Here is the video of the conference on Zoom on Saturday March 20, 2021 on the occasion of the centenary of the FFE, followed by a summary of the various interventions, by Frank Hoffmeister.
As is widely known, the Spaniard Lucena published in 1497 the first written book with the new rules on modern chess. However, as José A. Garzón (Valencia) showed in his meticulous presentation, Lucena was largely inspired by Francesc Vicent (1475), whose manuscript is lost today. Moreover, the Göttingen manuscript (probably around 1500), written in Latin, also uses much of the same material from Vicent and Lucena. Very interestingly, Garzón also discussed another manuscript from the same era, namely the “Paris document” (held by David De Lucia). The document also contains the word “Lucena” at the end of one section – according to Garzón, this is a reference and not a signature. Finally, he also referred to the fourth manuscript, written in German by an unknown author, who again uses much of the Lucena material, but also other points derived from Damiano (Rome, 1512). It follows that there is a common origin of modern chess: very similar material is used in these early manuscripts, presented in four different languages (Spanish, French, Latin, German).
The French “Chapais” manuscript (before 1780) was the topic of Herbert Bastian’s (Saarbrücken) presentation. It is located today in the Kórnik castle in Poland, as it belonged to Tassilo von der Lasa, who had bought it in Paris in 1854/55. The manuscript contains many endgame studies and uses a singular notation. It is signed by “Chapais, negoçiant à Paris”. Bastian, though, believes that this a pseudonym. He identified a list of clues from the text, such as his immense knowledge of physics and mathematics. Having thus narrowed down the profile of the author, Bastian identified Gaspard Monge as the most likely candidate. Bastian showed in great detail special features in the handwriting of both Chapais and Monge and came to the conclusion that the famous French mathematician and Free-Mason must have written this manuscript. If it had been printed, endgame theory would have received a push already back then, as Chapais already discussed the concepts of opposition, key squares and indirect King march, for example.
The key figure for French chess in the 18th century was Philidor. Dr. Richard Eales (Kent) recapitulated his life oscillating between being a music composer and a chess author. Clearly, Philidor’s second edition of his “Analyse” was planned long-time in advance before he came to the United Kingdom a second time and published it in London in 1777. Eales also made the point that Philidor’s influence was greatly enhanced by subsequent British writers, who used his material for basic textbooks. Moreover, George Walker popularized him by publishing games and even calling the first British (short-lived) chess magazine “the Philidorian”. An indirect counter-weight was provided by those authors, who tried to give more space to the “Italian school” by translating and using the texts of the Modenese school. However, in Eales’ words, Philidor remained very much the founding father of chess both in France and England.
Another influence from Philidor went eastward. Dr. Vlastimil Fiala (Olmouc) presented with Alexander Petroff the most influential Russian player of the 19th century, who was also nicknamed “the Northern Philidor”. The reason therefore is his 1824 treatise, in which Petroff translated a lot of Philidor’s work into Russian before adding his own thoughts. These points, though, showed some divergences from Philidor. Petroff accepted gambit play and was convinced of active defense, for example. Fiala also discussed in detail Petroff’s only “Western” trip in 1863, reconstructed from a letter published in Shakhmatny Listok 1863. He met Morphy in Paris, but the two giants did not play a match, unfortunately.
Herbert Bastian
Jean Olivier Leconte
Prof. Frank Hoffmeister
Tomasz Lissowski
Denis Teyssou
After Philidor, the scepter of French chess was transposed to the brilliant Deschapelles. Jean Olivier Leconte (Paris) presented research from Pierre Baudrier, Herbert Bastian and himself on the matter. After his military career, in which he lost his right hand, Deschapelles concentrated on chess, but only 9 games of his and one diagram are known today. He was primarily interested in attacking on the board and making money out of it. In 1822, he left the scene after having been beaten by his pupil La Bourdonnais, and turns to the Whist, ancestor of Bridge, more profitable. A crucial and still unclear point is his political orientation. For example, while his family was close to King Charles X, he was recognized as the organizer of a republican insurrection in 1832, but never punished for his acts (while others participating in the riots were put into prison). After his death, his friend O’Reilly publishes their joint draft constitution in favor of a democratic system, while some distance themselves from Deschapelles' ambiguous past. So, distinguishing myth from reality is still difficult today for this extra-ordinary personality in French chess.
