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.

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.

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 comments on the Kashdan article:

1) It says: "In 1932 [Kashdan] ... tied 2nd with Flohr at
Hastings." Incorrect. At Hastings 1931-32, Flohr was clear first,
Kashdan clear second. Neither of them tied with anyone else.

2) "He was 2nd, right behind Capablanca in New York, 1931." The
phrase "right behind" implies that Kashdan was only ½-point
behind, but in fact he was 1½ points behind, 8½-2½ to Capa's 10-1.

3) "In 1932 he tied 2nd behind Alekhine in Pasadena ..." Again,
incorrect. At Pasadena 1932, Alekhine was clear first, Kashdan clear
second. Neither of them tied with anyone else. I suspect the Polish
writer here has some problems with English, though elsewhere he uses
the word "tied" correctly.

4) "[Kashdan] was US Open Champion in 1938 (jointly) and 1947 but
never won the Open Championship outright." False. He won clear 1st in
the 1947 US Open. I suppose what was meant is that he never won the
Closed Championship.

5) "He tied with Samuel Reshevsky in 1942 US Open ..." False.
That was the 1942 US Championship, not the US Open. The writer does not
seem to understand the difference between the US Open, a Swiss System
event open to all comers, and the US Championship, which in Kashdan's
time was a round-robin tournament by invitation only.

6) "After World War II, Kashdan ... was also the co-founder of
Chess Review." I believe Kashdan was the sole founder of Chess
Review, and that was in 1933, not after WW II.

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 as to whether individual or team medals are being discussed.
As an individual, Kashdan had the following Olympic results:

1928: Best board one score (individual gold medal) and best overall
(86.7%).
1930: 4th-best board one score (82.4%, behind Alekhine, Rubinstein,
and Flohr). However, it was not a "fourth place overall finish" as
claimed in the article: Kashdan's score was also exceeded by
Havasi's 85.7% (+10 =4) at 5th board for Hungary.
1931: 3rd-best board one score (70.6%, behind Alekhine and
Bogolyubov, individual bronze medal).
1933: 2nd-best board one score (71.4%, behind Alekhine, individual
silver medal).
1937: Best board three score (87.5%, individual gold medal). This
appears to be the best overall score as well, though Foldeak's
"Chess Olympiads" says that prize went to Andre Steiner, despite
the crosstable showing him with a score of 80.6%.

US teams with Kashdan had the following results:

1928: 2nd place (silver medal)
1930: 6th place
1931: 1st place (gold medal)
1933: 1st place (gold medal)
1937: 1st place (gold medal)

8) "He defeated Lajos Steiner (+5, =2, -3) ..." The Oxford
Companion says the score was +5 -1, but checking other sources (e.g.
Feenstra Kuiper's "Hundert Jahre Schachzweikämpfe"), I believe
+5 -2 =3 is correct. If not, ChessBase has four spurious
Kashdan-Steiner games on its MegaDatabase 2005. It's nice that the
article gets at least this right.

9) "Few have contributed more to the development of the chess life
in USA than GM Isaac Kashdan." That is very true.

Hi Taylor,
Very good points! Nothing to quibble over with you.But some points
might be considered matters of opinion.

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 comments on the Kashdan article:

1) It says: "In 1932 [Kashdan] ... tied 2nd with Flohr at
Hastings." Incorrect. At Hastings 1931-32, Flohr was clear first,
Kashdan clear second. Neither of them tied with anyone else.


2) "He was 2nd, right behind Capablanca in New York, 1931." The
phrase "right behind" implies that Kashdan was only ½-point
behind, but in fact he was 1½ points behind, 8½-2½ to Capa's 10-1.

Right behind implies only that he was behind him. How close is
subjective.

3) "In 1932 he tied 2nd behind Alekhine in Pasadena ..." Again,
incorrect. At Pasadena 1932, Alekhine was clear first, Kashdan clear
second. Neither of them tied with anyone else. I suspect the Polish
writer here has some problems with English, though elsewhere he uses
the word "tied" correctly.


4) "[Kashdan] was US Open Champion in 1938 (jointly) and 1947 but
never won the Open Championship outright." False. He won clear 1st in
the 1947 US Open. I suppose what was meant is that he never won the
Closed Championship.

