|
Yorkshire Chess History |
|
Contents: |
1889: Lancashire v Yorkshire |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
played in Manchester, on Saturday 09/03/1889, over 20 boards
Since the previous Yorkshire-Lancashire match, that of 1887, there had been disagreement in Lancashire as to how many boards were acceptable and appropriate in a Lancashire-Yorkshire match. Lancashire chess was dominated by the clubs in Manchester and Liverpool. While Yorkshire, represented by the Yorkshire County Chess Club, and the Manchester clubs were in favour of large numbers of boards such as the 40 of 1887, the Liverpool clubs (or those who took it upon themselves to speak for Liverpool chess-players collectively) had wanted only 10 boards, though a 10-board first-class match and a 10-board second-class match might have been acceptable to them. The subject had caused much rancour for about a year.
As a compromise, an attempt was made to hold a Lancashire-Yorkshire match in 1889 over 20 boards, in the belief by some that a number of Liverpool players would join in, even if the Liverpool club officials refused to formally be involved. In the event, all “Lancashire” players were in fact drawn from three Manchester clubs: Manchester Chess Club, Manchester Athenaeum Chess Club, and Manchester St. Ann’s – yet “Lancashire” still won!.
The known intended non-involvement by Liverpool officials arguably led to many stronger Yorkshire player choosing not to turn out. In his chess column, James White specifically mentioned as absent, possibly due to the debased status of this “county” match, the following: [A] Bilbrough and [T Y] Stokoe of Leeds; [A G] Schott, [R M] Macmaster and [R] Whitaker of Bradford; [T] Holliday of Huddersfield; [C G] Bennett of Selby; [E] Freeborough, [F F] Ayre and Phillips [sic – meant R H Philip] of Hull; “and others”. White argued that had these people been playing, then Yorkshire would have won. To be fair, had these additional Yorkshire players been playing, then by White’s reasoning it would have been because the stronger Liverpool players had been playing, and so Lancashire might well still have won!
Grapes were very sour that year.
In reporting on the match in the Leeds Mercury Weekly Supplement of 16/03/1889, White used the heading “Manchester v Yorkshire”, yet the team names he used in the game-by-game match score in the text were “Lancashire” and “Yorkshire”. Perhaps we could retrospectively call the home team “Mancashire”, on the basis that it foreshadowed Greater Manchester’s modern status in chess as a county unit.
For the first time in county match reports in the Leeds Mercury, an indication of systematic colour assignment was mentioned, “the first move being secured by Manchester on the odd-numbered boards.” The playing cession ran from 3.45 p.m. through to 7.15 p.m. The rate of play was 20 moves per hour.
At the end of the playing cession the score stood at 8-7 in Yorkshire’s favour, with 5 unfinished games to be adjudicated by “Mr Guest” of London. The adjudications went significantly in Lancashire’s favour, swinging the total score to a final 11-9 to Lancashire.
The Leeds Mercury omitted initials, except for the Guy brothers, but included clubs. Below, the players are listed under their county’s names as reported. The columns headed “Fuller Name” are the writer interpretation of the identities of the players named in the report.
A report in the Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, of 11/03/1889, did not dwell on the players absent from the teams, mentioning only the absence of Liverpool players, and the reason for that, and the absence of Hull players (understandable). The Independent nevertheless adopted the title “Lancashire v Yorkshire”. It omitted board 17 from the results it reported.
|
|
Created 19/07/2013 |
Copyright © 2013 Stephen John Mann |
Last Updated 19/07/2013 |