The Hampshire County team played three matches in 1892/93 all against the same counties as the previous year. They managed a 50% record with a win (Surrey), loss (Sussex) and a draw (Wiltshire) in three very close matches. Gone were the double round boards from the Wiltshire fixture and on the whole it seems less boards were played in the matches.
In addition to these friendly county matches the North vs South match was held on 28th January 1893. There are a few articles on this already but the one from the Yorkshire Chess History website is a particularly good one. A number of Hampshire players participated and JF Blake was on board three (just below the adjudicator of a number of these matches L Hoffer). This had 106 boards in total in the match and the South won by one point (53½-52½).
- Hampshire v Sussex 11 Mar 1893
- Hampshire v Surrey 24 Apr 1893
- Hampshire v Wiltshire 17 May 1893
- Player Performance
- Acknowledgements and Sources
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 v Sussex – 11 Mar 1893 – Chichester
The first match of the season was against Sussex, which as played in Chichester would have counted as a home match for Sussex. The result came down to an adjudicated game between Hampshire’s WC Kenny and Sussex’s Dr Colborne and this went in the favour of the Sussex player.
From the report in the Hampshire Independent I have been able to obtain additional information on the match which I have summarised:
The match was set to be over twelve boards, but with both teams having a reserve it was played over thirteen. (This is a lower number compared to the normal matches, but this did allow both teams to have a strong team – Archivist.) The Sussex team were without the services of their usual Captain WV Wilson, the county champion but as the match was played in Chichester were fortunate in securing the services of four Hastings players who were not normally available. Their team was therefore a strong one in spite of the loss of their board one.
Hampshire also had a strong team, but were without the services of Mr Bullock, lately of the Cambridge University team and now of Bournemouth (although as far as I can see Mr Bullock never played for Hampshire? Archivist). Mr Crassweller of Portsmouth was also not playing, who usually played on the top boards.
The match commenced soon after three o’clock. About five o’clock a brief adjournment was made where Hants were entertained to a substantial tea, after which play continued till six thirty where unfinished games were adjudicated by the captains. The position last examined was board 5 and here the captains were unable to agree, a win being claimed by Sussex, while for Hants it was contended that whilst the other side had a slight advantage, it was not sufficient to ensure a win.
It was agreed to refer the game to Mr L Hoffer, chess editor of the Field for decision. The adjudicated was given to Sussex although it would be interesting to see the final position. Some would say that if they did not stop for their substantial tea Mr Kenny and Dr Colborne would have had more time to complete their game? But this was chess in the 19th century, where different standards were held to.
The match result in the Tunbridge Wells Journal showed the clubs and openings from the games. As usual Hampshire were mainly represented by the Southampton and Portsmouth chess clubs and Sussex by the Brighton chess club. As the match was played in Chichester this would have been closer for the Portsmouth and Southsea players than Southampton or Bournemouth. Like the loss to Surrey in Nov 1891 JH Blake lost on top board and Hampshire also lost by one point.
It would seem that e4 was more prevalent than other opening moves in the match.
The Hampshire Telegraph reported the match as below.
On Saturday last a representative team from the various associated Hampshire Clubs journeyed to Chichester to meet the Sussex team in a friendly match. The Hampshire men, who now played their first match this season, found themselves confronted by a very strong team of the Sussex men. They immediately proceeded to the Dolphin Hotel, where, after the usual preliminaries had been adjusted, the match was commenced.
Hampshire Telegraph – Saturday 18 March 1893
At the call of time it was found that each county had scored six games, while one game (Mr. Kenny and Dr. Colborne) being unfinished, it was decided to have it adjudicated upon by Mr. Hoffer. After the match the visitors were hospitably entertained by their opponents.
I did find out that the board one opening was e4, e5, Bb5 which they named as the Ruy Lopez declined, but I think it now referred to as the Portuguese Opening. On this basis I presume Hampshire were Black on the odd boards? Looking at the Hampshire team I think they managed to field a strong team despite having to travel to Chichester.
