Patriotism,
Nationalism, Jingoism and Racism in Chess
Edward Winter
Patriotism, nationalism, jingoism and racism in the chess world
have generated many literary horrors which might sometimes be
comical if they were not so alarming. In a look back to some dark
days we show a range of cases where the public record has been
mutilated by, in particular, the expurgation of masters’ names for
political reasons.
First of all, a case which may be considered little worse than
soppy patriotism combined (as patriotism so often is) with factual
incompetence. In our feature article on
Chess (Basics, Laws and Terms) by B.K. Chaturvedi
(Chandigarh, 2001) we commented:
In his 1995 match against Kasparov in New York, Anand won the
first decisive game (game 9) but scored only +0 –4 =4 in the
remainder of the match. Any respectable author would thus employ
a word such as ‘comfortable’ or ‘decisive’ to describe
Kasparov’s victory, but not Mr Chaturvedi. He writes on page 3:
‘However, the most renowned Indian chess player to date is
Vishwanath [sic] Anand who recently challenged the
current World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov and missed the mark
with a difference of just four [sic] points.’
And from page 11 of this book (which, we reiterate, was
published in 2001):
‘The present title holder is Gary Kasparov. He was challenged
by India’s Vishwanath [sic] Anand or “Vishy” in 1995
and despite Vishy’s claiming initial victories [sic –
the propagandist’s plural] and forcing Kasparov to draw, he
eventually lost. So Kasparov remains the undisputed Chess
Champion.’
For all this, of course, Anand himself is blameless, just as it
was hardly Nigel Short’s fault that a small number of British
‘chess writers’ elected to slop jingoistic treacle over his
shoulders before, during and after his 1993 match with Kasparov.
‘The “New Order” in Germany is busy on chess literature. The
outstanding text-book in the German language is Dufresne’s Lehrbuch
des
Schachspiels, which has held the field for some 60 years.
From 1901 to 1937 it was periodically revised, and brought up to
date by J. Mieses, and so remained a thoroughly modern work.
As its popularity could not be gainsaid, it had to be
“aryanized”, and a new revision was entrusted to a 100 per cent
Aryan master [Max Blümich (1886-1942)].
Max Blümich
It will hardly be credited that the names of “non-Aryan”
players have been omitted from the historical section, including
Kolisch, Zukertort, Steinitz, Lasker, Rubinstein, etc. Not only
that, all their most brilliant games which adorned earlier
editions have been eradicated, although a few of their games
were allowed to remain – those they lost! This is on a par with
the maintenance of “Aryan” superiority in chess by the simple
expedient of excluding non-Aryan competition.
There is only one word for it – lunacy. “Whom the gods wish to
destroy …”.’
Some recent C.N. items have discussed the conduct of Kurt Richter
during the Nazi regime. For example, C.N. 7875 referred to a
position on page 113 of his book Kombinationen (Berlin and
Leipzig, 1936):
The game was Tartakower v Colle, San Remo, 2 February 1930, but
throughout the book the names of various (though not all) Jewish
players were deleted. For instance:
Position 20: Post v unnamed opponent, Mannheim, 1914
(Flamberg);
Position 167: S. v von Bardeleben, Hastings, 1895 (Steinitz);
Position 197: von Holzhausen v unnamed opponent, 1912
(Tarrasch);
Position 239: von Scheve v unnamed opponent, Ostend, 1907
(Rubinstein).
The process was intensified in the second edition of Richter’s
book (Berlin, 1940), as shown by position 66 on page 29:
1936 edition
1940 edition
(The details about the Lasker v Thomas game are also wrong. See Chaos in a Miniature.)
In the 1936 edition of Kombinationen ‘Dr Lasker’ was
named as the opponent of Bogoljubow (Zurich, 1934, in position
107) and of Torre (Moscow, 1925, in position 237). Four years
later, the former world champion’s name was reduced in both cases
to ‘L.’.
