Politicising History in Chess Life and ChessCafe
Phil Innes
Life and Chesscafe.com whose general thesis is; are either/both
Keres/Botvinnik complicit with rigging the championship of the chess world
in favour of Botvinnik.
GM Larry Evans in Chess Life, March 2002, continues the discussion by
printing a letter by Richard Laurie of Pennsylvania citing Krylenko's
influence on Stalin to bribe and cheat "as a matter of national policy."
[Richard Laurie has previously dramatised a stage play on the subject of
Alekander Alekhine.]
The letter continues with references to Fischer, Karpov and Korchnoi on
official cheating. Larry Evans responds with the comment that although he
has been "viciously attacked" it is his contention that "most scholars now
agree with me that Keres was coerced" and finishes with a reference to Mr.
Taylor Kingston who, ostensibly, agrees with him, though it is extremely
unclear to what degree.
__________
Meanwhile Chesscafe have taken another view resilient to these ideas,
publishing submissions attacking those of Larry Evans, whose proof of thrown
games appears contentious to GMs Nunn and Seirawan, for example. Further,
Larry Evans supported by Larry Parr have experienced difficulty in having
their views fairly expressed at Chesscafe, citing editorial interference and
abstructions by its publisher Hanon Russell.
A running series of caustic comments on several subjects, mostly Russian
topics, have passed between Chesscafe's Edward Winter and Larry Evans often
involving the interpretation and implication of material by other writers.
__________
Some 3 months ago I wrote to Chesscafe, who have published all my previous
submissions, asking why other known sources were not considered. As an
example of partisanship I offered a particular reference to a well-known
researcher who was conducting researches into Alekhine in preparation for a
biography of him, but who did wish to consult 2 sources that I suggested,
each of which had independent sourcing, both of which were Russian. I stated
that this was a curious state of affairs in any history, and hoped that such
a scenario of neglect would not re-occur in Keres/Botvinnik. Chesscafe found
difficulty in appreciating any 'relevance' in this and did not publish it.
__________
It may seem from the above that Chesscafe has the greater role in
suppressing unwelcome opinions, but I must also cite Larry Evans, CL March
2002, when he himself allows quotes to go unchallenged by Korchnoi to the
effect that the Soviet system was corrupted, "nobody could beat Fischer" and
thereby; games were thrown by Keres ["coerced"] in favour of Botvinnik.
It would certainly be interesting to discover influences on both Keres and
Botvinnik and more specifically what would constitute Botvinnik being
"complicit" with this schema, but Larry Evans takes no exception to the
statement by Richard Laurie to vindicate Fischer; "Nearly every single thing
that Bobby Fischer accused them of doing was true..."
__________
I have several points to make on these subjects:-
1) Korchnoi ALSO spoke of widespead corruption in the West. Why is this
never cited by Larry Evans?
2) If Krylenko had approached Botvinnik with a plan to unfairly promote
Botvinnik's interests, what would constitute "complicity" by Botvinnik?
Saying "nyet" yet not saying anything else? The corrolary is the effect of
pressure on Keres [could he also have said 'nyet!'?] but lost to Botvinnik
because the absense of ex-cathedra support plus official menace achieved a
pyschological effect on his play?
3) From the games themselves, what GMs support Larry Evans who suggests
there is /implicit/ evidence of thrown games?
4) Will Chesscafe allow any views to be expressed other than those favoured
by its own columnists, or that reference their views? Chesscafe seems to
experience difficulty in differentiating the partisan journalism of those it
publishes with anything more robust that can be considered history.
5) That there may be other views to those expressed principally by
Evans/Winter does not necessarily detract from either of their work.
Lionising either of them does reduce both their researches into partisan
journalism, albeit however successful this journalism is in making the
subject of interest, but which neither writer should consider they have
represented themselves in making a sufficiency of contribution to chess
history.
I will post this article at rec.games.chess.misc
and offer it to both Chess Life and Chesscafe.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Larry Tapper
...
>
> I have several points to make on these subjects:-
>
> 1) Korchnoi ALSO spoke of widespead corruption in the West. Why is this
> never cited by Larry Evans?
> 2) If Krylenko had approached Botvinnik with a plan to unfairly promote
> Botvinnik's interests, what would constitute "complicity" by Botvinnik?
> Saying "nyet" yet not saying anything else? The corrolary is the effect of
> pressure on Keres [could he also have said 'nyet!'?] but lost to Botvinnik
> because the absense of ex-cathedra support plus official menace achieved a
> pyschological effect on his play?
> 3) From the games themselves, what GMs support Larry Evans who suggests
> there is /implicit/ evidence of thrown games?
Phil,
I am happy to see you put the questions in this way (especially #2)
but disappointed to see that not many others have done the same.
Regarding Keres-Botvinnik, it seems to me that there are two distinct
historical questions, a broad one and a narrow one.
The broad question is whether there was political pressure on Keres,
and on Soviet GMs in general. To this question the obvious answer is
Yes. Even if no burly apparatchik had ever whispered anything in
anyone's ear, it would have been perfectly plain to Keres in 1948 that
his political loyalty was under a cloud and that he would have to
tread lightly.
The narrow question (of more interest specifically to chess
historians) is what actually happened before and during the event. Did
both Botvinnik and Keres sit down to play their first game, knowing
that the outcome was predetermined? Did Keres actually throw any
games? If so, which games were thrown and how did he do it?
On the _narrow_ question, the evidence is still very scanty. Keres has
been quoted insisting privately that he did not throw any games;
Botvinnik acknowledged in an interview that there was political
pressure but he refused to hear it. Proponents of the fix theory have
waved off these denials on the general grounds that defying Stalin
would have been suicidal. OK, but this is virtually all we have,
except for putative evidence "from the games themselves" (your
question #3).
Given the little hard evidence we have, it seems to me perfectly
conceivable that just as you suggest, Keres' subpar performance may
have been due to psychological pressure rather than a deliberate fix.
