"Ratings during WWII should be taken with an extra large grain of salt."
Sure, but that doesn't mean they have no value. Sometimes rough estimates, approximations, and interpolations are the best we can do, So we approach those numbers with appropriate caution, but we don't simple discard them
Good points, Laskersnephew. In his 1978 book, "The Rating of Chessplayers: Past and Present," Prof. Arpad Elo tried to retro-evaluate the strength of long-deceased and pre-ratings players. Elo's system had/has merit.
"Personally, I always considered Reuben Fine to have been a greater potential American world championship contender than Reshevsky "
Fine was an extremely good player. Chessmetrics has him as #1 i\for 6 months in 1940-41. But Reshevsky dominated Fine in head to head competition, Reshevsky vs Fine scored +5 =14 -1
Fine shared first place with Keres in the AVRO 1938 tournament, 1.5 points ahead of Reshevsky who shared 4th to 6th with Euwe and Alekhine. The head to head between Reshevsky and Fine is of less interest, because some of Reshevsky's wins against Fine came in the early 1930s and early 1950s, respectively. Fine had his best years in the decade from 1935 onwards, and then he retired from professional chess to become an academic.
Avro tournament was the absolute pinnacle of Fine's chess career. A great performance by any standard. But even at that time, I would have bet on Reshevsky in a match. But obviously we're just speculating for fun here
Avro tournament was the absolute pinnacle of Fine's chess career. A great performance by any standard. But even at that time, I would have bet on Reshevsky in a match. But obviously we're just speculating for fun here
I don't think that was the generally held view at the time.
Not sure what the generally held view was at the time. Probably split. But in critical games, particularly US Championships, Fine seemed to choke a bit against Reshevsky. Sammy had a sometimes unpleasantly competitive and abrasive personality, but he was an incredible fighter. And in a match between two players who are very close in ability, I'd bet on the fighter. Of course, this is all just opinion and speculation
Fine wrote several good books. He authored a collection of his own games, I think it was called "A Passion for Chess," that I read and enjoyed years ago
Regarding monthly rating lists posted during WWII: we are just now coming out of four months of quarantine. This is the reaction of the golf world to ratings during the quarantine:
quarantine:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/53056212
Not sure what the generally held view was at the time. Probably split. But in critical games, particularly US Championships, Fine seemed to choke a bit against Reshevsky. Sammy had a sometimes unpleasantly competitive and abrasive personality, but he was an incredible fighter. And in a match between two players who are very close in ability, I'd bet on the fighter. Of course, this is all just opinion and speculation
Apart from a couple of wins by Reshevsky in 1933 and one in 1951 (i.e. when Fine began to take a more active part in the US chess scene, and after he'd retired from professional chess), honours were about even, and they played well over a dozen games in the intervening period.
Anyway, as I said previously, Reshevsky had two weaknesses (all relative, of course): his opening repertoire and his addiction to time trouble, his plus was his enormous tenacity. Fine may have been less tenacious, but on the other hand he had a far greater knowledge of openings (hardly a surprise as the editor of Modern Chess Openings), and was in no way worse than Reshevsky in the middle- and endgame, plus the fact that he played faster than his main US rival. It's also interesting to note that Alekhine already in the early 1930s predicted that Fine would become a world championship contender. Looking at their international results (rather than their results when competing on US soil), it seems to me that Fine generally outshone Reshevsky before the war (with the only real exception being Fine's dismal failure at Kemeri 1937).
This is gradually morphing into one of those "Could Batman beat Tarzan?" discussions. Fun, but ultimately inconclusive.
Keep in mind the Fine declined to participate in the 1948 championship because of the spectre of systematic Soviet cheating.
No, @Jamiedelarosa. Fine stated that he left competitive chess because he wanted to focus on his career. He saw chess as a hobby.
No, @Jamiedelarosa. Fine stated that he left competitive chess because he wanted to focus on his career. He saw chess as a hobby.
Some sources say he wanted to focus on his career, others claim (especially pertaining to the 1948 World Championship) he didn't want to participate in a rigged tournament.
I don't think there is a definitive answer, especially since both might be correct.
Here’s a test of the competing hypotheses: did he give up professional chess, or did he keep playing against non-Soviets?
Reuben Fine had given up competitive chess long before the World Championship tournament was announced. Fine made this decision in the mid 1940s. Off the top of my head I can't recall which tournament it was, but the 1st Pan-American Championship in 1945 does ring a bell. Fine basically said to himself, 'If I win the championship, I'll continue to play professionally. If I don't, I'll focus on my academic career.' He finished 2nd to Reshevsky.
Yes, @BonTheCat. He made clear why he left competitive chess. But social media being what it is can create all sorts of competing arguments.
Yes, @BonTheCat. He made clear why he left competitive chess. But social media being what it is can create all sorts of competing arguments.
Exactly, and it may also be that someone (not necessarily the man himself) years later invented an anecdote where Fine is supposed to have said that he didn't want to play against Soviets who were throwing games against each other.
And now we're using the tournament system again. I have a problem with the tournament system because it usually means that the winner is the one who does best against the lower half of the table.
I'd much rather see matches. Imagine a twelve game Kramnik-Carlsen Candidates final match! Of course such matches are financially infeasible, which is why we now have Candidates Tournaments again.
"Financially infeasible" ?
The sums involved are huge compared to typical household expenses. They are pitifully small compared to the money in football, tennis, cycling, athletics ... even snooker.
Chess suffers because there is little of interest to anyone that does not play the game Even those of us that are pretty strong relative to the mass of chess players do not have much of a clue what is going on unless there is a GM explaining it to us.
With few exceptions sponsors do not support competitive events out of love of the game/sport, or the goodness of their hearts. They put up huge sums to get their names in front of as many potential customers as possible. Chess attracts a relatively small audience.
Money for such matches could easily be recouped from FIDE's membership federations. One very simple suggestion: Instead of letting hotels and resorts fleece chess players at the FIDE championships in the off-season by charging exorbitant rates, just increase the entry fee a tiny amount, and negotiate better deals with the hotels and resorts. The players will get a better deal, while FIDE uses the 'rake' to finance the Candidate matches.
My only problem with a return to matches have been amply illustrated by none other than World Champ himself. The matches are too short. Currently there are nearly 40 players E2700+ (for the first in well over a decade the number dipped below 40). It's hard to see that matches with fewer than 12 match games already at the QF stage would be anything but a complete lottery with most matches ending with all games drawn, having to resort to rapidplay and blitz tiebreaks. Would love to see a all-match cycle with QF 12, SF 16, CF 20 and WC 24, but I'm sure the players aren't interested.
Sure,Most of them might be cheating, but some are not