THE CCI USA NEWSChess Collectors International Volume 2014 Issue 2

IN THIS ISSUE Book Review Chess Sets of the United States: Ready for Some Chess Tenite? Gone But Maybe Not Forgotten Mysteries of the Universe Is The Ivory Ban Actually Saving The Elephants? Or Getting Them Killed Off Faster? Chessmen of Tomorrow

BOOK REVIEW

CHESS SETS OF THE UNITED STATES: READY FOR SOME CHESS TENITE?

~By Duncan Pohl

6x9, 208 pages. Softcover, available through Amazon.com and Kindle Chess Sets of the United States; Ready for Some Chess Tenite? is a must reference book for every chess set collector around the world. Duncan Pohl has produced a remarkable reference work for both the serious as well as the occasional chess set collector. This book is a must read and a must keep in the reference library for all chess aficionados. It has provided me with the answers to many questions I have had regarding the background of many of my chess sets. Duncans book is extensively researched and fully documented, giving the who, when and where of chess sets created in the USA for the past 100 years or more. It should settle many discussions regarding the background and identity of chess sets in collectors hands everywhere. I have already corrected two of my mistakes in identifying chess sets in my collection by reference to this book. I strongly recommend it to every one interested in chess and chess sets.

~ Floyd Sarisohn, Member, Board of Directors Chess Collectors International, and Curator of the Long Island Chess Museum

GONE BUT MAYBE NOT FORGOTTEN

While doing research on American-made chess sets, I discovered a large number of chess sets mentioned in old magazines, papers, etc. that, to my knowledge, may have never been seen again. Rather than leave them lost forever, I thought perhaps I could/would use them as fillers whenever there was some space left at the end of the articles in issues of the CCI-USA Newsletter.

In some cases, the featured sets had whole articles devoted to them; others had nothing more than a single paragraph or so of explanation. And some were simply advertisements with no further information than the copy in the ad itself. A number of sets had no additional information whatsoever.

3 GONE BUT MAYBE NOT FORGOTTEN

The set to the right, as well as the article on Chessmen of Tomorrow, are examples of some of these sets. When-ever possible, when featuring one of these sets, I will also try to provide the original source, and/or any other in-formation that accompanied them. As room allows, I will attempt to use the sets in as close to the chronological order of their original appearance as possible. It will truly be a case of What I Saw Is What You Get.

Photo above was in the April 1939 Chess Review, p. 78. No other information of any kind

came with the photo

MYSTERIES OF THE UNIVERSE

~ By Clayton Neubert

The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg is another one of those questions without a definitive answer . . . . because of overlapping time frames there are similar questions that have arisen over some chess pieces/ sets/ designs. Of course there are also some that are clearly obvious.

My latest "discovery" came from an interest in a Jamar-Mallory set for ceramic casting. They are simply known as JM-G001, JM-G001A and JM-G001B. Completed sets have appeared on eBay from time to time in varying finishes. It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and to that end another set raised the question of who copied who?

Jamar-Mallory Art Deco Mold Castings

From internet searching, Alberta Molds is/was one of the oldest ceramic mold manufacturers. Alberta, the company, was named after the founder, retired in the late '90's and the mold line went through a difficult retirement process and ultimately the most popular parts of the mold line would be transferred to Starlite Molds.

THE CCI-USA NEWS 4

Art Dec Chess Set Molds Alberta Molds consisted of the Alberta Molds, the Alberta Student Casting Molds, Cole Molds (acquired by Alberta in the '70's), Jamar Molds (Jamar-Mallory Molds founded in 1948 and acquired by Alberta in 1981) as well as Suncrest and Heinz Molds."

The "Shah Mat" set was designed and produced by Michael Hanna and Francis Maljan of Malmik Enterprises, Chicago IL in 1963. The accompanying pictures show the striking similarity between both. Mr. Hanna was kind enough to chat with me about his design and I am convinced that this and other designs that he did were absolutely original. As an original work an artist can always find his work among other similar works. This is the case here as well. Hr. Hanna found many differences and did not see that many similarities but I sure can see a lot of influence, for lack of any better word to use, in the ceramic mold castings. With a little prompting the designer did reveal that there were 100 sets made....I want to know where the other ninety-nine are ?

