Alekhine articles
Staunton
Did Alekhine write these articles? According to German linguists, a
nonnative [sic] speaker could hardly write with such perfect grammar,
syntax and clarity of expression, inasmuch as German construction is
very difficult for non-Germans. Whereas Alekhine knew German since
childhood, his supporters assumed that the articles were written by an
ardent Nazi. (Moran, pg.44)
We are indebted to Mr. Arthur Rath, eminent linguist and member of the
staff of the Queens (New York) Public Library, for the certified
translation. Mr. Rath tells us, quite in confirmation of your authors'
estimate on the basis of a comparatively limited acquaintanceship with
German, that the articles are "vitriolic," "hysterically incoherent,"
and, generally, remindful of the solecisms and panicky screechings in A.
Hitler's Mein Kampf. Mr. Rath adds that it is almost impossible to catch
the calumny and vindictiveness in translated form, incorporated as they
are in a web of nonsequiturs. In short, whatever is found to be coherent
in the translation tends to elevate the tone of the original. Rath has
found no evidence pointing to the possibility that the articles were
written by more than one person. ( Horowitz and Rothenberg, pg.250)
Alekhine's wartime anti-Semitic articles provide fascinating scope for
speculation, but nearly every commentary upon them has relied on
translations from magazine variants. The original texts as carried in
French and Dutch newspapers were 'tidied up' for publication in Deutsche
Schachzeitung, an editor eliminating the more absurd statements and
making factual and spelling corrections. (BCM, Oct 1986, pg. 450, review
of K.Whyld's pamphlet 'Alekhine Nazi Articles')
In an interview with a Spanish correspondent of New Review, reprinted in
the December [1944] issue of the British Chess Magazine and the January
issue of Chess, Alekhine denied indignantly that he was a Nazi
collaborator.(.)
The Madrid correspondent of the British Chess Magazine reports the
interview as follows:
"Concern over the fate in Paris of his American-born wife, Grace
Wichaar, and indignation over allegations that he collaborated with the
Germans were expressed to me by Dr. Alekhine here yesterday.
"The 52-year-old world chess champion looked fit after his rest-cure at
San Sebastian, and said he had lost none of his chessplaying form
despite the worrying times experienced since the fall of France. Only a
few days ago in an exhibition match at Valladolid. (.)
"According to his own statement, Alekhine returned to France from the
Argentine in January, 1940, and was immediately mobilized. (Born in
Moscow, he went to France in 1921 and became a naturalized French
citizen in 1926 [sic - 1927, in fact, -HS]). After the fall of France,
it took him nearly a year to get permission to leave for Portugal and
America, and he had to write two chess articles for the Pariser Zeitung
before the Germans granted him his exit visa.
"His wife, who was to have joined him later, stayed behind in an
endeavor [sic] to save her castle at Saint Aubin-le-Cauf, near Dieppe,
by selling it under American Embassy protection. The Germans refused
Mrs. Alekhine an exit visa and have since, added Dr. Alekhine,
'scientifically looted his home.' Meanwhile, articles which Alekhine
claims were purely scientific were rewritten by the Germans, published
and made to treat chess from a racial viewpoint.
"In 1941, Herr Post, President of the German Chess Federation, wrote
Alekhine that although he would not be allowed to return to France, if
he consented to play in the tournament at Munich his wife would be
permitted to join him there. In view of his wife's sixty-two years of
age and her failing health, Alekhine was obliged to agree.
"They resided in Poland and Czechoslovakia and he won all the
tournaments in which he took part: two at Warsaw, two at Prague, two at
Salzburg, one at Munich, though he admits that the Esthonian [sic] Paul
Keres was the only international class opponent with who he had to
contend." (Editor's Note: The above statement is incorrect. Stoltz won
the 1941 Munich tourrnament, with Alekhine tied for second place.)
"In January 1943, Alekhine fell ill from scarlet fever at Prague
(European dispatches carrying this news were dated December 24, 1942 -
Ed.) and was treated at the very hospital where his friend Reti died in
1929 from the same illness. In order to live, Alekhine claims that no
sooner was he out of hospital than he was obliged to take part in
various exhibitions and tournaments, otherwise the Germans would have
withdrawn his ration cards.
"At the invitation of the Spanish Chess Federation, Alekhine came to
Madrid in October 1943. He arrived too late to take part in the
tournament staged here by the European Federation. (A Nazi broadcast at
the time claimed Alekhine went to Madrid to take part in a tournament
but was 'confined to a sanitarium' shortly after his arrival. - Ed.) The
Gestapo allowed him an exit visa but would not permit his wife to
accompany him, only consenting to her return to Paris, where she has
been since. From that time until the present day Alekhine has resided in
Spain, and has not heard from his wife for the last five months, though
he hopes to be allowed to return to France soon to join her.
"Alekhine said he had a sister in Russia from whom he had also not had
any news. His brother died in Russia in August 1939.
(.)"
The editors of the British Chess Magazine and Chess are apparently
prepared to accept Alekhine's explanation of his conduct. In an
editorial, BCM says:
"The report explains many things which hitherto have puzzled the
champion's many admirers. For instance, the two ludicrous articles which
appeared over his name - there have been none since - always appeared to
us to be entirely apocryphal; they were too senseless and so utterly at
variance with Dr. Alekhine's oft-expressed admiration for Steinitz and
Dr.Lasker.
"The only real criticism we expressed at the time concerned the champion
's journey to Munich after having reached the safety of Lisbon. The
reason given for this journey may seem to some to be insufficient, nor
does it appear to have helped. But who are we to cast the first stone?
"The report kills once and for all the malignant rumours, which we
refrained from reproducing, that the champion had been confined to a
lunatic asylum.
"We certainly like the tone of the interview. There is no apologia, but
a plain statement of fact not lacking in dignity."
(Chess Review {Horowitz's magazine] February, 1945)
SPF
group who took refuge in Argentina. That alone shows he didn't have a clue
about politics or what danger he was in.
I t could have made a very interesting team. (1) Alekhine, (2) Najdorf,
and we have a nice selection of brilliant players to fill the lower boards.
If anyone wants to put someone ahead of Najdorf on board 2, I will listen to
the argument.
Staunton wrote:
--
Dr Simon Fitzpatrick, Senior Lecturer in Mathematics,
The University of Western Australia, Crawley WA 6009
Telephone +61 8 9380 3389, Facsimile +61 8 9380 1028.
Tony T. Warnock
text (German) of Alekhine's New York 1927 introduction. I could run my
authorship identification stuff on them. A bigger set of controls would
be good. Did Alekhine write anything in German. English translations
would be much weaker.
Staunton
Tony T. Warnock <u09...@cic-mail.lanl.gov> wrote in message
news:3A3E6C69...@cic-mail.lanl.gov...
I fear I may have misled readers who only went by my postings - in those
last ones I was only giving Alekhine's subsequent version(s) of events.
Moran (pg.33):
'But his authorship of the anti-semitic Pariser Zeitung articles was an
open question until the rediscovery, in a pile of old newspaper
clippings, of Alekhine's 1941 remarks to the Madrid press.
'Ending the Lisbon sojourn which began in April 1941, Alekhine reached
Madrid in September, en route to the Munich Tournament. He gave two
exhibitions and several interviews, forgetting that the first virtue,
according to Soloman, is to hold one's tongue.'
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
CubanFederation, 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.'"
Back to Moran (pg.33):
'In the Madrid daily El Alcazar, September 3 1941, the journalist
Lastanao summarizes Alekhine's remarks:
"He added that in the German magazine Deutsche Schachzeitung and in the
German daily Pariser Zeitung, nowadays edited in Paris, he has been the
first to treat chess from the racial viewpoint. He says that in these
articles, he wrote that Aryan chess was aggressive chess, that defense
is only the consequence of a previous error whereas the Semitic
conception admits the pure defensive idea, believing it a legitimate
winning method."'
Note:
Alekhine's claim of having played 40 games, presumably in the one simul,
in Paris the previous winter (1940)
is intriguing because the book 'Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games,
1902-46' (Skinner and Verhoeven) has no record of it. It's difficult to
believe that all contemporary magazines and newspapers failed to report
such an event.
Phil Innes
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Tony T. Warnock <u09...@cic-mail.lanl.gov> wrote in message
> news:3A3E6C69...@cic-mail.lanl.gov...
>> Perhaps there is an online (German) text of the articles and an online
>> text (German) of Alekhine's New York 1927 introduction. I could run my
>> authorship identification stuff on them. A bigger set of controls
> would
>> be good. Did Alekhine write anything in German. English translations
>> would be much weaker.
>>
>
> I fear I may have misled readers who only went by my postings - in those
> last ones I was only giving Alekhine's subsequent version(s) of events.
>
> Moran (pg.33):
>
> 'But his authorship of the anti-semitic Pariser Zeitung articles was an
> open question until the rediscovery, in a pile of old newspaper
> clippings, of Alekhine's 1941 remarks to the Madrid press.
>
> 'Ending the Lisbon sojourn which began in April 1941, Alekhine reached
> Madrid in September, en route to the Munich Tournament. He gave two
> exhibitions and several interviews, forgetting that the first virtue,
> according to Soloman, is to hold one's tongue.'
there were two subsequent investigations which polarised the chess community
on the culpability of alekhine, each coming down on either side of the
issue, and each of which cited 4 'authorities' to support their views, and
each cited moran !
it seems odd that there is still dispute on whether aljekin/alekhine wrote
these articles. what is more interesting is the style in which he wrote
them, which is self-contradictory, and, unless written while completely
drunk, the result is self-parodic
aspecifical example with anti-semitism; after diminishing semitic chess as
defensive and lacking enterprise, he then goes on to mention a whole bunch
of european jewish chess players and their achievements, apparently in order
to denigrate them, but in fact citing their accomplishments in greater
detail than any other ethnic or religious types
~~~
however, his subsequent actions throughout the war indicate to me that he
was conflicted - he attempted further appeasements of the nazis until he was
sick of it and took off for spain and portugal
phil innes
Chris
>it seems odd that there is still dispute on whether aljekin/alekhine
>wrote these articles. what is more interesting is the style in which he
>wrote them, which is self-contradictory, and, unless written while
>completely drunk, the result is self-parodic
Which would all be much more convincing if he hadn't made his anti-semitism
clear to journalists when he was in no danger whatsoever
Staunton
Chris
part... enough to make what he was saying clear. I believe it was Louis
Blair that posted large extracts.
Edward Winter makes reference to them as well.
Sam Sloan
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Did Alekhine write these articles? According to German linguists, a
>nonnative [sic] speaker could hardly write with such perfect grammar,
>syntax and clarity of expression, inasmuch as German construction is
>very difficult for non-Germans. Whereas Alekhine knew German since
>childhood, his supporters assumed that the articles were written by an
>ardent Nazi. (Moran, pg.44)
>
Is this correct, or a typo?
Alekhine was a Russian who defected before the Communists gained
power.
It seems unlikely that he was a native speaker of German.
Sam Sloan
Włodzimierz Holsztyński
sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) is this time
funny without meaning it:
> [...]
>
> Alekhine was a Russian who defected before
> the Communists gained power.
Wow, he defected (ran away from communism, since
nobody uses this term in the context of tsars), so
he defected BEFORE etc. From whom then?
Was he a true political prophet? Then he could
just take off without any problem. In fact, when the
WWI started he and a couplpe of other Russian chessplayers
who played in a tournament in Germany were
detained by Germans.
Note that Alechine had SERVED communists before
he changed his mind again and went West and anti.
(I wrote again because at first he opposed communists
before he served them).
> It seems unlikely that he was a native speaker of German.
Not native but still it is possible that
he was taught German in his childhood.
In aristocratic families, even in the case
of some minor aristocracy, this was quite
common, especially that most of the Russian aristocracy
didn't have any Russian blood in their veins but German
(which made them extra patriotic, seriously, but not too
seriously in the cae of Alechine, who was only chess
patriotic; true, he got homesick later in his life).
> Sam Sloan
-- Wlod
PS. I may check details later. I think that my memory
is not failing me here, I hope.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Staunton
community
> on the culpability of alekhine
These being?
Vraton
to be executed before your eyes... what would you do???
"Staunton" <howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:90bm85$gti$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
Louis Blair
> alekhine ... made his anti-semitism
> clear to journalists when he was in no danger
> whatsoever
"Staunton" wrote:
> Details, please.
Chris wrote:
I have not posted large extracts of anything on the
subject of Alekhine. Someone did ask me to mail
to him a copy of Edward Winter's Chess Notes
1455. Perhaps he posted the extracts and thanked
me.
Chess Notes 1455 contained Edward Winter's
translations of two interviews of Alekhine that
appeared in "two Madrid publications dated
3rd September 1941". Alekhine was described
as making a brief visit to Madrid before going on
to Germany. He reportedly said that he would
later return to Spain and give lectures that would
include "a study of the Aryan and Jewish kinds
of chess."
One newspaper reported that Alekhine said that,
in German publications, "he had been the first
to deal with chess from the racial point of view.
In these articles, he said, he wrote that Aryan
chess was aggressive chess, that he considered
defence solely to be the consequence of earlier
error, and that, on the other hand, the Semitic
concept admitted the idea of pure defence,
believing it legitimate to win in this way." In the
other newspaper, he was quoted as saying, "I
must stress the greatest glory of Capablanca,
which was to eliminate the Jew Lasker from
the world chess throne."
It seems to me that it would be helpful to know
what the state of things was at that time. I
personally know almost nothing about what
was going on in World War II in September
of 1941.
Also, I believe the claim has been made that
Alekhine went along with the Germans for
the sake of his wife who was compelled to
live there. I do not know how much merit
there is to this argument or whether Alekhine
himself ever put forward this excuse for his
behavior.
Another issue that might perhaps be explored
is the extent to which racist attitudes were
generally advocated in the world up to the
1940s.
Phil Innes
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
somewhere on paper in my 'archive'
if i dig them out i'll send you references or sources (e-mails)
you have made this quite an interesting thread. i am a bit closeted because
of knowledge of two works-in-progress (not my own) on the subject
rolf tueschen liked to ask another question concerning AAs wartime activity,
which casts a more sober perspective on these equivocations about 'did he
write the paris zeit articles' and about his supposed moral diffidence or
factors of coercion
he asked what alekhine was doing with frank in poland (also known as the
butcher of crakow)
i have never seen anyone write to this subject - has edward winter?
cordially, phil innes
Staunton
> It seems to me that it would be helpful to know
> what the state of things was at that time. I
> personally know almost nothing about what
> was going on in World War II in September
> of 1941.
>
Spoken like a true chess historian.
Staunton
Phil Innes <in...@together.net> wrote in message
news:3iU06.22917$9T2.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> In article <920c64$6lu$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com> , "Staunton"
> <howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> there were two subsequent investigations which polarised the chess
> > community
> >> on the culpability of alekhine
> >
> > These being?
>
> somewhere on paper in my 'archive'
> if i dig them out i'll send you references or sources (e-mails)
>
If so, please note that the address howard_...@hotmail.com is not,
in fact, mine. Forward anything you have to my friend Michael.
> you have made this quite an interesting thread. i am a bit closeted
because
> of knowledge of two works-in-progress (not my own) on the subject
>
Yes, when is Ken Whyld going to publish his book? Last year, I heard
that a potential publisher was in the wings.
> rolf tueschen liked to ask another question concerning AAs wartime
activity,
> which casts a more sober perspective on these equivocations about 'did
he
> write the paris zeit articles' and about his supposed moral diffidence
or
> factors of coercion
>
> he asked what alekhine was doing with frank in poland (also known as
the
> butcher of crakow)
>
What was he doing!? Why, talking and playing chess, of course! His
reason for being in Poland was to play in the 2nd GG tournament in
Cracow and Warsaw.
As you will know, Frank was also friendly with Bogo and Samisch. It is
said that he 'protected' Mieses until he made it out of Germany.
Apparently, in the voluminous Frank diaries, there are just passing
references to Alekhine and Bogolyubow. No personal commentary.
I have on order the book 'In the Shadow of the Reih' by Niklas Frank. If
it proves to have nothing on Hans Frank the chess player, I think it
will still be an interesting read:
Editorial Reviews
From Kirkus Reviews , June 1, 1991
A bitter and often shocking memoir of Hans Frank, Nazi Governor-General
of Poland, by his journalist son. Beginning with the fact, learned
apparently from an aunt, that his mother had no orgasm when he was
conceived, and proceeding on to a detailed discussion of his father's
execution after he was convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg, including
speculation as to the quality of the sound when his father's neck
snapped, Frank gives a chronological account of his father's checkered
career. A lawyer with dreams of grandeur, the elder Frank participated
in a minor way in Hitler's abortive Putsch in 1923. He caught the
Fuhrer's eye when he defended some Nazi hooligans, and thereafter his
ascent was rapid: Bavarian Minister of Justice; President of the Academy
for German Justice; Reich Commissioner for Justice; Minister of the
Reich--all while still in his 30s. His first compromise with evil lay in
his acquiescence in the murder of S.A. leader Rohm and a number of his
associates shortly after Hitler's rise to power. Frank's moral decline
after becoming Governor- General of Poland was rapid: ``There is no
reason for us to be squeamish when we hear about seventeen thousand
people being shot,'' he told one audience. Deeply corrupt--they extorted
furs and antiques from wealthy Jews--he and his wife laid themselves
open to blackmail by Himmler. The son was seven years old when he had a
last view of his father, visiting him in the death cell. Unfortunately,
the cruelty of the father is matched by a certain cruelty in the son,
and the format of the book, an extended conversation with the elder
Frank in which the younger mocks and denounces his father's life,
diminishes both the subject and the sympathy we would otherwise have for
the son. (Sixteen pages of b&w photographs--not seen.) -- Copyright
©1991, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.
> cordially, phil innes
>
Staunton
> As you will know, Frank was also friendly with Bogo and Samisch. It is
> said that he 'protected' Mieses until he made it out of Germany.
> Apparently, in the voluminous Frank diaries, there are just passing
> references to Alekhine and Bogolyubow. No personal commentary.
>
Frank knew Alekhine from, at least, as early as 1934:
My last meeting with Nimzovich was also the longest. It took place
in 1934, when we were both following the second
Alekhine-Bogolyubov world championship match as reporters. The
games of the match were scheduled to be played in many parts of
Nazi Germany--unfriendly territory for a Jew and not particularly
safe for a Gentile either, in view of the tensions immediately
preceding Hitler's bloody purge of his political enemies, among
them Ernst Roehm.
Nimzovich considered himself protected by three consulates: the
Latvian because of his birthplace, the Danish because of his
residence, and the Dutch because some of his reports were going to
a newspaper in Holland. He boasted of this protection even to
Reichsminister Hans Frank, who at that time was in charge of the
"protection" of art and later became the governor of Nazi- occupied
Poland. Frank followed a few games of the match and sometimes
chatted with the masters and reporters, including Nimzovich. He
even invited the whole chess troupe to his villa for lunch. The Jews
Mieses and Nimzovich were included in the invitation, but only
Nimzovich showed up. At the luncheon he demonstrated his usual
persecution mania by complaining first about a dirty plate and then
about a dirty knife. The Reichsminister, seated directly opposite
him, pretended not to hear.
In Kissingen, where some of the match games were played, I was a
guest in the same hotel at which I had stayed during the
tournament in 1928. Overcrowded then, it was empty in 1934. At
dinnertime, when the restaurant should have been crowded, there
were only four people in the room: my wife and I, and, at another
table, Frank and an elderly man who I later learned was the
composer Richard Strauss. The sinister emptiness of that dining
room, which the hotel manager attributed to "bad economic
conditions," should have been a forewarning, but the Nazi leaders
understood nothing. Frank himself failed to understand what was
going on under his governorship in Poland. He became known as
"the butcher of Poland," and for his war crimes he was hanged in
Nuremberg.
( http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kmoch02.txt )
A couple of other interesting things to note in this piece:
"Nimzovich suffered from the delusion that he was unappreciated and that
the reason was malice. All it took to make him blossom, as I later
learned, was a little praise. His paranoia was most evident when he
dined in company. He always thought he was served much smaller portions
than everyone else."
Euwe in an interview (Chess, September 1981) said of Nimzovich: "With
him I have played many a time. He was a bit unpleasant, possibly
paranoic. At meal times he constantly moaned that he was the last to be
served."
"Among grandmasters, Nimzovich's best friend--and his greatest
admirer--was Dr. Milan Vidmar."
This doesn't fit too well with Alekhine's PZ claim that Nimzovich (at
New York 1927) was furious at being beaten - repeatedly- by Vidmar.
There are other examples which could support the theory that Alekhine
intentionally included mistakes in the articles, as a sign that he was
writing under duress. If that was the case, it appears to have been less
than successful, especially as Alekhine chose, after the war, to deny
his authorship altogether.
Staunton
From chapter 6 ('Outrageous, Unprecedented, Monomaniacal') of Harold
Schonberg's Grandmasters of Chess:
'The man was a chess genius. During and after his lifetime the chess
world paid full homage to his extraordinary ability. But few would care
to say much in his favour as a human being. Not that many knew him well.
Alekhine, like so many chess geniuses, was a loner with no close
friends. Socially he was a monster. For many years an alcoholic, he
would drink brandy by the tumblerful, and once while drunk he urinated
on the floor during a match. A virulent racist, he wrote anti-Semitic
articles in the Deutsche Zeitung in der Niederlanden for the Nazis
during World War II. It infuriated him when his name was pronounced
Al-OKCH-in. That was a Jewish pronunciation; the correct pronunciation
was Al-Yekch-in. Chess patrons learned never to invite Alekhine to their
homes; he was known to steal money and attempt to seduce their wives.
