Fine - The Psychology of The Chessplayers 1966 Another PDF

The Psychology of the
Chess Player
(formerly titled: Psychoanalytic Observations
on Chess and Chess Masters)
by Reuben Fine
With a New Appendix of Two Letters by

Ernest Jones
Dover Publications, Inc.

New York
Copyright 1956 by the National Psychological
Association for Psychoanalysis, Inc.
Copyright 1967 by Reuben Fine.
All rights reserved under Pan American and In
tcrnational Copyright Conventions.
Published in Canada by General Publishing Com

pany, Ltd., 30 Lesmill Road, Don Mills, Toronto,
Ontario.
Published in the United Kingdom by Constable
and Company, Ltd., 10 Orange Street, London
w. c. 2.
This Dover edition. first published in 1967, is an

unabridged republication of the work originally pub
lished in 1956 as Volume 3 of Psychoanalysis, the
Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychology. It is reprinted
by permission of Psychoanalysis and the Psycho
anal)'tic Review.
This edition also contains a revised selection of
portraits and a new Appendix consisting of two
letters b y Ernest Jones.
Standard Book Number: 486-215512

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 66159J2
Manufactured in the United States of America

Dover Publications, Inc.
180 Varick Street
New York, N. Y. 10014
CONTE N TS
1. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................... Page 1
2. GENERAL REMARKS ON CHESS .......................................... Page 6
3. THE WORLD CHAMPIONS ......................................................... Page 26
4. PSYC HOSES AMONG CHESS PLAYERS ..................... Page 63
5. SUMMARY: THEORY OF CHESS- Page 68
6. APPENDIX: TWO LETTERS BY

ERNESTJONES ............................. . ...... Page 70
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... Page 73

ILLUSTRATIONS
Reuben Fine Frontispiece

facing page
Howard Staunton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Adolf Anderssen . .. . ......... ........ . ... .... .. ...... 30
Wilhelm Steinitz . .. . ......... ........ . ... .... .. ...... 30
Paul Morphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Emanuel Lasker . .. . ......... ........ . ... .... .. ...... 31
Jose Raul Capablanca ................................ . 52
Alexander Alekhinc .................................. . 52
Max Euwe . .. . ......... ........ . ... .... .. ...... 53
Mikhail Botvinnik . ...
.. . ......... ........ . ... .... .. ...... 53
I
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
JNisTHE PSYCHOANALYTIC literature, the classical paper on chess

the one by Ernest Jones, entitled "The Problem of Paul
Morphy" ( 23), first read to the British Psychoanalytical So
ciety in 1930, and published in 1931.
Most of this profound paper is devoted to a pathography
of Paul Morphy, who will be discussed later. With regard to
the more general question of the psychology of chess Jones
makes the following points: Quite obviously chess is a play
substitute for the art of war. The unconscious motive actuating
the players is not the mere love of pugnacity characteristic of
all competitive games, but the grimmer one of father-murder.
The mathematical quality of the game gives chess a peculiar
anal-sadistic quality. The sense of overwhelming mastery on the
one side matches that of inescapable helplessness on the other.
It is this anal-sadistic feature that makes the game so well
adapted to gratify at the same time both the homosexual and
the antagonistic aspects of the father-son contest.
Other papers by Karpman ( 24), Coriat ( 8), Menninger
( 31 ), and Fleming ( 17) do not add substantially to Jones'
thesis. All agree that a combination of homosexual and hostile
impulses are sublimated in chess.
This kind of approach focus.5es on the libidinal conflicts.
While it illuminates certain features of the game, it leaves many
1
The Psychology of the Chess Player
others untouched. After all, the hostile-tender conflict with the

father is part of every encounter between two men. Because
of the ubiquity of the underlying libidinal conflicts modern
psychoanalysis has, especially in the past thirty years, concen
trated more and more on the ego. It is the purpose of this
paper to approach the question of what cliff erentiates the chess
player from other men from the point of view of the ego, as
well as from that of the id.
The psychological literature contains several interesting

studies, which can be briefly summarized here.
At the international chess tournament at Moscow in 1925,

three professors of psychology, Djakow, Petrowski and Rudik
gave twelve of the participants a series of psychological tests,
including the Rorschach. They do not state why only twelve
were chosen, nor are the subjects identified. The results were
published and a German translation is available ( 11).
The tests given were various psychometric devices designed

to measure the following:
1) Memory
a) Memory and grasp (Aufnahmevermogen) of
the chess board
b) Ability to remember positions of chess pieces
c) Memory for numbers
d) Memory for geometric designs
2) Attention
e) Scope of attention
f ) Ability to concentrate attention on the chess
board
g) Distribution of attention (ability to note
several different things simultaneously)
h) Dynamics of attention (ability to pay atten
tion to successive impressions)
2
Review of the Literature
3) Combinatory and intellectual functions

i ) Seven Queens on the chess board1
j) Number series (logical sequences)
k) Speed of intellectual processes (abstract
stimulus)
I ) Speed of intellectual processes (concrete
stimulus)
4, 5) Imagination and psychological type (the Ror
schach test)
On the psychometric tests, the chess masters were vastly

superior to the controls (not further described) in all tasks re
lating to the chess board and pieces, such as remembering
positions. But in the other tests superiority was found in only
two tasks: the ability to pay attention to several different things
simultaneously (Aufmerksamkeitsverteilung) and in abstract
thinking (number series). The idea that chess players in gen
eral are of much higher intelligence, have a better memory,
concentrate better, was not substantiated. The tests used were,
however, so crude by present-day standards and the methodol
ogy so poor that little value can be attached to these conclusions.
The Rorschach yielded the following main results: num
ber of responses ranged from 5-88, whole responses 3-30 (well
above average), inanimate objects 15-60%, color responses 0-7
(6 subjects with no color), movement responses 1-4 (9 subjects
with no movement).
The psychogram of the Rorschach was not further inter
preted by the Russian psychologists. In spite of the absence of
more data, it is clear that the modal personality profile is that
of a constricted-in Rorschach's terminology-coartated indi-
1 This is a problem in which one is required to place seven Queens

on the chess board in such a way that none can be captured by any of
the others.
3
The Psycholog;y of the Chess Player
vidual (no color, no movement). Rorschach's comment on this

type helps to explain some of the Russian findings. He says
(34):
The coartated type and in significant measure

also the coartative types2 are characterized by the
extreme emphasis on those tendencies which can be
heightened by the application of conscious attention.
The coartated and the coartative is in the first place
one who is logically disciplined. This is attained how
ever by an extensive atrophy of the introversive and
extratensive tendencies: by a sacrifice of his capacity
for experience.
Rorschach's comments explain the two differences which

did appear: sharpened attention to several different simul
taneous events, and abstract numerical thinking. At the same
time, since this is achieved at the expense of other facets of the
personality, it cannot be said whether the low scores on other
measures are due to a lack of innate ability, lack of motivation
or atrophy (emotional disturbance).
When Samuel Reshevsky, now champion of the western

world, was a boy wonder of nine (he reached master strength
by the age of five), he submitted to a series of psychometric
tests by the Swiss psychologist Franziska Baumgarten (2). His
verbal intelligence was below average, and his general develop
ment was not up to that of a five-year old boy in Berlin. In
only one test was he outstanding: a memory test with numbers.
Her conclusion is thus similar to that of the Russian psycholo
gists. Again, however, her methodology was faulty, and did not
allow for the fact that the boy had been so absorbed in chess
2 (The coartative record is one in which there is at most one color

or one movement response.-R. F.)
4
Review of the Literature
for years that he had never attended school regularly. Reshevsky

later finished college in the United States, showing, at any
rate, above-average intelligence.
A study by Buttenwieser ( 5) attempted to evaluate the
degree to which chess skill deteriorates with age in the chess
master. He found that there is no loss of skill before fifty, after
fifty relatively little, and that on the whole the stronger the
player the leg; the loss. As will be seen below, psychosis also
does not affect chess ability materially. It would appear that
once the skill reaches a certain level it can remain there
indefinitely.
In 1938, the Dutch psychologist A. de Groot (10), who
is also a chess master, analyzed the thought processes of a num
ber of chess masters and some amateurs. Perhaps his most
useful finding is the confirmation that the chess player in analyz
ing a position, goes through much the same kind of process that
the research worker goes through in solving a problem. The
chess player is in a state of continual tension and uncertainty
until he finds the right move and in many cases cannot be
sure what the right move is.
It would be easy enough for contemporary psychologists
with their mastery of psychometric techniques and factor analy
sis to give a battery of tests to chess experts and factor out those
abilities which correlate well with chess skill. In the absence
of such a study the above findings can only be considered to
be of suggestive value.
5
2
GENERAL REMARKS ON CHESS
CHESS IS ONE OF the oldest games in western civilization. His
torians usually date it from about 600 or 700 A.D. and

place its origin in India ( 12). It was introduced into Europe in
the 13th century.
However, it is only in approximately the past hundred years
that chess has become a universally popular game. The first
international tournament was held in London in 1851. Since
that time international contests have been regular features. B'!
cause the game is played in substantially the same form in all
civilized countries, it has become a truly cosmopolitan medium
of communication.
The literature on chess, consisting of collections of games
played by the masters and instructional books teaching how
a player may improve his game, has by now grown to such
proportions that it is said to be larger than the literature of
all other games combined.
At the present time chess has achieved its greatest popu
larity in the Soviet Union, where it is virtually a national sport.
For many chess players the game comes to exert a peculiar
fascination. During the play everything else may be forgotten:
wife, friends, family, business. Chess becomes a world of its
own. Games can be continued for hours, at times even for
days, with all thought of the outside world put to one side.
6
General Remarks on Chess
In many chess clubs there is at least one man who has given
up everything else in life for the game-a man who eats, thinks
and sleeps chess. Sometimes he is a professional and ekes out
a meager living at it ; more often not, but he is always a man
with fanatical devotion.
So enticing is this prospect of abandoning the world for
chess that many men realistically recognize the danger, forsake
the game entirely, and come back to it only when the other
concerns are out of the way.
An unknown ecclesiastic of the 1 7th century has penned
a vivid description of the kind of appeal that chess exerts. He
calls it "The Evils of Chess" ( 20) :
I. It is a great time-waster. How many precious

hours ( which can never be recalled) have I pro
fusely spent in this game!
II. It hath had with me a fascinating property ;
I have been bewitched by it: when I have begun,
I have not had the power to give over.
III. It hath not done with me, when I have done
with it. It hath followed me into my study, into my
pulpit ; when I have been praying or preaching, I have
( in my thoughts ) been playing at chess ; than I have
had, as it were, a chess-board before my eyes. . . .
IV. It hath caused me to break many solemn
resolutions ; nay, vows and promises. Sometimes I have
obliged myself, in the most solemn manner, to play
but so many mates at a time, or with any one person,
and anon I have broken these obligations and
promises . . . .
V. It hath wounded my conscience and broken
my peace. I have had sad reflections upon it, when
I have been most serious. I find, if I were now to die,
7
the remembrance of this game would greatly trouble

me and stare me in the face. I have read in the life
of the famous John Huss, how he was greatly troubled,
for his using of this game, a il ttle before his death.
VI. My using of it hath occasioned much sin,
as passion, strife, idle (if not lying) words, in myself
and my antagonist, or both. It hath caused the neglect
of many duties both to God and men. . . .
In marked contrast to the fascination which the game has

for the devotee, is the attitude of the uninterested outsider. He
is apt to look upon it as cold, dull, boring, highly intellectual,
a kind of high-class crossword puzzle, and will be completely
unable to empathize with the storm of emotions that it does
arouse.
Chess is played primarily by men. While no exact statistics
are available, the ratio of men to women players is probably
in the neighborhood of one hundred to one. Even in Russia,
where chess is a national pastime, women show much less in
terest in it than men. Only one woman, Vera Menchik, has
ever progressed to the point where she could compete among
men in master tournaments. In bridge the situation is quite
the opposite. Here women frequently play, and reach the
stature of master, life master and members of world cham
pionship teams.
A certain degree of intellectual development is needed to
play chess. It is difficult for a child younger than about eight
to acquire sufficient skill to enjoy the game, and usually it is
not before ten that boys really take to it.
The common impression prevails that skill at chess requires
a high order of intelligence. While this is not borne out by
the Russian studies or the tests done on Reshevsky, it would not
be justifiable to give up this common-sense observation with
out a more careful inquiry. De Groot's (10) historical survey
8
points to a great deal of achievement by chess experts in other

fields as well.
-.._ Interest in chess is frequently concentrated in certain periods

of the individual's life. The first wave comes usually in the
pre-puberty period, about ten to twelve years of age. Then
again, in early adolescence it is common to find boys very
devoted to the game. For example, in high schools the chess
club is often the largest or one of the largest, while in colleges
it is much less important. Finally, men past middle age in
many cases come back to chess after a lapse of many years.
All observers agree that from the player's point of view

chess belongs to the "passionate" games. Many boys and men
who take it up treat it as though it were one of life's major
concerns. They study, buy books, play day and night, com
municate with other chess players by mail or even radio. At
this time the great goal is to improve and beat the other fellow,
and all efforts are bent in that direction. The thrill derived
from passing a competitor is often as great as that involved
in getting a high mark in school or a job promotion. As long
as the progress continues, the player remains absorbed. Sooner
or later, however, he reaches a plateau and for one reason or
another is unable to go further. At this point many men lose
interest and either cut down the time devoted to it or give it
up altogether. Only a small group remains consistently attached
to it for an entire lifetime.
In the popular mind, chess occupies a special role among

games. It is referred to as "the royal game", "the game of
kings'', "the king of games". It is the only game which may
legally be played on the premises of the Houses of Parliament
in Great Britain. Some wit has said that chess is too difficult
to be a game, and too easy to be a science. The enjoyment
derived from chess goes in fact beyond that in other pastimes.
Chess comes, indeed, much closer to art and science.
9
Chess is a contest between two men in which there is con

siderable ego-involvement. In some way it certainly touches
upon the conflicts surrounding aggression, homosexuality, mas
turbation and narcissism which become particularly prominent
in the anal-phallic phases of development. From the standpoint
of id psychology, Jones' observations can therefore be con
firmed, even enlarged upon. Genetically, chess is more often than
not taught to the boy by his father, or a father-substitute, and
thus becomes a means of working out the son-father rivalry.
The symbolism of chess lends itself to this rivalry in a most

unusual way. Central to it is the figure of the King.3 The King
occupies a crucial role in the game in all respects. It is the
piece which gives the game its name; for, chess is derived from
the Persian shah meaning King, and is more or less the same
in all languages. In fact, the three universal words in chess
are chess, check, and King, all of which derive from shah. All
other pieces have varying designations in different languages.
Thus, Queen in Russian is Fyerz, which has nothing to do with
woman; Bishop is Fou or jester in French, Lilufer or runner
in German.
Except for the King chess is a simple logical construction

