< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Jun-04-12|| ||keypusher: <The problem is that none of the competing scenarios for how these articles came to be written and published are particularly credible. Our task then is merely to identify the least implausible amongst them. And for that we need INFORMATION!>|
No need to overthink, TC. If anyone had pressured Alekhine to write the articles, he would have said so. He never did. So it didn't happen.
|Jun-04-12|| ||Petrosianic: As for the racial theories, it's almost more funny than offensive. The very idea that chessplayers' build their playing styles from their religion is almost laughable. And of course, the greatest exponent of the counter-attacking materialistic playing style was Capablanca, who was obviously not Jewish.|
If you want to tie the popularity of that playing style to events outside the chessboard, I'd blame it on World War I, more than anything else. The opening moves in 1914 were a lot like the clash between the Romantic period of chess vs. the Steinitzian method, with the same results. The French and their Plan 17 went marching boldly into battle, trusting on elan to wwin the battle for them, they charged into machine guns, and got mowed down en masse. Similar to the way the Romantics got mowed down by Steinitz. As a result, the whole French military philosophy changed to one based around defenses and fortifications. The Maginot Line was an attempt to turn the entire border into one big fortification. Alekhine lived in France, where that mindset was strongest, and it came from their own bitter experiences in war, not from Judaism.
Another absurdity in the whole idea is the implied idea that chess pieces = money, and that a materialistic approach therefore equals greed for more money. Chess is a kriegspiel. The pieces represent PEOPLE, not money. In a war, you really should be trying to preserve as many of them as possible. The Romantic approach (toss your army into the grinder, and as long as your King survives, who cares about anyone else) is positively medieval.
|Jun-04-12|| ||Call Me TC: <<He didn't seem to be a sympathizer when he raced back to fight them in 1939.>>|
There were no hostilities in 1939, and as king of chess he probably felt entitled to remain castled behind the front ranks.
<ommon-or-garden variety anti-semites, who would never dream of taking it to the level the Nazis did.>
Even the Nazis were suprised. Before the war they'd been working in partnership with Zionists to facilitate Jewish emigration to Palestine. Then came the Madagascar Plan, and after the war began, it was supplanted with the more practical Nisko/Lublin plan. After the invasion of the Soviet Union began, things become more hazy.
<UNLESS he actually did write the articles under some kind of duress, which is still possible.>
Well, there's duress and there's duress. You give us this (the articles) and we give you that (permission to travel). Or you give us what we want or we send you to a camp.
|Jun-04-12|| ||Honza Cervenka: <As for the racial theories, it's almost more funny than offensive. The very idea that chessplayers' build their playing styles from their religion is almost laughable. And of course, the greatest exponent of the counter-attacking materialistic playing style was Capablanca, who was obviously not Jewish.>|
Yes, but Capa's talent was "corrupted" by Jewish/Yankee influence:
<Hailed as a kind of child-prodigy in his hometown (he won the championship of Cuba at the age of twelve), admired as a fiery attacking player with real Morphy insight at the outset of his career, Capablanca would have become not only the god of the Latin chess world - as he actually was for long - but the idol of the whole world chess community, had he not been sent, as a young man, to Columbia University in New York and there assimilated, in Jewry's capital, the professional methods of the chess-Yankees. Repressing his tactical endowments, he forced himself, even as an eighteen-year-old, to regard chess not as an end in itself, but as a means of livelihood and to pursue the Jewish principle of "safety-first" to the limit. So great were his natural gifts, that for a certain time he was able to set himself up as a master of defence; and so shrewd was he that he sought to justify the negative principle of defensive chess, through pseudostrategical conceptions, in numerous writings.>
And of course, there were some Jews who adopted (and corrupted) Aryan way of chess:
<Unfortunately, there exist false exceptions, too, chess artists who utilise the Aryan spirit of attack in their attempt to gratify their professional lust for gold. The typical representatives of this tendency are undoubtedly the Viennese Jew Rudolf Spielmann, now settled in Stockholm, and the Leipziger Jack [sic] Mieses, now living in London. Spielmann, who undoubtedly has combinative gifts, came to the conclusion, early in his chess career, that these would gain him most money from the great Public, if he could succeed in making his name as a "brilliant sacrificial player." In the same way as Fine and Botvinnik studied the openings and the laws of attacking play, Spielmann applied himself to the much simpler problem of the ultimate technique of sacrificial play. One must admit that he achieved some success in his aim, in the course of a lengthy experience. In 1935 he even went so far as to publish a booklet under the corrupting [sic] title: "Correct Sacrifices." (The English version, The Art of Sacrifice.-Ed.) In this, every possible variety of sacrifice in chess is analysed, up to the only kind which marks the true artist, the intuitive sacrifice. Just as far removed from the realm of truly sacrificial thought is the chess master and journalist J. Mieses, who used to swamp a large part of the German press of years ago with "brilliancies" of just this realm. He contributed a convincing demonstration, for example, to the chess magazine Chess, which is run by the Jew Baruch Wood in Birmingham; as the best performance of his career, he put forward his prizewinning game against von Bardeleben at Barmen in 1905.>
Frankly speaking, there is less than 1% probability that Alekhine wrote such a crap.
