Check out these

Max Judd bestselling titles from

Part Two USCFSales.com:

Part one of this article discussed the early life of Max Judd (1851-1906).
Born Maximilian Judkiewicz in what is now Poland, Judd came to
America as child. Settling in St. Louis, he became a successful
businessman, an important chess promoter and organizer, and one of the
countrys best players.

I must now try to restore Judds reputation with regard to the U.S.
Championship, given the mockery directed at him in The United States Chess
Championship 1845-1996. McCormick and Soltis write, regarding The Years
New Stories of Confusion following Mackenzies death:
about Old The confusion began in 1887 when Max Judd, then a wealthy St. Louis
U.S. Championship
Chess judge, defeated Albert Hodges, a New York master, in a match by 5-2.
Judd promptly claimed the title of national champion. Clearly this was 1845-1996
by Andy Soltis &
without basis since Mackenzie was very much alive and, in the absence
Players of another national congress, still considered the champ. A year later, a
Gene McCormick

major tournament was held in Cincinnati and because of forfeitures and

bad play Judd finished sixth dead last.
Jeremy P. Spinrad
No sources are given for the statements above, and without such sources I am
unwilling to believe that Judd declared himself U.S. Champion based on
beating Hodges. I normally tend to believe assertions I cannot disprove, but so
much is false in the above paragraph that I will not accept the central claim.

The Steinitz Papers

by Kurt Landsberger

Play through and download

the games from ChessCafe.
com in the DGT Game
Viewer.

The Complete
DGT Product Line
Albert Hodges

There are three errors in the first sentence alone. First, the match was played in Common Sense
January 1888, not in 1887. Second, Judd was not a judge, but a prosperous in Chess
merchant. Finally, Hodges was not a New York master when this match was by Emanuel Lasker
played; he was from Tennessee, and did not go to New York until long after
this match.

The authors are certainly correct that it would have been improper for Judd to
claim the title of American champion as the result of this match. I have seen no
evidence of such a claim, and McCormick and Soltis provide none. There are
newspaper articles (for example, in the New York Times of Jan 18, 1888) that
refer to it as a championship match, but the phrase championship match
was quite common in those days, and does not imply any claim to the
championship of the United States.

Finally, the last sentence in the above quote, while perhaps technically correct,
is extraordinarily misleading. In a double round-robin tournament involving six
players who had won the championships of their respective states, Judd played
only four games before withdrawing. He drew with Showalter, beat Burns, lost
to Hanham, and drew with Moehle. Showalter won the tournament easily with
a score of 9-1, with Hanham and Moehle tied for second at 5-4, Burns
winning fourth prize. If we ignore the games forfeited by Judd, only Showalter
finished with a better percentage than Judd in games actually played. Since
Judd played each opponent once except the weakest player Tomlinson, his .500
performance was made against stronger opponents than Hanhams or
Moehles. Judds performance may have been disappointing, but is not at all
like finishing dead last in a tournament because of weak play.

The first great international tournament in the United States was held in New
York in 1889. Judd had been trying to promote such a tournament since at least
1883. The New York Times (March 10, 1889) and other sources call him the
prime mover in getting it off the ground; he was also responsible for raising a
great deal of the money. He was also a participant. A wonderful New York
Times article on June 16, 1889 gives detailed descriptions of many of the
players, but is relatively brief regarding Judd:

Max Judd is a clothing merchant of St. Louis, and was one of the
wealthiest contestants in the tournament. He is a well built man of
pleasing appearance, and has much confidence in himself as a chess
player. He has in him the elements of one, but his business prevents him
from devoting sufficient time to develop his talent.

Judd did very well in this strong 20-player double round-robin, finishing 20-18
(+18 16 =4). This was sufficient for eighth place, ahead of such well known
foreign players as Pollock, Bird, and Taubenhaus, as well as American players
such as Showalter, Delmar, and Hanham; of the American residents, only
Lipschtz (sixth) and Mason (seventh) placed higher. He defeated such top
players as Blackburne, Mason, and Gunsberg, all world-title challenger class.
A few Judd highlights from this event:

Judd-Blackburne, round 4:

30.Rxh6 Bb4 If 30...Kxh6 31.f5+ Kg7 32.

fxe6. 31.Rxh7+ Kxh7 32.Bxb4 Rb8 33.
Bc5 10

Judd-MacCleod, round 8:

22.Bc4+! bxc4 23.Rxd7 Qc8 24.Nxf6+

Rxf6 25.Rxg7+ Kh8 26.Qxc8 Rxc8 27.
Rxa7 Rg8 28.Re1 Rd6 29.h3 10

Judd-Baird, round 9:

28.Rxh5

Actually stronger was 28.Be6, but Judd will

get a chance to play this later with
comparable effect.

