there are many, many mistakes in Reinfeld's books. According to some people, at best Reinfeld was a 2200 player, and even that is generous
The Author And The Engine That Often Argue With One Another
Sort:
Aug 8, 2018
0
#3
There are mistakes in almost every book written prior to the computer age.
Reinfeld was a very strong player who was amongst the strongest in the US in the 30’s.
In fact, he had a USCF rating of 2593!
So the “some people” who claim 2200 and who may be “generous” have literally no idea what they are talking about.
Reinfeld was a very strong player who was amongst the strongest in the US in the 30’s.
In fact, he had a USCF rating of 2593!
So the “some people” who claim 2200 and who may be “generous” have literally no idea what they are talking about.
Aug 8, 2018
0
#4
To ChrisWainscott -- If you believe Reinfeld was a 2593 type player, because that was the 1st Rating list and included old type results, that's your opinion. I stand by what I wrote.
If you check #18 posting in following Chess . com forum, it agrees more with me, ie; "From people who started playing in the 1950's and knew many of Reinfeld's opponents and actually played some of them directly, they estimated Reinfeld's peak rating around 2300-2350. Chernev at his peak was estimated around 2150-2200." https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/fred-reinfeld
Was a patzer, but his books were enterteining
Aug 8, 2018
0
#6
Ok, but that mistake is about as minor as they come.
Wait till you find something where the author says it's winning, but in reality it's a draw or even a loss!
Chess is tough.
Aug 8, 2018
0
#7
Not to mention that Chess Metrics lists him at 2500+ and top 75 in the world.
Aug 8, 2018
0
#8
This game has a lot of blunders (Winning Chess: How to perfect your attacking play by I.Chernev/F.Reinfeld, pg 222-224).
Aug 8, 2018
0
#10
people overestimate masters from the 1800's (Esp morphy) but underrate the early 20th ones that werent household names.
Aug 8, 2018
0
#11
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Reinfeld's strength is polarizing (based on that book I own and his performance against the "big names"). Kinda master by day, patzer at night. 😁
Reinfeld won Reshevsky, Fine and Marshall and drew Alexander Alekhine when Alekhine was world champion.
His results certainly don't show a player that was 2200 or under.
Reinfeld's 1001 books are considered classic even if he wasn't GM.
@JNM_07 and others who nag about the great masters about the past clearly shouldn't be judging others at levels astronomically higher than theirs.
Aug 8, 2018
0
#14
In some sense 2000 is weak... like Carlsen will win 100 out of 100.
In another sense 2000 is ridiculously good at chess. Better than is reasonable for any human to be at a game 
Hypothetically speaking, Fred Reinfeld and Komodo 9 often argue against each other. Actually, the latter often refutes the former. Here is a classic example:
"Qd5 checkmate" says Komodo 9.