chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
FIDE World Championship Tournament

Mikhail Botvinnik14/20(+10 -2 =8)[view games]
Vasily Smyslov11/20(+6 -4 =10)[view games]
Samuel Reshevsky10.5/20(+6 -5 =9)[view games]
Paul Keres10.5/20(+8 -7 =5)[view games]
Max Euwe4/20(+1 -13 =6)[view games]

  WCC Overview
 
  << previous HISTORY OF THE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP next >>  
The Death of Alekhine and the Rebirth of FIDE, 1948
The Hague / Moscow

World chess champion Alexander Alekhine died on 23 March 1946. At the July 1946 Winterthur congress, FIDE proposed a contest for the vacant title be scheduled for June 1947 in the Netherlands.[1] They planned a quadruple round robin tournament featuring the following candidates- Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Paul Keres, Vasily Smyslov, and the winner of either the upcoming Groningen or Prague tournaments, decided by a match if necessary.[2] Max Euwe was also included because he had previously held the world title.[3] The tournament was delayed, partly because the USSR was not yet a FIDE member.[4] On 15 September 1946, the proposed contestants (except Fine) met in Moscow to iron out the details. This meeting occurred a day after the USSR-USA match ended, and did not involve FIDE.[5] Botvinnik reportedly announced that he would not play in the Netherlands. He was angry about a Dutch news report that suggested his fellow Russians might collude to help him win the title.[4] The five contestants then compromised with a plan to divide the event between the Netherlands and Moscow. The Soviet Sports Committee refused this idea outright because they wanted all the games to be played in Moscow.[6] Meanwhile, FIDE president Alexander Rueb withdrew FIDE's claim to organize the tournament.[4]

 Smyslov vs Keres
 Smyslov vs Keres, The Hague, 1948
Nothing concrete was decided until the next FIDE congress in The Hague on 30 July-2 August 1947. The Soviets were now members of FIDE.[7] All parties agreed to most of the terms originally proposed at Winterthur 1946. The new conditions stated that the tournament would begin in spring 1948, be played partly in The Hague and partly in Moscow, and most notably, no extra player would be added.[8,9] Miguel Najdorf was excluded because of this change. He won Prague 1946 and would have qualified directly for the championship tournament, since Botvinnik won Groningen 1946 and was already seeded into the championship.[9] Shortly before the tournament, Fine dropped out due to academic commitments. FIDE therefore decided to stage a quintuple round robin, for a total of 25 rounds, with one player having a bye each round.[10,11]

The time control was 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours and 16 moves per hour after that.[12,13] Players were permitted two assistants to help analyze adjourned games.[14] First prize was $5,000; second $3,000; third $2,000; fourth $1,500; and fifth $1,000.[13] Milan Vidmar was arbiter, assisted by Alexander Kotov.[12,15] Decided by lot, the first 10 rounds were held in The Hague, followed by 15 rounds in Moscow.[16] During the first leg, all players except Botvinnik lodged at the Kurhaus in Scheveningen.[17] Botvinnik objected to the Kurhaus, explaining that he wanted to stay "in a hotel where I can get to... (the Dierentuin playing hall) on foot in twenty minutes."[18] At first, a few members of the Russian delegation insisted that Botvinnik stay with the other players at the Kurhaus. But Soviet consul Filipp Chikirisov offered to locate different lodgings, and Botvinnik was eventually able to secure rooms at the Hotel De Twee Steden for his family and his seconds, Viacheslav Ragozin and Salomon Flohr.[18]

Botvinnik led the field by a point when he faced Keres in the 10th round. Due to a scheduling vagary, Keres was playing after an unusually long layoff. Before the tournament, Botvinnik had noticed this odd scheduling possibility and warned his countrymen that "when we get to The Hague, one of you will get six days of rest, and lose like a child on the seventh day." "After six days' rest", Botvinnik later recalled, "Keres sat across from me, pale as death."[19] Keres proceeded to lose in 23 moves, enabling Botvinnik to carry a 1.5 point lead into the Moscow leg. In Moscow, the masters played in the magnificent Salle des Colonnes in front of 2,000 spectators. 3,000 more people were in the streets outside, following the action on a giant demonstration board.[20] Botvinnik clinched the title by round 22, finishing three points ahead of Smyslov.