on the board. There is one piece which moves along diagonals
(the Bishop), one which moves along ranks and files (the Rook),
one piece which moves only forward (the Pawn), and when
it can no longer move forward turns into another piece which
allows it mobility (promotion), one piece which moves any
number of squares in any straight-line direction (the Queen),
one piece which moves one square in any direction (the King),
and a piece which combines the vertical-diagonal movement
with the power to jump over other pieces (the Knight). It
would be possible to devise new pieces, or to divide their powers,
3 In chess literature it is customary to capitalize the names of the

pieces, and I shall adhere to this practice.
10
and this has been done from time to time; for example, a piece
combining the movement of Knight and Queen has been sug
gested. Or one could have two kinds of Rooks, similar to the
two kinds of Bishops, one that moves along ranks, and another
that moves along files. All of these alterations would be direct
extensions of the les we now have; they would not alter the
basic character of the game.
Board games essentially consist of placing the pieces on
a board in such a way that one can capture the enemy's men,
as in checkers, or get one's men to a predetermined position,
as in chinese checkers. Once this is accomplished the game
is won. Here the unique feature of chess comes in: the goal is
to checkmate the King. A completely new set of rules is drawn
up, governing the manner in which this checkmate may or may
not be effected, and these rules are the ones that give chess
its distinctive cast. Of course, the capture of the enemy's men
is still there, but unlike other games one can capture almost
all the enemy's men and still lose.
The King is thus inds
i pensable and all-important. It is also
irreplaceable. Theoretically it is possible to have nine Queens,
ten Rooks, ten Knights or ten Bishops, as a result of Pawn
promotion, but only one King.
All these qualities of indispensability, all-importance and
irreplaceability make one think of the supreme rulers of the
Orient. Here, however, enters a vital difference: the King as
a piece is weak. Its powers are greatly limited. Approximate
equivalents can be set up for the other pieces; for example, three
Pawns are worth a piece, two pieces are worth a Rook and
a Pawn, etc. Because of the nature of the King it has no real
equivalents. Roughly, however, the King is a little stronger
than a Pawn, but not as strong as any of the pieces.' As a
4 Strictly speaking, the King is not considered a "piece" at all. In

the technical sense we speak of the Pawns, the pieces (major and minor)
and the King.
11
result the King must hide (castling) during most of the game.
He can sally forth only when many exchanges have taken
place, particularly when the Queens are gone. Despite the fact
that he is all-important, the other pieces have to protect him,
not he the others.
As far as I have been able to ascertain, ( 26) no other
board game has a piece which so radically alters its entire
nature. In checkers, for example, the King is simply an ex
tension of the powers of the men, and can be captured just
like the others. It is the King which makes chess literally unique.
Consequently, the King becomes the central figure in the
symbolism of the game. To recapitulate briefly: the King is
indispensable, all-important, irreplaceable, yet weak and re
quiring protection. These qualities lead to the over-determina
tion of its symbolic meaning. First of all, it stands for the
boy's penis in the phallic stage, and hence re-arouses the cas
tration anxiety characteristic of that period. Second, it describes
certain essential characteristics of a self-image, and hence would
appeal to those men who have a picture of themselves as in
dispensable, all-important and irreplaceable. In this way it af
fords an additional opportunity for the player to work out con
flicts centering around narcissism. Third, it is the father pulled
down to the boy's size. Unconsciously it gives the boy a
chance to say to the father: To the outside world you may be
big and strong, but when we get right down to it you're just
as weak .as I am and you need protection just as much as I do.
Games inherently involve a leveling-off process; on the
track, on the baseball diamond, on the chessboard all men are
equal. In chess, however, there is an additional factor which
differentiates it from other games: there is a piece which is
different in value from all the others and around which the
game revolves. The existence of the King allows an identifica
tion process which goes far beyond that permitted in other
12
games.5 In this way chess allows for a strong assertion of

individuality.
Rook, Bishop, Knight and Pawn also frequently symbolize

the penis. In addition they may have other meanings. To one
player the Bishop was libidinized as a superego figure-the
name was taken literally. The Knight may symbolize a horse,
which it is also sometimes called.
The Pawns symbolize children, particularly little boys.

They can grow up (promote) when they reach the eighth
rank, but it is again significant that they may not become
"King." Symbolically, this restriction on Pawn promotion means
that the destructive aspect of the rivalry with the father is
emphasized, while the constructive side, which would allow
the boy to become like the father, is discouraged. We would,
therefore, anticipate on the one hand a very critical attitude
towards authority in the chess player, and on the other an ina
bility or unwillingness to follow in the same direction as his
father.6 The contrast between the mighty King and the lowly
Pawn again comes to symbolize the ambivalence inherent in
the chess player's self-image, an ambivalence which is also ap
parent in the figure of the King himself.
The Queen will, as might be expected, stand for the

woman, or the mother-figure. It was not until the introduction
of chess into Europe in the thirteenth century that the Queen
became the powerful figure she is today. This is evidently a
direct reflection of the cliffering attitudes towards women in
east and west. Jones comments that psychoanalysts will not be
5 Dr. Theodor Reik has pointed out that the rules surrounding the
chess King are strikingly similar to many of the special taboos surrounding
primitive chieftains. See section ( b) The Taboo of Rulers in Part II of
S. Freud, Totem and Taboo.
6 It has been my observation that very few chess experts have sons
who arc also strong chess players; unconsciously the father does not permit
the identification to take place.
13
surprised to learn that in the attack on the King (father), the

most powerful support is provided by the Queen.
Put together, the chess board as a whole may readily
symbolize the family situation. This would explain the fascina
tion of the game. Lost in thought, the player can work out in
fantasy what he has never been able to do in reality.
If we turn now to the ego of the chess player, we note
to begin with that he uses primarily intellectual defenses. In
chess, thought replaces action. As contrasted with other sports
such as boxing, there is no physical contact whatsoever. There
is not even the intermediate form of contact found in tennis
or handball, in which both men hit the same object. The chess
player is permitted to touch his opponent's pieces only for
purposes of a capture, when, according to the rules, the piece
must be removed from the board.
As the players become more expert, the taboo on touch

ing becomes even stronger. In master chess the rule of "touch
move" is observed. If a player touches a piece he must move
it. If he touches it by accident he must say "j'adoube", which
means "I adjust" in French. Those who play by the rules are
required to say this in French.
In one form of the game, known as correspondence chess,

the distance between the two men is carried even further, in
that the opponents never see one another. The entire game is
played by mail. Here it is permissible to touch the pieces, but
of course the players never meet.
In view of the profuse phallic symbolism of the game,

the taboo on touching has unconsciously two meanings, or, put
another way, the ego wards off two threats. One is masturba
tion (do not touch your penis; do not touch your pieces, and
if you do, have an excuse ready). The other threat is homo
sexuality, or bodily contact between the two men, especially
mut.ual masturbation.
14
In addition to this purely defensive character, intellectuali

zation in chess has many other meanings. To the onlooker,
indifference to the outside world is the outstanding feature of
the chess player. A series of cartoons in one chess club depicts
two players who begin a game when they are boys and end
up as graybeards.
The players themselves are aware of the tendency to be

come lost in thought. This is such a great danger that in tourna
ment play it has been found necessary to set a time limit on
moves. Since about 1880 all tournaments have been played
with chess clocks. A humorous incident is related of a game
between Paulsen and Morphy, played before the days of clocks.
They sat at the board for eleven hours without saying a word
or making a move. At the end of that time, Morphy, who was
heroically patient, looked up at his opponent rather quizzically.
Paulsen then said, "Oh, s
i it my move?"
While the player may think for hours at a time, if he

has to he can move with lightning rapidity. "Speed" or "rapid
transit" tournaments, frequently seen, are played with a time
limit of ten seconds per move. Masters sometimes even play
"blitz" chess, in which they are obliged to move instantane
ously, in less than one second. With these time limits it is
possible to play dozens, occasionally hundreds, of games in one
evening. The slowest game in the world becomes the fastest.
Such marked contral>ts are quite characteristic of the entire

thinking process in chess. In tournaments the usual time limit
is 40 moves in 2 Y2 hours. This means that the player may
budget his time any way he pleases, so long as he completes
the 40 moves within the prescribed 2 Y2 hours. It often happens
that he takes two hours and 28 minutes, say, for 25 moves.
He is then required to make the remaining 15 moves in two
minutes. This is known as "time pressure." Under such extreme
pressure, the player who was previously unable to budge will
15
often make the nece$ary moves with time to spare, and with
remarkable accuracy. What, one might well ask, was he thinking
about before? If it is possible to find a good move in ten
seconds, why take half an hour?
The answer to this question lies in the continual uncer

tainty which besets the chess player. The positions reached dur
ing a game are most often quite complex. In many cases it is
easy to find the right move, but in the majority this is not
so. Hours of careful analysis, sometimes days, may be taken
to exhaust all the possibilities and decide on the best move.
In over-the-board play few people can ever be sure that they
have found the right solution ; most rely on "position judg
ment" or "intuition." The layman's idea that the chess master
can look ahead for 25 moves is largely a myth, although the
expert can of course calculate the future much more accurately

than the novice.
In this situation the player goes along constantly unsure

of himself. If compelled to do so he can cut the Gordian knot
and try something; if not, he prefers to test and sift his ideas
until he has come as near as possible to the right answer.
De Groot likens this prOCC$ to research, in which various

hypotheses are explored by experimental methods. There is,
however, this fundamental difference. The chess player can
only test his hypotheses in his imagination; once he arrives at
a decision he must stake everything on it. He is thus under
much greater tension than a researcher in chemistry, for ex
ample, who can pick one hunch and if that fails try another.
When it is not his tum to move, the player often has
much time at his disposal-five, ten minutes, sometimes half
an hour or even an hour. During this period one might expect
him to study the position. That happens rarely. Most of the
time he daydreams, and his daydreams follow the usual course
which have nothing to do with chess. At the same time the
16
tension persists because he never knows when he will be called

back to make a move.
There is thus again a marked contrast-feverish uncer
tainty and intense searching when it is his move-idle day
dreaming when it is not. Throughout, a state of continual ten
sion persists. Small wonder that so many players complain
that the game makes them "nervous", nd many give it up
because they find the strain unbearable, or not worth the
effort.
With regard to conversation there is a similar paradox.

While as a rule for most players there is no talking, a curious
exception is found among some who in off-hand games go to
the opposite extreme and never stop talking. Some recite verses
from Lewis Carroll. Some build up a special kind of nonsense
language which has no meaning, even to the person himself.
One man would say whenever he gave check: "Shminkus
krachus typhus mit plafkes schrum schrum." Another would
say: "Let us go to Vera Cruz with four aitches." The one
thing that is never found is ordinary language. It is as if to
say: any kind of physical activity that is permitted must be
kept at an infantile level. Of course, the dissociation of words
from their original meaning is characteristic of obsessional
thinking.
These various polarities help to clarify the thinking process.

The ego uses intellectual means and fantasies to handle the
conflicts. But it does not allow this process to go too far. Be
cause of the nature of the game the player is always brought
back to reality. Thought replaces action, but action also inter
rupts the unimpeded flow of thought. In this respect the chess
player differs, say, from the day-dreamer or schizoid who is
under no external compulsion to give up his reveries.
The thinking process itself alternates between one which

makes demands of a very high order, comparable in some ways
17
The Psycholop;y of the Chess Player
to problems in scientific research, and one which is simply an

expression of obsessive ambivalence. The shift from action to
thought can then either be an outlet for the intellectual abilities
of an individual, or a defensive maneuver to ward off the
various anxieties aroused by action, or an intermediate com
bination.
Chess must stress certain aspects of intelligence more than

others. What are they? The Russian study done in 1925 at
tempted to answer this question, but the methodology was too
crude, by present-day standards. We can only tentatively put
forth certain ideas.
Four aspects of intelligence seem to predominate in chess:

memory, visualization, organization and imagination.7
To play chess well it is necessary to remember hundreds,

probably thousands, of previous positions. The memory of the
chess expert becomes so highly specialized and so adept that
he often performs feats which seem incredible to the layman.
A master can play fifty or sixty boards simultaneously; he goes
from one board to another, making a move at each. If the
position on any board is altered in the most trivial manner, such
as moving a Pawn up one square, he will recognize the change
immediately. Although he is not conscious of it, clearly he
carries around some memory traces, highly accurate, of all sixty
boards.
Visualization is essential because the player is not per

mitted to move the pieces around except for an actual move.
It is interesting to note that Hadamard ( 19) in his studies of
mathematical creativity found that visualization plays a minor
7 Davis, in a factor analysis of the Wechsler Bellevue test (9) in

1952, identified seven factors most clearly. Of these, three correspond
most closely to the above: visualization, general reasoning and eduction
of conceptual relations. The assumption made here is that the aspects of
intelligence are basically autonomous ego functions in Hartmann's sense
(21, 22).
18
role; the mathematician tends to think more abstractly. This

may be one determining factor in the choice of mathematics
or chess.
The continual visualization develops the chess master's

ability to play without sight of the board or pieces ("blind
fold"). Every chess master can play one game blindfold with
out too much difficulty, and many can play far more. The
world's record today, held by Najdorf, is forty-five simultane
ously. To handle such a number the single player must be able
to carry in his mind forty-five continually varying pictures of
the chess board, must be able to associate the correct picture
with its number, and must be able to visualize every picture
accurately and at will. As with lightning calculators ( 4) this
capacity is largely confined to blindfold ches.5, but that does
not exclude the pos.sibility that if the individual had earlier
built up an equal background in some other field that the
capacity for visual retention could not have been developed
there. Memory plays a major role here too; as a rule after
a blindfold exhibition the single player is able to repeat ver
batim the correct moves, in the proper order, of every game
played.
Organization, which is one aspect of general reasoning, is

also essential. The chess player must be able to coordinate and
unify the actions of the pieces in such a way that they acquire
maximum effectiveness. In this sense chess strategy is similar
to military strategy, and military schools like West Point have
accordingly traditionally made chess a required subject.
The imagination used in chess is related to visualization,
but is to some extent independent of it. Chess itself is a n arti
ficial creation. Like music, art and literature it can become a
world of its own, divorced from practical concerns and devoid
of any application to everyday affairs. It is particularly the
opportunity for imaginative expression which links chess with
19
The PsycholofSY of the Chess Player
the world of art. The opportunity for identification (with the

