Edward Winter
Arnold Denker
Concerning the game Denker v Feit, a brilliancy by Denker at the age of 15 which was given in C.N. 89, Neil Brennen (Spring City, PA, USA) writes:
‘The version of the score in Denker’s books begins: 1 d4 f5 2 Nf3 “Being unfamiliar with this opening, I was unaware of the existence of the Staunton Gambit.” 2...e6 3 g3 b6? 4 Bg2 Bb7 5 O-O Nf6 6 c4 Be7 7 Nc3 d6 – If You Must Play Chess, page 3.
But the opening, as it appears in a contemporary newspaper, is different: 1 Nf3 b6 2 g3 Bb7 3 Bg2 “Keeping step with the times. The youngsters are nothing if not modern.” 3...e6 4 O-O f5 “Turning the opening into a Dutch defense with a fianchetto variation.” 5 d4 Nf6 6 c4 Be7 7 Nc3 d6 – Bethlehem Globe-Times, 7 January 1930.
The endings differ as well, with the Globe-Times concluding the game with 22 Rf1+ and Black’s resignation. The Bethlehem newspaper probably took the game from a New York column. The Globe-Times columnist Robert Goerlich was always quoting Hermann Helms in the New York Sun, and the notes read like Helms’. Have you come across any other examples of the Globe-Times version of the score?’
No, and we shall welcome assistance from readers in ironing out the discrepancy in the moves.
(3683)
Max Euwe gave an assessment of Savielly Tartakower on pages 106-107 of the April 1956 Chess Review. He concluded with a reminiscence about Tartakower at the Hastings, 1945-46 tournament:
‘In every phase he performed the most wonderful feats; for example, winning an endgame of two rooks and two pawns apiece even though his opponent, Denker, had the advantage of a dangerous, passed pawn. “Are you playing to win?”, Denker asked. “The position plays for a win”, Tartakower replied in his peculiar, mystic style. He continued the game and won, unendangered.’
We have asked Arnold Denker whether such an exchange occurred as described, and he has replied to us as follows:
‘It is all correct and the good doctor gave me a lesson I will never forget.’
(2605)
In A Catastrophic Encyclopedia we commented regarding Nathan Divinsky’s book:
Denker, a US champion, gets two lines, but, just overleaf, Divinsky awards himself five times as much space.
An extract from Missed Mates:
Annotators and chroniclers often have difficulty deciding to what extent players who miss faster or easier wins should have such lapses pointed out. To illustrate the theme, we present a range of observations in books by Irving Chernev [only one of which is shown here].
Combinations The Heart of Chess (New York, 1960), page 37
Denker won quickly with 34 Qd5 Kf8 35 Rxg7. The artist/butcher remark is reminiscent of an observation by Emanuel Lasker on page 68 of the Chess Player’s Scrap Book, May 1907 in connection with the game Morphy v the Duke and Count.
From Ed Tassinari (Scarsdale, NY, USA), on the subject of unusual chess prizes:
‘Denker’s biographical collection of best games, originally titled If You Must Play Chess, describes the game Denker-Schwartz, N.Y. Young Masters, 1930, in which the winner was to receive a barrel of schmaltz herring in addition to the (unnamed) regular first prize (page 10).’
(2354)
Ed Tassinari writes:
‘Reshevsky and Smyslov first met over the board at Leningrad/Moscow, 1939. Their final serious games took place at the Moscow Veterans’ Tournament in 1991, and a later four-game match at 30/30, in Moscow. Thus 52 years had elapsed between first and last serious play. Is this the longest time for players of IM/GM strength? Reshevsky and Fine apparently first met in tournament play at the championship of the Western Chess Association in Minneapolis in 1932. (Shortly afterwards they also played at Pasadena, 1932. Oddly, that seems to be one of the missing games from the event; it is not given in Gordon’s tome on Reshevsky.) In 1986, they played an exhibition game (at 30/30) during the 1986 US Open Championship in New Jersey. Thus, 54 years, if one contends that the exhibition game is a valid serious encounter.’
Does anybody have the score of the Pasadena game? Fine mentions it in a footnote on page 30 of his book Bobby Fischer’s Conquest of the World’s Chess Championship.
(2429)
From Arnold Denker (Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA):
‘In 1946 at Groningen, Smyslov and I first played to an exciting draw. Fifty years later, again at Groningen and again with me having the black pieces, we drew. Regarding Reshevsky, I first played him at the Western Chess Association Meeting in Chicago in 1934, where I finished fourth after Fine and Reshevsky (equal first) and Dake. Reshevsky had been going to school to become an accountant, which was financed by Rosenwald, the head of Sears and Roebuck. Mr Rosenwald, his benefactor, insisted that he not play during school, so he was a bit out of practice, but I will never forget his marvelous knight maneuvers that helped him draw a most difficult ending with me. Considering that I was in top form after just beating Fine in match play 3-2 and 4 draws, that speaks very well for Sammy. My match with Fine was played for $50 put up by James R. Newman. The first to win three games was to be the victor. Fine won the first two games and then never won another. In the last game after I had tied the score he was an exchange down and never showed up after the adjournment. I had the Indian sign on him after that, just as Sammy had the Indian sign on me for many years, until 1948, when I beat him 2-0 in a practice match, after which he dropped out.’
