The King: Chess Pieces

by J.H. Donner

J.H.Donner (1927 - 1988) was a Dutch Grandmaster and one of the greatest writers about chess of all time. He was a chess reporter and a chess columnist, as well as an annotator of the game, but above all he was a witty and unpredictable commentator of everything and everybody, both inside and outside the chess world. Donner's favourite themes Bobby Fischer, the blunder, chess as a game of luck, why women can't play chess, madness, and poor Lodewijk Prins, his rival for the Dutch National Championship for many years, who, according to Donner, couldn't tell a bishop from a knight. A book full of insults and ironies, but Donner wouldn't be Donner without a considerable amount of self-mockery.

Genres: Chess, Nonfiction

392 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1987

Reviews

[Owlseyes · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Jan Hein Donner)

These are a collection of reflections/pieces on chess (and other topics), and commentaries/analyses on diverse games throughout many years (1950-1986) from the Dutch chess champion. Some of these reflections, I really don’t agree on, totally. Take a look at this one:

“And that is why I am writing all this under the heading “On the Justice of chess”. For it is indeed the strongest who will win: not the one who is objectively the best thinker, but the one who is the most tenacious fighter, as is also the case in life”.

True, power/strong-will is paramount because sometimes chess takes you to the limits of your will and endurance capability. In his (Donner’s) times there weren’t computers around with enough “thinking “capability. In our days, however, we had Deep Blue (you ask Garry Kasparov about!), and some other instances (chess software and hardware) where man got defeated. And chess doesn’t emulate life as some chess players like to suggest. I think life is much more complex. In real life, you (may) play on several ‘chessboards’ (on several dimensions) with multiple opponents, at the same time.


(Bobby Fischer. "Chess is war over the board. The object is to crush the opponents mind.")

I can recall once Bobby Fischer made a list of his best players. He didn’t include Donner. So the latter didn’t like it. That’s the next reflection.
(...)



Donner was a good analyst; even, a good psychologist. Just check on the comparison Bobby Fischer/Mikhail Tal (once called "The pirate from Riga"). Truly, different styles of playing.

“It was a glorious and exciting tournament, completely dominated by the two youngest participants-Tal 22, and Bobby Fischer, 16. There is a striking difference between the two. Fischer is the pragmatic, technical one. He makes almost no mistakes. His positional judgment is dispassionate, nearly pessimistic. His method is ‘to play against the board’. Tal is more imaginative. For him, over-confidence is a danger that he must constantly guard against. Hearing him analyse you’ll find he immediately sees an opponent’s mate in 10 but sometimes simply misses lines where he is mated himself. He is vain and will rather make a dubious piece-sacrifice hitting like a bombshell, than opt for a more promising but calmer plan. Tal bewitches his opponents and confounds them. Fischer is dangerous because his opponents tend to underestimate him.”

The chessboard is a battle field. It may bring recompenses, no doubt, but some players have difficulty with the title. Donner’s analysis of the great masters reaching the top of the game is pertinent. Alekhine resorted to liquor. Max Euwe just got rid of the title. Capablanca said chess would be extinct in some years; he would prefer dominoes. Lasker just abandoned the game for 10 years.

Donner turns philosophical, sometimes. What’s Chess? Really. A devout communist like Botvinnik would say that the game of chess is “actually art”. And yet, Donne says “it’s not”. I am on Botvinnik’s side (in what concerns art, solely). Mikhail Tal would say Chess is a “cocktail”.


(Botvinnik)

True, by 1968, Donner had plenty of observations on women playing chess, so he concluded "...women cannot play chess"; he even ventured saying: "...they will never learn either". I know he was wrong; there weren't many Judit Polgar-type girls around. Yet, Donner's view of a certain lady says it all: "I have studied Fraulein Jorger closely and attentively. In any aeroplane whatsoever, I would completely put myself in her hands, her piano playing is a delight, ...but chess, forget it, she is hopeless at it, just like any other woman." Times and societies just change, though.

28th June 1972. Donner, the columnist, was writing this piece called "Poker Ideology":

"In the Laugarsdarhol, in Reykjavik, on Sunday, July 2nd, at 5 PM local time, the first move is to be made in the first game of the match for the world chess championship between Boris Spassky of Russia and his challenger, Robert Fischer of the United States. Even before a move has been made, this breathtaking, blood-curdling and heartrending encounter is justly being labeled as 'the Match of the Century'.



Indeed, it was a tumultuous event of sorts, filled with ideology. Bobby Fischer won, nonetheless. Fischer, the King, had defeated, for a while, the Soviet chess hegemony.



