accueil / home page                                     

Enchères historiques

    Chess may not immediately spring to mind as the most exciting collectable market, but its capacity to turn a board game into headlines should not be underestimated. Bonhams Auctioneers in London on October 11th hosts its Islamic sale in which two 9th or 10th century Chess pieces, a Queen and a Rook, are expected to make £15,000 each.

    This in itself would not be particularly remarkable were it not for the fact that in April, Christie’s in King Street, London sold a single Islamic 10th or 11th century chess piece for £828,750. The ivory piece, thought to have been made in Egypt or Syria shattered the previous world record set at Sotheby’s of £155,000 for a similar example.

    Bonhams Islamic Department consultant Stephen Wolff explains, "Buyers who spend this sort of money view these pieces as medieval works of art. In the case of the Christie’s sale, that piece had been bought a few months previously by a dealer from an auction in the Midlands for just £1,000, so that was a very lucky break for someone. However, when Sotheby’s had a similar example in a sale back in 1985 that sold for just a few thousand, it wasn’t until yet another piece made £155,000 that anyone commented on the figures."

    Phillips’ Chess specialist Luke Honey holds his next regular chess auction on November 7th and adds, "The Christie’s result was extraordinary and probably down to the fact that there is a similar example in the British Museum and most of us believe that the Christie’s piece and the British Museum piece were probably both from the same set originally. I heard that it was two Middle-Eastern princes who were bidding against each other, which would explain why the figure reached was quite as high as it was."

    For a game that is believed to date from around 2,500 BC, chess has a remarkably low profile as a collectable outside the intense world of specialist chess collectors, the vast majority of whom are men. Luke Honey adds, "It’s the German 17th century amber sets that are deemed the ultimate "must-have" set among collectors. These are extraordinary quality and of course rare given the date. When they do appear they make £50,000-£60,000 but the chess collecting world is very insular and most collectors know each other so sets like this at the top end of the market are usually traded by collectors to collectors in secret and rarely come up at auction."

    Christie’s at King Street in London is preparing for its sale of the Allen Hofrichter Chess Collection on September 20th, but even this selection of 150 sets is unlikely to contain any sleepers that will outdo the £33,000 Christie’s achieved in 1997. Christie’s Chess specialist Pippa Green explains, "This rare regency silver and silver-gilt chess set came up in the European Works of Art and Furniture sale at the time. It was particularly fine, made by Edward Farrell, one of the finest craftsmen working in the rococo revival style which is why it doubled the estimate."

    Not everything of course reaches such heights. Christie’s examples being sold in September include a set after George Tinworth; the famous designer whose stoneware mice made for the Royal Doulton Lambeth Ware factory are extremely sought after. The estimate is £3,000-£5,000 simply because despite bearing the initials "GT" the set is missing a proper Royal Doulton backstamp – an element collectors deem to be of utmost importance given that many successful designs were copied by contemporaries at the time. An early 20th century Max Esser designed Meissen manufactured chess set featuring sealife has a £3,000-£5,000 estimate while a Wedgwood example also made around the same time has a £1,000-£2,000 estimate. Such sets may be miniature works of art, but not necessarily the best of collectable investments given the purchase price paid by Hofrichter. Pippa Green explains, "We have receipts which show that Allen Hofrichter bought the Italian alabaster set depicting Benito Mussolini and Emperor Haile Selassie of Abyssinia’s army for $80 back in 1955, and we have a £1,000 estimate on that set. But the carved wooden set modelled on the bears of Berne which cost Mr. Hofrichter $60 that same year, we do expect to make £3,500 in the sale."

    For the novice collector looking for a chess set as a gift, game or possible investment a Staunton set is the first step. Created and named after the English Grandmaster Howard Staunton and designed by Nathaniel Cook in 1835 Staunton sets were brought in to standardise chess pieces. Serious competition players had, until this point, complained that the array of fancy chess sets was off putting and could be used by competitors to distract and thus gain an upper hand in the game. Phillips’ Luke Honey expects a Staunton set in a rare and unusual cask box to realise £1,000 in November, "This is unlike any previous Staunton example I have seen before but generally I have been revising the prices of Staunton sets downwards. Two to three years ago Stauntons were making crazy prices. The Internet had kicked in and opened up the whole market worldwide. The result was, particularly among American collectors, that Staunton sets that fetched £300 just a few years before were suddenly regularly selling for £1,000. Now the market has adjusted to the change and collectors are holding on for the very best, complete examples."

    Such a turnaround usually impacts the top end of the market positively, but leaves the bottom end of the market struggling to make up past losses. However, in the world of chess sets this has not been the case. In fact, at the bottom end of the market business is booming. Luke Honey adds, "Prices collectors are paying for what we call Alice Through the Looking Glass sets are really moving. These sets were everywhere in the early 19th century when chess playing was at its peak. Small workshops made and turned each piece which would be made of bone and sold in fancy goods shops. The pieces were based on the chess set featured in the Tenniel drawings seen in Alice Through the Looking Glass, hence the name. Five years ago you’d expect a good example to make £100-£150 at most, but now with the Americans buying so freely over the Internet these sets are deemed to be quintessentially English and US buying has pushed prices to £300-£400 for an example."

    The right chess set, or chess piece, bought or sold at the right time clearly offers potential rewards generalist collectors would not probably associate with such a quiet game. However, Bonhams Stephen Wolff puts this board game in context, "Chess has a fascinating history you know. For example, there was a version of Chess played in India, where losers quite literally lost a finger in chess challenges which seemed to be a gesture made in a bizarre medieval blood-thirsty sense of humour."

 haut de page

NAPOLÉON joueur d'échecs

par Bernard Lucas

    Et oui ! Ce génial stratège qu'était Napoléon était un piètre joueur d'échecs. Après son passage à l'école royale d'artillerie de la Fère, il devient officier.

    Le lieutenant Bonaparte jouait souvent au café de la Régence à Paris. Ses débuts étaient mauvais; si son adversaire calculait trop longtemps, il se pinçait les lèvres, frappait du pied et battait du tambour avec impatience sur le rebord de l'échiquier, ce qui ne laissait pas que de faire danser les pièces et de troubler le jeu.  S'il perdait, c'était bien pis encore; il donnait quelque fois de grands coups de poing sur la table et faisait tout sauter. Cependant, lorsque l'action était une fois bien engagée, quand la mêlée devenait vive, il avait souvent des coups très brillants.  Son ancien camarade Bourrienne le dépeint pendant la campagne d'Italie:

    "Bonaparte jouait aussi aux échecs, mais très rarement, et cela parce qu'il n'était que de troisième force et qu'il n'aimait point à être battu à ce jeu qui passe on ne sait trop pourquoi pour une prétendue imitation du grand jeu de la guerre. À celui là Bonaparte ne craignait personne.

    Cela me rappelle qu'en partant de Passeriano, il déclare que nous passerions par Mantoue. On lui dit que le général commandant la place qui était, je crois le général Beauvoir, était un des plus forts joueurs d'échecs. Bonaparte désira faire sa partie. Le général Beauvoir lui demanda de désigner le pion qui ferait mat, en déclarant que si ce dernier était pris, il gagnait la partie.

    Bonaparte désigna le dernier pion à gauche de son adversaire, on y mit une petite marque et ce fut ce pion qui fit le mat. Bonaparte n'était rien de moins que content. Il aimait bien jouer avec moi parce que, bien qu'un peu plus fort que lui, je n'étais pas assez fort pour le gagner toujours. Dès qu'une partie était à lui, il cessait le jeu pour rester sur ses lauriers."

    En Égypte, Bonaparte jouait aux échecs avec M. Poussielgue, ordonnateur de l'armée d'Orient et avec M. Amédé Jaubert. Poussielgue le battait quelquefois. Il jouait souvent à la Malmaison.

    Mémoire de Mme de Rémusat soirée du 20 mars 1804 avant l'exécution du duc d'Enghein à Vincennes.

    Bonaparte l'invita à jouer après le dîner (avant il lui avait simplement demandé de la conseiller au cours d'une partie qu'il faisait avec l'un de ses hôtes) mais, dit-elle, le jeu du premier consul était fort médiocre. De plus il ne voulait pas se soumettre à la marche normale des pièces. Mme de Rémusat le laissa faire "ce qui lui plaisait". Au cours de la partie, il prononça à mi-voix "Soyons amis Cinna", puis les vers de Guzman dans "Alzire" de Voltaire: "Et le mien, quand ton bras vient de m'assassiner, m'ordonne de te plaindre et de te pardonner".  Nous jouions encore quand le bruit d'une voiture se fit entendre : On annonça le général Hullin.

    Juillet 1809 après Wagram à Schoenbrunn: Mémoires de Constant.

    M. Maezel avait aussi fabriqué un automate connu dans toute l'Europe sous le nom de "Joueur d'échecs". L'automate était assis devant une table sur laquelle le jeu d'échecs était disposé. Sa majesté prend une chaise et s'assied en face de l'automate et dit en riant: «Allons! mon camarade; à nous deux».

    L'automate salue et fait signe de la main à l'empereur comme pour lui dire de commencer. La partie engagée, l'empereur fait deux ou trois coups et pose exprès une pièce à faux.  L'automate salue, prend la pièce et la remet à sa place.  Sa majesté triche une seconde fois; l'automate salue encore, mais il confisque la pièce. "C'est juste" dit sa majesté et pour la troisième elle triche. Alors l'automate secoue la tête et passant la main sur l'échiquier, il renverse tout le jeu. L'empereur fit de grands compliments au mécanicien...

    Pendant la campagne de Pologne, il reçoit l'ambassadeur de Perse alors qu'il joue aux échecs avec Berthier. Il joue avec Murat, Bourrienne, Berthier et le duc de Bassano pendant la campagne de Moscou; selon le duc de Bassano, il débutait mal, mais au milieu de partie, il voyait au delà de 3 ou 4 coups.

    Il joue aux échecs sur le Northumberland qui s'amène à Saint-Hélène et là, il fait sa partie tout les jours. Mme de Montholon raconte: "Quelquefois il établissait "pièce touchée, pièce jouée", mais c'était seulement pour son adversaire, pour lui c'était différent et il avait toujours une bonne raison pour que cela ne comptât et si on lui faisait l'observation, il riait."

 haut de page

Historique du jeu d'Échecs

par Murray J.J.R. (A history of chess. Oxford University Press, 1913, vol. 1)

1) Période asiatique

a) Données archéologiques

    Les premiers jeux que nous puissions considérer comme ancêtres du jeu d'échecs moderne étaient faits de quadrillages sur lesquels on déplaçait des pièces.  On a trouvé trace de tels jeux dans les fouilles de Harappa et Mohenjo-Daro (Pakistan-IV^e millénaire).  Plus près de nous (1200 avant notre ère), une peinture thébaine représente le pharaon Ramsès III jouant à un jeu de ce type.

b) Période sanscrite

    Mais l'ancêtre direct du jeu contemporain apparaît vers le milieu du V^e siècle de notre ère, dans le Nord-Ouest de l'Inde.  Ce jeu porte le nom de Chaturanga, ce qui signifie quatre membres, et oppose, sur un échiquier de soixante-quatre cases, quatre partenaires jouant chacun pour leur propre compte.  Chaque camp comprend un Roi, un cheval, un éléphant, un navire appelé à devenir plus tard un charriot et quatre pions-fantassins (nous retrouvons là les quatre divisions militaires de l'époque: cavalerie, éléphanterie, subsistances et infanterie).  Les coups sont déterminés par le lancement de deux dés, qui indiquent la pièce devant être jouée.  Trois étapes vont marquer l'évolution de ce jeu indien et lui permettre d'offrir très tôt une image proche de celle du jeu actuel, à quelques différences de marche des pièces près.

c) Période perse

    À l'occasion des échanges commerciaux et culturels entre pays voisins, le Chaturanga va être exporté dans deux directions: vers l'Est où il donne naissance à divers jeux encore en pratique en Chine, Mongolie, Japon.. et à l'Ouest, en Iran, où il connait immédiatement une immense popularité sous le nom de Shatrang.  C'est à cette époque que se fixe le vocabulaire encore en usage de nos jours: «C'est sous leur forme persane que la plupart des termes d'échecs nous sont parvenus.  Le nom même des échecs vient du persan, où Shah mat signifie «Le roi est mort».  L'expression subsiste en russe, où le nom actuel des échecs est Chaxmaty.  Plusieurs autres langues de l'Europe, à l'instar de l'allemand, n'en ont conservé que le premier élément Schah, qui est le nom du roi ou Schah de Perse.  Parvenu en France par l'intermédiaire des Arabes, le mot s'y trouve dès la chanson de Roland sous la forme eschec, eschas..,» précise un linguiste.

d) Période arabe

    Avec la conquête de la Perse, en 651, les Arabes adoptent le jeu d'échecs et vont lui assurer la place prééminente qu'il occupera à l'époque médiévale.  Ce jeu est fort prisé des souverains musulmans et, sous leurs règnes, apparaissent les premiers grands joueurs et les premiers théoriciens; on trouve trace à partir de cette époque de traités consacrés au jeu, aux fins de partie --- nommées mansouba--- notamment.  L'isolement des phases tactiques hors du contexte de la partie va progressivement donner naissance aux premiers problèmes d'échecs et aux premières études artistiques.  Les conquêtes arabes vont assurer la diffusion du jeu dans toute l'Afrique du Nord et le Sud de l'Europe, en Espagne, Portugal, Sicile... Nous sommes au début du deuxième millénaire de notre ère, la période européenne commence.

2) Période européenne

a) Période médiévale

    Les croisades vont définitivement assurer l'introduction et le succès des échecs dans l'Europe médiévale, jusqu'en Islande et en Russie.  Pour les nobles féodaux, c'est le seul jeu de réflexion existant, et qu'il soit à l'image de la guerre ajoute encore à sa séduction. Il fait partie intégrante de la vie quotidienne des châteaux, il occupe une place de choix dans la littérature médiévale ---romans épiques, poésies galantes et chansons de gestes---, il figure dans l'éducation des jeunes nobles des deux sexes et, pour les femmes, il est un des rares domaines leur permettant de se poser en égales des hommes.

    Les premiers manuscrits européens apparaissent au XIII^e siècle: Manuscrit de Jacobus De Cessolis (vers 1200), manuscrit d'Alonzo (roi de Castille de 1252 à 1284) et surtout manuscrit du «Bonus Socius» (1286), qui contient 192 problèmes, certains déjà remarquables.  Les paris et enjeux d'argent qui accompagnent les parties provoquent vite le courroux de l'Église: Condamnation du jeu par les évêques Guy et Eudes de Sully (en 1208), anthème par le Concile de Paris (1212), confirmé par Louis IX en France.  Mais ces mesures ont peu d'effets et sont bientôt rapportées; au milieu du XIII^e siècle, le jeu d'échecs est d'un usage courant dans les communautés religieuses.  Il ne pénètre que difficilement les autres couches sociales, en dehors des grands bourgeois et des étudiants; seuls les juifs lui font un accueil favorable, il est l'un des rares (et parfois le seul) jeux autorisés pendant le Sabbat.

    Durant cette période médiévale, l'évolution des règles continue; la marche des pièces se fixe peu à peu, avec, au début du XV^e siècle, la dernière, mais non la moindre, révolution:  La Dame devient soudainement la pièce la plus puissante de l'échiquier et donne au jeu un caractère beaucoup plus animé; la marche des pions, le roque trouvent aussi leur codification quasi définitive.  Les changements sociaux, en bouleversant le mode de vie des seigneurs féodaux, vont entraîner la disparition de la civilisation moyenâgeuse et causer la fin de cette vogue des échecs.

b) Période moderne

    Les règles du jeu sont maintenant à peu près fixées et le jeu d'échecs va suivre l'évolution du courant des idées philosophiques et sociales.  L'élan intellectuel de la Renaissance lui fait connaître une nouvelle période faste au XVI^e siècle; les souverains se révèlent mécènes et les plus forts joueurs de l'époque peuvent vivre de leur art; Philippe II fait disputer en 1575 à Madrid le premier tournoi moderne entre les quatre meilleurs joueurs de l'époque.  La découverte de l'imprimerie aide à la diffusion du jeu et permet la parution de nombreux traités spécialisés.

    Le XVIII^e siècle, celui des philosophes français, voit le jeu entrer dans sa période rationnelle, avec le musicien français Philidor dont l'ouvrage L'Analyse, publié en 1749, pose pour la première fois les échecs comme science possédant ses principes propres.  Rousseau, Diderot sont des amateurs passionnés; l'Encyclopédie consacre un article aux échecs.  Cette primauté de l'école française va durer presque un siècle, Deschapelles, La Bourdonnais et Saint-Amant succédant à Philidor.

    La première moitié du XIX^e siècle voit une lutte acharnée entre les écoles françaises et anglaises (Mc Donnell, Staunton), puis le jeu prend une dimension internationale et le tournoi de Londres, en 1851, marque le début de l'ère moderne.

    Fixons, par quelques noms, l'évolution des idées durant cette période.  L'Américain Paul Morphy traverse cette histoire comme un météore (157-1858), dominant tous ses adversaires dans un style clair et éblouissant, avant de se retirer de la scène échiquéenne à 21 ans.  Anderssen, génial tacticien, domine les premières décennies de cette ère moderne.  Steinitz lui succède en 1866; son analyse du jeu est d'une extrême profondeur, il démontre l'importance de détails passés inaperçus jusque-là et il organise à partir d'eux des plans d'une rigueur scientifique qui conduisent au gain; avec lui, on a pu dire que le positivisme philosophique était entré dans le monde des échecs.  Emmanuel Lasker, champion du monde de 1894 à 1921, se comporte pour sa part en disciple de Schopenhauer; il introduit dans le jeu les notions de lutte intellectuelle entre deux volontés et  de combat psychologique.  Le début du XX^e siècle marque l'apogée de l'école classique, sous le contrôle du «praeceptor germaniae» Tarrasch; on voit les successeurs de Steinitz jouer d'une manière de plus en plus mécanique et scolastique, l'opposition de joueurs trop peu imaginatifs et trop respectueux des principes orthodoxes fournit un nombre croissant de parties nulles. 

    En réaction à cette sclérose progressive apparaissent vers 1915 de nouvelles théories qui s'opposent point par point au dogmatisme classique et prônent la liberté de pensée du joueur.  Cette révolution hypermoderne a lieu sous l'impulsion de Breyer, Réti et, en marge de tous, Nimzovitch.  Les principaux champions de l'époque sont le Cubain Capablanca, exemple de ce que l'école classique pouvait avoir de meilleur, et le Russo-Français Alekhine, qui associe aux principes steinitziens bien des idées hypermodernes.

    Depuis les années quarante, l'école soviétique s'est imposée; elle se caractérise par l'importance attachée au dynamisme et aux possibilités agressives du jeu, remettant en cause certains principes classiques comme la valeur relative des pièces; pour paraphraser Clausewitz, les échecs sont ici, comme la guerre, le prolongement de la politique et de l'idéologie.  La suprématie soviétique sur le monde des échecs est totale depuis 1948: Tous les champions du monde sont soviétiques de 1948 à aujourd'hui, en dehors de l'intermède de l'Américain Fischer de 1972 à 1975; l'équipe d'U.R.S.S. a remporté tous les championnats du monde par équipes auxquels elle a participé depuis 1952, sauf le plus récent (Buenos Aires, 1978), où elle ne se classe que deuxième derrière la Hongrie; il est possible de s'interroger sur ce résultat: Est-ce l'annonce de la fin de la suprématie russe aux échecs ?  En marge de l'U.R.S.S., les autres pays socialistes obtiennent également des résultats très brillants, en raison de la place qu'ils réservent aux échecs dans leur mode de vie.  La part de l'historique est bien finie, nous sommes dans le domaine de notre quotidien.

haut de page

Le rêve de Thompson

par Ron Canter

(A seasonal diversion set in an omnibus, a Town Hall, a Museum and Art Gallery and a police cell; concerning Thompson's adventures with milk bottles, a stuffed turtle and a chess set.)

Dramatis Personae:

Thompson  (A notorious eccentric)

Mrs. Thompson  (Thompson's wife)

Jumbo Pratt  (The chess club joker)

Arnold Pratt (deceased)  Jumbo's grandfather

Albert  (A stuffed turtle)

Scruffy  (A detainee)  

and

A milkman, a bus driver, and two large police officers. 

    Christmas Eve commenced with yet another portent of doom for Thompson. For the last two weeks he had been communicating by note with his milkman about failure to remove empty milk bottles from his doorstep, and the last missive had been particularly acrimonious, with a decidedly negative attitude towards the customary annual gratuity. But that morning Thompson opened his front door in a spirit of gaiety and anticipation as the chess club's Christmas party was scheduled for that very evening, with the promise of alcoholic beverages, mince pies, paper hats, blitz chess, entertainment by the lady members and other delights too numerous to mention. His mood was then deflated when he saw through his porch door a sea of milk bottles stretching, if not as far as the eye could see, then at least all the way down his path to the front gate.

