There was scant little the Soviet leadership would not do to prop up the myth of Communist exceptionalism, not just in chess, but in athletics, and all manner of social, cultural, and economic competition.
We witnessed proven examples of Russian cheating at their own Sochi Winter Olympiad. Don't feel bad, Vladimir, the Chicoms cheat worse.
There were very few Russian or even Soviet GMs compared to their skill level before Glasnost. When Glasnost happened, many Western chess pros complained because the market was flooded with former Soviet players who quickly became GMs.
Part of the problem for the Soviet Union was that a requirement for becoming an International Grandmaster was playing in international events. FIDE would not recognize the various Soviet nations as independent and so few players were granted access to international events.
This meant that there were in fact very few Soviet (not just Russian) GMs compared to their players' abilities.
Let's not forget also that back then, cheating couldn't be accomplished by wearing a tiny Bluetooth earpiece and a signaling device. The players were sat at the board for five hours, so anyone 'coaching' behind the scenes had to talk to you directly or develop a foolproof system of hand signals. The Soviets dominated because they quite simply were bloody good chess players, and virtually all good coaching material back then came from the Soviet Union. This could be seen as early as the 1930s already when Western world class players participated in tournaments, and ended up in the middle of the pack behind completely unknown players, and when they gave simuls they very often came away from those exhibitions with minus scores.
One example of a player who was never allowed to play in the West was Grigory Levenfish. Although a Czarist era player and participant of the Karlsbad 1911 tournament, his best results came in the 1920s and 1930s, and he also worked as a trainer. For us in the West he was mainly known as the co-author with Vassily Smyslov of a highly acclaimed, revolutionary book on rook endings (although it's generally accepted now that this was really Levenfish' baby, and that Smyslov main contribution was in helping to polish the gem), but Levenfish drew a match 7:7 with Mikhail Botvinnik in 1937. At that time Botvinnik was already considered a world championship contender quite on a par with Salo Flohr, Paul Keres, Reuben Fine and Sammy Reshevsky. From the 1950s onwards this wave of exceedingly strong players who were never allowed to leave the Soviet Union only grew.
There were very few Russian or even Soviet GMs compared to their skill level before Glasnost. When Glasnost happened, many Western chess pros complained because the market was flooded with former Soviet players who quickly became GMs.
Part of the problem for the Soviet Union was that a requirement for becoming an International Grandmaster was playing in international events. FIDE would not recognize the various Soviet nations as independent and so few players were granted access to international events.
This meant that there were in fact very few Soviet (not just Russian) GMs compared to their players' abilities.
Precisely.
Some 40+ years ago, our main source of Chess information were magazines like Shakhmatny Bulletin and 64, as the quality of the games played by virtually unknown Soviet players far excheeded that of the games in Western tournaments. Heck, we even learned some Russian to be able to read them!
Especially in women's chess, the gap was colossal. I guess that the fifth, or sixth women's Soviet team would win the Olympiad without much effort. And the strongest womens team in history, before the one-time wonder of Polgar sisters plus Ildiko Madl, was the lineup Gaprindashvili/ Chiburdanidze/ Ioseliani/ Alexandria, all four of them Georgian.
I guess everyone knows this. Scottish trolls included.
Pfren, the basis for this particular blog, was an observation by Karpov, that the Soviet Chess authorities instructed Korchnoi to let Petrosian win their quater-final Candidates match.
Do you believe Karpov's observation?
Pfren, the basis for this particular blog, was an observation by Karpov, that the Soviet Chess authorities instructed Korchnoi to let Petrosian win their quater-final Candidates match.
Do you believe Karpov's observation?
I know you're asking Pfren, but as I mentioned earlier, Karpov either suffered a bad lapse of memory or he was lying when he made that claim. First of all, Karpov wasn't at all involved in the Candidates cycle in 1971. Secondly, Korchnoi would never in his life have thrown a match against Petrosian. Korchnoi and Petrosian were mortal enemies since the Curação 1962 Candidates Tournament when Petrosian and Geller (and purportedly Keres) stabbed Korchnoi in the back with their drawing pact. Thirdly, what actually happened was that the Director of Physical Culture and Sports called in Korchnoi and Karpov ahead of their Candidates Final in 1974, and asked them whether they thought whether Fischer could be defeated. Korchnoi, brutally honest as always, replied something to the effect 'No, he's currently invincible', whereas Karpov replied, 'Yes, I believe I can', after which the Soviet system threw all their resources behind Karpov.
The reason Korchnoi lost to Petrosian in 1971 probably had much more to do with the psychology of the two individuals. They were roughly equal in strength at the time*, but Petrosian was an extremely good match player with patience like a monk. In the match he didn't even bother to press for a win as white, two out of his five white games ended in draws inside 15 moves. Korchnoi had a much more mercurial temperament. By nature a battler and fighter, he simply couldn't keep his equanimity after three extremely short draws in games 5 to 8 - being sensitive to the audience's impatience with the lack of fighting chess (Petrosian couldn't have cared less of what the audience thought, he was used to being considered short of fighting spirit, a reputation he gained as early as the beginning of the 1950s) - and as black he failed to avoid Petrosian getting a comfortable and too him well familiar position after a modest opening setup.
* As opposed to their semifinal in 1974, and quarter finals in 1977 and 1980 when Korchnoi was appreciably stronger than Petrosian.
The deal alleged by Karpov was that Petrosian, rather than Korchnoi, was selected by the Soviet Sports Committee to meet Fischer in the semi-final match.
If Korchnoi lost game #9 or game #10 (after the 8 draws which had been played), he would get three international tournaments as compensation.