And yet, Donner would (again) criticize the American "way of life" as regards to chess: "How different is chess in the United States. The game of chess has never been held in great esteem by the North Americans. Their culture is steeped in deeply anti-intellectual tendencies. They pride themselves in having created the game of Poker".

However, Donner would witness a change in America, a chess-boom. Still, "Americans play chess the way we play bridge. This boom could have earned Bobby a lot more money than he-as a result of his own stupidity, let it be said- came away with in the end."
Can't you read a certain rivalry in the previous words?

"Last night I dreamt I was Spassky and I woke up bathed in sweat"

How about psychic powers? do they have a role in chess?
Donner's views are quite interesting. You might utter a "yes" to the previous questions.

"It is true that some players seem to bewitch their opponents. This was said of Lasker, it was said of Tal, and now it seems to be the case of Fischer as well. Tal managed to win games-one of the most notorious was a game against Spassky in the early sixties- in such a way that objective observers could only conclude afterward that he had driven his opponent insane. I have suffered badly from Tal myself. It is very difficult to make sense of this. He emanated something -an aura-that was extremily unpleasant."

"Fischer is unwillingness incarnate. In him there is no conflict between the will to live and chess, because for him life simply doesn't exist. (...) Fischer will not be world champion for long. His quirks, moods and whims will turn against him at the moment when he has reached the top. He'll hit out hard, but at nothing but thin air."

How prophetic were these words? For those who know the full biography of Bobby Fischer, they would agree: something truthful was imbued in the Donner's forecast.

"I will donate this prize to the Red Cross in Vietnam. Personally I won't be opposed if they buy arms with their aid money, as the Americans have no right to be in Vietnam"
(Donner said about the prize he won in the 1967 tournament of Venice)

In his book "Smart Chip from St Petersburg" Genna Sosonko, who befriended Donner, dedicated one section of the book to his friend. At times, he wonders about "who he was, really". Donner had been called a "fascist", and some wondered if he was a communist or even an anarchist (Genna suggests so). Mind you, Donner visited the Island of Freedom (Cuba), the "real-socialism" spot, and had played chess with Che Guevara, though he recognized the messy state of the Island.



Time for closure. These are 391 well-written pieces, by a chess expert, yet very much politically engaged, as some articles show. I still recall one piece on the book by Alexander Cockburn, a psychoanalytical approach to chess, and the discussion on the archetype "matter dolorosa", that, it seems, permeates the game. Donner would reckon: "it's not surprising that chess has always attracted a great deal of attention from psychologists". Donner surely had an interest on insanity. On page 199 you may find a piece called: "Bobby Fischer is insane". But near the end of the book there's another piece asking if chess players are insane. You go figure, who's entitled to diagnosing. Some say the true passion of Donner was 'writing'.

As we are in another age, I shall present a problem for any reader who would like to crack it; I mean, it's white to move to give a checkmate in 3 moves. (from The Economist, July 30th 1994; the article says that Chess Genius 2, "a program widely available, can solve it in seconds"; not so with a grandmaster).

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

From the introduction of the book:
"Donner soon developed a strictly personal view on how such chess reporting should be handled:
'The man who takes up the pen to report on a sport event always does so in deep inner uncertainty, because he is by no means convinced himself of the essential importance of such an event and is constantly struggling against the overwhelming sense of his own absurdity. This applies to anyone writing about sports, whether it is football, draughts or chess. It is up to the sports writer to make the event important, to attract and guide the public's attention and to present the simple facts in a colorful way.'
And then Donner says approvingly:
'Mr Straat used to invoke Homer as the patron saint of all sports journalists: he turned the crude slaughter between two gangs of hooligans for a common whore into an immortal epic.'"
And that's not the only joke in the book!

[Michael Anderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

For 25 years, until the early 1980's, Donner, a Dutch grandmaster, wrote opinion articles that directly and peripherally addressed professional and international chess. He covers the Fischer-Spassky and Karpov-Korchnoi world championships, the Fischer-Karpov non-championship, and many Olympiads. He covers cheating in chess, women in chess, computers in chess, seconds in chess, political boycotts in chess, intuition in chess, amateurism in chess, psychology in chess, etc -- all with humor, all highly opinionated, all dated by now, all very interesting if you are a serious chess player. Not all of us are, and so some of it was marginally boring, but not boring enough to prevent me from starting the next article.

[D.B. Adams · Rating 5 out of 5]

# The King of Sardonic Chess Literature: J.H. Donner's "The King: Chess Pieces"

In the stuffy world of chess literature, where grandmasters drone on about the Sicilian Defense with all the charisma of a damp scoresheet, J.H. Donner's "The King: Chess Pieces" arrives like a tipsy guest at a formal dinner party—inappropriate, refreshing, and impossible to ignore.