His ferocious will to win in everything made him even more unpopular
with his colleagues. The story is told of a ping-pong game he played
with Salo Flohr: just as Flohr was about to serve the winning point
Alekhine grabbed the ball and yelled, "Stop the game! Adjourned!"
Alekhine tried to pass it off as a joke, but everybody knew that he
could not stand losing to Flohr. Reuben Fine has written about his first
encounter with Alekhine:
I recall when he visited New York in the early part of 1933, he came to
the Marshall Chess Club, where I was the champion, and played a number
of offhand games with me. This was in itself most unusual, as I was
impressed by the throng of famous masters who kept themselves aloof from
chess outside of tournament play. But not Alekhine. In these games I
just about held my own with him and at this he became so furious that he
demanded a skittles match be arranged for a small stake; he could not
bear the thought that anyone might beat him, even in offhand games. In
other games his will to win was just as great and soul-consuming. When
he lost at ping-pong he would crush the ball in anger.A great genius but
a sick man.
(...) Even among chess players Alekhine's ego was colossal; that was one
reason that he had no friends. The world could contain only him. After a
while he was not even interested in women, partly because of his heavy
drinking, and partly because his consuming passion for chess blocked out
every other activity.'
Spot the mistakes!
Horowitz and Rothenberg's Chapter 16 (Alexander Alekhine (Triumph and
Tragedy)) is headed by a quote from Conrad: 'Men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness.'
'If you can imagine, painfully, an obscenity scratched on an
Michelangelo masterpiece; or a boogie-woogie coda to a Brahms symphony;
or a profanity at the end of the Declaration of Independence - only then
can you grasp the ugliness of a footnote to the brilliant
accomplishments of a giant in the world of chess, Alexander Alekhine.
'A panegyric on Alekhine, the Chess genius, is automatic. Linking this
amazing Chess brain with Alekhine, the man, is an aching experience.
(...)
'Never during his lifetime did Alekhine, as a human being, invite
affection. His devotion to his ego, possibly rivaled only by his love
for Chess, constantly spurred circulation of dark tales about this or
that manifestation of contemptible behavior. Much was in the form of
rumor, bald and unsubstantiated; the undisputed incidents, however, were
alarmingly symbolic of twisted tendencies.'
Staunton
Euwe in an interview with Hans Bouwmeester in Chess, September and
October 1981 (originally for Europe Echecs):
(...)
B: Hannak in his biography of Lasker, called him an "Idealgestalt"
(Could be translated "ideal man" - Ed.)
E: He was a charming, universal, intelligent man, very gifted but never
boastful. He did set some tough standards financially (he had good
reason); that was why a projected short Lasker-Euwe match about 1924
fell through. He demanded $100 per game, an enormous sum in those days.
It could not be raised.
B: I understand that Lasker believed, after his match with Capablanca in
Havana, 1921 that he had assured his finances for life but that he was
ruined by rampant inflation in Germany?
E: I don't know for certain. Anyway, he returned to tournament play at
Mahrisch Ostrau in 1923. He greatly impressed me there, more so than a
year later in New York. His win over Reti was a masterpiece.
(...)
B: After Lasker, Capablanca became world champion. You played a match
with him in 1931?
E: Yes, I lost 4-6. To be completely objective though, he had a little
luck. In both the 5th and 8th games he got lost positions and in the 9th
he won after having a bad opening.
B: Has Capablanca ever commented about this match?
E: No, not a word. He always had the attitude of a man who considers
himself above the affairs of ordinary mortals... He once appeared for a
resumption after adjournment against Yates dressed in tennis flannels
but to his great annoyance was kept playing until long after dark.
(...)
B: Can you say something about Alekhine? Kotov and Muller have written
biographies.
E: Kotov's writings are beautiful examples of distorted history. Pachman
has refuted several of his statements recently. Muller is more reliable.
Alekhine had a very difficult life. All in all, he was always very
correct with me. He stayed with me during our match in 1926 on the eve
of his match with Capablanca. In 1935, when I played him the Dutch press
was against him and he had his problems with the committee who numbered
some hard, strict men - maybe justifiably.
I recall the 29th game in 1935 vividly. The rule was that after 40
moves, whatever the clock situation, White should seal his 41st move. We
had reached a rook and pawn endgame in which Alekhine was a pawn up but
the position was completely drawn. He made his 41st move on the board.
They told him to seal it instead. I offered to seal my move in reply;
the position was quite familiar to me and there was not a scrap of
danger in it. For the 30th and last game, Alekhine turned up in formal
dress and accepted his defeat very sportingly.
His great years were 1930-1934. After Zurich 1934 his chess declined a
little. Between 1932 and 1938, I felt I had his measure. Our results
bore this out. It was only the 1937 match which harmed my figures.
B: The controversy between Alekhine and Capablanca is notorious.
E: It started after the 1927 match. Capablanca hardly took it seriously,
playing bridge far into the night. His physique began to suffer and it
was in the closing stages of the match that he went downhill. He gave
interviews in which he said a lot of nice things about himself but
nothing much about his opponent, which offended Alekhine. Capablanca
took it for granted that Alekhine would play a return match. He wrote to
Alekhine in an arrogant tone which, the latter replied, was not the tone
in which you should write to a champion of the world. Alekhine wanted to
be paid in gold dollars (at that time worth twice ordinary dollars) and
on this basis Capablanca could not or would not pay. He just stopped
negotiating. Capablanca beat Alekhine at Nottingham in 1936. In the AVRO
Tournament 1938, Alekhine won. By this time both these great players
were already inferior to the younger generation Keres, Botvinnik, fine,
each of whom had a quarter of a century in hand over them.
B: What was Lasker's opinion about these two world champions?
E: One of great respect: an opinion which in Capablanca's case was
certainly reciprocated.
B: Not by Alekhine as well? I read somewhere that after Zurich 1934 he
spoke very respectfully about Lasker.
E: I don't remember that. Perhaps I heard him but wasn't attending
[sic]. After he beat Lasker at Zurich he said something like "the Jew
has had another lesson!"
B: So he was already anti-semitic in 1934? (...)
E: Tartakover was a very interesting man - a paradox. A fine, often
trenchant, writer. When, in London in 1946 Alekhine's collaboration with
the Nazis came into question, Tartakover maintained that it was not for
us but for the French Government to judge the case. That Alekhine was
anti-semitic, we have all known since 1934, he said.
B: Some say that Tartakover was organising a collection for Alekhine
around that time?
E: I recall that - but with Tartakover you never knew whether he was
serious or not.
B: Is it true that during the second world war he spent a lot of time
with the Nazi Governor Frank?
E: That is certainly true. Frank was friendly with Bogolyubov and they
played chess together. It seems to me they just wanted to play chess.
Alekhine may have hoped the Germans would win because he owned several
houses in Leningrad. As things went, he lost everything...
I was recently approached by one of his nieces, who begged FIDE to
rehabilitate her uncle. I called on her. She maintained that he had
never done anything wrong; was merely anti-semitic. FIDE has never
undertaken anything against Alekhine. We honour him as a great player.
His tomb in France bears a beautiful inscription. It seems to me a
rehabilitation is superfluous for someone who is honoured.
After the war emotions ran high. In London in 1946 Bernstein above all
was very excited about it all, but as I have already hinted Tartakover
calmed him down a little. The investigations into Alekhine's war-time
record were never finalised because of his death.
B: Nimzovich?
E: With him I have played many a time. He was a bit unpleasant, possibly
paranoic. At meal times he constantly moaned that he was the last to be
served.
B: Vidmar said the same about him. All the same, he was a good fellow?
E: Certainly. Vidmar had a good position; he was a professor in the
university of Ljubljana but very, very gripped by chess.
....
Michael Oberly
>
>B: Not by Alekhine as well? I read somewhere that after Zurich 1934 he
>spoke very respectfully about Lasker.
>
>E: I don't remember that. Perhaps I heard him but wasn't attending
>[sic]. After he beat Lasker at Zurich he said something like "the Jew
>has had another lesson!"
Incredible.Evidently very few of the greats were very worthwhile human
beings.Thanks for posting this fascinating read.
--
Mike Oberly * Rain can't wet me,
when I have my poui in my hand. *
* Rain can't wet me,
I advancing on the foe like a roaring lion!*
Soca/Calypso fan?Check out http://www.iere.com/thebarn
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Apparently, in the voluminous Frank diaries, there are just passing
>references to Alekhine and Bogolyubow. No personal commentary.
>
This is correct! Did you read the German edition of the diaries? The
most voluminous (but not complete) printed version of this text is the
German one (about 900 pages for the years 1939-45). I've had this book
recently.
It's important to know that these diaries are not private diaries but
official ones, written by some secretaries (there are only a few pages
which were signed by Dr Hans Frank himself - summer 1942). Those
secretaries knew almost nothing about chess and they wrote on chess
events only if they took place in Cracow (when a tournament took place
in several towns of the "Generalgouvernement" and Frank was involved
in Cracow the secretaries only wrote on the Cracowian part of the
tournament).
The "Diensttagebuch" (official diaries) of Frank does not cover all
activities of Frank in Germany during that time! When Frank came back
from a sojourn in Germany and talked about some things in official
meetings in Cracow the secretaries would write it down in their own
words.
The index of the German edition mentions Mussolini, the leader of a
big country, in only one entry of the diaries (Italy was far away from
Cracow). Bogoljubow, employed as an interpreter by Frank, is mentioned
several times - context: a) Ukrainian minority (1940: 1 entry with a
political statement of Bogoljubow - the only one in these diaries - on
the relation to Russians) or b) chess.
In "Frank's" diaries Bogoljubow is more important than Alekhine.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Staunton
> most voluminous (but not complete) printed version of this text is the
> German one (about 900 pages for the years 1939-45). I've had this book
> recently.
Unfortunately, I don't know German, though, I feel as if I should.
Perhaps, there is still time to learn!?
The information comes from Dr Tadeusz Wolsza, a Polish chess historian,
who dutifully read the all the volumes. I'm still somewhat unclear as to
the exact composition of all Frank's "Diaries". I saw a reference
somewhere to there being over 10,000 pages in total - so the
"Diensttagebuch" may be just part of them.
I understand there are English translations in, for example, the Wiener
Library in London, but a) the diaries, like most German documents, sound
incredibly tedious and b) they probably wouldn't let me in anyway-
they're very choosy.
>
> The index of the German edition mentions Mussolini, the leader of a
> big country, in only one entry of the diaries (Italy was far away from
> Cracow). Bogoljubow, employed as an interpreter by Frank, is mentioned
> several times - context: a) Ukrainian minority (1940: 1 entry with a
> political statement of Bogoljubow - the only one in these diaries - on
> the relation to Russians) or b) chess.
>
I didn't know that about Bogo working as Frank's interpreter. Are there
are good biographies of Bogolyubov in German?
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm still somewhat unclear as to
>the exact composition of all Frank's "Diaries". I saw a reference
>somewhere to there being over 10,000 pages in total - so the
>"Diensttagebuch" may be just part of them.
>
I've read the edition " Das Diensttagebuch des deutschen
Generalgouverneurs in Polen 1939-1945 ", edited by Werner Praeg and
Wolfgang Jacobmeyer, Stuttgart 1975 (900 printed pages for the diaries
from 26 October 1939 until 3 April 1945). The editors write in their
introduction: the 'complete' document (some parts are missing) has
11.367 typewritten pages (593 pages index, 3.441 pages minutes, 7.333
pages diaries in the narrow sense).
During the trial in Nuremberg Dr. Hans Frank said (maybe erroneously?)
that his diaries consist of *43* volumes. He himself handed them over
to the 7th US Army when he was arrested on 4 May 1945 in Bavaria.
These diaries were not deleted (like other German documents) because
Frank thought that his diaries would exonerate him.
The archive of the 7th US Army in Heidelberg registrated *36* volumes.
After some research 2 additional volumes were found. In Nuremberg *38*
volumes were used for a selection of about 375 pages.
BTW: The German Archive Bundesarchiv has a private diary of Hans
Frank, but in this diary are no entries for the time of WW II. Source:
Das Diensttagebuch etc., p.35, note 98.
>
>Are there are good biographies of Bogolyubov in German?
>
In 1953 Alfred Brinckmann ("with the help of my friend Friedrich
Saemisch") published "Grossmeister Bogoljubow" but you will find no
politics in this biography. For this reason I wouldn't call it a "good
biography" - but it was the only biography which was possible in
Germany at that time.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Staunton
Gerald Schendel <Gerald....@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:3a4e3ecf...@news.btx.dtag.de...
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:33:43 -0000, "Staunton"
> <howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm still somewhat unclear as to
> >the exact composition of all Frank's "Diaries". I saw a reference
> >somewhere to there being over 10,000 pages in total - so the
> >"Diensttagebuch" may be just part of them.
> >
>
> I've read the edition " Das Diensttagebuch des deutschen
> Generalgouverneurs in Polen 1939-1945 ", edited by Werner Praeg and
> Wolfgang Jacobmeyer, Stuttgart 1975 (900 printed pages for the diaries
> from 26 October 1939 until 3 April 1945). The editors write in their
> introduction: the 'complete' document (some parts are missing) has
> 11.367 typewritten pages (593 pages index, 3.441 pages minutes, 7.333
> pages diaries in the narrow sense).
>
> During the trial in Nuremberg Dr. Hans Frank said (maybe erroneously?)
> that his diaries consist of *43* volumes. He himself handed them over
> to the 7th US Army when he was arrested on 4 May 1945 in Bavaria.
> These diaries were not deleted (like other German documents) because
> Frank thought that his diaries would exonerate him.
>
> The archive of the 7th US Army in Heidelberg registrated *36* volumes.
> After some research 2 additional volumes were found. In Nuremberg *38*
> volumes were used for a selection of about 375 pages.
>
> BTW: The German Archive Bundesarchiv has a private diary of Hans
> Frank, but in this diary are no entries for the time of WW II. Source:
> Das Diensttagebuch etc., p.35, note 98.
>
Thanks for the clarification. Do you know anything about the claim that
Frank was badly beaten up after hs arrest by two black American GIs?
> >
> >Are there are good biographies of Bogolyubov in German?
> >
>
> In 1953 Alfred Brinckmann ("with the help of my friend Friedrich
> Saemisch") published "Grossmeister Bogoljubow" but you will find no
> politics in this biography. For this reason I wouldn't call it a "good
> biography" - but it was the only biography which was possible in
> Germany at that time.
>
Understood - compare with the book 'Bogoljubows Agonie' by Erich Munster
(Selbstverlag des Verfassers, 1983). According to the BCM review: "This
book gives all the games of the 1934 World Championship match between
Alekhine and Bogoljubow, won by Alekhine 15.5 to 10.5. The original book
of the match by Bogoljbow contained a great deal of National Socialist
propaganda. Erich Munster considered that a politically unexpurgated
reprint would be undesirable; consequently he has compiled this new
'chess only' account."
Though it's unclear whether Bogoljubow himself was directly responsible
for the propaganda, it would be interesting to see how such material
sits with the account of a lost match to his Franco-Russian opponent.
> Gerald Schendel
> Kandern/Germany
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Did Alekhine write these articles? According to German linguists, a
>nonnative [sic] speaker could hardly write with such perfect grammar,
>syntax and clarity of expression, inasmuch as German construction is
>very difficult for non-Germans.
>
A part of these articles was published in the German chess magazine
"Deutsche Schachzeitung" (DSZ). The DSZ was *not* the official
magazine of the "Great German Chess Federation" (Grossdeutscher
Schachbund / GSB). The official magazine of the GSB has been "Deutsche
Schachblaetter" (DSBl.) Within DSBl the anti-semitic articles of
Alekhine (?) have never been mentioned.
In DSBl 13-14/1942 (July) you will find a report on the tournament in
Salzburg (9-18 June; 1 Alekhine 7˝, 2 Keres 6, 3-4 Junge, Schmidt 5, 5
Bogoljubow 3˝, 6 Stoltz 3). In this report an article of Alekhine for
the "Pariser Zeitung" regarding the tournament in Salzburg was quoted:
"For the first time since the beginning of the war ... an attempt was
made to create a new, independant European style of fighting chess.
The first question which is interesting for the chess world now was
the problem 'Keres'" etc. Schmidt and Junge. By the way: In this
article Alekhine used the word "sport" (!): "Wenn Salzburg vom
schachsportlichen Standpunkt aus" etc. Not a single word about jewish
or aryan chess!
>"In 1941, Herr Post, President of the German Chess Federation, wrote
>
Ehrhardt Post was the General Secretary, perhaps the most important
official of the GSB, but not the President. President in 1941 has been
Franz Moraller (1903 - 1986), a journalist who worked for Goebbels as
the Secretary of the Reichskulturkammer (until 1942).
>
>"At the invitation of the Spanish Chess Federation, Alekhine came to
>Madrid in October 1943.
Edward Winter has mentioned a (Spanish?) book on this tournament
somewhere. Do you know this book?
>He arrived too late to take part in the
>tournament staged here by the European Federation.
According to Morán Alekhine didn't play the tournament in Madrid
October 4-20 but he took part in the "International Speed Game
Tournament", Madrid, October 22.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Do you know anything about the claim that
>Frank was badly beaten up after hs arrest by two black American GIs?
>
The British author David Irving wrote in "Nuremberg. The last Battle"
(available somewhere on the internet):
"After first beating him savagely,the GIs transported Hans Frank,the
hated Nazi governor of occupied Poland,to the municipal prison at
Miesbach.They flung a tarpaulin over the prisoner to hide the worst
weals left by the beating.Under cover of the tarpaulin,Frank tried
unsuccessfully to open an artery in his left arm." (p.84 of the online
edition)
Irving refers to Rupert Butler, Legions of Death, London 1983, p. 238f
>
>According to the BCM review:
(...)
>"The original book of the match by Bogoljbow contained a great deal
>of National Socialist propaganda.
A great deal of NS-propaganda? Introductory words of Herbert Kraft, an
official of the cultural bureaucracy in Baden , leader of the regional
chess organization in Baden and the main organizer of the match
(besides Hans Frank and the Bavarian minister for Culture, Hans
Schemm): "The new Germany has shown that she is able to carry out the
construction of her people by her own efforts and that she is willing
to make sacrifices and to fulfill tasks for all civilized nations."
Bogoljubow: "May our Royal Game contribute more and more to the
bridging of social differences and hereby serve the German people
(Volksgemeinschaft)."
Opening ceremony in Baden-Baden, 31 March 1934, with FIDE President
Dr. Rueb and the President of the French Chess Federation P. Biscay;
they welcomed the match in Germany. Franz Moraller (propaganda office
of the NSDAP): "The victory of the NS-revolution has restored law and
order. Therefore this match was possible after hardly one year."
Present were several chess correspondents, among them Nimzowitsch and
Jacques Mieses (jews), Kmoch, Hans Mueller (Vienna) and E. J. Diemer.
Bogoljubow: "All of these correspondents were able to watch the whole
match."
Bogoljubow's book was reprinted by Edition Olms Zurich (Switzerland)
in 1983: Die Schachkaempfe um die Weltmeisterschaft zwischen Aljechin
und Bogoljubow 1929 und 1934. Four volumes in one: 1. Yates/Winter
World's Championship Match 1929, 2. Bogoljubow, Schachkampf um die
Weltmeisterschaft 1934, 3. Lasker, Return Match for the World's
Championship 1934, 4. Fine/Reinfeld, Alekhine vs. Bogoljubow. World's
Chess Championship 1934.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Staunton
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 10:51:21 -0000, "Staunton"
> <howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Do you know anything about the claim that
> >Frank was badly beaten up after hs arrest by two black American GIs?
> >
>
> The British author David Irving wrote in "Nuremberg. The last Battle"
> (available somewhere on the internet):
>
'Some-where, o-ver the rainbow...' The actual book, which I briefly
glanced at in Foyles, has an impressive set of colour photos.
> "After first beating him savagely,the GIs transported Hans Frank,the
> hated Nazi governor of occupied Poland,to the municipal prison at
> Miesbach.They flung a tarpaulin over the prisoner to hide the worst
> weals left by the beating.Under cover of the tarpaulin,Frank tried
> unsuccessfully to open an artery in his left arm." (p.84 of the online
> edition)
>
> Irving refers to Rupert Butler, Legions of Death, London 1983, p. 238f
>
The Butler book, I believe, also refers to the interrogation/torture of
Rudolf Hoess. It's difficult not to agree with the view that the whole
system of post-war trials made a mockery of the the principles of
Anglo-American jurisprudence.
I see now that this Olms edition is also briefly reviewed in the same
1983 BCM volume. 'It is a fascinating excercise to compare the notes of
the authors of the 1934 match. A warning to the politically sensitive:
the German book has various references to the 'new order' prevailing in
Germany at that time.'
Incidentally, the Skinner and Verhoeven book on Alekhine makes reference
to the curious scheduling of the match, as well as relating Bogoljubow's
belief (as told to Nimzowich) that Alekhine was hypnotising him during
the games. My apologies if you have the book.
Moving on, do you know a) why Germany didn't compete at the 1933, 1935
or 1937 Olympiads and b) when Germany
(in whatever form) joined FIDE?
> Gerald Schendel
> Kandern/Germany
Staunton
> A part of these articles was published in the German chess magazine
> "Deutsche Schachzeitung" (DSZ). The DSZ was *not* the official
> magazine of the "Great German Chess Federation" (Grossdeutscher
> Schachbund / GSB). The official magazine of the GSB has been "Deutsche
> Schachblaetter" (DSBl.) Within DSBl the anti-semitic articles of
> Alekhine (?) have never been mentioned.
>
Did you see my post where I expressed suprise at there being no
reference in Skinner and Verhoeven to Alekhine playing these 40 games
for the 'German Army and Winter Relief' (one or two simuls?) in Paris in
the Winter of 1940?
