1927 Scarborough Premier, 4-11 June, Pavilion Hotel, Scarborough

1927 Scarborough Premier		Residence	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Total
1	Edgar Colle	Belgium	&;	0	½	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	6½
2	William Albert Fairhurst	Manchester	1	&;	0	0	1	1	1	1	½	0	5½
3	Fred Dewhirst Yates	London	½	1	&;	½	0	½	1	½	½	1	5½
4	Sir George Thomas	London	0	1	½	&;	1	1	½	0	0	1	5
5	Victor Leonard Wahltuch	Manchester	0	0	1	0	&;	½	½	1	1	1	5
6	Victor Buerger	London	0	0	½	0	½	&;	1	1	1	1	5
7	Efim Bogoljubow	Frankfurt	1	0	0	½	½	0	&;	½	1	1	4½
8	Henry Stephens Barlow	Cheam	0	0	½	1	0	0	½	&;	1	1	4
9	Harold Saunders	London	0	½	½	1	0	0	0	0	&;	1	3
10	Philip Norman Wallis	Altrincham	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	&;	1

BCM, July 1927, ppn 281-284

SCARBOROUGH CHESS CONGRESS.

The Third Whitsuntide Chess Festival, organised by Mr. G. M. Reid, was held at the Pavilion Hotel, Scarborough, from June 4th to June 11th. It will be recollected that the previous Premier Tournaments, in 1925 and 1926, were won by Max Romih and A. Alekhine respectively.

The chief interest lay naturally enough in the Premier tournament, in which the “ star ” performer was E. D. Bogoljuboff, victor of Moscow, Berlin and numerous other tournaments. Edgar Colle was the other foreign competitor, and Thomas and Yates, with their Tunbridge Wells laurels fresh upon them, were expected to put up a doughty fight against the two foreign masters.

From the very start it was seen that the favourites were not going to have it all their own way, for numerous surprises were chronicled in the very first round. First, Bogoljuboff, with a winning position against Barlow, quite underrated his opponent’s ingenuity, and Barlow, after missing some chances of winning, adjourned the end-game considerably in his favour. Then Thomas blundered away a piece against Saunders, owing to his old trouble with the clock.

Wahltuch defeated Yates by a pretty combination. In the subjoined position White played the surprise move 35 B—R 5 ! The continuation ran 35..., Q—Q 3 (if 35..., P X B ; 36 Q—Q 8 ch, etc.); 36 BXP! R—K Kt 2 ; 37 B X P ch, K—B 2; 38 O— R 5 ch, K—K 2; 39 Q—R 6, R—B 2; 40 B—Kt 8, R—B 1; 41 Q—Kt 7 ch, K—Q 1; 42 B X P and wins.

After securing far the better opening Buerger played an indifferent move; Colle pounced upon this and won in 22 moves.

The second round on Saturday evening brought further surprises. Bogoljuboff playing against the French, made one inferior move and was given no chance to retrieve his position; Buerger handling the end-game with relentless accuracy and quite outplaying his famous adversary. Yates had a won game but overlooked a pretty swindle by Barlow. The remaining games ran the even tenor of their way, without creating any surprises.

We have no space for a detailed account of the subsequent play, but it may be mentioned that Colle forged ahead with a succession of victories, despite an unexpected defeat in the fourth round at the hands of Fairhurst, who notched his first success. In the subjoined position Black continued: 18..., QR—K 1; 19 B—Q 2, B—Kt 5; 20 Q X B, Q X B; 21 P—K R 3, QXQKtP;' 22 Q R—Kt 1, Q—K B 7; 23 R X P, P—K R 4; 24 Q—Kt 5, P—R 5; 25 Q R —Kt 1, P—B 5 ; 26 R—Q 8, P—B 6; 27 R—Kt 1, R—K8; 28 RXRch, R X R; 29 P—B 5, R—K 8; 30 Q—Q 8 ch, K—Kt 2; 31 P—B 6 ch, K—R 2; 32 R X R, Q X R ch; 33 K—R 2, P—B 7; Resigns. With Colle’s chief rivals engaged in the agreeable task of cutting each other’s throats, he seemed morally certain of first prize some time before the end.

Owing to Yates and Bogoljuboff having to leave early for Homburg, they played their ninth round games, against Colle and Thomas respectively, in advance on Sunday, June 12th. Both games resulted in draws.

After ad adjourned games from the sixth round had been played off, the scores stood as follows : Colle (out of 7), Yates 4 (7), Fairhurst 3½ (6), Bogoljuboff and Thomas 3½ (7). Bogoljuboff had just suffered a crushing defeat in 24 moves at the hands of Yates, who transposed his game as Black into a Sicilian. Bogoljuboff made certain of disaster by leaving himself 17 moves to make in 5 minutes, and a blunder sealed his fate. Barlow had also repeated his success over Thomas in the City of London Chess Club knockout tournament of March-April, 1927, by getting the better of him in a Rook ending played in the fourth round.

