|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 51 OF 51 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Feb-14-13
 | | keypusher: <OCF> Sure isn't. It's a broken link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:B... |
 |
Feb-14-13
 | | OhioChessFan: Thanks <kp> |
|
| Apr-05-13 | | BUNA: Yuri Averbach recently (06.02.2013) in an interview once again was asked about the circumstances of Botvinniks exclusion from the Soviet team before the Chess Olympiad 1952. I thought a short translation might be interesting to someone. http://www.tribuna.ru/interview/mai... Averbach at the time took part in a training session as one of the possible candidates for a place in the team. Apart from him there were Botvinnik, Bronstein, Keres, Smyslov, Boleslavsky, Geller, Kotov, Petrosian.
Botvinnik lost two games to Boleslavsky and Petrosian, which added to the growing concerns about his form.
At a subsequent meeting with the leadership of the sports committee and all involved trainers (Alatortsev, Sokolsky, Tolush and Flohr) matters were discussed. Outspoken proponents of Botvinniks exclusion were Smyslov, Bronstein, Keres and Kotov. Botvinnik refused to answer any questions. :) Averbach doesn't mention any proposal to shift Botvinnik to a lower board. Asked about Botvinnik's reaction Averbach notes that Botvinnik took his revenge during the following Soviet championship (1952). He won it and beat the members of the Helsinki team with 4/5. |
|
| Apr-05-13 | | Petrosianic: <Botvinnik took his revenge during the following Soviet championship (1952). He won it and beat the members of the Helsinki team with 4/5.> That's true. Wins against Geller, Bronstein and Keres, draws against Smyslov and Boleslavky. |
|
Apr-05-13
 | | Phony Benoni: USSR Championship (1952) |
|
| Apr-05-13 | | ughaibu: So, what do conspiracy theorists make of Keres' role as an "outspoken proponent[] of Botvinniks exclusion"? |
|
Apr-05-13
| | keypusher: <ughaibu: So, what do conspiracy theorists make of Keres' role as an "outspoken proponent[] of Botvinniks exclusion"?> Been asking variations on that question for years. Shouldn't Keres, Kotov, Smyslov, and Bronstein have been taken to the Lubyanka cellars and shot? |
|
| Apr-06-13 | | BUNA: "As follows from the minutes of that meeting, preserved in the archives of David Bronstein and published at the time in the magazine "Chess in Russia", he, Kotov, Smyslov and Keres argued against the inclusion of Botvinnk in the team, citing his poor, unreliable shape, as confirmed by recent tournament failures. Smyslov said bluntly: "It would be better if Botvinnik did not play in the team." Bronstein said that Botvinnik didn't follow the recent developments of chess theory and that the younger masters had overtaken him. Flohr and Boleslavsky didn't express themselfes so categorically, pointing out that a trip without the world champion could lead to undesirable responses within the chess world." |
|
May-12-13
| | Phony Benoni: Does somebody have information about why Botvinnik played at Game Collection: Wageningen 1958? It occurred right after the conclusion of the Munich Olympiad and coincided with the 20th anniversary of AVRO, but surely there is some other reason. |
|
| May-13-13 | | thomastonk: <Phony Benoni> I have Botvinnik's book "Schacherinnerungen". The German edition is from 1981, the Russian original from 1978. He reports on two visits after the Olympiad, which touched aspects of his later research (but he did not intend it in those days). First, he has been in a laboratory in Erlangen, Germany, where the production of high-purity silicon has been shown. Second, he visited the Netherlands. He does not mention the tournament, but he reports in detail on his appearance in the Dutch television. The program was on the computers of those days, and Botvinnik had been invited to participate by Euwe. From the surrounding words it is also clear, that Botvinnik very much enjoyed the Netherlands because of the chess enthusiasm. |
|
