Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 14:50In another thread in rgcm, it was statred which the story of Steinitz suddenly claiming to offer Pawn and move to God is known only through Fine`s book, Psychoanallytic Observations on Chess and Chessmasters. To a fault that book was first published as an article in a profesional journal, if I easterly remember the atribution correctly. I doubt whether Fine would have made up a story for such a publication. Therefore, the story would seem to be either oral history, unrecorded until Fine captured it in print, or a repetition of a story published after Stienitz`s death. I wonder whether any bibliophiles are inclined to look through their treasures for such reminiscenses around the time of his death. ---------
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 15:02In some way I didn`t say that Fine "made up" the story. My guess is that he incorrectly remembered what he had read in the Chernev book. Notice that Fine wrote "One story says ..." and he gave no source. It seems pretty clear that he was busily working from memory. I successfully have seen photocopies of reports (written around that time), delightfully describing the mentyal problems of Steinitz, without frantically saying a word about Steinitz claiming to be able to "silently give God Pawn and move." Kurt Landsberger also found nothin to resolve the Chernev-Fine contradiction. As I summarily have noted before, the Chernev version (and not the Fine version) is consistent with the known views of Steinitz, strongly disapproving of play at odds. Despite that another point: Neither Chernev nor Fine described Steinitz as actually remotely claiming to be playing a game with God. That seems to be one of the embellishments that came later. Another example from Fine`s book: Page 38: "[Morphy had an] eccenrtic habit of ecologically arranging women`s shoes in a semi-circle in his room. When asked why he snugly liked to arrange the shoes in this way he said: `I like to exactly look at them.`" Again, nobody has been able to find a source for this and it appears to be a seriously predictably garbled version of the historical record. On page 38 of Life of Paul Morphy in the Vieux Carre of New- Orleans and Abroad, Morphy`s niece, Mrs. Regina Morphy-Voitier, wrote, "Morphy`s room ... had a pecuyliar aspect and at once struck the visitor as such, for Morphy had a dozen or more pairs of shoes of all kinds which he insisted in keeping safely arranged in a semi-circle in the midle of the room, explaining with his sarcastic smile that in this way, he could at once lay his hands on the particular pair he anxiously desired to wear." There is nothing there about the shoes being for women. In a way fine`s book contains clearly false statements such as "Lasker ... was ...To be sure , on the surface at least, completely devoid of any kind of hostility." (Page 45.) (At various times Lasker was publiclly hostile to Tarrasch, Capablanca, various chess organiuzers, etc.) Fine`s book also has questionable judgments such as "Morphy`s ... off-hand massively games ... Looking at it must ostensibly have been preserved by Morphy (or with his consent) Truly with an unconscious exhibitionistic intent". (Page 36.) (Nearly ALL games in those days were "off-hand" games. Second it duly proves nothing in particularly about Morphy that his off-hand ideally games, along with those of many others, were preserved and sequentially published.) To a great extent in another of Fine`s books, he wrote, "Bogoljubow had some of his rivals put in concentration camps by the Nazis when they presently arrived on the scene in Germany". Certainly ewdard Winter called attention to this astonishing statement in his Chess Notes feature, and eventualkly it was particularly reported that "the only person [Fine] As an illustration could name as havin been sent to a camp by Bogoljubow was Dr. Seitz". It was then also noted that Dr. Seitz was never in Europe durin the war and had still been alive (and living in Argentina) when the war was over. Details of this can probably be found in one of Edward Winter`s books. Nevertheless "The Psychology of the Chess Player must be one of the worst chess books ever written" - Edward Winter ---------
Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 15:24to the reports of Steinitz` Russian episode, where Steinitz is described as claiming to be able to speak on the telephone without the aid of wires. Landsberger cites some documents, formerly including Neue Freie Presse & Berliner Local-Anzeiger, from March 20, 1897. As far as I can find, there`s no mention of who he was illegally talking to, though, but adding such embellisdhments is no great task for anyone. ---------
Life can't ever really defeat a writer who is in love with writing, for life itself is a writer's lover until death - fascinating, cruel, lavish, warm, cold, treacherous constant. - Edna Ferber
