< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Sep-18-06|| ||Andoy: Probably, the rematch of the century.|
|Sep-18-06|| ||positionalgenius: Yes,a good match.|
|Sep-18-06|| ||positionalgenius: I can't wait for the Kasparov-Karpov matches.|
|Sep-18-06|| ||keypusher: <Probably, the rematch of the century.>|
Alekhine-Euwe II, Botvinnik-Tal II, Spassky-Petrosian II, Karpov-Kasparov II, and Fischer-Spassky II have it beat, I think. But I'd definitely take it over Alekhine-Bogoljubov II.
|Sep-18-06|| ||percyblakeney: Spassky-Petrosian II and Kasparov-Karpov II would probably be my favourite rematches.|
|Sep-18-06|| ||jamesmaskell: <positionalgenius> Let me spoil the Kasparov-Karpov matches for you...Karpov gets away with it the first time after a controversial ending of the match. Kasparov goes on to win the title though in 1985 and kicks Karpov in each time thereafter.|
Sorry to spoil it for you, but...hey thats life...
|Sep-18-06|| ||sitzkrieg: Dude you are really dumb. Why do u keep showing it?|
|Sep-18-06|| ||jamesmaskell: It was a joke, unless you didnt understand...get over it <sitzkrieg>.|
|Sep-18-06|| ||sitzkrieg: I wasnt joking thats the sad thing about it.|
|Sep-18-06|| ||sitzkrieg: Dont cry, lighten up, its just me. I wont say it again.|
|Oct-15-06|| ||positionalgenius: <jamesmaskell>"...and kicks Karpov in each time thereafter"
Well its obvious you don't know chess history.
Thats not "kicking" someone.
|Oct-15-06|| ||Laskerfan82: <positionalgenius> True, but when you refer to Alekhine as <"the luckiest world champ, with Botvinnik close at #2">, I would certainly call to question your judgment of chess history as well... or at least chess understanding.|
|Oct-15-06|| ||Milo: <<Let's have a measurment fight>>|
|Oct-15-06|| ||positionalgenius: <Laskerfan>Thats my opinion.Tell me why you disagree.|
|Oct-16-06|| ||Laskerfan82: Well, it's not that I think other World Champions were any "luckier," it's just that I don't think the word "lucky" should be attributed to any of the winners of past World Championship matches (with the exception, perhaps, of those who won in the FIDE K.O. format, for those who recognize them as legitimate WC's ... not to take anything away from their accomplishments, but I think even they would agree that a certain amount of luck definitely played a role there, and such a method for determining a World Champion is nothing short of ridiculous).|
But let's talk about Alekhine and Botvinnik for a moment. I will discuss why I disagree with your assessment of Alekhine in my next post.
|Oct-16-06|| ||Laskerfan82: Should Alekhine really be referred to as "the luckiest of world champions"? I think this unfairly minimizes his huge accomplishment. His match win over Capablanca may have been the biggest upset in history (I think even Euwe's win eight years later was not considered *as* shocking), but I don't think luck had anything to do with it. He defeated Capablanca six games to three in a 34 game marathon match. It was a convincing margin, and can be explained by the simple fact that he played better than Capablanca in that match.|
Capablanca went into the match enormously confident (surprise surprise), but in the very first game he was given a rude awakening when Alekhine beat him with the Black pieces. Indeed, Capablanca had not taken the match preparations seriously (if at all!). Less than three weeks before the start of the match, he was playing casual exhibition games in Sao Paulo! Alekhine, by contrast, prepared thoroughly for the contest. He was one of the most hard-working players in the history of the game.
The problem for Capablanca was not that he wasn't in form -- just a few months earlier he won the strong New York tournament with ridiculous ease, not losing a single game in 20 against five very strong opponents (Alekhine included). The problem was that Alekhine was also in form, and it turned out that, thanks to his hard work, he was the stronger player in the match. Hard work, not luck.
And I think he more than confirmed his status as World Champion with his stellar performances thereafter. Look at his 8.5/9 in Bradley Beach 1929, his two demolitions of Bogoljubow (who obviously was not the strongest challenger, and I would never defend Alekhine for selecting him and avoiding a rematch, but that's a separate matter), and of course his spectacular performance at San Remo 1930, his perfect 9/9 at the Hamburg Olympiad 1930, his stunning domination at Bled 1931, his 9/11 at London 1932 (with some very strong players competing), and his 13/15 in Zurich 1934 (ahead of Euwe, Flohr, Bogoljubow, Lasker, Nimzowitsch, Bernstein, Stahlberg, etc). There are others, but I think I covered the most impressive results in his first period as World Champion (1927-1935).
Compare these results to Capablanca's after he became WC in 1921. Capablanca had two very nice tournament wins in that period (London 1922 and New York 1927 were excellent), but Alekhine's list above is more extensive (he just played in more tournaments) and his results were at least as dominating. And let's not forget that Capablanca had two distinct disappointments in his period as WC: first when he came behind Lasker in New York 1924, and then when he finished third behind Bogoljubow and Lasker (again!) in Moscow 1925.