For clarity there was also a set specific board that was available as an option for the Shah Mat set. To describe it alone is something that requires imagination. Two pieces of veneer cut sequentially will produce what is known as a book match. If a chessboard format is divided in quarters then one quarter, book matched, would have the same grain patterns as the other quarter. Imagine this half of a board being reflected in a mirror with matching grain patterns again. The result would be described as a mirrored book match. A mirror set on edge along the

quarter lines would look identical to the other quarters. The veneer patterns were applied to a particle board base, and a brass inlay was set along each square edge throughout the board surface and finally the edges were trimmed in leather. A later version had squares of suede and the edges were trimmed in walnut. Both versions require the artisitc vision, patience and skill of both a craftsman and an artist.

In conclusion I will allow the reader to arrive at their own conclusions. Mine is that the Shah Mat was the original and that someone saw and was influenced by this enough to create the models for the Jamar-Mallory molds.

Shah Mat Chess Set (Sandcast)

WWHHIITTEE PPAAPPEERR 22001144 bbyy TToomm GGaall ll eeggooss IS THE IVORY BAN ACTUALLY SAVING THE ELEPHANTS?

OR GETTING THEM KILLED FASTER?

Of interest to every chess collector who owns ivory sets or hopes to

~ By Tom Gallegos Chess Collectors International

Before 1989, when the international ban on the importation of ivory was first implemented, elephant poaching, while certainly a serious problem, was mostly carried out by poverty-stricken African villagers attempting to feed their families. Now, decades after the ban, most poaching is carried out by rogue elements of African armies and heavily armed bands of Chinese mafia who have wildlife officials completely outnumbered and outgunned, when they are not colluding on the sly.

When the last elephant has been slaughtered for its tusks, environmentalists will say it was because the ban wasnt tight enough.

Is this really true?

From a historical and cultural standpoint, ivory is arguably the most important material ever used for chess sets. The most prestigious and beautiful sets were always carved from ivory, at least when they werent made of gold and jewels (and these latter sets are obviously a tiny minority). You may quibble if you own a nice Jaques Staunton set in boxwood and ebony, and the appeal of wooden sets is certainly hard to deny. But ivory has long been considered the more aristocratic choice, and chess is the game of kings after all.

So what to do when your government comes along and declares that every single ivory set in your collection is now completely valueless? Thats exactly whats happening today. The recent wave of intensified, deadlier poaching has prompted a new firestorm of political activism pushing for a tightening of the ivory ban, essentially doing away with all domestic

trade. The new push claims that increased ivory poaching is caused by so-called loopholes in the laws which allow illegal ivories to be smuggled and sold right alongside, or camouflaged as, legal ivory. This in turn, fuels more poaching. Or so the argument goes.

It gets worse. Because it takes some skill to reliably identify ivory and related materials, and theres no way U.S. Customs and other enforcement officials can be expected to do this, the current rage is for ivory look-alikes to be banned as well. Antiques will suddenly be expected to meet a documentation standard that your grandparents never dreamed of. The rush will be on to dummy up paperwork for genuinely old chess sets, in a futile attempt to mollify clueless bureaucrats whose lust for paper can never be satisfied. This means that your chess sets are no longer safe just because theyre old. They are no longer safe just because theyre mammoth ivory. Theyre no longer safe just because theyre made of bone, or even white plastic (think celluloid, a plastic that was originally designed to imitate ivory).

None of this has gone through the legislative process in Congress, mind you. It is all being done via Executive Order and new regulations issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service. To be fair, as of this writing nothing is set in stone. Yet the vehemence of the environmentalists pushing a tractable administration, combined with the all-encompassing nature of the proposed new rules, is creating a climate of fear and uncertainty among dealers, curators and collectors. Any time in history we have seen sweeping proscriptions enacted against the activities and

THE CCI-USA NEWS 6

possessions of large groups of formerly law-abiding citizens, such as the anti-Jewish laws of 1930s Germany, or the Cultural Revolution in China during the 1960s, the harm to society has always outweighed any possible good.

