Soviet Cheating in FIDE Competition: Keres-Botvinnik, 1948, Pt 3

December 1999: The Botvinnik interview, heretofore buried in a Dutch
magazine not devoted to chess, appears in English for the first time
on Tim Krabbe's web-site.

50. 5 February: Sosonko about Keres/Botvinnik There has recently been so much conjecture about the 'Keres - Botvinnik case' (Keres losing his first four games against Botvinnik in the 1948 World Championship Tournament, before winning the fifth when Botvinnik was already champion) that I asked Genna Sosonko what he thought about it.
    Sosonko knows the chessworld and the Soviet society very well (he lived there until 1972), and he was also the one who (together with Max Pam) asked Botvinnik the question, in 1991, that made the Patriarch say: "At a very high level, it was proposed that the other Soviet players would lose against me on purpose, in order to make sure there was going to be a Soviet World Champion. It was Stalin personally who proposed this." (See item 42 below.)
    A lot of people saw the smoking gun of foul play in that, and I concluded that item with: 'Botvinnik admitted to a high-level plan for foul play in the 1948 tournament—and that he and Keres were involved.'
    With that, I violated my own maxim never to even hint at plots unless they are the only way to explain something. Plan was too strong a word, and involved too suggestive of active involvement.
    As far as Sosonko knows the Soviet Union and the Soviet chess world, he strongly thinks that there was not an outright coercion in 1948 for Keres to lose his first four games against Botvinnik. But he also thinks there was a general atmosphere in which it was very clear to Keres that it would not be a good idea to beat Botvinnik too often, so to say.
    Sosonko thinks things might have happened like this. Stalin would have made an offhand remark like: "Comrade Botvinnik seems to be headed for the chess world title. That is very good." This might have been seen as a command and handed down as such a few levels, to a point were conceivably an undersecretary of Sports might have jokingly said something to Keres like: "You're not going to wipe the great hope of our nation off the board too harshly today, are you?"
    Sosonko stresses he sees this scenario as an outside possibility, something not to be dismissed out of hand - but nothing more. Probably, Botvinnik's remark in the interview would boil down to something in that vein having been said, or having been presumed by him to have been said. He was a very suspicious man, always seeing plots against himself.
    There were never any rumors about the '48 tournament in the Soviet chess world. But then, in the Soviet Union that Sosonko knew, it would have been entirely impossible for such rumors  to have existed. Should one have suspected foul play in that tournament, "then these would have been thoughts one would only dare to think in a solidly locked toilet room."

42. 10 December: Saying no to Stalin—the 1948 Botvinnik - Keres case

[]

However, there is an interview Max Pam and Genna Sosonko made in 1991 with Botvinnik, and which you can read in full (in Dutch) at Max Pam's site. When they asked the Patriarch if he had ever encountered collusion between Soviet players in his playing days, his answer was: "I have experienced myself that orders were given. In 1948 I played with Keres, Smyslov, Reshevsky and Euwe for the world title. After the first half of the tournament, which took place in the Netherlands, it was clear that I was going to be the new World Champion. During the second half in Moscow something unpleasant happened. At a very high level, it was proposed that the other Soviet players would lose against me on purpose, in order to make sure there was going to be a Soviet World Champion. It was Stalin personally who proposed this. But of course I refused! It was an intrigue against me, to belittle me. A ridiculous proposal, only made to put down the future World Champion. In some circles, people preferred Keres to be World Champion. It was disgraceful, because I had already proven by and large that I was stronger at that time than Keres and Smyslov."
    A nonsensical answer, but telling all the same. People preferring Keres? Botvinnik had been an intended Soviet Hero for at least ten years; the Estonian Keres with his tainted war past as the first Soviet World Chess Champion was unthinkable. And saying no to a proposal from Stalin? Even so: Botvinnik admitted to a high-level plan for foul play in the 1948 tournament—and that he and Keres were involved.

PS 12 December: Reader Roman Parparov had an interesting remark about this: "There is a reason why people would have preferred Keres to Botvinnik as the World Champion. It is not a reason you would think of as an intellectual and a civilized modern European. But this is quite an obvious reason to me. The reason is antisemitism. People didn't want the Jew Botvinnik to win the title.

Quoted from

http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/diary_3.htm

Wall's phrase

"Botvinnik was interviewed and said that there was an official order from Stalin that Smyslov and Keres were ordered to lose to Botvinnik to make it easier for Botvinnik to win the world title."

is a total misinterpretation of Krabbe's text.

