I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:

Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title
"Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca, Siegbert Tarrasch,
Emanuel Lasker and Frank Marshall. After the conclusion of the 1914 St
Petersburg tournament, Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed the
title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.

and exploring the labrynthine chessville archive, the Russians did this
too...

Champion For A Day: After the death of Alexander Alekhine in 1946, FIDE
held a meeting to decide on how to choose the next World Champion. The FIDE
delegates decided that since Max Euwe was the only ex-World Champion still
alive, he would be the "World Champion" until FIDE organized a tournament to
find the next champion. The Soviet delegates arrived at the meeting a day
late. They had the decision annulled, and thus the world title was left
vacant, till Botvinnik won the 1948 tournament. Thus Euwe was "technically"
World Champion twice: 1935-37, and one day in 1946.

Other chess titles:

"World Champion Tournament Player": The Ostend 1907 featured players such
as Tarrasch, Schlechter, Marshall, Burn and Chigorin. After winning the
tournament, Tarrasch was crowned the "World Champion Tournament Player" by
the tournament organizers. No-one took the title seriously, and it quickly
disappeared into chess history.

Topically:

Was Keres the Best Never To Be World Champ? In the course of his long and
distinguished career, Paul Keres defeated nine players who were at one stage
in their careers world chess champion. The nine players we Alexander
Alekhine; Jose Capablanca; Vassily Smyslov; Max Euwe; Tigran Petrosian;
Mikhail Tal; Mikhail Botvinnik; Boris Spassky; Bobby Fischer.

Most of these anecdotes are supplied by Aussie Graham Clayton. here is a
final anecdote, and I am surprised that Washington beat NY! Lookit...

National Chess League: In January 1976, the United States Chess Federation
ran the inaugural "National Chess League". These were matches played on 6
boards, with the moves transmitted by telephone. The 9 teams who entered
finished in the following order:

1. Washington Plumbers
2. New York Threats
3. Cleveland Headhunters
4. San Fransisco Dragons
5. Los Angeles Stauntons 6. Miami Capablancas
7. Chicago Prairie Dogs
8. Boston 64's
9. Houston Helpmates



Many of the top US players of the era competed, including Larry
Christiansen, Anthony Saidy, Arnold Denker, Robert Byrne, Andy Soltis, Pal
Benko, Edmar Mednis, Arthur Bisguier and Lubomir Kavalek.

Phil Innes

On Nov 25, 9:43 am, "Chess One" wrote:
I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:

Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title
"Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca, Siegbert Tarrasch,
Emanuel Lasker and Frank Marshall. After the conclusion of the 1914 St
Petersburg tournament, Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed the
title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.

A highly debatable claim that gets made over and over without
documentation. As Edward Winter wrote in Chess Notes #5144, 9.2007:

"Books continue to claim, without substantiation, that the title of
'grandmaster' was first conferred by Tsar Nicholas II at St
Petersburg, 1914. The matter was discussed on pages 315-316 of Kings,
Commoners and Knaves and pages 177-178 of A Chess Omnibus, and we have
still found no earlier occurrence of the story than in an article by
Robert Lewis Taylor in The New Yorker, 15 June 1940.
"To pose a broader question: do 1914 sources contain references to
Tsar Nicholas II in connection with any aspect of the St Petersburg
tournament?"

On page 315 of "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Winter gives a quote,
supplied by Louis Blair, of what I presume is a biography, "Tsar
Nicholas II" by Dominic Lieven (1993):

"The imperial family spent April and May 1914 in the Crimea ... the
monarch was hundreds of miles from his capital."

Since the St. Petersburg tournament was held 21 April - 22 May 1914,
this would mean that the Tsar could not have been there to confer any
titles.

Furthermore, as Winter points out on page 178 of "A Chess
Omnibus" (2003), Ossip Bernstein wrote that "The title, Grandmaster,
was introduced in the international tourney at Ostend in 1907, in
which I shared first prize with Akiba Rubinstein."

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.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 9:43 am, "Chess One" wrote:
I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:

Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title
"Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca, Siegbert
Tarrasch,
Emanuel Lasker and Frank Marshall. After the conclusion of the 1914 St
Petersburg tournament, Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed the
title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.

