The First Ballarat Chess Club (1856)
The first Ballarat Chess Club was formed at Henry J. Brun’s Cigar Divan on Monday, 16th June 1856. The Ballarat Times reported this meeting on 18th June and it included the rules and regulations of the new club. These are, in fact, the first published rules of a Victorian chess club. The formation of the club was also reported in The Ballarat Star on June 19th 1856, but this issue of the paper no longer exists. The Treasurer of the new club was Mr. Tuckett. Other names mentioned in the newspaper report of the meeting are Messrs. Pine, Hammond, Bunington, Morgan, Carter and Robertson, all of whom presumably became members. The rules provided for a Treasurer and Secretary only. Mr Tuckett may have been the sole official. The club met three times a week at Brun’s Cigar Divan and the quarterly subscription was 1 pound.
It is unknown how long the 1856 club lasted. We have not been able to find any information about the people and names involved in the chess club, nor recovered any of their games, nor are aware of any competition they had been part of in these very first years of a Ballarat Chess Club.
A number of chess clubs were founded in Victoria during the 1850’s (Melbourne 1851, 1855 and 1857, Geelong 1855, Beechworth 1857, Ararat 1859) but the constant movements of the population during the gold rushes mitigated against the clubs lasting for very long. The first Ballarat Chess Club is no exception, and it seems to have petered out like the others.
The Cigar Divan was located in Main Road, with Mr.Henry Brun as the recorded owner of the shop. A Cigar Divan was a British invention, a mixture of a shop, where cigars were sold, and a club/cafe type of establishment where customers were offered a stimulating atmosphere to smoke their cigars, have a drink and socialise. In England, chess playing-facilities often were provided by ‘Cigar Divans’ in order to entice customers to stay longer, thereby spending more money.
The stretch between Eureka and York Street of Main Road was the centre of Ballarat in the very early days of the town, because it was close to the first alluvial gold discovery at Golden Point. However, the Ballarat Star (March 1857) reported that Henry Brun (a former tobacconist, it said) had moved on, one year after the foundation of Ballarat’s first Chess Club and that he had bought Brun’s Hotel, also in Main Road. He sold or had leased his Cigar Divan to one Miss E. Marriott and that is where the story of the first Chess Club stops, unfortunately.
To give an idea how Ballarat looked like at the time of the first Chess Club, the attached photograph shows Ballarat at the junction of Main Road, Sturt Street and Bridge Street in 1857. It also refers to Henry Brun, ‘our first landlord’, and his new hotel. To make the picture more complete, it would be nice to solve the puzzle of where exactly the original Cigar Divan, alias the first Ballarat Chess Club, had been located in 1856.
Black and white Photograph of the lower end of Sturt St, 1857, showing the Congregational Church in the RH corner A typed caption has been pasted at the top of the print reading “Lower end of Sturt St 1857. 1) Right corner Congregational Church now Gas Company; 2) No buildings on north side but path to Bruns Hotel; 3) Scores of tents at Golden Point; 4) Humffray’s Bookshop Corner of Bridge Street.
References:
The Ballarat Times 18th June 1856
The Ballarat Star, June 19th 1856
A CHESS CLUB,
The Ballarat Star 10 October 1866.
The Ballarat Chess Tournament.
The tournament ahs advanced another stage, and the winners are now placed against each other. The losers are also matched to play for the smaller prizes. The chess room was enlivened since our last report by a visit from the 2nd prize taker in the Melbourne tournament, and in a game which he had with one of our strongest players here he was worsted, but he pleaded as his excuse his want of practice for some months past. A chess match with Melbourne by correspondence has been spoken of, and it is probable that a series of games between the two clubs will shortly take place.
The pairs among the winners of the past contests who now play for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd prizes are Mr.Davey v Mr Watson, Mr Deverill v Mr Connell, Mr Fisher v Mr Harvey, Mr Gaggin v Mr M’Combe, Mr Hogarth v Mr.Mitchell, Mr.Holdes v Mr Mongredien.
The losers in the first contest who play for the 4th and 5th prizes are paired as follows:- Mr Batten v Mr Fennings, Mr Bristow v Mr Taylor, Mr Campbell v Mr Kennedy, Mr G.Fisher v Mr Pascoe, Mr Tatham v Mr Wilson, Mr O’Connor v Mr Partridge.
The Ballarat Star 9 November 1866.
The Ballarat Chess Tournament.
The chess tournament is now drawing towards its close, and since our last report of its proceedings, a very large number of games have been played. Only four players are now remaining, Messrs Fisher, M’Combe, Mitchell, and Watson. It is generally thought that the honor of first place will fall to the first-mentioned player, who has not yet lost a game in the tourney, but Mr. M’Combe brings with him a home reputation of no mean order, and Mr Watson, with the odds of pawn and move he receives, will stand a fair chance. The winners of the pairs previously given were Messrs Watson, Deveril, Fisher, M’Combe, Mitchell, and Mongredien, who were again divided, the result of their play being as follows: Mr Deveril v Mr Fisher 0-2; Mr Mitchell v Mr M’Combe; Mr Mongredien v Mr Watson 0-2.
