How reliable are the ‘Di Felice Chess Results’ books?

Historical knowledge and information regarding our great game.
Post Reply
Colin Patterson
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:27 am

How reliable are the ‘Di Felice Chess Results’ books?

Post by Colin Patterson » Tue Feb 16, 2016 2:20 pm

I have always found these books a very useful historical reference. The other day however, my confidence in them was slightly shaken, when I spotted a number of quite sloppy errors and omissions in the 1964-1967 volume. I had only been browsing for an hour or two, so I began wondering if others had also found reliability issues; indeed, whether my stumbling on a few inaccuracies was simply a case of bad luck, or just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe I had unrealistic expectations of such a monumental effort in the first place.

The preface explains that the author has worked extensively with contemporary sources and has had access to the Koninklijk Bibliotheek in The Hague, which of course carries a fantastic selection of chess records. With some careful cross-checking, I had imagined this would give consistently high levels of accuracy.

Here are some of the things I noticed:

On page 147 – The Eastbourne International Open of 1965 had some strange entries for players’ forenames that didn’t ring true to me. It transpired that some were plain wrong, and it also appeared that two players bearing the same surname had been reversed in the standings, so the one mentioned was the wrong one. The results were sourced to a Dutch publication and I wondered why the author hadn’t used the relevant CHESS magazine report (about 9 pages long and with the players’ full names repeated over and over in round by round summaries), Surely that would be a better, more obvious source for an English tournament.

On page 202, Di Felice gives only the first 4 finishers at Whitby. For a 46 player event, that seems like an inadequate summary and once again, a Dutch publication has been used. To add further insult, Peter Charles Griffiths has been recorded only as ‘Griffiths’. Again, the relevant issue of CHESS or BCM would have been far more enlightening.

Page 177-178 gives a tournament held at Sabadkan YUG. The exact same tournament is duplicated on page 190, where it is credited as Subotica YUG along with other details of its memorial status. Worryingly, the first entry is simply sourced as ‘Internet’, so probably the author should have been wary of possible conflicts.

On page 196, the USSR’s Burevestnik Ch. has no location given. Yet from a simple Google search, I quickly established it was held in Sukhumi, thanks to an entry in one of Sosonko’s books (and he being a competitor at the event).

If these were just run-of-the-mill typographical errors, I could understand that a work of this size would contain a few. But some of these issues struck me as avoidable and a little sloppy. Does anyone else have a comment, or any experience in using or reviewing these books?

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: How reliable are the ‘Di Felice Chess Results’ books?

Post by JustinHorton » Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:06 pm

I reviewed a couple of them for Kingpin but I can't offhand remember exactly what I said!
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Tim Harding
Posts: 2318
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: How reliable are the ‘Di Felice Chess Results’ books?

Post by Tim Harding » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:23 pm

Sorry for belated input; I just noticed this thread.

The first volume of Di Felice's "Chess Results" (up to 1900) is totally unsourced and full of all kinds of mistakes.

Tony Gillam in issue 1 and I (in issue 2) of the new Caissa magazine have pretty thoroughly critiqued it so far as British events are concerned and Tony identified some generic issues with the book. It is of some use as an initial guide to the major tournaments and matches of the 19th century but cannot really be trusted and a new edition is needed which would state for each event listed what sources were employed.

Perhaps the volumes on 20th century events are better but...
A Dutch chess historian who frequents the Royal Dutch Library described to me how he observed Di Felice's method of doing research with a lackey, and he was seriously underwhelmed.
The methodology of Di Felice's "Chess Periodicals" book was also flawed, as I discuss in my Caissa article.
Tim Harding
Historian and FIDE Arbiter

Author of 'Steinitz in London,' British Chess Literature to 1914', 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography', and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

Colin Patterson
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:27 am

Re: How reliable are the ‘Di Felice Chess Results’ books?

Post by Colin Patterson » Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:59 pm

Thanks for that Tim.

No, sadly the 20th Century volumes do not appear to be any better. I wasn't even checking for errors, yet several jumped out at me. Goodness knows how many there are if you go looking for them.

A shame that I now feel slightly robbed by the author. The books aren't exactly cheap, so I have given up on the idea of collecting the entire set. Thankfully, we do at least have Rod Edwards' wonderful edochess.ca website to provide more astute guidance on tournaments prior to 1921.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: How reliable are the ‘Di Felice Chess Results’ books?

Post by JustinHorton » Mon Feb 06, 2017 1:43 pm

One thing I do remember saying is that I felt they would be a lot more user-friendly online than in print form. I'm not usually one for preferring electronic over print, but this is an exception, and you can add to my reasons for thinking so that it is a lot easier to correct errors that way.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Post Reply