While the Fish and Wildlife Service states that the laws are not changing for mammoth, bone, and other ivory substitutes and look-alikes, these things will certainly be under a cloud of suspicion, since under-trained Customs inspectors have the power to detain anything they are not sure about. And you, guilty until proven innocent, will get to defend yourself in court at great expense to retrieve possession of your bone barleycorn or vegetable ivory set. It should be relatively easy to prove cases of this is not elephant ivory its a different material. But get ready to lose the battle for your ivory Lund or Calvert set if you dont have a lot of recently cobbled-together documentation to wave in their faces.

I ask again: Will this witch hunt in the USA do anything to help defend elephants in Africa against heavily armed, paramilitary poachers who are clandestinely feeding raw, bloody tusks to carving workshops in China?

Though I do collect chess sets, including some ivory sets, my only interest in writing this article is this: What is the fastest, easiest, best way to save the elephants? That should be the focus of any article on this topic. Collectors and dealers, on the rare occasion their voices are heard at all in this debate, have trumpeted the cultural importance of ivory as an artistic medium, and its true. I myself could go on and on about this. But in a political climate where even Prince William is fantasizing about destroying all the ivory treasures in the royal palaces, it is clear that this argument is being rejected as self-serving.

Its the demand thats the problem, we keep hearing. We should all just squeeze our eyes shut and pretend that ivory no longer exists. No

one should want it. Lets pass some laws to control what people want. Yeah, thatll work.

No collector wants elephants to die off as a species. We are all environmentalists when it comes to elephants, and its high time we were reminded that we are all on the same side.

Well, maybe not exactly the same side. When we hear reports of six tons of ivory being crushed out of existence in Denver, not only do we weep for the elephant, but we also know to brace ourselves for higher prices overseas, and an ever-expanding black market in response. The proponents of the crush insist we must do things like this to send a message to poachers and Chinese consumers. They say this with a straight face, oblivious to the fact that they are dealing in pure fantasy.

Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, isnt that the old saw? Back during Prohibition, inspired by Carrie Nation actually chopping up barrooms with an axe, a righteous nation outlawed spirituous liquors because indulging in them was so obviously wrong. Many thousands of barrels were burst, whiskey flowed freely in the gutters, and Congressmen loved to crow that in a few more years, the rest of the world would have no choice but to follow suit and go dry.

I like to remember them every time I order another drink in a public house.

Environmentalists will be quick to counter that living elephants are an entirely different matter; that beautiful, intelligent wild creatures cannot be compared to a glass of inert whiskey. And I agree. Theyre absolutely right.

So why are these same environmentalists acting in a manner that is getting the elephants killed off in such a big hurry?

Thats right. I said it. Jaccuse!

7 IS THE IVORY BAN REALLY SAVING ELEPHANTS?

ELEPHANTS IN THE CROSSHAIRS

Lets start with something obvious. So-called experts have long debated whether poaching or habitat loss due to human population growth is primarily responsible for the decline of elephant numbers. They seem unable to wrap their heads around a simple fact: Its a combination of both. And logically, the solution, if there is one, must address both.

The southern African nations, where governments are more stable and elephant herds tend to be better managed, once tried to argue that wild animals must have some sort of economic value if they are to survive on a planet they must share with humans, who breed like rabbits, who get to squat anywhere they like and kill anything that gets in their way. While some limited international trade in body parts of endangered species is allowed, the economic value model has been largely rejected in favor of a model which views these body parts as de facto evidence of murder. In a just world, such parts should have zero economic value, and should not be considered desirable by people of good conscience.

While I am against animal cruelty in general, I know that in the special case of elephant ivory, it does not have to be this way.

For the time being though, it is. Ivory is a pariah, even though many people still collect and covet it, and it shows up in piano keys and guitar bridges, and lots of other places you would never expect. I will not go into all that has been written about how hard this new ban will make life for hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens from all walks of life. Suffice it to say that to disentangle humans from ivory is not nearly so easy as one might imagine.

And so we are left with this uncomfortable compromise, and the resultant badly distorted marketplace we have today. Commercial, yet banned. Banned, yet sometimes bought and sold. Every so often in recent decades, CITES has allowed one-off sales of old stockpiles, when

they are not urging governments to burn or crush old stockpiles.

