I guess each person was out for himself.

It seems that only thieves have honor among themselves.

"Denker filed a protest as <Reshevsky was not keeping his own score and the players were using a battered old mechanical clock with no flag indicators>."

Was anybody aware of that? <There were no flags on the clock!> We only have Stephen's worthless judgment that time was an issue at all.

The article goes on to say "His protest was disallowed", but it doesn't say who determined that. Was there a tournament committee that upheld Stephen's decision, and if so, who were they? Or did Stephens himself disallow the protest?

This story has been told and retold hundreds of times over they years, but they never address questions like that. All the retellings just repeat the same bare bones information over and over again.

A major factor in evaluating Stephens' honesty is the question of whether he would have called a Reshevsky forfeit if he hadn't "accidentally" gotten the clocks mixed up. I've argued that he could not have called a Reshevsky forfeit, since Reshevsky was thinking about his first move AFTER the time control, when it's okay for your flag to be down.

On the other hand, so much about this game is screwy that who knows what he could have done? A player is supposed to have an accurate scoresheet to be able to claim a forfeit, but Reshevsky didn't have one. A player is supposed to call the forfeit himself, not have it called for him, but this didn't happen either. Were the rules different then? Why does nobody ever deal with this stuff? Were there special rules for dealing with clocks that didn't have flags equipped?

From Chess Review, February 1942, page 27, it states the U.S. Chess Federation reversed their earlier decision, and officially announced that the 1942 U.S. Chess Championship tournament would be held in April.

This Chess Review article included the naming of the tournament executive committee:

<The management and direction of both tournaments will be in the hands of the following executive committee, named by George Sturgis, President of the U.S. Chess Federation:

L. Walter Stephens, Chairman - Vice-Pres. of the U.S. Chess Federation.

Kenneth Harkness, Managing Editor of Chess Review.

Hermann Helms, Editor of the American Chess Bulletin.

Milton L. Hanauer, Representative of the Players.

George Sturgis is an ex-officio member of the committee and Mrs. Maude M. Stephens, Secretary to the Committee, is a member without vote.>

In Denker's account, (see my earlier postings), of Reshevsky overstepping the time limit, Denker indicates there were many spectators who witnessed that Sammy's flag had fallen.

However, if the April 1942, page 86, Chess Review article (Horowitz?) is correct, the clock in question had no flag indicators.

After Director L. Walter Stephens ruled Denker forfeited on time, Denker stated that he first appealed to Sammy, who would only say that he was not the tournament director, and then along with several other spectators, an appeal was made to Stephens, who replied by making his infamous statement, <"Does Kenesaw Mountain Landis ever reverse himself?">

In addition to Denker's account of other witnesses, page 86 of the April 1942 Chess Review article (Horowitz?) states: <When Tournament Director Stephens forfeited Denker for overstepping the time limit in the following game from the sixth round, the crowd demonstated its disapproval with boos and jeers.>

So, can we assume that these people, or a majority of them at least, upheld Stephens' decision after the fact? I'd like to know their reasoning. I'd also like to know why Denker stayed in the tournament. Personally, I don't see any point in staying in a tournament whose director claims the right to take a point from you whenever it suits him, whether you've really lost the game or not.

I'd still like to know exactly what rules were in place in this game. I'm assuming that it was somehow okay for the director rather than one of the players to call the forfeit, and even if the players didn't have an accurate scoresheet. You know, Mednis and Hearst were double-forfeited by a different director 14 years later for that very thing. Did the rules vary from tournament to tournament, from year to year, or what?

<However, if the April 1942, page 86, Chess Review article (Horowitz?) is correct, the clock in question had no flag indicators.>

There's no name on the article, so I'd assume it's by Horowitz. Even if it's not, he had to clear it as editor.

<In Denker's account, (see my earlier postings), of Reshevsky overstepping the time limit, Denker indicates there were many spectators who witnessed that Sammy's flag had fallen.

However, if the April 1942, page 86, Chess Review article (Horowitz?) is correct, the clock in question had no flag indicators.>

Sometimes people tend to simplify a story to avoid having to explain little details over and over. Like, when Patrick McGoohan was pitching The Prisoner to Lew Grade, I saw him tell the story that he gave the outlines to Grade, and Grade said something like "You know I can't read." McGoohan had to then explain that that was one of his little jokes, and it meant that he preferred to have a series pitched verbally. I saw McGoohan tell the same story in print years later, but this time he quoted Grade as saying "You know I hate to read such things." I guess telling it that way was easier than having to explain the joke, and that Grade really could read even though he said he couldn't.

Maybe something similar happened here. Maybe Denker changed the story to people seeing the flag fall, because it was easier than explaining how there used to be chess clocks without flags. Or maybe Chess Review was wrong, and there was a flag fall after all.

According to Kashdan in his Chess Review article of May 1942, (see my last post), the tournament committee did uphold Stephens' ruling.

Unfortunately, we have no information regarding their reasons, or how they arrived at their decision. Apparently, only Stephens' opinion mattered.

Speaking of baseball and Landis, I always assumed that "Kenesaw Mountain" was a nickname, but no. That was the man's real name. (and you thought Whos on first, What's on second, and Idon'tknow's on third was bad).

But I don't understand the bit about reversing himself. Landis was comissioner of baseball, but he was never a field umpire. So, why invoke his name?

