Alekhine's Nazi Articles - Pariser Zeitung 1941
Gilbert Palmer
Some of you may know that in 1941 in occupied France the
newspaper Pariser Zeitung published a series of articles
dealing with the history of chess from a racial point of
view – these articles were credited to Alexander Alekhine
the then World Chess Champion.
The articles (which I have not seen at first hand – I must
stress that) allegedly criticise Jewish players for
defensive ‘speculative’ chess while – well I won’t give the
details because it was nonsense anyway.
After the War Alekhine was refused entry into the “Victory
Tournament” held in London on the basis of the chess
establishment being outraged over the above named articles.
Alekhine I believe denied being the author of these although
he was also (I believe) quoted as saying that he was
‘obliged’ to write them.
In 1956 Alekhine’s last wife Grace Alekhine died and ONE of
these articles was allegedly found among her effects written
in Alekhine’s own hand. I say allegedly because in 1968 Le
Monier cast doubt on the authenticity of these texts.
However these was a twist, some years later Pablo Morán a
highly respected Spanish chess journalist and author added
to the debate when he uncovered the following information:
On the 3rd September 1941 two Spanish publications printed
interviews with Alekhine. In the newspaper El Alcázar the
Champion spoke with pride of his articles in the Pariser
Zeitung and he even presumed himself to be the first person
“to have studied chess from a racial point of view”. To the
journalist Valentín González in the publication
“Informaciones” Alekhine said that he “had just finished a
study on the diversity of chess as practiced by Aryans and
Jews.” In response to the question “Which player do you
most admire?” Alekhine answered “Glorious Capablanca who
took the world crown from the Jew Lasker.”
Has anyone got copies of these articles published Pariser
Zeitung (even if in German or French) or of the interviews
in Spain (in Spanish) ?
I would like to see them for myself.
I only have the above information from one source - any
information confirming the above would be of interest.
Gilbert Lev Palmersteinbloom (aka Gilbert Palmer)
(Well….. I am willing to try anything to get better at
chess – and as far as I can tell Jewish players have pretty
much dominated World Chess since Steinitz’ time – it is
worth a try.)
Phil Innes
>
> ALEKHINE’S NAZI ARTICLES
> In 1956 Alekhine’s last wife Grace Alekhine died and ONE of
> these articles was allegedly found among her effects written
> in Alekhine’s own hand. I say allegedly because in 1968 Le
> Monier cast doubt on the authenticity of these texts.
Ho Hum. It would depend on what the doubt was cast. They do appear to be in
his own hand! Question: why did she keep them around the house? However, they
are so different from his other writing that they appear to be a parody in comparison.
> Zeitung (even if in German or French) or of the interviews
> in Spain (in Spanish) ?
>
The Zeitung articles were reprinted in Chess, in English - I assume that the
BCF have records in their archives. The author of Club Dumas is a journhalist
from Madrid, who has also written a chess title - I suggest this person as a
source of Spanish material.
> (Well….. I am willing to try anything to get better at
> chess – and as far as I can tell Jewish players have pretty
> much dominated World Chess since Steinitz’ time – it is
> worth a try.)
There is, of course, evidence of Alekhine being troubled when he managed to
insult his Jewish chess friend by his horsey humour and practical jokes.
Philip Delaquess
> Gilbert Lev Palmersteinbloom (aka Gilbert Palmer)
>
> (Well….. I am willing to try anything to get better at
> chess – and as far as I can tell Jewish players have pretty
> much dominated World Chess since Steinitz’ time – it is
> worth a try.)
This reminds me of a headline in The Onion, the satirical newspaper:
"Local Jew Feels Left Out of International Jewish Conspiracy."
Philip. :-)
hy...@tamu.edu
"Gilbert Palmer" <gilb...@virgin.net> writes:
> ALEKHINE’S NAZI ARTICLES
>
> Has anyone got copies of these articles published Pariser
> Zeitung (even if in German or French) or of the interviews
> in Spain (in Spanish) ?
If you have access to a library you can find
English translations in a chess book by Horowitz
and Rothenburg. I regret to say that I cannot
recall the title (my copy is 2000 miles away)
but I don't think Horowitz and Rothenburg wrote
many chess books together.
Alekhine may well have written them, but he could
hardly have believed a word of it.
William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
cha...@my-dejanews.com
hy...@tamu.edu () wrote:
> In article <7guaod$7cd$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>,
> "Gilbert Palmer" <gilb...@virgin.net> writes:
> > ALEKHINE’S NAZI ARTICLES
> >
>
> > Has anyone got copies of these articles published Pariser
> > Zeitung (even if in German or French) or of the interviews
> > in Spain (in Spanish) ?
>
> If you have access to a library you can find
> English translations in a chess book by Horowitz
> and Rothenburg. I regret to say that I cannot
> recall the title (my copy is 2000 miles away)
The Personality of Chess.
> but I don't think Horowitz and Rothenburg wrote
> many chess books together.
>
> Alekhine may well have written them, but he could
> hardly have believed a word of it.
I'm a big Alekhine fan, but having said that: I've known a few talented and
otherwise intelligent people in my day who have been obsessed by some pretty
irrational ideas. Do you think that the content of Alekhine's alleged
articles were any more astonishing than Fischer's recent statements? If you
take into account the fact that Alekhine had a pronounced fondness for
alcohol, I could easily imagine him getting loaded one night and writing a
bunch of nasty, bigoted commentaries about his rivals. Or maybe Alekhine
just caved in to pressure and wrote the articles because the Nazis told him
to.
It would be nice if geniuses could always be admired for their personal
character as well as their intellectual accomplishments, but I'm not terribly
surprised when this is not possible.
> William Hyde
> Dept of Oceanography
> Texas A&M University
> hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
Charles
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jean Fontaine
> English translations in a chess book by Horowitz
> and Rothenburg.
It's in "The Complete Book of Chess" by I.A. Horowitz and P.L. Rothenberg
(I have the Collier 1969 edition. It was originally published as "The
Personality of Chess", MacMillan 1963). There's a chapter about the
Alekhine articles with the translations. There's also a section where the
authors discuss "ethnic influences" in chess.
hy...@tamu.edu
cha...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>>
>> Alekhine may well have written them, but he could
>> hardly have believed a word of it.
>
> I'm a big Alekhine fan, but having said that: I've known a few talented and
> otherwise intelligent people in my day who have been obsessed by some pretty
> irrational ideas. Do you think that the content of Alekhine's alleged
> articles were any more astonishing than Fischer's recent statements?
Absolutely. We've known for over a decade that Fischer
was insane on this subject. His first recorded silly
comments about Jews go back to the early 1960s. Before
the war Alekhine said nothing remotely similar to his
articles. In fact he was a great admirer of Lasker.
Alekhine simply knew too much chess to think of Lasker as
a passive, defensive, player as opposed to the aryan
attacker Capablanca. It's not so much that the articles
are too nazi or too anti-semitic for Alekhine as that they
are just too stupid for him to take seriously.
If you
> take into account the fact that Alekhine had a pronounced fondness for
> alcohol, I could easily imagine him getting loaded one night and writing a
> bunch of nasty, bigoted commentaries about his rivals.
In which case Capa should have taken the heat, not Lasker.
Anyway, most of the players he was talking about were
dead.
Or maybe Alekhine
> just caved in to pressure and wrote the articles because the Nazis told him
> to.
Well exactly. But that does not mean he had to be stupid
enough to believe them, and I'm positive he didn't.
I'm not saying he was too nice a guy to write the
articles, just that he was too smart to believe the
tripe in them.
I'd like to know whether the surviving copy in his own
handwriting is word for word the same as the published
version, or whether the editor added some of the sillier
comparisons in the articles.
Adamski
<gilb...@virgin.net> writes
> ALEKHINE’S NAZI ARTICLES
>
>newspaper Pariser Zeitung published a series of articles
>dealing with the history of chess from a racial point of
>view – these articles were credited to Alexander Alekhine
>the then World Chess Champion.
>
>The articles (which I have not seen at first hand – I must
>stress that) allegedly criticise Jewish players for
>defensive ‘speculative’ chess while – well I won’t give the
>details because it was nonsense anyway.
>
>After the War Alekhine was refused entry into the “Victory
>Tournament” held in London on the basis of the chess
>establishment being outraged over the above named articles.
Probably the same people who applauded 'peace in our time'.
>Alekhine I believe denied being the author of these although
>he was also (I believe) quoted as saying that he was
>‘obliged’ to write them.
Alekhine should have said, "Yes, I am the man responsible.
Just think, I should have gone to America in the 1930's. I
could have been eminent by now, I might have had a string of
abortion clinics. Or even took my chances in the Soviet Union.
A laudatory telegram to Comrade Stalin would have sufficed.
Gentlemen, don't you see? It's not the correctness of your play
that counts, but rather on whether your side wins or loses."
>In 1956 Alekhine’s last wife Grace Alekhine died and ONE of
>these articles was allegedly found among her effects written
>in Alekhine’s own hand. I say allegedly because in 1968 Le
>Monier cast doubt on the authenticity of these texts.
Le Monnier?
>
>Has anyone got copies of these articles published Pariser
>Zeitung (even if in German or French) or of the interviews
>in Spain (in Spanish) ?
>
>I would like to see them for myself.
>
>I only have the above information from one source
It would rather depend upon what that source was, wouldn't it?
Which reminds me that I just came across a copy of Winter's
new book, in spite of Hanon Russell. You know I wrote him a very
nice email, 'oh please tell me how I can procure a copy of KCK, and
while you're at it, what is your response to Neat's merciless criticism
of your translation of the Tal book?' kind of thing.
I must have offended that bearded bastard since he couldn't be
bothered to reply. The book's good, though I've seen the majority
of it before.
As you have the new BCM (I give Saunders say 6 months to turn the
magazine around) have they published Winter's answer to the
'groundless attack' perpetrated upon him last month?
> - any
>information confirming the above would be of interest.
>
>Gilbert Lev Palmersteinbloom (aka Gilbert Palmer)
>
>(Well….. I am willing to try anything to get better at
>chess – and as far as I can tell Jewish players have pretty
>much dominated World Chess since Steinitz’ time – it is
>worth a try.)
>
BTW I haven't been able to get on that Lasker thing. So if
Lasker says that chess is a tribute to the greatness of
the white race then that's OK is it?
>
Charles Blair
a boycott of the German team at the 1939 Olympiad, and served as an
interpreter in the French army before its surrender. Although he played
in a lot of Nazi-sponsored tournaments, he doesn't seem to have been
treated particularly lavishly.
The impression I get is of someone without deeply held beliefs who
was willing to try to ingratiate whoever happened to be in power.
My guess is Alekhine wrote the articles, but mainly for money.
He describes an incident in which he exchanged ethnic slurs with
Nimzovich at a tournament, but, as far as I know, Nimzovich was never
hostile to Alekhine in his writings.
Andres Valverde
<gilb...@virgin.net> wrote:
Dear Gilbert,
>
>On the 3rd September 1941 two Spanish publications printed
>interviews with Alekhine. In the newspaper El Alcázar the
>Champion spoke with pride of his articles in the Pariser
>Zeitung and he even presumed himself to be the first person
>“to have studied chess from a racial point of view”. To the
>journalist Valentín González in the publication
>“Informaciones” Alekhine said that he “had just finished a
>study on the diversity of chess as practiced by Aryans and
>Jews.” In response to the question “Which player do you
>most admire?” Alekhine answered “Glorious Capablanca who
>took the world crown from the Jew Lasker.”
>
>Has anyone got copies of these articles published Pariser
>Zeitung (even if in German or French) or of the interviews
>in Spain (in Spanish) ?
>
>I would like to see them for myself.
I don't know anything on this matter, but let me express my opinion.
In 1941 Spanish newspapers was highly in the Franco govern hands
(Hitler and Mussolini partner), mostly "Alcazar", only two years ago
from the Spanish Civil war, and you may put anything from them in a
reasonable doubt
Logically, the journalists had to hear about the Alekhine's articles ,
and could write the interviews "ad hoc" themselves.
Alekhine was in Almeria, South of Spain, my town, this year, and
played in the city chess club. There are still players alive who play
against him. Everybody says it seems to an excellent gentleman.
Saludos, Andres Valverde
Renegade Knight
>>> Alekhine may well have written them, but he could
>>> hardly have believed a word of it.
1) Alekhine did not write any of the articles
2) Alekhine wrote the original articles, but they were altered by
someone else and given a nazi bias
3) Alekhine wrote the articles under duress, but did not truly believe
them
4) Alekhine wrote the articles, and believed in them
Being an Alekhine fan, and having read much from various sources, I
beleive that only Alekhine could have written (at least the outline
of) the articles. Personally, I believe he wrote them under duress.
The question is how much of what was written did Alekhine truly
beleive?
I think that he beleived that many of his contemporaries played
'defensively' and possibly held a disdain for this type of play in
favour of aggressive play. Possibly he believed that defensive play
was a more predominat trend in Jewish players. Of course Alekhine
himself had to play more defensively to win the title from
Capablanca... so certainly as a great chess player must have some
respect for the style. And even with his falling out with Capa, I'm
sure he still held a great respect (and maybe a little fear) of his
abilities... as well as Lasker's... and possibly Speilman's.
I think the 'Aggressive play is good... and is Aryian' and 'Defensive
play is bad... and is Jewish' may have come from a very small seed of
what Alekhine believed... but was blown *greatly* out of porportion
either by Alekhine himself purely as a political play in order to
appease the Nazis and obtain relief for his Wife and her property in
Nazi controlled France, or was extrapolated by a Nazi propaganda
editor to meet the requirements of the Reich.
>> I'm a big Alekhine fan, but having said that: I've known a few talented and
>> otherwise intelligent people in my day who have been obsessed by some pretty
I wouldn't say Alekhine 'obsessed'. There's some indication that he
may have shown some small degrees of racism on occasion, but apart
from the alleged articles, nothing overt.
>> irrational ideas. Do you think that the content of Alekhine's alleged
>> articles were any more astonishing than Fischer's recent statements?
Not even close!!! Even if Alekhine wrote and believed what he wrote
on the articles, it really doesn't say much more than "Jewish players
play defensivley... and I don't that that is good for Chess... and it
lacks creativity"
Fischer, by contrast, is saying that the "Jews control the world", and
"they are out to get me", and "they are cheats, and misers, and
criminals, and untrustworthy and should be shot"... as well as a lot
more hate mongering.
The two are not comparable.
> the war Alekhine said nothing remotely similar to his
> articles. In fact he was a great admirer of Lasker.
Though, I can see him taking offense with Steinitz's play.
> Alekhine simply knew too much chess to think of Lasker as
> a passive, defensive, player as opposed to the aryan
> attacker Capablanca. It's not so much that the articles
> are too nazi or too anti-semitic for Alekhine as that they
> are just too stupid for him to take seriously.
Actually, Alekhine allegedly said that Capablanca and his 'aryan'
style was influenced when he came to America (to be educated) and
therefore adopted the 'Jewish' style of play rather than Aryan... I
find this particulariy hard to believe that Alekhine could truly have
thought that.
>> take into account the fact that Alekhine had a pronounced fondness for
>> alcohol, I could easily imagine him getting loaded one night and writing a
>> bunch of nasty, bigoted commentaries about his rivals.
No, as bitter as he was at time, and as drunk as he got, I don't
think the articles (which, apart from their Nazi slant are otherwise
pretty well written) where written when he was smashed out of his
gourd.
> Or maybe Alekhine
>> just caved in to pressure and wrote the articles because the Nazis told him
I think we often underestimate the 'pressure' that the Nazis were able
to exert on the people they repressed. When we talk about 'pressure'
today it's about giving in or being persuaded to 'fit in' or be
ostracised. The type of 'pressure' the Nazis exerted was to comply...
or find all of your property and possessions confiscated... your wife
or family members 'detained' indefinetly and facing inhumane
conditions in detenction camps (rape, abuse, starvation, death) and
yourself looking at similar prospects. Worst of all for Alekhine,
that would mean no more chess.
Rolf Tueschen
<3733b24a...@news.golden.net>:
>Not necessarily. There are a few scenerios:
>1) Alekhine did not write any of the articles
>2) Alekhine wrote the original articles, but they were altered by
>someone else and given a nazi bias
>3) Alekhine wrote the articles under duress, but did not truly believe
>them
>4) Alekhine wrote the articles, and believed in them
Let me make a little suggestion. In history we always have that same
argument. Whether or not a piece of evidence is "true".
My impression with Alekhine is that we have enough evidence apart from
the so-called Nazi articles, that we can surely say that Alekhine was a
sympathisant of the Nazis. That said, it's absolutely nonsense to
believe in sort of enforcement, duress or such terms.
Let me give you two simple facts.
(1)
Why in hell did Alekhine play consultation chess with the Nazi
blood-hound in Poland Dr Frank??
(2)
If Alekhine had nothing special to do with the Nazis, why in hell did he
sit in the hotel in Portugal completely lost and without hope to ever
have a match with Botvinnik? Isn't it clear that Alekhine went too far
with his colaboration with the Nazi regime?
That said, I do NOT deny that Alekhine might have been a great gentleman
and personally without blood on his hands. Further, I also don't deny
that Alekhine like all human beings might have stood under some
(imagined?) group pressure. It is not the case that one should regard
Alekhine sort of top Nazi criminal. All that said, there is still a
great deal of guilt.
The so-called Alekhine trap in science
===============================
Two years ago I wrote a post about this topic. For me Alekhine is a
classic example for this sort of confusion among intellectuals. The
whole topic again is a mix-up of individual and group aspects.
First of all. Why in hell does a chess genius believe that he had
something valuable to say in politics? Almost by force such a genius,
especially as a Wch, has no time to even study the necessary data to
make decent conclusions.
But there is always also the group pressure under which the individual
must live. Until now a balanced study about Alekhine's disgustful and
brown-nosing elaborations about Aryan chess vs. Jewish chess has not
been made. Of course it might have been the case that Alekhine had a
personal bias against certain chessplayers and styles, and in a Nazi
environment he was almost infected by the common idiocies and
propaganda. This might have been a possible fact. Because, like all the
Alekhine fans, I simply can't believe that this almost scientifical
researcher in his chess books should suddenly follow such nonsense.
But here we have a classic example for so-called fach-idiots. It's a
pity that the following truth is so little spread among the educated
population.
You might be a genius in your special field, but that doesn't lead you
to deeper insight in foreign fields. If you want a genius in his special
field is a layman like everybody in other fields. Now think of the human
tendency to believe in status and reputation. We all believe that some
so and so expert might also have deeper knowledge in all other fields.
Otherwise -- we do think -- wouldn't he hold his mouth shut, if he knew
nothing special in those fields? Well, this is the typical preposition,
or inexperience of laymen and women in the psychology of man.
We must realize that only after a long scientifical education we learn
to refrain from all kind of magic hyperbole and impostordom. But even
scientists are not complete saints in that respect. Otherwise why do
they support all the hype with titles and awards at all?
Just to give you another example for my "Alekhine trap". You could well
take EWinstein himself as a good example. His participation, no, primary
responsibility in the question of the Atomic Bomb, is well known. And,
as if he had never learnt about certain automatisms in politics and
human affaires, he suddenly tried to turn around the wheel, as if that
could be possible in a few minutes. Wouldn't it have been better if the
deep thinker Einstein would have made all the arguments pro and contra
in advance?? Why was he unable to think about possible contra reasons
for the Bomb? -- Just a little example to think about.
Moral
Scientist and all sort of experts should think twice before they engage
in questions outside their main domain. But if the take positions they
must realize that they will be taken to task if they talked nonsense.
(When I saw that famous photo of the dead Alekhine, it almost tore my
heart in pieces, because I saw a man who might have understood what he
had done wrong, and that he had to pay the price. And since he was the
Wch, and he couldn't imagine a life outside chess, perhaps also he saw
some friends dissapear in the distance, he gave back his title and
_life_ -- like Hitler freed all Nazis from their oath on Hitler by
committing suicide...)
Perhaps it's a good experience for us if we learn to seperate the
different aspects of human life. Alekhine's mastership in chess and
chess analysis will live on forever, and his evil doings in nazi Germany
should remind us all to learn our lessons in humanity. Because, do we
know for sure, what we had done under the pressure of a dictatorial
system?
So, it would be a real mistake to discuss the Alekhine trap only under
the aspect of winners and losers of a war. It wouldn't give Alekhine
credit because too many scientists, artists, sportsmen with much more
blood on their hands survived as so-called "losers" WWII.
Do we really know from what a high level Alekhine saw his own guilt?
Perhaps we will once learn the details and then understand that Alekhine
had more honor in his little finger than all the named people who tried
to live on without honest confessions -- with all the blood on their
hands!
>Being an Alekhine fan, and having read much from various sources,
[snipped]
Gilbert Palmer
>In article <7guaod$7cd$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>,
Gilbert Palmer
><gilb...@virgin.net> writes
Dear Lord Adamski,
Your Highness would not believe the pleasure that it gave me
to see that your Worshipness had deigned to reply to a
thread
which I, a humble commoner (who knows his place) had
instigated. A reply from President Mig himself would not
have cause such excitement in the Plamersteinbloom
household.
Oy vey, that I have printed your Esteemedness' words out
onto glossy paper
your Magnificence can take as read, and they will be framed
on the morrow at Kwik-Frame in the High Street. You have no
idea how 'chuffed' Gilbert is.
(Much crap from commoner Palmer snipped)
>BTW I haven't been able to get on that Lasker thing. So if
>Lasker says that chess is a tribute to the greatness of
>the white race then that's OK is it?
I have expressed before I would find is
gratifying simply to know that your Quickwittedness
were there lurking, ermine-clad, stroking your black cat
reading our words.
In order that you may facilitate the lurking your Grace is
un-conditionally requested to send an E-mail to the
following address las...@listbot.com
to be counted in on all that we, mere
mortals (and admittedly more Americans than you probably
approve of) discuss on the matter of Lasker's Manual.
Of late a few of us have gained considerably insight into
chess
by being able to mate with knight and bishop (even against
Fritz 5.32!), a
task that we acknowledge your Ermincladidness would have
little difficult
in accomplishing even if he were facing the bold Fischer
type
warty person.
