| |
Main
Date: 24 Jul 2008 19:38:48
From: samsloan
Subject: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
Reuben Fine (1914-1993) is remarkable not merely for having two
successful careers, but for achieving top levels and being world
renowned in both fields.
Fine took up chess in his youth, became a master as a teenager and at
age 17 won his first of seven US Open Chess Championships. He was
invited to the great masters tournament in Pasadena 1932, won by World
Champion Alekhine, one of the strongest tournaments ever held in the
United States. His victories in a series of European tournaments in
1936 and 1937 established Fine as a top contender for the World Chess
Championship. This led to his greatest result ever, his tie for first
in the strongest chess tournament ever played, AVRO 1938, a double
round-robin tournament, to determine who would be the next challenger
to World Champion Alexander Alekhine. Fine tied with Paul Keres, won
more games than anybody, and finished ahead of future champion Mikhail
Botvinnik, current champion Alekhine, former world champions Max Euwe
and Capablanca, and Grandmasters Samuel Reshevsky and Salo Flohr. Fine
won both of his games against Alekhine.
Fine was still only 24 at the time of his victory at AVRO 1938 and
there is little doubt that he could have and probably would have
become the World Chess Champion, except that World War II intervened.
During the war, Fine could not travel to Europe, so he concentrated on
writing chess books. His books covered all aspects of the game. He
wrote Basic Chess Openings, Basic Chess Endings and the Middle Game of
Chess during this period. He also played in several US Opens and US
Championships. He won the US Open seven times, which was every time he
played. However, somehow he could never win the US Championship,
usually finishing second.
After World War II, Fine realized that he could never make a decent
living writing chess books and playing in chess tournaments, so he had
to get a real profession. He chose psychology and became a psycho-
analyst. He played in a few tournaments after World War II, but not
many. Most famously, he was invited to play in the 1948 World Chess
Championship tournament, but he declined to play. This has been
controversial to this very day and is still often discussed. At
different times, Fine has given different reasons for his refusal to
play for the world championship. His most convincing explanation was
that he was studying for his PhD in psychology at the time and did not
wish to take a year off to study, prepare for and play in the World
Chess Championship tournament.
Fine played only a few times after that. His last tournament was the
Wertheim Memorial in 1951. Maurice Wertheim, the Chairman of the New
York Stock Brokerage Firm of Wertheim and Company, was a patron to
chess players and probably had provided funding to help Fine compete
internationally. After Wertheim died in 1950, Fine probably felt
obliged to play in a tournament in his memory. Fine did well in this
last event, considering that he had not played a tournament game in
three years.
After that, Reuben Fine devoted himself to his new profession, psycho-
analysis, and, just as he had done with chess, he rose quickly to the
top.
I discovered this myself when I went to attend the University of
California at Berkeley in 1962. Arriving at the college bookstore, I
found huge stacks of books for sale all written by somebody named
Reuben Fine. There must be a lot of people named Reuben Fine, I
thought, and one of them wrote all these books.
Before long, I realized that all of these books were written by the
same Reuben Fine. If you wanted to take a basic course in psychology,
your textbook would be written by Reuben Fine. Then, if you wanted to
take an intermediate course, that book too would be written by Reuben
Fine. Finally, when you were ready to take an advanced course, that
book too would be written by Reuben Fine.
This was kind of like in chess where, whether you wanted a chess book
on the opening, the middle game or the end game, the book would always
be written by Reuben Fine. He had both fields completely blanketed and
covered with his books.
Leaving no stone unturned, Reuben Fine now realized that there were
opportunities in the cross-disciplinary field. He was now the world's
leading authority in two subjects, chess and psycho-analysis. So, why
not merge the two? In 1956, he wrote a book called =93Psychoanalytic
Observations on Chess and Chess Masters=94. It was published by the
National Psychological Association for Psychoanalysts. In 1967,
exactly the same book (with no changes) was reprinted as =93The
Psychology of the Chess Player=94.
Fine also turned this into an actual profession. His clients in the
psychoanalytic field tended to be chess players. In the 1970s, I knew
a lot of rich kids who were young chess masters and their parents were
paying big bucks to have Reuben Fine psychoanalyze them. And, why not?
Who else better could study and understand what motivates chess
players than a psychoanalyst who was also a chess grandmaster?
By the way, what does motivate chess players? This is one of those
unanswerable questions, like Freud asking, =93What do Women Want?=94
We all understand that women need to survive and, in order to survive
and to reproduce, they need to attract a man.
But what propels a man to push little pieces of wood around a wooden
board and devote years of his life trying to best another man in this
wood pushing?
Fine explains the widely accepted theory, but not his theory, in the
first page of his book:
=93Quite obviously chess is a play substitute for the art of war. The
unconscious motive actuating the players is not the mere love of
pugnacity characteristic of all competitive games, but the grimmer one
of father-murder. The mathematical quality of the game gives chess a
peculiar anal-sadistic quality. The sense of overwhelming mastery on
the one side matches that of inescapable helplessness on the other. It
is this anal-sadistic feature that makes the game so well adapted to
gratify at the same time both the homosexual and the antagonistic
aspects of the father-son contest. All agree that a combination of
homosexual and hostile impulses are sublimated in chess.=94
However, Fine then notes a problem with this, which is that male
homosexuality is virtually non-existent among chess players.
Fine explains this paradox on page 28 of =93Psychoanalytic Observations
on Chess and Chess Masters=94, which is identical to page 22 of =93The
Psychology of the Chess Player=94.
=93In a situation where two men are voluntarily together for hours at a
time with no women present the homosexual implications must
necessarily be considered. Observation indicates that overt
homosexuality is almost unknown among chess players. Among the chess
masters of the present century I have heard of only one case. This is
all the more striking in that artists, with whom chess masters like to
compare themselves, are so frequently homosexual.=94
As a chess player of an entirely different generation from Reuben
Fine, I can confirm this. Male chess players are almost never
homosexual. Just as Fine says, =93overt homosexuality is almost unknown
among chess players=94 today, just as it was in 1956 when Fine wrote
these words. There are a few exceptions, but the numbers are so small
as to be insignificant. Of eight hundred grandmasters in the world,
there is only one grandmaster in the world who is known to be
homosexual.
However, the movie =93Searching for Bobby Fischer=94 depicted a chess
player who the protagonist meets in the park. That chess player is
named Vinnie, and his part is played by Laurence Fishburne. That movie
is more than just a movie. It is based on real life events. The real
Vinnie was Vincent Livermore, a chess master who is believed to have
died of an AIDS related illnesses in 1993, just before the movie came
out, and thus never got to see himself played in the movie.
However, there was no proof that even Vinnie Livermore was homosexual.
Nobody can recall him actually propositioning anybody. He just seemed
to have homosexual mannerisms.
So, homosexuality among male chess players is extremely rare. (On the
other hand, among female chess players, it is rampant.) Chess is a
game of imitation war. So, the next question is, what makes men go to
war. Why, when the call to war comes, do men voluntarily go marching
off to their almost certain deaths?
This is the question of the ages. One supposes that men go to war to
get women. That is the way it happens in the animal kingdom. Two males
of any kind of animal fight. The winners got all the females.
It happens in human wars too. The invading army attacks. They climb
the walls and conquer the town. They kill all the men. Only the women
are left. The women do not mourn their dead husbands, fathers,
brothers and sons. They know that they were the prizes to be won at
war and they willingly submit. This is the story of the ages.
This brings us to the ultimate battle: The Battle for the World Chess
Championship: Fischer vs. Spassky.
Of course, Reuben Fine had special insight into this because he knew
who the real World Chess Champion was. He knew that he, Reuben Fine,
was actually the best chess player in the world.
I several times heard Reuben Fine say things like this when he came to
Charlie Hidalgo's Chess House on 72nd street in New York City, near to
where he lived. He would often say that he was the best chess player
in the world. He would also make statements like saying that
everything that was known about the endgames was in his book, Basic
Chess Endings. =93If it is not in my book, then it is not there=94, he
would say.
I could never figure out whether he was joking or not. Certainly,
after his victory in the 1938 AVRO tournament he had every right to
call himself the unofficial world chess champion, and indeed he often
did so. After all, he had defeated the official World Champion
Alexander Alekhine 2-0 in a two game match.
However, by the early 1970s, with him having not played a tournament
game in twenty years, nobody considered him to be the world champion.
Was he joking? Was he pulling my leg? Or, was he serious? Did he
really believe this?
Now, we will never know.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Jul 2008 09:49:01
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
This book has been reprinted and published today.
Within 48-72 hours you will find it listed on Amazon at the following
address:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891471
I need especially to thank International Chess Master Dr. Anthony
Saidy, the man who more than any other person got Bobby to Iceland to
play the match, for providing a (not entirely favorable) review of
this Bobby Fischer book.
Sam Sloan
On Jul 24, 9:38 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
>
> Reuben Fine (1914-1993) is remarkable not merely for having two
> successful careers, but for achieving top levels and being world
> renowned in both fields.
