|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > October 2005 > Question about holding onto the World Title
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Question about holding onto the World Title
|
|
| The Man Behind The Curtain 2005-09-30, 11:31 pm |
| I'm not sure which newsgroup is the best to ask this question, so I'll
try all of them and see what kind of responses I get.
I have read about how after defeating Capablanca, Alekhine dodged a
rematch with him for the rest of his career, no matter how much Capa
wished for a rematch. Yet in 1975 Bobby Fischer was "forced" to a
rematch with the Soviets (and of course refused to play and forfeited
his title).
My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge
Capa and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just
three years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in
effect in the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as
arbitrary, that one person can have his title so long by maneuvering and
another cannot and has it stripped from him.
Any comment?
John
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
| |
|
| In article <433E01B4.10600@earthblink.net>,
The Man Behind The Curtain <johngrabowski@earthblink.net> wrote:
quote:
> My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge
> Capa and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just
> three years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in
> effect in the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as
> arbitrary, that one person can have his title so long by maneuvering and
> another cannot and has it stripped from him.
FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
won the title.
FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
ducked the most threatening challenger.
Fischer won the title under FIDE's rules, and they therefore had the
power to take it away (although, actually, I don't think they did so. I
think he resigned it.)
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-10-01, 7:32 pm |
|
Ron wrote:
quote:
> In article <433E01B4.10600@earthblink.net>,
> The Man Behind The Curtain <johngrabowski@earthblink.net> wrote:
>
>
> FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
> won the title.
>
> FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
> reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
> ducked the most threatening challenger.
That is correct. Prior to Alekhine's death, the world title was,
essentially, the champion's personal property, which he could risk or
not, at his discretion. The only significant deterrent to resting on
one's laurels indefinitely was public opinion.
Of the five pre-FIDE champions, it could be argued that at least two,
Lasker and Alekhine, evaded legitimate challengers to some extent. Of
course, the situation was complicated by the need for the challenger to
raise funds. The champion could not be expected to risk his title
without adequate payment, so the challenger had to find backers willing
to put up thousands of dollars, hefty sums for the early 20th century.
This obstacle was too much for some talent-rich but cash-poor
challengers, such as Rubinstein and Nimzovitch. On the other hand,
Janowski, whose challenger credentials were not the best, got a title
match because he had a wealthy patron who put up the dough.
When FIDE took over, fund-raising became less of an obstacle, and was
no longer the challenger's responsibility, so title matches could be
put on a regular schedule. Also matters were simplified by the fact
that, with the exception of Fischer, all the champions and challengers
1951-1990 were Soviet citizens, who were paid by the state to play
chess, making outside backing less of an issue.
quote:
> Fischer won the title under FIDE's rules, and they therefore had the
> power to take it away (although, actually, I don't think they did so. I
> think he resigned it.)
Technically, he did resign it, by telegram to FIDE. I suppose if
Fischer had still claimed the title while refusing to play Karpov, some
sort of formal divestiture would have been done.
| |
| parker.rose@hotmail.com 2005-10-01, 7:32 pm |
| With all due respect, Viktor Korchnoi, Karpov's challenger in 1978 and
1981, can hardly be considered a "Soviet citizen" who was paid by the
state. He had defected in 1976 when in Holland for the IBM Tournament.
He would eventually settle in Switzerland.
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-01, 7:32 pm |
|
"Ron" <ronaldinho_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ronaldinho_m-1A816B.23005230092005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> In article <433E01B4.10600@earthblink.net>,
> The Man Behind The Curtain <johngrabowski@earthblink.net> wrote:
>
>
> FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
> won the title.
That's true in terms of W Ch match arrangements, but FIDE did govern chess
rules and rankings, titles &c since its inception.
quote:
> FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
> reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
> ducked the most threatening challenger.
Yes. And because they could. Euwe played a significant part in all this, but
he was but a pawn in the game of the evil Soviets who, as TK has mentioned,
effectively ran world chess on a national basis until the modern [Fischer]
epoch. TK is also correct to point out that Soviet players were allowed to
be professionals, in fact, if not by declaration, by virtue of state
support. The Soviet's didn't care to hear from other countries about the
fundamental fairness of this support.
quote:
> Fischer won the title under FIDE's rules, and they therefore had the
> power to take it away (although, actually, I don't think they did so. I
> think he resigned it.)
I suppose the second world war 'emergency measures' where FIDE took control
of the championship process will continue for better or worse. It is
significant these days that although the title remains the same, the
competition has been very different - essentially all historical match-play
resolutions of the championship have ceased.
A few years ago 3 W Champs, Kasparov, Karpov and Kramnik asked to speak with
FIDE's leader on the future of the championship, but were rebuffed.
Therefore, we seem to have now done away with the 'lottery-Swiss' which
Khalifman won, as well as long match-play events [Kasparov-Karpov matches],
and now determine the title by an invited group of 8 players in round-robin
format.
Whether this is a better means to determine a world champion is open to many
views, but what is less diffident is the type of chess produced.
Cordially, Phil Innes
| |
|
|
The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:
quote:
>I'm not sure which newsgroup is the best to ask this question, so I'll
>try all of them and see what kind of responses I get.
XXXXXXX.
*plonk*
| |
| The Man Behind The Curtain 2005-10-01, 7:32 pm |
| Ron wrote:
quote:
> In article <433E01B4.10600@earthblink.net>,
> The Man Behind The Curtain <johngrabowski@earthblink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
> won the title.
>
> FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
> reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
> ducked the most threatening challenger.
>
> Fischer won the title under FIDE's rules, and they therefore had the
> power to take it away (although, actually, I don't think they did so. I
> think he resigned it.)
Thanks. I thought the answer might be something along those lines.
Along the same lines, how come Tal only had it for one year, then?
John
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
| |
|
| In article <5pw%e.472$Wb3.165@trndny04>,
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote:
quote:
> Therefore, we seem to have now done away with the 'lottery-Swiss' which
> Khalifman won, as well as long match-play events [Kasparov-Karpov matches],
> and now determine the title by an invited group of 8 players in round-robin
> format.
Isn't this what they did after WWII to get the ball rolling again?
I'm hoping the current title goes a long way towards re-legitimizing the
world championship. Seriously - does anybody consider Kasimdzhanov a
legitimate heir to the legacy of Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer, etc...?
