|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-09-18 | | Petrosianic: <beatgiant> <What exactly were those two Fischer-Euwe games in 1957? An exhibition match?> Yeah, basically an exhibition. Euwe was in town and Fischer was a promising young prodigy, so someone got them together. Euwe won the first game and gave a draw in a superior position in the second one. It was funny. The first game was published and annotated, but not the second. You'd think it would be huge news that this 13 year old prodigy had drawn a game with an ex-world champion, but the moves were never published, in either Chess Life or Chess Review, only the result, and the game was considered lost for years. It turned up a couple of years ago, and it's not that bad. Fischer isn't blatantly crushed or busted, or anything, but I guess they didn't want people analyzing it and concluding that he should have lost. |
|
| Jan-09-18 | | Petrosianic: <I don't remember how much thought was given to a Botvinnik-Euwe match, but I suspect not much.> Not much, although the idea was floated of naming him as interim World Champion until an actual event could be held. I believe that he may even have been named World Champion for about a half hour or so before they reversed it. (Not positive about that, however). |
|
Jan-09-18
 | | keypusher: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Winter's article on the road to the match-tournament. As far as the subject under discussion is concerned, Znosko-Borovsky wrote an article arguing that Euwe should be restored to the title and he should then play a match with Botvinnik, but FIDE seems to have never seriously considered the idea. |
|
| Jan-09-18 | | Petrosianic: There's a certain logic (and precedent) for giving Euwe the title. Not so much for giving Botvinnik the title <shot>. Yes, he had an arrangement with Alekhine to play a title match, but that was between Botvinnik and Alekhine, not Botvinnik and FIDE. There were lots of other credible challengers, and simply handing the title shot to one of them because that's what Alekhine did doesn't make much sense. (Especially considering how badly out of favor Alekhine was at the time over his wartime activities). |
|
| Jan-09-18 | | Petrosianic: I wonder how long Salo Flohr remained FIDE's "Official Challenger"? They must have rescinded it at some point, unless they just forgot about it. |
|
| Jan-10-18 | | Lambda: <That may possibly have shaved several years off Capablanca's reign as well. Or who knows? Without WWI, Lasker might have played Capa earlier and beat him.> Yes. Without WWI, Capablanca might have had five odd years more as champion, or alternatively, might never have become champion (since you can easily imagine Lasker going into semi-retirement for several years after winning a match). I have absolutely no idea who would have won a match taking place in around 1916, but I really wish it had happened. |
|
Jan-10-18
| | keypusher: < Lambda: <That may possibly have shaved several years off Capablanca's reign as well. Or who knows? Without WWI, Lasker might have played Capa earlier and beat him.>
Yes. Without WWI, Capablanca might have had five odd years more as champion, or alternatively, might never have become champion (since you can easily imagine Lasker going into semi-retirement for several years after winning a match). I have absolutely no idea who would have won a match taking place in around 1916, but I really wish it had happened.> Me too, especially if it occurred as a corollary of World War I not taking place. Now that's a two-fer! |
|
| Jan-10-18 | | WorstPlayerEver: They don't make history like that no more ;) |
|
| Jan-11-18 | | Howard: As far as any allegations of Flohr being an "official challenger" for the WC, his dead-last finish at AVRO probably torpedoed that notion for good. |
|
Jan-11-18
 | | MissScarlett: FIDE, not Flohr, was the official challenger for the WC, but Alekhine's victory in 1937 match torpedoed that notion for good, well, 9 years. |
|
| Jan-11-18 | | Petrosianic: No, Flohr was still "Official Challenger" after AVRO. Not sure for how long, though. You're confusing who FIDE considered the Official Challenger with who Alekhine considered. |
|
| Jan-15-18 | | GT3RS: <keypusher>
<I'm sure Petrosianic knows way more about the 1948 championship than you do, since he's written a lot about it, citing contemporaneous sources, which you have not done. > Oh snap. I see citing obvious stuff (on internet) makes you more credible. Sorry breh. Still learning. <Since no one had ever died while holding the title, there was no "historical tradition" either way concerning Euwe's status.> After Alekhine's death, many were of the quite reasonable opinion that, following "historical tradition", Euwe, as the only living ex-champion, should be proclaimed champion; then a challenger should be identified (the Americans suggested Reshevsky) and a match held between them. Makes perfect sense to me. FIDE, which for the first time had the opportunity to take charge of the world championship, even managed to take this decision at its congress in The Hague (1947). But Euwe remained world champion for only two hours, until the Soviet delegation appeared in the hall, led by grandmaster Ragozin, "Botvinnik's close friend" and trainer, soon to become FIDE VicePresident. And that's how they suggested the five cycle tournament. ~ From Kasparov's book (my great predecessors)
And as I have said earlier match play and tournament play are different. Of course it doesn't matter now does it. Everyone who knows a thing about chess history knows Botvinnik/ Euwe etc are arguably the weakest champions and will always be beneath the other greats. |
|
Jan-15-18
 | | perfidious: <GT3RS....I see you’ve ignored most of my points and gone off track spewing unnecessary drivel....> The drivel here emanates from you.