28...Qxh5 29.Bxd7 Bg5 30.Bxg5 Qxg5 31.

Qf2 Rf4 32.Ne4 Qg6 33.Rb1 Raf8 34.Qg3
Qh6 35.Qg5! Qxg5 36.Nxg5 Rxc4
 37.Nf7+! Kg8

Of course if 37Rxf7 38.Rb8+.

38.Be6!

Putting Blacks king in a windmill from

which he cannot escape, since creating luft
by moving the g- or h-pawn loses the rook
after 39.Nd6+.

38Rc2 39.Nxd6+ Kh8 40.Nf7+ Kg8 41.

Nxe5+ Kh8 42.Nf7+ Kg8 43.Nd8+ Kh8 44.Nc6 and 10, 54.

One of Judds games at New York 1889 caused a great deal of controversy,
and had a lasting effect on both the rules of chess and arguably on the world
championship.

To understand the dispute, we must briefly review the rules of chess. Although
the basic rules were well established long before 1889, some of the minor rules
had not been completely standardized. Strangely enough, these were not the
rules that were highly debated at the time. For example, the question of
whether a player can be forced to take en passant if it is the only way to avoid
stalemate was discussed surprisingly frequently, although it is hard to imagine
that it ever arose in practice. Some people, however, seemed to object to taking
en passant in principle, and felt it was offensive to be forced to make a move to
which they objected.

The 50-move draw rule was not discussed often, but turned out to have far
greater consequences. I understand that the general rule is mentioned by Ruy
Lpez, but that was not the same rule as we use today. In fact, there was no
single 50-move rule, and no single standard code of rules. Books from the
middle of the nineteenth century, such as Stauntons Handbook of Chess or
Maraches Manual of Chess, give a rule that applies only to mating when one
of the players has no remaining piece other than the king. Gossips Chess
Player Manual gives the laws of chess formulated by a committee of the
British Chess Association in 1862. These laws differ considerably from
todays. For example, penalties for illegal moves are quite different, a pawn
reaching the eighth rank could remain a pawn, and there was no draw by three-
fold repetition. Their version of the 50-move rule expands on the bare king rule
as follows:

A player may call upon his opponent to draw the game, or to mate him
within fifty moves on each side, whenever his opponent persists in
repeating a particular check, or series of checks, or whenever he has a
King alone on the board, or {King and Queen, King and Rook, King and
Bishop, King and Knight} against an equal or superior force; {King and
two Bishops, King and Two Knights, King, Bishop, and Knight} against
King and Queen, and in all analogous cases; and whenever one player
considers that his opponent can force the game, or that neither side can
win it, he has the right of submitting the case to the umpire or by-
standers, who shall decide whether it is one for the fifty move counting.
Should he not be mated within fifty moves, he may claim that the game
should proceed.

That, um, certainly clears things up (not!). By the time of Schlechters edition
of the Handbuch des Schachspiels, the rule became fifty moves without pawn
move or capture, with no need to announce beforehand.

But for New York 1889, the rules adopted were the American Code as laid
down in the book of the Fifth American Chess Congress. The 50-move rule in
that text reads as follows:

If, at any period during a game, either player persist in repeating a

check, or series of checks, or persist in repeating any particular line of
play which does not advance the game; or if a game-ending be of
doubtful character as to its being a win or draw, or if a win be possible,
but the skill to force the game questionable, then either player may
demand judgment of the Umpire as to its being a proper game to be
 determined as drawn at the end of fifty additional moves, on each side; or
the question: Is, or is not the game a draw? may be, by mutual consent
of the players, submitted to the Umpire at any time. The decision of the
Umpire, in either case, to be final. And whenever fifty moves are
demanded and accorded, the party demanding it may, when the fifty
moves have been made, claim the right to go on with the game, and
thereupon the other party may claim the fifty move rule, at the end of
which, unless mate be effected, the game shall be decided a draw.

