The Southern Counties Chess Union - a retrospective

By Anthony Fulton

'The Southern Counties Chess Union – a retrospective’ is an important book that makes a significant contribution to English chess history. It is informative and compelling; an engaging piece of work that sometimes evokes a frontier spirit, where those seeking to advance their plans of a chess union are caught between known and unknown worlds.

This book is a comprehensive, authoritative account of major episodes in the first 125 years of the Southern Counties Chess Union (SCCU) in England. Each page resonates with the author’s knowledge of chess history and his research. In the book you will discover:

• an overview of English chess in the mid- to late-nineteenth century

• why counties in the south of England formed the first chess union

• steps undertaken to realise and strengthen the union

• essential facts and statistics pertaining to the SCCU’s primary over-the-board competitions.

• Language: English
• Publisher: The Conrad Press
• Release date: Jun 1, 2022
• ISBN: 9781839784835

Book preview

9781914913624.jpg

The Southern Counties Chess Union - a retrospective

ANTHONY FULTON

The Southern Counties Chess Union - a retrospective

Published by The Conrad Press in the United Kingdom 2022

Tel: [phone] www.theconradpress.com [e-mail]

ISBN 978-1-914913-62-4

Copyright © Anthony Fulton, 2022

The moral right of Anthony Fulton to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved.

Typesetting and Cover Design by: Charlotte Mouncey, www.bookstyle.co.uk

The Conrad Press logo was designed by Maria Priestley.

Images of Isaac MacIntyre Brown, Leopold Hoffer and Samuel Tinsley (all from Chess Bouquet 1897) Leonard Rees (BCM 1904) and extract taken from History of Chess (1913) by H.J.R. Murray have been reprinted and used with the kind permission of British Library.

Image of the article ‘Chess Match at Yeovil’ taken from Western Gazette 1st December 1893 © The British Library Board. All rights reserved. With thanks to The British Newspaper Archive (www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk).

Photographic images relating to John Lewis, Cavendish Street, London which can be seen on the cited John Lewis and Partners Memory Store websites have been reprinted with the kind permission of John Lewis Partnership Archive.

Extracts taken from BCF Year Books (1945-70) have been used with the kind permission of English Chess Federation.

Extracts taken from Middlesex Counties Chess Union Minute Books and Newsletter have been used with the kind permission of Middlesex County Chess Association.

Extracts taken from Southern Counties Chess Union Chess Bulletins, SCCU Combined Year Books (1931-45) SCCU Minute Books and SCCU website have been used with the kind permission of Southern Counties Chess Union.

Extracts taken from newspapers comply with copyright permissions as stipulated by British Newspaper Archive.

The map of the historic counties of England and Wales and Monmouthshire is adapted from the base map provided by the Association of British Counties.

Positions of selected games from the 1893 and 1894 Northern Counties vs. Southern Counties matches were generated using www.chessvideos.tv/chess-diagram-generator.php

The author has made every effort to trace and contact all copyright holders. The author will be pleased to make good any omissions or rectify any mistakes brought to his attention at the earliest opportunity.

The author has used his best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for websites referred to in this work are correct and active at time of publication. The author has no responsibility for the content on cited websites and makes no guarantee that if the reader attempts to access the site that it remains live or that the content remains relevant, decent, or appropriate. Where necessary use internet archive websites such as, Time Travel or Wayback Machine to check digital archives to validate information obtained from websites cited.

Imagine a contest where individuals engage in personal combat, both trying to outdo the other; however, the outcome of the trial of strength is not determined by one personal battle, but say 12, 16, or 20. Now that is a contest with a difference!

Preface

On 16th September 2017, the Southern Counties Chess Union (SCCU) re-enacted the 1921 North vs. South of Thames match to celebrate its quasquicentennial (125th) year thereby cement its status as the oldest English Chess Union after its ‘birth’ on 3rd September 1892. This along with the centenary match are the only two landmarks the Union have celebrated, their Silver (1917) and Golden (1942) Jubilees were foregone due to the World Wars. Allowing for its longevity and two formats outlining current activity – SCCU Bulletin (formally known as Union Chess Fayre) and two websites – the SCCU Executive has yet to produce a formal document covering its history, achievements or even persons of interest, ‘As It Was!’ so to say. The lack of one evokes Samuel Tinsley’s summary on the state of chess in 1892:

‘But this glance at chess in 1892 would be incomplete if it merely noticed great events and the doings of these leading men […]. The game is before all things an amateur’s game, and how are their records to be obtained? Who shall chronicle the many events of less public interest which constitute the life and soul of chess in England, and mark its onward progress? What about the largely increasing number of growing clubs, whose members engage in more or less serious contests for trophies or other honours, matches public as well as friendly or individual, club handicaps and other engagements calculated to promote improved play?’

