On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:12:25 GMT, EZoto wrote:

On 23 Dec 2003 22:28:30 GMT, (Etj718) wrote:

it was Smyslov's fault he lost the rematch

Can you elaborate this point?I did hear that Smyslov was sick for the first 3
games.Is this what you are referring to?

He was. Unfortunately he was too much of a gentlemen to postpone it.
Smyslov could have postponed it. He didn't. Why I don't know.
That's where the details get sketchy. Then again so with Bronstein
and Keres.

EZoto

I'm not sure where I read this, but Smyslov stated that he had fallen
ill just before the start of the 1958 rematch. He asked for a
postponement but was denied one by the Soviet organisers. Botvinnik
won 3 games in a row before Smyslov managed to recover his health.
Over the next 20 games Smyslov outscored Botvinnik but could not make
up the deficit. By 1959 Tal had overtaken Smyslov and Keres, and the
rest is history.

I'm not sure where I read this, but Smyslov stated that he had fallen
ill just before the start of the 1958 rematch. He asked for a
postponement but was denied one by the Soviet organisers. Botvinnik
won 3 games in a row before Smyslov managed to recover his health.
Over the next 20 games Smyslov outscored Botvinnik but could not make
up the deficit. By 1959 Tal had overtaken Smyslov and Keres, and the
rest is history.

The part that is sketchy is that if he used his own political pull he
could have postponed it. Who knows how pro Botvinnik the politcians
were. You can speculate over and over. Smyslov getting sick. Tal
getting sick. Keres told to lose. All in all, Botvinnik's reign as a
world champion player is shady indeed.

EZoto

Not to mention Bronstein's family being threatened if he beat Botvinnik. It
all makes me wonder if Spassky didn't throw the 1972 World Championship to
Fischer.





"EZoto" wrote in message
s.com...


I'm not sure where I read this, but Smyslov stated that he had fallen
ill just before the start of the 1958 rematch. He asked for a
postponement but was denied one by the Soviet organisers. Botvinnik
won 3 games in a row before Smyslov managed to recover his health.
Over the next 20 games Smyslov outscored Botvinnik but could not make
up the deficit. By 1959 Tal had overtaken Smyslov and Keres, and the
rest is history.

The part that is sketchy is that if he used his own political pull he
could have postponed it. Who knows how pro Botvinnik the politcians
were. You can speculate over and over. Smyslov getting sick. Tal
getting sick. Keres told to lose. All in all, Botvinnik's reign as a
world champion player is shady indeed.

EZoto

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:24:22 GMT, "rlsuth" wrote:

Not to mention Bronstein's family being threatened if he beat Botvinnik. It
all makes me wonder if Spassky didn't throw the 1972 World Championship to
Fischer.

Why would Spassky throw the World Championship to Fischer?

EZoto

..
Who knows how pro Botvinnik the politcians
were. You can speculate over and over. Smyslov getting sick. Tal
getting sick. Keres told to lose. All in all, Botvinnik's reign as a
world champion player is shady indeed.



The pundits can "explain" how Smyslov lost. They can "explain" how Keres
lost. They can "explain" how Reshevshy lost. But they never can "explain" how
it was that Botvinnik -- yes, that bungling patzer who only won because all his
opponents were forced to lose to him on purpose -- they can't quite seem to
"explain" how it was that he managed to play so many good moves. This is the
part where the pundits are seen to be completely in the dark, for while they
can "explain" other players' bad moves away, they cannot so easily "explain" so
many good moves by Botvinnik, without in the process, implicating their fallen
heroes of wrongdoing.





"It was all a conspiracy -- in reality, Botvinnik barely knew how the pieces
moved!"

"His precise moves were all arranged, in advance."

"He wore an earpiece during play, and his moves were fed to him -- live -- by
Bobby Fischer, in consultation with Alekhine."






The deeper question here, is why do YOU want Smyslov to have been better than
Botvinnik? What about Keres? Do you have "issues" with Botvinnik's style,
as many did with the style of Petrosian? Or is it something else? Do you
recall that when Botvinnik played Fischer -- surely a man above reproach, when
it comes to the throwing of games -- he did not lose? Sickness? Jet-lag?
Bad-hair day? Not yet Fischer, but still Botvinnik?!! :-)

Then again so with Bronstein
and Keres.

