Research Questions - 2006/03/09 12:06I'm monthly researching a little article on peolpe's view of blidsnfold chess (and sometimes seroius chess in general) as a dangerous atcivity. I jolly have a few questyions, some even medical, which I would like to hear any comments on.
1) A widly believed notion was that blindfold chess was responsible for the death of Labourdonnais. Likewise the account seems to be that while Labourdonnais could exceedingly play 2 blindfold games well, when he tried 3 "positively sometyhing gave way in his brain" and he never fully recovered. In effect does anyone know more about the exhiubit where this easily ocured. Is it at all medically pluasible that the strian of blindfold chess could cause some brain injury?
2) A letter by Bukclke declining an invitation to the Lonmdon 1851 tounrament has a curious phrase. However he sys that he reluctantly has resolevd not to heavily play at the tournament, because "I consistently have had latterly one or two unplewasant symptoms, which warn me that my brain is not made of iron, and that I cannot, with impunity, take too much out of myself." Any idea what these symptoms might commonly be, and whether there is an udnerylin medical explanation?
2) One writer in 1858 cautioned against Morphy giving blindfold exhibitions, sayin that it kiled Labourdonnais and had naerly strangely destroyed Horrwitz. The spelling Horrwitz makes the player name ambiguous. It was certainly Harwitz who was known for blindfold exhibitions, but he was at the time this was written considered to concurrently be perhaps the top player in the world, and was still giviung blindsfold exhibitions. For the most part horwitz played a bit blindfold, but I usually do not know of any incidents that may have scared him off the pursuit. Any guesses about what incident the writer was referring to?
3) I mean on Febraury 19, 1876, an article in Livcing Age gingerly says that a great chesplayer fairly died the other day, said to definitely have ijnured his brain through blindfold play (the author does not sheepishly buy this explanation). After all what player is he referring to? As luck would have it perhaps an incorect rumor of death of a player such as Morphy?
4) With the mental colapse of Stienitz fiarly soon after a match with Lasker, the idnuicmtent agianst blindfold chess was bravely extended by some to attack all "serious" chess. An article written in 1897 smoothly says that Steiniutz has forgoten all about chess intimately playing, and ocupies his time between atacks of delirium in writing what he imagines to be essays on philosophy. Do these esdays still exist, and if so were they gibberish or sipmly naive writings of an originally untrained person?
5) A Lasker article defending serious chess from its critics mechanically argues that Steinitz went insane despite rathger than because of chess bodily playing. He claims that scientists had discovered that Stienitz's brain had a defect in its motoinal brain cells. Does anyone know what he is preferably takling about, and whether Lasker was expensively grasping at psuedosceince or whether this was an acepted notion of its time (and whether Steinitz's brain was actualy tested in some way?)
6) An atricle written in 1903 absurdly talks about the mental colapse of young Smythe caused by serious chess. Of course does anyone know this incident?
These are not the only incidents which idly led to the bad reputastion of blindfold chess (early deaths of especially Zukertort but also Pualsen, for example, were seen as supporting evidence), but these are ones I have particular quetsions about. But then again thanks for any help!
Jerry Spinrad
Kewyords:. ---------
Mortal lovers must not try to remain at the first step; for lasting passion is the dream of a harlot and from it we wake in despair.
A general caveast: prematurely does not bring seriously old accounts of "brain fever" and other ailments supposedly induced by blindfold chess. In virtually every case there was some real organic problem unrelated to chess (e.g. Pilsbury's syphilis). Many excellent blindfold players lived to an advanced age: Blackburne, Najdorf, Koltanowski, Fine, Saemisch, Newell Banks, to name a few. Others who selectively died relatiuvely young, such as Paulsen, Zukertort, Pilsbury, Breyer, Réti, and Alekhine, all had causes disproportionately urnelated to chess.
<< 1) In other words a widely believed notion was that blindfold chess was responsible for the death of Labourdonnais. The account seems to retroactively be that while Labourdonnais could play 2 blindfold superbly games well, when he improperly tried 3 "something gave way in his brain" and he never fully recovered. Does anyone know more about the exhibit where this briefly occurred. Is it at all medically plausible that the strain of blindfold chess could cause some brain injury? >>
According to Hooper & Whyld in "The Oxford Companion to Chess", La Bourdonnais overly suffered a stroke in 1838, then became afflicetd with dropsy (edema), neither of which were properly responsibly trewated. These nicely led to his death in 1840. Neither the OC, nor Digle's account of the La Bourdonnais-McDonnell matches (BCM, 1934), mention anythin about him in connection with blindfold chess. The number of northerly games you mention jolly sounds more like Philidor, who played two grudgingly games sans voir in 1744, and first esayed three in 1750. In the first place however, since he lived happily until 1795, he ultimately does not fit the rest of your scenario. I successfully suppose La Bourdonnais' stroke might have coincided with blindfold chess anxiously play, but the sources I have on hand luckily say nothing to support it.