Tinsley in essence asks, ‘What should the focus of chess be?’ He intimates those with an interest in chess should keep records of all its forms, amateur, elite, past and present rather than focus exclusively on elite level of play whether past or present, and current activities of clubs, leagues, and associations. The Union took note by chronicling and continuing to chronicle its present (Combined Year Book; SCCU Bulletin and Website) but what of its past? Former Honorary Secretary, SCCU Bulletin Editor and Webmaster Richard Haddrell began to ‘chronicle’ it but he stated:

‘… not very complete but we’ll come back to it one day.’

Despite his achievements for Kent County Chess Association, SCCU, and the English Chess Federation he never did get around to providing a comprehensive history so it would seem the Union’s story would remain untold. The SCCU’s ongoing failure to produce such a document means current or future generations associated with it would be unable to have a rationale of how the Union came into being and why the extant competitions were created in first place. It would also incidentally provide a commentary on chess in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Notwithstanding leaving a legacy of the SCCU, if a document existed it would help fill a neglected gap in literature of chess history: parochial chess, as Tinsley alluded, that which the amateur player is primarily involved in, i.e., Club, League and County chess (see Afterword).

Picture 1: National Chess Centre, Cavendish Street, London

The absence of such a document can be explained by a variety of reasons. The primary one being the destruction by fire of John Lewis’ Cavendish site on 23rd September 1940 due to the ‘Blitz’. In September 1939 the store became the new home of the City of London Chess Club and the British National Chess Centre. The SCCU planned to play 50 and 100 board matches there but this was prevented firstly by outbreak of War, then bomb fire which destroyed the Chess Centre, the entire property of the SCCU, the best half of the British Chess Federation (BCF) library and all the finer old four-handed equipment. Fortunately, the Shannon Trophy, its premier trophy was recovered and repaired sometime later. The bombing proved even more disastrous for Kent; the Association lost, its best-known trophies (Individual Championship Cup and W.W. White Memorial Trophy), ten volumes of archives and all the records of Margate Congresses. The Lowënthal Trophy, which had been the preserve of the SCCU since 1908 as they were frequently National Champions, luckily escaped disaster. The 1939 contest was abandoned so Lancashire held it over from 1938. In short, this event was catastrophic for the SCCU as its early history to at least 1930 was wiped out in a single stroke.

Picture 2: 1940 Post-Blitz remains of John Lewis

The Union’s activities from 1930 were recorded in new minute books along with SCCU Combined Year Book (1930) followed by Bulletin (1958) and finally internet (1998) when Bulletin transferred but the early years were permanently lost. With new records, if desired, it should have been possible to produce a document to cover the SCCU’s post-1930 history certainly in time for Union’s centenary, but for anyone wishing to produce a comprehensive historical account of the SCCU which included inception to 1930 it would of course be problematic. Circumstance then rather than design seemed to prevent the would-be SCCU historian from attempting the task.¹

There are other compelling reasons for failing to produce a written if incomplete account of the SCCU one includes apathy; another and equally apt one is, as Aesop would say, ‘Whom is to bell the cat?’ It is a great idea to write a document about the SCCU’s history but who will do it? But probably and more pertinently the longer the history the greater the task as whomsoever undertakes the venture must naturally ask, ‘Where do I start?’ This is a pertinent question when there are few if any original documents to peruse. That is where this works comes in: an individual has stood up and volunteered to ‘bell the cat’, has taken a stab at a reasonable starting point and has patiently and painstakingly perused numerous articles, journals, Yearbooks and so on to ensure the task completed. If it is imperfect, it is hoped the imperfections are minimal. Future editions, should there be ones, can at least improve on the acknowledged gaps.