    Refusing to be downcast by this unexpected sight, Thompson opened the porch door, intending to pick his way through the bottles and continue to work as normal, fully confident that his resourceful wife would handle the problem before he returned - this would be a small matter compared with some of the situations she had been accustomed to deal with during her eventful marriage. It was at this point that fate dealt our hero another physical blow which had repercussions on his chess-playing activities. Although the milkman later admitted to placing the bottles on the pathway, he adamantly denied balancing on top of the porch door the bottle which fell and bounced off Thompson's head as he stepped out. Whoever was responsible, the result was that Thompson boarded his bus carrying an empty milk bottle in one hand, with two more bottles stuffed into the pockets of his overcoat and a silly smile on his face. If it had been anyone else, eyebrows would have been raised and comments would have been passed, but as it was Thompson there was no reaction from his fellow commuters who carried on with their conversations, newspapers and crosswords.

    Twenty minutes later the bus pulled into the central bus station and all the passengers except Thompson alighted. He remained seated, gazing straight in front of him until the driver shook him by the shoulder, whereupon he jumped up with a shout and was swiftly and skilfully ejected from the bus in a manner born of previous experience. Thompson then made his way to work in our local town hall, disposing of the milk bottles in a waste bin on the way.

    Fortunately, as in most municipal offices, it was customary to do little or no work on Christmas Eve (did someone say "nor at any other time"?) and so there was ample opportunity for me to listen to and note Thompson's story as he related it to me. He described it as a dream, something akin to an out-of-body experience, as though he was watching all the events from outside and above. He vaguely remembered opening the door of his porch, then the fantasy started with scenes from the past being played out before his eyes, before moving on to events in the town hall on the day of the chess club party, and then to the chess club itself.

    This was Thompson's dream as I recorded it, and to avoid confusion I shall refer to characters as they appear in the dream in italics.

    Thompson watched as Jumbo Pratt, the chess club's inveterate practical joker, set in motion one of his most complicated and ambitious stunts. Just like Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol", scenes developed before Thompson's astonished eyes, for all the world like a scratchy old film. It seemed that Jumbo's great grandfather, whose hobby was taxidermy, used to work in the kitchen of a local hotel and thus had access to various subjects for his favourite leisure activity. Sometimes turtle soup was on the menu, and as this was a high-class establishment - The Imperial, no less - it was real turtle soup and the carcases would pass into the eager hands of Jumbo's ancestor. As the hotel never had elephant soup on the menu he did not achieve his greatest ambition, but nevertheless he was more than happy to work with turtles and after several tries produced his masterpiece - a realistically vicious looking specimen with beady eyes and ferocious jaws.

    This impressive example of the taxidermist's art, nicknamed Albert, became a family heirloom and eventually came into the possession of Jumbo, who had been waiting and planning for the right time to use it in one of his practical jokes.

    As Thompson looked down in his dream the location changed to the present day and he saw scenes of hilarious disruption in the Town Hall as Albert the stuffed turtle was carefully hidden then revealed, to the astonishment and alarm of various members of staff. A particularly effective revelation occurred in the kitchenette, to the great surprise of some ladies who were busily engaged in the vital task of washing up teacups. Never had such a rapid exodus been made from the kitchen, and never had so many cups been broken at the same time. It was surpassed only by the hysterical flight of the telephonists from the switchboard a few minutes later. The City Treasurer was passing at the time and enquired what was going on, but Jumbo improvised hastily and told him an enormous mouse was at large, which seemed to satisfy him. Thompson saw no sign of himself during these scenes.

    The setting then changed to the chess club, held in that centre of cultural activity, the Museum and Art Gallery, where Thompson saw himself for the first time, playing a friendly game and contentedly munching a mince pie. Little did he know that Albert had been secretly deposited by Jumbo on the table behind him, covered by somebody's coat. Jumbo was then seen to slip out to a public telephone and make a call to the local police, pretending to be a curator. He reported that a suspicious looking individual, recognised as a member of the chess club, had misappropriated a valuable exhibit from the museum, namely an extremely rare specimen of the South American Snapping Turtle. This person, probably some sort of maniac or drunkard as he was a chess club member, had been seen taking the turtle into the chess room and would the police kindly send two of their largest officers to retrieve it before it came to harm. The exhibit was irreplaceable and rapid action was essential.  Jumbo gave a brief description of Thompson.

    In Thompson's dream, Jumbo then returned quickly to the chess club festivities, secretly removed Albert's covering and said "Hey, Thompson - what's that behind you?" Thompson looked round, and encountered Albert's malignant gaze. Not having been privy to Albert's previous appearances (although he was vaguely aware of Jumbo having done things with a mouse that afternoon as part of his usual Christmas Eve pranks) Thompson was startled and jumped up from his chair. At that point, Jumbo's timing being perfect, two large plainclothes policemen entered the room, quickly recognised Thompson and uttered those time-honoured phrases, "Hey, you" and "What's going on 'ere?".  Thompson then caught sight of Jumbo, who was unable to prevent a smirk spreading across his face, and realised that a jape was in progress. Thinking that the policemen were some sort of stripagram as part of the Christmas celebrations, he entered into the spirit of things by grabbing Albert and making as if to strike the first policeman with him.

    From then on events in the dream sequence moved rapidly. Thompson found himself in an armlock and propelled on tiptoe to a police car, driven at speed to the police station and thrown into a cell before he could catch his breath.

    The bare cell contained only a table and chairs, two beds and another occupant lying on one of the beds, who totally ignored Thompson. In accordance with police procedure, all of his personal possessions had been confiscated, although by accident or design he still had his pocket chess set. Having no other means of passing the time he pulled out the set and began to move the pieces around, and at this stage his companion, an exceedingly hairy and unkempt individual, got up and came across to the table. "Play chess, do yer?" he asked, and when Thompson admitted to playing a little, immediately challenged him to a game.

    Expecting to have to explain the rules, Thompson agreed to play his cellmate, whom he had mentally named Scruffy, and was not surprised when his opponent's first move as White was Pawn to Queen Rook four. However after a few more moves he realised he had been overconfident as he found himself being bounced around the board in a rather strange game. Scruffy delivered checkmate in forty moves, and then announced that he did not always open with that particular pawn, sometimes he started with the pawn on the other side of the board - perhaps Thompson would like to play against that opening move. This was agreed to, and although our hero tried to play more carefully he was forced to resign after thirty three moves on being faced with mate by an artistic backward move of the Queen, or the loss of a piece.

    At this point the cell door was flung open and Thompson was told that he was now free as there had been a misunderstanding. He just had time before leaving to bid Scruffy farewell and give him his chess set - he didn't know what he had done but he could only admire his chess-playing talent and it was Christmas after all.

    It turned out (still in the dream) that Jumbo had felt rather guilty about the way his joke had developed, and had phoned the police to tell them that the whole thing was a prank. They could check with the real curator if they wished to confirm this. The police did check with the curator, who confirmed that the Museum had not reported a theft and had never possessed a South American Snapping Turtle - however, if such a specimen did exist they would be very interested in acquiring it.

    The police were extremely disappointed at the way things had transpired as they had a long schedule of very novel charges to be brought against the unfortunate Thompson.

    Theft of a stuffed turtle.

    Threatening a police officer with a stuffed turtle.

    Unlawful possession of a stuffed turtle.

    Unlicensed possession of a foreign animal, namely one stuffed turtle.

    Creating a disturbance with a stuffed turtle, etc, etc.

    There had even been a competition in the police station to see who could invent the most original charge.

    After somewhat reluctant apologies by the police, Thompson's possessions were returned to him, Albert was tucked under his arm, and he was escorted out of the police station and sent on his way with an exhortation to "watch it in future." And at that stage he suddenly found himself back to reality in the bus station and followed his usual route to work, musing about his realistic dream, still unsure whether he was fantasising or not.

    During the day Thompson re-orientated himself into the real world once more, a procedure which had become second nature to him, and that evening after work, we proceeded to the chess club and joined in the festivities. During a break between conjuring tricks by Fingers Pearson (assisted by the lovely Belinda) and a musical interlude by the lady members, Thompson showed me his games with Scruffy.

    As we played through and recorded the moves, which Thompson remembered perfectly even though normally he couldn't recall his games, Jumbo wandered up and showed great interest. On hearing a brief summary of Thompson's dream he turned rather pale and asked us to accompany him. With some trepidation we did this, wondering what he was up to, becoming even more nervous when he led us through the darkened galleries of the Museum.

    Eventually we halted in front of a glass case in an obscure corner of a remote gallery and Jumbo fumbled for the light switch. When the light came on Thompson jumped and clutched my arm. Sitting in the cabinet, glaring at us with glittering eyes was a savage-looking stuffed turtle, identical, Thompson swore, to Albert.  A small card in the case said.

    A fine specimen of the rare South American Snapping Turtle, presented to the Museum by the great grandson of an amateur taxidermist of exceptional talent, the late Mr.  Arnold Pratt.

    We left the gallery in silence.  Jumbo and I went to catch the end of the musical entertainment and then look once more at those unusual games, while a shaken Thompson, unable to face any more of the celebrations, went home to explain to his wife why she had been left to dispose of numerous milk bottles. I don't think he mentioned his dream to her - even she wouldn't have believed it.

 Thompson's games against Scruffy were as follows:

Scruffy vs Thompson                          #1

Scruffy vs Thompson                          #2

 haut de page

Échecs et féodalité

par Jean-Pierre Cuvillier

    L'époque des Croisades se caractérise par la découverte des technologies orientales. L'Espagne fut naturellement un relai de ce transfert de connaissances et, vers le milieu du XIII^e siècle, l'un des souverains les plus érudits se consacra à diffuser en Occident un savoir et une terminologie qui faisaient défaut à nos praticiens. Le roi Alphonse X de Castille, dit le Sage, à juste titre, transmit ainsi à ses comtemporains des traités de droit, de médecine et un célèbre Livre des Échecs. C'est à tous ces titres qu'un récent Colloque consacré au vocabulaire médiéval lui a rendu un hommage particulier. 

    On trouve de plus en plus couramment à partir du XII^e siècle dans les actes notariés (inventaires, testaments) la mention d'échiquiers.  Et ce, même dans l'énumération des biens de pauvres chevaliers, où, à côté de quelques tapis et ferrailles, ils représentent l'essentiel de la valeur du mobilier.

    Le Libro del Açedrez - c'est son titre exact, car on le modernise depuis le XVIII^e siècle en Libros de Ajedrez - venait donc à point nommé, conçu qu'il était comme la syntèse de diverses traductions juives et arabes afin de procurer, tant à des gens de cour qu'à un public populaire, les règles de la science du tablero.

    À l'occasion du Colloque précité, le Professeur Hans Scherer, de Cologne a donné une interprétation fort pertinente de l'alphonsine entreprise d'un manuel échiquéen.  Je ne puis qu'en retracer ici les grandes lignes, en priant le lecteur de ne point s'effrayer de la sémantique universitaire. (Mais quelques citations nous reconduiraont au Tablero).

Le Libro est la codification d'un système symbolique

    Il s'agit d'y exprimer les hiérarchies d'une armée féodale de ce temps.

    Les peones (paysans) sont les "huit de ces figures de moindre valeur; elles ont été créées comme modèle du petit peuple qui accompagne l'armée".

    La tour, "roque" (en ital. rocca), est décrite comme l'authentique château, légal, construit avec la permission des autorités publiques, ce qui était l'idéal des souverains de ce temps. On la dira donc roc ou rocher, ce qui signifie: Un vrai château fort.

    Notre fou est un "alfil", c'est-à-dire, selon ce terme d'origine arabe, un "éléphant" mais, par un jeu de mot, Alphonse X y voit aussi un "alférez", soit, selon l'arabe encore, un chevalier qui porte les insignes de guerre du roi: En somme, un gonfalonnier comme dans la France de Saint-Louis, comtemporain d'Alphonse. Notons que l'Allemagne en fera un "Läufer", un courrier. Mais le "Libro" va encore plus loin à propos de cette figure qui a toujours intrigué les stratèges échiquéens. Le fou est aussi un "peon alferzado", ou, si j'interprète le plus précisément possible  un "soldat d'élite placé au service" de la reine et non à celui du roi: Prémonition de Ruy Blas.. !

Quantification des possiblités de mouvement

    Le cheval. Traduisons simplement mais partiellement en raison de ce qui précède: «Il marche une case comme un roque et une case comme  un alfil. En droite ligne comme une tour, puis de biais comme un éléphant...»

    La dame est l'objet de tous les soucis du stratège, à l'inverse de son illustre époux. Elle est dite en latin "domina" (rien d'original, femme de seigneur) mais le "libro" explique qu'elle est fondamentalement une ALFFERZA. Ici les choses se compliquent mais la sémantique hispano-orientale nous les rends plus claires. L'allemand la désigne d'ailleurs comme «porte-drapeau» (Fähnrich). Elle est une sorte de "vizir", dit Alphonse, c'est-à-dire une commandante de soldats dont on ne connaît pas le nombre mais qui la nomme alferza.  Le "Libro" quantifie ses déplacements de la manière suivante: "L'alfferza" peut en 33 coups parcourir toutes les cases de l'échiquier et revenir à son point de départ; à condition cependant de n'avoir point été contrainte de passer à deux reprises sur la même case".  Cette "chevauchée de la reine" est donc, par analogie avec la chevauchée du "cavallo" ou "cavalgada", dénommée "alfferzada".

    Sur ce point particulier, il semble qu'Alphonse de Castille ait vulgarisé une simplification importante des mouvements de la dame introduite par les Arabes par rapport au jeu primitif dit "Tschaturanga", qui était encore en honneur au XIII^e siècle en Orient. En dépit de la grande liberté d'action qui lui était reconnue, la dame perdait le pouvoir, quasi magique, du vizir originel de quitter sa case de départ en sautant par-dessus les 3 fantassins qui la couvrent (c2, d2, e2...). L'alfferzada exige donc une ouverture.

    Enfin, signe d'une autre évolution sociologique appréciable: La différence du jeu primitif, le combattant alphonsin peut mériter son anoblissement: "Le paysan peut en 6 coups devenir alfferza...".

    Ces paysans armés peuvent aussi jouer un rôle de protection rapprochée de certaines figures. C'est "l'alffilada" du fou, par exemple, en triangle: Fe4 - d3 - f3.

La représentation pictographique et numérique

    Le manuel d'Alphonse permit de décrire une partie d'échecs, telle que nous en connaissons (roque en moins, puisque ce dernier n'est introduit qu'au XVI^e siècle) mais au moyen des seules couleurs et coordonnées numériques. «L'échiquier doit avoir 8 routes (carreras).  Et la moitié des cases doit être d'une couleur et l'autre moitié de l'autre couleur. La tour blanche progresse en avant de 1 à 4 en royaume blanc et de 4 à 1 en royaume noir»

    Le professeur Scherer s'est amusé à tenir en langue alphonsine une chronique échiquéenne. Voici ce que cela donne: 1.d4 d5  2.c4 e6  3.Cf3 Cf6...

Premier coup: Le paysan de la dame blanche s'avance sur le quatrième champ et le paysan noir de la dame sur le quatrième.
Deuxième coup: Le paysan du sauteur noir de blanc va sur le quatrième champ et le paysan du roi de noir va sur le troisième.
Troisième coup: Le sauteur noir de blanc va sur le troisième champ du sauteur blanc et le sauteur blanc de blanc va sur le troisième champ du sauteur noir...

    J'en reviens au roi pour conclure. Il est, dit le "Libro", le "seigneur de l'armée", sennor de la hueste (hueste = ost en français médiéval, donc l'armée féodale, levée selon le ban); il doit "être dans l'une des deux cases du milieu" et tout l'art de la bataille est de lui "dar xaque e mate... o para ampararle..." Lui donner l'échec, le tuer, s'en emparer.

    Alphonse X de Castille n'était pas n'importe qui.  Alors pourquoi ce caractère de planqué sur le champ de bataille ? Ici le médiévaliste a son mot à dire: Si au XIII^e siècle, il se trouve encore un individu aussi conséquent que Saint-Louis pour aller risquer la peau de son État en des terres lointaines, les vrais grands rois sont plus réalistes, tels Alphonse, Jacques d'Aragon, l'empereur Frédéric II, Jean sans Terre... L'armée, c'est fait pour de bons généraux, la tête de l'État, pour être à l'abri et légiférer.

    Reste la primauté de la Reine "domina-alfferza". Que symbolise-t-elle ?  On pense aux régentes (Constante de Sicile, Blanche de Castille) mais il faut surtout imaginer ce que représente chez un souverain éclairé du XIII^e siècle la découverte de la nécessaire pérennité de l'État. Il fallait maîtriser les barons et non faire le pître à leur tête sur le champ de bataille: Jean II le Bon de Poitiers, Charles le Téméraire, en attendant la supplique du nigaud: "Mon royaume pour un cheval" !                                                 

haut de page

The Staunton Chessmen

by Bill Wall

    The Staunton chessmen is the standard pattern for chess pieces used in all world chess federation and United States Chess Federation events.

    On March 1, 1849 the pattern was first registered by Nathaniel Cook. Prior to that, the pieces most commonlly used were called the St. George design, follwed by the Calvert, Edinburgh, Lund and Merrifield designs. Cook registered his wooden chess pattern under the Ornamental Designs Act of 1842.

    The design of the knight came from the Greek horse of the Eglin Marbles in the British Museum (brought to the museum in 1806).

    In September 1849 the manufacturing rights were bought by John Jacques of London, workers of ivory and fine woods.  Jacques was the brother-in-law of Nathaniel Cook. The sets were made in wood and ivory. The unweighted king was 3.5 inches in size. The weighted king was 4.4 inches in size. Jacques removed much of the decorative features that topped earlier chess patterns, and was able to manufacture the new design at less cost. The king was represented by a crown and the queen was represented by a coronet.

    On September 8, 1849 the first wooden chess sets from Jacques was available. The first sets actually had a different pattern to the King's Rook and King's Knight that distinguished it from the Queen's Rook and the Queen's Knight.

    On the same day that the Jacques chess sets were available, Howard Staunton recommended and endorsed the sets in the Illustrated London News.  Nathaniel Cook was Staunton's editor at the Illustrated London News. The ad that appeared in the newspaper called it Mr. STAUNTON's pattern.

    Later, Staunton began endorsing the set and had his signature on the box of Staunton chess pieces.  One of Staunton's chess books was given free with every box of Staunton chess set.

    In 1935 the Jacques company no longer made ivory Staunton sets.

    During World War II Jacques was asked by the British government to mass produce chess sets for the troops. The factory was later bombed by the Germans and destroyed.

    At the start of the 1978 World Championship match in Baguio, Philippines, there wasn't a Staunton chess set in the city. Someone had to drive to Manila to find a Staunton chess set, which arrived just 15 minutes before the start of the scheduled match.

haut de page

Les échecs et le Judaisme

par Gustavo Perednik

    Gustavo Daniel Perednik is an Israeli writer, distinguished as outstanding lecturer at the Hebrew University's Rothberg School. Four of his six books were awarded literary prizes. The following article is an Internet summary of the original, published many times in Spanish since 1995.  Perednik has lectured on this subject to international chessplayers in Israel.

    King Solomon may not have played chess against Benayah as the Midrash states, but the Jews have a long, close relationship with the game, excelling as masters, theoreticians and world champions.

    Today's Israel is loyal to that tradition, ranking fifth in the world and being second only to tiny Iceland as far as grand masters per capita. One year ago an Academy of Chess was founded in Tel Aviv, not only as the result of chess blooming due to Russian immigration, but also because of a special Jewish inclination. More than one hundred schools and community centers which offer chess courses in the country.

    It remains unclear as to when Jews first played chess. Rashi interprets the Gemara as refering to chess when it mentions nardeshir (Ketuvot 61b), but several ninteenth century scholars (Franz Delitzsch, Moritz Stenschneider) refute this. The latter claims that the first Jewish chess player was the son of rabbi Saul from Taberistan, Ali, in the ninth century.

    During the twelfth century the Jewish interest in chess was enhanced by explicit references by Maimonides and Judah Halevy; Abraham Ibn Ezra wrote the oldest extant chess rules which he called Haruzim. Sepher Hachasidim recommends it during the thirteenth century, and in 1575 the rabbis of Cremona declared "all games bad... except for chess."

    The friendship between Moses Mendelssohn and Gotthold Lessing, which influenced Jewish Emancipation and Enlightment, blossomed over a chess board. In 1837 a French Jew, Aron Alexandre, wrote the first Encyclopedia of Chess, and two years afterwards one of the Haskalah educators, Jacob Einchenbaum, who was also a mathematician, wrote Ha-kerav (the battle) a Hebrew poem on the game almost five hundred lines in length.

    Among recent world champions, Fischer, Korchnoi, Spassky and Gasparov mantained a disproportional Jewish presence. Emanuel Lasker is widely considered the most complete chess player of all times. The son of a cantor and grandson of a rabbi, he combined three supposedly scientific careers: Chessmaster, philosopher and mathematician. His first biography was prologued by Albert Einstein.

    Jews preponderate in blind chess. Gyula Breyer attained the world record of simultaneous blind games when he played twenty-five during Berlin's Tournament in 1920. Mikhail Najdorf played forty five in 1947 and George Koltanowski superseded all records in 1960 when he played blindly fifty six games, winning fifty of them after almost ten hours of play in a prodigy of human mind.

    Najdorf shares with Koltanowski another fate: Both were saved from the Holocaust because they chanced to be in a World Tournament in Buenos Aires when the war broke out (and therefore did not return to Europe).

