Rudolph Loman

    According to Chessmetrics the 9th century London player Rudolph Loman achieved an estimated high rating of 2570 in 1892 and that ranked him #21 in the world; Emanuel Lasker topped the list at 2787. His opponent in the following game weighed in with a high rating of 2430 in 1902 placing him at #52 in the world; Lasker still topped the list at 2829. 

    A professional organist, Rudolph Loman (1681-1932) was born on Amsterdam where his father was a professor of theology at the University of Amsterdam.

    Lonan learned to play chess at the age of sixteen while he was studying at the Conservatoire of Music on Leipzig. After learning the game he began studying and after three years spent finishing his music studies in Cologne he ha become quite strong and when he returned to Holland he was one of the best players in the country and regularly competed in tournaments. 

    Loman arrived in London in 1883, and obtained, among other position, was an organist at the Dutch church in Austin Friars. He was also a professor of the piano at several music academies and he gave piano recitals that were popular. 

    Between the years of 1881 and 1892 he played in many Dutch national and London tournaments usually doing well and finishing among the prize winners. Although living in London until 1914, in 1912 he won the Dutch championship and finished second behind Max Euwe on two occasions. 

    His opponent in the following game was another prominent London player of the day, Thomas Physick (1852-1904), a sculptor and musician who was also a dangerous opponent. For example, in the Minor event at the 1899 London International (won by Lasker), Physick was undefeated and tied for second with Marco a half point behind Marshall. 

ChessBase

Rudolf Loman–Thomas Physick1–0C30LondonLondon ENG09.04.1900Stockfish 17

King's Gambit Declined 1.e4 e5 2.f4 c5 3.f3 d6 4.c3 c6 5.c4 f6 6.d3 e6 7.b5 g4 While full of fury this doesn't accomplish much because the attack on f2 is banal. Either 7...a6 or 7...Bd2 would have been more judicious. 8.e2 0-0 8...f2+ 9.f1 b6 9...0-0 10.xc6 wins a piece. 10.h3 beats back the N because he cannot play f2 11.h2 exf4 12.d5 winning the N. 8...f2 does not worl out well after 9.f1 g4 9...0-0 10.xc6 bxc6 11.f5 d7 12.xf2 xf2+ 13.xf2 and white's two Ns should be better than the R. In Shootouts white scored 5-0. 10.h3 f6 11.fxe5 dxe5 12.xe5 White is cearly better. 9.xc6 bxc6 10.h3 f2 This was not good earlier and it's not good now. Retreating to f6 was much better. 11.f1 xh3 A hollow attack, but there was nothing better. 12.gxh3 xh3 13.f5 d5 14.h2 f4 15.h1 White's attack is irrepressible. h6 16.xe5 dxe4 17.xf4 exd3 18.0-0-0 d6 White now has a clever finish. 19.xh6 White mates in 6 gxh6 20.dg1+ g5 21.xg5 xe5 22.f6+N h7 23.g7+ h8 24.xh6# A nearly flawless game by Loman! 1–0

Download PGN