Re: The Turk v Mephisto
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:12 am
First, the 'Companion' was an excellent work, in my view, if extraordinarily ambitious, as Whyld/Hooper recognised themselves. They undoubtedly sought to be meticulous and any question I raise accords with their own words (Preface): '... our best efforts will not have not freed us from all error and amendments from readers will be welcome'.
Second, although I can't believe that such meticulous bibliophiles and plain, passionate chessplayers were not aware of another (excellent) Batsford work 'The Scotch' (Botterill, Harding, 1977), 'they' nevertheless 'ignored' that book's use of the term 'Steinitz Variation' (others have later transmuted this on occasion into 'Steinitz Attack'). That's puzzling as that book includes copious amounts of sensible discussion about the 4...Qh4 line and its substantial and significant history (although unless I missed it, they don't seem to mention Pulling ... and maybe that played a part in Whyld/Hooper's entry in 'The Companion'!?).
Third, while Whyld/Hooper (Appx 1) were (also) concerned, again extraordinarily ambitiously, to include a list of all 'named' openings, they had a difficult choice here: should it be Steinitz Variation (or Attack) or just plain 4...Qh4 line (i.e. no name) or this curious Pulling Counterattack? Personally I prefer, as Lev Gutman, no name (4...Qh4 in The Scotch), which, by the way, is how Steinitz, the line's most important adherent, appeared to consider it ... he never 'claimed' it by name, but neither did he appear ever to use the term 'Pulling Counterattack' (though this would be a huge job to corroborate fully).
Fourthly, by 1983/4 (and increasingly subsequently), there was a very clear 'claim' to name the line after Steinitz, yet Whyld/Hooper were apparently insufficiently persuaded by this, so named it after Pulling, but with no apparent games or analysis by the worthy gentleman at hand to indicate that he developed any or many of the line's key ideas, one has to wonder whether that was justified.
Fifthly, Whyld/Hooper do cite Walker's Treatise in Chess (1841) in their entry on the 'Pulling Counterattack', in which they state that the 'variation [was] first published'. I don't have a copy to hand to check. Maybe someone else has?
Second, although I can't believe that such meticulous bibliophiles and plain, passionate chessplayers were not aware of another (excellent) Batsford work 'The Scotch' (Botterill, Harding, 1977), 'they' nevertheless 'ignored' that book's use of the term 'Steinitz Variation' (others have later transmuted this on occasion into 'Steinitz Attack'). That's puzzling as that book includes copious amounts of sensible discussion about the 4...Qh4 line and its substantial and significant history (although unless I missed it, they don't seem to mention Pulling ... and maybe that played a part in Whyld/Hooper's entry in 'The Companion'!?).
Third, while Whyld/Hooper (Appx 1) were (also) concerned, again extraordinarily ambitiously, to include a list of all 'named' openings, they had a difficult choice here: should it be Steinitz Variation (or Attack) or just plain 4...Qh4 line (i.e. no name) or this curious Pulling Counterattack? Personally I prefer, as Lev Gutman, no name (4...Qh4 in The Scotch), which, by the way, is how Steinitz, the line's most important adherent, appeared to consider it ... he never 'claimed' it by name, but neither did he appear ever to use the term 'Pulling Counterattack' (though this would be a huge job to corroborate fully).
Fourthly, by 1983/4 (and increasingly subsequently), there was a very clear 'claim' to name the line after Steinitz, yet Whyld/Hooper were apparently insufficiently persuaded by this, so named it after Pulling, but with no apparent games or analysis by the worthy gentleman at hand to indicate that he developed any or many of the line's key ideas, one has to wonder whether that was justified.
Fifthly, Whyld/Hooper do cite Walker's Treatise in Chess (1841) in their entry on the 'Pulling Counterattack', in which they state that the 'variation [was] first published'. I don't have a copy to hand to check. Maybe someone else has?