Fred Reinfeld

What was Fred Reinfeld like as a player and as a author ?

A decent domestic player indeed. When the first USCF rating list was published in 1950 he was 6th.

Reuben Fine 2817
Samuel Reshevsky 2770
Alexander Kevitz 2610
Arthur W. Dake 2598
A. C. Simonson 2596
Fred Reinfeld 2593
Arnold S. Denker 2575
Isaac Kashdan 2574
I. A. Horowitz 2558
Abraham Kupchik 2538

The list was based on lots of old tournaments. Well before 1950 Reinfeld was done playing competitively.

His early books are considered worthy but later ones often are uninspired rehashes of earlier work. He had diverse interests and wrote books on mineralogy and coin collecting.

I have one of his books, The Complete Chessplayer. It's a good book, covering a wide array of openings, middlegames, and endgames.

Hmm interesting thanks goldendog. You see I've got one of his book 'Relax with Chess and win in 20 moves' is just some collection of games fun to read. Inside cover said he also wrote- How to play better chess, The unknown Alekhine, The essential chess opening, Winning chess,

I only had Reinfeld books when I was starting with the game. The potboilers not the good ones. One that caught my attention most was his Complete Book of Chess Openings. Thanks to that I've spent way too much time on opening study. What can I say though, it was and is fascinating.

His book Winning Chess, co-authored with Chernev, is a total gem and deserves a reprint/modernization badly

The general feeling is that Reinfeld was around 2400 strength at his peak. He played in the US championships and was active in NY chess events in the 30's and 40's--the 2593 rating given is way too high as Kashdan was a much stronger player than Reinfeld

Just for the fun of it, here are more early USCF lists. Anyone who hadn't played since 1948 was dropped as inactive, so Reinfeld never showed up except for the first list. For these early lists master was 2300 and senior master 2500 and GM 2700. Eventually the standards were dropped to the familiar 2200 and 2400, apparently by 1956. These were not Elo numbers but the Harkness system. It had its problems.

4/1951

Reuben Fine 2817
Samuel Reshevsky 2734
Arthur W. Dake 2598
I. A. Horowitz 2558
Isaac Kashdan 2494
Larry Evans 2484
Herbert Seidman 2451
Max Pavey 2442
George Shainswit 2442
Arnold S. Denker 2431

7/31/1951

Samuel Reshevsky 2747
Reuben Fine 2711
I. A. Horowitz 2565
Larry Evans 2554
Arthur W. Dake 2539
Arnold S. Denker 2504
Robert Byrne 2465
George Shainswit 2444
Isaac Kashdan 2441
Max Pavey 2441
Arthur S. Bisguier 2421
Albert S. Pincus 2421
George Kramer 2396
Donald Byrne 2391
Weaver W. Adams 2390
Edward Lasker 2378
D. H. Mugridge 2359
Edward Schwartz 2358
Albert N. Sandrin 2356

12/31/1951

Samuel Reshevsky 2734
Reuben Fine 2676
Larry Evans 2660
I. A. Horowitz 2545
Arthur W. Dake 2510
Arnold S. Denker 2504
Max Pavey 2502
Robert Byrne 2462
Isaac Kashdan 2455
Alexander Kevitz 2450
Herbert Seidman 2447
George Shainswit 2444
Arthur S. Bisguier 2428
Herman Steiner 2427
George Kramer 2413
Albert N. Sandrin 2363
Donald Byrne 2359
D. H. Mugridge 2359
Sidney Bernstein 2358

WOW!  Very interesting!  I have heard, though, that these `speculative` lists are to be taken rather lightly.  For instance, Alekhine was "estimated" to have a 2690 rating - but that was going through every known tournament, based on the estimated ratings of their opponents.

I personally find 2690 hard to believe.  Of course, it is a wonderful rating!  But, even though his actual rating may or may not have calculated out to less than 2700, I am sure he was capable of 2700 or even 2800 performance, even by today's standards.

These lists may be a different beast altogeter, I'm not sure.  Thanks for them!  I had no clue some of these players were that strong!  :)

I love the down home language contained in that book.  None of the stilted, high collar jargon in there.  Any idiot, including me, has no trouble understanding that book.  I love the story of the plumber who used hydrochloric acid to open clogged pipes!

Reinfeld obviously had his moments if he had such a high rating. I know I was surprised when I found out this author of "common chess books" (really, Reinfeld books were kind of a joke at that time for us young tournament players) had strong credentials. According to Denker in his book about (mainly) US Chess in the 30s and 40s, Fred had an winning record with Reshevsky, something which virtually no one could manage as Sammy just ate up everyone domestically then. +2 -0 =3 according to Denker. Megabase shows +1 -0 =3, with the win coming in 1932 when Reshevsky was still young, and does not include a Reinfeld win on time in the 1932 Western Open. Nevertheless, no losses even later on.

As you noted he won the NY championship in 1933, with a 9.5-1.5 score.

These early ELO (USCF ) ratings are very rough as they are estimates or estimates. Am pretty sure 2200 was always a Master. I do not think there were any official ratings until the early 60's --at least none were published. 

 We also have to account for some inflation. 2700 then is more than 2700 now, if we wish to compare those old figures to modern ones.

 I have the Chess Review wherein the first list was published. It was an official list with master at 2300 etc.. I also have an early USCF Elo list from 1961.

Chess Review was a privately run magazine (until Oct 1969)  and the official USCF magazines was Chess Life which was published in newspaper for from 1947/47 and then magazine form until 1961-69.

I will try and check the Chess Life's to see if I can get any more details on rankings. I will also ask several people who will know about Master qualifications from back then.

I think around 1960 or 1961 the USCF adapted Elo's ratings but to apply them retroactively is quite tricky and doubtful of their accuracy.Under no measure was Reinfeld even close to 2600.

The 1951 list looks pretty accurate on a relative ranking  though Fine was not super active and Bisguier probably should be a little higher. Pavey's high rank is the result of his excellent finish in the US championship.

Keep in mind that these are Harkness numbers, and that they are indeed rough as they have not been refined by many later results. The rankings are okay but I don't think a difference of several dozen points is very meaningful and needs to be taken very seriously.

Keeping this in mind, there is no claim that Reinfeld's rating is equivalent to the same number Elo of, say, the year 1970 or 2000.

While Chess Review was not the official organ for the USCF, it reported offical USCF news. In the article whererin the first list was published, the Chess Review article says "The foregoing is strictly as reported  to us by USCF rating satistician William Byland."

GM was 2700+ Senior Master 2500-2699  Master 2300-2499 etc.

Here is what I found out about the rating. In 1950 the Harkness system was used, If you scored 6-6 in the US open you were rated 2000. A master was rated  2300 but due to rating inflation it was lowered to 2200 in 1956. The Elo rating system was used starting in 1960. FIDE did not adapt the ELO system until 1970. GM and IM are International titles and do not rely on US ratings.

From people who started playing in the 1950's and knew many of Reinfeld's opponents and actually played some of them directly, they estimated Reinfeld's peak rating around 2300-2350. Chernev at his peak was estimated around 2150-2200.