Edward Winter
Would Lasker have attempted a world championship comeback after 1927? Under certain circumstances, according to Kotov’s Alexander Alekhine (London, 1975), page 118:
‘Emanuel Lasker immediately rejected any attempts to organize a match between him and the new world champion. “If the match had been won by Capablanca, I would have taken the opportunity to cross swords with him” – wrote Lasker. “But to do battle with youth in chess, thank you – no!”’
Where, if anywhere, did Lasker write these words?
(908)
No sign yet of where Lasker’s alleged words were written. See, however, in the Wiener Schachzeitung, March 1924, pages 86-87, an interview with Lasker with earlier comments along more or less similar lines.
(1051)
From our feature article on Karlis Ozols:
In 1963 Ozols won a tournament in Melbourne (+6 –0 =1) ahead of Alexander Kotov, whom he beat in their individual game:
Karlis Ozols – Alexander Alexandrovich Kotov
Melbourne, 1963
English Opening
1 c4 d6 2 g3 g6 3 Bg2 Bg7 4 Nc3 e5 5 e3 Ne7 6 Nge2 O-O 7 O-O Nbc6 8 Nd5 f5 9 d3 Kh8 10 Nec3 g5 11 f4 gxf4 12 gxf4 Ng6 13 Qh5 exf4 14 Nxf4 Nxf4 15 Rxf4 Ne5 16 Rh4 h6 17 e4 Ng4 18 Nd5 c6
19 Rxg4 fxg4 20 Bxh6 Kg8 21 Bg5 cxd5 22 Bxd8 Rxd8 23 Qxd5+ Kh8 24 d4 Bd7 25 Qh5+ Kg8 26 e5 Be6 27 Be4 Rd7 28 d5 Bf7 29 Qh7+ Kf8 30 Qf5 Re7 31 e6 Rc8 32 Bd3 Bxb2 33 Rf1 Bd4+ 34 Kh1 Rcc7 35 Qxg4 Resigns.
Source: Chess World, September 1963, page 130, October 1963, pages 154-156, and November 1963, page 164.
From Tim Bogan (Chicago, IL, USA):
‘I have come across two claims of chess played at high speed which seem exaggerated to me. Firstly, Alexander Kotov writes on page 32 of The Art of the Middle Game (Harmondsworth, 1964):
“When I stayed behind at school with my school friends after lessons, and managed to play up to a hundred games in a single afternoon...”
If we define “afternoon” generously as noon until 6 p.m. the time-limit would have to be 1.8 minutes, i.e. each player is allowed 108 seconds to make all his moves (6 hours x 60 minutes = 360 minutes / 100 games = 3.6 minutes per game for both players). This leaves no time to set up the pieces, set the clock, etc., but I have seen young players of speed chess complete all their moves within one minute, so it is barely possible.
Reuben Fine, however, takes us to a new level. He writes on page 61 of Chess Marches On! (New York, 1945):
“Naturally, tournament chess requires several hours, sometimes as many as eight or ten, for the completion of a single game; so does baseball, and football, and golf. But chess at lightning speed is also a possibility – experts in offhand moments can finish 50 or 100 games an hour if they are so minded.”
Fifty games in one hour would require a time-limit of 36 seconds for a player for the entire game (60 minutes / 50 games = 1.2 minutes per game for both players). A hundred games in an hour would necessitate a time-limit of 18 seconds for a player to complete all his moves. While it is possible to play such games, it seems certain that each would be prematurely ended by a player exceeding the time-limit in a position where his pieces were hardly developed. They could not be “games” in the commonly understood sense.
Are there other exaggerations of chess speed?’
(3473)
See Fast Chess.
C.N. 3639 quoted the following passage from page 242 of Official Chess Handbook by K. Harkness (New York, 1967):
‘So far as the complaints of collusion among Soviet players are concerned, it is undoubtedly true that the Soviet contestants in FIDE tournaments, especially in the early competitions, have played as a team and not as individuals. Alexander Kotov admits this in his Memoirs of a Chessplayer, published in the USSR in 1960. He apologizes for his victories over Smyslov in 1933 [sic – 1953] and Botvinnik at Groningen in 1946, and hopes he will be forgiven, since he made up for these lapses by defeating Reshevsky and Euwe respectively in these tournaments.’
