On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:38:50 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


I always wanted to novelise a conversation between Keres Alekhine during
that Munich tournament, since /surely/ Alekhine would have told Keres his
opinion of the /likely/ result of returning to the S. U. and what a massive
risk that was, whereas going the other way was no risk at all, and he could
be, -I agree with you-, Champion of the West, maybe the World, but certainly
get paid real dollars for it.


Did Keres' family situation allow this?

On Nov 20, 12:37 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:38:50 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

I always wanted to novelise a conversation between Keres Alekhine during
that Munich tournament, since /surely/ Alekhine would have told Keres his
opinion of the /likely/ result of returning to the S. U. and what a massive
risk that was, whereas going the other way was no risk at all, and he could
be, -I agree with you-, Champion of the West, maybe the World, but certainly
get paid real dollars for it.

Did Keres' family situation allow this?

I don't know about during most of WW II, but toward the end, when
the USSR was re-taking Estonia from the Germans, Keres had a chance to
get away. However, it would have been escape for him alone. He was not
willing to abandon his wife and children.

On Nov 20, 11:38 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"William Hyde" wrote in message

.. Why let Keres
beat Tal 3-1 in the 1959 event, if Keres is to be kept from the
championship at all costs?

Well ... this is all good stuff, and we have rehersed the conversation
before, and exercising it always admits new factors. Should I chose to be
very cycical at this point; the Estonian is allowed to win over the Latvian,
since he was seen to be the lesser threat to Botvinnik,

I wonder about the assessment though. As we all know Tal won
convincingly, but that wasn't so clear before the match. Could the
great Botvinnik be defeated by this "bag of tricks" in a 24 game
match?
Many doubted it.

On the other hand Keres' score against Botvinnik in recent years had
improved markedly from the years up to and including 1947. He might
well have won.


I wonder if the 'fix' was simply to rotate champions, or at least parade a
whole group of them in the West, since too much singularity defeats the idea
of group superiority according to a system - that was the political point of
all.

I think the more parsimonious hypothesis is that they let the chips
fall where they may, at least when Reshevsky was no longer a threat.
The danger of a non-Soviet winning the 1956,59, or 62 candidates
tournaments was surely zero (Keres and Bronstein ceded a
place in the 1956 event to Reshevsky - and the fact that they were
allowed to do that by itself is telling - but he didn't play).

One wonders indeed what he and Alekhine were doing in Munich in 1942 at all,
instead of 'doing' something in New York?

Alekhine had too much confidence in the French defense.

As I understand it, Keres was not willing to leave his family behind.
I've also been told that he simply wanted to live in Estonia, almost
regardless of the regime.

whereas going the other way was no risk at all, and he could
be, -I agree with you-, Champion of the West, maybe the World, but certainly
get paid real dollars for it.

I'm not so sure of the money. He could doubtless support his family
by a combination of chess and journalism - his Chess Life and Review
articles were excellent - but prizes were rather feeble in the west in
the 40s and 50s. And world championship money was negligible.

Still, if he settled in Western Europe he would have had access to
better doctors, and might have lived many years longer.

I'd like to see that parallel world. How would Fischer have motivated
himself if the World Champion was an Estonian living in the
Netherlands?


William Hyde


Cordially, Phil Innes

William Hyde

On Nov 20, 12:15 pm, " wrote:

I recall reading somewhere that while they were in Nazi-occupied
territory Alekhine warned Keres not to return to the USSR. In THE
TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October 1996, page 49) GM Larry
Evans noted:

"Botvinnik was then absolute champion of the Soviet Union (which had
swallowed Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) while Keres was in trouble
for having competed in Nazi-organized tournaments during the war. The
KGB wanted to execute Keres for treason, and his family was also in
peril. His case was examined at the highest level in the Kremlin; they
let him rejoin his family in Estonia, but the price of his reprieve
was to abandon his quest for the crown."


That grotesque distortion has been refuted time and again.

In the articles written by Taylor Kingston, it was shown
how in the hands of Larry Evans, facts stand no chance.

Paul Keres merely agreed not to stand in GM Botvinnik's
way in challenging world champion Alekhine for a shot at
the title. An agreement to "abandon his quest for the
crown" exists only in the very confused minds of a few
Evans ratpackers, and that of their fearless leader himself.

Long time Evans watchers know that this kind of
distortion is endemic in him. Try to show LE -- or his
mindless ratpackers -- where he has erred, and the
response is a knee-jerk huffing and puffing, revealing a
chronic superiority complex. It's a sad thing to observe,
yet hardly uncommon in the realms of chess. It reminds
me of a famous movie in which a fellow is crowned with
a laurel wreath, but at the same time he is unceasing
warned: "remember thou art mortal!" for similar reasons.

The unkind picture painted by critic Edward Winter
may have gone too far in depicting a raving lunatic, as
opposed to a man who merely has a short temper, an
exaggerated sense of self-importance, a puffed-up ego;
but that piece unveiled the same sort of mishandling
of facts as we see above -- carelessly repeated by
drone Larry Parr. The kindest thing LP could do is to
stop repeating "the worst of Larry Evans", but he is
simply not smart enough to recognize his error.

Those who admire the five-time U.S. Champ are
probably wishing he had befriended a smarter drone,
a better PR rep. than Larry Parr. Someone who could
sift through old LE articles and find what might be
regarded as "the best of Larry Evans", not his worst.


-- help bot

wrote in message
...
WHAT ALEKHINE TOLD KERES

I always wanted to novelise a conversation between Keres Alekhine during
that Munich tournament, since /surely/ Alekhine would have told Keres his
opinion of the /likely/ result of returning to the S. U. and what a
massive
risk that was. -- Phil Innes

I recall reading somewhere that while they were in Nazi-occupied
territory Alekhine warned Keres not to return to the USSR. In THE
TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October 1996, page 49) GM Larry
Evans noted:

"Botvinnik was then absolute champion of the Soviet Union (which had
swallowed Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) while Keres was in trouble
for having competed in Nazi-organized tournaments during the war. The
KGB wanted to execute Keres for treason, and his family was also in
peril. His case was examined at the highest level in the Kremlin; they
let him rejoin his family in Estonia, but the price of his reprieve
was to abandon his quest for the crown."

Indeed! Why did he return at all, since the issue can have been far from
certain, despite any assurances? Were there still 'family' in Estonia to
hold hostage - [a la Korchnoi, it is not unthinkable, and the times far more
rude]

As for Alekhine, the jury still seems to be out on what really happened to
him. Hans Ree remarked with glee [in NiC] who does, does not think he was
bumped off. He thought it remarkable that Fred Friedel /did/ think so - he
was far from sure himself.

But there was certainly motive for retribution. After Munich, 42, Alekhine
is found in Poland hanging out Franck, 'the butcher of Krakow', while Polish
people were literally hanging from lamp posts.

Phil Innes

ANOTHER FAKE?

This appears to be from a Fake Chess One (Phil Innes) whose regular
login is



But this one is from


Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
...
WHAT ALEKHINE TOLD KERES

I always wanted to novelise a conversation between Keres Alekhine during
that Munich tournament, since /surely/ Alekhine would have told Keres his
opinion of the /likely/ result of returning to the S. U. and what a
massive
risk that was. -- Phil Innes

I recall reading somewhere that while they were in Nazi-occupied
territory Alekhine warned Keres not to return to the USSR. In THE
TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October 1996, page 49) GM Larry
Evans noted:

"Botvinnik was then absolute champion of the Soviet Union (which had
swallowed Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) while Keres was in trouble
for having competed in Nazi-organized tournaments during the war. The
KGB wanted to execute Keres for treason, and his family was also in
peril. His case was examined at the highest level in the Kremlin; they
let him rejoin his family in Estonia, but the price of his reprieve
was to abandon his quest for the crown."

