On Feb 15, 1:46*pm, RookHouse wrote:
On Feb 15, 11:51*am, wrote:

* You should read Bronstein's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." What
Offramp refers to is discussed on page 107: "Boleslavsky was leading
in the Candidates Tournament, but after a talk with Boris Vainstein he
decided to slow down to allow me to tie for first place with him."
* The idea of Vainstein, then head of the Soviet chess federation, was
to propose a three-way match-tournament between Botvinnik,
Boleslavsky, and Bronstein, to decide the title. That is why
Boleslavsky slowed down. He had a dreadful record against Botvinnik,
+0 -7 =4 at the time, and knew he stood little chance in a one-on-one
match. When Botvinnik would have none of the 3-way idea, the playoff
match was arranged.

Amazing. *Seems the Russians were constantly toying with the system
back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. *Fischer was so right about the
corruption in the Soviet chess machine.

I'm not sure I would characterize this as an instance of corruption
as the word is usually applied to Soviet chess, i.e. collusion and
other forms of cheating to ensure Soviet victories over non-Soviet
players. The key to the 1950 Candidates, in my opinion, lies in the
antipathy between two Soviets, Botvinnik and Vainstein.
Boris Vainstein (1907-1993), besides being head of Soviet chess
administration, was a high-ranking member of the NKVD, the USSR's
secret police headed by the notorious Lavrente Beria. He and Botvinnik
were at loggerheads over Botvinnik's desire to play Alekhine for the
world title. Vainstein may have opposed this even before WW II on the
grounds that the defector Alekhine was a traitor to the Motherland;
after the war he most certainly opposed it on grounds that Alekhine
was a Nazi collaborator.
Botvinnik, besides resenting Vainstein's interference with his title
match ambitions, despised BV personally and politically. MB was a
loyal member of the Communist Party; according to Soltis he saw
Vainstein "as a well-connected member of the hoodlum elite that had
humbled the Party during the Terror." Westerners tend to think of the
USSR of those days as a monolithic structure, but it definitely its
share of internal schisms and competing factions, the NKVD-vs-CP being
one example. It's hard not to see the Botvinnik-Vainstein antipathy as
a microcosm of this, as well as a personal matter.
The antipathy continued after Alekhine's death, with the events of
1950 being its most important recurrence, IMO. As Soltis points out in
"Soviet Chess 1917-1991," pp. 185-187, it was Vainstein who rigged the
Candidates Tournament so that Bronstein and Boleslavsky would tie, in
hopes of arranging a 3-way match tournament. With Boleslavsky and
Bronstein being both good friends and Vainstein proteges, it's not
hard imagine how they might collude against Botvinnik in such a
contest and thus ensure that MB did not retain the title.
Botvinnik certainly suspected this, and thus refused such a
disadvantageous arrangement. Perhaps in this case MB's party
connections trumped BV's NKVD connections, or perhaps Botvinnik's
refusal, grounded in FIDE rules, was enough. Though as Soltis points
out, the Soviets showed little consideration for FIDE in all this --
they did not even report the result of the Boleslavsky-Bronstein
playoff for more than 20 days after it was over.

At least, the above seems to me a plausible picture of those events,
based on what I have read in Bronstein and Soltis. Perhaps others
better versed in Soviet history can offer more information.

On Feb 17, 11:10*am, wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:46*pm, RookHouse wrote:





On Feb 15, 11:51*am, wrote:

* You should read Bronstein's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." What
Offramp refers to is discussed on page 107: "Boleslavsky was leading
in the Candidates Tournament, but after a talk with Boris Vainstein he
decided to slow down to allow me to tie for first place with him."
* The idea of Vainstein, then head of the Soviet chess federation, was
to propose a three-way match-tournament between Botvinnik,
Boleslavsky, and Bronstein, to decide the title. That is why
Boleslavsky slowed down. He had a dreadful record against Botvinnik,
+0 -7 =4 at the time, and knew he stood little chance in a one-on-one
match. When Botvinnik would have none of the 3-way idea, the playoff
match was arranged.

Amazing. *Seems the Russians were constantly toying with the system
back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. *Fischer was so right about the
corruption in the Soviet chess machine.

