Histt1rysays "Yet apparentl y the price for Keres ' return was just a vague promise w ith Soviet officials not to hinder Botvinnik's campaign," which has a very different sense. Note especially his replacing "return" by "reprieve from execution" and his exaggeration of the meaning of "Botvinnik's campaign" (see point # 1 ) . Fabrication? A t best, flagrant inaccuracy. Schroeder's article is based more on opinion, perhaps even imagination, than fact. Unless authoritative support surfaces, his views must be regarded as more akin to tabloid headlines like "Elvis was a UFO Alien". Even CHESS now disowns him. In response to a detailed critique I sent to London, a senior CHESS editor admitted that in places "Schroeder is just speculating . . . [or] is just wrong," and that publishing the article "was a clear error of judgement." Somewhat Less Extreme: Evans The interest of many American readers was rekindled by GM Larry Evans' article "The Tragedy of Paul Keres" in the October 1 996 issue of Chess Life. While Evans (mostly) avoids Schroeder's extremes, he finds "little doubt that [Keres] was forced to take a dive." At first I found Evans' case persuasive (explaining two highly laudatory letters of mine written in late 1 996 but not published in CL until 8/97 and I 0/97). Since then my research has raised doubts. Among his supports Evans cites: ( 1 ) "Newly opened KGB files"; (2) Schroeder's article; (3) an article by Soviet master Feodor Bohatirchuk; and (4) analysis of Keres ' 1 948 games against Botvinnik. Let's examine these. A careless reading might lead one to think that Evans possesses once-secret Soviet documents on Keres. If so, he is not forthcoming about it. The only one quoted, a letter from Keres to Foreign Minister Molotov, was unearthed and published by the aforementioned Valter Heuer. In it Keres begs not to be stigmatized for playing in Nazi-organized tournaments, and pleads for reinstatement as a Soviet grandmaster. Relevant, but not, as Evans implies, directly illustrative of a plot to make Keres throw games. I asked Evans if he had a "smoking gun," stating clearly the KGB told Keres "lose or we kill you." He admitted ( CL, 4/1 997, p. 28) "I doubt such a document will ever surface." He then cited the aforementioned Oxford Companion entry: "In return [for official forgiveness] Keres promised not to interfere with Botvinnik's challenge to Alekhine." That, printed in 1 984, is nothing new. Its meaning is also clearly narrower than Evans' blanket statement "the price of [Keres' ] reprieve was to abandon his quest for the crown." Evans is claiming more than it appears he can document. Amazingly, Evans mentions Schroeder's CHESS claim that Botvinnik barred Keres from Groningen et al. As we have seen, this is like citing a comic book in the Warren Commission Report. I am frankly surprised that Evans would report this unsupported claim as fact without question or comment. 268 Histt�ry The Ukrainian Bohat i rchuk, writing in Chess Life in 1 95 l , is an informed character reference but not an eye-witness. Six times a USSR championship participant from 1 923 to 1 934, and co-winner in 1 927, he had first-hand acquaintance with Soviet chess politics, but he left the USSR during WW II and thus had no involvement in Kere s ' postwar situation. We will return to Bohatirchuk later, but for now suffice it to say that the Bohatirchuk excerpts Evans gives are not definite evidence; they are rather only an earlier statement of Evans' main thesis: that the low quality of Keres' games against Botvinnik in 1 948 indicates a fix. The bulk of Evans' article is devoted to analysis of points in those games which strike him as suspicious. It appears valid, insofar as he finds inferior moves by Keres. However, inference based on quality of play is highly problematic. Chess is a hard game, and even the greatest players have made horrendous mistakes. Take this position from the 1 977 Korchnoi-Spassky Candidates match. Most D-players would see that 3 2 . .il.xf5?? E!. xf5 3 3 . "i!i'xf5??? .il.xf5 i s dreadful, yet Korchnoi, a player arguably superior to Keres, did just that. Those seeing conspiracy in this game involving a Soviet defector should note that Korchnoi still won the match. Alekhine and Petrosian each once hung his queen. Nimzovitch and Reshevsky each allowed mate in two, which Rubinstein and Szab6, respectively, overlooked, and such greats as Smyslov, Bronstein, Gligoric, Short and Yusupov have missed mate in one. Capablanca once hung a piece on move 9. If coercion is not required to explain these blunders, why must it be invoked to explain Keres' more subtle errors? Coercion can cause bad play, but bad play does not prove coercion. Yet Evans insists that Keres "left a trail in his first four losses [in 1 948] for those who are knowledgeable enough to follow it to an inescapable conclusion. " Apparently British G M John Nunn, generally considered a stronger player than Evans, is not "knowledgeable enough." Seeming to reply to Evans in his foreword to Paul Keres: The Quest for Perfection (ICE, 1 997), Nunn says "Attempts to analyze the games themselves for ev idence of Keres' suicidal efforts . . . appear to be misguided" and notes that Vishy Anand, in his 1 995 title match with 269 Kasparov, committed two "el e m e n tary errors far worse than any c o mm i tted by Keres in . . . 1 948 . . . and nobody seriously suggests that Anand deliberately lost." Evans said in the 1 0/ 1 997 CL "Obviously a player of Keres' genius isn't going to make stupid mistakes that are easy to detect." Yet ease of detection was his basis in 1 0/96 for suspecting Keres' 2 1 . �el in this position. "Incomprehensible . . . 9 out of 10 grandmasters would double rooks by 2 1 . �afl without thinking twice." Evans wants it both ways: obvious errors show Keres taking a dive, subtle mistakes show him using his genius to cover the tracks. In this kind of logic, any and all evidence is interpreted to support an a priori conclusion. I do not agree with recent anti-Evans comments by Chess Life readers, calling his article "wild charges," "crackpot theory" and "a f rre sale on paranoia." Evans is raising important issues. However, by citing Schroeder he uncritically accepts dubious support. In the 4/ 1 997 CL he disturbingly misrepresents Hooper & Whyld, and later ( I 0/1 997) Heuer, implying the Estonian supports his conclusion, when as we will see, the opposite is true. His analyses are perhaps necessary to establish his case, but are not sufficient. He admits he has no direct evidence. His conclusion is far from "inescapable." Alternate Explanations and Occam's Razor Still, Evans is correct that "To put it mildly, Keres didn't play his best against Botvinnik in 1 948," and one wonders, if not because of coercion, then why? Research suggests some alternatives. One explanation may lie in military history. Chess masters, like most of us, do best in peace and prosperity. Estonia for decades had little of either. Its recent history runs: 1 920-39, independent; mid1 940 to mid- 1 94 1 , Russian occupation; mid- 1 94 1 to September 1 944, German occupation; then Soviet occupation until recent years. During these turbulent times, Keres' chief rivals were Alekhine, then Botvinnik. A correlation of their games with historical periods is revealing. 270 Hist11ry Keres vs. Alekh ine: 1 935-39: + I -2 =5 ; Keres vs. Botvinnik: 1 938: +0 -0 =2; 1 942-43 : 1 940-4 1 : 1 947-48: 1 95 1 -56: +0 +0 +1 +2 -3 =3 -1 =4 -5 =0 - 1 =2 During Estonian independence Keres' results against Botvinnik are equal, and nearly so against Alekhine. However, his score dips during foreign occupations, against Alekhine under the Germans, then twice vs. Botvinnik under Russia, finally recovering years later. There are precedents for this . A reason for Lasker 's poor showing against Capablanca in 1 92 1 was his suffering in the aftermath of Germany's defeat in WW I. Flohr's decline after 1 93 8 was due to the travails of his homeland Czechoslovakia. That during occupation, a distracted Keres would do poorly against the favorite of the occupying power, is not hard to grasp. If only Communist coercion explains his decline against Botvinnik, consistency requires that Nazi coercion be invoked to explain his dip against Alekhine, but no one has suggested that. During WW II, Keres and Botvinnik faced different levels of competition. From late 1 94 1 to late 1 945 the only top player Keres met was Alekhine; the rest were decidedly lesser masters and a washed-up Bogolyubov. Botvinnik meanwhile stayed keen against fellow Soviet GMs such as Smyslov, Kotov, Boleslavsky, Bronstein, and Flohr. Thus, like Muhammad Ali in 1 97 1 , Keres returned to competition out of shape, and his post-war quarantine limited his chances to play back into form. Botvinnik may simply have had Keres "psyched." Botvinnik states in Achieving the Aim "Keres had failings which were well known to me . . . when his mood was spoiled he played below his capabilities." When their rivalry resumed in 1 947, Botvinnik "resolved with the help of this game [against Keres in the Chigorin Memorial] to rob my main rival . . . of his confidence." (p. 1 1 0). Botvinnik did indeed win, and may have succeeded in "spoiling Keres' mood" for some time. This again is not uncommon: Lasker had Capablanca psyched at St. Petersburg 1 9 14; Capablanca had Alekhine's number before 1 927; Tal had Fischer's in 1 959. Heuer says "There is no doubt that . . . Keres suffered a certain ' Botvinnik complex"'. Botvinnik also observed that Keres had "a tendency to fade somewhat at decisive moments in the struggle," or in common parlance he wasn't a "clutch player." Sports history is rife with talented teams and players who can't or don't "win the big one" : the Brooklyn Dodgers of the 1 950s, the Los Angeles Lakers and the Dallas Cowboys in the 1 960s for example. I don't recall that cries of "Fix ! " were raised when they consi stently lost to the Yankees, Celtics an d Packers, respectively. 27 1 �g4 (42. Botvinnik for the Defense Since Mikhail B otvinnik is. �g2 'l. but I cannot find it. in which Evans sees "fix" from move 2 1 . . �h2 �f2+ etc. and concluded "I consider Karpov's words a lie. I ask for help from Flohr. Occam's Razor requires that more complex hypotheses have supporting evidence." (p. Like Keres." He added that such rumors had been fueled some four years earlier by Karpov. I do not claim these facts disprove coercion. 1 946. . Botvinnik writes ''The game adjourned with me a pawn up. but they do show that many simpler. This is the post-adj ournment position. bxa7+ �xa7 45. This German journalist researched Karpov's claims. "Anyone can lose to Botvinnik. After beating the world's best at AVRO 1 938. in an interview by a Dr. in a sense. non-conspiracy explanations are plausible. Botvinnik told Valter Heuer in 1 990: "I did not act against him. I never intrigued. Bernd Nielsen-Stokkeby. 1 1 4). lasted 58 moves. are not consistent with conscious complicity on his part. Salo does not let me down. To my mind this is below a chess player 's dignity. Hague Moscow may have been a similar downswing. gh4? itl'f4+ 43. he is a very strong player. To insist that Botvinnik could not succeed without a fix is a very shaky stance. "I am above such nonsense." Consider his triumph at Groningen. but as for seeking to hurt him. Finally. as Keres himself said.1 3th against a much lesser field. he placed 8-9th at Dresden. c. I had to find a forced win .. fairness requires that he be allowed to speak. Immediately after sharing I st with Alekhine at Bad Nauheim 1 936. � xg3 J. the accused here. ahead of most of the world's best including many un coercible non-Russians. mundane.lf8! (Flohr's move) 44." Certain episodes. The winning line was 41 h4! 42. �xh3 "ltf4+! 47. he next placed only l 2. On the charge that he instigated Keres' arrest. but his autobiography and certain interviews contain relevant statements.Histt1ry Keres was highly variable." Botvinnik did admit that he did nothing in particular to help Keres in 1 944-47. His first game with Keres at Hague-Moscow 1 948. That Botvinnik. a strong • •. as described in Botvinnik's autobiography Achieving the Aim.£lf3!) hg3+ 43. he is dead.ffg2 . a6 � xh3 46. and found such a 'quiet' move that it all became clear. 