Of course, one-off sales only tend to distort the market further. These new distortions are then quickly seized upon as proof that a legal trade can never work. For example, it is well known that around seventy percent of all poached ivory is currently ending up in China. Yet who has been known to come out on top as a CITES approved buyer, scooping up vast quantities of the one-off tusks? You guessed it: China. This strongly suggests that CITES is just as vulnerable as any other political organization to undue influence.

Take the Mexican drug cartels as a comparable. Drugs are a bit like ivory in one important way. The cartels have the Mexican police and other authorities completely outgunned, outmanned, and outclassed, not to mention corrupted and infiltrated. They move drugs freely and decapitate opponents, or just innocent people who get in the way, at will.

Now comes the part most people simply refuse to hear. The quickest and easiest way to put the drug cartels out of business would be to legalize drugs. Tax and regulate them. Yes, this would create a raft of other social problems, but these could all be dealt with. You could make heroin addicts come to a clinic to get their fix, for example, tripping only in sterile conditions, under proper supervision, with counseling and other assistance available for those who professed a desire to kick the habit. But with heroin available at its true, negligible production cost, virtually all drug crime associated with the need to pay astronomical prices for a hit would disappear. By treating addiction as a purely medical, rather than a moral issue, we could put a lot of grief behind us.

In my home state of Colorado, voters have legalized the sale of marijuana for medical, then just recently for recreational, purposes. Many of you will have contrary opinions about this. Say what you will about legalization, but the one

THE CCI-USA NEWS 8

thing that cannot be disputed is that your friendly neighborhood pot dealer is virtually a thing of the past. The illegal side of the business has all but disappeared.

Back to the elephants. The reason the current approach to combating poaching is backfiring so badly is that it is impossible and usually perverse to attempt to legislate desire. Do you imagine for one minute that if we passed a law against sex, the human species would placidly accept its own extinction? If we passed a law against meat consumption to avoid killing cows and pigs, would everyone accept forced vegetarianism?

Of course not. Banning what people want merely results in the creation of black markets. Worse, it often lends the contraband an enhanced cachet. What we see happening with ivory demand in Asia is arguably another form of the irresistible allure that developed around bootleg liquor in the 1920s. Forbidden fruit is always the most desirable. The more comprehensive and strict a ban is, the more the black markets thrive. There is an alternative, however. If you want people to respect the laws, then the laws must be worthy of respect.

A BETTER WAY

What should be our approach? We can almost hear the echo of President Lincoln as we reflect: If we could save the elephants without legalizing any ivory we should do it. If we could save the elephants by legalizing all ivory, we should do it. And if we could save the elephants by legalizing some and banning some we should also do that.

What has never been tried what has indeed barely yet been conceived of is the idea of using ivory, and the demand for it, in an affirmative way, as a weapon to fight for the long-term survival of the elephant. In other words, the trade should be fully legalized, regulated and managed in such a way as to provide the maximum benefit to the species.

What would this look like? Happy Fact Number One: When you save elephants from slaughter, you end up with MORE ivory, not less. This seems inconceivable to some, but the taking of ivory does not have to be a lethal use of the elephant. Historically it has been a lethal use lethal and bloody but this can easily change. Many have pointed out that ivory does not conveniently disappear just because we ban it. Elephants still grow it. The tusks just get bigger and bigger throughout the animals lifetime. After a long life, and a natural death, these durable tusks do not decompose

quickly in the wild. They get picked up by humans, and always will, no matter how tight we might make the ban. Vast amounts of what is referred to as natural-death ivory have been building up in the warehouses of African governments ever since the 1989 ban first came into effect. Bigger tusks, and more of them, are the inevitable result of saving the elephants.

Happy Fact Number Two: When you give people ownership rights over things that have value, they tend to take care of them. The African range states should be recognized as having full ownership rights over the elephant herds that live within their borders. Not just for ecotourism (although this should remain an important source of revenue) but also for the right to sell raw ivory tusks and even byproducts such as bush meat, hides and hairs of the animals. This is the part that will give most run-of-the-mill environmentalists a sinking feeling, but hear me out: I am not suggesting completely unrestricted ownership rights. These ownership rights would be carefully structured with the long-term survival of the elephant as their paramount goal. Under this concept, CITES would still be there to review and certify which range states are doing an effective job of managing their herds and protecting them from poachers.