| May-13-13 | | thomastonk: <Phoni Benoni> From Dutch newspapers, I can report the following. The visit of Botvinnik and Flohr begun October 25 and ended most probably on November 16 (see below). Botwinnik gave 4 simultaneous exhibitions before the tournament in Wageningen, one after the second round, and four more after the tournament. The appearence in the Dutch television happened on November 13. Both, Botvinnik and Flohr, gave their last simultaneous exhibition on November 15, and a picture published November 17 shows them with their wifes at the airplane to Moscow. |
|
May-13-13
| | Phony Benoni: <thomastonk> Thank you! |
|
| May-13-13 | | sneaky pete: <PB> On this visit Botvinnik was accompanied by his wife. It looks more like a holiday to me, with chess used as an excuse. Botvinnik gave 11 exhibitions (285 games; +237 =40 -8) for 350 Dutch florins each. That was a lot of money in those days. Most of it was probably spent by Mrs. Botvinnik on clothes and decadent Western luxury goods not available in the Workers Paradise. The Wageningen event was named the Caltex-Scheepjes-Tournament. The Location was the Hotel de Wageningscche Berg (the Mountain of Wageningen). The hotel was one sponsor, providing the location and hospitality for players and officials for free. The other sponsors were Caltex Petroleum Maatschappij (the Dutch branch of the California Texas Oil Corporation) and the Scheepjeswol (a brand of wool) factory from Veenendaal. Scheepjeswol was big in 1958. My father owned a textile shop and was a great Scheepjeswol seller. At times our place was flooded with new stock, and the entire house, inclusing the dwellers. smelled of wool. The kids at school started calling me woolly pete. I resented that, took boxing lessons and punished any name calling. Then they called me woolly bully. |
|
| May-13-13 | | thomastonk: <sneaky pete: Botvinnik gave 11 exhibitions> Thank you for the correction. The 9 exhibitions I mentioned were those from the schedule that has been published shortly before the visit. |
|
| May-20-13 | | Tatumart: Botvinnik was a great player & a great teacher without question. Question: why were not Smyslov in '58 & Tal in '61 given the chance within a year to challenge M Botvinnik as he was after his '57 & '60 losses? The 1941 'Absolute' was as shameful as anything in the history of this great game, no? |
|
| May-20-13 | | Tatumart: Oh, forgot about the fur coat which was given to Salo Flohr' wife so that Botvinnik could 'win' games nine & ten in their 1933 match, enabling Botvinnik to tie the match. Another shameful act by the greet one. |
|
May-20-13
| | keypusher: <Tatumart: Botvinnik was a great player & a great teacher without question. Question: why were not Smyslov in '58 & Tal in '61 given the chance within a year to challenge M Botvinnik as he was after his '57 & '60 losses? > Because that wasn't the rule.
<The 1941 'Absolute' was as shameful as anything in the history of this great game, no?> You're kidding, right?
<Oh, forgot about the fur coat which was given to Salo Flohr' wife so that Botvinnik could 'win' games nine & ten in their 1933 match, enabling Botvinnik to tie the match.> Don't believe everything you read. Especially if (a) David Bronstein wrote it (b) about something that happened when Bronstein was nine years old. |
|
| May-20-13 | | Tatumart: I assumed that the 'Rule' applied to anyone that lost the title during those years, just never read that it only applied to Botvinnik. What was the point of the '41 Absolute? Now I remember. Botvinnik finished in a tie for 5/6th place, while losing four games & finishing two points behind the winners. So...rather than have the two that tied for first have a playoff, oh well, it's just Soviet chess. |
|
May-20-13
| | keypusher: <Tatumart: I assumed that the 'Rule' applied to anyone that lost the title during those years, just never read that it only applied to Botvinnik.> No, it applied to the incumbent titleholder, who happened to be Botvinnik. Eventually they got rid of it, which is why he didn't get a rematch against Petrosian, and why Petrosian didn't get a rematch against Spassky, and Spassky didn't have a right to a rematch against Fischer. <What was the point of the '41 Absolute? Now I remember. Botvinnik finished in a tie for 5/6th place, while losing four games & finishing two points behind the winners. So...rather than have the two that tied for first have a playoff, oh well, it's just Soviet chess.> So they organized a match among the top six? And you think that's as shameful as anything in the history of chess? You've led a sheltered life. |
