Hampshire played 33 matches from their first friendly match against Sussex in 1887 to the end of the 1899 – 1900 chess season. These have all been documented in the articles on each season. This post is a summary of Hampshire’s performance in this period, looking at the team and players.
For the record of Hampshire County matches and links to any articles I have written the table on the Hampshire County Chess Matches page will detail these. The Hampshire County Chess History page summaries the leagues Hampshire have played in, and the successes Hampshire have achieved. Both of these are available from the menu at the top of the site as well.
Hampshire Team Performance
Hampshire played four counties in this period, and although they won more matches than they lost this winning position was skewered by their matches against Wiltshire, where they won six and drew and lost one of the matches. That said, they were playing three very strong Southern counties, specifically Surrey although they did manage to beat them three times.
Hampshire had more success against Sussex, with a number of close matches, coming out on top with six wins, four losses and two draws.
| Opponent | Played | Won | Drawn | Lost | Points Scored | Opponents Score | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kent | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 12.5 | 19.5 | -7 |
| Surrey | 11 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 84.5 | 105.5 | -21 |
| Sussex | 12 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 129 | 116 | 13 |
| Wiltshire | 8 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 86.5 | 55.5 | 31 |
| Total | 33 | 15 | 5 | 13 | 312.5 | 296.5 | 16 |
Individual match results are in the table below which allows filtering and sorting on each column. For example, if you just wish to see the Sussex results enter Sussex into the Search box, or if you are looking for the results from Basingstoke then start to type this into the search box. I have removed the scratched matches against Kent, as these add no value, although they are included on the main Hampshire County Matches paid for completeness.
| Year | Date | Location | Competition | Division | Team Score | Opp Score | Opponent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1887-88 | 21/05/1887 | Portsmouth | Pre HCA | Friendly | 30 | 26 | Sussex |
| 1889-90 | 20/04/1889 | Portsmouth | Pre HCA | Friendly | 10 | 11 | Sussex |
| 1890-91 | 17/01/1891 | Chichester | Friendly | Friendly | 9.5 | 6.5 | Sussex |
| 1890-91 | 30/05/1891 | Portsmouth | Friendly | Friendly | 7 | 5 | Sussex |
| 1891-92 | 06/04/1892 | Salisbury | Friendly | Friendly | 17.5 | 12.5 | Wiltshire |
| 1891-92 | 07/05/1892 | Winchester | Friendly | Friendly | 12 | 9 | Surrey |
| 1891-92 | 16/01/1892 | Portsmouth | Friendly | Friendly | 15.5 | 7.5 | Sussex |
| 1891-92 | 28/11/1891 | Woking | Friendly | Friendly | 9.5 | 10.5 | Surrey |
| 1892-93 | 11/03/1893 | Chichester | Friendly | Friendly | 6 | 7 | Sussex |
| 1892-93 | 17/05/1893 | Salisbury | Friendly | Friendly | 7 | 7 | Wiltshire |
| 1892-93 | 24/04/1893 | Basingstoke | Friendly | Friendly | 9.5 | 7.5 | Surrey |
| 1893-94 | 03/02/1894 | Basingstoke | Shannon | South-East | 8 | 8 | Surrey |
| 1893-94 | 16/12/1893 | Portsmouth | Shannon | South-East | 7 | 9 | Sussex |
| 1894-95 | 03/11/1894 | Landport | Shannon | South-East | 6.5 | 9.5 | Sussex |
| 1894-95 | 06/07/1895 | Salisbury | Friendly | Friendly | 7 | 8 | Wiltshire |
| 1894-95 | 09/02/1895 | Basingstoke | Shannon | South-East | 3 | 12 | Surrey |
| 1895-96 | 15/02/1896 | Basingstoke | Shannon | South-East | 6 | 10 | Surrey |
| 1895-96 | 23/11/1895 | Portsmouth | Shannon | South-East | 8.5 | 7.5 | Sussex |
| 1895-96 | 29/07/1896 | Salisbury | Friendly | Friendly | 10 | 6 | Wiltshire |
| 1896-97 | 21/08/1897 | Salisbury | Friendly | Friendly | 11 | 5 | Wiltshire |