9 IS THE IVORY BAN REALLY SAVING ELEPHANTS?

This approach would return the war for the elephant to its most effective and relevant theater on the ground in Africa. Enforcement officials would still combat poaching, with a few key differences. All efforts would go to assist the range states in protecting their herds for both their biodiversity value and their economic value. CITES would issue certifications for the sale of raw ivory only to states that maintain large and thriving herds. It would withhold certification from rogue and ineffective states, either those with unstable governments or states that were otherwise unable or unwilling to protect their herds from poaching. Exports of raw ivory from the range states would be given certification only to the extent that the tusks could be shown to be 1) natural-death ivory, 2) legally culled, and/or 3) from a known government stockpile. In fact, these stockpiles would be the only place to legally buy raw tusks. Suddenly, the largest tusks would be in vogue. Smaller, bloodier tusks would be more difficult to document unless from an official cull due to disease or a troublesome elephant-human interaction (a vexed question in itself).

Suddenly, the range states would guard their elephant herds as jealously as the OPEC nations guard their oil. Corruption (at least the kind that results in elephant slaughter) would disappear, as the government and the military in these places cooperated to maximize the value of their loxodontine assets. The vast government stockpiles that have so long lain dormant would now come into play, providing a powerful buffer between elephants and poachers bullets. In fact, if the range states were wise, they would realize they now constituted an oligopoly, and quickly form an alliance very much like OPEC so that stockpiles, instead of being auctioned off all at once, would be doled out slowly and selectively at high prices to those who could afford to pay. The stockpiles would not be frittered away, but would be maintained and replenished, primarily with natural-death ivory, but also tusks from legal culls, which should be easy to document. The effectiveness of stockpile

management would itself be a subject under CITES purview.

Dont give certifications to governments who merely claim their ivory revenues are going to conservation (and instead put them in a general fund or a slush fund, as has happened in the past), but only to countries that prove themselves to be as good as their word. For this to work, certain audit powers would need to be granted to CITES, but if they are the ones issuing the certificates, the range states will have to play by their rules.

Whenever customs officials seize large shipments of poached or undocumented raw tusks, those tusks should be returned to their country of origin to be added to that governments legal stockpiles. Biologists now have the technology, through DNA analysis, to determine precisely which herds raw tusks have come from. What they have lacked up until now is an effective paradigm under which to actually use this methodology in defense of elephants. Seized tusks that originate from countries with war-torn, unstable, or otherwise non-certifiable governments could be placed in a special CITES or pan-African stockpile that would specifically fund further conservation efforts.

This is an important point, and should not be glossed over: A poached tusk would be rendered legal again, and subject to legal sale, after being repatriated to the legal stockpile of its certified, approved range state. As long as the final revenue from that tusk goes toward legitimate conservation efforts and helps support a well-managed herd, this would be the best way to rob from the poachers and ensure that slaughtered elephants have not died in vain.

(On a side note, as many before me have suggested, if some of the range states just happened to have laws allowing poachers to be shot on sight, this could only help...)

Lets stay with those legal stockpiles for a moment. All tusks in the stockpiles could and should be subject to DNA analysis. The raw tusks can then be marked inside the pulp cavity

THE CCI-USA NEWS 10

with identifying CITES-approved bar codes, and accompanied by proper documentation. These markings only need to last until the tusks are shipped to approved carving factories in China (or wherever they are in demand). The marks would then be carved away, and the documentation deadfiled.

Thats it. No need to certify or mark each individual carving. No need to harass or detain law-abiding citizens whose grandfather may have brought home an ivory chess set from Japan after WWII. No need for customs officials to learn to distinguish new from antique, or ivory from bone. No need to crush thousands of beautiful artworks and royal treasures out of existence. No need to legislate desire.

Bottom line: The herds were protected throughout the process of those raw tusks coming to market. If demand is insatiable, as many environmentalists fear, the price will go up. If the stockpiles are enough to flood the market, the price will go down. Market forces can be allowed to operate freely, but the herds will be protected, either way.