Don't get me wrong, I rank Capablanca as one of the greatest of all time (like you and most others) and I also rank him higher than Alekhine on my list of World Champions. But, given everything above, I don't see how or why we should refer to Alekhine as "the luckiest of World Champions."
Of course, I feel exactly the same way about Botvinnik ... but I've written enough for now :) Everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course.
|Oct-16-06|| ||percyblakeney: <the luckiest of world champions>|
I'd choose Euwe. He was of course very good and all that, but was given a match by Alekhine without being the strongest candidate and won with the smallest possible margin thanks to Alekhine not being in form.
I'd call Kramnik a bit lucky as well. First Shirov didn't get his match, then Anand declined, and first then Kramnik got his chance (and took it impressively).
All other World Champions either qualified for their title match or were World number 1 for many years.
|Oct-16-06|| ||keypusher: Euwe is entitled to be considered lucky if any of them are, for the reasons percy stated.|
I suppose Botvinnik was lucky in that he had a rematch clause. On the other hand, if there had been no World War II I think he would have gotten the title a few years sooner, via a match win over Alekhine.
You could make an argument that Petrosian was lucky. He finished half a point ahead of Geller and Keres at Curacao, with a plus 8 score (compared to Tal's plus 12 three years before). Keres botched his chances in the fourth cycle by losing to Benko for the only time in his life (against 10 or so wins). Tal was sick, played poorly and eventually had to drop out.
And, of course, unlike Smyslov and Tal, Petrosian didn't have to face Botvinnik in a rematch.
I think <laskerfan> did a good job of showing why Alekhine shouldn't be considered lucky. I would only add that (unlike, say Euwe in 1935 or Janowski in 1910) Alekhine was unquestionably #2 in the world in 1927 and had demonstrated his worthiness for a title shot throughout the 1920s.
|Oct-16-06|| ||percyblakeney: <I suppose Botvinnik was lucky in that he had a rematch clause. On the other hand, if there had been no World War II I think he would have gotten the title a few years sooner, via a match win over Alekhine>|
Probably, according to Chessmetrics Botvinnik was the best player in the world during half a year in 1936-37, and if Euwe could beat Alekhine in 1935 Botvinnik wouldn't have been without chances already then...
|Oct-16-06|| ||positionalgenius: <Laskerfan82>You have covinced me with your post.I shall remove Alekhine's name.But I still consider him the greatest coward of all time.:)|
|Oct-16-06|| ||Laskerfan82: <positonalgenius> I am impressed with your objectivity. Many people have such pride that once their opinions are formed, come what may, they'll never change them. I myself have been guilty of this on occasion, though I try hard to prevent it from happening.|
Regarding Alekhine's cowardice... you'll hear no disagreements from me on that one. The game of chess was robbed by his decision to avoid a rematch. There are very few matches that I would have liked to see more than a Capablanca-Alekhine rematch at some time between 1928 and 1934. Lasker-Pillsbury between 1895 and 1900 or Lasker-Rubinstein between 1908 and 1912 rank right up there, and in my opinion, the greatest tragedy of all is that we didn't get to see Fischer-Karpov 1975.
|Oct-16-06|| ||Laskerfan82: <keypusher, percyblakeney>: I agree. Recall the words of Alekhine after AVRO, 1938:|
<""From the 14 games I played in this tournament only once I felt that my opponent outplayed me - it was the game with Botvinnik in round seven">
And what a masterpiece it was!
Botvinnik vs Alekhine, 1938
Their draw at Nottingham Alekhine vs Botvinnik, 1936 may have been short, but it was also a rich and fantastic encounter.
I think that a match between Botvinnik and Alekhine in 1937 on later on would have ended in a fairly convincing victory for Botvinnik.
Of course, that's not what Reshevsky thought. He was of the opinion that out of the four rising stars of the younger generation (Botvinnik, Reshevsky, Keres, Fine), he himself was the only one who would have had a serious chance of defeating Alekhine in a post-AVRO(1938) match! http://www.chesscafe.com/text/resha...
|Oct-16-06|| ||positionalgenius: <laskerfan82>Yes karpov-Fischer is a great loss.Looks like I have found another good kibitzer!|
|Oct-16-06|| ||keypusher: <Alekhine was unquestionably #2 in the world in 1927 and had demonstrated his worthiness for a title shot throughout the 1920s.>|
This is a trifle unfair to Lasker, I realize. But Lasker did not play a serious game of chess in public between 1925 and 1934.
|Oct-16-06|| ||Laskerfan82: <keypusher> True indeed. Lasker had planned on retiring from competitive chess after Moscow, 1925, but politics cruelly intervened...|
When the Nazis rose to power and Hitler became dictator in 1933, Lasker,a Jew, was forced to emigrate. He and his wife Martha went to England, where they lived until 1935.
Gareth Williams, writing in Chess Monthly, describes those painful years:
<"...the Laskers were forced out of their comfortable retirement. The regime confiscated the Laskers' Berlin appartment, their farm at Thyrow and their lifetime savings. Emanuel and Martha Lasker, in their old age, suddenly found themselves destitute, without money home or homeland. He was forced to come out of retirement and to play chess again to make enough money to live.">
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·