I have read about so many major chess events which had great
controversies that I thought it might be interesting to look at things
from a different perspective. What are some of the most important
events in chess history which did not have controversies associated
with them?

Jerry Spinrad

On Dec 12, 12:52 pm, "
wrote:
I have read about so many major chess events which had great
controversies that I thought it might be interesting to look at things
from a different perspective. What are some of the most important
events in chess history which did not have controversies associated
with them?

Well, I'm not sure it's all that interesting a topic, but here are a
few as far as I know:

The World Championship matches 1951-1969, being basically just
internal Soviet affairs, went rather smoothly, as far as I know or
recall. Boris Vainstein tried to finagle with the 1951 format (to no
avail), and there was some question whether Tal was healthy enough to
play in 1961 (he probably wasn't but he did anyway), but not much else
to my recollection. This is in definite contrast to some other WCh
matches and their attendant negotiations, e.g. Lasker-Tarrasch,
Lasker-Capablanca, and of course Fischer-Spassky and Karpov-Korchnoi.
The difference, of course, is that the Soviet players were in effect
all employees of the same company.
I don't think any major controversy surrounded various other WCh
matches, such as Lasker vs. Marshall or Janowski, the two Alekhine-Euwe
or Alekhine-Bogolyubov tilts, or Steinitz's vs. Chigorin or Gunsberg.
Some major tournaments have had controversies, e.g. the matter of the
clock at New York 1924, Denker getting wrongly forfeited in a US
Championship, the gripes about playing conditions for AVRO 1938, or the
matter of who should have been invited to Hague-Moscow 1948. But on the
whole I don't recall hearing of any major problems for most such
events, so you would have any number of non-controversial choices
there.
On the whole this strikes me as an unpromising topic. People get
excited over stories with good-vs-bad-guys and/or major obstacles being
overcome. They have drama. Stories where everything proceeds smoothly
are dull.

I have seen some controversies raised regarding some of the Soviet era
matches, but these are a little outside of my area of expertise.
Therefore, I will look to see what I can find regarding the Steinitz
matches. It is hard to imagine a Steinitz match without SOME
controversy.

Jerry Spinrad

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Dec 12, 12:52 pm, "
wrote:
I have read about so many major chess events which had great
controversies that I thought it might be interesting to look at things
from a different perspective. What are some of the most important
events in chess history which did not have controversies associated
with them?

Well, I'm not sure it's all that interesting a topic, but here are a
few as far as I know:

The World Championship matches 1951-1969, being basically just
internal Soviet affairs, went rather smoothly, as far as I know or
recall. Boris Vainstein tried to finagle with the 1951 format (to no
avail), and there was some question whether Tal was healthy enough to
play in 1961 (he probably wasn't but he did anyway), but not much else
to my recollection. This is in definite contrast to some other WCh
matches and their attendant negotiations, e.g. Lasker-Tarrasch,
Lasker-Capablanca, and of course Fischer-Spassky and Karpov-Korchnoi.
The difference, of course, is that the Soviet players were in effect
all employees of the same company.
I don't think any major controversy surrounded various other WCh
matches, such as Lasker vs. Marshall or Janowski, the two Alekhine-Euwe
or Alekhine-Bogolyubov tilts, or Steinitz's vs. Chigorin or Gunsberg.
Some major tournaments have had controversies, e.g. the matter of the
clock at New York 1924, Denker getting wrongly forfeited in a US
Championship, the gripes about playing conditions for AVRO 1938, or the
matter of who should have been invited to Hague-Moscow 1948. But on the
whole I don't recall hearing of any major problems for most such
events, so you would have any number of non-controversial choices
there.
On the whole this strikes me as an unpromising topic. People get
excited over stories with good-vs-bad-guys and/or major obstacles being
overcome. They have drama. Stories where everything proceeds smoothly
are dull.

"Some major tournaments have had controversies, e.g. the matter of the
clock at New York 1924"

Details, please?

Regards,

zdrakec

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Dec 12, 12:52 pm, "
wrote:
I have read about so many major chess events which had great
controversies that I thought it might be interesting to look at things
from a different perspective. What are some of the most important
events in chess history which did not have controversies associated
with them?

Well, I'm not sure it's all that interesting a topic, but here are a
few as far as I know:

The World Championship matches 1951-1969, being basically just
internal Soviet affairs, went rather smoothly, as far as I know or
recall. Boris Vainstein tried to finagle with the 1951 format (to no
avail), and there was some question whether Tal was healthy enough to
play in 1961 (he probably wasn't but he did anyway), but not much else
to my recollection. This is in definite contrast to some other WCh
matches and their attendant negotiations, e.g. Lasker-Tarrasch,
Lasker-Capablanca, and of course Fischer-Spassky and Karpov-Korchnoi.
The difference, of course, is that the Soviet players were in effect
all employees of the same company.
I don't think any major controversy surrounded various other WCh
matches, such as Lasker vs. Marshall or Janowski, the two Alekhine-Euwe
or Alekhine-Bogolyubov tilts, or Steinitz's vs. Chigorin or Gunsberg.
Some major tournaments have had controversies, e.g. the matter of the
clock at New York 1924, Denker getting wrongly forfeited in a US
Championship, the gripes about playing conditions for AVRO 1938, or the
matter of who should have been invited to Hague-Moscow 1948. But on the
whole I don't recall hearing of any major problems for most such
events, so you would have any number of non-controversial choices
there.
On the whole this strikes me as an unpromising topic. People get
excited over stories with good-vs-bad-guys and/or major obstacles being
overcome. They have drama. Stories where everything proceeds smoothly
are dull.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On the whole this strikes me as an unpromising topic. People get
excited over stories with good-vs-bad-guys and/or major obstacles being
overcome. They have drama. Stories where everything proceeds smoothly
are dull.