After the death of La Bourdonnais, who famously won the match against McDonnell in 1834 in London, Pierre Saint-Amant took over the place of first player in the Café de la Régence. But soon he was replaced by Lionel Kieseritzky, followed by Daniel Harrwitz and finally Samuel Rosenthal. Prof. Frank Hoffmeister (Brussels) presented some new details of their arrival and integration in Paris. In his view, there was some resistance to foreign professional players by members of the French chess-playing elite. At the same time, the amateurs welcomed the possibility to meet these top players over the board – and the practice of giving exhibitions, including blindfold exhibitions, secured a decent living of these professionals. Nevertheless, in particular Rosenthal, was a controversial figure, as he departed from other French players in 1885, when they had chose an inferior move in a correspondence game against Vienne. Rosenthal also “privatized” the 1900 French congress in his “Grand Cercle”, which ran counter to the efforts of popularizing chess for the broader public.
Tomasz Lissowski (Warsaw) added very interesting details about a couple of Polish players, who also emigrated to Paris during that period. We can name in particular Jean Taubenhaus and Stanislaus Sittenfeld. Lissowski underlined that these players came to Paris for a variety of reasons, most probably because Poland was partitioned by Prussia, Austria and Russia at the time. Taubenhaus belonged to the best players in Paris and played a couple of international tournaments, but never celebrated a breakthrough.
Jean Olivier Leconte
Jean Olivier Leconte (Paris) then sketched in a very attractive presentation the years before the creation of the French Chess Federation in 1921. Attempts to bring French players together started in 1867, and the first “national” tournament took place in 1880 in Paris. However, the buy-in from the regions was small and the schism of 1885 between Arnous de Rivière and Rosenthal was another stumbling block. The arrival of David Janowski added another top player to the French scene, but it took until 1914 that the foundation of a national Federation was planned. The meeting could not take place due to the outbreak of the First World War, and France had to wait for the initiative of the Cercle Philidor, in Paris, and its founder Henri Delaire to permanently found the Federation on March 19, 1921.
The role of Alexander Alekhine in France was excellently researched by Denis Teyssou (Paris), who has done great research into some of Alekhine’s notebooks from the 1940s. He showed that Alekhine not only write the infamous anti-Semite articles in the Pariser Zeitung 1941 about “Arisches und jüdisches Schach”, but also ran a regular chess column in that newspaper from February 1941 to May 1942. Alekhine tried to leave France via Portugal to play another match with Capablanca overseas, but his trip ended prematurely, as his Portuguese visa had expired. He then played a couple of tournaments (Munich 1941 and 1942 and Cracow 1942) in the Nazi controlled areas. According to Teyssou Alekhine was fearing to be delivered to the Soviet Union, and when he reached Madrid for another tournament in 1944 he pretended to be sick, in order to stay in Spain. He tried to rehabilitate himself after the war and died 1946 in Estoril in well-known circumstances in a hotel.
Georges Bertola (Lausanne) gave a complete and comprehensive overview about the first 25 years of the French Chess Federation (1921 – 1946). In its building phase, French Chess Federation developed enormously, notably with the initiative of Pierre Vincent, who played a decisive role in the founding of FIDE in 1924 in Paris. However, financial problems could not be overcome. Moreover, when Alekhine became World Champion in 1927, he declined to let the title be handled by FIDE, as wished by Vincent. Alekhine even ignored the French Federation when he organized his match with Bogoljubow in 1929, which he interrupted to travel to the FIDE congress in Venice as French Delegate. Another noteworthy detail is that Alekhine played for the French team at the Olympiads in 1930, 1933 and 1935, but also agreed to train the German team for the Munich tournament in 1936 ! French chess became more stable with the election of Pierre Biscay (1932-1955).
Frank Hoffmeister - 21/03/2021
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire