Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 18th 04, 02:15 PM
Tapio Huuhka
 
Posts: n/a
Default 200 Open Games of Chess by David Bronstein

Sam forgets to mention, that the 24th game was drawn after Botvinnik's offer.
Botvinnik was "a pawn up in a better position" -- just quoting Bronstein in Chess
Improviser. The conspiracy theorists always remember to mention the 6th and the
23rd game, but the 24th game doesn't seem to fit in these theories.

  #2   Report Post  
Old March 19th 04, 06:01 PM
Tapio Huuhka
 
Posts: n/a
Default 200 Open Games of Chess by David Bronstein



Sam Sloan wrote:

I must confess that I had not noticed that Black is a pawn up in the
final position. However, Black is in a passive position and will have
difficulty making progress and most players on the White side would
have played on.


Did you play it, Sam? Bronstein sacked a pawn for an attack, but blew it on the 19th
move at the latest. After 23 games with Botvinnik he knew he was lost. "Black in
passive position", you say. Play it again, Sam! See the game and Chess Improviser.
Botvinnik had the guts to take the pawn on a decisive game and the wisdom to offer
draw when he had a strategically won game and Bronstein was shaken after his blunder.

And Bronstein has been crying ever since by trying to explain his failure to conquer
the title. Just like Fischer was crying in 1962 when he couldn't win a won game from
Botvinnik. But I think Bronstein fared better than Fischer: Fischer would have been
ripe for a mental institute after twenty games with Botvinnik. That was some mean guy,
but he knew how to play chess.


It is also to be recalled that the way that Botvinnik became world
champion was that in 1948 Keres lost four suspicious games in a row to
him. Keres had even more reason to fear for his life than did
Bronstein, because Keres was an Estonian who had been Nazi
collaborators during World War II and Keres had played in Nazi events.


I doubt that the 100000 Estonians who attended Keres's funeral thought that he was a
nazi collaborator.

On the other hand, you must think that Fischer is a commie collaborator, because he
lost suspiciously 0-4 to Tal in the 1959 candidates, laying a red carpet for Tal's
title. Surely he threw their fourth game, having an easy win on his 51st move after
Tal's blunder (even I could win that). Besides that, he lost to every Soviet player he
played. Doesn't this prove beyond every reasonable doubt that he is a commie
collaborator and a commie himself. If it only had been some five years earlier, I
don't doubt that McCarthy would have been proud to light the matches at Fischer's
pyre. God bless America and your constant witch-hunting.

[Event "Candidats Tournament"]
[Site "Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade"]
[Date "1959.10.26"]
[Round "27"]
[White "Fischer, Robert James"]
[Black "Tal, Mihail"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B87"]
[PlyCount "102"]
[EventDate "1959.09.07"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3 b5 8. f4
b4 9. Na4 Nxe4 10. O-O g6 11. f5 gxf5 12. Nxf5 Rg8 13. Bd5 Ra7 14. Bxe4 exf5
15. Bxf5 Re7 16. Bxc8 Qxc8 17. Bf4 Qc6 18. Qf3 Qxa4 19. Bxd6 Qc6 20. Bxb8 Qb6+ 21. Kh1
Qxb8 22. Qc6+ Rd7 23. Rae1+ Be7 24. Rxf7 Kxf7 25. Qe6+ Kf8 26. Qxd7 Qd6 27. Qb7 Rg6
28. c3 a5 29. Qc8+ Kg7 30. Qc4 Bd8 31. cxb4 axb4 32. g3 Qc6+ 33.Re4 Qxc4 34. Rxc4 Rb6
35. Kg2 Kf6 36. Kf3 Ke5 37. Ke3 Bg5+ 38. Ke2 Kd5 39. Kd3 Bf6 40. Rc2 Be5 41. Re2 Rf6
42. Rc2 Rf3+ 43. Ke2 Rf7 44. Kd3 Bd4 45. a3 b3 46.Rc8 Bxb2 47. Rd8+ Kc6 48. Rb8 Rf3+
49. Kc4 Rc3+ 50. Kb4 Ba1 51. a4 b2 0-1


  #3   Report Post  
Old March 20th 04, 06:16 AM
bhnews
 
Posts: n/a
Default 200 Open Games of Chess by David Bronstein

Botvinnik just might be the most over-rated player in the history of chess.
Helped by the Soviet system and all the cheating that went along with it.
He could barely hold the title all the years he had it. Drawing matches,
relying on re-match rules, hardly playing between championship matches.

Fact is, he was lucky to eke out a draw with Bronstein (if it wasn't
fixed, that is); couldn't beat Smyslov more than 1 in 3 championship
matches; lost badly to Tal, and beat a very ill Tal a year later; lost to
Petrosian.