A highly debatable claim that gets made over and over without
documentation. As Edward Winter wrote in Chess Notes #5144, 9.2007:

"Books continue to claim, without substantiation, that the title of
'grandmaster' was first conferred by Tsar Nicholas II at St
Petersburg, 1914. The matter was discussed on pages 315-316 of Kings,
Commoners and Knaves and pages 177-178 of A Chess Omnibus, and we have
still found no earlier occurrence of the story than in an article by
Robert Lewis Taylor in The New Yorker, 15 June 1940.

Not surprising, since any providence coming out of Russia would be very hard
to obtain after 1912. In fact, before that time you could travel anywhere
without a passport, documents introduced to restrict the 'red menace'.

"To pose a broader question: do 1914 sources contain references to
Tsar Nicholas II in connection with any aspect of the St Petersburg
tournament?"

You have to be rather careful with this line of historiography ~ otherwise
you wind up colluding with those who hold that since there is no evidence of
the same kind mentioned above for Shakespeare, the most well know author on
the planet, ever, did not write Shakespeare.


On page 315 of "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Winter gives a quote,
supplied by Louis Blair, of what I presume is a biography, "Tsar
Nicholas II" by Dominic Lieven (1993):

"The imperial family spent April and May 1914 in the Crimea ... the
monarch was hundreds of miles from his capital."

Leaving Petersburg without a substitue regent who had no instructions in
respect of the world's attention being focussed on chess in his capital
city? That would be rather strange.

Since the St. Petersburg tournament was held 21 April - 22 May 1914,
this would mean that the Tsar could not have been there to confer any
titles.

Furthermore, as Winter points out on page 178 of "A Chess
Omnibus" (2003), Ossip Bernstein wrote that "The title, Grandmaster,
was introduced in the international tourney at Ostend in 1907, in
which I shared first prize with Akiba Rubinstein."

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

On Nov 25, 2:20 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

...





On Nov 25, 9:43 am, "Chess One" wrote:
I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:

Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title
"Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca, Siegbert
Tarrasch,
Emanuel Lasker and Frank Marshall. After the conclusion of the 1914 St
Petersburg tournament, Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed the
title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.

A highly debatable claim that gets made over and over without
documentation. As Edward Winter wrote in Chess Notes #5144, 9.2007:

"Books continue to claim, without substantiation, that the title of
'grandmaster' was first conferred by Tsar Nicholas II at St
Petersburg, 1914. The matter was discussed on pages 315-316 of Kings,
Commoners and Knaves and pages 177-178 of A Chess Omnibus, and we have
still found no earlier occurrence of the story than in an article by
Robert Lewis Taylor in The New Yorker, 15 June 1940.

Not surprising, since any providence coming out of Russia would be very hard
to obtain after 1912. In fact, before that time you could travel anywhere
without a passport, documents introduced to restrict the 'red menace'.

"To pose a broader question: do 1914 sources contain references to
Tsar Nicholas II in connection with any aspect of the St Petersburg
tournament?"

You have to be rather careful with this line of historiography ~ otherwise
you wind up colluding with those who hold that since there is no evidence of
the same kind mentioned above for Shakespeare, the most well know author on
the planet, ever, did not write Shakespeare.

On page 315 of "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Winter gives a quote,
supplied by Louis Blair, of what I presume is a biography, "Tsar
Nicholas II" by Dominic Lieven (1993):

"The imperial family spent April and May 1914 in the Crimea ... the
monarch was hundreds of miles from his capital."

Leaving Petersburg without a substitue regent who had no instructions in
respect of the world's attention being focussed on chess in his capital
city? That would be rather strange.

Since the St. Petersburg tournament was held 21 April - 22 May 1914,
this would mean that the Tsar could not have been there to confer any
titles.

Furthermore, as Winter points out on page 178 of "A Chess
Omnibus" (2003), Ossip Bernstein wrote that "The title, Grandmaster,
was introduced in the international tourney at Ostend in 1907, in
which I shared first prize with Akiba Rubinstein."

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.

The point is, Phil, that to be properly substantiated, the story
about Petersburg 1914 needs credible sources and references. You have
supplied none (no surprise there). Mere airy, casual, offhand
dismissal of reasonable and relevant objections is not substantiation.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 2:20 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

...





