Napier: The Search Continues
by John S. Hilbert
|
|
When I first finished working on Napier: The
Forgotten Chess Master (Caissa Editions 1997), I was pleased to
record
some additional information that had come my way through the kind and
generous
help of fellow researchers. Many by then had known of my interest
for the past two years in the English born, Brooklyn Boy Wonder of the
1890s. That additional information appeared in an
Addendum to the
book, at pages 352-354, and included one ending and another simultaneous
game. |
One of the beauties of writing and publishing
material
on historical chess figures is that one quickly learns there is a small,
but devoted, coterie of chess historians and aficionados quite willing
to help elucidate, and at times correct, details concerning the great
players
of our game. Depending, I suppose, on the personality of the
writer
and the spirit in which the readers respond, such communications can
either
be seen as the irksome bother of flies around a dying water buffalo, or
else the treasured sharing between writer and readers that forms the
best
each has to offer. I am pleased to count myself among the latter
group, and am even more pleased to count in the latter group the very
kind
readers who have taken the time to respond to Napier and offer
additional
material and corrections. Thanks to their thoughtful
communications,
I am able to offer here additional information about Napier, his
opponents,
and his games. |
For those unfamiliar with the player, William
Ewart
Napier was born in England in 1881, though his family quickly moved to
the United States. By the early 1890s, when Napier was just
entering
his teenage years, his family moved to Brooklyn, New York, then still an
independent city and not a borough of New York City. He quickly
came
under the wing of Hermann Helms, later known as the Dean of American
chess,
and eventual publisher of the American Chess Bulletin.
Napier
had come to American chess at a fascinating time. He joined the
prestigious
Brooklyn Chess Club, with members including the likes of Showalter and
Pillsbury, literally within one week of another young man: Frank James
Marshall, future United States Champion. |
Napier, though, rocketed into the public eye when as a sixteen-year-old
he crushed the somewhat older Marshall in a match by a score of seven
wins
to one loss and three draws. He soon won the Brooklyn Chess Club
champion, and as that clubs representative at the 1897 annual
midsummer
gatherings of the New York State Chess Association defeated Wilhelm
Steinitz,
ex-champion of the world, in a level game. Unfortunately for
lovers
of the game, Napiers chess career was quite short. He played
at
Monte Carlo 1902, his first international tournament, winning a
brilliancy
prize for his game against Chigorin. He finished better at Hanover
1902, competed at Cambridge Springs 1904, where his loss to Emanuel
Lasker
is still considered one of the finest games played in the early decades
of this century, and then won first prize at London 1904. A few
weeks
later he became, thanks to his British citizenship, the first British
Chess
Federation Champion, after winning a short playoff match against the
English
player Atkins. He played a drawn match with Mieses, lost badly to
Teichmann, and defeated Marshall in a short match limited to the Rice
Gambit.
Returning to the United States, Napier gave up competitive chess for a
career in insurance, though from time to time he would play an
occasional
game. No doubt the world gained another merely competent insurance
executive at the expense of losing, potentially, one of its finest chess
talents of the period. There is no telling what heights Napier
might
have climbed had he stayed with chess and had devoted all his energies
to the game. He finally died in September 1952, long forgotten by
the chess world but for a few good friends. |
Although I brought together all the information
I could concerning Napier in my book, including over 320 of his games,
many of them annotated by contemporary sources, as well as extensive
biographical
information both about Napier as well as about his adversaries, such a
search was, of course, in the end impossible to complete. All
which
leads me back to where I started in this article: my thanks to those who
have kindly given me more information about Napier, including additional
games. |
Tony Gillam, of The Chess Player, and who
throughout
the production of Napier was a tireless contributor of both
background
information and games played in England, was the first to send along
additional
information. In January 1998, two months after the book was
published,
Tony mailed in the following Napier game, originally published in the
Manchester
Guardian for April 14, 1905, at page 8. The most remarkable
thing
about this simultaneous game, and quite revealing of Napiers
character,
was that despite the fact he lost it, he submitted it for
publication. |
|
Lawrence,P Napier,WE
|
simul
|
C54/02 |
Giuoco Piano: Greco (Möller)
|
|
|
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4
Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.d5 Ne5 10.bxc3 Nxc4 11.Qd4 0-0 12.Qxe4 Nd6
13.Qd3 Ne8 14.Re1 d6 15.Rb1 a5 16.Bg5 f6 17.Bd2 g6 18.Nd4 Ng7 19.Re4 Re8
20.Rbe1 Rxe4 21.Qxe4 Bd7 22.Qh4 Qf8 23.c4 b6 24.Bc3 Nf5 25.Nxf5 Bxf5
26.Bxf6
Re8 27.Rxe8 Qxe8 28.Bc3 h5 29.Qf6 Qd7 30.Qh8+ Kf7 31.Bf6 1-0.
