pawn, but holds two bishops, which gives him a slight advantage in the end game. 10. N¥e5 d¥e5 11. Q¥d8+ B¥d8 11. ... K¥d8 is considered stronger, for it gives Black better chances to guard the c-pawn. 12. R¥e5+ Be6 13. Nc3 0–0 14. Be3 Decidedly better was 14. Bf4. White tries to attack the a-pawn, whereas he should have brought his forces to bear on the c-pawn. The text move has also the disadvantage of preventing the retreat of the rook. 14. ... Bf6 15. Rc5 Rfc8 16. Bf4 c6 17. b¥c6 b6 18. Rb5 R¥c6 19. Bd2 Necessary, since ... B¥c3 followed by ... R¥c3 was threatened. 19. ... Rd8 20. Bg5 20. Ne4 could hardly be played. Black might have answered ... R¥c2 or ... Be7, followed eventually by ... f5. 20. ... B¥g5 21. R¥g5 Rd2 22. Rc1 He could play R¥a7 on account of ... R¥c3, Black winning a piece. 22. ... -D-D-DkD not f6 23. Rg3 b5 Black might have played ... Bf5, winning a pawn, 0-D-Dp0p which, however, would not have been as effective as the play -0rDlD-D adopted. White, by answering Re3, and eventually Rce1, would have D-D-D-$- had excellent chances of holding his own. The text move virtually -D-D-D-D forces a win. White cannot capture the b-pawn, for ... Rc¥c2 and D-H-D-D- eventually ... Bc4 follows. Nor can he play b4, for ... a5 and ... a¥b4 -)P®-)P) or ... b4 would lead to a win. There seems to be no other reply than $-D-D-I- Re4, which leads to an exchange of both rooks, and Black comes out with a winning end game, White being unable to stop the pawn on the queenside without sacrificing the knight. 24.  Rd3 R¥d3 After 21. ... Rd2

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

225

25. c¥d3 b4 26. Ne2 R¥c1+ 27. N¥c1 a5 28. Kf1 28. b3 would be answered by ... a4, followed by ... b3, ... b2, and ... Ba2, Black winning the knight. 28. ... a4 29. Ke2 b3 An important move. Had Black played ... a3, White could answer b3, and he easily stops the pawns. The text move threatens ... a3, and White has no valid defense. 30. Kd2 a3 The winning move. If White plays b¥a3, which -D-D-DkD evidently was his strongest play, then ... b2 follows, and Black wins D-D-D-0p the knight, coming out with a bishop against the two scattered pawns. If, however, White plays N¥b3, then ... a¥b2 and ... B¥b3 follows, -D-Dl0-D Black having a piece against a pawn. In either variation the win is D-D-D-Dan easy one. White, of course, could not play Kc3, for ... a2 would pD-D-D-D win. 31. N¥b3 a¥b2 32. Kc2 B¥b3+ 33. K¥b2 Bd5 After this DpDPD-Dmove White surrendered. A further struggle would be quite useless, -)-I-)P) for ... Kf7, ... Ke6, and eventually ... Kf5 would win easily. 0–1 D-H-D-D(Philadelphia Public Ledger, September 12, 1899, with annotations by After 30. Kd2 Kemeny). In round six Kemeny faced another old foe, Major Hanham. While statistics based on recovered games are always suspect, given how many games are not recorded, let alone published, it is safe to say that Kemeny probably played more tournament-condition games with Hanham than any other man in America. Nor did anyone play him more evenly, their score standing 7–7 with 1 draw through 1892, with Kemeny pulling away 3–0 between 1896 and 1899, for an overall record in his favor of 10–7 and 1 draw. Only Showalter appears as often in the present work as does the Major, as a Kemeny opponent. The following is also the last known tournament game between Hanham and Kemeny. Perhaps it is fitting that Hanham played the Philidor Defense, an opening of which he was quite fond and a known authority. The game saw a great deal of publication over time, originally appearing in the Ledger in early September with Kemeny’s annotations, only to be reprinted in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle for September 28 and then in the American Chess Magazine (October–November 1899, page 147). The New Orleans Times-Democrat published it on October 8, 1899, citing an unidentified Eagle column (likely the one above). Nearly twenty years later, the New Orleans Times-Picayune found reason to publish it on August 3, 1919. It was subsequently involved in a controversy between Kemeny, Lipschütz, and a special prize committee charged with finding the tournament’s best played game, a matter discussed below.

Kemeny–J. Moore Hanham [C41] Pennsylvania–New York Interstate Team Match, Round 6 NYSCA Midsummer Congress Saratoga Springs, New York, August 30, 1899 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 4. Bd3 Be7 5. Be3 Ngf6 6. c3 c6 7.  Nbd2 Qc7 8.  Qc2 0–0 9.  0–0 Re8 10.  Nc4 Bd8 11.  a4 Nf8 12.  a5 Ng6 13.  b4 Be6 14.  d¥e5 d¥e5 15. Rfd1 Nd7 16.  Be2 Be7 17.  Rd2 Ndf8 18.  Rad1 h6 19. Nd6 Red8 20. Nf5 R¥d2 21. N¥e7+ Q¥e7 22. Q¥d2 Nd7 23. Qd6 Q¥d6 24. R¥d6 Kf8 Black evidently should have played ... a6, in order to stop the threatening a6. It is quite likely, however, that Black intended to give up the c-pawn expecting to

rD-D-DkD 0pDnDp0-Dp$lDn0 )-D-0-D-)-DPD-D D-)-GND-D-DL)P) D-D-D-IAfter 24. R¥d6

226

EMIL KEMENY

close in the White rook. It must be admitted, however, that White at this stage had the preferable game; the two bishops are powerful and the rook occupies the open file, and if Black moves ... a6 his b-pawn becomes rather weak. 25. a6 b6 26. R¥c6 Ke7 27. h4 [JSH: White misses the opportunity to place his rook rD-D-D-D on the commanding seventh rank, until the following move, when 0-Dnip0- his opponent almost forces him to play the strongest line. Better P0RDlDn0 would be the immediate 27. Rc7 with winning complications; for D-D-0-D- instance, 27.  ... Kd6 28.  Rb7 Ne7 29.  Nd4! e¥d4 30.  Bf4+ Ne5 -)-DPD-D (30. ... Kc6 31. Rc7 mate) 31. c¥d4.] 28. Rc7+ Kd6 He could not D-)-GND- play 24. ... Kd8, for White answers 25. R¥a7. If then 25. ... R¥a7, -D-DL)P) White continues 26.  B¥b6+ and 27.  B¥a7, or if Black interposes D-D-D-I- the rook, then 27. a7 and queening of the pawn follows. 29. Rb7 Nc6 30. h5 Nge7 Black now threatens ... Nd8 or ... Bc8 winning the exchange. White, however, has the Nd4 continuation on hand, After 26. ... Ke7 which wins. If Black plays 31. ... e¥d4, then 32. Bf4+ and c¥d4 folif, however, 31. ... N¥d4, then 32. c¥d4 leads to a similar conrD-D-D-D low; tinuation. Black cannot avoid this play. If he moves 31. ... Bc8, then 0RD-hp0- 32. Nb5+ Ke6 33.  Nc7+ wins the rook. 31.  Nd4 N¥d4 [JSH: If P0nilD-0 31. ... e¥d4, then 32.  Bf4+ Ne5 33.  c¥d4 N7c6 34.  d¥e5+ N¥e5 D-D-0-DP 35. Bg3! threatening f4 and, once the knight moves, f5, attacking -)-DPD-D Black’s bishop as well. Black is lost.] 32.  c¥d4 f6 33.  d¥e5+ D-)-GND- f¥e5 34. f4 Nc6 35. b5 Na5 36. R¥g7 Nc4 37. f¥e5+ K¥e5 -D-DL)PD 38. B¥h6 Nd6 39. Rg5+ Kd4 40. Bg7+ Ke3 41. Bf3 Rc8 D-D-D-I- 42. Rg6 Re8 43. h6 Causes Black to surrender; he cannot stop the h-pawn without sacrificing a piece. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public After 30. ... Nge7 Ledger, September 5, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny). An unfortunate coda to Saratoga Springs involving Kemeny and Lipschütz occupied the Eagle during the following weeks. Aristides Martinez, president of the Manhattan Chess Club, had offered a special prize, a five piece “solid sterling silver smoking set,” for the best played game. William de Visser and Philip Richardson were named the committee, as the September 7 Eagle put it, “for this difficult and rather unsatisfactory work”—difficult, in that 14 entries were submitted for the prize, and unsatisfactory, in that the selection would please one while disappointing many. By the time the Eagle published this notice, rumor had it that Lipschütz, who had an extraordinary performance at Saratoga, not only winning first prize in the team match event with a score of 61 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2, two points above his nearest competitor, but also winning the Staats-Zeitung Cup for his Manhattan club, whitewashing Marshall 3–0 in the process, was the clear favorite to win the best game prize for his win over D. Stuart Robinson. The Eagle added that “All the scores will be submitted to [the committee] without the names of the contestants appended, so that disgruntled competitors inclined to criticize the committee’s finding will at least be unable to resort to the undignified charge of favoritism.” As matters unfolded, the benefit of anonymity regarding the submissions was quickly lost. On September 17 the Eagle (and most likely Herman Helms) reported that Kemeny for his win over Hanham had been selected by de Visser and Richardson for the prize. However, before the award was given the two “were informed of the filing of a protest by another of the inter-state players, who had entered one of the games won by him for this competition but learned that it had not been submitted to the committee for their examination.” Who caused the omission was not reported. A decision was reached—and it is hard to image it was reached without the input, or against the wishes of, Martinez, who had offered the prize—“to begin

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

227

anew, make an analysis of this additional entry, and then reach a decision, as to which of the two games is entitled to the prize.” Four days later, the Eagle for September 21 stated de Visser and Richardson were still waiting for the Lipschütz–Robinson score to arrive from Philadelphia. So much for anonymity. The game was said to have “in some way failed to reach [the judges] with the regular batch of games entered for the Martinez trophy. In the meantime no decision can be reached as to whether Kemeny is or is not entitled to the prize originally awarded to him for his clever win from Major Hanham.” That Robinson and the Philadelphia players were playing fair is implied in the committee receiving the Philadelphia copy of the omitted game score at all, which was duly sent to New York. What might have happened if it no longer existed was moot once it arrived. On September 25, the Eagle announced that de Visser and Richardson had now examined the score sent up and changed their award, giving Lipschütz the prize. Helms published the newly examined game, as he had published Kemeny’s win over Hanham earlier. In it, D. Stuart Robinson used a relatively little played opening that Voigt especially among Philadelphians had been championing: the Sicilian Defense: S. Lipschütz–D. Stuart Robinson [B73], Saratoga Springs, Round 3, August 1899. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 c¥d4 4. N¥d4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. Be2 d6 8. 0–0 0–0 9. h3 Bd7 10. Qd2 a6 11. Rad1 b5 12. N¥c6 B¥c6 13. f3 Rc8 14. Nd5 B¥d5 15. e¥d5 Nd7 16. c3 Nb6 17. Bd4 B¥d4+ 18. Q¥d4 Na4 19. Qd2 Qc7 20. Rf2 Rfd8 21. f4 Nc5 22. Bf3 Qd7 23. Qe3 Rc7 24. g4 f6 25. Bg2 Kg7 26. Re2 Re8 27. Qd4 Kf7 28. Rde1 Na4 29. Qf2 Nc5 30. Qh4 Kg7 31. g5 f5 32. Qh6+ Kg8 33. h4 Nd3 34. Rf1 Rc4 35. h5 N¥f4 36. R¥f4 R¥f4 37.  h¥g6 e5 38.  d¥e6 Qg7 39.  g¥h7+ Q¥h7 40.  e7 Rg4 41.  Kf1 R¥g2 42. K¥g2 R¥e7 43. Q¥h7+ R¥h7 44. Kg3 Kf7 45. Kf4 b4 46. K¥f5 Rh4 47. g6+ Kf8 48. Re4 Rh5+ 49. Kf6 1–0 (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, September 25, 1899). On September 28 the Eagle announced Kemeny had in fact not been awarded Martinez’s prize. Lipschütz was awarded the special prize for the best game played during the interstate meet at Saratoga Springs for his win over Robinson. In an attempt to clarify the situation, and no doubt seeking to ward off hard feelings from Kemeny and his friends in Philadelphia, the Eagle was at pains to try and describe what had taken place. To summarize Helms, Kemeny’s win against Hanham had been among 14 games submitted anonymously to de Visser and Richardson for consideration. Lipschütz, who believed his win against Robinson had been submitted, learned that it had not been only when he approached Dr. Luke D. Broughton, Jr., NYSCA secretary, in order to submit another game for consideration. Lipschütz claimed he had turned in the score on the day the game was played “to the proper officials at Saratoga.” Broughton claimed he turned in all the Lipschütz games in his possession to the committee, but disclaimed “responsibility for the score, which subsequently proved to be missing.” Ultimately, no one took responsibility for the missing score. Kemeny protested, but to no purpose. Lipschütz, the player who won the Staats-Zeitung Cup for the Manhattan Chess Club, was given the prize offered by the Manhattan Chess Club’s president, and the decision was final. While the matter of the sterling silver shaving set might be small in itself, it gains significance as a unique experience in Kemeny’s chess career. It stands as the first and last time he publicly protested a decision by a chess administrator, a chess patron or a chess player regarding any chess matter directly relating to his interests. The same cannot be said about many masters of the time, certainly when players such as Lipschütz, Judd, Steinitz and others are considered. Kemeny had strong opinions regarding what was best for chess and chess players, as will be seen in the next chapter, but insofar as his self-interest was concerned, he did not as a rule generate controversy.

228

EMIL KEMENY

The next month Pillsbury agreed to play exhibition games at the Franklin. Kemeny met Pillsbury in a game that club members must have found entertaining. This also represents the last, known, published game between the two, although that number in many instances remains a moving target. The men finished 1–1 with 2 draws. The game that follows does not appear in Jacques N. Pope’s Harry Nelson Pillsbury: American Chess Champion). The Ledger wrote, “The first game in the series between Pillsbury and leading local players was played recently at the Franklin Chess Club, when Emil Kemeny was his opponent. The latter selected the Ruy Lopez attack, and a very lively struggle ensued. Pillsbury won the gpawn, but he was obliged to sacrifice a piece, which gave his opponent the advantage. The exchange of pawns, however, could be enforced, and the game terminated after four hours’ play in a draw.” It appears Kemeny missed a winning line at move thirty, when he retreated with his rook to d3 instead of checking on c7.

Kemeny–Harry Nelson Pillsbury [C67] Exhibition Game Franklin Chess Club, October 1899 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  Bb5 Nf6 4.  0–0 N¥e4 5.  d4 Nd6 6.  B¥c6 d¥c6 7. d¥e5 Nf5 8.  Q¥d8+ 8.  Qe2 will be answered by 8.  ... Nd4 forcing the exchange of knights. The text play is, perhaps, the best, yet White hardly obtains any advantage. 8.  ... K¥d8 9. Nbd2 9. Rd1+ is recommended, in order to force the king to the kingside; however, it is questionable whether Black gains anything by eventually getting his king to b3. White, on the other hand, must get his queen’s rook to d1, and, by playing his king’s rook to that square, he certainly will lose time. 9. ... h6 10. b3 Be6 11. Bb2 Be7 12. Ne4 b6 13. c4 Kc8 14. h3 g5 Necessary, for White threatened g4, followed by N¥h4 [JSH: after Black’s ... Nh4] and f4. 15.  Nd6+ Forces the rDkD-D-® exchange of knight against bishop and opens the diagonals for the 0-0-gpD- White bishop, but it also relieves Black of the double pawn, and the -0pDlD-0 game gets equalized. 15.  ... B¥d6 [JSH: 15. ... c¥d6 16. e¥d6 Re8 D-D-)n0- 17. d¥e7.] 16. e¥d6 Rg8 17. d¥c7 K¥c7 18. g4 Ne7 19. Nd4 -DPDND-D Bd7 20.  f4 g¥f4 21.  R¥f4 f5 22.  Re1 Ng6 23.  Rff1 f¥g4 DPD-DNDP 24. Ne6+ Kc8 24. ... Kd6 would have been answered by 25. Rf6, PG-D-)PD with a winning position for White; nor could Black well play 24. ... $-D-DRI- B¥e6, for 25.  R¥e6, followed eventually by Rff6, would lead to a winning attack. 25.  h¥g4 Nh4 26.  Kh2 He could have safely played 26. Rf4. The text move, however, is more aggressive. 26. ... After 14. ... g5 R¥g4 [JSH: The source of Black’s dilemma; forgoing the pawn with -DkD-DrD 26. ... Re8 appears best.] 27. Rf8+ Kb7 28. Rf7 Rag8 Had he 28. ... Kc8, then 29. Kh3, followed eventually by Bf6, might 0-DRD-D- played have given White a winning attack. The text play, while not alto-0pDND-0 gether sound, gives Black good chances to hold his own. 29. R¥d7+ D-D-D-D- Kc8 30.  Rd3 30.  Rc7+ would have proved disastrous. Black -DPD-Drh answers 30. ... Kb8, and White will be unable to guard against the DPD-D-D- overwhelming attack. If 30. Re3 is played, Black answers 30. ... Nf5, PG-D-D-I threatening ... Rh4+, as well as ... Rg2+. The move selected is the D-D-$-D- best, and enables White to maintain the piece, though it is doubtful whether this gives any advantage. [JSH: It appears Kemeny is wrong After 29. ... Kc8 here, both on the board and in his notes, at least if one had the

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

229

nerves of a computer while sitting across from Pillsbury in this position: 30. Rc7+ Kb8 31. Rf7! Rg2+ 32. Kh3 Nf3 (32. ... R¥b2 33. Nf8!) 33. R¥f3 R¥b2 34. a3 and White has weathered the storm. Now Black has sufficient resources to draw the game.] 30.  ... Rg2+ 31.  Kh3 R¥b2 32.  K¥h4 R¥a2 33.  Nf4 Rh2+ 34.  Nh3 Rd8 35.  Ree3 [JSH: 35.  Rf3 Kc7 36. Kg3 Rhd2 37. Nf2 Keeps White’s chances alive. After the exchange of rooks, Black’s defensive resources prove sufficient.] 35. ... R¥d3 36. R¥d3 a5 37. Kg3 Rc2 38. Nf4 a4 39. b¥a4 R¥c4 40. Ra3 Kb7 41. Ne6 Ka6 42. Nd8 Ka5 43. Rb3 b5 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, October 25, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny). The Franklin Chess Club’s fifteenth championship, for 1899-1900, took place as scheduled, with games appearing late that fall. The championship’s announcement, and the early entries for it—not including Kemeny—appeared in the December 1899 American Chess Magazine, which also was the last issue of that very attractive and informative journal. Kemeny began annotating games from the tournament in his Philadelphia Public Ledger column shortly after play commenced on November 25, 1899, with the Ledger mentioning four days earlier that Kemeny along with nine others had entered the double–round robin event. Undoubtedly the December American Chess Magazine had gone to print before Kemeny changed his mind and played in the championship. Why he changed his mind is unknown. In the first round Kemeny met D. Stuart Robinson. By move 22 exchanges had reduced the position to a minor piece endgame, in which neither player made significant headway. At move 46 Kemeny proposed a draw, which Robinson accepted.

D. Stuart Robinson–Kemeny [C67] 1899-1900 Franklin Chess Club Championship, Round 1 November 25, 1899 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Nd6 5. ... Be7 is usually played. If then 6. Qe2, Black answers 6. ... Nd6 7. B¥c6 b¥c6 8. d¥e5 Nb7. The play selected is very conservative, and leads to a fairly even game. Black must defend himself for a considerable length of time, but in the ending the two bishops are of some value. 6. B¥c6 d¥c6 7. d¥e5 Nf5 8. Q¥d8+ K¥d8 9. Rd1+ Hardly necessary, though it prevents the adverse king from being played to the queenside. The more favorable development for White would seem to be 9. b3, Bb2, Nbd2 and Rad1. 9. ... Ke8 10. Nc3 Be7 11. b3 h6 12. Ne4 Be6 13. Nd4 N¥d4 14.  R¥d4 g5 15.  Bb2 Kf8 16.  Rad1 Kg7 17.  Kf1 Well played. By getting his king into play White maintains the advantage in position, and at least secures a draw. 17. ... Kg6 18. c4 b6 19. h3 h5 Necessary, for otherwise White may move g4, blocking the kingside. 20.  Ke2 Rhd8 21.  R¥d8 R¥d8 22.  R¥d8 B¥d8 23.  Ke3 h4 24.  Bc3 Be7 25.  Bb2 a5 26.  Kd3 g4 -D-D-D-D 27. h¥g4 B¥g4 28. Bd4 c5 29. Bc3 Bd7 30. f3 Bc6 31. Nf2 Kf5 32.  Nh3 Bf8 With the intention to continue ... Bg7 and D-0-gpD... B¥e5. The play is hardly good. White answers Bd2, Bg5 and -0lD-D-D B¥h4, with a better game. Black did not adopt this continuation, 0-0-)kDrelying on the more conservative ... Be7 move. 33.  Bd2 Be7 -DPD-D-0 34. Bf4 Bd8 Necessary, since e6 and B¥c7 was threatening. DPGKDPDN 35. Bh2 Bd7 36.  g4+ h¥g3 37.  B¥g3 c6 38.  Nf2 Ke6 PD-D-DPD 39. Ne4 Be7 40. Ke3 Bc8 41. f4 Ba6 42. Be1 a4 43. Bc3 D-D-D-Da¥b3 44. a¥b3 b5 45. Nd6 White might have played 45. Kd3, followed eventually by Bd2, Be3, eventually winning a pawn; but After 32. Nh3

230

EMIL KEMENY

even in that case there would hardly be much chance of winning the game. The move selected is answered by 45. ... B¥d6 and the game is drawn. 45. ... B¥d6 46. e¥d6 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, December 8, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny rarely started a Franklin tournament with a good result, despite his overwhelming success in them. The 1899-1900 event was no exception. Within the week he published his loss to Shipley in time pressure from a winning position. The game must have been exciting for the spectators, if not for Kemeny. The Ledger wrote: “The game between Messrs. Kemeny and Shipley in the Franklin championship tourney for the George W. Childs and Frazer Cups, now in progress, was a French Defense, won by the latter. The game was a highly interesting one. Kemeny in the early part of the game obtained an advantage, and on the eighteenth move he could have won a pawn. He, however, preferred a different line of play, maintaining the attack. By a subsequent sacrifice of a piece, he won a pawn, with a decided advantage in position. This, to be sure, would not have been the case had Mr. Shipley on the twenty-second turn played ... Qf8, instead of ... Qf6, for then the legitimate outcome would have been a draw. As it happened Kemeny had a winning advantage, but being somewhat pressed for time he failed to select the strongest play, and his thirty-first and thirty-eighth moves enabled his opponent to equalize the game. Mr. Shipley then offered a draw, which was declined. In the subsequent play Kemeny took risks, which somewhat endangered his game, and in the ending he missed his drawing chances, which gave his opponent a chance to cleverly work out a win.”

Kemeny–Walter Penn Shipley [C13] 1899-1900 Franklin Chess Club Championship December 1899 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. B¥f6 B¥f6 6. Nf3 0–0 7. Bd3 Be7 8. 0–0 b6 9. Re1 Bb7 10. e¥d5 e¥d5 11. Ne2 c5 12. c3 c¥d4 13. Ne¥d4 Bf6 14. Ne5 Nd7 Better was 14. ... B¥e5. The move selected enables White to continue 15. Nec6, obtaining a promising attack. 15. Nec6 Qc7 16. Ne7+ 16. Qh5, followed by Q¥s5, would have been somewhat risky. It would have placed the White queen into a perilous position, and it would have been rather difficult to save the knight at c6. 16. ... B¥e7 17. R¥e7 Rfe8 [JSH: Very much the wrong rook, as the note after White’s next move makes clear.] 18. Qe2 Obviously White could have played 18. B¥h7+, and Black’s only reply would have been 18. ... Kf8, for if 18. ... K¥h7, White continues 19. Qh5+, 20. Q¥f7+, and 21. Q¥g7 mate; or if 18. ... Kh8 White answers 19. Bf5, threatening 20. Qh5+, 21. Qh7+, etc., as well as 20. R¥d7. If, however, Black answers 18.  ... Kf8, White has no better than R¥e8+, and Black will have command of the open e-file. The rD-DrDkD 19. play selected does not win a pawn, but maintains the advantage of 0l1n$p0p position. [JSH: 18. B¥h7+ Kf8 19. Nb5: Kemeny may have overlooked -0-D-D-D 19. Nb5, when Black has nothing better than 19. ... Qc6 (19. ... Qc5 D-DpD-D- 20. R¥d7 Q¥b5 21. Rc7 {21. R¥b7 Qc6} 21. ... Re7 22. R¥e7 K¥e7 -D-H-D-D 23. Qh5 Qc6 {23. ... Q¥b2 24. Re1+ Kd6 25. Q¥f7 Q¥c3 26. Qf4+ D-)LD-D- and wins} 24.  Re1+ with pawn and all the play) 20.  R¥e8+ R¥e8 P)-D-)P) 21. N¥a7 and White is in very good shape.] 18. ... R¥e7 19. Q¥e7 $-DQD-I- Qd8 20.  Re1 Nc5 [see diagram, opposite page] 21.  B¥h7+ A neat play, which in most variations gives White the advantage. He After 17. ... Rfe8 will regain the piece, or at least draw the game. 21.  ... K¥h7

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

231

22. Q¥f7 Qf6 This is answered by 23.  Q¥f6, followed by 24. Re7+ and 25. b4, or by b4, f3, and Re7+, White regaining the piece. A better play for Black was 22. ... Qf8 in which case the following continuation was likely: 22.  ... Qf8 23.  Qh5+ Kg8 24. Nf5 Ne4 25.  f3 Qc5+ 26.  Re3 Rf8 27.  Nh6+ followed by 28. Qg6+, etc., drawing by perpetual check. The play adopted by Black should give White a winning advantage. 23. Q¥f6 g¥f6 24. b4 Better perhaps was 24. Re7+ at once, followed by 25. b4. 24. ... Ne4 25. f3 Nd6 He should have played 25. ... N¥c3, followed eventually by ... N¥a2, leading to an even game. After 20... Nc5 26. Re7+ Kg6 27. Rd7 Rc8 28. R¥d6 R¥c3 29. g4 Rd3 30. Nf5 Ba6 31.  R¥d5 31.  h4 or 31. Kf2 should have been played, to be followed by Rd7 and Kg3, -D-D-D-D placing Black in a mating position. The text move wins the d-pawn, 0-D-D-Dbut Black will have the ... Bb7 continuation regaining the pawn. l0-$-0kD 31. ... R¥d5 32. Ne7+ Kg5 33. N¥d5 Bb7 34. Ne7 Better D-DpDNDwas 34. f4+ K¥g4 35. N¥f6+, though even then the win was a doubtful one. White also might have played 34. Ne3 and 35. h3. 34. ... -)-D-DPD B¥f3 35. Nc8 B¥g4 36. N¥a7 Bd7 37. b5 Be6 38. a4 A D-DrDPDhasty move, which gives away all winning chances, since Black con- PD-D-D-) tinues 38.  ... Bb3 regaining his pawn. White should have played D-D-D-I38. a3, followed eventually by Kf2. 38.  ... Bb3 39.  a5 b¥a5 After 30. ... Ba6 40. Nc6 a4 41. b6 a3 42. Nb4 He could not well play 42. b7 and 43. b8(Q), for Black queens the a-pawn with check. 42. ... Bd5 43. Kf2 43. N¥d5 could not be played on account of 43. ... a2 followed by 43. ... a1(Q)+. 43. ... Bb7 44. Ke3 f5 45. Kd4 f4 46. Kc3 f3 47. Nd3 a2 48. Kb2 Bd5 49. Nf2 Kf4 50.  Nd3+ Ke4 51.  Nf2+ Ke5 52.  b7 B¥b7 53.  K¥a2 Kd4 54.  Kb2 Ke3 55. Nh1 Ke2 56.  Ng3+ 56. Kc3 should have been played, followed eventually by Kd2. Ng3 might have been delayed until the Black king gets to g2. 56. ... Kf2 57. Nf5 57. Kc3, followed Kd2, was still in order. If Black plays ... Kg2 and ... K¥h2 White has Nf1+ and Ng3 play, and the game will be drawn. 57. ... Kg1 58. h4 Even now 58. Kc3 and 59. Kd2 and 60. Nd3 might have been played. 58. ... Be4 59. Ne3 Kf2 60. Nd1+ Ke1 61. Kc1 Bg6 62. h5 B¥h5 63. Ne3 f2 64. Kb2 Ke2 65. Nf5 Kf3 66. Nd4+ Ke3 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, December 14, 1897, with annotations by Kemeny).

rD-1-DkD 0lD-!p0p -0-D-D-D D-hpD-D-D-H-D-D D-)LD-DP)-D-)P) D-D-$-I-

Kemeny’s first round game against Young was an interesting affair. Young attacked quickly, but his position did not warrant it. The sacrifice of his e-pawn at move 24 made matters worse. Eventually, Kemeny trapped Young’s rook, ending the game with a nice flourish.

John W. Young–Kemeny [C44] 1899-1900 Franklin Chess Club Championship January 1900 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 e¥d4 4. Bc4 The usual play is 4. N¥d4, which leads to a fairly even game. The text move, in connection with 0–0 and c3, leads to a lively attack. It is doubtful, however, whether the sacrifice of the pawn is sound. 4.  ... Bc5 5.  0–0 d6 6. c3 d¥c3 7. N¥c3 Nf6 8. Nd5 Better perhaps was 8. Bg5. The play selected leads to

232

EMIL KEMENY

an exchange, and slightly weakens the attack. 8.  ... N¥d5 9.  B¥d5 0–0 10.  Bg5 Qe8 11. Re1 Ne5 12. N¥e5 Q¥e5 13. Qc1 c6 14. Bb3 Bd4 15. Rb1 Be6 16. Be3 16. Bf4 would have been answered with 16. ... Qc5. The text move seems stronger, for White will be able to bring his rook into action. 16. ... B¥b3 17. a¥b3 Rfe8 Black could not well play 17. ... Q¥e4 on account of White’s 18. Qc4 reply. Black then must play 18. ... c5 in order to save the bishop, and White may exchange queen and bishop, leaving Black with a doubled dpawn. The text move is much stronger. 18.  Qc4 Bb6 19.  B¥b6 a¥b6 20.  Qb4 Qc5 21. Qd2 Rad8 22. Rbc1 Qb5 23. Rc3 f5 24. Rg3 The sacrifice of the e-pawn is hardly sound, yet White could not well guard it. 24. Rce3 or 24. e¥f5 would -D-®rDkD have brought about an exchange of rooks, neutralizing the attack, DpD-D-0p Black having a decided advantage on the queenside. It was, perhaps, best for White to pursue the attack vigorously. 24. ... f¥e4 25. h4 -0p0-D-D Qe5 26.  Rg5 He could not play 26.  Qh6 on account of 26.  ... DqD-DpD- Q¥g3 27. f¥g3 g¥h6. 26. ... Qf6 27. Re3 Rd7 28. Reg3 d5 -D-DPD-D 29.  h5 Re5 30.  R¥e5 Q¥e5 DP$-D-D- 31. Rg5 Qf6 32. g4 Qf3 Which pre-)-!-)P) vents White’s Rf5 continuation. White’s -D-D-DkD D-D-$-I- attack is now practically over, and being DpDrD-0p two pawns behind, the game is pretty -0pD-1-D After 23. ... f5 hopeless. 33.  Qd4 Qf4 34.  Qe3 D-DpD-$P Q¥e3 35.  f¥e3 Rf7 36.  Re5 Kf8 -D-DpDPD 37. g5 Rf3 38. Re6 Kf7 39. Rd6 Which loses the rook, as DPD-D-DBlack’s ... Ke7 reply shows. White relied on the h6, h¥g7 contin- -)-!-)-D uation. Black, however, can stop the pawn by playing ... Rg3+ and D-D-D-I... R¥g5. 39.  ... Ke7 40.  h6 K¥d6 41.  h¥g7 Rg3+ 0–1 After 32. g4 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 9, 1900, with annotations by Kemeny). The conclusion of the double-round event’s first round brought some excitement, in that Bampton, who had been winning at 7–1, lost to Kemeny. Kemeny’s win resulted in a threeway tie for first place at the halfway point between Kemeny, Bampton and Shipley, all at 7– 2. Bampton would fail badly in the second half while Newman, only 5–4 at the break, would surge. In the tournament’s second round, Kemeny drew with Shipley, but only after giving the Quaker more than one winning opportunity. In a difficult position, Kemeny found a way to sacrifice a rook to force a perpetual.

Walter P. Shipley–Kemeny [C65] 1899-1900 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 1900 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d4 N¥e4 5. d5 Nb8 6. N¥e5 Bc5 More conservative and perhaps better is 6. ... Be7. The last move may be answered by 7. Qg4 or 7. Qe2, in which case Black has hardly any better continuation than 7. ... 0–0, followed by ... Re8 and ... f6. 7. 0–0 0–0 8. Bd3 d6 9. Nf3 f5 10. Nc3 N¥c3 11. b¥c3 f4 Prevents White’s Bg5 play, but enables the adverse bishop to occupy e4. Better, perhaps, was 11. ... Qf6. 12. Be4 Qf6 13. Qd3 h6 14. Rb1 Nd7 15. Bb2 Ne5 16. N¥e5 d¥e5 17. c4 Bd6 18. Rfe1 b6 19. Bc3 Bd7 20. f3 Rae8 21. Bb4 Re7 22. Kh1 Qg5 23. Re2 Rf6

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia 24. Bc3 h5 25. Qd2 h4 26. h3 a5 An inferior move, which endangers the Black game, for eventually White will have an opportunity to advance the c-pawn, breaking up the Black queenside. 27. Qe1 Rh6 28. Qf1 Rh5 29. Be1 Qh6 30. Bf2 Rg5 31. Qe1 Good enough, though neater and more decisive, was 31.  B¥b6. If Black answers 31. ... c¥b6, then 32. R¥b6 follows, and c5, regaining the piece, cannot be averted. White would thus obtain a winning advantage. [JSH: In fact, after 31. B¥b6 c¥b6 32. R¥b6 B¥h3 33. c5 Bd7 34. R¥d6 Qh5 35. R¥d7 R¥d7 36. c6 Ra7 37. d6 h3 38. g¥h3 Black can resign.] 31.  ... Rg3 32.  c5 He could not well play 32. B¥g3, for ... h¥g3, followed by ... g6, ... Rh7, and ... B¥h3 would give Black a winning attack. The play selected is quite forcible and should decide in favor of White. 32.  ... B¥c5 33.  B¥c5 b¥c5 34. Q¥a5 Qd6 35. Rb8+ Kf7 36. Qa8 Re8 37. R¥e8 B¥e8 38. Bf5 c6 38. ... Bd7 might have been played. If White answers 39. B¥d7 and 40. R¥e5, then 39. ... Q¥d7 and 40. ... R¥h3+, with chances for a draw by perpetual check. The move selected is rather risky, for it will enable White to enforce the attack with his rook. 39. Be6+ Ke7 [JSH: Black’s play is weak here and within a few moves White is again winning.] 40. c4 c¥d5 41. c¥d5 Better was 41. B¥d5. The move selected is answered by ... Bh5, which, in connection with ... e4, gives Black excellent chances of escape. 41.  ... Bh5 42.  Rb2 e4 43.  Qa7+ [JSH: White wins with 43.  Qh8!] 43. ... Kf6 44. Rb6 Qe5 45. Bg4+ Kg5 46. B¥h5 e¥f3 He could not play 46.  ... K¥h5, for 47.  Qf7+ would lead to a forced mate. The move selected secures a draw for Black. 47.  B¥f3 He could not play 47. g¥f3 on account of 47. ... Qe1+ and 48. ... Qg1 mate, nor was 47. Rb1 much better, for 47. ... f¥g2+ would give Black a winning game. The move selected is answered by ... Qe1+ and ... R¥h3+, and Black draws by perpetual check. 47. ... Qe1+ 48. Kh2 R¥h3+ 49.  g¥h3 Qg3+ 50.  Kh1 Q¥f3+ 51.  Kg1 Qd1+ 52. Kf2 Qd2+ 53. Kf1 Qd1+ 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 1, 1900, with annotations by Kemeny).

233

-D-D-DkD D-0l®-0-0-g-D-1 0-DP0-®-DPDL0-0 D-D-DPDP PDPDRGPD DRD-DQDK After 30. ... Rg5

QD-D-D-D D-D-i-0-D-1LD-D D-0PD-Dl -D-Dp0-0 D-D-DP®P P$-D-DPD D-D-D-DK After 42. ... e4

-D-D-D-D !-D-D-0-$-D-D-D D-0PD-i-D-D-0-0 D-D-DL®P PD-D-DPI D-D-1-DAfter 48. Kh2

Robert B. Griffith, Kemeny’s opponent in the next game, received special treatment in the press, as he was the youngest competitor and the newest chess blood in Philadelphia. His life, for better and worse, would paint a vaster canvas than many. As for his description when Kemeny played him, the January 8, 1900, Ledger presented him in some detail: “R. B. Griffith, the University of Pennsylvania chess champion, was born at Council Bluffs, Iowa, August 19, 1876. He entered the Michigan University in 1897, and was elected President of the Michigan University Chess Association. In 1899 he came to Philadelphia and entered as a medical student of the University of Pennsylvania. Griffith started to play chess in 1890, and, when he came to this city, showed considerable skill, the local players soon coming to the conclusion that he was a player not to be lightly considered. Since his stay in Philadelphia he has made phenomenal progress in the game, and the practice he is getting at the Franklin Chess Club is likely to further improve his play. In the minor League team contests of last year he played on Board 2 of the University of Pennsylvania team. He entered last year the Class A tourney of the Franklin Chess Club, tying with J. W. Young for first place.

234

EMIL KEMENY

In the subsequent play-off he scored two straight victories, which gave him first prize. A friendly contest was soon arranged between the two, three victories for either side to decide. The outcome was that Griffith won three, Young one and two games were drawn. The next contest he participated in was the State championship tourney on Washington’s Birthday, when he tied for third place.” The Ledger continued: “In the annual team match between the Franklin and Manhattan Chess Clubs Griffith was a member of the former team, and he succeeded in defeating the veteran J. Moore Hanham, who at present holds the championship of the Manhattan Chess Club. Griffith also participated in various simultaneous performances, taking a board against the single player. On such an occasion he drew with Pillsbury and won from Voigt and Bampton. He contested two games with Champion Pillsbury, losing the first, but, by brilliant play obtained the upper hand in the second game, and it required consummate skill on Pillsbury’s part to draw it. Griffith is participating in the present Franklin championship tourney. He has not made a good start, but succeeded in winning from D. Stuart [Robinson], and is quite likely to give a good account of himself in the subsequent rounds. This year Griffith has been elected President of the University of Pennsylvania Chess Club, and was one of the representatives in the recent triangular match [University of Pennsylvania, Cornell, and Brown], where he had little difficulty in winning every game. He is a highly ingenious player, particularly excelling in daring attacks, and displays great skill in complicated positions, where he discerns the correct continuation rapidly and apparently with but little effort. There is no doubt that he should be placed on Board 1 for this year’s college cable match for the Isaac L. Rice Trophy, and the chances are that in the near future he will be on the national cable team to fight for the Sir George Newness Trophy.” The second game against Pillsbury, mentioned above, appeared in the Ledger with Kemeny’s annotations. It is neither a simultaneous game nor a blindfold game, but rather an informal game played one-on-one with a member of the world’s elite, who admittedly under more serious circumstances may well have done better. Flawed as the game is, it is well worth playing over. Although some sources suggest it was played in 1903, its appearance in the Philadelphia North American for October 4, 1903, merely reprinted the game. Robert B. Griffith–Harry N. Pillsbury [B73], Franklin Chess Club, Offhand Game, 1899. 1.  e4 c5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  d4 c¥d4 4.  N¥d4 Nf6 5.  Nc3 d6 6. Be2 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. 0–0 0–0 9. Kh1 Bd7 10. f4 a6 11. a3 Rc8 12. Rb1 Na5 13. Bg1 b5 14. e5 A move which is likely to involve the loss of a pawn. White, however, had a quite brilliant continuation in view, and it was necessary to force away the adverse knight in order to play Nd5, which leads to a pretty piece sacrifice. 14.  ... Ne8 15.  Nd5 d¥e5 The position thus arrived at is highly interesting. White plays 16. N¥b5. Black must answer 16. ... B¥b5, for if 16. ... a¥b5, White continues 17. Bb6, winning easily. If 16. ... B¥b5, then 17. B¥b5 follows still threatening Bb6. Black has hardly any other play but 17. ... e6, in which case 18. Ba¥6 follows, and White has an overwhelming majority of pawns on the queenside. [JSH—In fact a less than successful combination, with neither side following up accurately, as will be seen.] 16. N¥b5 B¥b5 16. ... a¥b5 17. Bb6 Nc7 18. B¥a5 with advantage to White. 17. B¥b5 e6 [JSH: Throwing away most of his advantage. 17. ... a¥b5 was the correct move, when after 18. Bb6 Nc7 19. B¥c7 R¥c7 20. N¥c7 Q¥c7 Black should win.] 18. B¥a6 Ra8 19. Nb4 Q¥d1 20. Rf¥d1 Nc7 21. Bf1 Better was 21. Be2. 21. ... e¥f4 22. Bb6 Nd5 23. N¥d5 e¥d5 24. R¥d5 Nc6 25. Bg1 25. c4 might have been played, followed eventually by c5 and Bb5. 25. ... Rfb8 26. Rd6 Ne5 27. c4 27. Bc5, followed eventually by Bb4, was better. The text play gives up the a-pawn. 27. ... R¥a3 28. Rbd1 Raa8 29. b4 Bf8 29. ... R¥b4 could not be played, on account of 30. Rd8+ R¥d8 31. R¥d8+ Bf8 32. R¥f8+ K¥f8 33. Bc5+ and 34. B¥c4. 30. R6d5 Ng4 31. b5 Ne3 32. B¥e3 f¥e3 33. c5 Ra2

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

235

34. c6 Involves the sacrifice of the bishop. The play, however, is correct, for White’s advanced pawns become very strong, and at least make up for the piece. 34. ... e2 35. B¥e2 R¥e2 36. c7 Ra8 37. Kg1 Much better was 37. h4, and Black could then hardly stop the advanced pawns. The play selected gives Black a chance to draw the game. [JSH: 37. Rd8 wins easily: 37. ... Rc2 38. b6 Raa2 39. R¥f8+ K¥f8 40. b7 is more than sufficient. Kemeny’s suggestion wins too, but not as decisively. Griffith’s move throws the win away.] 37. ... Rc2 38. Rd8 Raa2 39. c8Q This gives Black a perpetual check. White, of course, could not play 39. R¥f8+ K¥f8 40. Rd8+ Kg7 41. c8Q, for 41. ... Ra1+ mate would follow. [JSH: 39. R8d2 R¥d2 40. R¥d2 Ra1+ 41. Kf2 Rc1 42. Rd7 is best.] 39. ... R¥g2+ 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, November 7, 1899, with annotations by Kemeny). Griffith, however, was not fated to battle in the Anglo-American Cable matches. His destiny lay on the country’s opposite coast, and with a more glittering crowd. In time he became physician to motion picture idol Mary Pickford and her family and, as a prominent Hollywood physician, treated a bevy of stars, including Charlie Chaplin. He maintained an interest in chess, however, and played in amateur events up and down California. Indeed, it was chess, indirectly, that killed him. On returning from a match, he was a passenger in a car driven by Herman Steiner when the latter drove headlong into a car coming the opposite way. Steiner recovered. Griffith did not. He died on May 31, 1937, in Ventura, California, age 61 (Los Angeles Times, June 1, 1937). Such tragic events were many decades in the future when a young Griffith sat down to face Kemeny. “The game between Messrs. Kemeny and Griffith, played in the second round of the Franklin championship tourney for the George W. Childs and Frazer Cups, was a splendidly contested one, resulting in a well merited victory for the former. Griffith, in the early part, weakened his queenside by exchanging his queen’s bishop for the adverse knight. His opponent gradually brought his forces to bear on the adverse queenside, and Griffith was obliged to relieve his somewhat endangered position by an exchange of queens and rooks. The end game which followed was decidedly in favor of Kemeny, his king being more actively in play and his two bishops occupying commanding positions. Griffith defended carefully, but he had to lose a piece on his 53rd turn, and his game soon became hopeless. The game required about five hours’ play, and was one of the best contested ones in the local tourney.”

Kemeny–Robert B. Griffith [D37] 1899-1900 Franklin Chess Club Championship March 1900 1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. d4 d5 4. Nf3 b6 Preferable, perhaps, was 4. ... c5, which play is important for the defense, and, should be adopted at the earliest opportunity. 5. Bf4 Bd6 6. Bg3 0–0 7. e3 Bb7 8. c¥d5 N¥d5 The usual play is 8. ... e¥d5. Black, it seems, tried to keep open the diagonal for his queen’s bishop. 9. Bd3 N¥c3 10. b¥c3 B¥f3 Had he now played 10. ... Nd7, followed by ... Nf6 and ... c5, the game would become fairly equalized. Black, quite likely, anticipated a kingside attack, brought about by h4, Ng5 and Qh5, and for that reason made the exchange. The play is hardly good. The ... b6 move weakens the queenside, but gives the queen’s bishop an excellent development. By exchanging the bishop this advantage is gone, and the queenside remains weak. 11. g¥f3 Better than 11. Q¥f3, which would be answered by 11. ... Nd7 and ... e5. 11. ... Nd7 12. f4 g6 Necessary, since Qh5, Qh3, Bh4 and Rg1 would have established a pretty dangerous kingside attack. The move selected guards the kingside, but gives White the opportunity to make demonstrations on the

236

EMIL KEMENY

queenside. 13. Be4 Rb8 14. Qa4 Nf6 15. Bc6 Nd5 16. Rc1 16. B¥d5 e¥d5 17. Q¥a7 would have been somewhat premature. Black answers 17. ... Qd7 and eventually ... b5 and the White queen cannot be easily brought into play. 16. ... a5 17. Ke2 17. e4 would have been answered by 17. ... N¥c3 18. R¥c3 Bb4 and ... Q¥d4, with a winning game for Black. 17. ... Qf6 18. c4 Ne7 19. Rhd1 Nf5 20. f3 Rfd8 21. Bf2 Bf8 22. Qb5 Ne7 23. Be4 Necessary, since ... e5 and ... Q¥c6 was threatened. 23.  ... Nc8 -®-D-®kD Better was 23. ... Nf5. The move selected enables the c5 continuaD-0-hpDp tion, which gives White a decided advantage. 24.  c5 Ne7 -0Lgp1pD 25. c¥b6 c¥b6 26. Rc7 Nc8 27. Rdc1 Nd6 28. Qc6 Rdc8 Rc2 Necessary, since ... R¥c7 and ... Rc8 was threatening. 0-D-D-D- 29. White would be unable to capture the b-pawn on account of the QDP)-)-D rook being unguarded. 29.  ... R¥c7 30.  Q¥c7 Qd8 31.  Bd3 D-D-)-G- Q¥c7 32. R¥c7 Rc8 33. R¥c8 N¥c8 34. e4 Bd6 35. Be3 PD-DK)-) Bc7 36.  Kd2 Kf8 37.  Kc3 Ke7 38.  e5 Na7 39.  Kc4 f6 D-$-D-DR Made under time pressure, and hardly good, yet White threatened d5, eventually obtaining a passed pawn. 40.  Be4 Bd8 41.  d5 After 18. ... Ne7 e¥d5+ 42. B¥d5 Bc7 43. Bd4 f¥e5 44. f¥e5 g5 45. a4 An important move, which blocks the queenside and enables White to -D-D-D-D make headway on the kingside. It should be remarked that had Black h-g-i-Dp some moves before played ... b5, it would not have afforded any -0-D-D-D relief. The adverse king was too near to the pawns, which finally 0-DL)-0- would have been won by White. 45.  ... h6 46.  Kd3 Kd7 -DKG-D-D 47. Ke4 Nc6 Better perhaps 47. ... Nc8, though it was not likely save the game. White answers 48. Bc4 or h3, and if 48. ... Ne7 D-D-DPD- to is played, then 49. e6+ and Bg7 may follow. The play selected enables PD-D-D-) White to win a piece, as the continuation shows. 48.  e6+ Kd6 D-D-D-D- 49. B¥c6 K¥c6 50. Kf5 Bd6 50. ... B¥h2 was hardly any better. White would have answered 51. B¥b6 followed eventually by B¥a5 After 44. ... g5 and Bd8, winning easily. 51. Kf6 Kc7 52. Kf7 Kc6 Necessary, since Be5 and e7 was threatening. 53.  e7 B¥e7 54.  K¥e7 b5 55. a¥b5+ K¥b5 56. Kf6 Kc4 57. Ba1 Kd3 58. Kg6 Ke3 59. K¥h6 Kf4 60. Kh5 a4 61. Bf6 a3 62. B¥g5+ K¥f3 63. Bf6 Kf4 64. Kg6 a2 65. h4 Causes Black’s surrender, since the pawn cannot be stopped. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 28, 1900, with annotations by Kemeny). John W. Young had no luck with Kemeny. Of the four games appearing in this collection, his record was 0–4. Kemeny’s win here is the kind of all-out attack he particularly enjoyed. Reichhelm spoke of the game in his Philadelphia Times column for April 15, 1900, as an example of superior opening analysis: “One of the great features of modern chess play is to be posted on the openings, and, as the following game proves, even the safe and solid French Defense has received an invasion from the iconoclastic analyst.” The Ledger focused on the sparkling bishop sacrifice: “One of the prettiest games played in the Franklin Chess championship tourney for the George W. Childs and Frazer Cups was the one between Messrs. Kemeny and Young. The latter adopted the French Defense, leading to an even development. Kemeny, with his 9. h4, contemplated a lively continuation, involving the sacrifice of a bishop. This variation of late has been subjected to exhaustive analysis by Pillsbury and others, and in most plays it proved sound. Had Black answered 9. ... c¥d4 it is doubtful whether the sacrifice could be made safely. As it happened, Kemeny, by giving up the bishop, obtained a winning attack, forcing his opponent to surrender on the twenty-fifth turn.”

