When contacting
us
by e-mail, correspondents are asked to include
their name and full
postal address and, when providing
information, to quote exact book and magazine
sources. The word ‘chess’ needs to appear in the
subject-line or in the message itself.
In this photograph J.R. Capablanca, Edward Lasker, J.
Bernstein and F.J. Marshall are readily identifiable in
the foreground, but few of the remaining figures are
easy to name. Can readers assist us in preparing a
complete key?
Stefan Müllenbruck (Trier, Germany) makes the following
points:
a) authoritative sources such as Jeremy Gaige’s Chess
Personalia state that Akiba Rubinstein died in
Antwerp, Belgium;
b) in an article on page 246 of the journal Menora,
1996 Ernst Strouhal wrote of Rubinstein:
‘Er wurde von seinen Söhnen im jüdischen
Altersheim in der Rue de la Glacière
untergebracht.’ [‘He was placed by his sons in
the Jewish old people’s home in the rue de la
Glacière.’]
Strouhal’s source was an interview by Monika Bernold
with Rubinstein’s sons, Samy (Sammy) and Jonas in June
1995;
Our correspondent asks how the discrepancy between
Antwerp and Brussels is to be explained.
We have consulted Luc Winants (Boirs, Belgium), and his
reply is given below:
‘I have checked the matter with Akiba
Rubinstein’s daughter-in-law. She informs me that the
home in the rue de la Glacière was temporarily closed
for renovation and that the residents were all
transferred to Antwerp.’
Reports that Léonardus Nardus was an
art swindler and forger were first mentioned in C.N.
4600, and we now add that there are several references
to him in a fascinating book The Man Who Made Vermeers by Jonathan Lopez
(Orlando, 2008). For example, page 35 has a photograph
of Nardus (from Marshall’s Chess “Swindles”) and
a reference to ‘the fabulously dishonest dealer Leo
Nardus, one of the most colorful figures in the history
of the art world, although a man little remembered
today’.
Costas Karayiannis (Loughton, England) asks for
corroboration of an episode related by Tal on page 124
of his book The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal
(New York, 1976). The same text, except for minor
linguistic changes, appeared on page 123 of the Cadogan
Chess algebraic edition (London, 1997).
Tal reported that in this position, from a game in the
Candidates’ tournament at Bled, 1959:
‘... Fischer first wrote down the move 22 Rael!,
without doubt the strongest, and wrote it not in his
usual English notation but in European, almost
Russian. Then he not very deftly pushed the scoresheet
towards me. “He’s asking for an endorsement”, I
thought to myself, but how was I to react? To frown
was impossible, if I smiled he would suspect
“trickery”, and so I did the natural thing. I got up
and began to calmly walk up and down the stage. I met
Petrosian, made some joke to him, and he replied. The
15-year-old Fischer, who was essentially still only a
large child, sat with a confused expression on his
face ...’
Fischer then wrote down and played a different move, 22
Qc6+, and went on to lose. Tal added:
‘When I later asked Fischer why he hadn’t played 22
Rae1, he replied: “Well, you laughed when I wrote it
down.”’
Our correspondent asks whether any confirmation of the
incident appears in other sources. He notes that Fischer
made no reference to it in My 60 Memorable Games
(game 17).
‘Queen and knight, however, are stronger than queen
and bishop. The outcome of a game often depends on
being able to obtain this combination. In pawn endings
a bishop is preferable to a knight; however, in queen
endings the knight is stronger.’
In the ‘Endgame Masters’ chapter of Capablanca’s
Last Chess Lectures the fifth of nine ‘simple but
valuable rules’ was also categorical: ‘Queen and knight
are superior to queen and bishop.’
However, such statements do not necessarily refer to a
confrontation between these forces. Indeed, it
was when discussing a position in which Black had queen
and knight and White had no minor pieces that Botvinnik
wrote:
‘The queen and the knight together work miracles
here. Capablanca was the first to point out the
strength of these two pieces working together.’
