Dear friend,

Thanks for the comment.In this introductory part of the article, I have only offered an approach to reading this work, Russians versus Fischer.What began as a review developed into a tribute to a great era. We owe it to the book. 

Interesting begining of a very hard and large story about Fischer and Russians (Soviets) chess players. An important battle on chess top level 

Dear Billyidle,

I shall check on these details.

   It is odd that although Bobby Fischer disliked many Russians and their Soviet system, the American government persecuted him as though he himself were a communist agent.  He was more of ananathema in Washington than the heads of the five New York Mafia families.  It seems apparent that J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, hated Bobby's guts.  He must have been on "the secret list" of most dangerous people that Hoover kept in his desk.  Late at night in his office Hoover liked to take out the list and look at it.  Just ahead of Robert J. Fischer were the names of Bob Dylan, Joan Baez and Buffy Sainte Marie.  Had America been a totalitarian government Hoover would have played the role of the paranoid Joseph Stalin.     

Dear friend,

Thank you for the comment. Historians and analysts do not rely on Kotov’s work on Alekhine because a lot of new material on Alekhine has come up thereafter. Appearances notwithstanding, there are important TNs in the 1927 Match. In my younger days I used to read an old book,Chess from Morphy to Botvinnik by Imre Kőnig (Dover).It has a whole chapter on Queen’s Gambit Declined. It shows how these Capa-Alekhine games enriched theory of the opening.Otherwise the  most authentic source is Alekhine’s own Book of the Match, and also Kasparov’s analysis in MGP Part I. From them one could get a better idea.

As you have rightly said, Botvinnik set an example for hard work.Long after his career he edited the annotations to his games once again and released a 3-volume work.Very, very valuable stuff.There is a moving tribute to him in Sosonko’s Russian Silhouettes.

Smyslov followed his example. He copied more than 800 games of Botvinnik by hand and studied them just so that he could form his own independent judgement to prepare for the world championship match.

I shall be reviewing Botvinnik’s book of the Matches against Smyslov. When it is released, I shall be glad to know your opinion.

Regards…

 Dear chessbibliophile!

 I agree with you that Alekhine was the first WCC who introduced systematic openings preparation before WCC matches but...

 ... I was believing that he did that after his 1927 match against Capablanca, namely in his matches against Bogoliubov and Euwe. I was believing that he didn't use any opening surprises in his match against Capablanca because he believed that this would be in vain! Read Kotov's book on Alekhine, R.H.M. Press, pp. 50!! And the reality speaks for this Kotov's claim, the used opening repertoire by both participants of the Buenos Aires match was indeed very limited... In fact there weren't explosive innovations...

 But I agree with you that i) Alekhine was the first WCC working systematically in many (if not all) aspects of the game for a long period and ii) Botvinnik himself gave important signs of decline after WW II or 1948 etc. Nevetheless his teachings and principles of his chess school favored hard and systematic work in all aspects of the game!

 Please correct me if you think I am wrong! Thanks again for the great and motivating articles!!

Dear friend,

The first prerequisite for any reasoned argument on chess history is a very careful and detailed reading of material evidence from contemporary literature & authoritative work on the subject.

1)Lasker worked very hard on his preparation ( especially,openings) for the match with Steinitz. Capa made this point among others.Do take a look at Capablanca’s Last Lectures and you would know.

Capablanca did not, in his match with Lasker because he knew the issue would be decided in the middle game and the endgame.

2) It was Alekhine who built the tradition of meticulous opening preparation before Botvinnik did..He beat Capa with it.

3)Chess in the Soviet Union was built on the dedicated work of several individuals flike Ilyin-Genevesky over decades. If you read Soltis’ book Soviet Chess, you would know.

Botvinnik’s role in building the organization or teaching cannot be overstated.

