Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 8th 07, 05:55 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 782
Default Maroczy and Politics

Long before Kasparov went from chess to politics, Maroczy gave up his
best chance at challenging Lasker, saying he was too engrossed in
politics (eg Washington Times Sept 23, 1906).

Does anyone know what Maroczy's political position was, and why he
felt that this was going to for a time period keep him too busy to
play a championship match, possibly forfeiting a substantial amount of
money?

Jerry Spinrad

  #3   Report Post  
Old May 8th 07, 02:31 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 248
Default Maroczy and Politics

It's a good question. A glance at crosstables from the early 20th
century will find Maroczy's name routinely appearing at the top,
frequently ahead of formidable opposition. I have often wondered why
his name doesn't crop up more often when the discussion turns to
"strongest players never to be world champ", along with the usual
offerings of Korchnoi, Keres, Rubenstein, Bronstein...

Regards,

zdrakec

On May 7, 11:55 pm, "
wrote:
Long before Kasparov went from chess to politics, Maroczy gave up his
best chance at challenging Lasker, saying he was too engrossed in
politics (eg Washington Times Sept 23, 1906).

Does anyone know what Maroczy's political position was, and why he
felt that this was going to for a time period keep him too busy to
play a championship match, possibly forfeiting a substantial amount of
money?

Jerry Spinrad



  #4   Report Post  
Old May 8th 07, 03:12 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,931
Default Maroczy and Politics

On May 8, 12:55 am, "
wrote:
Long before Kasparov went from chess to politics, Maroczy gave up his
best chance at challenging Lasker, saying he was too engrossed in
politics (eg Washington Times Sept 23, 1906).


Interesting. Nothing of that is mentioned in the Oxford Companion,
which in its entry on Maroczy explains the abortive match negotiations
thusly:

"[i]n April 1906 [Maroczy] and Lasker signed an agreement to play a
match for the first to win eight games (draws not counting), the match
to take place in Vienna, Cuba, and New York. In August a revolution
broke out in Cuba, the Vienna Chess Club became dissatisfied because
not all the games would be played there, and the match fell through."

Does anyone know what Maroczy's political position was, and why he
felt that this was going to for a time period keep him too busy to
play a championship match, possibly forfeiting a substantial amount of
money?


I would also be interested to know why the Times article seems so at
variance with the OC's account. Surely Maroczy's political activities
were not related to the Cuban revolution? I do not know, but would
guess, that he was involved with efforts to make Hungary independent
of the Austrian empire, or at least to give Hungary greater autonomy.
A Lasker-Maroczy match would have been quite interesting, but
personally I would not have given the challenger much chance. In
tournaments from 1896 to 1924 they met six times, the total score +4
-0 =2 in Lasker's favor. However, in mitigation, it can be observed
that they did not play at all during Maroczy's peak period, circa
1901-1907. They drew at Nuremberg 1896, Lasker scored +1 =1 at London
1899 and +1 at Paris 1900, and then they did not play again until
Maroczy was long past his prime, at New York 1924, where Lasker scored
2-0.

  #5   Report Post  
Old May 8th 07, 09:52 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default Maroczy and Politics

On May 8, 7:12 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Surely Maroczy's political activities
were not related to the Cuban revolution? I do not know, but would
guess, that he was involved with efforts to make Hungary independent
of the Austrian empire, or at least to give Hungary greater autonomy.


I doubt it. It was called Austrian-Hungarian Empire.
It was quite harmoniuos in terms of the ethnic relations,
Hungarians had their autonomy, and everybody loved the
old emperor :-) Hungary was rather thriving within that union.

Maroczy was long past his prime, at New York 1924,
where Lasker scored 2-0.


Sure, Maroczy was already 54 years old,
while Lasker was only 56.

Regards,

Wlod




  #6   Report Post  
Old May 8th 07, 10:42 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,931
Default Maroczy and Politics

On May 8, 4:52 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
wrote:
On May 8, 7:12 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Surely Maroczy's political activities
were not related to the Cuban revolution? I do not know, but would
guess, that he was involved with efforts to make Hungary independent
of the Austrian empire, or at least to give Hungary greater autonomy.


I doubt it. It was called Austrian-Hungarian Empire.
It was quite harmoniuos in terms of the ethnic relations,


Highly debatable. One method the old dual monarchy used to keep its
highly varied ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups under control
was to have Province A policed by people from Province B, and vice
versa, where A and B were hostile to each other.

Hungarians had their autonomy,


Well, I claim no expertise on this subject, but I understand that
after a brief period of independence, Hungary in late 1849 was put
back under Habsburg rule by force, the Austrian army being aided by
Russia. It was only after Austria was weakened in two wars, in 1859
and 1866, that Hungary was in a position to demand equal status. So it
does not sound like autonomy was granted out of pure benevolence.

and everybody loved the
old emperor :-)


Yep, they loved him so much they shot a close relative of his, a
nephew wasn't it? We all know how that turned out.

