Edward Winter
Al Horowitz (see C.N. 9672 below)
From the privately-circulated 1994 edition of Chess Personalia by Jeremy Gaige:
For tributes to Al Horowitz following his death see, as indicated above, the March 1973 issue of Chess Life & Review.
In a 24-line anecdote on pages 18-19 of The Bright Side of Chess Irving Chernev related that ‘it was early in that brief career that Breyer found himself a contestant in a Hungarian tournament’. In Breyer’s game against von Balla the latter announced mate in three moves, then reconsidered and corrected his announcement to mate in four. Confronted with Breyer’s silence, von Balla examined the position further and found that there was no mate in four. ‘The more he looked, the more desperate his game appeared. He looked, he thought, he analysed, and then without making a move – von Balla resigned!’
No game has been found which fits in with this account.
(3091)
We now note that the Breyer/von Balla anecdote was given by Al Horowitz on page 39 of the December 1946 Chess Review, the main difference being that von Balla’s mate announcements were in two moves and three, rather than three and four as in the Chernev version. Reinfeld quoted the Horowitz story on page 287 of The Joys of Chess (New York, 1961).(3094)
‘I greatly admire a fellow who goes about the whole day with a well-fed stomach and a vacuous mind. How can one ever do it? I would rather that he play chess, which would seem to me to be better. Confucius – from Book 17, about 200 [sic] B.C.’
Source: CHESS, June 1984, page 21. See also pages 62-63 of The Genealogy of Chess by D.H. Li (Bethesda, 1998) and pages 49-50 of The Personality of Chess by I.A. Horowitz and P.L. Rothenberg (New York, 1963).
(4005)
The June 1956 issue of Playboy had a section entitled ‘Chess – a compendium’:
Al Horowitz’s ‘A Short, Happy History of Chess’ contained such material as the following (page 51):
‘One would hardly suppose that there could be so much connection between chess and sex, and yet both legend and historic record show some extraordinary twists and turns in this respect. There is an amusing yarn, for example, about the siege of Troy, according to which the Greek chieftains whiled away the time in a chess tournament. Briseis, a tasty female slave, was to be the prize. Achilles and Agamemnon became the finalists, and Achilles lost both the tournament and the girl when his crafty rival plied him with wine. Small wonder that the mighty warrior afterward sulked in his tent.’
(5233)
W.D. Rubinstein (Aberystwyth, Wales) recalls a story by or about Al Horowitz that after he made a good move in a simultaneous exhibition his opponent dropped dead. He asks what more is known about this.
(4106)
From page 345 of The Personality of Chess by I.A. Horowitz and P.L. Rothenberg (New York, 1963):
‘That a richly endowed robot will one day be able to play a highly skillful game of chess leaves no room for doubt. On the other hand, in the absence of a fantastic superspeed electronic brain, the chess championship of the world is likely to be retained by humans for centuries to come.’
(4126)
See Chess and Computers.
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)
‘The first time in chess history where a player talked himself out of first prize’ was the phrase used by Al Horowitz about Isaac Kashdan in an article entitled ‘Legislating Morals’ on pages 20-21 of The Best In Chess by I.A. Horowitz and J.S. Battell (New York, 1965):
‘More than once has the result of an important event depended upon extracurricular third-party analysis. In the US Open, Boston, 1938 the Santasiere-Kashdan embroglio had extended to more than 120 moves. About the fourth adjournment Santasiere was a pawn to the good in a tricky ending. Nearly all the contestants submitted analysis to best Kashdan, who was a threat for premier honors. After some 20-odd hours of this wide-open sub rosa analysis, S. was positive that he had discovered the winning line; K. was equally certain that the position was a draw. Before play was resumed, however, Santasiere magnanimously exhibited the win. “Kash”, said he, “this is how I am going to beat you.” Kashdan was unimpressed. “And this”, he replied, “is how I am going to draw against you”, showing a variation which Santasiere had not taken into account. Kashdan was right. He was going to draw. But he would have been “righter” had he not spoken out of turn. For no sooner had word got around that Kashdan had found a draw than the analysts came up with a new idea, this time a clear-cut win. As matters turned out, this was the first time in chess history where a player talked himself out of first prize.’
Horowitz omitted to mention that Kashdan finished the tournament equal first – alongside Horowitz himself. The crosstable and the Santasiere v Kashdan game-score were given on page 82 of the July-August 1938 American Chess Bulletin, and the moves are also in various databases. There was a tournament report on pages 183-189 of the August 1938 Chess Review.