Oh yes, while we may have a soft spot for that Lasker
fellow, we
are aware that your Grace places above all others the B
that is Fischer, and in many respects we share his lofty
views on matter chessical bar this one. In other words
some of us are pretty much stuck on the old geezer with
the moustache rather than the one with warts and no
fillings.
I remain humbly yours
Plain Commoner Gilbert Peregrine Palmer Esq.
An Adamaski Fan
P.S. Thanks to everyone that replied, I now have (thanks to
private E-mail) all the information I require to come to the
conclusion that Alekhine, for all his faults, was perhaps
the SECOND greatest chessplayer of all time.
Gilbert Palmer
Andres Valverde wrote in message
<37336a09...@news.redestb.es>...
>Dear Gilbert,
>I don't know anything on this matter, but let me express my
opinion.
>In 1941 Spanish newspapers was highly in the Franco govern
hands
>(Hitler and Mussolini partner), mostly "Alcazar", only two
years ago
>from the Spanish Civil war, and you may put anything from
them in a
>reasonable doubt
Ya lo sé, aunque yo no vivía en España durante el tiempo de
Franco
mucha gente me ha dicho que era de 'otra mundo'.
>
>Logically, the journalists had to hear about the Alekhine's
articles ,
>and could write the interviews "ad hoc" themselves.
>
>Alekhine was in Almeria, South of Spain, my town, this
year, and
>played in the city chess club. There are still players
alive who play
>against him. Everybody says it seems to an excellent
gentleman.
Yo estoy de acuerdo, a mí me gusta mucho el ajedrez de
Alekhine (¡Que jugador!), no me importa para nada sus
'deslices' .
>Saludos, Andres Valverde
Un abrazo.
Gilbert Palmer
Un afficionado al ajedrez.
George Szaszvari
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de` says...
<snip>..
>If Alekhine had nothing special to do with the Nazis, why in hell did he
>sit in the hotel in Portugal completely lost and without hope to ever
>have a match with Botvinnik? Isn't it clear that Alekhine went too far
>with his colaboration with the Nazi regime?
Isn't it well-known that Alekhine was all set to meet Botvinnik
in a match, rather than having no hope of such a match? Wasn't
it all set to go ahead via the auspices of the British? The
Soviets didn't seem to have any qualms about their representative,
Botvinnik, playing the world champion [collaborator or not] to
gain the title.
--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Rolf Tueschen
<7h1i9a$n82$1...@lure.pipex.net>:
>In article <7h1bjq$tfg$1...@news06.btx.dtag.de>,
>TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de` says...
><snip>..
>>If Alekhine had nothing special to do with the Nazis, why in hell did he
>>sit in the hotel in Portugal completely lost and without hope to ever
>>have a match with Botvinnik? Isn't it clear that Alekhine went too far
>>with his colaboration with the Nazi regime?
>Isn't it well-known that Alekhine was all set to meet Botvinnik
>in a match, rather than having no hope of such a match?
In the books I read this was never mentioned this way. So, ülease give
more evidence.
>Wasn't
>it all set to go ahead via the auspices of the British?
Well, again, you should show the new evidence.
>The
>Soviets didn't seem to have any qualms about their representative,
>Botvinnik, playing the world champion [collaborator or not] to
>gain the title.
Is his private opinion, or hard fact? I so, then please give the
evidence.
I can only summarize that it's always good to hear new facts.
But basically I must say that the point you commented on was not the
main point for my view of Alekhine's guilt of collaboration with the
Nazis. I think I read my description of Alekhine's position in Portugal
in KOTOV or the book with Alekhine's last games in Spain and Potugal.
Who was the author? I can only remember the color of the cover, it was
red. and the author was not a Soviet, to be clear about it.
The other possibility was that I read it in some mag. Either DSZ or
Europa Rochade.
And finally I remember that we had already some exchanges in the past.
Please do note that I didn't defame Alekhine or I didn't intend to play
the ever so clever after-born innocent. It was mainly the conflicts of
such a genius and his faults that interested me. I hope that you can
tolerate the -- agreed rather incomplete -- tries to do some analysis.
If you can present facts that speak for Alekhine (especially in the Dr
Frank episodes) then I will be quickly with you on your paths and
positions. Until now however I saw no decent explanation for that
"crime" or at least disgustful action. For me the chessplayer Alekhine
itself was never deminored by his political nonsense and misbehavior.
The point is that I wouldn't even mention all that if so many people did
NOT always try to exculpate Alekhine as if he had done nothing wrong.
While the mass murder was going on in the Nazi KZs in Poland and while
the Polish elite had been murdered, it was a very bad signal from
Alekhine to play consult. chess with the nazi Governor Dr Frank.
Rolf Tueschen
>Gilbert Palmer wrote:
>>
>> ALEKHINE’S NAZI ARTICLES
>> In 1956 Alekhine’s last wife Grace Alekhine died and ONE of
>> these articles was allegedly found among her effects written
>> in Alekhine’s own hand. I say allegedly because in 1968 Le
>> Monier cast doubt on the authenticity of these texts.
>Ho Hum. It would depend on what the doubt was cast. They do appear to be in
>his own hand! Question: why did she keep them around the house? However, they
>are so different from his other writing that they appear to be a parody in comparison.
Yes, that could be a decent position in our topic. But it doesn't fly.
Simply because Alekhine did many disgustful things at the time. And you
can't interprete his playing with Dr Frank in the Nazi-occupyed Poland
as a sort of parody.
Renegade Knight
> According to the Oxford Companion, Alekhine led the French team in
>a boycott of the German team at the 1939 Olympiad, and served as an
>interpreter in the French army before its surrender. Although he played
>in a lot of Nazi-sponsored tournaments, he doesn't seem to have been
>treated particularly lavishly.
loyalities were probably called into question on numerous occasions.
Most likely it was the high ranking Nazi Dr. Frank with an
appreciation for chess who saved Alekhine's but more than once.
Still... Alekhine had to have been walking a fine line.
This being the case, it's not at all inconceivable to me that on one
such occasion (where his loyality was being questioned) he was asked
to prove 'where he stood' by writing the articles. The Nazi's were
well aware that chess was the most important thing in Alekhine's
life... and also that such articles would alienate him from the rest
of the chess world.
If this is what happened, then it must have been a huge tragedy and
burden upon Alekhine... and perhaps the beginning of the end.
Renegade Knight
>>Isn't it well-known that Alekhine was all set to meet Botvinnik
>>in a match, rather than having no hope of such a match?
>
>In the books I read this was never mentioned this way. So, ülease give
>more evidence.
Yes, it is very well known that an Alekhine-Botvinnik match had been
arranaged just before Alekhine's untimely demise. This match would
have been a great battle, restored Alekhine's wealth, and probably
acted as his visa back into the chess community.
In fact, Alekhine had begun analysis and preperation for the match and
was said to have had a 'secret weapon' prepared which would 'startle
the world'... which is now lost forever.
One such source concerning the match, is the very authorative "A.
Alekhine - Agony of A Chess Genius" by Pablo Moran. Page 276 even
contain part of the letter sent by Michael Botvinnik on February 4th,
1946. Here is an excerpt:
----
World Championship.
Mr. A. Alekhine!
I regret that the war prevented the organisation of our match in 1939.
But I herewithh again challenge you to a match for the world's chess
championship. If you agree, a person authorised by myself and the
Moscow Chess Club will conduct negotiations with you or your
representative on the quesiton of conditions, date, and the place
where the match should be held, preferably through the British Chess
Federation. I await your answer, in which I also ask you to stat your
ideas about the date and place of the match. I beg you to send a
telegraphic reply, with subsequent postal confirmation, to the Moscow
Chess Club"
Phil Innes
More Ho-Hum I don't know, Rolf. We have had this duscussion before - and true!
I did not want him to be callous - uncaring - but what qualifies these games
with Frank? Kmoch also has his critics.
Is what we know a best guess and an interpretation? Perhaps he is just amoral.
He is only caring about chess and does not care who he plays with. This would
make him an unfeeling sort of individual.
But this is somewhat at odds with the Zeitinger articles which he wrote to
protect his wife's estate. Or is he only protecting his interst in her money?
What is there to inform us otherwise?
Previously you accused me of carrying on with The Great Satan and said you
would speak with me no more. But you also say that with troubled adolescents,
they should be engaged in conversation. We don't like Larry's methods, do we,
yet we address him.
Should we not expect some contradictory aspects to Alekhine's character. Is
this not as likely? That he fought the German people twice, wrote some
pastiche piece of anti-semiticism, was also attracted by 'greats,' even evil
men, and also sought to protect his wife's estate, and his own chess career?
Why should he be an ironed-out and integrated rational figure for us? (Many
chess precedents? Laugh)
But my interest is otherwise - I want to know not *that* he played with Frank,
but *how* he came to do so, and what it was like.
Phil Innes
Phil Innes
>
> Fethy Po Fyliel An Gwarry Ha Tra Nahen
>
> helmet
>
> Kernow bys vyken
gusson. adafew avee?
Mebyon Kernow mit Alewife Getrinkun?
I ebn Po Fyliel since Lostwithiel.
e rinyou e blinae ffestinog
camurn ill
wheels went round
better sleep in
uncle phil
George Szaszvari
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.deä says...
>In the books I read this was never mentioned this way. So, ülease give
>more evidence.
>>Wasn't
>>it all set to go ahead via the auspices of the British?
>Well, again, you should show the new evidence.
>>The
>>Soviets didn't seem to have any qualms about their representative,
>>Botvinnik, playing the world champion [collaborator or not] to
>>gain the title.
>Is his private opinion, or hard fact? I so, then please give the
>evidence.
>I can only summarize that it's always good to hear new facts.
<snip>..
These days I have very few books about chess in my possession.
In the past I had an extensive library, as well as having
worked for an antiquarian chess book dealer for some years
and was fairly familiar with chess literature until about ten
years ago] so, cannot, unfortunately, quote the sources [and
my posting was in the form of questions mostly for this reason].
I'm just giving you a lead from what I remember reading, and
please note that I'm not discussing anything with you here,
I'm simply suggesting that the onus is on you to do some more
research before making further categorical judgments about
Alekhine, or anything else.
Renegade Knight
>Let me make a little suggestion. In history we always have that same
>argument. Whether or not a piece of evidence is "true".
he was a sympathist, rather than to prove that he wasn't... 'innocent
until proven guilty'?
>My impression with Alekhine is that we have enough evidence apart from
>the so-called Nazi articles, that we can surely say that Alekhine was a
>sympathisant of the Nazis. That said, it's absolutely nonsense to
>believe in sort of enforcement, duress or such terms.
Time to lay the cards on the table. If you've got proof... let's see
it!!!
I'm not debating that Alekhine may have been a bit of a racist (due
consideration should be given to how much 'times have changed')... but
truly a Nazi???
>Let me give you two simple facts.
>(1) Why in hell did Alekhine play consultation chess with the Nazi
>blood-hound in Poland Dr Frank??
Hmmm... well, yeah - one possible explination is that he was a Nazi
sympathizer or... let's see, there could be one... may two... DOZEN
other reasons!!
Along the same lines, why did Fischer play chess with Spasky in
war-torn and sanctioned Yugo? Borrowing from another current thread,
why is the president of FIDE a dictator? Why did players play
Capablanca... a diplomat of Cuba whose human rights policies at the
time could probably be questioned? Why do people buy fur coats... eat
tuna... or at McDonalds? Drive cars the pollute the earth, use
products that are not recycleable, or not donate 50% of their earnings
to the poor and starving?? BUT, my favourite example: Why did the
Chessplayer play chess with the devil (literature is full of similar
themes).
While guilty of some of those trangressions myself, I don't have a
_simple_ answer. In a meek defense of myself (and possibly Alekhine),
I beleive that sometimes, how we decide to see (or not see) the world,
is a 'defense mechanism'... and it is this very mechanism which can
create our perspective... that is perhaps necessary for our survival.
If we consider this with respect to Alekhine... most certainly his
perspective... almost his entire world, was chess. As for
'survival'... well, "Nazi Germany" - need I say more??
>(2)
>If Alekhine had nothing special to do with the Nazis, why in hell did he
>sit in the hotel in Portugal completely lost and without hope to ever
>have a match with Botvinnik? Isn't it clear that Alekhine went too far
>with his colaboration with the Nazi regime?
The quesiton is *not* whether Alekhine had anything to do with the
Nazis - he did. The question is to what extent. What was his role.
And what did he truly believe.
Alekhine was distraught during his last days in Portugal, somewhat
bitter at the hand fate had dealt him, you could say pessimistic.
Hope of getting back the UK, or US seemed slim. He chess career and
ability was in decline. He was living in poverty. He was ostricised
by the community he cared for more. I believe his wife left him. And
he was sick and dying. A match with Botvinnik which would have put
him back in the spotlight, restored his finances, and allowed him
possibly the opportunity to make ammends to the chess community and
entry to the US sounded too good to be true (and who know, he may even
have re-kindled his passion and won). But alas, he was right - it was
to good to be true. Scant days after accepting Botvinnik challenge,
Alekhine died - March 24, 1946.
Is it true that Alekhine went too far with his Nazi collaboration?
The *perception* that he did is what crucified him. Whether he did or
not is the question we're discussing.
>First of all. Why in hell does a chess genius believe that he had
>something valuable to say in politics? Almost by force such a genius,
>especially as a Wch, has no time to even study the necessary data to
>make decent conclusions.
Most certainly not!! And that cad Lasker - what made him think he
could contribute to mathmetics and philisophy? And Staunton?? Should
have kept his nose out of Shakespearean study. (OK, sincerely, Fine
should have stayed out of psychology). Botvinnik? Kasparov??
Tiamanov?? I whole-heartedly agree - they all should have stuck with
Chess (they make the rest of us look bad!!) <BG>
Renegade Knight
>Alekhine should have said, "Yes, I am the man responsible.
>Just think, I should have gone to America in the 1930's. I
>could have been eminent by now, I might have had a string of
>abortion clinics. Or even took my chances in the Soviet Union.
BTW, your analogy between Nazi collaboartion and abortion clinics
stinks like rotten eggs <pun intended>.
Abortion is about choice (regardless of which side of the argument you
take up). Nazi collaboration is about 'no choice' - not only are they
not analogous... they are opposites.
Renegade Knight
>BTW I haven't been able to get on that Lasker thing. So if
>Lasker says that chess is a tribute to the greatness of
>the white race then that's OK is it?
First we smear Alekhine, now Lasker... who's next - Capablanca?
Renegade Knight
>P.S. Thanks to everyone that replied, I now have (thanks to
>private E-mail) all the information I require to come to the
>conclusion that Alekhine, for all his faults, was perhaps
>the SECOND greatest chessplayer of all time.
Capablana.
Now... what this about the "Lasker's Manual of Chess" discussion
group???
helmet
Gilbert Palmer
Renegade Knight <_Reneg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<3734ddf0...@news.golden.net>...
Dear Renegade,
I do not personally (truly and honestly) consider Lasker the
greatest ever, there have been SO many great players and to
place any of them above each other does an injustice to
chess. But we can have our own favourites can't we? He's
one of mine.
Anyway the discussion group is exactly what it says it is.
Gilbert Palmer
A list bot based discussion group for the study of the book.
Adamski
<gilb...@virgin.net> writes
>Adamski wrote in message ...
>>In article <7guaod$7cd$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>,
>Gilbert Palmer
>><gilb...@virgin.net> writes
>
>(Much crap from commoner Palmer snipped)
You appear to have mistakenly snipped my questions and your answers
to them.
>>BTW I haven't been able to get on that Lasker thing. So if
>>Lasker says that chess is a tribute to the greatness of
>>the white race then that's OK is it?
>
>I have expressed before I would find is
>gratifying simply to know that your Quickwittedness
>were there lurking, ermine-clad, stroking your black cat
She ain't black.
>reading our words.
>
>In order that you may facilitate the lurking your Grace is
>un-conditionally requested to send an E-mail to the
>following address las...@listbot.com
And yet:
Your message failed to be delivered.
The following error message was reported:
=====================================================================
You do not appear to be subscribed to that list.
You must be a member of the list in order to send mail
to the list. If you believe you are a member of the
list, then perhaps the e-mail address you sent mail from
does not match the e-mail address we have on file.
If this is the case, then log in to the ListBot system
at http://www.listbot.com/cgi-bin/subscriber and select
the Add E-Mail Aliases option.
=====================================================================
I await instruction.
>to be counted in on all that we, mere
>mortals (and admittedly more Americans than you probably
>approve of)
That truly is a sick country. I really don't want to have to deal
with these people any longer.
> discuss on the matter of Lasker's Manual.
>
>Of late a few of us have gained considerably insight into
>chess
>by being able to mate with knight and bishop (even against
>Fritz 5.32!), a
>task that we acknowledge your Ermincladidness would have
>little difficult
>in accomplishing even if he were facing the bold Fischer
>type
>warty person.
>
>Oh yes, while we may have a soft spot for that Lasker
>fellow, we
>are aware that your Grace places above all others the B
>that is Fischer, and in many respects we share his lofty
>views on matter chessical bar this one. In other words
>some of us are pretty much stuck on the old geezer with
>the moustache rather than the one with warts and no
>fillings.
Lasker's Chess Primer, first paragraph:
"Everyone should know chess, because the mentality and individuality
of the white race has found expression in this game in its modern
development. To try to understand its aspirations and to comprehend
what masters and thinkers have given to mankind is a tribute to the
genius of the white race."
According to one Louis Blair, this book is essentially the same as
one issued under the title Lasker's How to Play Chess. There however
'human' has been substituted for 'white'. A Portman Press reprint of
Lasker's Chess Primer leaves the first two paragraphs out entirely.
It would be illuminating to know when such revisions were made, and
who authorised them.
Recall also Lasker's war-mongering efforts from 1915:
"The shrewd English merchant has grasped the meaning of possessions and
their power in the world; but he has missed the true inwardness of
things, and the rapid evolution of modern times has left him far behind.
He is an egoist towards his fellow countrymen. He will not give the
masses a share in higher things, as he wants to keep them under his sway
as slaves. The Universities of Cambridge and Oxford are reserved for the
sons of the rich. He views with suspicion our people, teeming with
ideas, eager in pursuit of science, and ready to make any sacrifice. Who
among us is not a philosopher? I know not a single German who does not
carry in his bosom something of the spirit of Faust. The morale of the
Germans is not mere theory. Mother, wife, sweetheart, have bidden their
men go forth to battle. It is the genius of Humanity that speaks for
this nation".
>I remain humbly yours
>
>Plain Commoner Gilbert Peregrine Palmer Esq.
>An Adamaski Fan
>
>P.S. Thanks to everyone that replied, I now have (thanks to
>private E-mail) all the information I require to come to the
>conclusion that Alekhine, for all his faults, was perhaps
>the SECOND greatest chessplayer of all time.
>
This won't do, you shouldn't just leave things here.
Time for a definite ( or as Batsford spell it, definitive) Adamski
rehashing:
From British Chess Magazine, Aleksandr Alekhine - in Memoriam
October 1992 p.514-519, Bernard Cafferty.
" The anti-Semitic articles had a chequered history. Their content
became fully available in English only in 1986 when Ken Whyld produced
a brochure with commentary.
There seems no doubt that Alekhine drafted the basic texts of the
articles. It is a legitimate thesis that Steinitz and Lasker introduced
an element of safety-first into game (sic). How many amateurs, such as
Gutmayer, had bewailed the the supposed decline since the days of
Anderssen and Morphy.
[Footnote: The author [Gutmayer] of several books in German which lauded
Morphy and condemned Steinitz, Lasker and Tarrasch for their lack of
flair and dash. Gutmayer, in his turn, was firmly squashed by Reti in
the first (German) edition of 'Modern Ideas in Chess'.]
"How much material Alekhine added, perhaps with a Fascist adviser
sitting at his elbow, must remain a matter of suspicion. He paid the
price for his lack of political judgement when he was ostracised by US
and Continental masters once the war was over.
The notebooks with the articles written by hand were seen amongst
Alekhine's effects in the 1950's when Halberstadt was in charge of them
with a view to selling to a collector or library. Brian Reilly saw them
on a visit to Paris in the 1950's, but was unable to do a complete
textual analysis. He merely held them in his hand and skimmed through
the text. It is believed that the notebooks are now in the possession
of a collector or library and under French law will not come into the
public domain for decades."
In Chess Explorations (E.Winter, Cadogan, 1996 p.248) :
"Pablo Moran sends us copies of two Madrid publications, El Alcazar
and Informaciones, dated 3 September 1941 in which Alekhine gave
interviews. Some extracts from the latter, in our translation:
'What will your promised lectures be about?
About the evolution of chess thought in recent times and the reasons
for this evolution. There would also be a study of the Aryan and Jewish
kinds of chess. Of course I am not satisfied with the direction of
hypermodern chess, which is over-defensive. In German this tactic is
called Uberdeckung, and its rough meaning in Spanish is "to cover again"
rather like wearing two coats, one on the other.
The Portuguese press has spoken of negotiations for a meeting between
you and Capablanca. Is that true?
Not at all; there has only been a letter from me on this to the Cuban
Federation, but we did not come to an agreement. And trips to the United
States or England are out of the question; I am not in favour in those
countries, as a result of some articles I wrote in the German press and
some games I played in Paris during the last winter - against 40
opponents - for the German Army and Winter Relief.
Who is the player you most admire?
All of them. But among them I must stress the greatest glory of
Capablanca, which was to eliminate the Jew Lasker from the world
chess throne.'"
For the next sections I'm indebted to the 'bastard' William (sic) Winter
and material from his new book Kings, Commoners and Knaves (Russell
Enterprises 1999).
Three extracts from the Pariser Zeitung (a Paris paper published by the
occupying German forces) articles 'Aryan and Jewish Chess:
'Do the Jews, as a race, have a gift for chess? After 30 years' chess
experience I would like to answer this question in the following manner:
yes, the Jews have an exceptional talent for exploiting chess, chess
ideas and the practical possibilities that arise. But there has not been
up to now a Jew who was a real chess artist.'
'Just as with Nimzowitsch and his System, so was Reti given a warm
welcome by the majority of Anglo-Jewish pseudo-intellectuals for his
book Die neuen Ideen in Schach (sic)...And this cheap bluff, this
shameless self-publicity, was swallowed without resistance by a chess
world, poisoned by Jewish journalists, which echoed the jubilant cries
of Jews and their friends; "Long live Reti, and long live hypermodern
neoromantic chess".'