|Jun-04-12|| ||Petrosianic: <Yes, but Capa's talent was "corrupted" by Jewish/Yankee influence:>|
Well, there you go. In this crazy, melting pot world, <anybody> might play that way once they've got the idea in their heads. Which just goes against the idea that certain people's race or religion makes the idea more appealing to them in particular.
Usury came from the Jews, more or less. In the Middle Ages, they were one of the few who practiced it, while most of the great moral thinkers of the day regarded it as bad. Today, our entire monetary system is based around it. It would be pretty ridiculous to go around talking about how "those dirty Jews are so greedy they actually charge interest for loaning money! Of course, as a banker, I do, too... actually pretty much everyone does now, BUT THEY STARTED IT!!" That's kindergarten stuff.
Which is not to say that there aren't some people who really are that silly.
<Frankly speaking, there is less than 1% probability that Alekhine wrote such a crap.>
I'd tend to agree, probably less than a 1% chance that he BELIEVED it. But whether he wrote it is a different question. Those odds seem a little higher.
|Jun-04-12|| ||Call Me TC: <No need to overthink, TC. If anyone had pressured Alekhine to write the articles, he would have said so. He never did. So it didn't happen.>|
No need to underthink. Alekhine's defence was far superior as evidenced by the fact that people are still employing it over 60 years later. Saying that he wrote them (oh, but I didn't mean them, I was just 'funning') under some sort of duress wouldn't have done him any good at all; it'd just make him look like an anti-semitic collaborator.
|Jun-04-12|| ||micartouse: <Nazi: In this, every possible variety of sacrifice in chess is analysed, up to the only kind which marks the true artist, the intuitive sacrifice.>|
This reminded me of one of Alekhine's annotations from his best games
collection. I enjoyed the annotation when I first saw it because I thought Alekhine was subtly mocking the notion that intuition is more impressive than calculation:
<As a rule, so-called "positional" sacrifices are considered more difficult, and therefore more praiseworthy, than those which are based exclusively on an exact calculation of tactical possibilities. The present position offers, I believe, an exception, as the multitude and complexity of the variations following the Knight's sacrifice demanded much more intensive mental work than any general evaluation of mutual possibilities.>
He was referring to Nxc7 in the following game:
Alekhine vs Koltanowski, 1932
|Jun-04-12|| ||Call Me TC: <<Frankly speaking, there is less than 1% probability that Alekhine wrote such a crap.>>|
If I may make bold, the articles, even in translation, are not without literary merit. In fact, they abound with memorable turns of phrases and images.
<Is it too much to hope that, with the death of Lasker, the second and in all probability last Jewish chess champion of the world, Aryan chess (perverted hitherto through Jewish defensive ideas) will find its way to becoming world chess? I cannot be too optimistic, for Lasker has left many disciples and many followers who might endanger World Chess yet.>
<According to his words, he was in ill-health because he had been overburdened with the toil of organising the congress, etc., etc., etc., in other words, the usual and all-too-well-known rubbish of excuses!>
<Brought up as a strict orthodox, in Talmudic hatred of the "Goyyim," he was obsessed, from the commencement of his career, by the idea of making some sort of "mission" out of his inclination for chess.>
<And so it happened that, when I came to Berlin after four years' experience of the Soviets, I found there a Rubinstein who was only half a grand-master and a quarter of a human being. Blacker and blacker the shades closed round his brains, partly from megalomania, partly from persecution mania.>
<Undoubtedly, there are a few true and correct elements in Niemtsovitch's doctrines; but whatever is correct is no his own but was created by others, old masters as well as contemporaries, and he plagiarised it, consciously or unconsciously.>
<This is the poor literary bequest Niemtsovitch left when he died, to only a few successors and fewer friends - apart from some fellow-racialists.>
<Reti was applauded by the plurality of Anglo-Jewish intellectuals for his work Modern Ideas in Chess, just as Niemtsovitch had been for My System, and these people were particularly impressed by the absurd cry Reti invented, namely "We, the young masters" (he was then 34) "are not interested in rules but in exceptions." If this sentence makes sense at all, it means "We (or rather, I) know the rules governing the game of chess much too well. To carry on with further research in this field will be, in future, the task of the more feeble-minded of the chess community. But, I, the grandmaster, will devote myself exclusively to the more delicate filigree of brilliant exceptions, with my own clear elucidations." This cheap bluff, this shameless half-attempt at self-boosting, was swallowed without a struggle by a chess world already doped by Jewish journalists, the exulting cries of the Jews and their friends "Long Live Reti and the hyper-modern, neo-romantic chess!" finding an echo far and wide.>
|Jun-04-12|| ||Petrosianic: <If I may make bold, the articles, even in translation, are not without literary merit.>|
Yeah, they kept Julius Streicher off the streets...