| Board | Hampshire | Colour | Hants Result | Sussex | Colour | Sussex Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | JH Blake | Black | 0 | HW Butler | White | 1 |
| 2 | Lieut CH Chepmell | White | ½ | AA Bowley | Black | ½ |
| 3 | FJH Elwell | Black | 1 | W Mead | White | 0 |
| 4 | EL Raymond | White | 1 | FW Womersley | Black | 0 |
| 5 | WC Kenny | Black | 0 | Dr Colborne | White | 1 |
| 6 | F Budden | White | ½ | A Emery | Black | ½ |
| 7 | E Clayton | Black | ½ | JW Bridger | White | ½ |
| 8 | A Asher | White | ½ | JV Elsden | Black | ½ |
| 9 | A Thomson | Black | 0 | W Bridger | White | 1 |
| 10 | PT Balshaw | White | 1 | HE Dobell | Black | 0 |
| 11 | GR Sloper | Black | 1 | Revd RJ Wright | White | 0 |
| 12 | PJ Dancer | White | 0 | Revd EA Adams | Black | 1 |
| 13 | P Larminie | Black | 0 | JP Morris | White | 1 |
| Total | 6 | Total | 7 |
Hampshire v Surrey – 24 Apr 1893 – Basingstoke
The following month the opposition was Surrey who last season Hampshire had beaten 12 – 9 in their second match. This time Hampshire again came out on top, but this time with a 9½ – 7½ win. Hampshire winners were Blake, Seymour, Elwell, Kenny, Asher, Bowyer, Wheatstone and Gager.
We pick up the pre match position from the Croydon Observer which states that Surrey were fielding a strong team.
We now move forward to the following weeks’ newspaper which has the match result. I think Surrey were very sporting as the match was meant to be played over 20 boards, but Hampshire only had 17 players turn up and Surrey agreed to play the match over these 17 rather than the 19 they had. Their 20th player missed the train due to a railway accident.
SURREY v. HAMPSHIRE. Again Hampshire has shown that it possesses considerable talent and can put a capital team in the field, for it defeated Surrey with a balance of probably two games in its favour. The match was at Basingstoke on Saturday, 22nd inst., but only, but only 19 Surrey men travelled by the 2.25 p.m. from Waterloo, the 20th most unfortunately missing the train owing to an accident on the South Eastern Railway.
Croydon Observer – Friday 28 April 1893
On arriving at Basingstoke, however, it was found that only 17 of the Hampshire men had turned up, but the Surrey’s secretary waived the right of claiming the two games and made the match one of 17 players aside. When we mention that such tried Surrey player, as Loman, Jacobs., Molllard, Vyse, Sugden, Taylor and Sergeant could not take part it will be recognized that the Surrey representation was far from strong, while one or two well known names were missing from the Hampshire list.
The Masonic Hall at Basingstoke was the scene of the encounter, and very comfortable indeed were the quarters chosen, and the hospitality of the Hampshire men was again displayed in its accustomed form.
Turning to the actual play, at Board 1, Mr Blake, (fresh from his recent victories at Cambridge), had Mr Rees for an opponent. There was no opportunity, however for much display of his well known skill for Mr Rees inadvertently left a simple mate on move only a few moves from the start. The a game was abandoned between Mr Henderson and Mr Budden. and ultimately counted drawn. The score mounted very evenly and the prospects of Surrey were bright for Mr Clarke and Mr Moore had obviously won games. Alas! for such possibilities, for they did not win them.
Mr Clarke moved his king onto a wrong square and barely escaped with a draw, while Mr Moore actually allowed his opponent to mate him. One or two other disasters followed, and ultimately the score was called 9½ against Surrey, with one game for adjudication. This gave Mr Rees and Mr Blake some trouble, one side three pawns against a Knight. Surrey claimed a win with the pawns but Mr Blake was a little dubious and the game will probably be sent to Mr Hoffer. This was given as a Surrey win (board 8) – Archivist.
Hoffer is referring to Leopold Hoffer who was the founder of the Magazine Chess Monthly
A good result for Hampshire as Surrey would go on to beat Sussex 11 – 6 the following month, although this was played in Croydon and they had a far stronger team e.g. Henderson played board 5 against Hampshire and board 9 against Sussex.