Indeed! Why did he return at all, since the issue can have been far from
certain, despite any assurances? Were there still 'family' in Estonia to
hold hostage - [a la Korchnoi, it is not unthinkable, and the times far more
rude]

As for Alekhine, the jury still seems to be out on what really happened to
him. Hans Ree remarked with glee [in NiC] who does, does not think he was
bumped off. He thought it remarkable that Fred Friedel /did/ think so - he
was far from sure himself.

But there was certainly motive for retribution. After Munich, 42, Alekhine
is found in Poland hanging out Franck, 'the butcher of Krakow', while Polish
people were literally hanging from lamp posts.

Phil Innes

LIFE IS TOO SHORT

"Botvinnik was then absolute champion of the Soviet Union (which had
swallowed Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) while Keres was in trouble
for having competed in Nazi-organized tournaments during the war. The
KGB wanted to execute Keres for treason, and his family was also in
peril. His case was examined at the highest level in the Kremlin; they
let him rejoin his family in Estonia, but the price of his reprieve
was to abandon his quest for the crown." -- GM Larry Evans (1996)

That grotesque distortion has been refuted time and again. -- Greg
Kennedy (help bot)

The botster's historical ignorance is unbounded.

Keres by virtue of his victory at AVRO 1938 (ahead of Fine on tie-
break) was next in line for a shot at the title held by Alekhine, but
the war intervened. After the war there was no mechanism for wresting
the crown except by defeating the reigning world champion in a match.

Botvinnik used his political influence in the USSR to wrangle a match
with Alekhine that was going to be held in London in 1946. By standing
aside and not interfering with this challenge, the price of Keres'
reprieve was to abandon his quest for the crown. Not forever, of
course, but AT THE TIME.

Alekhine's death in 1946 changed everything.

FIDE assumed control of the crown and set up the rigged match-
tournament in 1948 which nobody knew would happen AT THE TIME of
Alekhine's death. The USSR feared that Euwe (the former world champ)
would play a match with Reshevsky.

Incidentally, GM Larry Evans had a plus score against Euwe (a win and
no losses) as well as a plus score against Keres (a win, several
draws, no losses). He knew both men quite well and also played bridge
with Keres on several occasions.

It's tempting to refute the botster's factoids one by one, but life is
too short.




help bot wrote:
On Nov 20, 12:15 pm, " wrote:

I recall reading somewhere that while they were in Nazi-occupied
territory Alekhine warned Keres not to return to the USSR. In THE
TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October 1996, page 49) GM Larry
Evans noted:

"Botvinnik was then absolute champion of the Soviet Union (which had
swallowed Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) while Keres was in trouble
for having competed in Nazi-organized tournaments during the war. The
KGB wanted to execute Keres for treason, and his family was also in
peril. His case was examined at the highest level in the Kremlin; they
let him rejoin his family in Estonia, but the price of his reprieve
was to abandon his quest for the crown."


That grotesque distortion has been refuted time and again.

In the articles written by Taylor Kingston, it was shown
how in the hands of Larry Evans, facts stand no chance.

Paul Keres merely agreed not to stand in GM Botvinnik's
way in challenging world champion Alekhine for a shot at
the title. An agreement to "abandon his quest for the
crown" exists only in the very confused minds of a few
Evans ratpackers, and that of their fearless leader himself.

Long time Evans watchers know that this kind of
distortion is endemic in him. Try to show LE -- or his
mindless ratpackers -- where he has erred, and the
response is a knee-jerk huffing and puffing, revealing a
chronic superiority complex. It's a sad thing to observe,
yet hardly uncommon in the realms of chess. It reminds
me of a famous movie in which a fellow is crowned with
a laurel wreath, but at the same time he is unceasing
warned: "remember thou art mortal!" for similar reasons.

