ah, ok.

dmitrysm, go to Bill Wall's site at http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/chess.htm. Look for "Occupations." There are two listings.

this thread is interesting to me for the information on how chess greats made ends meet.  chess was and is like art in the regard that there are plenty of genii who nevertheless recieve no recognition or remuneration for their work and talent.  i would love to read an entire article about this aspect of the chess world, regardless of whether the thesis of the article is in agreement with my thoughts or not.  I think this would be fascinating to others, as well, actually: we are interested in chess personalities in part because we want to know what made them tick, and how they managed to rise to the heights that they did.  Perhaps talent is a relatively small part in the equation?  certainly, playing great chess takes a lot of one's time.

thank you, GreenLaser for the great article and everyone else for related info!

rjane04, this was a game between two great players. Even world championship matches have serious errors. Think of it as a heavyweight boxing match. A mistake can be quickly punished. When weakies play chess or box, many mistakes occur without full punishment. For spectators, the beauty is in seeing how to punish mistakes.

"Was that really a champion level game?", lol maybe it is not like a championship game brother. ha ha ha, speilmann overlooked those moves that's why he end up a knight behind. ha ha ha

I'm more interested in what people think of this opening - has anyone tried it?  How has it worked?  I've had mixed success - it's led me to some interesting end games

fleiman, I do not see what there is to argue about if your point is that Borvinnik was not only a chess player. I do not see those who are discussing the word "professional" as your opponents. I think we are helping each other to think about something. You are agreeing with Catalyst_Kh who pointed out that a person can have two professions. I do not see any reason to challenge Reshevsky to be a scientist or an engineer. He was an accountant. Fine did have a doctorate and did not continue to compete for the world title for reasons that had to do with conditions in chess and international politics. Botvinnik as a chess player and an engineer showed intellect, of course, but I think it is a clear overgeneralization to call him "a great and universal intellectual."

Despite number of my opponents grows I don’t agree with all your arguments. First of all, I wanted to note that Botvinnik was not only chess player. If you prefer, he was duo professional. I don't  know many such big players (Tarrash, Euwe, Huebner). I'd like to see Reshevsky works as electricity engineer  , makes doctorate, writes chess and scientific books and also wins WC.  So, Botvinnik  was a great and universal intellectual.

Botvinnik was able to prepare for and play chess without worrying about his other jobs and without worrying about making a living. At the same time, Reshevsky and Fine were not able to do that, or at least were much less free than Botvinnik was to concentrate on chess. Fine went so far as to leave chess. Reshevsky did have to work. Botvinnik deserves credit for his chess and his other interests, but to say he was not a chess professional, especially compared with other top players, is an overstatement. Pointing out he was capable in another field in addition to chess is likely to be more agreeable to the readers. Perhaps, someone will suggest that Fischer (whose birthday is today, March 9) was not a professional chess player, if you consider he turned out to spend so many years  not possessing normal health and was unable to face competition.

fleiman, i am sorry, but calling five times world champion with "not professional" is ridiculous, to say the least. Maybe you will call him an amatuer than? :D Of course he was chess profeccional, totally and without any "but". If someone has TWO (or more) professions, it doesnt mean that he/she can be professional only in one line, and even if you suppose this, then more logically would be to claim he was not professional engeneer, because he never was worlds best engeneer (that is also ridiculous, but I hope now it is more clear). He earned money and many other types of profit from his chess play and chess "work" - that is the main part of the word "profession".

to GreenLaser:

Botvinnik had permanent engineer and scientific jobs (irrelevant to chess). For chess tournaments and matches he took vacations. The others (at least Soviet WC) were full time chess professionals.

tongo wrote, "it depends on what you call a chess professional." That is right. Capablanca seems to have been afforded the chance to just play chess by his "diplomatic" career. Janowski had a patron for a time. Many had to work outside of chess or quit chess at times or completely. Tarrasch was a doctor and missed a chance at the world title because of it. The true non-professional was Morphy.

who ever was a chess professsional back in the day. reti, breyer, alekhine, bogoljubow, nimzowitch, capablanca, tartakower?  although it depends on what you call a chess professional.

fleiman wrote, "I'd like to note that Botvinnik was not chess professional." Yes, you could say that Botvinnik was an engineer. Many chess players could not be chess professionals without being chess bums. By "bum" I mean those who devote themselves to chess without earning a living or advancing their lives. There are "bums" in numerous other fields also. Many of Botvinnik's rivals could not be chess professionals because they had to make a living. Botvinnik, however, was afforded ample time for chess for decades and was as professional as almost anyone in his time. I can call myself a "chess professional" today only because I have already retired from a non-chess career. This is only because I do not need to make a living in chess and has happened at a time when I am past my peak playing strength. I am of course not comparing myself to Botvinnik, just discussing the nature of the term professional. Today, there are more players who can justly be called professional and who can make a living in chess than in earlier times.

I so enjoy looking at Botvinnik's chess games. I'm having a hard time defining what it is about them I like so much... but they really make me happy. 

I'd like to note that Botvinnik was not chess professional.

Was that really a champion level game?

wow

Thank you for the great article on Botvinnik.