C.N. 11763 (15 March 2020) announced: ‘Owing to
other commitments, it will be necessary for us to
curtail the posting of new C.N. items as from the end
of March 2020. Thereafter, additions to the main C.N.
page and to feature articles will be possible only
occasionally.’
If contacting us by e-mail (ewinter@sunrise.ch),
correspondents need to include their name
and full postal address.
Further information has been received concerning the
above photograph (The Hague, 1928).
C.N. 10977 referred to the unavailability of any sound
recording featuring Emanuel Lasker, but now Olimpiu G.
Urcan (Singapore) has found an instance on the Beeld
en Geluid website and has secured permission for
the file to be presented by us:
It was broadcast by the Dutch station KRO on 5 November
1935, during the Alekhine v Euwe world championship
match. The interviewer, it seems, was Salo Landau.
The following transcript of Lasker being interviewed in
Dutch has been provided, together with an English
translation, by Hans Renette (Bierbeek, Belgium):
‘Ja, ja, ook zij hebben getoond zwakke zijden te
hebben. Zo is de mens nu eenmaal. Niet steeds
übermensch. Wat is de mens zonder enige zwakte?
[Dat] bestaat alleen in de verbeelding.
Hoe kan Euwe van de zwakke zijde van Aljechin
profiteren?
Indien hij speelt wat Aljechin niet goed ligt.
Meer voor de hand ligt de vraag: wat zal Aljechin
doen om zijn zwakke zijden te versterken? Dat hij
daarmee tussen het spelen van de partijen druk
bezig is, daaraan bestaat voor mij geen twijfel.
Zal het hem lukken?
Ik zal je een geheim toevertrouwen. Deze jonge
man heeft talent. [De interviewer lacht.] Dat
zeker. Dus wat een geniaal mens bereiken kan en
hoe snel en handig hij iets kan aanleren, kan
immers niemand raden.
Als ik het goed begrijp, heeft Euwe dus goede
kansen als hij met wit speelt mits hij met de
damepion opent. Maar hoe staat het met zijn
verdediging als hij met zwart speelt?
Tot nu toe heeft hij met zwart ongunstig
gespeeld. Vier partijen verloren met zwart is
allesbehalve mooi. Maar vijf winstpunten met wit
en slechts een verliespartij met deze kleur is
uitstekend.
We zullen het zo zeggen: wie met wit speelt heeft
een voordeel?
Zo was het niet altijd. Zukertort’s mening was
dat e2-e4 een slechte zet was die door e7-e5
weerlegd werd en Aljechin’s loopbaan onderlijnt
dit. Hij heeft met zwart in de Spaanse partij, die
toch als zeer sterk geldt, zo goed als alle
partijen gewonnen en geen enkele daarvan verloren,
haast dertig jaren.
Tegenwoordig echter worden de meeste partijen door
wit gewonnen?
Maar dat is individueel en afwisselend. Sommige
meesters voelen zich beter thuis in de verdediging
en anderen voelen zich meer op hun gemak als ze
kunnen aanvallen.
Hoe komt dat dan, dokter?
Alles in het leven gaat op en neer. Zo is het
ook hier. In het ene tijdperk winnen de witte
stukken, in het andere, de andere keer, winnen de
zwarte. Ik zal u liever vertellen wanneer Euwe
zich echt in zijn element voelt.’
‘Yes, yes, they too showed weaknesses. That is how
man is. Not always an übermensch. What would
a man be without weaknesses? That exists only in the
imagination.
How can Euwe take advantage of Alekhine’s weak side?
By playing that which does not suit Alekhine. But
the more obvious question is: what will Alekhine do
to strengthen his weaknesses? I have no doubt that
he is working on that between the games.
Will he succeed?
I shall entrust you with a secret. This young man
has talent. [The interviewer laughs.] That is for
sure. How much a genius can achieve and how quickly
and skilfully he can learn something – that is
anybody’s guess.
If I understand correctly, Euwe has good chances when
playing White – provided that he opens with the
queen’s pawn. But what about his defence with Black?
So far he has played inauspiciously with Black.
Losing four games with Black is anything but good.
But five wins and just one loss with White – that is
excellent.
Can we put it this way: White has the advantage?
It was not always like that. Zukertort considered
e2-e4 a bad move, refuted by e7-e5, and Alekhine’s
career underlines this. With Black against the
Spanish Opening, known, after all, as a very strong
opening, he has won almost all his games and did not
lose a single one for nearly 30 years.