Without Kasparov (who was quite possibly bigger than the game) chess is
in desperate need of a legitimate champion. Kramnik was hand-picked by
Kasparov (didn't he actually lose a "qualifying" match?) and therefore
doesn't have much legitimacy in most people's eyes.
(He recent results haven't helped, either.)
Whomever wins this tournament is going to have a pretty darn strong
claim. I wonder if FIDE will be smart enough to go back to match play
afterwards, however.
-Ron
| |
| Chris F.A. Johnson 2005-10-01, 7:32 pm |
| On 2005-10-01, The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:
quote:
> Ron wrote:
>
> Thanks. I thought the answer might be something along those lines.
>
> Along the same lines, how come Tal only had it for one year, then?
As did Smyslov.
The defeated champion had the right to a return match until the
1960s. Petrosian was the first not to have that right.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
==================================================================
Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach
<http://www.torfree.net/~chris/books/cfaj/ssr.html>
| |
| Ari Makela 2005-10-01, 7:32 pm |
| ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.games.chess.computer.]
Follow-ups to rgc.politics. This has nothing to do with analysis or
computers.
On 2005-10-01, Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
>
> As did Smyslov.
Which is rather sad: Smyslov was the strongest player in 50's. He won
two extremely strong candidates tournaments. Not to mention that he
playes very, very beautifylly.
quote:
> The defeated champion had the right to a return match until the
> 1960s. Petrosian was the first not to have that right.
Karpov had that right too for some time.
--
Ari Makela late autumn -
hauva@arska.org a single chair waiting
http://arska.org/hauva/ for someone yet to come
-- Arima Akito
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-01, 7:32 pm |
|
"Ron" <ronaldinho_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ronaldinho_m-7E207A.10343601102005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> In article <5pw%e.472$Wb3.165@trndny04>,
> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> Isn't this what they did after WWII to get the ball rolling again?
yeah, they engaged Alekhine for a match in England but he croaked in the
meantime, then there was no reigning champ to continue the previous system,
except perhaps Euwe, but i must suppose that he no longer thought of himself
as a viable world champion
quote:
> I'm hoping the current title goes a long way towards re-legitimizing the
> world championship. Seriously - does anybody consider Kasimdzhanov a
> legitimate heir to the legacy of Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer, etc...?
I think its the type of game too. Judit just took him apart with a
spectacular attack - and perhaps a number of top players might have
succumbed to it, but there are only so many surprises you can spring on one
player - in match play i think strategy of play is different
quote:
> Without Kasparov (who was quite possibly bigger than the game) chess is
> in desperate need of a legitimate champion. Kramnik was hand-picked by
> Kasparov (didn't he actually lose a "qualifying" match?) and therefore
> doesn't have much legitimacy in most people's eyes.
>
> (He recent results haven't helped, either.)
>
> Whomever wins this tournament is going to have a pretty darn strong
> claim. I wonder if FIDE will be smart enough to go back to match play
> afterwards, however.
I agree - at this stage of affairs, people who show up and battle their way
through at least become champions by virtue of playing chess against most of
the top tier of contemporary players. This is an improvement on the
'lottery-Swiss', and the long-cycle candidates match system seems entirely a
thing of the past.
Phil
quote:
> -Ron
| |
|
| In article <433EC28C.5040802@earthblink.net>,
The Man Behind The Curtain <johngrabowski@earthblink.net> wrote:
quote:
> Thanks. I thought the answer might be something along those lines.
>
> Along the same lines, how come Tal only had it for one year, then?
At the time, FIDE had a "Champions right to a rematch" clause.
Botvinnik didn't have to win a candidates cycle to get a rematch - he
got it automatically.
The later ditched that rule.
| |
|
| In article <sOA%e.4555$DO2.4092@trndny06>,
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote:
quote:
> I agree - at this stage of affairs, people who show up and battle their way
> through at least become champions by virtue of playing chess against most of
> the top tier of contemporary players. This is an improvement on the
> 'lottery-Swiss', and the long-cycle candidates match system seems entirely a
> thing of the past.
With the demise of the Soviet Union, there's much less threat of
collusion in a candidates tournament, so I think we could go back to a
candidates-tournament followed by a championship match type system.
I'd hate to see match play removed from the system entirely.
-Ron
(decrossposted from *computer).
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-01, 7:32 pm |
|
"Ron" <ronaldinho_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ronaldinho_m-5AA80D.12323401102005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> In article <sOA%e.4555$DO2.4092@trndny06>,
> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> With the demise of the Soviet Union, there's much less threat of
> collusion in a candidates tournament, so I think we could go back to a
> candidates-tournament followed by a championship match type system.
>
> I'd hate to see match play removed from the system entirely.
>
> -Ron
I think your sentiment is almost unuiversally held Ron, by people who loved
the quality of that deep one-to-one gladitorial encounter. Alas, there is
insufficient money to host such a series, now that Saddam is gone, and
illicit oil money cannot be laundered somewhat north of Iraq.
Phil
quote:
> (decrossposted from *computer).
| |
| Chris F.A. Johnson 2005-10-01, 7:32 pm |
| On 2005-10-01, Ron wrote:
quote:
>
> I'd hate to see match play removed from the system entirely.
Since the best match player is not necessarily the best tournament
player, perhaps there should be a World Match Champion and a World
Tournament Champion.
Or the world title could go to the player with the highest
performance rating for the year in matches and tournaments of a
high enough class.
Or....?
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
==================================================================
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach, 2005, Apress
<http://www.torfree.net/~chris/books/cfaj/ssr.html>
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-10-02, 7:33 pm |
| On 1 Oct 2005 06:19:00 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
quote:
> When FIDE took over, fund-raising became less of an obstacle, and was
>no longer the challenger's responsibility, so title matches could be
>put on a regular schedule. Also matters were simplified by the fact
>that, with the exception of Fischer, all the champions and challengers
>1951-1990 were Soviet citizens, who were paid by the state to play
>chess, making outside backing less of an issue.
On 1 Oct 2005 06:25:49 -0700, parker.rose@hotmail.com wrote:
quote:
>With all due respect, Viktor Korchnoi, Karpov's challenger in 1978 and
>1981, can hardly be considered a "Soviet citizen" who was paid by the
>state. He had defected in 1976 when in Holland for the IBM Tournament.
