Reuben Fine (Frontispiece of his book The Forgotten Man: Understanding the Male Psyche (New York, 1987))
From Ed Tassinari (Scarsdale, NY, USA):
‘Reuben Fine’s doctoral dissertation apparently had nothing to do with chess. The reference work Comprehensive Dissertation Index (Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 1973), which attempts to list US dissertations written between 1861 and 1972, gives Fine’s 1948 dissertation, for the University of Southern California, entitled “The Personality of the Asthmatic Child”.’
Our collection includes nine books on psychology by Dr Fine. These range from the weighty A History of Psychoanalysis (686 pages) to The Intimate Hour and other raunchy volumes of agony aunt level.
Allard Hoogland (Doornspijk, the Netherlands) draws attention to a passage in a book on the alleged American spy Alger Hiss (1904-96). On page 128 of Laughing Last (Boston, 1977) Tony Hiss quoted his father as saying:
‘Dr Rubinfine [sic], my analyst, says I have a phobia against fear and don’t get afraid even when I should get afraid.’
Our correspondent asks whether Reuben Fine is meant.
C.N. 2153 quoted from Sidney Bernstein’s letter to us dated 23 January 1987, ‘Dr Ruben (he spells it thus now) Fine’. What more is known about such a change of forename? We find no evidence for it in our collection of books signed by Fine, of which the last is a copy of Love and Work The Value System of Psychoanalysis (New York, 1990).
A selection of non-chess works by Reuben Fine:
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).
A brief digest from the section on Alekhine (‘the sadist of the chess world’) on pages 52-55 of The Psychology of the Chess Player by Reuben Fine:
‘… we are told that his mother taught him the game at an early age.’
‘His father is reported to have lost two million rubles at Monte Carlo.’
‘Alekhine was reputed to have become a member of the Communist party.’
‘A report was broadcast during the war that Alekhine was confined to a sanatorium in Vichy, France for a while; but I have been unable to obtain any details.’
‘It was said that he became impotent early in life.’
On page 89 of Bobby Fischer’s Conquest of the World’s Chess Championship (New York, 1973) Fine – or, to quote the title page, ‘Reuben Fine, Ph.D., International Chess Champion’ – gave Morphy’s dates as ‘1836-1883’. Both years were similarly wrong on page 72 of the international chess champion’s The Teenage Chess Book (New York, 1965 and 1974).
On page 292 of The Forgotten Man: Understanding the Male Psyche (New York, 1987) Fine forgetfully wrote that Fischer was ‘born in Brooklyn’.
Page 197 of The Guinness Book of Chess Grandmasters by William Hartston (Enfield, 1996) quoted a familiar old quip:
‘By the time FIDE organized the world championship tournament in 1948, Fine had begun to shift his attentions from chess to a career in psychoanalysis. He declined an invitation to the 1948 event because it clashed with his final exams. His decision was later described by one wit as “a great loss for chess and at best a draw for psychoanalysis”.’
Who first made that remark, and where?
We now note that the familiar comment about Reuben Fine was made by Gilbert Cant in an article ‘Why They Play: The Psychology of Chess’ on pages 44-45 of Time, 4 September 1972:
‘When Fine switched his major interest from chess to psychoanalysis, the result was a loss for chess – and a draw, at best, for psychoanalysis.’
The full article can be read on-line via the link to Time given in C.N. 5819.
In a recent book catalogue (List Potpourri-76.4.7Is.1) Dale Brandreth commented on The Psychology of the Chess Player by Reuben Fine (New York, 1967):
‘A very interesting book, though with some very curious errors. For example, on page 50, speaking of Capablanca, he writes: “He never studied, never gave exhibitions, in fact hardly played at all outside of tournaments.” Was Fine daft? Fine himself played in Capa’s magnificent 7th Regiment Armory exhibition against 50 teams in 1931. His simultaneous exhibitions numbered in the hundreds and greatly enhanced his reputation for quick sight of the board considering the extreme rapidity of his play.’
