On Jan 17, 2:55 pm, "Inconnux" wrote:

Even if they were found to exist, I again ask what would any of us
do if our wives were being threatened.

A very apt question. Assuming Alekhine did write the articles in
question, or knowingly let his name be given to them, we have no idea
what penalty the Nazis may have threatened or reward they offered. It
would have been very difficult to resist, and Alekhine does not impress
me as the martyr type.
A fictional parallel may be the character Aaron Jastrow from Herman
Wouk's novel "War and Remembrance." He was played by Sir John Gielgud
in the 1988 TV adaptation. The Nazis kept trying to persuade and/or
coerce Jastrow, a widely respected and internationally famous Jewish
scholar, to write articles serving German propaganda aims. He resisted,
and ultimately died in an Auschwitz gas chamber. Perhaps Alekhine faced
a similar choice.
On the other hand, Alekhine may not have required much persuading. I
recall reading (forgive me, I can't recall where) that the
Franco-Polish GM (and Jew) Savielly Tartakower, who knew Alekhine well,
commented after WW II that Alekhine's anti-Semitism had been a matter
of common knowledge, at least among the chess community, for decades.
If I recall correctly, he considered it somewhat hypocritical and
opportunistic that the chess world shunned him only after his WW II
collaboration.

I find the whole idea of ethnicity in how you play rather strange.

Nazi ideology is indeed very strange. They even tried to claim that
there was a "Jewish physics," as if somehow the laws of nature were
different depending on the ethnicity of the observer.

"Inconnux" wrote in message
ps.com...

Chess One wrote:
The issue of whether he wrote them seems always contested, but wasn't a
version in his own hand found at his home? In fact under his own bed, and
by
his wife? Why would he even keep a copy, and why there, subject to
discovery?


Even if they were found to exist, I again ask what would any of us
do if our wives were being threatened.

Yes - though this too is surmise. Was she?

Does your copy include or subsume material from "107 Great Chess Battles,
1939-1945" ? Edward Winter [ed. and translator], and which acknowledges
in
the preface Bernard Cafferty's contribution 'for clearing up a number of
obscure points'. (Though it is not said which points Winter found obscure
in
1979).


No this is a seperate book by dover. My book contains about 200 games

The title mentions the character of many famous players, and is perhaps
also
notable for -not- making any comments like those in the two paragraphs
above. Not even the slightest whiff of differentiating comment based on
ethnicity.

I find the whole idea of ethnicity in how you play rather strange. Yes
there
are 'school' of playing (ie russian) but to group a widespread ethnic
group
such as Jewish people are is just rediculous.

Yes - some time ago [6 years?] someone wrote to me about a bad Alekhine
joke - he was returning to his hotel late, and probably pretty oiled - and
he banged on the door of a fellow player, a jewish person and said loudly '
ve vill come for you in ze morning!'

and when told that this player didn't sleep at all, was then truly upset at
his joke, apologised

sometimes this is the way it is between ideas and actual feelings - even if
the idea in this case was merely that of a drunk

But to go to Krakow in 1942 was quite different, and even though he
played
Bogo a great game there [A 6. h4 French, introduced at Mannheim 1914 says
AA], the man he played skittles with and accepted hospitality from, was a
dark lord indeed - the butcher of Krakow - Hans Franck. He also played in
Prague in 1943 and then left northern Europe.

Did he know him as a butcher?

Well, this is the question.

Still even though he might have had
some inclination of this, if such a person wanted to play him a game
I doubt he could have refused.

hm

It seems incredible to think that Alekhine would have thought the Nazis
were
behaving in Poland the same way they were in France - though he would
certainly not be alone in a naive appraisal - and whether this Krakow
visit
was naive, but became a causal factor for him to leave the occupied
zones,
or whether Alekhine was truly asocially indifferent to much beyond chess,
is
a subject that a psychologically capable researcher might investigate.

perhaps he was just trying to live his life as normally as possible.
He went
to this tournament because it was there. Many people in wartimes try
to
do this.

yes - it is tempting to want to 'save' him, no? but who knows how he was,
and even if he was as some say, rather indifferent to any sort of society,
and it made little idfference to him [other than as intellectual exercise]
what he said on social issues?

In my edition of Alexander Alekhines best games of chess. The forward
to
the 'second book' is done by J.Du Mont. who
makes the claim that Alekhine denied writing those
articles.

he did not deny them very vehemently

btw; there is a bbc radio recording from the late 30's which has just been
uncovered with a brief interview with him - unexpectedly maybe, his voice is
high, and a bit squeeky - i thought this was the fault of the recording
having no bass, but his interviewer [unknown person] sounded normal.

phil

On the other hand, Alekhine may not have required much persuading. I
recall reading (forgive me, I can't recall where) that the
Franco-Polish GM (and Jew) Savielly Tartakower, who knew Alekhine well,
commented after WW II that Alekhine's anti-Semitism had been a matter
of common knowledge, at least among the chess community, for decades.
If I recall correctly, he considered it somewhat hypocritical and
opportunistic that the chess world shunned him only after his WW II
collaboration.

