Categories

Billiard Monthly May 1913

The Billiard Monthly : May, 1913

The Professional Tournament

COMPLETE TABLE OF RESULTS

W L Agg Ave Points
Inman 5 1 50,695 35.38 65
Smith 4 2 51,033 29.52 69
Reece 4 2 53,373 39.47 66
Newman 3 3 51,556 30.71 64
Aiken 3 3 49,463 36.79 55
Peall 2 4 47,801 22.77 58
Diggle 0 6 42,893 31.89 32
Reece, it will be noted, claims the best aggregate, and also
the best average.

Inman takes first prize of £100.

Smith takes the second prize of £25.

Merit Breaks Compiled

Each counting 3 points towards second prize of £25.

Inman—v. Aiken, 570, 471 (unfinished); Peall, 453, 469;
Diggle, 787; Newman, 894.

Smith—v. Reece, 365; Diggle, 431; Newman, 323; Aiken,
325, 348.

Reece—v. Newman, 751, 489; Aiken, 497; Diggle, 527;
Inman, 589.

Newman—v. Aiken, 380; Reece, 374, 309; Smith, 341;
Diggle, 321, 375; Inman, 351.

Aiken—v. Diggle, 389; Inman, 420, 531; Smith, 362.

Peall—v. Diggle, 229; Newman, 299, 258, 226, 203; Smith,
246; Inman, 250; Aiken, 203.

Diggle—v. Smith, 412; Reece, 541.

Three-Figure Breaks

100+ 200+ 300+ 400+ 500+ Total
T. Reece 115 34 11 2 3 165
M. Inman 95 31 9 6 3 144
T. Aiken 106 26 7 1 1 141
T. Newman 101 19 7 0 0 127
W. Smith 91 15 4 1 0 111
E. Diggle 81 18 3 1 1 104
A. F. Peall 54 8 0 0 0 62

Breaks of 500 and Over

Reece: 751, 589, 527.

Inman: 894, 787, 570.

Aiken: 531.

Diggle: 541.

SUMMARY OF THE GAMES

Inman

Beat Smith by 1,536, Aiken by 1,722, Diggle by 2,325, Newman
by 529, Peall by 909.

Lost to Reece by 3,305.

Aggregate winning margin, 3,717.

Smith

Beat Reece by 102, Diggle by 2,953, Peall by 2,587, Aiken
by 441.

Lost to Inman by 1,536, Newman by 1,431.

Aggregate winning margin, 3,116.

Reece

Beat Peall by 458, Aiken by 2,374, Diggle by 827, Inman
by 3,305.

Lost to Smith by 102, Newman by 525.

Aggregate winning margin, 6,337.

Newman

Beat Reece by 525, Smith by 1,431, Diggle by 3,221.

Lost to Peall by 1,248, Aiken by 667, Inman by 529.

Aggregate winning margin, 2,733.

Aiken

Beat Diggle by 2,477, Newman by 667, Peall by 2,245.

Lost to Inman by 1,722, Reece by 2,374, Smith by 441.

Aggregate winning margin, 852.

Peall

Beat Diggle by 304, Newman by 1,248.

Lost to Reece by 458, Smith by 2,587, Aiken by 2,245, Inman
by 909.

Aggregate losing margin, 4,647.

Diggle

Lost to Peall by 304, Aiken by 2,477, Smith by 2,953, Inman
by 2,325, Reece by 827, Newman by 3,221.

Aggregate losing margin, 12,107.

Sporting Life
The Billiard Monthly : May, 1913

The Professional Tournament

COMPLETE TABLE OF RESULTS

W L Agg Ave Points
Inman 5 1 50,695 35.38 65
Smith 4 2 51,033 29.52 69
Reece 4 2 53,373 39.47 66
Newman 3 3 51,556 30.71 64
Aiken 3 3 49,463 36.79 55
Peall 2 4 47,801 22.77 58
Diggle 0 6 42,893 31.89 32
Reece, it will be noted, claims the best aggregate, and also
the best average.

Inman takes first prize of £100.

Smith takes the second prize of £25.

Merit Breaks Compiled

Each counting 3 points towards second prize of £25.

Inman—v. Aiken, 570, 471 (unfinished); Peall, 453, 469;
Diggle, 787; Newman, 894.

Smith—v. Reece, 365; Diggle, 431; Newman, 323; Aiken,
325, 348.