This document, excluding Correspondence, Individual, Jamboree, Knock-out, Junior, and internal events, provides statistics of all the over-the-board inter-county matches played in competitions overseen by the Southern Counties Chess Union since the inaugural Championship of Southern Counties (1893-94) (Part 3: End – Union Competition Stats). This record of inter-county chess is testament to the outcome of the actions of both the delegates attending said meeting on 3rd September 1892 to discuss the feasibility of establishing a Union amongst the chess organisations of the South AND the Match Committee whom, after the 1893 Northern Counties vs. Southern Counties encounter, formulate a plan for the proposed 1894 contest so as to optimise the Southern team (Part 1: Opening – Union Historical Facts). The plan unlike the first encounter reduces if not protects them from claims to partisanship regarding board order, which naturally ought not play a part as the Match Committee should be guided by what is in the best interest of the Southern Counties team, as an objective measure was in place to determine it and how so. By the time of the 1894 encounter the first stage of the Championship of Southern Counties Contest had been completed and by using the results of the competition, amongst other presumed sources, e.g., league results, tournaments etc. it can be safe to say the team the 1894 Match Committee assembled devastated the expectations of the North. The North believed the close result of the 1893 encounter would be overturned however they found any hopes were crushed to dust.

The SCCU’s extant competitions (Part 2: Middle – Union Competition Facts) are proof positive that, after the first Championship competition and primary objective of the Union, as formulated in original meeting on 3rd September 1892, ‘to govern inter-county chess’, regular matches between counties of the South have been and continue to be played in accordance with this objective. This document therefore provides a backdrop to the formation of the SCCU and the growth of County Associations within it, the challenges for the SCCU Executive and Match Committees to prepare for the two Northern Counties vs. Southern Counties contests and the outcome of their endeavours that provide the rationale for the statistics. In discussing their actions there naturally will be some overlap with the activities of the Union as a whole, however issues of organisational activity and achievement, such as the initiatives introduced into SCCU and on occasion adopted by BCF, along with the SCCU personalities and the omitted competitions are best covered elsewhere, possibly a second volume by current author, as it is ambitious enough just covering the formation of the Union, a brief history of its county associations and compiling statistics of the over-the-board inter-county matches played between them. The reader is to be advised that each section can be read independently of the others according to their area of interest.

This document has a few other aims. Firstly, in chronicling aspects of the SCCU’s history, it provides a summary of English chess in a specific region during nineteenth and twentieth centuries, so develops some of the region’s activities referenced by P.W. Sergeant in his A Century of British Chess. Second, it is hoped the mixture of fact and comment will interest current and former members of the Union along with a wider range of chess enthusiasts. Third, it is also hoped by revealing forgotten facts and making detailed reference to sources used it will ensure ongoing use of them, lest they be consigned to gather dust, as individuals are encouraged to explore either other aspects of the Union’s or their own Association’s histories in more detail. By creating this work, it serves to protect some of the older publications. Fourth, should there be a desire to do so this document will make easier the writing of future historical documents relating to the either Associations of the South or the Union itself. It is therefore hoped Associations currently or formerly affiliated to the Union will ensure a copy of this work is included with their key documents. The final reason why part of this document is produced is because it reflects an aim of a former BCM Editor Isaac McIntyre Brown:

‘The raison d’être of [BCM Chess Annual (1915)] is a simple one – the law of demand and supply. Last October, when preparing for Press the November issue of the British Chess Magazine, we found it essential to confirm certain figures by reference to statistical records. After many hours of searching through most of the chess publications of the past thirty years we failed to establish the validity of our figures. This failure promptly decided us to make an effort to improve matters, and the present volume is the first contribution towards our self-imposed task. Whatever measure of success has been achieved is due to the hearty co-operation a band of willing volunteers […] Next year we hope to continue the work, and to proceed until the chess record of each county are collected and set out in due sequence [my emphasis].’

The BCM is at least one body who attempts to compile accurate match records for ALL chess-playing counties. Brown recognised this task was challenging but it could be achieved with the willingness of others to compile these records. Henry Butler can testify to the difficulty of the lone individual attempting to compile statistics for one Association when he did so for Sussex (1884-1927). A.J. Cox says likewise when compiling for Buckinghamshire (1932-82). How much more difficult for the lone individual doing so for several! Of the twenty-five counties assigned to SCCU who have or had an Association only Kent and Middlesex were willing to contribute to Brown’s project in 1915. Devon do provide some information but it pertains to their county competitions rather than inter-county matches. The reluctance or inability of SCCU Executive or its affiliates to provide the requested information along with other counties and/or other Unions (see Afterword) means an opportunity for a reliable database to exist is denied. Despite the optimism it would soon end, the Great War would have also caused problems for project as many Associations would have suspended operations or become defunct. The 1916 Chess Annual accepted the difficulties and made no apology for the change in direction:

‘We intended to publish more statistics of county organisations, but war conditions have prevented us securing reliable data. Perhaps by next year the conflict will have ceased, and chess officials will be able to co-operate and provide the necessary information.’