>
> Fine took up chess in his youth, became a master as a teenager and at
> age 17 won his first of seven US Open Chess Championships. He was
> invited to the great masters tournament in Pasadena 1932, won by World
> Champion Alekhine, one of the strongest tournaments ever held in the
> United States. His victories in a series of European tournaments in
> 1936 and 1937 established Fine as a top contender for the World Chess
> Championship. This led to his greatest result ever, his tie for first
> in the strongest chess tournament ever played, AVRO 1938, a double
> round-robin tournament, to determine who would be the next challenger
> to World Champion Alexander Alekhine. Fine tied with Paul Keres, won
> more games than anybody, and finished ahead of future champion Mikhail
> Botvinnik, current champion Alekhine, former world champions Max Euwe
> and Capablanca, and Grandmasters Samuel Reshevsky and Salo Flohr. Fine
> won both of his games against Alekhine.
>
> Fine was still only 24 at the time of his victory at AVRO 1938 and
> there is little doubt that he could have and probably would have
> become the World Chess Champion, except that World War II intervened.
>
> During the war, Fine could not travel to Europe, so he concentrated on
> writing chess books. His books covered all aspects of the game. He
> wrote Basic Chess Openings, Basic Chess Endings and the Middle Game of
> Chess during this period. He also played in several US Opens and US
> Championships. He won the US Open seven times, which was every time he
> played. However, somehow he could never win the US Championship,
> usually finishing second.
>
> After World War II, Fine realized that he could never make a decent
> living writing chess books and playing in chess tournaments, so he had
> to get a real profession. He chose psychology and became a psycho-
> analyst. He played in a few tournaments after World War II, but not
> many. Most famously, he was invited to play in the 1948 World Chess
> Championship tournament, but he declined to play. This has been
> controversial to this very day and is still often discussed. At
> different times, Fine has given different reasons for his refusal to
> play for the world championship. His most convincing explanation was
> that he was studying for his PhD in psychology at the time and did not
> wish to take a year off to study, prepare for and play in the World
> Chess Championship tournament.
>
> Fine played only a few times after that. His last tournament was the
> Wertheim Memorial in 1951. Maurice Wertheim, the Chairman of the New
> York Stock Brokerage Firm of Wertheim and Company, was a patron to
> chess players and probably had provided funding to help Fine compete
> internationally. After Wertheim died in 1950, Fine probably felt
> obliged to play in a tournament in his memory. Fine did well in this
> last event, considering that he had not played a tournament game in
> three years.
>
> After that, Reuben Fine devoted himself to his new profession, psycho-
> analysis, and, just as he had done with chess, he rose quickly to the
> top.
>
> I discovered this myself when I went to attend the University of
> California at Berkeley in 1962. Arriving at the college bookstore, I
> found huge stacks of books for sale all written by somebody named
> Reuben Fine. There must be a lot of people named Reuben Fine, I
> thought, and one of them wrote all these books.
>
> Before long, I realized that all of these books were written by the
> same Reuben Fine. If you wanted to take a basic course in psychology,
> your textbook would be written by Reuben Fine. Then, if you wanted to
> take an intermediate course, that book too would be written by Reuben
> Fine. Finally, when you were ready to take an advanced course, that
> book too would be written by Reuben Fine.
>
> This was kind of like in chess where, whether you wanted a chess book
> on the opening, the middle game or the end game, the book would always
> be written by Reuben Fine. He had both fields completely blanketed and
> covered with his books.
>
> Leaving no stone unturned, Reuben Fine now realized that there were
> opportunities in the cross-disciplinary field. He was now the world's
> leading authority in two subjects, chess and psycho-analysis. So, why
> not merge the two? In 1956, he wrote a book called =93Psychoanalytic
> Observations on Chess and Chess Masters=94. It was published by the
> National Psychological Association for Psychoanalysts. In 1967,
> exactly the same book (with no changes) was reprinted as =93The
> Psychology of the Chess Player=94.
>
> Fine also turned this into an actual profession. His clients in the
> psychoanalytic field tended to be chess players. In the 1970s, I knew
> a lot of rich kids who were young chess masters and their parents were
> paying big bucks to have Reuben Fine psychoanalyze them. And, why not?
> Who else better could study and understand what motivates chess
> players than a psychoanalyst who was also a chess grandmaster?
>
> By the way, what does motivate chess players? This is one of those
> unanswerable questions, like Freud asking, =93What do Women Want?=94
>
> We all understand that women need to survive and, in order to survive
> and to reproduce, they need to attract a man.
>
> But what propels a man to push little pieces of wood around a wooden
> board and devote years of his life trying to best another man in this
> wood pushing?
>
> Fine explains the widely accepted theory, but not his theory, in the
> first page of his book:
>
> =93Quite obviously chess is a play substitute for the art of war. The
> unconscious motive actuating the players is not the mere love of
> pugnacity characteristic of all competitive games, but the grimmer one
> of father-murder. The mathematical quality of the game gives chess a
> peculiar anal-sadistic quality. The sense of overwhelming mastery on
> the one side matches that of inescapable helplessness on the other. It
> is this anal-sadistic feature that makes the game so well adapted to
> gratify at the same time both the homosexual and the antagonistic
> aspects of the father-son contest. All agree that a combination of
> homosexual and hostile impulses are sublimated in chess.=94
>
> However, Fine then notes a problem with this, which is that male
> homosexuality is virtually non-existent among chess players.
>
> Fine explains this paradox on page 28 of =93Psychoanalytic Observations
> on Chess and Chess Masters=94, which is identical to page 22 of =93The
> Psychology of the Chess Player=94.
>
> =93In a situation where two men are voluntarily together for hours at a
> time with no women present the homosexual implications must
> necessarily be considered. Observation indicates that overt
> homosexuality is almost unknown among chess players. Among the chess
> masters of the present century I have heard of only one case. This is
> all the more striking in that artists, with whom chess masters like to
> compare themselves, are so frequently homosexual.=94
>
> As a chess player of an entirely different generation from Reuben
> Fine, I can confirm this. Male chess players are almost never
> homosexual. Just as Fine says, =93overt homosexuality is almost unknown
> among chess players=94 today, just as it was in 1956 when Fine wrote
> these words. There are a few exceptions, but the numbers are so small
> as to be insignificant. Of eight hundred grandmasters in the world,
> there is only one grandmaster in the world who is known to be
> homosexual.
>
> However, the movie =93Searching for Bobby Fischer=94 depicted a chess
> player who the protagonist meets in the park. That chess player is
> named Vinnie, and his part is played by Laurence Fishburne. That movie
> is more than just a movie. It is based on real life events. The real
> Vinnie was Vincent Livermore, a chess master who is believed to have
> died of an AIDS related illnesses in 1993, just before the movie came
> out, and thus never got to see himself played in the movie.
>
> However, there was no proof that even Vinnie Livermore was homosexual.
> Nobody can recall him actually propositioning anybody. He just seemed
> to have homosexual mannerisms.
>
> So, homosexuality among male chess players is extremely rare. (On the
> other hand, among female chess players, it is rampant.) Chess is a
> game of imitation war. So, the next question is, what makes men go to
> war. Why, when the call to war comes, do men voluntarily go marching
> off to their almost certain deaths?
>
> This is the question of the ages. One supposes that men go to war to
> get women. That is the way it happens in the animal kingdom. Two males
> of any kind of animal fight. The winners got all the females.
>
> It happens in human wars too. The invading army attacks. They climb
> the walls and conquer the town. They kill all the men. Only the women
> are left. The women do not mourn their dead husbands, fathers,
> brothers and sons. They know that they were the prizes to be won at
> war and they willingly submit. This is the story of the ages.
>
> This brings us to the ultimate battle: The Battle for the World Chess
> Championship: Fischer vs. Spassky.
>
> Of course, Reuben Fine had special insight into this because he knew
> who the real World Chess Champion was. He knew that he, Reuben Fine,
> was actually the best chess player in the world.
>
> I several times heard Reuben Fine say things like this when he came to
> Charlie Hidalgo's Chess House on 72nd street in New York City, near to
> where he lived. He would often say that he was the best chess player
> in the world. He would also make statements like saying that
> everything that was known about the endgames was in his book, Basic
> Chess Endings. =93If it is not in my book, then it is not there=94, he
> would say.
>
> I could never figure out whether he was joking or not. Certainly,
> after his victory in the 1938 AVRO tournament he had every right to
> call himself the unofficial world chess champion, and indeed he often
> did so. After all, he had defeated the official World Champion
> Alexander Alekhine 2-0 ...
>
> read more =BB
|
| |
Date: 30 Jul 2008 06:01:30
From:
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 29, 12:07=A0am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > =A0One thing leaps out from the 1940-49 chart that utterly defies
> >credulity. It shows Alekhine's performance hitting a low point of
> >about 2700 in mid-1942, then rising about 100 Elo points by late 1943,
>
> Chessmetrics penalizes inactivity. For reasons that are not immediately c=
lear,
> there is nothing rated between 1914 and 1921.
> Hence the decline.
I was referring to the 1940s, not 1914-21. Alekhine _was_ rather
inactive 1914-21, because of WW I. He was playing in a major
tournament at Mannheim, Germany, when war broke out in August 1914. He
was interned for a while as an enemy alien. Once back in Russia
1915-20, he was able to play in only 5 tournaments 1915-1920, all
purely Russian, none of them international.
