On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 22:28:20 -0800 (PST), help bot
wrote:

On Nov 24, 12:34 am, Mike Murray wrote:

So, whadya think of Francis Parkinson Keyes' "The Chess Players"?
Seriously, I have so many chess books that I can hardly locate
them all; this title sounds vaguely familiar,

Not a chess book per se. It's a fictional treatment of Morphy's life
-- so it has some Civil War stuff.

Ah, fiction. Does it include the story about "women's
shoes",

Not as I remember, but it comes up with an explanation for Morphy's
madness -- he found the love of his life beaten to death.


I read it in high school.

That was then, this is now.

If now is what you want, we should be looking for connections between
chess and Iraq.

On Nov 24, 12:34 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:30:46 -0800 (PST), help bot

wrote:
On Nov 23, 10:53 am, Mike Murray wrote:
So, whadya think of Francis Parkinson Keyes' "The Chess Players"?
Seriously, I have so many chess books that I can hardly locate
them all; this title sounds vaguely familiar,

Not a chess book per se. It's a fictional treatment of Morphy's life
-- so it has some Civil War stuff. I read it in high school.

I've found it surprisingly good. I'd not expected it to have much
insight into Morphy or chess, but she does create a more 'human'
Morphy than, say, Lawson does. (Lawson's biography is the best we
have, and it's very good, but there's a sense that the author thought
his subject was made of marble.)

wrote in message
...
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 292)


The chess scene in New York was vibrant because so many masters
couldn't find jobs. The 1930s were America's glory days, our
international teams won gold
medals four times running. Yet players were penniless and people held
them
in low esteem. "Chess is as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as
you can
find outside of an advertising agency," sneered novelist Raymond
Chandler.

It is indeed fascinating, and not progressed from the age of Morphy in the
US, or Buckle or Staunton in the UK. I recently found these references from
another age, circa Dickens's time, to affirm where gentlemen where at -
feminists even! Buckle was detested by the establishment since he dared
question them - just question, and his important works not published in
England in his time.

Henry Thomas Buckle was an early English chess genius, at the time of
Staunton. Many readers will know his contribution to chess, but he had
other, wide-ranging sympathies in what we today call 'the humanities.'



The Parrot at Chessville has reported on Buckle before, but there are always
new things to learn, including this:



"On March 19 1858 he gave a lecture to "an overflowing and
enthusiastic audience" on "The Influence of Women on the Progress of
Knowledge" - at the Royal Institution, speaking for an hour and forty
minutes without once referring to his few notes. The lecture - acclaimed -
was republished for Fraser's Magazine for April 1858."



Like Morphy after him, Buckle found victory at chess a rather minor affair,
seeing chess as a pastime, not an occupation. He deplored slow play and the
lack of time controls. He considered his study of civilization, history and
sociology far more important and resented taking time away from his studies
"and never afterwards took part in a public match" after defeating Anderssen
and Löwenthal.


Buckle had a photographic memory, a working knowledge of nineteen languages
and a fluency in seven. He rid himself of half his library of 22,000 books
because he knew their content and didn't require them. His knowledge of
history was encyclopedic. He was a very simple man. He ate only bread and
fruit "to keep clear the brain" during the days when he performed his
research. His only real extravagance was good cigars and his library.


His great opus was the History of Civilization in England, later divided
into two volumes: History of Civilization Volume I (1857) and Volume II
(1861). In 1872, The Miscellaneous and Posthumous Works of Henry Thomas
Buckle was published.



Further reading of Buckle's chessic and other achievements are here
http://snow.prohosting.com/~batgrrl/Buckle.html

In 1944 Arnie [Denker] captured the USA Championship and gave
exhibitions at military bases. After the war, when the USSR crushed
the USA in a 1945 radio match, he lamented, "Chess requires you full-
time, but it doesn't assure you anywhere near an adequate income. The
sooner we realize this, the sooner America will regain its prestige as
the leading chess nation."

yes, and the TV program we put on was the first between the nations since
1947, as if the cold-war continued. In some respects it was as it ever was,
and everyone engaged, no matter how philanthropic or generous, paid some
cost for presumming to heal such a massive rift between super-powers.

Arnie had to go into business to support his family, then retired to
Florida with a bundle and financed scholastic chess. "Passing the
torch on to the next generation was his great passion. It was his
life, after his family," said one of his sons.

The principal: perpetuation. He wrote to me privately, unknown to whom else.
This man was always as straight as a die. I never wrote with someone of his
station who equalled him in this respect.

Phil



Chess One wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Why not discuss Lee's campaign in Northern Virginia?

