Finally found it again.

[Geoff Chandler]

Maps!

I learned from Stephen Fry that printers of maps put
in very small erors in their maps (sometimes adding small towns
that simply do not exists) so they can prove that another printing
house has copied it.

The plan being another publisher could produce everything
that was there claiming it was their own their own research.
But a deliberate error? No.

And what has this to do with the state of affairs.

I went back to the 1915 BCM looking to see if I could
find anything on Atkins - Jacobs....

....And the plot thickens with every turn of the page.

Suppose, just suppose, I wanted to claim I played
a good game of chess with a Queen sac.
So I find a game, copy it down move for move and
send it off to the be published.

Now suppose in the orginal game there was a mistake
in the notation and I had copied down the same mistake.
Do you not think there might be a few eyebrows raised.

Read on.

Amongst The games Mr Davies sent in. (I have since discovered he
was a Barriter-at-law from Victoria British Columbia.)
was this one which appears after the Pillsbury game.

The reason why I've squared White's 14th move will become clear.



over the page



In the November 1915 BCM this letter appeared



Here is the Blackburne blindfold game Mr Ross refers to:



There is certainly a misprint in Blackburne's Book but
where is the error Mr Ross mentions in the BCM?

I cannot understand how one can make such a mistake as that.
Is the smoking gun, 14. N-K6 is in the single original magazine.
but was corrected in the bound volume?

I left the bottom part of the letter in where Mr Ross
states they have turned a Mr Lean into a Highlander.
(They have called a Mr Lean - Mr Mclean.)

And the error is still in the bound BCM. Mr Lean is still Mr Mclean.
So did they correct the game but not the Mr Lean/Mclean error.

The only solution is for me to lay hands on an original
1915 October BCM.

Impossible I hear you say.

The Edinburgh Chess Club has what I call Hanger 19 in which boxes
and boxes of chess treasure is stored.
There are 1,000 of loose magazine all dating from the 1800's
from all over the world. I shall rake about in Hanger 19.

Of course as Mr Ross says it could all be a coincidence.
But the speculation is fun and I get an excuse to visit Hanger 19.

For those interested in fake maps and fake entries to catch people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry

Motivations for creation:

"Besides the obvious possibility of simple playful mischief, fictitious entries
may be composed for other purposes. Chief among these is to catch
copyright infringement. By including a trivial piece of false information in a larger work,
it is far easier to demonstrate that someone has plagiarized that work:
the presumption being that they will copy the fictitious entry along with other articles."

[George Szaszvari]

As for Eric Schiller. His books are, without exception, terrible (unlike Keene, who has a few pearls hidden amongst the manure). As a player, he has probably never been above about 170 strength. Despite this, I have a soft spot for him as he seems to genuinely love chess (unlike Keene).

Wow, this kind of badmouthing of individuals is a bit surprising from you, Jon!? Perhaps the, er, "style" of
some postings in this thread are proving infectious?

Eric Schiller, an US player, was approximately 2200 ELO in the 80s/90s. He helped mentor some US juniors
at certain stages of their careers, at least one I know of now a GM. Schiller is probably better known to
Britons as an organizer and arbiter for his visits across the pond in those days. His books? Well, umm, sure,
he earned a living producing a lot of pot boilers for club players, cribbed together from databases, and he
ostensibly translated, but I believe ghosted (at least partly) a title or two for Karpov and perhaps Kasparov
too (I can't prove this, but it was obvious to me as a proof reader and from discussions with other authors
and editors.) The quality of his earlier stuff was typically better... Besides chess Schiller has professional
interests in music and languages. As a person, well, he's affable, and despite a disappointment or two I've
had in dealings with him, he's generally an okay guy as far as most chess players go...

The idea that Ray Keene does not genuinely love chess is an odd one. Keene was one of the people in the
60s, 7os and 80s responsible for laying the foundations, along with Bob Wade and a host of others, of modern
British chess, as a player, entrepreneur and popularizer of the game. His earlier books were quality works, along
with tremendous trail blazers of their day, even if he has since gone to turning out a lot of lazy pot boilers well
beneath his abilities.

