11844. Warren
Goldman
As reproduced on page 360 of Kings, Commoners and
Knaves, C.N. 2077 gave an appreciative welcome to
Carl Schlechter! Life and Times of the Austrian Chess
Wizard by Warren Goldman (Yorklyn, 1994), a
537-page hardback published posthumously.
Although our correspondence with Goldman chiefly
concerned his Schlechter manuscript, already largely
completed by 1984, an exception was his letter of 23 May
1990. After reporting that five days previously he had
retired from civilian employment with the US Army
(Europe) recreation program, he offered a few chess
reminiscences:
A Christmas card (1991) stated that he expected the
Schlechter book to be published the following year, and
below is an extract from his final letter to us, dated 6
March 1992:
On 5 January 1993 Hildegard Goldman wrote to us:
‘... my dear husband passed away last 26 June after
suffering a light stroke, followed, while in the head
clinic of the University of Heidelberg, by
complications and heart failure after days in the
intensive care unit of the clinic. My only solace is
that he did not suffer ...’
Regarding Warren Goldman’s work as an opening
theoretician, see issue 15 of Kaissiber,
which carried a photograph of him on the front cover.
11845.
Euwe and Capablanca
A letter from Max Euwe dated 27 May 1974:
The second question concerned his likely action had he
defeated Alekhine in 1937. See too page 324 of our
monograph on Capablanca.
11846. Prokofiev
Above is the front of the dust-jacket of S.
Prokofiev Autobiography Articles Reminiscences
(Moscow, 1959). From pages 101-102, regarding the
Moscow, 1936 tournament:
The original, on page 4 of Izvestia, 30 May
1936:
Concerning the first part of the article, an English
translation by Kenneth Neat is on pages 80-81 of our
book on Capablanca.
From opposite page 104 of the above-mentioned Prokofiev anthology:
11847.
‘Suicide on the Chessboard’ (C.N.s 9987 & 10019)
From page 193 of
Chernev’s Wonders and Curiosities of Chess, as
shown in C.N. 9987
Hajo Markus (Walsrode, Germany) notes that a good
source for the game Bialas v Hecht, Bad Pyrmont, 1963 is
the tournament bulletin:
11848.
Chess problems on the radio
An addition to Chess and
Radio has been submitted by Michael McDowell
(Westcliff-on-sea, England), from page 2 of The
Problemist, January 1959:
We add the related features in the Radio Times:
7 November 1958, page 34
(concerning a broadcast on 11 November 1958)
12 December 1958, page
30 (concerning a broadcast on 16 December 1958)
11849. The
Queen’s Retreat
Browsing on the Radio Times website, we have
noted the billing for a 45-minute radio play, The
Queen’s Retreat by Tanika Gupta, broadcast
on BBC Radio Four on 1 June 1999.
11850.
Nazi chess
Yandy Rojas Barrios (Cárdenas, Cuba) sends two
photographs in the 26 December 1937 edition of Carteles:
11851. Barry v
Pillsbury (C.N.s 4582 & 6979)
The conclusion of Barry v Pillsbury, Boston, 1899
(White to move):
White announced mate in
13
In 1989 Richard Lappin (Jamaica Plain, MD, USA) sent us
the following, from the archives of the Boylston Chess
Club (Boston):
We note that this document was referred to on page 30
of the March-April 1978 issue of Chess Horizons.
11852. A
win by Hugh Myers with 1 e4 c5 2 a4
On 15 September 2002 Hugh Myers (Davenport, IA, USA)
sent us his win against Jason Juette in Iowa City
earlier that month:
1 e4 c5 2 a4 Nc6 3 d3 d6 4 g3 g6 5 Bg2 Bg7 6 f4 e6 7
Nh3 Nge7 8 c3 O-O 9 Nf2 Rb8 10 h4 f5 11 h5 Kf7 12 hxg6+
hxg6 13 Nd2 Rh8 14 Nh3 Bf6 15 Nf3 Qg8 16 a5 b5 17 axb6
axb6 18 Nfg5+ Bxg5 19 Nxg5+ Kg7
20 Kf2 Bd7 21 Bh3 Rb7 22 Be3 Ra7 23 Rxa7 Nxa7 24 d4 Qd8
25 dxc5 dxc5 26 Qd6 Nac6 27 Rd1 Bc8 28 e5 Qxd6 29 Rxd6.
