THE WOODPUSHERS

I just consulted the entry on St. Petersburg
1914 in Shakhmaty Ehntsiklopedicheskij Slovar', which
dwarfs the Oxford Companion in terms of sheer amount
of information contained therein.

There is no mention of a GM title being
conferred, though there is mention that the final
group at Petersburg was call the "Tournament of
Victors," meaning those surviving the prelim portion.

Arguably, if Marshall's recollection is wrong,
then he may have misremembered "Victors" for being
conferred a title of GM. When I have the time, I will
post what I can find in the Slovar', checking out some
of the individual entries on Alekhine and others.

Another point: all five players, with the
possible exception of Alekhine, may have been
generally regarded as grandmasters by 1914, but that
would not preclude an "official" title being provided
by the czar or an emissary.

There is the well-known blurb written by
Marshall to Carrie, his wife, re the picture of him
with the "Victors." He speaks of them being
woodpushers. This deliberate jocularity can mean that
the five were considered to have some kind of special
position for a period. That, at least, is one way of
reading Marshall's note.

Yours, Larry Parr




Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
On Nov 25, 7:25 pm, " wrote:
WHAT MARSHALL WROTE

Here's what Marshall wrote in MY FIFTY YEARS OF CHESS (page 20-1)

In the Spring of the fateful year 1914 I took part in one of the most
notable chess events which has ever taken place -- the St. Petersburg
Grand International Masters Tournament.

The participants included the reigning world champion, Dr. E. Lasker
and two future world champions, Capablanca and Alekhine. The latter, a
young man of 21 in the uniform of the Military School of St.
Petersburg,

It was not a "Military School of St. Petersburg"
but a school for future lawyers and diplomats,
for students from good (aristocratic) and well
to do families. I wonder what the pictures show.


and the youthful Aaron Nimzovich, had both qualified for
the tournament by tying for first place in the Russian
National which had just concluded.

[...]

The St. Petersburg Chess Society was responsible for
the organization and conduct of the Tournament, the
Tsar himself subscribing 1000 roubles towards the prize
fund. As it turned out, the prizes were more
than covered by the record gate of 6,000 roubles....

How was Marshall so familiar with the financial
aspect of the tournament? Do we have any historians-
economists around? The claim to me seems not plausible
on the historic-psychological-custom grounds. An eastern
autocrat like Tsar plays a God-like figure. When he gives
an award it should blind you with its excess. And here
Tsar would donate merely 1/6 of what the gate brought?!
That would be highly EMBARRASSING for Tsar, he would
be laughed at, he would be widely known for being
stingy, he would be a butt of the jokes a 100 times
more popular than the whole chess itself.

It was at this tournament (see Games 83 and 84)
that the Tsar of Russia conferred on
each of the five finalists the title "Grandmaster of Chess."



And what about earlier Marshall's comments about
the same games and the St. Petersburg 1914 tournament?

When FIDE introduced the formal title, were there any
stories published, be it FIDE or anybody else, about
the history of the title? Wasn't it exact time to
dwell on the tradition and previous history?

Regards,

Wlod

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:

How was Marshall so familiar with the financial
aspect of the tournament? Do we have any historians-
economists around? The claim to me seems not plausible
on the historic-psychological-custom grounds.

Why not? Please explain.

The prize fund of major tournaments was settled
in advance, and included in the invitation for participation.
Marshall was a participant so he would have received an 'invitation
package'. He was also a professional chess player, and so
would have to decide if it would be worth the candle:
what would the arranger pay for, what would he himself have to pay for,
and at the end of the day, would he end up with more or less money
in his pocket?

I see no reason to believe that the participants were not
fully informed of the economical aspects of the event.

As to the Tsar's contrivution to the prize fund: it would have been
donated well in advance. Noone would even have thought of sneering at
it just because admittance fees reached record levels.

--
Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/

On Nov 25, 9:50 pm, Anders Thulin
wrote:

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:

How was Marshall so familiar with the financial
aspect of the tournament? Do we have any historians-
economists around? The claim to me seems not plausible
on the historic-psychological-custom grounds.

Why not? Please explain.

I have already did. You are not from that part of the
world, hence you didn't pay attention.


I see no reason to believe that the participants were not
fully informed of the economical aspects of the event.