Some charge that the Soviets pressured Keres to throw games to help Botvinnik win.[21] According to Kenneth Whyld, Keres told him that "he was not ordered to lose... games to Botvinnik, and was not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that if Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault of Keres."[22] In 1991 Botvinnik claimed that "during the second half in Moscow... it was proposed that the other Soviet players... lose to me on purpose... it was Stalin... who proposed this. But of course I refused!"[23] In a 1994 conversation with Gennady Sosonko, Botvinnik said "...in 1948 I played well. I prepared with all my heart and showed what I was capable of."[24]

1 2 3 4 5 1 Mikhail Botvinnik ***** ½½1½½ 1½011 11110 1½1½½ 14.0 2 Vasily Smyslov ½½0½½ ***** ½½1½½ 00½1½ 11011 11.0 3 Samuel Reshevsky 0½100 ½½0½½ ***** 1½01½ 1½½11 10.5 4 Paul Keres 00001 11½0½ 0½10½ ***** 1½111 10.5 5 Max Euwe 0½0½½ 00100 0½½00 0½000 ***** 4.0

FOOTNOTES
1. FIDE (Fédération internationale des échecs or World Chess Federation), founded in 1924, first administered a world chess championship in 1948. In Edward Winter, Interregnum (2003-2004)
2. Erwin Voellmy, Schweizerische Schachzeitung (Nov 1946), pp.169-171. In Winter, Interregnum.
3. Minutes of the FIDE Secretariat of the congress in Winterthur in July 1946. In Winter, Interregnum.
4. CHESS (Dec 1946), p.63. In Winter, Interregnum.
5. Mikhail Botvinnik, Achieving the Aim Bernard Cafferty, transl. (Pergamon 1981), pp.105-106
6. Botvinnik, Achieving the Aim pp.107-108
7. The USSR joined FIDE at The Hague conference of 1947. They arrived late on 2 Aug, the last day of the congress. El Ajedrez Argentino (Nov-Dec 1947), pp. 298-300. In Winter, Chess: The History of FIDE Section 5: Euwe world champion for one day
8. Erwin Voellmy, Schweizerische Schachzeitung (Oct 1947), pp.154-155. In Winter, Interregnum.
9. Chess Review (Aug 1947), p.2
10. American Chess Bulletin (Jan-Feb 1948), p.11. In Winter, Interregnum.
11. American Chess Bulletin (Mar-Apr 1948), p.25. In Winter, Interregnum.
12. Paul Keres, Match Tournament for the World Chess Championship - The Hague and Moscow 1948 (Estonian State Publishing 1950), p.7
13. Harry Golombek, The World Chess Championship 1948 (Hardinge Simpole 1949), p.3
14. Botvinnik, Achieving the Aim p.111
15. Golombek, p.4
16. G.W.J. Zittersteyn, The Preparations for the Netherlands Leg in Max Euwe, The Hague-Moscow 1948 Match/Tournament for the World Chess Championship (Russell Enterprises 2013), p.19
17. D.A. Yanofsky and H.J. Slavekoorde, Battle Royal... A Round by Round Account of the Thrilling Contest for the World's Chess Title. In Chess Life and Review (Apr 1948), p.7
18. Botvinnik, Achieving the Aim pp.113-114. We have corrected the spelling of the hotel in the source text, which was Twee Staden. According to a contemporary Dutch newspaper account, the correct spelling is De Twee Steden. De Tijd, 25 March 1948, p.2.
19. Mikhail Botvinnik, 15 Games and their Stories Jim Marfia, transl. (Chess Enterprise Inc. 1982), pp.40-42
20. Golombek, p.126
21. Taylor Kingston, The Keres-Botvinnik case revisited: A further survey of the evidence (Chess Cafe, 8 Oct 2001), p.2.
22. Tim Krabbé, Open Chess Diary, Item #65 (11 June 2000)
23. Max Pam and Genna Sosonko, Een interview met Michail Moiseevitch Botwinnik (Vrij Nederland 20 Aug 1991). In Tim Krabbé, Open Chess Diary Item #42. In Kingston, pp.4-5
24. Genna Sosonko, Russian Silhouttes 3d Edition (New in Chess, 2009), p.42