The photograph below shows the joint winners of the tournament and was published on page 210 of the September 1938 Chess Review:
Isaac Kashdan and Al Horowitz
(4634)
Karel Mokrý (Prostějov, Czech Republic) submits a number of pictures, including the following:
Prague Olympiad, 1931. From left to right: F.J. Marshall, A.W. Dake, N.N., I.I. Kashdan, B. Fuchs, I.A. Horowitz, H. Steiner.
This group photograph was published in the Prague, 1931 book (without any names) and opposite page 416 of El Ajedrez Español, September 1935 (where Fuchs was merely identified as a suplente and the person between Dake and Kashdan was described as a delegado).
(4737)
Chess Amateur, October 1927, page 10
The Macmillan Handbook of Chess by I.A. Horowitz and F. Reinfeld (New York, 1956), page 203
The second item comes from a chapter entitled ‘Composed Chess Endings’ by P.L. Rothenberg. What is the explanation for the absence of Kashdan’s name?
(4920)
In C.N. 488 a correspondent asked whether the book The World Chess Championship A History by Al Horowitz (New York, 1973) was ghosted, and the matter remains unresolved.
Horowitz died on 18 January 1973, and it seems that the book, published by Macmillan, appeared that summer (see, for instance, page 452 of the August 1973 Chess Life & Review). In the United Kingdom, B.T. Batsford Ltd. brought it out the same year under the title From Morphy to Fischer, and in a review on pages 158-159 of the May 1974 BCM W.H. Cozens remarked:
‘The one serious typographical blemish is the irregularity of impression – the sporadic occurrence of pale patches which make some pages look like proof sheets.’
Cozens did not mention that the pale patches resulted from textual corrections in the Batsford edition. For example, on page 18 ‘John Blackburne’ was corrected to ‘Joseph Blackburne’ and on page 24 ‘Harry Bird’ became ‘Henry Bird’. On the other hand, ‘E.G.’ (instead of P.W.) Sergeant and ‘Samuel’ (rather than Leopold) Hoffer appeared in both editions (see pages 6 and 39 respectively). Whether those factual errors are evidence that Horowitz was, or was not, the author is debatable, but W.H. Cozens was certainly right to observe about the volume, ‘This is not the rumbustious Horowitz of such books as “How to win in the Chess Openings”.’
In the light of the references to Horowitz in The Horowitz-Wellmuth Affair and Chess and Ghostwriting, Sean Robinson (Tacoma, WA, USA) asks what is known about the exact genesis of the 789-page volume Chess Openings Theory and Practice by I.A. Horowitz (New York, 1964).
General background information from page viii:
Horowitz’s signature in one of our copies of Chess Openings Theory and Practice:
(10378)
Concerning the Horowitz-Wellmuth affair, our feature article notes this progression:
In C.N. 3178 (see page 247 of Chess Facts and Fables) a correspondent mentioned an elementary mistake on page 89 of The New York Times Guide to Good Chess by I.A. Horowitz (New York, 1969):
It remains a mystery why Horowitz wrote that Black could draw with 1 Kd6 Kd8 2 c6 Kc8 3 Kc5 Kc7, with no mention of 3 c7, but we now note that he handled a comparable position correctly in his article ‘How to win in the Ending’ on page 332 of the November 1955 Chess Review:
(5433)
Although biographical details about F.J. Marshall’s son, Frank Rice Marshall, are sparse, his photograph occasionally appeared in US chess magazines. An example, from page 9 of the April 1945 Chess Review, was given in C.N. 4347. Page 5 of the January-February 1945 American Chess Bulletin presented him in army uniform (and stated that he had served in France as a corporal in the Signal Corps and that ‘he weathered three of the major campaigns with Gen. Patton’s army’).
The photograph below was published on page 10 of the December 1945 Chess Review. It shows him preparing a radiogram for transmission to Moscow in the USA v USSR Radio Match, and on his left is Al Horowitz.
(5778)
Frederick S. Rhine (Park Ridge, IL, USA) asks for substantiation of a remark about Al Horowitz which appeared on page 461 of 1000 Best Short Games of Chess by Irving Chernev (New York, 1955):
‘Who else would take the black pieces and win a match from the author of White to Play and Win, as he did against Adams?’
(6064)
From Solitaire Chess by I.A. Horowitz (New York, 1962):
From page 17 of Why You Lose at Chess by F. Reinfeld (New York, 1956):
Other quotes on this Dawid Janowsky matter will be welcomed.
