Tragedy of Paul Keres
Chesstours
This article first appeared in Chess Life (October 1996) and is
reprinted courtesy of Chesstours (c). All rights reserved.
Postcript
After this article was written, the author became familiar with a
1991 interview by Max Pan and GM Genna Sosonko. When asked if he
knew of collusion among Soviet players in his heyday, Mikhail
Botvinnik replied: "At a very high level, it was proposed that the
other Soviet players would lost against me on purpose, in order
to make sure there was going to be a Soviet World Champion. It
was Stalin himself who proposed this."
In our view, this admission is the SMOKING GUN that confirms much
of the speculation offered below. Enjoy.
THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES
By GM Larry Evans
"I must be grateful to Paul Keres. Had it not been for him,
I would have been unable to advance so far in the field of
chess." -- Mikhail Botvinnik.
"As Spassky once put it in a frank reply to a question
at a lecture he gave many years later, Keres was not able to
win the world title because he had the misfortune to be born
in a small country...Enough said, of course, for a Soviet
audience, who knew that the cream of Baltic society had been
carried off to the Gulag." -- British Chess Magazine.
"Being in the hands of the Germans at the time of the
Fascist occupation of Estonia, I was cut off from Soviet
chess players for a period of nearly four years. Not being
able to refuse to play chess during this occupation, I took
part in five tournaments. Apparently, for this reason the
All-Union Committee of Physical Culture and Sport does not
consider it possible to admit me to a tournament for the
USSR Championship, although in 1941 I was recognized as a
Soviet grandmaster..." -- Excerpt of letter of April 7, 1945
with plea from Paul Keres to Vyacheslev Molotov, Stalin's
right hand man, found in secret Soviet archives that were
not intended to see the light of day.
The Keres File
Paul Keres (1916-1975) now adorns Estonia's 5-krone bill. He is often regarded
as the best player who was never allowed to become world champion.
Many fans have long suspected the Soviets made him throw games. Newly opened
KGB files support it.
At a tournament in Holland (AVRO 1938) to determine a challenger for Alexander
Alekhine, Keres tied with America's Reuben Fine ahead of Capablanca, Alekhine,
Botvinnik, Euwe, Reshevsky and Flohr. Then Keres narrowly beat ex-titleholder
Euwe in a match, but he didn't get a shot at the title vacated by the death of
Alekhine in 1946.
Botvinnik was now absolute champion of the Soviet Union (which had swallowed
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) and Keres was in trouble for having competed in
Nazi-organized tournaments during the war. The KGB wanted to execute Keres for
treason, and his family was also in peril. His case was examined at the
highest level in the Kremlin; they let him rejoin his family in Estonia, but
the price of his reprieve was to abandon his quest for the crown.
We have since learned that such dirty deals were not uncommon in totalitarian
regimes. In the mid-1970s Alla Kushnir, for example, was allowed to emigrate
to Israel only after she lost three title matches to Nona Gaprindashvili.
Kushnir then abandoned her quest for the women's championship. And defector
Viktor Korchnoi's family was released from Russia only after he lost two title
matches to Anatoly Karpov in 1978 and 1981.
"The first major tournaments in Europe after the war were held in London,
Hastings and Groningen," recently reported CHESS magazine. "It was unthinkable
to hold them without Keres, but that is what happened -- because Botvinnik did
not want him to play."
FIDE took control of the crown in 1948 and required the new champ to face a
challenger every three years. Six players -- three Soviets, three outsiders --
were invited to play for the title at The Hague and Moscow. Fine declined to
spend three months of his life watching Russians throw games to each other,
which left America's Samuel Reshevsky and Dutchman Max Euwe alone in a field
with Keres, Botvinnik and Vassily Smyslov.
Keres was the favorite, but his lips always remained sealed about his awful
score against Botvinnik. He lost the first four games and won the fifth only
after Botvinnik already had enough points to win. Close analysis of these
games leaves little doubt that Keres was forced to take a dive.
PRAVDA hailed Botvinnik's triumph in 1948 as "a victory of socialist culture,"
yet both Smyslov and Keres refused to shake his hand before it began. "Our
hostility later turned to friendship," said Botvinnik in his remarkably frank
memoirs written 30 years later (ACHIEVING THE AIM).
History proved Fine right. In SPORTS ILLUSTRATED Bobby Fischer blasted Soviet
stars for ganging up against him at Curacao 1962. "I had the best score of
anyone who didn't cheat," he said.
The qualifying cycle was changed to a series of one-on-one matches, but the
USSR still pulled the strings. For decades their champions enjoyed both a
rematch clause plus draw odds that made it almost impossible for outsiders to
gain the crown.
At Bled in 1961, when Fischer was 18, he beat Mikhail Tal and Efim Geller,
then boasted he'd crush all four Russians in the field. "But Bobby, that's
impossible," teased Keres. "So far you beat a Latvian and a Ukrainian. That
leaves me, an Estonian, and Tigran Petrosian, an Armenian."
"Never mind what states you come from," glowered Bobby. "You're all Russians
to me!"
Only Keres escaped with a draw.
Soviets Dominate FIDE
In Chess Life (February 2, 1951) Dr. Feodor Bohatirchuk, a Ukrainian who
emigrated to Canada, warned that Soviets had corrupted chess upon joining
FIDE after the war. A former Russian co-champ with a big plus score against
Botvinnik, he went on to express the feelings of many fans about the sorry
state of world chess:
"All the important activity of FIDE of last years was dictated
by the Bolshevik delegation...In the first tournament for
the world's championship, three representatives of the USSR
and two of other countries participated. Everyone but an
extreme simpleton now knows very well that chess in the
USSR is subordinated to politics. All their chess masters
are no more than pawns in the hands of a communistic
propaganda machine.
"If in a tournament of five players a team of three good
masters would act together, no Capablanca, Alekhine or
Lasker would have the smallest chance to become champion.
"I looked through all the games of this tournament and some
of the games of Soviet masters between themselves astonished
me with their lack of ideas. In particular Keres against
Botvinnik did not demonstrate any of his skill. The same
Keres played with Euwe and Reshevsky in his old manner with
striking geniality. Of course this fact may be explained by
Botvinnik's superiority but I know the play of both and I
am far from being sure of this superiority. The play of
Smyslov with Botvinnik was also not so impressive as it was
sometimes in the games with other masters. Being aware of
methods of Soviet propaganda I have no doubt that this weak
play is rather the result of proper instruction than
playing supremacy of Botvinnik."
1948 Redux: Rigged Games
"Proper instruction" indeed!
The answer to whether the games were rigged exists not only in the KGB files
but also in the games themselves, which were conducted at a slow time limit of
40 moves in 2 1/2 hours. First, let's take a look at the final standings of
the Hague-Moscow World Championship that lasted from March 2 - May 16, 1948.
1. Mikhail Botvinnik 14-6
2. Vassily Smyslov 11-9
3. Paul Keres 10 1/2 - 9 1/2
4. Samuel Reshevsky 10 1/2 - 9 1/2
5. Max Euwe 4-16
Botvinnik's margin of victory looks overwhelming, but statistics can be
deceptive. Suppose that instead of losing their first four games Keres broke
even at 2-2. That would take two points away from Botvinnik giving him 12
while adding two points to Keres giving him 12 1/2 -- and the crown!
Botvinnik held the title on and off until 1963 with an overall 49%! In seven
matches and 157 games against Bronstein, Smyslov, Tal and Petrosian, he posted
a minus score of 77-80. So much for his vaunted superiority over Soviet
rivals. To explain this discrepancy, the Soviet propaganda machine always
referred to Botvinnik as "first among equals." But it was a bit more difficult
to explain Reshevsky's 2 1/2 - 1 1/2 victory over Botvinnik at the USA-USSR
match in Moscow 1955.
It's not my intention here to analyze the Keres-Botvinnik games in any great
detail. Instead I propose to pinpoint moves that strike me as suspicious at
the diagrams in all five of their skirmishes.
Game One
W: Keres B: Botvinnik, English Opening (A13): 1. c4 e6 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 d4 4.
b4 c5 5. b5 e5 6. d3 Bd6 7. e4 Qc7 8. Ne2 h5 9. h4 Nh6 10. 0-0 Bg4 11. f3 Be6
12. f4 Bg4 13. f5 Nd7 14. Nd2 g6 15. fxg6 fxg6 16. Nf3 Be7 17. Rf2 Qd6 18
Bxh6? (Simply 18. Bd2 is indicated) 18...Rxh6 19. Qd2 Rh8 20. Ng5 Nf6
(Diagram after 20...Nf6)
21. Re1?!...
Incomprehensible. When I saw this move, it struck me that something was awry.
Nine out of ten grandmasters would double rooks by 21. Raf1 without thinking
twice. The only point of the text is to play 22. Nf4 exf4 23. e5 but this is
so easily thwarted as to be ludicrous. The rook is useless on e1 yet Keres
leaves it there for a long time.
21...Qb6 22. Nf3 Nd7 23. Ng5 Rf8 24. Rxf8+ Bxf8 25. a4?...
Another lemon. It allows a deadly pin that eventually gains a pawn. I can't
see how a world class player like Keres can lose this position after 25. Nf3.
25...Bh6 26. a5 Qf6 27. Nc1 0-0-0 28. Nb3 Rf8 29. Ra1 Qe7 30. Qc1 Kb8 31. Ra2
Rf7 32. Qa3 Bxg5 33. hxg5 Bd1 34. Qc1 Bxb3 35. Rb2 Bd1 36. Qxd1 Qxg5 37. Qe1
Nf8 38. Kh2 Qf6 39. Bh3 Nh7 40. Qd1 Ng5 41. b6 h4 42. Qg4 hxg3+ 43. Kxg3 Rf8
44. bxa7+ Kxa7 45. a6 Nxh3 46. Qxh3 Qf4+ 47. Kg2 Qf1+ 48. Kh2 Rf2+ 49. Rxf2
Qxf2+ 50. Kh1 Qe1+ 51. Kg2 Qe2+ 52. Kg1 Qe3+ 53. Qxe3 dxe3 54. axb7 Kxb7 55.
Kg2 Kb6 56. Kf3 Ka5 57. Kxe3 Kb4 58. Kd2 g5 White Resigns
Game Two
W: Botvinnik B: Keres, Nimzo Indian Defense (E28): l. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3
Bb4 4. e3 0-0 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Re8 7. Ne2 e5 8. Ng3 d6 9. Be2 Nbd7 10. 0-0
c5 11. f3....
(Diagram after 11. f3)
11...cxd4?
Black's game would be fine after 11...Nf8 12. e4 Ne6. The text is a basic
strategical blooper that tells me something is seriously wrong.
"Keres likes to open the game in the center. One can hardly approve his
decision, since White gets rid of his doubled pawn and his queen's bishop is
activated" (Botvinnik).
12. cxd4 Nb6?
Phew! And now Black misplaces the knight, setting himself up for the fall.
Either 12...Nf8 or b6 offers more resistance. Now watch White exploit the a1-
h8 diagonal that Keres obligingly cleared for him.
13. Bb2 exd4 14. e4! Be6 15. Rc1 Re7?
"Another waste of time. Black could still have brought about the planned
transfer of his knight to the blockading position at c5 by 15...Rc8 16. Qxd4
Na4 17. Ba1 Nc5" (Botvinnik).
16. Qxd4 Qc7?
"Black essentially provokes White into advantageously opening up the game. He
missed his last chance of continuing to resist by 16...Rc8 17. Rfd1 Qd7 18.
Qxd6 Qxd6 19. Rxd6 Ne8 20. Rd4 Rec7" (Botvinnik).
17. c5 dxc5 18. Rxc5 Qf4 19. Bc1 Qb8 20. Rg5 Nbd7 21. Rxg7+! Kxg7 22. Nh5+ Kg6
23. Qe3! Black Resigns.
Keres signed the scorsheet but refrained from shaking his opponent's hand,
which was and still is customary. "After this second defeat in the Match-
Tournament it became clear to everyone that Paul no longer had any hope of
winning the event" (Botvinnik).
Game Three
"This ending should have been easily drawn, but both sides conducted it
imprecisely and it was I who made the last mistake. With this win Botvinnik
clinched it with only eight games left and a lead of 2 1/2 points" (Keres).
W: Keres B: Botvinnik, French Defense (C08): 1. d4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4.
exd5 exd5 5. Ngf3 a6 6. dxc5 Bxc5 7. Nb3 Ba7 8. Bg5 Nf6 9. Nfd4 0-0 10. Be2
Qd6 11. 0-0 Ne4 12. Be3 Nc6 13. Nxc6?!...
Another antipositional move. Once again nine out of ten grandmasters would
play 13. c3 with scarcely any hesitation.
13...Bxe3 14. fxe3?....
If there is any point to White's previous move, it has to be 14. Qxd5! Nxf2!
15. Qxd6 Ne4+ 16. Kh1 Nxd6 17. Ne7+ Kh8 18. Bf3 and I can't see how White can
possibly lose this ending.
14...bxc6
Suddenly Black has bolstered his isolated pawn on d5 while White has incurred
a self-induced weakness on e3. But the real farce comes later.
