< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Aug-15-14|| ||Petrosianic: <If Matulovic had really taken a bribe, shouldn't he have tried to hide it?>|
I think it's an ego thing. They take the money to lose, but then they don't want their peers to think they're trying.
That being said, I don't know for a fact that the story is true. It's certainly plausible, given Matulovic's behavior in this game, and reputation (recall the J'adoubovic incident, which is not in dispute).
Korchnoi once said that the "whole world" knew Matulovic had taken $400 to lose this game. I have no idea how anyone is supposed to know how much money changed hands, unless one or the other of them admitted it, or unless someone witnessed it.
|Aug-16-14|| ||alshatranji: Petrosianic: I see what you mean. "It's not that I can't win. I'm just throwing the game". Still, it strikes me as really stupid. Which is really worse for your ego? Losing a practically indifferent game (considering Matulovic had no chances), or being labeled a crook? It is possible also he didn't take a bribe, but simply didn't care about the outcome of the game, which is again a little unusual. Most players play really hard in this situation, being completely free of pressure, in an attempt to get some consolation from the fact that they have decide who qualifies for the following round. Good point about the money too. I guess we will never know for sure, unless someone confesses. I wonder if Taimanov has said anything about it.|
|Aug-16-14|| ||alshatranji: By the way, how do you quote people on this forum? Do you need a special kind of subscription?|
|Aug-16-14|| ||perfidious: <alshatranji: By the way, how do you quote people on this forum? Do you need a special kind of subscription?>|
Anyone can-just use the brackets, as above.
|Aug-22-14|| ||alshatranji: <perfidious: Anyone can-just use the brackets, as above.>
I know I can do that. I was wondering if there is a quotation button or something like that.|
|Aug-22-14|| ||perfidious: None, so far as I know.|
|Mar-09-15|| ||WDenayer: <Perfidious> What is the J'adoubovic accident, I never heard of it?|
|Mar-09-15|| ||perfidious: <WDenayer> See the kibitzes to Matulovic vs I Bilek, 1967 for more.|
|Nov-29-16|| ||RookFile: I just played over this again, with fresh eyes. My impression is that the level of strength required by the player of the white pieces from this game was about 2000.|
|Nov-29-16|| ||HeMateMe: why does black play 22...N-e5, giving himself the isolated pawn? maybe it's true the game was fixed?|
|Nov-29-16|| ||keypusher: <HeMateMe: why does black play 22...N-e5, giving himself the isolated pawn? maybe it's true the game was fixed?>|
I'm inclined to think it was, but there is nothing wrong with 22....Nd5. If ...Nd7 then Ne4 and the White knight lands on d6. 22....Nh5 23.Kf3 is also terrible for Black.
|Nov-29-16|| ||Howard: I've long, long been under the distinct impression that this game was indeed fixed---hasn't it been a well-known fact over the years?|
Korchnoi, Andrew Soltis, and David Levy have also stated this over the last few decades.
|Nov-29-16|| ||RookFile: I think somebody like Rubinstein would have gone with 24...Rac8. Active
rook and all. 25. Rac1 Rc6! and white has some work to do. But our friend Matulovic decides to play like a dead whale washed up on the beach
|Nov-29-16|| ||HeMateMe: Did the insiders say if he was paid in Dollars, Rubles, pesos...?|
|Nov-29-16|| ||TheFocus: <HeMateMe: Did the insiders say if he was paid in Dollars, Rubles, pesos...?>|
Gift cards to Home Depot, Starbucks, and Easy Music.
|Nov-29-16|| ||perfidious: <TheFocus> Those gift cards worth lot of roubles in Mother Russia then.|
Taimanov was no fool, lemme tell ya.
|Jan-18-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: 14. Nd5 looks kind of intriguing if black is dumb enough to play Qxe4 (NxN+) or Qe5 (Bf4) but unfortunately he can just play NxN and then castle.|
|Jan-18-17|| ||SeanAzarin: If you remove the Rooks and the Q-side pawns, the final position would make a challenging end-game to win for us ordinary amateurs. 3p vs 2p is a win, yes, but a difficult one unless you're an 1800+ player.|
|Jan-18-17|| ||AlicesKnight: Re; the 'fixing' debate; Matulovic was quite capable of being smothered in inertia by stronger players - cf. for example Matulovic vs Fischer, 1968 - Fischer similarly renders him somnulent by gaining space and pawns.|
|Jan-18-17|| ||morfishine: I believe the 1965 Ford Mustang cost $1,500
|Jan-18-17|| ||kevin86: white gets a pawn ahead and wins easily. A win is easier with more pawns in the battle|
|Jan-18-17|| ||Fusilli: <RookFile: I just played over this again, with fresh eyes. My impression is that the level of strength required by the player of the white pieces from this game was about 2000.>|
I agree. I am reading this game was suspected to have been fixed. Judging from black's un-grandmasterly passive play, I'm inclined to take the accusation seriously.
|Jan-18-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Weird. Except 33. e6 (or 34. e6) S8 doesn't really overrule White's play.
Although Black's moves are dubious indeed.|
|Jan-18-17|| ||RookFile: I appreciate the pun. Let the buyer beware. So Taimanov wins the game, and at the moment, he probably thought it was a good thing. However, that meant he got to play Fischer, and we all know what happened in that match.|
|Jan-18-17|| ||maxi: It also seems to me that Matulovic was trying to lose this game on purpose, and as fast as possible. One must really applaud his work ethic: having been paid to lose, he does it efficiently and thoroughly.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·