|Jun-04-12|| ||Call Me TC: Who knew the Karpov-Timman match would enjoy such a belated burst of interest?|
|Jun-04-12|| ||micartouse: A notable failure of the articles are their utter lack of predictive value. The two sharpest, most aggressive champions to emerge after they were written were a couple of Jews.|
I suppose a more modern anti-Semite could then say sacrifice is like a form of 'usury' because the one giving the material expects to get it back with filthy interest.
|Jun-04-12|| ||Petrosianic: This is part of how chess-as-science comes into the picture. People didn't play counter-attacking materialistic chess because it suited their personality, so much as that it brought results. In a different game, like Shogi, it doesn't work quite as well. People want to create chessboard masterpieces, but the primary goal is still to win games, and this style brings better results than the romantic styles do. The hey day of romantic chess was when advanced attacking styles clashed with inferior defensive techniques. Of course the attacker did better in those matchups, and still does when master plays amateur.|
|Jun-04-12|| ||Petrosianic: And if you don't play Shogi, think of Crazyhouse with a weaker set of pieces. Crazyhouse is so crazy because the International chess pieces are so powerful that adding the option to drop them almost anywhere makes them devastating. Shogi has weaker pieces. Like Gold Generals, that move like a King, but not SW or SE. Silver Generals move like a King but not W, E or S. Lances move like a rook but only directly forward, and so on.|
In Crazyhouse, you never see games where one side grabs a pawn, hangs onto it and carries it to victory. Not because Jews don't play Crazyhouse (rolled eyes) but because those strategies are <less effective> in that game. They're less effective in Shogi too. The board is never simplified, and there are so many threats to consider all through the game that defensive materialistic strategies play fewer dividends. So, there's less tendency to play that way. It's got nothing to do with race or religion, it's all about the rules of the game and what wins games.
|Jun-04-12|| ||unferth: <Honza Cervenka: Well, that's interesting question, and without additional research into this matter we can just speculate, how much Alekhine was, or was not forced to write those articles. Also it is not so clear that Alekhine's handwritten drafts of articles were identical to what was published in the Pariser Zeitung. We have only a claim of chess writer Jacques Le Monnier from 1986 that in 1958 he saw some of Alekhine's notebooks and found, in Alekhine's own handwriting, the exact text of the first anti-Semitic article, which appeared in Pariser Zeitung on March 18, 1941. This is quite interesting piece of information because the same Jacques Le Monnier in his 1973 book "75 parties d'Alekhine", that is 15 years after he allegedly saw exact text of the first anti-Semitic article in one of Alekhine's handwritten notebooks, opined: "It will never be known whether Alekhine was behind these articles or whether they were manipulated by the editor of the Pariser Zeitung." Alekhine's notebooks are still out of the public domain and they won't be there sooner than in 2017 according to the French copyright law, and so we still can't know for sure, whether articles really stood as he wrote them by hand.>|
I'm curious as to the specifics of Le Monnier's claims. Did he say that the handwritten article appeared in a notebook, or in some other form? Writing in a notebook strikes me as a very odd manner of composition for publication--did he give the notebook to a typist to produce a copy for submission? I'd think that in the age of typewriters and carbon paper, an author who worked by hand would most likely simply submit his original and let the publisher go to the trouble and expense of typesetting. If Alekhine composed by hand, it seems a bit strange that he'd have retained a copy at all.
|Jun-04-12|| ||keypusher: <Call me TC>
<Alekhine's defence was far superior as evidenced by the fact that people are still employing it over 60 years later.>
Wrong. Alekhine's several defenses were so inferior that people defending him now are compelled to resort to the one he never offered.