In contrast, during WW II, Alekhine played in 3 tournaments in 1941,
4 in 1942, and 2 in 1943. Perhaps Chessmetrics' "penalty for
inactivity" is reflecting the fact that he did not play from October
1939 thru August 1941. Even so, it's absurd to show his mid-1941
strength as lower than his late 1945 strength.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jul 2008 10:12:57
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:6f59d0e8-e8fc-465e-816a-c71f756cf165@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> I was referring to the 1940s, not 1914-21. Alekhine _was_ rather
>inactive 1914-21, because of WW I. He was playing in a major
>tournament at Mannheim, Germany, when war broke out in August 1914. He
>was interned for a while as an enemy alien. Once back in Russia
>1915-20, he was able to play in only 5 tournaments 1915-1920, all
>purely Russian, none of them international.
> In contrast, during WW II, Alekhine played in 3 tournaments in 1941,
>4 in 1942, and 2 in 1943. Perhaps Chessmetrics' "penalty for
>inactivity" is reflecting the fact that he did not play from October
>1939 thru August 1941. Even so, it's absurd to show his mid-1941
>strength as lower than his late 1945 strength.
If you press "event details" on the chessmetrics site, it will show you
everything that goes into the rating.
It shows a number of 2500ish performances pre 1941.
Unlike Elo, chessmetrics factors *time* into the rating, with old
performances not counting. So, for example, if an old good performance
moves out of the rating period due to the passage of time, the rating
will drop.
With Alekhine, there are a number of events that are not rated, including
all those from 1944. His last rated events before that were quite good (mid
2700s
in 1943)
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2008 15:58:21
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 28, 5:09=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> =A0 One thing leaps out from the 1940-49 chart that utterly defies
> credulity. It shows Alekhine's performance hitting a low point of
> about 2700 in mid-1942, then rising about 100 Elo points by late 1943,
> and never declining to anywhere near the mid-1942 low even just before
> his death in 1946. Yet Alekhine in the last few years of his life was
> a shadow of his former self. By 1945 he couldn't even win tournaments
> involving only minor Spanish and Portuguese masters. He probably
> wasn't playing at 2300 strength, let alone over 2700.
As far as I can tell, those tournaments are not
rated by chessmetrics. They give a sub-par
performance for Mr. Alekhine at Prague 1942,
then several rating lists with no rated activity,
and then a comeback at Salzburg 1942, popping
him back up to a world ranking of #3.
The Salzburg 1943 tourney is the last rated
event for AA at chessmetrics, although they go
on to note that he is the all-time highest rated
player among 52 and 53 year-olds (which is
amazing in view of the vast improvement in
living conditions since that time).
Now, while this looks bad for chessmetrics,
we must not forget what Mr. Sloan himself
admitted: that Mr. Fine failed at just the
national level; this does not seem to fit in
with his claims regarding who was the real
world champion, any more than my counter
claim that Sanny is the true rgc champ.
As for the comment regarding the 2700
level, chessmetrics uses a different scale
than FIDE. (In fact, I would like to see
Rybka plotted on the same scale... .)
Look at all the blue (#1) and red (#2)
circles on Mr. Alekhine's lifetime ratings
chart-- very pretty. And lots of yellow
(#3) ones, too. Now compare and
contrast with Mr. Fine's chart, which is
mostly gray (#11-20) and white (#6-10),
although from 1939-1942 he has some
pretty red and yellow spots, and yes,
what appears to be a single blue one,
right on the line for 1941. There is
really no comparison.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2008 14:09:51
From:
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 27, 11:30=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:55=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > This led to his greatest result ever, his tie for first
> > > > in the strongest chess tournament ever played, AVRO 1938, a double
> > > > round-robin tournament to determine who would be the next challenge=
r
> > > > to World Champion Alexander Alekhine.
>
> > > =A0 Wrong again. =A0Max Euwe held the title
> > > then, and Mr. Alekhine got it back later.
>
> > =A0 =A0 No, Euwe won the title in December 1935 and lost it back to
> > Alekhine in December 1937. Therefore Alekhine *_was_* world champion
> > at the time of AVRO 1938.
>
> =A0 Okay, but Mr. Sloan is still wrong about the
> tourney being to select what he called "the
> next challenger". =A0Mr. Alekhine's contract for
> the AVRO tourney *specifically refuted* this
> notion.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > =A0 Indeed, the pictures show an aged AA, gone
> > > a bit soft from weight-gain. =A0Had they played in
> > > say, 1930, Mr. Fine would have been crushed
> > > like a chicken.
> > =A0 Quite possibly, as Alekhine was then at his peak but Fine had not a=
t
> > all reached his. However, it was not long after 1930 that they first
> > did play, at Pasadena 1932. Fine drew with Alekhine then, and also at
> > Lodz 1935, Nottingham 1936, and Amsterdam 1936. They did not have a
> > decisive result until Hastings 1936-7, where Alekhine won, but then
> > Fine came back and beat Alekhine shortly thereafter, in April at
> > Margate 1937. Alekhine won at Kemeri 1937, and then Fine won twice at
> > AVRO 1938. They never played again. Overall the score was +3 -2 =3D4 in
> > Fine's favor. Not too shabby, and much better than Keres (+1 -5 =3D8 vs=
.
> > Alekhine) and Flohr (+0 -5 =3D7).
> > =A0 However, one cannot conclude from this, as Sloan does, that Fine
> > "could have and probably would have become the World Chess Champion."
> > First off, Alekhine would have had to agree to play Fine, and by that
> > time he had stopped risking his title. And while Fine was clearly
> > among the world's top 8, he did not clearly stand above the other 7.
> > =A0 Other contemporaries of Fine also had career plus scores against
> > Alekhine, e.g. Reshevsky (+2 -1 =3D2) and Botvinnik (+1 -0 =3D2). Fine =
was
> > not inferior to them in talent, but both of them had much greater will
> > to win. With the title on the line at any time in the 1940s, my money
> > would be on either of them against Fine.
>
> =A0 Let's toss personal opinions aside for one
> second, and look at what I would like to
> call some "real" numbers:
>
> http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/MonthlyLists.asp?Params
> =3D193010SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100
>
> =A0This chart has Mr. Alekhine clearly on top
> from 1930 through 1935, and when he is
> finally surpassed it is not by Mr. Fine, but
> by Mr. Euwe; then he is tied by Mr. Flohr.
One thing leaps out from the 1940-49 chart that utterly defies
credulity. It shows Alekhine's performance hitting a low point of
about 2700 in mid-1942, then rising about 100 Elo points by late 1943,
and never declining to anywhere near the mid-1942 low even just before
his death in 1946. Yet Alekhine in the last few years of his life was
a shadow of his former self. By 1945 he couldn't even win tournaments
involving only minor Spanish and Portuguese masters. He probably
wasn't playing at 2300 strength, let alone over 2700.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jul 2008 21:07:12
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One thing leaps out from the 1940-49 chart that utterly defies
>credulity. It shows Alekhine's performance hitting a low point of
>about 2700 in mid-1942, then rising about 100 Elo points by late 1943,
Chessmetrics penalizes inactivity. For reasons that are not immediately clear,
there is nothing rated between 1914 and 1921.
Hence the decline.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2008 20:30:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 27, 10:55=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > This led to his greatest result ever, his tie for first
> > > in the strongest chess tournament ever played, AVRO 1938, a double
> > > round-robin tournament to determine who would be the next challenger
> > > to World Champion Alexander Alekhine.
>
> > =A0 Wrong again. =A0Max Euwe held the title
> > then, and Mr. Alekhine got it back later.
>
> =A0 =A0 No, Euwe won the title in December 1935 and lost it back to
> Alekhine in December 1937. Therefore Alekhine *_was_* world champion
> at the time of AVRO 1938.
Okay, but Mr. Sloan is still wrong about the
tourney being to select what he called "the
next challenger". Mr. Alekhine's contract for
the AVRO tourney *specifically refuted* this
notion.
> > =A0 Indeed, the pictures show an aged AA, gone
> > a bit soft from weight-gain. =A0Had they played in
> > say, 1930, Mr. Fine would have been crushed
> > like a chicken.
> =A0 Quite possibly, as Alekhine was then at his peak but Fine had not at
> all reached his. However, it was not long after 1930 that they first
> did play, at Pasadena 1932. Fine drew with Alekhine then, and also at
> Lodz 1935, Nottingham 1936, and Amsterdam 1936. They did not have a
> decisive result until Hastings 1936-7, where Alekhine won, but then
> Fine came back and beat Alekhine shortly thereafter, in April at
> Margate 1937. Alekhine won at Kemeri 1937, and then Fine won twice at
> AVRO 1938. They never played again. Overall the score was +3 -2 =3D4 in
> Fine's favor. Not too shabby, and much better than Keres (+1 -5 =3D8 vs.
> Alekhine) and Flohr (+0 -5 =3D7).
> =A0 However, one cannot conclude from this, as Sloan does, that Fine
> "could have and probably would have become the World Chess Champion."
> First off, Alekhine would have had to agree to play Fine, and by that
> time he had stopped risking his title. And while Fine was clearly
> among the world's top 8, he did not clearly stand above the other 7.
> =A0 Other contemporaries of Fine also had career plus scores against
> Alekhine, e.g. Reshevsky (+2 -1 =3D2) and Botvinnik (+1 -0 =3D2). Fine wa=
s
> not inferior to them in talent, but both of them had much greater will
> to win. With the title on the line at any time in the 1940s, my money
> would be on either of them against Fine.