On top of this, suddenly there would be serious economic incentives for the range states to protect and even increase the land available for elephant habitat. Yes folks, this solution actually fights against both of the causes of elephant extinction, poaching and habitat loss. Suddenly we would see game parks expanded, or at the very least, the pressures of human encroachment lessened. When making decisions about land-use, do you think the OPEC nations allow tract housing to be built atop their precious oil fields?

The poachers would be left out in the cold in this scenario. Unable to obtain CITES certifications, the unstable governments, rogue militias and Chinese mafia groups who are currently using chainsaws to hack off elephants faces would be unable to compete with legal, certified tusks reaching the carving workshops of China. Because their shipments of poached tusks would still be subject to seizure and forfeiture to a legitimate government stockpile, criminals would have little incentive to persist in

the illegal end of the trade. Oh well, you can almost hear them saying, at least we still have opium smuggling to fall back on. No legal trade to compete with there.

A fully legal trade, combined with continued seizures and forfeitures of poached tusks, would also solve the old problem of the legal trade being used as camouflage or cover for the illegal trade. In all previous attempts by CITES to set up a control system, or allow some international movement of ivory, the result has been criminals gaming, or even in one writers phrase, running rings around the system.

Fine. Lets just arrange things so that the easiest and most profitable way to game the system is to grow the herds and build up the stockpiles. Let us see how quickly dangerous bootleggers can be turned into law-abiding, tax-paying liquor store owners when Prohibition is ended.

Lets turn to the problem of burgeoning demand for ivory in China for a moment. Public information campaigns throughout Asia are indeed sorely needed. But they mustnt treat ivory as a pariah, or non-entity, since we already know this only backfires. Instead they should encourage Chinese consumers to demand guarantees that the ivory was responsibly sourced. Just as no one expects people to stop buying diamonds, but rather it has become the vogue to ask questions to help make sure that diamonds are conflict-free, the same can be done with ivory.

Under this new paradigm, natural-death ivory would be the primary source of tusks for replenishing the legal stockpiles of the range states. Natural-death ivory should be about as controversial as people making chandeliers out of naturally-shed deer antlers. And yet, this new paradigm will be difficult to bring about, not because of any inherent difficulty in the task of saving elephants, but because of the inability of environmentalists to shake off their old notion that ivory equals slaughter, and their tendency to ignore or downplay any evidence that this equation could ever change. Psychologists call this type inflexible thinking confirmation bias.

11 IS THE IVORY BAN REALLY SAVING ELEPHANTS?

Typical environmentalists, those stuck in this old way of thinking, will shriek that we cannot give in to criminal elements. I would counter that it is they who have been playing directly into the hands of the criminals for many years now.

Doug Bandow* of the Cato Institute has recently pointed out that many environmentalists, especially those in the comfortable, pampered USA, seem much more interested in maintaining their own air of moral rectitude than in actually saving any elephants. He presents them with the hard choice they now face, of deciding whether they prefer elephants to be sacred and dead, or commercial and alive.

I would go even further by asking, what if commercial did not have to mean bloody?

The other reason this solution is a long way from ever being tried is that it would require international agreement, modifications to the CITES treaty, and the actions of many different

legislatures. None of them will ever read anything written by a mere chess collector. So in the meantime, since were stuck with the sad old body-parts trafficking model, expect to hear reports of ever-increasing poaching, drastically dwindling herds, and frantic pleas for a tighter and tighter ban. In other words, brace yourselves for the next Great American Witch Hunt.

But just imagine the alternative. Ivory could protect the elephants, if it were used wisely. Ivory could save the elephants, if we gave it a chance.

To the bloody-minded poachers we could finally say, check and mate.

Respectfully Submitted,

April 7, 2014

* My thanks to Mr. Bandow. His several recent articles on this problem have been an inspiration.

CCI USA NEWS

Duncan Pohl, Editor Floyd Sarisohn, Publisher 1391 Parkview Dr PO Box 166 Woodland CA 95776 Commack NY 11725 Phone: 530.383.5750 Phone: 631.543.1330 duncanpohl@gmail.com Fax: 631.543.7901 lichess@aol.com

Frank Camaratta, Co-Editor fmcamaratta@mindspring.com Do you have a picture you would like to see on the cover of the Newsletter? If so, please send a high resolution, uncropped, clear photograph to duncanpohl@gmail.com. First priority will be given to pictures that accompany an article submitted for publication - and used - within that particular issue. Every effort will be made to follow the principle of first come, first served, but the final decision will also depend on quality, subject matter, and other publication requirements that ultimately may dictate what can best be used.

