Narrow Subject, Wider Appeal Taylor Kingston Jewish Chess Masters on Stamps, by Felix Berkovich, 2000 McFarland & Company, Jefferson, North Carolina, USA, hardbound, 168 pp., $40.00. As a long-time reader of chess literature I am used to seeing highly specialized works, usually titles like Trends in the Reverse Englund Gambit Declined or Emil Diemer: der Zorn Gottes, but this title prompted a double-take. My first thought was something like, "What next? Hindu Hockey Star Trading Cards, or Driving Licenses of the Great Welsh Poets?". However, as I was to learn, both chess and Jewish culture are important themes in stamp-collecting (philately), each having its own magazine (Chesstamp Review and Judaica Philatelic Journal). The book is entitled to be approached with respect, and given that there are many more stamp-collectors than chess players, it has potentially a bigger readership than the average chess book. While this reviewer, an Anglo- Irish Protestant who has not collected stamps since childhood, is not ideally qualified to discuss all these subjects, he will put aside his initial frivolous thoughts and do his best, though with an unavoidable (and he hopes understandable) emphasis on the book's chess-related features. Since, of its 136 pages of text, at least 100 deal primarily with chess and chess players, this is not inappropriate. Author Felix Berkovich, a mechanical engineer from Massachusetts, U.S.A., is a frequent writer on philatelic topics, and a collector of chess- and Judaica-related stamps. He assumes the reader is familiar with philatelic terms such as "cacheted cover" and "selvage", and to a similar extent with chess, though some elementary instruction in chess notation is provided, apparently for non-playing philatelists. Berkovich here has several aims: (a) to commemorate Jewish chess masters who perished in the Holocaust; (b) to survey the history of Judaica chess philately; (c) to list every philatelic item ever issued that pertains to a Jewish chess master (over 200 to date), and to depict as many as possible (106 are reproduced); (d) to give brief biographies and career highlights of the chess masters; (e) to give every game by a Jewish chess master which has had its score, or a position from it, depicted on a cover or stamp; (f) to discuss Judaic philately and the history of chess in Israel; (g) to discuss "the Jewish chess phenomenon," i.e. the high percentage of Jews among great chess players. He produces a work which, though not without flaws, is on the whole scholarly and well-written. It should appeal to readers with an interest in any of its three subject areas. As with most McFarland & Co. productions, it is well-bound and well-printed, also colorful and visually attractive. Twenty players are discussed over 57 pages, beginning with world champions Steinitz, Lasker, Botvinnik, Tal and Kasparov, then proceeding chronologically with non-champion masters from Johann L”wenthal (1810-1876) to Judit Polgar (born 1976). Many great names one would expect are there: Janowsky, Rubinstein, Nimzovich, Reshevsky, Bronstein, et al, as well as two that are perhaps surprising, WGMs Alla Kushnir and Irina Levitina. Other Jewish greats one might expect to see, e.g. Winawer, Tarrasch, Spielmann, Fine, Tartakower et al, are absent not from lack of merit but simply because they are on no stamps. Berkovich excludes players of one-parent Jewish ancestry who never practiced or converted from Judaism, such as Fischer, Korchnoi, and Zukertort. One stamp with such a player, Spassky, is included, but only because it mistakenly has a position from a Steinitz game. Each player entry begins with his name, life dates, and years as world champion if appropriate. This is followed by a list of his philatelic items; for example that of Steinitz begins: 1. S/S of Benin, 1999, portrait and name. 2. Stamp of Cambodia, 1994, portrait and name. 3. Stamp of Central Africa, 1983, portrait and name, but (erroneously) a diagram of a Spassky-Smyslov game. And so on through 23 items. Kasparov, with 41, has the most items, followed by Emanuel Lasker with 31, and Mikhail Tal with 24. L”wenthal, Janowsky, Nimzovich, Flohr, Sofia Polgar and Judit Polgar have the fewest, one each. In some cases the attribution is tenuous; for example Efim Geller's three items do not show his name or portrait, rather they commemorate tournaments he happened to win, and would have been issued anyway had he not. It was surprising to me that many of the stamps come from lands with very little chess fame or Jewish population. Seemingly unlikely countries in Africa (Mali, Chad, Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Madagascar, the Comoro Islands), Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, Mongolia), and Latin America (Surinam) are about as well or better represented than European countries with major chess traditions such as Hungary, Poland, or Germany. Sadly under- represented is the United States, which has never issued a chess-related stamp, but did bring out one cover, around 1861 during the Civil War, a caricature