Again, I don't know but in defense of the author, if the championship
was played in an "open" format, then saying the "open championship" is
another hair splitter. But I don't know one way or the other.

5) "He tied with Samuel Reshevsky in 1942 US Open ..." False.
That was the 1942 US Championship, not the US Open. The writer does not
seem to understand the difference between the US Open, a Swiss System
event open to all comers, and the US Championship, which in Kashdan's
time was a round-robin tournament by invitation only.

There may be some confusion. I don't really know

6) "After World War II, Kashdan ... was also the co-founder of
Chess Review." I believe Kashdan was the sole founder of Chess
Review, and that was in 1933, not after WW II.

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 as to whether individual or team medals are being discussed.
As an individual, Kashdan had the following Olympic results:

1928: Best board one score (individual gold medal) and best overall
(86.7%).
1930: 4th-best board one score (82.4%, behind Alekhine, Rubinstein,
and Flohr). However, it was not a "fourth place overall finish" as
claimed in the article: Kashdan's score was also exceeded by
Havasi's 85.7% (+10 =4) at 5th board for Hungary.
1931: 3rd-best board one score (70.6%, behind Alekhine and
Bogolyubov, individual bronze medal).
1933: 2nd-best board one score (71.4%, behind Alekhine, individual
silver medal).
1937: Best board three score (87.5%, individual gold medal). This
appears to be the best overall score as well, though Foldeak's
"Chess Olympiads" says that prize went to Andre Steiner, despite
the crosstable showing him with a score of 80.6%.

US teams with Kashdan had the following results:

1928: 2nd place (silver medal)
1930: 6th place
1931: 1st place (gold medal)
1933: 1st place (gold medal)
1937: 1st place (gold medal)


8) "He defeated Lajos Steiner (+5, =2, -3) ..." The Oxford
Companion says the score was +5 -1, but checking other sources (e.g.
Feenstra Kuiper's "Hundert Jahre Schachzweikämpfe"), I believe
+5 -2 =3 is correct. If not, ChessBase has four spurious
Kashdan-Steiner games on its MegaDatabase 2005. It's nice that the
article gets at least this right.

Yep.

9) "Few have contributed more to the development of the chess life
in USA than GM Isaac Kashdan." That is very true.

If all of these errors are persent and documented, I would send them in
for inclusion in the article. They are alowing others to do the same.
Why not even you?
Rob

On Jan 15, 1:08 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Hi Taylor,
Very good points! Nothing to quibble over with you.

Yet you proceed to quibble.

But some points
might be considered matters of opinion.

No, only one (the meaning of "right behind") can be considered at all
a matter of opinion. The rest are matters of recorded, objective fact.

1) It says: "In 1932 [Kashdan] ... tied 2nd with Flohr at
Hastings." Incorrect. At Hastings 1931-32, Flohr was clear first,
Kashdan clear second. Neither of them tied with anyone else.
2) "He was 2nd, right behind Capablanca in New York, 1931." The
phrase "right behind" implies that Kashdan was only ½-point
behind, but in fact he was 1½ points behind, 8½-2½ to Capa's 10-1.

Right behind implies only that he was behind him. How close is
subjective.

Ah, then please tell us exactly what distance behind qualifies as
"right behind." Would these other 2nd-place finishers qualify?

Albin at New York 1893
Janowski, Pillsbury and Maroczy at London 1899
Nimzovitch at San Remo 1930
Bogolyubov at Bled 1931
Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election
McGovern in the 1972 presidential election
Sonny Liston in his rematch with Cassius Clay
Joe Frazier vs. George Foreman
Frank Bruno vs. Mike Tyson

3) "In 1932 he tied 2nd behind Alekhine in Pasadena ..." Again,
incorrect. At Pasadena 1932, Alekhine was clear first, Kashdan clear
second. Neither of them tied with anyone else. I suspect the Polish
writer here has some problems with English, though elsewhere he uses
the word "tied" correctly.
4) "[Kashdan] was US Open Champion in 1938 (jointly) and 1947 but
never won the Open Championship outright." False. He won clear 1st in
the 1947 US Open. I suppose what was meant is that he never won the
Closed Championship.

