Max Judd Check out these bestselling titles

Part One from USCFSales.com:

Most American chess players know little about the history of chess in their country
between the brief Morphy era (approximately 1857-1860) and the appearance of
Pillsbury, who took his place on the world stage by winning the famous Hastings
1895 tournament. Steinitz lived in the United States for much of his later life, but
he took part in relatively few American chess events, and though he became a
naturalized citizen, he was never really considered an American player.

Morphy is so famous that even his obscure opponents are remembered today.
Besides players who encountered Morphy, who is remembered from the time
New Stories about period 1860-1895? Captain George Mackenzie was considered the top American
Old Chess Players for about twenty years, from the Second American Chess Congress in 1871 until
his death in 1891, but who were other top players? And who was the top American
player after Mackenzies death? U.S. Championship
Jeremy P. Spinrad 1845-1996
There was actually a great deal of chess played in the United States during that by Andy Soltis &
time, but the country was so much larger physically than European countries that Gene McCormick
local champions met far less often than did comparable Europeans in tournaments
and matches. Thus, the question of whom to consider American champion after the
death of Mackenzie caused a great deal of confusion, both then and for chess
historians today.

Play through and download

The Steinitz Papers
the games from ChessCafe.
com in the DGT Game by Kurt Landsberger
Viewer.

The Complete
DGT Product Line

Max Judd

McCormick and Soltis, in The United States Chess Championship, 1845-1996, call
the time after Mackenzies death The Years of Confusion. To make this section
of their book more readable, they use the player Max Judd as a bit of a comic
figure, popping up to make occasional dubious claims to the title of American Common Sense
Champion.
in Chess
by Emanuel Lasker

Jackson Showalter

Using Judd as a comic figure perhaps makes literary sense, but I wish that a
different person had been chosen. Judd frankly does not deserve it. There were
many American players of the time who seem more comical. The 1997 edition of
Lasker and his Contemporaries has a hilarious article about the bizarre way in
which Major John M. Hanham, one of the top U.S. players of the time, claimed a
match victory on an absurd technicality that his opponent actually made a move
on the board that was supposed to be sealed! His opponent in that match, Bostons
Franklin K. Young, was perhaps the most pompous of chess writers, attempting to
solve chess in pseudo-mathematical military terms; I would enjoy seeing him
appear as comic relief. The foppish and eccentric Nikolai Jasnogrodsky is a
wonderfully comic figure; he once attempted to disguise himself under the rather
transparent pseudonym Maurice Jasnogrodsky. Even Jackson Showalter, a much
loved figure in American chess circles who will come up later in this article, had
his comic aspects. Physically huge, Showalter spent time as a cowboy, baseball
player, and horse owner, as well as being a chess player. He was never able to get
anywhere on time, and was so averse to mornings that he blamed his poor showing
in his first international tournament on the indignity of having to play before noon.
Besides, Showalter loved stories himself, and probably would enjoy being part of
an amusing anecdote.

Major John M. Hanham

Max Judd, on the other hand, was one of the most serious figures in American
chess. Judd was successful in business, did as much as anyone to promote
American chess at that time, and as we will see, even figured in international
politics of the 19th century. The mockery seems particularly unjust, since I will
argue that rather than making dubious claims for championships he was not
entitled to, Judd is remarkable for not claiming a championship he had earned!

Judd was born Maximilian Judkiewich on December 27, 1851 in Cracow, now part
of Poland but then at the northern fringes of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. His
family came to the United States in 1862, living in Washington, Michigan, and
Ohio before settling in St. Louis, Missouri in 1873. Judd was already a prominent
player as a teenager. He tied for third in the Michigan state tournament held in
January 1870 (for a complete discussion of this tournament by the diligent
researcher Neil Brennen, look here). That event provides what seem to be the
earliest surviving Judd games. I give one below mainly because it is not mentioned
in the Brennen article; it is not at all up to Judds usual standard.

Harsen D. Smith Max Judd, Michigan State Championship, Jackson 1870

(annotations by Taylor Kingston, assisted by Fritz8): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6
4.d4 Nxd4 5.Nxd4 exd4 6.Qxd4 c6 7.Bd3 d6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Kh1 b6 10.f4 0-0 11.
Rf3 Ng4 12.f5 Bf6 13.Qb4 d5 14.exd5

14Qxd5??

