|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 66 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-04-06 | | LancelotduLac: Only 12 pages of kibitzing for one of the very greatest players, theorists, and teachers of the game? I'm in full agreement with <talisman>, too: it is a travesty that someone like Timoshchenko is in the drop-down list of players while a three-time World Champion of Botvinnik's stature can't seem to make it. What gives, Chessgames.com?! |
|
| Jan-05-06 | | LancelotduLac: <chessgames.com> Thank you for adding him. :P |
|
| Jan-05-06 | | OJC: I just got Botvinnik's < 100 Selected Games >. An interesting quote from the concluding part of his opening essay < The Russian and Soviet School of Chess >. "In former days Soviet masters learned from the outstanding foreign grand masters (learning is always a necessary process, and we shall not hesitate to learn from foreign masters in the future also, if their creative work provides anything worthy of study)." Ouch. Something lost in the translation? :) |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | fred lennox: That there is only 12 pages of kibitzing so far is niether surprising nor disappointing. Though he is misundersttod as a player and man, he does not have the quality of popularity like some. As a man, for those who knew him well, Botvinnik is a very entertaining man in company who was never short of anecdotes. His english was poor, so then he spoke in a dry, calculating way that was misleading. As a player, quotes by him show that intuition, risks and aesthetics were important to him. His famous quote "chess is the art of analysis", the word analysis gets painted in big red letters in broad daylight where the word art gets hidden away in a cave. |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | WMD: <As a man, for those who knew him well, Botvinnik is a very entertaining man in company who was never short of anecdotes. > Averbakh: <I was raised in an atmosphere of Botvinnik worship. When I got acquainted with him I discovered that he was a very difficult man to be with. If you were a good listener then everything was OK. He spoke, you listened, no problem. But if you gave your own opinion, he just did not hear you. The second thing that comes to mind is not only connected with Botvinnik. I call this the champion's condition. Because they are champion in chess they also think that they are champion in many more things. Botvinnik was typical of that. You could speak to him on anything and he would have his opinion. And there was no way to change his opinion.> In other words, Botvinnik was a know-it-all who liked the sound of his own voice. And Averbakh's view is consistent with others I've heard. |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | fred lennox: Botvinnik was a difficult man, no doubt about that. The quote of Avarbakh is common among celebraties. Friendship, if you want to call it that, is a one sided affair. |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | LancelotduLac: <That there is only 12 pages of kibitzing so far is niether surprising nor disappointing> I find it both surprising and disappointing that there are only 12 pages of kibitzing for maybe the most influential player of the 20th century. Soviet domination in chess began with and resulted from this man. Botvinnik was a practical player, no doubt, but anyone who thinks he did not care for or appreciate the art of chess must not have read his masterpiece "100 Selected Games," where he presents six of his own artistic compositions. Throughout the book one gets a feel for his aesthetic appreciation of the game. (The words "art" and "creativity" are not absent from the book, either) Let's not forget that if Botvinnik's games seem to lack creativity now, it's because so many players of the next (and subsequent) generation(s) were brought up on his games -- "Botvinnik worship" indeed! Botvinnik was a pioneer; no less an authority than Kasparov considers that he heralded a new age in chess. |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | fred lennox: Smyslov has 9 pages of kibitzing, Bronstein 12, so 12 isn't bad. Spassky once described Botvinnik's playing as a bulldozer, which is humorous. More kind artisticly, is comparing it to a romanesque building whose base almost looks truncated. The idea is the same. Economy and concentrated energy are a Botvinnik trait. This becomes more intense in the passing of years. Like an aging kung-fu master who lost some nimbleness and dexterity, he knows his opponents weaknesses and will exploit them with a minimun of florish. This culminates in his return match with Tal. As black he played the French once and the Caro Kann nine times. Yet Botvinnik plays with freedom and boldness missing in his other matches, except the Smyslov '58 match. |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | whiskeyrebel: "100 selected games" made me think a bit differently about Botvinnik. There's something lovable about him that I can't quite put my finger on in spite of the fact that he seems crotchety and stubborn. He must have been a very hard man to get along with. Bronstein's lengthy remarks about