It even seems possible to me that when Keres sat down at the board, he
himself was not absolutely sure what he was going to do.
It seems to me that in Evans' columns, he has repeatedly conflated the
broad question with the narrow one. In his column last fall,
tendentiously entitled Case Closed! (repeated in a subhead, in case
you missed it) he seemed to attach great weight to such facts as what
some Polish IM told him about how bad things had been under Stalin.
This, however, we all knew: what we still don't know is what, exactly,
happened in 1948.
Regards, Larry Tapper
StanB
"Phil Innes" <aong...@sover.net> wrote in message
> This is a most curious subject now running for more than a year in Chess
> Life and Chesscafe.com whose general thesis is; are either/both
> Keres/Botvinnik complicit with rigging the championship of the chess world
> in favour of Botvinnik.
>
> GM Larry Evans in Chess Life, March 2002, continues the discussion by
> printing a letter by Richard Laurie of Pennsylvania citing Krylenko's
> influence on Stalin to bribe and cheat "as a matter of national policy."
> [Richard Laurie has previously dramatised a stage play on the subject of
> Alekander Alekhine.]
....<snip>
Well now, indeed. Many's the time scholars of no less fame then Larry Parr,
Jude Acers, and Sam Sloan have sung this song. Once Larry Parr wrote a
letter to Larry Evans and said, "While looking through some old papers the
other day..." GM Evans took this softball down the center of the plate and
shew us all how Keres was flipped.
StanB
Neil Brennen
> [Richard Laurie has previously dramatised a stage play on the subject of
> Alekander Alekhine.]
How does one "dramatise" a stage play? Is that like taking a Brahms
symphony and writing music for it?
Or perhaps you meant Mr. Laurie WROTE a stage play?
Best wishes,
Neil Brennen
Neil Brennen
>
> 1) Korchnoi ALSO spoke of widespead corruption in the West. Why is this
> never cited by Larry Evans?
Complicity?
> 2) If Krylenko had approached Botvinnik with a plan to unfairly promote
> Botvinnik's interests, what would constitute "complicity" by Botvinnik?
> Saying "nyet" yet not saying anything else? The corrolary is the effect of
> pressure on Keres [could he also have said 'nyet!'?] but lost to Botvinnik
> because the absense of ex-cathedra support plus official menace achieved a
> pyschological effect on his play?
Likely, very likely.
> 3) From the games themselves, what GMs support Larry Evans who suggests
> there is /implicit/ evidence of thrown games?
Grandmaster Parr. Aside from GM Parr, there appears to be precious
little comment on the subject.
> 4) Will Chesscafe allow any views to be expressed other than those favoured
> by its own columnists, or that reference their views? Chesscafe seems to
> experience difficulty in differentiating the partisan journalism of those it
> publishes with anything more robust that can be considered history.
A strange comment. Chess Cafe refuses to publish a rambling, caustic,
clip and paste article, and they are vilified for it. Yet the
"mindless zombies" comments by Jeremy Silman, published on the
allegedly notorious Bulletin Board remains unmentioned by the
Cafe-bashers. I wonder why?
Phil, I am saddened to see that you believe the new definition of
censorship is rejection of Larry Parr.
> 5) That there may be other views to those expressed principally by
> Evans/Winter does not necessarily detract from either of their work.
> Lionising either of them does reduce both their researches into partisan
> journalism, albeit however successful this journalism is in making the
> subject of interest, but which neither writer should consider they have
> represented themselves in making a sufficiency of contribution to chess
> history.
I'm not aware of any substantial writing on Keres/Botvinnik by Winter,
so I don't understand your comment. As for Parr/Evans, I haven't found
them to rise above "partisan journalism"; in fact were you to render
the Parrtisan Journalism out of the Larry's CL column, there is
precious little left.
Neil Brennen
Chesspride
>anyone's ear, it would have been perfectly plain to Keres in 1948 that
>his political loyalty was under a cloud and that he would have to
>tread lightly.
>Keres has
>been quoted insisting privately that he did not throw any games;
>Botvinnik acknowledged in an interview that there was political
>pressure but he refused to hear it. Proponents of the fix theory have
>waved off these denials on the general grounds that defying Stalin
>
>It even seems possible to me that when Keres sat down at the board, he
>himself was not absolutely sure what he was going to do.
>
I think this last point is very important.
Keres faced an important (sports psychology) issue....on top of the tragic
political crisis.
1. Why play in the championship at all...if one is "forced to lose"? He could
have opted to be "too busy" to compete, although the conspiracy people will say
that it was a must that he play in order to give Botvinnik absolute
"credibility."
2. If the pressure was just psychological...partly self-induced....then he
faced another question:
"Do I play to win vs. Botvinnik...or do I make 5 draws just to avoid the
appearance of harming B's chances?"
Suppose Keres felt that...any suggestions to the contrary...he was still free
to participate in a fair sports event in 1948.
That is to say, there was no official rigging of games.
He might still face the quandry of how to balance his own sporting
situation....against the general fact that his government favored one or more
of the candidates against him.
Should he try to go 3-2 or 4-1 vs. B to win outright? Press in every game?
Or should he make 5 peaceful draws and try to win the title against the
OTHERS...in part so as to not be seen as actively disregarding what everyone
knew was "government wishes."
That makes for tough games. It makes B loom larger than life. It can
certainly lead to unnecessary defeats...against a rival that is nearly one's
equal....
...and once that kind of thinking takes hold in a player's mind...and in his
games...it is very hard to root out during a long event...
and it leads to
...games where one is uncertain, move-by-move, whether one is free to win or
under pressure to draw (forget about pressure to lose for the moment).
Games where we are unsure whether we want a draw or a win...are often games
that we end up losing. Even club players have experienced this.
And some of these K v. B games seem to have the look and feel of games played
under that kind of self-induced sporting stress...