    The two main contemporary schools of chess were conceived of by Jews, the Modern school by Wilhelm Steinitz which advocates the accumulation of small advantages, and the Hypermodern by Richard Reti which avoids releasing tension in the centre of the board. The book Chessology shows four stages of the consolidation of modern chess: The psychological by Lasker, the scientific by Tarrasch, the positional by Casablanca and the energetic by Breyer. Three of the four were Jews. The «Chess Review» of U.S. was founded by Israel Horowitz and the strategy of countergambits by Ernst Falkbeer.

    Gerald Abrahams gives four possible explanations for Jewish chessophilia: 1) Jews traditionally strive to produce the pure intellectual, 2) They love study and learning, 3) They are perseverant, 4) They are talented at languages (due to migrations and cosmopolitism) including the language of chess.

    Even Judeophobia infected chess. During WWII Alexander Alekhine, world champion for two decades, authored a series of articles parallel to Wagner's infamous essay Jewry in Music (1850). The composer denied the creativity of Jewish artists; the chess master "exposed" how the Jewish chess game is characterized by oportunism and material win at all cost.

    His Aryan Chess and Jewish Chess opened with a question: "Can we hope that after Lasker's death -the second and probably the last world champion of Jewish descent- Aryan chess will finally find its path, after having been led astray by the influence of Jewish defensive thinking?" Aryan chess was by nature agressive -defense was valid only after a mistake. In Jewish chess, in contrast, pure defense is a legitimate way of winning. For example Aaron Nimzowitch's theory of "overprotection" (to unburden the centre without advancing the central pawns until positioning the major pieces) was defined by Alekhine as "purely Jewish... it is fear to struggle, doubts about one's own spiritual force, a sad picture of intellectual self-destruction." He describes the first half of the century as a "period of decadence when the Viennese school, founded by the Jew Max Weiss and propagated by the Schlechter-Kaufmann- Fahndrich trio, dominated the world chess scene.  Its secret relied not in victory but in not losing."

    In the first International Tournament in London in June 1851 the German Adolf Anderssen defeated the Jewish Lionel Kieseritzky, both mathematicians, in a match of insuperable beauty which was named The Immortal. For Alekhine that victory marked the triumph of Aryan over Jewish chess.

    Chess has been all but ignored as a subject worthy of philosophical analysis. Yet philosophical thought is applicable to chess as we can see by considering how the works of two Jewish philosophers, Henri Bergson and Salomon Maimon, are relevant to chess.

    Kant considered Maimon to be the thinker who best understood his doctrine. The two types of Kantian truths, a-priori and a-posteriori, those which precede or are subsequent to the sensual experience, do not leave space for the truth of chess. This seems to be the a-priori type like maths truths, since we can achieve it through reasoning and without any experience.  However, we discover at the same time that the truth of the chess pieces are valid only when the match is known in its totality. It is possible to play chess only with the imagination and without opening your eyes to reach conclusions about its truths. That is why many blind people excell in chess. Yet one cannot discern the nature of this truth during the game, only retrospectively, from the already finished game. Chess truths are valid when they can be identified in the block of data preceding and subsequent to them. Only in that concluded universe may a move be defined as brilliant, mediocre or deficient.

    Chess requires a type of thinking similar to that required for Talmud study. Aron Nimzovitch, Samuel Reshevsky and Akiva Rubinstein were great world masters educated in Yeshivas. Talmudic thought is parallel to chess training in seven ways: The indispensability of study, memory, visual comprehension, the centrality and rigidity of law, the importance of debate, the need for bold intelligence, and an antiauthoritarian and original way of raising alternatives. The Talmudic option for the learner is to be either a Sinai (erudite) or an Oker Harim (sharp). Two Jews who personify these chess styles are the dogmatic Siegbert Tarrasch versus the flexible Emanuel Lasker. The former based his game on knowledge, the latter wisdom. Theirs was a powerful battle of ideas, clashing the famous 1908 London game, which was followed with extraordinary interest.

    Lasker's victories over the scientific Tarrasch are examples of psychological relativity in chess. Tarrasch had termed the inexplicable blunders of great masters as Amaurosis Schacchistica, "chess dazzle." For Lasker these mistakes were considered a natural and inevitable part of the game. Thus he defined the difference between them: "Doctor Tarrasch is a thinker, a friend of deep and complex theory... he admires a move for its depth, I admire it for its efficacy." For Lasker fidelity to a general law was less important than the search for unique characteristics of each position that exempt it from that general law. That is why his school was called "anarchic."

    Both studied weaknesses. But while Tarrasch concentrated on the technical exploitation of the adversary, Lasker was interested in the unforseeable paths available to defend one's self. This requires an open and serene mind, self-control and self-confidence, and ability to accomodate to the constantly changing board. Fred Reinfeld in his Apreciation of Lasker stressed his perception of the similarities between chess and life. As Borges says in his poem Chess: "The player, too, is captive of caprice/...on another ground/crisscrossed with black nights and white days./God moves the player, he, in turn, the piece." Lasker and Tarrasch shared a Jewish destiny. The Nazis burnt their books and deprived them of glory, country and property.

    Chess is blooming in Israel as in a natural home. The moment is therefore ripe for deepening, documenting and developing the Jewish chess aspects. A broad curriculum for the Chess Academy for instance, could include together with maths and philosophy, the page of Gemara. 

haut de page

Jeu, science, art...

    Je n’avais encore jamais eu l’occasion de connaître personnellement un champion du jeu d’échec, et plus je m’efforçais de me représenter à celui-ci, moins j’y parvenais. Comment se figurer un cerveau exclusivement occupé, sa vie durant, d'une surface composée de soixante-quatre cases noires et blanches ? Assurément je connaissais par expérience le mystérieux attrait de ce "jeu royal", le seul entre tous les jeux qui échappe souverainement à la tyrannie du hasard, le seul où l'on ne doive sa victoire qu'à son intelligence ou plutôt à une certaine forme d'intelligence.

    Mais n'est-ce pas déjà le limiter injurieusement de l'appeler un jeu ? N'est-ce pas aussi une science, un art, ou quelque chose qui est suspendu entre l'un et l'autre, comme le cercueil de Mahomet entre ciel et terre ? L'origine du jeu d'échecs se perd dans la nuit des temps, et cependant il est toujours nouveau; sa marche est mécanique, mais elle n'a de résultat que grâce à l'imagination du joueur; il est étroitement limité dans un espace géométrique fixe, et pourtant ses combinaisons sont illimitées. Il poursuit un développement continuel, mais il reste stérile.

    C'est une pensée qui ne mène à rien, une mathématique qui n'établit rien, un art qui ne laisse pas d'œuvre, une architecture sans matière; et il a prouvé néanmoins qu'il était plus durable à sa manière que les livres ou que tout autre monument, ce jeu unique qui appartient à tous les peuples et à tous les temps, et dont personne ne sait quel dieu en fit don à la terre pour tuer l'ennui, pour aiguiser l'esprit et stimuler l'âme.  Où commence-t-il, où finit-il ? Un enfant peut en apprendre les règles, un ignorant s’y essayer et y acquérir une maîtrise d’un genre unique, s’il a reçu ce don spécial. La patience et la technique s’y joignent à une vue pénétrante des choses, pour faire des trouvailles comme on en fait en mathématiques, en poésie, en musique.

Stefan Zweig, Le Joueur d’échecs, 1943

haut de page

The Age of Chess Masters

by Bill Wall

    Most chess masters become masters by learning the game of chess at an early age.  Seldom does a player become a master after learning the game later in life. There are a few exceptions. However, most strong masters began at a very early age.

    Former world champion Jose Capablanca began to play chess at the age of four. He wrote that he learned chess by watching his father play when he had just passed his fourth birthday. He even beat his father in his first game at age four.

    Former world champion Anatoly Karpov was taught the moves of chess when he was four years old. By age 15 he was a master and later won the World Junior Championship. He became the world's youngest grandmaster in 1970 at the age of 19.

    Former world champion Boris Spassky learned the game in the Urals at the age of five during World War II.  After the war he joined the Pioneer Palace in Leningrad and spent five hours a day every day on chess. In college he took up journalism to give him the most time for chess. By age 18 he had won the World Junior Championship, took 3rd place in the USSR Championship, and qualified as a Candidate for the World championship.

    Former world woman champion Nona Gaprindashvili learned at age five after watching her five chess-playing brothers.  She won the world's women chess championship when she was 21.

    Former world champion Bobby Fischer began playing at the age of six, taught by his older sister and reading the rules that came with the game. He became a master at age 13, US champion at 14, world's youngest candidate for the world championship at 15, and world's youngest grandmaster at 16.

    Former world champion Vasily Smyslov learned the game at six by studying chess books in his father's library.

    Bent Larsen learned the moves at age six. He gave up his civil engineering studies in school to become a full-time chess professional.

    Former world champion Alexander Alekhine learned chess at age seven by his mother, an heiress of an industrial fortune. He became addicted to the game and played the game in his head and by the light of a candle when in bed.  By age 18 he was grandmaster strength.

    Former world champion Tigran Petrosian learned the moves at age eight. When his parents died when he was 16, he found consolation in chess and soon began to win tournaments.  He was playing grandmaster strenght by age 20.

    Former world champion Mikhail Tal became interested in chess at age eight after watching the game played by patients in the waiting room of his father, a doctor specializing in internal disorders. At age 10 he joined the Riga Palace of Young Pioneers. He won the Latvian championship at age 17.

    Former world champion Max Euwe learned at age nine and was taught by his parents. He remained an amateur chessplayer, with his real profession being a professor of mathematics and mechanics.

    Former world champion Emanuel Lasker began to play at the age of 11. His older brother taught him the moves of chess.

    Former world champion Mikhail Botvinnik learned the game at age 12.

    Former world champion Wilhelm Steinitz learned how to play chess at age 12 from school friends.

    Six time U.S. champion Walter Browne learned the game at 13 after joining the Manhattan Chess Club.  By age 20, he had the Grandmaster title.

    Joseph Blackburne, the leading English player of the late 19^th century, didn't learn the chess moves until he was 19. He learned the game from a two-pence chess book. Two years later he was giving blindfold simultaneous exhibitions.

    Howard Staunton, the world's leading player in the 1840s, took up chess at age 19 and didn't become a serious player until age 26.

    Mir Sultan Khan didn't learn the international game of chess (he knew Indian chess) until age 21. Two years later he was the All-India champion. A year later he won the British championship. He was illiterate, unable to read or write, and never studied any book on the game.

    Jordy Mont-Reynaud and Vinay Bhat starting playing chess, joined a chess club (the Palo Alto Chess Club run by Bill Wall), and played in rated tournaments at age 7. By the time they were 10, they both became America's youngest masters. Vinay Bhat became America's youngest master in 1995 at the age of 10 years, 176 days.  Jordy was a master in 1994 at the age of 10 years, 209 days.

    Other young masters include Stewart Rachels at 11 years, 10 months; Ilya Gurevich at 12 years, 3 months; John Jarecki at 12 years, 6 months; Jon Litvinchuk at 12 years, 7 months.

    In 1998 Hikaru Nakamura (born Dec 9, 1987) bacame America's youngest master at 10 years, 79 days.  In 2001 he became America's youngest International Master at age 13.

    The first list of grandmasters appeared in 1950, published by FIDE. There were 27 chess players nominated as the first grandmasters. The youngest GM on the list was David Bronstein, age 26.

    In 1955 Boris Spassky became the youngest GM in the world at age 18. In 1958, Bobby Fischer became the youngest GM in the world at age 15 years, 6 months, 1 day. In 1991, Judit Polgar became a GM at 15 years, 4 months, and 28 days. In 1994, Peter Leko became a GM at the age of 14 years, 4 months, 22 days. In 1997, Etienne Bacrot and Ruslan Ponomariov became GMS at 14. Bacrot was the youngest FIDE master at age 10. Bacrot was 14 years, 2 months when he earned the GM title. Ponomariov was 14 years, 17 days when he earned the GM title. Teimour Radjabov became a GM at 14 years, 14 days. In 1999, Bu Xiangzhi became a GM at 13 years, 10 months and 13 days. In 2002, Sergey Karjakin (born Jan 12, 1990) became a GM at 12 years and 7 months. Also in 2002, Koneru Humpy became a GM at the age of 15 years, 1 month, and 27 days, making her the youngest female ever to become a Grandmaster.

    In 1999 David Howell, age 8, defeated Grandmaster John Nunn at the Mind Sports Chess Olympiad in London, becoming the youngest person to beat a Grandmaster at chess.

    In 2002 Fabiano Caruana, age 10, defeated GM Wojtkiewicz at the Marshall Chess Club in New York, becoming the youngest player to defeat a GM in the United States.  

 haut de page

Le duel de Thompson

par Ron Canter

    It would soon be Christmas and we were arranging the annual pub tournament between The Greene Manne in the village of Cholney and The Ruddy Duck in the neighbouring hamlet of Sharpe Ende. Everyone was looking forward to an evening of dominoes, draughts, skittles and chess, but the main attraction was the traditional game of Grimbles, an ancient country pastime peculiar to the region. You will appreciate how old Grimbles is if I tell you that Morris Dancing is descended from it.

    The Grimbles teams had to be made up from people born in the area, although each side was allowed one additional person who came from elsewhere, known as the Outsider. As the most recent newcomer I had been given first chance of being the Outsider for The Greene Manne, but a short trial soon showed that I had no aptitude whatsoever for the game, and so the honour passed to my old friend DB who had in fact resided in the locality for several years. His selection was perhaps more appropriate as he always provided several flagons of his rather potent home-brewed beer as his contribution to the festivities. DB's "lubrication", as it was affectionately known, invariably added immensely to the jollity of the occasion.

    During the preliminary discussions between the two pubs we learned that The Ruddy Duck was fielding a new player, and when I heard this I had a strange sense of foreboding. We were informed that a visitor was staying in Sharpe Ende, someone who had shown unusual ability at Grimbles, and he was to be the Outsider in their team. "Says he knows you" we were told, "chap called Thompson, plays chess as well apparently." I groaned inwardly when I heard this and judging by the expression on DB's face so did he. We recalled that when Thompson had unexpectedly visited The Greene Manne some months ago we had mentioned the chess activities at The Ruddy Duck.  Somehow he must have worked himself in there.

    A few days later when the lists of players were exchanged it was no surprise to discover that Thompson was on board one of The Ruddy Duck's chess team as well as representing them at Grimbles. Fortunately the tournament was being held that year at Sharpe Ende as Thompson was permanently banned from The Greene Manne after upsetting the resident barmaid in a big way; he was most definitely persona non grata in Cholney. DB was board one for The Greene Manne but seemed unperturbed at being drawn against Thompson, he said he had something special lined up for him.

    And so the week before Christmas came around and the scene was set for a memorable game of Grimbles. The contest was controlled by an arbiter known as the Master who wielded a large heavy staff which he banged on the floor to punctuate his instructions and to give the rhythm for some of the more intricate movements. The Master wore a long frock coat and a top hat while the participants wore traditional country garb, consisting of white or black smocks, thigh-length leather boots, soft hats and long gaily-coloured scarves tied around the neck. The contestants also carried thin sticks of wood known as slatters. Strangely enough the game was played out on an eight by eight grid, and some said that it was related to chess, while others found a resemblance to the martial art of Kendo fencing because of the movements involving the slatters.

    It was a typical frosty December night as we made our way to the gaily decorated village hall at Sharpe Ende where the floor had been marked out with the traditional eight by eight Grimbles grid. After the usual cheery welcome from the habitues of the Ruddy Duck and introductory drinks to warm us up, the teams lined up for the start of the Grimbles match.  As the rules are so complicated I will not even attempt to describe to you the course of the game, but I will long remember the sight of DB and Thompson solemnly wending their way through the intricate Grimbles manoeuvres as though they were participating in a game of living chess, doffing their hats and courteously striking their slatters together as they passed each other.

    As usual the game started in a quiet and genteel manner with many exchanges of pleasantries and compliments between the two sides. Events were punctuated by the Masters instructions and rulings - "No Donald, you cannot scrunge after a blanksome"...... "Will'm, you must dobble in the A corner." Then the first break was called and as the contestants left the grid you could feel the tension which had built up as they cautiously eyed each other from opposite sides of the room. After a few minutes the game resumed and now things were warming up. Cries of instruction and exhortation began to come from the team captains - "Trundle!"....."Double slatters!!" - as the tension increased.

    By the time the second break came the players were obviously glad of the rest as they were a little breathless from their exertions. As they intermingled on leaving the grid somebody seemed to catch Thompson's arm and his slatter poked the rather large posterior of a massive bearded player known as Big Reuben. Big Reuben was enraged by this slight to his dignity and turned on Thompson with a growl, throwing his slatter on the floor between them. Ever polite, Thompson bent over and picked it up and handed it back to Reuben, saying "Sorry about that, mate."

    "Crikey Thompson" said DB, "you've done it now, that was a challenge to a duel and when you picked up the slatter you accepted!". Thompson turned pale as the huge figure of Big Reuben advanced on him, arms outstretched, his steps punctuated by bangs from the Masters staff, and then he went completely white when Reuben grabbed hold of him and lifted him into the air. For a few seconds everybody froze into silence as Thompson struggled in the giant's grip, and then suddenly Reuben planted a great hairy kiss on the astonished Thompson's cheek and gently placed him back on his feet, grinning hugely. As we, and then Thompson, realised that he had been set up there was a shout of laughter, in which Thompson shortly joined. Reuben shook Thompson's hand and boomed "No offence, mate." He then patted Thompson affectionately on the head and disappeared in the direction of the drinks table.

    After a few more minutes the Grimbles restarted and, following a vigorous third session, came to an end. The Master carefully scrutinised his notes for a short time and then announced that after a very close match The Greene Manne team had narrowly won by half a smidgin. The two teams threw their hats and slatters into the air and as they clattered to the floor everyone applauded hysterically. It was generally agreed that it had been the best night's Grimbles for many a year, comparable even with the legendary game of eighteen ninety three.

    There was then a break for feasting, drinking and general merriment as country songs were sung, party pieces were performed and ghost stories were told. A particularly ghastly story, narrated with the lights out by Sharpe Ende's oldest inhabitant, concerned a fourteenth century monk from the local monastery who had fallen into various disgraceful practices (unrepeatable in this tale) and for his sins been condemned to walk the country roads of the area for all eternity as the Errant Monk . I noticed that Thompson appeared to be greatly interested in this piece of local folklore.  After that it was time for the rest of the games.

    You would have thought that after the evening's eventful game of Grimbles anything else could only be an anticlimax but Thompson and DB managed to produce an interesting game of chess to round off the tournament. Thompson was White and was not expected to play his favourite Polish opening as he knew DB would be conversant with it. DB also knew that Thompson favoured the knight to knight five variation of the Two Knights Defence and had told me in confidence that he had something prepared for this, should it be played. However it turned out that Thompson had other ideas.

    Thompson's first move was pawn to king four and DB responded with pawn to king four. There followed knight to king bishop three, knight to queen bishop three and then Thompson developed his bishop to knight five. Obviously Thompson knew that DB remembered his predilection for playing against the Two Knights Defence and had decided to play something different. DB seemed unperturbed and nudged the bishop with pawn to queen rook three.

    After bishop to rook four DB played knight to bishop three, Thompson castled, then DB attacked the bishop again with pawn to queen's knight four. White's move was clear - bishop to knight three, but Thompson paused and thought for a while after DB's next move, pawn to queen three. Although the opening had been a Ruy Lopez it had now turned into something similar to the Two Knights Defence and Thompson, although slightly suspicious, was unable to resist knight to knight five. Without hesitation DB played pawn to queen four and Thompson replied pawn takes pawn. After DB's immediate knight to queen five, Thompson, looking as though he suspected he had fallen for a prepared line, decided to move the presumptuous knight with pawn to queen's bishop three. Still unperturbed, DB went knight takes bishop and after queen takes knight pushed Thompson's knight away with pawn to rook three.

    Thompson's knight returned to bishop three and DB, eyeing his opponent's kingside, replied with bishop to queen three. Rook to king one was Thompson's next move and DB immediately offered another pawn by castling kingside. After some thought Thompson decided to accept the offer with knight takes pawn, allowing DB to pin him with rook to king one. Pawn to queen four protected the advanced knight and opened up a line for the queen bishop but was met by knight to knight five. Thompson decided to make an escape for his king with pawn to knight three and DB played bishop takes knight. Pawn takes bishop was met by knight takes pawn and now Thompson had to deal with the threat of knight to bishop six check. Knight to queen two appeared to solve the immediate problem and was instantly met with bishop to rook six.

    Now Thompson rather incautiously played pawn to king bishop four (we afterwards thought rook to king three might have been better) and DB did not have to think about knight to queen six. Rook takes rook seemed to be the only move but DB's reply queen takes rook threatened mate. As queen to queen one didn't help, Thompson played knight to bishop three and then after queen to king seven, realising that mate was unstoppable, congratulated his opponent and resigned.