Is there really nothing in either the DSZ or the DSBI about them?
> In DSBl 13-14/1942 (July) you will find a report on the tournament in
> Salzburg (9-18 June; 1 Alekhine 7˝, 2 Keres 6, 3-4 Junge, Schmidt 5, 5
> Bogoljubow 3˝, 6 Stoltz 3). In this report an article of Alekhine for
> the "Pariser Zeitung" regarding the tournament in Salzburg was quoted:
> "For the first time since the beginning of the war ... an attempt was
> made to create a new, independant European style of fighting chess.
> The first question which is interesting for the chess world now was
> the problem 'Keres'" etc. Schmidt and Junge. By the way: In this
> article Alekhine used the word "sport" (!): "Wenn Salzburg vom
> schachsportlichen Standpunkt aus" etc. Not a single word about jewish
> or aryan chess!
So Alekhine was again writing for the PZ in 1942? It was only from S + V
that I learned Alekhine was contributing game annotations to the chess
column of the PZ in early 1941.
>
> >"In 1941, Herr Post, President of the German Chess Federation, wrote
> >
>
> Ehrhardt Post was the General Secretary, perhaps the most important
> official of the GSB, but not the President. President in 1941 has been
> Franz Moraller (1903 - 1986), a journalist who worked for Goebbels as
> the Secretary of the Reichskulturkammer (until 1942).
>
> >
> >"At the invitation of the Spanish Chess Federation, Alekhine came to
> >Madrid in October 1943.
>
> Edward Winter has mentioned a (Spanish?) book on this tournament
> somewhere. Do you know this book?
>
No. Why not ask Winter directly?
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Incidentally, the Skinner and Verhoeven book on Alekhine makes reference
>to the curious scheduling of the match, as well as relating Bogoljubow's
>belief (as told to Nimzowich) that Alekhine was hypnotising him during
>the games. My apologies if you have the book.
>
I don't have the book. For Bogoljubow the match 1934 was a
return-match after the first encounter 1929. In his book on the match
1934 he wrote that he has sent his challenge to Alekhine on 20 August
1933 because he had found an organizer somewhere abroad. Alekhine
received Bogoljubow's letter after several weeks (he was in the USA
and even his friends didn't know his whereabouts exactly) and accepted
the challenge. In the meantime Bogoljubow's organizer withdrew his
offer. In this (for Bogoljubow embarrassing) situation Herbert Kraft
(Baden) offered to organize the match in Germany (October 1933).
Alekhine signed the contract December 1933 in Karlsruhe (Baden).
The chess playing politicians Dr. Hans Frank (born in Baden, minister
of justice in Bavaria, afterwards Reichsjustizkommissar in Berlin) and
Hans Schemm (minister for culture in Bavaria) organized the games
outside of Baden.
Bogoljubow was not hypnotised by Alekhine - he was tired and nervous.
In his book on the match he explained the reasons: "Due to the
economical crisis of the last years there are no big chess promoting
tournaments nowadays. For this reason the chess masters are forced to
take part in many small chess events or - like Bogoljubow - to play
countless simuls. These activities are, of course, useful for chess
propaganda but the master gets tired."
Even during the championship match 1934 Alekhine and Bogoljubow played
simuls: Munich (Alekhine +34 -4 =12; Bogoljubow had 50 opponents like
Alekhine plus Mrs Alekhine +40 -3 =8), Nuremberg (Alekhine +38 -9 =3;
Bogoljubow +36 -4 =11).
>Moving on, do you know a) why Germany didn't compete at the 1933, 1935
>or 1937 Olympiads and b) when Germany
>(in whatever form) joined FIDE?
>
Do you know that the German and the Russian Chess Federation *and* the
World Chess Champion (Lasker) tried to establish a world chess
federation (like FIDE) in 1914?
Sports and politics have been linked to one another. In 1916 the
Olympic Games (Berlin) were cancelled because of WW I. In 1920
Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary and Turkey were not permitted to
participate in the Olympic Games because of their role in WW I.
In 1924 FIDE was founded. Representatives of 14 nations signed the
treaty in Paris but only 8 federations became members in the first
year: Netherlands, Italy, Czechoslovakia, France, Switzerland,
Belgium, Great Britain and Hungary.
During the 24th Congress of the German Chess Federation (DSB) in
Breslau 1925 the DSB President reported on the FIDE Congress in Zurich
and recommended the membership in FIDE as soon as possible.
During the 25th Congress of the DSB in Magdeburg 1927 the DSB
President said: at the admission of Germany as a member of the World
Chess Federation the French delegate welcomed this act and the Italian
delegate welcomed the admission of Austria.
Germany has been admitted as a FIDE member during the FIDE Congress in
Budapest (15-17 July 1926) and took part in the FIDE tournament (only
4 participating teams: Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania and Germany).
German teams played at chess olympiads in London 1927 (16 teams), Den
Haag 1928 (17 teams), Hamburg 1930 (18 teams), Prague 1931 (19 teams;
Bogoljubow/Germany board 1, 12˝/17; Alekhine/France 13˝/18).
In Folkestone/England 1933 (15 teams) a German team could have played
but - according to Raj Tischbierek, Sternstunden des Schachs. 30 x
Olympia, Berlin 1993, p. 32 - German officials expected the exclusion
for political reasons (Aryan chess) and left the organization. Is this
statement correct? I'm not sure. The official magazine of the "Great
German Chess Federation" (GSB) wrote (DSBl 10/1933 [15 May], p. 150:
"Folkestone. Germany, Austria and Holland will not participate (...)"
An Austrian team took part in Folkestone, Spain and Argentina withdrew
their participation, an Estonian team should have played but didn't
come.
1935: FIDE supported the German idea of an extra olympiad in Munich
1936. The GSB invited "all chess playing nations" and - with a special
letter - "all members of FIDE". Germany, of course, played the chess
olympiad in Munich!
During the FIDE Congress in Stockholm 1937 the FIDE President was
ordered to look for a frame which would allow the collaboration and
membership of all countries.
FIDE Congress, Paris 1938: Hungary proposed a motion for the FIDE
membership of Germany. FIDE accepted. (DSBl 18-1938, p. 287)
1939: "Germany is a member of FIDE now" (DSBl 2-1939, p.27; member
now, not: member again) and wins the chess olympiad in Buenos Aires.
In the FIDE Congress Germany was represented by Karl Miehe, treasurer
of the GSB.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>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:
>
(...)
>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.
>
(...)"
>
>Note:
>
>Alekhine's claim of having played 40 games, presumably in the one simul,
>in Paris the previous winter (1940)
>is intriguing because the book 'Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games,
>1902-46' (Skinner and Verhoeven) has no record of it. It's difficult to
>believe that all contemporary magazines and newspapers failed to report
>such an event.
>
>
Last winter = December 1940 or January 1941 or February 1941.
I have collected several issues of the official GSB magazine "Deutsche
Schachblaetter" (DSBl). In 1941 Aljechin was mentioned for the first
time in DSBl 17-18/1941 [1 September 1941], p. 131, as participant of
the "Europe Tournament" in Munich, 7-21 September:
"Weltmeister Dr. Aljechin, der sich begeistert den neuen Aufgaben und
Zielen des Grossdeutschen Schachbundes zur Verfuegung gestellt hat,
wird am Kampfe teilnehmen."
During this tournament Alekhine gave a simul (+12 -4 =9). He wanted no
money - the income of this event was for the German Red Cross, or
Winter Relief (Winterhilfswerk).
It's interesting that the "Europe Tournament" was mentioned for the
first time in DSBl 7-8/1941 [1 April 1941], p.49f: The City of Munich
"has invited the Great German Chess Federation to organize an
important chess event here ** this spring **. [** - GSch] An
international master tournament with the best representatives of the
European chess countries should be held. The Great German Chess
Federation has already invited the possible chess federations. The
participants of Great Germany will be selected in the near future."
It's just my speculation but ... perhaps the Soviet Chess Federation
was invited!!! The annexation of Estonia was in August 1940. Paul
Keres played the 12th Championship of the USSR, Moscow 1940 (4 Keres,
6 Botvinnik), and later (March/April 1941) the tournament for the
title "Absolute Champion of the USSR" (1 Botvinnik, 2 Keres). Paul
Keres was very popular in Germany. It wasn't possible to invite him as
an Estonian player in 1941, but it was possible to invite him as a
representative of the Soviet chess. The German chess magazine
"Deutsche Schachblaetter" reported on the Soviet chess 1940/41 and had
good connections. In DSBl 11-12/1941 [1 June 1941], p.92f. the game
Smyslov-Keres with annotations from I. Kan in "64" was published - the
translation was sent officially from Moscow! For well known reasons
the spring between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR was over on 22
June 1941.
A tournament 1941 for the best players of Europe without Alekhine or
Keres? Impossible. When the "Europe Tournament" in Munich was
announced Alekhine and/or the Soviet Chess Federation had been
contacted - I'm sure.
I don't have the DSZ of the year 1941 but according to the Alekhine
biography of Hans Mueller/A. Pawelczak, p.33, note 18, the DSZ of
February 1941, wrote in a short note: "The world champion who lives
now in Paris still hopes for a match with Capablanca. According to the
new founded 'Pariser Zeitung' friends from the Reich which had
organized the match with Bogoljubow have told him that they will
support him. The grateful Alekhine has sent his photo with signature
and best chess regards to the newspaper. (...)" A simul for the winter
relief is not mentioned.
Friends from the Reich. I've looked for some hints in Hans Frank's
"Diensttagebuch" but found nothing.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Did you see my post where I expressed suprise at there being no
>reference in Skinner and Verhoeven to Alekhine playing these 40 games
>for the 'German Army and Winter Relief' (one or two simuls?) in Paris in
>the Winter of 1940?
>
Yes.
>Is there really nothing in either the DSZ or the DSBI about them?
>
Nothing in DSBl
>> In DSBl 13-14/1942 (July) you will find a report on the tournament in
>> Salzburg (9-18 June; 1 Alekhine 7˝, 2 Keres 6, 3-4 Junge, Schmidt 5, 5
>> Bogoljubow 3˝, 6 Stoltz 3). In this report an article of Alekhine for
>> the "Pariser Zeitung" regarding the tournament in Salzburg was quoted:
(...)
>
>So Alekhine was again writing for the PZ in 1942? It was only from S + V
>that I learned Alekhine was contributing game annotations to the chess
>column of the PZ in early 1941.
>
Alekhine was quoted. This does not mean that he himself was the
author. Do you know the editor of the chess column in the 'Pariser
Zeitung'? I've tried to get a copy of 'Pariser Zeitung' issues of 1941
in German libraries and was not successful (so far).
According to the Alekhine biography of Hans Mueller/A. Pawelczak,
p.42, Alekhine refused contributions to a chess column which was
offered to him by a czech journalist who was working for the Germans.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Staunton
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:50:58 -0000, "Staunton"
> <howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Did you see my post where I expressed suprise at there being no
> >reference in Skinner and Verhoeven to Alekhine playing these 40 games
> >for the 'German Army and Winter Relief' (one or two simuls?) in Paris
in
> >the Winter of 1940?
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> >Is there really nothing in either the DSZ or the DSBI about them?
> >
Were these the only two German chess magazines during the War? I read
somewhere that the DSZ merged with other magazines during the war before
discontinuing in late 1944 due to war shortages.
>
> Nothing in DSBl
>
> >> In DSBl 13-14/1942 (July) you will find a report on the tournament
in
> >> Salzburg (9-18 June; 1 Alekhine 7˝, 2 Keres 6, 3-4 Junge, Schmidt
5, 5
> >> Bogoljubow 3˝, 6 Stoltz 3). In this report an article of Alekhine
for
> >> the "Pariser Zeitung" regarding the tournament in Salzburg was
quoted:
> (...)
> >
> >So Alekhine was again writing for the PZ in 1942? It was only from S
+ V
> >that I learned Alekhine was contributing game annotations to the
chess
> >column of the PZ in early 1941.
> >
>
> Alekhine was quoted. This does not mean that he himself was the
> author. Do you know the editor of the chess column in the 'Pariser
> Zeitung'?
I'm relying on you :)
Perhaps you could try:
Staunton
There's no arguing with that...
>
> During this tournament Alekhine gave a simul (+12 -4 =9). He wanted no
> money - the income of this event was for the German Red Cross, or
> Winter Relief (Winterhilfswerk).
This simul is mentioned in S + V.
They then report that after the Munich tournament, "On the 28 September,
Alekhine was in Berlin and was invited to attend the official 60th
birthday celebration ceremony held for Erhardt Post. Many prominent
people were present including Dr Frank."
I have a memory that the Controller/Arbiter/Ringmaster of the
Lasker-Schlechter match in 1910 was someone by the name of Post. Same
person?
>
> It's interesting that the "Europe Tournament" was mentioned for the
> first time in DSBl 7-8/1941 [1 April 1941], p.49f: The City of Munich
> "has invited the Great German Chess Federation to organize an
> important chess event here ** this spring **. [** - GSch] An
> international master tournament with the best representatives of the
> European chess countries should be held. The Great German Chess
> Federation has already invited the possible chess federations. The
> participants of Great Germany will be selected in the near future."
>
> It's just my speculation but ... perhaps the Soviet Chess Federation
> was invited!!! The annexation of Estonia was in August 1940. Paul
> Keres played the 12th Championship of the USSR, Moscow 1940 (4 Keres,
> 6 Botvinnik), and later (March/April 1941) the tournament for the
> title "Absolute Champion of the USSR" (1 Botvinnik, 2 Keres). Paul
> Keres was very popular in Germany. It wasn't possible to invite him as
> an Estonian player in 1941, but it was possible to invite him as a
> representative of the Soviet chess. The German chess magazine
> "Deutsche Schachblaetter" reported on the Soviet chess 1940/41 and had
> good connections. In DSBl 11-12/1941 [1 June 1941], p.92f. the game
> Smyslov-Keres with annotations from I. Kan in "64" was published - the
> translation was sent officially from Moscow! For well known reasons
> the spring between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR was over on 22
> June 1941.
>
Interesting. In the PZ articles, it is noticeable how Alekhine tempers
his criticism of Botvinnik ("...Botvinnik has succeeded in rounding off
his original style and impressing it with the marks of a certain
many-sidedness. That he is strong, very strong now, there can be no
doubt.") The possibility of a match with Botvinnik at this time
(pre-June '41)
couldn't have be ruled out in his mind.
Having said all that, Alekhine continues: "Otherwise, he would hardly
have been able, considering the high development of chess in present-day
Russia, to attain to the championship of his country five or six times
in succession, in such convincing fashion." Returning to an earlier
post, this could be considered another Alekhine mistake, 'accidentally
on purpose'.
> A tournament 1941 for the best players of Europe without Alekhine or
> Keres? Impossible. When the "Europe Tournament" in Munich was
> announced Alekhine and/or the Soviet Chess Federation had been
> contacted - I'm sure.
>
> I don't have the DSZ of the year 1941 but according to the Alekhine
> biography of Hans Mueller/A. Pawelczak, p.33, note 18, the DSZ of
> February 1941, wrote in a short note: "The world champion who lives
> now in Paris still hopes for a match with Capablanca. According to the
> new founded 'Pariser Zeitung' friends from the Reich which had
> organized the match with Bogoljubow have told him that they will
> support him. The grateful Alekhine has sent his photo with signature
> and best chess regards to the newspaper. (...)"
A Capa-Alekhine match in 1941, perhaps in Spain, would definitely have
had a surreal quality to it.
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>This simul is mentioned in S + V.
>
>They then report that after the Munich tournament, "On the 28 September,
>Alekhine was in Berlin and was invited to attend the official 60th
>birthday celebration ceremony held for Erhardt Post. Many prominent
>people were present including Dr Frank."
>
Ehrhardt Post's birthday was on 23 September, the official celebration
in Berlin was on 28 September 1941. Many people were present (several
hundred) but not Dr Frank. The mayor of Berlin, Hafemann, had a
present (gift) for Mr Post: "a picture with dedication of
governor-general Reichsminister Dr. Frank" (DSBl 19-20/1941, p.149).
"World Champion Dr. Alekhine made a speech on behalf of the
international chess which entrusts itself readily to the leadership of
the Great German Chess Federation."
>I have a memory that the Controller/Arbiter/Ringmaster of the
>Lasker-Schlechter match in 1910 was someone by the name of Post. Same
>person?
>
Same person.
>
>Interesting. In the PZ articles, it is noticeable how Alekhine tempers
>his criticism of Botvinnik ("...Botvinnik has succeeded in rounding off
>his original style and impressing it with the marks of a certain
>many-sidedness. That he is strong, very strong now, there can be no
>doubt.") The possibility of a match with Botvinnik at this time
>(pre-June '41)
>couldn't have be ruled out in his mind.
>
Botvinnik wrote in his chess memories ("Schach-Erinnerungen",
Duesseldorf 1981; English, I think, "Achieving the aim") that Alekhine
has learned German as a child. During the opening ceremony of the AVRO
tournament 1938 Alekhine held a speech in excellent German. In fall
1945 Alekhine told the British journal "Chess" that he had (secret, in
Germany unknown) negotiations with Botvinnik in 1938 and 1939
regarding a title match. This statement (perhaps a fact, indeed) was
confirmed by Botvinnik ("there was no other way out for Alekhine").
>Having said all that, Alekhine continues: "Otherwise, he would hardly
>have been able, considering the high development of chess in present-day
>Russia, to attain to the championship of his country five or six times
>in succession, in such convincing fashion." Returning to an earlier
>post, this could be considered another Alekhine mistake, 'accidentally
>on purpose'.
>
>
Or a mistake of someone else.
According to my German text the translation should be: "Otherwise, he
would hardly have been able, considering the the high development of
chess in present-day Russia, to *win* the championship of *this*
country five *up to* six times in succession, in such convincing
fashion."
Did Alekhine read Russian or German chess magazines? When the
"Alekhine articles" were published for the first time in March 1941
nobody knew that Botvinnik would become the "absolute Champion of the
USSR" in April 1941, but many chess players - even in Germany - knew
that Botvinnik was not the winner of the 12th USSR championship in
1940.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >Is there really nothing in either the DSZ or the DSBI about them?
>> >
>
>
>Were these the only two German chess magazines during the War? I read
>somewhere that the DSZ merged with other magazines during the war before
>discontinuing in late 1944 due to war shortages.
>
The last issue of DSBl (5-6/1943) was published in March. In April
1943 the "Deutsche Schachzeitung" (DSZ; publishing house: Walter de
Gruyter & Co, Leipzig) announced that the 4 magazines DSZ, DSBl,
"Schachecho" and "Schwalbe" were merged to one magazine under the name
of "Deutsche Schachzeitung".
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Staunton
>
> Ehrhardt Post's birthday was on 23 September, the official celebration
> in Berlin was on 28 September 1941. Many people were present (several
> hundred) but not Dr Frank. The mayor of Berlin, Hafemann, had a
> present (gift) for Mr Post: "a picture with dedication of
> governor-general Reichsminister Dr. Frank" (DSBl 19-20/1941, p.149).
> "World Champion Dr. Alekhine made a speech on behalf of the
> international chess which entrusts itself readily to the leadership of
> the Great German Chess Federation."
>
> >I have a memory that the Controller/Arbiter/Ringmaster of the
> >Lasker-Schlechter match in 1910 was someone by the name of Post. Same
> >person?
> >
>
> Same person.
>
Right, he was actually the Referee.
Some other mistakes:
Alekhine refers to Kierseritzky as a 'Polish Jew'. As Chess promptly
pointed out, Kierseritzky was neither Polish nor Jewish.
Alekhine calls Baruch 'Barry' Wood, editor of Chess, a Jew. Also wrong.
Alekhine personally knew Wood; he was the first contributor to the
magazine when in started in 1935.
Alekhine refers to Lasker's lectures, published as 'Common Sense in
Chess', as being delivered in Liverpool, whereas he must have known that
London was the correct.
I'm now unclear as to whether Alekhine also refers to Schlechter as a
Jew ( as I previously believed). A paragraph on Schlecter is apparently
omitted from the DSZ reproduction by the editor Max Blumich. Schlechter
also fails to feature in his list of outstanding 'Aryan' masters. On the
other hand, he specifically refers to only Janowski and Rubinstein as
being Lasker's noteworthy Jewish competitors.
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>I'm now unclear as to whether Alekhine also refers to Schlechter as a
>Jew ( as I previously believed). A paragraph on Schlecter is apparently
>omitted from the DSZ reproduction by the editor Max Blumich. Schlechter
>also fails to feature in his list of outstanding 'Aryan' masters. On the
>other hand, he specifically refers to only Janowski and Rubinstein as
>being Lasker's noteworthy Jewish competitors.
>
>
Albrecht Buschke (USA) has sent his translation of the "anti-Semitic
articles" in the 1941 Deutsche Schachzeitung ("reprinted" from the
Pariser Zeitung - I would prefer the word "edited") to the British
magazine "Chess" along with a "parallel version" of Alekhine's 1929
Karlsbad Tournament articles in the 1929 New York Times.
Morán: "at that time Buschke owned Alekhine's original German, pencil
manuscript, which he later sold to the Cleveland Public Library".
We should ask: a) where is this manuscript now; b) was the 1929 text
of Alekhine ever reprinted; c) what would be the result of a
comparison of the "two versions" (Buschke)?
"Chess" (or later Morán) published the following text in August 1941:
"In the decadence period of Lasker's hegemony (1900-1921) *two* [* -
GSch] of his closest Jewish competitors, Janowski and Rubinstein, are
somewhat noteworthy. [... - GSch] Then there was the *"short"* [* -
GSch] match against Schlechter (*Vienna* [* - GSch], 1910); the drawn
result of this match was intended, of course, to serve as "decoy-bird"
for the chess public to arrange a much larger - and appropriately
remunerated - return match.