Against Chigorin, Judd, playing white, invoked the 50-move rule after 44
Kxf4, which traded off the last pieces, leaving only kings and pawns.

As Judd understood the rule, and indeed as

it reads above, Chigorin was now required
to mate him within the next fifty moves or
accept a draw. After 45.Kh2 (there is
nothing better), Chigorin might have won
in fairly short order by, say, 45...Kg4 46.a4
b6 47.b3 h3 48.gxh3+ Kf3 49.Kh1 h4 50.
Kh2 a5 51.bxa5 bxa5 52.Kh1 Kg3 etc., but
instead play proceeded: 45Kg5 46.a4 b6
47.b3 a5? (again, 47Kg4! wins) 48.bxa5
bxa5 49.b4! axb4 50.a5 b3 51.a6 b2 52.a7
b1=Q 53.a8=Q Qb5

Now followed a very long series of checks.

Chigorin was finally making progress with
his pawn, and seemed headed for a win,
when Judd claimed a draw by the 50-move
rule after 96Qd4-c3:

While the pawn moves would keep this

from being a draw by todays rule, it
appears to be a valid claim by the rule as set
for this event, and the referees ruled in
favor of Judd. Chigorin was outraged, and
said he would withdraw from the
tournament. He forfeited his next game, to
Mason.

The controversy dragged on for some time,

to the disgust of Chigorin, who continued
threatening to withdraw. A committee of
judges finally reversed the ruling, and
ordered the players to continue. Judd refused, and lost.

Mikhail Chigorin
The committee decided to replace the American 50-move rule with the
international rule (which says there must be no pawn moves or captures for
fifty moves) for the remainder of the tournament, but this was too late to defuse
the first of what proved to be a great number of controversies between the
players and the tournament committee. Chigorins forfeit to Mason turned out
to be crucial, since ultimately it allowed Max Weiss to tie with Chigorin for
first place.

I should note that by the time the referee came into the picture, there was no
good solution. Judd and Chigorin had been playing for fifty moves with
completely different objectives. Judd, thinking that he only had to last fifty
moves without being mated, had no reason to be particularly worried about any
progress Chigorin might be making as the move count neared fifty. Chigorin,
thinking that the rule no longer applied because he had moved a pawn, was not
at all worried about mating as quickly as possible. I feel that both players were
acting in good faith. It is not important to determine who was technically
correct in this case, which may depend on details lost in history, such as
exactly what the umpire may have communicated to the players when Judd
invoked the rule.

Since this article is already quite long, I will not go into the issue of how this
result affected the world championship at this time. My reading of the rules
governing the world championship match which was set to follow this
tournament is that if Chigorin had been the clear winner of the tournament, he
would (despite having recently lost a match to Steinitz) have become world
champion, with Steinitz eligible to challenge. This is not the accepted current
interpretation, which seems to view New York 1889 as a tournament to select a
challenger. I will discuss the matter at some point in the future.

Despite the controversy with Chigorin, Judds reputation as one of the very
best American players was enhanced. Judds next major event was a match for
$250 per side with Showalter in 1890. Judd won +7 3 (not a single draw!).
Here is one of his better games from that contest:

Judd-Showalter, match, St. Louis, 1890, game 10 (notes by Taylor Kingston,

assisted by Fritz8): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Be7 4.Nc3 Bf6

A rare and eccentric line Showalter was

trying around this time, with very poor
results: he lost to Weiss at New York 1889,
and twice to Judd in this match, after which
he seems to have abandoned it.

5.Nd5

The second game of the match had gone

4.0-0 Bf6 5.c3 Nge7 6.d4 Ng6 7.dxe5
Ncxe5 8.Nxe5 Bxe5 9.f4 Bd6 with a strong
initiative for White (1-0, 30). Judd here
tries a different approach, with comparable success.

5a6 6.Ba4 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 Nce7 9.d4 exd4 10.cxd4 Bb7 11.Nxf6+ Nxf6

As a result of Blacks dubious opening,

White already has the bishop-pair, which
will prove a significant advantage.

