Keres USUALLY played poorly and passively against Botwinnik in 1940-1950s
See Chigorin's memorial 1947
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032154
USSR championship 1952
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032264
This is more akin with psycological pressure that Lasker put on his opponents (who all underperformed against him) than with any political coersion.
Another good article by Sosonko - now about Keres.
http://chess-news.ru/node/20742
Sure, he'll republish it in TWIC
What Marignon said.
Heuer (Keres' biographer), Taylor (Chesscafe) and Winter (Chess Notes) conducted extensive research that failed to turn up conclusive evidence of Keres throwing games to Botvinnik. The latter had always been a difficult opponent for Paul, whose post-Stalin score of 2-1 with one draw against Botvinnik hardly changes the impression.
There was one impression published in book 2 of Kasparov's Predessesor series that paints Botvinnik as the priviledged go to player of Stalin's Russia. That, and the rule of 6 players from each locale may have played a factor. The idea that this political influence had a negative impact on Keres, I think it did. No, I don't believe he was throwing games. I think there was a little bit of psychology involved. Keres was from a poorer province of the soviet union. He was not as favored as Botvinnik by the ruling party. This may have unhinged him.
Nekhemevich - in short, Keres was not Russian. He was always suspect because he was from free Estonia by birth.
Jamie, he was suspect, because he played in Nazi tournaments during World War II, got prizes from Hans Frank, the butcher of Polish jews.
The Soviet government has weighted Keres' guilt and decided to pardon him. Keres was fully supported by Karotamm and Kabin, the Soviet Estonian leaders, the attitude to him was never worse than to any USSR citizen.
Yes, we have discussed Keres's participation in NAZI tournaments (in other topics) when Estonia was occupied. He was a political "pawn" for the NAZIs, as was Alekhine.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/soviet-cheating-n-fide-competition-keres-botvinnik-1948-pt-2
The point being, Keres was easily manipulated by Soviet authorities because of his activities during the war.
A suggestion of the Soviet authorities to Keres, as has been alleged, that "if Botvinnik does not win the title (in 1948), [Keres] had better not be the reason," is akin to a death threat.
It is a mistake to think that Botwinnik was a favorite in the eyes of Soviet chess organizers. On the contrary, they intrigued against him (to name it, Boris Vainstein).
I refer again to the latest article of Sosonko. Even he makes a lapse y saying that a pause of 2 weeks between game in Hague and Moscow was dictated by Botwinnik to give him some rest.
In his memories Botwinnik clearly states that he objected vehemently to having such a long pause, but Smyslov and Keres did not support him.
On the other hand Sosonko analyzed contemporary Soviet press and claims that nobody gave any preference in praize and verbal support to Botwinnik before the competition. All three Soviet players were treated at equal.
Only when Botwinnik led the competition by several points, they did say that he was the future champion.
Good luck convincing me that the Soviet Union did not put psychological pressure on players to the point of seriously affecting their play.
Good luck convincing me that the Capitalism (mainly the urge to gain prize money) does not put psychological pressure on players to the point of seriously affecting their play.
Good luck convincing me that the Capitalism (mainly the urge to gain prize money) does not put psychological pressure on players to the point of seriously affecting their play.
That's another can of worms...have you watched Zeitgeist?
Good luck convincing me that the Capitalism (mainly the urge to gain prize money) does not put psychological pressure on players to the point of seriously affecting their play.
In any profession, there will be psychological pressure to excell.
The dark sides of the Estonian Nationalism are very well known- I have talked about them with Jaan Ehlvest some 18 years ago. That nationalism is still very much alive.
https://www.rt.com/news/ss-division-celebration-activists/
Keres was not more "nazi" than the majority of his compatriots.
I've read today an insightful and new material by GM Dmitry Kriakvin about Keres-Botwinnik standoff in Soviet chess with detailed analysis of all games. This is a pre-war part. The post-war part will come (I hope soon).
http://ruchess.ru/news/report/keres_protiv_alekhina_vizov_alekhinu/
At the end of the article, it states, "To be continued". I look forward to the next chapter!
Like the Jews, they both had two enemies, and the enemies we are talking were not the Jews, and probably some property too, family and friends in Europe. That alone does not exonerate them but it's human nature. Alekhine was of noble roots - but don't take my words for granted ( I now found that his father was a landowner and Privy Councilor to the conservative legislative Fourth Duma so it is quite possible I have misinterprated something about him a long time ago), but anyway, he changed his mind all of sudden, who knows why, the Soviet Union was not a happy place. Alekhine was suffering from cirrhosis of the liver, duodenitis and sclerosis of the arteries. He had no proper income and lived from a pittance earned with chess. He was also severely depressed. In July 1944 Alekhine wrote to the journalist and chessplayer Juan Fernandez Rua: "The best part of my life has passed away between two world wars that have laid Europe waste. Both wars ruined me, with this difference: at the end of the first war I was 26 years of age, with an unbounded enthusiasm I no longer have. If, sometime, I write my memoirs – which is very possible – people will realize that chess has been a minor factor in my life. It gave me the opportunity to further an ambition and at the same time convince me of the futility of the ambition. Today, I continue to play chess because it occupies my mind and keeps me from brooding and remembering."