Lasker's *second* [* - GSch] Jewish competitor was the Lodz master,
Akiba Rubinstein."
My German text is a pamphlet which was published anonymously with a
foreword of Herbert Griesshammer: Aljechin. Juedisches und arisches
Schach. Propagandartikel 1942 [sic! 1942 bold], second edition
[probably Muenster Verlag], based on the text which was published in
"Deutsche Zeitung in den Niederlanden", according to Griesshammer in
March and April 1942, according to Morán in 1941.
According to my German text the "original" (slightly revised version
of the text in PZ) text has been:
'In the decadence period of Lasker's hegemony (1900-1921) *three* [* -
GSch] of his closest Jewish competitors, Janowski, Schlechter and
Rubinstein, are somewhat noteworthy. (...) Then there was the short
match against Schlechter (1910); the drawn result of this match was
intended, of course, to serve as "decoy-bird" for the chess public to
arrange a much larger - and appropriately remunerated - return match.
The case Schlechter is therefore worthy of our particular attention
because this man is in a rather singular position in the gallery of
Jewish chess masters. A player without the will to win, without
ambition, he was called by his opponent Lasker as 'the man without
style'. The most striking proof of the negative effect of Lasker's
world championship [German: "Weltmeistertum" - a very unusual German
word] is perhaps the fact that this spiritless chess machine, lacking
in style, celebrated the greatest tournament results within the period
1900 - 1910.
Lasker's third Jewish competitor was the Lodz master, Akiba
Rubinstein.'
Schlechter was no Jew, so to call him a "man in a rather singular
position in the gallery of Jewish chess masters" is a big mistake or a
joke or ...
Imagine: an Aryan master playing like a Jew! Funny, isn't it! What is
the meaning of words?
During the 17th Congress of the German Chess federation in Hamburg
1910 Carl Schlechter (Vienna) was appointed Honorary Member of the
German Chess federation: "He is one of the few masters who have no
enemies in the chess world. We are adoring in him a charming person as
well." (Original German Congress book, p.11).
By the way: D. Przepiórka, Warsaw, Widok 1, has been a so called
"patron" (German: "Goenner") of the German Chess federation. Source:
official Congress book, Duesseldorf 1908, p.175 (reprint Edition Olms,
Zurich, 1984)
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Staunton
> of Alekhine ever reprinted; c) what would be the result of a
> comparison of the "two versions" (Buschke)?
My guess would be that Buschke's parallel text thesis ('to say "no"
where he had said "yes" 12 years before...the versions are that close')
is somewhat overstated.
Hmm. A nifty piece of editing by Max Blumich. On reflection, one could,
perhaps, deduce the correct version from the line: 'The typical
representative of this group [Lasker's closest Jewish competitors -HS]
is probably the Polish Jew Janowsky', the word 'group' indicating more
than two.
The October 1992 BCM carries an article 'Alekhine - In Memoriam'
(celebrating the centenary of his birth). On page 517 there is a photo
of a page from the Pariser Zeitung showing, in part, the second of the
six articles: "II. Judische Schachmeister in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart
Von Weltmeister Dr. Aljechin" The article begins "Der dritte der
Laskerschen (sp?) Judenkonkurrenten war der Lodzer Meister Akiba
Rubinstein." Even my German is up to recognising that as the 'third' :)
> Schlechter was no Jew, so to call him a "man in a rather singular
> position in the gallery of Jewish chess masters" is a big mistake or a
> joke or ...
>
I think Alekhine's 'mistake' in calling Barry Wood a Jew is equally
significant. Why go to the trouble of referring to this prizewinning
game of Mieses against von Bardeleben if not to give himself the
opportunity of bringing up Wood's name? Unfortunately, this piece of
cleverness, if that's what it is, appears to have gone straight over
Wood's head!
By the way, I found the source for my memory that Alekhine had referred
to Schlechter as a Jew. In a piece 'Was Alekhine a Nazi?' in Kings,
Commoner and Knaves (originally printed in NIC from 1989) Winter writes:
"Such inconsistencies [doubts over the reported sightings of the
articles' manuscripts in Alekhine's handwriting by both Reilly and Le
Monnier -HS] will be welcomed by defenders of Alekhine, many of whom
have suggested that, being forced, for his own and his wife's safety, to
write anti-Semitic material, the then world champion deliberately made
it ridiculous and inaccurate. The original Pariser Zeitung publication
contained many elementary misspellings of proper names ('Marschall',
'Andersen', 'Pilsburry', etc.). There is a reference to the match
between La Bourdonnais
and 'Macdonald' (instead of McDonnell) and to a 'Polish Jew' named
'Kienezitzky'. (Kieseritzky is meant, although he was apparently neither
Polish or Jewish.) Some mistakes were corrected in the Deutsche
Schachzeitung reprint, as were factual errors like the suggestion in the
Pariser Zeitung that Schlechter was a Jew. But the theory that Alekhine
tried to signal his insincerity is mere guesswork, which is not even
supported by any claim to that effect from Alekhine himself. The wrong
spellings might just as easily be put down to a Pariser Zeitung
typesetter's difficulty in reading Alekhine's idiosyncratic
handwriting."
Whilst I have the book open:
"Condemnation of the articles came from many notable sources. The
November 1945 CHESS (page 28) quoted from De Waarheid a denunciation of
Alekhine by G.C.A. Oskam: 'His libellous articles have filled me with
sorrow. They were written by a miserable collaborator, by a mean
profiteer; they breathe lies and fraud, the necessary elements of racial
hatred; they are dictated by the qualities present in the person of a
double traitor...' The same magazine published an anti-Alekhine letter
from Ossip Bernstein which was not without over-the-fence gossip: 'I
refrain from giving further disgusting details about his behaviour. It
could be added that he adopted the Nazi salute "Heil Hitler" with
outstretched arm.'
You may recall Alekhine's December 1945 letter to Hatton-Ward: "Dr.
Euwe was so convinced of my "influence" with the Nazis the he wrote me
two letters in which he asked me to take steps in order to ease the fate
of poor Mr. Landau and of my friend Dr. Oskam."
> Imagine: an Aryan master playing like a Jew! Funny, isn't it! What is
> the meaning of words?
>
Nowadays, of course, we don't say 'Aryan', we say 'Indo-European'....
> During the 17th Congress of the German Chess federation in Hamburg
> 1910 Carl Schlechter (Vienna) was appointed Honorary Member of the
> German Chess federation: "He is one of the few masters who have no
> enemies in the chess world. We are adoring in him a charming person as
> well." (Original German Congress book, p.11).
>
>
> By the way: D. Przepiórka, Warsaw, Widok 1, has been a so called
> "patron" (German: "Goenner") of the German Chess federation. Source:
> official Congress book, Duesseldorf 1908, p.175 (reprint Edition Olms,
> Zurich, 1984)
>
As you may, again, recall, Alekhine in Lupi's memoir 'The Broken King'
:[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."
Moran's book goes into extended detail on this:
Ossip Bernstein's October 5 letter to Chess (November 1945) states that
"...Alekhine, though on close terms with the Nazi Governor in Poland,
Dr. Frank, with whom he was photographed by the Nazi periodicals
published at the time, refused to intervene to secure Przepiorka's
release. This fact of his non-intervention was told to me by Samisch
when he came to Barcelona at the end of 1943."
The January 1946 Chess printed Alekhine's reply: "As for Dr. Bernstein's
'information' I can only state that my friend D. Przepiorka was murdered
before the end of 1939 (I heard the narrative of this from an
eye-witness) and it is known that I played in Germany and Poland only
from the end of 1941. What connection could I have with this tragical
event??"
In 1939, David Przepiorka supposedly entered the Warsaw (not Prague)
restaurant owned by his family for generations, was told it was
confiscated, and sent away. On returning the next day, the Nazis sent
him to camp, and executed him on August 27, 1942. But the March-April
1984 Chess Notes (687) indicates that in an October 14, 1983, letter to
John Roycroft, Alexander Goldstein "recalls that [Marian] Wrobel
published an article in 1955 (75 years after P's birth) in which he
recalled that a makeshift chess club had been organised in a private
dwelling and that the Germans made a raid some time in January 1940,
arresting about 10 players. After a week or so, the non-Jewish persons
were released and P., according to to Wrobel's statement, was executed
in April 1940." And in the July-August 1983 Chess Notes (480), Jeremy
Gaige writes that "My latest and best information comes from Dr. Andrzej
Filipowicz, who gives P's date of death as April 1940, and the place of
death as Linz? (OST)"
Now, however, the 'latest and best information' comes from Tadeusz
Wolsza, 'best expert for Polish chess history in XX century'. Przepiorka
was killed in January - March 1940 in Palmiry Forest near Warsaw; one
among many nameless victims of a mass execution. Wolsza saw a copy of a
German "Bekanntmachung" (Proclamation)
Such lists, stuck on walls, said:
"Persons listed below were condemned to death because of their dangerous
activity against III Reich".
'Of course, the date of execution was not given; it could be defined
only approximately. Wolsza noticed Przepiorka's had been was printed
without his profession, as was practised.'
I am indebted to Dr. Tom Fox for this information.
Staunton
B: Spielmann?
E: Very pleasant, though a little inclined to complain about things. He
has often stayed with me. He was rather a dreamer. As a child he fell on
his head. During his match against Davidson one game was adjourned, and
afterwards he won it. 'You have been analysing with Euwe!' exclaimed
Davidson. 'But my moves were better than his,' replied Spielmann.
B: Did you know Teichmann as well?
E: I met him just once. I was playing in an international match against
the German player Post and lost a pawn. Teichmann looked at me and said
'I do not understand!' Later I picked up some compensation and finished
by winning. Teichmann now remarked 'Now I do understand!'
B: You have often played against Tarrasch from who many masters of your
generation learned a lot. There was, of course, a matter of forty years
difference between you.
E: When I first met Tarrasch in Pistyan in 1922 he was complaining that
the coachman had charged him 25 crowns for a short journey. Johner of
Switzerland remarked 'The man demanded 25 crowns from me too; I offered
3 crowns and we finally settled for five!'
Tarrasch I almost always beat. His 'grand epoch' was already behind him.
He was at his best between 1895 and 1908.
B: Do you remember his match against Lasker in 1908?
E: Very well indeed. The newspapers were full of it, just as they were
with the St. Petersburg Tournament of 1909 where Lasker was beaten in
the third round by Rubinstein. I can remember awaiting the papers each
day with almost feverish excitement.
B: This tournament was a wonderful success for Rubinstein.
E: I got to know him later and played against him. A placid, intelligent
man. He came to Holland towards the end of the '30s before his match
with Alekhine. He finished his life in a mental asylum in Antwerp.
During the war these asylums were sometimes exploited as refuges by
resistance workers. Nazi investigators once descended on the place and
asked Rubinstein 'Are you happy here?' 'Not at all!' Rubinstein replied.
'Would you prefer to go to Germany and work for the Wehrmacht?' 'I'd be
delighted to!' Rubinstein replied. 'Then he really must be barmy!' the
Nazis decided.
B: I should like you to say a bit about training for chess. You once
said 'Maroczy and Reti were my teachers.'
E: Reti told me a lot of about the strategy of the centre. The King's
Indian became one of my favourite openings. In 1920 I played a friendly
match with with him. It was mainly to try some ideas in the openings. In
spite of this our games became well known. With Maroczy I played a match
of twelve games. He had a great talent for sane, prudent strategy.
B: All the same, he could combine brilliantly and his technique was
famous.
E: He was unquestionably a grandmaster. But it was never a question of
formal lessons.
(...)
B: Let us talk about the International Chess Federation, FIDE. You were
involved in its foundation?
E: I was often with Dr. Rueb, its first president, at the time. He was
president of the Royal Dutch Chess Federation, a fine organiser and an
excellent man in every way. I did assist a little in the creation of
FIDE in 1924.
B: The creation of FIDE was a great achievement of Rueb.
E: Undoubtedly. He established it basically and he directed it for
nearly a quarter of a century. After the second world war he more or
less created it all over again. I contributed just a little, mainly in
connection with the organisation of the world championship. The zonal
and interzonal tournaments were my idea. I don't want to boast. There
were many criticisms. But we had to start somewhere.
After the war it was difficult, for Alekhine would not recognise FIDE.
He wanted to keep his liberty and financial interests. At Stockholm in
1937 when I was still world champion, we tried to come to some
arrangement. For example we wanted to make the AVRO tournament of 1938
an official "candidates" tournament but the competitors would have
nothing of it. I remember the Dutch delegate van Trotsenburg walking out
in disgust. Flohr was chosen as the main challenger with Capablanca the
second in line. But Alekhine won back his title... As I've mentioned,
Capablanca wouldn't put up the stake he demanded in gold dollars.
B: If he had raised the gold dollars, would Alekhine have played?
E: Certainly, he was not afraid of Capablanca.
B: Between Rueb and you as President of FIDE came Rogard of Sweden. Did
you have much contact with him?
E: Not on the whole. The president of the Dutch Federation about this
time, Goudsmit, was the intermediary between us but, sadly, he died very
young. Rogard was a very dictatorial man, not keen on having me follow
him; but it seemed he couldn't find anybody better.
B: I recall that the atmosphere at Havana in 1966 was very much against
Rogard but in spite of this and his absence through illness, he was
re-elected for another four years.
E: Because there was nobody else. He was easy-going and when FIDE had
trouble raising funds for an official tournament, the Swedish Chess
Federation would come to the rescue.
(...)
B: I recall that one day, as we were passing the post office, you
remarked to me 'Wait a moment, I must go and pick up a pile of offensive
letters.'
E: Yes, it was the Fischer epoch. Yet...I am satisfied with what I
accomplished.
(...)
B: Are you happy about your successor?
E: Absolutely. I think Olafsson is doing good work. He is a little more
strict than I; perhaps it would be difficult to find anybody less strict
than I!
B: Let us consider chess as a profession... For one season, 1946-7, you
were a full professional player?
E: The Dutch Chess Federation wanted to provide me with the opportunity
to regain the world champioship. They guaranteed me 500 to 600 florins a
month (the salary of a professor then) with an extra 75 fl. for the
magazine. By giving simultaneous displays I recovered this money for the
federation. Not a marvellous scheme but the federation was not rich at
that time.
B: Preparing for a world championship match, you should not have to give
simultaneous displays!
E: No, it was a black period in my chess career.
(...)
E: In 1933, though an accepted grandmaster, I was thinking of giving up
chess. Then came a famous letter from Alekhine, suggesting that we
contest six games on a cruise from Holland to the East Indies. Hans
Kmoch thought it a fine opportunity for me and a committee was set up to
finance it.
B: It wasn't a good time for such a venture?
E: Van Harten threw himself into the task of raising 100,000 florins,
largely in 10 cent contributions (one-tenth of a florin - Editor). He
offered the scores of the games to clubs at 500 florins each.
B: Suppose we were to organise a match Karpov v Korchnoy in Holland, one
day in Haarlem, the next in Groningen and so on, people would say we
were mad.
E: I agree...that sort of thing in the AVRO tournament of 1938 aroused a
lot of protests from the players.
(...)
B: Do you notice much evolution in technique?
E: In the openings, enormous progress has been made. For example, Timman
beat Ribli recently with a theoretical innovation on the 26th move...
The masters of other days were often just as creative, in fact their
technique in the endgame was sometimes sublime but a man like Capablanca
could get by without a deep knowledge of the openings. I once played a
consultation game with Lilienthal against Capablanca and Kmoch. Kmoch
revealed to me afterwards that he had had to break off at one stage to
give Capablanca a long talk on the current situation in their opening!
In his best days, however, Capablanca could outplay opponents in the
opening too.
B: Didn't he study much?
E: No. For his match with Alekhine, he prepared little or nothing.
B: Would you like to say a few words about chess computers?
E: I was recently called a pessimist because I said that I don't think a
computer will ever be as strong as a master. Botvinnik thinks you can
analyse intuition and programme it into a computer. I don't believe the
human brain functions like a computer. You sometimes forget something.
Five minutes later, you remember it. A computer knows everything or
nothing! I entitled one of my lectures 'Can a computer think?' The
answer can only be a counter-question: 'What is, essentially, to
"think"?' There are a lot of computers coming along, and they are even
being given Elo ratings.
(...)
Hans Bouwmeester tells how he was entertained to a fine meal prepared by
Mrs. Euwe, who then had to leave because she herself has many
activities. Euwe washed up whilst Bouwmesster dried.
The interview had taken two hours.
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> We should ask: a) where is this manuscript now; b) was the 1929 text
>> of Alekhine ever reprinted; c) what would be the result of a
>> comparison of the "two versions" (Buschke)?
>
>My guess would be that Buschke's parallel text thesis ('to say "no"
>where he had said "yes" 12 years before...the versions are that close')
>is somewhat overstated.
>
For Buschke Alekhine has been the author of the "Alekhine articles".
He argues: if " 'somebody else' - probably somebody in the propaganda
apparatus in the German government - " had written the articles that
'somebody else' would have had to convert the 1929 New York Times
articles: "and that is so improbable"! Why?
Today many people are able to read Kasparov's Wall Street Journal
articles in Berlin, but I think, the New York Times was available in
Berlin in 1929, too.
>A nifty piece of editing by Max Blumich.
One of the most successful chess books in Germany is Jean Dufresne,
Lehrbuch des Schachspiels (1st edition 1881). 7th edition 1901 and
following editions: Jacques Mieses. Max Blumich (+ 1942) was the
editor of the 15th (1940) and 16th (1943) edition. In the 1943 index
Schlechter was called "a first-rate grandmaster".
>Moran's book goes into extended detail on this:
>
>Ossip Bernstein's October 5 letter to Chess (November 1945) states that
>"...Alekhine, though on close terms with the Nazi Governor in Poland,
>Dr. Frank, with whom he was photographed by the Nazi periodicals
>published at the time, refused to intervene to secure Przepiorka's
>release. This fact of his non-intervention was told to me by Samisch
>when he came to Barcelona at the end of 1943."
>
Samisch was one of the players in Madrid (October 1943). Another one
was Brinckmann. The German chess officials Post and Miehe have been in
Madrid, too. What happened with Samisch after the tournament in
Madrid, October 1943?
By the way: There's a strange consultation game in Morán's book (p.
9): O.S.Bernstein/J.G.Zabludovski - Alekhine/J.L.Budovski, Paris 1940.
>
>
>Now, however, the 'latest and best information' comes from Tadeusz
>Wolsza, 'best expert for Polish chess history in XX century'. Przepiorka
>was killed in January - March 1940 in Palmiry Forest near Warsaw; one
>among many nameless victims of a mass execution. Wolsza saw a copy of a
>German "Bekanntmachung" (Proclamation)
>Such lists, stuck on walls, said:
>
>"Persons listed below were condemned to death because of their dangerous
>activity against III Reich".
>
>'Of course, the date of execution was not given; it could be defined
>only approximately. Wolsza noticed Przepiorka's had been was printed
>without his profession, as was practised.'
>
>I am indebted to Dr. Tom Fox for this information.
>
>
Interesting. Published anywhere?
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Phil Innes
(Gerald Schendel) wrote:
> Samisch was one of the players in Madrid (October 1943). Another one
> was Brinckmann. The German chess officials Post and Miehe have been in
> Madrid, too. What happened with Samisch after the tournament in
> Madrid, October 1943?
keres would be the source of revelations from Munich 1942 (inter alia the
anti-semitic articles). there are no keres memoirs in the west, and what
there might be in russian are unpublished
unfortunately the munich newspaper record for this important 42 tournament
is 'absent' even if we wished to read it through a propaganda filter
morán seems to be a reliable reporter, but somewhat coy, lending various
possible interpretations to his articles - specifically an over-reliance on
'statements' rather than third-party observations
what these players were really thinking during 41-43 while nazi fortunes
still seemed ascendent is quite another matter
it is interesting to read herr schendel's conversation with staunton -
together they process their information intelligently. how much more
interesting would it be if there were specific anecdote resulting from
conversation of aljekin and contemporary players
phil innes
Staunton
Phil Innes <in...@together.net> wrote in message
news:ak_56.28524$pA5.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> In article <3a562b06...@news.btx.dtag.de> ,
Gerald....@t-online.de
> (Gerald Schendel) wrote:
>
> > Samisch was one of the players in Madrid (October 1943). Another one
> > was Brinckmann. The German chess officials Post and Miehe have been
in
> > Madrid, too. What happened with Samisch after the tournament in
> > Madrid, October 1943?
>
> keres would be the source of revelations from Munich 1942
He would?!
> (inter alia the
> anti-semitic articles). there are no keres memoirs in the west, and
what
> there might be in russian are unpublished
>
You know something or someone?
> it is interesting to read herr schendel's conversation with staunton -
> together they process their information intelligently. how much more
> interesting would it be if there were specific anecdote resulting from
> conversation of aljekin and contemporary players
>
When can we expect your book?
> phil innes
Phil Innes
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Phil Innes <in...@together.net> wrote in message
> news:ak_56.28524$pA5.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...
>> In article <3a562b06...@news.btx.dtag.de> ,
> Gerald....@t-online.de
>> (Gerald Schendel) wrote:
>>
>> > Samisch was one of the players in Madrid (October 1943). Another one
>> > was Brinckmann. The German chess officials Post and Miehe have been
> in
>> > Madrid, too. What happened with Samisch after the tournament in
>> > Madrid, October 1943?
>>
>> keres would be the source of revelations from Munich 1942
>
> He would?!
who better?