Judd seems to have forgotten he had a knight

on g4. Instead, with 14...Ne5! 15.Rf1 Nxd3 16.
cxd3 Qxd5 he would have had almost a
winning position.

15.Qxg4 Ba6??

Incomprehensible, simply putting the bishop en

prise.
16.Bxa6 b5 17.Nc3 Rae8 18.Rf1 Bxc3 19.bxc3 Re5 20.Qg3 Rfe8 21.Bh6 g6 22.
fxg6 hxg6 23.Qf3 1-0

As will be seen, this game was very much an aberration.

The Michigan tournament had fifteen players, and was won by Fred Elder with a
clean score. H. Swan placed second, while Judd tied for third-fourth with E.
Feldner, and the above-mentioned Smith took fifth.

After this, Judd seems to improve rapidly. In early 1870, he tied a series of games
against this same Smith +3 3 =2. The Chicago Tribune of June 15, 1870 reports
that Judd won one of three games played against Henry Hosmer, then considered
the best player in the West. The New York Times of July 15, 1870 says that Judd
did very well on a visit to Cleveland, with only one of their players able to make
an even score against him. On July 27, 1870, the Times gives a win by Judd over
Smith, from a series he won 6-2. And on February 2, 1871, the Times gives a draw
obtained by the young Judd against none other than Mackenzie.

George Mackenzie

Judd then moved from Detroit to Cleveland, apparently some time between the
announcement of the Second American Congress, when he is listed as part of the
committee from the Detroit Chess Club, and the congress itself, held in December
of 1871, when he is listed as a Cleveland player. Judd finished a strong fourth in
the nine-man double round-robin, scoring 10-6 (actually +10 6 =3; draws did not
count in the standings and were replayed) to finish behind Mackenzie (14-2),
Hosmer (12-4) and Elder (11-5) but ahead of Smith and Preston Ware (each with 9-
7). He earned $35 for this showing. His increasing strength is evident in this game
from the congress, in which he rolls up his opponent like a carpet, then finishes
him off with a nice queen sacrifice:

Judd-Harding, Second American Congress, Cleveland 1871: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.

Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Bc5 6.0-0 Qf6 7.c3 Nge7 8.d3 h6 9.Be3 Ba7 10.d4 Ng6
11.dxe5 Ncxe5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 13.Bd4 Bxd4 14.cxd4 Qe7 15.f4

White has a terrific central superiority, an

almost winning advantage already.

150-0 16.f5

Forcing the knight into a seclusion from which

it will never emerge.

16Nh8 17.e5 Qg5 18.Nc3 d6?

Better 18Bb7 to prevent Whites next move.

19.Qf3! Bd7 20.Ne4 Qd8 21.Qg3 dxe5 22.dxe5

 22Kh7

To stop 23.Nf6+, but its already hopeless for

Black.

23.Rad1 Qc8 24.Bc2 Bc6 25.f6 g6

26.Ng5+!

If now 26hxg5, mate soon follows by Qxg5,

Qh5+, and Qh6.

26Kg8 27.Qh4 h5 28.Qxh5! 1-0

If 28gxh5 29.Bh7#.

Judd won the Ohio state tournament of 1872. The Biographical Encyclopedia of
Ohio of the 19th Century mentions that L.P. Meredith was never beaten in a set
chess match except by Max Judd in 1872. The Brooklyn Eagle calls Judd the
champion of the West (February 6, 1873). This is an exaggeration, since Hosmer
of Chicago would still rank above Judd, but from this point to the end of his life,
Judd was considered to be one of the best chess players in the United States.

Judd played many tournaments and matches, so I am forced to skim through his
chess results. In the Third American Congress, considered by Soltis a stronger
event than the second, Judd scored 7-3 (+6 2 =2; draws counted this time) to
finish third, behind Mackenzie (10-1) and Hosmer (10-2), ahead of Bock (5-
6), Elder (3-2), Perrin (2-10), Congdon (1-10) and Kennicott (0-4;
Kennicott forfeited ten games and Elder six).

Judd became the chess editor for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat in 1875, beat Ware
4-1 during the latters visit to St. Louis in 1875, and won a match against Edward
Alberoni (historical Elo 2370) +6 2 =2 in January 1876. There were some harsh
words on both sides regarding a match between Judd and James Mason, which
finally seemed to fall through when Masons backers would not put up the
required stakes. Judd did split four games with Mason in New York on the way to
his next important tournament, the Philadelphia 1876 Centennial Tournament,
which was also the Fourth American Chess Congress.