    So ended another Christmas match between the two pubs, and after the scores of all the games were added up the result was declared an honourable draw. The rest of the evening was spent in good humoured banter, a lot of toasts, and the consumption of a considerable amount of food and drink. As the night drew to a close with everyone in high spirits and engaging in hearty handshakes and farewells, I noticed that Thompson spent some time talking with Big Reuben. The conversation was accompanied by much waving of hands and surreptitious glances towards DB and myself and I remarked that I thought Thompson was up to something.  As we made our way out of the hall I asked DB if he knew who had accidentally nudged Thompson's arm during the grimbles match. DB put his hands in his pockets, looked innocently up at the ceiling and whistled soundlessly. I have my suspicions though.

    I was staying that night with DB and as it was a cold but dry moonlit night we decided to walk the short distance to Cholney, politely refusing the many offers of lifts which came our way. We had gone only a few paces along the frosty road when we were somewhat startled to hear footsteps behind us. Then Thompson caught up to us. "I fancied a stroll" he said, "mind if I walk with you for a while?".  My earlier suspicions were heightened, and although I had an ominous feeling that Thompson was about to precipitate yet again some unusual or unnatural event, we agreed to his company and went on our way, discussing the evening's games. As we talked my mind was racing as I wondered what Thompson's next move was going to be, then as we came to a corner of the lane there was a sudden gust of icy wind and we were startled by the sight of a huge cowled figure which appeared to materialise out of the hedge. Thompson reacted rather theatrically - "Oh, look" he said unconvincingly, "it's the Errant Monk!".

    Realising that this was a trick by Thompson and his accomplice, and totally unfazed, DB cried "Push off, you silly ghost" and I added sarcastically "Get thee hence foul spirit, you can't scare us." We were unimpressed when, after a few threatening gestures at which we laughed derisively, the figure grunted in frustration, threw its arms in the air and disappeared back into the hedge. Just as it vanished another large figure dressed in a cowl jumped out from the other side of the lane, slipped on the frosty road and grabbed Thompson as it tried to remain upright. For a brief moment Thompson and the apparition seemed to dance a strange jig in the moonlight as they fought to maintain their balance, clutching at each other as their feet skidded on the slippery surface of the road, then they crashed to the ground together. A string of curses rent the night air in the unmistakable tones of Big Reuben as the pair struggled to their feet, still holding on to each other for support.

    Thompson then began to berate the unfortunate Big Reuben for spoiling his jape when DB interrupted - "Hang on a minute, if this is Big Reuben, who was that first monk?". Thompson fell silent, Big Reuben pushed back his cowl and scratched his head. DB and I looked at each other briefly then without another word set off as fast as we could in the direction of Cholney - and we didn't look back. I believe Thompson and his companion made off just as rapidly towards Sharpe Ende, and although Big Reuben is still around, looking rather sheepish whenever I see him, there has been no sign of Thompson since that night. Maybe he met up with the Errant Monk again after parting from Big Reuben, and maybe he'll turn up to haunt me once more at some time.

 Here is the game Thompson vs DBExam                      

haut de page

Le jeu de la dame enragée

  Jean-Michel Mehl, Les Jeux au royaume de France du XIII^e au début du XVI^e siècle, 1990 (Fayard)

    Absente du jeu à ses origines, dernière venue sur l'échiquier, la reine n'y joue qu'un rôle limité. Une atmosphère défavorable aux femmes interdit longtemps de lui conférer une place importante sur les soixante-quatre cases.  Jean de Galles se contente d'indiquer que la reine se déplace et prend en oblique. Remarque identique de la part de Jean Lefèvre qui précise: "La fierge se retrait ou avance / en un point en partie oblique." La reine n'avait donc droit qu'à un déplacement en diagonale. En fait, prisonniers des genres littéraires où ils se meuvent, les auteurs n'ont pu préciser ce mouvement. En revanche, Jehan Ferron, après avoir souligné qu'au départ la reine combine le déplacement oblique de l' "alphin" et le déplacement rectiligne du "roch", rappelle: "Mais puis qu'elle est une foiz saillie de son premier lieu, puis ne puet aler que 1 point semblable toujours a celui ou elle fut premièrement assise et c'est par angles voies avant ou retorne, preigne ou soit prise." Àprès ce premier mouvement, la reine ne peut plus se déplacer qu'obliquement, d'une seule case à la fois.  À la fin du XV^e siècle, son mouvement s'est amplifié puisqu'elle peut désormais franchir plusieurs cases à la fois, en lignes obliques ou orthogonales. Cette modification débutant en Italie et en Espagne, il est tentant d'y voir la marque de telle ou telle "princesse de fer", duchesses italiennes ou Isabelle la Catholique, au demeurant bonne joueuse d'échecs. Elle s'explique par la volonté de "dynamiser" un jeu qui semblait frappé de langueur en raison d'une première phase lente et ennuyeuse.

    Désormais, avec une reine mobile, donc omniprésente, les parties ne pouvaient que gagner en intensité. Cette nouvelle règle, que les Italiens qualifièrent d' "alla rabiosa" et que les Français dénommèrent le "jeu de la dame enragée", ne s'est pas imposée dans le royaume avant 1540. Le De ludo scacchorum de l'Italien Vida, poème dont les versions diverses furent composées entre 1507 et 1527, constitue la première œuvre littéraire à faire état du rôle nouveau imparti à la reine.  À ces dates, la "dame enragée" n'est encore que très partiellement française.

 haut de page

THE CHESS UNIVERSE PART 1

 SPACE, TIME and SYMMETRY

par H.T. Dearden

    The convention of placing the board with a white square on the right (as defended by the LASTBUR of addicts' corner), is of course completely arbitrary.  The game play is in no way changed should the white square be placed on the left.  Nevertheless, the FIDE laws require that a game that is discovered to be played on an incorrectly oriented board must be transferred to a board with the correct orientation. The convention is only relevant to the chequer board with alternating light and dark squares, which is an European invention dating from at least the 11th century.  Before then, no distinction in square colour was made.  The chequer board does have the virtue of making diagonals more discernable and this is of particular utility in the modern game with the extended diagonal range of the queen and bishop.

    It has, of course, always been necessary to arbitrary distinguish the two armies, nominally black and white.  What is not arbitrary is which side has the first move.  The convention of white moving first is a relatively recent development from the 19th century.  Before then players would draw for colour and for first move, so sometimes black would move first.  At that time black was considered the lucky colour (like cats?), and this led to white having the first move as compensation for being left with the unlucky colour.

    To avoid confusion, all games from before this convention was adopted have their scores published with the player having the first move being designated as white, regardless of the actual colour of the men.

    We have dealt with the orientation of the board and the player colours; there remains the question of the disposition of the men in the array (the term given to the arrangement of men at the start of the game).  The pieces are placed symmetrically apart from the king and queen, and we have the convention of the queen being placed on her own colour, which together with the convention of white on the right, places the queen on the white player's left hand side.  (And the right of the black player).  Note that the FIDE laws require that a game discovered to have been played with the array incorrectly set should be aborted and another game played.

    The convention of queen on her own colour allows the king's bishop to always be discerned as the bishop that travels on the king's colour.  It is not possible to  discern the king's knight or rook from the queen's and some chessmen have a crown marked on a knight and rook of each army to allow this distinction to be made.

    The convention is again arbitrary since all games can equally well be played on the opposite hand.  By the simple expedient of designating files a - h starting from the right hand side, all our opening theory and game scores would find application in chess played with the king and queen reversed. The geometry of chess space is unaffected. (As Alice no doubt discovered when she went through the looking-glass).¹

    A chess set does however exhibit chirality (the condition whereby it is not possible to superimpose a mirror image on the original; a term more usually employed in reference to molecules that have this property); no matter how the looking glass chess set is twisted or turned, it cannot be made to reproduce the orientation of the original.  However, since the game play inhabits two dimensional space, the 2D game (as distinct from a 3D chess set), may in theory be turned over to be `bottom up' and rotated through 180 degrees in the plane of the board, to restore the orientation of the original.   Chess sets exhibit chirality, but the game does not!

    The individual Staunton pattern chessmen have different degrees of symmetry.  The pawns are unique in having perfect axial symmetry; their orientation cannot be discerned.  The pieces other than the knight are essentially axi-symmetric, but the king's cross, the queen's crown, the rook's crenellations and the bishop's mitre deviate from perfect axial symmetry.  The knight has only a single plane of symmetry (as does the bishop) and cannot be said to be essentially axi-symmetric, so the question arises of how it should be oriented on its square.

    No stipulations are made, and individual preferences vary.  Some players prefer their knights to face the enemy, but this makes handling a little more awkward.  Side facing knights are easier to handle and are more visible.  Figurine knights in diagrams are shown facing the left, but given the taper towards the nose, the grip feels slightly more natural for the right handed player if the knight faces the right.  If you were so minded, you might face the knights in opposite directions and so preserve the distinction between the king's and queen's knights.

    The knight is usually said to make an `L-shaped' move, but may also be said to move in straight lines.  The knight is technically known as a Ö5 leaper.  (Other leapers with different length leaps are used in other variants of the game or in problems).  With the unit of physical distance being the length of a square side, the knight moves along a straight line of length Ö5. (Being the length of the diagonal of a rectangle 2 squares by 1 square).  The straight lines are in fact at an angle of approximately 27 degrees to the sides of the board.

    In terms of physical distance covered, the knight moves further than a piece that moves 2 squares along a file or rank.  In moving one square diagonally, the king, queen, bishop and pawn all move further than a rook moving a single square.  Given the extended range of the modern line piece (a piece that can be moved any distance along an unobstructed line) the men may be ranked in order of maximum speed (physical distance/tempo) where the tempo is the unit of time in the chess universe:

Queen, Bishop     Ö98 (approx 9.90)

Rook                      7

Knight                    Ö5 (approx 2.24)

King, Pawn           Ö2 (approx 1.41)

    Note that in the chess universe, time is discrete, not continuous, since individual tempi cannot be subdivided.

    The different physical speeds with which diagonal moves, and moves along rank or file, are made in chess space explains why sometimes counter intuitive possibilities arise, particularly in king and pawn endgames.  In the chess universe, space may also be said to be discrete rather than continuous, since the unit of chess space, the square, is indivisible (you cannot move half a square). Chess men move through square chess space at the same speed in all directions; diagonal `distances' are the same as those along rank and file. It is in bringing expectations from our physical universe to the chess universe that our intuition is defeated.  With this interpretation the knight is truly a leaper, for if a move through square chess space is obstructed, the knight must temporarily leave the dimensions of chess space to execute his move.

    The knight is the only piece that cannot `lose the move', effectively `marking time' by losing a tempo, and bringing about the same position but with the move transferred to the opponent.  This is because he can only return to a given square in an even number of moves.  He is always on a square of the same colour with either an odd or even number of moves.

    In terms of raw attacking capability (number of squares subject to unobstructed attack) the men may be ranked as follows:

                  Max     Min

Queen          27     21

Rook            14     14

Bishop         13       7

King              8       3

Knight          8       2

Pawn             2       1

    Although there are often references to `dynamic' play, this is a complete misnomer; in terms of game play, the men do not possess momentum (or mass, or inertia).  It follows that an attack cannot possess momentum either, except in terms of human psychology.  Psychology aside, the means by which a given position is arrived at is irrelevant.  Like playing cards, chessmen have no memory.

    ¹ Curiously, as Alice might herself have said, the chess board illustration in the book `Through the Looking-Glass' is the wrong way round; in the looking-glass world black would be on the right and the white queen's pawn (Alice) would be on the right hand side of the board.

haut de page

Jeu d'échecs, jeu de l'esprit

par Olivier Clerc

    En lisant les résultats des parties du dernier championnat du monde d'échecs, je repensais à l'époque où j'étais membre d'un club d'échecs.  Je passais des soirées et week-ends entiers le regard rivé sur l'échiquier concentré au point d'en oublier tout le reste, cherchant par tous les moyens comment mater l'adversaire.  Je revois la petite pendule à deux cadrans et la marche impitoyable des aiguilles sur le mien, menaçant de laisser tomber le petit couperet rouge qui mettrait un terme abrupt à la partie, pour ne pas être parvenu assez tôt à un mat.  Cette contrainte temporelle force les joueurs à éclaircir l'échiquier par des successions d'échanges de pièces équivalentes, pour en arriver rapidement à une finale, quitte à terminer la partie avec seulement le roi et une ou deux pièces.

    À cette époque, les échecs étaient essentiellement pour moi, comme pour beaucoup de joueurs, un jeu intelligent et, par conséquent, un moyen d'affirmer et de développer ses facultés intellectuelles. C'est avec cet état d'esprit et cette façon de jouer que j'entamai, il y a une quinzaine d'années, une partie contre un ami très versé dans l'ésotérisme et la symbolique.  Après une ouverture classique, je lui pris un cavalier dont la présence me dérangeait, le forçant à me prendre mon fou en échange.  Quelques autres échanges du même style plus loin, mon ami leva les yeux de l'échiquier et me demanda calmement quel était mon but aux échecs.  Un peu surpris, presque gêné, je répondis que c'était à la fois d'aiguiser mes facultés de réflexion et d'analyse, de passer un moment agréable et, bien entendu, ... de gagner, autant que possible !

    -Bien entendu, dit-il, mais reconnais qu'il n'y a guère de beauté dans une victoire obtenue sans noblesse.

    -Noblesse aux échecs ?... Voilà une idée intéressante.  Qu'entends-tu par là ?

    -Eh bien, tout d'abord, il n'est pas correct d'échanger des pièces maîtresses et de décimer ses forces et celles de l'adversaire sans que ce soit nécessaire et qu'il en résulte un avantage vraiment conséquent.  C'est gaspiller du potentiel sans raison et manquer d'égard envers ses pièces et celles de l'autre, expliqua-t-il.

    Je suivais avec intérêt et curiosité.

    -Il me paraît plus intéressant et plus conforme à la nature des échecs, poursuivit-il, de jouer non seulement en vue de la victoire mais, en plus, en tenant compte de toute la symbolique et de l'esthétique stratégique du jeu.

    -C'est là une conception du jeu qui diffère sensiblement de celle du milieu des échecs.  D'où la tiens-tu ? demandai-je.

    -Tout simplement du jeu lui-même, de l'observation de la façon remarquable dont il est conçu.

    Pour joindre le discours à la pratique, la décision fut prise d'interrompre là, la partie entamée et d'en recommencer une d'après les préceptes que mon ami développait.

    -La manière de jouer, reprit ce dernier en remettant les pièces sur les 64 cases, est tout d'abord déterminée par la façon dont on considère l'échiquier, les pièces, et les déplacements spécifiques de chacune d'elles.  Chaque joueur se trouve dans la position du roi à la tête de son armée.  À ce titre, il lui importe non seulement de gagner la bataille, mais autant que possible en conservant le plus grand nombre d'hommes, c'est-à-dire de pièces:  Les siennes, bien entendu, mais aussi dans une certaine mesure celles de l'adversaire; pas de victimes inutiles.  Cette manière de concevoir le jeu se caractérise donc d'entrée par un respect des pièces des deux couleurs.

    Je retrouvais tout naturellement dans ses propos les qualités d'humanisme que j'appréciais par ailleurs chez cet ami, tout comme son érudition.

    -On peut ensuite aller plus loin, développa-t-il, et considérer les 16 pièces comme la représentation des diverses composantes de notre être.  Par exemple, le roi représente l'esprit, si tu veux, et la reine l'âme.  Ce sont les principes qui dominent notre existence, notre nature spirituelle.  Tous deux peuvent bouger dans toutes les directions.  Le roi est cependant limité à une seule case à la fois.  En effet, l'esprit est le principe vital qui dirige et ordonne l'activité de toutes les pièces, de tous les aspects de l'individu.  C'est un principe éternel, il ne peut pas mourir: Quand il est mat, la partie s'achève.  L'esprit se désincarne, en quelque sorte, mais ne meurt pas.  Il domine le temps, mais pas l'espace.  D'où la dimension limitée de ses déplacements.  L'âme, par contre, est un principe lié à l'espace et l'infini, qui fait le pont entre l'esprit et la matière.  À ce titre elle est très active, très mobile.  Mais la reine, l'âme, peut être mangée et mourir.  Elle n'est pas éternelle.

    À mesure que j'écoutais mon ami, l'échiquier commençait à m'apparaître sous un jour nouveau, plus vivant, et plus conforme à des valeurs qui m'ont toujours été chères.  Je m'étonnais de ne jamais avoir pensé à appliquer ce que je connaissais de la symbolique à ce jeu qui m'avait toujours passionné.  Il faut toujours un effort pour porter un regard neuf sur des choses familières.  Mon ami enchaîna:

    -Toujours selon cette conception symbolique, les trois pièces suivantes -- le fou, le cavalier et la tour -- représentent l'intellect, le coeur et le corps physique, c'est-à-dire notre être incarné.  C'est pour cela qu'il y en a deux de chaque, le monde matériel étant celui de la polarité:  Bien/mal, existence/mort, etc., alors que le spirituel est un monde d'unité.  Nos pensées, nos sentiments et nos actes peuvent être influencées consciemment ou inconsciemment, par la lumière ou par l'ombre.

    -Le fou, poursuivit-il, se déplace en diagonale, il biaise, sur une seule couleur.  C'est pour cela qu'il est plus efficace quand il est associé au fou complémentaire.  À la cour le fou du roi était celui dont les propos étaient un mélange de vérités biaisées, énoncées sur le ton de l'ironie, de l'humour ou de l'apparente folie.  L'intellect a aussi cette tendance à biaiser, à ruser, il ne reste pas de lui-même sur le droit chemin.  Et il est plus efficace quand nous utilisons conjointement les facultés respectivement analytique et synthétique des deux hémisphères cérébraux.

    -Ensuite, le cavalier (ou le cheval) représente le côté affectif: C'est le coeur, les sentiments.  Son déplacement a d'ailleurs quelque chose d'irrationnel.  Le coeur a ses raisons...  C'est la seule de ces trois pièces à se mouvoir dans huit directions dont elle est le centre.  Cette menace circulaire, par rapport à celle linéaire du fou, correspond bien au sentiment qui est un monde d'émanation alors que la pensée est une forme de radiation.  La pensée, comme la lumière, s'arrête à la surface des choses, leur apparence, comme le fou peut être arrêté par une pièce sur sa diagonale.  Mais le sentiment pénètre les choses, va en profondeur, comme le cheval qui peut sauter par-dessus les autres pièces et s'introduire au milieu des positions adverses.  On ne peut pas limiter son rayon d'action.

    Cette discussion me remémorait le discours extraordinaire de Krishna à Arjuna, dans le Mahâbhârata -- qui constitue la Baghavad Gîta -- juste avant la grande bataille finale qui oppose les parties rivales d'une même grande famille.  Comme Arjuna, je voyais se transformer ma compréhension du combat.  Je repensais aussi à cette parole du Roi Arthur: «Le pays et le roi sont un», c'est-à-dire le corps et l'esprit sont un, ce qui signifie aux échecs qu'on ne peut dissocier le roi des autres pièces et sacrifier inconsidérément ces dernières.

    -Et logiquement, enchaînai-je, la tour représente le corps physique.

    -Effectivement.  La tour, édifice en pierre, est la pièce la plus éloignée du roi, l'esprit, et elle représente bien le corps:  C'est d'ailleurs la pièce la plus longue à mettre en action, mais aussi la plus puissante des trois dans la matière, puisque c'est son monde.  Elle quadrille (le 4 est le chiffre de la matière) l'échiquier de façon redoutable !

    -Si le roi est l'esprit et la tour le corps, le roque prend à son tour une dimension symbolique très intéressante...

    -Exactement !  Qu'est-ce que le roque ?  Le roi avance exceptionnellement de deux cases dans la direction d'une tour, et celle-ci vient se placer contre lui, de l'autre côté.  Symboliquement l'esprit s'enfonce dans la matière pour permettre au corps d'évoluer plus rapidement.  Ce mouvement surprenant est une illustration remarquable du principe d'involution et d'évolution.  C'est parce que le roi, l'esprit, accepte d'involuer, de se limiter, que le corps physique, la tour, peut évoluer, s'élever vers l'esprit et transcender ses propres limites.

    -À ce propos, sais-tu qu'en tournoi les joueurs ont l'obligation de commencer le roque en bougeant le roi d'abord, sous peine d'être contraint de ne bouger que la tour, s'ils ont touché cette pièce en premier ?  Cela illustre bien ce que tu dis, à savoir que l'involution précède l'évolution.  Reste le pion, et ses 7 cases à franchir pour aller à dame...

    -Le pion est lui aussi une expression de nous-mêmes, de la volonté qui nous pousse à aller de l'avant, à évoluer.  C'est le soldat ordinaire, qui a peu de moyens.  Il ne peut qu'aller tout droit, sans possibilité de recul:  Sa marche est inéluctable.  C'est seulement pour manger un adversaire qu'il emprunte occasionnellement une case en diagonale.  Mais, malgré ses faibles possibilités, il porte en lui les germes de ce qu'il y a de plus haut.  En effet, s'il persévère dans son avance jusqu'à la dernière rangée, il est promu au rang de reine.  Comme tu l'as dit, il y a 7 cases à franchir pour atteindre cette promotion, que l'on peut mettre en parallèle avec les sept degrés dont on dit que se compose l'initiation qui conduit à la maîtrise intérieure.  Un initié est son propre roi.  Le fait que le pion ne devienne au mieux qu'une reine, et non un roi, indique qu'il reste assujetti à un principe supérieur, un principe divin unique, si tu veux.

