| |
Main
Date: 23 Dec 2007 19:38:16
From: EJAY
Subject: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
I have always wondered why Smyslov (and perhaps Tal also) as World
Champions did not get the right to a rematch?What was the motive/
rational for Botvinnik's right to rematches when all others had to go
back to the Candidates cycle?It just seemed so unfair that Smyslov had
to win Two Candidates tourneys and to lose the Title after only one
year must have been a discouragement.I have always felt Vassily was
the strongest player of the 1950's decade.
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 16:02:43
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
On Dec 24, 8:20 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 10:43 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > THE BOBBY FISCHER THAT WE LOVED
>
> > By GM Larry Evans
>
> > From Britain's CHESS (December 2007)
>
> > <Reshevsky got special treatment because of his religion. I suspect
> > it's ONE OF THE REASONS [emphasis mine] Bobby joined the Worldwide
> > Church of God in 1962 to get his own Sabbath which didn't permit him
> > to play chess until after sundown on Saturday either.> -- GM Evans
>
> Thank you, Larry. Nice to see a quick, straightforward, to-the-point
> answer from you.
Larry's answer was incomplete but your irony is misplaced,
when the formulation of your question has introduced
certain confusion. Life is not simple, the situations
are dynamic. What, for long years, was a disadvantage
for Reshevsky had became a gimmick and one more
power and psychological game for Fischer.
We can only speculate why Fischer had joined "WC of God".
But the result is something else, the effect was something
objective. Fischer used his WCofGod membership to have
one more pretext to impose his will on the chess world. It
did give him a psychological edge in his games. Petrosian
was right about it (in general context, not just of WofGod).
Regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 15:58:01
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 165)
USA vs. USSR 1955
At the height of the Cold War, I played on an American team that went
to Moscow and wrote about it for Newsday, a Long Island newspaper.
Travel with me down memory lane, behind the Iron Curtain.
The Chess Match
This 8-board match was held in the Hall of Columns where the infamous
purge trials took place and where the bodies of Lenin and Stalin lie
in state. Each day capacity audiences flooded the building and, after
the games, autograph hunters rushed onstage to seek us out.
In the USSR chess is the national game. It is taught in school and
looked upon as an art form rather than as mere recreation. Chess
masters are subsidized by the state to the extent of 2,000 roubles
($100) a month while grandmasters receive 2,500
roubles ($125) a month for doing nothing but studying chess. In
addition, these players accumulate the equivalent of a small fortune
by giving lectures and exhibitions, writing articles and winning prize
money in international competition.
We lost by a final score of 25-7, while last year in New York we lost
20-12 and we have no excuse to offer other than Soviet grandmasters
are the finest players in the world. Our players receive no
governmental assistance and compete during our
leisure time or at the expense of our jobs. Probably the reason for
our poor showing is the lack of first-class competition in the United
States and the fact that most of our players are not professionals.
The Soviets use chess as a weapon to demonstrate the superiority of
their culture, hence the great pains taken to develop and maintain
talented players. For propaganda purposes, they try to prove the
thesis that our commercial economy has no place for non-commercial
artists. I can appreciate this argument to some degree. Of course, I
feel there are equally cogent arguments against state-supported art
where artists must toe the k or be purged.
The Soviets themselves are very touchy on this point. They go out of
their way to avoid admitting that their team consists almost entirely
of professional chess masters. World champion Mikhail Botvinnik is an
electrical engineer and several other players on their team also claim
outside professions.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
> On Dec 24, 10:42 am, EZoto <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >Soviets wanted to keep Western prizes away from their players--
> >
> > Can you imagine Smyslov allowed to go to the west in his prime? He
> > probably wouldn't lose a game for years to anyone, and win every
> > prize.
> >
> > EZoto
>
> By prize I meant money. Top Soviet chess players,
> like others favoites of the Soviet system, enjoyed
> a realtively high standard of living (relatively to the rest
> of the population), but they did not have any security.
> They, and thir family was still dependent for their
> well-being on the state.
>
> Soviets didn't want to have too many chess players (or
> scientists, or artists,...) visiting West because once
> again, as a general policy, they wanted to keep their
> population unaware and ignorant of the **general** high
> level of living in the West. And when Soviets did visit
> the West, an effort was made to keep themn there
> as isolated as possible.