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 50  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Euwe vs Keres 0-156 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentC75 Ruy Lopez, Modern Steinitz Defense
2. Smyslov vs Reshevsky ½-½41 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentC99 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin, 12...cd
3. Keres vs Smyslov 1-027 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentA15 English
4. Botvinnik vs Euwe 1-032 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentD46 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
5. Reshevsky vs Keres 1-041 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentA15 English
6. Smyslov vs Botvinnik ½-½44 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentD96 Grunfeld, Russian Variation
7. Euwe vs Smyslov 0-142 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentC98 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin
8. Botvinnik vs Reshevsky 1-032 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentE40 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3
9. Keres vs Botvinnik 0-158 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentA13 English
10. Reshevsky vs Euwe 1-041 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentD46 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
11. Keres vs Euwe ½-½34 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentC86 Ruy Lopez, Worrall Attack
12. Reshevsky vs Smyslov ½-½45 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentD17 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
13. Smyslov vs Keres 0-157 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentE02 Catalan, Open, 5.Qa4
14. Euwe vs Botvinnik ½-½40 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentC08 French, Tarrasch, Open, 4.ed ed
15. Botvinnik vs Smyslov ½-½79 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentD98 Grunfeld, Russian
16. Keres vs Reshevsky ½-½24 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentC71 Ruy Lopez
17. Smyslov vs Euwe 1-070 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentC84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
18. Reshevsky vs Botvinnik ½-½33 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentA91 Dutch Defense
19. Euwe vs Reshevsky ½-½57 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentC75 Ruy Lopez, Modern Steinitz Defense
20. Botvinnik vs Keres 1-023 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentE28 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch Variation
21. Smyslov vs Reshevsky 1-052 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentC75 Ruy Lopez, Modern Steinitz Defense
22. Euwe vs Keres 0-125 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentC74 Ruy Lopez, Modern Steinitz Defense
23. Keres vs Smyslov ½-½42 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentD99 Grunfeld Defense, Smyslov
24. Botvinnik vs Euwe 1-036 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentD49 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav, Meran
25. Smyslov vs Botvinnik 0-141 1948 FIDE World Championship TournamentB60 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 50  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Nov-23-10  ReneDescartes: I think part of Keres' aura is the sheer brilliance of some of his games. For example, the way he defends against Fischer in the game from My 60 Memorable Games in which he allows Fischer to promote a pawn, yet calculates that there is no win, is just jaw-dropping. Who else could have done that? Perhaps only Fischer himself and Lasker come to mind. In that sense one could compare Keres to Ivanchuk. Obviously world-championship caliber games, and some moves seem to blast into another dimension. One never really feels that about Botvinnik's brilliancies.

Pressure? The deaths of millions at the hands of Stalin still hung in the air. We can't imagine. That doesn't meen Keres would have won, but it means he had no chance as someone not entirely free of association with the Nazis in the eyes of the paranoid Soviet establishment. We'll never know.

Nov-23-10  Petrosianic: <The main reason why Keres (without his Botvinniik jinx and without Soviet pressure) in 1945 would have fair chances to beat Botvinnik in a match is that Botvinnik, for some strange reason, was not a particularly good match player. We all know that he just about drew even with his Challengers for his Title in their World Championship Matches;>

And don't forget the drawn matches against Flohr and Levenfish in the 30's. The one against Flohr was an achievement, Flohr was very good in those days. But the Levenfish match was embarrassing. It had been meant to transfer the Soviet title to Botvinnik before AVRO, but it didn't work out that way. As a result, Bottvinnik was at AVRO, but the Soviet Champion wasn't, which led to talk of inviting Levenfish to AVRO too, which never came to anything, but still was a conversation they'd probably have rather avoided.