depicting General Winfield Scott playing against Confederate President Jefferson Davis. That cover (according to Berkovich the first chess-related philatelic item ever issued) is probably the most comic of the 106 items depicted. I would not call any of them beautiful, though some are quite handsome, such as the cover "Les Grands Maitres des Echecs" from the Islamic Republic of the Comoros (see inset). The most dramatic portrait is on a 1995 Yugoslavian issue (see inset), showing Tal with head cocked, bald forehead glistening, hair flaring out to the sides, cigarette jutting from his mouth, his eyes shooting a look that could derail a train. The ugly prize goes to two Central African stamps, one of which has Botvinnik looking like he lost his dentures, and the other has Spassky resembling the "Dick Tracy" comics character Pruneface. All the items, whether handsome or not, are nicely reproduced in full color on glossy black paper. Berkovich does not discuss the monetary value of the stamps; collectors seeking price information will have to look elsewhere. With each philatelic list is a biography. These are similar to chess encyclopedia articles, though usually longer: even lesser figures such as Levitina get at least a full page, while Lasker and Botvinnik each get four and Kasparov six. They are for the most part thoughtful and well- researched (the bibliography lists about 80 titles). Well-read chess history buffs will not find much new here, but Berkovich does mention some details not commonly seen in such essays, such as the sweet story of Richard R‚ti at age 36 falling in love with a 17-year-old Moscow girl in 1925, and soon marrying her. He avoids some of the more common mistakes, for example he does not call the 1909 Lasker-Janowsky 10- game set a world title match, noting correctly that only their 1910 match was. However, despite the careful research there are some bothersome errors and questionable assertions. For example: On page 28 Bogoljubov is described as "not [a] leading contender" for the world title at the time he played Alekhine. True for their 1934 match, but for their first match (1929) Bogoljubov's qualifications, in terms of tournament record, were excellent. Page 42: "[In 1995] Kasparov again defended his title [against] Viswanathan Anand, who had become a challenger by winning candidates' matches against Timman and Karpov." Granted, the FIDE- PCA situation at that time was a bit confusing, but this is a clear error. In the 1994-95 PCA candidates matches Anand played neither Timman nor Karpov, but rather Romanishin, Adams, and Kamsky. Berkovich may be confusing Anand with Kasparov's previous challenger Nigel Short, who defeated Karpov and Timman in FIDE matches 1992-93. Page 17 states "Steinitz was proclaimed a world champion in 1866 after winning a match against Anderssen". This seems misleading semantically. The consensus of historians is that the press and public did not rush to ratify Steinitz as the world's best at that time, one reason being the memory of Morphy was still strong. If any "proclaiming" happened in 1866 it would be more accurate to say "Steinitz proclaimed himself world champion." Even the very pro-Steinitz biographer Kurt Landsberger (one of Berkovich's sources) says "Despite his victory over Anderssen, Steinitz was still not regarded as his equal." Page 46: "Grandmaster Reuben Fine wrote about Rubinstein: 'Better chess cannot be played by mortal man.'" Again subtly misleading, if I surmise correctly the source involved. It would be more accurate to give the quote in full context. In The World's Great Chess Games (Dover, 1976), page 80, Fine wrote: "More important, in so many of his games we are carried away by their classic perfection and feel impelled to say: Better chess cannot be played by mortal man. And yet first prizes, later even third and fourth prizes, escaped him all too often. The tragedy of Rubinstein arose because he played too much beautiful chess and too little winning chess." Fine's actual statement has a rather different sense than Berkovich's. Page 60: "Only recently, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, did Bronstein finally admit that before the twenty-third game [of his 1951 match with Botvinnik] the Soviet authorities told him that the world chess champion is a political figure, and that he ... was not fit for that very important position ... As a result, Bronstein had to lose the 23rd game and draw the 24th." When, pray tell, did Bronstein say this? In his book The Sorcerer's Apprentice (Cadogan, 1995) Bronstein made some vague statements that might conceivably have such a meaning behind them, but he said no such thing outright. Has Berkovich garbled Bronstein's words? If not, it behooved him to give the source for this high-impact testimony, which would settle a decades-long controversy. For an expert opinion, I consulted Bernard Cafferty, former editor of the British Chess Magazine. Cafferty, an authority on Soviet chess history, has spoken with Bronstein as recently as 1995, but knows of no such explicit statement by him at