[Paul McKeown]

Here's what I found on Pillsbury's father: http://web.archive.org/web/200606150255 ... 01.05.0306

Thanks. Very interesting. I knew that Pillsbury was from a prominent, moneyed New England family, but the details are interesting. Have you come across anything about HN Pillsbury's wife, Mary Ellen Bush?

[Paul McKeown]

Eric Schiller, an US player, was approximately 2200 ELO in the 80s/90s.

Using only official sources, his:
- peak USCF rating would appears to be 2308 USCF in 1996, see Eric Schiller's USCF Record, but he appears to dropped to his class floor, 2200, due to inactivity
- peak FIDE rating appears to be 2210 in 2005, currently 2118, see Eric Schiller's FIDE Rating.

His own website Eric Schiller's personal chess page claims :
- peak USCF rating 2374
- peak FIDE rating 2370

The only record available online from the ECF/BCF is a "D" rapid grade of 169, dated 2000, see Eric Schiller's ECF Grade, probably not entirely representative.

He holds the FIDE Master Title, since when, not clear.

Basically he was a strong chess player (by all but the highest standards), but is now well past his best.

As for his writing?

Almost complete waste of natural resources, a vehicle to use weak players as a revenue stream and to self-promote, without any sweat being put into the process. I say "almost", because occasionally amongst the dross there has been a good book trying to get out. I have owned a few of his efforts, but the only one that lasted on my shelves was "The Big Book of Busts", which was co-written with (the excellent) John Watson. The BBoB had terrible production values, including a non-functioning index, pages being printed out of sequence and non-sequential page numbering just to start with, but there was some genuine effort put into establishing lines to bust various opening lines with a dubious reputation. It was a bit of a mixed bag, and no doubt the entire work is superceded in the era of 3000+ Elo engines, but I would give it a qualified thumbs up. But the rest of Schiller's chess publications that I have seen have been poor. "Unorthodox Chess Openings", for instance, became a bye-word for low quality, Tony Miles's review in Kingpin being, "Utter crap". One memorable review of a Schiller book was by Carsten Hansen, who summed up as follows:

I have seen thousands of chess books over the years, but this book
is by far THE WORST BOOK I HAVE EVER SEEN. I don't have
any words to express the degree of disgust I feel. It is sad that
anybody is willing to put their name on such trash, but for some
people it is only a matter of getting paid; they are willing to do
anything for money.

I don't feel sorry for the publisher of this book (or for that matter
those who otherwise also publish Schiller's books), because he
should know better. Therefore I will ask you to do me the favor of
not supporting this particular author by buying this piece of
rubbish.

My assessment of the book: (no stars)

I would suggest "caveat emptor" to anyone thinking of buying something written by Schiller.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Re the Schiller bashing (which is generally justified, admittedly)

He has written the odd good book - his tome on the Cambridge Springs defence of the QGD has been widely praised, apparently.

And I do recall him once saying basically (though I can't track it down, maybe somebody else can?) "yes I know a lot of my books aren't all that, but I need the money - what am I to do??" Somehow I can't imagine the Penguin being so self-deprecatingly honest

And to say he was no better than 170BCF is ridiculous - he was easily master strength at his best. Even then though, he spent a lot of time on writing, journalism and chess politics (and also on real politics - he is a lifelong left-wing Democrat apparently, again something of a contrast to RDK)

Recently he has been very seriously ill with diabetes, and very nearly died - only surviving thanks to amputations. He has written about this very frankly and even movingly on chessgames.com, where he is a regular contributor.

[Leonard Barden]

Edward Winter has just posted this in Chess Notes:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/inde ... _Havilland

The mix-up with another player named Atkins seems very plausible.

[Geoff Chandler]

Oh dear we have stirred the great man in his Swiss lair.

He ends with this warning:

"In view of the multiple loose ends, it would seem unwise to put forward
any conclusions at present about either Young v Doré or Atkins v Jacobs."

Right I'm not taking the rap for this single-handed.
Leonard, Paul and Jon you are all in this with me.

My next step of course was of course was to obtain the 1916 BCM
to see if any more letters were forth coming regarding Mr Young.

The April 1915 BCM does give a final table of the London Championship.
(which is the 1914 - 1915 Championship).



(soon I will have photo-copied the whole volume.)

You can see that Herbert Jacobs was there but no Mr Atkins.

In the December 1915 issue this appears.



There are both there. So WE have narrowed it down.