From Steve Giddins (Moscow):
‘Harkness’s reference to Kotov’s “Memoirs of a Chessplayer” presumably means the book Zapiski Shakhmatista (Moscow, 1957), a title more appropriately rendered as “Notes (or Jottings) of a Chessplayer”. I have translated into English the relevant passages concerning the Groningen, 1946 game against Botvinnik (pages 121-122) and Kotov’s win over Smyslov at Zurich, 1953 (pages 196-197). The 1960 edition of Kotov’s book was effectively just a reprint, with no material textual changes.’
Our correspondent’s translations are given below. Firstly, from pages 121-122 and Groningen, 1946:
‘When Botvinnik had established a clear lead and Euwe was trailing him, various reactionary newspapers decided to support their champion by means of the familiar propaganda: “It’s impossible to compete with the Russians”, claimed one Catholic newspaper. “One only has to look at how they have all lost intentionally to Botvinnik. Smyslov lost to him, Boleslavsky also. We know for a fact that they are all under strict orders to lose to Botvinnik without any struggle, and thereby assist him into first place!”
This unceremonious invective contained as much truth as it did logic. In the first place, Botvinnik had won both the games against his Soviet rivals only after sharp battles, subtly outplaying his opponents. Secondly, Botvinnik’s lead did not result from just two games – two points is hardly enough to put one in the lead after 13 rounds of a tournament. Botvinnik had also beaten eight other players from various countries in Europe and America. But, as is well known, invective has no need of logic!
Throughout the first 13 rounds of the tournament, this Catholic paper kept up similar commentary. However, it did not help Euwe. Although he remained hot on Botvinnik’s heels, he could not catch him.
Then came the 14th round, in which I played Botvinnik. The tournament leader played the opening badly and too riskily and, having reached an inferior position, overlooked a relatively straightforward combination and lost. The Dutch were celebrating. Botvinnik is beaten! To their surprise, a compatriot had done to Botvinnik what the Western masters had been unable to do. Now Euwe had caught up with Botvinnik. We ourselves were highly interested in one question: what would the newspaper which had been screeching about a conspiracy between the Russians say now? How would they get out of the ticklish position in which they now found themselves?
It would appear that the shameless know no bounds. On the following day, the newspaper reported my game with Botvinnik in detail, and placed it under the headline: “Russian defies Kremlin orders! Future fate of Kotov uncertain!”.
What more can one say about such filthy slander and evil-minded fantasy?’
Alexander Kotov
From pages 196-197:
‘Smyslov’s only defeat in the Zurich tournament was against the author of these lines. At that point, Smyslov was leading. I was somewhere in the middle of the tournament table. Reshevsky was right behind Smyslov. The reader will understand my situation: just as in Groningen, I had obstructed a colleague’s path to the supreme sporting title, without the win bringing any material improvement to my own tournament position. I understood very well the absurdity of what had happened, and that I would not get any plaudits for this win over Smyslov from my compatriots, who so closely shared in the successes of the Muscovite. It is sufficient to say that when, as usual, I telephoned my wife in Moscow that evening, she immediately asked me:
“What are you playing at over there? I’ve had chess fans on the phone here, cursing you. Is that what you want?”
But there was nothing to be done – sport is sport! I secretly hoped that I would be able to undo some of the damage later on. I still had one more game to play against Smyslov’s main rival, Reshevsky. And so it happened. Exploiting Reshevsky’s inaccuracies, I won. Thus, the Groningen story was repeated.’
Mr Giddins comments:
‘It is quite clear from the above that no admission of the sort that Harkness alleges is made; quite the contrary. Indeed, it is inconceivable that any such admission could have been made, given Kotov’s known Communist loyalties, and the heavy hand of the Soviet censor. I can only assume that Harkness himself did not understand Russian (a supposition supported by his mistranslation of the book’s title) and was merely reciting something he had been told by somebody else. It may be that, in some other context, Kotov joked about asking “forgiveness” for beating his colleagues, but to suggest that this amounts to an admission of a conspiracy is quite unjustified.
One point worth clarifying is that in the Smyslov section Kotov refers to having, for the second time, “obstructed a colleague’s path to the supreme chess title”. It may be wondered in what sense his defeat of Botvinnik at Groningen, 1946 could be said to have done this. The answer is that, when discussing Groningen, Kotov makes great play of the fact that, had Botvinnik not taken first place ahead of Euwe, the latter would almost certainly have been declared world champion by FIDE, without any match-tournament taking place. Kotov therefore argues that winning Groningen was an essential step for Botvinnik in securing the chance to play for the world title.’