any time. As with Fine, Berkovich appears to be misquoting or misinterpreting here. Page 53: "Living in Russia, [the Czech master Salo] Flohr had to give up his ambition to become a world champion because the Soviets already had their own contender for the title, young Communist Mikhail Botvinnik, and all Soviet chess players had to help him, not compete with him." While Botvinnik certainly had a privileged position, it is absurd to say that no one was allowed to compete with him. The idea that Flohr was forcibly subordinated is perhaps plausible and would explain, say, the drawishness of his later style, his failure to beat Botvinnik after 1933, and his becoming Botvinnik's second. However to my knowledge no historian supports it, while many (including again Mr. Cafferty) endorse other, less sinister explanations. While not rejecting the idea out of hand, I think it again behooves Berkovich to present supporting evidence. So in terms of chess history, the book has much that is good but also some notable weak spots. The philatelic work seems very erudite but I can't judge authoritatively. I recall Immanuel Velikovsky, who tried to explain some Bible stories (e.g. Joshua's commanding the sun to stand still) by outlandish astrophysical hypotheses. His arguments impressed both astronomers and historians, but usually only historians accepted the astrophysics, and only astronomers found the history credible. One hopes this is not a case where philatelists accept the chess history while only chess historians are impressed by the philately. Berkovich's over-arching theme is the greatness of the Jewish contribution to chess. If there is any trend to the errors cited above, it is to exaggerate that greatness (with Steinitz and Rubinstein) or the obstacles to it (with Bronstein and Flohr). This is quite unnecessary. The factual record so clearly shows both the significance of Jews in chess, and the hardships many faced, that throwing in dubious arguments is at best superfluous, at worst counterproductive. After the biographies are 32 pages of color plates depicting the stamps and other items. This is followed by a six-page chapter on chess philately in Israel, then 44 pages on Jewish masters' games which have been depicted in whole or part on philatelic items. Full scores of 17 games are given, with light annotations by Canadian writer and FM Nathan Divinsky. These are for the most part very well-known, classic games, such as Steinitz-Bardeleben, Hastings 1895 (Steinitz's most famous combination, that his opponent walked away from rather than play out); Lasker-Bauer, Amsterdam 1889 (the famous double-bishop sac); Pillsbury-Lasker, St. Petersburg 1895-6 (Lasker's great brilliancy which Pillsbury avenged years later at Cambridge Springs); Rotlewi- Rubinstein, Lodz 1907; Botvinnik-Capablanca, AVRO 1938; and Glucksberg-Najdorf, Warsaw 1935 (the "Polish Immortal", the only game with its full score on a cover). However there is at least one relatively unknown game, Stolberg-Botvinnik, Moscow 1940, with a nice combinative finish (See Diagram): White: Kh1, Qc1, Ra2, Rd1, Nb2, Bd2; pawns - a5, b6, f5, g2, h3 Black: Kg8, Qb5, Rb3, Re2, Ne5, Bf8; pawns - a6, b7, d5, f6, g7 40...Rxh3+! 41 gxh3 d4!, 0-1. Though he lost this game, Stolberg, also Jewish and only 18 at that time, was a very promising chess talent. Tragically he died only two years later, a WW II casualty. Berkovich notes that chess diagrams on stamps are often in error, for example the above position was printed without the f5-pawn. Sometimes stamps are even designed by artists with no knowledge of chess, resulting in diagrams like this (See Diagram). White: Ka2, Qh4, Be4; pawns - b3, c1, c2, e3, e7 Black: Kh1,Qe6; pawns - f1, g2 This appears on two stamps honoring Kasparov, but I doubt even he could figure out how to play the position. The concluding chapter offers ample proof that, although Jews historically have comprised at most 1% of the world population, they account for about half of all great chess masters. The author cites various eminent writers' explanations for this, most of which note centuries-long Jewish literary and intellectual traditions, and the similarity between chess analysis and Talmudic study. Berkovich himself raises the possibility of a genetic explanation, though without evidence. However, for his overall theme, Berkovich has offered ample evidence. That theme, expressed eloquently in a 1907 essay by Albert Porter, is "What an honor roll is that of Jewish chess-players!". Though showing occasional historical error or exaggeration, Jewish Chess Masters on Stamps is on the whole a work of good quality, evincing both scholarship and human sensitivity. Though it deals with a subset of a subset of a subculture, its appeal is not really that narrow. It offers to non-chessplaying philatelists a window on the chess world, to non- philatelic chessplayers an appealing look at stamp-collecting, to non- Jews some understanding of Jewish culture, and to Jews an occasion for pride. And for chess-playing Jewish philatelists, it may be the Book of the Year.