Again, I don't know but in defense of the author, if the championship
was played in an "open" format, then saying the "open championship" is
another hair splitter. But I don't know one way or the other.

Indeed you don't, Rob, or you would not say such a silly thing as "if
the championship was played in an 'open' format." That's rather like
saying "If the War of 1812 was fought in the 1950s ..."

5) "He tied with Samuel Reshevsky in 1942 US Open ..." False.
That was the 1942 US Championship, not the US Open. The writer does not
seem to understand the difference between the US Open, a Swiss System
event open to all comers, and the US Championship, which in Kashdan's
time was a round-robin tournament by invitation only.

There may be some confusion.

There is definitely confusion, Rob: yours and Mr. Bartelski's.

I don't really know

If you know nothing about this subject, then there is no point in
your commenting.

6) "After World War II, Kashdan ... was also the co-founder of
Chess Review." I believe Kashdan was the sole founder of Chess
Review, and that was in 1933, not after WW II.

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 as to whether individual or team medals are being discussed.
As an individual, Kashdan had the following Olympic results:

1928: Best board one score (individual gold medal) and best overall
(86.7%).
1930: 4th-best board one score (82.4%, behind Alekhine, Rubinstein,
and Flohr). However, it was not a "fourth place overall finish" as
claimed in the article: Kashdan's score was also exceeded by
Havasi's 85.7% (+10 =4) at 5th board for Hungary.
1931: 3rd-best board one score (70.6%, behind Alekhine and
Bogolyubov, individual bronze medal).
1933: 2nd-best board one score (71.4%, behind Alekhine, individual
silver medal).
1937: Best board three score (87.5%, individual gold medal). This
appears to be the best overall score as well, though Foldeak's
"Chess Olympiads" says that prize went to Andre Steiner, despite
the crosstable showing him with a score of 80.6%.

US teams with Kashdan had the following results:

1928: 2nd place (silver medal)
1930: 6th place
1931: 1st place (gold medal)
1933: 1st place (gold medal)
1937: 1st place (gold medal)

8) "He defeated Lajos Steiner (+5, =2, -3) ..." The Oxford
Companion says the score was +5 -1, but checking other sources (e.g.
Feenstra Kuiper's "Hundert Jahre Schachzweikämpfe"), I believe
+5 -2 =3 is correct. If not, ChessBase has four spurious
Kashdan-Steiner games on its MegaDatabase 2005. It's nice that the
article gets at least this right.

9) "Few have contributed more to the development of the chess life
in USA than GM Isaac Kashdan." That is very true.

If all of these errors are persent [sic] and documented, I would send them in
for inclusion in the article.

Rob, I do not want you to send anything of mine anywhere.

They are alowing others to do the same.
Why not even you?

I disagree with the whole approach Chessville is taking with "Chess
Vignettes." The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
history.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jan 15, 1:08 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Hi Taylor,
Very good points! Nothing to quibble over with you.

Yet you proceed to quibble.

But some points
might be considered matters of opinion.

No, only one (the meaning of "right behind") can be considered at all
a matter of opinion. The rest are matters of recorded, objective fact.

Again, That is your opinion Taylor. Closeness is subjective. There is
no where that I know of where you will find "right behind" defined as a
1/2 point difference.

1) It says: "In 1932 [Kashdan] ... tied 2nd with Flohr at
Hastings." Incorrect. At Hastings 1931-32, Flohr was clear first,
Kashdan clear second. Neither of them tied with anyone else.
2) "He was 2nd, right behind Capablanca in New York, 1931." The
phrase "right behind" implies that Kashdan was only ½-point
behind, but in fact he was 1½ points behind, 8½-2½ to Capa's 10-1.

Right behind implies only that he was behind him. How close is
subjective.


Ah, then please tell us exactly what distance behind qualifies as
"right behind." Would these other 2nd-place finishers qualify?

I don't know. I would imagine finishing 2nd behind someone who finished
1st would be right behind them in the standing and right ahead of the
third place finisher.