12.Ng5 00 13.f3 Ng6 14.00 h6 15.Nh3

Bc8 16.Nf4 Nxf4 17.Bxf4 Kh8 18.Be3 Bb7
19.Bc2 Nh7
 Apparently intending f7-f5 at some point,
which White now prevents.

20.g4

An alternative was 20.d5 Rc8 (If 20...c6?

21.dxc6 Bxc6 22.Qd3 Nf6 23.Rad1 and the
weak d-pawn soon falls.) 21.Qd3, intending
e4-e5, with mate threats.

20...h5 21.h3 Qh4 22.Kg2 g6 23.Qd2 f5 24.

Bf2 Qg5 25.Qxg5 Nxg5 26.Be3 f4 27.Bd2 Ne6

28.Bc3

Another good line was 28.d5 Ng7 29.Bc3

Kh7 30.g5, which also aims the bishops at
Blacks vulnerable kingside.

28...Kh7

If 28...b4 29.Bxb4 Nxd4 30.Bc3 c5 31.

Rad1 and Black loses at least a pawn.

29.d5 Nc5 30.gxh5 gxh5 31.Kf2

Black is in great danger from the combined

threats of the bishops and the rook about to
move onto the open g-file.

31Nd7

31Rg8 32.Rg1 merely transposes. If 31...

Na4 32.Bd4 Rg8 33.e5+ Kh6 34.exd6 Bxd5
(If 34...cxd6? 35.Rae1 Bxd5 (or 35...Rae8
36.Rxe8 Rxe8 37.Rg1+) 36.Re7+.) 35.
dxc7 Rg3 36.Be4+.

32.e5+ Kh6 33.Rg1

The threat of 34.Rg6+ is devastating.

33Rg8 34.exd6 Nb6 If 34cxd6 35.

Bd2! Raf8 36.Bxf4+!. 35.Rae1

Black cannot cope with the threats posed by

both white rooks. Exchanging on either file
does no good, because then he cannot bring
his remaining rook to oppose Whites.

35Bxd5 36.Bd2 Raf8 37.dxc7 h4 38.

Rxg8 Bxg8 39.Rg1 Bh7 40.Bxh7 Kxh7 41.
Rg4 Nd5 42.Rxh4+ Kg6

43.Bxf4! Nxf4 44.Rxf4 and wins (1-0, 62).

Games like this show why Dr. Elos The
Rating of Chessplayers, Past & Present
(Arco, 1978) put Judds peak strength at
about 2450, only slightly below
Showalters 2470.

McCormick and Soltis mention this match

in their history of the U.S. Championship,
saying In late 1890 Showalters string of
successes were spoiled by the loss of a
match to Judd, 7-3, but for once the
Missouri master made no claim of the national title.

Whether or not Judd himself made such a claim, others certainly did. Both the
Chicago Tribune of May 19, 1890, and the Brooklyn Eagle of June 4, 1890,
announce the start and finish of the match, in both cases saying it is for the
Championship of the United States. The Washington Post of April 9, 1893,
discussing Judds chess career as a part of an article dealing with his
diplomatic appointment (about which more later), mentions that Judd defeated
Showalter for the U.S. Chess Championship, and later lost a rematch.

I feel the evidence is clear that this match was, in fact, viewed as a match for
the United States Championship by a reasonable number of people at the time.
Why then would Judd not consider himself to be champion at this point in
time? I believe that Judd had a consistent, principled view with respect to the
national championship, which ran against his own self-interest. We will see
later that by misunderstanding Judds perspective, McCormick and Soltis again
do Judd a disservice, casting him as a scheming opportunist in a later dispute,
whereas Judd had only the good of American chess in mind.

S. Lipschtz

A three-way match between Judd, Showalter, and Lipschtz was planned for
1891. This might have resolved some of the questions regarding the American
chess championship. When Lipschtz did not come to St. Louis, Showalter and
Judd played, beginning in December 1891 and ending in January 1892. Judd
led early on, but Showalter came back to win +7 4 =3. Judd was reported to
be very ill during the later stages of the match, and it shows. In some games he
is unrecognizable. His best effort is probably this one, though it too is flawed:

Showalter-Judd, match, St. Louis, December 1891 (notes by Taylor Kingston,

assisted by Fritz8): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 d5 4.Qa4 f6 5.Bb5 Nge7 6.exd5
Qxd5 7.00 Bd7 8.d4 exd4 9.cxd4

All main-line theory to this day, per Nunns

Chess Openings (1999). Normal now is 9
Ne5 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 with equality. Judd
varies in aggressive but risky fashion.

