|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 65 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-10-09 | | AnalyzeThis: <AnalyzeThis: According to the Soltis article, Smyslov never denied Bronstein's claims.> <keypusher: Yes he did> <AnalyzeThis: Really? Can you give us a quote where he did? > <keypusher: Talking to you is an exercise in futility> That's our buddy keypusher for you. Actual quotes, rather than his paraphrase, from something he didn't even read, are too much to ask for. |
|
Dec-11-09
 | | chancho: Found this in a Mark Taimanov interview from 2004:
<Chessville: Zurich 1953 is considered one of the greatest tournaments of the 20th Century. How did you feel it was going, round by round? What was it like to play Reshevsky, and did you feel any extra pressure to do well against the American? Any comment on Bronstein's recent allegations?> <MT: I think that the Candidates tournament in Zurich in 1953 was the greatest chess event of the last century, and I was happy to have played there. Certainly for the Soviet politicians the success of our chess players was very important - they might resort to backstage maneuvers David Bronstein has related about the mid-century. I shall say frankly, at that time I did not know anything about it - as we say in Russia, it was not accepted "to carry out the rubbish from the izba" (Editor's note: an izba is a peasant's hut). All this was usually done secretly. The most of what was demanded of me, for example, - was the threat to not finish ahead of our leaders, (and most of all Smyslov), i.e. to not aspire to win against them. And to play with special attention versus our leader's chief competitors.> http://www.chessville.com/editorial... Any comments? |
|
| Dec-11-09 | | ughaibu: Other than Smyslov, who would the "leaders" have been? Presumably Keres and. . . . Bronstein!?! Did Taimanov throw this game: Taimanov vs Bronstein, 1953 |
|
| Dec-11-09 | | ughaibu: Come to think of it, I remember Taimanov saying that it was especially taboo to win against Kotov, and after all, Kotov had won the interzonal with a score that's still the record. Yet: Taimanov vs Kotov, 1953 |
|
Dec-11-09
| | chancho: Taimanov said <that he did not know anything about the rigging at the time>, but was told under threat to not aspire to win against the leaders and to play hard against the non Soviets?
This doesn't make any sense to me.
Either he knew something was afoot, or he didn't.
But why say this stuff in the 2004 interview?
This kind of stuff denigrates Smyslov's legacy. |
|
| Dec-11-09 | | ughaibu: There was no Soviet, at Zurich, who wasn't beaten by a Soviet competitor. |
|
Dec-11-09
| | chancho: So the conspiracy theory is the KGB wanted Smyslov to win Zurich, and he alone? But why him?
Any Soviet who had won the event, (be it Bronstein, Petrosian, etc.) faces another Soviet: (Botvinnik) in the title match; and the title remains in the Soviets hands anyway. What about Tal? Did the Soviets chose him to be their top guy and told the other Soviet players not to play to win against him?
Did they tell their players the same when Smyslov won Amsterdam in 1956?