(6242)
We now add a ‘once’ account from page 72 of a book co-authored by Horowitz and Reinfeld, How To Improve Your Chess (Kingswood, 1955):
(6567)
Below is what Reinfeld wrote in ‘Emanuel Lasker: An Appreciation’ in his edition of Lasker’s Manual of Chess (Philadelphia, 1947):
(8233)
From the (unnumbered) page regarding a Steinitz v Chigorin game in Solitaire Chess by I.A. Horowitz (New York, 1962):
(6255)
C.N. 6636 reported that the chapter regarding masters’ mistakes on pages 313-333 of The Personality of Chess by I.A. Horowitz and P.L. Rothenberg (New York, 1963) has 41 positions. About 40% of them are in The 10 Most Common Chess Mistakes by L. Evans (New York, 1998).
The Personality of Chess. All four positions also appeared in The 10 Most Common Chess Mistakes.
The chapter on Morphy (pages 233-245) in The Personality of Chess by I.A. Horowitz and P.L. Rothenberg (New York, 1963) has some particularly biting comments on Staunton:
‘England can look back to a long honorable history of gentlemen with unflinching devotion to the principle of fair play. Definitely not to be counted among them is Howard Staunton who somehow – with no convincing record to substantiate it – gained for himself, in his own day, a name of eminence in the chess world.’
‘... one of the most tragic chapters of shame in the history of chess is Staunton’s gross, shabby, arrogant treatment of a highly sensitive young chess genius [Morphy] ...’
‘Staunton initiated his campaign of perfidy in his 24 December 1857 column in the London Illustrated News [sic] ...’
‘In the meantime, the Shakespearean scholar, the man of culture, Howard Staunton, carried on dilatory tactics with a firm resolve, born of a craven soul, never to face alone an inevitable drubbing at the hands of the young American genius.’
‘Surprisingly, the one person of standing who has come to Staunton’s defense is H.J.R. Murray, famed chess historian. In an article in Chess Magazine [sic – it was the BCM], December 1908, Murray justifies Staunton’s stand [regarding the non-match against Morphy] on the ground of his “arduous literary occupations”. It is to be hoped that Murray’s conclusions in his History of Chess are based on more firm ground than in his preposterous apologia in behalf of the unspeakable Howard Staunton.’
‘Yes, this delicate human being [Morphy] was mortally wounded, for in his own mind he had failed to accomplish his purpose, and he was not at all impressed with the overwhelming evidence that Staunton had run away, cravenly, in virtual disgrace.’
As regards the criticism of H.J.R. Murray, the specific term ‘arduous literary occupations’ does not appear in his BCM article. It was used, however, by P.W. Sergeant when referring to Murray’s article on page 18 of Morphy’s Games of Chess (London, 1916):
Whether Horowitz and Rothenberg had read Murray’s article is an open question.
It should hardly be necessary to add that quotation of such anti-Staunton material indicates nothing about our own views. The purpose is merely to make texts available for general consideration,
(6650)
A cartoon by Juan Francisco Font (1902-87) on page 8 of the May 1944 Chess Review:
Harry Golombek on Alekhine:
‘... even when drunk he could see a great deal further over the board than most chessplayers sober. I remember that, at the Warsaw International Team Tournament of 1935, I was showing a game I had won that day to the fellow members of my team. Alekhine came up, recognized the game and complimented me on it in mellow, if somewhat thickly intoxicated, tones and, in a flash, indicated a vital, winning variation we all had missed.’
Source: ‘Recollections of Alekhine’ by Harry Golombek, Chess Review, May 1951, pages 140-141. See too C.N. 1313. Golombek’s article can also be found on pages 191-196 of The Treasury of Chess Lore by Fred Reinfeld (New York, 1951).
The relevant game from the 1935 Olympiad was not identified, but one possibility is Golombek v Horowitz. The former’s annotations on pages 480-481 of the October 1935 BCM referred to 24 h4 as a possible improvement suggested by Alekhine; at moves 28 and 33, shorter wins were pointed out by Golombek (without, however, any mention Alekhine).
(7205)
From page 45 of All About Chess by I.A. Horowitz (New York, 1971):
What evidence is there that Steinitz was dubbed ‘the man who destroyed brilliancy’?
The subsequent remark above is more familiar. For example, the following is on the dust-jacket of Chess Traps, Pitfalls, and Swindles by I.A. Horowitz and F. Reinfeld (New York, 1954):
‘The great Steinitz once wrote: “A win by an unsound combination, however showy, fills me with artistic horror.”’
We do not recall seeing that ‘once’ observation in Steinitz’s writings, but this comes from the article ‘Wilhelm Steinitz, Genius’ by Robert J. Buckley on pages 176-177 of the March 1913 Chess Amateur:
‘“The sound game is the true game”, he used to say. Also, “A win by an unsound combination, however showy, fills me with artistic horror”.’