him in his "sorcerors apprentice" book paint a detailed picture of him in spite of the fact that Bronstein was deservedly bitter. I hope that as the years go by more masters who knew him add to our understanding of the rugged old bulldozer. |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | badmove: <LancelotduLac> That there is only 12 pages of kibitzing so far is niether surprising nor disappointing> Yes, I agree. The thing is that in these forums, the number of pages is almost determined by the amount of contradictory positions. So when you try to talk about the historical players, there are not too many points of disagreement, in which several peoples fills lot of pages with irresolute discussions. I remember once that some kibitzer (<TruthHurts>) fills lots of pages in another forum arguing with you. Imagine all the possible kibitzers like him (some of which are just bashers that don't care the history of chess, just they want to argue); you will understand why there are forums with 500+ pages. As Botvinnik is such a respected figure, as many others in the past, we only can post good comments and some stories, without counterpoints. That's the reason we have only 12 pages here. However, I prefer this that 500+ meaningless pages. At least I can read all these twelve pages and enjoy the comments. |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | Jafar219: <<badmove>:However, I prefer this that 500+ meaningless pages. At least I can read all these twelve pages and enjoy the comments.> I agree with it. |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | Father Karras: It's a pity Botvinnik's best chess years probably coincided with World War 2. He could've held the world title from 1939 (year of his aborted match negotiations with Alekhine) till 1963 if things went his way. As it is his title years from 1948-1963 (minus the 1 year interims) is awesome enough. |
|
| Jan-06-06 | | LancelotduLac: <badmove> I see your point. |
|
| Jan-07-06 | | brankat: <fred lennox><badmove><Lancedulac> It is because of well-informed & well-written comments, like Yours, that people come to this site, or Bronstein/Smyslov/Steinitz sites.
It makes all this worthwhile.
On the other hand, at least 75% of the "contents" on Kramnik/Kasparov/Fischer pages is mostly nonsense ( not to mention AJ's
"site", although we all go there occasionally for some fun ). Btw, I seem to remember a Fischer quote on M.M. Botvinnik. To paraphrase: Botvinnik took superficiallity out of the game. |
|
| Jan-08-06 | | Father Karras: <brankat> Who's AJ? Anatoly Jarpov? |
|
| Jan-08-06 | | brankat: <Father Karras> <Who's AJ? Anatoli Jarpov?> No. Not even Jarpov, let alone Karpov.
It is our LifeMaster A.J. GOLDSBY!
I see You are a new member of our flock, and not familiar with the funniest (hillarious) site in this database.
Whenever You feel bored, or want to have some fun visit Goldsby page.
You can start there approximately with page 38 or so if You don't want to go all the way back to the beginning. Enjoy! |
|
| Jan-08-06 | | pazzed paun: <whiskeyrebel> Botvinnik is and was not a loveable figure. He did however develop the air and manners of "the great teacher". 100 Selected games is much more fun read than A HALF CENTURY OF CHESS even though they contain many of the same games. A Half Century pruned most of comments and left only variations. 100 selected had great comments like "after move six Black is strategically lost" " nowadays a deep study has been made of the opening and White's twelveth move loses by force" ...when discussing a postion in the Sicilan Defense he said "every Russian Schoolboy knows that the Knight belongs on..."' these comments are great fun to read but may not be accurate. There is a Kasparov quote when Kasparov talked to Botvinnik about a blitz tournament Botvinnik is suppposed to have said "I don't give a damn about speed chess" case closed. I think we like the certainty behind such statements. |
|
| Jan-09-06 | | Father Karras: The crux is Botvinnik wasn't popular because he was too serious. He didn't joke like Keres, wasn't an underdog like Reshevsky or Bronstein, not a show-off like Najdorf, didn't think too highly of himself like Fine, wasn't mad about chess like Alekhine or suave and handsome like Capablanca. Probably couldn't sing like Smyslov either. He's also often misunderstood of as a stooge for the Soviet system. BUT could he play chess or what???!!! |
|
| Jan-09-06 | | brankat: <Father Karras> Covers every angle. Beautifully said! |
|
| Jan-09-06 | | Trouble: I think the reason that Botvinnik is such a controversial player in history is that even today its still not clear how he used his influence with the soviet authorities to achieve his chess ends. I think it's pretty clear from his writings and style of play that the ends always justify the means as long as you win. Also being the champion he seemed to take plenty of liberties in his critique of other players, which I'm sure many didn't appreciate. |
|
| Jan-09-06 | | pazzed paun: <Father Karras>read your history-he was a stooge of the Soviets and not one other player Soviet or non soviet
Botvinik"s generation or another has ever said anything else.
