Well, seriously, looking through Keres' games (again), I noticed a combination of straightforwardness, elegance and understandability and brilliance of course I've rarely seen with other masters. Smyslov comes close, but he's a bit more manouvering than Keres.

Very well stated <ndg2>. The reasons I think Keres games are among the most instructive to study. And, of course, his annotations are excellent, very straight-forward.

Some Keres books - My favorities are the Golombek/ARCO series, Road to the Top, Power Chess and Quest for Chess Perfection -

Golombek - Grandmaster of Chess: The Early Years of Paul Keres

Golombek - Grandmaster of Chess: The Middle Years of Paul Keres

Golombek - Grandmaster of Chess: The Later Years of Paul Keres

Gude - Keres 222 Partidas

Heuer - Meie Keres (Estonian)

Keres - The Art of the Middle Game

Keres - Ausgewahlte Partien 1931-1958

Keres - Chess Combination as Fine Art

Keres - 100 Games of Paul Keres (Russian)

Keres: Photographs and Games

Keres - Power Chess

Keres – Practical Chess Endings

Keres – Quest for Chess Perfection

Keres - The Road to the Top

Keres - Theorie der Schacheroffnungen (3 Volumes)

Linder - The Chess Genius Keres (German)

Neistadt - Paul Keres Chess Master Class

Postma - Paul Keres Ausgewahlte Partien 1958-1975

Raamat - Malestusi Paul Keresest (Estonian)

Reinfeld - Keres Best Games, Part I ('Mimeo Series')

Reinfeld - Keres Best Games, Part II ('Mimeo Series')

Reinfeld - Keres' Best Games of Chess 1931-1948

Reinfeld - Keres' Best Games of Chess 1931-1940

Suetin - Das Schachgenie Paul Keres

Varnusz - Paul Keres Best Games - v1

Varnusz - Paul Keres Best Games - v2

http://www.chessdom.com/wp-content/...

The 25th Keres Memorial – ACP Open, dedicated to Keres 100 Jubilee, will take place from January 8 to January 10 in Tallinn, Estonia. The competition is part of the ACP 2016 Tour.

The main organizer Estonian Sports Association (ESA) Kalev is keeping the memory of Paul Keres alive through this tournament. Keres was member of ESA Kalev and always represented sportsclub in all his matches.

http://www.chessdom.com/25th-keres-...

<drnooo: Keres, even were he to have escaped to the west, with his wife, that night they missed the boat, literally and figuratively, might well have become World Champion.>

After much thought, I think I agree with this. Hostility in the USSR against people seen as Nazi collaborators was not surprisingly at a high during the war and post-war years.

An excerpt from a post of mine in the Capablanca page.

<Until the USSR Absolute Championship (1941), Botvinnik and Keres had played in AVRO and the 1940 USSR Championship. Keres had always placed ahead of him. It's almost certain that Keres was affected by the Soviet annexation of Estonia, and could have been playing below par in USSR 1940, yet he was still good enough to place ahead of Botvinnik.

As for USSR 1941, as I have posted this tournament was organized on behalf of Botvinnik. The other players must have known it of course. This is one tournament where there might have been pressure on the others not to upstage the state authorities' favorite. Yes Keres only placed second, but if he had placed first, there was really no telling what harm the more fanatical ideologues of that time would have done to him (and war times produce more fanatical ideologues than usual). I have no doubt this possibility played in his mind.

When Estonia was 'freed' from the Soviet Union by ironically another invasion (by the Germans), there are historical accounts that many Estonians welcomed the Germans as liberators. Keres could well have been one of these Estonians. In any case, he played quite strongly in the German held tournaments. The main reason why his performance is generally disparaged is because he was playing in Nazi organized tournaments, and because AAA tended to come ahead of him.

If one peruses some of their games, both AAA and Keres were actually playing strong and imaginative chess in these German tournaments. I think it was in one of these tournaments that Keres invented the Keres attack. They both seemed to have been rejuvenated. Keres was feeling (even if mistakenly) that his country was free again. AAA must have been entertaining notions that Germany would win the war and he could return home in triumph to Russia.

If at this point in time, 1942 or 1943, either of them had played Botvinnik in a match, in a neutral country of course, it's still my opinion that either a hopeful (maybe I can return home to Russia!) Alekhine or an inspired Keres (my country is free at last!) would have beaten Botvinnik. I think they played better than Botvinnik, and Botvinnik had never clearly evinced superiority over these two in the past. Moreover, they seemed to have been quite motivated when playijng each other. After all was said and done, AAA was still World Champion, and Keres was still number one title contender after having won proto Candidate AVRO 1938 and beaten Euwe in a kind of proto Candidates Final match in 1940, and they were playing in the same tournaments and were feeling free.

I know the above speculation on my part goes against the popular notion that AAA was declining in the war years, and that Keres was being pressured by the Nazis to play badly. I now disagree with the above popular notions..

