In 1894, thousands of Sherlock Holmes' fans were horrified when The Final Problem was published, a book showing their favorite sleuth's last stand against his arch nemesis Professor Moriarty (both Holmes and Moriarty were, purportedly, killed).

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's desire to devote his time to "more serious writing" was understandable (he had been chugging out the chronicles of Sherlock Holmes since 1887), but many fans had developed some strange ideas about the amazing detective: some insisted he was a real person, and most couldn't come to terms with his death.

Small wonder, then, that certain individuals raised their eyebrows and shook their heads knowingly after Pillsbury's victory at the great tournament in Hastings (1895). When the unknown American won the greatest tournament in history, a mystery was created; but it was no mystery to Holmes fans: clearly, the amazing Sherlock only feigned his death, took time off from detective work, and tested his incredible mental powers in the confines of a chess tournament. Yes, in the minds of some, Pillsbury was none other than Sherlock Holmes in drag!

The thought of this odd state of affairs always gives me pleasure whenever I think of it, but I have to admit to never having taken a long look at the games of this legendary tournament. Pickard's edition of the tournament book has changed all that, with a vengeance! This book is more fun to read than, well, a Sherlock Holmes novel!

For a mere $19.95, you get all 230 games annotated (sometimes very deeply) by such chess icons as Lasker, Pillsbury, Steinitz, Tarrasch, Blackburne, Teichmann, Gunsberg, von Bardeleben, Albin, and others. You also get descriptions of all the participants (these bios can be eye-opening. Lasker is said to have "first class business qualities," though he ruined himself time and time again through awful business decisions. Whoever wrote the bio also claims that Lasker is an expert on the openings, though he was always known to be terrible in that phase of the game.), an easy to read crosstable of the event, regulations and rules and...well, let's talk about these for a moment because they can be lots of fun: Rule #1 states: "If a player notices before his fourth move that either the board or pieces have been misplaced, he has the right to demand that the game be recommenced." Can you imagine Lasker sitting down to play Steinitz, both toss out three moves, and suddenly one of them notices that he's been playing without his Queen!

The regulations are just as interesting: under Entrance Fee, we see that all entries must be accompanied by an entrance fee of 5 pounds. We're not talking about an open tournament here, we're discussing an elite round robin event consisting of all the world's finest players. This somehow brings to mind Kasparov walking into the playing hall at Wijk aan Zee and being stopped: "Excuse me, Mr. Kasparov, we can't let you play in this event unless you give us your $40.00 entry fee." Times have certainly changed!

This becomes even more pronounced when we turn to page 249 and look at the prizes that these great players received. Pillsbury got 150 pounds for winning clear first, while Bird (who came in 12th out of 22 players) was only given 5 pounds (he got his entry fee back!). It's details like these that make this book so compelling, because you quickly get a real feel for that period, and for the mood that must have existed during the tournament (love of game and ego were the prime motivators--the promise of a huge paycheck simply didn't exist).

Of course, the thing that really makes this book a treasure is the quality of the games, most of which were incredibly hard fought. The notes add that final bit of sweetness, because here we see comments that range from profound to hilarious. For example, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 (from Pillsbury-Tarrasch), Gunsberg says: "No good results from this early sortie of the Bishop. The attack, or perhaps better speaking, would-be attack, differs from similar play in the French Defense in that White cannot place a pawn on e5. Generally speaking, both the first and the second player in this opening require their Queen's Bishop on the Queenside."

You see, in those days 4.Nf3 (instead of 4.Bg5) 4...Be7 5.e3 was main-stream theory. Okay, we shouldn't laugh at the views of times past, but I very much enjoyed Gunsberg's explanation of why 5.e3 was considered to be necessary. I should add that Pillsbury kept playing 4.Bg5 throughout the event, with excellent results, and other players seemed to take a shine to 4.Bf4, though Gunsberg also attacked that, too.

The notes to almost every game offered me some new revelation, made me smile, actually gave me food for thought, or coated me with a bit of lost history. Take Tinsley's note to 1.f4, after Bird played it in his game against Walbrodt: "This has often been quoted as 'Bird's Opening.' It is Mr. Bird's by adoption only. In early issues of the Chess Player's Chronicle, before Mr. Bird's playing days, there are questions relating to this 1.f4 opening. But a writer in the B.C.M. goes much further back and shows conclusively that this, like a good many other 'novelties,' belongs to the sixteenth century! It in fact appears in one of the Polerio MSS. Of 1590 (British Chess Magazine vol. Xv.p.463, November 1895). Mr. Bird deserves the credit for demonstrating again and again that the opening may be productive of highly interesting games, of which this present example is a case in point."

I could offer up one fascinating example after another, but perhaps you should buy this wonderful book and savor each and every page yourself. This now stands, alongside Zurich 1953, as my favorite tournament book. A tremendous buy at under twenty bucks (photos would enhance it, but the price would also have to be raised accordingly).

YOU CAN FIND THIS BOOK AT