| 1896-97 | 28/11/1896 | London | Shannon | South-East | 7 | 9 | Surrey |
| 1897-98 | 11/12/1897 | Portsmouth | Shannon | South-East | 10 | 10 | Sussex |
| 1897-98 | 20/11/1897 | Southampton | Shannon | South-East | 7 | 10 | Surrey |
| 1897-98 | 27/07/1898 | Salisbury | Friendly | Friendly | 14 | 5 | Wiltshire |
| 1898-99 | 14/01/1899 | Basingstoke | Shannon | South-East | 7.5 | 12.5 | Surrey |
| 1898-99 | 17/12/1898 | Portsmouth | Shannon | South-East | 10 | 10 | Sussex |
| 1898-99 | 19/11/1898 | London | Shannon | South-East | 8 | 8 | Kent |
| 1898-99 | 26/07/1899 | Salisbury | Friendly | Friendly | 11 | 8 | Wiltshire |
| 1899-00 | 13/01/1900 | London | Shannon | South-East | 4.5 | 11.5 | Kent |
| 1899-00 | 10/02/1900 | Chichester | Shannon | South-East | 9 | 7 | Sussex |
| 1899-00 | 10/03/1900 | Basingstoke | Shannon | South-East | 6.5 | 9.5 | Surrey |
| 1899-00 | 04/08/1900 | Salisbury | Friendly | Friendly | 9 | 4 | Wiltshire |
| 1899-00 | 18/11/1899 | London | Shannon | South-East | 8.5 | 7.5 | Surrey |
Hampshire Player Performance
With 33 matches the the fact that Joseph Blake played in every match (and 34 games in total) was very impressive. On top of this he managed to win 23 of his games, all of which he played on top board. He was one of the strongest amateur chess player in the country (and maybe the strongest) and in this period he was at the top of his playing strength. EDO had him at around 2400 ELO strength.
Below him were three other Southampton Chess club players with Frank Elwell standing out with his 70% record from 30 games and again this was normally on board two below Blake.
With these two players scoring so heavily it was not surprising that Hampshire normally did very well on the top boards. I compared the win percentage of the top 5 boards compared to boards 6 to 10. This was 58.4% for boards (1 to 5) compared to 42.4% (6 to 10), showing how much Hampshire depended on their top boards in these matches.
With the names from the reports not always been easy to determine, it is likely that there are some errors in the data used, but not materially enough to make too much difference.
| Hants Player | Win Percentage | Points Scored | Games Played |
|---|---|---|---|
| JH Blake | 78.8% | 26 | 34 |
| WC Kenny | 56.1% | 18.5 | 33 |
| FJH Elwell | 70.0% | 21 | 30 |
| GR Sloper | 48.1% | 13 | 28 |
| E Clayton | 45.8% | 11 | 24 |
| A Asher | 41.7% | 10 | 24 |
| T Crassweller | 57.5% | 11.5 | 20 |
| HD Osborn | 38.2% | 6.5 | 19 |
| R Chipperfield | 50.0% | 8.5 | 17 |
| FA Joyce | 56.7% | 8.5 | 15 |
| GH Barclay | 23.3% | 3.5 | 15 |
| AW Wheatstone | 65.4% | 8.5 | 14 |
| JS Flower | 66.7% | 8 | 12 |
| F Budden | 50.0% | 6 | 12 |
| PT Balshaw | 54.5% | 6 | 11 |
| A Thomson | 45.0% | 4.5 | 11 |
| E Draycott | 65.0% | 6.5 | 10 |
| G Wood | 55.6% | 5 | 9 |
| W Bowyer | 81.3% | 6.5 | 8 |
| G Deal | 56.3% | 4.5 | 8 |
| WH Curtis | 43.8% | 3.5 | 8 |
| EL Raymond | 71.4% | 5 | 7 |
| Lieut CH Chepmell | 64.3% | 4.5 | 7 |
| W Tipper | 57.1% | 4 | 7 |
| W Williams | 66.7% | 4 | 6 |
| W Brock | 50.0% | 3 | 6 |
| FC Bird | 50.0% | 3 | 6 |
| S Solomons | 41.7% | 2.5 | 6 |
| E Clarke | 25.0% | 1.5 | 6 |
| GL Dupre | 70.0% | 3.5 | 5 |
| WJ Bird | 60.0% | 3 | 5 |
| PEJ Talbot | 60.0% | 3 | 5 |
| SD Caws | 50.0% | 2.5 | 5 |
| S Leonard | 50.0% | 2.5 | 5 |
| CH Sherrard | 50.0% | 2.5 | 5 |
| EC Clarke | 40.0% | 2 | 5 |
| WB George | 40.0% | 2 | 5 |
| E Seymour | 40.0% | 2 | 5 |
| J Fewings | 30.0% | 1.5 | 5 |
| GA Cosser | 30.0% | 1.5 | 5 |
| WR Neve | 30.0% | 1.5 | 5 |
| F Martin | 20.0% | 1 | 5 |
| WJ Taylor | 75.0% | 3 | 4 |
| P Larminie | 62.5% | 2.5 | 4 |
| Dr H de Fonmartin | 50.0% | 2 | 4 |
| S Clarke | 50.0% | 2 | 4 |
| PJ Dancer | 33.3% | 1 | 4 |
| Dr C Hemming | 25.0% | 1 | 4 |
| TW Rebbeck | 100.0% | 3 | 3 |
| EP Westlake | 100.0% | 3 | 3 |
| RH Wadeson | 50.0% | 1.5 | 3 |
| Sir GA Thomas | 50.0% | 1.5 | 3 |