Overleaf, Hugh Myers, who was aged 72 at the time,
commented to us that the game ‘... shows again that
I can do well with the early moves a2-a4, h2-h4,
Nh3-Nf2-Nh3, and then simultaneously working on the a
and h-files – but finishing him on the d-file’.
11853.
Capablanca v E.S. Tinsley
From The Chess Tinsleys:
As mentioned on page 99 of our book on Capablanca,
E.S. Tinsley drew with the Cuban in a simultaneous
display at the Gambit Chess Rooms, London on 18
September 1919 (BCM, October 1919, page 342).
The report below appeared in The Times, 19
September 1919, page 8:
The game was misdated ‘1918’ in three editions of
Capablanca’s games compiled by Rogelio Caparrós
(Yorklyn, 1991, Barcelona, 1993 and Dallas, 1994). The
score was also given on pages 245-247 of Capablanca
in the United Kingdom (1911-1920) by V. Fiala
(Olomouc, 2006), from The Times Weekly Edition,
10 October 1919.
Below we now show that column by E.S. Tinsley (page
iv):
The column has been forwarded to us by Eduardo Bauzá
Mercére (New York, NY, USA), courtesy of the New York
Public Library (General Research Division).
In the Fiala book there were, of course, a few
mistranscriptions of the Times Weekly Edition
annotations. Moreover, Tinsley gave White’s second move
as Nc3, and not Nf3.
1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Nf3 Nc6 4 Bb5 d6 5 d4 exd4 6 Nxd4
Bd7 7 O-O Be7 8 Nde2 O-O 9 Ng3 Ne5 10 Bxd7 Qxd7 11 f4
Ng6 12 b3 Rad8 13 Bb2 c6 14 Qd4 Rfe8 15 Nf5 Bf8 16 Rad1
Nxe4
17 Nh6+ gxh6 18 Nxe4 Rxe4 19 Qxe4 Qe6 20 Qd3 f5 21 c4
Bg7 22 Bxg7 Kxg7 23 Rfe1 Qf6 24 g3 h5 25 Re3 Rd7 26 Rde1
d5 27 Re6 Qf7 28 Qd4+ Kh6 29 c5 Qg7 30 Qxg7+ Rxg7 31 Rd6
Rf7 32 Kf2 Kg7 33 Ree6 h4 34 Ke3 hxg3 35 hxg3 a6 36 Kd4
Nf8 37 Re8 Ng6 38 Red8 Nf8 39 Rb8 Re7 40 Kd3 Nd7 41 Rd8
Nxc5+ 42 Kd4 Ne6+ 43 Rxe6 Rxe6 44 Rd7+ Kg6 45 Rxb7 h6 46
b4 Kh5 47 Rg7 Rg6 48 Rxg6 Kxg6 49 Ke5 h5 50 a3 Kf7 51
Kxf5 Ke7 52 Ke5 Kf7 53 a4 Ke7 54 a5 Kf7 55 f5 Ke7 56 Kf4
Kf6 57 g4
57...hxg4 58 Kxg4 d4 59 Kf4 d3 60 Ke3 d2 61 Kxd2 Kxf5
62 Kd3 Ke5 63 Kc4 Kd6 64 Kd4 Kd7 65 Kc5 Kc7 66 Kd4 Kd6
67 Kc4 Kd7 Drawn.
Concerning the position in the second diagram, in a
letter to us dated 3 June 1991 G.H. Diggle (then aged
88) diffidently suggested that Tinsley had missed a win
by not playing 57...h4. That is confirmed by a computer
check, which also indicates that Capablanca erred with
56 Kf4 (instead of 56 f5+, which draws).
11854.
Edge, Morphy and Staunton
The quartet of feature articles Edge,
Morphy
and Staunton, A
Debate on Staunton, Morphy and Edge, Supplement
to ‘A Debate on Staunton, Morphy and Edge’ and Edge Letters
to Fiske has expanded so much that certain
sections have inevitably become amorphous.
Is it nonetheless possible at this stage to draw
further conclusions in some of the discussion strands,
such as F.M. Edge’s dependability as a chronicler?
11855. John
Townsend on F.M. Edge
Frederick M. Edge (C.N.