>He would eventually settle in Switzerland.
Thank you for pointing out this error by Taylor Kingston.
This is a good example of the kind of mistake which is often made but
whenever anybody on Taylor Kingston's enemies list makes this kind of
mistake, he attacks that person again and again, sometimes dozens of
times.
So, we are entitled to attack Taylor Kingston a few dozen times for
this error.
Sam Sloan
| |
|
| In article <433ff121.6248671@ca.news.verio.net>,
sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote:
quote:
> So, we are entitled to attack Taylor Kingston a few dozen times for
> this error.
Only when you start being as gracious as Taylor for being corrected, Sam.
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-10-02, 11:31 pm |
| On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:10:44 GMT, Ron <ronaldinho_m@hotmail.com>
wrote:
quote:
>In article <433ff121.6248671@ca.news.verio.net>,
> sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote:
>
>
>Only when you start being as gracious as Taylor for being corrected, Sam.
Your remark is funny considering that so far as I am aware, Taylor
Kingston has not yet admitted that he made a mistake, must less
apologized.
All of us make mistakes. Even I make mistakes. However, most of us do
not spend years attacking others over typographical errors the way
that Taylor Kingston does.
Everybody knows that Korchnoi was not a Soviet citizen when he played
a match for the World Chess Championship in 1978. Obviously Kingston
knows that too. This matter would be immediately dropped where it not
for the fact that Kingston attacks, attacks, attacks endlessly every
time he finds a mistake like this on the part of others.
Sam Sloan
| |
|
| In article <434075d6.40222140@ca.news.verio.net>,
sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote:
quote:
> Your remark is funny considering that so far as I am aware, Taylor
> Kingston has not yet admitted that he made a mistake, must less
> apologized.
Wrong again, Sam. He wrote (although it only showed up in .misc, for
some reason):
quote:
>
> You are quite right. That's what I get for posting before my morning
> coffee has taken effect. Thanks for the correction.
-Ron
| |
| Vladyslav Kosulin 2005-10-03, 2:32 am |
| Ron wrote:
quote:
> In article <433E01B4.10600@earthblink.net>,
> The Man Behind The Curtain <johngrabowski@earthblink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> FIDE wasn't the governing body of the World Championship when Alekhine
> won the title.
>
> FIDE only took over managing the title after his death. Part of the
> reason they did so was to prevent a situation like Alekhine's, where he
> ducked the most threatening challenger.
As a matter of fact, Alekhine had never ducked Capa.
The main source of a personal feud between Alekhine and Capablanca was in Capa's
attempts to reject Alekhine's right as an official Challenger in 1926-1927 after
he satisfied all requirements esteblished in London, 1922.
IMHO, while being a World Champion Capa behaved not fair, and after becoming the
WC Alekhine fully legitimately asked Capa to satisfy all, especially financial,
requirements to an official challenger, esteblished in London, 1922.
The real joke was that the only requirement Capa was not able to satisfy, was to
guarantee a $10,000 prize fund, the requirement driven in 1992 solely by Capa
when he was a Champion. The requirement which prevented Nimzo and Rubinstein
from playing their matches with Capa before Alekhine.
Vlad
| |
| Angelo DePalma 2005-10-03, 2:32 am |
|
1. FIDE did not exist in the 1920s. The title belonged to the WC to do with
as he pleased
2. Fischer wasn't "forced" to do anything. He won the FIDE title, and when
the FIDE challenger was determined in 1975 he had the option of playing him.
He decided not to because he's psychotic.
"The Man Behind The Curtain" <johngrabowski@earthblink.net> wrote in message
news:433E01B4.10600@earthblink.net...
quote:
> I'm not sure which newsgroup is the best to ask this question, so I'll try
> all of them and see what kind of responses I get.
>
> I have read about how after defeating Capablanca, Alekhine dodged a
> rematch with him for the rest of his career, no matter how much Capa
> wished for a rematch. Yet in 1975 Bobby Fischer was "forced" to a rematch
> with the Soviets (and of course refused to play and forfeited his title).
>
> My question basically is how is it that Alekhine was allowed to dodge Capa
> and keep his title yet Fischer had to defend his so quickly, just three
> years after getting it? Obviously there were different rules in effect in
> the 1940s vs the 1970s, but that sort of strikes me as arbitrary, that one
> person can have his title so long by maneuvering and another cannot and
> has it stripped from him.
>
> Any comment?
>
>
>
> John
>
> --
>
>
> Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
>
| |
| David Richerby 2005-10-03, 5:31 am |
| [ Followups set ]
Chess One <innes8@verizon.net> wrote:
quote:
> "Ron" <ronaldinho_m@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's true in terms of W Ch match arrangements, but FIDE did govern
> chess rules and rankings, titles &c since its inception.
On a minor point, FIDE only started running a rating list in 1970, as I
recall. (It may have been earlier but it was long after FIDE's
foundation.)
quote:
> I suppose the second world war 'emergency measures' where FIDE took
> control of the championship process will continue for better or worse.
> It is significant these days that although the title remains the same,
> the competition has been very different - essentially all historical
> match-play resolutions of the championship have ceased.
Well, that depends on how you view Kramnik's claim to be World Champion.
quote:
> Therefore, we seem to have now done away with the 'lottery-Swiss' which
> Khalifman won
That was a lottery-knockout, wasn't it? It certainly was last year when
Kasimdzhanov won it.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Swiss Radioactive Priest (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man of the cloth but it'll
make you glow in the dark and it's
made in Switzerland!
| |
| David Richerby 2005-10-03, 5:31 am |
| The Man Behind The Curtain <johngrabowski@earthblink.net> wrote:
quote:
> I'm not sure which newsgroup is the best to ask this question, so I'll
> try all of them and see what kind of responses I get.
Oh, come on. It's not all that difficult? Your post has absolutely
nothing to do with computer chess so rgc.computer is completely the wrong
place; you're not doing or asking for any analysis of chess positions so
rgc.analysis isn't appropriate either. You're skirting around the edges
of chess politics so rgc.politics might be a reasonable choice; otherwise,
rgc.misc is the group you're looking for.
