Talk:Samuel Reshevsky

To do you can help!
We need the right story viz. the US-USSR Radio Matches of 1945 and 1946. Also there apparently were follow-up matches in 1954 and 1955, when in the latter Reshevsky famously beat Botvinnik? Does anyone have a copy of the Reshevsky games collection which I presume includes these games and a more thorough bio? There are also one or two printed encyclopedias of chess that might be helpful.

There are problems related to dating the U.S. Championships since the tournaments often took place over the Christmas/New Year holiday. The USCF doesn't have a list online and I'm reluctantly depending on the Wikipedia article as my sole source.

Maybe add: * La Mecca - Chess Encyclopedia

Per the above, also add info on parents in court and Julius Rosenwald. If we can get a second (or primary) source.

The German Wikipedia article quotes Smyslov on Reshevsky in Time Magazine November 2, 1953 (translated): "A tough small man with brilliant ideas". Find the article for the English version.

Maybe another game score or two. Maybe a diagram with a "brilliant" move and analysis.

Get a photo of the man!

Reshevsky was a sensation as a child prodigy; should we expand this part of the article?

--Wfaxon 23:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a fair amount of POV in the section on Reshevsky as match player-while his results were excellent, one comes away from reading the narrative with the thought that he should never have lost a game, much less a match! The links to Roger Paige seem to be dead, and as time permits I'll replace them. Hushpuckena (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * He has more hair and it is darker in the 1968 picture than in the 1964 picture where he is nearly bald and grey. The dates are probably wrong :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.1.150 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverts of statement that Wilhelm Steinitz was Jewish
In the interest of resolving this on the discussion page, rather than join others such as Ioannes Pragensis in their endless series of reverts on this and other pages over the past two day, I move this discussion for the moment to this talk page.

Pragensis has suggested that zionism and judaism are the same thing. In the article on Wilhelm Steinitz, Pragensis based his revert of the fact that Steinitz was Jewish as "second-hand zionist ideology."

When I pointed out in discusson on the history page that he was confusing two separate issues, he again RVd while taking the position that the citations were "dubious." His characterization was not supported by anything other than his POV.

After Pragensis had already engaged in 3 reverts, EliminatorJR (upon solicitation from Pragensis) RVd the page, despite my request that edit warring and reverts be ceased, and that discussion be had instead on the talk page.

I might point out that this series of reverts by Pragensis parallel those that he has made over the past two days in a number of other articles. Pragensis has now for example also asserted in the Mikhail Botvinnik article that Jews should not be reflected as such if they are Soviet or Communists. Similar problems have been caused by RVs these past two days in the articles on Reuben Fine, Samuel Reshevsky, Wilhelm Steinitz, and Aron Nimzowitsch.

Since this is part of a series of similar instances, relating to other Jewish chess players, I suggest that discussion be had on the talk page of Reuben Fine, where I have initiated discussion with a more fullsome analysis of the arguments presented.

This is a problem, I would submit, that goes beyond this article. It continues, as Pragensis continues to strip these mentions out of Wiki bios, despite discussion and multiple citations (his answer to the citations is to delete them).

2. I would suggest that the RVs that I have pointed out by others are bereft of basis or citations.

Therefore, I would ask that they undo their RVs of the sourced material while this discussion takes place on this page.

Furthermore, for the above reasons, I believe that the original language should remain permanently.

3. I would be grateful for suggestions as to both how to fix this issue on this page, and in general.

Thanks.--Epeefleche 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have slightly reverted the religion reference in the opening paragraph. Reshevsky's family was of the Jewish faith, no doubt, and as seen later in the article, as an adult Reshevsky continued to embrace his family's religion.  But to call him a "Jewish child" seems odd.  Would it be proper to call a four-year old raised in a family of committed Communists, "a Communist child"?  Or by staunch Republicans, a "Republican child"?  And many undergo a "crisis of faith" in their teens or twenties, which would also require reference.  In my opinion, mentioning the family's religion is proper, as it is well-known that people almost always follow the religion of their parents.  If a subject's religion is otherwise an issue it would need more expanded treatment anyway and the placement of that material would depend on the structure of the article.--Wfaxon 07:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that it would cause little pause if one were to see a reference to a Russian child.