Botvinnik was never seriously challenged in the USSR until the 1950s, when a new generation of Soviet masters came to fore. True Keres was 'Sovietized' but under the circumstances of the state having an obvious favorite, there was no way he could have posed a threat to Botvinnik's dominance inside wartime USSR.>

Alekhine died in 1946. If Keres had managed to successfully escape to the West and without USSR and Botvinnik issues, I believe that Keres would have played stronger chess than he did immediately post-war.

#PAULKERES100

I agree. There have been much discussion on this in other posts throughout CG. Botvinnik seemed to have played only sparingly in the 1950s and 1960s, and reserved his best efforts for his WC matches, and even then he was not dominant.

In a previous post, I opined that the Botvinnik who lost to Smyslov, Tal, and Petrosian in World Championship matches would probably have lost to Keres as well. If one notes Keres' record against these champions who became champions by beating Botvinnik, they were never clearly better than him, in spite of the fact that Keres was already on the decline during the time period wherein they were playing each other.

Paul Keres tied Vasily Smyslov 9 to 9, with 22 draws.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

Paul Keres beat Mikhail Tal 8 to 5, with 17 draws.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian tied Paul Keres 3 to 3, with 29 draws.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

I haven't really read anyone pointing out that Keres was younger than Botvinnik, yet the young Keres until early 1941 was stronger than Botvinnik. Although there are exceptions, the general trend is that if at a younger age, chessplayer A has become better than chessplayer B, then chessplayer A will for the rest of their careers usually be better than the aging chessplayer B.

If one looks at Keres' games, does it not feel that the young Keres of 1936 to 1943, except when he was playing in the USSR, was playing more aggressive and hungry chess than the Sovietized Keres? Other people might have different opinions then mine of course.

<I haven't really read anyone pointing out that Keres was younger than Botvinnik, yet the young Keres until early 1941 was stronger than Botvinnik.>

No, he wasn't. Finishing slightly ahead of him in two tournaments doesn't cut it. Botvinnik is ranked #1 by chessmetrics for much of 1936-37 and 1939-40. Keres was never ranked #1 in his life, as Petrosianic already noted. In one of those two tournaments you're relying on, the 1940 Soviet championship, Keres finished behind Lilienthal, Bondarevsky, and Smyslov -- does that mean he was worse than they were?

<Although there are exceptions, the general trend is that if at a younger age, chessplayer A has become better than chessplayer B, then chessplayer A will for the rest of their careers usually be better than the aging chessplayer B.>

Aging? Botvinnik was 30 years old in 1941, which is when he began winning every event he competed in, dominating Keres in the process. Fischer got much stronger at age 27. Alekhine got much stronger at 38. Botvinnik got much stronger at 30. It happens.

<In no year after 1950 was Botvinnik demonstrably the best player in the world, and his own well-known comment that he was "the best among equals" was not modesty, but self-serving egotism.>

That's not what he said. He said he was "primus inter pares," which means "first among equals." We get it from the Romans. Quoting wikipedia, <It is typically used as an honorary title for those who are formally equal to other members of their group but are accorded unofficial respect, traditionally owing to their seniority in office.> Botvinnik was referring to the fact that he was world champion without, in fact, being demonstrably better than several of his top rivals. His statement is the antithesis of "self-serving egotism."

<In a previous post, I opined that the Botvinnik who lost to Smyslov, Tal, and Petrosian in World Championship matches would probably have lost to Keres as well. If one notes Keres' record against these champions who became champions by beating Botvinnik, they were never clearly better than him, in spite of the fact that Keres was already on the decline during the time period wherein they were playing each other.>

Trigonometry is unecessary. Botvinnik and Keres played each other.

<Classical games: Mikhail Botvinnik beat Paul Keres 8 to 3, with 9 draws.>

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

Anyway, there were qualifiers to play Botvinnik. Smyslov (twice), Tal, and Petrosian won those qualifiers. Keres never did.

Also, don't forget Bronstein, who played Botvinnik as well as any of them.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

<Classical games: David Bronstein beat Paul Keres 7 to 4, with 19 draws>

Some thoughts on that I posted a while back:

<perfidious: <jess> Never read B's memoirs, but that sounds like a perilous business, from only the details I knew-which were less than what you have provided.

It was one thing to be in Paul Keres' shoes, and even Keres escaped danger by a mere hair's breadth after playing in events under German auspices. For a player of somewhat lesser stature to have engaged in what the Soviets would have considered outright collaboration would have meant a certain date with the executioner.

Did not Bohatyrchuk wind up in Bavaria (American zone of occupation) in the aftermath of the fall of the Nazis? That was a break, compared to what consequences would have ensued had he been caught in the Soviet Zone or one of the countries they occupied.>

Agree with <keypusher> here.

When interviewed for <New In Chess> in the mid 1980s, Botvinnik acknowledged that by the mid fifties, Smyslov had outstripped him and was the strongest player in the world.

<(I would also point out his notable absence from many Soviet championships in the middle and late 50s as relevant and telling.)>