Source: page 52 of Botvinnik on the Endgame
(Coraopolis, 1985).
An historical remark in passing: to mention just one
pre-Capablanca book at random, in The Art of Chess (London,
1895) James Mason noted (pages 92-94) that the ending
queen and bishop versus queen was usually drawn, whereas
queen and knight versus queen was frequently a win.
On the substantive issue, therefore, our tentative
conclusion is that whereas some present-day writers have
examined Capablanca’s ‘theorem’ in terms of queen and
knight versus queen and bishop, the Cuban was more
likely merely expounding (though not inventing) a
general preference for the queen to be accompanied by a
knight rather than by a bishop, regardless of what
material the opponent held.
5749. Showalter questions
Two questions regarding Jackson Whipps Showalter are
raised by Kevin Marchese (Canal Winchester, OH, USA):
1) Is anything known about a meeting between Showalter
and Zukertort? Our correspondent quotes the following
uncorroborated statement on page 225 of Vlastimil
Fiala’s book on Cologne, 1898 (Olomouc, 1997):
‘J.W. Showalter began playing about 1881, being
beaten by Zukertort in a simultaneous at Cincinnati
about that time.’
2) Is it possible to trace all of Showalter’s games at
Cincinnati, 1888 (a tournament which he won by a margin
of 3½ points)? At present, Mr Marchese has only
Showalter’s victory over Moehle and his draw against
Judd.
John Kuipers (Delft, the Netherlands) draws attention
to pages 109-110 of Hitlers Berlijn 1933-1945 by
H. van Capelle and A.P. van de Bovenkamp (second
edition, Soest, 2007), which has a brief paragraph about
Heinrich Müller (born in 1900), the head of the Gestapo
from 1939 until the end of the Second World War:
‘Net als zijn directe baas Heydrich en zijn
ondergeschikte Eichmann, die beiden viool speelden,
was ook Müller muzikaal en speelde graag piano en als
het even kon schilderde hij landschappen. Bovendien
was hij een hartstochtelijk schaker en bridger.
Eenmaal in de week kwamen Eichmann en andere hoge
Gestapo-functionarissen in de Corneliusstrasse 22
bijeen om een partijtje te schaken. De kettingrokende
Müller hield bovendien van een goed glas rode wijn en
van cognac.’
Our correspondent’s translation reads:
‘In common with his immediate superior, Heydrich, and
his subordinate, Eichmann, both of whom played the
violin, Müller was musical and loved to play the piano
and, when time permitted, he also painted landscapes.
In addition, he was a passionate chess and bridge
player. Once a week Eichmann and other leading Gestapo
officers gathered at Corneliusstrasse 22 to play a
game of chess. The chain-smoking Müller was also fond
of a good glass of red wine or cognac.’
Mr Kuipers notes that Corneliusstrasse 22, Berlin was
Müller’s private address, where he lived alone (his wife
and children having remained in Munich). Müller
disappeared in May 1945.
Additions to our feature article The Knight Challenge are
always welcome. Jon Crumiller (Princeton, NJ, USA) notes
the following passage on page 98 of The
Court-Gamester by Richard Seymour (third edition,
London, 1722):
Two addresses for Reuben Fine have
been added to the Where
Did They Live? feature article, courtesy of
Russell Miller (Camas, WA, USA). Mr Miller points out
that in the 1920 USA Federal Census the future chess
master’s forename was given as ‘Rubin’. This may be a
transcription error, but it brings to mind the claim
that in later life he used the spelling ‘Ruben’ (see
C.N. 3217, on page 281 of Chess Facts and Fables).
Reuben Fine
5758. Capablanca novel
Luca D’Ambrosio (Bolzano, Italy) informs us of a new
novel about Capablanca, by Fabio Stassi: La
rivincita di Capablanca (Rome, 2008):
The hunt for the full game-score continues. Jurgen
Stigter (Amsterdam) has forwarded to us pages 156-158 of
the 6/1947 issue of Shakhmaty v SSSR, which
included a crosstable of the Moscow, 1947
match-tournament and the moves of a draw between Simagin
and Bronstein. However, regarding the game being sought,
only the conclusion was published, with Simagin’s notes.
