-<Rematch Clause> (transl. tabanus)

FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress

-<Punkts 5-7>

5. If the World Champion and the winner of the Candidate tounament (as well as the ex-World Champion in that in no. 7) cannot agree about the match terms, then a World championship tournament shall be arranged between the World Champion, the ex-World Champion and they who took the both first prizes ("båda främsta prisen") in the Candidate tournament.

6. In case the ex-World Champion participates in the Candidate tournament, and in this shares 1st prize with one or more others, then the ex-World Champion shall have the right, without any extra play, to play for the title with the World Champion.

7. If the ex-World Champion either participates in the Candidate tournament, but does not achieve or share 1st place, or does not participate in the Candidate tournament, he shall have the right to within a week after its conclusion to report to the FIDE President for participation in a World championship tournament with 3 participants: the World Champion, the winner of the Candidate tournament, and the ex-World Champion. Note:
The rights of the ex-World Champion according to no. 5-7 (which are intended to replace the right to a rematch, that normally is granted an ex-World Champion) can only be practised on the World championship competition which follows next after the ex-World Champion has lost his title. These rights can thus not apply for the now coming World championship competition.">

Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p. 156

http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19...

===

Averbakh:

<"...these rules... were indeed drawn up by Botvinnik, and adopted by FIDE... in 1949. To my surprise, there was nothing in them about limiting the number of players from one country. Nor did I find anything saying that the world champion, if he lost his title, had the right to a return match. There in black and white, what it said was that, if the world champion lost his match against the challenger, then in three year's time he would have the right to take part in a <<<three-player match tournament>>> for the title, along with the new champion and his challenger.">

So when did <Botvinnik's> "right to a return match" actually become a rule?

Averbakh:

<"At the Moscow FIDE Congress in 1956, the point about the three-player match-tournament was <<<removed>>>, and instead of this, the world champion was given the right to a return match.">

-Yuri Averbakh
"Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes- the Personal Memoir of a Soviet Chess Legend." Steve Giddins, tranls.
(New in Chess 2011), p. 112

===

-<Prize Fund>

FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress

-<Punkt 15>: "In a world championship match the prize fund awards the winner 5,000 dollars and the defeated 3,000 dollars. In a world Championship tournament, prize money should be given to all three or four participants- 5,000 3,000 2,000 and 1000 dollars."

Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p. 157 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19...

Interestingly, it seems doubtful that <Botvinnik> actually got $5,000 or <Bronstein> actually got $3,000 after their 1951 match.

Andrew Soltis:

<"The 1949 FIDE General Assembly at Paris had decided <<<'The right to organize a world championship competition is, in the first instance the right of the federation of the champion's country.'>>> This had the effect of turning over control of FIDE's most important event to the Soviet Sports Committee for 20 years. An official 'honorarium' of $5,000 for the winner and $3,000 for the loser was decided by FIDE but implementing such details was left to the match organizers. In fact, the prizes were paid in rubles and were worth a fraction of what FIDE announced.">

-Andrew Soltis
"Soviet Chess 1917-1991"
(McFarland 2000), p. 188

===

Officials

-<Arbiter>: Karel Opocensky

-<Controller>: Gideon Stahlberg

-<Seconds>: Ragozin and Flohr (Botvinnik); Konstantinopolsky (Bronstein)

-Mikhail Botvinnik
"Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951"

Igor Botvinnik ed.
Ken Neat transl.
(Edition Olms 2004), p.11

================

-<Time Control>

"Three games will be played a week. First 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, rate of 16 moves per hour thereafter. Games to be adjourned to next day after 5 hours of play."

-"Chess Life" 10 Feb 1951, p.1

===

-<Head of Press Centre>: Bondarevsky

-<Assistant to Bondarevsky>: Averbakh

-Yuri Averbakh
"Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes- the Personal Memoir of a Soviet Chess Legend." Steve Giddins, tranls.
(New in Chess 2011), p.62

=================

-<Venue> Moscow, Tchaikovsky Concert Hall

-Mikhail Botvinnik
"Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951," p.11

###########################

Chess Events- 1944-1950

Bronstein "Head to Head"

search "bronstein-botvinnik"

search "bronstein-smyslov"

search "bronstein-keres"

===

USSR Championship 1944 21 May - 17 June 1944

(Bronstein 15th, behind Botvinnik, Smyslov and Bolelsavsky)

USSR Championship (1944)

Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1944 <1-0>

According to Bronstein's autobiography "The Sorceror's Apprentice", Botvinnik resigned this game while Bronstein was away from the board getting a cup of tea, which was considered a breach of chess etiquette. Source: Bernard Cafferty and Mark Taimanov, "The Soviet Championships", Cadogan Books, 1998

===

USSR Championship 1945 1 June -1 July 1944

(Bronstein 4th, behind Botvinnik and Boleslavsky)

USSR Championship (1945)

Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1945 <1/2>

===

World Championship Tournament 1948 2 March - 17 May 1948

(Botvinnik 1st, over Smyslov, Keres, Reshevsky, and Euwe)

FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948)

===

Saltsjöbaden 1948 Interzonal 15 July - 15 Aug 1948

(Bronstein 1st over Szabo, Boleslavsky, Kotov, and Lilienthal)

Game Collection: 1948 Saltsjöbaden interzonal

===

USSR Championship 1948 10 Nov - 13 Dec 1948

(Bronstein shared 1st with Kotov, over Furman, Flohr, and Tolush)

USSR Championship (1948)

===

USSR Championship 1949 16 Oct - 20 Nov 1949

(Bronstein shared 1st with Smyslov, over Geller, Taimanov, Furman and Bolelslavsky)

USSR Championship (1949)

===

Budapest Candidates 1950 9 April - 16 May 1950

(Bronstein shared 1st with Boleslavksy, over Smyslov, Keres and Najdorf)

Budapest Candidates (1950)

Steve Giddins:

<"...in the Russian magazine 64, Smyslov claimed that the finish of the Budapest tournament had been pre-arranged. He claimed that Bronstein's mentor, Boris Vainstein, had persuaded Boleslavsky to allow Bronstein to catch him up, as well as pressurising Keres to lose to Bronstein in the last round. The basis of this <<<alleged fix>>> was precisely that Boleslavsky had a terrible record against Botvinnik, whereas Bronstein had always been a difficult opponent for the world champion. Vainstein and Botvinnik were bitter enemies, and the former was keen to see him dethroned as world champion.">

-Yuri Averbakh
"Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes- the Personal Memoir of a Soviet Chess Legend."

Steve Giddins, tranls.
(New in Chess 2011), p.60

======

Budapest Candidates Playoff 1950

Bronstein sole 1st after match with Boleslavsky +3 -2 =9)

Game Collection: WCC Index (Bronstein-Boleslavsky 1950)

###########################

Match Preparation- Bronstein

Bronstein:

<"...I think that it is not fair of Botvinnik to mention year after year that he did not crush me in the match only because he did not play a single game during the preceding three years and that he was rusty. I am convinced that <<<he did not play because he did not want to reveal his opening secrets>>> to his challenger and wanted to save his energy. He prevented me from studying any of his recent games and I could not prepare myself for this match as I would have liked to. On the other hand I had played more than hundred games in important tournaments in the three years before this match and Botvinnik had all the time and opportunity in the world to study my games and he prepared himself excellently.">

-David Bronstein and Tom Furstenberg
"The Sorcerer's Apprentice"
(Cadogan 1995), p.16-17

===

Botvinnik:

<"...Bronstein... had the assistance of... <<<Boleslavsky and also the masters Konstantinopolsky and Furman>>>... in our 1951 match...">

-Mikhail Botvinnik
"Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956)"
Ken Neat, transl.
(Moravian Chess 2012), p.31

#########################

Match Preparation- Botvinnik

<Botvinnik constructed a notebook with comments on <<<every single tournament game Bronstein played>>> from the Salstsjobaden Interzonal 1948 to Budapest Candidates 1950.>

-Mikhail Botvinnik
"Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951" Igor Botvinnik ed.
Ken Neat transl.
(Edition Olms 2004), pp.103-113

===========

<Starting in January 1951, Botvinnik began compiling an <<<analysis of openings>>>, including the Slav Gambit, Meran, Marshall Variation, King's Indian Defence, Nimzo-Indian Defence, Grunfeld Defence, Slav Exchange, Sicilian (Rauzer/Boleslavsky/Dragon), French Defence, Two Knights, Queen's Gambit Accepted with a6, Spanish with Bishop e6, and the Four Knights.>

-Mikhail Botvinnik
"Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951"