That, as much as any single thing probably led to the 1941 Soviet Absolute Championship, which was supposed to decide once and for all, which Soviet player had the right to challenge Alekhine, regardless of who happened to have the regular Soviet title in whatever year Alekhine happened to be available.

Of course a few weeks after THAT tournament ended, the Germans launched Barbarossa, throwing yet another monkey wrench into world chess.

Apr-06-11  bronkenstein: <Of course a few weeks after THAT tournament ended, the Germans launched Barbarossa, throwing yet another monkey wrench into world chess.>

Ah , these naughty Germans :)

Feb-07-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  Honza Cervenka: These conspiracy theories of fixed games thrown to Botvinnik are pretty ludicrous. Almost every brilliancy of Botvinnik is rumoured to be prearranged like Botvinnik vs Chekhover, 1935 or Keres vs Botvinnik, 1941 to name just two most notorious examples, almost every mistake made by any of his fellow countrymen against him is presented as a proof of malevolent manipulation from behind by Soviet authorities, which simply ordered Botvinnik's opponents to lose, or else etc. Even Salo Flohr, long time before he became a Soviet subject, allegedly had thrown two games to Botvinnik in their drawn match in 1933 as Bronstein and slomarko were suggesting. The problem is that there is absolutely no real evidence of anything wrong outside of rumours and wild speculations and that many of these claims do not hold the water under close scrutiny.

For example, in case of the ninth game of Botvinnik vs Flohr match slomarko stated: <and the second one, even more bizzare: Botvinnik vs Flohr, 1933
Flohr outplayes Botvinik in the opening but instead of 10...Bf5 he plays the weak 10...g6? followed by 12...Qb6?? (12...Be7 was necessary)>

This description of the game and especially the suggestion that Flohr outplayed Botvinnik in the opening is not quite correct. Whole line of Panov-Botvinnik Attack in Caro-Kann was new then and the position after the first ten moves was played many times after that including Flohr's 10...g6 (See Opening Explorer). Btw, Botvinnik used the same line in the lost first game Botvinnik vs Flohr, 1933 of the same match, where he played 10.Bxf6 instead of 10.Nf3 and so this game was a continuation in their "theoretical discussion" with Botvinnik's improvement of the line, which he evaluated - I would say correctly - as better for white. At least results of games in the database clearly favour the white here. Of course, 10...g6 is probably not the best attempt for black here but as Botvinnik's own analyses as well as later practice have shown, more popular 10...e6 does not make life much easier for black here, and 10...Bf5, which is top choice of some engines, can be answered simply by 11.Nh4 with some advantage of white, and also 11.0-0 seems to be playable and it was successful in O'Kelly vs M Bobotsov, 1961. Of course, 12...Qb6 was objectively inferior to 12...Be7 but it is possible to understand that Flohr disliked to go for very passive defense and tied position after 12...Be7. Such a mistake in difficult situation looks as quite natural and logical outcome and it can hardly serve as any hard evidence of deliberate loss of this game from Flohr's part. I can say here that while it doesn't prove positively that Flohr did not lose the game deliberately, it shows quite apparent bias of slomarko's interpretation of the game.

<continue>

Feb-07-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  Honza Cervenka: Concerning 1948 FIDE WCh tournament and Keres' poor performance against Botvinnik, it is not so strange. First of all, Botvinnik won all minimatches in this tournament (against Smyslov +1-0=4, against Reshevsky +3-1=1, against Euwe +2-0=3 and against Keres +4-1=0) and as you can see, Sammy Reshevsky, who would be hardly suspected of throwing games to Botvinnik, was beaten almost as badly as Paul was. It is no secret that Botvinnik considered Keres and Reshevsky to be his main rivals in the fight for the WCh title in the tournament and so he focused his preparation on them with quite apparent success. It is also undisputable that he played in great shape throughout the tournament losing only two games, one of them in very last round after securing the title for himself, when his concentration and motivation for fight was already not 100%.