Fine on Capablanca makes a strange contrast with Fine on Staunton. About the latter he remarked on page 11 of The World’s Great Chess Games (New York, 1951):
‘He wrote, he played, he traveled all over, lecturing and giving simultaneous exhibitions.’
In fact, Staunton shunned simultaneous play, as mentioned in C.N. 594 (see pages 237-238 of Chess Explorations), which quoted the following passage from his column on page 371 of the Illustrated London News, 14 April 1866:
‘We have often expressed our opinion of “that silliest of all chess exploits” – the playing a number of games simultaneously against a number of tenth-rate amateurs. To play half-a-dozen games without sight of the chessboards is a real tour de force of which very few are capable. To play half-a-hundred by merely parading up and down before as many chessboards is what any tolerable player can do without difficulty. In such a case, he need only be insensible to the absurdity of the exhibition; and if he is a good walker, or if he can hire a velocipede, his triumph is infallible.’
What detailed records exist of Staunton playing simultaneous chess?
In his Psychology book (page 30) Fine wrote of Staunton, ‘No brilliant games of his have survived ...’, a remark characteristic of much that used to appear about him in US chess literature. Other examples were quoted in our feature article on Frederick Edge; for a particularly ill-natured paragraph about Staunton by Al Horowitz see page 259 of Chess Facts and Fables.
C.N. 593 quoted from page 80 of Lessons from My Games by Reuben Fine (New York, 1958):
‘Both Alekhine and Capa were anxious to see Euwe do badly. I was rather amused when a most critical situation arose in my game with Euwe and both the ex-world champions whispered suggestions in my ear.’
Fine reiterated that claim about the game (a 19-move draw) on page 33 of his book Bobby Fischer’s Conquest of the World’s Chess Championship (New York, 1973):
‘... at the Nottingham tournament in 1936, when I was playing Euwe, then world champion after his defeat of Alekhine in 1935, both Alekhine and Capablanca spontaneously came up to me during the game to suggest moves, even though I had not asked them to do so.’
Two pairs of self-contradictions from Reuben Fine, as given in C.N. 1424:
On page 37 of the November 1953 CHESS Irving Chernev pointed out these statements by Fine:
The other example was shown by us on page 10 of CHESS, October 1976:
C.N. 5597 quoted contradictory statements by Reuben Fine about Alekhine as a psychologist, and we add here some further remarks of Fine’s, in a comparison between Alekhine and Keres on pages 142-143 of his book Chess Marches On! (New York, 1945):
‘Despite the many points of similarity there are a number of important respects in which they differ. Chief among these are Alekhine’s superior grasp of psychological factors and his all-consuming ambition ...
Reliance on psychology has been both an asset and a handicap for Alekhine. The legitimate use of psychology in master play is to maneuver the opponent into positions where he feels ill at ease, which do not “lie right” for him, as the German puts it. Alekhine has been able to apply this principle with consummate skill on a number of occasions – the match with Capablanca is the most notable. At other times, however, chiefly when he was at the height of his fame, around 1932-1934, Alekhine has exaggerated the human factor out of all proportion. In one French tournament he even went so far as to make a serious attempt to win by hypnosis.’
What exactly happened at that ‘one French tournament’?
Another question concerns the extent to which Fine applied (or claimed to apply) ‘psychological factors’ in his own games. That matter is raised tentatively, however, since few topics lend themselves so readily to waffle as does ‘chess psychology’.
Our article on Sidney Bernstein related Reuben Fine’s claim on page xviii of Lessons from My Games (New York, 1958) that ‘Bogoljubow had some of his rivals put in concentration camps by the Nazis when they arrived on the scene in Germany’. Pressed to identify these rivals, Fine gave the name of one person, Seitz (who was not in Europe during the Second World War).