In the seventh round the leaders and potential prize-winners were matched together by the luck of the draw. Bogoljuboff played Colle, who lost a difficult Bishops-of-opposite-colour ending. Before the game started Colle had predicted his own defeat, and he proved a true prophet!

Thomas defeated Buerger in a game the latter ought to have won. In the diagrammed position Buerger could have won outright by 34..., Q— K4, but being short of time played 34..., P—B5; 35 Q—R7! Q—K4?; 36 Q X R ch! Q X Q; 37 P—Q 6 ch, R—K 3; 38 R—Q 1 ! B— R 2 ch; 39 K—R 1 and wins.

Another important game was that between Yates and Fairhurst, a Lopez. In a critical position where both players were threatening mate on the move, Yates saw further than his opponent and gained an important success. Wahltuch by accounting for Wallis in 53 moves, kept well in the foreground. At the end of this round the scores were : Colle 5½ (1), Yates 5 (1), Thomas and Bogoljuboff 4½ (1), Barlow 4 (2), Wahltuch 4 (2), Fairhurst 3½ (2), and Buerger 3 (2), the figures in brackets indicating the number of games still to be played.

In the eighth round there were further surprises: Fairhurst, showing to far better advantage than Bogoljuboff, scored a fine win, which brought him well into the limelight as a candidate for the second prize. Barlow, after having a drawn ending against Colle, weakened and Colle by winnning made sure of first prize. Saunders was unlucky not to win against Wahltuch. The important game between Yates and Thomas, a French with 3..., B—Kt 5, ran to 91 moves before a draw was agreed, Thomas drawing an ending with lone Knight against Knight and doubled Pawns.

In the ninth round Colle and Thomas had no games, having played in advance. The scores were : Colle 6½, Yates 5½, Thomas 5, and Bogoljuboff 4½ all finished. Then came Fairhurst (4-J) with Wahltuch (5) to play, and Barlow (4) with Buerger (4) to play.

Fairhurst made light of Wahltuch, whose attempts to evolve an attack ended merely in his own discomfiture. Barlow played a good game against Buerger’s Cambridge Springs Defence and won a piece. From here on Buerger displayed great ingenuity, and aided by some weak moves on Barlow’s part came out with a difficult ending, the Exchange up for a Pawn. He handled this in exemplary style, and by winning shared fourth prize with Thomas and Wahltuch.

In reviewing the results we must concede that Colle fully deserved his first prize—incidentally his first “ first ” on British soil, for he played the soundest chess. The popular Belgian champion, who is now permanently resident in Paris, has had a remarkable series of successes in tournaments since Weston, 1926, for only once has he failed to carry off a high prize.

Yates had the distinction of going through the tournament with less defeats (and more draws!) than any other competitor. As usual he accounted for the strongest player, Bogoljuboff, and in tournaments since December, 1926, he can look back upon victories against the strongest foreign masters, such as Grünfeld, Réti (twice), Tartakover and Bogoljuboff. His constant practice in big tournaments seems to be doing him good, although he does not seem to have found a satisfactory defence to the Queen’s!

Fairhurst was certainly the surprise of the tournament, and the young Manchester and Cheshire champion should have a great future before him, if he can spare the time to devote himself to the game. Not at all discouraged by a bad start (½ out of 3) he scored 5 points out of his last six games! His style is eminently sound and he eschews a combinative play whenever possible. His “ bag ” included Bogoljuboff and Colle.

Buerger and Thomas rather disappointed and did not live up to their Tunbridge Wells form. Buerger in particular missed clear wins against Yates (who was the Exchange and a Pawn down) and Thomas; Thomas would have scored more points had he been able to manage his clock better.

Wahltuch showed a return to his old form, and might easily have taken a higher prize. His success gave great pleasure to the North of England chess public.

Bogoljuboff’s lack of success was extremely surprising for a player who is rated the fourth best in the world. He could only come seventh out of 10, with an even score of 50 per cent. He made no excuses for his poor showing, complimenting England on the calibre of their players and remarking that they played much better than the competitors in the recent (May) Berlin tournament.

Of the other players Barlow played some stubborn games and was unlucky not to take a prize. Saunders was out of form and Wallis only needs greater experience.

---

We have no space this month for detailed tables of the other tournaments. The Major Tournament was divided into two sections.

[Major] Section 1 results in a quadruple tie for first by 1-4 C. Y. C. Dawbarn, W. J. Fry, H. A. Hunnam and P. Wenman, with 6 out of 9. The remaining scores were : 5 F. Schofield 5, 6 H. Bardsley 4, 7-8 Mrs. [Edith Martha] Holloway and V. Kahn (of Paris) 3½, 9 A. W. D. Tulip 3, 10 C. R. Mitchell 2.

