Boleslavsky co-wrote a book on Petrosian-Spassky World Championship Rematch (1969) together with Bondarevsky. They wrote their perspectives and analyses -- Bole being the second on the side of Petrosian, Bondarevsky on the side of Spassky -- concurently and separately. Thus, their writings did not influence each other.

When I was a boy, my dad told me that the weirdest people at college were the psych majors. Fine (a Freudian) sure does nothing to contradict that. He was manifestly a pathological liar - he is always telling absurd stories like this, and I don't consider his anecdotes about fellow players so much unreliable, as false until proven otherwise.

http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Play... >

he was +100 -30 =104 in the lopez, probably the best record ever in the 20/21 century.

+94 -12 =88 in the sicilian by WHITE

...A sicilian-killer?!?!

86 games.... +60 ... -3 ... =23 !

<‘Amongst the new talents there are two who stand out more as great masters than the others: Botvinnik and, on a secondary level, Keres. Also Alekhine, of course; but he is not new; he is old like me. Keres plays admirably well; his sense of fantasy is enormous, his imagination fiery. But his judgment is unsteady. He does not always know if the game in front of him is won, lost or drawn; and when it is won it also sometimes happens that he does not know for sure why and how it is won. Then, understandably, he hesitates and selects his plans more through temperament than through a judgment which has not managed to form. [Entonces, explicablemente, vacila y escoge sus planes más que por un juicio que no ha llegado a formarse, por temperamento.] However, it is a defect to substitute, at certain points in a game, judgment with instinctive impulses which rise up from temperament – aggressive impulses in the case of Keres, defensive ones in other players. In the highly instructive game we played in the Team Tournament which finished in this beautiful city a month ago, I offered him a draw because there was no way at all that it could be won, either by him or by me. Keres did not accept my offer then, and only did so six moves later. How was it that, six moves before, he had not seen with the same clarity as I that it was impossible to force the game? It cannot be believed that Keres would attempt to win against me in an absolutely drawn position, so the only explanation is that his reasoning had not yet crystallized into concrete judgment; to use the same word as before, he was hesitating. ... Against Eliskases, also in that tournament, Keres had to choose between accepting a draw in a perfectly balanced rook ending and trying to force matters with a peculiar king excursion. He picked the latter and lost. Why? Because in circumstances where visual foresight is not sufficient, where accurate judgment is necessary, Keres is still not fully developed.>

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