It all sounds rather nonsensical. |
|
| Dec-11-09 | | ughaibu: According to a kibitz here: Smyslov vs Bronstein, 1953 Bronstein was in a winning position against Smyslov, and was intending to win. |
|
| Dec-11-09 | | Petrosianic: <So the conspiracy theory is the KGB wanted Smyslov to win Zurich, and he alone?>
I don't think that's the theory. I think the theory is that they tended to favor him because he had jumped out to the lead. But why him? Any Soviet who had won the event, (be it Bronstein, Petrosian, etc.) faces another Soviet: (Botvinnik) in the title match; and the title remains in the Soviets hands anyway. What about Tal? Did the Soviets chose him to be their top guy and told the other Soviet players not to play to win against him? Did they tell their players the same when Smyslov won Amsterdam in 1956? It all sounds rather nonsensical. The earliest story Bronstein tells is about being "ordered" to beat Reshevsky in Round 13. Nothing at all before that time. And most of it starts with Round 23. <What about Tal? Did the Soviets chose him to be their top guy and told the other Soviet players not to play to win against him?> Apparently not, since Keres beat him 3 times, and Smyslov beat him once. But there was no credible non-Soviet threat in 1959, so no motive for any manipulation. Really, Reshevsky was the only serious threat in the entire Candidates Tournament era. Apart from Reshevsky in 1953, here are all the non-Soviet Candidates who finished a Candidates tournament with a winning score: 1950: None
1953: Najdorf, +1
1956: Szabo, +1
1959: None
1962: Fischer, +1
It's pretty slim pickings. Reshevsky's + score in 1953 is greater than all the other non-Soviet + scores in all 5 tournaments combined. People sometimes talk as though the Soviets were quaking in their boots every time another country produced a talented junior, but in reality they were pretty arrogant about their supremacy. |
|
Dec-11-09
| | chancho: I checked the comment ughaibu mentioned on his link of Smyslov v Bronstein 1953. This game was played in rd 11:
<Bronstein: 27... f4, "A serious error. Having written the winning move, 27... Rae8, down on my scoresheet, and with my hand already reaching for the rook, I changed my mind at the last moment, and spent the rest of the game regretting this lost opportunity."> In that same page of the book: pg 126:
Bronstein refused a draw offer, then Smyslov refuses Bronstein's, and makes a move that get's him in trouble and Bronstein in his uncertainty picks another move. The next day, he fervently looks at other piece moves to see if he could win, but concludes that Smyslov had a perpetual, so the draw was justified. Funny that Bronstein went to all this trouble for a game that in essence he was never supposed to win. |
|
| Dec-11-09 | | Petrosianic: If we extend this into the next two series of Candidates <Matches>, we start to see why people were so excited about Larsen in the 60's. In the 1965 Candidates <Matches>, Larsen had finished +2 (+3 if you count the 3rd place playoff match). In the 1968 Candidates, Larsen had finished -2 (but +1 if you count the 3rd place match). Compared to what had gone before, this was pretty hot stuff. In the late 60's, Reshevsky was approaching HIS 60's, and Fischer had, at that time, never lived up to his promise. Larsen seemed like the best hope. And he certainly had the personality to be a great spokesman for the game, had he ever become champion. All people remember about Larsen now is 1971, but in the 60's, he was the starting quarterback, especially after winning two Interzonals (he even won a 3rd in 1976). |
|
| Dec-11-09 | | AnalyzeThis: I think that Taimanov is saying that he didn't know the specifics of what Bronstein was told to do. He does know that he wasn't supposed to beat Smyslov, but was supposed to give everything he had against Reshevsky. Very interesting quote, chancho. |
|
Dec-11-09
| | chancho: <AnalyzeThis> <He doesn't know the specifics, but he knows that he's not supposed to beat Smyslov.> Doesn't make any sense. Why keep that information from Taimanov or any of the other Soviet players if the goal is to keep Reshevsky from winning?
Having everyone in the loop assures cohesiveness in the operation..
And why would Bronstein after being told not beat Smyslov, tries to beat him in rd 11, even rejecting a draw offer?
Bronstein was a good writer with a good imagination, that's for sure. |
|
Dec-11-09
| | chancho: Would like to see the article Smyslov wrote on 64 denouncing Bronstein's claims of rigging at Zurich in 1953.
<keypusher> mentioned this article on Smyslov's page a few years ago as well as here.