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

237

Kemeny–John W. Young [C13] 1899-1900 Franklin Chess Club Championship April 1900 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. B¥f6 B¥f6 [The more usual course is for White to now push e5, but the line adopted has traps of its own—Times.] 6. Nf3 0– 0 7. Bd3 c5 8. e5 Be7 9. h4 [With the intention to continue B¥h7+ followed by Ng5+, leading to a lively attack—Ledger.] 9. ... c4 [A faux pas, as the sacrifice of the bishop is entirely sound. With ... Nc6 instead, however, Black would have gained a valuable tempo—Times.] [This move makes the contemplated sacrifice sound. Instead of 9. ... c4, he should have played 9. ... c¥d4, in which case it is rather doubtful whether White can continue B¥h7+—Ledger.] 10. B¥h7+ K¥h7 11. Ng5+ Kh6 [Of course he could not take the knight on account of the discovered check. If, instead, he had moved 11. ... Kg6 the attack proceeds with 12. Qg4 and on 12.  ... B¥g5 with 13.  Ne2 etc.—Times.] [11.  ... Kg6 12.  Ne2 B¥g5 13.  h¥g5 f5 (13.  ... Q¥g5 14. Nf4+ Q¥f4 (14. ... Kf5 15. Rh5) 15. Qh5 mate) 14. Nf4+ Kf7 15. Qh5+ Ke7 16. Ng6+ and White will also gain the g-pawn, which gives him a winning advantage—Ledger.] 12. Qd2 B¥g5 13. h¥g5+ Kg6 14. Ne2 f5 [14. ... Q¥g5 could not be played, on account of 15. Nf4+, followed by 16. Rh5, winning the queen—Ledger.] 15.  Nf4+ Kf7 16.  g6+ Ke8 17.  Rh7 Rg8 [JSH: This move loses; Black should have played 17. ... Qg5 preventing the Nh5 maneuver; the passive defense lands him in more difficulties.] 18. Nh5 Kd7 [He could not guard the g-pawn. Had he played 18. ... Kf8 or 18. ... Qe7, White would have answered 19. N¥g7, followed by 20. Qh6, and the advanced g-pawn will decide in White’s favor—Ledger.] 19. Nf6+ [Equally good was 19. N¥g7, followed eventually by Qh6, Nh5, and Nf6. Black’s queenside is not developed, which enables White to make headway on the kingside—Ledger.] 19. ... Kc6 20. N¥g8 Q¥g8 21. Qb4 b6 22. Qe7 Kb5 23. b4 [To stop Black from playing 23. ... Nc6, in which case 24. a4+ Ka6 25. b5+ could now rhlD-DqD follow. Black cannot well answer 23. ... c¥b3, for 24. a¥b3 and eventually c4+ would be White’s continuation, leading to a winning 0-D-!-0R attack—Ledger.] 23.  ... Ka4 24.  b5 K¥b5 [Loses at once, as -0-DpDPD White’s 25. Rb1+ reply demonstrates. If Black moves 25. ... Ka6 or DkDp)pD25. ... Kc6, White answers 26. R¥g7, and Black cannot guard against -Dp)-D-D the threatening mate, by Qa3 or Qd6, without giving up the queen. D-D-D-DBetter would have been 24. ... Nd7, but Black’s game was beyond P)PD-)PD repair—Ledger.] 25. Rb1+ 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, April 20, $-D-I-D1900, with annotations above by Kemeny; Times = Philadelphia Times, April 15, 1900, with annotations above by Reichhelm). After 22. ... Kb5 Although Kemeny managed 6–3 in the second round, one of his losses was to Charles Newman, who set a breath-catching pace at 7–0 with 2 draws, making up the two points by which he had trailed the leaders at the first round’s conclusion. Neither Bampton nor Shipley could match such efforts. The former stumbled badly with six losses in the second round, while the latter came up half a point short, only drawing his last round game. Newman and Kemeny tied for first and second at 11–3 with 4 draws. As the year before with Voigt, Kemeny was required to participate in a playoff match, first player to win two games, in order to claim the 1899-1900 Franklin and Philadelphia titles. In this he failed. Newman won the first game, and according to the Philadelphia Times of May 20, 1900, defeated Kemeny 2–1 with 1 draw. Although Robert Griffith, the University of Pennsylvania medical student, lost both his Franklin championship games to Kemeny, he had a minor sort of revenge when he defeated his more accomplished adversary in one of Kemeny’s simultaneous events. Kemeny held his

238

EMIL KEMENY

exhibition in the Betz Building, then home of the Franklin, on Saturday night, January 13, 1900. Players from both the Franklin and the Mercantile Library attended. Reichhelm reported the event, noting among the 16 boards several strong players, including Griffith, but also Samuel Leigh Stadelman, “the most promising Library player,” as well as George H. Stout and Walter S. Ivins, the last named the Mercantile Library’s champion for 1899. For this reason Reichhelm opined that Kemeny had “reason to call forth and revive all he had learned in the famous Buda-Pest school of chess.” Because of Griffith’s prominence as an up and coming player, Reichhelm added that Board 1, where he sat, “naturally attracted a large share of attention.” Play began at 8:00 that evening, and in the end Kemeny managed 11–3 with 2 draws. Reichhelm annotated the game with Griffith for his readers:

Kemeny–Robert B. Griffith [B21] Franklin Chess Club Simultaneous (1 of 16) January 13, 1900 1. e4 c5 The so-called Sicilian opening, the intention of which is to thwart White’s forming a central phalanx of pawns. 2. d4 2. Nf3 or 2. Nc3 can also be played. 2. ... c¥d4 3. Nf3 e5 A “gallery move” but not one in accordance with the genius of this defense. Of course, White cannot take this pawn on account of ... Qa5+. 4. c3 d¥c3 5. Bc4 The opening has now taken on the form of a species of Scotch Gambit and the Sicilian form is entirely lost. 5. ... Nc6 6. N¥c3 d6 7. 0–0 7. Qb3 at once is more attacking. 7. ... Be7 8. Be3 A tentative developing move. Black’s weak point is now d5. 8. ... Nf6 9. Ng5 0–0 10. f4 White is committed to this move by the run of the opening, and being a pawn behind. 10. ... e¥f4 11. B¥f4 Ne5 12. B¥e5 d¥e5 13. Q¥d8 B¥d8 14. Rad1 Bb6+ 15. Kh1 Bg4 If 15. ... Ng4 instead, White would continue with 16. N¥f7, etc. 16. Rd6 Bc5 17. Rf¥f6 His only chance of prosecuting the assault further. 17. ... g¥f6 18. R¥f6 Kg7 19. Nd5 Be7 [JSH: Much better is 19. ... Rac8, and if 20. Rf1, then a line like 20. ... Be7 21. N¥e7 R¥c4 22. h3 f6 23. h¥g4 f¥g5 opens lines for Black’s rooks, accenting his advantage.] 20. N¥h7 Another neat endeavor to “out” a difficulty. [JSH: This not only does not work, it makes matters significantly worse. 20.  R¥f7+ R¥f7 rD-D-®-D N¥f7 Rc8 22. N¥e5 Bd6 23. N¥g4 R¥c4 24. Nc3 would be better 0pD-gpip 21. but in the end insufficient. Kemeny’s move is a disaster.] 20.  ... -D-D-$-D B¥f6 21. Nh¥f6 Rac8 22. h3 If 22. b3, Black would retort with D-DN0-H- ... Be2 and the bishop cannot be taken on account of impending -DLDPDlD checkmate. In any event White has a forlorn hope. 22. ... R¥c4 D-D-D-D- 23. h¥g4 Rh8+ 24. Nh5+ Kf8 25. Kg1 Rc2 26. b4 Rh6 P)-D-DP) 27. a4 Rc4 28. Ng3 Rg6 29. Nf5 R¥e4 and wins. A very lively D-D-D-DK and pretty game and a further illustration of Mr. Griffith’s skill, especially in off-hand games. 0–1 (Philadelphia Times, January 14, After 19. ... Be7 1900, with annotations by Reichhelm). Little information about Kemeny’s activities outside of the Franklin championship during 1900 has survived. He likely witnessed Pillsbury’s extraordinary performance at the Franklin, when on Saturday afternoon, April 28, 1900, the latter played simultaneously 20 games blindfolded. Readers of this work will better appreciate now what it meant when the Ledger reported that “by playing twenty games simultaneously without seeing board or men he established a new record. It was the champion’s design to make it the best exhibition in blindfold play, and at his request the strongest players were pitted against him” (Philadelphia Public Ledger, April

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

239

30, 1900). Reichhelm listed Pillsbury’s opponents. On the first four boards he faced Bampton, Mordecai Morgan, D. Stuart Robinson and Charles Newman—not only some of the Franklin’s best players but two of Pillsbury’s American Cable Match teammates. He defeated all four of them. Newman, the current club champion, resigned after less than two hours. Among his 16 remaining opponents, Pillsbury also had to contend with Shipley, who managed a draw, and Ferris, who did not, as well as strong Mercantile Library players such as Stadelman (who also lost). More than fifty years later, in the November 1954 issue of Chess Review, Irving Chernev, in annotating Pillsbury’s win from this event over Bampton, stated that Pillsbury’s play against such a “redoubtable field,” which included no fewer than seven competitors in Franklin Chess Club championships, was astonishing. “To my mind,” Chernev wrote, “this, and not Pillsbury’s performance at Hanover two years later, was his greatest feat as a blindfold artist.” Comparisons aside, Pillsbury’s performance was indeed remarkable. Neither Kemeny nor Voigt played against Pillsbury that day, but their absence hardly detracts from Pillsbury’s accomplishment. The single performer finished 14–1 with 5 draws, a performance that would have been more than creditable against such a field by anyone giving an ordinary simultaneous display, with benefit of sight. Only a slip on board 10 marred his performance, allowing his opponent, Lucius S. Landreth, to emerge as winner. Kemeny traveled to New York’s Manhattan club along with 13 other Franklin members, but lost to Lipschütz in the annual Decoration Day match at the end of May 1900. The match ended in a 7–7 tie. Later that fall, at the end of September, the Eagle reported that the Manhattan’s board of directors were planning a tournament, and that “Marshall, Showalter, Lipschütz, Hodges, Kemeny and [Edward] Hymes are all mentioned in connection with the little meet the Manhattan Club proposes to get up, and, if successful in securing the entries of this noted sextet, the Manhattan Club will have a choice treat to offer an expectant public. Such a tournament would be well nigh national in character and would determine a good many questions that the cranks are very anxious to see settled.” But within a few days, on October 2, the Eagle reported “Kemeny of Philadelphia is unable to participate and his place has been taken by D. G. Baird, the veteran Manhattan player.” Begun October 15, 1900, the tournament, a double–round robin of considerable strength, ended in a strong victory for Lipschütz over Showalter and Hodges, with Hymes, Baird and Marshall trailing badly. Interestingly, the tournament winner was the only player not a member of the American Cable team. Why Kemeny could not participate was never stated. On Saturday evening, December 15, 1900, Kemeny gave a 19 board simultaneous exhibition at the Mercantile Library Chess Room. He was introduced by Harris J. Chilton, president of the club, as well as by another gentleman. Three of Kemeny’s 19 games have been preserved, in addition to the ending of a fourth. Kemeny finished 14–1 with 4 draws. Harris J. Chilton became president of the Mercantile Library Chess Association following the death in 1898 of its former president, D. M. Bennett. Little is known of Chilton, other than that he served first as a lieutenant and later as a captain in a Philadelphia company during the Civil War. Chilton provided financial support for institutions he held dear. He left the Mercantile Library Association (not the chess club itself) a legacy of $10,000 upon his death (Philadelphia Inquirer, January 22, 1919). He had served on that institution’s board of directors since 1901, when the corporation’s financial stability first became uncertain. He also left an annuity to both the Franklin and Mercantile Library chess clubs to support tournaments. Not a strong chess player, Chilton at times found himself the beneficiary of a half point in simultaneous exhibitions, as visiting masters, including Kemeny, made sure to reach a tactful draw with the club’s most socially prominent player. Sometimes finding a way to avoid a win against him proved the most difficult task. So it was in the game that follows.

240

EMIL KEMENY

Kemeny–Harris J. Chilton [C40] Mercantile Library Chess Room Simultaneous Exhibition (1 of 19) December 15, 1900 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qe7 It is strange that in this age of analysis a new move should be possible so early as this in the game. 3. Bc4 d6 4. 0–0 h6 5. d4 g5 Black’s tactics now dawn into a clearer light, not merely defensive, but offensive. 6. Nc3 c6 7. Be3 b5 8. Bb3 a5 9.  a4 [JSH: 9.  d¥e5 d¥e5 10.  N¥e5 Q¥e5 11.  Bd4 would give rh-Dkg-® White more of an advantage.] 9.  ... b4 [Compelling White to a D-D-1pD- series of tentative moves—Clipper.] 10.  Ne2 Nf6 11.  d5 [JSH: lD-0-h-0 Kemeny, again in danger of increasing his advantage, avoids doing here: 11. Ng3 Bg7 12. d¥e5 d¥e5 13. Qe2, for instance, is signifi0-0P0-0- so cantly stronger.] 11. ... c5 12. Nd2 Ba6 13. c4 [JSH: Kemeny does P0-DPD-D what he can to lock his king’s bishop in and head the game to the DLD-G-D- hoped-for draw.] 13.  ... b¥c3 14.  b¥c3 Nbd7 15.  c4 Bg7 -)PHN)P) 16. Nc3 0–0 17.  Ne2 Nh7 18.  Ng3 Rac8 19.  Nf5 Qf6 $-DQDRI- 20. g4 Nb6 21. Qf3 Draw proposed and accepted. A result creditable to the chess finesse of both players. 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Times, After 12. ... Ba6 December 23, 1900; New York Clipper, January 26, 1901, with annotations by Hazeltine). The following two games and ending were also played in this exhibition. It is unknown who annotated them. Although they appeared in the Ledger, it clearly was not Kemeny.

Kemeny–R.C. Albert [C37] Mercantile Library Chess Room Simultaneous Exhibition (1 of 19) December 15, 1900 The following game was one of the prettiest in the series. It was a Muzio Gambit, quite cleverly defended by R.C. Albert, who, however, endangered his position by an attempt to exchange forces. This enabled Kemeny to establish a winning attack. 1. e4 e5 2. f4 e¥f4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. 0–0 g¥f3 6. Q¥f3 Qf6 7. e5 More conservative is 7. ...d3, but having sacrificed a piece it is quite advisable to select this more aggressive continuation. 7. ... Q¥e5 8. d3 Bh6 9. Bd2 Ne7 10. Nc3 Nbc6 11. Rae1 12. Nd5 Kd8 13. Bc3 Rf8 14. Bf6 Bg5 15. B¥g5 Q¥g5 rDli-®-D Qf5 16. N¥f4 Ne5 [JSH: The attempt to exchange pieces gives White a 0p0pDRD- chance.] 17. Qe4 [JSH: A chance Kemeny overlooks; better for White -D-D-D-D is 17. Qe3 N¥c4 18. Ne6+ d¥e6 19. Q¥g5 when he has a queen for D-1-D-0- three minor pieces.] 17.  ... N¥c4 18.  d¥c4 Ng6 [JSH: Weak.] -DPDQD-D 19. N¥g6 h¥g6 20. R¥f7 Qc5+ 21. Kh1 g5 To guard against D-D-D-D- the threatening 22. Qh4+ g5 23. Q¥g5+ Qe7 and 24. R¥f8 mate. P)PD-DP) The text move is brilliantly met by White’s 22. Rf5 reply. Instead of D-D-$-DK 21. ... g5, Black should have played 21.  ... c6. 22.  Rf5 Qb4 He could not play 22. ... R¥f5 on account of 23. Qe8 mate, nor 22. ... Q¥f5 for 23. Qe7 mate would follow. 23. c3 d5 24. R¥d5+ Qd6 After 21. ... g5

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

241

25. Qe7 mate 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, December 17, 1900, with annotations; New York Clipper, February 2, 1901). Reichhelm jokingly described the outcome of Kemeny’s one loss: “the game Mr. Kemeny lost was a razzle-dazzle Evans Gambit, but the razzle was a leetle too hefty in the opening and the dazzle wouldn’t quite work. For further particulars see the moves of the game itself, with notes illustrating the ticklish points of the position.”

Kemeny–Harry Groots [C52] Mercantile Library Chess Room Simultaneous Exhibition (1 of 19) December 15, 1900 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 The well-known Evans Gambit, invented three quarters of a century ago by an English sea captain. 4.  ... B¥b4 5.  c3 Ba5 6.  d4 e¥d4 7.  0–0 d¥c3 The so-called compromised defense which, curiously enough, is not compromising. 8.  Qb3 Qe7 8.  ... Qf6 is more used. 9.  Ba3 d6 10.  e5 Must press the attack at once—no “keeps” in this. [JSH: The computer much prefers 10. N¥c3 B¥c3 11. Q¥c3 Nf6 and only then 12. e5; pushing the e- rDlDkDn® pawn at once loses.] 10.  ... N¥e5 11.  N¥e5 Q¥e5 12.  B¥f7+ 0p0-1p0p Kf8 13. B¥g8 R¥g8 14. Qc2 Bf5 15. Qb3 Wouldn’t mind a -Dn0-D-D draw at this point and feeling no doubt that he has taken the boy g-D-D-Dwonder too lightly in the opening. 15. ... c2 From which the infer-DLDPD-D ence might be drawn that Black is willing to win. 16.  B¥d6+ To make a place for the knight. 16. ... Q¥d6 17. Na3 Bd3 18. Nc4 GQ0-DNDB¥c4 19. Q¥c4 Qd2 20. Rac1 Qc3 21. Qf4+ Qf6 22. Qg3 PD-D-)P) Bb6 23. R¥c2 g6 24. Rc4 A last hope to recover lost, but the $ND-DRIboy had seen queens pinned before. 24.  ... Kg7 25.  Rf4 Qb2 After 9. ... d6 26. Qh4 Rgf8 27. Qe7+ Kg8 28. Qe6+ Kh8 29. Rf3 Rad8 30. R¥f8+ R¥f8 31.  Kh1 Qf6 32.  Qb3 c5 33.  h3 Qe5 34. Qd3 Bc7 35. g3 Qf5 At this point Mr. Kemeny gave up the only game he lost in this séance. 0–1 (Philadelphia Times, December 16, 1900, with annotations by Reichhelm). And the following conclusion, illustrating the well-known smothered mate:

Kemeny–C.H. Bonsall Mercantile Library Chess Room Simultaneous Exhibition (1 of 19) December 15, 1900 1. ... Rae8 and White mates in three as follows: 2.  Nh6+ Kh8 3.  Qg8+ R¥g8 4.  Nf7 mate. 1–0 (Philadelphia Ledger, December 17, 1900). Near the end of 1900 Kemeny played one of his rare games at odds. His opponent, Lucius S. Landreth, was the only Philadelphian

rD-D-®kD 0-D-DNg-0-DQDPD D-0-D-DP -DP0-D-1 D-D-DpDP)-D-)-D $-D-DK$Black to move

242

EMIL KEMENY

to defeat Pillsbury during his record breaking 20 game blindfold performance at the Franklin Chess Club earlier in the year. The game likely appeared in the Ledger as an opportunity to compliment one of the club’s socially prominent members, one who frequently over the years had made significant contributions to the club, especially regarding its directorship and finances. Almost twenty years later Shipley, at Landreth’s death, had the following to say: “The Franklin Chess Club has met with a severe loss in the death of their treasurer, Lucius S. Landreth. Mr. Landreth was in the sixty-fourth year of his age at the time of his death. He was the son of the late Oliver and Harriet R. Landreth, and was well-known in this city as a lawyer. For the past six years he has rendered the Franklin Chess Club valuable services as its treasurer. While not a player of the first rank, nevertheless he was an able exponent of the game and for many years several times a week used to meet with his friend, the late Charles A. Barclay. Since Mr. Barclay’s death Mr. Landreth has rarely attended the club, he pathetically stating that he appeared to see the ghost of his old friend sitting in his accustomed chair by the window at the board the two had played so many friendly contests” (Philadelphia Inquirer, December 14, 1919). As for the game below, the Ledger wrote that “The Class B Tourney of the Franklin Chess Club was arranged for the benefit of enthusiastic and quite skilled amateurs. They play a pretty fair, and, at times, a brilliant game, but are hardly strong enough to compete with the Class A exponents in the championship contest. The play of Class B contestants is apt to be more brilliant than sound, but at times it combines both. The game given below was played recently at the Franklin Chess Club. E. Kemeny ventured to give the odds of the queen’s knight to Lucius S. Landreth. Exchanging pieces is a particularly enjoyable pastime for the one receiving odds, but by indulging in it too freely Mr. Landreth lost his advantage. Thus, on the fifteenth move, the game became equalized; but one more later the Class B Tourney contestant had a surprise on hand, which completely upsets his opponent’s plan, and two moves later Kemeny lost the queen and surrendered. Before playing over the game the White queen’s knight should be taken off the board.”

Kemeny–Lucius S. Landreth Franklin Chess Club Handicap Game December 1900 Remove White’s Queen Knight 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 d¥e4 4. N¥e5 Nf6 5. d4 e¥d3 6. B¥d3 Bc5 7. Qf3 0–0 8.  Bd2 Re8 9.  0–0–0 Be6 10.  Bc3 Qe7 Necessary to prevent the B¥h7+ and R¥d8 combination of White. 11.  g4 Nd5 11. ... Bd5 might have been played, but Black did not care to invite such attack as may be rh-DrDkD established by White with 12. Qh3 and g5. 12. Qe4 Be3+ 12. ... 0p0-DpDp g6 was in order. Black endeavors to bring about an exchange of -D-DlDpD forces, but loses a piece in the transaction. 13.  Kb1 N¥c3+ D-D-H-D- 14. b¥c3 g6 15.  Q¥e3 Qa3 16.  c4 16. Bc4 should have been -D-D-)PD played. If then 16. ... B¥c4, White answers 17. N¥c4, and if 17. ... 1-)L!-D- R¥e3 then 18.  N¥a3. The game then would be fairly even. Black PDPD-D-) could not well capture the bishop pawn, 18. ... R¥c3, for 19. Rd8+ DKDRD-DR and Kb2, followed by Re1 and Re8 would give White the advantage. 16. ... B¥c4 Brilliant and decisive. If White answers 17. B¥c4, then ... Q¥e3 follows. If, however, 17. N¥c4 is played by White, then ... After 15. ... Qa3

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

243

Qb4+ and ... R¥e3 follows. 17. N¥c4 Qb4+ 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, December 18, 1900). The sixteenth Franklin Chess Club championship, billed as a tournament of champions, was a single–round robin tournament with 15 players. It began late in the season. The Philadelphia Times announced on December 23, 1900, that “The most noted gathering of players ever held in Philadelphia has started tournament proceedings at the Franklin Chess Club. It is a contest of champions. There are W. J. Ferris, champion of Pennsylvania; C. J. Newman, champion of the Franklin; S. L. Stadelman, champion of the Library; S. Mlotkowski, champion of Camden; J. F. Roeske, champion of the Steinitz Club; ex-champions S.W. Bampton, J. A. Kasier, E. Kemeny, C. S. Martinez, M. Morgan, W. P. Shipley, D. Stuart, and H. G. Voigt; strong veterans, J. S. McConnell, J. F. Magee, Jacob H. Rhoads, sixteen all told.” Games were to be played weekly, at a rate of 40 moves in two hours, and 20 moves an hour thereafter. In the first round Kemeny drew with Mordecai Morgan, the eventual second prize winner. But the tournament was not as successful for Kemeny as most of the previous ones had been. Difficulties soon began. One came in the person of James Francis Magee, Jr., in the second round, when Kemeny blundered on his twenty-seventh move. Magee was 33 at the time he met Kemeny in the 1900-01 Franklin and Philadelphia title tournament. Trained as a mining engineer at the University of Pennsylvania, Magee worked as a merchandise broker in Philadelphia, and would better be remembered by the chess world for his creation of the Good Companion Chess Problem Club, an organization he founded over a dozen years after the game below was played.

Kemeny–James F. Magee [D53] 1900-01 Franklin Chess Club Championship, Round 2 January 1901 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 c6 6. e3 Nbd7 7. Bd3 Nh5 Hardly good, for it causes considerable loss of time, and the exchange of bishops does not appear to be advantageous. 8.  B¥e7 Q¥e7 9.  Ne5 Nhf6 10.  0–0 0–0 11.  f4 N¥e5 Better, perhaps, was 11. ... d¥c4 12. B¥c4 Nb6 followed by ... Nd5. The play selected opens the f-file for the adverse rook. 12. f¥e5 Ne8 13. Qh5 g6 14. Qh6 f6 15. e¥f6 R¥f6 16. R¥f6 Q¥f6 17. Rf1 Qg7 18. Qf4 Qe7 19. e4 d¥c4 20. B¥c4 b5 21. Bb3 b4 22. Na4 Ng7 23.  Nc5 Bb7 24.  Qe5 Re8 25.  Rf6 Bc8 26. g4 Rf8 27. N¥e6 White, at this stage, had a winning advan- -DlD-®kD tage. He could have played 27.  g5 or 27.  R¥e6. In the latter case 0-D-1-hp White regains the exchange and comes out a pawn ahead. The move -DpDp$pD selected proves disastrous. White relied on the following continuaD-H-!-Dtion: 27. N¥e6 R¥f6 28. Ng5+ Kf8 29. N¥h7+ Ke8 30. N¥f6+ Kd8 31. Qa5+ etc., winning easily. He overlooked that 28. Ng5+ could be -0-)PDPD answered with ... Ne6 or ... Be6, either move deciding in favor of DLD-D-DBlack. 27. ... R¥f6 28. N¥g7+ Kf8 29. Qb8 K¥g7 29. ... Qd7 P)-D-D-) was perhaps stronger, through the move selected wins also. D-D-D-I30. Q¥c8 Q¥e4 31.  Qc7+ Kh6 32.  g5+ K¥g5 33.  Qg3+ After 26. ... Rf8 Kh6 33. ... Qg4 as played four moves later could have been adopted at once. 34.  Qh3+ Kg7 35.  Qd7+ Kh6 36.  Qh3+ Kg5 37. Qg3+ Qg4 38. h4+ Kh5 39. Bd1 An oversight, of course, since Black captures the piece with check, but White’s game was hopeless at this stage. 39. ... Q¥d1+ 0–1 (Philadelphia Pubic Ledger, January 24, 1901, with annotations by Kemeny).

244

EMIL KEMENY

Stasch Mlotkowski, Kemeny’s opponent in the next game, will figure more prominently in Kemeny’s story a few years later, at St. Louis in 1904. Here the 19-year-old New Jersey resident could finish no higher than tied for ninth-tenth, at 6–8, while claiming the curious distinction of being the only player to complete his 14 game schedule without a draw. The Ledger wrote that the following game “was a Two Knights Defense, leading to a fairly even development. Mlotkowski won a pawn on the fifteenth turn, but his opponent obtained some attack. The subsequent play was quite interesting. Kemeny, with his twenty-fifth move, secured a decided advantage, but it required careful play to enforce a victory. He selected the proper continuation, and eventually scored a neat win.” In truth there seems little “neat” about the win here. “Abrupt” is more accurate. Kemeny missed a winning line at his twentysixth move, as he points out in his notes, and wins only when he does because his opponent overlooked mate on the move.

Stasch Mlotkowski–Kemeny [C50] 1900-01 Franklin Chess Club Championship February 1901 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 By playing 4. Ng5 White can win a pawn, for the ... d5 and ... Na5 continuation on Black’s part is pretty nearly forced. The text move, however, is more satisfactory; it enables White to maintain the attack, while the Ng5 play puts him on the defense. 4. ... e¥d4 5. 0–0 d6 6. N¥d4 Be7 7. Nc3 0–0 8. h3 N¥e4 Enables Black to develop his forces, but leads to a weakening of the queenside, for the c-pawn will be doubled and isolated. 9. N¥e4 d5 10. N¥c6 b¥c6 11. Bd3 d¥e4 12. B¥e4 Ba6 13. Q¥d8 13. Re1 at once was better. The text move develops the adverse queen’s rook. 13. ... Ra¥d8 14. Re1 c5 15. B¥h7+ The winning of the h-pawn is of rather questionable value. If it is done, White’s king’s rook will occupy a commanding position, but Black, by playing ... Rd1+, will delay the development of White’s queenside. 15. ... K¥h7 16. R¥e7 Rd1+ 17. Kh2 Rf1 18. b4 Black threatened ... Rd8 and ... Rdd1 winning a piece. The text move gains a move, yet it gives up a valuable pawn; moreover, it leaves the White pawns on the queenside isolated. 18. ... c¥b4 19. R¥c7 Re8 20. Bb2 R¥f2 21. Rg1 Bc8 Better than 21. ... Ree2, which would have been answered with 22. Bd4. The play selected, followed by ... Be6, and eventually by ... Bd5, gives Black a pretty strong attack. 22. Bd4 Rd2 23. B¥a7 Be6 24. Rb7 Ra8 24. ... Bd5, followed by ... Ree2, would not have been effective. White could have answered R¥b4, followed by Rh4+ and Rg4. The text move is much stronger. White cannot well move the bishop, for ... Ra3 follows, which gives Black a winning attack. 25. Bc5 Ra3 Threatens ... R¥h3 mate. White cannot play 25. ... Ra3 26. Kh1 R¥h3+ 27. g¥h3 Bd5+ wins both rooks. 26.  Rb1 Bd5 26. ... R¥h3+, followed by Kg1 Rg3 would hardly win. White answers 28.  Bf2. The text -D-D-D-D 27. move attacks the rook and threatens R¥g2+, followed by R¥h3 mate. DRD-Dp0k 26. ... R¥c2 is the winning move. 27.  R7¥b4 (27.  B¥b4? R¥h3+ -D-DlD-D 28. Kg1 Rg3) 27. ... Ra¥a2 wins readily. 27. Rg1 R¥c2 Black could D-G-D-D- not well play 27. ... B¥b7, for White answers 28. B¥b4 and he regains -0-D-D-D the rook. The move selected, followed by ... Ra¥a2, is much stronger ®-D-D-DP and leads to a win. 28. B¥b4 Ra¥a2 29. Rb5 B¥g2 30. Kg3 PDP®-DPI Rab2 31. Rh5+ Kg6 32. Rc5 Rb3+ 33. Kh2 [JSH: A blunder DRD-D-D- allowing mate in one; White should have played 33. Rc3.] 33. ... R¥h3 mate 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 4, 1901, with After 26. Rb1 annotations by Kemeny).

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

245

Kemeny benefited from another blunder in his game against Newman. The Ledger wrote that “Kemeny selected a rather conservative variation of the Queen’s Pawn opening, leading to an even development. Newman, by advancing the f-pawn slightly compromised his position, and he lost valuable time by a maneuver of queen and queen’s knight, which enabled his opponent to establish a strong attack, eventually winning a pawn. Newman’s game, however, was not a hopeless one, and had he on the twenty-fourth move played ... Qb6 he had chances of holding his own. As it happened, he captured a pawn, which proved disastrous. Kemeny soon won a piece, and with a few more moves was enabled to secure a victory.”

Kemeny–Charles J. Newman [D05] 1900-01 Franklin Chess Club Championship March 1901 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 The usual play is 2. c4, which, however, may be answered with 2. ... e5, in which case Black gives up a pawn, but gains a strong attack. The text play prevents this, and, if White continues c4, Nc3 and Bg5, a regular variation of the Queen’s Gambit is brought about. The play adopted in the present game, i.e., Bd3 and c3, is a more conservative one; it leads to an even development. 2. ... Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. 0–0 Bd6 7. Nbd2 Bd7 8. e4 d¥e4 9. N¥e4 N¥e4 10. B¥e4 c¥d4 11. c¥d4 White’s d-pawn is weak, but the development is a favorable one, both bishops being in play, and control may be obtained over the open c-file. 11. ... Qc7 12. Be3 f5 Hardly good, for it weakens the e-pawn. Better, perhaps, was 12.  ... 0–0. 13.  Bd3 Nb4 This move, as well as the subsequent ... Qa5, tends to compromise the Black game. Valuable time is lost by the maneuver, and White takes the advantage by placing his queen’s rook at c1 and his bishop at c4. 14.  Rc1 Qa5 15.  Bc4 0–0 16.  Bd2 Qb6 17.  Qb3 Kh8 18.  Rfe1 18.  B¥e6 could not be played on -D-DrD-i account of 18. ... B¥e6 19. Q¥e6 B¥h2+ 20. N¥h2 Q¥e6. The Black 0pDlD-0p e-pawn, however, remains weak and cannot be guarded sufficiently. -1-gp®-D 18. ... Rae8 19.  Ng5 Rf6 20.  B¥e6 Apparently this involves D-D-DpHthe loss of a piece, for the pawn was guarded by both rooks and -hL)-D-D the bishop, and, indirectly, by the queen, since ... B¥h2+ can be DQD-D-Dplayed. The play, nevertheless, is sound. If Black captures the queen’s P)-G-)P) rook and king’s rook, then White has the Nf7+, N¥d6 and B¥b4 D-$-$-Icontinuation. If, however, Black exchanges his queen’s bishop and the rooks, then White threatens Rc8 mate. White in every variation After 19. ... Rf6 wins the e-pawn. A more conservative play would have been g3, followed eventually by doubling rooks on the e-file; Black, how-D-D-DkD ever, might have defended with ... Bf8 and ... h6, with good chance of holding his own. 20.  ... Re¥e6 21.  R¥e6 R¥e6 21. ... B¥e6 0pDlD-0p would have been inferior, for White answers N¥e6 or Q¥e6, move -D-1rD-D Rc8+ being threatening. The move selected by Black is much stronger D-D-DpDand forces White to adopt the Nf7+, N¥d6 and B¥b4 continua- -G-)-D-D tion. 22. Nf7+ Kg8 23. N¥d6 Q¥d6 24. B¥b4 Q¥d4 A dis- DQD-D-Dastrous mistake, which loses at once, as White’s Rd1 reply demon- P)-D-)P) strates. Black should have played 24. ... Qb6, which would have given D-$-D-Igood fighting chances. 25.  Rd1 Qe4 26.  R¥d7 The bishop is captured safely. Black cannot answer ... Qe1+ and ... R¥e1 for the After 24. B¥b4

246

EMIL KEMENY

rook is pinned. White now forces a speedy win. 26. ... a5 27. Rd6 Qb1+ 28. Rd1 Qe4 29. Re1 a4 30. Q¥e6+ 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, April 16, 1901, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny’s chances of winning a fourth Franklin and Philadelphia title were effectively ended when he lost the following game to Shipley. As the Ledger concluded, “The victory gave Shipley a decided lead in the contest, and the chances of winning the tourney are very much in his favor.”

Walter P. Shipley–Kemeny [C61] 1900-01 Franklin Chess Club Championship March 1901 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 This defense was introduced by Bird. It relieves the Black game, but causes a doubled pawn. The play is not as satisfactory as 3.  ... Nf6. 4. N¥d4 e¥d4 5. d3 Bc5 6. Bc4 d6 7. 0–0 Be6 8. B¥e6 f¥e6 9. Qg4 Qe7 10. f4 Nf6 11. Qh4 0–0–0 12. f5 e5 13. Nd2 d5 14. e¥d5 N¥d5 15. Q¥e7 B¥e7 16. Nf3 Bf6 17.  Bd2 Rde8 18.  Rae1 c5 A disastrous mistake, which causes the loss of a valuable pawn. 18. ... Kd7, followed by ... Kd6, was in order. 19. g4 h6 20. h4 c4 20. ... Bd8 21. R¥e5 R¥e5 22. N¥e5 B¥h4 23. Ng6 and White wins. Nor could Black play 20. ... g5, for White answers 21. f¥g6, followed eventually by g5. 21. g5 h¥g5 22. h¥g5 c3 23. b¥c3 d¥c3 24. Bc1 Bd8 25. R¥e5 R¥e5 26. N¥e5 Bb6+ 27. Kg2 Re8 28. Nc4 Re2+ 29. Kf3 R¥c2 Black thus regains the pawn, but the rook will -DkD-D-D be somewhat out of play, and the White pawns on the kingside 0pD-D-0- become dangerous. 30.  N¥b6+ a¥b6 31.  Ke4 Nc7 32.  f6 -g-D-D-D g¥f6 33. g¥f6 Ne6 34. f7 Kd7 35. Ba3 Re2+ 35. ... R¥a2 once was much stronger. If, however, ... Re2+ was selected it D-DnDP)- at should have been followed up with ... Rd2 and not with ... R¥a2. -DND-D-D 36. Kd5 R¥a2 37. f8Q N¥f8 38. B¥f8 Ra8 38. ... b5, 38. ... D-0PDKD- Rd2, or 38. ... Ra5+ were stronger, though the game could hardly PDPDrD-D be saved. 39. Bh6 Rh8 40. Bg7 Rh5+ 41. Be5 b5 42. Rf7+ D-G-DRD- Kd8 43.  Kd6 Rh6+ 44.  Bf6+ Ke8 45.  Ke6 b4 46.  Rc7 The winning move. White could not well play 46. Re7+, for in that After 29. Kf3 case Black answers ... Kd8, followed eventually by ... R¥f6+, and the Black pawns cannot be stopped. Similarly 46.  R¥b7 would have proved disastrous for White. Black answers ... R¥f6+, followed by ... c2 and ... b3, and White is unable to stop the pawns. 46.  ... R¥f6+ 47.  K¥f6 Kd8 48.  Rc4 b5 49.  Rc5 He could not play 49. R¥b4, for ... c2 would win for Black. Had he moved 49. Rc6 then Black would have replied ... Kd7, followed by ... Kd6 forcing a draw. The text move, however, wins. Black’s ... Kd7 move would be answered by 50. Ke5, followed by d4, Ke4, Kd3, and White can capture all the pawns. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 6, 1901, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny won the following game despite making a dubious sacrifice of a piece on his thirteenth move, which dissipated his advantage. Rhoads allowed Kemeny a successful attack later, when on his twenty-third move he took White’s irritating but untouchable knight off the board.

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

247

Kemeny–Jacob H. Rhoads [C31] 1900-01 Franklin Chess Club Championship March 1901 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 3. e¥d5 would be answered by 3. ... e4, and Black opens a pretty good attack. The move selected generally leads to an even game, the usual continuation being: 3. Nf3 d¥e4 4. N¥e5 Bd6 3. ... Bg4 4. Nc3 e¥f4 Better was 4. ... d¥e4 or; 4. ... Nf6. The text play turns the game into a King’s Gambit Accepted, and the position is rather unfavorable to Black, for ... Bg4 is not advantageous in this particular opening. 5.  N¥d5 Bd6 6.  d4 g5 7.  Bc4 c6 8.  Nc3 Nd7 9.  0–0 Nb6 10.  Bb3 Be6 10.  ... h6 was, perhaps, better. The move selected will be answered with B¥e6, and the Black king is exposed to a strong attack. 11.  B¥e6 f¥e6 12.  e5 Be7 13.  N¥g5 More conservative was 13. Ne4, which, however, enables Black to defend rD-1kDn® with 13. ... h6. The text move, involving the sacrifice of a piece, seems 0pD-g-Dp quite justified. White gets two pawns for the piece, and the attack -hpDpD-D will be an overwhelming one. 13. ... B¥g5 14. Qh5+ Kd7 14. ... D-D-)-0Kf8 could not well be played, on account of 15.  B¥f4, and White gets a winning attack. 15. Ne4 Be7 16. B¥f4 Qe8 17. Qe2 h5 -D-)-0-D 17. ... Qg6, followed by ... Nh6, was, perhaps, stronger. White, how- D-H-DNDever, could hardly be stopped from the Rad1, c4 continuation. P)PD-DP) 18. Rad1 Kc7 19. c4 Rd8 20. Nd6 Qg6 21. a4 Nc8 21. ... $-GQDRIN¥a4 could not well be played. White answers 22. c5, followed by After 12. ... Be7 Ra1 or Ra1 at once, and obtains a winning game. 22.  c5 Nh6 23. Rd3 23. B¥h6, followed by Nf7, would have won the exchange. The text play, however, is much stronger. White now threatens Rb3. -Dn®-D-® 23. ... B¥d6 [JSH: Fatal; the straightforward 23. ... Kb8 made better 0pi-g-Dsense, as relatively forcing lines like 24.  B¥h6 R¥h6 25.  Nf7 Rf8 -DpHpDqh 26. N¥h6 R¥f1+ 27. K¥f1 Q¥h6 give Black little to fear. Now White’s D-)-)-Dp pieces swarm Black’s king.] 24. e¥d6+ Kd7 24. ... Kb8 could not PD-)-G-D be played, on account of 25. d7+ followed by d¥c8(Q)+. The move D-DRD-Dselected enables White to play Rg3 and B¥h6, followed by Rf7+, -)-DQDP) leading to a forced win. 25. Rg3 Qh7 26. B¥h6 Q¥h6 27. Rf7+ Ke8 28.  Rgg7 Rf8 A slip which enables White to mate in two D-D-DRImoves—namely, Re7+ and R¥e7 mate. Instead of ... Rf8, Black might After 23. Rd3 have played 28. ... N¥d6, but the game was beyond repair. 29. Re7+ 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 25, 1901, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny finished at a respectable plus five, but it wasn’t enough. Shipley had an exceptional tournament, finishing 11–3, to win his third of an eventual five Franklin and Philadelphia titles. Mordecai Morgan finished second, a point behind. Kemeny finished third, at 91 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2, half a point ahead of the log jam of Bampton, Robinson and Voigt. Whether he knew it or not, Kemeny’s career as Philadelphia’s leading expert was coming to a close. He remained in the city for a while, but other chess-related activities took up more and more of his time. The Hungarian’s role as a leader in the annual Franklin championships during his years in Philadelphia was something of which he could be proud. In the 1894-95 event, it should be remembered, Kemeny “retired without finishing” all his games when business called him to Europe when he was leading 13–2. The eventual winner, D. Stuart Robinson, finished 17–5. He had already lost to Kemeny in their first game. Had Kemeny remained in

248

EMIL KEMENY

the tournament, he very likely would have won it. The chart below shows his accomplishments:

Franklin Championship 1892-1893 1893-1894 1894-1895 1897-1898 1898-1899 1899-1900 1900-1901 Totals

Wins

Losses

Draws

Place

13 22 12 7 10 11 8 83

3 0 1 4 3 3 3 17

2 2 2 0 1 4 3 14

1st 1st ... 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd

Not counted in the above are his two playoff results, against Voigt (2–0 with 4 draws) and Newman (1–2 with 1 draw). His overall playoff record of 3–2 with 5 draws is creditable as well. While the numbers are impressive, the logical inferences from them have both positive and negative implications for an understanding of Kemeny and his chess life. Undoubtedly they show Kemeny dominated serious play in Philadelphia during these years. Remember, as well, that during 1896 he also played a competitive, but ultimately unsuccessful, match against Showalter for the nation’s championship. One can hardly believe that Kemeny was not the dominant force in chess in Philadelphia for all the years of his stay there. But at the same time, this dominance suggests that spending these years in Philadelphia was at the cost of not competing against the strongest possible opposition—at that time, and for a player of Kemeny’s talent and accomplishment, clearly found mostly in New York City—that in the end may well have cost him further development as a player. By moving to Philadelphia in late 1892, Kemeny not only missed competing against Emanuel Lasker, but also missed the three significant tournaments held in New York between 1893 and 1894, besides the active chess life there. That chess life, of course, included not only Lasker and Steinitz, but Albin, Showalter, Lipschütz, Hodges and others. In particular he missed opportunities for frequent and substantial match play, a handicap that surfaced most notably when he finally played Showalter in 1896, after having played no significant matches in the previous four to five years. Showalter, on the other hand, had honed his play repeatedly in matches against the best New York players. By this point, however, there was little else Kemeny could do. He turned 40 in 1900, and by then, if not well before then, he had reached his zenith as an active player in the City of Brotherly Love. Not surprisingly, then, we learn that even before the final games of the 1900-01 Franklin championship were played, Kemeny had been actively pursuing other chess opportunities. The world champion, Emanuel Lasker, whom Kemeny had come to know from at least the time the challenger had defeated Steinitz three games running in Philadelphia in 1894, had decided after an absence of seven years to return to the United States. To that end, he required a tour itinerary as well someone on this side of the Atlantic to handle arrangements. Helms wrote in his Brooklyn Daily Eagle column on April 3, 1901, that Kemeny “had completed all the arrangements for the stipulated number of engagements” that Emanuel Lasker had contemplated for his proposed visit, “and that all that remained was for the champion to say the word.” Not surprisingly, Lasker spent his first two weeks in America fulfilling an engagement at the Manhattan Chess Club, followed by one at Philadelphia’s Franklin. Lasker arrived in New York on April 24, 1901, and stayed for precisely six weeks, leaving for Europe on June 5, 1901. During his tour, besides his first two stops, he gave exhibitions in Washington, Baltimore, Pittsburg, Davenport, Milwaukee and Chicago. Matters on the

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia

249

tour and Kemeny’s role in them will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter, but for now it is sufficient to mention Lasker made his Philadelphia appearance, where he was heartily welcomed, and conducted on May 17, 1901, a 20 board simultaneous display at the Franklin Chess Club, finishing 13–2 with 5 draws. Shortly before Lasker’s return to Europe, the Franklin hosted the sixth Franklin–Manhattan Chess Club match, on Decoration Day, Thursday, May 30, 1901. Over the first five matches, the score stood 2–2 with 1 draw, with total games favoring the Philadelphians by the barest of majorities, 351 ⁄ 2–341 ⁄ 2. The close encounters of the past, however, proved no useful guide for the drubbing the Franklin team took at the hands of their guests. The Manhattan club won 10–6. Reichhelm, in talking about the debacle, felt free to comment thus on Kemeny’s loss to Lipschütz: “Even the immaculate Kemeny had a hole in his armor, and his adversary, Lipschütz, has a very long nose for discovering such discrepancies in his adversary’s habiliments.” Another disappointment had been the absence of two men expected to play for Philadelphia and New York: Pillsbury and Lasker, respectively. Arranging for the two to play each other in an interclub team match would have generated wider interest among chess players. As it was, Lasker had an engagement in Baltimore, and Pillsbury was still touring out West. Helms reported extensively on the Manhattan–Franklin match, as he accompanied the Manhattan team and its friends to Philadelphia, acting as referee. His report in the Eagle appeared Sunday, June 2, and included five of the 16 games played. Appending a selection of “the most interesting games,” the Kemeny–Lipschütz game appeared first. Within days it was reprinted in the Chicago Tribune (June 8) and Pittsburg Dispatch (June 10), as well as other columns and magazines. The notes provided below appeared in the Canadian magazine Checkmate, which attributed them to the New York Post. Early in the game Kemeny allowed his pawn formation to be shattered. Attempting to develop a kingside attack in compensation for his strategic minuses, he attempted too much and paid the usual price. To what extent, if any, the poor showing by Philadelphia contributed to Kemeny’s aggressiveness is unknown. At one point that afternoon the Manhattan team led 6–2, with only six games remaining, including this one. Kemeny’s sacrifice of his knight at h6 proved unsound, but it might well have been his only way to swindle what he could not win with sounder play. Lipschütz, in any case, by now had Kemeny marked as his victim. This was Kemeny’s third successive loss to his fellow Hungarian in the Franklin–Manhattan match series.

Kemeny–S. Lipschütz [C77] Franklin–Manhattan Match, Board 16 May 30, 1901 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Dr. Tarrasch favors this move in reply to the present variation as selected by Black, while Lasker and Pillsbury prefer 5. 0–0. 5. ... d6 5.  ... Bg4 is Black’s best means to bring about equality; both ... Be7 or ... Bc5 being inferior. The defense chosen is an improvement over ... b5, as the position of the apawn on its third renders possible an advantageous advance of the queenside in some variations, but it is not wholly satisfactory. 6. 0–0 Directly 6. d4 is White’s best course. As played Black may seize the attack by 6. 0–0 b5 7. Bb3 Bg4, threatening ... Nd4. 6. ... Be7 7. d3 We again prefer 7. d4. The reply 7. ... b5 is not to be feared, as it would be met by 8. d¥e5. 7. ... 0–0 Generally ... b5 is played first to prevent the exchange of knight by bishop. 8. Ne2 Here h3 was in order. 8. ... Bg4 9. c3 Nh5 Very well played. 10. Ng3 N¥g3 11. f¥g3

250

EMIL KEMENY

b5 12. Bb3 Na5 13. h3 This loosens his kingside. We should have preserved the king’s bishop by its retreat to c2 instead. 13. ... N¥b3 14. a¥b3 Be6 15. d4 From bad to worse! He had still a fairly good game by 15. b4. 15. ... e¥d4 16. N¥d4 16. c¥d4 would only isolate his doubled pawns on the b-file, while the center cannot be mainfor good. 16. ... Bd7 17. Nf5 Bf6 18. Be3 Be5 19. Bd4 rD-1-®kD tained Qf6 Black conducts the game with consummate mastery. 20. Nh4 D-0-gp0p 20. Ne3 was probably better. 20.  ... Qg5 21.  B¥e5 Q¥e5 pD-0lD-D 22. Kh2 The e-pawn cannot be sufficiently defended, 22. Qf3 Bc6 DpD-D-D- 23. Rae1 Rae8 etc. 22. ... Q¥e4 23. Re1 Qc6 24. Qh5 Rae8 -D-0PD-D 25. Nf3 Bc8 26.  R¥e8 Q¥e8 Not 26.  ... R¥e8 because of DP)-DN)P 27. Ng5. 27. Re1 Qd7 28. Re4 Bb7 29. Rh4 h6 30. Nd4 -)-D-DPD Re8 31. Rf4 31. Nf5 at once would fail, because of the palpable $-GQDRI- rejoinder 31.  ... Qc6 whereupon the sacrifice of the knight yields nothing except a number of checks, e.g.: 32. N¥h6+ g¥h6 33. Rg4+ Kf8 34. Q¥h6+ Ke7 35. Qg5+ Kd7 36. Qf5+ Kd8 37. Qg5+ Kc8. After 15. ... e¥d4 31. ... Re5 32. Nf5 32. Qh4 would have been much better. 32. ... -D-D-DkD Be4 Very forceful! White must either submit to the exchange of D-0qDp0- his knight or take a desperate chance on an unsound sacrifice. 33. N¥h6+ g¥h6 34.  Q¥h6 Qe6 35.  Rg4+ Bg6 36.  Rh4 pD-0-D-0 Qf6 37. Qd2 Qg5 38. Qd4 Qe3 39. Qg4 Threatening mate DpD-®NDQ in two moves beginning with Qc8+ 39.  ... Re6 40.  Qd1 Re4 -D-Dl$-D 41. R¥e4 Q¥e4 42. b4 Qc2 43. Qg4 Q¥b2 44. h4 Qc2 This DP)-D-)P parries the threatened h5, which would be met by ... Qf5. He might -)-D-DPI have simplified matters, however, by capturing the c-pawn. 45. Qg5 D-D-D-D- Kh7 46. Qf6 Qa2 47. Qf3 Guarding temporarily against ... Be4. Of course he is unable to avoid the catastrophe. 47.  ... Qe6 After 32. ... Be4 48. Qc6 Be4 49. Q¥c7 Qa2 0–1 (Checkmate, July 1901, pages 122–123, with annotations attributed to the New York Post, undated). That fall Kemeny gave a simultaneous exhibition at Houston Hall, University of Pennsylvania, where he faced the school’s strongest players. Reichhelm described the performance as “very successful” as Kemeny finished 14–2 with 1 draw. One of his losses was to J. Henry Smythe, Jr., a talented young man who had a love for the game. Smythe had shown himself as a player to watch. He had drawn his game with Lasker at the latter’s May 17 simultaneous exhibition, and was prominent in the University of Pennsylvania Chess Club, as well as for a time at the Franklin.

Kemeny–J. Henry Smythe, Jr. [C40] Houston Hall, University of Pennsylvania Simultaneous Exhibition (1 of 17) November 1901 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 f5 An agreeable variation to relieve the monotony of the ordinary openings. 3. N¥e5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5. Nc4 f¥e4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7. Ne3 Nf6 8. Ncd5 N¥d5 9. N¥d5 Qf7 10. c4 c6 11. Ne3 d5 12. c¥d5 c¥d5 13. Qb3 Be6 14. Bd2 Nc6 15. Bb5 Bd6 16. 0–0 0–0 17. B¥c6 b¥c6 The forces are still even, but the threatened menace of the combined Black bishops makes White’s position untenable. 18. f3 [JSH:

8. The Final Years in Philadelphia Hastening his end, given Black’s piece placement on the kingside.] 18. ... Qh5 19.  Ng4 B¥g4 and wins. 0–1 (Philadelphia Times, November 24, 1901, with annotations by Reichhelm).

251

rD-D-®kD 0-D-Dq0p -DpglD-D D-DpD-D-D-)pD-D DQD-H-DP)-G-)P) $-D-DRI-

Kemeny also played a 20 board simultaneous exhibition at the Franklin Chess Club. Among his victims was the victor above, young J. Henry Smythe. As is often the case, of course, victories by the simultaneous performer are less likely to be published than losses, and the dispatch of young Smythe has not survived. And, as often happened in Philadelphia, some surprisingly good After 17. ... b¥c6 opponents showed up to take a board against the single player. The Ledger wrote, “Emil Kemény gave a simultaneous séance on Saturday evening at the Franklin Chess Club. He had twenty opponents, and won 10, drew 8, and lost 2. The names of the players and the results are as follows.... Most interest was centered in board no. 1, where Herman G. Voigt opposed the simultaneous player. Mr. Voigt has held the Franklin Chess Club championship two years, and occasionally indulges in a simultaneous exhibition himself. Mr. Voigt won his game in very good style, but it is only fair to Mr. Kemény to say that it took him about seven minutes to make the round of the boards, and during that time his opponents were enabled to analyze the position and decide upon what move to make when he came around. It is not surprising that Mr. Voigt was victorious. Following is the game at board no. 1.”

Kemeny–Herman G. Voigt [C49] Franklin Chess Club Simultaneous Exhibition (1 of 20) December 7, 1901 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. 0–0 0–0 6. d3 d6 7. Ne2 Ne7 8.  c3 Ba5 9.  Ng3 c6 10.  Ba4 Ng6 Thus far both players have made the same moves, and their positions are identical. Black now assumes the attack, and keeps it up to the end. 11. Bc2 d5 12. d4 N¥e4 13. B¥e4 d¥e4 14. N¥e4 f5 15. Neg5 e4 16. Qb3+ Qd5 17. Ne5 N¥e5 18. d¥e5 Q¥b3 19. a¥b3 Bc7 20. f4 h6 21. Nh3 Bb6+ 22. Kh1 Be6 23. b4 Rad8 24. g3 This was White’s fatal move. With two bishops in a position to command the diagonals, on which the White -D-®-®kD king had to move, it would have been better to keep the g-pawn in 0pD-D-0front of his White Majesty. 24.  Re1, followed by Be3, would have -gpDlD-0 been preferable. 24. ... Bd5 25. Re1 e3+ 26. Kg1 e2+ 27. Nf2 D-D-)pDBf3 28. b3 Rd1 29. Bb2 Rfd8 30. c4 R¥a1 31. B¥a1 Rd1 32. Bc3 Bd4 White had no move that could save his game. If he -)-Dp)-D moved Bd2, Black would play ... R¥d2, and return the rook to d1. D-)-D-DN If he played B¥d4, Black would take the rook and mate. 0–1 -)-D-DP) $-G-DRDK (Philadelphia Public Ledger, December 9, 1901). After 23. ... Rad8 More amusing for Kemeny must have been this, the evening’s miniature. His opponent, Sydney T. Sharp (1885–1953), then 16 years old, would go on to be Philadelphia’s, and the Franklin’s, most successful player of the first half of the twentieth century. That promise, however, was a future one and not readily foreseeable as Kemeny walked around the boards that evening.