272 .t'fl+ 48. Two other incidents from Aim seem at odds with coercion theories. .. saying "then I will myself put a piece en prise and resign" (p. For example in 1 984 he said "[Keres] was psychologically unstable. or these words stink of hypocrisy. unexpected and elegant was the decision Paul found. but in my career I have never deliberately lost to anyone. or Botvinnik lied. a disinformation artist on a par with Felix Derzhinsky or Josef Goebbels. or Botvinnik was a very artful liar. On p. 1 2 1 ). Keres Coerced but Botvinnik Innocent? The Vukcevic Hypothesis Yet another scenario is offered by Milan Vukcevic. 'Can't you play it like this?' We looked at each other and burst out laughing for a long time. Soviet chess czar Krylenko proposed that Rabinovich purposely lose. On Evans' claim that. than to be such a man's house guest. and Keres knew it. Evans is mistaken. it would seem far more natural to nurse an unending hate-filled grudge. Botvinnik ." (p. would he accept a gift win. Some people concluded that I lost on purpose . .1 960s. He saw how we struggled with the coal [and said] 'It's time to go over to automatic oil-fired heating . 1 66: "[In 1 960] Keres had been a guest at my dacha. he played weakly." Botvinnik must be innocent of any complicity in any coercion on Keres. "' Later Botvinnik describes Keres helping with analysis of a game in 1 969: "Keres thought a little and said. threw his last Hague-Moscow game so that Keres could tie Reshevsky. . It shows the Soviets already willing to rig important results. . 43). when he had to win. Two. and who now lives in Cleveland.. we find: "There remained my final game with Keres . These describe the friendship that later grew between Keres and Botvinnik. to offer him friendly advice.quired to sustain the coercion hypothesis. You will have a quiet life and the results of your creative work will be better. but Botvinnik feeling honor-bound to resist it. I confess that I have drawn by agreement . Born in 273 . Nor. Botvinnik refused. it is almost impossible to reconcile Evans ' view of Hague-Moscow with Botvinnik's account. Perhaps Keres had the forgiving nature of a saint. Ohio. He recounts that before the last round of Moscow 1 935. ." If Botvinnik had stolen Keres' lifelong dream. . One or the other seems re. One. . a Yugoslavian who emigrated to America in the mid.. .Hi!�ltJry e ndga m e pl a y e r needed help. seems totally at odds with the idea that both he and Keres knew the game was rigged. ironically. . barring the idea that it was done without Botvinnik's knowledge or consent. to ensure Botvinnik 1 st place. I was thoroughly tired and [missed] a repetition of moves . Two things stand out in this.. Botvinnik's public statements make the stakes for his posthumous reputation very high. in an earlier incident. so simple. This testimony is double-edged. Chess is a game for strong people with strong character. and laugh with him like schoolboy chums. Unfortunately. Vukcevic became acquainted with Keres in the 1 950s (at a tournament in Hastings. In a nutshell. England) and later with Botvinnik. Botvinnik] but not for other contestants. Vukcevic does not know. and which has been alleged in some recent world title matches).llistt1ry 1 937. Keres did not tell him anything related to Hague-Moscow while at Hastings. he believes Keres was coerced in 1 948. and that possibly Botvinnik was fed advance information about Keres' planned opening repertoire by duplicitous seconds (a tactic Vukcevic says was once used against himself. It is misleading of Schroeder to imply that he has Vukcevic's full support. By our quasi-legal standard. His opinion regarding coercion derives from a fellow Yugoslav. we must have more factual support before accepting his views. directly contradicting him on Botvinnik's involvement. Where Trifunovic got his information. published by Evans i n Chess Life. Vukcevic 's knowledge is not firsthand. who knew Keres well. 3) It is the only scenario in which a coerced Keres and an innocent Botvinnik can coexist. as a Botvinnik free of complicity could not have purposely thrown his 5th game with Keres at Hague-Moscow. Vukcevic discussed the Keres-Botvinnik case with me in a lengthy phone interview in late 1 997. 2) It partially contradicts Evans. In a letter he complained "The tournament conditions are appropriate for Mischenka [i. He uncovered such important documents as the Molotov letter. with sources ranging from Garry Kasparov to Keres' widow. Research. some of which I have already cited. has described in New In Chess (#4. He believes that Keres made inferior moves without Botvinnik' s knowledge." 274 . and he has conducted many interviews. oddly. and offering him no support on allegations of post. it is impossible to verify. Valter Heuer of Estonia appears at this time to be doing the best work on the Keres-Botvinnik case. in a Russian tournament.1 948 coercion. that puts it into the category of hearsay. i n which James Schroeder cited Vukcevic i n support o f his extreme views on the Keres case (though. who died in 1 980. GM Petar Trifunovic. 1 995) his decades-long search for the facts. Vukcevic is a FIDE Master i n OTB p l ay and an I n ternational G rand ma s te r for Composition.e. I contacted him because of a letter. Not Speculation: The Heuer Article In terms of factual research. While Mr. Heuer. Some highlights from his NIC article: 1) Keres appears to corroborate allegations that the 1 94 1 "Absolute" Championship of the USSR was organized for Botvinnik's benefit. Schroeder omitted any mention of Vukcevic in his CHESS article). Vukcevic impressed me as a man of integrity and intelligence. but that Botvinnik had no part in it. Of Vukcevic's hypothesis we can definitely say : 1 ) It is much narrower in scope than Schroeder's. He notes that Keres' widow Maria denies any fix." In sum. the facts known to me confirm that Keres went to fight and win. Heuer's Conclusions However. hardships which surely could have affected his play. Some Russians. notably Kotov. were leading me to conclude that either there was no overt conspiracy in 1 948. not wanting a match during depressing wartime conditions." (my emphasis) .which a man in Keres' trying position could not possibly do. Had I not 275 . a diligent researcher with more firsthand evidence. or that if there were. it was far from being proven. once frighteningly at secret police headquarters while suffering from an ear infection. the more subtle flaws in Evans' . the plausibil ity of alternate explanations. he also had his home confiscated. though Keres said this was due to authorities confusing him with a criminal. throw aside all the superfluous" ." Finally. one Robert Keres. Worse. the Tin God The glaring flaws in Schroeder's arguments.HisttJry 2) Alekhine repeatedly offered Keres a title match circa 1 942-44 but Keres dec l i ned. he describes no formal arrest ever taking place. contrary to Evans and Schroeder. Furthermore. On the contrary. in general I got a certain idea of Keres' ambitions and moods. His movements were circumscribed. in October 1 944. During the 1 948 tournament. 3) Keres was never imprisoned by the Soviets. Botvinnik's denials. while Heuer cites GM Yuri Averbakh's claim of a warrant for Keres' arrest in 1 944. Heuer quotes Boris Spassky. and as a Keres admirer and fellow Estonian. and he was at least twice lengthily interrogated. 5) As late as 1 947 a group of Soviet players "lodged a complaint in which Keres was still stamped as a fascist. contrary to assertions by Koltanowski and others. 4) Keres' ceding to Botvinnik of the right to challenge Alekhine probably took place on a visit to Moscow in December 1 945 . Heuer shows that Keres had a very hard time in the post-war years leading up to Hague-Moscow. more than ample motivation to do so. Bronstein vs. Heuer does not claim that these hardships constituted a policy aimed at sabotaging Keres' chess. This is not at all to say Keres was treated well during 1 944-46. So here is Heuer. Heuer does not say when or if the mistake was ever rectified. more opportunity than anyone else to prove conspiracy. Heuer raises the question of a secret match deciding the issue but does not pursue it. and finally Heuer's reservations. who claim Keres was arrested and/or faced with imminent execution. unfairly imputed cowardice to Keres in this. Heuer "maintained contacts with the Hague and Moscow. Heuer concludes: "I have no proof that those historic competitions were only bad charades. Yet he can not. that a world championship aspirant "must forget everything else in this world. that is probably how this article would have concluded. Bronstein led late in the match. it has been speculated that Bronstein was coerced to lose. as Keres and Bronstein were close friends. 5) Botvinnik personally dictated the championship qualifying rules adopted by FIDE. 1 7. Bronstein even says string-pulling gave him the title shot in the first place. it offers many relevant insights by a Soviet chess insider. Yet Bronstein has always been respected for his integrity. who at one point had a 2-game lead. pompous egoist who reveled in his role as a tin god of Socialist Culture. 1 0). 3) When American GM Reuben Fine declined to play at Hague-Moscow 1 948. 1 20). limiting the number of candidates from any one country. 2) Botvinnik's first major international notice came in 1 933 by drawing a ten game match (+2 -2 =8) with Salo Flohr." Ironically. Here are some of the most important: 1) Bronstein does not unequivocally say whether he was coerced in 1 95 1 : "A lot of nonsense has been written about this. This directly contradicts Botvinnik. p. either he or Botvinnik is wrong or lying. was a Botvinnik ploy to lower the number of opponents he had to prepare for (p. Bronstein claims that Flohr. Bronstein in sum paints a very unflattering picture ofBotvinnik: a petty. 83). 1 20). ' The Sorcerer s Apprentice (Cadogan. managed to tie (+5 -5 =14) and by rule kept his title. This annoyingly vague but ominous statement leads one to wonder what "strong psychological pressure" might have been put to Keres. The Ukrainian GM Bronstein was in 1 95 1 the first challenger for Botvinnik's crown. What to make of this? It could be dismissed as the catty cheap shots of a disgruntled has-been. and tried (unsuccessfully) to keep him out of the Interzonal (p.llisttlry read David B ron s te in s The Sorcerer :\· Apprentice. which is somewhat surprising. for Najdorf's boasting at Groningen 1 946 that he would "pluck Botvinnik like a chicken. and who had few if any scruples about reaching and maintaining himself on that pedestal. setting up a stacked deck to maximize his advantage as incumbent (pp. "Isaac Boleslavsky was leading in the [ 1 950] 276 . but Botvinnik. part games collection. And if points #4 or #5 are true. However. 4) Botvinnik in 1 948 already realized the threat Bronstein posed. but adds "I was subjected to strong psychological pressure from various sources and it was entirely up to me to yield to that pressure or not" (p. many felt Miguel N ajdorf should have taken his place. 1 03). Clearly on the Najdorf veto. According to Bronstein's co-author Tom Furstenberg. 1 995). that was vetoed by Botvinnik out of spite. Even a rule seemingly motivated by fairness. then Botvinnik lied when he claimed "I never intrigued. by the least possible margin." and then doing just that at the board (p. As with Keres. and some of Bronstein's book does smack of sour grapes and fogeyism. was bribed to let Botvinnik draw the match (p. 108. 1 6). 88). and the accuracy of his memory. who says that Najdorf offered a draw beforehand (Aim. part memoir. and surprisingly. never touches directly on the Keres-Botvinnik case." he says. The Testimony of Sztein Some months after writing the above paragraph and. The iro n y is that this seems contrary to the policy usually ascribed to the Soviets. And if he is complicit. in a manner heavy with thinly veiled threats. He has. These incidents. he is. served as press attache to Viktor Korchnoi. If Soviet policy was to make the chess world safe for Communism and Botvinnik. politically an extremely powerful man. Sztein said he is privy to the memoirs of GM Yuri Averbakh. would appear to have been less desirable than the politically clean Boleslavsky. and got his request granted. this is further testimony that the Soviets sometimes rigged results in FIDE events . I thought. Sztein is certain that Keres was coerced. is a chess master. completing this article. immediately after that. Sztein says that according to Bohatirchuk. 