< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
|Feb-13-10|| ||AnalyzeThis: I love Tal as much as anyone, but the death-bed Tal beating Kasparov two weeks before death was in a <5 minute game.>|
It's a slightly different propostion to play a 24 game match against Botvinnik at 40/2 when one of your major organs isn't working properly.
|Feb-13-10|| ||notyetagm: <theagenbiteofinwit: <It also helped Botvinnik greatly that Tal was sick at the time.>|
This is idiotic, and really more of an insult to Tal than to Botvinnik.
A death-bed sick Tal beat Kasparov in a game two weeks before he died.
The score might have been close to the Botvinnik Smyslov match, but the match would have belonged to Botvinnik.>
|Feb-14-10|| ||M.D. Wilson: There is no doubt Tal would have been a stronger, more consistent player had his health been better. His enormous talent got him through for years, but he never dominated again like he did from 1957-60, although he had some fine periods in the 1970s, when he alternated between "Semi-Tal" and a more universal, rounded player. However, health was never on his side. He was a chain-smoker and a heavy drinker, and was addicted to morphine for a time. |
It must be said that Botvinnik really learnt from his defeats, unlike many other players, and won the return match in great style. It was a combination of factors, including Tal's ill health, although he won Bled in the same year, and Botvinnik's superior approach and hunger, that lead to the 1961 Match result. Remember, Botvinnik's best years were interrupted by the Second World War, so his ability to remain Primus Inter Pares (First Among Equals) shows that he was a great player. We have to appreciate that Botvinnik's and Tal's best years did not overlap, so perhaps we should just see the games for what they are: great sporting contests.
|Feb-14-10|| ||bmulligan: Botvinnik's right of rematch was a crushing advantage, giving him a 75% chance of defeating an equally talented opponent in either the first or (potential) second match. |
Add to that the advantage of draw odds.
These advantages enabled Botvinnik to cling to the title for fifteen years without demonstrating superiority over any of his rivals, each of whom had to climb through the candidates process while Botvinnik waited.
Smyslov--draw, loss, win
Kasparov's consistent criticism of the rematch clause (even while he was champion) seemed like a rare spark of disinterested integrity until...
|Feb-14-10|| ||Petrosianic: <Add to that the advantage of draw odds.>|
Of course, Tal is the one who had draw odds in 1961...
|Feb-14-10|| ||bmulligan: And Smyslov in 58.
Botvinnik had draw odds in five of his seven matches. And his draw odds were critical in two of those five matches.
|Feb-20-10|| ||M.D. Wilson: This reinforces the view that Botvinnik, despite being past his best by this stage, was primus inter pares. Remember, all his opponents for the Title were younger than he was, and he tended to fade at the end of matches.|
|Feb-20-10|| ||Open Defence: I think the title meant more to Botvinnik than to Tal|
|Feb-21-10|| ||M.D. Wilson: Perhaps, but Tal loved chess in itself. He was quite happy to play blitz in Moscow's parks against all-comers while recovering from his various ailments. He just happened to be brilliant enough to become World Champion.|
|Nov-28-10|| ||talisman: asked if he had any regrets shortly before he died, tal said that he wished he had postponed the 61 match.|
|Apr-09-11|| ||bronkenstein: Botvinik likes beating sick people (the only way he could do it ;) ... |
Smyslov mentioned , in his interwiew to Dimitrije Bjelica , that he was ill (pneumonia , or sthg alike , not sure how to translate it to english , lungs inflamatory stuff ) for good part of the only match he lost to Botvinnik .
When playing matches against healthy opponnents , Botvinnik was , ofc , losing and drawing eventually ... without a single victory (even including Flohr , and almost 50 years old Lowenfisch back there in 30s ).
