Alekhine's World Trip Discrepancy

 

Credit: here.

Our correspondent, Herbert Halsegger, pointed out to us that the Neues Preßburger Tagblatt of 7 February 1932, p. 6, has an interview with Alekhine where he discusses his planned world trip. Alekhine explicitly mentions that he will also visit Palestine as well as many other countries and locations. Interestingly, Davar, on 31 December 1931, p. 3, mentions Alekhine's world trip and does not mention him visiting Palestine. Only later - 21 January 1932, p. 3 - does Davar mention that a "reliable source" notes that Alekhine will visit Palestine as well. 

What is the reason for this discrepancy? Had Alekhine changed his mind about the trip's locations in January 1932? This seems unlikely since many of the countries mentioned in both articles are the same. In particular, the starting point (Marseilles) and the location Alekhine will visit just after Palestine according to the February interview (Port Said) are mentioned. 

Another mystery is why, if Alekhine's trip was already publicly known in December 1931 and an interview about it was given in February 1932, did Davar need to use an anonymous "reliable source" instead of simply noting where the details of the trip were given. 

Finally, that Alekhine had no problem planning a trip to Palestine doesn't prove Alekhine was not an antisemite. He also planned to visit India and Japan, and it would be no libel on his character if it turned out he happened to share the beliefs about the inferiority of Indians or Japanese which were almost universal for Europeans of his generation. Alekhine may have been prejudiced against Jews while still visiting Palestine.

But there is a big moral difference between Alekhine possibly sharing prejudices against Jews common to his place and time and Alekhine being a Nazi. If Alekhine were a true believer in Nazi ideology, it is highly unlikely he would have publicly declared his intention to visit Palestine in particular. 

The Start of the Israel Chess Federation

 

Credit: Davar Ha'shavuah, 7 October 1949, p. 18.

A frequent correspondent notes that one of the first mentions of the relaunched chess federation in the new state - the Israel Chess Federation - is in the above 1949 note. As La'merhav notes (3 May 1968, p. 8) the Israel Chess Federation was in fact established that year. 

The above note informs that the suggestion came originally from the Lasker chess club in Tel Aviv, which contacted the clubs in Haifa and Jerusalem to come to a general meeting to establish the new national federation. In particular, Israel Barav (here mentioned under his old name, Rabinovich) is mentioned in asking the Haifa club to join, and that the constitution of the federation was ratified. 

Chess in the Newsreels, Part II

 

Credit: see below

We have already noted in the past that chess was occasionally featured in newsreels in Israel (and Mandatory Palestine) in pre-television days, but some of the links in posts about "movies" or "newsreels" are no longer active. Above is a screenshot from the Israeli film archive search for "chess" (in English) which features all such newsreel items, with the titles in English. The newsreels themselves are in Hebrew but there are English subtitles. 

Porat - Larsen, anti-Turton

Edward Winter notes that Yosef Porat was the victim of an anti-Turton move (or combination) by Bent Larsen in the 1956 Olympiad. What is an anti-Turton? As Heidenfeld notes (see Winter's article for details):

It consists in forcing the attacker who wishes to double two pieces on the same gait in such a way as to have the stronger piece in front and the weaker behind (called the Turton in the jargon of problemists) into playing the weaker piece across the so-called “critical square”... and thus into reversing the planned line-up.

The game is: 

Porat, Yosef - Larsen, Bent

12th Chess Olympiad, Moscow, 1956, 6th round (preliminaries) 

Source: Olimpbase. 

1.Nf3 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.b3 Bg7 5.Bb2 d6 6.d4 c6 7.e3 Qa5 8.a3 O-O 9.Be2 e5 10.b4 Qc7 11.d5 h6 12.c5 e4 13.Nd4 dxc5 14.Qb3 cxd4 15.d6+ Be6

Anti-Turton. 15...Qf7 (the other possible move) allows 16.Bc4, to be followed by 16...dxc3 17.Bxf7+ Rxf7 18.Bxc3, when Black has three pieces for the queen. 

16.Qxe6+

The point behind 15...Be6: the white queen was forced to move beyond the critical square (c4), so Bc4 will no longer pin the black queen to the king after Black plays Qf7.

16...Qf7 17 Qxf7+ Rxf7 18 exd4 Rd7 19 d5 Nxd5 20 Bc4 Kh7 21 Bxd5 Bxc3+ 22 Bxc3 cxd5 23 g4 Rxd6 24 gxf5 gxf5 25 Rd1 Nc6 26 b5 Nd8 27 f3 Ne6 28 fxe4 fxe4 29 Rf1 Ng5 30 Rf5 d4 31 h4 Nf3+ 32 Ke2 Rc8 33 Bb4 Rg6 White resigns (0-1).