<....Absolute last post as I can’t stand your stupidity.> On top of your utter inability to argue your case in any sort of cogent fashion, you have proven yourself a liar. |
|
Jan-16-18
 | | offramp: <GT3RS: ...Everyone who knows a thing about chess history knows Botvinnik/ Euwe etc are arguably the weakest champions ...> <Arguably> is the important word. It's an opinion. BTW, who are the <etc>? |
|
| Jan-16-18 | | Retireborn: <Offramp> etc = Karpov and Anand, judging by his earlier list. |
|
| Jan-16-18 | | PhilFeeley: Botvinnik a weak champion? That's why they named a chess school tradition after him, right? As for "everyone", well, not me. |
|
Jan-16-18
| | offramp: So <GT3RS> is saying, "It is possible to argue that Botvinnik, Euwe, Anand & Karpov were among the weakest of the 16 World Chess Champions". It is a bit of a bland statement. |
|
| Jan-16-18 | | Howard: Karpov?! One of "the weakest of the 16 WC"s" ?! If that's not totally ludicrous, then I dunno what is! |
|
Jan-16-18
| | keypusher: <GT3RS>
<Oh snap. I see citing obvious stuff (on internet) makes you more credible. Sorry breh. Still learning.<Since no one had ever died while holding the title, there was no "historical tradition" either way concerning Euwe's status.> After Alekhine's death, many were of the quite reasonable opinion that, following "historical tradition", Euwe, as the only living ex-champion, should be proclaimed champion; then a challenger should be identified (the Americans suggested Reshevsky) and a match held between them. Makes perfect sense to me. FIDE, which for the first time had the opportunity to take charge of the world championship, even managed to take this decision at its congress in The Hague (1947). But Euwe remained world champion for only two hours, until the Soviet delegation appeared in the hall, led by grandmaster Ragozin, "Botvinnik's close friend" and trainer, soon to become FIDE VicePresident. And that's how they suggested the five cycle tournament.> If you’re genuinely curious about what happened back then, you should read the Winter link I posted. If you want no one to take you seriously, cite OMGP as a reliable historical source. |
|
| Sep-15-19 | | Chesgambit: 1939-1945 WWII starts delayed world championship matches |
|
| Jun-17-20 | | Poulsen: <Howard>< Karpov?! One of "the weakest of the 16 WC"s" ?!
If that's not totally ludicrous, then I dunno what is!> Agreed. Karpov was actually one of the strongest players of all time - possibly only surpassed by Kasparov. List of top performances +2800, pre year 2005 (Jeff Sonas): 1. Kasparov 34
2. Karpov 21
3. Lasker 12
4. Botvinnik 7
5. Alekhine, Fischer 6
7. Capablanca, Tal 4
9. Spassky 3
10. Steinitz, Smyslov, Petrosian 2
11. Euwe 0
Kasparov and Karpov stands heads and shoulders above the rest. Of course some of the pre-ww2 guys were hampered by fewer tournaments. By 2005 Anand already had 7 +2800 performances, and including his later results we are bound to find him among the very best ever. Kramnik had 3 +2800 performances by 2005. Strenght can be measured in many ways. Euwe may be considered the weakest of all WCh, but he was certainly among the very best in the 20'es and 30'es. |
|
Jun-17-20
| | perfidious: <Petrosianic....We seem to have established that GT3RS has no grasp of time, and so seems to have chopped the facts to make Botvinnik look <weaker> by virtue of holding the title longer, which is hilariously counter-intuitive....> This reasoning would also, therefore, render Steinitz, Lasker and Kasparov the 'weakest' players to hold the supreme title and make Tal, Smyslov and Euwe the greatest. Classic. |
|
May-20-21
| | MissScarlett: Alekhine and Euwe signing contracts for the rematch (H/T ECF): https://www.europeana.eu/en/item/20... |
|
Jun-18-22
 | | GrahamClayton: Of the 10 games that featured the Slav Defence, Euwe and Alekhine each won 3, with 4 draws. Of the 15 other games that were not the Slav Defence, Alekhine won 7, Euwe just 1, with 7 draws. |
|
| Jan-01-24 | | mk volkov: Amazing competition, AA's 2nd best match. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Euwe vs Alekhine 1937