Buckley’s article began with the statement ‘Wilhelm Steinitz, whom I knew intimately for 20 years ...’ The full text has been added to Who Was R.J. Buckley?
(7308)
‘When I was a child prodigy many years ago, chessplayers were amazed at the ease and accuracy of my play against the veritable giants of chessdom. To be perfectly frank, I was no less amazed, and I have thought about this over and over again. What was it that I had which has been variously described as talent or genius or the divine afflatus which enabled me to select the proper move or line in a given situation? The answer to this question, of course, should prove enlightening. I discovered that I had the happy faculty of being able to spot weak and strong points in a position merely by a glance at its contour. Having done so, I could go on to the next step and enhance my strong points, while surveying my weak ones and/or contain my opponent’s strong points and exploit his weak ones.
I fear that I cannot account for this fortuitous bounty. I do know, however, that the foundation of chess logic is the perception of weak and strong points on the board or projected a few moves from possibility to reality. Point Count Chess exactly coincides with my reflections on this matter. Not only does it define the salient features, but also it evaluates them. It is unique in the annals of chess literature in that it is the first and only book that does so. Indeed, it is a great stride forward in bringing the essential ideas to the ordinary player.’
The above is Samuel Reshevsky’s Foreword to Point Count Chess by I.A. Horowitz and Geoffrey Mott-Smith (New York, 1960).
The diagram position comes from the game I.A. Horowitz v A. Martin, Boston, 1938. Reinfeld’s annotations were published on pages 183-184 of the August 1938 Chess Review and on pages 25-26 of volume four of the Year Book of the American Chess Federation (Milwaukee, 1939). From page iv of the latter publication comes this photograph of Horowitz:
(7348)
Which was the first chess move to be described as a sockdolager or sockdologer? This US slang term, meaning ‘a heavy or knock-down blow’, is commonly linked to the name of Al Horowitz, and an early example comes in his notes to the seventh match-game in the 1935 world championship:
Source: Chess Review, January 1936, page 5.
There was a (non-chess) lexicographical explanation of the word on page 31 of the February 1928 American Chess Bulletin. On page 13 of the January 1930 issue ‘sockdologer’ appeared in a note by Charles De Vide (Devidé) to 51...g3 in the tenth game in the 1929 match for the Italian championship between Stefano Rosselli del Turco and Mario Monticelli:
‘The “sockdologer”. White must take, whereupon K-K5 destroys White’s last hope. Due credit should be given the victor for his consummate skill in handling the entire endgame.’
A photograph taken during the match, held in Florence, was published opposite page 200 of the May 1929 issue of L’Echiquier:
M. Monticelli and S. Rosselli del Turco
(7360)
An unresolved matter raised in C.N. 5293 concerns the playing strength of Marshal Tito.
That item had two photographs of Tito at the chessboard, and the following shows him with members of the US team during the 1950 Olympiad in Dubrovnik:
This photograph, from Jacqueline Piatigorsky’s archives, has been sent to us by John Donaldson (Berkeley, CA, USA), who adds:
‘I have been able to identify I.A. Horowitz, George Shainswit (partly hidden), Larry Evans, George Kramer and Herman Steiner.’
(8052)
‘It is one of the most enticing riddles of the centuries-old attractiveness of chess that a phenomenon so deeply rooted in the materialistic and rapacious should offer a satisfaction which is so deeply spiritual and so innocent of harm to one’s fellow man.’
Source: page 119 of How to Improve Your Chess: Second Steps by I.A. Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld (New York, 1952).
(8404)
Dan Scoones (Port Coquitlam BC, Canada) recalls that after Reinfeld died Al Horowitz’s column in the New York Times commented that Reinfeld infused unflagging interest into whatever he wrote.
To complement C.N.s 5906 and 5937, we give below the full article, from page 26 of the 15 June 1964 edition of the New York Times:
(8446)
Regarding Carl Schlechter:
‘He was widely known throughout his career as a drawing master, usually content to split the point even with much weaker players, but very difficult to beat.’
Source: The World Chess Championship A History by Al Horowitz (New York, 1973), page 63. (Almost identical sentiments appeared in Horowitz’s column in the New York Times, 5 March 1972, page D 31.)
‘The designation “drawing master” for Carl Schlechter can be taken with a grain of salt.’
Source: Solitaire Chess by Al Horowitz (New York, 1962), page 69. (The item originally appeared on page 209 of the July 1960 Chess Review.)
