386
BRITISH CHESS MAGAZINE
We learn
with regret of the death of M. Arnous de Rivière who
succumbed to an attack of influenza in
Paris on September 11th [1905]. M. de
Rivière was the doyen of French
chess players—he was born at Nantes,
May 4th, 1830. He learned to play chess
when a boy but he practiced as an
amateur until he reached the age of 40, about which time he began
to contribute articles on the game to
various Parisian journals. He visited
England and encountered Barnes, Boden,
Bird and Löwenthal. Of continental
masters he met Petroff, V. der Lasa, Hampe, Dubois, Kolisch,
Neumann, Rosenthal, Tchigorin, Clerc,
Journoud, Sittenfeid, Janowski and
many others. He was one of the players
who encountered Morphy, though his
results with the grand master were scarcely as favourable as those
achieved by Harrwitz Löwenthal, Boden, Barnes and others,
In matches
he beat Löwenthal, in 1850, by
2
to 0
; in 1860, Barnes and Journoud,
the former by 5 to 2, the latter by 7 to 2 and I draw. In
1885 he met Tchigorin in a match,
winning 4 to the Russian's 5, and
drawing one game. In the Paris Tournament of 1882-1883 he finished 2nd
(Clerc being first). In the Café de la Régence
Tournament, of 1896, he was 3rd. His style of play was rather solid
and cautious than brilliant.
He used to play at the Régence and
at the Cercle Philidor, giving odds to most opponents.
As a writer
on chess he contributed papers to La Régence, Gil Blas , L' Evénement,
La Patrie, Echo de Paris, La Paix, La Vie Populaire, L' Illustration,,
etc., and he wrote with Neumann, the book of the Paris
Tournament of
1867. He was also the organizer of the
Monte Carlo Chess Tournaments.
He took interest in billiards,
salta and other games and puzzles, showing great ability in all his
undertakings.
In stature
he was tall and well built, and of a decided robust constitution,
full of humour and delicate sarcasm to his chess victims. He was a
great admirer of England and British institutions in general.
M. de
Rivière could relate many reminiscences of Morphy, whom he
considered to have been the greatest
genius in chess, past or present. He often used to say that, when Morphy was
asked to account for his having
lost 3 games to Harrwitz in succession, the reply was that it was desired to
see all the resources of Harrwitz
in the attack, and that, once Morphy
knew all Harrwitz could do, he expressed
his firm conviction that he would
lose no more games to Harrwitz, a
prediction which, as we all know, was verified to the letter, and by a
series of match games probably superior to anything ever achieved
over the board. |