The unkind picture painted by critic Edward Winter
may have gone too far in depicting a raving lunatic, as
opposed to a man who merely has a short temper, an
exaggerated sense of self-importance, a puffed-up ego;
but that piece unveiled the same sort of mishandling
of facts as we see above -- carelessly repeated by
drone Larry Parr. The kindest thing LP could do is to
stop repeating "the worst of Larry Evans", but he is
simply not smart enough to recognize his error.

Those who admire the five-time U.S. Champ are
probably wishing he had befriended a smarter drone,
a better PR rep. than Larry Parr. Someone who could
sift through old LE articles and find what might be
regarded as "the best of Larry Evans", not his worst.


-- help bot

"William Hyde" wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 11:38 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"William Hyde" wrote in message

. Why let Keres
beat Tal 3-1 in the 1959 event, if Keres is to be kept from the
championship at all costs?

Well ... this is all good stuff, and we have rehersed the conversation
before, and exercising it always admits new factors. Should I chose to be
very cycical at this point; the Estonian is allowed to win over the
Latvian,
since he was seen to be the lesser threat to Botvinnik,

I wonder about the assessment though. As we all know Tal won
convincingly, but that wasn't so clear before the match. Could the
great Botvinnik be defeated by this "bag of tricks" in a 24 game
match?
Many doubted it.

On the other hand Keres' score against Botvinnik in recent years had
improved markedly from the years up to and including 1947. He might
well have won.

Sure. And my speculations are very windy ones, since while I feel it would
be impossible to call the coercive political context absent - though some
do - how much weight to attribute to it is the bone of contention? I think
responses to that element of things also varied player to player, eg, later
with Bronstein, not at all.

Botvinnik, as favored son, may not have been actively complicit with it, but
impossible not to have know which way the wind blew.

The least speculatory thing to do would have been to put Botvinnik, Evans,
Keres, Reshevsky, Tal and .. Fine and Euwe [?] plus another young Russian
[Taimanov?] into open competition, an old-fashioned St. Petersburg sort of
competition. Even so, the Western group were still amateur players, while
the Russians were already semi-pro, even immediately after the war.
Botvinnik's engineering degree & consequent employment cannot be seen as
other than a formal gloss over his real status.

But since I am wantonly speculating; the group above would have provided a
fascinating contest of chess. I think we agreed [circa 1950?] Keres would
have been favorite, though our time period here seems to be most of the 50s;
but as to seconds and thirds? Certainly Reschevsky must be a candidate - but
a too-lazy candidate? Evans had good scores against all, even plus scores
against most. Botvinnik strongest mid 50s to 1960, and as you say, Tal not
yet matured to the degree of the late 60s when [who said it? Fischer? he was
'unbeatable'?]. I think Euwe gave Fine a great shock with that infamous
'unfixed' draw 'offer' based on opening preparation. I think Fine hardly
recovered from it [how ironic he should wind up with MCO!]

Arnold Denker was actually good on all these subjects - and IMO, such a
shame he did not get to produce one more book, co-authoring with another
writer in these newsgroups.

Something which is not so arrant a speculation is what all these players did
for the game, post-war. My sense is that the type of chess they played
formed a cusp between the early pioneers of modern classical chess,
including the hypermodern school, and the depth of creative play they
produced had not been seen before - not even the least player in the group
above would be in much doubt to defeat Capablanca, Lasker or Alekhine.

There is a contention for you!

And more so, they themselves prepared the ground for yet another leap, and
class of chess play, with the fantastic crowd who entertained us throught
the 70s.

While the Russian scene is often clouded, far more obvious to me is what
happened during this entire period, 1950 to 1970 in England. Clarke probably
overhauled Alekander by 1955. [I just found a wonderful photo of him playing
Ikvov in Czechoslovakia, from a Serbian corresp.]