    Au fil de cet exposé, je prenais conscience que cette façon de considérer le jeu débouchait immanquablement sur une toute autre manière de jouer que celle que j'avais apprise.  Étant donné la symbolique et la valeur de chaque pièce, il ne saurait être question de parties kamikaze ou d'échanges abusifs:  Quel intérêt y a-t-il à gagner, si c'est pour régner seul, mutilé de ses propres forces ?

    -Tu comprends mieux, maintenant, l'importance que j'accorde à la noblesse et à l'esthétique du jeu.  Il est dommage de casser la subtile construction du jeu par des échanges peu justifiables et de briser gratuitement la tension qui s'accumule sur certaines positions !  Rappelle-toi cette citation du Cid: «À vaincre sans péril, on triomphe sans gloire.»  On pourrait ajouter qu'une victoire sans noblesse est pire qu'une défaite.  Dans le passé, celui qui gagnait sans noblesse était l'objet de honte et de mépris.

    Dès la partie en cours, j'ai commencé à jouer aux échecs en regardant l'échiquier et les pièces sous cet angle symbolique.  Non sans quelque peine, au début, je dois le dire !  On ne se débarrasse pas en une fois d'habitudes bien ancrées... surtout quand elles semblent efficaces !  Désormais chaque ancien coup, c'est-à-dire chaque coup concédé à l'efficacité sans âme, éveillait immédiatement un sentiment d'avilissement, de gêne:  Je n'en étais pas fier.  Mais surtout, cette nouvelle manière de jouer a contribué à rendre mes parties beaucoup plus complexes et passionnantes.  Moins passionnelles, aussi, car la beauté du jeu compte désormais autant que son issue.  Il nous arrive d'ailleurs de discuter longuement en cours de jeu de points théoriques ou symboliques, de stratégies possibles et de leurs conséquences, sans que cela nuise à la construction du jeu de chacun.  Mon adversaire et moi apprenons à mieux nous connaître et à davantage nous respecter.  À la tension de la partie s'ajoute la joie et une certaine fierté de la maintenir dans le cadre d'un code chevaleresque.  Même perdue, une partie ainsi jouée laisse un excellent souvenir et de l'estime pour le gagnant.

    Autres bénéfices secondaires:  Cette manière d'approcher les échecs déteint ensuite sur les autres activités de celui qui s'y applique, du sport aux relations humaines, de la famille à ses activités professionnelles.  On redécouvre un code de déontologie, des notions d'estime, de dignité, de respect et de fierté que notre époque semble avoir jeté aux oubliettes.  Gageons que si les PDG de multinationales jouaient aux échecs de cette façon, ils en viendraient sans doute à considérer autrement les armées de salariés qu'ils sacrifient actuellement sans état d'âme à leur volonté de pouvoir et à leur soif de victoires économiques.

haut de page

THE CHESS UNIVERSE PART 2

FORCE AND EXPLORATION

par H.T. Dearden

    In the first part of this article, I examined something of the nature of space and time in the chess universe. In this article I consider the meaning of power or force and of exploration. Perhaps these concerns are only of interest to the pedantic, but I find it an intriguing challenge to interpret these matters in a logically consistent manner.

     Since in terms of game play the chessmen do not possess mass or momentum, the concept of force in the mechanical sense has no meaning in the chess universe.  What then is the nature of force as exhibited by chessmen? The queen is understood to be the strongest or most powerful piece, but when threatened by the humble pawn she is usually obliged to retreat. There is in fact no contest of strength between chessmen; which ever man lays the latest claim to a square is the victory.  The queen exerts the same force on a potential destination square as any other man.  The queen does not carry a bigger gun!

     The chess force does not diminish with range and has equal effect on all potential destination squares.  All men, apart from the king, are equally susceptible to this force, but some may be said to be less vulnerable in that it is harder to approach them without being subject to the force they themselves radiate.  It is hard to sneak up on a queen; only the knight may attempt it.  Uniquely, the king finds the chess force irresistible, if it cannot be blocked by another man, the king must move; in the chess universe, we may at least answer the age old conundrum «what happens» when irresistible force meets immovable object? Checkmate!

    The chessmen are simply defined by the moves they make; no separate specification of strength, force or power is required.  The chess force is simply the potential to capture a hostile man.  (Potential to occupy a square is not quite right, since a pawn may have the potential to occupy a vacant square in front, but it does not have the potential to capture on that square; it does not exert any force over that square).  «Most powerful» is virtually synonymous with «most mobile» and in my earlier article the chessmen were correspondingly ranked in terms of their raw (unobstructed) attacking capability.  The queen may not have a bigger gun, but she may point it in more directions and threaten its use over a greater range.  In common with the other men, she may only use her weapon once with each tempo. A gun is perhaps an inappropriate analogy, since the threat cannot be executed at a distance; a man must move to the occupied square to effect capture. (In passing, we leave the reader to identify the one exceptional circumstance where this is not true).

    The chess force, other than that radiated by the knight (which may be said to be routed via a third dimension), is blocked by any intervening man.  Although the knight's force may not be blocked, it can be neutralised by a pin against the king.  A pin against any other man would not neutralise the force, but may reduce the control over squares within the knight's influence.

    Chess force is related to the concept of control, which is defined in The Oxford Companion to Chess as «The mastery of a square such that if an enemy man moved there it might be captured advantageously».  This is perfectly reasonable, but there is the difficulty of determining whether or not the enemy man may be captured advantageously.  This may be a moot point and a game may well turn on the resolution of just this question.  As a simple example, consider the illustration.

     Who controls e2? If the e3 pawn advances it cannot be captured with advantage to white, who would lose queen for rook + pawn and be left with a lost position.  Now give white a bishop on g6, which although it does not bear on e2, allows white to capture the pawn with advantage, with an unstoppable mate on e8 should black exchange on e2.  This example, albeit contrived, forcibly demonstrates that positional evaluation may be necessary in assessing who has control of a given square.

    All that may be determined absolutely in every case is who may force occupancy after all exchanges are exhausted.  (The implication being that occupancy can be maintained for at least three single-moves or ply).  This will be the player that can bring the greatest cumulative chess force to bear on the contested square.  Note that cumulative force is to be considered, since captures may release latent force from men that are otherwise blocked.  Perhaps we might refer to the player with the greater cumulative force as having «ownership» of a square.  In the above example, white definitely owns e2; whether this is a good thing or not is a different question.

    Note that occupancy itself does nothing to enhance ownership except in so far as it restricts the approach of hostile forces that might otherwise contest occupancy.  At the moment of occupancy, ownership of a square must diminish, since the occupier no longer exerts any chess force on the occupied square.

    In the instant that the rules of chess were first conceived, the entire chess universe was created.  Since that moment we have continued to explore that universe.  The masters explore the furthest known reaches, whilst the experience of the novice hardly moves from the originating rules.  Combinations, correct technique, and theoretical novelties are not created, but are discovered.  They have been there since the rules were conceived and are the inevitable, logical consequence of those rules.  This in no way detracts from the feat of imagination and vision needed to make these discoveries.

    When we are surprised and thrilled by a brilliancy, we reveal our intuitive approach to the game.  Brilliancies and curiosities are not perceived as such because of some new twist in the logic of the game, which maintains absolute fidelity with the rules, but because of the limitations of our intuition.  

    Given the brute force approach to chess employed by computers, in which all legal possibilities are evaluated many ply deep, regardless of their plausibility, it is unlikely that a computer would be surprised even if one were engineered to register such a condition.

    The fact that humans can challenge computers at all is testimony to the efficiency, in disregarding the less plausible continuations, of the intuitive approach.  We also have the joy of surprise, elegance, humour, wit, and drama.

    The surprises to be found within chess were intriguingly used in support of an argument made by Sir William A. Raleigh (1861-1922) in his work Romance (1917):

    «Let him who conceives of high hopes from the progress of knowledge and the pertinacity of thought, tame and subdue his pride by considering for a moment the game of chess.  That game is played with 32 pieces of six different kinds, on a board of 64 squares.  Each kind of piece has one allotted move of action, which is further cramped by severe limitations of space.  The conditions imposed upon the game, are strict, uniform, and mechanical.  Yet those that have made of chess a life-long study are ready to confess their complete ignorance of the fundamental merits of particular moves; one game does not resemble another; and from the most common place of developments there may spring up, on a sudden, wild romantic possibilities and vibrations that are like miracles.  If these surprising flowers of fancy grow on the chess-board, how shall we set a limit to the possibilities of human life, which is chess with variety and uncertainty many million times increased.»

    We may perhaps forgive Sir William his inaccuracies (…..ready to confess their complete ignorance??  One game does not resemble another ??) and heartily endorse the sentiment.

 haut de page

Dates de l'histoire des échecs

550               Chaturanga, the earliest chess precursor, originated in Punjab, India.

570               Chinese version of chess, played in China with dice.

590               Chatrang was accepted as a noble accomplishment.

600               Chaturanga reaches Persia.

610               Earliest chess pieces identified.

620               Chess introduced to Egypt.

625               Chaturanga mentioned in the Sanskrit book Harshacharita, by Bana. 

630               Chatrang (old Persian word for chess) developed from Chaturanga.

638                Islamic conquest of Persia, changes Chatrang to Shatranj.

640               Buddhists spread Chatrang eastward.

651                Arabic conquest of Persia completed; Shatranj popularized.

680                50th rule of the Canons forbids chess.

690                Chess prohibited in Japan by the Emperor Jito.

712                 Seville conquered by Arabs.  Moorish invaders bring chess to Iberia.

720                First literary references to chess in Arabic.

735                Living chess introduced in Europe by Charles Martel (688-741).

750                Abbasid comes to power in Baghdad, documents chess.

770                First mention of women chess players.

780                Moorish invaders of Spain introduce chess to Western Europe.

795                First reference of Chinese chess in the Huan Kwai Lu (Book of Marvels).

800                Moors bring chess to Spain; Chess reaches Italy.

801                Charlemagne (742-814) introduced to chess.

818                Top players were Jabir al-Kufi, Rabrab, and Abu'n-Na'am. (Aliyat)

819                Caliph Al-Ma'mun gives 4 players the Grand Master title.

820                Chess introduced in Russia through the Caspian-Volga trade route.

840                First chess problem composed by the Caliph Billah.

840                Al-Aldi is considered the best chess player (Aliyat)

849                Reference of chess in Kashmir Haravijaya (Victory of Siva) by Ratnakara.

850                Decimal chess invented, 10 x 10 board, first use of dice in chess.

875                First reference of Knight's tour (turaga) in the Sanskrit Kavyalankara of Rudrata.

880                Coordinate notation used in the Arab countries.

895                Chess introduced to Greece; known as Zatrikion.

910                Al-lajlaj (the stammerer) is the first to publish openings.

920                Chess pieces are given Persian names.

946                As-Suli died at Basra; strongest Shatranj player in Baghdad.

947                Al-Ma'sudi, writes on the history of chess in India and Byzantine chess.

980                Rabbi Abu Yachia describes chess in his Hebrew writings.

988                Ibn an-Nadim writes on a whole succession of leading players and Chess books.

999                Versus De Scachis is a  poem describing the game & its rules.

1000              Chess reaches Russia from Byzantium and the Vikings.

1005              Chess is banned in Egypt by al-Hakim; and all chess sets were burned.

1008               First written reference to chess in Europe, from a will of Ermengaud I.

1011                Shahnama, written by Firdausi, first Persian references to chess.

1013                Chess brought to England with the Danish invasion.

1030                Al-Beruni writes of an Indian form of 4-handed chess and dice.

1050                Earliest reference of chess in the German literature, the Latin epic Ruodlieb.

1061                Cardinal Damiani of Ostin forbids the clergy to play chess.

1066                Chess introduced to Britain.

1078                King Alfonso VI of Castile played chess with B. Ammar.

1081                Emperor Alexius I comes to power. Plays chess with his court.

1082                Regulations of chess in Persia are published.

1090                Boards with alternating light and dark squares are introduced.

1093                Chess is condemned by the Eastern Orthodox church.

1097                First French reference to chess.

1100                Chess, accepted as a regular feature of noble life.

1105                Omar Khayyam writes the Rubaiyat, using a chess game.

1106                Exchequer at Westminster created; referred to as the scaccarium or Chessboard.

1110                John Zonares, Eastern Church monk, excommunicated chess players.

1120                Oldest known chess set, the Lewis chessmen.

1125                Chess is banned in some Byzantine churches.

1128                St-Bernard (1090-1153) forbids the knights templars from chess.

1130                Draughts, a variant of chess, invented in France using Backgammon pieces.

1140                The Fers's (queen's) leap is introduced in Spain by Ibn-Ezra.

1150                Draughts (checkers) started in France.

1167                Earliest Spanish reference to chess.

1173                A French manuscript uses algebraic notation.

1180                First British reference to chess, by a Winchester monk.

1189                First European reference to chess problems, by Gerald of Wales.

1190                Alexander Neckam, "On the Nature of Things" devotes a chapter for chess.

1195                Rabbi Maimonides includes chess among the forbidden games.

1197                Abbot of Persigny writes to Countess of Perche warning her against chess.

1199                John Lackland, King of England, a keen chess player.

1200                Courier chess, played on a 12x8 board, introduced.

1208                The bishop of Paris, Odo Sully, bans chess from the clergy.

1210                Morality of chess according to Pope Innocent III (1160-1216) written.

1220                Chess is no longer played with dice to determine moves.

1230                Astronomical chess introduced.

1240                Chess forbidden to the clergy in Worcester, England.

1254                St-Louis IX of France restricts chess to laymen.

1255                Provincial Council of Beziers in France forbids chess.

1257                Arabic manuscript now in British museum (BM manuscript).

1260                King Henry III (1207-72) instructs the clergy to leave chess alone.

1262                Russian word for chess (shakmatny) is introduced.

1271                Ruling Dalmatian towns of Yugoslavia was determined by a chess match.

1273                Cotton MS is the earliest English collection of chess problems.

1275                Cessole writes the most important of all moralities and most copied.

1275                Option of pawn double move on the First move introduced in Italy.

1279                Chinese introduce new pieces to Chinese chess (siang ki).

1290                Lombard lawyer, Guido de Baysio, formulate rules to govern chess.

1295                Bonus Socius, First European MS using a coordinate notation.

1295                Bonus Socius, First compilation of chess problems, written in Lombardy.

1300                Cessole writes «Book of the customs of men and the duties of nobles».  

1300                Gesta Romanorum, a chess morality compiled in England, written.

1323                Chatrang-Namak written; oldest of Pahlawi works.

1330                Citadel chess invented.  Extra square at each corner.

1340                Persian «Treasury of sciences» includes 3 chapters on chess.

1370                Earliest known chess puzzle called arrangement.

1370                Pope Gregory xi (1329-1378) an avid chessplayer.

1375                Charles V (1337-80) of France prohibits chess.

1380                William of Wykeleham, founder of Oxford, forbids chess.

1392                Charles VI (1368-1422) forbids chess.

1416                Jews of Forli banned all games of chance except chess.

1420                German king abandons the prohibition of chess.

1422                Cracow manuscript states that stalemate is a draw.

1422                Cracow poem attributes the invention of chess to Ulysses.

1425                First reference to chess as the royal game in Lydgates translation.

1470                Innocent Morality published.  First printed reference to chess.

1471                Gottingen manuscript published.  First work devoted to modern chess.

1474                Caxton (1422-1491) publishes «The game and player of chess».

1475                Beginning of modern chess starts in southern Europe.

1475                Fers replaced by the queen and the aufin replaced by the bishop.

1485                First known modern chess game recorded.

1495                First practical chess book printed, by the Catalan Vicent treatise on openings.

1495                Vicent publishes his Catalan chess book.  First practical chess book to be printed.

1500                Chess becomes a recognized pastime for Jews on the Sabbath.

1512                First chess book to be published in Italy, by Damiano in Rome.

1537                French pamphlet containing medieval chess problems; last medieval reference.

1549                Boi defeats Pope Paul III in a chess match.

1550                First chess club, organized in Italy.

1551                Ivan IV of Russia bans chess.  Civil code called Hundred Chapters.

1555                Castling is introduced.

1560                Ruy Lopez visits Rome and defeats all the players.

1561                Ruy Lopez proposes the 50th move rule to claim a draw.

1561                Ruy Lopez introduces the word gambit. (Alcala, 1561)

1562                First instructional book, Damiano translation, published in London.

1572                Ruy lopez defeats several eminent players in Rome.

1574                Boi and Leonardo beat Lopez and Ceron in presence of King Phillip II.

1574                Polerio records the important opening variations of his time.

1574                First documented chess completion, played in Madrid.

1575                Leonardo beats Ruy Lopez in Madrid.

1575                After the Plaque of Cremona, all games except chess were banned.

1579                Sukaikir is the last write on the older Muslim game of chess.

1580                Ruy lopez died.

1584                Lopez's book translated into Italian by Tarsia and published in Venice.

1586                Leonardo poisoned.

1587                Japanese chess (shogi) played.

1590                Polerio plays the First recorded King's Gambit.

1590                Polerio's manuscript mentions Caro Kann and Greco Counter Gambit.

1590                Russian book on regulations forbade chess in Russia.

1598                Boi, Paolo poisoned in Naples, Italy and died.

1600                Castling established as a single move; still regional variations.

1600                Appearance of professional players who made their living at chess.

1600                Stalemate in England is a win for the side that’s King is stalemated.

1604                Salvio publishes the First comprehensive chess book, in Naples; Trattato.

1616                Selenius publishes the German book on openings, in Leipzig. (Lopez's book)

1617                Carrera prints a book on all aspects of chess (Gioco Degli Scacchi).

1617                Carrera suggests enlarging the chessboard to 10 x 8.

1617                Carrera suggests new piece, the champion (combines rook and knight).

1619                Greco compiles a manuscript on openings to a patron in Rome.

1620                Modern version of castling established in France.

1623                Greco began the practice of giving complete games.

1623                Greco presents chess manuscript to Nicholas Montstephen.

1624                Greco defeats all opponents at the court of Philip IV.

1633                Ecclesiastical lawyers declare chess as legal.

1634                Greco, Gioacchino died in the West Indies; strongest player of his day.

1640                Modern version of castling established in England.

1641                First mention of chess in America, in a history of Dutch settlers.

1652                First coffee house opened in London.  Chess was played there.

1658                Khalifa writes Arabic bibliography; has catalog of chess books.

1683                Piacenza writes book describing flank openings as fianchetti.

1690                Books on the origin of chess published in Naples by Marco Severino.

1690                First time openings are classified in an orderly way.

1697                Herbelot's Bibliotheque Orientale, gives some chess history.

1700                Payagunda writes Chaturangavinoda (The Game of Chess).

1700                Peter the Great cancels a ban on chess.

1711                Chess is prohibited in Frankfort for 14 years after the Great Fire.

1715                First chess club in England at Slaughter's in London.

1719                Feret, in a paper to the French Academy, supports Indian origin of chess.

1722                Three-handed chess and board invented by Marinelli in Naples.

1723                Sicilian Defense played in Naples by Severino.

1735                «The Noble Game Of Chess» by Bertin is First worthwhile English book.

1743                Chess played on a board 14 x 10 in London.  Invented by the Duke of Rutland.

1745                First edition of Hoyles games published, with a chess section.

1745                Stamma publishes «The noble game of chess» in algebraic notation, London.

1747                Philidor defeats Stamma in a match at Slaughter's in London. 10 games.

1748                Philidor introduces the modern rule of numbering each move.

1748                Voltaire and Emperor Frederick II of Prussia play chess.

1749                Philidor publishes "Analyze Eschecs" in London, most important chess book.

1750                Legal's mate introduced by Legal against Saint Brie.

1750                English edition of Philidor's book published. Called «Chess Analyzed».

1755                Philidor defeats Legal in France at the Cafe de la Regence.

1755                Stamma died.

1761                Hoyle publishes essay on chess (Murray 850).

1762                Franklin plays Bartram.

1764               «History of Chess» by Lambe published in London.

1771                Philidor plays chess at the Salopian Coffee-house.

1772                Coxe sees 4-handed chess in Russia.  First reference to 4-handed chess.

1774                Oldest Danish chess book (Murray, 854).

1779                Duke of Rutland's chess invented using a 14 x 10 board.

1781                 First recording of games systematically, by Atwood.

1784                Oldest Swedish book, Kort Afhandling, is published by Konigstedt.

1784                Moses Hirschel introduces the o-o and o-o-o symbol. (Murray, 848).

1786                Frankin publishes his «Morals of Chess» in a Columbian Magazine.

1789                Racknitz builds a duplicate Turk.  Publishes book exposing the Turk.

1789                Stein publishes opening book; analyzes the Dutch defense.

1790                Sir William Jones writes «On the Indian Game of Chess».

1790                First known double rook sac made by Bowdler against Conway, London.

1791                First chess book published in Russia.

1793                Irwin writes «Account of the Chinese Game of Chess».

1795                First German chess manual, published by Allgaier, in Vienna.

1795                Turkish chess manuscript with 128 chess problems; now in Berlin.

1795                Philidor died in London.  Age 69.

haut de page

Jeu d'échecs et psychiatrie

Jacques Dextreit et Norbert Engel

Jeu d'échecs et sciences humaines, payot - bibliothèque scientifique

    Pour un observateur jugeant d'un regard superficiel et lointain la situation, les territoires respectifs de la psychiatrie et du jeu d'échecs apparaîtront fort éloignés; pourtant, à y voir de plus près, leur confrontation permet de poser deux conclusions; la première est que psychiatrie et jeu d'échecs possèdent trois domaines en commun, la deuxième est que, dans chacun de ces domaines, psychiatrie et jeu d'échecs affectent un type de rapports particulier, capable à lui seul de caractériser le domaine en question.