Because it simply was not done. The accommodations were
understood by itself. The proze money I am sure were
announced in advance. But it would not occur to any Russian
organizers that Marshall would be interested or should
know how much they got at the gate. He would have to be extra
nosy. He would have to have time to catch a proper organizer
after the tournament (the cahier or the main organizer).
It's possible that he did ask and got the answer but I doubt it.

As to the Tsar's contrivution to the prize fund: it would have been
donated well in advance. Noone would even have thought of sneering at
it just because admittance fees reached record levels.

:-) :-)

If one believes the two figures given by Marshal, then
they show that Tsar's contribution was trivial for a god-like
character like Tsar. It doesn't matter that they collected
well at the gate. It is still laughable as a dontation from TSAR.
Tsar, if he gives, he is suppossed to be GENEROUS. 1/6 of the
gate cpould give a minor aristocrat, not Tsar.

Anyway, I have never read from any Russian source
that Tsar ever had given a single kopieyka
(Russian penny) for chess. Just never. But if Marshal was prone to
making up stories, that it sounds good (to the Western ear) that Tsar
himself bothered to pay for Marshal's visit. it makes Marshal
so much more important in his own eyes.

Wlod


I never in myu life have read anything which would indicate
that Tsar give

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...

I think Mr. Winter might attend all the claimants to the issue, and if
Bernstein has some evidential material which annoints champions by the
modern title in 1907, then he gets another prize in being right - and I
presume that someone awarded the title, and that it was not in English; to
wit, introduced by whom?

So until this "original grandmasters" story gets some better
substantiation, it may be wiser to file it with the tales about
Morphy's shoes and Alekhine smashing his furniture.

Those do not seem to be of parallel circumstance.

Phil Innes

A little more on the subject from "The Oxford Companion to
Chess" (2nd edition, 1992):

"A correspondent writing to Bell's Life, 18 Feb. 1838, refers to
Lewis as 'our past grandmaster,' probably the first use of this term
in connection with chess. Subsequently Walker and others referred to
Philidor as a grandmaster ... The word gained wider currency in the
early 20th century when tournaments were sometimes designated
grandmaster events, e.g Ostend 1907, San Sebastián 1912."

The OC does not mention Petersburg 1914; apparently the authors
considered the Tsar Nicholas story lacking adequate documentation.

--- --- ---
Yes it is an interesting question of /written/ provenance - and not any
unusual issue in history or anthropology, as to provenance and also to
meaning - an early term can mean something quite different or at least
undifferentiated from a latter one.

Of course, people could use the term variously to indicate any number of
things. Naturally, the term is very old as we can appreciate from the
Masonic tradition, where it occurs in the 1500s, and before that in some
other religions orders - possibly at the time of the second Crusade,
continuing through the Cathars, Knights of Malta, eg, Therefore, and
heretofore 'Grandmaster' indicated a courtesy rank rather than comparative
and measured strength against others, as used in modern chess.

In England and Russia the term was not much used, and 'master' stood in
place of it - until more formal accession to the title by grading took
place, rather than as before, by tournament accession.

If Mr. Winter has the title, he should consult the first serious statistical
work on the subject of player ranking, which came from England, /Statistical
Study of Chess Masters 1881-90/ by G. M. Brumfitt, first published in the
British Chess Magazine 1891.

As variously noted above, ranking related to ratings did not really get
going until after WWII, although a proto-ranking system emerged in American
correspondence chess in the 30s. The largest grading system emerged in the
UK, but shadowed on a different basis by an American one, also a German
[Inigo system] version.

The only titles used by the Brits were British master and Candidate Master.
In the US, Kenneth Harkness's pioneering system was overhauled by a
committee chaired by A. E. Elo. Elo's group did adopt the term International
Grandmaster.

Inigo was developed in the 40s by Herr Hoesslinger of Ingolstadt in Bavaria.
Interestingly, it is similar to the UK system but the numbers are reversed!
So that the strongest player has the lowest rating. Additionally Inigo
system was not 'official' but used by the most enthusiastic players.

I do not know if the term is mentioned in the 33 pages of the Gottingen
manuscript, which besides, is in Latin, nor in Handbuch des Schachspiels
which says Gottingen is 1490, or Lucena 1497, Repeticion de Amores e Art de
Axedres.