* I'm not sure I would characterize this as an instance of corruption
as the word is usually applied to Soviet chess, i.e. collusion and
other forms of cheating to ensure Soviet victories over non-Soviet
players. The key to the 1950 Candidates, in my opinion, lies in the
antipathy between two Soviets, Botvinnik and Vainstein.
* Boris Vainstein (1907-1993), besides being head of Soviet chess
administration, was a high-ranking member of the NKVD, the USSR's
secret police headed by the notorious Lavrente Beria. He and Botvinnik
were at loggerheads over Botvinnik's desire to play Alekhine for the
world title. Vainstein may have opposed this even before WW II on the
grounds that the defector Alekhine was a traitor to the Motherland;
after the war he most certainly opposed it on grounds that Alekhine
was a Nazi collaborator.
* Botvinnik, besides resenting Vainstein's interference with his title
match ambitions, despised BV personally and politically. MB was a
loyal member of the Communist Party; according to Soltis he saw
Vainstein "as a well-connected member of the hoodlum elite that had
humbled the Party during the Terror." Westerners tend to think of the
USSR of those days as a monolithic structure, but it definitely its
share of internal schisms and competing factions, the NKVD-vs-CP being
one example. It's hard not to see the Botvinnik-Vainstein antipathy as
a microcosm of this, as well as a personal matter.
* The antipathy continued after Alekhine's death, with the events of
1950 being its most important recurrence, IMO. As Soltis points out in
"Soviet Chess 1917-1991," pp. 185-187, it was Vainstein who rigged the
Candidates Tournament so that Bronstein and Boleslavsky would tie, in
hopes of arranging a 3-way match tournament. With Boleslavsky and
Bronstein being both good friends and Vainstein proteges, it's not
hard imagine how they might collude against Botvinnik in such a
contest and thus ensure that MB did not retain the title.
* Botvinnik certainly suspected this, and thus refused such a
disadvantageous arrangement. Perhaps in this case MB's party
connections trumped BV's NKVD connections, or perhaps Botvinnik's
refusal, grounded in FIDE rules, was enough. Though as Soltis points
out, the Soviets showed little consideration for FIDE in all this --
they did not even report the result of the Boleslavsky-Bronstein
playoff for more than 20 days after it was over.

* At least, the above seems to me a plausible picture of those events,
based on what I have read in Bronstein and Soltis. Perhaps others
better versed in Soviet history can offer more information.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interesting. I may research this even further and do a story about it
on my Rook House blog (after Morelia-Linares is completed).

Thanks,
Morphy
http://www.rookhouse.com

On Feb 17, 4:57 pm, RookHouse wrote:
On Feb 17, 11:10 am, wrote:



On Feb 15, 1:46 pm, RookHouse wrote:

On Feb 15, 11:51 am, wrote:

You should read Bronstein's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." What
Offramp refers to is discussed on page 107: "Boleslavsky was leading
in the Candidates Tournament, but after a talk with Boris Vainstein he
decided to slow down to allow me to tie for first place with him."
The idea of Vainstein, then head of the Soviet chess federation, was
to propose a three-way match-tournament between Botvinnik,
Boleslavsky, and Bronstein, to decide the title. That is why
Boleslavsky slowed down. He had a dreadful record against Botvinnik,
+0 -7 =4 at the time, and knew he stood little chance in a one-on-one
match. When Botvinnik would have none of the 3-way idea, the playoff
match was arranged.

Amazing. Seems the Russians were constantly toying with the system
back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Fischer was so right about the
corruption in the Soviet chess machine.

I'm not sure I would characterize this as an instance of corruption
as the word is usually applied to Soviet chess, i.e. collusion and
other forms of cheating to ensure Soviet victories over non-Soviet
players. The key to the 1950 Candidates, in my opinion, lies in the
antipathy between two Soviets, Botvinnik and Vainstein.
Boris Vainstein (1907-1993), besides being head of Soviet chess
administration, was a high-ranking member of the NKVD, the USSR's
secret police headed by the notorious Lavrente Beria. He and Botvinnik
were at loggerheads over Botvinnik's desire to play Alekhine for the
world title. Vainstein may have opposed this even before WW II on the
grounds that the defector Alekhine was a traitor to the Motherland;
after the war he most certainly opposed it on grounds that Alekhine
was a Nazi collaborator.
Botvinnik, besides resenting Vainstein's interference with his title
match ambitions, despised BV personally and politically. MB was a
loyal member of the Communist Party; according to Soltis he saw
Vainstein "as a well-connected member of the hoodlum elite that had
humbled the Party during the Terror." Westerners tend to think of the
USSR of those days as a monolithic structure, but it definitely its
share of internal schisms and competing factions, the NKVD-vs-CP being
one example. It's hard not to see the Botvinnik-Vainstein antipathy as
a microcosm of this, as well as a personal matter.
The antipathy continued after Alekhine's death, with the events of
1950 being its most important recurrence, IMO. As Soltis points out in
"Soviet Chess 1917-1991," pp. 185-187, it was Vainstein who rigged the
Candidates Tournament so that Bronstein and Boleslavsky would tie, in
hopes of arranging a 3-way match tournament. With Boleslavsky and
Bronstein being both good friends and Vainstein proteges, it's not
hard imagine how they might collude against Botvinnik in such a
contest and thus ensure that MB did not retain the title.
Botvinnik certainly suspected this, and thus refused such a
disadvantageous arrangement. Perhaps in this case MB's party
connections trumped BV's NKVD connections, or perhaps Botvinnik's
refusal, grounded in FIDE rules, was enough. Though as Soltis points
out, the Soviets showed little consideration for FIDE in all this --
they did not even report the result of the Boleslavsky-Bronstein
playoff for more than 20 days after it was over.

At least, the above seems to me a plausible picture of those events,
based on what I have read in Bronstein and Soltis. Perhaps others
better versed in Soviet history can offer more information.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interesting. I may research this even further and do a story about it
on my Rook House blog (after Morelia-Linares is completed).

Yes, because then the context of chess history will be clearer.

On Feb 17, 8:28*pm, Offramp wrote:

Yes, because then the context of chess history will be clearer.- Hide quoted text -

Just meant that I would read more about it and post for my readers
that may not come to this chess group.

No need to be a smart ass.