Rice, Dadian, Kirsan
Jeremy Spinrad
include putting up proze money for matches and tournaments, and acting as patrons
to individual favorite players. These good souls are essentially forgotten in
chess history. A select few have contributed money in such strange ways that they
have earned a spot as chess curiosities. To me, it might be interesting to
compare and contrast some of these strange benefactors. I can think of 2
historical figures, and I feel sure that Kirsan is destined to be a curiousity
for the ages as well; if you know of others, I would like to hear.
A quick review of the little I know on the two figures from history.
1) Prince Dadian of Mingrelia (no, I do not know where Mingrelia is!). This
wealthy person devised the curious scheme of paying famous chess players to
compose games in which they were supposed to lose to Dadian. Some of these games
are quite beautiful, and can be found in reprints of great chess games.
2) Leopold Rice was a wealthy German-American industrialist. He invented a piece
sacrifice in the king's gambit (called the Rice gambit). He then sponsored many
tournaments for grandmasters, in which all players were required to play the
gambit. Although both Rice and his gambit are usually spoken of mockingly now,
many of the games are quite exciting and were popular at the time (Coles'
collection books of great games have lots of nice Rice gambit games; my favorite
comment of his is that he calls the Rice gambit "very chessy"). Since his death,
the Rice gambit has essentially completely disappeared.
Some issues for comparison:
Honesty: Dadian's goal was to pass himself off as a great player when he was not.
Rice was completely aboveboard, openly wanting attention to be paid to his
novelty. Views of Kirsan vary wildly, from money-launderer trying to divert
attention from criminal activity in his homeland to selfless benefactor of the
game.
Effect on chess: It can be argued that though Dadian was a scoundrel, his effect
on chess was entirely benign. He allowed some chessplayers to have more freedom
to practice by giving them money, and the chess world got a new artform of
beautiful composed games. Rice's scheme had the negative effect of diverting
chess energies which might have been better spent in other ways along a useless
direction, thus using money to possibly hinder the development of chess. On the
other hand, beautiful games were produced, and the chess games were legitimate
sporting encounters played of free will by the players. Kirsan of course has had
the most effect on chess, changing the way the FIDE championship is decided
dramatically as the result of his financial input.
Ability as chessplayers: I would like to know more about this. My impression is
that both Dadian and Rice were competent players, but I have no clue on exact
strength and there should be enough information out there to get a handle on
this. Some Kirsan biographies paint him as a regional junior chess champion who
turned his attention to business, but I also saw that he got mated in 10 moves in
an exhibition vs some GM; does anyone know what level of player he really is?
Personally, I feel like Rice deserves more credit than he gets now (the Rice
gambit, both games and tournaments, are more interesting than many people say,
and he seems like a legitimate though odd enthusiast), while Dadian deserves
scorn because he was a cheater; I realize as above that other views are possible.
We are perhaps too close to Kirsan to be the eventual judges, though I believe
the serious charges against him and think it is wrong and embarassing to have him
as FIDE president. It is hard for me to disassociate this human rights aspect
from how I would feel about him if he were just a weird rich person using his
money to influence chess, which is what is relevant to the discussion here.
Jerry Spinrad
Charles Blair
for sponsoring Janowski in several matches with Emanuel Lasker.
One of the lectures on freechess.org includes a supposed
combination Nardus played against Janowski.
Masters throwing games to wealthy sponsors may unfortunately
not be such a rare phenomenon. Comments by Elliot Hearst in
an article in the book CHESS SKILL IN MAN AND MACHINE suggest
this often happens in simultaneous displays.
Ofergneezy II
> 1) Prince Dadian of Mingrelia (no, I do not know where Mingrelia is!). This
> wealthy person devised the curious scheme of paying famous chess players to
> compose games in which they were supposed to lose to Dadian. Some of these games
> are quite beautiful, and can be found in reprints of great chess games.
Mingrelia was a principality in Western Georgia which was independent
from 1491 until it was annexed by Russia in 1866.
Anders Thulin
> 1) Prince Dadian of Mingrelia (no, I do not know where Mingrelia is!)