King and other pieces) provides another link.
To put these intellectual abilities to use and to be able

to bind the libidinal energies in this way, the ego must possess
a considerable degree of strength. Unlike the omnipotence of
the gambler or the card-player, the defenses of the chess player
come from a relatively late stage of personality development.
Thus while at first sight the replacement of action by thought
seems to be a simple instance of the well-known obsessional
mechanism, to apply this to chess as a whole is a gross over
simplification ( 8). Unlike the true obsessional, the chess player
interrupts his fantasies by action, he comes out of his fantasy
world, and he uses real abilities which require a high degree
of ego development for their deployment.
For the average chess player the intellectual appeal of the

game is quite conscious, and is in fact its major asset in his
eyes. If asked why he plays , he says it is a game of skill, in
which brain is matched against brain.
By contrast, the aggressi on is deeply repressed. To most
it comes as a surprise to learn that chess is an outlet for hostile
feelings. And the nature of the game serves to conceal it
increasingly. To begin with, no blows, real or simulated, are
actually struck. The usual goal of capturing an enemy's men,
as we have mentioned, turns into the more subtle one of check
mate. All the chess pieces may be captured, except the King.
The King must be checkmated: that means that it must be
under attack and have no legal move. It is not sufficient to re
duce it to a state where it has no legal move: that would be
stalemate, and the game would be drawn. It must be under
attack-which for any other piece would be the last step before
a capture-and yet may not be captured.
Such a complicated state of affairs, which as we have said
distinguishes chess from all other games, must be full of un-
20
conscious connotations. If we apply the three symbolic mean

ings of the King, checkmate would signify first castration, sec
ond, the exposure of the concealed weakness, and third the
destruction of the father. All three of these must be kept from
consciousness ; hence the chess player cannot admit to his an
tagonistic wishes.
Even the watered-down blow of checkmate recedes further
into the background as the players become more expert. Soon
a state of skill is reached where the players give up or resign
long before there is the remotest possibility of a checkmate ;
they submit to overwhelming material force. Among masters a
game will end in a checkmate only as a result of a freak acci
dent; it does not happen more than once in a thousand times.
After only a little experience with the game, the average
man soon finds that his greatest delights come from a direct
attack upon the King. As he becomes more expert, he begins
to appreciate the subtler nuances, such as position play, Pawn
maneuvering, open strategy, etc. Once again, direct aggression
fades more and more.8
While on the one hand the chess player's ego represses
and intellectualizes his aggression, on the other it provides some
gratification for it in the game itself. Consequently, one would
not expect the chess player to be a completely passive-dependent
person. Rather, he would be capable of finding numerous
avenues for bis aggression, and these avenues would again be
along socially acceptable lines. From this it could be anticipated
that chess experts could also show many achievements in other
fields, and, in fact such is the case.
In this connection a remark made by Dr. Milton Gurvitz
( 1 8 ) is most pertinent. He states that in his experience as a
8 Many chess critics never get over the naive emphasis on the direct
attack, and unfortunately fill the chess literature with the most ludicrous
comments. Part of the reason must lie in the unconscious wish to have
the chess master carry out their Oedipal desires for them.
21
prison psychologist those prisoners who learned chess during

their incarceration were least likely to be recidivists. They evolve
better ways of handling their aggression. The ego strength
needed to play chess must also play a role here.
In a situation where two men are voluntarily together for

hours at a time with no women present the homosexual impli
cations must necessarily be considered. Observation indicates
that overt homosexuality is almost unknown among chess
players. Among the chess masters of the present century I have
heard of only one case. This is all the more striking in that
artists, with whom chess masters like to compare themselves,
are so frequently homosexual.
The profuse phallic symbolism of chess provides some fan

tasy gratification of the homosexual wish, particularly the de
sire for mutual masturbation. This is, of course, completely re
pressed. Checkmate may be seen as rendering the father im
potent, again part of the homosexual complex.
In many respects the ego of the overt homosexual is dia
metrically opposite that of the chess player. Bychowski (6 )
lists a number of characteristic defenses employed in homo
sexual acting out: particularly the weak ego structure based
on the narcissistic and pre-narcissistic disposition, the vulnera
bility of the ego to the impact of libidinal stimulation, the im
possibility of renunciation of primitive gratification with original
objects and the overwhelming of the mental apparatus by in
stinctual charges. All of these are directly antithetical to what
we find in the chess player: there the ego is strong: it is capable
of tolerating a great deal of libidinal stimulation, it can re
nounce primitive gratification with original objects and it can
neutralize the drive energies to a high degree.
The anxiety accompanying the game is most often quite

conscious. Chess players complain that they are "nervous" or
"tense", that the game does not let them sleep, the pieces dance
22
around in their heads, a defeat is a serious blow, and so on.

We have mentioned that the tension during a game may be
great, and yet outlets for its release, such as aggressive actions,
or physical contact, are blocked.
The origin of the anxiety is readily apparent. The aggres
sion and homosexuality, while deeply repressed, are still being
brought out in disguised form ; hence the constant fear of pun
ishment. Since there is not the remotest element of chance,
a victory is the product of one's own efforts, a loss is the result
of one's own mistakes. To win is, therefore, to beat the father ;
to lose is to be beaten by the father, or to submit to him. As
a result the old conflicts involved in the struggle with the
father are constantly present, and the threat of their becoming
actual leads to the all-pervading anxiety.
Despite all the anxiety, in the last analysis the player al

ways knows that it is a sham battle. The severity of the blow
is softened by the fact that it is only a game after all. The
rules and practices surrounding checkmate also serve to mitigate
much of the anxiety. At the same time, no matter how much
it is contained by the actual game, for a great many men con
siderable anxiety remains, and tension-anxiety states could be
expected to be one of the most common of all neurotic symp
toms among chess players.
From the vantage point of the ego, a good deal of strength

must be present to allow the player to tolerate so much anxiety
for such extended periods. In this respect again there is a con
trast with the weak ego of the overt homosexual, who flees
from the slightest anxiety into acting out his impulses.
Narcissism is brought out by several features of the game.
Chess is an individual battle. The figure of the King lends itself
to the ready identifications which we have described above.
Hence, a win may bring out the grandiose elements of the self
imag, while a loss may expose the feelings of weakness. The
23
narcissism which is brought out here is primarily that of the

phallic stage, not the primary type characteristic of the oral
stage. However, the strength of the phallic narcissism would
in turn be influenced by the degree of oral fixation.
The King also brings out another characteristic trait of

the chess player, hero worship. Set apart from all the others,
the King can readily symbolize the heroes of legend. Whatever
field he is in, the chess player will customarily manage to find
some man whom he admires inordinately, and will try to
pattern himself after him. This is of course a displacement from
the father, yet the ability to effect such a displacement is on
the whole a positive asset in a man's make-up. Again by con
trast, the overt homosexual will usually be unable to either
identify with his father, nor find some substitute whom he
can use to build a masculine ego-ideal.
Hanns Sachs ( 35) was the first to point to the transfer

of narcissism from the self to the object as one factor in artistic
creativity. Here is another link between chess and the world
of art.
An excess of narcissism may easily characterize the chess
player. He becomes too immersed in himself and in his own
achievements or those of his heroes. The capacity to achieve
true object relations, particularly to empathize with women, is
underdeveloped. Frequently he gets along quite well with men,
because of the repression of both aggression and homosexuality,
but finds women a real stumbling block. Tender feelings for
women may be especially hard to achieve, a difficulty which
may be rationalized by confining his association to men.
On the other hand, this narcissism also has a healthy as
pect, in that it helps the man to see through the conventional
and artificial and to produce something new and valuable.
Federn ( 1 4 ) has pointed out that healthy narcissism is often
found in the creative individual. Anne Roe ( 33) in her studies
24
of eminent scientists also describes them as narcISSISt1c indi

viduals, who are on the whole rather retarded in their psycho
sexual development.
Finally, a word must be said about the voyeurism-ex

hibitionism. It is completely unconscious, and is gratified in
a two-man situation. As a result, the chess player is apt to feel
uneasy in crowds and is looked upon as a rather withdrawn
type of individual. Because of the added narcissistic factor, he
is likely to be indifferent to organized groups.
Before going on to a discussion of actual personalities, I

would like to briefly recapitulate the main points of this section.
The libidinal conflicts gratified in chess center around those
common to all men at the anal-phallic levels of development,
particularly aggression, narcissism and the attitude towards the
penis. All of these are readily symbolized in the game ; central
to the symbolism is the figure of the King, which is over-de
termined and has three different meanings : the boy's penis in
the phallic stage, the self-image of a man who feels irreplace
able, indispensable, all-important and yet weak, and the father
cut down to the boy's size. In the historical development of
the player, chess is part of the son's struggle to equal and
surpass the father.
The ego shows certain well-defined features. It is one

which prefers to use intellectual defenses. Yet while there is
a retreat to fantasy, the player does not lose himself in it; he
comes out of the fantasy world as well. There is much anxiety,
but it can be tolerated well. The drive energies can be neu
tralized to allow for much achievement. On the whole, the
ego shows considerable strength, especially in the ability to make
use of intellectual as5ets and to endure difficult situations. The
ego weakness lies primarily in a narcissistic fixation, which
makes it hard for the man to emerge from the homosexual to
the heterosexual level of development.
25
3
THE WORLD CHAMPIONS
T HE FOREGOING ANALvs1s is a rather general and theoretical
one. Now I would like to examine the personalities of some

actual chess players in more detail, to see how the findings
compare with what has been said. Three questions can be ap
proached in this way. First, s
i there some core personality con
stellation common to all c hess players? Second, what role does
chess play in the !ife of any particular individual? And third,
what connection, if any, is there between personality and chess
style?
For the purposes of this section I propose to review the lives

of the world champions of the past century. It could of course
be objected that these men are not representative of the average
chess player. To a certain extent this objection may be valid.
At best it can be only partially valid with respect to certain
traits, but not for all. We would expect that many of the clif
ferences between a champion and an ordinary player lie in
native skill, and that the personality structure is in many re
spects the same. This holds true for creative artists in other
fields, so that a study of eminent painters such as Leonardo,
van Gogh, or Picasso would shed much light on the character
structure of their less celebrated colleagues. That there s
i always
a connection between style and personality, regardless of talent

or training, s
i an assumption made for the projective techniques.
26
The World Champions
For somewhat more than a century, roughly, the chess

world has been sufficiently organized to speak of a world cham
pion ; the title itself has been in use since 1 870, when Steinitz
claimed it on the basis of his many successes. Before Steinitz
the champions were, unofficially, Staunton ( 1 844- 1 85 1 ) , An
derssen ( 1 85 1 - 1 858 and again 1 859- 1 866 ) and Morphy ( 1 858-
1 859 ) . Since Steinitz ( 1 866-1 894 ) the champions have offi
cially been Lasker ( 1 894- 1 92 1 ) , Capablanca ( 1 92 1 - 1 927 ) ,
Alekhine ( 1 927- 1 935 and 1 937- 1 946 ) , Euwe ( 1 935- 1 937 ) and
Botvinnik ( 1 948-present ) .
1 ) HowARD STAUNTON ( 1 8 1 0- 1 874 ) achieved greatness
in both literary criticism and chess. He is supposed to have been
the natural son of Frederic Howard, fifth Earl of Carlisle ( 1 3 ) .
His first interest was in the theater, and after a brief interlude
as an actor he became an eminent Shakespearean scholar, one
of the leading authorities in England. He came upon the chess
scene at the relatively late age of thirty, in 1 840. In 1 843 he
defeated the Frenchman, St. Amant, and was recognized un
officially as the best player in the world. Because of his literary
bent he began a magazine called The British Miscellany and
Chess Players Chronicle. Staunton wrote a number of books ;
his Handbook ( 37 ) was the leading guide to the game until
Steinitz published The Modern Chess Instructor ( 38 ) .
In 1 85 1 Staunton organized the tournament in London,
the first international contest of modern times. Anderssen won
the top prize, ahead of Staunton , who covered his defeat with
ingenious alibis. In 1 853 a challenge was issued on Staunton's
behalf to any player in the world, but the stakes were such
that Anderssen, toward whom it was primarily directed could
not accept. Staunton then retired from chess. Some years later
when Morphy appeared to challenge him, Staunton squeezed
out of a chess board encounter by verbal pyrotechnics.
As a man, Staunton was an extremely aggressive person
27
who loved nothing better than a good argument in print. There

are countless reports of the violent literary battles he got him
self into. A good example is this passage from his journal ( 1 5 ) :
A Barrister, Temple.-Calls our attention to the

ridiculous alterations of the Laws of Chess, by G.
Walker, in his New Treatise on Chess, and asks, 'Is
it possible that such absurdities are sanctioned by the
London Chess Club?' The only sanction given to
Walker's puerilities by the committee is to laugh at
them. His books on chess are no authority except
among the lowest class of players.
Aggression, organization and narcissism are the obvious

threads which run through Staunton's life. The shift from act
ing to writing is part of the replacement of action by thought.
Then comes the shift from writing to chess, a switch from
thought to action. Later he changes back once more.
In chess his active career virtually stopped after his de
feat at London. The simple explanation that he could not
stand the narcissistic blow involved in losing is undoubtedly the
correct one.
His genius was such that he attained the heights in both
chess and literary criticism. His status as a Shakespearean
scholar earned him a notice in the Encyclopedia Britannica
( 1 3 ) , which states that in literary criticism "he showed the
qualities of acuteness and caution which made him excel in
chess."
Staunton's interest in Shakespeare fits in readily enough
with chess : only the King of writers could attract his pen. He
had his hero. One of his last papers, mentioned by the Ency
clopedia, is entitled "Unsuspected Corruptions of Shakespeare's
Text" ; he had to defend the King from attack.
28
who loved nothing better than a good argument in print. There

are countles.5 reports of the violent literary battles he got him
self into. A good example is this pas.5age from his journal ( 1 5 ) :
A Barrister, Temple.-Calls our attention to the

ridiculous alterations of the Laws of Chess, by G.
Walker, in his New Treatise on Ches.5, and asks, 'Is
it possible that such absurdities are sanctioned by the
London Chess Club?' The only sanction given to
Walker's puerilities by the committee is to laugh at
them. His books on chess are no authority except
among the lowest class of players.
Aggression, organization and narcissism are the obvious

threads which run through Staunton's life. The shift from act
ing to writing is part of the replacement of action by thought.
Then comes the shift from writing to chess, a switch from
thought to action. Later he changes back once more.
In chess his active career virtually stopped after his de
fe'at at London. The simple explanation that he could not
stand the narcissistic blow involved in losing is undoubtedly the
correct one.
His genius was such that he attained the heights in both
chess and literary criticism. His status as a Shakespearean
scholar earned him a notice in the Encyclopedia Britannica
( 1 3 ) , which states that in literary criticism "he showed the
qualities of acutenes.5 and caution which made him excel in
chess."
Staunton's interest in Shakespeare fits in readily enough
with chess : only the King of writers could attract his pen. He
had his hero. One of his last papers, mentioned by the Ency
clopedia, is entitled "Unsuspected Corruptions of Shakespeare's
Text" ; he had to defend the King from attack.
28
The World Champions
Before discussing his chess play it is necessary to clarify