Judd was instrumental in making the centennial tournament possible, raising $185
of its $860 budget; by contrast, only $10 was raised from New York besides
Masons entry fee. Judd came very close to winning, scoring 9-4 (+8 3 =3) to
finish a point behind Mason, with the British veteran Henry Bird third at 8-5.
Judds game against Mason was the last game played in the tournament, having
been delayed until the last possible playing date because of some illness Judd
suffered. Judd had drawn with Mason in an earlier round, and hung tough for forty-
eight moves in this game, but ultimately lost, thus deciding first place. Later, as
noted here, serious allegations came out that Ware had been paid to throw his
games to Mason, including one which he seemed to have won only to hang his
queen several moves later. Therefore, Judd may have been at least as deserving as
Mason of the tournament title.

Though he gave no reason for it, Judd announced his retirement from chess after
the tournament; whether this was out of disgust at perceived cheating, or to devote
himself to business, or for some other reason, is purely a matter of speculation.

The retirement was short-lived, of course. Judd is mentioned as visiting the

Chicago Chess Club in 1877. In 1878, Judd beat John Galbreath, one of the top
players in New Orleans, 5-2.

Judd became quite active in 1879; one of the more novel events was a set against
eight leading St. Louis amateurs, in which Judd played three games against each,
giving knight odds to all. Judd won this series 12-10. The Chicago Tribune of
December 15, 1878 reports on a match between Judd and the chess champion of
America Mackenzie, stating that the score at last account stood at Mackenzie 2,
Judd 2.

Judd was one of the favorites in the Fifth American Chess Congress, held in New
York in 1880 (see The Scandal of 1880 here and here); his fifth-place finish with a
score of 11-7 (+9 5 =4) was somewhat below his expectations. Since the New
York Times of January 13, 1880 gives our first, albeit partial, physical description
of Judd from reports of the time, I feel justified in quoting part of this amusing
article, which later calls Judd a very promising young player.

A person who does not understand chess could not possibly find any
amusement in watching the nervous-looking men seated in front of their
chess-boards, smoking cigars or pipes. Some medical man, who observed
that people, when at a loss for an idea or absorbed in thought, scratched their
heads, inferred that in scratching the head the brain is stimulated to greater
activity. The frequency with which the champions have scratched their pates
since the opening of the tournament certainly justifies such a theory, for of
all the games chess is the one that requires the closest attention, and the most
careful calculation. In trying to find out whether it required any peculiar
formation of the head to make a good chess-player, the heads of the
champions were looked at. Most of them had rather elongated heads, rising
high above the ears, although Mr. Perrin, one of the best chess-players in the
country, has a low crown. Width of head or forehead do not seem to be
criterions for a good chess-player. Mohle has a high, narrow forehead and
narrow, longish head. Judd, of St. Louis, who was born in Poland, has a
high, wide forehead, with causality well developed. Grundys forehead is
similar to Judds, and his head is elongated. McKenzie is a handsome young
man, with high brow, of medium width, and an elongated cranium, rising
high above the ears. Delmar and Cohnfeld have both broad heads.

Towards the end of the tournament, descriptions of the players focus not on their
heads, but on their exhaustion. Thus, on January 23, the Times reports:

The chess champions look weary, and yesterdays games prove that the last
15 days racking their brains to overcome each other has severely strained
their nervous systems. No very brilliant moves were made by anyone
yesterday, and those who won did so more because their opponents made
great blunders than because of their own superior ability. Judd looks pale,
and his face is somewhat shrunken. Cohnfeld is nervous, McKenzie looks
tired and worried, Gen. Congdon looks haggard, although only two or three
days ago he said that chess was a delightful pastime after work. Grundy is
not in the best spirits.

Judd, incidentally, was not involved in any of the scandals of the 1880 tournament.
The scandal hurt chess in New York rather badly.

There is no mention in the major newspapers of Judds 1881 match against

Mackenzie, which Judd lost by the close score of 7 +5 =3. Here is one of his
better moments from that match:

The position is more or less even though

Mackenzie, White, has some queenside
pressure. But play quickly switched to the
other wing after:

32.Qc3?

Better 32.Qc2, which would retain the queen as

a potential defender of h2 by f2-f3 if necessary.