1) Paul Morphy  (1837 - 1884)

    Né à la Nouvelle-Orléans en 1837, Paul Morphy s'imposa en quelques mois comme l'un des plus extraordinaires champions qu'ait connus le jeu d'échecs; en 1857 il remporta le premier championnat des États-Unis et, au cours des deux années suivantes, il rencontra en Europe tous les forts joueurs de l'époque, dont il triompha de superbe manière, faisant montre d'une profondeur de conception et d'un niveau de jeu très en avance sur son temps.    Seul l'Anglais Howard Staunton se déroba à un match avec le jeune Américain.  En 1859, ce dernier lança un défi aux joueurs du monde entier, défi que nul ne releva, et il abandonna alors la pratique du jeu de haute compétition.  C'est plusieurs années après que les troubles mentaux apparurent¹.

    Dans les années 1870, Morphy, dans une situation financière précaire depuis la guerre de Sécession et la ruine de sa famille, développa tout un système d'idées et de persécution et d'empoisonnement:  Il était persuadé que son beau-frère, Sybrandt, qui administrait l'héritage paternel, le grugeait et il intenta contre lui des poursuites judiciaires longues et coûteuses qui n'aboutirent à rien; il craignait, un certain temps, d'être empoisonné et refusait toute nourriture qui n'avait pas été préparée par sa mère ou sa soeur cadette Helena.  En 1875, il agressa physiquement un de ses amis, Binder, qu'il metttait au nombre de ses persécuteurs et le provoqua en duel.  C'est après cet épisode que sa mère le fit conduire dans un établissement tenu par une congrégation religieuse, la «Louisiana Retreat», qui se consacrait aux soins des malades mentaux, pour l'y faire interner.  Mais là Morphy, homme de loi de formation et de profession, fit un exposé si brillant sur ses droits civiques et sa capacité mentale que les religieuses refusèrent de l'admettre dans l'établissement et que sa mère, convaincue de la bonne santé psychique de son fils, le ramena à leur domicile.  Il n'y eut par la suite aucune intervention de psychiatre et aucun projet d'hospitalisation².  D'autres symptômes allaient apparaître dans les années suivantes:  Morphy avait l'idée obsédante qu'il était ruiné et qu'il lui fallait immédiatement la somme de deux cents dollars; il demandait cette somme, sans relâche, à ses amis et ceux-ci, qui avaient bien compris la situation, ne refusaient jamais; dès l'accord verbal obtenu, Morphy partait en promettant de venir chercher l'argent le jour suivant, ce qu'il omettait bien sûr de faire.

    Il avait aussi, en commun avec Schopenhauer³, la phobie des rasoirs et la terreur des barbiers, supposés être soudoyés par une conspiration de ses ennemis dans le dessein de lui trancher la gorge; il ne fréquentait que deux barbiers, de confiance, dans toute la ville et, au moindre signe suspect dans leur comportement, quittait leur échoppe la serviette autour du cou et le visage partiellement enduit de mousse à raser.  Il était toujours très proprement vêtu, élégant et «aristocratique» et avait une vie des plus régulières dont les meilleurs moments étaient la promenade rituelle dans Canal Street -- pendant laquelle il jetait des regards admiratifs aux charmes féminins et aux minois agréables, s'arrêtant parfois pour mieux les dévisager -- et la fréquentation de l'Opéra, dont il ne manquait aucune représentation.  En 1882 une revue locale ayant en projet une biographie des Louisianais célèbres se proposa d'y inclure Paul Morphy, «le plus célèbre joueur d'échecs du Monde»; aussitôt, celui-ci répliqua par une lettre exposant la situation de fortune de ses ancêtres et indiquant le montant exact de l'héritage laissé par son père; Morphy précisait bien que cet argent lui permettait de vivre de ses rentes mais que de profession il était homme de loi, ce qui ne justifiait en rien sa place dans une biographie d'hommes célèbres !  L'héritage de son père devint alors son sujet de conversation préféré, seul symptôme pathologique bien marqué des dernières années de sa vie, avec l'habitude qu'il avait de se promener sur la véranda dominant son jardin en déclamant à voix basse, et en français:  «Il plantera la bannière de Castille sur les murs de Madrid au cri de ville gagnée, et le petit Roi s'en ira tout penaud».  Il mourut en 1884, à l'âge de quarante-sept ans, d'une congestion cérébrale occasionnée par l'entrée dans un bain froid après une promenade par un temps particulièrement chaud.

    2) Wilhelm Steinitz  (1836 - 1900)

    Ce très fort joueur né dans le ghetto de Prague en 1836, champion du monde de 1866 à 1894, présenta plusieurs épisodes psychotiques à la fin de sa vie.

    À Moscou, en 1896, il perdit face à Emmanuel Lasker le match revanche pour le titre de champion du monde et entreprit, dès cette défaite, la rédaction d'un livre sur les Juifs et le jeu d'échecs, destiné à confondre les antisémites.  Il engagea à cet effet un secrétaire russe à qui il dictait le plus vite possible le texte de cet ouvrage⁴.  Il était persuadé, à cette époque, de pouvoir téléphoner sans fil ni récepteur et le secrétaire le trouvait souvent en train d'attendre une réponse d'un récepteur invisible; il parlait et chantait à la fenêtre, attendant là encore qu'on lui répondit.  Sur la demande du secrétaire, il fut hospitalisé dans un sanatorium moscovite le 11 février 1897.  Le 6 mars 1897, il écrivait à un ami d'enfance, médecin à Vienne:  «Comme tous les lunatiques, je m'imagine que les médecins sont plus fous que moi» et il retrouvait assez de bon sens pour apostropher les psychiatres en ces termes:  «Traitez-moi comme un Juif et jetez-moi dehors !»  En quelques mois, il récupéra un état mental assez satisfaisant pour lui permettre de reprendre ses activités de joueur d'échecs.

    En 1900, peu avant sa mort et alors qu'il vivait dans des conditions matérielles difficiles, il présenta à New York un nouvel épisode délirant.  Il pensait pouvoir émettre des courants électriques capables de déplacer les pièces sur l'échiquier sans les toucher; il se disait en communication électrique avec Dieu et jouait avec celui-ci en lui donnant l'avantage d'un pion et du trait (ce même avantage que Morphy proposait à ses adversaires dans son défi de 1859).  Il fut hospitalisé et mourut peu après.

3) Akiba Rubinstein  (1882 - 1961)

    Ce grand maître polonais fut avant la première guerre mondiale l'un des principaux candidats au titre de champion du monde.  Très taciturne, écrivant peu, parlant moins encore, il développa à partir de 1920 un système délirant fait de thèmes de persécution.  Il se croyait continuellement suivi, allant même jusqu'à sauter par la fenêtre quand un inconnu pénétrait dans la pièce où il se trouvait.  Il se plaignait aussi de ne pouvoir dormir pendant les tournois car, disait-il, ses adversaires ou des mauvais esprits frappaient à la porte ou dans les murs de sa chambre la nuit durant⁵.  Son état empira au point qu'il abandonna dès 1932 toute activité échiquéenne et pratiquement tout contact social⁶.

4) Aron Nimzovitch  (1886 - 1935)

    Lettonien émigré vers 1920 et fixé au Danemark, il fut un des penseurs les plus originaux des échecs; il développa des conceptions extraordinaires, qui allaient contre le courant idéologique de son époque, et fut le précurseur de la révolution hypermoderne.  Plus que d'un malade, il laissa le souvenir d'un être nerveux et irritable, choisissant en chaque circonstance la solution la plus agressive:  Il s'estimait toujours défavorisé par rapport à ses concurrents et protestait contre le bruit, la fumée, la vue même d'une cigarette.  Au restaurant, il adressait des reproches continuels aux serveurs, jugeant sa portion trop petite ou sa viande trop cuite...

    Dans les dernières années de sa vie, les médecins lui ayant conseillé de prendre plus d'exercice, Nimzovitch, le vieil original acariâtre, choisit de suivre leurs conseils en faisant de la gymnastique durant les parties d'échecs !  Pendant que son adversaire réfléchissait, il allait dans un coin de la salle et effectuait divers mouvements de gymnase, allant jusqu'à réussir certains équilibres sur la tête qui stupéfiaient les spectateurs. Mais, plus que dans ces excentricités, on peut juger au travers des écrits mêmes de Nimzovitch de l'extraordinaire mélange de vanité, d'hypocondrie et naïveté qui caractérise le personnage.  Son ouvrage essentiel, Mein System⁷, est un salmigondis de conceptions échiquéennes nouvelles et remarquables, de jeux de mots et métaphores d'un infantilisme extrême et de protestations envers les critiques et le monde entier, incapables de comprendre et reconnaître son génie⁸.

5) Carlos Torre  (1904 - 1978)

    D'origine mexicaine, il naquit à la Nouvelle-Orléans et eut une carrière fort semblable à celle de Paul Morphy:  À l'âge de vingt ans il traversa l'Atlantique pour venir participer brillamment à d'importants tournois européens.  En 1927, alors que tous le considéraient comme un des jeunes joueurs les plus prometteurs et voyaient en lui un possible futur champion du monde, il présenta un accès psychotique aigu qui mit un terme précoce à sa carrière; il se dévêtit totalement et inopinément sur la Cinquième Avenue, à New York, et fut immédiatement interné.  Au sortir de l'hôpital, il rentra à Monterrey, au Mexique, où il fut pris en charge par trois frères, tous médecins.

    Il ne devait plus quitter Monterrey ou réapparaître en tournoi international.  En 1934, il disputa quelques parties amicales, dans sa ville, n'ayant, semble-t-il, rien perdu de sa force; son comportement était excentrique, au dire d'un témoin oculaire, mais il ne montrait aucun symptôme psychotique évident.  Durant sa période de jeu de haute compétition, Torre avait déjà présenté quelques signes évocateurs d'un déséquilibre mental:  Il dormait fort mal et, disait-il, jamais plus de deux heures par nuit; il adorait les friandises et les sucreries, dont il faisait une consommation immodérée; il conseillait à ses collègues d'éviter les femmes, car elles coûtaient beaucoup trop cher...

6) Alexandre Alekhine  (1892 - 1946)

    Né à Moscou dans une famille fortunée, il apprit à jouer à l'âge de cinq ans, les règles lui étant enseignées par sa mère, et très tôt il se consacra totalement aux échecs.  Il émigra en France en 1921, devint champion du monde en 1927, en battant le Cubain José Raoul Capablanca.  L'inimitié entre les deux hommes était grande, et, une fois champion, Alekhine refusa toute rencontre avec Capablanca, usant de tous les moyens à sa dispositon pour l'ignorer, allant même jusqu'à interdire qu'on prononçât son nom en sa présence.  Il fut le sadique des échecs, écrit Fine; de caractère très agressif, il lui arrivait d'être violent lorsqu'il perdait.

    À plusieurs reprises, il projeta l'échiquier et les pièces à travers la salle de tournoi; en 1923, après une défaite inattendue contre l'Anglais Yates au tournoi de Carlsbad, il mit en pièces le mobilier de sa chambre d'hôtel.  À partir de 1935, il présenta quelques traits de mégalomanie; disputant en 1935 un tournoi international à Warsaw, avec l'équipe française, il arriva sans passeport à la frontière polonaise et déclara aux douaniers:  «Je suis Alekhine, champion du monde d'échecs; j'ai un chat qui s'appelle Échecs.  Je n'ai pas besoin de papiers».

    Pendant la deuxième guerre mondiale, il fut ouvertement pronazi et rédigea une série d'articles intitulés «Échecs juifs et échecs aryens», «prouvant» que les Juifs polluaient la pureté du jeu⁹; il donna dans toute l'Europe des conférences sur ce sujet.  Il était alcoolique, buvant énormément pendant ses dernières années; pendant le match de 1935 qu'il perdit contre Max Euwe, on le trouva avant une partie dans un semi-coma éthylique; il lui arriva, toujours ivre, d'uriner sur le sol alors qu'il donnait une séance de parties simultanées.

    Son attitude envers les femmes était indéniablement anormale:  Il se maria cinq fois et ses deux dernières femmes étaient beaucoup plus âgées que lui (elles étaient de trente et vingt ans ses aînées !); il avait avec la dernière un comportement ouvertement sadique; on dit qu'il devint impuissant à un stade relativement précoce de son existence.  Il mourut à Lisbonne en 1946, tenu en quarantaine par les autres maîtres en raison de ses attitudes pronazies, aux prises avec des difficultés financières et physiques, probablement victime d'une crise cardiaque.

7) Robert Fischer  (1943 - ...)

    Le phénomène Bobby Fischer domine d'une manière telle la période contemporaine qu'il est bien difficile de dégager à son propos ce qui est du domaine réel et ce qui appartient, déjà, au mythique.  Les «références» biographiques (nous en reparlerons) n'aident que peu notre recherche et les écrits personnels ou documents authentiques concernant Fischer sont rares.

    Pourtant, influence des médias, chacun connaît son histoire:  Le divorce de ses parents quand il avait deux ans et la sortie de son père hors de sa vie; l'absence d'une mère, occupée à gagner la vie de sa famille, et l'achat par sa soeur aînée, il a alors six ans, d'un jeu d'échecs pour l'occuper; la passion soudaine et dévorante pour ce jeu, que rien ne viendra atténuer et qui exclura tout autre intérêt dans sa vie; son aversion pour les choses scolaires, l'«inculture universelle» qui le caractérise; la rupture, en 1958, avec une mère devenue trop dirigiste et abusive (elle suivra alors son proche chemin qui, de manifestation antimilitariste en reprise tardive de ses études de médecine, la verra épouser dans les années soixante un professeur anglais de seize ou dix-sept ans son cadet); les résultats extraordinaires de son adolescence (champion des États-Unis à quatorze ans, grand maître international à seize ans) qui le posent en principal contestataire de l'hégémonie russe aux échecs; ses insuccès dans la course au championnat du monde (aux tournois de Portoroz, en 1959, et de Curaçao, en 1962), ses «retraites», ses bouderies qui le voient abandonner la scène internationale à trois reprises:  En 1962, après le tournoi interzonal de Curaçao, en 1968, après le tournoi interzonal de Sousse et en 1972, après le match de Reykjavik; considérons tous ces détails biographiques connus -- en exposer plus ne ferait que répéter ici tous les écrits consacrés au champion américain -- et attachons-nous maintenant à repérer dans cette existence ce qui est signifiant pathologique.

    Ce qui frappe dès l'abord, c'est la véritable «monomanie échiquéenne» de Fischer.  Rien dans son existence ne peut compter qui n'ait rapport aux échecs.  Quand, à Reykjavik, Spassky déclare: «Les échecs, c'est comme la vie», Fischer répond:  «Les échecs, c'est la vie».  Et, en effet, dès l'âge de six ans rien d'autre ne retient son attention.  On ne connaît aucune passion, aucun intérêt à Fischer hormis les échecs:  Il nage, joue au tennis ou au bowling, lit les aventures de Fu Manchu et de Tarzan, Playboy et... toutes les publications soviétiques d'échecs !  Il mange avec un échiquier de poche sur la table.  Il n'a aucune vie sexuelle connue, une des rares expériences en la matière ayant eu un effet catastrophique sur ses résultats (tournoi de Buenos Aires de 1960, quatorzième sur vingt... Il y aurait eu une jeune fille dans sa chambre d'hôtel) et il est fier de ses positions et déclarations misogynes.  Il n'a pas d'amis véritables et ne peut conserver longtemps ceux qu'il possède.  Sa conversion, aux débuts des années soixante, à la Worldwide Church of God, secte américaine prônant le respect de l'Ancien Testament, est elle aussi subordonnée au jeu d'échecs:  La secte lui fournit les conditions de vie idéales pour qu'il puisse se consacrer au jeu avec le maximum d'efficacité, conditions tant matérielles que spirituelles («la religion m'aide à mieux jouer aux échecs, c'est tout ce qui m'intéresse en elle», déclara-t-il à un ami) et qu'il ait depuis quelques années cessé de pratiquer et de fréquenter cettte Église est en faveur de notre hypothèse.  Seuls les problèmes d'habillement ont quelque intérêt à ses yeux:  Il accumule chaussures et costumes, faits à ses mesures, et déclara, dans une interview en 1962, ambitionner une place parmi les dix hommes les plus élégants du monde.

    Le deuxième point à noter est l'agressivité de Fischer.  Ses propos en témoignent («J'aime les voir se tortiller», dit-il de ses adversaires; «Il faut détruire l'Ego de l'autre», affirme-t-il ailleurs), tout comme la liste impressionnante des conflits qu'il a pu avoir avec les organisateurs.  Ses revendications sont multiples; elles concernent le logement (à Sousse il change cinq fois de chambre dans l'hôtel), la nourriture, les boissons, l'éclairage de la salle de tournoi, la distance entre les tables et entre les joueurs et les spectateurs, les règles de silence, le comportement du public, les horaires des parties (et ses exigences religieuses ne facilitent pas la tâche des organisateurs), sans oublier des prétentions financières très supérieures à la coutume.  Il faut savoir que beaucoup de ces revendications étaient justifiées par la médiocrité des conditions offertes aux joueurs d'échecs avant Fischer (local, hébergement, prix, tout laissait souvent à désirer...) et combien elles ont pu changer depuis «L'ère Fischer¹⁰».  Mais il ne faut pas tomber dans le piège qui consisterait à faire de Bobby Fischer un saint-combattant, prêt à toutes les luttes pour le bien-être de ses collègues joueurs.  Fischer n'a jamais, à notre connaissance, déclaré revendiquer au nom de l'ensemble des joueurs, au contraire il a toujours oeuvré pour son intérêt personnel.

    Cette attitude d'opposition, d'agressivité, a souvent joué à son désavantage, ce qui est bien évident lorsqu'il abandonne le match conte Samuel Reshevsky (en 1961), ou qu'il se met en position d'être exclu du tournoi de Sousse, en 1968, alors qu'il en occupait la première place¹¹.

    L'anticommunisme est un autre trait de caractère de Fischer:  Phénomène de société (Fischer est enfant de la John Birch Society et de Mc Carthy), il est bien souvent plus que cela, aux frontières du délire.  Battu par les soviétiques au tournoi de Curaçao, en 1962, Bobby fait paraître dans le numéro du 20 août 1962 de la revue Sports Illustrated un article virulent où il accuse les Russes d'avoir conspiré pour organiser sa défaite.  Pour épargner leurs forces et ménager leurs chances dans le tournoi, les joueurs de l'U.R.S.S. auraient décidé à l'avance de conclure entre eux des nullités rapides.  Cette accusation est très vraisemblablement fondée, la F.I.D.E. le reconnaissant tacitement en modifiant peu après les règles du championnat du monde, substituant des duels éliminatoires successifs au tournoi des candidats.  Mais l'article contient des éléments moins raisonnables:  «Aux Échecs comme partout, les communistes trichent pour asservir le monde libre; ils sont effrayés par le génie de Fischer et prêts à tout pour le détruire; mais n'importe qui, excepté une mazette ou un communiste, sait qui est le meilleur joueur du monde...».

    De telles accusations anticommunistes se reproduiront.  Pour Fischer il y a toujours un communiste occupé à l'espionner, à écouter ses communications téléphoniques, à le surveiller et chaque arbitre, chaque organisateur est suspect d'appartenance au complot !

    D'autres thèmes délirants traversent la vie quotidienne du champion: Il craint d'être empoisonné, il a peur des homosexuels, les gens le regardent bizarrement, les caméras sont potentiellement dangereuses, les magnétophones également¹² et même les amis trahissent sa confiance...¹³

    Dernier point -- et non le moindre -- de notre catalogue pathologique:  Le retrait de Fischer depuis sa victoire dans le championnat du monde en 1972.  Le champion américain n'a disputé aucune partie officielle depuis Reykjavik; il a refusé de rencontrer son challenger, le soviétique Anatoli Karpov, et a été déchu de son titre par la F.I.D.E. le 3 avril 1975.  Les descriptions qu'on a pu faire de son mode de vie présent le montrent reclus dans un appartement, dormant le jour, «vivant» la nuit, lecteur assidu des revues et ouvrages d'échecs -- après une période de désintérêt -- et toujours très méfiant envers le monde extérieur, ses espions, ses complots communistes...  Ce portrait-charge, complaisamment repris dans la presse, est sans doute inexact; Fischer est signalé en Europe, à New York; il jouerait également des parties contre de forts adversaires et s'intéresserait à la programmation des ordinateurs joueurs d'échecs.  Mais sa coupure d'avec le monde échiquéen et la réalité demeure.