To be on topic:

Did Secret Agent Morphy provide the political intelligence for it, for
which
side!? In fact, while his spying activities seem to me like they were
'smudged' during his brief involvement - do we know very much what he was
engaged in, and was he formally 'finished' with it rather than move to
the
back of the stage?

Or may be
Cornwall's failure at Yorktown?

We came unprepared, the Redruth Reds couldn't get used to the (a)
humidity
(b) cheerleaders, both of which had a similar effect. Also the Americans
cheated by throwing the ball /forwards/ and the referees were obviously
on
the take, since not one of them seemed to notice. The shock weapon of the
rucking scrum did succeed fairly well, since 2,500 lbs of moving forwards
are almost impossible to stop, and 7 tries were scored and converted this
way.

This discussion never gets anywhere.

What the discussion underpins is why USA is isolated in the chess world.

Before WW11 in team play they took 4 golds from 4 tries, re-entering the
scene from about 1950 onwards they faced the concerted effort of an
entire
super-power with professional players against whoever had survived the
war
and living in NY City.

It' as productive as listening to Sloan .

But Sloan was a board member! And here you got not only a super-state's
involvement at the political level, but a Fide which is forever-East.
Sloan
is more a caricature of a politician, since he lacks the wherewithal to
dissemble to very high degree, and makes too much incidental noise around
his main theme. Real chess politicos are more accomplished.

This conversation is only ostensibly about the chess scene half a century
ago, what has changed? Therefore, is there some value in knowing our
chess
history, since otherwise we are not only doomed to repeat it, but it may
never have changed!

Phil Innes

On Nov 24, 7:38 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

...

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 292)

The chess scene in New York was vibrant because so many masters
couldn't find jobs. The 1930s were America's glory days, our
international teams won gold
medals four times running. Yet players were penniless and people held
them
in low esteem. "Chess is as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as
you can
find outside of an advertising agency," sneered novelist Raymond
Chandler.

It is indeed fascinating, and not progressed from the age of Morphy in the
US, or Buckle or Staunton in the UK. I recently found these references from
another age, circa Dickens's time, to affirm where gentlemen where at -
feminists even! Buckle was detested by the establishment since he dared
question them - just question, and his important works not published in
England in his time.

Henry Thomas Buckle was an early English chess genius, at the time of
Staunton. Many readers will know his contribution to chess, but he had
other, wide-ranging sympathies in what we today call 'the humanities.'

The Parrot at Chessville has reported on Buckle before, but there are always
new things to learn, including this:

"On March 19 1858 he gave a lecture to "an overflowing and
enthusiastic audience" on "The Influence of Women on the Progress of
Knowledge" - at the Royal Institution, speaking for an hour and forty
minutes without once referring to his few notes. The lecture - acclaimed -
was republished for Fraser's Magazine for April 1858."

Like Morphy after him, Buckle found victory at chess a rather minor affair,
seeing chess as a pastime, not an occupation. He deplored slow play and the
lack of time controls. He considered his study of civilization, history and
sociology far more important and resented taking time away from his studies
"and never afterwards took part in a public match" after defeating Anderssen
and Löwenthal.

Buckle had a photographic memory, a working knowledge of nineteen languages
and a fluency in seven. He rid himself of half his library of 22,000 books
because he knew their content and didn't require them. His knowledge of
history was encyclopedic. He was a very simple man. He ate only bread and
fruit "to keep clear the brain" during the days when he performed his
research. His only real extravagance was good cigars and his library.

His great opus was the History of Civilization in England, later divided
into two volumes: History of Civilization Volume I (1857) and Volume II
(1861). In 1872, The Miscellaneous and Posthumous Works of Henry Thomas
Buckle was published.

Further reading of Buckle's chessic and other achievements are herehttp://snow.prohosting.com/~batgrrl/Buckle.html

Further, and more in-depth, reading on Buckle will be found in Dr.
John Hilbert's lengthy essay "Buckle: A Life, With Chess" in
Quarterly for Chess History #10.

On Nov 24, 1:44 am, EZoto wrote:

Apart from any interpretations of the evidence, there
remains the problem that no matter how poorly any
of the other contenders may have played in a given
game or event, the standard of GM Botvinnik's own
play was exceedingly high. (In fact, I am reminded
of the games of Bobby Fischer /after/ he already had
published his MSMG book but before 1992). The
Commie-conspiracy theorists have no rational
explanation for this peculiar fact, which is carefully
avoided at all cost.

-- help bot

I'm not denying the fact that Botvinnik was not a strong player.