>
> The general Soviet block perception of the West was that
> yes, there are a few rich guys at the expense of the poor
> and insecure working population. The folks in the Soviet
> block were made to believe that in the Soviet block you
> had job for sure (from government; the claim was that
> there is no unemployemnet and joblessness under the
> communism system). Under the communism system you
> had free medical care, free education, cheap apartments,
> cheap food, etc. while in the West you had to pay for
> everything a lot, and there was the insecurity of losing your
> job. In reality, the medical care was on a horribly low level,
> there were not enough of hospital beds, and hospitals were
> in bad shape in the first place, it was hard to get your child
> admitted to a kindergarten, ... To get anything a bit faster
> and sensible you had to pay under the counter, etc etc.
> However, people didn't all that, they were fed propaganda.
> For propaganda, to be effective, you couldn't allow hundreds
> of youngsters coming back from the West with their stories
> about the Westerns high standards of living, which included
> western workers etc.
>
> After WWII the Soviet war prisoners, who were supposed
> to come back home were treated by Stalin as follows: officers
> were shot; simple soldiers were sent to Siberia; a ship (or
> was it more than one?) with coming war ex-prisoners was
> drown. -- The reason: the living conditions of Soviet prisoners
> working in Germany for a German bauer (farmer) as slaves
> were much better than those of farmers living and working in
> the USSR, say in kolhozes/sovhozes (governmental collective
> farms). It was vital for the Soviet regime to keep their
> population ignorant about West. Also, mainland Chinese
> for years didn't know about American landing on the Moon!!!
>
> Wlod
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 15:40:19
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
On Dec 24, 10:42 am, EZoto <[email protected] > wrote:
> >Soviets wanted to keep Western prizes away from their players--
>
> Can you imagine Smyslov allowed to go to the west in his prime? He
> probably wouldn't lose a game for years to anyone, and win every
> prize.
>
> EZoto
By prize I meant money. Top Soviet chess players,
like others favoites of the Soviet system, enjoyed
a realtively high standard of living (relatively to the rest
of the population), but they did not have any security.
They, and thir family was still dependent for their
well-being on the state.
Soviets didn't want to have too many chess players (or
scientists, or artists,...) visiting West because once
again, as a general policy, they wanted to keep their
population unaware and ignorant of the **general** high
level of living in the West. And when Soviets did visit
the West, an effort was made to keep themn there
as isolated as possible.
The general Soviet block perception of the West was that
yes, there are a few rich guys at the expense of the poor
and insecure working population. The folks in the Soviet
block were made to believe that in the Soviet block you
had job for sure (from government; the claim was that
there is no unemployemnet and joblessness under the
communism system). Under the communism system you
had free medical care, free education, cheap apartments,
cheap food, etc. while in the West you had to pay for
everything a lot, and there was the insecurity of losing your
job. In reality, the medical care was on a horribly low level,
there were not enough of hospital beds, and hospitals were
in bad shape in the first place, it was hard to get your child
admitted to a kindergarten, ... To get anything a bit faster
and sensible you had to pay under the counter, etc etc.
However, people didn't all that, they were fed propaganda.
For propaganda, to be effective, you couldn't allow hundreds
of youngsters coming back from the West with their stories
about the Westerns high standards of living, which included
western workers etc.
After WWII the Soviet war prisoners, who were supposed
to come back home were treated by Stalin as follows: officers
were shot; simple soldiers were sent to Siberia; a ship (or
was it more than one?) with coming war ex-prisoners was
drown. -- The reason: the living conditions of Soviet prisoners
working in Germany for a German bauer (farmer) as slaves
were much better than those of farmers living and working in
the USSR, say in kolhozes/sovhozes (governmental collective
farms). It was vital for the Soviet regime to keep their
population ignorant about West. Also, mainland Chinese
for years didn't know about American landing on the Moon!!!
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 12:00:33
From: Jagadish
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
On Dec 24, 11:42=A0pm, EZoto <[email protected] > wrote:
> >Soviets wanted to keep Western prizes away from their players--
>
> Can you imagine Smyslov allowed to go to the west in his prime? =A0He
> probably wouldn't lose a game for years to anyone, and win every
> prize.
>
> EZoto
--------------------------------------------------------
It was a very well known fact that Botvinnik was very shrewd at the
board and off it. All the arrangements had to be to his liking or he'd
push for it. He was known to be a nervous type who believed in
preparation more than over the board wizardry. But come on, he's
human, there's nothing wrong in trying to keep a crown. Everyone did
it before him. In fact he was a lesser sinner than many world champs
before him.
In fact, Botvinnik was an all or nothing kinda guy. Eventually gave up
his crown when his conditions were unlikely to be met. Many modern
grandmasters rue the period when Botvinnik ruled. If Bronstein was
world champ that many number of years, chess would have been a very
different game they say !
