Unsourced Quote

Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part 1 offers a quote that he attributes to Lasker. He does not indicate whether Emanuel or Edward. Nor does he indicate the text where the quote appears. The brief reference list in Part V lists nothing by either Lasker. Two weeks ago I noted criticism of Kasparov's My Great Predecessors for poor documentation in "Plagiarism and Related Crimes".

The quote comes at the end of Kasparov’s brief discussion of Gioachino Greco, where he presents four games with light annotations to the fourth.

The masters of that time found a sound and fruitful plan: disregarding pawns, achieve a rapid development of the pieces for a swift attack on the enemy king. To oppose this, a counter-plan was worked out: develop the pieces in solid positions, accept the sacrifices and then win thanks to material superiority. The masters of the first type found and carried out brilliant combinations, whereas the second type discovered the Giuoco Piano, the fianchetto and the Sicilian Defense. (12)

It is an interesting narrative that would benefit from some illustrative examples.

I would like to locate the original source of this quote. Was it in an article or a book? I do not recall seeing this sort of historical discussion by Emanuel Lasker in Common Sense in Chess nor in Lasker’s Manual of Chess, although the assertion does seem preliminary to Lasker’s purpose in the latter to explicate and build upon ideas of positional play credited to William Steinitz.

Can anyone help?

Edit:

Eight hours after posting I found a version of the quote. No doubt, Kasparov is working from a Russian translation of Lasker’s original German. I am working from Lasker’s English edition, which he wrote because he thought a translation would be too literal to remain faithful. The quote derives from Lasker’s Manual of Chess (1947). I am using the 1960 Dover paperback edition.

The modern history of the art of planning began at the time of the Renaissance in Italy. The Italian Masters of that period conceived a fertile and sound plan: to get the pieces rapidly into play, to leave the pawns out of consideration and to institute a sudden and vehement attack against the king. The counter-play on its part did not fail in evolving an antagonistic plan: to develop the pieces and post them at safe points, to accept the sacrifices and to exchange the threatening pieces of the opponent, add to win by superiority in material force. The masters of the attack invented the brilliant combinations which began by cramping the king and proceeded to sacrifices in order to gain time and space for a direct assault on the king. The masters of the defense invented the systematic exchange of pieces which decreases the vigour of the hostile onslaught and at last breaks it. The masters of the fierce attack, discovered the Gambits, those of the defense the Giuoco Piano, the Fianchetti Openings, and the Sicilian Defense. (179-180)

Even accounting for differences in translation, it appears that Kasparov edited the passage slightly.

Chess Set Inquiries

Two chess sets in my possession have raised questions. When were they made? By whom?

After several years of attending estate sales at Owen’s Auction and seeing many chess sets, I bid on one. It  differed somewhat from familiar sets, but remained within the general Staunton pattern required for tournament play. It became mine. That was 2018. I have told people it was made in the 1960s, although I had no evidence for the statement.

In mid-July this year, it was set-up on a library table as I waited for my opponent for the Spokane Contenders Tournament. I posted a photo to “Post Your Chess Sets” on chess.com. Another poster identified it as resembling sets made in the 1930s and 1940s, much older than I had imagined. He said he had a similar set and had been interested in mid-century French sets for several years. The wide bases and narrow stems of my set are uncommon, I learned.

That evening, my wife and I sat on the patio and put our phones to work as we conducted research. There were several lines of inquiry and my pursuit continued a couple of days. I conversed with the poster who had a similar set. He shared some useful links to research on chess sets. One link identified the set’s box as having been used by Lardy in the 1930s: “Chess Boxes” at The Chess Museum.

Under the tissue paper inside the box were four newspaper clippings with five chess games. These games were played September 1937 to August 1938. The games are Keres, P.—Reshevsky, S., Semmering/Baden 1937; Euwe,M—Alekhine,A., rd. 21, Amsterdam 1937; two games from the US Championship in April 1938: Fine,R.—Shainswit,G. and Simonson,A.—Suesman,W.; and MacMurray,D.—Platz,J., Cazenova, 1938, played at the NY State Chess Association Championship.

World Chess Championship 1937, Game 21

On the back side of game 21 between Max Euwe and Alexander Alekhine in the World Chess Championship was a notice of a wedding that took place. Pursuing wedding details provided a location for the newspaper itself—New York City. In the New York Times I found an announcement of the engagement that led to the wedding. That article identified the groom as a stockbroker. Also easily located in other  articles were some biographical details about the bride’s parents.

It seems reasonable to conclude that someone who owned this chess set clipped and saved these games, which all seem to me worthy of study. Likely, it was the set’s first owner. I believe the set may have been sold new in 1937 in New York City. The set had been imported from France. Of course, there is plenty of uncertainty.

There are no clues to the set’s subsequent journey after August 1938, but there should be no doubt that it has been well-used. All the pieces show signs of wear. It is most apparent on the Black knights.

Coming to terms with the age of the set, I wanted a newer old French set. My bidding on one advertised as a French Lardy set was successful and it arrived Saturday evening, 22 July.

I shared photos of the new set on “Post Your Chess Sets”, which provoked the expected discussion. One poster has a set that appears very similar and has been identified as a Chavet set, rather than Lardy.  Another agreed that it appeared to be a Chavet. Both directed me towards other threads with a great deal of detail concerning Chavet chess sets. I spent Sunday morning reading these threads.

