On Apr 29, 9:48 pm, (Andy Walker) wrote:

wrote:

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.


It appears that Mr. Kingston is straining to somehow
vilify Mr. Botvinnik. In reality, a reigning champion is
faced by a relative few (one?), regardless of such
special rules. The people most likely to benefit could
very well be the lucky candidates-- those who slip past
the special rule's limitation and continue on normally;
or is it the non-Soviet contenders, who will no longer
need to worry about those players who were thereby
eliminated? Each powerful player thus eliminated
improves the odds of every other contender for the
crown.


Most of us thought it was an attempt to limit the amount of
collusion that could take place.


That would be the switch from candidates tourneys
to candidates *matches*.


In making my point, I was defining "serious challenger" as
qualifying for the FIDE Candidates stage.

OK, but I specifically made it clear that I was referring
rather to competing on equal terms with the top Soviet players.
Fischer was *expecting* to do so in 1962, but was badly beaten by
Benko and Geller early on and never recovered.


Observant readers will note that whenever it suits his
fancy, Mr. Kingston will artificially restrict his "research"
to a small portion of the available data-- that portion
which appears to support his wobbly opinions.


Seems to me to be pre-judging your claims. The actions that
you describe as "cheating" seem to be normal tournament practice to
others [eg Benko]. If it's merely a matter of "holier than thou",
then "cheating" is too strong a word. It's also provocative to
describe actions as *Soviet* cheating when indulged in by individuals
rather than by the state; it would be a surprise if any country has
a monopoly in players who manipulate or bribe to secure titles or
ratings, or who solicit help during play, or whatever.


This was and still is all part and parcel of the Cold
War propaganda machine. The ploy is to associate
cheating with "Soviets" or "Russians", ignoring any
and all cases of cheating by everyone else.

Where I see a real problem regarding cheating by
by Russians, is that nobody can understand what
they are saying to one another in *American*
tourneys. They could be saying: "after I crush this
American patzer, let's go to Taco Bell; I love their
burritos". Or, they could be saying: "After I sac'
on h3, I will have King, Bishop and Knight-- an
elementary win I learned back in Moscow when I
was seven or eight".


-- help bot