| The Chess Oracle - Articles |
October 2003 - Barbican at the European
Club Cup
March 2003 - Gary
Kenworthy
February 2003 - Forgotten Masters
3: John Cochrane - Jerry Spinrad
December 2002 - WCN and
Kasparov.com
June 2002 - The Afrasiab
Chessmen
May 2002 - Chess Today
October 2001 - Fundamental Chess
Endings
October 2001 - Kingpin
September 2001 - Chess and the English
July
2001 - The Knight's Tour
June 2001 -
Donation to British Chess from GM David
Norwood
December 2000 - Chess Variant
October
2000 - Isle of Lewis Chessmen
This year's European Club Cup was held in Crete, close to Rethymnon, and was at least as strong as last year's event. Barbican 4NCL, having again qualified through the 4NCL, were delighted to be supported again by the Friends of Chess and this year were able to field a considerably stronger team than last year. Thus GM Jonathan Parker was this year supported by three IMs, Brian Kelly, Richard Palliser, and Mark Ferguson as well as by Steve Dishman, FM John Cox, Peter Taylor and captain Andy Mack. Club members Natasha Regan and Alex Tucker also traveled with the squad, and judging by the fact that the team responded to each defeat by producing an excellent win on the very next day, they must have done their job in keeping their spirits up - for in a competition where over a dozen sides can field six grandmasters, and where Kasparov`s team can finish only fifth, the odd reverse is inevitable!
In fact, Barbican 4NCL yo-yoed throughout the event: win-loss-win-loss-win-loss-win. In each of the three lost matches we were substantially outrated, often on almost every board. The first team to beat us, Beer Sheva, almost had the event of their lives, and played for the title in the last round, though a defeat by the overall winners Paris NAO, sent them down to a rather mean eighth place. Notably, the Israeli board one Huzman went on to beat Kasparov, though our own Jonathan Parker had held Huzman to a draw with the Black pieces.
We were delighted to win four matches. It does not seem possible to win more than four matches unless one has a heavily sponsored teams with five or six grandmasters - and even that sort of line up only suffices to give such a team a chance - no more than that. (So Clichy, a sponsored French team which has participated in this event for many years and who have Stuart Conquest on board five, finished with just four wins themselves, and finished just one place above us on gamepoints). Further, each of our wins was thoroughly convincing, and indeed each was achieved without any individual loss. The best win was made in the last round against the German team Neukoln 03, who slightly outrated us overall, but who were lucky to escape with a narrow 2.5-3.5 defeat. After Richard Palliser`s attack landed first (see below) the rest of the team halved out to secure the precious matchpoints, but we were clearly better on these remaining boards. We were delighted to be able to establish such dominance against another middle ranking team, and our overall position, 20th, left us as the fourth highest West European Club and very possibly (though it is hard to know for sure) the top amateur Club throughout all of Europe (an amateur Club being one where none of the players receive any fees for playing). The aim of the team had been to finish in the top half, if possible - we were not sure before the event whether this would in fact be (realistically) possible, but we did it!
The team's success was secured by the facts that no one blundered at critical moments (that is, no matches were lost through any slips) and that everyone played close to their normal strength throughout. Jonathan Parker remained undefeated on board one and Mark Ferguson also avoided defeat, and came close to beating GMs Greenfeld and Knaak. Brian Kelly and John Cox also finished on +1, whilst Richard Palliser tended to hold the key to our match victories, scoring no less than three wins all with Black (!) in these matches.
Thanks once again to the Friends of Chess for contributing towards our expenses, and to the BCF for liaising with the organizers where necessary. Now we will try to qualify again from this year's 4NCL, and in the meantime, we include two games from our wins against the Danish side Aarhus and Neukoln 03, both attractive displays achieved against IMs rated well over 2400.
Parker, J v Rasmusen, K
ECC, Round 3
Notes based on comments by Jonathan Parker (and checked by Peter Taylor).