| Dr Love | 50.0% | 1.5 | 3 |
| GI Gribble | 50.0% | 1.5 | 3 |
| Revd E Wells | 33.3% | 1 | 3 |
| JE Erskine | 16.7% | 0.5 | 3 |
| H Seymour | 0.0% | 0 | 3 |
| WR Larminie | 0.0% | 0 | 3 |
| W Talbot | 100.0% | 2 | 2 |
| H Smith | 100.0% | 2 | 2 |
| WR George | 100.0% | 2 | 2 |
| Dr Dodd | 75.0% | 1.5 | 2 |
| CE Lloyd | 50.0% | 1 | 2 |
| Kitchen | 50.0% | 1 | 2 |
| T Francis | 50.0% | 1 | 2 |
| T Young | 50.0% | 1 | 2 |
| Trantrum | 50.0% | 1 | 2 |
| JC Woods | 50.0% | 1 | 2 |
| CJ Harvey | 25.0% | 0.5 | 2 |
| HS Hewett | 25.0% | 0.5 | 2 |
| Parsons | 0.0% | 0 | 2 |
| Revd D Scott | 0.0% | 0 | 2 |
| H Gagen | 0.0% | 0 | 2 |
| HB Woods | 0.0% | 0 | 2 |
| A Watson | 0.0% | 0 | 2 |
| CT Anstey | 0.0% | 0 | 2 |
| Dr Wright | 0.0% | 0 | 2 |
| Miss Rooper | 0.0% | 0 | 2 |
| HW Daws | 0.0% | 0 | 2 |
| NB George | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| WF Sandell | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| AL Stainer | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| Gager | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| W Tilley | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| A Burns | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| H Jenkins | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| M Hart | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| AL Kent | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| Piercy | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| Taylor | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| TE Haydon | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| J Klein | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| H Roome | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| Mahoney | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| EH Lanham | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| O Wheeler | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| P Cummins | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| Dr De Von Martin | 50.0% | 0.5 | 1 |
| A Thomas | 50.0% | 0.5 | 1 |
| HP Dancer | 50.0% | 0.5 | 1 |
| Col White | 50.0% | 0.5 | 1 |
| TA Thompson | 50.0% | 0.5 | 1 |
| DHH Wassell | 50.0% | 0.5 | 1 |
| GW Taylor | 50.0% | 0.5 | 1 |
| HD Osborne | 50.0% | 0.5 | 1 |
| Ross Burns | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| WJ Evans | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| HW Deborse | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| G Goldring | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| Clarke | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| Edmunds | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| B Talbot | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| B James | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| GH Piercy | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| H Keane | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| ER Nillett | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| H Larmehae | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| Dr Pearse | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| M Eagen | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| AH Hamilton | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| F Cole | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| Firmin | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| W Boyer | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| W Turner | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| Major Alexander | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| S Burton | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| H Clarke | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| Grand Total | 51.2% | 314.5 | 623 |
Acknowledgements and Sources
The information has been taken from the relevant published articles on the site, which have the specific acknowledgments detailed.