..rather than the kind of conspiratorial markers that some make them out to be.
ECJ
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
Eric Johnson speaks about what the Soviet government may or may not have
wished re Kere in 1948.
In 1948 there was no Soviet government in the Western sense of the word.
There was a Party regime. The government wished nothing. The Party ruled
through the will of Stalin. Period.
Then there is the speculation, to use a fancy word for senile
maundering, that Keres might have considered sitting out the 1948 tournament is
unbelievable -- not so much in the sense that one does not accord it credence
as in the sense that one wonders how at this late point anyone who has read a
book on the Stalin regime would imagine that a Keres or virtually anyone else
could have opted out, if they were expected to opt in.
"Virtually anyone else"? One of the sillier things stated by Taylor
Kingston in a ChessCafe piece was that no one dared to defy Stalin's orders if
he were in the dictator's grasp.
Not true, not so oddly enough. The well-known case of Pyotr Kapitsa is
the most famous example of someone failing to fetch for Stalin and surviving.
But Kapitsa was a very special case involving a weapon that would change the
strategic face of the planet. Stalin knew that he had to leave well enough
alone. Keres understood that his fate, the fate of his family and even the
fate of friends and their families depended on doing precisely what Stalin
expected.
There are a few instances of Stalin indulging whims of mercy, shooting
someone unquestionably loyal but sparing some obvious opponent whom he did not
wish to murder. That the writer Mikhail Bulgakov survived his famous letter to
Stalinasking to emigrate still astonishes. I call that whim per will.
Then there is the juvenile "suppose Keres felt" he could fight fairly in
1948. One might as well write, "Suppose a rabbi in the Warsaw ghetto feltt the
Germans were burning it down to make room for an urban renewal project."
Eric Johnson wishes to defend the root of the FIDE world title. He
wishes to make the Stalin Party dictatorship appear as normal as possible -- a
kind of autocratic regime in which there is repression, to be sure, but still a
margin for the individual.
That, however, was not the Stalin regime.
Xylothist
ChessCafe piece was that no one dared to defy Stalin's orders if he were in the
dictator's grasp."
Having searched both of Kingston's Chess Cafe articles on this subject, I
found no such statement. Please supply the exact quote on which you base your
comment.
In the meantime, the following quote from another source seems relevant:
"No one, not even the simpletons to be found among the ratpackers, would have
refused as a matter 'of course' to do what Stalin 'personally' proposed. Even
these nit-twits know that Stalin not only proposed, but disposed. Of any
person who might ignore him."
The author? Larry Parr, in this forum, 25 August 2001. Does Parr now find
"silly" an assertion he recently espoused? While attributing that assertion to
someone else who never made it?
Ed Hudson
from the Skittles Room about the Zurich 1953 tournament. The article
seems to indicate that the U.S.S.R. did all that they could to
make sure that Sammy Reshevsky did not emerge as the candidate
to Mikhail Botvinnik. This does not prove anything about the
1948 Candidates tournament and the possible throwing of games,
but certainly shows to what length groups would go in order to
achieve the result they desire.
Phil Innes
"Ed Hudson" <ed.h...@watsonwyatt.com> wrote in message
news:c218eb54.02021...@posting.google.com...
Yes Ed, this is interesting, even likely true?
Why does no-one pay attention to Korchnoi on this subject? He should know,
no? And after his exodus he spilled quite a lot of beans about dirty
practices in Soviet chess.
I started this thread because there are those who singularly villify the
Soviet system by way of its players: There are others who think nothing was
amiss that could not be explained, even lacking a decent and intelligent
reserve of doubt. Two camps have formed around the argument in the past few
years, polarising it, neither seemingly capable of grasping that the view of
the other has any merit whatever, and then proceeding to denigrate the other
side in a personal way, in order to attenuate the force of opposing ideas.
The truth may be more complex - that there were degrees of official pressure
in the USSR on chess players which were followed to greater or lesser degree
by various individuals, both actively in support, and passively in
resistance.
Of course, Victor Korchnoi also spoke of apparent cheating and game rigging
in the West! A subject about which the brave opinions of our chessic
literary lions do not ask the simplest of questions...
Not that everyone should or ought to read Dostoyevski to understand seeing
devils in the ancient enemy, and to see them there and nowhere else; they
might instead repose their trust in western writers of history such as
Gibbon, McCauley or Trevellian who conclude not dissimilarly.
Cordially, Phil Innes
StanB
"Ed Hudson" <ed.h...@watsonwyatt.com> wrote in message
> A very interesting read from ChessCafe is this article by Soltis
Next you'll be claiming the Olympics is fixed.
StanB
Parrthenon
By Larry Parr
"Rejecting a suggestion by Krylenko is perhaps conceivable, but refusing orders
from Stalin himself? Hard to believe. In most
areas of policy Stalin was no more flexible than Hitler, and at least as
brutal. Was chess so different, or Botvinnik so privileged?" -- Taylor Kingston
in "A Further Survey of the Evidence" (ChessCafe)
Taylor Kingston has returned to rgcp under another screen name. This time, I
take him I shall call him Xylothist-Kingston.
Mr. Kingston runs as a member of the Winter ratpackers and that ChessCafe group
which pays gratifying attention to what appears here on rgcp. The ratpackers
seldom write on this forum using their real names, but they cannot stay away,
employing such monickers as pauliegraf and Xylothist. Such are the standards of
those holding forth on the censored ChessCafe bulletin board.
Mr. Xylothist-Kingston writes, "Larry Parr wrote: 'One of the sillier things
stated by Taylor Kingston in a ChessCafe piece was that no one dared to defy
Stalin's orders if he were in the dictator's grasp."
Continues Mr. Xylothist-Kingston, "Having searched both of Kingston's Chess
Cafe articles on this subject, I found no such statement. Please supply the
exact quote on which you base your comment."