'Again in the 1937 return match with Euwe the collective chess Jewry
was aroused. Most of the Jewish masters mentioned in this review
attended as press reporters, trainer and seconds for Euwe. At the
beginning of the second match I could no longer let myself be deceived:
that is, I had to fight not Euwe, but the combined chess Jewry, and in
the event my decisive victory (10:4) was a triumph against the Jewish
conspiracy.'
Winter reports that the articles were reprinted 'though with
considerable textual variants' in the Deutsche Zeitung in den
Niederland and in the Deutsche Schachzeitung. Translations
subsequently appeared in Chess magazine (of the D.S text) and in
Horowitz and Rothenberg's The Personality of Chess.
Among the condemnations of Alekhine which followed, Ossip Bernstein
wrote, 'I refrain from giving further disgusting details about his
behaviour. It could be added that he adopted the Nazi salute "Heil
Hitler" with oustretched arm.'
More rehashed material concerning Alekhine's post-war explanations for
his conduct will appear in a later post. Perhaps tomorrow, I've got to
watch the football now, and later Adamski might find the time to deal
with a little outstanding business from last week....
Gilbert Palmer
>>>BTW I haven't been able to get on that Lasker thing. So
if
>>>Lasker says that chess is a tribute to the greatness of
>>>the white race then that's OK is it?
I dunno, is it? Did he?
>>your Grace is un-conditionally requested to send an E-mail
to the
>>following address las...@listbot.com
>
>And yet:
>
>Your message failed to be delivered.
>The following error message was reported:
>
>===========================================================
==========
>
>You do not appear to be subscribed to that list.
>You must be a member of the list in order to send mail
>to the list. If you believe you are a member of the
>list, then perhaps the e-mail address you sent mail from
>does not match the e-mail address we have on file.
>If this is the case, then log in to the ListBot system
>at http://www.listbot.com/cgi-bin/subscriber and select
>the Add E-Mail Aliases option.
>===========================================================
==========
>
>I await instruction.
I dunno Guv, it appears that you is banned. Pity, you are
missing loads of good stuff. I'll make enquiries. I seem
to be having a bit of trouble posting myself.
>>to be counted in on all that we, mere
>>mortals (and admittedly more Americans than you probably
>>approve of)
>
>That truly is a sick country. I really don't want to have
to deal
>with these people any longer.
Sick country? As some Doctor guy said to me only last week
this is a case of the Kettle calling the pot black. Anyway
is this a quotation? Even if it is not you are quite wrong
old bean, they are no more sick than yOUR lot, Gilbert is
quite enthusiastic about America.
(Snip about warts and various Scrofulous disorders)
>Lasker's Chess Primer, first paragraph:
>
>"Everyone should know chess, because the mentality and
individuality
>of the white race has found expression in this game in its
modern
>development. To try to understand its aspirations and to
comprehend
>what masters and thinkers have given to mankind is a
tribute to the
>genius of the white race."
I used to have this book but it isn't really that useful, I
gave it away in fact. I am not sure I would take the hump
or draw any great conclusions from the above remarks.
>According to one Louis Blair,
An ex-girlfriend?
>this book is essentially the same as
>one issued under the title Lasker's How to Play Chess.
There however
>'human' has been substituted for 'white'. A Portman Press
reprint of
>Lasker's Chess Primer leaves the first two paragraphs out
entirely.
>It would be illuminating to know when such revisions were
made, and
>who authorised them.
Why do people do this? I will NEVER understand, what was
that Geezer's name again? Bowdler that's right - gave birth
to a new verb in the English language - to Bowdlerize - , as
you will know he expurgated old Bill.
>Recall also Lasker's war-mongering efforts from 1915:
Oh oh. He's off.
>"The shrewd English merchant has grasped the meaning of
possessions and
>their power in the world; but he has missed the true
inwardness of
>things, and the rapid evolution of modern times has left
him far behind.
>He is an egoist towards his fellow countrymen.
A truer word....
>He will not give the
>masses a share in higher things, as he wants to keep them
under his sway
>as slaves. The Universities of Cambridge and Oxford are
reserved for the
>sons of the rich.
Not strictly true these days. Any Tom, Dick or Dr.A.N.
Walker (seemingly) can get there these days.
>He views with suspicion our people, teeming with
>ideas, eager in pursuit of science, and ready to make any
sacrifice. Who
>among us is not a philosopher? I know not a single German
who does not
>carry in his bosom something of the spirit of Faust.
I do, that guy Michael Schenker, I met him once and asked
for his autograph he wobbled a bit and then passed out on me
(the bastard), I have never met a more un-philosophic guy in
my life, great guitarist though when he managed to avoid the
sherbet, although generally I am not a huge fan of Oompah
bands.
>The morale of the
>Germans is not mere theory. Mother, wife, sweetheart, have
bidden their
>men go forth to battle. It is the genius of Humanity that
speaks for
>this nation".
Not really war-mongering, more patriotism and havin' a bit
of a go. I don't have a problem with that, poor Lasker (and
especially Tarrasch) their lives were made a misery by their
own people on the rise of Fascism.
>>P.S. Thanks to everyone that replied, I now have (thanks
to
>>private E-mail) all the information I require to come to
the
>>conclusion that Alekhine, for all his faults, was perhaps
>>the SECOND greatest chessplayer of all time.
>>
>
>This won't do, you shouldn't just leave things here.
I didn't - I now have the articles thanks to E-mail.
>Time for a definite ( or as Batsford spell it, definitive)
Adamski
>rehashing:
LTM!
(Much excellent information and sources mostly snipped -
THANKS Adamski, - however as I have said before I wouldn't
let Winter translate an ice-cream menu from Spanish into
English)
>In Chess Explorations (E.Winter, Cadogan, 1996 p.248) :
>
>"Pablo Moran sends us copies of two Madrid publications, El
Alcazar
>and Informaciones, dated 3 September 1941 in which Alekhine
gave
>interviews. Some extracts from the latter, in our
translation:
(Snip)
>Who is the player you most admire?
>
>All of them. But among them I must stress the greatest
glory of
>Capablanca, which was to eliminate the Jew Lasker from the
world
>chess throne.'"
This is the same part as I translated, I change my opinion
of Winter, I wouldn't let him translate a book of cloakroom
tickets.
>For the next sections I'm indebted to the 'bastard' William
(sic)
I read that transcription as well, I do not think my browser
has even been so far. Did you send an E-mail? I did but no
reply (yet - Hi Bobby).
(snip)
>'Just as with Nimzowitsch and his System, so was Reti given
a warm
>welcome by the majority of Anglo-Jewish
pseudo-intellectuals for his
>book Die neuen Ideen in Schach (sic)...And this cheap
bluff, this
>shameless self-publicity, was swallowed without resistance
by a chess
>world, poisoned by Jewish journalists, which echoed the
jubilant cries
>of Jews and their friends; "Long live Reti, and long live
hypermodern
>neoromantic chess".'
This is interesting, but I will brook no criticism of Reti's
book(s). Reti was a CHESS FAN. If Alekhine did not agree
with his words he could have criticised him on the words not
on the basis of his genes. I am however of the opinion that
My System should be referred to as "His System" as it is
certainly different to my own system.
(snip)
>More rehashed material concerning Alekhine's post-war
explanations for
>his conduct will appear in a later post. Perhaps tomorrow,
I've got to
>watch the football now, and later Adamski might find the
time to deal
>with a little outstanding business from last week....
Manchester United back on top (YES!), I do hope that you are
not an Arsenal fan... (being a defensive team) - quite right
that goals scored might decide it rather than goal
difference, Alex should write a book and call it "My
Attacking System" I look forward to the info.
Gilbert Palmer
A chess fan.
P.S. Man Utd for the Premiership, The Cup and especially the
European Champion's Cup this year...pity Keene will not be
playing (and I don't mean The Penguin).
George Szaszvari
gilb...@virgin.net says...
<snip>..
>P.S. Man Utd for the Premiership, The Cup and especially the
>European Champion's Cup this year...pity Keene will not be
>playing (and I don't mean The Penguin).
Doesn't Roy spell it *Keane*?
Wim Van den Broeck
whose choice. The fundamental analogy is that in both cases someone or a
system decides which lives are worth to live.
Robert Meek
that as in all great men and/or women, ego, pretension, and of course,
aquience to his or her loyal following should also be considered when trying
to understand the motivations or reasoning behind their forays outside those
areas in which they have shown greatness. Ego, amongst all the others, may
even be the most powerful of motivators, and quite often as we all know, can
quickly lead one unto paths we just as quickly realize we have no business
being on! Stopping ourselves is yet another problem altogether!
Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:7h1bjq$tfg$1...@news06.btx.dtag.de...
Adamski
<mic...@mobius1.demon.co.uk> writes
I should have mentioned of course that this material is a reprint of
his 1989 article which appeared in New In Chess magazine.
Adamski reports that Winter reported that the BCM and Chess reported
that News Review (23 November 1944) reported an interview with Alekhine
wherein he claims that whilst in occupied France "he had to write two
chess articles for the Pariser Zeitung before the Germans granted him
his exit visa...Articles which Alekhine claims were purely scientific
were rewritten by the Germans, published and made to treat chess from
a racial standpoint."
After being 'disinvited' from the London Victory tournament in 1946
Alekhine wrote an open letter to the organiser W. Hatton-Ward. With
respect to the articles Alekhine writes:
"Among the heap of monstrosities published by the Pariser Zeitung
appeared insults against the members of the Committee which organised
the 1937 match; and the Dutch Chess Federation even lodged a protest
on this matter with Post. At the time I was absolutely powerless to
do the one thing which would have clarified the situation, to declare
that the articles had not been written by me...
"For three years, until Paris was liberated, I had to keep silent. But
from the first opportunity I tried in interviews to show up the facts
in their true light. Of the articles which appeared in 1941 during my
stay in Portugal and which I learnt about in Germany through their
being reproduced in Deutsche Schachzeitung, nothing was actually written
by me. I had submitted material dealing with the necessary
reconstruction of the FIDE (the International Chess Federation) and a
a critique, written well before 1938, of the theories of Steinitz and
Lasker. I was suprised when I received letters from Messrs Helms and
Sturgis at the reaction which these articles - purely technical- had
provoked in America and I replied to Mr Helms accordingly. Only when
I knew what incomparably stupid lucubrations had been created in a
spirit imbued with Nazi ideas did I realise what it was all about. But
I was then a prisoner of the Nazis and our only hope of preservation was
to keep silent. Those years ruined my health and my nerves and I am even
suprised that I can still play chess."
In his book Legado, which was published posthumously, Alekine wrote:
"Once more I insist on repeating that which I have published on several
occasions: that is, that the articles which were stupid and untrue from
a chess point of view and which were printed signed with my name in a
Paris newspaper in 1941, are a falsification. It is not the first time
that unscrupulous journalists have abused my name in order to publish
inanities of that kind, but in the present case what was published in
Pariser Zeitung is what has caused me the most grief, not only because
of its content but also precisely because it impossible for me to
rectify it...Colleagues know my sentiments and they realise perfectly
well how great is the esteem in which I hold their art and that I have
too elevated a concept of chess to become entangled in the absurd
statements poured out by the above-mentioned Parisian newspaper."
Winter charges Alekhine with inconsistency, 'sometimes he claimed to
have written nothing, but on other occasions said that the anti-Jewish
slant had been added by others. The latter possibility is unlikely; once
the anti-Jewish slant is taken away there is hardly anything left.'
But Alekhine's claim that he had written nothing appears in the very
same letter where he repeats that he had previously submitted material.
Surely Alekhine meant only that he had not written the articles which
were published. The real incongruity appears to be between the claim
that he wrote two articles for the Pariser Zeitung in return for an
exit visa, and his reference to the earlier material as having been
composed prior to 1938.
Winter cites two popular reference books Golombek's Encyclopedia (sic)
of Chess (1977) and Hooper and Whyld's Oxford Companion (1984) as
both stating that the articles written in Alekhine's own hand were
found in the effects of his wife upon her death in 1956. The source
for this turned out to be Brian Reilly, the editor of the BCM. Winter
claims that Reilly denies it, and then looks forward to Reilly's eagerly
awaited biography of Alekhine for his full account of the affair.
Reilly's death in 1991 rather put the mockers on that however. The
aforementioned 1992 BCM article by Cafferty claims that Ken Whyld was
himself working on an Alekhine book, with the aid of Reilly's archives,
which 'promises to be far and away the best book on the subject' and was
scheduled for a 1994 release. Needless to say, this book never
materialised either.
Cafferty also repeated the idea that Reilly had seen the handwritten
articles in 1956, though with the proviso that he was unable to study
them properly. As Whyld and Hooper's second edition The Oxford Companion
(1992) still maintained that these articles were found, perhaps one can
assume that Winter's objection (1989) was misplaced.
Winter doesn't mention at all this Halberstadt character who Cafferty
alluded to, but concentrates on another supposed witness to the
existence of the handwritten articles. Le Monnier writing in Europe
Echecs in 1986 claimed to have seen the handwritten text of the first
Pariser Zeitung article in one of Alekhine's notebooks, when he had
access to it, way back in 1958. But in 1973, Le Monnier in his book
of Alekhine games could write agnostically, "It will never be known
whether Alekhine was behind these articles or whether they were
'manipulated' by the editor of the Pariser Zeitung, a Czech player
well known at the time in Parisian chess circles." These duplicitous
Continentals! According to Le Monnier, 'Alekhine's notebooks are
private documents and French law is categorical in this respect.
They will enter in the public domain sixty years after the author's
death, i.e. in 2006. After this date historians and researchers may
consult them, provided that Alekhine's heirs and the owners of the
notebooks agree.' I rather suspect that any such agreement, or lack
thereof, may depend on the actual content of said notebooks!
Miguel Najdorf in a NIC interview with Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam:
Q: You knew Alekhine well....
A: Of course. A man like Kasparov. He loved chess very much.[..]
Q: Do you think that Alekhine wrote the antisemitic articles in the
Pariser Zeitung?
(Without hesitation) 'I believe so. You want to know a beautiful
history? In Mar del Plata they always organised a beautiful grandmaster
tournament....So, when we were playing in this tournament in 1946, the
president of the Argentine Federation, Paulino Monasterio, comes to the
club and says, "Please, stop the clocks. I have some bad news for you.
The champion of the world, Alexander Alekhine, has died in Lissabon
(sic). I would like you to be silent in his honour for one minute."
Everyone stood up except for Miguel Najdorf. Why? Because I had learned
about these articles. That he was a Nazi. So he was one of the people
who killed my family. He was a very good chess player, but I cannot
stand it when someone says "Heil Hitler". What would you have done in my
place? I will never forget that[...]
'I believe that Alekhine wrote these articles. I will tell you why.
Alekhine was not a Nazi. He was an opportunist. A terrible man. He
loved money very much and for money he would be Jew, Catholic, or
Protestant. Just depending on how much. He had no morals. One of
the greatest chess players of all time. When he came to Germany
they just told him to write these articles and he did.'
Yes, Alekhine, 'a man like Kasparov'!
The BCM article concludes with a snippet from the Reilly archive, an
interview with Alekhine that appeared in the Russian emigre paper in
Paris "Posledniye Novosti" on 28 January 1928.
'Q: On what terms were you when you took your leave of Capablanca?
A: We parted in the most friendly fashion. Yet I regretted the fact
that he did not consider it necessary to attend the final dinner, where
I was proclaimed World Champion, and even failed to appear in the club
to resign the last game. He merely sent a letter notifying me that he
had resigned, together with congratulations for me on my victory. In
fact I had done him a great favour. Seeing that he did not wish to
resign in the presence of a big crowd of spectators who were blocking
even adjacent streets, I deliberately spun out the end and avoided
playing at various junctures a swift and conclusive move which I could
see, merely to give him the chance of adjourning the game.'
Compare this with an excerpt from a Lajos Portisch interview with NIC:
Q: How did you get along with Fischer?
"I think we always had good relations. I still remember our last game
at the Siegen Olympiad in 1970. It was on a Sunday and we both showed
up to the game in black suits. Because it was Sunday and out of respect
for each other. Unfortunately many things have changed. I always paid
a lot of attention to stories like the one I read in Alekhine's book.
When he was about to lose the match against Euwe he showed up in
evening dress. It was probably very difficult for him to have to resign
the world title, but he didn't show that. I'm always saying that many
chess players do not realise that they should show some respect for
their opponents."
Rolf Tueschen
But Alekhine was more than an opportunist. He was a collaborateur IMO.
This is worse. And personally I don't believe him a single word when he
spoke of the pressure the Nazis had exerted against him so that he could
emigrate. No way. This guy wrote the shit all by himself. Look, do you
really think that the dirty man / but great chess genius went playing in
cooperation with Dr Frank in the conquered Poland just because the Nazis
'told him so'??
No.
Alekhine clearly tried to save his head/title as Wch when he told that
story about his articles ...
He was a liar and a coward in the end. And personally -- I didn't know
that story -- I have great respect for Najdorf who surely had loved the
genius in Alekhine. But he didn't sell his soul only to swim with the
majority/all others who stood up when they were told to stand up to show
their respect for the dead Alekhine.
No.
Alekine will always be respected as a chess genius, but NOT for his
drinking addiction and his Nazi collaboration.
Did you forget that real Jewish chess masters were killed in the
concentration camps? -- Did you forget that? And I learned already in
school that Alekhine didn't give a damn shit about it!
He _knew_ that he would be taken to task, besides the nice
connections/exchanges he had with some alleged British organizations and
allegedly Botvinnik himself. [But I must say that the given Botvinnik
letter in one post recently is not sound for me. Although not a genius
in English, this alleged letter from Botvinnik to Alekhine sounds as if
faked.]
=========================
Adamski <mic...@mobius1.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<c0+s$DA5h0...@mobius1.demon.co.uk>:
===a very sensational/exceptional post========
(snipped for reading pleasure)
Rolf Tueschen
<373AA879...@pandora.be>:
>Both nazism and abortion is about 'no choice'. All depends of course about
>whose choice. The fundamental analogy is that in both cases someone or a
>system decides which lives are worth to live.
Well said.
For personal consideration let me ask you a question. How is it that
possibly the Dutch euthansia orders/laws are installed just because a
grat part of the Dutch elite was collaborating with the Nazis?
I hope that you can understand that in a slightly different society the
killing/mass murder the Nazis practised against children, handicapped
and ill people, will start all over again?!
I know that this is off-topic at first sight, but then it's in the
Alekhine thread. And I for one hold Alekhine responsible for
collaboration with the Nazis too. Please read my short answer on
Adamski.
And I thought it a good idea that the 'Nazi' idea of killing
old/worthless people should be noted when I say that Alekhine did
collaborate. With what did he do that? Whith what consequences even
today? And so on.
Please read also my old article about the 'Alekhine's trap in science'.
In Dejas of 1996.
Adamski
DIZIN_KU...@t-online.de> writes
>Adamski, great post this!
>
>But Alekhine was more than an opportunist. He was a collaborateur IMO.
I'm presuming, of course, that you realise that the opportunist label is
Najdorf's and not mine.
>This is worse. And personally I don't believe him a single word when he
>spoke of the pressure the Nazis had exerted against him so that he could
>emigrate. No way. This guy wrote the shit all by himself. Look, do you
>really think that the dirty man / but great chess genius went playing in
>cooperation with Dr Frank in the conquered Poland just because the Nazis
>'told him so'??
Can we have some references, dates for this Alekhine/Frank episode?
>No.
>
>Alekhine clearly tried to save his head/title as Wch when he told that
>story about his articles ...
>
>He was a liar and a coward in the end. And personally -- I didn't know
>that story -- I have great respect for Najdorf who surely had loved the
>genius in Alekhine. But he didn't sell his soul only to swim with the
>majority/all others who stood up when they were told to stand up to show
>their respect for the dead Alekhine.
Half the people in that tournament hall were probably ex-Nazis!
>No.
>
>Alekine will always be respected as a chess genius, but NOT for his
>drinking addiction and his Nazi collaboration.
>
>Did you forget that real Jewish chess masters were killed in the
>concentration camps? -- Did you forget that? And I learned already in
>school that Alekhine didn't give a damn shit about it!
Well the extent to which civilians like Alekhine would have known
of the concentration/extermination camps is a moot point.
Yesterday I had a brief perusal a copy of Pablo Moran's 'A.A. Agony of a
Chess Genius' in Foyles. The more one learns about this case, the more
involved it becomes. For instance, I knew that when Alekhine was
in Portugal in 1941, he sought and was refused a visa to the USA, but
not that his wife had remained in France. Does this mean Alekhine would
have been prepared to abandon his wife? Or that the seemingly damning
interviews reported in the Madrid newspapers might be viewed in a
different light if Alekhine needed to be mindful of her situation?
The Moran book gives three 'Alekhine' articles, though I'm unsure if
they were from the original Pariser Zeitung ones, or the Deutsche
Schachzeitung reproductions. All very amusing they are as well, or
were until I came upon Alekhine's verdict on Staunton: 'Boring' !
'Monotonous'! Bemoaning Staunton's influence on his contemporaries!
Alekhine, you loathsome flyblown heap of accumulated filth!
>He _knew_ that he would be taken to task, besides the nice
>connections/exchanges he had with some alleged British organizations and
>allegedly Botvinnik himself. [But I must say that the given Botvinnik
>letter in one post recently is not sound for me. Although not a genius
>in English, this alleged letter from Botvinnik to Alekhine sounds as if
>faked.
And Botvinnik's letter to Stalin? IMO the Soviet crimes were worse
than the Nazis', in the sense that they were perpetrated against
their 'own' people.
From the Spassky Kingpin interview with Lev Khariton:
"Does this mean that your attitude to Botvinnik is negative?"
"Botvinnik did a lot for chess. He won the World Championship, as
he had promised, he gave a lot of advice to chess players, especially
mediocre players. But for me he has always remained a Bolshevik. Once
I was reading his memoirs about the 1930's and I came across the
following sentence: 'Life was difficult, collective farms had not yet
become strong...'. For many years I wanted to ask him, 'Mikhail
Moiseyevich, when did collective farms become strong. And how did
they become strong?' I think in this respect Karpov and Kasparov
continued Botvinnik's Communist traditions."
