Hello to all the friends chess players:

We invite them to visit our blog

http://comentariosdeajedrez.blogspot.com

We recommend the new articles on:

1. The Euphemism in Botvinnik

Best regards from Gijón - Asturias - Spain

Luis Méndez Castedo
Pedro Méndez Castedo

On May 4, 2:14*pm, lumecas wrote:
Hello to all the friends chess players:

We invite them to visit our blog

http://comentariosdeajedrez.blogspot.com

We recommend the new articles on:

1. The Euphemism in Botvinnik

Best regards from Gijón - Asturias - Spain

Luis Méndez Castedo
Pedro Méndez Castedo

An interesting little article. One could easily find many more
instances of "euphemism" in Botvinnik's writings. I take it that "The
Sorcerer's Apprentice" has been translated into Spanish? The passage
you cite is on page 17 of the English edition, rather than page 22 as
you give.

Regarding your second euphemism, you quote Bronstein as saying:

"Botvinnik es el primero en la teoría ajedrecística, lo que
aprendemos hoy , él lo aprendió ayer y lo que aprendamos mañana el lo
ha aprendido hoy." (Botvinnik is supreme in chess theory; what we
learn today, he learned yesterday, and what we will learn tomorrow, he
has learned today.)

You then interpret this to mean "Es decir, Botvinnik controlaba toda
la información en el ajedrez ruso de la época y de forma privilegiada
según sus intereses." (That is to say, Botvinnik controlled all
Russian chess information during this period in a privileged manner to
serve his own interests.)
This is undoubtedly true to some extent, but I do not think that was
the only meaning of Bronstein's statement. There was, I think, also
genuine admiration for and acknowledgement of Botvinnik's deep study
of the openings, which was accomplished to a great extent by hard
work, not just by controlling information.

On May 4, 3:33 pm, wrote:

You then interpret this to mean "Es decir, Botvinnik controlaba toda
la información en el ajedrez ruso de la época y de forma privilegiada
según sus intereses." (That is to say, Botvinnik controlled all
Russian chess information during this period in a privileged manner to
serve his own interests.)
This is undoubtedly true to some extent, but I do not think that was
the only meaning of Bronstein's statement. There was, I think, also
genuine admiration for and acknowledgement of Botvinnik's deep study
of the openings, which was accomplished to a great extent by hard
work, not just by controlling information.


Is there any information on just how all this was
supposedly accomplished? I would imagine (but
have no way of knowing) that controlling ALL such
information was a daunting task, worthy of a small
army of men; apparently, Mr. Botvinnik was a real
"one-man army", in more ways than one.

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.


-- help bot

On May 6, 12:20*am, help bot wrote:
On May 4, 3:33 pm, wrote:

* You then interpret this to mean "Es decir, Botvinnik controlaba toda
la información en el ajedrez ruso de la época y de forma privilegiada
según sus intereses." (That is to say, Botvinnik controlled all
Russian chess information during this period in a privileged manner to
serve his own interests.)
* This is undoubtedly true to some extent, but I do not think that was
the only meaning of Bronstein's statement. There was, I think, also
genuine admiration for and acknowledgement of Botvinnik's deep study
of the openings, which was accomplished to a great extent by hard
work, not just by controlling information.

* Is there any information on just how all this was
supposedly accomplished? *I would imagine (but
have no way of knowing) that controlling ALL such
information was a daunting task, worthy of a small
army of men; apparently, Mr. Botvinnik was a real
"one-man army", in more ways than one.

I know for sure of two ways in which Botvinnik "controlled
information" about his opening repertoire, though neither could be
considered at all unethical. One, he simply did not play publicly for
long periods of time. For example, he did not play a single serious
public game between winning the world championship in 1948, and his
first defense of the title against Bronstein in 1951, nor between
losing the title to Smyslov in 1957 and reclaiming it in 1958. Two, he
would often have secret training matches, the games of which would not
be published.
Bronstein believes Botvinnik avoided playing in 1948-51 "because he
did not want to reveal his opening secrets to his challenger."
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 (see
"Botvinnik's Best Games," vol 2, pp. 11-12).
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, and perhaps limit publication of
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.
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 of a free
press and free circulation of information, but wouldn't bother a
Soviet mind-set like Botvinnik's. Heck, probably wouldn't bother many
Western players, if they had the power. But whether Botvinnik actually
excercised that kind of control, I couldn't say.

* 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, preferential treatment, and unethical
behind-the-scenes dealings (e.g. pressure on Keres).

Here's a fairly relevant article by Edward Winter from 2003:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/pachman.html

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

* 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, preferential treatment, and unethical
behind-the-scenes dealings (e.g. pressure on Keres).