Mate in two
Page 69 of The Personality of Chess by I.A. Horowitz and P.L. Rothenberg (New York, 1963) labelled this problem a ‘masterpiece’, and page 118 commented: ‘In all respects, this pawnless wonder is one of the great achievements in problem composition.’ The May-June 1945 American Chess Bulletin, page 74, described it as ‘the most economical rendering possible to make of the American Indian theme’.
The problem, by Eric M. Hassberg, first appeared in H.R. Bigelow’s chess column on page 15 of the New York Post, 21 April 1945, with this introduction:
‘Dedicated to the memory of our late President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The composer, originally a native of Vienna, had just received the glad tidings of the liberation of his home town, but his joy was turned to sadness when the President’s sudden passing was announced a few moments later.’
It was also the first problem in Hassberg Ingenuity by Edgar Holladay (Rockford, 1978). From our copy:
(8553)
Information is sought about Siegbert Tarrasch’s absence from New York, 1924 and, in particular, about a claim by Al Horowitz on an unnumbered page in Solitaire Chess (New York, 1962):
‘What really broke his spirit in the end was his non-admittance to the entry list of the great New York tournament of 1924. Lasker, who had been chosen to compete, had been wrangling for a higher retainer. The committee warned him that, if he didn’t accept the offer, Tarrasch would be his replacement. Lasker quickly came to terms.’
(8663)
Supplying links to parts one and two of an article by Hanon W. Russell about New York, 1924, Pete Klimek (Berkeley, CA, USA) notes that the first part has some references to Tarrasch.
(8666)
A ‘once’ yarn from a column by Al Horowitz on page 8 of the September 1948 Chess Review:
Horowitz also considered that the story, worded differently, merited a full page (page 134) in his book The New York Times Guide to Good Chess (New York, 1969).
The earlier C.N. items (see too page 229 of Kings, Commoners and Knaves) pointed out that the joke had been published on page 6 of the July 1898 American Chess Magazine. The earliest known inclusion of Alekhine and Bogoljubow’s names is in an article by Julius du Mont on page 133 of the May 1941 BCM.
(8672)
See Chess and Sleep.
The saying ‘The pin is mightier than the sword’ has occasionally been attributed to Al Horowitz. For instance, on page 45 of the January 1975 Chess Life & Review Walter Meiden and Norman Cotter wrote:
‘The late Al Horowitz, who was publisher of Chess Review, used to say: “The pin is mightier than the sword”.’
And from page 79 of The Art of Positional Play by Samuel Reshevsky (New York, 1976):
‘The late I.A. Horowitz used to quip: “The pin is mightier than the sword”.’
Loose claims about what people ‘used to’ say/quip obviously lack credibility, and Horowitz himself attributed the phrase to Reinfeld:
‘... there are pins and pins, despite Reinfeld’s dictum that “the pin is mightier than the sword”.’
Source: page 70 of Chess for Beginners by I.A. Horowitz (New York, 1950).
(8730)
C.N.s 1768 and 1821 referred very negatively to the two-volume Best of Chess Life and Review edited by Bruce Pandolfini (New York, 1988). On page 18 of the first volume Pandolfini even called Horowitz ‘the most influential chess thinker in the country’.
A remark commonly attributed to Al Horowitz is ‘One bad move nullifies 40 good ones.’
The only citation available to us is an article of his on pages 339-341 of the November 1961 Chess Review, which called the remark an ‘adage’:
(8731)
An older appearance of the Al Horowitz remark about 40 good moves comes from his column on page 34 of the Saturday Review, 31 October 1959:
‘It is axiomatic in chess that it is easier to achieve a winning game than to win it. One bad move nullifies 40 good ones, and precision technique is of the essence even when the game is well in hand.’
The full column was reproduced on pages 41-42 of Horowitz’s book All About Chess (New York, 1971).
(10475)
From Eduardo Bauzá Mercére (New York, NY, USA):
‘Pages 50-52 of Aidan Woodger’s Reuben Fine A Comprehensive Record of an American Chess Career, 1929-1951 (Jefferson, 2004) have an account, with nine game-scores, of the match played in 1934 between Fine and Al Horowitz. It is stated that the final score was 6-3 in favor of Fine.
In fact, there was a tenth game, a draw, published on page 14 of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 5 July 1934.’
