Chess Historiography

[Paul Cooksey]

I wondered previously in one of Mark's playful threads whether Winter had written anything on chess historiography. I am still interested in his or other historians views.

I can't claim a higher historical qualification than an A level, and that barely. But, to my understanding, most of the work I see is archival rather than analytical. So I'm interested if better informed people see it differently,

[MJMcCready]

Well history has a history itself and you would need to learn how the movements emerged which shaped it. The model of history you think of it has been an approach adopted by many 'so called' chess historians. But history in contemporary terms is analytical since discourse and narrative are it's dominant features, academic history that is. Sadly chess history is far too preoccupied with results and achievements and not much else. The model of history is usually not something trained historians would produce. Plus it's the case that amatuer chess history stopped being published a long time ago, however, such content can be found on blogs online now. Sadly,you won't learn a great deal about history if you relied about chess history to inform you. Most of it is not well written as most of it it produced by titled chess players. We do of course have some academics who write about chess history, it might be better to start with them unless you prefer more popular less critical stuff.

[Paul Cooksey]

Which academics have written about chess history?

[John Clarke]

Which academics have written about chess history?

Richard Eales, for one: https://www.amazon.com/Chess-History-Ga ... 4871871266

[Christopher Kreuzer]

There is a review of Richard Geoffrey Eales's 1985 book here (along with a photo):

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/commun ... -of-a-game

Dr. Richard Geoffrey Eales, a Fide master and a historian (he taught and headed the history dept. at the University of Kent), was able to achieve a delicate balance between academic preciseness and general readability.

The first two chapters of this 240 page book give the requisite background of pre-chess, proto-chess and old chess (medieval). I felt that the book's strength could be felt in the intermediate chapters (3-5) on the emerging "new" chess and it's development into the tournament age - and its transformation from a social game for the elite into an intellectual game for the masses.

There is more (including a chapter list). It is not an uncritical review either (lots has been written about The Turk and automata since).

There is indeed a need for an updated history, adding (more on) the story of computer chess. But it does sound like it is more academic than I had been aware (I confess I have not read it yet).

I really should have known Eales's background, as I was a student at the same university and department, albeit in the 2020s, so long, long after Eales's time. I might see if any of the Emeritus Professors remember him!

(Does anyone know what years Eales was at Kent?)

Also, does anyone know if the Richard Eales in the photograph here is the same one?

https://blogs.canterbury.ac.uk/kenthist ... o-castles/

I think it must be, based on this:

https://blogs.canterbury.ac.uk/kenthist ... -fordwich/

As a former lecturer at the University of Kent and now lecturing part-time at Canterbury Christ Church University, Richard Eales was well known to many of his audience that included past and present members of both universities, as well as people from Canterbury and the surrounding area. Although someone whose knowledge transcends time and space – he has studied and lectured on medieval topics as diverse as the Ottonian Empire to the Wars of the Roses, and from English castles to the crusader castles of the Middle East – he is an acknowledged expert on Norman England (and chess).

Though that is from 2015.

More generally, I believe there is a book on Soviet Chess. But none are strictly speaking the densely footnoted academic monographs that you get from academic publishing presses. Some of the biographical works and other tomes from McFarland would qualify (and the various doctoral theses as well - the works by Dr Tim Harding have been mentioned in previous threads and should be mentioned here as well).

[Paul Cooksey]

Thanks. I haven't read the Eales book. I'll get a copy.

Are all the important works in English?

[Angus French]

Is it worth mentioning that Richard Eales is married to Ray Keene's sister, Jackie?

[MJMcCready]

Thanks. I haven't read the Eales book. I'll get a copy.

Are all the important works in English?

It's very well written but Edward WInter's criticism of is the most accurate and gives the most accurate account of his approach.

[MJMcCready]

There is a review of Richard Geoffrey Eales's 1985 book here (along with a photo):

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/commun ... -of-a-game

Dr. Richard Geoffrey Eales, a Fide master and a historian (he taught and headed the history dept. at the University of Kent), was able to achieve a delicate balance between academic preciseness and general readability.

The first two chapters of this 240 page book give the requisite background of pre-chess, proto-chess and old chess (medieval). I felt that the book's strength could be felt in the intermediate chapters (3-5) on the emerging "new" chess and it's development into the tournament age - and its transformation from a social game for the elite into an intellectual game for the masses.

There is more (including a chapter list). It is not an uncritical review either (lots has been written about The Turk and automata since).

There is indeed a need for an updated history, adding (more on) the story of computer chess. But it does sound like it is more academic than I had been aware (I confess I have not read it yet).

I really should have known Eales's background, as I was a student at the same university and department, albeit in the 2020s, so long, long after Eales's time. I might see if any of the Emeritus Professors remember him!

(Does anyone know what years Eales was at Kent?)