4)In his own way Botvinnik was an amateur.He was a busy electrical engineer .Post 1948 he  could not devote enough time to chess for this reason.Karpov said that Botvinik did not understand the life of professionals like him. He also makes very strong and trenchant points against Botvinnik’s school and his teaching methods. You would find them in the book, Karpov on Karpov.He learnt more from Furman.This whole argument between Karpov and Botvinnik  is too complex to summarize here.*

Kasparov who saw the merits and demerits of both the sides of the debate makes a fair job evaluating the same in My Great Predecessors series..

5)Much of the success of the Soviet champions had to do with the hard work of their seconds on opening preparation and adjournment analysis. As Tal wryly put it, it was whole collective farms working together. Karpov and Kasparov enjoyed  help from manpower and vast resources unlike their  early predecessors who lived on black bread in freezing winters working on the chess board in pitch darkness.

As you are interested in all these issues, do read some of the books I have suggested. There are a lot more…

 (When I review the book, Chess Instructor 2009, I hope to deal with these questions.)  

 Yes, I would say gladly that, given that both of us do insist to read carefully the other's text and get his meaning! Both agreement and disagreement have a prerequisite, this is understanding! Understanding's prerequisite is careful and open minded reading or hearing!...

 I didn't call Lasker's, Nimzowitsch's or Capablanca's play prehistoric, I do not believe that, quite the opposite!!

 I said that they were giving fighting chess preparation less time and effort than the standard of Botvinnik's school, not to mention FKKK standards!... Lasker was almost an amateur meaning that he had dedicated many years of study to other disciplines, Nimzowitsch was also a chess innovator, researcher and philosopher spending much time and effort to develop and establish new ideas in both strategy and openings, Capablanca wasn't a hard worker who runs out of free time because of chess homework...

 I didn't understand that Karpov wasn't a hard worker during the 1984 K-K match!! And I doubt if Botvinnik's School old members (including the Patriarch...) could dream of Karpov's performances from 1983 to 1998... Kasparov's prevalence over Karpov is an argument to prove what?!?  

Dear friend,

Take it easy.There is no dispute on Fischer’s influence.But Kasparov paid more attention to sharp dynamic play and constant preparation and analysis. Karpov was also strongly motivated to prove himself in this regard in the early period, from 1970 to 1978.After that he prepared less and analyzed less.He relied on his broad knowledge and experience in practice. Botvinnik strongly disapproved of this, and there was an open argument between the mentor and the disciple. How Botvinnik was right in this respect was proved by Kasparov who beat Karpov.

Otherwise Botvinnik was very dogmatic in his positions on both theory and practice. This point emerges clearly if you follow the commentary by his rivals, Smyslov and Tal. Kasparov is also critical of Botvinnik’s dogmatism.You would find a discussion of this  in My Great Predecessors, Volume II.

You may call Lasker, Capablanca and Nimzovitsch as pre-historic. There is only one problem with that kind of description.Botvinnik, Fischer and Kasparov would not agree with it.The whole of My Great Predecessors series makes a point that these players are most important and relevant to modern practice. The idea of Berlin Wall came to Kramnik from Lasker.It helped in dethroning Kasparov himself. Fischer learnt his Ruy Lopez from Capablanca, not from Botvinnik. The spirit of Nimzovitsch is for ever present in all modern chess strategy. To understand what went right or wrong with Botvinnik’s approach or Soviet School in general, one has to go through some serious work by authors like Sosonko and Soltis.

At the end of the day, shall I say, let us agree to disagree?    

 Fischer's influence on Karpov's and Kasparov's approach to the game was very important, in fact Fischer's 1970-1972 campaign changed the landscape of the game in the WCC level, he redefined the standards and the goals of a World Chess Champion and you can see this even in Korchnoi's performances after 1972... So Fischer had a strongest influence over the new generation of the Soviet School of Chess! With respect to Fischer's new standards, the very first generations of the Soviet School were conservative...

 That was my meaning and moreover I was clear about that!