32Rh8!

Judd hones in immediately on the now indefensible weak point.

33.axb5?!

Better was 33.Kf1 Rxh2 34.axb5 c5 35.Qc2.

33...Qxh2+ 34.Kf1 Qh3+

Probably better than the tricky 34...f4 35.Ke2 (not 35.exf4? Qh1+ 36.Ke2 Re8+ 37.
Kd2 Qe4 38.Qe3 Rxd4+) 35...f3+ 36.Kd3 Qxf2 37.R3b2.

35.Ke2 Qg4+ 36.Kd2

36Rh2

Fritz8 prefers 36...Qf3 37.Rf1 (if 37.bxc6 Qxf2

+ 38.Kd3 Qf3 39.c7 Qe4+) 37...cxb5.

37.Qxc6?

Probably the critical mistake. 37.Rf1 should

hold.

37...Rxf2+ 38.Kc3 Qe4 39.Kb4 Qe7+ 40.Kc4

40Rd6

Even stronger was 40...Rd7 41.b6 Rc2+ 42.

Rc3 Rd6 43.Qc5 Qe6+ 44.Kd3 Qe4+ 45.Kc4
Rxc3+ 46.Kxc3 Rc6 and wins.

41.Qc5 Rc2+ 42.Rc3 Rxc3+ 43.Kxc3 Qxe3+

44.Kc4 Qe6+ 45.Kc3 Qe3+ 46.Kc4 Qe6+ 47.
Kc3 f4 48.b6?

Fatigue or
desperation.
The best
chance was
probably 48.
Ra1. Now
Judd
clinches the
win
efficiently.

48...Rc6 49.
b7 Rxc5+ 50.dxc5 Qe3+ 51.Kb2 Qd2+ 52.Ka3 Qa5+ 53.Kb3 Qb5+ 54.Ka2 Qa6
+ 0-1

The b-pawn falls.

Judd came to New York in 1882 hoping to arrange a match against one of its
leading players, but was unable to do so. Most of Judds chess was out west, and
thus less noticed in the major eastern cities. Nevertheless, it was clear he had
managed to establish a strong reputation in important places. In an interview with
the Salt Lake City Tribune on June 28, 1884, no less a master than Zukertort says
that while Mackenzie is the best U.S. player, Martinez and Judd are also strong.
Judd had probably first met Zukertort, along with Steinitz, Winawer, Blackburne
and other European masters, at the 1882 Vienna tournament where, says
Landsbergers The Steinitz Papers, Judd was a spectator. Landsberger further
states (page 292): Judd never played set matches against Steinitz or Zukertort, but
played a large number of games with both, adding surprisingly that Judd [won] a
majority.

The October 1884 Chess Monthly reported that Zukertort visited Judd in St. Louis
both near the start and the end of his 1884 American tour; during the latter visit
they played five games, Zukertort winning +3 1 =1. Considering that Zukertort
was then at the height of his powers, Judds score is quite creditable, especially if
Landsbergers report about their other games is accurate.

Zukertort mentions an incident involving Judd that I cannot track down.

Complaining about Steinitz, he says Steinitz is a quarrelsome man and has been
expelled from all the clubs he ever belonged to in England. He insulted Max Judd
in New York and has been trying to pick a chess quarrel with me through the
papers.

Whether or not any such incident actually occurred, Judd seems to have no
problems with Steinitz during his championship match against Zukertort in 1886.
Thanks largely to Judd, part of this match (games 6-9) was played in St. Louis.
Landsberger states that he was also instrumental in raising funds for the Sixth
American Chess Congress, New York 1889, a large, lengthy event (a twenty-man
double round-robin lasting three months) with comparably large costs.

Reports in April 1887 describe Mackenzie as leaving to play a match against Judd
in St. Louis. I cannot find any evidence that such a match actually took place.
ChessBases MegaDatabase 2005 does give two Mackenzie-Judd games from
1887, but these involve not Max Judd, but his older brother Maurice Judd (1840-
1914), who lived in Toledo, Ohio.

Judds next major chess event was defeating Albert Hodges +5 2 =2 in early
1888. The two had played an unfinished series of games in 1887, which Hodges
led +3 2 =1 before being forced to return to Nashville. That earlier series was not
planned in advance; the 5-2 match was well covered in the press, and was played
for the rather substantial stakes of $250 per side.