the sense in which we can speak of a chess "style".
An extensive psychoanalytic literature has grown up de
picting the intimate relationship between the works of artists
and their neurotic conflicts. It is to be expected that similar
unconscious forces would be involved in chess, both in the way
in which the game is interwoven into the character structure,
and in the style which the player adopts.
At first sight it does not seem to matter how one wins at
chess ; yet experience teaches that even within the same level
of strength extensive differences in the approach to the game
are revealed by careful analysis. It was Reti in his Masters of
the Chess Board who first pointed this out and documented it
in considerable detail ( 32 ) . In fact, just as any artist has a
characteristically individual style which permeates his artistic
works to such an extent that an expert can recognize that
such and such a painting is a Degas or a Leonardo, so too the
styles of the chess masters assume a highly distinctive cast and
are readily identifiable by the experts. One finds, however,
this important difference. For technical reasons the uniqueness
of the chess master comes out only in certain games, not in
every one. For example, in modem times the term "grandmaster
draw" has come into vogue to describe the quick draws agreed
to by grandmasters (of whom the International Chess Federa
tion recognizes some 20 or 25 ) who do not wish to risk any
thing against one another in an important contest. Equally, if
a tremendous disparity in strength exists the manner of win
ning becomes too routinized.
With these qualifications in mind, there is first of all a
rough division of chess styles into attacking and defensive.
Chess is sometimes said to have a romantic ( attack ) and clas
sical ( defense ) school. Besides this crude division, many more
subtle elements come out on closer examination. Some players,
29
The Psych ology of the Chess Player
like Botvinnik, can attack and defend equally well. Others, like
Alekhine, can attack but defend poorly. Still others, like Re
shevsky, can defend but attack badly. Usually masters adhere
to certain openings which fit in with their temperaments.
The outstanding features of Staunton's chess style were its
eclecticism and its placidity. No brilliant games of his have
survived ; he won chiefly because of his ability to exploit his
opponent's mistakes. He avoided the va banque gambits which
were so popular at the time. This ultra-conservatism contrasts
markedly with his outspoken aggression away from the chess
board. Such apparent contradictions are not at all uncommon.
The mild passive man can play brilliant chess, let his aggression
out on the chess board ; the aggressive man can compensate
by playing quiet chess.
2 ) ADOLF ANDERS SEN ( 1 8 1 8- 1 87 9 ) was in many re
spects the opposite of Staunton. He was born in Breslau, spent
several years as a tutor in a private family, then served as in
structor in German and mathematics at a gymnasium in Bres
lau for the remainder of his life. He never married, though
it is said that he could "give a gallant turn" to conversations
with women.
His active chess career began with his victory at the Lon
don 1 85 1 tournament. After that he played whenever and
wherever he could, though he often had to refuse invitations
because of his post as a teacher. But when he was not in a
tournament he played off-hand games. In fact, so far as one
can see, apart from his teaching his only real interest in life was
chess. Because of his devotion to the game, and his extra
ordinary achievements, Brnslau University awarded him an
honorary doctorate in 1 865, a unique recognition by the aca
demic world which has not been duplicated since.
Although he lost to both of his great rivals, Morphy and
Steinitz, Anderssen was never bothered by defeat. He loved to
30
Wilhelm Steinitz
Howard Staunton
A dolf Anderssen
The World Champions
play, and it seemed to matter little whether he won or lost.

It is clear enough what role chess played in the placid life
of a bachelor school teacher ; it was his major libidinal outlet.
In sharp antithesis to Staunton he never engaged in quarrels,
and never made any enemies. His only complaints from the
London 1 85 1 tournament were about the "scandalous" high
prices there. In his letters home, some of which have been pre
served, he goes into great detail as to how expensive everything
was. He found all the players agreeable, the organizers courte
ous, the arrangements satisfactory. Everything else in life for
him was secure and well-regulated ; it was only in chess that he
could really let himself go.
His style is accordingly the most romantic of all the cham
pions. Attack, sacrifice, with reason or without reason. The
man who in real life could tolerate no change could not toler
ate a quiet role in the fantasy world of chess. Everything had
to be fluid, open, bold, dashing, adventurous. Despairingly he
wrote of his successor that "He who plays with Morphy must
abandon all hope of catching him in a trap, no matter how
cunningly laid . . . . " The possibility of modifying his own style
did not occur to Anderssen ; psychologically he could not change.
3 ) PAUL MoRPHY ( 1 837-1 884 ) has attracted psychiatric
attention because of his psychosis in later life. He is the subject
of the study by Ernest Jones mentioned earlier ( 2 3 ) .
Morphy was born in New Orleans on June 22, 1 837 ; his
father was of Spanish-Irish descent, his mother of French ex
traction. When he was ten years old he learned chess from
his father. By twelve he was able to beat his uncle ( father's
brother ) , then chess king of New Orleans. Until 1 85 7 he de
voted himself to his studies. In that year he travelled to New
York, where he easily gained first place in the American Cham
pionship, the first ever held. The next year he visited London
and Paris, where the world's leading chess masters were then
31
concentrated, and defeated every opponent he played, includ

ing Adolf Anders.sen. Only Staunton refused to meet him, in
spite of all his efforts to arrange a match.
He then returned to New Orleans, where he issued a chal
lenge to play anyone in the world at odds. On receiving no
response to this challenge he declared his ches.s career closed ;
it had lasted barely eighteen months, only six of which had
seen him in public play.
After his retirement ( at the age of twenty one ! ) he took
up law-his father was a judge-but was unsucces.sful at it.
He gradually relapsed into a state of seclusion and eccentricity
which culminated in unmistakable paranoia. At the age of
forty-seven he died suddenly of "congestion of the brain", pre
sumably apoplexy, as had his father before him.
About Morphy's symptoms during his later illness Jones
reports the following. He imagined himself persecuted by people
who wished to render his life intolerable. His delusions centered
on the husband of his elder sister, the administrator of his
father's estate, who he believed was trying to rob him of his
patrimony. Morphy challenged him to a duel, and then brought
a lawsuit against him, spending his time for years in preparing
his case. In court it was easily shown that his accusations were
quite groundles.s. He also thought that people, particularly his
brother-in-law, were trying to poison him, and for a time re
fused to take food except at the hands of his mother or his
younger, unmarried sister. Another delusion was that his
brother-in-law and an intimate friend, Binder, were conspiring
to destroy his clothes, of which he was very vain, and to kill
him. On one occasion he called at the latter's office and un
expectedly as.saulted him. He was given to stopping and staring
at every pretty face in the street. During a certain period he
had a mania for striding up and down the verandah declaring
the following words : "Il plantera la banniere de Castille sur les
32
The World Champions
murs de Madrid au cri de Ville gagnee, et le petit Roi s' en ira

tout penaud."9
His mode of life was to take a walk every day, punctually
at noon, and most scrupulously attired, after which he would
retire again until the evening when he would set out for the
opera, never missing a single performance. He would see no
one except his mother, and grew angry if she ventured to in
vite even intimate friends to the house. Two years before
Morphy's death he was approached for his permission to in
clude an account of his life in a projected biographical work
on famous Louisianians. He sent an indignant reply, in which
he stated that his father, Judge Alonzo Morphy, of the High
Court of Louisiana, had left at his death the sum of
$ 1 46 , 1 6 2.54, while he himself had followed no profession and
had nothing to do with biography. His talk was constantly of
his father's fortune, and the mere mention of chess was usually
sufficient to irritate him.
The question naturally arises as to what connection, if
any, there was between Morphy's chess genius and his psy
chosis. Jones attributes greatest significance to Staunton's re
fusal to play Morphy. Staunton was for him the supreme father
imago, and Morphy made the overcoming of him the test of
his capacity to play chess, and unconsciously of much else be
sides. When Staunton, instead of meeting Morphy on the chess
board, engaged in vicious and scurrilous attacks on him, Mor
phy's heart failed him, and he abandoned the "wicked path"
of his chess career. It was as though the father had unmasked
his evil intentions and was now adopting a similarly hostile atti-
9 "He will plant the flag of Castille on the walls of Madrid with
the cry of the city won and the little King will go away all abashed." Jon61s
states that he cannot find the origin of this saying. However it is clearly a
cry of victory over the King, a regressive expression in words of what
he could no longer do in action. Compare the comments on conversation
in the previous section.
33
tude toward Morphy in retaliation. Chess, which had appeared

to be an innocent and laudable expression of his personality
was now revealed to be actuated by the most childish and ig
noble of wishes, the unconscious impulses to commit a sexual
assault on the father and at the same time to maim him utterly.
There is however one rather serious objection to Jones'
theory about Morphy, ingenious as it is. In 1 858 the unacknowl
edged world champion was no longer Staunton, but Anderssen.
Chess historians would certainly rank Anderssen above Staun
ton at that time. In 1 866, when Steinitz won the world cham
pionship, he did so by defeating Anderssen. And Morphy had
beaten Anderssen, most decisively. It is thus not clear why he
should have been so disturbed by Staunton's refusal to meet
him.
More importance must be attached to Morphy's repeated
declaration that he was not a professional. When he returned
to New York from his European triumphs in 1 858, his recep
tion was overwhelming. It was widely felt that this was the first
time in history in which an American had proved himself, not
merely the equal, but the superior of any representative in his
field drawn from the older countries, so that Morphy had added
a cubit to the stature of American civilization. In the presence
of a great assembly in one University he was presented with a
testimonial consisting of a chess board with mother-of-pearl and
ebony squares and a set of men in gold and silver ; he also re
ceived a gold watch, on which colored chess pieces took the
place of the numerals.
At this presentation, Colonel Mead, chairman of the recep
tion committee, alluded in his speech to chess as a profession,
and referred to Morphy as its most brilliant exponent. Morphy
took strong exception to being characterized as a professional
player, even by implication, and he expressed his resentment
in such a way that Colonel Mead withdrew from the com-
34
The Psycholo15Y of the Chess Player
tude toward Morphy in retaliation. Chess, which had appeared

to be an innocent and laudable expression of his personality
was now revealed to be actuated by the most childish and ig
noble of wishes, the unconscious impulses to commit a sexual
assault on the father and at the same time to maim him utterly.
There is however one rather serious objection to Jones'
theory about Morphy, ingenious as it is. In 1 858 the unacknowl
edged world champion was no longer Staunton, but Anderssen.
Chess historians would certainly rank Anderssen above Staun
ton at that time. In 1 866, when Steinitz won the world cham
pionship, he did so by defeating Anderssen. And Morphy had
beaten Anderssen, most decisively. It is thus not clear why he
should have been so disturbed by Staunton's refusal to meet
him.
More importance must be attached to Morphy's repeated
declaration that he was not a professional. When he returned
to New York from his European triumphs in 1 858, his recep
tion was overwhelming. It was widely felt that this was the first
time in history in which an American had proved himself, not
merely the equal, but the superior of any representative in his
field drawn from the older countries, so that Morphy had added
a cubit to the stature of American civilization. In the presence
of a great assembly in one University he was presented with a
testimonial consisting of a chess board with mother-of-pearl and
ebony squares and a set of men in gold and silver ; he also re
ceived a gold watch, on which colored chess pieces took the
place of the numerals.
At this presentation, Colonel Mead, chairman of the recep
tion committee, alluded in his speech to chess as a profession,
and referred to Morphy as its most brilliant exponent. Morphy
took strong exception to being characterized as a professional
player, even by implication, and he expressed his resentment
in such a way that Colonel Mead withdrew from the com-
34
The World Champions
mittee. In his speech on this occasion Morphy also made the

following remarks ( 2 3 ) :
It is not only the most delightful and scientific,

but the most moral of amusements. Unlike other
games in which lucre is the end and aim of the con
testants, it recommends itself to the wise, by the fact
that its mimic battles are fought for no prize nor
honor. It is eminently and emphatically the philoso
pher's game. Let the chess board supersede the card
table and a great improvement will be visible in the
morals of the community . . . .
Chess never has been and never can be aught
but a recreation. It should not be indulged in to the
detriment of other and more serious avocations
should not absorb or engross the thoughts of those
who worship at its shrine, but should be kept in the
background, and restrained within its proper prov
inces. As a mere game, a relaxation from the severe
pursuits of life, it is deserving of high commendation.
Now Morphy's refusal to embrace chess as a profession