Only if dully presented.

On Dec 13, 9:22 am, "zdrakec" wrote:
"Some major tournaments have had controversies, e.g. the matter of the
clock at New York 1924"

Details, please?

See these articles at ChessCafe.com:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/lasker1.asc
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/lasker2.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/lasker3.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/lasker4.txt

wrote:

I have seen some controversies raised regarding some of the Soviet era
matches, but these are a little outside of my area of expertise.
Therefore, I will look to see what I can find regarding the Steinitz
matches. It is hard to imagine a Steinitz match without SOME
controversy.

Jerry Spinrad


Well, FWIW (and as you may know) in the final entry in his book:
"Kings, Commoners and Knaves (Further Chess Explorations)", Edward
Winter writes:

"How Steinitz Lost the World Championship

On page 182 of the August-September 1906 issue of "Lasker's Chess
Magazine", Emanuel Lasker wrote regarding his first match against
Steinitz:

'When Steinitz entered this contest he felt sure of victory. But when
fate went against him and he found himself, for the first time in his
life, beaten, he behaved with the utmost chivalry. His way of resigning
the last game of the match was to call for cheers for the new champion
of the world.'."

This is not to suggest that there was certainly no controversy at any
point during the match, of course, but it may be an indication of the
general spirit...

Mark Houlsby

On Dec 14, 11:24 am, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:
wrote:
I have seen some controversies raised regarding some of the Soviet era
matches, but these are a little outside of my area of expertise.
Therefore, I will look to see what I can find regarding the Steinitz
matches. It is hard to imagine a Steinitz match without SOME
controversy.

Jerry SpinradWell, FWIW (and as you may know) in the final entry in his book:
"Kings, Commoners and Knaves (Further Chess Explorations)", Edward

Winter writes:"How Steinitz Lost the World Championship

On page 182 of the August-September 1906 issue of "Lasker's Chess
Magazine", Emanuel Lasker wrote regarding his first match against
Steinitz:

'When Steinitz entered this contest he felt sure of victory. But when
fate went against him and he found himself, for the first time in his
life, beaten, he behaved with the utmost chivalry. His way of resigning
the last game of the match was to call for cheers for the new champion
of the world.'."

This is not to suggest that there was certainly no controversy at any
point during the match, of course, but it may be an indication of the
general spirit...

Steinitz was chivalrous in the incident you describe, but he soon got
rather nasty. Shortly after his March-May 1894 loss (+5 -10 =4 to
Lasker), he claimed it was just a fluke, and if he'd only not made so
many silly mistakes he would have won in fine style. He began pressing
Lasker for a rematch, and when Lasker didn't come around fast enough to
suit him, Steinitz claimed that Lasker had forfeited the title and that
he (Steinitz) was champion yet again. Not very chivalrous, really.
When he got his rematch, November 1897 - January 1897, he lost in
much worse fashion (+2 -10 =4, including a ½-5½ score in the first
six games), and became a bit unhinged. It was around this time that he
had some delusional episodes and was confined to a Russian mental
hospital February-March 1897.
This is all detailed in "The Steinitz Papers" (McFarland & Co, 2002)
edited by Kurt Landsberger.

Thank you, sir.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Dec 13, 9:22 am, "zdrakec" wrote:
"Some major tournaments have had controversies, e.g. the matter of the
clock at New York 1924"

Details, please?

See these articles at ChessCafe.com:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/lasker1.asc
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/lasker2.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/lasker3.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/lasker4.txt

On Dec 14, 11:55 am, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:24 am, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:





wrote:
I have seen some controversies raised regarding some of the Soviet era
matches, but these are a little outside of my area of expertise.
Therefore, I will look to see what I can find regarding the Steinitz
matches. It is hard to imagine a Steinitz match without SOME
controversy.

Jerry SpinradWell, FWIW (and as you may know) in the final entry in his book:
"Kings, Commoners and Knaves (Further Chess Explorations)", Edward

Winter writes:"How Steinitz Lost the World Championship

On page 182 of the August-September 1906 issue of "Lasker's Chess
Magazine", Emanuel Lasker wrote regarding his first match against
Steinitz:

'When Steinitz entered this contest he felt sure of victory. But when
fate went against him and he found himself, for the first time in his
life, beaten, he behaved with the utmost chivalry. His way of resigning
the last game of the match was to call for cheers for the new champion
of the world.'."

This is not to suggest that there was certainly no controversy at any
point during the match, of course, but it may be an indication of the
general spirit...

Steinitz was chivalrous in the incident you describe, but he soon got
rather nasty. Shortly after his March-May 1894 loss (+5 -10 =4 to
Lasker), he claimed it was just a fluke, and if he'd only not made so
many silly mistakes he would have won in fine style. He began pressing
Lasker for a rematch, and when Lasker didn't come around fast enough to
suit him, Steinitz claimed that Lasker had forfeited the title and that
he (Steinitz) was champion yet again. Not very chivalrous, really.
When he got his rematch, November 1897 - January 1897, he lost in
much worse fashion (+2 -10 =4, including a ½-5½ score in the first
six games), and became a bit unhinged. It was around this time that he
had some delusional episodes and was confined to a Russian mental
hospital February-March 1897.
This is all detailed in "The Steinitz Papers" (McFarland & Co, 2002)
edited by Kurt Landsberger.

Correction: in the above passage, "November 1897" s/b November 1896.