Hopefully I'll get more clues in the 1916 BCM.....after I have
finished devouring the 1915 volume. It is packed with chess goodies.

Interesting to see in the same Edward Winter link mention of
the Chess playing actor Jeff Chandler.
I was born in 1951, My Dad wanted to call me George and my
Mum wanted Jeff after the actor so a happy medium was struck.
(About the only time they ever agreed on anything!)
I was Christianed Geoff Chandler and the legend began......

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi

My search aided by Dave Archibald in the Edinburgh Club
only confirmed what Mr Winter has pointed out.

All I can do is tie up the loose ends - and in doing so make
them even looser.

H. E. Atkins or M. G. Atkins?

Here is the final cross table of the 1915-16 London Championship.
And you see it is indeed Michael Glover Atkins who is playing
and not H. E. Atkins.



This led to people thinking the Atkins - Jacobs games was played in the
London Championship.

As Mr Winter points out in the games index to 200 Miniatures.



It is indeed H. E. Atkins. (or was it?)
Was the names in the index added assuming it must be H. E. Atkins?

If David Hooper (A meticulous researcher) in the Unknown Capablanca
can mix up the two Atkins lads then anyone can.

He clearly states in the Unknown Capablanca that Capa plays Grandmaster
H. E. Atkins and yet two different sources Chess Amateur 1911 and
BCM 1911 confirm it is indeed M. G. Atkins.

I’ll give a good stab at indicating why it ‘may be’ Michael Atkins.

The Obituary dedicated to Michael Glover Atkins in the December
1916 BCM again mentioned by Mr Winter.



A very sad read that one and unfortunately the pages of BCM for those
horrid four years are filled with such notices. An awful moment in human history.

We do get an idea of the style of Michael as a chess player and can say
that such a game is out of character with a ‘drawing master’.

And a score table showing P.10 W.4 D 2 L4 does not to me
indicate a ‘draw master’ nor does the fact he actually beat Capablanca
in a simul. These ‘draw masters’ hold out their hand to the stronger player
the moment they have a plus.

And we also have Mr. Du Mont’s teasing note to the game in 200 Miniatures.



Which one is it Mr Du Mont? Which one?

And Herbert Jacobs, what kind of player was he?
Again a quick look at the London Champion Table and you
will see if he had beaten Michael he would have won the tournament.

I have just one game of his from that tournament a loss v W. H. Watts
(again the same thing, a win v Watts would have meant Mr Jacobs is the Champion).

W. H. Watts - H. Jacobs

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Qxd5 4.c4 Qe4+ 5.Ne2 e5 6.Nbc3 Qf5 7.Ng3 Qe6 8.d5 Qd7 9.Bd3 Bd6
10.Bg5 Qd8 11.Nh5 Bf8 12.Ne4 Nbd7 13.Qf3 Bb4+ 14.Kf1 0–0 15.Nhxf6+ Nxf6 16.Nxf6+ gxf6
17.Bxf6 Qd7 18.Bxh7+ Kxh7 19.Qh5+ Kg8 20.Qh8 mate.

Not one for the Jacobs family scrap book.
After 11 moves with White to play this is the Black position.



If this is an example of how he played against those he expected to beat
(and remember Jacobs finished 3rd just ½ a point behind the joint leaders.)
then getting caught in a brillo may not have a surprise.

He was no dice roller that’s for sure. Here a few moves later Black to play.



He is lost he might as well have tried 14…Nxe4 angling for 15.Bxd8 when
15…Nd2+ wins for Black. Alas 14…Nxe4 15.Nxg7+ is the calm refutation.
15…Kf8 16 Ne6+.

But this is all just too fanciful. I've gone way out there on this one.

The Year Book of Chess 1915- 1916



From which the above x-table was taken has H. G. Watts contributing
an article.



Surely here was a time to add the Atkins - Jacobs game if it
happened in the same tournament he was playing in.
He would have known of the Young - Dore game as he made
up the Year Book from the pages of BCM adding a few extra
articles and games..

SO H.G.Watts edited the 1915-16 Year Book, actually took part
in the same tournament that the game was meant to have played
and then printed 8 games from that tournament.
Without a doubt such a game would have warranted a mention.

