Rueben Fine: What Might Have Been?

Many players today probably know Rueben Fine only as the author of Basic Chess Endings. He was, of course, much more than that. In the years before WWII, he was among the top players in the world. In 1937, for example, he won tournaments at Leningrad and Moscow, tied with Keres for first at Margate, tied for first at Ostend, won a tournament at Stockholm, and came in second behind Keres at the super tournament at Semmering/Baden. In 1938, he tied for first with Keres at the famous AVRO tournament, ahead of Botvinnik, Alekhine, Capablanca, Euwe, Reshevsky, and Flohr.

During the war, he studied psychology and was a Ph.D. candidate by war's end. He played some thereafter, but not regularly. He devoted himself instead to his career as a psychologist. Most significantly, he declined to participate in the 1948 match-tournament to determine a successor to Alekhine as world champion. (Botvinnik won the tournament). His reason for declining, according to GM Larry Evans was that he didn't want to spend three months "watching Russians throw games to each other." (See? Fischer wasn't the first to spot it.)

Fine's lifetime score against some pretty fair players is impressive: Lasker, +1-0=0; Capablanca, +0-0=5; Alekhine, +3-2=4; Euwe, +2-2=3; Botvinnik, +1-0=2; Reshevsky, +3-4=12. His only real nemesis was Keres, +1-3=8.

In 1963, after 12 years away from competition, Fine played 5 games against Fischer. Those who have read Fischer's 60 Memorable Games are familiar with the Evans Gambit that Fischer won. Not as well known, but available on line, are the other games, one of which Fine won. Normally, +1-4=0 isn't a great result, but for an out-of-practice psychologist against a GM who is the US champion, it isn't all that bad.

So what could have happened if Fine had continued as a chess player? Such questions, of course, have no clear answer. He might never have become world champion, but it seems certain that he would have been a serious contender for a number of years.

Rueben Fine passed away in 1993 at the age of 78. 

With you on the Freudian thing, urk.

Chess style is a more interesting question. One chess acquaintance of mine can't stand Botvinnik because his style was "weird." Another had no respect for Petrosian because he won by being a "grub." We all have distinct personalities and predilections, but isn't the ultimate question in chess whether you win? 

I first encountered Fine when I was in my mid teens when I bought a Bell edition of Fundamentals of the chess openings (or whatever it was called). These are my impressions of the book then and now. Bear in mind, however, that my own copy did not survive a purge of chess books that I made several decades ago, so I now don't have it to hand. At the time, as an intermediate trying to learn the openings I found it very useful to have a book which had little in the way of lines to memorize and a lot to say on the themes, ideas and motifs that appeared in them instead. Bear in mind that there wasn't a great deal like that at the time. MCO for example had lots of variations and lines but no discussion of the strategic ideas behind particular openings.

The book has not, however (at least in my opinion), survived the test of time very well (hence it was purged). There are now many books that do the same in much more depth while many of the ideas that Fine considered, as I remember these, now seem either too obvious for the post-intermediate player, or frankly outdated. I'm amazed to see that there is a Dover reprint of the book still in print, with the text (as in all Dover reprints) still in the old descriptive notation. I'm not sure what the market it for this edition as players who can still read descriptive (if they are still playing chess) will mostly find it too basic and dated, while younger players who may well find the ideas still useful broadly speaking won't be able to read what must seem to them like Celtic runes. In summary it filled a useful gap in the market when it came out and for some time afterwards. As soon as Batsford appeared, however, its days were inevitably numbered.

I seem to remember that I knew at the time that Fine was a psychologist (probably from his forward or from other books I read) but I hadn't encountered his ideas on chess and masturbation which I have to say, once I had discovered them, I found most entertaining, though not convincing.

IMO Fine got ripped off. With Alekhine dead, Keres and Fine should have played a match for the WCC title.

His 'The Middlegame in Chess' was his best work to me. I got that book when I was about 14 and it improved my game a lot. Good example games with great written explanations, not variations.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708112658/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review315.pdf

@Karpark: I agree that "Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" was useful in its day, but quite outdated now. Van der Sterren's "Fundamental Chess Openings" is far more relevant and, I think, much better done.

@TalSpin: I no longer have my copy of Fine's "The Middle Game in Chess", but my recollection is that it was an excellent introduction to positional understanding.

@urk: The fellow who described Petrosian as a grub was a 50 or 60 year old USCF master who was bitter at the whole chess world, and probably jealous of the great Tigran. This was in the early 1970s. I didn't agree with him. My point in mentioning the guy's opinion was that we all view the significance of a player's style differently, and that the ultimate test of a player is winning.

You may be interested in Fine's rapid-transit exploits: https://www.chess.com/article/view/reuben-fine-speed-demon

If some people have descibed the Ideas book as groundbreaking, it is perhaps because it was written (if I remember correctly) about three decades before the How-to book. Perhaps one might point to works by Edward Lasker and Znosko-Borovsky as somewhat similar to the Fine book.