To properly assess that movement I asked Mickey Adams two questions about it
in our interview. As you know, we both shared Peter as team captain, so I
asked him about the particularity of his own mentorship in chess - was it
such as PH C [maybe Wade?] both big observers of Soviet chess, or was it the
young tigers like Miles, Keene, et co? who led the charge in producing some
20 English GMs, mid 60s onward?


I wonder if the 'fix' was simply to rotate champions, or at least parade
a
whole group of them in the West, since too much singularity defeats the
idea
of group superiority according to a system - that was the political point
of
all.

I think the more parsimonious hypothesis is that they let the chips
fall where they may, at least when Reshevsky was no longer a threat.
The danger of a non-Soviet winning the 1956,59, or 62 candidates
tournaments was surely zero (Keres and Bronstein ceded a
place in the 1956 event to Reshevsky - and the fact that they were
allowed to do that by itself is telling - but he didn't play).

Yes. Given another 20 questions with Taimanov, it would have been
interesting to date his comment; 'who did the Russians fear?' and to regress
to 1950-65. Of the latter period, it was stunning to me when he said 'not
even Larsen, but Fischer, certainly.'

One wonders indeed what he and Alekhine were doing in Munich in 1942 at
all,
instead of 'doing' something in New York?

Alekhine had too much confidence in the French defense.

As I understand it, Keres was not willing to leave his family behind.
I've also been told that he simply wanted to live in Estonia, almost
regardless of the regime.

That seems [inter alia, Mike Murray, other replies] the general concensus
here.

whereas going the other way was no risk at all, and he could
be, -I agree with you-, Champion of the West, maybe the World, but
certainly
get paid real dollars for it.

I'm not so sure of the money. He could doubtless support his family
by a combination of chess and journalism - his Chess Life and Review
articles were excellent - but prizes were rather feeble in the west in
the 40s and 50s. And world championship money was negligible.

Though you could buy stuff with money in the West! Though its true, I don't
know what priviledges he had behind the curtain.

Still, if he settled in Western Europe he would have had access to
better doctors, and might have lived many years longer.

I'd like to see that parallel world. How would Fischer have motivated
himself if the World Champion was an Estonian living in the
Netherlands?

Where is Larry Evans to answer?

My 2 cents would be 'no difference'. I think single-parented Brooklyn boy
was always going to solo-climb Everest. And may he, one day, come all the
way down ;(

Cordially, Phil Innes

[see, Larry, its me grin]


William Hyde


Cordially, Phil Innes

William Hyde

On Nov 21, 8:16 am, " wrote:

Keres by virtue of his victory at AVRO 1938 (ahead of Fine on tie-
break) was next in line for a shot at the title held by Alekhine, but
the war intervened.

This is not true at all. Alekhine explicitly stated at the opening
ceremonies that he "retained the right to first play for the world
title with others", i.e. before he played the AVRO
winner. His contract with AVRO was to play the winner
"under conditions to be formulated later".

Given these two statements, the AVRO guarantee was meaningless. He
could play as many other people as he wanted to before playing the
winner, and if he still held the title, could spin the negotiations on
the "formulated later" as long as he liked.

He further wrote in January 1939:

"The logical and inescapable conclusion [to be drawn from AVRO - WH]
is that the next match for the world title must be fought against a
representative of the younger generation. Which one? In my opinion
this is a matter of minor importance; no one can claim an exclusive
moral right to be the first challenger."

Clearly Alekhine saw no special status for Keres. But he continues:

"... after the tournament was over Keres challenged me to a match,
adding that he would prefer not to play before the end of 1940.
Accepting in principle, I communicated to him my financial
conditions ...."

So Keres asked for a match to be held two years later (or more), and
Alekhine accepted in principle - much like the Flohr match that never
happened. But he also said:

"There remains the possibility of another title match in 1939",
i.e. against Fine, Botvinnik, or Reshevsky, if any of these made a
challenge backed up with cash.