Let's toss personal opinions aside for one
second, and look at what I would like to
call some "real" numbers:
http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/MonthlyLists.asp?Params
=3D193010SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100
This chart has Mr. Alekhine clearly on top
from 1930 through 1935, and when he is
finally surpassed it is not by Mr. Fine, but
by Mr. Euwe; then he is tied by Mr. Flohr.
The chart indicates that Mr. Fine did not
surpass Mr. Alekhine until late in 1938
(probably the AVRO tournament results).
Notice how the red line -- representing Mr.
Botvinnik -- at no time was eclipsed by the
violet one -- representing Mr. Fine -- on this
graphic chart (1930-1940) of actual results
over a ten-year time span.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2008 10:30:33
From:
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 27, 11:13=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Please note that I am qualifying this. I did not say that Fine would
> have become the only world champion. If they had had the system like
> they had after 1948, with a match for the world chess championship
> every three years, then it is highly probable that Fine would have
> become the world chess champion at some point between 1938 and 1948.
> It is also highly probable that Reshevsky, Keres and Botvinnik would
> have become world chess champion at some point in between those dates.
> They were all roughly equal and any of them could have defeated the
> others at any point in time.
>
> Sam Sloan
OK, Sam, thanks for clarifying your position. No big argument then.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2008 08:13:38
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
Please note that I am qualifying this. I did not say that Fine would
have become the only world champion. If they had had the system like
they had after 1948, with a match for the world chess championship
every three years, then it is highly probable that Fine would have
become the world chess champion at some point between 1938 and 1948.
It is also highly probable that Reshevsky, Keres and Botvinnik would
have become world chess champion at some point in between those dates.
They were all roughly equal and any of them could have defeated the
others at any point in time.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2008 07:55:22
From:
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 27, 12:20=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> > This led to his greatest result ever, his tie for first
> > in the strongest chess tournament ever played, AVRO 1938, a double
> > round-robin tournament to determine who would be the next challenger
> > to World Champion Alexander Alekhine.
>
> =A0 Wrong again. =A0Max Euwe held the title
> then, and Mr. Alekhine got it back later.
No, Euwe won the title in December 1935 and lost it back to
Alekhine in December 1937. Therefore Alekhine *_was_* world champion
at the time of AVRO 1938.
> =A0 Indeed, the pictures show an aged AA, gone
> a bit soft from weight-gain. =A0Had they played in
> say, 1930, Mr. Fine would have been crushed
> like a chicken.
Quite possibly, as Alekhine was then at his peak but Fine had not at
all reached his. However, it was not long after 1930 that they first
did play, at Pasadena 1932. Fine drew with Alekhine then, and also at
Lodz 1935, Nottingham 1936, and Amsterdam 1936. They did not have a
decisive result until Hastings 1936-7, where Alekhine won, but then
Fine came back and beat Alekhine shortly thereafter, in April at
Margate 1937. Alekhine won at Kemeri 1937, and then Fine won twice at
AVRO 1938. They never played again. Overall the score was +3 -2 =3D4 in
Fine's favor. Not too shabby, and much better than Keres (+1 -5 =3D8 vs.
Alekhine) and Flohr (+0 -5 =3D7).
However, one cannot conclude from this, as Sloan does, that Fine
"could have and probably would have become the World Chess Champion."
First off, Alekhine would have had to agree to play Fine, and by that
time he had stopped risking his title. And while Fine was clearly
among the world's top 8, he did not clearly stand above the other 7.
Other contemporaries of Fine also had career plus scores against
Alekhine, e.g. Reshevsky (+2 -1 =3D2) and Botvinnik (+1 -0 =3D2). Fine was
not inferior to them in talent, but both of them had much greater will
to win. With the title on the line at any time in the 1940s, my money
would be on either of them against Fine.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2008 07:52:07
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 27, 10:28 am, [email protected] wrote:
> A serious omission here: I neglected to mention Euwe, world champion
> 1935-1937. Forgive me, o great Machgielis!
See how nice I am. I noticed the mistake when you wrote that Euwe was
World Chess Champion in 1938, but I did not make a big issue over it.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2008 07:28:40
From:
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 26, 9:55=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 25, 7:26=A0am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 24, 10:38=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > This was kind of like in chess where, whether you wanted a chess book
> > > on the opening, the middle game or the end game, the book would alway=
s
> > > be written by Reuben Fine. He had both fields completely blanketed an=
d
> > > covered with his books.
>
> =A0 Hmmm, "both" referring to three things? I thought it only referred
> to two.
>
> > > =93Quite obviously chess is a play substitute for the art of war. The
> > > unconscious motive actuating the players is not the mere love of
> > > pugnacity characteristic of all competitive games, but the grimmer on=
e
> > > of father-murder. The mathematical quality of the game gives chess a
> > > peculiar anal-sadistic quality. The sense of overwhelming mastery on
> > > the one side matches that of inescapable helplessness on the other. I=
t
> > > is this anal-sadistic feature that makes the game so well adapted to
> > > gratify at the same time both the homosexual and the antagonistic
> > > aspects of the father-son contest. All agree that a combination of
> > > homosexual and hostile impulses are sublimated in chess.=94
>
> =A0 Sam, this is some of the most ridiculous nonsense ever written by a
> psychologist, whether he knew anything about chess or not. Fine's "The
> Psychology of the Chess Player" is worthless, in terms of both
> psychology and chess. What little "factual" support Fine musters for
> his hackneyed Freudianism is riddled with historical errors.
>
> > > Of course, Reuben Fine had special insight into this because he knew
> > > who the real World Chess Champion was. He knew that he, Reuben Fine,
> > > was actually the best chess player in the world.
>
> =A0 While the rest of the world considered Alekhine, and later
> Botvinnik, to be the World Chess Champion during the time of Fine's
> active career.
A serious omission here: I neglected to mention Euwe, world champion
1935-1937. Forgive me, o great Machgielis!
> > =A0 Considering the heft of the book along with
> > its innumerable errors, I always thought BCE
> > was probably a compilation of other people's
> > work, largely unchecked.
>
> =A0 Supposedly BCE was written in a mere three months. Woodger's bio of
> Fine says "many positions [were] composed by Fine himself for
> didactive purposes." Whether the book was mostly original, or mostly
> based on others' work, three months seems way too short for a book of
> that size.
>
> > =A0 Mr. Fine (and Mr. Sloan) neglected to note
> > that Paul Keres beat him on tiebreaks, and
> > that it was a two-way tie to begin with-- not
> > a win for Mr. Fine. =A0(Besides, if just one
> > tourney was to decide who was the "true"
> > world champion back then, I prefer San
> > Remo, 1932, where tiebreaks and such
> > were quite unnecessary.)
>
> =A0 "San Remo 1932"? Do you mean San Remo 1930, the tournament in which
> Alekhine scored +13 -0 =3D2?
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jul 2008 08:48:22
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sam, this is some of the most ridiculous nonsense ever written by a
> psychologist, whether he knew anything about chess or not. Fine's "The
> Psychology of the Chess Player" is worthless, in terms of both
> psychology and chess. What little "factual" support Fine musters for
> his hackneyed Freudianism is riddled with historical errors.
1) Chessville has a psychologist as regular columnist. I suppose his opinion
could be obtained to the worth of Fine's contribution to his own. See
Inside Avni's Mind FM Amatzia Avni.
Inside Avni's Mind is the title of Amatzia Avni's column here at Chessville,
with which you should be familiar if you aren't already. The column title
is a nod to the title of one of his most famous books, The Grandmaster�s
Mind. Other titles by Avni include Devious Chess: How to Bend the Rules and
Win, and Practical Chess Psychology: Understanding the Human Factor.
Amatzia Avni is a psychologist and FIDE Master. His interest in chess
psychology shines through in his many books, including Danger in Chess: How
to Avoid Making Blunders (1994, 2003), and Practical Chess Psychology: A
Chess Player's Behavioral Guide (2001). He has a penchant for imaginative
and out-of-the-ordinary chess, as he showed in his Creative Chess (1991,
1997) and Surprise in Chess (1998)
2) A second point is that Max Euwe caused Fine a psychological set-back at
AVRO in an opening system - suggesting to Fine that he was not nearly up to
standard and he needed to do more work on his openings! Interestingly that
activity then occupied Fine in terms of publishing MCO more than actually
playing the game.
Phil Innes
> > > Of course, Reuben Fine had special insight into this because he knew
> > > who the real World Chess Champion was. He knew that he, Reuben Fine,
> > > was actually the best chess player in the world.
>
> While the rest of the world considered Alekhine, and later
> Botvinnik, to be the World Chess Champion during the time of Fine's
> active career.
A serious omission here: I neglected to mention Euwe, world champion
1935-1937. Forgive me, o great Machgielis!
> > Considering the heft of the book along with
> > its innumerable errors, I always thought BCE
> > was probably a compilation of other people's
> > work, largely unchecked.
>
> Supposedly BCE was written in a mere three months. Woodger's bio of
> Fine says "many positions [were] composed by Fine himself for
> didactive purposes." Whether the book was mostly original, or mostly
> based on others' work, three months seems way too short for a book of
> that size.
>
> > Mr. Fine (and Mr. Sloan) neglected to note
> > that Paul Keres beat him on tiebreaks, and
> > that it was a two-way tie to begin with-- not
> > a win for Mr. Fine. (Besides, if just one
> > tourney was to decide who was the "true"
> > world champion back then, I prefer San
> > Remo, 1932, where tiebreaks and such
> > were quite unnecessary.)