_
was followed by his refusal to embrace any profession. Such
a deep refusal to take life seriously must have much deeper
roots than the accident of Staunton's verbal dyspepsia. In fact,
the withdrawal from life must have been present very early
and compensated by the overpowering interest in chess. He
learned the game at the age of ten, was champion of New
Orleans at twelve, champion of the U.S. at twenty and cham
pion of the world at twenty one. These feats have in broad
outline been repeated by many others since Morphy. But they
can only be achieved at the expense of enormous time and
effort. In other words, throughout his adolescence, Morphy
35
must have spent a major portion of his time playing chess. So

far as is known, he never had any sexual experiences, or at
best only casual ones. Thus the usual competitive-sexual ac
tivities of the adolescent boy were abandoned by Morphy, in
favor of chess. In effect, his chess playing warded off the
psychosis.
The accident of native genius catapulted him into a world
famous celebrity. As world champion, he could no longer take
chess lightly, or look upon it as a mere game. If chess could
not be recreation, it lost its defensive value, and hence a further
regression took place ; the psychosis, previously concealed, broke
out in full force.
I would also like to call attention to one peculiarity of
the Morphy literature. Some four hundred of his games are
preserved, including twenty-two from his earlier days, and more
than fifty odds games. Of these only some fifty-five are tourna
ment or match games. Nowadays it is not customary for any
master to keep records of off-hand games or games at odds.
How is it that so many of Morphy's games are recorded? Most
of them have no intrinsic value ; off-hand games rarely do.
They must have been preserved by Morphy ( or with his con
sent) with an unconscious exhibitionistic intent, to publish a
collection at some future date. By becoming famous, this ex
hibitionistic desire threatened to be unmasked (in his mind )
and only a regression could rescue him from the danger.
Also the existence of so many recorded off-hand games
shows that Morphy could not take chess lightly. It was a deadly
serious matter to him at the same time that he had to go to
great lengths to deny this repeatedly. When he became famous,
his unconsciously determined protestations that chess was a
mere game for him could no longer convince others; here again
a regression had to ensue.
The analysis of Morphy's style is complicated by an his-
36
The World Champions
toric accident. Morphy was active in chess for a period of a

little over a year ( 1 85 7 - 1 858 ) , a period in which the develop
ment of chess was most rudimentary, compared to its present
state. Because of the increased strength of the masters, the
bold, slashing style which was so characteristic in his day has
tended to recede and give way to a much more subtle, refined,
conservative type of game. Chess critics have lamented this
tendency and have pointed to Morphy as an example of the
great genius of combinative play who would have defeated all
these frightened moderns blindfolded. This is nothing more
than the usual myth about the past and the common complaint
of the older generation that "in my day there were real he
men ball players, chess players, prize fighters" and so forth.
If we confine ourselves to the fifty-five serious games that
are included in the Morphy collection, only a few can, by any
stretch of the imagination, be called brilliant. Many are quite
stodgy. What Morphy had that his opponents did not have
was first, the ability to see combinations clearly ( which is a
matter of strength, and not of style ) ; and second, the intuitive
realization of the importance of position play, which was al
most entirely unknown in his day.
In fact, if Morphy is compared stylistically with such
major opponents as Anders.sen and Paulsen, the chief difference
lay in his grasp of the principles of development.
In some way this must have been an expression of the
deepest roots of his personality. Position play is primarily the
ability to organize the chess pieces in the most effective man
ner. We have seen how over-organized Morphy became in his
psychosis-the walk at noon, the afternoon with mother, the
opera at night. 'Ve are also familiar with such extreme organi
zation in other obsessional and paranoid personalities. Mor
phy's development of position play thus arose out of his at
tempt to arrange his world in a more meaningful manner. Its
37
particular application through chess can, however, only be at

tributed to his native genius.
The theoretical discussion of the previous section furnishes
a ready explanation of Morphy's psychotic symptoms. The
rivalry with the father was first acted out in chess, and then
handled by a regressive psychotic identification. During his
chess career Morphy was famous for his "gentlemanly" quali
ties; he repressed his aggression completely. A further repression
took place in the psychosis, punctuated only by the homosexual
assault on Binder, the man who allegedly took his clothes, i.e.,
unmasked him. The absence of anxiety which so many ob
servers noted was rather a sign of ego weakness than of
strength ; he had to pretend to be free of all human emotions.
Morphy's breakdown revealed traits which had previously been
sublimated in chess : memory regressed to a fixation on his child
hood environment ; visualization broke down into voyeurism,
gratified by the opera, by staring at women's faces, and by
another eccentric habit of an-anging women's shoes in a semi
circle in his room. When asked why he liked to arrange the
shoes in this way he said : "I like to look at them." The con
nection between organization and paranoid systematization has
been mentioned. The paranoia was also a regressive expression
of the fear of attack which had been sublimated in chess. In
stead of being able to accept the imaginary chess world, he
lost the ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality ( he
became his father through a psychotic identification with him ) .
In spite of all this, however, the ego remained sufficiently in
tact to allow him to be maintained outside a hospital.
4 ) . WILHELM STEINITZ ( 1 836-1 900 ) was born in Prague
in 1 836 and even as a youngster was known as the best player
in his native city. In school he distinguished himself in mathe
matics. In 1 858 he went to Vienna to study at the Polytech
nische Anstalt. Not long afterwards, however, he gave up his
38
The World Champions
formal schooling, and devoted the rest of his life to chess. In

1 862 he moved to England ( why he left Prague is not defi
nitely known ) , where he maintained himself for some twenty
years. By 1 882 he had so many enemies that he emigrated to
the U.S., where he remained, with some interruptions, until
his death.
For Steinitz chess was the great passion of his life. Unlike
Morphy, he looked upon chess as more than a game, and was
proud of his achievements in it. Bachmann, his biographer,
quotes the following letter from Steinitz to him, written in
1 896, which gives a picture of the man ( 1 ) :
Chess is not for timid souls. It demands a whole

man, who does not stick slavishly to what has been
handed down, but attempts independently to probe
the depths of the game. It is true that I am not easily
pleased and critical, but shouldn't one become critical
if one so often has to hear superficial opinions about
positions which can only be clarified by a thorough
investigation. Shouldn't one worry if one sees how an
tiquated methods are clung to in a dependent way
merely to avoid having one's comfort disturbed. Yes,
chess is difficult, it demands work, serious reflection,
only diligent investigation can satisfy. Only ruthless
criticism can lead to the goal. But for many unfor
tunately the critic is seen as an enemy rather than
as a guide to the truth. But no one will ever draw
me away from the road to the truth.
Steinitz, whose family is said to have wanted him to be

come a rabbi, became instead the architect of modern chess.
Morphy was a brilliant comet ; Steinitz, in the forty years he
devoted to the game, established it in its present form. He
39
The PsycholotfY of the Chess Player
clarified the concepts of position play, classified the openings,

established the classical laws which are still valid today, such
as control of the center, and helped to raise the general level
of skill to a height never before seen.
In sharp contrast to Morphy's detachment, Steinitz was
a fighter every inch of the way. So much so that, as Sergeant
remarks, "Where Staunton's pen was dipped in gall Steinitz's
pen was dipped in vitriol."
Even before he took to chess, Steinitz's love of argument
for the sake of argument was quite manifest. Bachmann quotes
the following anecdote from the autobiography of Josef Popper
( 1 ) , the same Popper-Lynkeus to whom Freud refers :
One of my friends was the great chess player

Wilhelm Steinitz, who was also the greatest genius
I have ever known in my life. Up to that time this
extraordinarily sensitive young man had been an en
thusiastic admirer of Mozart's, i.e., he agreed with
me, and suddenly he admired-Wagner. Almost every
evening we spent many hours in arguments about
whether Wagner's music is really beautiful, whether
it is melodious, and then too whether it can stand side
by side with Mozart's. In spite of all my efforts
Steinitz could not be shaken from the opinion that
Wagner's music was particularly beautiful and "Lo
hengrin" especially wonderful, and that Mozart's
music was inferior.
In Steinitz again the intellectualized aggression is brought

out above all other qualities. He fought on the chess board, he
fought in the chess columns, he argued endlessly with his
friends. To his enemies he attributed anti-semitism ( in this there
was certainly some element of truth ) , and at one time began
40
The World Champions
to write a book on Jews in chess, in order, as he said, to con

found the anti-semites.
Naturally, so much aggression must be accompanied by
great anxieties. This in fact turns out to have been the case.
Steinitz is described as a kind of male hysteric, who for thirty
years suffered from recurrent "nervous" attacks, the main symp
toms of which were over-excitability, nervousness and insom
nia. To overcome these attacks he resorted to the "Kneip"
treatment, a form of hydrotherapy which apparently involved
cold baths ; there was at that time a Kneip Society in New York,
and there were many firm believers in the method.
The gratification derived from being king of the chess
world gradually led to a kind of Messiah complex in him. He
almost literally felt called upon to rescue the lost chess players
from the wilderness. One anecdote from early years relates that
in a Viennese chess club Steinitz used to play with a man named
Epstein, who was then one of the leading figures on the Vien
nese Stock Exchange. When a dispute between the two once
arose, Epstein said to him : "How dare you talk like that? Don't
you know who I am?" To which Steinitz replied : "Oh yes,
you are the Epstein of the Stock Exchange. Here, I am
Epstein."'0
As king of the chess world, Steinitz was able to maintain
sufficient control over his anxieties. But when he lost the cham
pionship to Lasker in 1 894, and lost the return match in Mos
cow in 1 896, he had a brief psychotic episode. After his defeat
he was trying to write his book on Jews in chess as rapidly as
10 A similar story is told of Reshevsky, who had already achieved

fame as a boy wonder in Poland during the first World War when the
German Army occupied his area. The German general in command or
dered the chess phenomenon (then about seven years old ) to appear before
him and play with him. Unabashed, Reshevsky won and said to the
general in Yiddish, "lhr spielt milkhoma, ich spiel schach." ( "You play
war; I play chess." )
41
possible, and for his purpose hired a young Russian secretary

who was fluent in both English and German. He developed a
delusion that he could telephone without wire or receiver, and
the secretary often found him waiting for an answer from the
invisible telephone. He would also go to the window, talk and
sing and expect an answer. The secretary reported this to the
American consul, who then suggested that he be confined to
the Morossow sanatorium. This was on February 1 1 , 1 897. On
March 6, 1 897 he wrote to a Viennese physician who was a
childhood friend that "like all lunatics I imagine that the doc
tors are crazier than I am." He was also well enough to advise
the psychiatrists : "Treat me like a Jew and kick me out."
Steinitz w.as then sixty years old. The delusional idea of
a wireless telephone may have been a harmless aberration, since
he was released after a few weeks and spent four more active
years participating in chess tournaments. In 1 900, shortly be
fore his death, he again displayed various delusional ideas. He
thought that he could emit electrical currents with the help
of which he could move the chess pieces at will. One story says
that he claimed to be in electrical communication with God,
and that he could give God Pawn and move. He was briefly
hospitalized, and released as harmless. A few weeks later he died.
Whether or not he had a senile psychosis with some or
ganic basis, the delusions of his old age may be interpreted as
wishful compensations for his defeat by Lasker. When the ag
gression was no longer effective, a regression took place to the
earlier megalomanic level.
The connection between Steinitz's personality and his chess
style is fairly simple and fairly direct. In his youth he was a
bold gambit player, who won by wild attacks and brilliant
combinations ; ironically his games from this period are typical
42
The World Champions
of the way Morphy is supposed to have played but never did.

It is clear that he was dethroning the father by brute force.
Once he was champion, he was the father, and he had to beat
off the attacks by the sons. Accordingly his style underwent
a radical transformation, and he became an invincible defen
sive player. But just as he had pushed the attack to extremes,
he pushed the defense in the same way. He would get into
the most fantastically lopsided positions, from which only his
genius helped him to escape. In one variation which he loved
as Black, he would hold on to his Pawn at K4 against any
and every onslaught, just as in real life he would stubbornly
stick to his point regardless of what others said.
Defensiveness may often have a provocative quality, and
Steinitz could be extremely provocative. One story says that
Blackburne, an English master who was beaten innumerable
times by Steinitz, was once so angered that he threw his emi
nent opponent out of the window. Blackburne's main love in
life, apart from chess, was the bottle, and he was probably
drunk when the incident occurred, but Steinitz may very well
have helped to bring the attack down on his head.
In Steinitz's case we find a direct carry-over from his be
havior in real life to his behavior on the chess board. While
this happens often enough, it can by no means be taken as
an invariable rule.
5 ) . EMANUEL LASKER ( 1 868- 1 94 1 ) presents still another
type of personality. He was born in Berlinchen in 1 868. We
are told that he learned the moves at the age of twelve from
his brother Berthold, who became a first-class master in his
own right, though he devoted himself to his medical profession.
Emanuel did not take up the game seriously until he was
fifteen. He acquired the title of Master, according to the Ger-
43
man custom, by winning the Hauptturnier at Breslau in 1 889.

In 1 892 he paid a long visit to England, and after a number
of successes there went on to America to beat Steinitz in 1 894.
After winning the world championship he went on to some
outstanding tournament victories at St. Petersburg 1 895-96,
Nuremberg 1 896, London 1 899 and Paris 1 900, by which time
it was clear that he was well above any of the other chess
masters of that day.
He then withdrew from active competition for a while and
took a Ph.D. in mathematics at Erlangen in 1 900. Although he
could have taught mathematics, or been a professional chess
player, he preferred to look upon himself as a philosopher, and
to devote himself independently to whatever pursuits interested
him at the moment. In spite of his protestations, he continued
to play from time to time and remained among the best until
very late. In 1 9 24, at fifty-six, he still won first prize at the
New York tournament, ahead of all his leading rivals, including
Gapablanca.
In 1 908 he married a German writer and at forty became,
as he put it, husband, father and grandfather in one stroke,
since his wife, who was several years his senior, was already
a grandmother.
In 1 9 2 1 Lasker lost the title match to Capablanca, a match
in which he really showed little interest and resigned prema
turely rather than put up the fight which he had preached in
his book, Kampf ( 29 ) in 1 907. Several years later he issued
a public declaration that the organization of the chess world
was inimical to any chess master who aspired to be a creative
artist, and announced his official retirement from the game.
For nine years he kept aloof from the game, but the advent of
the Nazi regime destroyed his personal fortune, and in 1 934
financial pressure forced him to return to it. At Moscow in
1 9 35 he was still good enough to win third prize, at the age
44
The World Champions
of sixty-seven, a feat which many called a "biological miracle."

After several years in Moscow, he came to this country in 1 937,
and died in 1 94 1 .
Lasker was primarily an independent spirit, and most of
his life was spent as a free-lance intellectual. His interests were
many and varied ; he taught mathematics, wrote on philosophy,
invented a kind of tank in World War I, wrote an Encyclopedia
of Games and a book on board games and towards the end
even projected a series of social reforms in a work called The
Community of the Future ( 30 ) .
As a personality Lasker was the direct opposite of his pre
decessor, Steinitz. He was affable, courteous and, on the surface
at least, completely devoid of any kind of hostility. Those who
knew him were impressed by his refusal to get into any kind
of argument, or to utter an unkind word about anybody. He
prided himself on his philosophical temperament.
For several years, in the early 1 930's, Lasker was friendly
with Einstein, and the latter contributed a foreword to Lasker's
biography. Among other things, Einstein relates that the two
men had long arguments about the theory of relativity. Lasker
offered the unusual objection that it had not been demonstrated
that the speed of light in a vacuum is infinite, and that since
this assumption is a cornerstone of the theory of relativity,
Einstein was not justified in applying the theory until the as
sumption was either proved or disproved. To this Einstein re
plied that one could not wait indefinitely, especially since no
ascertainable method of verification was available at the mo
ment, and added that Lasker's persistent unwillingness to reach
any conclusions came out of his chessplaying temperament,
which did not require that anything be settled definitely, since
after all it was only a game. Here Lasker's obsessional ambival
ence got the better of him ; otherwie perhaps his first-class
mind might have made some contribution to physics.
45
What role did chess play in the life of this detached in

tellectual? We would have to assume that it supplied a major
source of instinctual gratification in the only way that was ac
ceptable to him, namely the intellectual. Here and there Lasker
gives us a glimpse of the pleasure he derived from the game,
a pleasure which is consciously denied. Of Tarrasch he once
wrote : "He lacks the passion that whips the blood." And of
his celebrated victory over Capablanca at St. Petersburg in
1 9 1 4, he wrote ( 1 6 ) :
The spectators had followed the final moves breath

lessly. That Black's position was in ruins was obvious
to the veriest tyro. And now Capablanca turned over
his King. From the several hundred spectators, there
came such applause as I have never experienced in
all my life as a chess player. It was like the wholly
spontaneous applause which thunders forth in the
theatre, of which the individual is almost unconscious.11
In other words, at times he could feel that the libidinal

gratification in chess was too great. Hence he played less and
less, even gave it up for nine years and refused to place the
proper value on his exploits in the chess world. Particularly
his aggression became subjected to .an increasing reaction
formation. He could never finish many of his other projects
because to do so meant carrying out an aggressive action. Ma
sochistic trends made their appearance, and mingled with the
aggression. In the first World War he wrote a book demon
strating that civilization would be ruined if Germany did not
win the war. His premature resignation to Capablanca in the
1 92 1 match must have been masochistically determined ; he
felt too "old", yet in a number of subsequent encounters de-
1 1 Italics mine.-R. F.
46
The World Champions
feated his younger opponent, the last time as late as 1 935.