BTW, you missed rec.games.chess.play-by-email or whatever it's called.
Followups set.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Devil Monk (TM): it's like a man of
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ God that's possessed by Satan!
| |
| avital.pilpel@gmail.com 2005-10-03, 5:31 am |
| >>>Prior to Alekhine's death, the world title was,
essentially, the champion's personal property, which he could risk or
not, at his discretion. The only significant deterrent to resting on
one's laurels indefinitely was public opinion.
It should be added that in the London, 1922 tournament, Capablanca
suggested the so-called "London rules" for the regulation of the world
championship. Capablanca's suggestion was widely seen as fair to both
the challanger and the champion. In effect, it designated the minimal
financial and chess-achievement conditions which the challanger must
meet to have the right for a match. The intent was to no longer allow
the champion to avoid his strongest opponents by making extravagant
financial demands, but, on the other hand, he could not be forced to
play for inadequate compensation or against inferior opponents.
The leading players in that tournament, in particular Capablanca
himself and Alekhine, signed an agreement to the effect that if any one
of them becomes world champion, they would accept all challanges that
meet the London rule's requirements. The London rules, however, formed
no official body to oversee the world championship. They were
officially merely a private agreement between specific players. That
said, Capablanca obviously hoped these rules will form a tradition of
fairness that will govern world championship matches indefenitely.
Later (in 1927) Capablanca accepted Alekhine's challange for his crown
according to those London rules (with some minor alterations they
agreed on). Alekhine won their match. Despite Capablanca having a right
to a rematch according to those rules, no rematch between the two took
place.
Why no such match too place is debatable. As E. Winter notes in his
book on Capablanca, financially, the London rules allowed the champion
to refuse any challange with a purse of less than $10,000. In the
"roaring 20s", this was not too difficult to meet (although it was a
great deal of money indeed, perhaps between $500,000-$1,000,000
today), but in the world wide depression following 1929, it became
virtually impossible to collect such a sum.
Thus, the "law of unexpected consequences" came into effect. The London
rules' "$10,000" clause, originally established to protect the champion
from having to take non-serious offers for a match, became a tool
where, in conditions of worldwide depression, the champion COULD avoid
meeting his most dangerous opponent, by insisting on the challanger
meeting the letter of the London agreement, while playing world
championship matches with lesser opponents for less money (the London
rules did not FORBID the champion to play in matches for less than
$10,000, only did not REQUIRE him to do so).
So, while perhaps not violating the "letter of the law" in his refusal
of a rematch with Capablanca, Alekhine certainly violated the spirit of
the agreement by avoiding Capablanca and meeting Euwe and Bugoljubov
(sp?) instead.
That, and the second world war, were the end of the London rules. When
FIDE took over in 1948, they used a different system.
P.S.
To Mr. Sloan: yes, Mr. Kingston made a mistake here about Korchnoi, but
there is a diffrence between a hastly-written internet newgroup reply
to a published book. The core of Mr. Kingston's criticism of Messrs.
Keene and Schiller is not that other people never make any mistakes
anywhere, but that this duo doesn't put no more effort into what they
publish in books than most people put into their internet posts.
| |
| Vladyslav Kosulin 2005-10-04, 11:31 pm |
| avital.pilpel@gmail.com wrote:
quote:
> So, while perhaps not violating the "letter of the law" in his refusal
> of a rematch with Capablanca, Alekhine certainly violated the spirit of
> the agreement by avoiding Capablanca and meeting Euwe and Bugoljubov
> (sp?) instead.
Well, Alekhine was in his right and can not be blamed for this, especially
because Capa tried to violate both the spirit and the letter of London 1922
rules, when he demanded Alekhine to prove his right to challenge Capa by playing
in New York, 1927 ignoring the fact that Alekhine already satisfied all London
rules. You can read the story in details in Alekhine's book about New York, 1927.
Vlad
| |
| Vladyslav Kosulin 2005-10-05, 2:32 am |
| Chess One wrote:
quote:
> Yes. And because they could. Euwe played a significant part in all this, but
> he was but a pawn in the game of the evil Soviets who, as TK has mentioned,
> effectively ran world chess on a national basis until the modern [Fischer]
> epoch. TK is also correct to point out that Soviet players were allowed to
> be professionals, in fact, if not by declaration, by virtue of state
> support. The Soviet's didn't care to hear from other countries about the
> fundamental fairness of this support.
Well, evil is in details, not in Soviets. You can blame Soviets for supporting
their chess community and for paying Soviet professionals, who, by the way, had
to perform a regular community service (mostly providing lectures and simuls all
over the country) to be eligible for this funding, but let's be honest:
1) Where would be the world of chess now without those 70 or so years of rocket
chess development driven mostly by 'evil Soviets'?
2) It would be much more honest to blame your country not supporting chess
instead of blaming Soviets supporting their chess community. It would be much
more honest to blame western countries in which professional wrestling is
considered a sport worth megamillions while chess geniuses die in poverty.
3) Campo was not Soviet, but his ruling was far from rules of honor either.
Vlad
| |
| Vladyslav Kosulin 2005-10-05, 2:32 am |
| Ron wrote:
quote:
> I'm hoping the current title goes a long way towards re-legitimizing the
> world championship. Seriously - does anybody consider Kasimdzhanov a
> legitimate heir to the legacy of Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer, etc...?
C'mon, man!
The old days are in past. We'll never get back the old respectable cycle. Kasim
is not holding a title of best player of all times. He holds the title of FIDE
World Champion he won in fair competition. Knockouts were definitely too much
innovative, but they were played, and this is our history we must live with.
Future Championship cycle if FIDE makes it reality will be much more dynamic
compared to time of Botvinnik or Karpov-Kasparov supremacy.
Vlad
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-05, 7:31 pm |
|
"Vladyslav Kosulin" <vladyslav.kosulin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:43434A54.2060005@verizon.net...
quote:
> Chess One wrote:
>
>
> Well, evil is in details, not in Soviets. You can blame Soviets for
> supporting their chess community and for paying Soviet professionals,
I am not exactly blaming players, Vlad, as much as pointing out that they
had a considerable advantage in being state supported players with nominal
jobs. [Botvinnik was an exception, no? and even completed a PhD in
Petersburg] And this was a different status to players elsewhere in the
world.
