< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
|Oct-20-06|| ||percyblakeney: Smyslov-Botvinnik was one of the more prominent duels in the history of the World Championship. They played in total 69 games in title matches, Smyslov "winning" with 18-17 in decisive games. Counting all games played in title matches this is how the top ten would look:|
1. Kasparov-Karpov 144 (21-19)
2. Smyslov-Botvinnik 69 (18-17)
3. Alekhine-Euwe 55 (18-13)
4. Alekhine-Bogoljubov 51 (19-8)
5. Karpov-Korchnoi 50 (12-7)
6. Spassky-Petrosian 47 (9-8)
7. Botvinnik-Tal 42 (12-11)
8. Steinitz-Chigorin 40 (20-14)
9. Lasker-Steinitz 36 (20-7)
10. Alekhine-Capablanca 34 (6-3)
Karpov-Korchnoi played a candidates final that afterwards turned out to be a title decider, so one could maybe add 24 games and 3-2 there, ending up with 74 (15-9).
|Oct-20-06|| ||percyblakeney: If also candidate matches are counted, Korchnoi-Petrosian is a legendary matchup. They played in total 36 games (in 4 candidate matches), Korchnoi winning 7 and losing 3 games.|
|Sep-22-08|| ||offramp: "I seem to have been playing Smyslov all my life," said Botvinnik.|
|Oct-22-08|| ||zoren: The picture says No Waxmat. LOL|
|Oct-31-08|| ||Udit Narayan: actually it says ПО ШАХМАТ|
|Feb-25-09|| ||TheChessGuy: Po shakhmatui, meaning, "Of chess."|
|Mar-03-09|| ||talisman: after numerous complaints, moscow spares no expense for a new table and chairs.|
|Mar-03-09|| ||Dredge Rivers: <talisman>
Sadly, they couldn't afford new socks!
|Mar-03-09|| ||talisman: <Dredge Rivers> great handle. smyslov looks like he got a miniature manicurist dressed in white.|
|Mar-03-09|| ||Dredge Rivers: <talisman> <great handle> Sorry, I can't take credit for it myself. Johnny Carson coined it years ago as a quintessential name for a real manly man.|
BTW, do you get your name from the Stephen King novel?
|Mar-03-09|| ||talisman: <Dredge Rivers> no...first thing popped in my head signing up, w/ tal as my favorite.johnny carson! another favorite.|
|Mar-03-09|| ||Jim Bartle: Ed: "I hold in my hand the final envelope."
Carnac: "May the sewers of Ansapoor back up into your six o'clock news."
Q: What do you call a military coup led by General Kitchy Kitchy?
|Mar-04-09|| ||Dredge Rivers: <Jim Bartle>
You are correct, sir!
|Mar-26-09|| ||kevin86: Botvinnik is second player to regain title-he will also be the third!|
He starts out hoy here with 3 straight wins and never allows Smyslov to get closer than two games behind.
|Aug-29-09|| ||talisman: <kevin86> that's true...But...there was always the man on the Right...adjusting Botvinnik's clock.he was caught only once...in this picture.|
|Apr-06-10|| ||thegoodanarchist: "Smyslov understood chess more profoundly than his great rival Mikhail Botvinnik, against whom he contested three world championship matches with honours even. But Botvinnik was the better psychologist, had a shrewd knowledge of chess politics and made wily use of rules where 12-12 kept his title in 1954 and his 1957 defeat gave him a return series where he caught the <flu-stricken Smyslov> at the start."|
--from the following article online:
|Apr-06-10|| ||Petrosianic: I hadn't heard this flu business before, but it seems to be the "official excuse" in the last few days. None of the GM's I've heard comment on the match have ever mentioned it. They usually talk about psychological factors. As no healthy player ever lost a game anyway, it seems like kind of a Non-Excuse excuse.|
|Apr-06-10|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Petrosianic>
Certainly Tal did not use ill health as an excuse for losing the rematch in '61.
And the article does not quote Smyslov on the issue.
But then how does one explain 3 losses in a row (2 with White!), followed shortly by a win?
|Apr-06-10|| ||thegoodanarchist: <talisman:
...there was always the man on the Right...adjusting Botvinnik's clock.he was caught only once...in this picture.>
Not true! Scroll up to the top of the page. Where is says "History of the World Championship," click "next".
You will see a photo from 1960. Tal, Botvinnik, and mystery man to MB's right!
|Apr-06-10|| ||Petrosianic: <But then how does one explain 3 losses in a row (2 with White!), followed shortly by a win?>|
Wasn't Game 5 decided by a Botvinnik howler 2 moves before the end? I don't know how Smyslov's flu explains that unless Vassily sneezed on him.
|Apr-07-10|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Petrosianic>
When people get the flu, it doesn't last their whole life. They are sick for a few days and then recover.
Or perhaps you were making a joke?
|May-12-10|| ||I play the Fred: Why is this match called the rematch? It should be called the return match.|
1) 1954 Botvinnik = Smyslov
2) 1957 Smyslov d. Botvinnik
3) 1958 Botvinnik d. Smyslov
#1 is the first match. #2 is the rematch of #1. #3 is the return match of #2 in reference to the rule on the books at the time. There was no return match in force for #2, since Smyslov did not defeat Botvinnik in 1954.
|May-12-10|| ||Petrosianic: 1958 was Botvinnik's re-match. 1957, while a return match wasn't really a "re-match", as it didn't come automatically. Smyslov had to go back and earn another match.|
However, I think cg.com calls the 1981 match a re-match, even though Korchnoi earned that one again too, so the usage isn't always consistent.
|May-12-10|| ||I play the Fred: <1958 was Botvinnik's re-match. 1957, while a return match wasn't really a "re-match", as it didn't come automatically. Smyslov had to go back and earn another match.>|
A rematch, to me, is the one that isn't automatic. I think of 1957 as the rematch of 1954 (similarly, the 1994 Super Bowl was a rematch of the 1993 Super Bowl, as both teams had to earn their spots in it.), whereas 1958 was the return match required by rule.
<However, I think cg.com calls the 1981 match a re-match, even though Korchnoi earned that one again too, so the usage isn't always consistent.>
I guess that's what I was getting at: consistent usage. The term "return match", I believe, should be in use when the rules mandated it.
IIRC, Kasparov-Karpov III (1986) was a return match, and perhaps the last one we'll see.
|May-12-10|| ||Petrosianic: Usage may vary. To me, a rematch suggests one which IS automatic. Either way is fine though, as long as the terms are used consistently. I don't see any way to say that 1981 was a rematch but 1957 wasn't. But that's the way they have them labeled.|
There were also people who questioned whether or not the Anand-Kramnik match should have been called a rematch. It was a return "contest", but the first actual "match" between them. Thefreedictionary.com (which tends to use such words informally), defines rematch as "A second contest between the same opponents." (without distinguishing between Automatic or Earned, or between Match or Tournament). Was Anand-Kramnik a rematch even under that definition? Unclear. Anand and Kramnik were two of the "same opponents" from Mexico City, but not everyone from Mexico was there. But since the two that mattered (the guy who lost the title and the guy who won it) were both present, I think of Bonn as a "rematch", (automatic chance to get title back) even though Mexico City hadn't been a match at all.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·