Hello Sarah Beth:
Thank you for this very interesting article. I read through the article by Mr. Urcan on Mrs. Worrall. I note particularly its conclusion:
=== begin quoted text ===
Harriet Worrall died of natural causes in New York at ninety-two, on November 23, 1928. Despite coming very close in a moment of desperation to ending her life four days before Christmas 1890, nearly forty years earlier, by the time of her death she had outlived not only her husband, Morphy and Mackenzie, but also Steinitz, Delmar, Pillsbury, and a host of lesser players, all individuals she met over the board on numerous occasions. An unusual yet accomplished presence in a man's world, Harriet Worrall was a pioneer of chess for women in the United States.
=== end quoted text ===
I am happy she lived so long after her attempt to end her own life.
Like many people, suicide has entered my life at different times: one uncle and one friend chose to end their own lives (the motives of each of them remain puzzling to those who loved them: the former was an intellectually gifted man who was crippled by polio early in life but who seemed to have adjusted well; the latter was a devoted and caring physician), and one of my brothers and another friend made an attempt to end their lives. Each of these events, separated by years from one another, caused great sadness and soul-searching.
Since the earliest of these events happened when I was very young, I have tried to learn something of this tragic phenomenon over the years.
If I may share a few thoughts:
1) One of the sad facts about suicide is that while it may have been a very uncharacteristic act in someone's life, since it is their last act, they are often defined by it. But I appeal to anyone who has known someone who has ended their own life: please remember that their life was about a great deal more than its end. The final event in their lives was but one among so many thousands, and in all likelihood, it was when they were at their weakest and most vulnerable. We all experience times of sadness and weakness. I hope we will always take some care to remember the full sweep of someone's life insofar as we have known it and will not allow them to be defined by one tragic event which may have occurred when they were frightened, depressed, or overcome with feelings of hopelessness.
2) Sometimes if you have a friend or acquaintance who is going through a rough time emotionally, just a little kindness and listening can go a long way. Sometimes just letting someone know that they are not alone in their struggles is so important -- that others and perhaps yourself have gone through something like what they are going through. And even if that is not so, just listening in a helpful, encouraging spirit can be a great healing force.
The person whom Sarah Beth has mentioned, Mrs Worrall, lived almost four decades after her suicide attempt. And in the literature on suicide, you will find that this is not uncommon -- that if someone can just be helped through a difficult time, that may be all the help they'll need to get back up on solid ground for a long time.
As the Beatles wisely sang (if I may paraphrase), we all get by with a little help from our friends. There is no shame in reaching out to others if you are depressed or sad. And it is certainly a great honor to be able to help one who is reaching out, or someone who is even too weak or frightened to do that.
Alas, I will never be a Grandmaster of Chess -- but I hope that I may become a Grandmaster of Kindness one day. And if I can (and if you can), our lives will be most successful.
Best wishes to all, and thank you for this interesting piece, Sarah Beth....
BishopBerkeley
) I love the Cassius quote. Well done! And the good Bishop did write some great philosophy(barring gods), and inspired the great satirical line: "No matter, never mind"!
Curiously, of the "trinity" of British Empiricism, my esteemed predecessor is the one I feel least affinity for -- in order of decreasing affinity, I would go with 1) Locke, 2) Hume, 3) Berkeley. But I admire them all, though I disagree with each on key points.
This thread is mainly for those with some historical interests coupled with the desire to research.
I've been looking deeply into certain female personalities involved in the early days of Women's chess in England. This means from around the 1890s onward. In the course of my studies, I came across some interesting as well as some perplexing things.
First the perplexing. Olimpiu Urcan is an award-winning chess historian. He wrote an extemely nice piece on Harriet Worrall - the only American entrant in the 1st Ladies' International in 1897 (she placed 4th) - called, appropriately enough, An Unfortunate Christmas, which frames Mrs. Worrall through the fact of her attempted suicide. As I said, this is a very good article that I encourage everyone to read, but in it I came across an assertion either I don't understand or can't substantiate. He writes: "Harriet Worrall also became involved with the British Ladies' Chess Club, curiously enough founded in New York, in 1894."
Now the British Ladies' Chess Club is sometimes also called the Ladies' Chess Club of London. My question is: Is he saying the original Ladies' Chess Club of London began in New York? Or that a branch of the club was formed there?