15. Bd3 Nf6 16. Qe1 Ng4 17. Qh4 f5 18. Rf4 Ne5 19. Qg3 Ra7 20. Raf1 Raf7 21.
Nd4 Nxd3 22. cxd3 c5 23. Nf3 Qb6 24. Rh4 h6 25. Ne5 Rf6 26. d4 cxd4 27. Rxd4
Qxb2 28. Rxd5 Be6 29. Rd4 Kh7 30. Nd7 Bxd7 31. Rxd7 Rg6 32. Qf3 Qe5 33. Rd4
Rb8 34. Qf4 Qe6 35. Rd2 Rb5 36. h3 Re5 37. Kh2 Rf6 38. Rfd1 Re4 39. Qb8 Rxe3
40. Rd8 Qe5+ 41. Qxe5 Rxe5 42. R1d2 g5 43. g4 Rf7 44. R8d7 Kg7 45. gxf5 Rxf5
46. a3 Rf2+ 47. Kg3 Rxd2 48. Rxd2 Rc7 49. Rd4 Rc6
A draw is in the offing after 49...Rc3+ 50. Kg4 Rxa3 51. Rd7+ Kf8 52. Rh7.
(Diagram after 49...Rc6)
50. a4?...
Not in itself fatal, but 50. Ra4! should be painfully obvious to a player of
Keres' caliber. If 50...Kf6 51. Ra5 Ke6 52. h4 gxh4+ 53. Kxh4 Kd6 54. Rh5 Kc7
55. Kg4 Black can't make progress since White's king gets to the queenside.
It's inconceivable that White could miss such a simple idea, especially after
the game was adjourned.
50...Kg6 51. h4 Kh5 52. hxg5 hxg5 53. Rd3?...
But this is just too much! After 53. Rd5! how can White lose? If 53...Rc3+ 54.
Kg2 Kg4 55. Rd6 Rc2+ 56. Kf1 Kf3 56. Rf6+ followed by Rxa6 holds easily. Now
White gets hogtied.
53...Rc4 54. Ra3 a5 55. Kh3 Rb4 56. Kg3 Rf4 57. Ra1 Rg4+ 58. Kh3 Re4 59. Ra3
Kg6 60. Kg3 Kf5 61. Kf3 Ke5 62. Kg3 Rd4 63. Ra1 Kd5 64. Rb1 Rb4 65. Rf1 Ke4
66. Re1+ Kd4 67. Kh2 Rxa4 68. Rg1 Rc4 69. Rxg5 a4 70. Kg2 Kc3 72. Ra5 Kb3
White Resigns
Game Four
W: Botvinnik B: Keres, Queen's Gambit Declined (D06): 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Bf5 3.
c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Qb3 Nc6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bxe7 Ngxe7 8. e3 Qd6 9. Nbd2 0-0
10. Rc1 a5! 11. a3 Rfc8 12. Bd3 a4 13. Qc2 Bxd3 14. Qxd3 Nd8 15. 0-0 Ne6 16.
Rc3....
(Diagram after 16. Rc3)
16...b5?
If 17. Qxb5 Rcb8 regains the pawn; but this antipositional move is the source
of many future problems. After 16...b6 17. Rfc1 c5 it's still a real game.
17. Qc2 Rcb8 18. Ne1 Nc8 19. Rc6 Qe7 20. Nd3 Nb6 21. Nb4 Rd8 22. Qf5 Rd6 23.
Rfc1 Rxc6 24. Rxc6 Rd8 25. Rxb6! cxb6 26. Nc6 Qc7 27. Nxd8 Qxd8 28. Qc2 Qc7?
Walking into a lost ending. Keres could still resist with 28...Qd7 stopping
Qc6. Now he must endure endless torture without any counterplay.
29. Qxc7 Nxc7 30. Nb1 Kf8 31. Kf1 Ke7 32. Ke2 Kd6 33. Kd3 Kc6 34. Nc3 Ne8 35.
Na2 f6 36. f3 Nc7 37. Nb4+ Kd6 38. e4 dxe4+ 39. fxe4 Ne6 40. Ke3 Nc7 41. Kd3
Ne6 42. Nd5 Kc6 43. h4 Nd8 44. Nf4 Kd6 45. Nh5 Ne6 46. Ke3 Ke7 47. d5 Nc5 48.
Nxg7 Kd6 49. Ne6 Nd7 50. Kd4 Ne5 51. Ng7 Nc4 52. Nf5+ Kc7 53. Kc3 Kd7 54. g4
Ne5 55. g5 fxg5 56. hxg5 Nf3 57. Kb4 Nxg5 58. e5 h5 59. e6+ Kd8 60. Kxb5 Black
Resigns
Game Five
W: Keres B: Botvinnik, French Defense (C15): 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4.
Bd2 dxe4 5. Qg4 Nf6 6. Qxg7 Rg8 7. Qh6 Nc6 8. 0-0-0 Rg6 9. Qh4 Bxc3 10. Bxc3
Qd5 11. b3 Ne7 12. f3 Bd7
Botvinnik offered a draw, but we can safely assume Keres was free to refuse
now that he was no longer a threat.
13. Bb2 Bc6 14. c4 Qf5 15. d5 exd5 16. fxe4 dxe4 17. Nh3 Ng4 18. Qg3 Qc5 19.
Qxc7 Rc8 20. Qf4 Qe3+ 21. Rd2...
(Diagram after 21. Rd2)
21...Qxf4?
Playing to lose!
"It is difficult to understand why Black did not test whether White was
satisfied to draw by 21...Qe1+ 22. Rd1 Qe3+ 23. Rd2 (not 23. Kb1 Qxf4 24. Nxf4
Nf2 25. Nxg6 Nxg6 26. Be2 Nxh1 27. Rxh1 f5 with a very good ending) 23...Qe1+
24. Kc2? Ne3+ 25. Kc3 N/7d5+! cxd5 26. Nxd5+ wins the queen" (Keres).
22. Nxf4 e3 23. Rc2 Rg5 24. Be2 Nf2 25. Re1 Rd8 26. g3 Rf5 27. Bf1 Rxf4 28.
gxf4 Nd3+ 29. Bxd3 Rxd3 30. Rc3 Rxc3+ 31. Bxc3 Nf5 32. Bd2 Kd7 33. Bxe3 b6 34.
Bf2 f6 35. Kd2 h5 36. Kd3 Nh6 37. Bh4 f5 38. Re7+ Kd6 39. h3 Black Resigns
Who wouldn't throw games to save his own life or his family? But it must have
given Keres a small measure of satisfaction to knock Botvinnik out of first by
trouncing him in the last round of the 1955 USSR Championship.
To put it mildly, Keres didn't play his best against Botvinnik in 1948.
Obviously a player of Keres' genius isn't going to make stupid mistakes that
are easy to detect. But I believe he left a trail in the first four games for
those knowledgeable enough to follow it to an inescapable conclusion.
******************
--
Phil Innes
Chesstours <7214...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
> This article first appeared in Chess Life (October 1996) and is
> reprinted courtesy of Chesstours (c). All rights reserved.
>
> Postcript
>
> After this article was written, the author became familiar with a
> 1991 interview by Max Pan and GM Genna Sosonko. When asked if he
> knew of collusion among Soviet players in his heyday, Mikhail
> Botvinnik replied: "At a very high level, it was proposed that the
> other Soviet players would lost against me on purpose, in order
> to make sure there was going to be a Soviet World Champion. It
> was Stalin himself who proposed this."
>
> In our view, this admission is the SMOKING GUN that confirms much
> of the speculation offered below. Enjoy.
The player-formerly-called-Evans has writ such things - the balance of which
I snip because 1) it is tenditious, and 2) it is annoying to be preached to
on a public newsgroup at such length, and so unconditionally, that anyone
reading this stuff must wonder who they are who think themselves above
common conversation - preferring pronouncement - avoiding wit at all costs,
and the common habits of the hoi-polloi chess players here.
HOWEVER
Isn't this what I wrote some 100 posts ago - to wit;
"to what degree was Botvinnik complicit"
and of those who have studied this stuff a little bit, this seems to be the
only real question.
INSOMUCH
as the player-formerly-called-Evans has writ thus, I applaud this
investigation into what really went on...
MIND YOU
There have been a few western blokes who have acted, let us say, in an
amoral fashion, and we will mention these dudes also - if in no unnecessary
detail, to simply illustrate that the fault is not only with the bloody
Soviets (you getting this LarryP? and besides - they are dead - not repining
- dead!) but also in our own, er, eye.
SO BOTVINNIK
was complicit if we accept the quote given above,
or do we think he was in some way knowlegable about pressure imposed on his
opponents yet maintaining some virginal purity in his own dealings with such
things?
Phil
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> Paul Keres (1916-1975) now adorns Estonia's 5-krone bill. He is often
regarded
> as the best player who was never allowed to become world champion.
This wording is intentionally misleading. Kasparov
himself regards Keres as the strongest player never to
have _been_ world champ. Why, he didn't say.
Other great players who were possibly stronger than
Keres at some point are Kortchnoi, Anand, Kramnik, and
a couple of pre-Steinitz players, who are generally
excluded from consideration.
(Much biased rambling snipped)
> Viktor Korchnoi's family was released from Russia only after he lost
two title
> matches to Anatoly Karpov in 1978 and 1981.
Is this supposed to be an argument of some kind?
Spassky was allowed to leave Russia only AFTER he
threw games to Fischer. I see how this works now.
Very logical, Sherlock. And the hoards of Russian
emmigres in the US now have each conceded their shots
at Karpov or Kasparov, who otherwise would have been
stomped by Gulko, Albert, Gurevich, etc., etc.
> Keres was the favorite, but his lips always remained sealed about his
awful
> score against Botvinnik. He lost the first four games and won the
fifth only
> after Botvinnik already had enough points to win.
A sharper mind would have noticed that Keres
could have won his second-to-last game against
Botvinnik as well, with the same result. Or drawn
a few of his games with Botvinnik, with the same
result again, due to Botvinnik's plus score against,
Reshevsky, Smyslov, and of course, Euwe.
What we have here, is a tendency to grossly
distort facts to support preconceived opinion.
> Close analysis of these
> games leaves little doubt that Keres was forced to take a dive.
The same "close analysis" which missed Smyslov's
similar efforts. Hmm...
Or does Evans dispute Parr's theory that no man
could refuse Stalin's suggestion?
> History proved Fine right. In SPORTS ILLUSTRATED Bobby Fischer
blasted Soviet
> stars for ganging up against him at Curacao 1962. "I had the best
score of
> anyone who didn't cheat," he said.
History proved Fischer wrong. Kortchnoi was
excluded from the draw-pact: a direct contradiction
of Bobby's charges, which included him "in." In
truth, Bobby's paranoia was quite hilarious upon
hearing Victor's side of this story.
It is interesting how Evans seems to interpret
everything in a predetermined way, with predetermined
results. Seeking, not the truth, but some sort of
underpinning for his shaky theory which, amazingly,
ignores the participation (or not) of Smyslov
altogether while focusing entirely on Keres and
Botvinnik, with an occasional embellishment of
Reshevsky for variety.
> The qualifying cycle was changed to a series of one-on-one matches,
but the
> USSR still pulled the strings. For decades their champions enjoyed
both a
> rematch clause plus draw odds that made it almost impossible for
outsiders to
> gain the crown.
...since these outsiders were not good enough
to even reach the finals, except for one nammed
Bobby, who pulled a few strings of his own, or
had them pulled for him. You see, it is not
only Russians who play these political games-
our Bobby did not qualify yet he was allowed into
the championship cycle. And our Bobby forfeited
to Boris on a technicality... until the match
rules were blatantly ignored and the match resumed.
And our Bobby "negotiated" for points in his match
for the title, with the generous and considerate
Russian, Boris Spassky. Something about pots and
kettles and name-calling comes to mind, but they
both PREFER Black.
> "I looked through all the games of this tournament and some
> of the games of Soviet masters between themselves astonished
> me with their lack of ideas. In particular Keres against
> Botvinnik did not demonstrate any of his skill.
When asked why he did not demonstrate any of
his great attacking skill in his match with Paul
Morphy, Anderssen wrote: "...Morphy won't let me."
When Petrosian lost to Fischer, annotators
described his play as "unrecognisable."
Would Evans care to accuse these folks of
throwing games, as well? Or does this kind of
"evidence" only apply when, and if, he wants it
to? Clearly, this is not evidence at all, but
merely the revelation that losers seem to play
poorly, while winners appear to play well, all
other things being equal.
> The play of
> Smyslov with Botvinnik was also not so impressive as it was
> sometimes in the games with other masters.
I was less impressed. In fact, I was shocked
at the low quality (by today's standards) of all
the games which did not involve Botvinnik, taken
as a whole. I think the magazines and books lend
an inaccurrate perspective on the grandmaster game-
the very best get published repeatedly while the
worst and the mediocre are suppressed. There were
quite a few ugly games in this tourney, many of them
NOT involving two Russians.
> Being aware of
> methods of Soviet propaganda I have no doubt that this weak
> play is rather the result of proper instruction than
> playing supremacy of Botvinnik."
What an imbecile! The worst play of the
entire tournament was that of Euwe and, more
specifically, the games between Euwe and the
other middle finishers, be they Russians or not.
Botvinnik vs. Smyslov was, by comparison, the
best quality chess of the whole schebang.
Reshevsky's opening play was appalling, but he
put up quite a tussle afterwards, even scoring
respectably in spite of it. Fischer would have
killed him in such positions, six-zip. :-)
> while adding two points to Keres giving him 12 1/2 -- and the crown!
Oops- you forgot the grandmaster draws at the
end. These games were not real contests, as one
can easily see from the games themselves, if you
are good enough to spot it. :-) That's a joke,
son. I say, a joke. Better re-examine your take
on the would-have-been finish, as those last games
would have been fought out.
I was impressed by the fact that the alledgedly
conspiring Russians seemed to take it rather easy
on their alleged victim, reshevsky. Some short
draws. Some agreed draws. Many short games- the
opposite approach to that which one might expect.
The usual strategy is to tire the victim out with
extremely hard fought, longwinded games, one after
the other, wearing him down. But this is not what
I found at all. Of course, I was looking for _any_
evidence, not just the kind that suited my
predetermined opinions, you see.
I would like to thank chesstours for actually
bothering to post the analysis which Evans claims
"proves" his theory that Keres threw these games.
Many of us do not have the Chess Life issue in which
this originally appeared, and up 'till now, could
only guess that Evans was finding the kind of errors
which all losers make. You know- blunders.
There are a multitude of different ways to throw
a chessgame. Just sitting, while your clock ticks
away valuable time, is one which leaves no trail to
follow. Rushing critical decisions while taking
twenty minutes to make a forced recapture is another.
Then there are the trail leaving methods- miserable
opening play such as Reshevsky's, or the kind used
extensively by Euwe (which I am unable to pin down,
exactly). And then there is Keres. I will examine
this analysis, even though I happen to agree with
GM Nunn that this approach- theorising that games
are thrown and then searching for "evidence," is
misguided. I believe that such "evidence" can be
found even in games which are not thrown, such as
Botvinnik's losses in this particular tourney. In
one of these game, Botvinnik changes plans repeatedly,
shifting wood back and forth aimlessly, like a
beginner. In another, a lottery type position was
reached, and both Bot and Keres made serious mistakes,
with Keres ultimately winning. This is, in fact, the
recommended strategy for a weaker player to follow,
to maximize his chances against a superior. And in
this case, it worked like a charm for Keres. Unless
Evans is right, in which case it backfired on
Botvinnik! Or ...maybe they were BOTH using this
strategy, each convinced that the other was the better
player. :-) Or... maybe Stalin ORDERED them to play
a French Defense. That might explain why Botvinnik
only switched to the Caro-Kann after Stalin's death...
:-)
Sean the non-Canadian
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Larry Parr
Peter Coleman
But why let facts and logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?
Phil Innes
Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
THE ALEKHINE TRAP
Someone who used to post here explored opinions about Alekhine with me, of
his complicity with Frank in Poland. He wrote an article, and explored a
little on this phenomena of "saving."
It is interesting, no?!
A question is; "does Botvinnik play in tournaments or matches when he knows
there has been pressure on his partners (the Russian term) to allow him to
succeed?"
The question that Lary Parr answers is a different one - it is (if I may);
"was Botvinnik passively complicit in order to save himself and his family,"
Phil
Flicker
imposed on his opponents and try to use at 101%. But... it was very
difficult to explain why all(!) of the people of such states as Soviet
Union, Gitler's Germany and so on acts in such manner... It's the same
question - why people killed one another with the feeling of pleasure and
sutisfaction during wars, etc.
Phil Innes <in...@sover.net> wrote in message
news:188i4.19402$pb2.1...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
> In article <86ao5g$ilr$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com> ,
> Chesstours <7214...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
> >
> > This article first appeared in Chess Life (October 1996) and is
> > reprinted courtesy of Chesstours (c). All rights reserved.
> >
> > Postcript
> >
> > After this article was written, the author became familiar with a
> > 1991 interview by Max Pan and GM Genna Sosonko. When asked if he
> > knew of collusion among Soviet players in his heyday, Mikhail
> > Botvinnik replied: "At a very high level, it was proposed that the
> > other Soviet players would lost against me on purpose, in order
> > to make sure there was going to be a Soviet World Champion. It
> > was Stalin himself who proposed this."
> >
> > In our view, this admission is the SMOKING GUN that confirms much
> > of the speculation offered below. Enjoy.
>
>
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> > Phil Innes raised the issue of Botvinnik's complicity in
rigging
> > the 1948 world championship.
> > Botvinnik is complicit only if he somehow prompted Soviet
> > authorities to act as they did. If the order truly came from Stalin,
> > then he has no complicity because he could not have acted otherwise.
> > The Catholic doctrine of proportionate evil enters here. The
sacrifice
> > of an honest tournament (not a mortal sin) is justified if the
greater
> > evil of lost loved ones is avoided.
> Someone who used to post here explored opinions about Alekhine with
me, of
> his complicity with Frank in Poland. He wrote an article, and
explored a
> little on this phenomena of "saving."
>
> It is interesting, no?!
>
> A question is; "does Botvinnik play in tournaments or matches when he
knows
> there has been pressure on his partners (the Russian term) to allow
him to
> succeed?"
>
> The question that Lary Parr answers is a different one - it is (if I
may);
> "was Botvinnik passively complicit in order to save himself and his
family,"
Rather than jump-the-gun and assume Botvinnik's
guilt, and then question "to what degree?" or "should
he have refused to play?," I will simply point out a
few more unanswered questions:
Evans and Parr maintain that Fine was too darn smart
to travel to Russia to watch Russians cheat, but where
does that leave Reshevsky? As a dimwit, in their
estimation? And Euwe, as well? Hmm.
I needn't mention the fact that Fine, himself, wrote
that he didn't go for different reasons, years before
it became popular to thrash Russians and spew conspiracy
theories left and right, as is all the rage these days.
If, in fact, the 1948 world championship tourney was
rigged by Stalin, then are not all three Russians
equally guilty, regardless of who threw and who was
the benefactor? After all, Stalin might have preferred
Keres or even Smyslov, had Botvinnik not already taken
a substantial lead.
And lastly, if, in fact, the tourney was NOT rigged,
and if Fine was NOT lying about his reason being that
he "knew" the Russians would cheat, then does that not
leave Euwe and Reshevsky as the true smart-guys, and
Fine as the deluded, paranoid idiot, who threw away
his one big chance? :-)
Bob Simpson
Chesstours <7214...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
news:86ao5g$ilr$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>
> This article first appeared in Chess Life (October 1996) and is
> reprinted courtesy of Chesstours (c). All rights reserved.
>
>
These moves are wrong. 47....Rxd7 48. Rxd7 Rf7 was played.
49. Rd4 Rc6
>
49. Rd4 Rf6 was played.
> A draw is in the offing after 49...Rc3+ 50. Kg4 Rxa3 51. Rd7+ Kf8 52. Rh7.
>
Analysing the wrong position....
> (Diagram after 49...Rc6)
>
> 50. a4?...
>
> Not in itself fatal, but 50. Ra4! should be painfully obvious to a player
of
> Keres' caliber. If 50...Kf6 51. Ra5 Ke6 52. h4 gxh4+ 53. Kxh4 Kd6 54. Rh5
Kc7
> 55. Kg4 Black can't make progress since White's king gets to the
queenside.
> It's inconceivable that White could miss such a simple idea, especially
after
> the game was adjourned.
>
> 50...Kg6 51. h4 Kh5 52. hxg5 hxg5 53. Rd3?...
>
> But this is just too much! After 53. Rd5! how can White lose? If 53...Rc3+
54.
> Kg2 Kg4 55. Rd6 Rc2+ 56. Kf1 Kf3 56. Rf6+ followed by Rxa6 holds easily.
Now
> White gets hogtied.
>
Was this all in the original Chess Life article?
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> > W: Keres B: Botvinnik, French Defense (C08):
1. d4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 exd5
5. Ngf3 a6 6. dxc5 Bxc5 7. Nb3 Ba7 8. Bg5 Nf6
9. Nfd4 0-0 10. Be2 Qd6 11. 0-0 Ne4 12. Be3 Nc6
13. Nxc6?!...
> > Another antipositional move. Once again nine out of ten
grandmasters would play 13. c3 with scarcely any hesitation.
Once again, GM Evans invents statistics from out
of thin air for lack of anything _substantive_.
>>
13...Bxe3 14. fxe3?....
If there is any point to White's previous move, it
has to be 14. Qxd5! Nxf2! 15. Qxd6 Ne4+ 16. Kh1 Nxd6
17. Ne7+ Kh8 18. Bf3 and I can't see how White can
possibly lose this ending.
>>
Let's see- maybe if Evans were to ask GM Mark
Taimanov how it is done, he might learn something.
Or Bronstein. Or Fischer. Or any other grandmaster
who has thrown away an easilly drawn endgame. The
trick seems to include making at least one mistake,
though sometimes it takes two or three. Perhaps he
should just get Soltis' book, Catalog of Chess
Mistakes, and read how this is done. :-)
snip
> > 46. a3 Rf2+ 47. Kg3 Rxd2 48. Rxd2 Rc7
> These moves are wrong. 47....Rxd7 48. Rxd7 Rf7 was played.
*************************
> > 49. Rd4 Rc6
> 49. Rd4 Rf6 was played.
> > A draw is in the offing after 49...Rc3+ 50. Kg4 Rxa3
51. Rd7+ Kf8 52. Rh7.
> Analysing the wrong position....
*******************************
snip
> Was this all in the original Chess Life article?
***************************************************
Idunno. But I suspect it doesn't really matter
if Evans was analysing the right positions- he
was merely inventing "evidence" for his theory
that Keres threw the games he lost.
Be this as it may, I will state in Evans' defense
(sortof) that many databases include erroneous data,
including such databases as the one which came with
my copy of Fritz5.32, which included two copies of
the same game from this 1948 tourney, each with a
different finale! It would be very easy to click
on one of these games and assume it was the genuine
article, if you never saw the other one. "Stronger
was" getting ahold of Keres' book on this match, or
Botvinnik's book which covers part of it "with the
idea of" making sure you know the hard facts before
setting out to discover something more, deeply hidden.
I will come to this game eventually, but for now
I have just finished looking at game one. There is
alot more going on in these games than at first meets
the eye. For example, Keres' Re1 in their first game
vs. the logical, woodchopping R/a-f1, preferred by ten
grandmasters out of nine. A general comment by Keres
explained why he might have chosen such a move, but I
wish I had his actual annotations to these games, to
compare with others, side-by-side.
Larry Parr
"The KGB was capable of anything, if there were in search of a
result that suited then." -- Garry Kasparov in the Times of London
In a posting of January 22 Sean the Non-Canadian (he was lying
earlier about his nationality) speaks of this writer's "theory that no
man could refuse Stalin's suggestion." He might just as well have
written that various writers held "theories" in 1940 about secret
provisions in the Stalin-Hitler Pact dividing up the Baltics and Poland.
True, I have a "theory" that Botvinnik dared not reject Stalin's
personal intervention as a matter "of course"; and true, before secret
provisions of the Stalin-Hitler Pact were absolutely confirmed in the
1980s, it was a "theory" that the two great dictators had agreed on
yet another partition of Poland. It was indeed only a "theory" that
when the Soviet army attacked Poland in the east about two weeks after
the Germans attacked in the west, the Reds were not placing their
forces in close proximity with the Germans without treaty sanction.
Sean is betting that most readers of this forum have only a
vague idea about the nature of the Stalin regime and that it was,
perhaps, a bit worse on the margins than the Eisenhower era before
McCarthy was censured by the U. S. Senate. He is betting that most
readers have not studied Soviet history (he seems ignorant of it
himself). In point of fact, anything less than enthusiastic acceptance
of Stalin's will was possible without giving grounds for mortal suspicion.
And, in truth, he is betting that most readers don't understand that
even enthusiastic acceptance of Stalin's will was often no safeguard
against suspicion. Indeed, enthusiasm was not good enough for about
70% percent of those men who rose to Central Committee level and would
later be executed or sent to labor camps. For those 1500 or so
enthusiastic Stalinists at the 17th Party Congress, the so-called
"Congress of Victors," nothing was good enough for about 90% of them.
Even those closest to Stalin, arguably his foreign minister
Molotov and the head of his personal secretariat General Poskrebyshev,
lived in total and constant fear. Indeed, Molotov's wife was arrested,
personally tortured by Beria and sent to a labor camp. Poskrebyshev's
wife was apparently shot or died in a gulag. One account has the latter
being given a "new wife" by Stalin. (Many believe that Stalin's second
wife, who committed suicide according to official Soviet reports of
yore, was murdered by the Boss.)
So, then, one can say this writer has a "theory" that one did
not say "no" to Stalin as a matter "of course" (to use Botvinnik's
phrase) but the theory strikes me as sound indeed. Sean has absolutely
nothing sensible to say in response except to offer the humdinger that
Stalin's anger was a non-issue!
Did anyone catch Sean's reference to those persons with a "sharper
mind" (himself perhaps?) than, say, GM Larry Evans. That's the equivalent
of soft baloney questioning the incisiveness of the stainless steel grinder.
Sean is a figure of authentic intellectual pity, unlike say, Dr.
Walker, who can make an argument. Dr. Walker and I have seldom agreed
on this forum, but he at least packs a wallop.
Yet another example of Sean's twaddle: he compares the release of
Korchnoi's family after his two lost matches to Karpov with Spassky
being allowed to leave Russia only "AFTER he threw games to Fischer."
Does anyone this side of Jerry Bibuld buy this garbage?
Readers will recollect that Korchnoi's son was arrested and sent to
a slave labor camp before his father's second match with Karpov in
1981. On the eve of that match in Merano, the Soviets announced that
outraged patriotic inmates had badly beaten Korchnoi's son. Korchnoi
then lost three of the first four games. One can only assume that Sean
is betting most readers don't have children and don't understand what
it means to have an only son mortally imperilled. One can only assume
Sean is betting most readers don't know the distinction in the post-
Stalin era between an open defector such as Korchnoi and a passive
non-cooperator such as Spassky who very quietly became a de facto emigrant.
CURACAO 1962
Then there is Sean's obvious unfamiliarity with the core meaning
of the word "paranoid," which refers to grandiose or unfounded
suspicions and delusions.
"History proved Fischer wrong," writes Sean Sean of Bobby Fischer's
allegations of Soviet cheating at Curacao. Talk about a rewrite of
history! Even Korchnoi, whom Fischer falsely accused of being part of
a deal to draw games, confirmed that the main thrust of Fischer's
charge against the Soviets was true. And, in any case, even if Fischer
had been wrong, he was clearly not engaging in delusional behavior
when accusing Geller, Petrosian and Keres of prearranging their games.
What history tells us about Curacao is 1. The Soviets prearranged
game results; 2. Fischer rightly protested against this form of
cheating; and 3. Fischer was not yet strong enough to prevail in the
face of obvious cheating that was widely recognized in later years.
Fischer forced positions in attempts to win and suffered accordingly.
History has vindicated the main thrust of Fischer's charge.
Here's another beaut: Fischer allegedly violated qualification
rules when Pal Benko voluntarily surrendered his interzonal position
to Fischer. My understanding is that Benko was paid money, and the
USCF, which was the FIDE affiliate, ratified his decision. Benko
could have decided to play, and nothing would have happened to him.
In 1972 Bobby Fischer forfeited game two of his title match with
Spassky. In game three, he made demands that the Soviets did not wish
to accept. At this point, Fischer's title quest was in the hands of
Boris Spassky. Fischer did NOT blatantly ignore the rules. He placed
himself in the position of possibly and justifiably being forfeited.
Spassky, a sportsman, decided otherwise. An action only becomes a
substantive violation of rules if the supposedly injured party regards
himself as injured and seeks redress. Spassky did not do so. By his
decision to continue playing in the face of his own government's
disapproval, Spassky told the world that Fischer had not, in his
judgment, stepped beyond the line of sporting behavior. Sean is
making a case against Fischer that the supposedly injured party, Boris
Spassky, did not make.
Sean speaks of the Soviets taking it easy on Reshevsky in 1948.
Nonsense. No one ever took it easy on Reshevsky in his prime. Most
playerss were delighted to draw with Reshevsky. Both Fischer and Al
Horowitz regarded Reshevsky as probably the strongest player in the
world from about 1945 to 1955. Perhaps Fischer was wrong and saw things
in Reshevsky's games that were not there. Perhaps Reshevsky was not the
strongest player in the world during that period. Then, again, perhaps
he was. Clearly, no one went about taking it easy on Sammy Reshvesky,
whom Arnold Denker once called a "pocket-sized computer."
If Botvinnik, Keres and Smyslov were part of a deal in 1948, then
drawing with Reshevsky was the smartest thing they could do.
In Sean's next posting we may be hearing about the "theory" that
Botvinnik would not lightly as a matter "of course" reject the personal
intervention of J. V. Stalin. And so on and so forth. Expect, then,
more moonshine rather than Seanshine, let along sunshine.
SEAN'S SWILL
We are dealing here with probabilities. Readers who believe that
Botvinnik would curtly dismiss Stalin's will are likely to buy Sean's
swill. Readers who find Botvinnik's version of events laughable will
regard his semi-admission in the 1991 interview as indicative that
Keres was forced to throw games to him. Others will note the evident
contradiction between Botvinnik's account in "Achieving the Aim"
(Keres as the beneficiary of outside pressure) and his account in the
1991 interview (Keres as the victim of such pressure).
Botvinnik, in his own words, is arguing with himself. My view is
that this 80-year-old man in 1991 was taken aback by the interview
question. (Gennadi Sosonko was quite friendly with the patriarch in
his final years.) He answered the question without considering the
full ramifications of what he was saying. That kind of thing happens
all the time in interviews, especially when someone forgets a past lie.
Expect another mountain of words from Sean who doesn't seem the
least bit ashamed of talking through his hat.
--
Larry Parr
John Macnab
Chesstours <7214...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
news:86ao5g$ilr$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>
> reprinted courtesy of Chesstours (c). All rights reserved.
Thanks for posting this. For we non-subscribers of Chess Life, the article
at least puts some of the current debate in perspective.
<much snipped>
>Keres was in trouble for having competed in Nazi-organized tournaments
during the war.
> The KGB wanted to execute Keres for treason, and his family was also in
peril.
> His case was examined at the >highest level in the Kremlin; they let him
rejoin his family in Estonia
This is the information I was after earlier when I wondered what
propagandistic value a victory by (or over) Keres might have. Can anyone
offer any further information regarding this. Was Keres at any time a Nazi
sympathizer, or was he simply foolish enought to publicly take their money?
It is also curious that Evans quotes Ukranian/Canadian Dr. Feodor
Bohatirchuk in his evidence "against" Botvinnik. Bohatirchuk was accused of
collaborating with the Nazis. I do not know the details of these
accusations. If anyone has any help on that side, it might give (or remove)
some credibility to (from) his claims.
Forgive the booserism, but this is continuing to be a spirited and
fascinating debate :)
John
michael adams
>
> Chesstours <7214...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
> news:86ao5g$ilr$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> >
> > reprinted courtesy of Chesstours (c). All rights reserved.
> >
> >
>
> >
>
> 49. Rd4 Rf6 was played.
>
> >
>
>
> > (Diagram after 49...Rc6)
> >
> > 50. a4?...
> >
> > Not in itself fatal, but 50. Ra4! should be painfully obvious to a player
> of
> > Keres' caliber. If 50...Kf6 51. Ra5 Ke6 52. h4 gxh4+ 53. Kxh4 Kd6 54. Rh5
> Kc7
> > 55. Kg4 Black can't make progress since White's king gets to the
> queenside.
> > It's inconceivable that White could miss such a simple idea, especially
> after
> > the game was adjourned.
> >
> > 50...Kg6 51. h4 Kh5 52. hxg5 hxg5 53. Rd3?...
> >
> > But this is just too much! After 53. Rd5! how can White lose? If 53...Rc3+
> 54.
> > Kg2 Kg4 55. Rd6 Rc2+ 56. Kf1 Kf3 56. Rf6+ followed by Rxa6 holds easily.
> Now
> > White gets hogtied.
> >
>
>
> Ra3
> > Kg6 60. Kg3 Kf5 61. Kf3 Ke5 62. Kg3 Rd4 63. Ra1 Kd5 64. Rb1 Rb4 65. Rf1
> Ke4
> > 66. Re1+ Kd4 67. Kh2 Rxa4 68. Rg1 Rc4 69. Rxg5 a4 70. Kg2 Kc3 72. Ra5 Kb3
> > White Resigns
> >
>
> >
michael adams
Larry Parr
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> In a posting of January 22 Sean the Non-Canadian (he was lying
> earlier about his nationality)
LOL! Even Phil Innes finally figured out from
my blatant hints that I was not Sean Evans, although
one fellow _cussed me out_ for little Sean's past
postings to this forum! Poor Larry still don't get
it. Larry presumes that I, for reasons unknown,
could not even remember my own last name, and thus,
I am "lying about my nationality" in calling myself
Sean-the-Canadian, a clear reference to Rolfie's
little pal of old! A simple reading of my posts
would indicate that I am from the USA. I have
talked about my "state championship," not provincial,
and mentioned Chess Life over and over. What a dolt.
If Parr is so stupid that he cannot figure it out by
himself, he need only ask and I will answer. Until
then, I will simply remain amused by his amazing
ignorance.
> "History proved Fischer wrong," writes Sean Sean of Bobby Fischer's
> allegations of Soviet cheating at Curacao. Talk about a rewrite of
> history! Even Korchnoi, whom Fischer falsely accused of being part
of
> a deal to draw games
Uh, you just pointed out that Fischer was wrong
in falsely accusing Kortchnoi. That was my point,
exactly. Fischer could not tell who was cheating,
and who was not. Just like someone else I know...
Chopping off the "thrown games" of Kortchnoi, there
is no reason to believe that Fischer would have
accused the other three of merely resting by agreeing
to quick draws. This is a flat-out admission that he
could not catch up to those who are drawing all their
games. Fischer included Victor "in," when he was in
fact, "out." Hence, Bobby's theory was wrong, even
though later it was admitted that there was an unfair
pact between three of the four accused "cheaters."
FIDE later modified the format to address the problem,
in reaction to Fischer's false accusation that games
were being thrown, etc.
It wasn't until a few years later that Bobby became
strong enough to take the crown, but we should not
forget the lesson- in fact, in my opinion, proven cases
of collusion should result in heavy penalties, like
betting in baseball.
> Here's another beaut: Fischer allegedly violated qualification
> rules when Pal Benko voluntarily surrendered his interzonal position
> to Fischer. My understanding is that Benko was paid money, and the
> USCF, which was the FIDE affiliate, ratified his decision.
You put the blame on Fischer, while I did not.
I wrote that strings were pulled for Fischer, not by
Fischer. The same kind of strings the Soviets pulled
when they wanted something.
> In 1972 Bobby Fischer forfeited game two of his title match with
> Spassky. In game three, he made demands that the Soviets did not wish
> to accept. At this point, Fischer's title quest was in the hands of
> Boris Spassky.
The letter Bobby wrote to Spassky was more of a
plea than a demand. A demand would have met with
angry rejection, and forfeit. This is called
diplomacy, I believe. How time does alter the
facts in the hazy minded.
> Fischer did NOT blatantly ignore the rules.
Actually, he did. But not so much here as
in their second game, when Bobby distracted
Spassky while Boris' clock ticked away by making
a fuss in the little ping-pong room about the
camera. Worked like a charm- Bobby defeated
Boris for the first time in his life in that
game, and went on to win the match as well.
Larry cannot be blamed for not knowing that it
is clearly against the rules to distract or
annoy one's opponent in any manner, as he
doesn't play rated chess. BTW, it was the
arbiter's duty to enfore such rules, not
Spassky's, just in case Larry wishes to attempt
to concoct an excuse for this transgression of
the rules by blathering that Boris did not file
a complaint.
> Sean speaks of the Soviets taking it easy on Reshevsky in 1948.
> Nonsense. No one ever took it easy on Reshevsky in his prime. Most
> playerss were delighted to draw with Reshevsky. Both Fischer and Al
> Horowitz regarded Reshevsky as probably the strongest player in the
> world from about 1945 to 1955. Perhaps Fischer was wrong
Would you care to make an objective comparison,
without any personal bias? I dare you to compare
the performance ratings of the top players during
the period in question. The facts speak for
themselves. The tourney was in 1948. Reshevsky
was in mediocre form, as shown in his final score.
A stubborn fighter and defender, he wreaked in the
opening but often outplayed his opponents in the
middlegame. Unfortunately, Botvinnik was strong
in the opening, the middlegame, and the endgame.
Dr. Elo, who focused on five-year-averages, seemed
to conclude that Botvinnik was the top dog during
this period, judgeing by the raw numbers and graphs
he published.
> If Botvinnik, Keres and Smyslov were part of a deal in 1948, then
> drawing with Reshevsky was the smartest thing they could do.
This fails to answer my points, one of which
was that they did NOT tire Reshevsky out with
long, tough games, as would be expected. Quick,
easy draws counteract the whole purpose of ganging
up on someone, for he stays rested and therefore
better able to upset the leader, who is supposed to
be the benefactor, not the victim.
And of course, it is better to play for wins, so
that whoever emerges with the most points from Sammy
would become the benefactor of thrown games by the
other two, ensuring his easy victory. But this all
requires thought and simple logic, so it is quite
understandable that Larry misevaluated.
Once again, the Parr/Evans clown duo fail to
address the pettite problemo of Smyslov, who Parr
maintains was in the exact same position as Keres,
unable to refuse Stalin's request. And GM Evans
cannot answer why it is that he is the only one
in the universe "strong enough" to detect the
"evidence" in Keres' games, but not in Smyslovs'.
It would appear that there is a little disagreement
here between these two, but that could never be...
Charles Blair
>This is the information I was after earlier when I wondered what
>propagandistic value a victory by (or over) Keres might have. Can anyone
>offer any further information regarding this. Was Keres at any time a Nazi
>sympathizer, or was he simply foolish enought to publicly take their money?
In wartime conditions, it may have been a choice between playing in
Nazi tournaments and starving. Max Euwe is often praised for not playing
in these events. Undoubtedly this was a brave act, but I believe he
had a secure income as a schoolteacher. I don't know that Keres had
any non-chess occupation.
For what it's worth, Egon Varnusz wrote in the preface to his
collection of Keres' games:
Keres lived in hard times. He underwent many staggering trials,
and these may have contributed to his premature death. It is
enough to enumerate but a few places and dates: Buenos Aires 1939,
Moscow 1940, Salzburg 1942, Tallinn 1945. The first and last dates
refer to a terrible epoch of human history, and the different places
represent different sides of the battle line.
Nevertheless, Keres remained an honest man, behaving always decently---
and this is just as important as his outstanding career in chess.
Also for what it's worth, in GREAT CHESS UPSETS, Reshevsky speaks
very highly of Keres as a person. It seem unlikely this would be the
case if Keres had been in any sense a Nazi sympathizer.
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> Many of us appreciate the fact that GM Larry Evans revived the
> old Keres-Botvinnik controversy in an attempt to search for the
truth.
Evans' article takes a very different tack- he
claims to ALREADY have discovered the truth,
and points to certain moves which he found to
be very strange in the games between Keres and
Botvinnik. A strangeness which somehow escaped
all the other grandmasters who have studied these
famous games. Very odd.