Let's stop here for a moment. Mr. Xylothist-Kingston claims "no such statement"
as I paraphrased. Which is why, of course, I did not use quotation marks.
However, Mr. Kingston made his meaning clear at several junctures.
In his "A Further Survey," he asks the clearly rhetorical question, "but
refusing orders from Stalin himself? Hard to believe." In truth, not "hard to
believe" if one knows the specifics of Soviet history, which the unhistorical
Mr. Kingston obviously does not. Orders and disrespect were shown to Stalin,
and the perpetrators generally ended up six-feet under. Read, for example,
Bukharin's famous speech before the Soviet Central Committee, following which
he was arrested. I have already mentioned instances involve Pyotr Kapitsa and
Mikhail Bulgakov. Or there is Voroshilov tossing a suckling pig at Stalin at
the time of the war with Finland and hitting him with it and surviving. Or
there is Litvinov asking Stalin the impudent question whether he, too, was
slated to become an enemy of the people.
Lots of examples. Nothing here "hard to believe," if one understands the
reasons why some opposed Stalin openly (Bukharin knew he would be shot in any
event) and others privately (Kapitsa probably had an inkling that Stalin needed
the A-bomb and could not afford to shoot dissident physicists. To do so would
have put the wind up among all physicists and would have endangered his
contacts with Western physicists whom we now know were supplying him with
information.) Neither of these considerations would have applied to a Botvinnik
or a Keres, who had everything to gain by complying and everything to lose by
not complying.
Mr. Xylothist-Kingston quotes me once again, "In the meantime, the following
quote from another source seems relevant: 'No one, not even the simpletons to
be found among the ratpackers, would have refused as a matter 'of course' to do
what Stalin 'personally' proposed. Even these nit-twits know that Stalin not
only proposed, but disposed. Of any person who might ignore him."
Concludes Mr. Xylothist, "The author [of the preceding quotation]? Larry Parr,
in this forum, 25 August 2001. Does Parr now find 'silly' an assertion he
recently espoused? While attributing that assertion to someone else who never
made it?"
Once again, Mr. Kingston made the assertion, including in the obvious
rhetorical question quoted above. As for what I wrote, Mr. Xylothist-Kingston
fails to fill in the context.
Readers will notice the single quotation marks around "of course" and
"personally" in what Mr. Xylothist-Kingston reproduces. I was writing in
response to a ludicrous claim made by Botvinnik that Stalin had intervened
"personally" in 1948 and that Botvinnik, outraged, had "of course" rejected
this intervention. I was saying that no one -- not a Kapitsa, not a Bukharin --
would dare rejecte an order by Stalin as a matter "of course." There would have
been plenty of sleepless nights at the very least. I then wrote that Stalin
proposed and disposed of those "who might ignore him." I stand by that
statement.
He disposed of Bukharin by killing him, and he disposed of Voroshilov by
isolating him and taunting him for years with phone calls about how a Politburo
meeting was being held and that he, Voroshilov, was not invited and that he
hoped Voroshilov knew what that could mean. As for Kapitsa, it is his good luck
Stalin died before the Soviet H-bomb was deliverable. Otherwise, there would
soon have been little reason to let him live, albeit cut off from the heart of
research.
Stalin once said that revenge is a dish best eaten cold. He kept some people
around for years, dangling on strings. Some of those people dangled and died
natural deaths. (Litvinov) and others survived because The Boss never got
around to cutting the strings before his own death in March 1953.
When dealing with a Xylothist-Kingston, whose historical thinking is
essentially at a high school level (as that level existed circa 1963) and is
today at an undergraduate university level, one must remember that he thinks
in stereotypes and does not know many of the specifics. He must take his
history from what that ultimate oxymoron, "educational TV."
Larry Tapper
>
> > 3) From the games themselves, what GMs support Larry Evans who suggests
> > there is /implicit/ evidence of thrown games?
>
> Grandmaster Parr. Aside from GM Parr, there appears to be precious
> little comment on the subject.
>
Neil,
In his original article, Kingston Taylor mentioned some skeptical
remarks in a 1997 article by GM Nunn, who noted that Anand had made
worse mistakes in his 1995 match vs. Kasparov. And of course nobody
suspects that Anand threw any games. IIRC GM Seirawan has also been
critical of Evans' findings. When the original Evans article came out,
I asked a couple of GMs what they thought, and they weren't impressed
either.
Evans himself had written that a strong GM in Keres' position would
have been too smart to throw games by making gross and easily
detectable blunders. OK, I'll buy that, but then the question arises
what could _ever_ be reasonably taken to be evidence of a GM fix. Any
move that would merit a question mark, but for reasons not obvious to
the average club player? In that case, I'd guess that as many as a
third of decisive GM games could provide some grounds for suspicion.
In a 1999 syndicated column (recycled in CL 9/2001 with the remarkable
subhead "Case Closed") Evans wrote:
"I analyzed all five games, sadly concluding Keres was probably
coerced. Alas, his dilemma was how to lose and make it look real...
"Kingston later wrote an article disputing my theory, mostly ignoring
my critique of Keres' strange moves. This was like dismissing the
Zapruder film in the Kennedy Assassination."
But this is not true: the game analysis by both Schroeder and Evans is
discussed at some length in Kingston's article, which may be found at
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt
What is in dispute, of course, is not the quality of Evans' analysis
but its relevance.
Evans concludes:
"The truth about Botvinnik and Keres may never be known, but until a
smoking gun is found in KGB files, I firmly believe the games
themselves contain the best evidence of a fix."
And _this_ is a perfectly reasonable stance for Evans to take! We are
left with a difference of opinion about how much skullduggery may be
inferred from subtle errors in high-level GM games. But why, then, the
horn-tooting "case closed" and all the invective directed toward
Taylor Kingston?