Since these are not easy references, perhaps it would be significant to know
if the title 'grandmaster' occurred in the greatest compendium of the C19th,
Antonius van der Linde's Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels (1874)
which contains says Eales "an enormous catalogue of references to chess in
every possible source."

And less sensibly would be to check the ancient roots of the term, by
following the very strange Victorian English enthusiasm for tracing the
origin of the game, and indeed, if the term is at all usual in Sanskrit? And
if it is, then to negotiate the rather formidable objection to Forbes
offered by Weber, who rather convincingly put aside the 'if it is written,
it is true' argument, in which van der Linde had placed too much trust.

To chart the full course of our knowledge of chess, with all its blind
alleys, we should go all the way back to Thomas Hyde and his works, who only
coincidentally was a founder of the proto-Royal society, then the open and
public one, and who also sported the [secret] title of grandmaster, which I
think is obliquely referenced in the Encyclopedia Britannica 1898, US
version published Akron, 1901.

Phil Innes

THE FIVE VICTORS

1. Lasker 13 1/2
2. Capablanca 13
3. Alekhine 10
4. Tarrasch 8 1/2
5. Marshall 8

"As one of the five victors' section addressed by the Czar as 'les
grands maitres,' Alekhine is one of the original grandmasters." --
SOVIET CHESS by Richard Wade (page 46).

"Lasker won the tourament with 13 1/2 points, and Capablanca was second
with 13, three full points ahead of Alekhine, who in turn finished 1 1/2
points ahead of Tarrasch, thus becoming the youngest 'grandmaster.'"
--- THE ADVENTURE OF CHESS by Edward Lasker (page 108)




Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...

I think Mr. Winter might attend all the claimants to the issue, and if
Bernstein has some evidential material which annoints champions by the
modern title in 1907, then he gets another prize in being right - and I
presume that someone awarded the title, and that it was not in English; to
wit, introduced by whom?

So until this "original grandmasters" story gets some better
substantiation, it may be wiser to file it with the tales about
Morphy's shoes and Alekhine smashing his furniture.

Those do not seem to be of parallel circumstance.

Phil Innes

A little more on the subject from "The Oxford Companion to
Chess" (2nd edition, 1992):

"A correspondent writing to Bell's Life, 18 Feb. 1838, refers to
Lewis as 'our past grandmaster,' probably the first use of this term
in connection with chess. Subsequently Walker and others referred to
Philidor as a grandmaster ... The word gained wider currency in the
early 20th century when tournaments were sometimes designated
grandmaster events, e.g Ostend 1907, San Sebasti?n 1912."

The OC does not mention Petersburg 1914; apparently the authors
considered the Tsar Nicholas story lacking adequate documentation.

--- --- ---
Yes it is an interesting question of /written/ provenance - and not any
unusual issue in history or anthropology, as to provenance and also to
meaning - an early term can mean something quite different or at least
undifferentiated from a latter one.

Of course, people could use the term variously to indicate any number of
things. Naturally, the term is very old as we can appreciate from the
Masonic tradition, where it occurs in the 1500s, and before that in some
other religions orders - possibly at the time of the second Crusade,
continuing through the Cathars, Knights of Malta, eg, Therefore, and
heretofore 'Grandmaster' indicated a courtesy rank rather than comparative
and measured strength against others, as used in modern chess.

In England and Russia the term was not much used, and 'master' stood in
place of it - until more formal accession to the title by grading took
place, rather than as before, by tournament accession.

If Mr. Winter has the title, he should consult the first serious statistical
work on the subject of player ranking, which came from England, /Statistical
Study of Chess Masters 1881-90/ by G. M. Brumfitt, first published in the
British Chess Magazine 1891.

As variously noted above, ranking related to ratings did not really get
going until after WWII, although a proto-ranking system emerged in American
correspondence chess in the 30s. The largest grading system emerged in the
UK, but shadowed on a different basis by an American one, also a German
[Inigo system] version.

The only titles used by the Brits were British master and Candidate Master.
In the US, Kenneth Harkness's pioneering system was overhauled by a
committee chaired by A. E. Elo. Elo's group did adopt the term International
Grandmaster.

Inigo was developed in the 40s by Herr Hoesslinger of Ingolstadt in Bavaria.
Interestingly, it is similar to the UK system but the numbers are reversed!
So that the strongest player has the lowest rating. Additionally Inigo
system was not 'official' but used by the most enthusiastic players.