Out of all of the matches I am convinced Bronstein was not "allowed" to win the
1951 Title Match.I think it is impossible to play for the World Championship
and be a "weak "endgame player.

..
Out of all of the matches I am convinced Bronstein was not "allowed" to win
the
1951 Title Match.I think it is impossible to play for the World Championship
and be a "weak "endgame player.



Nonsense. The endgame come last, and is therefore the least crucial part of
the game from the standpoint of a book-monkey, or a hyperaggressive
swashbuckler.

Fischer bungled a won endgame against Botvinnik. Was he ordered to do so?

Tal dreaded the endgame so much in his first match with Botvinnik, that he
went "bonkers" in the middlegame -- and won!

In his match win over Capablanca, Alekhine demonstrated an amazing ability in
the endgame -- that part previously assummed to be the Cuban's realm. Did this
mean that Capa had become "weak" in the endgame?

No blunder, even in the endgame, will ever suffice to "prove" that somebody
threw a match, for the evidence shows that even simple blunders are made by the
greatest players in such matches.
We even have books on "miniatures" of the world champions -- sometimes even
the greats getting slaughtered in the opening. Endgame books are literally
filled with examples of "book draws" which were lost by the great players, in
practice. "Rooks belong BEHIND passed pawns," the author writes, but GM x
played instead this random "loser" move. :-)



In short, blaming Botvinnik for Bronstein's failure to play the endgame quite
as well as he, is akin to blaming the hammer for striking your own thumb,
instead of the nail.

Botvinnik was a strong player. I didn't say he wasn't. What I am
saying is that he used every advantage he could and had the
politicians in his pocket. Botvinnik was not a nice guy. As a matter
of fact there were those who feared him. The politicians wanted him
to be champion. In his first match ever to see who would be the
contender for the world title he lost to Levenfish. Levenfish was a
far better player but they chose Botvinnik. Why? Botvinnik was a
strong player. Top ten in the world at that time. But he was a bad
guy. So why is it that Botvinnik isn't condemned by so many. If he
was despised by so many why isn't he written as this evil guy. The
story goes that Paul Keres played in Nazi Germany and Stalin ordered
him executed. When Botvinnik heard this he begged Stalin to spare
Keres life. Botvinnik used his influence for some good. The story is
shady at best how it all happened but many at that time who were there
say different things about the incident but Stalin wanted Keres dead
for what he did, and Botvinnik intervened for him. Some say risking
his own life for him. Why? Maybe Botvinnik couldn't bear to see a
great chess player ended. Maybe Botvinnik had a heart after all and
was sort of a victim of politics. Who knows. But if Botvinnik did do
that for Keres then he redeemed himself in history and the eyes of all
chessplayers. We all know what Stalin was like in those days.

EZoto

..
Botvinnik was a strong player. I didn't say he wasn't. What I am
saying is that he used every advantage he could and had the
politicians in his pocket. Botvinnik was not a nice guy.


And this somehow "proves" that Bronstein was incapable of an oversight in the
endgame? Jeez, I have watched -- live -- as GM's have made stupid blunders
against each other, the games being later published as if some sort of
brilliancy by the player who blundered next-to-last, and won.






So why is it that Botvinnik isn't condemned by so many.


Wrong question. You should ask why is it that Botvinnik is almost always
condemned, without any substantive evidence to support the speculative
accusations against him.




Suggested experiment: carefully replay every game in "100 Selected Games" and
then try saying, with a straight face, that Botvinnik did not deserve the
title.

This man had a problem with assigning "character weakness" to nearly everyone
in the world (except himself, of course), yet he did undeniably play top-notch
chess.
Funny thing you know, but none of the pundits ever seem to mention the name
"Petrosian" in their unsubstantiated ramblings about Botvinnik's alleged
misdeeds. Other names which give these pundits "difficulties" are Reshevsky
and Fischer, who cannot so easily be incorporated into a vast Russian
conspiracy of games supposedly "thrown" to Botvinnik. Perhaps Stalin's "sway"
extended further than previously thought.... :-)

EZoto wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:24:22 GMT, "rlsuth" wrote:

Not to mention Bronstein's family being threatened if he beat Botvinnik. It
all makes me wonder if Spassky didn't throw the 1972 World Championship to
Fischer.

Why would Spassky throw the World Championship to Fischer?

EZoto

You shouldn't feed 'em..