| Board | Hampshire | Hants Result | Surrey | Surrey Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | JH Blake | 1 | LP Rees | 0 |
| 2 | E Seymour | 1 | AJ Curnock | 0 |
| 3 | FJH Elwell | 1 | Eklund | 0 |
| 4 | WC Kenny | 1 | Riols | 0 |
| 5 | F Budden | ½ | E Henderson | ½ |
| 6 | A Asher | 1 | Cape | 0 |
| 7 | A Thomson | ½ | B McLeod | ½ |
| 8 | GR Sloper | 0 | Evan Cresswell | 1 |
| 9 | Firmin | 0 | GH Gibbs | 1 |
| 10 | GH Barclay | 0 | HA Jacobs | 1 |
| 11 | R Chipperfield | ½ | Clarke | ½ |
| 12 | W Bowyer | 1 | Thomas | 0 |
| 13 | AW Wheatstone | 1 | TH Moore | 0 |
| 14 | Clarke | 0 | Mathews | 1 |
| 15 | H Seymour | 0 | SB Baxter | 1 |
| 16 | Gager | 1 | Du Fresne | 0 |
| 17 | Edmunds | 0 | Barton | 1 |
| Total | 9½ | Total | 7½ |
Hampshire v Wiltshire – 17 Mar 1893 – Salisbury
The final match of the season was against Wiltshire, which as per the previous year was held in Salisbury, this time it was played over 14 boards and only one game per person, unlike the match in 1892. The final result of the match was a draw, but as per the report in the London Evening Standard, starting the matches at one o’clock rather than three o’clock would have allowed sufficient time for more games to be completed before the 6pm deadline.
In total 7 games had to be adjudicated, 5 were agreed by the captains and 2 had to be submitted to Mr Hoffer. The Hampshire winners were Budden, Thompson, Chipperfield and Talbot.
Top board for Wiltshire was Revd AG Gordon-Ross (later Canon) who was a future President of the British Chess Federation. The previous year Wiltshire’s top board was also a Revd, but that time was Revd CJF Welsh.
Update: Feb 2025: HJ King’s win against FJH Elwell was included in the Salisbury Times.
| Board | Hampshire | Hants Result | Wiltshire | Wiltshire Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | JH Blake | 1 | Revd AG Gordon Ross | 0 |
| 2 | FJH Elwell | 0 | HJ King | 1 |
| 3 | WC Kenny | 0 | CJ Woodrow | 1 |
| 4 | F Budden | 1 | Cook | 0 |
| 5 | A Asher | ½ | Revd RE Coles | ½ |
| 6 | Dr Love | ½ | A Schomberg | ½ |
| 7 | GR Sloper | 0 | Hill | 1 |
| 8 | A Thompson | 1 | Watson | 0 |
| 9 | R Chipperfield | 1 | Sheehy | 0 |
| 10 | GH Barclay | 0 | F Sutton | 1 |
| 11 | W Williams | ½ | Revd A Law | ½ |
| 12 | PEJ Talbot | 1 | Beavan | 0 |
| 13 | Parsons | 0 | CA Plaister | 1 |
| 14 | Kitchen | ½ | Gibbs | ½ |
| Total | 7 | 7 |
Hampshire Player Performance
Three matches were played in 1892/93 compared to the four the previous season. Only six players played in all three matches and from these A Asher, JH Blake, F Budden and FJH Elwell all scored two points. Meanwhile R Chipperfield had a win and a draw from his two games.
The table below shows the player performance.
| Hants Player | Win Percentage | Points Scored | Games Played |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Asher | 66.7% | 2 | 3 |
| JH Blake | 66.7% | 2 | 3 |
| F Budden | 66.7% | 2 | 3 |
| FJH Elwell | 66.7% | 2 | 3 |
| R Chipperfield | 75.0% | 1.5 | 2 |
| PT Balshaw | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| A Thompson | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| PEJ Talbot | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| W Bowyer | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| AW Wheatstone | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| Gager | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| E Seymour | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| EL Raymond | 100.0% | 1 | 1 |
| GR Sloper | 33.3% | 1 | 3 |
| WC Kenny | 33.3% | 1 | 3 |
| Lieut CH Chepmell | 50.0% | 0.5 | 1 |
| Dr Love | 50.0% | 0.5 | 1 |
| W Williams | 50.0% | 0.5 | 1 |
| E Clayton | 50.0% | 0.5 | 1 |
| Kitchen | 50.0% | 0.5 | 1 |
| A Thomson | 25.0% | 0.5 | 2 |
| GH Barclay | 0.0% | 0 | 2 |
| P Larminie | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| Edmunds | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| Firmin | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| Parsons | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| Clarke | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| PJ Dancer | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
| H Seymour | 0.0% | 0 | 1 |
Acknowledgements and Sources
- British Newspaper Archives
- Hampshire Independent
- Hampshire Telegraph
- Tunbridge Wells Journal
- London Evening Standard
- Croydon Observer
- Salisbury Times