The games among those who lost in the first matches have resulted in leaving six players, the winners among whom will come for the 4th and 5th prizes. In the pairs previously mentioned in a report in the Star for these prizes, the winners are Messrs Batten, Taylor, Kennedy, G.Fisher, Tatham, and O’Connor who have been again divided by matching Mr Batten against Mr Taylor, Mr.Kennedy against Mr Tatham, and Mr G.Fisher against Mr O’Connor, but none of these opponents have as yet played off.
The Ballarat Star 24 April 1867.
The Ballarat Chess Tournament has at length been concluded, resulting in the first prize falling to Mr.C.Fisher, second prize Mr.C.M.Watson, third prize Mr.A.M.McCombe, fourth prize Mr.C.Q.Kennedy, and fifth prize to Mr.W.H.Batten. The tournament has, on the whole, been a very successful affair.
A meeting was held on Wednesday last for the presentation of prizes. The first consist of a very handsome set of Staunton’s ivory chess men, in a carved ebony box, with handsome board, value ten pounds. The second prize is five volumes of Wright’s Encyclopedia, handsomely bound, value seven pounds. The remaining prizes are mostly books.
Subsequent published reports about the Ballarat Handicap Chess Tournament controversy
The Australasian May 1867.
The Chess Tournament organised by the above club has, we are informed, been brought to an unsatisfactory termination, and the contests decided in a somewhat arbitrary manner, inasmuch as the degree of Champion has been conferred upon a competitor before the stipulated number of games has been played, and the second place given to another who had previously become, through defeat, ineligible to compete for that honour.
We glean from the correspondence before us that the competitor referred to first adopted the extremely slow-movement tactics of play, consuming repeatedly half an hour, and in one instance an hour and a half, over a single move, and by this process prolonged one game over two evenings, and another game over three evenings, occupying about six hours each sitting; that after losing the second game he refused to proceed with the match until he had had an opportunity of studying the “irregular” openings and defences adopted by his opponent; and that after a lapse of several, weeks he announced his readiness to continue the match, but at a time when it was impossible for his opponent to play, and through this default was declared the victor.
Whilst there is no law by which the time of moving can be limited, it is a well-known fact that from four to six hours is the average time required to contest a well-played game; and having examined carefully the games above referred to, we confess our inability to discover any intricate positions in the play of either combatants to warrant the unusually long time spent over these games. We also consider that the refusal of a player to proceed with a match until he had acquired a knowledge of the particular style of play adopted by his opponent is an innovation of the laws and chivalry of chess, and should disqualify the player from further contest with that opponent.
The Australasian 11 May 1867
The remarks which we were called upon to make in our last issue with reference to this tournament have produced an angry protest from Ballarat, and we regret that the intemperate language used by the writer thereof, and the introduction of the name of a third person, preclude the publication of that communication in our columns.
Our statement, however, that the championship has been conferred upon a competitor before the stipulated number of games had been played is substantially admitted, whilst a general contradiction is given, to the other portions of the report.
Our remarks about slow play were founded on what we believe to be reliable information, corroborated by the receipt of the two games which occupied five sittings, in one of which games it was shown that a whole evening was consumed over moves Nos. 19-26, and this we decidedly call slow play.
With reference to the statement that a player refused to proceed with the match until he had had an opportunity of studying the “irregular” openings and defences adopted by his opponent, we have the positive assurance of one the players that such is the fact, and that an interval of nearly four weeks elapsed between the second and third games, namely, from about the 19th December to the 12th January. A correspondent also furnishes us with the following particulars of the mode adopted in pairing the players in the fourth and last rounds, and which completely corroborates our statement, that the “second place had been given to a player who had previously become, through defeat, ineligible to compete for that honour.”
Our correspondent states: -“In the fourth round the competitors were reduced to three, say A, B, and C. These names were written on cards, and with a blank card were placed in a hat, and drawn out in the presence of the secretary in pairs. A. and the blank were drawn together, and according to the rules which govern chess tournaments, A. became a winner in that round. B. and C. were necessarily drawn together, and B. became a winner also in that round. In the fifth and last round (and which always terminates a chess tournament) there were only two players left, A and B, none others being qualified to compete for first and second prizes. Therefore, if a second prize has been awarded it is an injustice to either A. or B”.
We are also referred to the latest similar case on record in the Chess Players Magazine of November last, where, in a tournament between the members of the Birmingham Chess Club, the above mode of pairing odd numbers was adopted, and where the players paired with blanks were declared winners in which blanks were drawn.
