(Ed Gaillard) writes:

In article ,
wrote:


USCF objecting to Fine? Madness.

Well, I agree that the USCF was crazy--although, in fairness, their
objection wasn't to Fine, but to the process of inviting Fine--but I
don't think there were a dozen players ahead of Kashdan for Fine's
spot, especially since there was simply no way another Soviet was
going to be invited

I don't think you can drop the Soviets so easily. This
was not a zone system. It would have been a travesty to
have Kashdan in the world championship but not Boleslavsky,
for example.

Besides, if Kashdan were in the event the conspiracy
theorists would be claiming that the Soviets somehow
engineered it to keep out the more dangerous Fine,
Najdorf or Stahlberg.

(also, the strong young Soviets had not yet made
an impact outside the Soviet Union, I don't think). Of the
non-Soviets: Najdorf and Stahlberg were better choices than Kashdan,
and there was talk of inviting one of them when Fine declined, plus
Szabo would probably have been a better choice as well. Who else? I
see ChessMetrics has Tartakower and Horowitz ahead of Kashdan, but I'm
not sure I believe that, and surely neither would have occurred to
FIDE.

I wouldn't place Horowitz ahead. Though Kashdan's best
days were long gone, he had proven himself in international
competition. Horowitz had not, other than in olympiads,
which were pretty weak in those days.

Tartakower was getting rather old. Even if he was as good
as Kashdan the pace of that event would have told, as it
appears to have done on Euwe.

I'd say that Najdorf, Stahlberg, Szabo, Bondarevsky,
Boleslavsky, Flohr, and Eliskases (who tends to be forgotten)
are clearly better candidates, with Lilenthal and Ragozin
being arguably better. Levenfish was doubtless too old,
though his results in the previous decade outclassed
those of Kashdan.

Kashdan was always unlucky. Should have been US champion
in the early 1930s, was cheated out of the title in the
1940s by an insane TD. Had he been US champ in 31 the
resulting increased fees might have kept him playing
in Europe, with who knows what result.


I don't have time to transcribe it right now, but there was an item in
_Chess Review_ that Bogolyubov was incensed that he hadn't been
invited. Indeed.

A weak ego was never Bogo's problem.


William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

Hello wt:

Could you flesh these comments out a bit?
1. Why should Kashdan have been US Champ in the 30s, and what prevented this?
2. How was Kashdan cheated in the 40s by an insane TD?
3. How would Kashdan being champ in 31 resulted in increased fees?

Thanks much,

zdrakec

wthyde wrote:
Kashdan was always unlucky. Should have been US champion
in the early 1930s, was cheated out of the title in the
1940s by an insane TD. Had he been US champ in 31 the
resulting increased fees might have kept him playing
in Europe, with who knows what result.

(zdrakec) writes:

Hello wt:

Could you flesh these comments out a bit?
1. Why should Kashdan have been US Champ in the 30s, and what prevented this?

Kashdan was clearly stronger than the champion, Marshall,
circa 1931. However, the championship was decided by
match play, not by a tournament as it is now. The challenger
had to raise the stakes - and Marshall determined what the
required stakes would be. Kashdan could not raise the money.
In fact only one person, Edward Lasker, ever played a match
against Marshall when he was champion (Marshall won by a
single point).

Marshall resigned the title in favour of the present tournament
system in the mid 1930s, but by that time Reshevsky and Fine
had caught up with Kashdan, who never managed to win a US
championship. He tied one year, but lost the playoff.

2. How was Kashdan cheated in the 40s by an insane TD?

It is hard to believe, but well attested, that the TD forfeited
the wrong person in a US championship game in the 1940s (he
picked up the clock from *behind*, rotated it so that he
could see it, and forfeited the person on whose side the
fallen flag now was). And refused to change the result when
his mistake was pointed out. This gave Reshevsky an
undeserved half point extra. Now I believe, but on second
thought can't be sure without checking, that this was
the tournament in which Reshevsky and Kashdan tied for
first. Reshevsky won the playoff.

