"The precise meaning of the term 'consensus history' is still debated
among historians, but the generally accepted definition is that it
described a view of American history that emphasized unity of thought,
and one that, practiced uncritically, reduced the history of the United
States to a chronicle of the exploits of rich and successful white
males. (There's hardly anyone else in Daniel Boorstin's trilogy The
Americans, for instance, as demonstrated by Peter Charles Hoffer in his
book Past Imperfect.) Consensus chess history is likewise a streamlined
and bowdlerized chronology, restricting itself to the coming and going
of grandmasters, and recycling the same stock of stories each time."

http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/books.htm

In article .com, The
Historian wrote:

"The precise meaning of the term 'consensus history' is still debated
among historians, but the generally accepted definition is that it
described a view of American history that emphasized unity of thought,
and one that, practiced uncritically, reduced the history of the United
States to a chronicle of the exploits of rich and successful white
males. (There's hardly anyone else in Daniel Boorstin's trilogy The
Americans, for instance, as demonstrated by Peter Charles Hoffer in his
book Past Imperfect.) Consensus chess history is likewise a streamlined
and bowdlerized chronology, restricting itself to the coming and going
of grandmasters, and recycling the same stock of stories each time."

http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/books.htm



May I say then that this homogeneity of historical treatment is
disrupted by the columns and books of Edward Winter?

See: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/archives.html

He re-examines anecdotes, history, photos and positions to see if the
truth is known about them. Glancing at his columns for last year, I see
notes in them on: the term ³fianchetto², missing game scores, chess
quotations, chess graves, the Rice Gambit, discrepancies in Alekhine's
game scores, Showalter and baseball, the first chess computers, the
Terrazas mystery, chess signatures, The Pillsbury Family, Sam Loyd and
the 15 Puzzle, Books on Fischer, Kasparov, Alekhine and Capablanca.

Such a re-examination of the accepted some might find as nitpicking. I
do not. With such an abundance of sources, there could not be a better
time to look at the past and Winter has a passion for it. I wish the
process could pass through a Wikipedia devoted entirely to chess and
then something like a handsome twelve-volume chess encyclopedia based
on the entries. Yes, I know that electronically it could be kept more
up-to-date - still, if in my retirement, I am drinking a late night cup
and want to take down from its shelf the volume that treats with the
retirement from chess of David Mabbs and Garry Kasparov...why, I should
be able to.

And Murray's A History of Chess ends with chess in Europe in the 19th
Century. Someone has to step forward and write a balanced history of
20th century chess that is not mainly about world championship matches.

chiffres

The Historian wrote:

"The precise meaning of the term 'consensus history' is still debated
among historians, but the generally accepted definition is that it
described a view of American history that emphasized unity of thought,
and one that, practiced uncritically, reduced the history of the United
States to a chronicle of the exploits of rich and successful white
males. (There's hardly anyone else in Daniel Boorstin's trilogy The
Americans, for instance, as demonstrated by Peter Charles Hoffer in his
book Past Imperfect.)

Why pick on a "white males" focus? I have found that much of
what is taught as history is overly concerned with wars and
warmongering. Why, in many cases, there is so much space
spent on war and conquest, that virtually none is left for other
aspects of life. Even the rich, white males could be pinched,
barely able to merit a mention, except if they happened to wear
a general's stars, preferably on the winning side and in a major
clash.

Consensus chess history is likewise a streamlined
and bowdlerized chronology, restricting itself to the coming and going
of grandmasters, and recycling the same stock of stories each time."

I noticed this "recycling" too. And things always seem to be
slanted to favor the hero of the day, his excuses for ducking
elevated to valid reasons, those who ducked him, skewered as
miserable cowards, etc.

http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/books.htm

Very interesting reading. However, I was not too
impressed by the subject's strength of play, although
his reckless style would likely please lowly patzers to
a T. Just one example: in one of the games
listed, giving up the Queen to derail the attack on
Black's King required no Fritzian genius, just the
knowledge that the King *is* the most valuable
piece on the board. (I believe this insight can be
found in any brief summary of the rules of play.)

