Pillsbury Gave His M for an O....

Historical knowledge and information regarding our great game.
Post Reply
Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2121
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Pillsbury Gave His M for an O....

Post by Geoff Chandler » Fri May 22, 2020 12:37 pm

This 1910 'Boys Own'

Image

had an advert on the back cover...

Image

...but the intriguing bit was a chess section with a strange chess notation.(page 30)

Image

Despite the mention of 'blindfold' it is from game 3, Pillsbury - Jackson Whipps Showalter, USA Ch. 1897.

The position quoted is this (White to play move 32)




Full game:


John McKenna
Posts: 3985
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Pillsbury Gave His M for an O....

Post by John McKenna » Fri May 22, 2020 12:54 pm

K=King
L=Queen
M=Rook
N=Bishop?
O=kNight
P=Pawn

Amazing what Geoff finds in his old crop of curiosities.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18516
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Pillsbury Gave His M for an O....

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri May 22, 2020 1:30 pm

John McKenna wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 12:54 pm
Amazing what Geoff finds in his old crop of curiosities.
Stamma notation one might suspect. It's an old form of algebraic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic ... on_(chess)
Algebraic notation exists in various forms and languages and is based on a system developed by Philipp Stamma. Stamma used the modern names of the squares, but he used p for pawn moves and the original file of a piece (a through h) instead of the initial letter of the piece name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Stamma
Stamma's book introduced algebraic chess notation in an almost fully developed form before the now obsolete descriptive chess notation evolved. Philidor's writings had more influence after his victory over Stamma, and the descriptive system based on Philidor's approach was dominant for a long time.

John McKenna
Posts: 3985
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Pillsbury Gave His M for an O....

Post by John McKenna » Fri May 22, 2020 4:04 pm

Hurrah for Stamma!

Who saved us from -

"The following example with its explanation is from Nouvelle notation pour les parties ou les coups d'echecs (1836) - f:4R':r'=r 'le Pion du Fou du Roi faisant un pas à la 4. case du Roi adverse, prendre le Pion du Roi adverse et devient Pion du Roi'" (Oxford Companion)

It should be added that although the 2nd edition (1st edition Paris, 1737) of Stamma's The Noble Game of Chess was published in London in 1745 his particular form of algebraic notation "was called German notation and not well received in England. In 1818 Lewis said that it was 'generally considered so tedious and fatiguing...'" (Oxford Companion)

The form of notation in Geoff's original post is also there in the Oxford Companion -

"In Complete Guide to the Game of Chess H.L.F. Meyer (1839-1928) introduced his 'Universal Notation' designating the pieces by the letters K to P, the book failed to sell. (Meyer, a passionate non-smoker, cancelled his subscription to a chess magazine because it published an illustration of a player who happened to have a pipe in his mouth.)

I like that "who happened to have a pipe..."

Now Geoff will be on the lookout for copies of Meyer's and Stamma's books or, better still, knocking up contemporary "antique" versions.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7380
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Pillsbury Gave His M for an O....

Post by JustinHorton » Fri May 22, 2020 5:32 pm

John McKenna wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 4:04 pm
Meyer, a passionate non-smoker, cancelled his subscription to a chess magazine
Which one
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

John McKenna
Posts: 3985
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Pillsbury Gave His M for an O....

Post by John McKenna » Fri May 22, 2020 6:28 pm

It does not specify in my edition of the Companion.

Hooper & Whyld could not tell all in such an encyclopedic work but they must have had their sources.

Tim Harding might come on with an inkling, perhaps.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

James Pratt
Posts: 424
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:10 pm

Re: Pillsbury Gave His M for an O....

Post by James Pratt » Sun May 24, 2020 4:03 pm

'Rabbit's Review' ?

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7380
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Pillsbury Gave His M for an O....

Post by JustinHorton » Tue May 26, 2020 5:28 pm

John McKenna wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 4:04 pm

The form of notation in Geoff's original post is also there in the Oxford Companion -

"In Complete Guide to the Game of Chess H.L.F. Meyer (1839-1928) introduced his 'Universal Notation' designating the pieces by the letters K to P, the book failed to sell. (Meyer, a passionate non-smoker, cancelled his subscription to a chess magazine because it published an illustration of a player who happened to have a pipe in his mouth.)
Oh, I hadn't remembered I actually have a copy of The Oxford Companion, but as you say, it is not forthcoming on the source of its story.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

John McKenna
Posts: 3985
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Pillsbury Gave His M for an O....

Post by John McKenna » Tue May 26, 2020 5:42 pm

James Pratt wrote:
Sun May 24, 2020 4:03 pm
'Rabbit's Review' ?
Perhaps Jas. P knows something more?

I am more into John Updike's Rabbit (on the wireless.)
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Post Reply