Reece—v. Newman, 751, 489; Aiken, 497; Diggle, 527;
Inman, 589.

Newman—v. Aiken, 380; Reece, 374, 309; Smith, 341;
Diggle, 321, 375; Inman, 351.

Aiken—v. Diggle, 389; Inman, 420, 531; Smith, 362.

Peall—v. Diggle, 229; Newman, 299, 258, 226, 203; Smith,
246; Inman, 250; Aiken, 203.

Diggle—v. Smith, 412; Reece, 541.

Three-Figure Breaks

100+ 200+ 300+ 400+ 500+ Total
T. Reece 115 34 11 2 3 165
M. Inman 95 31 9 6 3 144
T. Aiken 106 26 7 1 1 141
T. Newman 101 19 7 0 0 127
W. Smith 91 15 4 1 0 111
E. Diggle 81 18 3 1 1 104
A. F. Peall 54 8 0 0 0 62

Breaks of 500 and Over

Reece: 751, 589, 527.

Inman: 894, 787, 570.

Aiken: 531.

Diggle: 541.

SUMMARY OF THE GAMES

Inman

Beat Smith by 1,536, Aiken by 1,722, Diggle by 2,325, Newman
by 529, Peall by 909.

Lost to Reece by 3,305.

Aggregate winning margin, 3,717.

Smith

Beat Reece by 102, Diggle by 2,953, Peall by 2,587, Aiken
by 441.

Lost to Inman by 1,536, Newman by 1,431.

Aggregate winning margin, 3,116.

Reece

Beat Peall by 458, Aiken by 2,374, Diggle by 827, Inman
by 3,305.

Lost to Smith by 102, Newman by 525.

Aggregate winning margin, 6,337.

Newman

Beat Reece by 525, Smith by 1,431, Diggle by 3,221.

Lost to Peall by 1,248, Aiken by 667, Inman by 529.

Aggregate winning margin, 2,733.

Aiken

Beat Diggle by 2,477, Newman by 667, Peall by 2,245.

Lost to Inman by 1,722, Reece by 2,374, Smith by 441.

Aggregate winning margin, 852.

Peall

Beat Diggle by 304, Newman by 1,248.

Lost to Reece by 458, Smith by 2,587, Aiken by 2,245, Inman
by 909.

Aggregate losing margin, 4,647.

Diggle

Lost to Peall by 304, Aiken by 2,477, Smith by 2,953, Inman
by 2,325, Reece by 827, Newman by 3,221.

Aggregate losing margin, 12,107.

Sporting Life
The Billiard Monthly : May, 1913

A Prolific Break-Making Tour

Cecil Harverson toured the provinces from January 7
until March 28, playing at clubs and hotels, and on all sorts
of tables. At the New Club, at Bexhill-on-Sea, he averaged
100, making the required 800 in six visits, with 145, 184,
165, 100, 70, and 108 unfinished! His other breaks included
the following:—

BREAK WHERE MADE
408 Officers’ Mess, Royal Marines, Chatham.
350 Kingston Club, Kingston-on-Thames.
315 Constitutional Club, Kensal Rise.
417 Constitutional Club, Woking.
301 Constitutional Club, Uxbridge.
361 Arts Club, St. John’s Wood.
287 Margate Club, Margate.
209 Bournemouth Club, Bournemouth.
220 Yacht Club, Dover.
218 East Sussex Club, St. Leonards.
359 Southampton Public Hall.
229 Southampton Public Hall.
221 Dover Club, Dover.
259 Carlton Club, Dover.
329unf Bedford Park Club, Chiswick.
221 Constitutional Club, Reigate.
280 Seven Stars Hotel, Brighton.
260 Seven Stars Hotel, Brighton.
248 Chaucer Institute, Bungay.
259 Conservative and Unionist Club, Cromer.
418 Queen’s Hotel, Great Yarmouth.
266 White’s Restaurant, Norwich.

Questions and Answers

Unequal Weight of Balls

236.—”In your April issue, in an article on ‘ The Perfect Ball,’
it says that the balls should be of the same weight to a nicety.
Having experienced some trouble lately in getting a set which
satisfies me, and finding I am unable to get a set of absolute
uniform weight, will you kindly answer the following question
on your Questions and Answers Page:—By what fraction of the
total weight of each ball may a set of billiard balls vary so as
not to seriously affect the play? I find in actual play I can
fairly easily discover a variation of 1-75th of the total weight,
and I should think that even for good amateurs the balls should
not vary by more than 1-150th to 1-200th of their weight. Professionals
probably demand greater accuracy than that.”