We are grateful too to Claes Løfgren (Randers, Denmark), who has also provided translations from Kotov’s book, commenting to us, ‘I do not see any admission of foul play’. That conclusion is shared by Christian Sánchez (Rosario, Argentina), who has submitted extracts from the Spanish translation of Kotov’s book, Apuntes de un ajedrecista (Moscow, 1959).
(3659)
Is Alekhine the only master to have been the subject of a play and a film?
The play, Knight of the ID by Richard Laurie, was set in Portugal in 1946 and had its première in August 1997.
The film, The White Snow of Russia, was a 1980 Soviet production written by Kotov, with Aleksandr Mikhailov as Alekhine. Below are three photographs, taken from pages 44-47 of the 4/1982 Boletín Ajedrez Radio Rebelde (an article by Natalia Lazareva which had appeared in the August 1980 issue of a publication identified by the Cuban magazine as Films Soviéticos):
Aleksandr Mikhailov as Alekhine
‘La Partida decisiva por el Campeonato Mundial’
>‘La Segunda Guerra Mundial. Praga. Una simultánea’
(4073)
The conclusion to Fischer’s draw against Botvinnik at the Varna Olympiad in 1962 has given rise to discussion on a human level. On page 153 of Analiticheskiye I Kriticheskiye Raboti 1957-1970 (Moscow, 1986) Botvinnik reported that Fischer was distraught as he left the hall. To quote the English translation on page 183 of volume three of Botvinnik’s Best Games (Olomouc, 2001):
‘Only here, with his face [as] white as a sheet, did Fischer shake my hand, and with tears in his eyes he left the hall.’
The matter arose on page 137 of the September 1963 Chess World when C.J.S. Purdy was discussing Alexander Kotov:
‘I also knew that he was a very kindly writer. I have never known him to treat anyone unkindly in print. By contrast, his countryman Flohr, a clever journalist, handled Bobby Fischer almost spitefully, when he reported that after he had only succeeded in drawing with Botvinnik in Varna, after having a winning advantage, he left the room and, having reached the corridor, burst into tears. As Fischer probably thought he was alone by then, it was cruel to record such a thing, but Flohr knew it was good “copy”. Kotov would never initiate such a story. Nor would I myself; I am prepared to use it once it has been made public already, for I am not a censor, but I think Kotov is too kind even to do that ...
I do not decry Flohr. There is virtue in sheer truth. But Flohr could have written sympathetically or purely factually, without spiteful overtones.’
Can a reader quote Flohr’s exact words?
(4595)
From Christian Sánchez:
‘In Especial Ocho x Ocho, September 1994 (page 15) Fernando Visier wrote: “En los análisis de partidas aplazadas llámase ‘sistema Lilienthal’ a buscar de antemano una continuación que asegure el empate, y a partir de ahí avanzar a cotas más ambiciosas.” (English translation: “In analysis of adjourned games, the ‘Lilienthal system’ consists of, firstly, searching for a way to achieve the draw and then seeking better prospects.”)
When was this method first attached to Lilienthal’s name?’
(4973)
Javier Asturiano Molina (Murcia, Spain) quotes from pages 187-188 of Think Like a Grandmaster by A. Kotov (London, 1971):
‘Adjourned positions sometimes occur in which it is hard to forecast the result. You come home thinking you are going to win. You examine it and find it is nothing like as simple as you thought, and are taken aback. In such cases we often say jokingly to each other, “Let us apply the ‘Lilienthal principle’”.
The point is that this experienced grandmaster and trainer always starts analysing a position by asking himself if he can draw it, and only when he finds that he has at least a draw does he start looking for a way to win it. Try this method and you will find that your analysis becomes more exact and not so long-winded.’
(5003)
See also Andor Lilienthal (1911-2010), as well as C.N. 7075 in our feature article on Bent Larsen.
From Pablo S. Domínguez (Madrid):
‘I quote from pages 229-230 of The King by J.H. Donner (Alkmaar, 2006):
“The following position arose after White’s 77th move and, despite the fact that the assistance of both seconds was required to convince Kotov and only after the latter had greatly upset his opponent claiming that a method had recently been found in the Soviet Union for winning this ending, there was no changing the outcome: an irrevocable draw.
Mate would only be possible after a grave error by the defender.”