There may be some field umpires who never reverse themselves, but most do when presented with physical evidence of an error. The most common reversals I've seen are when someone is tagged out, then it's seen that the ball wasn't in his glove. I've also seen umpires reverse themselves when slide marks show that the runner missed the plate, or something like that.

I even remember a Pete Rose commercial when I was a kid, on the same subject. This was back when Rose played 2B. A runner tries to steal second. The umpire calls him out. Rose argues, the umpire says he missed the tag. Rose shows him his glove with the runner's hair oil on it, and the umpire reverses the call. The commercial ends with one of the runner's teammates giving him a plug for the sponsor's hair tonic, which didn't leave that oily residue. I hadn't thought about that in years. I just looked for it on YouTube, but couldn't find it.

I just checked Wikipedia, and don't see anything about Landis being famous for never reversing a decision, so I'm wondering what that means. Is it a reference to the Black Sox players remaining banned? Or something else?

There is, however, a letter by Stephens himself in the June/July issue, which may give more insight into what kind of guy he was. It's not about this incident (he apparently didn't consider it worth trying to justify that). His letter is about the 1941 NY State Championship, and tries to put his own 2 cents worth into a dispute between Ed Lasker and the tournament organizer. Stephen's letter is long and rambling, and says very little other than generic praise for the tournament. But he gets to his point in the final paragraph:

<It has been known in only a few instances that chess experts will attempt to alibi the loss of a Queen in a regular game by blaming it on the management. When the player who wrote the article in your last issue entered that tournament he accepted all the conditions which the Committee was obliged to put into effect. He was not forced to enter the tournament. The exceptionally brilliant chess of our young Chess Masters and their scintillating skill was enough to make any one have dizzy spells.>

What's he talking about here? Well, the "article" he mentions was actually a <letter> by Ed Lasker. A couple of letters actually, between Lasker and the tournament organizer, going back to December 1941. Lasker had criticized the NY State Championship for what he called an absurd playing schedule. He said that the schedule had not been drawn up according to the wishes of the masters, as the organizer had claimed, but that it should have been. According to Lasker:

<Kashdan, Santasiere, Reshevsky and several younger players were victims of the excessive strain before long. I had a dizzy spell on the third day and had to withdraw altogether.>

Stephens wrote a long reply to this, which said nothing more than that nothing is the management's fault, and if people don't like it, they can lump it. I'd already gotten that impression about him from the Denker-Reshevsky game, but he reinforces it here.

The "loss of a queen" business that Stephens mentions never actually happened. In the first letter, Lasker had written:

<I might close my argument with a example from the game I played with Denker and which, together with the ominous pressure in my head which I remembered too well from twenty years ago, caused me to withdraw from the tournament. Denker had a winning ending against me but overlooked the right move due to fatigue and time-pressure. Fine pointed out the move after the game. I had seen the move and told Denker what I intended replying. This reply of mine, which I had carefully analyzed while Denker was thinking, left my Queen en prise.>

Oops, my mistake. Stephens was involved. He had nothing to do with setting the schedule, but he directed the tournament, and played in the Expert Section (scoring +0-9=0!).

<As usual, Reshevsky was frequently in time-trouble. Exciting to the spectators was his game with Denker in which both players had 17 moves to play in about 2½ minutes! While they were making rapid-transit moves and checking their score-sheets to save time, Director Stephens broke in, insisted that they write down their actual moves. Reshevsky protested loudly, took up valuable time arguing with Stephens. The clocks were stopped and the players wrote down their moves. Obviously upset by this interruption, the two men resumed play with about one minute to go on each clock. They achieved the apparently impossible - made the required number of moves, wrote down their scores, punched the clock between each move and finished within the time limit.

Reshevsky complained that the interruption had affected his play, might cost him the point. However he won the game after adjournment.>

[Event "NY State Championship"]
[Site "Hamilton, NY"]
[Date "1941.08.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Denker"]
[Black "Reshevsky"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D95"]
[PlyCount "104"]

<"Mr. L. Walter Stephens, Referee of the Match, is standing dirctly behind the chess clock.">

The story definitely gives the impression that Denker was illegally trying to claim a time forfeit. Otherwise why would he say that 40 to 50 spectators saw Reshevsky's flag drop?

Well, do we know that? As you said yourself:

To this day, the American players refuse the silver medals from '72. The USA was 63-0 in Olympic play prior to this debacle, having won the 7 previous gold medals.

<APRIL 1942: When Tournament Director Stephens forfeited Denker for overstepping the time limit in the following game from the sixth round, the crowd demonstrated its disapproval with boos and jeers.

Denker filed a protest as Reshevsky wsa not keeping his own score and the players were using a battered old mechanical clock with no flag indicators. His protest was disallowed. As the final position was an easy draw, the champion thus gained a half point on a technicality. This proved important later when Reshevsky entered the 14th round just a half point ahead of Kashdan.>

Make that a FULL point on a technicality if Reshevsky should have been forfeited.

<MAY 1942: Here is the first big break of the tournament. Reshevsky beats Denker in a drawn position when Denker oversteps the time limit. This causes commotion and a near-riot. The spectators and officials all get a look at the clock, which is carried about and handled by all and sundry. There is a wide divergence of opinion, but the referee has rule and is later upheld by the tournament committee.>