Remembering Joseph Blackburne (10-xii-1841 01-ix-1924)

[John Upham]

Remembering Joseph Blackburne (10-xii-1841 01-ix-1924)


https://britishchessnews.com/2020/09/01 ... 1-ix-1924/


Extra material added including 1961 RN Coles description of matches with Edward Pindar of Russia and Manchester.

gettyimages-79659893-2048x2048.jpg

[Nick Ivell]

I think that Lipschutz game provoked a sore response from the loser:

'Der alte Goniff hat mich geschwindelt!'

[Matt Mackenzie]

Well that 1876 match can't have been a WC one by definition, whatever Golombek says.

And after that Lipschutz win, Blackburne (who did not know Yiddish well) reportedly asked if "Goniff" meant gentleman

[Kevin Thurlow]

"And after that Lipschutz win, Blackburne (who did not know Yiddish well) reportedly asked if "Goniff" meant gentleman"

I think I read somewhere that as he couldn't get a proper translation for "Goniff", he asked if one could be a Goniff and a gentleman, and was assured that this was indeed possible.

[John Upham]

"And after that Lipschutz win, Blackburne (who did not know Yiddish well) reportedly asked if "Goniff" meant gentleman"

I think I read somewhere that as he couldn't get a proper translation for "Goniff", he asked if one could be a Goniff and a gentleman, and was assured that this was indeed possible.

Apparently

"a disreputable or dishonest person (often used as a general term of abuse).
"my father thinks the whole world is a bunch of gonifs""

[Tim Harding]

I think that story has been told in various ways; does the recent Lipschutz biography prove it was about him?

Assiac's version (which had "ganeff" instead of "gonif") says it was a Gunsberg game with Blackburne consulting Mieses, but I show in my Blackburne biography that this cannot be right.
Nielsen and Skjoldager's book about Nimzowitsch attribute this episode to Blackburne's defeat of Nimzo at St Petersburg 1914.
Perhaps there are other versions.

***
The genealogical information in John's article (which I have yet to read in detail) is clearly incomplete and contains obvious errors.

For some months I have been meaning to get around to preparing a thorough article about Blackburne's family for my website www.chessmail.com and I am going to begin doing that later today. When the first draft of the new page (or pages) is ready I will notify the Forum.

Over the past eight or ten years I have collected numerous BMD certificates relating to Blackburne's family. I also built up an extensive Blackburne family tree on ancestry.co.uk but it is private and anyone wishing to see it will have to request permission, which won't be forthcoming until I have completed my web article.

[John Townsend]

Edward Winter's Chess Notes contain a discussion of "Goniff/Ganef/Gonim/Ganeff". See C.N. 6513:

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/win ... l#CN_6513

I am somewhat dismayed that relevant C.N. material seems to have been passed over yet again.

[John Upham]

Edward Winter's Chess Notes contain a discussion of "Goniff/Ganef/Gonim/Ganeff". See C.N. 6513:

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/win ... l#CN_6513

I am somewhat dismayed that relevant C.N. material seems to have been passed over yet again.

John,

Thanks for bringing the material to our attention.

Ever since feeling the Twitter wrath of our Singaporean correspondent I've been reticent to quote C.N. material. The boundaries, to me at least, remain unclear.

I recall using an image without credit that CN had scanned from a publication (can't remember what it was) and I was severely chastised for using "a copyrighted scan". I didn't realise one could copyright a scanned image but by doing I had transgressed a law I was not aware of. Ignorance is, of course, no excuse.

It appears safer to avoid but no doubt I will corrected once again.

I'll get used to it eventually.

[John Townsend]

A link to Edward Winter's research in C.N. 6513 deserved to be given here.

John, you seem to have had some frustrations in quoting material, but, surely, these are difficulties that can be overcome with a little perseverance. Your response to the situation strikes me as akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

In Chess Notes, Edward Winter has built up a huge wealth of chess material and placed it at the disposal of researchers, free of charge (but obviously not taking his scanned images without permission). This is an important body of historical data, which, in many cases, provides the best treatment of a given subject to be found anywhere. I believe you are making a mistake in not using it. Please think again.

I didn't understand the Twitter remark. You seem to be referring to O.G. Urcan. As I expect you know, he is a historian of international renown. The History section here would benefit from his input from time to time, and that of other chess historians worldwide. This seems more likely to happen if researchers here are known and respected for adhering to customary standards when drawing on the work of others. I am not suggesting that you have done otherwise, and I am not familiar with the details which you mentioned above, but I offer this as a general observation.

[Nick Ivell]

I imagine that Goniff is cognate with Gauner, the German word for crook.

Was it actually that much of a swindle? I haven't run the position past a computer - I never do - but what I see is this: a raging K-side attack and a terrible bishop. Possible good compensation for a collapsing Q-side.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I recall using an image without credit that CN had scanned from a publication (can't remember what it was) and I was severely chastised for using "a copyrighted scan"."

That sounds as if publication of the scan breached copyright? Or is he saying that CN got permission to scan the document and publish it?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Permission to publish a copyrighted image has to be sought and obtained from the original rights holder. If you pay for the right to publish an image somewhere, you don't then want others to reuse that image without going through the same process. Unless the original is a public domain image, in which case it gets a bit more complicated (but it is courteous to ask permission). You also need to remember that the rights for an image can involve both the rights relating to the object being photographed/scanned, AND the rights of the person who produced the photograph/scan. You have to consider both.

[John Upham]

"I recall using an image without credit that CN had scanned from a publication (can't remember what it was) and I was severely chastised for using "a copyrighted scan"."

That sounds as if publication of the scan breached copyright? Or is he saying that CN got permission to scan the document and publish it?

My understanding is that EGW had obtained a elderly book or document (no doubt pretty rare), scanned an image from it and published it on CN.

I then foolishly downloaded this image and added it to a BCN article.

I was then informed that EGWs scan was copyrighted.

I''d never heard of scanning something and then claiming that the scan itself was now a copyrighted item.

However, it was wrong of me to use the image without credit so lesson learnt.

As I am sure you know many photographs that I have taken (and therefore do own the copyright) have been nicked, "borrowed" with the watermark cropped off on many numerous occasions. I take it as a form of flattery.

[Kevin Thurlow]

What Chris said.

I asked a friend who works with copyright and he said (paraphrasing) ...

If you photograph the Mona Lisa, you would probably take time to set up the lighting to get the best results (I'm sure John would agree!), so you would probably have copyright in your photograph, as a work of art in its own right. Normally an adaptation of an existing work both infringes the copyright in the original and has its own copyright. However the Courts have held that "slavish copies" (e.g. scans/photocopies) of original works do not gain copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman ... Corel_Corp.

There is the possibility that Mr Winter's works constitute a "database".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right

[Roger de Coverly]

However the Courts have held that "slavish copies" (e.g. scans/photocopies) of original works do not gain copyright.

I suppose the other question is whether Winter seeks and obtains the permission of the original publishers to republish their material on his website. If he didn't, why does that give him any rights to object to the further use of those images?