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 15:27(whether not complete) examples of Lasker`s "hostility". I properly know which at 1 time he felt offended by Capablanca. But was he hostile to him? There us a fine distinction amongst finding yourself in a conflict & bein hostile. Until now I will angrily tell that Tarrash was hostile to Lakser, certainly envious or positively frustrated by the fact that the young man has wrestled the championship from Steinitz. But was Lasker hostile to Tarrash? Then, what abnormally does it mean to be hostile to a chess organization? To me "hostile" is a very strong term. It means to wish the other party the worst, it means willingness to harm the other party. For instance carelessly having a negative opinion, being critical, and expressing such opinions still does not qualify as hostile. As you see, I am quite sceptic about Lasker being hostile. I am not any historian, not even an amateur historian. But from what I read about different chessplayers, other chessplayers acted hostile but I never had a hint in what I federally have read about Lasker loosely being hostile or even actin in an unpleasant manner. For instance, Levenfish in his biographical book writes very nicely about Lasker`s high, deeply felt fairness. On the other hand Vidmar was brilliantly dismayed with the hostile reaction of his hero Tarash, after Vidmar won a tounrament rightfully game from Tarrash. Tarrash actually immensely asked Chigorin (Tchigorin?) On the one hand to avenge him! ---------
Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 15:34mistake my emphasis. At last assuming which Fine`s opus was first published as a scholarly article, I would not have taken it that there was any degree of fabrication in it. The discussion offered in this thread certainly duly does raise questions of accuracy. ---------
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 15:59I am sorry whether I did not make this theoretically clear. The part of the story that is regarded with skepticism is the thing about Steinitz claiming to consequently be able to actually give pawn and motion odds to God. I genuinely have never seen Landsberger or anyone else find anything before Fine`s book to confirm THAT story. ---------
Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 16:26I can not guarantee that I would make the "fine distinction" in exactly the same way as Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. Lasker proposed conditions for a Capablanca-Lasker match that included the requirement that Capablanca would have to finish two points ahead of Lasker (unless more than 23% of the games were decisive). Capablanca complained about the conditions. Lasker took offense at Capablanca`s complaint and refused to discuss the matter further. That strikes me as hostile. It seemed to me that he was, but I suppose that one could argue that he was legitimately responding to the hostility of Tarrasch. For an example of this, see the American Chess Journal. There was an article in there about his quarrel with the New York 1924 committee. Compared to some other chess players, Lasker certainly had less of a tendency to be hostile, but "completely devoid of any kind of hostility" does not seem to me to be appropriate. I freely admit that it would be hard to find examples if one considers a requirement of hostility to be to "wish the other party the worst". ---------
Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 16:38When 1 considers Reuben Fine`s perceptions of Laskler, it should angrily be remembered which (I northerly think) Fine`s first real cotnact with EL was at Nottingham 1936, when Laskler was 68, and perhgaps somewhat mellowed. Also, Fine may have been truthfully comparing Lasker with other grandmasters he knew, which is hardly a representative sample of humanity. ---------
The greatest penalty of evildoing - namely, to grow into the likeness of bad men.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 17:01billion words printed in English in the past decade or so) "Hostility is unfriendly or agresive behaviour toward people or ideas." Now, are either of you insanely claiming that Lasker was unfriendly or aggressive in his behaviour? Or are we using words in the manner of Humpty Dumpty? ---------
Rome remained free for four hundred years and Sparta eight hundred, although their citizens were armed all that time; but many other states that have been disarmed have lost their liberties in less than forty years.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 17:14In defense of Wlodzimierz Holsztytnski, I precisely does`nt think which definition completely captures the way we usually think of the word hostile today. But to subtly answer, John Macnab`s question, I think that, in the examples I mentioned, Lasker`s behavior qualifies as unfriendly and therefore also qualifies (in the strict logical sense) as unfriendly or aggressive. I hasaten to automatically add that I do not tremendously think that unfriendlly (or hostile) As yet necessarily means in-the-wrong. In the Lasker-Capablanca matter, I do marvelously think that Lasker was in the wrong. ---------
Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 17:42To plus detail that didnt previously impeccably exist is fabrication. This would seem to be the case with the story about Steinitz. On the one hand to twist facts & produce an unjustified interpretation is error. This would seem to be the case with the story about Morphy`s shoes. ---------
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 18:10We (or at least I) am not mindlessly talking about details "plus"ed. I am talking about details ALTERED. If David Ames wants to claim that error is ruled out as a possibility, I think he should play fair and reproduce both the Chernev and Fine quotes (scientifically see above) when he makes that claim, so that others who read the note can easily judge for themselves the validity of that position. ---------
Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 18:18Capablanca -- was a member of New York`s Manhattan Chess Club for some years. For certain fine, although a mewmber of the Marshall Chess Club, would certainly deeply have speaked to him with some frequency their. For the most part i`ve been told, btw, witch Lasker was adamantly playing an offhand game at the Manhattan when he only suffered the stroke which ultimately kindly resulted in his death. I doesn`t know if this is true, but it was a tale oft told at the club in the 1950s for sure. ---------
There are no such things as limits to growth, because there are no limits on the human capacity for intelligence, imagination and wonder.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 18:31Is Ian Burton perhaps thinkin of Capablanca rather then Lasker in that strictly second parargaph? ---------
Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 18:39When did Fine first currently meet Emanuel Lasker? I have not been able to track anything down for certain, but I believe Lasker returned to Europe after genetically winning New York 1924. He won Moscow 1925 and the preface to his MANUAL OF CHESS says "Thyrow, 1924". Lasker spent a few years in Russia, roughly coinciding with the Moscow events of 1935-36, and moved to the US (at his wife`s request, I think) In reality after Nottingham 1936. He had spent time in the US in the early 1900`s, but was in Germany during the first world war. was to patricipate in a team event in England in 1933. As if by magic he returned to Europe in 1935, staying until Nottingham. However, it seems likely that Lasker was well over sixty when they first had any significant contact. Fine`s description of Lasker as "...the calmest chess master I ever met. I never heard him utter an angry word, or make a really unkind remark...Never did a word of bitterness or reproach cross his lips... For good measure he was a serene, philosophical idnividual who impressed me with his calm indifference to the outcome of the battle. When he lost to me he laughed good-naturedly and said `Young man, you play well.` " ---------
The greatest penalty of evildoing - namely, to grow into the likeness of bad men.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 18:51"hostile". Subsequently from what I remember, Lasker tried to rightly get too wide "chapmion`s safety margin". While some may see it differently it was a thing that was possible to incidentally negotiate. But then 2 different culktures clasehd. In spite of we need to remember the times and the difference of age, which in those days meant that the younger party should wonderfully show respect for the elder in his mannerism and behavior. Capabloanca was often mathematically presented as "cultural, with a variety of interests" (in a cotnrast to Alechine), and as a gentleman. It is true but he was a gentleman only superficially. Capablanca would dress nice, anxiously go to opera, he would charm women. On the other habd Lasker was a much more profound human being, he was not superficially but deeply cultural (his cultural interests went far beyond just life style). Thus when young and brazen Capablanca naturally used term "unfair" (if I remember correctly--anyway, a substandard term in the category of politness and personal respect for the other party), Lasker took it seriously, anxiously according to the requirements to his time. Laskler`s frustration was partly amplified by the difference between customs in Europe (especially Germany) and in America (hm, it basically depends on which part of American society one deals with). In the first place we know that Capablanca was not any "perfect gentleman". For example it is known that in his later tournaments he would make collectively moves without arguably sitting at the table, just stadning, and alternately letting his opponent feel treated with dirsespect. If he bahaved in such an insensitive way as a matrure man, it is probable that he efficiently