However, nowadays are not most games won by White?
But that is individual and variable. Some masters
feel more at home in defence, and others feel more
at ease when they are able to attack.
How can this be explained, Doctor?
Everything in life goes up and down. The same also
here. In one period, the white pieces win, in
another the black pieces do. I would prefer to tell
you when Euwe truly feels in his element.’
Richard Forster (Winterthur, Switzerland) points out
that Lasker mentioned the radio broadcast in two letters
to his wife Martha (xeroxes courtesy of Jurgen Stigter,
Amsterdam). On 31 October 1935, Lasker wrote from
Amsterdam:
‘Jetzt arbeite ich an meinem nächsten
holländischen Vortrag vom 5ten Nov Abends 9.45min,
indem fortgesetzt unter Leitung von Alex Frank
Übungen an der Aussprache mache.’
[]
For some details concerning the journalist and actor
Alex Frank (1888-1950), see this webpage.
On the day of the radio broadcast, 5 November 1935,
Lasker informed his wife late at night:
‘Alle sind erstaunt, dass ich so gut auf
holländisch geredet habe. Landau + Alex Frank waren
entzückt, auch die Leute vom Radio selbst.’
[‘Everyone is amazed how well I spoke Dutch. Landau
and Alex Frank were delighted, as were the radio
people themselves.’]
11906. Buckle
and Korchnoi
Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) has obtained permission
for us to show the following images here:
Henry Thomas Buckle
(The archives of the
Pushkin State Museum in Moscow hold this original
engraving by Stephen Henry Gimber.)
Victor Korchnoi
(A 1979 portrait from
the Lev Abramovich Borodulin Collection held by the
Multimedia Complex of Contemporary Arts in Moscow.)
11907.
Additions
Of late, additions have been made to many feature
articles, and especially Chess
Jottings. From that page, six posers are
reproduced below:
Black to move
White to move
Mate in two
Black to move
Black to move
What is the fastest mate
for White?
11908.
The early life of James Mason
From John Townsend (Wokingham, England):
‘Several sources indicate that James Mason was for
some time employed as a newsboy in New York. For
example, an article appeared on page 5 of The
Sun (New York), on 25 June 1882, entitled “The
Newsboy Chess Player”:
“Fifteen years ago or thereabouts a bright-faced
youngster “established himself in business”, as he
was fond of telling his customers on board the
Fulton Ferry boats. His business was selling the
morning and evening papers. In time, he had a list
of regular customers, who waited till they were on
the boat to buy papers of him. The youngster’s name
was James Mason. In those days Otis Field, well
known to New York billiard players, kept a billiard
room in the basement at the northeast corner of
Fulton and Nassau streets. On the Nassau side he had
tables for chess and draughts. The newsboy had to
pass the place four times a day, and, as the windows
were open in warm weather, could not fail to see the
chess games, with their carved men. One day, while
he was watching the pieces with boyish interest, an
old gentleman at one of the tables beckoned him down
stairs ...”
The chronology in this article may not always be
accurate. It can be viewed on the Chess
Archaeology website.
To this picture, Stephen Davies, on page 37 of Samuel
Lipschütz: A Life in Chess (Jefferson, 2015), adds
that, having sold newspapers in the morning, Mason
worked in the delivery department of the New
York Evening Telegram in the afternoon.
The New York Evening Telegram was
established (in 1867 according to Chronicling
America) by James Gordon Bennett, the son of J.G.
Bennett. The Oxford Companion to Chess
(Hooper and Whyld, second edition, 1992, page 250)
makes the following comment in connection with
Mason:
“Coming to the notice of J. Gordon Bennett of the New
York Herald, he was given a job in the
newspaper’s offices ...”
Meanwhile, using Chronicling
Americait is possible to follow newspaper
reports of the newsboy’s growing force over the
chequered board and his advancing fame. When the New
York Herald, 16 January 1869, reported on page 7
about the “Handicap Chess Tournament” at Seider’s
Café Europa, Nos. 12 and 14 Division Street,
“Captain George Mackenzie being the manager”, James
Mason was noted as being “among the most prominent”
players.
On page 9 of the New York Herald of 7 May
1870, which looked forward to the approaching
Baden-Baden congress, “J. Mason” was identified as
someone who could ably represent chess in America.