I want to make it clear that I don't have an axe to grind on either
side of this debate. It seems to me that the present meager evidence
is consistent with either an actual fix or with Keres collapsing under
the psychological and political pressure. I wouldn't be bringing this
up at all if I weren't annoyed by the strident and bullying tone of
Evans' columns and also Parr's posts on this topic to rgcp.
Regards, Larry
Parrthenon
TWO SMOKING GUNS
By Larry Parr
<<Evans concludes: "The truth about Botvinnik and Keres may never be known, but
until a smoking gun is found in KGB files, I firmly believe the games
themselves contain the best evidence of a fix.">> -- Quoted by Larry Tapper
<<Not to grant provisional assent to the hypothesis of coercion on Keres
seems willfully obtuse. Conclusion: the Commies did it." -- Taylor Kingston
CASE CLOSED!?
While in London for the Kasparov-Kramnik title match in 2000, GM Evans told
me that he asked GM Yuri Averbach, who lived through the Soviet era, if he was
going to shed any new light on the Keres-Botvinnik controversy in his memoirs.
Averbach said he had nothing new to offer.
In his Further Review of the Evidence at ChessCafe, Mr. Kingston mentioned
two smoking guns (also cited by GM Evans in Chess Life) that erased his
lingering doubts about whether Keres was coerced. Here are a few pertinent
excerpts:
1. Briton Ken Whyld, co-author of The Oxford Companion to Chess, is another
highly respected chess historian. His contribution to this discussion is best
expressed in his own words: "Keres told me in private, when he was my guest in
Nottingham, that he was not ordered to lose those games to Botvinnik, and was
not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that if
Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault of Keres."
(emphasis added)
This constitutes, I believe, an important corroboration of Cafferty’s thesis,
perhaps even a long-sought "smoking gun." The Krabbé Diary was its first
publication. That Whyld would keep it secret for nearly 38 years puzzled me. In
another e-mail dated 11 August 2001 he clarified, and hedged somewhat:
"I never regarded it as something to repeat in his lifetime, although he was
probably secure enough in his later years. Later I thought it not worth
repeating. Firstly there is only my word for it, and secondly he might not have
been telling the truth."
Mr. Whyld is becomingly modest, and a skeptic might focus on the doubt of that
last sentence, but I am inclined to take the story at face value.
2. A few months before Whyld’s revelation, another relevant item appeared on
Krabbé’s site. Item #42, posted 10 December 1999, describes an interview
with Botvinnik, by Dutch journalist Max Pam with émigré GM Genna Sosonko
translating. Pam apparently did not realize the significance of what he had,
for he did not publicize it widely to the chess world. Instead, the interview
appeared only in the Dutch magazine Vrij Nederland (20 August 1991), a
general-interest weekly not devoted to chess. It attracted little attention
until Krabbé translated a portion into English and put it on his site over 8
years later.
In the key passage, Botvinnik was asked if he had ever known of collusion
between Soviet players. His reply:
"I have experienced myself that orders were given. In 1948 I played with Keres,
Smyslov, Reshevsky and Euwe for the world title. After the first half of the
tournament, which took place in the Netherlands, it was clear that I was going
to be world champion." (Note: strictly speaking, Holland was venue for the
first 2/5 of the tournament, not "the first half." After two laps, eight
rounds, when the contestants had played each other twice, the score stood
Botvinnik 6, Reshevsky 4½, Keres and Smyslov 4, Euwe 1½.)
"During the second half in Moscow something unpleasant happened. At a very high
level, it was proposed that the other Soviet players [i.e. Keres and Smyslov]
would lose to me on purpose, in order to make sure there was going to be a
Soviet World Champion. It was Stalin personally who proposed this." (emphasis
added)
Amazing! For the first time, Botvinnik publicly states the existence of a
conspiracy, with orders from the very top, none other than Stalin himself.
Obviously, we have here the long-sought smoking gun.
Or do we? The rest of Botvinnik’s statement clouds the picture: "But of
course I refused! It was an intrigue against me, to belittle me. A ridiculous
proposal, only made to put down the future World Champion. In some circles,
people preferred Keres to be World Champion. It was disgraceful, because I had
already proven by and large that I was stronger at that time than Keres and
Smyslov."
Bizarre. The fix proposal was intended to insult him, and perhaps to help
Keres? Nonsensical, as Krabbé notes. Botvinnik had something of a persecution
complex, and it seems to be badly skewing his interpretation of events here.
And what of the claim that he refused? Not his only such; see for example
Achieving the Aim, p. 43, where he rejects Krylenko’s suggestion that
Rabinovitch throw him a game in 1935. But the two incidents are not entirely
comparable. Rejecting a suggestion by Krylenko is perhaps conceivable, but
refusing orders from Stalin himself? Hard to believe. In most areas of policy
Stalin was no more flexible than Hitler, and at least as brutal. Was chess so
different, or Botvinnik so privileged?
So do we accept Botvinnik 100%? Do we dismiss it all as the grousings of a
grumpy paranoid octogenarian, or pick and choose what to believe? I prefer to
avoid speculation on each detail. Clearly it is at very least another
confirmation of the basic thesis of official pro-Botvinnik pressure. Coupled
with Whyld’s testimony, it shows, at a minimum, that there was an officially
desired outcome, and both Keres and Botvinnik knew what it was.
There is another argument for at least partial acceptance. Botvinnik’s
admission of a fix order is so different, so at odds with everything he and
Soviet officialdom have said before, that it is very hard to explain unless it
were a fact.
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>In his original article, Kingston Taylor mentioned some skeptical
>remarks in a 1997 article by GM Nunn, who noted that Anand had made
>worse mistakes in his 1995 match vs. Kasparov. And of course nobody
>suspects that Anand threw any games.
Name one game or one move by Anand that was worse.
Sam Sloan
Xylothist
Larry Parr talking of "standards" is like Bill Clinton lecturing on marital
fidelity. He disparages others' education, yet he allows himself double
standards a college freshman could see through, and repeatedly violates
standards of civil discourse by resorting to personal insult. To enumerate:
1. He complains that "Xylothist" is a pseudonym. This is rich coming from
"Wmiketwo," under which alias Parr has made postings praising himself while
insulting others on this forum.