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 e3 a6 5 Bd3 Bg4 6 Qb3 Bxf3 7 gxf3 (7.Qxb7 is dangerous e.g, 7...Bxg2 8 Rg1 dxc4 9 Bxc4 Bd5 10 Bxd5 Nxd5 11 Qxa8 Qc7 trapping the queen. White has some improvements on this line, but Jonathan noted that ...Bxf3 was played instantly and chose to be pragmatic) 7...Qc7 8 Nc3 dxc4 9 Bxc4 e6 10 Bd2 Be7 11 Rc1 (this game should be of particular interest to those many of us who would have been wondering automatically where to castle as White in this sort of position) 0-0 12 Ne4 Nbd7 13 Qc2 e5?! (Given that Black has no light squared bishop, and that White`s bishop is already pointing at f7, this move seems too risky. Black should be playing for ...c5 instead.)
14 Nxf6+ Nxf6 15. Bc3 Bd6 (15...exd4 16 Bxd4 Rad8 is better.) 16 Qf5 Nd7 17 Rd1 (Increasing the pressure down the d file and introducing the threat on dxe5 followed by a rook capture) 17...b5 18 Bb3 (Parker was tempted by 18 dxe5 Nxe5 19 Rxd6 Qxd6 20 Bxe5 Qb4+ 21 Bc3 Qxc4 22 Qf6 gxf6 23 Rg1+ Kh8 24 Bxf6 mate - but just in time he spotted the brilliant defence 22...Qg4!. Well done, says Jonathan Rogers, who surely speaks for many 2300s when he says that he doubts that he would have seen the possibility of 22 Qf6 in the first place) 18...Rae8 (or 18...b4 19. dxe5 is very strong) 19 Rg1 b4 (19..g6 20. Rxg6+! hxg6 21. Qxg6+ Kh8 22 Qh6+ Kg8 23 Ke2 with a mating attack. Or 19... exd4 20. Rxd4 is crushing)
20 dxe5 (20 Qg5 g6 21 Qh6 Kh8! holds) 20... Nxe5 21 Bxe5 Bxe5 (21...Rxe5 22 Qf6 wins a piece.) 22 Rd7Qb8 23 Rg5! (23 Rxf7 was also possible but Black plays on after …Kh8. Instructively, Jonathan is still looking for the very best moves, and this one threatens 24 Bxf7+ Kh8 25 Qxh7! mating) 23...Bf4 (If 23...Kh8 24 Rh5 g6 25 Qxg6! wins neatly. Similarly 23…g6 24 Rxg6+ hxg6 25 Qxg6+ followed by Bxf7 and a swift mate. However in meeting the threat of Bxf7+ and Qxh7+, the Black bishop has abandoned g7) 24 Bxf7+ (24 Rxg7+ also leads to mate: 24…Kxg7 25 Rxf7+ Rxf7 26 Qxf7+ Kh8 27 Qf6 mate or 26 … Kh6 27 Qf6+ Kh5 28 Bf7 mate) 24… Kh8 25 Rxg7! Kxg7 26 Bxe8+ Kg8 27 Qxh7 mate
Borriss,M - Palliser,R [B90]
ECC, Round 7, 2003
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Be3 e5 7 Nb3 Be6 8 f3 Nbd7 9 g4 b5 10 g5 b4 11 Nd5 Nxd5 12 exd5 Bf5 13 Bd3 Bxd3 14 Qxd3 Be7 15 h4 0-0 16 0-0-0 a5 17 f4 a4 18 Nd2 exf4 19 Bxf4 Nc5 20 Qh3 Qa5 21 Kb1 Qa6 22 Rhe1 Rfe8 23 Re3 Bf8 24 h5 b3 25 cxb3 Rxe3 26 Qxe3 axb3 27 a3 Nd3 28 Nxb3 Nxb2! 29 Kxb2 Qxa3+ 30 Kc3 Rb8 31 Qd4
It turns out that there is nothing better. 31 Rb1 Rc8+ wins: 32 Kd2 Qa2+ wins the rook which has just been attracted to b1, or 32 Kd4 Qb4+ followed by …Rc3+, or 32 Kd3 Qa6+! 33 Kd2 Qa2+ or 33 Kd4 Qc4 mate.