I read the 1942 BCM review of 200 Miniatures.
Quite a clean review considering that Jules Du Mont was editor of the
BCM at time. I was looking to see if the reviewer had anything to say
about the Young - Dore / Atkins - Jacobs game. Not a mention.

Chernev’s 1,000 miniatures (pub.1957) has it as Young v Dore
(game 824) and again in Curiosities of Chess where he discovers
there is a duplicate game knocking about (item 350).

Finally back to the actual book itself. 200 Miniatures.
Where did Jules Du Mont get the game from?

If the game is not M. G Atkins then no other Atkins-Jacobs for that
year can be found, so perhaps it was an off hand skittles game.

Jules Du Mont would have know both players, he was very active then
winning the 193 and 1916 Middlesex Championship.

I have a reprinted 1942 hardback and the paperback 1963 copy
(What can I say, it’s a good book, I have two copies).
If H. E. was a mistake then it has not been corrected.

Mr Winter list all the major sources where the game is given as
Young - Dore 1892.

So a lot of confirmed sources for Young - Dore 1892 and one
for Akins - Jacobs, London 1915. in 200 Miniatures.

There is another known mistake in 200 Miniatures and this involves
a suspected 'spurious' game (103) Blake - Hooke which was meant to
be played in 1891. 200 Miniatures has it as 1924.

Again Mr Winter is on the ball with this one.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5915

So an error in indexing looks to be the call of the day.
I can relate to that.

Then I read the preface of 200 Miniatures.



I knew it! There had to be a women involved in this somewhere.

[E Michael White]

Hi
Here is the final cross table of the 1815-16 London Championship.

are you sure about that ?

[Geoff Chandler]

Corrected.

[Leonard Barden]

.

.Then I read the preface of 200 Miniatures.



I knew it! There had to be a women involved in this somewhere.

Joan Kealey was a relative of du Mont and lived in the same house at 641 London Road, Thornton Heath, Surrey.

The Preface to 500 Master Games of Chess (Tartakower and du Mont) also thanked her:
"Also, and in particular, to Miss Joan Kealey, now Mrs Ronald Smith, who, out of over 8,000 games, copied and in part translated well over 2,000 for final selection, an undertaking which she carried out with exemplary thoroughness and accuracy."

Joan was a very practical woman and looked after du Mont well in his last years.
When he had a stroke in September 1955 which paralysed him on one side, it was she who conceived the plan that his Guardian and Field articles should be ghost-written by me and the newspapers be kept unaware of his illness. At that time the family hoped he might recover.
This went on for about two months after which she informed the editors and the articles became joint productions until du Mont's death.
So I can thank Joan Kealey for my chess career.....

[John Saunders]

Eric Schiller's peak FIDE rating is exactly what he says it is on his website (http://www.ericschiller.com/schiller/chess.htm), i.e. 2370, achieved in July 1986. My source for this is Informator 41, p394 (and it can be seen online at http://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/player/Sch ... 0Eric.html). I presume this would have been sufficient for him to earn the FM title.

However, 2370 was an unusually high rating for him and he never again managed a rating above 2300, having zoomed up from 2205 in July 1985 and then crashed back down to 2240 in January 1987 - this became his approximate norm.

[Roger de Coverly]

However, 2370 was an unusually high rating for him and he never again managed a rating above 2300, having zoomed up from 2205 in July 1985 and then crashed back down to 2240 in January 1987 - this became his approximate norm.

It's odd though. If you do a database search on Schiller and look for games in 1985 and 1986 you don't appear to see any results which look good enough to gain that number of points in a short period of time. Results which could lose that number of points, yes. There's a nine round tournament ("Young Masters") where he scores 1.5 from 9, losing to Gallagher, Hebden, Norwood and Whiteley.

[Geoff Chandler]

It was a Joke Mr Barden, all done in good taste and jest.

Glad I dropped it in else this women's role in your chess career and how she look
after and cared for Mr du Mont when he was ill may never have come to light.

You have put an interesting and personal background on a name
that appeared in a chess book. Thank You.
She sounded like she was a remarkable women.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

I don't know how Schiller managed to achieve a FIDE rating of 2370. Having gone through loads of his archived games on chessgames.com I can't see anything which indicates he was ever more than a "strong club player", albeit one with a lot of opening knowledge.