>
> "San Remo 1932"? Do you mean San Remo 1930, the tournament in which
> Alekhine scored +13 -0 =2?
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2008 06:16:35
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 27, 6:17 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
I know, Sam. I thought better of it, deleted the post, and did
research of my own, and found you are 100% correct. Unfortunately you
caught me in the crossfire.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2008 04:17:28
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 27, 6:20 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 24, 9:38 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I discovered this myself when I went to attend the University of
> > California at Berkeley in 1962. Arriving at the college bookstore, I
> > found huge stacks of books for sale all written by somebody named
> > Reuben Fine. There must be a lot of people named Reuben Fine, I
> > thought, and one of them wrote all these books.
>
> > Before long, I realized that all of these books were written by the
> > same Reuben Fine. If you wanted to take a basic course in psychology,
> > your textbook would be written by Reuben Fine. Then, if you wanted to
> > take an intermediate course, that book too would be written by Reuben
> > Fine. Finally, when you were ready to take an advanced course, that
> > book too would be written by Reuben Fine.
>
> I once did a search on Fine's non-chess writings. Near as I could tell
> - this was in the earlier days of the net - he did only one non-chess
> book and that was a conference proceedings. Is this just more of your
> apocrypha?
Here are some of Fine's books listed on Wikipedia. Although the dates
listed are after 1962, I am sure that these are reprint dates, as I
know for a fact that The Psychology of the Chess Player was first
published in 1956, since I have the 1956 edition in my hand:
* The Psychology of the Chess Player, by Reuben Fine, 1967
* Freud: a Critical Re-evaluation of his Theories, by Reuben Fine
(1962).
* The Healing of the Mind, by Reuben Fine (1971).
* The Development of Freud's Thought, by Reuben Fine (1973).
* Psychoanalytic Psychology, by Reuben Fine (1975).
* The History of Psychoanalysis, by Reuben Fine (1979).
* The Psychoanalytic Vision, by Reuben Fine (1981).
* The Logic of Psychology, by Reuben Fine (1985).
* The Meaning of Love in Human Experience, by Reuben Fine (1985).
* Narcissism, the Self, and Society, by Reuben Fine (1986).
* The Forgotten Man: Understanding the Male Psyche, by Reuben Fine
(1987).
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2008 03:20:06
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 24, 9:38 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I discovered this myself when I went to attend the University of
> California at Berkeley in 1962. Arriving at the college bookstore, I
> found huge stacks of books for sale all written by somebody named
> Reuben Fine. There must be a lot of people named Reuben Fine, I
> thought, and one of them wrote all these books.
>
> Before long, I realized that all of these books were written by the
> same Reuben Fine. If you wanted to take a basic course in psychology,
> your textbook would be written by Reuben Fine. Then, if you wanted to
> take an intermediate course, that book too would be written by Reuben
> Fine. Finally, when you were ready to take an advanced course, that
> book too would be written by Reuben Fine.
I once did a search on Fine's non-chess writings. Near as I could tell
- this was in the earlier days of the net - he did only one non-chess
book and that was a conference proceedings. Is this just more of your
apocrypha?
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2008 21:20:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 26, 11:11=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> In this book, he combines the two disciplines. This Fischer-Spassky
> book is really three books in one: An analysis of the games (straight
> chess analysis, with no psychology), a psychoanalytic study of the two
> players in the match, especially of Fischer whom Fine had met many
> times when Fischer was a boy, and a correction of the historical
> record from 1938 to 1948, because it was during this period that
> little chess was played because of World War II, and the controversies
> associated with the deaths of the World Champion and several other top
> grandmasters, during which time Fine himself had a claim on being
> called the World Chess Champion.
No, not really.
The much-despised FIDE of that time had
selected Salo Flohr as the next challenger,
and in the process, had ruffled the feathers
of just about everyone else who had a
hankering for the title, which passed from
Max Euwe back to Alexander Alekhine,
who then died while in possession.
The fact is, the AVRO tourney was not
considered the world championship, any
more than the last rgc grudge match was.
However, Em. Lasker wrote that including
tourneys was okie-dokie, so long as the
field consisted in real contenders for the
title.
> There have been dozens of books written on the epic 1972 match in
> Reykjavik, Iceland between Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky for the
> World Chess Championship, but none go to the depths of the psychology
> behind the moves of the match as does this book.
Probably a good thing, considering the
popularity of Freudian psycho-baloney of
the time.
> Reuben Fine (1914-1993) is remarkable not merely for having two
> successful careers, but for achieving top levels and being world
> renowned in both fields.
>
> Fine took up chess in his youth, became a master as a teenager and at
> age 17 won his first of seven US Open Chess Championships. He was
> invited to the great masters tournament in Pasadena 1932, won by World
> Champion Alekhine
He was just having a "lucky" streak. ; >D
> one of the strongest tournaments ever held in the
> United States. His victories in a series of European tournaments in
> 1936 and 1937 established Fine as a top contender for the World Chess
> Championship.
In reality, Mr. Alekhine himself related
that Jose Capablanca was the top-rated
challenger, followed by Mr. Botvinnik. It
so happened that the FIDE dictator's
choice, Mr. Flohr, and JC turned in some
dismal performances after the selection
had already been determined, but before
the start of the war to end all wars.
> This led to his greatest result ever, his tie for first
> in the strongest chess tournament ever played, AVRO 1938, a double
> round-robin tournament to determine who would be the next challenger
> to World Champion Alexander Alekhine.
Wrong again. Max Euwe held the title
then, and Mr. Alekhine got it back later.
Paul Keres won on tiebreaks, and thus
had a claim to /a/ match against the
winner of the Euwe/Alekhine rematch, in
addition to Mr. Flohr's allotted claim.
> Fine won both of his games against Alekhine.
Indeed, the pictures show an aged AA, gone
a bit soft from weight-gain. Had they played in
say, 1930, Mr. Fine would have been crushed
like a chicken.
> Fine was born on October 11, 1914 was still only 23 at the time of his
> victory at AVRO 1938. There is little doubt that he could have and
> probably would have become the World Chess Champion, except that World
> War II intervened.
How inconsiderate of it. The fact is, in
those days most wannabe challengers
had to wait years -- if not decades -- just
to get the opportunity to play for the
title. On top of this, they were expected
to raise considerable sums of money
from backers to finance such matches.
In view of these facts, giving Mr. Fine a
free pass is akin to suggesting that
Sanny would have won the grudge
match, had Mr. Brock stepped aside.
> He won the US Open seven times, which was every time he
> played. However, somehow he could never win the US Championship,
> usually finishing second.
Think about that for a moment. You
want to insist that Mr. Fine wouldda
couldda shouldda won the world title,
yet he *failed* at the national level.
Enough said.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2008 20:11:44
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
Introduction by Sam Sloan
Reuben Fine was both one of the world's strongest grandmasters of
chess and one of the world's leading authorities on psychoanalysis.
In this book, he combines the two disciplines. This Fischer-Spassky
book is really three books in one: An analysis of the games (straight
chess analysis, with no psychology), a psychoanalytic study of the two
players in the match, especially of Fischer whom Fine had met many
times when Fischer was a boy, and a correction of the historical
record from 1938 to 1948, because it was during this period that
little chess was played because of World War II, and the controversies
associated with the deaths of the World Champion and several other top
grandmasters, during which time Fine himself had a claim on being
called the World Chess Champion.
There have been dozens of books written on the epic 1972 match in
Reykjavik, Iceland between Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky for the
World Chess Championship, but none go to the depths of the psychology
behind the moves of the match as does this book.
Reuben Fine (1914-1993) is remarkable not merely for having two
successful careers, but for achieving top levels and being world
renowned in both fields.
Fine took up chess in his youth, became a master as a teenager and at
age 17 won his first of seven US Open Chess Championships. He was
invited to the great masters tournament in Pasadena 1932, won by World
Champion Alekhine, one of the strongest tournaments ever held in the
United States. His victories in a series of European tournaments in
1936 and 1937 established Fine as a top contender for the World Chess
Championship. This led to his greatest result ever, his tie for first
in the strongest chess tournament ever played, AVRO 1938, a double
round-robin tournament to determine who would be the next challenger
to World Champion Alexander Alekhine. Fine tied with Paul Keres, won
more games than anybody, and finished ahead of future champion Mikhail
Botvinnik, current champion Alekhine, former world champions Max Euwe
and Capablanca, and Grandmasters Samuel Reshevsky and Salo Flohr. Fine
won both of his games against Alekhine.
Fine was born on October 11, 1914 was still only 23 at the time of his
victory at AVRO 1938. There is little doubt that he could have and
probably would have become the World Chess Champion, except that World
War II intervened.
During the war, Fine could not travel to Europe, so he concentrated on
writing chess books. His books covered all aspects of the game. He
wrote Modern Chess Openings, Basic Chess Endings and The Middle Game
of Chess during this period. He also played in several US Opens and US
Championships. He won the US Open seven times, which was every time he
played. However, somehow he could never win the US Championship,
usually finishing second.
After World War II, Fine realized that he could never make a decent
living writing chess books and playing in chess tournaments, so he had
to get a real profession. He chose psychology and became a psycho-
analyst. He played in a few tournaments after World War II, but not
many. Most famously, he was invited to play in the 1948 World Chess
Championship tournament, but he declined to play. This has been
controversial to this day and is still often discussed. At different
times, Fine has given different reasons for his refusal to play for
the world championship. His most convincing explanation was that he
was studying for his PhD in psychology at the time and did not wish to
take a year off to study, prepare for and play in the World Chess
Championship tournament.