------------------------------------------------------
Editor
www.imchess.com
"The best way to enjoy chess is to know that there is always or will
always be someone better than you, maybe a computer."
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 08:20:09
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
On Dec 24, 10:43=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THE BOBBY FISCHER THAT WE LOVED
>
> By GM Larry Evans
>
> From Britain's CHESS (December 2007)
>
> <Reshevsky got special treatment because of his religion. I suspect
> it's ONE OF THE REASONS [emphasis mine] =A0Bobby joined the Worldwide
> Church of God in 1962 to get his own Sabbath which didn't permit him
> to play chess until after sundown on Saturday either.> -- GM Evans
>
Thank you, Larry. Nice to see a quick, straightforward, to-the-point
answer from you.
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 07:43:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
THE BOBBY FISCHER THAT WE LOVED
By GM Larry Evans
From Britain's CHESS (December 2007)
<Reshevsky got special treatment because of his religion. I suspect
it's ONE OF THE REASONS [emphasis mine] Bobby joined the Worldwide
Church of God in 1962 to get his own Sabbath which didn't permit him
to play chess until after sundown on Saturday either. > -- GM Evans
"Is Evans saying that a major motivation for Fischer's joining the
Worldwide Church of God was
to gain the same Sabbath privileges as Reshevsky? That Fischer did not
join out of sincere religious belief, but to gain a chess advantage?"
-- T. Kingston
What chess advantage? Not playing on the Sabbath was a handicap for
Reshevsky who lost invitations to some lucrative tournaments because
it created scheduling problems for the organizers.
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Dec 24, 10:02?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > NEVER ON SUNDAY
> >
> > THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 24)
> >
> > Samuel Reshevsky, an orthodox Jew, never played on his Sabbath. He was
> > America's greatest star for decades, the touchstone against which my
> > generation measured its progress. Art Bisguier said that we would all
> > beat him in a few more years when he got old. Meanwhile we got old
> > waiting for him to get old.
> >
> > Not to be outdone by Sammy, Bobby Fischer joined the Church of God in
> > California and demanded the same Sabbath as his archrival.
>
> This carries an interesting implication. Is Evans saying that a
> major motivation for Fischer's joining the Worldwide Church of God was
> to gain the same Sabbath privileges as Reshevsky? That Fischer did not
> join out of sincere religious belief, but to gain a chess advantage?
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 07:15:11
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
On Dec 24, 10:02=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> NEVER ON SUNDAY
>
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 24)
>
> Samuel Reshevsky, an orthodox Jew, never played on his Sabbath. He was
> America's greatest star for decades, the touchstone against which my
> generation measured its progress. Art Bisguier said that we would all
> beat him in a few more years when he got old. Meanwhile we got old
> waiting for him to get old.
>
> Not to be outdone by Sammy, Bobby Fischer joined the Church of God in
> California and demanded the same Sabbath as his archrival.
This carries an interesting implication. Is Evans saying that a
major motivation for Fischer's joining the Worldwide Church of God was
to gain the same Sabbath privileges as Reshevsky? That Fischer did not
join out of sincere religious belief, but to gain a chess advantage?
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 07:02:09
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
NEVER ON SUNDAY
<Averbakh: Folke Rogard, who was then president of FIDE, was trying
to be extremely neutral between West and East. For instance,
when our federation asked that Tal, after winning the Soviet
championship, be given the title of grandmaster, he immediately gave
also the grandmaster title to the champion of the USA, Bisguier. Just
to make things even. > -- T. Kingston
I believe that Larry Evans was also awarded the GM title along with
Bisguier. It's true that Folke Rogard always had to negotiate a
delicate balancing act. One of his most difficult problems arose at
the Olympiad in Havana 1966. GM Evans mentions this fracas in his
memoirs.
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 24)
Samuel Reshevsky, an orthodox Jew, never played on his Sabbath. He was
America's greatest star for decades, the touchstone against which my
generation measured its progress. Art Bisguier said that we would all
beat him in a few more years when he got old. Meanwhile we got old
waiting for him to get old.
Not to be outdone by Sammy, Bobby Fischer joined the Church of God in
California and demanded the same Sabbath as his archrival. There was
bad blood between them ever since Bobby forfeited their unfinished
match in 1961 over a scheduling dispute with the score tied after 11
games.
Another fracas occurred in 1966 at the Seventeenth Chess Olympiad in
Havana when the USSR was paired with the USA at 4 p.m. on a Saturday.