Also, does anyone know if the Richard Eales in the photograph here is the same one?

https://blogs.canterbury.ac.uk/kenthist ... o-castles/

I think it must be, based on this:

https://blogs.canterbury.ac.uk/kenthist ... -fordwich/

As a former lecturer at the University of Kent and now lecturing part-time at Canterbury Christ Church University, Richard Eales was well known to many of his audience that included past and present members of both universities, as well as people from Canterbury and the surrounding area. Although someone whose knowledge transcends time and space – he has studied and lectured on medieval topics as diverse as the Ottonian Empire to the Wars of the Roses, and from English castles to the crusader castles of the Middle East – he is an acknowledged expert on Norman England (and chess).

Though that is from 2015.

More generally, I believe there is a book on Soviet Chess. But none are strictly speaking the densely footnoted academic monographs that you get from academic publishing presses. Some of the biographical works and other tomes from McFarland would qualify (and the various doctoral theses as well - the works by Dr Tim Harding have been mentioned in previous threads and should be mentioned here as well).

The only publication that is respected as a creidble academic account of Soviet Chess is D.J.Richards book. More recently Andrew Soltis also attempted something similar but I strongly suggest you don't invest any money in that publication, it bear all the hallmarks of how chess players go wrong when they write about history. It is presented as an academic text but that it is not at all. Academics don't usually write introductions about their subject which is full of insults some of which were deeply ignorant and insulting. THe narrative goes awry too and soon becomes all about the games he likes rather than those he claimed were significant. I had to stop reading it about half way through as it was so far from being charaterised by discourse and the narrative often become attempts to show off examples of desriptive writing. So I gave up reading it, I didn't like it that he was trying to present himself as an academic when he didn't even know the history he was writing was uncritical mostly. It seemed dishonest to me. The account Eales provides at the end of his book on Soviet chess is a classic example of how that subject should be appoached. He does present himself as very knoweldgable too, which Soltis did not. What is considered to be the most important work on Soviet chess has not yet been translated into English

[Paul Cooksey]

Thanks. I note we have discussed Soviet chess before: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=5724

[Paul Cooksey]

In passing, I'm reasonably well read on Soviet era chess. I'm not sure if I am taking issue with Mark but I'm sure most academics would be interested in source material even if the writing does not have the rigour of their own. Sosonko, for example.

Expanding on why I am thinking about chess historiography. I know someone with an interest in the First World War. He has spent several holidays searching for primary sources, often in the paper archives of Belgian local governments. But he prefers to describe himself as an archivist not a historian, admittedly in part because it leads to friendlier relations with academics.

It seems to me that chess historians are mostly motivated by the desire to have a complete and correct record. But I think most academic historians would say their job is not just to establish facts, but to establish which facts are important. I'm interested if there has been any discussion of that by chess historians

[MJMcCready]

In passing, I'm reasonably well read on Soviet era chess. I'm not sure if I am taking issue with Mark but I'm sure most academics would be interested in source material even if the writing does not have the rigour of their own. Sosonko, for example.

Expanding on why I am thinking about chess historiography. I know someone with an interest in the First World War. He has spent several holidays searching for primary sources, often in the paper archives of Belgian local governments. But he prefers to describe himself as an archivist not a historian, admittedly in part because it leads to friendlier relations with academics.

It seems to me that chess historians are mostly motivated by the desire to have a complete and correct record. But I think most academic historians would say their job is not just to establish facts, but to establish which facts are important. I'm interested if there has been any discussion of that by chess historians

All academics are interested in source material and their categorization but I think it's inadvisable to mention Sosonko when referring to them. His English is very poor indeed and its widely believed his publications are ghost written since they are prosiac, and exemplify a level of English that's a complete contrast to his, if you've ever heard him speak. His books, although they may be interesting to read are exceptionally poor examples of history. His description of memories as being a money box makes it clear that profit was his motive for writing and not critical history. Given that it is entirely uncritical and contains no discourse, all that you get is his account of what he remembers which is sometimes erroneous and never coroborated.

Regarding discussion of facts and which ones are important, there are many examples of this spread across Winter's chess notes. Eales's book on chess history frequently draws into question the significance of facts as much of his narratives focuses more on trends and movements which places much greater importance on than facts, which tell you far less and are comaratively less significant. His ability to that is unrivelled in my opinion.

[Paul Cooksey]

I understand some of the criticism of Sosonko. But I'd still argue his writing more useful to a historian than that of, say, Kholmov.

Can you point me to the relevant parts in chess notes?

[MJMcCready]

I understand some of the criticism of Sosonko. But I'd still argue his writing more useful to a historian than that of, say, Kholmov.

Can you point me to the relevant parts in chess notes?

I don't usually pay attention to the posts I read of his so can't recall where I last saw them but since accuracy is questioned so often by him, it won't be difficult to find examples of them.

Regarding Sosonko, you need to define what you mean but useful and bear in mind that historians, assuming they are academic are unlikely to view his publications as history or if they do then uncritical history which academics tend to be disdainful towards