2. Parr claims Taylor Kingston made the "silly" statement that "no one dared to
defy Stalin's orders if he were in the dictator's grasp." I responded by saying
Kingston had not said this, but showed that Parr himself had said something
very like that. Parr complains that was taken out of context. Yet when
challenged to present the Kingston quote he refers to, Parr presented a passage
that, in context, clearly applies specifically to Botvinnik, and cannot
reasonably be construed to include Kapitsa or others. It is Parr who uses the
absolute terms "no one" and "any person," not Kingston.
Parr wants it both ways. He complains about "context," yet he ignores the
context of the Kingston quote, fabricating a whole new meaning for it. He
invokes Stalin's severity to support his own belief (documented on this
newsgroup) that Botvinnik did not defy Stalin, yet he wants to label Kingston
"silly" because Kingston wonders if Botvinnik had the wherewithal to defy
Stalin.
Kingston finds it "hard to believe" that Botvinnik might have defied Stalin,
and Parr says "Botvinnik ... had everything to gain by complying and everything
to lose by not complying" with Stalin. Yet according to Parr, Kingston is being
"silly" while Parr is showing superior knowledge, education and intellect. Wow.
3. Parr insults my educational level, about which he knows nothing, and refers
to Kingston (and many others) by the charming term "ratpacker." Ad hominem
attacks, unfounded gratuitous insults, and juvenile epithets — this is
rhetoric at its best!
The bizarre thing is that, as far as I can tell, Parr and Kingston both hold
a very negative view of Stalin, yet Parr is not content - even where someone
agrees with him, Parr must prove that Parr is superior, even if it means
fabricating differences.
What drives Parr to these extremes of petty demagoguery I cannot imagine. In
any event, they merit no further response.
Chesspride
>>worse mistakes in his 1995 match vs. Kasparov. And of course nobody
>>suspects that Anand threw any games.
>
>Name one game or one move by Anand that was worse.
>
>Sam Sloan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The games from the 1995 PCA exhibition...featuring the Dragon Sicilian...were
not exactly the stuff of legend.
ECJ
Phil Innes
> CASE CLOSED!?
>
> While in London for the Kasparov-Kramnik title match in 2000, GM Evans
told
> me that he asked GM Yuri Averbach, who lived through the Soviet era, if he
was
> going to shed any new light on the Keres-Botvinnik controversy in his
memoirs.
> Averbach said he had nothing new to offer.
Thats not what Averbakh (A) said in Moscow last year. In fact the unusual
situation arose of a Botvinnik (B) family member attempting to sue in
advance of reading A's material (!)
This is rather peculiar, no? Is this because A is suspected of harbouring a
grudge against B? Or that something exists that B does not want exposed by
A?
> In his Further Review of the Evidence at ChessCafe, Mr. Kingston
mentioned
> two smoking guns (also cited by GM Evans in Chess Life) that erased his
> lingering doubts about whether Keres was coerced. Here are a few
pertinent
> excerpts:
>
> 1. Briton Ken Whyld, co-author of The Oxford Companion to Chess, is
another
> highly respected chess historian. His contribution to this discussion is
best
> expressed in his own words: "Keres told me in private, when he was my
guest in
> Nottingham, that he was not ordered to lose those games to Botvinnik, and
was
> not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that if
> Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault of
Keres."
> (emphasis added)
But Ken might not check all sources available? Which would qualify anything
Ken wrote. I know this to be so in the case of Alekhine research, and Ken
also came a cropper on chesscafe last year about under-substantiated claims
about Morphy.
> This constitutes, I believe, an important corroboration of Cafferty's
thesis,
> perhaps even a long-sought "smoking gun." The Krabbé Diary was its first
> publication. That Whyld would keep it secret for nearly 38 years puzzled
me. In
> another e-mail dated 11 August 2001 he clarified, and hedged somewhat:
Because he was sourcing something unprinted. This appears to be the
bug-a-boo of these whispered interviews...
> "I never regarded it as something to repeat in his lifetime, although he
was
> probably secure enough in his later years. Later I thought it not worth
> repeating. Firstly there is only my word for it, and secondly he might not
have
> been telling the truth."
>
> Mr. Whyld is becomingly modest, and a skeptic might focus on the doubt of
that
> last sentence, but I am inclined to take the story at face value.
Yes.
> 2. A few months before Whyld's revelation, another relevant item appeared
on
> Krabbé's site. Item #42, posted 10 December 1999, describes an interview
> with Botvinnik,
Let me break into Larry's paragraph here with more current information - an
advance on Bronstein's new title, reviewed in "64" which makes statements
about official game fixing, this time specifically mentioning Smyslov.
The responsonse by Smyslov was "harsh."
> by Dutch journalist Max Pam with émigré GM Genna Sosonko
> translating. Pam apparently did not realize the significance of what he
had,
> for he did not publicize it widely to the chess world. Instead, the
interview
> appeared only in the Dutch magazine Vrij Nederland (20 August 1991), a
> general-interest weekly not devoted to chess. It attracted little
attention
> until Krabbé translated a portion into English and put it on his site over
8
> years later.
>
> In the key passage, Botvinnik was asked if he had ever known of collusion
> between Soviet players. His reply:
<> because this is a repost of Larry's previous message, I snipped the
balance of it.
In the thread I began a few days ago I concluded with a few questions which
I thought were key to substantiating anthing we could call history. No-one
has as yet attempted an answer to any of them.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Larry Tapper
Sam,
I don't have a copy of the Nunn article cited by Taylor, so I don't
know which specific mistakes Nunn had in mind when he wrote that Anand
had made "elementary
errors far worse than any committed by Keres in ... 1948 ... and
nobody seriously suggests that Anand deliberately lost". If it is
important to you, I could leaf through the match book and try to
figure out what Nunn might have been referring to. Or perhaps some
rgcp reader can dig up the article (ICE, 1997).