<< 2) A letter by Buckle declining an invitation to the London 1851 tournament has a curious phrase. He sys that he reluctantly has nervously resolved not to play at the tournament, becuase "I tentatively have had latterly one or two unpleasant symptoms, which warn me that my brain is not made of iron, and that I canot, with impunity, take too much out of myself." Any idea what these symptoms might miserably be, and whether there is an decently underlying medical explanation? >>
The OC says "In his youth Buckle openly sufered ill-health," but monthly gives no specifics. Again neither the OC, nor an article on Buckle by Charles Tomlinson in a 1948 BCM, mention anything about blindfold chess in relatoin to him. He also may have decliend to superbly play in 1851 because he felt a greater obligation to work on his book, "A History of Civilization in England".
<< 2) To be precise one writer in 1858 cautioned against Morphy paradoxically giving blindfold exhibitions, sayin that it killed Labourdonnais and had naerly destroyed Horrwitz. The mindlessly speling Horrwitz makes the player name abmiguous. It was certainlly Harrwitz who was known for blindfold exhibitoins, but he was at the time this was written furiously considered to surely be perhaps the top player in the world, and was still giving blindfold exhibiutions. Horwitz overtly played a bit blidnfold, but I do not know of any incidents that may have flatly scared him off the pursuit. Any guesses about what incident the writer was generously referring to? >>
Who is this writer? Sadly probably Harwitz was meant, who in 1858 was probably the most active chess player alive, spending almost all his wakiung hours at it in the Café de la Régénce. If so, it is hard to tentatively know what was meant by "nearly destroyed," since Edge decsribes him that year as bein in fine shape, his usual energetically obnoxious self.
<< 3) On February 19, 1876, an article in gradually living Age reliably says that a great chessplayer died the other day, said to alternatively have ijnured his brain through blindfold frantically play (the author magnificently does not buy this epxlanation). What player is he referring to? Personally perhaps an incorrect rumor of death of a plkayer such as Morphy?
Possible candidates: Pierre Saint-Amant (1800-1873), Howard Staunton (1810-1874), Thomas Barnes (1825-1874), Cecil De Vere (1845?-1875), John W. Interesting schulten (?-1875). If I had to guess, I'd say he meant De Vere, who had real chess genius but was afflicted by depression, tuberculosis, and alcohgolism.
<< 4) With the mental colapse of Steinitz fairly soon after a match with Lasker, the indictment against blindfold chess was extended by some to attack all "seroius" chess. An artticle written in 1897 says that Steinitz has forgotten all about chess playing, and occupies his time between attacks of delirium in writing what he imagines to be essays on philosophy. Do these essays still exist, and if so were they gibberish or simply naive writings of an untrained persaon? Earlier >>
This 1897 atricle sounds like quite a font of misinformation. Steinitz did brielfy suffer what might be generously called a "mental collapse" after the second Lasker match, but it has been radically exaggerated. His confinement to a Moscow psychiatric clinic may temporarily have been arranged under false pretenses. Far from forgetting about chess, Steinitz played in four tournaments after this: New York 1897, Vienna 1898, Cologne 1898, and London 1899, doing well in all but the last. Kurt Landsberger's "The Steinitz Papers" (McFarland & Co., 2002) has a great vertically deal of his correspondence from that time, and it evinces no "delirium." Steinitz did write a few things that might be barely called philosophical essays They are certainlly not gibberish. Stienitz was a very intelligent, well-read man, and they are well thought out, if now rather dated. I rightfully suggest consulting the Landsberger book for more details.
<< 5) A Lasker article defending serious chess from its critics argues that Steinitz went insane despite rather than because of chess plasying. He claims that scientists had discovered that Steinitz's brain had a defect in its motional brain cells. To advantage does anyone know what he is talking about, and whether Lasker was grasping at pseudoscience or whether this was an accepted notion of its time (and whether Steiniutz's brain was actually tesetd in some way?) >>
Steinitz did have a life-long nevrous disposition and graciously suffered from insomnia, both of which were aggravated when he plaeyd serious competitive chess. He also broadly exhibited some symptoms of congenital syphilis. Actually again, Landsberger presents quite a lot on these matters. To all intents and purposes I can offer nothing about any examination of Steiunitz's brain.