As it turned out, no US players took part.
He was occasionally mentioned in the press in
connection with local chess activities, as in a
report in the New York Herald of 28 October
1870 (page 8):
“This evening the Nineteenth Ward Chess Club will
play their return challenge game with the Downtown
Chess Club at the Europa Chess Rooms, 12 and 14
Division Street, at eight P.M. Messrs. Perrin,
Mason, Merian, prominent players, also a committee
from the Williamsburg Chess Club will be present to
witness the contest ...”
Fairly close in time to the above reports was the
United States Federal Census of 1870, which can be
viewed on-line.
The census day was 1 June, and no reason is known
not to expect Mason to have been in New York at that
time. Only one James Mason entry has been found
which is at all consistent with his place of
residence, his occupation, and his supposed age. A
certain James Mason, aged 22, resident in New York
city’s 9th District and 6th Ward, is described as a
“vender” [sic]. Vendors were commonly seen on
the streets of New York. Newspapers were among the
items which could be bought, and, although the
merchandise sold by this James Mason is not
recorded, the description of “vender” is
consistent with what is known of the chessplayer’s
work. Residence in New York city is in line with
expectation, and the age is also tolerably accurate.
In the same household are to be found his father,
James Mason, aged 52, a tailor, his mother, Mary Ann
Mason, aged 43, tailoress, and his younger sister,
Kate Mason, aged 18. The parents were born in
Ireland, which also fits the bill, but,
interestingly, the birthplace of both children was
entered as “US” (United States) and has been
overwritten with “NY” (New York). However, it
is not yet possible to confirm whether this census
entry relates to the chessplayer. The same James
Mason has not so far been identified in any other US
censuses.
The story of James Mason’s birth in Kilkenny in
1849 has been widely embraced by chess writers, and
they may well be right. However, caution is called
for. It is difficult either to prove or disprove.
There has been no corroboration from a primary
source, such as a birth or baptism record, and no
information about his early life and background in
Kilkenny was ever given beyond a date of birth, even
though he is said to have been 11 when he was next
mentioned in the United States. His existence during
those first years has taken on an almost mythical
quality.
Leaving this New York census entry aside, there
are other difficulties with attributing Irish birth
to Mason. In the English census of 1881, the first
after his arrival, the chessplayer’s place of birth
was, similarly, entered as “America” (see National
Archives, RG 11 590/90, page 14).
In the 1901 census, his place of birth was
recorded as “Ireland, American citizen” (National
Archives, RG 13 30, page 52). If that were correct,
one would assume that he had been naturalized in the
US. Searches so far for a naturalization record have
proved negative. The only other way he could have
been an American citizen was by birth.
P.W. Sergeant was evidently perplexed by Mason. On
page 172 of A Century of British Chess he
remarked:
“But James Mason was not an American, either by
birth or, apparently, even by naturalisation, since
in 1901-2 he played for Britain in the
cable-matches. He is one of the most enigmatic
characters in the history of British chess.”
Sergeant implies that American citizenship would
have prevented him from playing for Britain. Yet
American citizenship is precisely what he declared
to the 1901 census; if it was not true, then it is
hard to understand why he said it. Sergeant does not
comment here on the extent to which birth in
Ireland, as opposed to America, may have assisted
his eligibility to represent Britain in
international matches. He also made the point that,
on his arrival in 1878, Mason was not received as
one returning to Britain:
“... and, though he was, in a sense, like Bird, an
exile returned, he was not recognised as connected
with the British Isles. He was received as Mr Mason,
the American master.”
James Mason was well liked and he has emerged with
the reputation of an honest person. His alleged plea
to Buckley (“Don’t split on me till I’m dead ...”),
noted in your feature article Who
Was R.J. Buckley?, entails an element of
conspiracy, but chessplayers have, generally,
sympathized with the circumstances. However, when
considered in conjunction with that, the
inconsistent information which he gave to censuses
gives one cause to question how straightforward he
was in the matter of nationality, and whether Irish
birth was the truth.
One final point: that Mason was born in “New York
city” was affirmed by the editors of the Columbia
Chess Club Chronicle (who included S. Lipschütz) in
the Editor’s Table on page 31 of the issue dated 23
July 1887:
“The St Paul Pioneer states that an
American gentleman, greatly interested in chess, is
endeavoring to arrange a match between Blackburne
and James Mason, the strong American player, who is
by far the finest native player since Paul Morphy’s
time. Mason is still a young man. Born in New York
city, he began life as a newsboy there. In later
years he has pursued a journalistic career in
London, where he has resided for nearly ten years.”