ON THE COVER: Max Ernst and an exhibit from The Imagery of Chess

Julien Levy Art Gallery, New York From the January 1945 issue of Chess Review

CCI-USA NEWS is made possible thanks to the volunteer work of all persons involved. We are not responsible for contents of articles, the performance of advertisers, the delivery or quality of their services or products, or the legality of any particular program or publication. EDITORIAL COMMENTS AND POLICY The future and quality of this publication depends on your contributions. Please send comments, notes, reports, articles, photos, stories, etc., to any of the people listed above. Electronic form would be best. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all who contributed to this issue.

The following article originally appeared in the January 1945 issue of Chess Review

CHESSMEN OF TOMORROW ~ By Kenneth Harkness

Photographic Illustrations by Al Puhn for CChheessss RReevvii eeww

The dynamics of chess are depicted in this symbolical abstraction by Xanti Shawinsky. The lines criss-crossing in all directions (formed by bars of Lucite) represent the moves of the chessmen in the mind of

the player. The chess position is from a Lasker-Capablanca game.

For thousands of years, the history of man has been portrayed in the representations of living forms or inanimate objects which have been used as chessmen. In days gone by, players of this ancient game have used pieces modeled after Monarchs, ministers and merchants, Generals, Judges and jesters, soldiers, ships and serfs, buffalos, birds, bears and Bishops, chariots, couriers, camels and castles. The list is endless. Wars, revolutions, religions, social life and artistic fashions have all been depicted in the changing designs of chessmen through the ages.

Today there are many styles of chessmen but the most popular, in English-speaking countries, is the conventionalized Stuanton design, or imitations of it. The true Staunton men (made by J. Jacques & Son of London since 1849) combine a simple classical beauty with great utility. At any rate, we have become accustomed to these chessmen. Although some of the imitations are ugly and crude, they resemble the original sufficiently to give us a feeling of familiarity when we play with them. We feel disturbed mentally when we are confronted with sets of entirely different design, such as the so-

13 CHESSMEN OF TOMORROW

called French Set, in which the Queen, Bishops and Pawns all look alike and can only be distinguished by their different sizes.

But what of tomorrow? What kind chessmen will the players of 1960, or 1950, or even 1946 be using? Will they still be playing with Staunton chessmen? Perhaps but there is nothing in past history to substantiate the idea that there is any permanency in the design of chessmen or the names of the pieces. Staunton men have been used for a long time now. Are we due for a change?

There are strong indications that a change is rapidly approaching. We may be about to witness a revolutionary departure from our accustomed styles of chessmen. For modern artists, sculptors and designers have taken up chess and these men and women are rebelling against our Staunton chessmen. They say that present-day chess pieces are too static, too final, to repetitious, too classical. They threaten to overthrow our familiar conceptions of Kings, Queens, Bishops, Rooks, Knights and Pawns and present us with entirely new figures, new shapes, even new names for the pieces. The modern artist likes chess because he recognizes it as the only game that expresses artistic feeling. He admires the dynamic quality of chess, the graceful, geometrical patterns of the chess moves and he believes that the chessmen should better portray the artistry of the game.

The plaster chessmen in both these photos were designed by surrealist painter Max Ernst. From these original models, Ernst

perfected the wooden chessmen pictured on the next page. The chessboard above is by the same artist. Gradations in the black and tones (somewhat lost in the process of reproduction) portray the

fact that the squares of the chessboard are not equal in value.

THE CCI-USA NEWS 14

How successful this new movement will be cannot be foretold but the same artists have revolutionized the designs of com-mercial products in other fields. And these artists have taken to chess with enthusiasm. Their desire to develop new styles of chessmen comes from the heart.