252

EMIL KEMENY

Kemeny–Sydney T. Sharp [C21] Franklin Chess Club Simultaneous Exhibition (1 of 20) December 7, 1901 1. e4 e5 2. d4 e¥d4 3. c3 d¥c3 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. Nf3 d6 6. N¥c3 Nf6 7. 0–0 0–0 8. Bg5 h6 8. ... Be6 or 8. ... c6 would have been better for rDl1-®kD Black to prevent the White knight being played to d5. The text move 0p0-DpD- is a mistake. 9. Bh4 Nc6 10. Nd5 g5 The simultaneous player this point offered a piece for the attack by playing N¥g5. 11. N¥g5 -Dn0-D-D at N¥d5 12.  Qh5 h¥g5 13.  B¥g5 Nde7 [JSH: Black had to try D-gnD-GQ 13. ... Qd7 14. e¥d5 Qg4, although after 15. Qh6 Bd4 16. h3 (16. d¥c6 -DLDPD-D Bg7) 16. ... Qf5 17. d¥c6, Black’s position is anything but pleasant. D-D-D-D- The text gives White mate.] 14. Bf6 Black saw the impending mate P)-D-)P) at h8, and he decided to give up his queen to prolong the struggle, $-D-DRI- so he played ... Ng6. But he overlooked White’s rejoinder, 15. Q¥g6 mate. 14. ... Ng6 15. Q¥g6 mate 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, After 13. B¥g5 December 9, 1901). The Decoration Day Match between the Franklin and the Manhattan clubs, held May 30, 1902, proved to be a near repeat of the disaster the year before. Manhattan won again, this time 9–6. Helms published four match games in his Eagle column for June 8, 1902, including Kemeny’s win over Edward Hymes. Edward Hymes, born on September 13, 1871, was the 30-year-old youngest brother of the trio of Hymes brothers who dominated New Jersey chess in the 1890s. As with Hungary’s three Polgar sisters late in the next century, the youngest Hymes brothers proved the strongest. Between 1896 and 1902, Edward Hymes played in all seven Anglo-American cable matches, serving each time as America’s fifth board. He won one and drew the other six. In publishing Kemeny’s win over Edward Hymes, Helms mentioned that “Hymes indulged a fancy for irregularity in his game with Kemeny and the latter showed him he was not to be thus trifled with.” Despite finding himself with a won position after 11 moves, Kemeny did not play as strongly as he might have, and the two men struggled on. Eventually Hymes blundered and Kemeny scored the point for the Franklin. By defeating Edward Hymes, Kemeny completed his sixth and final appearance for the Franklin Chess Club against its Manhattan counterpart, finishing with a 3–3 record.

rhl1kg-® 0pD-D-0p -D-0p0-D D-0P)nD-DPD-)-D D-H-DNDP)-D-DP) $-GQILDR After 8. ... f6

Kemeny–Edward Hymes [B03] Franklin–Manhattan Match May 30, 1902 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 e6 4. f4 c5 5. c4 Ne7 6. d5 d6 7. Nc3 Nf5 8. Nf3 f6 [JSH: A rarely seen position in serious games ... for good reasons.] 9. e¥f6 Q¥f6 10. Bd3 h6 11. 0–0 Be7 12.  Qe2 12.  ... Nd4 13.  N¥d4 Q¥d4+ 14.  Be3 Qf6 15. d¥e6 Q¥e6 16.  Nd5 Kd8 17.  b4 c¥b4 18.  Bf5 Qf7 19. B¥c8 K¥c8 20. Qg4+ Nd7 21. Rac1 Kd8 22. Bd4 Nf6 23. B¥f6 [JSH: And White returns the favor; 23. Qf5 Rf8 24. N¥b4

9. Kemeny, Writer d5 25. Nd3! was indicated.] 23. ... B¥f6 24. Rfd1 Re8 25. c5 Qe6?? [JSH: A blunder after what must have been a very difficult position to defend from a very early point.] 26.  N¥f6 Qe3+ 27. Kf1 g¥f6 28. c¥d6 Qe6 29. Qh5 1–0 (New-Yorker StaatsZeitung, June 5, 1902; Brooklyn Daily Eagle, June 8, 1902). Although Kemeny gave another exhibition in 1902, it was not in Philadelphia, or anywhere else on the East coast. While Kemeny’s career as a player in Philadelphia had ended, his connection with chess had not.

253

rD-irD-D 0pD-Dq0-D-0-g-0 D-)ND-D-0-D-)QD D-D-D-DPD-D-DP) D-$RD-IAfter 25. c5

9

Kemeny, Writer “The reader will undoubtedly be surprised at the small compensation star exponents receive for their prolonged and very exacting efforts. Yet such is the case; and truly, whatever name and fame chess masters may have established for themselves, in worldly goods their share has been meager. While they are successful in tournaments they manage to get along; for their services at the chess clubs are more or less in demand. As soon as they are surpassed, however, their revenue dwindles away. It is a sad chapter in the history of the game that some of the greatest players, after a brilliant career, have experienced the grim fate of being reduced to extreme poverty; and the most pathetic feature of such cases is that the distress is usually kept hidden until it is past all assistance.”—The Forum, March 1904, pages 471–480, page 478 (Kemeny, after mentioning the prizes scheduled for Cambridge Springs 1904)

Thirteen years before Kemeny wrote the essay from which the above quotation is taken, the New York Herald for July 26, 1891, in providing its readers with some colorful remarks regarding the chess players at work at Skaneateles during the midsummer NYSCA meeting, mentioned some distinguishing details that set the players apart. Steinitz, for instance, in watching play, “almost inaudibly” hummed when disapproving of a move and turned to another game. Major Hanham, with his “silver beard,” attracted general attention. Delmar stood out for his mighty yawn. Pollock for his mighty appetite. And Kemeny? How did he stand out? “E. Kemeny,” the Herald reporter wrote, “who astonished everybody by his precise and excellent play, is a six-footer who cruelly murders the Queen’s English.” Between 1890 and 1904, Kemeny not only had to adjust to chess in a new land. He had to learn a new language. Not just well enough to ask directions or to announce checkmate, but, as his life unfolded, in order to communicate with his fellow chess players and eventually the general public through the written word. Already a skilled chess player when he arrived on the streets of New York from Eastern Europe, Kemeny had, rather, to master the equally complex nuances of English. No longer a youth when he arrived in the land to be his home for 16 years, the 30-year-old, without significant resources or skills other than at the chessboard, had to hone his speech and written word. Doing so took time. That he adjusted as well as he did speaks to his intelligence and drive. But it could not

254

EMIL KEMENY

have been an easy progress. An examination of New York sources during the period 1890 through 1892, Kemeny’s first years in the United States, fails to show that he engaged in chess reporting or even annotating. Once he moved to Philadelphia in the fall of 1892, we find him immediately a member of the Franklin Chess Club, and by the spring of 1893 club and city champion, but still no evidence of his publishing. It is only later, in the fall of 1893, that his name became associated with a chess column, that of the Philadelphia Public Ledger. Kenneth Whyld in Chess Columns: A List (page 359) gives the column as beginning in November 1893, with George P. Northrop listed as first editor, followed very quickly by Dion M. Martinez (also in 1893) and Kemeny in 1899. Some of this listing is, not surprisingly, incorrect. No slur on Whyld is meant. As Whyld himself recognized, putting together a listing of all known chess columns with dates of publication and editors was a monumental task, one no individual could truly encompass. He knew his reliance on secondary sources for much of his information would, on closer scrutiny, prove at times misplaced. Such is the case with the Ledger. First, having examined the newspaper in some detail for the period September 1892 through 1901, the present author can state with authority that no chess column as that term is usually used ever appeared in the Ledger. By that is meant that no organized, weekly chess column appeared. Chess columns in general, often, but not invariably, contain dated material, provided either by a named editor or at least a “chess editor” reference, very often with one or more chess problems heading the material, and often with those problems numbered sequentially throughout the life of the column, followed by a listing of correspondence received from readers with short replies, general chess news (encompassing world, nation, region, city or town of publication), and one or more games, annotated or not. The variations on this formula are wide, but in every case, at least two or more of these elements appear. Not so with the Ledger’s chess material. Although many hundreds, if not a thousand or more, chess games—many deeply annotated for the period—appeared in the Ledger’s pages, there is no evidence the newspaper ever hosted a formal, unified, weekly chess column. While the specifics developed over a period of months, if not a year or more, the chess material in the Ledger was presented on an occasional basis (sometimes very often, almost daily), including a game introduction and then a game with annotations. Only in the loosest sense can this material be called a “chess column,” although in nature and quality it exceeded by far almost every other chess publication in the United States for many years. The Philadelphia Public Ledger began business on March 25, 1836, and continued publication into January 1942, more than 100 years. It appeared initially as a penny paper, modeled after the highly successful New York Herald. As recounted in Chapter 3, George W. Childs bought the paper in December 1864, and ran it for nearly thirty years, until his death on February 3, 1894. He changed the newspaper significantly, besides doubling the price, and before long his focus on integrity in advertising, avoiding sensationalism, and providing accurate news and information on matters important to his readership improved the paper and found it a loyal following. In the process the Ledger became one of the most influential newspapers in the United States. Toward the end of his life, the multi-millionaire philanthropist had been prevailed upon to donate a silver cup, known thereafter as the Childs Cup, for competition for the chess championship of Philadelphia. There is no evidence that George W. Childs was a serious chess player, or that he had any other association with chess in Philadelphia other than through this donation. Care of the cup was placed in the hands of the Franklin Chess Club. The cup initially was placed on display in the window of Bailey, Banks & Biddle, Twelfth and Chestnut streets. As described in the December 14, 1892, Ledger, the solid silver cup attracted considerable attention because of its “odd design” in the shape of a rook. Reichhelm in his Philadelphia Times column for January 15, 1893, added that the trophy was “highly polished with two han-

9. Kemeny, Writer

255

dles. On one side is etched the portrait of Mr. Childs, with this inscription in ornamental letters: ‘George W. Childs Chess Cup, presented to the Franklin Chess Club, 1892.’ The other side is left plain for the names of the successful competitors.” Play for the Childs Cup began with the 1892-93 Franklin Chess Club championship. By chance, it was also with this tournament that Kemeny’s association with the Franklin began. Throughout the time Kemeny resided in Philadelphia, the winner of the Franklin championship also had his name inscribed on the Childs Cup, as reflecting the player’s assumption of that year’s title of Philadelphia champion. Later, beginning in 1894, the Franklin Championship winner had his name inscribed as club champion on the Persifor Frazier Cup, named after its donor, the first and then current Franklin president. The first flurry of chess articles appearing in the Ledger were published in late December 1892, when Emanuel Lasker made his initial Philadelphia appearance. His two week engagement with the Franklin required him to meet five different players, two games each. He also played less formal games. Lasker brought the Franklin not only his chess talent, but a good deal of publicity, as the Ledger published eight chess articles during the last ten days of the year related to his visit. No fewer than 14 of Lasker’s contests with Philadelphians, move for move, saw light in the Ledger by January 4, 1893. Kemeny did not play against the internationally acclaimed German, at least not for publication, but it was at this time the two men had a first opportunity to meet. So recent had Kemeny’s move been from New York to Philadelphia that at the time Lasker appeared in New York, in October 1892, Kemeny was initially spoken of as one of the New York masters expected to play against the visitor. Kemeny’s first published game in the Ledger was a loss. His conqueror was Bampton, and the event the Franklin championship. The game appeared in the January 14, 1893, issue, ten days after publishing the last news regarding Lasker’s visit. The game was also the first, albeit indirect, announcement of not only Kemeny’s arrival in the city but also his joining the city’s leading club. Kemeny had not yet shaken the New York dust from his shoes, and was referred to as “the New York chess player, who has a national reputation and now holds the StaatsZeitung Cup.” The game was not annotated by Kemeny. When Kemeny made his losing sixteenth move, the comment was that “It is astonishing that a player of Mr. Kemeny’s ability should have overlooked the correct move.” By this time Kemeny had a 4–2 record in the event, five or six games having been played by each of the players listed. Chess articles, with chess games, most with very few notes—two to four short ones per game was common—appeared in the Ledger through June 3, 1893, at the conclusion of a very young Harry N. Pillsbury’s engagement with the Franklin. No chess material was published in July, August and September of 1893. When chess material did resume near the start of the chess season in Philadelphia, on October 4, 1893, it was limited for the first seven or eight reports to various games of national significance, such as a Showalter–Albin match game and several Pillsbury games from New York 1893. Then, in the October 23, 1893, issue, the Ledger published the first game of the Tarrasch– Chigorin match. After two paragraphs giving an overview of the opponents, the paper stated that “The following is the first game, with notes by Emil Kemeny.” This is the first association of Kemeny’s name with any Ledger chess content. Chess readers were in for a pleasant surprise, as comparatively detailed notes were now offered. Siegbert Tarrasch–Mikhail Chigorin [C80], First Match Game, St. Petersburg. October 8, 1893. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 3. ... a6 continued with ... b5 and ... Bb7, the Paulsen defense, was a very favorite one. Mr. Steinitz approves ... a6, but is against ... b5 on account of weakening the queenside. 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0–0 N¥e4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. d¥e5 Ne7 This continuation seems to be weak. It has the object to make b-pawn supportable by playing ... c6, but it blocks the game very much; ... Be6 is the proper

256

EMIL KEMENY

play. 9. a4 Rb8 9. ... b4 is the proper play. The move played gives White a great advantage by opening the a-file. 10. a¥b5 a¥b5 11. Nd4 Nc5 12. Bg5 Threatens to play Nc6, which would win at once, Black had no other move than ... Qd7, and this move blocks the queen’s bishop in. 12. ... Qd7 13. Nc3 c6 14. Qh5 Very fine play. Black cannot answer ... g6, for that would enable White to play after retreating his queen Bf6 with great advantage. While the queen cannot be forced away, White is enabled to inaugurate a vigorous attack on the kingside, commencing with Rfe1. 14.  ... Ng6 15.  Rfe1 Ne6 16.  Be3 N¥d4 17.  B¥d4 Nf4 18. Qf3 Ne6 19. Be3 Bb4 20. Bd2 0–0 21. Qg3 21. ... f5 Black had the inferior game already, and Mr. Chigorin is trying hard to open his cramped position. This move, how-®lD-®kD ever, proves disastrous. 22.  N¥d5 Most excellent play, which D-DqDp0p decides the battle at once. Black cannot take bishop for 22. N¥d5 -DpDnD-D B¥d2 23.  Nf6+ R¥f6 24.  e¥f6 B¥e1 (or 24.  ... Qf7 25.  R¥e6 and DpDp)-D- wins) 25. B¥e6+ and wins. 22. ... c¥d5 23. B¥b4 Rd8 24. Bd6 -g-D-D-D Rb6 25. B¥d5 Qf7 26. Qe3 Ra6 27. R¥a6 B¥a6 28. Qb6 DLH-D-!- Bc8 29.  B¥e6 The play of Dr. Tarrasch in this game is of the -)PG-)P) highest order, and could not be improved at all. After gaining that $-D-$-I- important pawn he ensured his victory in a few powerful strokes. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, October 23, 1893, with annotations After 21. Qg3 by Kemeny). Tarrasch reports his first match game against Chigorin took place in St. Petersburg on October 8, 1893 (Three Hundred Chess Games, by Siegbert Tarrasch, translated by Sol Schwarz, page 272). A 15 day delay between the playing of a game in Russia and its publication in Philadelphia with annotations was not unusual for the times. The second match game, for instance, played October 10, appeared with Chigorin’s own notes in the New York Sun 15 days later, on October 25. What was unusual, certainly for the Ledger, was the extent of coverage regarding a chess event of international significance. On December 9, 1893, the Ledger published Kemeny’s annotations to the twenty-second and last game of the match. It had published his notes to every match game as well as several other games during this period. Beginning with the game Voigt–Lee, published on December 15, 1893, Kemeny’s annotations, instead of being identified in the final line of the paragraph summaries that appeared before the game score, were identified at the game’s end in bold print as “Notes by Emil Kemeny.” Throughout most of Kemeny’s tenure as Ledger annotator, his notes appeared following game scores, their location referred to by letters of the alphabet. This was a common practice at the time. Although not the most efficient use of space, providing the notes after the game did make it easier for serious students to play through the score before consulting the annotations. The December 15, 1893, game also was the only one to appear after a problem: a Sam Loyd problem identified as “Problem No. 1.” This attempt to add one indicia of a regular chess column was not repeated, and no “Problem No. 2” ever appeared in the Ledger. As no regular, weekly column ever was printed in the Ledger, it appears likely Kemeny was paid in a chessic version of piecework. The more of his annotated games appearing in the paper, the more he must have been paid. Through parts of 1894 some annotations were merely identified as “Notes on the Game.” Kemeny may not have annotated those particular games. By and large, however, the identification of the annotations as Kemeny’s, a distinction made for years in the Ledger, makes sense only if someone other than Kemeny was providing the paragraph (or two) summaries appearing before the games. Kemeny had an easy-going, self-effacing personality. It would have been out of character for him to highly praise his own play, as often found in the introductory para-

9. Kemeny, Writer

257

graphs. Although the author of the introductions was never identified by name in the Ledger, and although the present writer has no factual evidence to prove it, it seems likely that, given Dion M. Martinez’s involvement with chess matters in the Ledger prior to Kemeny’s handling annotations, and given his close ties to Philadelphia’s chess community, he might well have been the one who prepared the paragraphs. Kemeny may or may not have had initial help with his copy. We do know, however, that he quickly became a leading annotator of the times. Steinitz, certainly, even in the 1890s, stood as the giant among annotators handling chess games in the United States. But there were very few after him who reached Kemeny’s standard, either in quality or quantity. Kemeny, more than most chess editors, because of the absence of a weekly format for chess writing in the Ledger and because of the pressure to publish timely news stories, frequently found himself pressed for time to prepare fully realized annotations. That he produced as much as he did, under the circumstances, makes his work even more astounding. The limitations of the times, especially for the nineteenth century annotator, often forced to turn around printable notes in a very short period, sometimes measured in hours, and the ease with which blunders can be checked today through the use of powerful computer software not dreamed of before, should not blind us to the enormous expenditure of mental energy Kemeny spent producing sometimes twenty or more fully analyzed games a month. Whether Martinez worked with Kemeny or not to produce the Ledger material, both were intimately involved with the Philadelphia leg of the Steinitz–Lasker 1894 world championship match. While Kemeny annotated the full match, the columns devoted to the Philadelphia portion, short as it was, take on added significance. The match rules called for play to continue in the city until either Steinitz or Lasker won three games. Six or eight games might have been reasonably expected before such a result occurred. But Steinitz was imploding when the competitors reached Philadelphia, and even a week off after the first, New York City segment of the match was insufficient for him to regain his balance. Lasker won three games in Philadelphia in a row, to take a commanding match lead. The games are included here, as the scores, introductions and annotations form a significant high point in both the city’s connection with the game and Kemeny’s development as a chess analyst. The match coverage in the Ledger has not, to my knowledge, ever appeared in collections regarding either player or the match itself. First, the introductory paragraphs: “The second section of the match for the chess championship of the world, between Messrs. Lasker and Steinitz, was started on Saturday afternoon in the rooms of the Franklin Chess Club, of this city, when Mr. Lasker scored a well-deserved victory after six hours of play. “Mr. Steinitz, in his previous matches, frequently had the disadvantage in the first part of the games and yet came out a winner, and it was expected that the battle in Philadelphia would be the most exciting of the series. A large crowd of chess enthusiasts were present on Saturday, and Dr. Persifor Frazer, the president of the Franklin Chess Club, introduced the two experts in an appropriate speech before the game was started. “Mr. D. M. Martinez acted as umpire for Mr. Steinitz and Mr. E. Kemeny for Mr. Lasker. Mr. Lasker again played the Ruy Lopez game. His opponent defended well and the contest was fairly even, when Mr. Steinitz on the 12th move endangered his game. To gain the open a-file and a promising attack, Mr. Steinitz weakened and isolated his pawns on the queenside. Mr. Lasker defended his game correctly and soon started the attack. After forcing the exchange of rooks his opponent was unable to stop the advanced pawns, and the present champion of the world had to surrender after the 49th move. The score now reads: Steinitz, 2; Lasker, 5; drawn, 2.” Emanuel Lasker–William Steinitz [C62], World Chess Championship, Game 9, Franklin Chess Club, Philadelphia, April 14, 1894. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3

258

EMIL KEMENY

Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. Nc3 Mr. Lasker intends to play Bc4 if Black plays ... Nge7. In the fifth game Mr. Steinitz adopted a perfectly satisfactory defense against this attack, but Black was enabled in that game to exchange pawn and knight for White played already d4. Mr. Lasker in the present game probably for that reason abandoned d4 and played Nc3. Mr. Steinitz considered fully 10 minutes before he made his reply, 4. ... a6. 4. ... a6 5. Bc4 5. Ba4 is the usual move, and probably superior to 6. Bc4. 5. ... Be6 6. B¥e6 f¥e6 7. d4 e¥d4 8. N¥d4 N¥d4 8. ... e5 seems to be preferable in the present position. If White plays 9. N¥c6, Black retakes, and the game is even. The move Black selected brings White’s queen into play. 9. Q¥d4 Ne7 If Black plays now 9. ... e5 White answers 10. Qc4, preventing Black from castling. 10. Bg5 Nc6 11. B¥d8 N¥d4 12. 0–0–0 Fine play! White certainly had this move in view when he played 10. Bg5. 12. ... Nb5 Black intends to gain the open a-file with a very promising attack, but his pawns on the queenside become weak and isolated, and it seems that the line of play Mr. Steinitz adopted—ingenious as it was—was not sound. ... R¥d8 or ... Nb3+ would leave the game fairly even, though White would remain in the ending with knight against bishop. 13. N¥b5 a¥b5 14. B¥c7 R¥a2 15. Bb6 Necessary, for Black threatens to play ... Ra6 followed by ... Kd7 and White could save his bishop only through the sacrifice of the e-pawn. It seems that Black on his fourteenth move could play ... Ra6 instead of ... R¥a2. He would then gain the e-pawn instead of the a-pawn. 15. ... Be7 16. c3 Kf7 17. Kc2 Rha8 18. Kb3 The best line of defense! Black is now prevented from playing ... b4. 18. ... R2a4 19. f3 R8a6 20. Bd4 Fine play! White intends to force Black to play ... e5, thus weakening the d-pawn. 20. ... g6 21. Rd3 Excellent play! With fine position judgment White occupies the d-file, which is not only defending, but as progress of -D-D-D-D game shows very important for the attack. 21. ... Ke8 22. Rhd1 DpD-gkDp e5 23. Be3 Kd7 This move enables White to play his bishop to rD-0pDpD followed by Ba3. Black, however, had no other line of play to DpD-D-D- c5, protect the b-pawn, for White threatened Rd5. 24.  Bc5 Ra1 rD-GPD-D 25. R1d2 Ke6 26. Ba3 g5 27. Rd5 Rb6 28. Kb4 g4 If White DK)-DPD- plays 29. f¥g4 Black answers ... Re1 and gains the e-pawn. 29. Ka5 -)-D-DP) Ra6+ Black could not defend the pawn. If he plays 29.  ... Bd8 D-DRD-DR White answers 30.  R¥b5. The move selected is preferable, for it enables Black to bring his rook to the kingside. 30. K¥b5 h5 30. ... After 20. ... g6 Rh1 seems to be preferable. If, then, 31. f¥g4 R¥h2 and Black had better drawing chances on account of White’s doubled pawns. 31. Rd1 R¥d1 32.  R¥d1 g¥f3 33.  g¥f3 Ra8 34.  Kb6 Rg8 -D-D-D-D 35. K¥b7 Rg2 36.  h4 Fine play. If Black wants to win the hD-D-D-Dpawn now he must lose an important move. 36. ... Rh2 37. Kc6 -D-DKgkD D-D-0-D- B¥h4 Better than 37. ... R¥h4, since Black’s d-pawn is lost anyhow. R¥d6+ Kf7 39.  Kd5 Bf6 40.  Rd7+ Kg6 41.  Ke6 h4 -D-DPD-D 38. 42. Rd1 h3 43. Rg1+ Rg2 G-)-DPDp 44. R¥g2+ Mr. Lasker played this game most skillfully; the -)-D-DrD present move forces the win in short order. White’s bishop stops D-D-D-$- the advanced pawn, but Black is unable to prevent White from queening the pawns. 44. ... h¥g2 45. Bc5 Bd8 46. b4 Kg5 After 43. ... Rg2 47. Kd7 Bf6 48. b5 Kf4 49. b6 After this move Mr. Steinitz resigned, he has no time to play ... K¥f3, followed by ... Bh4 and ... Bf2, in order to queen the pawn, for White is fully two moves ahead. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, April 16, 1894, with annotations by Kemeny).

9. Kemeny, Writer

259

Given Kemeny’s early limitations with English, one wonders whether the syntactical lapses following White’s twenty-first move in the game above truly represent simple omissions caused by technical errors in arranging type or, more significantly, serve as an example of Kemeny’s writing in a note perhaps skipped over by his proofreader: the phrasing “but as [the] progress of [the] game shows,” printed with the omission of the two articles, suggests an error common in the prose of non-native speakers, and perhaps especially among those with Eastern European backgrounds. Curiously enough, the same clipped phrasing, “progress of game shows,” also appears in the note following White’s twenty-first move in the next game. “The tenth game of the great match for the championship of the world was played Thursday at the Franklin Chess Club, and resulted in a brilliant and well deserved victory for the young German expert. Mr. Steinitz having the move played the Queen’s Pawn Opening. With this game he scored the finest victories in his previous matches, and his admirers thought that even Mr. Lasker could not hold his own against the world’s champion in this game. However, in this contest Mr. Steinitz was not successful, and his youthful opponent won the game in 34 moves after about three and one-half hours’ play.” William Steinitz–Emanuel Lasker [D35], World Chess Championship, Game 10, Franklin Chess Club, Philadelphia, April 19, 1894. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 This move was first introduced by Mr. Steinitz in his match against Mr. Gunsberg. Through this move White is enabled to advance the e-pawn, but it is not frequently adopted, on account of White having difficulty in developing the king’s knight. 4. ... c5 5. d¥c5 B¥c5 6. c¥d5 N¥d5 7. e4 White could play 7. N¥d5 Q¥d5 8. Q¥d5 e¥d5, and then Black would remain with an isolated pawn. Black’s game then would be better developed, and White could not play e4 without relieving Black of his isolated d-pawn. The move Mr. Steinitz selected seems to be preferable, though after exchange of knight and queen White remains with an isolated pawn. 7. ... N¥c3 8. Q¥d8+ K¥d8 9. b¥c3 Nc6 10. Nh3 Kc7 11. Nf4 Rd8 12. Nd3 Bd6 13. f4 The advance of the f-pawn does not improve White’s game, especially White’s seventeenth move, f5, leaves the e-pawn weak. 13. ... b6 14. Nf2 Bc5 15. Be2 Bb7 16. Nd3 Bf8 17. f5 e5 18. Bg5 f6 19. Be3 Rac8 Black has already the superior game. White’s c-pawn is isolated, and the e-pawn is weak. The present move inaugurates a very fine attack on the c-pawn, and it is well worth admiring how skillfully Mr. Lasker carries through the attack. 20. 0–0–0 Kb8 21. Nf2 White must have overlooked the threatening move, -ir®-g-D ... Nd4, which, as progress of game shows, proved disastrous. Kb2 0lD-D-0p was probably White’s best line of play. 21.  ... Nd4 22.  B¥d4 -0nD-0-D Forced. White’s bishop and c-pawn were attacked. The c-pawn, howD-D-0PDever, cannot be saved. 22. ... e¥d4 23. Bd3 If 23. c4 then Black -D-DPD-D wins the pawn by continuing ... b5 or ... Ba3. 23. ... d¥c3 24. g4 Ba3+ 25. Kc2 Bc6 26. Kb3 Bc5 27. Nh3 Be3 Black could D-)NG-Dplay ... R¥d3 followed by ... B¥e4 winning at least an additional PD-DLDP) pawn, but White would be enabled to make a strong resistance by D-IRD-DR remaining with a knight against a bishop. The move selected is After 20. ... Kb8 exceedingly fine, and, as progress of game shows, leads to the speediest win. 28. Bc2 Bd2 29. Nf2 Rd4 30. Ka3 The only move to avoid the threatening ... Ba4+. 30.  ... Be8 31.  Nd3 Necessary to prevent Black from playing ... Rcc4, which would force mate in a few moves. The move selected leaves the e-pawn unprotected. The game, however, was beyond repair already. 31. ... R¥e4 32. Nb4 Rd4 Black could safely play 32. ... R¥g4, but White would relieve his game then by 33. Rdg1 forcing the exchange of rooks. For that reason Black’s move is superior. 33. Bb3 a5 34. Nc2 34. ... b5 Beautiful and decisive. White cannot capture the rook on account of the

260

EMIL KEMENY

threatening mate, ... b4. After this move White resigned, for he must sacrifice a piece to escape the mate. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, April 23, 1894, with annotations by Kemeny). “The eleventh game in the match between Lasker and Steinitz was played on Saturday afternoon at the Union League. Mr. Lasker opened with d4. In the early part of the game the exchange of queens was brought about and the game was perfectly even then; in the further progress, however, Mr. Lasker displayed fine position judgment and brilliant play, and his opponent’s game became gradually weaker. Mr. Steinitz on the 25th move probably had a chance to After 34. Nc2 draw the game, but he missed it and his youthful opponent was thus enabled to score a well deserved victory. The game was probably the best played in the match so far. The score now reads Steinitz, 2; Lasker, 7; drawn, 2.” Emanuel Lasker–William Steinitz [D37], World Chess Championship, Game 11, Union Club, Philadelphia, April 21, 1894. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. e3 0–0 6. Bd3 c5 7. d¥c5 d¥c4 8. B¥c4 Q¥d1+ 9. K¥d1 The opening moves were well played on both sides. Mr. Steinitz recommends for White on the sixth move Be2 instead of Bd3, then Black could not exchange queens. Though White cannot castle, his game is not inferior. 9. ... Nc6 10. a3 B¥c5 11. b4 Bb6 12. Ke2 Bd7 13. Bb3 Rac8 14. Bb2 a5 Black’s game was perfectly even, but the present move gives White the advantage. Progress of game shows that Black’s knight and bishop will be forced back, and he must lose several moves to bring the king’s rook into play. 14. ... Rfd8 was probably the proper play. 15. b5 Ne7 16. Ne5 Fine play! This move forces back the bishop and prevents Black from developing his king’s rook. 16. ... Be8 17. a4 Bc7 18. Nc4 Bd7 19. Rac1 Ned5 20. N¥d5 N¥d5 If 20. ... e¥d5 then Black remains with an isolated pawn; the move selected enables White to continue with Ne5. 21. Ne5 B¥e5 22. B¥e5 f6 23. e4 Beautiful play! Black is now forced to take the bishop, -DrD-®-D after which his e-pawn becomes weak. 23. ... f¥e5 24. e¥d5 Kf7 DpDlDk0p Forced. If Black had played 24. ... e¥d5 White wins with 25. B¥d5+ -D-DpD-D followed by 26. B¥b7. 25. Rhd1 0PDP0-D25. ... Ke7 Black probably had a chance to escape now, by PD-D-D-D playing 25. ... R¥c1 26. R¥c1 Rc8 27. d¥e6+ Ke7 28. R¥c8 B¥c8. DLD-D-D- White, after the exchange of bishops, would still have winning -D-DK)P) chances, but a draw was very likely. The move Black selected enables D-$RD-D- White to gain an important move, and Mr. Lasker forces the win now in a most skillful manner. 26.  d6+ Kf6 27.  Ke3 R¥c1 28. R¥c1 Rc8 29. R¥c8 B¥c8 30. Bc2 Kf7 After 25. Rhd1 31. B¥h7 White safely captures the pawn. If Black plays ... followed by ... Kg7, in order to gain the bishop, then White -DlD-D-D g6, replies Ke4, followed by K¥e5, Kf6 and Ke7 winning the Black DpD-Dk0p bishop. 31.  ... b6 32.  Ke4 Kf6 33.  g4 g5 34.  Kf3 Kf7 -D-)pD-D 35. Be4 Ke8 36.  h4 Kd7 37.  h5 Ke8 38.  Ke3 After this 0PD-0-D- move Black resigned. In fact he has no defense anymore. 1–0 PD-D-D-D (Philadelphia Public Ledger, April 24, 1894, with annotations by D-D-I-D- Kemeny). -DLD-)P) Another point regarding Kemeny’s use of language, a more D-D-D-D- idiosyncratic one in his annotations: He often appears to have thought in clusters of moves each side could play, rather than in After 30. ... Kf7 the straight, ordinary sequences of moves commonly called varia-

-irDlD-D D-D-D-0p -0-D-0-D 0-D-DPD-D-®-DPD IL0-D-DPDNg-D-) D-DRD-DR

9. Kemeny, Writer

261

tions. This is a pattern noticeable more often in Kemeny’s notes than in any other annotator’s of the period. The curious part is not so much that he thought this way, but that he expressed his thoughts in this manner to his readers. An example is the note above to White’s thirtyfirst move. He writes “White safely captures the pawn. If Black plays ... g6, followed by ... Kg7, in order to gain the bishop, then White replies Ke4, followed by K¥e5, Kf6 and Ke7 winning the Black bishop.” Instead of giving what to our eyes appears the simpler to follow line, 31. ... g6 32. Ke4 Kg7 33. K¥e5 K¥h7 34. Kf6 Kg8 35. Ke7, Kemeny forces his reader to think in clusters of moves. The perceptual habits of chess players is well beyond the scope of this book, but it would be interesting to learn whether other master level and above players sometimes think in this fashion. The format developed for chess coverage by Kemeny and whoever might have assisted him in the Ledger in late 1893 and through 1894 largely defined how the material was handled throughout the next decade. A benefit for the publisher in such an arrangement was the ability to include, or exclude, chess material at will, depending on the dictates of other, more regular columns, and the daily glut or dearth of news and advertisements. A benefit for the chess writer, at least when times were good because space was available, was greater pay. The additional income generated from his Ledger pieces no doubt was a welcome supplement to Kemeny’s pay as a clerk with the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Whatever reimbursement he did receive, from whatever sources, including his railroad clerkship, appear to have been insufficient to hold Kemeny when in early 1895, as we have seen, the mere possibility of a “business opportunity” called him back to Europe, causing him to retire from the 1894-95 Franklin championship. From later in 1895 through the fall of 1897 Kemeny did not play in the Franklin championships, in part at least because of his other chess commitments. During this period he published games frequently. For instance, he analyzed in detail and published in the Ledger no fewer than 21 of the 36 St. Petersburg 1895-96 quadrangular tournament, won by Lasker over Steinitz, Pillsbury and Chigorin. Curiously enough, Kemeny did not publish annotations to any of his United States championship match games with Showalter, despite the interest shown in the match. One suspects the pressures of his day job, assuming he still had one at that time, plus his match play, precluded him from doing so. He did, however, shortly thereafter publish several of the rarely seen Showalter–Barry match games from Boston. One example: Jackson W. Showalter–John F. Barry [D30], United States Championship Match, Game 10, Boston, Massachusetts, June 1896. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. e3 Bd6 5. Bd3 f5 6. Nf3 Qf6 A novel line of development, which is quite worthy of commendation. White is prevented from playing Ne5, and it seems that Black obtains the preferable game after the advance of the e-pawn. 7. Qc2 Ne7 8. Bd2 Nd7 9. Ne2 0–0 10. h4 e5 11. d¥e5 N¥e5 12. N¥e5 B¥e5 13. f4 Bc7 Had Black played 13. ... B¥b2, White would continue 14. Rb1 followed [after 14. ... Ba3] by 15. c5. Black would not lose the bishop, since he can play ... Ba3, followed rD-D-DkD by ... b6, but the position would be in White’s favor. The move selected, namely, ... Bc7, seems preferable. 14.  Rh3 d¥c4 0pg-hr0p 15. B¥c4+ Be6 16.  Bc3 Qh6 17.  Rg3 Rf7 18.  B¥e6 Q¥e6 -DpD-D-1 D-D-DpD19. Nd4 Qh6 20. Kf2 Ingenious play. If Black plays 20.  ... Q¥h4, then -D-H-)-) 21. Nf3 followed by Rh3 and Rah1, with a strong attack on the open D-G-)-$h-file. 20. ... Bb6 21. Rh1 Rd8 22. Rg5 B¥d4 23. B¥d4 Qe6 P)QD-DPD 24. Rh3 h6 25. Rgg3 Nd5 Threatening ... N¥f4 followed by ... $-D-I-DR¥d4. 26. Bc3 N¥c3 This and the next move are made with bad After 19. ... Qh6 position judgment. White had the inferior position, for the rooks

262

EMIL KEMENY

were awkwardly placed. Black’s play enables White to play Rg6, followed by doubling of the rooks, which improves White’s game materially. Black should have played 26. ... Nf6 instead of 26. ... N¥c3. At least after the exchange he should have moved ... Qf6. 27. Q¥c3 Qe4 28. Rg6 Rd3 29. Qe1 Rfd7 30. Rhg3 Rd2+ 31. Kg1 Qb4 31. ... Rd1 would be of no advantage. White would reply 32. R¥g7+ R¥g7 33. R¥g7+ K¥g7 34. Q¥d1. 32. Qf1 32. ... R¥b2 32. ... Q¥b2 would have been rather dangerous on account of 33.  Qc4+ giving White a powerful attack. 33.  a3 -D-D-DkD Qb5 34. Qf3 Rb1+ 35. Kh2 Qf1 35. ... Rf1 followed by ... Qb1 0pDrD-0only draw the game. The game would then proceed: 36. Qh5 -DpD-DR0 would Qb1 37. R¥g7+ R¥g7 38. Qe8+ Kh7 39. R¥g7+ K¥g7 40. Qe7+ perD-D-DpD- petual check. The text move seems to be the best for it forces -1-D-)-) exchange of queens. 36.  Q¥f1 R¥f1 37.  R¥h6 Ra1 38.  Rhg6 D-D-)-$- R¥a3 39. h5 Kf8 39. ... Kh7 would have stopped the advance of P)-®-DPD the h-pawn, and it is quite difficult to see how White could have D-D-DQI- saved the game, Black having three passed pawns on the queenside. 40. Re6 Ra5 41.  Rg5 Rad5 42.  h6 g¥h6 43.  R¥h6 Rg7 After 32. Qf1 44. Rf6+ Rf7 45. Rfg6 Ke7 46. g4 f¥g4 46. ... a5 followed by ... a4, etc., was proper. The capture of the g-pawn means loss of -D-D-®-D valuable time. 47.  R¥g4 Rd6 48.  Rg8 Re6 49.  Rg3 Kd6 D-D-D-D- 50. Kg2 Rfe7 51.  Rd8+ Kc5 52.  Kf2 b5 53.  Ke2 a5 -DrDPD-D 54. Kd3 Kb4 55. f5 Rf6 56. e4 c5 57. Rf3 Ref7 58. Ke3 59. Kf4 a4 60. Kg5 Rf8 61. Rd1 c3 62. e5 c2 63. Rc1 DpD-DPI- c4 Rc6 64. e6 pi-D-D-D 64. ... R¥e6 In all probability an oversight, overlooking the D-D-DRD- Rf4+ move. White has managed the endgame with superb skill, and, -DpD-D-D though his adversary is a pawn ahead, he is not well able to stop the D-$-D-D- advanced White pawns. 64. ... Rc3 was probably better. 65. Rf4+ Kc3 66. f¥e6 Rg8+ 67. Kf6 Kd2 68. Kf7 Rb8 68. ... Rc8 After 64. e6 was proper. White then could not well play away his rook from c1. 69. Rcf1 c1Q 70. R4f2+ Ke3 71. R¥c1 K¥f2 Had Black on his 68th turn played ... Rc8 he would have won the rook for the -D-!-D-D pawn, without being obliged to place his so far away from his pawns. ®kD-D-DNow the game is hopeless. White wins the pawns and queens his e-D-D-D-D pawn. 72. e7 b4 73. Rc4 Ke3 If 73. ... b3, then 74. R¥a4, and DKD-D-Dafter 74. ... b2, 75. Ra2 wins easily. 74. R¥b4 R¥b4 75. e8Q+ -D-D-D-D 76. Qe1 Kc4 77. Qc1+ Kb5 78. Kf6 Rb3 79. Ke5 Kb4 D-D-D-D- Kd3 80. Kd4 Ka5 81. Qc5+ Ka6 82. Qc6+ Rb6 83. Q¥a4+ Kb7 -D-D-D-D 84. Kc5 Ra6 85. Qb5+ Ka7 86. Qd7+ Kb8 87. Kb5 Ra7 D-D-D-D- 88. Qe8+ Kb7 89. Qd8 89. ... Ra8 The rook has no other move. If 89. ... Ra1, then After 89. Qd8 90. Qe7+, ... Qf8+, and Qg7+, winning the rook. 90. Qd7+ Kb8 91. Kb6 Mates in two moves. 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, June 13, 1896, with annotations by Kemeny). Like so many chess lovers across the nation, and indeed the world, Kemeny found the drama connected with the two Pillsbury–Showalter matches compelling. In addition to annotating the games for the Ledger, starting in June 1897, his annotations were republished in the newly released American Chess Magazine. Originally published in New York, the magazine eventually moved its headquarters to Philadelphia, and for much of that magazine’s few years of existence, Kemeny frequently contributed. The full 12 games of the second Pillsbury–Showalter

9. Kemeny, Writer

263

match appeared in the April-May 1898 issue of American Chess Magazine on pages 645–656. All 12 were annotated by Kemeny. Kemeny’s contributions to the American Chess Magazine guaranteed his game analysis appeared before a national audience. Showalter surprised at least a number of Pillsbury’s supporters in the first, 1897, match. Some thought Pillsbury would win quite easily. Kemeny, having played Showalter in a match himself, may well have suspected the outcome would be closer than Pillsbury’s supporters believed. The match ended 10–8 with 3 draws, in Pillsbury’s favor, but only after he won three of the last four games. Showalter had started the match with two draws followed by three losses in a row. The game that follows was the seventh, and the second in Showalter’s own spurt of three straight wins to even the score. At move 27, Pillsbury turned a win into a loss with one touch of the rook ... the wrong rook. Note, too, the errors and omissions in the annotations below. The game was played March 5, 1897, in Brooklyn, and Kemeny’s detailed annotations were created and set into type for publication March 9. That more mechanical errors did not appear in the notes is something of a surprise, and the speed with which the commentary saw publication makes it more understandable why the annotations themselves cannot fully stand up to detailed computer analysis more than a hundred years later. (Mistakes are hardly relegated to the past; more than one commercial database has White winning this game.) Harry N. Pillsbury–Jackson W. Showalter [C67], Seventh Match Game, Hamilton Club, Brooklyn, March 5 1897. 1.  e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 N¥e4 5. d4 Be7 6. Qe2 Nd6 7. B¥c6 b¥c6 8. d¥e5 Nb7 9. Nc3 9. b3, followed by Nd4 or Nd4 at once, as played by Showalter against Kemeny, seems preferable. White develops his queen’s knight better by moving it to d2, if he selects a variation where the queen’s bishop is played to b2, as is [not] the case in the present game. 9. ... 0–0 10. Re1 Nc5 Mr. Lasker does not recommend the ... Kc5 and ... Ne6 moves, yet in the present variation it seems necessary. Black could not well develop his game by moving ... d6 or ... f6 at once. White, by continuing Bf4 and Rad1 would obtain a powerful attack. 11. Nd4 Ne6 12. Nf5 f6 13. N¥e7+ Q¥e7 14. f4 f¥e5 15. Q¥e5 15. f¥e5 would have rendered White’s pawn at e5 weak and isolated. Since White could not well play f¥e5, it is doubtful whether the previous move f4 was a good one. b3, followed by Bb2, might have been better. 15.  ... d6 16. Qe4 d5 17. Qd3 White could not play 17. N¥d5 c¥d5 18. Q¥d5, threatening Q¥a8 as well as f5, for Black had the reply 17.  ... Qc5+, exchanging queens and remaining a piece ahead. 17.  ... Qd6 18.  g3 a5 This move weakens Black’s queenside. Instead of the text move he should have played ... Bd7 or ... Bb7. 19. b3 Ba6 20. Qd2 Rae8 21. Bb2 Qc5+ 22. Kh1 Bb7 23. Re5 Qd6 24. Rae1 d4 Black might have played to better advantage 24. ... c5. Had White answered 25. N¥d5 then Black would have followed up with 25. ... N¥f4 26. g¥f4 (White could not play 26. R¥e8 on account of 26. ... B¥d5+ 27. Kg1 Nh3 mate) 26. ... B¥d5+ 27. Q¥d5+ (27. R¥d5 R¥e1+ 28. Q¥e1 Q¥d5+) 27. ... Q¥d5+ 28. R¥d5 R¥e1+ would follow, winning the exchange. Since White -D-Dr®kD would have been unable to capture the d-pawn after 24. ... c5, his position would become seriously endangered. The Black pawns D-0-D-0p occupy a strong center position and the bishop is very threatening. -D-1nD-D The move selected, ... d4, is premature. White, by answering 25. Ne4 0-0-$-D-D-0l)-D and 26. Kg1, obviates all difficulties. 25. Ne4 c5 26. Kg1 B¥e4 27. R1¥e4 Had White played 27.  R5¥e4, he would have DPD-D-)obtained the preferable, if not winning, position, for Black’s a-pawn PGP!-D-) and c-pawn would remain weak, and he would be unable to properly D-D-$-Iguard them. The text move is a disastrous error, which enables Black to win at once and brilliantly. White overlooked the ... Ng5 reply, After 26. ... B¥e4

264

EMIL KEMENY

threatening ... Nf3+ winning the queen as well as ... N¥e4. White is obliged to play R¥g5 or f¥g5, which enables Black to continue with ... R¥e4 winning the exchange with the superior position. 27. ... Ng5 28. R¥g5 R¥e4 29. Q¥a5 29. Ba3 was the proper play. The queen was necessary at d2 for the defense, and should not have been moved away. The capture of the a-pawn enables Black to [carry off] another brilliant coup, which virtually ends the battle. 29. ... Re¥f4 Brilliant and sound play. White cannot capture the rook, for ... Q¥f4 would follow, threatening ... Qf1 mate, as well -D-D-®kD as ... Q¥g5+ 30. Q¥c5 Rf1+ 31. Kg2 R8f2+ 32. Kh3 Qe6+ D-0-D-0p 33. Rg4 Rh1 Mate in three additional moves. White cannot defend -D-1-D-D the ... R¥P mate [JSH: Either rook capture mates, but Kemeny did !-0-D-$- not note it], for should he move Kh4, Black would play ... Qh6+, -D-0r)-D followed by ... R¥h2 mate. White’s only way of prolonging the battle DPD-D-)- is Qf8+ followed by Ba3+. White at this point surrendered. Black PGPD-D-) could have shortened the mate one move by playing ... R¥h2+, folD-D-D-I- lowed by ... Qe2+ and ... Rh1 mate. 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 9, 1897, with annotations by Kemeny). After 29. Q¥a5 Pillsbury more decisively won the second match, played in 1898, by a score of 7–3 with 2 draws. By now Kemeny’s relationship with the Ledger had gone on for over four years, his annotated games appearing with great regularity and frequency. The version appearing here is taken from their republication in American Chess Magazine: Harry Nelson Pillsbury–Jackson W. Showalter [D63], United States Championship Match, Game 9, Hamilton Club, Brooklyn, March 11, 1898. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Nf3 0–0 7. Bd3 In the fifth game of the match Pillsbury played c¥d5, followed by Bd3. A similar variation was adopted in the cable match vs. Blackburne. In these games White expected to hold his own on the queenside, and obtain a kingside attack by the advance of the e-pawn. The play is quite ingenious, but it has the disadvantage of giving the Black queen’s bishop a quick development. Rc1 or Bd3, as played in the present game, seems preferable. 7. ... d¥c4 Identically the same moves were played in the cable match between Burn and Showalter. The latter played at this stage ... c6, which is superior. White then could not well guard against ... d¥c4, ... b5, ... a6 and ... c5, which develops the Black queenside. Black, it seems, tried to improve on this defense by the subsequent ... c5 play, gaining the ... c6 move. White, however, being enabled to play a4, stops the advance of the Black pawns. Black should have selected the ... c6 play, or adopt the usual development, ... b6, ... Bb7, ... c5 and ... Rc8, which is, perhaps, the most satisfactory one. 8. B¥c4 c5 9. Rc1 a6 10. a4 Nb6 11. Ba2 c¥d4 12. e¥d4 Nfd5 13. B¥e7 Q¥e7 14. a5 N¥c3 15. R¥c3 Nd5 16. Rc5 Bd7 17. 0–0 Bb5 Black’s game is not endangered, yet the defense is not an easy one. White threatens B¥d5 and R¥d5. Black cannot well guard with ... Bc6, since Ne5 would follow. The ... Bb5 and ... Nb4 play, as adopted, is not very promising; it brings the White rook and bishop into play. Better, perhaps, was ... Rac8, followed by exchange of rooks. 18. Re1 Nb4 19. Bb1 Rfd8 20. Qb3 Nc6 21. Qc2 g6 22. Qc3 Qf6 Better perhaps was ... Qd6. The move selected has the disadvantage of preventing Black from moving the knight after ... N¥d4 has been played. 23.  Be4 N¥d4 Much better was 23. ... Kg7. Black then could double rooks on the d-file, and should White eventually exchange queens this would bring the Black king into play. 24. Kh1 Kg7 25.  B¥b7 Ra7 26.  N¥d4 Q¥d4 27.  Be4 Rad7 28.  h3 Q¥c3 29. b¥c3 Rd1 Black’s game looks satisfactory, yet there is some danger. His bishop is not well placed, and c4 is very threatening. He cannot well move ... f5, followed by ... Kf6, for his e-pawn would become weak. ... Rd1 is, perhaps, the best play, though it enables White to

9. Kemeny, Writer

265

move Bb7. 30. R¥d1 R¥d1+ 31. Kh2 f5 31. ... Rd6, followed by ... Bd7, ... Kf6 and ... Ke7, would have given Black a pretty safe game, and there was hardly any chance for White to break through. Another play for Black was ... Rc1, preventing the c4 move. The play selected is inferior. White answers Bb7 and will have his bishop well placed, and the Rc7 move is becoming more threatening. 32. Bb7 Kf6 Black still had the ... Rd6, followed eventually by ... Bd7 and ... Kf6 continuation on hand. He also could have played ... Rc1, and his game was not endangered. The text play is a grave oversight. White answers c4, winning the a-pawn, in case Black moves the bishop. If, however, Black answers ... Rc1, then White wins easily with R¥b5, as the progress of the game shows. 33. c4 Rc1 34. R¥b5 The sacrifice is sound and forces a win for White. -D-D-D-D Black will be obliged to give up the rook for the White pawns on DLD-D-Dp the queenside, after which White wins easily. 34.  ... a¥b5 pD-DpipD 35. c¥b5 Ra1 35. ... Rb1 or ... Rc5 was hardly any better. White’s )l$-DpDanswer would have been a6, a7 and queening the pawn. 36.  a6 -DPD-D-D Ke7 37. b6 Kd6 38. a7 Kc5 39. a8Q [JSH: White had 39. Ba6 R¥a6 40. b7 R¥a7 41. b8Q, etc.] 39. ... R¥a8 40. B¥a8 K¥b6 D-D-D-DP 41. Kg3 e5 42. Bd5 h6 43. Bf7 g5 44. Bg6 f4+ 45. Kf3 -D-D-)PI Kc5 46. Ke4 Kd6 47. Bf5 h5 48. Bg6 Which causes Black to D-®-D-Dsurrender. If 48. ... h4, then 49. Kf5 and K¥g5, otherwise 49. B¥h5 After 33. ... Rc1 and Bg4 brings about a similar result. 1–0 (American Chess Magazine, April-May 1898, pages 652–653, with annotations by Kemeny). It may appear that Kemeny spent all his time annotating either Franklin championship games, as seen in earlier chapters, or match and tournament games played among internationalists. Such an impression is wrong. His extensive output included both categories, certainly, but was not limited to them. Kemeny was fascinated in interesting chess no matter who played, and no matter the method, whether over-the-board, by correspondence, or by telegraph. Well-played simultaneous exhibition games won by local players against international stars were featured too, as they represented a pleasant chance to praise a friend at little to no expense, in reputation, for the master. Consider the following encounter: “W. Steinitz, who for twenty-eight years held the championship of the world, Saturday evening gave a brilliant exhibition of simultaneous play. He met a strong team of twenty-one local players, but D. Stuart [Robinson] was the only one who succeeded in defeating him. Play commenced at 7:30 P.M. Shortly before midnight play was stopped, and the unfinished games were adjudicated. The final score was: Steinitz won 10, lost 1, and drew 10.” William Steinitz–D. Stuart Robinson [B20], Franklin Chess Club Simultaneous (1 of 21), April 23, 1898. 1. e4 c5 2. Bc4 2. Nf3 followed by 4. d4 is considered stronger. 2. ... Nc6 3. Nf3 e6 4. Qe2 Be7 5. Nc3 a6 6. a4 To avoid the threatening ... b5 and ... c4, winning the bishop. White might have played 6. d3 instead of 6. a4. 6. ... d6 7. 0–0 Bf6 8. d3 Nge7 9. Nd1 0– -®-1-®-i 0 10. Bd2 Ng6 11. Bb3 d5 12. a5 Rb8 13. Re1 d4 14. Rf1 DpD-Dp0p e5 15. Ne1 Bg5 A powerful move. White intended to move f4, in order to break up Black’s strong center. The text move prevents this pDnD-Dng play, or at least necessitates the g3 preparatory move, which weakens )-0-D-DWhite’s kingside. 16. g3 Kh8 17. f4 e¥f4 18. g¥f4 Bh6 19. Ng2 -D-0P)-D He could not well move 19. f5, for ... B¥d2 and ... Nge5 would have DLDPD-Dl given Black the preferable game. The text play enables Black to move -)PGQDN) ... Bh3, ... B¥g2, and ... f5, with a very satisfactory position since $-DNDRIWhite’s king is somewhat exposed. 19. ... Bh3 After 19. ... Bh3 20. Qh5 He could not well guard the pawn. The text play