Donner, the late Dutch grandmaster and journalist, wasn't just a chess player who wrote; he was a writer who happened to play chess exceptionally well. This collection of his essays reveals a mind as comfortable dissecting Dostoyevsky as dismantling a Nimzo-Indian Defense. The result is chess writing that actually makes you laugh out loud—a phenomenon as rare as a grandmaster admitting they blundered.

What makes Donner's work so deliciously readable is his complete disregard for chess world decorum. While other writers genuflect before chess icons, Donner cheerfully skewers his contemporaries with the precision of a tactical combination. His description of certain players as "woodpushers" and his unfiltered assessments of chess personalities would get him banned from Twitter faster than you can say "checkmate."

The book's brilliance lies in Donner's ability to see chess not as some sacred intellectual pursuit but as a bizarre human activity where grown adults spend hours moving wooden figures across 64 squares while developing peculiar neuroses. His self-deprecating accounts of his own tournament disasters are particularly endearing. After one spectacular loss, he notes he played "like a frightened child," a refreshing admission in a sport where egos typically rival the size of Russia.

Donner's digressions into philosophy, literature, and politics might frustrate readers seeking pure chess content, but these tangents provide the book's richest moments. His essay "Chess for Cats" alone justifies the cover price, comparing the feline approach to chess with the canine—with humans falling somewhere in between, usually closer to the drooling dogs.

The translation from Dutch occasionally feels like it's missing some nuance, like watching a brilliant chess combination with one move redacted. Yet even through this filter, Donner's caustic wit and penetrating intelligence shine through.

"The King: Chess Pieces" isn't just for chess players. It's for anyone who enjoys watching a brilliant mind dismantle pretension with surgical precision while simultaneously celebrating the beautiful absurdity of a game that consumes its devotees. Donner understood that chess, like life, is both profoundly meaningful and utterly ridiculous—often in the same move.

If chess books were chess pieces, most would be pawns: functional, numerous, and forgettable. Donner's collection is the queen: powerful, unpredictable, and capable of moves other pieces wouldn't dare attempt.

[Matias · Rating 4 out of 5]

Es una antología de las columnas de prensa del ajedrecista y periodista (aunque no creo que él mismo se considerara como tal) J.H.Donner. Se trataba de una persona muy peculiar, totalmente políticamente incorrecto y provocador pero a la vez inteligente y perspicaz.

Algunos de los puntos de vista que defiende son claramente absurdos, como que las mujeres no pueden jugar bien al ajedrez (en su tiempo Judith Polgar no había aparecido, pero aún así tenía suficientes pistas para ver que se trataba de un problema social más que de cableado mental), o que los ordenadores no jugarían bien hasta dentro de 2000 años y los programas de traducción entre lenguas hasta dentro de 4000 años. Si levantara la cabeza... Aún así defiende sus posturas como gran polemista que debió ser.

En la página 87 aparece una narración de un torneo en Palma de Mallorca en 1967, en la que se refiere a un Ramón, que sólo puede ser Román Torán, y de su relación anterior con una joven que después fue artista y que sólo puede ser Gemma Cuervo (entonces en 1952 con 16 años) y una hija que no me sale por ningún lado. Estaría bien hacer una investigación sobre este affair, pero no me cuadran las fechas. Sin duda Román Torán fue un personaje importante en el ajedrez español pero hay muy poca información sobre él en internet.
En definitiva un libro divertido de leer si te gusta la historia del ajedrez en los años 60, 70 y principios de los 80. Especialmente divertidos son sus insultos hacia L.Prins un jugador holandés al que detestaba.
'My world has become very small now, but a chess player is used to that', frase final del libro, creo que explica muchas cosas de la psicología de los ajedrecistas, para bien y para mal.

[Akshay Basavaraj · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic book with collection of J.H. Donner's works throughout his chess career. Donner's opinions are strong, naive, humorous, ironic, sarcastic and witty, in some cases all in one.
I wish he were alive right now, as his commentary on what is happening around the world would have been the sole unbiased voice of reason.

[Luc · Rating 4 out of 5]

..blz. 346 Onderaan; ....Nu is het in het geheel niet nodig goed te kunnen schaken. Ook de dilettant, die het bijkans geheel als geluksspel behandelt, hoeft er niet minder plezier aan te beleven dan de grootmeester, die naar perfectie streeft.

[Scallie]

Ook wie niet weet wat schaken is, moet kennismaken met deze markante amsterdamse bon-vivant.

[Bert Huisman]

13 t1

[Rudy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Grootmeesterlijk