Fine played only a few times after that. His last tournament was the
Wertheim Memorial in 1951. Maurice Wertheim, the Chairman of the New
York Stock Brokerage Firm of Wertheim & Company, was a patron to chess
players and probably had provided funding to help Fine compete
internationally. After Wertheim died in 1950, Fine probably felt
obliged to play in a tournament in his memory. Fine did well in this
last event, considering that he had not played a tournament game in
three years.
After that, Reuben Fine devoted himself to his new profession, psycho-
analysis and, just as he had done with chess, he rose quickly to the
top.
I discovered this myself when I went to attend the University of
California at Berkeley in 1962. Arriving at the college bookstore, I
found huge stacks of books for sale all written by somebody named
Reuben Fine. There must be a lot of people named Reuben Fine, I
thought, and one of them wrote all these books.
Before long, I realized that all of these books were written by the
same Reuben Fine. If you wanted to take a basic course in psychology,
your textbook would be written by Reuben Fine. Then, if you wanted to
take an intermediate course, that book too would be written by Reuben
Fine. Finally, when you were ready to take an advanced course, that
book also would be written by Reuben Fine.
This was kind of like in chess where, whether you wanted a chess book
on the opening, the middle game or the end game, the book would always
be written by Reuben Fine. He had both fields completely blanketed and
covered with his books.
Leaving no stone unturned, Reuben Fine now realized that there were
opportunities in the cross-disciplinary field. He was now the world's
leading authority in two subjects, chess and psycho-analysis. So, why
not merge the two? In 1956, he wrote a book called =93Psychoanalytic
Observations on Chess and Chess Masters=94. It was published by the
National Psychological Association for Psychoanalysts. In 1967,
exactly the same book (with no changes) was reprinted as =93The
Psychology of the Chess Player=94.
Fine also turned this into an actual profession. His clients in the
psychoanalytic field tended to be chess players. In the 1970s, I knew
a lot of rich kids who were young chess masters and their parents were
paying big bucks to have Reuben Fine psychoanalyze them. And, why not?
Who else better could study and understand what motivates chess
players than a psychoanalyst who was also a chess grandmaster?
By the way, what does motivate chess players? This is one of those
unanswerable questions, like Freud asking, =93What do Women Want?=94
We all understand that women need to survive and, in order to survive
and to reproduce, they need to attract a man.
But what propels a man to push little pieces of wood around a wooden
board and devote years of his life trying to best another man in this
wood pushing?
Fine explains the widely accepted theory, but not his theory, in the
first page of his book, in which he is quoting Ernest Jones, another
psychoanalyst:
=93Quite obviously chess is a play substitute for the art of war. The
unconscious motive actuating the players is not the mere love of
pugnacity characteristic of all competitive games, but the grimmer one
of father-murder. The mathematical quality of the game gives chess a
peculiar anal-sadistic quality. The sense of overwhelming mastery on
the one side matches that of inescapable helplessness on the other. It
is this anal-sadistic feature that makes the game so well adapted to
gratify at the same time both the homosexual and the antagonistic
aspects of the father-son contest. All agree that a combination of
homosexual and hostile impulses are sublimated in chess.=94
However, Fine then notes a problem with this, which is that male
homosexuality is virtually non-existent among chess players.
Fine explains this paradox on page 28 of =93Psychoanalytic Observations
on Chess and Chess Masters=94, which is identical to page 22 of =93The
Psychology of the Chess Player=94.
=93In a situation where two men are voluntarily together for hours at a
time with no women present the homosexual implications must
necessarily be considered. Observation indicates that overt
homosexuality is almost unknown among chess players. Among the chess
masters of the present century I have heard of only one case. This is
all the more striking in that artists, with whom chess masters like to
compare themselves, are so frequently homosexual.=94
As a chess player of an entirely different generation from Reuben
Fine, I can confirm this. Male chess players are almost never
homosexual. Just as Fine says, =93overt homosexuality is almost unknown
among chess players=94 today, just as it was in 1956 when Fine wrote
these words. There are a few exceptions, but the numbers are so small
as to be insignificant. Of eight hundred grandmasters in the world,
there is only one grandmaster in the world who is known to be
homosexual.
However, the movie =93Searching for Bobby Fischer=94 depicted a chess
player who the protagonist meets in the park. That chess player is
named Vinnie, and his part is played by Laurence Fishburne. That movie
is more than just a movie. It is based on real life events. The real
Vinnie was Vincent Livermore, a chess master who is believed to have
died of AIDS related illnesses in 1993, just before the movie came
out, and thus never got to see himself played in the movie.
However, there was no proof that even Vinnie Livermore was homosexual.
Nobody can recall him actually propositioning anybody. He just seemed
to have homosexual mannerisms.
So, homosexuality among male chess players is extremely rare. On the
other hand, among top female chess players, it is rampant. Chess is a
game of imitation war. So, the next question is, what makes men go to
war. Why, when the call to war comes, do men voluntarily go marching
off to their almost certain deaths?
This is the question of the ages. One supposes that men go to war to
get women. That is the way it happens in the animal kingdom. Two males
of any kind of animal fight. The winners got all the females.
It happens in human wars too. The invading army attacks. They climb
the walls and conquer the town. They kill all the men. Only the women
are left. The women do not mourn their dead husbands, fathers,
brothers and sons. They know that they were the prizes to be won at
war and they willingly submit. This is the story of the ages.
Yes, the very process by which men go to war has homosexual
implications, just as chess does. Men march off to war together, live
together, sleep together, fight together and sometimes sacrifice their
own lives to save their buddies. Yet, until recently in the United
States, homosexuals were banned from the military and even now that
they are allowed to join their numbers are relatively small.
This brings us to the ultimate battle: The Battle for the World Chess
Championship: Fischer vs. Spassky.
Of course, Reuben Fine had special insight into this because he knew
who the real World Chess Champion was. He knew that he, Reuben Fine,
was actually the best chess player in the world.
I several times heard Reuben Fine say things like this when he came to
Charlie Hidalgo's Chess House on 72nd street in New York City, near to
where he lived. He would often say that he was the best chess player
in the world. He would also make statements like saying that
everything that was known about the endgames was in his book, Basic
Chess Endings. =93If it is not in my book, then it is not known=94, he
would say.
I could never figure out whether he was joking or not. Certainly,
after his victory in the 1938 AVRO tournament, he had every right to
call himself the unofficial world chess champion, and indeed he often
did so. After all, he had defeated the official World Champion
Alexander Alekhine 2-0 in a two game match.
However, by the early 1970s, with him having not played a tournament
game in twenty years, nobody considered him to be the world champion.
Was he joking? Was he pulling my leg? Or, was he serious? Did he
really believe this?
Now, we will never know.
In this book, Reuben Fine, as a chess grandmaster, analyzes the moves
of the chess games and then, as a psychoanalyst, analyzes the
motivations behind the moves and the psychological battles that led up
to the match.
Here it must be said that this book is not universally popular.
Indeed, it has been widely panned.
International Chess Master Anthony Saidy. Who is also a medical
doctor, wrote me, =93Do NOT even think of reprinting this terrible book.
-Tony=94.
Dr. Anthony Saidy has special insight into this because Fischer
actually lived in Dr. Saidy's house in New York during the tumultuous
days leading up to the match, when Fischer was deciding whether or not
to play. It was Dr. Saidy, more than anybody else, who actually
convinced Fischer to play and drove him to the airport. So, Dr. Saidy
certainly knows more than what Dr. Fine knows about Fischer's mental
condition. However, Dr. Saidy has never published his findings.
Criticism of this book has centered on Fine's mistakes in analysis of
the games. However, this is not a fair criticism, in my opinion. Fine
had not played a tournament chess game in 22 years. Naturally, his
knowledge of the openings was out of date. Also, these games are the
most analyzed games in chess history. Dozens of books have been
written about these games and none of them are perfect. I myself know
things about this match which have never been published. There is one
move in one of the games that Spassky lost where, had he played a
different move, the game would have been a dead draw. Yet, no
published analysis has ever mentioned this move. No, I am not going to
tell you what it is, at least not now. I will tell you that I know
about it because I was in Reykjavik, Iceland when that game was played
and the grandmasters there were talking about the move that Spassky
missed.
Fine's views on homosexuality are controversial even today. Fine's
works are sometimes cited today in the political debates concerning
=93same-sex marriage=94. Fine held to the Freudian view that homosexuality
is an illness that can be cured. Homosexual object to this, saying
that they were born that way. Since a living example of a homosexual
who has been =93cured=94 has never been produced, it is difficult to
understand how anybody could adhere to that view.
Fine, by the way, was almost certainly not homosexual, as he was
married five times.
Since male chess players are almost never homosexual but female chess
players often are, this seems to establish some connection between sex
and chess.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that this book is highly
controversial.