The front cover of the
1981 monograph on Vladimir Simagin by S.B. Voronkov
We are grateful to Jurgen Stigter (Amsterdam) for
providing substantial information on the earliest
appearances of Philidor’s remark about pawns being the
soul of chess. The first occurrence was on page xix of L’Analyze
des
Echecs (London, 1749):
Below, to show the context, is the full page:
Subsequent editions in French (e.g. dated 1752 and
1754) featured the identical text, but with minor
variations in spelling and accents.
The first English edition of Philidor’s book, Chess
Analysed [Cheſs Analyſed] (London, 1750),
had the following (pages ix-x):
The index of Guinness World Records 2009 (London,
2008) includes only one reference to chess – page 264 –
but it is page 263 which has the book’s solitary entry
about the game: some 20 words on Sergei Karjakin
(Ukraine) having become the youngest grandmaster in
2002.
That appears in a section entitled ‘Eastern &
Central Europe’, and also on page 263 the reader is
apprised of correspondingly impressive accomplishments
in Estonia (‘largest matchstick’) and in Romania
(‘longest chain of condoms’).
Regarding the Termination of the 1984-85 world
championship match, the new book ‘Garry Kasparov on
Modern Chess Part Two Kasparov vs Karpov 1975-1985
including the 1st and 2nd matches’ (London, 2008)
required Kasparov to choose (irrespective of the overall
conclusions he wished to present) between two
approaches:
Option A: a careful narrative founded on
intellectual rigour and, as far as possible,
documented sources;
‘Your Chess Records
article has given information on the earliest
recorded chess clubs but not on the earliest
recorded women’s (or ladies’) chess club. I propose
the following as a candidate, on the basis of
Staunton’s answers to correspondents in the Illustrated
London News:
“‘Margaret J.’, Kensington. – The establishment of
a Ladies’ Chess Club, is, indeed, an event in the
history of the game, and one of the most pleasing
evidences of the progress this fine intellectual
discipline is making in society. Let us hope the
example set by the ladies in Kensington will be
followed by our countrywomen in other directions.
The game played between Miss E. and Miss M. is
excellent in style, and calculated to afford a very
high notion of the capabilities of the fair
combatants. Can it be possible they have attained
such knowledge of the game in three months’ practice
only?” (27 November 1847, page 346.)
“‘R.T.C.’–‘V.’–‘Amazon’. – The Ladies’ Chess Club,
to which we alluded in our last, is established at
Kennington, not Kensington; and is to be called ‘The
Penelope Club’. We presume it will be composed
exclusively of female members; but, possibly, as an
incentive to excellence, an exception to this rule
will be admitted in the case of the leading player
of the time, who might without impropriety be
entitled to the privileges of an ‘Honorary Member’.”
(4 December 1847, page 371.)
The game mentioned in the first of these items
would seem to be the one published in the January
1848 issue of the Chess Player’s Chronicle
(pages 23-24), between “Miss C.” and “Miss M.”,
which Staunton claimed to be the first game
involving women ever published. You gave the score
on pages 63-64 of A Chess Omnibus (C.N.
2447).
There is one other somewhat curious answer to a
correspondent (apparently, the same “Margaret J.”):
“‘M.J.’ – We had not overlooked your question, but
could hardly imagine you were in earnest. What would
be said to such a procedure as giving the names of
several private gentlemen, accompanied by comments
on their age, looks, personal deportment, and
acquirements, in a public newspaper, simply to
gratify the curiosity of a few amiable admirers? The
proposed name is very appropriate. We shall hope to
hear from you again.” (18 December 1847, page
402.)’