I do not know if the term is mentioned in the 33 pages of the Gottingen
manuscript, which besides, is in Latin, nor in Handbuch des Schachspiels
which says Gottingen is 1490, or Lucena 1497, Repeticion de Amores e Art de
Axedres.

Since these are not easy references, perhaps it would be significant to know
if the title 'grandmaster' occurred in the greatest compendium of the C19th,
Antonius van der Linde's Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels (1874)
which contains says Eales "an enormous catalogue of references to chess in
every possible source."

And less sensibly would be to check the ancient roots of the term, by
following the very strange Victorian English enthusiasm for tracing the
origin of the game, and indeed, if the term is at all usual in Sanskrit? And
if it is, then to negotiate the rather formidable objection to Forbes
offered by Weber, who rather convincingly put aside the 'if it is written,
it is true' argument, in which van der Linde had placed too much trust.

To chart the full course of our knowledge of chess, with all its blind
alleys, we should go all the way back to Thomas Hyde and his works, who only
coincidentally was a founder of the proto-Royal society, then the open and
public one, and who also sported the [secret] title of grandmaster, which I
think is obliquely referenced in the Encyclopedia Britannica 1898, US
version published Akron, 1901.

Phil Innes

On Nov 25, 10:21 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
wrote:

Note: the 1911 year entry in the

"TOURNAMENTS, INTERNATIONAL--1851-1951"

table of "The Encyclopedia of Chess", by Anne Sunnucks,
is messed up.

You're right, Wlod. My copy lists "TOURNAMENTS, INTERNATIONAL --
1851-1949." For 1911 it says Schlechter won at San Sebastian instead
of Capablanca, and that Capablanca won at Carlsbad instead of
Teichmann. An unintentional error, I am sure.
It's very difficult, virtually impossible to produce an error-free
encyclopedia. Just recently I came across one in the OC I had not
noticed before. Under "Hromadka Defense" (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5) it says
"It was introduced by the Czech master Karel Hromadka in the Piest'any
tournament, 1922." While Hromadka did play in that event, he never
used that opening there, unless my database is badly mistaken. The
earliest I could find him playing it was 1928.

Both Lasker and Levenfish played in all three Moscow
tournaments. In the first one, in 1926,

I think you mean 1925?

Lasker had
serious chances to win the tournament when he lost
to Levenfish. In the next two they drew their games.

They drew their one game in 1935, but Moscow 1936 was a double-round-
robin, and Lasker scored +1 =1 vs. Levenfish then. His win is an
interesting game, in which he played an old Chigorin-style line
against the Sicilian:

[Event "Moscow"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1936.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lasker, Emanuel"]
[Black "Levenfish, Grigory"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B23"]
[PlyCount "73"]
[EventDate "1936.05.14"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "18"]
[EventCountry "URS"]
[Source "ChessBase"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 e6 4. Be2 d5 5. d3 Nge7 6. Nf3 Nd4 7. O-O
Nec6 8. Qd2 Be7 9. Bd1 O-O 10. Qf2 a6 11. Re1 Bf6 12. Ne2 dxe4 13.
Nexd4 e3 14. Bxe3 cxd4 15. Bd2 Qd5 16. Qg3 Bd7 17. Ne5 Rfd8 18. c4
dxc3 19. bxc3 Be8 20. Bc2 g6 21. d4 Bg7 22. h4 Rac8 23. Be4 Qd6 24.
Rad1 b5 25. h5 b4 26. hxg6 hxg6 27. Re3 bxc3 28. Bxc3 Nxe5 29. fxe5
Bxe5 30. Qh4 Rxc3?! -- Fritz8 prefers 30...Ba4 31.Rdd3 Qb6 32.Qg5 Bg7
with about a pawn's worth of advantage for Black. -- 31. Rxc3 Bxd4+
32. Kh1 Ba4 33. Rdd3 Bb5 34. Bxg6 fxg6 35. Rh3 Qd7 36. Rcg3 Bd3?? --
Probably a time-pressure blunder. It looks like 36... Rf8 37. Rxg6+
Kf7 38. Rf3+ Ke8 39. Rxf8+ Kxf8 40. Qf4+ etc. would draw. -- 37. Rxd3
1-0


Levenfish provides the annotated scores of all 3 games,
but about the last one he writes that it was a quite boring
game, which he includes only for what happened after
the game. The end position was a clear draw indeed.
But Lasker offered drawa also earlier; and for this
Lasker had apologized to Levenfish after the game:

"I had no right to propose draw, because you had
realistic chances, but I didn't see all the dangers
of my position."

