<jessicafischerqueen: <JeorgWalter>

<Ohio> is correct, Chess history is plagued by people simply making up "interesting anecdotes and quotes" and then passing them on down the years from book to book.>

"Ivanchuk during a game is usually staring at the sealing "counting the cracks or looking out for flying saucers outside the window"" - a quite popular statement supported by Anand in an interview, for example .

Now, following the live tv reports of recent tournaments all I can see is Ivanchuk with his head in his hands looking at the board. (ok once in a while he is drinking or wandering around) but never in a position which allegedly is his "trademark" (and a permanent job for his physiotherapist).

P.S. this song title came from a Ringoism. After The Beatles were working all night on their album and it was morning when they were leaving the recording studio Ringo happened to say, "It's been a hard days night". True story! ; P

There are hours of film on <youtube> showing <Choucky> at the board, which could be investigated.

Just type his name in the search box and there'll be hundreds of hits.

In the case of active players who are still alive (which is most of them), we have an embarrassment of riches as far as sources go.

You can even email these people. I can tell you first hand that I have emailed and received prompt replies from two Grandmasters, and neither of them knew me from Eve.

Of course, I emailed several hundred, but that's not important right now.

Many of them do post their contact information- Lots have youtube accounts so if you make a youtube account you can send them a private message.

I haven't looked into getting ahold of <Choucky> but who knows maybe he likes to talk to fans.

The really tough cases are quotes and anecdotes attributed to players who've been dead for fifty or a hundred years.

And these cases vary- <Steinitz> published an enormous amount of material that's still available, whereas <Spielmann> published very little that survives, and if it's in English it was translated from German or Swedish. Most of his existing writing is not translated into English yet. Apparently <Spielmann> did have an autobiography prepared, but it got "lost" or stolen- Edward Winter has a good <chessnote> about that.

Still, even when plenty of real source material is available, the rumors will persist and get passed down as fact from book to book- such as <Steinitz> and <Blackburne> got into a fistfight over the board (they didn't) or that he threw <Blackburne> out of a window (he didn't). As a matter of fact, they were very good friends throughout their careers.

I can't tell you why, for reasons that will only become apparent later.>

Then You are an excellent personnel manager. We could use one in Victoria, B.C., not to mention Ottawa :-)

<Well and at my job I suppose. When forced.>

Re: <...<Steinitz> published an enormous amount of material that's still available...>

I had wondered about that.

Only about a month ago I tried to borrow something (anything) written by Steinitz: books, magazines, newspapers... Central Vancouver library didn't have anything.

I thought, maybe I was just out of luck for the day.

But then, it turned out they also didn't have any of Dr.Lasker's writings either.

Perhaps, stuff I'm looking for is too old, I thought. (Although not as old as a Homer or the Bible)

So, I asked for M.Tal's Life & Games, and then even a more recent Gligoric playing against the Pieces. No, Sir!

First, I don't think anyone ever really believed an opening can be considered "busted" three or four moves in- except maybe <Steinitz>.

He was convinced that with correct play, Black could take the pawn in the Evans and retain the slight advantage to the end- by force.

<Steinitz> lost two correspondence matches with <Chigorin>, and I believe at least one of these matches was a special "Evans Gambit Match" meant to settle the argument.

More generally, <Steinitz> was so convinced that his opening principles had "solved chess scientifically" that he stubbornly kept playing truly terrible openings against strong competition in matches, including World Title Matches.

The "conventional wisdom" may be that <Steinitz> was simply a very strong player who could win despite this stubbornness. He had one of the most astonishing Match records in chess history- unbeatable until <Lasker> came along.

There's another theory, you can find a big honking argument on it if you look at the Kibbutzing on the <Steinitz> Match game pages- the theory is that <Steinitz> and his contemporaries played godawful chess, and should perhaps be rated as low as the 2400s? Or even lower. The Knights who say <Nimh> put some figures on it, but you'd have to look at his posts to find out exactly what he said.

Something like that.

Anyways I'll try to find time on the weekend to go through the biography again and give you some actual facts about <Steinitz> and the Evans, as opposed to me just rambling about it.

You can get an entire book of <Steinitz's> letters from Amazon- actually most of the books ever written on chess are available to buy online, even out of print ones. I have a credit card on "auto account" with Amazon, so all I have to to is click "buy" and they mail it off to my Mom's address in Vancouver. Then she mails them on to me in Korea. Many of these volumes are available used for very low prices, I just bought a couple of books there for like five bucks.

However, I think libraries should do a better job.

I actually live in the Upper Fraser Valley, and there are two big used bookstores with a decent chess section.

