What's Wrong with American Chess

After the shocking loss to the Soviet team in their Radio Match during Sept. 1945, following the end of WWII, publications and columnists were trying to explain- or at least pretending to understand- the reasons.  "Chess Review" printed this article (probably written by Horowitz) in its Nov. 1946 issue after the U.S. second loss to a Soviet team in Moscow in September  : [view full-size image]

In response to this article, "Chess Review" received some letters-to-the-editor among which I found the following one written by Arnold Denker most edifying:

"Chess Review," January 1946

WHAT'S WRONG?
Sirs:
   What has happened to American chess?
   Is it possible that the country which produced the brJlliant Marshall, the resourceful Reshevsky and the encyclopaedic Fine has gone back as much as the Russian trouncing would Indicate?
   Can it be that the victorious teams of Prague, Folkestone, Warsaw and Stockholm are not good enough for modern competition?
   These are only some of the questions that have been asked in the weeks following the American debacle. I should like to answer them as I see it, without in any way attempting an alibi. I feel that the American public should know the facts.
   About 1932 this country had fifteen or twenty very talented young masters. Outstanding was Kashdan, just returned from many successes abroad, who was mentioned as a candidate for World Championship honors. In four games Alekhlne had been unable to best hlm and this was when Alekhine was in his prime.
   Then there was Dake, who, in an amazingly short time after he had learned the moves, defeated some of Europe's outstanding masters. The achievements of Fine and Reshevsky are familiar to everyone. Next comes to mind SImonson, certainly one of the most gifted players we have had, who made such a magnifIcent showing in the 1936 U. S. Championship. And we had many more fine
players: Kevltz, Pinkus, Bernstein, Reinfeld, Willman, Kussman and others too numerous to mention.
   What has happened to all these budding stars? Is It possible that so much talent can have dwindled away dlsappo!ntingly ln a few years? The answer to the second question is a clear and unequivocal "Yes!" Why? Because professional chess requires a player's full time, and yet it does not assure him anywhere near an adequate income. It is quite wrong to think of tournament play as the master's chief activity. Much time has to be spent on research, training, journallstlc work, simultaneous exhibition.
The chess master is thus faced with the insoluble problem of how to engage in a full-time profession without adequate recompense. Take the case of Kashdan.
   At the height of his powers, he could barely manage to earn a livelihood from chess. After his marriage In 1933, he could no longer afford the luxury of playing in chess tournaments regularly. When he did play, he could not spare the time to prepare hImself properly for powerful competition. I am willing to wager that in the last 10 years, Kashdan has not so much as played over 20 games from Soviet tournaments. Couple this with the fact that he lias been working 10-12 hours a day, and it must be admitted that he has compiled a wonderful record In spite of the odds against him.
   Reshevsky's career is following the same Course. His play lacks the old alertness, his lack of opening knowledge (a gap he never had the time to eliminate) is beginning to tell against him.
   Fine, whose vast store or knowledge has been an important asset, has also failed to keep abreast of the tlmes --- see for example his second game with Boleslavsky. Long hours at his government job and little time or Incentive for analysis have definitely made him a less formidable opponent.
   In my own case, I have sensed the same decline of interest, of the will to win. Being engrossed In my own business, I lack the time and opportunity to get valuable practice and to study all the latest analytical discoveries.
   I could go on endlessly, but the conclusian would be the same. Chess is a full-time job, and we must treat it as such If we are to hold our own in world competition. For the vast majority of chess players, the game is a wholesome and entertalning pastime; for the chess master It is long hours of serious study and hard work. The sooner the American chess public realizes this, the sooner we will regain onr prestige as the leadIng nation In the world of chess.
                                                                   ARNOLD S. DENKER
                                                                   Forest HlI1s, N. Y.

                                                           from the 1946 Radio Match

Read it

Wow, what a letter and with such passion for the game and its failures in America. The research you do just absolutely amazes me, it must take a significant amount of your time to come up with these, I mean last one was just outstanding.

Another great article, batgirl.

In the same vein as Denker's remarks, Reshevsky wrote in his 1948 book "Reshevsky's Best Games of Chess", "As I have frequently remarked elsewhere in this book, it is a difficult task to make a living from chess. Only if a chessmaster is single can he come even close to scraping by.  The married chess professional soon learns the disadvantages of his calling...I wanted to be with my wife and infant daughter, Sylvia. If I couldn't do it by playing chess, then I'd do it some other way. So, after my match with Kashdan, I decided to concentrate on my business career."