> What I find remarkable is that despite brickbats and name-calling,
not
> a single point made in the original article has been refuted. In
fact,
> all the evidence surfacing since The Tragedy of Paul Keres was
printed
> in the October 1996 Chess Life confirms its accuracy.
Really? I found the comment by GM Nunn as
contradicting Evans' statement that if you are
good enough, you can find the evidence which
so far, only GM Evans has found. Perhaps you
have a very different perspective on the
relative strengths of Evans and other GMs than
I, and this would explain why you see no
contradiction here.
Several times in Evans' analysis, he throws
out the speculative nine out of ten grandmasters
would do so-and-so here, an entirely false and
baseless approach. This demonstrates his lack
of objectivity- something which is indispensible
when attempting to "search for the truth," as you
say. He also skips over clear mistakes by the
winner- another tell-tale sign that he lacks
objectivity in his analysis. Moreover, Evans
fails to note that Keres, if he was throwing these
games, still managed to play better in them than
former world champion Euwe played against the same
opponent, in the same tourney. Strange indeed.
When you choose the approach taken here by Evans
and Parr- to assume a specific scenario and then
look for supportting "evidence," I can assure you
that you will find such evidence, whether or not
it exists. And you will just as surely overlook
all contradictory evidence, by choosing to
interpret it in a such way that does not interfere
with the "truth" you think you have already found
in your mind. It is the same as with religion.
The truth is that nothing of any substance has
yet been presented here, only opinion and
speculation. This is why the pertinent questions
continue to go unanswered. And why there appear
to be so many holes in the ever-changing theories
presented here. Botvinnik wrote that Stalin
proposed Keres and Smyslov throw their games to
Botvinnik to ensure a Russian champion. This
directly contradicts Evans' theory that Keres
was throwing his games which had ALREADY been
played and lost. And Smyslov was doing pretty
well against Botvinnik, relative to the others.
This too, cannot be explained by our speculating
clown duo, since it doesn't fit their little
view of the world in which it was supposed to
be ONLY Keres throwing games. Poor Larry and
Curly. If only Moe had been there to knock some
sense into them...
The real question here is why? Why are these
two intent on convincing the world of that which
may or may not be true? Qui bono? Keres is dead.
The search for a smoking gun must continue, for
the two stooges have not found it yet, nor are
they likely to, in my opinion.
Larry Parr
Bob Simpson
John Macnab <john_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s8q0cm...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> >Keres was in trouble for having competed in Nazi-organized tournaments
> during the war.
> > The KGB wanted to execute Keres for treason, and his family was also in
> peril.
> > His case was examined at the >highest level in the Kremlin; they let him
> rejoin his family in Estonia
>
> propagandistic value a victory by (or over) Keres might have. Can anyone
> offer any further information regarding this. Was Keres at any time a
Nazi
> sympathizer, or was he simply foolish enought to publicly take their
money?
>
Todd Durham
sean_the...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In a posting of January 22 Sean the Non-Canadian (he was lying
> > earlier about his nationality)
>
> LOL! Even Phil Innes finally figured out from
> my blatant hints that I was not Sean Evans, although
> one fellow _cussed me out_ for little Sean's past
> postings to this forum!
That's right. If you're going to mascarade as Sean Evans, you deserve to be
treated as Sean Evans. Further, the fact that you have been absolutely
GLEEful that people mistook you for Sean Evans, indicate that perhaps you
aren't as mature as Sean.
One other point. You accused me of spouting a tongue twister the other day
for my use of the phrase "childishly churlish." It should not have been a
tongue twister. Most adults read silently. But if you insist on sounding
out the words while following along with your finger, I will try to
remember to not post any potential tongue twisters in the future.
[snip]
> > In 1972 Bobby Fischer forfeited game two of his title match with
> > Spassky. In game three, he made demands that the Soviets did not wish
> > to accept. At this point, Fischer's title quest was in the hands of
> > Boris Spassky.
>
> The letter Bobby wrote to Spassky was more of a
> plea than a demand. A demand would have met with
> angry rejection, and forfeit. This is called
> diplomacy, I believe. How time does alter the
> facts in the hazy minded.
I believe Parr is speaking of Fischer's demands that the game be played in
a small private room instead of the playing hall. Those were demands, while
the letter to Spassky was an apology for Fischer's boorish behavior.
Todd
[snip]
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> > > In 1972 Bobby Fischer forfeited game two of his title match
with
> > > Spassky. In game three, he made demands that the Soviets did not
wish
> > > to accept. At this point, Fischer's title quest was in the hands
of
> > > Boris Spassky.
> > The letter Bobby wrote to Spassky was more of a
> > plea than a demand. A demand would have met with
> > angry rejection, and forfeit. This is called
> > diplomacy, I believe. How time does alter the
> > facts in the hazy minded.
> I believe Parr is speaking of Fischer's demands that the game be
played in
> a small private room instead of the playing hall. Those were demands,
while
> the letter to Spassky was an apology for Fischer's boorish behavior.
The match was only resumed when Boris gave Bobby back
a game point he had already forfeited, as the result of
Bobby's letter to Spassky. The spat regarding the playing
room was not an issue which was only in the hands of Boris,
as Parr wrote, hence, you are mistaken. The matter of the
playing site was to affect the organisers and spectators
far more than Spassky, but the point he gave back was of
no real consequence to anyone but Boris and Bobby, except
indirectly.
This whole scenario once again proves that Bobby always
threw a hissy-fit whenever he lost, blaming others for his
own failure over the board. I imagine that if Bobby had
accused Boris of cheating, the pundits would have claimed
he was right, and 28 years later would post here that
history has proved him right, in their typical manner of
distorting facts to suit opinions. Luckily, Boris was
too nice a guy for Bobby to project his anger upon, so he
focused instead on the "spectator noise" and the cameras.
Once Bobby defeated Spassky in a game the whole problem
began to ease- a sort of psychological warfare which, in
this case, worked perfectly for Fischer. But let the KGB
utilize this kind of "strategy" and watch the pundits howl!
:-)
Phil Innes
wrote:
>
>
> sean_the...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> > In a posting of January 22 Sean the Non-Canadian (he was lying
>> > earlier about his nationality)
>>
>> LOL! Even Phil Innes finally figured out from
>> my blatant hints that I was not Sean Evans, although
>> one fellow _cussed me out_ for little Sean's past
>> postings to this forum!
>
> That's right. If you're going to mascarade as Sean Evans, you deserve to be
> treated as Sean Evans. Further, the fact that you have been absolutely
> GLEEful that people mistook you for Sean Evans, indicate that perhaps you
> aren't as mature as Sean.
Boring isn't it Todd. It will be difficult to convince some of these writers
that our interest lies in Keres and Botvinnik rather than in themselves. Or
even in recognising that Korchnoi or other emigrees may have their own story
to tell, a story we may not recognise because it is written in a different
code than our own; no accusations of collaboration, or of sailing along with
Uncle Joe, because to one extent or another this experience was common.
"every one walks on this side of the river, because it is too treacherous to
cross, and it is dank here, one must take necessary measures... of course it
is treacherous to stay..."
I think survivors of the Soviet Union have a different perspective on what
makes for collaboration, and a different philosophy in beholding it. This is
even peculiarly Russian, people who might not escape corruption, and in not
avoiding, understand it, while in the west we negotiate around difficulties
like engineers - both forms of seeking freedom, no?
Todd Durham
Phil Innes wrote:
[snip]
> Boring isn't it Todd. It will be difficult to convince some of these writers
> that our interest lies in Keres and Botvinnik rather than in themselves. Or
> even in recognising that Korchnoi or other emigrees may have their own story
> to tell, a story we may not recognise because it is written in a different
> code than our own; no accusations of collaboration, or of sailing along with
> Uncle Joe, because to one extent or another this experience was common.
>
> "every one walks on this side of the river, because it is too treacherous to
> cross, and it is dank here, one must take necessary measures... of course it
> is treacherous to stay..."
>
> I think survivors of the Soviet Union have a different perspective on what
> makes for collaboration, and a different philosophy in beholding it. This is
> even peculiarly Russian, people who might not escape corruption, and in not
> avoiding, understand it, while in the west we negotiate around difficulties
> like engineers - both forms of seeking freedom, no?
I mostly agree with this.
And the final point I would like to make is that it is quite _probable_ that the
truth of the matter will never be known. It seems that all of the people who
would have first hand knowledge of this are dead. And even they probably can't be
considered reliable.
Keres always made vaguely leading comments about such matters as why he was never
Champion but never came out and made a direct accusation. (And yes, I realize
that he could not have safely made such an accusation. But still, vaguely leading
comments are just that -- vaguely leading....) Botvinnik at various times in his
life appears to have made mutually exclusive comments on the matter (and, to
agree with Parr and to cite Tyson, comments that were ludicrous on their face).
Smyslov may or may not have had anything to do with the matter. In any event, he
doesn't appear to be talking.
Parr seems to be of the opinion that someday secret KGB archival material may be
released and that then we will know the truth. The only problem is, how do we
know that the KGB archives are truthful? There is absolutely no reason to believe
that the KGB kept accurate or truthful records. It was very much in their
interest to record and report the information that their superiors wanted to
hear, from the lowest KGB agent up to the man sitting at the Politburo meetings.
So, whatever (or whenever) the KGB archives produce, how can we be sure of their
veracity? Because they agree with our preconcieved notions?
So, due to the fact that there is no real evidence other than the suspisions that
various people have, I just don't believe that we can say that Keres had anything
other than a bad result in 1948.
Todd
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> >> > In a posting of January 22 Sean the Non-Canadian (he was
lying
> >> > earlier about his nationality)
> >> LOL! Even Phil Innes finally figured out from
> >> my blatant hints that I was not Sean Evans, although
> >> one fellow _cussed me out_ for little Sean's past
> >> postings to this forum!
> > That's right. If you're going to mascarade as Sean Evans, you
deserve to be
> > treated as Sean Evans. Further, the fact that you have been
absolutely
> > GLEEful that people mistook you for Sean Evans, indicate that
perhaps you
> > aren't as mature as Sean.
You are missing the whole point. I have never
masqueraded as Sean Evans. I have repeatedly
pointed out when dimwitted posters have mistaken
me for him (or anyone else) that they are quite
wrong. I have stated outright to certain posters
that little Seannie and I are two different posters,
and that I am NOT from Canada. My amusement is the
result of the continued ignorance of many posters
who think they have a clue what is going on here,
when in fact they are completely in the dark! :-)
Mr. Parr and others have taken it upon _themselves_
to discuss my nationality- a non-issue in a chess
newsgroup such as this and in threads regarding
chessplayers such as Keres and Botvinnik. I have now
changed my "signature" to reflect the fact that I am
NOT from Canada, for those who can't figure it out
from the plentiful evidence in my posts and who are
too stupid to simply ask. BTW, Sean Evans is from
Canada, as those who have been around awhile should
well know. His buddy, Rolf, is from Germany or Mars.
> Boring isn't it Todd. It will be difficult to convince some of these
writers
> that our interest lies in Keres and Botvinnik rather than in
themselves
Indeed. Especially when you make a public fool of
yourself by mistaking me for little 13 year old Sean,
and insulting people behind their backs like a pitiful
coward. I for one will be happier than most to return
to a focus on the issues, if and when certain others
choose to do it and drop the false accusations and ad
hominem and killing of messengers, as I have stated
so many times before. But deaf ears cannot hear but
that which they choose to listen to. If I am not
mistaken, in our last encounter you "corrected" my
analysis of a chess position, only my analysis was
entirely correct and your "correction," mistaken.
Then a funny thing happenned. You became angry and
rattled off some nice insults. Interesting tactic.
But enough about me (BTW, I'm from the USA), where
do YOU hail from, Phil? Estonia? Latvia? Armenia?
Or are you a RUSSIAN? :-) I'm sure I can dig up a
nice quote or two of Winston Churchill insulting your
country, whatever it may be. The trouble with Americans
is...?
Larry Parr
Todd Durham
Larry Parr wrote:
[snip]
> On the subject of police records, Todd Durham is probably
> unaware that if the secret police were involved and if Botvinnik and
> Keres and Smyslov were interrogated, then there would be a written
> record of the interrogation signed by police officials and by the chess
> players. I think police records have probably survived and that if the
> 1948 tournament were fixed, we will see signed statements or protocols
> by Botvinnik, Keres and Smyslov. Eventually, we will probably have
> fairly reliable evidence as to what the Soviet players were ordered
> to do, if anything. We keep hearing rumors that GM Yuri Averbach's
>
> memoirs will confirm the views of GM Evans.
Perhaps, but signed statements from police interrogations are often full of
nontruthful testimony in every country. Moreso in totalitarian nations. You
still can't assume that because it's in a transcript that it is true.
Todd
[snip]
Phil Innes
> do YOU hail from, Phil? Estonia? Latvia? Armenia?
> Or are you a RUSSIAN? :-) I'm sure I can dig up a
> nice quote or two of Winston Churchill insulting your
> country, whatever it may be. The trouble with Americans
> is...?
>
Gospodin Sean nekulticanadienskayanskii!
is good you.
mayk think, no?
Churchill, is nice quote. dig plez. is big ear.
Tso! is like mar Toddlich - is - ow you sey? nicht so unglaüblicheit
für besser feelinks ünd glaübings
besser topicalnische locii principus
Fhil
PS : Och! zer yanks talk for ze bottom parts much no? is Freud-laffing time
> Sean the non-Canadian
We have to cease to think if we do it in the prison house of language -W
sean_the...@my-deja.com
>unlike some members of this forum, I don't believe that just because
>he lied about his nationality we should ignore the contents of his
>arguments.
And yet, Larry Parr continues to assail the messenger, rather
than adress the content of the message. Interesting. I suppose
he also maintains that I was "lying" when I chose my last handle,
although it involved no specification of color, creed, or national
origin. Very strange, the way his mind "works."
> I know that a number of you were amused when Sean spoke of his
> "blatant hints" about being an American rather than, as he had earlier
> lied, a Canadian. We all know he dropped no hints of any kind
Larry the liar is making a public fool of himself, again.
I flat-out TOLD Phil Innes in one post exactly who I was,
though not by specifying my name, for he had done that
himself in another post to which I hinted at blatantly.
Poor Larry just ain't smart enough to figure out who is
Rolf, and who is NOT-Rolf, so to speak. He has demonstrated
a complete inability to differentiate between that which is
written by the same hand, and that which is not. And not
only with me, but with others as well.
Dullwittedness can be amusing, at times. Those of us who
have switched isp's and were forced to choose another handle
and password in the process are often criticised for a lack
of imagination in that choice, as I was when I picked
something like "YouAreWeak" for my ICS handle. But only by
those who have lost to us! :-) I readilly admit that
Sean-the-Canadian was not the best, especially in view of
the fact that the REAL Sean Evans reappeared at precisely
the same time as my change of handles, but that is to be
expected- hindsight is twenty-twenty. Upon deeper
consideration, I wish I had picked "Rolf is back, forever!"
Oh, stop groaning and grow up! :-)
> He also falsely refers to "ever-changing theories" without
> offering a chronology of how those theories changed.
Falsely? You need ME to give the chronology? Poor Larry
must be getting very old, and his memory fading quickly.
I imagine most readers here remember the many changes in
the speculations of Parr and Evans on this matter, from the
beginning where Evans claimed that the proof was right in
the games for anyone stronger than (i.e.GM Nunn) to see for
themselves, to the present, where Botvinnik's own words are
divided into two portions, one which agrees with certain
preconceptions and is readilly embraced, and another, which
contradicts them and must be labelled as falsehood without
any supportting evidence, simply because it is very
inconvenient to certain unshakable _opinions_.
The flaws of Evans' approach have already been pointed
out by other messengers than myself, so the logic of
asassinatting the messenger here is truly pathetic, even
coming from these two. GM Nunn and others have pointed
to the misguidedness of taking the approach which Evans
and Parr have taken, and Phil Innes even gave the link
to a far more thoughrough investigation of this matter,
not to mention far less biased.
> The truth is both this writer and GM Larry Evans stated from the
> start that until evidence emerges from secret police files or in the
> form of memoirs by men there at the time, everything we write here on
> the 1948 title tournament must necessarily be "speculation," though
> not always a matter merely of personal opinion. Certain scenarios
are
> more likely than others.
If only the two Larrys could remember this when they
post their next speculative theory! The trouble is,
they must be constantly reminded that they have no skill
at writing dull, objective non-fiction. Their only
strength lies in the writing of fiction, though they
both insist on being taken seriously, as if they could
distinguish between that which is real, and that which
is merely their personal opinions, and therefore subject
to frequent error.
If these games were thrown, it is very odd that not
one person has come forward to date to provide the
missing proof, after some fifty-two years. And
strangest of all is the widow's denial, for she would
seem to have plenty to gain by a posthumous world
championship title being bestowed upon her deserving
husband.
> We can state with reasonable certainty that Botvinnik did not
> huffily dismiss Stalin's personal intervention
Larry misses the point. Botvinnik placed a "huffy"
stance upon his action after the fact, when Stalin was
good and dead. Cold, even. No longer a threat to him.
But this in no way proves that Keres and Smyslov threw
games to him. Nor does it prove the opposite. It proves
precisely nothing, except that maybe Botvinnik has perfect
hindsight. Or maybe not.
> He could not have been telling the whole truth in "Achieving the Aim"
> (written in 1978) and in his 1991 interview because the accounts
> cannot be reconciled.
Even if true, this proves nothing whatever regarding
the throwing of games. Botvinnik could be proven to
have been an axe-murderer, and the games still might
or might not have been thrown. These are two seperate
issues, for those who can think clearly.
Even so, this could be presented more convincingly
with direct quotes and an "x" is impossible because of
"y," thus Botvinnik lied one or both times.
> Eventually, we will probably have
> fairly reliable evidence as to what the Soviet players were ordered
> to do, if anything.
Nice. But we don't have 'em yet, do we?
And "fairly reliable" is not as good as it gets.
Try harder!
Sean from the United States of Uhhmerica
>We keep hearing rumors that GM Yuri Averbach's
> memoirs will confirm the views of GM Evans.
I don't see how they could. Averbach wrote a
very nice book on the endgame (Essential Chess Endings)
but if he agrees with Evans about the proof being in
the games for anyone stronger than GM Nunn to see, I
may have to plonk him into my "nutcase" file along with
Fischer and you two Bozos! :-)
> It wasn't necessary for Smyslov to throw any games.
Or Keres, it would seem. Botvinnik had
already established a hefty lead at the half-way
point. This was my point regarding the arousal of
Stalin's anger, but certain folks are blind to the
facts unless they happen to agree with their own
preconceptions.
The best evidence we have so far is Botvinnik's
word, combined with the fact that neither Keres nor
Smyslov beat-up on Botvinnik in the second half.
This is good enough to keep the theory alive, but
not good enough to serve as any substantive evidence.
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> > On the subject of police records, Todd Durham is
probably
> > unaware that if the secret police were involved and if Botvinnik and
> > Keres and Smyslov were interrogated, then there would be a written
> > record of the interrogation signed by police officials and by the
chess
> > players. I think police records have probably survived and that if
the
> > 1948 tournament were fixed, we will see signed statements or
protocols
> > by Botvinnik, Keres and Smyslov. Eventually, we will probably have
> > fairly reliable evidence as to what the Soviet players were ordered
> > to do, if anything. We keep hearing rumors that GM Yuri Averbach's
> >
> > memoirs will confirm the views of GM Evans.
> Perhaps, but signed statements from police interrogations are often
full of
> nontruthful testimony in every country. Moreso in totalitarian
nations. You
> still can't assume that because it's in a transcript that it is true.
You don't know Larry Parr. He can and will assumme
ANYTHING, if it suits his fancy. What is more, he
will then equate his assumptions with a "smoking gun,"
just as Larry Evans has already done here.
The latest breaking "news": Parr has again modified
his theory to now include the Secret Police, not just
Stalin! New elements have been added to the story for
more suspense- Interrogations of the top players by
Secret Police! This new version will undoubtedly keep
readers on the edge of their seats. Rumor has it he
has even added a chase scene and doubled the original
number of thrown games! Excitement! Thrills! Intrigue!
Sure to be a best seller. Get yours NOW!
Based on a true story, some events have been changed
to implicate the innocent, and Botvinnik, too.
Sean the Uhhmerican
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> > He also falsely refers to "ever-changing theories" without
> > offering a chronology of how those theories changed.
>
> Falsely? You need ME to give the chronology? Poor Larry
> must be getting very old, and his memory fading quickly.
I should have noted that this chronology was already
given here by another poster, who was very objective
about the whole thing. He noted the waffling of you-
know-who and the changing of the theory to suit certain
inconvenient facts which surfaced over time, etc.
Perhaps what Larry wants is an updated version by
this same fellow?
> to a far more thoughrough
Uhhhhgh! My poor eyes- the pain, the agony! :-)
Clearly, I meant a type of horse, used for racing
'round the chessboard.
Sean the American
Phil Innes
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> > But enough about me (BTW, I'm from the USA), where
> > do YOU hail from, Phil? Estonia? Latvia? Armenia?
> > Or are you a RUSSIAN? :-) I'm sure I can dig up a
> > nice quote or two of Winston Churchill insulting your
> > country, whatever it may be. The trouble with Americans
> > is...?
> Gospodin Sean nekulticanadienskayanskii!
Now I am really confused- I was reproached for
misspelling Canadian as Canadien, or was it the
other way 'round?!! At least I can spell USA...
> is good you.
>
> mayk think, no?
Volickskyna? Absolute-ly. (hic!)
Think? Me?!! No!! Ist dangerous thing.
> Churchill, is nice quote. dig plez. is big ear.
Okay, this is the best I could find on such
short notice: "America and Great Brittain are
two nations seperated by a common language."
Jolly good quote, I say. What, what?
Very few good quotes for chess, except for those
by the grandmasters. And of course, that patzer,
Freud!
> Tso! is like mar Toddlich - is - ow you sey? nicht so unglaüblicheit
> für besser feelinks ünd glaübings
Er... uh, I've had chicken and dumplings, but have never
tried goose'lings yet. Sounds good, though. Didn't know
Todd could cook.
> besser topicalnische locii principus
>
> Fhil
>
> PS : Och! zer yanks talk for ze bottom parts much no? is Freud-
laffing time
Ah- Freud. Ya- see oddur thread for NoisyMoose
und hist problems vict zee Mudder und Fadder und
zex. Very sad. :-( Maybe Rolf can help him??!
Sean the American
Todd Durham
Phil Innes wrote:
> > But enough about me (BTW, I'm from the USA), where
> > do YOU hail from, Phil? Estonia? Latvia? Armenia?
> > Or are you a RUSSIAN? :-) I'm sure I can dig up a
> > nice quote or two of Winston Churchill insulting your
> > country, whatever it may be. The trouble with Americans
> > is...?
> >
>
> Gospodin Sean nekulticanadienskayanskii!
>
> is good you.
>
> mayk think, no?
> Churchill, is nice quote. dig plez. is big ear.
>
> Tso! is like mar Toddlich - is - ow you sey? nicht so unglaüblicheit
> für besser feelinks ünd glaübings
>
> besser topicalnische locii principus
>
> Fhil
>
> PS : Och! zer yanks talk for ze bottom parts much no? is Freud-laffing time
Holy Batcrap! Phil Innes is part of the Graue entities!
>
>
> > Sean the non-Canadian
>
> We have to cease to think if we do it in the prison house of language -W
Okay, I'll bite. How're we gonna think without language? Just _feel_ our way
around?
Todd
Larry Parr
Larry Parr
cha...@my-deja.com
Larry Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> SEAN AND CHASMAD
>
> My, my, how manners are deteriorating. In their most recent posts
> both the Messrs. Sean and ChasMad are whining as if they have been
> thrashed. Mad's insults are the more puerile and sincere; Sean could
> be our own Greg Kennedy because he has begun to sound like a whipped
> cur, spiteful, angry and short on basic literacy.
>
> I did not find a single argument offered by Mr. Mad which merits
> or even requires a reply,
Of course not. Your professional incompetence and political fanaticism
are both common knowledge. No "reply" is necessary, or even possible.
> so I will spend my time with Sean.
<typical head-up-the-ass speculation snipped>
Charles
cha...@my-deja.com
Larry Parr <75227...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
> My, my, how manners are deteriorating. In their most recent posts
> both the Messrs. Sean and ChasMad are whining as if they have been
> thrashed. Mad's insults are the more puerile and sincere; Sean could
> be our own Greg Kennedy because he has begun to sound like a whipped
> cur, spiteful, angry and short on basic literacy.
>
> I did not find a single argument offered by Mr. Mad which merits
> or even requires a reply,
Of course not. Your professional incompetence and political fanaticism
are both common knowledge. No "reply" is necessary, or even possible.
> so I will spend my time with Sean.
<typical head-up-the-ass speculation snipped>
Phil Innes
<75227...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> Sean's ploy is to keep shouting that all talk about 1948 must be
> speculation as if he is contradicting some point made earlier by
> GM Evans and this writer. Occasionally he stops for a breath, concedes
> that we noted the speculative nature of our labors -- but then begins
> shouting again that we need to be reminded we are speculating.
The tragedy of the discussion about Keres and Botvinnik is that it is
lionised by insular polar views. I think other writers have written more
diffidently about these issues - and the only wonder is that there is enough
content here to get excited about.
Certainly much of the phrasing used around the argument has been determined
and prescriptive of a result - this is not the attitude of people who know
much about a part of an issue, and wish to enlarge their knowledge socially.
It is unnecessary to be defensive about these partial views - I think people
like to make up their owns minds based on disclosed information, and any
such constructions made on it. The identity of the writer is of lesser
value.
Going back all the way to the top - I remember writing something about
Kingston Taylor's article being open in this way. It did not jump to any
spectacular or distressing conclusions, but did indicate further areas of
inquiry.
Of the various kinds of historical journalism I prefer this kind.
Phil Innes
Phil Innes
wrote:
>> Churchill, is nice quote. dig plez. is big ear.
>
>
> Okay, this is the best I could find on such
> short notice: "America and Great Brittain are
> two nations seperated by a common language."
Everybody knows that one - how about something more appropriate to this
thread?
"Out of intense complexities
intense simplicities emerge."
(PS - Sorry about the Max headroom posts, posts, posts... I accuse the
serving classes!)
Fhil
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> Sean the Canadian -- or non-Canadian -- who now signs himself
> Sean the American, seems to enjoy playing a guessing game about
> his true identity.
>
> Could he be our very own but dearly departed GK? The low,
> bitter anger certainly sounds like Greg Kennedy, who (like Gilbert
> Palmer) vanished without a trace.
It is rumorred that these two "missing persons" went
into a joint business venture together- something to
do with wool, I think.
Sean the American
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> I did not find a single argument offered by Mr. Mad which merits or
> even requires a reply, so I will spend my time with Sean.
