He was better than Bird the entire game even though he practically didn't play the any "best moves", only "good moves".

But at 43... Qe4+, he gave away all of his advantage and Houdini calls it a draw.

It was put up and judged by the proprietor of the Café International, New York.

"This spirited offer should have a marked influence in protecting us from the wearying round of French, Sicilian and irregular openings."

The Opening was a French!

But according to Chernev (in Wonders and Curiosities of Chess) states:

<The first tournament game ...>

Note that he say *tournament* game, not *match* game.

He gives this same game, but isn't this a match game (and not one of the games from the Centennial NY (1876) tournament).

I've seen it mentioned on numerous occasions that this was the first brilliancy prize. Hooper & Whyld is a good source.

It did without doubt receive a brilliancy prize and it was played in the 1876 tournament.

Tim Harding in "Eminent Victorian Chess Players" page 120 mentions it won the brilliancy prize adding a that a certain Mr Arthur Jackson wrote to the 'Field' complaining Bird accomplishments are being ignore by Steinitz, the then 'Field' columnist.

Steinitz replied that four years previously when he took over the 'Field' Bird had expressed a wish not to see his name in the 'Field'.

(Get it? "First" stops?!)

I'd like to get the refs to the Steinitz-Jackson exchange in <The Field>, it would make for interesting reading, and is a wrinkle I hadn't been aware of.

Wonder if Renette discusses this in his book?

As far as my post - part of it was to mention Chernev, another part was to get Lieder's name out there (and a nod to Soltis' work - another good 'un).

But an even more important part was to gently scold <CG> for its labeling of the game:

<
[Event "New York m"]
[Site "New York m"]
>

which definitely suggests the game was from a match.

That got me wondering, since it's possible the first brilliancy could have been awarded during a match, even if the usage of the term would be at odds with convention. But it's not the case, luckily, as it was indeed a tournament game.

And so, in the end, it's just another mislabeled individual game, floating in the great big <CG>, er, "salad" bowl.

Yes, a good addition is to actually name of the person who came up with the idea of introducing a brilliancy prize.

<

Chess in New York.

The Café International, No. 699 Broadway, is fast becoming as noted a chess resort as Simpson's Divan in London. We learn from the Turf, Field and Farm that at this first class restaurant, a unique reading room, where 300 newspapers from all parts of the world, are kept on file, a chess room with twenty-eight tables and a library of 400 chess books, make <Mr. Leiders, the energetic proprietor>, deserving of the greatest success. Every distinguished chesser visiting New York is sure to visit this elegant establishment. The contest for the champion cup at the New York Chess Club is still progressing, with Mr. Limbeck leading.

<<>>>

https://books.google.com/books?id=8... (May 1877)

Mr. Lieders is actually Mr. Siegfried Lieders, as we learn from the inimitable <batgirl> (I'm buttering her up both because she is good, and because I'm copying three of her paragraphs here):

<
Siegfried Lieders was only 21 when he moved from Germany to New York in 1854. In the 1860s he became the proprietor of the Café Europa, located at 12-14 Division street, NYC, which opened rooms specifically for chess and which the "Dubuque Chess Journal" noted being "at that time the principal rendezvous for the chess talent of the metropolis." In the 1870s he opened the chess-famous Café International.

He moved to Rochester, NY in 1878 where he managed the recently built Bartholomay Cottage Hotel, owned by the wealthy German brewery magnate, Henry Bartholomay, until 1886 when he moved to Detroit, managing the Hotel Benedict on the corner of Randolf and Larned streets until he leased it in 1892 and renamed it the Hotel Lieders. Lieders died on April 4, 1893.

The "Clipper" itself on Nov. 4, 1876 revealed that this tournament, called "The Clipper Free Centennial Tourney" and lasted from Sept. 20th to Oct. 18th, was won by James Mason with 16 wins, for which he received $100. Eugene Delmar, who came in second with 15 wins and one draw, earned himself $50. H.E. Bird won 15 games (and presumably lost one) and $25. At this point there were 7 nominations for the "Lieders Cup." When finally voted upon, Bird won that brilliancy prize unanimously. >

Siegfried Lieders!

"....Every distinguished chesser."

Analysis by Stockfish 260819 64 POPCNT:

∓ (-1.37): 29...Bxd4 30.cxd4 Nxd4 31.Qf4 Rxe5 32.Kh3 Rxe1 33.Qxc7 Rxa1 34.Ne3 Ra3 35.Kg2 Rd3 36.Nf1 Rf8 37.Qxa7 Ne6 38.a6 Nf4+ 39.Kh2 Rh3+ 40.Kg1 Ra3 41.Ne3 g6 42.Qc5 Rxa6 43.Qd6 Ra7 44.Nf5 gxf5 45.Qxf4 Kh7 46.Qd6 Raf7 47.Qxc6 fxg4 48.Qxd5 Rf4 49.Qd7+ Kg6 50.Qe6+ Kg7

<39. ...,Qb8+ is not compulsory. Black has a better line: 39. ...,Kh7. 40.Ne5,Qc8. > Best chance for black was 42....Qa1!