9133)
From John Townsend (Wokingham, England):
‘The question posed in C.N. 11854 referred
specifically to Edge’s dependability “as a
chronicler”, but perhaps it will help to consider
his dependability as a person, especially
considering that in recent years our knowledge of
Edge’s life and character has advanced so markedly.
Thanks for that are mainly due to Chess Notes and
the “quartet” of feature articles mentioned in C.N.
11854. As a result, we have access today to much
information which was not known to twentieth-century
historians, such as Lawson and Sergeant, and this
has particular bearing on his dependability.
In what follows, “Feature Article 1” means
Edge,
Morphy and Staunton, and “Feature Article
2” means Edge
Letters to Fiske.
Overall, the picture of Edge which has emerged in
recent years is an unfavourable one, which casts
serious doubts over his trustworthiness and honesty.
Edge was born into a respectable family in 1830 in
Westminster, the son of a manufacturing businessman,
and attended a boarding school on Jersey, before
concluding his education at King’s College London;
however, he left after one year, having been
frequently absent from lessons and examinations.
(Feature Article 1.)
The diaries of Thomas Butler Gunn, which were
reported to Chess Notes by Harrie Grondijs, contain
surprising revelations and new insights into Edge’s
lifestyle and character (Feature Article 1).
However, there is no indication that the diaries
contain other than a faithful record; the writer
shows no malice towards Edge, and, if anything,
something of an affection for “little Edge” comes
across.
The diary entry of 22 March 1858 recalls that as a
young man Edge “squandered money, went to races,
betted ...” (Feature Article 1). Exactly how early
he fell into debt is not clear, but his habit of
borrowing money and not paying it back became a
familiar complaint by his associates on either side
of the Atlantic, both in the 1850s in New York, and
in the 1860s in England.
He “ran off” to Paris, and was subsequently a
journalist in New York by 1855, where he “gambled
away all his money” (Feature Article 1). The diary
entry of 11 April 1856 mentions that he went through
a period in New York of being “desperately hard up”
and sleeping rough, including in timber yards.
(Feature Article 1.)
In 1857 he “married a little Alsatian prostitute”
(in the words of the diary), who had previously
lived with him as his “mistress”.
At sundry times, he lived a Bohemian lifestyle and
eked out a scrounging existence (Feature Article 1).
A diary entry for 22 March 1858 notes that Edge had
returned to England owing money to Haney and had
even “borrowed from the boy who waits at Haney’s
tavern without repaying him!” (Feature Article 1.)
If it is true, as was reported in a diary entry of
11 May 1859, that Edge abused his position as a
journalist to threaten police officers unless they
appointed his own choice of officer, then he must
have been fortunate not to face criminal charges
(Feature Article 1). He allegedly threatened to be
“down upon” the officers in case of refusal. As it
was, his only punishment was that he lost his job.
The amount of trust the diarist Gunn felt in Edge
is amusingly, but tellingly, illustrated by a diary
entry (volume 21, page 194: 23 January 1863)
describing a visit by Edge to his room after he had
gone to bed. When Edge turned the conversation to
his money difficulties, Gunn recalls how he reacted:
“I took the hint by jumping out of bed and securing
my purse ...”
Edge’s scrounging extended to finding a bed to
sleep in. Volume 21, pages 193-196 (23 January 1863)
refers to Edge moving about the house to find
someone else’s bed to share, in some cases without
the knowledge of the bed’s principal occupier.
Edge’s nocturnal wandering was objected to by other
residents. His reason was that his own landlady had
inconveniently asked for the rent.
It is difficult to see how such a person could
have been taken seriously in Victorian England;
Gunn’s portrayal of him sometimes resembles that of
a music-hall character. Yet it appears that Edge was
capable of being credible in face-to-face
situations, thanks to his personality. He even
obtained an interview in 1860 with the Foreign
Secretary, Lord John Russell (Feature Article 1).
Gunn suggested (volume 9, page 107: 22 March 1858)
that his impudence may have assisted him on such
occasions:
“He did well as a reporter on the Herald,
for his matchless impudence – which never looked
like impudence in Edge – stood him in good stead. He
would have walked up to the President with ‘Now I
want you to tell me all about &c &c.’”