Rolf, have you read Robert Conquest's book The Great Terror?
Regarding Botvinnik and Alekhine a commitment to a match between them
had indeed been entered into. But you knew this, of course.
Carl Tillotson
> But Alekhine was more than an opportunist. He was a collaborateur IMO.
> This is worse.
What is worse Rolf, being a 'collaborator' or a part of the Nazi machine
itself. The German race is still at odds with it's conscience it is not?
Are you also suggesting that the German machine was not able to enforce
collaboration by means of threats to oneself and one's family.
Do you not believe that the Soviet machine 'rigged' the World Championship
by use of force and threats? Was Bronstein in fear of his life when he
only needed to DRAW the last two games against Botvinnik. Imagine the
scene, you have just gone 1 game up with two to play, two draws and the
championship is yours.
Bronstein to his credit dismisses the conspiracy theory - but his comments
are open-ended....
"...that I was subjected to strong psychological pressure from various
sources.....Let's leave it at that." (Sorcerers Apprentice)
Contrast this to the comments by Tatiana Boleslavskay.....
"...Further, 'if the son of an enemy of the people', moreover being
Jewish, had surreptitiously climbed to the top of the pyramid of the chess
world it would have been considered a flaw in The System...." (Sorcerers
Apprentice)
"....When Devik (Bronstein) played the match in the Tchaikovsky Hall, his
parents were sitting in the first rank in the audience. As a former
prisoner of several camps it was forbidden for his father to be in Moscow.
Sitting close by in his loge was the powerful chief of the KGB General
V.S. Abakumov. While Devik was playing he had to think constantly of this
potentially dangerous situation...." (Sorcerers Apprentice)
Human frailties as they are make it impossible for us to imagine the
torment that may have been in Bronstein's mind. Likewise, is it not
possible that Alekhine was also under such pressure?
I must confess that I know little about Alekhine, so cannot say whether he
was a Nazi collaborator in the sense that Marshall Vichy was. It is quite
clear that the Soviet machine did not see it in this light; unless of
course the request by Botvinnik to play the delayed World Championship was
merely a 'means to an end' for the Soviet bloc.
Let's assume that Alekhine was the Nazi collaborator that you claim, the
fact that Botvinnik was so EAGER to play the World Championship must mean
that he didn't care either? Are we not to suppose that Botvinnik's own
morality should be questioned also?
Carl Tillotson
> I know that this is off-topic at first sight
Tis off topic in all cases, but it's not stopped you before. You make your
own rules to suit you Rolf.
Lyle Craver
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>emigrate. No way. This guy wrote the shit all by himself. Look, do you
>really think that the dirty man / but great chess genius went playing in
>cooperation with Dr Frank in the conquered Poland just because the Nazis
>'told him so'??
Hmm. I assume then you tar Keres (who also played in
Nazi-occupied European tournaments) with the same brush?
Personally if I REALLY thought this I wouldn't be directing the
24th Paul Keres Memorial tournament in Vancouver, Canada this
coming weekend.
[For the record, we in Vancouver consider our Keres Memorial the
*real* memorial since the 1975 Vancouver International was the
great one's last tournament (he won with a last round victory
over Walter Browne). The 1976 Vancouver International became the
first Keres Memorial...we allow the folks in Talinn equal billing
but besides theirs, ours is the 'real' Keres Memorial]
All kidding aside, Keres seems to have walked his own road
through purgatory in those years and in the immediate post-war
era. It is probably just as well that the price he had to pay to
survive in two evil regimes will never fully be known. I met the
man personally and although I did not know him well I count it a
privilege to have met him at all.
------------------------------------
To reply to me remove 1 from address
Adamski
ess.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <7hknol$phb$1...@news04.btx.dtag.de>, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>
>> But Alekhine was more than an opportunist. He was a collaborateur IMO.
>> This is worse.
>
>What is worse Rolf, being a 'collaborator' or a part of the Nazi machine
>itself. The German race is still at odds with it's conscience it is not?
The German race? These Germans control Europe now anyway, it just took
them a bit longer than they planned.
NO TO THE SINGLE CURRENCY!
>Are you also suggesting that the German machine was not able to enforce
>collaboration by means of threats to oneself and one's family.
>
>Do you not believe that the Soviet machine 'rigged' the World Championship
>by use of force and threats? Was Bronstein in fear of his life when he
>only needed to DRAW the last two games against Botvinnik. Imagine the
>scene, you have just gone 1 game up with two to play, two draws and the
>championship is yours.
>
>Bronstein to his credit dismisses the conspiracy theory - but his comments
>are open-ended....
>
>"...that I was subjected to strong psychological pressure from various
>sources.....Let's leave it at that." (Sorcerers Apprentice)
>
>Contrast this to the comments by Tatiana Boleslavskay.....
>
>"...Further, 'if the son of an enemy of the people', moreover being
>Jewish
like Botvinnik
>, had surreptitiously climbed to the top of the pyramid of the chess
>world it would have been considered a flaw in The System...." (Sorcerers
>Apprentice)
The counter argument is, of course, why would they have allowed him
to reach such an exalted position in the first place?
Bronstein's story is an interesting one, but a more pertinent one
is that of Keres. Keres played in these Nazi tournaments as you
know. If there was one person the Bolsheviks didn't want to hold the
title it was Keres. I think Keres threw these games to Botvinnik in the
1948 World Championship match tournament. Everything points to it.
>
>"....When Devik (Bronstein) played the match in the Tchaikovsky Hall, his
>parents were sitting in the first rank in the audience. As a former
>prisoner of several camps it was forbidden for his father to be in Moscow.
>Sitting close by in his loge was the powerful chief of the KGB General
>V.S. Abakumov. While Devik was playing he had to think constantly of this
>potentially dangerous situation...." (Sorcerers Apprentice)
>
>Human frailties as they are make it impossible for us to imagine the
>torment that may have been in Bronstein's mind. Likewise, is it not
>possible that Alekhine was also under such pressure?
>
>I must confess that I know little about Alekhine, so cannot say whether he
>was a Nazi collaborator in the sense that Marshall Vichy was.
The Moran book was making the point that Vichy wasn't really a
collaborator. As he argues it, most French people after Dunkirk felt
animosity toward the English! (Returned in spades) It wasn't till later
there was much organised resistance.
> It is quite
>clear that the Soviet machine did not see it in this light; unless of
>course the request by Botvinnik to play the delayed World Championship was
>merely a 'means to an end' for the Soviet bloc.
Of course, expediency rules. They just wanted the title. Remember that
Alekhine had previously been persona non grata in the Soviet Union
when he'd emigrated in the 1920's.
As Botvinnik tells it:
'The books of Alekhine were not published in the Soviet Union until
later, because he was an emigrant....What is more, when Romanovsky
and Levenfish wrote their book about the match Alekhine-Capablanca
in 1927, Krylenko asked Ilyin-Genevsky to contribute a special
preface in order to explain to the readers why the Soviet Union
published the games of this match between Capablanca and a Soviet
emigrant. Ilyin-Genevsky wrote that Alekhine was an enemy of the
Soviet Union, but that in politics he was only a midget, However,
in chess he was a giant. And therefore the Soviet chess players
had to know his games. Later on some of Alekhine's books were
published, like the Russian translation of My Best Games. And after
that all his books.'
(Finding Bobby Fischer (NIC 1994)
Phil Innes
>
> In article <VA.0000010f.00b6752a@carl>, Carl Tillotson <lca@lancashirech
> ess.demon.co.uk> writes
> >In article <7hknol$phb$1...@news04.btx.dtag.de>, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
> >
> >> But Alekhine was more than an opportunist. He was a collaborateur IMO.
> >> This is worse.
> >
> >What is worse Rolf, being a 'collaborator' or a part of the Nazi machine
> >itself. The German race is still at odds with it's conscience it is not?
The conversation getting a little wild here. What is a collaborator? Was
Chamberlain a collaborator? How about the Milice? What is meant by this word -
if anything exact is meant by it?
>
> >Are you also suggesting that the German machine was not able to enforce
> >collaboration by means of threats to oneself and one's family.
It is known that his wife's estate was threatened. It is not known what else
may have been. But again "enforce" is a difficult word to understand in this
context. Many people withstood rigorous pressure.
> >
> >"....When Devik (Bronstein) played the match in the Tchaikovsky Hall, his
> >parents were sitting in the first rank in the audience. As a former
> >prisoner of several camps it was forbidden for his father to be in Moscow.
> >Sitting close by in his loge was the powerful chief of the KGB General
> >V.S. Abakumov. While Devik was playing he had to think constantly of this
> >potentially dangerous situation...." (Sorcerers Apprentice)
> >
> >Human frailties as they are make it impossible for us to imagine the
> >torment that may have been in Bronstein's mind. Likewise, is it not
> >possible that Alekhine was also under such pressure?
> >
> >I must confess that I know little about Alekhine, so cannot say whether he
> >was a Nazi collaborator in the sense that Marshall Vichy was.
Adamski made a pont aa few days ago that also seems appropriate to consider;
that players may be more complex creatures than we normally allow. I was
reading about Spassky:
"Boris is an avid reader; a Yugoslav journalist described his flat as "books,
books everywhere - but far from confined to chess as their subject." One of
his favorite writers is Dostoevsky, and he also likes both Solzenhitsyn and
Bulat Okudzhava, a poet and short story writer who renders ironic topical
songs to his own guitar accompanyment. It often seems that Boris himself
possesses Dostoyekskyan personality features. He likes to say "every man is
full of contradictions" and in Boris there is a tug of war between the outward
charm and irony and and an almost harsh unyielding self-criticism....(Cafferty)
> The Moran book was making the point that Vichy wasn't really a
> collaborator. As he argues it, most French people after Dunkirk felt
> animosity toward the English! (Returned in spades) It wasn't till later
> there was much organised resistance.
Not entirely agreeing with H.E. Bates, then
>
> Of course, expediency rules. They just wanted the title. Remember that
> Alekhine had previously been persona non grata in the Soviet Union
> when he'd emigrated in the 1920's.
>
> As Botvinnik tells it:
>
> 'The books of Alekhine were not published in the Soviet Union until
> later, because he was an emigrant....What is more, when Romanovsky
> and Levenfish wrote their book about the match Alekhine-Capablanca
> in 1927, Krylenko asked Ilyin-Genevsky to contribute a special
> preface in order to explain to the readers why the Soviet Union
> published the games of this match between Capablanca and a Soviet
> emigrant. Ilyin-Genevsky wrote that Alekhine was an enemy of the
> Soviet Union, but that in politics he was only a midget, However,
> in chess he was a giant. And therefore the Soviet chess players
> had to know his games. Later on some of Alekhine's books were
> published, like the Russian translation of My Best Games. And after
> that all his books.'
Fascinating! and almost certainly too ravelled - that is - I think it was
unbearable that this genius was choosing not to live in the Empire.
> (Finding Bobby Fischer (NIC 1994)
>
> >Let's assume that Alekhine was the Nazi collaborator that you claim, the
> >fact that Botvinnik was so EAGER to play the World Championship must mean
> >that he didn't care either? Are we not to suppose that Botvinnik's own
> >morality should be questioned also?
Adamski - I have AA meet Keres in 1942 - and spend half an hour alone walking
and talking - their conversation? Phil Innes
Greg Kennedy
What is the last thing Keres did before he died?
>[For the record, we in Vancouver consider our Keres Memorial the
>*real* memorial since the 1975 Vancouver International was the
>great one's last tournament (he won with a last round victory
>over Walter Browne). The 1976 Vancouver International became the
>first Keres Memorial...we allow the folks in Talinn equal
billing
>but besides theirs, ours is the 'real' Keres Memorial]
answer: beat Walter Browne! :-)
- Greg Kennedy
Gilbert Palmer
Adamski wrote in message ...
Gilbert Palmer
><gilb...@virgin.net> writes
>>
>>This thread is heading for some very deep waters..........
>
>Yes, it's sinking fast. Shiver me timbers ya land lubbers!
Ahoy there!
I had no idea you had a thing about Pugwash! You sound
more like the Blue Peter type usually. Anyway Pugwash - Did
Staunton ever play him? Or did he duck him as well?
(snip ahoy!)
>>In chess: Collaborators or collaboration of chess masters
>>is difficult to put into perspective from here in 1999,
the
>>trouble is that chess is not free from the prejudices that
>>pervade all of European culture.
>
>We're definitely back in the shallow end now.
Time to bail out of here I reckon, Adamski's gone all
nautical on us. But in answer to his signal: Oh I beg your
pardon mon Capitan Pug. But perhaps now you seem to be
dockside you could always cast off again (as is your custom)
and head into deeper waters.
You have been to Europe I take it? Sails blowng in the
northerlies of the Channel, white cliffs astern, supping a
Carling Black label and humming the theme to Eastenders?
If If you have ---ventured across the Manche, up the Rhine -
sounded it out for yourself...made up your own mind...if so
DO gives us the benefit of you adventures. Perhaps you
rounded Gib and popped in at Torremolinos or attended Italia
90 ? or France 98? .... What is the state of Europe these
days in Adamski's opinion? ... is it condusive to le growth
in popularity of the World's Greatest Board Game? Why is
England so successful at chess?
>
>>By that I mean: I am not anti-German at all (my first
wife
>>was from a German family) but Germany has now had more
than
>>fifty years to try and re-integrate itself into the human
>>race - but - whether correct or not - the majority of we
>>Europeans simply will not give them a chance
>
>What nonsense are you spouting off?
A shot across the bows is it? True-ish nonsense for the main
mon Pug, I mean to say you're the one that's always on about
your dear Germanic cousins n'est pas? All that wind in your
sails about down with the single currency? Well this land
lubber is all for it, sooner the better. I draw the line at
Oompah bands though, that would be too much...or lager...
Read Jamaica Inn 'ave ee matey? Ther's backgammon innit but
no chess. Pity.
Gilbert Palmer
(I can't get the theme form Pugwash out of my head.
Dillillydoop....)
Adamski
>Gilbert Palmer
>><gilb...@virgin.net> writes
>>>
>>>This thread is heading for some very deep waters..........
>>
>>Yes, it's sinking fast. Shiver me timbers ya land lubbers!
>
>
>Ahoy there!
>
>I had no idea you had a thing about Pugwash! You sound
>more like the Blue Peter type usually. Anyway Pugwash - Did
>Staunton ever play him? Or did he duck him as well?
>
>Dillillydoop....)
>
>
I've gone all nostalgic.....
http://www.whirligig1.freeserve.co.uk/tv/noframes/pugwash.htm
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/orton/pugwash/index.html
Staggering starfish!
Let's not go overboard on all this though, or Bagpuss, Bod, Ivor the
Engine, Ludwig, Rhubarb et al. will come back to haunt us.
Gilbert Palmer
Adamski wrote in message ...
Gilbert Palmer
>>(I can't get the theme form Pugwash out of my head.
>>Dillillydoop....)
>>
>>
>
>I've gone all nostalgic.....
>
>http://www.whirligig1.freeserve.co.uk/tv/noframes/pugwash.h
tm
This guy (above) is a nutter, I suspect he may be related to
Sam Sloan, this freeserve bunch have a lot to answer for.
>
>http://www2.prestel.co.uk/orton/pugwash/index.html
>
>Staggering starfish!
Indeed.
>Let's not go overboard on all this though, or Bagpuss, Bod,
Ivor the
>Engine, Ludwig, Rhubarb et al. will come back to haunt us.
Agreed. Although I liked Rhubarb, loads actually, oh and The
Magic Roundabout my brother's favourite of all time...he
still has a thing about Zebedee...who by sheer co-incidence
was mentioned as being crap at chess by Alekhine seemingly.
Adamski
Ludwig for me captured the Zeitgeist of the 70's - a violin playing
egg. What was it all about?
One of the links from the Pugwash page:
http://host20.bluehill.com/snopes/radiotv/tv/pugwash.htm
mentions Richard Digance, one day after I'd rescued him from the
obscurity he so richly deserves.
Actually lets agree to stop this, we're alienating all these foreigners.
then again you've probably got more in common with them, what with your
cosmpolitan lifestyle.
>
>
>
--
Caissa
Adamski
writes
>
>It is known that his wife's estate was threatened. It is not known what else
>may have been. But again "enforce" is a difficult word to understand in this
>context. Many people withstood rigorous pressure.
You wouldn't be making a judgement here would you, Phil?
>
>> >
>> >"....When Devik (Bronstein) played the match in the Tchaikovsky Hall, his
>> >parents were sitting in the first rank in the audience. As a former
>> >prisoner of several camps it was forbidden for his father to be in Moscow.
>> >Sitting close by in his loge was the powerful chief of the KGB General
>> >V.S. Abakumov. While Devik was playing he had to think constantly of this
>> >potentially dangerous situation...." (Sorcerers Apprentice)
>> >
>> >Human frailties as they are make it impossible for us to imagine the
>> >torment that may have been in Bronstein's mind. Likewise, is it not
>> >possible that Alekhine was also under such pressure?
>> >
>> >I must confess that I know little about Alekhine, so cannot say whether he
>> >was a Nazi collaborator in the sense that Marshall Vichy was.
>
>Adamski made a pont aa few days ago that also seems appropriate to consider;
>that players may be more complex creatures than we normally allow.
I did? Implicitly though, I'm always making that point.
> I was
>reading about Spassky:
>
>"Boris is an avid reader; a Yugoslav journalist described his flat as "books,
>books everywhere
This recalls a Karpov quote about Spassky, from his book Karpov on
Karpov:
'I consider myself to be an idler, too, but the dimensions of Spassky's
laziness were astounding.'
On Fischer:
'I don't know anyone else in the history of chess to whom we owe so
much...no-one from our generation of chess players, nor the one to
follow should forget that we are living off the dividends
guaranteed us by Robert James Fischer.'
On Kasparov:
'But Kasparov and I have nothing in common. We were formed in different
eras, I in the year of social renaissance and the emancipation of the
populace's soul, and he in a time of stagnation. I came from the simple
people and for a long time I remained one of them. He was singled out
in childhood; elitism became an essential past of his world. For me
chess was the end, for him it has merely been the means.'
> - but far from confined to chess as their subject." One of
>his favorite writers is Dostoevsky
Really you've made my day with this! You know, that for me, Spassky
along with Keres, Fischer and Staunton are about the only chessplayers
I won't have a word said against.
>, and he also likes both Solzenhitsyn and
>Bulat Okudzhava, a poet and short story writer who renders ironic topical
>songs to his own guitar accompanyment.
Sort of like Richard Digance, but with talent.
> It often seems that Boris himself
>possesses Dostoyekskyan personality features. He likes to say "every man is
>full of contradictions" and in Boris there is a tug of war between the outward
>charm and irony and and an almost harsh unyielding self-criticism....(Cafferty)
>> The Moran book was making the point that Vichy wasn't really a
>> collaborator. As he argues it, most French people after Dunkirk felt
>> animosity toward the English! (Returned in spades) It wasn't till
>> later there was much organised resistance.
>
>Not entirely agreeing with H.E. Bates, then
>
>>
>> Of course, expediency rules. They just wanted the title. Remember that
>> Alekhine had previously been persona non grata in the Soviet Union
>> when he'd emigrated in the 1920's.
>>
>> As Botvinnik tells it:
>>
>> 'The books of Alekhine were not published in the Soviet Union until
>> later, because he was an emigrant....What is more, when Romanovsky
>> and Levenfish wrote their book about the match Alekhine-Capablanca
>> in 1927, Krylenko asked Ilyin-Genevsky to contribute a special
>> preface in order to explain to the readers why the Soviet Union
>> published the games of this match between Capablanca and a Soviet
>> emigrant. Ilyin-Genevsky wrote that Alekhine was an enemy of the
>> Soviet Union, but that in politics he was only a midget, However,
>> in chess he was a giant. And therefore the Soviet chess players
>> had to know his games. Later on some of Alekhine's books were
>> published, like the Russian translation of My Best Games. And after
>> that all his books.'
>
>Fascinating! and almost certainly too ravelled - that is - I think it was
>unbearable that this genius was choosing not to live in the Empire.
>> (Finding Bobby Fischer (NIC 1994)
>>
>> >Let's assume that Alekhine was the Nazi collaborator that you claim, the
>> >fact that Botvinnik was so EAGER to play the World Championship must mean
>> >that he didn't care either? Are we not to suppose that Botvinnik's own
>> >morality should be questioned also?
>
>Adamski - I have AA meet Keres in 1942 - and spend half an hour alone walking
>and talking - their conversation?
Such conversations in Dostoevsky invariably soar to metaphysical
heights.....
>Phil Innes
Rolf Tueschen
>Adamski wrote:
>> >What is worse Rolf, being a 'collaborator' or a part of the Nazi machine
>> >itself. The German race is still at odds with it's conscience it is not?
>The conversation getting a little wild here. What is a collaborator? Was
>Chamberlain a collaborator? How about the Milice? What is meant by this word -
>if anything exact is meant by it?
[...]
>Adamski - I have AA meet Keres in 1942 - and spend half an hour alone walking
>and talking - their conversation? Phil Innes
If you take the two last paragraphes together, Phil, you get a first
impression, what 'wild' could mean on usenet. BTW the term collaborate
has a clear meaning in German. It has NOTHING to do with Chamberlain.
And it's not simply a question to what half of the citizans you do
belong - like in France of WWII.
I can only repeat, that for me the collaboration of one Alekhine is much
more visible in the playing of consulting matches with/ at the sides of
Dr. Frank in humiliated and murdered Poland with its many Nazi death
camps than in the mentioned articles. It's telling that I did never
receive a sound explanation for that one, but what I got was millions of
examples of some Soviet GM playing here and there or saying this or
that. In the end Botvinnik, the otherwise defamed Soviet must stand as
example/evidence for Alekhine's innocence -- why _else_ Botvinnik wanted
to play him ...? I even read about Bobby Fischer playing in Yugoslavia!
And Keres was "always" a true gentleman ...
It's a real method of using a fog machine.
With sound logic this has nothing to do. Perhaps it's an art, who knows?
Rolf Tueschen
>Hmm. I assume then you tar Keres (who also played in
>Nazi-occupied European tournaments) with the same brush?