266

EMIL KEMENY

seems very promising, since White will win the c-pawn. The play, however, has serious disadvantages. White gets his queen out of play, while Black, with ... Qh4, will be enabled to establish a powerful kingside attack. 20.  ... B¥g2 21.  K¥g2 f5 22.  Kh1 f¥e4 23. d¥e4 B¥f4 24. B¥f4 N¥f4 25. Q¥c5 Qh4 26. Nf2 Ne2 A powerful move, which leaves White without a satisfactory defense. ... Ng3+ is threatening, as well as ... R¥f2. 27. Kg2 Rf6 28. e5 There was no better play. Black threatened ... Rbf8 and mate in a few moves. 28. ... Rg6+ 29. Kf3 Qh5+ 30. Ke4 30. ... Nc3+ Brilliant and decisive. White is obliged to capAfter 30. Ke4 ture the knight, for otherwise ... Qe2 mates. After 31. b¥c3, Black forces the win with 31.  ... Qe2+ 32.  Kd5 Rd8+ 33.  Qd6 Rd¥d6+ 34. e¥d6 Rg5 mate 0–1 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, April 25, 1898, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny was featured in the October 1898 American Chess Magazine’s look at chess editors in the nation. The following glowing tribute, along with Kemeny’s picture, appeared on page 166: “Mr. Emil Kemeny, chess editor of the Philadelphia Ledger, stands today at the head of analysts in the department of game criticism in this country. During the past few years he has devoted a greater part of his spare time to the department in the Ledger, not participating in tournaments as frequently as in former years, and the result has been that he has gained a prominence that has been of great value to American chess. “Mr. Kemeny came to this country from Hungary about eight years ago. For several years resided in New York City, associating himself with the City Chess Club, where he easily stepped to the position of champion. New York players became acquainted with him through his good playing in a match with Major Hanham, and later by his excellent playing in the Staats-Zeitung tournaments of 1891 and 1892, he being the representative of the City Chess Club, and winning the trophy for that club in the latter year. Kemeny went to Philadelphia about four years ago, and was soon champion of the Franklin Chess Club, his presence doing much to stimulate chess in that city. He won the Frazer Cup, the Childs trophy and championship of Philadelphia. Few men possess the talent for brilliant chess that has been shown by Mr. Kemeny. His games always contain bits of original analysis which have such a charm for players, and of which Steinitz is probably the greatest exponent now alive. In the recent match between New York and Pennsylvania State chess associations Mr. Kemeny’s game with Eugene Delmar was awarded the prize of a dozen bottles of champagne as the most brilliant game, the sparkling wine being not unlike the beauty of the game. “As a writer on the more heavy portions of the game Mr. Kemeny has had great success. Not since the withdrawal of Mr. Steinitz from the New York Tribune has the analysis of games been conducted in so complete and entertaining a style as Mr. Kemeny presents them in the Ledger and in the American Chess Magazine.” Admittedly, it hardly hurt that the American Chess Magazine relied on Kemeny’s annotations more than anyone else’s for filling out its ambitious monthly game section. But many chess relationships in the nation’s press were based on mutual assistance, for survival in a field little remembered and less remunerated. And the truth was that Kemeny above all others, at least along the East Coast, devoted himself to both playing and annotating more deeply than anyone else. While his emersion in chess might have been equaled by Philadelphia’s then–dean of chess Gustav Reichhelm, the older man had long passed his active playing days and had never annotated games to the degree Kemeny routinely did. Although details regarding Kemeny’s day-to-day life in Philadelphia are few, a revealing

-®-D-D-i DpD-D-0p pDnD-DrD )-!-)-Dq -D-0KD-D DLD-D-D-)PDnH-) $-D-DRD-

9. Kemeny, Writer

267

fact suggests Kemeny’s life was, pure and simple, chess. On January 22, 1899, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported to readers that its current problem solving tournament had opened well. Solvers were given a problem composed “by K. Drtschnik, of Szegszard, Hungary.” The writer added that “Here is another fine contribution from a distinguished Hungarian composer, which induces us to say en passant, that Mr. Kemeny may be found any evening at the Franklin Club to give proper pronunciation of the author’s name and locality” (emphasis added). Assuming the remark at all near the truth, it reveals that Kemeny lived for chess. Having no family here, and apparently few friends outside the club world, Kemeny naturally gravitated to where he was known, accepted and respected for his skill. Early in 1901, Kemeny arranged exhibitions for Emanuel Lasker’s six week United States tour. A curious meeting to which Kemeny was witness evolved from his business relationship with Lasker. On April 25, 1901, Lasker was to meet with the Manhattan Chess Club’s entertainment committee to finalize the itinerary of his two week engagement. To this end, Lasker registered at the New Amsterdam Hotel, a block from the Manhattan club, on Wednesday evening, April 24. He was “assigned, by an odd coincidence, to a room adjoining that of Pillsbury, the American champion, who, at the time, was out in Morristown, N.J., filling an engagement at the chess club of the place. Yesterday morning the German was much surprised when, upon the arrival of his manager, Kemeny, he was introduced to Mrs. Pillsbury, with whom the Philadelphian was well acquainted. Pillsbury himself got back to town shortly afterward and looked his noted rival up, whereupon they had a pleasant session together. Nothing of any importance to the chess playing public occurred at this meeting of the champions, which was entirely of a social nature. Nevertheless, the hope may reasonably be entertained that, while nothing may be done in the nature of arranging a match for the world’s championship, they may play a brief series of exhibition games before Lasker returns to England” (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, April 26, 1901). Sadly, Kemeny never shared his recollections of the unplanned meeting between Lasker and Pillsbury. The hoped for exhibition games between the world’s champion and his American rival never took place. Lasker evidently found Kemeny’s work as his American agent satisfactory, for he later told Helms he was “well pleased with the hospitality extended to him in the West, where he found the followers of the game very enthusiastic” (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, June 3, 1901). Lasker told Helms he planned to soon return to the United States, but this did not occur until 1904, when he returned to participate at Cambridge Springs. His stay then evolved into a many year’s presence, and included the years he published Lasker’s Chess Magazine. On the very day Kemeny introduced Lasker to Mrs. Pillsbury at the New Amsterdam Hotel in New York, the Ledger published his last annotations under the by-now nearly trademarked “Notes by Kemeny” appellation. As usual, the game was timely (Pillsbury’s cable match win, played April 19 and 20, fully annotated and set in type for publication April 25), commented on in detail, and ably introduced: “The most interesting game in the recent cable match was undoubtedly the one played on Board no. 1 by the American and British champions. Pillsbury introduced some innovation in his attack against the Sicilian, involving the offer of a pawn sacrifice. The play was promising, though its soundness was doubted. Blackburne perhaps wisely, did not capture the pawn, and emboldened by previous successes, selected an aggressive line of play, advancing the h-pawn. This proved disastrous, the attack failed and Blackburne soon was obliged to defend the queenside, which became seriously endangered. When forty moves had been made, Pillsbury apparently had a winning advantage, but the American champion’s forty-first and forty-second moves were hardly the best, and soon it looked as if the British champion once more would escape defeat, for he succeeded in guarding his queenside, where the danger was most imminent. Pillsbury, however, captured the unguarded h-pawn, which was prematurely advanced

268

EMIL KEMENY

by Blackburne early in the game, and by skillful maneuvering he succeeded in advancing the pawns on the kingside, eventually winning in fine style.” Harry N. Pillsbury–Joseph H. Blackburne [B45], Anglo-American Cable Match, Board 1, April 19 and 20, 1901. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 e6 3. ... d6, in connection with ... d5, leads to an even development, but leaves Black with an isolated dpawn; for this reason the ... g6, ... Bg7 and ... d6 variation is given the preference. 4.  d4 c¥d4 5. N¥d4 Nf6 6. Ndb5 Bb4 7. a3 B¥c3+ 8. N¥c3 d5 9. Bg5 9. e¥d5 was in all probability better than the move adopted. The variation selected involves the sacrifice of a pawn. 9. ... d4 10. Ne2 Qa5+ 11. Bd2 Qb6 12. Ng3 He could not save both e-pawn and b-pawn. The play, of course, was foreseen by White when he moved Bg5. 12. ... h5 There was no apparent danger in capturing the bpawn. Black, of course, would have been obliged to lose time by rDlDkD-® retreating the queen, while White develops his game with Bd3 and 0pD-Dp0p -1nDph-D 0–0. Black, perhaps, was justified in declining to accept the pawn, D-D-D-D- but the advance of the h-pawn does not show good position judgDeveloping moves like ... Bd7 and ... Rc8, followed eventually -D-0PD-D ment. by ... 0–0, would have been in order. 13.  Bd3 h4 14.  Ne2 h3 )-D-D-H- 15. g3 e5 16.  Nc1 Be6 17.  b4 Ne7 18.  Rb1 Nc8 19.  Nb3 -)PG-)P) B¥b3 20.  R¥b3 Nd6 21.  Qe2 Kf8 22.  0–0 Re8 23.  Rc1 $-DQILDR Qc6 24. b5 Qd7 25. c4 25. ... b6 He could not well play 25.  ... d¥c3 for White After 12. Ng3 answers 26. Rb¥c3 and the doubled rooks on the c-file would give White a winning attack. White, at this stage, has a decided advantage. By advancing the c-pawn he obtains a majority of pawns on the queenside, which is of particular value in the present game, since the White forces are well placed, while Black’s king’s rook is practically out of play. 26.  c5 b¥c5 27.  R¥c5 Nb7 28.  Rc2 [JSH: some databases incorrectly give 28. Rc1 at this point.] 28. ... Rc8 29. Rbb2 Kg8 30. R¥c8+ Q¥c8 31. Rc2 Qd7 32. a4 Kh7 33. Bb4 Rc8 34. f3 Ne8 35. R¥c8 Q¥c8 36. Qc2 Q¥c2 37. B¥c2 Nc7 38. Bd3 Ne6 39. a5 Nbc5 40. Bc4 Kg6 41. b6 Up to this point White played splendidly, and the advantage on the queenside should prove a winning one, for Black -D-D-D-D should be forced to give up a piece to stop the advanced pawns. The 0-D-Dp0text move in connection with the subsequent a¥b6 is inferior, and -D-DnDkD enables Black to offer resistance. In fact, were it not for Black’s weak )Ph-0-D- h-pawn, it is doubtful whether White could win at all. Mr. Pillsbury -GL0PD-D evidently overlooked the strength of Black’s ... Nb7 and ... Nec5 D-D-DP)p play, which places the knights to better advantage. Instead of 41. b6, -D-D-D-) White should have played 41. a6, threatening B¥c5, followed by b6, D-D-D-I- and eventually by a7. Black could not well play ... Nd7, for in that case B¥e6, followed by Ba5, and eventually b6, would win. 41. ... After 40. ... Kg6 a¥b6 42. a¥b6 42. a6 would still be in order, followed up by a7 and Bd5. White is bound to win a piece. 42. ... Nb7 43. Bd5 Nec5 44. Kf1 f5 45. B¥c5 N¥c5 46. b7 Na6 46. ... Nd7 could not be played, on account of 47. Be6, attacking the knight, as well as the f-pawn. 47. Be6 f¥e4 48. f¥e4 Kf6 49. B¥h3 Ke7 50. Kf2 Kd6 51. Bf1 Nb8 52. Bc4 52. Bb5 was a tempting play, but it would not have won. Black would have had time to play ... Kc7, ... K¥b7, ... Nc6, and either king or knight gets to the kingside to stop the pawns. The move selected in connection with Bd5 renders the Black game helpless. The play from this point furnishes an interesting endgame, conducted with skill and accuracy by White. 52. ... Kc7

9. Kemeny, Writer

269

53. Bd5 Nd7 54.  h4 Nf6 55.  Kf3 Kb8 56.  g4 Kc7 57.  g5 Nh5 58.  Bf7 Nf4 59. h5 g6 60.  h6 Better than 60. h¥g6, in which case 60. ... Nh5, followed by ... Ng7, would have at least prolonged the struggle. 60. ... Nh3 A final attempt to save the game; he threatens ... N¥g5+ and ... Nh7. The play is easily stopped with Kg4 and Kh4, after which Black surrenders. 61. Kg4 Nf2+ 62. Kh4 1–0 (Philadelphia Public Ledger, April 25, 1901, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny’s journalistic activities, indeed his activities in general, become difficult to trace after Lasker sailed for Europe early in June 1901. As described in Chapter 8, Kemeny played several simultaneous exhibitions in Philadelphia near the end of 1901. He also began a column in the rival newspaper North American sometime that fall. Within a few months, Kemeny, with the assistance of his friend and influential chess contact Walter Penn Shipley, had developed a plan for the Hungarian to travel to Monaco as a special correspondent for the North American. From there he would report on the international tournament about to take place. If Kemeny’s reports increased the paper’s circulation, he would likely be kept on. Shipley not only solicited subscriptions on Kemeny’s behalf but also agreed to provide his column’s general information during the Hungarian’s absence, while Kemeny supplied the games and annotations. The North American for January 22, 1902, trumpeted Kemeny’s departure, as well as his assignment: “Emil Kemeny, whose contributions to the chess columns of the North American have interested and instructed thousands of chess lovers, will report the international tourney at Monte Carlo for this newspaper. He sails for Monaco today, and his first articles on the Chess Congress will appear early next month. Mr. Kemeny is considered the most able annotator and chess critic in the United States, and his articles will not only please the chess player but the general reader as well. He has won the championship of this city three times, and has scored many brilliant victories over such experts as Pillsbury, Lasker, Marshall, and other leaders in the chess world.” Kemeny sailed aboard the Philadelphia for Monte Carlo via Southampton, London and Paris (New York Tribune, January 23, 1902). Monte Carlo 1902 was expected to be one of the decade’s stellar events. Lasker did not play, but his absence did not materially change the tournament’s standing. Twenty competitors came together for a single-round tournament. In the end, Pillsbury and Géza Maróczy, Kemeny’s younger compatriot from Budapest, took top honors (with Maróczy nosing out the American by the slimmest margin ever recorded in a major chess tournament, due to the bizarre scoring system used: 143 ⁄ 4 to 141 ⁄ 2). The field included Janowski, Teichmann, Schlechter, Tarrasch, Chigorin, Marshall, Gunsberg, Napier and several other top international masters. And Kemeny was there to report it, evaluating games and annotating the ones he considered key. Play began February 3, 1902, and less than two weeks later Kemeny’s annotations appeared in the North American. They might have been published sooner, but unlike during his Ledger years, when his annotated games appeared sometimes in more than twenty issues a month, the North American used a regular, weekly column format. Dawid Janowski–Isidor Gunsberg [C10], Monte -D-Dr®kD Carlo, Round 1, February 3, 1902. 1.  e4 e6 2.  d4 d5 3. Nc3 d¥e4 4. N¥e4 Nd7 A variation introduced by Mr. A.K. 0lD-gpDp Robinson, of Philadelphia. The play is quite satisfactory, and has -0qDphpD been repeatedly adopted by Champion Lasker. 5. Nf3 Be7 6. Bd3 D-0-G-DNgf6 7. 0–0 N¥e4 8. B¥e4 Nf6 9. Bd3 c6 Hardly good. 9. ... -D-)-D-D 0–0 at once or ... b6 and ... Bb7 would have been in good order. D-)-!NDP 10. Qe2 0–0 11. Bf4 b6 12. c3 Bb7 13. Rad1 Qd5 14. Be5 P)-D-)PD White plans a kingside attack, and properly selects this move to pre- DLDR$-Ivent the opponent from getting his queen to the kingside. 14.  ... Rae8 15. Bb1 c5 16. Rfe1 g6 17. h3 Qc6 18. Qe3 After 18. Qe3

270

EMIL KEMENY

18. ... Nd5 18. ... Nd7, followed eventually by ... N¥e5, might have saved the game. The move selected gives White a speedy win. 19. Qh6 f6 19. ... Bf6 would have been answered with 20. Ng5, or Be4 and Ng5. The play selected is answered brilliantly with B¥g6, to be followed by Q¥h7+ and Ng5, Black being placed into a mating position. 20. B¥g6 1–0 (North American, February 16, 1902, with annotations by Kemeny). For the first time, Kemeny was in Europe, reporting an international masters’ tournament for an American audience. The last replayed game of the tournament, a further draw between Maróczy and Tarrasch, was played March 12, 1902. It is likely Kemeny sailed home shortly thereafter. His homecoming may have been clouded by developments at the North American. Kemeny’s last column in the paper appeared March 30, 1902. Two weeks later, on April 13, Gustav Reichhelm took over as the North American’s chess columnist. The immediate cause for this shift is unclear. It might have been a reaction to Kemeny’s reporting from Monte Carlo. It might have been the result of a disagreement between reporter and paper. And it might have had nothing to do with the chess player’s merits. The owner of the New York Times, Adolph Ochs, purchased the Philadelphia Times in 1901, and the North American in 1902. A few months later, sometime around August 1902, Reichhelm’s Philadelphia Times, for which he had been writing a chess column for twenty years, was taken over by the North American. It is possible that Reichhelm’s taking over the column anticipated a merger between the two papers. The North American hardly required the services of two chess columnists to produce their weekly chess offering. Whatever the precise cause, Kemeny’s association with the North American came to an end, and he needed to find new work. The only mention of Kemeny during the next few months came from the pen of Herman Helms, who probably learned his information from Shipley, for the Brooklyn chess editor and future dean of American chess wrote in his August 3, 1902, Eagle column that Lasker was planning a visit to the United States for the second half of 1902, and that “In the absence of Emil Kemeny, Lasker’s former manager, who has retired from active chess, at least temporarily, Mr. Shipley has consented to act as the champion’s representative here for the purpose of mapping out his itinerary.” Aside from his defeating Edward Hymes on May 30, 1902, in the annual Franklin–Manhattan Decoration Day match, there is no evidence of Kemeny’s involvement in chess between his return from Monte Carlo in March 1902 and that October. Kemeny’s “absence from active chess,” however, was not a retreat. His solution to his need for work, undoubtedly meticulously planned during his temporary removal from local events, took form as the American Chess Weekly, a small chess newspaper with several features typically found in magazines. Since June 1899, with the demise of the American Chess Magazine, the country had been without a newspaper or a magazine publication devoted entirely to chess. The first issue of Kemeny’s Weekly appeared October 4, 1902. Kemeny’s new venture reflected the man. First, his nature was self-effacing. The man who won game after game in the Franklin championships preferred sharing stories about his losses with his club mates. Such a man was not an egotist. Many chess magazines had begun life with greater, self-focused fanfare. Brentano’s Chess Monthly, to give one example, began life in May 1881 with an “Introduction,” the opening sentence of which began “The conflicting emotions which fill the minds of the three hopeful beings who now make their individual and collective bow to the August World of Chess, may, perhaps, be likened to” those attending the mind of Julius Caesar as he decided to send his armies across the Rubicon to conquer an empire. Kemeny not only avoided the perhaps unintentional hubris of likening his mind to one of antiquity’s greatest generals, but managed somehow to avoid mentioning himself altogether

9. Kemeny, Writer

271

in the opening pages of the October 4 Weekly. One can only wonder at the steadfastness of his insistence on placing himself in the background. The first issue began, not with a statement by the editor and publisher, but rather with an article on Janowski, and how James Mason, the aging master, had his number. Kemeny explained to his readers how one master’s singular domination of another came about, and did so in an engaging, open manner: “The fact is that pretty nearly every player may point out some opponent against whom he has less success than the respective playing strength should warrant. “Style of play, conservative or aggressive tactics, have little to do with the case, for in most of these instances the loser does not display his customary skill. It is brought about this way: One meets an opponent and unexpectedly meets reverse [and] makes it a point to square accounts in the next struggle. He aims at a victory, decisive and overwhelming, and in so doing is apt to take undue risks which are likely to invite disaster. The more he is defeated the less he is able to do justice to himself in subsequent encounters. He may resolve to rely on aggressive or defensive tactics; but, in either case, he is likely to go too far. The former will be on the hazardous, the latter on the timid order. An attack will be started before quite ready for it or delayed until the opponent is fully prepared to meet it. Gradually the player loses confidence against the particular opponent, who, in turn, gets encouraged, and the outcome of it is that the result of games between the two players is quite different from what may be anticipated judging by the respective showing they make against other players.” Kemeny immediately turned the discussion into a more general one, as well as one reflecting his long experience in tournament play: “Selecting moves without regard to opponent—that is, to play against the board, not against the man—would mend matters; but, while advocated by all, is it strictly practiced by anyone? If one witnesses a tourney, he will notice that nearly every competitor, right in the opening of the game, makes the selection which, in his opinion, would be most promising against the respective opponent, and the tactics throughout the contest are on similar lines....” The new editor and publisher then showed a flair for imaginative thought that readers familiar only with Kemeny’s published words in the Ledger and North American would have never seen, although it is likely a reflection of the personal appeal his friends at the Franklin had known and enjoyed for years: “It would, perhaps, be interesting to arrange a tourney so that the players would not know whom they meet, the contestants being placed at separate tables and possibly in separate rooms, and the moves transmitted by the committee in charge. It should yield satisfactory results so far as the quality of the games is concerned, and incidentally it may decide whether leading exponents of the game are right in their contention that in a tourney they meet a stronger resistance because every competitor they meet exerts himself to the utmost or whether less successful participants are correct in holding that star players meet a weaker team, because the opponents in numerous instances lose confidence and timidity lessens their chances of success.” All the above, along with part of a Mason–Janowski game, appeared on the first page of Kemeny’s new publication. He rounded out his inaugural issue with an additional game of Mason’s, against Atkins, two problems, one contributed by Philadelphia’s Jacob Elson, an endgame from Halpern’s Chess Symposium, and a “News of the Game” section that highlighted Lasker’s approaching appearance in Philadelphia during the middle of the month. A great deal of material for a four page weekly, price five cents. Kemeny’s first annotated game in his new publication not only illustrated his theme regarding Mason’s luck with Janowski, but also made use of material he obtained during his recent European special reporting assignment. Now, starting with American Chess Weekly, Kemeny was finally in a position to benefit from whatever material came his way, not only as a writer but as an editor and publisher.

272

EMIL KEMENY

James Mason–Dawid Janowski [C84], Monte Carlo, Round 19, March 6, 1902. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0–0 Be7 6. Nc3 d6 7. B¥c6+ b¥c6 8. d4 e¥d4 9. N¥d4 Bd7 10. b3 Qb8 The continuation selected does not appear to be advantageous; to say the least, it invites an attack on the queenside. 0–0, followed eventually by Re1, was preferable. 11. Bb2 Qb7 12. Re1 0–0–0 13. Qd3 Rhe8 13. ... c5 might have been played first, so as to prevent the opponent from moving b4, which leads to a promising attack. 14. b4 Bf8 15. Rab1 d5 16. e5 Ng4 17. Nf3 g6 18. h3 Bf5 19. Qd2 Nh6 20. a3 Ng8 21. Nd4 Be6 22. Na4 Nh6 23. Qc3 23. Nb3, followed by Nc5 and eventually Bd4, would have given White a decided, if not winning, advantage. The play -Dk®rg-D selected is not so forcible, Black giving up the c-pawn relieves his Dq0-DpDp game. 23. ... Nf5 24. N¥c6 Rd7 25. Nd4 N¥d4 26. Q¥d4 pDpDlDph 27.  Rbc1 Qc6 28.  Nc3 h5 29.  Ne2 Bh6 30.  f4 Bf8 D-Dp)-D- Bf5 31. Qf2 Be6 32. Nd4 Qb6 33. Rb1 Bf5 34. Bc3 Be4 35. a4 N)-H-D-D c6 36. a5 Qa7 37. Rb2 Rb7 38. Reb1 Kd7 39. Kh1 Reb8 )-D-D-DP 40. Qe1 Be7 40.  ... B¥b4 would hardly have proven a success. -GP!-)PD White might have answered 41. N¥c6 followed by B¥b4. 41. Nb3 DRD-$-I- Rb5 41. ... B¥b4 could not be played on account of 42. B¥b4 R¥b4 43. Nc5+, White winning the exchange. 42. Bd4 Qb7 43. Bc5 After 22. ... Nh6 B¥c5 44. b¥c5 Had White played 44. N¥c5+, the answer would have been 44. ... R¥c5 45. b¥c5 Q¥b2 46. R¥b2 R¥b2. Black then -®kD-D-D will win the c-pawn and subsequently the g-pawn, which should give D-DqDpD- him a very satisfactory game. 44. ... Rb4 45. Qh4 Kc8 46. Qf6 pDpD-!pD Qd7 47. Kh2 A glance at the position reveals the fact that White not follow up successfully the advantage gained at an early stage. )-)p)-Dp did He succeeded in opening the b-file, but the adversary secured the -®-Dl)-D command of it. White is a pawn ahead, but Black may readily play DND-D-DP ... B¥c2, equalizing the game. -$PD-DPI 47. ... Qe6 Black was well aware of the fact that he made conDRD-D-D- siderable headway on the queenside and he expected to further improve his game by forcing away the hostile queen or by bringing After 47. Kh2 about an exchange. The play would have proved a success had it not been for the brilliant continuation White espied. By playing Qh8+ and Nd4, wholesale exchange is brought about and a winning endgame ensues. It is not often the case that a promising-looking move like ... Qe6 proves so disastrous. Instead of ... Qe6, Black should have played 47. ... R8b5 or 47. ... Bc2. 48. Qh8+ Kd7 49. Nd4 R¥b2 49. ... R¥h8 would have been answered with 50.  R¥b4 and White wins at least the exchange. 50. Q¥b8 R¥b8 51. R¥b8 Kc7 52. N¥e6+ K¥b8 53. Nd4 Kc7 54. g4 h4 55. c3 Kd7 56. Kg1 Kc7 57. Kf2 Kd7 58. f5 g¥f5 59. g¥f5 Kc7 60. Ke3 Bg2 61. Nf3 B¥h3 62. N¥h4 Bg4 63. Kf4 Be2 64. Nf3 B¥f3 65. K¥f3 At this stage an adjournment took place, but Black did not resume playing. White, of course, wins easily by bringing his king to f6 or to g7. The game was awarded the brilliancy prize at the Monte Carlo Tournament. 1–0 (American Chess Weekly, October 4, 1902, pages 1–2, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny did, however, address his readers regarding his new publication on the second page of his second issue. By then he had received responses from readers, and it seemed a logical time, and way, to respond. While his first page story for his October 11 issue detailed Lasker’s visit, the next gave a subheading of “A Few Words to the Readers,” which evolved into a weekly statement, without headline, signed by “Emil Kemeny, Editor.” Note Kemeny’s use of the third person in referring to himself, as well as how his initial paragraph focuses on

9. Kemeny, Writer

273

the magazine-styled-newspaper, rather than on its editor. Kemeny clearly created his publication in keeping with his personality, which focused on what was good for the game, as well as for the average player. “Of late years numerous chess magazines have been launched in this country; but, however ably they were edited, however attractive they were, ultimately they had to be abandoned. In view of this fact, the present enterprise may seem somewhat venturesome, yet the writer could not help believe that there should be room enough in this country for a publication devoted to the royal game, and that such a publication should benefit chess. It is his belief that a weekly paper, with the features of a chess magazine, issued while the contests are new, should interest followers of the game, and apparently he is not mistaken.” The new editor also made plain his editorial goals: “The American Chess Weekly will contain well-contested games, from abroad as well as from this country, played by experts or amateurs. The news and problem department will receive particular attention. Unless otherwise stated, the comments and articles are written by the editor, and whatever may be their short-comings, the reader will readily observe that they were not gotten up without considerable care.” He wanted readers, of course. And he asked only twenty-five cents for a six weeks’ subscription, that sum including mailing costs for six separate issues. But what he would most appreciate, he said, was “fair criticism, eventually suggestions, as to how to improve the publication.” Unlike with his writings in the Philadelphia Public Ledger and North American, or with his later writing in the Chicago Tribune, Kemeny had in the American Chess Weekly not only an opportunity but an obligation to provide an editorial voice. While its pages offer the reader today information about some aspects of the chess world in late 1902 through part of 1903, its value here is in the insight it gives us, often indirectly, regarding Kemeny and his values. It is one thing to hear from others that Kemeny had a congenial nature and a good sense of humor. It is another thing to read, as we do in American Chess Weekly (hereafter ACW), December 27, 1902, that in the 1902 Quadrangular College Contest among Columbia, Harvard, Yale and Princeton, that Princeton finished last, with Kemeny immediately adding “Considering the outcome of the contest, it may not be immodest to mention that on December 13th, the Editor visited Princeton, coaching the team.” From this vignette we learn Kemeny could make fun of himself—always the kind of humor most readily found congenial by others. One also gets the sense, given Kemeny’s modest and retiring nature, that he never would have permitted himself to mention his relation to the Princeton team had they won. Kemeny’s sense of humor sometimes bit, and not always only himself. In commenting on the bizarre notions of Boston’s Franklin K. Young, author of belabored treatises showing how chess could be learned and mastered only through applying arcane military terminology to the chessboard, it appears Kemeny could no longer restrain himself. Readers had been provided with a correspondence game, Herman Helms–Franklin Young, in which Young’s annotations included such eye openers as “In the foregoing moves of White and Black is reproduced the major tactical evolutions of the Battle of Austerlitz.” After Helms’ 8. Bg5, for example, Young helpfully opined that “This situation shows the simultaneous attack of the Austro-Russian Army against both French wings.” Writing in his editorial capacity immediately following Young’s “annotations,” and after giving a more conventional assessment of the game, Kemeny concluded “As to the major tactical evolutions, Mr. Young seems positive that the moves show the simultaneous attack of the Austro-Russian Army against both wings. The editor believes that the play shows Mrs. Carrie Nation’s simultaneous attack on liquor dealers and cigarette smokers. Can some of the readers throw some light on the subject?” (ACW August 15, 1903). There were no further contributions by Franklin Young. More characteristically, Kemeny was supportive and gentle with his comments. When Charles Newman died unexpectedly at 47, Kemeny wrote of the man who had beaten him in

274

EMIL KEMENY

a playoff match for the 1899-1900 Franklin championship with feeling and sensitivity. In Newman, his friends and Franklin members had lost “a brilliant and enthusiastic exponent of the game,” one who had been “a charter member of the Franklin Chess Club, prominent in local tournaments, winning the championship in 1886 and 1900, participating in inter-city as well as inter-state matches and in the last five years in the International Cable Contests. Marked as his success was in all these events, he was at his best in friendly contests. His occupation, teaching music, left him but little spare time, which cheerfully he devoted to the game. Always ready to play, always a charming opponent, he endeared himself to all whose privilege it was to meet him, and his play, quick and brilliant as it was, proved delightful to the spectators.” Kemeny honored the man as well as his play. In such passages Kemeny shows us his gift for relating the revealing detail that defines character. In the following, admittedly awkward passage, he shows his insight into human nature and his compassion for its gentle foibles: “When an interesting game was analyzed at the club-rooms [Newman] was in the habit of offering some suggestions and it was not infrequent that after a move or two he proposed plays for the opposite side in fact his alternative advice to the contesting parties rendered the situation humorous, and often the spectator would ask him which side he was playing. Well it can now be answered, he did not try to be on the winning side but invariably he endeavored to assist the needy one, the one in difficulty and indeed such was his aim in every other walk of human life. Truly a noble follower of the royal game has passed away” (American Chess Weekly, June 27, 1903). For years Kemeny worked annotating hundreds of games for the Ledger. For years his annotations appeared, as we have seen, under the heading “Notes by Kemeny,” after the moves of each game. Imagine, then, the surprise knowledgeable readers of ACW might have felt on learning Kemeny’s own views regarding whether annotations should appear within, or following, a game. First, he offered a reader-focused reason he preferred annotations follow a game: “numerous readers like to play over games without seeing comments. They wish to form their own opinion and then make comparison.” Then, almost as an afterthought, he offered his personal reason for avoiding placing them between the moves: “As far as the Editor is concerned, he would like to place the notes at the bottom of the games. He does not consider them of sufficient importance or merit to be placed so conspicuously” (ACW, October 18, 1902). Kemeny did have strong feelings about what he considered a less attractive aspect of newspaper chess columns: the indiscriminate inclusion of reader comments regarding chess matters. Kemeny had nothing against insightful comment, and in fact invited reader criticism regarding ACW so he could improve the journal. Over the year he incorporated several reader suggestions. He had, however, little patience for windbags and grumps, and did not hesitate to share his opinion with readers: “Various newspapers invite, if not solicit, opinions on certain or on any topic, and, without much discrimination, place them before the readers. A similar practice is adopted in some chess columns. These opinions, criticisms, etc., are not always to the point, not always clever or witty; nor, at times, do they appear to be considerate; but, evidently, they are to the satisfaction of the respective writers. The less one is entitled to have his opinion placed before the reader the more he is elated over seeing it in print, and he will take pains to show it to his acquaintances, incidentally praising the paper or the column. In a small way he is a beneficiary, and he becomes a worker. The reader in general is but little interested in it, though, as the volume of opinions and criticisms increases, he finds out that more useful, more interesting reading matter is crowded out, is missing.” Kemeny had similar feelings about publishing lists of chess problem solvers, but understood managers of newspapers were interested in what enhanced circulation, not necessarily in what provided better chess content. And general editors were moved by reader response, not by intrinsic chess value. “Managers of newspapers and periodicals gauge the interest man-

9. Kemeny, Writer

275

ifested in certain departments by the communications received from the readers,” Kemeny wrote. And this, of course, placed the diligent analyst in something of a dilemma, for “A chess editor may select the finest specimens of high-grade and brilliant chess; he may annotate them carefully, entertainingly, instructively; but very rarely, if ever, will some of the readers express appreciation” (ACW, December 6, 1902). Kemeny could not help waxing somewhat sarcastic regarding chess editors who, to bulk their readership numbers further, published not only a list of problem solvers, but the name of every person who sent in a solution, correct or not. Such stuffing of the readership list, Kemeny dryly noted, gave “everybody a chance to be enrolled among the ‘immortals.’” But why stop there? Why not publish every opinion, no matter how uninformed? Why not publish photographs of the would-be solvers? Wouldn’t that, Kemeny mused, provide a reliable army of solvers? Kemeny’s response, and its comparison to the very common practice of the times in pandering to social status, is quite revealing of his values: “Rather cynical remarks,” he wrote of his suggestions as a whole, “but quite true, nevertheless, and the reader should not for a moment imagine that the chess editors impose on the managers; quite the contrary. More or less unwillingly they adopt the policy pursued in other departments of the publication. Why should not the mailing of a postal card secure the insertion of the party as a solver, when a similar communication causes the paper to give an elaborate notice of, say, a tea given by Mrs. So-and-So in honor of such parties, and who were present, as a rule, all strangers to the community? Why should not ‘A’ and ‘B’ have the distinction of appearing as solvers, when quite readily it is printed that they are pleasantly located at such and such resort and have a host of friends, etc.? It is not required that parties so distinguished should be of prominence in some walk of human life; on the contrary, it is desirable that they be plain people, such as would not expect that the public would take much interest in their affairs” (ACW, December 6, 1902). Yet Kemeny was well aware of the dynamics at play when the issue was international or national chess figures performing simultaneous exhibitions, and the games that might or might not be published from them. His insight remains true today. “Whenever a star visitor meets opponents in simultaneous play,” Kemeny began, “it is a time-honored practice to print—not the numerous victories he achieves—but the few, perhaps the only contest in which he meets his Waterloo. This is not so unfair as on first glance it would appear to be. It would be discouraging to the amateur to herald his defeat, notwithstanding the severe handicapping of the opponent, while it does hardly detract from the brilliancy of the success when the casual loss is given publicity” (ACW, October 25, 1902). Above everything, the point of such exhibitions was the entertainment of the chess public, with secondary concern being the publicity they generated, and the remuneration the master received for his performance. To these ends, Kemeny cautioned about a recent matter involving Lasker, the man for whom Kemeny had organized a tour the year before. Lasker had given a simultaneous exhibition at the Manhattan Chess Club, and in the process of doing so, took on the further stipulation, for a side bet, as it were, that he would not lose a game. He did not, finishing 16–0 with 9 draws. Kemeny mentioned that ten years earlier Lasker had successfully done the same thing in Philadelphia. “The performance was admired, of course,” Kemeny wrote, “yet it is to be hoped that he will not make it a practice on subsequent occasions, for it requires the selection of conservative variations and of careful play. What players and spectators like to see in simultaneous exhibitions is quick, enterprising, lively and, possibly, brilliant play; and, inasmuch as their entertainment should be the main object in view, the performer would do wisely by delaying specific efforts toward establishing records until he participates in more serious events” (ACW, November 1, 1902). Kemeny’s words reveal a keen appreciation of human nature, as well as a fine ability to balance competing values.

276

EMIL KEMENY

Although Kemeny obviously focused on chess and chess players in his publication, at times his thinking took him beyond the chessboard. By and large, and for reasons rarely if ever articulated, chess writers usually stay close to their topic. They may range widely regarding any aspect of chess, but only rarely do they come close to crossing the boundary into social commentary. Kemeny did so in ACW when talking about the interests of newspaper managers in gauging readership, even at the expense of space for quality chess content. Very rarely indeed, though, did chess columnists, either in newspapers or journals, shift their focus to society at large. This Kemeny occasionally did, and in his displeasure with editors who preferred offering readers even ill-informed opinion over useful chess content, he early on added that doing so was “very similar to what is seen in municipal governments, the latter obtaining a strong support from the favored few, favored at the expense of the community” (ACW, October 18, 1902). Kemeny returned to his municipal government comment, expanding on it significantly, before reigning it in and focusing once more on chess matters: “As stated in a previous article, it is in line with the tactics pursued in politics; it is the favoring of the few at the expense of the community. And, strange to say, papers that are most vehement in denouncing the tactics of political bosses, follow their tactics most closely; papers that decry most violently the favoritism shown in subletting of public property, franchises, etc., are most guilty of devoting space to matters not of general interest, but of interest to the very few. It is true that there exists a marked difference, for the papers dispose of their own property, which is not the case in politics; but the policy is the same, and is in contrast with the lofty sentiments expressed in the editorial columns of such publications, just like the actions of politicians do not harmonize with their patriotic campaign speeches. If the people would make up their minds to do away with politicians of all sorts, they could do so very readily; if they want to get rid of objectionable features of modern newspapers, they can do it quickly—a concerted expression of will is all that is needed. Similarly, if chess players are dissatisfied with certain columns, the remedy is easy. Activity should not be left with the few whose names appear in print, nor with the still fewer reformers. Indifference causes all evil. Let those dissatisfied complain, and those pleased express themselves accordingly, and surely the majority will rule, and the majority will rule justly” (ACW, December 6, 1902). Whatever chess players made of such well-articulated parallels between chess columns, newspaper methods, and politics in general, it is clear Kemeny did not spend every evening at the Franklin Chess Club thinking only of chess matters. Beneath the amiable and companionable façade of the chess master, editor and publisher, and only partially hidden from sight, ran deep currents reflecting thoughtful social commentary, politically nuanced views, and sophisticated psychological insights. Kemeny’s reflections on simultaneous performers and their art drew on his own experience. Kemeny had given several simultaneous exhibitions in recent years, including more than one at the University of Pennsylvania. There one young man, J. Henry Smythe, had some success against him, as we have seen in the last chapter. Born in Philadelphia on October 10, 1883, Smythe learned chess at an early age. After high school, Smythe enrolled in the University of Pennsylvania and quickly established himself as a chess booster. He was president of the university chess club for three years. Chess was his love, and he played at both the Mercantile Library and the Franklin. He played correspondence chess, and even gave his own simultaneous exhibitions at smaller clubs. He played chess whenever he could. Smythe’s chess, however, abruptly concluded. The unfortunate situation was clarified when Smythe’s father spoke with the press, and in a newspaper article accused an unnamed Philadelphia chess editor (likely Reichhelm) of encouraging his son excessively in the game, with the result that the boy’s obsession with chess led to erratic behavior requiring his tem-

9. Kemeny, Writer

277

porary placement in a sanitarium, followed by rest at Atlantic City (New York Times, August 7, 1903). In mentioning the matter to his readers, Kemeny stated the 19-year-old had “temporarily succumbed to excessive chess playing. It is hoped that he will speedily recover” (ACW, August 15, 1903). What Kemeny meant by “excessive chess play” he explained in the following issue: “The unfortunate incident of a Philadelphia youth succumbing to excessive chess playing has created quite a stir and was extensively commented on. In all probability it is the first instance that mental disorder could be traced to chess directly.” Kemeny continued, “The boy played a pretty good game and received more than due recognition in local newspapers. If he attempted to fully justify the flattering comments, his task must have been an extremely difficult one. He was placed on the local team and suffered defeat, which must have hurt him badly, subsequently he succeeded in squaring accounts with his opponent and the joy overwhelmed him” (ACW, August 31, 1903). Kemeny took his discussion to the more general level of chess, mental strain, and inadequate compensation for professional practitioners before bringing it back to impressionable youth and how to deal responsibly with the allure chess can have. One might well wonder how much Kemeny was reflecting on his own youth, and life, between the lines in the words that follow: “It is needless to say that moderate chess playing is a harmless pastime and beneficial for it offers a pleasing diversion. Serious chess contests require a severe and often prolonged mental effort and tax heavily the nerves. In numerous instances such a struggle causes insomnia and in a general way is apt to be injurious. This of course relates principally, if not exclusively, to professional players, leading exponents of the game struggling for supremacy and devoting their entire attention to chess. Presumably even they would be in no danger, could they from time to time enjoy a much needed rest. Unfortunately, however, the returns for such exacting efforts are very slim, and after meeting numerous and formidable opponents, the exponent of the game eventually faces poverty. Whether such exponent is to blame for not abandoning the fascinating game and adopting a more lucrative occupation, or whether fault rests with followers of the game who take delight in expert contests, but do not give adequate support, is a question not easily decided, and its discussion would be quite useless. The situation quite likely will remain unchanged for some time and in all probability there will be victims in days to come as there were in days gone by.” Kemeny well understood the siren song of chess, and while his assumption that chess might directly cause insanity appears quaint to today’s reader, his reflections on the role of chess in society and how to protect youths from their own enthusiasms are not so easily dismissed. “What can be done, and should be done,” he concluded, “is to try to save the youthful enthusiast. Advice, warning, etc., to a youth already a full-fledged expert, aspiring to championship honors is quite useless. The more effective method is to lessen his chances to become a celebrity. He ought not be admitted in Chess Clubs ere through with his studies and ere of age. He ought not have a chance to fully develop his chess strength ere ready in some chosen occupation in life. Prominence obtained in the game handicaps him seriously and hinders him from overcoming the difficulties of the start of almost any other occupation. Truly at the slightest provocation he is apt to abandon such occupation, drifting towards the fascinating game. The late Steinitz had an exalted opinion regarding the professional chess player, in fact he placed him above all others. No doubt he was sincere, and though poor, he was content and proud. Quite likely he had compassion for the late Kolisch who abandoned such noble profession just for the sake of becoming a millionaire. But all exponents do not display the same enthusiasm, do not entertain the same opinion and truly not all of them are happy” (ACW, August 31, 1903).

278

EMIL KEMENY

Kemeny also provided insightful sketches of chess players more balanced in mind. Often these insights appeared in quick flashes, offering succinct assessments. Of Lasker, for instance, he said, “It would be difficult to point out any particular branch of the game he excels in, but it may be said that his play is remarkably correct, that he is very quick in detecting a flaw in the opponent’s position, and skillful in taking advantage of an opportunity that offers itself.” Of Marshall, he commented that “He is very brilliant and quite apt to surprise any opponent; his sacrifices are highly ingenious, but not always sound. The stronger the opponent, the more daring and more skillful is his play, and as a rule he has better success against the leaders than against the less formidable competitors” (ACW, July 30, 1903). Following his comment on Marshall, Kemeny offered readers this remarkably entertaining, though flawed, game: Frank J. Marshall–Harry N. Pillsbury [C38], Vienna Tournament, King’s Gambit Accepted Mandatory, March 18, 1903. 1. e4 e5 2. f4 e¥f4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. h4 h6 6. d4 d6 Aside from aiding the development this and the previous move renders the subsequent ... g4 play more effective, for White will be unable to play Ne5 or Ng5. 7. Qd3 g4 8. Ng1 Qf6 9. c3 h5 10. Na3 Ne7 11. Ne2 Ng6 12. g3 The intention is to guard the h-pawn, or to open the diagonal for the queen’s bishop and eventually the f-file for the rook. 12. ... f¥g3 Not 12. ... f3 for in that event 13. Bg5 would follow and in order to save the queen, Black would be obliged to play 13. ... f2+ 14. Kf1 Qf3, eventually losing two pawns. 13. Rf1 Questionable as to soundness; more promising was 13. Q¥g3, followed eventually by Bg5 and Rf1. 13. ... Q¥h4 14. B¥f7+ Kd8 15. B¥g6 g2+ 16. Rf2 Rf8 17. Be3 17. ... Bh6 This sacrifice of an additional piece is quite sound; rhli-®-D Black now threatens ... Rf3. White cannot well play Bf5 for in that 0p0-D-g- case ... B¥f5 and ... Re8 leads to a winning attack, nor is 0–0–0 sat-D-0-DLD isfactory for ... B¥e3+ and ... R¥f2 would follow. White therefore D-D-D-Dp selects the B¥h6 move, which enables Black to gain considerable -D-)PDp1 material and this should decide in his favor. 18. B¥h6 g1Q+ Better H-)QG-D- than 18. ... Q¥f2+, which would be answered by 19. Kd2. 19. N¥g1 P)-DN$pD Q¥f2+ 20. Kd1 Q¥g1+ 21. Kc2 Rf2+ 22. Bd2 Not 22. Kb3 $-D-I-D- for in that case 22. ... Be6+ would follow, Black making room for his king. 22.  ... Q¥a1 23.  Qe3 R¥d2+ 24.  Q¥d2 Bd7 The After 17. Be3 alternative was ... c6. 25. Qg5+ Kc8 26. Bf5 b6 Had he played 26. ... B¥f5, White with 27. Qg8+ Kd7 28. Qf7+ could have drawn rD-D-D-D the game. 27.  Qg8+ Kb7 28.  B¥d7 N¥d7 29.  Qd5+ c6 0kDnD-D- 30. Q¥d6 30. ... Rd8 A disastrous mistake. Black being a rook ahead -0p!-D-D could have afforded to give up the knight, but he should have D-D-D-Dp against the threatening d5 which rather obviously leads to -D-)PDpD guarded a winning attack. 30. ... Rc8 or 30. ... Rf8 should have been played. H-)-D-D- 31. d5 Rf8 Too late now, the loss of a move in such [a] critical P)KD-D-D position was bound to prove fatal. If there was an escape it rested 1-D-D-D- with ... Nc5. [JSH: There were several ways to draw, including 31. ... c¥d5 or 31. ... Ka6.] 32. d¥c6+ Ka8 33. c¥d7 Rf2+ 34. Kb3 After 30. Q¥d6 Q¥b2+ 35. Ka4 If now ... b5+ is played, White moves Ka5 and eventually Ka6. Black of course is placed in a mating position and cannot escape. 1–0 (American Chess Weekly, July 10, 1903, pages 110–111, with annotations by Kemeny). Kemeny’s interest in chess reporting was also taking a new direction. Of a proposed tournament in St. Louis, Kemeny wrote that the pleasures of watching live games unfold were

9. Kemeny, Writer

279

greater than reading about them much later. This led him to consider the fate of tournament books, especially in the United States. After mentioning how long it took Steinitz to present his massive tournament book for New York 1889, he discussed an alternative, one he thought might help the St. Louis organizers realize badly needed funds: “Desirable as [a tournament book] would be, from a financial standpoint it is not likely to prove a success. The managers of the Vienna tourney, 1898, took this view, and, instead of issuing a book, long after the tourney is finished and perhaps partly forgotten, they issued small pamphlets during the progress of the tourney. This is more promising, and if the committee undertakes to print each round on the day of play and mail it immediately, there would be quite a demand in this country as well as abroad, and should yield some revenue” (ACW, December 13, 1902). Kemeny’s next issue apologized for a slight delay, as his health had again failed him. Recovering quickly this time, however, he managed to complete his Christmas issue, and its contents clearly showed he had been thinking of an imaginative proposal: a special news service for reports directly from Monte Carlo 1903, which he would attend in his editorial capacity so as “to witness the play and send a special report of each round, which will be printed and mailed to subscribers on the day of arrival” in the United States. Kemeny envisioned the reports giving a description of each day’s play, including incidents, surprising wins, “moves of the games with careful annotations to contests of particular interest,” and notable opening innovations. Ten to twenty special issues of the Weekly were anticipated. A two dollar subscription for regular subscribers was contemplated, and they would receive the mailing of the special numbers on the day of issue. Subscribers would also receive “the complete set [of bulletins], containing all the games indexed and neatly bound at the close of the Tourney.” The same would be available for three dollars to those not subscribing to the magazine (ACW, December 20, 1903). How Kemeny decided this was the right moment to attempt such a news service is unknown. Having attended Monte Carlo 1902 to report on the games gave him fresh connections in Europe, and made his experiment to cover the next year’s event a natural extension of his experience. He also believed his method of covering Monte Carlo 1903 would benefit events within the United States, and in particular the tournament expected in St. Louis the next year: “If an international Tourney can be placed entertainingly before the reader,” he wrote in his December 27 issue, “he is likely to get more deeply interested and is apt to show more willingness to support costly events, even if arranged in distant places. Unless the Editor is mistaken, the success of the contemplated enterprise should materially aid the proposed St. Louis congress, to be held in 1904.” Kemeny envisioned his special news service tightening bonds in the chess world, promoting interest in the game and creating a larger market for players, promoters and writers alike. But there were factors working against the success of Kemeny’s innovation. Individuals seeking to implement ground-breaking innovations on small budgets often find their dreams outrunning their ability to realize them. In addition, Kemeny’s health was still suspect, and almost immediately time became pressing. His January 3, 1903, issue of ACW appeared but the next one did not until three weeks later, on January 24. There he wrote that “The arrangements in connection with the Monte Carlo service have been extensive, they required much attention and involved so much labor, that an effort to make up for time lost through illness, had to be abandoned.” Even as he wrote, he was sailing for Europe: “By the time this issue reaches the reader, the Editor expects to be on the journey to Monte Carlo, and the next number will be prepared abroad, though printed and mailed from this place. The enterprise is somewhat novel and not without risks, but no effort will be spared, and if the service established will be anywhere near as satisfactory as the Editor wishes to give, the reader will surely have no cause for complaint.”

280

EMIL KEMENY

What ultimately undermined Kemeny’s original intention of issuing round reports quickly, sending them back to Philadelphia, and having them printed and mailed from there to his readers is unknown. He may have underestimated the time required to do justice to the games and tournament stories, or the logistics of travel required for his special reports to make the ocean transit, or perhaps the cumulative effects of his shaky health. Whatever the case, it was not until June 27, 1903, that the next regular issue of American Chess Weekly appeared, more than five months after his optimistic report to readers regarding his travel to Monte Carlo. In that issue he mentioned only generally that “In a circular letter dated May 9th it was stated that it became necessary to delay issuing of both regular and special series of the American Chess Weekly so as to avoid disappointing service. Since then the special reports have been issued, and the complete set is now being bound in book-form.” Monte Carlo 1903, held from February 10, 1903, to March 17, 1903, saw Tarrasch triumph over Maróczy and Pillsbury, followed in order by Schlechter, Teichmann and Marco, with players the caliber of Marshall and Mason finishing further down the crosstable. In the end Kemeny produced what he called a “special series,” true, but one of a totally different design from what he first contemplated. Instead of a series of reports following closely after each round, mailed individually, he produced a tournament book in format reminiscent of volumes such as London 1883, in which all games played by the winner appear first, then all the games by the second place finisher, and so on. Details regarding why Kemeny’s project failed are sparse. Helms mentioned in his Eagle column on May 17, 1903, that Kemeny said his special service had failed “because conditions were found to be unfavorable and sickness also interfered” with both his reporting from Monte Carlo and the publication of the issues in the United States. On November 15, 1903, Helms reported Kemeny had announced the suspension of the American Chess Weekly. Helms noted Kemeny had been criticized “for seeming neglect in going to Monte Carol without providing adequately for the publication of the Weekly,” but that Kemeny again responded that illness and “insurmountable obstacles” had made the project fail. On a more positive note, Kemeny had “made arrangements by which subscribers will receive The Forum for the unexpired terms of their subscriptions.” Thus Kemeny tried to make good on his failed special services project and the closure of his magazine. Kemeny and his Monte Carlo book in modern times have not been treated as fairly as he treated his subscribers in 1903. In 1983 the Swiss publishing house Edition Olms republished Kemeny’s work in its original format, which within the text listed Kemeny as editor and publisher. His accomplishment and effort goes unnoted in the reprint’s introduction and title page. His role in the volume is ignored on the dust jacket. If the original title page and short preface had not been reprinted with the rest of the book, no one today would know from the Olms edition that Kemeny had any part in the book, much less acted as publisher, editor, annotator and original distributor. Kemeny dedicated his book to Isaac L. Rice, of Rice Gambit fame. In his brief preface, reproduced below, one again sees the man’s self-effacing nature, which seems almost to invite the obscurity of authorship the Edition Olms provides: Preface Kemeny’s signature, as it appears in his personal copy of Chess in Philadelphia (author’s collection).

The volume herewith placed before the reader is pre-eminently the work of the star competitors, who so nobly strived for supremacy in a prolonged con-

9. Kemeny, Writer

281

test, in the Monte Carlo Tournament of 1903, and the only excuse the writer has for issuing it is that the skill and brilliancy displayed by the masters rendered the games enjoyable and created a demand for the preservation of same in book form. The writer’s share in the work consists mainly in collecting and arranging the games and in the relating of such incidents as marked the play. It is true, he is also responsible for the annotation of the games, but the merit—if any—of the notes will not add to the value of the work nor will shortcomings in the comments detract from same. Respectfully, EMIL KEMENY PHILADELPHIA, June 20, 1903.