The organizers had pledged to respect Fischer's holy day, but world
champion Tigran Petrosian wouldn't delay the start of his game on
first board for two hours until after sundown. Our team arrived at 6
p.m. to discover the Russians had already been awarded a 4-0 forfeit.
Their manager treated our captain to a lengthy, irrelevant anti-
American harangue. Why must the whole world pamper this spoiled brat
who accused the Russians of
cheating? The incident made international headlines.
Four days later arbiters from six nations urged Russia to reschedule
the match in view of the fact that other teams had accommodated
Fischer. Yet it took another five days, after checking with the
Kremlin, for Russia to back down. This decision was promptly hailed by
Castro's newspapers as "a noble gesture."
Russia replaced the cautious Petrosian with Boris Spassky "for
tactical reasons." The reason for resting Petrosian became clear when
he won the gold medal on top board with 88.46 percent vs. Fischer's
88.23 percent. Fischer faced tougher opposition and played four more
games.
If he had drawn with Petrosian, then Fischer would have captured the
gold. Our team did well by finishing second behind the USSR among 52
nations. Russia won our match 2 1/2-1 1/2. I drew with Lev Polugaievsky and
Pal Benko drew with Leonid Stein, but Mikhail Tal beat Robert Byrne.
Fischer, alas, with plenty of time at his disposal, missed a win
against Spassky with 36 Bxe5!
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Dec 24, 5:37 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 275)
> >
> > Botvinnik won a rigged event in 1948 and then got draw odds in 24-game
> > matches plus a guaranteed rematch if he lost!
>
> Just for the sake of full clarity and accuracy, it should be noted
> that the rematch rule did not go into effect until 1956. Had Botvinnik
> lost to Bronstein in 1951 or to Smyslov in 1954, he would not have
> been allowed a one-on-one rematch a year later. This matter was
> discussed by Yuri Averbakh in a 2002 interview (www.chesscafe.com/text/
> skittles183.pdf):
>
> YA: In 1956 he [Botvinnik] instigated a new rule change. In 1956,
> after his match with Bronstein [in 1951], and after his match with
> Smyslov [in 1954], he got the possibility of playing a rematch. Why?
> He could not win the first match, nor the second. In 1956, the
> Olympiad was held in Moscow, and our federation was represented in
> FIDE by Ragozin, who was a personal friend of Botvinnik, and by Mr.
> Abramov, chief of the chess department of the sport committee, and
> also a friend of Botvinnik. And in 1956, before Botvinnik began his
> second
> match with Smyslov, FIDE gave him the right to a return match. It was
> completely unfair.
>
> TK: I thought the rematch rule had been on the FIDE books since ...
>
> YA: No, no, no. What had been in the FIDE rules was this: in the event
> the champion lost the match, they could organize a triangular match-
> tournament, with the old champion, the new champion, and a new
> challenger. But not a return match. In the initial proposals to FIDE
> by Botvinnik, there was nothing about a return match. You can see it,
> written in black and white.
>
> > EJAY wrote:
> > > I have always wondered why Smyslov (and perhaps Tal also) as World
> > > Champions did not get the right to a rematch?What was the motive/
> > > rational for Botvinnik's right to rematches when all others had to go
> > > back to the Candidates cycle?It just seemed so unfair ...
>
> Averbakh quite agrees with you. To quote the interview again:
>
> TK: So what prompted FIDE to give [Botvinnik] that right?
>
> YA: I will explain. Folke Rogard, who was then president of FIDE, was
> trying to be extremely neutral between West and East. For instance,
> when our federation asked that Tal, after winning the Soviet
> championship, be given the title of grandmaster, he immediately gave
> also the grandmaster title to the champion of the USA, Bisguier. Just
> to make things even. Anyway, Rogard felt at that time that because we
> had so many strong grandmasters, the question of a rematch was a
> question for our federation. What finally happened, was that in the
> same FIDE congress that gave Botvinnik the right to a rematch, there
> was also a decision about the maximum number of players from one
> country who could be admitted to the Candidates Tournament. And
> really, you know, in chess we have an expression "a double blow": on
> one hand Botvinnik got the benefit of a return match, and on the other
> the decision about the number of candidates was a blow against his
> opponents from our country!
>
> TK: Yes, because it limited the number he had to prepare for. This is
> a point Bronstein made in The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
>
> YA: Bronstein suffered from it, as did Leonid Stein. He twice suffered
> from this. He twice qualified, but it came to nothing. By the way,
> both Bronstein and I suffered from it at the Portoroz tournament [the
> 1958 Interzonal], because to qualify we had to have at least 1 1/2 points
> more than any foreign master. Because at that time we had four
> Russians: Tal, Petrosian, Bronstein and myself, and from the start
> only two of us could qualify, because Keres and Smyslov had already
> the right to play in the Candidates Tournament. And so this decision
> really worked against us.