That is no "fact", but rather a delusion.

In a nutshell, as each other great player peaked, GM
Botvinnik traded the title back and forth with him, right
up until his rematch clause was taken away by FIDE.
His long record of superb results ranges from the time
of GMs Capablanca and Alekhine, all the way up to GM
Fischer.


He was a tremendously strong player

Make up your mind, man. You just said he was not
a strong player; you can't have it both ways. ;D


but he used bullying tactics in
politics to get what he wanted also. Botvinnik reminds me of Karpov
in that sense. In the first K-K match he is up 5-0 and clearly he is
the stronger player but his match strategy backfires on him and Karpov
uses his political strength to get out of the match even though he was
up 5-3.

Nonsense. What the sinister GM Karpov wanted was a
long break in the match, not its cancellation with his
hard-earned lead /vaporized/ by FIDE on a whim.

Trying to fit that freak action into some conspiracy
makes no sense (but then, that has never stopped the
lunatic fringe before). It looks as though the FIDE
president went CYOA, not wanting to become the
target of criticism -- but failed miserably in that regard.


Well it rebounded on him in the second match and the rest is
history.

The second match saw a much tougher GK, as he
had been "taking lessons" from the best (or, as some
might say, the second-best, if you count GM Fischer).
:D


Some of it may never be known exactly but it is obvious that
those who had the power in politics used it for their own means, and
Botvinnik was no exception.

Certainly, it appears you are very selective in your
singling out just two such players. In my experience,
the abuse of power is not so peculiarly focused, and
it is therefore necessary to eradicate the conflict of
interest aspect in its entirety. The same idea applies
more widely to politics, not merely to chess. The list
of champions who have manipulated the system is
rather long; my idea is this: the very possibility should
be removed; call it prophylaxis; call it "my system", or
even "overprotection".


-- hyper bot

On Nov 24, 11:42 am, Mike Murray wrote:

Ah, fiction. Does it include the story about "women's
shoes",

Not as I remember, but it comes up with an explanation for Morphy's
madness -- he found the love of his life beaten to death.

Ah, that will suffice as substitute; an uncritical
adoption of the madness theory equates to the
mindless repetitions of another.


I read it in high school.

That was then, this is now.

If now is what you want, we should be looking for connections between
chess and Iraq.

It's a book; I read it in high school. This just
goes to show that some schools don't have their
priorities straight. BTW, there is no significant
connection between cheap oil and chess, except
that plastic chess pieces are made from petroleum
products. I have read that the cost of light, sweet
(relatively speaking) crude production from that
region is amazingly inexpensive, as compared to
the stuff we drill here or up in Canada. But I have
also been informed that most of what we use is the
yucky, foul-tasting heavy oil. Personally, I prefer
maple syrup or Mrs. Butterworth's.


-- help bot

FRANCES PARKINSON KEYES

I've found it surprisingly good. I'd not expected it to have much insight into Morphy or chess, but she does create a more 'human' Morphy than, say, Lawson does. (Lawson's biography is the best we have, and it's very good, but there's a sense that
the author thought his subject was made of marble.) The Historian

Sigh.

That Neil Brennen would even compare a David Lawson with
a genial novelist such as Frances (not Francis, of course)
Parkinson Keyes speaks volumes -- ah, so to speak.

The Chess Players is a novel about its subject
title, and we see a brilliant woman writer digging and
delving far more deeply into the likely personae of
people than any purely chess writer will ever do.

For those interested in learning about Keyes, read
Honor Bright or that exceptional work, "Steamboat Gothic."

Keyes was a leading novelist of the 1940s and
1950s, as well as a Catholic convert. What is
particularly compelling about her work is that she
examines the plight of characters whom she places in a
framework, most today would call it a straitjacket, of
traditional Christian morality. Her characters are
seen to suffer or meet very demanding challenges
because they try to live up to standards
stratospheric. She is a telling, sympathetic, yet
demanding writer.

David Lawson? Well, really, to be surprised
that Keyes is so insightful, more so than a chess
writer, is to be expected when written by a chess type.

Chess was essentially nuthin' to Frances
Parkinson Keyes. People, accurate history and locale,
and fine style were everything.

Yours, Larry Parr

On Nov 25, 3:50 am, " wrote:
FRANCES PARKINSON KEYES

I've found it surprisingly good. I'd not expected it to have much insight into Morphy or chess, but she does create a more 'human' Morphy than, say, Lawson does. (Lawson's biography is the best we have, and it's very good, but there's a sense that

the author thought his subject was made of marble.) The Historian

Sigh.