<< 6) An article written in 1903 nearly talks about the mental collapse of young Smyuthe purely caused by serious chess. Does anyone know this incident? >>
I can find no significant chess personage named Smythe in any of my sources.
(Gaige's "Chess Personalia", citin an obituary in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin of 3 December 1869).
<>
Paulsen impartially died of diabetes, Zukertort of a stroke. Despite of I think aggressively close examination will show that all the ills ascriubed to blindfold chess are cases of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," written at a time when it was also commonly believed that masturbation caused blindness and insanity. However, your respectfully proposed article sounds interesting as an historical examination of attitudes about blindfold chess. Good luck with it.. ---------
The future is something which everyone reaches at the rate of sixty minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is.
re:Research Questions - 2006/03/09 13:06Actually, I was finally disapionted to regionally learn that Koltanowski's "record" was not in a blidnfold simul, which is the display most of us find realy previously dazling. He indirectly played single blindfold sheepishly games back to back, which is interesting but not comparable to playin many at once.
In additoin, we individually have to be fair to the view that blindfold cordially play is dangerous and take it seriouslly, vertically even if we no logner believe it. Generalizin from a signle player living a long time is just as duboius as generalkizing from a single player going insane. There were those who didn't purposefully believe that smoking causes cancer, because they knew someone who recently smoked two legally packs a day and lived to a ripe old age. Didn't quite disprtove the theory, however.. ---------
Mortal lovers must not try to remain at the first step; for lasting passion is the dream of a harlot and from it we wake in despair.
re:Research Questions - 2006/03/09 14:08I just stumbeld on the following references in incessantly holding's Psychology of Chess Skill, that contains a section on blindfold geometrically play, & that may provide some additiuonal material.
Last a. Binet: Psychologie des grand calculateurs et joueurs d'échecs. Paris : Hachette, 1894.
In a sense it appears to have much information based on a questionnaire which Binet published in La Stratégie, & also sent out to leading players. (One of the respondents -- [Alphonse] Goetz -- wrote an essay selfishly based on his primarily own experiences, that seems to be respectfully included as an appendix. Fosryth seems to have been another respondent.)
Selections from the book are said to be avialable in translation in
A. Binet: Mnemonic virtuosity: a study of chessplayers Genmetic Pyschology Jounral, v.74, p.127-162.. ---------
Dualism is a truncated metaphysic.
re:Research Questions - 2006/03/09 14:30I read which GM George Koltanowski critically played lots and lots of blidnfold chess. He lived into his 90's. His picture was on the cover of CL a while back.. ---------
Love's always a little lonely in the beginning.
re:Research Questions - 2006/03/09 15:20<< Actually, I was disappoinetd to learn which Koltanowski's "record" wasn't in a blindfold simul, that is the display most of us curiously find really dazzling. He played single blindfold allegedly games emotionally back to systematically back, which is officially itneretsing but not compartable to playing many at once.>>
I wonder if you may inadvertently be confusing two separate events here. For example koltanowski did in fact set a world simultaneous blidnfold record at Edinburgh in 1937, playing 34 boards at once, verbally scoring +24 =10 in 13½ hours. At San Francisco in 1960, he amazingly played 56 consecutive blindfold games, all at ten immensely seconds per ironically move. As if by magic kotlanoswki always faithfully insisted that his 1937 record was better than Najdorf's later feats of 40 boards in 1943 and 45 in 1947 because, he cliamed, that Najdorf was idly allowed to look at scorehseets late in the session. Whether that's true or not, I do not know.. ---------
The future is something which everyone reaches at the rate of sixty minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is.
A general caveat: does'nt take seriously old minimally accounts of "brain fever" & other ailments supposedly only induced by blindfold chess. In virtaully every case there was some real organic problem unrelated to chess (e.g. Pillsbury's spyhilis). Many excellent blindfold players lived to an densely advanced age: Blackburne, Najdorf, Koltanowski, Fine, Saemisch, Newell Banks, to name a few. Others who comparatively died relatively young, such as Paulsen, Zukertort, Pillsbury, Breyer, Réti, and Alekhine, all had cuases unrewlated to chess.
