| |
Main
Date: 25 Nov 2007 09:43:21
From: Chess One
Subject: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:
Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title
"Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca, Siegbert Tarrasch,
Emanuel Lasker and Frank shall. After the conclusion of the 1914 St
Petersburg tournament, Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed the
title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.
and exploring the labrynthine chessville archive, the Russians did this
too...
Champion For A Day: After the death of Alexander Alekhine in 1946, FIDE
held a meeting to decide on how to choose the next World Champion. The FIDE
delegates decided that since Max Euwe was the only ex-World Champion still
alive, he would be the "World Champion" until FIDE organized a tournament to
find the next champion. The Soviet delegates arrived at the meeting a day
late. They had the decision annulled, and thus the world title was left
vacant, till Botvinnik won the 1948 tournament. Thus Euwe was "technically"
World Champion twice: 1935-37, and one day in 1946.
Other chess titles:
"World Champion Tournament Player": The Ostend 1907 featured players such
as Tarrasch, Schlechter, shall, Burn and Chigorin. After winning the
tournament, Tarrasch was crowned the "World Champion Tournament Player" by
the tournament organizers. No-one took the title seriously, and it quickly
disappeared into chess history.
Topically:
Was Keres the Best Never To Be World Champ? In the course of his long and
distinguished career, Paul Keres defeated nine players who were at one stage
in their careers world chess champion. The nine players were: Alexander
Alekhine; Jose Capablanca; Vassily Smyslov; Max Euwe; Tigran Petrosian;
Mikhail Tal; Mikhail Botvinnik; Boris Spassky; Bobby Fischer.
Most of these anecdotes are supplied by Aussie Graham Clayton. here is a
final anecdote, and I am surprised that Washington beat NY! Lookit...
National Chess League: In January 1976, the United States Chess Federation
ran the inaugural "National Chess League". These were matches played on 6
boards, with the moves transmitted by telephone. The 9 teams who entered
finished in the following order:
1. Washington Plumbers
2. New York Threats
3. Cleveland Headhunters
4. San Fransisco Dragons
5. Los Angeles Stauntons 6. Miami Capablancas
7. Chicago Prairie Dogs
8. Boston 64's
9. Houston Helpmates
Many of the top US players of the era competed, including Larry
Christiansen, Anthony Saidy, Arnold Denker, Robert Byrne, Andy Soltis, Pal
Benko, Ed Mednis, Arthur Bisguier and Lubomir Kavalek.
Phil Innes
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 2007 15:43:10
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
From: [email protected] (Anders Thulin)
Subject: Re: First Grandmasters?
Date: 1995/11/20
Message-ID: <[email protected] >#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 119899455
references: <[email protected] > <47uhhs
[email protected] > <[email protected]>
<[email protected] >
organization: @Lejonet
newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
In article <[email protected] >,
Anders Thulin <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Just now all my copies of Wiener Schachzeitung are in storage, so I
>can't check this up immediately. (Anyone with the Olms reprint handy?)
>Wiener Schachzeitung 1898-1916 was from 1899 or 1900 published as the
>organ of the international grandmaster association. (I'm almost 100%
>certain that the term 'grandmaster' was used in the name.)
Nope, I was wrong about that. They called themselves 'Interationale
Schach-Meister Bund', and I find nothing about 'grandmaster' in the
printed material. Sorry.
I did some further checking on the 1914 event, while I were going
through the material.
>[email protected] (Ed Seedhouse) wrote:
>I believe the title was given by the Czar to the 4 finalists in this
>two stage event. As I recall they were Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine,
>and shall.
I couldn't verify this, although I have no reason to think it is
wrong. However, the St. Peterburg event appears to have been announced
as a 'Grossmeisterturnier', and invitations were sent out only to
grandmasters: in this instance master players who had won at least one
major international tournament.
This particular definition seems to be from the St. Petersburg chess
club -- co grumbles a bit about the definition being both too wide
(admitting masters somewhat past their prime) and too narrow (leaving
out important younger players - Tartakower and Spielmann are
mentioned) (WSZ 1914:4/9, p. 80-127). Thus, the term seems to have
been used about the event even before it had started, and applied to
all participants, not only the winners.
I browsed through some earlier volumes of WSZ and found some further
uses of the term:
WSZ 1913:23/24, p. 355: "...11 Kraftmeierparteien aus dem
,,Grossmeister-turnier'' in San Sebastian, 1911"
(ironical - the 11 games are all draws and all ended
before move 21 or so: grandmaster draws)
WSZ 1912:17/20, p. 269: "...darunter fast die Ha"lfte sogenannte
Grossmeister"
(J. Krejcik about Breslau 1912. It is interesting that he
says 'so-called grandmasters'.)
WSZ 1911:Supplementheft, p. 404: "...der kubanische Grossmeister
Jose R. Capablanca"
--
Anders Thulin [email protected] 013 - 23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2007 14:23:53
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
I believe that this is a book that I consulted:
http://www.ukgamesshop.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=chbotou025&Category_Code=chbotou
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2007 13:59:55
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
I think this is the book that I previously consulted:
http://www.ukgamesshop.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=chbotou025&Category_Code=chbotou
|
| |
Date: 26 Nov 2007 19:14:45
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
Phil Innes wrote:
> "Louis Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:1f459e50-6306-4a0e-a2a0-2a2746e8d768@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Here is what I wrote on this subject in a post
> > several years ago:
>
> > There is an often repeated story that the Czar
> > himself named five players as grandmasters
> > at the St. Petersburg tournament in 1914.
> > In some circles, there has been a lot of
> > skepticism about it lately. Searches have been
> > made through newspaper reports at the time
> > without finding any reference to the Czar in
> > connection with the tournament. The reports
> > seem to indicate that ALL the participants were
> > regarded as grandmasters BEFORE the start of
> > the event.
>
> Can you cite these references, Louis?
> ...
_
As I indicated, the post was several years ago, and I
do not now have access to the materials that I had
then. As best I can recall, I mainly relied on quotes
that were contained in a book about the tournament.
I think it was published by Dale Brandreth who
published lots of such books.
|
| |
Date: 26 Nov 2007 07:01:23
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 26, 9:26 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THE FIVE VICTORS
>
> 1. Lasker 13 1/2
> 2. Capablanca 13
> 3. Alekhine 10
> 4. Tarrasch 8 1/2
> 5. shall 8
>
> "As one of the five victors' section addressed by the Czar as 'les
> grands maitres,' Alekhine is one of the original grandmasters." --
> SOVIET CHESS by Richard Wade (page 46).
Is this the New Zealand-born IM? In that case, his first name is
Robert.
> "Lasker won the tourament with 13 1/2 points, and Capablanca was second
> with 13, three full points ahead of Alekhine, who in turn finished 1 1/2
> points ahead of Tarrasch, thus becoming the youngest 'grandmaster.'"
> --- THE ADVENTURE OF CHESS by Edward Lasker (page 108)
Those books are dated 1967 and 1949, respectively, so both post-date
the shall book (1942) and the New Yorker article (1940). Rather
than being any authoritative source, I suspect they are just repeating
uncritically what had already become the commonly accepted story.
Edward Lasker is especially iffy on this sort of thing. I notice that
on page 107 he puts the tournament in Moscow rather than St.
Petersburg.
|
| |
Date: 26 Nov 2007 06:47:20
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 25, 10:21 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Note: the 1911 year entry in the
>
> "TOURNAMENTS, INTERNATIONAL--1851-1951"
>
> table of "The Encyclopedia of Chess", by Anne Sunnucks,
> is messed up.
You're right, Wlod. My copy lists "TOURNAMENTS, INTERNATIONAL --
1851-1949." For 1911 it says Schlechter won at San Sebastian instead
of Capablanca, and that Capablanca won at Carlsbad instead of
Teichmann. An unintentional error, I am sure.
It's very difficult, virtually impossible to produce an error-free
encyclopedia. Just recently I came across one in the OC I had not
noticed before. Under "Hromadka Defense" (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5) it says
"It was introduced by the Czech master Karel Hromadka in the Piest'any
tournament, 1922." While Hromadka did play in that event, he never
used that opening there, unless my database is badly mistaken. The
earliest I could find him playing it was 1928.
> Both Lasker and Levenfish played in all three Moscow
> tournaments. In the first one, in 1926,
I think you mean 1925?
> Lasker had
> serious chances to win the tournament when he lost
> to Levenfish. In the next two they drew their games.
They drew their one game in 1935, but Moscow 1936 was a double-round-
robin, and Lasker scored +1 =1 vs. Levenfish then. His win is an
interesting game, in which he played an old Chigorin-style line
against the Sicilian:
[Event "Moscow"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1936.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lasker, Emanuel"]
[Black "Levenfish, Grigory"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B23"]
[PlyCount "73"]
[EventDate "1936.05.14"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "18"]
[EventCountry "URS"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 e6 4. Be2 d5 5. d3 Nge7 6. Nf3 Nd4 7. O-O
Nec6 8. Qd2 Be7 9. Bd1 O-O 10. Qf2 a6 11. Re1 Bf6 12. Ne2 dxe4 13.
Nexd4 e3 14. Bxe3 cxd4 15. Bd2 Qd5 16. Qg3 Bd7 17. Ne5 Rfd8 18. c4
dxc3 19. bxc3 Be8 20. Bc2 g6 21. d4 Bg7 22. h4 Rac8 23. Be4 Qd6 24.
Rad1 b5 25. h5 b4 26. hxg6 hxg6 27. Re3 bxc3 28. Bxc3 Nxe5 29. fxe5
Bxe5 30. Qh4 Rxc3?! -- Fritz8 prefers 30...Ba4 31.Rdd3 Qb6 32.Qg5 Bg7
with about a pawn's worth of advantage for Black. -- 31. Rxc3 Bxd4+
32. Kh1 Ba4 33. Rdd3 Bb5 34. Bxg6 fxg6 35. Rh3 Qd7 36. Rcg3 Bd3?? --
Probably a time-pressure blunder. It looks like 36... Rf8 37. Rxg6+
Kf7 38. Rf3+ Ke8 39. Rxf8+ Kxf8 40. Qf4+ etc. would draw. -- 37. Rxd3
1-0
> Levenfish provides the annotated scores of all 3 games,
> but about the last one he writes that it was a quite boring
> game, which he includes only for what happened after
> the game. The end position was a clear draw indeed.