Thats interesting because A.Alekhine wanted a practice match
against dr. Tartakower before his match in england against
M.Botvinnik. I have to wonder why he would chose a 'jew' if
he truely authored those letters.

I guess that I try to believe the best of people until it is
proven to me that they are guilty. I have
absolutely No respect for Fischer is he has proven
what an idiot he is. Alekhine situation seems to be
unproven.

On Jan 18, 12:40 am, "Inconnux" wrote:

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On the other hand, Alekhine may not have required much persuading. I
recall reading (forgive me, I can't recall where) that the
Franco-Polish GM (and Jew) Savielly Tartakower, who knew Alekhine well,
commented after WW II that Alekhine's anti-Semitism had been a matter
of common knowledge, at least among the chess community, for decades.
If I recall correctly, he considered it somewhat hypocritical and
opportunistic that the chess world shunned him only after his WW II
collaboration.

Thats interesting because A.Alekhine wanted a practice match
against dr. Tartakower before his match in england against
M.Botvinnik. I have to wonder why he would chose a 'jew' if
he truely authored those letters.

I guess that I try to believe the best of people until it is
proven to me that they are guilty. I have
absolutely No respect for Fischer is he has proven
what an idiot he is. Alekhine situation seems to be
unproven.

I'd say the case against him is very strong, and he provided the main
evidence himself. While the alledgedly recovered manuscripts have not
been shown to the world, Alekhine seems to have admitted his authorship
in interviews given to two Madrid publications in September 1941, i.e.
about six months after the Pariser Zeitung articles appeared. I quote
again from the Winter article at
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhine.html, with the key
portions emphasized:

"El Alcázar reported: 'He [Alekhine] added that in the German
magazine Deutsche Schachzeitung and the German daily Pariser Zeitung,
currently published in Paris, he had been the first to deal with chess
from THE RACIAL POINT OF VIEW.'"

"Alekhine told Valentín González of Informaciones about his
intention to give lectures '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.' Moreover, Alekhine was
quoted as saying that he was not in favour in the United States and
England 'as a result of SOME ARTICLES I WROTE IN THE GERMAN PRESS
....' When asked which players he most admired Alekhine's published
reply was: '... I must stress the greatest glory of Capablanca, which
was to ELIMINATE THE JEW LASKER from the world chess throne.'

If by "some articles I wrote in the German press" AA is referring to
something besides the PZ Aryan chess articles, it's hard to imagine
what, especially considering his surrounding comments. Whether or not
he wrote for PZ under duress, he seems to be freely, even proudly,
claiming authorship here.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

"El Alcázar reported: 'He [Alekhine] added that in the German
magazine Deutsche Schachzeitung and the German daily Pariser Zeitung,
currently published in Paris, he had been the first to deal with chess
from THE RACIAL POINT OF VIEW.'"

"Alekhine told Valentín González of Informaciones about his
intention to give lectures '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.' Moreover, Alekhine was
quoted as saying that he was not in favour in the United States and
England 'as a result of SOME ARTICLES I WROTE IN THE GERMAN PRESS
...' When asked which players he most admired Alekhine's published
reply was: '... I must stress the greatest glory of Capablanca, which
was to ELIMINATE THE JEW LASKER from the world chess throne.'

If by "some articles I wrote in the German press" AA is referring to
something besides the PZ Aryan chess articles, it's hard to imagine
what, especially considering his surrounding comments. Whether or not
he wrote for PZ under duress, he seems to be freely, even proudly,
claiming authorship here.

People may say just about anything given the audience they are playing
to. WHile in Fascist controled Madrid he may have determined the best
way to insure his safety would be to "play the part" for the benefit of
his safety.
As with anything, context is crucial Had he voiced such feelings openly
while in the UK or in America,they would have been,IMHO, conclusivly
damning.
Rob

"Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...

Taylor Kingston wrote:
.

If by "some articles I wrote in the German press" AA is referring to
something besides the PZ Aryan chess articles, it's hard to imagine
what, especially considering his surrounding comments. Whether or not
he wrote for PZ under duress, he seems to be freely, even proudly,
claiming authorship here.

People may say just about anything given the audience they are playing
to. WHile in Fascist controled Madrid he may have determined the best
way to insure his safety would be to "play the part" for the benefit of
his safety.