Kasparov in his multi-volume book said it was decided that Ryussia only needed one chess champion at a time and it was decided to be Botvinnik
HE plotted and schemed as early as the
mid-1930's. The players he could not outplay over the board he outmanevured
politically.
Bogatruck never had a chance to play out side of Russia yet he was one of B
toughest oppents in the early years.
Flohr was invited to live in USSR but he did not beat B in a match and never challenged him again.
1940 USSR championship B finishes 5-6
suddenly they need AN ABSOULTUTE CHAMPIONSHIP in 1941. (A SUPER_SUPER BOWL?)suprise Botvinnik wins, oh and they never had another absolute Championship?! lets not mention KERES or 1948 world championship or that his star pupil Karpov(learn from the master himself) tried to politically outmanuer his only rival Korchnoi. and it goes on and on. |
|
| Jan-09-06 | | brankat: <pazzed paun> <..The players he could not outplay over the board he outmanevoured politically> Botvinnik's score against his USSR competitors, late 30's-late 50's: 1. Botvinnik-Keres +9 -3 =9
2. Botvinnik-Bronstein +8 -6 =20
3. Botvinnik Boleslavsky +7 -1 =6
4. Botvinnik-Smyslov +27 -23 =53
5. Botvinnik-Kotov +4 -1 =4
6. Botvinnik-Flohr +6 -2 =30
7. Botvinnik-Bondarevsky +3 -3 =5
Botvinnik's score against international competitors:
1. Botvinnik-Alekhine +1 -0 =2
2. Botvinnik-Capablanca +2 -1 =5
3. Botvinik-Lasker +1 -0 =3
4. Botvinnik-Reshevsky +5 -2 =8
5. Botvinnik-Fine +0 -1 =2
6. Botvinnik-Euwe +2 -3 =9
These results are a matter of record. They are FACTS.
The rest of Your kibitz is speculation.
Judging by these results Botvinnik was fully capable of beating them over the board. Does not look he was in need of political maneouvering. As for international rivals, he certainly didn't need any maneouvering, except the one over the board. These 13 players listed above, were the strongest rivals he had during the period in question. The only losing scores are against Euwe & Fine.
Even these 2 results were very close.
I think the above numbers speak for themself. |
|
| Jan-09-06 | | brankat: Re. Botvinnik-Bondarevsky, the score is actually: +3 -2 =5. |
|
| Jan-09-06 | | who: Regarding Botvinnik Capablanca - you are counting a simul game as one of Botvinnik's wins. In general you need to be careful when cutting and pasting Chessgames.com's win/loss/draw record. It is incomplete, counts casual games, and in some cases the results it gives for a game are incorrect. |
|
| Jan-09-06 | | brankat: <who> <regarding Botvinik-Capablanca...> Thank You for reminding me of this.
Yes, I know the Database is not complete, but in Botvinnik's case I decided to use it, because most of these results I do remember from before, from different sources. As for casual games, it is unlikely to apply to Botvinnik, since he rarely played them. I do thank You for Your remarks. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 66 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