Expurgations were even retained in the post-War translation Combinaciones
el medio juego (Buenos Aires, 1947):
An example from page 158:
In the 1936 German edition Nimzowitsch had been identified in
connection with this position, but there was only ‘N.’ in the 1940
volume.
Later editions of Kombinationen restored the masters’
names. See too C.N.s 7909 and 7923. In the latter item Alan
McGowan (Waterloo, Canada) gave a list of the Jewish players whose
names were in the games index of the Deutsche Schachblätter
during the period 1934-39. (Richter took over the editorship in
January 1934.) The numbers dwindled and reached zero in 1939.
Now we turn to Eastern Europe and more recent times. C.N. 6832
reported:
ChessBase has reproduced from The Huffington Post an article
entitled ‘A
Disappearing Act’ by Lubomir Kavalek. Two paragraphs:
‘In 1975 at the US Open, Navratilova asked for political
asylum and became persona non grata at home. Her name
disappeared from the press. It was a game the communist
establishment liked to play. The censors axed your name and
the people learned how to read between the lines.
I met with similar fate after I left Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Chess tournaments in which I participated were not reported or
appeared without my name. The same year Martina left, a book
of chess puzzles by two Czech grandmasters, Vlastimil Hort and
Vlastimil Jansa, was published in Prague. The publisher
Olympia printed 18,000 copies and when it was done, some
censors discovered my name attached to one of the games. They
did something unbelievable: they cut out the page with my
name, printed a new one without my name and glued it back in
the book. They did it page by page, book by book – 18,000
times.’
No further details were given in Kavalek’s article, so in C.N.
6832 we examined the Hort/Jansa book, Zahrajte si šachy s
velmistry.
Of the 230 positions discussed, only one lacked the players’
names:
The nimble expurgation becomes clear only on close inspection:
the sheet with pages 31-32 is slightly shorter than the others.
Kavalek’s name was given in the English edition, The Best
Move (Great Neck, 1980), which was translated from the Czech
by Irena Kavalek:
Page 16 of the Russian edition (Moscow, 1976) also included
Kavalek’s name:
However, in C.N. 7939 Vitaly A. Komissaruk (Kasan, Russian
Federation) added that there were deletions in the Russian
edition:
‘The text for position 86 has a venue and a year, but
White’s name is omitted (Korchnoi). The venue, year and name
of a player were removed from positions 104 (Korchnoi), 135
(Korchnoi) and 203 (Sosonko).’
Our correspondent also mentioned that position 13
(shown below) did not identify the players or give any venue or
date:
The game was Hort v Shamkovich, Moscow, 1962, as stated on page
21 of the original Czech edition of Hort and Jansa’s book.
The above, of course, are merely some examples which have been
examined in C.N. Other familiar political cases include the
treatment of Ludĕk Pachman.
Karel Mokrý (Prostějov, Czech Republic) draws our attention to an
article
of his which reports that two uncensored copies of the Hort/Jansa
book are known to exist.
(10021)
Finally, the promised answer to the quiz question posed earlier
this article, concerning the extent of the coverage in Deutsche
Schachblätter of Emanuel Lasker’s death in 1941: there was
no obituary or report of any kind.
The above article originally appeared in 2013 at ChessBase.com.
‘Everyone should know chess, because the mentality and
individuality of the white race has found expression in this
game in its modern development. To try to understand its
aspirations and to comprehend what masters and thinkers have
given to mankind is a tribute to the genius of the white race.’
(907)
An endnote on page 172 of Chess Explorations:
In 1994 Louis Blair wrote to us:
‘The book Lasker’s How to Play Chess is, as far as
I can tell, essentially the same as Lasker’s Chess
Primer, but the word “white” has been replaced by “human”.
The Portman Press reprint of Lasker’s Chess Primer
left out the first two paragraphs altogether and started
with, “Chess originated from warfare ...”.’