Then Levenfish wants his young readers to think
about Lasker's honorable attitude.

For a contrast, Levenfish writes that Vidmar and Marshall
were playing in copletely dead draw positions, back and force,
until indeed he finally deconcentrated, made an error, and
let them win.

Quite true, at least for two of those three games:

[Event "Karlsbad"]
[Site "Karlsbad"]
[Date "1911.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Levenfish, Grigory"]
[Black "Vidmar, Milan Sr"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C50"]
[PlyCount "150"]
[EventDate "1911.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "25"]
[EventCountry "CZE"]
[Source "ChessBase"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. d3 d6 6. Be3 Bb6 7. Qd2
Be6 8. Bb3 Ba5 9. O-O O-O 10. Bg5 Nd4 11. Kh1 c6 12. Qc1 Bxb3 13. axb3
Bxc3 14. bxc3 Ne6 15. Nh4 Nxg5 16. Qxg5 h6 17. Qe3 Ng4 18. Qg3 Qg5 19.
f4 exf4 20. Rxf4 Ne5 21. Nf5 Qxg3 22. Nxg3 Ng6 23. Rf2 Ne7 24. h4 a6
25. Kh2 Rad8 26. Re1 f6 27. Nh5 Ng6 28. Kh3 Rfe8 29. Ng3 Rd7 30. h5
Nf8 31. Rf5 Ne6 32. Ref1 Nc7 33. R1f2 Rde7 34. c4 Rd7 35. Ra5 b6 36.
Ra1 d5 37. cxd5 cxd5 38. exd5 Rxd5 39. Rf5 a5 40. b4 axb4 41. Ra7 Re3
42. Rxd5 Nxd5 43. Kg4 b3 44. cxb3 Rxd3 45. Nf5 Ne3+ 46. Nxe3 Rxe3 47.
Rb7 Rxb3 48. Rb8+ Kh7 49. Kf4 Rb1 50. g4 Rb5 51. Rb7 Rb1 52. Rb8 Rf1+
53. Ke4 Rb1 54. Kf4 b5 55. Kg3 b4 56. Kg2 b3 57. Kf2 g5 58. Kg2 Kg7
59. Rb7+ Kf8 60. Kh2 Ke8 61. Kg2 Kd8 62. Kh2 Kc8 63. Rb4 Kc7 64. Kg2
Kc6 65. Rb8 Kd5 66. Rb7 Kc4 67. Rc7+ Kd3 68. Rb7 Kc3 69. Rc7+ Kb2 70.
Rc6 Rc1 71. Rxf6 Rc4 72. Rxh6 Kc2 73. Rb6 b2 74. Rxb2+ Kxb2 75. Kf3
Rf4+ 0-1

[Event "Karlsbad"]
[Site "Karlsbad"]
[Date "1911.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Marshall, Frank James"]
[Black "Levenfish, Grigory"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C66"]
[PlyCount "117"]
[EventDate "1911.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "25"]
[EventCountry "CZE"]
[Source "ChessBase"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 d6 5. d4 Bd7 6. O-O Be7 7. Bg5
exd4 8. Nxd4 O-O 9. Re1 h6 10. Bh4 Nh7 11. Bxe7 Nxe7 12. Bxd7 Qxd7 13.
Qd3 Rfe8 14.Rad1 Nf6 15. h3 Rad8 16. Qg3 Kh7 17. e5 dxe5 18. Nf3 Qf5
19. Rxd8 Rxd8 20. Qxe5 Rd7 21. Qxf5+ Nxf5 22. Re5 Ne7 23. Kf1 Ned5 24.
Nxd5 Nxd5 25. Re4 c5 26. a3 f5 27. Re5 g6 28. g3 b6 29. Re6 g5 30. c4
Ne7 31. Ne5 Rc7 32. b4 Ng8 33. f4 Re7 34. Rc6 cxb4 35. axb4 Kg7 36.
Rg6+ Kf8 37. c5 bxc5 38. bxc5 gxf4 39. gxf4 Rc7 40. c6 a5 41. Nd7+ Kf7
42. Ne5+ Kf8 43. Nd7+ Kf7 44. Ne5+ Kf8 45. Ke1 a4 46. Kd2 Ra7 47. Kc2
h5 48. Kb2 Ne7 49. Re6 Ke8 50. Ka3 h4 51. Rh6 Kd8 52. Rxh4 Kc7
53. Rh7 Kd6 54. h4 Ra8 5. Nc4+ Kc5 56. Rxe7 Kxc4 57. c7 Kc5 58. h5 Kc6
59. h6 1-0