1 973-80. Botvinnik went over Beria's head. whom I interviewed by telephone in March 1 998. Hanan Russell brought a new source to my attention: Emanuel Sztein. " Bronstein. If Bronstein is right. who couldn't beat Botvinnik with a stick (+0 -7 =4 through 1 950). According to Sztein. my emphasis) resulting in a play-off which Bronstein won. at the 1 935 Moscow tournament. Bohatirchuk defeated Botvinnik in their game. at one time Botvinnik desired to obtain a dacha (summer house) in an area normally reserved for the highest of the Soviet nomenklatura. why help Bronstein? Still. 1 07. illustrate the tremendous influence Botvinnik wielded. (p. Sztein had an extremely interesting response. If Achieving the Aim's depiction of a stern but fair Botvinnik is valid. with a politically tainted father. the greatest cheat and hypocrite in chess history.Hi. And it is clear that Bronstein and Botvinnik cannot both be taken at face value. Two. that he was never to defeat B otvinnik again. This request was opposed by Lavrente Beria. arguably.�t()ry Candidates Tnurnumcnt but after a talk with [Soviet Chess Federation head] Boris Vainstein he decided to slow down to allow me to tie for first place with him . with Botvinnik actively complicit. Sztein. Averbakh (born 1 922). When I pointed out that this did not necessarily mean that Botvinnik used this influence against Keres. he says. has been not 277 . then Bronstein is a character assassin. B ohatirchuk was told by Krylenko. historian and writer with contacts among the older generation of ex-Soviet grandmasters. which are to be published (in Russian) in the near future. a Russian emigre. and was friends with the aforementioned Feodor Bohatirchuk in Canada c. In support. for example. perhaps second then only to Stalin in the Soviet hierarchy. then Botvinnik's credibility is compromised. and with it some of his defense against charges of complicity. One. then supreme administrative head of Soviet chess. and a winning record (+ 1 = 1) against Botvinnik at the time. he first offered two incidents as indirect evidence. Sztein. or any other tournaments involving Keres and Botvinnik. Heuer has reason to believe that the complete government files on Keres are "in the foreign policy archives of the Russian Federation. By the quasi-legal standard I have tried to uphold. which probably affected his play. some government-imposed. but Sztein refused to elaborate further. may be definitely settled. So I asked him point blank: did he believe Keres was coerced in 1 948? His response: "I know it with certainty. Bronstein says nothing directly about the Keres case. and the testimony of Vukcevic." but as of 1 995 his requests for access had been denied. few things would give me more pleasure than to say that Keres. The tantalizing ambiguity of the Averbakh implications was frustrating to me. but also editor of the principal Soviet chess magazi ne Schachmaty. who cannot. a member of several important FIDE committees. It may yet come to that. however. by all accounts one of the kindest gentlemen who ever pushed a pawn. Sztein and Bronstein at least raises eyebrows. and Sztein's testimony would be more forceful if directly corroborated by a primary source such as Averbakh. were "only bad charades. If those come to light. However Vukcevic and Sztein are in part corroborative.lllstt�ry only a strong player. said he was not yet at liberty to divulge excerpts from Averbakh's memoirs until they are published. with his available evidence. He therefore has been heavily involved in all aspects of Soviet chess. Heuer hardly succeeds in allaying all suspicion. their status as evidence is problematic . and other unresolved questions of the highly politicized world of Soviet chess. was extremely concerned about his posthumous image (note: Vukcevic also mentioned this). in part contradictory." This Way Lies Madness The reader can now appreciate the maddening complexities of this affair." I would add to that a 278 . but lacks clear proof that Soviet policy was to sabotage Keres or that Botvinnik had the KGB order him to lose. and president of the Soviet Chess Federation ( 1 972-77)." And Botvinnik was actively complicit? "Yes . and the expected memoirs of Averbakh are published. conclude that Hague-Moscow 1 948. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. He further stated that Botvinnik. contradictory claims and implications abound. perhaps even stands one's hair on end. while he lived. Heuer pleads that "the Keres dossiers must be made available. and that some in Russia who might have spoken against Botvinnik have to date held their tongues due to fear of reprisal from Botvinnik's friends and heirs. the Keres case. but he made it clear they included revelations about dirty deals." He clearly shows that Keres suffered under handicaps. On the one hand we have the diligent researcher Heuer. tantalizingly. including the Keres case. but has not quite yet. Mystery. had been cheated by the humorless Stalinist Botvinnik. This is the demand made by his honour and dignity as well as B otvinnik's. My conclusion? Frankly. the honour and dignity of the chess world. it soon was suspected that the oppressive Stalin regime had pressured him to lose to Botvinnik. not to mention its sense of justice and its burning curiosity. Botvinnik slightly more but only to deny any wrongdoing.or post glasnost. vacant since Alekhine' s 1 946 death. scoring 14-6 (+ 10 =8 -2). said nothing definite. Bronstein. the 1 948 Hague-Moscow tournament was organized by FIDE to decide the world title. No Soviet official made any significant announcement. won convincingly over Smyslov ( 1 1 -9). or send someone to Russia and Estonia to investigate.llist11ry plea that the Averhakh memoirs be published in English as well as Russian. Keres said next to nothing on the subject publicly. After the USSR broke up. Because Keres was a non-Russian and by Communist standards politically tainted." Ideally coercion theorists would like the dusty KGB archives to divulge something like "The reactionary traitor and fascist collaborator Paul - 279 . despite a scarcity of direct evidence. State of the Evidence Suspicions have persisted ever since. Averbakh or Yefim Geller. interest has intensified. Smyslov. Background Briefly. justifying a further look. Find out as much as can found. This writer attempted his own contribution in 1 998 with "The Keres Botvinnik Case: A Survey of the Evidence". his best against any opponent. and Euwe (4. the loss coming only after 1 st place was clinched. before they are gone. Since then new evidence has surfaced. Friends of the principals. (June 1 998) The Keres-Botvinnik Case Revisited: A Further Survey of the Evidence Taylor Kingston Was Paul Keres was coerced by Soviet authorities to throw games to Mikhail Botvinnik in the 1 948 world championship? The question has intrigued and baffled chess historians for over 50 years. such as Bronstein.g. various documents surfaced. The honor and dignity of the chess world. but no clear "smoking gun.1 6). I ulso urge the chess journalism community to heed Heuer's plea. published both on this web-site and in Chess Life (5/98). and replace opinion and speculation with fact. who was acceptable as an icon of Socialist Culture. Keres and Reshevsky (each 10lh-9lh). either pre. Important was Botvinnik's +4 -1 score against Keres. and perhaps something that eluded me in 1 998: a conclusion. Help him. Especially since 1 995. do indeed demand it. e. Botvinnik. and soon. with everything from sound research to baseless opinion being offered. to dig into archives and to interview people who may know. and later he was suspected of assisting 280 . I have consulted several very strong players. reluctantly. Therefore this aspect of the case will. Stalin. but not by whom or why. this line of argument is perhaps stronger and easier to grasp. even dead giveaways. but not here and now . politics and probability. Evans has gone so far as to imply that his analyses are comparable to the Zapruder film of the John Kennedy assassination. be bypassed for now .Hi. Inferring from the Games Inference has focused mainly on the games. only chess moves. October 1 996). particularly when they play each other. We know a man is shot. the political situation tells us by whom and why. than countless other errors. Errare humanum est. without finding consensus. I will note in passing that Evans' Zapruder analogy is specious. and the various interpretations of them." In the absence of such documentation. In contrast. which perhaps I will write someday. and all that. Keres' games show no crime. Red Army soldiers. and in some cases far less bad. could fill a small book. Keres was not a combatant or defector. if captured by the Germans and later freed. Those who see the games as evidence of coercion include GMs Hans Ree and Jan Timman. a prime example being GM Larry Evans' "The Tragedy of Paul Keres" (Chess Life.there simply isn't space. Others say Keres ' mistakes look no worse. Some say Keres made such bad moves at key points that to a trained eye they are strong indications. about which more later. would often be shot by their own army on grounds of ideological contamination. (signed) J.. IM John Watson and GM John Nunn are on record to the opposite effect. Today relatively few recall the severity of Stalinism or the intensity of Cold War ideological passions. I consider analysis potentially relevant. but he was under a definite cloud for playing in Nazi-organized tournaments while Estonia was under German occupation. but by itself neither necessary nor sufficient to establish coercion.not because it has no bearing. but because it cannot be properly dealt with in a few paragraphs. arguments for a fix have rested mainly on inference. Politics and Probability Compared to analysis. On the other hand. In World War II. A full discussion of the five Keres-Botvinnik games. that he was playing to lose. The Zapruder film at least clearly shows a crime.. made by even great players. General Secretary.. Keres is hereby instructed to expedite the H i sto ri ca l ly Inevitable Triumph of Communism by rendering all possible assistance to People's Hero Mikhail Botvinnik. but if he was coerced. under circumstances where coercion was obviously no factor. as well as Evans.. the People 's Committee for State Security will refrain from shooting him. In recognition of Keres' service to the cause of Socialist Revolution. Furthermore Evans in 1 996 employed arguments from probability. Certainly lacking. I consider the Stalin regime to have been an abomination. 257 -258). political. helped spare him. By virtue of AVRO 1 938. If the Soviets used such tactics so often. His 28 1 . 