Of course it would also be relevant to compare Keres' errors with
other famous blunders in high-level matches: some examples I can think
of are Karpov vs. Kasparov, Bronstein vs. Botvinnik, and Korchnoi vs.
Spassky.
I'm not sure what you mean to be asking here. Are you suggesting that
no blunders by top GMs are comparable to Keres' in 1948? Not even
Evans claims this: on the contrary, he claims that Keres' mistakes
were subtle enough not to raise immediate suspicion.
Larry
Petrel
<20020218114020...@mb-fl.news.cs.com>...
>Or do we? The rest of Botvinnik’s statement clouds the picture: "But of
>course I refused! It was an intrigue against me, to belittle me. A
ridiculous
>proposal, only made to put down the future World Champion.
[...]
> Rejecting a suggestion by Krylenko is perhaps conceivable, but
>refusing orders from Stalin himself? Hard to believe. In most areas of
policy
>Stalin was no more flexible than Hitler, and at least as brutal. Was chess
so
>different, or Botvinnik so privileged?
>
>So do we accept Botvinnik 100%? [..]Clearly it is at very least another
>confirmation of the basic thesis of official pro-Botvinnik pressure.
Coupled
>with Whyld’s testimony, it shows, at a minimum, that there was an
officially
>desired outcome, and both Keres and Botvinnik knew what it was.
Here is something else which it shows, though:
Botvinnik, who lived during the Stalin era, believes that an audience of
Russians (including others who lived during the Stalin era, and their
children) WILL BELIEVE IT POSSIBLE that he, Botvinnik, refused this
"proposal".
Larry, you have argued more than once that the idea that any Russian would
really refuse "orders from Stalin" is just untenable; that no one ever did
it and lived; that everyone knew that it was certain death; that no
chessplayer would ever have done it; and that anyone who thinks that it was
possible just doesn't know what the Stalin era was like. [Feel free to
correct nuances in this argument which I attribute to you.] But if all that
were as true as you say, wouldn't Russians know it? Wouldn't Botvinnik know
that other Russians know it? Wouldn't he think to himself, "No, if I say
that I refused a proposal from Stalin, people will laugh at me."
And since Botvinnik DOES claim it, doesn't it suggest that the argument that
"nobody ever refused Stalin" isn't as watertight as you suggest? Mightn't
the possibilities of "refusing Stalin" depend on a number of factors - of th
e situation (Does Stalin need Botvinnik alive to be the world champion?),
how it comes out (If Botvinnik wins the championship honestly anyway, won't
Stalin be somewhat mollified?), the explicitness of the 'proposal' on a
continuum from "orders" to "just a thought", the directness of the
'proposal' (from Stalin's own lips in a well-guarded room in the Kremlin?
Or a chess official saying "this is what Stalin would like"?), and so on.
p>
li...@orc.net
> The games from the 1995 PCA exhibition...featuring the Dragon Sicilian...were
> not exactly the stuff of legend.
Anyone remember how Fischer lost his queen in one of the 1972 games?
Larry Tapper
> Here is something else which it shows, though:
>
> Botvinnik, who lived during the Stalin era, believes that an audience of
> Russians (including others who lived during the Stalin era, and their
> children) WILL BELIEVE IT POSSIBLE that he, Botvinnik, refused this
> "proposal".
>
> really refuse "orders from Stalin" is just untenable; that no one ever did
> it and lived; that everyone knew that it was certain death; that no
> chessplayer would ever have done it; and that anyone who thinks that it was
> possible just doesn't know what the Stalin era was like. [Feel free to
> correct nuances in this argument which I attribute to you.] But if all that
> were as true as you say, wouldn't Russians know it? Wouldn't Botvinnik know
> that other Russians know it? Wouldn't he think to himself, "No, if I say
> that I refused a proposal from Stalin, people will laugh at me."
>
> And since Botvinnik DOES claim it, doesn't it suggest that the argument that
> "nobody ever refused Stalin" isn't as watertight as you suggest? Mightn't
> the possibilities of "refusing Stalin" depend on a number of factors - of th
> e situation (Does Stalin need Botvinnik alive to be the world champion?),
> how it comes out (If Botvinnik wins the championship honestly anyway, won't
> Stalin be somewhat mollified?), the explicitness of the 'proposal' on a
> continuum from "orders" to "just a thought", the directness of the
> 'proposal' (from Stalin's own lips in a well-guarded room in the Kremlin?
> Or a chess official saying "this is what Stalin would like"?), and so on.
>
> p>
Not only that, here Petrel is focusing on Botvinnik's angle, and it
is, after all, Keres who is alleged to have thrown the games. Keres'
testimony, as recalled by Whyld (with appropriately cautious
disclaimers to boot) was:
"Keres told me in private, when he was my guest in
Nottingham, that he was not ordered to lose those games to Botvinnik,
and was
not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that
if
Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault of
Keres."
So Keres denies he was playing to lose, and Parr and Evans take the
wording of the denial to provide strong evidence that Keres is lying
and, in fact, played to lose. I see their point, but honestly, is this
bit of Orwellian reasoning what anyone would normally call a "smoking
gun"? For one thing, I can't fathom why, given this meager evidence,
the obvious alternative theory shouldn't be at least equally plausible
--- Keres was so distracted by political pressure that he simply
played badly.
Larry Tapper
Sam Sloan
Sure. Everybody knows that. Spassky had a brilliant idea of retreating
his knight by Nb1 in the Poison Pawn Variation.
It was later proven that Spassky's idea did not work, but it was good
enough to knotch a victory over Fischer.
Sam Sloan
Neil Brennen
> sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<3c714ab4...@ca.news.verio.net>...