The effect of this state-sponsorship was to make Soviet players demonstrably
the strongest in the world, and as you say, and the effect was to improve
the overall quality of chess, but somewhat as a side-effect of the political
effort to make these players exemplars of Soviet society, [Circus, Ballet
and Chess] and to show them as superior to other societies by virtue of
their native political system, rather than the more straightforward
amateur/professional comparison.
Therein lies the cheat.
It was good for chess, but it was not a fair comparison. You are correct to
say that other countries could have done the same, but there was
considerable denial that Soviet players were in fact professionals playing
against amateurs. Before this time top players were either independently
rich, or essentially amateurs except for a few at the very top.
quote:
> who, by the way, had to perform a regular community service (mostly
> providing lectures and simuls all over the country) to be eligible for
> this funding, but let's be honest:
> 1) Where would be the world of chess now without those 70 or so years of
> rocket chess development driven mostly by 'evil Soviets'?
> 2) It would be much more honest to blame your country not supporting chess
> instead of blaming Soviets supporting their chess community. It would be
> much more honest to blame western countries in which professional
> wrestling is considered a sport worth megamillions while chess geniuses
> die in poverty.
> 3) Campo was not Soviet, but his ruling was far from rules of honor
> either.
It is interesting to note that in the 50's there were about 500 GMs, now
their are twice as many. Recently I asked a W Ch candidate how many players
actually earned a living by playing chess, and he replied 'about 30', though
he has a friend who thinks its as many as 50.
Cordially, Phil Innes
[clipped chess.analysis and chess.computers]
quote:
> Vlad
>
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-10-05, 7:32 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "Vladyslav Kosulin" <vladyslav.kosulin@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:43434A54.2060005@verizon.net...
>
> I am not exactly blaming players, Vlad, as much as pointing out that they
> had a considerable advantage in being state supported players with nominal
> jobs. [Botvinnik was an exception, no? and even completed a PhD in
> Petersburg] And this was a different status to players elsewhere in the
> world.
>
> The effect of this state-sponsorship was to make Soviet players demonstrably
> the strongest in the world, and as you say, and the effect was to improve
> the overall quality of chess, but somewhat as a side-effect of the political
> effort to make these players exemplars of Soviet society, [Circus, Ballet
> and Chess] and to show them as superior to other societies by virtue of
> their native political system, rather than the more straightforward
> amateur/professional comparison.
>
> Therein lies the cheat.
I quite agree with that.
quote:
> It was good for chess, but it was not a fair comparison.
It was "good" in the sense that it accelerated openings research,
expanded chess knowledge, refined chess technique, and raised play to
higher levels. However, this is a little like saying the two world wars
were good for the aircraft industry. Yes, we got bigger, faster planes,
but at what cost? Similarly, advances by the Soviet School of chess
were accompanied by political chicanery and corruption, that lessened
free and fair competition.
Also, state support meant that Soviet GMs did not ask for appearance
fees when they played in Western tournaments. This made organizers
prefer them to Western players who needed the money. Thus Soviet chess
acted something like a cartel, suppressing competition and retarding
chess development in other countries.
quote:
> It is interesting to note that in the 50's there were about 500 GMs, now
> their are twice as many.
Checking the list of titled players on pages 175-190 of Elo's "The
Rating of Chessplayers" (Arco, 1978), I count 60 GMs as of 1959.
| |
| David Richerby 2005-10-06, 5:31 am |
| Taylor Kingston <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
quote:
> It was "good" in the sense that it accelerated openings research,
> expanded chess knowledge, refined chess technique, and raised play to
> higher levels. However, this is a little like saying the two world wars
> were good for the aircraft industry. Yes, we got bigger, faster planes,
> but at what cost?
I think the cost of Soviet `professional' chess was somewhat lower than
the cost of two world wars... Indeed, I'm not sure exactly what you think
this `cost' was. Is it somehow intrinsically bad that, with a brief blip,
the world champion's name had `(USSR)' after it from 1950 until 1991?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Accelerated Dish (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fine ceramic dish but it's twice
as fast!
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-10-06, 7:32 pm |
|
David Richerby wrote:
quote:
> I think the cost of Soviet `professional' chess was somewhat lower than
> the cost of two world wars...
Of course. That was merely an imperfect but illustrative analogy.
quote:
> Indeed, I'm not sure exactly what you think
> this `cost' was.
The cost was to the integrity of the game, and to the development of
the game in Western countries. Competition was suppressed, while covert
collusion, tampering and coercion were practiced.
quote:
> Is it somehow intrinsically bad that, with a brief blip,
> the world champion's name had `(USSR)' after it from 1950 until 1991?
Not intrinsically, no. But the Soviet hegemony was upheld in part by
unethical means. That is intrinsically bad.
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-06, 7:32 pm |
|
"David Richerby" <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:PZD*oIt0q@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
quote:
> Taylor Kingston <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
quote:
But not good that Keres and Kotov then published completely misleading
avenues of Soviet chess investigation - to the level that the editors of
Sov. School of Chess WARN THE READER that the contents are misleading [quite
apart from the equally disgusting 'dissappearing and diminishing acts'
performed on the bio's of some players]
Chess sponsorship by the State had as its chief aim propaganda of the state.
It should be noted that very able Russian [and Sov. Republic] players who
were not so congenial to Comrade Stalin's republic, did not receive so much
support, research opportunities, exposure overseas - not to mention less
avowable forms of suppression.
And I mean that! I mean it should be NOTED - not glossed as we often have
done in the West, even in the Oxford. That is cheating the reader from
understanding what was the true context, an essential unfairness of
opportunity.
[vbcol=seagreen]
I have made some special researches in this area and note among other things
that some stem game innovations in 1936 were not published until 1955. There
are examples in the KID, eg. essentially reviving that opening which had
been abandoned pre-war.
Additionally, many openning innovations were not Russian-originated at all -
but were better studied and honed to essential lines in preparatory opening
trees by Soviet players and their aides, than /typical/ in the West, simply
by virtue of their pre-computer better organisation of chess knowledge.
[vbcol=seagreen]
I don't quite see what is easily analogous in that statement.
What piqued the Soviets in a political way, and got the whole world
watching, was the exact opposite of Monolithic Systemisation. It was
profoundly shocking, literally unbelievable!