>
> TK: And you feel that Botvinnik was behind this, had deliberately
> engineered it?
>
> YA: I believe so. Or at least, his friends organized it for him. But
> because I know Botvinnik, I believe he organized it himself.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 17:33:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
fascinating anecdotes, and context. thanks for sharing them. phil innes
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> NEVER ON SUNDAY
>
> <Averbakh: Folke Rogard, who was then president of FIDE, was trying
> to be extremely neutral between West and East. For instance,
> when our federation asked that Tal, after winning the Soviet
> championship, be given the title of grandmaster, he immediately gave
> also the grandmaster title to the champion of the USA, Bisguier. Just
> to make things even.> -- T. Kingston
>
> I believe that Larry Evans was also awarded the GM title along with
> Bisguier. It's true that Folke Rogard always had to negotiate a
> delicate balancing act. One of his most difficult problems arose at
> the Olympiad in Havana 1966. GM Evans mentions this fracas in his
> memoirs.
>
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 24)
>
> Samuel Reshevsky, an orthodox Jew, never played on his Sabbath. He was
> America's greatest star for decades, the touchstone against which my
> generation measured its progress. Art Bisguier said that we would all
> beat him in a few more years when he got old. Meanwhile we got old
> waiting for him to get old.
>
> Not to be outdone by Sammy, Bobby Fischer joined the Church of God in
> California and demanded the same Sabbath as his archrival. There was
> bad blood between them ever since Bobby forfeited their unfinished
> match in 1961 over a scheduling dispute with the score tied after 11
> games.
>
> Another fracas occurred in 1966 at the Seventeenth Chess Olympiad in
> Havana when the USSR was paired with the USA at 4 p.m. on a Saturday.
> The organizers had pledged to respect Fischer's holy day, but world
> champion Tigran Petrosian wouldn't delay the start of his game on
> first board for two hours until after sundown. Our team arrived at 6
> p.m. to discover the Russians had already been awarded a 4-0 forfeit.
>
> Their manager treated our captain to a lengthy, irrelevant anti-
> American harangue. Why must the whole world pamper this spoiled brat
> who accused the Russians of
> cheating? The incident made international headlines.
>
> Four days later arbiters from six nations urged Russia to reschedule
> the match in view of the fact that other teams had accommodated
> Fischer. Yet it took another five days, after checking with the
> Kremlin, for Russia to back down. This decision was promptly hailed by
> Castro's newspapers as "a noble gesture."
>
> Russia replaced the cautious Petrosian with Boris Spassky "for
> tactical reasons." The reason for resting Petrosian became clear when
> he won the gold medal on top board with 88.46 percent vs. Fischer's
> 88.23 percent. Fischer faced tougher opposition and played four more
> games.
>
> If he had drawn with Petrosian, then Fischer would have captured the
> gold. Our team did well by finishing second behind the USSR among 52
> nations. Russia won our match 2 1/2-1 1/2. I drew with Lev Polugaievsky
> and
> Pal Benko drew with Leonid Stein, but Mikhail Tal beat Robert Byrne.
> Fischer, alas, with plenty of time at his disposal, missed a win
> against Spassky with 36 Bxe5!
>
>
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 5:37 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 275)
>> >
>> > Botvinnik won a rigged event in 1948 and then got draw odds in 24-game
>> > matches plus a guaranteed rematch if he lost!
>>
>> Just for the sake of full clarity and accuracy, it should be noted
>> that the rematch rule did not go into effect until 1956. Had Botvinnik
>> lost to Bronstein in 1951 or to Smyslov in 1954, he would not have
>> been allowed a one-on-one rematch a year later. This matter was
>> discussed by Yuri Averbakh in a 2002 interview (www.chesscafe.com/text/
>> skittles183.pdf):
>>
>> YA: In 1956 he [Botvinnik] instigated a new rule change. In 1956,
>> after his match with Bronstein [in 1951], and after his match with
>> Smyslov [in 1954], he got the possibility of playing a rematch. Why?
>> He could not win the first match, nor the second. In 1956, the
>> Olympiad was held in Moscow, and our federation was represented in
>> FIDE by Ragozin, who was a personal friend of Botvinnik, and by Mr.
