Chess Notes

Mr Kalendovský also draws attention to a photograph of Petrosian (signed by the master overleaf) in his collection:

From Michael Clapham (Ipswich, England):

Wanted: substantiation of this ‘once’ quotation:

‘Alekhine once said, “There must be no reasoning from past moves, only from the present position”.’

Source: The Golden Dozen by Irving Chernev (Oxford, 1976), page 260.

Robert John McCrary (Columbia, SC, USA) writes:

‘My copy of Stamma’s The Noble Game of Chess (London, 1745), which introduced the algebraic notation to the West, has the bookplate of the “Marquis Townshend”. I found that the first Marquis was the brother of the man who authored the “Townshend Acts”, which were among the sparks that helped bring on the American Revolution. The Marquis title was first conferred on the family some years after 1745.

I wonder whether my copy belonged to that first Marquis. His son, who inherited the title, was an avid book collector.’

Among the subscribers to Philidor’s Analyse du jeu des échecs was ‘M. Townshend’.

John Blackstone (Las Vegas, NV, USA) notes that on page 7 of the 16 December 1908 issue of the New York Evening Post Emanuel Lasker gave a version of the seventh match-game between Marshall and Mieses (played in Berlin on 28 November 1908) which deviated from the commonly-published score.

Lasker’s text was repeated on page 63 of the December 1908-January 1909 issue of Lasker’s Chess Magazine, and for reasons of legibility that is the version reproduced here:

The game-score as regularly presented elsewhere is below (with, in square brackets, observations by Mr Blackstone on the differences from Lasker’s version):

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 exd5 5 Nf3 Nc6 6 g3 Be6 7 Bg2 Nf6 8 Bg5 Be7 9 dxc5 Qa5 10 O-O Qxc5 11 Rc1 O-O 12 e4 Qa5 13 Bxf6 Bxf6 14 exd5 Rad8 15 Qb3 Bxd5 16 Nxd5 Rxd5 17 Qxb7 Nd4 18 Nxd4 Rxd4 19 a3 Rd2 20 b4 Qxa3 21 Bd5 Bc3

22 Bxf7+ [‘22 Rb1 Rb2 23 Rxb2 Qxb2 24 b5 Qe2 25 Bxf7+ Kh8 is the line given by Lasker.’] 22...Kh8 23 Rb1 Rb2 24 Rxb2 Qxb2 25 b5 Qe2 [‘Now the lines come back together.’] 26 Qxa7 Qxb5 27 Qe3 Qb4 28 Bd5 Bd4 29 Qe2 Qb2 30 Qxb2 Bxb2 31 Kg2 Rd8 32 Rb1 Rxd5 33 Rxb2 h5 34 f4 Kh7 35 Kh3 g5 36 Rb7+ Kg6 37 Rb6+ Kf5 [‘37...Kg7 38 Rb7+ Kg6 39 Rb6+ Kf5 40 Rh6 was given by Lasker.’] 38 Rh6 h4 39 Rh5 Kg6 40 Kg4 hxg3 41 hxg3 [‘This is where Lasker states that Black resigned.’] 41…Kf6 42 Rxg5 Rxg5+ 43 fxg5+ Kg6 44 Kh4 Kg7 45 Kh5 Kh7 46 g6+ Kg7 47 Kg5 Kh8 48 Kh6 Resigns.

The 48-move version was given in various magazines of the time, an example being Deutsches Wochenschach, 13 November 1908, pages 449-450. Even so, Lasker was in Berlin at the time of the game. His column in the Evening Post was headed ‘Berlin, 2 December’, and the introductory text too was reproduced in Lasker’s Chess Magazine (on page 40 of the above-mentioned issue).

Eduardo Bauzá Mercére (New York, NY, USA) sends the third game in the Judd v Showalter match, as published on page 5 of the New York Sun, 13 December 1891, and asks whether the score is correct. In particular, do other sources explain Black’s resignation or mention 38...Qxd6 and 40...Rd3 as possibilities?

Max Judd – Jackson Whipps Showalter
Third match-game, St Louis, 10 December 1891
French Defence

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Bd3 c5 5 Bb5+ Nc6 6 exd5 Qxd5 7 Nf3 Nf6 8 O-O Bxc3 9 bxc3 cxd4 10 Bxc6+ bxc6 11 cxd4 O-O 12 Re1 Nd7 13 Qd3 Rd8 14 Ng5 Nf8 15 Nf3 Ng6 16 c4 Qh5 17 Qe4 Rb8 18 Bf4 Nxf4 19 Qxf4 Ba6 20 Re5 Qg6 21 Rc1 Rb1 22 Ree1 Rxc1 23 Rxc1 Qd3 24 Qc7 Rf8 25 Qxc6 Qa3 26 Re1 Qxa2 27 Ne5 Bc8 28 d5 Qa5 29 Nf3 exd5 30 cxd5 Bg4 31 Rc1 h6 32 Rd1 Rc8 33 Qb7 Qa4 34 Rf1 Qf4 35 h3 Rb8 36 Qxa7 Bxf3 37 gxf3 Rb3 38 d6 Rxf3 39 d7 Qg5+ 40 Kh2 Resigns.

From page 1 of Lessons in Chess, Lessons in Life by Jose A. Fadul (Morrisville and London, 2008):

‘Somebody complained that life is too short to be wasted in trivial games such as chess. But William Napier did retort that such is the fault of life, and not of chess.’

The retort is indeed sometimes attributed to Napier (for example, in a piece which appeared under Frank Elley’s name on page 30 of Chess Life, March 1986), but we do not recall seeing it in Napier’s writings.

In the above-mentioned BCM item D.J. Morgan stated that the winning entry in the 1937 Observer competition was from Professor H.J. Rose:

‘Intimate conversation without a word spoken; thrilling activity in quiescence; triumph and defeat, hope and despondency, life and death, all within sixty-four squares; poetry and science reconciled; the ancient East at one with modern Europe – that is Chess.’

This is relevant to the discussion of the quote, and its author, in C.N. 5462.

A famous remark, it was reproduced on page 17 of The Big Book of Chess by Eric Schiller (New York, 2006) with only two mistakes (‘quiescent’ and ‘poetry and signs’).

Robert Sherwood (E. Dummerston, VT, USA) points out this photograph on page 23 of the February 1921 American Chess Bulletin:

Justin Horton (Huesca, Spain) comments that many Internet pages place Nimzowitsch’s alleged lament about losing to ‘this idiot’ (Sämisch) not in Berlin, as stated by Kmoch, but at Baden-Baden, 1925.

Half-way through that tournament Nimzowitsch did indeed lose to Sämisch, but what evidence exists that such an incident occurred there?

From page 109 of The Bright Side of Chess by Irving Chernev (Philadelphia, 1948):

‘Nimzowitsch described someone as “An amateur who played a weak enough game to enable him to conduct an important chess column”.’

Chernev gave no further details, but the words appeared on page 261 of Nimzowitsch’s book The Praxis of My System (London, 1936). The translation, by J. du Mont, omitted the name of the columnist in question, but it had been given on page 180 of the original edition, Die Praxis meines Systems (Berlin, 1930):

The name also appeared on page 154 of a recent English translation (by Ian Adams) of Nimzowitsch’s book, published under the title Chess Praxis (Glasgow, 2007):

The report of Wilhelm Therkatz’s death on page 12 of the January 1925 Wiener Schachzeitung stated that he had conducted the chess column in the Krefelder Zeitung for 26 years.

‘Every chess master was once a beginner’ is an observation regularly credited to Irving Chernev. Where did he write it?

Rick Kennedy (Columbus, OH, USA) is seeking more information about a game which we reproduced in C.N. 2860 from page 79 of Beadle’s Dime Chess Instructor by M.J. Hazeltine (New York, 1860):

Otho E. Michaelis – ‘Mr S.’
New York (date?)
(Remove White’s queen’s rook.)