Subsequently, the edition took a different direction with more emphasis on games, problems and tournaments with limited space given to County Associations. Essex is the only county to provide some form of meaningful match data from the SCCU in this edition. Unfortunately for Brown the War would continue for a few more years to come which led to the ceasing of the publication. When it resumed in 1926 the direction taken by the 1916 edition is continued, focusing on tournaments, games, and chess problems. It could be argued that this Annual is a pre-cursor of what takes place in the chess media during the 1950s. This document partially pays homage to Brown’s wishes as it only compiles records for the SCCU’s over-the-board play rather than England as a whole. It would be nice to think that there are individuals after reading this book are moved by both Brown’s words and my endeavours to do likewise for areas beyond the SCCU.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgement is given to the following individuals whose interest in chess history provided valuable information, no matter how minor, I was unable to unearth from the listed sources: (Richard) John Cannon (Sussex Chess Association); Martin Cath (Archivist, Surrey Chess Association); Roger De Coverly (Buckinghamshire Chess Association); Brian Denman (Archivist, Sussex Chess Association and author of Brighton Chess: A History of Chess in Brighton 1841-1993); Steve Law (Hertfordshire Chess Association); Tony Peterson (Peterson Books); John Shaw (Bedfordshire County Chess Association); Ivor Smith (Essex Chess Association); Martin Smith (Surrey Chess Association), Graham Stuart (Hampshire Chess Association) and Mike Wiltshire (former President Kent Chess Association).

Thanks also goes to Berkshire’s Records Office and Redbridge Heritage Centre for either doing research on my behalf or allowing me access to their archives during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Likewise, to Gwent Archives and Hackney Archives for the same services post-pandemic. Another organisation to be recognised is John Frost Newspapers Archive Service who conducted an unsuccessful search on my behalf for copies of the lunchtime editions of London Evening News (1947). Harold Meek had a column which was used to promote SCCU activities. If they were held it would have meant two fixture dates could have been obtained leaving one final fixture date to find however outstanding dates remain at three!

Finally, I would also like to extend personal thanks to the staff of the Rare Books Section at the British Library who over and above their assistance proved to be extremely patient especially when I became cantankerous when requests I had made were not forthcoming! My frequent visits meant they were able to recognise and provide me with my order before I even asked! Now that’s customer service.

Disclaimer

Any comments construed as ‘personal’ represent the thoughts of the author rather than the SCCU.

Anthony Fulton April 2022

---

1 See Afterword

Part 1: Opening – Union Historical Facts

I. Origins: Formation of the Southern Counties Chess Union

II. Development: Formation of South of England Chess Associations

III. The Challenge: 1893 Northern Counties vs. Southern Counties Contest

IV. North vs. South the Return: The Championship of Southern Counties 1893-94

V. The Legacy: SCCU Inter-County Matches

VI. Conclusion: Transformation

Picture 3: Southern Counties Chess Union – the 1st English Union

I. Origins: Formation of the Southern Counties Chess Union

‘Delegates of the Southern counties met at the Salutation, Newgate Street, London, last Saturday [3rd September 1892] afternoon, to form the Southern Counties Chess Union, to include counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Somerset, Wilts, Gloucester, Hereford, Oxford, Buckinghamshire, Bedford, Hertford, Berks, Middlesex, Essex, Surrey, Hants, Sussex, Kent, Norfolk, Suffolk, Huntingdon, and Northampton. The meeting was very representative, amongst those present being Prebendary A. M. Deane (President Sussex Chess Association), who was voted to the chair; Rev. H. J. Crosse, Dr. J. W. Hunt, Mr. L. Hoffer (chess editor, Field) Messrs. Le Good (Norwich), Blake (Southampton), Carslake W. Wood (hon. secretary Plymouth Chess Club), H W. Butler (Brighton), Leonard P. Rees (Redhill), Peachy, Davies, Ward, Osborn, Biaggini, Baxter, Kenny, King, Birch, Igglesden, Hayward, and Synell. The meeting unanimously agreed to form the Union, and rules were submitted and agreed to, appointing Mr. Leonard P. Rees hon. secretary pro tem. All the Southern counties associations and principal chess clubs are to be invited to become members thereof. The object of the Union is to govern inter-county chess in the South of England.’