A couple of paragraphs later, he says, "I am determined to follow the dictates of prudence. Henceforth, I will confine my chess activity to vacations and occasional leaves-of-absence. Never again will I permit chess to interfere with the more important business of caring for my family."

4th!

Very nice! Thanks!

Thanks batgirl. There has been a similar thing over here in recent times, with fine talents like Sadler and McShane choosing to make a living rather than play chess. Jon Mestel who I wrote a short piece on is a similar story.

Another letter-to-the-editor took the opportunity to address this same question with a rather odd point of view (which Horowitz' reply will clarify).

Sirs:
Your question, "What is wrong with American Chess?" can be answered in one sentence: the attitude of the New York chess players who are under the misapprehension that the boundaries of the United States consist of the Hudson in the West, Westchester County in the North and the Atlantic Ocean in the South and East. How else could it be explained that every time a tournament is run in New York City the winner automatically acquires a national title.
For the last two years, a tournament lasting several weeks was held in New York among amateur players. Not mentioning the financial burden, the hotel situation in New York alone was sufficient to make it impossible for outsiders to participate. Nevertheless, the winner of this tournament proudly calls himself the "Amateur Champion of the United States."
Your magazine reflects the same attitude. New York chess is being featured in every Issue with Soviet news receiving second attention. Other United States chess news fs reported under "Chess Briefs." It was in this back page column that you reported in a small paragraph the death of George Sturgis who organized and was the guiding spirit of the United States Chess Federation for several years. However, in your eyes, undoubtedly, he was a foreigner, being a native of Massachusetts.
In every issue of your magazine, you glamorize the New York masters, playing them up to the reading public as the Van Johnsons and Frank Sinatras of the chess world. This sort of thing may be most pleasing to their ego but becomes sickening to some of your readers.
In addition to the four remedies suggested in your November issue, may we add a fifth one? "To eliminate cash prizes in national tournaments and give trophies instead and use the money formerly raised for cash prizes to provide transportation and accommodation to players out of town."
We doubt whether you will print this but your reading it may help.
                                            Fred J. Keller
                                            Norman E. Ward
                                            Boston, Massachusetts

 Horowitz did print it and replied humorously but pointedly:

   U.S. Chess Federation Directors Keller and Ward should address their complaints to themselves or to their fellow officers. They refer to the official championship tournaments of their own organization as "New York chess."  But New York chess players, whether or not they be snobbish, have little or nothing to do with the selection of their city as the site for these tournaments.  And the winners of these tournaments do not "call themselves" champions; the U. S. Chess Federation confers the titles.
   As to CHESS REVIEW, normal chess activities in New York are given less space, proportionately, than events in other parts or the United States. The official USCF Championship Tournaments will always be featured, wherever they are held. That many of these tournaments have been staged in New York is an irrelevant fact. And CHESS REVIEW will continue to report the activities of chess masters wherever they live.  But critics Keller and Ward may rest assured that CHESS REVIEW cannot glamorize a weak player into a master.  By only their games and their competitive records shall ye know them. -Ed.

I wonder what Mr. Denker would think, if he could see the state of the American chess scene today?

nothing is wrong

Excellent Article.  Very very poignant that although we are in what many call the "Golden Age" of chess in terms of support, this is still very much an issue for up and coming ( and strong players ) today.   Excellent post.

Quite likely that chess is one of the cheapest things money can buy.

@pfren...At least chess tutelage is

I am very grateful to Mr. Sinquefield for helping chess in the US.

@SleepTheNb4

I'm not sure how knowledgeable Denker might have been of the Communist initiatives, methodologies or agendas behind the Iron Curtain.  So, it seems he didn't see the reversal in U.S. chess so much as Soviet progress (though undoubtedly he was quite aware of that too) as it was American indifference.  

Read the article and the title will all become clear.

Chess be cheap to play pfren... but, as you probably know, a relatively poor sport. Given the huge effort to attain master level... for not great reward... is not surprising many youngsters choose a more solid career. Unless they are privileged, of course.

Soviet success is no great secret... they saw Chess as an example to promote socialism... and put a near unbeatable system in place. Simple as.

You understood nothing, which can hardly surpise, anyone.

Obnoxious as ever pfren... what, exactly, is incorrect about what i stated?