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bc5 3 Nxe5 Qe7 4 d4 Bb6 5 b3 d6 6 Ba3 Qd8 7 Nf3 Bg4 8 Bd3 d5 9 O-O Nf6 10 Re1 dxe4 11 Bxe4 Bxf3

12 Bc6 mate.

Mr Skjoldager informs us that the Nimzowitsch book mentioned in the previous item is due to be published in 2011 and he adds:

‘An early game between Benjamin Blumenfeld and Aron Nimzowitsch, Berlin, 1903 (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nxc6 bxc6 6 Bd3 d5 7 e5 Ng4 8 O-O Qh4 9 h3 h5 10 Bf4 Bc5 11 Qd2 Rb8 12 Nc3 Rb4 13 Bg5 Qg3 14 hxg4 hxg4 15 Rfe1 Rh2 16 Bf1 Rh8 17 Bd3 Rh2 18 Bf1 Bxf2+ 19 Qxf2 Rh1+ 20 Kxh1 Qxf2 21 Re2 Qg3 22 Rd1 Bf5 23 Nxd5 cxd5 24 Rxd5 Rb8 25 e6 fxe6 26 Rxf5 Kd7 27 Rf7+ Kc6 28 Rxe6+ Kb7 29 Kg1 Resigns) can be found on the Internet, but we have not been able to trace a source for it.

We believe that it is probably a “real game”, partly because Nimzowitsch played this particular variation of the Scotch Game in his youth and partly because he was acquainted with Blumenfeld during his early years in Berlin. We have looked through all possible chess columns and all contemporary German periodicals, as well as Blumenfeld’s books, without success, but the game may have been published by him in a Russian/Soviet chess magazine. Can anyone find it?’

A serious disservice is done to chess history by some ‘modern’ editions of old tournament books. The latest example is London 1922 by G. Maróczy (Milford, 2010), which not only discards the original book’s introductory material but brushes out the editor and publisher, W.H. Watts, and a master, Amos Burn, who annotated at least 18 of the games.

In the original edition, games featuring Burn’s annotations (games 41-44, for example) ended with the specific reference ‘Notes from The Field’:

On page 5 of the original edition Watts gave an explanation indicating that the total number of games annotated by Burn, as opposed to Maróczy, might well be even higher than 18:

David McAlister (Hillsborough, Northern Ireland) inform us:

‘There are a number of Law Reports on the criminal proceedings brought against Ritson Morry. However, they all report not the trial itself but his unsuccessful appeal against conviction heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 29 October 1945. His grounds of appeal were essentially concerned with legal technicalities, and the judgment of the three-judge Court of Criminal Appeal (delivered by Mr Justice Hilbery) does not go into details about the criminal charges which Morry faced. It merely states:

“At the summer assizes at Birmingham, on 26 July 1945, the appellant was tried on an indictment containing four counts charging him with fraudulent conversion of four sums of money totalling £3,136. He was convicted on all counts, and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.”

This passage appears on page 633 of Volume 2 of the All England Reports for 1945. The complete report is on pages 632-636 and was cited by lawyers as R. v Morry [1945] 2 All ER 632.’

Dominique Thimognier (Fondettes, France) has found an article by Louis Mandy on pages 51-52 of the May-June 1955 issue of L’Echiquier de Paris. Entitled ‘La Rennaissance Echiquéenne’, it discussed the chess magazine of that name, which was edited by Gesztesi/Gestesi during its brief run (March-July 1912).

Mandy’s article included some biographical information about him and this picture, a detail from a photograph taken during a simultaneous exhibition in Sceaux on 24 November 1911:

Paul Timson (Whalley, England) provides further details:

‘As mentioned by David McAlister in C.N. 6733, the only references to Ritson Morry in the Law Reports relate to a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal on 29 October 1945, before Hilbery, Wrottesley and Stable, the appeal being based on technical legal grounds. I offer a summary below.