On Nov 25, 9:43 am, "Chess One" wrote:
I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:

Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title
"Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca, Siegbert
Tarrasch,
Emanuel Lasker and Frank Marshall. After the conclusion of the 1914
St
Petersburg tournament, Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed
the
title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.

A highly debatable claim that gets made over and over without
documentation. As Edward Winter wrote in Chess Notes #5144, 9.2007:

"Books continue to claim, without substantiation, that the title of
'grandmaster' was first conferred by Tsar Nicholas II at St
Petersburg, 1914. The matter was discussed on pages 315-316 of Kings,
Commoners and Knaves and pages 177-178 of A Chess Omnibus, and we have
still found no earlier occurrence of the story than in an article by
Robert Lewis Taylor in The New Yorker, 15 June 1940.

Not surprising, since any providence coming out of Russia would be very
hard
to obtain after 1912. In fact, before that time you could travel anywhere
without a passport, documents introduced to restrict the 'red menace'.

"To pose a broader question: do 1914 sources contain references to
Tsar Nicholas II in connection with any aspect of the St Petersburg
tournament?"

You have to be rather careful with this line of historiography ~
otherwise
you wind up colluding with those who hold that since there is no evidence
of
the same kind mentioned above for Shakespeare, the most well know author
on
the planet, ever, did not write Shakespeare.

On page 315 of "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Winter gives a quote,
supplied by Louis Blair, of what I presume is a biography, "Tsar
Nicholas II" by Dominic Lieven (1993):

"The imperial family spent April and May 1914 in the Crimea ... the
monarch was hundreds of miles from his capital."

Leaving Petersburg without a substitue regent who had no instructions in
respect of the world's attention being focussed on chess in his capital
city? That would be rather strange.

Since the St. Petersburg tournament was held 21 April - 22 May 1914,
this would mean that the Tsar could not have been there to confer any
titles.

Furthermore, as Winter points out on page 178 of "A Chess
Omnibus" (2003), Ossip Bernstein wrote that "The title, Grandmaster,
was introduced in the international tourney at Ostend in 1907, in
which I shared first prize with Akiba Rubinstein."

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.

The point is, Phil, that to be properly substantiated, the story
about Petersburg 1914 needs credible sources and references. You have
supplied none (no surprise there). Mere airy, casual, offhand
dismissal of reasonable and relevant objections is not substantiation.

You mean I provide no context? I think I did, even over Blair's frankly daft
recommendation to Winter as if present or not, the Czar would have not known
of such an event - at a game the Russians consider their own - but a Winter
who I must assume by this logic agrees with you that Shakespeare did not
write 'Shakespeare' since there is not a scintilla of written proof of that
either.

Do you understand the logical issue?

Now - just because /you/ chose to introduce assertions by Winter to the
issue, don't get smarmy and start calling people all sorts of ****, as
usual, since you merely reinforce what everyone says of you, and him.

You begin with 'highly debatable', as if you actually mean to debate
something, or have an open mind, or other strong perspective, but you end in
ruinous comments about others, as usual. And as usual, short of citing
Winter, you yourself offer nothing to any point.

It /is/ debatable. Many things are debatable. What you are conducting here
is not a debate - it is merely a string of assertions which ignores all else
but your own perspective.

Sometimes none of the above are true. And maybe someone slung around the
title in 1905, or 1899? It may true that the first written record is of
note, and it may be the same title we now use. I don't know the answer, and
because there are other assertions, or doubts, then I propose, that is the
basis for any 'debate'.

But one does not debate a bull-horn.

Phil Innes

On Nov 25, 2:20 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

...





On Nov 25, 9:43 am, "Chess One" wrote:
I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:

Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title
"Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca, Siegbert
Tarrasch,
Emanuel Lasker and Frank Marshall. After the conclusion of the 1914 St
Petersburg tournament, Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed the
title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.

A highly debatable claim that gets made over and over without
documentation. As Edward Winter wrote in Chess Notes #5144, 9.2007:

"Books continue to claim, without substantiation, that the title of
'grandmaster' was first conferred by Tsar Nicholas II at St
Petersburg, 1914. The matter was discussed on pages 315-316 of Kings,
Commoners and Knaves and pages 177-178 of A Chess Omnibus, and we have
still found no earlier occurrence of the story than in an article by
Robert Lewis Taylor in The New Yorker, 15 June 1940.