It is no more, but it was once located on the east shores of the Black Sea, mostly
in what is now Georgia. The name of its capital was then usually written Zugridi, which
probably corresponds to modern Zugdidi.
> Effect on chess: It can be argued that though Dadian was a scoundrel, his effect
> on chess was entirely benign.
Not entirely: some chess players refused to treat Dadian as chess royalty.
Chigorin was one of those, and though he was invited to Monte Carlo 1903, and
accepted, and turned up at the tournament, Prince Dadian (president of the
tournament committee) refused to remain president unless Chigorin was excluded.
Wolf took his place instead. Odd that: this is the tournament in which the
well-known Colonel Moreau appears, sometimes said to be a replacement for
some player who could not attend. I wonder who that could be, if Wolf took
Chigorin's place.
The explanation was that Chigorin had shown some kind of animosity against
Prince Dadian in the press. The exact nature of this offense seems unclear:
these articles were promised to be published to justify the exclusion of Chigorin,
but I don't know where that happened. (I suspect the original 'offense' was in
some Russian chess column or journal, as all accounts I've seen are similarly
hazy on just what caused this unexpected expulsion.) It is odd, though, that
Dadian's complaint seemed to go back for a long time, eprhaps even a couple of
years, yet it was not until the very last second that it was publicly announced
in this rather astonishing manner. (Or was he not appointed president until the
very last moment?)
American Chess Weekly, on which I partly rely for this, does not seem to have
anything but gossip to go on, and Chigorin is there depicted as a rather
unfair critic, despite the lack of facts. Chigorin seems to have received
1500 francs as (complete?) reimbursement for his travel costs, though.
I recall reading about other players who became personae non gratae (?)
with the worthy Prince, but as I can't find the sources again, I better leave
them out.
(There seems to have been a lot of animosity around those days: Janowski
didn't want to participate because de Riviere managed the tournament, Gunsberg
was not invited due to his criticism of the plan to score drawn games as 0,
and Alapin was also on the list of people best left uninvited, as he had been
the previous year. Gunsberg's criticism seems to have been taken to heart, though:
drawn games were actually counted as half a point.)
We lost a number of game scores here: Chigorin against Tarrasch, Pillsbury,
Schlechter and Maroczy, to mention only the most important players.
--
Anders Thulin a...@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath
Charles Blair
>Prince Dadian (president of the
>tournament committee) refused to remain president unless Chigorin was excluded.
>Wolf took his place instead. Odd that: this is the tournament in which the
>well-known Colonel Moreau appears, sometimes said to be a replacement for
>some player who could not attend. I wonder who that could be, if Wolf took
>Chigorin's place.
In GUINESS CHESS: THE RECORDS, K Whyld claims that Colonel was a last
minute (0-14?) substitute for Chigorin. Marshall gives his victory against
Moreau in his games collection.
Anders Thulin
> In GUINESS CHESS: THE RECORDS, K Whyld claims that Colonel was a last
> minute (0-14?) substitute for Chigorin.
Interesting. American Chess Weekly, 1903, Special Series 1 (April 29th, 1903),
p. 2, says Wolf replaced Chigorin. No word about Moreau being a substitute, at
least not in that particular issue. According to ACW the information is taken
from an account which would appear in a British periodical, and so probably be a
translation of an official explanation.
Tidskrift för Schack, 1903:3 (March), agrees about Wolf. TfS is probably not a
primary source, though -- I would guess they got their material either from one
of the German players in Monte Carlo, or from a German source (say, DW or a
newspaper column).
BCM, 1903 p. 160, says Moreau was the substitute. (A quick glance through the
volume does not confirm that this was the British periodical that the account
in ACW refers to. Odd.)
WSZ does not seem to say anything about it, but Marco probably had more important
things on his mind. I wonder what the German, French and Monegasqian press said.
Moreau makes better sense as a last-minute substitute than Wolf, I admit -- Wolf
was at least among the invited players according to BCM. Yet it seems odd
to get the names *that* wrong in an official communication.