 Fischer's approach to the game wasn't just choice of variations and style of play, it was also intension plus intensification of preparation (=homework with the aim of perfection) and unbelievable rise of goals! In that sense Lasker, Capablanca and Nimzowitsch were certainly prehistoric with respect to Botvinnik's School doctrines, teachings and example... That was my meaning and moreover I was clear about that! Or I wasn't clear enough?

Dear ixzander,

Thank you for the kind words.

Wonderfully inciteful article...Cheers!

 Fischer and the Soviet School

Fischer, I repeat, was not and could not be a full member of the Soviet School in either sense of the word.He was eclectic and learnt from several schools of thought. One of his idols was Steinitz.He would spend hours together marveling at his writings and play.But he avoided anything that was passive in.Steinitz. His other role model was Capablanca. With White he played pure chess always observing classical principles of play. With Black he took positional risks.His variation of the Sicilian came from Najdorf. He did not relish any of the other variations espoused by the Soviets.He did not believe in any of the  systems of Botvinnik, be it French,Dutch or the English Openng.He would have taken exception the description of Lasker,Capablanca and Nimzovitsch as prehistoric. He used Lasker’s idea of Ruy Lopez Exchange Variatiion.From Capa it was the main line of RuyLopez. He loved to play the NimzoIndian. Fischer liked to work alone.He did not like people to tell him what he should do by way of preparation.He was self-taught and he would never have accepted organizational control, be it Soviet or otherwise. So I was and I am wary of overstating the case about his connection with Soviet School of chess.

 So Fischer was a full member of the Soviet School of Chess, in fact a very influential, even dominant member (like Botvinnik and ... Alekhine, even  ... "prehistoric" figures like ... Nimzowitsch, Capablanca and Lasker) but ... what about young Tal and Bronstein!?!

 Dear friends!

 "... I didn't write about citizenship and ethnicity issues, I wrote about their individual styles of play and approaches to the game..."

 There are many similarities between the styles of play of Botvinnik, Smyslov and Petrosian, their style wasn't exactly the same but there are still similarities. Moreover their approach to the game, the emphasis to training, physical and psychological preparation, endgame study, relative weight of positional-defensive versus positional-aggressive play, teamwork, definition of maximal perspectives was the same! Let's forget old timer Keres and even Bronstein, Tal was maybe something else... Spassky too seems to me somehow different than Botvinnik, Smyslov and Petrosian, he maybe was more intuition-based, less systematic but equally conservative at his definition of maximal goals... Efim Geller wasn't very different also...

 After 1972 and Fischer's (global, not the USA one) boom, we can see important changes. Korchnoi's and Karpov's style of play has several similarities with the "basic one" but there is clearly a redefinition of the maximal goals... Not to mention Karpov's goals after 1981, namely from 1981 to 1998!!! As for Kasparov...

 State policy is something very important and much more important as chess has no need of abundant money investments (like soccer, basket ball, physics...) but ... the same state policy took place in Hungary, former Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, DDR... There was much more ambition and pride from the Soviet Champions, they were determined to be World Chess Leaders and the reason wasn't just abundance of talents or pressure from the KGB...

 Intense competition and intense interaction was always present also, after Fischer an over-abundance of fighting spirit and a boost to ambitions was added!...  

Just added the image of Keres-Tal game.

On Karpov meeting Fischer’

Yes, they met in Tokyo in 1975. The talks for a match broke down. The whole story appears in this book and also in the autobiography, Karpov on Karpov.