Instead of Capitalism defeating the Soviet Empire, instead you got a Jesse
James type, a quintessential American outlaw called Fischer, all on his
lonesome.
That's the real contrast with The Soviet System - The Singular Man
Phil Innes
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I think the cost of Soviet `professional' chess was somewhat lower than
> the cost of two world wars... Indeed, I'm not sure exactly what you think
> this `cost' was. Is it somehow intrinsically bad that, with a brief blip,
> the world champion's name had `(USSR)' after it from 1950 until 1991?
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Accelerated Dish (TM): it's
> like
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fine ceramic dish but it's
> twice
> as fast!
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-06, 7:32 pm |
|
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:UF81f.5194$mQ5.4066@trndny04...
quote:
>
> "David Richerby" <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:PZD*oIt0q@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
>
> But not good that Keres and Kotov
Whoops! Correction: Kotov and Yudovich! authored Soviet School of Chess
Phil Innes
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-06, 7:32 pm |
| FIDE'S MACHINATIONS
<I mean it should be NOTED - not glossed as we often have
done in the West, even in the Oxford. That is cheating the reader from
understanding what was the true context, an essential unfairness of
opportunity.> -- Phil Innes
<The cost was to the integrity of the game, and to the development of
the game in Western countries. Competition was suppressed, while covert
collusion, tampering and coercion were practiced.> -- Taylor Kingston
Quite so. Glad to see, as I predicted when he began his vacation from
rgcp, that Mr. Kingston is slouching back. Perhaps he will soon be
ready to resume our discussion of the first edition of the Oxford
Companion and things Sovietica.
<Ray Keene is unlikely to celebrate anything
but Fide's machinations, at the quality end of things,
Times, Int'l Herald Tribune or Spectator, without
giving the lead to the political aspect of the
"no-Jews" world championship.> -- Phil Innes
See " Libyan Fiasco" at world chess network. Evans On Chess May 31,
2004
"It's not the first time FIDE has bowed to Arab money. In 1986 the
Chess Olympiad was held in the United Arab Emirates where an Israeli
team was banned."
| |
| David Richerby 2005-10-06, 7:32 pm |
| Taylor Kingston <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
quote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>
> The cost was to the integrity of the game, and to the development of
> the game in Western countries. Competition was suppressed, while covert
> collusion, tampering and coercion were practiced.
That's not a criticism of the fact that the USSR had a professional chess
system but of the way they implemented it. I may have misunderstood but I
thought the gist of the complaint this far in the thread was, ``These
damned reds are paying their players and that's just not cricket!''
quote:
>
> Not intrinsically, no. But the Soviet hegemony was upheld in part by
> unethical means. That is intrinsically bad.
This much I agree with.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Broken Goldfish (TM): it's like a fish
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it doesn't work!
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-10-06, 7:32 pm |
| On 06 Oct 2005 14:36:50 +0100 (BST), David Richerby
<davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
quote:
>Taylor Kingston <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>That's not a criticism of the fact that the USSR had a professional chess
>system but of the way they implemented it. I may have misunderstood but I
>thought the gist of the complaint this far in the thread was, ``These
>damned reds are paying their players and that's just not cricket!''
The paid players were still officially categorized by their paymasters
as amateurs, as I remember it.
quote:
>
>This much I agree with.
>
>
>Dave.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-06, 7:32 pm |
| A PALE SHADOW
<Short's match against Kasparov in 1993 was much
better publicised but this >was partly because it was
in the UK and partly because it was sponsored by
the Times newspaper.> -- Nick Bourbaki
The FIDE tournament is so unexciting for several
reasons: it is a pale shadow of, say, Zurich 1953 or
AVRO 1938. Fewer players, far fewer rounds, faster
time limit, no adjournments.
FIDE itself has spent millions to cheapen the
title, and the lack of intelligence at the center
results in a failure to understand that a few extra
tens of thousands to arrange a true super tournament
would have served FIDE's own interests many times better.
I think even loyal Fideistas would agree with me on
this point. They will, of course, uphold the legitimacy of the
event (just as they hailed the Judenfrei fiasco in Libya) and emit
a warm glow, but a true super event would have added
to the legitimacy immensely.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-10-06, 7:32 pm |
|
David Richerby wrote:
quote:
> That's not a criticism of the fact that the USSR had a professional chess
> system but of the way they implemented it. I may have misunderstood but I
> thought the gist of the complaint this far in the thread was, ``These
> damned reds are paying their players and that's just not cricket!''
No, that's not my point. I have no objection to state-supported chess
in principle; heck, I wish the USA would try it. However, I do object
to state *_interference_* that engages in political favoritism,
covertly rigs results, subverts rivals, or otherwise unfairly
influences what should be free competition between individuals. All
this the Soviets did, to the detriment of the game.
| |
|
| parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> A PALE SHADOW
>
> <Short's match against Kasparov in 1993 was much
> better publicised but this >was partly because it
> was in the UK and partly because it was sponsored
> by the Times newspaper.> -- Nick Bourbaki
I did *not* write the 'quotation' (above) that Larry Parr
has attributed to me. It was written by David Richerby.
--Nick
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-06, 11:31 pm |
| THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE
<I have no objection to state-supported chess in principle; heck, I
wish the USA would try it. However, I do object to state
*_interference_* that engages in political
favoritism, covertly rigs results, subverts rivals, or otherwise
unfairly influences what should be free competition between
individuals. All this the Soviets did, to the detriment of the game.>
-- Taylor Kingston
NM Taylor Kingston, the 1800-rated but
self-proclaimed 2300+ ELO Aurora, continues to
return to rgcp after announing an "indefinite" withdrawal.
He's the stealth-burrower. The idea is one wriggle at a time.
The whole slithercise is extraordinary.
I note our unfinished business about the Oxford
Companion to Chess. NM Kingston is studiously
ignoring the transaction, but I will continue to present the chits.
NM Kingston is still unable to comment on why
the Companion would fail to mention or even hint, if
Dr. Hyde's version is to be accepted, that Boris Gulko
was a refusenik and barred from playing. He is unable
to explain why the Soviet boycott of Korchnoi goes
unmentioned or the defector status of both Korchnoi
and Lev Alburt or the obfuscation about who killed
Vladimir Petrov. There is more. The Levenfish entry
is also a doozy.