It was not meant to be.
Look, we could discuss the participation in official tournaments, but I
was talking about the special/ private/ invitational playing of
consulting matches in a combination Alekhine with Dr. Frank. The latter
the highest official of the Nazis in conquered Poland who is responsible
for the murder of thousands if not millions among the civilians and in
the many death camps.
Keres is a totally different story.
>All kidding aside, Keres seems to have walked his own road
>through purgatory in those years and in the immediate post-war
>era. It is probably just as well that the price he had to pay to
>survive in two evil regimes will never fully be known. I met the
>man personally and although I did not know him well I count it a
>privilege to have met him at all.
Let me make a wild guess. I am almost sure that IF Alekhine could have
survived those times after a decent internal trial in his self, he would
have been a great gentleman too in his later years. Don't take me wrong.
You can't take the individual seperated from his times. Who knows how
bold and brave we would have been in those times. I had more than one
experience here on usenet that told me much about human nature in
relatively normal times in a virtual reality ... It's always a pity to
accept the unconditional end in death. The dead ones can no longer tell
us. If they could, couldn't it be that they looked better in the end
than those who survived?? For me, the whole debate was always more about
US than alone about Alekhine. What else is history for?
I wish you all the best for your tournament.
Phil Innes
>
> I can only repeat, that for me the collaboration of one Alekhine is much
> more visible in the playing of consulting matches with/ at the sides of
> Dr. Frank in humiliated and murdered Poland with its many Nazi death
> camps than in the mentioned articles. It's telling that I did never
> receive a sound explanation for that one, but what I got was millions of
> examples of some Soviet GM playing <snip>
Et in Poland ego.
Yes - there is a going down -
I only think that I am not content with this label - "collaborator" - or with
any *label* of his behavior, because readers will balk at the door of this
chamber and not go in. It is more interesting for me to explore what this
behavior was, in the context of occupied Europe, and, frankly, my experience
is that people do not want to look at it, and have to be tripped! to be
suddenly dropped off a ledge - as can happen in a book, where the author
completely controls the context, in order to experience the drama of the event.
In making Alekhine a monster, we make him not understandable, and not ever
like ourselves (how often do we attempt to imagine our own integrity under
pressure). I think this is the real lapsus and fallacy of such labelling.
Phil Innes
Gilbert Palmer
Phil Innes wrote in message <3741558B...@sover.net>...
This thread is heading for some very deep waters..........
(snip)
>>In making Alekhine a monster, we make him not
understandable, and not ever like ourselves (how often do we
attempt to imagine our own integrity under pressure). I
think this is the real lapsus and fallacy of such labelling.
<< Phil Innes
In the Winter edited "World Chess Champions" (1981) the
section on Alekhine is written by Cafferty. I do not
propose to quote at length but four things:
P 73 "Only Euwe of the continental masters living under
German occupation refused to participate in Nazi-sponsored
tournaments."
P75 " Feeling was very strong in France against those who
came under suspicion of collaboration with the enemy (LOL! -
Palmer) and Alekhine's wartime record would not have
withstood scrutiny. There were other allegations against
him, such as Euwe's that he had failed to intercede on
behalf of Jewish masters like Landau and Przepiorka who died
in German hands during the period when Alekhine was in
reasonably good standing with the Germans."
And fittingly (P75): "As it was Alekhine was granted the
destiny of many leading masters - to refute Shakespeare's
claim that the evil that men do lives after them whereas the
good is often interred with their bones." Rather could
Alekhine claim, in unison with Horace and Pushkin, "I shall
not wholly die" His immortality lies in the rich fund of his
games, in the lessons that they teach to each new
generation"
(P76) "The grave is in the Montparnasse cemetery marked by a
marble tablet that reads in French and Russian 'Alexander
Alekhine. 1892-1946. Chess genius of Russia and France'."
Phil Innes is correct I think (if he meant) we would all
like to think we would do the RIGHT thing in any situation,
the fact is we can never know - what we can reflect upon is
that WWII had grave consequences even if we limit our gaze
to the insignificant little board game that is chess.
Many masters died at the front, quite a number died in
camps, others fled Germany and eventually Europe, (Lasker
for example - although his sister was gassed by the Nazi's,
Najdorf's family was wiped out from what I have read - not
ONE single survivor) - but all this is insignificant - even
if we were to include in our thoughts all of the non-masters
who played chess and ended up dead - still it bears nothing
in comparison to the number of people (just like you and me)
who died overall.
For any of you not in Europe, you should be aware that WWII
still (yes STILL) hasn't been sorted out here, there are
still things we do not talk about.
The French are currently going through a period of honest
remembering (and consequently many reputations are being
ruined) since the death of Mitterand (who served in the
Vichy Government). All that talk of "The French
Resistance" - in the main it was fiction, that France was
'liberated' is not the whole story. Hence my LOL above.
In chess: Collaborators or collaboration of chess masters
is difficult to put into perspective from here in 1999, the
trouble is that chess is not free from the prejudices that
pervade all of European culture.
By that I mean: I am not anti-German at all (my first wife
was from a German family) but Germany has now had more than
fifty years to try and re-integrate itself into the human
race - but - whether correct or not - the majority of we
Europeans simply will not give them a chance, this might
change, (I hope it does), but even Rolf's (sincere!)
anti-nazi standpoint has a tendency to come over as the
exception to what we think the rule is.... (just being
truthful).
Anyway there were some great games played in these
Nazi-sponsored tournaments, Alekhine was very creative when
walking many of them - even against the likes of Keres and
Bogo...
Gilbert Palmer
A chess fan
Rolf Tueschen
<7hrq39$m1f$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>:
>In chess: Collaborators or collaboration of chess masters
>is difficult to put into perspective from here in 1999, the
>trouble is that chess is not free from the prejudices that
>pervade all of European culture.
>By that I mean: I am not anti-German at all (my first wife
>was from a German family) but Germany has now had more than
>fifty years to try and re-integrate itself into the human
>race - but - whether correct or not - the majority of we
>Europeans simply will not give them a chance, this might
>change, (I hope it does), but even Rolf's (sincere!)
>anti-nazi standpoint has a tendency to come over as the
>exception to what we think the rule is.... (just being
>truthful).
>Anyway there were some great games played in these
>Nazi-sponsored tournaments, Alekhine was very creative when
>walking many of them - even against the likes of Keres and
>Bogo...
I simply don't understand why nobody reads what I write. I did NOT write
about tournaments but private/exhibitional/friendly consulting games
with the highest Nazi official in conquered Poland. That was the
question. But nobody seems to like it.
As to my personal concern. I'm not arrogant enough to pretend that I
have a special honor in my anto-Nazi standpoint. If you ever were in my
conditional situation as a concerned whose similar concerned brothers
and sisters were all murdered and wiped out, you had quite easily the
same standpoint. This is about private concern and NOT about lessons in
history. That's why DrDeath Kevorkian was a real threat for me.
On the other side you are all both too right. I would NOT hold my hand
into the fire that I would have been a hero myself in those times.
Perhaps I would have been the worst collaborator. But if you judge me
from the difficulties I went through here in the chess groups, you may
make your own decision, if I am a light weight or rather heavy weight.
If I am simply an opportunist or if I stay to my convictions.
It's simply not true that our debate could make Alekhine a monster. If
we start to construct such taboos we are no longer able to debate in
freedom. Let's face the facts or data. Alekhine the chess genius is out
of reach for most of us anyway. And nobody wants to deminor him IMO.
Most important however is the necessity to read what someone wrote and
not fantasizing. Someone asked for some evidence of the story with Dr.
Frank. Well, look into the databases where you can find the games.
pitt.edu or such some.
Gilbert Palmer
Rolf Tueschen wrote in message
<7hru74$hg5$1...@news01.btx.dtag.de>...
>I simply don't understand why nobody reads what I write. I
did NOT write
>about tournaments but private/exhibitional/friendly
consulting games
>with the highest Nazi official in conquered Poland. That
was the
>question. But nobody seems to like it.
Sorry Rolf, I (for one) did not realise that there was such
a strong distinction being made by you. Perhaps the same
arguments hold don't you think?
I would be interested in anyone who knows about the
allegations that Euwe is reported to have made.
Gilbert
Adamski
<gilb...@virgin.net> writes
>
>Phil Innes wrote in message <3741558B...@sover.net>...
>
>This thread is heading for some very deep waters..........
Yes, it's sinking fast. Shiver me timbers ya land lubbers!
>
>(snip)
>
>>>In making Alekhine a monster, we make him not
>understandable, and not ever like ourselves (how often do we
>attempt to imagine our own integrity under pressure). I
>think this is the real lapsus and fallacy of such labelling.
><< Phil Innes
>
>
>In the Winter edited "World Chess Champions" (1981) the
>section on Alekhine is written by Cafferty. I do not
>propose to quote at length but four things:
>
>P 73 "Only Euwe of the continental masters living under
>German occupation refused to participate in Nazi-sponsored
>tournaments."
But he did play a match with Bogo, in 1941 IIRC.
>In chess: Collaborators or collaboration of chess masters
>is difficult to put into perspective from here in 1999, the
>trouble is that chess is not free from the prejudices that
>pervade all of European culture.
We're definitely back in the shallow end now.
>By that I mean: I am not anti-German at all (my first wife
>was from a German family) but Germany has now had more than
>fifty years to try and re-integrate itself into the human
>race - but - whether correct or not - the majority of we
Phil Innes
<snips>
> into the fire that I would have been a hero myself in those times.
> Perhaps I would have been the worst collaborator. But if you judge me
> from the difficulties I went through here in the chess groups, you may
> make your own decision, if I am a light weight or rather heavy weight.
> If I am simply an opportunist or if I stay to my convictions.
>
> It's simply not true that our debate could make Alekhine a monster. If
> we start to construct such taboos we are no longer able to debate in
> freedom. Let's face the facts or data. Alekhine the chess genius is out
> of reach for most of us anyway. And nobody wants to deminor him IMO.
>
> Most important however is the necessity to read what someone wrote and
> not fantasizing. Someone asked for some evidence of the story with Dr.
> Frank. Well, look into the databases where you can find the games.
> pitt.edu or such some.
I am afraid that you are right - even Gilbert did not get me right, (which
makes my point for me, Rolf), and then the thread meanders. I suppose we could
focus the argument between us, like two strong magnets, but I feel the subject
is still not very approachable this way (the thing I want to explore). Phil
Gilbert Palmer
Phil Innes wrote in message <3742950E...@sover.net>...
>Rolf Tueschen wrote:
><snips>
>>Someone asked for some evidence of the story with Dr.
>> Frank. Well, look into the databases where you can find
the games.
>> pitt.edu or such some.
>
>I am afraid that you are right - even Gilbert did not get
me right, (which
>makes my point for me, Rolf), and then the thread meanders.
So what exactly in plain language are you trying to say?
Are we talking about reputations? Or the perceived
reputation when balanced good against so-called 'evil' .
Perhaps the moral dimension of being a collaborator? Or the
perception of Alekhine as a collaborator?
The perception of anything (much less a person's
reputation!) has nothing to do with 'facts' or a logical
interpretation of corroborated or uncorroborated
information.
I frankly resent Rolf saying that fantasy should be left
aside, 'fantasy' does certainly come into it because
fantasy is necessary to interpret any presented information
(aka as a fact) - and I do not see how either of you could
deny that a reputation is always a question of personal
interpretation, of opinion.
Leaving Alekhine aside for one second - if you take Staunton
or Nunn, or Fischer or even Kasparov the 'facts' both
corroborated and uncorroborated lead to a whole range of
opinions being held by members of the chess community on
their perceived reputations.
In the case of Alekhine, Rolf is right we do not wish to
condemn him utterly - but why? I do not know - but the
added ponderence that he should never have been placed in
that position in the first place - seems to me to have
something to do with it i.e. absolutely nothing to do with
the facts at all.
Gilbert Palmer
Reysha
>I simply don't understand why nobody reads what I write. I did NOT write
>about tournaments but private/exhibitional/friendly consulting games
>with the highest Nazi official in conquered Poland. That was the
>question. But nobody seems to like it.
happen by Alekhine refusing to play against this avid enthusiast who
just happened to also be the "highest Nazi official in conquered
Poland" ???
Do you believe that refusing Frank would be somehow easier than
refusing to play in the tournaments?
To my mind, no good could have come to Alekhine from refusing to play
Frank... and it seems very probably, if not obvious, that Alekhine
played him to gain political favour... or at least not to fall into
dis-favour, rather than for any other reason.
Reysha
>On the other side you are all both too right. I would NOT hold my hand
>into the fire that I would have been a hero myself in those times.
>Perhaps I would have been the worst collaborator. But if you judge me
Sometimes in life, as in chess, the 'quite' move is the strongest.
I belive this may have been Alekhine's thought... as perhaps
Schlinder's as well.
Adamski
DIZIN_KU...@t-online.de> writes
>Most important however is the necessity to read what someone wrote and
We're supposed to make a judgement on Alekhine based on games held
at pitt.edu?
>
Carl Tillotson
> Rhubarb et al. will come back to haunt us.
Ahhhh!!!
Da da da, di di di di, dat dat dit dit .....
OK might be off key, but I am deaf you know :-0
5.35 every evening.......
And then there was Magic Roundabout :-)
Carl Tillotson
> What is the last thing Keres did before he died?
Urghhhh!!!! <Thud!>
Phil Innes
>
> Phil Innes wrote in message <3742950E...@sover.net>...
> >Rolf Tueschen wrote:
> ><snips>
>
> So what exactly in plain language are you trying to say?
> Are we talking about reputations? Or the perceived
> reputation when balanced good against so-called 'evil' .
> Perhaps the moral dimension of being a collaborator?
This is close. I would choose to say, the experience of being a collaborator.
Or the
> perception of Alekhine as a collaborator?
>
> The perception of anything (much less a person's
> reputation!) has nothing to do with 'facts' or a logical
> interpretation of corroborated or uncorroborated
> information.
Very true.
> I frankly resent Rolf saying that fantasy should be left
> aside, 'fantasy' does certainly come into it because
> fantasy is necessary to interpret any presented information
> (aka as a fact) - and I do not see how either of you could
> deny that a reputation is always a question of personal
> interpretation, of opinion.
I don't really care much about reputation, but perhaps there is some value in
what has goen into the consideration?
Unfortunately people argue too much, and sometimes only from the "objective"
outside - science! this is science! But what of the subjective inside? Which
is understanding, or at least empathy. Phil
Gilbert Palmer
Adamski wrote in message ...
I fully share your sentiments, the Pitt.U site may be fantastic but a lot
of accuracy has gone out of the window (I am not complaining it is free).
Why just recently I was compiling a database of games from a well known
book - you know being able to play over the games on the screen while
having the book in front of me. - While 80% of the games from Pitt.U were
accurate the other 20% (of the player I was looking at) had false
endings, wrong years and tournaments and occassionally had colours
reversed.
Incidently I know someone did a survey of the BF games at Pitt U - but I
have found a few mistakes - I found the game 'Algabreic' O'Kelly de
Galway v Fischer (Havana) was actually Fischer v Algabreic for one very
small example.
However MORE puzzling is the following game:
Fischer,R - Goldsmith,J [B10]
West Orange open Rd 1957
1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d6 3.d4 Nd7 4.Nf3 e5 5.Bc4 Be7 6.dxe5 Nxe5 7.Nxe5 dxe5
8.Qh5 g6 9.Qxe5 Nf6 10.Bg5 Bd7 11.0-0-0 0-0 12.Rxd7 Qxd7 13.Bxf6 Bxf6
14.Qxf6 Rae8 15.f3 Qc7 16.h4 Qe5 17.Qxe5 Rxe5 18.Rd1 Re7 19.Rd6 Kg7 20.a3
f5 21.Kd2 fxe4 22.Nxe4 Rf4 23.h5 gxh5 24.Rd8 h4 25.Rg8+ Kh6 26.Ke3 Rf5
27.Rg4 Rh5 28.Kf2 Rg7 29.Rxg7 Kxg7 30.Bf1 Rd5 31.Bd3 h6 32.Ke3 Rh5 33.Nd6
h3 34.gxh3 Rxh3 35.Nxb7 Rh5 36.b4 Re5+ 37.Kf4 Re7 38.Nd8 c5 39.bxc5 Kf6
40.c6 Rc7 41.Be4 Ke7 42.Nb7 Kf6 43.Nd6 Re7 44.c7 1-0
Now this is given (just as above) in the book The Games of Robert J.
Fischer. I know Fischer was young at the time but would he really have
missed 11. Bxf6 winning a piece? Or am I missing something? Again?
The reason I found this game was that I searched for the move Qd1-h5 in
my DB of World Champions Games. Some stunning games with Qd1-h5 in them
if you take a look, I might consider playing this move myself sometime
:-)
Gilbert Palmer
Adamski
<gilb...@virgin.net> writes
>
>Incidently I know someone did a survey of the BF games at Pitt U - but I
>have found a few mistakes - I found the game 'Algabreic' O'Kelly de
>Galway v Fischer (Havana) was actually Fischer v Algabreic for one very
>small example.
Bobby Fischer v Batsford Algebraic. The only recorded example when an
opponent of Fischer made 630 errors but still won.
Rolf Tueschen
>I frankly resent Rolf saying that fantasy should be left
>aside, 'fantasy' does certainly come into it because
>fantasy is necessary to interpret any presented information
>(aka as a fact) - and I do not see how either of you could
>deny that a reputation is always a question of personal
>interpretation, of opinion.
This is a question exactly for me. As an "expert" of the science of
science. You confused fantasy as a creative tool for inspirations and
creativity with fantasy that is taken as a replacement for facts. I
meant that the latter should be left aside. Fantasy/creativity however
is the core of science. Because science as a clean positivistic
technology is a real pain. As "Selbstzweck", as a mean for itself as
such, it's a dry and dead happening. Creativity without the sound
examinational process of corroboration and falsification is pure fantasy
and a delusion. I hope the two aspects can now be estimated in a fair
way.
>In the case of Alekhine, Rolf is right we do not wish to
>condemn him utterly - but why? I do not know - but the
>added ponderence that he should never have been placed in
>that position in the first place - seems to me to have
>something to do with it i.e. absolutely nothing to do with
>the facts at all.
The problem, Phil and I have with a condemnation as such, is the
absolute and somewhat meaningless cleaness that is an empty statement.
Not fair to the historical aspects and the psychological of us human
beings. Condemnation IMO would have been the result of a trial in the
mid-forties. But then Alekhine died. Foer me there is no doubt that he
could well have been judged as a war criminal at least in a mediated
role ... But I think Phil like me is more interested what Alekhine could
tell us TODAY. And at least for me a condemnation more so prevents
insight and relevations. It's unproductive.
Rolf Tueschen
>TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>>On the other side you are all both too right. I would NOT hold my hand
>>into the fire that I would have been a hero myself in those times.
>>Perhaps I would have been the worst collaborator. But if you judge me
>Sometimes in life, as in chess, the 'quite' move is the strongest.
Very true.
>I belive this may have been Alekhine's thought... as perhaps
>Schlinder's as well.
That's another cynical statement. Schindler, as far as I know, was a
German who helped some Jews and made a lot of money. Alekhine was French
who unnecessarily searched for the nearness of one of the highest Nazi
war criminals. BTW a couple of years ago Dr. Frank's son gave a deep
look into the inner views of his father. The son gave a terrible verdict
against his father who had not the slightest rest of human respect for
the dignity of his "enemies". Dr. Frank was only interested in his own
career. If Alekhine liked to be next to this 'empty' person, this tells
us a lot about Alekhine himself. To be able to understand the situation
of Alekhine in that hotel in Portugal you must know who Hans Frank was.
And his end as a mass murderer. And willy-nilly Alekhine had blood on
his fingers too ... End of the story. This is all so easy to
understand.
Rolf Tueschen
<gz5TOKAd...@mobius1.demon.co.uk>:
>In article <7hru74$hg5$1...@news01.btx.dtag.de>, Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.ME
>DIZIN_KU...@t-online.de> writes
>>Most important however is the necessity to read what someone wrote and
>>not fantasizing. Someone asked for some evidence of the story with Dr.
>>Frank. Well, look into the databases where you can find the games.
>>pitt.edu or such some.
>>
>We're supposed to make a judgement on Alekhine based on games held
>at pitt.edu?
LOL.
No, not to make a judgement about Alekhine but to find at least some
evidence if you are in doubt if that consultational play should have
happened at all ... It was just a hint for chessplayers. Of course that
can not replace serious studies in history. I didn't expect you to fall
in the new Rolf-trap ... :)
Rolf Tueschen
>Sorry Rolf, I (for one) did not realise that there was such
>a strong distinction being made by you. Perhaps the same
>arguments hold don't you think?
I fear you still don't understand the difference. "Official" tournaments
is already a very problematic thing. I think that playing in such
tournaments during the later WWII years (e.g. 1942) was a crime. But
even more so is the private playing with the greatest Nazi war criminal
in Poland a crime. Someone confused the playing with Dr. Frank as if
Alekhine had played against him a few games. No, it's worse. Alekhine
played with the guy at his side in a consultation team against another
"team" with Bogoljubow as the master player. Know what I mean?
This was NOT about making money alone. This was a clear political
demonstration. Unfortunately Alekhine hat put all his money on the wrong
side. If he had won the war with Hitler's Germany Alekhine would have
been the Greatest forever ... But he lost the war. In The Roman Empire
you committed suicide in such a situation. And for me Alekhine did the
same. All the stories about his match against Botrvinnik are nonsense
for me. The given quote of a Botvinnik letter is no evidence for me. The
wording is not sound. Who knows, perhaps it was a red hering to get
Alekhine in his foreign retreat...? Someone, I want to let him
anonymous, asked me 'why collaborator'. Well, let me put this straight.
Alekhine was for me a real war criminal. He worked on the more
intellectual propaganda frontier. Don't take me wrong. Alekhine would
have been taken to task for what he had done. There is no doubt about
it. Or do you think he made holidays in Portugal??
Rolf Tueschen
>Rolf - are you implying that "bad things" would be *less* likely to
>happen by Alekhine refusing to play against this avid enthusiast who
>just happened to also be the "highest Nazi official in conquered
>Poland" ???