On Botvinnik and the Soviet School

Archaic71 has done a favour by explaining a great deal.The so-called Soviet School was never a rigid system of ideas.As for style there was always creative argument right from 1917,the beginning of the Soviet period. Young Botvinnik did not agree with players of the pre-revolution generation like Levenfish.  The later crop of players, Smyslov Bronstein and Boleslavsky did not accept Botvinnik’s position on theory. But the argument was invariably settled over the board.According to Larsen Botvinnik was a creative player till 1948. But after winning the title he tended to rely more on technique.Botvinnik’s authority did influence methods of preparation.On one occasion when the soviets had to play an international match, he said, with an admonishing finger, “I trust no one would play the King’s Gambit tomorrow.This is an important match.” The words were directed at Bronstein who loved gambits. Of course our young rebel was incensed, but could not go against the peremptory command.Botvinnik’s word was law. Bronstein  had his “revenge” years later by playing King’s Gambit against Botvinnik himself ((Soviet Championship, 1952). But as Botvinnik wryly remarked, he had prepared a line against this opening years ago. So Bronstein was beaten in no more than 25 moves!I think the patriarch became more open in his way of thinking after Fischer won the world championship in 1972. When Kasparov preferred to follow Alekhine, and not his mentor, Botvinnik did not come in his way.In fact he encouraged him.I do not know how he felt when Garry repeatedly beat the Botvinnik System. But the man always accepted truth over the board.

As Archaic71 rightly put it, the Soviet School should refer to the vast organization of training and preparation of  young players.Many children of the Soviet School had to struggle hard after the dissolution of the USSR.They have done well thereafter.But life is  tough for players like Kamsky as they have to cope with the challenge of much younger talent.

Fischer and the Soviet School

It was Spassky who said that Fischer was the best student of the Soviet School.He was not entirely right.It may be more appropriate to describe him as a kind of external student  as cunctatorg suggested.And this was a thoughtful pupil who did not believe in everything the school taught. Fischer was very eclectic, drawing from 19^th Century masters like Anderssen and Steinitz to 20^th Century greats like Nimzovitsch and Bronstein.In other words he was quietly learning from several schools. In the end the pupil put his own examiners to test and they were found wanting…

Dear cunctatorg,

1)A quarter of the book, United States Chess Championship 1845- 1996 by Soltis and McCormick deals with the Fischer Era. This book along with Chess Life and Review  magazine collection ( (4 CDs for the period 1933-1955 and 1956-1975) should be mandatory reading for  every student of the American chess tradition.Of course Chess Life and Review collection offers a lot more than the American scene. It offers a panorama of the world from 1930s to 1970s.

New in Chess Magazine is read by every one, from Kasparov to Carlsen.Here is the link: http://www.newinchess.com/

You can get the special issue on Fischer directly from them.But see if you can get it locally.You would save some time and expense by way of shipping charges.

2)Most players know, Tal was hospitalized during Candidates’ 1962 and Fischer visited him there.They have also seen the photograph below. So strictly speaking it is for the few who have missed it. Regards...

They (Fischer and Karpov) met several times in 1975 trying to arrange a title match.  Apparently in Washington DC they had gotten the terms typed up and ready for signatures but for language that would have defined the match as a 'professional' contest.  At the time, the Soviets were very consious of maintaining 'amature' status for their players.  The meetings definately happened, but only Karpovs side of the story has ever come to light.

As far as the Soviet Chess School and Larsens comment about Tal and Petrosian, I think the concept of Soviet chess being associated with some particular style is not neccesarily accurate.  If every Soviet GM had played exactly like Botvinik a guy like Larsen would have had a field day. 

To me, the concept of a Soviet school was all about the system. All school children learned to play, school and local officials identified talent and moved it up the line, first to be tested at a regional level and then to the crucible of the national level.  In this way (much as professional sports today) lots of eyes were on the lookout for talented players and made sure they moved up the ranks of training to fulfill their potential.  How many potential GM's in the west will never even see a chess board?  THAT is the Soviet school, that is why the majority of the women competing for the US championship learned the game in the former Iron Curtain.

 chessbibliophile

 back in 1981 or 1982 I had read in the chess column of a greek newspaper that after the 1981 WCC match Anatoly Karpov went to Pasadena and had a meeting with Bobby Fischer... Is this just a rumour or what?