The following game is the only one from that match I have been able to find.
While perhaps not the best example of Judds skill (as will be seen, he was
actually losing at one point), it is quite an interesting game, and that interest is
enhanced by Judds own notes, as published in the British Chess Magazine, which
describes it as The sixth in the match between Messrs. A.B. Hodges of Nashville
and Max Judd of St. Louis, played at the rooms of the St. Louis Chess, Checker
and Whist Club, 20th January, 1888. The notes in normal type are Judds; those
in italics are by Taylor Kingston, assisted by Fritz8.

Hodges-Judd, match, St. Louis, 1888: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.
Nbd2

A rather unusual move to be made at this juncture.

5g6 6.Nf1 Bg7 7.c3 Bd7 8.Ba4 Qe7

Intending to play 9.Bc2, should Black play 8Ne7.

9.Be3 Nh5

9...Nd8 would have been better.

10.h3 Nd8 11.g4 Nf4 12.Bxf4 exf4 13.Bxd7+ Qxd7 14.Qd2 Ne6 15.d4 0-0-0

16.0-0-0

If 16.d5 Nc5 17.Qxf4 Nxe4 followed by 18

Rhe8. (Fritz prefers 17...Nd3+, winning the
queen.)

16...Rhe8 17.Qd3 Qa4 18.Qb1

Best; if 18.Kb1 Nc5 would win at least a pawn,

for if 19.dxc5 dxc5 wins the rook and the
game. Actually, after 20.Nd4 Black wins a
piece, not a rook, but is still definitely winning.

18...c5 19.d5 Nc7 20.N1d2 b5 21.Rhe1 Kd7

Rushing the attack too much, 21...Qa5 and then to b6, followed by a7-a5, was the
proper continuation.

22.Nb3

Threatening 23.e5, etc.

22Na6 23.Kd2 c4 24.Nbd4

24b4

An interesting alternative was 24...Nc5. If then

25.Nc6 Nd3! we get an interesting position
where both players have a knight on the
 opponents third rank. If White then goes rook-
grabbing with 26.Nxd8, Black has a powerful
continuation in 26Kxd8! 27.Re2 b4 28.Nd4
Bxd4 29.cxd4 Nxb2!:

25.Qc2
Qxc2+

Best; 25...
Qa5 would
be
answered
with 26.
Nc6 etc.
(and of
course if
25...
Qxa2?? 26.Ra1).

26.Kxc2 Nc5 27.Nc6 Rc8 28.Nxb4

An interesting possibility was 28.cxb4 Nd3 29.Rxd3 cxd3+ 30.Kxd3 Bxb2 31.Rb1
Bg7 32.b5 with attack.

28...Nxe4 29.Re2 Nf6 30.Rde1 Rxe2+ 31.Rxe2 a5

32.g5

Probably best; if 32.Nc6, then 32Nxd5, and

if 33.Nxa5 Rc5 would win a knight, for if 34.
b4 cxb3+ 35.axb3 Rxc3+ etc.

32...axb4 33.gxf6 Bxf6 34.cxb4 c3 35.b3 g5

36.Re4 h6

I feared to play 36...h5 on account of 37.h4.

37.Nd4

Considering my reply, this proved to be a poor

move, yet its a question whether the loss of
the game should be attributed to this move or
rather to poor after play on Mr. Hodges part.
Judd may be annotating by result here.
Fritz8 actually considers this the best move,
and as will be seen, Hodges did err later.

37...Re8?

I thought I saw a win and went for it; very

thorough analysis might prove me wrong, yet
for ordinary purposes, namely chess across the board, this move suited me well
enough and in similar positions would do it again. Objectively the text is a definite
mistake, as todays silicon-based very thorough analysis shows. Relatively best
seems to be 37...Be5, when if White starts advancing his passed pawns with 38.a4
Black can counter on the opposite wing with 38h5, and if 38.Nc6 Rxc6!? 39.dxc6
+ Kxc6 it looks like Black can hold. The text should lose, though the win is not
easy.

38.Rxe8

Forced; any other move would lose the game at once.

38Bxd4

If 38...Kxe8, I should have had to fight for a

draw, whilst 38Bxd4 gives me the best
chance for a win. In practical and subjective
terms, Judd is probably correct. After 38
Kxe8 39.Kxc3 White has a fairly easy time
stopping Blacks kingside pawns, while Black
 will find it difficult or impossible to stop White
on the queenside. The text, creating a
complicated, highly imbalanced position, gives
White a greater chance to err. The BCM
article says nothing about the time remaining
to the players; this may have been a factor in
Judds decision.