The longest thread, “Chavet N° 8” made clear to me why others regard Walterbiensur as a trusted resource and authority concerning Chavet chess sets. He has posted images of many primary sources, is himself a collector of these sets, and his own quest to learn more is ongoing. Walter identified the set most like mine as Chavet. For now, that’s the best information that I have.

Most Chavet knights clearly differ from those in my new set, but one thread has a 1932 catalog from Chavet with a similar knight. There are a small number of others known to be Chavet sets with similar knights. The poster with a set close to mine drew attention to the relative heights of the base and the carved head. Lardy sets have a higher base, he wrote.

My inquiry has just begun.

In the meantime, the new set appears newer, sturdier, and less fragile than my 1937 set. It now resides in my tournament bag.

Plagiarism and Related Crimes

Chess writers are notoriously lax with documentation. Many books contain none at all. Some highly regarded instructional manuals use positions from historic games, but do not name the players who produced the position through play. Knowing that Jose Capablanca won a particular endgame is not necessary to learn how a specific position that he played should be played. Even so, offering that information improves the instructional value by hinting at a direction for further study. Here, I am thinking of Jeremy Silman, Silman's Complete Endgame Course (2007), 294-296.

Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, 5 vols. (2003-2006) serves as a terrific anthology of analysis of great games throughout chess history. Early volumes were criticized for poor documentation. Kasparov responded by including a partial bibliography at the end of volume 5. This reference list fails to address the sloppy practice of offering no more than a surname for most quotes from prior works, but at least acknowledges part of the problem in the early volumes.

Edward Winter has exposed many cases of lax sourcing as well as several of explicit plagiarism. See Chess Notes (search for plagiarism). Among the consequences of indiscriminate copying that he notes is the perpetuation of error. When one writer gets a date, location, players, or game score wrong, others will follow. It is the same with chess quotes. I'm tempted to speculate that fake chess quotes could be more frequent among chess enthusiasts than among politicians.

Chess Skills has previously noted errors in the history from which we get the name Pillsbury's Mate. Nonetheless, I often recommend Georges Renaud and Victor Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate (1953) for its pedagogical value despite sloppy sourcing (the Pillsbury Mate error may originate with the authors). Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955) was instrumental in my growth as a chess player, but I criticized its sloppy history in my Amazon review of the book. Some readers have criticized my review.

For most chess players, instructive value is all that matters. Who cares if sources are cited? Who cares whether games are properly referenced? 

Social Media

Everything is free on the internet. Content creators find their work presented by others with no reference to who created it. Someone creates a puzzle from a game they are reviewing, but others have created the same puzzle from the same game before. Does it matter where you found it? Go ahead and share as if you were the one reading the book. 

A Facebook group that offers dozens of puzzles most days featured a puzzle from a game I was reviewing that morning. I shared it to the page. My post was presented under the name of the group’s administrator.

Two hours later, my original post was approved, placing that puzzle twice in that group’s feed. When I suggested that the administrator should have noted his source, we engaged in a heated discussion. He even claimed to have added the source information to the puzzle, although it is obvious that he copied and pasted. Note the proper use of a dash where 99.9% of everyone places a hyphen.* He even copied a typo in the book’s date of publication, which should be 1955. Copying replicates errors.

A few days later, he removed me from the group.

Several weeks earlier, I shared a different puzzle from an earlier game in the same book. I used a screenshot from chessgames.com to present the position and the names of the players. I did not mention chessgames.com. A comment accused me of plagiarism. I edited the post after some discussion with the accuser. Although I did not view sharing a screenshot from another site as plagiarism, providing a reference to chessgames.com did seem appropriate.

Some people care. Things on the internet are still protected by copyright.

*A hyphen is a unit of spelling. A dash is a unit of grammar. Adversaries in a contest should be separated by a dash. Such usage is extremely rare. Even so, my 99.9% is hyperbole.

Should be Simple

It seems a simple pawn ending, but there is a nuance that makes a critical difference. This position was reached yesterday in a rapid game.

 White to move

After 49...Kd6

White, rated 2200, played 50.Kxg5, leading to an elementary draw.

50.Kf6 was suggested on social media (this blog’s Facebook page). It is a reasonable effort, but after 50…g4 51.e5+ Kc5, both players get queens and a draw looms.

50.e5! was White’s only winning move. Kf6, and Kf7 will follow. White is two tempi ahead of the position after an immediate Kf6 if Black plays 50...Kd5. To wit, 51.e6 Kd6 52.Kf6 g4 53.e7 Kd7 and White will promote the queen with check after 53.Kd7 54.Kf7 g3 55.e8Q+ with an easy win.

Black also loses after 50.e5! Ke7 51.Kxg5 Ke6 52.Kf4 because White can win the h-pawn and then shoulder with the king. 52...Ke7 53.Kf5 Kf7 54.e6+ (edit: a reader pointed out that 54.Ke4 here is faster, e6 can be played later) 54...Ke7 55.Ke5 Ke8 56.Kd6 Kd8

White to move

57.Kc6 Ke7 58.Kb6 Kxe6 59.Kxa6 Kd7 60.Kb7

In the discussion on Facebook, it was also suggested that Black should have played Kf7. White's winning technique here is the same as the line with 50.e5! Ke7.