In
an important match a featherweight difference would be sufficient
to condemn a set of balls, and we do not think that there should
be any difference at all, even in ordinary sets. We suggest that
you make your own experiment as follows:—Use two white balls,
the spot ball (say) weighing a trifle more than the other. Put
the spot ball on the centre spot and play several times from baulk
with easy strength for a corner pocket. Note whore the spot
ball strikes the top cushion and put the chalk on the rail there.

When you find that you are getting the stroke with precision,
both as to the pocket and the run of the spot ball, change the
balls, continue the practice, and note the result. If there is any
difference in behaviour, the difference in weight however slight,
must be enough to matter.

Biographies of Billiard Professionals

237.—”Please let me know whether there are life stories
obtainable of the great billiard professionals, and, if so, whether
you can tell me where I can obtain a biography of Mr. Tom
Reece.”

Many short biographies have appeared in billiard
annuals and other books and publications. If you mean something
in the nature of a detailed life history, we think that
there are very few of these, although they would be quite interesting.

The Billiard Pointer

238.—”In your April issue I notice that an enquirer has
written you re the ‘Billiard Pointer.’ This interests me. Can
you tell me where such an instrument is to be obtained, and the
price?”

The price is 15s. and it is obtainable from Messrs.
Aston & Mander, Ltd., 61, Old Compton Street, Soho, W. The
price of the book is 3s. 6d. The publishers are Odhams, Ltd.,
93 & 94, Long Acre, W.C.

County Professional Championships

239.—”Our head marker, believing himself to be the best
player in Norfolk, is anxious to style himself ‘ Champion of
Norfolk.’ He is, of course, willing to meet anyone who has a
similar aspiration. Can you tell me whose permission will have
to be obtained before a match or matches can be played for the
purpose mentioned? Any information you can give me I shall
greatly appreciate.”

We have communicated with the Billiards
Control Club, and have been courteously favoured with the following
reply from the secretary (Mr. G. H. Nelson):—”With
reference to your letter of the 14th inst. re the Norfolk correspondent
(a head marker) who is anxious to play for the Professional
Championship of Norfolk, the best he could do would be for him
to issue his challenge through the sporting papers, and if the
match is played under B.C.C. rules with ivory balls we should
recognise the winner as champion of the county. Of course, we
should have to be notified of the match.”

Striking Two Balls in Snooker

240.—”During a game of snooker the striker pockets a red
ball and is snookered for all coloured balls. He declares the
yellow ball. During the transit of the white ball he hits a red
ball first, then the white cannons on to the blue ball. How many
away?”

Two away. The stroke is completed as soon as the
red is struck and the striking of the blue is merely an after
incident.

Side Vagaries When Balls Are Not Quite Spherical

241.—”I do not think, from discussions I have had with some
professionals and other good players, that the following peculiarity
of not perfectly spherical balls is generally known. If I take the
spot ball and place it, say, on the baulk line, with the spot on
top, i.e., pointing to the ceiling, and play with, say, right-hand
side up the table (my cloth is quite new) the ball, instead of
pulling to the right, will swerve as the pace gets slower strongly
to the left. If I play with left side it goes to the right. But if
I place the ball so that the axis of the spots is horizontal the
ball behaves as it should, i.e., with the nap—right side pulls to
the right and left to left. The cause is that the ball is bigger
in diameter if measured from one spot to the other than if
measured through an axis at right angles to the axis of the
spots.”

This is a very interesting point and we should be glad
to hear further from you on the subject. On first consideration
it would seem that the slightly elliptical form presents to the
cue tip a distorted striking surface, with the result that from
the moment of the stroke the ball direction is varied even to the
extent of overcoming and conquering the contrary pull of the
cloth. There may, however, be a deeper scientific cause.

Limit of Screw-Backs

242.—”What is the limit for a screw-back stroke—I do not
mean the limit of possibility, but the limit of prudence and advisability?”