Kemeny had in fact produced a full tournament record, including a survey of openings, the award of brilliancy prizes, all the games, his annotations, and the recounting of incidents regarding the event as a whole. Thanks to him a detailed record of Monte Carlo 1903 exists, rescuing that tournament from the oblivion many others have suffered that had no chronicler. Kemeny returned to America, produced his “special series” that took shape as a tournament book, and resumed his journal’s publication. The weekly publishing schedule, however, degenerated into a twice monthly publication, and even that, in the end, was not strictly followed. Like so many other chess publications in the United States, the Weekly was unsustainable. The end of the Weekly, signaled by special issues and bulletins, ironically enough proved successful ground the following year for Herman Helms and Hartwig Cassel, who succeeded with their American Chess Bulletin. The Bulletin, however, unlike Kemeny’s Weekly, had an enormous boost from Frank Marshall’s grand success at Cambridge Springs 1904. The bulletins for that event proved sufficiently successful so as to encourage Helms and Cassel to turn their efforts into a monthly magazine, and between Marshall’s success and the larger chess market in New York than in Philadelphia, the Bulletin succeeded where the Weekly could not. The American Chess Bulletin lasted more than half a century, and remains, historically, one of the most successful chess publications in the United States. While Kemeny’s publishing venture had proven less than successful, his personal life must have undergone significant upheaval as well. It is unclear what, if any, work he had at this point. As we have seen, Kemeny did not long serve as chess editor for the North American. On the night of July 18, 1903, Kemeny gave a 15 board simultaneous exhibition for the Lincoln Republican Association of Philadelphia. There he won 10 games, lost 1, and drew 4 (Philadelphia Inquirer, July 19, 1903). Not long thereafter, Helms announced the American players invited to play at Cambridge Springs. While the first seven were known—initially Pillsbury, Showalter, Lipschütz, Marshall, Napier, Barry and Hodges—the eighth was likely to be selected from “such well known experts as Max Judd, E. Kemeny, C. S. Howell, J. Finn, S. P. Johnston and L. Uedemann” (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, September 20, 1903). In the end Lipschütz’s health was too precarious to let him participate (he would die in Hamburg before the end of 1905), and Eugene Delmar was invited. A new, young star, Albert Fox, filled out the American roster. Whether Kemeny was ever invited is unknown. Helms announced the prizes for Cambridge Springs when he announced the tournament in the Eagle in September. As the first major, international chess tournament to be held in the United States in 15 years, the event attracted attention well beyond the interests merely of the chess world. The occasion of its approach led Kemeny to write his longest and likely most widely read meditation on the game, its influence and the plight of its master practitioners. His piece appeared in Forum (March 1904, pages 471–480). Begun as a monthly publication in March 1886, Forum focused on presenting thoughtful articles on timely subjects in a broad range of areas, including education, religion, social issues, politics, and leisure. In

282

EMIL KEMENY

1902 it became a quarterly, returning to monthly publication in 1908. Kemeny’s article “International Chess Tournaments” reached 15,000 readers through the pages of the Forum, many more than any chess publication could ever have afforded him (Encyclopedia of American Journalism, pages 176–177). Kemeny’s Forum article (see Appendix) stands as an exceptionally well-crafted document in its analysis of the American chess scene and chess professionalism in general. Its minor inaccuracies can readily be forgiven. The essay stands as Kemeny’s finest, and fullest, exposition on chess and social forces. It reveals the mind of a thoughtful man, one more than capable of discerning important truths and elucidating how disparate forces act within society, and how those forces might or might not interact for the benefit, or detriment, of the chess world. For someone who only a little over a dozen years earlier had been considered most notable for his foul murder of the Queen’s English, Kemeny had come a long way from his earliest, Bohemian nights in New York’s Lower East Side. His Forum essay stands as a remarkable achievement, as does his Monte Carlo 1903 and his long-running series of annotated games in the Ledger.

10

St. Louis and Chicago “Emil Kemeny, champion of the Franklin Chess Club of Philadelphia, is at present a visitor to the local chess club. He has expressed great admiration for the attractiveness of the club’s quarters, declaring that they will hold their own with any chess club in the country.”—Chicago Tribune, July 13, 1902 (Sidney Johnston)

Exactly when Kemeny moved to Chicago is unknown. Unlike the appearance of his chess columns and weekly magazine, which in a measure speak for themselves, his movements in life were often unremarked. That he came to Chicago knowing about the chess situation there is, however, without question. Even before the appearance of Kemeny’s American Chess Weekly in October 1902, He had traveled to Chicago, visiting the local club. On July 12, 1902, Kemeny gave a simultaneous exhibition at the Chicago Chess and Checker Club facing a dozen opponents, finishing with a very modest 6–4 with 2 draws. The local chess columnist reported this in the Chicago Tribune as “quite a feather in the cap of the local club that a player of Mr. Kemeny’s strength” should have such limited success against the members. The local chess reporter was Sidney Paine Johnston, a native-born Chicago player of master strength. Born November 29, 1869, the 32-year-old had graduated from Northwestern University in 1891, and had been a club member for more than a dozen years by the time Kemeny visited. By day Johnston was an editor of The American Artisan, and a union organizer. Illinois State champion, Johnston was the strongest player in Chicago, having defeated in match play Louis Uedemann, the title’s other claimant. He had played in the 1899 AngloAmerican cable match on board seven, just below Herman Voigt, and had drawn his game with C.D. Locock. More telling regarding his playing strength, though, was his performance in an 18991900 match against Frank Marshall, which the latter won, but only by the closest of margins,

10. St. Louis and Chicago

283

7–6 with 2 draws. Trailing 6–4 in a first to win seven games match, Johnston made a strong effort, winning two more games before dropping the fifteenth to his opponent. The following game, won by Johnston, was the first of two offhand games Kemeny played with him that day. The second, a Giuoco Piano, was drawn.

Sidney P. Johnston–Kemeny [D53] Offhand Game Chicago Chess and Checker Club, July 12, 1902 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. B¥f6 g¥f6 6. e3 c6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. c¥d5 c¥d5 9. Bd3 f5 10. 0–0 a6 11. Rc1 b5 12. a4 b4 13. Ne2 Bd6 14. Ne1 Nf6 15. f4 Rg8 16. Rf3 Ng4 17. Rh3 Rg7 18. Qd2 Bd7 19. b3 Ke7 20. Nf3 Qg8 21.  Ng3 a5 22.  Ng5 h6 23.  Nf3 Rc8 24.  Nh5 Rh7 25. Ne5 B¥e5 26. d¥e5 f6 27. Rg3 f¥e5 28. f¥e5 [JSH: The computer much prefers the simple 28. h3, winning a piece.] 28. ... R¥c1+ 29. Q¥c1 Qc8 Loses a piece, but his game was lost at this stage whatever move he made. 30.  Q¥c8 B¥c8 31.  R¥g4 1–0 (Chicago Tribune, July 20, 1902, with annotation by Sidney P. Johnson).

-DrD-DqD D-Dli-Dr -D-DpD-0 0-Dp0pDN P0-D-)nD DPDL)-$-D-!-DP) D-$-D-IAfter 27. ... f¥e5

Sometime either late in 1903 or early 1904, Kemeny moved to Chicago. Helms wrote in his March 26, 1904, Eagle column that a planned Philadelphia–Chicago telegraph match had been momentarily abandoned following “havoc among the wires in and around Chicago, created by the big blizzard in the West.” The match by telegraph was expected to be played a week later. In passing, Helms added that “Emil Kemeny, a former champion of the Franklin Chess Club, is now in Chicago, and will probably represent that city in the forthcoming match.” The most we can conclude, then, is that it is likely Kemeny moved to Chicago by the early part of 1904, and that by the time he traveled to play in tournaments at St. Louis later in the year, he already lived in the Windy City. Kemeny traveled to St. Louis in October 1904, playing in both the Fifth Western Chess Association tournament, referred to sometimes as the “Minor Tournament,” and in the Seventh American Chess Congress. The one immediately followed the other. Two Chicago players entered: Kemeny and the veteran, Louis Uedemann, who earlier in the year had turned fifty. They were joined by a dozen other players, including several from St. Louis and Kansas City, along with one player each from North Dakota, Michigan, Nebraska, Philadelphia and Boston. The event was a single–round robin tournament. Although several listings of Western Chess Association champions give Stasch Mlotkowski as the 1904 champion, doing so is technically incorrect. Mlotkowski won the tournament, but as he was from the East Coast, he was ineligible to hold the organization’s title. Accordingly, the second place finisher, Louis Uedemann, of Chicago, became the 1904 Western Chess Association champion, as he had been in 1900 and 1902. Coverage of the Western, even in the hometown St. Louis Republic, was sparse. The pairings for every round cannot be reconstructed. What is known is that Kemeny played against Joseph Sawyer in the first round, which began October 3, 1904. Sawyer was born in Three Rivers, Quebec, on December 1, 1874. An architect by trade, in 1908 he won the Canadian championship. The Chess Weekly for May 1, 1909, reported he had been elected president of the Westmount Chess Club of Montreal, and while it is not known whether he lived in that city the

284

EMIL KEMENY

rest of his life, it is believed he died there March 1, 1965. Kemeny’s game with Sawyer had to be adjourned, and while he sacrificed the exchange at one point to try and develop his initiative on the kingside, play ended in a draw. The Eagle for October 9, 1904, remarked that, at least after nine rounds of the Western, Joseph Sawyer, champion of the Montreal Chess Club, had been playing some of the soundest chess. Helms called the game below a “splendid encounter” between the two.

Joseph Sawyer–Kemeny [D60] Fifth Western Chess Association Championship, Round 1 St. Louis, October 3, 1904 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 c6 6. Nf3 Be7 7. Bd3 0– 0 8. 0–0 d¥c4 9. B¥c4 Nd5 10. B¥e7 Q¥e7 11. a3 N¥c3 12. b¥c3 e5 13. Qc2 e4 14. Nd2 Nb6 15.  Ba2 Bf5 16.  Bb1 Rae8 17.  Re1 Bg6 -D-D-D-D 18. Qb3 Kh8 19. c4 f5 20. f4 Bf7 21. Qc3 Be6 22. Bc2 23.  Bb3 Kh7 24.  a4 g5 25.  Rf1 g¥f4 26.  R¥f4 Rg8 0pD-D-®k h6 27. Nf1 Rg5 28.  c5 Nd7 29.  Ng3 Nf6 30.  Raf1 Nh5 -DpDl1-0 31. N¥h5 R¥h5 32. Bd1 Rg5 33. Qe1 Reg8 34. g3 R8g7 D-)-Dp®- 35. Kh1 Qf6 36. g4 Qg6 37. h4 Rh5 38. g5 h¥g5 39. B¥h5 PD-)p$-D Q¥h5 40. R4f2 g4 41. Rg2 Bc4 42. Rf4 Kg6 43. Rh2 Kh7 D-D-)-)- 44. Qg3 Bb3 45. a5 Bd1 46. Rf1 Bf3+ 47. Kg1 Qh6 48. Re1 -D-D-D-) Qe6 49.  Rb2 f4 50.  Q¥f4 g3 51.  Rf1 Rf7 52.  Qg5 Rg7 D-DL!RDK 53. Qf4 Rf7 54. Qg5 Qh3 55. R¥f3 e¥f3 56. Qh5+ Kg8 57. Qg6+ Kf8 58. Qh6+ Kg8 59. Qg6+ Kf8 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Brooklyn After 35. ... Qf6 Daily Eagle, October 3, 1904; American Chess Bulletin, October 1904, page 91). In round two Kemeny lost to Harlow B. Daly of Boston. The 20-year-old had been born in Dorchester, Massachusetts, and would live a long and productive life, dying at 95 on July 8, 1979. Featured twice in Chess Life, in 1959 and again in 1962, Daly joined the Boston Chess Club early in his life, and played against the strong member John F. Barry, and others. He made good use of his East Coast skills against Kemeny. The next round Kemeny defeated E.R. Wickersham of Kansas City, Missouri, in a 37 move Sicilian Defense. Rounds four through six are the most obscure, but during those rounds Kemeny lost to an F.J. Rundle of St. Louis, while defeating Judge Harsen D. Smith of Cassopolis, Michigan (an old opponent of Max Judd in 1870, and in 1871 a player in the Second American Chess Congress in Cleveland), and John W. Cowles, of Kansas City. Standing 31 ⁄ 2–21 ⁄ 2 after six rounds of such a small tournament must have disappointed Kemeny. It should be remembered, however, no evidence exists suggesting he had played even one serious game of chess in over two years, when he last appeared for the Franklin in a Decoration Day match, on May 30, 1902, against the Manhattan. Nor did the speed of play help Kemeny. Reports indicate, for instance, that rounds seven, eight and nine were all played on the same day. As it happened, Kemeny won from John L. Clark, of Lincoln, Nebraska, in the seventh round, in 24 moves in a Scotch Opening. His eighth round game, against one of the tournament leaders, Uedemann, had to be adjourned, while in the ninth round he defeated the eventual tournament tailender, D. Terker, of St. Louis, in a Philidor Defense in 21 moves. This momentarily improved his score to 51 ⁄ 2–21 ⁄ 2, with one game adjourned. Kemeny, though, could not sustain the pace. He lost his adjourned game to Uedemann,

10. St. Louis and Chicago

285

and although he defeated William Widmeyer of Rolla, North Dakota, in the tenth round, he had only one more good tournament game. In the eleventh round Dr. Eugene W. Shrader of Moberly, Missouri, took the point from Kemeny, and in the twelfth round he faced Stasch Mlotkowski, who was having the tournament of a lifetime, eventually finishing 11–0 with 2 draws, to win the Western by two and a half points. There is some irony in that Kemeny, having traveled from Philadelphia to Monte Carlo, and back, and then on to Chicago, faced a Franklin Chess Club member in the penultimate round of a St. Louis tournament. Any chess player who has traveled a significant distance to enter an event only to find himself paired with a player he sees every day back home knows the feeling. As the Western was a round robin event, Kemeny of course knew he would eventually face the young man he had known in Philadelphia, but he could hardly have anticipated the 33-year-old’s success. As a teenager Mlotkowski had entered the 1900-01 Franklin Chess Club Championship, the one billed as the championship of champions, as champion of Camden, New Jersey, where he then was living. Kemeny had defeated him. But Mlotkowski’s playing strength had grown, and in the 1903-04 Franklin event, he tied for first with Shipley and Bampton, although the last named won the playoff. In years to come, Mlotkowski continued playing, although he never became a major figure in national chess circles. In February 1910 he won the Pennsylvania State Chess Association championship, and repeated his success the next year. That same year, 1911, he missed winning the Franklin and Philadelphia titles by only half a point, placing second to Charles S. Martinez. In 1912 Mlotkowski won his third consecutive Pennsylvania state title. Later that year he finally won the Franklin Chess Club championship and with it the title of Philadelphia’s champion. Around 1913 Mlotkowski moved to Los Angeles and was active in West Coast chess for years. He eventually returned to New Jersey, where he died in Gloucester City on August 16, 1943. In the game that follows, Mlotkowski’s knight sacrifice on move 13 appears sound, but both players missed better continuations, Mlotkowski once, at his fifteenth move, and Kemeny twice, at both his fifteenth and sixteenth turns. After his sixteenth move, Kemeny might as well have resigned. Reichhelm annotated the game for his North American column, introducing it by saying that “Mlotkowski’s progress in the tourney was a constant succession of razzledazzle maneuvers. When he met Kemeny in the twelfth round, that worthy veteran was doubly careful, so much so, in fact, that on move thirteen the young Philadelphian was enabled to offer a splendid sacrifice of the knight. Mlotkowski speedily won.”

Kemeny–Stasch Mlotkowski [D00] Fifth Western Chess Association Championship, Round 12 St. Louis, October 1904 1. d4 d5 2. e3 Afraid of 2. ... e5 on 2. c4. 2. ... Nf6 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. c3 e5 Kemeny’s been so very careful that Black has neutralized first move. 5. Nd2 Be6 6. Qb3 Qc8 7. Bb5 So that he can play Nf3. 7. ... e¥d4 8. e¥d4 Bd6 9. Ngf3 9. B¥c6+ is worse than useless. 9.  ... 0–0 10.  0–0 Ne7 11.  Bd3 Ng6 12.  Qc2 White’s heavy opening is bearing fruit. Must now unlimber the best he can. 12. ... Nf4 Virtually the game winner. [JSH: Instead: Kemeny’s next move is the game loser.] 13. Nb3 N¥g2 Was this unexpected? It’s in Mlotkowski’s happy style. 14. Ng5 Observe the beautiful plot. Had he taken, 14. K¥g2 Bh3+ 15. Kh1 Bg2+ 16. K¥g2 Qg4+ 17. Kh1 Q¥f3+ 18.  Kg1 Ng4 wins. 14.  ... Bh3 15.  f4 N¥f4 [JSH: Weak;

rDqD-®kD 0p0-Dp0p -D-glh-D D-DpD-D-D-)-h-D DN)LDNDP)QD-)P) $-G-DRIAfter 13. Nb3

286

EMIL KEMENY

much better was 15. ... Nh4, when 16. N¥h3 Qg4+ 17. Kh1 Q¥h3 18. Rf2 Ng4 should win.] 16. R¥f4 If 16. B¥f4, Qg4+. 16. ... B¥f4 17. B¥f4 Qg4+ 18. Kh1 Q¥f4 19. N¥h3 Qf3+ 20. Qg2 Q¥d3 21.  Nc5 Qg6 22.  Qf3 Qg4 23.  Q¥g4 End is easy. 23.  ... N¥g4 24. Kg2 Rfe8 25. Nf4 b6 26. Ncd3 Rad8 27. h3 Ne3+ 28. Kf2 Nc4 29. Rd1 f6 30. Kf3 c6 31. h4 Kf7 32. h5 Re3+ 33. Kg4 g5 34. h¥g6+ h¥g6 35. Nb4 Rc8 [JSH: 35. ... f5+ 36. Kg5 Rg3+ leads to mate but Black has several ways to win.] 36. Nfd3 a5 37. Nc2 Re2 38. Rc1 R¥c2 Black wins readily. If 33. R¥c2, then 33. ... Ne3+. 0–1 (North American, October 6, 1904, with annotations by Reichhelm). In the thirteenth and final round, Kemeny played Edward Schrader of St. Louis. He won a Three Knights’ Game lasting 38 moves. As noted in the Kansas City Star for October 9, 1904, “second place was decided only after the last round had been played, as E. Schrader of St. Louis was defeated by Kemeny of Chicago. This gave Louis Uedemann of Chicago, who was defeated by Daly of Boston, one point the advantage in the total number scored during the tournament.” And, as Mlotkowski was a resident of Pennsylvania at the time (or perhaps a New Jersey player, still, but largely playing out of Philadelphia), and ineligible for the title of Western Chess Association champion, Kemeny’s win over Schrader gave the 1904 title to Uedemann. Kemeny finished tied for fourth and fifth with Daly, at 7–4 with 2 draws. He could not have been particularly pleased with his play, and likely was glad to have another chance immediately to improve his performance. Kemeny had, of course, traveled to St. Louis mainly to play in the Seventh American Chess Congress, which began shortly thereafter, on October 11, 1904. Five of the Western’s competitors participated: Kemeny, Schrader, Shrader, Mlotkowski and Uedemann. They were joined by Louis Eisenberg of Chicago, Max Judd of St. Louis, and a trio of players making the trip from Brooklyn that included the young George J. Schwietzer, Charles Jaffe and the hero of Cambridge Springs, Frank Marshall. The composition for the long-anticipated St. Louis tournament was uncertain until shortly before play began. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle for October 9 expected Jackson Showalter to make an appearance, but he did not play. The players were to determine the final regulations for the event on October 10. Games would be held daily at the Missouri Athletic Club, Washington Avenue and Fourth Street, where the Western had also been held. The facility had opened its doors only the year before, and boasted not only a swimming pool but a bowling alley as well as other more accustomed amenities. Max Judd had been the driving force behind the congress, as he had long been a booster of Western and especially St. Louis chess. Judd was aided by several members of the St. Louis Chess Club, including Ben Foster, long-time chess columnist for the St. Louis GlobeDemocrat. The prizes were $500 for first, $300 for second, $150 for third, $100 for fourth, and $50 for fifth. The tournament included a draw replay rule, which required competitors who drew their games to play a second one, and to divide the point only if the second game was drawn as well. Later, the November 1904 American Chess Bulletin remarked that it was a “deplorable rule, compelling contestants who drew to play a supplementary game, no matter how praiseworthy the first effort may have been.” The Bulletin did, however, compliment the management for its “complete success” with the tournament. As it happened, the player’s meeting did not take place until the morning of October 11, just before play began that afternoon. There “it was decided to hold a tournament of one round, but to replay all drawn games. In case of a second draw between any two players, each will be credited with half a point. A round will be played every day, except Saturday of this week, and Thursday, October 20, these being set aside for the replaying of drawn games and the finishing of adjourned positions. The time limit agreed upon is thirty moves for the first two hours and fifteen moves an hour thereafter. The Berger system of pairing was selected,

10. St. Louis and Chicago

287

but the actual order of each round will not be known until lot decides the question on the morning of each play day. Thus the players are kept in ignorance of their opponents until the last moment. ... The hours of play are from 1 P.M. until 6 P.M., and from 8 P.M. to 11 P.M. Yesterday the games did not start until 3 o’clock” (Brooklyn Eagle, October 12, 1904). In the first round, Kemeny took revenge on last week’s hero, Mlotkowski. The latter had a reversal of form after his surprising victory the week before. As Helms described it, the veteran Kemeny “turned the tables on that young champion and scored in a Center counter gambit after 53 moves.” A paragraph about Mlotkowski appeared in the Eagle for October 16, 1904, along with the game score: “Young Mlotkowski, who since he joined the Franklin Chess Club five years ago, has been steadily forging to the front, was born at Clifton Heights, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, on March 10, 1881, but has been a resident of Camden, New Jersey, for the past fourteen years. He graduated from public school at the age of twelve and then began a business course at the Pierce School in Philadelphia. About the same time he started in the study of chess, having been taught the rudiments by his father, a fairly strong player. His style of play is on the brilliant order and a fondness for gambits assures plenty of excitement to most of his encounters. Mlotkowski’s parents are both Philadelphians by birth, his mother’s family being American and his father’s of Polish extraction.” Mlotkowski misses a drawing line in the game.

Kemeny–Stasch Mlotkowski [C40] Seventh American Chess Congress, Round 1 St. Louis, Missouri, October 11, 1904 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. d4 f¥e4 4. N¥e5 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nc4 Be7 7. Ne3 0–0 8. d5 Qe8 9. Qd4 Qg6 10. Bd2 Nbd7 11. 0–0–0 Ne5 12. Be2 Bd7 13. f3 e¥f3 14.  g¥f3 Nh5 15.  Rhg1 Qf7 16.  Ng4 B¥g4 17.  f¥g4 Nf4 18.  B¥f4 Q¥f4+ 19.  Q¥f4 R¥f4 20.  Rdf1 Raf8 21.  R¥f4 R¥f4 22.  g5 g6 23.  Kd2 Rf2 24.  Ke3 R¥h2 25. Ne4 Kg7 26. c4 Rh3+ 27. Kd4 c5+ 28. d¥c6 N¥c6+ 29. Kd5 Nb4+ [JSH: Stronger is 29.  ... Re3.] 30.  Ke6 Re3 31.  Bf3 R¥f3 32. K¥e7 Re3 33. Rg4 h6 34. g¥h6+ K¥h6 35. K¥d6 N¥a2 -D-D-D-D 36.  Nc5 Kh5 37.  Rg2 b6 38.  Ne6 Re4 39.  Kd5 Rg4 0-D-D-D40. Rh2+ Rh4 41. Nf4+ Kg5 42. R¥h4 K¥h4 43. N¥g6+ -0NI-D-D Kg4 44. Ne7 Nb4+ 45. Kd6 Kf3 46. Nc6 N¥c6 [JSH: A deluD-D-D-Dsion, apparently; Black can not hold the draw in the king and pawn endgame and should have played 46. ... Nd3, with a line like the fol- -hPD-D-D lowing to split the point: 47.  b3 Ke4 48.  N¥a7 Nc5 49.  b4 Nd3 D-D-DkD50.  Nc6 N¥b4! 51.  N¥b4 Kd4.] 47.  K¥c6 Ke4 48.  b4 a5 -)-D-D-D 49. b¥a5 b¥a5 50. Kb5 Ke5 51. K¥a5 Kd6 52. Kb6 Kd7 D-D-D-D53. c5 1–0 (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, October 16, 1904; American Chess After 46. Nc6 Bulletin, November 1904, page 112). The next day Kemeny played Charles Jaffe, then 25 and seeking to make a name for himself in United States chess. Jaffe had tied for first place with Leo Pelz in the 1901 General Tournament contested in conjunction with the NYSCA championship tourney, held on Washington’s Birthday that year and reported in the Eagle February 23, 1901, but he was little known even locally then. Jaffe was active in New York chess, competing in many tournaments during the period 1911–1917. Even earlier in his career, Jaffe showed great promise; in February 1909 he lost a short match to Marshall 4–2 with 3 draws.

288

EMIL KEMENY

In his game against Jaffe, Kemeny benefited when his young opponent went wrong just out of the opening. The Eagle for October 23 published the game, calling it “a capital specimen” won by Kemeny.

Kemeny–Charles Jaffe [B45] Seventh American Chess Congress, Round 2 St. Louis, Missouri, October 12, 1904 1. e4 c5 2. d4 c¥d4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. N¥d4 e6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bd3 d5 8. f3 d¥e4 9. N¥c6 b¥c6 10. B¥e4 Q¥d1+ 11. R¥d1 Nd5 12. Kf2 f5 13. B¥d5 e¥d5 14.  Ne2 Bd7 15.  Nf4 Bd6 16.  Rhe1 Kf7 17.  N¥d5! rD-D-D-® c¥d5 18. R¥d5 Ke6 19. Red1 B¥h2 20. R¥d7 Be5 21. f4 Bb8 22. R¥g7 Bd6 23. c4 a5 24. c5 Be7 25. Re1 Rhe8 0-DlDk0p 26. Bd2+ Kd7 27.  Bc3 Kd8 [JSH: Allowing White to quickly -Dpg-D-D realize his advantage.] 28. Re¥e7 R¥e7 29. Bf6 Raa7 30. Rg8+ D-DpDpD- Kd7 31. B¥e7 1–0 (American Chess Bulletin, November 1904, page -D-D-H-D 113).

D-D-GPDP)PD-IP) D-DR$-D-

For a brief moment, Kemeny and Marshall, the latter the clear favorite, led the field at 2–0. Round three brought Kemeny up against a living legend in what passed for “Western” chess in the After 16. ... Kf7 late Nineteenth Century: Max Judd. Judd had been involved in chess for well over thirty years. While a young man living first in Detroit and then shortly thereafter in Cleveland, he had been instrumental in organizing and promoting the Second American Chess Congress in 1871, and had played in every American congress since. His chess activities are too numerous to list here, although highlights include matches with Mackenzie, Showalter and Hodges. He long advocated for chess away from the East Coast. As late as the year before this tournament, in 1903, he had won the Western Chess Association championship, held in Chicago, with the playoff in St. Louis, over Johnston and Uedemann. Judd died within two years of playing Kemeny, and with his passing the nation lost a strong player and supporter of the game. Why Kemeny did not resign the following game 25 moves or more before he did is a mystery.

Max Judd–Kemeny [C63] Seventh American Chess Congress, Round 3 St. Louis, Missouri, October 13, 1904 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  Bb5 f5 4.  Qe2 This is the classical continuation of the attack, centuries old; but Dr. Lasker, in his new magazine, just out, maintains that it is inferior to 4. Nc3, and remarks: “White’s strategy should be to bring all his force into play as rapidly as possibly done, provided no material is sacrificed. He should consequently, beyond question or doubt, move 4.  Nc3. Black has now two lines of play open to him, namely 4.  ... Nf6 or 4. ... f¥e4; if the first, there occurs 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Qe2 f¥e4 6. N¥e4 Be7 7. N¥f6+ g¥f6 8. B¥c6 d¥c6 etc.” 4.  ... f¥e4 5.  B¥c6 d¥c6 6.  Q¥e4 Bd6 7.  N¥e5 Nf6 8.  Qe2 B¥e5 A variant from the “books,” but the novelty does not seem seaworthy. The recognized

10. St. Louis and Chicago

289

continuation is 8.  ... 0–0 9.  d4 whereafter Black may fairly count upon his much superior development as an offset for his practically sacrificed gambit pawn. 9. Q¥e5+ Kf7 10. 0– 0 The coup juste that seems quite to invalidate Black’s experiment. 10.  ... Re8 11.  Qg3 Bf5 12.  d3 Re2 13.  Na3 Qe7 The sequence of the preceding move as part of a pretty scheme: but apparently an actual miscalculation, which, thus early, costs the exchange, and, with his pawn minus already, practically the game. 13. ... Re6, followed by 14. ... h6 (or 14. ... Qd7) appears imperative. 14.  Be3 Bg6 15.  Rac1 Kg8 16.  Nb1 R¥c2 17.  R¥c2 B¥d3 18. Rcc1 Simply but soundly effective, as leaving White with a safe winning superiority. 18.  ... B¥f1 19.  R¥f1 Rd8 20.  Bg5 Kf8 21.  Nc3 Rd6 22. f3 Qd7 23. B¥f6 g¥f6 24. Re1 b5 25. Qf4 Kg7 rD-D-DkD 26. Qe4 a5 27. Qe7+ Kg6 28. Q¥d7 R¥d7 Black might, we think, have foreseen the inevitable and resigned with good grace 0p0-1-0p hereabout. 29. Kf2 Kf7 30. g4 Rd4 31. h4 b4 32. Ke3 Rc4 -DpD-h-D 33. Ne4 Rc2 34.  Re2 Rc1 35.  Nf2 c5 36.  Nd3 Rh1 D-D-D-D37. N¥c5 R¥h4 38. Nb7 f5 39. g¥f5 Kf6 40. N¥a5 K¥f5 -D-D-D-D 41. Rc2 Ke5 42.  R¥c7 Rh2 43.  Rb7 h5 44.  R¥b4 h4 D-DlG-!45. Nc4+ Kd5 46.  Nd2 h3 47.  Rb5+ Kc6 48.  Rh5 P)RD-)P) Rh1 49. Kf2 Rd1 50. Nf1 Rb1 51. b3 Rb2+ 52. Kg3 R¥a2 DND-DRI53. b4 Rg2+ 54.  K¥h3 1–0 (Pittsburg Dispatch, December 5, 1904, with annotations attributed to the New Orleans Times-Democrat, After 17. ... B¥d3 undated). The tournament rules required drawn games to be replayed once, and so the game that follows against Edward Schrader meant the two men played again. The St. Louis expert, Schrader, probably had seen much too much of Kemeny by the tournament’s end. Not only did his subsequent loss to Kemeny eventually cost Schrader a prize, but his loss to Kemeny in the Western the week before cost him that title. Schrader was a force in the early Westerns. At Chicago, the year before, he finished 13–4, tied for fourth and fifth with E. P. Elliott, behind Judd, Johnston and Uedemann. At Excelsior 1905, he would win the tournament with a score of 131 ⁄ 2–31 ⁄ 2. This game was a blow to Schrader. He should have won it, more than once.

Kemeny–Edward F. Schrader[C13] Seventh American Chess Congress, Round 4 St. Louis, Missouri, October 14, 1904 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. B¥f6 B¥f6 6. Nf3 0–0 7.  e5 Be7 8.  Bd3 c5 9.  h4 c¥d4 10.  B¥h7+ [JSH: A standard sacrifice but unwarranted here; Black should win.] 10. ... K¥h7 11. Ng5+ Kh6 12. Qd3 g6 13. Ne2 Kg7 14. f4 Rh8 [JSH: Black has already missed better lines but here he could have ended resistance quickly enough by 14. ... Qa5+ and if 15. Kf2, Qb6 makes White pay for capturing on d4: 16.  N¥d4 Nc6 17. c3 Q¥b2+ 18. Kg3 N¥d4 19. c¥d4 Qa3 and wins.] 15. 0– 0–0 Nc6 16.  N¥d4 N¥d4 17.  Q¥d4 Qb6 18.  Qd3 Bd7 19. h5 B¥g5 20.  f¥g5 g¥h5 21.  Rdf1 Bb5 22.  Qf3 B¥f1 23. R¥f1 Raf8 24.  Qf6+ Kh7 25.  Qe7 Qe3+ 26.  Kd1

rhl1-®-D 0pD-gpi-D-DpDpD D-Dp)-H-D-0-)-) D-DQD-DP)PDNDPD $-D-I-DR After 14. f4

290

-D-D-®-® 0pD-!pDk -D-DpD-D D-Dp)-)p -D-D-D-D D-D-1-DP)PD-DPD D-DKDRD-

EMIL KEMENY Q¥e5? 27. R¥f7+ R¥f7? 28. Q¥f7+ Qg7 29. Q¥h5+ Kg8 30. Qe8+ Qf8 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (American Chess Bulletin, November 1904, page 114). Although the replay game for round four was not played for six more days, it is given here for simplicity, as under the rules of the tournament it stood as the result between the two men. Schrader’s king is exposed in a heavy piece endgame where Kemeny had all the play.

After 26. Kd1

Edward F. Schrader–Kemeny [C54] Seventh American Chess Congress, Round 4 Replay St. Louis, Missouri, October 20, 1904 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. Be3 Bb6 7. Nbd2 Ne7 8. d4 Ng6 9. Qb3 0–0 10. h4 Qe7 11. 0–0–0 Bg4 12. Rdg1 h6 13. Nh2 Bd7 14. g4 e¥d4 15. c¥d4 N¥e4 16. Ndf3 c5 17. d5 Ne5 18. N¥e5 d¥e5 19. g5 h5 20. g6 Nd6 21. g¥f7+ R¥f7 22. Rg5 Rf5 23. Rg6 Be8 24. Re6 Qd7 25. Rg1 Kh7 26. f3 Bf7 27. Bd3 g6 28. B¥f5 N¥f5 29. R¥e5 c4 30. Qa3 B¥e3+ 31. R¥e3 N¥e3 32.  Q¥e3 Rc8 33.  Rd1 c3 34.  b¥c3 Qd6 35.  Rd2 -D-D-D-D Qa3+ 36. Kd1 R¥c3 37. Qf4 Qc1+ 38. Ke2 B¥d5 39. Qg5 40.  Kf2 Rc5 41.  Qe3 Qc4 42.  f4 Rf5 43.  Kg3 Bd5 0pD-DrDk Bf7 44. a3 Rf7 45.  Rd4 Qc5 46.  Qd2 Bc6 47.  Qd3 Qc1 -DlD-DpD 48. Nf3 B¥f3 49. K¥f3 Qh1+ 50. Kg3 Qg1+ 51. Kf3 Qg4+ D-1-D-Dp 52. Ke3 Q¥h4 53. Kd2 Qf2+ 54. Kc3 Qe1+ 55. Kb3 Re7 -D-$-)-) 56. Kc4 Qc1+ 57. Kb4 Qb2+ 58. Kc4 Re6 59. Rd6 Qf6 )-DQD-I- 60. Rd7+ Kh6 61.  R¥b7 Rc6+ 62.  Kb3 Qe6+ 63.  Kb2 -D-D-D-H Rd6 64. Qc3 Qe2+ 65. Ka1 Rd1+ 66. Rb1 R¥b1+ 67. K¥b1 D-D-D-D- Qe4+ 68.  Ka2 Q¥f4 69.  Qh8+ Kg5 70.  Qd8+ Kg4 71. Qd7+ Kg3 72.  Qd3+ Kh2 73.  Qc2+ Kh3 74.  Q¥g6 After 47. Qd3 Qf2+ 0–1 (American Chess Bulletin, November 1904, page 114). At the time this game was played Frank Marshall was the strongest chess player in the United States, having won Cambridge Springs 1904 earlier in the year with a score of 13–2, two full points ahead of Janowski and Lasker. The tournament announced a new order in American chess, effectively marking the passing of Pillsbury’s dominance and the beginning of Marshall’s ascendancy. At St. Louis only Mlotkowski was able to manage two draws against Marshall, thus gaining a very hard-earned half point from the tournament winner. The annotations below are by Marshall, who annotated all his St. Louis games for the American Chess Bulletin. The Eagle for October 18, 1904, added that “Frank J. Marshall of Brooklyn made it five straight in the masters tournament of the Seventh American Chess Congress last night by defeating Emil Kemeny, of Chicago, once aspirant for United States championship honors, after a hard fought game, lasting in all seven hours. Kemeny had the move and played a Four Knights opening. For a long time the ex-Philadelphian held Marshall at bay, but at length the latter wrested a pawn from him. Kemeny did his best to stave off defeat, but to no purpose, and resigned eventually after 48 moves.”

10. St. Louis and Chicago

291

Kemeny–Frank James Marshall [C48] Seventh American Chess Congress, Round 5 St. Louis, Missouri, October 17, 1904 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  Nc3 Nf6 4.  Bb5 Bc5 5.  N¥e5 Nd4 This move was played by me against both Maróczy and Schlechter at Monte Carlo, each game resulting in a draw. 6. Ba4 Maróczy gives 6. Be2 as best here. The text move loses time. 6. ... 0–0 7. Nd3 Although this move was once recommended by Lipschütz, I cannot believe that White’s game is worth the pawn extra. 7. ... Bb6 8. e5 Ne8 9. 0–0 f6 10. Kh1 f¥e5 11. N¥e5 d6 Probably 11. ... Qh4 at once was better. 12. Nc4 Qh4 13. N¥b6 a¥b6 14. d3 Nf6 My original idea was 14.  ... Ra5 but White replies 15.  B¥e8 R¥e8 16.  Re1 etc. 15.  f3 R¥a4 16. N¥a4 Nf5 17. Nc3 Ng3+ 18. Kg1 N¥f1 19. Q¥f1 Ng4 20. h3 Ne5 21. Qf2 Qh5 22. Qg3 N¥f3+ White could not very well avoid this sacrifice. 23. g¥f3 R¥f3 24.  Qg5 Q¥g5+ Not half as good as 24.  ... -DlD-®kD Q¥h3 25. Bf4 (best) 25. ... h6 26. Qd8+ Kh7 27. Bh2 Qg4+ 28. Kh1 Dp0-D-0p Rf2 etc. 25.  B¥g5 Rg3+ 26.  Kf2 R¥g5 Being a pawn ahead. Black can win the ending with ordinary care. 27. h4 Rg4 28. Re1 -0-0-D-D Kf7 29.  Re4 R¥e4 30.  d¥e4 c6 31.  b4 b5 32.  a4 b¥a4 D-D-h-Dq 33. N¥a4 b5 34.  Nb2 Be6 35.  Nd3 Kf6 36.  Ke3 g5 -D-D-D-D 37. h¥g5+ K¥g5 38. Nf4 Ba2 39. Ne2 Be6 40. Nd4 Bd7 D-HPDP!P 41. Nf3+ Kf6 42.  Kf4 h5 43.  e5+ d¥e5+ 44.  N¥e5 Ke6 P)PD-DPD 45. c4 h4 46. c¥b5 c¥b5 47. Nd3 Kd5 48. Ne5 h3 0–1 $-G-D-I(American Chess Bulletin, November 1904, page 108, with annotations After 22. Qg3 by Marshall). Louis Uedemann, Kemeny’s fellow Chicagoan, had won the Western Chess Association championship in 1900 (when still known as the “Northwestern Chess Association”) and 1902, and would be awarded the title here, in 1904, as Mlotkowski was not eligible to hold it. When Uedemann died in 1913, Harry F. Lee, another long-time Chicago chess player, penned a tribute to Uedemann published in the February 1913 American Chess Bulletin, pages 28–29. In part he remarked that Uedemann “was always cool, calm, methodical, somewhat slow in his movements, never excited about anything. His ‘German thoroughness’ is seen in his chess library, where he has classified and indexed thousands of newspaper clippings... . For over thirty years Uedemann was one of the strongest players in the country. He won first prize three times in the tournaments of the Western Chess Association; several times won the championship of The Chicago Club, and was first numerous times at the Illinois Association’s annual one-day tournaments.” Kemeny’s initial game with Uedemann was quickly drawn:

Louis Uedemann–Kemeny [C63] Seventh American Chess Congress, Round 6 St. Louis, Missouri, October 18, 1904 1. e4 e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3.  Bb5 f5 4.  Qe2 f¥e4 5.  B¥c6 d¥c6 6.  Q¥e4 Bd6 7. N¥e5 Nf6 8. Qe2 0–0 9. d4 Re8 10. Bg5 c5 11. 0–0 c¥d4 12. f4 Be6 13. Nd2 c5 14. Rae1 Qc7 15. b3 Nd5 16. Ndc4 B¥e5 17. Q¥e5 Q¥e5 18. R¥e5 h6 19. Bh4 Bf7 20. Nd6 R¥e5 21. f¥e5 Bg6 22. N¥b7 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (American Chess Bulletin, November 1904, page 116).

292

EMIL KEMENY

Several days later Kemeny lost the replay game, and thus the round’s full point. He committed a blunder, but Uedemann soon gave him an escape. Even then he failed to find his way. As Clarence S. Howell, the annotator of the game, suggested, Kemeny was in poor form at St. Louis. Hardly surprising for someone absent from competitive chess for over two years.

Kemeny–Louis Uedemann [A40] Seventh American Chess Congress, Round 6 Replay St. Louis, Missouri, October 22, 1904 1. d4 e6 An evasion which the writer has tried repeatedly but always unsuccessfully. White can now force Black into a French Defense or a choice of Dutch or Queen’s Gambit Declined. 2. Nf3 b6 3. e4 Bb7 4. Bd3 d5 5. e¥d5 5. e5 certainly seems preferable. Black’s chief weakness in the French is the impossibility of developing his queen bishop and White is kind to solve this difficulty for his opponent. 5. ... B¥d5 6. 0–0 Nf6 7. Nc3 c4 should precede the development of the knight. 7. ... Bb7 8. Bg5 Be7 9. Qe2 0–0 10. Rad1 Nbd7 11. Ne5 h6 12. N¥d7 Q¥d7 13. B¥f6 B¥f6 14. Ne4 Be7 15. c3 Rad8 The exchange of pieces beginning with 12. N¥d7 was an accommodation to Black who has now secured a very good game, having two strongly placed bishops for bishop and knight and a generally satisfactory position. The attack which follows is futile and only exhausts White’s resources. Having handled the opening indifferently, White should prepare to defend, for Black is sure to get an attack and forcing the latter to clear his king and king bishop files is practically suicidal. 16. f4 g6 17. Ng3 Bf6 18. Qg4 Bg7 19. f5 e¥f5 20. B¥f5 Qd6 It is by no means clear that White would have won in answer to 20. ... g¥f5, but he would have secured some attack and at least two pawns for his piece and as Black has some attack in prospect, it was good judgment to play safe. 21. Bc2 f5 The reaction; Black gets his inning now and it is practically all over. 22.  Qe2 Rde8 23.  Qd2 f4 24.  Ne2 24. Nh1 might have stemmed the tide longer. 24. ... f3 25. g¥f3 R¥f3 26. Nf4 g5 27. Ng2 [JSH: A blunder; after this move Black is winning. White should exchange rooks and set about defending on the weak white squares: 27. R¥f3 B¥f3 28. Rf1 Bb7 29. Nh5 Qc6 30.  Ng3 Re3 31.  Qf2.] 27.  ... Rh3 28.  Ne1 Rhe3 [JSH: -D-DrDkD Returning the favor; much clearer is 28. ... R¥e1! 29. Rf¥e1 Rg3+! 0l0-D-g- 30. Kf1 (30. h¥g3? Q¥g3+ with mate in four) 30. ... Qf8+ 31. Qf2 -0-1-D-0 Ba6+ 32. Re2 Rf3 etc.] 29. Rf2 Kh8 30. d5 [JSH: 30. Bf5.] 30. ... D-D-D-0- Qc5 31. Kg2 Ba6 32. b4 Qd6 33. Bb1 This seems like taking -D-)-H-D a cough mixture to cure appendicitis, but the position is hopeless. D-)-DrD- 33. ... B¥c3, winning queen, threatens. If 33. Bd3, Q¥d5+ wins at P)L!-D-) least a piece and if 33.  Nd3 Q¥d5+ 34.  Kg1 Bb7 35.  Rg2 Re2! D-DRDRI- 33. ... Re2 A good example of Mr. Uedemann’s play. Mr. Kemeny was probably not in his best form at St. Louis. In this game he suffers the penalty for a poor opening. 0–1 (American Chess BulAfter 26. ... g5 letin, November 1904, page 110, with annotations by Clarence S. Howell). Dr. Eugene Wesley Shrader, 31 at the time of the congress, was a resident of Moberly, Missouri. He was outclassed in the tournament, finishing 0–9. The game that follows suggests why. The Eagle mentioned on October 20, 1904, that “Kemeny easily defeated Dr. Shrader in a Scotch gambit after 41 moves.”

10. St. Louis and Chicago

293

Kemeny–Dr. Eugene Wesley Shrader [C44] Seventh American Chess Congress, Round 7 St. Louis, Missouri, October 19, 1904 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 e¥d4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. c3 d¥c3 6. 0–0 Nf6 7. N¥c3 d6 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bh4 Be6 10. Nd5 Ne5?? [JSH: 10. ... g5 11. Bg3 N¥e4 with significant advantage for Black. The text move is a disaster, rD-1kD-® as the game shows.] 11. N¥f6+ g¥f6 12. B¥e6 f¥e6 13. N¥e5 d¥e5 14.  Q¥d8+ K¥d8 15.  B¥f6+ Kd7 16.  Rad1+ Kc6 0p0-Dp017. B¥h8 R¥h8 18.  Rd2 Bd4 19.  Rc1+ Kb6 20.  Kf1 c5 -Dn0lh-0 21. Ke2 Kb5 22. b3 Kb4 23. Rc4+ Kb5 24. Rd3 Rf8 [JSH: D-gND-DBlack is about to let White simplify the position, easing Kemeny’s -DLDPD-G task.] 25. Rf3 Rf4 26. R¥f4 e¥f4 27. g3 f¥g3 28. f¥g3 Kc6 D-D-DND29. h4 b5 30.  Rc2 a5 31.  Kd3 Be5 32.  g4 Bg3 33.  g5 P)-D-)P) h¥g5 34.  h¥g5 Be5 35.  Rf2 c4+ 36.  b¥c4 b4 37.  g6 a4 $-DQDRI38. Rf7 b3 39. a¥b3 a¥b3 40. g7 b2 41. Kc2 1–0 (American Chess Bulletin, November 1904, page 117). After 10. Nd5 Little is known about Chicago’s Louis Eisenberg. William Ewart Napier played Eisenberg at Monte Carlo 1902. He also played two draws with him in this country, published in Napier’s Pittsburg Dispatch column. Napier wrote that “Mr. Eisenberg was born in Odessa in 1876 and after graduating from Nicholas College pursued journalism until, in 1902, he journeyed to Monte Carlo to participate in the international masters’ tournament played there under the auspices of the Cercle des Etrangers. His victory on this occasion over Pillsbury, the American Champion, was his best effort. Coming from within a few hours ride of Kishinev, Mr. Eisenberg is naturally well informed on the subject of the recent disturbances there and in this connection was interviewed in Chicago and his opinions given wide publicity. Like most of his countrymen of the educated class he is a splendid linguist, speaking seven languages. As Mr. Eisenberg is a full citizen of the United States he will be eligible for all national events, and we are much mistaken if affairs chessical do not enjoy a notable enlivenment so long as he remains in our midst” (Pittsburg Dispatch, August 4, 1904). One of Napier’s draws with Eisenberg: Louis Eisenberg–William Ewart Napier [C43], East End Chess Club, Pittsburg, 1903. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 N¥e4 4. N¥e5 d5 Possibly not so good as 4. ... d6. 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. 0–0 0–0 7. B¥e4 d¥e4 8. Qe2 Nc6 Offering a pawn for the greater freedom of the bishops. 9. Q¥e4 Qe7 10. f4 Too greedy; Black should return the pawn without more ado. 10. ... N¥d4! 11. Be3 Nf5 12. Bf2! f6 Thinking to win a piece, which, however, is cleverly frustrated by White’s rejoinder. 13. Re1 f¥e5 14. f¥e5 Qf7 We question if there is a better move. 14. ... Bb4 is answered, of course, by 15.  c3. Play as Black may the piece is lost. 15.  e¥d6 N¥d6 16.  Qh4 Bf5 17. Re7 Qg6 18. Nd2 Bg4 Threatening 19. ... Nf5, winning the queen. Here again Black expected to win a piece by his nineteenth move. 19. Qg3 Qg5 20. R¥c7! 20. ... Nf5 If 20. ... Q¥d2 21. R¥g7+ K¥g7 22. Q¥g4+ Kf7 23. Rf1 etc. 21.  Qc3 Rae8 22.  Nf3 B¥f3 23. Q¥f3 Nd4 24. Q¥f8+ K¥f8 25. B¥d4 Re2 26. Rf1+ Ke8 27. R¥g7 R¥g2+ It is possible Black had done better to keep his queen; but the text leads to a game that can scarcely be won by White, though he has a pawn more. 28. Kh1 Q¥g7 29. B¥g7 R¥g7 30. h3 Kd7 31.  Rf2 Kc6 32.  Kh2 Kc5 33.  Rd2 b5 34.  h4 a5 35.  Kh3 Re7 36. Kg4 Re1 37. a3 Rb1 38. b4+ a¥b4 39. a¥b4+ R¥b4+ 40. Kg5 Rd4 41. Rf2 Kc4 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Pittsburg Dispatch, August 10, 1903, with annotations by Napier). Kemeny’s initial game with Eisenberg was a draw.

294

EMIL KEMENY

Louis R. Eisenberg–Kemeny [C63] Seventh American Chess Congress, Round 8 St. Louis, Missouri, October 21, 1904

-D-D-®-D D-0kD-D-D-0-D-0 !-0-0-1-DPDPDpD DPD-DPD-DPD-DP) D-D-DRIAfter 23. ... Qg5

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. d3 f¥e4 5. d¥e4 Nf6 6. Nc3 Bb4 7. 0–0 B¥c3 8. b¥c3 d6 9. Qd3 Qe7 10. Bg5 Be6 11.  Nd2 h6 12.  B¥f6 Q¥f6 13.  B¥c6+ b¥c6 14.  Qa6 Kd7 15. Nb3 B¥b3 16. a¥b3 Rhb8 17. Qd3 a5 18. Ra4 Rf8 19. f3 g5 20. c4 c5 21. Qd2 g4 22. R¥a5 R¥a5 23. Q¥a5 Qg5 24. Qc3 g¥f3 25. R¥f3 R¥f3 26. Q¥f3 Qc1+ 27. Kf2 Q¥c2+ 28.  Kg3 Kc6 29.  Kg4 Kb6 30.  Kh5 Qd2 31.  h4 Ka5 32. Kg6 Kb4 33. Kf5 Qe1 34. g3 Qb1 35. Qe3 Qd1 36. g4 Qf1+ 37.  Kg6 Qf4 38.  Qe2 K¥b3 39.  g5 h¥g5 40. h¥g5 Qf8 41. Kh7 Qe7+ 42. Kh6 Qf8+ 43. Kh7 Qf7+ 1⁄ 2 1⁄ 2 – (American Chess Bulletin, November 1904, page 117).

Little happened in the first 40 moves of the replay, and a draw might easily have been the most natural conclusion. Black, however, managed to lock his own rook in, but then in giving up the exchange he obtained an outside passed pawn. Black ended up with a bishop against a rook, and after a great deal of maneuvering, White won the pawn and Black resigned.

Kemeny–Louis R. Eisenberg [D53] Seventh American Chess Congress, Round 8 Replay St. Louis, Missouri, October 1904 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. e3 c6 7. Be2 0– 0 8. 0–0 Ne8 9. B¥e7 Q¥e7 10. e4 d¥e4 11. N¥e4 f5 12. Nc3 e5 13. d¥e5 N¥e5 14. Qd4 N¥f3+ 15. B¥f3 Qf6 16. Rad1 Q¥d4 17. R¥d4 Nc7 18. b3 Be6 19. Rfd1 Rae8 20. Na4 Bc8 21. Rd6 Re5 22. Kf1 Ne6 23. Be2 Nf4 24. Nc3 Rfe8 25. Bf3 Kf7 26.  g3 Ne6 27.  Be2 Nc5 28.  f3 Re3 29.  Rc1 Ke7 Rd2 Rd8 31.  R¥d8 K¥d8 32.  b4 Nd7 33.  Kf2 Re7 -D-D-D-D 30. 34. Rd1 Kc7 35. a4 Nf6 36. a5 b6 37. a¥b6+ a¥b6 38. c5 D-inD-0p b¥c5 39. b¥c5 Re5 40. Na4 Be6 41. Rb1 Nd7 42. f4 Re4 -DpDlD-D 43. Nc3 N¥c5 [JSH: 43.  ... Rd4 44.  Ke3.] 44.  N¥e4 N¥e4+ D-)-DpD- 45. Ke3 Nc3 46.  Ra1 N¥e2 47.  K¥e2 Kd6 48.  Ra7 Bd7 -D-Dr)-D 49. Kd3 h6 50.  Ra8 Ke7 51.  Kd4 Ke6 52.  Kc5 Ke7 D-H-D-)- 53. Ra7 Ke6 54. Ra1 Be8 55. Re1+ Kd7 56. Re5 g6 57. Re1 -D-DLI-) Bf7 58. Ra1 Bd5 59. Ra7+ Ke6 60. Rg7 Kf6 61. Rh7 h5 DRD-D-D- 62. Kd6 Bf3 63.  Re7 Be4 64.  h4 Bd5 65.  Re5 Be4 66. Re6+ Kf7 67.  Ke5 c5 68.  Ra6 c4 69.  Ra7+ Ke8 After 42. Nc3 70. Rc7 Kd8 71. R¥c4 1–0 (American Chess Bulletin, November 1904, page 117). While Kemeny was busy losing his last round game against George Schweitzer, despite at one point having five pawns for a knight, Uedemann won his game against Schrader, thereby passing Kemeny for third prize and costing him another $50 in prize money.