I wonder if writers like Mr. Hilbert are not discouraged
by a lack of sales volume? How many will choose to
buy a book about an unknown, when they have become
accustomed to reading only about the grandmasters
and chess openings? Perhaps money is not an issue
for the historian types. One other comment I would like
to make is that from personal experience I have learned
that these "original sources" (which historians are so
frequently praised for dutifully studying) are often
themselves flawed, containing gross errors of fact.
Hence, a citation from the original which purportedly
proves that Bobby Fischlinker played 1.h4 vs. Tiger
Petroleum could potentially be a typo, or a careless
assertion by an editor who quite simply had no clue
what he was writing about. Very few readers are sharp
enough to spot many of these errors, which tend to
get repeated, rendering the false impression of a
"consensus" among the copycats. And besides,
history is bunk.

-- help bot

chiffres wrote:


May I say then that this homogeneity of historical treatment is
disrupted by the columns and books of Edward Winter?

See: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/archives.html

He re-examines anecdotes, history, photos and positions to see if the
truth is known about them. Glancing at his columns for last year, I see
notes in them on: the term ³fianchetto², missing game scores, chess
quotations, chess graves, the Rice Gambit, discrepancies in Alekhine's
game scores, Showalter and baseball, the first chess computers, the
Terrazas mystery, chess signatures, The Pillsbury Family, Sam Loyd and
the 15 Puzzle, Books on Fischer, Kasparov, Alekhine and Capablanca.

Such a re-examination of the accepted some might find as nitpicking. I
do not. With such an abundance of sources, there could not be a better
time to look at the past and Winter has a passion for it. I wish the
process could pass through a Wikipedia devoted entirely to chess and
then something like a handsome twelve-volume chess encyclopedia based
on the entries. Yes, I know that electronically it could be kept more
up-to-date - still, if in my retirement, I am drinking a late night cup
and want to take down from its shelf the volume that treats with the
retirement from chess of David Mabbs and Garry Kasparov...why, I should
be able to.

And Murray's A History of Chess ends with chess in Europe in the 19th
Century. Someone has to step forward and write a balanced history of
20th century chess that is not mainly about world championship matches.

chiffres

Excellent points. The Historian, himself (sparing his blushes) is doing
excellent work, one might add.

Both the original post in this thread, and the review (to which the
link which it contains transports one) are excellent, IMO.

Mark

The Historian wrote:
"The precise meaning of the term 'consensus history' is still debated
among historians, but the generally accepted definition is that it
described a view of American history that emphasized unity of thought,
and one that, practiced uncritically, reduced the history of the United
States to a chronicle of the exploits of rich and successful white
males. (There's hardly anyone else in Daniel Boorstin's trilogy The
Americans, for instance, as demonstrated by Peter Charles Hoffer in his
book Past Imperfect.) Consensus chess history is likewise a streamlined
and bowdlerized chronology, restricting itself to the coming and going
of grandmasters, and recycling the same stock of stories each time."

http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/books.htm

History has always been like this. History is written
by someones personal perspectives. How do you
think George Bush (both of them) will go down in history?
It all depends on who is writting the book. Two people can
witness the exact same event and percieve it two
completely different ways. If you read Bill Clintons
memoir book it sounds like he did everything he
could to help the US economy. Now read Rush
Limbaugh and tell me what he thought Bill Clinton
did to the US economy.

I always take a 'history' book with a huge grain
of salt

J.Lohner 'historical skeptic'

Inconnux wrote:

The Historian wrote:
"The precise meaning of the term 'consensus history' is still debated
among historians, but the generally accepted definition is that it
described a view of American history that emphasized unity of thought,
and one that, practiced uncritically, reduced the history of the United
States to a chronicle of the exploits of rich and successful white
males. (There's hardly anyone else in Daniel Boorstin's trilogy The
Americans, for instance, as demonstrated by Peter Charles Hoffer in his
book Past Imperfect.) Consensus chess history is likewise a streamlined
and bowdlerized chronology, restricting itself to the coming and going
of grandmasters, and recycling the same stock of stories each time."

http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/books.htm

History has always been like this. History is written
by someones personal perspectives. How do you
think George Bush (both of them) will go down in history?
It all depends on who is writting the book. Two people can
witness the exact same event and percieve it two
completely different ways. If you read Bill Clintons
memoir book it sounds like he did everything he
could to help the US economy. Now read Rush
Limbaugh and tell me what he thought Bill Clinton
did to the US economy.

I always take a 'history' book with a huge grain
of salt

J.Lohner 'historical skeptic'

It depends upon the author, as you said, and also on the period under
consideration.

Alan Bullock is pretty reliable. So, for example, is Rhodri
Jeffreys-Jones.

M.Houlsby 'skeptical about everything, especially skepticism'