New in Chess Magazine 1991. (nem teljes évfolyam) [antikvár]

BeliavskyDear Editor,In August 1990, I gave an interview to Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam which was published in New in Chess 90/6.During this interview I made a number of personal comments on grandmaster Beliavsky. During my visit to the chess olympiad in Novi Sad, I had the opportunity to discuss my published comments with Mr. Beliavsky.As a result of this conversation, I have concluded that my statements (in particular those referring to the notion 'marionette') were not justified. Consequently, I withdraw this statement and apologize. Yours sincerely, Bessel Kok, Brussels, Belgium'Accepted Myths'Editor,Hans Ree's article 'Accepted Myths' (NIC 90/7) confuses what a historian does with an antiquarian's mission. It is true that a prime function of history is to criticize and evaluate evidence, but the formal criteria Ree lays down are too limited and arbitrary for the art of history. Finding an event improbable does not constitute valid criticism, nor does finding a specific number of sources by itself authenticate an event. One can get a name as a conscientious critic simply by not doing much research while doubting the accuracy of statements made by people who do.What gives a story authenticity is both adequate documentation and consistency with what one knows about the personality of the participants and the nature of the times. For example, among the drunken Alekhine stories is one that has him found by friends passed out in a field in Amsterdam during his 1935 match with Euwe. While Euwe testified that Alekhine was far gone in his cups during the match, and others on the scene confirm the same, the part about being passed out in a 'field' raises serious doubts. I do not know-enough about Amsterdam geography in 1953 to say that there were no 'fields', but open expanses given to grass or crops and covering a hectare or more were surely in short supply near where Alekhine was likely to quench his thirst. Nor is there confirmation by similar incidents, such as Alekhine found drunk in a Paris gutter or oversleeping a round at the start of a match game because he had gotten sozzled and dozed off without telling anyone. Do we need Alekhine to be drunkin a field? It adds nothing to our picture of himTurning to Steinitz's role in inventing and popularizing his theory of chess, we can dismiss out of hand Purdy's claim that Steinitz did not know the theory of the 'Modem School' and that Lasker invented it. How do we explain Siegbert Tarrasch's almost sycophantic praise of the Steinitz approach to chess in the Deutsche Schachzeitmg circa 1890?I have read all Steinitz's columns in The Field, and every issue of The International Chess Magazine, and caution that there is no single place in which Steinitz formulated his entire set of principles relating to the nature of advantages and their uses. Steinitz had developed a firm grasp of the principles of position by the time he moved to the United States in 1883, but he surely had an intuitive grasp even before his systematic analyses begun with W.N. Potter in 1874. There is no marked change in the Steinitz style between his victories over Zukertort in 1872 and at Vienna 1873 and his tie with Winawer at Vienna 1882.I argue that the 'Modern School' (he never called it the Steinitz theory), which Steinitz presented analytically to the worid, had been percolating in partial versions through the community of masters for years before Steinitz called it a school. Furthermore, the 'Modem School' had three branches, the path of Chigorin, that of Tarrasch, and that of Emanuel Lasker. Each legatee chose to stress certain aspects of positional play over others. Steinitz contributed a synthesis of received wisdom in teaching the principles of sound play. He also related positional play to the effects of the board terrain, rather than to the powers of the pieces. Philidor and Staunton already knew that two pawns