The ease with which Fischer refuted Botvinnik's preparation in 1962,
doing it OVER THE BOARD, gives just a little insight into the difference in
strengths of these two players. There was no comparison. And that was an
immature 19 year old Fischer. The later Fischer of 1967-1972 was simply the
best player who ever lived, and the record in that time shows it. He may
have been looney as hell, but he was the best ever. Nobody will ever win 20
in a row ever again. Heck, they couldn't even get 20 wins total in Linares!
It probably takes Kramnik ten tournaments to win 20 games.

As an aside, I finally got around to getting into the first volume of My
Great Predecessors (hey, I have a life outside chess!). I must say that
what little is written about Fischer thus far (more will be in volume 3),
has been quite magnanimous on Kasparov's part. Fischer has had some angry
(and of course insane) words to say about Garry, and here was a chance to
get back in print. Apparently, Kasparov is above that, and I'm glad to see
him not stoop to such lows. As a contemporary of Fischer's, I will be
particularly interested in volume 3 of this fabulous series of books by the
2nd greatest player in history.




  #4   Report Post  
Old March 20th 04, 07:04 AM
RSHaas
 
Posts: n/a
Default 200 Open Games of Chess by David Bronstein

"He (Botvinnik) could barely hold the title all the years he had it."
(lithenatural)
=============
Botvinnik was a full time electrical engineer, too. Maybe that tolled on his
chess career a little.

RSHaas
  #5   Report Post  
Old March 20th 04, 12:57 PM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default 200 Open Games of Chess by David Bronstein


"RSHaas" wrote in message
...

"He (Botvinnik) could barely hold the title all the years he had it."
(lithenatural)
=============
Botvinnik was a full time electrical engineer, too.


Don't kid yourself.

StanB




  #6   Report Post  
Old March 20th 04, 06:08 PM
Tapio Huuhka
 
Posts: n/a
Default 200 Open Games of Chess by David Bronstein


bhnews wrote:

Botvinnik just might be the most over-rated player in the history of chess.
Helped by the Soviet system and all the cheating that went along with it.


So, how do you feel about the USCF and US government pressuring Benko and other
US players (and also FIDE) to get Fischer to the 1970 interzonals for which he
was not qualified. There are records about Kissinger phoning Fischer, so we can
safely assume that the Tricky Dick Nixon government was behind this cold war
shenanigan.

And FIDE joining the conspiracy to help Fischer: did you ever wonder why he got
to play the matches in Vancouver, Denver and Buenos Aires -- in the US or nearby
-- against European opponents, who must have had enormous time zone problems?

So much about the fine American legend that Fischer "singlehandedly wrestled the
title from the Soviets".

He could barely hold the title all the years he had it. Drawing matches,
relying on re-match rules, hardly playing between championship matches.
Fact is, he was lucky to eke out a draw with Bronstein (if it wasn't
fixed, that is); couldn't beat Smyslov more than 1 in 3 championship
matches; lost badly to Tal, and beat a very ill Tal a year later; lost to
Petrosian.


And Fischer then, how many times did he successfully defend the title?


The ease with which Fischer refuted Botvinnik's preparation in 1962,
doing it OVER THE BOARD, gives just a little insight into the difference in
strengths of these two players. There was no comparison.


Endgames separate men from boys: Fischer couldn't win a simple won rook ending
from Botvinnik. And he had the gall to say that Capablanca didn't know how to
play rook endings. You're right, there's no comparison.


And that was an
immature 19 year old Fischer. The later Fischer of 1967-1972 was simply the
best player who ever lived, and the record in that time shows it. He may
have been looney as hell, but he was the best ever. Nobody will ever win 20
in a row ever again. Heck, they couldn't even get 20 wins total in Linares!
It probably takes Kramnik ten tournaments to win 20 games.


You're right he was immature. Forfeited his match with Reshevsky, escaped from
Sousse -67 and some olympiad I forget. And turned the world championship match
into a farce. Did not have the guts to face Karpov in a match.

How come he was the best when he qualified only for board 2 in the 1970 USSR vs.
The Rest of the World (and approved this himself)? Besides, he was inactive for
some two years during that period?

--------
As an aside, I finally got around to getting into the first volume of My Great
Predecessors (hey, I have a life outside chess!). I must say that

what little is written about Fischer thus far (more will be in volume 3),
has been quite magnanimous on Kasparov's part. Fischer has had some angry
(and of course insane) words to say about Garry, and here was a chance to
get back in print. Apparently, Kasparov is above that, and I'm glad to see
him not stoop to such lows. As a contemporary of Fischer's, I will be
particularly interested in volume 3 of this fabulous series of books by the
2nd greatest player in history.