Igor Botvinnik ed.
Ken Neat transl.
(Edition Olms 2004), pp.114-119

===

-<Botvinnik-Ragozin Secret Training Match> 7-8 March 1951

+1 -1 =0

Botvinnik vs Ragozin, 1951 <1-0>

Ragozin vs Botvinnik, 1951 <1-0>

Jan Timman:

<"The match started on March 16... Botvinnik only played two games, right before the start of the match. Noteworthy is the terrible <<<disaster>>> in (the 2d game).">

-Jan Timman
"Secret Matches- the Unknown Training Games of Mikhail Botvinnik" (Russel Enterprises, Inc., 2000), p.9

####################################

Conditions

-<Match Length>:

FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress :

-<Punkt 11>

<11 World Cup Match up to 24 games. When one of the players reaches <<<12 ½ score,>>> he shall be declared the winner, and the match will terminate.>

Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p.156 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19...

===

-<Time Control>

FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress :

-<Punkt 12>

<12. At World contest should generally played three games a week. All unfinished games from each round continued the following day. The first <<<forty moves>>> in two and a half hours, and the game is to be adjourned after five hours of total play time. Cancelled portions school played with sixteen moves . A further interruption shall be made only after six • hour total playing time, then then, at least eighty-eight moves.>

More and BETTER on <punkt12>, courtesy <Tabanus>:

TOP secret decoding:
<12. At a World championship contest* there should in general be played three games a week, so that unfinished games from each round are continued the following day. The first 40 moves shall be made in two and a half hours, and the game will be interrupted after five hours of total playing time. Adjourned games shall be played with 16 moves an hour. Further adjournments will happen only after six hours total playing time, i. e. when at least 88 moves have been made.>

Not sure if this makes sense, but the decoding should be fairly accurate. The "six hours" are counted from the time of the 1st adjournment:

40 moves (max 5 hours) + 3 x 16 moves (max 6 hours) = 88 moves (max 11 hours).

*Whether tournament or match (my interpret.)

Or to put it differently:
Adjournment after 5 hours (min. 40 moves) + after 6 more hours (min. 3 x 16 moves) = second adjournment after min. 88 moves.

Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p.157 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19...

===============

-<Draw odds> for the champion:

FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress :

-<Punkt 9>

<9."If a world champion in a world championship match achieves a <<<draw>>>, or ties for first place with one or more participants in a world championship tournament, he retains his title.">

Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p.156 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19...

-<Botvinnik,> writing about the time just before he was about to begin the match against <Bronstein> in 1951:

<"By that time the recently confirmed rules for world championship matches had come into force. In the winter of 1949 I had published a draft for these rules. As a preparation I studied everything that had been published on the topic earlier. In drawing up the draft I took great care to ensure that the two players in the match had equal rights. The champion had just one advantage- in the event of a drawn match he kept his title. To take the title the challenger had to... (win the match). In July 1949 the twenty-fifth anniversary of FIDE was celebrated at the Congress in Paris... and <<<points to do with the rules of the world championship were allotted to me.>>>

The founder President of FIDE, A. Rueb... was opposed to the acceptance of the rules at this Congress... but finally he withdrew his objections. The incoming President, F. Rogard... also had no objections- he needed the support of the Soviet delegation.">

Mikhail Botvinnik,
"Achieving the Aim"
Bernard Cafferty, transl.
(Pergamon 1981), pp. 127-128

===

-<Rematch Clause> (transl. tabanus)

FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress

-<Punkts 5-7>

5. If the World Champion and the winner of the Candidate tounament (as well as the ex-World Champion in that in no. 7) cannot agree about the match terms, then a World championship tournament shall be arranged between the World Champion, the ex-World Champion and they who took the both first prizes ("båda främsta prisen") in the Candidate tournament.

6. In case the ex-World Champion participates in the Candidate tournament, and in this shares 1st prize with one or more others, then the ex-World Champion shall have the right, without any extra play, to play for the title with the World Champion.

7. If the ex-World Champion either participates in the Candidate tournament, but does not achieve or share 1st place, or does not participate in the Candidate tournament, he shall have the right to within a week after its conclusion to report to the FIDE President for participation in a World championship tournament with 3 participants: the World Champion, the winner of the Candidate tournament, and the ex-World Champion. Note:
The rights of the ex-World Champion according to no. 5-7 (which are intended to replace the right to a rematch, that normally is granted an ex-World Champion) can only be practised on the World championship competition which follows next after the ex-World Champion has lost his title. These rights can thus not apply for the now coming World championship competition.">

Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p. 156

http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19...