Analysis by Stockfish 260819 64 POPCNT:

Again, the opening is very solid by both players, and I again realized opening theory had progressed incredibly during the mid-19th century. The game starts slowly, it's an even positional struggle during the first 20 moves: White tries to find a way to crack black's position, Black won't let him.

But the position's tactical potential just explodes after <22...Ng5?!> -- Mason's nice plan doesn't work as he expected: White's pieces are much better positioned for the ensuing tactical orgy. But <23...Rxe7?> is a real mistake -- the nice zwischenzug <23...Bxd3!> would have prevented worse.

But Bird also goes wrong with <25.Qxg6?> -- of course White's queen looks threatening, but it's not that effective and effectively just loses a pawn. <25.Nxg6> (D) would kept that pawn by attacking the rook and now White would have already been close to winning. (Even here there is a plethora of fascinating tactical shenanigans, but I try to keep my postings concise. Trust me or just check for yourself, it's instructive! :)

click for larger view

As it is, White's advantage is still very slight, and completely gone after <28.Ng2?>, which should have been preceded with <28.a5! Bc7 29.f4> -- now the center is nicely closed and Black has less chances of countertactics: <29.a5?> looks great, and it does does win the bishop, but after <29...Bxd4! 30.cxd4 Nxd4> (D), Black is suddenly slightly better with his nice connected passed pawns.

click for larger view

But even <30.Rxa5?> isn't as good as it looks (<30.Qf3!=>, believe it or not). <30...Qxa5??> doesn't work because of <31.Ng6!> and White wins back the exchange plus a knight, but Black finds the awesome <30...Rf8!> and now the above combination doesn't work as well because of Black's control of the f-file.

Stockfish would still play <31.Qh5 Qxa5> because <32.Ng6 Qc7+ 33.f4 (33.N2f4?? Rxf4) Rff7 34.Nxe7+ Rxe7 35.Qe5 Qxe5 36.dxe5 ⩱> (D) leads to an endgame where White is down a pawn, but still has good chances with its passed protected pawn on e5.

click for larger view

Because Black now could have <32...Ng5! 33.Rxc6 Nf3+! 34.Kg3 Nxe1! 35.Rxc7 Rxc7 36.Nxe1 Rxc3+ 37.f3 a5> (D). This endgame is long and tedious, the two knights just aren't quite able to both stop the a-pawn from advancing AND to keep the king and rook from gobbling his remaining pawns.

But <32...Nd8?> is a mistake, but as <33.Nf4?> is equally weak (<33.Nh4!>), it's still about -3; but from now on, the game is truly amazing:<34.Nfg6!> and now <34...Rxe5?? 35.Rxe5 Qxa6??> loses because of <36.Re8+> and mate in the next move. <35.Nxc6!> and now <35...Rxe1?? 36.Nce7+> loses; and <35...Nxc6 36.Rxe8+ Qxe8 37.Rxc6!> (D) threatens <38.Rc8 Qxc8 39.Ne7+>.

click for larger view

But that was actually the way to go, here the simple and humble <39...Kh7!> would have proven the queen sacrifice as unsound, because after <38.Rc5 Qd8 39.Nf4 Qh4+ 40.Nh3 Qe4> (D), White's attack is gone and he's now fighting for his life.

click for larger view

However, Black still has a strong advantage after <35...Qc7?!> and <36...Qxc3> because now all of White's pawns are weak. But Black has to be very careful, the position is still highly unclear, and Black's move <37...Qd2??> however, the game is suddenly dead even. <37...Qxd4?? 38.Nf3!> is even winning for White, the only move that could have retained his advantage here was <37...Qc8!>.

<41.Rg3?> however swings the balance back into Black's direction again, but Bird is saved by Mason's second blunder <42...Kg7??>; <42...Qa1! 43.Rf5 Re1> (D) would have resulted in a won endgame for Black after <44.Nxh6+ Kg7 45.Rfxg5 Rg1+ 46.Kh2 Rxg3 47.Rxg3 Kxh6-+>.

click for larger view

So the game stays equal, but Black then blunders a third time with <44...Nh7??> after <45.Nh5+!>, and now White is now finally winning for the first time in the whole game. It looks as though Mason was exhausted by now, because he soon blunders again with <48...d4??>, allowing <49.Ne5!>, threatening both Rg8# and Ng6+ and thus winning the game.

As to Bird's play, I initially thought it to be typical unsound old-school Romantic style, but while his queen sacrifice is, objectively speaking, close to losing, but in terms of human play, I still wouldn't call it brilliant, but it created enough complications to eventually wear down his opponent, so it worked and thus was a good move.

But while I'm not the biggest fan of the queen sacrifice, the game itself deserved the brilliancy price, because both players delivered an amazing game. Mason deserves more credit, although he did blunder quite a bit, these positions were so unclear and dangerous, so full of subtle traps and pitfalls, I don't think many would have held up so long.