> But Lasker offered drawa also earlier; and for this
> Lasker had apologized to Levenfish after the game:
>
> "I had no right to propose draw, because you had
> realistic chances, but I didn't see all the dangers
> of my position."
>
> Then Levenfish wants his young readers to think
> about Lasker's honorable attitude.
>
> For a contrast, Levenfish writes that Vid and shall
> were playing in copletely dead draw positions, back and force,
> until indeed he finally deconcentrated, made an error, and
> let them win.
Quite true, at least for two of those three games:
[Event "Karlsbad"]
[Site "Karlsbad"]
[Date "1911.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Levenfish, Grigory"]
[Black "Vid, Milan Sr"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C50"]
[PlyCount "150"]
[EventDate "1911.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "25"]
[EventCountry "CZE"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. d3 d6 6. Be3 Bb6 7. Qd2
Be6 8. Bb3 Ba5 9. O-O O-O 10. Bg5 Nd4 11. Kh1 c6 12. Qc1 Bxb3 13. axb3
Bxc3 14. bxc3 Ne6 15. Nh4 Nxg5 16. Qxg5 h6 17. Qe3 Ng4 18. Qg3 Qg5 19.
f4 exf4 20. Rxf4 Ne5 21. Nf5 Qxg3 22. Nxg3 Ng6 23. Rf2 Ne7 24. h4 a6
25. Kh2 Rad8 26. Re1 f6 27. Nh5 Ng6 28. Kh3 Rfe8 29. Ng3 Rd7 30. h5
Nf8 31. Rf5 Ne6 32. Ref1 Nc7 33. R1f2 Rde7 34. c4 Rd7 35. Ra5 b6 36.
Ra1 d5 37. cxd5 cxd5 38. exd5 Rxd5 39. Rf5 a5 40. b4 axb4 41. Ra7 Re3
42. Rxd5 Nxd5 43. Kg4 b3 44. cxb3 Rxd3 45. Nf5 Ne3+ 46. Nxe3 Rxe3 47.
Rb7 Rxb3 48. Rb8+ Kh7 49. Kf4 Rb1 50. g4 Rb5 51. Rb7 Rb1 52. Rb8 Rf1+
53. Ke4 Rb1 54. Kf4 b5 55. Kg3 b4 56. Kg2 b3 57. Kf2 g5 58. Kg2 Kg7
59. Rb7+ Kf8 60. Kh2 Ke8 61. Kg2 Kd8 62. Kh2 Kc8 63. Rb4 Kc7 64. Kg2
Kc6 65. Rb8 Kd5 66. Rb7 Kc4 67. Rc7+ Kd3 68. Rb7 Kc3 69. Rc7+ Kb2 70.
Rc6 Rc1 71. Rxf6 Rc4 72. Rxh6 Kc2 73. Rb6 b2 74. Rxb2+ Kxb2 75. Kf3
Rf4+ 0-1
[Event "Karlsbad"]
[Site "Karlsbad"]
[Date "1911.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "shall, Frank James"]
[Black "Levenfish, Grigory"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C66"]
[PlyCount "117"]
[EventDate "1911.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "25"]
[EventCountry "CZE"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 d6 5. d4 Bd7 6. O-O Be7 7. Bg5
exd4 8. Nxd4 O-O 9. Re1 h6 10. Bh4 Nh7 11. Bxe7 Nxe7 12. Bxd7 Qxd7 13.
Qd3 Rfe8 14.Rad1 Nf6 15. h3 Rad8 16. Qg3 Kh7 17. e5 dxe5 18. Nf3 Qf5
19. Rxd8 Rxd8 20. Qxe5 Rd7 21. Qxf5+ Nxf5 22. Re5 Ne7 23. Kf1 Ned5 24.
Nxd5 Nxd5 25. Re4 c5 26. a3 f5 27. Re5 g6 28. g3 b6 29. Re6 g5 30. c4
Ne7 31. Ne5 Rc7 32. b4 Ng8 33. f4 Re7 34. Rc6 cxb4 35. axb4 Kg7 36.
Rg6+ Kf8 37. c5 bxc5 38. bxc5 gxf4 39. gxf4 Rc7 40. c6 a5 41. Nd7+ Kf7
42. Ne5+ Kf8 43. Nd7+ Kf7 44. Ne5+ Kf8 45. Ke1 a4 46. Kd2 Ra7 47. Kc2
h5 48. Kb2 Ne7 49. Re6 Ke8 50. Ka3 h4 51. Rh6 Kd8 52. Rxh4 Kc7
53. Rh7 Kd6 54. h4 Ra8 5. Nc4+ Kc5 56. Rxe7 Kxc4 57. c7 Kc5 58. h5 Kc6
59. h6 1-0
I'd say shall got him fair and square here, though:
[Event "Moscow"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1925.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "shall, Frank James"]
[Black "Levenfish, Grigory"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D20"]
[PlyCount "63"]
[EventDate "1925.11.10"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "21"]
[EventCountry "URS"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. e4 a6 5. Bxc4 b5 6. Bb3 Bb7 7. Nf3
Nf6 8. Bg5 Be7 9. e5 Nfd7 10. Bxe7 Qxe7 11. O-O O-O 12. Re1 Rd8 13.
Qe2 Nf8 14. Qe3 Nbd7 15. Rac1 Rac8 16. Ng5 c5 17. d5 h6 18. Nf3 exd5
19. Bxd5 Nb6 20. Bxb7 Qxb7 21.Ne4 Nc4 22. Qc3 Ne6 23. b3 Nb6 24. Nd6
Rxd6 25. exd6 Rd8 26. Rcd1 Nd5 27. Qe5 Ndf4 28. Qe4 Qb6 29. Ne5 Rxd6
30. h4 Nd4 31. Qxf4 Ne2+ 32. Rxe2 1-0
> I've written earlier that Levenfish won a tournament
> game from Alechine. They spent some years in Petersburg
> and played one another quitre a bit. Levenfish
> admires Alechine talent, and he writes that "advantage
> in our meetings was on the Alechine's side". This sounds
> to me like Levenfish was doing not too bad, perhaps something
> like 4:6 on average? -- but I don't know.
According to Skinner & Verhoeven's massive Alekhine compilation, AA
and GL met in serious OTB games seven times 1911-1920, AA scoring +4
-1 =2. There was also a consultation games, with AA and Esser beating
GL and Freiman.
|
| |
Date: 26 Nov 2007 06:26:45
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
THE FIVE VICTORS
1. Lasker 13 1/2
2. Capablanca 13
3. Alekhine 10
4. Tarrasch 8 1/2
5. shall 8
"As one of the five victors' section addressed by the Czar as 'les
grands maitres,' Alekhine is one of the original grandmasters." --
SOVIET CHESS by Richard Wade (page 46).
"Lasker won the tourament with 13 1/2 points, and Capablanca was second
with 13, three full points ahead of Alekhine, who in turn finished 1 1/2
points ahead of Tarrasch, thus becoming the youngest 'grandmaster.'"
--- THE ADVENTURE OF CHESS by Edward Lasker (page 108)
Chess One wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I think Mr. Winter might attend all the claimants to the issue, and if
> > Bernstein has some evidential material which annoints champions by the
> > modern title in 1907, then he gets another prize in being right - and I
> > presume that someone awarded the title, and that it was not in English; to
> > wit, introduced by whom?
> >
> > > So until this "original grandmasters" story gets some better
> > > substantiation, it may be wiser to file it with the tales about
> > > Morphy's shoes and Alekhine smashing his furniture.
> >
> > Those do not seem to be of parallel circumstance.
> >
> > Phil Innes
>
> A little more on the subject from "The Oxford Companion to
> Chess" (2nd edition, 1992):
>
> "A correspondent writing to Bell's Life, 18 Feb. 1838, refers to
> Lewis as 'our past grandmaster,' probably the first use of this term
> in connection with chess. Subsequently Walker and others referred to
> Philidor as a grandmaster ... The word gained wider currency in the
> early 20th century when tournaments were sometimes designated
> grandmaster events, e.g Ostend 1907, San Sebasti?n 1912."
>
> The OC does not mention Petersburg 1914; apparently the authors
> considered the Tsar Nicholas story lacking adequate documentation.
>
> --- --- ---
> Yes it is an interesting question of /written/ provenance - and not any
> unusual issue in history or anthropology, as to provenance and also to
> meaning - an early term can mean something quite different or at least
> undifferentiated from a latter one.
>
> Of course, people could use the term variously to indicate any number of
> things. Naturally, the term is very old as we can appreciate from the
> Masonic tradition, where it occurs in the 1500s, and before that in some
> other religions orders - possibly at the time of the second Crusade,
> continuing through the Cathars, Knights of Malta, eg, Therefore, and
> heretofore 'Grandmaster' indicated a courtesy rank rather than comparative
> and measured strength against others, as used in modern chess.
>
> In England and Russia the term was not much used, and 'master' stood in
> place of it - until more formal accession to the title by grading took
> place, rather than as before, by tournament accession.
>
> If Mr. Winter has the title, he should consult the first serious statistical
> work on the subject of player ranking, which came from England, /Statistical
> Study of Chess Masters 1881-90/ by G. M. Brumfitt, first published in the
> British Chess Magazine 1891.
>
> As variously noted above, ranking related to ratings did not really get
> going until after WWII, although a proto-ranking system emerged in American
> correspondence chess in the 30s. The largest grading system emerged in the
> UK, but shadowed on a different basis by an American one, also a German
> [Inigo system] version.
>
> The only titles used by the Brits were British master and Candidate Master.
> In the US, Kenneth Harkness's pioneering system was overhauled by a
> committee chaired by A. E. Elo. Elo's group did adopt the term International
> Grandmaster.
>
> Inigo was developed in the 40s by Herr Hoesslinger of Ingolstadt in Bavaria.
> Interestingly, it is similar to the UK system but the numbers are reversed!
> So that the strongest player has the lowest rating. Additionally Inigo
> system was not 'official' but used by the most enthusiastic players.