At the summer assizes at Birmingham on 25-26 July 1945 the appellant, William Ritson Morry, a solicitor, was tried on an indictment containing four counts charging him with fraudulent conversion of four sums of money totalling £3,136. He was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.

He appealed against his conviction on a number of technical legal grounds and represented himself at the Court of Criminal Appeal.

One of the grounds of appeal was that when he was committed for trial by the magistrates’ court the magistrates, as they were obliged to do, asked him the question laid down by statute: “Do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge? You are not obliged to say anything unless you desire to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence upon your trial.”

In response to that question he took the opportunity to make a speech, lasting some three hours, as an advocate on his own behalf. He now appealed on the grounds that because every word of his speech was not taken down and certified, the committal was irregular and the whole indictment should have been quashed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the procedure of calling upon the accused to make a statement if he chooses at that stage in the proceedings, where the magistrates are considering whether or not a case is made out for committal, was never intended to apply to a man making an oration as an advocate on his own behalf. They therefore dismissed this ground of appeal.

Another ground of appeal was that the magistrates had refused to commit him for trial on the charges which were the subject of counts one and two in the indictment. The trial judge had, however, decided that these counts should be included in the trial, as well as counts three and four (on which the magistrates had committed him), and the appellant was duly convicted on all four counts.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that this was a matter for the trial judge to decide, and his decision could not be questioned.

The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the Court held that the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment would run from the date of conviction, namely from the first day of the assizes (25 July 1945).

The Wood v Ritson Morry case was reported in the Times newspaper on 7 April 1954, when B.H. Wood was committed for trial, and on 15 July 1954, when he was acquitted on the charge of criminal libel.

The offending paragraph of Wood’s letter to Henry Golding, dated 23 February 1954, was quoted by the Times:

“Your whole attitude makes it clear that you are a Morry stooge. When you have become in due time disillusioned about this ex-gaolbird and have returned to sanity please contact me again unless you are so fed up that you drop out of chess altogether as some have done.”

The 7 April 1954 report in the Times stated:

“Mr Morry said that at one time he practised at Sutton as a solicitor. ‘I fell on evil times, however, and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for fraudulent conversion, which I served and returned to public life’, he said. He had put himself at right with the world and was entitled to live at peace with it. The use of the expression ‘ex-gaolbird’ with its highly defamatory meaning was in itself sufficient to maintain a conviction for criminal libel, submitted Mr Morry.”

That report also quoted two officials of the British Chess Federation, Sir Leonard Swinnerton Dyer and George Wheatcroft, as stating that they were aware of Morry’s past conviction but had had no objection to his holding office in the Federation.

From personal knowledge I can give a fuller answer to James Plaskett’s question in C.N. 6724. I studied law at Birmingham University from 1965 to 1968 and whilst there I played in the Birmingham chess league at a time when B.H. Wood and W. Ritson Morry (both also graduates of Birmingham University) were still playing in the league. I had several long conversations with Wood, who was President of the University Chess Club and, as I recall, it was he who told me the story of Ritson Morry’s downfall. In the late 1930s Ritson Morry, who was a solicitor, invested clients’ money without their knowledge or consent in a speculative property development. He was convinced that the development would make a large profit and he would be able to replace the clients’ money and take the profit for himself. Unfortunately for Ritson Morry, with the outbreak of the Second World War the development collapsed and he lost all the money which had been invested. As he was unable to replace his clients’ money from his own resources, they reported the matter to the police as soon as they became aware of the situation, and this resulted in his eventual conviction and imprisonment, and also in his being struck off the roll of solicitors.

He did eventually repay the money.’

The photograph below (showing the English players who went to Holland to play a Dutch team) comes from page 296 of the June 1937 BCM:

From pages 222-223 of ‘Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors Part I with the participation of Dmitry Plisetsky’ (London, 2003):

‘To the super-tournament in New York (1927), arranged to “accommodate” Capablanca, Lasker was no longer invited.’

