If he had played P d6, there would have followed 35, L g6:†, K d7; 36, L f5†, K c7; 37, L g4:, etc.
| 35, | L g6:† | K f8 |
| 36, | M f6:† | P f6: |
| 37, | L f6:† | K e8 |
| 38, | L g6† | K e7 |
| 39, | L g7† | K d6 |
| 40, | P c5† |
and the game was a draw by perpetual check, for if K c7, then 41, L e5†, K b7; 42, L b2†, K c6; 43, L f6†, etc.
These two games show a remarkable variety in the arrangement of the pieces, and some beautiful new problems can be constructed in accordance with the placements and movements of the Pawns. Indeed, some ancient problems gave the impulse for the invention of this kind of game in June, 1874, when the first game of a similar arrangement was played between H. F. L. Meyer and H. J. C. Andrews. In 1874, however, the sixteen men were placed on the board all at once.
IV.—The Game of Double Chess.
By the late Captain Crawley and Herbert Mooney.
It seems an odd thing that in this prolific age of literature the most fascinating of all nineteenth-century games should lack a recognized authority as to its play. It is probably for this reason that Double Chess has so long a time languished in comparative obscurity, winning its way by slow degrees only into club and family circle.
No two strangers could be found to agree as to the rules which should govern its play, and the most imperative rule of all, namely, that of absolute silence, has been broken again and again with a royal disregard of all fine or penalty.
Time after time has it been our lot to sit over a foolish game where one’s partner would insist either in giving way to vocal bursts of impatience, or authoritatively insist upon a move which happened to chime in with his or her ideas. It must be confessed that the fair sex are most to blame in this matter. Though we are reluctant to upbraid them, we have no hesitation in saying that the infringement of this golden rule of silence is one of the fruitful sources of the hitherto unpopularity of the game.
How often have the writers waited in mute agony lest an exclamation of triumph or despair from their partners should reveal the imminent development of a well-planned scheme, and how they have plodded on, more from courtesy than any real interest, after such an event has taken place. We must insist that a heavy penalty for a breach of this golden rule should be rigidly enforced.
Let not the astute Single-chess player delude himself with the notion that he can march triumphantly to victory in this new game. Save that the pieces move in the same manner (with one exception) as in Single Chess, there is no similarity between them, and we must say that the relative interest of the two games is in favour of the younger born. At any rate, the writers think so. Beginners grow weary of Double Chess because they find it occupies an unreasonable length of time. This is caused by the fact that they maintain a desultory kind of warfare, each one selecting an adversary and fighting him on his own account.