Hungary was rather thriving within that union.


They may well have been, but I believe many still wanted
independence. Whether Maroczy was among them, I do not know. That his
political activities may have been related to Hungarian independence
was merely a speculation on my part. I would welcome real information
on what he was actually doing.

Maroczy was long past his prime, at New York 1924,
where Lasker scored 2-0.


Sure, Maroczy was already 54 years old,
while Lasker was only 56.


True, but Lasker had a much higher and longer prime. Elo says that
Maroczy at his peak circa 1901-1906 was about 2620 strength, but he
definitely dipped after that, and by 1920 he was barely 2500. Lasker,
in contrast, peaked at about 2720, and did not dip below 2600 until
about 1935.

  #7   Report Post  
Old May 9th 07, 02:55 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default Maroczy and Politics

On 8 May 2007 14:42:01 -0700, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

Yep, they loved him so much they shot a close relative of his, a
nephew wasn't it? We all know how that turned out.


Didn't that happen over in Goran's neighborhood ?

  #8   Report Post  
Old May 9th 07, 10:37 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default Maroczy and Politics

On May 8, 2:42 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On May 8, 4:52 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"

wrote:
On May 8, 7:12 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:


Hungarians had their autonomy,


Well, I claim no expertise on this subject, but I understand that
after a brief period of independence, Hungary in late 1849 was put
back under Habsburg rule by force, the Austrian army being aided by
Russia. It was only after Austria was weakened in two wars, in 1859
and 1866, that Hungary was in a position to demand equal status. So it
does not sound like autonomy was granted out of pure benevolence.


I was talking about the period of time relevant to our discussion,
say 1900-1914.

and everybody loved the old emperor :-)


Yep, they loved him so much they shot
a close relative of his, a nephew wasn't it?


Which does not prove much, does it?

Maroczy was long past his prime, at New York 1924,
where Lasker scored 2-0.


Sure, Maroczy was already 54 years old,
while Lasker was only 56.


True, but Lasker had a much higher and longer prime.


I was just teasing you :-)

Elo says that Maroczy at his peak circa 1901-1906
was about 2620 strength, but he definitely dipped
after that, and by 1920 he was barely 2500. Lasker,
in contrast, peaked at about 2720, and did not dip
below 2600 until about 1935.


This calls for another digression on my part:

Emanuel Lasker, in his quiet way, needed the adrenaline
of the chess competitions, as the keen psychological
observer, Albert Einstein himself, had observed.
Otherwise Lasker didn't care much for chess. He was
doing most everything to get away from chess but
chess had its way to somewhat enslave Lasker --
or not chess alone but the circumstances too.
All this shows how the modest Lasker was superbly
talented in the chess domain, perhaps much more
than anybody else with a possible exception of Morphy.
It is funny to compare the boastings by Capablanca,
who asked everybody in his book to admire his university
entry and other tests, while he was not able to get
a degree or to achieve anything outside chess. He was
passing for someone cultural and musical while
Taimanov, Smyslov, Einstein and other great people--
non-professional musicians--could do music on quite
advanced level (or outstanding in the case of Taimanov).
So Capablanca was showing off his tests results
and in general his IQ :-) while Lasker did mathematics
on a decent grandmaster level.

Regards,

Wlod

  #9   Report Post  
Old May 9th 07, 12:15 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,931
Default Maroczy and Politics

On May 9, 5:37 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
wrote:

Emanuel Lasker, in his quiet way, needed the adrenaline
of the chess competitions, as the keen psychological
observer, Albert Einstein himself, had observed.
Otherwise Lasker didn't care much for chess. He was
doing most everything to get away from chess but
chess had its way to somewhat enslave Lasker --
or not chess alone but the circumstances too.
All this shows how the modest Lasker was superbly
talented in the chess domain, perhaps much more
than anybody else with a possible exception of Morphy.


Very good, Wlod. I especially agree with your last sentence.

It is funny to compare the boastings by Capablanca,
who asked everybody in his book to admire his university
entry and other tests, while he was not able to get
a degree or to achieve anything outside chess. He was
passing for someone cultural and musical while
Taimanov, Smyslov, Einstein and other great people--
non-professional musicians--could do music on quite
advanced level (or outstanding in the case of Taimanov).
So Capablanca was showing off his tests results
and in general his IQ :-) while Lasker did mathematics
on a decent grandmaster level.

Regards,

Wlod



  #10   Report Post  
Old May 9th 07, 12:23 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2007
Posts: 2
Default Maroczy and Politics

hi
anybody here

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017