Korchnoi Under Flohr's Fire

In many of my comments I often criticize Viktor Korchnoi's recent
public statements. Readers can remember my articles "Korchnoi Returns"
when Korchnoi spoke with disrespect about Fischer) or "Korchnoi vs.
Keres" with Viktor's wrong allegations against Keres.

It is difficult to defend Korchnoi's escapades against these
outstanding chess players. However, we must not forget what pressures
Korchoi was subjected to in the years of his rivalry for the chess
crown, especially the match in Baguio with Anatoly Karpov in 1978. 25
years have passed since that time, but those events still stand clear
in my memory as if they happened yesterday. I cannot forget that
animosity towards Korchnoi as a runaway renegade, the animosity that
was painstakingly nurtured by the Soviet media.

Particularly noteworthy in that respect were the remarks made after
the Baguio match by grandmaster Salo Flohr to a correspondent of the
Soviet news agency "Novosti". Flohr was a legendary figure in the
history of world and Soviet chess. One of the top-ranking chess
players in the 30s, regarded by many as Alekhine's possible successor
to the chess throne, Flohr won many tournaments in the decade prior to
the Second World War. Engraved in the memory of many generations of
chess fans were Flohr's tie for first with Botvinnik, ahead of Lasker
and Capablanca, in the Moscow tournament in 1935 and the drawn match
with Botvinnik in 1933 in Moscow and Leningrad. After the outbreak of
the Second World War Flohr fled Czechoslovakia and soon became a
Soviet citizen Flohr's chess powers waned too early and Soviet chess
players and fans knew him mainly as a talented chess journalist with a
characteristic wit and humor. Occasionally he was traveling abroad to
play in small tournaments or accompanying Botvinnik whom he had
befriended since the 30s.

However, in the totalitarian system that the Soviet Union represented
nothing could be gained for free. Everyone had to pay a high moral
price to survive and to succeed. Flohr's below-cited comments (drawn
by me from Korchnoi's book "Anti-Chess") show that the famous
grandmaster was, like most of his contemporaries in the Soviet Union a
slave of the communist regime.


Salo Flohr speaks:
"I am not surprised that, having lost the match in Baguio, Viktor
Korchnoi tries to explain his defeat by causes not of a chess nature.
I would be rather surprised if he did not try.
After he lost the world championship match, Korchnoi made a statement
in which, seeking to explain his failure, he sharply attacked Karpov,
the Soviet delegation, the organizers of the match, and the
International Chess Federation. Korchnoi declared, in particular, "the
organizers of the match were fully under Soviet pressure". Korchnoi
claims that he experienced "incredible stress" during the match. (1)

These absolutely undocumented statements look like a child's babble,
but I understand what is their primary cause: Korchnoi – and this has
long been known – is unable to lose in a gentlemanly way. Of course it
is more pleasant to win, but one must also bear a defeat with dignity.
I have seen many world chess championship matches. I remember 1935,
when the great Alekhine lost to Max Euwe. The champion of all time, as
I regard him, clothed in tailcoat, held out a hand to his happy rival
and uttered the traditional words of sportsmanship, "Hurrah to the new
World Champion!" (2)

Korchnoi tried to copy Robert Fischer, for whom, by the way, he is no
match as a chess player. Fischer brought a special chair with him to
his match with Spassky in Reykjavik – Korchnoi brings a similar chair
to Baguio. Fischer in the Icelandic capital sends protest after
protest to the board of appeals – Korchnoi in the Philippines does the
same thing. I must note, however, that Fischer's remarks were most
often to the point, though some were wrong. But they were never
egoistic. This stands in marked contrast with Korchnoi, who in his
caprices works only for himself. (3)

Let us recall the 1974 match between Korchnoi and Karpov. It passed
smoothly, and the Muscovites offered the players the best halls of
their city. But as soon as Korchnoi lost he began to complain to
journalists about the discrimination, which he had supposedly felt
during the match. I admit that the public was more sympathetic toward
Karpov, but the blame rests above all with Korchnoi himself, since on
the eve of the match he made at least two immodest statements.
Firstly, he said that Karpov was too young and inexperienced for a
meeting with Fischer and that he, Korchnoi, would not give his rival
an opportunity to meet the then world champion. Secondly, Korchnoi
publicly promised to "be through with Karpov" within seventeen games.
If I had been a fan of Korchnoi, after these
statements of his I would no doubt have crossed over to the "Karpov
camp". (4)

