Anecdotes

I culled these from Irving Chernev's The Bright Side of Chess.

Their accuracy is more than doubtful but they're fun to read nonetheless.

THE AVERAGE CONCEPTION OF A PHILOSOPHER, MATHEMATICIAN and chess master (and Lasker was all three rolled into one) is that he is a stern, serious individual with never a frivolous thought. Lasker with his own sense of humor would belie that definition. There was the time he played and purposely lost an off-hand game to a stranger. His opponent did not know he was playing the great Dr. Lasker, for he offered to give him the odds of a Knight.  Lasker accepted, and again purposely lost. Then he said "I think the odds of a Knight is an advantage to the odds-giver. You can get your Queen Rook into play quickly, and work up a strong attack. Let me try to give you a Knight odds." Lasker's adversary assured him that at Knight odds, he (Lasker) would not have a chance. They tried a game though, and Lasker won. "You see," said Lasker, "that proves my statement. Now give me a Knight." They played again, and Lasker lost. Now Lasker gave the odds-and won. After a few more games where they alternated in giving up a Knight, with the result that the odds-giver always won, Lasker's opponent, bewildered by the "proof," got up and said, "I guess you're right after all. It does seem to be an advantage to give a Knight!"

ON STILL ANOTHER OCCASION, LASKER KEPT HIS IDENTITY secret from his opponent, who, as it happened, was blind--but a stronger player than many a man who "has eyes but sees not." It was after Lasker had unleashed a few tremendously powerful moves that the blind man lifted his head, smiled and said, "Ah, Dr. Lasker, I presume."

MANY A CHESS MASTER HAS HAD TO PLAY FOR SHILLINGS in his early days, and Steinitz was no exception. One of Steinitz's best customers was the wealthy Viennese banker Gustave Epstein. During one of their games, Steinitz took a bit more time than usual in analyzing the intricacies of a difficult position, and his opponent urged him on with a "Nuh!" ("Well, well" or "come, come" is the nearest English equivalent). Steinitz made his move, and shortly after the
game began to turn to his favor. Now it was Epstein who began to think long and hard, and Steinitz who tried to hurry him with a "Nuh!" The banker turned on him fiercely with, "Sir, don't forget who you are, and who I am!" And standing up to emphasize his importance. "I am Epstein!"
Quick as a flash Steinitz retorted, "On the Exchange you are Epstein, and I am Steinitz. Over the chessboard I am Epstein. and you are Steinitz!"

SOMEONE ONCE ASKED STEINITZ what his (Steinitz's) chances were of winning the tournament in which he was playing. Steinitz said that he has one advantage over all the other competitors. "Every one else has to play Steinitz, but I don't.

ROBY WAS PLAYING LIGHTNING CHESS WITH AN OPPONENT who was known to be partial to strong liquor. At one stage the position was such that Roby had three pieces en prise. Thinking to hurry his adversary into making the wrong capture, Roby said, "Well Mr. Bacchus, what are you going to take?' 'Thank you," came the reply instantaneously, "I'll take a Scotch whiskey."

A LONG WHIILE AGO STEINITZ WAS HOLDING FORTH AT S1mpson's D1van in London, his audience including among others Bird and Mackenzie. Steinitz talked of his discoveries in chess, and aired his not unreasonable pride in being a pioneer in unexplored regions. In an unguarded moment he spoke of Morphy as a mere imitator. "I play my King all over the board; I make him fight. What did Morphy do? He castled! He put his King safely in the corner!" Mackenzie
blew a cloud of smoke, and quietly observed, "Not a bad idea, either."

JACQUES MiESES HAD BEEN GOING STRONG IN THE Vienna tournament of 1903--which was not surprising, as it was a gambit tournament and he was a venturesome attacking player. This particular day he felt good! He was to play Gunsberg. Not that Gunsberg wasn't a fine player-but the wide-open games resulting from gambits were not his forte, and in addition he seemed to be completely out of form. Out of the previous twelve games, Gunsberg had lost eleven and drawn one. Mieses had already chalked up the point mentally. But, as so often happens, the tail-ender of the tournament had one good game in him. He let loose with everything he had, and Mieses had to capitulate. This has occurred before to many a master, who has had to conceal his real feelings with a "good-loser" smile, but Mieses commented bitterly, "It is bad enough to get run over, but to get run over by a corpse is horrible!"

A FEW YEARS AGO WHEN MIESES ARRIVED IN ENGLAND, there to make his permanent home, he was greeted by a chess player with, "I beg your pardon, but are you Mister Myses?" "No," was the answer, "not Mister Myses, but Myster Meesesl"

ADOLF ANDERSSEN, WINNER OF THE FIRST GREAT International Chess Tournament held at London in 1851, was on his way back to Breslau, his home town. Whether it was the uncertain train schedule. or whether it was because he was a stranger in a foreign land, I do not know, but he found himself stranded in an out-of-the-way place with a whole night's wait for a train. What does a chess master do in such a situation? Not get a good night's sleep--perish the thought!
Anderssen asked the way to the local chess club. There, without revealing his identity, he managed to get into a game with the champion of the club. Anderssen won the first game quickly, then suggested Knight odds. Another quick win, and he offered to play at Rook odds. When he had beaten the champion at Rook odds, there was nothing left but to try a game at the enormous odds of a Queen.
Once more Anderssen won, and his opponent, amazed beyond measure, said, "I am the strongest player in the district, and have never met anyone who could give me odds, let alone a Queen. What is your name?" "Anderssen," was the answer. "So, the great Anderssen. No wonder you can give me a Queen!" "No, no" replied Anderssen, "I am not that Anderssen, but I know of him.  A friend of mine who gives me a Queen is a friend of his, and Anderssen gives him a Queen!!"

FINE AND KOLTANOWSKY PLAYED A GAME WHICH AT the time of adjournment looked like a draw, as Pawns were equal, and Bishops were of opposite color. "It must be a drawl" said Koltanowsky [sic]. "Theoretical win for Black," was Fine's reply. Koltanowsky turned to Tartakower for his opinion. Tartakover bad his own view of the situation. His Judgment was, "It is a theoretical win for Black, because Fine is the better player."

BYW, the book was published in 1948

Thanks! Funny stuff....!

Amusing anecdotes.  I liked Steinitz's one advantage over the other competitors, and that one I believe could be true.  Thanks, Sarah, for another entertaining post.

Thanks, I enjoy a good anecdote any day!

The OCR program made a few blunders: "S1mpson's D1van", ..., "drawl", "bad", "Judgment" ... are  correct in the book... Nonetheless, thanks for the amusing and interesting post!

very fun indeed.

That was my favorite too because it was witty and as you say, it has a ring of potential truth.

Thanks.

A bit silly too.

Thank you. After a while one needs an anecdote antidote.

Joseph Henry "Black Death" Blackburne, made a lot of money play the Blackburne Shilling Trap

Who? me or Irving?

I don't know about a lot of money, but certainly a lot of quick wins.

Back when Blackburne was alive, a shilling was worth 1/20th of a pound.  A night of won games at a shilling each could equal a good payday.

Well, I always understood that he supposedly employed the shilling gambit during simuls. Of course, i could be wrong.

It is a trap in the Giuoco Piano, but it really isn't sound.

Batgirl, please tell me, what does SBC mean?

Those are my initials.

Thank you Batgirl for the laughs.