Not really.  The basics are all there.

The Soviet political establishment wanted a Soviet world champion.

They intervened and proposed to Botvinnik that the other Soviets should throw games to him if necessary.

Botvinnik says he refused/dissuaded the offer.

Keres says (to Whyld) he was, in fact coerced, but did not throw games.

It is still collusion and manipulation on the part of Soviet authorities.  If this were an isolated effort, it could be dismissed; however, it is part if a long-term pattern.

Bill Wall is still an active member at chess.com.  Your source is little more than a character assassin.

I have heard that Americans poorly understand nuances. I now see that it is true.

My questions are.

1) Do you admit that Botwinnik has won the title by right and that he was the true champion?

2) What has made you to write these articles?

Jamie, do you see that while you are arguing from a general perspective that all Soviets are evil and every tournament they played in must therefore be tainted, Marignon points out that there were many documented cases of Soviet collusion, but no such documentation exists for the 1948 tournament?

I am not arguing that all Soviets are evil.  The argument is that the goals of the Soviet government led to the manipulation and corruption of the FIDE system for the championship competition.

Individual chess masters were most likely unwilling participants who simply followed orders, rather than face the consequences.

If Keres felt coerced by State Security, even of he did not intentionally lose games, he certainly was badly affected by the experience.  It has been nearly 70 years since these games were played, and still today, grandmasters and chess journalists look at the Keres-Botvinnik series and detect the taint.

Similarly, the 1978 title match was conducted under the cloud of coersion.  These "sporting tactics" are not novel, but were part of the Soviet chess "toolbox."

In the Forward to the 2013 English-language edition of Euwe's tournament book, Dutch Grandmaster Hans Ree writes, "In my opinion, there were signs that something was amiss."  Ree does not, at this date, seem to be a Soviet-basher, perhaps in the manner of Larry Evans, but he is not the only chess master who is unsettled by these games.

The purpose of these articles is to review the complex history of of the title competition under the auspices of the FIDE.

Do you admit that Botwinnik has won the title by right and that he was the true champion?

No.  As in logic, when the premise which underlays the argument is flawed, the conclusion is also flawed.

I will stand by my earlier statement that Botvinnik was, at the time, probably the strongest player in the world.

At the beginning of 1948, Botvinnik was the "primus inter pares."  The elite cadre of players at the time of the match-tournament included Najdorf, Keres, Reshevsky, Euwe, Stahlberg, Boleslavsky, Eliskases, Bronstein, and Kotov.  I do not include Fine in this list, because of his inactivity after 1942.

So, if Botvinnik wasn't the legit champion, then neither were any of the Soviets who followed him. And neither was Fischer. 

So, that means that Fischer did the world a favor by vacating the throne so there could be a new, legit world champion! Karpov was the first legit world champion since Alekhine's death! Q.E.D.

The problem with that was the 1975 and 1978 (especially) matches between Karpov and Korchnoi were compromised.

The title under the FIDE has been suspect since Day 1.

There have been times when the top two players in the world, whether based on ratings, results, reputation, etc., have been paired in a match.  There is where your World Champion will be found.

Fischer and Spassky (1972) fits the bill.  Steinitz and Zuckertort (1886).  Kasparov and Karpov (1986).  To name a few.

Ok, so Kasparov was the first legit World Champion since 1948. Gotcha.

Legitimate in that he proved it over the board against the best competition.

It is hard to claim to be the world's best when your pair numbers 3 and 4 in a match.  Or when the alleged title you hold is tainted.

Does anyone doubt that, for instance, Fischer and Spassky were the two best in the world in 1972?

No, but does anyone really doubt that Karpov was the best in the world before 1986?

Yes, I do wonder if Spassky was really the second best player in the world in 1972. He wasn't hungry, he trained poorly, and I strongly suspect that Petrosian or Korchnoi might have been able to beat him in a match too. Don't get me wrong. He fully deserved the right to defend his title, and Fischer clearly proved he was the best player in the world in 1972. 

I disagree completely with your premise that Botvinnik's title was illegitimate. 

True, you can dispute Spassky being in the top 2. Nobody in their right minds, though, would claim that Fischer didn't prove himself the best.

After Kasparov broke from the corrupt FIDE, none of the following FIDE titlists were legitimate, until Kasparov retired.