|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 27 OF 27 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Nov-29-09 |
| Plato: Here is the link to that interview:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/reshb...
Part 1 of the interview is here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/resha...
<chancho>, I and many others agree with your comment that Botvinnik would have beaten Alekhine in a match in the late 1930s, but Reshevsky's opinion is different. From Part 1: -------------
HWR: It's right about this time in your career that people have said, in retrospect, that either you, Keres, Botvinnik or Fine could have defeated Alekhine had you been given the opportunity. What do you think about that? SR: I think it's right. I think we had a good chance, but he would not give us the chance. HWR: Do you think after the AVRO tournament, if Botvinnik had played
Alekhine, he could have defeated him in a match?
SR: I don't think so. Alekhine was still too strong at that time. Especially if he was not drinking. HWR: How about Keres. Do you think in 1938-1940, Keres cold have defeated
Alekhine?
SR: No.
HWR: Why not?
SR: I don't think he was strong enough.
HWR: Botvinnik has said in his autobiography that he never thought that Keres had what it took to become world champion. SR: I would agree with him.
HWR: What do you think Keres lacked to become world champion? SR: He was not a great fighter. He was a very strong player, but he was not a great fighter. HWR: But he was famous for some of his attacking games. SR: Yes, that is true, but taken alone, that is not sufficient. His strength lay in attacking, but I don't think he was as strong as some of the other players positionally. HWR: You have just told me that in the 1938-1940 period, you don't think
either Botvinnik or Keres could have defeated Alekhine for the title. How about Fine? SR: Certainly not.
HWR: Why not?
SR: Fine was a fine player, but he was not in the same class with Alekhine. HWR: That leaves you. And if you played Alekhine in the 1938-1940 period? SR: I think at that time I might have had a chance.
HWR: What could you do differently that Botvinnik, Keres or Fine could not? SR: It was not a question of what we did, it was a question of the type of fighter one was. I think I was very strong in that area. I gave it my all when I played in a tournament. I did not think they did. |
 |
Nov-30-09
 |
| chancho: <Plato> Reshevsky had a high opinion of himself. The guy was talented after all, but I don't agree that he had a chance. He did not study the openings the way he should have, and against an Alekhine that might have been fatal. Botvinnik's level of preparation on the other hand was exemplary. |
 |
Nov-30-09
 |
| chancho: The Hanon Russell interview with Sammy first appeared in Chess Life magazine in 1991.
It can also be found in Stephen W Gordon's book on Reshevsky's collection of games. |
 |
| Nov-30-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Yes, I remember reading it in Chess Life at the time. It was interesting - I was reading Kasparov's chapter on Reshevsky last night. Kasparov criticizes Reshevsky for his preparation for the 1948 tournament. Get this - what Kasparov says is, the only thing Reshevsky did was to study openings for that tournament - Kasparov is critical of him for not playing training games and tournaments. Of course, Reshevsky probably had to work, in order to make ends meet, which made that impossible. |
 |
| Nov-30-09 |
| maxi: How peculiar that Sammy thought that Fischer and Lasker were not good endgame players! I would think they are among the best ever. What the heck is happening? |
 |
Nov-30-09
 |
| chancho: Sammy was arrogant let's face it. But so are other great chessplayers.
Notice where he agrees and laughs at Fischer's claim that Sammy is one of the ten greatest players ever.