|Jun-04-12|| ||RookFile: Not often that I agree with keypusher these days, but I wouldn't change a word of what he just wrote.|
|Jun-04-12|| ||Honza Cervenka: <keypusher: <Call me TC>|
<Alekhine's defence was far superior as evidenced by the fact that people are still employing it over 60 years later.>
Wrong. Alekhine's several defenses were so inferior that people defending him now are compelled to resort to the one he never offered.>
Well, in my case, in the past I have taken as a matter of fact that he had written the articles because I read elsewhere that manuscripts were found in possession of Grace Alekhine after her death in 1956. And as I have read those articles, I was wondering, how chess genius and brilliant chess writer could write such a piece of idiocy, which is absolutely inconsistent with everything else, what he had published on chess before, as well as after that. I was just trying to explain it to myself, and my conclusion was that he was forced to do it. But after making some research of my own into this matter, I have found out that the info on finding of manuscripts was unsubstantiated, or at least dubious, and practically based only on claims of two "witnesses" (Reilly and Le Monier), one of which (Reilly) denied allegations of Golombek and Hooper/Whyld that he saw the manuscripts in 1956, and the other came with his statement 28 years after the fact and after making statements contradictory to this one in the past. In light of this Alekhine's claim that the articles were Nazi fakes published under his name became again a legitimate hypothesis, and as far as I can say, quite possible.
|Jun-04-12|| ||keypusher: <honza>
The defense I am referring to is that the Nazis made him do it. Not that they faked the articles.
|Jun-04-12|| ||Honza Cervenka: <unferth> I can't read French but Winter describes it thus: |
<In the May 1986 Europe Echecs (pages 300-301) Jacques Le Monnier reported that before her death Grace Alekhine had passed a number of her late husband’s notebooks to a friend (unnamed). In 1958 Le Monnier was given access to the material and found, word for word and in Alekhine’s own handwriting, the text of the first anti-Semitic article, which had appeared in Pariser Zeitung of 18 March 1941. The word ‘Jew’ was almost invariably underlined, Le Monnier reported.>
That's really a strange story to put it mildly. One has to ask here not only why he waited with such a disclosure so long and why he had written in 1973 that "we will never know", but also why would Grace Alekhine, who defended her late husband up to her death, preserve and pass to anybody such a incriminating material? She was not ignorant on chess being several times Paris lady champion, and she would hardly forgot to read carefully, what she was giving away. It doesn't sound much believable to me.
|Jun-05-12|| ||Honza Cervenka: Well, back to this match. I have found in the Czech journal Šachinfo, 6/93 a report written by Bretislav Modr, where he states that Timman was seeded into the match as finalist of the Candidate, and Karpov as a semifinalist with the highest ELO rating at the time.|
|Jun-05-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <Honza> This is an excellent post!|
I haven't heard from GM Yusupov despite having sent an e-mail to the address on his website. Oh well, no big deal.
I saw a video on the 1993 Kasparov-Short Match - it was phenomenal!
Very entertaining match!
|Jun-05-12|| ||uscfratingmybyear: <call me TC> "There were no hostilities in 1939, and as king of chess he probably felt entitled to remain castled behind the front ranks." By 1939 Germany had already taken Poland, France was at war with Germany and the British were landing troops in France and fighting along side the French.|
|Jun-05-12|| ||unferth: Germany didn't invade Poland until September 1939, and there was little fighting on the Western front for many months. until May 1940, many people believed the war would be settled quickly with few casualties in the West.|
|Jun-06-12|| ||whiteshark: <LoveThatJoker> re Yusupov in 1993|
I've checked all 1993 issues of the German chess magazines "Schach-Report" and "Rochade Europa", but there was no comment/interview etc re his 'exclusion' from the Fide WC.
- There was only a small timeframe for Fide for a decision (to get a championchip up in the same year as the Kasparov-Short match (for legitimacy reasons)).
- Therefore a new 'candidate match' with Timman, Karpov and Yusupov wouldn't work.
- If I'm not mistaken back in 1993 Yusupov though living in Germany was still with the Russian chess federation - who without doubt were 100% Karpov supporters.
In 1st half of 1993 Yusupov played a few of tournaments with mixed results, he wrote a new book of his series with Dvoretsky and his family had an addition - so it seems to me that he had made the best out of the situation.
|Jun-06-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <whiteshark> Thanks a lot for your kind reply, man! I remember I asked you that over a week ago. I'm genuinely thankful that you remembered!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·