Before leaving the second game, we have this last additional remark
to make about it, that it is one of the erroneous assumptions and
inferences of the English writers, that the winning of that game
would have decided the match in their favour. It was the first won
game; and though it is true that the London Club _subsequently_
won the fourth game, which was the successor of the second, it
is also the fact that the fourth game, which was opened by the
Edinburgh Club, would not have been played if the second had
been won by London, who in that case would have had the opening
of the fourth. We do not mean to say that having to open was a
disadvantage. All we assert is, that, in point of fact, the game,
which the Edinburgh Club lost partly through a mistake in setting
up the men, and through another blunder, not very different in its
character, would not have been played at all if London had won the
second game. Besides, the fourth game would, in other respects, have
been played under very different circumstances. The opening of the
second game by the London Club was one which none of the Edinburgh
players had ever seen before, though, from this match, it now goes
by the name of the Scotch opening. They believed, however, from
their consideration of the second game, that the London Club had
not availed themselves of all the capabilities of the opening, and
they thought it would be a spirited thing to return it upon their
antagonists. This they did in the _third_ game. The event rewarded
their enterprising conduct. They gained a decided advantage; and
during the greater part of the _fourth_ game they believed that it
would never require to be finished, as they thought that by winning
the _third_ game they would gain the match. This accounts for the
carelessness with which they played the fourth game, though we
think nothing can excuse carelessness in playing chess. They were
ultimately disappointed in their expectation of gaining the third
game, as the London Club succeeded in drawing it; and this rendered
a fifth game necessary.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account