10. St. Louis and Chicago

295

George J. Schweitzer–Kemeny [C63] Seventh American Chess Congress, Round 9 St. Louis, Missouri, October 25, 1904 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. d3 This has been called the best move against the 3. ... f5 defense, but we respectfully dissent. It was never in the nature of things for White to play a defense in the opening. The move is undoubtedly safe, so far as at present analyzed, but unenterprising and shifting the value of dictation as to play to Black. 4. d4 is the natural move. 4. ... f¥e4 5. d¥e4 Nf6 6. 0–0 d6 7. Nc3 Bg4 8. Bg5 Be7 9. B¥f6 B¥f6 10. Qd5 Qd7 11. Rad1 Be6 12. Qd2 0–0 13. Nd5 Qf7 14. Bc4 Rae8 15. Bb3 h6 16. N¥f6+ Q¥f6 17. Rfe1 B¥b3 18. a¥b3 Kh7 19. b4 Ne7 20. b5 Ng6 21. c4 Nf4 22. Re3 Qg6 23. Ne1 Re7 24. b3 Ref7 25. Ra1 Qg5 26. Ra2 Rf6 Black should have watched his queenside. The loss of the pawn tells in the end. 27. Rg3 Qh5 28. f3 Qf7 29. R¥a7 b6 30. Nd3 Ne6 31. Nb4 Nd4 32. Nd5 R¥f3 An unsound continuation which simply leaves him a piece short. 33. g¥f3 N¥f3+ 34. R¥f3 Q¥f3 35. Ne3 Rf4 36.  Ra1 R¥e4 37.  Re1 Qf4 38.  Qf2 Qg5+ 39.  Qg3 Qf6 40.  Nd5 R¥e1+ 41. Q¥e1 Qg6+ 42. Kh1 Qf5 43. Kg2 Qg4+ 44. Qg3 Qe2+ 45. Kg1 Qd1+ 46. Kf2 Qc2+ 47. Kf3 Qf5+ 48. Ke3 Qc2 49. Qf3 Q¥b3+ 50. Ke4 Q¥c4+ 51. Kf5 Q¥b5 52. Ke6 Qe8+ 53.  Ne7 Black has five pawns for the piece but is in an embarrassing position. White’s judgment in running away from perpetual check at the expense of his pawns seems to have been good, as he now has an excellent winning chance owing to the fine position of his knight. 53. ... c6 This results in serious loss but he hasn’t many moves. 53. ... b5 looks better, however. The position is curious. White’s object is to exhaust Black’s moves and thus force him to give up pawns. 54. K¥d6 Qd8+ 55. Ke6 Qe8 56. Qf5+ g6 57. Q¥e5 c5 58. Qc7 Kg7 59.  Qf4 g5 60.  Qf6+ Kh7 61.  Kd6 c4 62.  Qf5+ Kg7 63.  Qe5+ Kh7 64.  Qe4+ Kg7 65.  Qd4+ Kh7 66.  Q¥c4 Qf8 67.  Qe4+ -D-DqD-D -D-DQD-D Kg7 68.  Qg6+ Kh8 69.  Kd7 D-0-D-0k D-D-D-iq Qg7 70. Q¥b6 h5 71. Qb8+ Kh7 -0-0KD-0 -D-DKD-D 72. Ke6 g4 73.  Qb1+ Kh8 D-D-DND74. Qg6 White’s handling of the D-DN0-D-D-D-Dp0 ending is fine. After removing Black’s -D-D-D-D D-D-D-Dsurplus pawns, he now invites an D-D-DQDexchange of queens, having the single -D-D-D-) -D-D-D-) pawn necessary to win. If 74.  Qg6 D-D-D-DD-D-D-DQ¥g6+ 75.  N¥g6+ Kg7 76.  Kf5 etc. 74. ... h4 75.  Qh5+ Qh7 After 52. ... Qe8+ Final position 76. Qe8+ Kg7 77. Nf5+ He must give up queen for knight. One has the impression that Black should not have lost after securing the five pawns for the piece, but analysis in such a game is almost impossible. The fine position of White’s knight helped him considerably. The game shows Schwietzer to be a player of great promise. His pretty handling of this ending, whether fully sound or not, has a touch of Marshall about it. 1–0 (American Chess Bulletin, November 1904, page 111, with annotations by Clarence S. Howell). Marshall won first prize with an 81 ⁄ 2–1 ⁄ 2 scoring, drawing two games with Mlotkowski at the end. Judd managed second, and Uedemann third. Kemeny’s fourth prize showing earned him $100. In 2013 dollars, such an amount represents more than $2,000, and likely helped somewhat to ease Kemeny’s transition to life in Chicago.

296

EMIL KEMENY

Kemeny returned to Chicago immediately after the Seventh American Chess Congress concluded, perhaps accompanying Uedemann and Eisenberg. Kemeny along with Uedemann and Chicago’s Carl Medinus took on Marshall and two others, by the names of Rhoades and Pratt, in a consultative game at the Chicago Chess and Checker Club during the first half of November 1904. It is possible Marshall immediately sent the game back to Helms for publication, as the Eagle published it nearly two weeks before the Chicago Tribune, despite its being played in Chicago. Johnston, the Tribune’s chess editor, introduced it only by saying “Played in consultation recently at the Chicago Chess and Checker Club.”

Uedemann, Kemeny, Parke & Medinus– Marshall, Rhoades & Pratt [C63] Consultation Game Chicago Chess and Checker Club, November 1904

rD-D-DkD Dp0-g-1pD-0-®-0 D-DP0-0-)PDQh-D D-D-GPD-)LD-DP) $-DRD-IAfter 23. ... Qg7

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. d3 Nf6 5. 0–0 d6 6. Nc3 Be7 7. a3 f¥e4 8. d¥e4 h6 9. Ne1 Bg4 10. Qd3 g5 11. Nd5 Qd7 12.  Be3 a6 13.  Ba4 Bh5 14.  f3 Bf7 15.  c4 Nh5 16. Nc2 0–0 17. Ncb4 N¥b4 18. a¥b4 Qd8 19. Rfd1 Nf4 20.  Qc2 B¥d5 21.  e¥d5 Rf6 22.  Qe4 Qf8 23.  Bc2 Qg7 24.  b5 Raf8 25.  b¥a6 b¥a6 26.  R¥a6 g4 27.  Ra3 Ne2+ 28.  Kf2 g¥f3 29.  g¥f3 R¥f3+ 30.  Q¥f3 R¥f3+ 31. K¥f3 Nd4+ 32. B¥d4 e¥d4 33. Ra8+ Kf7 34. Re1 Qg5 35. Ra3 Bf6 36. Be4 Qh4 37. Re2 Qh3+ 38. Kf2 Q¥h2+ 39. Kf1 Qh5 40.  Kf2 Qh2+ 41.  Kf1 Qf4+ 42.  Rf3 Qc1+ 43. Kg2 Ke7 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 13, 1904; Chicago Tribune, November 27, 1904).

Just as he had in Philadelphia, Kemeny entered the first club championship he could when he moved to Chicago. He did not have long to wait, as the Chicago Chess and Checker Club’s championship tournament began that same November. His first round opponent, Lee W. Parke, was active in the Pillsbury National Correspondence Chess Association (PNCCA), serving for a time as its corresponding secretary in the late 1890s. By 1901 he was its president (Chicago Tribune, September 29, 1901). Parke could play over-the-board too, as the following nicely handled kingside attack suggests. Lee W. Parke–Cornell [B18], Chicago Chess and Checker Club Championship, January 1902–03. 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 d¥e4 4. N¥e4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. Nf3 e6 7. Bc4 Nf6 8. c3 Be7 9. Ne5 Nbd7 10. f4 Nd5 11. 0–0 N7f6 12. f5 e¥f5 13. N¥f5 B¥f5 14. R¥f5 0–0 15. Qd3 Qd6 16. Bg5 Rac8 17. Raf1 Rc7 18. Bb3 Nd7 19. B¥e7 Q¥e7 20. R¥f7 R¥f7 21. R¥f7 Qd6 22. Qg3 g6 23. Qh4 Nf8 24.  R¥c7 Q¥c7 25.  Qf6 a5 26.  Ng4 Qg7 27.  Qd8 Kh8 28.  B¥d5 c¥d5 29. Q¥d5 h5 30. Ne5 1–0 (Chicago Tribune, February 1, 1903). Kemeny started the Chicago tournament with a blunder. Actually, he began with two blunders, first throwing away the win to Parke, then failing to get the draw. Johnston published the game in his Chicago Tribune column, stating that “Kemeny after bad play in the opening outgeneraled Parke in the middle game, only to fall a victim to a sad blunder in the ending.”

10. St. Louis and Chicago

297

Kemeny–Lee W. Parke [C84] 1904-05 Chicago Chess and Checker Club Championship, Round 1 November 1904 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0–0 Be7 6. Nc3 d6 7. d4 b5 8. Bb3 N¥d4 9. N¥d4 e¥d4 10. Nd5 c5 11. N¥f6+ B¥f6 12. Bd5 Rb8 13. f4 Bb7 14. B¥b7 R¥b7 15. Qf3 Qc7 16. Bd2 0–0 17. Rae1 Qc6 18. Qg3 Re8 19. e5 d¥e5 20. f¥e5 Bd8 21. Rf5 Re6 22. Ref1 a5 23. R1f3 Qd5 24. Qf4 Rg6 25.  e6 Q¥e6 26.  R¥c5 Rg4 27.  Qf5 Re4 28. Rc8 Rd7 29. B¥a5 Q¥f5 30. R¥f5 Re8 31. R¥b5?? [JSH: 31. R¥d8 Re¥d8 32.  B¥d8 R¥d8 33.  R¥b5 wins.] 31.  ... d3 32. c¥d3 Bb6+ 33. B¥b6 R¥c8 34. d4 Rc2 35. Bc5 Rd8 36. Be7 Re8 37.  d5 f6 38.  d6 Kf7 39.  d7?? R¥e7 0–1 (Chicago Tribune, November 27, 1904).

-DRgrDkD D-DrDp0p -D-D-D-D GpD-DRD-D-0-D-D D-D-D-DP)PD-DP) D-D-D-IAfter 30. ... Re8

Johnston’s Chicago Tribune column appeared on Sundays, and so did not have the flexibility or space Kemeny’s old Ledger department had for presenting local, national or international games. Even so, a number of Kemeny’s games from this single–round robin, 20-player club championship appeared in print. Kemeny easily evened his score in the second round when he played the badly outclassed Pratt.

G.E.M. Pratt–Kemeny [D08] 1904-05 Chicago Chess and Checker Club Championship, Round 2 November 1904 1. d4 d5 2.  c4 e5 3.  e3 e¥d4 4.  Q¥d4 Nc6 5.  Q¥d5 Q¥d5 6.  c¥d5 Nb4 7. Na3 N¥d5 8. Bd3 Ngf6 9. Nf3 Bg4 10. Nd4 0–0–0 11. Be2 B¥e2 12. N¥e2 Ne4 13. Kf1 [JSH: White’s game is already hopelessly compromised.] 13. ... Ndf6 14. g3 Rd1+ 15. Kg2 R¥h1 16. K¥h1 N¥f2+ 17. Kg2 N2e4 18. Nb5 c6 19. Nbd4 Nd5 20. a3 Bc5 21. b4 Bb6 22. Bb2 [JSH: Giving up the e-pawn without compensation; a piece follows a few moves later and ultimately a rook.] 22.  ... N¥e3+ 23.  Kf3 Nc4 24. K¥e4 N¥b2 25. Rf1 Re8+ 26. Kf4 f6 27. Rb1 Nc4 28. Rb3 Re5 29. a4 g5+ 30. Kg4 B¥d4 31. N¥d4 Re4+ 32. Kh5 R¥d4 33. Kh6 Rd7 34. Rf3 Ne5 35. Rf2 Ng4+ 0–1 (Chicago Tribune, December 4, 1904). Years before in listing winners of the Illinois State Chess Association’s annual championship tournament, the Chicago Tribune (March 4, 1890) mentioned that Charles W. Phillips had won it three times, Uedemann twice, and James W. Taylor, Kemeny’s third round opponent, once. On August 3, 1902, Johnston wrote that Uedemann, F. F. Wilcox and Taylor would represent Chicago later that month at Lake Minnetonka for the Western Chess Association’s annual tournament. Uedemann was the clear favorite, according to Johnston, adding that Wilcox and “James W. Taylor are neither in tip top form, having neglected chess for business for several years past.” Nevertheless, he added, “Their play is characterized by a rare pertinacity which makes them difficult men to beat.”

298

EMIL KEMENY

Taylor started the 1904-05 Chicago club championship in excellent style. Among his wins during his 5–1 start was the following: V. Jelinek–James W. Taylor [D08], Chicago Chess and Checker Club 190405 Championship. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. d¥e5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Bg5 f6 6. e¥f6 N¥f6 7. g3 Bg4 8. Bg2 h6 9. B¥f6 Q¥f6 10. 0–0 0–0–0 11. Ne1 Qe6 12. f3 Bh3 13. B¥h3 Q¥h3 14. Nd3 Bd6 15. Rf2 Ne5 16. Nd2 Rhf8 17. N¥e5 B¥e5 18. f4 Qf5 19. Nf3 Bf6 20. Qd3 Qe6 21. b4 Qd7 22. Ne1 h5 23. Ng2 Rh8 24. Rc1 h4 25. g¥h4 B¥h4 26. N¥h4 R¥h4 27. f5 Rdh8 28. c5 Qe7 29. Rc4 Qe5 30. Qg3 Qe4 31. Rg2 Qb1+ 32. Kf2 Q¥f5+ 33. Ke1 Qb1+ 34. Kd2 Q¥a2+ 35. Rc2 Qe6 36. Q¥g7 Qe3+ 37. Kd1 d3 38. Rd2 d¥e2+ 39. Ke1 Qe6 40. Rg¥e2 Qc6 41. Rg2 Qe4+ 42. Rde2 Q¥b4+ 43. Rd2 Re8+ 0–1 (Chicago Tribune, January 22, 1905). Taylor’s one loss to this point was his game against Kemeny. Taylor eventually scored 14–5, finishing in fifth place.

Kemeny–James W. Taylor [B21] 1904-05 Chicago Chess and Checker Club Championship, Round 3 December 1904

-DrD-®kD 0pDqDp0p -Dn0lD-h D-D-D-D-DLHPD-D DND-D-DP)-D-)P) D-$Q$-I-

1. e4 c5 2. d4 c¥d4 3. Nf3 e5 4. c3 Nc6 5. c¥d4 e¥d4 6. Bc4 Bb4+ 7. Bd2 B¥d2+ 8. Nb¥d2 Nh6 9. 0–0 0–0 10. Nb3 d6 11.  Nf¥d4 Qe7 12.  Re1 Be6 13.  Bd5 Rac8 14. Rc1 Qd7 15. Bc4 a6?? [JSH: 15. ... B¥c4 16. R¥c4 Ne5 was probably Black’s best. Touching the a-pawn loses.] 16. N¥e6 f¥e6 17. Nc5 Qe7 18. N¥e6 Ne5 19. N¥f8+ K¥f8 20. Bd5 Rd8 21. f4 Neg4 22.  h3 Qh4 23.  h¥g4 N¥g4 24.  Qf3 Ke7 25. g3 Qh2+ 26. Kf1 Qh5 27. Qg2 Nh2+ 28. Kf2 Ng4+ 29. Kg1 1–0 (Chicago Tribune, December 11, 1904).

Round four saw Kemeny facing one of his strongest opponents, Louis Uedemann. A well-liked and respected man, Uedemann at his death received significant treatment in the January and February 1913 American Chess Bulletin issues. Born on January 10, 1854, in Saerbeck, Germany, Uedemann, like Kemeny, was not a native of the U.S. and hence ineligible for the Anglo-American cable matches. Unlike Kemeny, Uedemann arrived in the United States as a child, at the age of 12, and lived in Chicago the rest of his life. He married at 26, in 1880, and fathered two daughters. Uedemann was a skilled and dangerous chess opponent. According to his daughter, at some point he defeated Oscar Chajes in a match 5–4 with 3 draws. He also won the Western Chess Association championship three times: in its inaugural year, 1900, and in 1902 and 1904. In 1902 he dominated, finishing 16–1 with 1 draw. A two time Illinois State Chess Association champion, he often held the Chicago title as well. Uedemann for a time edited the Chicago Tribune chess column before Johnston took it over, and did so again for about six years after Kemeny’s brief tenure. Harry F. Lee, a Chicago player who knew Uedemann for three decades, wrote a tribute for his old friend in the February 1913 American Chess Bulletin. Uedemann “was a high-minded, honorable, upright man, one of the squarest men I ever knew,” and one widely admired and respected by chess players. Uedemann’s methodical and fearless playing style was often exhibAfter 15. Bc4

10. St. Louis and Chicago

299

ited. “I remember one time when the Chicago Club was playing Philadelphia by telegraph, Uedemann’s opponent was Bampton, who had played the Lopez. When they were in the midgame I happened to glance at the position, and remarked to Uedemann that I feared he was in trouble because his queen’s side was badly cramped. He didn’t seem at all alarmed; simply said ‘Oh, I guess it will be all right; I’ll fix that by and by.’ And, sure enough, within a few moves Uedemann was reported to have the advantage, and he eventually won the game in fine style.” Uedemann suffered his last eight months from “Bright’s disease and other complications,” dying at age 58 on November 22, 1912.

Louis Uedemann–Kemeny [C44] 1904-05 Chicago Chess and Checker Club Championship, Round 4 December 1904 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 e¥d4 4. Bb5 Bc5 5. 0–0 Nge7 6. c3 d¥c3 7. N¥c3 0–0 8. Kh1 d6 9. h3 h6 10. Na4 Bb6 11. N¥b6 a¥b6 12. g4 Ng6 13. Ng1 Qe7 14. Bd3 Nb4 15. Bb1 d5 16.  e¥d5 Qe5 17.  f4 Q¥d5+ 18.  Q¥d5 N¥d5 19. Be4 Nge7 20.  b3 f5 21.  B¥d5+ N¥d5 22.  g5 Bd7 23. Bb2 Rfe8 24.  g¥h6 g¥h6 25.  Be5 c5 26.  Nf3 Kf7 27. Nh4 Rg8 28.  Kh2 Ne7 29.  Rfd1 Be6 30.  Rd6 Rgd8 31. R¥b6 [JSH: Taking his one active rook out of play and opening the way for Black’s.] 31. ... Rd2+ 32. Kg3 [JSH: 32. Kg1 was better but the game is hopeless.] 32. ... Rg8+ 33. Kf3 34. Rd1 R¥h3+ 35. Kf2 R¥h4 36. R¥b7 Rh2+ 37. Kf3 Rhg2 [JSH: With mate in four.] 0–1 (Chicago Tribune, December 18, 1904).

rD-®-D-D DpD-hkD-0-$lD-0 D-0-GpD-D-D-)-H DPD-D-DP PD-D-D-I $-D-D-DAfter 30. ... Rgd8

Julius C. Eppens and Carl Medinus, both strong Chicago players, started the championship event with 5–0 records. Kemeny won his fifth round game, but still trailed them because of his first round blunder against Lee W. Parke. Taylor and Parke were tied with Kemeny at 4–1. F. F. Wilcox, Kemeny’s opponent in round six, had finished only four games, and was well behind, standing at 11 ⁄ 2–21 ⁄ 2. Wilcox finished the tournament strongly. Had he won his last round game (he apparently overlooked giving mate at one point, only to later lose), he would have tied for second place. In the end he secured third with a score of 13–4 with 1 draw.

F.F. Wilcox–Kemeny [A84] 1904-05 Chicago Chess and Checker Club Championship, Round 6 January 1905 1. d4 d5 2.  c4 e6 3.  Nc3 f5 4.  Nf3 c6 5.  Bg5 Nf6 6. e3 Be7 7. Bd3 0–0 8. Ne5 Ne4 9. B¥e7 Q¥e7 10. 0– 0 Nd7 11. N¥d7 B¥d7 12. B¥e4 f¥e4 13. c¥d5 e¥d5 14. Qb3 Be6 15.  Ne2 Rae8 16.  Nf4 Bc8 17.  f3 g5 18.  Ne2? [JSH: White loses his way. The position demands creation of an interesting imbalance: 18. N¥d5! when a line like 18. ... c¥d5 19. Q¥d5+ Be6

-DlDr®kD 0pD-1-Dp -DpD-D-D D-DpD-0-D-)pH-D DQD-)PDP)-D-DP) $-D-DRIAfter 17. ... g5

300

EMIL KEMENY

20. Q¥e4 Qb4 21. Qc2 Bf5 22. Qf2 offers dynamic possibilities; instead, White starts a series of inferior moves that quickly end in disaster.] 18. ... e¥f3 19. g¥f3? Q¥e3+ 20. Q¥e3 R¥e3 21. Rf2 Bh3 22. f4? Rfe8 23. Re1? g¥f4 0–1 (Chicago Tribune, January 8, 1905). Kemeny won in round seven to move to 6–1, but because there were several strong players in the tournament among a host of weaker ones, he continued to trail the leader. After eight games, Eppens stood 8–0, with Kemeny second at 7–1, trailed closely by Uedemann, half a point behind. By late January or early February 1904, two players, Houghtelling and Wickersham, had dropped out, leaving 18 to contest for championship honors. In round nine Kemeny’s opponent was the tournament’s leader, Julius C. Eppens. Little is known about Eppens. He does not appear in Chess Personalia. A brief mention of him appears in a newspaper from New Jersey, shortly after Eppens gained some chess prominence in the Midwest. A resident of Tiffin, Ohio, then a small city of about 11,000 located equidistant between Cleveland and Fort Wayne, Indiana, Eppens was “the champion chess player of Ohio. He recently won the title at the State tournament at Columbus. Julius C. Eppens is not a native Buckeye, although he was educated at Canal Dover having removed to Ohio from Missouri, his place of nativity, when he was quite a youngster. His father—now deceased—was a German Evangelical minister and a good chess player himself. Young Eppens learned the game while attending Wooster University in ’96. He at once became a devoted student of the checkered board. He plays a system largely his own, and his successive victories are proof that it is a valuable one. He entered the newspaper business at Pittsburg, but decided to take up the law, and he is now studying at Tiffin. Ohio experts, who have seen Eppens play, believe that he is a coming Pillsbury, and that he will win international honors some of these days” (South Jersey Republican, Hammonton, N.J., April 13, 1901). Although Eppens never became a Pillsbury, he did have a successful chess résumé at the time he played Kemeny. Besides winning a state title in 1901, the following two years he won the Tri-State Championship (for Ohio, Indiana and Michigan) at Columbus and Toledo, respectively. The following game is an offhand one against Sidney P. Johnston. The two men had been playing a short match (first to win three games, draws not counting) at the Chicago Chess and Checker Club, which Johnston was leading 1–0 with 2 draws. Johnston published the two draws as well as two offhand games played with Eppens during the previous week. This was one of the offhand games: Julius C. Eppens–Sidney P. Johnston [C80], Chicago Offhand Game, October 1903. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0–0 N¥e4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8.  d¥e5 Ne7 9.  Re1 Nc5 10.  Bg5 c6 11.  Nd4 Qc7 12.  B¥e7 B¥e7 13. N¥c6 N¥b3 14. N¥e7 N¥a1 15. N¥d5 Q¥c2 [JSH: Black overlooks White’s tactical refutation. He could have played 15.  ... Qb7, when a line like 17.  Nbc3 Be6 18.  Nf4 N¥c2 19. Q¥c2 keeps him in the game.] 16. Nf6+ g¥f6 17. e¥f6+ Be6 18. Qd6 Ra7 19. Qb8+ 1–0 (Chicago Tribune, October 18, 1903). As another indicator of his level of play, Eppens, in a telegraph match between the Chicago and Manhattan clubs played not long after the game below, achieved a draw with Albert Hodges. Eppens later won the Illinois State Championship again in 1912. Mention of Eppens in relation to chess appears as late as 1931: “Clayton Ryder, lawyer of Carmel, while visiting in St. Petersburg, Fla., in March, entered the chess divan in Mirror Lake Park and was one of three out of twenty-five contestants to defeat Julius C. Eppens, nationally known chess player” (Cornell Alumni Magazine, April 28, 1931, page 365). By winning the game below, Kemeny shared the lead with Eppens at 8–1:

10. St. Louis and Chicago

301

Kemeny–Julius C. Eppens [C62] 1904-05 Chicago Chess and Checker Club Championship, Round 9 February 1905 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 e¥d4 5. N¥d4 Bd7 6.  Nc3 N¥d4 7.  B¥d7+ Q¥d7 8.  Q¥d4 Nf6 9.  0–0 Be7 10. Be3 0–0 11. Rad1 Qc6 12. Qd3 Rfe8 13. Bd4 Nd7 14. Nd5 Bf8 15.  Rfe1 Nb6 16.  Nf6+ Kh8 [JSH: 16.  ... g¥f6 allows 17. Qg3+ Bg7 18. B¥f6 and mate the next move.] 17. N¥e8 R¥e8 18. e5 Re6 19. e¥d6 R¥d6 20. Qe4 Qc4 21. b3 Qb5 22. c4 Qh5 23.  Qe5 Qg6 24.  B¥b6 R¥d1 25.  R¥d1 Qc2 26. Qe1 a¥b6 27.  Rd8 Kg8 28.  g3 g6 29.  Qe7 Qc1+ 30. Kg2 Qh6 31. Q¥c7 Qg5 32. Qd6 Qh6 33. Qb8 Qg7 34. Q¥b7 Qe5 35.  Qa8 Qe7 36.  Re8 Qc5 37.  a3 Kg7 38. R¥f8 1–0 (Chicago Tribune, February 19, 1905).

rD-DrgkD 0p0-Dp0p -hq0-D-D D-DND-D-D-GPD-D D-DQD-DP)PD-)P) D-DR$-IAfter 15. ... Nb6

In the eleventh round Kemeny played V. Jelinek, who had seven tournament wins, and was an active Chicago Chess and Checker Club member. In November 1901 and then again in December 1903, he won blindfold games against Pillsbury. Jelinek also later played on Kemeny’s team in a consultation game against Emanuel Lasker. Shortly after Kemeny met Jelinek in the Chicago club tournament, Johnston wrote of him that he “has earned a place as one of Chicago’s old guard in its telegraphic matches. Last year he drew an ugly-looking game against the Twin Cities, and won against Young, one of Philadelphia’s strongest players, in a position requiring accurate position judgment, coupled with deep analysis” (Chicago Tribune, March 5, 1905). Jelinek added a crucial win over Brooklyn in a later telegraph match as well, when he played the following game: V. Jelinek–Edward William Libaire [C10], Chicago–Brooklyn Telegraph Match, May 29–30, 1905.  1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. e¥d5 e¥d5 5. d4 Nc6 6. Be2 Nf6 7. Bg5 Be6 8. 0–0 Be7 9. d¥c5 0–0 10. a3 a5 11. B¥f6 B¥f6 12. Na4 Ne5 13. N¥e5 B¥e5 14. f4 Bc7 15. b4 Qf6 16. Qd2 a¥b4 17. a¥b4 Bd7 18. b5 Rfe8 19. Q¥d5 R¥e2 20. Q¥d7 Qg6 21. Qh3 Rae8 22. Nc3 R¥c2 23. Rae1 Rd8 [JSH: 23. ... Rf8 is not a pretty move but it doesn’t drop a piece as does the text.] 24. Nd5 Kh8 25. N¥c7 R¥c5 [JSH: Allowing Jelinek a satisfying concluding move.] 26. Qd7 1–0 (American Chess Bulletin, June 1905, page 230). Chicago defeated Brooklyn 81 ⁄ 2–71 ⁄ 2, after Pillsbury adjudicated six games.

Kemeny–V. Jelinek [C65] 1904-05 Chicago Chess and Checker Club Championship, Round 11 February 1905 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 Bc5 5. c3 0– 0 6. d4 e¥d4 7. c¥d4 Bb6 8. d5 Ne7 9. d6 c¥d6 10. Nc3 a6 11. Ba4 Bc5 12. Bg5 Ne8 13. b4 B¥b4 [JSH: Jelinek’s position is quite difficult, but this move ends badly for Black.] 14. B¥e7 Q¥e7 15. Nd5 Q¥e4 16. Bc2 Qg4 17. h3 Qh5 [JSH: Perhaps

rDl1n®kD DpDphp0p pD-0-D-D D-g-D-GL)-DPD-D D-H-DNDPD-D-)P) $-DQDRIAfter 13. b4

302

EMIL KEMENY

Jelinek relied on 17. ... Qc4; however, after 18. Rc1! Qb5 19. Qd4 White wins easily, as 19. ... Bc5 allows mate after 20. B¥h7+ Kh8 (20. ... K¥h7 21. Qh4+ Kg6 or ... Kg8 22. Ne7 mate) 21. Qh4.] 18. N¥b4 b5 19. Be4 Rb8 20. Rc1 a5 21. Nd5 f5 22. Ne7+ Kh8 23. Bd5 Ba6 24.  Ne5! [JSH: Simplifying to a greater advantage.] 24.  ... -®-Dn®-i Q¥d1 25.  N5g6+ h¥g6 26.  N¥g6+ Kh7 27.  N¥f8+ Kh6 D-DpH-0p 28. Rf¥d1 Nf6 29.  N¥d7 N¥d7 30.  Rc6 Rb6 31.  R¥b6 32. Be6 d5 33. B¥d5 N¥d5 34. R¥d5 g6 35. a4 b4 lD-0-D-D N¥b6 36. R¥a5 Bd3 37.  Ra8 b3 38.  Rb8 Bc4 39.  Rb4 Bd5 0pDLDpDq 40. a5 1–0 (Chicago Tribune, February 19, 1905).

-D-D-D-D D-D-DNDP PD-D-)PD D-$QDRI-

On March 19, 1905, the Tribune reported Kemeny had taken the lead with a score of 14–1, with Eppens one game behind, followed by Uedemann and Carl Medinus. Unfortunately, no chess column appeared in the Chicago Tribune for several weeks after March 19, After 23. ... Ba6 1905. Sidney Johnston, after a brief illness, died of complications from diabetes the day his last column was published. He was 35. The next Tribune chess column, published April 23, 1905, saw Kemeny assuming the editorial duties. By then, however, the Chicago Chess and Checker Club championship had concluded, and no more games appeared. We learn from the American Chess Bulletin (June 1905, page 232) that Kemeny, after losing his first game in the contest, won the rest, to take the title with a score of 18–1. Julius C. Eppens finished second, one point behind, followed by Harry F. Lee, Louis Uedemann, and James W. Taylor. Kemeny’s splendid performance had brought him his third major club championship in as many major American cities. Kemeny was hardly finished with chess or with the Chicago Chess and Checker Club. He participated in a number of other club events, although winning the club’s title was his last known tournament victory. Even before the championship concluded, however, Kemeny was active in the local chess community. He played in the Washington’s Birthday Tournament of the Illinois State Chess Association championship, paradoxically transferred to February 12, Lincoln’s Birthday, so as not to conflict with the planned Chicago–Manhattan Telegraph Match on February 22. The tournament’s name was rather grand compared to the turnout. Only eight players attended, with three rounds played during the single day competition. In the first Kemeny defeated a player named A. V. Lee, but then lost to another Lee, this time Harry F., one of the men he defeated in the Chicago championship tournament. Kemeny won his third game, against James Adair, but Harry F. Lee won all of his, taking the 1905 Illinois State Chess Association title.

-D-D-DkD GpD-Dp0-DpD-D-D D-D-!lD-DPD-DqD D-DrD-DP)-D-)P) D-D-$-IAfter 23. Qe5

Harry F. Lee–Kemeny [D46] Illinois Chess Association Tournament, Round 2 February 12, 1905 1. c4 e6 2.  d4 d5 3.  Nc3 Nf6 4.  Nf3 c6 5.  e3 Bd6 6. Bd3 Nbd7 7.  0–0 0–0 8.  e4 d¥e4 9.  N¥e4 N¥e4 10. B¥e4 e5 [JSH: This allows White to win a pawn, although the position will be simplified significantly.] 11. d¥e5 N¥e5 12. N¥e5 B¥e5 13.  B¥h7+ K¥h7 14.  Qh5+ Kg8 15.  Q¥e5 Re8 16. Qc3 Bf5 17.  Be3 Qh4 18.  Rad1 Re4 19.  Rd4 R¥d4 20. B¥d4 Qg4 21.  Re1 Rd8 22.  B¥a7 Rd3 23.  Qe5 Be4

10. St. Louis and Chicago

303

[JSH: Threatening mate, and setting a trap, although White sees through it. Kemeny may have written the game off by this point and decided on a Marshall-like “swindle” or he might have overlooked White’s intermezzo, 24. Qe8+, driving his king onto the crucial diagonal. Perhaps he was hoping for 24. R¥e4?? Q¥e4! Whether a blunder or a faulty trap, Black loses quickly; he could have resigned after White’s next move.] 24. Qe8+ Kh7 25. R¥e4 Rd8 26. f3 Qg5 27. Be3 Rd1+ 28. Kf2 Qa5 29. Rh4+ Kg6 30. Rg4+ Kh7 31. Bd4 1–0 (Chicago Tribune, February 19, 1905; St. John Globe, March 3, 1905; Pittsburg Dispatch, March 6, 1905). Kemeny played for Chicago in its telegraph match with the Manhattan Chess Club, held on Wednesday, February 22, 1905. The Manhattan team, which included three players who participated at Cambridge Springs the year before, saw fit to pair Kemeny against the young Albert Fox, who had exploded on the national and international chess scene a few years earlier with a series of offhand wins involving queen sacrifices and startling combinations. Fox played better against his international opponents at Cambridge Springs than he had against his compatriots. Although he finished tied for tenth and eleventh place with Teichmann, managing only 6–8 with 1 draw (the fewest draws of any competitor), he did so with wins against Janowski, Schlechter, Chigorin, Teichmann and Lawrence. Kemeny fared no better than the majority of European masters when he faced Fox in the Chicago–Manhattan telegraph match. Emanuel Lasker acted as referee, and his services were greatly needed. Only five of 16 games were concluded by the time play ended at 11:30 that night. On March 10 Lasker released his decision, and the Manhattans were awarded the match by the score of 9–7. As for Kemeny’s game, Johnston mentioned in his February 26, 1905, Tribune column that “Kemeny overlooked a reply in a complicated position and lost where another move would have won.” Unfortunately Johnston did not identify the position he was referring to, and so readers must decide for themselves from among the candidates mentioned below.

Kemeny–Albert Whiting Fox [B34] Manhattan–Chicago Telegraphic Match, Board 14 February 22, 1905 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 c¥d4 4. N¥d4 g6 5. Be3 Bg7 6. c3 Nf6 7. Nd2 0–0 8. Be2 e5 9. N4b3 d5 10. Bf3 d4 11. Bg5 h6 12. Bh4 g5 13. Bg3 g4 14. Be2 d3 15. Bf1 Nh5 16. Nc4 f5 17. Q¥d3 Qe7 18. Qd6 f4 19. Q¥e7 N¥e7 20. Bh4 Ng6 21.  g3 Bd7 22.  Nc5 Bc6 23.  Nd6 N¥h4 24.  g¥h4 Rf6 25.  Bc4+ Kf8 26. Nc¥b7? [JSH: Throwing away his advantage, when 26. 0–0–0! would have preserved it.] 26. ... B¥b7 27.  N¥b7 Rb6 28. Nc5 R¥b2 29. 0–0–0? [JSH: rD-D-i-D rD-D-i-D 29. Na4! and curiously enough the b0-D-D-g0pD-D-gfile is not safe for Black’s rook: 29. ... -D-D-D-0 Rb7 or 29.  ... Rbb8 (29.  ... Rc2 -DlH-®-0 D-H-0-Dn D-H-0-Dn 30. Bb3) 30.  Bd5.] 29.  ... R¥f2 -DLDP0p) 30. Rd7 Rc8 31.  Rf7+ Ke8 [see -DLDP0p) D-)-D-DD-)-D-Ddiagram next page] 32. Nb7?? [JSH: P®-D-)-) 32. R¥a7 R¥c5 33. Bf7+ should draw; P)-D-)-) $-D-I-DR Kemeny’s move throws the game $-D-I-DR away.] 32. ... Bf8 33. Be6 R¥c3+ 34. Kb1 Ng7 [JSH: 34. ... Ba3! 35. Rd1 After 28. ... R¥b2 After 25. ... Kf8

304

EMIL KEMENY

-DrDkD-D 0-D-DRg-D-D-D-0 D-H-0-Dn -DLDP0p) D-)-D-DPD-D-®-) D-I-D-DR

Rb2+! 36. Ka1 Rd2! 37. Rd7 R¥d1+ 38. R¥d1 Nf6 etc.] 35. Nd6+ B¥d6 36. R¥g7 Bc5 37. Rc7 Rcc2 38. Rd1 Rb2+ 39. Ka1 Bd4 40.  R¥d4 e¥d4 41.  B¥g4 R¥a2+ 42.  Kb1 Rfb2+ 43. Kc1 Rg2 44.  Kb1 Raf2 45.  Bd1 Kd8 46.  Rc4 Rg1 47. R¥d4+ Kc7 48. Kc1 Rff1 0–1 (Chicago Tribune, March 12, 1905; Pittsburg Dispatch, March 20, 1905; American Chess Bulletin, March 1905, page 173).

Napier considered the Kemeny–Fox game “the most brilliant” in the telegraph match. Certainly it was an exciting struggle, one After 31. ... Ke8 either player could have won. Had Kemeny done so, the match would have been drawn. Kemeny showed poor form in another telegraphic match less than two months later, when Chicago faced his old home team, Philadelphia’s Franklin. Played April 7 and 8, 1905, the 16 board match resulted in the Franklin’s gaining revenge for its earlier, 1904, telegraphic loss to the Chicago players, and also generated pleasure in Philadelphia when David Stuart Robinson took the point from Kemeny. Helms published the game, without annotations, in his May 7, 1905, Brooklyn Daily Eagle column, where he wrote about both Robinson brothers as well as this game specifically: “The Robinson brothers: A. K., who played in one of the cable matches against Great Britain, and D. Stuart, who has many times led his club to victory, both won their games for the Franklin Chess Club in its last match by telegraph with the Chicago Chess and Checker Club. D. Stuart Robinson had Emil Kemeny, the former Franklin champion, as an opponent, and, true to his well known dashing style, adopted the King’s Gambit. In the course of play the Chicago representative allowed his adversary to get his queen’s rook, helping no doubt to imprison the bishop which effected the capture. That piece, however, emerged safely and in the end the Philadelphian had no trouble in scoring.” The game was of sufficient interest for Pillsbury to publish it, too, with annotations, in his Philadelphia Inquirer column.

David Stuart Robinson–Kemeny [C31] Franklin–Chicago Telegraph Match, Board 16 April 7–8, 1905 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 d¥e4 4. N¥e5 Be6 At White’s third move I would have preferred to take the pawn ahead for White in this situation, as I do not like the situation arising from Black’s best third move. Had Black played 3. ... Bg4, it would apparently have made it uncomfortable for White; but, as it is, Black’s fourth move would have been stronger had he played 4. ... Bd6 5. Bc4 Nh6 if rh-1-®kD (5. ... B¥e5 6. Qh5 (Blackburne’s move) gives White a strong game) 6. d4 e¥d3 etc. 5.  d4 e¥d3 6.  B¥d3 Nh6 7.  0–0 Bc5+ 0p0-Dl0p 8. Kh1 0–0 9. Nc3 f6 10. f5 Nf7 11. N¥f7 B¥f7 12. Bf4 -D-g-0-D Bd6 Rather a hasty move for Black. 12. ... Nc6 was both developing D-D-DPDand avoiding the continuation White was playing for. 13.  Be4 -D-DLG-D B¥f4 Even now 13. ... Nc6 was safer. [JSH: This move costs Black D-H-D-Dthe game, as it turns out he will never be able to recapture White’s P)PD-DP) king bishop.]14.  B¥b7 Bd6 15.  B¥a8 c6 16.  Ne4 Be7 $-DQDRDK 17. Q¥d8 R¥d8 18. Rad1 Kf8 19. R¥d8+ B¥d8 20. Bb7 Bc7 21. b3 Be5 White’s game is won, but he must yet be careful; After 13. Be4

10. St. Louis and Chicago

-h-D-i-D 0Lg-Dl0p -DpD-0-D D-D-DPD-D-DND-D DPD-D-DPDPD-DP) D-D-DRDK After 21. b3

305

this advancing the pawns, first on one side and then on the other, is the only way to nullify to a great extent the Black queen’s bishop. 22. c4 Ke7 23.  Rd1 Bh5 24.  Rd3 Be2 25.  Rd2 Bh5 26. Bc8 Bf7 27. h3 g5 28. Kg1 Bf4 29. Rd1 h5 30. g4 h¥g4 31. h¥g4 Be5 32. Kf2 Be8 33. Kf3 Bd7 34. Bb7 Kd8 35.  Nc5 Kc7 36.  Na6+ K¥b7 37.  N¥b8 B¥f5 38. g¥f5 B¥b8 39.  Rd7+ Kb6 40.  b4 Be5 41.  a4 c5 42. b¥c5+ K¥c5 43. Rd5+ K¥c4 43. ... Kc6 was no better, as 44. R¥e5 wins easily, the Black king being unable to stop both the c- and f-pawns. 44. R¥e5 1–0 (Philadelphia Inquirer, May 28, 1905, with annotations by Pillsbury).

While Johnston had published very few, if any, annotations to games in his Tribune column, Kemeny changed this practice. In his first two columns, he annotated wins by Chicago players from the Chicago–Manhattan telegraphic match, as well as providing an offhand game won recently at the club. Two weeks after Kemeny began writing for the Tribune, he had the added benefit of reporting on Emanuel Lasker’s May 3–10, 1905, stay in Chicago. Lasker arrived on a Wednesday and immediately began his engagement, playing in consultation with Lynn and Pratt, as Black, against Charles W. Phillips, James Taylor, and C. Madsen. Kemeny wrote in his May 7 column, “The game was interesting and instructive, and the large number of spectators enjoyed the performance.” He annotated the game, and also gave his readers a rare chess problem composed by Lasker. Kemeny reported Lasker played a 37 board simultaneous exhibition on Saturday afternoon and evening, May 6, finishing 27–4 with 6 draws. On Monday, May 8, Lasker gave a lecture. Kemeny wrote that Lasker “pointed out the respective characteristics and merits of Anderssen and Morphy’s play, compared with modern tactics. He referred to the fact that Anderssen’s play, while abounding in brilliant combinations, lacked the directness and force of Morphy’s attack, which proved irresistible. Steinitz was given due credit for calling attention to vulnerable points in given positions which should be made the target of an attack, a style of play pretty closely adhered to by modern masters. The lecture was illustrated by games selected and proved highly interesting and instructive.” Kemeny also wrote that Lasker in his last game consulted with E. Jacobson, and “met the local champion [Kemeny himself] and Mr. Jelinek. The game proved the most interesting one in the series. Dr. Lasker in the early part of the game obtained some advantage by getting the opponent’s pawns in bad shape. The local players, however, had some positional advantage and by careful maneuvering they were enabled to hold their own, the game, after five hours play resulting in a draw.”

Kemeny & V. Jelinek–Emanuel Lasker & E. Jacobson [C79] Consultation Game Chicago Chess and Checker Club, May 9, 1905 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0–0 5. d4 and if 5. ... e¥d4 then 6. e5 is quite frequently played. 5. ... d6 6. d4 b5 7. d¥e5 Had White played 7. Bb3 Black would have answered 7. ... e¥d4; if then 8. N¥d4 Black replies 8. ... N¥d4 followed by ... c5 and ... c4, winning a piece. 7.  ... d¥e5 8.  Bb3 Stronger was 8. Q¥d8+ followed by Bb3. 8. ... Q¥d1 9. R¥d1 Bc5 10. Nc3 Bg4 11. h3 B¥f3 12. g¥f3 Nd4 13. Kg2 c6 14. Be3 a5 15. f4 15. a3 or 15. a4 would have compromised the White position. The move in [the]

306

EMIL KEMENY

text is more aggressive. f¥e5 and B¥d4 is now threatened. 15.  ... Nd7 16.  f¥e5 N¥b3 17. c¥b3 Better than 17. a¥b3, for White will obtain the [half] open c-file with some attack on Black’s c-pawn. 17. ... B¥e3 18. f¥e3 N¥e5 19. Ne2 Ke7 20. Nd4 g6 21. Rac1 Ra6 Hardly a good place for the rook, yet 21. ... Rac8 could not well be played. White threatened a doubling of rooks on the c-file, and it would be difficult to guard the b-pawn. 22. Rc5 f6 23. Nf3 Nd7 24. Rc2 Rb8 25. Kg3 b4 26. Kf4 Rb5 27. Nd4 Rbb6 Not 27. ... Rc5, for in that event White answers 28. Nf5+ followed by 28. ... 29. R¥d7+ K¥d7 30. R¥c5, and the Black game becomes endan-D-D-D-D g¥f5 gered. 28. Nf3 a4 29. e5 f¥e5+ 30. N¥e5 N¥e5 31. K¥e5 D-Dni-Dp a¥b3 32. a¥b3 Rb5+ 33. Kf4 Rh5 34. Kg4 c5 35. Rcd2 rDpD-0pD Re6 36. Rd7+ Ke8 37. Rd8+ Kf7 38. R8d7+ Re7 39. e4 0rD-D-D- R¥d7 40. R¥d7+ Ke6 41. Rc7 Prevents the adverse king from -0-HPI-D moving to e5, and White has no difficulty in holding his own. 41. ... DPD-)-DP Kd6 42. Rc8 Re5 43. Kf4 Re7 44. Rd8+ Ke6 At this stage P)RD-D-D White could not well play 45. Rd5, on account of ... Rf7+, ... Rf1, D-DRD-D- and ... Rh1, but, by moving 45. Rd1, White safely guards the position. A draw was offered and accepted. 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Chicago Tribune, May 14, After 27. Nd4 1905, with annotations by Kemeny). Much as Lasker made material available to Kemeny for his column, it is likely Kemeny showed Lasker positions of interest during their time together in Chicago. The following snippet from a Kemeny game eventually found its appearance in print in Lasker’s own magazine:

Amateur–Kemeny Chicago Chess and Checker Club, 1905

-DrD-DkD 0-D-Dq0p l0-D-D-D D-D-D-DQD-Hn0-D D-D-)-DP)-DN)P) D-D-DRI-

The following pretty play occurred recently in the Chicago Chess and Checker Club. White’s last move was Qa4. Black now played 1. ... f¥e3 to which White replied 2. Q¥a6 (if White play 2. f¥e3, Black wins by 2.  ... Q¥f1+ and mates with ... Rc1+). [JSH: That is, if 2. f¥e3, then 2. ... Q¥f1+ 3. K¥f1 Rc1+ 4.Qd1 R¥d1 mate.] Black now forced a win by 2.  ... e¥f2+ followed by ... Rc1, and wins the queen if R¥c1, or mates in two moves if N¥c1. 0–1 (Lasker’s Chess Magazine, July 1905, page 141).

Kemeny annotated one of his games in the Chicago Tribune. Curiously enough, the annotations, lettered and appearing after the game, as all of Kemeny’s annotations did when he was writing with his preferred method, appeared jumbled into nonsense, in the order a, g, i, e, b, h, c, f, d. What Kemeny or anyone else made of this unfortunate printer’s lapse is unknown. As the game is also his last in this book, perhaps it is fitting it was a win against a Brooklyn player, Brooklyn then newly being a part of New York City, the site of Kemeny’s earliest days in the United States. Much like his native Buda and Pest years earlier, New York and Brooklyn had finally merged. His opponent in Chicago’s telegraphic match against Brooklyn, played May 29–30, 1905, was Clarence Seamen Howell. Howell was born on April 2, 1881, and so was only 24 years old at the time, a generation younger than Kemeny. A graduate of Manual Training High School in Brooklyn, Howell worked on newspapers and then for a publisher. He won the 1905 BrookBlack to move

10. St. Louis and Chicago

307

lyn Chess Club Championship, and faced Chicago’s champion in the telegraphic match. He also played in the NYSCA midsummer tournament held in Buffalo, New York, in 1901, an event won by Pillsbury. Howell could finish no higher than fourth (with Delmar finishing second and Napier third), but at least had the pleasure of beating Frank Marshall twice. He eventually annotated many games for Helms in the American Chess Bulletin. The Chicago–Brooklyn telegraphic match did not go well for Brooklyn chess fans. After two days of play, Chicago led by the commanding score of 71 ⁄ 2–21 ⁄ 2, with Pillsbury left to adjudicate six games. Ultimately Chicago narrowly won, 81 ⁄ 2–71 ⁄ 2.

Kemeny–Clarence Seaman Howell [C41] Chicago–Brooklyn Telegraphic Match, Board 3 May 29–30, 1905 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 4. Bc4 Be7 5. Nc3 Ngf6 6. 0–0 0–0 7. Be3 c6 8.  Qe2 Qc7 9.  Rad1 Nb6 Much stronger was ... b5, followed by ... Nb6. 10.  Nd2 10. Bb3 was probably better. White, of course, tried to advance the f-pawn without delay. 10. ... Bd7 11.  f4 Ng4 12.  f5 It is held that two bishops are stronger than two knights, yet White is quite willing to give up the bishops, for the adverse queen’s bishop is not easily brought into -Dl®rDkD play. 12.  ... N¥e3 13.  Q¥e3 e¥d4 14.  Q¥d4 Bf6 15.  Qd3 0p1-Dp0p Rad8 16. Bb3 Rfe8 17. Nf3 Bc8 18. Rfe1 a6 Black now is at -hp0-g-D disadvantage; to free the game it would be necessary to advance the D-D-DPDd-pawn, which of course involves the loss of a pawn. The text move, -D-DPD-D followed by ... b5, causes a compromise in position. 19.  g4 h6 DLHQDND20. Kg2 Not 20. h4 at once, for in that case 20. ... d5 and ... Qg3+ P)PD-DP) could be played by Black. 20. ... c5 21. Nd5 N¥d5 22. B¥d5 D-DR$-Ib5 23. c3 Bb7 24. h4 B¥d5 25. Q¥d5 Qe7 26. Kh3 Be5 27. g5 h¥g5 28. h¥g5 Rb8 29. g6 Another combination would After 18. Rfe1 have been Kg4, followed by Rh1, Rh5, and Rdh1. Black, of course, may reply ... Qb7, followed eventually by ... Kf8. The play selected -D-D-DkD proved quite satisfactory. 29. ... Qb7 30. N¥e5 Q¥d5 31. g¥f7+ $-D-D-0Q¥f7 32. N¥f7 K¥f7 33. R¥d6 Rbd8 34. R¥a6 The alternative would have been 34. R¥d8 followed by 35. Re2. 34. ... Rd2 -D-DPD-D 35. e5 R¥b2 36.  Kg3 Rd8 37.  Ra7+ Kg8 38.  e6 Which D-D-IPDforces Black to keep the rook on the first row, since otherwise Ra8+ -0-®-D-D and Rh1+ leads to mate. 38. ... Rc2 39. Re3 b4 40. c¥b4 c¥b4 D-D-DrD41. Kf4 Rf2+ 42. Rf3 Rd4+ 43. Ke5 R¥f3 44. Ra8+ The PD-D-D-D winning move. Black now will be unable to stop the advanced e- D-D-D-Dpawn. 44. ... Kh7 45. K¥d4 1–0 (Chicago Tribune, July 2, 1905, After 43. ... R¥f3 with annotations by Kemeny). In October 1905 Kemeny began annotating games from the Marshall–Tarrasch match. But he had no more than announced the opening of the local chess season and that the club championship would soon begin when his column stopped with the October 29, 1905, issue. A month passed, and then a substitute chess editor in the November 26, 1905, Tribune explained that “Emil Kemeny, champion of the Chicago Chess and Checker Club, and chess editor of The Tribune, is slowly convalescing at the Cook County Hospital after an operation on Nov. 3 for appendicitis. He had been in poor health for some time, but the true cause of the trouble

308

EMIL KEMENY

was not suspected, and at the time of the operation his condition had become such that little hope was held out for his recovery. A naturally strong constitution enabled him to rally, however, and at the present time he is pronounced practically out of danger, although final recovery may be slow on account of the complications arising from the delay in operating.” Kemeny’s column was in good hands. The December 3, 1905, Eagle column reported that “During the illness of Emil Kemeny, Mrs. F[red] W. Lynn, a member of the Chicago Chess and Checker Club, has taken charge of the chess column in the Chicago Tribune. Mrs. Lynn participated in the last championship tournament of the Windy City Club and won several excellent games. She is one of the strongest women players in the country and probably ranks with Mrs. J. W. Showalter, wife of the ex-champion, and Miss Rose Jefferson of Memphis, Tenn.” Kemeny’s “complications” were longer resolving than anticipated. It wasn’t until February 11, 1906, that Kemeny’s appeared once more as column editor. He did not mention his absence or his illness in the Tribune’s pages. He simply did as he always did: he annotated games. Kemeny offered two local efforts in his March 4, 1906, column. And then he was gone. The Tribune’s March 11, 1906, column, headed as it would be for the next six years by Louis Uedemann, began with a brief statement regarding Kemeny’s departure: “Emil Kemeny, editor of the chess column of The Tribune, left Chicago last Sunday on a visit of several months to relatives in his native Hungary, to seek there complete recovery from his late illness. Mr. Kemeny’s decision was so quickly arrived at that it was an unpleasant surprise to the scores of friends he made in Chicago by his ever genial disposition. It is needless to state that his absence is a great loss to Chicago chess, and his friends wish to see him back here soon in the full vigor of his best days. On the journey he will stop a few days in New York to have a talk with the experts there and particularly with his friend and countryman, Maróczy, who is seeking a contest with Lasker for the match championship of the world.” But he never returned. Not to Chicago, and not to the United States, his home for over 16 years. His time had been spent in New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, while his thoughts and writings about chess covered the globe. The rest of his story unfolded back across the Atlantic.

