< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 33 OF 33 ·
|Oct-31-12|| ||Olavi: And let's see if there's anybody other than Larsen with 3 reigning champion's skalps.|
|Oct-31-12|| ||Olavi: I think Korchnoi's win over Botvinnik was before the 1960 match, so he has 4.|
|Oct-31-12|| ||Olavi: Korchnoi writes in <Chess is my life> that Botvinnik was preparing was the rematch, so 3 for him.|
|Oct-31-12|| ||Olavi: But Botvinnik has 4, Alekhine in -38, Smyslov and Tal in the return matches and Petrosian in -64.|
|Nov-11-12|| ||IndigoViolet: Remarkable article by Paul Keres on <The question of the world chess championship succession...>, which appeared in <(The) Chess Review> in March 1941:|
Written, I assume, in Soviet-occupied (soon to be German-occupied) Estonia, Keres displays an objective and detatched spirit, apparently oblivious to the turmoil of war.
|Nov-12-12|| ||drnooo: remarkable aint quite good enough for that article, though close. Chilling,
how oblivious to dark clouds od sheer doom hanging over Europe: here he is talking Capa safe in the folds in Cuba,
and Reshevsky even safer in the U.s. as though a magic wand could be waved for their travel to the stomping grounds of the world championship match.
Yet that must have been, not only Keres, but all hands who were cogitating along those lines.
None of them seemed to realize that
bombs and bullets are stronger than
Staunton Knights and Cherry wood chessboards.
|Nov-12-12|| ||OhioChessFan: It's my observation that people tend to have an all encompassing view of the world, and their comments on any particular issue tend to reflect the world view. Keres bends over backwards to avoid saying anything controversial/negative about his fellow players, which is fine, but I think that is a reflection of his worldview that everything will be hunky dory if we are all just nice to one another. I hope I'm not playing pop psychologist here, but I think I'm right.|
In any case, it takes all kinds, but I have never been a person all that impressed with the person who is "nice" to everyone, never had an unkind word for anyone, etc, etc, and it's never been something I've aspired to, as many on the Rogoff page can attest. I think people can be adverserial with mutual respect. But, it takes all kinds.
|Nov-12-12|| ||perfidious: <OCF> In Wade's collection of Fischer's games, he wrote that, in his opinion, Fischer had lost his objectivity towards his opponents or some such, round about the time of Curacao. This was, for Keres, an extraordinarily strong statement and I suspect one would be hard put to find an equivalent elsewhere.|
For all Keres' greatness, one wonders whether this seeming mildness and self-effacement in his personality kept him from the very top (other considerations aside for the moment).
It seems to me that playing nice, at the constant expense of oneself, can be harmful, and I do not believe it is necessarily the most admirable of traits.
In my opinion also, it is possible to be on opposite sides of a cause or an issue and have mutual respect while in disagreement. From this, a person may learn and grow.
Signed, your fellow pop psychologist
|Nov-12-12|| ||drnooo: as usual I am in a lonely camp But if you look at the Keres article he is hardly being a nice guy. He is fairly brutal when you examine just how he lays out his assessment of the various players. Apparently anyone who knew him, however did say he was extremely nice, and if you look at the video of when Tal is sinning the worlds championship, that is the nicest, warmest, smile of the bunch.
As for the rest I won't go into the very good reasons how come it always seemed to me that he lost the championship in 48, other than to say that Siberia can be a lonely place for even the nicest of guys.|
I still believe had he been able to make his escape to the west during the war, the history of chess would be written differently altogether.
as for where he ranks in the all time
greats, got me, but it's interesting that Capa, much to my surprise rated his chances high as he did. He must have made quite an impression on el Senor.
|Nov-12-12|| ||drnooo: as usual, I am short of any details
that would be nice to know: namely those of Keres attempted escape to the west.
Mean, it was more apparently than just a
casual glance out to window towards Paris. Apparently more also than a slip of the lip. But so far that's all I've ever gleaned. Too bad he didn't make it, whatever the reason.
|Nov-12-12|| ||Jim Bartle: Saw a comment from Spassky which originally appeared in Kingpin:|
"Keres was the Gulliver among the Lilliputians, he was a real giant. Botvinnik, I believe, was the leader of the Lilliputians. And that is the crux of the matter. As simple as that."
|Nov-13-12|| ||perfidious: <Jim> During the Soviet epoch, that would probably have bought Spassky another internal vacation from, inter alia, international chess.|
|Nov-20-12|| ||brankat: <drnooo> <Keres article he is hardly being a nice guy. He is fairly brutal when you examine just how he lays out his assessment of the various players.>|
I suppose this is the impression You got while reading the article. My feeling was that Keres was being quite objective and fair in his assessment of the potential challengers.
<As for the rest I won't go into the very good reasons how come it always seemed to me that he lost the championship in 48, other than to say that Siberia can be a lonely place..>
By mentioning Siberia, You very clearly state what "very good reasons" are.
The fact is Keres didn't "lose" the title in '48. He had not held it to begin with, neither was he a front runner amongst the candidates. He didn't even manage to finish second.
<..had he been able to make his escape to the west during the war, the history of chess would be written differently altogether..>
This is strictly a combo of Speculation and Wishful Thinking. One thing is certain, Keres would not have become a stronger player by living in the west. Richer, perhaps.
