Nowadays it is standard, when publishing a chess game, to give the names of both players. This was not always the case. In the 19th century it was quite common to reveal the winner’s name while leaving the loser identified solely as ‘anon’ for anonymous. Occasionally this was for the perfectly good reason that the loser’s identity had been mislaid in the age before modern communications, though there could also have been the fear in certain cases that the defeated player, insulted at seeing his name in print attached to some chessboard calamity, might challenge the publisher to a duel.
In contemporary chess the soubriquet ‘anon’ tends to be reserved for victims of simultaneous displays — where a master or grandmaster takes on, in samurai style, multiple opponents at the same time — or for games played on the internet where protagonists frequently adopt noms de guerre to disguise their true identity.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in