For example, James Schroeder calls this book evidence of Fine's
=93inanity=94 The respected reviewer Jeremy Silman writes, =93This is
without doubt one of the worst chess books ever written.=94 But then
Silman admits, =93I'm forced to disclose a dirty little secret: I love
this book! . . . If you see this book in a used bookstore, grab it
and prepare for a lot of fun!=94
Sam Sloan
The most detailed analysis of this book was published by Dr. Anthony
Saidy in an article in the June 1974 issue of Chess Life magazine,
page396. Here is Dr. Fine's reply to the criticism by Dr. Saidy, as
published in the August 1974 Chess Life, page 467:
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2008 14:26:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 26, 9:55=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > This was kind of like in chess where, whether you wanted a chess book
> > > on the opening, the middle game or the end game, the book would alway=
s
> > > be written by Reuben Fine. He had both fields completely blanketed an=
d
> > > covered with his books.
> =A0 Hmmm, "both" referring to three things?
> I thought it only referred to two.
Don't try to stretch the meaning of the term
"thought" too far, my friend. As Mr. Sloan
explained it, he was obviously talking about
the fields of psychology and chess; that
adds up to two, not three fields, by my
calculations. (Somehow, the bulk of Mr.
Sloan's discussion of Mr. Fine's books in
the realm of psychology got chopped out
by Mr. Kingston... as if deliberately, to
enable some idiotic nit-picking, as above.)
> > > =93Quite obviously chess is a play substitute for the art of war. The
> > > unconscious motive actuating the players is not the mere love of
> > > pugnacity characteristic of all competitive games, but the grimmer on=
e
> > > of father-murder. The mathematical quality of the game gives chess a
> > > peculiar anal-sadistic quality. The sense of overwhelming mastery on
> > > the one side matches that of inescapable helplessness on the other. I=
t
> > > is this anal-sadistic feature that makes the game so well adapted to
> > > gratify at the same time both the homosexual and the antagonistic
> > > aspects of the father-son contest. All agree that a combination of
> > > homosexual and hostile impulses are sublimated in chess.=94
> =A0 Sam, this is some of the most ridiculous nonsense ever written by a
> psychologist, whether he knew anything about chess or not. Fine's "The
> Psychology of the Chess Player" is worthless, in terms of both
> psychology and chess. What little "factual" support Fine musters for
> his hackneyed Freudianism is riddled with historical errors.
Indeed, although there might be some sort
of "anal-sadistic" factor involved when, say, a
top player is "murdering" his amateurish
opponents, the vast majority of chess games
involve anything but "overwhelming mastery"
on the part of either player. In fact, many
games are eventually won by the side who
was at one point losing, or theoretically
drawn late in the game.
> > > Of course, Reuben Fine had special insight into this because he knew
> > > who the real World Chess Champion was. He knew that he, Reuben Fine,
> > > was actually the best chess player in the world.
> =A0 While the rest of the world considered Alekhine, and later
> Botvinnik, to be the World Chess Champion during the time of Fine's
> active career.
Mr. Sloan seems to have overlooked the real
reasons so many writers jumped on the gravy
train back around 1972: easy money, and the
new-found popularity of chess in the USA.
(Although cut by TK, Mr. Sloan specifically
focused on the B. Fischer/B. Spassky match
of 1972.)
> > =A0 Considering the heft of the book along with
> > its innumerable errors, I always thought BCE
> > was probably a compilation of other people's
> > work, largely unchecked.
> =A0 Supposedly BCE was written in a mere three months. Woodger's bio of
> Fine says "many positions [were] composed by Fine himself for
> didactive purposes." Whether the book was mostly original, or mostly
> based on others' work, three months seems way too short for a book of
> that size.
It's all well and good to talk about what others
have written, but I am more interested in the
facts. Any fool can write things; for instance,
our Mr. Soltis wrote that he painstakingly
checked each and every game he selected
for inclusion in his collection of brilliant games,
which as we saw, was what nearly-IMnes
would apologetically call an exaggeration, but
which is probably something far worse.
> > =A0 Mr. Fine (and Mr. Sloan) neglected to note
> > that Paul Keres beat him on tiebreaks, and
> > that it was a two-way tie to begin with-- not
> > a win for Mr. Fine. =A0(Besides, if just one
> > tourney was to decide who was the "true"
> > world champion back then, I prefer San
> > Remo, 1932, where tiebreaks and such
> > were quite unnecessary.)
> =A0 "San Remo 1932"? Do you mean San Remo 1930, the tournament in which
> Alekhine scored +13 -0 =3D2?
He was just /lucky/. He also was "lucky"
at Bled in 1913, where he treated us all like
children (after having "reamed" us at San
Remo 1930, in the previous year).
------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sloan joins a host of others who like
to talk about Mr. Fine's "victory" while just
giving the brush-off to Paul Keres, who
actually beat him on tiebreaks. But if you'll
notice, almost every one of these come-
from-nowhere, wannabe world champion
claimants have one thing in common:
they all talked the talk, but had trouble
with the /walking/ part of becoming world
chess champion.
Personally, I give credit to only one of the
many wannabes: Paul Morphy. He beat
up on everybody who did not have a giant
yellow streak running down thoer backs,
and exposed those who did for what they
were: wise---no, I meant cowards!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2008 06:55:21
From:
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 25, 7:26=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 24, 10:38=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This was kind of like in chess where, whether you wanted a chess book
> > on the opening, the middle game or the end game, the book would always
> > be written by Reuben Fine. He had both fields completely blanketed and
> > covered with his books.
Hmmm, "both" referring to three things? I thought it only referred
to two.
> > =93Quite obviously chess is a play substitute for the art of war. The
> > unconscious motive actuating the players is not the mere love of
> > pugnacity characteristic of all competitive games, but the grimmer one
> > of father-murder. The mathematical quality of the game gives chess a
> > peculiar anal-sadistic quality. The sense of overwhelming mastery on
> > the one side matches that of inescapable helplessness on the other. It
> > is this anal-sadistic feature that makes the game so well adapted to
> > gratify at the same time both the homosexual and the antagonistic
> > aspects of the father-son contest. All agree that a combination of
> > homosexual and hostile impulses are sublimated in chess.=94
Sam, this is some of the most ridiculous nonsense ever written by a
psychologist, whether he knew anything about chess or not. Fine's "The
Psychology of the Chess Player" is worthless, in terms of both
psychology and chess. What little "factual" support Fine musters for
his hackneyed Freudianism is riddled with historical errors.
> > Of course, Reuben Fine had special insight into this because he knew
> > who the real World Chess Champion was. He knew that he, Reuben Fine,
> > was actually the best chess player in the world.
While the rest of the world considered Alekhine, and later
Botvinnik, to be the World Chess Champion during the time of Fine's
active career.
> =A0 Considering the heft of the book along with
> its innumerable errors, I always thought BCE
> was probably a compilation of other people's
> work, largely unchecked.
Supposedly BCE was written in a mere three months. Woodger's bio of
Fine says "many positions [were] composed by Fine himself for
didactive purposes." Whether the book was mostly original, or mostly
based on others' work, three months seems way too short for a book of
that size.
> =A0 Mr. Fine (and Mr. Sloan) neglected to note
> that Paul Keres beat him on tiebreaks, and
> that it was a two-way tie to begin with-- not
> a win for Mr. Fine. =A0(Besides, if just one
> tourney was to decide who was the "true"
> world champion back then, I prefer San
> Remo, 1932, where tiebreaks and such
> were quite unnecessary.)
"San Remo 1932"? Do you mean San Remo 1930, the tournament in which
Alekhine scored +13 -0 =3D2?
|
| |
Date: 25 Jul 2008 04:26:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
On Jul 24, 10:38=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> This was kind of like in chess where, whether you wanted a chess book
> on the opening, the middle game or the end game, the book would always
> be written by Reuben Fine. He had both fields completely blanketed and
> covered with his books.
More recently, folks like Eric Schiller have
the field blanketed with their books-- yet
nobody has suggested that ES is therefore
at the top of the field of chess.
> But what propels a man to push little pieces of wood around a wooden
> board and devote years of his life trying to best another man in this
> wood pushing?
Wrong question. There is no "other man",
but rather a whole slew of different opponents,
a few of whom are women and children.
> =93Quite obviously chess is a play substitute for the art of war. The
> unconscious motive actuating the players is not the mere love of
> pugnacity characteristic of all competitive games, but the grimmer one
> of father-murder. The mathematical quality of the game gives chess a
> peculiar anal-sadistic quality. The sense of overwhelming mastery on
> the one side matches that of inescapable helplessness on the other. It
> is this anal-sadistic feature that makes the game so well adapted to
> gratify at the same time both the homosexual and the antagonistic
> aspects of the father-son contest. All agree that a combination of
> homosexual and hostile impulses are sublimated in chess.=94
Well then, if "all" are agreed, there is no
need for substantive evidence or reason,
is there? It's like history-- a bunch of lies,
agreed upon.
> However, there was no proof that even Vinnie Livermore was homosexual.
> Nobody can recall him actually propositioning anybody. He just seemed
> to have homosexual mannerisms.
Mr. Sloan appears to forget that AIDS can also
be spread by sharing hypodermic needles, etc.
> Of course, Reuben Fine had special insight into this because he knew
> who the real World Chess Champion was. He knew that he, Reuben Fine,
> was actually the best chess player in the world.
Or was it Al Franken?
> I several times heard Reuben Fine say things like this when he came to
> Charlie Hidalgo's Chess House on 72nd street in New York City, near to
> where he lived. He would often say that he was the best chess player
> in the world. He would also make statements like saying that
> everything that was known about the endgames was in his book, Basic
> Chess Endings. =93If it is not in my book, then it is not there=94, he
> would say.
