Free speech vs ultracrepidarian authoritarianism
In recent years we have been told that certain words, thoughts, or even memories are no longer fit for use. The new censors call this progress, though it is nothing of the kind. It is merely the old habit of forcing people to think alike, dressed up with a new name. Freedom of speech in the West now hangs by a thread, and those who govern us seem to understand less about truth than about power.
One government minister even declared that England’s King Henry VII reigned after King Henry VIII and, in almost the same breath, that Marie Antoinette discovered radium. Such ignorant nonsense would be laughable, if it were not spoken with such authority. This is the very definition of the ultracrepidarian: literally, “one who goes beyond his shoe” — implying that a shoemaker should stick to his last.
This habit of assertion without knowledge is the seed of a wider authoritarianism. In the Soviet Union, almost every form of art and thought was bent or broken to serve the state — even the relatively abstract art form of music. Shostakovich served the state but also cultivated a kind of inner resistance that brought him criticism and obliged him to live in fear of a midnight knock at the door. Prokofiev too was brought to heel for “anti-democratic formalism” — despite his decision to return to the Soviet Union from the West in 1936.
Yet one pursuit remained strangely free: chess. In chess, the state could not dictate what was right or wrong. A move was good if it won, bad if it lost. No commissar could declare a knight fork “ideologically unsound.” The game gave men and women a small refuge, a space in which they could still think for themselves.
But even there the shadow of authority fell. When Tigran Petrosian drew too many games, the Soviet press denounced him. A chess master was expected to reflect the image of the tireless worker, never pausing, never compromising. That he sought only the best moves did not matter. He was condemned because his results did not suit the myth of Homo Sovieticus.
I know the taste of such false criticism. When I won the British Championship in 1971, I was told by one prominent chess writer that I lacked fighting spirit. This in spite of the fact that I sacrificed recklessly, played games that stretched over days, and fought until the end. Later, when I won an international tournament, he wrote almost nothing of my victory and much of my single loss. In England such misreporting is only irritating. In Russia it might have destroyed a career, or worse.
The truth is that in any society where speech is watched, chess becomes a form of silent resistance. On the chessboard, men and women still judge for themselves. They may lose or win, but they are free, if only for a few hours.
The question now is whether the West, in its rush to silence and correct, will also drive its thinkers to the same refuge. If speech, writing, and memory are all brought under suspicion, then chess tournaments may become the last safe ground for independent thought.
Jose Raul Capablanca vs. Sergei Prokofiev
Simultaneous exhibition on 24 boards,
St Petersburg, 1914
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 Bf5 4. Qb3 Nc6! TN
Capablanca snatches the pawn with his queen. Prokofiev replies with the simple move that keeps the position together. It is not brilliant, but it is enough.
5. Qxb7 Na5 6. Qa6 Nxc4 7. Nc3 e6?
A weak move. Instead of defending carefully, Black slips, and White should soon have the advantage.
8. e4 dxe4 9. Bxc4?
Capablanca returns the favour. He had a clear path to a better position, but he failed to see it. The world champion-to-be was careless here, and Prokofiev, already beaten by him days before, sensed his chance.
9… exf3 10. Qc6+ Nd7 11. g4 Bg6 12. Bg5 Be7 13. Bxe7 Kxe7 14. O-O-O Re8?
Black dreams of safety for his king. But dreams are not reality. The right defence lay elsewhere.
15. h4?! h5 16. gxh5 Bxh5 17. Nb5?
Another error. Instead of pressing his advantage, White throws it away.
17… Kf8 18. d5?
And with this most recent and uncharacteristic error, Black has the opportunity to seize the initiative. White should have acquired either of the available semi-open files, for example, 18. Rhg1 Qe7 19. Qe4 Nf6 20. Qe5 Rab8 21. Rg5 a6 22. Nc3 Bg6, with near-equality.
18… Qf6?
But Prokofiev, too, stumbles. He had the chance to seize control. He missed it.
19. dxe6 Ne5 20. Qc5+ Kg8 21. exf7+ Bxf7 22. Bxf7+ Qxf7 23. Kb1 Rab8 24. Nxc7??
A blunder. With this move White throws away any chance of survival.
24… Rbc8 25. Rc1 Re7!? 26. Qd6 Rexc7 27. Rxc7 Qxc7 28. Qe6+ Kh8 29. a3 Qc2+ 30. Ka1 Nd3 31. Rb1 Nxf2!?
Prokofiev plays with confidence now, though still not always the best. But White is broken.
32. h5 Qc6?
A slip, but not fatal. The position remains winning for Black.
33. Qf5 Ne4 34. Qxf3 Nd2 35. Qxc6 Rxc6 36. Rd1 Rc2 37. Rg1 Rc5 38. Rg6 Rxh5 39. Ra6 Nb3+ 40. Ka2 Ra5 41. Rxa5??
The last mistake. Capablanca, perhaps tired of the struggle, gives the game away.
41… Nxa5 42. b4 g5 43. Kb2 g4 White resigns 0-1
Here the game ends as so many do—not with brilliance, but with blunders piled one on another until the weaker side cannot continue. Capablanca was the far greater player, but on this day Prokofiev held his nerve, and that was enough.
Ray’s 206th book, “ Chess in the Year of the King ”, written in collaboration with Adam Black, and his 207th, “ Napoleon and Goethe: The Touchstone of Genius ” (which discusses their relationship with chess) can be ordered from both Amazon and Blackwells. His 208th, the world record for chess books, written jointly with chess playing artist Barry Martin, Chess through the Looking Glass, is now also available from Amazon.
A Message from TheArticle
We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation.