---
There were 106 Abwehr agents in Madrid compared to 6 OSS agents. There were
indeed assassinations. Removing himself to Lisbon hardly improved his
situation since the primary Japanese listening post into Europe was located
there, and again, assassinations were not uncommon. Though why he /should/
be assassinated is not known. Its amusing to read stories speculating on
Alekhine's death, including that he really was assassinated [shot outside
his room]. An article in NiC mentioned a few aspect of this, including that
Fred Friedel apparently believes it, plus an alas, an unnamed Frenchman who
attested it.

Incidentally, here is the audio clip of Alekhine:
http://www.bobby-fischer.net/AlekineInterview.html if anyone can identify
the interviewer from his voice, bbc would like to know.



As with anything, context is crucial Had he voiced such feelings openly
while in the UK or in America,they would have been,IMHO, conclusivly
damning.

---
Well, it /was/ reported in the British Press at the time, and by all
accounts after the war there was resentment by top-players to Alekhine's
reintroduction to the chess scene, based on London paper's reporting of it.
Max Euwe eventually decided the issue by, remarkably, voting for AA to be
readmitted, saying, "humanity is the best revenge."

But more generally there was a considerable amount of open anti-semitism in
France at the time, and even after the war too! But there was also covert
anti-semitism in England, with clubs attended by people of some status who
should be ashamed of themselves, which operated long-after the war with
no-jews policies.

Rob

Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Jan 15, 6:31 am, "Rob" wrote:
Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history may

enjoy.

http://www.chessville.com/misc/Histo...ttes/index.htm

Check it out. It is unique in that it is reader driven.

A few things in the Frank Marshall article strike me as odd:

1) Marhalll is described as "conqueror of Lasker, Capablanca,
Rubinstein." While he did win some games against these three, overall
he had a decidedly losing record against them, especially the first
two: +2 -12 =11 vs. Lasker, +2 -22 =28 vs. Capablanca, and +9 -11
=16 vs. Rubinstein. These are hardly the stats of a conqueror. It would
have been more accurate to say something like "At various times
Marshall won games against Lasker, Capablanca, Rubinstein and other
greats of his day."

2) "In 1904 [Marshall] won the Cambridge Springs event by 1.5
points over Lasker; it was Lasker's first tournament defeat in ten
years!" If by "tournament defeat" you mean that Lasker failed to
take first place, the span of time involved was not ten years, but well
less than nine. The Hastings tournament, where Lasker placed 3rd,
finished on 2 September 1895, while Cambridge Springs ended 19 May
1904, making the time span 8 years, 8 months, and 17 days.

3) "Frank Marshall's fighting style and sense of fair play made
his games exciting to watch." While a sense of fair play can make one
an honorable person, it has no bearing on whether one's games are
exciting to watch. Any move allowed by the rules is fair.

Regarding this last point, I think they may have been talking about
the problem relating to those players who abused any lack of strict
time controls back then. I have often read complaints about certain
players, who basically refused to lose via practically refusing to move

after running into trouble on the board. Such players may be regarded
as unsportsmanlike, even if the tournament rules technically allowed
for unlimited thinking time per move. The same principle applies
today,
for skittles games.

-- help bot

Taylor Kingston wrote:

7) Of Kashdan's Olympic record, the article says "He won two
gold, one silver, one bronze, individual medals and one fourth place
overall finish." This is wording is a bit awkward and creates some
confusion

Doctor -- heal thyself!

Another slip was the misspelling of Frank Marshall's last name,
as something like -- wait for it -- "Marsalll"! That's right, a triple
L,
and some other letter missing altogether.

And for the record, although "Dr." Alekhine may have finished
ahead of me at San Remo, it was only by the teensy-weensy
margin of fifteen points (hardly even worth mentioning, really).
I say that tournament shouldn't count; clearly, there was some
sort of computer program cheating going on (I think he must
have had Rybka 2.0).

-- last-place bot

Rob wrote:

What a bizarre statement. Your ability to mishandle logic is truly
dazzling.

Thank You.

Don't get a big head; there are plenty of others around here who can
compete on fully equal terms. Not the least of which would be your
friend, IM Innes.

It has been
interesting to watch your personality and disposition change online
over the last two years Taylor. You have become a much harsher and less
tolerant and helpful person.

Quite an accomplishment, considering how brief a timespan. Now,
projecting forward: what do you see coming *next*?

Rob, I will be blunt. You might consider that your behavior here --
including (but not limited to) obtuseness, refusal to accept facts,
glaring logical fallacy, intellectual dishonesty, and a tendency to
meddle in matters of which by your own admission you are totally
ignorant -- rather quickly exhaust one's store of tolerance. And your
persistence in these tendencies indicates that help is wasted on you.

Taylor, I will also be blunt. you have a particularly annoying tendancy
to become obtuse and abrasive over small points of syntax.