>
> I could never figure out whether he was joking or not.
Considering the heft of the book along with
its innumerable errors, I always thought BCE
was probably a compilation of other people's
work, largely unchecked.
Mr. Fine (and Mr. Sloan) neglected to note
that Paul Keres beat him on tiebreaks, and
that it was a two-way tie to begin with-- not
a win for Mr. Fine. (Besides, if just one
tourney was to decide who was the "true"
world champion back then, I prefer San
Remo, 1932, where tiebreaks and such
were quite unnecessary.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 25 Jul 2008 13:09:24
From: e4c5Nf3
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0289adf6-5b2f-4073-9419-b9e893020c45@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
What has the subject of this post got to do with the content??
Its all about Reuben Fine you moron.
|
| |
Date: 24 Jul 2008 22:41:40
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
|
It's because of fine I learned what the word ERRATA meant.
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0289adf6-5b2f-4073-9419-b9e893020c45@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World Chess Championship
Reuben Fine (1914-1993) is remarkable not merely for having two
successful careers, but for achieving top levels and being world
renowned in both fields.
Fine took up chess in his youth, became a master as a teenager and at
age 17 won his first of seven US Open Chess Championships. He was
invited to the great masters tournament in Pasadena 1932, won by World
Champion Alekhine, one of the strongest tournaments ever held in the
United States. His victories in a series of European tournaments in
1936 and 1937 established Fine as a top contender for the World Chess
Championship. This led to his greatest result ever, his tie for first
in the strongest chess tournament ever played, AVRO 1938, a double
round-robin tournament, to determine who would be the next challenger
to World Champion Alexander Alekhine. Fine tied with Paul Keres, won
more games than anybody, and finished ahead of future champion Mikhail
Botvinnik, current champion Alekhine, former world champions Max Euwe
and Capablanca, and Grandmasters Samuel Reshevsky and Salo Flohr. Fine
won both of his games against Alekhine.
Fine was still only 24 at the time of his victory at AVRO 1938 and
there is little doubt that he could have and probably would have
become the World Chess Champion, except that World War II intervened.
During the war, Fine could not travel to Europe, so he concentrated on
writing chess books. His books covered all aspects of the game. He
wrote Basic Chess Openings, Basic Chess Endings and the Middle Game of
Chess during this period. He also played in several US Opens and US
Championships. He won the US Open seven times, which was every time he
played. However, somehow he could never win the US Championship,
usually finishing second.
After World War II, Fine realized that he could never make a decent
living writing chess books and playing in chess tournaments, so he had
to get a real profession. He chose psychology and became a psycho-
analyst. He played in a few tournaments after World War II, but not
many. Most famously, he was invited to play in the 1948 World Chess
Championship tournament, but he declined to play. This has been
controversial to this very day and is still often discussed. At
different times, Fine has given different reasons for his refusal to
play for the world championship. His most convincing explanation was
that he was studying for his PhD in psychology at the time and did not
wish to take a year off to study, prepare for and play in the World
Chess Championship tournament.
Fine played only a few times after that. His last tournament was the
Wertheim Memorial in 1951. Maurice Wertheim, the Chairman of the New
York Stock Brokerage Firm of Wertheim and Company, was a patron to
chess players and probably had provided funding to help Fine compete
internationally. After Wertheim died in 1950, Fine probably felt
obliged to play in a tournament in his memory. Fine did well in this
last event, considering that he had not played a tournament game in
three years.
After that, Reuben Fine devoted himself to his new profession, psycho-
analysis, and, just as he had done with chess, he rose quickly to the
top.
I discovered this myself when I went to attend the University of
California at Berkeley in 1962. Arriving at the college bookstore, I
found huge stacks of books for sale all written by somebody named
Reuben Fine. There must be a lot of people named Reuben Fine, I
thought, and one of them wrote all these books.
Before long, I realized that all of these books were written by the
same Reuben Fine. If you wanted to take a basic course in psychology,
your textbook would be written by Reuben Fine. Then, if you wanted to
take an intermediate course, that book too would be written by Reuben
Fine. Finally, when you were ready to take an advanced course, that
book too would be written by Reuben Fine.
This was kind of like in chess where, whether you wanted a chess book
on the opening, the middle game or the end game, the book would always
be written by Reuben Fine. He had both fields completely blanketed and
covered with his books.
Leaving no stone unturned, Reuben Fine now realized that there were
opportunities in the cross-disciplinary field. He was now the world's
leading authority in two subjects, chess and psycho-analysis. So, why
not merge the two? In 1956, he wrote a book called �Psychoanalytic
Observations on Chess and Chess Masters�. It was published by the
National Psychological Association for Psychoanalysts. In 1967,
exactly the same book (with no changes) was reprinted as �The
Psychology of the Chess Player�.
Fine also turned this into an actual profession. His clients in the
psychoanalytic field tended to be chess players. In the 1970s, I knew
a lot of rich kids who were young chess masters and their parents were
paying big bucks to have Reuben Fine psychoanalyze them. And, why not?
Who else better could study and understand what motivates chess
players than a psychoanalyst who was also a chess grandmaster?
By the way, what does motivate chess players? This is one of those
unanswerable questions, like Freud asking, �What do Women Want?�
We all understand that women need to survive and, in order to survive
and to reproduce, they need to attract a man.
But what propels a man to push little pieces of wood around a wooden
board and devote years of his life trying to best another man in this
wood pushing?
Fine explains the widely accepted theory, but not his theory, in the
first page of his book:
�Quite obviously chess is a play substitute for the art of war. The
unconscious motive actuating the players is not the mere love of
pugnacity characteristic of all competitive games, but the grimmer one
of father-murder. The mathematical quality of the game gives chess a
peculiar anal-sadistic quality. The sense of overwhelming mastery on
the one side matches that of inescapable helplessness on the other. It
is this anal-sadistic feature that makes the game so well adapted to
gratify at the same time both the homosexual and the antagonistic
aspects of the father-son contest. All agree that a combination of
homosexual and hostile impulses are sublimated in chess.�
However, Fine then notes a problem with this, which is that male
homosexuality is virtually non-existent among chess players.
Fine explains this paradox on page 28 of �Psychoanalytic Observations
on Chess and Chess Masters�, which is identical to page 22 of �The
Psychology of the Chess Player�.
�In a situation where two men are voluntarily together for hours at a
time with no women present the homosexual implications must
necessarily be considered. Observation indicates that overt
homosexuality is almost unknown among chess players. Among the chess
masters of the present century I have heard of only one case. This is
all the more striking in that artists, with whom chess masters like to
compare themselves, are so frequently homosexual.�
As a chess player of an entirely different generation from Reuben
Fine, I can confirm this. Male chess players are almost never
homosexual. Just as Fine says, �overt homosexuality is almost unknown
among chess players� today, just as it was in 1956 when Fine wrote
these words. There are a few exceptions, but the numbers are so small
as to be insignificant. Of eight hundred grandmasters in the world,
there is only one grandmaster in the world who is known to be
homosexual.
However, the movie �Searching for Bobby Fischer� depicted a chess
player who the protagonist meets in the park. That chess player is
named Vinnie, and his part is played by Laurence Fishburne. That movie
is more than just a movie. It is based on real life events. The real
Vinnie was Vincent Livermore, a chess master who is believed to have
died of an AIDS related illnesses in 1993, just before the movie came
out, and thus never got to see himself played in the movie.
However, there was no proof that even Vinnie Livermore was homosexual.
Nobody can recall him actually propositioning anybody. He just seemed
to have homosexual mannerisms.
So, homosexuality among male chess players is extremely rare. (On the
other hand, among female chess players, it is rampant.) Chess is a
game of imitation war. So, the next question is, what makes men go to
war. Why, when the call to war comes, do men voluntarily go marching
off to their almost certain deaths?
This is the question of the ages. One supposes that men go to war to
get women. That is the way it happens in the animal kingdom. Two males
of any kind of animal fight. The winners got all the females.
It happens in human wars too. The invading army attacks. They climb
the walls and conquer the town. They kill all the men. Only the women
are left. The women do not mourn their dead husbands, fathers,
brothers and sons. They know that they were the prizes to be won at
war and they willingly submit. This is the story of the ages.
This brings us to the ultimate battle: The Battle for the World Chess
Championship: Fischer vs. Spassky.
Of course, Reuben Fine had special insight into this because he knew
who the real World Chess Champion was. He knew that he, Reuben Fine,
was actually the best chess player in the world.
I several times heard Reuben Fine say things like this when he came to
Charlie Hidalgo's Chess House on 72nd street in New York City, near to
where he lived. He would often say that he was the best chess player
in the world. He would also make statements like saying that
everything that was known about the endgames was in his book, Basic
Chess Endings. �If it is not in my book, then it is not there�, he
would say.
I could never figure out whether he was joking or not. Certainly,
after his victory in the 1938 AVRO tournament he had every right to
call himself the unofficial world chess champion, and indeed he often
did so. After all, he had defeated the official World Champion
Alexander Alekhine 2-0 in a two game match.
However, by the early 1970s, with him having not played a tournament
game in twenty years, nobody considered him to be the world champion.
Was he joking? Was he pulling my leg? Or, was he serious? Did he
really believe this?
Now, we will never know.
Sam Sloan
|
|