3. How would Kashdan being champ in 31 resulted in increased fees?

As US champion he could have expected better attendance
at his simultaneous exhibitions, perhaps even charged
higher fees. And might well have gained some money from
patrons. The US title didn't mean a heck of a lot in
Europe, but I suspect that with it he'd have been in a
better position to get some of his expenses paid. He
might, in that case, have continued to improve by way
of tough tournament practice in Europe, instead of returning
to the US and attempting to make a living (IIRC he co-founded
Chess Review). Alekhine once said that Kashdan was a
likely future world champion.

William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

Thank you very much. That is actually quite interesting.

Cheers,

zdrakec

wthyde wrote:
1. Why should Kashdan have been US Champ in the 30s, and what prevented this?

Kashdan was clearly stronger than the champion, Marshall,
circa 1931. However, the championship was decided by
match play, not by a tournament as it is now. The challenger
had to raise the stakes - and Marshall determined what the
required stakes would be. Kashdan could not raise the money.
In fact only one person, Edward Lasker, ever played a match
against Marshall when he was champion (Marshall won by a
single point).

Marshall resigned the title in favour of the present tournament
system in the mid 1930s, but by that time Reshevsky and Fine
had caught up with Kashdan, who never managed to win a US
championship. He tied one year, but lost the playoff.

2. How was Kashdan cheated in the 40s by an insane TD?

It is hard to believe, but well attested, that the TD forfeited
the wrong person in a US championship game in the 1940s (he
picked up the clock from *behind*, rotated it so that he
could see it, and forfeited the person on whose side the
fallen flag now was). And refused to change the result when
his mistake was pointed out. This gave Reshevsky an
undeserved half point extra. Now I believe, but on second
thought can't be sure without checking, that this was
the tournament in which Reshevsky and Kashdan tied for
first. Reshevsky won the playoff.

3. How would Kashdan being champ in 31 resulted in increased fees?

As US champion he could have expected better attendance
at his simultaneous exhibitions, perhaps even charged
higher fees. And might well have gained some money from
patrons. The US title didn't mean a heck of a lot in
Europe, but I suspect that with it he'd have been in a
better position to get some of his expenses paid. He
might, in that case, have continued to improve by way
of tough tournament practice in Europe, instead of returning
to the US and attempting to make a living (IIRC he co-founded
Chess Review). Alekhine once said that Kashdan was a
likely future world champion.

William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

(zdrakec) wrote in message . com...

1. Why should Kashdan have been US Champ in the 30s, and what prevented this?
2. How was Kashdan cheated in the 40s by an insane TD?
3. How would Kashdan being champ in 31 resulted in increased fees?

Mr. Hyde may answer himself, but I will put my two cents worth in on
his behalf:

1. It was generally conceded in the early 1930s that Kashdan was
superior to the aging Marshall, but the Great Depression made it
virtually impossible for Kashdan to raise enough backing for a US
title match. Marshall refused for years either to lower the title
match stakes or relinquish the title. By the time he did so, 1936,
Kashdan had been surpassed by Reshevsky, Fine and Simonson. So there
were several years, roughly 1928-1934, when Kashdan was de facto US
champion but not de jure. This was at least recognized by the fact
that he played top board on US Olympic teams during this time. I would
recommend "New York 1936" by Hilbert and Lahde, for a thorough
examination of this subject.
2. I suspect this is a reference to the 1942 championship, when
Denker was wrongly forfeited by TD L. Walter Stephens in a game with
Reshevsky. Though Denker was the direct victim, Kashdan was hurt
indirectly. Had Reshevsky been forfeited (as was correct), and had all
other results been the same, Kashdan would have won by one point over
Denker and Reshevsky. Instead, he and Reshevsky tied, and Reshevsky
won a playoff match.
3. The title of US Champion would almost certainly have benefited
Kashdan financially, due to more and better-paying tournament
invitations.

Taylor Kingston

Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hyde:

Thanks much for the knowledge. I begin to think that there should be a
rec.games.chess.history group...

Cheers,

zdrakec

wrote in message ...
(zdrakec) writes:

Hello wt:

Could you flesh these comments out a bit?
1. Why should Kashdan have been US Champ in the 30s, and what prevented this?

