< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jun-30-05|| ||euripides: <farrooj> HMT is posing as a Fischer-style paranoiac. Hence the suggestion that anyone who questions the allegations of prearrangement is a communist. Don't take it seriously.|
|Jun-30-05|| ||farrooj: oh OK, I was stunned for a moment. Does he always do that?|
|Jun-30-05|| ||euripides: I have no idea. Perhaps you should monitor him.|
|Jun-30-05|| ||farrooj: why dont we all become paranoid and monitor somebody? I pick the fairy people living in beer|
|Jun-30-05|| ||Sbetsho: proofs of pre-arrangement would be nice.|
|Oct-29-05|| ||Oginschile: Didn't Korchnoi admit that Russians agreed to prearranged games when holding off Fischer? I don't know that I buy too many prearranged conspiracy theories. But it seems I read somewhere once that Korchnoi (or some other player) admitted that Fischer was right one tournament. I can't remember where I read that though.|
|Oct-29-05|| ||euripides: <Ogin> There are a number of sets of allegations. |
In the mid-1970s, Korchnoi said that Geller, Petrosian and Keres arranged to draw all their games in the 1962 Candidates' tournament. All the games were indeed drawn. Korchnoi was not the first person to suggest this, and it may well be true; but it is not clear that if they did this they would have told Korchnoi (who was also at the tournament and was almost certainly not part of the agreement. Fischer suggested Korchnoi was selected to lose his games but Korchnoi denied this). It may well be they were cooperating to stop Tal rather than Fischer; or the habit of drawing against each other may have developed as the tournament went on - rather likely, since if Tal had not been ill he might well have stormed home ahead of everyone as he had in 1959 so the strategy of drawing could have been self-defeating. I don't think Korchnoi's evidence adds very much to the likelihood they did it; nor would Fischer have won the tournament otherwise.
In the 1953 Candidates' tournament, Bronstein says he was pressured to agree a draw against Smyslov in order to help him finish ahead of Reshevsky. I am inclined to find this believable; if so, it seems it was an exception of which Bronstein was ashamed.
Some people argue Keres threw his games against Botvinnik in the 1948 World Chamionship on the basis of the games; there is no direct evidence that this is true and I don't think the games demonstrate it.
Finally, Fischer has been known to claim that all modern grandmaster chess (and particularly Karpov-Kasparov) is pre-arranged. There has also been one apparent hoax posted on this site relating to a game between Petrosian and Korchnoi.
Veteran cold warriors are often disposed to assert these stories dogmatically - 'the Russians cheated' etc. What this misses is that the Soviet grandmasters were quite a bolshy bunch who were not all that easy for the state to control; moreover that agreed draws are not actually against the laws of the game.
There are some good articles on all this (particularly the 1953 case) on the chesscafe.com archives.
|Oct-29-05|| ||sitzkrieg: HMT, Faarooj, AW, I am still laughing; thanks for these funny posts.(though i am sure HMT was serious:))|
|Oct-29-05|| ||Oginschile: Euripides: Thank you very much. I hate to dwell on the negative, but I was curious.|
|Oct-29-05|| ||SnoopDogg: <Smyslov looks like a patzer here. Maybe around 1800 strength. Haven't looked at much of his other garbage, but this is terrible.>|
I think your confusing Smyslov's games with your posts.
|Jul-02-07|| ||RandomVisitor: Its unclear how Black would have proceeded if white played 20.a3 or 20.a4.|
The move played, 20.Qc3, allows 20...Rf6 and by the time 21...Qe8 is played Black has a nice advantage.
21.dxc5 may have been better for white.
|Feb-21-08|| ||hedgeh0g: <Smyslov looks like a patzer here. Maybe around 1800 strength.>|
Since when is someone with a rating of 1800 considered a "patzer"?
|Feb-21-08|| ||Shams: <hedgehog> I'm around 1800 and I'm a card-carrying patzer.|
|Jun-08-08|| ||ToTheDeath: It's a shame there's so much dull and off topic chatter on such an amazing and brilliant game. |
Kasparov gives up the exchange 'on spec' and then routs the super solid ex-world champion with Black in 27 moves. This is why so many GMs were afraid of Kasparov in the early 80s. He played the kind of supersonic chess not seen since Alekhine.
<RandomVisitor> is correct that allowing the rook to go to f6 is a decisive error, after 22...Qh5 there's no time for 23.Qd3? Qxh2+!
I really like the quiet move at the end 27...h6, providing a cubby hole for the king and emphasizing White's helplessness. This game along with Kasparov-Palatnik made a big impression on me as a beginner- I looked at them and said "Now _this_ is chess."
|Apr-04-09|| ||falso contacto: 1800 is good rating.|
|Mar-02-11|| ||birthtimes: After Kasparov played 18...f5 and 19...Qc8, it should have been obvious that he was planning a rook lift from f8 to f6, so Smyslov could have prevented that by playing 20.dxc5! Then after 20...bxc5 21.Qf1 would have positioned the Queen to go to h3 to counter any kingside attack by Black and also to perhaps initiate one by White...|
|Mar-02-11|| ||beatgiant: <birthtimes>
Couldn't Black play ...e5 to re-enable the rook lift? For example 20. dxc5 bxc5 21. Qf1 e5, followed by ...Rf6 etc.
|Mar-02-11|| ||birthtimes: Yes, if 20.dxc5 bxc5 21.Qf1 e5 22.a3 Rf6 23.b4 White initiates play on the queenside while defending his kingside with his Queen at f1.|
|Mar-02-11|| ||Damianx: Of cause the Russian,s would did almost everyone would they had the power at the time not like now USA presidential elections have been stolen/fixed in Australia the state of Queensland,s state election was stolen 4 17 years|
|Mar-27-11|| ||beatgiant: <birthtimes>
I must be missing something. What if Black follows the same plan as in the actual game? 20. dxc5 bxc5 21. Qf1 e5 22. a3 Rf6 23. b4 cxb4 24. axb4 Qe8 etc. How to prevent Black from smashing through on the kingside within a few more moves?
|Mar-28-11|| ||beatgiant: I suggest relocating White's king, for example 18. Rc1 f5 19. Kf1 Qc8 20. Ke1 etc. and in that case, I don't see a direct Black win by attack on the king as happened in the game.|
|Nov-19-11|| ||birthtimes: beatgiant: If 20.dxc5 bxc5 21.Qf1 e5 22.a3 Rf6 23.b4 cxb4 24.axb4 Qe8, then 25.c5! and Black's queen is needed at b5 to protect its a6 pawn, thus queens are traded and Black has no more effective kingside attack.|
|Nov-19-11|| ||Everett: At first blanche, I prefer Black's position after the exchange sac. White is Swiss cheese on the light squares around his king, with no LSB while Black's LSB is having a conversation with his highness.. I simply wouldn't trust my defensive skills to handle such terrible king safety.|
|Nov-20-11|| ||birthtimes: White is OK after the exchange sac. Smyslov got into trouble with 21.a3. Better was 21.dxc5 bxc5 22.Qd3 when again White's queen is set to go to f1 to protect the weakened light squares on his kingside as I previously mentioned...White has at least a draw here...|
|Nov-20-11|| ||birthtimes: Additionally, Smyslov could have prevented Kasparov's rook lift by playing 20.a4 rather than 20.Qc3. Then if 20...Rf6 21.dxc5!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·