In London in 1865, Edge spent a short time in the
debtors’ prison in Whitecross Street (Feature
Article 1). In 1867, he had a job with the Reform
Society in Manchester; it ended in a libel case in
which Edge sued the society’s honorary secretary of
the northern department, evidently for implying that
he had attempted to divert money intended for the
society to his own pocket (Feature Article 1). In
reality, it seemed impossible to recognize a libel
in the words of which he complained. He cleared his
name after a settlement was suggested by the judge,
but it came out during evidence that Edge “had been
borrowing money from first one person and then
another” and that he had acquired a bad reputation
for it. (Feature Article 1.) That was consistent
with the complaints which his associates had made
about him in New York.
The various episodes described above strongly
suggest that Edge was not a person to be trusted,
and was also capable of being dishonest and corrupt.
One can easily imagine that his lack of
trustworthiness could have adversely affected the
negotiations for the proposed Staunton-Morphy match,
and there is, clearly, scope for that to have
happened. Yet it is very difficult to point to
concrete examples, and it is often not clear for
which actions Edge was responsible, as opposed to
Morphy.
For the match to come off, successful negotiations
were needed which had to be based on satisfactory
relations between the two sides. Staunton was not
obliged to play, and he may have felt that he was
making a personal sacrifice in trying to find the
time for it. It was important, therefore, for Morphy
to retain his goodwill if he wanted a match. In the
event, relations deteriorated, and Staunton has
taken the bulk of the blame for that, and for the
failure of the match. However, several historians in
the past have noted Edge’s anti-Staunton bias, and
one wonders to what extent it was a deliberate
policy. Was he “down upon” Staunton in the same way
as he threatened to be “down upon” the police
officers? His hostile attitude, to give just one
example, is illustrated in a letter dated 6 August
1858 (page 2), in which he referred to Staunton as
“the ‘Chess Pariah’ of the London world” (Feature
Article 2). Staunton had no shortage of enemies, and
also many supporters, but use of the word “Pariah”
seems excessive. The bias appears pronounced in
Edge’s book on Morphy.
Lawson was, surely, mistaken when he asserted, on
page 109 of The Pride and Sorrow of Chess,
that “Morphy was a self-willed person” who “made his
own decisions” and that “Edge always played a
subordinate role in Morphy’s affairs”. Examples are
available which show, on the contrary, that Edge
played a controlling and influential part in
Morphy’s affairs, and that he was of a scheming
mentality. Edge it was who insisted on the Anderssen
match, despite opposition from Morphy and his
family; Edge who engineered Morphy’s “jeremiad” to
Lord Lyttelton, whereas Morphy would have taken no
action; and who claimed to have taken letters from
Morphy’s pocket, and so on. Lawson appears to have
underestimated this aspect of Edge.
On page 101 of A Century of British Chess,
P.W. Sergeant remarked that he did not consider Edge
a liar, while Lawson (page 109 of The Pride and
Sorrow of Chess) merely supported that view.
However, there is no indication that either of them
enquired into Edge’s background before making that
judgement. Did the mere fact of his association with
Morphy give him respectability in their eyes?
Sergeant did, at least, acknowledge Edge’s
anti-Staunton bias.’
11856.
Letters (1986) from the FIDE General Secretary
Below are the key parts of a letter to us dated 1
January 1986 from the General Secretary of FIDE, Dr Lim
Kok-Ann:
We also reproduce here another letter from Lim Kok-Ann,
dated 13 January 1986:
11857. Tuesday
A comment of ours in Instant
Fischer (‘Kasparov has trouble not contradicting
himself over what he said last Tuesday’) was quoted by Olimpiu
G. Urcan on Twitter on 23 February 2021,
accompanied by a clip from the 1937 Laurel and Hardy
film Way Out West in which, replying to ‘What
did he die of?’, Stan Laurel said, ‘I think he died of a
Tuesday ...’ A question of language arises: why,
in such cases, is Tuesday the most effective day to
mention?
We have put the matter to Stephen
Fry, who replies:
‘No question that Tuesday is the funniest day.
Always has been. Though Douglas Adams came up with
that line “This must be Thursday. I never could get
the hang of Thursdays” which shows Thursday comes in
a good second. Monday wouldn’t work because there’s
a reason why “I don’t like Mondays” as Bob Geldof
sang. Wednesday is just too much of a mouthful to
zing. Friday is too associated with payday and the
end of the week, and the other two days are reserved
for weekend properties. So perhaps it’s more a
process of elimination … I wonder if any continental
languages have equivalents. Is Mittwoch as
funny as Dienstag?