Since we did not find the above-mentioned draw in various databases, it is given here, taken from S. Gordon’s 1997 book on Reshevsky:
Samuel Reshevsky – Arnold Denker
Chicago, July 1934
Nimzo-Indian Defence
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e3 O-O 5 Bd3 c5 6 Nge2 Nc6 7 O-O d5 8 a3 cxd4 9 exd4 dxc4 10 Bxc4 Bd6 11 d5 exd5 12 Nxd5 Nxd5 13 Bxd5 Qf6 14 Nc3 Bf5 15 Be3 Rfd8 16 Qb3 Rd7 17 Rad1 Be5 18 Ne4 Qg6 19 f3 Rc7 20 Rc1 Rac8 21 Qa4 Bxb2 22 Rc2 b5 23 Qa6 Bd4 24 Bxd4 Nxd4 25 Qxg6 Bxg6 26 Rxc7 Rxc7 27 Rd1 Ne6 28 Bxe6 fxe6 29 Ng5 Re7 30 Rd8+ Re8 31 Rd7 a5 32 Rb7 Bd3
33 Nf7 Rc8 34 Nd6 Rc1+ 35 Kf2 h6 36 Nxb5 Rc2+ 37 Kg1 Ra2 38 Nd4 e5
39 Ne6 g6 40 Nc5 Bc2 41 Nd7 Rxa3 42 Nf6+ Kf8 43 Rd7 g5 44 Nh7+ Ke8 45 Nf6+ Kf8 46 Nh7+ Kg8 47 Nf6+ Kh8 48 Ra7 a4 49 h3 Rc3 50 Kh2 Rc6 51 Nd7 Kg8 52 Nxe5 Re6 53 Nd7 Rd6 54 h4 gxh4 55 Ne5 Re6 Drawn.
(2438)
On the basis of Gordon’s book, we gave White’s 39th move as Nb3. Gert Ligterink (Groningen, the Netherlands) subsequently wrote to us that the move played was almost certainly Ne6, so we checked with Arnold Denker. He informed us that 39 Ne6 was indeed the move played.
(2453)
Noting the expression ‘psychiatric practice’ on page 88 of the 7/2000 New in Chess, Arnold Denker (Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA) asks us about the exact activity of Reuben Fine beyond the chessboard. We have therefore compiled the following notes from information given in Fine’s various books:
He received his Ph.D in 1948 at the University of Southern California, where he was a teaching fellow. Thereafter he entered private practice of psychoanalysis in New York, associated with the Elmhurst General Hospital and the Metropolitan Center for Mental Health. Over the years he taught psychoanalysis at eight universities (including Adelphi University) and was Vice-President of the National Psychological Association for Psychoanalysis, the Visiting Professor of the College of the City of New York and a Fellow of the American Psychological Association. In 1961 he was Visiting Professor of Psychology at the University of Amsterdam. Other titles he received at various times were Director of the New York Center for Psychoanalytic Training and the Center for Creative Living and Dean-designate of the Graduate Department of Psychology at Mercy College.
In our view, Fine’s 1956 book Psychoanalytic Observations on Chess and Chess Masters (reprinted by Dover in 1967 as The Psychology of the Chess Player) is inexpressibly awful. Although his book on the 1972 Spassky v Fischer encounter was mauled by the critics, Fine called it ‘the most serious’ of the match books in a self-absorbed bibliography on pages 143-145 of his subsequent work The Teenage Chess Book (New York, 1974 edition).
(2485)
The death of Arnold Denker has recently been announced. Having often had occasion to be grateful for the generous encouragement he offered us, we have been spending some time browsing through his letters and e-mail messages. For now, just one brief quote is presented, from a letter to us dated 6 March 1988 in which he recalled Capablanca:
‘As a member of the Manhattan Chess Club I used to see him quite frequently. He was almost always cold and aloof, and would never deign to analyse with us young Turks. What a difference from Alekhine. He only would play ten-second pots with two of his old classmates at Columbia, giving each N odds for 25 cents a game. ... His widow, who later was married to Admiral Clark of the US Navy, comes to the club on [the anniversary of Capablanca’s death] every year and sits quietly for an hour.’