It is entirely a question of individual cue power and
control and personal judgment. To screw straight back at a
yard distance may be worse play than to leave the stroke alone
and try something else. Usually, when nothing is left (except
to the opponent) as the result of a difficult shot, it would have
been preferable to play for safety, supposing nothing more
promising to be on. The best practice for screw-backs, and
that likely to prove the most remunerative, is with the cue ball
behind the object ball at the top of the table and thereby making
either a cannon back on to the second object ball or a losing
hazard into a corner pocket. The idea in this stroke is to guide
the object ball back to the top of the table scoring area after
striking a side and the bottom cushion or two side cushions and
the bottom cushion. Accurate contact, strength, and direction
here all come in, and, from the results, mental data can be
compiled for all sorts of screw-backs at other parts of the table.


The Scientific Laws of Billiards – I

By REUBEN ROY

In adapting the game to practice, a variety of circumstances
present themselves in the attainment of this object,
such as the delicacy and strength of the stroke required in
each particular case, the precise regulation of the eye of the
striker, and the mode of striking, on each and all of which
points essentially depend the accomplishment of the stroke.

The eye must not be suffered to wander from the striking
ball to the object ball, or vice versa, for it will not only
distract the attention at the time, but encourage a habit
of indecision and uncertainty fatal to the attainment of
good play.

With a knowledge of the scientific laws of the game, the
player, taking a steady but rapid survey of the position of
the balls, is enabled at once to determine the lines of incidence
and reflection, and the point of the balls to be struck
for the accomplishment of the diagram mentally laid down.

It may be said that habit alone can attain a readiness of
action, but habit must be rightly directed and attained in a
correctly scientific course, or it will lead to had habits, and
to disorder and uncertainty. With a ready player, scientifically
educated in the two principles of the game, the
mental decision and the accomplishment of the stroke will
be but one act readily laid down and as steadily carried out.
Nor is the position and action of the body to be slighted.

A graceful elegance at the commencement is not difficult of
acquirement, but it is best founded on that confidence and
collectedness which an educated foundation imparts, and is,
therefore, more commonly the attainment of a good player,
while a bustling importance too often bespeaks the pretender.

It is, therefore, highly desirable to attain the
smallest minutiae at the outset. In giving the stroke, the
body should be just sufficiently bent to allow of the direction
of the eye with ease along the cue; the position of the
right-hand player will be with the left foot in advance,
while a left-hand player will advance the right foot.

Of the different modes of striking the ball, in addition to
the general rule already laid down, invariable as to its
course and the point of concussion, it may, nevertheless, be
noticed that the central stroke is usually adapted to common
hazards or cannons, and in playing at the cushion for an
even recoil of the ball. A stroke below the centre of the
ball causes it to recoil from the object ball with a dull
whirling motion, useful in obtaining cannons from balls at
right angles. (This and all other than a central stroke
requires the tip of the cue to be chalked to prevent its
slipping).

The stroke above the centre may be employed when the
balls are lying parallel with each other, and will drive them
in the same course or into the same pocket. A ball so
struck only gives a portion of its strength to the object ball,
and continues its course with a velocity proportionate to
its original impetus. An oblique stroke above the centre
gives to the ball a leaping motion, for the cue forces the
ball against the table rather than along it, the object of
which has been already explained.

The player must also become acquainted with the angles
of the table before he can understand the course of the balls
or how to accomplish a cannon. The elasticity or rebound
of the cushions is also equally important to be known; and,
as this will vary in different tables, and become less by the
use and wear they may have had, experiment alone can
with certainty determine each particular case. It is therefore
that players at a strange table most commonly try the
effect of the rebound before they commence a game.

The best groundwork for playing well is acquired at the
winning hazards, which, being commenced with, the losing
hazards will appear comparatively easy of acquirement;
but so various and complicated are the minutiae of the
game as found in practice—which, in fact, constitutes one
of its most interesting features—that a well-grounded knowledge
of the scientific laws of angular motion, carried out
by an expertness which practice alone can impart, is requisite
to become master of every position that may, and does,
frequently occur.

Next month the laws of percussion in billiards will be
dealt with.

Stevenson on His Early Career

(From an Article in The Huddersfield Examiner.)

It was not until I was over fourteen that I touched a
cue. My interest in the game first started through my
father having a large billiard room in London, where I
occasionally used to knock the balls about when I could
get the place to myself.

From the outset the game had a fascination for me, and
I soon acquired so much skill that my father gave up the
idea of putting me into business, and set to work to cultivate
my billiard playing. I took a post as a billiard marker
in London, and after holding it for a year or two, went out
to South Africa, and became marker at a hotel in Pietermaritzburg.