>
> I do not know if the term is mentioned in the 33 pages of the Gottingen
> manuscript, which besides, is in Latin, nor in Handbuch des Schachspiels
> which says Gottingen is 1490, or Lucena 1497, Repeticion de Amores e Art de
> Axedres.
>
> Since these are not easy references, perhaps it would be significant to know
> if the title 'grandmaster' occurred in the greatest compendium of the C19th,
> Antonius van der Linde's Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels (1874)
> which contains says Eales "an enormous catalogue of references to chess in
> every possible source."
>
> And less sensibly would be to check the ancient roots of the term, by
> following the very strange Victorian English enthusiasm for tracing the
> origin of the game, and indeed, if the term is at all usual in Sanskrit? And
> if it is, then to negotiate the rather formidable objection to Forbes
> offered by Weber, who rather convincingly put aside the 'if it is written,
> it is true' argument, in which van der Linde had placed too much trust.
>
> To chart the full course of our knowledge of chess, with all its blind
> alleys, we should go all the way back to Thomas Hyde and his works, who only
> coincidentally was a founder of the proto-Royal society, then the open and
> public one, and who also sported the [secret] title of grandmaster, which I
> think is obliquely referenced in the Encyclopedia Britannica 1898, US
> version published Akron, 1901.
>
> Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 26 Nov 2007 04:47:15
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 25, 9:50 pm, Anders Thulin <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
> > How was shall so familiar with the financial
> > aspect of the tournament? Do we have any historians-
> > economists around? The claim to me seems not plausible
> > on the historic-psychological-custom grounds.
>
> Why not? Please explain.
I have already did. You are not from that part of the
world, hence you didn't pay attention.
> I see no reason to believe that the participants were not
> fully informed of the economical aspects of the event.
Because it simply was not done. The accommodations were
understood by itself. The proze money I am sure were
announced in advance. But it would not occur to any Russian
organizers that shall would be interested or should
know how much they got at the gate. He would have to be extra
nosy. He would have to have time to catch a proper organizer
after the tournament (the cahier or the main organizer).
It's possible that he did ask and got the answer but I doubt it.
> As to the Tsar's contrivution to the prize fund: it would have been
> donated well in advance. Noone would even have thought of sneering at
> it just because admittance fees reached record levels.
:-) :-)
If one believes the two figures given by shal, then
they show that Tsar's contribution was trivial for a god-like
character like Tsar. It doesn't matter that they collected
well at the gate. It is still laughable as a dontation from TSAR.
Tsar, if he gives, he is suppossed to be GENEROUS. 1/6 of the
gate cpould give a minor aristocrat, not Tsar.
Anyway, I have never read from any Russian source
that Tsar ever had given a single kopieyka
(Russian penny) for chess. Just never. But if shal was prone to
making up stories, that it sounds good (to the Western ear) that Tsar
himself bothered to pay for shal's visit. it makes shal
so much more important in his own eyes.
Wlod
I never in myu life have read anything which would indicate
that Tsar give
|
| | |
Date: 26 Nov 2007 19:41:34
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
>> I see no reason to believe that the participants were not
>> fully informed of the economical aspects of the event.
>
> Because it simply was not done. The accommodations were
> understood by itself. The proze money I am sure were
> announced in advance. But it would not occur to any Russian
> organizers that shall would be interested or should
> know how much they got at the gate. He would have to be extra
> nosy. He would have to have time to catch a proper organizer
> after the tournament (the cahier or the main organizer).
> It's possible that he did ask and got the answer but I doubt it.
Aha -- you mean those aspects that were of no immediate
interest to the players. No, those would probably not have
been communicated specially to them during the tournament.
But why do you believe that only shall could have ferreted
out this information, and only in the manner you describe?
He had more than 25 years before he wrote that book.
The basic information was published reasonably widely in the
press at the time: see for instance Deutsche Schachzeitung 1914
p 252-253, which itself cites St. Petersburger Zeitung of June 22
as source. Neither was a particularly difficult source to come by
at the time -- and either source would have been re-reported in other
chess periodicals.
Since you seem to have a certain fascination for the
supposed niggardliness of the Czar, I'm glad to report that
the total income of the full events amounted to 19729 rubel (not
including those 1000 Czar rubles).
> Anyway, I have never read from any Russian source
> that Tsar ever had given a single kopieyka
> (Russian penny) for chess. Just never.
Well, St. Petersburger Zeitung was published in German,
so I must assume it doesn't count as a Russian source. But without
knowing what Russian source you *have* read, it is difficult to
evaluate your statement. Am I overinterpreting you if I take it as a
categorical denial that such information can be found in the Niva
or the Novoye Vremya?
--
Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 20:36:15
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
THE WOODPUSHERS
I just consulted the entry on St. Petersburg
1914 in Shakhmaty Ehntsiklopedicheskij Slovar', which
dwarfs the Oxford Companion in terms of sheer amount
of information contained therein.
There is no mention of a GM title being
conferred, though there is mention that the final
group at Petersburg was call the "Tournament of
Victors," meaning those surviving the prelim portion.
Arguably, if shall's recollection is wrong,
then he may have misremembered "Victors" for being
conferred a title of GM. When I have the time, I will
post what I can find in the Slovar', checking out some
of the individual entries on Alekhine and others.
Another point: all five players, with the
possible exception of Alekhine, may have been
generally regarded as grandmasters by 1914, but that
would not preclude an "official" title being provided
by the czar or an emissary.
There is the well-known blurb written by
shall to Carrie, his wife, re the picture of him
with the "Victors." He speaks of them being
woodpushers. This deliberate jocularity can mean that
the five were considered to have some kind of special
position for a period. That, at least, is one way of
reading shall's note.
Yours, Larry Parr
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
> On Nov 25, 7:25 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > WHAT SHALL WROTE
> >
> > Here's what shall wrote in MY FIFTY YEARS OF CHESS (page 20-1)
> >
> > In the Spring of the fateful year 1914 I took part in one of the most
> > notable chess events which has ever taken place -- the St. Petersburg
> > Grand International Masters Tournament.
> >
> > The participants included the reigning world champion, Dr. E. Lasker
> > and two future world champions, Capablanca and Alekhine. The latter, a
> > young man of 21 in the uniform of the Military School of St.
> > Petersburg,
>
> It was not a "Military School of St. Petersburg"
> but a school for future lawyers and diplomats,
> for students from good (aristocratic) and well
> to do families. I wonder what the pictures show.
>
>
> > and the youthful Aaron Nimzovich, had both qualified for
> > the tournament by tying for first place in the Russian
> > National which had just concluded.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > The St. Petersburg Chess Society was responsible for
> > the organization and conduct of the Tournament, the
> > Tsar himself subscribing 1000 roubles towards the prize
> > fund. As it turned out, the prizes were more
> > than covered by the record gate of 6,000 roubles....
>
> How was shall so familiar with the financial
> aspect of the tournament? Do we have any historians-
> economists around? The claim to me seems not plausible
> on the historic-psychological-custom grounds. An eastern
> autocrat like Tsar plays a God-like figure. When he gives
> an award it should blind you with its excess. And here
> Tsar would donate merely 1/6 of what the gate brought?!
> That would be highly EMBARRASSING for Tsar, he would
> be laughed at, he would be widely known for being
> stingy, he would be a butt of the jokes a 100 times
> more popular than the whole chess itself.
>
> > It was at this tournament (see Games 83 and 84)
> > that the Tsar of Russia conferred on
> > each of the five finalists the title "Grandmaster of Chess."
> >
>
>
> And what about earlier shall's comments about
> the same games and the St. Petersburg 1914 tournament?
>
> When FIDE introduced the formal title, were there any
> stories published, be it FIDE or anybody else, about
> the history of the title? Wasn't it exact time to
> dwell on the tradition and previous history?
>
> Regards,
>
> Wlod
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 19:56:19
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 25, 7:25 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> WHAT SHALL WROTE
>
> Here's what shall wrote in MY FIFTY YEARS OF CHESS (page 20-1)
>
> In the Spring of the fateful year 1914 I took part in one of the most
> notable chess events which has ever taken place -- the St. Petersburg
> Grand International Masters Tournament.
>
> The participants included the reigning world champion, Dr. E. Lasker
> and two future world champions, Capablanca and Alekhine. The latter, a
> young man of 21 in the uniform of the Military School of St.
> Petersburg,
It was not a "Military School of St. Petersburg"
but a school for future lawyers and diplomats,
for students from good (aristocratic) and well
to do families. I wonder what the pictures show.
> and the youthful Aaron Nimzovich, had both qualified for
> the tournament by tying for first place in the Russian
> National which had just concluded.
>
> [...]
>
> The St. Petersburg Chess Society was responsible for
> the organization and conduct of the Tournament, the
> Tsar himself subscribing 1000 roubles towards the prize
> fund. As it turned out, the prizes were more
> than covered by the record gate of 6,000 roubles....
How was shall so familiar with the financial
aspect of the tournament? Do we have any historians-
economists around? The claim to me seems not plausible
on the historic-psychological-custom grounds. An eastern
autocrat like Tsar plays a God-like figure. When he gives
an award it should blind you with its excess. And here
Tsar would donate merely 1/6 of what the gate brought?!
That would be highly EMBARRASSING for Tsar, he would
be laughed at, he would be widely known for being
stingy, he would be a butt of the jokes a 100 times
more popular than the whole chess itself.
> It was at this tournament (see Games 83 and 84)
> that the Tsar of Russia conferred on
> each of the five finalists the title "Grandmaster of Chess."
>
And what about earlier shall's comments about
the same games and the St. Petersburg 1914 tournament?
When FIDE introduced the formal title, were there any
stories published, be it FIDE or anybody else, about
the history of the title? Wasn't it exact time to
dwell on the tradition and previous history?
Regards,
Wlod
|
| | |
Date: 26 Nov 2007 05:50:25
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
> How was shall so familiar with the financial
> aspect of the tournament? Do we have any historians-
> economists around? The claim to me seems not plausible
> on the historic-psychological-custom grounds.
Why not? Please explain.
The prize fund of major tournaments was settled
in advance, and included in the invitation for participation.
shall was a participant so he would have received an 'invitation
package'. He was also a professional chess player, and so
would have to decide if it would be worth the candle:
what would the arranger pay for, what would he himself have to pay for,
and at the end of the day, would he end up with more or less money
in his pocket?