I'd say Marshall got him fair and square here, though:

[Event "Moscow"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1925.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Marshall, Frank James"]
[Black "Levenfish, Grigory"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D20"]
[PlyCount "63"]
[EventDate "1925.11.10"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "21"]
[EventCountry "URS"]
[Source "ChessBase"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. e4 a6 5. Bxc4 b5 6. Bb3 Bb7 7. Nf3
Nf6 8. Bg5 Be7 9. e5 Nfd7 10. Bxe7 Qxe7 11. O-O O-O 12. Re1 Rd8 13.
Qe2 Nf8 14. Qe3 Nbd7 15. Rac1 Rac8 16. Ng5 c5 17. d5 h6 18. Nf3 exd5
19. Bxd5 Nb6 20. Bxb7 Qxb7 21.Ne4 Nc4 22. Qc3 Ne6 23. b3 Nb6 24. Nd6
Rxd6 25. exd6 Rd8 26. Rcd1 Nd5 27. Qe5 Ndf4 28. Qe4 Qb6 29. Ne5 Rxd6
30. h4 Nd4 31. Qxf4 Ne2+ 32. Rxe2 1-0

I've written earlier that Levenfish won a tournament
game from Alechine. They spent some years in Petersburg
and played one another quitre a bit. Levenfish
admires Alechine talent, and he writes that "advantage
in our meetings was on the Alechine's side". This sounds
to me like Levenfish was doing not too bad, perhaps something
like 4:6 on average? -- but I don't know.

According to Skinner & Verhoeven's massive Alekhine compilation, AA
and GL met in serious OTB games seven times 1911-1920, AA scoring +4
-1 =2. There was also a consultation games, with AA and Esser beating
GL and Freiman.

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
...
Here is what I wrote on this subject in a post
several years ago:

There is an often repeated story that the Czar
himself named five players as grandmasters
at the St. Petersburg tournament in 1914.
In some circles, there has been a lot of
skepticism about it lately. Searches have been
made through newspaper reports at the time
without finding any reference to the Czar in
connection with the tournament. The reports
seem to indicate that ALL the participants were
regarded as grandmasters BEFORE the start of
the event.

Can you cite these references, Louis?

I once found a book that indicated
that the Czar and his family were all out of
town at the time. Marshall's book seems
to be what got this Czar-story going. He
wrote that he and four others had been
given the grandmaster title by the Czar. Marshall
is the same fellow who said that one of his games
once thrilled spectators to such an extent that
they showered the board with gold coins.

I think the implication of your writing is that the Tsar [Wlod!] may or may
not have directly granted the title, but it was in informal use previously.

It is completely speculation on my part, but
my guess is that all that happened in 1914
was that some official ceremoniously read
a statement on behalf of the Czar saying
something like, "Congratulations to the
grandmasters of chess."

More on the Czar-story can be found in the
works of Edward Winter.

Yes indeed, but all stories here can be challenged, since otherwise what we
'understand' is the same as what is written, rather than what is true. For
example, the Linders are or were rather keen on a Russian origin for chess.

In another newsgroup I have asked for (a) earliest written mention of the
name 'grandmaster' in any context, (b) if it seems to have a Sanskrit origin
and adopted into European usage from the Crusades, and (c) if there are
known early references to chessgrandmasters circa Elizabethan period, via
Dee or Bacon and other tolerably esoteric characters.

Phil Innes

Phil Innes

On Nov 26, 9:26 am, " wrote:
THE FIVE VICTORS

1. Lasker 13 1/2
2. Capablanca 13
3. Alekhine 10
4. Tarrasch 8 1/2
5. Marshall 8

"As one of the five victors' section addressed by the Czar as 'les
grands maitres,' Alekhine is one of the original grandmasters." --
SOVIET CHESS by Richard Wade (page 46).

Is this the New Zealand-born IM? In that case, his first name is
Robert.