We add here that Fine made a slightly different allegation on page 211 of The World’s Great Chess Games (New York, 1951), when Bogoljubow was still alive:
‘In Nazi Germany a famous grandmaster tried to force his journalistic rivals into concentration camps to get their columns away.’
A number of C.N. items (see pages 262-263 of Chess Facts and Fables) have discussed why Reuben Fine did not participate in the 1948 world championship match-tournament. For ease of reference, we reproduce here the summary of Fine’s own versions, provided in an article we wrote for ChessBase in 2007:
In C.N.s 1680 and 1915 Edward J. Tassinari (Scarsdale, NY, USA) quoted various, and varying, explanations by Reuben Fine of his absence from the 1948 world championship match-tournament:
On page 2 of the November 1948 Chess Review Fine wrote:‘At the time of the tournament, I was not teaching, but working on my doctoral dissertation. I was not bound by any contract to the university. I withdrew from the tournament because I did not care to interrupt my research. Needless to say, nobody had consulted me on whether the dates set were convenient for me.’
From pages 151-152 of Lessons from My Games by Reuben Fine (New York, 1958):‘The next year they [presumably the Russians] changed their minds again, and the tournament was held. By that time I was embarked on my new profession as a psychoanalyst and was unable to play.’
Pages 4-5 of Bobby Fischer’s Conquest of the World’s Chess Championship by ‘Reuben Fine, Ph.D., International Chess Champion’ (New York, 1973) claimed that a proposed 1947 tournament for the title was ...‘… called off by the Russians as part of a kind of blackmail scheme to force the players to compete in Russia. My own refusal to play in 1948 was motivated in part by the uncertainty about whether the Russians would come to the playing hall at all, and if so, under what conditions.’
On page 11 of that book Fine related that by the time the 1948 match-tournament was arranged ...‘... I was absorbed in another profession, psychology, and no longer cared to participate.’
In an interview with Bruce Pandolfini on page 25 of Chess Life, October 1984 (‘Reuben Fine: The Man Who Might Have Been King’) Fine stated that he decided not to compete in the 1948 championship because if he had gone to the Netherlands (the site of the first part of the event) the Russians might not have participated and he would have wasted ‘a whole year of his life in preparation. Moreover, it seemed foolish to play in such hostile circumstances.’
Next, an extract from a Fine letter on page 7 of the September 1989 Chess Life:‘The tournament was finally arranged for 1948, to be played half in the Netherlands and half in the Soviet Union (where the safety of the foreign masters was questionable). I did not play because of the expense involved, most of which I was expected to pay myself; and because I considered the tournament as it was arranged to be illegal. TASS fabricated a story that I had had to desist because of career pressures. (In fact, I was not at that time employed; I was working on my doctorate.) The TASS story was a total fraud.’
Page 4 of the February 1948 Chess Review stated that the magazine had received a telegram from Fine: ‘Professional duties make it impossible for me to get away in time to play in the tournament.’
We add that page 158 of The Encyclopaedia of Chess by Anne Sunnucks (London, 1976) stated that Fine ‘refused the invitation because a training match against Steiner had proved that he was out of form’. Did Fine ever make such a claim?
From page 4 of Chess Review, December 1947:
‘California. Drawing the final game in the series, Reuben Fine won his match against Herman Steiner 5-1. Both players played erratic chess.’
See also Interregnum.
In an article ‘Masters and Experts View the Match’ by Bill Goichberg on pages 409-410 of the July 1972 Chess Life & Review several respondents (Herbert Seidman, Harry Borochow, Joseph Platz and John N. Jacobs) predicted that Fischer would defeat Spassky 12˝-8˝.
Reuben Fine’s prediction, Fischer by 12˝-7˝, was accompanied by the comment:
‘The odds are now (March) 4 to 2 that the Russians will dodge the match, using it as a political football.’
On page 15 of Bobby Fischer’s Conquest of the World’s Chess Championship (New York, 1973) Fine wrote:
‘The road was now clear for the final match with Spassky. Bobby was the favorite. I predicted that he would win 12˝ to 8˝. Others came up with other figures.’