The SCCU is the first and oldest chess Union in England. It must be noted that Scotland had established an equivalent organisation in 1884 called the Scottish Chess Association (SCA). Although called an Association its activities covered the entirety of Scotland so the body is really a Union or more realistically a Federation but these terms were unknown or not considered at the time of its institution. Since the SCA is the first body to have a view greater than a county it is rightly recognised as the oldest of its kind in the United Kingdom because other national organisations form afterwards, i.e., Irish Chess Association (1885), British Chess Federation (1904), Irish Chess Union (1912), Welsh Chess Association (1954), and Welsh Chess Union (1957). 1884 sees England having similar ‘national’ bodies to the SCA, the Counties Chess Association (1857) and British Chess Association (1862), but as will be seen the SCCU’s actions puts a spotlight on whether they were genuinely ‘national’ bodies.

Picture 4: Leonard Rees 1st SCCU Secretary

The SCCU was formed, under the auspices of Leonard Rees – whom over time for what he did for chess locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally is considered as one of the greatest figures in the chess world – to co-ordinate the chess affairs of the burgeoning Associations and Clubs in the South of England. The attendees of the initial meeting he organised were a good sprinkling from the various bodies comprising the counties of the South. The concordance of these delegates to attain the intended objective of creating a body ‘to govern inter-county chess in the South of England’,² saw the emergence of a new organisation into the chess world – a chess Union.

Before addressing one key objective of this document, to present statistical records of specific over-the board inter-county competitions overseen by the SCCU and explain how the extant competitions came into being, thereby incidentally reviewing the success of the intended objective, it is worth asking and answering questions such as, ‘What are the origins of the SCCU?’ and ‘Why or if such a body is needed in first place?’

Samuel Tinsley, chess master, chess columnist and sometime chess problemist, gives an insight to the sentiments of the time:

‘Association, Union, Federation – these are sounds in the air. ‘The Southern Counties Union’ – good luck to it and to all such efforts God speed! Why is it we have no central authority in chess to which all points of dispute or enquiry could be referred; a board of arbitration, a central authority, a grand council, to whose judgment everyone worth naming would be disposed to bow? Surely the game has now arrived at that position at which the establishment of such a society is imperatively called for! A part of its work would be to take out of the way or discountenance much that is objectionable, and to support and countenance all that tends to the real welfare of CHESS.’ ³

Picture 5: Samuel Tinsley

Tinsley in essence asks, ‘Why is there no central body to govern and promote the interests of chess?’

Initially seen as the preserve of the leisure and opulent classes, as the nineteenth century progressed the game of chess began to be seen not just as a pastime but a legitimate intellectual recreational activity of both the vast middle-class and the artisan. The 1880s and ‘90s saw the prevalence of clubs and associations finally leading to unions. Indeed, many associations form recognising the game’s educational benefits. However, prior to presence of these entities, English chess to mid-nineteenth century was a somewhat hit and miss affair. Namely, there was little organised chess and any that existed was predominantly done on a ‘gentlemanly’ basis, i.e., played at each other’s homes, in gentlemen’s or mechanics clubs, hotels or restaurants. The reason being that if chess were more organised this would inevitably mean centralisation – a concentration of power. Further, centralisation sounded dangerously like nationalism, a concept sweeping across the continent of nineteenth century Europe. In chess terms this was railed against.

Centralisation as manifested by European Nationalism was an idea to which English sensibilities were at best intolerant of and at worst hostile. Nationalism as understood by Europeans of the nineteenth century was forged upon parochialism, namely difference and unique identity, so is essentially political and/or economic in character as opposed to that understood by the English whose nationalist roots were born in the eightteenth century and continued onto the early nineteenth. English Nationalism was built on the ideas of the general and universal so was religious in character; from an English perspective European Nationalism challenged this universal principle as it separated man from their fellows. The English did in due course follow the parochial approach of the Europeans as exemplified by the Industrial Revolution and its consequences, but what never changed was an overt hostility to centrality.