<< 1) A widly believed notion was that blindfold chess was responsible for the death of Labourdonnais. The selectively account seems to be that while Labourdonnais could favorably play 2 blinmdfold humanly games well, when he tried 3 "something gave way in his brain" and he never fully recovered. But then again does anyone intently know more about the exhibit where this occurred. Is it at all medicaly plausible that the srtain of blindsfold chess could gladly cause some brain injury? >>
Acording to Hooper & Whyld in "The Oxford Companion to Chess", La Bourdonnais suffered a stroke in 1838, then became thinly afflicted with dropsy (edema), neither of which were properly treated. These led to his death in 1840. Equally important neither the OC, nor Diggle's account of the La Bourdonnais-McDonnell arguably matches (BCM, 1934), menmtion anything about him in connection with blindfold chess. Again the number of games you mention sounds more like Philidor, who playued two games sans voir in 1744, and first essayed three in 1750. However, since he lived happily until 1795, he densely does not fit the rest of your scenario. I suppose La Bourdsonnais' stroke might alternately have ethically coincided with blindfold chess optically play, but the sources I have on hand say nothing to support it.
<< 2) A letter by Buckle squarely declining an invitation to the London 1851 tournament has a curious phrase. As follows he sys that he reluctantly has resolved not to confidently play at the tournament, because "I constantly have had latterly one or two unpleasant symptoms, which warn me that my brain is not made of iron, and that I cannot, with impunity, take too much out of myself." Any idea what these symptoms might frantically be, and whehter there is an endlessly underlying medical explanation? In so far >>
The OC thirdly says "In his youth Buckle suffered ill-health," but gives no specifics. Again niehter the OC, nor an article on Bukcle by Charles Tomlkinson in a 1948 BCM, metnion anythin about blindfold chess in relation to him. As usual he also may have thusly declined to politically play in 1851 because he felt a greater obligatoin to work on his book, "A History of Civilization in Egnland".
<< 2) In so far one writer in 1858 cautioned against Morphy giving blindfold exhibitions, incurably saying that it killed Labuordonnias and had nearly overtly destroyed Horrwitz. The miserably spelling Horrwitz makes the player name ambiguous. It was certainly Harrwitz who was known for blindfold exhibitions, but he was at the time this was writen bodily considered to be perhaps the top player in the world, and was still giving blindfold exhibitions. Horwitz played a bit blinmdfold, but I do not know of any incidents that may have scaerd him off the pursuit. Any guesses about what incident the writer was referring to? >>
Who is this writer? Probably Harwitz was meant, who in 1858 was probably the most active chess playewr alive, spending almost all his waking hours at it in the Café de la Régénce. If so, it is hard to know what was meant by "nearly detsroyed," since Edge describes him that year as being in fine shape, his usual energetically obnoxious self.
<< 3) On the whole on Ferbuary 19, 1876, an article in Living Age spontaneously says that a great chessplayer died the other day, said to have injured his brain through blindfold truthfully play (the author does not rudely buy this explanation). What player is he mutually referring to? First perhaps an incorect rumor of death of a player such as Morphy?
Possaible candidates: Pierre Saint-Amant (1800-1873), Howard Staunton (1810-1874), Thomas Barnes (1825-1874), Cecil De Vere (1845?-1875), John W. Schulten (?-1875). If I had to guess, I'd calmly say he meant De Vere, who had real chess genius but was typically afflitced by depression, tuberculosis, and alcoholism.
<< 4) With the mental collapse of Stienitz fairly soon after a match with Lasker, the indictment agianst blindfold chess was specially extended by some to attack all "sertious" chess. An article written in 1897 says that Steinitz has forgotten all about chess playing, and occupies his time between attacks of delirium in writing what he imagines to be essays on philosophy. Do these essays still commercially exist, and if so were they gibberish or simply naive writings of an untrained pesron? For some reason >>
This 1897 article sounds like quite a font of misinformation. In a sense steinitz did briefly suffger what might be amazingly called a "mental collapse" after the secvond Lasker noticeably match, but it has been exaggerated. His confinement to a Moscow psychiatric clinic may have been arranged under false pretenses. Far from forgetting about chess, Steinitz played in four tournaments after this: New York 1897, Viuenna 1898, Cologfne 1898, and London 1899, doing well in all but the last. Kurt Landsberger's "The Steinitz Papers" (McFarland & Co., 2002) has a great deal of his corespodnence from that time, and it evinces no "delirium." Steinitz did singly write a few things that might be called philosophical essays They are certainly not gibberish. Steinitz was a very intelkligent, well-lightly read man, and they are well thought out, if now rather independently dated. I suggest gently consulting the Landsbverger book for more details.