===

Averbakh:

<"...these rules... were indeed drawn up by Botvinnik, and adopted by FIDE... in 1949. To my surprise, there was nothing in them about limiting the number of players from one country. Nor did I find anything saying that the world champion, if he lost his title, had the right to a return match. There in black and white, what it said was that, if the world champion lost his match against the challenger, then in three year's time he would have the right to take part in a <<<three-player match tournament>>> for the title, along with the new champion and his challenger.">

So when did <Botvinnik's> "right to a return match" actually become a rule?

Averbakh:

<"At the Moscow FIDE Congress in 1956, the point about the three-player match-tournament was <<<removed>>>, and instead of this, the world champion was given the right to a return match.">

-Yuri Averbakh
"Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes- the Personal Memoir of a Soviet Chess Legend." Steve Giddins, tranls.
(New in Chess 2011), p. 112

===

-<Prize Fund>

FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress

-<Punkt 15>: "In a world championship match the prize fund awards the winner 5,000 dollars and the defeated 3,000 dollars. In a world Championship tournament, prize money should be given to all three or four participants- 5,000 3,000 2,000 and 1000 dollars."

Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p. 157 http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19...

Interestingly, it seems doubtful that <Botvinnik> actually got $5,000 or <Bronstein> actually got $3,000 after their 1951 match.

Andrew Soltis:

<"The 1949 FIDE General Assembly at Paris had decided <<<'The right to organize a world championship competition is, in the first instance the right of the federation of the champion's country.'>>> This had the effect of turning over control of FIDE's most important event to the Soviet Sports Committee for 20 years. An official 'honorarium' of $5,000 for the winner and $3,000 for the loser was decided by FIDE but implementing such details was left to the match organizers. In fact, the prizes were paid in rubles and were worth a fraction of what FIDE announced.">

-Andrew Soltis
"Soviet Chess 1917-1991"
(McFarland 2000), p. 188

===

Officials

-<Arbiter>: Karel Opocensky

-<Controller>: Gideon Stahlberg

-<Seconds>: Ragozin and Flohr (Botvinnik); Konstantinopolsky (Bronstein)

-Mikhail Botvinnik
"Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951"

Igor Botvinnik ed.
Ken Neat transl.
(Edition Olms 2004), p.11

================

-<Time Control>

"Three games will be played a week. First 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, rate of 16 moves per hour thereafter. Games to be adjourned to next day after 5 hours of play."

-"Chess Life" 10 Feb 1951, p.1

===

-<Head of Press Centre>: Bondarevsky

-<Assistant to Bondarevsky>: Averbakh

-Yuri Averbakh
"Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes- the Personal Memoir of a Soviet Chess Legend." Steve Giddins, tranls.
(New in Chess 2011), p.62

=================

-<Venue> Moscow, Tchaikovsky Concert Hall

-Mikhail Botvinnik
"Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951," p.11

###########################

Course of the Match

Opening Statistics for Botvinnik:

-<Dutch> (white): +1 -0 =2 (black): +1 -1 =2

Notes- Bronstein played black in the Dutch Defense in games 1, 7, and 9, scoring a total of 1 point. He did not play it again after game 9.

Botvinnik's Opening Prep Notebook: He did not prepare the Dutch.

===

-<Nimzo-Indian> (white): +0 -2 =1

Botvinnik's Opening Prep Notebook: He prepared the Nimzo-Indian

===

-<French> (white): +0 -0 =2

Botvinnik's Opening Prep Notebook: He prepared the French Defense.

===

-<Grunfeld> (white): +1 -0 =0 (black): +0 -0 =1

Botvinnik's Opening Prep Notebook: He prepared the Gruenfeld.

===

-<King's Indian> (white): +1 -1 =0

Botvinnik's Opening Prep Notebook: He prepared the King's Indian.

===

-<Queen's Gambit> (black): +0 -0 =4

Botvinnik's Opening Prep Notebook: He prepared the Queen's Gambit.

===

-<Sicilian> (black): +1 -0 =0

Botvinnik's Opening Prep Notebook: He prepared the Sicilian

===

-<Queen's Indian> (white): +0 -1 =0

Botvinnik's Opening Prep Notebook: He did not prepare the Queen's Indian.

===

-<English> (black): +0 -0 =1

Botvinnik's Opening Prep Notebook: He did not prepare the English.