Anders Thulin
> Let me suggest L. Nardus for this list.
von Kolisch is perhaps another: several special prizes at
tournaments, and lots of support to local chess life and
at least two major tournaments in Vienna.
Jeremy Spinrad
benefactors (Cochrane would also deserve to be in such a list for his large
donations to London 1851; 20 pounds of his own plus 100 pounds collected from his
chess club in India, easily the largest donations), but instead those who had a
strange "twist" in that they used their money to influence chess in an unusual
way. Nardus perhaps counts in that Janowski got more title shots than he
otherwise would have purely due to Nardus' support, but this still is close to
the standard notion of chess supporter.
Jerry Spinrad
Dan Scoones
wrote:
>Actually, I am not really trying to discuss these more "standard" chess
>benefactors (Cochrane would also deserve to be in such a list for his large
>donations to London 1851; 20 pounds of his own plus 100 pounds collected from his
>chess club in India, easily the largest donations), but instead those who had a
>strange "twist" in that they used their money to influence chess in an unusual
>way. Nardus perhaps counts in that Janowski got more title shots than he
>otherwise would have purely due to Nardus' support, but this still is close to
>the standard notion of chess supporter.
>
>Jerry Spinrad
How about Jim Slater, whose timely $125,000 contribution ensured that
the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match actually took place?
By the way, Mingrelia is a former principality in the western part of
Georgia (Gruzija), which is itself a former Soviet republic.
Dan
Chapman billy
investor in a Slater tip is frequently parted from his money); taking
money off him was, and is, morally equivalent to taking it from FIDE's
"Curse'em I'llKill'emOff".
Simon.
Jeremy Spinrad
Kirsan are somewhat remarkable. Both were leaders of small regions on the
southern fringes of Russia, and used their wealth to influence chess in strange
ways. Each had a serious dispute leading to the banning of the leading Russian
chess player of their day from a major event under their control. Both appeared
briefly as political actors on the world stage (Dadian proposed during a Balkan
peace conference as possible king of Bulgaria, Kirsan for the murder of a
journalist and briefly floating his name for president of Russia) before
retreating to the smaller realms of chess and their own tiny regions. Perhaps the
Buddhist Kirsan imagines himself as the reincarnation of Dadian, one century
later? Wish he had chosen a better role model!
I had not realized that Rice also had political influence. He was one of the
founding editors of The Forum, where his brother was a muckraking journalist.
Rice also was important in the first United States submarine program, and was a
bigger figure in his time than I realized. Somehow, it seems natural that these
people who tried to use their money to influence chess-related matters should all
be involved heavily in politics, and used to subtle methods for exerting
influence.
Haven't researched the chess yet. I believe there are some games played by Rice
in one of my books (this is from memory); I will post one if I can find it. Are
there any games of Kirsan's? On Dadian, there are many games; I don't know how to
check their authenticity, given his history.
Jerry Spinrad
Jeremy Spinrad
several games of Dadian as well, but since those are of dubious origin I won't
post them here. Rice wins with his gambit here; sorry about the descriptive
notation. The opponent is not given, which was much more common in the old days.
1 P-K4 P-K4
2 P-KB4 PxP
3 N-KB3 P-KN4
4 P-KR4 P-N5
5 N-K5 N-KB3
6 B-B4 P-Q4
7 PxP B-Q3
8 O-O BxN
9 R-K1 Q-K2
10 P-B3 P-N6
11 P-Q4 N-K5
12 N-Q2 QxRP
13 N-B3 Q-R3
14 Q-R4+ P-B3
15 Q-R3 N-B7
16 RxB+ B-K3
17 K-B1 Q-R8+
18 N-K1 N-R6
19 PxN P-B6
20B-KN5 Q-N7+
21K-K1 P-B7+
22 K-Q2 P-B8(N)+
23 K-Q3 K-Q2
24 PxB+ K-B2
25 Q-K7+ K-N3
26 Q-Q8+ RxQ
27 BxQ mate
A wild game, certainly, and fun to play over. Some Dadian gamescoeres are great,
as well; I can post if desired. Any information, positive or negative, on
Kirsan's chess would be welcome.
Jerry Spinrad