Frederick S. Rhine (Park Ridge, IL, USA) points out a letter written by Reuben Fine which was reproduced on page 260 of David DeLucia’s Chess Library A Few Old Friends (Darien, 2007). Dated 27 November 1972 and addressed to Norval Wigginton of Bethesda, MD, Fine’s letter reads (last paragraph):
‘I’ve challenged Bobby to a match for the title for a purse of $1 million, which I think could be raised if he would agree to play. But he hasn’t replied to my letter. Maybe you could get a committee together to see whether it could be done.’
Is anything more known about the challenge? The following appeared as a footnote on page 54 of Bobby Fischer’s Conquest of the World’s Chess Championship by ‘Reuben Fine, Ph.D., International Chess Champion’ (New York, 1973):
‘A Las Vegas hotel reportedly offered $1.4 million for a return match with Spassky which Fischer refused, demanding $10 million. I have also challenged Fischer to a match for a purse of $1 million. Some are now openly wondering whether Fischer will ever play again.’
In a review of Fine’s book on page 396 of the June 1974 Chess Life & Review Anthony Saidy referred to ‘Fine’s rather pathetic “$1 million” challenge to Bobby’. On page 467 of the July 1974 issue ‘A Reply from Reuben Fine’ did not comment on that point.
Regarding Reuben Fine’s post-Reykjavik challenge to Bobby Fischer for a world title match with a purse of one million dollars, a sourceless paragraph was published on page 125 of the February 1973 CHESS:
‘“I’d play Fischer for the world championship if the stakes were high enough”, said Reuben Fine to Robert Byrne recently. “How high?”, asked Byrne. “Say a million dollars”, replied Fine and was quite upset when Byrne thought he was joking.’
A group photograph from the Western Chess Association tournament, Detroit, 1933:
Source: American Chess Bulletin, September-October 1933, page 128.
A letter from Fine was on page 6 of the May 1985 Chess Life. Whilst criticizing the historical circumstances, he at least acknowledged that Karpov had become world champion in 1975 and had retained the title since then. Fine opined that ‘for the USSR chess is only a footnote to politics’ and he proposed that ‘the US Chess Federation should undertake bold and constructive action’:
‘I recommend that the United States take the initiative of splitting up FIDE into two separate organizations: one for the free world and one for the communist world. The best player from each world would then meet on as neutral soil as possible to play for the world championship.
If it is feasible, Robert Fischer should be brought back and declared the champion of the free world. If the Soviet champion should then refuse to meet Fischer in a match going to the man who first wins ten games, the Western countries should declare Fischer the world champion and let the two federations go their respective ways.’
A note by Reuben Fine on page 818 of the December 1975 Chess Life & Review is quoted without comment:
‘It would please me if you mentioned that I direct a low-cost mental health clinic, known as the Center for Creative Living, located at 9 East 89th Street, New York, NY 10028, (212) 369-3330, which has a special section for the therapy of the creative individual. Any chessplayer in need of help will receive my personal attention.’
Horacio Paletta (Buenos Aires) notes a news item on page 36 of the February 1949 Chess Review:
‘Dr Reuben Fine, a clinical psychologist, announces that he has opened an office at 72 Barrow Street, New York City (REpublic 9-8054). He is available for personality diagnosis and psychotherapy.’
In an e-mail message dated 7 January 2001 Arnold Denker wrote to us regarding 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:
Fine on Alekhine:
‘When I first met him, at Pasadena in 1932 ...’
Source: The World’s a Chessboard by R. Fine (Philadelphia, 1948), page 165.
‘When I first met Alekhine in New York in 1932 ...’
Source: Bobby Fischer’s Conquest of the World’s Chess Championship by R. Fine (New York, 1973), page 9.
