On May 6, 11:10 am, wrote:
I know for sure of two ways in which Botvinnik "controlled
information" about his opening repertoire
Whoa there! The original claim did not limit Mr.
Botvinnik's "control of information" to his own
opening repertoire; it clearly stated that he was
in control of *all* "Russian information". That's
a far cry from what you are discussing.
Bronstein believes Botvinnik avoided playing in 1948-51 "because he
did not want to reveal his opening secrets to his challenger."
And yet, it was in the *endgame* that he was
beaten, judging from the controversy which has
been discussed at length here.
Perhaps, though Botvinnik simply says he was busy working on his
doctoral dissertation, and that rather than reaping any advantage from
the layoff, the lack of practice hurt him in the match
We cannot rely on mere hearsay; neither Mr.
Bronstein nor Mr. Botvinnik can be taken as
infallible gods, who always gulp down a glass
of truth serum before expounding on chess.
Even allowing, for the sake of argument, Bronstein's interpretation
of 1948-51, I don't see anything unethical in this. However, what the
Spanish writers seem to be implying, or believe that Bronstein is
implying, is that Botvinnik used his position and connections to gain
preferential access to others' games
This "interpretation" escapes me; I cannot read
Spanish, but it does seem that TK is first
transcribing, and then "doctoring" to suit his own
preferences. This reminds me of another such
case, in which the facts were given no chance in
the hands of Taylor Kingston.
his own games, or suppress Soviet publication of games Botvinnik
considered important, e.g. TNs he might use from foreign games. I'm
sure the former is true, the latter I don't know.
Well, it would of course be useful to present any
facts which support the bizarre theory that MB
"controlled all Russian information". Speculation
is quite another matter.
Again, I would not consider the former course unethical, any more
than I'd consider it unethical for a wealthy American player to buy
more chess books and magazines than a player with little money could.
The latter kind of action runs counter to Western ideals
Western ideals, eh? I think I detect a whiff of
ideological slant here; are we ready for another
round of Commie-bashing fun? Good. You may
proceed... .
of a free press
[Guffaw.]
I don't know how it is where Mr. Kingston lives,
but around here the Republican party clearly
controls the mainstream press-- except of course
for those outlets which are controlled by their
hated enemies, the lunatic Left (AKA the
Democrats).
I don't call that "free"; I call it pitiful. I suppose
there may be a few who are not clearly on one
side of this feud or the other; naturally, those folks
are attacked by *both* feuding clans, for refusing
to join up with either propaganda "army".
and free circulation of information, but wouldn't bother a
Soviet mind-set like Botvinnik's. Heck, probably wouldn't bother many
Western players
There's that slant again. It's all a matter of
Cold War politics, for some folks.
if they had the power. But whether Botvinnik actually
excercised that kind of control, I couldn't say.
Well, TK certainly had no difficulty putting
the words into other people's mouthes, with
his funky "translation".
The one thing which all these Botvinnik-bashers
cannot ever seem to do, is "fit" his powerful chess
moves into their biased accounts in a way that
makes any rational sense. For instance, the
dregs who maintain that all the other Soviet
players were "ordered" to throw their games, fail
to account for the fact that non-Soviets were also
losing to him at the very same time. When that
sort of heavy bias creeps in, logic and reason go
out the window.
There is no doubt that Botvinnik was a great player in his own
right. The question is whether he would have risen quite so high for
so long without state support
This "question" would seem to apply to *all* of
the Russian world champions; why then is Mr.
Botvinnik being singled out here?
preferential treatment, and unethical
behind-the-scenes dealings (e.g. pressure on Keres).
Oh, we could talk about back-room deals, but
that would seem to turn the spotlight on Gary
Kasparov, I think. Again, why is one particular
person being targeted here? And how was he
selected?
Here's a fairly relevant article by Edward Winter from 2003:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/pachman.html
Mr. Winter has lots of articles. Why is it that
Taylor Kingston (not to mention the ratpackers)
wishes to single out Mr. Botvinnik?
In his articles, Mr. Winter very often "targets"
Raymond Keene, and this can be explained by
the fact that RK is the most prolific English-
language writer on EW's side of the pond. It is
especially easy to explain when you note that
Mr. Keene's "work" keeps EW fully employed,
so to speak.
What I would like to know is exactly how and
why Mr. Botvinnik has been "selected", out of
the whole lot of former world champions, to
receive the "special attentions" of the Evans
ratpack and Mr. Kingston. If they were truly
interested in ethics, there would be no need for
frequent "injections" of slant-talk; in fact, it just
clouds the (ethics) issue, and changes the
subject from ethics to Cold War politics and
their own Russian-bashing biases.
-- help bot