Maybe someone has it, and can post it here? |
|
Dec-11-09
 | | keypusher: Losses inflicted by Soviet players on the three leading Soviet players at Zurich. Curiously, Bronstein was the only one of the three to lose to a non-Soviet (Szabo). Maybe the three were exempt from the don't-defeat-your-leaders rule, but that still leaves Keres-Averbakh, Kotov-Smyslov and Geller-Bronstein unexplained. Kotov vs Smyslov, 1953
Bronstein vs Keres, 1953
Keres vs Averbakh, 1953
Smyslov vs Keres, 1953
Keres vs Smyslov, 1953
Geller vs Bronstein, 1953
It would be interesting to look at things like average length of game by Soviet players against Reshevsky versus average length of game by Soviet players against Smyslov/Bronstein/Keres. Reshevsky's losses were against Bronstein (2), Smyslov, and Kotov. I looked, not very rigorously, at how Soviet players treated one another the round before one of them had to play Reshevsky. The way the draw seemed to work was that you got Keres the round before you got Reshevsky. If Keres was giving his fellow-Soviets an easy time in those games, he certainly concealed it well. Of course even the most rabid anti-Reshevskyist would admit that the incentives for Soviet players in Candidates tournaments were less than perfect from the competitive standpoint, which is why FIDE instituted matches in the mid-60s. I still need to read this.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... |
|
| Dec-11-09 | | Red October: <AT> <What is true is you run around and say the Fischer avoided a match with Karpov> he did <but the <first time> somebody says that Botvinnik avoided a match with Reshevky, you go crying to momma.> he didnt, Reshevsky did not qualify for a match, |
|
| Dec-11-09 | | Jim Bartle: Having been on the business end of AT's arguments a few times on the Rogoff page, it's fascinating to watch it from the sidelines. It's sort of heartening to see that his unique style befuddles others with its refusal to deal with the issues head on, and to invent absurd "in other words" claims, as much as it has befuddled me. |
|
| Dec-11-09 | | AnalyzeThis: <chancho: Why keep that information from Taimanov or any of the other Soviet players if the goal is to keep Reshevsky from winning? > When the Patriots were really good, Beliceck used to say to some of the defenders: "Just cover this 10 foot area, and forget above everything else." He knew just what to say to each of the people, and it all worked to together great. |
|
Dec-11-09
| | chancho: <AnalyzeThis> Sorry bro, I just don't buy the football analogy with this. If there was some sort of collusion going on in Zurich, you have to figure that they got all their players together before going to the event, to plan all the particulars and then proceed. It would have the logical way to do it. |
|
| Dec-11-09 | | Red October: and of course there should be no single player to break the cordon... but of course they are commies..so they do what they are told... |
|
| Dec-11-09 | | AnalyzeThis: Well, chancho called me his bro, so tonight's not a complete loss. I just don't know how we can read statements from Taimanov, Bronstein, and Suetin, and take the default position that the Smyslov camp is to be believed. |
|
Dec-11-09
| | chancho: <AnalyzeThis> But why are these guys to be believed?
Bronstein's motive seems to be unbridled envy and frustration.
Taimanov was not as successful as Smyslov, and Suetin even less so.
These statements could be driven by something other than the truth.
Look at Smyslov's record...he was good enough at an advanced age to play a candidate's final against Garry Kasparov... why would someone that good need any help against Reshevsky? I'm just saying... |
|
Dec-11-09
 | | Phony Benoni: <keypusher: It would be interesting to look at things like average length of game by Soviet players against Reshevsky versus average length of game by Soviet players against Smyslov/Bronstein/Keres.> OK. In this chart, the first two figures are average length versus Soviet/non-Soviet players from the first half of the tournament, the next two are from the second half, and the final two the average for the entire tournament. Reshevsky 36/34 42/31 39/33
Smyslov 37/36 26/36 32/36
Bronstein 36/44 29/40 33/42
Keres 41/44 35/34 38/39 |
|
Dec-11-09
| | keypusher: <Phony Benoni> Dammit man, don't scare me like that! And thank you! Anyway, it does look like the Soviets were taking their best shots at Sammy in the tournament's second half (three of his four losses took place in the second half, though one was self-inflicted desperation (Smyslov) and one was after first place was pretty much wrapped up (Bronstein)). By contrast, the youessessarians were treating Smyslov and Bronstein rather gently in the second half. But it doesn't look like anyone was doing Keres any favors. Most intriguing. |
|
| Dec-12-09 | | AnalyzeThis: <chancho: Look at Smyslov's record...he was good enough at an advanced age to play a candidate's final against Garry Kasparov... why would someone that good need any help against Reshevsky? I'm just saying... > Ever see "The Cincinatti Kid", chancho? Good movie. Anyway, the two best poker players in the world are playing each other, but somebody tries to fix the event in favor of one of them. With people like Smyslov and Botvinnik, it didn't really matter what THEY thought. The big bosses wanted to win first and ask questions later. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 65 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