An extract from C.N. 1285 (full text given in Chess
Cuttings):
Quite apart from being counter-productive, chauvinism is
illogical and distasteful. Why all the talk about ‘British
Chess’ during the third Kasparov v Karpov match from people who
never once referred to ‘Italian Chess’ at the time of the 1981
‘Massacre in Merano’?
From W.D. Rubinstein (Victoria, Australia):
‘Have you ever noticed how a country’s chess spokesmen are
often exaggerated pastiches of that country’s worst national
characteristics?’
Yes.
(1182)
Given that chess is an international game par excellence,
it is surprising that such a strong nationalistic streak runs
through so many writers’ work. As this leads to the printing of
many relatively inferior ‘home-grown’ games, chauvinistic
reporting cannot be said to serve readers’ interests. Is there any
evidence that anyone wants a splash on the local player who
triumphantly secures an IM Norm, rather than material on the
greatest players, past and present? Sixth in the latest FIDE
Rating List, with 2630 points, is Predrag Nikolić, but what have
insular magazine editors told us about him and his games?
No doubt some readers have lumps in their throats if their
national team does well in an Olympiad, but a more sane reaction
might well be sublime indifference; what ought to count is the
amount of good chess produced at a given event, irrespective of
the passports held by those who produce it. Hopes have already
been expressed in some quarters that by 1990 the quality of
Karpov’s chess will have declined sufficiently to allow someone
else (One of Ours ...) to play a title match against the world
champion. Flag-waving and hype about Our Lads battling it out for
the nation’s glory do nothing for the dignity of the game.
Everyone has favourite players, but why should the choice be based
on ‘patriotic’ considerations? If we much admire Korchnoi it is on
account of his outstanding chess skill and resilience, and not
because we bristle with pride at the thought of living in the same
country as him.
Nationalistic or chauvinistic remarks look even more ridiculous
than when first printed. Here is a wartime example from what
Stewart Reuben (in the End-June 1987 CHESS, page 49)
labelled ‘the English chess world’:
‘As a compliment to our brave Russian Allies we publish in the
Games Department of our present issue the first instalment of 20
games from the St Petersburg tournament of last year (April,
1914).’
Source: BCM, October 1915, page 353.
During the Second World War, the BCM again faced the
problem of how to report German chess. A good editorial (March
1944, pages 49-50) argued against the views of a reader who had
protested ‘against our reporting chess news from countries with
which we are at war; according to him, we should ignore them and
not give them gratuitous publicity’.
The item did, however, contain a curious blunder:
‘We see nothing wrong in publishing a fine game by Klaus
Junge. The birthplace of a player does not seem to us to affect
the artistic value of his games one way or the other.’
Junge was born in Chile.
(1530)
We would no more wave a flag than burn one.
During Emanuel Lasker’s long reign as world champion a number of
attempts were made to remove his title by journalistic edict. An
example from the 1912 Capablanca-Magazine was reported on
page 66 of our book on Capablanca, and C.N. 2470 (see page 357 of
A Chess Omnibus) presented a case from the Morning Post
in 1919.
Another instance comes from page 162 of the March 1917 Chess
Amateur, which, under the heading ‘No world’s chess
champion’, quoted the columnist A.J. Neilson:
‘Since August 1914 there is no world’s chess champion, and we
are meantime perfectly willing to recognize the brilliant Mr
J.R. Capablanca as “world champion” ex officio, as the
master of greatest knowledge, “alive or dead”. It matters very
little to the purpose whether he acquired chess at four or 14
years of age; the capacity is there, and we are very certain
that he, for one, declines to recognize anything but his own
superiority to Lasker. This attitude is quite right.’
In a book review on page 206 of the April 1919 Chess Amateur
H.D’O. Bernard used the expression ‘one-time champion of the
world’ to describe Lasker.
Apart from the Capablanca-Magazine case (which was based
on the failure of the Lasker-Capablanca championship match
negotiations) the motivation seems to have been political, i.e.
related to Lasker’s pro-German writings about the Great War.
