Branch's column in The Cheltenham Examiner.
This successful periodical had a star cast of contributors and a great many articles and items of interest to current chess historians, not least the many items taken from the contemporary chess historian W.
One matter that I disagree on is Harding's assessment of The Chess Amateur (1906 to 1930) as having "little to offer historians". The author also raises the very valid point that, due to the break in publication of the CPC in 18, there was no contemporary coverage in British chess periodicals of the important Manchester 1857 and Birmingham 1858 tournaments, and even more lamentably, on Morphy's first visit to Europe. This certainly hits the nail on the head not only in annotating games but in chess writing in general. Brien, he quotes Brien's astute comment regarding the effort involved in game annotations that "few appreciate the labour but all reap the advantages". He is sympathetic to the difficulties facing Staunton in the early years due to the shortage of suitable chess material in the 1840's, and when discussing Staunton's successor, R. Harding's very detailed account of The Chess Player's Chronicle is now the definitive historical record of this long running periodical, with comprehensive information on the many stops and starts, owners, editors and publishers throughout its chequered career from 1841 to 1902. While historically important in the evolution of chess periodicals and including some of the final games played by de la Bourdonnais, the attention given does not balance with the coverage of some other mainstream chess periodicals which are hardly discussed at all. Some periodicals are examined in more depth than others and The British Miscellany, forerunner of The Chess Player's Chronicle, but with little chess content itself, receives inordinate coverage on pages 178 to 192 and in the whole of Appendix IV.
0 kommentar(er)