Below is an inscription by Denker in our copy of Chess Review, November 1945 (page 12):
(3524)
The photograph below was published on page 7 of the December 1946 Chess Review:
Kashdan v Horowitz, Kramer v Steiner and Denker v Reshevsky
(4395)
C.N. 4492 referred to Reuben Fine’s participation in a 50-board simultaneous display given by Capablanca against consulting groups at the Drill Hall of the Seventh Regiment Armory, New York on 12 February 1931, and now Tony Bronzin (Newark, DE, USA) raises the subject of Fine’s account on pages 3-6 of Lessons from My Games (New York, 1958). Fine headed the game as follows:
Our correspondent comments:
‘However, in the February 1988 Chess Life (pages 12-13) Arnold Denker, when recounting the life of an American chessplayer of the 1930s, Donald MacMurray, wrote:
“The great Cuban seemed to start out well in the game, but Mac and a young Reuben Fine showed some fine endgame technique. Defeating Capablanca was always a notable feat.’
My question is: did Fine exploit his two bishops and better king himself to win the game, or was it a collaborative effort from start to finish?’
We begin by noting that Fine’s coverage of the game had previously appeared in his series of articles ‘My Best Games of Chess’ on pages 296-297 of the October 1955 Chess Review. The game-score was given on page 56 of the March 1931 American Chess Bulletin, where the allies were named as ‘R. Fine, D. MacMurray, E. Schwartz and L.W. Stephens’. Page 50 had the same information. The display lasted nearly eight and a half hours, the final move being made ‘within a minute or two of midnight’ (page 45). Did newspapers of the time give further details of the game under discussion here?
(5390)
From Henk Smout (Leiden, the Netherlands):
‘In this first-round photograph (also published opposite page 32 of the book 20 grote denkers binnen Neêrlands grenzen by Peter van Foreest) the master furthest away in the left-hand row is Smyslov, playing against Vidmar. Then come Steiner, Botvinnik, Denker and (in the foreground with his back to the camera) Guimard. In the right-hand row, the first (front) master is Christoffel (back to camera), in play against O’Kelly. At the next board is Kottnauer, playing against Bernstein. Then come Yanofsky, Kotov at the board with Stoltz and, finally, Flohr. Standing behind Flohr seems to be Tartakower and behind him, on the left, Kmoch. Standing behind Botvinnik’s board, with his hands in his pockets, is Najdorf, and behind him is Euwe. Between the boards of Botvinnik and Denker, Lundin is standing on the left, and Szabó on the right. That leaves Boleslavsky. He is to the right of Najdorf and behind Szabó.
The second photograph, taken before the start of the fourth round, was given opposite page 80 of van Foreest’s book, which mentions all the names. Seated, from the left: Najdorf, Flohr, Euwe, Vidmar, Bernstein, Tartakower, Guimard and Yanofsky. Standing, from the left: Smyslov, O’Kelly, Boleslavsky, Steiner, Botvinnik, Kotov, Szabó, Kottnauer, Denker, Lundin, Stoltz, Christoffel and Kmoch.’
In the first photograph Guy Brunet (Montreal, Canada) suggests that the figure on the left watching Botvinnik’s game is Alexander Rueb.
(6425)
F.J. Marshall’s most famous game is against Levitzky at Breslau, 1912. On page 27 of the February 1935 Chess Review Arnold Denker wrote regarding the conclusion:
‘This is by far the finest and most artistic queen sacrifice that I have ever seen.’
(6984)
We are still seeking biographical information about A. Rothman, who claimed to know the entirety of Modern Chess Openings by heart.
Below is a photograph on page 10 of the May 1944 Chess Review, in a report on the US championship in New York:
(7350)
Concerning Rothman, see also C.N.s 4930 and 7357.
The page from El gambito de dama by G. Ståhlberg (Buenos Aires, 1942) which was mentioned in C.N. 8756:
Our copy of the book was inscribed by Ståhlberg to Arnold Denker:
(8757)
Below are two letters from Arnold Denker regarding Ricardo Calvo: Persona non Grata:
See also Comic Relief: Raymond Keene and Chess Politics.
In an e-mail message dated 7 January 2001 Arnold Denker wrote to us regarding Reuben Fine:
‘... as a young man he was terribly mixed up and a horrible liar. That is one of the reasons my wife and I both allowed him plenty of space. He had a screwed-up youth and never really overcame his strong feelings of inferiority. Thus the bragging. My fondness for him was more a feeling of sadness.’
Some images from pages 6-7 of the April 1944 Chess Review (in a report on that year’s US championship in New York) were shown in C.N. 8316:
Arnold Denker, Chess Review, August-September 1944, page 16
See Chess and Baseball.
A letter dated 19 July 1988:
See The Facts about Larry Evans.
To the Archives
for other feature articles.
Copyright Edward Winter. All rights reserved.