Jeremy Silman, 1954-2023

Source: amazon.com

Jeremy Silman had just passed away at the age of 69. We have many of his books, from How to Reassess Your Chess and The Amateur's Mind to his co-authored (auto)biography of Pal Benko, which is an excellent book. Always original in his thinking, Silman never wrote a meretricious book. Some of his books are better than others, but he always did his best - some of his books are very good, like Benko's biography. 

Edward Winter's obituary adds that Silman was interested in chess history, and - like Winter himself - had great admiration for the games of the old masters, such as Gioacchino Greco, who was in Silman's estimation, "centuries ahead of his time" in chess understanding, more so than any other player in history. Curiously, he thinks Greco would have easily defeated Philidor! 

One thing I noted about Silman's work is that when a new edition of his books came out, it was really new. It wasn't just the same book with minor changes. Silman always put a lot of work into improving the new edition over the older one. 

More on Walter Tevis and Chess

Credit: see below

Before The Queen's Gambit (1983) Walter Tevis had published a collection of short stories, Far from Home (Doubleday, 1981). It is - presumably due to The Queen's Gambit - now sold second hand in amazon at absurd prices. One copy in "new" condition is priced at over $1000!

It is noteworthy that Tevis was interested in chess in other stories he wrote. In this collection, the short story "Echo" has an interesting chess connection. The hero used to play chess in school; the fact that another character also recognizes the "Morphy attack in the King's Gambit" is a key point for discovering the other character's identity. 

It is not clear which variation Tevis has in mind. There is a Morphy variation in the King's Gambit (C33) but Morphy often played the King's Gambit in many other variations, too, with excellent results. Like in The Queen's Gambit, then, the chess description in "Echo" is, therefore, somewhat vague and not fully accurate. Edward Winter points out the same is true about The Queen's Gambit, as previously noted on this blog. But in both cases, the description of chess play makes sense in a general way. 

Tevis was a mediocre player and never claimed any special chess, or chess history, expertise. But at least was not an ignoramus about chess or its history. His use of chess in fiction, while not fully accurate, is at least much better than the low standards so often seen. He never described chess as, on the one hand, an incredibly difficult mind challenge only geniuses can play well, and, at the same time, as a trivial game that always ends in a few moves, with one side threatening check and the other replying with a cross-checkmate.  

A New Translation of a Classic Rubinstein Book

 

Credit: see below

The above book, Akiba Rubinstein, by Yuri Razuvaev and Valery Murakhveri, originally published in 1980, has just (2023) been translated into English and published by Verendel Publishing. Philip Jurgens, who was involved in the translation project, had generously sent me a complimentary copy. The book is a classic of chess history and it is good to finally have an English version. 

Alekhine and Opportunism - II

 

Credit: see above

By chance, reading an old copy of the Salisbury Review, I found the above article (pp. 34-38, September 1988) with the quote above on p. 36-37. It is a review of Victor Farias (au.), Myriam Benarroch and J. B. Granet (trans). Heidegger et le nazisme (Paris: Verdier, 1987). 

I suggest that what is said in the review of Heidegger is equally true for Alekhine. He wasn't a hard-core Nazi, but he ingratiated himself with the powers that be and refused to own up to his behavior after the war. Then again, that was true for most Germans during the time. This doesn't make either of them blameless, but being guilty of opportunism is not the same thing as being a believer in Nazism. 

Alekhine and Opportunism

 

Credit: see below

A frequent correspondent notes that Alekhine's attempt to ingratiate himself with the new Soviet government after leaving the USSR had not been successful. In the above, Nikolai Krylenko writes to  Stalin and Molotov in that Alekhine sending a congratulatory telegram to the USSR was not sufficient to clear him of his support of the "Whites" (the anti-Bolshevik republicans) during the Russian civil war. On the other hand, adds our correspondent, sending the telegram caused a rift between him and the exiled "Whites" in Europe, which previously supported him as one of them. 

The letter was published in the June 1997 bulletin, p. 141, of Russian chess researcher Sergey Voronkov and is also included in his book based on his Alekhine research project, in Russian, The Russian Sphynx. More details can be found here (in Russian). 

P. S.

For some reasoning the blogger web site misformats the first paragraph in this post. Sorry!