It's indisputable that the Soviets played as a cartel.
I guess it's comes down to whether people believe it constitutes cheating.
If so, a quick draw between friends or compatriots constitute cheating.
It is if it's prearranged.
It's indisputable that the Soviets played as a cartel.
I guess it's comes down to whether people believe it constitutes cheating.
Cheating is a good thing.
if zero chance of getting caught, i think we'd have a million members here with 3K ratings. it's just for fun to see the possibilities.
Reshevsky actually played a 4-game mini-match with Botvinnink and won 2.5-1.5.
1955, 1 win, 3 draws
At his absolute peak, Reshevsky may have been the best player in the world (or so Fischer said.) But his lifetime score versus Botvinnik was +2 -5 =7
Reshevsky actually played a 4-game mini-match with Botvinnink and won 2.5-1.5.
1955, 1 win, 3 draws
At his absolute peak, Reshevsky may have been the best player in the world (or so Fischer said.) But his lifetime score versus Botvinnik was +2 -5 =7
I know, but for once I think Fischer was hasty or biased in his judgement. I've often wondered what he based that judgment on. I would venture to say that Fischer had too little data to go on when he made that statement. Don't get me wrong, Reshevsky was a very fine player, but a) he didn't play that much internationally, and b) in virtually all tournaments where he faced Soviet players, they bested him. He was ahead of Najdorf, Gligoric and Stahlberg for sure, but not quite a match for the best Soviets.
Reshevsky actually played a 4-game mini-match with Botvinnink and won 2.5-1.5.
1955, 1 win, 3 draws
True, but I'm not sure how much that proves. 3 draws and a one move blunder by Botvinnik in game 1.
+2 -5 =7
when i first encountered this sort of thing, i couldn't understand the math
Reshevsky actually played a 4-game mini-match with Botvinnink and won 2.5-1.5.
1955, 1 win, 3 draws
At his absolute peak, Reshevsky may have been the best player in the world (or so Fischer said.) But his lifetime score versus Botvinnik was +2 -5 =7
I know, but for once I think Fischer was hasty or biased in his judgement. I've often wondered what he based that judgment on. I would venture to say that Fischer had too little data to go on when he made that statement. Don't get me wrong, Reshevsky was a very fine player, but a) he didn't play that much internationally, and b) in virtually all tournaments where he faced Soviet players, they bested him. He was ahead of Najdorf, Gligoric and Stahlberg for sure, but not quite a match for the best Soviets.
I think Fischer had plenty of basis for comparison, starting with the match he played against him as a teenager.
Fischer was really biased and wanted to discredit the Soviet Union whenever possible. Reshevsky was a world class GM, but he wasn’t better than Keres, Smyslov, Botvinnik or Tal.
Chessmetric,com which tries to create "ratings" for the players of the pre-ELO era, has Reshevsky rated world #1 in 14 monthly rating lists between 1942 and 1953. Fischer played Reshevsky, and he played Smyslov, Keres, Petrosian and Tal. He was in a pretty good position to judge them
You now who else was a really great player in the late 1940's and 1950's? Miguel Najdorf. Check the Chessmetrics site and see how he was in the very top handful in those years. He also built a lucrative insurance business in Argentina and became a very rich man!
I shall never relate becoming rich as some sort of success.
Hooray for you!
Reshevsky never had the advantage and support of the Soviet "machine." Nor did Fischer.
Late in their lives, and after the fall of the authoritarian Soviet government, Bronstein and Korchnoi pulled back the blinds on the intrigues of the corrupt Soviet Chess machine.
Chessmetric,com which tries to create "ratings" for the players of the pre-ELO era, has Reshevsky rated world #1 in 14 monthly rating lists between 1942 and 1953. Fischer played Reshevsky, and he played Smyslov, Keres, Petrosian and Tal. He was in a pretty good position to judge them
You now who else was a really great player in the late 1940's and 1950's? Miguel Najdorf. Check the Chessmetrics site and see how he was in the very top handful in those years. He also built a lucrative insurance business in Argentina and became a very rich man!
First of all, the Chessmetrics list aren't quite comparable to the normal Elo system, since extra weight is given to activity in particular months. If Botvinnik didn't play in one particular month, but Najdorf or Reshevsky did and had good results, the latter two would surge ahead. Even so, Reshevsky was #1 on only 14 out of 132 lists in the period you mentioned, and the span when Chessmetrics puts him at #1 for a more sustained period (mid-1952), it's only marginal at best, and it's unclear to me why his results would merit the #1 position, other than the activity itself; a good showing on board 1 at the Helsinki 1952 olympiad (+7, but only 50% against genuinely world class opponents: Najdorf, Ståhlberg, Keres, Gligoric and Szabo), and three narrow match wins against Najdorf and Gligoric. Then in 1953, he lost out at Zürich-Neuhausen to Smyslov and tied for 2nd to 4th with Keres and Bronstein. Furthermore, don't forget that the players on either side of the Atlantic were virtually cut off from each other until 1946, and only played among themselves. The first USSR vs USA radio match in 1945 gives us a fairly good idea of the relative strength relationship between the world's two strongest chess countries. The USA suffered a terrible drubbing by the Soviets, 4½:15½. Finally, Reshevsky's life time score against the leading Soviets: Botvinnik has already been mentioned, Smyslov +3 -7 =17, Keres +6 -4 =9 (although even stevens until 1963, when Reshevsky won both their games at the Piatigorsky Cup, but Keres won the tournament), Bronstein +0 -3 =1 (if we discount their blitz games at Herceg Novi in 1970), Tal +0 -2 =1, Korchnoi +0 -3 =8 (all from 1960 onwards), Petrosian +0 -2 =8, Spassky +0 -1 =2. All negative, with one exception, which was a life-time drawn score at the time of Reshevsky's peak.
Personally, I always considered Reuben Fine to have been a greater potential American world championship contender than Reshevsky (before Fischer came onto the scene), but he retired from professional chess in the 1940s. Also, don't forget that Fischer once dismissed Lasker as a coffee-house player, but later retracted this opinion. As SmyslovFan says, as likely as not, his assessment of Reshevsky had an anti-Soviet bias.
"Personally, I always considered Reuben Fine to have been a greater potential American world championship contender than Reshevsky "
Fine was an extremely good player. Chessmetrics has him as #1 i\for 6 months in 1940-41. But Reshevsky dominated Fine in head to head competition, Reshevsky vs Fine scored +5 =14 -1
Ratings during WWII should be taken with an extra large grain of salt.
There were few events, and the chessmetrics rating system estimated player strengths very generously. This means that an otherwise undocumented participant in a national event might be given a base rating of 2400 even if they never played anywhere near 2200 strength.
There just weren’t enough events, especially in war zones, for player ratings to be meaningful.
Reshevsky actually played a 4-game mini-match with Botvinnink and won 2.5-1.5.
1955, 1 win, 3 draws