<"Towards the finish I felt tired and my opponent revived - in the last six games the scores were equal. Later I learned that from Riga they had summoned the 'aid' of the well-known hypnotist Wolf Messing. However, they forgot about my short sightedness; I, of course, did not notice that Messing was in the audience.">

one reads of conflicting "facts" some say he used his influence in the Kremlin to get other players to throw games etc but some accounts say he was deeply distressed when he knew or heard of anyone trying to make his win "assured"

so one does not know for sure if Botvinnik did try influence his colleagues off the board

he certainly played hard ball but that was the nature of the man

I love his games, you can feel the struggle, the fight, I feel it in his games even more than in Alekhine's games

Hello <Richard Taylor>, there's quite a few points you're mentioning in your post:

[Hi]

1) Botvinnik was a party member and as Kasparov puts it a "staunch communist". So were others, too. In my opinion the important thing is why they joined the party. Botvinnik certainly was really believing in the communist ideas. Whereas others, for example Kasparov, joined only for personal gains. Don't get me wrong here, Botvinnik also gained from his membership, but at least he was the real deal and certainly no mere puppet of the communist party. I don't want to discuss politics here and whether communism was good or bad.

[It's not a question of "communism" there never really was any in Russia - I see Kasparov (well - he had some charisma) as tarred with Karpov (not as dull as he is reputed to be by many (but he was Botvinnik's pet)) I also have a lot of time for Karpov - clearly a great player); as tarred with the same brush - of course they all had to make a living etc and adapt but essentially they were or are all what we call "crawlers" - that said I admire Botvinnik's Chess and there is no doubt of his longevity as Champion. But the system was in his favour. Kasparov is working the system now also - he is another power seeker - but he had charisma and guts and is perhaps one of the greatest ever with Fischer

2) Botvinnik on Fischer: You are right. He didn't have a high opinion about Fischer. In his annotations on their only game (Varna 1962) Botvinnik speaks of "defects in the character" of Fischer. In my opinion, concerning the end of Fischers chess career and other, later episodes I would say he hit the spot there.

[He was perhaps right about certain aspects of Fischer but what I admire about Fischer was - despite his "bad" qualities - was his immense creativity and energy and his courage and individuality - Botvinnik played it safe - Botvinnik BTW was pretty much outplayed in that Grunfuld by an innovation Fischer found OTB. (This doesn't mean I don't think there are huge areas where Fischer was "bad" but I prefer his gusty madness (even elan or his dynamic charisma)) to Botvinik's timid line towing.]

3) I further agree with you that Botvinnik didn't have the most flamboyant character of all the other World Champions. But I think that herein, in this very point lie the strenghts that helped Botvinnik become the great player he was. His reserved manner, inwardly focussed, being a hard worker and very serious ("I never played chess for fun")

[In other words he was immensely tedious like a right wing Bureaucrat.]

So perhaps Smyslov is the more interesting person. I agree with you that Smyslov was better at one point, I mean he won the Championship against Botvinnik, so no doubt here. But in the end Botvinnik prevailed

[And he - with Russian Chess Officials and FIDE help - managed to steer it so he kept the title - under the systems Fischer rightly wanted sucha long reigtn may not have lasted - it's a massive pity that Fischer never played Karpov of course)]

and that had in my opinion a lot to do with his "boring" character.

[Smyslov was the greater player. By being boring (not so much his play perhaps - his personality - it meant his chess was much less interesting than say Tal's or Fischer's etc - the no draws before 30 moves would have put him out of the running.]

Sorry for being long here ...

But he came across as dull - he towed the line too much for my liking. He was one of those dour Engineers who never reads poetry or has any passionate affairs...believes only in "science" without the mystery - Einstein knew of the mystery...

on the radio they always go on and on about what a tough time Shostakovich had - but this Russian guy who knew him (he was here to do some conducting etc) said all was great in those days and that Shosta had pretty good number...

