London 1865




Results
 
Match scores
Name   Edo    Dev.   Score  /  Games 
Sich, A.    2110 (76) 2 /
Ward, William    0 /
  Sich, A. gave odds of pawn and two moves
 
Tooke, C. Chevall    2 /
Perceval, Spencer    0 /
 
Stewart, Cattley    2264 (94) 1 /
Baker, J.L.    0 /
  Stewart, Cattley gave odds of pawn and two moves
 
Cocking, H.W.    1851 (126) 1 /
Willoughby, E.C.    1629 (180) 1 /
  Cocking, H.W. gave odds of pawn and two moves
 
Green, Valentine    2247 (54) 1 /
Howard, A.G.    1651 (129) 0 /
  Green, Valentine gave odds of pawn and two moves
 
Chinnery, Walter    2162 (71) 1 /
Lousada, C.    1597 (182) 0 /
  Chinnery, Walter gave odds of pawn and two moves
 
Pearl, G.    1916 (135) 2 /
Young, Henry    1922 (92) 1 /
 
Chinnery, Walter    2162 (71) 1 /
Pearl, G.    1916 (135) 0 /
 
Green, Valentine    2247 (54) 2 /
Rodgers (1)    1888 (142) 1 /
  Green, Valentine gave odds of pawn and move
 
Green, Valentine    2247 (54) 1.5 /
Sich, A.    2110 (76) 2.5 /
  Green, Valentine gave odds of pawn and move
 
Stewart, Cattley    2264 (94) 1 /
Tooke, C. Chevall    0 /
  Stewart, Cattley gave odds of pawn and move
 
Chinnery, Walter    2162 (71) 1 /
Sich, A.    2110 (76) 0 /
 

Event table notes

Event data
Name: St. James Club Handicap
Place: London
Start date: Jan. 1864
End date: July 1865
 
Notes:
This was a knock-out tournament, with each pairing being decided by the first to win 2 games. The Era of 31 Jan. 1864 (p.14) gives the pairings for the first round that were decided on 23 Jan. 1864, including 14 players. The 7 Feb. 1864 issue of the Era (p.14) gives the assignment of players to handicap classes, listing 16 players - the original 14 plus H.T. Young and Dr. Pearl. A list given in the 11 Dec. 1864 issue of the Era (p.4) describing the beginning of the tournament lists 15 players, the original 14 plus Rogers, but not including Young or Pearl. Thus, 17 players were mentioned in connection with the tournament, and presumably, Dr. Rogers joined the tournament a bit late. The 11 Dec. 1864 report also says that the tournament 'was to be played in a method differing from the previous one'. It is not clear what this implies. No further report is found of R.J. Cruikshank and A.G. Puller who were paired in the original report. This, and the fact that 17 is an awkward number for a knock-out tournament, and the fact that eventually 4 players were left (not 5) lead to speculation that either (a) Rogers got a bye in the first round (but then why the neat 4 players after two rounds?), or (b) Rogers played an unmentioned 18th player in the first round (but again why the neat 4 playes after two rounds?), or (c) either Cruikshank or Puller withdrew, and Rogers took their place, leaving an even 16 players (but then why does the 11 Dec. report mention all 3 of Cruikshank, Puller and Rogers?). The report in the 14 Feb. 1864 issue of the Era (p.15) gives results to date from which it can be deduced that the scores at that point were Sich-Ward 2-0, Tooke-Perceval 2-0, Willoughby-Cocking 1-1 and Pearl-Young 2-1. I take these as final scores for these pairings apart from Willoughby-Cocking, where it is not clear who won eventually. The 10 Apr. 1864 issue of the Era (p.5) says that Stewart beat Baker in the first round, though the score in terms of games is not given, so I record it simply as 1-0 for Stewart. We can also deduce the winners of some of the other first-round pairings given in the original report (Era 31 Jan. 1864, p.14) from later indications of who had not yet been knocked out (Green-Howard, Chinnery-Lousada). These I also record as 1-0 for the winners. The 3 Apr. 1864 issue of the Era (p.9) says that the draw for the second round was to take place on 6 Apr. 1864. The 19 June 1864 issue of the Era (p.5) says that Chinnery beat Dr.Pearl, so again I record this as 1-0 for Chinnery. The 1 Jan. 1865 issue of the Era (p.14) says that the tournament was still not finished, with Young, Stewart, Sich, Chinnery, and Green remaining in contention. It is not clear why Young was still in contention if he lost to Pearl in the first round, but in the 22 Jan. 1865 issue of the Era (p.6) where the drawing for the next round is described, only four players are mentioned: Sich, Chinnery, Tooke and Stewart, so I presume that the report in the 1 Jan. 1865 issue was in error. The 22 Jan. 1865 issue of the Era (p.6) gives the result for Sich-Green as +2-1=1 for Sich, presumably the last of the previous (second?) round. The 2 July 1865 issue of the Era (p.7) says that in the semi-finals Stewart and Chinnery won, but don't give actual scores, so I record Stewart-Tooke as 1-0 and Chinnery-Sich as 1-0. The 16 July 1865 issue of the Era (p.6) says that Chinnery withdrew without playing Stewart, who therefore won the tournament.
 
References
Periodicals
   [CPM], vol. 1, July 1865, page 224
   [Era], vol. 26, 31 Jan. 1864, page 14
   [Era], vol. 26, 7 Feb. 1864, page 14
   [Era], vol. 26, 14 Feb. 1864, page 15
   [Era], vol. 26, 20 Mar. 1864, page 14
   [Era], vol. 26, 3 Apr. 1864, page 9
   [Era], vol. 26, 10 Apr. 1864, page 5
   [Era], vol. 26, 19 June 1864, page 5
   [Era], vol. 27, 11 Dec. 1864, page 4
   [Era], vol. 27, 1 Jan. 1865, page 14
   [Era], vol. 27, 22 Jan. 1865, page 6
   [Era], vol. 27, 2 July 1865, page 7
   [Era], vol. 27, 16 July 1865, page 6

Tournament page created: 31 Jul. 2016