The diagram is labelled “Kotov-Najdorf Zurich 1953”. This section of Donner’s volume is described as a “fragment of an endgame book” (page 229), and on page 244 the source is given as “M. Euwe & J.H. Donner, Het Eindspel 1 Utrecht 1977”.
However, the famous book by Bronstein on the Candidates’ tournament states that the game ended in a draw after 50 Nhxg7+. There is no mention of Kotov’s playing on for another 27 moves.’
Firstly, we reproduce the conclusion of the game as given on page 319 of the tournament book Schach-Elite im Kampf (‘Bearbeitung der 210 Partien durch Dr. Max Euwe’):
As regards possible prolongation of play, all we can add for now is what appeared at the end of the game on page 260 of The World Championship Candidates’ Tournament 1953 by B.H. Wood (material initially published as a supplement to CHESS and, as announced on page 371 of the magazine’s 18 June 1955 number, issued in book form in June 1955):
‘Now Kotov maliciously announced that he intended to play on, to see whether Najdorf might blunder into being mated inside 50 moves. Najdorf complained wildly to the tournament committee against the idea of a Grand-Master being subjected to such an indignity; and finally Kotov agreed to the draw ...’
How did the improbable story arise that the game continued until move 77?
(5042)
From Yasser Seirawan (Amsterdam):
‘I am currently writing a romance/adventure novel which features a chess theme. It was originally written in 1980 and 1981, but a baggage mishap during a flight to Berlin caused me to lose my only (handwritten) copy. Laptops did not exist in those days. Now, half a lifetime later, I have revived the project. How many grandmasters have written a novel?’
Two works come to mind: Belye i chernye by A. Kotov (Moscow, 1965) and Los Voraces 2019 by A. Soltis (Jefferson, 2004). Regarding the former, which concerned Alekhine’s life, see C.N. 4073 for information about the ensuing film. The dust-jacket of the Czech translation of the novel (Prague, 1971) is reproduced below:
(5366)
See Chess in Fiction.
Concerning a remark quoted in C.N. 5884, ‘Think strategies when it’s your opponent’s turn to move; sort out the tactics while your own clock is running’, Paul Dorion (Montreal, Canada) notes a passage on page 139 of Think Like a Grandmaster by Alexander Kotov (London, 1971):
‘When later I was busy writing this book I approached Botvinnik and asked him to tell me what he did when his opponent was thinking. The former world title-holder replied in much the following terms: Basically I do divide my thinking into two parts. When my opponent’s clock is going I discuss general considerations in an internal dialogue with myself. When my own clock is going I analyse concrete variations.’
(5889)
See Chess Strategy and Tactics.
Regarding this photograph taken during the 1953 Candidates’ tournament in Neuhausen and Zurich [and shown in C.N.s 3852 and 3956] we are informed by Grzegorz Siwek (Warsaw) that the figure on Kotov’s left is D. Postnikov.
The latest key is thus: Averbakh, N.N., Keres, N.N., Perret, N.N., N.N., Kotov, Postnikov, N.N., Taimanov, Geller and Petrosian.
(6225)
From Henk Smout (Leiden, the Netherlands), further to C.N.s 6370 and 6384:
‘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)
Javier Asturiano Molina asks about the correct spelling of Levenfish/Löwenfisch.
Both are commonly seen, with a distinct trend nowadays towards the former in many countries. The German rendition ‘Löwenfisch’ or ‘Loewenfisch’ was particularly common in English-language literature in the first half of the twentieth century, although the BCM sometimes had ‘Lövenfisch’. The 1971 volume Dizionario enciclopedico degli scacchi used ‘Levenfisch’. The last two spellings mentioned may be regarded as non-standard.
The above photograph was published in Chess Review, April 1947, page 9.
(6498)
Alexander Kotov’s assessment of Agatha Christie was reported by Harry Golombek in The Times Saturday Review, 25 April 1981, page 9:
Below is the remark about ‘even a Russian’ (which was addressed to Hercule Poirot) in ‘A Chess Problem’, as published in the edition of Agatha Christie’s book The Big Four referred to in C.N. 4105:
(8272)
The front cover of Caïssa, 1 May 1950 has been forwarded by Alan McGowan (Waterloo, Canada):
The magazine gave no explanation (concerning the context, for instance, or the rotation of the chessboard), but Mr McGowan notes that, as mentioned on page 129 of the issue, the Candidates’ tournament in Budapest was in progress. One of the games between Bronstein and Kotov was drawn in 15 moves.