This is consistent with Mr. Mad's assessment of
Parr's blather in response to the scathing article
by Watson in Kingpin magazine. Mr. Mad stated that
Larry avoided the pertinent issues, and was quite
incoherent, as usual. Consistent with his usual
style of "quest for the truth," Mr. Parr fails to
even ask Mad to specify what issues these were,
exactly, which he failed to address.
More to the point, Parr fails to address any of
the issues raised by IM Watson in that article, such
as the problem of setting a trap for one's opponent
to fall into, when one is "throwing" the game, for one
example. No surprise here.
> Sean says that the arguments of Larry Evans and this writer
> have shifted, though he can offer not a single example.
There are many kinds of lies: lies, damed lies, and
of course the worst kind of all, statistics. I am
grateful that Larry has stricken the last of these
from his toolkit for now, and focused on the first
two instead. The question arises: when has Mr. Parr
ever asked me to provide a "single example" of his
shifting of ground? It is quite obvious that Larry
is lying, for I can easily provide such an example,
but I have not been asked yet. He could not possibly
know what I can or cannot do, until he at least asks
me to try and then observes carefully the result.
I am still waiting to be asked.
> From the beginning, GM Evans and I noted that analysis of
> what happened at the 1948 world championship must necessarily be
> speculative
Are you certain? Is this opinion "inescapable,"
or is it merely speculative? How exactly does one
reach an "inescapable conclusion" from that which is
mere speculation? Ah- here we see the same incoherence
as detected by Mr. Mad. Evans' sweeping conclusions
emanate from mere opinions, yet they become "inescapable"
when placed together with bias and preconceptions which
rule out that which Evans does not like or wish to see.
> Remarkable.
Certainly. And fascinating as well.
> IF Stalin "personally" intervened in 1948 as Botvinnik
> claimed in 1991, then he would have followed orders.
Stop right there, Slick Willie. Nowhere did
Botvinnik state that he was ordered by Stalin to do
anything. That idea is pure invention. Botvinnik's
words tell a very different story, if you were to read
them as they are written, and not otherwise.
If Botvinnik was lying, nothing he wrote can be
trusted, for he is then, a liar. For example, it may
have been Baturinsky who came up with the idea, or
Botvinnik himself, etc. Some people just can't see
the forest for the trees.
> In "Achieving the Aim" Botvinnik wrote that intervention was
> threatened ON BEHALF of Keres; in his 1991 interview he wrote that
> Stalin wished to make Keres the victim of intervention. The two claims
> are contradictory. Clearly Botvinnik was lying.
This appears to be more confusion by Larry Parr.
The claim Botvinnik made in his later interview was
that STALIN wanted Botvinnik to be the benefactor,
while OTHERS preferred Keres. Clearly, Parr cannot
think or read coherently, let alone make a decent
stab at reason and logic. Sad.
> Sean tries to avoid discussion of how one examines the testimony
> of a witness whom one has good reason to believe is lying.
Ah, but I have labored mightily to do just this-
the goal is to seperate that part of the two Larrys'
writings which is accurrate, from that part which is
not. Others take a simpler approach- simply discarding
anything written by these two as hogwash, but not me.
For I strongly believe that even a blind squirrel can
find an acorn, now and then. This is what sets me
apart from the masses. :-)
> Too, using the standard of cui bono
I have reason to believe it is spelled qui bono,
with a "q." Of course, it's all Greek to me, a
language in which I am completely illiterate.
I know a tiny bit of Latin, though. E Pluribus
Unum- see! By Jove, I think I got one right.
> we can come to no final conclusions until hard evidence
> becomes available.
Thank you, again, Dr. Jeckyl. Take care that
when Mr. Hyde returns, he does not forget this,
like so many times before. Our inability to
reach a conclusion with certainty before hard
facts are presented, is quite INESCAPABLE.
> Finally, we await his "analysis" of the next four Keres-Botvinnik
> games. He claims to approach the task with objectivity, but hasn't he
> already argued that Keres was not forced to throw any games
No, I have not. You really should see a good
doctor before this problem becomes even more serious.
And, for the record, one must wonder why would
Larry eagerly await analysis by anyone other than
his buddy, GM Evans? You don't suppose he thinks I
am stronger than GM Nunn, do you? Methinks his
eagerness has more to do with a certain frothing at
the mouth- the result of impatience to again attack
my person rather than my analysis. Interesting.
I am still working on the games, but I will note
that in game 2, Keres played worse than he did in
game one. Well, he did have Black. Botvinnik's
Rg5! was a killer move, and quite difficult to see
coming in advance since normally such frontal
assaults do not work unless the homepawns have been
seriously weakened or when there are no defenders.
In view of Keres being miniaturized, I am hardly
surprised that he failed to extend his hand. The
last time that happenned to me was years ago-
nearly a decade I believe. It was quite a shock,
since I thought I was "good!" :-)
Simon
world championship. That is hardly a tragedy, especially given the
current travesty of a world championship. His enterprising play lives
on in all of our memories.
Cheers
--
Dr Simon Fitzpatrick, Shenton Park, Western Australia
Mathematician and International Correspondence Chess Master
http://www.q-net.net.au/~dsf/Simon.html
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> > Sean's ploy is to keep shouting
nOT SO! i NEVER SHOUT! tHIS IS A LIE!! :-)
> Going back all the way to the top - I remember writing something about
> Kingston Taylor's article being open in this way. It did not jump to
any
> spectacular or distressing conclusions, but did indicate further
areas of
> inquiry.
>
> Of the various kinds of historical journalism I prefer this kind.
Kingston's article was vastly superior to the method
used by Larry Parr and Evnas, but I found a few little
problems in his approach as well. For example, Taylor
THRASHES an Ohio writer for presenting his views with
faulty reason and erroneous sources, yet he puts on the
kid gloves for Larry Evans, as if he were afraid of
getting "beat-up" in the press. He appeared scared to
death that Evans (and Parr) might be holding back some
secret documents, which would substantiate their theories
and make him look silly for daring to critique them. But
that is absurd, for his criticisms _stand on their own_,
whether or not evidence later surfaces to decide things
either way. Taylor also demonstrates that he is quite
willing to make up his mind about this issue, and then
change it, again and again, upon the least provocation.
This is what is commonly known as being a blip-brain,
ala the two Larrys themselves on certain other matters.
In sum, while Taylor Kingston at least makes an honest
attempt to decipher the truth of this matter (unlike our
Larrys), he fails to gather any hard evidence while
compiling plenty of differing opinions, and seems to be
satisfied with that. But the whole point is to determine
what really happenned, not what the majority of people
THINK happenned, at least for me. In this, he failed.
OTOH, he never maintained that he had discovered a
hidden truth which all the other patzers in the world
were simply too weak to see in the same games. :-)
Perhaps there is a shortage of oxygen in the high
altitudes in the mountains near Reno? Beautiful
scenery, though. :-)
Larry Parr
cha...@my-deja.com
In article <86sctj$9l2$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
Larry Parr (Mother Goose Step) <75227...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> As we await Sean's (aka Greg Kennedy) objective "analysis" of
> game two (after telling us Keres never threw any games to Botvinnik
> in 1948) let me close with this tidbit:
>
> "[After game 2] Keres signed the scoresheet but refrained from
> shaking his opponent's hand, which was and still is customary."
> -- GM Evans, The Tragedy of Paul Keres (Chess Life, October
> 1996).
You are quite stupid.
Do you remember the reading the following description of Game 2 by
Golombek (from Petrel's earlier message):
"When Botvinnik had played his deadly 23rd move, for the first time
during the tournament he got up and walked up and down the platform
flushed with triumph. . ."
In effect, Botvinnik was gloating over his impending victory. It must
have seemed to Keres that Botvinnik was publicly rubbing it in. It's
quite understandable that he would have no desire to shake the winner's
hand afterwards.
Only a complete moron would interpret a reluctance to shake hands as
evidence of cheating.
Charles
> --
> Larry Parr
Peter Coleman
> Smoking guns? IF Botvinnik's testimony in 1991 were truthful and
>accurate, then Keres certainly threw games which Botvinnik accepted as
>part of international socialist duty, unconstrained by petit bourgeois
>prejudices about fair play on a level field. The dialectics would have
>run as follows: Who determines what is fair? Who, above all else, owns
>the field? It is nonsense to speak of fair play if the relationship of
>the means of production are in the hands of capitalists. Thesis is the
>desirability of honest competition if it is possible. Antithesis is
>that no honest competition is possible if capitalists control the means
>of production. Synthesis is that one must cheat so that honesty will
>one day become possible.
You do that far too well. Most disturbing... ;)
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> He states that analyzing games is not the best way to determine
> whether Keres threw four games to Botvinnik in 1948. That is a
statement
> with which GM Larry Evans and this writer can agree 100%.
>
> The optimum method is to have access to secret police archives
Not hardly. The optimum method is to have access
to hard evidence, but in lieu of this we have to
settle for this second-hand source, since several of
the participants are now dead and gone. I should
think that a flat-out statement by Keres confirmed by
a flat-out admission by Botvinnik would be "optimal."
> a. Every Soviet citizen in his right mind would have obeyed any and
all
> orders or proposals or suggestions from Stalin in 1948.
>
> b. Keres was a Soviet citizen in his right mind who received an
order
> from Stalin in 1948 to throw games to Botvinnik.
>
> c. Therefore, Keres obeyed and threw games to Botvinnik in 1948.
The key problem here is "b." While the pundits
maintain that in their opinions "b" is true, the
evidence points to inconsistencies in their approach,
such as Botvinnik's statement that Stalin intervened
at the half-way point, when Bot. _already_ had the lead.
And of course the games themselves present another
problem, for Keres did set traps for the Bot- in one
example, he threatened mate-in-one. This is not a
very nice way to throw games! :-) Obviously, this
example and one presented by IM Watson are no more
convincing than Larry Evans' own examples, since they
can all be explained reasonably, no matter whether or
not games were thrown.
The real hole is where Larry jumps from fact to
fiction, from Botvinnik's "Stalin suggested" to Larry's
"Stalin ordered"- a giant leap of faith, based on nothing
more than opinion and speculation. Without this giant
leap of ignorance, er, I mean faith, the whole soggy
enchilada crumbles.
> The fact is there was a conspiracy;
Really?
> Smoking guns? IF Botvinnik's testimony in 1991 were truthful and
> accurate, then Keres
Wrong. If Botvinnik's testimony was accurate, then
Keres AND SMYSLOV (sorry for shouting here) threw games,
per Parr-logic which maintains that no man in his right
mind could refuse Stalin. Smyslov was in his right mind,
wasn't he? He seemed to be more in his right mind than
any of the crazed world champions of the past and present,
such as one who assasinated the character of those he
defeated in his game annotations, rather than merely
noting that he won because was in better form.
> So, go figure.
Precisely. It is done.
> "[After game 2] Keres signed the scoresheet but refrained from
> shaking his opponent's hand, which was and still is customary."
> -- GM Evans, The Tragedy of Paul Keres (Chess Life, October
I still clearly remember a remarkable incident
from my chess career in which I had just defeated
a stronger player, knocking him out of the money.
This fellow looked something akin to Arnold
Schwartzenneger, and I expected a cussing fit and
a storming out of the room sort of thing. Much to
my surprise, he extended his hand calmly, and
congratulated me on "defeating a master." I was
stunned. None of the local patzers ever lost quite
so gracefully to me, even though it was an expected
outcome in their case, and nothing much was at stake.
Chess is weird...
Sean the American
Larry Parr
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> Dr. A. Walker speaks of his surprise and satisfaction that GM
> Larry Evans and this writer disagree on certain issues and are honest
> enough to express these disagreements in public. His surprise speaks
> eloquently about his lack of familiarity with the public record.
More likely, it speaks eloquently of his familiarity with
the countless times when Mr. Parr has given a direct quotation
of Mr. Evans in place of his own personal opinion, as if they
were identical, as a matter of course.
Political newsgroup aside, I'll wager that any reasonable
tally would result in at least a 90 percent correlation
between Larry P. and Larry E, perhaps much higher. I am not
familiar with the goings-on in r.g.c.politics- maybe that is
where the "great rift" of opinion exists between these two.
> Concerning the title cycle, GM Evans supports a 32-player
> "Wimbledon-style" knockout
A lottery of sorts?
> followed by a longish match against the
> sitting champion.
Ah- a real contest, just like the good old days.
Mix and match!?!
> I support a 16-player double-round robin
Double Round-Robin! A mega-tourney!
Bring back the good old days! The winner
would surely be a humdinger of a chessplayer.
> and a first
> to win six-games title match.
Huh? A lottery for the final?!!
Mix and match, again. You seem to agree with
Evans, then, regarding the messing-up of the
cycle (ala FIDE), only you differ on just HOW,
exactly, to do it. A silly thing to argue about!
FIDE has already demonstrated all the most
effective ways to do this kind of thing, and how.
You two are silly to think you could mess things
up any better than the old pros at FIDE. Take my
advice- leave this job to the experienced
professionals. :-)
> The key issue is to maintain the prestige
> of the world title as both an emblem of the best in chess and as a
> countervailing center of power
A nice idea, but the players should be the
counterveiling power, not the egomaniac at the
pinnacle who, as history has shown, tends to
lack both decency and objectivity, in addition
to being completely self-absorbed and
self-interested.
> against the Fidecrats. The sanctity of
> the title has an importance in chess that may be likened to the facts
> of the Resurrection and Ascension in Christianity. In short, a
respectable
> format is absolutely crucial.
