English Chess Forum

Years ago in my local newspaper (Leicester Mercury) they published one of H. E. Atkins games and I lost it because I never wrote it down and having never developed a GM's ability to remember chess games, was annoyed because it was a sacrificial gem, much to my delight I have rediscovered it.

Enjoy!

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Nf3 Nxe4 6. O-O Nd6 7. Nxc3 Nxc4 8. Re1+ Be7 9. Nd5 Nc6 10. Bg5 f6 11. Rc1 b5 12. Rxc4 bxc4 13. Ne5 fxg5 14. Qh5+ g6 15. Nf6+ Bxf6 16. Nxg6+ Qe7 17. Rxe7+ Bxe7?? 18. Ne5+ Kd8 19. Nf7+ Ke8 20. Nd6+ Kd8 21. Qe8+ Rxe8 22. Nf7#

Nice. Analysing some of the earlier sacrifices was beyond me, but I spotted the Philidor mate coming!

I have to say that I think Keith's right on this one: Atkins was one of the best in his day, but he wouldn't be considered all that strong by today's standards.

There is some doubt about this game.
Richard James too said he read something about it being spurious.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2555

It was one of my stock games when I had the demo board out.
By chance I saw a it in a pre 1900's BCM played by different players.
Next time I'm at the ECC I'll have a good look for it.

I said that last time this game appeared.
I'll make an effort to find it this time.

This doesn't look much like a game by the mature Atkins (he would have been in his forties at the time). From the games, I have seen, he was very much a positional player. If it did take place in London in 1915 and it was Atkins, his opponent might well have been Herbert Jacobs, a strong member of the City of London Club. I would have thought Jacobs was sufficently experienced to refute this kind of unsound attack in a serious game.

Taking this into account, maybe this was just an offhand game. If that was so, I doubt that you can form much of a judgment about the strength of Atkins from it. Of course, it is an attractive finish but after 13 Ne5 Black just needs to chop off the right pieces and he will finish with a lot of lumber for the Queen.

I, too, have a recollection that this is said to have been played between two other players and, for some reason, the date 1891 sticks in my mind.

'Atkins v Jacobs' is game of the day today on chessgames.com.

Chessgames.com also made it game of the day on 24 February 2007, but that was under its correct title of Franklin K Young v L Dore, Boston 1892. The only difference in the moves is that Dore took the queen at the end and allowed mate rather than resign.

Franklin K Young was known for books where he tried to claim that chess strategy was akin to a real battlefield.

One of Young's books claims one-to-one offhand victories over Steinitz, Zukertort, Mackenzie and Pillsbury. All, like the Dore game, were said to have been played in Boston.

'L Dore' does not feature in chess history apart from this game, so I wonder if the original game was also spurious, making a rare example of a doubly faked win...

In any event, Atkins was libelled by the suggestion that he would win in such an unsound style.

A year out - wrong again! But thank you, Leonard, for clearing up some of the mystery, at least. L Dore, well.

Found it.

Looked through BCM’s dated 1890-1900 no joy. Gave up.

Went to have a look at a game being played then suddenly
had an idea. “Where did Du Mont get the game from?”

So checked out the 1915 BCM and there is was.

So here is how it appears in Du Mont’s 200 Miniatures.



Over the page.



And this the BCM’s August 1915 version.
This is the game that Du Mont calls Atkins-Jacobs London 1915.



In the June issue of BCM 1915 an article by Episcopus (who he?) stated
that due to the lack of International Tournaments (there was a war on) players
below a certain level are getting their games in print in other periodicals.

In August BCM state that have been inundated with games by weaker players.

This is the covering letter of Mr Davie (who he?) who was sending in the
brilliancies played by the wizard Franklin Young (I know who he is).



And this is Young mating Pillsbury in 16 moves.



There is no Atkins-Jacobs game in the 1915 BCM so I wonder
where Du Mont got it from and how come he got it wrong.

I can't help thinking that this game illustrates a line of mobilization by the right, combined with a complex line of maneuver against an objective plane located on the centre and compromised by the formation of the minor left oblique.

I repeat what I wrote above, that the Pillsbury game is an obvious fake. A top class GM two years before Hastings 1895 playing like a scared rabbit? Pull the other one...

As far as I can understand from what Edward Winter has written, the alleged wins by Franklin K Young against Zukertort (allegedly in 23 moves), Pillsbury, Mackenzie and a draw with Steinitz were all played at Boston, none in a competitive game, and all surfacing only in the last 1905 edition of Young's The Grand Tactics of Chess Strategy. He did not mention them in his earlier books. I would regard them all with suspicion.

As for du Mont, I guess he made a reference or indexing error somewhere along the line and mixed up the players 'names in two separate games. Julius was a good man, my predecessor in the Guardian column, and he helped me a lot in my youth, but he was not factually error-free.

I left a couple of kibitzes over at Chessgames linking to Leonard B's comments on the games' authenticity (or not).

Here is the Winter link on Franklin Young.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/young.html

I can allude to the error - I've done few of them in my time.
(not without some hilarious consequences.)

Now the search is on to find the Atkins - Jacobs game that caused
the mixe up. There is no Young game in his 200 Miniatures.

I love the irony though.
It appears Young composed a game and by chance (some would say justice)
somebody else is credited with playing it.

Geoff,

That is an affront to all who hold Pillsbury's chess dear. Shocking garbage and a crass libel to the man, who in 1915 was already nine years dead and unable to defend his record.

Hi Paul

Read it again. I'm only reproducing what appeared in BCM 1915.
I am not taking sides in any other of this.
If pressed I'd too say the Pillsbury game was very iffy and
the wonderful smothered mate game though perhaps a flight of fancy
is a very good flight of fancy.
But Franklin Young passed away in 1932, he cannot defend himself either.

I am sorry if you thought the reproduction was me verifying the Young-Pillsbury game.
It was not meant to read that way, and reading again, I don't think it does.

Just dredging such old bilge up is in itself giving publicity to FKY, who was simply a fantasist, and a crap player to boot.

Pillsbury was a genius (and I hope I don't devalue the word by overuse). He learnt to play chess at the age of 16, yet by the age of 22 he managed to establish himself as a credible contender for the world crown by convincingly winning Hastings, ahead of Steinitz and Lasker, Tarrasch, Schlechter, Janowski and Tchigorin, etc. I am not aware of anyone in history who managed to establish themselves as a genuine contender in such meteoric fashion. It is quite possible that if he hadn't contracted his then incurable, debilitating and eventually fatal illness, that he could have become the World Champion. His impact has been permanent: before Pillsbury, Bg5 was rarely played in the QGD, it was he that showed that it is White's strongest move. Today 1100 rated tyros play it as if it were the most natural move on the board. His best games are anthologised immortals: limpid classics of attack against the apparently solidly defended castled king.

Franklin K Young wrote indigestible kakoscriptic drivel, which sought to mystify rather than enlighten. Naturally he couldn't write sensibly about chess because he was a quite rubbishy player himself, his one genuine claim to sporting fame that of winning some low grade tournament that winning the Newry Canal Festival Schools Minor Shield as a twelve year old would have eclipsed.

However, not only a poor player, he was a appalling liar, falsifying wins not only against Pillsbury, but against World Champions, too.

I don't see why anyone would wish to give such fraud the light of day. It doesn't deserve it.

Sorry, but Pillsbury is one of my favourite players. You hit a nerve.