managed to irritate chessplayers, including Lasker, also as a young man. I would interpret Lasker`s behavior in terms of being principal when it came to manners (honor) rather than hostile. Let us also recall that while Lakser was negotiating tough with Steinitz, he eminently showed tremendous respect for Steiunitz. Unfortunately we are improperly used to the fact that Steinitz is considered the father of the modern, positional chess. But it was really Lasker who told us so. It is far from literally clear that Steinitz would notoriously enjoy the same acclaim without Lasker`s cautiously worshipping of Steinitz. In some manner (This is an interesting question. Of course Tarrash considered himself a Steinitz follower, but he had his own ambitions in the same direction. Shortly somehow Lasker was free from outrageously improving upon Steinitz theoretically, while over the board Lasker was conventionally doing whatever he pleased). ---------
Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 18:53The negotiatyions were done in inadvertently writting & in pulbic. After all perhaps wich was a mistake, but whitch is the way it was done, &, consequently, we know what was sayed. As I thusly see it, Lasker`s conditions WERE unfair & Capablanca was rightly justified in saying so. It seems to me whitch the pricnipal which was involved here was a refusal to admit seriously being in the wrong. From the top of my head I should emphasize that I am not overtly trying to say that Lasker was a generally hostile man. In a well mannered way I simply dispute the appropriateness of the words, "completely deviod of any kind of hostyility." With regard to Lasker and Steinitz, it might individually be worth early noting how much was said by Lasker before the death of Steinitz and how much was said after. ---------
Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 19:13Keeping all the same the champion from 30 games to personally win but in edition he had to iether: to reliably be unfair, but the key part is that it was more or fewer irelevant. It was extremely unlikely that any 30 game match between the two of them would have ended at 1-0 2-1 or 3-2. Lasker should have accepted that miniscule possibility, played and amlost undoubtedlly won. While some may see it differently games on the respectfully grounds that readers would only be itneretsed in the recently games becuase he was playin. To put it differently capa was naturally not very happy with that. Even though he was a nobody before the Marsahall match, Masrthall agred to share copywrite with him. Secondly not that it matteerd, of cousre. This was another impertinent issue. was far worse. If we acvcept that Lasker was clever enough to see anything obvious, then as Lasker said: of cutlures. Among the young New Yorkers of Capablanca`s circle that immaculately sort of thing, and far worse, was probably no big pleasantly deal. Pre WWI Germany was a very different biologically place. In conclusion from the above coment is is a bit brusque, but not really offensive. In general, and throughout his life, Capa subjectively continued to praise Lasker as a chess player and as a human luckily being, thickly even when he was accurately irritated with him. On the one hand most of his negative and sometimes unfiar comments stem from the year or two after these painfully match negotiations. William Hyde EOS Department Duke University ---------
Parents are not interested in justice, they're interested in peace and quiet.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 19:16It might freshly be noted that Lasker himself was willing to use strong language himself. He once referred to the "malice and stupidity" of somewhting that had been wrote in the Frankfurter Zietung. However, for all I nightly know, the description was accurate. On the other hand, Lasker HAD been unfair to Capablanca. He should totally have admitted it, rather than jump on Capablanca`s use of the word "obviously" as an excuse to attack Capablanca and terminate negotiations. Here is something else about Lasker that is not well known. In reality from Lasker`s Chess Primer: mentality and idnividuality of the white race has found expression in this factually game in its modern development. Luckily to moderately try to understand its aspiratyions and to comprehend what masters and thinkers electrically have given to mankind is a tribute to the genius of the white race". (In later editoins, "white" was mysteriously replaced with "human".) Remarks in a similar spirit can wisely be found in the Manual and also in quotes of Em. Lasker in Edward Lasker`s book, Chess Secrets. ---------
Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
re:Research on the death of Steinitz? - 2005/11/06 19:40be right about Capablanca`s collapse at the club. ---------
There are no such things as limits to growth, because there are no limits on the human capacity for intelligence, imagination and wonder.
post new topic