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bb5 Nd4 5 Nxd4 exd4 6 e5 dxc3 7 exf6 Qxf6 8 dxc3 Bc5 9 Qe2+ Qe6 10 Bc4 Qxe2+ 11 Kxe2 c6 12 Be3 Bxe3 13 Kxe3 d5 14 Bd3 Be6 15 Rae1 O-O-O 16 Kd2 Kc7 17 Re5 Rde8 18 Rhe1 b5 19 R5e3 Kd6 20 b3 g6 21 Rf3 f5 22 g3 h5 23 h4 Bd7 24 Rxe8 Rxe8 25 Re3 Drawn.
Page 129 of the August 1934 Chess Review confirmed:
‘Reuben Fine defeated I.A. Horowitz in their match by the score of 4-1 and five draws.’
(8988)
From page 197 of Chess by Fred Reinfeld (London, 1954):
‘The Double Queen Pawn openings have been described as “the chamber music of chess”. This comment is a tribute to their subtlety and to the delicate nuances of positional judgment in which they abound.’
On page 120 of First Book of Chess (New York, 1952) Al Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld were more specific:
‘Queen’s Gambit Declined
The great Tarrasch said of this opening that it is “the chamber music of chess”. It is full of finesse.’
What references to chamber music exist in Tarrasch’s writings?
From page 150 of Grandmasters of Chess by Harold C. Schonberg (Philadelphia and New York, 1973), in a section about Rubinstein:
‘The end game is absolute chess, pure chess, pure technique and imagination, the chamber music of chess.’
Below is an extract from page 115 of Making History by Stephen Fry (London, 1996):
The passage is in a chapter, ‘Making Moves’, which has a chess theme (pages 112-117).
(9304)
From page 37 of Let’s Play Chess ‘by the Editors of Chess Review’ (New York, 1950):
(9313)
‘Your game is usually won or lost in the first ten moves.’
That assertion by Samuel Reshevsky was on the back cover of various paperback editions of How to Win in the Chess Openings by I.A. Horowitz:
Does the praise come from a book review by Reshevsky or was it given direct to Horowitz for publicity purposes?
How to Win in the Chess Openings, first published in 1951, was based on articles in Chess Review. For example, the section giving the game Euwe v Thomas, Hastings, 1934-35 began:
‘The Orthodox Defense to the Queen[’s] Gambit Declined is a low-geared starter. About midway during hostilities, it shifts to second gear and then quickly to high.’
That observation can be found on page 211 of Chess Review, July 1950. It is also on page 151 of the compendium (four of Horowitz’s books) How to Win at Chess (New York, 1968), subtitled ‘A Complete Course’ and described thus on the dust-jacket:
‘This may well be the nearest approach to the complete chess book yet devised.’
Below is the photograph of Al Horowitz on the back of the dust-jacket:
(9672)
‘The term “swindle” in chess is so widely used that we have to tolerate it. But it carries the implication we always fight against, i.e. that a player in a theoretically winning position has a sort of moral right to the game; if he fails to see through his opponent’s resourceful play, he says he was “swindled”.
Showing that he hasn’t a moral right to the game is just what the authors are really doing – and doing very well.’
Source: Chess World, January 1957, page 22, in a brief notice regarding Chess Traps, Pitfalls, and Swindles by I.A. Horowitz and F. Reinfeld (New York, 1954). Purdy’s item began: ‘This is the best book on traps yet.’
(9749)
See Chess Cunning, Gamesmanship and Skulduggery.
A surprising remark on page 13 of How to Improve Your Chess: Second Steps by I.A. Horowitz and F. Reinfeld (New York, 1952):
‘When a master gives a simultaneous exhibition against anywhere from 20 to 60 opponents, he has something like half a minute for each move he makes.’
(10025)
Leonard Barden’s Evening Standard column of 4 August 2016 gave this position from Mario Monticelli v Al Horowitz, Syracuse, August 1934:
Black to move
Can the full game-score be found?
The conclusion was published on page 329 of The Personality of Chess (New York, 1963), which Horowitz co-wrote with P.L. Rothenberg:
From page 339 of the November 1964 Chess Review (edited by Horowitz), in an article by Daniel Fidlow:
(10068)
Gerard Killoran (Ilkley, England) notes page 19 of the Syracuse Journal, 23 August 1934:
The newspaper can be viewed on-line, and the above page is file number 6445. [Link no longer working.]