    Parlant d'un saxophoniste alto, en qui il est aisé de reconnaître Charlie Parker, Julio Cortazar écrit:  «... Johny tel qu'il était au fond:  Un pauvre diable, d'intelligence à peine moyenne, possédant comme tant de musiciens, tant de joueurs d'échecs et tant de poètes, le don de créer des choses admirables sans avoir la moindre conscience des dimensions de son oeuvre (au plus, l'orgueil du boxeur qui se sait fort)».  Bobby Fischer (et les autres) appartient à cette même race de «génies ratés», capables des exploits et des créations les plus remarquables et, plus encore, capables de faire de leur existence un gâchis pitoyable.  Nous avons la ressource d'écouter les disques de Parker ou de rejouer les parties de Fischer...mais eux ?

Notes

1 Les faits qui suivent ont été puisés à la meilleure source actuellement disponible:  Lawson D. : Paul Morphy -- The Pride and Sorrow of Chess.  New York, Mc Kay, 1976, vol. XVIII-424 p.

2  Cela n'empêche pas le Dictionnaire des Échecs de F. Le Lionnais et E. Maget d'écrire à l'article Morphy:  «Sa raison se dérégla pour des motifs d'ordre privé et, après avoir passé les vingt dernières années de sa vie dans une maison de santé, il mourut en 1884» !  Arrabal commet la même erreur (cf. note 34), sans doute recopiée dans l'article précité.

3  À en croire Lombroso dans son livre consacré aux Hommes de Génie.

4  Ce texte fut publié à New York, et en anglais, quatre ans plus tard: Steinitz W. : My advertisement to antisemites in Vienna ans elsewhere by «Schacherjudde» (Mercenary Jew) or An Essay on Capital, Labor and Charity.  New York,  éd.  à compte d'auteur, 1900, 1 vol. 16 p. Traduction française:  Engel N. (inédit).

5    Cf.  l'affaire Alekhine-Rubinstein.

6    Akiba Rubinstein est un des modèles qui ont servi à Vladimir Nabokov pour créer son personnage de joueur psychotique, comme il l'indique d'ailleurs par cette phrase que pronconce dans le roman la future belle-mère du héros:  «Loujine (...) c'est probablement un pseudonyme (...) il s'appelle sans doute Rubinstein ou Abramson» In: Nabokov V. : La défense Loujine, Paris, Gallimard, 1964, 1 vol. 236 p. (94).  Trad. Cannac G. et R. (cf. chap. VII).  Quant à Abramson, ce serait un maître polonais du début du XX^e siècle, sur lequel nous ne possédons aucun renseignement.

7   Nimzowitsch A. :  Cf. chap. II. Note 57

8   Les incompris sont légion parmi les joueurs d'échecs.  Citons un des plus fameux, le docteur Siegbert Tarrasch, qui écrit dans les années trente à propos de la variante qu'il a inventée pour lutter contre le gambit dame: «Pour finir je voudrais encore parler brièvement de cette défense que j'estime la meilleure (...)  L'avenir dira qui, de moi ou du monde des échecs, s'est trompé au sujet de cette défense» (in:  Tarrasch S. : Traité pratique du jeu d'échecs à l'usage des amateurs et des spécialistes.  Paris, Payot, 1966, 1 vol. 464 p. (412-413). Trad.  Jouan R.).

9   Articles publiés in Pariser Zeitung, 22 mars 1941 et 28 mars 1941.  Cf. Engel N. :  Une étude sociologique sur le jeu d'échecs:  Les échecs et le monde juif.  Strasbourg, 1978, manuscrit non publié avec une traduction inédite de ces articles en appendice.

10  Sa personnalité hors du commun a indéniablement contribué à changer le statut du jeu d'échecs dans la civilisation contemporaine; depuis le match de Reykjavik en 1972 les échecs sont devenus objet de consommation et les organisateurs peuvent désormais offrir des conditions décentes aux joueurs.

11   Pour un exposé de cette affaire par l'arbitre du tournoi, voir:  Diaconescu P. : «L'affaire Fischer», in:  Eur. Échecs, 1968, 110 (45).

12   Cf.  l'entrefilet paru dans Le Figaro, numéro du 2 novembre 1977.

13   Fischer a attaqué en justice certains de ses amis, coupables à ses yeux d'avoir divulgué ou exploité à des fins commerciales des confidences destinées à rester privées.  Ce fut le cas pour le journaliste yougoslave Diitri Bjelica en 1970-1971 et, plus récemment, pour Brad Darrach, auteur d'un ouvrage sur le match de Reykjavik.

haut de page

Le gambit des trois marins

par Lord Dunsany

    Sitting some years ago in the ancient tavern at Over, one afternoon in Spring, I was waiting, as was my custom, for something strange to happen. In this I was not always disappointed for the very curious leaded panes of that tavern, facing the sea, let a light into the low-ceilinged room so mysterious, particularly at evening, that it somehow seemed to affect the events within. Be that as it may, I have seen strange things in that tavern and heard stranger things told.

    And as I sat there three sailors entered the tavern, just back, as they said, from sea, and come with sunburned skins from a very long voyage to the South; and one of them had a board and chessmen under his arm, and they were complaining that they could find no one who knew how to play chess. This was the year that the Tournament was in England. And a little dark man at a table in a corner of the room, drinking sugar and water, asked them why they wished to play chess; and they said they would play any man for a pound. They opened their box of chessmen then, a cheap and nasty set, and the man refused to play with such uncouth pieces, and the sailors suggested that perhaps he could find better ones; and in the end he went round to his lodgings near by and brought his own, and then they sat down to play for a pound a side. It was a consultation game on the part of the sailors, they said that all three must play.

    Well, the little dark man turned out to be Stavlokratz.

    Of course he was fabulously poor, and the sovereign meant more to him than it did to the sailors, but he didn't seem keen to play, it was the sailors that insisted; he had made the badness of the sailors' chessmen an excuse for not playing at all, but the sailors had over-ruled that, and then he told them straight out who he was, and the sailors had never heard of Stavlokratz.

    Well, no more was said after that. Stavlokratz said no more, either because he did not wish to boast or because he was huffed that they did not know who he was.  And I saw no reason to enlighten the sailors about him; if he took their pound they had brought it upon themselves, and my boundless admiration for his genius made me feel that he deserved whatever might come his way. He had not asked to play, they had named the stakes, he had warned them, and gave them the first move; there was nothing unfair about Stavlokratz.

    I had never seen Stavlokratz before, but I had played over nearly every one of his games in the World Championship for the last three or four years; he was always of course the model chosen by students. Only young chess-players can appreciate my delight at seeing him play first hand.

    Well, the sailors used to lower their heads almost as low as the table and mutter together before every move, but they muttered so low that you could not hear what they planned.

    They lost three pawns almost straight off, then a knight, and shortly after a bishop; they were playing in fact the famous Three Sailors' Gambit.

    Stavlokratz was playing with the easy confidence that they say was usual with him, when suddenly at about the thirteenth move I saw him look surprised; he leaned forward and looked at the board and then at the sailors, but he learned nothing from their vacant faces; he looked back at the board again.

    He moved more deliberately after that; the sailors lost two more pawns, Stavlokratz had lost nothing as yet. He looked at me I thought almost irritably, as though something would happen that he wished I was not there to see. I believed at first that he had qualms about taking the sailors' pound, until it dawned on me that he might lose the game; I saw that possibility in his face, not on the board, for the game had become almost incomprehensible to me. I cannot describe my astonishment.  And a few moves later Stavlokratz resigned.

    The sailors showed no more elation than if they had won some game with greasy cards, playing amongst themselves.

    Stavlokratz asked them where they got their opening. "We kind of thought of it," said one. "It just come into our heads like,"  said another. He asked them questions about the ports they had touched at. He evidently thought as I did myself that they had learned their extraordinary gambit, perhaps in some old dependancy of Spain, from some young master of chess whose fame had not reached Europe. He was very eager to find out who this man could be, for neither of us imagined that those sailors had invented it, nor would anyone who had seen them. But he got no information from the sailors.

    Stavlokratz could very ill afford the loss of a pound. He offered to play them again for the same stakes. The sailors began to set up the white pieces.  Stavlokratz pointed out that it was his turn for the first move. The sailors agreed but continued to set up the white pieces and sat with the white before them waiting for him to move. It was a trivial incident, but it revealed to Stavlokratz and myself that none of these sailors was aware that white always moves first.

    Stavlokratz played them on his own opening, reasoning of course that as they had never heard of Stavlokratz they would not know of his opening; and with probably a very good hope of getting back his pound he played the fifth variation with its tricky seventh move, at least so he intended, but it turned to a variation unknown to the students of Stavlokratz.

    Throughout this game I watched the sailors closely, and I became sure, as only an attentive watcher can be, that the one on their left, Jim Bunion, did not even know the moves.

    When I had made up my mind about this I watched only the other two, Adam Bailey and Bill Sloggs, trying to make out which was the master mind; and for a long while I could not. And then I heard Adam Bailey mutter six words, the only words I heard throughout the game, of all their consultations, "No, him with the horse's head." And I decided that Adam Bailey did not know what a knight was, though of course he might have been explaining things to Bill Sloggs, but it did not sound like that; so that left Bill Sloggs. I watched Bill Sloggs after that with a certain wonder; he was no more intellectual than the others to look at, though rather more forceful perhaps.  Poor old Stavlokratz was beaten again.

    Well, in the end I paid for Stavlokratz, and tried to get a game with Bill Sloggs alone, but this he would not agree to, it must be all three or none: And then I went back with Stavlokratz to his lodgings. He very kindly gave me a game: Of course it did not last long but I am prouder of having been beaten by Stavlokratz than of any game that I have ever won.  And then we talked for an hour about the sailors, and neither of us could make head or tail of them.  I told him what I had noticed about Jim Bunion and Adam Bailey, and he agreed with me that Bill Sloggs was the man, though as to how he had come by that gambit or that variation of Stavlokratz's own opening he had no theory.

    I had the sailors' address which was that tavern as much as anywhere, and they were to be there all evening. As evening drew in I went back to the tavern, and found there still the three sailors. And I offered Bill Sloggs two pounds for a game with him alone and he refused, but in the end he played me for a drink. And then I found that he had not heard of the "en passant" rule, and believed that the fact of checking the king prevented him from castling, and did not know that a player can have two or more queens on the board at the same time if he queens his pawns, or that a pawn could ever become a knight; and he made as many of the stock mistakes as he had time for in a short game, which I won.  I thought that I should have got at the secret then, but his mates who had sat scowling all the while in the corner came up and interfered. It was a breach of their compact apparently for one to play by himself, at any rate they seemed angry. So I left the tavern then and came back again next day, and the next day and the day after, and often saw the sailors, but none were in a communicative mood. I had got Stavlokratz to keep away, and they could get no one to play chess with at a pound a side, and I would not play with them unless they told me the secret.

    And then one evening I found Jim Bunion drunk, yet not so drunk as he wished, for the two pounds were spent; and I gave him very nearly a tumbler of whiskey, or what passed for whiskey in that tavern at Over, and he told me the secret at once. I had given the others some whiskey to keep them quiet, and later on in the evening they must have gone out, but Jim Bunion stayed with me by a little table leaning across it and talking low, right into my face, his breath smelling all the while of what passed for whiskey.

    The wind was blowing outside as it does on bad nights in November, coming up with moans from the South, towards which the tavern faced with all its leaded panes, so that none but I was able to hear his voice as Jim Bunion gave up his secret.

    They had sailed for years, he told me, with Bill Snyth; and on their last voyage home Bill Snyth had died. And he was buried at sea.  Just the other side of the line they buried him, and his pals divided his kit, and these three got his crystal that only they knew he had, which Bill got one night in Cuba. They played chess with the crystal.

    And he was going on to tell me about that night in Cuba when Bill had bought the crystal from the stranger, how some folks might think they had seen thunderstorms, but let them go and listen to that one that thundered in Cuba when Bill was buying his crystal and they'd find that they didn't know what thunder was. But then I interrupted him, unfortunately perhaps, for it broke the thread of his tale and set him rambling a while, and cursing other people and talking of other lands, China, Port Said and Spain: But I brought him back to Cuba again in the end. I asked him how they could play chess with a crystal; and he said that you looked at the board and looked at the crystal, and there was the game in the crystal the same as it was on the board, with all the odd little pieces looking just the same though smaller, horses' heads and whatnots; and as soon as the other man moved the move came out in the crystal, and then your move appeared after it, and all you had to do was to make it on the board. If you didn't make the move that you saw in the crystal things got very bad in it, everything horribly mixed and moving about rapidly, and scowling and making the same move over and over again, and the crystal getting cloudier and cloudier; it was best to take one's eyes away from it then, or one dreamt about it afterwards, and the foul little pieces came and cursed you in your sleep and moved about all night with their crooked moves.

    I thought then that, drunk though he was, he was not telling the truth, and I promised to show him to people who played chess all their lives so that he and his mates could get a pound whenever they liked, and I promised not to reveal his secret even to Stavlokratz, if only he would tell me all the truth; and this promise I have kept till long after the three sailors have lost their secret. I told him straight out that I did not believe in the crystal. Well, Jim Bunion leaned forward then, even further across the table, and swore he had seen the man from whom Bill had bought the crystal and that he was one to whom anything was possible. To begin with his hair was villainously dark, and his features were unmistakable even down there in the South, and he could play chess with his eyes shut, and even then he could beat anyone in Cuba. But there was more than this, there was the bargain he made with Bill that told one who he was. He sold that crystal for Bill Snyth's soul.

    Jim Bunion leaning over the table with his breath in my face nodded his head several times and was silent.

    I began to question him then. Did they play chess as far away as Cuba? He said they all did. Was it conceivable that any man would make such a bargain as Snyth made? Wasn't the trick well known? Wasn't it in hundreds of books? And if he couldn't read books mustn't he have heard from sailors that it is the Devil's commonest dodge to get souls from silly people?

    Jim Bunion had leant back in his own chair quietly smiling at my questions but when I mentioned silly people he leaned forward again, and thrust his face close to mine and asked me several times if I called Bill Snyth silly. It seemed that these three sailors thought a great deal of Bill Snyth and it made Jim Bunion angry to hear anything said against him. I hastened to say that the bargain seemed silly though not of course the man who made it; for the sailor was almost threatening, and no wonder for the whiskey in that dim tavern would madden a nun.

    When I said that the bargain seemed silly he smiled again, and then he thundered his fist down on the table and said that no one had ever yet got the best of Bill Snyth and that  was the worst bargain for himself that the Devil ever made, and that from all he had read or heard of the Devil he had never been so badly  before as the night when he met Bill Snyth at the inn in the thunderstorm in Cuba, for Bill Snyth already had the damndest soul at sea; Bill was a good fellow, but his soul was damned right enough, so he got the crystal for nothing.

    Yes, he was there and saw it all himself, Bill Snyth in the Spanish inn and the candles flaring, and the Devil walking in and out of the rain, and then the bargain between those two old hands, and the Devil going out into the lightning, and the thunderstorm raging on, and Bill Snyth sitting chuckling to himself between the bursts of the thunder.

    But I had more questions to ask and interrupted this reminiscence. Why did they all three always play together? And a look of something like fear came over Jim Bunion's face; and at first he would not speak.  And then he said to me that it was like this; they had not paid for that crystal, but got it as their share of Bill Snyth's kit.  If they had paid for it or given something in exchange to Bill Snyth that would have been all right, but they couldn't do that now because Bill was dead, and they were not sure if the old bargain might not hold good.  And Hell must be a large and lonely place, and to go there alone must be bad, and so the three agreed that they would all stick together, and use the crystal all three or not at all, unless one died, and then the two would use it and the one that was gone would wait for them.  And the last of the three to go would take the crystal with him, or maybe the crystal would bring him. They didn't think, they said, they were the kind of men for Heaven, and he hoped they knew their place better than that, but they didn't fancy the notion of Hell alone, if Hell it had to be. It was all right for Bill Snyth, he was afraid of nothing.  He had known perhaps five men that were not afraid of death, but Bill Snyth was not afraid of Hell.   He died with a smile on his face like a child in its sleep; it was drink killed poor Bill Snyth.

    This was why I had beaten Bill Sloggs; Sloggs had the crystal on him while we played, but would not use it; these sailors seemed to fear loneliness as some people fear being hurt; he was the only one of the three who could play chess at all, he had learnt it in order to be able to answer questions and keep up their pretence, but he had learnt it badly, as I found. I never saw the crystal, they never showed it to anyone; but Jim Bunion told me that night that it was about the size that the thick end of a hen's egg would be if it were round. And then he fell asleep.

    There were many more questions that I would have asked him but I could not wake him up. I even pulled the table away so that he fell to the floor, but he slept on, and all the tavern was dark but for one candle burning; and it was then that I noticed for the first time that the other two sailors had gone, no one remained at all but Jim Bunion and I and the sinister barman of that curious inn, and he too was asleep.

    When I saw that it was impossible to wake the sailor I went out into the night.  Next day Jim Bunion would talk of it no more; and when I went back to Stavlokratz I found him already putting on paper his theory about the sailors, which became accepted by chess-players, that one of them had been taught their curious gambit and that the other two between them had learnt all the defensive openings as well as general play. Though who taught them no one could say, in spite of enquiries made afterwards all along the Southern Pacific.

    I never learnt any more details from any of the three sailors, they were always too drunk to speak or else not drunk enough to be communicative. I seem just to have taken Jim Bunion at the flood. But I kept my promise, it was I that introduced them to the Tournament, and a pretty mess they made of established reputations. And so they kept on for months, never losing a game and always playing for their pound a side. I used to follow them wherever they went merely to watch their play. They were more marvellous than Stavlokratz even in his youth.

    But then they took to liberties such as giving their queen when playing first-class players. And in the end one day when all three were drunk they played the best player in England with only a row of pawns. They won the game all right. But the ball broke to pieces. I never smelt such a stench in all my life.

    The three sailors took it stoically enough, they signed on to different ships and went back again to the sea, and the world of chess lost sight, for ever I trust, of the most remarkable players it ever knew, who would have altogether spoiled the game.

haut de page

Un joueur du XIX^e siècle

 Le chevalier de Barneville

par Bernard Lucas

    1840, au cercle des échecs 1, rue Menars Paris. Labourdonnais, champion du monde depuis qu'il a battu Mac Donnel en 1835 à Londres, interroge le chevalier de Barneville, membre assidu, en présence de Saint Amand, le général Guingret et Devink:

    -Parlons un peu de l'histoire ancienne, mon cher chevalier; comment jouiez-vous avec Philidor ?

    -Il me donnait cavalier et le pion.  J'aurais donc donné, moi, le pion et 2 traits à Philidor ?

    -Sans doute. Et quelle partie faisiez-vous avec Jean-Jacques Rousseau ?

    -Je lui donnais la tour.

    -Il était donc bien faible.

    -Mais en revanche, dit le chevalier, il avait un amour propre colossal, et le plus affreux caractère de joueur d'échecs qui ait existé. Comme il avait la manière de se croire grand mathématicien et de faire de la musique avec des chiffres, il voulait appliquer les calculs algébriques à l'échiquier. Nous plaisantions fort là dessus et alors il brouillait les pièces du jeu avec une certaine rage peu philosophique, et on ne le voyait plus au café pendant quinze jours.

     -Et vous, monsieur de Barneville, ne faisiez-vous jamais d'aussi longues absences ?

    -Oh je m'en serait gardé ! J'avais déjà, quoique jeune, mon système; j'avais trouvé un plaisir et je voulais en faire l'habitude de ma vie, bien persuadé qu'une habitude invariable est un remède qui éloigne la mort.  Et 89 ne vous a pas dérangé de votre habitude ?

    -89 ! J'ai laissé passer 89 comme une année ordinaire. Le 14 juillet à midi moins le quart, je remontais sur le quai des Célestins avec des hommes qui allaient prendre la bastille, moi je me rendais au café de la Régence pour faire ma partie avec M. Louvet de Couvray.  Une autre fois, je me trouvais compromis dans une charge de dragons de M. de Lambesc, ce qui ne m'a pas empêché de jouer sept parties de midi à cinq heures, chez Corraza.

     -Et en 93, vous avez donné relâche sur l'échiquier ?

    -En 93, je jouais régulièrement aux échecs au café de la Terrasse des Feuillants, et presque tous les jours, j'avais pour galerie M. de Robespierre, M. Danton, M. Barrière qui venaient assister à mes "échecs au Tyran" avant de se rendre à la convention.  J'ai même fait quelques parties avec M. de Robespierre qui jouait fort mal. 

    -Alors, vous n'avez jamais émigrer ?

    -Émigrer ! J'aurais fait une sottise énorme ! Quel jacobin aurait songer à dénoncer au comité de salut un noble qui jouait cinq heures par jour aux échecs ? Je n'ai même pas changer de nom et perdu mon titre. M. de Robespierre m'appelait chevalier, comme si nous n'eussions vécu avant le 4 août. Une seule fois, j'ai quitté la partie un instant; il y avait force majeure ! On tirait des coups de canon sur la place du carrousel. M. Duperray, qui avait été secrétaire de Mirabeau, jouait avec moi: Il se leva et me pria d'attendre quelques minutes.  C'était un homme fort curieux de choses du dehors. Il rentra bientôt et me dit: "On se bat entre Suisses et Marseillais, cela ne nous regarde point". Et nous continuames, je lui gagnais trois tasses de café. 

