< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Mar-26-08|| ||Eyal: <Botvinnik, a man of strong will, who was capable of hiding his emotions, left the stage literally broken, and behind his horned-rimmed glasses his eyes were incredibly sad... At this moment he appeared to me to be very unhappy.> (Koblents)|
<Of course, Botvinnik was depressed by twice missing a strightforward draw, but even more so by the fact that he had suffered a defeat on his home ground, and had been crushed by his own positional weapon. It turned out that Tal was able to defeat him not only by "mad" play, but also by "normal" play.> (Kasparov)
|Mar-26-08|| ||M.D. Wilson: This game is for those who think Tal was nothing but a swindler.|
|Sep-05-08|| ||Mikhail Tal fan: <Of course, Botvinnik was depressed by twice missing a strightforward draw, but even more so by the fact that he had suffered a defeat on his home ground, and had been crushed by his own positional weapon. It turned out that Tal was able to defeat him not only by "mad" play, but also by "normal" play.> (Kasparov)|
Great Micha.. Great "Tale"..
..Tal is "Tall"..
|Sep-19-08|| ||DoubleCheck: I was considering
71. Kf5 Qg7
72. Qd8+ Kf7
73. Qd7+ Kg8
74. Qxg7+ Kxg7
but white should still win
|Nov-09-08|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: This bears out the observation by Alex Yermolinsky in "The Road to Chess Improvement" that the "tactician v stragetist" stereotype doesn't work. Rather, both players used strategic and tactical weapons against each other. Here is Tal playing better in a positional maneuvring game, albeit with some nice tactics as featured in many such games.|
|Feb-20-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: 20 Qa8 just doesn't look right.|
|May-05-09|| ||plang: One of the key games of the match. Botvinnik had the momentum after winning games 8 & 9 to close within one point. After 7..d5 the game had transposed into the Fianchetto Gruenfeld. Tal and Kasparov both recommended 8..a5 as an improvement. Had Tal played 10 Nxd2 then 10..c5 would have achieved an easy equality for Black. After Tal's 10 Qxd2! accepting the pawn with 10..dxc
11 Ng5..cxb 12 Nxe6 is bad for Black. Botvinnik's clever 20..Qa8! avoided the pin that Tal was planning with 21 Bf4 which could now be answered with 21..b5 winning the d-pawn. Kasparov: "Thus 27..Qxd4! would have given an easy draw. However, Botvinnik again did not want to calculate "unclear" variations, especially with time-trouble imminent. The mistake of the first match! In the return match he realised that it was not possible to avoid such calculations." Tal criticized 31..Rf6? as being too passive recommending 31.. Rd5 with equality. Botvinnik could have avoided the losing queen endgame with 45..a6 but after 46 Qb6..Nd5 (if 46..Ne8 47 Rxe6!)
47 Qd8+..Qf8 48 Bxh7+ he still would have had a losing position.|
|Aug-18-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 16...Qb8 what's the point?|
|Aug-28-09|| ||WhiteRook48: or why does he even play Qd6 to begin with?|
|Nov-11-10|| ||talisman: can i get a little ANNOTATION!!!!|
|Nov-12-10|| ||jmi: <talisman: can i get a little ANNOTATION!!!!>|
1.Nf3 White wins
|May-01-11|| ||kia0708: Queen + 2 Rooks
Queen + 2 Rooks
this is far too volatile for me :-)
|Nov-11-11|| ||Eric Farley: People say that Fischer once called Botvinnik a "glorified coffee-house player." Maybe it was because of games like this one. What a boring player, and kind of yellow-livered too. He sat passively and did almost nothing the whole game except move his rooks or king to and fro on the last rank. And to place his queen on a8 for no apparent reason!|
|Nov-11-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: Which people said that, Eric? Do you have a reference? A young Fischer once called Lasker a coffee-house player. You haven't really picked the best game to demonstrate Botvinnik's chess. You picked a game in which Botvinnik was below par as if it sums him up. Pick a game when he crushes Tal, or anyone else for that matter, and call him "boring and yellow-livered" then. Superficial call, mate.|
|Nov-11-11|| ||pawn to QB4: Botvinnik vs Portisch, 1968, the boring and yellow-livered one perks up a bit.|
|Nov-12-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: Must have been something in the flask.|
|Nov-15-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: I suppose you have no reference for your Fischer quotation regarding Botvinnik, Eric Farley?|
|Nov-15-11|| ||brankat: <Eric Farley> <M.D.Wilson> |
Fischer once referred to Dr.Lasker as a "coffee-house player", adding: "just because the man was a champion for 27 years doesn't mean he was a strong player." A typical Fischer. I think he later changed his mind.
On the other hand he did respect Botvinnik, although he didn't have Botvinnik on his "of all times" list. Which, btw, Fischer used to revise every few months. Fischer actually stated that it was Botvinnik who "took superficiality out of the game."
|Nov-15-11|| ||brankat: Btw, according to CG.com database the overall score Botvinnik-Tal is a tie:|
+12 -12 =20.
Of course, Botvinnik was 25 years older.
|Nov-15-11|| ||bronkenstein: Botvinnik is underappreciated mostly due to political reasons and his not-so-attractive style (time distance can also help). I believe that Karpov`s populariy suffered a bit for same reasons.|
But he had good faith compared to Spassky (majority , and great one I`m afraid , of people will not remember him by his impressive results in 60s , but rather by something else) , Smyslov or lessay Larsen ( such a player ... most often referred to as `0-6`).
|Nov-15-11|| ||brankat: <bronkenstein> Right. Spassky's phenomenal streak between Amsterdam 1964 to winning the title in 1969 is far more than what Fischer did in 1970-2 period. |
The same goes for Tal, 1957-61. Botvinnik 1934-1948. Dr.Lasker 1894-1901. Alekhine 1927-1934. Karpov 1973-1999. Kasparov 1983-2000. Probably Steinitz, too.
|Nov-15-11|| ||bronkenstein: Speaking of hype vs historical perspective , I bet that we would see some very strange permutations in popular top 5s and top 10s if we could somehow change the places of , lessay, Alekhine and Kasparov in time , or make Fischer Russian + Karpov American.|
It reminds me a bit of all those Persons and Singers `of the millennium` we had only a decade ago. There was also a pool amongst historians @ that time , they voted <Genghis Khan> for the (I will paraphrase by memory) most influential person of the millennium , based on his impact on later European culture , politics and military organisation .
PS I didn`t read the source , but rather the short article that went `WTH Genghis ??` mode. I believe that many would react that way . And speaking of Genghis , Botvinnik somehow comes to mind ...
PPS I just discovered that WT*F is scrambled while WTH is not , usefull to know =)
|Nov-15-11|| ||brankat: <bronkenstein> Yes, WTH is polite enough.|
The "millennium poll" (not pool :-)) we'd had here voted Johannes Guttenberg (spelling?) the most influential person of the previous 1 thousand years.
<or make Fischer Russian + Karpov American.>
Karpov would be a light year ahead of all humanity. =)
|Nov-15-11|| ||bronkenstein: <Johannes Guttenberg (spelling?)> don`t worry , I never grammarpoliced anyone - otherwise I would have to arrest myself for life (or two).|
|Aug-25-12|| ||lost in space: Johannes Gutenberg
His real name was Gensfleisch
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·