* Here's a fairly relevant article by Edward Winter from 2003:

*http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/pachman.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A truly fascinating article, whatever one thinks of Botvinnik.
Personally, looking over "Half a Century of Chess", I find his play to
be just beautiful, at least where I semi-understand it. Was it
Bronstein who said that Botvinnik "drives huge nails into the board",
or something to that effect? Do you have the correct quote?

Regards,
zdrakec

On May 6, 3:37*pm, help bot wrote:
On May 6, 11:10 am, wrote:

* 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,

Then you might be well advised to avoid commenting from ignorance.
Not that that has deterred you in the past.

* This "question" would seem to apply to *all* of
the Russian world champions; why then is Mr.
Botvinnik being singled out here?

It's quite simple. The link given in the original post deals with
Botvinnik, therefore my comments deal with Botvinnik.

On May 6, 2:37 pm, help bot wrote:

Wow bot, you are usually FOS but on the level of a "delightful
blowhard ala Bogo" versus "jackass blowhard ala P Innes," to paraphase
TK himself, but this time you really crossed the line.

Flower up that prose a little and you will be Chess Two in no time.

On May 6, 11:10*am, wrote:
On May 6, 12:20*am, help bot wrote:

On May 4, 3:33 pm, wrote:

* You then interpret this to mean "Es decir, Botvinnik controlaba toda
la información en el ajedrez ruso de la época y de forma privilegiada
según sus intereses." (That is to say, Botvinnik controlled all
Russian chess information during this period in a privileged manner to
serve his own interests.)
* This is undoubtedly true to some extent, but I do not think that was
the only meaning of Bronstein's statement. There was, I think, also
genuine admiration for and acknowledgement of Botvinnik's deep study
of the openings, which was accomplished to a great extent by hard
work, not just by controlling information.

* Is there any information on just how all this was
supposedly accomplished? *I would imagine (but
have no way of knowing) that controlling ALL such
information was a daunting task, worthy of a small
army of men; apparently, Mr. Botvinnik was a real
"one-man army", in more ways than one.

* I know for sure of two ways in which Botvinnik "controlled
information" about his opening repertoire, though neither could be
considered at all unethical. One, he simply did not play publicly for
long periods of time. For example, he did not play a single serious
public game between winning the world championship in 1948, and his
first defense of the title against Bronstein in 1951, nor between
losing the title to Smyslov in 1957 and reclaiming it in 1958. Two, he
would often have secret training matches, the games of which would not
be published.
* Bronstein believes Botvinnik avoided playing in 1948-51 "because he
did not want to reveal his opening secrets to his challenger."
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 (see
"Botvinnik's Best Games," vol 2, pp. 11-12).
* 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, and perhaps limit publication of
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.
* 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 of a free
press and free circulation of information, but wouldn't bother a
Soviet mind-set like Botvinnik's. Heck, probably wouldn't bother many
Western players, if they had the power. But whether Botvinnik actually
excercised that kind of control, I couldn't say.

* 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, preferential treatment, and unethical
behind-the-scenes dealings (e.g. pressure on Keres).

* Here's a fairly relevant article by Edward Winter from 2003:

*http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/pachman.html

A particularly relevant quote from the Winter article is this,
written by Bohatirchuk in 1949:

"[Botvinnik's] trainer (now perhaps a whole retinue of trainers)
works out theoretical novelties for him and tests them in play with
other masters; publication of these trial games is forbidden until
Botvinnik uses that particular variation."

This, from a Soviet defector, supports the notion that Botvinnik
was, at least to some extent, controlling chess information in Russia.
It also jibes with what I said about secret training games.

On May 6, 4:08 pm, wrote:

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,

Then you might be well advised to avoid commenting from ignorance.
Not that that has deterred you in the past.

As far as ignorance goes, one would be hard-
pressed to top the act of writing a letter praising
Larry Evans' biased speculations, and only then
researching the issue, then writing again to
register a flip-flop.


This "question" would seem to apply to *all* of
the Russian world champions; why then is Mr.
Botvinnik being singled out here?

It's quite simple. The link given in the original post deals with
Botvinnik, therefore my comments deal with Botvinnik.

That only explains why Mr. Botvinnik has been
singled out by Mr. Kingston in this particular
thread. My question was not that limited; in fact,
I asked why both TK *and* the Evans ratpackers
have decided to single out MB for their special
attentions, and that question obviously pertains
to a number of different threads, over a period of
some time. (I am "explaining" this, not for the
benefit of the dishonest poster TK, but for others
who may not be aware.)

The lack of an honest answer tells a revealing
tale, not unlike lipstick on one's collar... .


-- help bot