Tuesday doesn’t follow the “hard C” rule (see the
film The Sunshine Boys for a wonderful scene
involving hard Cs).
Noël Coward often pondered why some place names
are funny, and even claimed that in America funny
place names are only funny because the word itself
is inherently amusing – “Schenectady” “Kalamazoo”
“Albuquerque” – whereas the British find certain
places funny for less obvious reasons: “Neasden” and
“Purley” might elicit a laugh, whereas “Hendon” and
“Portsmouth” for example wouldn’t. Hugh [Laurie] and
I got much mileage out of Uttoxeter, mileage that
Exeter or Huddersfield would never have offered …’
11858.
Capablanca and Shipley in Philadelphia
On Tuesday, 21 February 1922 Capablanca sent Walter
Penn Shipley this letter, of which we have a copy:
Capablanca’s visit to Philadelphia was discussed on
pages 403-404 of Walter Penn Shipley Philadelphia’s
Friend of Chess by John S. Hilbert (Jefferson,
2003), and Dr Hilbert has forwarded Shipley’s column in
the Philadelphia Inquirer of 12 March 1922, page
6:
The consultation game is familiar from its appearance
on page 82 of The Unknown Capablanca by David
Hooper and Dale Brandreth (London, 1975).
11859.
The denazification of Bogoljubow
From Bernd-Peter Lange (Berlin):
‘After the Second World War, all German members of
the National Socialist Party were required by the
Allies to fill in a questionnaire (Meldebogen)
for political examination. Bogoljubow’s was written
in his own hand in September 1948 in the French zone
of occupation where he was resident. It gives a
great deal of information about, in particular, the
years 1940-44, when he was in the service of Hans Frank, the
Governor General of German-occupied Poland. He was
employed firstly as a translator and interpreter
(Ukrainian and Russian) in the Propaganda Department
and then, for a longer period, as a chess instructor
in German military hospitals in the Generalgouvernement
and for chess-related tasks such as the design and
distribution of a new chess set.
The denazification questionnaire gives precise
details of his times of employment, payment
received, dates of his party membership, and his
political justification for having joined the Nazi
Party.
A discussion of these texts – together with
passages (some hitherto forgotten) related to
Bogoljubow and chess matters in the vast
service-diary of Hans Frank – has been prepared for
the 1/2021 edition of the German-language magazine KARL, under the
title “Bogoljubow im Generalgouvernement”.
Later in 2021 there will be an expanded version in
English, discussing Bogoljubow’s career from 1933
onwards.’
Our correspondent has forwarded us a PDF file which
includes the questionnaire completed by Bogoljubow.
11860.
The Immortal Game
John Townsend (Wokingham, England) writes:
‘A “Certificate of Arrival” at the port of
Folkestone shows that Kieseritzky arrived there on
24 May 1851 (source: National Archives, HO 2/212,
certificate no. 1067), this being a document which,
with many others similar, is viewable on-line at
Ancestry.com.
Under the heading “Name and country” is entered:
“Mr Lionel Kieseritzki [sic] Russia”. The
country from which he had last arrived was France
and he had a passport from the French government.
The certificate bears a good specimen of his
signature: “L. Kieseritzky”.
As a result of Fabrizio Zavatarelli’s discovery in
Baltische Schachblätter (reported in C.N.
11357), the Chess Notes feature article on the Immortal Game
subsequently considered two dates, 25 and 26 May, as
days when the celebrated game may have been
contested. The fact that Kieseritzky did not arrive
at Folkestone until 24 May now seems to detract
somewhat from the argument for 25 May, as he would
have needed to travel from Folkestone to London,
settle into his hotel, meet Anderssen, etc., and
there would have been less time to do these things
if he had played the Immortal Game on 25 May (a
Sunday). Conversely, the case for 26 May may be
considered enhanced.
Another “Certificate of Arrival”, this time at the
port of London, is dated 1 August 1851, and is
signed “Lionel Kieseritzky” (National Archives, HO
2/223, certificate no. 5808).
No certificate of arrival in England prior to the
1851 tournament has so far been found for
Anderssen.’
|