Zenón Franco Ocampos (Ponteareas, Spain) asks whether this is true. The answer is no, because Lasker was invited to New York, 1927.

We discussed the matter on pages 195-197 of our book on Capablanca, referring to the bitter public dispute which had arisen at New York, 1924 between Lasker and Norbert Lederer (the latter being a key figure on the organizing committees of New York, 1924 and New York, 1927).

Much additional information was presented in the article ‘New York 1927 Documentary Evidence Answers Lingering Questions’ by Hanon Russell on pages 88-104 of the first issue of the American Chess Journal (1992). A section of the article (pages 99-101) was headed ‘Why Didn’t Lasker Play?’, and it showed that although the New York, 1927 organizing committee did not believe that Lasker would participate, Lederer ...

‘... made an extraordinary effort to convince Lasker to play. He enlisted the help of influential people in the United States and Europe, but Lasker was not persuaded. Finally, as the plans which were formulated had to be finalized, Lederer made one last effort. On 10 December 1926 he wrote a five-page typewritten letter in German to Lasker (Russell Collection #584). Lederer, whose first language was German (he was born in Vienna), wanted to make absolutely certain that he would not be misunderstood. Lederer’s formal invitation to Lasker specified all the terms, financial and otherwise, being offered to Lasker as well as a strong plea for Lasker to relent and play in what was recognized even then as one of the world’s great chess tournaments.’

Lasker refused the invitation.

See also pages 74 and 640 of Emanuel Lasker: Denker Weltenbürger Schachweltmeister edited by R. Forster, S. Hansen and M. Negele (Berlin, 2009).

Richard J. Hervert (Aberdeen, MD, USA) and Alan McGowan (Waterloo, Canada) comment that the caption in Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten is faulty, since Pirc is standing second from the right. (A photograph of the young Pirc was given in C.N. 6131.)

On the subject of photographs from Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten, the following appeared on page 56 of the March 1932 edition:

Daniël Noteboom

Page 48 of the February 1932 issue stated that the photograph had been given to Kagan by Euwe.

Pages 14-15 of 100 Classics of the Chessboard by A.S.M. Dickins and H. Ebert (Oxford, 1983) gave Alekhine v Sämisch, Berlin, 1923 under the heading ‘The Classic Blindfold Game’. The co-authors claimed:

‘Happening to meet in Berlin, the two players decided to take the opportunity of playing each other blindfold, creating as a result this astonishing brilliancy.’

The book added that Sämisch called Alekhine’s victory ‘the most brilliant game I have ever seen’. The moves: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Be2 e6 4 O-O d6 5 d4 cxd4 6 Nxd4 Nf6 7 Bf3 Ne5 8 c4 Nxf3+ 9 Qxf3 Be7 10 Nc3 O-O 11 b3 Nd7 12 Bb2 Bf6 13 Rad1 a6 14 Qg3 Qc7 15 Kh1 Rd8 16 f4 b6 17 f5 Be5 18 fxe6 Bxg3 19 exf7+ Kh8 20 Nd5 Resigns.

It is one of Alekhine’s most spectacular miniatures, number 97 in his first collection of Best Games (London, 1927). The heading was ‘Exhibition Game played at Berlin, February 1923’. The book did not suggest that either master was blindfold. Nor did the German translation, Meine besten Partien 1908-1923 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1929), although we have one later edition in German (Berlin, 1983), which states ‘Beiderseits ohne Ansicht des Brettes’. Various editions of the book Meisterspiele by Rudolf Teschner say that both players were without sight of the board, and Sämisch’s praise of Alekhine is quoted:

‘“Die genialste Partie, die ich je gesehen habe”, äußerte Sämisch voll Bewunderung für seinen Gegner.’

