By Fred Reinfeld

The two things that stand out about this tournament are, the high playing strength of the entry and (the two do not always go together!) the very fine quality of the chess produced. This last should be appreciated all the more, in view of the arbitrarily fast time limit, (40 moves in two hours) and the noisiness of the large audience. No American tournament, I think has ever aroused so much popular enthusiasm.

Viewed against the background of such formidable opposition, Reshevsky's victory is all the more admirable. To go through such a tournament undefeated, is in itself a sufficient indication of the high merit of Reshevsky's play. To admire his score, however, is not enough; for on this occasion his play was characterized by an artistry which produced one strategic masterpiece after another. One flaw in his play still remains: the unfortunate habit of occasionally taking anywhere from a half hour to three-quarters of an hour in coming to a decision, and as a result running into grisly time-pressure. But even this fault did not manifest itself so frequently as in earlier tournaments.

Reshevsky (left) playing Kashdan, as Reinfeld looks on thoughtfully.

One can criticize Fine's showing only to the extent of saying that it did not quite come up to Reshevsky's level—which is hardly a harsh comment! Fine played less steadily than Reshevsky, and with less zest. He won more games than Reshevsky, but lost two, whereas the latter lost none. So lack of steadiness was the deciding factor in the end.

It speaks well for Simonson's reputation that his coming third was a disappointment. I think that he was a victim of the system of having the best players play their hardest games in a bunch at the end. The imposing score built up at the beginning against weaker players makes it difficult to accept defeat with equanimity, and the physical strain of playing the most formidable opponents at the tail end of the tournament is quite considerable.

Horowitz started off poorly, but closed with a rush to finish very creditably.

Kashdan was one of the contenders up to the last week or so, but fell back badly in the last few games. He seemed to be handicapped by a certain lack of interest.

Dake clearly showed the effect of lack of practice; it is impossible to give the handicap of two years' constant play to such crack players.

Polland's failure was in a way, to be expected, as the probabilities were against him after he had done so well in three consecutive tournaments! He did not allow himself to be discouraged by a very bad start, and made a good recovery toward the end.

Kupchik also had difficulty in getting started —so much so, that he did not succeed in winning a game until the eighth round. But from

Fine in a characteristic attitude.

then on, lie played in the style of his palmy days, and won some beautiful games.

Bernstein heads the ranks of the lowly unseeded players. His style has matured since the last Championship Tournament, and if lie maintains the same rate of improvement, he will be a contender for high honors.

Treysman was the outstanding disappointment of the tourney. He is a player of immense capabilities, but his ignorance of the openings is a cruel handicap. In the intensive struggles

0 0

Post a comment