I see no reason to believe that the participants were not
fully informed of the economical aspects of the event.
As to the Tsar's contrivution to the prize fund: it would have been
donated well in advance. Noone would even have thought of sneering at
it just because admittance fees reached record levels.
--
Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 19:36:52
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: table 1851-1951 / Re: Russian Czar ...
|
On Nov 25, 7:21 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Note: the 1911 year entry in the
>
> "TOURNAMENTS, INTERNATIONAL--1851-1951"
>
> table of "The Encyclopedia of Chess", by Anne Sunnucks,
> is messed up.
The whole table has the columns misaligned and perhaps worse.
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 19:26:46
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 25, 7:18 pm, Louis Blair <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> It is completely speculation on my part, but
> my guess is that all that happened in 1914
> was that some official ceremoniously read
> a statement on behalf of the Czar saying
> something like, "Congratulations to the
> grandmasters of chess."
>
Sure, one may try to be devil's advocate,
but I doubt that even that much had happened.
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 19:25:26
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
WHAT SHALL WROTE
<Supposedly the source for this story is shall's 1942 memoir "My
Fifty Years of Chess." Anyone have that book? How does it describe
the
titles being bestowed: by the Tsar in person or in absentia? If in
person in St. Pete, that would be hard to reconcile with the Tsar
being in the Crimea. > -- Taylor Kingston
Here's what shall wrote in MY FIFTY YEARS OF CHESS (page 20-1)
In the Spring of the fateful year 1914 I took part in one of the most
notable chess events which has ever taken place -- the St. Petersburg
Grand International Masters Tournament.
The participants included the reigning world champion, Dr. E. Lasker
and two future world champions, Capablanca and Alekhine. The latter, a
young man of 21 in the uniform of the Military School of St.
Petersburg, and the youthful Aaron Nimzovich, had both qualified for
the tournament by tying for first place in the Russian National which
had just concluded.
Russia was also represented by Akiba Rubinstein and Dr. O.S.
Bernstein; Germany by Dr. S. Tarrasch; France by D. Janowski; Great
Britain by J.H. Blackburne and I. Gunsberg; the U.S.A. by myself.
The St. Petersburg Chess Society was responsible for the organization
and conduct of the Tournament, the Tsar himself subscribing 1000
roubles towards the prize fund. As it turned out, the prizes were more
than covered by the record gate of 6,000 roubles....It was at this
tournament (see Games 83 and 84) that the Tsar of Russia conferred on
each of the five finalists the title "Grandmaster of Chess."
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
> On Nov 25, 4:43 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > Levenfish devotes to the tournamentover two and a half
> > pages, almost three (pp.45-48).
>
> All of it plain text, not a single diagram, not
> a single chess move.
>
> > The whole book has just under 200 pages.
>
> Regards,
>
> Wlod
|
| | |
Date: 26 Nov 2007 14:58:21
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:5d2619ce-d00f-4035-8bb2-193796f43998@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> WHAT SHALL WROTE
>
> <Supposedly the source for this story is shall's 1942 memoir "My
> Fifty Years of Chess." Anyone have that book? How does it describe
> the
> titles being bestowed: by the Tsar in person or in absentia? If in
> person in St. Pete, that would be hard to reconcile with the Tsar
> being in the Crimea.> -- Taylor Kingston
>
> Here's what shall wrote in MY FIFTY YEARS OF CHESS (page 20-1)
>
> In the Spring of the fateful year 1914 I took part in one of the most
> notable chess events which has ever taken place -- the St. Petersburg
> Grand International Masters Tournament.
Ah! Significant!
> The participants included the reigning world champion, Dr. E. Lasker
> and two future world champions, Capablanca and Alekhine. The latter, a
> young man of 21 in the uniform of the Military School of St.
> Petersburg, and the youthful Aaron Nimzovich, had both qualified for
> the tournament by tying for first place in the Russian National which
> had just concluded.
How like another Petersburger who stared cross the Neva while in military
uniform. But I never found a Dostoyevski game.
> Russia was also represented by Akiba Rubinstein and Dr. O.S.
> Bernstein; Germany by Dr. S. Tarrasch; France by D. Janowski; Great
> Britain by J.H. Blackburne and I. Gunsberg; the U.S.A. by myself.
>
> The St. Petersburg Chess Society was responsible for the organization
> and conduct of the Tournament, the Tsar himself subscribing 1000
> roubles towards the prize fund.
Ah!!!!!!
> As it turned out, the prizes were more
> than covered by the record gate of 6,000 roubles....It was at this
> tournament (see Games 83 and 84) that the Tsar of Russia conferred on
> each of the five finalists the title "Grandmaster of Chess."
Good references, thank you.
Phil
Not to slight Wlod on Levenfish, which was equally interesting.
>
>
> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 4:43 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Levenfish devotes to the tournamentover two and a half
>> > pages, almost three (pp.45-48).
>>
>> All of it plain text, not a single diagram, not
>> a single chess move.
>>
>> > The whole book has just under 200 pages.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Wlod
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Nov 2007 07:01:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How like another Petersburger who stared cross the Neva while in military
> uniform. But I never found a Dostoyevski game.
doh! or was it Pushkin who 'stared across the Nevu at the mysterious
city'?
elsewhere it seems an early term for a chess piece may be from Sanskrit via
Urdu; with Grand Vizier, which we take into English as Grand Minister, which
is very close to Grand Master
<some of the following characters will not resolve in this medium >
Grand Vizier, Sadr-ı Azam (Sadrazam) or Serdar-ı Ekrem (in Ottoman Turkish
"صدر اعظ�." or "�^ز�Oر اعظ�."; see below for the evolution of the
term), deriving from the originally Persian word "Vizier" (�^ز�Sر) was the
greatest minister of the Sultan with absolute power of attorney and, in
principle, dismissable only by the Sultan himself. He held the imperial seal
and he could convene all other viziers to attend to affairs of the state,
their whole conference being called "Kubbealtı viziers" (viziers of the
dome) in reference to the architecture of their meeting place.
.
. Etymology
.
<<Grand Vizier, Vazīr-e Azam, is also the official Urdu title of the
Pakistani official officially known as "prime minister" in English.
(Ministers are titled "vizier").
.
During the nascent phases of the Ottoman state, "Vizier" was the only title
used. The first of these Ottoman Viziers who was titled "Grand Vizier" was
�?andarlı Kara Halil Hayreddin Pasha. The purpose in instituting the title
"Grand Vizier" was to distinguish the holder of the Sultan's seal from other
viziers who seconded him. The initially more frequently used title of
"vezir-i âzam" was gradually replaced by "sadrazam", both meaning grand
vizier in practice. Throughout Ottoman history, the grand viziers have also
been termed under such titles as "sadr-ı âlî (high vizier)", "vekil-i
mutlak (absolute attorney)", "sâhib-i devlet (holder of the state)"
,serdar- ekrem , serdar-ı azam and "zât-ı âsafî (vizierial person)".
.
In the Köprülü Era (1656�?"1703) the Empire was controlled by a series of
powerful grand viziers. The relative ineffectiveness of the coming sultans
and the diffusion of power to lower levels of the government was behind of
the Köprülü Era. >>
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 19:21:57
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 25, 5:11 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> [...] It's good to get information from sources like the
> Levenfish book, that are not easily available in the West.
> That's the sort of thing this group is supposed to be used
> for.
Thank you Taylor. Levenfish' book is exceptional in
more than one way. I was thinking many times about
translating it simply for rgcm, (and started to do
so once or even twice), but the garbage we
have here on a daily basis was always stifling my
reflex. (These days I don't have energy even to
make a photocopy :-); actually, psychologically,
to make a photocopy is harder for me!).
I used to have a nice collection of "white crows"
(old and rare books), several of them were pre WWII.
Then the politics kicked in in 1967-8 in an extra
dirty way and I lost most of my findings. Well,
that's life, I guess.
Levenfish stresses how nice were Schlechter and Lasker.
After hours of playing in a dead draw position (the
whole game took 8 hours) Levenfish somehow lost a game
against Schlechter. I guess from their conversation
that somehow Levenfish' position had to be slightly
stronger or more comfortable. Schlechter asked his
parter after the game why he did not offer a draw, to
which Levenfish responded "but this game was of such
a great importance to you." (Schlechter was one of the
strongest players in the world at the time, while
Levenfish was still young, so he didn't offer the draw
out of his respect for the opponent). Then Schlecher told
Levenfish: "In a completely even position I have no right
to refuse draw". The conversatin took place after the next
to the last round of the Carlsbad, 1911. BTW, Rubinstein
was annoyed with Levenfish for losing that game against
Schlechter :-) - Teichman would win the tournament anyway,
but Schlecher caught up with Rubinstein, and the two of
them shared 2-3 place.
Note: the 1911 year entry in the
"TOURNAMENTS, INTERNATIONAL--1851-1951"
table of "The Encyclopedia of Chess", by Anne Sunnucks,
is messed up.
Both Lasker and Levenfish played in all three Moscow
tournaments. In the first one, in 1926, Lasker had
serious chances to win the tournament when he lost
to Levenfish. In the next two they drew their games.
Levenfish provides the annotated scores of all 3 games,
but about the last one he writes that it was a quite boring
game, which he includes only for what happened after
the game. The end position was a clear draw indeed.
But Lasker offered drawa also earlier; and for this
Lasker had apologized to Levenfish after the game:
"I had no right to propose draw, because you had
realistic chances, but I didn't see all the dangers
of my position."
Then Levenfish wants his young readers to think
about Lasker's honorable attitude.
For a contrast, Levenfish writes that Vid and shall
were playing in copletely dead draw positions, back and force,
until indeed he finally deconcentrated, made an error, and
let them win.
I've written earlier that Levenfish won a tournament
game from Alechine. They spent some years in Petersburg
and played one another quitre a bit. Levenfish
admires Alechine talent, and he writes that "advantage
in our meetings was on the Alechine's side". This sounds
to me like Levenfish was doing not too bad, perhaps something
like 4:6 on average? -- but I don't know.
Regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 19:18:48
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
Here is what I wrote on this subject in a post
several years ago:
There is an often repeated story that the Czar
himself named five players as grandmasters
at the St. Petersburg tournament in 1914.
In some circles, there has been a lot of
skepticism about it lately. Searches have been
made through newspaper reports at the time
without finding any reference to the Czar in
connection with the tournament. The reports
seem to indicate that ALL the participants were
regarded as grandmasters BEFORE the start of
the event. I once found a book that indicated
that the Czar and his family were all out of
town at the time. shall's book seems
to be what got this Czar-story going. He
wrote that he and four others had been
given the grandmaster title by the Czar. shall
is the same fellow who said that one of his games
once thrilled spectators to such an extent that
they showered the board with gold coins.
It is completely speculation on my part, but
my guess is that all that happened in 1914
was that some official ceremoniously read
a statement on behalf of the Czar saying
something like, "Congratulations to the
grandmasters of chess."
More on the Czar-story can be found in the
works of Edward Winter.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Nov 2007 09:59:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
"Louis Blair" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1f459e50-6306-4a0e-a2a0-2a2746e8d768@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> Here is what I wrote on this subject in a post
> several years ago:
>
> There is an often repeated story that the Czar
> himself named five players as grandmasters
> at the St. Petersburg tournament in 1914.
> In some circles, there has been a lot of
> skepticism about it lately. Searches have been
> made through newspaper reports at the time
> without finding any reference to the Czar in
> connection with the tournament. The reports
> seem to indicate that ALL the participants were
> regarded as grandmasters BEFORE the start of
> the event.
Can you cite these references, Louis?
> I once found a book that indicated
> that the Czar and his family were all out of
> town at the time. shall's book seems
> to be what got this Czar-story going. He
> wrote that he and four others had been
> given the grandmaster title by the Czar. shall
> is the same fellow who said that one of his games
> once thrilled spectators to such an extent that
> they showered the board with gold coins.
I think the implication of your writing is that the Tsar [Wlod!] may or may
not have directly granted the title, but it was in informal use previously.
> It is completely speculation on my part, but
> my guess is that all that happened in 1914
> was that some official ceremoniously read
> a statement on behalf of the Czar saying
> something like, "Congratulations to the
> grandmasters of chess."
>
> More on the Czar-story can be found in the
> works of Edward Winter.
Yes indeed, but all stories here can be challenged, since otherwise what we
'understand' is the same as what is written, rather than what is true. For
example, the Linders are or were rather keen on a Russian origin for chess.
In another newsgroup I have asked for (a) earliest written mention of the
name 'grandmaster' in any context, (b) if it seems to have a Sanskrit origin
and adopted into European usage from the Crusades, and (c) if there are
known early references to chessgrandmasters circa Elizabethan period, via
Dee or Bacon and other tolerably esoteric characters.
Phil Innes
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Nov 2007 05:38:22
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
Chess One wrote:
>> connection with the tournament. The reports
>> seem to indicate that ALL the participants were
>> regarded as grandmasters BEFORE the start of
>> the event.
>
> Can you cite these references, Louis?
At least one (Wiener Schachzeitung) has been
posted in this newsgroup in a similar thread
in 1995.
--
Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 17:56:15
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 25, 4:43 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Levenfish devotes to the tournamentover two and a half
> pages, almost three (pp.45-48).
All of it plain text, not a single diagram, not
a single chess move.
> The whole book has just under 200 pages.
Regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 17:34:11
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 25, 4:43 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> The text devoted to the
> Petersburg tournament ends in (p.48):
>
> "The Petersburg tournament gave many examples of
> real chess art, and it is too bad that to this
> time there is no collection [tournament book; wh]
> of the games of such a first class event [competition].
>
> The Petersburg tournament ended near the end May,
> and already for August the consecutive congress
> of the German chess union in Mannheim."
>
The second part of the citation got garbled. Let me rewrite it:
"The Petersburg tournament ended near the end of May,
and already for August the consecutive congress
of the German chess union in Mannheim was announced."
Sorry, regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 17:11:20
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 25, 7:43 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 25, 6:43 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:
>
> It was used earlier in an informal way. There were relatively many
> (formal or informal) masters, and some of them deserved an
> emphasis and more respect, so they were called by a stronger
> word like "grandmaster" or similar.
>
> > Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title
>
> > "Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca,
> > Siegbert Tarrasch, Emanuel Lasker and Frank shall.
> > After the conclusion of the 1914 St Petersburg tournament,
> > Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed the
> > title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.
>
> Do you really believe that it would be polite
> to invite the chess world champion and tell him:
>
> You know Emy, until now you didn't prove much.
> But now we will give you a chance. Show that
> you really know how to play chess and the Tsar
> himself will name you his grandmaster. You can
> forget your meaningless World Champion title.
>
> Until Soviets there was no official interest in chess
> in Russia that I know of. On the contrary, Soviets
> were always stressing the fact that it was only in the SU
> that chess got a serious consideration, while chess was
> dramatically struggling during the tsars time. (BTW, I don't
> like the "czar" spelling, because in Polish "cz" stands
> for the English "ch" sounud, just like "sz" for "sh"; thus
> word "czar" in Polish is what "charm" is in English; word
> "czar" is related also to "magic").
>
> I think that the autobiographic book by G. Levenfish
>
> "Selected games and reminiscences"
>
> is a strong, I'd say decisive(!), evidence against
> claiming any involvement, direct or indirect, of Tsar
> in the tournament. The book was published by
> "Fizkultura i Sport", Moscow, 1967, six years
> after Levenfish died (the delay was
> "due to various circumstances" -- says the note from
> publisher).
>
> As we all know, Levinfish was not a participant of the
> great tournament, while he was already a very strong master,
> who played in tournaments against players like Alechine, Burn,
> (he won a game from him by that time), shall, Nimzovitz,
> Rubinstein, Schlechter, Vid, ... However, in his words:
>
> I was helping the organizing committee to place
> [meaning: to find the room and bed for night]
> participants. (p.46)
>
> Thus Levenfish was very close to the tournament.
> Most likely he was helping in more than one way but
> he mentions modestly just one aspect due to the needs
> of narration.
>
> Levenfish devotes to the tournamentover two and a half
> pages, almost three (pp.45-48). The whole book has just
> under 200 pages. At the end of page 45, Levenfish says
> that Nimzovitz has caught up with Alechine in the last
> day of the Russian championship (by beating Levenfish :-).
> Then A & N played a match which ended in a draw [thus they
> became co-champion; wh]. Levenfish writes casually:
>
> "... and after the match between them ended in draw,
> they were both admitted to the grandmaster tournament".
>
> It's clear that Levenfish considers the Petersburg 1914
> tournament so strong that he calls it a grandmaster tournament.
> There is nothing official about it, nothing about any relation
> between the result in Petersburg tournament (like reaching the
> 2nd stage) and the title. There is just this casual respect for
> the level of the participants.
>
> On page 45/46 Levenfish writes that the chess organization
> was able to attract a very strong set of grandmasters. Once
> again not a word about ESTABLISHING the title. On the contrary,
> Levenfish considers the participants to be grandmasters to
> start with, ALL of them. Next he writes (the beginning of
> page 46):
>
> "First of all, the world champion Lasker
> gave his agreement, true, only for an extra
> honorarium."
>
> Once again, nothing about Tsar. Levenfish continues:
>
> "Five prizes were established".
>
> That's all! Not a word more about it. Nothing about
> titles! Nothing about Tsar. The text devoted to the
> Petersburg tournament ends in (p.48):
>
> "The Petersburg tournament gave many examples of
> real chess art, and it is too bad that to this
> time there is no collection [tournament book; wh]
> of the games of such a first class event [competition].
>
> The Petersburg tournament ended near the end May,
> and already for August the consecutive congress
> of the German chess union in Mannheim."
>
> After reading Levenfish, I don't believe for a moment
> that Tsar was involved in the Petersburg tournament in
> any way. I am sure, that always cultural Levenfish would
> mention any such accent. Also, if Tsar would give the
> titles then you could imagine that he would also contribute
> some funds toward the organization of the tournament or,
> certainly, toward the prizes. Not a word from Levenfish
> about any of this, while we all know how important the
> prizes were to the chessplayers. Even the lack of a Russian
> tournament book is a pretty good evidence against any Tsar's
> involvement. I am sure that Levenfish would say some
> words about Rubinstein, one of the main favorites, missing
> a chance for the title which he had deserved for a long
> time. Levenfish was attached to Rubinstein. He writes how
> Rubinstein was lost already before the tournament had started,
> due to his psychological (psychiatric) state. Indeed,
> Levenfish describes how it was impossible to find a room
> for Rubinstein, be it in an excellent hotel or in a private
> home, because each room was to Rubinstein too noisy or
> too quiet. Not winning the GM title would be to Rubinstein
> an insult added to injury. But Levenfish doesn't say a word
> about any such considerations.
>
> The main thing is however, that in the light
> of Levenfish book you can take just any strong tournament
> and claim that a royalty gave the guys titles; it would
> be an equally (un)founded statement. Why, in the case of a more
> obscure (less famous) tournament you could try to make
> a stronger argument :-) (saying that people have short
> memory but for the most prestigious tournaments :-).
>
> Regards,
>
> Wlod
Thanks, Wlod. It's good to get information from sources like the
Levenfish book, that are not easily available in the West. That's the
sort of thing this group is supposed to be used for.
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 16:55:19
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 25, 4:43 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> As we all know, Levinfish was not a participant of the
> great tournament, while he was already a very strong master,
> who played in tournaments against players like Alechine, Burn,
> (he won a game from him by that time), shall, Nimzovitz,
> Rubinstein, Schlechter, Vid, ...
Yes, true, Levenfish won a game from Burn,
but also against Alechine.
> However, in his words:
>
> I was helping the organizing committee to place
> [meaning: to find the room and bed for night]
> participants. (p.46)
>
> Thus Levenfish was very close to the tournament.
Regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 16:43:54
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 25, 6:43 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:
It was used earlier in an informal way. There were relatively many
(formal or informal) masters, and some of them deserved an
emphasis and more respect, so they were called by a stronger
word like "grandmaster" or similar.
> Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title
>
> "Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca,
> Siegbert Tarrasch, Emanuel Lasker and Frank shall.
> After the conclusion of the 1914 St Petersburg tournament,
> Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed the
> title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.
Do you really believe that it would be polite
to invite the chess world champion and tell him:
You know Emy, until now you didn't prove much.
But now we will give you a chance. Show that
you really know how to play chess and the Tsar
himself will name you his grandmaster. You can
forget your meaningless World Champion title.
Until Soviets there was no official interest in chess
in Russia that I know of. On the contrary, Soviets
were always stressing the fact that it was only in the SU
that chess got a serious consideration, while chess was
dramatically struggling during the tsars time. (BTW, I don't
like the "czar" spelling, because in Polish "cz" stands
for the English "ch" sounud, just like "sz" for "sh"; thus
word "czar" in Polish is what "charm" is in English; word
"czar" is related also to "magic").
I think that the autobiographic book by G. Levenfish
"Selected games and reminiscences"
is a strong, I'd say decisive(!), evidence against
claiming any involvement, direct or indirect, of Tsar
in the tournament. The book was published by
"Fizkultura i Sport", Moscow, 1967, six years
after Levenfish died (the delay was
"due to various circumstances" -- says the note from
publisher).
As we all know, Levinfish was not a participant of the
great tournament, while he was already a very strong master,
who played in tournaments against players like Alechine, Burn,
(he won a game from him by that time), shall, Nimzovitz,
Rubinstein, Schlechter, Vid, ... However, in his words:
I was helping the organizing committee to place
[meaning: to find the room and bed for night]
participants. (p.46)
Thus Levenfish was very close to the tournament.
Most likely he was helping in more than one way but
he mentions modestly just one aspect due to the needs
of narration.
Levenfish devotes to the tournamentover two and a half
pages, almost three (pp.45-48). The whole book has just
under 200 pages. At the end of page 45, Levenfish says
that Nimzovitz has caught up with Alechine in the last
day of the Russian championship (by beating Levenfish :-).
Then A & N played a match which ended in a draw [thus they
became co-champion; wh]. Levenfish writes casually:
"... and after the match between them ended in draw,
they were both admitted to the grandmaster tournament".
It's clear that Levenfish considers the Petersburg 1914
tournament so strong that he calls it a grandmaster tournament.
There is nothing official about it, nothing about any relation
between the result in Petersburg tournament (like reaching the
2nd stage) and the title. There is just this casual respect for
the level of the participants.
On page 45/46 Levenfish writes that the chess organization
was able to attract a very strong set of grandmasters. Once
again not a word about ESTABLISHING the title. On the contrary,
Levenfish considers the participants to be grandmasters to
start with, ALL of them. Next he writes (the beginning of
page 46):
"First of all, the world champion Lasker
gave his agreement, true, only for an extra
honorarium."
Once again, nothing about Tsar. Levenfish continues:
"Five prizes were established".
That's all! Not a word more about it. Nothing about
titles! Nothing about Tsar. The text devoted to the
Petersburg tournament ends in (p.48):
"The Petersburg tournament gave many examples of
real chess art, and it is too bad that to this
time there is no collection [tournament book; wh]
of the games of such a first class event [competition].
The Petersburg tournament ended near the end May,
and already for August the consecutive congress
of the German chess union in Mannheim."
After reading Levenfish, I don't believe for a moment
that Tsar was involved in the Petersburg tournament in
any way. I am sure, that always cultural Levenfish would
mention any such accent. Also, if Tsar would give the
titles then you could imagine that he would also contribute
some funds toward the organization of the tournament or,
certainly, toward the prizes. Not a word from Levenfish
about any of this, while we all know how important the
prizes were to the chessplayers. Even the lack of a Russian
tournament book is a pretty good evidence against any Tsar's
involvement. I am sure that Levenfish would say some
words about Rubinstein, one of the main favorites, missing
a chance for the title which he had deserved for a long
time. Levenfish was attached to Rubinstein. He writes how
Rubinstein was lost already before the tournament had started,
due to his psychological (psychiatric) state. Indeed,
Levenfish describes how it was impossible to find a room
for Rubinstein, be it in an excellent hotel or in a private
home, because each room was to Rubinstein too noisy or
too quiet. Not winning the GM title would be to Rubinstein
an insult added to injury. But Levenfish doesn't say a word
about any such considerations.
The main thing is however, that in the light
of Levenfish book you can take just any strong tournament
and claim that a royalty gave the guys titles; it would
be an equally (un)founded statement. Why, in the case of a more
obscure (less famous) tournament you could try to make
a stronger argument :-) (saying that people have short
memory but for the most prestigious tournaments :-).
Regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 14:11:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
I tried to look up references to grand masters in regard to the St
Petersburg tournament, and couldn't find any. It was not uncommon to
call the major tournament a grand master's tournament, and to refer to
players as grand masters, but there seems to be nothing special that I
can find on St Petersburg. I also could not find more than the usual
passing reference to the czar in reports on the tournament. This is
not proof of anything, but I feel fairly certain that whatever was
said about gradmasters (perhaps in a speech at a banquet) did not make
any impression in reports of the time.
On the other hand, I think I can trace grandmaster back further than
1838. It is somewhat surprising to me that we are quite as ignorant of
the French literature which appeared in chess journals as we seem to
be. For example, London 1851 (or sometimes Simpsons 1849) are referred
to as the 1st chess tournament (those citing Simpson's cannot fall
back on calling it international), when weekly chess tournament
results are given from the Cafe Regence in the Regence chess journal.
On grandmasters, Palamede of 1836 calls Deschapelles a grand maitre
(pg 231), as one can find in google books. This simply happens to be
the 1st Palamede available, just as Bell's Life is a very early chess
column. My guess is that the word goes back further.
Jerry Spinrad
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 12:45:49
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 25, 3:25 pm, Anders Thulin <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > On page 315 of "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Winter gives a quote,
> > supplied by Louis Blair, of what I presume is a biography, "Tsar
> > Nicholas II" by Dominic Lieven (1993):
>
> > "The imperial family spent April and May 1914 in the Crimea ... the
> > monarch was hundreds of miles from his capital."
>
> > Since the St. Petersburg tournament was held 21 April - 22 May 1914,
> > this would mean that the Tsar could not have been there to confer any
> > titles.
>
> Not sure why it is thought to be be necessary to have the Czar do this
> in person, particularly as it would not involve an official Russian title.
> If it was done at all -- which I very much doubt -- it seems more likely that a
> representative of the Czar would have done it, and so the actual whereabouts
> of the Czar would be irrelevant. One of the reasons for this would
> be to distance the Czar from a non-official title, and so avoid lowering
> the value of the really important titles. (Remember the upset when the
> Beatles received their MBE's: some MBE's returned theirs in protest.
> This is one of the reasons I don't believe the Czar would have done
> anything of the sort: it would be not be to the interest of the Russian Crown
> to 'dilute' any already existing official titles.)
>
> A possible scenario where it just might have happened strikes me: chess clubs
> did sometimes have royalty as honorary presidents. Was the Czar a protector of
> the St. Petersburg chess club? If so, he could perhaps have signed a chess club
> note on grandmaster status for the tournament participants, but he would not have
> done it as Czar, but as a honorary chess club official. (I regard this this as
> rather unlikely, in case anyone wonders.)
>
> But there are mechanisms that allow absent and even dead monarchs to confer
> titles. The carte blanche is one such: the monarch signs an order that raises
> <name left blank> to the peerage as of <date left blank also> (or gives
> a lifelong pension, or a mansion, or ..., well, fill in the blank space),
> and gives it to a trusted person, such as a chancellor of state. At some later
> time, when it is politically necessary, but the king himself is indisposed, dead,
> or perhaps vacationing in the Crimea, the appropriate name and date is entered,
> and the document is handed over. Such a document not be different from a document
> the king had signed after the the name and benefit had been written, and it would
> have legal force -- except perhaps after a revolution or similar dynastic upsets.
>
> Anyway ... I don't really believe the whereabouts of the Czar is relevant
> to the fundamental question.
Anders, I certainly agree that the Tsar could have delegated this
duty. My question is, was it actually done at all, whether by the Tsar
in person or by his order?
Supposedly the source for this story is shall's 1942 memoir "My
Fifty Years of Chess." Anyone have that book? How does it describe the
titles being bestowed: by the Tsar in person or in absentia? If in
person in St. Pete, that would be hard to reconcile with the Tsar
being in the Crimea.
It seems very odd to me that of the five supposed recipients, only
shall is known to have mentioned it in any of his writings. One
would think that Lasker, Capablanca, Tarrasch, or especially Alekhine
would have taken some pride in it and given it some prominence in his
writings. Interestingly, in a 1922 interview Alekhine *_does_* mention
getting a grandmaster title, from the Tsar, but it was for co-winning
(with Nimzovitch) the All-Russian National Championship in January
1914, *_not_* for the international tournament of April-May 1914.
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 11:51:58
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 25, 2:20 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:2bb2af94-1fae-4c85-ba45-930f7a61abcb@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 25, 9:43 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:
>
> >> Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title
> >> "Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca, Siegbert
> >> Tarrasch,
> >> Emanuel Lasker and Frank shall. After the conclusion of the 1914 St=
> >> Petersburg tournament, Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed t=
he
> >> title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.
>
> > A highly debatable claim that gets made over and over without
> > documentation. As Edward Winter wrote in Chess Notes #5144, 9.2007:
>
> > "Books continue to claim, without substantiation, that the title of
> > 'grandmaster' was first conferred by Tsar Nicholas II at St
> > Petersburg, 1914. The matter was discussed on pages 315-316 of Kings,
> > Commoners and Knaves and pages 177-178 of A Chess Omnibus, and we have
> > still found no earlier occurrence of the story than in an article by
> > Robert Lewis Taylor in The New Yorker, 15 June 1940.
>
> Not surprising, since any providence coming out of Russia would be very ha=
rd
> to obtain after 1912. In fact, before that time you could travel anywhere
> without a passport, documents introduced to restrict the 'red menace'.
>
> > "To pose a broader question: do 1914 sources contain references to
> > Tsar Nicholas II in connection with any aspect of the St Petersburg
> > tournament?"