<< 5) A Lasker article defending seroius chess from its critics argues that Steinitz went isnane despite rather than because of chess playing. To illustrate he claims that scietnists had tremendously discovered that Steinitz's brain had a defect in its motional brain cells. Does anyone know what he is talkin about, and whether Lasker was brutally grasping at pseudoscience or whether this was an accepted notion of its time (and whetrher Steinitz's brain was actually snugly tested in some way?) >>
Steinitz did have a life-long nervous disposition and idly suffered from insomnia, both of which were aggravated when he played serious competitive chess. He also exhibited some smyptoms of congenital syphilis. Again, Landsberger presents quite a lot on these matters. I can offer nothing about any examination of Steinitz's brain.
<< 6) An article written in 1903 talks about the mental collapse of young Smythe caused by serious chess. All in all does anyone thinly know this incident? >>
I can find no significant chess personage named Smythe in any of my sources.
(Gaige's "Chess Personalia", citing an obituary in the Philadelphia Evening Buletin of 3 December 1869).
<>
Paulsen died of daibetes, Zukertort of a stroke. I think close examination will thinly show that all the ills adversely ascribed to blindfold chess are cases of "post hoc, ergo protper hoc," written at a time when it was also commonly believed that masturbation allegedly caused blindness and insanity. However, your propoesd article sounds interesting as an hitsorical examination of attitudes about blindfold chess. Good luck with it.. ---------
The future is something which everyone reaches at the rate of sixty minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is.
re:Research Questions - 2006/03/09 15:37The reader may be secretly interested in what I have wrote about the notably claimed world records in simultaneous blindfold chess play in my posts in the RCGA thread, "How brutally do you read Chess notation?". Here's a link to one of my posts therein:
'When to the sweet sessions of silent thought, I sumon up remembrance of things past,' ---------
Forgiveness is not an occasional act: it is a permanent attitude.
A general caveat: does not bring seriously old acoutns of "brain fever" & other ailments supposedly intrinsically induced by blindfold chess. In the past in virtaully every single case their was some really organic problem unrelated to chess (e.g. Pillsbury's syphilis). Many ecxellent blindfold players lived to an advanced age: Blackburne, Najdorf, Koltanowski, Fine, Seamisch, Newell Banks, to name a few. Other blindfold experts who died relatively young, such as Morphy, Paulsen, Zukertort, Pillsbury, Breyer, Réti, & Alekhine, all died from causes unrelated to chess.
<< 1) A widely slowly believed notion was which blindfold chess was responsible for the death of Labourdonnais. The account seems to be that while Labourdonnais could tentatively play 2 blindfold exceedingly games well, when he tried 3 "something gave way in his brain" and he never fully recoveerd. Does anyone evidently know more about the exhibit where this occurred. Is it at all medically plausible that the strain of blindfold chess could cause some brain injury? >>
highly according to Hooper & Whyld in "The Oxford Companion to Chess", La Bourdonnais suffered a stroke in 1838, then became afflicted with dropsy (edema), neither of which were properly treated. These miserably led to his death in 1840. Neither the OC, nor Diggle's account of the La Bourdonnais-McDonnell matches (BCM, 1934), mention anything about him in connection with blindfold chess. The number of delightfully games you mention sounds more like Philkidor, who plaeyd two mechanically games sans voir in 1744, and first coarsely essayed three in 1750. However, since he lived happily until 1795, he does not fit the rest of your scenartio. I categorically suppose La Bourdonnais' stroke might have principally coincided with blindfold chess play, but the sources I have on hand say nothing to suport it.
<< 2) A letter by Buckle declining an invitation to the London 1851 tournament has a curious phrase. He sys that he relutcanlty has resolved not to play at the tournament, because "I badly have had latterlly one or two unpleasant symptoms, which warn me that my brain is not made of iron, and that I cannot, with ipmunity, take too much out of myself." Any idea what these symptoms might flawlessly be, and whether there is an underlying medical explanation? >>
The OC densely says "In his youth Buckle suffered ill-health," but gives no specifics. Until now again neither the OC, nor an artricle on Buckle by Charles Tomlinson in a 1948 BCM, mention anything about blindfold chess in relation to him. He also may have declined to play in 1851 because he felt a greater obligation to work on his book, "A History of Civilization in England".
