Reviewed by John Watson

In THE STORY OF A CHESS PLAYER, Jaan Ehlvest writes a chess autobiography by playing both the role of an interviewer and at the same time the one being interviewed. Like Petrovs in A CHESS PLAYER’S STORY (Click to see DONALDSON'S REVIEW OF THE PETROVS' BOOK), Ehlvest deals with the domination and persecution of a Baltic State under the Soviets, this time Estonia. He describes a close call in which his grandmother saved the family from deportation to Siberia by a spirited protest (“She was a very beautiful lady”, Ehlvest adds as a supplementary explanation). But by the time Ehlvest is growing up he is treated fairly well, especially as a chessplayer. He says: “It is true that one had to be loyal to the Communist party – but that was true in all spheres of Soviet society. However, there were chess players that were more than loyal – one did not need to actually join the Communist Party to have normal opportunities in chess.... Some players did become Communists – most notably Garry Kasparov and Alexander Beliavsky. I believe, however, that in Kasparov’s case there was not much choice in becoming a member...But you would have to ask him yourself why he joined. I was never asked or advised to join, even when I qualified for the Interzonal tournament in 1987.”

Apart from the games section, the most intriguing and amusing chapter is entitled: “Secret Life of the Player.” It begins with a quote from Hemingway: “I guess really good soldiers are really good at very little else.” In that context, Ehlvest warns that chessplayers “are not geniuses at all” and suggests that some may in fact possess talent that only applies to chess. A lot of his secret life seems to be about relatively trivial things: his last fistfight (before high school); his first time going to the cinema at age 17 with a schoolgirl; his dream car; his enjoyment of poker; his fear of heights and snakes. His own questions tend to get in the way of his telling us much about himself. I give him much credit, however, for revealing so much about the following delicate subjects (remember that Ehlvest both asks and answers the questions):

“You are not married yet. What kind of woman are you looking for?”

“I do not know why, but I am very fond of blond women. The personality does not matter much – I think I can handle any kind; but it is best if the woman is clever. She must also have the qualities real women from the past had. I am not a nobleman, but probably I would like a noble, stylish woman for a wife – but I can live without one also.”

“Would you marry someone from the chess world?”

“The idea of having a ‘chess family’ is not so good. Competitive chess, like any other competitive sport, is not for women because it is very stressful and harmful to your health. I do not believe that any caring man should want that his sweetheart gets hurt.”

“Which country has the most beautiful women?”

“I have been asked this question many times and my answer always changes. My first answer was Spain, Iceland, and Russia – I cannot remember the order. On the TV, the Italian women are gorgeous, and having been in the Ukraine I must say that they for sure qualify to the ‘finals.’

“As you get older, you no longer chase after the fairer sex with your tongue hanging out – there are so many of them. Everywhere there are beautiful women; one has to pick what one wants.”

Now that is candor! If only those last-page “interviews” in New In Chess would be so revealing.

This is a self-published book or something along the same lines (the cover says “Ehlvest Chess Gates Presents THE STORY OF A CHESS PLAYER”). There are numerous photographs, but they are all of Ehlvest and none particularly gripping. Not surprisingly, it’s the chess that’s most interesting. There are many excellent games interspersed with general comments about the game, player’s styles and personalities, etc. For example, in the middle of a fairly humdrum sequence of moves he says: “The most difficult moves to make in chess are the ones with queen and rook. These most valuable pieces make the biggest difference in a game. The main problem with rooks is which rook to use for which line. Here White plans to transfer the rook to the king­side...[moves follow] Here you may expect some annotators to make a comment like ‘to beat a solid player like Beliavsky, you need to mate him.’ Actually this is nonsense! GMs cannot afford to engage in this kind of weak thinking. There is – and you must find – the best move. It is tempting to later on tease your audience with explana­tions like “I evaluated this and that as such.” In fact we do not evaluate anything. I believe this evaluation terminology came about when some ‘experts’ tried to teach students how to choose a move. Evaluation is only possible after the game, when we know all the consequences. The only way is to search for the best move!”

Or: “...but chess is a dynamic game where the situation is always changing. It is not enough to know the static nature of the position – things are much more complicated. One must know when you can play ...g7-g6 in this variation and when you cannot. If you do not know it, you must at least realize your mistakes after the game. If you cannot or do not have anyone to tell you, then you are lost – at least for chess. I am always curious how people can trust chess teachers who do not have the proper education to teach such things. In some other sports, incorrect training can even damage you physically.

In the Soviet Union, and not only there, the demand for higher results was so great that it did not consider the effects on the individual. Only the strongest survived. This was true in chess as well. Probably the ones who survived were not the most talented, but rather the ones who could cope with the enormous pressure of, for example, only first place being sufficient to qualify to international tournaments...I am lucky that I got a proper chess education – but many are not fortunate. At least a bad chess education does not damage you mentally, as happened to many sportsmen of the Soviet Union – both the winners and the losers.”

I don’t want to deceive the reader: While parts like those above make good reading, I also find some of this book rather dull. His unique interviewing style has both positives and negatives. Nevertheless, as a whole, I found the book fun enough to read through to the end (which is unusual for me these days) and the games notes are excellent. Those two reasons are more than enough to recommend it to players and fans of the game.