Had Sammy worked harder on his game when he was younger, he might have played that match for the world title. But as strong and gifted as he was, he never could quite get there. |
 |
| Nov-30-09 |
| theagenbiteofinwit: <How peculiar that Sammy thought that Fischer and Lasker were not good endgame players!> I think the quote about Fischer was retaliation. Fischer once said that Reshevsky had the opening knowledge of a class player. |
 |
| Nov-30-09 |
| maxi: Those comments would explain why Sammy said that about Fischer, but ..., why say the same for Lasker? Capa said Lasker was the best endgame player he knew of. |
 |
Nov-30-09
 |
| whatthefat: <SR: Euwe was strong, of course. He was outstanding in the opening, but insufficient in the endgame.> Should I get a refund on my 'A Guide to Chess Endings', or is Reshevsky just talking more smack? <SR: I think it's right. I think we had a good chance> By this, he seems to mean <I> would have good chances, as he then goes on to say <I don't think so>, <No>, and <Certainly not> to the chances of Botvinnik, Keres, and Fine, respectively. |
 |
| Nov-30-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Regarding Fischer, Reshevsky may be thinking of the earlier part of his career, when he did have a problem with some endgames. Of course, as you get closer and closer to 1972, there were no problems with the endgames whatever. Capablanca said that Lasker was the first great endgame player. I would agree with Capablanca. |
 |
| Nov-30-09 |
| Petrosianic: <You are now the only person on my ignore list.> Why is he the only one? He's certainly not the only one who does the things you listed. |
 |
| Nov-30-09 |
| Petrosianic: <Reshevsky had a high opinion of himself.> Unlike most chessplayers...
<The guy was talented after all, but I don't agree that he had a chance.> That depends how good you think Alekhine was in 1939. Frankly, when I first read that interview, I was surprised that Reshevsky still rated him that high. Of course in 1930-1931 Alekhine was a behemoth, but I'd always thought of him as significantly weaker after losing to Euwe. I would have thought that most of the players at AVRO had a signifcant chance of beating Alekhine, though I'm sure Reshevsky knew better than I do. The most interesting comments in that interview were about the Reshevsky-Fischer match. It was Reshevsky's opinion that Fischer just wanted out, that he'd had enough of the match after failing to get an advantage in 11 games, and especially after telling everyone that he was going to win the adjourned eleventh Game and then failing to win it. Reshevsky is biased, of course. I thought Fischer had a legitimate gripe, and that it was unreasonable that the match schedule should be geared around the patron's social schedule rather than around the player's needs. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that Reshevsky wasn't right too. Whether Fischer had a legitimate gripe and whether he was sick of the match are two separate questions. For whatever reason, being the first guy to beat Reshevsky in a match (an honor that went to Korchnoi 7 years later) was less important than not playing at 11 a.m. It's not well remembered now, but Reshevsky's unbeaten match record was a big thing back in the day, and something that Fischer should have been eager to put an end to personally. |
 |
| Nov-30-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Reshevsky showed up to play chess at the appointed time. That's really the only thing he was supposed to do. Fischer certainly had a legimate complaint that the time was changed from that stipulated in the written contract. |
 |
| Nov-30-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: <Petrosianic: Why is he the only one? He's certainly not the only one who does the things you listed. > I guess he doesn't have the possibility of putting himself on his own ignore list, as a consequence of his actions. |
 |
Nov-30-09
 |
| chancho: <Unlike most chessplayers...> I did write in another post:
<Sammy was arrogant let's face it. But so are other great chessplayers.> Take the word "great" out, and arrogance is probably more prevalent among chessplayers than can be properly surmised. |
 |
| Nov-30-09 |
| Plato: <chancho: the guy was talented after all, but I don't agree that he had a chance. He did not study the openings the way he should have, and against an Alekhine that might have been fatal. > Perhaps, but it's a tough call. I tend to agree with <Petrosianic> that there were a few players who probably would have beaten Alekhine in a match that took place some time between 1938-1940. I think Botvinnik, Reshevsky, Keres or Fine would have probably won, as I think Alekhine's level had dropped rather significantly by that time (compared to 5-10 years earlier). |
 |
Nov-30-09
 |
| whatthefat: http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Summ... |
 |
Nov-30-09
 |
| chancho: Alekhine's bout with the bottle and his bad heart had something to do with his level of play dropping. It cost him the title in his match with Euwe, but he disciplined himself, became highly motivated, and became champion once more.
If Alekhine could have prepared as he did for Euwe, I still think that Botvinnik could have taken him in a match. Not sure about Keres, Reshevsky or Fine's chances, but I guess I'm just being biased. :-) |
 |
| Nov-30-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Well, if you just look at whatthefat's chart, and look at the year 1943 - what does it say? |
 |
Nov-30-09
 |
| Red October: erm and miss all this ?
