On Nov 20, 11:38 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"William Hyde" wrote in message

.. Why let Keres
beat Tal 3-1 in the 1959 event, if Keres is to be kept from the
championship at all costs?

Well ... this is all good stuff, and we have rehersed the conversation
before, and exercising it always admits new factors. Should I chose to be
very cycical at this point; the Estonian is allowed to win over the Latvian,
since he was seen to be the lesser threat to Botvinnik,

I wonder about the assessment though. As we all know Tal won
convincingly, but that wasn't so clear before the match. Could the
great Botvinnik be defeated by this "bag of tricks" in a 24 game
match?
Many doubted it.

On the other hand Keres' score against Botvinnik in recent years had
improved markedly from the years up to and including 1947. He might
well have won.


I wonder if the 'fix' was simply to rotate champions, or at least parade a
whole group of them in the West, since too much singularity defeats the idea
of group superiority according to a system - that was the political point of
all.

I think the more parsimonious hypothesis is that they let the chips
fall where they may, at least when Reshevsky was no longer a threat.
The danger of a non-Soviet winning the 1956,59, or 62 candidates
tournaments was surely zero (Keres and Bronstein ceded a
place in the 1956 event to Reshevsky - and the fact that they were
allowed to do that by itself is telling - but he didn't play).

One wonders indeed what he and Alekhine were doing in Munich in 1942 at all,
instead of 'doing' something in New York?

Alekhine had too much confidence in the French defense.

As I understand it, Keres was not willing to leave his family behind.
I've also been told that he simply wanted to live in Estonia, almost
regardless of the regime.

whereas going the other way was no risk at all, and he could
be, -I agree with you-, Champion of the West, maybe the World, but certainly
get paid real dollars for it.

I'm not so sure of the money. He could doubtless support his family
by a combination of chess and journalism - his Chess Life and Review
articles were excellent - but prizes were rather feeble in the west in
the 40s and 50s. And world championship money was negligible.

Still, if he settled in Western Europe he would have had access to
better doctors, and might have lived many years longer.

I'd like to see that parallel world. How would Fischer have motivated
himself if the World Champion was an Estonian living in the
Netherlands?


William Hyde


Cordially, Phil Innes

William Hyde