In 1 925 he "felt mistreated" by the chess world. The physician
who attended him in his last illness ( a prostatic affliction ) has
said that if he had submitted to treatment sooner his life might
have been prolonged by a number of years. The intellectualiza
tion went too far ; he denied his body.
Lasker's style is more difficult to define than that of any
of the other champions, and this is in a way characteristic of
him ( as Einstein observed, he could not be pinned down ) .
Two features stand out : one is his tactical superiority, and the
other is his search for clarity and order.
That tactical superiority should be unique to one cham
pion might seem odd ; one would expect all to have it. In
Lasker's case, however, it was raised to the level of a style, in
that, unlike the others, he would not commit himself to any
doctrinaire point of view. Steinitz was often more anxious to
prove his theories than to win ; Capablanca was out to sim
plify ; Alekhine to attack.
Lasker could attack or defend. Though he usually preferred
to defend, he could play opening, middle game and ending
with equal virtuosity. He was a well-rounded chess artist-a
quality which reflects the wish expressed in his own life to be
expert in many different areas. He refused to be pinned down ;
on the chess board this is an asset, since a thorough eclecticism
provides the greatest number of victories in the long run. But
in other areas it was a liability. The wish to be everything prob
ably contributed to his early love for chess ; his choice stands
out as a contrast to that of his equally gifted brother, who
gave up serious chess and devoted himself to medicine. "'vVe are
told that his brother taught him the game, and we are well
aware of the deep impact of sibling rivalry on personality
formation.
The other feature of Lasker's style is his search for clarity
47
and order. His first book on the game ( he only wrote two )
was entitled Com mon Sense in Chess ( 28 ) . In the preface to
his philosophical work, Das Begreifen der Welt he says ( 27 ) :
This book is written for all men. It assumes noth

ing. Nevertheless, in writing it a certain class of reader
has been kept in mind : it appeals preferably to those
educated people who have still kept their simplicity.
If it succeeds with complicated people, it will simplify
them.
The search for clarity would for Lasker be specifically tied

up with the wish to deny or "regulate" his sexual impulses. We
may recall his statement that when he married he became
husband, father and grandfather all in one stroke. It is per
haps no accident that the two opening variations which bear
his name ( the Exchange Variation in the Ruy Lopez and Las
ker's Defense in the Queen's Gambit Declined ) both involve
an unusually early exchange of Queens ; that is, to clarify the
situation he gets rid of women.
6 ) . Jos E RAUL CAPABLANCA ( 1 888- 1 942 ) was the Don
Juan of the chess world. He was born in Havana in 1 888, and,
as is so frequent, learned the moves at the age of five from
his father. In 1 900, when he was only twelve, he defeated
Corzo in a match for the championship of Cuba. His family
was well placed ; one of his brothers was a senator, and others
occupied high positions in the life of that country.
He was sent to New York to study engineering, but after
a brief stay at Columbia University his genius for chess be
came so apparent that he soon left school. In 1 909 he trounced
Marshall in a match, and was recognized as the champion of
the Americas. In 1 9 1 1 he took first place at the international
tournament at San Sebastian, and it was immediately clear
48
The World Champions
that he was second only to Lasker. The match between these

two had to be postponed because of the war, but when it came
to pass the Cuban won with remarkable ease.
Capablanca's countrymen were enthusiastic about his ex
ploits. He was given a position in the diplomatic service ; here
his duties were light and he was free to devote much time to
chess.
For the six years that Capablanca held the world title
he was looked upon as almost invincible, a "chess machine"
who never made a mistake. As with Morphy, the myth does
not jibe with the reality ; for example, in the two tournaments
in which he competed with Lasker the latter finished ahead of
him both times. Many of his other rivals frequently played
better than he did.
In 1 927 a world championship match with Alekhine Wai
arranged in Buenos Aires. Capablanca was the favorite, but
much to everybody's surprise he lost. Subsequent effort3 to ar
range a return match were fruitless, and Alekhine even pre
vented Capablanca from participating in the same tournaments
with him for many years. He was inactive for about five years.
In 1 934 he returned to chess again, but it was not until 1 936
that he again scored some outstanding triumphs, at Moscow
and Nottingham. After that his play fell off, and he did not
compete in the last few years. He died in New York in 1 94 2
of a cerebral hemorrhage : for years he had suffered from ab
normal hypertension.
In his personal life, an early marriage ended unhappily,
and he spent the rest of his life in a long series of casual sexual
experiences, until his remarriage at the age of fifty to a Russian
ex-princess. Physically he was quite handsome, and one always
saw him surrounded by a bevy of admiring women. In many
of his chess defeats the alibi would be spread ( no doubt with
his unconscious assent ) that he had been off with a woman.
49
The Psycholo{fj of the Chess Player
When he lost to Tarrasch at St. Petersburg in 1 9 1 4, he was

supposed to have come to the game from the bed of the mistress
of the Grand Duke. When he lost to Alekhine in 1927, it was
because he was dallying with too many dancers.
Capablanca was highly competitive in other games as well
as in chess. He was an expert bridge player, a competent tennis
player and a member of the baseball team at Columbia Uni
versity. To win at everything he undertook was obviously his
goal in life. In analytic terminology he would be classified as
a phallic-narcissistic character. As is typical with such men, the
unconscious purpose of his sex life was to gain a conquest, and
it appears that like the original Don Juan, Capablanca lost
interest in a woman as soon as he had had her sexually.
Towards men he displayed contemptuous arrogance. His
narcissism again stood out here. He was a notoriously poor loser.
When he lost to Marshall at Havana in 1 9 1 3 he had the mayor
of the city clear the room of all spectators before he would
admit defeat.
Not long after he won the world championship it became
clear that Capablanca grew bored with chess. He said the
game was played out and proposed that the board be enlarged
and new pieces added. He never studied, never gave exhibi
tions, in fact hardly played at all outside of tournaments. The
illusion was that he had conquered chess, that it was futile to
bother with it any further.
From this illusion the myth of his invincibility arose. In
My Chess Career he wrote ( 7 ) :
There have been times in my life when I came

very near thinking that I could not lose even a single
game of chess. Then I would be beaten, and the lost
game would bring me back from dreamland to earth.
The dreamland where one can never be beaten is a fa-
50
The World Champions
miliar one : it is the return to the mother. In him the oral

fixation was strong. It does not surprise us to learn that Capa
blanca was exceptionally fond of cooking, and that he had
several favorite restaurants where he went to prepare his own
meals. The incessant anxiety and rage which probably led to
his hypertension are also the common symptoms of the orally
fixated man who can never find the longed-for mother of his
infancy.
The role that chess played in his life is quite clear : he
was out to win, and through his native genius in chess he could
win. Once he had succeeded in overthrowing the father ( Las
ker ) he lost interest, which meant he was living out his fantasy
of infantile omnipotence.
This regression to the infantile omnipotence would also
explain the peculiar blunders which marred his games from
time to time, ( e.g., with Tarrasch at St. Petersburg, 1 9 1 4 ; Ale
khine, first match game, 1927 ; Johner, Carlsbad, 1 929 ) , blun
ders which even an amateur could have avoided. At those
points he must have been lost in a daydream ( "I came very
near thinking that I could not lose even a single game of
chess" ) and was only in remote contact with the actual
position.
Capablanca's style can best be described as materialistic.
He would win a Pawn, or gain some positional advantage and
the rest would be handled by his flawless technique. Even his
earliest games, such as those against Corzo when he was twelve,
follow along these lines. He never seems to have gone through
the romantic attack-at-all-costs period which so many young
players go through.
The materialistic approach flows directly out of his phallic
narcissistic orientation : win something and the reward follows
automatically. Capablanca was extraordinarily quick in his
grasp of the board ; in his youth especially he played much
51
The Psych ology of the Chess Player
more rapidly than any of his contemporaries. Once he had an

advantage he no longer had to think ; he could retire to his
land of Cockaigne.
7 ) . ALEXANDER ALEKHINE ( 1 892- 1 946 ) WM the sadist of
the chess world. He was born in Moscow in 1 892, the scion
of a wealthy Russian family. As an exception, we are told that
his mother taught him the game at an early age, and he soon
became a rabid 'enthusiast. At school he spent his time playing
blindfold chess. His progress was so rapid that by sixteen he
was already a master. His family's fortune allowed him to
devote much time to chess ( His father is reported to have lost
two million rubles at Monte Carlo ) . At St. Petersburg in 1 9 1 4
he scored his first real international success, finishing third after
Lasker and Capablanca. A warm friendship grew up between
Alekhine and Capablanca, which was in sharp contrast to the
bitterness of their later years.
During the war and the revolution that followed there
was no opportunity for chess activity. Alekhine was reputed
to have become a member of the Communist party. Once he
spent two weeks in a Cheka prison, under suspicion of passing
on secret information. His knowledge of foreign languages
gained him a post in the Foreign Ministry. He used this posi
tion to attach himself to a delegation sent abroad, and broke
away when he reached Germany. By 1 92 1 he was out of the
U .S.S.R. and became a professional chess master, which he re
mained the rest of his life. In 1 929 he took a degree in law
at the Sorbonne, but never practiced.
In the postwar period Alekhine ranked third after Lasker
and Capablanca. Since Lasker soon withdrew, only Capablanca
remained. For years all of his efforts were devoted to beating
the Cuban. He studied his games, worked hard, wrote some
magnificent books and finally succeeded in winning the world
title in 1927.
52
The World Champions
Once he had beaten Capablanca, Alekhine's attitude to

wards him took a sharp about-face. He avoided a return match
by any trick that he could think of. Once when Capablanca
had raised the $ 1 0,000 purse required, Alekhine demanded that
it be paid in gold because the dollar was no longer of the san;ie
value ! He barred Capablanca from tournaments in which he
participated by increasing his fee to such an outlandish figure
that the tournament committee could not meet it. The two did
not meet again in tournament play until 1 936, when Alekhine
had lost the championship and could no longer dictate terms.
Alekhine's avoidance of Capablanca was certainly neu
rotically determined. There is little doubt that in the years from
1 928 to 1 934 Alekhine would have won fairly easily ; his chess
had in that period reached an extraordinarily high level, while
the Cuban had declined. Alekhine even went to incredible
lengths to avoid any mention of Capablanca's name. In 1 937,
at a chess tournament in Margate, England, Sir John Simon,
then Home Secretary, made some opening remarks. What he
said was of no particular consequence, but he happened to
mention Capablanca's name in passing. Alekhine immediately
got up and ostentatiously left the room. The enemy must be
completely exterminated, and even his name must disappear.
The early period of his championship, from 1 927-1 934,
saw Alekhine at the height of his powers. Then he began to
drink fairly heavily, his play deteriorated and he began to
show some signs of megalomania. In 1 935, an international
team tournament was held in Warsaw. Alekhine played top
board for France, of which he was a naturalized citizen. How
ever, on this trip he arrived at the Polish border without a
passport. When the officials asked him for his papers he re
plied : "I am Alekhine, chess champion of the world. I have
a cat called Chess. I do not need papers." The matter had to
be straightened out by the highest authorities.
53
Jos Raul Capablanca
Alexander Alekhine
In 1 935 his aberrations lost him the title to the Dutch

man, Dr. Max Euwe. Although he regained the title in 1 937,
it was clear that many of the younger generation were his
equals or superiors at that time.
During the war Alekhine became a Nazi collaborator. He
wrote a series of articles on the "Aryan" spirit in which he
"proved" that Jews could not play chess, and that they spoiled
the purity of the game. Since so many of his colleagues were
Jewish he was boycotted by them after the war. Botvinnik, an
exception, challenged him to a match in 1 946, and it was ar
ranged for London. Shortly before the date of the match Ale
khine died of a heart attack in Lisbon.
A report was broadcast during the war that Alekhine was
confined to a sanatorium in Vichy, France for a while ; but I
have been unable to obtain any details.
Alekhine's relations to women were markedly disturbed.
He was married five times. His last two wives were much older ;
one was thirty years his senior, the other twenty. It was said
that he became impotent early in life. Towards his last wife he
was openly sadistic.
In his later years Alekhine showed other eccentricities as
well. He drank very heavily. He treated people as though they
were merely Pawns on the chess board. Once when he was
scheduled to give a simultaneous exhibition on forty boards in
Mexico a latecomer appeared who had some political impor
tance, and a forty-first board was added. Alekhine deliberately
knocked it over. In one case he appeared at an exhibition so
drunk that he began to urinate on the floor, and the exhibition
had to be stopped. During his 1 935 match with Euwe before
one game he was found lying in a field drunk.
Unlike Capablanca, Alekhine loved chess . He played very
often, and when he was not playing spent much time studying.
54
The W arid Champions
He used to say that even on trips he would spend four hours

a day at the chessboard.
Again one recognizes m him a strong phallic-narcissistic
component. Chess to him was primarily a weapon of aggression,
a way of destroying the rivals he could not defeat in any other
way. In comparing him with Gapablanca, two little details com
mand attention : Alekhine was taught the moves by his mother,
Capablanca by his father. Hence for Alekhine to continue at
chess meant winning the mother ( he even used to say that he
played chess in bed with his last wife who was old enough
to be his mother ) . For Capablanca to continue at chess meant
staying away from the mother, so he became bored with it.
Alekhine's chess style is easily characterized : he was the
great exponent of the surprise attack. He liked to think of
himself as the greatest attacking player in chess history. It is
clear that this attacking spirit represented for him a sublimation
of the sadistic urges towards the father. Once he had a man
down he wanted to destroy him ; what he tried in real life with
Capablanca he carried out in symbolic form on the chessboard.
At the same time, especially towards the end, Alekhine
showed a marked weakness in defense play. Psychologically the
reason is clear : he projected his own sadistic urges to the op
ponent, and feared the utter annihilation that he would like
to have inflicted.
8 ) . MAX EuwE ( 1901- ) was born near Amsterdam,
Holland in 1 90 1 . His chess career began early. At the age of
ten he won a one-day tournament in Amsterdam, but his family
preferred not to push him as a child genius, and he finished
his schooling quietly. In 1 9 2 1 , when he was twenty, he won
the Dutch championship. Although he had already come pretty
far, he avoided serious chess until he had completed his doc
torate in mathematics in 1926. He has always been a mathe
matics teacher by profession.
55
Euwe's main international successes at first came m the

