An article appeared in The Fortnightly Review of December, 1886 bearing the signature of L. Hoffer, Secretary of the B.C.A., entitled "The Chess Masters of the Day." We are informed that the British Masters, who have read it are unanimous in condemning its tone and spirit; and a short letter of protest has been inserted in the March number of the same magazine, from H. E. Bird, specifying their principal objections to it! In a letter to us, Mr. Bird, incidentally, mentions that the article bears the semblance of having been prepared by more than one writer; and he suggests that a confusion of ideas may account for the discrepancies in it? He then proceeds to question Mr. Hoffer's authority for adding B.C.A. after his name, presumably for the purpose of giving weight to the article which it is contended does not meet with the general approbation of members of the British Chess Association, or other real lovers of chess and friends to its cause and advancement. The remarks of Mr. Bird, which we understand, are heartily concurred in by all the British Chess Masters, we give precisely in his own words. ------ However entertaining and amusing the article which appears in The Fortnightly Review, entitled "The Chess Masters of the Day," bearing the signature of L. Hoffer, may prove to the general reader, there are reasons why it is not likely to pass the more observant chess friend and true lover of the game without grave misgivings and deep regret; and it is probably not very rash to predict that, notwithstanding, the smile that may be evoked here and there at the expense of the unhappy lampooned Chess Masters, the feeling most predominant at the close of reading the article will be very near akin to extreme disappointment? It is but fair, at the outset, to observe that the writer does not seem to claim that his article is a disquisition on the game of chess; that it is not so may, at once, be granted; but, it is unfortunate that even as a record of what it purports to be, viz., "The Chess Masters of the Day," a few lines will suffice to show that it is not sufficiently connected, reliable, or complete to form a chapter in chess history, or to be of any lasting interest from a descriptive Chess Master's point of view. Having first generalised the main contents of the article, we may then proceed to point out its shortcomings, as well as the more serious objections to it. Of the 13 pages and 533 lines to which the article extends, more than three-fourths are devoted to foreign players; that apportioned, by the author, to panegyric of his present colleague, Zukertort and to sneers, and personalities bordering on vituperation of his past friend, the World's Champion, Steinitz, being about equally balanced.