Not surprising, since any providence coming out of Russia would be very hard
to obtain after 1912. In fact, before that time you could travel anywhere
without a passport, documents introduced to restrict the 'red menace'.

"To pose a broader question: do 1914 sources contain references to
Tsar Nicholas II in connection with any aspect of the St Petersburg
tournament?"

You have to be rather careful with this line of historiography ~ otherwise
you wind up colluding with those who hold that since there is no evidence of
the same kind mentioned above for Shakespeare, the most well know author on
the planet, ever, did not write Shakespeare.

On page 315 of "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Winter gives a quote,
supplied by Louis Blair, of what I presume is a biography, "Tsar
Nicholas II" by Dominic Lieven (1993):

"The imperial family spent April and May 1914 in the Crimea ... the
monarch was hundreds of miles from his capital."

Leaving Petersburg without a substitue regent who had no instructions in
respect of the world's attention being focussed on chess in his capital
city? That would be rather strange.

Since the St. Petersburg tournament was held 21 April - 22 May 1914,
this would mean that the Tsar could not have been there to confer any
titles.

Furthermore, as Winter points out on page 178 of "A Chess
Omnibus" (2003), Ossip Bernstein wrote that "The title, Grandmaster,
was introduced in the international tourney at Ostend in 1907, in
which I shared first prize with Akiba Rubinstein."

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.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

On page 315 of "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Winter gives a quote,
supplied by Louis Blair, of what I presume is a biography, "Tsar
Nicholas II" by Dominic Lieven (1993):

"The imperial family spent April and May 1914 in the Crimea ... the
monarch was hundreds of miles from his capital."

Since the St. Petersburg tournament was held 21 April - 22 May 1914,
this would mean that the Tsar could not have been there to confer any
titles.

Not sure why it is thought to be be necessary to have the Czar do this
in person, particularly as it would not involve an official Russian title.
If it was done at all -- which I very much doubt -- it seems more likely that a
representative of the Czar would have done it, and so the actual whereabouts
of the Czar would be irrelevant. One of the reasons for this would
be to distance the Czar from a non-official title, and so avoid lowering
the value of the really important titles. (Remember the upset when the
Beatles received their MBE's: some MBE's returned theirs in protest.
This is one of the reasons I don't believe the Czar would have done
anything of the sort: it would be not be to the interest of the Russian Crown
to 'dilute' any already existing official titles.)

A possible scenario where it just might have happened strikes me: chess clubs
did sometimes have royalty as honorary presidents. Was the Czar a protector of
the St. Petersburg chess club? If so, he could perhaps have signed a chess club
note on grandmaster status for the tournament participants, but he would not have
done it as Czar, but as a honorary chess club official. (I regard this this as
rather unlikely, in case anyone wonders.)

But there are mechanisms that allow absent and even dead monarchs to confer
titles. The carte blanche is one such: the monarch signs an order that raises
name left blank to the peerage as of date left blank also (or gives
a lifelong pension, or a mansion, or ..., well, fill in the blank space),
and gives it to a trusted person, such as a chancellor of state. At some later
time, when it is politically necessary, but the king himself is indisposed, dead,
or perhaps vacationing in the Crimea, the appropriate name and date is entered,
and the document is handed over. Such a document not be different from a document
the king had signed after the the name and benefit had been written, and it would
have legal force -- except perhaps after a revolution or similar dynastic upsets.

Anyway ... I don't really believe the whereabouts of the Czar is relevant
to the fundamental question.

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

On Nov 25, 3:25 pm, Anders Thulin
wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
On page 315 of "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Winter gives a quote,
supplied by Louis Blair, of what I presume is a biography, "Tsar
Nicholas II" by Dominic Lieven (1993):

"The imperial family spent April and May 1914 in the Crimea ... the
monarch was hundreds of miles from his capital."

Since the St. Petersburg tournament was held 21 April - 22 May 1914,
this would mean that the Tsar could not have been there to confer any
titles.