Does Vancouver still hold the <Keres Memorial Tournament>? He played his last tournament in Vancouver, as I'm sure you know.

Thank You for the info. It will be useful.

Also, since You mentioned R.Spielmann earlier, I assume there is an English translation of his famous: "The Art of Sacrifice". I read the book ages ago, but it was in my old language.

As for Keres memorial, yes it is still taking place annually, around Victoria Day long weekend, late May.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z27>-...

Jess in response to this, your former post a few pages back I have something interesting to say about Bobby's chess memory.

I think Fischer for whatever reason was being cagey about his not being able to recall his games. I think Fischer could remember very much of his game scores as GM Larry Christiansen from the old World Chess Network made a comment where he said, "I think Bobby Fischer & Garry Kasparov have photographic memories."

A few examples, Bobby was upset when a book publisher reprinted Bobby's MSMG's. Fischer said on Philippine Radio that he had skimmed through the book & that there were several errors made of the games moves. Bobby then said, "that's ok I can easily correct them!"

<Bobby> might even have been being modest, perhaps embarrassed by the question. He was like a child in many respects- direct, truthful, but also he often felt uncomfortable and out of his element in interviews. In that same interview I posted, the guy asks Bobby about his favorite literature, and Bobby almost has a heart attack- he didn't read literature, and he was smart enough to know the interviewer was trying to portray him as something he wasn't-

"Didn't you say you liked Shakespeare," he asks Bobby.

So Bobby just about crawls out of his suit, and says, "yeah.. well.. I read some Shakespeare.... (pause)... to tell you the truth I read mainly magazines, that's what I read..."

It's always a interesting history behind individuals that reach the highest level inside their expertize..

Thanks Jess and co i hope u guys make book/s and videos about it for the commercial market as well...You guys surely have worked out a lot, and deserves to be rewarded in more than one way.

I heard something about visiting hospital i hope everything is ok?.

<‘A Discovery in Chess. About as amusing an event as has marked chess history for some time past has recently occurred in New York, and our esteemed contemporary, the New York Sun, was, in one sense at least, the victim involved. In its issue of the second instant (2 June) appeared an article nearly a column in length, introduced with the startling headlines, “Great Discovery in Chess”, “Steinitz finds the Death Blow for the Evans Gambit”, “Like Many Great Discoveries, It Comes by Accident from an Unexpected Source”, etc., etc., with the portentous announcement, “Copyright by W. Steinitz”. Nor was a perusal of the article calculated to diminish the excitement. The main portion thereof, introduced with a delightfully playful exuberance by the chess editor of the Sun, was as follows:

Now comes Champion Steinitz again with the statement that at last he has found the key, and that he has discovered the move that will make all Evans Gambit players bite the dust. He regards it as the most sensational discovery in chess since that of Capt. Evans himself, and greater than that inasmuch as it proves to be the latter’s master.

The discovery was accidental by Mr Steinitz’s adopted daughter. How it was made is here told by the champion.

“My niece and adopted daughter, Miss Hedwig Steinitz”, said Mr Steinitz, “was trying to play over from memory the well-known Suhle attack in the Evans Gambit and arrived correctly, after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Ba5 6 d4 exd4 7 O-O Nf6 8 Ba3 Nxe4 9 Qb3, at the position marked on the diagram below.

‘Papa’, she said, ‘is this the move now?’ and she pointed to ...Ng5 for Black.

No doubt my daughter saw no more than that she defended the twice-attacked f-pawn, and she even overlooked that the protection only lasted for one move, as White could capture the knight. But what an analytical revelation opened itself before my eyes. And, of course, any modern expert will see at a glance that this is the right move, which has been overlooked by all analysts and practioners [sic] for about 35 years.

‘The previous question’ will have to be moved in regard to the soundness of the Evans Gambit, and we have to fall back to find another answer to 7...Nf6.”

But singular to relate, “analysts all over the world” did not “move the previous question” in regard to the soundness of the Evans, nor did they “start for the discovery of new lines of play” in the gambit. They simply took hold of the particularly extraordinary variation propounded by Steinitz and they suggested that he had actually overlooked a deep two-move combination continuing 9...Ng5 10 Bxf7+ Nxf7 11 Re1+ and wins in a canter. And the ex-champion himself writes a letter to the Sun of 5 June acknowledging his “great discovery” to be no discovery at all; that his analysis was unsound. And the Sun (in its sub-editorial columns) sagely remarks: “So the Evans Gambit holds its ground. This delusion of Steinitz shows how genius can often be inferior to the dispassionate calmness of understanding comparatively common-place.’