Hello all, and especially the historians out the

On page 183 of Pergamon Press' 1984 edition of Botvinnik's "Half a
Century of Chess", I find the following curious remark:

"...But I very much wanted to win this game [game four of the 1953
match in Moscow between Botvinnik and Taimanov to break the tie from
the USSR championship - zdrakec], which practically assured me of the
title of USSR champion. This was furthered, I would say, by the almost
passionate atmosphere of the match, due to the fact that during our
game in the championship [tournament, not the current match - zdrakec]
a rather unpleasant dispute took place...."

The tournament in question was the 20th USSR Championship, held in
Moscow in 1952. Can anybody fill in the details of the dispute between
Botvinnik and Taimanov?

Regards,
zdrakec

On Jan 17, 3:55*am, zdrakec wrote:
The tournament in question was the 20th USSR Championship, held in
Moscow in 1952. Can anybody fill in the details of the dispute between
Botvinnik and Taimanov?

Regards,
zdrakec

'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)

wrote in message
...
On Jan 17, 3:55 am, zdrakec wrote:
The tournament in question was the 20th USSR Championship, held in
Moscow in 1952. Can anybody fill in the details of the dispute between
Botvinnik and Taimanov?

Regards,
zdrakec

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

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

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

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

...
On Jan 17, 3:55 am, zdrakec wrote:

The tournament in question was the 20th USSR Championship, held in
Moscow in 1952. Can anybody fill in the details of the dispute between
Botvinnik and Taimanov?

Regards,
zdrakec

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

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.


All well and good, my boy-- except that you seem
to want to have things both ways.

You can't write MB off as a no-good cheater, and
then at the same time praise his co-cheater, GM
Taimanov, to the skies for "artistry" and all that.
The fact remains that in order for a game's result
to be fixed by agreement, it takes TWO (cheaters),
as with dancing the Tango.

In sum, if one is against this sort of thing on
principle, then please make an effort to apply the
rule equitably, not only to those who you happen
to personally dislike. And if there is nothing wrong
with fixing the outcome of games, then please stop
rubbishing your vast superiors like this.

When I see Mr. Botvinnik admitting to such things,
I sense that his writings are not just lies and fluffery,
as plague certain other writers. But I feel *no*
sympathy, for the litmus test is the fact that such
agreements are kept secret, and this tells the tale
of dishonesty, of deception. To me, both players
are guilty together, or innocent together-- it can be
no other way. Personal feelings are immaterial on
that score.


-- help bot

* 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.

According to Roberto Grau, Richard Réti used to do that kind of trick.