This month Chess Life published a wonderful article on Sammy Reshevsky. Becoming aware of chess in the early 1970's and all eyes focused on Fischer, I did not discover the power of Reshevsky until recently. Of course, in my youth the chess bible was IA Horowitz's "Chess Openings: Theory and Practice" and I was unaware of Reshevsky or Rueben Fine or any of what essentially made up American Chess. And while the major intent of this website is dedicated to the historical existence of the Chess Club in Springfield, it is also dedicated to the historical context that lead up to the formation of the Club and those who played an intregal part in its founding.
With that said, I would like to make a brief comment on the Chess Life article or at least a comment about the incident that lead to Reshevsky claiming the US Championship in 1942. Apparently, in a game against Arnold Denker in round six, Reshevsky's time had expired but the referee some how turned the clock in the wrong direction and declared a time forfeit on Denker. Amongst protests and the like the decision stood. Quoting Chess Life, "Reshevsky remained notably aloof from the debate. 'Sammy took what he could get,' as Arthur Bisguier told me."
It is this "aloofness" that somewhat disturbs me. Of course, this was/is high level chess on a level most of us will never experience so it is hard to say how we would have behaved under the circumstances. If Reshevsky had lost this game then our 1942 champion most likely would have been Isaac Kashdan as there would not have been a tie for first and there would not have been a playoff between Kashdan and Reshevsky. But why did Reshevsky remain aloof? Surely Reshevsky knew his time had expired and it is not clear if Denker had made a claim of a win based on time as the article in Chess Life indicates that Stephens, the Tournament Director, grabbed the clock and turned it around so as to misread the faces. And Bisguier's comment that Sammy took what he could get does not suggest a fondness for the man, but does suggest winning supercedes moral or ethical behavior.
The following link will take you to this game on Chessgames.com:
Reshevsky v Denker US Championship 1942 Round 6
With that said, I would like to make a brief comment on the Chess Life article or at least a comment about the incident that lead to Reshevsky claiming the US Championship in 1942. Apparently, in a game against Arnold Denker in round six, Reshevsky's time had expired but the referee some how turned the clock in the wrong direction and declared a time forfeit on Denker. Amongst protests and the like the decision stood. Quoting Chess Life, "Reshevsky remained notably aloof from the debate. 'Sammy took what he could get,' as Arthur Bisguier told me."
It is this "aloofness" that somewhat disturbs me. Of course, this was/is high level chess on a level most of us will never experience so it is hard to say how we would have behaved under the circumstances. If Reshevsky had lost this game then our 1942 champion most likely would have been Isaac Kashdan as there would not have been a tie for first and there would not have been a playoff between Kashdan and Reshevsky. But why did Reshevsky remain aloof? Surely Reshevsky knew his time had expired and it is not clear if Denker had made a claim of a win based on time as the article in Chess Life indicates that Stephens, the Tournament Director, grabbed the clock and turned it around so as to misread the faces. And Bisguier's comment that Sammy took what he could get does not suggest a fondness for the man, but does suggest winning supercedes moral or ethical behavior.
The following link will take you to this game on Chessgames.com:
Reshevsky v Denker US Championship 1942 Round 6
RSS Feed