So far, we are told that NM Kingston does not
have the Companion's first edition, and we assume he
will never procure it or look at it.
As for government sponsorship of chess without
controls and interference, what an idea! It's a new
one, a doozy. He who pays the piper always call the
tune over the long concert.
| |
| Bruce Leverett 2005-10-07, 2:31 am |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> A PALE SHADOW
>
> <Short's match against Kasparov in 1993 was much
> better publicised but this >was partly because it was
> in the UK and partly because it was sponsored by
> the Times newspaper.> -- Nick Bourbaki
>
> The FIDE tournament is so unexciting for several
> reasons: it is a pale shadow of, say, Zurich 1953 or
> AVRO 1938. Fewer players, far fewer rounds, faster
> time limit, no adjournments.
It's about the same number of players as AVRO, right? And the same
number of rounds?
Like you, I am sorry we no longer see the old "true super tournaments",
the 20-player or 30-player double round robins, most of which were held
in the 19th century. Tournament books for those affairs are gold
mines.
But it seems strange to blame FIDE for the decline of this kind of
event. FIDE was in charge at the time of Zurich 1953. (FIDE was also
in charge at the time of The Hague-Moscow 1948. Was that a "true super
tournament"? I don't know how you would answer that one, but I have to
admit I got a lot of milage out of Golombek's tournament book.) In
general, nobody holds those monster tournaments any more. FIDE is not
the trend setter in this respect; monster tournaments were deep in
decline before FIDE was even founded. (And long before you and I were
born.)
quote:
> FIDE itself has spent millions to cheapen the
> title, and the lack of intelligence at the center
> results in a failure to understand that a few extra
> tens of thousands to arrange a true super tournament
> would have served FIDE's own interests many times better.
>
> I think even loyal Fideistas would agree with me on
> this point. They will, of course, uphold the legitimacy of the
> event (just as they hailed the Judenfrei fiasco in Libya) and emit
> a warm glow, but a true super event would have added
> to the legitimacy immensely.
| |
| David Richerby 2005-10-07, 7:32 pm |
| Nick <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
quote:
> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>
> I did *not* write the 'quotation' (above) that Larry Parr has attributed
> to me. It was written by David Richerby.
Thanks for pointing that out, Nick. I'd not noticed it myself because
Parr's habit of following up to a post by one person in which he quotes
none of that person's text but only something that somebody else wrote in
a completely different part of the thread (and, for bonus marks, misat-
tributes the quotation) earnt him a place in my killfile long ago.
For crying out loud, Larry, learn how to use your newsreader. Everybody
else manages it so it can't be all that hard. The point of threading is
to keep related articles together to make the discussion easier to read.
If you follow up to the post you're actually talking about, your software
will fill in the attributions for you so you this kind of accident is
easily avoided. (And if you want me to read any reply to this post, you'd
better CC me...)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Beefy Goldfish (TM): it's like a fish
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that's made from a cow!
| |
|
| David Richerby wrote:
quote:
> Taylor Kingston <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
Does Taylor Kingston believe there would have been far greater
public appreciation or government support of chess in Western
countries *if* "Soviet 'professional' chess" never had existed?
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> That's not a criticism of the fact that the USSR had a
> professional chess system but of the way they implemented it.
> I may have misunderstood but I thought the gist of the complaint
> this far in the thread was, ``These damned reds are paying their
> players and that's just not cricket!''
In the film 'Chariots of Fire', Harold Abrahams was rebuked because
he employed a professional coach to help him, an amateur athlete,
prepare for the Olympic Games. As far as I can recall, his response
was something like: "Of course, he's a professional--he's the best."
Speaking of 'not cricket', 'Chariots of Fire' was abridged for its
theatrical release in the United States. A deletion was made of an
early scene in which British athletes were shown playing cricket.
Apparently, there was some fear that showing a cricket scene could
discourage some Americans to the point ('Is this whole movie going
to be about THAT?') where they might be tempted to walk out.
quote:
>
> This much I agree with.
I dislike the political favouritism that often was a part of
the Soviet chess scene. But let's not exaggerate what happened.
For a famous example, Bobby Fischer evidently claimed that he had
been cheated out of his rightful victory at the 1962 Candidates'
Tournament in Curacao on account of unethical collusion among
the Soviet (or 'Russian', as he liked to call them) players.
Evidently, Geller, Keres, and Petrosian did make an agreement
to make draws with one another. Korchnoi and Tal made no such
agreement with the other Soviet players. If Moscow had really
been pulling the strings in a dedicated anti-Fischer conspiracy,
then it seems odd that two out of the five Soviet players would
not have been a part of it.
One may argue about the sportsmanship of such agreements.
But I am far from convinced that Fischer would have won the
1962 Candidates' Tournament in the absence of such collusion.
Indeed, one may argue that the agreed 2-2 results among Geller,
Keres, and Petrosian *helped* Fischer's chances of winning by
avoiding the possibility that one of those Soviet players could
have achieved a large plus score against the other two players.
--Nick
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-08, 5:32 am |
|
"Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1128733550.712790.89150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> David Richerby wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> For a famous example, Bobby Fischer evidently claimed that he had
> been cheated out of his rightful victory at the 1962 Candidates'
> Tournament in Curacao on account of unethical collusion among
> the Soviet (or 'Russian', as he liked to call them) players.
>
> Evidently, Geller, Keres, and Petrosian did make an agreement
> to make draws with one another. Korchnoi and Tal made no such
> agreement with the other Soviet players. If Moscow had really
> been pulling the strings in a dedicated anti-Fischer conspiracy,
> then it seems odd that two out of the five Soviet players would
> not have been a part of it.
What string Moscow pulled are examined below by those who were asked to
collude with string-pulling.
quote:
> One may argue about the sportsmanship of such agreements.
> But I am far from convinced that Fischer would have won the
> 1962 Candidates' Tournament in the absence of such collusion.
> Indeed, one may argue that the agreed 2-2 results among Geller,
> Keres, and Petrosian *helped* Fischer's chances of winning by
> avoiding the possibility that one of those Soviet players could
> have achieved a large plus score against the other two players.