>> (inter alia the
>> anti-semitic articles). there are no keres memoirs in the west, and
> what
>> there might be in russian are unpublished
>>
>
> You know something or someone?
yes. there was even an attempted suit from party a against party b, even
/before/ seeing the mss (LOL!)
>> it is interesting to read herr schendel's conversation with staunton -
>> together they process their information intelligently. how much more
>> interesting would it be if there were specific anecdote resulting from
>> conversation of aljekin and contemporary players
>>
>
> When can we expect your book?
someone else is doing an alekhine biography
i may still translate a russian work of a broader aspect
who can say
when the snows will recede
and first spring flowers
open in our hearts
>> phil innes
>
>
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Euwe in an interview with Hans Bouwmeester in Chess, September and
>October 1981 (originally for Europe Echecs):
>
>(...)
>
>
>E: Tartakover was a very interesting man - a paradox. A fine, often
>trenchant, writer. When, in London in 1946 Alekhine's collaboration with
>the Nazis came into question, Tartakover maintained that it was not for
>us but for the French Government to judge the case. That Alekhine was
>anti-semitic, we have all known since 1934, he said.
>
(...)
>
>After the war emotions ran high. In London in 1946 Bernstein above all
>was very excited about it all, but as I have already hinted Tartakover
>calmed him down a little. The investigations into Alekhine's war-time
>record were never finalised because of his death.
>
Alekhine was excluded from the London tournament, Opocensky who played
several "Nazi tournaments" was admitted.
By the way: Do you know Pachmann's report on Prague 1943? "...Post ...
came from Berlin to deliver the speech. He praised the Czechs and
their chess players, and also golden Prague, without a word about the
New Europe or final victory. Then the prizewinners went forward,
bowed, and Post shook them by the hand. But two of the Czech masters
stood to attention, clicked their heels and raised their right arms in
the Nazi salute. Let one be forgiven, he is dead. The other is
politically in good favour today and, in 1971, when my case was being
debated in the Chess Union, he replied to a suggestion that Pachman
could, perhaps, be allowed to play in home competitions by declaring
that such a step could not be reconciled with true communist
principles." (Checkmate in Prague. Memoirs of Ludek Pachman, London
1975, p. 18)
Alekhine has sent copies of his letter to Mr Hatton-Ward (December
6th, 1945) to the British and USA (chess) Federations (Morán, p.47).
We may conclude: at that moment the French Federation was not
involved.
Francisco Lupi (Portugal): During the London tournament "Alekhine was
asked to present himself to his own French chess authorities to defend
himself from the accusations made against him." (Morán, p.275)
To defend against the accusations... The investigators have to prove
their accusations!
According to the Alekhine biography of Hans Muller/A. Pawelczak the
French Federation was asked by the British Federation to institute an
investigation. The subjects of the accusation should have been a) 'his
anti-Semitic articles', b) 'his refusal to intervene to secure
Przepiorka's release'. The investigation (in Paris?) was to start on
24 March 1946. (Chess genius Alekhine, p. 35). Alekhine died in
Estoril before his French visa arrived - Lupi.
Euwe's statement, 'the investigations into Alekhine's war-time record
were never finalised because of his death' shows the prejudice of the
"prosecutors".
Nowadays we seem to know that Przepiorka was dead before Alekhine
started to play tournaments in Germany and Poland, and the authorship
of the notorious articles is still uncertain.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Staunton
> >
> > He would?!
>
> who better?
>
> >> (inter alia the
> >> anti-semitic articles). there are no keres memoirs in the west, and
> > what
> >> there might be in russian are unpublished
> >>
> >
> > You know something or someone?
>
> yes. there was even an attempted suit from party a against party b,
even
> /before/ seeing the mss (LOL!)
As much as I admire Keres, one must concede that even his secret memoirs
may be less than riveting. It is said that one of his hobbies was
memorising rail and air timetables - train spotting without the
excitement, no?
I may, of course, be doing him a disservice. Perhaps he was a chessic
Oblomov.
BTW, did Keres have any German ancestry?
>
> >> it is interesting to read herr schendel's conversation with
staunton -
> >> together they process their information intelligently. how much
more
> >> interesting would it be if there were specific anecdote resulting
from
> >> conversation of aljekin and contemporary players
> >>
> >
> > When can we expect your book?
>
> someone else is doing an alekhine biography
>
No, Alekhine and Keres on the veranda. Freud's funeral in the rain.
Staunton
> He argues: if " 'somebody else' - probably somebody in the propaganda
> apparatus in the German government - " had written the articles that
> 'somebody else' would have had to convert the 1929 New York Times
> articles: "and that is so improbable"! Why?
>
On a point of information: in the PZ article the word "Uberdeckung" is
used and translated as "over-protection" in the Nimzowitschian sense.
Alekhine uses the word Uberdeckung in one of his Spanish interviews.
Was/is Uberdeckung the usual German word for the concept of
"over-protection"?
> Today many people are able to read Kasparov's Wall Street Journal
> articles in Berlin, but I think, the New York Times was available in
> Berlin in 1929, too.
Able, yes; willing, no.
> >I am indebted to Dr. Tom Fox for this information.
> >
> >
>
> Interesting. Published anywhere?
>
Only in Poland, I imagine. I will email you with a contact address.
> Gerald Schendel
> Kandern/Germany
Phil Innes
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> yes. there was even an attempted suit from party a against party b,
> even
>> /before/ seeing the mss (LOL!)
>
> As much as I admire Keres, one must concede that even his secret memoirs
> may be less than riveting. It is said that one of his hobbies was
> memorising rail and air timetables - train spotting without the
> excitement, no?
this is about another famous player, a russian - i couldn't possible say
whom
and this memory thing - it is common with great players, though it may
indeed seem absurd
> I may, of course, be doing him a disservice. Perhaps he was a chessic
> Oblomov.
your attitude is noted, comrade
> BTW, did Keres have any German ancestry?
don't think so, anyone from 'up-north' Latvia, Armenia or Petersburgers
would have classical Latin and a combination of French, English or German at
school.
met a russian the other day said he read shakespeare in english at secondary
school - said he liked it
>> >
>> > When can we expect your book?
>>
>> someone else is doing an alekhine biography
>>
>
> No, Alekhine and Keres on the veranda. Freud's funeral in the rain.
>
Lived quite near you, in the smoke, didn't he? Awful jaw-cancer at the end
from all those cigars.
I think Alekhine would have asked Keres in Munich what their respective
chances were (to stay alive) and K would have told him to get out of Germany
and France, and never return to Russia.
What would be more important to discuss for AA? And evidently K didn't think
he could do it and that he must return to Russia and weather whatever storm
of disapprobation - the rodina is a very strong russian emotion
'russian corn grows best in russian soil'
(10 points for the author)
phil
Phil Innes
Gerald....@t-online.de (Gerald Schendel) wrote:
> <...> he replied to a suggestion that Pachman
> could, perhaps, be allowed to play in home competitions by declaring
> that such a step could not be reconciled with true communist
> principles." (Checkmate in Prague. Memoirs of Ludek Pachman, London
> 1975, p. 18)
karpov didn't like pachman either
~~~~
> According to the Alekhine biography of Hans Muller/A. Pawelczak the
> French Federation was asked by the British Federation to institute an
> investigation. The subjects of the accusation should have been a) 'his
> anti-Semitic articles', b) 'his refusal to intervene to secure
> Przepiorka's release'. The investigation (in Paris?) was to start on
> 24 March 1946. (Chess genius Alekhine, p. 35). Alekhine died in
> Estoril before his French visa arrived - Lupi.
the french federation are not entirely trustworthy about alekhine. one
should consider the post-war 'over-patriotism' syndrome (Céline) and more
particularly that they got Alekhine's birth and death dates wrong - (if you
find the way to the parisian cemetary - they are still wrong, and fidé
doesn't care either)
> Euwe's statement, 'the investigations into Alekhine's war-time record
> were never finalised because of his death' shows the prejudice of the
> "prosecutors".
>
> Nowadays we seem to know that Przepiorka was dead before Alekhine
> started to play tournaments in Germany and Poland, and the authorship
> of the notorious articles is still uncertain.
i believe that this is not a prevalent view, and, with respect to herr
schendel, is not a view that seems sustainable by a candid mind that has had
an opportunity to review freely the full range of material at hand.
of course, anything may be 'in-doubt' in a hypothetical sense, but the
pattern of behavior of monsieur alekhine is consistent during these years,
and, it seems to me, what is known now seems substantiated to a degree that
any departure from alekhine's deportment requires more than a statement of
uncertainty, it requires an explanation
phil innes
> Gerald Schendel
> Kandern/Germany
Phil Innes
<in...@together.net> wrote:
>> According to the Alekhine biography of Hans Muller/A. Pawelczak the
>> French Federation was asked by the British Federation to institute an
>> investigation. The subjects of the accusation should have been a) 'his
>> anti-Semitic articles', b) 'his refusal to intervene to secure
>> Przepiorka's release'. The investigation (in Paris?) was to start on
>> 24 March 1946. (Chess genius Alekhine, p. 35). Alekhine died in
>> Estoril before his French visa arrived - Lupi.
>
> the french federation are not entirely trustworthy about alekhine. one
> should consider the post-war 'over-patriotism' syndrome (Céline) and more
> particularly that they got Alekhine's birth and death dates wrong - (if you
> find the way to the parisian cemetary - they are still wrong, and fidé
> doesn't care either)
another note on Alekhine's Grave
Larry Waite [1-11-01] wrote to www.chesscafe.com that Alekhine's headstone
in Montparnasse cemetery was broken in two
- he wondered if anyone knew how it happened - the storm?
cordially, phil
Andrus Varnik
Phil Innes wrote:
>
> In article <93is2k$3is$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com> , "Staunton"
> <howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I think Alekhine would have asked Keres in Munich what their respective
> chances were (to stay alive) and K would have told him to get out of Germany
> and France, and never return to Russia.
>
> What would be more important to discuss for AA? And evidently K didn't think
> he could do it and that he must return to Russia and weather whatever storm
> of disapprobation - the rodina is a very strong russian emotion
With the end of War in sight Keres returned to Estonia [and the second
Soviet occupation ahead] because he couldn't abandon his family.
Gerald Schendel
wrote:
>
>the french federation are not entirely trustworthy about alekhine. one
>should consider the post-war 'over-patriotism' syndrome (Céline) and more
>particularly that they got Alekhine's birth and death dates wrong - (if you
>find the way to the parisian cemetary - they are still wrong, and fidé
>doesn't care either)
>
Whenever I look at the picture of the late Alekhine (24 March 1946,
Sunday, Estoril) I have the feeling that something is wrong.
>> Euwe's statement, 'the investigations into Alekhine's war-time record
>> were never finalised because of his death' shows the prejudice of the
>> "prosecutors".
>>
>> Nowadays we seem to know that Przepiorka was dead before Alekhine
>> started to play tournaments in Germany and Poland, and the authorship
>> of the notorious articles is still uncertain.
>
>i believe that this is not a prevalent view, and, with respect to herr
>schendel, is not a view that seems sustainable by a candid mind that has had
>an opportunity to review freely the full range of material at hand.
>
>of course, anything may be 'in-doubt' in a hypothetical sense, but the
>pattern of behavior of monsieur alekhine is consistent during these years,
During the chess olympiad in Buenos Aires 1939 Alekhine was
anti-German - conspiring "with Dr. Tartakover (now a Lieutenant in De
Gaulle's army) and the Palestine team of Jews, in an attempt to
undermine the German team's chances of victory by instituting a 'moral
boycott' against them" (British "Chess", October 1941, quoting the
introductory note to the second part of "Alekhine's articles" in the
"Deutsche Schachzeitung").
>and, it seems to me, what is known now seems substantiated to a degree that
>any departure from alekhine's deportment requires more than a statement of
>uncertainty, it requires an explanation
>
In October 1941 the British magazine "Chess" published the second part
of the "Alekhine articles":
"Continuation of the article which appeared, under the name of Dr.
Alekhine, in many newspapers in Germany and German-occupied countries
earlier this year."
Many newspapers: We know - since decades - "Pariser Zeitung",
"Deutsche Zeitung in den Niederlanden" and "Deutsche Schachzeitung".
In which other German newspapers did the article appear?
"Of the authenticity of the articles there seems no reasonable doubt,
though how much pressure was brought to bear on Dr. Alekhine, and the
nature of that pressure, only time can reveal. The article has had
unpleasant repercussions in America, where it was quoted prominently
in the daily newspapers, and it may jeopardise Dr. Alekhine's chances
of obtaining a visa to enter the states."
Pablo Morán tells his readers ("A. Alekhine. Agony of a Chess
Genius"), that Alekhine has tried to obtain a visa for America during
his first stay in Portugal (April-September 1941). Are there any
American documents available for this statement? Where is Alekhine's
passport with all his visa?
There seems no reasonable doubt that the editor of the British
magazine "Chess" knew that Alekhine has tried to obtain a visa for the
USA in Lisbon and that the matter was not yet decided when Alekhine
left Portugal via Spain en route to Munich in September 1941. Correct?
The diplomats (or Secret Service agents) in Portugal could have asked
Alekhine how much pressure was brought to bear on him. Any documents
available?
In August 1941 "Chess" has started the reprint of the articles with
the statement: "*If* [* - GSch] Dr. Alekhine indeed wrote this
article, we can have no doubt he was in the grip of merciless
circumstance." For which reason "Chess" could write in October 1941,
two months later: "of the authenticity of the articles there seems no
reasonable doubt"? Can Alekhine's participation in the Munich
tournament (September 1941) prove the authenticity of articles written
months before?
In his 1944 interview with a Spanish correspondent of "News Review",
reprinted in the December issue of the "British Chess Magazine" (BCM)
and the January issue of "Chess", afterwards in "Chess Review"
(February 1945), Alekhine explained that the articles he wrote for the
"Pariser Zeitung", to obtain an exit visa from France, were rewritten
by the Germans. BCM now in an editorial: "the two ludicrous articles
which appeared over his name ... always appeared to us to be entirely
apocryphal" (Morán, p.296f).
In 1944/45 the soldiers of the Soviet Union and of Great Britain were
brothers in arms. In his 1944 interview Alekhine expressed his
willingness to play Botvinnik for the world title. England was
prepared to organize the match.
In his "Iron Curtain" speech on 5 March 1946 Winston Churchill called
war with Russia inevitable. Alekhine was demoralized: "I am sure my
match with Botvinnik will never be possible." (Morán, p. 277)
According to Mikhail M. Botvinnik's autobiography, on Saturday, 23
March 1946, the executive committee of the British Chess Federation
decided to organize the match Alekhine-Botvinnik. Botvinnik:
"Immediately after the meeting a telegram was sent to Alekhine with
the official invitation to play a tournament with the Soviet Union's
Champion for the world championship. So I don't know whether Alekhine
could read it before he died." Was this telegram ever found in
Estoril?
In their Alekhine biography (Berlin, 1992) Isaak and Wladimir Linder
published Botvinnik's telegram to Alekhine (4 January 1946) but not
the telegram of the British Chess Federation. The Alekhine biography
of Hans Muller / A. Pawelczak quotes a report of the newspaper 'O
seculo': "Dr. Alekhine wanted to leave the orthodox church in order to
become a member of the Roman-Catholic church. He died in front of the
table where he took his meal. Nearby was a chessboard, his permanent
companion and the field of his glorious battles, and an opened book
"Vers l'Exile" of Margareth Sotbern. The eyes of the famous chess
player saw the last page with the melancholic line: This is the fate
of all those who are living in exile ... So died Alekhine." But: Where
was the telegram of the British Chess Federation?
As "perhaps his last" game Morán gives G. F. Anderson - Alekhine,
played in the British Embassy, Lisbon, March 9, 1946. G. F. Anderson
was a British foreign officer and chess problemist. But: When Alekhine
was buried no representative of the British Embassy was present.
After Alekhine's death it was very comfortable to regard Alekhine as
the author of the "Alekhine articles". It was a very clever move *not*
to finalise the investigations into Alekhine's war-time record.
Morán: Alekhine's authorship "was an open question until the
rediscovery, in a pile of old newspaper clippings, of Alekhine's 1941
remarks to the Madrid press" (p. 33). The interviews, published in
Franco's Spain on 3 September 1941, are no clear evidence at all;
Franco had agreed to enter the war once Britain was down. Those
interviews would have been more convincing published six months before
in Lisbon!
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Staunton
> >
> >Ossip Bernstein's October 5 letter to Chess (November 1945) states
that
> >"...Alekhine, though on close terms with the Nazi Governor in Poland,
> >Dr. Frank, with whom he was photographed by the Nazi periodicals
> >published at the time, refused to intervene to secure Przepiorka's
> >release. This fact of his non-intervention was told to me by Samisch
> >when he came to Barcelona at the end of 1943."
> >
>
> Samisch was one of the players in Madrid (October 1943). Another one
> was Brinckmann. The German chess officials Post and Miehe have been in
> Madrid, too. What happened with Samisch after the tournament in
> Madrid, October 1943?
If you're raising the possibility that Samisch wasn't in Barcelona at
the end of 1943, my inclination is to believe Bernstein's account and
question Samisch's reliability/trustworthiness as a witness.
>
> By the way: There's a strange consultation game in Morán's book (p.
> 9): O.S.Bernstein/J.G.Zabludovski - Alekhine/J.L.Budovski, Paris 1940.
>
According to S + Z:
"After Alekhine's return to France and his entry into the French army,
almost nothing is known of his chess activities during the spring and
summer of 1940. The only information available came some years later in
1943 [Schweizerische Schachzeitung 1943 - HS], when Dr Ossip Bernstein
published a consultation game played by him in May 1940, against
Alekhine in Paris. Two years later, in a letter published in Chess
[November 1945, already cited -HS], he dated this game as having been
played on the 10 May, the day on which the fateful Battle of France
began."
Bernstein, of course, fled to Spain and spent the War there - probably a
wise decision.
Gerald Schendel
wrote:
>
>another note on Alekhine's Grave
>
>Larry Waite [1-11-01] wrote to www.chesscafe.com that Alekhine's headstone
>in Montparnasse cemetery was broken in two
>
>- he wondered if anyone knew how it happened - the storm?
>
According to a report of Christophe Bouton Alekhine's grave was
damaged by a storm in Paris on Dec 26th 1999.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>On a point of information: in the PZ article the word "Uberdeckung" is
>used and translated as "over-protection" in the Nimzowitschian sense.
>Alekhine uses the word Uberdeckung in one of his Spanish interviews.
>Was/is Uberdeckung the usual German word for the concept of
>"over-protection"?
>
The idea of Ni(e)mzowitsch has been: to create more protection than
the attack demands, to protect prophylactically.
"Over-protection" (like in over-kill, to kill more than one time) is
not usual and therefore "Uberdeckung" is not a usual German word. The
root is "decken" (Latin: tegere) like in to roof a building with tiles
(or to thatch). You know, of course, the deck of a ship. The "Decke"
is also the ceiling of a room. The meaning is: to cover, to protect.
Soldiers use the word "Deckung" = troops or facilities for protection.
If the table is laid, a tablecloth ("Tischdecke") has been laid on the
table. Do you need more than one tablecloth? No, but for this action
(to lay a tablecloth on a table) people sometimes say "Uberdeckung"
(the meaning of "uber" here is "on" not "over") - it's not completely
correct, it's colloquial German.
A (chess) player wants to defend his pieces ("decken"). The word
"over-defend" would sound very strange.
By the way: In his effort to find Alekhine as a source of inspiration
for the "Alekhine articles" Morán quotes the Russo-Parisian endgame
composer Vitaly Halberstadt (BCM, March 1956): 'Witness, too, an
evening at Alekhine's house at the beginning of the last war. People
were talking chess. Suddenly I heard Alekhine say "As for Steinitz and
Lasker they were two tacticians who sought to persuade everybody that
they were strategists". This witticism provoked some laughter whilst
Alekhine remained quite serious.' (Morán, p. 44)
The source for this "witticism" may have been Jacques Mieses (!) who
wrote - before WW I - in the "Munchner Neueste Nachrichten":
"Nimzowitsch's main strength is not the field of strategy but strange,
often bizarre, but always deeply thought-out manoeuvres. He is a
clever tactician whose combinations are sometimes a bit insidious."
(quoted by Dr. J. Hannak (Vienna), Aaron Nimzowitsch. Lebenslauf eines
Pessimisten, in: A. Nimzowitsch, Mein System, 1965, p.23)
>I will email you with a contact address.
>
Thank you.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Phil Innes
Gerald....@t-online.de (Gerald Schendel) wrote:
it broke in half. christophe is a reliable reporter. phil
> Gerald Schendel
> Kandern/Germany
Phil Innes
Gerald....@t-online.de (Gerald Schendel) wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:10:34 -0400, "Phil Innes" <in...@together.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>the french federation are not entirely trustworthy about alekhine. one
>>should consider the post-war 'over-patriotism' syndrome (Céline) and more
>>particularly that they got Alekhine's birth and death dates wrong - (if you
>>find the way to the parisian cemetary - they are still wrong, and fidé
>>doesn't care either)
>>
>
> Whenever I look at the picture of the late Alekhine (24 March 1946,
> Sunday, Estoril) I have the feeling that something is wrong.
well, yes, he was dead
something of a tableau, isn't it?
that photograph, so prosaic!
almost posed
```````
> During the chess olympiad in Buenos Aires 1939 Alekhine was
> anti-German - conspiring "with Dr. Tartakover (now a Lieutenant in De
> Gaulle's army) and the Palestine team of Jews, in an attempt to
> undermine the German team's chances of victory by instituting a 'moral
> boycott' against them" (British "Chess", October 1941, quoting the
> introductory note to the second part of "Alekhine's articles" in the
> "Deutsche Schachzeitung").
yes - all this is well established
>>and, it seems to me, what is known now seems substantiated to a degree that
>>any departure from alekhine's deportment requires more than a statement of
>>uncertainty, it requires an explanation
>>
```````
> "Of the authenticity of the articles there seems no reasonable doubt,
> though how much pressure was brought to bear on Dr. Alekhine, and the
> nature of that pressure, only time can reveal. The article has had
> unpleasant repercussions in America, where it was quoted prominently
> in the daily newspapers, and it may jeopardise Dr. Alekhine's chances
> of obtaining a visa to enter the states."