That's "tendency", you nitwit. And who are you calling abrasive,
muddlehead? Look, TK has this stack of books, writ by experts.
Now who are you gonna believe, them, or some guy who can't
remember who played in what tourney, or who conquered all the
greats? I say it's obvious. You take Sam Remo, for instance. In
1930 -- right after the end of WWII -- he went and took clear first
at the Alekhine tourney, ahead of Nesmowitch. Everybody knows
this -- it's kids stuff. Just give it up -- you're beaten, Mr.
Michell.

I always gnue that me an' Edward Winter wood win out in the end.
But I never expected TK to be their two.

-- expert bot

Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Jan 15, 4:56 pm, "Rob" wrote:

I believe that any contribution can be useful. It is hepful if the
information is more factually accurate.

This is rather like saying "Any kind of restaurant is useful. It is
helpful if they actually serve edible food."

Nonsense. Even complete chess fiction -- like say, Larry Parr's
stuff -- can serve as interesting material to the uninitiated, perhaps
even drawing them in so they can eventually learn about real chess
events as they actually occurred.


Where is disagree is in
claiming it is "irresponsible and injurious to chess history". If
something is "wrong" then it's just "wrong". It isn't evil.

Rob, I would have hoped that since I just pointed out your habitual
tendency toward the straw-man fallacy, you would have the good sense to
avoid it. Have I (or anyone) said the of sort factual error seen in
"Chessville Vignettes" is "evil"? No. But it is error.

Hair splitter. You implied it was bad, and bad resembles evil,
does it not?


And if it
makes someone want to learn and read more about the person or the
subject, then it's a good thing.

Are you seriously trying to claim that error is just as good as fact
if it inspires interest? I hope not. Sounds like the sort of argument
the supermarket tabloids would make, that unfounded gossip about movie
stars is better than truth because more people like to read it.

Not better, just more appealing to the common folk.

I recently watched an old classic movie in black and white.
They referred to the radio as "the wireless", and when a very
boring program came on, the star turned it off. Now, that
boring program was probably chock full of factual material,
but he found it unappetizing, all the same.


As I see it, the currentchess [sic]

See what RM meant? Any fool can see a space was omitted,
but the hair splitter insists on treating this missing character
as though it were a *major issue*. It wouldn't surprise me if
TK and Louis Blair keep tabs on the exact percentage of
typos and misspelled words for each poster here. (Say, could
you use this info to determine who is the REAL fake Sam Sloan?)

literature is playing to the choir and doing little to engage the
general public.

Rob, having read countless chess books of all types over a span of
more than 40 years,

Never trust anyone over thirty!

and having reviewed over 120 books for
ChessCafe.com, I think in all humility

(cackles uncontrollably)


I may reasonably suggest that I
know a bit more about "currentchess literature" than you or the average
bear.

Okay, Yogi. You gonna get us another pic-i-nick basket, Yogi?
I'm getting hungry. -- Boo-boo

I also submit that you are again displaying your not
inconsiderable ignorance.

Um, simpler was... considerable ignorance, without the "not".


If chess is to grow, then the general public to the
direction historians /autohors should direct their efforts.

Babelfish again fails me on this.

One day you may learn to think for yourself, instead of
always relying on someone else -- like this babblefish of
yours -- to do it for you. Here is the correct translation,
which of course you would have been able to do by yourself
if you had an IQ as high as, say, Jason Repa, or a hundred
other rgc posters (going by what they claim):

If chess is to grow, then historians and authors should
direct their efforts toward the general public.

[Compare and contrast this to the infighting and backbiting
which seems to be the main interest at present.]


Otherwise
we simply have only boring,dry colorless textbooks to read from instead
of colorful engaging novels.

My friend, you are a prime candidate for Larry Parr's next
fiction novel: "How Bobby Fischer Crushed the Soviet Empire,
smashed their evil regime, and broke the inpenetrable 2700 barrier",
volume six.

"Engaging novels"?? So you admit that you want to promote fiction
rather than fact? As far as "boring, dry colorless texbooks" are
concerned, you once again demonstrate a staggering ignorance of recent
chess literature. You also seem totally unaware of the strong recent
surge in general-interest chess books. And to think that "Chess
Vignettes" is contributing to that trend is like a child thinking its
bathtub waves have augmented a Pacific Ocean tsunami.

Give me a lever long enough, and I can move the world!

Rob, to paraphrase Churchill, seldom has someone so uninformed made
such sweeping claims based on so little knowledge. I strongly advise
you to refrain from posting on rgc until you learn at least to
differentiate the distal end of the humerus from the gluteus maximus.

Again, the pompous attitude rears its ugly head. I see this same
nastiness in the postings of Jason Repa, who BTW also seems to
think no one but himself ought to post here!

-- help bot