> > On 18 Feb 2002 07:02:54 -0800, larry_...@yahoo.com (Larry Tapper)
> > wrote:
> > >In his original article, Kingston Taylor mentioned some skeptical
> > >remarks in a 1997 article by GM Nunn, who noted that Anand had made
> > >worse mistakes in his 1995 match vs. Kasparov. And of course nobody
> > >suspects that Anand threw any games.
> >
> > Name one game or one move by Anand that was worse.
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Sam,
> I don't have a copy of the Nunn article cited by Taylor, so I don't
> know which specific mistakes Nunn had in mind when he wrote that Anand
> had made "elementary
> errors far worse than any committed by Keres in ... 1948 ... and
> nobody seriously suggests that Anand deliberately lost". If it is
> important to you, I could leaf through the match book and try to
> figure out what Nunn might have been referring to. Or perhaps some
> rgcp reader can dig up the article (ICE, 1997).
I think the quote in question comes from the introduction by John Nunn
to the second volume of Keres' best games. This excellent book is
available from my favorite on-line chess bookstore, the Chess Cafe.
They have an excellent Bulletin Board, as well.
> Of course it would also be relevant to compare Keres' errors with
> other famous blunders in high-level matches: some examples I can think
> of are Karpov vs. Kasparov, Bronstein vs. Botvinnik, and Korchnoi vs.
> Spassky.
Fischer vs Spassky, I and II.
Neil Brennen
Phil Innes
decided to reprint my first list of questions:-
> I have several points to make on these subjects:-
>
> 1) Korchnoi ALSO spoke of widespead corruption in the West. Why is this
> never cited by Larry Evans?
as Larry Parr might put it, a deafening silence ensued [pun intended]
> 2) If Krylenko had approached Botvinnik with a plan to unfairly promote
> Botvinnik's interests, what would constitute "complicity" by Botvinnik?
> Saying "nyet" yet not saying anything else? The corrolary is the effect of
> pressure on Keres [could he also have said 'nyet!'?] but lost to Botvinnik
> because the absense of ex-cathedra support plus official menace achieved a
> pyschological effect on his play?
I note that another poster noted that the pyschological pressures alone
could have had an untoward effect on Keres. But the question remains
unanswered. Larry Evans claims he can find evidence in the games themselves,
evidence that Nunn and Seirawan cannot find. This is a complex area for
speculation because I would grant GM Evans' years at chess with a greater
wherewithall than the two youngsters. However, even if Larry Evans is
correct, what is the attribution? Pressure or deliberation?
> 3) From the games themselves, what GMs support Larry Evans who suggests
> there is /implicit/ evidence of thrown games?
No new information.
> 4) Will Chesscafe allow any views to be expressed other than those
favoured
> by its own columnists, or that reference their views? Chesscafe seems to
> experience difficulty in differentiating the partisan journalism of those
it
> publishes with anything more robust that can be considered history.
ChessCafe have refused to publish my letter, which is their right. However,
their policy in not allowing critical comments on themselves and their own
columnists seems to be proved, as Larry Parr has pointed out.
It must be also be said that ChessLive practices the same procedure, and
ChessLife have not denied that they refused to print a brief correction of
fact by Taylor Kingston; brief, but pointedly making correction to
mis-quotations of his views. As if USCF were not in enough trouble without
knowingly allowing further libel in its pages!
> 5) That there may be other views to those expressed principally by
> Evans/Winter does not necessarily detract from either of their work.
> Lionising either of them does reduce both their researches into partisan
> journalism, albeit however successful this journalism is in making the
> subject of interest, but which neither writer should consider they have
> represented themselves in making a sufficiency of contribution to chess
> history.
And there is little interest in exploring the subject of these 'other views'
in a partisan fight, the truth, or a full perspective on the issues, being
an early casualty. As usual the denigrating distractions have nothing to do
with the subject, but revolve around the person, quasi-anonymous persons,
and so on.
Such a school-for-scandal! un princesse jejeune!
> I will post this article at rec.games.chess.misc
> and offer it to both Chess Life and Chesscafe.
Now, if either of these forums actually intend to debate or fairly explore
the issues, let us ensure that there are independent arbiters to it.
Phil Innes
> Cordially, Phil Innes
>
>
>
>
>
>
j...@watson.ibm.com
on Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:26:07 -0600,
"Petrel" <pet...@enteract.com> writes:
<snip>
>Here is something else which it shows, though:
>Botvinnik, who lived during the Stalin era, believes that an audience of
>Russians (including others who lived during the Stalin era, and their
>children) WILL BELIEVE IT POSSIBLE that he, Botvinnik, refused this
>"proposal".
This is unconvincing. By the same logic Botvinnik believes
an audience of Russians will buy his claim that the whole affair
was actually a plot to devalue his title. This seems unlikely.
In fact it was obviously in Botvinnik's best interest to
avoid the subject altogether. Botvinnik's actions are those of a man
with a guilty conscience ("The guilty flee where no man pursueth").
Then the issue is what was Botvinnik capable of believing. Could
Botvinnik, while knowing full well at the time that he had not won his
title in a fair contest, have gradually convinced himself over the
years that he was the target rather than the beneficiary of a plot?
This seems more plausible.
James B. Shearer
Silversneak
>This seems more plausible.
> James B. Shearer
JAMES "MY MIDDLE NAME IS BULLSHIT" BSHEARER IS BACK!!!!
Edward Spring.
avarnik
by Harold Dondis and Patrick Wolff, Dondis got his fingers
crossed (apparently undecided whether to type that "Keres was ordered
not to win against Botvinnik" or that "Keres was ordered to lose against
Botvinnik") and came out with this beauty:
" ... Some, including columnist Larry Evans, have claimed that Keres
was ordered not to lose [sic!] to Bovinnik, the Soviet Union's favorite.
... "
Didn't see a correction this morning, but I'm sure that LP will get it
straightened out.