>
> Pablo Morán tells his readers ("A. Alekhine. Agony of a Chess
> Genius"), that Alekhine has tried to obtain a visa for America during
> his first stay in Portugal (April-September 1941). Are there any
> American documents available for this statement? Where is Alekhine's
> passport with all his visa?
it is very likely that the abwehr had him under watch - even though he was
of no known use to either side, he was, nevertheless, a world figure
when the OSS had 6 agents in madrid the abwehr had 200. in Lisbon there was
a sizeable Japanese contingent constituting thier listening post on europe
there were many assassinations, and much falsification and so forth. i have
never heard of any extant documents
> There seems no reasonable doubt that the editor of the British
> magazine "Chess" knew that Alekhine has tried to obtain a visa for the
> USA in Lisbon and that the matter was not yet decided when Alekhine
> left Portugal via Spain en route to Munich in September 1941. Correct?
> The diplomats (or Secret Service agents) in Portugal could have asked
> Alekhine how much pressure was brought to bear on him. Any documents
> available?
as above, a contact would have been risky if he intended to return to
germany - no reported documents
> In August 1941 "Chess" has started the reprint of the articles with
> the statement: "*If* [* - GSch] Dr. Alekhine indeed wrote this
> article, we can have no doubt he was in the grip of merciless
> circumstance." For which reason "Chess" could write in October 1941,
> two months later: "of the authenticity of the articles there seems no
> reasonable doubt"?
i must discount these opinions - of course there can be all sorts of doubts
during war-time, with both sides very active in propaganda, and very limited
intelligence devoted to chess matters!
the real question about alekhine seems to be - is he the sort of character
that, finding himself lodging with nazis, accommodated his new hosts in
order to ingratiate himself?
it is unclear to me why Chess, in 1941 had 'no doubt he was in the grip of
merciless circumstances'
> Can Alekhine's participation in the Munich
> tournament (September 1941) prove the authenticity of articles written
> months before?
>
> In his 1944 interview with a Spanish correspondent of "News Review",
> reprinted in the December issue of the "British Chess Magazine" (BCM)
> and the January issue of "Chess", afterwards in "Chess Review"
> (February 1945), Alekhine explained that the articles he wrote for the
> "Pariser Zeitung", to obtain an exit visa from France, were rewritten
> by the Germans. BCM now in an editorial: "the two ludicrous articles
> which appeared over his name ... always appeared to us to be entirely
> apocryphal" (Morán, p.296f).
he is accusing goebbels of propaganda? shocking! what an obscure idea!
surely he could think of something more likely if he wanted to expiate
himself
moran is very accommodating in investigation, reporting almost all known
facts equally - this is why both sides on this issue find it easy to quote
moran - there is enough material there to flesh out one's views
moran himself did not do so in any direct way
> In 1944/45 the soldiers of the Soviet Union and of Great Britain were
> brothers in arms. In his 1944 interview Alekhine expressed his
> willingness to play Botvinnik for the world title. England was
> prepared to organize the match.
>
> In his "Iron Curtain" speech on 5 March 1946 Winston Churchill called
> war with Russia inevitable. Alekhine was demoralized: "I am sure my
> match with Botvinnik will never be possible." (Morán, p. 277)
i am sure winston didn't do this on purpose. because alekhine is not
reported to have said anything else much about the end of the war, about
england, germany france or russia, what he does say seems somewhat
self-involved
there is another point here - and i am sure that he was highly conscious it
- his public reception and social standing was important to him and he
wished to redeem himself by playing chess to regain it. this (naive and
grotesque) attitude in such an acute analyst either betrays his moral
blindness - or is indicative of progressive wasting of his facilities by
drinking
which do you think?
> According to Mikhail M. Botvinnik's autobiography, on Saturday, 23
> March 1946, the executive committee of the British Chess Federation
> decided to organize the match Alekhine-Botvinnik. Botvinnik:
> "Immediately after the meeting a telegram was sent to Alekhine with
> the official invitation to play a tournament with the Soviet Union's
> Champion for the world championship. So I don't know whether Alekhine
> could read it before he died." Was this telegram ever found in
> Estoril?
i don't know. some lisbon chess folks had to eventually deal with his body
and effects - some two weeks after his death
> In their Alekhine biography (Berlin, 1992) Isaak and Wladimir Linder
> published Botvinnik's telegram to Alekhine (4 January 1946) but not
> the telegram of the British Chess Federation. The Alekhine biography
> of Hans Muller / A. Pawelczak quotes a report of the newspaper 'O
> seculo': "Dr. Alekhine wanted to leave the orthodox church in order to
> become a member of the Roman-Catholic church. He died in front of the
> table where he took his meal. Nearby was a chessboard, his permanent
> companion and the field of his glorious battles, and an opened book
> "Vers l'Exile" of Margareth Sotbern. The eyes of the famous chess
> player saw the last page with the melancholic line: This is the fate
> of all those who are living in exile ... So died Alekhine." But: Where
> was the telegram of the British Chess Federation?
>
> As "perhaps his last" game Morán gives G. F. Anderson - Alekhine,
> played in the British Embassy, Lisbon, March 9, 1946. G. F. Anderson
> was a British foreign officer and chess problemist. But: When Alekhine
> was buried no representative of the British Embassy was present.
yes. telling
the british didn't want him either
> After Alekhine's death it was very comfortable to regard Alekhine as
> the author of the "Alekhine articles". It was a very clever move *not*
> to finalise the investigations into Alekhine's war-time record.
this is not a complete reception of what is known about his contribution to
these articles. a fatal flaw is the ms kept and found in the possessions of
his widow, where alekhine's signature appears below the 'articles' which no
propaganda officer had cut&pasted
> Morán: Alekhine's authorship "was an open question until the
> rediscovery, in a pile of old newspaper clippings, of Alekhine's 1941
> remarks to the Madrid press" (p. 33). The interviews, published in
> Franco's Spain on 3 September 1941, are no clear evidence at all;
> Franco had agreed to enter the war once Britain was down. Those
> interviews would have been more convincing published six months before
> in Lisbon!
indeed - although it is well to suspect poisoned sources and planted
information from spanish sources - this is all something of a divertisement.
alekhine's behavior seemed always nationalistic, and he seemed to do what
was expected of him by the authority of the time
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Ossip Bernstein's October 5 letter to Chess (November 1945) states
>that
>> >"...Alekhine, though on close terms with the Nazi Governor in Poland,
>> >Dr. Frank, with whom he was photographed by the Nazi periodicals
>> >published at the time, refused to intervene to secure Przepiorka's
>> >release. This fact of his non-intervention was told to me by Samisch
>> >when he came to Barcelona at the end of 1943."
>> >
>>
>> Samisch was one of the players in Madrid (October 1943). Another one
>> was Brinckmann. The German chess officials Post and Miehe have been in
>> Madrid, too. What happened with Samisch after the tournament in
>> Madrid, October 1943?
>
>If you're raising the possibility that Samisch wasn't in Barcelona at
>the end of 1943, my inclination is to believe Bernstein's account and
>question Samisch's reliability/trustworthiness as a witness.
>
Brinckmann, Post and Miehe returned to Germany. A report on the
tournament in Madrid was published in the DSZ 1944. But it is not
quite clear what has happened with Samisch after the tournament.
According to one story (or legend?) Samisch said during the closing
ceremony in Madrid: 'The war is lost for Germany.' Later he was
arrested - perhaps on his way back to Germany, in a train, at the
border between Spain and France.
The second story is: In Madrid Samisch talked about the secret weapons
which were tested in Peenemunde / Peenemünde and was arrested.
The third story is: In Germany Samisch took a train and arrived in
Barcelona. He had no money for a ticket Barcelona-Madrid. Suddenly a
another German discovered and welcomed him. He gave him some Peseta
for the ticket.
The next story is: Many people told Samisch he should remain in Spain.
But Samisch had a family in Germany and decided to return.
Another story is: Back in Germany, Samisch was arrested for unknown
reasons. He got no support by his chess friends but his Bridge
partners payed a lawyer. After a raid of allied forces the documents
of his prosecutors were burnt. Samisch was free again.
Unfortunately Samisch never wrote an autobiography. In 1952 he told a
German chess magazine: "All my documents and memories were deleted by
Mr Harris."
>>
>> By the way: There's a strange consultation game in Morán's book (p.
>> 9): O.S.Bernstein/J.G.Zabludovski - Alekhine/J.L.Budovski, Paris 1940.
>>
>
>According to S + Z:
>
>"After Alekhine's return to France and his entry into the French army,
>almost nothing is known of his chess activities during the spring and
>summer of 1940.
Imagine: On his way back from Argentina Alekhine and his wife arrived
in Portugal, January 1940. Alekhine decided to stay in Portugal. He
never served in the French Army. The Germans contacted him with their
embassy in Lisbon.
In Portugal he gave four exhibitions (January 24 and 27, February 1
and 10), then left Portugal - according to Morán. Really? By plane? By
ship? By train? Francisco Lupi, Champion of Portugal, described the
reception programme ("we all went to the dock to meet the ship in
which he came from Buenos Aires") but he said only a few words on
Alekhine's departure: "In a fortnight he was gone." (Morán, p.4) Gone
with the wind?
Later Francisco Lupi "received a letter from him saying he was a
Lieutenant-Interpreter in the French Army" (Morán, p.4). Is there any
(French military archive) material available for this information?
According to Muller/Pawelczak Alekhine worked for the French
Intelligence Service (p. 33). According to Hans Kmoch (Alekhine has
sent him a card from France before the war in the West started - "the
last message I ever received from him") Alekhine was serving as a
"sanitation officer" in the French Army (unpublished manuscript at
chesscafe). Interpreter, agent or sanitation man?
According to Hans Kmoch, after the French collapse in summer 1940
there were plans to flee the country together with Walter Ephron whom
Alekhine has met in Toulon.
You should read
http://www.almondseed.com/vfry/
regarding the "American Rescue Committee". Another interesting URL is
http://www.parapluie.de/archiv/indien/cahier/
There you will find the story (in German) of Rudolf Breitscheid, a
socialdemocrat in exile. Varian Fry had organized a ship which would
transport several refugees to America. Breitscheid refused: "No. I
will get seasick." Later Breitscheid was arrested by the French police
and handed over to the Germans. He died 1944 in the concentration camp
Buchenwald.
At
http://www.wdr.de/tv/kulturweltspiegel/20010114/1.html
you will find the story (in German) of Lisa and Hans Fittko. On 26
September 1940 Lisa Fittko (now living in Chicago/USA) escorted three
fugitives (among them Walter Benjamin) across the Pyrenees. Later she
learned: Spanish authorities discovered them, refused the transit and
said they would expel the fugitives and send them back to France. In
this night Walter Benjamin committed suicide.
"But on the crucial day Alekhine changed his mind and returned to
Paris, where he surrendered to the Germans." (Kmoch, telling the story
of - which source?) On the crucial day - when? Changed his mind - why?
Surrendered to the Germans - which Germans? Army, police, Gestapo,
Abwehr? Perhaps Alekhine was arrested by the police? Perhaps on his
long way from Toulon to Paris? Where are the documents, is the
material?
>The only information available came some years later in
>1943 [Schweizerische Schachzeitung 1943 - HS], when Dr Ossip Bernstein
>published a consultation game played by him in May 1940, against
>Alekhine in Paris. Two years later, in a letter published in Chess
>[November 1945, already cited -HS], he dated this game as having been
>played on the 10 May, the day on which the fateful Battle of France
>began."
>
But Morán wrote: "played before or after the surrender of France?"
(p.9) Do you know the translation of "Zabludovski" and "Budovski"?
Polish, isn't it?
>Bernstein, of course, fled to Spain and spent the War there - probably a
>wise decision.
>
He returned to Paris after the war, was invited to the victory
tournament in London and acted against Alekhine.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Staunton
> >>
> >>Larry Waite [1-11-01] wrote to www.chesscafe.com that Alekhine's
headstone
> >>in Montparnasse cemetery was broken in two
> >>
> >>- he wondered if anyone knew how it happened - the storm?
> >>
> >
> > According to a report of Christophe Bouton Alekhine's grave was
> > damaged by a storm in Paris on Dec 26th 1999.
>
> it broke in half. christophe is a reliable reporter. phil
>
I heard that FIDE was arranging a fund for the repair of the headstone.
> > Gerald Schendel
> > Kandern/Germany
>
Staunton
>used and translated as "over-protection" in the Nimzowitschian sense.
>Alekhine uses the word Uberdeckung in one of his Spanish interviews.
>Was/is Uberdeckung the usual German word for the concept of
>"over-protection"?
>
*The idea of Ni(e)mzowitsch has been: to create more protection than the
attack demands, to protect prophylactically.
A (chess) player wants to defend his pieces ("decken"). The word
"over-defend" would sound very strange.*
But is the word Uberdeckung employed in German versions of Nimzowich's
books? Or in chess articles discussing them?
**By the way: In his effort to find Alekhine as a source of inspiration
for the "Alekhine articles" Morán quotes the Russo-Parisian endgame
composer Vitaly Halberstadt (BCM, March 1956): 'Witness, too, an evening
at Alekhine's house at the beginning of the last war. People were
talking chess. Suddenly I heard Alekhine say "As for Steinitz and Lasker
they were two tacticians who sought to persuade everybody that they were
strategists". This witticism provoked some laughter whilst Alekhine
remained quite serious.' (Morán, p. 44)**
According to the 1992 BCM article on Alekhine, 'The notebooks with the
articles written by hand were seen amongst Alekhine's effects in the
1950s 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
1950s
Staunton
According to the 1992 BCM article on Alekhine, 'The notebooks with the
articles written by hand were seen amongst Alekhine's effects in the
1950s 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
1950s but was unable to do a complete textual analysis. He merely held
them in his hand and skimmed through the text.'
Phil Innes
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<laugh>
well, i hope they don't just superglue it back together
(though they paid for the first one, and may be cheap about it)
but they should fix the dates, no?
phil
>> > Gerald Schendel
>> > Kandern/Germany
>>
>
>
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>The idea of Ni(e)mzowitsch has been: to create more protection than the
>>attack demands, to protect prophylactically.
>>
>>A (chess) player wants to defend his pieces ("decken"). The word
>>"over-defend" would sound very strange.*
>
>But is the word Uberdeckung employed in German versions of Nimzowich's
>books? Or in chess articles discussing them?
>
Of course.
More often the word "overcautious" is used but this word implies a
value judgment.
Gerald Schendel
From British Chess Magazine, Aleksandr Alekhine - in Memoriam, October
1992 p.514-519, Bernard Cafferty. "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." 2006 - perhaps!
According to Gerald Braunberger, Anmerkungen zu Alexander Aljechin.
Zugleich eine Erinnerung an "Chess Notes" in: Schachkalender 1992,
Schachverlag Arno Nickel, Berlin, p.95, GM Kotov rejected the story
during the chess olympiad 1974 as "British propaganda".
Braunberger: Brian Reilly told Harry Golombek that he has found a
manuscript which proves Alekhine's authorship (so the story of
Golombek). Some months later Reilly denied the existance of this
manuscript and claimed he never talked about it with Golombek.
Golombek was surprised.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
PJDBAD
possession means nothing unless one also knows the date when the copies were
made. He could have made the copies after the fact for his own personal reasons
legal and other wise. In those days, copy machine were not available and if
you couldn't photo copy or get press clippings one had to make one's own.
Alekhine appears to be condemned more for the tenor of his articles than the
fact that they were published in Nazi-Germany.
The facts of publication should be considered as well as the fact that they
were published with or without his permission. Also in that day and age "cut
and paste" was literally cut and paste one wonders what the editors added or
took a way from his work. Also what other writing and publishing did he do
during the war years? What was his writing method? Did he revise a lot or
think it through before putting pen to paper?
Gerald Schendel
wrote:
>>
>> Pablo Morán tells his readers ("A. Alekhine. Agony of a Chess
>> Genius"), that Alekhine has tried to obtain a visa for America during
>> his first stay in Portugal (April-September 1941). Are there any
>> American documents available for this statement? Where is Alekhine's
>> passport with all his visa?
>
>it is very likely that the abwehr had him under watch - even though he was
>of no known use to either side, he was, nevertheless, a world figure
>
Many outstanding personalities have been in Lisbon and Estoril during
that time. Kings, Queens, Dukes (the Duke of Windsor arrived in June
1940!), artists... They were escorted by journalists and spies - Ian
Fleming ( Naval Intelligence Division, author of "James Bond"), the
agent "Garbo"; Kim Philby was responsible for the Iberian peninsula.
Most of the German Abwehr in Lisbon was infiltrated by the British
SIS.
>when the OSS had 6 agents in madrid the abwehr had 200. in Lisbon there was
>a sizeable Japanese contingent constituting thier listening post on europe
>
Kim Philby on the German Abwehr in Madrid: "We knew the names,
pseudonyms, addresses, cover functions and real functions of most of
the staff at Madrid headquarters and at the many outstations such as
Barcelona, Bilbao, Vigo, Algeciras, etc." (Kim Philby, My silent War,
p. 38)
>
>> In August 1941 "Chess" has started the reprint of the articles with
>> the statement: "*If* [* - GSch] Dr. Alekhine indeed wrote this
>> article, we can have no doubt he was in the grip of merciless
>> circumstance." For which reason "Chess" could write in October 1941,
>> two months later: "of the authenticity of the articles there seems no
>> reasonable doubt"?
>
>i must discount these opinions - of course there can be all sorts of doubts
>during war-time, with both sides very active in propaganda, and very limited
>intelligence devoted to chess matters!
>
>the real question about alekhine seems to be - is he the sort of character
>that, finding himself lodging with nazis, accommodated his new hosts in
>order to ingratiate himself?
>
You would argue: he is the sort of character - ergo: I can well
believe it of him - ergo: he has done it?
>
>there is another point here - and i am sure that he was highly conscious it
>- his public reception and social standing was important to him and he
>wished to redeem himself by playing chess to regain it. this (naive and
>grotesque) attitude in such an acute analyst either betrays his moral
>blindness - or is indicative of progressive wasting of his facilities by
>drinking
>
>which do you think?
>
I don't want to be rash in my judgment. Somewhere I've read the
anecdote: Alekhine, asked after his passport, said: 'I am Alekhine,
the world chess champion. This is my cat "Check". I don't need a
passport.' A case of grotesque over-estimation.
>
>> After Alekhine's death it was very comfortable to regard Alekhine as
>> the author of the "Alekhine articles". It was a very clever move *not*
>> to finalise the investigations into Alekhine's war-time record.
>
>this is not a complete reception of what is known about his contribution to
>these articles. a fatal flaw is the ms kept and found in the possessions of
>his widow, where alekhine's signature appears below the 'articles' which no
>propaganda officer had cut&pasted
>
This manuscript is missing.
>
>it is well to suspect poisoned sources and planted
>information
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Phil Innes
(Gerald Schendel) wrote:
> Kim Philby on the German Abwehr in Madrid: "We knew the names,
> pseudonyms, addresses, cover functions and real functions of most of
> the staff at Madrid headquarters and at the many outstations such as
> Barcelona, Bilbao, Vigo, Algeciras, etc." (Kim Philby, My silent War,
> p. 38)
mr philby is not an entirely reliable reporter - and this statement is
something of a stretch and a side issue - knowing names does not allow for
real monitoring of the abwehr, or any appreciable effect on their movement
nevertheless, if alekhine was in spain and portugal he would have been
conscious of himself as a 'personality' and of potential propaganda use
is it really possible to think that he met with british security people in
the /embassy/ in lisbon, while contemplating a return to germany?
>>
>>> In August 1941 "Chess" has started the reprint of the articles with
>>> the statement: "*If* [* - GSch] Dr. Alekhine indeed wrote this
>>> article, we can have no doubt he was in the grip of merciless
>>> circumstance." For which reason "Chess" could write in October 1941,
>>> two months later: "of the authenticity of the articles there seems no
>>> reasonable doubt"?
>>
>>i must discount these opinions - of course there can be all sorts of doubts
>>during war-time, with both sides very active in propaganda, and very limited
>>intelligence devoted to chess matters!
>>
>>the real question about alekhine seems to be - is he the sort of character
>>that, finding himself lodging with nazis, accommodated his new hosts in
>>order to ingratiate himself?
>>
>
> You would argue: he is the sort of character - ergo: I can well
> believe it of him - ergo: he has done it?
not at all - i would argue that accommodating those who rule was his
pattern, even if it was neurotic, it was nevertheless a fixed pattern. with
disputed points of evidence, how then to view his behavior? so i wrote
asking if anyone understood why Chess wrote so certainly that 'he was in the
grip of merciless circumstance'
i am not arguing by association, i am looking at the pattern of
circumstances, and find nothing exceptional in the paris zeitunger articles,
or other behaviors such as his visits with Frank (does anyone think he did
not know what Frank did - 'the butcher of Cracow')
these are not the basis of proofs - yet we see that people want to 'save'
the chess genius (i did myself at one time) by saying things like 'he copied
out the falsified documents in his own hand because there were no
photcopiers, and he wanted a record of it' to excuse the found papers
-presumably because he could not obtain the newspaper in which the articles
were written, and was witlessly unaware that keeping these papers written in
his own hand held any liability for him
these would be out of character, no? not alekhine's pattern at all
whereas it was his pattern to be extremely opportunistic, in chess, with
women, ... & so in his general circumstances it is difficult to be honest
and generous with our sense of his altruism
>>
>>there is another point here - and i am sure that he was highly conscious it
>>- his public reception and social standing was important to him and he
>>wished to redeem himself by playing chess to regain it. this (naive and
>>grotesque) attitude in such an acute analyst either betrays his moral
>>blindness - or is indicative of progressive wasting of his facilities by
>>drinking
>>
>>which do you think?