Kashdan was clearly stronger than the champion, Marshall,
circa 1931. However, the championship was decided by
match play, not by a tournament as it is now. The challenger
had to raise the stakes - and Marshall determined what the
required stakes would be. Kashdan could not raise the money.
In fact only one person, Edward Lasker, ever played a match
against Marshall when he was champion (Marshall won by a
single point).

Marshall resigned the title in favour of the present tournament
system in the mid 1930s, but by that time Reshevsky and Fine
had caught up with Kashdan, who never managed to win a US
championship. He tied one year, but lost the playoff.

2. How was Kashdan cheated in the 40s by an insane TD?

It is hard to believe, but well attested, that the TD forfeited
the wrong person in a US championship game in the 1940s (he
picked up the clock from *behind*, rotated it so that he
could see it, and forfeited the person on whose side the
fallen flag now was). And refused to change the result when
his mistake was pointed out. This gave Reshevsky an
undeserved half point extra. Now I believe, but on second
thought can't be sure without checking, that this was
the tournament in which Reshevsky and Kashdan tied for
first. Reshevsky won the playoff.

3. How would Kashdan being champ in 31 resulted in increased fees?

As US champion he could have expected better attendance
at his simultaneous exhibitions, perhaps even charged
higher fees. And might well have gained some money from
patrons. The US title didn't mean a heck of a lot in
Europe, but I suspect that with it he'd have been in a
better position to get some of his expenses paid. He
might, in that case, have continued to improve by way
of tough tournament practice in Europe, instead of returning
to the US and attempting to make a living (IIRC he co-founded
Chess Review). Alekhine once said that Kashdan was a
likely future world champion.

William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

(David Ames) wrote in message . com...

I believe Fine was, unlike Kashdan and Horowitz,
well known on the European circuit. [...]

David Ames

True, Fine was known better than the others,
but that was not the point.

Keres and Fine had the highest (equal) scores
at the AVRO tournament, which was considered
to be an "official" qualifying event.

Due to his success, Fine had even the nerve to
insist that he and Keres should be called
world cochampions.

Fine was consistently and conveniently
forgetting a tiny-tiny detail: despite
the equal score, there was only ONE
winner of the AVRO tournament, and it was
Keres and only Keres--because Keres won
the tournament on the tie-break, mainly
due to his win over Fine in their face
to face meeting.

Regards,

Wlod

(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in message om...

Due to his success, Fine had even the nerve to insist that he and Keres should be called world cochampions.

When did Fine "insist"? The relevant passage from the 1976 edition
of "The World's Great Chess Games," where he discusses the Soviets'
huffy withdrawal from the proposed tournament in 1947, does not sound
like insistence:

"Legally there were various possibilities. Euwe might have reclaimed
the title, as the last official champion before Alekhine. Or Keres and
Fine could have been declared co-champions on the basis of their joint
victory in the AVRO tournament. Or Euwe, Fine and Reshevsky might have
played a three-cornered tournament to decide the championship. Or the
free world might have chosen a champion, and the communist world been
left to choose its own; then the two could have met for the world
championship."

The Fine/Keres co-championship is only one of several possibilities,
none of which are "insisted" upon. Did Fine insist in some other book?
Just curious.

Taylor Kingston

(Taylor Kingston) wrote in message . com...
(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in message om...

Due to his success, Fine had even the nerve
to insist that he and Keres should be called
world cochampions.

When did Fine "insist"?

I rely on my memory only. Thus
my recollections are prone to
overstatement or even outright
errors (but not too bad :-)
-- only very recently I have recovered
my Oxford Companion.

Regards,

Wlod
*************

The relevant passage from the 1976 edition
of "The World's Great Chess Games," where he discusses the Soviets'
huffy withdrawal from the proposed tournament in 1947, does not sound
like insistence:

"Legally there were various possibilities. Euwe might have reclaimed
the title, as the last official champion before Alekhine. Or Keres and
Fine could have been declared co-champions on the basis of their joint
victory in the AVRO tournament. Or Euwe, Fine and Reshevsky might have
played a three-cornered tournament to decide the championship. Or the
free world might have chosen a champion, and the communist world been
left to choose its own; then the two could have met for the world
championship."

The Fine/Keres co-championship is only one of several possibilities,
none of which are "insisted" upon. Did Fine insist in some other book?
Just curious.

Taylor Kingston