A glimpse into the future perhaps the very near future has been given to us during the month of January at the Julien Levy Art Gallery in New York. This gallery has presented an exhibition called The Imagery of Chess consisting of chessmen, sculpture and paintings by a group of thirty-two modern artists. Practically all of these artists are chess-players and they have used the subject of chess as the inspiration for their works of art.

So far as the practical chessplayer is concerned, the most interesting exhibit is the set of modern chessmen designed by famous surrealist Max Ernst. As can be seen in the photographs on these pages, this set represents a radical departure from classical design. Ernst has applied the abstract simplicity of modern art to chessmen. He has given the pieces

Above: In this photographic composition, two sets of chessmen are pictured. In the foreground are transparent Lucite pieces and wooden table designed

by sculptor Isamu Noguchi. In the background are the more practical chessmen designed by Max Ernst.

[Below]: Another view of the Max Ernst chessmen. The designer has

broken away from tradition but has retained utility. The position on the board is after 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3 B-B4, KKt-B3; 4 Kt-Kt5, P-Q4; 5 PxP, P-Kt4 (Ulvestads move in the Two Knights Defense). The Black King and Queen are misplaced and should be transposed. The Queen is the

tallest piece in this set.

15 CHESSMEN OF TOMORROW

interesting and distinctive shapes which suggest their movements. Being a chess-player, however, he has made them usable. There are no slender stems to break, no delicate carving to worry about. These men are strange, but they are practical.

Needless to say, the patterns is so unfamiliar that it would take time for existing chessplayers to become accustomed to it. But in the brave new world of tomorrow, unfamiliarity will be no handicap. The boys who have accustomed themselves to the peculiar and strange shapes of tanks of foxholes will not be too disturbed by untraditional styles of chessmen. To the thousands of new players who have recently started to play chess, Staunton chessmen are just as unfamiliar as any other; they may prefer the intensely modern design of the Max Ernst chessmen. Above [right]: In this photographic composition, two sets of chessmen are pictured. In the foreground

are transparent Lucite pieces and wooden table designed by sculptor Isamu Noguchi. In the background are the more practical chessmen designed by Max Ernst.

[Below]: Another view of the Max Ernst chessmen. The designer has broken away from tradition but has retained utility. The position on the board is after 1 P-K4, K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3 B-B4, Kt-B3; 4 Kt-Kt5, P-Q4; Pxp, P-Kt4 (Ulvestads move in the Two Knight Defense). The Black King and Queen are

misplaced and should be transposed. The Queen is the tallest piece in this set.

THE CCI-USA NEWS 16

An attempt is being made to arrange for the production of this set commercially. (At the moment, hand-made reproductions cost $150 up.) It may be found that the design is too radical, that modifications are needed. It may not be possible to speed up the process of evolution to this extent but it is clear that Max Ernst has founded a new school of chess design. These chessmen, or others patterned after them, may be the chessmen of tomorrow.

A discussion of the other exhibits at the Julien Levy Gallery is somewhat outside the scope of a chess magazine. Art dealer Levy, himself an ardent chessplayer, found that so many of his artists had taken up chess that he asked them to use the game as a motif for their work. The result weird and wonderful to the lay mind is a collection of fantasies and abstractions in which chess is the incidental or central subject.

One of the most interesting and certainly the most photogenic of these abstractions is the Chess Game by Xanti Schawinsk [pictured at the beginning of this article]. Schawinsky is one of Americas leading exponents and teachers of applied art, conducts a school of commercial design. He is an enthusiastic chessplayer.

On the evening of January 6th [1945], blindfold master George Koltanowski gave an exhibition of his skill at the Levy gallery. His teller, who called out the moves, was Marcel Duchamp the artist who created a sensation many years ago by his Nude Descending a Staircase. Duchamp stopped painting when he took up chess and is now one of the leading spirits in the art applied to chess movement. Most of Koltanowskis seven

opponents were the artists whose work hung on the walls or stood on pedestals in the exhibition room. The players were seated at boards on which four reproductions of the Max Ernst chessmen and other modern styles of sets were arranged.

The blindfold champion surveyed the scene with interest, examined the peculiar pieces with which his opponents were to play, then declared with feeling: This must be the first exhibition in which the blindfold player has the advantage!

Chess marches on!

Ad shown below is from the April 1939 Chess Review, page 100