The point, of course, was the pressure put on Korchnoi not to win either of the last two games. That is, if the various accounts can be reconciled. Remember the old adage, "The threat is greater than the execultion."
Examples of Soviet cheating in FIDE competition: Petrosian-Korchnoi match, 1971
Sort:
Jan 22, 2016
0
#303
JamieDelarosa wrote:
The point, of course, was the pressure put on Korchnoi not to win either of the last two games. That is, if the various accounts can be reconciled. Remember the old adage, "The threat is greater than the execultiom." [Emphasis Added]
I think this particular conspiracy theory has just died.
Jan 24, 2016
0
#304
@smyslovfan - no conspiracy theory. Re-read the opening post. The meeting between Korchnoi, Petrosian, and authorities of the Sports Committee is established fact. Though second hand accounts, which were apparently were an open secret in Soviet chess circle, differ slightly, the principals never denied it happened.
Fischer had just whitewashed Larsen, 6-0. The Korchnoi-Petrosian match was tied after all drawn games.
Ask yourself, what was the purpose of the meeting? Why were Korchnoi and Petrosian summoned before the Authorities?
It obvious Korchnoi few move were the best, especially 39...Qxc5?; difinitely Korchnoi give it to Petrosian the game.
Jan 26, 2016
0
#306
Jamie's point that there was a meeting between the players therefore there must have been cheating brings to mind Fischer-Spassky 1972. I still feel that Spassky should have declined Fischer's outrageuous conditions for playing the third game of that match. But, in Jamie's world, if Fischer had been a Soviet, the meeting would have been made in order to make clear that Spassky had to throw that third game and allow Fischer to win the match. Of course, such a thing is ludicrous.
The Petrosian-Korchnoi match had seen all draws, and the meeting was to discuss what happened in case the match was drawn. Back then, the rules weren't as clear-cut as they are today. In one Candidates match in 1983, Smyslov advanced due to the luck of a roulette wheel! Robert Huebner (a West German) lost on the second roll. Incredibly, the ball landed on 0 the first time!
Yuree's comment suggests that Korchnoi threw the game. If you analyse every game that has ever been lost, you will find mistakes, and most will seem like real howlers in retrospect. Take a look at the game below. Clearly, White must have thrown the game. No GM would ever play 27.Qc2?? unless he was throwing it.
Jan 26, 2016
0
#307
NN vs. NN, an event, somewhere?
Hahaha. Don't make me laugh.
That's Spasski - Fischer, Reykjavik. 5th game
Jan 26, 2016
0
#309
Botvinnik, Petrosian, Tal, Smyslov, Spassky, all cheating patzers - Sarah Palin would have beaten the lot of them blindfold, you betcha.
These 'Soviet cheating' threads are increasingly tedious.
Jan 26, 2016
0
#310
Thank you for playing, crisy.
Each of the topics documents an instance when the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the Soviets.
If you want to add something other pabulum, let me know.
These topics are interesting, but I think less bias and more source criticism is needed. People often see Soviets as some sort of homogenous group, so that if Karpov "admits" that Korchnoi was cheating "the Soviets admitted their cheating". The only evidence is Karpov, or whoever wrote his text back then, without giving any sources, claiming that Korchnoi threw the match. This then becomes "the preponderance of the evidence".
The same thing with extending conclusions, i.e. "The Russians stopped Fischer from winning the Candidates by colluding". Geller and Petrosian continued what they had done for years, and Keres, who was nearing 50 and tired in long tournaments, also played quick draws against the other top players when he could. But this doesn't mean that there was some ordered collusion between Russians, that it included Tal and Korchnoi (the only Russian player in the event), or that the best player didn't win.
Had Keres resigned the four black games on move 1 and taken quick draws with white (something few declined as black, Fischer drew his black games against Petrosian quickly) he would still finish a full point ahead of Fischer, all other things being equal. Keres was much better than Fischer in Curacao, and that was quite an achievement being 20 years older than Fischer was when the latter played his last tournament.
If you want to sell books some of the least attractive subjects would be: "No collusion in Curacao", "The match between the two Russians was just a fair match", "KGB didn't plan to kill Korchnoi if he beat Karpov", etc. But that doesn't mean that there was never any pre-agreed draws, it happened on many occasions and continue to happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigran_Petrosian
Well, on the other hand, he was the only one not losing to Fischer without winning or even drawing a single game. Can you immagine such a superiority among the crown contenders. Also you have to be aware that Petrosian won eight team gold medals, and four board gold medals. His totals in Euroteams play, according to olimpbase.org, are (+15 −0 =37), for 64.4 per cent.
Jan 28, 2016
0
#313
Despite Syslovfan's constant apologies for Soviet collusion, there has not yet been a credible excuse for the Korchnoi/Petrosian/Sports Committee meeting, other than to arrange for Fischer's opponent in the Candidates Final match in 1971.
Jan 29, 2016
0
#315
SaintGermain, I am guessing you're referring to the game from the third cycle of the match-play tournament where Keres had White in a rook ending and lost.