At chessgames.com, in the overview of the match, there is a discussion "Was the match rigged by Soviet authorities?" In that section they repeat Karpov's charges from his autobiography.
Karpov was, of course, by 1992, extremely influential and well-connected with the Soviet/Russian machine, and likely a KGB insider. I suggest he knew a lot of secrets.
Karpov was the Soviet system's man, a KGB collaborator, and a venomous snake. You just can't take his words at face value or as the truth at all. It's known that Petrosian, while not a member of the Communist party, was a KGB informer. Kortchnoi hated Petrosian's guts (since Curação 1962), but only decided to defect after the meeting with Karpov and the Sports Minister where they decided to throw all resources behind Karpov and pressured Kortchnoi to lose the match, which he refused to do. You can be 100% sure that, had Kortchnoi been ordered to throw the match against Petrosian in 1971, we would have known about it from him, and not from Karpov. It would have been perfect ammunition against the Soviets after his defection. Kortchnoi has repeatedly stated that it was because of his unfavourable treatment in relation to Karpov that he decided to defect (he was already a disillusioned former communist, and Baturinsky had opened a file on him). Because of Kortchnoi's refusal to throw the match against Karpov in 1974, he was the subject of a smear campaign in the Soviet press, and was stripped of his title of 'Distinguished Master of Sports', and he was denied travel to tournaments abroad (we're talking about the world #3, #2 in practice after Fischer's retirement). As soon as Kortchnoi got another opportunity to play abroad, he defected. Furthermore, while working as Karpov's coach, Tal learned that the KGB had drawn up a plan to murder Korchnoi had he defeated Karpov in the World Championship, and there's every reason to believe that Karpov was behind the Soviet authorities making Kasparov default his Candidates Final against Kortchnoi in 1983 (only for Kortchnoi to refuse the victory).
Simply put, nothing tallies with the known facts about Karpov, Kortchnoi, and Petrosian that the Korchnoi would have thrown his match against Petrosian in 1971. Furthermore, Fischer had already destroyed Petrosian 3:1 in the SSSR v Rest of the World match in 1970. Why would the Soviet authorities expect him to do better this time around? It wasn't exactly as if Petrosian's curve was on an upwards trajectory.
Petrosian was considered "reliable" by Col. Baturinsky, KGB officer and leader in the Soviet chess federation. Korchnoi, like Bronstein, was a loose cannon. Petrosian had been an informer for some time.
It was made clear to Korchnoi that his livelihood depended on his cooperation. The very reputation of the Soviet system was on the line if Fischer advanced. The resources of the entire Soviet chess apparatus were being marshalled against Fischer, especially after the Taimanov debacle.
That's what "seconds" were for ... adjourned game analysis. Of course, when Spassky played Fischer and when Karpov play Korchnoi in Baguio, the Soviets wrre equipped withnTELEX terminals to get analysis from Moscow. Computer programs circa 1973 and 1984 were not yet sophisticated enough for grandmaster play.
Ok, so they didn't use a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc.......
Yea right.
Ok, so they didn't use a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc.......
Yea right.
You certainly realize that the noun, "second," as used here dates from the Middle Ages, and refers to "an attendent assisting a combatant."
In fact, the Soviets enlisted the support of every chess player in the country in the Spassky match. It was a point of national pride.
Fischer, as I recall, had Father William Lombardy, and old friend and GM as his second in Iceland.
It is impossible that a guy like Korchnoi, basically a bully, a jerk, to have said he had no chance against Fischer or any other player in the world. If that question was made, I can imagine him saying "I could destroy that little jew with my eyes closed", and smashing the table while saying it.
So, I don´t believe a single word of that story.
Maybe the Soviets truly believed that Petrossian had more chances than Korchnoi and helped him, but the part of Korchnoi saying he had no chances is impossible to believe.
Ok, so they didn't use a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc.......
Yea right.
You certainly realize that the noun, "second," as used here dates from the Middle Ages, and refers to "an attendent assisting a combatant."
In fact, the Soviets enlisted the support of every chess player in the country in the Spassky match. It was a point of national pride.
Fischer, as I recall, had Father William Lombardy, and old friend and GM as his second in Iceland.
I doubt only one person was there and it's still not a game of wits if you use just a second mind. That was the point. We don't need a history lesson to realize this.
Maybe the Soviets truly believed that Petrossian had more chances than Korchnoi and helped him, but the part of Korchnoi saying he had no chances is impossible to believe.
It was Karpov who wrote that when Korchnoi and Petrosian were questioned by the Sports Committee as to who had the better chances against Fischer, Korchnoi stated that "the generation beaten by Fischer" had practically no chance. Petrosisn stated he believed in himself.
It is impossible that a guy like Korchnoi, basically a bully, a jerk, to have said he had no chance against Fischer or any other player in the world. If that question was made, I can imagine him saying "I could destroy that little jew with my eyes closed", and smashing the table while saying it.
So, I don´t believe a single word of that story.
Given that Korchnoi himself was of Jewish descent, I strongly doubt that he would have said anything like that. Furthermore, Korchnoi was known for his blunt assessments and not holding his tongue. However, he was not one to be cocksure of his own strengths, far from it. He worked on his chess all his life, simply because he was well aware of his shortcomings as a player. Karpov, on the other hand, was well known for never 'losing' in analysis and post-mortems (something which bugged Artur Jussupow immensely). Karpov would never admit to anyone else that he considered someone else stronger than himself.
I saw a bear today. Therefore the games must be suspect.
A bare what?