Not sure why it is thought to be be necessary to have the Czar do this
in person, particularly as it would not involve an official Russian title.
If it was done at all -- which I very much doubt -- it seems more likely that a
representative of the Czar would have done it, and so the actual whereabouts
of the Czar would be irrelevant. One of the reasons for this would
be to distance the Czar from a non-official title, and so avoid lowering
the value of the really important titles. (Remember the upset when the
Beatles received their MBE's: some MBE's returned theirs in protest.
This is one of the reasons I don't believe the Czar would have done
anything of the sort: it would be not be to the interest of the Russian Crown
to 'dilute' any already existing official titles.)

A possible scenario where it just might have happened strikes me: chess clubs
did sometimes have royalty as honorary presidents. Was the Czar a protector of
the St. Petersburg chess club? If so, he could perhaps have signed a chess club
note on grandmaster status for the tournament participants, but he would not have
done it as Czar, but as a honorary chess club official. (I regard this this as
rather unlikely, in case anyone wonders.)

But there are mechanisms that allow absent and even dead monarchs to confer
titles. The carte blanche is one such: the monarch signs an order that raises
name left blank to the peerage as of date left blank also (or gives
a lifelong pension, or a mansion, or ..., well, fill in the blank space),
and gives it to a trusted person, such as a chancellor of state. At some later
time, when it is politically necessary, but the king himself is indisposed, dead,
or perhaps vacationing in the Crimea, the appropriate name and date is entered,
and the document is handed over. Such a document not be different from a document
the king had signed after the the name and benefit had been written, and it would
have legal force -- except perhaps after a revolution or similar dynastic upsets.

Anyway ... I don't really believe the whereabouts of the Czar is relevant
to the fundamental question.

Anders, I certainly agree that the Tsar could have delegated this
duty. My question is, was it actually done at all, whether by the Tsar
in person or by his order?
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.
It seems very odd to me that of the five supposed recipients, only
Marshall is known to have mentioned it in any of his writings. One
would think that Lasker, Capablanca, Tarrasch, or especially Alekhine
would have taken some pride in it and given it some prominence in his
writings. Interestingly, in a 1922 interview Alekhine *_does_* mention
getting a grandmaster title, from the Tsar, but it was for co-winning
(with Nimzovitch) the All-Russian National Championship in January
1914, *_not_* for the international tournament of April-May 1914.

I tried to look up references to grand masters in regard to the St
Petersburg tournament, and couldn't find any. It was not uncommon to
call the major tournament a grand master's tournament, and to refer to
players as grand masters, but there seems to be nothing special that I
can find on St Petersburg. I also could not find more than the usual
passing reference to the czar in reports on the tournament. This is
not proof of anything, but I feel fairly certain that whatever was
said about gradmasters (perhaps in a speech at a banquet) did not make
any impression in reports of the time.

On the other hand, I think I can trace grandmaster back further than
1838. It is somewhat surprising to me that we are quite as ignorant of
the French literature which appeared in chess journals as we seem to
be. For example, London 1851 (or sometimes Simpsons 1849) are referred
to as the 1st chess tournament (those citing Simpson's cannot fall
back on calling it international), when weekly chess tournament
results are given from the Cafe Regence in the Regence chess journal.
On grandmasters, Palamede of 1836 calls Deschapelles a grand maitre
(pg 231), as one can find in google books. This simply happens to be
the 1st Palamede available, just as Bell's Life is a very early chess
column. My guess is that the word goes back further.

Jerry Spinrad

On Nov 25, 6:43 am, "Chess One" wrote:

I always thought this was a Fide-originated title, but no! Its:


It was used earlier in an informal way. There were relatively many
(formal or informal) masters, and some of them deserved an
emphasis and more respect, so they were called by a stronger
word like "grandmaster" or similar.

Original Grandmasters: The first 5 players to be given the title

"Grandmaster" were Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca,
Siegbert Tarrasch, Emanuel Lasker and Frank Marshall.
After the conclusion of the 1914 St Petersburg tournament,
Czar Nicholas II of Russia officially bestowed the
title of "Grandmaster of Chess" on these 5 players.


Do you really believe that it would be polite
to invite the chess world champion and tell him:

You know Emy, until now you didn't prove much.
But now we will give you a chance. Show that
you really know how to play chess and the Tsar
himself will name you his grandmaster. You can
forget your meaningless World Champion title.