Conclusion:
Although it is widely accepted that James Mason
was born in Ireland, there is also a significant
amount of evidence that he was born in the United
States. More information is needed before any firm
conclusion can be safely drawn.’
11909. Lasker
volume three
Just received: the final volume in the Emanuel
Lasker trilogy by Richard Forster, Michael Negele
and Raj Tischbierek, published by Exzelsior Verlag,
Berlin, with a Foreword by John Nunn.
Extracts
are available on-line, and the book may be ordered
direct from the publisher’s
webpage, although some readers outside Europe may
prefer to use the McFarland
page.
Below are four photographs of Lasker (on, respectively,
pages 125, 149, 196 and 220 of the book):
In common with its predecessors,
this third volume is of superlative quality.
11910. As
incorrigible as ever
Below is the text of C.N. 11126, posted on 6 December
2018:
Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) draws our attention to
his review
of the e-book Carlsen v Caruana: FIDE World Chess
Championship, London 2018 by Raymond Keene and
Byron Jacobs (London, 2018) and sends us half a dozen
lines from the book’s ‘History of the World
Championship’ section:
We offer a few comments:
Anderssen’s opponent in the Immortal
Game ‘of London 1851’ was Kieseritzky, a name
which Raymond Keene has persisted in misspelling for
decades.
The Evergreen Game was not ‘against the
pseudonymous Dufresne (in reality the German player
E.S. Freund)’. Dufresne was his name, and E.S.
Freund was his pseudonym. Raymond Keene made the
same obvious gaffe 30 years ago, on page 136 of his
Pocket Book of Chess (London, 1988), as
pointed out in C.N. 10155. See too Cuttings.
Anderssen v Dufresne was not played in 1856. Our feature
article on the game shows that it was
published on pages 338-339 of the September 1852 Deutsche
Schachzeitung.
Anderssen v Zukertort was played in Barmen, not
Breslau.
Even without primary sources, a quick glance at, for
instance, The Oxford Companion to Chess by D.
Hooper and K. Whyld (Oxford, 1992) would have sufficed
to avoid all these elementary blunders.
***
Now we quote from Raymond Keene’s Article
dated 30 July 2022:
‘Anderssen can claim to be one of the supreme
tacticians of all time. Three of his wins are of
imperishable beauty. On their own they would justify
anyone’s devotion to chess. They are his Immortal Game
against Kieseritsky (played at Simpsons-in-the-Strand,
not the tournament) of London, 1851; his Evergreen
game against the pseudonymous Dufresne (in reality the
German player E.S. Freund) of Berlin 1856, and his
majestic sacrificial masterpiece against Zukertort of
Breslau, 1869.’
11911. Daniel Fiske
Yasser Seirawan (Hilversum, the Netherlands) notes a
relatively unfamiliar name among the latest additions to
the US
Chess Hall of Fame: Daniel Fiske.
Yasser Seirawan wonders whether there are other
‘overlooked old-timers’ who deserve modern recognition
for their contribution to chess (whether as editors,
composers, administrators, organizers, sponsors, etc.).
An Edinburgh player. See Alan McGowan’s biography.
3. William Fraser (1792-1879)
William Fraser (sometimes spelt Frazer) was a
player about whom little has been written, but
who occupied a position among England’s top
players for a number of years. Howard Staunton
considered that in 1831 Fraser and Alexander
McDonnell were “... at that time
unquestionably the finest amateur chess players in
Great Britain”. (Chess Player’s Chronicle,
1843, page 97)
William Greenwood Walker, writing in 1836,
referred to him in the following terms in his
book about McDonnell’s games, A Selection
of Games at Chess ... (page 124):
“Mr F. has the reputation of being the first
amateur player of the present day, but does not
put it to the test, in the way Mr M’D did.”
These, and other favourable assessments of
Fraser’s standing in the British chess
hierarchy, we are obliged to take largely on
trust, since, regrettably, few samples of his
play were taken down at the time.
William Fraser was a baker by profession. For
a number of years, he ran his business from 48
Upper Thames Street, London. His baptism record
shows that he was baptized at Nairn on 21
October 1792, a son of Hugh Fraser and Margaret
Bremner, having been born on 11 October 1792.