Keres himself wrote an article in Chess Review, March 1941, titled
"The World Chess Championship". In this he assesses the strengths and
weaknesses of Alekhine's main challengers, including himself (and also
Flohr).

Nowhere in an article of several pages does he claim that AVRO gives
him any right to a match, and in fact the tournament is mentioned only
twice, once to show that Alekhine was no longer in a class by himself,
and again while discussing Fine's chances (Fine won both games against
Alekhine at AVRO).

Keres concludes:

"A good deal has been said about existing contenders, yet the
outstanding question still remains unsolved: how should priority for
the match be determined? To answer this, it would be necessary to
have recourse to one or several tournaments in which all the claimants
could participate. Such tourneys should also be open to new stars who
are in need of training with the world's strongest masters."

He then goes on to outline a zonal/candidates system, very simple
compared to the one FIDE used - but the idea is the same - and
continues:

"In conversations with Alekhine I gained the impression that he would
agree in principle to such a plan ...."

Note, no mention of his AVRO "right" to a match. Either it never
existed, or he felt the right had expired along with his 1940 match.
Now, when he wrote this article Estonia was under Soviet occupation,
so he may have been forced to drop this claim. But if so, it was in
1940/41 not 1947.

He had a chance to reassert any such claim in the next
few years, while playing tournaments with Alekhine, but
if he did so (and I have not heard that he did), no match resulted.

All of the above quotes are from "Chess Review" for 1938,39 and 41.

William Hyde

THE PRICE OF KERES' REPRIEVE


Keres by virtue of his victory at AVRO 1938 (ahead of Fine on tie-
break) was next in line for a shot at the title held by Alekhine, but
the war intervened.

This is not true at all. Alekhine explicitly stated at the opening
ceremonies that he "retained the right to first play for the world
title with others", i.e. before he played the AVRO
winner. His contract with AVRO was to play the winner
"under conditions to be formulated later".

Given these two statements, the AVRO guarantee was meaningless. He
could play as many other people as he wanted to before playing the
winner, and if he still held the title, could spin the negotiations on
the "formulated later" as long as he liked.

He further wrote in January 1939:

"The logical and inescapable conclusion [to be drawn from AVRO - WH]
is that the next match for the world title must be fought against a
representative of the younger generation. Which one? In my opinion
this is a matter of minor importance; no one can claim an exclusive
moral right to be the first challenger."


Mr. Parr may be forgiven for his ignorance regarding
historical matters, but his real problem is that he cannot
stop himself from bringing up and rehashing Larry Evans'
multitudinous mistakes, as here.

In the articles which have been under detailed discussion
in these threads for some time now, Taylor Kingston
uncovered the roots of LE's errors, and in this case it was
a compounding and magnifying of the mistakes of others.

Where one writer might venture to guess that Keres was
coerced into not pursuing the title on account of his Nazi
tournament participation, Larry Evans finds some way to
misconstrue that as being coerced to throw his games for
life. Where one source is put forward as promising the
"smoking gun" style of evidence to back LE's conjectures,
it turns out to be more of a "wet noodle", in weaponry terms.

Larry Evans has a problem of going about his supposed
investigations ass-backwards; he begins with preconceived
delusions, and works from there to "interpret" everything
so as to fit in. Sad to say, even Taylor Kingston, who tried
so hard to go about his work in a logical manner, fell flat in
the end, caving to the same sort of personal bias. Logic is
a very demanding mistress; hence, caving seems to be the
norm.

The best thing for Larry Evans would be to drop discussion
of his multitude of errors, but Mr. Parr just can't seem to stop
himself; he seems compelled to rehash every mistake the
five-time U.S. Champion ever made -- except over the board.
Thank God LP has no interest in chess /per se/, or we would
now be discussing why some inferior moves were not merely
justified, but the only reasonable choice, given the Commie
conspiracy and death threats, were he to have played any
better... .


-- help bot