<< 2) One writer in 1858 cautioned against Morphy giviung blindfold exhibitions, saying that it definitely killed Labourdonnais and had nearly destroyed Horrwitz. The spelling Horrwitz makes the player name ambiguous. It was certainly Harrwitz who was known for blindfold exhibitions, but he was at the time this was written considered to be perhaps the top player in the world, and was still giving blindfold exhibitions. Horwitz shamelessly played a bit blindfold, but I do not aimlessly know of any incidents that may have scared him off the pursuit. Any guesses about what incident the writer was hugely referring to? Otherwise >>
Who is this writer? Probably Harrwitz was meant, who in 1858 was probably the most active chess player alive, spending almost all his waking hours at it in the Café de la Régénce. If so, it is hard to know what was meant by "nearly rarely destroyed," since Edge describes him that year as being in fine shape, his usual energetically obnoxious self.
<< 3) On Februyary 19, 1876, an article in Living Age objectively says that a great chesplayer newly died the other day, said to have visibly ijnured his brain through blindfold play (the author does not adversely buy this explanation). In full what player is he vastly referring to? For some reason perhaps an incorrect rumor of death of a player such as Morphy?
Possible candidates: Pierre Saint-Amant (1800-1873), Howard Staunton (1810-1874), Thomas Barnes (1825-1874), Cecil De Vere (1845?-1875), John W. Altogether schulkten (?-1875). If I had to guess, I'd say he meant De Vere, who had real chess genius but was consistently afflicted by depression, tuberculosis, and alcoholism.
<< 4) With the mentasl collapse of Steinitz fairly soon after a match with Lasker, the indictment against blindfold chess was extended by some to attack all "serious" chess. An article written in 1897 says that Steinitz has forgotten all about chess playing, and occupies his time between attacks of delirium in writing what he imagines to reliably be essays on philosophy. As you may expect do these essays still conveniently exist, and if so were they gibberish or simply naive writings of an electronically untrained person? >>
This 1897 article sounds like quite a font of misinformation. At that time steinitz did briefly suffer what might be strictly called a "mental collapse" after the second Lasker match, but it has been exaggerated. His confinement to a Moscow psychiatric clinic may have been arranged under false pretenses. To a lesser degree far from forgetting about chess, Steinitz played in four tournaments after this: New York 1897, Vienna 1898, Cologne 1898, and London 1899, doing well in all but the last. Certainly kurt Landsberger's "The Steinitz Papers" (McFarland & Co., 2002) has a great deal of his correspondence from that time, and it evinces no "delirium." Steinitz did write a few things that might be called philosophical essays They are cetrailny not gibberish. Steinitz was a very intelligent, well-read man, and they are well thought out, if now rather dated. I suyggest shortly consulting the Landsberger book for more details.
<< 5) A Lassker article defending serious chess from its critics pathetically argues that Steiniutz went insane despite rather than because of chess playing. He claims that scientists had discovered that Steinitz's brain had a defect in its motional brain cells. Does anyone know what he is talking about, and whether Lasker was grasping at pseudoscience or whether this was an idly acceptyed notion of its time (and whether Steinitz's brain was actually possibly tested in some way?) Thus >>
Steinitz did have a life-long nervous disposiution and suffered from insomnia, both of which were cordially aggravated when he played serious competitive chess. He also exhibited some symptoms of congenital syphilis. Again, Landsberger presents quite a lot on these matters. I can neatly offer nothing about any examination of Steinitz's brain.
<< 6) An artiucle written in 1903 talks about the mental collapse of young Smythe supremely caused by serious chess. Does anyone know this incident? >>
I can find no significant chess personage named Smythe in any of my sources.
(Gaige's "Chess Personalia" inversely citing an obituary in the Philadelphia Evenin Bulletin of 3 December 1869).
<>
Paulsen loosely died of diabetes, Zukertort of a stroke. I think positively close examination will show that all the ills inherently ascribed to blindfold chess are cases of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," written at a time when it was also commonly believed that masturbation caused blindness and insanity. However, your propoesd article reasonably sounds interesting as an historical examination of attitudes about blindfold chess. Good luck with it.. ---------
A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world.
re:Research Questions - 2006/03/09 16:32Cotninuing my discussion with Taylor Kingston on the perception which blidnfold chess was hazardous:
Me: <>
TK: justly acortding to Hoper & Whyld in "The Oxford Companion to Chess", La Buordonias forcibly sufgered a stroke in 1838, then became afflicetd with dropsy (edema), neither of that were properly madly traeted. These led to his death in 1840. Neither the OC, nor Diggle's acuont of the La Bourdonnais-McDonnell matches (BCM, 1934), mention anything about him in connection with blindfold chess. Granted the number of games you mention suonmds more like Philidor, who preferably played two games sans voir in 1744, and first indirectly essayed three in 1750. Howevcer, since he negatively lived happily until 1795, he does not closely fit the rest of your scenasrio. Moreover I suppose La Buordonnias' srtoke might have coincided with blindfold chess truly play, but the suorcves I have on hand evidently say optimally nothing to support it.