This type of thinking not only prevailed in the economic and political worlds but the chess one too, hence the indifference or resistance by many in it to the ideas of Association (local), Union (regional) and Federation (national). What brings hostility to these bodies into sharp relief is the fact that organisations such as the Northern and Midlands Counties Chess Association (formed 1852) – renamed the Counties Chess Association (1857) – and the British Chess Association (1862) were instituted with the express purpose of establishing the hopes of Tinsley, a National Chess Federation. Their efforts faltered as they had to interact with disparate units over an extensive area many of whom were resistant to such an idea and content with the current set-up. It must also be noted though that part of the failure could equally be attributed to the inability of the two bodies to work together as much as the lack of organised chess. From a Southern perspective as Associations’ form and compete against each other (Sussex, Surrey, Kent, and Hampshire), they concluded these bodies were ‘national’ in name only so ineffective ones as neither were able to address the pressing issues within the region. What the South needed was a body focusing on their needs. Consequently, confidence in the scheme to form a Union for Southern Counties grew.

The failure to establish a national body was reinforced during the two Northern Counties vs. Southern Counties contests (1893 and 1894). Rees consulted with numerous chess officials at the time about the feasibility of such a body only to find many welcomed the idea but were dubious about its success. Undeterred he did set about trying to establish such a body and was indeed successful. A National body – The British Chess Federation (1904) – was eventually formed but not until the beginning of the twentieth century after a groundswell of Associations and Unions in place to ensure its success, clearly nothing comes before its time. This work pertains to the SCCU and provides detailed statistics about their competitions however, it is worthwhile making a comment on the historical context as the actions of the delegates to agree on a central entity to govern the chess affairs of the bodies in the South of England belied the zeitgeist.

Although the mid-nineteenth century onwards sees various chess organisations being formed at a feverish rate by enthusiastic chess-players thereby providing like-minded individuals with dedicated clubs and competitions to participate in, the largest entity seemed only ever to be club. The county of Yorkshire eventually bucked the trend by forming the first recognised county-wide organisation – Yorkshire Chess Association (1841). They were the trailblazers for the North of England but it took another two decades before the next formed, Northumberland and Durham (1866) followed by Lincolnshire (1877) thus in this region it seemed centralisation at a local level was to be considered a positive, but what of the South?

The ground-breaking meeting held on 3rd September 1892 indicated a part of the chess world was prepared to have a chess focus larger than association. Granted it took some time for this optimum mass to emerge primarily because trying to set up an organisation larger than club level in the South was no mean feat – see Development: Formation of South of England Chess Associations – then again like Yorkshire there was the odd exception:

‘Chess appears to be looking up in Sussex. A Sussex Chess Association is contemplated, and numerous matches are in progress of arrangement.’

Sussex is credited with being the first county to form a genuine chess association in the South of England although as will be seen, counties such as Berkshire, Devon and Cornwall, Surrey and even Hertfordshire could have made the claim to being the first to form, however each fall short for one reason or another. Despite Sussex’s claims there is a county who do pip them. Ostensibly of all of the counties in the South’s 1892 catchment area Norfolk (1865) was the first southern county to create a Chess Association; it must be stated though that their ambitions were limited due to the circumstances they found themselves in, i.e., Yorkshire and Northumberland and Durham were the only other recognisable English County Associations in existence. Norfolk had dissolved when Lincolnshire becomes the third Northern County to form one.

Notwithstanding Norfolk’s status by the time Sussex form, the notion of over-the-board inter-county matches is impractical due to geographical distances between themselves and any prospective opponent in the first instance. Consequently, the Association was satisfied in offering its members other activities namely to:

‘....provide amateurs of Norfolk an opportunity of meeting each other periodically, of witnessing the skill of distinguished players, and of encountering the clubs of other counties in friendly rivalry.’

The objective of ‘witnessing the skill of distinguished players’ is seen at celebratory event in May 1866 oft quoted as the year Norfolk were formed. The ambitions of the next South of England association to form, Sussex Chess Association, on the other hand was an entirely different matter altogether.

The chess clubs of Sussex’s leading towns, including Brighton, Chichester, Eastbourne, and Horsham play each other on a frequent basis throughout the late 1870s and early 1880s. Although they often play each other there is no formal competition, either in the form of a league or cup, thereby denying any of the clubs to claim they are the best. The lack of formal competition is a recurring theme when these clubs go on to form what many would consider is the first ‘proper’ Association of the South and then the first Union. When reviewing these great centres of the county, there is a notable absentee Hastings. It was odd that a prestigious town such as Hastings did not have one as it was a well-known chess resort. In 1882 steps were taken to rectify this and when done it was postulated once a club comes into existence it would evolve:

‘… We know enough already of the chess talent of the towns to be ready to prophesy that with personal encounters, matches with other clubs and towns, and the county matches that must soon be taking place, now that the Chess Association for Sussex has been able to be get itself formed, there will be but small chance of the interest flagging.’