Here I had a magnificent all-round experience,
for I had to play everyone who came along.

Under these conditions my game soon began to improve
very rapidly, and towards the end of my time I was
frequently handicapped by not being allowed to score any
break under a hundred. As may be imagined, the fact that
my form varied according to whom I was playing with often
led to amusing incidents. I remember one day, while I was
practising alone in the billiard room, an elderly man came
in, and seeing that I was quite a boy, said he would give
me thirty in a hundred if I would have a game with him.

He was quite a casual customer whom I had never seen
before, and whom I never expected to see again, so, hoping
to please him, I played a very poor game, and allowed
myself to be beaten by about half-a-dozen points. We played
several other games after that, only one of which was
credited to me, and the result was that he went away
highly pleased with himself, while I was the richer for a
generous tip.

Now it happened that that evening I was playing a match
for money with one of the best amateurs in the district, to
whom I was conceding a long start. My friend of the afternoon
came in towards the finish of this match, and just as
my opponent was in the middle of a very nice forty break,
which took him to within fifty of game, while I was a hundred
behind him. Noting my opponent’s fine break and my
own apparently hopeless position, the newcomer, on being
told that we were playing for money, did not hesitate to
express him opinion that the match was a most unfair one,
since I was obviously outclassed. How he opened his eyes
you may imagine when I ran to my points with a break of
150 unfinished. I saw a good deal of him after that, but I
don’t think he ever quite forgave me for having taken him
in so on that first afternoon.

There was a good deal of gambling at Pietermaritzburg.
It was no unusual thing for me to have to mark games of
snooker at five or ten shillings a ball, and I used often myself
to join in at sixpence a point. Probably my most
exciting experience during all the time that I was out there
was upon an occasion when a rich customer, who was himself
a very fine hazard striker, and who had beaten me for
two or three games running, at sixpence a point, offered to
play me a series of games for £1 a ball! As I was an
exceedingly nervous youth, my feelings upon this proposition
may be easily imagined. But I knew that I was better than
he, so I made up my mind that if I was out after the first
game I would stop—though even in that case I should
probably have had to borrow several weeks’ wages from my
employer. Fortunately for me, I not only won the first
game, but most of the games we played, and by the end of
the evening I had cleared nearly a hundred pounds.

Stevenson has rarely played more sparkling billiards than
when engaged in overtaking Peall in the handicap on
April 24. During the two sessions he scored 1,300 to
Peall’s 710, Stevenson’s breaks including nine of three
figures, including a 300 and two 200′s.

Things that Matter in Billiards

XXVIII. LIMITING CONSECUTIVE SIMILAR STROKES AT BILLIARDS

Following the recent recommendation made by the Professional
Advisory Committee to the Billiards Control Club
that consecutive losing hazards off the same ball should be
restricted to 25, we desire once more to inquire—as we did
so long ago as July, 1911—whether some one simple and
comprehensive rule might not be evolved which, whilst
eliminating all possibility of monotony from billiards, would
still leave scope for specialization to a reasonable extent
As the game stands, there is a close limit to red potting
strokes and a less restricted limit to ball-to-ball cannons.

There is no limit to losing hazards or to mixed pots and
cannons, otherwise known as top-of-the-table play. The
monotony of the spot stroke led to the invention of the
winner-cannon movement, to which great players such as
Roberts, Mitchell, Dawson, and Stevenson, turned as a
natural development of spot stroke specialization. Good
spot stroke capacity is, indeed, essential to any player who
desires to excel at top-of-the-table play, and it may be suggested
with some confidence that if Peall had not, in his
day, carried the spot stroke to the point of monotony, just
as Gray has since carried the losing hazard stroke, the top-of-the-table game, with all its consummate beauty and endless
variety, would never have been heard of.

In suggesting this, however, we are very far from attributing
the modern top-of-the-table game to the barring of
the spot stroke. The stroke was not, indeed, barred until
after it had ceased to attract or until the winner-cannon
alternative, as perfected by John Roberts, was in free and
fruitful use. It has been ever so, until the formation of
the Billiards Control Club, in the history of billiards. When
no professional could be found willing, to publicly specialize
on a close potting or a close cannon stroke, and when the
public could not be drawn, even with ropes, to witness such
a display, officialdom has stepped forward, and, with much
fuss and circumstance, enacted superfluous restrictive laws.

