to the great compositions that will follow, and those compositions will be chiefly remarkable for the scrupulous attention paid to every particular of construction, and now, "revenous á nos moutons."

I.

Whether white be more powerful than Black or Black more powerful than White has nothing at all to do with a problem. The word problem has as distinct a meaning of its own as the word end-game. The question is not a question of balance of power, of prettily equipoised Rooks and Knights, or any other harmless speculation with the pieces; the question is, that a mate is to be effected in a specified number of moves, irrespective of all comparison of force whatever. The argument that White is too strong in comparison to Black may be met by saying that the fact of White being much the stronger adds to the difficulty of the problem, since it is evident White has greater scope for plausible attack.

Black may be made stronger than is absolutely necessary to avoid a second solution, in four ways— (To be continued.)

To the Editor of the WESTMINSTER PAPERS.

SIR, In his letter, in your last number, respecting Mr. Carpenter's problem (two versions), published in the April Papers, "E. F." has apparently overlooked the principal objection to the problem in the first position, which consists of a dual move, arising from the defence of Bishop capturing Rook's Pawn. This, according to the author's classification, renders the problem "defective." In the second version this defect entirely remedied, and the position stands as a perfect problem.

Writing on bi-moves, Mr. Carpenter says:-" In a two-move problem I have always advocated that even so slight a flaw as a 'defect' should not be countenanced; or rather, the deduction in value, therefor, should be greater than if it occurred in a three or four-move problem.”

And (in view of his own classification) :-" I never wish to rest satisfied with a problem because it is so near absolute perfection as is a 'defective,' especially if it be a bi-move.”

In his forthcoming book- -a collection of choice two movers of all ages and climes-Mr. Carpenter "will admit very few 'imperfects,' though a number of defectives,' perhaps 5 per cent., say 10 in all; because there are enough just as good in other respects, and better in this. With three movers (the 2nd volume) the test will not be so severe."

Yours faithfully,

A. TOWNSEND.

NEWPORT, MON., 13th May 1874.

REVIEW.

HANDBUCH DES SCHACHSPIELS.*

THE merits of the German Handbook are sɔ well known to the Chess players of the civilized globe that the appearance of a new edition must be considered an important fact in the history of our game. An improved edition was sure to obtain from an impartial critic at least un succès d'estime. In reviewing the first volume (see WESTMINSTER PAPERS, January 1874) we were in the happy position of being able to give it unqualified praise. The first part of the fifth edition is, in every respect, up to the standard of the present Chess science. Our opinion of the second part is not quite so favourable, but it may be pointed out, before we go through its different articles, that the whole book is far superior to any other treatise on Chess.

The first article of the second part finishes the treatise on the declined King's Gambit. We find here some new variations, taken from Dr. M. Lange's Handbook, the Paris Congrès, Neue Berliner Schachzeitung, &c. The author comes to the conclusion that Black's reply, 2 B to B 4, leads to an even game, which is not confirmed by the practical result; it may be also mentioned that Neumann, Steinitz and Zukertort prefer White's game.

*Handbuch des Schachspiels, P. R. von Bilguer, Elited by Heydebrand und der Lasa (fifth edition). London: W. W. Morgan, 67 Barbican.

and Co.

Leipsig: Veit

(A novelty, played by Zukertort 1870; the usual course is here 5 Kt takes Kt, 5 Q to R 5 ch, 6 P to Kt 3, 6 Q takes K P ch, 7 Q to K 2, 7 Q takes R, 8 P to Q 4, 8 B to K 2, 9 Kt to K B 3, &c.)

We think that White has a far superior game on account of his strong centre, his well developed pieces, and the open file for his Rooks. The second part of this article treats of some rare forms of the accepted Gambit, as

3 P to KR 4, 3 Q to R 5, 3 Q to Kt 4, 3 Q to K 2, and 3 Q to B 3.

The next article disposes of the irregular defences against the King's Knight's Gambit, 2 P to Q 4, 2 3. to Q3, 2 P to KB 4, 2 Kt to K B 3, 3 Kt to K 2, 3 P to KR 3, 3 P to Q B 3, and 3 Kt to Q B P. There is very little, if anything, new in this.