As odd as it sounds, there were, in fact, branches of the British Ladies' Chess Club in the US. For example the American chess magazine of 1897 tells us:
WOMEN'S CHESS CLUB. The British Ladies' Chess Club of London has established a branch in Chicago, which will shortly admit to membership those who are proficient in or desire to be students of chess. The London committee are Miss Mathilde Wolff, vice-president and founder of the British Ladies' Chess Club ; Mrs. Rebecca Low, Mrs. Marley-Soniervilleand, Miss E. E. Cole. The Chicago executive committee are Mrs. Arthur Buchanan, Mrs Charles Stevens and Miss Laura Huntington.
Now the Ladies' Chess Club of London was established in London sometime before 1895 with Lady George Newnes as president. The club was formed totally through the initiative of Mrs. Rhoda Bowles. Nowhere is there a mention of New York (that I could find) in any periodical I've looked through.
As I noted, the Ladies' Chess Club of London formed prior to 1895. I haven't been able to trace its precise origins, but the BCM in 1895 had this intriguing article on the Ladies' Club:
The Ladies' Chess Club has made great progress, and in consequence has moved to new head-quarters, 103, Great Russell Street. On the 5th October, they journeyed to Rochester, and played a match with the local club, the final score being Rochester 8, Ladies 4. They have also played Hampstead, losing the match by 6½ to 3½. On the 12th October, they played the Shuttleworth Club, but were again defeated, the score being Shuttleworth 6½, Ladies 1½. On the 19th October, the Ladies were bold enough to try conclusions with the great City of London Club itself, which, however, contented itself by pitting a team of third and fourth class players against the fair invaders, who however played up so well that they were able to draw the match, each side scoring 5. There was a good attendance of spectators, and Mr. Cubison made a very humorous speech in thanking the ladies for their presence. On the 21st October, the new head-quarters of the Ladies' Chess Club was inaugurated by a novelty so far as ladies are concerned, for there was both blindfold and simultaneous performances given by ladies. Miss Field was the blindfold performer, and Lady Thomas gave the exhibition of simultaneous chess. Miss Field had four opponents, and her play was fairly good, but unfortunately time did not allow of any of the games being completed.
Lady Thomas' performance was also a great success. There was a large gathering, presided over by Lady Newnes, and the proceedings commenced with a musical programme. Who after this will deny that this is indeed the age of "the new woman?" With Battersea Park alive with lady cyclists, and Mr. Blackburne's blindfold sceptre threatened by a representative of the gentle sex—or shall we say brain—women are indeed asserting themselves both in physical and mental pastimes.
One more item. Mrs. Rhoda Bowles was the main push behind women's chess in England. In Womanhood, the magazine for which Mrs. Bowles was chess editor (and she did an amazing job), mentions, in 1902:
THE BOROUGH POLYTECHNIC CHESS CLUB
The annual meeting was presided over by Mr. W. A. Wigram, and a satisfactory report was submitted by the energetic joint hon. secs., Miss May and Mr. Moody, showing that the amalgamation had proved a success, and many new members were added to the roll. Mr. H. L. Bowles was reelected president, and the following vice-presidents: Mrs. Bayley, Mrs. Rhoda Bowles, Dr. Lasker, Mr. H. N. Pillsbury, Mr. Wigram, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. Bayley. The prize-winners for last season were : Mr. L. Chubb, first prize (travelling chessboard, presented by the President); Mr. Moody, second prize (travelling chessboard, presented by Mrs. Bowles); Miss May, third prize (Staunton set). The match prize (Staunton men and board, presented by Mr. Wigram), was won by Mr. Thomas. The season has now commenced, with the best prospects in view, the members showing increasing enthusiasm.
Now, the Borough Road Polytechnic Chess Club, as it was known (there was a Borough Road Polytechnic Institute), had male and female sections. I'm unable to find any reference at all tho this club much after this after this time. In the above blurb, H.L. Bowles (Rhoda's husband) is president. Mrs. Bowles is one of the vp's. So is Em. Lasker and HN Pillsbury. Pillsbury seemed to spend a lot of time in England at this time. Ther's a mention of sending Lasker some game scores since he was in Berlin. It would be interesting to find exactly how much these two vp's were involved with this club.
Any insight into this would be highly appreciated.