BOTSTER'S HANDICAP


A wife and children -- right there is the elusive
smoking gun. No wonder he wasn't able to take
the title. Did Bobby Fischer have a wife and
chldren? No. Did Gary Kasparov? Nope (his
mother doesn't count). What about Alexander
Alekhine? Nyet. This is (obviously) a handicap,
much like adopting the French Defense as
black and the Reti or Bird's as white. -- Greg Kennedy

Gregbot strikes again!

"A few years after his death the Soviet authorities honoured him as
the greatest star of Russian chess and requested his reburial in
Russia. His widow objected, and in 1956 his body was reinterred in
Montparnasse cemetary. The ceremony was attended by ALEKHINE'S SON [my
emphasis] by Anneliese Ruegg, who came from Switzerland, and by the
Soviet Ambassador." -- THE OXFORD COMPANION TO CHESS

On Nov 21, 7:05 pm, " wrote:

...the price of [Paul Keres'] reprieve was to abandon his quest
for the crown." -- GM Larry Evans (1996)

This nonsense was utterly refuted by Taylor Kingston
in his Chess Cafe articles. It is of course unsurprising
that Larry Parr continues to quote LE's error, ad infinitum.
It's almost as though LP's job were to embarrass the five-
time U.S. Champion, though one expects his true intent
is just the opposite.

Far from "abandoning" any quest for the crown, GM
Keres merely stepped aside temporarily, to allow his
rival, GM Botvinnik, first dibs. In sum, no amount of
quoting from the Oxford Companion *to* Chess can
make up for the embarrassing error already refuted by
TK at the Chess Cafe. Larry Evans got his facts in
a jumble, leaped to unwarranted conclusions, and as
always, printed his biased speculations and
conjectures as though they were proven facts.

In my view, it is unfortunate that not only do we
have evidence of personal bias, but indeed there is
substantial evidence of deliberate deception, and this
goes far beyond merely being incompetent and or
witted. Time and again, both Mr. Evans and Mr. Parr
have been caught lying, twisting the facts, and of
course, misrepresenting what little they do know of
the facts to suit an agenda. As GM Seirawan has
observed, this dishonesty appears to be /endemic/.

No anti-biotic or jock-itch cream will have the
slightest effect; the dread disease has progressed to
a point where the patients may fairly be considered
/incurable/.

----

Now, having for a brief time abandoned my quest,
I am returning to an interesting battle with Sanny's
confounded machine; I have but a King remaining,
against King and Knight, and this is going to require
all my powers if I expect to defeat the Commie plot
to win by default, should I be unable to continue for
having consumed too much turkey... .


-- help bot

On Nov 21, 7:05 pm, " wrote:

The KGB wanted to execute Keres for treason, and his family was
was also in peril. -- Larry Evans

Has this ever really been established?
In the first place, strictly speaking, the KGB (Committee for State
Security) did not exist until 1954, therefore it seems unlikely it
could have wanted to do anything in 1945 or 1946. At that time the
relevant police organ would have been the People's Commissariat for
Internal Affairs, the NKVD. Perhaps a distinction without a
difference, but it's important to keep facts straight.
All manner of rumors have floated around about Keres in the
immediate post-war years: he was arrested, he was not arrested, he was
going to be executed, he was too valuable to be executed, Botvinnik
wanted him killed, Botvinnik wanted to save him, etc. etc. Few if any
of these seem to have any basis.
Valter Heuer, a close friend of Keres, wrote extensively of Kere's
post-war travails in "The Troubled Years of Paul Keres" (New In Chess,
#4, 1995). He describes many harships, including Keres being
interrogated by police, yet he mentions no arrest at all ever taking
place. In fact, a high-ranking official in the Estonian Communist
Party, Nikolai Karotamm, was very pro-Keres.

This is not to suggest Keres was well-treated in the immediate post-
war years -- he definitely was not. As Bernard Cafferty wrote in the
BCM of February 2000:

"A document of 29th August 1946 states that ... serious compromising
material had been discovered on Keres, by reason of his collaboration
with the Germans ... and his links with active participants of the
Estonian 'bourgeois-nationalist underground'."

Such suspicions could certainly be grounds for arrest and even
execution in Stalin's USSR. But, I wonder, did any arrest actually
take place? And did anyone really want "to execute Keres [or his
family] for treason," and if so, who, and what is the evidence that
they did?

On Nov 21, 9:36 pm, " wrote:


The ceremony was attended by ALEKHINE'S SON [my
emphasis] by Anneliese Ruegg, who came from Switzerland, and by the
Soviet Ambassador." -- THE OXFORD COMPANION TO CHESS

If I didn't know better, I might conclude that Larry
Parr is accusing AA of sleeping around. (Of course,
he would never mean to imply that AA was held
back in his quest for the title by this widow or son --
that would be dimwitted, since it was the widow's
money which *aided* AA.)


-- help bot

On Nov 22, 11:18 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 21, 7:05 pm, " wrote:

The KGB wanted to execute Keres for treason, and his family was
was also in peril. -- Larry Evans

Has this ever really been established?

"The memory plays tricks." -- Larry Evans

I seem to recall reading in one of the TK articles
that LE's remark probably stemmed from the story
about a Robert Keres, for whom the Russians had
an arrest warrant.


In the first place, strictly speaking, the KGB (Committee for State
Security) did not exist until 1954, therefore it seems unlikely it
could have wanted to do anything in 1945 or 1946.