31…Qxb3+ 32 Kd2 Rb4 33 Qe3 Qxd5+ 34 Ke2 Qg2+ 0-1
FM Gary Kenworthy, a former BCF Director of Coaching, is available for coaching, lectures, simuls etc to individuals or groups. Gary has a wealth of coaching experience, working with many schools and producing excellent results. He has worked on syllabuses, awards and certified qualifications within schools and has been County champion with five counties.
Gary can be contacted for further information by email: Gary.Kenworthy@btopenworld.com or telephone: 01908-371918 (home) or 07949-699284 (mobile).
Reproduced by permission.
This is the third of an occasional series of posts on forgotten masters of the 19th century. My previous two masters were the Berlin master Ludwig Bledow, and the Italian Serafino Dubois. Both players, though largely forgotten at least in this country, were very strong players who had a great impact on the history of chess in their respective countries.
It is hard to imagine a British master of the same time period who is so forgotten, since there was a great deal of activity and writing about the British chess scene at that time which is easily accessible. Many of the British players who were once celebrated and now largely forgotten were in my opinion not as strong as their reputations at the time; an example would be Lewis. John Cochrane, though remembered, was much stronger and more influential than most now appreciate. Strangely enough, as I will argue later, one reason for his being underestimated may be that he stayed on friendly terms with Staunton throughout his life. Another is our tendency to evaluate players only by the result of scores in matches or tournaments, or (in the case of automatic rating systems) scores of preserved games. Cochrane was known in his time as being the most brilliant and original player who had ever lived; this was a reputation which might be considered as important as being the most likely to beat all comers in a chess match. In his games, he took risks which other strong players would not. In some cases, this led to development of new openings and ideas; at other times, these led only to interesting losses. Since these were often series of games rather than formal matches, and Cochrane might be interested in experimenting with a risky opening idea, it seems unfair to judge him too negatively only because he lost more games. Of course, the primary reason he is relatively unknown is was that although British, Cochrane lived for many years in India, and was only occasionally part of the London chess circle.
Cochrane is responsible for perhaps the boldest opening innovation which survives unrefuted (well, at least, not completely) to this day. Captain Evans deserves credit for his gambit which influenced chess for years, but this was only the sacrifice of the b pawn for obvious strong development in the center. By contrast, it takes a remarkably brave, persistent, and creative player to take seriously the piece sacrifice e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nxf7, and realize that rather than being a standard tyro's silly attack that this is really a dangerous weapon. He had other interesting sacs, in the opening and elsewhere, but this gives you a good idea of the spirit of Cochrane's chess.
I know little of the life of Cochrane, though I have read that his life was "very exciting". He was born in 1798, and was from a prominent family. He was from Scotland but became a barrister (ie lawyer) in London. He is said to have been on the boat which took Napoleon to his final exile in Saint Helena, and he went to India where he must have been quite successful, as we will see later. I am sure there is much more of interest, and I would love to hear it, but this series focuses on the chess influences of the masters rather than their personal lives (of course, I would not have stuck to this rule if I had found a particularly interesting anecdote which is worth sharing).
Cochrane first appears in recorded chess history in the early 1820s. He lost a few games to the Turk (3-1-1), whcih I believe operated by Mouret at this time. After beating most of the local players in London, he visited Paris in 1821 at age approximately 23, and played a series of games with Deschapelles and Labourdonnais. He was beaten by both players (apparently 7-0 vs Labourdonnais and 6-1 while receiving pawn + 2 by Deschapelles), but then beat Deschapelles when the two played without odds (he may be the only player known to have beaten Deschapelles without odds). There is a claim that he also finished approximately equal in a series of 50 or so friendly games with Labourdonnais after the drubbing in the match. Of course, Deschapelles and Labourdonnais were considered to be the two strongest players in the world at this time (indeed, this triangular contest is often when people say that Labourdonnais shows that he surpasses Deschapelles). Cochrane wrote a treatise on chess in 1822.
Cochrane is famously associated with the confusing naming history of the Scotch game. In the important London vs Edinburgh correspondence match of 1824-1828, Cochrane (though Scottish himself) played for London, and persuaded them to choose this then obscure opening. In the middle of the first game, he had to leave for India; the English team squandered their opening advantage after he left, and went on to lose the game. The Scottish team were sufficiently impressed that they played the gambit successfully later in the match, and this led to the name.
He returned to Europe briefly in the early 1840s. At this time, he played many, many games with Staunton, and was probably the largest single influence on Staunton's chess development. In 1842, he beat Saint Amant in a series of games, 6-4-1.
Cochrane was one of the few people Staunton really viewed as a friend throughout his chess career (others include Jaenisch and von der Lasa). Staunton, of course, had a famously difficult personality, and was involved in an unbelievable number of disputes regarding matches. I have read about disputes over matches between Staunton and such players as Loewenthal, Williams, Buckle, Zytogorski, Lowe, Anderssen, Morphy, and Saint Amant, among others. How was it that Cochrane, who played so many games with Staunton, managed to stay on friendly terms? Perhaps part of it was having a good family and position, which were important to Staunton. No doubt the most important part of the secret of staying on friendly terms involved residing on a different continent for most of his life. However, another facet was that while the others complained of their treatment by Staunton (such as having only their losses published in The Chess Player's Chronicle, which to Staunton's credit reads very well compared to other chess magazines of its time, and thus was widely read), Cochrane kept quiet about it, though it disturbed him as well. Thus, Cochrane is said to have felt (and stated privately) that he was portrayed as a pawn-and-move bumpkin in The Chess Player's Companion, while he in fact beat Staunton in their last series of even games. However, instead of disputing this and perhaps bolstering his chess reputation, he swallowed it and came to be viewed as a player a level below the top; strong, and a piece of chess history, but perhaps not up to the younger generation of chess talent.
Cochrane returned from India in 1869; I believe he was at the Blackburne - Steinitz match in 1876. Cochrane died in 1878.
Cochrane's support was also important for the London 1851 tournament. The donations of Cochrane personally (20 pounds) and the Calcutta Chess Club (100 pounds) were among the largest donations to the prize fund, and helped make the tournament attract strong players. Unfortunately, he was not able to get to England for the tournament; it would have been very interesting to see how he would have fared in the competition. Cochrane was certainly active in chess at the time, playing many games with the strong Indian player Moheschunder Bannerjee; he writes about these games in the Chess Player's Chronicle. Cochrane beat Bannerjee 13-9-3 in 1852, for example; DeVere in 1860 felt that Bannerjee was stronger than the best European players.
Cochrane influenced chess in a number of ways. His attacking style was widely admired, and copied in a toned-down fashion by many players (including Staunton, who launched many beautiful attacks). He had a huge influence on Staunton's development as a player. His large contributions were important to the London 1851 tournament. He did a lot for chess in India as well, promoting the first Indian chess star, though the distance to Europe eventually meant that it would be years before Indian chess became important again (after Bannerjee, the next major Indian chess star known in the rest of the world was Sultan Khan, I believe).
How strong was Cochrane? We have a huge set of apparent contradictions. In 1821, is it more important that the very young Cochrane was drilled by Labourdonnais and Deschapelles in the triangular match, or that he did well against them in games after this match? In 1841-43, do we view the games between Staunton and Cochrane as showing that Staunton was much better (as the Oxford Companion does), or do we take Cochrane's unhappiness over this portrayal and win in a series of games with Saint Amant as evidence that he was a world-class talent at this time? Do we give credence to DeVere's praise of Bannerjee, and thus enhance Cochrane's status by having beaten Bannerjee?
I admit that my decisions on this are quite arbitrary, but I see no way to avoid arbitrariness. Taking into account Cochrane's youth and his loss to Mouret, I am guessing that Cochrane was not quite ready for Labourdonnais and Deschapelles in 1821, and that the triangular match does show that the Frenchmen were better at this time, though perhaps not by as much as the scores would indicate. However, given the number of disputes Staunton had over match results and presentation, I am reminded of children who are always involved in disputes about cheating at my school chess club; even though I can't say out loud that they are cheaters, I don't believe them anymore. I think Cochrane was quite comparable to Staunton in 1843, and beat Saint Amant by a score quite comparable to Staunton's. Given the praise heaped on Cochrane's brilliance by players of the time, I am inclined to think that in the 1840 visit he was another candidate for best player of the time; he certainly would have been a worthy match opponent for anyone. Thus, he fits my view of underappreciated masters of the time. I could not pin down exactly when Cochrane's peak would be, but at some point he may have been as good as anyone (and 1842 would be a good possible time); other viewpoints would be appreciated! I have not seen more than exerpts of obituaries for Cochrane; maybe someone could summarize one of these, since obituaries often summarized a player's career. Interesting player, that John Cochrane; worth going over a few of his brilliant wins, and seeing that brilliant play did not begin with Anderssen and Morphy.
Jerry Spinrad
For the Kasparov.com former members: WCN is ready to offer you the remainder of your paid up Kasparov.com membership for free on WCN as a Gold Member [ www.worldchessnetwork.com ]
Every former players from Kasparov.com is welcome to contact us immediately:
administration@wor ldchessnetwork.com
In 1977 an expedition from the Uzbekistan Academy of Archaeology conducting a controlled dig in Afrasiab, Samarqand discovered seven miniature ivory carvings of chess pieces.
See http://www.chez.com/cazaux/afrasiab.htm for more details.
Chess Today is the only daily electronic newspaper which includes games with GM analysis, competitions, quizzes, training and much more, future goodies in the pipeline. A recent publication is: #545 - Anand wins Eurotel in Prague and is well worth a read.
If you feel like treating yourself to this well recommended newspaper; it can be ordered at the Chess Today Website or contact the Chess Today team by E-mail.
A book has just been published Fundamental Chess Endings which is destined to become a classic alongside the works of Fine and Averbakh. It has been written by the German endgame specialists GM Karsten Mueller and IM Frank Lamprecht, who both play in the German Bundesliga for Hamburg and Koenigsspringer Hamburg respectively.
It can be ordered at the BCM, also worth finding out about for any endgame junkies is their previous, equally good, publication Secrets of Pawn Endings.
Jörg Seidel, who had written the text about the English mentality, has send me another fine article. It is about the English chess magazine "Kingpin".
Our club member Jörg Seidel who lives in Britain has written a very fascinating article. It is about the English mentality especially in chess. He refers to the football match last week and the Short-Kasparov championship of 1993.
Chess and the English (in German)
Without the aid of a computer, I've easily created many more Knight's Tours and even a Semi-Magic Square Knight's Tour where all the rows and columns add up to the same number. In fact, every other vertical pair of numbers adds up to 49 and 81 respectively while the four major quadrants each add up to 520 and the four main sets of 2x2 squares in each quadrant add up to 130. The numbers 49 and 81 are significant since 49 is 7 squared in which 7 represents the shape of the Knight's move. Also, 81 is 9 squared in which 9 represents the first known Magic Square (3x3 square or 9 squares) from about 2200B.C.