>>
>
> I don't want to be rash in my judgment. Somewhere I've read the
> anecdote: Alekhine, asked after his passport, said: 'I am Alekhine,
> the world chess champion. This is my cat "Check". I don't need a
> passport.' A case of grotesque over-estimation.
yes, this seems like a nonsense attribution. he had travelled all over the
world and had always needed his passport previously. he would have been
especially aware of the value of one plus accompanying visa to his
destination
>>
>>> After Alekhine's death it was very comfortable to regard Alekhine as
>>> the author of the "Alekhine articles". It was a very clever move *not*
>>> to finalise the investigations into Alekhine's war-time record.
>>
>>this is not a complete reception of what is known about his contribution to
>>these articles. a fatal flaw is the ms kept and found in the possessions of
>>his widow, where alekhine's signature appears below the 'articles' which no
>>propaganda officer had cut&pasted
>>
>
> This manuscript is missing.
has gone missing :)
>>
>>it is well to suspect poisoned sources and planted
>>information
>
Grüss, phil innes
> Gerald Schendel
> Kandern/Germany
Staunton
> >have been able, considering the high development of chess in
present-day
> >Russia, to attain to the championship of his country five or six
times
> >in succession, in such convincing fashion." Returning to an earlier
> >post, this could be considered another Alekhine mistake,
'accidentally
> >on purpose'.
> >
> >
'2. and 3. The truths of M. de la Palisse, namely that it is of
advantage to occupy the seventh rank and, finally that it is better to
be able to take advantage of two weaknesses in the opponent's camp than
only one.'
Maybe it would be useful if we could determine who, if anyone, M. de la
Palisse was.....
'The following small anecdote illustrates this well. Towards the end of
the same year (1921) a small tournament was arranged through Bogolyubov'
s efforts in Triberg, with Rubinstein participating. I was tournament
director and asked Rubinstein after one of his games "Why did you play
this move in the opening? It is so obviously inferior to that by which I
beat Bogolyubov a few months ago and which we examined so convincingly,
together with you."
He Wanted to Avoid His Opponent's Influence
"Yes," replied Rubinstein, "but it is a strange move!" In other words,
he could not appreciate anybody else's ideas; his chess only, HIS chess
only, was utilised by him in that period.'
A joint survey of Donaldson and Minev's 'Akiba Rubinstein: The Later
Years' and S+Vs' Alekhine book produces no suitable candidates for the
games in question. However, three of Rubinstein's game scores from the
Triberg event are still missing, so we may never know for sure.
Staunton
Staunton <howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:948001$ie2$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
>
> '2. and 3. The truths of M. de la Palisse, namely that it is of
> advantage to occupy the seventh rank and, finally that it is better to
> be able to take advantage of two weaknesses in the opponent's camp
than
> only one.'
>
> Maybe it would be useful if we could determine who, if anyone, M. de
la
> Palisse was.....
>
I have been re-reading the Rath translation in the Rothenberg and
Horowitz book. In many instances it differs quite markedly from the
CHESS translation (reprinted in Moran), even to the extent of various
omissions and additions.
One such omission is the disappearance of our friend M. de la Palisse.
It reads: '2. and 3. The obvious fact that it is advantageous to occupy
the seventh rank...'
>
> 'The following small anecdote illustrates this well. Towards the end
of
> the same year (1921) a small tournament was arranged through
Bogolyubov'
> s efforts in Triberg, with Rubinstein participating. I was tournament
> director and asked Rubinstein after one of his games "Why did you play
> this move in the opening? It is so obviously inferior to that by which
I
> beat Bogolyubov a few months ago and which we examined so
convincingly,
> together with you."
>
> He Wanted to Avoid His Opponent's Influence
>
> "Yes," replied Rubinstein, "but it is a strange move!" In other words,
> he could not appreciate anybody else's ideas; his chess only, HIS
chess
> only, was utilised by him in that period.'
>
Rath renders it: ' "True," answered Rubinstein, "still it is somebody
else's move."...'
>
> A joint survey of Donaldson and Minev's 'Akiba Rubinstein: The Later
> Years' and S+Vs' Alekhine book produces no suitable candidates for
the
> games in question. However, three of Rubinstein's game scores from the
> Triberg event are still missing, so we may never know for sure.
>
>
The game with Bogolyubow that Alekhine refers to is almost certainly his
win from the International tournament
in Triberg, played in July of that year. The game was awarded a
Brilliancy prize and was annotated by Alekhine at the time. Of White's
6th move (6.dxc5) he comments: "...This simple move (Rubinstein
recommends in Larobok I Schaak: 6.d5 exd5 7.Nh4) bring's White
advantage...". In his Best Game book, Alekhine annotates this game again
and again refers to the Rubinstein alternative of which now "it is
difficult to see how Black is to free his game."
So did Alekhine and Bogolyubov ever discuss this line with Rubinstein in
1921? If so, where? Triberg (July or December?), Budapest (no
Rubinstein), The Hague (no Bogo)? Could Rubinstein have played this
line in one of the three missing games?
In my opinion, this is another of Alekhine's 'clever moves' whose point
has gone unappreciated (until now...). The idea of an opening
theoretician such as Rubinstein rejecting moves on the grounds of their
'strangeness' or 'otherness' is bizarre. The notion that some
underling-cum-chess columnist on the Pariser Zeitung invented the story
is equally incredible.
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>'2. and 3. The truths of M. de la Palisse, namely that it is of
>advantage to occupy the seventh rank and, finally that it is better to
>be able to take advantage of two weaknesses in the opponent's camp than
>only one.'
>
>Maybe it would be useful if we could determine who, if anyone, M. de la
>Palisse was.....
>
Somewhere I've read: "Monsieur de la Palisse" is a character in French
poems for children. -> French: "une vérité á la Palisse" = a truism.
The Dutch author Multatuli (Eduard Douwes Dekker, 1820 - 1887) used
the term de-Palisse-truth several times in his works.
For me it is very interesting that the author of the "Alekhine
articles" mentions Edgar Allan Poe: "Early on in the story Poe writes
(of no inner necessity) [...] Enough! These quotations adequately
prove that the ingenious poet (...) has in this case either been
altogether stupidly misled or,
*for some unknown reasons, knowingly deceived his readers*."
You should know that Poe's "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" was first
published in 'Graham's Magazine', April 1841, exactly 100 years before
the publication of "Alekhine's articles"!
Do you know that Poe was fascinated by cryptography? He concealed
hidden messages in many of his poems. The second of two ciphers, left
by Poe for future readers, was solved recently (October 2000).
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Gerald Schendel
>
>The facts of publication should be considered as well as the fact that they
>were published with or without his permission. Also in that day and age "cut
>and paste" was literally cut and paste one wonders what the editors added or
>took a way from his work. Also what other writing and publishing did he do
>during the war years? What was his writing method? Did he revise a lot or
>think it through before putting pen to paper?
A. Alekhine wrote comments for the official tournament book Nottingham
1936 in England. In his introduction W. H. Watts explained (November
1937): I got Dr Alekhine's manuscript with the results and annotations
in January 1937 and sent it to the printer. The printer sent it back
immediately (he couldn't understand it). So I asked two well known
British chess players to re-write the manuscript. They had to decipher
(sic! - GSch) each annotation. (...) I have had some experience with
the production of manuscripts but the manuscripts of famous chess
players are particularly difficult... etc.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Charles Blair
an Edgar Allan Poe cryptogram?
Gerald Schendel
wrote:
> Could you supply references about the recent solution of
>an Edgar Allan Poe cryptogram?
Of course.
http://www.bokler.com/eapoe_challengesolution.html
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Staunton
> For me it is very interesting that the author of the "Alekhine
> articles" mentions Edgar Allan Poe: "Early on in the story Poe writes
> (of no inner necessity) [...] Enough! These quotations adequately
> prove that the ingenious poet (...) has in this case either been
> altogether stupidly misled or,
> *for some unknown reasons, knowingly deceived his readers*."
>
The story itself (TMITRM) begins with a quotation from Sir Thomas
Browne: "What song the Syrens sang, or *what name Achilles assumed when
he hid himself* among women, although puzzling questions, are not beyond
all conjecture."
Does any of this get us anywhere? To the extent with which we credit it
at all, I propose that it further helps my case at the expense of your
own.
> You should know that Poe's "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" was first
> published in 'Graham's Magazine', April 1841, exactly 100 years before
> the publication of "Alekhine's articles"!
>
I'm inclined to think of this as being within the realms of coincidence.
It might also be pointed out that the articles first appeared in March
1941.
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The story itself (TMITRM) begins with a quotation from Sir Thomas
>Browne: "What song the Syrens sang, or *what name Achilles assumed when
>he hid himself* among women, although puzzling questions, are not beyond
>all conjecture."
>
>Does any of this get us anywhere? To the extent with which we credit it
>at all, I propose that it further helps my case at the expense of your
>own.
>
What is my case? My point of view is: Alekhine said 1. that he indeed
wrote some articles for the Pariser Zeitung and 2. that these articles
were re-written by the editors. I'm trying to believe this statement.
So, I'm looking now for the editors. At my local library I've ordered
a book of the Pariser Zeitung publishing house.
>> You should know that Poe's "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" was first
>> published in 'Graham's Magazine', April 1841, exactly 100 years before
>> the publication of "Alekhine's articles"!
>>
>
>I'm inclined to think of this as being within the realms of coincidence.
>It might also be pointed out that the articles first appeared in March
>1941.
>
If there is an anniversary newspapers sometimes use to publish
articles before this event, but, of course, perhaps it's pure chance.
It is possible that Alekhine has prepared a separate Poe article
because he was not only a chess player but also a bridge player (like
Lasker, Samisch...; source: Alekhine biography of Hans Muller/A.
Pawelczak, p.52: "Alekhine was an excellent bridge player. 'I prefer
bridge to chess', he once said.") For this reason he had to think
about the difference between chess and bridge. Poe's introduction to
TMitRM was a good peg to hang some thoughts on. There's no direct
connection between Poe and the difference between Jewish and Aryan
chess. Therefore this part of the "Alekhine articles" may have been an
authentic Alekhine article.
The problem is: Muller/Pawelczak wrote that Alekhine was not
interested in metaphysical questions. If this is a correct statement,
why should Alekhine read "The Raven"
[Is there- is there balm in Gilead?- tell me- tell me, I implore!"
Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore."]
or Poe's "Eureka" (a work dedicated to the German Alexander von
Humboldt)
[ To the few who love me and whom I love -- to those who feel rather
than to those who think -- to the dreamers and those who put faith in
dreams as in the only realities -- I offer this Book of Truths, not in
its character of Truth-Teller, but for the Beauty that abounds in its
Truth; constituting it true. To these I present the composition as an
Art-Product alone:- let us say as a Romance; or, if I be not urging
too lofty a claim, as a Poem.]
or "THE COLLOQUY OF MONOS AND UNA"
[MONOS. One word first, my Una, in regard to man's general condition
at this epoch. You will remember that one or two of the wise among our
forefathers- wise in fact, although not in the world's esteem- had
ventured to doubt the propriety of the term "improvement," as applied
to the progress of our civilization.]
??
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Gerald Schendel
wrote:
>In article <3a649f5...@news.btx.dtag.de> , Gerald....@t-online.de
>(Gerald Schendel) wrote:
>
>
>> Kim Philby on the German Abwehr in Madrid: "We knew the names,
>> pseudonyms, addresses, cover functions and real functions of most of
>> the staff at Madrid headquarters and at the many outstations such as
>> Barcelona, Bilbao, Vigo, Algeciras, etc." (Kim Philby, My silent War,
>> p. 38)
>
>mr philby is not an entirely reliable reporter - and this statement is
>something of a stretch and a side issue - knowing names does not allow for
>real monitoring of the abwehr, or any appreciable effect on their movement
>
"KO [Kriegsorganisation = an Abwehr wartime intelligence network based
abroad - GSch] Lisbon, the jumping-off point for German agents
assigned to Britain, was renowned for what Oberstabsintendant Max
Franzbach remembers as 'its monumental binges, which often went on far
into the night. (...)' ... many Spanish, Portuguese, French or Turkish
mistresses retailed the Abwehr's official secrets to their friends."
(Heinz Hohne, Canaris. Hitler's Master Spy, Cooper Square Press
edition, New York 1999, p. 492)
>nevertheless, if alekhine was in spain and portugal he would have been
>conscious of himself as a 'personality' and of potential propaganda use
>
>is it really possible to think that he met with british security people in
>the /embassy/ in lisbon, while contemplating a return to germany?
>
In 1941 - according to Morán - Alekhine tried to get a visa for the
USA. For this purpose it was necessary to contact the US embassy in
Lisbon. I'm quite sure that US and British security people worked
together.
Otto John, a German resistance fighter and an official of the German
airline Lufthansa, flew several times to Madrid and Lisbon in 1942-44
and contacted the British SIS. After 20 July 1944 he left Germany. In
England he cooperated with Sefton Delmer. After WW II he became the
first President of the (Western) German secret service "Bundesamt fur
Verfassungsschutz". His autobiography was published in English, too:
John, Otto. Twice Through the Lines: The Autobiography of Otto John.
New York: Harper and Row, 1972.
>>>
>> You would argue: he is the sort of character - ergo: I can well
>> believe it of him - ergo: he has done it?
>
>not at all - i would argue that accommodating those who rule was his
>pattern, even if it was neurotic, it was nevertheless a fixed pattern. with
>disputed points of evidence, how then to view his behavior? so i wrote
>asking if anyone understood why Chess wrote so certainly that 'he was in the
>grip of merciless circumstance'
>
>i am not arguing by association, i am looking at the pattern of
>circumstances, and find nothing exceptional in the paris zeitunger articles,
In 1921 Alekhine left Soviet Russia. In Berlin he wrote a pamphlet for
the Jewish publisher Kagan: The chess life in Soviet Russia, by
Alexander von Aljechin.
>
>-presumably because he could not obtain the newspaper in which the articles
>were written,
>
Alekhine's letter to Mr Hatton-Ward (6 December 1945): "In these
articles which appeared in 1941 during my stay in Portugal, and which
became known to me in Germany, there is nothing that was written by
me."
The articles were published in the Pariser Zeitung 18-23 March, an
incomplete version was published in the German chess magazine DSZ
April-June. Alekhine came to Germany via Spain in September 1941.
According to Moran, Alekhine came back to Portugal from Paris in April
1941- because he played chess in Lisbon on April 5. But: perhaps
Alekhine came earlier to Portugual? Perhaps in March 1941?
>it was his pattern to be extremely opportunistic, in chess, with
>women, ... &
And with Jews ... No! In his pamphlet 'the chess life in Soviet
Russia' he hailed Alexander Mojseevich Evensson (a Jew, executed by
troops of General Denikin in 1919) as an 'elegant player' who would
have been able to become one of the best Russian players. "Maestro A.
Rabinovich has won five games in a very splendid style". Levenfish,
Blumenfeld, Dr Bernstein - all these players are mentioned in
Alekhine's 1921 pamphlet without any insult.
>>>
>>>> After Alekhine's death it was very comfortable to regard Alekhine as
>>>> the author of the "Alekhine articles". It was a very clever move *not*
>>>> to finalise the investigations into Alekhine's war-time record.
>>>
>>>this is not a complete reception of what is known about his contribution to
>>>these articles. a fatal flaw is the ms kept and found in the possessions of
>>>his widow, where alekhine's signature appears below the 'articles' which no
>>>propaganda officer had cut&pasted
>>>
>>
>> This manuscript is missing.
>
>has gone missing :)
>
As a judge I would not accept any statement based on this mysterious
manuscript.
Regards,
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Staunton
Gerald Schendel <Gerald....@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:3a6d7008...@news.btx.dtag.de...
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:58:53 -0000, "Staunton"
> <howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >The story itself (TMITRM) begins with a quotation from Sir Thomas
> >Browne: "What song the Syrens sang, or *what name Achilles assumed
when
> >he hid himself* among women, although puzzling questions, are not
beyond
> >all conjecture."
> >
> >Does any of this get us anywhere? To the extent with which we credit
it
> >at all, I propose that it further helps my case at the expense of
your
> >own.
> >
>
> What is my case? My point of view is: Alekhine said 1. that he indeed
> wrote some articles for the Pariser Zeitung and 2. that these articles
> were re-written by the editors. I'm trying to believe this statement.
"In these articles, which appeared in 1941 during my stay in Portugal,
and which became known to me in Germany as reproduced in Deutsche
Schachzeitung, there is nothing that was written by me. The matter which
I had provided related to the necessary reconstruction of the
International Chess Federation [FIDE] and to a critical appreciation,
written long before 1939 of the theories of Steinitz and Lasker."
According to S+V:
'At the end of March, Alekhine was given permission by the German
authorities to travel to Portugal and Spain. He arrived in Lisbon at the
beginning of April.'
Therefore the articles appeared (March 18-23) when Alekhine was still
(presumably) in Paris.
The obvious (and simplest) explanation is that Alekhine's visa was
issued directly in return for services rendered.
> So, I'm looking now for the editors. At my local library I've ordered
> a book of the Pariser Zeitung publishing house.
Good. I would like to know if the staff were mainly German or French. If
the former, then the inclusion of 'M. de la Palisse' might further tie
the articles to Alekhine.
>
> >> You should know that Poe's "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" was
first
> >> published in 'Graham's Magazine', April 1841, exactly 100 years
before
> >> the publication of "Alekhine's articles"!
> >>
> >
> >I'm inclined to think of this as being within the realms of
coincidence.
> >It might also be pointed out that the articles first appeared in
March
> >1941.
> >
>
> If there is an anniversary newspapers sometimes use to publish
> articles before this event, but, of course, perhaps it's pure chance.
>
Except the articles would have been conceived and written by early
March, at the latest. Besides, I don't think that the anniversary of the
publication of one story, as opposed to, say, that of the writer's
birth, would merit any such coverage.
> It is possible that Alekhine has prepared a separate Poe article
> because he was not only a chess player but also a bridge player (like
> Lasker, Samisch...; source: Alekhine biography of Hans Muller/A.
> Pawelczak, p.52: "Alekhine was an excellent bridge player. 'I prefer
> bridge to chess', he once said.") For this reason he had to think
> about the difference between chess and bridge. Poe's introduction to
> TMitRM was a good peg to hang some thoughts on. There's no direct
> connection between Poe and the difference between Jewish and Aryan
> chess. Therefore this part of the "Alekhine articles" may have been an
> authentic Alekhine article.
>
This is contradicted by Alekhine's own account of the material that he
submitted.
> The problem is: Muller/Pawelczak wrote that Alekhine was not
> interested in metaphysical questions. If this is a correct statement,
> why should Alekhine read "The Raven"
>
On the subject of coincidences, one is tempted to point out that this
weekend's Superbowl will feature the Baltimore Ravens :)
>
> or Poe's "Eureka" (a work dedicated to the German Alexander von
> Humboldt)
>
>
> or "THE COLLOQUY OF MONOS AND UNA"
>
As this thread threatens to take a literary turn, I would like, if I
may, and at the risk of upsetting Herr Innes, to share some thoughts on
Poe from the pen of my own favourite writer, Herr Dostoevsky (prefaced
by comments from David McDuff):
Dostoyevsky's admiration for the writings of the German romanticist
E.T.A. Hoffmann, for example, was clearly linked to his perception of
Hoffmann's genius in being able to interpret dreams as expressions of
the striving of the human spirit for a higher reality, to experience the
grotesque forms of dream-life as revelations of another world. Through
trying to achieve something similar in his own writing, the young
Dostoyevsky soon found himself aware of a deep ambiguity, not
consciously present in Hoffmann, that prevented him from attaining his
idealistic goals. His awareness of the possibility that the confused and
surreal contents of dreams might point, not beyond, to some
transcendental realm, but rather to evaded responsibilities and
unresolved conflicts in the dreamer's own personal existence, led him to
a devastating inward crisis that peaked toward the end of the 1840s, was
reinforced by the trauma of his arrest, near-execution and exile to
Siberia, and left its marks on him for the rest of his life.
Perhaps the clearest perspective on Dostoyevsky's attitude toward this
dilemma, and on the way in which he viewed the task of writing fiction
in general, is to be obtained by considering his own critical comparison
of the work of E.T.A. Hoffman and Edgar Allan Poe - the two writers who
probably influenced him more than any others apart from Gogol and
Balzac - which appeared in 1861. Mentions of the American short-story
writer had begun to appear in the Russian press from the end of the
1840s onwards, and a Russian translation of 'The Gold Bug' had been
published as early as 1847. In 1852 the St. Petersburg journal The
Pantheon published a Russian version of Charles Baudelaire's
biographical essay 'Edgar Allan Poe: sa vie et ses ouvrages' which had
appeared in Paris that same year, and throughout the 1850s translations
of Poe's stories continued to be printed in Russian literary
periodicals. (.)