It's starting again; you are allowing mere facts to stand
in the way of a good story.


At that time the
relevant police organ would have been the People's Commissariat for
Internal Affairs, the NKVD. Perhaps a distinction without a
difference, but it's important to keep facts straight.

Um, no. What is important to the writer is to weave
an interesting plot, with elements of surprise and
characters who strike a chord with the readers. Only
in, say, a detective story (think Sherlock Holmes) is
the keeping of facts in their proper order important,
for the readers will feel cheated otherwise.


All manner of rumors have floated around about Keres in the
immediate post-war years: he was arrested, he was not arrested, he was
going to be executed, he was too valuable to be executed, Botvinnik
wanted him killed, Botvinnik wanted to save him, etc. etc. Few if any
of these seem to have any basis.

But do they /make for a good story/?


Valter Heuer, a close friend of Keres, wrote extensively of Kere's
post-war travails in "The Troubled Years of Paul Keres" (New In Chess,
#4, 1995). He describes many harships, including Keres being
interrogated by police, yet he mentions no arrest at all ever taking
place. In fact, a high-ranking official in the Estonian Communist
Party, Nikolai Karotamm, was very pro-Keres.

Plot spoiler! Once you demolish the illusion of
a conspiracy by citing contrary facts, the whole
thing falls down, like a house of cards.


This is not to suggest Keres was well-treated in the immediate post-
war years -- he definitely was not. As Bernard Cafferty wrote in the
BCM of February 2000:

"A document of 29th August 1946 states that ... serious compromising
material had been discovered on Keres, by reason of his collaboration
with the Germans ... and his links with active participants of the
Estonian 'bourgeois-nationalist underground'."

Such suspicions could certainly be grounds for arrest and even
execution in Stalin's USSR. But, I wonder, did any arrest actually
take place? And did anyone really want "to execute Keres [or his
family] for treason," and if so, who, and what is the evidence that
they did?

The script has already answered such questions.
It was decided that the KGB would play the bad guys,
but that the main heavy would be played by an actor
resembling GM Botvinnik.


When GM Averbakh stated *precisely the opposite*
of his lines in the Evans script, the Evans ratpack --
having invested everything they had in this venture --
just went ahead anyway. And when /real detectives/
like Mr. Heuer refused to robo-recite lines scripted
for them, the poor fellows had no other choice than
to /write them out/ of their version -- the director's cut.

The Evans ratpack version veers far afield from the
"true story" on which this tale was originally to be
based; but you have to admit, it makes for a good
story. Something akin to A Beautiful Mind, I expect,
except that it was the producer-directors who went
insane.


-- help bot

On Nov 23, 4:26 am, help bot wrote:

At that time the
relevant police organ would have been the People's Commissariat for
Internal Affairs, the NKVD. Perhaps a distinction without a
difference, but it's important to keep facts straight.

Um, no. What is important to the writer is to weave
an interesting plot, with elements of surprise and
characters who strike a chord with the readers. Only
in, say, a detective story (think Sherlock Holmes) is
the keeping of facts in their proper order important,
for the readers will feel cheated otherwise.

I do hope you don't mean chronology when you write "a proper order",
because it's common to present facts to the reader that the reader
won't understand yet or misinterpret. Think of the dog that didn't
bark in Conan Doyle's short story Silver Blaze, for instance. Or the
Christie novel with Hercule Poirot - I don't recall the name of it -
in which the detective asks someone - the butler, if I recall
correctly - to verify the date on the calendar; the reader assumes the
date is important, when the "fact" that's important is that the butler
is nearsighted.

If you mean by "proper order" not bringing in a deus ex machina 'fact'
that upsets the dogcart, I agree with you.

On Nov 23, 8:18 am, The Historian wrote:
On Nov 23, 4:26 am, help bot wrote:

At that time the
relevant police organ would have been the People's Commissariat for
Internal Affairs, the NKVD. Perhaps a distinction without a
difference, but it's important to keep facts straight.

Um, no. What is important to the writer is to weave
an interesting plot, with elements of surprise and
characters who strike a chord with the readers. Only
in, say, a detective story (think Sherlock Holmes) is
the keeping of facts in their proper order important,
for the readers will feel cheated otherwise.

I do hope you don't mean chronology when you write "a proper order",

Given the context of my comment, it is clear that TK's
term "straight" (and hence my follow-up comment) were
in reference to factual accuracy, not chronology.


because it's common to present facts to the reader that the reader
won't understand yet or misinterpret. Think of the dog that didn't
bark in Conan Doyle's short story Silver Blaze, for instance. Or the
Christie novel with Hercule Poirot - I don't recall the name of it -

Fritz? Rover?


in which the detective asks someone - the butler, if I recall
correctly - to verify the date on the calendar; the reader assumes the
date is important, when the "fact" that's important is that the butler
is nearsighted.

Do you mean far-sighted? Near-sighted butlers can read
up close, but have trouble if the calendar is held far away.


If you mean by "proper order" not bringing in a deus ex machina 'fact'
that upsets the dogcart, I agree with you.

I meant precisely the same as Mr. Kingston meant in
his commentary: that keeping facts straight is important.
For instance, mixing up dates has caused the Evans
ratpack considerable difficulties, as has getting their
"facts" in a mess. But their main problem is and has
always been the peculiar selectivity in choosing which
facts to take note of, and which to dishonestly sweep
under the rug.


-- help bot