** |
Manchester Guardian,
1905.04.14
|
|
The next game includes some additional
embarrassment
for me, as I stupidly forgot to include in my notes who was kind enough
to send it in to me. If the contributor of this game recognizes
it,
by all means, please contact me and help me correct my error. The
game did not appear in Napier despite the source, the American
Chess Bulletin, having largely been checked. I say
largely
as it became clear early on that Napier was inactive in chess for
decades
at a time, and it seemed unlikely he was active at this time in the
1930s.
The fact that this game exists, of course, demonstrates the old adage
that
a researcher should never make such assumptions. And of course,
making
such an assumption was the very mistake I made. |
|
Napier,WE Winkler,L
|
(3)
|
1937 |
USA New York, NY (Metropolitan Chess
League)
|
|
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.d3 g6 4.Be3 d6 5.g3 Bg7 6.Bg2 e6
7.Qd2
Qb6 8.Nd1 Nge7 9.Ne2 Bd7 10.c3 e5 11.b4 a5 12.bxc5 dxc5 13.Nb2 Nd8
14.0-0
Ne6 15.f4 exf4 16.gxf4 f5 17.e5 Qc7 18.d4 Bc6
19.d5 Rd8 20.c4 b5 21.Qc2 Nxd5 22.cxd5 Bxd5 23.Bxd5
Rxd5
24.Nc3 Rxe5 25.fxe5 Qxe5 26.Ncd1 Nd4 27.Bxd4 Qxd4+ 28.Nf2 Qxb2 29.Rae1+
Kf7 30.Qxc5 Bf8 31.Qc7+ Kf6 32.Ne4+ Ke6 33.Nd6+ Kf6 34.Qd8+ Kg7 35.Ne8+
1-0.
** |
American Chess Bulletin,
1938.01-02,
p10
|
|
Quite recently, thanks to the magic of email, I
received from English chess historian Chris Ravilious some quite useful
information concerning Napier. The first correction is quite
entertaining,
at least to me. Mr. Ravilious writes that on page 279 of
Napier,
in my brief summary of Horace Cheshires career, I mention his
analytic
skills, adding that he was referred to as the public
analyst of Hastings,
and was kindly thought of for his ready willingness to help elucidate
any
position. As Ravilious tellingly writes, I get the
impression from
this that you believe Cheshires title of public
analyst was a semi-jocular
reference to his chessboard skills. In fact, though everything you
say about his kindly disposition and readiness to share his strategic
insights
is true, the title of Public Analyst refers simply to his
job.
He was a chemist employed by the local council to conduct analysis of
substances
in, for example, cases of food adulteration. I cant decide
whether
you knew this and were consciously pointing up the resemblance between
the two sides of Cheshires career, or whether you assumed
public analyst
to be quite simply a tribute to his chess skills. I
dont suppose
Mr. Ravilious can see how red my face is, but I freely admit here that
at the time of writing I was firmly committed to believing that
public
analyst was a kind of Johnny-Appleseed-of-chess reference,
accenting Cheshires
good nature and willingness to cultivate appreciation of the game with
whomever showed interest My thanks to Mr. Ravilious. |
Mr. Ravilious also notes that my reference to
Napiers
partner in Game Number 267, a consultation game against Blackburne and
Cheshire, was not, in fact, William Henry Watts, future
editor
of the London 1922 tournament book , but rather J. A.
Watt.
J. A. Watt, it now appears likely, was also one of Napiers
opponents in
Game Number 273. According to Mr. Ravilious, William Henry Watts
had no known association with the Hastings Club, which had hosted the
series
of consultation games Napier and Blackburne conducted. Mr.
Ravilious
has also provided some interesting details about this other
Watt With
his permission, I quote Mr. Ravilious at length: |
Who then was the confusingly-named
Watt?
Theres a brief mention of him in the Book of the Hastings
International
Masters Chess Tournament, 1922, which - just to complicate things
further
- was edited by W. H. Watts! On p.9 of the book we learn that
Mr.
J. A. Watt, of the Waverley Hotel, accommodated some of the
players.