A) Below is the text of C.N. 4682 (posted on 29 October
2006):
‘“The world’s biggest-selling book” is the boast on
the back cover of Guinness World Records 2007
(London, 2006). Two pages include entries on chess:
page 99 has a couple of dozen words about Sergei
Karjakin being the youngest grandmaster, while page
137 offers brief features on the smallest and largest
chess sets, as well as the following: “On 25 June
2005, 12,388 simultaneous games of chess were played
at the Ben Gurion Cultural Park in Pachuca, Hidalgo,
Mexico.” That is all. The four entries from the 2006
edition have been dropped.
Although poker has five entries on page 136, games
such as draughts and bridge receive no treatment at
all, and the editorial team’s interests are evidently
on a different plane. For example, pages 8-9 document
such pivotal attainments as “most heads shaved in 24
hours”, “fastest time to drink a 500-ml milkshake”,
“longest tandem bungee jump”, “fastest carrot
chopping”, “largest underpants”, “most socks worn on
one foot’ and “fastest person with a pricing gun”.’
B) From an article ‘Densa
and Densa’ (chessville.com) by Raymond Keene
(posted on the Internet on 21 September 2008):
‘I therefore decided to take a look for myself to
ascertain whether Guinness is dumbing down or not, and
to discover if their response is an honest appraisal
of the situation or pure hypocritical cant?
“The world’s biggest-selling book” is the boast on
the back cover of “Guinness World Records 2007”. Seven
pages in total include entries on Mind Sports: a
couple of dozen words about Sergei Karjakin being the
youngest chess Grandmaster, while another page offers
brief features on the smallest and largest chess sets,
as well as the following: “On 25 June 2005, 13,388
simultaneous games of chess were played at the Ben
Gurion Cultural Park in Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico.”
Although poker has five entries, games such as
draughts and bridge receive no treatment at all. For
example, it documents such pivotal attainments as
“most heads shaved in 24 hours”; “fastest time to
drink a 500ml milkshake”; “longest tandem bungee
jump”; “fastest carrot chopping”; “largest
underpants”; “most socks worn on one foot” and
“fastest person with a pricing gun”.’
5772. Pillsbury’s mate
James Stripes (Spokane, WA, USA) informs us that he has
written an article about
the origins of ‘Pillsbury’s mate’. It includes a
discussion of ‘Pillsbury v Lee’, which was referred to
in our feature article A
Sorry Case. As Mr Stripes remarks, that alleged
game was given in chapter 12 of The Art of the
Checkmate by Georges Renaud and Victor Kahn (New
York, 1953).
In C.N. 4307 Michael Negele (Wuppertal, Germany)
presented a photograph taken by him of the
Nimzowitsch-Enevoldsen ‘double grave’ in Copenhagen:
Phil Bourke (Blayney, NSW, Australia) asks why the two
masters share the same resting place.
The matter was discussed on page 11 of Schaakgraven
(the booklet mentioned in C.N. 4452). That
publication relates that Nimzowitsch described
Enevoldsen as ‘the hope of Danish chess’ after losing to
him in the Copenhagen, 1933 tournament. Enevoldsen died
in 1980, and in his will he expressed a wish to be
buried alongside Nimzowitsch. The Danish Chess Union,
the owner of the plot, acceded.
Per Skjoldager (Fredericia, Denmark) informs us:
‘Enevoldsen’s obituary by Poul Hage in Skakbladet,
July 1980, pages 99-102 does not mention the matter,
but I have checked the facts with Steen Juul
Mortensen, who was the President of the Danish Chess
Union in 1980. He confirms that Enevoldsen wanted to
be buried alongside Nimzowitsch. His family made a
contribution to the fund.
Nimzowitsch, for his part, had no family in
Denmark when he died, in 1935. A number of chess
friends created a fund to care for his grave, and
the fund still exists today, administered by the
Danish Chess Union.