What is needed in billiards control is uniformity and consistency,
and the two alternative suggestions that we now
desire to make have this prime desideratum in view.

Our first suggestion is that no limit or restriction whatsoever
(except, perhaps, in championship matches, or where
otherwise officially directed or mutually arranged) be placed
upon any properly-executed stroke at billiards. In advocating
this radical step we would point out that the likelihood
of professionals carrying any one stroke to the point of
monotony is as remote as the likelihood of amateurs being
able to do so. Long before George Gray was heard of in
the billiard world, Inman had made long runs off the red,
but it was during those years when he was fighting for
recognition as a scorer, and when, acting under good advice,
he was adhering to the open game as a safer points-collecting
medium than close tactics. He now plays the close and
open game almost equally well, and it is as inconceivable
that he would indulge in public in long bouts of the still
legal red losers as that he, or any other professional, would
specialize on the spot stroke if it were revived.

There is an alternative suggestion, and it is the simple
and comprehensive one, that not more than twenty-five consecutive
ball-to-ball cannons or winning or losing hazards
off the same ball should be made. The present rule as to
ball-to-ball cannons is that an indirect cannot must intervene
to permit of the renewal of the sequence. Similarly in
the case of winning hazards either a cannon or a losing
hazard would suffice, and in the case of losing hazards a
cannon, winning hazard, or losing hazard off another ball.

By this means, instead of the practice of essential billiard
strokes being discouraged by too close restrictions, a direct
incentive to their reasonable cultivation would be provided,
whilst, at the same time, all likelihood of monotony would
be eliminated from the game. Indeed, attractive features
would be added to it, just as already exist in connection
with close cannon and top-of-the-table play. To the
informed billiard spectator nothing is more fraught with
interest and mild excitement than noting how a professional,
at the close of a run of twenty-five direct cannons, invokes
the aid of a cushion or guides the red to potting position,
or, after two successive pots from spot into a top pocket,
wheels the cue ball round to take up position for another
pot or in-off at the centre of the table.

That the leading professionals are in earnest in their
advocacy of a limitation of the losing hazard sequences is
evident and understandable. They have spent years in
acquiring all-round billiard excellence rather than perfection
at a single stroke, and they do not deem it reasonable that
their championship chances should be mortgaged by championship
encounters with stroke specialists. There is much
to be said for this contention, although we are not perfectly
sure that there is a stroke specialist living who would be
quite sure to win the championship from the best all-round
exponent. Stevenson at his best would be not unlikely, in
our judgment, to beat either Peall, with the spot stroke
thrown in, Gray with unlimited losing hazards, or Reece
with unlimited close cannons, not even excluding the anchor
stroke. But even if this were not so it would be quite practicable,
as we have already suggested, to make special stipulations
for the championship game without any alteration of
the present rules.

Nystagmus

An application under the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
1906, was made at Newcastle, on April 16, by Peter Murphy,
who had been certified in September, 1911, to be suffering
from miners’ nystagmus. The respondents were the Priestman
Collieries, Ltd., whose solicitor advanced the point that
the plaintiff could still make a 100 break at billiards. His
honour, however, made an award for £8 to be paid up to
date, and 5s. a week compensation in the future.

 

The Portable Billiard Room

portableBilliardRooms 

Professional Results of the Month

Smith (rec. 2,800), 18,000, v. Diggle, 13,394.

Inman, 9,000, v. Pindar (rec. 3,000), 8,220.

*Reece (rec. 1,000), 9,000, v. Inman, 5,695.

Stevenson, 9,000, v. A. F. Peall (rec. 3,750), 8,696.

Harris, 14,000, v. Falkiner, 13,294.

Newman (rec. 2,000), 16,000, v. Harverson, 13,173.

* Professional Tournament.

Lessons from W. Cook

W. Cook, the well-known professional, has joined the
tuition staff of Messrs. Burroughes & Watts, Ltd., and
lessons are available from him at Pyke House, 19-23, Oxford
Street, W., or from A. Williamson, the well-known referee
and professional, at 19, Soho Square. By the way, Cook
put up an excellent game against Inman in an exhibition
match at Sidcup on April 2, winning by 156 points in a game
of 800 up, in which he received 200. His breaks included
126, 108, 92, and 86.