Here are some of my comments on Flohr's remarks:

(1) I am not surprised either. Flohr was an experienced chess player.
He knew quite well that all chess players, without exception,
explained their losses by "causes not of a chess nature". Even
Kasparov losing to Polgar, Karpov, and Deep Blue usually finds
excuses. But since Korchnoi was regarded as an enemy of the USSR, he
was not allowed, according to Flohr, to have any justification
of his losses.

(2) It is no secret today, as well as it was no secret at the time of
the Baguio match that the whole Soviet State machine was on Karpov's
side. We do not have to look for proofs and confirmaations. All
archives have been opened up by now, books and articles narrating the
stories of all Karpov's matches with Korchnoi and later with kasparov
are available to anyone today.
Personally, I witnessed Karpov's with Korchnoi in 1974, and Kasparov's
two matches with Karpov in 1984 and 1985. Suffice it to remember all
those KGB guys who were swarming the playing hall and the press
centers of these matches. Karpov had a huge delegation in Baguio and
Merano, he had an awesome chess support: Tal, Polugaeyevsky, Balashov,
Vasyukov, Zaitsev, let alone various journalists, psychologists,
cooks, etc. What is more, he had on his side the support of FIDE and
its President Florencio Campomanes who was always playing the Soviet
side of the game.Naturally, "the organizers of the match were fully
under Soviet control".

How could Korchnoi in this situation bear his defeat "with dignity"?
Flohr citing the Alekhine-Euwe match is obviously beside the point!
Alekhine and Euwe were not political enemies! Rather, Alekhine was
considered at that time as much as Korchnoi many years later, as an
enemy of the Soviet Union. I wonder what would have happened to Flohr
had he lived in Moscow for praising Alekhine's tailcoat and
sportsmanship?!

(3) Trying to complete Korchnoi's character assassination, Flohr goes
well over the top! He goes so far as to praise even Bobby Fischer.
"Fischer's remarks were most often to the point. they were never
egoistic…" Flohr, as well as other Soviet journalists, was doing
everything possible to blacken the American grandmaster througout
many years. However, with Korchnoi in the highlight, Flohr all of a
sudden needed Fischer to beat up Korchnoi.

(4) Korchnoi was telling the truth about his first match with Karpov
in 1974. I remember the communist youngsters in the street greeting
Karpov outside the playing hall, hollering "Tolya, kill him!…" But
those who really loved the game, and they were no less numerous than
Karpov's supporters, were wishing Korchnoi every success.

Besides, Korchnoi had, as anyone else, the right to express his
opinion about Karpov's chess strength. Today, when I criticize, say,
Kasparov's views on the war in Iraq, my critics tell me that everyone
has the right to express his opinion. So criticizing the chess
potential of an adversary is
forbidden, but the massacre of innocent people is allowed?!

The worst and most disgusting part of it is that Flohr, in his heart
and soul, was in Korchnoi's camp. But he knew very well which side of
bread was buttered on: so he did not have to "cross over to the Karpov
camp". He was always there!

The tragic paradox is that Flohr, apart from being a great chess
wizard, was a most pleasant and likeable man. That shows that the
political regime and the powers that be, to quote Shakespeare, "make
cowards us all".

Aryeh Davidoff

(Aryeh Davidoff) wrote in
message . com...
Korchnoi Under Flohr's Fire
(snipped)
The tragic paradox is that Flohr, apart from being a great chess wizard, was
a most pleasant and likeable man. That shows that the political regime and
the powers that be, to quote Shakespeare, "make cowards us all".

Dear Mr. Davidoff:

Did you intend to imply that "the political regime and the powers that be"
became the substitute for Salo Flohr's conscience? Or did you simply "quote
Shakespeare" inaccurately?

Here's the relevant part of Hamlet's famous soliloquy, 'To be, or not to be.'

But that dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
--William Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1)

'Words once spoken cannot be recalled: but they may be contradicted by other
words.'
--Samuel Richardson (Clarissa)

--Nick