1 935 and most famously at Cura�ao 1 962 (see Soltis' Soviet Chess 191 7-1991 . but made a mess of his 1 998 article indicated that my motives. Quite the opposite. in fact there was no factual support. with Estonia back under Soviet control. and opportunity. would they hesitate to do so again? Also since 1 948 it has become known that various forms of cheating and coercion were employed by the Soviets for years : fictitious results to manufacture titles. I consider arguments that it "advanced the game" like praising Hitler for the Autobahn. taking a quasi-legal stance. in this regard. were misunderstood. let no right-winger call me "soft on communism. I would not hesitate to say that the Evil Empire took a crooked path to the world title. some of the best research in this area has been done by Estonian Valter Heuer (born 1 928). but if the Communists ' guilt is to be established. it can be argued that the likelihood of the Stalin regime blithely allowing him in 1 948 to become World Chess Champion. My reluctance to accept probability and inference did not stem from any pro-Soviet or anti-Keres bias . Keres still had already pressured Keres as early as had the right to challenge Alekhine for the world title. and the intervention of a friendly Estonian Communist Party official. Alekhine's death denied the Soviets this easy path to the world title. So just because I refuse to jump to conclusions." No.History anti-Soviet Estonian patriots .g Taimanov Matulovic. has long been one of my favorite players. bribery (e. to name but a few. I rejected probability-based arguments in my in 1 998 article. However. factual basis. a friend of Keres. and Botvinnik one of my least favorite. But proof of method was prima facie evidence of any crime. economic. Reaction in some quarters to my 1 948 the Soviet regime had motive and opportunity. would they have played fair when it mattered most. It is well established that Soviet authorities 1 945. both as a man and a chessmaster. That takes research. pp. In American courts a murder conviction requires proof of motive. but also for its corruption of chess . not just the "Everybody knows Commies are cheaters" sort of knee-jerk prej udice. As I stated in 1 998. machinations within FIDE to goad Fischer toward abdication. method. There are indications of game-fixing as far back as 1 933. Keres. was comparable to that of a Mormon becoming Pope. collusion in major tournaments as early as covert threats in the Karpov-Korchnoi matches. Keres stood aside for Botvinnik. But havhg once held Keres back. While his international fame. 1 970). in 1 948? Despite their plausibility and seductiveness. and thereby a major representative of S oviet Culture. it must be on a solid. military or cultural grounds. not j ust on humanitarian. in the USSR' . Schroeder) have cited it as supporting their ideas. by reason of his collaboration with the Germans . it appears Heuer has not uncovered any major discoveries since 1 995. However. Cafferty's Comments In the February 2000 British Chess Magazine appeared a one-page article by Bernard Cafferty. However "A handwritten PS added to the document and dated 17 September 1 946 stated that the Secretary of the Estonian Communist Party vouches for Keres and considers it possible for him to be sent abroad." However. 1 995) i s an excellent examination of Keres' WW 11 and postwar situation through 1 948. Nikolai Karotamm. Cafferty knows of "no documents giving chapter and verse to any fix. allowing Keres to go to Holland in 1 948. I believe. is another highly respected chess historian. co-author of The Ox ford Companion to Chess. a respected historian with considerable expertise on Russia and Soviet chess. Keres and Smyslov in a world title event ' .g. though coercion theorists (e.. it does not go that far. who according to Heuer was a "true Stalinist" but also an advocate for Keres as early as May 1 946. His contribution to this discussion is best expressed in his own words: 282 ." but he concludes that "Keres must have known what outcome the Soviet state deemed desirable. but which support Heuer's account in NIC. but as we will see there is more behind them. Heuer says "the facts known to me confirm that Keres went to fight and win. serious compromising material had been discovered on Keres. "A document dated 19 March 1 947 and signed personally by Stalin authorises the admission of the USSR to FIDE and the participation ofBotvinnik. Heuer does demonstrate that over 1 945-48 Keres suffered many hardships and distractions that surely hurt his chess performance. He may well have entered the event reconciled to playing only for second place. but these are not construed as deliberate Soviet policy to help Botvinnik. for example to the 1 946 Groningen tournament. and his links with active participants of the Estonian 'bourgeois-nationalist underground' . Cafferty. Let us examine what has turned up elsewhere since then. He apparently aided Keres' reinstatement." On this basis Keres was denied permission to travel abroad.HL11tt�ry article "The Trou bled Years of Pau l Keres" (New In Chess. won by Botvinnik." This was. "Keres and the KGB". #4. Cafferty wrote "A document of 29th August 1 946 states that Botvinnik and Smyslov had been investigated by the 'organs of state security' and there was no compromising material on them. ." The phrases "must have" and "may well have" still smack of speculation. To the contrary. Keres and Whyld Briton Ken Whyld. says Cafferty. for. discussed recently unearthed documents not mentioned by Heuer. Evans." This obviously was later expanded. However.. . . Botvinnik was asked if he had ever known of collusion between Soviet players. However he would have been in serious trouble had B. B ut he had been given a broader instruction that if Botvinnik failed to become World Champion. but I am inclined to take the story at face value. He had never found it easy to play Botvinnik." The Krabbe Diary was its first publication. although he was probably secure enough in his later years . the interview appeared only in the Dutch magazine Vrij Nederland (20 August 1 99 1 ). when he was my guest in Nottingham. . and hedged somewhat: "I never regarded it as something to repeat in his lifetime. In the key passage. not won the title because of any action by Keres. for he did not publicize it widely to the chess world. The Botvinnik Interview A few months before Whyld 's revelation." (emphasis added) This was posted on Tim Krabbe's on-line Chess Diary (www." Mr. sponsored by the British Chess Federation and the British-Soviet Friendship Society. an important corroboration of Cafferty's thesis. as president of the Nottinghamshire Chess Association. Pam apparently did not realize the significance of what he had. Instead. Later I thought it not worth repeating. It attracted little attention until Krabbe translated a portion into English and put it on his site over 8 years later. another relevant item appeared on Krabbe's site. to be his host. Emboldened by his relaxed attitude I was impudent enough to ask if he had 'thrown' those games in the 1 948 World Championship. htm). that he was not ordered to lose those games to Botvinnik. dated 14 September 2000 . That Whyld would keep it secret for nearly 38 years puzzled me.xs4all. In a later e-mail to this writer. . 1 1 June 2000. . Item #42. just the two of us. His reply : 283 . In another e-mail dated 1 1 August 2001 he clarified.Hi. a general-interest weekly not devoted to chess . it must not be the fault of Keres. by Dutch j ournalist Max Pam with emigre GM Genna Sosonko translating." (emphasis added) This constitutes. and secondly he might not have been telling the truth. perhaps even a long-sought "smoking gun. Not so. That evening he was my guest at dinner. Keres arrived in Nottingham on 27 November. Firstly there is only my word for it.�tt1ry "Keres told me i n private. and a skeptic might focus on the doubt of that last sentence. Whyld expanded on it: "At the end of 1 962 Keres made a visit to the British Isles. I believe. nV-timkr/ chess2/diary_4. to give a series of simultaneous displays . as item #65. posted 10 December 1 999. and he expressed very frank opinions on a number of topics . and it was my pleasant task. and was not playing to lose. describes an interview with B otvinnik. Whyld is becomingly modest. This included his only win over Smyslov. Obviously. but Botvinnik' s easiest game against Keres had been their second. In most areas of policy Stalin was no more flexible than Hitler. the score stood Botvinnik 6. 75%. Botvinnik says the idea of a fix did not come up until the tournament moved to Moscow. Smyslov] it was proposed that the other Soviet players [i. but refusing orders from Stalin himself? Hard to believe. people preferred Keres to be World Champion. it was clear that I was going to be world champion. after Botvinnik had already clinched the title. to belittle me. and perhaps to help Keres? Nonsensical. in order to make sure there was going to be a Soviet World Champion.e. and at least as brutal .. or Botvinnik so privileged? Other details are odd. At a very high level. And what of the claim that he refused? Not his only such. Reshevsky and Euwe for the world title." After two laps. do we see a 3-4 he scored against his fellow Soviets. p. After the first half of the tournament. 43. It was Stalin personally who proposed this. we have here the long-sought smoking gun. Was chess so different. Smyslov. Rejecting a suggestion by Krylenko is perhaps conceivable. not "the first half. B ut the two incidents are not entirely comparable. In some circles. because I had already proven by and large that I was stronger at that time than Keres and Smyslov. The fix proposal was intended to insult him. Reshevsky 4�. eight rounds. with orders from the very top. throw out the last lap . which took place in the Netherlands. The statistics ambiguous. Keres and would lose to me on purpose.) "During the second half in Moscow something unpleasant happened. only made to put down the future World Champion. His combined score against Keres and Smyslov shows the same trend: Moscow difference: in laps +3 -1 =2. B otvinnik publicly states the existence of a conspiracy." (emphasis added) Amazing ! For the first time. at the Hague. It was disgraceful. Hague +2 =2. and it seems to be badly skewing his interpretation of events here. In 1 948 I played with Keres. 88%. A ridiculous proposal. where he rejects Krylenko 's suggestion that Rabinovitch throw him a game in 1 935. 284 ." (Note: strictly s peaking. B otvinnik had something of a persecution complex." Bizarre. 67%) was in fact slightly below Only if we (6-2. like it was a sudden whim. 67%. as Krabbe notes.. when the Keres and Smyslov contestants had played each other twice. Botvinnik's Moscow score his Hague score are (8-4. none other than Stalin himself. 4. Or do we? The rest of Botvinnik's statement clouds the picture: "But of course I refused ! It was an intrigue against me. Euwe 1 �.. "I have experienced myse l f that orders were g i ven. Holland was venue for the first 2/ 5 of the tournament. +3 = 1 . 75%). see for example Achieving the Aim. Evans further misled CL readers by never naming Schroeder as the author. in a misleading.History So do we accept Botvinnik 1 00%? Do we dismiss it all as the grousings of a grumpy paranoid octogenarian. but Evans gave me no response. Having discussed these in 1 998. This drew a sharp response from me. so at odds with everything he and Soviet officialdom have said before. Evans quoted my laudatory 1 996 letter. Kingpin editor Jon Manley. Clearly it is at very least another confirmation of the basic thesis of official pro-Botvinnik pressure. On at least two occasions he has written about me. it shows. nor did he publish any of my critical letters in his column. which eventually appeared in the British monthly CHESS (411 996). but in other things Evans went beyond his rights. that it is very hard to explain unless it were a fact. In 1 995 James Schroeder. One example will illustrate the slipshod and misleading aspects of Evans' approach. later repudiated the article and expressed regret they had ever run it ( e mail. biased. baseless article on Keres and Botvinnik. Refuting Evans' Gambits An inspiration for my foray into this subject was GM Larry Evans' 1 996 article "The Tragedy of Paul Keres". and both Keres and Botvinnik knew what it was. Evans considered it "an inescapable conclusion" that Keres "was forced to take a dive. It was quoted by Evans as if it were established fact. a splenetic. Botvinnik's admission of a fix order is so different. instead presenting it as an official report by CHESS. and privately in letters to Evans in late 1 998." At first I found Evans ' case persuasive. giving the impression I still supported "Tragedy" when he knew full well I no longer did. In fact Malcolm Pein. in connection with the Keres case. However further research revealed flaws. wrote a severely flawed. at a minimum. and from Edward Winter in his article "The Facts About Larry Evans" (see the Skittles Room archives). I would not now bring Evans up. 285 . This is something like regarding The Mikado as a documentary on Japan. executive editor of CHESS. boorish American with no particular expertise on Soviet chess. the now well-known Kingpin letter. That was his prerogative. 