This is corroborated by the 1871 census, which
gives his age as 78 and states that he was born
in the county of Nairnshire, Scotland (National
Archives, RG 10/327, page 6). He married, on 11
April 1822 at St James’s, Westminster, Elizabeth
Newbery, who had been baptized at Stockland,
Devon, on 18 June 1800, a daughter of Nicholas
Newbery and Susanna. At the time of the 1841
census, there was a Scottish-born Hugh Fraser, a
surveyor, aged 30-34, in the household of
William, who was possibly a younger brother
(National Archives, HO 107 722/11, fol. 4).
Records of the London Chess Club (London
Metropolitan Archives, A/LCH/1) indicate that
William Fraser was elected a member in March
1821, and he remained one of its stalwarts for
many years. He was named as a member of the
London committee for the correspondence match
against Edinburgh (source: The Games of the
Match at Chess Played Between the London and the
Edinburgh Chess Clubs, in 1824, 1825, 1826, 1827,
and 1828, Edinburgh Chess Club, 1829, page 4).
Fraser played in two important matches which
may be considered the high-water marks of his
career. Although he lost both, his scores appear
very respectable, considering that he was an
amateur facing opposition of high calibre and
without receiving odds. In the summer of 1831,
he began a match with Alexander McDonnell.
According to William Greenwood Walker’s book
(page 124), there were to have been 21 games,
but, for some reason, only five were played, of
which Fraser won one, drew one and lost three.
In June 1836, he encountered Pierre Saint
Amant at the London Chess Club, when he lost one
game and drew two. The Frenchman later wrote
about his visit in Le Palamède (1842,
page 167):
“Au club de Londres il eut pour adversaire M.
Frazer qui, après MM. Mac-Donell et Lewis,
occupait le rang le plus distingué.”
On the same page, he referred to his opponent
as “un des principaux joueurs de la
métropole”.
In the Westminster Papers, 1 December
1876, there appeared an article under George
Walker’s name in which he recalled a time, at
some point between 1837 and 1841, when Fraser
had “abandoned the game” and Walker considered
himself England’s strongest player:
“As a chess player I never was first-rate,
although after the death of MacDonnell, Cochrane
being in India, and Fraser and Lewis having
abandoned the game, there was for a time no
stronger player in the field than myself.”
By 1845 the baker’s shop had moved from London
to 8 Victoria Terrace, Surbiton,
Kingston-upon-Thames. This was much further away
from the London Chess Club. A reply to a
correspondent in Bell’s Life in London (23
May 1841) suggests that he had been playing only
occasionally, but that a return to frequent play
as a member of St George’s Chess Club was
imminent:
“T---- Is the Mr F----r in the St George’s list
the celebrated player of that name? – Yes, and
he intends resuming frequent play.”
However, this may have been wishful thinking
and, in any case, it is not certain that this
interpretation of the remark is correct. The
list of members referred to was printed in the
issue of 18 April 1841, with an update on 16 May
1841, but Fraser’s name did not appear in
either. Although inactive as a player, he
retained his interest in the London Chess Club
and at the Anniversary Festival in 1847 he
officiated as a Vice-President.
The 1851 census for 8 Victoria Terrace shows
Fraser and his wife and six children, namely,
Elizabeth, 23, shop maid, Charlotte, 21,
milliner, James, 19, stockbroker, Hugh A., 17,
baker, Jane, 15, scholar, and Daniel, 11,
scholar (National Archives, HO 107 1603/348). In
addition, a daughter, Margaret, had been
baptized on 2 March 1823, at St Mary Somerset,
London.
At the time of the 1861 census, he was
described as “out of business” and was then
living at 24 Berkley Villas, Brixton (National
Archives, RG 9/364, page 119). In 1871, when his
wife was referred to as being “paralysed”, he
was at 5 Upper Homerton Terrace, Homerton,
Hackney (National Archives, RG 10/327, page 6).
He lived to the age of 86. The National
Probate Calendar for 1879 shows that he died on
13 January of that year at 113 Sandringham Road,
Hackney. His personal estate was valued under
£1,000, and probate of the will with three
codicils was granted on 24 March to John Macnab,
of Keepier Wharf, Ratcliff Cross, a coal
merchant, one of the executors.’