The third article treats of the Cunningham Gambit. The variations arising from the sacrifice of the three Pawns are very carefully examined, as in the previous editions; but we miss in the correct line of play (5 K to B sq) some important continuations.

The older, but now rarer variation of the Allgaier Gambit, 5 Kt to Kt 5, follows the adventurous attacks of the cunning Scotchman. The important novelty is here, after the usual course (1 P to K 4, 1 P to K 4, 2 P to KB 4, 2 P takes P, 3 Kt to K B 3, 3 P to K Kt 4, 4 P to K R 4, 4 P to Kt 5, 5 Kt to Kt 5, 5 P to KR 3,6 Kt takes P, 6 K takes Kt, 7 B to B 4 ch, 7 P to Q 4, 8 B takes P ch, 8 K to Kt 2 (instead of 8 K to K sq), 9 B takes P, 9 P to B 6, introduced in the Chess World 1869 by Zukertort. The editor agrees with the inventor in the variations resulting from the capture of the Rook, which both give as fatal for White, but he prefers White's game after the simple exchange of Bishops. The variation 8 B takes P ch, 8 K to Kt 2, 9 P to Q 4, 9 Q to B 3, concludes the treatise on this form of the Allgaier Gambit. It is mentioned here that after 10 P to K 5 Black's best move is not 10 Q to B 4 (as in a game of the Neue Berliner Schachzeitung 1868) but 10 Q to Kt 3, quoting its authority, Lowenthal and the Schachzeitung (1872, p 316); the priority however is due to the WESTMINSTER PAPERS (September 1872), as the move in question was first played by Zukertort against Steinitz, and the former authorities give the move in a note to this game.

(To be continued.)

OUR PROBLEMS REVIEWED.

No. 413, by F. W. LORD-" An interesting problem," T. R.— "Charmingly expressed," J. N. K.-"Very brilliant," H. J. C. A. "Pretty, but obvious," W. B. M.-"Refreshingly original," S. H. Thomas.-"Ingenious and original," T. R. H.

No. 414, by A. C. PEARSON.-"The really clever second move is its chief merit," T. R.-"The position at once suggests the solution," J. N. K.-"Neat, but easy," H. J. C. A. Almost too obvious," T. R. H.-"A captivating study," S. H. Thomas.-W. B. M. is wrong in saying there are two

solutions.

No. 415, by J. W. ABBOTT.—“Variation admirably worked out," T. R.-J. N. K. says, "I cannot solve this problem," the defence of P to K Kt 5, against Kt to QR 5 being the stumbling block. Kt to K B 3 ch, and R mates, is the answer.- -“Obvious, H. J. C. A.-W. B. M. is mistaken; Kt to Q8 will not solve it.—“Subtle idea, and skilful manipulation," S. II. T.-"Rich in variations, but unsatisfactory,” T. R. H.

No. 416, by T. HEALEY.-This problem was, unfortunately, printed as a three instead of a four-mover. In justice, therefore, both to the composer and solvers, we withhold its solution, and request reviews for next month.

No. 417, by G. E. BARBIER.—“Easy, but pretty," T. R."Good," J. N. K.—“ Fair, and free from duals," H. J. C. A."Perfection," W. B. M.-"Seen at a glance," S. H. Thomas. -"Obvious and stale," T. R. H.

No. 418, by Dr. GOLD-"Good, a great contrast to this composer's previous problems," J. N . K. --" Difficult," H. J. C. A.

No. 419, by J. MENZIES.- Pleasing," J. R.-"Good, but in the old mould," J. N. K.- Pretty, though simple," H. J. C. A.-"Neat, but not up to the mark," W. B. M.-"A perfect gem," S. H. Thomas.-"J. M.! J. M.!!" T. R. H. No. 420, by R. ORMOND.- "Good," T. R.-"Fair," J. N. K.- 'Ease and elegance," H. J. C. A.- -" Clever and difficult, W. B. M.—“Easy," S. H. Thomas.--“Ingenious,"

T. R. H.

Noted by J. H. ZUKERTORT and JOHN WISKER.

3 B to B 4

4 P to Q Kt 4

5 P to B3

6 Castles