9000 10.Nc3 Qh5 11.Bf4 Nd5 12.

Nxd5 Qxd5
 13.Rac1

White might have won a pawn by 13.Bxc6

Bxc6 14.Qxa7, but after 14Bb4 15.Rfc1
Qa5 16.Qxa5 Bxa5, it would have been of
little account.

13...g5 14.Bg3 Kb8 15.Rc3 Rc8

Judd begins to go wrong here. Better was

15...g4 16.Ne1 Bd6. He now drifts into a
dangerous position.

16.Rfc1 Be7 17.h3 Rhd8

18.b4?!

Much stronger was 18.Bc4!, when if (A)

18...Qf5 19.d5 Ne5 20.Qb3 Nxc4 21.Qxc4
Bd6 22.Nd4 Qg6 23.Nc6+! and wins, or (B)
18...Qe4; 19.Re3 Qg6 20.Bb5 Qe8 21.Bxc6
Bxc6 22.Rxc6 bxc6 23.Qa6 Ka8 (if 23...
Rd5 24.Qe2 Rd7 25.Rb3+ Ka8 26.Qa6 Rb8
27.Qxc6+) 24.d5 cxd5 25.Nd4 c6 26.Nf5
and wins; therefore relatively best is (C)
18...Qa5 19.Qxa5 Nxa5 20.Bd3 Bd6 21.
Bxd6 cxd6 22.Bxh7 winning an important
pawn, while retaining a sound position. The text allows Black an ingenious
defense.

18...Ne5!

Probably the only move that holds the position.

19.dxe5 Bxb5 20.Qc2 Bd3 21.Qb2 f5!

An important move, much better than

capturing on e5. Black devises a plan based
on imprisoning Whites bishop.

22.Rd1 Qe4 23.Re1 Qd5 24.Rd1 Qe4 25.

Re1 Qd5 26.Rd1 Qe4

Either the typesetter for the New York Sun

got in a rut, or the threefold repetition rule
was not in effect, or neither player cared to
claim a draw here.

27.Re1 Qd5 28.Rd1 Qe4 29.Re1 Qxb4

Finally breaking out of the repetitions.

30.Rb3 Qa5

31.e6?!

Perhaps hoping to play 32.Be5, but in vain.

With his bishop about to be locked up,
Showalter might as well have gotten a
pawn for his trouble with 31.Rxb7+ Ka8 32.
Rb3.

31...f4 32.Bh2 Ba6

The bishop is not well posted here; better

32...b6 or 32...Be4.
33.Kh1 b6 34.Qg7 Bb7

Better 34...Re8 or 34...Bc5.

35.Rbb1?

Better, though still leaving White at a

disadvantage, was 35.Qxe7 Bxf3 36.Qb4
(not 36.gxf3?? Qxe1+) 36...Qxb4 37.Rxb4
Bc6.

35...Re8

Equally good or better was 35...Qa3 36.Qb2

(if 36.Ne5? Qxh3) 36...Bxf3 37.Qxa3 Bxa3 38.gxf3 Rd2 39.Rbd1 (or 39.Rf1?
Rxa2) 39...Rxd1 40.Rxd1 Re8 41.Re1 and Black is as good as a piece and two
pawns up.

36.Nd4

If 36.Qb2 Bxf3 37.gxf3 with the same disadvantage as in the previous note.

36...Rcd8 37.f3 Qd5

37...Qxa2 was also quite good.

38.Bg1 Bc5?!

Much better was 38...c5 39.Nb5 Qf5 40.

Qf7 Qg6. However, its academic, as White
now blunders.

39.Re5??

39.Rbd1 was the only chance.

39...Bxd4 0-1 (Source: New York Sun,

December 17, 1891; our thanks to John
Hilbert for this game).

The next portion of Judds life features much more than chess, and is quite
eventful. I will discuss his appointment to an important diplomatic post in
Europe, and the furor it caused, in the next and final part of this article.

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

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

2008 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.