|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-08-10 | | GravityWave: <Dredge Rivers>
There is little difference between you and the old mexican woman finding the visage of christ in her grilled tortilla. Just like you, the old woman is still waiting for someone to prove its not the face of christ. Lack of disproof does not equal proof. The burden of proof is on the affirmative. You made the claim--you provide the evidence. So far all Ive seen is three points that are not facts. No matter how many times you call them facts, it wont make it true. For example,
"He lost in the second round." This is a random statement that is meant to imply something, and im not sure what. Are you implying its impossible for Keres to lose that early in a tournament and the only way is some vast conspiracy? Like I said in a previous post, you are a psuedoscientist. |
 |
Sep-09-10
 | | twinlark: <I play the Fred>
Bronstein himself wrote "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", and he doesn't really clear the issue up completely: <I have been asked many, many times if I was obliged to lose the 23rd game and if there was a conspiracy against me to stop me from taking Botvinnik's title. A lot of nonsense has been written about this. The only thing that I am prepared to say about all this controversy is that I was subjected to strong psychological pressure from various origins and it was entirely up to me to yield to that pressure or not.> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... So what's nonsense and what's not is hard to determine (and it's not even clear if he yielded to that pressure or not, especially given his purported comments to Fischer), but Wikipedia's article on Bronstein has the following: <The rumor that Bronstein was related to the disgraced former Soviet Communist leader Leon Trotsky (whose real family name was Bronstein), was treated as unconfirmed, but doubtful, by Bronstein in his book The Sorcerer's Apprentice (1995). This belief could have explained the imprisonment of Bronstein's father.> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_... Clear as mud. Something was going on, but what? Guess we'll never know the whole story. |
|
| Sep-09-10 | | I play the Fred: <Bronstein himself wrote "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", and he doesn't really clear the issue up completely:> 1) Bronstein and Tom Furstenburg were the authors of The Sorcerer's Apprentice. 2) The first quote you provided had nothing to do with the Trotsky story, which is what I was addressing and 3) Below, I provide the quote directly from the book: <By the way, let's answer a question that arises quite often right here and now: Is the Bronstein family related to Lev Davidovich Trotsky (his communist name), whose 'non-Russian' name was also Bronstein? The answer is: NO..., unless proven to the contrary! When David was in South America in 1974 a man walked up to David and introduced himself as a nephew of Lev Davidovich, wanting to know if they were related. However, they were unable to establish a link to one another.> Source: "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" (1995) David Bronstein and Tom Furstenburg, Cadogan Books, p. 263 |
|
Sep-09-10
| | twinlark: As it turns out, Chessbase also sources Bronstein's comments to Fischer: <For years rumors persisted about why he lost. Some say Soviet authorities pressured him to lose in order to keep Botvinnik, a favorite of the Communist Party leadership, on the throne. Chess writer Lev Khariton described an interview with Luis Rentero, longtime organizer of the prestigious annual Linares chess tournament, in which Rentero tells how Bronstein consoled a young Bobby Fischer, who was teary-eyed after a loss to Boris Spassky in the 1960 Mar del Plata tournament. "Listen," Bronstein said to the future world champion. "They forced me to lose an entire match to Botvinnik, and I didn't cry."In an interview in the journal Chess in Russia, Bronstein initially denied having said it, but eventually conceded that he may have uttered something of that nature. "Too much time has passed," he said. Though Bronstein went on to have a successful career, winning many Soviet and international tournaments, he will likely be remembered more for what he didn't accomplish rather than what he did.> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...
That's followed by discussion about the likely truth of the above, with Raymond Keene weighing in against the proposition. Anyway, the whole article is worth reading. |
|
Sep-09-10
 | | whiteshark: <GravityWave: <There is little difference between you and the old mexican woman finding the visage of christ in her grilled tortilla. >> What a catchy analogy! Thanks!! :D |
|
| Sep-09-10 | | I play the Fred: <"Listen," Bronstein said to the future world champion. "They forced me to lose an entire match to Botvinnik, and I didn't cry."> If I wantd to console some chessplaying kid who had just lost a tough game and who was known as a fanatical anti-communist, this might just do the trick. Bronstein may have been sincere when he told Fischer that, or he may have just said it to get him to cheer up. |
|
Sep-09-10
| | twinlark: Was Fischer a fanatical anti-communist when he was 15? I thought that came later...remember he visited Moscow about this time. |
|
| Sep-09-10 | | I play the Fred: <Was Fischer a fanatical anti-communist when he was 15? I thought that came later...remember he visited Moscow about this time.>
<in which Rentero tells how Bronstein consoled a young Bobby Fischer, who was teary-eyed after a loss to Boris Spassky in the 1960 Mar del Plata tournament.> Fischer was 17 in 1960.
Two years earlier, he didn't care for the treatment he got when he visited the USSR as their guest. And his mother was a communist sympathizer.
