|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 24 OF 24 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Jun-17-09
 |
| JaneEyre: I'm sure I read recently that Keres offered to help Korchnoi prepare for his 1974 Candidates final with Karpov, but was turned down. |
 |
| Jun-17-09 |
| Legend: <Marmot PFL> I`d like to add, that by the time the first edition of this book in Estonian came out, Keres was dead already. |
|
Jun-17-09
|
| JaneEyre: <At the opening ceremony the 12th World Champion Anatoly Karpov said: “Paul Petrovich is embedded forever in my recollection as very calm, intelligent, and polite man. But on the chessboard he was really reborn, surprising his opponents with sharp lunges and hard-nosed battles.” [...] In addition Tuulik provided us with an interesting bit of information: in 1974, before the final candidate match Karpov-Korchnoi, Paul Keres has offered the latter his help. But Korchnoi has refused and thus lost a chance to win the chess crown. Alexei Shirov said in turn that the main book which he had used to learn chess was “100 Games” by Paul Keres.> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... |
|
Jun-17-09
 |
| Marmot PFL: <Legend> Thanks, if I ever get one i will remember not to fake his signature :) |
|
Jun-18-09
 |
| Gypsy: <visayanbraindoctor: ...
<He DID make an unsuccesful attempt to flee to Sweden in 1944 after soviets reoccupied Estonia.> Wasn't aware of that. It must have been tense for Keres. He participated in German-sponsored tournaments, and probably feared execution or exile to Siberia.> This is the way I heard the story: Keres returned to Estonia to recover his wife. He had arranged beforehand that the two of them would be picked up by a boat and taken to Sweden. Alas, that boat never came. |
|
| Jun-18-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <Gypsy> Thanks for the story. Keres must have been in despair when that boat did not show up. In my list of Almost World Champions, the great Paul Keres is right on top, followed by Pillsbury (he simply got sick and died too young and still had yet to reach his peak), Rubinstein, Korchnoi, and Bronstein. If Ivanchuk never makes it to the Title, perhaps I would add him to my list. |
|
| Jun-18-09 |
| kurtrichards: <visayanbraindoctor: In my list of Almost World Champions. the great Paul Keres is right on top,followed by Pillsbury,Rubinstein,Korchnoi......> GM Korchnoi became Senior World Champion in 2006. :) |
|
| Jun-18-09 |
| TheChessGuy: The difference is that Keres never had a title shot. Korchnoi had three in which the deck was overwhelmingly stacked against him. |
|
Jun-18-09
 |
| HeMateMe: I'm not sure the deck was so stacked. Yes, the Soviet establishment wanted the new, younger man to play Fischer. Beyond a bad vibe, I don't think the authorities hurt Korchnoi's chances. He didn't like them anyway, and would soon defect. Karpov may have had better GM support, to work on opening preparaton. But one gets the feeling that Korchnoi is a bit of a loner, like Fischer, and may not have much interest in being on a 'team.' For the '78 rematch he was living in Switzerland, and got beat pretty badly. |
|
| Jun-18-09 |
| Petrosianic: <The difference is that Keres never had a title shot.> Well, kinda sorta. Keres never had a title <match>, but he did have a shot in 1948 (though of course the deck was stacked). But after that, Keres played in the Candidates 6 times, and was unable to win any of them, though he did finish 2nd 4 times. Part of that is the bad luck of having the tournament format. Personally, I don't believe that Tal would have beaten Keres in a match in 1959. Tal lost to Keres 3-1 head to head, but won the tournament because he was better at smashing the "bunnies". By the time they had Candidates Matches (1965), Keres was finally a bit over the hill, but even then he took Spassky down to the last game. <Korchnoi had three in which the deck was overwhelmingly stacked against him.> Well, two real title shots, and one ersatz title shot (1974). |
|
| Jun-18-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Reshesky should be rated ahead of Keres because of his plus score in their head to head encounters, plus his mini-match victory over Botvinnik in 1955 - something Keres was never able to do. |
|
Jun-18-09
 |
| dx9293: <AnalyzeThis> I'm sorry, no way I'm ever rating Reshevsky ahead of Keres. Reshevsky was a top player, but I don't think he had World Champion stuff. Keres did. |
|
| Jun-18-09 |
| Petrosianic: <I'm sorry, no way I'm ever rating Reshevsky ahead of Keres. Reshevsky was a top player, but I don't think he had World Champion stuff. Keres did.> On what do you base that? Surely not that Keres won one supertournament in 1938, or that he finished a half point ahead of Reshevsky in the 1948 tournament. Chessmetrics at least, has Reshevsky rated #1 for 14 months, while Keres is never higher than #2 (for whatever that's worth). |
|
Jun-18-09
|