Between 1948 and 1965 Paul Keres had 7 chances to get to play for the Title. When it was most important, crucial: He failed. Every time.
Nobody ever questioned Keres's great talent, his knowledge, his playing strength. But there were, there must have been, some champion-kind-of element(s) missing. Will power, nerves, courage, determination. An elusive, but absolutely necessary ingredient was not in place. Champions had it. Keres did not.
As for Capablanca's opinion of Keres, you may want to read the original source: Capablanca's famous interview, given in Buenos Aires, 1939:
Old Dr.Lasker was not as tactful as Capablanca. Around that same time he stated flatly: 'Keres will never be the World Champion." Lasker didn't bother to elaborate, but I have always felt his opinion was along the same lines as Capa's. Being exceptionally intelligent, smart and experienced, Dr.Lasker must have somehow perceived, felt, read through Keres's shortcomings.
None of the above takes anything away from Paul Keres's greatness, but may help put things in a more objective prospective.
|Nov-25-12|| ||stanleys: Keres having a phone conversation in Curacao: http://chess-news.ru/sites/default/...|
Very interesting article about the Curacao's tournament (in Russian)with a lot of pics by Sosonko - http://chess-news.ru/node/10079
|Nov-25-12|| ||tamar: Great to read this (to me) new material-his lowdown on other rivals
Capa's dismissal of his chances-
and also the article by Sosonko.
Keres himself was so totally absorbed by chess and self-improvement, that he could not see the machinations that his rivals made against him.
He is in that respect a lot like Chigorin, not winding up champion, but playing the most interesting chess.
|Nov-25-12|| ||perfidious: A useful thing to remember to this day from the first link given by <tamar>, and not only for kibitzers at CG who rush to proclaim the name of the next talent:|
<'....Every tournament player knows that the ultimate result depends not only on chess prowess but on numerous other factors whose influence is very great at times. Hence, it would be wrong to judge the strength of a chess master by isolated tournament results. One must also take into account the personal experience of previous meetings with the same players, and only by taking all factors in conjunction can a more or less accurate picture be obtained....'>
|Nov-25-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <Capa: I recall that during the Moscow, 1925 tournament – Tartakower often refers to this – various famous chessplayers had been studying a particular position for three hours, without being able to reach a conclusion. I was passing by at that moment and they asked me my opinion. I was not in doubt for a single second, and I told them: “This is won; and it is won like this, and this.” And I was not mistaken. >|
I think Capa overrates himself. I understand it's easy to say that years after the fact, but the computer has changed the entire dynmaic. While Capa does fare well in engine analysis of his games, there are more mistakes than just about anyone would have thought.
|Dec-13-12|| ||GrahamClayton: Here is a study by Keres from 1936:
White to play and win:
click for larger view
1. c2+! a2 2. b4+ a1 3. a2+! bxa2 4. c6, and there is no defence to 5. d4 and either 6. b3# or 6. c2#.
|Jan-07-13|| ||waustad: 3 more years until the 100th aniversary of his birth. Hopefully that event gives rise to one of the strongest tournaments ever.|
|Jan-07-13|| ||jussu: <3 more years until the 100th aniversary of his birth. Hopefully that event gives rise to one of the strongest tournaments ever.>|
At this moment, Estonian chess players and organizers are busy quarrelling each other, and Keres is remembered by an obscure annual rapid event. Thinking about Tal memorial, I would put my hopes on Russians.
<Old Dr.Lasker was not as tactful as Capablanca. Around that same time he stated flatly: 'Keres will never be the World Champion.">
Reminds me of another grand old man saying "You will never play chess" :P
|Jan-07-13|| ||IndigoViolet: <<Old Dr.Lasker was not as tactful as Capablanca. Around that same time he stated flatly: 'Keres will never be the World Champion.">>|
Source? My impression of Lasker is that he was always circumspect when talking about his colleagues. This bald statement seems out of character.
|Jan-07-13|| ||ketchuplover: Yet Hifan has done quite well imo :)|
|May-05-13|| ||Caissanist: <tamar: Keres himself was so totally absorbed by chess and self-improvement, that he could not see the machinations that his rivals made against him.>|
My impression of Keres has always been that he preferred to play dumb about the larger world, as probably did many Estonians of his generation. If you don't want to be shot or imprisoned by whoever the current authorities lording it over your country are, the safest course is to say something like "I just play chess and spend time with my family, I don't know anything about that stuff".
|May-05-13|| ||tamar: <Caissanist...My impression of Keres has always been that he preferred to play dumb about the larger world, as probably did many Estonians of his generation.>|
Interesting observation. When I see Karjakin somewhat guileless and friendly in postgame analysis, I think Keres might have had similar non-aggressive personal qualities that allowed the wolves at the very top manipulate him in critical situations.
<Apparently relaxed when playing, he moved the men quietly, never displaying ill-temper. His charm and tact made him friends everywhere, not least in English speaking countries (he spoke the language fluently)...> p 198 The Oxford Companion to Chess, Hooper and Whyld
Whether this is an Estonian trait, I don't know. Certainly people in continually conquered countries have their personalities affected by invaders. But if it was a mask, he doesn't ever seem to have let down his guard, and I haven't seen anecdotes that show a hidden side to him.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 33 OF 33 ·