Ok , who else suffered due to soviet collusion ? Fine ? Reshevsky ? Larsen ? Mecking ? I doubt Fischer was the only one but he certainly was the loudest against it ? Why didnt others speak up too , or did they ?
Examples of Soviet cheating in FIDE competition: Petrosian-Korchnoi match, 1971
Sort:
Sep 11, 2015
0
#63
Coersion was a staple of Soviet life in the Stalinist era, and no less so in the following regimes.
Sep 11, 2015
0
#65
Reb wrote:
Ok , who else suffered due to soviet collusion ? Fine ? Reshevsky ? Larsen ? Mecking ? I doubt Fischer was the only one but he certainly was the loudest against it ? Why didnt others speak up too , or did they ?
I think Fine suffers lack of a homefront.
Was Bronstein affected?
The ironic thing is that the soviet bosses chose Petrosian to play Fischer and ordered Korchnoi to lose but I honestly believe Korchnoi would have been a tougher opponent for Fischer at the time . I think soviet authorities didnt like Korchnoi's attitude as much as Petrosians , was Petrosian punished after his spanking ? I dont recall that he was ....
I believe Najdorf also suffered from it for having the nerve to actually beat Botvinnik at some event ....
Sep 11, 2015
0
#69
Well, I've heard Mark Taimanov's punishment:
"The sanctions from the Soviet government were severe. I was deprived of my civil rights, my salary was taken away from me, I was prohibited from travelling abroad and censored in the press. It was unthinkable for the authorities that a Soviet grandmaster could lose in such a way to an American, without a political explanation. I therefore became the object of slander and was accused, among other things, of secretly reading books of Solzhenitsin. I was banned from society for two years, it was also the time when I separated from my first wife, Lyubov Bruk."
I can't imagine even the much loved Petrosian got off easy.
Sep 11, 2015
0
#70
Dr. Fine was quoted by Larry Evans as saying, about the 1948 championship tournament, that he didn't want to waste months of his life watching Soviets throw games to each other.
After the war, Fine completed his doctorate in psychology and returned to competitive chess. After numerous successes, FIDE named him an International Grandmaster. After Alex Alekhine’s death in 1946, the World Chess Organization also invited him to participate in the upcoming championship to determine the new champion. Fine claimed that he could not interrupt his further studies in psychology, though it has also been speculated that he was suspicious that the three Soviet Union participants in the championship would ensure victory for one of their own. Fine told Larry Evans, a GM in Chess Life, “I don’t want to waste three months of my life watching Russians throw games to each other.”
http://www.chessmastercoach.com/reuben-fine-uncrowned-world-champion/
"logic suggests that if Karpov was unable to defeat a past his prime Petrosian until 1982, then Fischer who demolished Petrosian before he was past his prime would have emerged victorious in 1975. Just saying"
One could just as well pick Geller instead and conclude that since Fischer scored -2 against him while Spassky had +4 logic suggests that Spassky would beat Fischer easily. But one can't just pick the most suitable third player for drawing such conclusions, as is shown by among other things Kasparov's and Kramnik's respective stats against Shirov.
"we do know for fact is that Fischer gave him the worst beating of his career and that later neither Kasparov nor Karpov seemed at all superior to Petrosian"
In every thread on this subject year after year Reb refers Kasparov's games as a teenager against Petrosian to suggest that Fischer was better than Kasparov, conveniently ignoring to mention that Fischer did much worse against Petrosian in his teenage years. In the four games Kasparov played against Petrosian 1981-83 he got a winning position in all four but blundered away two of them to reach an even score. Fischer on the other hand had -2 against Petrosian up until the 70s. Not much basis to draw any conclusions about the superiority of Fischer.
Kasparov failed to win a single game in a 16 game match against Kramnik , I cannot imagine Fischer failing to win a single game against anyone in a 16 game match .... ever . Fischer was clearly the best ever ..... period . Only your communist sympathies prevent you from seeing what is clear to others fabelhaft
I also understand that a teen Kasparov was not yet at his peak but Petrosian was clearly well beyond his peak and probably not as close to his peak as Kasparov was to his . Kasparov became WC in 85 , don't forget .
"Fischer was clearly the best ever ..... period . Only your communist sympathies prevent you from seeing what is clear to others fabelhaft"
Comments like this one stand for themselves and show why any serious discussion with some people on subjects like this one are pointless.
The system to electing a world champion challenger among candidates was changed in the 60s from collective tournaments to one to one eliminatory matches. Soviet agreement of results in that regard is excluded from that time on. If two Soviets were to encounter in a match, the state could well act as a coach would do, giving the chance to the one he thought best. Same in any team sports. In this case, if truth, Korchnoi got compensated, so it sounds like a negotiation. I rather think it was Petrosian, for his personality and age, who cared less about getting beaten by Fischer. The Soviet state, should a child show a talent, would promote him/her to high levels of personal achievement. In return, they would demand his/her subjection to the collective best. If necessary, they could give a damn about your ego -although they showed a great deal of understanding for Korchnoi, offering him three international events. In the mean time, and still in our days, US and most western countries ignore you until you, at your own cost and risk, achieve great results. Then the awards, sponsors, applause, image campaigns and TV shows come. Just two different systems. Both got their lights and their shadows.
Sep 12, 2015
0
#76
Kasparov was 20 years Fischer's junior. And Kasparov was a tremendous talent. I have no doubt that Fischer would have followed a path, somewhat like that of Lasker - remaining a force into his 50s, or later.
But, as with all of us, Father Time takes his toll. Kasparov I see as Fischer's successor as the strongest player of his generation.
Sep 12, 2015
0
#77
Reb wrote:
Ok , who else suffered due to soviet collusion ? Fine ? Reshevsky ? Larsen ? Mecking ? I doubt Fischer was the only one but he certainly was the loudest against it ? Why didnt others speak up too , or did they ?
Reshevsky suffered from collusion in the 1948 tournament, but he also suffered from a pathetic lack of support by the American chess community.
Euwe was badly out of form, so it was Reschevsky vs three Soviets.
America has a big five sports preference. Chess is not in there.
Sep 12, 2015
0
#79
xjian77 wrote:
Reb wrote:
The Spassky/Karpov match is strange and can only be explained by the possibility that Spassky was ordered to lose to the new " chosen one " of the USSR . This is certainly not an unreasonable suspicion given their extremely dubious " track record " .
NM Reb. You have made many insightful comments. But this one is groundless. Spassky's loss was largely due to Geller, who joined Karpov's camp before the match, so Spassky's opening secrets had been erased. Still Spassky managed to score his first win against Karpov in the match. He only won one more game against Karpov in classic time control (Hamburg 1982).
If you looked at the quality of the games, Spassky made several blunders the 1972 match (game 5 27.Qb2??, game 8 19...Nd7??, game 14 27...f6??). In the 1974 match, you can not find such blunders.
Spassky was still in the Soviet doghouse until 1976, when he left for France with his French third wife.
He did compete in behalf of the USSR until 1978, when he became a French citizen.
She said a good day aint got no rain, she said a bad day's when i lie in bed and think of things that might have been