As shown below, Tartakower cited Sämisch when he published the game (a ‘Gastkampf’ , which Tartakower dated 1921, instead of 1923, with no intimation of blindfold play but with an additional move at the end) on page 276 of Die hypermoderne Schachpartie (Vienna, 1924):

January, rather than February, 1923 was specified when the game appeared on pages 218-219 of the second volume of Complete Games of Alekhine by V. Fiala and J. Kalendovský (Olomouc, 1996). The co-authors asserted that the game was first published on page 16 of the Observer, 4 March 1923. In neither that volume nor in the Skinner/Verhoeven book on Alekhine (see page 184) was it suggested that Alekhine or Sämisch played the game blindfold. Moreover, the score was not included in Blindfold Chess by E. Hearst and J. Knott (Jefferson, 2009).

The brilliancy is absent from all the chess magazines of 1923 that we have consulted so far.

From Eduardo Bauzá Mercére (New York, NY, USA) comes a report on page A10 of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 16 May 1929:

‘Lasker-Lederer Settlement

The judiciary committee of the National Chess Federation, of which Judge Jacob E. Dittus of Chicago is chairman, has adjudicated the controversy between Dr Emanuel Lasker of Berlin, former world’s champion and winner of first prize in the international masters’ tournament in New York, 1924, and Dr Norbert L. Lederer, director of that tournament, according to advices received from Chicago.

Dr Lederer had lodged a formal complaint against Dr Lasker with the committee to the effect that Dr Lasker had published statements reflecting upon his character, as well as upon the executive committee of that tournament, and which, he declared, called for an apology. Dr Lasker, it is said, agreed to abide by the findings of the judiciary committee.

The committee decided that Dr Lederer’s complaint was justified and that the facts in the case did not bear out Dr Lasker’s accusation. A report of the findings was sent to Dr Lasker.

Edward Lasker, recently elected secretary of the National Chess Federation, said yesterday that he and other friends of Dr Emanuel Lasker felt certain that the latter will acquit himself gracefully by publicly retracting his charges. Dr Lasker became 60 years of age on 24 December last, an occasion which was fittingly celebrated by the chessplayers of Germany.’

John Blackstone (Las Vegas, NV, USA) refers to a game given in databases as won by Emanuel Lasker (White) in a simultaneous exhibition in the Netherlands in 1908 against C.A. Moller:

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 d3 Bc5 5 Nc3 d6 6 Be3 Bb6 7 Qd2 O-O 8 O-O Be6 9 Nd5 Bxd5 10 exd5 Ne7 11 Bg5 Ng6 12 Nh4 Nxh4 13 Bxh4 Ne4 14 dxe4 Qxh4 15 Bd3 g6 16 Kh1 f5 17 g3 Qf6 18 f3 f4 19 g4 Rf7 20 Rae1 Qh4 21 Re2 g5 22 Rg2 Kg7 23 c4

23...Rd8 24 b4 Bd4 25 Qc2 b6 26 a4 Kf6 27 Qe2 h5 28 Rc1 Rh7 29 Rc2 Qh3 30 Ra2 Bc3 31 b5 hxg4 32 Rxg4 Be1 33 Rg2 Bg3 34 Rd2 Bxh2 35 Rxh2 Qg3 ‘1-0’.

Noting that the game was given in Lasker’s column on page 7 of the New York Evening Post, 1 August 1908 as played in Copenhagen at 15 moves an hour, with Lasker as Black against C.A. Möller, our correspondent asks, ‘Do you know the truth?’

This is a further example of the unreliability of databases. The game as given in the Evening Post also appeared on pages 99-100 of Lasker’s Chess Magazine, September 1908. Lasker won as Black, and the game, played in Copenhagen, did not occur in a simultaneous display.

Moreover, both the newspaper and the magazine had Black’s 23rd move as ‘QR-R’, i.e. 23...Rh8 and not 23...Rd8 as given in the databases. With 23...Rh8 the game’s conclusion makes sense.