Rediscovered game by De la Bourdonnais

[John Townsend]

Incidentally, George Walker, in his Chess Studies (1844), assigned this game (No. 59 (183)) to Chapter III, which contains McDonnell games during the period 1832-1835. Black is partially identified as "Mr. P*ll**g". I should think it is likely that Walker wrote the original (1834) newspaper article.

[O.G. Urcan]

Harding's claim that the game was played by Labourdonnais is still on-line (http://www.chessmail.com/research/Historic-games.html).

[Gerard Killoran]

Harding's claim that the game was played by Labourdonnais is still on-line (http://www.chessmail.com/research/Historic-games.html).

The page above is not linked to either from Tim's home page, or even his research page under which it is found in the link above. It would be difficult for anyone to come across it unless they were specifically searching for it, while already knowing the contents. It's clear that Tim had this page in pre-publication mode.

[O.G. Urcan]

Harding's claim that the game was played by Labourdonnais is still on-line (http://www.chessmail.com/research/Historic-games.html).

The page above is not linked to either from Tim's home page, or even his research page under which it is found in the link above. It would be difficult for anyone to come across it unless they were specifically searching for it, while already knowing the contents. It's clear that Tim had this page in pre-publication mode.

It is the page with which Harding himself initiated this thread and to which he also gives a link on his Twitter page: https://twitter.com/TimDHarding/status/ ... 9448313857

[Stewart Reuben]

Most of Philidor's games, that are available, were played at material odds.
In NY in the 1960s at the Chess & Checker Club of NY, games were frequently played at material odds. Of course they are a chess variant in modern terms. Andecdotes
Steinitz used to have a customer to whom he gave ook odds. Of course they played for money A friend suggested to Steinitz that it would be good for business if he lost a game. So he did. The opponnt was never to be seen again. All he had wanted to do was win one game.

Fischer gave odds in the early days at the C&CC. They were almost invariably played without a clock. One opponent played so slowly, that Bobby resigned. He never played at material odds when I knew him. Nor would he give time odds. What he gave me was 10/1 money odds at blitz. if he won he got a dollar. If I won, which I never did, I would have got $10. That is why I can claim that I drew with him. I lost 8.

I gave odds of rook against a pawn at blitz for money, perhaps 5/-.It was in England The standard procedure was to remove the Ra1, put the Pa2 on 3 and remove the f7 pawn. The first game went 1 e4 e5 2 Qh5+ resgns. That was unnecessary. 2...Ke7 3 Qxe5+ Kf7 4 Bc4+ d5 and Black can survive.

In Britain there is little chess played one on one for money. When did you last hear of players playing a challenge match? Playing at odds died out here presumably because of the growth in interest in opening theory.

Terry Chapman played a match against Kasparov in London. He received odds of two pawns. it was played at a standard rate of play. Gary won the match.

[Tim Harding]

Harding's claim that the game was played by Labourdonnais is still on-line (http://www.chessmail.com/research/Historic-games.html).

The page above is not linked to either from Tim's home page, or even his research page under which it is found in the link above. It would be difficult for anyone to come across it unless they were specifically searching for it, while already knowing the contents. It's clear that Tim had this page in pre-publication mode.

I removed all links to the page in question in my site within hours as soon as the mistake was pointed out and deleted it from my local website but forgot to delete from the active server. That is now done. I am of course ashamed about the Twitter posting made in haste when I was unwell.

I do not know Mr. Urcan personally but have been made aware that he has insulted me in the past on Twitter, and perhaps in his blog too.
The fact that he has chosen gratuitously to bring this matter up again just shows that he does not work in the spirit of co-operation that is normal among chess historians, but chooses to vilify a rival author, even from the same publisher.

So far I have not chosen to retaliate by pointing out errors and omissions in any of his books that I might be able to find. I am confident that I would be able to find some concerning the Irish material in the recent book on Pollock which I bought but don't feel like reading in view of his campaign.
The main thing holding me back, apart from general decency and lack of time, is the fact that I don't want to attack his co-author John Hilbert with whom I have never had anything but friendly co-operation.

I think this should be the end of the matter and if Mr. Urcan chooses to attack me here again the mods should take down his postings about me.

[O.G. Urcan]

I think this should be the end of the matter and if Mr. Urcan chooses to attack me here again the mods should take down his postings about me.

My posts in this thread have been purely factual.

- O.G. Urcan