Talk:Fred Reinfeld

Your missing 2 books on your list
They might be known as other names, but add the following to your list. The first book is "Chess Masters on Winning Chess", Edited and Annotated by Fred Reinfeld. Introduction by Al Horowitz, published 1974 by Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. (C) 1960 by Fred Reinfeld. "Chess Masters on Winning Chess" was originally published in a hardcover edition and is reprinted by arrangement with the Fred Reinfeld trust. The second book is "Winning Chess Openings", Preface by Al Horowitz. Copyright 1973 by Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc, (C) 1961 by Fred Reinfeld. "Winning Chess Openings" was originally published in a hardcover edition by Hanover House and is reprinted by arrangement with the Fred Reinfeld trust.24.68.50.33 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Reinfeld misspelled
I can't seem to edit the reference section? The name "Reinfeld" is spelled without the "n" in reference 10 toward the bottom.Geneven (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Immortal Games of Capablanca
I own a re-issue of this book. I grabbed the Dover Publications, Inc. version, This Dover edition, first published in 1990, is an unabridged and unaltered reproduction of the work first published by Horowitz and Harkness, New York, in 1942.24.68.50.33 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Books list
The books list should be severely trimmed. This is an encyclopedia article, not a library catalog database dump. Quale (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm all for that "Separate article" of Reinfeld's Books here. Someone can just chop it up and split it and make a new one. TaoPhoenix (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

POV
I am just rereading Tarrasch's Best Games of Chess and think it is very well written. To hazard a controversial guess, I would say that Reinfeld did more to popularize chess in the US than any American until Fischer. I find the list of his works pretty overwhelming. I would like to read a book reappraising his life and career. Remember, even one of Kasparov's books overlooked an easy mate -- haste and sometimes superficial analysis happens even to the best.Geneven (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Too much praise and too much "prolific" in the article about not-so-notorious figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.40.96.254 (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If one writes over 200 books, one is a prolific writer; that is a fact, not POV. I have taken out anything that is arguably POV or too gushy ("a very strong player"; "a true polymath"; and the description of some of his defeated opponents as "luminaries"). It seems to me that the article is now indisputably NPOV. Krakatoa (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your small changes have improved the article (almost entirely written by you originally as well). Edward Winter has taken another small swipe at Reinfeld recently, see http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5578. 165.189.101.177 (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw that, although we don't know whether the statements in question were written by Reinfeld or the publisher. Are you willing to remove the tag on the article now, or do you still contend that it is POV? Krakatoa (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not the original critic who tagged the article, just another random anonymous editor. I think the tag can be removed, but you might want to see if you can get a third person to agree.  Although that sort of tagging can be annoying (it seems like a criticism of your work), I think the result is that the article is better now, which is good.  And you're right, Winter didn't directly attack Reinfeld, as cover blurbs are probably usually the work of the publisher.  He implies, however, that Reinfeld was not one of the leading masters and that he was not a champion player.  I think Winter has written that sort of thing about Reinfeld before, who is clearly not one of his favorites.  24.177.121.141 (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen, I don't think Winter is particularly critical of Reinfeld. I certainly don't think Winter would lump him with Eric Schiller, Raymond Keene, or other writers of whom Winter is extremely critical. If the Reinfeld book to whose blurb Winter took exception had been written circa 1950 and had called Reinfeld "one of America's leading masters", I don't think Winter would have had a problem with that. But the cover blurb implied that as of 1958 Reinfeld was (one of the world's?) leading masters and a "champion player". Reinfeld was never one of the world's leading masters, had been retired for several years from active play in the United States (and thus wasn't really a "leading master" in the U.S., either), and although a strong player was never "champion" of anything grander than New York State. Krakatoa (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm the original critic. I just recently becan looking up various chess figures at Wikipedia and sometimes find articles (especially about current players) that are clearly written by an avid fan (like Natalia Pogonina, which I eventually NPOV-ed today) and try to mark them. The Reinfeld article only had minor issues, I think it's OK now (though as I'm not really a Wikipedian I can't know if the book list that someone mentioned is OK). I'm only not sure about the "crushing" victory, but as I said, I don't know the policies. 94.40.96.254 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I probably didn't know the word "prolific" when I was twelve years old and looking for Chess books in the library or book store, but, hell, nineteen out of every twenty Chess books that I did find were authored by Reinfeld. I got the point! WHPratt (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To state (as this article does) that Reinfeld beat GMs Reshevsky and Fine is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion-his wins against these players were achieved in the early 1930s, when neither Reshevsky nor Fine were even known in Europe. In a sense, it comes to the same sort of thing as would my stating that I have a plus score against the GM Josh Friedel; technically it's true, but he was nowhere near the player he is now when we had our two encounters. Hushpuckena (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a famous quotation about such a situation. It can be found in several forms, but one is "Zukertort was not yet Zukertort in 1872 and was no longer Zukertort in 1886." WHPratt (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)