This is what Dennis Monokroussos had to say:
<The game I'm referring to is the game Keres-Botvinnik, from the third cycle of the 1948 World Championship match-tournament. There's good reason to think that Keres was pressured not to out-do Botvinnik in the event (see http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skitt. for a good survey of the documentary evidence), and some (not me) think it went to the point that Keres actually threw his first four games against Botvinnik, only winning the last one when it no longer mattered. (In fact, some go on to say that Botvinnik threw the last one, to make sure Reshevsky wouldn't finish ahead of Keres!)
As part of the case for the "Keres threw the games" conclusion, they point to particular positions where Keres' play seemed especially suspect, and the game in question offers a favorite example. Rather than make the whole case here, however, I refer you to my new video: http://www.chessvideos.tv/forum/vie.. You'll find all the elaboration you could want there, along with some amusing stories, plenty of analysis - and plenty of analytical errors, including some embarrassing ones by those who think the fix is in.
So have a look - it's free, available on-demand for the next month, and requires no special software - and decide for yourself. My judgment: while I think it's likely that Keres felt some general pressure, I doubt that it came anywhere near the point where he was told or felt compelled to throw the games. I say that the fix is out.>
(http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032191)
Jamie calls me an apologist for the Soviets. I'm not. They did many horrible things. But her claims are not supported by the evidence she presents.
Jamie sees any meeting as proof of collusion. There were meetings between the Fischer and Spassky contingents during the 1972 match. There were many meetings between the Karpov and Korchnoi contingents during their matches. There were meetings during the Kasparov-Karpov matches, and so on. That doesn't mean there was collusion to fix results. It means there were issues that needed to be discussed.
Feb 2, 2016
0
#316
What was the purpose of the meeting with the Sports Committee, after 8 consecutive draws? This was not a case of a simple dispute between the participants. This was being called into offices in the Kremlin - serious stuff!
Korchnoi has always denied he intentionally lost. Nevertheless, he received in the next year, at least three tournaments outside of the Soviet Union ... his reward for allowing Petrosian to face Fischer.
Viktor, a true titan of chess, A grumpy maestro of the game! Even in his years of grey hairs and of withered strength, his passion for the 64 squares and 32 pieces never left him! He will be missed!
Sep 13, 2017
0
#320
Bobby Fischer arrived 11 days late for the 1972 Match, because of severe psychological problems. The Soviets could have withdrawn from the Match, but agreed to the continual delays. Fischer arrived 30 mins late for the First Game, and did not arrive at all for the Second Game (Spassky notes that Bobby Fischer offered no apology). For the Third Game, Fischer insisted on playing in a small, private room instead of in front of the audience -- Spassky agreed to this. (Since then Spassky has said he should have made Fischer play in the Auditorium, as had been agreed -- the result may have been very different. Or should have left Iceland when Fischer refused to arrive on the due date, and no one knew when, or even if, Bobby would turn up for the Championship Match).
Spassky on Korchnoi:"He could not play well against someone unless he hated them."
Spassky on Fischer:"I felt sorry for him. Sitting opposite me was a child who was losing his mind."
is it possible for Grand Masters to "fix a win", or will the resulting Game look highly suspicious?
There is significant suspicion that Karpov and Kasparov pre-arranged the results of Games 23 and 24 of their 1987 World Champion Match. These Games have been analysed by GM Roman Dzindzichashvili:
Most Mysterious World Championship: The Story - Chess Videos - Chess.com (background story)
https://www.chess.com/video/player/most-mysterious-world-championship-match-1
Most Mysterious World Championship Match 2 - Chess Videos - Chess.com (Games analysed)
https://www.chess.com/video/player/most-mysterious-world-championship-match-2
One cannot avoid the extremely strong suspicion that the results of both Games were pre-arranged. Roman says that even Grand Masters can blunder badly -- even leave a Queen unprotected! However, if a GM made such a blunder, the chances of his opponent missing the blunder are virtually nil. In Game 24, an extreme blunder (Kasparov is given Mate in about 5 moves) is "missed" by both of them. This happens not just once but TWICE!!
To have won immediately after Karpov's blunder would have made it obvious to everyone. After the 2 blunders Kasparov has an advantage, so that he wins 20 moves later. Doing so makes the blunders less obvious, unless a GM analyses the Games.
These 2 Games show how difficult it must be to pre-arrange a win or a loss, without other GM's realising something "fishy" is going on.
if there was widespread fixing of Games during "the Soviet era", then it should be verifiable by analyses of the Games themselves.
Has anyone bothered to look at the game in question?
This was the only decisive game of the match, and one that was particularly hard fought. The game was decided in time trouble. Petrosian had something close to a decisive edge, but Korchnoi made a fatal error and resigned once the time control was over.
Anyone who thinks that Korchnoi would throw a game like this, especially against Petrosian, has never looked at Korchnoi's life and games. I have Kotov's analysis of the game, but I think the game speaks for itself.