Are you saying Botters had a soul? That he liked music?

<As a player, I think he was the most imaginative strategist the game has had.>

Yes but he was very dull as a person. And probably a lot of players fell asleep during Botters' games... which is why he won. He was a strange looking bloke also... he need drastic corrective surgery - mind you Topalov is a bit of a worry also.

I can believe that by the 1960s Shostakovitch's life would have looked materially privileged and relatively comfortable within the USSR. It's alo the case that he could easily have been killed when his music was attacked in the 1930s and again in the 1940s. I also, personally, buy the line in the Memoirs (ghostwritten by Solomon Volkov) that the trumphalism of some of the finales is satirical.

But my point about Shosty - great composer of course - is that whenever his music is played (on the ConertPrgrame - they read out these interminably long liner notes about how the controversies of Shosta's music - Stalin's disapproval etc etc ad nauseam (not so much is mentioned of McCarthyism) - that said under Stalin all was not well of course and even Botters had to watch it - I feel however that he either misunderstood or was a bit jealous of Fischer - who of course is or was in many ways obnoxious but the "good" side of Fischer is what say - even some of my socialist of "commo" friends would not be able to see as they as much as the "right "are all a bit po faced... (I'm not any kind of "ist" I am too much of a crazy poet to have any stable beliefs about anything - Plato wouldn't have liked me - maybe Aristotle would be more sympathetic!! Or Euripidies, well maybe Sophocles...)) would not see... there is danger both to the "right: and the "left" in chess and politics (politics is always in sport and always in chess - it's in everything)...

... but - yes - interesting Botvinnk saw that aspect of Shosta - but there needs to be a balance here - how much of the historical context do we (need to (?)) introduce - which gets back to chess...

Botvinnik benefited from a situation where he didn't need to win his matches..

I agree that we often see people through a kind of distorting frame or "glass" of history..after all, none of us really know how Botvinnik felt and thought - people hide these things (in fact ultimately we all do in greater or lesser degrees)- Tal was more outgoing - but some might argue that Botvinnik was a deep quiet river and so on ad infinitum...

<Benzol > and I have played trough games in Botters's book of his careeer - and his notes are very instructive and interesting and I really enjoy those times we did that - must do some more Paul...but...hmm

Apart from Engineering and Chess what were his interests? Clearly music. (From what Comrade <Benzol> is suggesting he was deep down an evil bourgeois - getting into jazz!!) Was Mikhail married? Perhaps he had many mistresses!! Women - or men? - no? Maybe that was his secret! He was supercharged in the nether regions - which gave great energy to his Chess!!

<interminably long liner notes > rather appropriate, actually, as Shostakovich's great gift was for very long melodic line.

Both Plato and Aristotle have some hidden connection with the crazy poet - there is quite a bit of madness in both of their works.

I just got a book about the English Opening [I now have 3 but still am trying to master it!!] and there is an example of a brilliant game where Bot sacs (two?) rooks and wins brilliantly (in the reversed Dragon line);

And yesterday someone played 1 c4 c6 - so I went for the IQP [that is I thought my opponent played the French so I played 1 c4 c6 2 e4 d5 exd5 etc which is good except my opponent is a centre Counter player!] but stuffed it up (eventually I blundered and lost) - I see that 2. Nf3 d5 3. g3 is a good "Englishy line"... (so I can play it against those who DO like IQP positions)

1.c4 c6; I suspect Mikhail would have played 2.d4 (d5 3.cxd) He liked that one... All plus and no minus. But then 2.e4 (d5 3.exd cxd 4.d4) was his approach against Flohr in the 30's. That's the advantage of being a great player - so many ideas! I'm not so fond of the Panov-Botvinnik because Black can transpose to a Nimzo Indian, and because I don't like (even temporarily) ceding the initiative. With his talent Botvinnik could see what I can't; what really matters...

Tal too showed he was not all about unclear complications as his critics often categorized him

White to play and win.

click for larger view