Hmm. That was old testament stuff. After the
introduction of the new testa..., er, I mean the
rating system, the importance of the title was
no longer what it once was, for a "Fischer" could
easily claim to be the best in the world, without
ever actually competing in the world championship
cycle, pointing to his results (i.e. rating) as
the proof in the pudding. In point of fact, there
already exist counterveiling powers in the chessworld.
Certain journalists, such as Jan Timman and Yasser
Seirawan, have the power to reach thousands with their
opinions. Ditto Larry Evans and Andy Soltis, not to
mention Benko and others, including the Britts and
the Ruskies, etc., etc. Taken together (which you
can't because they often disagree), these pundits
have considerable say about what goes on, albeit
_after the fact_.
If Larry is proposing that "the fed" be divided
into two divisions, each "checking" the other, he
is even crazier than I thought. The result of
Kasparov "checking" that fellow from Kalmykia or
vice cersa would be similar to trying to "check" a
freight-train by placing an oceanliner in its path-
CRUNCH, ZAP, POW! Instead of a smooth-working
system of checks and balaces, we would see a clash
of egos, and a series of chessic disasters on parr
with the two world wars, when hardly anybody good
played each other.
> also caused both Smyslov and Keres to decline Botvinnik's
> handshake before the entire event began.
This is interesting. Was it at the opening
ceremonies? Botvinnik makes certain references
to his strained relationships with his rivals,
citing the need to create aggression, etc.
Sounds alot like Fischer, although Bobby never
to my knowledge crucified his opponents in his
annotations to the games. Perhaps GM Evans can
answer this question- did Bobby WANT TO chop 'em
to bits in his notations, saying what a lowdown,
dirty, pawn-pushing weakie they were? Methinks
Evans might have counselled Bobby to be a nice boy,
and stick to comments on the MOVES. It is, in a
sense, counterproductive to belittle one's opponents,
for they are the mark against which your victories
are measured. Perhaps this is why Botvinnik took
aim at his most dangerous rivals' characters, for
this would in no way undermine his purely chessic
acheivements. OTOH, he made more than a few
derogatory remarks regarding their quality of play,
while treating his own mistakes as mere temporary
lapses, not symptomatic of a serious weakness in,
say, the endgame or position play.
Sean the Martian
Phil Innes
Larry Parr
Larry Parr
michael adams
>
> POTPOURRI
>
> Dr. A. Walker speaks of his surprise and satisfaction that GM
> Larry Evans and this writer disagree on certain issues and are honest
> enough to express these disagreements in public. His surprise speaks
> eloquently about his lack of familiarity with the public record.
>
> sitting champion. I support a 16-player double-round robin and a first
> to win six-games title match. The key issue is to maintain the prestige
> of the world title as both an emblem of the best in chess and as a
> the title has an importance in chess that may be likened to the facts
> of the Resurrection and Ascension in Christianity. In short, a respectable
> format is absolutely crucial.
>
> believed that the printed word on a computer screen could reveal steam
> rising from a person's collar and issuing from his aural cavities (i.e.,
> ears). He snorts like the Titfield Express. The man has plundered my
> incredulity. I love how the guy clanks away like an engine low on oil.
> In game two he attributes Keres' refusal to shake hands with Botvinnik
> to his 23rd move. Like the single-bullet theory, I suppose this move,
> before the entire event began.
>
> doubtlessly return by clipping references to how historians evaluate
> untrustworthy testimony. The principle of cui bono must be at the
> testimony, which is contradictory, the normal procedure would be to
> separate the claims that are self-serving from the ones that hint at
> darker motivations.
>
> the tournament, a claim that ought to be greeted with considerable
> skepticism. On the other hand, by bringing up the subject of possible
> intervention, Botvinnik has either lied completely or told us that
> unhealthy currents were swirling around the 1948 world championship.
>
> IF Botvinnik is speaking truthfully about Stalin "personally"
> intervening, then anyone familiar with Soviet history will assume that
> he carried out his orders with an enormous show of enthusiasm and
> with no ifs, ands or buts.
>
> every issue of Inprekorr over a period of 25 years, and I would also
> recommend the Soviet legal theorist Pashukanis and the writings of Karl
> Radek. Another important influence is Emilian Yaroslavsky. Most
> importantly, Karl Wittfogel, the author of "Oriental Despotism" and a
> one-time Comintern agent, used to give dialectical exercises to his
> students. In all modesty, I was his best student.
PJDBAD
direct evidence of cheating? Why would they cheat on only this match, if they
were? Why would anyone risk the sort of negative exposure that would result
from evidence of cheating made public. Communism isn't the same as STUPID.
Botvinnik was capable of winning the tournament without an insurance policy.
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> What other matches beside the "1948" world Championship are suspect
or have
> direct evidence of cheating?
I think it was in 1962 at Curacao or around
that time when three "Russians" had a pact to
draw all their games against each other, thus
saving energy with which to beat up on the
weaker players such as Fischer and Kortchnoi.
At any rate, it worked, for one of them took
first and the other two did pretty well also.
Fischer accused FOUR of the Russians of cheating,
including charges that one of the other victims,
Kortchnoi, was throwing his games to the others.
Victor later denied this, launching his own
attack on the other three Russians for cheating
(sucessfully) against _him_, not Fischer, who in
his opinion, was just not that strong yet.
In a match between Botvinnik and Bronstein
for the title, some have claimed that Bronstein
was under pressure to not win, and he didn't.
He later wrote that he was under strong
psychological pressure, and it was up to him
whether or not to yield to it.
> Why would they cheat on only this match, if they
> were?
They wouldn't. And this was actually a tournament,
not a single match. The way in which the two Larrys
have misrepresented the facts makes it seem as though
there was a sort of one-on-one match here, but in fact
there was a round-robin tournament going on! :-)
> Why would anyone risk the sort of negative exposure that
> would result from evidence of cheating made public.
Simple: they didn't think they would be caught.
Have you ever watched America's Dumbest Criminals
on TV? The real question is: why are some people
so stupid? :-)
> Communism isn't the same as STUPID.
> Botvinnik was capable of winning the tournament without
> an insurance policy.
True. But if Botvinnik was telling the truth, the
question becomes: could Stalin be convinced of this,
or was he stubborn and stupid and obstinate, insisting
on having his own way in spite of the facts which
clearly indicated that one of the Russians was ALREADY
going to win, most likely Botvinnik (who was leading).
If Botvinnik was lying, it may not have even been
Stalin's idea, and it may not have happenned at the
halfway point, and it may have been an order, not a
mere suggestion, and Botvinnik may have been the one
ordered to throw the games but was saved by Stalin,
who "erased" the perpetrator of this ugly game-throwing
idea, and on and on. But this is all pure speculation.
It is so much simpler to assume Botvinnik told the truth
moe or less, and check Smyslov's games to see that indeed,
they were not all thrown. And Keres won one- a spit in
the face of Stalin? I doubt it, for he was not later
found with both arms and both legs chopped off, screaming
"Where is that scumbag, Stalin- I will bite his toes off
for doing this to me! I only wanted to show that I could
win ONE game against Botvinnik!" :-)
not-Sean
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> LET BYLINES BE BYGONES
> As far as I'm concerned...he can use whatever name he
> wants
Thanks, Lar'. But I never asked your permission.
I was just winging it, with no official authorization
from the net-KGB impersonators. As far as I'm concerned,
they can like it or lump it. Just like the guy I thumped
on ICC, who didn't like my handle, "YouAreWeak." That
handle was a stupid one, but ever so appropriate whenever
I won. I wonder if there was a psychological effect on
my opponents- right from the start they had more to prove
than I did, for they needed to refute the insult of my
handle!
> Still waiting for "Sean's" objective analysis of games 2, 3, 4, 5
> between Keres and Botvinnik in the so-called 1948 world championship.
> So far he hasn't found anything in game one that contradicts anything
> GM Larry Evans wrote
That is probably because I wasn't LOOKING for any
such thing. What I was looking for, was evidence of
the throwing of these games, or a lack thereof.
As for what Evans wrote in that portion of the
article to which you refer which I have seen here,
I did not examine it for contradictions. I assummed
that if there were any such contradictions, they
would have been edited out before posting the stuff
here for critics to examine. Naturally, if there
were no self-contradictions, there would be no need
to edit, and no need for any search for them!
It is a mistake to assume I was "looking for"
evidence to prove that Keres did NOT throw these
games, for I doubt if any such proof could ever be
found, even in the many games which were never
thrown. Take my many losses for example. Nobody
can "prove" I didn't throw the games by looking at
them. There could only be, at best, a commentary
that if I were throwing the games, I sure went about
it in an unexpected way, making no effort to conceal
my many mistakes and then putting up stiffer
resistance after it was too late, and after most
others would have already resigned out of shame. :-)
A far, far better way to find the truth would be to
simply ask me straight-out: have you ever thrown any
serious games? "Never," would come the honest reply,
"...for I was a slave to the rating system, and fought
tooth and nail for every rating point in addition to
the meager prize money." Saves a lot of time and fuss,
and avoids the many hazards of guessing and theorizing.
Sean the Tazmanian
Paul Nijmeijer
What's wrong with right-wing people??
--
Paul Nijmeijer
"Tis all a chequer-board of Nights and Days
Where Destiny for Men with Pieces plays;
Hither and thither moves and mates and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays."
Edward Fitzgerald,
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
Notme ru
<< I did not find a single argument offered by Mr. Mad which merits or even
requires a reply, so I will spend my time with Sean.>>
Is "spending time" with Sean your favorite fantasy these days or are you still
hung up on 14 year-old girls from the Third World?
Notme ru
to the scathing article by Watson in Kingpin magazine.>>
Did Winter have anything to say about Evans's historical ignorance of chess?
I still *fondly* recall the time a "B" player passed off a famous
Steinitz-Chigorin gama as his own effort in one of LE's columns of te 1970s.
sean_the...@my-deja.com
> << This is consistent with Mr. Mad's assessment of Parr's blather in
response
> to the scathing article by Watson in Kingpin magazine.>>
> Did Winter have anything to say about Evans's historical ignorance
of chess?
Idunno, but rather than flatly ADMIT this, let me, in the style
of Larry Parr himself, instead direct your attention to the fact
that you misspelled something- thus you are illiterate, and of
course, your question can therefore be ignored!?? It's simple
Parr-logic. :-) Evans' ignorance of one famous game is no big
deal. You can't expect even a grandmaster to remember or have
replayed every famous game there is. I once similarly posted one
of my better games as a Paul Morphy brilliancy, without a single
response except for one fellow asking for more! Morphy played
FAR fewer games than Steinitz, and what's more to the point, he
NEVER opened with 1.c4, as in my posted game. This doesn't prove
everybody is a dimwit, it just goes to show that you really can
fool all of the people, some of the time. I wouldn't be too
surprised if my game made it into a Morphy games archive, one of
these days. It was pretty good, and the finish was remarkably
similar to Botvinnik's against Keres in their second game of the
1948 world championship. And no, Stalin wasn't there - my opponent
was trying to draw, not lose! :-)
> I still *fondly* recall the time a "B" player passed off a famous
> Steinitz-Chigorin gama as his own effort in one of LE's columns of te
1970s.
Sean the American
sean_the...@my-deja.com
Uhgh. The gutter is compelling, but let us TRY to
rise above such things. :-)
One day, "Sean" merits no reply. The next, it is
"Mr. Mad." Clearly, the tone of MADDIGAN's comments
have upset Mr. Parr, who is in a huff and will not
reply. I still am wondering if part of Mr. Mad's
disgust at the downward trend in the quality of
Chess Life was due, not to Larry Parr's failings, but
rather a massive budget cut caused by the so-called
Fischer-bust. The USCF placed a very large bet on
the continuance of the Fischer-boom, and when it
ended after Bobby's decision to retire from active
play, they (and we, the members) lost. Add to this
the fact that contributor Paul Keres died, and you
have little choice but to recruit American writers to
replace the top Russians and their superior work.
Or maybe chasmad is simply disgusted at the bias
so evident in the works of Larry Parr? Strongly
anti-Karpov, pro-Fischer and later pro-Kasparov, Parr
could always be counted on to "spin" the facts in such
a way as to make Karpov out to be a villian, and Kaspy
or Bobby the hero with the white hat, on a white horse,
an innocent victim of whatever was going on at the time.
Take the whining of Kasparov about the first match being
halted, for instance. Spin-meisters Parr and Evans
held that "poor Garry" was the victim, as he wanted to
keep playing and would most likely have won. But years
later, these two sang a different tune- realizing that
there was no reason to believe Garry wanted to continue,
other than their own overwhelming bias, of course. It is
truly ironic that Parr's tenure as editor of Chess Life
coincided with the ten-year world domination of Anatoly
Karpov- a man Larry detested! Poor Larry could not argue
with Karpov's numerous successes- he could only "spin" and
twist and distort them just a tad. A FAR, FAR happier man
would Larry have been if only Fischer hadn't retired, but
gone on to play and defeat Karpov, again and again,
retaining the title for America! :-)
Peter Coleman
<w.nijmei...@hccnet.nl> opined:
>> More right-wing fairy tales from Larry Parr.
>
>What's wrong with right-wing people??
They should go to Austria.
Peter
"Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow"
John Macnab
Paul Nijmeijer <w.nijmei...@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
news:87gpci$55j$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
> > More right-wing fairy tales from Larry Parr.
>
> What's wrong with right-wing people??
Nothing, of course. Parr is an interesting mix of infantile jingoism,
factual knowledge and irritating, arrogant rhetoric. Basically he is a
high-brow troll. That's what makes him such a valuable addition to the ng.
John