5 September 1 997). a revision I stated publicly here and in Chess Life. There is another argument for at least partial acceptance. The first occurred in late 1 999. Coupled with Whyld's testimony. and sent two laudatory letters to him and Chess Life in late 1 996. that there was an officially desired outcome. or pick and choose what to believe? I prefer to avoid speculation on each detail. Such discoveries prompted me to revise my opinion of Evans' article. My tone was always cordial and I was open to discussing our differences. deceptive manner. except that his actions since then demand some response. Watson. as is amply documented. Evans' "despite" gambit is the low trick of a dirty politician. From my 1 998 quasi-legal standpoint. Krabbe. Amazing ! By saying "despite" Evans alleges that in 1 998 I overlooked or dismissed important evidence. Yet in 1998 this evidence was unknown to me. but not the right to mislead. May 1 998) devotes six pages to the topic without reaching any conclusion despite what Keres told Whyld and Botvinnik's startling admission in a 1 99 1 interview that Stalin did intervene" (emphasis added). 2. The Tragedy of Larry Evans It is a minor tragedy that Evans has taken this adversarial attitude.Hlstflry And yet. Whyld testifies that Keres knew he would have been in serious trouble had he somehow caused Botvinnik not to win the title. Keres was in political disfavor circa 1 945-46. saying " B ut [Kingston's] ' Survey of the Evidence' (Chess Life. I have corroboration of the dates and facts from Pam. it is probably more reasonable to 286 . Andy Soltis. Krabbe. Cafferty. Ironically. a much lower one. Anthony Saidy. Had he been responsive like Whyld. 3. I questioned some of his evidence and methods. However. B otvinnik says that there was an official order. I never dismissed his ideas out of hand. from an historian's standpoi nt. Ree. on the Keres case I have arrived at conclusions similar to Evans ' . Furthermore. it was also unknown to Evans. Emanuel Sztein. not the act of a responsible historian/journalist. However about Evans himself I have come to a new opinion. Evans has every right to disagree with me. as shown by the pressure put on Keres not to interfere in his challenge to Alekhine. Yasser Seirawan. is this enough for a conviction? Probably not. Leonard Barden. and Whyld themselves. we might have had a constructive dialogue. 4. Milan Vukcevic. Summation and Verdict A summation of important points: 1. and others who aided my research. It is therefore unlikely that the Soviet government would accept Keres as world champion in 1 948. Whyld never allowed publication of his 1 962 secret until 1 1 June 2000. The Botvinnik interview was not published in English until l 0 December 1 999. Questions on which he has never deigned to answer me. or at least proposal. Nor did I claim he had reached wrong conclusions. from Stalin that Keres and Smyslov to lose to him. B otvinnik was preferred by the Soviet government as a world champion. Unlike some of his critics. Evans seems not to have learned from this. for in the Septe m be r 2lX) J Chess Life he committed an even more blatant act of deceit. Attractive and consistent though this idea is. Schroeder) assert that the leash put on Keres in 1 948 stayed the rest of his career. As explained by Stephen Gould. Botvinnik was not in such good standing with the CP after 1 954. Botvinnik suffered something of a fall from grace. explaining his near-misses in the Candidates Tournaments of 1 953 (2nd-4th behind Smyslov). what form it took. Semantically nicer than a brutal "lose or we kill you" ultimatum. 1 956 (2nd again to Smyslov)." Perhaps. One wonders exactly how the coercion was carried out. evidence is lacking. The letter dealt with the highly-charged topic of socialist revolution in western countries. The official reply from the Central Committee was sternly critical." Based on all the above evidence and testimony. but with the same practical effect on Keres at the board. but the damage was done.1 948 official repression. the result of a 4-page letter he wrote to the leaders of the new post-Stalin regime. going so far as to suggest that Botvinnik might not belong in the Communist Party ! Botvinnik apparently recanted his heresy. and Botvinnik no longer in favor.HisttJry adopt a scientific standard." Cafferty says "this was not necessarily a fully blown order to throw games. when the emergence of other challengers meant that support of [Botvinnik] was no longer such a vital government priority. 1 959 (2nd to Tal).e.1 954. Coercion After 1948? The most extreme coercion theorists (e. More plausible seems a scenario described by Cafferty in an 8/200 1 e-mail: "Such a message may have been imparted to Keres by an Estonian CP boss (i. 58-67). Cafferty points out that in mid. especially after Stalin's death in March 1 953. unofficial Soviet chicanery may have spoiled Keres' last chance.g. Cafferty says "So. it seems likely that whatever kept Keres from winning a Candidates Tournament and finally getting a title match. by an ethnic Estonian) and represented to him as a way of regularising his position vis-a-vis potential accusations of wartime collaboration with the Nazis by participating in 'Fascist' tournaments. 287 . but it seems the next closest thing." Thus with Keres politically rehabilitated. it lacks basis. Furthermore. which appeared in the Russian journal /storichesky Arkhiv (#2/ 1 993. but for post. Conclusion: the Commies did it. Some writers seem to envision the KGB holding Keres or his family at gunpoint. However. Perhaps there were lingering psychological effects. not to grant provisional assent to the hypothesis of coercion on Keres seems willfully obtuse. though ironically in this case he was a voluntary participant. and 1 962 (2nd-3rd behind Petrosian). Evidently its ideas were too unorthodox. a scientific hypothesis is considered proven if "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. it was not government coercion. pp. and Geller. at least in terms of ethics. who claimed to know that Botvinnik was actively complicit. a major question remains: Botvinnik's degree of complicity. Petrosian talked the other two into a "gentleman's agreement. but only a might-have-been. and who promised damaging revelations in a forthcoming memoir by Yuri Averbakh. says the former. Keres was eliminated by the younger Spassky and never again was a serious challenger. As a passive beneficiary his image. 1 965.' as was the rule at the time. In the 1 2/ 2000 issue of the Russian magazine 64. Then it might have been he rather than Petrosian who finally dethroned Botvinnik for good. which he received together with me in 1 957 after he had lost a match to me . Smyslov 's account supports the idea that Botvinnik did indeed say "no" to Stalin. This perhaps helped them to keep Fischer at bay. In the next Candidates cycle. and tending to an opposite view. but it also hampered Keres. said that Stalin. 2000) . " Very interesting. through intermediaries. sycophantic telegram to Stalin after winning Nottingham 288 .HL. Thus the favorites were Keres. Petrosian. though. And in their tum. who sent a gushing. In 1 998 I cited Korchnoi associate Emanuel Sztein. is spared. is a very recent interview with Smyslov. More substantive. because Keres missed 1 st place by only Y2-point. More recent. Gut feeling. p. the only surviving participant of Hague Moscow said: "Many years later Botvinnik. That Botvinnik. though." (e-mail. Had Keres played to win. who at the time was probably stronger than Petrosian or Geller (Keres won a post-Cura�ao playoff with Geller +2 -1 =5). giving an interview in Holland. to thank Stalin for his attention to chess players. in Curac.tory At the 1 962 C a nd i d a tes Tournament. the authorities 'forgot' to award Botvinnik with the Order of Lenin. chances are he would have won at least one game against either or both. This mistrust of his chess strength was humiliating for him. This memoir has yet to appear. 257). During the closing ceremony of the match-tournament he 'forgot. 20 Feb. while Fischer had not reached mature strength.. Unanswered Questions Assuming 1 948 coercion on Keres to be established.. When Botvinnik knew about Stalin's ' advice' he was very angry.ao. or at least honestly resented his interference. Other things being equal. that would have been enough." whereby they would play short draws with each other (see Soltis. is this comment by Cafferty: "I cannot decide whether [Botvinnik] was merely a compliant receiver of privilege or an instigator. as an active instigator he becomes a major hypocrite. Tal was i l l . The stakes for his posthumous image are high. suggested that in the Moscow part of the 1 948 match tournament the other Soviet participants should 'ensure' Botvinnik' s leadership. A story line rich in irony and poetic justice. Other questions : What does Bronstein know? What else on Keres may still await discovery in Soviet archives? Why Keres' unusually long resistance in his first. in contrast. Chess. As George Santayana said. would neglect to thank him in 1 948. To argue that Nixon should have been forgiven. When games are decided by something other than the players themselves. Yet the game has values that must be upheld. whether a world title match or a beginners' skittles game.History 1 936. To make a political analogy. but by no means the only. It is not surprising then that corruption has persisted and spread. those eight men were banned from baseball for life. is this: free and fair competition. he had best be asked soon." That is why the Keres case matters. When it was discovered. As for the "50 years ago" argument. at any level. In this writer's opinion. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to fulfil it. Yet during and after the campaign he and/or his subordinates engaged in manifold illegal activities. (October 2001) 289 . seems more than slightly significant. fixing a chess tournament is not a comparable crime. eight members of the Chicago White Sox took bribes from gamblers to lose the World Series." is to flout the Constitution of the United States. thereby incurring the displeasure of authorities he had always cultivated. President in 1 972 no matter how his campaign was conducted. In American baseball. in 1 9 1 9. discovery and prosecution of Nazi war criminals still goes on today.S . to prevent Reshevsky finishing ahead of Keres? Most of these and others will probably remain forever unanswered. Richard Nixon would probably have won re-election as U. and there has been no comparable scandal since. third and fourth games with Botvinnik at Hague-Moscow? Did Botvinnik deliberately let Keres win their last game. I find these attitudes disturbing. or "Who cares what happened 50 years ago?". most notably the Watergate break-in and cover up. The Keres Botvinnik case is a major. instance of such corruption. The threat of impeachment led to his resignation. As for archives. the diligent investigator Valter Heuer has found little new since 1 995. because "he would have won anyway. chess is corrupted and perverted. Granted. Does It Matter? It's sometimes said "So what if there was a fix? Botvinnik would have won anyway !". Has the resurgence of Keres-related research Heuer helped start run its course? One hopes not. and arguably not the worst. If Bronstein can divulge anything more. the most important value to uphold in chess. has never been willing or able to police itself in that manner. chess was entrenched in a sort of "scientific determinism" of positional play. USA).the only top-class GM to develop materials for non-masters . shaking up the formulae and stirring in a large beaker full of fun. they have been eye-witnesses to much of recent chess history.and author of instructive books. Yang Lev Alburt and AI Lawrence These writers make an interesting team. Into this exalted Kremlin chess "laboratory" burst young Misha Tal. Where his contemporaries shuffled. Their column "Hoisting the Hippopotamus " has been a ChessCafe feature since May 2000. To several current generations of chess players. himself claimed only to be "first among equals" such as compatriots Smyslov and Bronstein. World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik. 1 992. Tal sacrificed. and showing that there was still room for beauty and poetry. Illinois. at the age of only 55. he uses a magic wand ! " Or. Modem defensive technique and strategy had seemed long ago to put an end to the 1 9th-Century fireworks of Adolf Anderssen and Paul Morphy. hero of the Soviet Republic and leader of the Russian chess hegemony. We can almost see a circle of Soviet GMs with