In our interview with Mark Taimanov, he responded to two questions like
this:-
MT: Chess had huge state support and public attention in the USSR. We were
the recognized world leaders, and it served as a subject of general pride,
and for the management of the country it was an instrument of international
propaganda. The state did not stint on means of chess development, and
grand masters in the USSR were held in deserved respect. Sufficient to say,
that my business trip to Liverpool for the World Student Championship in
1952 was personally signed by Joseph Stalin.
and to the immediately following question like this:-
MT: I think that the Candidates tournament in Zurich in 1953 was the
greatest chess event of the last century, and I was happy to have played
there. Certainly for the Soviet politicians the success of our chess
players was very important - they might resort to backstage maneuvers David
Bronstein has related about the mid-century. I shall say frankly, at that
time I did not know anything about it - as we say in Russia, it was not
accepted "to carry out the rubbish from the izba" (Editor's note: an izba is
a peasant's hut). All this was usually done secretly. The most of what was
demanded of me, for example, - was the threat to not finish ahead of our
leaders, (and most of all Smyslov), i.e. to not aspire to win against them.
And to play with special attention versus our leader's chief competitors*.
The GM made an indirect comment about Fischer* is the next section -
mentioning that he had written extensively on the subject in his book "I was
Fischer's Victim".
Now... that is an interesting book, the first edition covered the match, and
some amount of the aftermath, including Taimanov's persecution - but a
second edition had available to it the secret government files maintained on
Taimanov.
Unfortunately this book is not available in English, but I have a Russian
copy on my desk. It ain't pretty reading - but shall we assume that this
rare memoire is more typical of the State's attention to suspects,
dissidents and 'traitors', than not? Especially high profile ones.
The main point of the Answers in the above texts is that in two of tehm
there is a different flavour to the Soviet government's interest than is
usually credited - but that high political interest is substantiated, and
the manner of collusion by players is suggested.
As with Botvinnik's case, the above example concerning Smyslov does not
indicate that Symslov need have colluded or even been aware of specific
pressure on his opponents. David Bronstein makes an independent report on
these issues, and at least on the public record in Russia, these views
conflict with some other "show-and-tell" journalism by parties who may not
have been so innocent or making a few of these basically cheating
arrangements, nor indeed of arranging a little persecution of those who did
not play along with the Great Game.
Phil Innes
8 Oct. 05.
*In a subsequent response Taimanov said that for example Larsen was not
considered to be a dangerous threat to USSR players, but Fischer certainly
was.
quote:
> --Nick
>
| |
| Spamscone@yahoo.com 2005-10-08, 7:32 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
>
> Unfortunately this book is not available in English, but I have a Russian
> copy on my desk. It ain't pretty reading
I agree, it must be very difficult for you since your Russian is so
poor you think "love" and "leave" are the same verb. Is there a
British-Russian dictionary available?
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-08, 7:32 pm |
| Mr. Sponge-Name doesn't like a translation of Blok from Russian to English
from some sleave notes, so he fearlessly speaks someone else's mind, as
usual. ;)))
Not that people shouldn't make endless side-tracking, mealy-mouthed,
captiously off-topic, petty and ignornat comments here on usenet <g> Phil
<Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128773771.400512.231790@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> I agree, it must be very difficult for you since your Russian is so
> poor you think "love" and "leave" are the same verb. Is there a
> British-Russian dictionary available?
>
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-10-08, 7:32 pm |
|
Nick wrote:
quote:
> One may argue about the sportsmanship of such agreements.
> But I am far from convinced that Fischer would have won the
> 1962 Candidates' Tournament in the absence of such collusion.
Whether the 1962 collusion actually affected Fischer's chances is
immaterial. It still was unethical. Richard Nixon would almost
certainly have won re-election in 1972 without the Watergate break-in,
but that does not make the break-in legal.
quote:
> Indeed, one may argue that the agreed 2-2 results among Geller,
> Keres, and Petrosian *helped* Fischer's chances of winning by
> avoiding the possibility that one of those Soviet players could
> have achieved a large plus score against the other two players.
It was not just that "2-2 results" were agreed, it's that all their
games were prearranged draws of, on average, only 19 moves. Days when
Petrosian, Geller and Keres played each other were in effect holidays
for them, while everyone else was working hard. GM Jan Timman, in his
new book on the tournament, strongly disapproves of the collusion.
Furthermore he says:
"It is also quite possible that Petrosian, Keres and Geller would
have dominated the event anyway, with or without the combine, but
that's neither here nor there. In such a long tournament in a tropical
climate, eight free days are a gift from heaven, giving you energy and
confidence."
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-10-08, 7:32 pm |
| On 8 Oct 2005 07:09:52 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
quote:
> Whether the 1962 collusion actually affected Fischer's chances is
>immaterial. It still was unethical. Richard Nixon would almost
>certainly have won re-election in 1972 without the Watergate break-in,
>but that does not make the break-in legal.
Bingo.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-10-11, 7:32 pm |
|
avital.pilpel@gmail.com wrote:
quote:
> Later (in 1927) Capablanca accepted Alekhine's challange for his crown
> according to those London rules (with some minor alterations they
> agreed on). Alekhine won their match. Despite Capablanca having a right
> to a rematch according to those rules, no rematch between the two took
> place.
I have looked through the London Rules, as reproduced in Winter's
"Capablanca," and I didn't see any reference to rematches. Was there
really any rematch clause, and if so where? Or was it in the 1927
Alekhine-Capablanca contract?
| |
| avital.pilpel@gmail.com 2005-10-12, 5:31 am |
| I am quoting from memory so I might be wrong, but I think there was an
agreement between Alekhine and Capablanca after the match where
Capablanca lost that Alekhine would grant him a rematch, provided of
course that Capablanca fulfills the London rule's financial, etc.,
conditions.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-10-12, 7:32 pm |
|
avital.pilpel@gmail.com wrote:
quote:
> I am quoting from memory so I might be wrong, but I think there was an
> agreement between Alekhine and Capablanca after the match where
> Capablanca lost that Alekhine would grant him a rematch, provided of
> course that Capablanca fulfills the London rule's financial, etc.,
> conditions.
There were various negotiations for a rematch, but I don't recall any
of them producing anything that could be called a contractual
obligation on Alekhine's part.
|
| |
|
|