New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-10-18

players each whereupon the Brooklyn Chess Club
Instructed its secretary officially to present reasons
Of twelve players. Above a month elapsed since this
Official Communication was sent to the Manhattan
Acknowledgement of its receipt There was therefore
nothing left but to protest by such resolutions as
The only dscnssabie question Is Has the Manhattan
Chess Club the moral right to make such conditions
Contest of uncertainty as to the results suppose
the Manhattan Chess Club would be willing TO play the
Brooklyn Chess Club with team OF twelve players,
providing the Brooklyn Chess Club gave sufficient
guarantee that it would lose the match Do You think
a number Of players as would Of itself guarantee win
to the Manhattan Chess Club? is, not match on
CONSIDERED between gentlemen All the BROOKLYN ,EI1
give it lighting chance to win. without that element
we can obtain no public interest IN match ana
will be exerted to bring about the contest on sportsman
JOHN D. ELwELL.
The tenor OF the above letter shows that there will be
great disappointment the Brooklyn side If the pro
posed match should unfortunately fall through and the
fighting spirit Of the chess amateurs the Bridge
certainly deserves communication. The conclusions Of
the writer however TO be based on mere personal
Impressions. The club which offers to produce
larger team, far from showing fear, gives primary
evidence OF superior strength. The question seems to
me- therefore, to turn the point whether not the
Brooklynites entitled to "return match" The
compromise which / would suggest would be that the
two clubs play together with thirteen side. Only
one more a side ought to be easily conceded by the
Brooklyns, while the little addition would maintain
the ground taken by the Manhattan Chess Club, that
New Workers want to behave very handsomely, they
might state distinctly that they discAlm all
credit for the last match in their future records be-
tween the two societies. This would be generous
concession and would than make up for the little
nattentive delay as regards the formal aclnowledg-
ment Of the Brooklyn challenge which Mr. Elweu Win
some Justice complains Of .
The latest report about the unpleasant dispute that
has reached is that the Manhattan Chess Club IN
tend to decline the Brooklyn challenge but they
will issue one against all the chess players OF the
State OF New York thus giving the Brooklyn club an
opportunity of joining such an opposite team with
their selected best players. If such match can be
organized it will no doubt produce most exciting
chess event, but the arrangement Of such contest
outside of established clubs seems to be the point OF
difficulty The New-York State Chess Association,
which IS the only organized institution that might be
formally addressed the subject, could not properly
take up such challenge and II Is distinctly stated
that they do not intend to call out that
society to which they themselves belong But
think II necessary for the purpose Of arranging
snch a contest successfully that the challenge should
be directed to the authorities Of society which is
ALREADY formed The only way that l for
the Manhattan c. c. to prove the reality OF their offer
al once before the public is that they address their
challenge separately to each established chess club
in New-YorlS State and invite the authorities OF each
the purpose OF producing Joint team But this will
cost time and trouble under any circumstances and
the result will be uncertain whereas ! think that
the DISPUTE between the Manhattan and Brooklyn
chess clubs can be fairly settled and quickly, on the
lines above suggested or similar ones.