>> Abramov, chief of the chess department of the sport committee, and
>> also a friend of Botvinnik. And in 1956, before Botvinnik began his
>> second
>> match with Smyslov, FIDE gave him the right to a return match. It was
>> completely unfair.
>>
>> TK: I thought the rematch rule had been on the FIDE books since ...
>>
>> YA: No, no, no. What had been in the FIDE rules was this: in the event
>> the champion lost the match, they could organize a triangular match-
>> tournament, with the old champion, the new champion, and a new
>> challenger. But not a return match. In the initial proposals to FIDE
>> by Botvinnik, there was nothing about a return match. You can see it,
>> written in black and white.
>>
>> > EJAY wrote:
>> > > I have always wondered why Smyslov (and perhaps Tal also) as World
>> > > Champions did not get the right to a rematch?What was the motive/
>> > > rational for Botvinnik's right to rematches when all others had to go
>> > > back to the Candidates cycle?It just seemed so unfair ...
>>
>> Averbakh quite agrees with you. To quote the interview again:
>>
>> TK: So what prompted FIDE to give [Botvinnik] that right?
>>
>> YA: I will explain. Folke Rogard, who was then president of FIDE, was
>> trying to be extremely neutral between West and East. For instance,
>> when our federation asked that Tal, after winning the Soviet
>> championship, be given the title of grandmaster, he immediately gave
>> also the grandmaster title to the champion of the USA, Bisguier. Just
>> to make things even. Anyway, Rogard felt at that time that because we
>> had so many strong grandmasters, the question of a rematch was a
>> question for our federation. What finally happened, was that in the
>> same FIDE congress that gave Botvinnik the right to a rematch, there
>> was also a decision about the maximum number of players from one
>> country who could be admitted to the Candidates Tournament. And
>> really, you know, in chess we have an expression "a double blow": on
>> one hand Botvinnik got the benefit of a return match, and on the other
>> the decision about the number of candidates was a blow against his
>> opponents from our country!
>>
>> TK: Yes, because it limited the number he had to prepare for. This is
>> a point Bronstein made in The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
>>
>> YA: Bronstein suffered from it, as did Leonid Stein. He twice suffered
>> from this. He twice qualified, but it came to nothing. By the way,
>> both Bronstein and I suffered from it at the Portoroz tournament [the
>> 1958 Interzonal], because to qualify we had to have at least 1 1/2 points
>> more than any foreign master. Because at that time we had four
>> Russians: Tal, Petrosian, Bronstein and myself, and from the start
>> only two of us could qualify, because Keres and Smyslov had already
>> the right to play in the Candidates Tournament. And so this decision
>> really worked against us.
>>
>> TK: And you feel that Botvinnik was behind this, had deliberately
>> engineered it?
>>
>> YA: I believe so. Or at least, his friends organized it for him. But
>> because I know Botvinnik, I believe he organized it himself.
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 06:20:18
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
On Dec 24, 5:37 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 275)
>
> Botvinnik won a rigged event in 1948 and then got draw odds in 24-game
> matches plus a guaranteed rematch if he lost!
Just for the sake of full clarity and accuracy, it should be noted
that the rematch rule did not go into effect until 1956. Had Botvinnik
lost to Bronstein in 1951 or to Smyslov in 1954, he would not have
been allowed a one-on-one rematch a year later. This matter was
discussed by Yuri Averbakh in a 2002 interview (www.chesscafe.com/text/
skittles183.pdf):
YA: In 1956 he [Botvinnik] instigated a new rule change. In 1956,
after his match with Bronstein [in 1951], and after his match with
Smyslov [in 1954], he got the possibility of playing a rematch. Why?
He could not win the first match, nor the second. In 1956, the
Olympiad was held in Moscow, and our federation was represented in
FIDE by Ragozin, who was a personal friend of Botvinnik, and by Mr.
Abramov, chief of the chess department of the sport committee, and
also a friend of Botvinnik. And in 1956, before Botvinnik began his
second
match with Smyslov, FIDE gave him the right to a return match. It was
completely unfair.
TK: I thought the rematch rule had been on the FIDE books since ...
YA: No, no, no. What had been in the FIDE rules was this: in the event
the champion lost the match, they could organize a triangular match-
tournament, with the old champion, the new champion, and a new
challenger. But not a return match. In the initial proposals to FIDE
by Botvinnik, there was nothing about a return match. You can see it,
written in black and white.
> EJAY wrote:
> > I have always wondered why Smyslov (and perhaps Tal also) as World
> > Champions did not get the right to a rematch?What was the motive/
> > rational for Botvinnik's right to rematches when all others had to go
> > back to the Candidates cycle?It just seemed so unfair ...