The same should hold for a Jewish child.

And, as with Judaism, an adult can change his affiliation.

But it would be a lesser bio that mentioned only that a child's parents were Russian (or Jewish), or relegated that reference to a minor position in the bio relative th the religion of the parents.

The focus of the bio is properly the subject of the bio. Not that person's parents.

You point out that most people are the religion of their parents. Fine. That is not a reason not to go with the shorter, more direct reference to the subject's religion. If anyone wishes to extrapolate to the parents, they can then do so. If the parents' religion is otherwise, it would perhaps as you suggest (in reverse) need more expanded treatment anyway (assuming a perfect worlf, admittedly, which is not our world) and the placement of that material would depend on the structure of the article.

In short, the subject of the article is the person whom we care about. Well written bios, where the same is true of both the parents and the subject of the article, mention that the subject was, for example, Russian and Jewish and born in Moscow. They don't skip those mentions, mention as much about the parents, and assume that the same will be understood to be the case as to the subject of the article if no further mention is made.

Isaac Asimov, in the article about him that Wiki holds out as a bio ecample, is referred to as Jewish. Not as a child of Jewish parents.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Epeefleche 15:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you really mean this Wikipedia? In the article Isaac Asimov we have "Asimov was born (...) to Anna Rachel Berman Asimov and Judah Asimov, a Jewish family of millers." and nothing about Isaac hmself being Jewish. It is the way how these things are usually described in biographies, because you see then easily that he inherited his nationality/religion from his parents and is not a "convert".--Ioannes Pragensis 19:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See Manual of Style (biographies), which in giving an example of a model, acceptable bio, states the fact that Isaac Asimov was "a Russian-born American Jewish author and biochemist."


 * Peter or IP -- would one of you wish to revise the bio (fine w/me if it is not in the first sentence) to reflect that he was Jewish? Or shall I do it?  Let's do this properly if we can, without revert wars.--Epeefleche 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't you bother reading the Asimov article before editing its lead sentence? Peter Ballard 04:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Didn't you bother." Do people speak to you in that manner? Really, if they do you should speak to their parents.

On more substantive points--better yet, I read what Asimov himself wrote about the subject in letters from the '50s through the '80s. And what his brother Stanley wrote about it after Isaac's death, in 1995, in "Yours, Isaac Asimov," Chapter 49 -- Being Jewish."

I gather you have not.

When I regain access to a computer, rather than the bberry upon which I am pecking presently, I'll be more than pleased to further improve Isaac's bio by reflecting those statements.

Epeefleche 07:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You said would one of you wish to revise the bio (fine w/me if it is not in the first sentence) to reflect that he was Jewish?. That statement was incorrect. Asimov's article already perfectly adequately discussed both his heritage and his beliefs. Therefore I assumed you hadn't read the article. Peter Ballard 07:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter. BTW, are you related to the Philadlphia Ballards?

I've read your comment twice, and either it is too late for me to focus on this or the first sentence does not rlate to the rest of your comment.

In any event, I'll focus here on the Asimov issue.

You write that the Asimov article "perfectly adequately discussed ... his heritage." I'm not sure I see it that way. As I indicated, Asimov in his writings, and his brother writing of Asimov even after his death, indicate that Asimov was Jewish. The article failed to do so. I don't reallt see that as a perfectly adequate discussion of his heritage. The opposite, actually. I pointed you to one source. But, since the IA article specifically appears to suffer when I touch it from my bberry--for some reason (size?), and my computer is on strike, I'll have to wait until I get to a PC before I more properly document this point in the article, sourced and all.

Make sense?Epeefleche 07:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Section 1, Isaac Asimov, says he was from a Jewish family. Section 2, Isaac Asimov, says he was Jewish by ancestry and humanist/atheist by belief. I don't think anything else needs to be added. Peter Ballard 07:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, given your lack of reaction, you are not connected to the Philadelphia Ballards?

As to whetherthe bio could benefit from revisions/additions, I may have a different view. But I will sit down with a PC when I can, and some of Asimov's writings, and figure that out then. I think that there may well be material that is more relevant than "his father did x in a synagogue."

Also, I will revert the lead to mirror the precise language in MS:BIO. it happens to be in accord with my analysis on this page. But given that MS:BIO actually sets out specific language for IA's lead, I a I assume that ism fully confident that such a change is appropriate in his bio. We can agree to disagree as to the general rule, and the importance of its exception and the fact that the Jewish people are a nation, but it is beyond cavil that our guideline precisely supports the RV that I contemplate. Epeefleche 07:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

this Wikipedia.

And I assume that all of my other comments are clear, in the absence of any questions about them.--Epeefleche 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The manual of style is contradicts itself then, because it says at the start, "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." I assert that Asimov's ethnicity was not relevant to his notability so it shouldn't be in the opening. I also assert that the same is true for Reshevsky, and indeed every other world class chess player. Peter Ballard 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a whole 'nother subject. Will start a new one below to address, so as not to confust it with this one.

--Epeefleche 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)==Location of mention in bio that x is a Jew==

Following up on the above discussion with Peter and IP, the manual only contradicts itself if one fails to explore the difference between Judaism and other religions and ethnicities in terms of the people being a nation -- or not. And if one ignores the fact that the rule has an exception. Sensitivity to those result in WP bio being internally consistent.

But, I recognize, people do not always like the MOS, and will cite it when it supports them and call it wrong where it does not.

I feel no need to make it a cause celebre here. My goal here is simply to have the bio properly reflect that the subject of the bio was a Jew. Simple.

As far as analysis of the broader issue goes, first we have the entry that I pointed you to, in which as a model Wiki has indicated that it is permissible in the lead sentence to indicate that x is a Jews (as distinct from Peter's view that it should appear somewhere beyond the first sentence).

It is I would suggest the fact that people fail to follow this approach that leads others to complain that mention that x is a Jew pops up at times in a location in the bio that does not feel right. The reason it does not is that encycopedias and the like do tend to make that mention in the same sentence in which they mention nationality.

Furthermore, there is the issue of Heritage. Naming conventions (categories) Categorization of people (3.3 Heritage), says: Heritage ... People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....  The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors). ... Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors ...." Here Wiki clearly follows the format of others.  But, in a bio, if one follows Peter's narrow interpretation, while the category would be "Jewish American," Peter would feel compelled to reflect American in the first sentence of the bio, but Jewish only in a later sentence.

Nationality. Also, as an additional point, the Jews are a nation, and not solely a religion.

The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)." The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders, it is not appropriate to delete. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens.

Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. --Epeefleche 02:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ...And they are also an ethnicity, which is not supported in WP leads. Look please at the Isaac Asimov article again, it is stable already for a long time and does not contain this "Jewish" reference in the lead. Of course, when somebody is really a citizen of the State Israel, then we should remark it in the lead of the WP article. Otherwise not, unless it is directly related to the person's notability. The guidelines are clear.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. 1) Here, I am for the moment just addressing it as permissible.  The model IA bio is clear.  Permissible does not mean required.  I edited IA a long time ago, and did not notice that this was changed from the Wiki model -- it is too time-consuming to follow every article.  Still, the Wiki model is clear, and there for all to see, with regard to IA.  I will RV the article to have it follow the clear expression of what that lead sentence says in the Wiki model.

2) Your last comment is innaposite. Whether  a person is an Israeli is separate from whether they are Jewish.  Indeed, huge swaths of the population are Muslim and Christian.


 * The IA bio is not more important that the guidelines. But even in the IA bio there is no mention about IA being "Jew" - it says it about his family. (Or - more exactly - they revert your tries to add it there very quickly.)
 * Please sign your comments and keep the indentation through the whole message unchanged.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

NY Times references
An early NY Times reference: RZESCHEWSKI IN FORM.; Boy Chess Wonder Scores 18 Victories Out of 20 Matches. NY Times, February 28, 1922. Quale 16:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bronstein's "secret notes"
This edit makes some very strong statements (presenting allegations of collusion as fact). It should probably (a) be toned down, and (b) mainly moved to World Chess Championship 1954. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life Section?
Was he married? Single? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Re American Championship and Reuben Fine
In this article on Reshevsky it is stated that Reuben Fine never won the American championship but in Reuben Fine it says "Fine won the U.S. Open Chess Championship all seven times he entered (1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1939, 1940, 1941)". SO I assume there is a difference between the American Championship and the U.S. Open Championship. Shouldn't this be explained in one or both articles? RMcGuigan (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it should. The US Championship is different from the US Open.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a hint that the US Ch and US Open are different within the Reuben Fine article itself. Section 1.2 is "U.S. Open champion" and section 1.5 is "Narrow misses at the U.S. Championship".  This is actually stated directly in section 1.5 of the Fine article: "Although Fine was active and very successful in U.S. open tournaments, he was never able win the U.S. Championship".  Naturally U.S. Chess Championship and U.S. Open Chess Championship take you to different pages.  Quale (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

removed sentence
I removed the new, unreferenced sentence "Reshevsky's match win over Fischer was debated extensively in the federation's magazine." It is a bit vague and POV. Chess Life reported on the match in the August 1961 issue. The October issue had several letters to the editor about the match (I think all of the letters that month were about the match, about 3 pages.) Then in the November issue the editor said that there would be nothing more about the debate. Is that an "extensive debate"? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Notable chess games
These need to link to the individual games at ChessGames.com or have more information about them. It lists a 1961 draw with Fischer - they had several draws in 1961. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a general link to "chessgames.com" is inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

birthname
Shouldn't the bithname field of the info box list "Szmul Rzeszewski"? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Samuel Reshevsky versus the World.JPG to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Samuel Reshevsky versus the World.JPG will be appearing as picture of the day on November 26, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 00:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Photo: Chess Masters?
Not sure how it could known that the young Reshevsky was playing chess masters in the photo.--Jrm2007 (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the photo caption. I am not sure any 8-year-old was able to beat several masters simultaneously and I think it unlikely that is what was happening. Unless this can be substantiated, I think the change should stand.--Jrm2007 (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Peak rating
I assume that "peak rating" is intended to be the highest Elo rating achieved by a player during their career. The 1972 rating of 2565 given as a "peak rating" for Reshevsky is clearly far from his highest rating; it seems to be rather his FIDE rating in 1972 which was towards the end of his active international career when he was far past his peak. According to http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp, Reshevsky's peak performances occurred in the years 1952-1954. Elo ratings didn't exist then, but Reshevsky's peak 3-year average performance is estimated at 2776 by running rating algorithms on historical data. GKSmyth (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Samuel Reshevsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060414132700/http://www.chessmetrics.com/ to http://www.chessmetrics.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about the Fischer game at the 1967 Sousse Interzonal
In the section 'Rivalry with Bobby Fischer' is the statement: "In the 1967 Sousse Interzonal, Fischer turned up 53 minutes late (only seven minutes short of an automatic time forfeiture) for his game with Reshevsky,"

The starting time control in grandmaster tournaments at that time was normally 40 moves in two and a half hours, so a forfeiture would occur only if a player turned up two and a half hours late. It's possible that there was also some special rule that a player had to be present at the board within an hour. Maybe someone can clarify this? Sayitclearly (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's up to the tournament organizers to set the "default time" after which a player is automatically forfeited. Usually it's one hour, but sometimes it's zero. 125.236.164.133 (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)