A longevity of a high, grandmaster-like level of play.

Mark Taimanov is an example of such a Grandmaster.

Lasker, Capablanca, Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch, Alekhine, Vidmar, Euwe, Keres, Reshevsky, Botvinnik, Najdorf, Bronstein, Gligoric (85 years old 5 days ago), Smyslov (first a Candidate in 1948, last one in 1983!), Petrosian, Tal, Spassky, Geller, Larsen, Portisch, Karpov, Kasparov, and of course Victor the Terrible!

And there are a few others.

They have devoted their lives to Caissa, and have stood the test of time.

He became father for the first time a few years ago, maybe you mixed that up. When I read that news back then, my first reaction was pretty much the same, "ugh thought he was already dead" :)

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...

I didn't know about that. They took his GM title from him? What a crock...

The title was abolished in 1931, I don't know why. Apparently some sort of a "political" reason. Then later, probably 1935 or so, it was re-established, and M.Botvinnik was the first one to get the title.

Lautier: <Tell us a little about this match.>

Taimanov: <As Fischer himself admitted at the time, the final score did not reflect the true balance of strength. The terrible feeling that I was playing against a machine which never made any mistake shattered my resistance. Fischer would never concede any weakening of his position, he was an incredibly tough defender. The third game proved to be the turning point of the match. After a pretty tactical sequence, I had managed to set my opponent serious problems. In a position that I considered to be winning, I could not find a way to break through his defences. For every promising idea, I found an answer for Fischer, I engrossed myself in a very deep think which did not produce any positive result. Frustrated and exhausted, I avoided the critical line in the end and lost the thread of the game, which lead to my defeat eventually. Ten years later, I found at last how I should have won that fatal game, but unfortunately, it didn't matter anymore! I have written a book about this match, entitled "How I became Fischer's victim", it represents an essay on the American player and describes how I perceived his style and personality, once the match was over.>

Lautier: <What were the consequences of this defeat?>

Taimanov: <The sanctions from the Soviet government were severe. I was deprived of my civil rights, my salary was taken away from me [all Soviet grandmasters received from their government a substantial salary - J.L.], I was prohibited from travelling abroad and censored in the press. It was unthinkable for the authorities that a Soviet grandmaster could lose in such a way to an American, without a political explanation. I therefore became the object of slander and was accused, among other things, of secretly reading books of Solzhenitsin. I was banned from society for two years, it was also the time when I separated from my first wife, Lyubov Bruk.>

Lautier: <How were the sanctions lifted ?>

<The Rocket> It used to be something on the lines of this:

-you shall have a rating of at least 2500 (or have had it at some point)

-you shall score at least 3 "GM norms" comprising at least 25 games

A GM norm is a performance rating of 2600+ in a tournament where you meet at least 3 GMs, and at least 50% of your opponents must have a title.

The reason for the norms is usually quite simple to explain, just imagine a patzer like me playing likesay 1000 games against ELO 1700 or 1800 players, with a score in the high 90% area it would give a hillarious high rating. Now imagine me playing against a real 2300 or higher rating, I can assure you I would be happy to score 30%.