Ian Matthew (Portsmouth, England) notes that the Monticelli v Horowitz game is in a database of the Federazione Scacchistica Italiana:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O b5 6 Bb3 Nxe4 7 d4 d5 8 dxe5 Be6 9 c3 Be7 10 Be3 Na5 11 Nd4 Nxb3 12 axb3 Qd7 13 b4 f5 14 f3 Ng5 15 Nd2 O-O 16 f4 Ne4 17 N2b3 Rfc8 18 g4 Rf8 19 Nxe6 Qxe6 20 Nd4 Qg6 21 Nxf5 Rxf5 22 Qxd5+ Kh8 23 Qxa8+ Rf8 24 Rxa6 Qxg4+ 25 Kh1 Qe2 26 Qxe4 Qxf1+ 27 Bg1 Rxf4 28 Ra1 Rxe4 29 Rxf1 Rxe5 30 Bd4 Rg5 31 Re1 Bf8 32 Re8 Rf5 33 Bc5 Kg8 34 Kg2 g5 35 Rc8 Kg7 36 Rxc7+ Kg6 37 Rc6+ Kh5 38 b3 Bg7 39 c4 bxc4 40 bxc4 Rf4 41 Bd6 Rd4 42 b5 Kg4 43 h3+ Kf5 44 b6 Rd2+ 45 Kf1 Ke4 46 b7 Kf3 47 Bb4 Rd1+ 48 Be1 Rb1 49 Rc7 Be5 50 Rf7+ Bf4 51 c5 Ke4 52 Rxf4+ gxf4 53 c6 Ke3 54 c7 ‘1-0’.
As ever in such cases, confirmation from a written source is desirable.
(10073)
Peter Anderberg (Harmstorf, Germany) notes that the Monticelli v Horowitz game was published on page 785 of L’Echiquier, October-November 1934:
(10076)
The white queen was placed on g3 rather than e4 when the conclusion was given, without the players’ names, on page 127 of Complete Book of Chess Stratagems by Fred Reinfeld (New York, 1958):
See also page 149 of the later edition, The Complete Book of Chess Tactics (New York, 1961).
(10105)
A further snippet is added here, from page 79 of the March 1962 Chess Review (in an article by Walter Korn):
The game was played in 1934, and not 1938, but the present item will focus on the three-move problem, labelled ‘P. Daley (1935)’ by Korn. That unexplained date is about 60 years adrift.
The composition is customarily presented without a source, as on page 311 of the July 1906 BCM:
‘Everybody, or at least most problem students, are in touching knowledge of the oft-repeated classic by P. Daley. It crops up time after time, not by reason of its intricacy or special beauty but on account of its simplicity of solution. The chic method of the little bauble has infatuated not only composers but players, since we have presented it as an endgame.’
P.H. Williams gave the ‘well-known position’ on page 97 of his book The Modern Chess Problem (London, 1903), commenting:
‘I have known this problem to puzzle capable solvers for hours.’
On page 252 of Brentano’s Chess Monthly, September 1881 there was neither a source nor a white pawn on a6:
Page 300 of the October 1881 issue of Brentano’s Chess Monthly noted the missing white pawn on a6 and had this correction regarding of the Martindale problem: ‘The bishops should stand on QR2 and QB sq.’ See too the Chess Player’s Chronicle, 20 September 1881, page 450 and 1 November 1881, page 525.
The path backwards continues, as Michael McDowell (Westcliff-on-sea, England) has pointed out by sending us this entry in the WinChloe database (reproduced here with the permission of Christian Poisson):
On page 59 of the April 1874 issue of the City of London Chess Magazine the composer’s name was indeed given as Daly, and not Daley, and the same spelling was on page 128 of the June 1874 edition:
Was he Daly or Daley, and who was he?
(11650)
An inscription by Al Horowitz in one of our copies of his book How to Win in the Middle Game of Chess (New York, 1955):
From pages 45-46:
On page 202 of the July 1953 Chess Review Horowitz had given the same material, also mistitled ‘The Immortal Game’.
(10566)
From page A 17 of the Sunday Star (Washington, DC), 6 September 1936:
Wanted: early sightings of the rule-of-thumb suggestion about the material value of three tempi. Examples from the 1930s:
‘Ebenso kann man einen Bauern gleich drei Tempi schätzen.’ Page 311 of Das Schachspiel (Berlin, 1931). From page 219 of The Game of Chess (London, 1935): ‘A pawn can be valued at three tempi.’
‘Wir wissen, daß in offener Stellung drei Tempi ungefähr einen Bauer ersetzen.’ Page 45 of Richtig Opfern! (Leipzig, 1935). From page 93 of The Art of Sacrifice in Chess (London, 1935): ‘We know that in an open position three tempi are approximately equal to a pawn.’ From page 85 of the Reinfeld/Horowitz revision (New York, 1951) of J. du Mont’s translation: ‘We know that in open positions, three tempi are approximately worth a pawn.’ Although the volume by Reinfeld and Horowitz was an extensive rewrite, it was used in the ‘21st Century Edition’ (Milford, 2015) without any mention of them.