"Lasker won the tourament with 13 1/2 points, and Capablanca was second
with 13, three full points ahead of Alekhine, who in turn finished 1 1/2
points ahead of Tarrasch, thus becoming the youngest 'grandmaster.'"
--- THE ADVENTURE OF CHESS by Edward Lasker (page 108)

Those books are dated 1967 and 1949, respectively, so both post-date
the Marshall book (1942) and the New Yorker article (1940). Rather
than being any authoritative source, I suspect they are just repeating
uncritically what had already become the commonly accepted story.
Edward Lasker is especially iffy on this sort of thing. I notice that
on page 107 he puts the tournament in Moscow rather than St.
Petersburg.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:

I see no reason to believe that the participants were not
fully informed of the economical aspects of the event.

Because it simply was not done. The accommodations were
understood by itself. The proze money I am sure were
announced in advance. But it would not occur to any Russian
organizers that Marshall would be interested or should
know how much they got at the gate. He would have to be extra
nosy. He would have to have time to catch a proper organizer
after the tournament (the cahier or the main organizer).
It's possible that he did ask and got the answer but I doubt it.

Aha -- you mean those aspects that were of no immediate
interest to the players. No, those would probably not have
been communicated specially to them during the tournament.

But why do you believe that only Marshall could have ferreted
out this information, and only in the manner you describe?
He had more than 25 years before he wrote that book.

The basic information was published reasonably widely in the
press at the time: see for instance Deutsche Schachzeitung 1914
p 252-253, which itself cites St. Petersburger Zeitung of June 22
as source. Neither was a particularly difficult source to come by
at the time -- and either source would have been re-reported in other
chess periodicals.

Since you seem to have a certain fascination for the
supposed niggardliness of the Czar, I'm glad to report that
the total income of the full events amounted to 19729 rubel (not
including those 1000 Czar rubles).

Anyway, I have never read from any Russian source
that Tsar ever had given a single kopieyka
(Russian penny) for chess. Just never.

Well, St. Petersburger Zeitung was published in German,
so I must assume it doesn't count as a Russian source. But without
knowing what Russian source you *have* read, it is difficult to
evaluate your statement. Am I overinterpreting you if I take it as a
categorical denial that such information can be found in the Niva
or the Novoye Vremya?

--
Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/

wrote in message
...
WHAT MARSHALL WROTE

Supposedly the source for this story is Marshall's 1942 memoir "My
Fifty Years of Chess." Anyone have that book? How does it describe
the
titles being bestowed: by the Tsar in person or in absentia? If in
person in St. Pete, that would be hard to reconcile with the Tsar
being in the Crimea. -- Taylor Kingston

Here's what Marshall wrote in MY FIFTY YEARS OF CHESS (page 20-1)

In the Spring of the fateful year 1914 I took part in one of the most
notable chess events which has ever taken place -- the St. Petersburg
Grand International Masters Tournament.

Ah! Significant!

The participants included the reigning world champion, Dr. E. Lasker
and two future world champions, Capablanca and Alekhine. The latter, a
young man of 21 in the uniform of the Military School of St.
Petersburg, and the youthful Aaron Nimzovich, had both qualified for
the tournament by tying for first place in the Russian National which
had just concluded.

How like another Petersburger who stared cross the Neva while in military
uniform. But I never found a Dostoyevski game.

Russia was also represented by Akiba Rubinstein and Dr. O.S.
Bernstein; Germany by Dr. S. Tarrasch; France by D. Janowski; Great
Britain by J.H. Blackburne and I. Gunsberg; the U.S.A. by myself.

The St. Petersburg Chess Society was responsible for the organization
and conduct of the Tournament, the Tsar himself subscribing 1000
roubles towards the prize fund.

Ah!!!!!!

As it turned out, the prizes were more
than covered by the record gate of 6,000 roubles....It was at this
tournament (see Games 83 and 84) that the Tsar of Russia conferred on
each of the five finalists the title "Grandmaster of Chess."

Good references, thank you.

Phil

Not to slight Wlod on Levenfish, which was equally interesting.



Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:43 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
wrote:


Levenfish devotes to the tournamentover two and a half
pages, almost three (pp.45-48).

All of it plain text, not a single diagram, not
a single chess move.

The whole book has just under 200 pages.

Regards,

Wlod