Do we have a good source for the statement that <FIDE chose these contenders in order to represent the strongest Soviet and US players>? The Winter article does make it clear that to some extent the selections were tied to the players' nationalities (and that the Soviet and US federations could propose alternative players) but it's not actually stated anywhere that Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov, Reshevsky and Fine were selected because they came from those countries, rather than because of their playing strength. (And I'm not sure why FIDE would favor those countries when neither of them even had a representative at Winterthur.)

On my vacation my Mom gave me an old photo book on "Suomi" and translated the captions for me. As you no doubt already know, there are plenty of Swedish folks living in "Suomi." At least there were in 1955, when the book was published.

My Mom is also a rabid Canucks fan. I asked her two questions about the Chicago Blackhawks, which were met with stony silence. I think "Erik Lundquist" played for the Canucks, though my "memory" isn't too reliable, as you no doubt also already know.

I'll fix those "Groeners" now, and I have to agree with your query about the FIDE selection process. As yet, I have found no other source on this except for the Winter article.

I was thinking along the same lines as you.

Might you offer me a solution to this issue?

What about just directly quoting the FIDE statement as reported by Winter's article?

Then there's no issue of an inaccurate paraphrase, and the reader can confront the ambiguities of the FIDE statement on her own?

There's something else I can do. I can try to find the "Tidskrift för schack" coverage of the FIDE conference and see what they say about the selection process, possibly with the translating help of <Tabanus>. I can download all 12 issues of "TFS" for 1946 here: http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19...

Back in the day, there was a Swedish javelin thrower called Erik Lundqvist (who won Olympic gold in 1928). People nicknamed him the Insane Painter because, well, he was a painter and had serious mental problems.

(By "people" I mean Finnish people. The Swedes just called him Painter, which I think you'll agree doesn't sound half as good.)

<Might you offer me a solution to this issue?>

I don't have any problem axing the claim altogether.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

Well, in Winter's article there are two reports on this issue deriving from primary material from the Winterthur 1946 congress.

One is a summary paraphrase of main points by <Voellmy>, as published in the November 1946 "Schweizerische Schachzeitung," and the other is a summary presentation of excerpts from the actual minutes from the meeting, as supplied directly to <Winter> by the FIDE Secretariat in Lausanne. Both have been translated by <Winter>, or a member of his translating team.

This is what I'm going to do. I'm going to quote directly from each source, and let the reader decide about why FIDE might have chosen to include that particular roster, except for <Euwe>, the only player whose choice is actually explained.

Absent other primary sources, we are forced to rely on Winter's translations and on what he chose to include from his two sources in his article. We shouldn't report any more or less than what is presented from those two sources. Given the possibly incomplete and somewhat ambiguous presentation of the information, I don't think we should rely on paraphrasing the points.

Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

Hmm..

Ok I have refashioned the opening paragraph, and please forgive the full references appended after each sentence- but again, it's the only sure way I have of keeping track of the note order.

Whilst working on this, I decided that the paraphrases are actually clear, especially when paired to the precise source the information derives from. So the only direct words I cited are the contentious ones: "top candidates," which is directly cited and sourced to where the words come from: <Erwin Voellmy, "Schweizerische Schachzeitung" (Nov 1946), pp.169-171. In Edward Winter, "Interregnum.">

############################

Apart from that, what exactly is so strange about his suggestion of at least not ignoring the US Chess Champion? To quote the November 1946 'Chess Review':

<When the International Chess Federation invited two American players to participate in the world championship it took for granted that Sammy Reshevsky and Reuben Fine were to be the American representatives. There is a widespread feeling among outstanding American chessmasters that the decision should have been left to the United States Chess Federation; that Reshevsky and Fine, pre-eminent as they are, should establish their right to play in the world championship tournament on the basis of present, rather than past, achievements.> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

In the end, Fine didn't play. So although it was not disputed that Fine and Reshevsky were the strongest, the selection (or better, the inability of the UCSF to nominate someone else) led to one place being left free and the USA having just one representative. And if they are the strongest, they should have not much trouble proving it in a qualifying event for example, shouldn't they?

The problem seems to have been the change of the rules - not to allow one of the Groningen/Prague qualifiers - first, thereby throwing out Najdorf. Only later did Fine withdraw, see http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... right above Fine's picture at the bottom.

and it closes with

<Although page 80 of the March 1948 BCM observed, ‘There is no provision made for a substitute and thus the questionable side-tracking of Najdorf becomes little short of a calamity’, it would be an exaggeration to suggest that contemporary magazines (i.e. the sources on which this ‘Interregnum’ series has concentrated) accorded much thought to Najdorf’s fate. Fine’s absence too received few column inches, as attention was becoming firmly focussed on Botvinnik, Euwe, Keres, Reshevsky and Smyslov.>

So maybe they hadn't planned for a possible withdrawal and so, when Fine did exactly that, they (sadly) were not flexible enough to include Najdorf any longer (<The event would go ahead even if any player withdrew, [...]>). Fine's withdrawal was announced at the beginning of 1948, and the tournament commenced in March. So it was very short-term.

What an informative and useful discussion, thank you!

Without such an erudite panel, our project would be but a pale shadow....

<Ohio> I understand your point about the "ironic quotations" idiom- we have that in Canada too.

It may well be a necessary evil in this case.

On the other hand, maybe we can have our squid and eat it too. What about this?

####################################

They planned a quadruple round robin "tournament among the top candidates"- Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Paul Keres, Vasily Smyslov, and the winner of either the upcoming Groningen or Prague tournaments, decided by a match if necessary.<2> <Erwin Voellmy, "Schweizerische Schachzeitung" (Nov 1946), pp.169-171. In Edward Winter, "Interregnum.">

######################################

Good grief.

I just composed, posted, and deleted a long reply that was based entirely on me not understanding your question- which was my fault.

Quite right, the line <the previous candidates tournament> is unnecessary and I'll delete it.

Thanks again.

###################

<Colleagues>

The question about Game Collection: Keres-Geller Candidates Playoff Match is on topic for our forum, because of its relation to this draft I'm currently working on:

They planned a quadruple round robin "tournament among the top candidates"- Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Paul Keres, Vasily Smyslov, and the winner of either the upcoming Groningen or Prague tournaments, decided by a match if necessary.<2> <Erwin Voellmy, "Schweizerische Schachzeitung" (Nov 1946), pp.169-171. In Edward Winter, "Interregnum.">>

Including more is a possibility. Starting with "tournament" is a bit awkward. I think there are a lot of awkward choices in how much more to choose. And even if it's a quote, "top candidates" just doesn't sound right. It almost sounds like an ex post facto shine put on a decision that wasn't all that defensible in the first place. Those two points lead me to this suggestion:

Maybe we should lose the quotation marks and go for less:

<They planned a quadruple round robin tournament among the following candidates>

I do see advantages to a return to this, which was indeed there in a previous edit:

<They planned a quadruple round robin tournament among the following candidates>

One assumes that FIDE thought these were the best candidates. If they thought something more complicated or convoluted, they don't indicate what, exactly, in the sources we have.

I think it's because playing chess and editing can well be compared to writing poetry, certainly in some cases at least.