(10751)
Black not to move
This position was discussed by Al Horowitz on pages 112-113 of How To Win in the Middle Game of Chess (New York, 1955), in the section about perpetual check:
The text had previously appeared in an article by Horowitz on pages 87-89 of Chess Review, March 1954.
The play by ‘young Alekhine’ occurred when he was 30, against Teichmann at Carlsbad, 1923. The game was drawn, though later on and not by perpetual check; Teichmann could not sacrifice his queen in the diagrammed position because it was White’s move. Alekhine played 27 f4.
The situation after 26...Rd8-d5 was discussed on page 118 of the tournament book:
The complete game: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 Be7 5 Bg5 Nbd7 6 e3 O-O 7 Rc1 c6 8 Qc2 Re8 9 Bd3 h6 10 Bf4 dxc4 11 Bxc4 b5 12 Bd3 a6 13 a4 Bb7 14 O-O Rc8 15 Qb3 Qb6 16 Ne5 Red8 17 Ng6 Bf8 18 Nxf8 Nxf8 19 Ne4 Nxe4 20 Bxe4 Nd7 21 Bd6 Nf6 22 Bc5 Qc7 23 Bf3 a5 24 axb5 cxb5 25 Qxb5 Bxf3 26 gxf3 Rd5 27 f4 Ne4 28 Rc2 g5 29 f3 Nxc5 30 Rfc1 Rb8 31 Qe2 gxf4 32 dxc5 fxe3 33 Qxe3 Rg5+ 34 Kh1 Qc6 35 Rg1 Rxg1+ 36 Kxg1 Qd5 37 Rd2 Qf5 38 Rg2+ Kh7 39 Qe4 Qxe4 40 fxe4 Rc8 41 Rc2 Kg6 42 Kf2 Kf6 43 Ke3 Ke5 44 Kd3 f6 45 Rc4 f5 Drawn.
The opening was examined by Alekhine in his first Best Games book, in the annotations to his brilliancy-prize victory over Rubinstein in the first round of the same tournament.
(10867)
Raking Bishops mentions the all-too-frequent misnomer (especially online) ‘Horowitz Bishops’.
Horrwitz, Horwitz, Harrwitz, Horowitz ...
From Sean Robinson:
‘Did I.A. Horowitz (or Reinfeld) invent “Solitaire Chess"?
That match-the-masters scoring exercise, aimed at amateur enthusiasts, was a regular and popular feature in Horowitz’s Chess Review. It first appeared in the January 1942 edition, page 11, initially headlined as “Play the Masters” (the “Solitaire Chess” title took hold in January 1944). The first cited game was Kashdan-Rubinstein, Prague, 1931, derived from Hans Kmoch’s book on Rubinstein’s games.
Readers embraced the column, and in occasional letters they fussed when it failed to appear. The column continued for decades. In 1962, Horowitz published a book, a culled compendium featuring 62 games. After Chess Review merged with Chess Life in 1969, the column, credited to Horowitz, appeared sporadically for a time, through September 1970.
After that, the column ended. Illness and age overtook Horowitz, who died in 1973. The feature subsequently reappeared in Chess Life in June 1981, at first uncredited but then under the names of two authors, firstly Robert Snyder and then Allan Savage, continuing through the December 1983 issue. At that point, “Solitaire Chess” hibernated through the remainder of the 1980s. Bruce Pandolfini took charge of it in the August 1991 issue, and the column has continued to the present. Pandolfini published a compendium of his own in 2005.
Puzzle books are common in chess literature. Match-the-master books with complete scoring (a difficult editing enterprise) are less common. I am trying to understand whether Horowitz (or Reinfeld) deserves credit for the original idea. Both men were hucksters, but both clearly understood their readers.
Reinfeld published Chess by Yourself (Philadelphia, 1946), which deploys a more elaborate scoring system, but Solitaire Chess was established by that time in Chess Review. Leonard Barden’s excellent How Good is Your Chess? (London, 1957) is another example, but again, it came later. Bent Larsen’s Good Move Guide (Oxford, 1982) includes a chapter devoted to the exercise (Larsen mentions the difficulty of the scoring system). In the late 1980s and 1990s, iterations of CHESS ran columns by Daniel King (again, “How Good is Your Chess?”), which have been turned into amusing books.
Horowitz (a colorful but sometimes controversial figure) would make an interesting subject for a McFarland-style biography and game collection. He has been more derided than appreciated.’
(12329)
To the Archives
for other feature articles.
Copyright Edward Winter. All rights reserved.
