< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Dec-11-10|| ||wordfunph: <Resignation Trap: It has been widely rumored that Taimanov bought the full point from Matulovic for $400. It was played very quickly>|
according to David Levy (Chess Life & Review 1975), the price was $300..
|Apr-13-12|| ||King Death: < Pawn and Two: ...I would think that, at least Symslov and Portisch, who had won their last round games, and still had a chance to qualify, if Matulovic could at least draw this game, were not appreciative of Matulovic's effort in this game...>|
If you want to call it one.
<...the prize money for this tournament was not very good. Fischer's 1st prize was 100,000 Pesetas or about $1,450 (1970 dollars)...>
By 1970 economics in chess events this wasn't terrible either, the year before Spassky didn't get much more for winning the title. I've read that he got either $1500 or 2000 depending on the source. For all of the failings Fischer had as a person he made it possible for other players to succeed in chess by getting some money in it.
|Nov-07-12|| ||perfidious: < wordfunph: <Resignation Trap: It has been widely rumored that Taimanov bought the full point from Matulovic for $400. It was played very quickly>
according to David Levy (Chess Life & Review 1975), the price was $300..>|
Levy also cites this figure in his book How Fischer Plays Chess, published well before 1975.
|May-03-13|| ||eyalbd: In his book in Hebrew, Liberzon says that Matulovic admitted that he had sold the point for $200.|
|Sep-22-13|| ||thegoodanarchist: < Pawn and Two:
Well, the prize money for this tournament was not very good. Fischer's 1st prize was 100,000 Pesetas or about $1,450 (1970 dollars).
Matulovic's prize was 8,500 Pesetas ($123.25). If he had drawn this last round game, his prize would have increased to 9500 Pesetas ($137.75). If he had won this last round game, his prize would have been 12,000 Pesetas ($174).>
Not very good??? You must not understand what the value of money was in 1970. Fischer's $1450 was nearly enough to buy a nice new car at that time!
|Sep-22-13|| ||thegoodanarchist: <offramp: By the way, $400 would be about $1,850 today.>|
Closer to $4k, actually.
|Sep-22-13|| ||perfidious: That $400 in 1970 would be $2411.10 today:
|Sep-22-13|| ||Pawn and Two: <thegoodanarchist> A nice new car in 1970 would have cost considerably more than $1,450. I know someone who bought a new car back then, and the price was in line with the following information:|
|Sep-22-13|| ||offramp: <thegoodanarchist: <offramp: By the way, $400 would be about $1,850 today.>|
Closer to $4k, actually. >
<perfidious: That $400 in 1970 would be $2411.10 today...>
This figure will probably continue to rise.
|Sep-28-13|| ||thegoodanarchist: <<perfidious:> That $400 in 1970 would be $2411.10 today:|
I find it amusing that you accept the government data without question.
I prefer market place data myself, and having made purchases on my own since 1969 I KNOW FOR A FACT [not just guessing or sourcing some website, but for a fact because I lived it] that many if not most everyday items are a factor of 9 to 10 higher than they were in 1970.
|Sep-28-13|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Pawn and Two: <thegoodanarchist> A nice new car in 1970 would have cost considerably more than $1,450. >|
I said "nearly enough", not "enough". I suppose it also depends on your version of "nice". We bought a new Chevy Vega when I was a kid and I thought it was great! (I try to be satisfied by simple pleasures)
|Sep-28-13|| ||perfidious: <thegoodanarchist>: Hold your horses, mate, before you cast me in with the sheep-I too remember those days, when it was possible to get a gallon of gas for .39 and a pack of cigarettes for the same amount-got run to the corner for the latter item enough times!|
The latter item has risen by considerably more than a factor of nine or ten, what with one thing and another.
As to your charming little aside, you want to have reasonable discourse, I shall be more than happy to do so: you choose to dish out insults without the slightest provocation, I am more than capable of giving as good as I get.
|Oct-15-13|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: I'm not convinced by the bribe story either. Taimanov had a very good score against Matulovic in previous games (+4=3, and all in the previous decade) http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...|
|Oct-16-13|| ||offramp: < Pawn and Two: ... The tournament book states that Matulovic arrived at least fifteen minutes late. Then filed his finger-nails and reviewed the newly issued tournament bulletin before replying to Taimanov's move 1. d4. Then according to the tournament book, after Taimanov's 4th move, Matulovic again browsed through the bulletin for another 5 minutes before replying.>|
In those days, was one allowed to consult printed chess books during the game?
|Apr-04-14|| ||perfidious: <offramp> Why not? After all, Najdorf got by for years without being brought to heel for asking colleagues what they thought of his position during games.|
|Aug-15-14|| ||alshatranji: If Matulovic had really taken a bribe, shouldn't he have tried to hide it? In fact, it seems that his blatant behavior is the main reason for these accusations. If he really had been bribed, then he was either stupid, or a much bigger jerk than the bribe would make him.|
|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: <Perifious> What is the J'adoubovic accident?|
|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.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·