Fantastic, and very fitting in with the style of the time in non-chess reporting.
better reporting
Sort:
Feb 14, 2011
0
#3
If I wanted to read literature, I could always read Shakespeare, Dante, Joyce, etc. If you need interesting chess prose try reading Nimzovitch's My System, Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games or Frank J Marshall's Best Games of Chess.
NimzoRoy wrote:
If I wanted to read literature, I could always read Shakespeare, Dante, Joyce, etc. If you need interesting chess prose try reading Nimzovitch's My System, Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games or Frank J Marshall's Best Games of Chess.
I, for one, do not feel the need to separate pleasures.
As a modern-day hack, I think that what we have now is an example of the craft has evolved, just like chess has. I think chess journalism could use a few more strong reporters out there, but the money's just not there to attract the talent. For the most part, the people we have do a solid job.
Flowery, descriptive prose is sort of like the old 19th century gambit-loving style of chess. It's fun to look back and see once in a while, but it's not necessarily "better."
Denker's The Bobby Fischer I Knew is an example of good tales told simply.
I was kind of curious about the finances of the sixth American Congress. It looks like they had players coming in from all over the world. You had Mcleod of Canada; Taubenhaus, champion of France, London champion J. H. Bird, Russian champion Tschigorin, Gunsberg of London, England's great player, J. H. Blackburne, Max Weiss of Vienna, champion Gossip of Australia, Ireland's expert Mr. Pollock. And of course the many Americans coming in from all over the nation.
This tournament was two months long. How could these players afford this. Were they given food and lodging? Were the prizes substantial and many? And if the prizes were large were the players leary of another great American chess scandal as happened just a few years previous? Inquisitive chess fans want to know these things.
When big money is involved, and players are strapped for cash, even decent, upstanding citizens make bad decisions( Anderssen + Szen London 1851).
Feb 14, 2011
0
#12
Prizes were as follows:
First Prize $1,000.00
Second Prize $750.00
Third Prize $600.00
Fourth Prize $500.00
Fifth Prize $400.00
Sixth Prize $300.00
Seventh Prize $200.00
Special Prize for the best game, offered by Messrs. Fred. Wehle and Frank Rudd - $50.00
Players had to make their own arrangements and pay their own expenses (though they might be privately subsidized) and in addition there was an Entrance Fee of $25.00, and a refundable deposit of §25.00, independent of the Entrance Fee in case of early withdrawal.
Feb 14, 2011
0
#13
Interesting enough, "Two more special prizes of $50 each were subsequently added to those above-named, namely, one for the best game of the tournament, donated by Professor Isaac L. Rice, and one for the player who did not win any of the chief prizes but made the best score against the prize winners in the second round, donated by Dr. O. F. Jentz."
This isn't proof of a problem with the English language or a lack of good writers. This is a question of writing to a specific audience. It's an editorial decision. The reporter who writes for the sports section in a newspaper, for example, writes with a different style than you see in Sports Illustrated. Maybe there are more editors of publications who believe that their audience prefers an inverted pyramid style news story over what a newspaper editor would call a feature piece.
I work as a copy editor for some major newspapers and I used to be sports editor of a couple of smaller newspapers and you're right batgirl, this type of writing is a dying art. It's very hard to find good writers, not because they don't exist, but because the money does not make the craft as attractive as it used to be. And even when you have good writers, they often can't attend events in person because of financial constraints. Taking chess as an example, very few publications or websites are going to send anyone to a major event because they can track it via the event's website or press releases.
But you lose something very worthwhile. Aside from good writing, it's hard to establish facts. Take the recent controversy over conditions at the women's world championships. We got to read the players' letter of complaint and, a few days ago, the FIDE response. But how do we really know the truth? It would have been invaluable to have an impartial reporter there to describe what it was like. In too many areas, journalists are simply passing on sides of the story that are fed to them, rather than going and establishing the truth.
Estragon wrote:
There are lots of reports in the old American Chess Magazine, which began in 1897, I think, which read similarly - including of foreign tournaments.
The better foreign players often had patrons who paid their expenses, and they would typically arrange other events when traveling abroad. Also, to the chess public these players were as celebrated as today's GMs, so it is unlikely they had to buy many meals unless they wished to dine alone.
I really dont think patrons were that common. The only chess player I recall with a patron was Janowski and his patron withdrew his support and Janowski died alone, and broke, from TB in 1927. I never read of Lasker having a patron, or Tarrasch, or Schlechter, or Pillsbury. Poor Pillsbury was working night and day to make an extra buck. He was playing all these blindfold simuls, playing tournaments, working the automaton Ajeeb in Coney Island from 1890 to 1900. I dont think there are many patrons today. There are business sponsors but few patrons. Unless you are Kasparov, Karpov, Carlsen etc. I would suggest you have some money in your pocket when you go out to eat.
Feb 15, 2011
0
#18
"working the automaton Ajeeb in Coney Island from 1890 to 1910"
Well, Pillsbury was indeed one of the hardest working chess masters. However, when he died in 1906, he quit working so hard. He directed Ajeeb off and on from about 1893 to 1900.
Feb 15, 2011
0
#19
"At table No. 4 compact Isidor Gunsberg of London, with full high forehead and ministerial aspect, faced his fellow countryman Amos Burn of Liverpool, who shaded his penetrating eyes under his hat. ..."
A small detail: Gunsberg was actually a Hungarian citizen at the time. He received British citizenship in 1908
If you read enough accounts of matches or tournaments, you begin to notice how mundane and similar they become with raw data hogging the spotlight, leaving literary considerations hiding in the shadowy wings. But I came across a lovely and unlikely little description of the the Sixth American Chess Congress in the Columbia Chess Chronicle of 1888. Here's a small sample:
The main part of the hall was railed off and ten tables set inside the railing, five in a row, as it was expected that twenty players would begin the first round of games, but Mr. Showalter of Kentucky, who was drawn to play against Max Judd of St. Louis, did not appear. This gave Mr. Judd a game at the start, so only nine tables were used. When play began at at 1:30, lines of spectators three deep peered over each other's shoulders at the players. At table No. 1 they saw the modest lad McLeod of Quebec pitted against the blacked-haired veteran Taubenhaus, champion of France. At table No. 2 the venerable London champion, J. H. Bird, with high forehead and bald head, faced young J. W. Baird of New York, who looked over the miniature battlefield from under a bulging forehead. At table No. 3 the handsome and keen-eyed Russian champion, Tschigorin, faced Eugene Delmar's broad and dome-like brow. At table No. 4 compact Isidor Gunsberg of London, with full high forehead and ministerial aspect, faced his fellow countryman Amos Burn of Liverpool, who shaded his penetrating eyes under his hat. At table No. 5 sat England's great player, J. H. Blackburne, wearing his hat and smoking his pipe, the smoke curling over the silk hat of Major Hanham, the Englishman's able opponent. Over table No. 6 loomed the finely proportioned head, covered with black hair, of Max Weiss of Vienna, who was pitted against young and pale-faced Burille of Boston. At table No. 7 the patriarchal head of champion Gossip of Australia towered above the derby-covered head of Mr. Mason from London. At table No. 8 Mr. Martinez, a tall veteran with a high forehead and bald head, from Philadelphia, played against young and fair-faced Mr. D. G. Baird of New York. At table No. 9 Mr. Lipschutz, New York State's pale and fair-faced champion, opposed Ireland's auburn-haired and intellecual expert, Mr. Pollock.