===

-<Reti> (black): +0 -0 =1

Botvinnik's Opening Prep Notebook: He did not prepare the Reti.

--Mikhail Botvinnik
"Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951" Igor Botvinnik ed.
Ken Neat transl.
(Edition Olms 2004), pp.103-113

##########################

Course of the Match

Tatiana Boleslavskaya (Bronstein's wife):

<"Few people knew that, when Devik played this match in the Tchaikovsky Hall, his parents were sitting in the first rank in the audience. As a former prisoner of several camps it was forbidden for his father to be in Moscow. Sitting close by in his loge was the powerful chief of the KGB General V.S. Abakumov. While Devik was playing he had to think constantly of this potentially dangerous situation. And, in spite of his <<<subconscious desire not to become World Champion,>>> Devik did not lose this match to Botvinnik whom he did not regard as such an exceptionally good player as most thought he was. The result was a draw thereby proving to the whole world that he had enormous talent and was amongst the very best grandmasters of all time.">

-David Bronstein and Tom Furstenberg
"The Sorcerer's Apprentice"
(Cadogan 1995), p.22

###########################################

1st game Dutch Defense

Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 <1/2>

Botvinnik:

<"So, the Dutch Defence. And this is no accident. In this match my opponent normally employed those openings that I had usually chosen earlier. He apparently thought that he would <<<force me to fight against my 'own' systems...>>> Such a 'method' seems to me to be rather naive, if it was not forced. It was probably all based on the fact that Bronstein did not have anything significant prepared, and in the given instance this variation is not bad. The results, however, could not be good- I was forced to play openings which I knew quite well; of course, this made things easier for me, if it is taken into account that for three years I had been cut off from chess.">

Mikhail Botvinnik
"Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951"

Igor Botvinnik ed.
Ken Neat transl.
(Edition Olms 2004), p.16

===

############################

2d game Grunfeld Exchange

Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951 <1/2>

############################

3d game French Tarrasch

Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 <1/2>

############################

4th game QGD Slav

Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951 <1/2>

############################

5th game Nimzo Indian

Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 <0-1>

Botvinnik's Match Diary:

"It all turned out the other way round. But, in general, it all turned out correctly, apart from time, strength and the result. It was he who won- with an attack on the king. Flohr 1935 + Romanovsky?"

-Mikhail Botvinnik
"Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951," p.33

############################

6th game Sicilian Richter-Rauzer

Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951 <0-1>

After 7...h6:

click for larger view

Botvinnik:

"I prepared this variation specially for the present match. Black goes in for an inferior pawn formation, but he gains a 'tooth-like' set-up in the centre, as well as the advantage of the two bishops, the strength of which may tell, particularly in the endgame. I found this plan while analysing the game Dubinin-Koblencs (1949)." P Dubinin vs Koblents, 1949

-Mikhail Botvinnik
"Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951," p.33

############################

7th game Dutch Defense

Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 <1-0>

Botvinnik's annotation after Black resigns:

"In this game my nerves proved to be a little stronger. This was probably helped by the many hours I had spent in the fresh air by the raging Moscow River! The point was that on free days I travelled to my dacha (in Nikoina gora), and unexpectedly the ice began to drift. By chance (on account of an ice blockage) the river cleared; I was taken across on a boat, and I arrived in time for the game!"

Botvinnik's Match Diary:

"Played, in general, passively and also blundered (Rxc2?). For the moment rather weak. And analysed disjointedly. Don't listen to the seconds during analysis."

-Mikhail Botvinnik
"Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951," p.41

############################

8th game QGD Meran

Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951 <1/2>

############################

9th game Dutch Defense

Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 <1/2>

############################

10th game Dutch Defense

Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951 <1/2>

############################

11th game Queen's Indian

Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 <0-1>

############################

12th game Dutch Defense

Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951 <0-1>

############################

13th game Nimzo Indian

Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 <1/2>

############################

14th game Reti Opening

Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951 <1/2>

############################

15th game French Tarrasch

Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 <1/2>

############################

16th game Dutch Defense

Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951 <1/2>

############################

17th game Nimzo Indian

Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 <0-1>

############################

18th game QGD Semi-Slav

Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951 <1/2>

############################

19th game Neo-Grunfeld

Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 <1-0>

############################

20th game English

Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951 <1/2>

############################

21st game King's Indian

Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 <0-1>

############################

22d game Dutch Defense

Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951 <1-0>

############################

23d game King's Indian

Botvinnik vs Bronstein, 1951 <1-0>

Botvinnik:

<"(Bronstein) <<<behaved outrageously.>>> In the auditorium, directly opposite the stage, was the box of the KGB, where all his supporters from his Dinamo club were sitting. So when he sacrificed something or won a pawn, they all applauded. He would make a move and quickly go behind the stage, then he would suddenly dart out and disapperar again. In the auditorium there was laughter, and this hindered my playing. And regarding the fact that he claimed during the 23d game he was thinking more about the fate of his father, he was prompted to say this by Weinstein, his evil genius. Weinstein was a dreadful man, simply dreadful. He hated me, and he did not want me to become World Champion.">

-Genna Sosonko
"Russian Silhouettes"
(New in Chess, 3d Edition, 2001), p.39

===

Botvinnik:

"After 40 minutes' thought, Black resigned."

-Mikhail Botvinnik, "Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951" p.99

===

Soltis:

-Andrew Soltis, "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" (McFarland 3000), pp.192-94

===

Lev Khariton:

-Lev Khariton, "Love and Bitterness" "Chesscafe.com" (Sept 1988) http://www.chesscafe.com/text/botbr...

############################

24th game QGD Semi-Slav

Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951 <1/2>

===

Annotations by Evgeny Sveshnikov:

<"19...Rxd4 20.Rxd4 Bc5 21.Rd1 Bxe3 22.Qxe3 <<<Draw agreed on the proposal of Black.>>> Of course, in the final position Black has a big advantage, and it is especially marked after the accurate 22...Qb4!, and if 23.Qe2, then 23...Nd5! 24.Ne4 a5, when White has no way of strengthening his position, whereas under the cover of his strong knight at d5 Black gradually prepares the advance of his central pawns. But the title of world champion is far more valuable! Final match score: Botvinnik 12 Bronstein 12.">

-Mikhail Botvinnik "Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951" Igor Botvinnik ed. Ken Neat transl. (Edition Olms 2004), p.102

===

Bronstein:

<"When the 24th game was finished, many journalists came to the stage and asked Botvinnik to hold a press conference. The Champion agreed but <<<'forgot'>>> to invite me to attend also. It so happened that neither before, during or after the match did the press ask me a single question about this contest!">

--David Bronstein and Tom Furstenberg
"The Sorcerer's Apprentice"
(Cadogan 1995), p.17

###########################

Political Controversies

Budapest Candidates (1950)

Steve Giddins:

<"...in the Russian magazine 64, Smyslov claimed that the finish of the Budapest tournament had been pre-arranged. He claimed that Bronstein's mentor, Boris Vainstein, had persuaded Boleslavsky to allow Bronstein to catch him up, as well as pressurising Keres to lose to Bronstein in the last round. The basis of this <<<alleged fix>>> was precisely that Boleslavsky had a terrible record against Botvinnik, whereas Bronstein had always been a difficult opponent for the world champion. Vainstein and Botvinnik were bitter enemies, and the former was keen to see him dethroned as world champion.">

-Yuri Averbakh
"Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes- the Personal Memoir of a Soviet Chess Legend."

Andrew Soltis:

<"Controversy arose among the Soviet delegation at Budapest when Kotov charged that Veinstein, Bronstein's second, had come to the tournament 'to distribute points among the Jews,' according to Vladimir and Isaak Linder. Kotov said Biktor Goglidze, head of the delegation, was helping Veinstein in this. Kotov thought it suspicious that Flohr lost to Bronstein and Lilenthal allowed the young star to draw with him in a better position. He complained to the ambassador. Veinstein denied he was arranging for Bronstein to win the tournament and pointed out that Keres, who was clearly not Jewish, lost the crucial last round game that enabled Bronstein to catch up to Boleslavsky and tie for first prize.

But the tournament's finish was not without intrigue. The semiofficial version, as offered by Neishtadt, was: 'The careful Boleslavsky preferred not to take risks.' The truth is that Boleslavsky was convinced to give Bronstein a chance. Boleslavsky later told Albert Kapengut that Bronstein asked for a chance to catch up. <<<Bronstein gave a slightly different version, saying that 'after a talk with Boris Veinstien' Boleslavsky 'decided to slow down to allow me to tie for first place.'>>> In any event, Boleslavsky was in sole first place from the eighth round to the 17th and penultimate round. But he drew his last two games without a fight- against Kotov in 21 moves and with White against Gideon Stahlberg in 16- after agreeing to a quick draw with White against Bronstein in a game that looks like prepared analysis. In the final two rounds Bronstein beat Stahlberg and won one of his greatest games ever, against Keres...