39.Re4

39.Re2 was better. I should have then played 39f3 40.Re1 and then I would not
have taken the f-pawn at once, for Id fear 41.Rf1, but would first work my pawns
down, and think that with best play across the board and not analysis after the
game, I would still have won the game. (Judd anticipates by seven decades
Mikhail Tals philosophy Minutes of play and years of analysis are not the same
thing.) One of the combinations might have been: 39.Re2 f3 40.Re1 f5 41.Kd3
Ba7 42.a4 (better 42.Kxc3+) 42...h5 43.a5 g4 44.b5 (Objectively ??. The last
chance to hold would be 44.Rf1) 44...Bc5 (44...Bxf2! wins) 45.b6 Kc8 46.Kc4 (No!
46.Re8+! and either 46...Kd7 47.b7, or 46...Kb7 47.Re7+ Kb8 48.a6 Bxb6 49.Rb7
+ Ka8 50.Rxb6 gxh3 51.Rb4, winning.) 46...Bxf2 47.Re8+ Kd7 wins.

Judds recommendation 39.Re2 should still win for White, but the general rule
Rooks belong behind passed pawns was as true then as now, and it appears that
objectively best was 39.Rg8!

Full analysis could go on for many pages, but

two sample lines should give some idea of how
White wins: (A) 39...Bxf2 40.Kxc3 Be1+ 41.
Kd3 Bxb4 42.Rh8 Ke7 43.Rxh6 Bc5 44.Ke4
Bb4 45.Rh5 Kf6 46.h4 gxh4 (if 46...g4 47.Kxf4)
47.Rxh4 Bd2 48.Rxf4+! and wins; (B) 39f3
40.a4 Ke7 41.a5 Kf6 42.Rc8 h5 43.b5 (43.
Rxc3!? is also an interesting possibility.) 43
Bxf2 (Otherwise44.Rxc3 or 44.b6 win.) 44.
Rxc3 g4 45.b6 Bxb6 46.axb6 f2 47.b7 f1Q 48.
b8Q Qg2+ 49.Kb1 Qh1+ (not 49...gxh3?? 50.
Qxd6+) 50.Kb2 Qxd5 51.Qh8+ and Whites
extra rook must ultimately prevail.

Returning now to the actual game after 38Re4.

39...Bxf2 40.Kxc3 f5 41.Re2 Ba7

Limits the bishops scope too much. Better 41Bh4 so that it can support the
kingside pawns, or 41Bb6 to allow Bd8 if necessary.

42.Kd3

Intending, if he got the chance, to play Ke2.

Best, however, was 42.Re6!, again getting the
rook behind Blacks pawns. If then, say, 42...f3
43.Kd2 h5 44.Rg6 f2 45.Ke2 Be3 46.Rh6 h4 47.
Rf6 f4 48.Rg6+, or 47...g4 48.Rxf5 gxh3 (48...
g3 49.Kxe3) 49.Rxf2! wins.

42...h5 43.Rh2?

Putting the rook out of action and missing the

last chance to win by, again, 43.Re6.

43...f3 44.Kd2??

Hoping to be able to bring the king around in time to stop the pawns. But now
White cannot even draw. 44.Rh1 was necessary.

44...g4 45.hxg4 fxg4 46.Rxh5

Whites game cannot be saved, play as he will.

46g3 47.Rh7+ Kc8 48.Rxa7

 48g2 49.
Ra8+ Kc7
50.Ke3 g1Q
+ 0-1

A dramatic
example of
Judds
perseverance,
determination
and
resourcefulness
in a difficult game.

The next part of this article will examine, among other things, Judds role in the
post-Mackenzie years of confusion over who rightfully had the title of U.S.
Champion. And after the above games hefty serving of meat and potatoes, Ill
leave the reader with this light morsel for dessert:

Judd-Hanham, New York, 1886: 21.Qh4 Kf8

22.Nxd7+ Bxd7 23.Bxg6 Be8 24.Bxf7 Bxf7
25.g6 Rc7 26.Qd8+ 1-0

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]

[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us]

Copyright 2008 Jeremy P. Spinrad and CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.