white lab coats and clipboards somewhere in an antiseptic chamber in Moscow. Yin. USSR). as Director of the World Chess Hall ofFame and Executive Editor of the Chess Information and Research Center. Mikhail Nekhemyevich Tal was muse. As Ragozin said. He has also been a prolific teacher . eighth chess world champion. the "Wizard of Riga". A partner in this work is Al Lawrence (born 1947. succumbed in Moscow on June 28. Bobby. Chess on a high level was seen as simply too "correct" to allow such nonsense. thrice winning the U.what he called "fantasy" . Tal restored the Heisenberg Principle to chess in the form of the imaginative sacrifice . GM Lev Alburt (born 1945. publisher ofAlburt � books. after a more than 30-year battle against ill health. Mikhail Tal. As player and administrator. Orenburg.S. was one of the Soviet Union � best players when in 1979 he defected to America. among other posts. ''Tal doesn't move the pieces by hand. At the close of the 1 950s. squinting with scientific detachment through microscopes at chess positions and scratching out lines of algebra on a chalkboard. where he has done well. Lawrence has himself authored 8 books and now serves. such as the 7-volume Comprehensive Chess Course. championship. the irreverent "gangster of the chessboard" (to take a line from Smyslov himself).saving us from the dull pomposity of chess as pseudo-science. Once Executive Director of USCF ( 1988-96).Hlst11ry Standing Tal: Mikhail. as Bronstein 290 . Shades of Rasputin Some of Tal's GM colleagues found it hard to accept what was happening to them. he developed what was to become a lifelong illness and handicap to his play. Sicilian Defense: 1. Benko-Tal. Tal was not a child prodigy. Tal also showed that even a chess world champion could be completely free of gravitas and that it was possible for a man to rise to the very top of his profession and not have an enemy in the world. 1 959. During his convalescence.Hi. he was at the time the youngest world champion ever. He was found to have a diseased kidney. he would sneak out of the hospital to play at the local chess club. It was natural for his peers to look for reasons to explain why suddenly what seemed "coffee-house" chess was chalking up wins against them. Then. 1 936. g5 �d7 14." Tal was unique. �d5 29 1 . while Benko kept his on until hopelessly lost at move 20.td2 'l. 1l. When he did begin to ascend. being careful of the glare. He was unpretentious and uninterested in wielding the influence .txc6 13. � xc6 'l. there was The Stare. raw talent. full of vigor and brilliance. Let's take a peek. The famous story about Pal Benko' s wearing dark glasses to avoid being hypnotized by the Wizard is true. � xd4 �f6 5. �c3 a6 6. Tal would play blitz between rounds of even important tournaments. Ever devoted to chess. d4 cxd4 4. . vliyaniye normally relished by the kingpins of the old Soviet dynasty. Misha wore his dark glasses for only a few moves for a laugh from the spectators and the directors. How could they succumb to such brutal tactics? Some actually thought that they were victims of mesmerism.Ae3 0-0 10.c4 e6 7.tc7 11. - Born in Latvia on November 9. an uneven. 11.'lt l �ry put it. 'l. f3 . g4 �c6 12. he soared so rapidly that in 1 957 he was both the youngest Soviet champion ever and a rare case that required FIDE to award him the title of international grandmaster while waiving the normal requirement that it first recognize him as master. victim of another "hypnotic" performance by Tal. however. In the hospital for the removal of the offending organ in 1 969.�f3 d6 3.b3 b5 8. e4 c5 2.in Russian. "Tal develops all his pieces in the center and then sacrifices them somewhere.Ae7 9 . Tal reportedly talked chess until the anesthesia-mask was strapped on. even among the men who have held the official world championship. It's also true that Tal countered Benko by donning a pair of comically oversized novelty shades he had borrowed from Tigran Petrosian. Zagreb. When Tal beat Botvinnik for the world championship in 1 960. After all. within months. .. . �d3 �c4 292 . If 17. 17. and Black threatens . -'ld2 -'lbS 22. . �d4 }. Ab6 preventing White from recapturing with his queen.Q.. }.Q." Having ruled out hypnotism. �b7. 14 . a4 �eS 16.!fc8 In a hopeless position. Axa4. holding up a mirror to the Wizard? Of course the knight is untouchable. . . 21. }. x-raying the rook. Benko has played "through a glass. 4Jc4xe3. as well as . . . . he finally removed his glasses.!a3 �e7 20. behind his glasses. . and darkly. If 1 7. 0-0 bxa4 Now neither the rook nor the bishop can recapture. If 1 4 . k! xa4. . then 17 . . }.d8 1S. Is Benko. . exd5 18.Tal himself probably won more games with this last move against the Sicilian than anyone else. �b4 �b7 18.!f2 aS 23. his pieces forced into awkward posts with no prospects. exd5 1 5 . Axd5 �xa4. with the possibility of .!xa4 .d7 19. . Axd5. exd5. then 17 . Hi." Tal would sacrifice a piece if he saw no direct refutation. �g2 . The Life and Games ofMikhail Tal. Additionally. Tal put all of his "incorrect" behavior into the moves he played.§c8 31. 'ita7 . Botvinnik lost his crown to Tal in 1 960 and then won it back from him in 1 96 1 .fl+ 0-1. In general. Yin. Yang Three-time World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik was in a singular position to judge Tal. In fact.'ltory Black begins to cash in his positional winnings. or at least some psychological distance from him. the challenger after all. Tal showed none of the pre-match maneuvering. Jlxc4 .§xf2 27. � xf2 'itc7 28 . framed by threatening glowers during referee instructions and empathetic hugs after the bell.) Botvinnik' s complaint about Tal? H e confided t o Lev Alburt this damning fact: " I couldn' t make myself dislike him.f8 32 . when Botvinnik. approached Tal for his thoughts about the lights that the former champ preferred or the set and board he wanted. Tal would say he was sure that anything Botvinnik chose would be just fine. Botvinnik preferred to enter an important match with some dislike for his opponent.c3 . while Fischer put all of his "correct" behavior into his moves. Bobby. (We can see this psychology today most frequently in professional boxing matches.a1 'itc4 29.§. about his victory over Evgeny Vasyukov in the 1965 Soviet Championship is the perfect illustration of all these traits.§ xc2 26. Botvinnik was a man who revered his own opinions (we admit that he had a lot of justification) and was not one to shirk the responsibility of criticizing those who dido 't share them. • • Mikhail. 'ite3 . in a sense. 293 . 'itb7?? . He relished for its own intrinsic beauty the explosive poetry that he consistently found under the noses of his more practical peers . tension and histrionics that characterized Fischer's off-the-board behavior. Fischer. -'l. h4 a4 30." For example.Q.§. 24.Q. took no deliberate chances on the board and relished the moment he "crushed his opponent's spirit. Hoisting the Hippopotamus The story Tal tells in his wonderful autobiography.§ xc4 25. with his ultra-dry classicism. even in a world championship match game.e1 'itb3 33. 0-0 cxd4 9. d4 dxe4 4. Ad3. 4)h5! �h8! 16 . in this case spread with unbelievable rapidity.Q.Q. e4 c6 2. . Tal still played to win. ''The sacrifice was not altogether obvious." Tal writes. "And then suddenly. . <tlxf4 -'txf4 2 1 . 'it>xh7 20. 1 965.h4 . c4 -'l. and the famous 'tree of the variations.11x h7 is insufficient in view of 19 . ' from which the trainers recommend that you cut off the small branches. but when I conscientiously began to work through them. and Black would still enjoy his pin. 4lf3 4)gf6 6. Moving the rook to defend the c-pawn is taking a step backward.Q. . It began: Tal-Vasyukov. ti'xe6 <tlc5.. for some reason. He finished in a very respectable third p lac e .Q. Caro-Kann Defense: 1. and his game against Vasyukov was key. and there was a large number of possible variations. As a result my head became filled with a completely chaotic pile of all sorts of moves. which worked in one case.<£1£4 20. but although the spectators were convinced that I was continuing to study the 294 . �e2 b6 1 2 . 4) xd4 Jlc5 10. Tal points out that if 19.f4 J}. I found." Tal began to calculate the knight sacrifice on g7. ''The position demands strong measures. Black has 19 . �ad1 4ld5 14.e4 f6! 17. 4) xe4 4)d7 5.Hlltory Sufferi ng from a wid in addition to his "normal" background of serious i l l health. and Black enjoys himself.d6 18. and here Tal knew he was faced with difficult decisions of his own. �xe6 -'lxc4. that nothing would come of it. Jlg5 'l2/c7 15. "How is White to continue?" he writes. to my horror. I remembered the classic couplet by Komey Ivanovich Chukovsky: Oh. I would transport a subtle reply by my opponent. Jld3 c5 8. "I don't know from what associations the hippopotamus got onto the chessboard.a6! • • Black has made some very strong choices. 4)c3 d5 3. . to another situation where it would naturally prove to be quite useless. . what a difficult job it was To drag out of the marsh the hippopotamus. 4)g3 e6 7. ti'e4+ 'it>h8! 21. .b7 13. "but 19 . 4lf3 0-0 11. Ideas piled up one after another. Kiev. xh2+ 25. and if 2 1 . .'ltt�ry position. . Now if 20 . 4) xg7! \t'xg7 Black has to recapture. it was with pleasure that I read in the paper how Mikhail Tal. 20. After a lengthy consideration I admitted defeat as an engineer.<tlf4 2 1 . let it drown ! ' And suddenly the hippopotamus disappeared going off the chessboard just as he had come on. . 4) xe6 4) xe6 23. . purely intuitive. as well as levers. and thought spitefully: 'Well. by its very nature. �xc4 to force an ending that. 295 . *xd5 J}. �d2. "And the following day. *g4+ \t'h8 22.ltxc4 22. I could not refrain from making it. was trying at this time to work out: just how would y ou drag a hippopotamus out of the marsh? I remember how jacks figured in my thoughts. " 19. is likely drawn. Vasyukov should have tried 24 . . and that the knight sacrifice was. although better for White. made an accurately calculated piece sacrifice . . despite my humanitarian education. helicopters.. Of his own accord ! And straightaway the position did not appear to be so complicated.. "Now I somehow realized that it was not possible to calculate all the variations. after carefully thinking over the position for 40 minutes. and even a rope ladder. And since it promised an interesting game. <tlxe6. I.§ae8 24. * xe6 . 4)d4 4)c5 21.Hi. Ciflh1 *f4 The moves have been virtually forced since the Knight sac. except for Black's last. . 21 "litg6 2S. 26 :� xe4 27.Q. E!d7. . -'l.Q. and out-of-time victims have to make momentous decisions in seconds.• . g4 �e2 45 .xc4 32. .d5 36. .cS �e5+ 46. �g3 . 32 . he's but a pawn up in the dreaded bishops-of-opposite-color ending. b4 . As in many of Tal's sacrificial games. whips up nothing less than a mating attack. �h6 • • 296 . �a7+ �e8 (sealed move) 42.Q. �aS+ �f7 41. �g5 �e8 40. . But with his rook on the seventh and an unopposed dark-square bishop. White wins with 27.c4 39. �fe1 •. xa2 34. Indeed.Q. '/txg6 hxg6 •.Q. E!xe4.Q. �f4 . �xa7 Jlc4 35. 29 . E! xel + draws. �a3 Cl. �e6! 33 . his opponent grows short of time under the pressure of trying to find a series of best defensive moves. and wins. .Now if 26 . An error that could have let the hippo slip back into the marsh. �d7 White's advantage may look ephemeral after all. The zwischenschach 28 . Typically. Tal's sacrifices lead to a long-lived initiative.. the position is drawn. without the rooks. f3 �fS 37. .f7 44.. �xh2 -'l. Tal points out that 27.xf6+ �gS 30. E!del was stronger.dS 43. Now Black gets another chance . but misses it again.d4 b5 3S. . �xeS �xeS 31. .c3 .Q. Tal advances his king. he remembered Lev's reaction. the year he began to battle his illness and the year Botvinnik took back the crown. Ag5 and wins. S4 J1. fS and Black •. �d3 . .e:Z 55. �d8+ lifi'e7 54. he preferred to play more than 1 00 tournament games per year in top-flight competition. Actually. Jld8+ li!i'e8 S6.te4 s:z . Our conclusion: the much-touted stare was probably only an absent-minded habit. resigns. winning first place in 19 and second in 7. the greatest accomplishment any chess player could achieve. AdS+ <i\?e8 56.c6 48.) He continued to study. Tal played in 55 strong international round robins. Lev.b6 . he would be remembered as one of the greats. were riveted on Alburt. §d8 §e8 49. Never one to distract his opponent on purpose. 