Edward Winter
Jan Timman (courtesy Hum Images)
From the unpublished 1994 edition of Chess Personalia by Jeremy Gaige
From Paul Timson (Whalley, England):
‘On perusing Jan Timman’s book The Art of Chess Analysis I came across the following incredible passage:
“The Vidmar Memorial Tournament is held every two years. For some reason or other, the fifth in the series, in 1979, attracted me immediately. Not that I have ever played through a game of Vidmar’s – at least, never a game he won; but probably I have seen a number of his losses printed among the collected games of Alekhine, Capablanca, and Euwe. Frankly, this splendid tournament is rather an exaggerated mark of honor for a not very brilliant chess player.”
Whilst Timman is entitled to his own opinion of Vidmar’s play, it seems curious that he should commit it to print without bothering to play through any of Vidmar’s wins.’
(953)
As mentioned on page 170 of Kings, Commoners and Knaves, the passage in question by Jan Timman is on page 194 of the RHM edition of 1980 and on page 185 of the Cadogan version of 1997.
From Hugh Myers (Davenport, IA, USA):
‘Timman’s opinion was unfair, but Vidmar was not known for brilliance or originality. If scoring percentage is the main thing, he deserves more recognition. Otherwise – lack of it is no great tragedy. Tartakower was a chess genius. Vidmar was a talented journeyman.’
(998)
See Milan Vidmar.
The 8/1986 New in Chess, page 23, reports another example of a leading player’s doubts over the basic rules of chess. After 15 moves in the Beliavsky-Timman game at Tilburg, 1986 a position was reached where Black had a defended knight on d2. White’s next move (16 O-O-O) has the following note: ‘Before playing this move Beliavsky inquired from the arbiter whether he was allowed to castle in this position. He explained that he was not sure about it as FIDE rules are changed so often these days.’
(1372)
See Castling in Chess.
The final paragraph of the Introduction to Confessions of a Chess Grandmaster by A. Soltis (Davenport, 1990), page i:
‘And I’m not going to bore you with two pages of sub-variations explaining why 22 b3!? is slightly better than 22 Rc2?! There is entirely too much punctuation wasted today by members of the Hübner-Timman school who will give you reams of analysis to reveal the absolute truth about a game but may not get around to explaining why a move is good, what was in the player’s mind when he played it or how it can help you improve your own play.’
A position on page 61 of volume one of Schachtaktik by Erwin Voellmy (Basle, 1927):
White to move
The players and occasion were not stated (apart from ‘Sept. 1912’). White won by 1 Ra1 d1(Q) 2 Ra7+ Kxb6 3 c8(N)+ Kc6 4 b5 mate.
(2015)
From page 105 of La Stratégie, March 1913:
(2460)
In thanking Jan Timman for his letter on 26 June 2001 we mentioned that it would be interesting to learn in due course the win after 2...Kb7. His reply:
Chess the Adventurous Way by Jan Timman (Alkmaar, 1994) presents 80 of his games, annotated in characteristically brilliant style.
(2078)
Jan Timman’s Foreword to A Chess Omnibus.
From pages 98-99 of Black is OK Forever! by A. Adorján (London, 2005):
‘Watch the errors. Yes, there are some really persistent ones which remain undetected for several decades. I’m not talking about the mistakes that fill the trash written on “opening theory” by the dozen. That’s what I call “fortnightly books”. Here is how to produce them: take three existing “works” on your subject, mix them up a little bit, add a lot of fresher games (don’t forget to steal the annotations), and finally – to make it look better – put in something analysed by your latest Fritz (or whatever). That’s all. One gets the impression that those who have already read at least one chess book feel an irresistible urge to write one as well. No wonder Timman said already in the early 1980s: “95% of opening theory books are rubbish.” Unfortunately, the time that has passed since failed to prove the opposite.’
Jan Timman (Amsterdam) informs us:
‘Adorján’s quote is puzzling for me. I don’t recall such a statement from those years. In fact, I valued some opening books that appeared in those days.’
