On Apr 27, 1:27*pm, (Andy Walker) wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
* On this matter I must basically agree with Parr. In his
autobiography, Botvinnik describes how he himself was the main author
of the regulations FIDE adopted for world championship matches and
challenger qualifying. I'm not sure whether they were then "imposed"
on FIDE, or FIDE just adopted them willingly, but either way Botvinnik
and his Soviet supporters got what they wanted.
* * * *Does or did anyone think it mattered?
* *That's rather beside the point I was trying to make, Andy. The point
of my post was simply to say that Parr had given the historial facts
accurately on this particular occasion.

* * * * I don't see how "FIDE set up this system ... *to protect Soviet
supremacy" [LP] and "The USSR imposed the system ... in 1948" [LP] is
compatible with your doubts expressed above *combined with* your claim
that LP had given the facts accurately.

I was referring only to the fact that the FIDE regulations had been
drafted by the chief Soviet player. Help-bot, to whom Parr was
replying, did not seem to be aware of this.

*On the *facts* as thus far
stated, all we seem to know is that Botvinnik proposed some regulations
and FIDE approved them. *Botvinnik can scarcely have *planned* to draw
or lose his five matches as WC [while winning the two re-matches], so
it's a stretch to claim that in 1948 he was setting up the regulations
*in order to* give himself a long stretch as an undeserving WC.

As I recall from Achieving the Aim (though I don't have it on hand
to be sure), Botvinnik did want the rematch clause as early as 1948,
but he did not get it until the mid-1950s. There is also the matter of
the regulation adopted in the late 1950s, limiting the number of
qualifiers from the Interzonal to the Candidates, for any one country.
This seemingly impartial rule really applied in fact only to Soviet
players (e.g. Stein), thus limiting the number of serious challengers
Botvinnik might face. So I think a case can be made that Botvinnik did
try, with some success, to manipulate FIDE rules in his own favor.

*What
evidence does anyone have that the USSR *imposed* the MMB regulations,
as opposed to merely forwarding them for approval, and FIDE agreeing
that they were a reasonable basis? *Or that FIDE [or even the USSR]
set them up to protect "Soviet supremacy"? *

A good question. That was Larry Parr's claim; perhaps he will
present his evidence.

*What _was_ unfair were the Soviets' behind the scenes machinations,
e.g. keeping Najdorf out in 1948, and their collusive tactics,
especially in the Candidates Tournaments to ensure that no non-Soviet
player got to be the challenger.

* * * * Perhaps, though there's quite a spectrum between normal
tournament practice, through gamesmanship and sharp practice, to
actual cheating.

I would say the Soviets excelled at both.

For the couple of
decades from 1948 until Larsen and then Fischer became serious
contenders,
*Fischer became a serious contender before Larsen. They both played
in an Interzonal for the first time in 1958, but Fischer became a FIDE
Candidate first, in 1959, based on his 5th place in that Interzonal.
Larsen placed only 16th in that event, and did not make it to the
Candidates cycle until 1965.

* * * * Yes, but (a) the Fischer of 1962 -- still a teenager! -- was,
despite the hype, not yet a serious challenger for the title, as was
indeed shown by the Curacao tournament, and (b) where was Fischer in
the 1965 and 1968 Candidates'? *

Bobby's self-imposed absence from those events is well known.

Until 1971, I think there was still a
respectable point of view that Larsen had done more to break the
Soviet hegemony than anyone else,

I would agree that a good case could be made for Larsen as "#1
Western Player" (to use Chess Review's phrase) circa 1965-1970. But I
would not say that Larsen had done anything to "break the Soviet
hegemony." He never beat any Soviet player in any Candidates Match, as
far as I can find in my references.
In making my point, I was defining "serious challenger" as
qualifying for the FIDE Candidates stage. This Fischer did years
before Larsen, thus my objection to your phrasing "first Larsen then
Fischer." I don't think Larsen in 1965 or 1968 made any more of a dent
in the Candidates cycle than Fischer did in 1959 or 1962, and Fischer
did get into the Candidates 6 years before Larsen, so I did not agree
with your saying "first Larsen then Fischer."

and that Fischer, despite manifest
talent, was too "fragile" as soon as conditions were adverse to be
able to mount a serious assault on Petrosian and Spassky in a long
match.

Well, neither did Larsen. He lost to Tal in 1965 and to Spassky in
1968. And we all know how he did against Fischer in 1971.

*I never have been able to buy the argument that Soviet cheating was
OK because they would have won anyway without it. Surely you're not
saying that?

* * * * "Soviet cheating" is a rather provocative way of describing
things! *

No, just recognizing the facts.

If you're thinking of Curacao, then I don't see any evidence
of *cheating*, either "Soviet" or personal. *

Fischer's complaints notwithstanding, Curaçao 1962 is not exactly
what I had in mind, though blatant cheating did occur there, for
example Petrosian's attempt to help Benko against Keres. And
concerning the "gentlemen's agreement" between Petrosian, Geller, and
Keres, GM Jan Timman takes a far less permissive view than you in his
book on the tournament. In any event, the prime examples, IMO, are
Hague-Moscow 1948 and Neuhausen-Zürich 1953. There were also some
shady stunts in Olympiads, the case of Matulovic taking a dive for
Taimanov, and others.