11913.
Translation difficulties
A number of C.N. items (e.g. C.N. 4437) have touched on
the issue of translation difficulties, and a
further example is the text reproduced in C.N. 11536
from page 10 of Schach-Aphorismen und Reminiscenzen
by Adolf Albin (Hanover, 1899):
Das Schachspiel ist schwer, und doch ist es
leicht, wäre nur das Denken nicht so schlimm! Das
Schlimmste aber ist, daß auch das Denken nicht
hilft; man muß von Natur richtig sein, so daß die
guten Einfälle immer vor uns dastehen, und uns
zurufen: da sind wir!
At least to modern eyes, the wording of this ‘aphorism’
seems cumbersome, and it is not easy to choose from
among such possible English renditions as:
Chess is difficult, yet would be easy if only
thinking were not so bad! However, the worst of it is
that thinking too does not help; one needs to be
gifted by nature, so that the good ideas always stand
out before us and call out to us: here we are!
Chess is difficult, but not so much for those who are
at ease with the thinking involved! However, the worst
of it is that mere thinking helps little; you need to
be right instinctively, so that the good ideas always
lie before us and call out to us: here we are!
Chess is difficult, and yet it would be easy if only
the thinking were not such a burden! Worst of all, not
even the thinking helps; one needs to be gifted by
nature, so that the good ideas always stand out before
us and call out to us: here we are!
C.N. 11536 also showed a Spanish translation of Albin’s
aphorism, in a book by Kurt Richter:
El juego del ajedrez es difícil y sin embargo es
fácil si no fuera tan malo tener que pensar. Pero lo
peor es que tampoco el pensar ayuda mucho; hay que
estar dotado por la naturaleza para que las buenas
ocurrencias se nos presenten siempre y nos digan:
¡Aquí estamos!
11914.
Winning a won game
On the subject of Adolf Albin and aphorisms, we have
posted a new feature article, Chess:
Winning
a Won Game.
11915. Augusto
de Muro
In 1939 the President of the Argentine Chess
Federation, Augusto de Muro, was involved in
negotiations for a rematch between Alekhine and
Capablanca. Page 240 of our monograph on the Cuban
reproduced the letters sent to de Muro by Capablanca and
Alekhine on, respectively, 16 and 18 September 1939. See
too C.N. 4696.
From C.N. 10573:
We now note that a group
within FIDE is proposing that, subject to further
investigation, Augusto de Muro should be recognized as
the second President of FIDE, for the period 1939/40
until 1946, i.e. an interruption of Alexander Rueb’s
tenure (currently regarded as lasting from 1924 to
1949).
Any investigation of such an historical issue is to be
welcomed if conducted with rigour and free of
nationalistic considerations.
The article includes the following (text reproduced as
it stands):
‘The next FIDE Congress was held seven years later,
between July 25 and 27, 1946 in Winterthur
(Switzerland), where only 9 delegates attended, in the
absence of all the Latin American delegations. There
Mr Rueb was once again appointed President of FIDE
without referring to the corresponding transfer of
command – from Mr De Muro to Mr Rueb – and resuming
the mandate as indicated by the well-known historical
line of time, assuming the presidential period
1924-1946 without interruptions, which clearly it does
not adjust to what really happened and ignoring the
decisions adopted by the previous Congress of the
entity held in Buenos Aires 1939.
Let us remember that Mr Erwin Voellmy stated that:
“during the war period, no European Federation made
contributions to the entity, with the exception of
Denmark, so FIDE had practically ceased to exist”.
Also, who was a Swiss delegate in several Congresses,
pointed out that FIDE did not hold congresses from
1940 to 1945. In this European perspective, which does
not seem to consider what was done in the American
continent by the President of the legal FIDE, Mr
Augusto de Muro, the supposed mandate that Mr Rueb
would have had should cease immediately from that year
of 1940.
In this line of analysis the historian Mr Edward
Winter coined the term “interregnum” to refer to
FIDE’s actions during the armed conflict, denoting its
inaction, but that is worth, we insist, only from a
perspective focused on a Europe that was the central
stage of the world conflict, but not considering what
was done in America since the representation of the
world entity as decided in 1939.
Therefore, it is fitting that Mr Augusto De Muro be
included as President of FIDE for the period
1939/1946. Before and after, in the gallery of former
Presidents of the entity, Mr Alexander Rueb must
appear. In this way, a historical fact will be
recognized that we have called, alluding to the
Argentine, “the unqu[e]stionable President of FIDE”.’