(8437)
Future C.N. items will examine some positions in Chess Tactics by Alexander Kotov (London, 1983). First, though, attention is drawn to the concluding ‘Translator’s Note’ (pages 142-143), a tribute by John Littlewood to Kotov, who had died in 1981. We wonder what lay behind the crusty second paragraph:
‘It has always struck me as sad that the younger generation of British players did not see Kotov visit this country until he was over 30 years past his prime, brought in as an ageing grandmaster to bestow dubious prestige on some ostensibly budding World Champion who managed to beat him during a simultaneous exhibition ...’
(8986)
From Leonard Barden (London):
‘At the time John Littlewood wrote his comment about Kotov I wondered what he had in mind. I organized two clock simultaneous exhibitions for Kotov in London against selected juniors. One, on about ten boards, was during the Lord John Cup in September 1977. All the competing grandmasters (the others were Hort, Quinteros and Torre) gave clock displays on the free day. Hort crushed the strongest group, which included the future grandmasters Daniel King and William Watson. Kotov had the weakest group and scored well, though losing one or two. The other occasion was in early November 1978, when Kotov gave a 12-board exhibition against selected under-13 juniors. His score (6 –3 =3) was good, given the tough opposition. Neil Carr won a widely published game.
Kotov had a heart condition and told me that he was glad to have the simultaneous assignments because he could use the money to buy medication, for himself and his wife, which was not available in the Soviet Union. He did not appear to have any physical problems during either event.
I remember thinking in the 1980s that John Littlewood’s comment would have had more weight if made in connection with the three-game match at Borehamwood in November 1979 which Kotov lost to Ian Wells (one win and two defeats). Wells was then aged 15. Kotov made several errors in those games and was suffering physically after around three hours’ play.’
BCM, March 1982, page 102
The report on pages 1-2 of the November 1979 CHESS stated that before the match with Kotov, Wells had never played against a grandmaster. Their post-match comments were quoted:
With regard to that match, Mr Barden informs us:
‘It was held at the home of Malcolm Fox, who was then the organizer of the annual Borehamwood congress. He was a nephew of the many times Canadian champion Maurice Fox. Malcolm Fox made the arrangements and provided hospitality for both players. His son Neil was a talented junior and played some blitz games with Kotov during the match. Kotov was persuaded to play the match when I told him that Wells was from the same part of the country, and of similar promise for his age, as Gordon Crown was in 1947.’
Certain databases suggest that in 1979 there was also a match, in Brighton, between Lodewijk Prins and Ian Wells, but the Dutchman’s opponent was Peter Wells. For example, the following appeared in a report by J. Speelman on pages 95-96 of the March 1980 BCM:
‘... a match between IM Ludovic [sic] Prins (NL) and Peter Wells, the British U-16 champion.’
(8990)
From page 8 of Chess Tactics by Alexander Kotov (London, 1983):
Why the name Johner?
The position, well known, is on page 635 of the Skinner/Verhoeven book on Alekhine as a victory by the world champion against A. Nestor in a simultaneous display in Port of Spain, Trinidad on either 31 January or 4 February 1939. The only full game available from Alekhine’s visit to Trinidad is a draw against Raymond Young (who had written on page 11 of the August 1993 Chess Life that Alekhine’s two displays were ‘on successive nights’ and that he believed they took place ‘in late 1939 or early 1940’).
As noted by Skinner and Verhoeven, the Alekhine v Nestor conclusion appeared in the Deutsche Schachzeitung in 1939 (in a feature on pages 197-198 of the July issue):
The position and solution were given again on pages 310 and 318 of the December 1939 issue, the finish being described as ‘wunderhübsch’.
Another early publication of the ending was in Brian Harley’s column on page 20 of the Observer, 30 July 1939:
On page 71 of Achieving the Aim (Oxford, 1981) Botvinnik referred to his title match discussions with Alekhine immediately after AVRO, 1938:
‘We agreed that I should send a formal challenge to an address he gave in South America (Alekhine was intending to buy some land in Trinidad) ...’
(9000)
Christian Sánchez writes:
‘The Trinidad Guardian of 14 May 2008 [broken link] gives a detailed account of Alekhine’s visit to the island, but only his opponent’s middle initial can be added: A.L. Nestor.’
(9005)
From page 49 of Chess Tactics by Alexander Kotov (London, 1983):
Wanted: information about this ‘Kots-N.N.’ position.
The imprint page describes the book as ‘an adapted and updated version of Lehrluch [sic] der Schachtaktik -1 (Sportverlag Berlin 1972)’. We have three editions of volume one of Kotov’s Lehrbuch der Schachtaktik. None of them indicates any place or date for the position (or a name for Black), and each edition is different with respect to White’s identity:
(9111)
From Christian Sánchez:
‘Page 105 of volume two of Tratado general de ajedrez by Roberto Grau (Buenos Aires, 1943) has a similar position, but with two pawns added, a black one on a4 and a white one on c3. No particulars were given. As Grau’s main source was Kurt Richter’s work, it is no surprise to find the position (without the extra pawns) on page 62 of Kombinationen by Richter (Berlin and Leipzig, 1936), together with many others, in that chapter, in the same order. Richter wrote that the game was J. Kotrc v N.N., Vienna, 1907.’
We can add that the position was given as won by J. Kotrč on page 115 of the April 1907 Deutsche Schachzeitung:
(9118)
Max Euwe’s ‘Game of the Month’ column on pages 74-75 of Chess Review, March 1952, mentioned in C.N. 10276, began with this observation:
‘The USSR Championship usually enlists the efforts of almost half the holders of the title of Grand Master in the FIDE.’
From page 296 of CHESS, June 1968:
Such additional jottings on the subject of Chess Grandmasters are always welcome.
(10279)
From page 138 of Deep Thinking by Garry Kasparov with Mig Greengard (New York, 2017):
‘Paradoxically, when other top players wrote about games in magazines and newspaper columns they often made more mistakes in their commentary than the players had made at the board. Even when the players themselves published analyses of their own games they were often less accurate than when they were playing the game.’
Kasparov’s observation about people pointing out a champion’s mistakes ‘as if they’d found them themselves’ makes us wonder how often he has been the victim of a common piece of annotational malpractice: in a book or article a champion (e.g. Capablanca or Alekhine) presents analysis which is an improvement on his actual play, and a subsequent annotator (e.g. Panov or Kotov) reproduces the same variations anonymously, as if they were his own discovery. There cannot be many areas of human activity where a critic has the opportunity to act that way.
(10433)
From page 22 of Aleksandr Alekhin by A. Kotov (Moscow, 1973):
The English translation by K.P. Neat on page 16 of Alexander Alekhine (London, 1975):
Kotov’s output on Alekhine is bestrewn with unsourced quotes. Regarding the one under discussion here, we have yet to find anything relevant in his two-volume work Shakhmatnoe Nasledie A.A. Alekhina (Moscow, 1953 and 1958).
(11062)
For the full set of previous C.N. items (C.N.s 6587, 6596, 8138 and 8958) on the beast of prey/monk matter, see Alexander Alekhine Miscellanea.
One need look no further than the game-headings in the four-volume translation Herencia Ajedrecística de Alekhine by A. Kotov:
Tinner-Alekhine, Podebrad, 1936; Bad Naugheim, 1937; Kebitz; Scheveninguen (a dubious Spanish ‘transliteration’?); Magret, 1937; Match-Alekhine, Hamburg, 1930; Alekhine-Seitz, Hastings 1926-27 (neither player was in that tourney); Alekhine-Seitz, London, 1922 (Seitz was not there – Yates is meant); Brandley Beach, 1929; Apchenek; Mogreb, 1938; Bradly-Beach.
But the best, and one that says it all, is on page 86 of the second volume: Marco-Alekhine, Gaaga, 1921.
Yuri Kireev (Moscow) has forwarded a photograph which he took in March 2019 of the memorial to Alexander Kotov at the Kuntsevsky Cemetery, Moscow:
(11762)
Vladimir Neistadt (Barnaul, Russia) submits two photographs:
G.S.A. Wheatcroft and A. Kotov
In the above item (from page 312 of Шахматы в СССР, October 1958) Kotov, Flohr and Botvinnik are with one of Capablanca’s brothers, Aquiles, who was a delegate at an International Congress of Architects in Moscow.
(12067)
Addition on 1 August 2026:
Courtesy of the Hulton Archive, Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) provides this photograph of the co-winners of Hastings, 1962-63:
Svetozar Gligorić and Alexander Kotov, Hastings, 5 January 1963
To the Archives
for other feature articles.
Copyright Edward Winter. All rights reserved.