Excuse me, that is really a cynical question. Let me react this way. Do
you think that something is allowed if it can be proven that the really
great development is not to be influenced? Let me answer. It's the
misbehavior itself that is to be judged. Not its relevance for the great
developments.
>Do you believe that refusing Frank would be somehow easier than
>refusing to play in the tournaments?
This is another spooky question. Legal question, but not decisive for
Alekhine's play with Dr. Frank, the war criminal. You want to insinate
that Alekhine asked himself the questions whether or not taking part.
But my point was that the private consultation play is a proof for a
collaboration. If you have doubts, we can discuss that.
>To my mind, no good could have come to Alekhine from refusing to play
>Frank... and it seems very probably, if not obvious, that Alekhine
>played him to gain political favour... or at least not to fall into
>dis-favour, rather than for any other reason.
You seem to imply that Alekhine lived in Nazi-Germany as sort of
prisoner. I think this is a fantasy. He could have left the Nazi
influence quite easily by going West. He was not a German but "French".
What had he to do in Poland??
Sam Sloan
in the time of the Czar and eventually became a French citizen.
Sam Sloan
Adamski
DIZIN_KU...@t-online.de> writes
>Adamski <mic...@mobius1.demon.co.uk> wrote in
><gz5TOKAd...@mobius1.demon.co.uk>:
>
>>In article <7hru74$hg5$1...@news01.btx.dtag.de>, Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.ME
>>DIZIN_KU...@t-online.de> writes
>>>Most important however is the necessity to read what someone wrote and
>>>not fantasizing. Someone asked for some evidence of the story with Dr.
>>>Frank. Well, look into the databases where you can find the games.
>>>pitt.edu or such some.
>>>
>
>>We're supposed to make a judgement on Alekhine based on games held
>>at pitt.edu?
>
>LOL.
>
>No, not to make a judgement about Alekhine but to find at least some
>evidence if you are in doubt if that consultational play should have
>happened at all
You thought I was a revisionist historian?
>... It was just a hint for chessplayers.
Sorry, I don't play chess, remember?
> Of course that
>can not replace serious studies in history.
Good, we've cleared that up; can I now have those references that I
asked for?
> I didn't expect you to fall
>in the new Rolf-trap ... :)
>
>
The trapper trapped?
>
>
Phil Innes
>
> >I frankly resent Rolf saying that fantasy should be left
> >aside, 'fantasy' does certainly come into it because
> >fantasy is necessary to interpret any presented information
> >(aka as a fact) - and I do not see how either of you could
> >deny that a reputation is always a question of personal
> >interpretation, of opinion.
>
> This is a question exactly for me. As an "expert" of the science of
> science. You confused fantasy as a creative tool for inspirations and
> creativity with fantasy that is taken as a replacement for facts. I
> meant that the latter should be left aside. Fantasy/creativity however
> is the core of science. Because science as a clean positivistic
> technology is a real pain. As "Selbstzweck", as a mean for itself as
> such, it's a dry and dead happening. Creativity without the sound
> examinational process of corroboration and falsification is pure fantasy
> and a delusion. I hope the two aspects can now be estimated in a fair
> way.
I have nothing very new to add in this post - except to support the point
immediately above - and add a few side notes. "How we know what we know" is
probably the heart of the matter - and I missed thanking Adamski for his
substantial contribution earlier - and thought that Boris's reading habits
would interest him (not that Alekhine is evoked here - he does not seem to me
to be at all Dostoyeskayan, but rather that there may be a complexity to
behavior which is self-contradictory.)
> >In the case of Alekhine, Rolf is right we do not wish to
> >condemn him utterly - but why? I do not know - but the
> >added ponderence that he should never have been placed in
> >that position in the first place - seems to me to have
> >something to do with it i.e. absolutely nothing to do with
> >the facts at all.
>
> The problem, Phil and I have with a condemnation as such, is the
> absolute and somewhat meaningless cleaness that is an empty statement.
> Not fair to the historical aspects and the psychological of us human
> beings. Condemnation IMO would have been the result of a trial in the
> mid-forties. But then Alekhine died. Foer me there is no doubt that he
> could well have been judged as a war criminal at least in a mediated
> role ... But I think Phil like me is more interested what Alekhine could
> tell us TODAY. And at least for me a condemnation more so prevents
> insight and relevations. It's unproductive.
Yes - this is a very fine comment - it differentiaties between then and now,
our interest is also in the now, as if this phenomenum were a current one.
Historically there are many difficulties in getting a clear picture because of
the different ways that the situation was perceived by different groups and
with different subjects:
•In Napoleonic times a very free exchange of scientific information -
principally medical - was made in a hemi-semi-official way, with frequent
invitations between the Institut and The Royal Society, and the Cartel boat
sailed twice per week. Science then was much above subjugation to national politics.
•In 1945 the scientists and technicians at Peenemunde were whisked off to
research establishments in the USA and the UK before they fell into Soviet
hands, and not too many questions were asked about "collaboration in design
and manufacture of terror weapons."
•And in the UK, even up to 1942 the Cliveden clique held the intellectual
ground for collaborative and fascist views - quite apart from the outré
efforts of Mosley - and even unto Cabinet Ministers and senior government
advisors. Very few of these people suffered more than restrictions on their
personal contacts as a result.
After the war, from late 1944 in fact, the political emphasis changed to
anti-Sovietism, and a Russian exile living in occupied Europe, pointedly not a
Soviet, may well have received no more than a temporary carear hiatus.
---
So, I think this thread has developed two tangents - this revisionist one
(with or without an appreciation of Frank) - plus a current focus within the
scope of our behavior in 1999, where war-crimes great or small continue to
present us with crises.
IMO, Rolf has collated our comments very well and differentiated these
aspects, striking the centre of both issues.
Phil
Adamski
writes
> "How we know what we know" is
>probably the heart of the matter
Excuse me, but my only impression of your contribution was that you
were peddling some variation of situationist ethics. Then again, it
was all pretty much in one ear, out the other.
>- and I missed thanking Adamski for his
>substantial contribution earlier
I was just rehashing Winter.....
> - and thought that Boris's reading habits
>would interest him (not that Alekhine is evoked here - he does not seem to me
>to be at all Dostoyeskayan, but rather that there may be a complexity to
>behavior which is self-contradictory.)
>
No-one spells the name as 'Dostoyevsky' anymore. Have you read him in
the last say 30 years? Please stick to what you know best, whatever
that may be.
Phil Innes
I am glad that I am not no-one. Why be so trite? Russians currently spell his
name in a variety of ways - but the point of the reference is that this
usually characterises a different and embattled inner/outer personality. This
is not particularly true of Alekhine, where there is an evident variety of
behavior over time, at some instances seemingly principaled, and at others
seemingly of convenience. Why? Phil
Adamski
writes
>Adamski wrote:
>>
>> In article <37481C15...@sover.net>, Phil Innes <in...@sover.net>
>> writes
>>
>> > "How we know what we know" is
>> >probably the heart of the matter
>>
>> Excuse me, but my only impression of your contribution was that you
>> were peddling some variation of situationist ethics. Then again, it
>> was all pretty much in one ear, out the other.
>>
>> >- and I missed thanking Adamski for his
>> >substantial contribution earlier
>>
>> I was just rehashing Winter.....
>>
>> > - and thought that Boris's reading habits
>> >would interest him (not that Alekhine is evoked here - he does not seem to me
>> >to be at all Dostoyeskayan, but rather that there may be a complexity to
>> >behavior which is self-contradictory.)
>> >
>>
>> No-one spells the name as 'Dostoyevsky' anymore. Have you read him in
>> the last say 30 years? Please stick to what you know best, whatever
>> that may be.
>
>I am glad that I am not no-one. Why be so trite?
Without being overly pedantic, I think you've got the wrong word.
> Russians currently spell his
>name in a variety of ways
I couldn't care less how Russians spell or misspell his name - I was
enquiring about the recentness of your acquaintance with his work.
> - but the point of the reference is that this
>usually characterises a different and embattled inner/outer personality.
Now this does serve as a good example of triteness.
> This
>is not particularly true of Alekhine
What are you basing this on? Do we really know all that much about
Alekhine's character, despite all of the books he wrote, despite the
lurid controversies, the drinking, the feud with Capablanca, the charges
of anti-semitism?
Perhaps Alekhine was not only a midget in politics, but in his personal
life as well; no more interesting or worthy of comment than, say, Ron
Moskowitz.
There is no authoritative biography of Alekhine's whole life, and
seemingly little prospect of one in the forseeable future.
>, where there is an evident variety of
>behavior over time, at some instances seemingly principaled, and at others
>seemingly of convenience.
Why is this inconsistent with Alekhine as a Dostoevskian character?
>Why?
Or as Heidegger used to put it, 'why are things the way they are, and
not any other way?'
One might pose the question: Could Alekhine really be blamed if he
considered himself superior to his fellow man? Wouldn't it have been
remarkable if he didn't?
Capa's description of Alekhine before the 1927 New York tournament:
'Scion of a noble Russian family, over six feet tall, weighing nearly
200 pounds, light haired and blue eyed, he makes a conspicuous figure
as he marches forward into the playing hall. He speaks fluently half
a dozen languages, is a Doctor of Laws, and possesses a
degree of culture considerably above that of the average man.
'He has what is probably the most marvelous chess memory that ever
existed. It is said he knows by heart every game played in any
tournament by either a first class club player or master during the
last 25 or 30 years. He certainly knows by heart all of the games
ever played by any of the first-class masters.
'In so-called simultaneous blindfold performances, Alekhine has no
equal among the masters, past or present. Not long ago, in Paris, he
played 30 boards simultaneously without sight of men or boards; a
truly prodigious feat.'
Just one other little snippet of this Capa article is worth quoting
if only because many people may be unaware of the information that:
'Early in 1914 Alekhine's brother came from Moscow to St.Petersburg.
We became good friends, with the result that very soon the three of
us went out together a great deal. In that way the writer was somewhat
influential in shaping the development of Alekhine's game.'
For more on Alekhine's brother see:
http://www.chessarch.com/excavations/0009_alexey/alexey.shtml
Phil Innes
- I was
> enquiring about the recentness of your acquaintance with his work.
> > - but the point of the reference is that this
> >usually characterises a different and embattled inner/outer personality.
> What are you basing this on? Do we really know all that much about
> Alekhine's character, despite all of the books he wrote, despite the
> lurid controversies, the drinking, the feud with Capablanca, the charges
> of anti-semitism?
Thinking. I have taken the extraordinary step of thinking about it all.
> Perhaps Alekhine was not only a midget in politics, but in his personal
> life as well; no more interesting or worthy of comment than, say, Ron
> Moskowitz.
We no long say this, we say that he was differently interesting. But he
certainly was not a null factor in Nazi race-politics (otherwise, why the
fuss) or later with Soviet politics, and the hemi-semi revaluation of his
status by Soviet chess writers. And in a country where art forms were
politicised perhaps you underestimate this point.
I was talking with a Univ student from central Russia the other day, and
asked, "when did chess decline in your schools?" "Oh" he said, "after Fischer."
> There is no authoritative biography of Alekhine's whole life, and
> seemingly little prospect of one in the forseeable future.
Especially since he has surviving family, and any documentation would be
further obscured by the effects of two world wars and the KGB.
> >, where there is an evident variety of
> >behavior over time, at some instances seemingly principaled, and at others
> >seemingly of convenience.
>
> Why is this inconsistent with Alekhine as a Dostoevskian character?
Dostoyeksy wrote from a much steadier state - like a deep-sea diver, going
straight down. I believe this is what greatly interested Freud. A better
writer for Alekhine would be Gogol, possibly Turgenev.
> One might pose the question: Could Alekhine really be blamed if he
> considered himself superior to his fellow man? Wouldn't it have been
> remarkable if he didn't?
>
> Capa's description of Alekhine before the 1927 New York tournament:
>
> 'Scion of a noble Russian family, over six feet tall, weighing nearly
> 200 pounds, light haired and blue eyed, he makes a conspicuous figure
> as he marches forward into the playing hall. He speaks fluently half
> a dozen languages, is a Doctor of Laws, and possesses a
> degree of culture considerably above that of the average man.
"Culture" is an interesting choice of word, don't you think? Considering the
fact that he was also a drunken rué, with a crass sense of humour, and a
somewhat sentimental expression.
This contrast is not at all Dostoyevskayan. But this contrast is the difficult
thing to explain. He was certainly a poseur. The key questions that we
consider about his wartime exploits are; is he an innocent, trolling around
Europe, "just playing chess," and why does he play Frank - who could have been
no challenge for him - true, he later played many thousands of games in Spain
(most of which are unrecorded) with all sorts of players; is this simply some
continuation of chess-with-anyone, or is he cavorting with "greats" because of
their power, and he lacks a stable emotional foundation in a turbulent lifetime?
Pity we can't ask Pushkin to whisper the truth to us from the Griboyedov
canal, but he is busy excavating the Sun.
> 'He has what is probably the most marvelous chess memory that ever
> existed. It is said he knows by heart every game played in any
> tournament by either a first class club player or master during the
> last 25 or 30 years. He certainly knows by heart all of the games
> ever played by any of the first-class masters.
>
I think this is true, but he was also a cheat. He rewrote some of his earlier
games, "improving" them. Over the board I think he never had an equal,
especially in match play. But as an analyst he was not infallible, missed
things, and wrote faulty lines.
I always wanted him to be a more likeable human being - and never wanted to
look too closely at all this "other stuff."
It interests me to see how difficult it is for any kind of specialist to live
a balanced life, not only chess players, but also scientists and others. Under
just a little pressure, sometimes peculiar things emerge.
Phil Innes
Adamski
writes
>Adamski wrote:
>- I was
>> enquiring about the recentness of your acquaintance with his work.
>
>> > - but the point of the reference is that this
>> >usually characterises a different and embattled inner/outer personality.
>
>> What are you basing this on? Do we really know all that much about
>> Alekhine's character, despite all of the books he wrote, despite the
>> lurid controversies, the drinking, the feud with Capablanca, the charges
>> of anti-semitism?
>
>Thinking. I have taken the extraordinary step of thinking about it all.
'It is a capital mistake to theorise in advance of the facts.'
Will your book be what is loosely termed imaginative fiction?
>> Perhaps Alekhine was not only a midget in politics, but in his
>>personal
>> life as well; no more interesting or worthy of comment than, say, Ron
>> Moskowitz.
>
>We no long say this, we say that he was differently interesting. But he
>certainly was not a null factor in Nazi race-politics (otherwise, why the
>fuss)
The Nazis never made a fuss over him. This was 1941; the time for mere
propaganda was long past. I don't think they bothered greatly about
chess. It wasn't really their type of show.
From Francisco Lupi's The Broken King, a memoir of Alekhine (1946):
One afternoon I asked him how it was that he received so many privileges
from the Germans and in German-occupied countries. He revealed that
this arose from an old acquaintance with the notorious Dr. Frank, the
Nuremberg war criminal, who was a chess enthusiast and had one of the
most complete chess libraries Alekhine had ever seen.
'And was Dr. Frank kind to you?'
'Yes, in the beginning he showed great generosity toward me. But later
he began to show signs of suspicion, especially after he knew about a
comment I had made on the execution of Przepiorka, a Jewish player who
had gone into a Prague cafe verboten to Jews.'
And Alekhine added nervously: 'Maybe some of my colleagues do not
understand that I had to act discreetly if I wanted to stay alive.'
> or later with Soviet politics, and the hemi-semi revaluation of his
>status by Soviet chess writers.
Expediency. They had to publish his books which had been out of print.
Besides they always had Tchigorin to fall back on as founder of their
national school.
> And in a country where art forms were
>politicised perhaps you underestimate this point.
>I was talking with a Univ student from central Russia the other day, and
>asked, "when did chess decline in your schools?" "Oh" he said, "after Fischer."
>
>> There is no authoritative biography of Alekhine's whole life, and
>> seemingly little prospect of one in the forseeable future.
>
>Especially since he has surviving family, and any documentation wouldbe
>further obscured by the effects of two world wars and the KGB.
I'm not sure why surviving family need be an obstacle. I rather think
Alekhine's son would welcome a serious study. Needless to say any book
would have to be a labour of love, as you'd struggle to sell more than a
few thousand copies. What gets me is that Winter is constantly bemoaning
this type of omission, whilst basking under the praise of being chess'
greatest historian. Get your finger out, Ed, most of this Chess Notes
crap could be done by a five year old.
>> >, where there is an evident variety of
>> >behavior over time, at some instances seemingly principaled, and at
others
>> >seemingly of convenience.
>>
>> Why is this inconsistent with Alekhine as a Dostoevskian character?
>
>Dostoyeksy wrote from a much steadier state - like a deep-sea diver, going
>straight down.
If you're referring to the circumstances in which Dostoevsky lived and
worked then nothing could be further from the truth, certainly for most
of his career anyway.
> I believe this is what greatly interested Freud.
Sorry, but leave Freud out of this. His take on Dostoevsky's The
Brothers Karamazov is factually wrong, critically inept, and reads
like a museum piece. So like the rest of his work then.....
> A better
>writer for Alekhine would be Gogol, possibly Turgenev.
Turgenev? No, absolutely not.
>
>> One might pose the question: Could Alekhine really be blamed if he
>> considered himself superior to his fellow man? Wouldn't it have been
>> remarkable if he didn't?
>>
>> Capa's description of Alekhine before the 1927 New York tournament:
>>
>> 'Scion of a noble Russian family, over six feet tall, weighing nearly
>> 200 pounds, light haired and blue eyed, he makes a conspicuous figure
>> as he marches forward into the playing hall. He speaks fluently half
>> a dozen languages, is a Doctor of Laws, and possesses a
>> degree of culture considerably above that of the average man.
In the Moran book on Alekhine, which I just picked up from Foyles (do
they honestly expect people to pay £37 for a chess book?) there's a
vivid little pen portrait (of 1922) of Alekhine at work, so to speak:
"Watch Alekhine, the Russian. He is a hatchet-faced blond giant, with
a sweep of hair over his forehead, and several inches of cuff protruding
from his sleeve. First he rests his head in his hands, works his ears
into indescribable shapes, clasps his hands under his chin in pitiful
supplication, shifts uneasily in his seat like a dog on an ant-hill,
frowns, elevates his eyebrows, rises suddenly and stands behind his
chair for a panoramic view of the table, resumes his seat, then, as
the twin clock at his side ticks remorselessly on, sweeps his hair back
for the thousandth time, shifts a pawn, taps the clock button, and
records his move."
From what you write I'm assuming you don't have this book; am I correct?
I don't want to bore you here.
>"Culture" is an interesting choice of word, don't you think? Considering the
>fact that he was also a drunken rué, with a crass sense of humour, and a
>somewhat sentimental expression.
Remember that Capa's words were written prior to their 1927 match. As
Winter remarks, before 1930 hardly anyone had a bad word to say about
Alekhine, in print at least.
With regard to the demon drink I'm reminded somewhat of the story of
dashing 'Gentleman' A.P.F. Chapman, England captain of the victorious
Ashes tour of Australia 1928-29, who died a drunken embarrassment to
his friends. Or was that C.B.Fry? I can't remember if it was Fry or
Chapman found running naked on a beach.
>This contrast is not at all Dostoyevskayan.
Haven't we already agreed on how unqualified you are to make such
pronouncements? Of course, I never said I thought Alekhine was a
suitable model for a Dostoevsky character, but then again, hardly
anyone would be.
>But this contrast is the difficult
>thing to explain. He was certainly a poseur.
Put it this way, he had a lot to pose about.
> The key questions that we
>consider about his wartime exploits are; is he an innocent, trolling around
>Europe, "just playing chess," and why does he play Frank - who could have been
>no challenge for him - true
He doesn't play Frank to my knowledge; the only game I know is a
consultation game partnering Frank. This game is given in TEMCCA.
Moran laconically writes: 'At this period [October-November 1941]
he saw much of Poland's great Nazi chiefs. In the following game,
Alekhine's partner is the governor of Warsaw, Dr. Fischer.'
>, he later played many thousands of games in Spain
>(most of which are unrecorded) with all sorts of players; is this simply some
>continuation of chess-with-anyone, or is he cavorting with "greats" because of
>their power,
This sentence appears to be wrongly constructed.
> and he lacks a stable emotional foundation in a turbulent
>lifetime?
>
>Pity we can't ask Pushkin to whisper the truth to us from the Griboyedov
>canal, but he is busy excavating the Sun.
Over my head, my great expertise on Russian literature notwithstanding.
>
>> 'He has what is probably the most marvelous chess memory that ever
>> existed. It is said he knows by heart every game played in any
>> tournament by either a first class club player or master during the
>> last 25 or 30 years. He certainly knows by heart all of the games
>> ever played by any of the first-class masters.
>>
>
>I think this is true, but he was also a cheat.
'Kasparov, a man like Alekhine.'
> He rewrote some of his earlier
>games, "improving" them. Over the board I think he never had an equal,
>especially in match play. But as an analyst he was not infallible, missed
>things, and wrote faulty lines.
Any idiot, with a souped-up Pentium powered Fritz, can make a
monkey out of one of the greatest masters who ever lived!
>
>I always wanted him to be a more likeable human being - and never wanted to
>look too closely at all this "other stuff."
I still don't think enough is known about his personal life to do
anything much more than speculate on the state of his soul.
Frankly, I don't find most of this 'other stuff' too damning. No
reason to think that the journalism of his time was anymore trustworthy
than today's.
Phil Innes
the drinking, the feud with Capablanca, the charges
> >> of anti-semitism?
> >
> >Thinking. I have taken the extraordinary step of thinking about it all.
>
> 'It is a capital mistake to theorise in advance of the facts.'
I see you are an advocate of "Go straight at 'em, and board 'em in the smoke,"
as our good Nelson has proscribed.
> Will your book be what is loosely termed imaginative fiction?
Something between John Fowles and Patrick O'Brian and Lara Lovelips.
> >........ (otherwise, why the
> >fuss)
>
> The Nazis never made a fuss over him. This was 1941; the time for mere
> propaganda was long past. I don't think they bothered greatly about
> chess. It wasn't really their type of show.
I meant - why do *we* still fuss over it?