In 1946 Alekhine was invited to play in a tournament in London, but under pressure from American players (Reuben Fine, Arnold Denker and others) because of his wartime record the invitation was withdrawn.
As for Keres, Botvinnik interceded by talking to Stalin and Keres was spared.
Part 1 is here: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/examples-of-soviet-cheating-in-fide-competition-keres-botvinnik-1948
Part 2 is here: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/soviet-cheating-n-fide-competition-keres-botvinnik-1948-pt-2
Part 3 is here: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/soviet-cheating-in-fide-competition-keres-botvinnik-1948-pt-3
This is the conclusion - The Championship moves to Moscow.
After the first two legs at the Hague, Botvinnik led with 6 points in 10 rounds. Reshevsky of the USA was second, with 4.5 points. Keres and Smyslov had 4 points each, but Keres has beaten Smylov twice. Euwe was out of contention with 1.5 points.
The championship entourage boarded a train for the trip to Moscow. Grandmaster Hans Ree, in the Foreward to the reprint of Euwe's book on the 1948 Match Tournament, related how when the train needed to clear customs at the Soviet border, guards there seized Euwe's personal papers (which contained his opening analysis). Their intent was to send the papers to Moscow for "review" by the authorities. Euwe was already having a bad tournament, and this incident must have affected him.
As it was, Botvinnik placed a telephone call to Moscow, and the papers were returned to Euwe, after he signed a document disavowing any ill intent to the Sovet Union.
The Soviet Sports Committee was very concerned about Reshevsky. Sammy had blown a win against Botvinnik in the first round, and lost in time pressure. Their second round game was a draw.
GM Boris Gulko, in "The KGB Plays Chess" (pg 8), states that the Soviet authorities were planning contingencies:
"Did the government make it easier or harder for Botvinnk to win? Evidently, it did both. In the middle of the 1948 world championship tournament, which brought Botvinnik to the world title, the grandmaster was summoned to a meeting of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Andre Zhdanov, one of Joseph Stalin's closest collaborators, told Botvinnik:
"We are afraid that Reshevsky (the great american grandmaster) will become world champion. How would you like it if the Soviet participants lost to you on purpose?"
"I lost the ability to speak," Botvinnik recalled, "Why did Zhdanov have to humiliate me? When I regained the ability to speak, I categorically rejected his offer."
Naturally, such an upheaval coould not has passed without any effect, and Botvinnik lost his next game in the tournament - against none other than Reshevsky.
Reshevsky's win would set up the most controversial game of the tournament - Keres versus Botvinnik in Leg 3.
Numerous reports suggest that Keres was upset when he arrived for the game. He played a line, as White, that divirged from his previous sucesses against Botvinnik. Indeed his play was solid and unspectacular - odd for a player still in the thick of the championship chase.
This infamous game is recorded here, with 8 pages of commentary. I urge the reader to come to their own conclusion: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032191&kpage=1
British champion, Harry Golembek, revealingly wrote,
"One had to rub one's eyes in incredulity at the sight of Keres committing such obvious positional errors...His play was inexplicably weak...as though he was determined to lose."
Keres was considered one of the top endgame technicians. Indeed, I own one of his endgame primers. What happened to him at Move #53? Indeed, why did he play so poorly after both the first and second adjournment?
Golembek may have hit the nail on the head. It appears to me Keres had been coerced, and needed to make a loss look reasonable, without being obvious.
Grandmaster Larry Evans felt Keres "threw" the game, disbelieving that a player of Keres' magnitude could possible botch that endgame.
Reshevsky himself was suspicious of Soviet behavior:
HANNON W RUSSELL: What did you feel your chances were going into that tournament?
RESHEVSKY: I didn't know because there was a question of how the Russians were going to play against each other.
HWR: Even then?
RESHEVSKY: Even then. There was this rumor, unconfirmed, that the Russian threw games to each other, if necessary.
HWR: Do you think that happened in 1948?
RESHEVSKY: I had a suspicion that it might have.
HWR: But Botvinnik won that tournament going away.
RESHEVSKY: Yes, I know, but I had my doubts.
GM Hans Ree, was more direct:
"The diagram presents the case that seems most convincing to me. Keres has an easy draw with 50 Ra4 but found an idiotic plan to put his healthy rook into the most passive position. You cannot call it a mistake."
I think here, the preponderance of the evidence suggests Soviet machinations at work. Keres would lose the first four games to Botvinnik. When they met for the fifth time, on the last round, Botvinnik had already secured the title.
Keres, years later, related to Wolfgang Unicker, that in the last game, Botvinnik offered Keres draws at Move #5 and Move #12. After the second offer, Keres said that he told Botvinnik to go screw himself! (paraphrased) ;^)