On the other hand, Keres was apparently out of shape in the tournament. It is not true that he played badly exclusively against Botvinnik there. He lost to Reshevsky too, though not so badly as with Botvinnik (+1-2=3) but his play here was not stellar to put it mildly, with quite a lot of inaccuracies made in the process. If Reshevsky would be able to exploit them in full, the outcome could have been far worse from Paul's perspective. Definitely +0-3=2 or at least +0-2=3 result was in the air as Keres won a game after losing a central Pawn without any real compensation in the 15th move. It is true that he almost annihilated poor Max Euwe with score +4-0=1, but once again things on the chessboard were not so clear as the result may suggest. For example, in the first game he missed several simple and outright wins complicating thus his task before Euwe (in objectively lost position) exceeded time limit. And in the second game he escaped luckily with draw from a clearly lost position. His dominance over Euwe was caused rather by Euwe's very poor play and numerous blunders than anything else. Also Smyslov gave him a gift in their first game blundering in uncomfortable but still playable position. There are not much games in the tournament where Keres have demonstrated his full power without apparent slips (Smyslov vs Keres, 1948 definitely comes into my mind). Having this in mind, it is not so unbelievable and suspicious to me that Keres lost four games in row to Botvinnik. He lost three consecutive games in the 17th, 18th and the 20th round (in the 19th round he was unpaired) and he was quite close to another three losses in row in the third, fifth and sixth round, when Euwe let him slip off the hook with draw. His losses to Botvinnik are not suspicious per se despite of claims that in Keres vs Botvinnik, 1948 he lost a Rook ending, which "<any player at chessgames.com could have drawn>", in glaringly outrageous way demonstrating thus that he was forced to throw games to Botvinnik. In fact, the discussion on the pages of the game shows quite clearly that the position was not so easy to handle for white and that some analyses of those claiming that the fix was definitely in were utterly flawed. In my view the case of conspiracy behind Botvinnik's win in this tournament is pretty weak, if not nonexistent.

Feb-07-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  talisman: according to Bronstein Zurich was the big Collusion.
Feb-08-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  Honza Cervenka: <He lost to Reshevsky too, though not so badly as with Botvinnik (+1-2=3)> Of course, it is a typo from my part as they played only five games each other. The face to face score of Keres with Reshevsky in the tournament was +1-2=2 from Paul's perspective.
Feb-08-12  Agent Bouncy: Thank you, Honza C, for injecting some sanity into this issue. I don't know what it is about Botvinnik that arouses so much antipathy in so many people, and also brings the conspiracy nutcases out of the woodwork. It's clear that from about 1939 to 1950 Botvinnik was the best player in the world, and from the Bronstein match (1951) to the Petrosyan match (1963) he was, as they say, "first among equals."
Feb-08-12  ewan14: Keres was an unwilling Soviet

At C. in 1962 there would have still been a '' combine '' between Geller and Petrosian ( DON'T DISAGREE )

and this would have favoured these two - Geller & Petrosian ( over an older Keres )

Feb-08-12  ewan14: A World Championship tournament where the competitors do not have an equal number of games with white / black is a joke
Feb-08-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  Honza Cervenka: <A World Championship tournament where the competitors do not have an equal number of games with white / black is a joke> Every participant of this tournament played twenty games, ten with white, ten with black.
Feb-08-12  King Death: <Petrosianic: ...the Levenfish match was embarrassing. It had been meant to transfer the Soviet title to Botvinnik before AVRO, but it didn't work out that way. As a result, Bottvinnik was at AVRO, but the Soviet Champion wasn't, which led to talk of inviting Levenfish to AVRO too, which never came to anything, but still was a conversation they'd probably have rather avoided.