The reference to us in the third paragraph above is
based on an evident misunderstanding. Our Interregnum
feature article focuses on the period from Alekhine’s
death in 1946 to the 1948 match-tournament in The Hague
and Moscow, and not on the Presidency of FIDE during the
first half of the 1940s.
11916.
Blackburne v Schlechter
From John Nunn (Bude, England):
‘I was looking at the game Blackburne-Schlechter,
Vienna, 1898, which is actually an interesting
example of a knight being superior to a bishop in an
ending with a relatively open position. The score
given by ChessBase is as follows:
I just had a suspicion that instead of 19...Rae8,
Black actually played 19...Rhe8. There seems no
reason to offer the a-pawn, and indeed White can
easily make off with an extra pawn by taking it
(meeting ...Ra8 by Qd4 attacking g7).
I couldn’t find anything about the game online
and I don’t have the tournament book. If possible, I
would be grateful if you could check to see which
move was actually played.’
We find the evidence mixed.
Firstly, the tournament book gives 19...Rae8 (scans
below courtesy of the Cleveland Public Library):
However, on page 923 of The Field, 18 June 1898
Hoffer gave 19...Rhe8 (without comment), as did pages
230-232 of the August 1898 Deutsche Schachzeitung.
Page 379 of Tim Harding’s monograph on Blackburne
mentioned the above three sources, noting a number of
discrepancies in the game-score (although not the one at
move 19, where ...Rae8 was given).
In addition to welcoming further evidence from readers
concerning the Rae8/Rhe8 matter, we offer a few thoughts
on the difficulties faced by writers:
1) There are so many discrepancies in game-scores,
and such a plethora of sources potentially to be
checked, that it is unrealistic to expect chess books
of any kind, however specialized, to document all such
instances;
2) Discrepancies of particular note (e.g. in Ed.
Lasker
v Thomas and Morrison
v
Capablanca) should be mentioned as a matter of
course. That principle also applies to such issues as
the dating of games. A writer unsure whether a game
was played in, say, 1900 or 1901, should simply share
the uncertainty with readers (‘1900 or 1901’) and not
plump for one possible date and hope for the best.
Acknowledging one’s uncertainty is a sign of strength,
not weakness.
3) How databases should handle contradictory
information is a separate question which we
diffidently leave aside, at least for now.
11917.
Rashid Nezhmetdinov
Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) provides a set of
photographs of Nezhmetdinov, reproduced here courtesy of
the National Museum of Tatarstan:
11918. Disarray
at the 1939 FIDE General Assembly (C.N. 11915)
C.N. 11915 reported an announcement in October 2022
that a group within FIDE was investigating the possible
grounds for declaring that Alexander Rueb should no
longer be regarded as the Federation’s President for the
period 1939/40-1946. The key issue is whether events
during the 1939 Session of the FIDE General Assembly in
Buenos Aires justify a proposal that, for the wartime
years, the FIDE President should in future be recorded
as Augusto De Muro of Argentina. (Henceforth we shall
capitalize ‘De’, the evidence in favour of ‘de’ being
ever weaker.)
Richard Forster (Winterthur, Switzerland) has now
researched the 1939 General Assembly in depth and has
written a detailed analysis, together with his
conclusions as to whether or not Augusto De Muro’s name
should be added, retrospectively, to the roll-call of
FIDE Presidents. See FIDE
Chess Congress 1939: An Investigation.
Barbara van der Veen (Amsterdam) is writing a biography
of Michel van Gelder, ‘Nardus’s partner in painting and
in trading’. She has found that both were in Nice in
November 1899 and believes that van Gelder accompanied
Nardus on his later travels to a number of countries,
including Spain and Tunisia.
Sought: further information about Nardus’s connection
with van Gelder beyond what can be found through
standard Internet searches.
11920. Not
Only Chess
George Kruger (Berlin) seeks further details regarding
two matters mentioned in Not Only Chess by
Gerald Abrahams (London, 1974):
On page 137 Abrahams described interviewing Lasker,
Capablanca, Euwe, Flohr, Tartakower, Bogoljubow,
Reshevsky and Fine for Tass during the 1936 Nottingham
tournament. Can this material be found?