Albin at New York 1893
Janowski, Pillsbury and Maroczy at London 1899
Nimzovitch at San Remo 1930
Bogolyubov at Bled 1931
Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election
McGovern in the 1972 presidential election
Sonny Liston in his rematch with Cassius Clay
Joe Frazier vs. George Foreman
Frank Bruno vs. Mike Tyson

3) "In 1932 he tied 2nd behind Alekhine in Pasadena ..." Again,
incorrect. At Pasadena 1932, Alekhine was clear first, Kashdan clear
second. Neither of them tied with anyone else. I suspect the Polish
writer here has some problems with English, though elsewhere he uses
the word "tied" correctly.
4) "[Kashdan] was US Open Champion in 1938 (jointly) and 1947 but
never won the Open Championship outright." False. He won clear 1st in
the 1947 US Open. I suppose what was meant is that he never won the
Closed Championship.

Again, I don't know but in defense of the author, if the championship
was played in an "open" format, then saying the "open championship" is
another hair splitter. But I don't know one way or the other.


Indeed you don't, Rob, or you would not say such a silly thing as "if
the championship was played in an 'open' format." That's rather like
saying "If the War of 1812 was fought in the 1950s ..."

Taylor, you don't know either as neither of us possess the power to get
inside of another humans brain to determine their though processes. If
you have that power, let me know and I will gladly concede your
ability.
:-)

5) "He tied with Samuel Reshevsky in 1942 US Open ..." False.
That was the 1942 US Championship, not the US Open. The writer does not
seem to understand the difference between the US Open, a Swiss System
event open to all comers, and the US Championship, which in Kashdan's
time was a round-robin tournament by invitation only.

There may be some confusion.

There is definitely confusion, Rob: yours and Mr. Bartelski's.

I don't really know


If you know nothing about this subject, then there is no point in
your commenting.

Ah, now we come to the real issue.

6) "After World War II, Kashdan ... was also the co-founder of
Chess Review." I believe Kashdan was the sole founder of Chess
Review, and that was in 1933, not after WW II.

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 as to whether individual or team medals are being discussed.
As an individual, Kashdan had the following Olympic results:

1928: Best board one score (individual gold medal) and best overall
(86.7%).
1930: 4th-best board one score (82.4%, behind Alekhine, Rubinstein,
and Flohr). However, it was not a "fourth place overall finish" as
claimed in the article: Kashdan's score was also exceeded by
Havasi's 85.7% (+10 =4) at 5th board for Hungary.
1931: 3rd-best board one score (70.6%, behind Alekhine and
Bogolyubov, individual bronze medal).
1933: 2nd-best board one score (71.4%, behind Alekhine, individual
silver medal).
1937: Best board three score (87.5%, individual gold medal). This
appears to be the best overall score as well, though Foldeak's
"Chess Olympiads" says that prize went to Andre Steiner, despite
the crosstable showing him with a score of 80.6%.

US teams with Kashdan had the following results:

1928: 2nd place (silver medal)
1930: 6th place
1931: 1st place (gold medal)
1933: 1st place (gold medal)
1937: 1st place (gold medal)

8) "He defeated Lajos Steiner (+5, =2, -3) ..." The Oxford
Companion says the score was +5 -1, but checking other sources (e.g.
Feenstra Kuiper's "Hundert Jahre Schachzweikämpfe"), I believe
+5 -2 =3 is correct. If not, ChessBase has four spurious
Kashdan-Steiner games on its MegaDatabase 2005. It's nice that the
article gets at least this right.

9) "Few have contributed more to the development of the chess life
in USA than GM Isaac Kashdan." That is very true.

If all of these errors are persent [sic] and documented, I would send them in
for inclusion in the article.


Rob, I do not want you to send anything of mine anywhere.

oops. too late... they were already censored and deleted. :-)

They are alowing others to do the same.
Why not even you?

I disagree with the whole approach Chessville is taking with "Chess
Vignettes." The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
history.

If that were true... then only one volume or account of anything need
be done. That is a very arrogant position to take. 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. So many of your current posts contain
little of value but venom. I am sorry for this as the lose of
yourconcience is a great loss to those of us who may wish to profit
from your knowledge.
Rob

On Jan 15, 2:34 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:

I disagree with the whole approach Chessville is taking with "Chess
Vignettes." The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
history.