Averbakh quite agrees with you. To quote the interview again:
TK: So what prompted FIDE to give [Botvinnik] that right?
YA: I will explain. Folke Rogard, who was then president of FIDE, was
trying to be extremely neutral between West and East. For instance,
when our federation asked that Tal, after winning the Soviet
championship, be given the title of grandmaster, he immediately gave
also the grandmaster title to the champion of the USA, Bisguier. Just
to make things even. Anyway, Rogard felt at that time that because we
had so many strong grandmasters, the question of a rematch was a
question for our federation. What finally happened, was that in the
same FIDE congress that gave Botvinnik the right to a rematch, there
was also a decision about the maximum number of players from one
country who could be admitted to the Candidates Tournament. And
really, you know, in chess we have an expression "a double blow": on
one hand Botvinnik got the benefit of a return match, and on the other
the decision about the number of candidates was a blow against his
opponents from our country!
TK: Yes, because it limited the number he had to prepare for. This is
a point Bronstein made in The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
YA: Bronstein suffered from it, as did Leonid Stein. He twice suffered
from this. He twice qualified, but it came to nothing. By the way,
both Bronstein and I suffered from it at the Portoroz tournament [the
1958 Interzonal], because to qualify we had to have at least 1 1/2 points
more than any foreign master. Because at that time we had four
Russians: Tal, Petrosian, Bronstein and myself, and from the start
only two of us could qualify, because Keres and Smyslov had already
the right to play in the Candidates Tournament. And so this decision
really worked against us.
TK: And you feel that Botvinnik was behind this, had deliberately
engineered it?
YA: I believe so. Or at least, his friends organized it for him. But
because I know Botvinnik, I believe he organized it himself.
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 03:57:19
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
On Dec 24, 3:35 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2:37 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 275)
>
> > Since chess was the national game in Russia where stars
> > were subsidized by the state, prize funds were kept low to
> > discourage competitors from the West. Communist supremacy
> > at chess became a propaganda weapon in the Cold War.
>
> I see--the USA, West Germany, British, French, Dutch...
> national chess championships had low prizes because
> of those powerful Soviets.
>
> C'mon, that's a nonsense.
>
> Soviets wanted to keep Western prizes away from their players--
> that much is true. The Soviet government wanted to pocket them
> -- that's also true, but not because of greed.
>
> Two examples will help you to understand the Soviet "thinking".
> Both examples are from Poland under communism.
>
> 1. Americans, in late 1970s, are building a modern hospital for
> children in Krak=F3w (Cracow), Poland. It was a gift (from UN or
> from Polish Americans). In particular, they have plans
> for apartments for doctors on the premises or within the hospital
> complex. But no, they are not allowed to do so.
I forgot to mention that those apartments would be, according
to plans, way above the then communist standards for apts
for workers and whoever. Thus part of the reason behind the refusal
was also related to propaganda -- communists didn't want to
show the general population how well people live in the West.
Nevertheless, to keep people poor was extremely
important to communists. Especially in USSR, but also in Poland,
if you got rich, say 100% by legal and honest means, by being
innovartive and socially useful, you were risking a confiscation
and being jailed. It happened to someone who cheaply bought from
government stores (there were virtually no other stores but
governmental) rotten vegatable or fruit juices in glass containers.
nobody wanted them, and the containers were taking room on the
shelves. The guy bought them en mass, emptied them, washed them,
and sold the clean containers with a nice profit. And for this
socially useful initiative, which also brought him profit, he was
treated like some criminal. The society was so brainwashed in those
days, that the small press note about this case didn't cause any
sensation, people took it in stride, as something understandable
(honest people don't make money, riight?). But to me it showed how
nonsensical the system was. There were more cases like this.
If you made money then you were considered by the system as
dishonest and most likely an enemy.
But to get freebies from the system was ok.
We have a communist echo in the Western large corporations,
where high executives get perks and freebies not available
to the regular employees.
> 2. Americans invited three Polish graduate students, they offered
> them (three) stipends. Polish government says fine, but only if all
> three of them will get just one stipend, one for all three of them.
That was somewhat common (relatively to the small
number of the students who got a Western stipend)
during the late communism (starting in 1970s).
Regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 03:35:50
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
On Dec 24, 2:37 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 275)
>
> Since chess was the national game in Russia where stars
> were subsidized by the state, prize funds were kept low to
> discourage competitors from the West. Communist supremacy
> at chess became a propaganda weapon in the Cold War.