>
> You have to be rather careful with this line of historiography ~ otherwise=
> you wind up colluding with those who hold that since there is no evidence =
of
> the same kind mentioned above for Shakespeare, the most well know author o=
n
> the planet, ever, did not write Shakespeare.
>
> > On page 315 of "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Winter gives a quote,
> > supplied by Louis Blair, of what I presume is a biography, "Tsar
> > Nicholas II" by Dominic Lieven (1993):
>
> > "The imperial family spent April and May 1914 in the Crimea ... the
> > monarch was hundreds of miles from his capital."
>
> Leaving Petersburg without a substitue regent who had no instructions in
> respect of the world's attention being focussed on chess in his capital
> city? That would be rather strange.
>
> > Since the St. Petersburg tournament was held 21 April - 22 May 1914,
> > this would mean that the Tsar could not have been there to confer any
> > titles.
>
> > Furthermore, as Winter points out on page 178 of "A Chess
> > Omnibus" (2003), Ossip Bernstein wrote that "The title, Grandmaster,
> > was introduced in the international tourney at Ostend in 1907, in
> > which I shared first prize with Akiba Rubinstein."
>
> I think Mr. Winter might attend all the claimants to the issue, and if
> Bernstein has some evidential material which annoints champions by the
> modern title in 1907, then he gets another prize in being right - and I
> presume that someone awarded the title, and that it was not in English; to=
> wit, introduced by whom?
>
> > So until this "original grandmasters" story gets some better
> > substantiation, it may be wiser to file it with the tales about
> > Morphy's shoes and Alekhine smashing his furniture.
>
> Those do not seem to be of parallel circumstance.
>
> Phil Innes
A little more on the subject from "The Oxford Companion to
Chess" (2nd edition, 1992):
"A correspondent writing to Bell's Life, 18 Feb. 1838, refers to
Lewis as 'our past grandmaster,' probably the first use of this term
in connection with chess. Subsequently Walker and others referred to
Philidor as a grandmaster ... The word gained wider currency in the
early 20th century when tournaments were sometimes designated
grandmaster events, e.g Ostend 1907, San Sebasti=E1n 1912."
The OC does not mention Petersburg 1914; apparently the authors
considered the Tsar Nicholas story lacking adequate documentation.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Nov 2007 08:28:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think Mr. Winter might attend all the claimants to the issue, and if
> Bernstein has some evidential material which annoints champions by the
> modern title in 1907, then he gets another prize in being right - and I
> presume that someone awarded the title, and that it was not in English; to
> wit, introduced by whom?
>
> > So until this "original grandmasters" story gets some better
> > substantiation, it may be wiser to file it with the tales about
> > Morphy's shoes and Alekhine smashing his furniture.
>
> Those do not seem to be of parallel circumstance.
>
> Phil Innes
A little more on the subject from "The Oxford Companion to
Chess" (2nd edition, 1992):
"A correspondent writing to Bell's Life, 18 Feb. 1838, refers to
Lewis as 'our past grandmaster,' probably the first use of this term
in connection with chess. Subsequently Walker and others referred to
Philidor as a grandmaster ... The word gained wider currency in the
early 20th century when tournaments were sometimes designated
grandmaster events, e.g Ostend 1907, San Sebasti�n 1912."
The OC does not mention Petersburg 1914; apparently the authors
considered the Tsar Nicholas story lacking adequate documentation.
--- --- ---
Yes it is an interesting question of /written/ provenance - and not any
unusual issue in history or anthropology, as to provenance and also to
meaning - an early term can mean something quite different or at least
undifferentiated from a latter one.
Of course, people could use the term variously to indicate any number of
things. Naturally, the term is very old as we can appreciate from the
Masonic tradition, where it occurs in the 1500s, and before that in some
other religions orders - possibly at the time of the second Crusade,
continuing through the Cathars, Knights of Malta, eg, Therefore, and
heretofore 'Grandmaster' indicated a courtesy rank rather than comparative
and measured strength against others, as used in modern chess.
In England and Russia the term was not much used, and 'master' stood in
place of it - until more formal accession to the title by grading took
place, rather than as before, by tournament accession.
If Mr. Winter has the title, he should consult the first serious statistical
work on the subject of player ranking, which came from England, /Statistical
Study of Chess Masters 1881-90/ by G. M. Brumfitt, first published in the
British Chess Magazine 1891.
As variously noted above, ranking related to ratings did not really get
going until after WWII, although a proto-ranking system emerged in American
correspondence chess in the 30s. The largest grading system emerged in the
UK, but shadowed on a different basis by an American one, also a German
[Inigo system] version.
The only titles used by the Brits were British master and Candidate Master.
In the US, Kenneth Harkness's pioneering system was overhauled by a
committee chaired by A. E. Elo. Elo's group did adopt the term International
Grandmaster.
Inigo was developed in the 40s by Herr Hoesslinger of Ingolstadt in Bavaria.
Interestingly, it is similar to the UK system but the numbers are reversed!
So that the strongest player has the lowest rating. Additionally Inigo
system was not 'official' but used by the most enthusiastic players.
I do not know if the term is mentioned in the 33 pages of the Gottingen
manuscript, which besides, is in Latin, nor in Handbuch des Schachspiels
which says Gottingen is 1490, or Lucena 1497, Repeticion de Amores e Art de
Axedres.
Since these are not easy references, perhaps it would be significant to know
if the title 'grandmaster' occurred in the greatest compendium of the C19th,
Antonius van der Linde's Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels (1874)
which contains says Eales "an enormous catalogue of references to chess in
every possible source."
And less sensibly would be to check the ancient roots of the term, by
following the very strange Victorian English enthusiasm for tracing the
origin of the game, and indeed, if the term is at all usual in Sanskrit? And
if it is, then to negotiate the rather formidable objection to Forbes
offered by Weber, who rather convincingly put aside the 'if it is written,
it is true' argument, in which van der Linde had placed too much trust.
To chart the full course of our knowledge of chess, with all its blind
alleys, we should go all the way back to Thomas Hyde and his works, who only
coincidentally was a founder of the proto-Royal society, then the open and
public one, and who also sported the [secret] title of grandmaster, which I
think is obliquely referenced in the Encyclopedia Britannica 1898, US
version published Akron, 1901.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 11:28:26
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 25, 2:20 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:2bb2af94-1fae-4c85-ba45-930f7a61abcb@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 25, 9:43 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:
>
> >> Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title
> >> "Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca, Siegbert
> >> Tarrasch,
> >> Emanuel Lasker and Frank shall. After the conclusion of the 1914 St
> >> Petersburg tournament, Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed the
> >> title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.
>
> > A highly debatable claim that gets made over and over without
> > documentation. As Edward Winter wrote in Chess Notes #5144, 9.2007:
>
> > "Books continue to claim, without substantiation, that the title of
> > 'grandmaster' was first conferred by Tsar Nicholas II at St
> > Petersburg, 1914. The matter was discussed on pages 315-316 of Kings,
> > Commoners and Knaves and pages 177-178 of A Chess Omnibus, and we have
> > still found no earlier occurrence of the story than in an article by
> > Robert Lewis Taylor in The New Yorker, 15 June 1940.
>
> Not surprising, since any providence coming out of Russia would be very hard
> to obtain after 1912. In fact, before that time you could travel anywhere
> without a passport, documents introduced to restrict the 'red menace'.
>
> > "To pose a broader question: do 1914 sources contain references to
> > Tsar Nicholas II in connection with any aspect of the St Petersburg
> > tournament?"
>
> You have to be rather careful with this line of historiography ~ otherwise
> you wind up colluding with those who hold that since there is no evidence of
> the same kind mentioned above for Shakespeare, the most well know author on
> the planet, ever, did not write Shakespeare.
>
> > On page 315 of "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Winter gives a quote,
> > supplied by Louis Blair, of what I presume is a biography, "Tsar
> > Nicholas II" by Dominic Lieven (1993):
>
> > "The imperial family spent April and May 1914 in the Crimea ... the
> > monarch was hundreds of miles from his capital."
>
> Leaving Petersburg without a substitue regent who had no instructions in
> respect of the world's attention being focussed on chess in his capital
> city? That would be rather strange.
>
> > Since the St. Petersburg tournament was held 21 April - 22 May 1914,
> > this would mean that the Tsar could not have been there to confer any
> > titles.
>
> > Furthermore, as Winter points out on page 178 of "A Chess
> > Omnibus" (2003), Ossip Bernstein wrote that "The title, Grandmaster,
> > was introduced in the international tourney at Ostend in 1907, in
> > which I shared first prize with Akiba Rubinstein."
>
> I think Mr. Winter might attend all the claimants to the issue, and if
> Bernstein has some evidential material which annoints champions by the
> modern title in 1907, then he gets another prize in being right - and I
> presume that someone awarded the title, and that it was not in English; to
> wit, introduced by whom?
>
> > So until this "original grandmasters" story gets some better
> > substantiation, it may be wiser to file it with the tales about
> > Morphy's shoes and Alekhine smashing his furniture.
>
> Those do not seem to be of parallel circumstance.
The point is, Phil, that to be properly substantiated, the story
about Petersburg 1914 needs credible sources and references. You have
supplied none (no surprise there). Mere airy, casual, offhand
dismissal of reasonable and relevant objections is not substantiation.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 14:47:31
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:6b76c2c3-9c60-42fb-ba8d-c2b45a84c969@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 25, 2:20 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2bb2af94-1fae-4c85-ba45-930f7a61abcb@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 25, 9:43 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:
>>
>> >> Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title
>> >> "Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca, Siegbert
>> >> Tarrasch,
>> >> Emanuel Lasker and Frank shall. After the conclusion of the 1914
>> >> St
>> >> Petersburg tournament, Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed
>> >> the
>> >> title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.
>>
>> > A highly debatable claim that gets made over and over without
>> > documentation. As Edward Winter wrote in Chess Notes #5144, 9.2007:
>>
>> > "Books continue to claim, without substantiation, that the title of
>> > 'grandmaster' was first conferred by Tsar Nicholas II at St
>> > Petersburg, 1914. The matter was discussed on pages 315-316 of Kings,
>> > Commoners and Knaves and pages 177-178 of A Chess Omnibus, and we have
>> > still found no earlier occurrence of the story than in an article by
>> > Robert Lewis Taylor in The New Yorker, 15 June 1940.