Get real, please! Fischer's whole international career spanned only 15 years,
and he was inactive for some three years during that period. He was the best
maybe in 1972, but never proved himself against the younger generation of
players.

Kasparov has been number one for almost twenty years now and has defended the
title numerous times successfully. And he has dominated the brilliant younger
generation for over ten years now in tough supertournaments, which were unheard
of in Fischer's time.

Somehow I feel there's really no comparison.

  #7   Report Post  
Old March 21st 04, 04:43 AM
Chess Player
 
Posts: n/a
Default 200 Open Games of Chess by David Bronstein

So, how do you feel about the USCF and US government pressuring Benko and
other
US players (and also FIDE) to get Fischer to the 1970 interzonals for

which he
was not qualified. There are records about Kissinger phoning Fischer, so

we can
safely assume that the Tricky Dick Nixon government was behind this cold

war
shenanigan.

snip

Nixon involved in a conspiracy? I'll not hear of it!


  #8   Report Post  
Old March 22nd 04, 12:10 AM
Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default 200 Open Games of Chess by David Bronstein

Tapio Huuhka wrote in
message ...(to "bhnews"):
bhnews wrote:
(snipped)
The later Fischer of 1967-1972 was simply the best player who ever lived,
and the record in that time shows it. He may have been looney as hell,
but he was the best ever. Nobody will ever win 20 in a row ever again.


As I recall, one of those twenty consecutive victories came after his opponent
resigned without even having played a move in their 'game' in the Interzonal.

Heck, they couldn't even get 20 wins total in Linares!
It probably takes Kramnik ten tournaments to win 20 games.


You're right he was immature. Forfeited his match with Reshevsky, escaped
from Sousse -67 and some olympiad I forget. And turned the world championship
match into a farce. Did not have the guts to face Karpov in a match.
How come he was the best when he qualified only for board 2 in the 1970 USSR
vs. The Rest of the World (and approved this himself)? Besides, he was
inactive for some two years during that period?

As an aside, I finally got around to getting into the first volume of My
Great Predecessors (hey, I have a life outside chess!). I must say that
what little is written about Fischer thus far (more will be in volume 3),
has been quite magnanimous on Kasparov's part. Fischer has had some angry
(and of course insane) words to say about Garry, and here was a chance to
get back in print. Apparently, Kasparov is above that, and I'm glad to see
him not stoop to such lows. As a contemporary of Fischer's, I will be
particularly interested in volume 3 of this fabulous series of books by
the 2nd greatest player in history.


Get real, please!


Evidently to many of his admirers, the belief that Bobby Fischer must be the
'greatest player in history' is like an article of faith, beyond all dispute.

Fischer's whole international career spanned only 15 years, and he was
inactive for some three years during that period. He was the best maybe in
1972, but never proved himself against the younger generation of players.

Kasparov has been number one for almost twenty years now and has defended the
title numerous times successfully. And he has dominated the brilliant younger
generation for over ten years now in tough supertournaments, which were
unheard of in Fischer's time.

Somehow I feel there's really no comparison.


I would concur that Garry Kasparov has accomplished greater feats
in playing chess than Bobby Fischer ever did.

--Nick
  #10   Report Post  
Old March 22nd 04, 05:31 PM
Mike Ogush
 
Posts: n/a
Default 200 Open Games of Chess by David Bronstein

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 02:03:27 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

SNIP
When Fischer reached his peak there was no FIDE rating system.
However, had the rating system been in effect, he would certainly have
been the highest rated player in the world in 1962 after winning the
Interzonal by a wide margin. In spite of losing a few rating points at
Curacao, 1962 he would have remained world number one for a decade
through 1972.

Sam Sloan


Jeff Sonas (at the site
www.chessmetrics) has calculated chess
ratings retroactively to long before the Elo system was put in place.
According the web site Fischer had the #1 rating by 12/31/63; as of
9/30/63 Fischer was only #3 behind Petrosian and Botvinnik.

Although the relationship between these ratings and Elo ratings of
later players is not completely clear to me, I assume that rating
mechanism does not favor any particluar player in a given era and so
is accurate in irs determination of the relative ratings of players.

It is really too bad that Fischer did not play in in the '64
Interzonal and withdrew from the '67 one. Judging by his play at that
time he would have probably won either Interzonal handily. Also the
1964-1966 championship cyle was when FIDE started 1-on-1 matches
between the candiadates, so there would have been less to be gained by
the Soviets "fixing" games. [This "fixing" of games was the reason
Fischer gave for not particpiating in the '64 Interzonal.] Fischer
could have won the World Championship 3 or 6 years earlier. As to
what might have happended afterwards, who can say?


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A FLASHBACK WITHOUT REGRETS - by Lev Khariton tomic rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 July 15th 03 11:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017