On page 10 of Bobby Fischer’s Conquest of the World’s Chess Championship (New York, 1973) Reuben Fine wrote regarding Alekhine:
‘When World War II ended, in 1945, all the leading masters of that day, incensed by his behavior, objected to his participation in international tournaments. The Soviets broke the boycott by having Botvinnik challenge Alekhine to a match for the title in 1946. Actually this was illegal, since Keres and I had prior claims. But Keres, born in Estonia, was a Soviet citizen, while I was no longer so interested.’
From pages 224 of the ‘revised and expanded edition’ of The World’s Great Chess Games by Fine (New York, 1976):
‘Legally there were various possibilities. Euwe might have reclaimed the title, as the last official champion before Alekhine. Or Keres and Fine could have been declared co-champions on the basis of their joint victory in the AVRO tournament. Or Euwe, Fine and Reshevsky might have played a three-cornered tournament to decide the championship. Or the free world might have chosen a champion, and the communist world been left to choose its own; then the two could have met for the world championship.’
On the next page Fine wrote with respect to AVRO, 1938:
‘As indicated before, on the basis of this victory and in light of the circumstances of international chess in the war period, Keres and I should have been declared co-champions for the period 1946-48, between the death of Alekhine and the 1948 tournament.’
Finally, a comment by Fine on page 151 of Lessons from My Games (New York, 1958):
‘Keres and I tied for first in the AVRO tournament; he was declared winner by the tie-breaking Sonnenborn-Berger [sic] system. Alekhine dodged a match in his usual skillful manner. Then the war intervened and all official chess activity stopped.’
There is a frequent lack of rigour in claims that Alekhine ‘dodged’ opponents, and it is unimpressive to find C.J.S. Purdy writing the following in a review of Lessons from My Games on pages 146-147 of Chess World, September-October 1967:
‘Reuben Fine became one of the world’s greatest players. At the time when his claims to play a match for the world title were unanswerable, he did not get to play a match because Alekhine, once he had regained his title from Euwe, did everything possible to evade a match.’
As regards possible challenges to Alekhine after AVRO, 1938, an observation on page 215 of Reuben Fine by Aidan Woodger (Jefferson, 2004) is noteworthy:
‘Fine seems not to have made any effort at all ...’
To the range of reports on Reuben Fine’s absence from the 1948 world title match-tournament, Christian Sánchez (Rosario, Argentina) adds the following from page 123 of Chess World, 1 June 1948:
‘Arthur Krivis answers in Moscow News the much asked question, why didn’t Fine go?
“The story of the missing contender is a sad one indeed. Grandmaster Reuben Fine, one of the world’s outstanding players, has been compelled to throw away an opportunity that perhaps comes once in a lifetime to vie for world honors because, as the report states, he could not find anyone to take his place at the university for the duration and would not have had the funds to pay a substitute had he found one.
I do not know the particulars of the case but it seems strange that the university authorities where he teaches did not make a real effort to find a pinch-hitter or offer to foot the bill. They left it to Mr Fine as a matter concerning him and him only. But is it really a private matter? Is not Fine a representative of the American people, one of the two Americans honored by the FIDE invitation to contend for the world crown? Or perhaps this is not a sphere of activity that has the blessing of the department headed by Mr Forrestal.
At any rate, we understand Mr Fine’s dilemma. He has a contract with the university which he is honor-bound to fulfill and, besides, a job in the United States is nothing to be sneered at. What was he to do without the patronage of a rich chess daddy – play and lose his job, or hold on to it and give up his fond dream of taking a shot at the world crown? Since the two are often incompatible abroad, the grandmaster made his choice. This could never happen here.”’
Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) notes that the website mentioned in C.N. 10470 has the full text of Reuben Fine’s PhD dissertation, ‘A quantitative study of personality factors related to bronchial asthma in children’ (April 1948).
See too Psychology and Chess.
To the Chess Notes main page.
To the Archives for other feature articles.
Copyright: Edward Winter. All rights reserved.