>>
>> Not surprising, since any providence coming out of Russia would be very
>> hard
>> to obtain after 1912. In fact, before that time you could travel anywhere
>> without a passport, documents introduced to restrict the 'red menace'.
>>
>> > "To pose a broader question: do 1914 sources contain references to
>> > Tsar Nicholas II in connection with any aspect of the St Petersburg
>> > tournament?"
>>
>> You have to be rather careful with this line of historiography ~
>> otherwise
>> you wind up colluding with those who hold that since there is no evidence
>> of
>> the same kind mentioned above for Shakespeare, the most well know author
>> on
>> the planet, ever, did not write Shakespeare.
>>
>> > On page 315 of "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Winter gives a quote,
>> > supplied by Louis Blair, of what I presume is a biography, "Tsar
>> > Nicholas II" by Dominic Lieven (1993):
>>
>> > "The imperial family spent April and May 1914 in the Crimea ... the
>> > monarch was hundreds of miles from his capital."
>>
>> Leaving Petersburg without a substitue regent who had no instructions in
>> respect of the world's attention being focussed on chess in his capital
>> city? That would be rather strange.
>>
>> > Since the St. Petersburg tournament was held 21 April - 22 May 1914,
>> > this would mean that the Tsar could not have been there to confer any
>> > titles.
>>
>> > Furthermore, as Winter points out on page 178 of "A Chess
>> > Omnibus" (2003), Ossip Bernstein wrote that "The title, Grandmaster,
>> > was introduced in the international tourney at Ostend in 1907, in
>> > which I shared first prize with Akiba Rubinstein."
>>
>> I think Mr. Winter might attend all the claimants to the issue, and if
>> Bernstein has some evidential material which annoints champions by the
>> modern title in 1907, then he gets another prize in being right - and I
>> presume that someone awarded the title, and that it was not in English;
>> to
>> wit, introduced by whom?
>>
>> > So until this "original grandmasters" story gets some better
>> > substantiation, it may be wiser to file it with the tales about
>> > Morphy's shoes and Alekhine smashing his furniture.
>>
>> Those do not seem to be of parallel circumstance.
>
> The point is, Phil, that to be properly substantiated, the story
> about Petersburg 1914 needs credible sources and references. You have
> supplied none (no surprise there). Mere airy, casual, offhand
> dismissal of reasonable and relevant objections is not substantiation.
You mean I provide no context? I think I did, even over Blair's frankly daft
recommendation to Winter as if present or not, the Czar would have not known
of such an event - at a game the Russians consider their own - but a Winter
who I must assume by this logic agrees with you that Shakespeare did not
write 'Shakespeare' since there is not a scintilla of written proof of that
either.
Do you understand the logical issue?
Now - just because /you/ chose to introduce assertions by Winter to the
issue, don't get smy and start calling people all sorts of shit, as
usual, since you merely reinforce what everyone says of you, and him.
You begin with 'highly debatable', as if you actually mean to debate
something, or have an open mind, or other strong perspective, but you end in
ruinous comments about others, as usual. And as usual, short of citing
Winter, you yourself offer nothing to any point.
It /is/ debatable. Many things are debatable. What you are conducting here
is not a debate - it is merely a string of assertions which ignores all else
but your own perspective.
Sometimes none of the above are true. And maybe someone slung around the
title in 1905, or 1899? It may true that the first written record is of
note, and it may be the same title we now use. I don't know the answer, and
because there are other assertions, or doubts, then I propose, that is the
basis for any 'debate'.
But one does not debate a bull-horn.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 07:26:01
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
On Nov 25, 9:43 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:
>
> Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title
> "Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca, Siegbert Tarrasch,
> Emanuel Lasker and Frank shall. After the conclusion of the 1914 St
> Petersburg tournament, Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed the
> title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.
A highly debatable claim that gets made over and over without
documentation. As Edward Winter wrote in Chess Notes #5144, 9.2007:
"Books continue to claim, without substantiation, that the title of
'grandmaster' was first conferred by Tsar Nicholas II at St
Petersburg, 1914. The matter was discussed on pages 315-316 of Kings,
Commoners and Knaves and pages 177-178 of A Chess Omnibus, and we have
still found no earlier occurrence of the story than in an article by
Robert Lewis Taylor in The New Yorker, 15 June 1940.
"To pose a broader question: do 1914 sources contain references to
Tsar Nicholas II in connection with any aspect of the St Petersburg
tournament?"
On page 315 of "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Winter gives a quote,
supplied by Louis Blair, of what I presume is a biography, "Tsar
Nicholas II" by Dominic Lieven (1993):
"The imperial family spent April and May 1914 in the Crimea ... the
monarch was hundreds of miles from his capital."
Since the St. Petersburg tournament was held 21 April - 22 May 1914,
this would mean that the Tsar could not have been there to confer any
titles.
Furthermore, as Winter points out on page 178 of "A Chess
Omnibus" (2003), Ossip Bernstein wrote that "The title, Grandmaster,
was introduced in the international tourney at Ostend in 1907, in
which I shared first prize with Akiba Rubinstein."
So until this "original grandmasters" story gets some better
substantiation, it may be wiser to file it with the tales about
Morphy's shoes and Alekhine smashing his furniture.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 20:25:32
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On page 315 of "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Winter gives a quote,
> supplied by Louis Blair, of what I presume is a biography, "Tsar
> Nicholas II" by Dominic Lieven (1993):
>
> "The imperial family spent April and May 1914 in the Crimea ... the
> monarch was hundreds of miles from his capital."
>
> Since the St. Petersburg tournament was held 21 April - 22 May 1914,
> this would mean that the Tsar could not have been there to confer any
> titles.
Not sure why it is thought to be be necessary to have the Czar do this
in person, particularly as it would not involve an official Russian title.
If it was done at all -- which I very much doubt -- it seems more likely that a
representative of the Czar would have done it, and so the actual whereabouts
of the Czar would be irrelevant. One of the reasons for this would
be to distance the Czar from a non-official title, and so avoid lowering
the value of the really important titles. (Remember the upset when the
Beatles received their MBE's: some MBE's returned theirs in protest.
This is one of the reasons I don't believe the Czar would have done
anything of the sort: it would be not be to the interest of the Russian Crown
to 'dilute' any already existing official titles.)
A possible scenario where it just might have happened strikes me: chess clubs
did sometimes have royalty as honorary presidents. Was the Czar a protector of
the St. Petersburg chess club? If so, he could perhaps have signed a chess club
note on grandmaster status for the tournament participants, but he would not have
done it as Czar, but as a honorary chess club official. (I regard this this as
rather unlikely, in case anyone wonders.)
But there are mechanisms that allow absent and even dead monarchs to confer
titles. The carte blanche is one such: the monarch signs an order that raises
<name left blank > to the peerage as of <date left blank also> (or gives
a lifelong pension, or a mansion, or ..., well, fill in the blank space),
and gives it to a trusted person, such as a chancellor of state. At some later
time, when it is politically necessary, but the king himself is indisposed, dead,
or perhaps vacationing in the Crimea, the appropriate name and date is entered,
and the document is handed over. Such a document not be different from a document
the king had signed after the the name and benefit had been written, and it would
have legal force -- except perhaps after a revolution or similar dynastic upsets.
Anyway ... I don't really believe the whereabouts of the Czar is relevant
to the fundamental question.
--
Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/
|
| | |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 14:20:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Russian Czar bestowed the term 'grandmaster'
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:2bb2af94-1fae-4c85-ba45-930f7a61abcb@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 25, 9:43 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:
>>
>> Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title
>> "Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca, Siegbert
>> Tarrasch,
>> Emanuel Lasker and Frank shall. After the conclusion of the 1914 St
>> Petersburg tournament, Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed the
>> title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.
>
> A highly debatable claim that gets made over and over without
> documentation. As Edward Winter wrote in Chess Notes #5144, 9.2007:
>
> "Books continue to claim, without substantiation, that the title of
> 'grandmaster' was first conferred by Tsar Nicholas II at St
> Petersburg, 1914. The matter was discussed on pages 315-316 of Kings,
> Commoners and Knaves and pages 177-178 of A Chess Omnibus, and we have
> still found no earlier occurrence of the story than in an article by
> Robert Lewis Taylor in The New Yorker, 15 June 1940.
Not surprising, since any providence coming out of Russia would be very hard
to obtain after 1912. In fact, before that time you could travel anywhere
without a passport, documents introduced to restrict the 'red menace'.
> "To pose a broader question: do 1914 sources contain references to
> Tsar Nicholas II in connection with any aspect of the St Petersburg
> tournament?"
You have to be rather careful with this line of historiography ~ otherwise
you wind up colluding with those who hold that since there is no evidence of
the same kind mentioned above for Shakespeare, the most well know author on
the planet, ever, did not write Shakespeare.
> On page 315 of "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Winter gives a quote,
> supplied by Louis Blair, of what I presume is a biography, "Tsar
> Nicholas II" by Dominic Lieven (1993):
>
> "The imperial family spent April and May 1914 in the Crimea ... the
> monarch was hundreds of miles from his capital."
Leaving Petersburg without a substitue regent who had no instructions in
respect of the world's attention being focussed on chess in his capital
city? That would be rather strange.
> Since the St. Petersburg tournament was held 21 April - 22 May 1914,
> this would mean that the Tsar could not have been there to confer any
> titles.
>
> Furthermore, as Winter points out on page 178 of "A Chess
> Omnibus" (2003), Ossip Bernstein wrote that "The title, Grandmaster,
> was introduced in the international tourney at Ostend in 1907, in
> which I shared first prize with Akiba Rubinstein."
I think Mr. Winter might attend all the claimants to the issue, and if
Bernstein has some evidential material which annoints champions by the
modern title in 1907, then he gets another prize in being right - and I
presume that someone awarded the title, and that it was not in English; to
wit, introduced by whom?
> So until this "original grandmasters" story gets some better
> substantiation, it may be wiser to file it with the tales about
> Morphy's shoes and Alekhine smashing his furniture.
Those do not seem to be of parallel circumstance.
Phil Innes
|
|