11

Back in Budapest “The star has faded now. Even great stars fade, but I want the chess world of today to know and admire the genius of the great Kemeny, the star of yesterday.”—Philadelphia Inquirer, January 1, 1922 (Walter Penn Shipley)

As with so many important transitions in Kemeny’s life, little or nothing is known about the moment itself. When did he decide, recovering from appendicitis in Chicago, that he could no longer sustain his life in America? That he had to return to Budapest to recover from his near fatal illness, to be with family again, after all these years? The 46-year-old man who traveled from Chicago to New York, and then on to Europe and back to Budapest, differed significantly from the 31-year-old immigrant who first played chess on the Lower East

11. Back in Budapest

309

Side at all hours. Seeing Maróczy in New York meant seeing another glimpse of his native land, just before leaving his adopted one. Did Kemeny really think he would return to America in a few months? Was this the wishful thinking of a gentle man who disliked disappointing friends, or the words of a man who did not want to disappoint himself? Kemeny left the United States and apparently never again played serious chess, even at the club level. Indeed, were it not for Kemeny’s friendship with Walter Penn Shipley, we would knowing nothing of the fate of a man who for a generation contributed so significantly to American chess culture. Whether Kemeny actually saw Maróczy during his brief stopover in New York is not known. He may well have, as the Budapest master knew many of the players and organizers in their homeland, and he was a logical person for Kemeny to see, if possible, before his departure. Maróczy’s visit to the United States was of particular interest to the national chess press because Maróczy was seeking a match with Lasker for the world’s championship. The younger Hungarian arrived in New York on February 14, 1906 (Lasker’s Chess Magazine, March 1906, page 215). Maróczy was born in Szeged, Hungary, on March 3, 1870, and so was ten years younger than Kemeny. Educated at the University of Zurich, Maróczy began a career as an engineer in Budapest. According to the April issue of Lasker’s Chess Magazine, Maróczy “pronounces his name as if it were written Gaza Maroze. The first ‘a’ of his Christian name and the ‘o’ in his surname have the accent.” The March issue of the American Chess Bulletin expected Maróczy would not start his chess tour until he visited Philadelphia on March 24. Thus it seems likely the Hungarian was in New York City as Kemeny passed through. Kemeny and Maróczy both knew fellow Hungarian chess player Dr. Samu Jacobi. The June 1906 American Chess Bulletin (pages 114–115) offered some “Reminiscences of Geza Maróczy,” by Alfred L. Hoffman. These were said to have first appeared in 1896 in the “Pester Lloyd, a very prominent Hungarian paper.” Among the praises of Maróczy’s play were these remarks about his early days: “How truly gifted Maróczy is, can be judged by the rapidity with which he advanced. Only four years ago [1892], a player of limited experience could subject him to curious defeats over the chessboard. But there was one man in the Budapest Chess Club, whose extreme modesty alone deprives him of an acknowledgment of international chess mastership—Dr. S. Jacobi. He foresaw the wonderful endowments of this youthful enthusiast. He took particular delight to encounter his attacks, and in fact Dr. Jacobi has practically reared Maróczy in his chess education.” Jacobi had also been Kemeny’s earliest recorded opponent, as we have seen in chapter 1. Had the doctor also had hopes for the young Kemeny? Jacobi lived until 1913. What did he make of Kemeny’s return, 46 and in ill health, his years of chess in America behind him? The first mention of Kemeny following his departure from the United States appeared in a short letter sent to Philadelphia’s Shipley by Georg Marco, who wrote on January 13, 1907, about ten months after Kemeny returned to Europe. According to Shipley, “It will be of interest to all our readers to know that the Chess Editor has just received from G. Marco, of Vienna, the following letter: ‘My Dear Sir: Maróczy informs me that Kemeny is in good health and daily visits the Baross Café in Budapest. I did not, however, wish to forward your letter, addressed to him to the café, as it might not reach him. I would rather address the letter to Maróczy, who expects to go back to Budapest in a week, or to Mr. Fleishmann, who is going home to Budapest tomorrow, the 14th of January. Yours truly, G. Marco.’” In addition to revealing that Maróczy knew Kemeny’s health, the note confirms that Kemeny had returned to the café world of the Hungarian capital (Philadelphia Inquirer, March 17, 1907). Kemeny’s daily visits to Café Baross in Budapest is a revealing detail. Gábor Baross (1848– 1892) was a Minister in the Hungarian government who modernized and systematized the Hungarian nation in many ways, including railroad unification and economic development.

310

EMIL KEMENY

A café named in his honor reflects forward thinking and nationalistic views, ones that perhaps were congenial to Kemeny’s own thinking. Café life for many decades, of course, formed the backbone of daily chess play in Budapest, as it did in Vienna and other European cities. A passage written only a few years earlier, in 1903, by a traveler to Budapest, Frank Berkeley Smith (in Budapest: The City of the Magyars pages 196–199), gives at least one impression of Budapest café life after the turn of the century: “The cafés and coffee-houses of Budapest are unique. Some of them have literally not closed their doors in twenty years; and hundreds of others (for they are as thick in Pest and Buda as saloons in New York) put their lights out long after the milkman has made his rounds. The Hungarian coffee-house is not as chic and attractive as the Parisian café, despite the fact that many of them are lavishly decorated and resplendent in majolica tiling, like the coffeehouse ‘Japan’ or the ‘New York,’ extravagantly done in marble, fresco and brass, or staid, conservative and well-smoked old coffee-houses like the ‘Fiume.’ Budapest is full of them; they are at every corner and at every turn. Each has its different clientele, and each in itself is unique in its atmosphere. They are the public clubs of the people. About their cold marble-topped tables the whole city spends a very large portion of its day, sitting for hours over cards, transacting business, meeting friends or poring over the files of newspapers. In Budapest there is plenty of time to do all this—to gamble, to play chess and checkers—and the coffee-house is the most comfortable, the cheapest and the most convenient place to do it in.” Not long after Marco’s note appeared in Shipley’s column, the Quaker lawyer and chess editor received a letter from his old friend. Today, with our modern means of communication, it is sometimes hard to keep in mind just how tenuous transatlantic communication was a hundred years ago. For many months, Kemeny’s old friends were unaware of whether he still lived, much less of his medical condition. Shipley introduced his selection from the letter as follows: “Not only nearly every reader of this column, but chess players generally throughout the United States will be interested to know that the editor of this paper has just received a letter from Emil Kemeny, formerly of this city, and who edited so ably for several years chess columns in the Philadelphia Ledger, Philadelphia Press and North American. Kemeny left this city a few years ago and took up his residence at Chicago, where he suffered a severe operation for appendicitis, and, very much broken in health, returned to his native city, Budapest, in Hungary. Mr. Kemeny’s friends have been unable to hear any word from him, and feared that he had not survived his serious illness.” Shipley then quoted Kemeny, which included a startling change in Kemeny’s search for livelihood: “After leaving the Chicago hospital I was far from well. I went to New York, intending originally to try and build up my strength at Atlantic City, but owing to my weakened condition, decided it was more advisable to return home. I arrived at Budapest exhausted and weak, and for several months I was far from my old self. At the end of that time, recovering some strength, I accepted a position as press agent and interpreter for Buffalo Bill. I traveled with him for two months, when my health again failed me, and I was forced to return home. Fortunately my rest there was beneficial and I am now strong once more, and would be quite happy were I back in America. I look forward eventually with great pleasure to returning there. While abroad I heard of the sad news relating to my old friend Pillsbury. I felt his death a great loss, not only to myself, but to the cause of chess. I intended to write to you some time ago, but delayed, hoping that I would be able soon to revisit American.” Shipley added that “Mr. Kemeny then goes on to speak of Mr. Blathy, the celebrated problem composer; Mr. Maroczy and several other of the well-known foreign experts, and concludes with wishing to be most kindly remembered to his old Philadelphia friends, mentioning by name many of the members of the Franklin Chess Club” (Philadelphia Inquirer, March 17, 1907).

11. Back in Budapest

311

Communications the present author made with staff at the Harold McCracken Research Library, which is associated with the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming, indicate Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show began its 1906 Eastern European tour in Agram, Croatia, on May 17, 1906. From there the show travelled to Austria until May 26, when it entered Hungary, traveling through the country for the next two months, including a stop at Budapest from June 16 to 24, 1906. Returning to Austria on July 23, the show then moved into Germany proper on August 15, 1906. It appears probable that it was during this tour that Kemeny briefly worked as a press agent for the show. Unfortunately the show’s employment records, such as they are, do not reveal such details. Obviously Kemeny in taking the position had capitalized on his command of multiple languages. Equally obvious, Kemeny’s health was still suspect, and he clearly had no long-term employment he was following up. All his chess writing in the United States had not translated into a sustainable career either in or outside chess. From this correspondence we also learn Kemeny still had hopes of returning to the United States. The next year Shipley had cause to remember Kemeny when in his October 25, 1908, Inquirer column he gave the fourteenth match game between Tarrasch and Lasker, which had stumbled on to a mind-numbing 119 moves. Tarrasch had played on and on despite the game being a dead draw. Tarrasch’s stubbornness reminded Shipley of a story (recounted in Chapter 5 of the present work) of how Kemeny had handled Alfred K. Robinson’s insistence on playing out an elementary draw in the 1894-95 Franklin championship: by calmly wandering off to read a newspaper, content to match Robinson’s stubbornness with feigned disinterest, and thereby threatening their last two or three moves might take hours. The memories, of course, grew dimmer as time passed, and the chance of Kemeny’s ever returning to the United States did likewise. Occasional meetings in Europe of players who were from Philadelphia or close with some of the Philadelphia players at times prompted communication. For instance, in his October 17, 1909, Inquirer column, Shipley remarked “We have recently received an interesting note from Sydney T. Sharp, who has been abroad during the summer. The note is dated at Budapest and in it Mr. Sharp states that while there he met Emil Kemeny, who was for so many years identified with chess in this city and one of the strongest players of the Franklin Chess Club. Mr. Sharp states that Mr. Kemeny seemed well and wished to be remembered to all of his Philadelphia friends.” Perhaps the contact with Sharp spurred Kemeny to write his Philadelphia friend. The Inquirer for December 26, 1909, told readers Shipley had received another letter, and that “Mr. Kemeny appears to be enjoying good health, and writes in excellent spirits. He states that in the past few years he has played but little chess, although there are many strong players in Budapest, and the chess centers are well patronized. Most of the chess is played in that city in the cafés, and Mr. Kemeny humorously adds, as a rule, the darkest corner of the cafés are assigned to the chess players; these gentlemen not being the most lucrative patrons of the variety of drinks offered at the cafés.” Kemeny also described for Shipley recent chess events in Budapest, and in doing so illustrated how the game there thrived. Mieses had given a simultaneous exhibition, and “Over 100 players appeared on the evening selected, many of them bringing their own boards and men, but owing to the accommodations only thirty-five were able to play.” Du ˚ ras, too, visited the city, and gave a 44 board simultaneous—all the boards that could be fitted into the space. Kemeny’s letter included a Budapest consultation game Du ˚ ras played against two local men, whose names were given by Shipley as Gajdos Janos and Aonyi Isthran. Kemeny added a few notes for Shipley, which the latter published, thereby offering to American readers for the first time in over three years a chess game annotated by city’s onetime champion: Du ˚ras–Janos and Isthran [C84], Budapest Consultation Game, 1909. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0–0 Be7 6. Nc3 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. a4

312

EMIL KEMENY

Rb8 9. a¥b5 a¥b5 10. Nd5 N¥e4 11. d4 0–0 12. N¥e7+ -®-®-DkD N¥e7 13.  Re1 Nf6 14.  d¥e5 d¥e5 15.  Q¥d8 R¥d8 D-0-h-0p 16. N¥e5 Be6 He could not play ... Nfd5 on account of B¥d5 -D-Dph-D followed by Nc6. 17. B¥e6 f¥e6 18. Nd3 With the intention DpD-H-Dto continue Nc5, which play, however, is cleverly met by Black. -D-D-D-D Instead of the text move, White should have played Ra7, which would probably win the game. 18. ... Nf5 19. Bf4 He could not D-D-D-Dwell play R¥e6 on account of ... Nd4. 19. ... Nd5 20. Be5 Ra8 -)PD-)P) 21. Nc5 R¥a1 22. R¥a1 Kf7 23. Ra7 Nfe7 24. f4 He could $-G-$-Inot play B¥c7 on account of ... N¥c7 and ... Rd1 mate threatens. After 17. ... f¥e6 24... Nc6 25. Rb7 Rb8 26. R¥b8 1⁄ 2 –1⁄ 2 (Philadelphia Inquirer, December 26, 1909, with annotations by Kemeny). Shipley added that “In concluding his letter, Mr. Kemeny wished particularly to be remembered by Messrs. Voigt, Stuart, Bampton and his other friends of the Franklin Chess Club.” A little over a year later, Shipley referred to another letter Kemeny sent, which included several chess-related items. The date of the letter is not given, but the Inquirer column was published January 22, 1911. Here we learn something of the language barrier between the men, as well as finding two more games by Samu Jacobi: “We are in receipt of an interesting letter from our old friend Emil Kemeny, who is now residing in his home at Budapest, Hungary.... Mr. Kemeny forwarded to us a collection of problems published by the late Sigwend Schuster [Chess Personalia: Zsigmond Schuster, Hungarian]. Unfortunately, the comments, as well as all the reading matter in the book, are in Hungarian, and we are therefore unable to make out the introduction, as well as the various comments. We publish, however, two of the problems. We also publish two games which Mr. Kemeny kindly forwarded to us, which have never before appeared in print. The one by Dr. Jacobi with the late Polish master, I. Kolisch, later Baron Kolisch, will be found of great interest to all our readers, as the game is a gem, the play of Dr. Jacobi being of a very high order. Mr. Kemeny writes that Dr. Jacobi was one of the most distinguished and brilliant Hungarian amateurs. He was invited to participate in the Baden tourney of 1870. Dr. Jacobi states that at that time games won by amateurs against leading professionals were frequently not published by the amateurs out of courtesy to their opponents. Times, however, have changed somewhat since then, as now an amateur winning against a professional is only too happy to have his game published in all of the leading columns. Mr. Kemeny adds that there is very little interest in chess in Budapest at this time, and with but one exception, the local papers have not even published the games of the recent championship match of Dr. Lasker in their chess columns, the match being practically ignored. Mr. Kemeny also states that G. Maroczy is expected to take part in the San Sebastian tournament in Spain.” Shipley wrote that “The following game was forwarded to us by Emil Kemeny from Budapest, who states that it has never before appeared in print. The game was played about a year after Baron Kolisch had won the Paris tournament in 1867, Dr. Jacobi being about 22 years of age at the time of his meeting with the late Baron.” Dr. Samu Jacobi–Ignaz Kolisch [C65], Vienna 1868. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0–0 Be7 5. d4 e¥d4 6. e5 Ne4 7. c3 d¥c3 8. Qd5 c¥b2 9. B¥b2 Nc5 10. Nbd2 0–0 11. Rac1 Ne6 12. Qb3 a6 13. B¥c6 d¥c6 14. Ne4 c5 15. Rcd1 Qe8 16. Qe3 b5 17. Nf6+ g¥f6 18. e¥f6 Bd6 19. R¥d6 c¥d6 20. Qh6 1–0 (Philadelphia Inquirer, January 22, 1911; Magyar Sakktörténet 1, page 227). The Inquirer columnist introduced the next game as follows: “The following fine game was played also by the Hungarian expert, Dr. S. Jacobi, with the late A. Schwarz, who died a short time ago in Vienna at the age of 75 years. The attack adopted by Dr. Jacobi against the

11. Back in Budapest

313

Sicilian Defense shows good solid chess, but does not yield White any particular advantage. Dr. Jacobi, however, plays the middle game with exquisite skill, obtaining a winning advantage by crowding Black’s game in true modern style.” If this is indeed Adolf Schwarz, he was born on October 31, 1836, and died in Vienna on October 25, 1910, just short of his 64th birthday. Dr. Samu Jacobi–Adolf Schwarz [B24]. 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg2 Nf6 5.  Nge2 Be7 6.  0–0 0–0 7.  d4 c¥d4 8.  N¥d4 Bc5 9.  Be3 Qe7 10.  Na4 B¥d4 11. B¥d4 N¥d4 12. Q¥d4 d6 13. c4 Ne8 14. Nc3 Bd7 15. Rfd1 Bc6 16. b4 b6 17. a4 f5 18. b5 Bb7 19. a5 e5 20. Qd3 f¥e4 21. B¥e4 B¥e4 22. N¥e4 Rd8 23. a¥b6 a¥b6 24. Ra6 Qc7 25. Ng5 Nf6 26. Ne6 Qf7 27. N¥d8 R¥d8 28. R¥b6 d5 29. c5 h6 30. Qc3 Re8 31. c6 Re7 32. Rb8+ Re8 33. Q¥e5 1–0 (Philadelphia Inquirer, January 22, 1911). We are fortunate that what appears to be the letter referred to above has survived. Jeff Kramer, noted collector and dealer in chess materials, kindly supplied a photocopy of it. Not only do we get to read the tone with which Kemeny wrote his old friend, who had of course made it less personal in summarizing it for his chess column, but we also learn of a proposal Kemeny made to sell to American newspapers a series of articles on the upcoming San Sebastian tournament that launched Capablanca’s international career. Kemeny wrote Shipley on January 18, 1911: “In my last letter I referred to the Lasker–Janowski games which appeared in the Pester Lloyd with notes by Dr. Lasker. There was also an essay ‘Mistakes and Errors’ written by Dr. Lasker. Reprint or translation not permitted. I thought it may be of interest to you, so I got the papers in question and send them to you under separate cover. I firmly believe that the cause of chess would have been better served and that it would also have been more advantageous to Lasker’s interest if the games had been reproduced in the various papers. I must add however, that I am not finding any fault with Dr. Lasker, quite the contrary I believe that Steinitz, Pillsbury and now Dr. Lasker correctly argue that whatever revenue there is in connection with a great chess combat, it rightly belongs to the principals of the contest and not to any outsider who may get the moves and provide a number of papers with it. The time may come, when the interest taken in the game will be sufficiently large to compel newspapers to give full accounts, then the experts may expect good returns from the newspapers, but at present the scheme does not work and really I think no further efforts should be made in this direction just now.” Then Kemeny made a specific proposal: “While I am writing on journalistic matters, it just reminds me that I should like to become active once more. Would you be kind enough to communicate with a Philadelphia or a New York paper (perhaps North American or New York Herald) regarding a special service during the San Sebastian International Tourney. I would write say six articles (about half a page) which should appeal to the general readers, though of course the amateur and the student of the game would also find what they are looking for. I would of course try to get photos, pictures, sketches to make the articles more interesting. The service would be exclusive for the one paper; the paper however has the privilege to make arrangements with other papers, sell the articles, games, notes, but I restrict my activity to the one paper. “I would ask for this service $400 ($100 traveling expenses, $50 for photos, mailing expenses and possibly wires, $150 would cover about my personal expenses and $100 I think would not be too much for my work). I will add that I intend to write up the whole contest in book form, provided I can make arrangements with ... [a] publisher, [and I would] receive some pay or royalty. Of course if no arrangement can be made with an American paper, the book proposition naturally will be abandoned.

314

EMIL KEMENY

“I should not have troubled you with this matter, but would have addressed the papers directly, but I do not know which paper has a chess column, which has not, and surely I would not like to take such column—if only temporarily—from anybody, besides that your intervention in my behalf is no doubt more likely to have satisfactory results.... Try to get more than $400 but in case of need you may agree to $350.” That Kemeny still hoped to provide detailed coverage for hire of a chess tournament for American sources in 1911, at the age of 51, suggests something, perhaps, of the tenuous opportunities he found in Budapest for making a regular living. Unfortunately, nothing came of Kemeny’s proposal, or of his subsequently contributing any chess information to newspapers in the United States. As for Kemeny’s work in Budapest, his circumstances soon changed. Shipley summarized Kemeny’s next letter, full of chess news and thoughts, in his August 6, 1911, Inquirer column: “Kemeny states that Capablanca’s success was a surprise to most of the European players. The victory was well earned, but, in Kemeny’s opinion, hardly equaled Pillsbury’s brilliant showing in the Hastings tournament. Pillsbury showed more ambition, as was demonstrated in the many desperate chances he took to win with nearly all his opponents. Capablanca was more conservative in his line of play, and therefore many of his games lacked the interest of Pillsbury’s. “Kemeny further states that Dr. Emanuel Lasker paid a recent visit to Budapest, and gave an exhibition of his skill at the Casino. He lectured on chess and military tactics and also gave a simultaneous performance, meeting thirty opponents. Among the thirty there were about fifteen leading players, and many of the weaker players received advice from the spectators. “Kemeny also remarks that he hopes the cable match between England and America may be resumed in the near future. He is of the opinion that the event might prove of more general interest if the American team met in different cities, in place of only at Brooklyn. Personally we have our doubts as to the advisability of this course. Certainly in the East the chess center is New York. Possibly Chicago might prove a drawing card, although we doubt if there are nearly as many chess players who would visit the rooms at Chicago as would visit the match when played in Brooklyn or New York. “Kemeny further suggests that the players for the team should be selected in a different manner. He does not at all dispute the fact that able teams have been selected, but is of the opinion that even though the team were weaker, if the players were selected from the leading players of the country after various local contests had been held, the playing of the team might be of more general interest throughout the country. By this method new stars might be developed and the meeting and the incentive for a place on the team would mean most interesting contests throughout the country. Kemeny fully unites with the advisability of only having native-born players on the teams, as he is of the opinion that Americans would be more interested if the players were born in this country, as shown by their names, rather than having a team composed of Germans, Austrians or Poles who happen to be naturalized here.” Compared to this burst of chess opinions, either Kemeny included little about himself or Shipley chose to offer little to his readers. Tellingly, however, he noted, “Kemeny is now employed with the Atlantica Sea Navigation Company, Limited, and if this column were read by the fair sex, some might possibly be interested to learn that he is still unmarried. At the close of his letter he remarks that he often thinks ‘how far off the land is he so much loved to live in.’” The few chess records remaining, really scraps of records, suggest that whatever chess Kemeny played in Budapest he confined to either the Café Baross or else other cafés from which no records remain. Kemeny, though, was active in the new chess life of his nation. The old Pesti Sakk-kör (the Pest Chess Circle) had given way to the Budapesti Sakk-kör, which

11. Back in Budapest

315

during Kemeny’s last years in Budapest was the strongest club in Hungary. Once again I am grateful to Hungarian chess researchers, particularly György Blahó, for information from Hungarian chess sources such as Magyar Sakkvilág (Hungarian Chessworld). We learn, for instance, in the pages of Magyar Sakkvilág that in 1912 the members of the committee of the Budapesti Sakk-kör included 18 men, among them Mór Ehrenstein and Emil Kemeny. The committee included known chess players, problem composers, members of the aristocracy as well as men of significant power and wealth. The same source shows Kemeny a member of the committee in the years to come, and that at the end of January 1915 he became the controller of the organization. The position of “controller” was one that included not only overseeing the treasurer, but also responsibility for the organization’s annual balance. The pages of Magyar Sakkvilág are silent as to the makeup of the committee and its officers during much of World War I, but in March 1919 Kemeny is again listed as controller. The next volume examined, published in 1922, shows his name absent from the lists. Kemeny devoted the better part of a decade after his return to Budapest to the organization and development of his native country’s most important chess club, serving in a respected and trusted appointment. Having been a member of the club’s predecessor organization, Pesti Sakk-kör, he rightly could be called, by 1919, after more than forty years’ involvement with chess both in the United States and Hungary, one of Budapest’s most distinguished followers of Caissa. But none of this information reached American sources at the time. After Kemeny’s contact with Shipley in 1911, a decade passed before more was heard from the Hungarian. It was, of course, a decade of international disaster. The world turned to war in August 1914, and its aftermath was long felt throughout Europe and especially in the old Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Ten years passed before the following appeared in the Inquirer of September 18, 1921: “Our Philadelphia readers as well as readers throughout the country will be delighted to learn that we received last week a letter from our old friend, Emil Kemeny, dated Budapest, August 13. This is the first news we have had from Mr. Kemeny since the war started. Emil Kemeny emphasizes the fact that in Hungary normal conditions once more exist and cultured life has resumed its place in State and civil affairs. The Budapest Chess Club has started to inaugurate an international chess tournament scheduled to commence September 15. Teichmann, Dr. Tarrasch, Tartakover, Reti and Bogoljubow have been invited to participate.” No mention was made of what hardships Kemeny might have lived through in Budapest during the war years. As usual, it was chess that mattered most, at least in public. Perhaps it was this resumption of contact in the early 1920s that prompted Shipley a few months later to pay his greatest homage to Kemeny. One wonders if he sent the column to his old friend, or whether he created the column from a letter. Either way, it was a telling tribute to the Hungarian, now past his sixtieth year. Some of this story has appeared earlier, in detailing Kemeny’s move from New York to Philadelphia. It is now given as a whole: “It was William Ferris, who entered the Franklin Chess Club one afternoon with the remark that he had played the whole of the night before. Somebody asked him where, Ferris replied in New York. There the matter dropped, for the Happy Dasher had just left his queen en prise in a tournament game, and everybody wanted to see whether the sacrifice was sound. It was at supper later that Ferris unbosomed himself to a select coterie of friends. It appeared that he had discovered a Bohemian chess club down on Second avenue. Ferris was fond of discovering Bohemian places of all kinds. There was a restaurant downstairs and a chess room upstairs. Ferris was so fascinated by the place, and the players, that he stayed until bedtime, then went to his hotel, and being unable to sleep, dressed and went back to Second avenue to have another look at the place. To his surprise it was still open. “There was one man there, a nice chap, who did not seem a bit sleepy and played with him until near morning. Asked his new friend’s name, Ferris thought it was Kemeny, but was

316

EMIL KEMENY

Top—The remains of Kemeny’s grave, Jewish Cemetery, Budapest. Found by Hungarian chess historian Iván Bottlik (depicted); bottom—Kemeny’s effaced tombstone.

11. Back in Budapest

317

not sure. Asked the score, he said it was pretty bad, and added that his friend was coming over here to work. “The idea of anybody who would gamble with you until morning, really working, seemed funny. Yet it was barely a fortnight later that it was announced in the club that Emile [sic] Kemeny, of New York, had been elected to membership, and that Arthur Hale had placed him in the Pennsylvania Railroad office at Broad street. Shortly afterwards a tall distinguished looking foreigner dropped in at the Franklin and put his name down for the championship tourney. His early successes combined with his modest demeanor won him friends. When he did up Mr. Morgan in twenty-one moves, he became a hero. He won the tournament brilliantly, encouraging his vanquished rivals with the remark that he had lost more games than any of them had ever lost. “So great was his fame that the Franklin Club pitted him against the United States champion, Jackson W. Showalter, in the big match of the year with the Manhattan Chess Club, of New York. His splendid victory made Franklin winner by a score of 8 to 6. Jackson W. is said to be still playing over that game to find out where he lost. “It was at one of Percy Frazer’s Winter parties that it came out Kemeny was a great man at home in far-away Hungary. His name was pronounced Kemenyie and he accredited [sic] to be of noble birth. It came out quite accidentally in a discussion over Madeira, but it made a vast impression and when he helped us down New York at Keuka Lake with Lipschütz and Marshall against us, our admiration knew no bounds. “The star has faded now. Even great stars fade, but I want the chess world of today to know and admire the genius of the great Kemeny, the star of yesterday” (Philadelphia Inquirer, January 1, 1922). The occasional contact appeared again the following May. The Inquirer for June 13, 1922, reported that “we received a few days ago a most interesting letter from our friend, Emil Kemeny, written from Budapest May 13. A statement contained in Kemeny’s letter relating to Dr. Emanuel Lasker will be of interest to our readers. The passage alluded to states ‘that Dr. Lasker was invited to Budapest and delivered a lecture in that city before a large and distinguished audience. During his visit he was interviewed by one of the citizens who reports that Lasker attributed his breakdown in Havana to illness and lack of sleep. That he was unaccustomed to the climactic conditions in Cuba at that time of year.’ Kemeny further adds that a Hungarian international chess organization has been recently formed. The organization is now issuing a chess periodical. We hope to receive a copy shortly.” But the end was coming. The many years of illnesses, reaching back at least to 1893 when Kemeny, then leading in his first Franklin Chess Club championship, nearly succumbed to pneumonia, had taken their toll. Never robust, it appears, Kemeny finally died of lung-related complications. News of his death, predictably, took months to reach American chess sources. Shipley wrote of his old friend in his July 25, 1925, Philadelphia Inquirer column: “Emil Kemeny was born in Budapest January 13, 1860. He was tall, standing over six feet in height. Kemeny was a genial companion with a keen sense of humor, well read, spoke several languages fluently and besides being an able chess player was passionately fond of good music. We first heard of Kemeny as a chess player in New York in 1891 and presume he came to this country about that date. In 1893 he moved to Philadelphia. He held a position for some time with the Pennsylvania Railroad and edited an exceptionally able chess column in the Philadelphia Ledger for several years. Later he had a column in the North American, the latter column being taken up by the late G.C. Reichhelm when Kemeny left Philadelphia. In 1903 Kemeny went to Monte Carlo to report the Monte Carlo Tournament for the North American. He published in Philadelphia for one year a weekly entitled the American Chess Weekly. This paper contained a full account of the Monte Carlo Tournament of 1903. So far as we know, it is the only book containing the games of this tournament. Kemeny was a brilliant chess

318

EMIL KEMENY

player, though for a master was not particularly well posted in the openings, but depended for his success on his skill in combination play in the middle game.” New York, too, acknowledged Kemeny’s passing. Hermann Helms wrote, “Through Walter Penn Shipley, of Philadelphia, we have been apprised of the death at Budapest on May 1 last of Emil Kemeny, for many years an active force in American chess circles, first in New York, then in Philadelphia and later in Chicago. A brother, Alexander Kemeny, reported that Emil had been sick for over eight months with bronchitis, which led to heart trouble and finally pneumonia. He was buried on May 3” (American Chess Bulletin, July-August 1925, page 123). It was the first and only time, to our knowledge, that mention was ever made of a member of Kemeny’s family. Helms had in fact offered his readers in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle an early, though error filled, report of Kemeny’s end. The July 30, 1925, issue included Helms’ statement under the heading “Death of Emil Kemeny”: “Emil Kemeny, who left here over a dozen [sic] years ago, and returned to his home in Europe, died in Hungary on June 15 [sic], according to news received from there by Geza Maroczy, now in this city. For a number of years Kemeny had been a prominent figure in Metropolitan chess circles, being identified with the now defunct City Chess Club. During the nineties, after Showalter had defeated Lipschütz for the United States championship, Kemeny, who had meantime moved to Philadelphia and become champion of that city, challenged him for the title and lost. “The Hungarian for some time conducted a weekly [sic] chess department in the Public Ledger and also established the American Chess Weekly, which, however, did not last long, mainly owing to prolonged absences. In 1903 he reported the proceedings of the International Congress at Monte Carlo for the American press. Subsequently he printed an excellent account of the masters’ tournament, with annotated games, in the Weekly and brought it out in book form. “Doubtless owing to poor health, which determined him to leave America, Kemeny did not enter the international arena, where unquestionably he would have given a good account of himself.” Whether this last statement was entirely true or not, Kemeny’s death marked the end of a life given over to chess in many forms, and the end of a gentle companion who served his passion better than he served himself. Almost seventy-five years later, in July 1999, Iván Bottlik, Hungarian chess historian, attempted to find Kemeny’s grave. Among records of a Jewish cemetery in Budapest, he discovered the plot where Kemeny’s final resting place was located. All he could find was a toppled marble slab, displaced by growing trees. The marker’s inscription had weathered away, obliterated by the hand of nature, if not of man. The graves surrounding Kemeny’s are from the same period. Yet his grave rests alone, with no neighboring marker reflecting family connections. Much as he lived, so he died, even the memory of his life and death erased from the last marker accorded it. It is hoped the present volume in some way repairs that effacement.

Appendix: “International Chess Tournaments” (1904) The following article by Kemeny, preceding Cambridge Springs 1904, appeared in the Forum, March 1904, at pages 471–480. It is reprinted here in its entirety.

“INTERNATIONAL CHESS TOURNAMENTS” Much to the delight of the admirers of the royal game of chess, an international tournament is announced for next spring, the contest to take place in Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania. The following eight foreign exponents have been invited: Dr. Lasker, Dr. Tarrasch, and Messrs. Maroczy, Tschigorin, Janowski, Schlechter, Burns, and Teichmann. There are also to be eight American players, of whom the following seven have already received invitations: Messrs. Pillsbury, Marshall, Napier, Showalter, Lipschütz, Hodges and Barry. It is likely that all will accept. The tournament is to be a one-round affair, that is, each participant will play one game with every competitor; so that the contest will probably last about a month, or, to be more exact, from the middle of April to the middle of May. The tournament promises to be of particular interest; for, besides offering an opportunity to each competitor to excel in an exciting race, it will demonstrate what degree of success an American contingent can achieve against a formidable array of experts from abroad. The selection of European entries was not an easy task; but the committee in charge acquitted itself very creditably. Players who had excelled in bygone years, but who had not been equally successful in more recent events, were not included in the list; nor were any invited whose successes had been but moderate. Only the star competitors in the most recent contests were selected; so that the list comprises the champion of the world, the champions of Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Russia, and the foremost players of England and France. The American contingent, apart from Pillsbury, contains but four entries of persons who have participated in previous international tournaments, namely Messrs. Marshall, Napier, Showalter and Lipschütz. The others are debutants, at least so far as international tournaments are concerned, and their efforts will therefore be extremely interesting to follow, more particularly as the gentlemen in question have already given a credible account of themselves in other competitions. An international tournament in which only the foremost exponents of the game will be engaged, and which will involve an exciting race for supremacy, is sure to prove attractive. So long, at least, as the contest lasts and the ultimate outcome is in doubt, the interest will be widespread and intense. One feature of an international tournament is that the games produced are apt to be of high merit, thoroughly enjoyable, and often instructive to devotees of chess. Were

319

320

APPENDIX

it not for such advantages, costly affairs of this kind would not be arranged as frequently as they have been in recent years. To what extent an international tournament benefits the game and stimulates chess-playing can be forcibly illustrated by reference to past contests. Suffice it here to cite a few notable events, such as have potently influenced the game in this country, and contributed to bring it to its present stage of efficiency. The first of these was the New York tournament of 1857, won by Morphy, who soon after his victory started on his European tour, during which he defeated the foremost players of his time. Many factors served to enhance the splendor of his achievement. His brilliancy of attack, his grandeur of conception, his wonderful blindfold play, and the series of victories won by him in rapid succession—the more remarkable because of the youthfulness of the player— were well adapted to make a profound impression; and the enthusiasm attending his brilliant, but unfortunately brief, career is unparalleled in the annals of the game. Among the tournaments that followed, the Paris contest of 1867 should be mentioned; for the winner, Kolisch, challenged Morphy, and it was hoped that the latter would again enter the field. As Kolisch, however, had not been successful in his contests with Paulsen and Anderssen, opponents whom Morphy had defeated, the American did not deem it necessary to renew his activity. Of the subsequent events, the London tournament of 1883 deserves attention. This contest was won by Zukertort in brilliant style, and fairly amazed the world of chess Indeed, Zukertort’s performance in the tournament referred to stands unsurpassed; and whenever a brilliant, decisive victory is achieved, followers of the game are in the habit of comparing it with the performance in the famous tournament of 1883. Incidentally, it should be mentioned that, during the sixteen years which elapsed between the Paris tournament of 1867 and the London contest of 1883, there were no fewer than eight international tournaments, whereas during the previous sixteen years, i.e., from the London tournament of 1851 to the Paris contest of 1867, there had been but one. Shortly after the London tournament of 1883, Steinitz came to this country; and in 1886 a match was arranged between him and Zukertort, which Steinitz won. A few words should here be devoted to the remarkable career of the late champion, who, during his prolonged activity, so materially influenced the game abroad as well as in this country, and who, as player, critic, and instructor alike, made a lasting impression. Steinitz did not enter the arena—as Morphy had done—a full-fledged champion. On the contrary, he rose step by step, until he reached the championship, which he valiantly maintained for twenty-eight years. Nor was his play, however artistic, profound, and scientific it may have been, apt to arouse enthusiasm; for, instead of the brilliant, dashing attack, so conspicuous in Morphy’s methods, Steinitz’s tactics were conservative. In 1866, in a match with Anderssen, Steinitz won the championship of the world. Those who had been instrumental in bringing about this match, foremost among whom was the late English Lord Chief Justice, Lord Russell of Killowen, were more surprised than pleased at the result; for they did not like the new champion’s style of playing. Steinitz more firmly established his reputation by gaining well-merited victories at the Vienna international tournaments of 1873 and 1882, and by various other successful matches. His noteworthy achievements he ascribed largely to his method of playing, which he designated as the modern school. He was a student and an enthusiast, and, in the belief that a publication of his theories would benefit the game, he extensively promulgated the results of his researches. After he had made his home in this country, he went even further, and, in order to strengthen his case, endeavored to show shortcomings in Morphy’s tactics, by trying to demonstrate that the American’s efforts had been overestimated and that his style of playing—the socalled old school—could not be safely adopted against an improved defense. As might have been anticipated, these detracting articles led to controversies which sometimes became unnecessarily sharp, while, of course, they did not decide the question one way or the other. Naturally, these discussions did not tend to make Steinitz more popular, although they may have benefited the cause of chess; for players became interested, and once more exam-

“International Chess Tournaments” (1904)

321

ined Morphy’s games, comparing them with the methods of Steinitz. At that time, the question of superiority lay between Morphy and Steinitz. Since then, it has successively been Morphy vs. Pillsbury, and Morphy vs. Lasker. Whenever an exceptional success is achieved, whenever a brilliant star appears on the horizon of chess, comparison with Morphy is sure to follow. Inasmuch as even persons not familiar with the game have manifested interest in this matter, it may not be out of place to cite the opinions of a few competent judges relative to the point at issue. Mr. James McConnell, of New Orleans, already a distinguished amateur at the time of Morphy, has had the privilege of contesting games with the latter, and also with practically all the leading players that have since appeared. Mr. McConnell unhesitatingly asserts that Morphy’s play impressed him more than that of any other master. The same opinion is expressed by Arnous de Riviére, of Paris, who likewise met Morphy and his most distinguished successors. Among the other prominent adherents of the great American is the Russian champion Tschigorin. There are, however, many experts, as well as amateurs, who believe that Steinitz was correct. The more useful phase of Steinitz’s activity, however, may be found in his labors in behalf of the sixth American chess congress, which, as a matter of fact was the only international tournament ever held in this country. Steinitz, who had had considerable experience in such contests, knew that while the local support would be fairly liberal, the contributions from without would probably be rather limited. He therefore proposed to describe and annotate the games of the tournament, and to have the result published in book form. Five hundred copies were to be issued at a subscription price of $10. Steinitz himself was content with a merely nominal sum in compensation for his very elaborate work on this book, the proceeds from which, as a matter of fact, provided the bulk of the amount needed to defray the expenses of the contest. The tournament thus arranged was held in New York in 1889, and proved a success so far as personal skill and the quality of the games were concerned. The showing of the American players, however, was somewhat disappointing. Only the sixth prize, won by Lipschütz, remained here, and even Lipschütz is not a native of this country. In 1893 another attempt was made to arrange an international tournament, which would have been very appropriate at the time because of the World’s Fair at Chicago. Unfortunately, however, the necessary amount could not be raised. Probably this circumstance was due to the failure of the American contingent in the previous contest; for the necessary enthusiasm was certainly lacking. Only one small contest took place, and this was easily won by Lasker, there being thirteen winning games, no loses, and no draws. The next year a similar tournament was arranged, and it was won by Steinitz, who, however, was at that time no longer the champion, having meanwhile suffered defeat at the hands of Lasker. This did not end Steinitz’s eventful career, but it practically closed the period of his remarkable successes. The important matches in which he was engaged, his valuable and instructive literary productions, his chess exhibitions, and his successful efforts in bringing about an international tournament in America—all these served to confer distinction upon the man and permanently to benefit the game, especially in this country. While actual enthusiasm did not prevail during the leadership of Steinitz, it was strongly aroused by the next tournament held, the so-called Hastings congress of 1895. It must be admitted that the Brooklyn Chess Club showed an enterprising spirit when it decided to be represented in this tournament by Mr. Harry Nelson Pillsbury, a rising young player. At first, it was rather doubtful whether the entry would be accepted at all; and, when it was accepted, devotees of the game did not expect any particular success—indeed, it was believed that Pillsbury would not be able to cope with the formidable field arrayed against him. He not only held his own, however, but did more than that: he won first honors, actually surpassing the efforts of the foremost players of the day. The surprise at the result was immense. The Brooklyn Chess Club planned a reception in honor of its representative, and, at the suggestion of the Franklin Chess Club, it was decided to make the affair a national one. The ovation proved a memorable event, the addresses of notable speakers lending splendor to the occasion. As the nature and magnitude

322

APPENDIX

of Pillsbury’s victory were clearly enunciated at the time in the brilliant address of Dr. Persifor Frazer, a repetition of then principal facts stated therein may not be inappropriate. It was thirty-eight years after the famous victory of Morphy that Pillsbury once more gave extraordinary prestige to the cause of chess in America. In some respects, the circumstances attending the victory of the new champion furnished by America were similar to those under which the great game [sic] of 1857 was contested. Both Pillsbury and his distinguished opponent, Lasker, were young men, like their famous predecessors, Morphy and Von der Lasa [sic]. They both immediately achieved world-wide fame. In both cases, also, the men were pitted against the foremost players of their time, with the difference, however, that Morphy’s competitors comprised the fifteen best players of America, while those of Pillsbury included the twenty-one greatest experts in the world. Nor is this the only circumstance that enhances the splendor of Pillsbury’s victory; for it should be remembered that he had to play twenty-one games against as many masters, while Morphy contested but eighteen games against four opponents. Again, while Morphy’s winning percentage was placed at 86, and Pillsbury’s at 79, the latter had to contest a greater number of games, and that with five times as many players as were engaged by his predecessor—players of comparatively higher ability than those which figured in the tournament of 1857, when the standard of chess, also, was not as high as it is today. In view of these circumstances, Pillsbury’s achievement in the contest referred to may justly be said to have eclipsed that of Morphy. So much for the victory of Pillsbury, which led to an unprecedented activity in American chess. The annual cable contest with Great Britain for the Sir George Newnes trophy was inaugurated soon thereafter, and was shortly followed by the college cable match (Columbia, Harvard, Princeton and Yale vs. Oxford and Cambridge) for the Isaac L. Rice trophy—also an annual affair. A national correspondence chess association, named in honor of Pillsbury, was also formed; and this association now embraces more than one thousand members and arranges successful and interesting contests. Pillsbury participated in most of the subsequent international tournaments, in which he acquitted himself very creditably. In the marvelous blindfold exhibitions given by him he sometimes played twenty to twenty-two games simultaneously, creating a genuine sensation everywhere. Nevertheless, the brilliant performance of Hastings surpassed his subsequent efforts in international tournaments. From the foregoing, it becomes manifest that international tournaments have benefited chess in this country, and it may be asserted with equal truth that such events have also stimulated the game abroad, as, for example, in England, Germany, Hungary, Russia, and various other countries. It must be admitted that these international tournaments produce games distinguished by extraordinary skill and brilliancy; that they often result in advancing the theory of chess; and that, by exciting a widespread publicity, they tend to stir up interest in the game. The question nevertheless arises: Are the international tournaments, now following one another in increasingly rapid succession, chiefly responsible for the extensive development of chess-playing in recent years, or is there, perhaps, another reason for the constantly increasing popularity of the game? In other words, may not these contests merely be the outcome of an increased demand? It is quite likely that the latter is the true statement of the case. Undoubtedly, contests of magnitude, in which exceptional performances are recorded, impress those familiar with the game, impelling them to greater activity. Yet Philidor’s remarkable success a century and a half ago did not result in extensive chess-playing, nor did the brilliancy of Labourdonnais. Morphy’s surprising triumphs, it is true, caused widespread admiration; yet there was no noticeable increase in chess-playing consequent upon his successes. Had it been possible to arrange international tournaments, say, a century ago, these certainly would have caused amazement; but the practice of the game would nevertheless have remained desultory. On the other hand, had there been no contest whatever of recent years, it is probable that the interest in chess would still have increased, though, perhaps, not in so marked a degree. The last fifty years have brought about wonderful changes in our life, and amazing progress

“International Chess Tournaments” (1904)

323

is noticeable in every direction. Steam and electricity, applied to practical purposes, improved machinery, and other inventions of a most varied character have greatly stimulated competition, which is becoming ever keener and more exacting. A wider field is now afforded to intellectual activity, and an ever greater number of persons are induced, if not compelled, to devote themselves to pursuits involving intense mental effort. Now, it is a well-known fact that the game of chess is complicated in its elements, and that it is not easy to acquire even a rudimentary knowledge of it. Progress, therefore, is both difficult and slow. The problems presenting themselves at the various stages of the game require concentration of mind in an extraordinary degree. Such effort, of course, has never been congenial to those engaged in mere routine work. On the other hand, clergymen, lawyers, physicians, financiers, as well as other professional and business men—in fact all those whose pursuits in life call for exacting mental exertion—find the game both fascinating and useful. It affords them a much-needed and complete relief. No matter how vexatious the proposition confronted in daily life may be, no matter how persistently it may force itself upon the mind, it is forgotten so long as the player is absorbed in his game. Hence, the devotees of chess are constantly becoming more numerous. When the slight progress made during past centuries is compared with the rapid growth in recent years, it would almost seem as if the royal game had been invented ages ahead of its actual opportunity. During the present year, especially, there will be no scarcity of international tournaments. One is to be held at Monte Carlo during the month of February; the next is to take place at Cambridge Springs; during midsummer a tournament arranged by the German Chess Association will be given at Cobourg; and in September the St. Louis contest is to take place. Finally, Mr. E. Lasker and Dr. Tarrasch are to contest a match for the championship of the world. The Cambridge Springs international contest, which is likely to prove the principal attraction of the year, will be arranged by a committee of which Mr. Isaac L. Rice has been elected president. Mr. Joseph D. Redding has been appointed referee; and Messrs H. Cassel and H. Helms have been entrusted with the management. Aside from the 120 games the contest calls for, there will be special play-days devoted to the Rice gambit, a novel variation leading to stupendous complications. Time and again, this particular game, introduced by Mr. Isaac L. Rice, has seemed endangered; and although the foremost exponents have exerted themselves in its behalf, it has nearly always been the inventor himself who has had to come to the rescue. The following prizes are offered in the Cambridge Springs tournament: A first prize of $1,000, and a second of $600, with $1,500 to be divided among the other competitors according to a system to be agreed upon later by the masters. Traveling and hotel expenses will be defrayed by the management. The players and the committee will be received at the White House by the president of the United States, who will offer a trophy to go to the winner of the tournament. As the prize fund amounts to $3,100, it would seem as if almost $200 should fall to the share of each competitor. Inasmuch, however, as the principal prizes are considerably above that amount, it is quite safe to say that the less successful players will get very little, or nothing at all. The reader will undoubtedly be surprised at the small compensation star exponents receive for their prolonged and very exacting efforts. Yet such is the case; and truly, whatever name and fame chess masters may have established for themselves, in worldly goods their share has been meager. While they are successful in tournaments they manage to get along; for their services at the chess clubs are more or less in demand. As soon as they are surpassed, however, their revenue dwindles away. It is a sad chapter in the history of the game that some of the greatest players, after a brilliant career, have experienced the grim fate of being reduced to extreme poverty; and the most pathetic feature of such cases is that the distress is usually kept hidden until it is past all assistance. Zukertort and Steinitz were in this awful plight, as were many others who had devoted all their efforts to the game. While the smallness of the prize fund may therefore surprise the general reader, it is probable that the initiated will be fairly amazed that such an amount could be raised at all, and in so short a time. It has been intimated, by the way, that not only

324

APPENDIX

the enthusiasts of chess have contributed their usual quota, but persons interested in the development of Cambridge Springs have also subscribed, probably furnishing the bulk of the funds needed. The late Mr. Steinitz endeavored to secure better conditions for the chess masters. He argued that a game played should be considered as the property of the two contestants, or of the winner, and that reports of such a game should be withheld from newspapers and other publications, unless these were willing to pay for them. In principle this is quite correct; but the practical value of such a course, even if it could be carried out, is very doubtful. The fact is that, of general readers, but a small percentage are familiar with the game at all; while, even among chess players, there are comparatively few who are sufficiently advanced adequately to appreciate such highgrade work. The commercial value of these games, therefore, is necessarily very limited; and, indeed, but few journals care to print the moves. As regards the general features of a contest, however, particularly of one so important as an international tournament, the case is altogether different. A contest of such magnitude appeals to the ordinary reader. He is not interested in the moves of the game, nor does he care whether the opening selected is a Ruy Lopez or a Rice gambit. The information that he really looks for is the result of the day’s play. He is interested to find out who won, who lost, who leads, who has the best chances to win the contest, what successes the representatives of his own country have to record, and such other general news as the features of a general contest may present. The consequence is that such news receives extensive publicity; and the reader’s attention is drawn to the scene of the contest, by which means the city or town itself is incidentally advertized—a fact which may prove of commercial value and may benefit chess masters to a greater extent than Steinitz’s plan could ever have done. The value of such extensive publicity must, indeed, be considerable, otherwise the Monte Carlo institution would not have spent thousands of dollars to bring about contests of this kind; for surely no one will accuse that well-known resort of being concerned solely with the intellectual features of the game. The invitations extended by Monte Carlo and other places therefore deserve careful consideration. They certainly involve nothing derogatory to the masters; on the contrary, they can only be construed as highly complementary to them. They prove that not merely the chess clubs or the limited number of chess enthusiasts take an interest in the competition, but that the general public also finds it attractive. They signify a recognition of the celebrity of the masters, of their pluck, skill and endurance, in a noble and exacting combat. The masters should therefore grasp the opportunity afforded them, and, by exerting themselves to the utmost, furnish a contest which impels admiration. They should also endeavor to enhance the value of international tournaments by insisting upon the establishment of certain intervals between them. Tournaments following one another in rapid succession tire the player as well as the reader, and are apt to diminish the degree of publicity given to the game. Most important of all, however, the masters should stipulate that an international tournament shall invariably carry with it the championship of the world. The custom at present prevailing, according to which a champion is free to absent himself from a tournament or to participate in it, without in either case jeopardizing his title, does not appeal to the general public, and is prejudicial to the cause of international tournaments. In conclusion, it may be stated that the contest projected for next spring will have the important advantage of being centrally located; for Cambridge Springs is within easy reach of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Pittsburg, Buffalo, Chicago, and St. Louis—the principal chess centers of America. Admirers of the game may, therefore, look forward with great interest to a game which will undoubtedly draw visitors from every part of the United States as well as from abroad. Emil Kemeny

Tournament and Match Record In the charts that follow, “wins” refer to wins by Kemeny, as do “losses” and “draws.” In team match events, Kemeny’s team is listed first, and the results column always lists his team first. Match results between the same two teams in any given year represent first and second round results, and hence should be read together for a full match score. Draws did not count in the 1892 Brooklyn Chess Club championship’s second round, and were replayed. Kemeny was considered the champion of the City Chess Club after defeating Halpern in match play. He did not finish the 1894-95 Franklin Chess Club championship, as he returned for a short time to Europe. Had he remained, it is almost inconceivable that he would not have won first prize for a third straight time. Kemeny won the 1898-99 Franklin club title after tying for first with Voigt and then defeating him in a short match playoff; he finished second to Newman after a short match playoff in the 1899-1900 event. Totals are not given for wins, losses and draws in any of the three categories below because such figures would be meaningless, given the disparate strengths from event to event.