The playoff match was held in Moscow at the Central Chess Club... with no prize money and no bitterness between the two players. It 'seems to have been the only occasion in history of chess contests when players exchanged bouquets of bright flowers before the first move in the first game,' Bronstein wrote.">

-Andrew Soltis, "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" (McFarland 1997), pp.186-87

============

Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match (1951)

Bronstein:

<"The only thing I am prepared to say about all this controversy is that I was subjected to strong psychological pressure from various sources and <<<it was entirely up to me to yield to that pressure or not.>>> Let's leave it at that. I had reasons not to become the World Champion as in those times such a title meant that you were entering an official world of chess bureaucracy with many formal obligations. Such a position is not compatible with my character. Since my childhood I have enjoyed freedom and despite the country that I grew up in, I have tried to live all my years in this spirit and I am very happy that today I feel the same and can enjoy my freedom.">

-David Bronstein and Tom Furstenberg
"The Sorcerer's Apprentice"
(Cadogan 1995), p.16

===

Edward Winter, Chessnote 4753:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

<The late David Bronstein seldom gave interviews, but a substantial one with Antonio Gude appeared on pages 38-42 of the March 1993 Revista Internacional de Ajedrez. Bronstein expressed irritation that he was remembered for his world championship match with Botvinnik and his book on the 1953 Candidates' tournament. Asked whether he had been under pressure to lose the former event, he stated that, although there had not been direct pressure, circumstances related to his father, the fact that he was a Jew, and a clear institutional preference for Botvinnik had resulted in psychological pressure; Bronstein considered that winning the match could have been very damaging for him, although that did not mean that he had <<<lost intentionally.>>> For the record we quote the full exchange on this matter:

‘Gude: ¿Qué me dice del match con Botvinnik? ¿Le presionaron para que usted perdiera?

Bronstein: No hubo presión directa, naturalmente. Pero existían circunstancias, como mi padre, un manifiesto opositor al régimen, que había estado varios años en prisión, mi condición de judío, la marcada preferencia institucional por Botvinnik, a quien se le veía como un modelo soviético de campeón ... Había la presión psicológica del entorno, y a mí me parecía que ganar podría perjudicarme seriamente, lo cual no significa que yo perdiera de forma deliberada ...'

Google Translation:

<'Gude: What about the match with Botvinnik? Would you pressured to lose?

Bronstein: There was no direct pressure naturally. But there are circumstances, like my father, an opposition manifesto regime, who had been several years in prison, my Jewishness, the marked preference for institutional Botvinnik, whom he saw as a Soviet champion model ... There was the psychological pressure of the environment, and <<<it seemed to me that winning could seriously harm me, which does not mean that I deliberately lost>>> ... '>

Bronstein spoke of the influence of his father, a rebellious defender of democracy. ‘From him I inherited that trait: when I am forbidden to do something, I rebel.'>

===

Luis Rentero:

<In a Fischer interview, he reports this recollection of an encounter with <<<Bobby>>> after he had lost to Spassky at Mar del Plata in 1960.

Rentero says he saw Bobby crying about the loss, and then he says that <<<David Bronstein>>> entered and said this--

Bronstein to Fischer:

"Why are you crying? Don't cry. Just because of one game? I was made to lose a world championship match to Botvinnik, and I didn't cry.">

Dimitry Plisetsky and Sergey Voronkov
Russians versus Fischer
Ken Neat transl.
(Everyman Chess 2005), p.56

===

Tatiana Boleslavskaya (Bronstein's wife):

<"Few people knew that, when Devik played this match in the Tchaikovsky Hall, his parents were sitting in the first rank in the audience. As a former prisoner of several camps it was forbidden for his father to be in Moscow. Sitting close by in his loge was the powerful chief of the KGB General V.S. Abakumov. While Devik was playing he had to think constantly of this potentially dangerous situation. And, in spite of his <<<subconscious desire not to become World Champion,>>> Devik did not lose this match to Botvinnik whom he did not regard as such an exceptionally good player as most thought he was. The result was a draw thereby proving to the whole world that he had enormous talent and was amongst the very best grandmasters of all time.">

-David Bronstein and Tom Furstenberg
"The Sorcerer's Apprentice"
(Cadogan 1995), p.22

###########################