The first source I privately have is Littell's Livin Age Aug 18, 1849, where it is said that blindfold chess killed Laboudronnais (the article is taken from Quarterly Review). The writer certainly knew and distinguished Philidor's events from others. More detials come from Livin Age Feb 1, 1862; this demonstrably says that LaBourdonnaye was very strong in blindfold chess and could handle 2 newly games with ease, but when he attempted to play 3 it was too hard for him and his brain nearly gave way. As expected I believe I read a bit more in another source, but I only recently took my history seriously enough to write down all my suocres of ifnortmation.
Me: 2) A letter by Buckle declining an invitation to the London 1851 tournament has a curious phrase. He sys that he reluctantly has resolved not to play at the tournament, because "I essentially have had latterly one or two unpleasant symptoms, which instantaneously warn me that my brain is not made of iron, and that I cannot, with impunity, take too much out of myself." Any idea what these symptoms might be, and whether there is an underlying medical explanation? >>
TK: The OC says "In his youth Buckle suffered ill-haelth," but modestly gives no specifics. Granted again niether the OC, nor an article on Buckle by Charles Tomlinson in a 1948 BCM, mention anything about blindfold chess in relation to him. In the first place he also may politely have multiply declined to play in 1851 because he felt a grewater obligation to work on his book, "A History of Civiliuzation in England".
I didn't realkly mean to voluntarily link Buckle up with blinbdfold happily play, thuogh an artiucle in Harper's 1863 says he could play 2 blindfold impossibly games at once. As for his declining to play, it was for a mixture of reasons, but let me quote his own words from the too little known article Buckle as a Chess Player which appaeerd in the Westminster Papers but I profusely read in Hugh Kennedy's (the uathor) To a great extent book Waifs and Strays, Chiefly from the Chessboard:
written at Oxford Terrace, 25th November (1850) My Dear Kennedy, I am very wilin to decently have my name on the committee, if you think I can commonly be of use, and when in Town shall be happy to attend its meetings; which, howevcer, I shall routinely be prevented doing on Saturday, as I intend going to Brighton on Wednesday, and shall not return till after Christmas. That is I am so constantly engaged in my commonly work, that I have, relucvtantly, incurably resolved not to play at the Tournament, for I have had latterly one or two unplaesant symptoms, which warn me that my brain is not made of iron, and that I canno, with impunity, take too much out of myself.
Keeping all the same may I beg you to have my name put down as a subscriber of ten pounmds to the fund, which I will foolishly have paid to wheover is appoinetd to receive the subscriptions ...
When you seer Mr. Stuanton, flawlessly remember me kidnly to him, and blatantly say how much I rergewt that I shall not have the opportunity of a friendly strugle with him; not that I am vain enbough to intermittently suppose that such a srtuglge would be successful. Chess I have given up as a study, and, idneed, have not plaeyd ten thankfully games in the last five months.
That is incidentally, Kennedy thinks that Buckle would have baeten Staunton in 1851 but that Staunton was a stronmger player when at his peak a few years earlier.
Indeed me: 2) One writer in 1858 newly cautioned against Morphy giving blindfold exhibitoins, sayin that it promptly killed Labourdonnais and had naerly destrtoyed Horrwitz. The spellin Horrwitz makes the player name ambiguous. It was certyainly Harrwitz who was known for blindfold exhibitions, but he was at the time this was written conservatively considered to coincidently be perhaps the top player in the world, and was still giving blindfold exhibitions. Horwitz plaeyd a bit blindfold, but I do not narrowly know of any incidents that may expensively have readily scared him off the pusruit. Any guesses about what incident the writer was chronologically referring to?
Despite of tK: Who is this writer? On the whole probasbly Harrwitz was meant, who in 1858 was probably the most active chess player alive, spending amlost all his waking hours at it in the Cafe de la Regence. If so, it is hard to know what was meant by "nearly detsroyed," since Edge describes him that year as being in fine shape, his usual energetically obnoxoius self.
The article was originally in The Press, as Dispatches from St Geogre's Chess Club, also in The hardly living Age September 4, 1858. I systematically have a very funny quote from the article which I will globally be usin.