If that were true... then only one volume or account of anything need
be done.

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

That is a very arrogant position to take.

It would be, but I know of no one who takes it, least of all myself.

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.

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.

So many of your current posts contain
little of value but venom. I am sorry for this as the lose [sic] of
your concience [sic] ...

??? I put that through Babelfish, but it still didn't make sense.

is a great loss to those of us who may wish to profit
from your knowledge.

Anyone wishing to profit from what small knowledge I have is welcome
to do so. If and when you sincerely wish to, rather than make fatuous
disputes over matters not subject to dispute, please let me know.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jan 15, 2:34 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:

I disagree with the whole approach Chessville is taking with "Chess
Vignettes." The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
history.

If that were true... then only one volume or account of anything need
be done.


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

Thank You.

That is a very arrogant position to take.

It would be, but I know of no one who takes it, least of all myself.

Perhaps you think you didn't take it. In My opinion, you did by using
such exclusive qualifiers by labling others as "unqualified". As far as
I know there is no certification process for history writers. I am very
sure that the author could probably appologize to each of the 100 or so
"knowledgable" persons who take chess history authorship
to be such a pristine artform.

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.


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. But you are
not alone in this tendancy. There are many others who suffer from it
here as well. You also have an annoying tendancy to meddle into things
in which you were not invited or know nothing about. Let me correct
that, into things which by your estimation you have something of value
to contribute.

So many of your current posts contain
little of value but venom. I am sorry for this as the loss of
your conscience .

??? I put that through Babelfish, but it still didn't make sense.

You have lost your compassion and your ability to look beyond your own
self importance, IMO.

is a great loss to those of us who may wish to profit
from your knowledge.

Anyone wishing to profit from what small knowledge I have is welcome
to do so. If and when you sincerely wish to, rather than make fatuous
disputes over matters not subject to dispute, please let me know.

Taylor, It is you who did this. Rather than concede that a statement
like "right behind" means 1/2 point or 5 pts is silly. To have
mentioned it within the context of a meaningful and useful critique was
to call into question the sincerity of your entire critique.

Now you have accused me personally of something called "intellectual
dishonesty". What exactly do you think that is? Down here someone is
either a liar or not. Seems to me that to call someone a liar without
proof is something a bit worse. But please, prove to me that I am a
liar. If you can't, then perhaps you should temper yourself.
Rob

Taylor Kingston wrote:

I disagree with the whole approach Chessville is taking with "Chess
Vignettes." The basic facts about major chess figures are readily
available in any number of books and web-sites written by qualified
historians, as is a vast amount of misinformation written by
unqualified persons. To add yet another web-site of the latter type is
not only grossly redundant, but irresponsible and injurious to chess
history.

Bravo, Mr. Kingston, bravo!

Taylor Kingston wrote:
snipped.

6) "After World War II, Kashdan ... was also the co-founder of
Chess Review." I believe Kashdan was the sole founder of Chess
Review, and that was in 1933, not after WW II.

Taylor, you are correct in that the Chess Review was begun even before
the European outbreak of WWII. But according to my limited knowledge I
found this about the Chess Review's co-founder:

as quoted in this website
http://www.jewsinsports.org/profile....rt=chess&ID=71
.................................................. .................................................. ................................
Horowitz, Israel Albert

Birth and Death Dates:
Nov. 15, 1907 - Jan. 18, 1973

Career Highlights:

Horowitz took part in the Chess Olympiads as a member of the U.S. team:
1931: scored 9 points out of 13
1935: 12 out of 16
1937 and 1950 (results unknown).

After his 1936 victory in the American Chess Federation tournament,
Horowitz became a member of the American team, which took the 1937
international team title.

He won the 1936 and 1943 U.S. Open, and tied for 1st place with Kashdan
in 1938.

Horowitz was the editor of The Chess Review until 1969, co-founding the
magazine with Kashdan in 1932.

Origin:
Los Angeles, USA (b. Brooklyn, NY)

Category:
International Master: 1950

.................................................. .................................................. ........................


Rob






snipped