"..Edgar Allan Poe might be described not as a fantastic writer but as a
capricious one. And what strange caprices! What boldness there is in
these caprices! He nearly always takes the most exceptional reality,
puts his hero in the most exceptional outward or psychological
situation, and with what penetrative force, with what striking
faithfulness does he describe the condition of this man's soul! There
is, moreover, in Edgar Poe one feature that sharply distinguishes him
from every other writer and that constitutes his marked peculiarity:
this is the power of his imagination. It is not that his imagination is
superior to that of other writers; but rather that in his imaginative
ability there is a feature that we do not encounter anywhere else: the
power of detail. Try, for example, to imagine some not quite ordinary
event or even one that is not encountered in reality and only exists at
the level of the possible; the image that is silhouetted before you will
always contain one or two more or less general features of the whole
picture or will settle on some peculiar feature, some detail of it But
in the tales of Poe you will perceive every detail of the image or event
that is presented to you with such vividness that you will end up being
convinced of its possibility, its reality, while in actual fact it is
either something completely impossible or something that has never yet
happened upon earth. For example, in one of his stories there is a
description of a journey to the moon - a description of the most
detailed kind which he charts almost hour by hour, and by means of which
he almost convinces one that such a journey could take place.The same
power of imagination or, more precisely, of calculation, is manifested
in the stories about the purloined letter, about the murder committed in
Paris by the orang-utang, in the story of the discovered treasure and so
on.
"He is compared to Hoffmann. We have already said that this is
misleading. What is more, as a poet Hoffmann is immeasurably superior to
Poe. Hoffmann has an ideal, a truth that is sometimes not put very
precisely: yet in this ideal there is a purity, a beauty that is real,
authentic and inherently human. This is particularly evident in his
non-fantastic stories, such as Meister Martin or the most exquisite and
lovely tale Salvator Rosa, to say nothing of his finest work, Kater
Murr. What genuine, mature humour, what powerful sense of reality, what
malice, what types and portraits, and alongside these what a thirst for
beauty, what a radiant ideal! In Poe there is fantasy too, but it is
somehow of a material kind, if one may be allowed to express it that
way. It is evident that he is a true American, even in his fantastic
works.."
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"In these articles, which appeared in 1941 during my stay in Portugal,
>and which became known to me in Germany as reproduced in Deutsche
>Schachzeitung, there is nothing that was written by me. The matter which
>I had provided related to the necessary reconstruction of the
>International Chess Federation [FIDE] and to a critical appreciation,
>written long before 1939 of the theories of Steinitz and Lasker."
>
The FIDE Congress 1939 in Buenos Aires decided to nominate Augusto de
Muro (President of the Chess Federation in Argentina) as "Presidente
efectivo de la F.I.D.E." and to transfer the FIDE headquarters to
Argentina for the duration of the war. President Dr. Rueb didn't
accept this decision and transferred the FIDE headquarters to
Switzerland.
During the tournament in Munich (September 1941) the players signed a
declaration whereby Mr Ehrhardt Post was asked to found a European
chess organization.
E.A. Poe's reflections on chess could have been useful for an
appreciation of the theories of Steinitz and Lasker.
>According to S+V:
>
>'At the end of March, Alekhine was given permission by the German
>authorities to travel to Portugal and Spain. He arrived in Lisbon at the
>beginning of April.'
>
Do you know any documents which would support this calculation? Which
German authorities?
>Therefore the articles appeared (March 18-23) when Alekhine was still
>(presumably) in Paris.
>
>The obvious (and simplest) explanation is that Alekhine's visa was
>issued directly in return for services rendered.
>
Who has seen Alekhine's visa or his passport? 1st step: German
authorities (which?) gave him an exit visa for Spain (an independant
and neutral country). 2nd step: Spanish authorities permitted the
entry. 3rd step: Portugal (an independant and neutral country) would
send an authorisation to travel to Lisbon.
>> There's no direct
>> connection between Poe and the difference between Jewish and Aryan
>> chess. Therefore this part of the "Alekhine articles" may have been an
>> authentic Alekhine article.
>>
>
>This is contradicted by Alekhine's own account of the material that he
>submitted.
>
It could have been an element of the Steinitz/Lasker appreciation.
>and throughout the 1850s translations
>of Poe's stories continued to be printed in Russian literary
>periodicals. (.)
>
Presumably Alkhine has started to read Poe in Russia. But in France or
Germany Poe was known, too.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Phil Innes
(Gerald Schendel) wrote:
Hi Gerald,
>>> You would argue: he is the sort of character - ergo: I can well
>>> believe it of him - ergo: he has done it?
>>
>>not at all - i would argue that accommodating those who rule was his
>>pattern, even if it was neurotic, it was nevertheless a fixed pattern. with
>>disputed points of evidence, how then to view his behavior? so i wrote
>>asking if anyone understood why Chess wrote so certainly that 'he was in the
>>grip of merciless circumstance'
>>
>>i am not arguing by association, i am looking at the pattern of
>>circumstances, and find nothing exceptional in the paris zeitunger articles,
>
> In 1921 Alekhine left Soviet Russia. In Berlin he wrote a pamphlet for
> the Jewish publisher Kagan: The chess life in Soviet Russia, by
> Alexander von Aljechin.
this is not the pattern i am referring to
i do not mean that he held any belief or active practice as an anti-semite,
or, in fact that he held any strong beliefs on any subject whatever
but during the war years his behavior was all of a (conservative) pattern
you remember how we arrived at this point in the conversation? it was the
british magazine 'chess' that couldn't imagine anything other than a coerced
statement; alekhine 'must have been...'
i am asking for the basis of this statement - what does a chess journal know
of this specific instance?
alekhine did have a convivial contact in vera menchik who was in london, and
perhaps with other players there, but there is no particular evidence of it
extant that would indicate his state of mind
and when a journal states a conclusion omitting the premise or basis of it,
then we must ask 'how is this anything but propaganda?' for surely it is not
pleasant to think of the world chess champion volunteering what he wrote and
the magazine is reacting against the idea of, rather than any knowledge of,
his behavior
>>
>>-presumably because he could not obtain the newspaper in which the articles
>>were written,
>>
>
> Alekhine's letter to Mr Hatton-Ward (6 December 1945): "In these
> articles which appeared in 1941 during my stay in Portugal, and which
> became known to me in Germany, there is nothing that was written by
> me."
post hoc... this is literally not true, even if we go along with the 'he
wrote the articles in his own hand to have a record of them' line
and so he is lying, no?
<...>
>>it was his pattern to be extremely opportunistic, in chess, with
>>women, ... &
>
> And with Jews ... No! In his pamphlet 'the chess life in Soviet
> Russia' he hailed Alexander Mojseevich Evensson (a Jew, executed by
> troops of General Denikin in 1919) as an 'elegant player' who would
> have been able to become one of the best Russian players. "Maestro A.
> Rabinovich has won five games in a very splendid style". Levenfish,
> Blumenfeld, Dr Bernstein - all these players are mentioned in
> Alekhine's 1921 pamphlet without any insult.
he is also known to have stayed in a hotel during a tournament in the 30s
and returning from an evening out (hic!) banged on the door of a jewish gm
shouting 'open up - we have come for you' and when reminded of it the next
day was apologetic, blamed the drink
what he (or anyone) did before the war is no indicator of what he did during
it. this is not an uncommon phenomena. i mean, he was no victor laszlo!
~like chessplayers who are superbooked-up and have every sort of opinion,
but when the clock starts ticking and there is the stress of time and
opponent they can't play! behavior is modified under stress, often very much
so
in this sense i do not accept that a record of his earlier behavior is a
prescriptive model for wartime europe
>>>>
>>>>> After Alekhine's death it was very comfortable to regard Alekhine as
>>>>> the author of the "Alekhine articles". It was a very clever move *not*
>>>>> to finalise the investigations into Alekhine's war-time record.
>>>>
>>>>this is not a complete reception of what is known about his contribution to
>>>>these articles. a fatal flaw is the ms kept and found in the possessions of
>>>>his widow, where alekhine's signature appears below the 'articles' which no
>>>>propaganda officer had cut&pasted
>>>>
>>>
>>> This manuscript is missing.
>>
>>has gone missing :)
>>
>
> As a judge I would not accept any statement based on this mysterious
> manuscript.
we are not judging him as breaking any laws! who has brought a charge? we
are assessing how he behaved /as if/ we wanted to judge him in an ethical
way
to this extent i sense that there are more 'conclusions' about aljekin than
there are premises (laugh)
none of us know how we would be in his situation - perhaps we speculate
through his case how we would be if we ourselves were put to the test?
cordially, phil
> Regards,
>
> Gerald Schendel
> Kandern/Germany
Phil Innes
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It is possible that Alekhine has prepared a separate Poe article
>> because he was not only a chess player but also a bridge player (like
>> Lasker, Samisch...;
..like marokczy and menchik (he said she was better than AA ;)
>> source: Alekhine biography of Hans Muller/A.
>> Pawelczak, p.52: "Alekhine was an excellent bridge player. 'I prefer
>> bridge to chess', he once said.") For this reason he had to think
>> about the difference between chess and bridge. Poe's introduction to
>> TMitRM was a good peg to hang some thoughts on. There's no direct
>> connection between Poe and the difference between Jewish and Aryan
>> chess. Therefore this part of the "Alekhine articles" may have been an
>> authentic Alekhine article.
>>
~~~~~
>> or "THE COLLOQUY OF MONOS AND UNA"
>>
>
> As this thread threatens to take a literary turn, I would like, if I
> may, and at the risk of upsetting Herr Innes, to share some thoughts on
> Poe from the pen of my own favourite writer, Herr Dostoevsky (prefaced
> by comments from David McDuff):
>
> Dostoyevsky's admiration for the writings of the German romanticist
> E.T.A. Hoffmann, for example, was clearly linked to his perception of
> Hoffmann's genius in being able to interpret dreams as expressions of
> the striving of the human spirit for a higher reality,
oh dear, 'higher reality?' are those really d's words?
> to experience the
> grotesque forms of dream-life as revelations of another world. Through
> trying to achieve something similar in his own writing, the young
> Dostoyevsky soon found himself aware of a deep ambiguity, not
> consciously present in Hoffmann, that prevented him from attaining his
> idealistic goals. His awareness of the possibility that the confused and
> surreal contents of dreams might point, not beyond, to some
> transcendental realm, but rather to evaded responsibilities and
> unresolved conflicts in the dreamer's own personal existence, led him to
> a devastating inward crisis that peaked toward the end of the 1840s, was
> reinforced by the trauma of his arrest, near-execution and exile to
> Siberia, and left its marks on him for the rest of his life.
and you say you don't like freud. this is the very thing which attracted
him, more than that, sparked him
<long poe development section snipped>
>
> "He is compared to Hoffmann. We have already said that this is
> misleading. What is more, as a poet Hoffmann is immeasurably superior to
> Poe. Hoffmann has an ideal, a truth that is sometimes not put very
> precisely: yet in this ideal there is a purity, a beauty that is real,
> authentic and inherently human. This is particularly evident in his
> non-fantastic stories, such as Meister Martin or the most exquisite and
> lovely tale Salvator Rosa, to say nothing of his finest work, Kater
> Murr. What genuine, mature humour, what powerful sense of reality, what
> malice, what types and portraits, and alongside these what a thirst for
> beauty, what a radiant ideal! In Poe there is fantasy too, but it is
> somehow of a material kind, if one may be allowed to express it that
> way. It is evident that he is a true American, even in his fantastic
> works.."
et ca? poetry is like water-colour painting. deceptively simple in making a
different impression over a period of time. when discussing styles there are
various subjects which are accommodated by them, otherwise there is the pure
ascetic quality of the writing
but all this is subservient to the subject and any appreciatiation granted
by the reader is by no matter in how radiant or mature is found the
expression thereof
(ROFL! - after pushkin, somewhat anticipating arthur rimbaud, who would have
said it more like a bloke)
to return to chess: dostoyevski was one of the founders of a literary chess
hall in petersburg...
phil
Gerald Schendel
wrote:
Hi Phil,
>
>you remember how we arrived at this point in the conversation? it was the
>british magazine 'chess' that couldn't imagine anything other than a coerced
>statement; alekhine 'must have been...'
>
>i am asking for the basis of this statement - what does a chess journal know
>of this specific instance?
>
For which reason and for which purpose did the British magazine
"Chess" reprint the translated (by Buschke/USA) articles of German
newspapers? They started the reprint in August 1941 when Alekhine was
still in the safety in Lisbon and - according to Morán - waiting for a
visa to the USA. "The grip of merciless circumstance..." In October
1941 (Alekhine has played the Munich tournament in September 1941)
"Chess" continued the reprint and wrote: "The article (...) may
jeopardise Dr. Alekhine's chances of obtaining a visa to enter the
states." The last sentence means: Alekhine will have to stay in
Europe.
>alekhine did have a convivial contact in vera menchik who was in london, and
>perhaps with other players there, but there is no particular evidence of it
>extant that would indicate his state of mind
>
Contacts during the war?
By the way: Do you know at which time and with which ship Harry
Golombek returned to England from the chess olympiad 1939 in Buenos
Aires? According to German sources the English players Alexander,
Thomas and Milner-Barry returned to England immediately when the war
broke out. And H. Golombek? Mrs Vera Menchik-Stevenson? All team
captains had agreed to finish the event. The number of the English lot
for the final rounds of the tournament was 6. The German FIDE delegate
Miehe returned to Germany together with Mrs Friedl Rinder and Paul
Keres (who had been invited to play a match with Max Euwe).
According to Lupi/Morán Mr and Mrs Alekhine came to Lisbon in January
1940. No other chess player is mentioned in Lupi's report.
>and when a journal states a conclusion omitting the premise or basis of it,
>then we must ask 'how is this anything but propaganda?'
When a British journal states such a conclusion then we must ask, too,
'is this German propaganda?'
>for surely it is not
>pleasant to think of the world chess champion volunteering what he wrote and
>the magazine is reacting against the idea of, rather than any knowledge of,
>his behavior
>
Reacting against? If media want to kill ideas they just don't publish
anything.
"Chess" has acted as an instrument of multiplication.
"Chess" wrote: The "Alekhine articles" appeared "in the 'Pariser
Zeitung', among dozens of other Nazi-controlled newspapers in Germany
and the occupied countries". Dozens! But they mentioned only the
'Pariser Zeitung', the 'Deutsche Zeitung in den Niederlanden' and the
'Deutsche Schachzeitung' = 3!
Do you know any reprint of the "Alekhine articles" in Prague, in
Warsaw or Cracow, in Italy, in Belgium, Luxemburg, Denmark, Norway or
in Spain and Portugal?
>>>
>>>-presumably because he could not obtain the newspaper in which the articles
>>>were written,
>>>
>>
>> Alekhine's letter to Mr Hatton-Ward (6 December 1945): "In these
>> articles which appeared in 1941 during my stay in Portugal, and which
>> became known to me in Germany, there is nothing that was written by
>> me."
>
>post hoc... this is literally not true, even if we go along with the 'he
>wrote the articles in his own hand to have a record of them' line
>
>and so he is lying, no?
>
The simple explanation is that Alekhine's visa for Spain was issued
directly in return for services rendered. Services = "Alekhine
articles" = as they were published
I do not understand why Alekhine should write these articles (as they
were published) in order to be able to travel to Lisbon and afterwards
to the USA. These articles (as they were published) could/should have
been a ticket for Germany!
But in Germany the editor of the chess magazine 'Deutsche
Schachzeitung' was distrustful: "We reprint further statements by the
World Champion. They would have been more convincing a year ago" etc.
(Morán, p.40).
The slogan in the German chess during that time was "fighting chess",
*not* "Aryan chess".
>> As a judge I would not accept any statement based on this mysterious
>> manuscript.
>
>we are not judging him as breaking any laws! who has brought a charge? we
>are assessing how he behaved /as if/ we wanted to judge him in an ethical
>way
>
The IMT in Nuremberg accused and sentenced Bormann in absentia. But in
the "case Alekhine" the investigations were never finished, important
documents are not available: Alekhine's visa, the manuscript, Gestapo
files (Alekhine: "we were under constant supervision and the threat of
the concentration camp on the part of the Gestapo" - Morán, p. 46),
perhaps SIS files ...
>
>none of us know how we would be in his situation - perhaps we speculate
>through his case how we would be if we ourselves were put to the test?
>
I think, that we don't know his situation exactly, but in the
principle I agree with your statement.
cordially, Gerald
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany
Phil Innes
Gerald....@t-online.de (Gerald Schendel) wrote:
Hi Gerald,
in our previous posts we have been acuitous! defining questions which would
be interesting to explore further - but i do not know if you are aware
('Staunton' is aware) that an english author is now preparing a biography of
alekhine
it is therefore presumptuous of me to anticipate this title with further
speculations or small knowledge of my own
>>
>>none of us know how we would be in his situation - perhaps we speculate
>>through his case how we would be if we ourselves were put to the test?
>>
>
> I think, that we don't know his situation exactly, but in the
> principle I agree with your statement.
ah. thank you
> cordially, Gerald
aye, cordially
phil
Gerald Schendel
wrote:
Hi Phil,
>i do not know if you are aware
>('Staunton' is aware) that an english author is now preparing a biography of
>alekhine
>
In 1991 Brian Reilly died. In 1992 the British Chess Magazine wrote
that Ken Whyld was working on an Alekhine book, using Reilly's
archives.
Staunton
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:59:30 -0000, "Staunton"
> <howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"In these articles, which appeared in 1941 during my stay in
Portugal,
> >and which became known to me in Germany as reproduced in Deutsche
> >Schachzeitung, there is nothing that was written by me. The matter
which
> >I had provided related to the necessary reconstruction of the
> >International Chess Federation [FIDE] and to a critical appreciation,
> >written long before 1939 of the theories of Steinitz and Lasker."
> >
>
> The FIDE Congress 1939 in Buenos Aires decided to nominate Augusto de
> Muro (President of the Chess Federation in Argentina) as "Presidente
> efectivo de la F.I.D.E." and to transfer the FIDE headquarters to
> Argentina for the duration of the war. President Dr. Rueb didn't
> accept this decision and transferred the FIDE headquarters to
> Switzerland.
> During the tournament in Munich (September 1941) the players signed a
> declaration whereby Mr Ehrhardt Post was asked to found a European
> chess organization.
>
Alekhine's cunning didn't begin or end with the PZ articles. Likely, a
smart post facto touch.
> E.A. Poe's reflections on chess could have been useful for an
> appreciation of the theories of Steinitz and Lasker.
>
On the other hand, the notion of Alekhine submitting a (presumably)
favourable appreciation of Steinitz and Lasker to a Nazi newspaper is
somewhat implausible.
> >According to S+V:
> >
> >'At the end of March, Alekhine was given permission by the German
> >authorities to travel to Portugal and Spain. He arrived in Lisbon at
the
> >beginning of April.'
> >
>
> Do you know any documents which would support this calculation? Which
> German authorities?
The question is: on what do S+V and Moran rely to date A's arrival in
Portugal as early April? Presumably, not just the fact that his first
chess engagement was on April 5th.
Moran reproduces Lupi's memoir The Broken King, which, though mentioning
his arrival in Lisbon, doesn't specify the date. However, in one of the
footnotes we find: 'In April 1941 "Alekhine seemed (...)" (Lupi, from a
1951 conversation with Moran).'
Of course, S+V may simply have relied on Moran but there is another
possibility. Alekhine annotated the consultation game played on the 5th,
and his notes appeared in Chess 1941, vol 6, pg122. S+V also give
'Revista Portuguesa de Xadrez 1941' as another source of the game score.
It seems probable that one or both of these sources would have made
reference to the date of Alekhine's arrival in Portugal.
Incidentally, it is interesting to speculate whether this (apparent)
association between Alekhine and Chess (through whatever channels)
extended beyond the mere conveyance of annotations.
>
> >Therefore the articles appeared (March 18-23) when Alekhine was still
> >(presumably) in Paris.
> >
> >The obvious (and simplest) explanation is that Alekhine's visa was
> >issued directly in return for services rendered.
> >
>
> Who has seen Alekhine's visa or his passport? 1st step: German
> authorities (which?) gave him an exit visa for Spain (an independant
> and neutral country). 2nd step: Spanish authorities permitted the
> entry. 3rd step: Portugal (an independant and neutral country) would
> send an authorisation to travel to Lisbon.
>
>
If we accept the possibility that Alekhine, initially, may have been
unaware of the articles' appearance in PZ (regardless of when he arrived
in Portugal), it is harder to believe his claim of having first learned
of them through reading the DSZ when in Germany. Those Madrid articles
of September 3rd both reveal Alekhine's apparent responsibilty for the
articles: 'He added that in the German magazine Deutsche Schachzeitung
and in the German daily Pariser Zeitung, nowadays edited in Paris, he
has been the first to treat chess from the racial viewpoint.'
I must admit that these interviews are rather difficult to reconcile
with my own thesis also...
Moving on...
We talked before about Samisch's meeting with Bernstein in Spain 1943,
but neglected to mention that Alekhine attended the Madrid event in
which Samisch competed. Surely Samisch would have questioned A. about
the articles and the fate of David P.
Gerald Schendel
<howard_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Did you see my post where I expressed suprise at there being no
>reference in Skinner and Verhoeven to Alekhine playing these 40 games
>for the 'German Army and Winter Relief' (one or two simuls?) in Paris in
>the Winter of 1940?
>
>Is there really nothing in either the DSZ or the DSBI about them?
>
DSZ 1 (January), 1942; p.5: "Paris. Aljechin spielte kürzlich hier 50
Reihenpartien gegen Angehörige der Wehrmacht vom einfachen Soldaten
bis zum General: er gewann nach sechsstündigem Kampf 40 Partien,
verlor 4 und schlichtete 6." +40 -4 =6
I found nothing in the DSZ regarding a simul in Paris in the winter of
1940/41.
Gerald Schendel
Kandern/Germany