Tournaments Wins

Losses

Draws Position

1891 NYSCA Skaneateles 5 2 1 Score unclear; wins + draws = 29; losses 7 1891 City Chess Club Handicap 1892 NYSCA Ch. 2 2 0 1892 Brooklyn CC Ch. 14 4 0 1892 NYSCA Skaneateles 6 1 1 1892-93 Franklin CC Ch. 13 3 2 1893-94 Franklin CC Ch. 22 0 2 1894-95 Franklin CC Ch. 12 1 2 1897-98 Franklin CC Ch. 7 4 0 1898-99 Franklin CC Ch. 10 3 1 1899-1900 Franklin CC Ch. 11 3 4 1900-01 Franklin CC Ch. 8 3 3 1904 Western Ch. (St. Louis) 7 4 2 1904 7th Amer. Congress (St. Louis) 5 4 0 1904-05 Chicago CC Club Ch. 18 1 0 1905 Illinois State Chess Assoc. 2 1 0

325

2nd 4th — 2nd 1st 1st 1st — 4–5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4–5th 4th 1st 2–4th

326

TOURNAMENT

AND

MATCH RECORD

Matches 1890 Kemeny—Jacob Halpern 1891 Kemeny—W.S. Huntington 1891 Kemeny—J. M. Hanham 1896 Kemeny—J.W. Showalter 1899 Kemeny—H.G. Voigt 1900 Kemeny—C.J. Newman

Wins

Losses

Draws

Victor

5 5 4 4 2 1

4 1 5 7 0 2

2 0 0 4 4 1

Kemeny Kemeny Hanham Showalter Kemeny Newman

Team Matches Kemeny’s Result Team Result 1892 City CC—Brooklyn CC 1 (Thompson) 1892 City CC—Brooklyn CC 1 (W.F. Eno) 1892 City CC—Junior CC (Phila) 1 (Bampton) 1894 City CC—Brooklyn CC 1 (P. Richardson) 1 1894 Brooklyn CC—Newark CC ⁄ 2 (C. Hymes) 1896 Franklin CC—Manhattan CC 1 (Hanham) 1897 Franklin CC—Manhattan CC 1 (Showalter) 1897 NYSCA Pa—NY teams (Thousand Islands) 4–2, 1 draw 1898 NYSCA Pa—NY teams (Lake Keuka) 4–2, 1 draw 1899 Franklin CC—Manhattan CC 0 (S. Lipschütz) 1899 NYSCA Pa—NY teams (Saratoga Springs) 3–1, 3 draws 1900 Franklin CC—Manhattan CC 0 (S. Lipschütz) 1901 Franklin CC—Manhattan CC 0 (S. Lipschütz) 1902 Franklin CC—Manhattan CC 1 (E. Hymes) 1905 Chicago CCC—Manhattan CC 0 (A. Fox) 1905 Chicago CCC—Franklin CC 0 (D.S. Robinson) 1905 Chicago CCC—Brooklyn CC 1 (C.S. Howell)

61 ⁄ 2–51 ⁄ 2 3–9 6–4 51 ⁄ 2–61 ⁄ 2 8–2 61 ⁄ 2–71 ⁄ 2 8–6 231 ⁄ 2–251 ⁄ 2 30–19 61 ⁄ 2–71 ⁄ 2 221 ⁄ 2–261 ⁄ 2 7–7 6–10 6–9 7–9 51 ⁄ 2–101 ⁄ 2 81 ⁄ 2–71 ⁄ 2

Crosstables Skaneateles 1891 New York State Chess Association Midsummer Meeting

Hanham Kemeny Hodges Blackmar Rogers

Han

K

Hod

B

• 10 01 ⁄ 2 01 ⁄ 2 00*

01 • 01 00 1 ⁄ 20*

11 ⁄ 2 10 • 1 ⁄ 20 00*

11 ⁄ 2 11 1 ⁄ 21 • 1 ⁄ 20*

R

Won Lost Drawn Points Position

11* ⁄ 21* 11* 1 ⁄21* •

1

5 5 4 1 0

1 2 2 4 6

2 1 2 3 2

6–2 51 ⁄ 2–21 ⁄ 2 5–3 21 ⁄ 2–51 ⁄ 2 1–7

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Chess Tournament Crosstables, volume 1 (1851–1900), page 76

*Decided by forfeit

Brooklyn Chess Club Championship 1892

Pollock Kemeny Blackmar Hanham Hodges Delmar Olly Russell Finlay Souweine

P

K

B

• 10 10 10 00 00 00 00 00 00

01 • 10 10 00 01 00 00 00 00

01 01 • 10 11 10 00 00 00 00

Han Hod 01 01 01 • 10 10 10 00 00 00

11 11 00 01 • 00 00 01 00 00

D

O

R

D

S

Won Lost Position

11 10 01 01 11 • 00 00 00 00

11 11 10 01 11 11 • 01 1 ⁄ 20 00

11 11 11 11 10 11 10 • 00 01

11 11 11 11 11 11 1 ⁄ 21 11 • 00

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 11 •

15 14 12 12 12 11 51 ⁄ 2 5 21 ⁄ 2 1

3 4 6 6 6 7 121 ⁄ 2 13 151 ⁄ 2 17

1st 2nd 3–5th 3–5th 3–5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th

Baltimore Sunday News, July 24, 1892

327

328

CROSSTABLES

Skaneateles 1892 New York State Chess Association Midsummer Meeting

Kemeny Hanham Eno Thornton Deyo

K

H

E

T

D

• 01 00 01 ⁄ 2 00

10 • 00 1 ⁄ 20 1 ⁄ 20

11 11 • 01 ⁄ 2 1 ⁄ 20

11 ⁄ 2 1 ⁄ 21 11 ⁄ 2 • 1 1 ⁄2 ⁄2

11 ⁄ 21 1 ⁄ 21 1 1 ⁄2 ⁄2 •

Won Lost 6 5 2 0 0

1

Drawn

Points

Position

1 2 2 5 4

61 ⁄ 2–11 ⁄ 2 6–2 3–5 21 ⁄ 2–51 ⁄ 2 2–6

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

1 1 4 3 4

Chess Tournament Crosstables, volume 1 (1851–1900), page 83

Eighth Franklin Chess Club Championship, 1892-93

Kemeny Shipley Voigt Bampton Morgan, M. Morgan, J.P. Webster Hale Livingston Hoban

K

S

V

B M.M. J.P.M. W Ha

L

Ho Won Lost Position

• ⁄ ⁄ 11 10 00 00 00 00 00 00

1 1 2 2

⁄ ⁄ • 1 ⁄ 20 01 ⁄ 2 1 1 ⁄2 ⁄2 1 1 ⁄2 ⁄2 00 10 00 00

00 ⁄ 21 • 01 ⁄ 2 00 11 10 01 ⁄ 2 00 00

01 11 ⁄ 2 11 ⁄ 2 • 01 01 00 00 00 00

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 • 00

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 •

1 1 2 2

1

11 ⁄ ⁄ 11 10 • 10 00 00 00 00

1 1 2 2

11 ⁄ ⁄ 00 01 01 • 11 00 00 00

1 1 2 2

11 11 01 11 11 00 • 00 00 00

11 01 11 ⁄ 2 11 11 11 11 • 00 00

14 4 13 5 121 ⁄ 2 51 ⁄ 2 12 6 11 7 11 7 9 9 51 ⁄ 2 121 ⁄ 2 2 16 0 18

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5–6th 5–6th 7th 8th 9th 10th

Chess in Philadelphia, page 38

Ninth Franklin Chess Club Championship, 1893-94 K Mor V Kemeny Morgan, M. Voigt Shipley Bampton Hale Maguire Hinrichs Perry-Smith Livingston Wolbert Markland Gillespie

• 01 ⁄ 2 00 1 ⁄ 20 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

1 ⁄2 • 1 1 ⁄2 ⁄2 01 ⁄ 2 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1

11 ⁄ ⁄ • 1 ⁄ 20 00 11 ⁄ 2 1 ⁄ 20 00 00 00 00 00 00

1 1 2 2

S ⁄ 21 11 ⁄ 2 1 ⁄ 21 • 10 11 ⁄ 2 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1

B

Ha Mag Hi

11 11 01 11 11 01 ⁄ 2 01 01 ⁄ 2 • 11 00 • 00 11 01⁄2 00 00 01 00 00 10 10 10 00 00 00

11 11 11 11 1 ⁄ 21 11 11 11 11 11 ⁄ 2 00 11 • 01 10 • 1 ⁄ 20 01 00 01 10 00 00 00 00 00

P

L

W Mar G

11 11 11 11 11 10 1 ⁄ 21 10 • 10 1 ⁄ 20 00 00

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 01 • 10 01 00

11 11 11 11 01 01 01 11 1 ⁄ 21 01 • 11 01

11 11 11 11 01 11 11 11 11 10 00 • 10

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 01 •

Score

Pos.

23–1 20–4 181 ⁄ 2–51 ⁄ 2 17–7 151 ⁄ 2–81 ⁄ 2 13–11 12–12 91 ⁄ 2–141 ⁄ 2 9–15 6–18 51 ⁄ 2–181 ⁄ 2 5–19 2–22

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th

Chess in Philadelphia, page 38

Crosstables

329

Tenth Franklin Chess Club Championship, 1894-95 R,D B Robinson, D Bampton Voigt Ferris Young Hale Perry-Smith Morgan, JP Nass Deardon Kemeny* Robinson, A* Maguire* Morgan, M*

• 00 00 01 11 ⁄ 2 00 00 01 00 00 1— 1 ⁄ 2— 0— 0—

11 • 11 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1— 0— 0— 1 ⁄ 2—

V F

Y

H

11 10 00 11 • 11 ⁄ 2 01 ⁄ 2 • 00 01⁄2 01 10 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 1— 10 0— 1— 0— — — —

0 ⁄2 11 11 11 ⁄ 2 • 10 10 01⁄2 00 00 1— 1 ⁄ 2— — —

11 11 10 01 01 • 1 ⁄ 20 01 10 00 1— 1 ⁄ 2— 0— 1—

1

P M,J N D 11 11 11 11 01 1 ⁄ 21 • 01 ⁄ 2 00 00 1— 11 1— —

01 11 10 11 11 ⁄ 2 10 11⁄2 • 1— 00 1— 1— — —

11 11 11 11 11 01 11 0— • 1— 1— 1— 1— —

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 0— • 1— 1— 1— —

K R,A Ma Mo 0— 0— 0— 01 0— 0— 00 00 0— 0— • 1 1 ⁄2 ⁄2 0— 0—

⁄— 1— 1— 0— 1 ⁄2— 1 ⁄2— 00 0— 0— 0— 1 1 ⁄2 ⁄2 • 0— —

Score

1— 1— 17–5 1— 1 ⁄ 2— 161 ⁄ 2–51 ⁄ 2 1— — 151 ⁄ 2–61 ⁄ 2 — — 13–8 — — 10–10 1— 0— 10–13 0— — 7–16 — — 6–14 0— — 2–17 0— — 1–19 1— 1— 13–2 1— — 91 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2 • — 3–6 — • 11 ⁄ 2–21 ⁄ 2

1 2

Pos 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th

Chess in Philadelphia, page 38

*Retired without finishing all their games

Thirteenth Franklin Chess Club Championship, 1897-98

Voigt Shipley Robinson, D.S. Kemeny Newman Kaiser Bampton Morgan, J.P. Ferris Smyth Perry-Smith Rhoads

V Sh Ro Ke N Ka

B

M

F

S

P

Rh Score Position

• 0 1 0 1 ⁄2 0 1 ⁄2 0 0 0 0 0

1

⁄2 1 1 1 1 1 • 0 1 ⁄2 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 0 1 ⁄2 1 • 0 1 ⁄2 0 0

1 1 1 0 1 ⁄2 1 1 ⁄2 1 • 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 ⁄2 1 • 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •

1 • 1 ⁄2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 ⁄2 • 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

1 1 0 • 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

⁄2 0 1 1 • 0 0 1 1 ⁄2 0 0 0 1

1 1 0 0 1 • 0 1 ⁄2 0 1 0 0

9–2 81 ⁄ 2–11 ⁄ 2 81 ⁄ 2–11 ⁄ 2 7–4 7–4 61 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2 5–6 5–6 5–6 31 ⁄ 2–71 ⁄ 2 1–10 0–11

1st 2–3rd 2–3rd 4–5th 4–5th 5th 6–8th 6–8th 6–8th 9th 10th 11th

Chess in Philadelphia, page 39

Fourteenth Franklin Chess Club Championship, 1898-99

Kemeny Voigt Bampton Newman Shipley Robinson, DS Kaiser Dallas

K

V

B

N

S

R

K

D

• 00 11⁄2 10 1 ⁄ 21 00 00 00

11 • 01 ⁄ 2 01 ⁄ 2 1 ⁄ 20 00 00 00

01 11 ⁄ 2 • 01 ⁄ 2 01 ⁄ 2 10 00 00

01 11 ⁄ 2 11 ⁄ 2 • 1 1 ⁄2 ⁄2 00 00 00

⁄ 20 ⁄ 21 11 ⁄ 2 1 1 ⁄2 ⁄2 • 11 1 ⁄21 00

11 11 01 11 00 • 11 00

11 11 11 11 1 ⁄ 20 00 • 1 ⁄ 20

11 11 11 11 11 11 1 ⁄ 21 •

Score

Position

101 ⁄ 2–31 ⁄ 2 1st* 101 ⁄ 2–31 ⁄ 2 2nd* 91 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2 3rd 9–5 4th 6–8 5th 5–9 6–7th 5–9 6–7th 1 ⁄ 2–131 ⁄ 2 8th *Kemeny defeated Voigt in a playoff match 2–0 with 4 draws; first to win two games (1 ⁄ 2 1 ⁄ 2 1 ⁄ 2 1 1 ⁄ 2 1). 1

1

American Chess Magazine, June 1899, page 511

330

CROSSTABLES

Fifteenth Franklin Chess Club Championship, 1899-1900

Newman Kemeny Shipley Bampton Griffith Morgan, M Robinson, DS Young Kaiser Magee

N

Ke

S

B

G

Mo

• ⁄ 20 1 1 ⁄2 ⁄2 10 10 00 10 01 ⁄ 2 00 00

⁄ 21 • 11 ⁄ 2 00 00 00 1 ⁄ 21 00 00 01 ⁄ 2

1 1 2 2

⁄ ⁄ 01 ⁄ 2 • 11 ⁄ 2 01 00 00 1 ⁄ 20 01 ⁄ 2 01 ⁄ 2

01 11 01 ⁄ 2 • 01 1 ⁄ 21 00 01 1 ⁄ 21 01 ⁄ 2

01 11 10 10 • 11 ⁄ 2 00 00 11 10

11 11 11 1 ⁄ 20 01 ⁄ 2 • 01 1 1 ⁄2 ⁄2 01 ⁄ 2 00

1

1

R

Y

01 11 ⁄ 2 ⁄ 20 11 11 1 ⁄ 21 11 10 11 11 10 1 ⁄ 21 ⁄ 2 • 11 00 • 00 00 10 1 ⁄ 20

1

Ka

Ma

11 11 11 ⁄ 2 1 ⁄ 20 00 11 ⁄ 2 11 11 • 1 ⁄ 20

11 11 ⁄ 2 11 ⁄ 2 11 ⁄ 2 01 11 01 1 ⁄ 21 1 ⁄ 21 •

Score

Position

13–5 1st* 13–5 2nd* 121 ⁄ 2–51 ⁄ 2 3rd 9–9 4th 81 ⁄ 2–91 ⁄ 2 5–7th 81 ⁄ 2–91 ⁄ 2 5–7th 81 ⁄ 2–91 ⁄ 2 5–7th 61 ⁄ 2–111 ⁄ 2 8th 6–12 9th 41 ⁄ 2–131 ⁄ 2 10th

*Charles J. Newman defeated Kemeny in a playoff match 2–0 with 2 draws; first to win two games. Chess Tournament Crosstables, volume 1 (1851–1900), page 136

Sixteenth Franklin Chess Club Championship, 1900-1901 Sh Mo Ke B Rob V St N Ka Ml Roe F Ma Rh Mc Shipley • 1 Morgan, M ⁄2 Kemeny 0 Bampton 1 Robinson, DS 1 ⁄ 2 Voigt 0 Stadelman 0 Newman 0 1 ⁄2 Kaiser Mlotkowski 0 1 ⁄2 Roeski Ferris 0 Magee 0 Rhoads 0 McConnell 0

⁄2 • 1 ⁄2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1 ⁄2 • 1 ⁄2 0 1 ⁄2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

0 ⁄2 0 1 1 ⁄2 1 • 0 1 • 1 ⁄2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1⁄2 1 0 1 ⁄2 0 0 0 1 ⁄2 0 0 0 0 1 1

1 0 1 ⁄2 1 ⁄2 1 • 1 1 ⁄2 0 0 0 0 1 ⁄2 0 0

1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1⁄2 • 1 0 • 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

⁄2 0 1 1 1 ⁄2 1 1 0 • 1 0 1 ⁄2 1 ⁄2 1 0 1

1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 • 0 0 1 1 0

⁄2 1 1 1 ⁄2 1 1 1 0 1 1 • 0 0 1 ⁄2 0 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 ⁄2 1 1 • 0 0 0

1 1 0 1 ⁄2 1 1 ⁄2 1 1 1 ⁄2 0 1 1 • 1 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 ⁄2 1 0 • 1

1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 •

Sc.

P

11–3 10–4 91 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2 9–5 9–5 9–5 8–6 71 ⁄ 2–61 ⁄ 2 6–8 6–8 51 ⁄ 2–81 ⁄ 2 41 ⁄ 2–91 ⁄ 2 41 ⁄ 2–91 ⁄ 2 31 ⁄ 2–101 ⁄ 2 2–12

1st 2nd 3rd 4–6th 4–6th 4–6th 7th 8th 9–10th 9–10th 11th 12–13th 12–13th 14th 15th

Chess Tournament Crosstables, volume 1 (1851–1900), page 145

Crosstables

331

Fifth Western Chess Association Tournament Saint Louis 1904 M U Sc D K Sm Sa Sh Wid Wic R Co Cl T Mlotkowski Uedemann Schrader Daly Kemeny Smith, M. Sawyer Shrader, Dr. Widmeyer Wickersham Rundle Cowles Clark Terker

• ⁄2 0 0 0 0 1 ⁄2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

⁄2 • 1 1 1 ⁄2 0 0 0 0 0 1 ⁄2 0 0 0

1 0 • 0 1 0 1 ⁄2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

1

1 1 0 1⁄2 1 0 • 1 0 • 1 ⁄2 0 1 1⁄2 0 1 0 0 1 ⁄2 0 0 1 1 ⁄2 0 1 ⁄2 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 ⁄2 1 • 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

⁄2 1 1 ⁄2 0 1 ⁄2 1 • 1 0 1 ⁄2 1 0 0 0 1

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 • 1 0 0 0 1 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 • 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 1 ⁄2 1 1 1 ⁄2 1 1 • 0 0 0 1

1 ⁄2 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 • 0 1 0

1 1 0 1 ⁄2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 0 0

1

1 1 1 1 ⁄2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 • 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 •

Score

Pos

12–1 91 ⁄ 2–31 ⁄ 2 81 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2 8–5 8–5 71 ⁄ 2–51 ⁄ 2 7–6 7–6 6–7 5–8 41 ⁄ 2–81 ⁄ 2 31 ⁄ 2–91 ⁄ 2 21 ⁄ 2–101 ⁄ 2 2–11

1st 2nd 3rd 4–5th 4–5th 6th 7–8th 7–8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th

Chess Tournament Crosstables, volume 2 (1901–1910), page 211

Seventh American Chess Congress St. Louis 1904 Ma Ju Marshall Judd Uedemann Kemeny Schrader Eisenberg Jaffe Schweitzer Mlotkowski Shrader, Dr.

• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ⁄2 0

1 • 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

U

K

Schr

E

Ja Schw

1 0 • 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

1 1 1 • 1 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 0 • 1 ⁄2 0 1 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 ⁄2 • 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 1 1 1 • 0 0 0

1 1 0 1 0 1 1 • 1 0

Ml

Sh

Score

Position

⁄2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 • 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

8 ⁄ 2– ⁄ 2 7–2 6–3 5–4 41 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2 41 ⁄ 2–41 ⁄ 2 4–5 3–6 2–7 0–9

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5–6th 5–6th 7th 8th 9th 10th

1

1

1

Chess Tournament Crosstables, volume 2 (1901–1910), page 211

Bibliography Books and Other Texts Burrows, Edwin G., and Mike Wallace. Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898. Oxford University Press, 1999. Gaige, Jeremy. Chess Personalia: A Biobibliography. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 1987. _____. Chess Tournament Crosstables. 4 volumes. Philadelphia. 1969–1974. Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. The Living of Charlotte Perkins Gilman. New York, 1935. Hilbert, John S. Buffalo 1901 and 1894 Chess Tournaments. Yorklyn, Delaware: Caissa Editions, 1996. _____. Napier: The Forgotten Chessmaster. Yorklyn, Delaware: Caissa Editions, 1997. _____. Philip Richardson: The Stormy Petrel of Chess. Olomouc, Czech Republic: Publishing House Moravian Chess, 2009. _____. Shady Side: The Life and Crimes of Norman Tweed Whitaker: Chess Master. Yorklyn, Delaware: Caissa Editions, 2000. _____. The Tragic Life and Short Chess Career of James A. Leonard, 1841–1862. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2006. _____. Walter Penn Shipley: Philadelphia’s Friend of Chess. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2003. ______, and P.P. Lahde. Albert Beauregard Hodges: The Man Chess Made. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2008. Hooper, David, and Kenneth Whyld. The Oxford Companion to Chess. 2d ed., revised. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Kemeny, Emil. The Monte Carlo Tournament of 1903. Special Series, The American Chess Weekly 1903. Reprinted, with foreword by Christiaan M. Biijl. Zürich: Edition Olms, 1983. László, Jakobetz. A Short History of Chess in Budapest. Budapest Chess Federation, 2010. Pope, Jacques N. Harry Nelson Pillsbury: American Chess Champion. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Pawn Island Press, 1996. Reichhelm, Gustavus C., and Walter Penn Shipley. Chess in Philadelphia. Philadelphia, 1898. Riis, Jacob. How the Other Half Live: Studies Among the Tenements of New York. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1914. Rogers, Howard J., ed., et al. History and Report, 1878–1891, New York State Chess Association. Albany: Riggs 1891. Rowland, F.F. Pollock Memories. Dublin 1899. Smith, Frank B. Budapest: The City of the Magyars. New York: James Pott & Co., 1903. Steinitz, William. The Steinitz Papers. Ed. Kurt Landsberger. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2002. United States Chess Association. Third Annual Report of the United States Chess Association. Indianapolis: Carlon & Hollenbeck, 1891. ______. Fourth Annual Report of the United States Chess Association. Cincinnati: Keating & Co., 1893. Urcan, Olimpiu. Adolf Albin in America. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2008. Vaughn, Stephen L., ed. Encyclopedia of American Journalism. New York: Routledge, 2008. White, Alain C. Sam Loyd and His Chess Problems. Whitehead and Miller, 1913. Reprinted, Dover, 1962. Whyld, Kenneth. Chess Columns: A List. Olomouc, Czech Republic: Publishing House Moravian Chess, 2002.

332

Bibliography

333

______. The Collected Games of Emanuel Lasker. Nottingham, England: The Chess Player, 1998. Winter, Edward. Chess Facts and Fables. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2006. _____. A Chess Omnibus. Milford, Connecticut: Russell Enterprises, 2003. _____. Kings, Commoners and Knaves. Milford, Connecticut: Russell Enterprises, 1999.

Additional Sources Edward Winter Collection Harold McCracken Research Library, at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming Jeff Kramer Collection John G. White Collection, Cleveland Public Library

Newspapers and Magazines Albany Evening Journal American Chess Bulletin American Chess Magazine American Chess Monthly American Chess Weekly The Atlantic Monthly Baltimore Sunday News Boston Weekly Post British Chess Magazine Brooklyn Chess Chronicle Brooklyn Daily Eagle Brooklyn Standard-Union Checkmate The Chess Monthly Chess Review The Chess Weekly Chicago Times Chicago Tribune Cincinnati Commercial Gazette Columbia Chess Chronicle Dubuque Chess Journal The Forum Illustrated London News International Chess Magazine Kansas City Journal Lasker’s Chess Magazine Magyar Sakkvilág Neue Illustrirte Zeitung New Orleans Daily Picayune

New Orleans Times-Democrat New York Clipper New York Evening Post New York Herald New York Recorder New York Sun New York Times New York Tribune New York World New Yorker Staats-Zeitung Newark Daily Advertiser Newark Sunday Call Oesterreichische Lesehalle Oswego Daily Times (Oswego, NY) Philadelphia Evening Bulletin Philadelphia Inquirer Philadelphia North American Philadelphia Public Ledger Philadelphia Times Pittsburg Dispatch Providence Sunday Journal (Rhode Island) St. John Globe (New Brunswick) San Francisco Call South Jersey Republican (Hammonton, NJ) Sudeutsche Schachzeitung Toledo Daily Commercial Turf, Field and Farm The Weekly News and Courier (Charleston, SC)

Index to Openings—ECO Codes A00 A03 A22 A40 A80 A84 A85

36, 41, 44, 54, 95, 193 29, 112 14 128, 174, 292 91 299 63, 123, 165

B01 20, 21, 28, 30, 57, 88, 109, 129 B03 252 B21 238, 298 B22 171 B24 10 B32 103 B34 131, 303 B44 220 B45 288 B72 202 C00 C01 C02 C11 C13 C14 C21 C23 C24

15, 68, 195 10 19 19, 39, 200 106, 127, 230, 237, 289 185, 204 37, 52, 105, 252 31, 111 87

C26 38 C29 74, 98 C30 60, 110, 125 C31 9, 53, 247, 304 C37 240 C40 97, 111, 240, 250, 287 C41 33, 107, 173, 192, 197, 225, 307 C42 11, 53 C43 151, 153 C44 12, 23, 25, 108, 166, 211, 231, 293, 299 C45 67 C48 138, 152, 153, 155, 158, 162, 163, 291 C49 121, 136, 177, 215, 218, 251 C50 24, 72, 74, 199, 244 C51 135, 140 C52 241 C53 294 C54 67, 132, 189, 290 C55 27, 126, 166, 184, 196 C56 203 C59 8, 13, 20,21, 24 C60 100, 207 C61 246 C62 32, 50, 61, 66, 301 C63 288, 291, 294, 295, 296 C65 86, 114, 134, 232, 301

335

C66 59, 167 C67 63, 98, 154, 156, 159, 161, 162, 164, 169, 179, 182, 190, 194, 209, 212, 213, 222, 224, 228, 229 C70 206 C77 90, 93, 115, 249 C78 31 C79 305 C84 297 D00 47, 103, 180, 216, 285 D02 65, 93, 113, 118 D04 112 D05 45, 64, 66, 68, 108, 117, 245 D07 188 D08 297 D30 73, 75 D31 56, 160 D37 119, 235 D40 168 D45 43 D46 114, 135, 302 D53 243, 283 D55 175 D60 284 E14 92

Index to Kemeny’s Games by Opponent Page numbers in bold italics indicate Kemeny had White. The abbreviation “(cons.)” indicates a consultation game. Games against unknown opponents are all listed under “Unknown.”

Albert, R. C. 240 Albin, Adolf 15 Baird, David G. 59 Bampton, Samuel W. 72, 88, 93, 103, 113, 129, 190, 206, 209 Blackmar, Able E. 28, 31, 67 Bonsall, C. H. 241 Chilton, Harris J. 240 Chinnock, C. E. 53 Dallas, George W. 211 Delmar, Eugene 61, 66, 174, 197 de Visser, William M. 171 Deyo, Martin L. 75 Eisenberg, Louis R. 294, 294 Eno, W. F. 57, 74 Eppens, Julius C. 301 Fähndrich, Hugó 8, 10 Ferris, William J. 125, 138 Finlay, D. J. 68 Fox, Albert W. 303 Fuld 55, 60 Gillespie, A. L. 111 Griffith, Robert B. 235, 238 Groots, Harry 241 Hale, Arthur 95, 106, 114, 135 Halpern, Jacob 19, 19, 20, 20, 21, 21, 23, 24, 24, 56 Hanham, J. Moore 29, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 64, 68, 73, 74, 165, 173, 225 Hartley 55 Hein, L. 52 Hinrichs, C. 110 Hodges, Albert B. 25, 30, 32, 63, 65, 66, 177 Hoffmeister, Antal 12 Howell, Clarence S. 307

Huntington, W. S. 27, 54 Hymes, Cornelius 118 Hymes, Edward 252 Jacobi, Samu 9, 10, 13, 14 Jacobson, E. 305 (cons.) Jaffe, Charles 288 Jelinek, V. 301, 305 (cons.) Johnston, Sidney P. 283 Judd, Max 288 Kaiser, Julius A. 185 Karpinski, Louis C. 179 Koehler, Gustav H. 196 Landreth, Lucius S. 242 Lasker, Emanuel 305 (cons.) Lee, Harry F. 302 Lipschütz, S. 194, 220, 222, 249 Livingston, Max 97, 111 Loyd, Samuel 50 Magee, James F. 243 Maguire, Elihu S. 107, 112, 128 Marshall, Frank J. 291, 296 (cons.) McConnell, James, Jr. 193 Medinus, C. 296 (cons.) Mlotkowski, Stasch 244, 285, 287 Morgan, J. Palmer 90, 98, 121, 136, 180 Morgan, Mordecai 87, 92, 108, 119 Newman, Charles J. 182, 203, 212, 245 Parke, Lee W. 296 (cons.), 297 Perry-Smith, Oliver 105, 114, 126 Pillsbury, Harry N. 100, 140, 175, 228 Pollock, W. H. K. 63 Pratt, G. E. M. 296 (cons.), 297

336

Rhoads, Jacob H. 192, 247 Rhoades 296 (cons.) Richardson, Philip 117 Robinson, Alfred K. 123, 134 Robinson, David S. 132, 189, 199, 204, 229, 304 Roething, Otto 224 Rogers, Howard J. 31 Rose, Frederick 54 Russell, George 67 Sawyer, Joseph 284 Schrader, Edward F. 289, 290 Schweitzer, George J. 295 Shrader, Eugene W. 293 Sharp, Sydney T. 252 Shipley, Walter P. 91, 98, 108, 115, 200, 207, 230, 232, 246 Showalter, Jackson W. 151, 152, 153, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 162, 163, 164, 167, 168, 169 Smyth, C. 188 Smythe, J. Henry, Jr. 250 Souweine, Arthur J. 53, 195 Taylor, James W. 298 Uedemann, Louis 291, 292, 296 (cons.), 299 Unknown 71, 72, 101, 166, 166, 178, 305 Vidor, Zsigmond 11 Voigt, Herman G. 86, 93, 103, 112, 131, 184, 202, 213, 215, 216, 218, 251 Wilcox, F. F. 299 Wolbert, C. E. 109 Yeaton 49 Young, John W. 127, 135, 231, 237

Index to Others’ Games Bampton, W. 88 Barry, J. F. 261 Bey, A. F. 105 Blackburne, J. H. 268 Chigorin, M. 70, 255 Cornell 296 Dallas, G.W. 210 Du ˚ ras, O. 311 Eisenberg, L. 293 Eno, W. F. 70 Eppens, J. C. 300 Ferris, W. J. 124 Griffith, R. B. 234 Gunsberg, I. 269 Halpern, Jacob 51, 52 Hein, L. 51 Hinrichs, C. 86 Hodges, A. B. 148 Isthran, A. 311 Jacobi, Samu 9, 312, 313

Janos, G. 311 Janowski, D. 269, 272 Jelinek, V. 298, 301 Johnston, S. P. 300 Kaiser, J. A. 210 Kolisch, I. 312 Lasker, Emanuel 147, 257, 259, 260 Libaire, E. W. 301 Lipschütz, S. 144, 227 Loyd, S. 52 Maguire, E. 88 Marshall, F. J. 278 Mason, J. 272 Morgan, M. 86 Napier, W. E. 293 New York team 80, 80 Newman, C. 182 Parke, L. W. 296 Perry-Smith, O. 105

337

Philadelphia team 80, 80 Pillsbury, H. 85, 234, 263, 264, 268, 278 Pollock, W. H. K. 146 Ripley, W. 145 Robertson, D. Stuart 227, 265 Schwarz, A. 313 Showalter, J. W. 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 182, 261, 263, 264 Smyth, C. 187 Steinitz, W. 257, 259, 260, 265 Szén, J. 11 Tarrasch, S. 255 Taylor, J. W. 298 Vidor, Zsigmond 9, 11 Voigt, H. 85, 124 Vorrath, A. 187 Wendel 143

General Index Albert, R. C. 240 Adair, James 302 Albin, Adolf 15, 46, 118, 148, 248, 255 Allison, W.S. 77 American Chess Weekly 270–281, 318 Anderssen, Adolf 40, 41, 305 Athenaeum (Philadelphia) 77 Baird, David G. 58–59, 239 Baird, John W. 98 Bampton, Samuel W. 26, 71, 72, 83, 87–89, 90, 92, 93–94, 102, 103–104, 107, 110, 113, 116, 117, 121, 124, 129–130, 138, 139, 171, 172, 187, 190– 191, 194, 198, 206–207, 208– 210, 212, 232, 234, 237, 239, 243, 247, 255, 285, 312 Barclay, A. Charles 242 Barnes, Albert P. 100 Baross, Gábor 309 Barry, John F. 99, 123, 157, 164–165, 261–262, 281, 284 Bauer, Johann Hermann 8 Bellingham, George E. 212 Bennett, D. M. 239 Bierwirth, A. H. 223 Bird, Henry E. 62 Blackburne, Joseph H. 35, 41, 62, 144, 208, 267–269 Blackmar, Abel E. 28–29, 31– 32, 34, 58, 59, 60, 64, 67, 69 Blahó, György 1, 5, 7, 315 Bláthy, Ottó Titusz 14, 310 Bonsall, C. H. 241 Bottlik, Iván 1, 5, 316, 318 Breckenridge 52 Brennan, Neil 1 Brenzinger, F. Eugene 80 Brooklyn Chess Club: 52–54; 1892 championship 59–69 Broughton, Luke D. 51, 53, 227

Budapest chess history 7, 14–15 Budapest Sakk-kör 314–315 Buffalo Bill [Cody] 310–311 Burn, Amos 35, 58, 144, 158, 208 Café de la Régence 7 Café life 7–8 Café Wurm 7 Capablanca, José R. 58, 90, 313, 314 Capdebo, István 8 Carroll, Lewis 94 Cassel, Hartwig 6, 35, 42, 46, 49, 50, 53, 55, 281 Chadwick, Henry 70, 88 Chajes, Oscar 298 Chamier, E. 80 Chaplin, Charlie 235 Charousek, Rudolf 8 Chernev, Irving 239 Chigorin, Mikhail I. 55, 68, 69, 70, 101, 144, 167, 255–256, 261, 269, 303 Childs, George C. 84, 98, 254 Childs Cup 84, 93, 98, 180, 219, 254–255 Chilton, Harris J. 239–240 Chinnock, C. E. 53 City Chess Club: 34; 1891 championship 50–52; 1891 Thanksgiving Day tournament 54–55; name change from Columbia Chess Club 26; new rooms 73 Clark, John L. 284 Cochran, W. C. 143 Cody, William see Buffalo Bill Columbia Chess Club: 16, 18; name change to City Chess Club 26 Cook, Eugene B. 144 Cornell 296 Cowles, John W. 284

338

Dale, M. 41 Dallas, George M. 210 Dallas, George W. 199, 208, 210–212 Daly, Harlow B. 284, 286 Delmar, Eugene 5, 26, 28, 35, 50, 58, 59, 60, 61–62, 63, 66–67, 69, 71, 123, 144, 148, 171, 172, 174–175, 194, 197– 198 253, 266, 281, 307 Derrickson, George R. 78 Devidé, Charles 16, 141 de Visser, William M. 57, 58, 69, 113, 171–172, 177, 219, 226–227 Deyo, Martin L. 73, 75–76 Doyle 49–50 Du ˚ ras, Oldrˇich 311–312 Dwight, William 80 Ehrenstein, Mór 14 Eisenberg, Louis 286, 293–294, 296 Eisenmann, J. 50 Elkin, Lewis 79 Elliott, Edward P. 289 Elson, Jacob 191, 271 Elwell, John D. 68 Eno, W. F. 56–57, 58, 59, 70, 73, 74, 76 Eppens, Julius C. 299, 300– 301, 302 Erkel, Ferenc 7, 8, 14 Fähndrich, Hugó 8, 10, 15 Fay, J. P. 223 Ferris, William J. 26, 50, 59, 71, 83, 90, 122, 124–126, 137– 138, 139, 243, 315 Figdor, Adolf 14 Finlay, D.J. 60, 67 68, 70 Finn, Julius 59, 281 Fiske, Daniel W. 79 Fleishmann, Léo 309

General Index Földeák, Walter Árpád 1, 5 Foster, Benjamin R. 286 Fox, Albert W. 281, 303–304 Franklin Chess Club: 26, 50, 170; early history 83; 1892-93 championship 83–99; 189394 championship 103–116; 1894-95 championship 118– 138; 1897-98 championship 180–192; 1898-99 championship 198–219; 1899-1900 championship 229–233; 1900-1901 championship 243–248; organization 79 Frazer, Persifor 102, 139, 149, 317 Frazer Cup 102, 180, 219 Friedland, A. 55 Fuld 55–56, 60 Gaige, Jeremy 1, 94 Galbreath, John A. 123 Gilberg, Charles A. 29, 57, 59, 70, 76, 113, 116, 171 Gillespie, A. L. 110–111 Gilman, Charlotte Perkins 94 Grant, Ulysses S. 150 Griffith, Robert B. 233–236, 237–238 Grimm, Vincent 7 Groots, Harry 241 Grundy, James G. 81 Guest 62 Gunsberg, Isidor 8, 34, 35, 39, 41, 50, 51, 62, 139, 269–270 Gyuricza, Gábor 1, 5 Hale, Arthur 83, 94–95, 99, 102, 106, 114–115, 118, 135– 136, 142, 193, 317 Hale, Edward Everett 94 Hale, Lucretia Peabody 94 Hale, Nathan 94 Haller, William 144 Halpern, Jacob C. 5, 14, 16–17, 18–25, 48, 49, 50, 51–52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 70, 71, 142, 223 Halprin, Alexander 8 Hanham, J. Moore 5, 16, 28, 29–30, 32–34, 34–48, 49, 50, 56, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64–65, 68–69, 70, 71, 73–75, 76, 117, 118, 142, 165, 171, 172–173, 181, 193, 194, 198, 225–226, 227, 234, 253, 266 Harrison, Benjamin 210 Hartley 55 Hazeltine, Miron J. 16, 48, 80, 116, 139, 140, 141, 153, 166 Hein, L. 50, 51–52 Helms, Hermann 6, 58, 70, 88, 136, 150, 155, 156, 158, 159,

161, 162, 163, 185, 187, 226– 227, 248, 249, 252, 270, 273, 280, 281, 283, 284, 296, 307, 318 Hilbert, Robin M. 1 Hinds, William Prescod 77 Hinrichs, C. 86, 110 Hoban, P. T. 96 Hodges, Albert B. 5, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 46, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63–66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 81, 116, 117, 118, 148–149, 157, 171, 172, 177–178, 219, 239, 248, 281, 288, 300 Hoffer, Lipót 8, 14 Hoffman, Alfred L. 309 Hoffmeister, Antal 12 Houghtelling 300 Howell, Clarence S. 281, 292, 295, 306–307 Huntington, Edward S. 18, 21, 22, 26 Huntington, W. S. 26–27, 50, 51, 54–55, 56, 58 Hymes, Cornelius 117–118 Hymes, Edward 117, 123, 157, 239, 252–253, 270 Hymes, Nathaniel 117 Isaacson, Charles B. 16 Isthran, Aonyi 311–312 Ivins, Walter S. 238 Jacobi, Dr. Samu 8, 8–9, 13–14, 15, 309, 312–313 Jacobs, Herbert 192 Jacobson, E. 305–306 Jaffe, Charles 286, 287–288 Janos, Gajdos 311–312 Janowski, Dawid 139, 167, 269– 270, 271–272, 290, 303, 313 Janusch, F.G. 26 Jasnogrodsky, Nicolai 193, 195 Jefferson, Rose 308 Jelinek, V. 298, 301–302, 305– 306 Jentz, Dr. Otto F. 18, 26, 57 Johnston, Sidney P. 208, 281, 282–283, 288, 289, 296, 297, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304 Johnston, W. 80 Judd, Maurice 19, 20 Judd, Max 19, 25, 35, 58, 61, 144, 145, 147, 227, 281, 284, 286, 288–289, 295 Junior Chess Club (Philadelphia) 71, 86, 87, 88 Kaiser, Julius A. 121, 185–187, 199, 243 Kálnitzky, Géza 14

339 Karpinski, Louis C. 179–180, 223 Kemeny, Alexander (brother) 7, 318 Kemeny, Emil: American Chess Magazine feature 266; American Chess Weekly, publication of 270–281; annotations (idiosyncratic) 260–261; appendicitis 307–308; arrival in U.S. 16–18; Atlantic Sea Navigation 314; birth 7; blindfold play 60, 100–101; Brooklyn Chess Club 1892 championship 59–69; Budapest, return to 308; Buffalo Bill 310– 311; Chicago, move to 283; Chicago Chess and Checker Club 1904-05 championship 296–302; Chicago Tribune (chess editor) 302; City Chess Club championship 50–51; death 317–318; Europe, possible return 1896 169; Ferris, W. J., first seen by 83; Forum article published 281–282 (full text in Appendix); Franklin Chess Club championships, total game results 248; Franklin Chess Club librarian 177; Franklin Chess Club 1892-93 championship 83–99; Franklin Club 189394 championship 103–116; Franklin Club 1894-95 championship 118–138; Franklin Club 1894-95 championship, abandonment of 138; Franklin Club 1897-98 championship 180–192; Franklin Club 1898-99 championship 198–219; Franklin Club 18991900 championship 229–233; Franklin Club 1900-1901 championship 243–248; Halpern, Jacob, match 18–25; Hanham, J. Moore, match 34–48; Huntington, W. S., match 27; Lasker, Emanuel, 1894 world title match umpire 257; Lasker, Emanuel, 1901 tour manager 248–249, 267; “missing years” 14, 16; Monte Carlo 1902 chess correspondent 269–270; Monte Carlo 1903, coverage and publication about 279–281; NYSCA 1891 Skaneateles midsummer event 28–34; NYSCA 1892 championship 58–59; NYSCA 1892 Skaneateles midsummer event 73–76;

340 NYSCA 1897 Thousand Islands midsummer event 171– 177; NYSCA 1898 Lake Keuka midsummer event 194–198; NYSCA 1899 Saratoga Springs midsummer event 221–227; Pennsylvania Railroad 82–83, 261, 317; Philadelphia Public Ledger (first annotations) 256; Robinson, A. K., humorous incident 133–134, 311; Saratoga Springs brilliancy controversy 226–227; Showalter, Jackson W., match 142–166; sickness 6, 96, 139, 279, 307–308, 311, 317; simultaneous exhibitions 26, 50, 52–54, 58, 110, 165–166, 239–242, 250–252, 281; Szeged 15; United States citizen 142; Voigt, Herman, playoff match 215–218 Kistler 52 Koehler, Gustav H. 16–17, 194, 195–197, 224 Kolisch, Ignatz 8, 14, 50, 277, 312 Kramer, Jeff 1 Landreth, Lucius S. 241–243 Landsberger, Kurt 113 Lasker, Emanuel 8, 25, 58, 68, 76, 81–82, 87, 90, 99, 101, 107, 115, 118, 133, 147–148, 169, 248, 255, 257–260, 261, 267, 269, 270, 275, 278, 290, 303, 305–306, 308, 312, 313, 317 László, Jakobetz 7 Lawrence, Thomas F. 303 Lee, A. V. 302 Lee, Harry F. 148, 256, 298, 302–303 Lehmaler 49 Leonard, James 61, 80 Levy, E. 195 Lewis, Dr. Samuel 77, 79 Libaire, Edward W. 301 Lichtenhein, Theodor 79 Lipschütz, S. 5, 8, 16, 25, 28, 34, 41, 58, 61, 62, 71, 78, 144– 145, 147, 149, 157, 171, 193, 194–195, 198, 219–223, 225, 226–227, 239, 248, 249–250, 281, 317, 318 Lisle 59 Lissowski, Tomasz 1 Livingston, Julius I. 96, 97 Livingston, Max 96–97, 102, 107, 111 Löwenthal, János Jakab 7 Lower East Side 17–18, 142, 308–309

GENERAL INDEX Loyd, Samuel 5, 27, 41, 50–51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 61, 76, 99, 116, 144 Lurie, J. H. 223 Lynn 305 Lynn, Mrs. Fred 308 Mackenzie, George H. 46, 61, 78, 81, 193, 288 Madsen, C. 305 Magee, James F. 191, 243 Maguire, Elihu S. 88, 106–107, 111–112, 118, 121, 128–129, 138 Makovetz, Gyula 8 Maine 192 Marco, Georg 8, 280, 309, 310 Marean, Josiah T. 157 Maróczy, Géza 8, 169, 269, 270, 280, 308, 309, 312 Marshall, Frank J. 58, 194, 208, 221, 223, 226, 239, 269, 278, 280, 281, 282, 286, 287, 288, 290–291, 295, 296, 307, 317 Marshall, Chief Justice John 143 Martinez, Aristides 226–227 Martinez, Charles S. 243 Martinez, Dion M. 79, 102, 138, 221, 254, 257 Marx, Karl 96 Mason, James 78, 103, 271–272, 280 McConnell, James, Jr. 137, 193,243 McConnell, James, Sr. 193 McCrory, Kathy 1 McCutcheon, John L. 95, 171, 172, 194, 221, 223 Mead, Charles D. 79 Medinus, Carl 296, 299, 302 Mercantile Library (Philadelphia) 78–79, 122, 170 Michaelis, Otho E. 185 Mieses, Jacques 311 Millen, J. W. 25 Miller, Russell 1 Mlotkowski, Stasch 243, 244, 283, 285–286, 287, 290, 291, 295 Moehle, Charles A. 144 Monte Carlo 1903 280–281 Montgomery, Hardman P. 77, 78, 79 Morgan, J. Palmer 71, 89–90, 94, 95, 97–98, 99, 107, 121– 122, 136–137, 169, 180–181 Morgan, Mordecai 71, 86–87, 88, 89, 92–93, 99, 107–108, 110, 115, 116, 119–121, 138, 239, 243, 247, 317 Morphy, Paul 40, 77, 78, 139, 193, 305

Napier, William E. 171, 281, 293, 303 Nation, Carrie 273 Negele, Michael 1, 15 New York State Chess Association (NYSCA): 18, 25, 26; 1891 Skaneateles midsummer event 28–34; 1892 championship 58–59; 1892 Skaneateles midsummer event 73–76; 1897 Thousand Islands midsummer event 171–177; 1898 Lake Keuka midsummer event 194–198; 1899 Saratoga Springs midsummer event 221–227 Newman, Charles J. 86, 107, 121, 122, 171, 172, 181–183, 192, 198, 199, 203–204, 208, 212, 213, 232, 237, 239, 243, 245–246, 273–274 Newman, the Rev. Louis C. 181 Newnes, Sir George 157 Noa, Dr. József 8 Northrup, George P. 254 Nugent, Charles 26, 50, 51, 56 NYSCA see New York State Chess Association Ochs, Adolph 270 Olly, Edward N. 59, 60, 67, 117 Orvis, A.W. 223 Ottendorfer, Oswald 28, 75 Park 52 Parke, Lee W. 296–297, 299 Paulsen, Louis 41, 77 Perrin, Frederick 79 Perry-Smith, Oliver 104–106, 113–114, 126–127, 192 Pesti Sakk-kör 7, 8, 9, 14, 314 Philadelphia Chess Club 78–79 Philadelphia chess history 76– 82 Philadelphia Public Ledger 84, 102, 254 Phillips, Charles W. 86, 297, 305 Phillips, John Paul 193 Pickford, Mary 235 Pillsbury, Harry N. 5, 25, 58, 59, 85, 90, 99–100, 116, 117, 118, 123, 139–141, 148, 149, 157, 158, 169, 171, 172, 173, 175–177, 194, 198, 208, 228– 229, 234–235, 238, 242, 249, 255, 261, 262–265, 267–269, 278, 280, 281, 290, 293, 307, 310, 313, 314 Polk, James K. 210 Pollock, W. H. K. 23, 58, 59, 60,

General Index 61, 62–63, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 76, 144, 145, 146, 253 Pope, Jacques N. 228 Pratt, G. E. M. 297, 305 Prudon 52 Randolph, Philip P. 79 Raughley, Lynne 86 Récsi, Emil 8 Reichhelm, Gustavus C. 71, 72, 77–79, 80, 81–82, 85, 88, 89, 92, 121, 122, 127, 180, 238, 239, 241, 249, 254–255, 266, 270, 317 Rhoades 296 Rhoads, Jacob H. 191–192, 243, 246–247 Rice, Isaac L. 280 Richardson, Philip 57, 58, 69, 116–117, 226–227 Ripley, Warwick H. 144, 145– 146 Robinson, Alfred K. 71, 89, 101, 121, 122–124, 131, 133–134, 138, 192, 208, 311 Robinson, David Stuart 88, 107, 110, 121, 131–133, 138, 139, 167, 171, 172, 173; 185, 188– 190, 192, 194, 198, 199–200, 204–206, 215, 226, 227, 229– 230, 234, 239; as Stuart, David 122, 131–132, 243, 247, 265–266, 304–305, 312 Roeske, J. F. 243 Roething, Otto 223–225 Rogers, Howard J. 28, 31, 34, 48, 73 Rose, Frederick 53–54, 68 Rosenthal, Samuel 42 Rundle, F. J. 284 Russell, George 60, 67–68, 70 Ruth, S. G. 136, 138, 171, 172, 174 Ryan, John S. 16 Ryder, Clayton 300 Sabater, J. 70 Sawyer, Joseph 283–284 Schieffelin, H. H. 171, 172 Schlechter, Carl 269, 280, 303 Schrader, Edward 286, 289– 290, 294 Schmidt, Louis 221 Schuster, Zsigmond 312 Schwarz, Adolf 8, 312–313 Schwietzer, George J. 286, 294– 295 Searle, Dr. D. Francis 223 Seguin, James D. 137 Severin, Martin 99 Sharp, Sydney T. 251–252, 311

Shepard 53 Shipley, Walter P. 71, 78, 83, 85, 88, 89, 90–92, 94, 95, 98–99, 102, 107, 108–109, 113, 115–116, 119, 121, 122, 127, 133, 136, 171, 172, 177, 187, 191, 192, 193, 199, 200–201, 207–208, 212, 213, 219, 230– 231, 232–233, 237, 242, 243, 246, 247, 269, 270, 309, 310, 312, 314, 315 Showalter, Jackson W. 5, 25, 26, 35, 62, 116, 117, 118, 123, 142–166, 167–170, 182, 185, 193, 225, 239, 248, 255, 261– 265, 281, 288, 317, 318 Showalter, Nellie Marshall 118, 143, 308 Shrader, Dr. Eugene W. 285, 286, 292–293 Smith, Frank B. 7, 310 Smith, Harsen D. 284 Smyth, C. 187–188 Smythe, J. Henry 250–251, 276–277 Souweine, Arthur J. 53, 60, 67, 195 Spitzer, Dr. Lipót 14 Staats-Zeitung Cup 28, 75 Stadelman, Samuel L. 238, 239, 243 Stanley, Charles H. 77, 81 Steiner, A. 14 Steiner, Herman 235 Steinitz, William 5, 27, 28, 32, 34, 35, 37, 41, 48, 50, 55, 58, 62, 68, 69, 70, 71, 76, 81, 90, 98, 99, 100, 102, 107, 115, 118, 139, 146, 147, 157, 169, 171, 185, 193, 227, 248, 257–260, 261, 265–266, 277, 305, 313 Stout, George H. 238 Stuart, David see Robinson, David Stuart Stubbs 59 Szeged 15, 16 Szén, József 7, 14 Taraba, Károly 14 Tarrasch, Siegbert 58, 101, 118, 133, 141, 169, 255–256, 269, 270, 280, 307, 313 Taylor, James W. 297–298, 299, 302, 305 Teed, Frank M. 16, 26, 57, 58, 69 Teichmann, Richard 269, 280, 303 Terker, D. 284 Thomas, W. G. 79, 80 Thompson, Charles 57

341 Thompson, J. 79 Thornton, George H. 73, 76 Tinney, W. E. 88 Todd, J. H. 19, 25, 26 Turney, the Rev. Leander 67 Uedemann, Louis 281, 283, 284, 286, 288, 289, 291–292, 294, 296, 297, 298–299, 300, 302, 308 Urcan, Olimpiu 1 van Winsen, Joost 1 Vezin, Charles 77 Vidor, Dr. Zsigmond 11, 14 Voigt, Herman G. 5, 26, 71, 84–86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 99, 103, 107, 110, 112– 113, 116, 117, 121, 122, 124, 130–131, 138, 139, 164, 169, 183–185, 191, 192, 195, 198, 199, 201–203, 208, 212–218, 219, 234, 237, 243, 247, 251, 256, 282, 312 Vorrath, August 26, 98, 187 Walbrodt, Carl 97, 99, 118 Waller, D. W 223 Ware, Preston 46, 81 Warner, James C. 78 Weeks, C. P. 223 Weiss, Miksa 8, 62, 144 Wells, Francis 77 Wendell 143 White, Albert 144 Whiteman, J. G. 80 Whittier, John Greenleaf 96 Whyld, Kenneth 68, 254 Wickersham, E. R. 284, 300 Widmeyer, William 285 Wilcox, F. F. 297, 299–300 Wilson, William C. 83, 180 Winawer, Szymon 50 Winter, Edward 1, 139, 143 Wolbert, C. E. 109 Wood, J. 223 Worrall, Harriet J. 118 Wright, A. 223 Yeaton 49 Young, Franklin K. 123, 139– 140, 273 Young, John W. 71, 88, 121, 127–128, 134–135, 171, 172, 194, 231–232, 233, 236–237, 301 Zavaterelli, Fabrizio 1 Zukertort, Johannes H. 14, 42, 62, 86