In [Major] Section 2 the Paris player, O. Ratner, won with 8 out of 9. The remaining prizes were divided between 2-4 H. Bertrand, A. Eva and Dr. J. Schumer 5½. Then followed 5 P. A. Ursell 5, 6 H. Loeffler 4½, 7 B. Barton-Eckett 3½, 8 G. Bancroft 3, 9 F. Moore 2½, 10 Mrs. [Amabel Nevill Gwyn] Sollas 2.

The prize-winners in the Minor Tournament were: E. F. Fardon, J. R. Deacon, J. T. Steele, H. Way, Hon. A. J. Lowther and E. A. Jones.

---

The Times, 6 June 1927, reported that there had been a mix-up as regards the provision of chess equipment (with the organisers holding the railway company, LNER, responsible), with the result that only the Premier went ahead on 4 June as scheduled; round 1 in all the other events had to be postponed until the third day of the congress, 6 June, with the round 2 games being the first to be played on schedule.

1927 Scarborough Major A

1927 Scarborough Major A		Residence	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Total
1	Climenson Yelverton Charles Dawbarn	Liverpool	&;	0	1	1	½	½	½	½	1	1	6
2	William James Fry	Southampton	1	&;	1	½	0	1	1	½	0	1	6
3	Harold Alexander Hunnam	Sunderland	0	0	&;	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	6
4	(Francis) Percival Wenman	Northallerton	0	½	0	&;	1	1	1	½	1	1	6
5	Frank Schofield	Leeds	½	1	0	0	&;	½	1	½	1	½	5
6	(Albert) Henry Bardsley	Manchester	½	0	1	0	½	&;	0	1	0	1	4
7	Mrs Edith Martha Holloway	Bromley	½	0	0	0	0	1	&;	0	1	1	3½
8	Victor Kahn	Paris	½	½	0	½	½	0	1	&;	0	½	3½
9	Alfred William Peniston Tulip1	Durham	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	&;	0	3
10	Charles Ryshworth Mitchell	Lancaster	0	0	0	0	½	0	0	½	1	&;	2

¹ Name given as A. W. D. Tulip in BCM but in all probability this is Alfred William Peniston Tulip (1899-1966) who lived all his life in Durham. However, chess researchers beware, as he had a chessplaying brother Albert Walter William Tulip (1904-1976) who also started life in Durham but migrated south to Hastings. I am grateful to Richard James for informing me that they were brothers. Their father was Alfred William George Tulip (1865-1916) and I suppose we have to brace ourselves for the possibility that he too was a chess player, although not as late as 1927.

1927 Scarborough Major B

1927 Scarborough Major B		Residence	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Total
1	O [Jaques] Ratner	Paris	&;	1	1	1	½	1	½	1	1	1	8
2	Henri Bertrand	Paris	0	&;	0	0	1	1	½	1	1	1	5½
3	Arthur/Alfred* Eva		0	1	&;	1	0	½	½	1	½	1	5½
4	Dr Jacob Schumer	London	0	1	0	&;	1	0	1	½	1	1	5½
5	Philip Ashby Ursell	Birmingham	½	0	1	0	&;	½	1	1	1	0	5
6	H Loeffler		0	0	½	1	½	&;	½	1	0	1	4½
7	Bernard John Barton-Eckett	Durham	½	½	½	0	0	½	&;	½	½	½	3½
8	G Bancroft	Manchester	0	0	0	½	0	0	½	&;	1	1	3
9	F Moore		0	0	½	0	0	1	½	0	&;	½	2½
10	Mrs Amabel Nevill Gwyn Sollas	Oxford	0	0	0	0	1	0	½	0	½	&;	2

* not known which of the two brothers this was

---

Minor A: (1) J T Steele 5; (2) Capt. the Hon Arthur James Beresford Lowther 4½; (3-4) C H Cave, C W Marshall (Greenock) 4; (5) Herbert William Tidball 3½; (6-7) Mrs M Healey, John Baines Lewis 3; (8) W H Eyles 1.

Minor B: (1) J R Deacon 6; (2) H Way 5½; (3) John Keeble 5; (4) Geoffrey Kendall Nuttall 4½; (5) Edward Victor Strugnell 3½; (6) A Newton 2½; (7) Miss Margaret Keith-Dowding 1; (8) George H Stancey 0.

Minor C: (1) Ernest Fowler Fardon 6½; (2) E A Jones 5; (3) W Barker 4½; (4-5) J T Fairbanks, H Ward 3½; (6) Alfred Lindsay Densham 3; (7) J E Bond 2; (8) P M Klocker 0.

---

Other Sources for the 1927 Scarborough Festival

Yorkshire Chess History Website

---

File Updated

Date	Notes
15 July 2022	First upload. 32 of the 45 Premier games plus 2 from other sections, crosstables and BCM report.