| dx9293: <Petrosianic> This one I can't back up with numbers, and I won't try to contradict Chessmetrics. I think of Paul Keres as a player who might have become Champion if things were a little different, and I just don't see Reshevsky as such a player. Reshevsky is like Fischer in that he displayed enormous dominance in the United States. Fischer of course showed that he was on par with all of the top players from elsewhere (mainly USSR), until he showed he was absolutely the best beginning in 1970/71. It's just that I don't get a sense of any "aura" when it comes to Reshevsky, while Keres has a bit of it. I agree with your sentiment though that Keres was not a #1 dominant player either, but under different circumstances he might have been able to sneak in a brief Championship run. |
|
| Jun-18-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: In his prime, Reshevsky was a great match player. He won every match worth winning against everybody in the western world. In fact, that was his title: "Champion of the western world". He challenged the Russians to a match, but they refused. He did play Botvinnik in a 4 game match in 1955 and beat him. Reshevky wasn't the all time greatest player in the history of chess, but there must have been 4 or 5 years the 50's when Botvinnik wasn't even playing that much that Reshevsky was the best in the world. |
|
| Jun-18-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <AnalyzeThis: In his prime, Reshevsky was a great match player. He won every match worth winning against everybody in the western world. In fact, that was his title: "Champion of the western world". He challenged the Russians to a match, but they refused. He did play Botvinnik in a 4 game match in 1955 and beat him.> You have a point. From 1950 to 1961, Reshevsky was unbeatable in formal one-on-one matches. He beat Najdorf (2x), Gligoric, Botvinnik, Lombardy, Byrne, Bisguier, Benko, and Fischer (I regard that 1961 match as a Reshevsky win as Fischer intentionally defaulted in a match that he probably felt he could not win after all is said and done); and tied with Smyslov. If Reshevsky had managed to 'sneak' in a World Championship Match in the 1950s, Botvinnik could have been in for a shocker. Perhaps if the Candidates format was a series of Candidates Matches in the 1950s instead of a large Candidates Tournament, Reshevsky might have ended as World Champion. He was particularly good in matches that require one-on-one head-on collisions between two players in successive games. I also forgot about the underrated Reuben Fine in my list of Almost WCs above. Here's my list of AWCs in temporal order:
1. Pillsbury
2. Rubinstein
3. Reshevsky
4. Fine
5. Keres
6. Bronstein
7. Korchnoi |
|
| Jun-18-09 |
| Petrosianic: <He challenged the Russians to a match, but they refused.> Not quite. They accepted the challenge. In fact, a 24 game match between Reshevsky and Bronstein was a done deal in 1956. However, international tensions over the Soviet putdown of the Hungarian uprising that year squashed the travel arrangements. Pity, because that would have been one heckuva match. Not to mention the fact that if Reshevsky managed to defeat the challenger that Botvinnik couldn't, the results would have been interesting, to say the least. |
|
| Jun-18-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <Perhaps if the Candidates format was a series of Candidates Matches in the 1950s instead of a large Candidates Tournament, Reshevsky might have ended as World Champion.> Come to think of it, if this were the case, it's probable that Tal, who was probably better in tournaments than in matches, would never have become a WC and instead joined in the list of the AWCs. On the other hand, Keres and Reshevsky might have deleted themselves from the AWCs list by becoming outright World Champions themselves. This brings to mind the issue of the Candidates format, whether it should be a Candidates Tournament or a Candidates Matches Series. |
|
| Jun-18-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: When you play over Reshevsky's games in the Zurich 1953 tournament, and read Bronstein's notes, you realize that Reshevsky was built to win with White, draw with black. Ideal for match play, but in these tournaments, there is usually one guy having a great tournament, winning with both colors. |
|
| Jun-19-09 |
| beatgiant: <visayanbraindoctor>
<Here's my list of AWCs> How about Schlechter, who tied and almost beat Lasker in a world title match? |
|
| Jun-19-09 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <beatgiant> You are right. If Schlechter had beaten Lasker, his career probably would have had an upswing, with the subsequent economic benefits; and he probably would not have died of a malnutrition-related illness. He would have been spurred to new heights; and it's possible that we would have seen Schlechter vs Rubinstein or Schlechter vs Capablanca World Championship Matches. I compiled some of Schlecter's lifetime scores in CG.com (although there are probably small errors because I am not sure which games are blindfold or rapid) against active masters of the 1890s to the 1910s, and they are good. Positive score Schlechter:
Schlechter beat Alekhine 2 to 0
Schlechter beat Bird 2 to 0, with 1 draw
Schlechter beat Burn 8 to 2, with 8 draws
Schlechter beat Chigorin 10 to 6, with 8 draws
Schlechter beat Gunsberg 4 to 0, with 4 draws
Schlechter beat Janowski 19 to 11, with 9 draws
Schlechter beat Kostic 1 to 0
Schlechter beat Marco 9 to 3, with 16 draws
Schlechter beat Mason 6 to 0, with 4 draws
Schlechter beat Mieses 8 to 4, with 10 draws (blindfold games excluded)
Schlechter beat Nimzowitsch 2 to 1, with 4 draws
Schlechter beat Reti 3 to 0, with 5 draws
Schlechter beat Schiffers 2 to 0, with 4 draws
Schlechter beat Spielmann 3 to 2, with 12 draws
Schlechter beat Vidmar 3 to 2, with 10 draws
Schlechter beat von Bardeleben 4 to 0, with 2 draws
Schlechter beat Yates 1 to 0, with 1 draw
Tied score Schlechter:
Schlechter tied Capablanca 0 to 0, with 1 draw
Schlechter tied Maroczy 2 to 2, with 27 draws
Schlechter tied Steinitz 3 to 3, with 2 draws
Negative score Schlechter:
Blackburne beat Schlechter 3 to 2, with 6 draws
Duras beat Schlechter 3 to 1, with 11 draws
Lasker beat Schlechter 5 to 2, with 12 draws
Marshall beat Schlechter 8 to 5, with 19 draws
Pillsbury beat Schlechter 8 to 2, with 9 draws
Rubinstein beat Schlechter 6 to 2, with 13 draws
Tarrasch beat Schlechter 8 to 6, with 28 draws
Tartakower beat Schlechter 5 to 3, with 5 draws
Teichmann beat Schlechter 5 to 3, with 21 draws
Note that the only master to convincingly 'own' Schlechter was Pillsbury, not surprisingly another Almost WC. It's even probable that had Schlechter beaten Lasker in 1910, he could have retained his Title through the war years and until the 1920s (assuming his new-found status would result in a comfortable life for him so he would not have to die of malnutrition). |
|
| Jun-19-09 |
| Petrosianic: <This brings to mind the issue of the Candidates format, whether it should be a Candidates Tournament or a Candidates Matches Series.> One thing I liked about the Candidates Tournament was that to become champion, a player had to prove himself in both formats. He had to first win the strongest tournament in the world, and then win the strongest match in the world. On the other hand, the tournament format has definite weaknesses, and I'm not even talking about collusion here. Remember the Needleman case a few years back. Seven players, 6 qualifying spots, and one player significantly weaker than the others. There might have been collusion, but there hardly needed to be. It was the most obvious strategy in the world for the 6 stronger ones to go careful and easy with each other and exert themselves against Needleman. And that's not good. Plus, there's the fact that these players know each other and some are on quite friendly terms. Imagine it's the last round of a Candidates Tournament. Player A and B are tied for first. Player A is paired with his best friend and beats him, while B only draws. Even if the result was totally legitimate, who could really be sure? And even if the Best Friend consciously tried his hardest to beat Player A in the interests of fairness, it's not always easy to play hard against your friends even when you "decide" to. Who wants a system with questions like that hanging over the results? Chess is by nature a one-on-one struggle, and the tournament is an artificial construct. The 1948 tournament was not only ridiculous (an odd number of players playing an odd number of games with each other??), it had Botvinnik on the throne 9 years later, despite never having won a title match. Imagine how memorable the 1948 series would have been if it had consisted of a series of knockout matches between Botvinnik, Keres, Reshevsky, Smyslov, Euwe, Fine, Najdorf and Boleslavsky. It would have been exciting and memorable. All people remember about the 1948 tournament is that Botvinnik won and that Keres probably took a dive. |
|
| Jul-22-09 |
| Crocomule: "For pleasure you can read the games collections of Anderssen and Chigorin, but for benefit you should study Tarrasch, Keres and Bronstein." Tal, at the first meeting of his school in Riga. |
|
| Jul-22-09 |
| jussu: <Petrosianic>,
The downsides of a candidates' tournament are clear but I still like it, if for nothing else then for having a blindingly strong tournament where more than money is at the stake. In principle, I would even like to have the world champion participating in such a tournament, with the point that if he wins it outright, the title match would be omitted. I understand, though, that this would be an utterly bad idea, for then he would be able to choose his opponent for the title match, by deliberately losing some games to the right opponents. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 24 OF 24 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
|
|
|