(3914)
Addition:
On 5 September 2005 András Adorján (Budapest) wrote to us:
‘95% of opening books are rubbish – many of them are made in two to three weeks by using two to three books written earlier. I also say that 95% of reviewers do not bother actually to read the book they are going to write about. Having all (?) the reviews of my newest BLACK is still OK! and BLACK is OK forever!, I can prove it too.’
We have linguistically revised the above text.
Yossy Fallakh (Or-Yehuda, Israel) recalls the game between L. Pachman and J. Timman, Geneva, 1977:
Play went 40...Qe1 41 Qxg6+, and the game was eventually drawn. Pachman annotated the conclusion on pages 310-311 of the July 1977 BCM, and it should be noted that some modern sources misdate the game 1978.
(4861)
A five-star book just published is The Art of the Endgame by Jan Timman (Alkmaar, 2011). Chapter five is entitled ‘Knight Promotions’, and we became particularly interested in the pair of compositions on pages 82-83:
‘Herland, Deutsches Wochenschach, 1913. White to play and win’
1 a6 Bg1 2 a7 h2 3 a8(N) h3 4 Nb6 cxb6 5 c7 b5 6 c8(N) b4 7 Nd6 exd6 8 e7 d5 9 e8(Q) and wins.
‘F. Fritz. White to play and win’
1 h4 Ka5 2 h5 Ka4 3 h6 b4 4 h7 b5 5 h8(N) a5 6 Ng6 fxg6 7 f7 g5 8 f8(N) g4 9 Ne6 dxe6 10 d7 e5 11 d8(N) and wins.
Regarding the latter composition, Timman commented:
‘It is unclear when this study was made. In the database it has been adorned with the label “source unknown”.
Who was F. Fritz? He should certainly not be mixed up with Jindřich Fritz ...’
The main historical issue raised by Timman is whether Sigmund Herland was the first to compose such a study, in 1913, or whether the Fritz position antedated it. We offer some jottings.
(7418)
For that additional material see Underpromotion in Chess.
From page 7 of Timman’s The Art of the Endgame (C.N. 7418):
‘The world of chess was the most fascinating. I devoured Euwe’s books. The memory of the game Réti-Alekhine, annotated in his book Practical Chess Lessons, which never ceased to amaze me: the black rook appearing on e3 and remaining en prise there for several moves.’
C.N.s 5632 and 6358 discussed the unresolved matter of the contradictory versions of the game-score:
A) 18 Bg2 Bh3 19 Bf3 Bg4 20 Bg2 Bh3 21 Bf3 Bg4 22 Bh1 h5;
B) 18 Bg2 Bh3 19 Bf3 Bg4 20 Bh1 h5;
C) 18 Bh1 h5.
In other words, it is currently unknown whether the game ended with 42...Nd4, 40...Nd4 or 38...Nd4.
Jean-Pierre Rhéaume (Montreal, Canada) notes that version B was given on pages 653-654 of 500 Master Games of Chess by S. Tartakower and J. du Mont (London, 1952). We add that it was also version B that Tartakower annotated on pages 97-99 of his book Schachmethodik (Berlin, 1928 and 1929).
(7436)
See Réti v Alekhine, Baden-Baden, 1925.
On page 26 of the April 2004 Chess Life Larry Evans wrote:
‘“So it’s to be Short and it will be short”, quipped Kasparov upon learning the name of his challenger (who eliminated Anatoly Karpov and then Jan Timman, to reach the top).’
In reality, the famous quip was made by Kasparov during the Manila Olympiad in June 1992, long before the Short v Timman Candidates’ final (which ended on 30 January 1993). From page 462 of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov Part II: 1985-1993 (London, 2013):
‘... journalists had asked me who would win the forthcoming final Candidates match – Timman or Short? – and how my next world championship match would end. To the first question I replied: “It will be Short.” And, laughing, I made the same reply to the second question: “It will be short.” On learning of this from the tournament bulletin, Short took offence ...’
In an interview with Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam (see page 54 of the 5/1992 New in Chess) Short light-heartedly dismissed Kasparov’s remark (which he gave as ‘It will be Short and it will be short’).