That Neil Brennen would even compare a David Lawson with
a genial novelist such as Frances (not Francis, of course)
Parkinson Keyes speaks volumes -- ah, so to speak.

The Chess Players is a novel about its subject
title, and we see a brilliant woman writer digging and
delving far more deeply into the likely personae of
people than any purely chess writer will ever do.

Agreed. Which is why I posted on the subject. But, to put it mildly,
there's a degree of speculation and invention of 'facts' involved that
a chess historian should shy away from.

For those interested in learning about Keyes, read
Honor Bright or that exceptional work, "Steamboat Gothic."

Keyes was a leading novelist of the 1940s and
1950s, as well as a Catholic convert. What is
particularly compelling about her work is that she
examines the plight of characters whom she places in a
framework, most today would call it a straitjacket, of
traditional Christian morality. Her characters are
seen to suffer or meet very demanding challenges
because they try to live up to standards
stratospheric. She is a telling, sympathetic, yet
demanding writer.

David Lawson? Well, really, to be surprised
that Keyes is so insightful, more so than a chess
writer, is to be expected when written by a chess type.

You do know Lawson's book is a biography, not a novel, don't you,
Larry? You do know Keyes is a work of fiction? Lawson, as a
biographer, probably didn't feel up to the task of inventing a
murdered lover for Morphy, or giving him an amusing encounter with a
riverboat chess hustler, as Keyes did.

Chess was essentially nuthin' to Frances
Parkinson Keyes. People, accurate history and locale,
and fine style were everything.

Keyes as "accurate history?!?" Thanks for today's giggle.

TODAY'S GIGGLE

Keyes as "accurate history?!?" Thanks for today's giggle. -- The Historian

The historical settings in Frances Parkinson
Keyes' novels are indeed accurate in the sense of
conforming to the period. When discussing a novel
or work of literature, one does not speak of faithful
inventions as historical inaccuracies.

Yours, Larry Parr



The Historian wrote:
On Nov 25, 3:50 am, " wrote:
FRANCES PARKINSON KEYES

I've found it surprisingly good. I'd not expected it to have much insight into Morphy or chess, but she does create a more 'human' Morphy than, say, Lawson does. (Lawson's biography is the best we have, and it's very good, but there's a sense that

the author thought his subject was made of marble.) The Historian

Sigh.

That Neil Brennen would even compare a David Lawson with
a genial novelist such as Frances (not Francis, of course)
Parkinson Keyes speaks volumes -- ah, so to speak.

The Chess Players is a novel about its subject
title, and we see a brilliant woman writer digging and
delving far more deeply into the likely personae of
people than any purely chess writer will ever do.

Agreed. Which is why I posted on the subject. But, to put it mildly,
there's a degree of speculation and invention of 'facts' involved that
a chess historian should shy away from.

For those interested in learning about Keyes, read
Honor Bright or that exceptional work, "Steamboat Gothic."

Keyes was a leading novelist of the 1940s and
1950s, as well as a Catholic convert. What is
particularly compelling about her work is that she
examines the plight of characters whom she places in a
framework, most today would call it a straitjacket, of
traditional Christian morality. Her characters are
seen to suffer or meet very demanding challenges
because they try to live up to standards
stratospheric. She is a telling, sympathetic, yet
demanding writer.

David Lawson? Well, really, to be surprised
that Keyes is so insightful, more so than a chess
writer, is to be expected when written by a chess type.

You do know Lawson's book is a biography, not a novel, don't you,
Larry? You do know Keyes is a work of fiction? Lawson, as a
biographer, probably didn't feel up to the task of inventing a
murdered lover for Morphy, or giving him an amusing encounter with a
riverboat chess hustler, as Keyes did.

Chess was essentially nuthin' to Frances
Parkinson Keyes. People, accurate history and locale,
and fine style were everything.

Keyes as "accurate history?!?" Thanks for today's giggle.

On Nov 25, 12:07 pm, " wrote:
TODAY'S GIGGLE

Keyes as "accurate history?!?" Thanks for today's giggle. -- The Historian

The historical settings in Frances Parkinson
Keyes' novels are indeed accurate in the sense of
conforming to the period. When discussing a novel
or work of literature, one does not speak of faithful
inventions as historical inaccuracies.

Yours, Larry Parr

Understood, Larry. I've borrowed detail from fiction for a historical
article myself - see my use of a paragraph from an Emerson Bennett
novel in my "The Champion of the North." This is following Barbara
Tuchman's practice, as she'd outlined in one of the essays in
Practicing History.