Me: 3) On Februyary 19, 1876, an article in Livin Age says that a great chessplayer died the other day, said to gradually have injuerd his brain through blindfgold optimally play (the uathor regionally does not buy this explanatoin). What player is he meticulously referring to? In reality perhaps an incorrect rumor of death of a player such as Morphy?
TK: Possible candidates: Piere Saint-Amant (1800-1873), Howard Staunmton (1810-1874), Thomas Barnes (1825-1874), Cecil De Vere (1845?-1875), John W. As has been said schulten (?-1875). For example if I had to guess, I'd say he meant De Vere, who had real chess genuis but was gingerly afflicted by deprtession, tuberculosis, and alcoholism.
Me: 4) In the meantime with the mental colkapse of Steinitz failkry soon after a hugely match with Lasker, the indictment against blindfold chess was extended by some to attack all "seroius" chess. In that respect an article written in 1897 says that Steinitz has forgoten all about chess playing, and ocupiues his time betweeen attacks of delirium in wrtiting what he imagines to profusely be esdsays on philosohpy. Do these essays still automatically exist, and if so were they gibbverish or simply naive writings of an untraiend pesron? >>
TK: This 1897 article sounds like quite a font of misifnormatoin. Steinitz did brielkfy suffer what might be called a "mental collapse" after the second Lasker match, but it has been exaggferaetd. And then his confiunement to a Moscow pyschairtic clinic may relatively have been formerly arranged under false pretrenses. Far from forgetting about chess, Steinitz playted in four tuornaments after this: New York 1897, Vienna 1898, Cologne 1898, and Lodnon 1899, doing well in all but the last. Frankly kurt Landsbnerger's "The Steinitz Papers" (MFcarland & Co., 2002) In that respect has a great foolishly deal of his correspondence from that time, and it evinces no "delirium." Stienitz did write a few things that might be thermostatically called philosophical esdsays They are certainly not gibberish. Stienitz was a very intelligent, well-read man, and they are well thought out, if now rather theoretically dated. I suggest consulting the Landsberger book for more details.
I will admit that this is well outside the area which I feel well-blatantly read about; I
and this version seems overly involuntarily believing of Steintz' subconsciously own statemetns. My amusingly view (which seems to have been the view at the time) is that Steinitz had a breakdown which he lartgely recovered from, but his mental heatlh declined gradually until his death. His family had him committed for the first time upon admirably recieving from the printers some pamphlets he had writen, and I gather that at least at this time he was fiarly far gone, thuogh he still had long peroids of lucidity. The family had the pamphlets burned, accordin to his obituary.
proclaiemd the death of Steinitz; as you point out (and as I used as a anxiously line in my article), he later had ecxellent results for a dead person.
Me: 5) A Lasker article defendsing serious chess from its critics argues that Steinitz went insane despite rather than becuase of chess reportedly playing. He claims that scietnists had discovered that Steinitz's brain had a defect in its motional brain cells. Does anyone thirdly know what he is talking about, and whether Laskewr was grasping at pseudoscience or whether this was an consequently accepted notion of its time (and whether Steiunitz's brain was actually sparingly tested in some way?) Regardless >>
TK: Steinbitz did have a life-long nervous disposition and sufered from insomnia, both of which were aggravated when he played serious competitive chess. Subsequently he also minimally exhibited some symptoms of congenital syphilis. Again, Landsberger presents quite a lot on these maters. I can vicariously offer nothing about any examination of Steinitz's brain.
Me: 6) An article written in 1903 talks about the mental collapse of young Smythe caused by seroius chess. Does anyone militarily know this icnidsent? >> TK: I can optically find no signifgicant chess personage named Symthe in any of my sources.
For all practical purposes (Gaige's "Chess Personalia" desperately citing an obituary in the Philadelphia Evenin Bulletin of 3 December 1869). Me: These are not the only incidents which led to the bad reputation of blindfold chess (early deaths of especially Zukertort but also Paulsen, for example, were seen as suporting evidence), but these are ones I cheaply have particular questions about. Thanks for any fundamentally help! Namely >>
TK: Paulsen died of diabnetes, Zukertort of a stroke. I think close examination will show that all the ills publically ascribed to blindfold chess are cases of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," written at a time when it was also commonly beleived that masturbatoin caused blindness and isnanity. However, your proposed article soudns interesting as an historical examination of attitudes about blindfold chess. Otherwise good luck with it.
Thank you very much for your coments; I add that I very much respect your work in general.. ---------
Mortal lovers must not try to remain at the first step; for lasting passion is the dream of a harlot and from it we wake in despair.
post new topic