Chances are pretty good that by 1960 he was already making rather pointed remarks against communism. |
|
Sep-09-10
| | twinlark: Maybe...and maybe not. I thought Curacao 1962 and the alleged Soviet collusion set Fischer off. In any case, the issue was whether Bronstein succumbed to the pressure not to win. The most convincing argument against seems to be Keene's about the nature of the game Bronstein supposed threw. It's a good argument, but against that are the comments attributed to Bronstein, and his own ambivalence about outright refuting that he ever made such comments or succumbed to the pressure he was under. |
|
| Sep-09-10 | | I play the Fred: <In any case, the issue was whether Bronstein succumbed to the pressure not to win.> Well, what I responded to initially was the Trotsky question. As for the 1951 match, Bronstein most definitely left the waters murky with varying answers to the question, none of which seemed to confirm or deny that he played the match "on the level". The most likely scenario to my mind was that Bronstein was playing to win but never felt fully free to properly compete, at least on a subconscious level. Such a condition would be hard to explain to people, which explains all the different answers Bronstein gave over the years. |
|
| Sep-09-10 | | Petrosianic: <Was Fischer a fanatical anti-communist when he was 15? I thought that came later...remember he visited Moscow about this time.> He didn't become one until afer that trip. They gave him a free trip to Moscow, but didn't let him play Botvinnik, so naturally he was furious (sarcasm mode). But I still don't believe Bronstein said it. Not only because the statement is factually wrong (he didn't lose the match), but there's no way a guy living in a totalitarian state is going to badmouth his superiors to some loudmouth kid. |
|
| Sep-09-10 | | jussu: <Petrosianic>, 1960 was not Stalin era anymore; I think Bronstein may have said something like this even in public and reasonably expect to get away with it. |
|
Sep-09-10
 | | keypusher: <In any case, the issue was whether Bronstein succumbed to the pressure not to win.> With respect, I think the issue was whether the pressure existed anywhere other than Bronstein's mind, years after the fact. One of his best pals in 1951 was a colonel in the Russian secret police. Botvinnik was not the only connected chessplayer in the USSR. |
|
| Sep-09-10 | | Petrosianic: <1960 was not Stalin era anymore;> He may not have feared for his life, but they could still make things very uncomforable. The most likely "punishment" for a comment like that would have been a revocation of the right to play in international tournaments. It beats a trip to the gulag to be sure, but still doesn't seem worth trusting your career to a 15 year old kid. |
|
| Sep-09-10 | | Petrosianic: Actually, the same principle would apply here. The state was Bronstein's "boss". The ones who paid his salary. Even if you think your boss is a crook, who's going to tell that to a 15 year old kid, who might blab it goodness knows where? |
|
| Sep-09-10 | | jussu: I think it takes just a slight burst of emotion to get over such considerations and simply shoot out what you think. Also, the 15-year-olds I have known would keep their mouths shut if asked to. Finally, I am much too young to know about it myself, but maybe in 1960 it wasn't such a bad idea to accuse Stalin's regime for its deeds. There were twists in the history of USSR, and Stalin was not considered a bright chapter in the history rather soon after his death. |
|
Sep-09-10
| | twinlark: <I play the Fred> <The most likely scenario to my mind was that Bronstein was playing to win but never felt fully free to properly compete, at least on a subconscious level. Such a condition would be hard to explain to people, which explains all the different answers Bronstein gave over the years.> Might not be the truth as that's now beyond reach, but it does have the appeal of being a best fit explanation. The merest intimation from a source connected to the top that his winning might not be welcome might have put him off his game. |
|
Sep-10-10
| | keypusher: <twinlark: <I play the Fred> <The most likely scenario to my mind was that Bronstein was playing to win but never felt fully free to properly compete, at least on a subconscious level. Such a condition would be hard to explain to people, which explains all the different answers Bronstein gave over the years.> Might not be the truth as that's now beyond reach, but it does have the appeal of being a best fit explanation. The merest intimation from a source connected to the top that his winning might not be welcome might have put him off his game.> Best fit explanation was that he was talking @#$%, to use a technical term. |
|
Sep-10-10
 | | acirce: <maybe in 1960 it wasn't such a bad idea to accuse Stalin's regime for its deeds. There were twists in the history of USSR, and Stalin was not considered a bright chapter in the history rather soon after his death.> Of course. This was the period of "de-stalinization" at its height. Denouncing Stalin and his real or alleged crimes was the "politically correct" thing to do. |
|
Sep-10-10
| | whiteshark: Well, not necessarily as it was politically still the same commie-country ruled by 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. |
|
Sep-10-10
| | acirce: No, there was a big difference politically. The USSR started to change direction entirely after Stalin's death. As for <dictatorship of the proletariat>, even that was officially abolished in favour of the <state of the whole people>, something quite different. |
|
Sep-10-10
| | whiteshark: Really? The second-rate apparatchik and and third ranked bureaucrats remained. No? I think history showed some examples of long reverberations of authoritarian governments. Whatever. I think Bronstein's decision secured him a ongoing good chess-/live within USSR. |
|
Sep-10-10
| | acirce: Many people remained in "high places" after the transition to capitalism -- doesn't mean the Soviet Union and Yeltsin's (or Putin's or Medvedev's) Russia are anywhere close to the same politically. And after 1917, the revolutionary state had to largely rely on former Tsarist bureaucrats simply because of the lack of other competent people in a turbulent time. I think the Soviet Union underwent a very substantial change soon after Stalin's death, maybe bigger in essence than that in China after Mao's. Doesn't necessarily have much bearing on Bronstein's situation, no. |
|
Sep-10-10
| | whiteshark: <Doesn't necessarily have much bearing on Bronstein's situation, no.>
Noteworthy, that we finally agree at least on this. :D |
|
Nov-30-12
 | | perfidious: < Petrosianic: <1960 was not Stalin era anymore;>
....The most likely "punishment" for a comment like that would have been a revocation of the right to play in international tournaments....> Examples of such punishment: Korchnoi was invited to the first Piatigorsky Cup, but forced to decline. Then there was Bronstein himself, of course, for failing to sign the condemnatory letter against Korchnoi. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