With a little bit of research, you will find that others such as William Beverly have created similar Semi-Magic Square Knight's Tours. Unlike William Beverly, I've taken an additional step by creating a simple game that will allow anyone to easily make beautiful mathematical Knight's Tour art.
Please let me know if you are interested in my other Knight's Tours, Knight's Tour game, or my basic mathematical analysis that provides such easy creation of Knight's Tours.
Dan Thomasson and Website.
BEESON GREGORY GROUP CHIEF EXECUTIVE DAVID NORWOOD MAKES A GREAT MOVE FOR BRITISH JUNIOR CHESS
David Norwood, the chief executive of the Beeson Gregory PLC, and a British Chess Grandmaster, has made a donation of £88,000 to the British Chess Federation Youth Chess Trust. The donation, in the form of a shares gift to the trust, was described by the Director of Junior chess and Education, Peter Turner, as a "magnificent act of generosity which will enable the Federation to support outstanding juniors, and provide opportunities for junior chess players of all levels to improve their skill and gain vital experience".
The International Director of the Federation, David Anderton, commented, "This is a superb donation from David, and the fact that he is a former top junior player makes it even more special for us, as he is ensuring the successful future of junior chess in this country."
Robert MacFarland, the Finance Director of the Federation stressed the point that, "Anyone wishing to follow in David's footsteps, and make a gift of shares to our Youth Chess Trust, should note that as it is a charity, donations of shares are free of capital gains and income tax, and represent a highly efficient method of donating to the trust."
David, a graduate of Oxford University, was a successful Grandmaster, who made many appearances on television as an expert commentator on big games, until he recently decided that his future direction would focus on the commercial opportunities afforded by the Internet and associated technologies.
After successfully establishing his own information systems company, he has taken on the Chief Executive role at Beeson Gregory PLC, an investment bank specializing in European Growth companies.
David commented, "I am delighted to support the work of the British Chess Federation, and especially the Youth Chess Trust. It would please me greatly if other company Chief Executives and Directors would do the same, and also become actively involved in sponsoring chess events in Britain. Chess players know the value of disciplined thinking, and in the competitive world of the 21st century this really will matter to all Companies."
On that subject, the marketing Director of the Federation, Nick Hawkins, commented, " We welcome companies who want to talk to us on any aspect of sponsorship or charitable donations."
This is essentially the standard game, played on the regular 8 x 8 chessboard, using the traditional chess pieces. However, the game is transformed by the new-fashioned roles of the pawns!
This is a game that enjoys the use of stronger pawns, without En passant or castling.
The King, Queen, Bishops, Knights, and Rooks, these all move and capture as in the standard game.
The objective of the game remains the same; that is to "checkmate" the opponents King.
The ancient chess pieces Fers, Mann, and Wazir, are re-introduced into the modern game, as super pawns.
The movement of these special pawns imitates the piece that they start in front of, in the array.
The King’s pawn and Queen’s pawn move and capture as a Mann, one square in any direction, (a).
This is similar to the King, but these pawns can be captured and promoted.
The Rook’s pawn moves and captures as a Wazir, one square along the rank or file.
Forward, backward, or sideways, (b).
The Bishop’s pawn moves and captures as a Fers, one square diagonally forwards or backwards, (c).
The Knight’s pawn only moves and captures one square forward along the file, then diagonally forwards, (d). This pawn, like the Knight, may leap over other pieces.
|
ë |
(a)
é |
ì |
|
(b) é |
ë |
(c) |
ì |
ë |
(d)
|
ì |
|
|
ç |
King & Queen Pawn |
è |
ç |
Rooks Pawn |
è |
Bishops Pawn |
ñ |
||||
|
í |
ê |
î |
ê |
í |
|
î |
Knights Pawn |
The pawns in most existing chess sets can be simply modified to identify these new moves.
A diagrammatic symbol of their move is inscribed upon them, or the appropriate initial.