Already in 1914 the British press reacted fiercely to Lasker’s
words. For example, page 65 of the December 1914 Chess Amateur
quoted from the Illustrated London News:
‘A certain Herr Lasker has been airing his views to the Berlin
public on the British Navy, apparently because he believes
himself worthy to be styled the chess champion. The only claim
we know this individual has to the title arises from the fact
that the last time he ventured to defend it he escaped defeat by
a lucky fluke that gave him a draw. Since then there has been
the same difficulty in getting him to fight as Sir J. Jellicoe
has experienced with the German Fleet. Otherwise his remarks
have about the same value as would those of a beetle concerning
a steam roller.’
The Chess Amateur then commented:
‘According to Herr Lasker the movements of the French Army are
similar to those of the chess knight. His comments on the final
results of the war would do credit to the intelligence and
profound judgment of a well-trained parrot.’
Lasker’s articles were published in the Vossische Zeitung
from 16 August to 25 October 1914. A French translation appeared
in supplements to La Stratégie in January, February and
April 1915. For an English version see the feature on pages
104-114 of issue 3 of Lasker & His Contemporaries.
(3272)
A remark by Emanuel Lasker:
‘Down with all nationalism in our old, noble, profound game.’
Source: Hermann Helms’ chess column on page A3 of the Brooklyn
Daily Eagle, 12 June 1924:
We first quoted the observation by Lasker in C.N. 1158 (see page
264 of Chess Explorations), from page 318 of the August
1924 BCM.
(8918)
Lasker’s absence from London, 1922 was discussed in C.N. 11284.
C.N. 2634 (see page 197 of A Chess Omnibus) quoted from a
book catalogue by Dale Brandreth concerning Schachmeister
Erich Cohn (Berlin, 1919):
‘Scarce (many copies were destroyed by the Nazis because Cohn
was Jewish). This was a little 18-page booklet dedicated to his
memory since he was killed in action for Germany on 28 August
1918 after three years’ service.’
This photograph of Erich Cohn, not of premium quality, comes from
page 354 of the ‘Jubiläums-Ausgabe’ of Kagans Neueste
Schachnachrichten, 1926:
Erich Cohn is sometimes confused with Wilhelm Cohn, whose
photograph appeared on page 143 of the Barmen, 1905 tournament
book:
(7213)
In a review of Chess is my Life by Victor Korchnoi
(London, 1977) on page 16 of The Times, 2 December 1977
Bernard Levin referred to Korchnoi’s departure from the Soviet
Union in 1976 and added:
‘A new Soviet book on the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi championship
match had to have all references to Korchnoi deleted, so that he
is simply referred to throughout as “the opponent”.’
To which book was Levin referring? Korchnoi’s autobiography does
not seem to make such a claim.
Nor do we have any books in Russian exclusively devoted to the
1974 Karpov-Korchnoi match, although all 24 match-games were
annotated in Tri matcha Anatoliya Karpova by M. Botvinnik
(Moscow, 1975), which also covered Karpov’s matches against
Polugayevsky and Spassky. An English translation by Kenneth P.
Neat was published under the title Anatoly Karpov His road to
the World Championship (Oxford, 1978).
(8279)
No corroboration has been found of Bernard Levin’s assertion that
after Korchnoi’s departure from the Soviet Union in 1976 ‘a new
Soviet book on the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi championship match had to
have all references to Korchnoi deleted, so that he is simply
referred to throughout as “the opponent”’.
More generally, however, the Soviet press’s practice of omitting
his name has been mentioned by Korchnoi himself. For instance:
‘Once the Soviet Chess Federation had failed in its attempt to
exclude me from the world championship (a service for which I
have President of the World Federation Dr Euwe to thank) the
press couldn’t cope with having to report my candidates’ matches
with Petrosian, Polugayevsky and Spassky. I was never named, and
referred to only as “the challenger”, but of course people knew
who I was and what the news “Polugayevsky played poorly against
the challenger” meant.’
Source: an interview with Korchnoi by Richard Forster in Kingpin,
Autumn 2001, pages 15-18 (translation by George Green).