<Most Dominant Player between 1930 and 1950 See more details
Mikhail Botvinnik: 9.5 years as #1 (between September 1936 and December 1949)
The player who was ranked #1 most often between 1930 and 1950 was Mikhail Botvinnik, with 114 different months as the top-ranked player (a total of 9.5 years). Next on the list were Alexander Alekhine (8.3 years) and Max Euwe (1.2 years).
Highest-Rated Player between 1930 and 1950 See more details
Mikhail Botvinnik: 2885 (October 1945)
The player who achieved the highest peak rating between 1930 and 1950 was Mikhail Botvinnik, with a rating of 2885 on the October 1945 list. The next-highest peak ratings between 1930 and 1950 were achieved by Alexander Alekhine (2860 on the May 1931 list) and José Capablanca (2804 on the January 1930 list).> |
 |
| Nov-30-09 |
| Plato: It's also noteworthy that the strongest tournament between 1930 and 1950 is Nottingham, 1936, in which Botvinnik and Capablanca were the co-champions ahead of Fine, Reshevsky, Euwe, Alekhine, Lasker, Flohr... what an amazing line-up of legends at that tournament! http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing... |
 |
| Nov-30-09 |
| Petrosianic: <Alekhine's bout with the bottle and his bad heart had something to do with his level of play dropping.>
That and age. Euwe didn't just win that one match though, he also finished ahead of him in tournaments played afterwards (like Nottinghtam '36), and did fine head to head. He's said that he expected to win the rematch, so overconfidence might have played a role (oddly enough). Here's Chessmetrics list of the Top 8 players in the world as of January 1939: #1. Botvinnik 2766 27y5m
#2. Fine 2751 24y3m
#3. Alekhine 2750 46y3m
#4. Reshevsky 2748 27y2m
#5. Keres 2732 23y0m
#6. Capablanca 2719 50y2m
#7. Euwe 2718 37y8m
#8. Flohr 2704 30y2m
All eight of them were at AVRO, so the sponsors at least invited the right people (Eliskases and Pirc are next on the list). Ratings don't always tell the whole story, of course, but it seems rash to say that none of these would have had a real chance against Alekhine (except Reshevsky who even gave himself only an outside chance). I wonder if his opinion wasn't colored by his memories of how Alekhine had played earlier, rather than how Alekhine was actually playing at that time. Now, here's the Top 10 in January 1946:
#1. Botvinnik 2883 34y5m
#2. Keres 2768 30y0m
#3. Alekhine 2758 53y3m
#4. Najdorf 2751 35y9m
#5. Smyslov 2751 24y10m
#6. Boleslavsky 2746 26y7m
#7. Makogonov 2731 41y5m
#8. Ståhlberg 2716 38y0m
#9. Kotov 2689 32y5m
#10. Tartakower 2688 58y11m
Sonofagun, Alekhine is still Number 3. I'd had the idea that his play had fallen off a lot more during the war years, and maybe it had, but it didn't affect this ranking. Although this time there's a 125 point gap between Botvinnik and Alekhine. Had Alekhine survived long enough to play his match with Botvnnik, the match might have killed him. Reshevsky is #11 on this list, but Chessmetrics are always hard to go by since they deduct points for inactivity. They actually have Reshevsky as the #1 player for a few months in 1942 and 1943, and again for most of 1952. So, Reshevsky is really not to be taken lightly. But I do suspect that he overrated Alekhine's 1939 strength. |
 |
| Nov-30-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: He was probably figuring that Alekhine could get it together when it mattered, like he did for the rematch with Euwe. |
 |
Nov-30-09
 |
| Red October: though Alekhine didnt quite get it together here
Alekhine vs Reshevsky, 1936 |
 |
Nov-30-09
 |
| chancho: Sammy played a heck of a game there.
The way he used his knights was incredible, although Alekhine did pay him back nicely in this game:Alekhine vs Reshevsky, 1937 |
 |
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 27 OF 27 ·
Later Kibitzing > |