On Jan 17, 3:55*pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

'Botvinnik complained in his memoirs that his former pupil Taimanov
agreed to an early draw in principle, but played on when they got
closer to the 30-move mark with Botvinnik having relaxed his
concentration.' - Cafferty & Taimanov, 'The Soviet Championships' (p.
78)

---

Of course, this is Botvinnik's mea culpa to what has been much supposed -
that he was complicit in fixing games -

This particular incident really doesn't do much in that department,
in my opinion. Agreeing to a draw beforehand was and still is common
practice in many tournaments, both Soviet and Western. For example,
Benko discusses the practice in his autobiography, and sees nothing
wrong with it. Soltis' "Soviet Chess" describes an instance where, if
I recall correctly, Smyslov and another GM agreed to a quick draw in a
USSR Ch simply because the cafeteria was about to close and they
wanted to go eat.
So pre-agreed draws do not always indicate a "big fix." Then again,
sometimes they do. e.g. Curaça0 1962.
You know that I am not very sympathetic toward Botvinnik, but I
don't think this incident shows any major or unusual ethical violation
on his part.

and this instance would suppose of
him that he was not innocent of the Soviet proclamation, not to challenge
the leader, but to challenge the [foreign] challenger.

In this case, there was no foreign challenger. It was a Soviet
Championship, only USSR players.

How strange Botvinnik
should resent 'cheating' that agreement to conspire to cheat!

Whether or not a pre-arranged draw is ethical, it seems to me that
having once agreed to it, one is honor-bound to follow through. If
Taimanov did try to back out in mid-game (and I'm not saying he did),
one could understand Botvinnik's annoyance.

What I know is that family-Botvinnik threatened to sue over another memoire,
//before// publication.

Taimanov always seemed to me the consumate artist in spirit, in his music,
and in his chess playing - I think he ever wanted the chess pieces to speak
of themselves, rather echoing Fischer, rather than memoires or agreements,
or personal histories. He always seemed like a very straightforward man to
me, yet also a reserved and complex one who understood the life of his
times, and spoke honestly from within its context.

In some questions we asked him about these things, his response was to
consider those times, and what possibilities there were to Soviet chess
players, if they wanted to remain chess players at all.

That is some sober response ! - and anyone who hasn't felt any pressure this
way, might consider his 'greater context', which was Stalinism.

Phil Innes