Below is the relevant section of the original interview,
published on page 57 of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 23 March
2001:
Can readers submit any particularly egregious examples from
Soviet publications of the time?
(8384)
See too C.N. 8389.
From page 49 of the Chess Amateur, November 1907:
‘The “German” Notation. Should the happy time come when
chessplayers throughout the world agree to adopt one system of
notation, that system will be the one which originated in Germany,
and is now used in Prussia, Austria, Italy, Argentine Republic and
Holland.’
From page 125 of the Chess Amateur, February 1915:
‘We consider the English method perfectly satisfactory
and by far the best that has ever been devised. This method may be
termed the “Descriptive”. It is in use throughout the British
Empire, the United States of America, Belgium and Argentina, and
possibly some other countries. The only rival notation is the
German method, which for stupidity and clumsiness would be
difficult to beat.’
(10703)
A comment by Wolfgang Heidenfeld in a review of Lehrbuch der
Schachtheorie by A. Suetin (East Berlin, 1973) on pages
511-512 of the December 1973 BCM:
‘The famous USSR grandmaster recognizes that nobody can
possibly know everything today and has drawn on the
collaboration of masters Abramov, Friedstein and Schazkes ...
In general one cannot help gaining the impression that the
authors rely far too much on material from the Soviet orbit,
neglecting anything played or published elsewhere. At a rough
estimate 90% or so of the game references are from the output of
“Eastern” players. If this were merely the result of easy
accessibility, it might pass muster, but one feels that it is
rather a matter of deliberate policy. This is revealed by the
system of opening nomenclature.’
Among the examples given by Heidenfeld:
1 P-K4 P-K3 2 P-Q4 P-Q4 3 N-Q2 N-QB3; ‘not a word of Guimard’;
‘I rubbed my eyes when I saw the line 1 P-Q4 N-KB3 2 N-KB3
P-K3 3 B-N5 referred to as the Petrosian Variation’ (instead of
the Torre Attack);
‘1 P-Q4 P-Q4 2 N-QB3 N-KB3 3 B-N5 is to be called the
Belo-Russian Opening because “this whole method of play was
worked out by the Belo-Russian masters Silitch and Veres[s]ov”.
The truth is that “this whole method of play” was worked out by
the late German master Kurt Richter ...’
His concluding paragraph:
‘I think it is time for somebody to speak out against
the deliberate and systematic falsification of chess history by
some Soviet writers. We cannot do anything about what they are
doing within their own orbit, but we can certainly try to stop
our own young players – without a thorough knowledge of
historical contexts and developments – from imbibing such
falsehoods. Those who know better can smile at the displays of
Soviet chauvinism, but there are tens of thousands who do not
know. Their case must not go by default.’
Unusually, the review was followed by a note by the BCM
Editor (Brian Reilly):
‘For “Falsehoods”, above, some might read “poisonous rubbish”,
others “inaccuracies”. W. Heidenfeld would, we know, go for the
former! ... We feel that our young players are not quite as
vulnerable as Mr Heidenfeld supposes and that they already know
that Popov (USSR) has invented everything, that Smith
(Anglo-Sax) is pretty near behind, that Dumont (France) was a
wiz[z]ard yet to be surpassed and that every country teaches and
relates history in its own very nationalistic way ... One day
Great Britain may be strong enough to play the Rest of the
World; let us wait and see what “falsehoods” we shall be able to
print ...’ [Ellipses in the original.]
(11467)
Under the title ‘Attempts to strip Lasker’, C.N. 3272 (see above)
quoted this paragraph by A.J. Neilson in the Falkirk Herald
(14 February 1917, page 4) which was reproduced on page 162 of the
March 1917 Chess Amateur:
The frontispiece to the August 1909 BCM:
Below are further extracts from his Falkirk Herald
column:
7 October 1914, page 4:
11 August 1915, page 4 (and reproduced on page 320 of the
September 1915 BCM):
