Black on the l0th move by B to Q5, for the Kt has no retreat, a mate being threatened at KB3.  The ending of a game between Messrs. Bird and MacDonnell affords a still more remarkable illustration.  There is abundant proof that the author must have examined the position at least more than once, for, by a singular error, the identical ending appears twice in the book—­on pages 183 and 197,—­each time with a large diagram.  On each occasion a win is demonstrated for White in nine moves, while at least a piece can be gained at once by Q to K7, followed accordingly by P to Q6 dis. ch., or B to KKt5.  Mr. Bird would be annoyed to make such oversights over the board; and there is no excuse for such shallow examples being recommended to the student without the least comment on their weak points.

As regards the general arrangement, we have to remark that the variations sometimes seem to have been examined loosely and separately, irrespective of their relation to each other, or to the main propositions of the author in reference to the form of opening he deals with; and the brevity or length of space assigned to different forms of play have apparently been decided in a whimsical and arbitrary manner.  For instance, on page 29, in the Philidor’s defence, 7.  Kt to KB3, is described to afford the most satisfactory and secure opening for Black.  On the next page the move is repeated under the separate heading, Example ii, and it looks odd enough that one single move should have received such prominence, the only addition being, “Won by Harrwitz in 40 moves,” as if it were to be forced by Black in that number, while at the time the positions show little difference.  But, stranger still, four pages later on (page 34) the identical variation reappears, taken from the same game between Morphy and Harrwitz (though this is not stated), with three more moves on each side added to it, but this time the remark is made, that “White has a good position.”  To take another example.  On page 78 there is a repetition of 10 moves on each side, merely for the purpose of indicating a different 11th move for White.  It is scarcely necessary to point out that in each case the stronger move should have been inserted in the main variation, while the weaker one could have been disposed of in a foot-note of one line.

While on this subject we cannot refrain from mentioning the frequent references to “Chess Masterpieces,” a work previously published by the author, which contained a collection of fine games partly reproduced from Howard Taylor’s “Chess Brilliants,” and other publications, with additions mostly from Mr. Bird’s own practice.  We must confess that some of the so-called variations extracted from the “Masterpieces,” appear to be nothing more than advertisements.  Notably, on page 157, four “examples” are given, which do not go beyond the 4th move, and leave no mark on the positions, and then we are gravely informed, in a manner already described, that White or Black won in so-and-so many moves.