That, as much as any single thing probably led to the 1941 Soviet Absolute Championship, which was supposed to decide once and for all, which Soviet player had the right to challenge Alekhine...>

As far as I understand it the Absolute was a response to Botvinnik's relative failure in the 1940 Soviet Championship where he shared 5th place: Game Collection: USSR Absolute Championship 1941.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhai...

<...Of course a few weeks after THAT tournament ended, the Germans launched Barbarossa, throwing yet another monkey wrench into world chess...>

The Nazis got what they deserved for their thoughtlessness, it took one hell of a nerve to make a mess of playing chess the way they did.

Feb-08-12  King Death: <Honza Cervenka: <A World Championship tournament where the competitors do not have an equal number of games with white / black is a joke> Every participant of this tournament played twenty games, ten with white, ten with black.>

Maybe <ewan14> meant that the players had unequal colors against each opponent, and that's true because everybody played 5 games against each opponent.

Feb-08-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  Honza Cervenka: <Maybe <ewan14> meant that the players had unequal colors against each opponent, and that's true because everybody played 5 games against each opponent.> I see. But outcome of individual minimatches didn't play any role in tournament final standings and so it was not important factor here. Of course, there could have been an even number of rounds to achieve this effect and with Fine participating there would have been six rounds instead of five. With only five participants six round robin looks a bit overdone. Even four rounds could have been sufficient to sort five players according their strenght reliably but FIDE's decision was five rounds and as far as I know nobody protested then on this matter. In the real tournament Botvinnik would be the winner after four rounds and with his luxury three-point lead ahead of Smyslov after the 5th round he would have been the winner after the six rounds as well with probability next to mathematical certainty.
Jan-30-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <Petrosianic>:<Of course a few weeks after THAT tournament ended, the Germans launched Barbarossa, throwing yet another monkey wrench into world chess.>

This is a novel theory in the history of WWII. Who would have thought the Germans would stake so much to disrupt world chess?

Aug-31-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  wordfunph: The Hague-Moscow 1948: Match/Tournament for the World Chess Championship published by Russell Enterprises..

http://www.amazon.com/Hague-Moscow-...

Jan-21-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Calli: Video! http://www.openbeelden.nl/media/104...
Feb-25-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Tiggler: Who would have thought the Germans would stake so much to disrupt world chess?>

The sheer, unbridled nerve. Invading Yugoslavia that spring masked their true intentions, therefore.

Feb-25-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tabanus: No crosstable?

And the link "Birth of the FIDE World Championship" at About.com does not work any more.

Feb-26-14  SpiritedReposte: So just reading this "oh alekhine just dies and now FIDE runs @#$%." Kinda sent up some red flags. Then looking into alekhine death it says he choked on food...wearing his coat in front of a perfectly set up chessboard.

I'm sure this has been debated lots but damn it seems pretty obvious he was murdered. But no proof? I think the proof is right there. Who benefited? FIDE.

Feb-26-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Check It Out: Cui bono is certainly a good question, but the answer is not proof. Unfortunately, the murky mysteries of the past may only be subject to speculation until time travel is invented.
Apr-09-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Tiggler: <Petrosianic>:<Of course a few weeks after THAT tournament ended, the Germans launched Barbarossa, throwing yet another monkey wrench into world chess.>

This is a novel theory in the history of WWII. Who would have thought the Germans would stake so much to disrupt world chess?>

Well, apparently FIDE murdered Alekhine to seize control of the world championship, so...

Jul-02-14  1d410: Botvinnik destroys the west!!!!
Aug-03-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: Rather silly that each player played the other 5 times. The tournament would have been better with 4-game matches and an extra player.
Aug-03-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  jessicafischerqueen:

<offramp> I agree, and I think that extra player should have been Miguel Najdorf.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 5)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies