English Chess Forum

Wallace, Liverpool and Rubinstein is the title of Edward Winter's latest C.N. (12101):

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html#CN_12101

Fascinating both for the Rubinstein content and for the many names of Liverpool chessplayers, it focuses on William Herbert Wallace and the Wallace Murder Case: https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/wallace.html

I was surprised that, among all the many comments about Wallace's low playing skills, there was no mention of his simul win against Rubinstein.

A couple of wee coincidences here. Private Eye have a regular spot called 'Desperate Advertising' where a recent news item is used by keen-eyed companies as a link to their product. For example whenever there is a royal birth companies name and congratulate the happy couple along with an advert for nappies or babies milk powder.

I recently picked up for £1.00 'Chess for Match Players' by William Winter (published 1951) and noticed a spot of desperate advertising which just today I've typed up to use as a space filler for my next blog. Edward Winter also mentions this but I'm considering linking it to the desperate advertising that goes on with opening books. (if Carlsen plays an opening then the relevant opening books appear quicker than daisies on a dung heap.)

front cover


back cover. '...with the skill of a practiced chess-player.'


William Winter, the other minor coincidence, mentions in the introduction that British amateur chess players are weak at endings because they rarely have a chance to play them OTB due to time restrictions later adding 'The adjudication system is the curse of British Club Chess.'
(if you do not like that coincidence how about me being born in 1951 the year 'Chess for Match Players' was published ...desperate coincidences!)

Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 05, 2025 12:55 am

(if you do not like that coincidence how about me being born in 1951 the year 'Chess for Match Players' was published ...desperate coincidences!)

Chess for Match Players was actually first published in 1936, when Winter was the reigning British champion. It was the first serious chess book I studied and I recall reading it around 1943. 1951 was a revised edition.

Leonard Barden commented:

"I was surprised that, among all the many comments about Wallace's low playing skills, there was no mention of his simul win against Rubinstein."

The Rubinstein v Wallace results (one win each) are, of course, the most important matter that Edward Winter was showing. There are certainly many cases of past writers ridiculing Wallace's playing strength.

John Townsend wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 05, 2025 9:58 am

The Rubinstein v Wallace results (one win each) are, of course, the most important matter that Edward Winter was showing. There are certainly many cases of past writers ridiculing Wallace's playing strength.

The claim to have played against the world's best was justified, subject to the caveat that they weren't one to one encounters.

John Townsend wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 05, 2025 9:58 am

Leonard Barden commented:

"I was surprised that, among all the many comments about Wallace's low playing skills, there was no mention of his simul win against Rubinstein."

The Rubinstein v Wallace results (one win each) are, of course, the most important matter that Edward Winter was showing. There are certainly many cases of past writers ridiculing Wallace's playing strength.

Yes, I saw that, of course, an important and valuable discovery by Edward Winter. What bothered me, though I expressed it badly, was that Wallace himself did not mention his moment of glory as an offset to stating that he was a very weak player.

Leonard Barden wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 05, 2025 6:23 am

Chess for Match Players was actually first published in 1936,

Thank You Leonard, I should have said my copy. Going through it, and remembering it was first published in 1936 it appears well ahead of it's time splitting players in two, tactical and positional and giving both styles opening ideas as well as good general advice for any era. Nice chatty, slightly from the hip style.

The Edinburgh club will have a 1936 copy and I'll pursue a wee hobby of mine. On page 21 (my copy) the words; 'Baiting an ingenious trap' leapt out me. (The word 'trap.' Moth to a flame.) After the moves;

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 d5 6. exf6 dxc4 7. Qh5

rnbqk2r/ppp2ppp/5P2/2b4Q/2pp4/2P5/PP3PPP/RNB1K1NR b KQkq - 0 7

White threatens fxg7 and Qxc5. The trap is 7...Bf8 8.Qe5+ and 9.fxg7. Which Black fell into and resigned in a game played in 1949 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessga ... 6148&m=6.5 Winter gives the cure as 7...0-0 8. Qxc5 Re8+ etc and this indeed does give Black a good position which a Red Hot Pawn player backed up as Black by playing 7...0-0 and winning a few moves later.

I like highlighting successful traps mentioned in books that have caught out players at a later date. I'll be looking to see if the trap was mentioned in the 1936 edition.

I've gone slightly off topic...When I do the piece I'll mention the back of the book advert and help rescuing the Wallace name by mentioning he once beat Rubinstein in a simul.

More generally WHW played in the club's "Second Class" tournament, which would maybe indicate he wasn't totally devoid of skill.

(the Third Class section contained the real weakies, you would have thought)

Leonard Barden wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 05, 2025 10:20 am

an important and valuable discovery by Edward Winter.

It's certainly interesting to know that Wallace won a game from Rubinstein in a simul; but that's perfectly consistent with him not being a strong player overall. Peter Montgomery of Luton wouldn't claim to be a strong player, but he famously downed Korchnoi in 13 moves in a simul (Game 58 in Memorable Games of British Chess)
And while it's interesting, as is much of what Mr Winter publishes, I am troubled by the description of it as "important and valuable", implicitly because of what it contributes to the sterile debate about whether Wallace murdered his wife. It would only be "important and valuable" to know that Wallace wasn't actually a weak player (and for the reason I've mentioned, the simul victory over Rubinstein doesn't actually prove any such thing) if that fact in and of itself told us anything about whether he murdered his wife. And it wouldn't. It's the intellectually slapdash application of the prosecutor's fallacy once again, based on the syllogism This man is a competent chessplayer Therefore this man is capable of very careful and far-sighted planning Therefore this man is a murderer.
Wallace is in no position to defend himself; but I'm a great deal more convinced by looking at the people who were persuaded of his innocence rather than the assorted keyboard warriors with time on their hands.
Those people include:
Gerald Abrahams, lawyer and Liverpool chess player;
Jonathan Goodman, who spent three years researching the case exhaustively;
Mr Justice Wright, the trial judge, who said in his summing up "The evidence is quite consistent with some unknown criminal for some unknown motive having got into the house, and executed murder and gone away". The great tragedy of the Wallace case is that the defence failed to submit at the end of the prosecution case that there was no case for Wallace to answer. Had such a submission been made, Wright would almost certainly have upheld it, and he'd have been right to do so;
The Vice-Dean of Liverpool Cathedral, Canon Dwelly, who as Sheriff's Chaplain had sat through the entire trial, and who caused "Intercessions Extraordinary" to be included in the services at Liverpool Cathedral the day before Wallace's appeal was heard;
Importantly, the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues in the Court of Criminal Appeal, who did something unique in the history of English criminal justice and said flatly "The jury got it wrong". Instances are legion of the Court of Appeal turning somersaults to try and uphold a conviction which is widely held to be unsafe. The significance of the Court of Criminal Appeal's action, led as it was by a notably determined and bloody-minded Lord Chief Justice (see, if I may make so bold, Despotism Renewed? Lord Hewart Unburied, pp 53-55, 82-83) really should not be underestimated.

For the record, could we perhaps have the quotations corrected in Neil's message? At it stands, it looks as if I used the words " ... an important and valuable discovery by Edward Winter ..." and Leonard Barden wrote the main body of the message, which was quoted by Neil Hickman. But that is not what happened, is it?

Quotations fixed.

John Townsend wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2025 2:59 pm

For the record, could we perhaps have the quotations corrected in Neil's message? At it stands, it looks as if I used the words " ... an important and valuable discovery by Edward Winter ..." and Leonard Barden wrote the main body of the message, which was quoted by Neil Hickman. But that is not what happened, is it?

Quite so, John; and my apologies. I have put matters right.

I agree with Leonard Barden that it is an important and valuable discovery by Edward Winter.

The name of the player who Wallace beat on the 19th January, 1931, is always given as McCartney (including in the transcript of the trial). However his name looks more like McCarthy on the 2nd Class Championship pairings list (e.g. see top of page https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/wallace.html). Is this clarified anywhere?
Edit: OK, I'm dumb. The name has been corrected on the pairings list ("hy" crossed out and "ney" added).