CHESS RESULTS, 1901 - 1920
Author: Gino Di Felice
McFarland & Company, Inc. (2006)
www.mcfarlandpub.com
336 pages
$35.00

Reviewed by John Donaldson

Gino Di Felice has taken on a very great and ambitious project. CHESS RESULTS, 1901-1920, is the second of at least four books chronicling tournament and match results covering 1747-1935. Judging from the length of the first two volumes, the combined effort will be over 1200 pages. Both the author and McFarland are to be commended for this undertaking which aims to go beyond the efforts of P. Feenstra Kuiper and Jeremy Gaige, whose books have long been out of print.
 
How successful has Mr. Di Felice been? The publisher's blurb states:

"This comprehensive chronological reference lists the results of men's chess competitions all over the world. From the famous to the lesser known, both individual and team matches from 1901 through 1920 are remembered here. Entries record location and, when available, the group that sponsored the event. Both first and last names of players are included whenever possible and are standardized for easy reference. Compiled from contemporary sources such as newspapers, periodicals, tournament records and match books, this work contains 860 tournament crosstables and 375 match scores. It is indexed by events and players."

What this blurb doesn't explain and what I pointed out in my review of CHESS RESULTS, 1747-1900, is that unlike Gaige's books, Di Felice doesn't give sources for the match or tournament next to the crosstable or result. This book, like all McFarland works, has an extensive bibliography, but there is no way to know what the primary source was for a respective event. The author pays homage to the pioneering publications of P. Feenstra Kuiper and Jeremy Gaige, but curiously doesn't acknowledge any of the tremendous work done in the past four decades by Gaige and others. It makes make me wonder not to see any mention of Gaige, Edward Winter, the late Ken Whyld, the John G. White Collection of the Cleveland Public Library, The Royal Dutch Library at the Hague, etc. in a list of acknowledgments.

Why is it important to list the source by each match or tournament? Let's take a look. I would expect anyone to get the major events from 1901-1920 right. These events were well covered in the chess press and often had tournament books devoted to them. Lesser events are a better measuring stick and I will use Akiva Rubinstein due to my familiarity with his career. The list below is not exhaustive, but just things that jumped out at me as wrong or incomplete. In many cases it looks like Di Felice took Feenstra Kuiper on faith. With Gaige you could do this in confidence but not with Feenstra Kuiper who was starting from scratch.

Rubinstein played many matches in the period 1903-1920, including three with his compatriot Georg Salwe where he drew the first and won the next two. 1903 Salwe (Lodz) +5, =4, -5 / 7-7 is the accepted information. This match, which was a qualifier for the Russian Championship, was held April 6 to June 7. The drawn result allowed both players to qualify for Kiev 1903.

Di Felice gives two matches played between Rubinstein and Salwe in 1903 with no dates but scores of +5, -5, =0 and +5, -3, =2 (in Rubinstein's favor). Where did this information come from? I can't be certain but it probably isn't a coincidence that precisely this information is given on page 32 of Hundert Jahre Schach-Zweikampfe 1851-1950 by Dr. P. Feenstra Kuiper and Rubinstein's Chess Masterpieces by Kmoch. There was definitely only one match in 1903.

1904 March-April Salwe (Lodz) +4, =3, -3 / 5.5-4.5 is the accepted information though there are still a few unresolved questions as only a handful of games from the match are available. This is the result given by Di Felice as well, though including the time the match was played would have been helpful.

1907 Salwe (Lodz) +12, =8, -2  / 16-6 is often given as the score for the third and final match between these two rivals. Other scores are given but never with as few games as the +3, -1, =4 score (for R) that Di Felice gives. This result is not given in Hundert Jahre Schach-Zweikampfe 1851-1950. Where did Di Felice get this information? I fear he got confused and took the results between Rubinstein and Salwe from the triangular tournament at Lodz 1908 (given correctly on page 107) and repeated the information as a match on page 100. The score in the triangular event between the two players was +3, -1, =4.

The 7-player double round robin at Lodz 1906 is listed as being held ?-28 IX , but  the dates were August 24-September 23.

Rubinstein played two matches with Mieses in 1905 and 1909. The scores are well known: 3-0 and 6-4. Di Felice gets half of it in right. He gives 2-0 for the first match (where did he get this?) and the correct score for the second. He could have included the first was held in late October and the second May 12-27. The dates are also missing for the match with Flamberg from the 1910 match though the score is correct. Unfortunately there is no record that a match was played between Rubinstein and Rotlewi in 1909 with a score of +8, -5, =3. We do know that Rotlewi and Salwe did play a match and the author duly notes that result right above the alleged Rubinstein-Rotlewi match. What are the odds that both would end with exactly the same score after 16 games?

The Lodz (1903/4) and Warsaw (1909) handicap tournaments are missing.

Warsaw 1919 the date is given as September, it was actually September-October. The player listed as Amator (#7 in the crosstable) is actually Klecsynski (Amator was his pseudonym).

More results are known for the Stockholm 1919/1920 tournament that Rubinstein won. De Felice correctly notes Rubinstein as the winner but neglects to note it was a handicap tournament.
 
What can one say? First this is quite serious. If there are this many errors in just events involving Rubinstein, I am very leery of the book as a whole. Perhaps this is unfair but remember this is a series that will be consulted for many years, especially given McFarland reputation as a serious publisher. One hopes that in the next two volumes a list of errors and omissions from previous volumes can be included.

It's a shame because otherwise CHESS RESULTS, 1901 1920 is very nicely produced with all the high standards one has come to expect from McFarland. As a last suggestion it would have helped if this book had been peer reviewed prior to publication. If Edward Winter, Tony Gillam, Richard Forster, Toni Preziuso, Vlastimil Fiala, Tomasz Lissowski and Tadeusz Wolsza -- to mention but a few suggestions -- had read CHESS RESULTS, 1901 - 1920 prior to publication it would have been a much better book.

Click to buy (or get more information about) CHESS RESULTS 1901 - 1920

Click to buy (or get more information about) CHESS RESULTS 1747 - 1900