|
May-20-13
 | | perfidious: <keypusher.....No, (the right to a rematch) applied to the incumbent titleholder, who happened to be Botvinnik. Eventually they got rid of it, which is why he didn't get a rematch against Petrosian.....> A further piece of information for <Tatumart>: Botvinnik, as loser of the 1963 title match, was automatically seeded into the '65 candidates matches, but chose not to play because the automatic rematch clause was eliminated at the FIDE congress, at the proposal of West Germany. That was how Keres gained his spot, despite finishing the runner-up at Curacao. |
|
| May-20-13 | | Olavi: <perfidious> No, that's why Geller got the spot, despite finishing last in the Soviet zonal: USSR Zonal (1964). He had earlier lost the play-off for second place in Curacao to Keres. |
|
May-20-13
 | | brankat: <pefidious> Not to split hairs, but :-) Actually, Keres, as a runner up qualified automatically for the '65 Candidates. It was Geller, finishing 3rd in Curacao, who replaced M.Botvinnik. As for "a shameful Absolute of '41", and a "Fur coat story", it is probably best not to even pay attention to it. |
|
| May-22-13 | | Tatumart: More re: 1941 Absolute Championship...this for the curious...McFarland & Company published SOVIET CHESS 1917-1991 by Andy Soltis in 2000. This is a paragraph from pg 134.
The last great prewar event was the "Absolute Championship" in March-April, 1941. In the tournament book Botvinnik acknowledged that there had been ties for the national championship before, in 1927 and 1934 that had not been broken. But he added that the 12th Championship showed that "reforming" the title was a matter "of urgency." In his memoirs Botvinnik conceded that he was the one who stressed the urgency in a December, 1940, letter to Vladimir Snegiryov, an "ugly...slovenly-dressed" figure who had assumed a key role in the sports hierarchy after the death of Krylenko.
Botvinnik said he wrote that it was "ironic" that the national championship was to be decided by a Liliental-Bondarevsky playoff match and Snegiryov "understood my hint." (Korchnoi has claimed there is a letter, apparently this one, in KGB files in which Botvinnik said a new championship must be held because people like Bondarevsky and Liliental should not represent the Soviet Union.) |
|
May-23-13
| | keypusher: <Tatumart>
Korchnoi was nine years old in 1940, but he is an authority on the contents of a letter Botvinnik wrote to someone else that year? Just like Bronstein, age 9, is an authority on a bribe supposedly given to Flohr a thousand miles away in 1933? What is the source of your faith in the veracity and omniscience of nine-year-olds? The Absolute Championship has a page, by the way.
USSR Absolute Championship (1941) |
|
| May-23-13 | | Tatumart: The sourse quoted was referenced. You can take what Viktor says with a grain of salt as I do. However I put my faith in Botvinnik's memories. I love Botvinnik. It is because of him that I play the French, the Dutch & until a few years ago D35 & D36. A great player & a great teacher to repeat what I've posted b/4. His self criticism is something that I admire deeply, very difficult to duplicate in this life. I also enjoy the line his mom used when she discovered that he was to play Capa in a simul. This had her inquiring "What do you want, to become Capblanca or something?" This wonderful encounter took place many years b/4 I was born but I believe that it actually happened :) I love the game so much that I've shown anyone interested how beautiful the game was. Still working on the fur coat thing. Somewhere in NIC I may have read the story, & I suspect that it was b/4 Viktor "the Terrible" had his say in the matter. I probably won't look any further, I've gone through every issue of NIC from March of '85 up to the last '92 issue, nothing. My BCM & Chess Life issues for over 40 years have been passed on to a friend. Thank goodness because the heck with a 1933 match that ended in a tie, so long ago & far away. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 51 OF 51 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