(8376)
C.N. 8376 pointed out incorrect information about when Kasparov made his ‘it will be short’ quip: it was in June 1992, i.e. some six months before the Short v Timman Candidates’ final.
Kasparov mentioned that the joke was reported in a bulletin of the Manila Olympiad, held in June 1992. Can a reader kindly forward us a copy?
(9221)
The bulletin (June 1992) of the Manila Olympiad has been provided by Henk Chervet of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek in The Hague:
(9251)
Regarding the 1993 Karpov v Timman match, see also Cuttings.
One of the strongest practical – as opposed to moral – arguments for not copying other writers’ work is that the work copied may well be wrong.
From pages 53-54 of How to Be a Complete Tournament Player by Edmar Mednis (London, 1991):
Below is the relevant part of Timman’s annotations, as well as the game’s conclusion, on pages 56-57 of volume 11 of The Chess Player (Nottingham, 1976):
Any writer today who discusses the game on the basis of what appeared in The Chess Player faces two beguiling traps: a) repeating the line 14 dxe6 Bxe6 without realizing that it is faulty, and b) realizing that it is faulty and blaming Timman. Moreover, those aware of Mednis’ book may not bother to acknowledge what he wrote when they themselves call 14...Bxe6 a typo, and some may even ask how Mednis knew for sure that it was a typo.
Although The Chess Player and the Mednis book identified Black as S. (i.e. Silvino) García, contemporary sources agree that the participant in Orense, 1976 was Guillermo García González. See, for instance, the crosstable on page 47 of Batsford’s FIDE Chess Yearbook 1976/7 by Kevin J. O’Connell (London, 1977) and on page xiv of the Chess Player volume itself. The crosstable shows that Timman and García drew their game, which underscores another danger: copying from databases. Some have Timman as the winner, and there are duplicates of the game with both G. García and S. García named as Black.
(9097)
Further to C.N. 9361 (Spassky v Karpov, 1972), Joop Elderhorst (Rotterdam, the Netherlands) writes:
‘In Summer 1979, Timman and Polugayevsky played a secret match in the Netherlands in preparation for their respective Interzonal tournaments (Timman in Rio de Janeiro and Polugayevsky in Riga). Timman won +2 –1 =5 and discussed the match on pages 3-20 of the October 1979 issue of Schaakbulletin.
Donner wrote an article about the event in De Volkskrant, 11 August 1979; see pages 314-317 of his book The King (Alkmaar, 2006).’
Our items on this theme have now been brought together in Secret Chess Contests.
(9367)
Arthur Barlas (Chelmsford, MA, USA) asks which book on the 1972 Spassky v Fischer match may be regarded as the best (in terms of quality of writing, accurate background information, interesting descriptive material and, in particular, thorough, reliable game annotations).
Two frontrunners suggest themselves: Fischer gegn Spassky by Freysteinn Jóhannsson and Friðrik Ólafsson (Reykjavik, 1973) and Fischer World Champion! by Max Euwe and Jan Timman (Alkmaar, 2002).
(9775)
Michael Allard (Bowie, MD, USA) notes a book with extensive treatment of the games of Nigel Short and Jan Timman: The Way to Linares’ Summit by Alexander Kulagin (Würzburg, 1993).
(10774)
15 February 1985 was ‘a day of shame in the history of chess’, according to page 2 of Child of Change by Garry Kasparov with Donald Trelford (London, 1987), and today, exactly 34 years after the Termination of the first Karpov v Kasparov world championship match, we have received The Longest Game by Jan Timman (Alkmaar, 2019).
It is welcome that Timman’s account of the Termination on pages 70-77 highlights the unreliability of various claims presented to the public in 1985-87.
As regards the 1986 world title match, on page 144 there is no mincing of words by Timman about A Unique Chess Writer:
‘Karpov did not have a clear delegation leader, but he did have a press attaché: the Yugoslav Dmitri Bjelica. That was a strange choice, as Bjelica was known as a gutter journalist who wrote books that were full of printing errors and plagiarisms.’
(11226)
To the Archives
for other feature articles.
Copyright Edward Winter. All rights reserved.