As noted by Hage in the above-mentioned obituary
in Skakbladet, Enevoldsen was a great
admirer of Nimzowitsch, and they became friends in
1933. On page 150 of his autobiography 30 år
ved skakbrættet (Copenhagen, 1952) Enevoldsen wrote
about his victory over Nimzowitsch at Copenhagen,
1933 (my translation from the Danish):
“As you can imagine, the waves rose high when
Nimzowitsch turned over his king. The master removed
his glasses and wiped away the perspiration from his
brow, stood up and disappeared. From all sides
people shook hands with me and slapped me on the
back. My elderly mother, who was a spectator that
particular day, was as moved as when she became a
grandmother ...
A few minutes later Nimzowitsch came back as calm
and composed as would be expected. As a good
sportsman he offered me his hand and thanked me for
the game.
From that day on, he had tremendous respect for my
play and never again regarded me with the usual lack
of interest. In fact, we began to appreciate each
other. Unfortunately, this lasted for only the two
years that he had still to live. I am sure that he
would have been happy to see the many games that I
have played since then in his spirit and in
accordance with his principles.”’
Below is the crosstable of the sixth Western Chess
Congress, held in Excelsior, MN, USA on 21-27 August
1905, from page 287 of the September 1905 American
Chess Bulletin:
Marc Hébert (Charny, Canada) draws attention to the
selection of games from the event published on page 148
of the July 1906 issue of the same periodical:
Was the game between E.P. Elliott and A.T. Bigelow a
draw (as stated in the crosstable) or a win for Elliott
(i.e. as in the game-score). Moreover, why are games
given by the non-participants MacLeod and Jellett?
Some figures are readily identified, but all
suggestions from readers will be welcome.
5781. Bellingen
Graham Clayton (South Windsor, NSW, Australia) writes:
‘In August 1913 William Viner and Spencer
Crakanthorp played a match for the Australian title
in the small NSW country town of Bellingen, located
470 kilometres north of Sydney. Viner won the match
(+7 –1 =3). The population of Bellingen, even today,
is only 2,500. Is it the smallest population centre
to have hosted a national title match, or even a
national championship tournament?’
From a detailed account of the match by the late John
van Manen, an outstanding chess historian, on pages
45-56 of volume three of Australian Chess Lore
(Modbury Heights, 1984) we note that Viner had lived in
Bellingen since 1911. All 11 match-games were given by
van Manen.
Since the reproduction in Shakhmaty (Riga) was
of poor quality, we are still looking for a good, fully
legible copy of the certificate.
5783. Talent-spotting
Page vii of One Move and You’re Dead by Erwin
Brecher and Leonard Barden (London, 2007) records that
Barden ...
‘... was the first to predict in print that Garry
Kasparov (then 11) would become world champion and
that Nigel Short (then nine) would become Kasparov’s
challenger.’
Regarding the Kasparov forecast, we are grateful to the
Guardian Research Department for sending us the
column in question (The Guardian, 24 February
1975, page 16) and for permission to reproduce it here:
In C.N. 507, after the prediction’s appearance on pages
5-6 of the book on Kasparov Fighting Chess
(London, 1983), we described it as ‘an amazing piece of
talent-spotting’. Fighting Chess called the
passage ‘the first western report’ on Kasparov.
Further to the remarks about English players in the
above Guardian column, Mr Barden informs us:
‘My comment that “England, too, has some possible
world class prospects” was a reference to both
Julian Hodgson and Nigel Short. It was not until
March-April 1975, after Short had performed
impressively in Jersey and in a junior event in
London, that I rated him ahead of Hodgson, allowing
for age, and as a potential rival for Garry
Kasparov. At the end of the London event I asked
Čenĕk Kottnauer, whose opinion on juniors I regarded
highly, to analyse and play a game with Short, and
Kottnauer was greatly impressed.
The invitation to the Soviet Embassy for Weinstein
to play was on my prompting, my grounds being that
he would be nervous on his first journey to the West
and that Hodgson could gain a psychological edge for
battles to come. Moscow refused.
My forecast in the Guardian of 24 February
1975 was made about 15 months before Botvinnik went
into print with his famous remark about the future
of chess being in Kasparov’s hands.’