I see--the USA, West Germany, British, French, Dutch...
national chess championships had low prizes because
of those powerful Soviets.
C'mon, that's a nonsense.
Soviets wanted to keep Western prizes away from their players--
that much is true. The Soviet government wanted to pocket them
-- that's also true, but not because of greed.
Two examples will help you to understand the Soviet "thinking".
Both examples are from Poland under communism.
1. Americans, in late 1970s, are building a modern hospital for
children in Krak=F3w (Cracow), Poland. It was a gift (from UN or
from Polish Americans). In particular, they have plans
for apartments for doctors on the premises or within the hospital
complex. But no, they are not allowed to do so.
2. Americans invited three Polish graduate students, they offered
them (three) stipends. Polish government says fine, but only if all
three of them will get just one stipend, one for all three of them.
Do you see the pattern?
If under a regime like communism you had a large number
of people able to survive for one year on their savings then
the system would be gone, period. The system was based on the
fact that people were depended on government for their day to day
existence. Thus as a general rule, everything was done to keep
people insecure materially. If Soviet players collected good prizes,
they would not worry about favors from the government. They
would be bold and independent, they would stop being sovietchiks.
The same about sportsmen, writers, scientists, artists, engineers,
doctors, ...
Regards,
Wlod
|
| | |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 18:42:21
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
>Soviets wanted to keep Western prizes away from their players--
Can you imagine Smyslov allowed to go to the west in his prime? He
probably wouldn't lose a game for years to anyone, and win every
prize.
EZoto
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Dec 2007 19:36:27
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
>>Soviets wanted to keep Western prizes away from their players--
>
> Can you imagine Smyslov allowed to go to the west in his prime? He
> probably wouldn't lose a game for years to anyone, and win every
> prize.
Watching Boris Gulko at the 1987 World Open was a sight to behold: a man who
had been oppressed for so long, in a free country, with $25,000 to be won in
the open section.
Not sure I've ever seen anyone happier to win anything.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 08:54:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Dec 24, 2:37 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 275)
If under a regime like communism you had a large number
of people able to survive for one year on their savings then
the system would be gone, period. The system was based on the
fact that people were depended on government for their day to day
existence. Thus as a general rule, everything was done to keep
people insecure materially. If Soviet players collected good prizes,
they would not worry about favors from the government. They
would be bold and independent, they would stop being sovietchiks.
The same about sportsmen, writers, scientists, artists, engineers,
doctors, ...
Regards,
Wlod
---
I am not sure what Wlod writes [which, BTW, Russian chess people affirm is
true] contradicts what Evans has said, rather than compliments it.
Another sort of prize to all participants is the sinecure of being
maintained as a top chess player, with seconds, students, and so on, and
these things were also at stake as reward for 'going-along' - thus a class
of chess-aparatchiki were formed, and one had to be well established
independently to risk taking individual stance on any issue, even if that
stance affirmed the system - since the act of deciding on any individual or
independent basis was a problem!
Botvinnik was ostensibly independent as an engineer, though his actual
personal work-load might be on the light side? But I think Bronstein
literally had to earn the right to speak his own opinion.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2007 02:37:15
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Botvinnik-Smyslov (Botvinnik's rule)
|
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 275)
The Ties That Bind
In 1935 Alekhine imposed a rematch clause and draw odds with a limit
of 30 games against Euwe, who won narrowly by 15 1/2-14 1/2. Two years later
Alekhine regained the title by 10-4 with 11 draws. His death in 1946
left the title vacant and FIDE stepped in to fill the void. From now
on champions had to defend every three years against a qualified
challenger, but it didn't take long for the Soviets to stack things in
their favor.
Botvinnik won a rigged event in 1948 and then got draw odds in 24-game
matches plus a guaranteed rematch if he lost! Each draw inched him
closer to victory and he held the title on a 12-12 tie in his first
two outings with Bronstein in 1951 and Smyslov in 1954. Since chess
was the national game in Russia where stars were subsidized by the
state, prize funds were kept low to discourage competitors from the
West. Communist supremacy at chess became a propaganda weapon in the
Cold War.
EJAY wrote:
> I have always wondered why Smyslov (and perhaps Tal also) as World
> Champions did not get the right to a rematch?What was the motive/
> rational for Botvinnik's right to rematches when all others had to go
> back to the Candidates cycle?It just seemed so unfair that Smyslov had
> to win Two Candidates tourneys and to lose the Title after only one
> year must have been a discouragement.I have always felt Vassily was
> the strongest player of the 1950's decade.THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 275)
|
|
