A Trap for the Historian
by Tomasz Lissowski
|
|
Works about the history of chess are not
perfect. |
Of course, every careful reader can name
exceptions,
ones that thanks to the erudition and literary talent of the author and
the care of his investigation have led to excellent results. Books
entitled The complete games of... (use the name of any
famous chess master)
contain more and more games, with a great majority of them authenticated
by careful research. On the contrary, large commercial databases
often contain spurious games such as those of Winawer playing a Benko
Gambit. |
The collecting of gamescores has been accelerated
thanks to the rising popularity of e-mail and the Internet; people from
different continents, who have never seen each other, can fruitfully
collaborate
by using this new tool of chess scholarship. Nevertheless
biographies
of great past masters contain many white lies or even more
serious errors.
An error, as experience teaches, once published, may wander from one
book
to another. |
As an example, I will use Johannes Hermann Zukertort (1842-1888), first
official rival to Wilhelm Steinitz for the World Chess Championship, to
show the mechanism that has perpetuated a fictitious
biography.
The published life of Zukertort has reached the pinnacle of a mythic
biography.
What is the beginning of Zukertorts legend? (to use
Jimmy Adams term
from his excellent book Johannes Zukertort, Artist of the
Chessboard).
I would like to discuss one of the oldest sources which was not cited by
Adams, and may be unknown to Western readers, Jan Kleczynskis
(1837-1895)
article Zukertorts match with Steinitz, published
February 27th, 1886,
in the Warsaw Tygodnik Ilustrowany (Illustrated Weekly).
Kleczynski
conducted the first Polish chess column for nearly 30 years and was also
a renowned music critic, pianist and composer. I have added
(T)
and (F) to mark the true and false statements regarding the
genealogy
and life of this great master. |
When the score of the match was 4-3, in
Zukertorts
favor, Kleczynski wrote:
[...] Zukertorts play is extremely rapid and abounds
with witty
conceptions; he knows the openings perfectly. Accordingly, our
compatriot
has great chances. We emphasize the following words with no lack
of foundation. Germans make him a Prussian, born on the coast of
the Baltic sea, though his biography, which we obtained from the best
possible
source, his family, tells us something else. Our
chessplayers grandfather
was in fact an Englishman (F) and rather foggy Albion may reckon
his grandson as their own. His father, born in Poland,
was an Anglican
clergyman (F) in Lublin, where Jan Herman was born (T) in
1844 (F). Zukertorts mother, de domo Krzyzanowska
(F),
was Polish, while the younger generation also count themselves as our
countrymen,
as Zukertorts own sister, living amongst us in Warsaw, Mrs. W.,
warmly
assures us. Zukertorts father stayed in Warsaw a short
period, where
he was lodged on Leszno street
in a missionary house (T).
Afterwards he moved to Piotrkow (T), where the future chessplayer
took his first two classes (F). The family then moved to
Wroclaw
(T), and there young Zukertort finished gymnasium (T) and
university as a doctor of medicine (F). Subsequently he
spent
some time in Berlin (T), and London (T), finally attending
Cambridge University (F), where he obtained a doctorate degree in
philosophy and philology (F). A little known detail from
the
life of our chessplayer is that for two years he was a teacher of a
young
French nobleman (F) and afterwards worked as a Standard
newspaper
correspondent. He was also a friend of young Prince Lulu
(F),
going with him to Africa (F), where the two spent time among the
Zulus (F). Zukertort was also for a time an editor of the
Neue Berliner Schachzeitung (T) while currently he issues
the chess organ, the Chess Monthly (T). He also
works
as a secretary of a chess club (F). The chessplayers
parents
are living, residing in Poznan (T). |
More than 10 misconceptions and Kleczynski insisted
he had the best possible source, his family. This is
the trap which
threatens a chess historian. Countless chess biographies contain
errors because writers believed articles which were based on
direct relations
- our chess heroes themselves or their family members, friends,
advocates,
etc. |
In passing, a related error many writers of chess
history commit should be mentioned. That error is to ignore facts
other than those reported in the daily press or chess periodicals when
seeking information on a chess players life. |
Here is how Zukertorts legend
affected the writing
of Edward Arlamowski (1909-1979), Doctor of Law, who took part in
several
Polish Chess Championships and International matches. Arlamowski
found Kleczynskis article in a library. Believing it was the
best
possible source and, not without pride, he contributed a long
article
to the Polish chess periodical Szachy. Arlamowski wrote in
Szachy,
1972, p172-175:
[...] Therefore, I believe, it was my duty to draw from
historys
woodshed this sensational though forgotten article by Kleczynski, which
throws a strong light on the evidently Polish origin of the family of
our
master. We can state Polish chess master J. H. Zukertort fought in
the first chess championship match [...] We can be proud
[...] |
A scrupulous critic can detect a note of national
pride,
if not slight nationalism, in both writings; please be forgiving and
take
it as a sign of bygone times. |
Three problems should be discussed
respectively:
(1) Why do contemporary chess reports regarding
Zukertort contain tales and legends instead of facts?
Was the master,
backed by his family and friends, the source of this
misinformation?
If yes, what was the reason? If not, what about responsibility of
the press?
(2) What does the true biography of Zukertort
look
like?
(3) Can chess historians draw any moral from this
example? |
At this time I will not answer questions (1) and
(2). Regarding (3) I would like to point out one important
factor.
Among those who are called chess historians (in particular those who
contribute
historical chess works) only a few are professional scholars.
Among
the chess historians I know there are: an architect, a
lawyer, an electrician,
an engineer, and an archivist. We (the author is no exception) are
deficient in a historians training. We investigate the
history of
chess and publish our results because we love chess. Do we love
history
as well? |
The conclusion I would like to present to chess
biographers is this: Do not limit the range of research to old chess
columns and chess periodicals. We have to look for
confirmation
of the facts in non-chess related literature and in
the record
offices, or archives, of schools, universities, churches, cemeteries and
hospitals. Even fifty or one hundred years after the death of a
chess
hero, there remain chances through such non-chess sources to learn the
truth about his family and background. Occasionally, if one is
very
lucky, hitherto unpublished photographs can be recovered from such
sources
as well. Only then will the number of biographical errors
and
white lies in chess literature be reduced. |