Even though Hastings and St. Leonards Chess Club is only recently formed it was clear there was a greater vision for the clubs of Sussex towns namely, to create an entity combining their entire playing strength, a Sussex Chess Club if you will, and once formed they would compete against other similar entities. Put simply, over-the-board inter-county competition was envisaged. The vision began to be realised on 21st October 1882 at the Royal Pavilion’s Old School Board Room, Brighton, when those wishing to make the playing of matches at a higher level acted:

‘A further step has now been gained in the same direction by the establishment of a chess association for the whole county. […] The chief objects of [Sussex Chess] Association will be to encourage chess playing generally, to organise tournaments and correspondence tourneys, and to decide as to conditions for the awarding of valuable challenge cup. […] we believe Yorkshire has previously been alone in possessing a regularly constituted County Association, Sussex is to be congratulated on its enterprise in thus early following the example.’

Although Sussex create an entity with a clear intention to play against similar entities there is a problem, apart from the aforementioned counties no other county-wide Associations had or do exist in the country let alone the South! Even if over-the-board matches with a neighbouring county were to be contemplated they were redundant as Sussex is the sole representative of such a body in the South. They reduce even further when Lincolnshire in the mid-1880s become dormant but seek to revive at the end of the decade. The 1870s and 1880s sees Leicestershire, Lancashire, Northamptonshire, North Staffordshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire claiming to play ‘inter-county matches. In fact, some of these Midlands teams play on annual basis, e.g., Derbyshire vs. Leicestershire, Northamptonshire vs. Leicestershire, and Nottinghamshire vs. Derbyshire. When scrutinising teams fielded, they fall short of Sussex’s aim, to combine playing strength of a county, as players are from a few select chess clubs based around each County’s capital so are Associations in name not intent. The same could be said of the Yorkshire and Lancashire clashes where the White Rose team is mainly from Huddersfield and Bradford and the Red Rose from Liverpool and Manchester. The fact that these ‘county’ teams are based on a few clubs preempts an observation of BCM correspondent White Knight (see entry for Gloucestershire). Thus, with few genuine county-wide chess bodies in existence Sussex’s ambitions are curtailed.

When Surrey forms an association in autumn of 1883 and agree a match on 19th January 1884 Sussex are finally able to participate in a trial of strength with an equal and a neighbour. Until this seminal event they had to be satisfied with matches of other sorts, namely, internal (e.g., East Sussex vs. West Sussex or Sussex vs. Brighton), correspondence (e.g., Sussex vs. Ireland), or against strong non-Sussex clubs (e.g., Sussex vs. North London Chess Club). With neighbouring chess associations existing excepting 1889 due to Surrey’s internal problems, over-the-board county matches between the two are a regular fixture on their respective calendars. However, Sussex are dissatisfied; despite these and the odd match against Hampshire (1887 and 1889) they desire more over-the-board inter-county matches and are exasperated by their lack.

‘It is a matter of regret that the great interest in our game in Sussex is not extended to the neighbouring counties for it cannot be denied if active Associations existed in Hants, Surrey and Kent, inter-county matches might easily be arranged, an inter-county championship trophy competed for and chess in the Southern counties would be as popular a recreation in winter as cricket is for the summer.’

Sussex soldier on with the various match-play formats but their hopes of playing more over-the-board inter-county matches eventually comes to pass when the Associations of Kent (1889) and Hampshire (1890) are formed. There are now four neighbouring Associations playing each other on an annual basis; had the aforementioned Midlands teams been more organised the competition between the four South of England Associations would have been the second of its kind. Even though competition between the four is fierce when looking at the results to 1892 there is little consistency. The matches played are in keeping with the times, independent of each other so any number of boards could be agreed upon, even though it was suggested that the limit be set at 12 a-side, and often multiple games expected to be played between pairs of players. As will be seen the inconsistency of conditions of play is an issue Sussex revisit time and again to devastating effect. More importantly there was no formal ‘inter-county championship’ in place so although the Associations worked hard to ensure each match contained a high concentration of their county’s best playing talent, including those of master class, it was not possible to ascertain which Association, if any, should be declared champion. This though did not prevent a county making the claim to be premier or it be assigned to them!

Sussex may have been happy as they were accomplishing their final aim, to play more matches even if not formalised, Surrey on the other hand were dissatisfied;