Before quitting this subject we would, in the interest of chess, suggest the desirability of the gentlemen interested in the first and second prizes finishing the match by correspondence or by the medium of the telegraph, and would be glad to facilitate the arrangement of preliminaries if both players were agreeable to play in the way suggested.
Postscript by BvR.
The above controversy seems to implicate the two top finishers of the tournament, Fisher and Watson, in a serious way. I find it hard to believe that they were involved, in light of the many subsequent reports which speak highly of their distinguished careers in chess, as well as in their professions. Both men apparently were highly regarded by their peers. However, it is highly likely, that the ‘controversy’ was actually unrelated to the Handicap Tournament, but rather to the tournament played early 1867 in Smythesdale, and won by Mr.T.Taylor.
Chapter 4. The Ballarat Star 26 April 1869
Challenge by Mr. Andrew Burns for a match against Charles Fisher.
The chess players of Ballarat noted with no little interest, a few weeks since, in the columns of the Australasian, a challenge from Mr. Andrew Burns, of the Melbourne Chess Club, to play any player in the colony, giving the odds of pawn and move, and assuming in his letter that he is the champion player of Victoria. Some of our Ballarat admirers of the game, while admitting this so far as Melbourne is concerned, seem very much to doubt Mr. Burns’ superiority over at least one of our local players, and to test the matter have had conveyed to Mr. Burns their willingness to match our local champion-Mr. Fisher-for a trophy of what value he pleases.
It now comes out that Mr. Burns can only play in Melbourne, and, in fact, that his challenge had some other object than to apply to the chess players of Ballarat. Now, a match to be played in Melbourne would, at least, occupy a fortnight; and very few indeed could for so long a time absent themselves from their business engagements. We would, however counsel Mr. Burns to abstain from any egotistical boasts of his prowess until he gives every opportunity to some noted provincial chess player to measure their strength with his.
The Ballarat Star 27 April 1869
Letter to the editor from W.Simpson, Melbourne Chess Club.
“Sir,- Referring to the paragraph on this subject in your issue of 26th instant, will you permit me to state that I have received from some admirers of Mr. Burns’ play instructions to submit the following:-“Terms of proposed match at chess between Messrs Fisher and Burns:-
1.The stake to be 100 pounds or upwards, 20 pounds being allowed to the player who has to leave home.
2.The player, who first wins seven games to be winner of the match.
3.To ensure the match being finished within a reasonable time, play to be continued every afternoon at six o’clock from the date of commencing the match (Sundays excepted), and on Saturday from two or three ‘clock, and each player to have two hours for making thirty moves, the time to be measured by hour-glasses.
4.The match to be played either at the Mechanics’ Institute, Ballarat, or in the room of the Melbourne Chess Club, and no spectators except the umpires to be present, unless with the consent of the players.
5.Two gentlemen to be appointed (one by each player) as umpires, to arrange preliminaries and decide disputes, with power to appoint a third in the event of their disagreeing.
6.No game to be adjourned without the consent of both players and, in the event of adjournment, no analysis of the position to be allowed.
7.The match to be played under the rules laid down in Staunton’s Praxis.
Further, permit me to state, that, as to the challenge as to the odds of pawn and move, Mr. Burns has written me thus: “I am quite prepared to adhere to it in the case of any player, on the terms mentioned, namely- to give the pawn and move, and the match to be played at the Melbourne Club, for a trophy, if my opponent so desires.” It is obvious that no match at odds and move could decide the championship; and your paragraph referred to is taken to be a challenge upon the part of the admirers of Mr. Fisher to contest the championship.
Mr. Burns has personal objections to play for money; and the proposition to do so emanated from Ballarat and passed through me to Mr. Burns’ backers. Mr. Burns, however, in view of the excellent counsel given him at the conclusion of your paragraph, waives these objections; and I am fully authorised by his backers to conclude arrangements during my stay; and in sporting parlance, I am to be heard at the Royal George Hotel,-Yours etc “
The Ballarat Star 29 April 1869
Letter to the editor by Charles Fisher
Sir
A letter appears in your issue of the 29th inst. from Mr. Simpson, conveying a challenge from Mr. Burns, of the Melbourne Chess Club, to play me an even match for the championship of the colony. So far as the challenge itself is concerned I am quite willing to accept it. But in respect to the terms of such challenge, viz., that it is to be 100 pound a-side, I must beg to decline; and would merely remark that it is not my intention to do so. Your correspondent also remarks on some challenge thrown out to Mr. Burns in a paragraph in Monday’s Star, and further states that the proposal to have money on the match came first from Ballarat. I beg distinctly to state that I know nothing of either, and no one was authorised by me to make any proposals. At the same time I should be most happy to play Mr. Burns a friendly match when convenient.
Your, etc,
Chas Fisher