Without draw odds and guaranteed rematch clause (not to mention huge USSR establishment support ), he would lose his title to Bronstein in 1951. , and people would remember his 3 (deserved) year reign like Euwe's , or something alike .
|Apr-09-11|| ||SatelliteDan: <bronkenstein>
Case in point though. I like Tal, and he was very generous in his praise after he lost. I think Tal is not only a great player but also a sportsmen and a good man.
|Apr-09-11|| ||SatelliteDan: Even Fischer had respect for Tal. RIP (both)|
|Jun-12-11|| ||parisattack: Amazing to me this match was 50 years ago! It seems much more recent somehow.|
Yet, when a few months after learning the game in 1966 I found a dusty original copy of New York 1924 in a bookshop - it seemed that span of 42 years was ancient history.
The years will do that to a person...
|Jun-12-11|| ||mworld: <Open Defence: <so please people stop spreading these myths that Botvinnik was a great match player. he was not, not anywhere as good as Kasparov anyway. > well I think Botvinnik was great at preparing for a known opponent, and of course Kasparov no doubt built on some of Botvinnik's methods
the strongest thing about Botvinnik is how he took defeats, many do not like to face their nemeses but Botvinnik seemed to relish the chance for revenge>|
exactly. I also admire that particular trait. With all the expectations and pressure, it is admirable to have such fortitude.
|Jun-12-11|| ||ray keene: i just love the games from this match-fifteen decisive games-amazing!!|
|Jun-13-11|| ||bronkenstein: <i just love the games from this match-fifteen decisive games-amazing!!>|
Ah, good old times...
|Jun-13-11|| ||DrMAL: Very humble afterword from Tal, one whose amazing career and creative contribution to chess was abruptly stifled by substance abuse.|
|Aug-29-11|| ||talisman: <DrMal> very good post up until the last word.|
|Sep-08-11|| ||perfidious: <DrMAL: Very humble afterword from Tal, one whose amazing career and creative contribution to chess was abruptly stifled by substance abuse.>|
While I can't agree more that Tal was a tremendous combinative player and wonderful ambassador for chess, to say that he was 'abruptly stifled by substance abuse' is both incorrect and irresponsible; his health, even in his youth, was never at its best, and this is well documented.
|Sep-08-11|| ||I play the Fred: <perfidious>, this is a classic manifestation of the <MAL-AJ> discussion paradigm; I was going to make this same point, but I anticipated two likely outcomes:|
1) No discussion of the matter thanks to the IGNORE list
2) No discussion of the matter thanks to the good doctor's apparent belief that a difference of opinion is a challenge to one's manhood, an act of trolling
I don't want to disagree with <DrMAL> for the sheer sport of it, but I don't care to just let things go when I don't agree, either - I will say that there is something to what he says. <perfidious>, You are correct that Tal suffered from poor health his whole life, but I would agree with <DrMAL> to the extent that Tal didn't do himself any favors with his frequent drinking and smoking.
I guess Tal understood that he wouldn't live too long and decided to enjoy himself as much as he could.
|Sep-08-11|| ||ughaibu: Tal was 55 when he died, "abruptly stifled" is nonsense.|
|Sep-08-11|| ||I play the Fred: <My contention was merely that it was irresponsible to imply that he came to a sudden end due to all this.>|
Oh, absolutely. I guess my reason for posting what I posted was just to show that I'm not here to antagonize, but to discuss. If it gets back to <DrMAL> and he cares to respond, that would be a nice step in the right direction. He doesn't have to agree with me, nor does he have to like me. I hope he examined the link that I cited as being a good, healthy, normal discussion. But if he wants to stay on the <AJ> side of the street, so be it.
<When I played a set of rapid games with Tal in 1988>
I <hate> you. :D
|Sep-08-11|| ||Petrosianic: When you play rapid chess with Tal, it's even more rapid than usual.|
|Sep-08-11|| ||perfidious: <I play the Fred: <When I played a set of rapid games with Tal in 1988>|
I <hate> you. :D>
I have my moments too, lol.
<Petrosianic: When you play rapid chess with Tal, it's even more rapid than usual.>
They were all at 5-2, so that was indeed the case.
Just days before, he'd taken Vaganian 3.5-.5 in the world blitz final at St John's, so I don't suspect he'd have had much trouble with me straight up.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·