form of defeats by narrow margins. In 1 926 he lost a match to
Alekhine by the score of 4 Y2 -S Y2 ; his was a much better score
than Capablanca made the next year in the world champion
ship match. After a gradual improvement in tournament scores,
he defeated Alekhine in a title match in 1 935. Two years later
he lost the return match.
After the war, Euwe took a five-year leave of absence
from his school activities to devote himself entirely to chess.
He travelled all over the world and played a great deal, but
his tournament results were no longer on a par with his pre
war standards.
As a person Euwe stands again in marked contrast to his
predecessor. He is married, has three children, and has lived
an exemplary and-by usual standards--reasonably happy life.
There is no sign of any deep-seated neurotic conflict, no anxie
ties which exceed those of the ordinary well-adjusted individual
in our society.
Euwe is a teacher by profession, and has been a teacher
to the chess world. He has written numerous books and edited
columns in leading papers and magazines for the past thirty
years.
What role does chess play for such a man? The two
choices which he had early in life were chess and mathematics :
actually the difference lies in the fact that one is a contest, while
the other is not. Chess is thus an intellectualized aggression, a
successful sublimation. At the same time the aggression is kept
within normal limits. Victories do not turn into megalomanic
conquests, nor defeats into extermination.
Euwe's style is characterized by the emphasis on careful
preparation and logic. He is one of the leading authorities on
the openings, and rarely can be outplayed at the start. On
the other hand, when he is taken by surprise by an opening
56
The World Champions
innovation, he is bowled over too far-no doubt projecting his

own thoroughness to his opponent.
It is clear that the well-ordered life of a school teacher
is reflected in the careful preparation which is so typical of him.
Tactical surprises, which are out of place in such a life, are
also out of place on the chess board.
9 ) . MIKHAIL BoTVINNIK ( 1 9 1 1 - ) is the first world
champion to come out of a culture ( U.S.S.R. ) where chess is
officially ranked as one of the creative arts. He was born in
1 9 1 1 in St. Petersburg. He learned the moves at thirteen and
immediately demonstrated remarkable ability for the game. The
first success of his career came in 1 925, when he beat Capa
blanca in a simultaneous exhibition. In 1 927 he scored his first
national success. At sixteen he qualified for the finals of the
U.S.S.R. championship, tied for fifth prize with Makogonov,
and acquired the title of master.
Despite his chess prowess, Botvinnik remained in academic
work and became an electrical engineer, a profession in which
his accomplishments are also regarded as noteworthy.
In 1 9 3 1 , at the age of twenty, Botvinnik won his first
U.S.S.R. championship. One success followed another. In 1 948
he won first prize in the five-man tournament for the world
championship organized after Alekhine's death. He has since
then twice successfully defended the title , though in both cases
by drawing the match with his opponents instead of beating
them.
Botvinnik is married, with one child. He practices engineer
ing and teaches at a university. The esteem in which chess is
held in his country makes it easily possible for him to play
when and where he pleases. He has been decorated with the
Order of Lenin.
The Russians for many years have made a determmed
effort to prove that in their society artists need not be the tor-
57
mented prima donnas so often encountered in other countries,

but can lead socially normal lives. So far as we know Botvin
nik's life has followed this pattern.
In a culture with such an attitude, chess must play a
different role in the individual's psychic economy. It would be
legitimate to inquire why chess has become a national sport in
Russia ; inasmuch as it has one need not inquire too deeply
into why the individual Russian citizen would become deeply
absorbed in it. He is merely fitting in with those around him.
The rest is a matter of native genius.
Botvinnik's style is typical of that of all the Russian masters
of our time. Several years ago Botvinnik wrote an article on
the "Soviet school in chess" ( 3 ) in which he described this
style. Its main feature is that it is dynamically ready to meet
any situation that arises, as contrasted with more static "capi
talist" conceptions that overstress the opening or the endgame,
attack or defense. Such a style can readily be seen to be a
translation to the chess board of the Soviet political feeling of
encirclement and the need to be ready for any eventuality.
Botvinnik's article however, did not describe several Gther
features which strike an outsider. His play ( and that of the
other Russians ) is based much more on a counter-offensive
strategy than on a direct offensive. This could well be the re
flection of a social structure in which individual initiative is
reduced to a minimum.
Another stylistic feature which Botvinnik does not mention
is a weakness in handling a static defensive position, something
in which masters like Steinitz and Lasker excelled. Again this
could be a translation to the chess board of the "do or die"
alternative in political realities.
One would expect, in addition, that certain aspects of
Botvinnik's personality would be reflected in his chess to dif-
58
The World Champions
ferentiate him from other masters but there is not enough in

formation available to clarify this point.
We can now attempt to answer the three questions with

which this section began. The first two, as to whether there is
a core personality constellation common to all chess players, and
what role chess plays in the life of any particular individual,
may be considered together.
The occupations from which the champions came show

some similarities and some differences. Anderssen and Lasker
were mathematicians, as is Euwe ; Botvinnik is an engineer.
Capablanca began to study engineering but abandoned it in
favor of chess. Thus about half come from mathematical
scientific fields. This agrees fairly well with the tabulation of
De Groot ( 10) , who collected data on the forty leading masters
of modem times.
However, many other professions are represented among

the chess masters. While perhaps half come from scientific
fields allied with mathematics, the other half do not. Ruy Lopez
was an ecclesiastic ; Philidor was a musician ; Deschapelles was
a soldier ; Lewis, M'Donnell and Saint-Amant, business men ;
Kolisch a banker; Zukertort and Tarrasch, physicians ; Buckle
a historian ; Tartakower a poet. The young Russian master Tai
manov is a concert pianist. There was a chess master named
Harmonist who danced at the Opera House in Vienna. There
was even one who was a professional strong man. There was
a serf on an Indian estate, Sultan Khan, who was almost illiter
ate ; he comes closest to the chess champion of Stefan Zweig's
novelette The Ro ya/, Game ( 39 ) , who is depicted as a kind of
idiot savant.
The personality structures of the champion show some

marked similarities if we divide them in two groups. In one we
have Morphy, Steinitz, Capablanca and Alekhine, who devoted
59
themselves alomst exclusively to chess. Let us call these, for

the sake of convenience, the heroes. The others who also pursue
interests apart from chess would then be the non-heroes.
The hero group has been given this designation because

myths have been built up about each of its members. Morphy
is popularly looked upon as "the greatest chess player of all
time", Steinitz as "the father of modem chess" . Capablanca was
known as "the chess machine" and publicly announced that he
had mastered the game once and for all. Alekhine came to be
talked about as "the greatest attacking player of all time".
Needless to say, all these superlatives derive from the chess

player's need to find some hero whom he can worship. But
the champions themselves played into the hands of their wor
shipers, and obtained some of their most profound unconscious
satisfactions from the idolatrous groups which grew up around
them. Even Morphy's withdrawal from chess is perhaps most
simply explained by saying that he knew that if he went back
the illusion of his invincibility would be destroyed.
All these men showed considerable emotional disturbance.

Morphy's illness was, of course, the most profound, and he gave
up chess sooner than any of the others. Steinitz and Alekhine
both had harmless megalomanic ideas towards the end of their
lives. Capablanca suffered from extreme tension.12
All four display in marked degree the character traits of

aggression and narcissism which our theoretical analysis indi
cated could so readily be brought out by the game. Undemeath
they all had fantasies of omnipotence ; to some extent they
literally identified themselves with the King of the chess board.
With Steinitz the regression to a more omnipotent fantasy state
1 2 Morphy, Alekhine and Capablanca all died of sudden "strokes"

between the ages of forty-five and fifty-five, which may well be related
to the enormous tension under which they lived.
60
The World Champions
came after his defeat by Lasker ; with the others it came after
a series of victories.
In order to accomplish what they did all four had to work
very hard. The grandiose wishes could not be satisfied by simple
daydreaming. Their successes could be achieved only after long
and careful preparation. For this much ego strength is needed,
which again fits in with the theoretical analysis. Some of these
men, like Steinitz and Capablanca would have seemed more
or less normal by customary standards. Only a more refined
analysis serves to bring out the neurotic conflicts which troubled
them.
All four were well endowed men who did not care to use
their abilities outside of chess. Particularly striking is their gift
for languages : Alekhine, Capablanca and Morphy were all
fluent linguists, while Steinitz, although he was born in Prague,
became a master of English prose.
The role which chess played in the lives of these men is
clear enough : it served as a vehicle for the gratification of their
omnipotence fantasies. As time went on, these fantasies, which
were originally under control of the ego, became more and more
libidinized, and suffused an increasing portion of the personality.
In almost every respect, the other group, the non-heroes,
show exactly opposite tendencies. They had no myths built up
about them, although they could easily have done so. Staunton
and Anderssen both could have claimed the title of champion of
the world , but they had other satisfactions in life, and did not
have to do so. When Lasker was alive, the critics liked to say
that he won because he was lucky or because he blew smoke
into the eyes of his opponent. He did not bother to refute these
fairy-tales.
All of these non-heroes, except Anderssen, have substan
tial achievements to their credit outside of chess. Lasker, Euwe
61
and Botvinnik have all held positions equivalent in rank to that

of .an American college professor and Staunton's literary fame
has been mentioned.
For them, again in contrast to the hero group, chess is

one of several intellectual pursuits in which they show varied
degrees of competence. When we were able to penetrate beneath
the surface, as with Staunton and Lasker, we saw that chess
provided a libidinal outlet, especially for aggression, which the
other intellectual areas did not.
With regard to the third question, that of the connection

between personality and chess style, in every case some clear
bond could be seen between life experience and behavior on
the board. It is not, however, a bond which can be readily
reduced to a formula. In some, chess style is the direct expres
sion of personality ( the aggressive man who attacks ) ; in some
it is the exact opposite ( the aggressive man who defends ) . In
others the nexus is far more complex.
62
4
PSYCHOSES AMONG CHESS PLAYERS
Now I WISH TO REVIEW a number of cases of psychosis in

chess players which have been reported or come to my at
tention, to see whether they shed any light on the conflicts
ordinarily repressed.
The case of Morphy has been discussed ; Steinitz's harm
less delusions have also been mentioned.
A number of years ago I observed an early psychotic break
in a chess player who was himself the son of an expert. He
was twenty two years old and an artist by profession. However,
his family was strongly opposed to his painting and demanded
that he become self-supporting. In the week during which I
saw him, he painted only the faces of cats.
In a period of much turmoil, he decided to go off on a
trip as a merchant seaman. He returned from the trip on a
Saturday and went to a restaurant with a friend of his. Sud
denly he touched his friend's hand, and said, "I am God". This
feeling passed the next day and gave way to a sense of deep
anxiety and some delusional ideas which centered aronnd chess.
A few days later (this was in 1 94 7 ) he told this story :
"There is a war going on between the United States and
R1.1$ia. The real ruler of Russia is not Stalin but Botvinnik. He
is an engineer and my brother is an engineer ( He had a
brother some eight years older who was actually an engineer
63
-R. F. ) . I am going to go to Russia and beat Botvinnik. In

this way, I will conquer the world for America. My father
had a variation with the Black pieces which I have since per
fected. Botvinnik cannot beat me as long as I play this variation
with Black. With White, I will beat him without any trouble."
The mechanism of the chess delusion is quite clear here.
The infantile omnipotence first came out in the delusion that
he was God, then it was transferred to the chess board. Chess
became the instrument whereby he would satisfy the infantile
wish. Botvinnik is an ideal "father-brother" combination in
that he is both a chess master and an engineer. To overthrow
him meant killing the "father-brother" rivals. The cat's faces
he kept on painting probably symbolized the mother.
This man had also libidinized the pieces in a unique way.
The King and Queen, he said, were permitted to stay together
on the chess board only because there were two Bishops on
either side of them, which gave official sanction to the union.
However, even with this official sanction, it was not right that
the King and Queen should be so close to one another, and in
the openings it was necessary to separate them as soon as
possible.
After the acute stage of the psychosis the patient retired
to the country, where he sustained himself satisfactorily for some
time.
The Mexican master, Carlos Torre, suffered a psychotic
episode shortly after he reached his greatest eminence. Of Mexi
can extraction, Torre was born in New Orleans and moved
to New York at the age of eleven. When he was only twenty
years old ( in 1 925) he went to Europe and participated suc
cessfully in a number of international tournaments. In the
Moscow tournament in 1 925 on his 2 1st birthday, he happened
to defeat Emanuel Lasker. He was already spoken of as one
of the coming men of the game and a possible world champion.
64
Psychoses among Chess Players
The Mexican government, still in the aftermath of the revolu

tions that had begun in 1 9 1 0, called Torre back to Mexico,
remunerated him generously and promised him all necessary
support for his chess career. About one year later, he had his
breakdown in New York. It is reported that while on a Fifth
Avenue bus he took off all his clothes. After hospitalization,
he was sent back to Monterrey in Mexico, where he has since
been cared for by three brothers, all physicians. He has never
left Monterrey since and has never again played in an inter
national chess tournament. In 1 934 he played a little chess in
Monterrey. He was obviously eccentric, but showed no overt
psychotic features. After eight years away from tournament
competition he might have been expected to be somewhat rusty ;
actually, from a technical point of view, he had lost little of
his skill.
Of Torre's eccentricities several stand out. He could not
sleep well and never slept more than two hours a night, he
said. He had such a fondness for pineapple sundaes that he
ate ten or fifteen a day. He warned his colleagues to stay away
from women because they cost too much money.
Torre's case reveals certain similarities to Morphy, who
at roughly the same age, returned to his home, refused to leave
it, and refused to play chess. One delusion of Morphy's, it will
be recalled, was that his brother-in-law and an intimate friend,
Binder, were conspiring to destroy his clothes. Torre's psychosis
began with the removal of his clothes on the bus.
During a chess tournament in Poland a Polish master by
the name of A. Frydman was reported to have gone berserk
and to have run through the hotel without any clothes on
shouting " Fire ! "
Some years ago at a chess club i n a large European city
one of the stronger chess players appeared in a coat that covered
him from head to foot. Suddenly he opened the coat and re-
65
vealed that he had nothing on underneath. The man was hos

pitalized and made a quick recovery.
In these illustrations a number of cases of exhibitionism
took a psychotic form. In other cases, such as that of Alekhine,
eccentric exhibitionism has been observed.
Towards the end of his life, ( 1929-1 935 ) , the emigre
Russian master Aron Nimzovitch was advised by his physician
to take more exercise. He thereupon proceeded to act on this
advice by performing calisthenics during actual tournament
play. When it was not his move, he would go off to his corner
and do deep knee bends or the like. Several times he astonished
spectators by standing on his head. In spite of these aberrations,
Nimzovitch scored his greatest successes around this period.
The Polish grandmaster Akiba Rubinstein was one of the
leading challengers for the world championship before World
War I. After the war he became increasingly withdrawn, and
finally ended up with the paranoid idea that someone was after
him. If a stranger came into the room he would run, even jump
out of a window. After 1 932 he gave up all chess activities and
all social contacts.
The psychotic symptoms found in these cases are : para
noia, megalomania, and exhibitionism ( loss of a sense of social
reality ) . There is no case of overt homosexuality, no psychotic
depression and no suicide. The regression does not usually go
too far, and hospitalization is either brief or not required.
These symptoms become explicable in terms of our theo
retical analysis. Paranoia is a regressive expression of the fear
of attack, megalomania a more primitive stage of narcissism,
and exhibitionism, particularly self-exposure, is an inability to
tolerate the taboo on physical contact any longer, and an im
pulsive attempt to break through the isolation by showing the
real penis instead of the symbolic one on the chess board. The
absence of severe depression and suicide is accounted for by
66
Psychoses among Chess Players
the outlets for aggression which the game has provided. The
ego structure does not permit overt homosexuality. The ego
retains sufficient strength to ward off the deepest regressions.
67
5
SUMMARY : THEORY OF CHESS
CHparticularly
E S S IS ACONTEST played by two men which
well to the conflicts surrounding

lends itself
aggression.
The other libidinal drives involved date mainly from the anal
phallic levels of development. Usually it is learned in the pre
puberty and puberty periods, and there forms part of the ego's
struggle for maturity.
The symbolism of the game lends itself particularly well
to these conflicts. Central is the figure of the King, which as
a piece is both all-important and weak, and derives its three
meanings from this combination. The King stands for : the
boy's penis in the phallic stage, the self-image of the man, and
the father cut down to the boy's size. Both technically and
psychologically the King is unique and gives the game its dis
tinctive flavoring.
The ego of the chess player employs many intellectual
defenses. There is an alteration of thought and action, rather
than a simple replacement of action by thought. Real intellectual
abilities are needed to acquire skill, and the ego must be healthy
enough to put these to use. Aggresion is handled by a deep re
pression. Considerable narcissistic gratification may be derived,
both through the individualized combat situation, and through
the symbolism of the King.
In many respects the ego of the chess player is opposite
68
Summary : Theory of Chess
to that of the overt homosexual. The chess player can tolerate

much anxiety, he can dissociate himself from the need for
primitive objects and he can neutralize his drive energies to
free himself for real achievements. The ego weakness lies mainly
in an accentuation of the narcissistic fator.
Chess thus offers both libidinal and ego gratifications.
These may be present in varying degrees, which explains why
there is no clear-cut "type" of chess player.
A study of the nine world champions of the past century
revealed two groups of personalities-the "heroes" and the
"non-heroes". The heroes use chess to satisfy the fantasies of
omnipotence, and show a greater or less degree of regression in
the course of time. However, an examination of actual psy
choses revealed that the regression is never extreme.
The non-hero group takes to chess as one of many intel
lectual endeavors. Chess players are drawn mainly from the
intellectual fields, though they may come from any background.
On the whole, chess masters in the non-hero group show the
capacity to accomplish much in other areas as well. These men
are psychologically quite healthy, and do not manifest the dis
turbances of the hero group.
We would suppose that the average player is similar in
personality to the champions. In the main he will be drawn
from the scientific fields. In some cases chess may be used to
gratify his grandiose fantasies, in others it will simply be one
of several intellectual outlets. It differs from others in that it
provides more libidinal gratification than the average activities
of the intellectual.
69
6
APPENDIX: TWO LETTERS BY ERNEST JONES
Jan. 25, 1956

DEAR MR. FIN E :
I feel equally honoured and grateful for your courtesy in
letting me read your essay, which I have very much enjoyed.
It is certainly an important extension of my own.
I agree with all your psa [psychoanalytic] interpretations
and have very few comments to add. I still think there is a
mystery about the change from Grand Vizier to Queen; you
seem to accept the latter as fundamental. There is perhaps
a question of mother and father's penis behind it all.
On p. 62 there is an interesting Verschrei ben, which I inter
pret as indicating a preference for Capablanca over Alekhine
-understandable enough on personal grounds. I have made
a few other minor suggestions in pencil.
I think you dismiss the Morphy-Staunton affair too lightly.
There is plenty of evidence that he had set his heart on the
latter rather than on Anderson. There was doubtless an early
negative fatherctransference behind it. Do you remember his
early comment on Staunton's "devlish bad games", as if he
needed taking down?
It might be worth your commenting on the curious be
haviour that often happens of a rather quick player (like
Capa) choosing the best move almost at once and then in a
70
Appnedix : Two Letters by Ernest ]ones
state of self-doubting going on speculating and dreaming

until in time trouble they dash at a poorer move. It shows
how important is self-confidence, such as Capa seems to
have had.
My own interest in chess has run a curious course. My
father taught me the moves when I was ten, the usual story,
and he cautioned me to be wary about playing with someone
who carried about a pocket set with him! After that I could
nearly count the games I ever played, in my overworked life,
until after being bombed out in London I came to live in my
cottage here when with fewer patients I had more leisure.
It was then, at the age of 63, that I found out what serious
chess meant. I have read most of the best-known books and
played the games of a dozen or more collections as well as
those in the fortnightly Chess magazine. Then I play half
a dozen correspondence games. I don't do too badly over
the board with ordinary amateurs, and they have even made
me President of the Chichester Chess Club, although I can't
often get there. I have your terrifying books on Chess Open
ings and Basic Endings, but have not the powers of memory
any longer to get the best out of them, and I have greatly
enjoyed your World Great Games, which is very illuminating.
I am now working at Chernev's Thousand Best Short Games,
which is most deceptive in giving one the idea that nothing
is easier than to check your opponent in 1 5 or 20 moves!
Colby of San Francisco was here some time ago and played
a couple of Chernevs on me in reverse.
With kind regards and many thanks,
Sincerely yours,
ERNEST j ONES
DEAR REUBEN FINE,

Many thanks for sending me your brochure on Chess,
71
which has greatly expanded since I saw it in embryo. It will

remain a classic.
It was a great pleasure meeting you in the flesh in New
York. You are more likely than I am to cross the Atlantic
again, and when you do I shall hope you will pay us a visit
in our country home.
Yours very sincerely,
ERNEST JONES
72
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 . Bachmann, L. Schach meister Steinitz. In 4 volumes. C. Brugel & Sohn,

Ansbach. 1 9 1 0- 1 92 1 .
2 . Baumgarten, F . "Wunderkinder." Psychologische Untersuchungex, 8,
1 9 30, p. 1 84.
3. Botvinnik, M. "The Soviet School of Chess." The Chess Review, 1 3,
1 945, pp. 7- 1 0.
4. Bousfield, W. A. and H. Barry. "The Visual Imagery of a Lightning
Calculator." American Journal of Psychology, 45, 1 933, pp. 353-358.
5 . Buttenwieser, P. The Relation of Age and Skill in Expert Chess
Players. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University. Ab
stract in Psychological Bulletin, 32, 1935, p. 5 29.
6. Bychowski, G. "The Structure of Homosexual Acting Out." Psycho
analytic Quarterly, 23, 1 9 54, pp. 48-6 1 .
7 . Capablanca, J . R . My Chess Career. Macmillan Co., New York, 1 920.
Reprinted by Dover Publications, 1 966.
8 . Coriat, I . H. "The Unconscious Motives of Interest in Chess." Psy
choanalytic Review, 28, 1 9 4 1 , pp. 30-36.
9. Davis, P. C. "A Factor Analysis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence
Scale, Form I, in a matrix with reference variables." Abstract in
American Psychologist, 1, 1 952, pp. 296-297.
10. De Groot, A. Het Denken van den Schaker. Noord-Hollandsche Uit
gevers Maatschappij, Amsterdam, 1 946.
1 1 . Djakow, Petrowski and Rudik. Psychologie des Schachspiels. Walter
de Gruyter & Co., Berlin and Leipzig, 1927.
1 2. Encyclopedia Britannica : Vol. 5, 1 953, article on Chess.
1 3. : Vol. 2 1 , 1 95 3 , article on Howard Staunton.
1 4. Federn, P. Ego Psychology and the Psychoses. Basic. Books, New
York, 1952.
15. Fine, R. The World's Great Games of Chess. Crown Publishers, New
York, 1 95 1 .
16. and Reinfeld, F. Dr. Lasker's Chess Career. The Black Knight
Press, New York, 1 9 3 5 . Reprinted by Dover Publications, 1 966, as
Lasker's Greatest Chess Games.

1 7 . Fleming, J. and Strong, S. M. "Observations on the Use of Chess
in the Therapy of an Adolescent Boy." Psychoanalytic Review, 30,
1 943, pp. 399-416.
1 8 . Gurvitz, M. Personal communication.
1 9. Hadamard, J. The Psychology of Invention in the Math ematical Field.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1 945. Reprinted by Dover Publica
tions, 1 954.
20. Harley, E. The Harleyan Miscellany. R. Dutton, London, 1808- 1 8 1 1 .
73
21. Hartmann, H. "Ego Psychology and the Problem of Adaptation. " Trans
lated as Ch. 19 in Rapaport, D. Organization and Pathology of Thought.
Columbia University Press, New York, 1951.
22. Kris, E. and Loewenstein, R. "Comments on the For-
mation of Psychic Structure." The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child.
International Universities Press, New York, 1 946. Vol. II, 1 946, pp.
1 1 -38.
23. Jones, E. "The Problem of Paul Morphy : A Contribution to the Psy
chology of Chess." Essays in Applied Psychoanalysis. The Hogarth
Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis, London, 1 9 5 1 . Vol. I, Ch.
XII, pp. 1 35 - 1 64.
24. Karpman, B. "The Psychology of Chess." Psychoanalytic Review, 24,
1 937, pp. 54-69.
25. Kris, E. L. Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art. International Uni-
versities Press, New York, 1 9 5 2 .
26. Lasker, E. Brettspiele alter Voelker. August Scher!, Berlin, 1 930 .
27. Das Begreifen der Welt. Verlag Hans Joseph, Berlin, 1 9 1 3.
28. Common Sense in Chess. W. H. Lyons, Newport, Ky., 1 909.
Reprinted by Dover Publications, 1 965.
29. - --- Kampf. Lasker's Publishing Co., New York, 1 90 7 .
30. The Community of the Future. M. J. Bernin, New York,
1 940 .
3 1 . Menninger, C. F., Knight, R. P. and others. "Recreation and Morale :
A Subjective Symposium." Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 1 6 , 1942,
pp. 6 5 - 1 0 2 .
3 2 . Reti, R. Masters of the Chessboard. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1 93 2 .
33. Roe, A. "A Psychological Study of Eminent Biologists." Psychological
Monographs : General and Applied. Vol. 65, No. 1 4 . Whole No. 3 3 1 ,
1951.
3 4 . Rorschach, H. Psychodiagnostik. Verlag Hans Huber, Berne and Berlin,
1 932.
3 5 . Sachs, H. The Creative Unconscious. Sci-Art Publishers, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1942.
36. Sergeant, P. W. Championship Chess. David McKay Co., Philadelphia,
1 93 7 . Reprinted by Dover Publications, 1 96 3 .
3 7 . Staunton, H. The Chess Player's Handbook. Porter and Coates,
Philadelphia, 1 8 7 0.
3 8 . Steinitz, W. The Modern Chess Instructor. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New
York, 1 889 .
39. Zweig, S. The Royal Game. Viking Press, New York, 1944.
74

Fine - The Psychology of The Chessplayers 1966 Another PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fine - The Psychology of The Chessplayers 1966 Another PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Psychology of the

With a New Appendix of Two Letters by

Dover Publications, Inc.

Published in Canada by General Publishing Com

This Dover edition. first published in 1967, is an

Standard Book Number: 486-215512

Manufactured in the United States of America

1. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................... Page 1

2. GENERAL REMARKS ON CHESS .......................................... Page 6

3. THE WORLD CHAMPIONS ......................................................... Page 26

4. PSYC HOSES AMONG CHESS PLAYERS ..................... Page 63

5. SUMMARY: THEORY OF CHESS- Page 68

6. APPENDIX: TWO LETTERS BY

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... Page 73

Reuben Fine Frontispiece

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

JNisTHE PSYCHOANALYTIC literature, the classical paper on chess

others untouched. After all, the hostile-tender conflict with the

The psychological literature contains several interesting

At the international chess tournament at Moscow in 1925,

The tests given were various psychometric devices designed

3) Combinatory and intellectual functions

On the psychometric tests, the chess masters were vastly

1 This is a problem in which one is required to place seven Queens

vidual (no color, no movement). Rorschach's comment on this

The coartated type and in significant measure

Rorschach's comments explain the two differences which

When Samuel Reshevsky, now champion of the western

2 (The coartative record is one in which there is at most one color

for years that he had never attended school regularly. Reshevsky

GENERAL REMARKS ON CHESS

CHESS IS ONE OF the oldest games in western civilization. His

torians usually date it from about 600 or 700 A.D. and

I. It is a great time-waster. How many precious

the remembrance of this game would greatly trouble

In marked contrast to the fascination which the game has

points to a great deal of achievement by chess experts in other

-.._ Interest in chess is frequently concentrated in certain periods

All observers agree that from the player's point of view

In the popular mind, chess occupies a special role among

Chess is a contest between two men in which there is con

The symbolism of chess lends itself to this rivalry in a most

Except for the King chess is a simple logical construction

3 In chess literature it is customary to capitalize the names of the

4 Strictly speaking, the King is not considered a "piece" at all. In

games.5 In this way chess allows for a strong assertion of

Rook, Bishop, Knight and Pawn also frequently symbolize

The Pawns symbolize children, particularly little boys.

The Queen will, as might be expected, stand for the

surprised to learn that in the attack on the King (father), the

As the players become more expert, the taboo on touch

In one form of the game, known as correspondence chess,

In view of the profuse phallic symbolism of the game,

In addition to this purely defensive character, intellectuali

The players themselves are aware of the tendency to be

While the player may think for hours at a time, if he

Such marked contral>ts are quite characteristic of the entire

The answer to this question lies in the continual uncer

In this situation the player goes along constantly unsure

De Groot likens this prOCC$ to research, in which various

tension persists because he never knows when he will be called

With regard to conversation there is a similar paradox.

These various polarities help to clarify the thinking process.