> From Francisco Lupi's The Broken King, a memoir of Alekhine (1946):
>
> One afternoon I asked him how it was that he received so many privileges
> from the Germans and in German-occupied countries. He revealed that
> this arose from an old acquaintance with the notorious Dr. Frank, the
> Nuremberg war criminal, who was a chess enthusiast and had one of the
> most complete chess libraries Alekhine had ever seen.
> 'And was Dr. Frank kind to you?'
> 'Yes, in the beginning he showed great generosity toward me. But later
> he began to show signs of suspicion, especially after he knew about a
> comment I had made on the execution of Przepiorka, a Jewish player who
> had gone into a Prague cafe verboten to Jews.'
> And Alekhine added nervously: 'Maybe some of my colleagues do not
> understand that I had to act discreetly if I wanted to stay alive.'
What an interesting quotation! Thanks for finding it. Tell me though, how
much does he "explain to the gallery" and how much is he "acquisitive of the
good-will of great men?"
> > or later with Soviet politics, and the hemi-semi revaluation of his
> >status by Soviet chess writers.
>
> Expediency. They had to publish his books which had been out of print.
> Besides they always had Tchigorin to fall back on as founder of their
> national school.
I do not think this can be an entirely serious comment.
> > And in a country where art forms were
> >politicised perhaps you underestimate this point.
>
> >I was talking with a Univ student from central Russia the other day, and
> >asked, "when did chess decline in your schools?" "Oh" he said, "after Fischer."
> >
> >> There is no authoritative biography of Alekhine's whole life, and
> >> seemingly little prospect of one in the forseeable future.
> >
> >Especially since he has surviving family, and any documentation wouldbe
> >further obscured by the effects of two world wars and the KGB.
>
> I'm not sure why surviving family need be an obstacle.
Just incidentally, did you see Edward Winter's article at the chesscafe.com?
Another very good article, encompassing both out points, I think.
I rather think
> Alekhine's son would welcome a serious study. Needless to say any book
> would have to be a labour of love, as you'd struggle to sell more than a
> few thousand copies.
yes indeed. It needs something else to prop it up - otherwise it would be just
as interesting (for me) to write a pure biorgraphy.
But my original motive had nothing to do with Alekhine! It had to do with
people who "fall by the wayside" especially in wartime situations. So my plot
develops parallel characters with whom it is easier to identify than this
weird Russian whacko genius, - it aint an unknown stategm, Kev.
What gets me is that Winter is constantly bemoaning
> this type of omission, whilst basking under the praise of being chess'
> greatest historian. Get your finger out, Ed, most of this Chess Notes
> crap could be done by a five year old.
I see that you have ambitions - rise to them - no - joking apart - you have an
independent mind and like to research things - you only lack that saturnal
element ('cause of your youf!)
---
>.......in which Dostoevsky lived and
> worked then nothing could be further from the truth, certainly for most
> of his career anyway.
>
> > I believe this is what greatly interested Freud.
>
> Sorry, but leave Freud out of this. His take on Dostoevsky's The
> Brothers Karamazov is factually wrong, critically inept, and reads
> like a museum piece. So like the rest of his work then.....
I expect more of you than this! I say that it inspired Freud - who cares if he
is wrong? What I say is true. Pyschology is another greedy goblin, but we must
allow even in these 'disciplines" for there to be insight...
(I agree its unlikeable - laugh)
> > A better
> >writer for Alekhine would be Gogol, possibly Turgenev.
>
> Turgenev? No, absolutely not.
Fathers and sons - surely - the early man - but later Gogol.
---
> >>
> >> 'Scion of a noble Russian family, over six feet tall, weighing nearly
> >> 200 pounds, light haired and blue eyed, he makes a conspicuous figure
> >> as he marches forward into the playing hall. He speaks fluently half
> >> a dozen languages, is a Doctor of Laws, and possesses a
> >> degree of culture considerably above that of the average man.
A sophisticate, in both senses of the word. he certainly spoke Russian,
French, German and English, a little Spanish and Italian, and he could read Mandarin.
> In the Moran book on Alekhine, which I just picked up from Foyles (do
> they honestly expect people to pay £37 for a chess book?) there's a
> vivid little pen portrait (of 1922) of Alekhine at work, so to speak:
>
> "Watch Alekhine, the Russian. He is a hatchet-faced blond giant, with
> a sweep of hair over his forehead, and several inches of cuff protruding
> from his sleeve. First he rests his head in his hands, works his ears
> into indescribable shapes, clasps his hands under his chin in pitiful
> supplication, shifts uneasily in his seat like a dog on an ant-hill,
> frowns, elevates his eyebrows, rises suddenly and stands behind his
> chair for a panoramic view of the table, resumes his seat, then, as
> the twin clock at his side ticks remorselessly on, sweeps his hair back
> for the thousandth time, shifts a pawn, taps the clock button, and
> records his move."
>
> From what you write I'm assuming you don't have this book; am I correct?
> I don't want to bore you here.
Laugh - you are most entertaining.
But. Do you know that a group of three formidable writers have cited Moran as
evidence of Alekhines "collaboration?"
And that another group of three formidable authorities have cited Moran in
refutation of this "collaboration.'
The loudest voice is from Kmoch - which Rolf will tell you about if you ask
him nicely.
> >"Culture" is an interesting choice of word, don't you think? Considering the
> >fact that he was also a drunken rué, with a crass sense of humour, and a
> >somewhat sentimental expression.
>
> Remember ..... running naked on a beach.
Have done it, never died.
> >This contrast is not at all Dostoyevskayan.
>
> Haven't we already agreed on how unqualified you are to make such
> pronouncements?
Only you agreed, I am waiting to see how I really think.
> Of course, I never said I thought Alekhine was a
> suitable model for a Dostoevsky character, but then again, hardly
> anyone would be.
Kasparov.
> >But this contrast is the difficult
> >thing to explain. He was certainly a poseur.
>
> Put it this way, he had a lot to pose about.
Really? isn't this only what we think when we imagine ourselves as world
champion? In reality perhaps it was all too boring - otherwise why all the
drinking? 4 wives (four!) and not a great sense of his own political stance.
(Why not leave Europe in 1938?)
> > The key questions that we
> >consider about his wartime exploits are; is he an innocent, trolling around
> >Europe, "just playing chess," and why does he play Frank - who could have been
> >no challenge for him - true
>
> He doesn't play Frank to my knowledge; the only game I know is a
> consultation game partnering Frank. This game is given in TEMCCA.
Rolf hints darkly that there was even more to it - even some other player...
and I see no reason to doubt Ed Winter.
> Moran laconically writes: 'At this period [October-November 1941]
> he saw much of Poland's great Nazi chiefs. In the following game,
> Alekhine's partner is the governor of Warsaw, Dr. Fischer.'
sort of pythonesque, "taking in Bradford, and..."
> >, he later played many thousands of games in Spain
"mostly with yer actual Spanyards..."
> >(most of which are unrecorded) with all sorts of players; is this simply some
> >continuation of chess-with-anyone, or is he cavorting with "greats" because of
> >their power,
>
> This sentence appears to be wrongly constructed.
or construed - how is that odd, old chum?
> > and he lacks a stable emotional foundation in a turbulent
> >lifetime?
> >
> >Pity we can't ask Pushkin to whisper the truth to us from the Griboyedov
> >canal, but he is busy excavating the Sun.
>
> Over my head, my great expertise on Russian literature notwithstanding.
Mandelstam.
Its worth stealing, even if you steal nothing else this year.
---
> > He rewrote some of his earlier
> >games, "improving" them. Over the board I think he never had an equal,
> >especially in match play. But as an analyst he was not infallible, missed
> >things, and wrote faulty lines.
>
> Any idiot,
I know some! We have been debating this here recently, to wit "Can any idiot
produce Frütz lines and sartorical notes," and is this good enough for the masses?
with a souped-up Pentium powered Fritz, can make a
> monkey out of one of the greatest masters who ever lived!
Or possibly verify his "mysterious moves."
> >
> >I always wanted him to be a more likeable human being - and never wanted to
> >look too closely at all this "other stuff."
>
> I still don't think enough is known about his personal life to do
> anything much more than speculate on the state of his soul.
> Frankly, I don't find most of this 'other stuff' too damning. No
> reason to think that the journalism of his time was anymore trustworthy
> than today's.
Well, I agree.
Thats why I was delighted to find some people who knew Vera - If only I could
find some 'knew him' types I could be a second rate journaist!
Hey, Mon. Frae Saxon yerl nae sa bad.
Scryffthlln
Innes
Adamski
writes
Just a couple of things I've seen recently which touch on our subject:
From the Drudge Report:
http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm
SCHINDLER WIDOW THREATENS TO SUE SPIELBERG; WANTS 6% OF HOLOCAUST MOVIE
PROFITS
"Steven Spielberg only gave me $50,000 for making a film about the
Holocaust and my husband, and he never ask me permission, he just did
it."
Emilie Schindler is angry, again.
After causing commotion with her autobiography in 1996, at the age of
91, the widow of Oskar, the hero of Spielberg's Oscar-winning
SCHINDLER'S LIST, is trying once again to put the historical record
straight and get her just reward while she still has the time.
"I saved many Jews, too -- more than Oskar did," Mrs. Schindler says in
an interview set to air on German television Monday night.
And she now wants Spielberg to pay!
Schindler is now demanding full and appropriate recompense from
Spielberg for the blockbuster film.
She is asking for 6 percent of the boxoffice proceeds and says she will
pursue the matter through the courts if necessary.
Steven Spielberg could not be reached for immediate comment.
Spielberg's movie, Emilie Schindler says, was simply incorrect. "What
does he know about my life? Absolutely nothing."
In the past, Spielberg has said: "She had praised the film to me
personally."
In the interview on Monday night, Schindler insists it was she, not
Oskar, who signed the documents that placed more than a thousand Jews
into her husband's small armaments factory, saving them from certain
death in Auschwitz.
Mrs. Schindler has lashed out at her husband for his infidelity:
"What did I think? I'll tell you. Scheisskopf [s---head]. But I was the
idiot for falling in love with him. I am never going to cry; there is no
sense in it. Schindler changed women like he changed suits. Once, we
were well-off, but then we lost everything and he abandoned me and I
have not recovered."
And Mrs. Schindler has made the shocking claim: There was never anything
called a 'Schindler's List'!
"There never was a 'Schindler's List'. It was drawn up by a man called
Goldman. This man took money to put a name on that list - no money, no
place on the list. I was told this by a Dr Schwartz, in Vienna; he had
paid in diamonds to save his wife...
"Hah! Neither of us was a hero," Mrs. Schindler said. "Oskar was always
complex; he was playing both extremes, always, even at the end with
Nazis against the Jews."
--
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/books/annual4/chap07.html
Reysha
>(most of which are unrecorded) with all sorts of players; is this simply some
>continuation of chess-with-anyone, or is he cavorting with "greats" because of
I'd have to say the latter as it was that he would 'throw' games
against those whose favour could be of benefit. Still - is this such
a terrible crime, considering the circumstances? One might even say
it was simple survival.
>> 'He has what is probably the most marvelous chess memory that ever
>> existed. It is said he knows by heart every game played in any
Of course Pillsbury was pretty amazing in this respect.
>I think this is true, but he was also a cheat. He rewrote some of his earlier
>games, "improving" them. Over the board I think he never had an equal,
Reportedly, he also took theoretical discussion and post mortems from
casual games presented them as actual games.
>especially in match play. But as an analyst he was not infallible, missed
>things, and wrote faulty lines.
Still one of the best in the business though.
>It interests me to see how difficult it is for any kind of specialist to live
>a balanced life, not only chess players, but also scientists and others. Under
>just a little pressure, sometimes peculiar things emerge.
What is that quote... "the line between genius and madness is a very
fine one"
Phil Innes
>
> >It interests me to see how difficult it is for any kind of specialist to live
> >a balanced life, not only chess players, but also scientists and others. Under
> >just a little pressure, sometimes peculiar things emerge.
> What is that quote... "the line between genius and madness is a very
> fine one"
This was a truly interereting response. Perhaps there is no line, Reysha - The
"genius" is merely more adept at madness than the novitiate? Phil
Adamski
writes
>Adamski wrote:
>the drinking, the feud with Capablanca, the charges
>> >> of anti-semitism?
>> >
>> >Thinking. I have taken the extraordinary step of thinking about it all.
>>
>> 'It is a capital mistake to theorise in advance of the facts.'
>
>I see you are an advocate of "Go straight at 'em, and board 'em in the smoke,"
>as our good Nelson has proscribed.
>
>> Will your book be what is loosely termed imaginative fiction?
>
>Something between John Fowles and Patrick O'Brian and Lara Lovelips.
John Fowles is one of Artur Yusopov's favourite writers.
>
>> >........ (otherwise, why the
>> >fuss)
>>
>> The Nazis never made a fuss over him. This was 1941; the time for mere
>> propaganda was long past. I don't think they bothered greatly about
>> chess. It wasn't really their type of show.
>
>I meant - why do *we* still fuss over it?
>
Oh, only a few of us. Others apparently hold the view that when a chess
player is either retired or, worse still, dead, their contribution to
chess is finished, and that thereafter they need no longer be considered
worthy of mention.
Who knows why we like certain players and not others? After all, who
can fathom aesthetics? Why take Staunton's side over Morphy's? Why
favour Pillsbury but not Lasker? Imagine a seven year old reading of
Alekhine's victory over Capa with relish! No-one but Reti gave Alekhine
a prayer in that match. My favourite picture of Alekhine is one taken
at one of his great simultaneous blindfold exhibitions - he's facing the
camera, his back to the participants.
As you're about the one person with whom I still maintain good relations
with on the group, I'll do you the favour of quoting this second half of
Lupi's Memoir in full - actually I need the typing practice.
>> From Francisco Lupi's The Broken King, a memoir of Alekhine (1946):
>
Grand Tribunal
When I left for England, Alekhine had not yet received any important
letter by which he could accurately judge what the chess world thought
about him. So, before I left I promised I would sound in London the
opinions of the distinguished players in the tournament, his former
colleagues from many countries. Actually, 24 hours before the end of
the contests, the masters Euwe and Denker convoked an assembly to judge
Alekhine's case. Among those present, besides Denker and Euwe, were
Sir George Thomas, Dr.Ossip Bernstein, Dr.Tartakover, List, Friedmann,
Medina, Abrahams, and Herman Steiner. The meeting was somewhat lively
and it can easily be understood that some of the Jews present showed
hard feelings. I must say, however, that the attitude of Denker and
Euwe was very calm and dignified. They seemed to realise the
responsibility of trying a man for his professional life while he was
many miles away in Lisbon. In the end, the question was referred to
the International Chess Federation, while Alekhine was asked to present
himself to his own French chess authorities to defend himself from the
accusations made against him.
When I got back to Lisbon I found Alekhine very willing to fall in with
this advice. He immediately applied for a French visa. He was dead
before it arrived.
Friendship with Nuremberg Criminal
In those last weeks, grief, sickness, and poverty entirely crushed him.
In desperation some of us decided to appeal again to his wife. "Since
his arrival here a month ago, " we wrote, " your husband has been in an
impossible situation - sick, with no material resources and living
virtually on charity in an Estoril boardinghouse."
Days went by, and nothing new happened. Alekhine spent his time in bed,
or pacing his room like a lion in a cage.
One afternoon I asked him how it was that he received so many
privileges from the Germans and in German-occupied countries. He
revealed that this arose from an old acquaintance with the notorious Dr.
Frank, the Nuremberg war criminal, who was a chess enthusiast and had
one of the most complete chess libraries Alekhine had ever seen.
"And was Dr. Frank kind to you?"
"Yes, in the beginning he showed great generosity toward me. But later
he began to show signs of suspicion, especially after he knew about a
comment I had made on the execution of Przepiorka, a Jewish player who
had gone into a Prague cafe verboten to Jews."
And Alekhine added nervously: "Maybe some of my colleagues do not
understand that I had to act discreetly if I wanted to stay alive."
Fifteen days before his death, I was called on the telephone and
heard Dr. Alekhine ask me sadly, whether I wanted to work with him on
"Comments on the Best Games of the Hastings Tournament." adding: "I am
completely out of money and I have to make some to buy my cigarettes."
The Cable from Moscow
I went to Estoril and tried to cheer him up a little. We began work
immediately. And when we were almost at the end of Tartakover's games,
deep into the task, we heard a knock at the door. I can see him now,
rising, and with uncertain steps walking to the door to receive this
telegram from Mr.Derbyshire in Nottingham:
"Moscow offer substantial sum (1) for chess championship of world to be
played in England between you and Botvinnik suggest you appoint someone
in England represent you and arrange all details wrie reply."
This was the cause of Alekhine's second cardiac stroke. It was hard for
him to overcome the shock, and he could not believe that he would soon
be back in the great chess world. He answered Mr. Derbyshire
immediately, accepting the match provided that Botvinnik would agree to
the conditions of 1939. Poor Alekhine! He would have accepted any
conditions. Some days later Michael Botvinnik himself sent a letter
through the British Embassy in Lisbon. The text was in Russian, with an
English version attached:
"World's Championship.
"Mr. A. Alekhine!
"I regret that the war prevented the organisation of our match in 1939,
But I herewith again challenge you to a match for the world's chess
championship.
"If you agree, a person authorised by myself and the Moscow Chess Club
will conduct negotiations with you or your representative on the
question of conditions, date and the place where the match should be
held, preferably through the British Chess Federation.
"I await your answer, in which I also ask you to state your ideas about
the date and place of the match. I beg you to send a telegraphic reply,
with subsequent postal confirmation, to the Moscow Chess Club."
February 4th, 1946.
"(Sgd.) Michael Botvinnik."
Secret Weapons
A few days after this letter arrived, when Alex had already asked Mr.
du Mont in London, the editor of the British Chess Magazine, to be his
intermediary, something happened which will seem out of place mentioned
here - Churchill's sensational speech at Fulton. (2) As soon as Dr.
Alekhine read Reuters' report of the speech in the Portuguese papers he
telephoned me in alarm, asking me to take the first train to Estoril,
because he urgently wanted to speak to me.
When I arrived he was slumped in an armchair, utterly demoralized. He
said: "See how unhappy I am! The world has got no sense and is moving
towards another war. I am sure my match with Botvinnik will never be
possible."
I tried to reassure him. We got to work again over the games of the
Hastings Tournament, and once, while we stopped to have a cup of coffee,
I asked him what was the opening plan he had for his play with
Botvinnik. He whispered, forgetful at once of his usual preoccupations,
that the world would be startled by the ideas he had in mind. And he
said, with a child-like look in his eyes, that he was going to play
Botvinnik a little trick. "I intend to play open games, trying all the
time to get him into the Ruy Lopez."
I answered: "But Botvinnik will never get into the Lopez.(3) You know
very well that the Russian masters have a deep knowledge of the French
game. So..."
He replied that he had been studying some variations of the Panov atack.
When I asked him to show me some of them he made a gesture as if to say:
"Whoever displayed his secret weapons?"
Night Club Flicker
This was the old Alekhine. But 24 hours later, at about one in the
morning of Friday, March 22, as I climbed the stairs of my apartment in
Lisbon, I saw, leaning against the door, somebody whom a few steps
closer I recognised as my friend. When I was near him, his hands grasped
nervously the sleeves of my coat, and he said, in a voice I shall never
forget: "Lupi, the loneliness is killing me! I must live. I must feel
life about me. I have already worn down the floorboards of my room. Take
me to some night club."
This was the last time he felt the dynamic life force within him. While
the band played melancholy tangos it made me ill to watch the shadow of
him who was once the greatest chess player of all time.
As we sat, he again talked of the match with Botvinnik. "Could it, would
it, ever take place?"
It was late when we parted, and this was the last time I was to see him
alive.
The autopsy said of him that he suffered from arterio-sclerosis, chronic
gastritis and duodenitis, that his heart weighed 350 grammes, that the
perimeter of his skull was 540 millimeters, and so on...
"Old Dr. Alex"
All I know is that on Sunday morning about 10:30 I was awakened and
asked to hurry to Estoril, because something had happened to "old Dr.
Alex." I entered his room together with the Portuguese authorities.
There he was, sitting in his chair, in so calm an attitude that one
would have thought he was asleep. There was only a little foam at the
corner of his mouth.(4)
The medical verdict as to the cause of death - that a piece of meat had
caught in his throat - had no meaning for me.
To me he looked like the King of the chessmen, toppled over after the
most dramatic game, the one played on the board of Life.
"'Tis all a Chequerboard of Nights and Days
" Where Destiny with Men for Pieces Play;
" Hither and thither moves and mates and slays
" And one by one back in the Closet lays." (5)
Checkmate! That is in the original Persian shah mat - the King is dead.
THE END
Notes by translator Frank X. Mur in Moran's book:
1) $10,000: winner and loser to split 2/3 and 1/3 according to J. du
Mont, 3/5 to 2/5 according to B.D. Wood.
2) Winston Churchill called war with Russia inevitable ("Iron Curtain"
speech, Fulton, Missouri, March 5, 1946.)
3) Lupi was unaware that in the 1941 USSR Absolute Championship,
Botvinnik beat Smyslov twice as Black: in a French defence and a Ruy
Lopez. Alekhine wisely included the Lopez in his arsenal to meet 1..e5.
4) He died in the company of his dearest friends: a peg-in travelling
set lay open beside him - C.J.S. Purdy
5) From the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam(..)
>
>What an interesting quotation! Thanks for finding it. Tell me though, how
>much does he "explain to the gallery" and how much is he "acquisitive of the
>good-will of great men?"
>
>> > or later with Soviet politics, and the hemi-semi revaluation of his
>> >status by Soviet chess writers.
>>
>> Expediency. They had to publish his books which had been out of print.
>> Besides they always had Tchigorin to fall back on as founder of their
>> national school.
>
>I do not think this can be an entirely serious comment.
"The Portuguese Chess Federation claimed the body. The funeral on April
16 was sadder than most: a few aficionados and a humble sepulchre in the
Estoril cemetery.
"The remains were forgotten until 1956, tenth anniversary of his death,
when the International, Russian and French Chess Federations transferred
them to Montparnasse Cemetery, Paris(...)"
"The reinternment was attended by Alekhine's son, who repaired from
Switzerland, the Russian Ambassador to France, the FIDE president and
vice president, numerous Russian chess players, including Bronstein,
Geller, Keres, Petrosian, Smyslov and Spassky, the Franco-Russians O.