On page 203 Abrahams commented that Botvinnik ...
‘... was all but successfully challenged by a
non-crypto-Jew, Bronstein (who later endeared himself
to his masters by writing anti-Israel propaganda in
the Russian press).’
Are such writings by Bronstein traceable?
11921.
Arthur Kaufmann
Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) notes that the Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek in Vienna (mentioned in C.N.
6369) now appears to possess a photograph
of the elusive Arthur Kaufmann (C.N.
7515). It suffices to search for ‘Schach’ and
‘Kaufmann’.
11922.
Prodigies
Mr Urcan also adds two pictures on the topic of Chess
Prodigies:
Elaine Saunders at
Richmond Park, Twickenham, England on 5 January 1936
(courtesy of Fox Photos archives)
Source: the 4/1935 issue of the Soviet satirical
magazine Крокодил.
11923.
Florin Gheorghiu (C.N. 10096)
C.N. 10096 gave from our archives a selection of
photographs taken during the eighth Balkaniad (Athens
10-16 October 1976), including the following:
Florin Dănănău (Bucharest) notes that the picture was
taken during the third-round match between Turkey and
Romania on 12 October 1976 and that Gheorghiu was
contemplating his eighth move, his unseen opponent being
İlhan Onat.
Our correspondent asks whether the
game-scores/bulletins of the Balkaniad are available.
11924.
‘History’
Yasser Seirawan (Hilversum, the Netherlands) notes the
following paragraph in an article
on correspondence chess by Greg Keener in the New
York Times, 9/10 November 2022:
‘Looking back even further, it is believed that King
Henry I of England, whose reign lasted from 1100 to
1135 A.D., played correspondence chess with his
counterpart in France, King Louis VI, who reigned from
1108 until 1137. The French enlightenment writer and
luminary Voltaire is noted to have played
correspondence chess with his pupil Frederick the
Great of Prussia. Their moves were securely escorted
by royal courier between Berlin and Paris. It’s also
thought that Venetian merchants played correspondence
chess with one another, contemplating their next moves
on voyages between ports.’
Such stuff can be found on sourceless sites at the
press of a button, but what can be written properly on
the topic, without recourse to ‘it is believed that’,
‘is noted to have played’ and ‘it’s also thought that’?
11925.
Disarray at the 1939 FIDE General Assembly (C.N.s
11915 & 11918)
On the question of whether Augusto De Muro, and not
Alexander Rueb, should in future be recorded as the
President of FIDE during the period 1939/1946, Richard
Forster (Winterthur, Switzerland) has added a postscript
to his Coup
or Call of Duty? article. He addresses some of the
arguments advanced recently by those advocating that De
Muro should indeed be added to the official list of FIDE
Presidents.
11926.
Morphy’s death
John Townsend (Wokingham, England) writes:
‘In your feature
article on Paul Morphy you raise the matter of
the absence of a source for David Lawson’s brief
remarks about Morphy’s death and point out that they
relied heavily on the account which appeared in the
New Orleans paper the Times-Democrat (11
July 1884).
Lawson’s version contained details which appeared
in other newspapers, i.e. that Morphy died from
congestion of the brain brought on by entering the
cold water while very warm after his walk. Lawson
also mentioned that he was found with his head
resting on the side of the bath tub, to which his
hands were clinging.
Several US newspapers (viewable on-line on Chronicling
America) carried a different version of the
circumstances; these omitted to mention congestion
or his warm body temperature and the cold water, but
instead attributed his death to drowning, noting
that he was found face down in the water.
For example, the Mineral Argus (24 July
1884, page 1) included the following:
“New Orleans Special 10th: Paul Morphy, the
world-renowned chess player, was this evening found
dead in a bath tub at his residence. He had been
taking his daily bath, and it is supposed was seized
with a fit, for when his family, alarmed at his long
stay, entered his room, he was found face down in
the water dead. He had been drowned.”
Very similar or identical reports appeared in The
De Smet Leader (19 July 1884, page 1), The
Warner Weekly Sun (18 July 1884, page 1), The
Northern Pacific Farmer (17 July 1884, page 1), The
River Falls Journal (Wisconsin) (17 July 1884, page
1), and The Sun (Minnesota) (17 July 1884,
page 1). The Weekly Expositor (Michigan) (17
July 1884, page 1) also reported: “It is
supposed he was seized with a fit and drowned.”’