This may possibly be J. A. Watts only appearance in formal chess
literature,
but he is mentioned a good few times in Sussex chess records and in the
chess column of the Hastings & St. Leonards Observer. |
Watt played for Sussex as early as November
1901
(possibly earlier - there are some gaps in the record around the turn of
the century). From much the same date he was a regular in the
Hastings
Clubs first team, and while never one of its strongest players
gained
something of a reputation as a giant-killer. In September of 1912
he had the honour of encountering the great Frank Marshall when playing
board 1 for Hastings in a friendly match against Tunbridge Wells
(unsurprisingly,
he lost). He played (with F. D. Yates, G. A. Thomas and others) in
the First Class Tournament at the Kent & Sussex Congress of 1913,
defeating
Thomas in their individual game. And in March 1920 he defeated
Kostich
in a simul held at the Hastings Club. Watts remained active
through
the 1920s, taking part in the Hastings Clubs tour of Belgium and
Holland
in the summer of 1923. The last time I find his name mentioned is
in 1929, when he played on board 14 for Sussex in a match against
Surrey. |
Watt was a keen correspondence player, and
represented
the South (on board 40) in the North v South correspondence match of
1900-1901.
In 1925 he won the Sussex Correspondence Championship. |
Of J. A. Watt as a person I know
almost nothing,
but in E. J. Ackroyds chess column in the Hastings & St.
Leonards
Observer in 1922 theres a satirical reference to Watt
with a long
Corona-Corona cigar, ... busy putting up a smoke barrage in the hopes of
obscuring his own game, and subsequently exchang[ing] his
Corona for
a Calabash and eventually succeed[ing] in asphyxiating his
opponent, from
which we may deduce that he was a heavy smoker (maybe it went with the
profession of hotelier!). |
|
Mr. Raviliouss account of J. A. Watt shows
what
wonderful detail can be gleaned from local chess sources. The
bungling
with the Watts versus Watt name confusion
is,
of course, my own fault, though original sources have proven quite
difficult
at times to read and even at times inaccurate. In this instance,
my sources are unfortunately squirreled away in a particularly difficult
area to locate, and so I will simply take the blame for assuming
Watt
in fact meant Watts, thus by default, as it were,
exonerating the Nottingham
Guardian, my original source, from generating the confusion. |
While the error is of course unfortunate, its
correction
is interesting as well. Certainly the information Mr. Ravilious
provides
concerning J. A. Watt is every bit as fascinating, down to the use of
tobacco
smoke as a tactical device over the board, as anything in Napier
about William Henry Watts. I am exceedingly grateful to Mr.
Ravilious,
and should another edition of Napier ever become feasible, his
corrections
and contributions shall be noted, with pleasure. |
One final game can be added to the Napier
canon.
It is rather a sad note to end this article on, but it cannot be
avoided.
Napier began play in the Washington Chess Divans 1942
championship, thirty-eight
years after his last appearance in a chess tournament. Playing
along
with Reuben Fine, Albert Fox (another aging veteran, who shared with
Napier
the distinction of playing at the great Cambridge Springs 1904
gathering),
Martin Stark, Oscar Shapiro, Vincent Eaton and others, Napier completed
a few rounds before two car accidents and a move to Philadelphia forced
him to abandon the tournament. It was the only time I could find
in his career that he did not finish an event. Two of his
encounters
appeared in Napier, and now a third has been recovered, though
this
latest addition is hardly a jewel among Napiers collected
games. |
B27/03 |
Sicilian: Hungarian
|
|
1942 |
USA Washington, DC (Divan
Championship)
|
|
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nf6 5.c4 Bg7 6.Nc3 d6
7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 Bg4 9.Bg5 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Nbd7 11.Rac1 Nc5 12.Qe3 a5 13.e5
Ng4? 14.Bxg4 Bxe5 15.Nd5 f6 16.Bh6 Rf7 17.f4 Bxb2 18.Rb1 f5 19.Bxf5
[0:45-1:13]
1-0.
** |
Washington Star, [date
unknown]
|
|
Martin Stark of Washington (who also played in
this
event, fifty-seven years ago!) sent along a copy of this score to me in
a letter dated June 28, 1998. In that letter he wrote that in
Eaton
- Napier, Blacks thirteenth move is an incomprehensible blunder
giving
up a knight for practically nothing, except an insignificant
pawn.
The score was published in Donald Mugridges Washington Star
chess
column, but the date is uncertain. Eaton, a problemist of some
reputation,
was then champion of the District of Columbia. |
The loss is undoubtedly one of Napiers
worst among
his published games. But truthfulness demands its inclusion.
And
so the search for Napier games and information continues, a process
never
fully complete, and thus, with many thanks to others, a process never
ending. |
© John S. Hilbert 1999
|