Until Soviets there was no official interest in chess
in Russia that I know of. On the contrary, Soviets
were always stressing the fact that it was only in the SU
that chess got a serious consideration, while chess was
dramatically struggling during the tsars time. (BTW, I don't
like the "czar" spelling, because in Polish "cz" stands
for the English "ch" sounud, just like "sz" for "sh"; thus
word "czar" in Polish is what "charm" is in English; word
"czar" is related also to "magic").

I think that the autobiographic book by G. Levenfish

"Selected games and reminiscences"

is a strong, I'd say decisive(!), evidence against
claiming any involvement, direct or indirect, of Tsar
in the tournament. The book was published by
"Fizkultura i Sport", Moscow, 1967, six years
after Levenfish died (the delay was
"due to various circumstances" -- says the note from
publisher).

As we all know, Levinfish was not a participant of the
great tournament, while he was already a very strong master,
who played in tournaments against players like Alechine, Burn,
(he won a game from him by that time), Marshall, Nimzovitz,
Rubinstein, Schlechter, Vidmar, ... However, in his words:

I was helping the organizing committee to place
[meaning: to find the room and bed for night]
participants. (p.46)

Thus Levenfish was very close to the tournament.
Most likely he was helping in more than one way but
he mentions modestly just one aspect due to the needs
of narration.

Levenfish devotes to the tournamentover two and a half
pages, almost three (pp.45-48). The whole book has just
under 200 pages. At the end of page 45, Levenfish says
that Nimzovitz has caught up with Alechine in the last
day of the Russian championship (by beating Levenfish :-).
Then A & N played a match which ended in a draw [thus they
became co-champion; wh]. Levenfish writes casually:

"... and after the match between them ended in draw,
they were both admitted to the grandmaster tournament".

It's clear that Levenfish considers the Petersburg 1914
tournament so strong that he calls it a grandmaster tournament.
There is nothing official about it, nothing about any relation
between the result in Petersburg tournament (like reaching the
2nd stage) and the title. There is just this casual respect for
the level of the participants.

On page 45/46 Levenfish writes that the chess organization
was able to attract a very strong set of grandmasters. Once
again not a word about ESTABLISHING the title. On the contrary,
Levenfish considers the participants to be grandmasters to
start with, ALL of them. Next he writes (the beginning of
page 46):

"First of all, the world champion Lasker
gave his agreement, true, only for an extra
honorarium."

Once again, nothing about Tsar. Levenfish continues:

"Five prizes were established".

That's all! Not a word more about it. Nothing about
titles! Nothing about Tsar. The text devoted to the
Petersburg tournament ends in (p.48):

"The Petersburg tournament gave many examples of
real chess art, and it is too bad that to this
time there is no collection [tournament book; wh]
of the games of such a first class event [competition].

The Petersburg tournament ended near the end May,
and already for August the consecutive congress
of the German chess union in Mannheim."

After reading Levenfish, I don't believe for a moment
that Tsar was involved in the Petersburg tournament in
any way. I am sure, that always cultural Levenfish would
mention any such accent. Also, if Tsar would give the
titles then you could imagine that he would also contribute
some funds toward the organization of the tournament or,
certainly, toward the prizes. Not a word from Levenfish
about any of this, while we all know how important the
prizes were to the chessplayers. Even the lack of a Russian
tournament book is a pretty good evidence against any Tsar's
involvement. I am sure that Levenfish would say some
words about Rubinstein, one of the main favorites, missing
a chance for the title which he had deserved for a long
time. Levenfish was attached to Rubinstein. He writes how
Rubinstein was lost already before the tournament had started,
due to his psychological (psychiatric) state. Indeed,
Levenfish describes how it was impossible to find a room
for Rubinstein, be it in an excellent hotel or in a private
home, because each room was to Rubinstein too noisy or
too quiet. Not winning the GM title would be to Rubinstein
an insult added to injury. But Levenfish doesn't say a word
about any such considerations.

The main thing is however, that in the light
of Levenfish book you can take just any strong tournament
and claim that a royalty gave the guys titles; it would
be an equally (un)founded statement. Why, in the case of a more
obscure (less famous) tournament you could try to make
a stronger argument :-) (saying that people have short
memory but for the most prestigious tournaments :-).

Regards,

Wlod