Bernstein and V. Halberstadt, many French players, as well as
journalists, et.cetera.
A large turnout for a man who died alone."
>> > And in a country where art forms were
>> >politicised perhaps you underestimate this point.
>>
>> >I was talking with a Univ student from central Russia the other day, and
>> >asked, "when did chess decline in your schools?" "Oh" he said, "after
>Fischer."
>> >
>> >> There is no authoritative biography of Alekhine's whole life, and
>> >> seemingly little prospect of one in the forseeable future.
>> >
>> >Especially since he has surviving family, and any documentation wouldbe
>> >further obscured by the effects of two world wars and the KGB.
>>
>> I'm not sure why surviving family need be an obstacle.
>
>Just incidentally, did you see Edward Winter's article at the chesscafe.com?
>Another very good article, encompassing both out points, I think.
>
> I rather think
>> Alekhine's son would welcome a serious study. Needless to say any book
>> would have to be a labour of love, as you'd struggle to sell more than a
>> few thousand copies.
>
>yes indeed. It needs something else to prop it up - otherwise it would be just
>as interesting (for me) to write a pure biorgraphy.
>
>But my original motive had nothing to do with Alekhine! It had to do with
>people who "fall by the wayside" especially in wartime situations.
Have you read Sartre's wartime triology?
> So my plot
>develops parallel characters with whom it is easier to identify than this
>weird Russian whacko genius, - it aint an unknown stategm, Kev.
OK, Steve. You know Bakhtin's book on Dostoevsky? In the distant past
I even graced Amazon with a review of it....
> What gets me is that Winter is constantly bemoaning
>> this type of omission, whilst basking under the praise of being chess'
>> greatest historian. Get your finger out, Ed, most of this Chess Notes
>> crap could be done by a five year old.
>
>I see that you have ambitions - rise to them - no - joking apart - you have an
>independent mind and like to research things - you only lack that saturnal
>element ('cause of your youf!)
I'd like to do a book on Fischer. It could even be the greatest chess
book ever written. Alas, time and money, or the lack thereof, forbid.
Of course, first I'd have to have Bobby's collaboration or it would it
be no good. Tracking down Bobby in Budapest and talking him around would
be adventure enough. Sort of Emil and the Detectives meets Heart of
Darkness.
>---
>>.......in which Dostoevsky lived and
>> worked then nothing could be further from the truth, certainly for most
>> of his career anyway.
>>
>> > I believe this is what greatly interested Freud.
>>
>> Sorry, but leave Freud out of this. His take on Dostoevsky's The
>> Brothers Karamazov is factually wrong, critically inept, and reads
>> like a museum piece. So like the rest of his work then.....
>
>I expect more of you than this! I say that it inspired Freud - who cares if he
>is wrong? What I say is true. Pyschology is another greedy goblin, but we must
>allow even in these 'disciplines" for there to be insight...
Give to psychology what belongs to psychology, and to man what belongs
to man.
>(I agree its unlikeable - laugh)
>
>> > A better
>> >writer for Alekhine would be Gogol, possibly Turgenev.
>>
>> Turgenev? No, absolutely not.
>
>Fathers and sons - surely - the early man - but later Gogol.
I recommend the book Dialogues with Dostoevsky by Robert Louis Jackson.
Interesting essays on connections between the thought and art of
Dostoevsky and other writers, including both Gogol and Turgenev.
Of course I was only fishing for a compliment.
>But. Do you know that a group of three formidable writers have cited Moran as
>evidence of Alekhines "collaboration?"
>
>And that another group of three formidable authorities have cited Moran in
>refutation of this "collaboration.'
All I'll say is that on the one hand, IMO it establishes beyond
reasonable doubt Alekhine's authorship of the articles, but in a wider
sense clears Alekhine of any true complicity with the Nazis.
>The loudest voice is from Kmoch - which Rolf will tell you about if you ask
>him nicely.
My affection for Rolf remains boundless, but I can no longer trust him
as I used to.
Note to Rolf: add Claire Smith to Mickey's role-call of girlfriends.
This was circa 1992. As he's become more successful, and, of course,
richer he's been able to move upmarket in those stakes. Smith, well
you wouldn't say no; Zoe, yes very classy, ; Tara, the nearest thing
British chess has to the Divine Sophia.
John, are you going to do that piece on Harriet Hunt?
>> >"Culture" is an interesting choice of word, don't you think? Considering the
>> >fact that he was also a drunken rué, with a crass sense of humour, and a
>> >somewhat sentimental expression.
>>
>> Remember ..... running naked on a beach.
>
>Have done it, never died.
>
>> >This contrast is not at all Dostoyevskayan.
>>
>> Haven't we already agreed on how unqualified you are to make such
>> pronouncements?
>
>Only you agreed, I am waiting to see how I really think.
>
>> Of course, I never said I thought Alekhine was a
>> suitable model for a Dostoevsky character, but then again, hardly
>> anyone would be.
>
>Kasparov.
>
>> >But this contrast is the difficult
>> >thing to explain. He was certainly a poseur.
>>
>> Put it this way, he had a lot to pose about.
>
>Really? isn't this only what we think when we imagine ourselves as world
>champion? In reality perhaps it was all too boring - otherwise why all the
>drinking?
As a Russian, abstinence would have been more remarkable. Besides if you
were married to a woman 16 years older than you'd be knocking 'em back
as well.
>> >Pity we can't ask Pushkin to whisper the truth to us from the Griboyedov
>> >canal, but he is busy excavating the Sun.
>>
>> Over my head, my great expertise on Russian literature notwithstanding.
>
>Mandelstam.
>Its worth stealing, even if you steal nothing else this year.
I'm always stealing stuff.
---
>> > He rewrote some of his earlier
>> >games, "improving" them. Over the board I think he never had an
equal,
>> >especially in match play. But as an analyst he was not infallible,
missed
>> >things, and wrote faulty lines.
>>
>> Any idiot,
That reminds me, why haven't you signed my petition to TWIC?
>
Reysha
Good question! Of all the areas in science that we have made such
progress in, the human mind is still such a vast mystery.
What would also be an interesting exercise is to compile a list of
'mad geniuses' and their profession.
I'm sure chessplayers, artists, and musicians would rank near the top
which therefore raises the question 'what other traits do we share
with our artist and musician kin'?
Also great inventors and scientists... notably Nikola Tesla comes to
mind!
Phil Innes <in...@sover.net> wrote:
Phil Innes
>
> Are genius and madness brother and sister, or fawcets of the same?
> Good question! Of all the areas in science that we have made such
> progress in, the human mind is still such a vast mystery.
>
> What would also be an interesting exercise is to compile a list of
> 'mad geniuses' and their profession.
>
> I'm sure chessplayers, artists, and musicians would rank near the top
> which therefore raises the question 'what other traits do we share
> with our artist and musician kin'?
>
> Also great inventors and scientists... notably Nikola Tesla comes to
> mind!
Hi - You have this way of looking at "genius" but I was thinking of another
when I wrote the stuff below. You know the old "genii" of myth? This is some
aspect of our intelligence (for everyone - not only some special people) that
is mostly unconscious, but in some people is more advanced, a little more
conscious - and delivers to them peculiar insights and energies. The trouble
is these insights are difficult to explain because they are not formulated in
a concrete manner - but in a syncretist manner.
That is - just like playing chess, no amount of analysis will provide an
insight, but an insight can then be extensively analysed. But what is it that
provides this first insight?
And if your life is a little like this - EUREKA ! and you jump out of your
collective dream bath into some original insight - how to live in the world of
rational people, sociologists, bean-counters and such?
This is the 'craxy energy of the genii. We do not understand it much because
we do not give it much leash in our own lives - IMO. Phil
Robert
faults, but mental defect was not one of them.
No, genius and madness are not brother and sister. This is too broad a
question. Some mental illness can be inherited, others acquired. In
chess, one might ask, is there a correlation between chess and paranoia.
I believe 20 percent of the world number ones/ world chess champs since
Paul Morphy have been mentally ill at some point in their lives (3 of
the 15 since A.Anderssen won London 1851). That is the same percentage
given in a commercial I saw about mental illness affecting the
population--1 in 5.
However, it is curious that all three men, Morphy, Steinitz and Fischer,
suffered from persecution complexes, after they had retired or lost
their crowns. This is atypical for paranoia. Except when linked to
Alzheimer's disease, it does not normally get more acute with age. But
what is normal with mental illness?
Robert Reinke
Phil Innes
I see that Hans Ree has written some new anecdotes about Tartakower and
Alekhine at the chesscafe.com
Tartakower's family perished in a pogrom, yet he was the sole GM willing to
forward the impoverished Alekhine monies in 1946.
I won't repeat the entire thing - see it at chesscafe.
Strange, isn't it Adamski, how T could employ such a stance - you think it is
a subtle form of revenge as Ree suggests?
Phil
Adamski
writes
>Phil Innes wrote:
>I see that Hans Ree has written some new anecdotes about Tartakower and
>Alekhine at the chesscafe.com
>
>Tartakower's family perished in a pogrom, yet he was the sole GM willing to
>forward the impoverished Alekhine monies in 1946.
>
>I won't repeat the entire thing - see it at chesscafe.
Seen back on May 26th.
>Strange, isn't it Adamski, how T could employ such a stance - you think it is
>a subtle form of revenge as Ree suggests?
I was going to address this article in my final post on Alekhine, but
it may as well be now.
There appears to be a point of contention concerning when Tartakower's
parents were murdered. Ree states that Tartakower, born 1887, was 12
years old when this happened, which tallies with the Oxford Companion
when it says "In 1899, after both his parents had been murdered, he left
Russia...' But in the Moran book it states the pogrom occurred in 1911.
This in turn finds support from this piece on the Chesscafe:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kmoch03.txt
" He was born in Russia but as an Austrian citizen. Though his
parents were Jewish, he was christened at birth, his parents having
adopted Christianity some time earlier. Jews in czarist Russia took
that protective step to avoid persecution, but it failed to save
Tartakower's parents, who were murdered in a pogrom in Rostov-
on-Don in 1911. His brother, who at the time was also studying in
Vienna, received the news while playing chess in the Cafe Central.
He flew into a rage and announced that he was leaving for Russia
that very day to avenge the murders of his parents. His friends held
him back only with the greatest difficulty."
Now this Ree article contains a vicious calumny against Alekhine:
"Alekhine had written that there would probably never be a Jewish world
champion again, and now Tartakower signalled a humiliating message: you
wanted us to be killed, but I have forgiven you."
So Staunton ducked Morphy, Morphy was a queer, Alekhine wanted Jews
to be killed and Fischer is insane?
Reysha
hope) that it will provide a little bit of perspective on those time -
an ingredient... the 'key ingredient', that has been missing from so
much of this discussion.
Adamski <mic...@mobius1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>with on the group, I'll do you the favour of quoting this second half of
>Lupi's Memoir in full - actually I need the typing practice.
>One afternoon I asked him how it was that he received so many
Phil Innes
probably know Alekhine, and John Fowles mentions AA in the introduction to
"The Royal Game."
Does Adamski, or other, know anything of the funeral of Freud in London in
1939, I think the date was September 26. Fowles notes that Zweig did not go,
and was in Bath.
I have a convenient plot 'opening' at this date (Fall 39) and would be
interested in details of: where was the ceremony, a burial (where) or
cremation - who attended. Any unusual conditions on that day - (the weather?).
Zweig and Alekhine are interestingly compared - in that Zweig writes on why he
was not as openly opposed to fascism in Europe as others expected him to be.
Nevertheless, he was greatly moved, physically and emotionally, by the war,
and suffered all the early defeats of it - he died in South America before the
tide turned at Alamein.
Zweig was the last of the 19thC poetes maudits, and was not only read but
admired by Freud. For those not interested in pyschology per se, but in the
human condition, he writes in an intense and dramatic way, as if through a
glass-bottomed boat, making the murky sub-surface visible, and in his art, palpable.
His chess novel was probably his greatest.
Phil Innes
Adamski
writes
>This is an aside fromt he main topic of the thread - although Stefan Zweig
>probably know Alekhine, and John Fowles mentions AA in the introduction to
>"The Royal Game."
>
>Does Adamski, or other, know anything of the funeral of Freud in London in
>1939, I think the date was September 26. Fowles notes that Zweig did not go,
>and was in Bath.
>
>I have a convenient plot 'opening' at this date (Fall 39) and would be
>interested in details of: where was the ceremony, a burial (where) or
>cremation - who attended. Any unusual conditions on that day - (the weather?).
>
My first thought was to visit:
http://www.findagrave.com/pictures/1377.html
I was never really into even reading about Frued's circle, let alone
taking them seriously. The only figure who ever interested me was
Wilhelm Reich.
Probably Ernest Jones was in attendance. His biography of Freud would be
a good place to start.
Adamski
<mic...@mobius1.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <37750864...@sover.net>, Phil Innes <in...@sover.net>
>writes
>>This is an aside fromt he main topic of the thread - although Stefan Zweig
>>probably know Alekhine, and John Fowles mentions AA in the introduction to
>>"The Royal Game."
>>
>>Does Adamski, or other, know anything of the funeral of Freud in London in
>>1939, I think the date was September 26. Fowles notes that Zweig did not go,
>>and was in Bath.
>>
>>I have a convenient plot 'opening'
I've just got this joke! Nice.
> at this date (Fall 39) and would be
>>interested in details of: where was the ceremony, a burial (where) or
>>cremation - who attended. Any unusual conditions on that day - (the weather?).
>>
>
>My first thought was to visit:
>
>http://www.findagrave.com/pictures/1377.html
>
>I was never really into even reading about Frued's
Sorry, Freudian slip.....
Phil Innes
> >>1939, I think the date was September 26. Fowles notes that Zweig did not go,
> >>and was in Bath.
> >>
> >>I have a convenient plot 'opening'
>
> I've just got this joke! Nice.
ROFL !!!!!
> >Probably Ernest Jones was in attendance. His biography of Freud would be
> >a good place to start.
I'll look in the back. But its annoying details that are often absent. That
Summer was supposed to be glorious weather, but sure enough if I guess good
weather it will have poured down, and some twit will have written a poem about
the glistening umbrellas (that's a difficult rhyme) and central European fellas.
(laugh) I am still laughing at the above. At least you've saved a stupid joke
from getting into the book. Heidy Ho! Phil
Adamski
writes
>I'll look in the back. But its annoying details that are often absent. That
>Summer was supposed to be glorious weather, but sure enough if I guess good
>weather it will have poured down, and some twit will have written a poem about
>the glistening umbrellas (that's a difficult rhyme) and central European fellas.
>
>(laugh) I am still laughing at the above. At least you've saved a stupid joke
>from getting into the book. Heidy Ho! Phil
Is your book going to be serialised on this newsgroup, or is there a
prospective publisher that you have in mind?
Hear Freud speak!:
http://freud.t0.or.at/freud/media/audio-e.htm
See Freud move!:
http://freud.t0.or.at/freud/media/video-e.htm
I'd suggest you read his books, but I wouldn't want to waste your time.
Phil Innes
My friend, you snipped the interesting bit about Zweig, (Penguin) and jumped
to the joke. Jump back. Is gud for you.
----
> Is your book going to be serialised on this newsgroup, or is there a
> prospective publisher that you have in mind?
Larry has offered to help me with the music - and Rolf is adapting it for
stage trolleries, (so - then the dead-basket for Freud is comingup from the
leftfloortrapping - Larri, give me nice cord musical, ROFL - disgustful no?
take those people off the wall and paint their other footie. where are the
empty horses...?") And the Dutch actor Gee-bear Palm-mare is taking the lead
role as AA. I don't suppose you would like to play Vera? Various members of
the committee for rules and other secret things are making guest appearances
but heavily disguised as a troupe of Bulgarian dancing girls who have lost
their bear. So sad no?
Rehersals are going , well...
Greg K is reviewing it for Financial Times and Village Voice. What can go wrong?
We starting in Bognor and are winding up in the smoke.
Gilbert Palmer
Phil Innes wrote in message <377621FB...@sover.net>...
>Larry has offered to help me with the music - and Rolf is
adapting it for
>stage trolleries, (so - then the dead-basket for Freud is
comingup from the
>leftfloortrapping - Larri, give me nice cord musical, ROFL -
disgustful no?
>take those people off the wall and paint their other footie.
where are the
>empty horses...?") And the Dutch actor Gee-bear Palm-mare is
taking the lead
>role as AA.
Kindly post a contact address, a legal representative would
like a word.
I have warned you about this sort of thing before Mr.Innes,
employing my name to try and drum up finance for a
stage-version of your yet unfinished yarn. I am not interested
in playing any role where the use of a corset would be
compulsory for realistic effect.
Also regarding your latest play the draft of which you posted
on
alt.wordsmiths.plays.expat.firstdrafts.globalchessrelated.geeza
job - Sorry I must also have you know that due to a long
standing prior engagement I will be unable to take the part of
the 'good looking but shy French speaking' Lear-Jet pilot
whizzing the long legged blonde character Hanna around the
world in her capacity as the Vermont Ciber-Space Chess Team's
globe trotting official move relayer.
Frankly I thought it a little far fetched - although well
written - this tale about chess being played on the net - it
does not make sense - if a team such as Vermont can afford to
send this 'tart' around the world flashing her cleavage in
front of World Class Grandmasters in an effort to put them off
of their games while relaying moves from 'base' - well why not
just fly the whole team and have them play face to face and
have done with it? Instead of through the medium of the
internet? I do not think you have thought this one through.
Also I doubt very much if Vermont could land a sponsorship deal
with Bollinger.
>I don't suppose you would like to play Vera? Various members
of
>the committee for rules and other secret things are making
guest >appearances
>We starting in Bognor and are winding up in the smoke.
Don't believe him Adamski, although I am sure your 'Vera' would
go down in history as one of the truly great performances, you
still have few years yet to play this part without the need of
ever visiting Bogner.
Regards to all...chess playing loveys....
Gil-Bert Palmer
Phil Innes
> Kindly post a contact address, a legal representative would
> like a word.
Martin Savage
c/o Sister Maria,
Fangool Allee'
Anduluth
Andorra
> Also regarding your latest play the draft of which you posted
> on
> alt.wordsmiths.plays.expat.firstdrafts.globalchessrelated.geeza
> job - Sorry I must also have you know that due to a long
> standing prior engagement I will be unable to take the part of
> the 'good looking but shy French speaking' Lear-Jet pilot
> whizzing the long legged blonde character Hanna around the
> world in her capacity as the Vermont Ciber-Space Chess Team's
> globe trotting official move relayer.
Struth (bluidy artists, no?) - okay I relent - you can wear the spandex and
put the feathers wherever you want.
> Frankly I thought it a little far fetched - although well
> written - this tale about chess being played on the net - it
> does not make sense - if a team such as Vermont can afford to
> send this 'tart' around the world flashing her cleavage in
> front of World Class Grandmasters in an effort to put them off
> of their games while relaying moves from 'base' - well why not
> just fly the whole team and have them play face to face and
> have done with it?
Who will look after the chickens?
Instead of through the medium of the
> internet? I do not think you have thought this one through.
> Also I doubt very much if Vermont could land a sponsorship deal
> with Bollinger.
> >I don't suppose you would like to play Vera? Various members
> of
> >the committee for rules and other secret things are making
> guest >appearances
>
> >We starting in Bognor and are winding up in the smoke.
>
> Don't believe him Adamski, although I am sure your 'Vera' would
> go down in history as one of the truly great performances, you
> still have few years yet to play this part without the need of
> ever visiting Bogner.
Blake visited Bognor -used to live just up the road.
Gilbert Palmer
Phil Innes wrote in message <37775AE0...@sover.net>...
>Gilbert Palmer wrote:
>
>> Kindly post a contact address, a legal representative would
>> like a word.
>
>Martin Savage
>c/o Sister Maria,
>Fangool Allee'
>Anduluth
>Andorra
Thank you.
>> Also regarding your latest play the draft of which you
posted
>> on
>>
alt.wordsmiths.plays.expat.firstdrafts.globalchessrelated.geeza
>> job - Sorry I must also have you know that due to a long
>> standing prior engagement I will be unable to take the part
of
>> the 'good looking but shy French speaking' Lear-Jet pilot
>> whizzing the long legged blonde character Hanna around the
>> world in her capacity as the Vermont Ciber-Space Chess
Team's
>> globe trotting official move relayer.
>
>Struth (bluidy artists, no?) - okay I relent - you can wear
the spandex and
>put the feathers wherever you want.
Perhaps, very tempting in fact but please note I do not do
matinees. Mmmee spandex eh?
>> Frankly I thought it a little far fetched - although well
>> written - this tale about chess being played on the net -
it
>> does not make sense - if a team such as Vermont can afford
to
>> send this 'tart' around the world flashing her cleavage in
>> front of World Class Grandmasters in an effort to put them
off
>> of their games while relaying moves from 'base' - well why
not
>> just fly the whole team and have them play face to face and
>> have done with it?
>
>Who will look after the chickens?
Slap to the head! The chickens of course! Sorry, I forgot all
about the whole subplot revolving around the chickens - I must
admit that I did not in fact appreciate that the team could not
leave the country because of their cooped up care charges.
Silly me. I stand corrected - the play is a work of Genius!
Pure Genius I say! (maybe Guiness would be interested?)
>Blake visited Bognor -used to live just up the road.
When??? I have never heard of this, are you sure you are not
getting him mixed up with Enid - the other (dominant) influence
on your style?
Anyway, my solicitor will be in touch - for your information
his name is Jagger, I have Great Expectations of his success in
this action - and I warrant that your Songs of Innocence will
have little sway on him my good fellow.
Gilbert Palmermo
Phil Innes
>
> When??? I have never heard of this, are you sure you are not
> getting him mixed up with Enid - the other (dominant) influence
> on your style?
>
> Anyway, my solicitor will be in touch - for your information
> his name is Jagger, I have Great Expectations of his success in
> this action - and I warrant that your Songs of Innocence will
> have little sway on him my good fellow.
Burt, This is getting damn stupid! People keep sending these 'solictors'
around, and the garden is getting full up. Please to return to topic, in case,
you know...
Martin Savage
> Gilbert Palmermo