On reaching the opponents first rank, the pawns are promoted to the piece that they started in front of. Consequently, only the King’s and Queen’s Pawns are promoted to a Queen.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
The Fers, Mann, and Wazir appear throughout the history of chess and related games, in many different guises.
The King, Rook, and Knight, have undergone little change, whilst the Bishop aka Courier, replaced the Al fil.
The Fers was the Counsellor or wise man in the original game; it survives today in Xiangqi.
The modern Queen later replaced the Fers. The Mann as appeared in ancient Chess games.
The Wazir also featured in many ancient Chess games, today it is found in Xiangqi.
The Knight’s pawn or alternative Knight move is found in games such as Shogi.
The various pieces all come together naturally, making CHESS a sensible and logical move forward.
SIX tiny, sullen-looking Viking gentlemen were at the centre of an airport security alert which held up dozens of passengers on a British Airways flight.
Security staff at Stornoway Airport refused to allow officials of the British Museum to board a plane with cases containing several of the famous Isle of Lewis Chessmen, ivory Viking figures from a set valued at £3 million.
It was only when the plane's chess-playing captain was summoned from the aircraft that he realised the importance of the six tiny VIPs.
He immediately gave permission for them to be carried in the cabin - and even ordered that the chessmen, famous for their po-faced bearded looks, be allocated their own seats.
The six three-inch figures, thought to date from the Viking occupation of the Hebrides more than 1,000 years ago, had been on display over the summer months at Museum nan Eilean (The Isles' Museum) in Stornoway after an earlier one-day exhibition at Uig community hall, on the west of Lewis.
It was near there, according to a report of the time, they were found in 1831 after being dislodged from their seaside hiding place by a cow rubbing her hindquarters on a sandbank.
A local minister then handed them over to the British Museum for safekeeping.
Their appearance at Uig sparked huge interest with hundreds flocking to see them from the islands and much farther afield.
Also known as the Uig Chessmen, there are 78 remaining pieces of the legendary chess set which is made of walrus ivory and is insured at more than £3 million.
The six pieces were on loan from the British Museum and on show in the Stornoway museum since April.
Darren Roberts, a spokesman for British Regional Airlines, which operates the Western Isles' BA flights, yesterday (THU) finally confirmed the security mix-up which led to the famous chessmen almost being grounded on Tuesday.
He said: "The gentlemen from the British Museum turned up with these two cases and said they wanted to take them as personal luggage 'for security reasons'. "Unfortunately, although the airline had been told they were travelling with valuable hand-luggage, because of a breakdown in communication, the security staff were not told and they refused permission. "Items like that would normally have to go in the hold."
Other intrigued passengers were ushered through as the heated discussions with the officials continued. But the museum men refused to part with the cases containing the chessmen and it seemed at on point as if they would not be able to fly to Glasgow.
Mr Roberts said: "It is true that the captain was then summoned from the aircraft for the final decision. "Having inspected the documentation, the captain decided that not only should the pieces be allowed to travel in the cabin, but that the cases containing the famous tiny figures should be allocated their own seats and not be put on the floor."
Because of the mix-up, the 5.05pm flight, which also had 45 human passengers on board, eventually left for Glasgow 17 minutes late.
It is understood the aircraft captain, who is not being named by BRA, is a chess fanatic and was "quite chuffed" to have the famous pieces on his plane.
* There has been an ongoing campaign for the return of the pieces to Uig.
Local councillor Norman MacDonald, a member of Uig Heritage Trust which was a major player in securing the pieces' brief return, said: "I would hope in future that we could take care of them not just for one day but for a longer period of time." But he accepts storage and security problems could arise if the figures were to return for longer.
However Robert Anderson, director of the British Museum, has so far refused requests for the chessmen to be based in the islands. He says: "Five to six million visitors come here each year and can see our collections every year although making loans to other museums like the one in Stornoway is an important part of our work too."
|
E-mail
Webmaster - John Sharp Copyright ©1999-2005 John Sharp |