"Adolf Georg Olland was a Utrecht-born doctor and chess master, considered one of the strongest Dutch players of his time.

"He was a noted match player, beating most of his important Dutch contemporaries except Euwe. In tournaments, he won at Amsterdam 1889 (shared), Arnheim 1895 (shared), Haarlem 1901 and Leiden 1909 (shared).

Olland vs Euwe, 1920

Olland vs Euwe, 1920

Olland vs Euwe, 1920

At any rate, "Notable Games" are just a reflection of how often a game appears in members' games collections. These are assembled for various reasons, not necessarily quality.

Olland was considered to be the best chess player in the Netherlands 1919/20 followed by Abraham Speijer. This information is taken from a report of the national championship held in December 1919, where both didn't play. Max Marchand won the championship ahead of Euwe.

At the beginning of 1920, a match between Olland and Richard Reti was played, which Réti won "only" 6:4 (+5,-3,=2).

A source for this would be nice.

It's another Delpher project - I came across a lot of those games during my Reti--Euwe (1920) research.

There are dozens of reports on that match in the Dutch newspapers, and putting together round numbers and dates should be a finger exercise.

Agreed, but my comment was directed at <thomastonk>'s lack of providing it.

Yes, that is a statement of fact. I don't toss the appellation off that casually, though I'd say I'm more liberal than some in applying it.

I'm actually thinking of actually doing a blog post about the subject of what a chess historian is - maybe someday in the future. I'd like, at the very least, to document some of my techniques and general methods in the hopes that others consider their adoption.

<Is this approved?>

Not sure whose approval decides (sorry <Focus> - it's not you!). There's no issuing authority afaik.

But if you had followed <CG> when <thomastonk> was active, I'd suspect you'd be inclined to agree with me.

There are many others who would qualify as well. Many of whom, unlike me, have a narrower focus on the historical aspects.

Let me list a few who aren't so active these days, but whose posts still reflect their good work in various aspects of chess history:

User: Honza Cervenka
User: jnpope
User: karpova
User: sbc
User: thomastonk

(sorry for any/all omissions)

I could post more about the Age of Titans (those who got <CG> tournaments going), or the present-day historians, both those who have earned the "approved" appellation via "Best Historian" Caissar, or those who didn't but should have.

<There are not so many historians in chess history. Only the name Harding comes to my mind (and that doesn't protect him from making mistakes).>

I agree with everything after "the name Harding". But "only"!?

Here's a list of names off the top of my head - Edward Winter, Tony Gillam, H.J.R. Murray, J.N. Pope, P.W. Sergeant, H. Kmoch, and all the McFarland series author's, all qualified chess historians in one way or another, imo.