    -Et que faisiez-vous le 9 Thermidor ?

    -Je jouais chez Corraza avec un officier de Dragons. 

    -Ainsi, demanda Labourdonnais, vous avez laissé passer la révolution sans la voir ?

    -Je n'ai pas eu le temps de la voir. Le matin, j'avais ma toilette à faire, à midi, j'avais mes échecs, je rentrais à six heures chez moi, je lisais Lolli degli Scacchi, un auteur très fort ! J'étudiais des gambits, je méditais les combinaisons Calabrese. Tout cela prend beaucoup de temps. Un jour on m'apprit que nous avions un empereur, c'était en 1804 ou 5; je donnais un échecs au Roi à un capitaine de Berchiny. Un empereur ! Pas possible ! s'écria le hussard, et il fut échecs et mat sur le coup.

     Que penser de cet article de Méry, co fondateur avec Labourdonnais du Palamède ? Son exactitude est garantie par les témoins cités. Quel âge avait le Chevalier ? Il commença au café Procope en 1768. Un autre article de Méry le montre jouant à midi avec M. de Jouy, M. de la Cretelle et M. Jay; mais il est décédé au plus tard en 1840 juste avant Labourdonnais qui répondait à M. Sasias qui l'attendait midi ayant sonné: "Il doit être mort".

    -Impossible; il a oublié de se réveiller. Sasias avait raison. Il devait avoir près de 90 ans. (Son état civil avait brûlé) M. de Louvet de Couvret est l'auteur de: "Les amours du chevalier de Faublas" en 1787 qui décrit l'ambiance du café de la Régence sur deux pages.  Jean-Jacques Rousseau jouait mal, avait déposé à l'académie des sciences un projet de notation musicale chiffrée, son orgueil démesuré est connu.  Robespierre restera plus connu  dans l'histoire pour le génocide vendéens qu'aux échecs. Les parties de café étaient rapides (7 parties en 5 heures) avec enjeu (tasse de café).  La tasse de café étant relativement chère dans les cafés, l'enjeu n'est pas négligeable.

 haut de page

La vengeance de Thompson

par Ron Canter

    Once Thompson had decided to fight back against a malign fate instead of just enduring its vindictive attacks, his personality became progressively more aggressive. Sometimes the results were positive, and sometimes negative, but never dull.  However, on one occasion it was not fate that dealt him a blow, but an individual - namely Jumbo Pratt, the chess club joker, and when Thompson retaliated the results were spectacular.

    Jumbo worked in the local garden centre and had arranged discounts for his fellow club members, many of whom were keen gardeners. Thompson wasn't particularly enthusiastic about gardening, but every now and again his wife would nag him into improving their small plot. Having been persuaded by Mrs. Thompson to brighten up the garden, Thompson arranged with Jumbo to visit the garden centre to select various plants at a discount. This provided Jumbo with the opportunity to perpetrate one of his most ingenious practical jokes.

    Jumbo was a bit like members of the Magic Circle - his methods were closely guarded secrets, and I have been sworn to silence about the details of the jape he played on Thompson. I can say only that it involved, amongst other things, a parsnip, ice cubes, a piece of string and an old flower pot, and resulted in extreme embarrassment for Thompson while purchasing his plants.

    It was only a few days after Thompson's humiliation at the garden centre that Jumbo turned up at the chess club supporting himself on a crutch. He was a keen rugby player and during a ruck had sustained a torn ligament which would take several weeks to heal. Naturally he did not let this unfortunate accident prevent him from making his normal weekly visits to the chess club, in spite of the banter that he received about falling off the chess board, etc, etc, and Thompson saw an opportunity for revenge. He noted that Jumbo's crutch was of the type which screwed together, and in readiness for the next meeting of the chess club made a visit to the local toy shop.

    At the following week's club meeting Thompson was seen fiddling with Jumbo's crutch which he had laid beside him while he played. Engrossed in his game, Jumbo failed to notice this, and when Flipper Powell was about to draw attention to Thompson's nefarious activities he was quickly "shushed" by those of us who sensed another eventful evening's entertainment.

    We were not disappointed. Jumbo won his game in fine style and was therefore not in the customary state of alertness which was necessary to guard against reprisals from those who had been subjected to his multifarious pranks.  He therefore suspected nothing when Thompson was unusually assiduous in helping him up and on to his crutch.  Shortly afterwards he literally came down to earth with a bump.

    Thompson had skilfully manoeuvred Jumbo so that his first movement towards the door was a swing forward, with his crutch taking his considerable weight. This resulted in a bright flash of light and a tremendous crack. Taken by surprise, Jumbo lurched forward and tripped over a chair which, I suspect had been strategically placed by Thompson, although he denied this. The crutch shot out to the side, demolishing a game being played by two innocent and unsuspecting club members, and Jumbo crashed spectacularly to the floor, scattering several boards, players and tables around the room. The resulting commotion attracted the janitor of the building, and it took some considerable time and diplomacy to prevent him from carrying out his threat of a complete ban on the chess club and its members.

    By now Thompson had disappeared, which was just as well in view of Jumbo's awesome rage, but on the way home I bumped into him and he explained how he had extracted his revenge. In contrast to Jumbo's elaborate deception, Thompson's only equipment had been a large quantity of those caps which are used in children's pistols to simulate gunshots, inserted into the separate sections of the crutch before carefully screwing them together again.

    There was an extra-large turnout at the club the following week, as word had got around about how Thompson had revenged himself and more fireworks were expected. Both protagonists duly turned up, but Banger Haswell, who was now club chairman, had anticipated hostilities and arranged for them to be kept apart. With great tact he talked to each of them separately, pointing out that they had both succeeded in outwitting the other and could therefore regard themselves as even.  Jumbo ruefully admitted that he now knew how it felt to be on the receiving end of a practical joke and was prepared to call it quits; he then suggested they made up with a game of chess, which Thompson readily agreed to.

    The following game then took place with great courtesy but with just a hint of "needle".

    Thompson drew White and on impulse, remembering his success with the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit while in a state of concussion (although he insisted he could not recollect the games or the analysis), courageously decided to try it again and opened with pawn to queen four.  Jumbo, replying with pawn to queen four in expectation of a Queen's Gambit, was surprised by pawn to king four. Of course he remembered the occasion when Thompson had twice demolished Bill Grimshaw with the BDG, but he took up the challenge with pawn takes pawn. After knight to queen bishop three Jumbo decided to try something different and played pawn to king four.  At this point Thompson's scanty knowledge of the BDG was exhausted so he just developed with bishop to king three.

    Jumbo, seeing the possibility of hanging on to his gambit pawn, played pawn takes pawn and Thompson had to reply bishop takes pawn.  Jumbo's knight to queen bishop three was met by bishop to knight five and the pin was immediately relieved with bishop to queen two.  Scornfully ignoring the «en prise» black pawn, Thompson made another developing move with king's knight to king two.

    By now the whole club was watching the game with great interest and someone was heard to enquire whether Thompson had met with one of his accidents and was again concussed. The discussion which ensued had to be brought to a halt by the chairman in fairness to the players, and the game continued as Jumbo went for further exchanges with knight takes bishop. Thompson played queen takes knight, then Jumbo nudged at the bishop with pawn to queen's bishop three and Thompson, again ignoring black's king pawn, retreated with bishop to bishop four.

    Jumbo now seized the opportunity to consolidate his extra pawn with pawn to king's bishop four, disregarding Thompson's great lead in development, now furthered with castles queenside. At this point Jumbo thought for some time before deciding to deflect Thompson's queen from taking the queen rook pawn if black castled queenside, and played the extremely injudicious move pawn to bishop four. This resulted in white's queen moving to a much better square - queen to queen five - and incidentally threatening mate. Undeterred, and still bent on his faulty plan, Jumbo played queen to knight four check and, rejecting the interposing of his rook, Thompson moved king to knight one.

    When Jumbo castled queenside Thompson thought at first that black was over his difficulties and had consolidated his extra pawn. He decided that drastic action was necessary and therefore did what perhaps only Thompson could have done - he, as he told me afterwards (although I find it hard to believe), entered a state of voluntary concussion by some obscure mental process known only to himself. Apparently he had experimented with this form of self-induction after his success against Bill Grimshaw, although the results were known only to Thompson and his much afflicted wife who apparently had to bring him back to consciousness on several occasions, by methods known only to herself.

    The spectators noticed that Thompson had become glassy-eyed, and began to murmur amongst themselves. There was some debate about whether he should be roused, but nobody was brave enough to do this and Banger ruled that it would be too dangerous - both for Thompson and whoever was courageous enough to disturb him. Fortunately Thompson returned to what for him was normality within a short time, his self-induced concussion having produced inspiration.  He proceeded to surprise everybody, and not least Jumbo, with a brilliant move which forced mate. Strangely enough, it was a move already seen in one of his games against Bill Grimshaw, although the position was not the same. The reader may care to examine Thompson's second game against Grimmers see Thompson's Gambit.

    White's move, played with an emphasis reminiscent of Banger's style, was bishop to rook six!! Jumbo, seeing that he had no option, played pawn takes bishop, Thompson immediately checked with queen to rook eight, and Jumbo again could only play king to bishop two. The obvious queen takes rooks pawn check followed, and Jumbo, seeing that he was doomed, went for the shortest finish with king to bishop one. Thompson triumphantly moved his knight to queen five, and after bishop to queen three, checkmated with knight to knight six.

    Jumbo congratulated his opponent with good grace and the two erstwhile enemies shook hands. Afterwards I asked Thompson what would have happened if he had not come out of his self-induced state of concussion. "Oh, it would have been all right" he said cheerfully, "Eileen would have known what to do". Rather than get into an involved discussion I refrained from pointing out that Eileen had not been present, and left it at that.

    It was another week before we were informed, after research by openings expert Specs, that the opening variation was the Lemberger Countergambit. Jumbo was quite pleased to learn that he had played an opening with such an impressive name. After Thompson's memorable displays of the BDG that opening was frequently played at the club, and whenever anyone unleashed the thematic sacrifice with bishop to queen's rook six it was identified as Thompson's Concussion Theme.

    And that must be the end of the Thompson chronicles - his departure left a huge gap which could never be filled, and all of the colourful episodes which enlivened our chess club have now been recounted. We will always remember the unique character who gave us so much entertainment, and who knows?  Some day he may return. 

White "Thompson"  vs  Black "Jumbo"          

Les échecs et les vertus

par KLAUS BOLDING

    Le but de cette intervention est d'essayer de faire des précisions sur le jeu d'échecs en tant que sport et en tant que pratique. La notion de vertu semble peut-être étrange, mais elle n'a pas à l'origine la connotation morale qu'elle possède aujourd'hui. Le mot vient du grecque arèté, qui désigne une certaine excellence. C'est ainsi que Homère parle de l'arèté des jambes d'un coureur par exemple. L'arèté des jambes est alors la force et la vitesse. La notion désigne d'abord l'excellence physique, mais c'est une question importante de savoir, s'il existe une certaine excellence de l'esprit et si les échecs sont une forme d'excellence de l'esprit.

    D'abord:  Est-ce que les échecs sont un sport ?

    On ne connaît pas bien l'origine du sport, mais on en connaît plus sur les jeux olympiques. On compte ces jeux à partir de 776 avant J.C., où la seule épreuve était celle du stade, c'est à dire une course à pied d'environ 192 mètres. C'est d'ailleurs une erreur de parler des jeux olympiques et penser aux sports, tant les épreuves étaient comprises dans une fête religieuse, où il y avait des concours musicaux également.  Après cette unique course à pied allait s'ajouter dans les concours suivants, la course du double stade, une course appelée course lente qui bientôt disparaissait du programme, et le pentathlon qui comprenait cinq disciplines: La course à pied, le lancer du disque, le lancer du javelot, le saut en longueur et la lutte.  Le programme des jeux de 520 avant J.C. (un programme qui allait se répéter) comprenait en outre la course avec armes, le pugilat, la course de char, le combat de pancrace et la course de chevaux.

    À quoi correspondent ces disciplines ? Elles ont toutes quelque chose à voir avec le guerrier, le bon combattant.  Si les jeux olympiques étaient une fête religieuse, ils étaient aussi une trêve des combats éventuels et pendant une période, la course avec armes, bouclier, lance, casque était la dernière discipline afin de signifier la fin de la trêve.

    Le pugilat était en outre une sorte de simulation de combat, dans le sens où la main gauche servait à riposter, la main droite pour frapper des coups, tandis que dans le vrai combat la main gauche portait le bouclier et la main droite le glaive.  Le pancrace était un autre sport de combat plus violent et parfois meurtrier.

    Les disciplines ont un autre sens. La course à pied, le saut et le lancer de javelot sont des gestes assez simples. C'est à la notion de geste qu'on peut revenir pour demander la valeur du jeu d'échecs. Le geste est un mouvement simple et naturel, naturel dans le sens où le saut en arrière, la course à pied à reculons etc. n'ont jamais été des disciplines olympiques.  La natation et le bowling, une activité très vieille implique également le geste.

    D'autres sports utilisent des objets. Le vélo et le sport automobile ont le même but que la course à pied et un coureur automobile dirait que l'auto est comme le prolongement du corps. Le tir n'a certes pas le même but que le javelot, mais le pistolet est aussi comme le prolongement du corps, dans ce qu'on vise avec les yeux et on s'imagine atteindre le but.

    La gymnastique implique en partie des mouvements qu'on pourrait dire naturels, bien que les contorsions qu'on trouve dans la gymnastique moderne sont un beau développement de ce qu'on peut arriver à faire avec le corps et quelques disciplines de la gymnastique à outils montrent une autre signification du sport:  Celle de surmonter des obstacles, de les utiliser pour exprimer le corps.

    Il existe également des sports de balle et les sports de la nature, comme la voile ou l'alpinisme où il s'agit de vaincre des obstacles de la nature.  Qu'on parle de l'athlétisme, sport de combat ou sport de la nature la signification est soit d'arriver aux limites du corps, de vaincre l'ennemi ou de vaincre la nature.

    Peut-on alors imaginer les échecs comme un sport ? On ne trouve guère de définitions de sport qui ne place pas le corps au centre.  M. Bouet le dit ainsi: "Le sport implique précisément avant tout une activité corporelle manifeste extérieurement déployée, où l'accent est précisément mis sur les pouvoirs, la vitalité, l'efficacité du corps humain".

    Il y a bien sûr dans chaque sport une activité de l'esprit, parfois elle est même déterminante pour le résultat. On fait de la psychologie sportive, on demande au sportif de se concentrer et de se montrer ferme et volontaire, d'avoir l'esprit de détermination etc.  Néanmoins, on peu très bien imaginer l'existence d'un haltérophile sourd-muet, d'un coureur de vélo simplement bête et d'un nageur sans idée. Dans les faits les disciplines du sport des handicapés existent aussi.

    Pourtant, que peut-être un exercice naturel de l'esprit, un geste de l'esprit ? Et comment en faire une sorte de compétition et mesurer l'excellence ?  Si on fait une classification des activités de l'esprit on en trouve une multitude: La pensée, l'imagination, le traitement des choses perçues, la mémoire, la compréhension, etc.  Il y a en outre une partie dont on est conscient, une autre non. Une partie peut influencer avec la volonté, une autre non.

    Un geste de l'esprit pourrait être la mémoire.  On peut en effet argumenter pour la mise en place d'une discipline sportive qui aurait la mémoire au centre. Se rappeler ou se mémoriser quelque chose est assez naturel comme activité de l'esprit et les manières de l'évaluer existent. Et pourtant cette discipline n'existe pas et on hésiterait à appeler une telle activité un sport.

   Mais pourquoi ? Dans le sport automobile, l'activité physique semble assez réduite: Le coureur tourne le volant et pousse des pédales.  On demande bien aux coureurs d'être en bonne forme physique, mais c'est aussi parce qu'il fait chaud dans les machines. L'effort fourni est en outre en grande partie psychique:  Il fait être concentré et savoir réagir vite.  Dans le tir au pistolet l'effort est encore moindre. Il est peut-être moins que l'effort physique du joueur d'échecs.

    On peut alors se demander:  Pourquoi le tir au pistolet est-il devenu un sport et pourquoi pas l'imaginaire sport de la mémoire ? Le tireur de pistolet doit être en bonne forme physique, mais comme on le sait, c'est aussi le cas du joueur d'échecs de haut niveau.

    Il y a donc d'autres critères pour déterminer ce que c'est le sport, si de tels critères existent. Il ne faut probablement pas chercher le critère dans l'activité elle-même, sans tenir compte des idéaux sur le bon citoyen, le bon guerrier, sur la formation de l'adulte complet, sur l'hygiène du corps et de l'esprit. Le tir en est un bon exemple:  Il faut savoir chasser et rester calme. On peut d'ailleurs remarquer qu'il a une tendance contemporaine à vouloir faire accepter n'importe quel sport comme discipline olympique et de faire valoir n'importe quelle activité comme sport.

    Lorsque Coubertin faisait renaître les jeux olympiques, il avait des idéaux de l'antique, qu'on trouve aujourd'hui, mais qui ne gouverne plus l'idée olympique. Les idées du bon sportif et de l'utilité du sport changent tout le temps et on pourrait imaginer, par exemple, le tir perdre son statut de sport dans d'autres sociétés plus pacifiques. Les idées du bon entraînement, du beau corps, de l'éducation physique changent aussi. Il existe une variété des activités qui se situent entre le sport et l'éducation physique, et la ligne de démarcation n'est plus claire. Les gymnastiques des masses qu'on trouve au Japon et en Chine ont certes un caractère spirituel, mais il suffit de peu pour en faire des vrais sports. Il suffit probablement que les adeptes le veuillent, et fassent des institutions et des compétitions.  Le yoga et le Tai Chi pourraient devenir des sports.  Parfois il y a des activités de combat très violentes qui voient le jour et on ne les appelle pas des sports uniquement à cause de la violence marquée.  Mais ce refus ne se réfère pas à l'activité, mais est guidé par d'autres considérations.

    Bref, pour considérer une activité comme un sport, il suffit probablement qu'elle soit un peu physique, que les compétitions existent, que les adeptes fassent pression pour la faire accepter comme sport et qu'elles ne soient pas complètement en faux contre les idéaux de la culture.

    Les raisons pour lesquelles les échecs viennent d'être considérés comme sport, par le ministre en France, tiennent dans ces aspects.  Si on demande aux professeurs d'écoles ce qu'ils pensent du jeu, ils disent que les échecs ont une valeur pédagogique.  Les échecs apportent tout simplement quelque chose aux écoliers. C'est curieux, car cela signifie aussi que les échecs ne portent plus l'image des vieux jouant dans les cafés, comme ils jouent à d'autres jeux de hasard. Dire que le jeu d'échecs a une valeur dans le développement du jeune n'est pas encore le considérer comme sport, mais le ministre a sauté le pas, sous la pression de la FFE et en voyant l'organisation du jeu.

    Mais quelle est la valeur pédagogique et intrinsèque du jeu d'échecs ? De Groot a mis en avant plusieurs aspects de la pensée échiquéenne:

1. Le jeu d'échecs est sans mots, la pensée est visuelle.

2. Le joueur pratique la méthode des tentatives répétées pour trouver le bon coup. Pour trouver le coup à jouer il faut faire des essais infructueux.

3. L'information disponible pour le joueur est incomplète.  Il y a des situations de mat et de gain technique, mais le choix à prendre s'effectue sur la base d'un calcul qui n'est pas complet, les possibilités étant infinies.

    Les deuxièmes caractéristiques sont valables pour les formes de problèmes qui ont été valorisées à l'école depuis les années 70, je crois. Il y a en fait une mise en avant du problème, qui n'est pas comme le problème mathématique où il suffit de calculer, mais des problèmes où on demande à l'enfant de trouver la bonne méthode pour résoudre le problème et s'il trouve la solution aussi, tant mieux. L'enfant doit donc procéder par des essais, par des manières différentes d'aborder le problème afin de les tester ensuite.  C'est cet aspect du jeu d'échecs qui a fait changer la réputation du jeu d'échecs à l'école et qui probablement a contribué à faire considérer le jeu d'échecs comme élément bénéfique dans le développement de l'enfant et ensuite comme sport possible, tant le sport et l'éducation restent entremêlés.

    Si l'on ne regarde que les trois aspects, on pense, dans le milieu sportif, plutôt au coureur d'orientation qui doit trouver des postes placés dans la forêt. Il doit visualiser la course et procéder par des essais également, en utilisant des informations trouvées sur le terrain.

    À quels idéaux pourrait correspondre le jeu d'échecs dans la vie réelle ? Certainement pas au guerrier. Peut-être le statut de sport donné aux échecs signifie-t-il un changement radical de l'idée du citoyen, de l'homme complet ou peut-être signifie-t-il que tout peut désormais devenir sport.

    Il ne semble pas que le bon joueur d'échecs correspond à une figure mythique ou héroïque. Le sportif, lui, correspond au moins à une figure héroïque, par les efforts de se surpasser, et dans la mesure où il prend des risques et doit affronter des forces adverses.

 In Gambit Revue, n° 3-4, 1989 

  haut de page