297 . topped by their prominent dark brows.A. Sound like an overstatement? Let's make a very brief list: • From 1 949 to 1 990. JtgS Jld3 58. (He joked that he would sometimes look at his old games and laugh. Tal immediately roused himself from his trance. then 55. §d3 • If 54 . as a very young man. less superstitious generation that had already incorporated Tal's imaginative approach into their own games.. It's true that Tal made his greatest accomplishment. §d4 §e6 50. laughing softly. §d:Z §e3 57. (Indeed. Lev couldn' t help but glance up at Misha as his wide-open brown eyes. CIJg7 J.4. .History �e6 47. Alburt was never again the recipient of The Stare. unconsciously reacted as if the stare were some kind of joke. But his love of chess and of competition was lifelong. from a younger. Later he went from a one-sided attacking genius to a complete player of the highest level.f3 53. but envy the fact that he could play those old sacrifices because at the time he didn't know better! ) But even if Tal had never won the world championship. Lev Alburt had a run-in with The Dreaded Stare. Axg4. f4 1i!i'e8 St. During one of their first games together.4. Life After Botvinnik Sometimes it seems that current chess fans think of Tal as washed up after 1 96 1 . a record shared World Championship Candidate in 1 965 and 1 968-69. Held a FIDE rating of 27 1 0 in 1 979. only by Botvinnik. immediately interrupted. Many consider Tal the best who ever wrote on chess. When other world champions would be too conscious of their ranking to indulge relative patzers. • Won the S oviet Championship an unsurpassed six times. " As a counterpoint t o Tal ' s self-effacing demurrer. Placed 3rd in the 1 985 Interzonal at the age of 49. authored and co-authored several classic books. he remained all unpresuming. In a post-event interview. waiting their turns against the legend. since the event was billed as a FIDE championship. 1 979. Generosity of spirit was natural to Tal. from 1 960 to 1 970 he edited the Latvian magazine Zahs. Canada. "and I can tell you that I am not now the world champion . and in t h ree Olympiads. it' s interesting t o note that." he said. accessible and good-humored.HlsttJry • Played in eight Olympiads.which could be technically argued." 298 . a journalist referred to him as again a current world champion . willing to play chess with comers. not in using the influence his talent could have given him to wield power among his colleagues . Unlike many of his fellow che s s Olympians. "I' ve been the world champion. In the Black In 1 988 Tal won the enormous World Blitz Championship in St. Complete strangers would recognize him. however. John. It would have been more than enough to shake some hands and be pleasant. Played 86 games in top-level competition without a loss 1 972-73. Tal would play blitz with nearly anyone. 1960 and the already mentioned Life and Games. who at the time recognized Kasparov as the "normal" world champion. Karpov. he scored the best overall result. But Tal would routinely join the group. swapping stories and sharing laughs . When he was relaxing in a local cafe or tavern between rounds wherever chess took him. of course. Since the universal club tradition at speed-chess sessions is that winner keeps playing and the loser gives up his place. • • • Montreal. Tal was often to be seen at the board with a long line of players queued up behind his opponent. What's more. He wrote many articles. regular guy. referred to himself as "World Action Chess Champion. and invite him to their tables . Tied for first with Karpov at one of the strongest tournaments ever held. after winning the FIDE Action "World Championship" in Mazathin. • • And that leaves out his prolific journalism. Tal. He seemed interested only in creating the fantastic on the chessboard. Extraordinary talent. In fi ve he sc o red best-board results. No wonder he was loved by the public. he was both a celebrity and one of the group. such as Tal-Botvinnik. 000 first prize. he looked across at the much older Tal to see him sitting wide-awake in the passenger seat. Predictably. Steve was overwhelmed with exhaustion at the first rays of sunrise. and Steve was accommodating. but Tal went for the jackpot one more time. Pulling over quickly to the shoulder of the highway. Steve tried to convince the champ to set back most of his winnings. but kept betting the house. had respect for financial risks. of course. of course. Steve. Kasparov-Karpov.Hi. He had just traveled halfway around the world. truly a fortune in the old Soviet Union. it turned into a long evening of nightlife. he visited Steve Doyle at his Toms River. he switched to red. Tal left the $ 1 . as always. On waking up from a 45-minute nap. New Jersey. Without changing his demeanor. Steve grinned and suggested dinner. After all. After winning four in a row on black. Although barely 54. But the Wizard let it ride. but only after insisting that Tal safely lock up the bundles of cash and checks he was carrying in a safety deposit box in the Tom's River Holiday Inn. a jet-lag challenge to even the young and healthy. imperturbably chain-smoking. To Doyle's dismay. Shortly after the event. On top of that. Afterwards. he mumbled a quick apology/explanation and immediately fell asleep. Two more spins and Tal had amassed $32. about two years before Tal 's death. His illness and his passion had demanded from him a great price. Lawrence was shocked by Tal's appearance. this 30th anniversary of his own unforgettable victory had brought him together with old chess adversaries and old friends. He cajoled Tal into limiting his traveling stash to $500. 1 990. and winnings he would not have to rebate to the authorities. Steve drove Tal to Resorts International. It was clear that his day had already included frequent ceremonial toasts to past battles.000 on black. Steve kept pleading. Once at the casino. Afterwards Doyle had to drive them back to Toms River. he seemed physically an old and frail man. He won again. Tal wanted to see Atlantic City. Heading north on the New Jersey Parkway. Tal's prematurely wizened face was heavy-lidded as he hunched over in his 299 .000. But he won. now CFO of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise. Tal stood up and quietly headed to dinner with Steve. In fact. Tal and Lawrence watched famous GMs comment on the game at an oversized board. What hair he had left was white. John: the $50. Misha put the entire $500 on black. New York. His last world championship move? Co-author AI Lawrence was fortunate enough to sit next to Tal at a small table during the final World Championship of his lifetime. Sipping coffee in the protection of a private meeting room.� tory Hut Tal did accept another benefit of winning at St. swirled around his head to cover the most territory and making him look more Merlin-like than ever. Tal plopped himself down at the roulette wheel. as he would much of his tournament prize. he lost. chess club to give a simul. Surely. double-breasted suit. But from that point on in the game. h3 �d7 10. Kasparov was now the young attacking genius whose games regularly amazed rooms full of grandmasters.Q. 0-0 . �a3 . d4 . letting a pawn go to build up an attack against Karpov's castled king. Jaxa8 '/txa8 14. Misha's exhausted stare suddenly twisted into an exaggerated. his e l b ow s on the table. dxc6 '/t xc6 20.Q.f8 24. Jl. The old stare was frankly a bit glazed. laf3 �h7 33. b3 �cb6 17. Kasparov sealed his move in a drawn position.c2 �c4 16. �h2 c6 19. Ruy Lopez: 1.a4 �f6 5.b5 a6 4 . lac3 At the exact moment the piece found its new square. Jae1 b5 7.b7 12.xf6 � xf6 31. Kasparov-Karpov. Jlb3 d6 8. �g4 laa8 22. axb5 axb5 13.Q. cartoon-like grimace of pure revulsion. . lae3 '/tc7 32.Q. d5 �a5 15 . covertly checking Misha's face for signs of reaction.Q. New York. J}. The position after 37 moves showed Kasparov with the initiative.f6 11. Lawrence thought for a moment that the famous icon might hold his nose and cry "Phew !". Karpov's defense began to take control. such an attacking game between the current titans stirred the old juices in the Wizard somewhere down deep. �d5 � xd5 35. �b3 f6 37. 300 . e4 e5 2. �h2 h6 30 .xd5 Jaa7 36. Game 6.Q. Only four moves later.e7 21. Obviously Tal had found the move to be a game-spoiler. � xc4 � xc4 28. �f5 J}.xc4 27. his chin resting i n his hands.d2 J}. c4 bxc4 26. .Q.e7 6.a6 18. Everyone else for the moment accepted Emperor Garry's new clothes in the form of this "obvious" move. c3 0-0 9. bxc4 .Q. How much of this new genius could the "old" one follow? The next Kasparov move was announced and repeated on the big board.Q.b3 �c3 29.Hlstt1ry gray. . a4 J}.g5 �bd7 25. �e3 �e7 34. and Tal's face quickly regrouped itself to a guarded stare. �e3 �f6 23. 1 990. A top American GM was taking a turn at our private demonstration board when it became clear the battling K's were reaching a critical point. 38. Jl. �f3 �c6 3 . �b8 g6 • • Al's eyes darted between the position and Tal. thefinest of which is The Life and Games of Carlos Torre (Russell Enterprises. Spassky answered all sorts of questions and showed us several interesting positions. (June 2000) A Conversation with a Legend Gabriel Velasco Gabriel V elasco Sotomayor (born 1 949. which lasted about three hours. It is a pity that I did not have a means to record that conversation. But by avocation he is one of Latin America � best chess writers. Mexico City).g4 'it1h6 40.gxh5 �xh5 4Uk8 . Spassky and his companions (the well-known author Alexander Roshal and his wife. in downtown Mexico City on the morning of Sunday October 22. recently spent a few days in Mexico City. jet-lagged and suffering from celebrations? Al bets it is.000 boards. Is this what Tal saw i mmediately. as well as Spassky's son) dropped casually into a coffee shop where local chess players usually meet. Later. The following day.Hi. The right plan was unearthed: 38.i8 hSI (The game is suddenly equal . run by 500 local first-category and master-level players. He has written several chess books. draw. eighth chess champion of the world.) 39. when the game had been analyzed worldwide. and I was fortunate to be there together with a couple of chess-playing friends. the author of several geometry textbooks. now a French citizen. Former world chess champion Boris Spassky. is by profession a Doctor of Mathematics. g4!! . or chess studies that he recalled.. either from his own games. who was in a particularly good mood. t:!e8. I will try to summarize the most interesting things that the legendary world chess champion told his improvised audience. where he was invited to attend a massive simultaneous display of nearly 1 2. Right up until life's last checkmate.ll g7 42. still had the sorcery in his wand and in his eyes. Here he describes a meeting with a more contemporary chess genius. The former world chess champion asked for a chess set and board while he enjoyed a piece of chocolate cake and several cups of good coffee. His games will continue to inspire new generations of players to find the swashbuckling and the beautiful in chess. about the Mexican chess genius of the 1920s. and in English to the British Chess Magazine and the ChessCafe. Kasparov's culprit-move was found to be the same one that instantly contorted Tal 's face for that revealing moment at the table. 2000).. 30 1 .. contributing articles in Spanish to the magazine Tiempo and several web-sites."tory . Mikhail Tal. We all ended up sharing two tables and spent a very enjoyable time listening to Spassky. . that is why he decided to analyze the games far away. Spassky said that he had lost track of the American grandmaster. said Spassky. surprisingly Spassky said that neither of them had been the toughest. Fi scher. Boris insisted that Robert Fischer had been a great champion who had not been thoroughly understood by people.Spussky suid t hut he considered { 'upa h l mtcu. He now believes that it was under his wrist watch that Korchnoy was hiding a device aimed at disturbing him. many of which he thought to be absurd. he said that Bobby played extraordinary chess.fought match both grandmasters contested in Belgrade in 1 977. He said he felt very upset and tired right before and during the first half of the Reykjavik match. but when he played Bobby Fischer in Reykjavik 1 972. so it was not easy for him to assess his real strength. A l e k h i ne . He said that during the years 1 973 and 1 974 he had recovered his old top form of the sixties. but as soon as he rose from the table and strolled elsewhere. When asked if he still kept in touch with Bobby Fischer. According to Spassky. and did n ' t even know his whereabouts. and that put him very far from his top form. something that got Korchnoy very upset. At any rate he insisted that Karpov was the toughest opponent he had ever met. but Anatoly Karpov probably was. Karpov and Kasparov the fi ve greatest p l ay e rs of a l l t i me . and right from the beginning of the match his relationship with Geller went from bad to worse. his appointed trainer. but he is not quite sure. and that was naturally the deciding factor. and he said that Fischer has 302 . As far as Garry Kasparov is concerned. was only interested in analyzing opening variations of his (Geller's) own interest. Spassky said that his off-board battle against Moscow had left him psychologically exhausted. he was in poor form from the psychological viewpoint. he was sure that Korchnoy was attempting to hypnotize him either by electronic or chemical means. because he felt rather dizzy or indisposed when he sat in front of Korchnoy. When asked why he was in poor psychological form during the Reykjavik match in 1 972. Spassky casually remembered that during the hard. Boris said he had played very few games against him. but S p assk y said he would definitely not. In addition. Somehow he considers that Karpov in 1 974 was a tougher opponent than Bobby Fischer in 1 972. which also had an influence in the outcome of the match. at the spectators' demonstration chessboard. the malaise suddenly disappeared. When the conversation dwelled on Viktor Korchnoy. who were trying to impose on him all sorts of conditions. I a s k ed him if he would also include Emanuel Lasker on the list of the greatest players. However. Spassky said that he was in top form when he lost a candidates match to Karpov in 1 974. Spassky said that it was on account of his off-the-board fight against Russian authorities. the late Grandmaster Efim Geller. When somebody asked him if the toughest opponent he' d had in his whole life was either Korchnoy or Bobby Fischer. at least as far as rook endings are concerned. 303 . When asked whether he still considered the Marshall counterattack a sound weapon for Black against the Ruy Lopez. and added that the Marshall hadn't yet been refuted. Somebody asked him about the possible outcome of the 1 975 match between Fischer and Karpov. Bondarevsky' s typical training session. after a lengthy reflection. Fischer had played just like in his good old days and that had made him (Spassky) very happy. Spassky believes that Karpov would have been the favorite. When asked why he had not played the Marshall in his 1 992 match vs. because he did not place too much emphasis on opening variations. however slight. and that in his opinion Korchnoy 's strength was of a different sort. the Rest of the World Match in Yugoslavia I asked him if it was true that he had spent about 40 minutes pondering his fantastic combination against Bent Larsen. He said that in some games of the 1 992 match. Spassky said he did not consider it clear that Bobby Fischer might have won." he said. Spassky said he did. Speaking about Viktor Korchnoy. whereas Kasparov had done much harm In c h e s s with his selfish attitude. He said that Korchnoy has always had a gift of taking immediate advantage of any imprecision. Fischer in Sveti Stefan. but rather on middle game and endgame planning. Spassky said he considered the late Russian GM Igor Bondarevsky as the best t rai ner and coach he ever had. Spassky said that all matches he had played against Korchnoy had been very bitterly fought. He recalled a very subtle position he had solved as a young master." said the late grandmaster. according to Spassky. because in 1 97 5 Bobby had already been inactive for three years. Spassky just shrugged his shoulders. "Some day you will probably become a world champion. Somebody told Spassky that Korchnoy did not share such an opinion. a match that never took place. According to Boris. Bondarevsky assured him that he would go far. and such a handicap might not be overcome even by a chess genius . started with some very interesting middle game positions that he was requested lo solve with a clock and without moving the chessmen. When the conversation turned to the 1 970 USSR vs. but Boris just smiled. On seeing that Spassky had solved the position without moving the pieces. Spassky said that it wasn't true.Histt�ry a l ways been a man uf pri nciples who strove in vain to raise chess above the petty corruption of FIDE and the Russian Federation. Under such conditions. When I asked him if he considered Korchnoy the best endgame player of all time. grandmaster Bondarevsky helped him develop a great strength in the middle game. Surprisingly. "It probably leads to a draw. and that the whole game had lasted scarcely half an hour. He added that in his opinion Fi scher was the ideal world champion. that it had just taken him a few minutes. Spassky said he did not at all agree with that view. made by his opponent. Boris has a fine spontaneous sense of humor.§ x hl g2 16 .S. . 1 970: l.h3 h4! hxg4 13.f4? 4)g4 ll. 304 .HINit�ry l. .hxg3 14.4) xc6 dxc6 7.<it'dl gxf11!/. and won such and such (minor) tournaments in Tijuana or thereabouts. Spassky said he did not feel like playing blitz and declined the challenge.�c3 � x g l + 1 9 .e3 Jlf5 8. apparently not satisfied with that. He made everyone laugh when he imitated Karpov and Kasparov. He said he had no further ambitions.tc2 1!/e7 9 .e2 o-o-o 10. .4)f3 e4 5.Q. 4)a 3 �b4 -+ ) 1 6 '11} h4+ 17. ••• • • .§ g l �h4+ 1 7 . insisted and said he had beaten some masters in the U. and said "Oh you did? That really frightens me. 't.Q. He made everyone laugh several times.arsen-Spassky.4)d4 . . � c 2 �f2 2 0 . I'm utterly scared now !". Vladimir Kramnik was using the same approach used by Botvinnik against Mikhail Tal in the 1961 return match. namely to avoid giving his opponent many chances for active play with the initiative.b2 4)c6 3. Spassky then raised his hands as though he had been scared. He asked for a chess set and board and showed us the following interesting ending. !lgl • 14 lahl! l S . gxf5 >l!t x e 2 2 1 . Everybody laughed.c4 4)f6 4. like when FM Florentino Garmendiz approached him and challenged him to a blitz match for a stake.§fl ( 1 6 . It is evident that Boris takes a particular delight in subtle composed studies. Spassky said he was glad to see that finally somebody had hit the nail on the head and found the correct way to play against Kasparov.b3 e5 2 .c5 6. Regarding the match between Kramnik an d Kasparov. He said that in his opinion. Spassky said he considered himself a happy man.g3 hS 12.Q. then Garmendiz. 0-1.�dl �hl 1 8. If 23 . e4 eS 2. S h4 6. ••• Spassky showed us and analyzed the critical position of his first game with Bobby Fischer at Mar del Plata 1 960.h3 7. that game was used in famous a James Bond film with Sean Connery (From Russia with Love).. 4) xeS + \t>h7 23. cS . ite4+ I. t:l. exfl 'IW+ but. Jl. In case of 5 . . but that material was in Spanish and in descriptive notation. Boris said he still kept that material. d4 0. .itfS Compulsory. exdS Jl. . I said to him that it had just been released in 305 . 4)f3 dS 4. . . 3.c2 .A. i f now j. c4 4)e3 11. 4)e4 4) xdS IO. After everybody gave up. . . h5! 4 . • Unfortunately.£\f8+ �f5. .�xb4 <it>f4 9 . according to Spassky.History White to play and draw. 4)c3 4)e7 6. 4l3eS 'tite7 2I .4. Spassky showed us the solution : I. . h3 7 . fl}c4 \t>g6! If 2 . the text move was "typical Bronstein. 4) xf7!! exfl'tit+ I7 .b31 Jl.£\d5 �e4!.. due to the numerous threats. 4)d61 4)f8 A complicated game would ensue after 1 5 . .0 h6 (8 .xeS 22.£\f8) .£\g6+ and mate in two. The alternative was 1 4 . Nevertheless. 4)d2 h2 8.£1g6) 9.£\f2 h2 8.e7 13. . .£\b6? h4 6 . 'itt xb4.'�g7. 6. USSR Championship 1 960: I.0 7. 4)d7 hS (or else 4 .xe3 fxe3 I2.£\d3?. where it was supposed to have been a game between "Kronsteen" and "MacAdams.4)g3+ and it's a draw. after about three hours I had to return to my duties. \t>d3 fllf7 2. Grigoriev in 1 934.§ xfi . but confessed that he couldn't understand it on account of the notation. 0. then 3 ." I6. . . Black's h-pawn would promote. . �h8 24. IS.. I8. 4)fl+! hi-tit 9. . b3 5. itf4 .4. He also showed us his game vs. 'titd3! e2!? ( trying to decoy the queen from a dangerous diagonal.§e8 I4. Incidentally. �xb4 �xh7 4 . 4)f8+ \t>fS 4.0. 1td3 4)d7 8.. . xf8+ ! i1i"xf8 25 . \ftc4 and White' s king manages to stop the pawn i n time. Spassky-Bronstein. 4)b311 But not 6 . . .f6 20. 'titxfS • itd7 I9. . and the knight could not prevent Black's pawn from queening. Spassky recalled that back in 1 979 I had given him a copy of my first collection of Carlos Torre's games. f4 exf4 3.4.£\h1 <it'g2 1 1 . David Bronstein from the Soviet Championship of 1 960. cSU The key: White's knight is heading toward fl ." two characters created by Ian Fleming. . <it>c4 �f3 1 0 . �c3!) S. there would follow 3 .d6 S. �d3 �xh1 and Black wins. A study composed by N. O n the face of i t h e is a very happy man. this is a little over one per year. Steinitz never played an official tournament during those years . (November 2000) Regicide Tim Krabbe At the start of the match between Kasparov and Kramnik. cable and Internet games are not included in my number. or did the world champion win that game? The 1 3 6 true cases of regicide that remain are divided over the 1 3 world champions as follows: Steinitz (1886-1894): 0." In his first full year as world champion. S i nce Boris said he was really interested in the games of Carlos Torre. Four of Lasker's losses as a world champion were against Pillsbury. consultation. I only count games that the world champions lost while holding the title. As said. computer. The throne must somehow be seen as vacant during such competitions. Spassky left a very positive impression o n all u s . 3 06 . 1 36 games had been lost by reigning world champions. or Karpov against Kasparov i n 1 985. and Kasparov until now. who fully enjoys life and is satisfied with what he has done. he holds the record for "most losses by a world champion in one year. Lasker only lost once but he only played 24 games during that period. and only serious games. including both games in a cable match against Chigorin. Let me first explain how I arrive at that number of 1 36. He did lose some games. the world champions were: Fischer until 1 975. For one thing. correspondence. I promised to send a copy to him . On the other hand. Karpov until 1 985. blitz.Hi!i'lt�ry English and in algebraic notation . I also don' t count games that were played in matches and tournaments for the world championship. and there would also be a categorizing problem: if the world champion loses the last game in a match. From 1 972 on. rapid. then did the world champion lose. during the last 1 1 years of his reign. I consider myself really lucky to have had such a chance to spend several hours with a living legend. Lasker (1894-1921): 17. Lasker lost no less than seven games. However few tournaments there were in Lasker's time. I do not recognize Khalifman as a world champion. as did Tal against Botvinnik in 1 96 1 . 1 895.but there were very few tournaments then. As the world championship began in 1 886. but he did not lose any games that meet my criteria. exhibition. His conversation is enjoyable and his sense of humor is excellent. Botvinnik was not a very active world champion. and Petrosyan and Karpov once. Almost 2� per year. Smyslov (1957-1958): 1. Three times each against Portisch and Korchnoi . and 2 against Euwe. Alekhine (1927-1935 and 1937-1946): 21. and Spassky once. Geller and Larsen also sharing the distinction of having beaten the greatest number of different world champions.History Capablanca (1921-1927): 3. Moscow-Leningrad. Larsen and Ivanchuk each collected 5 scalps. at the end of his career. Even better than Karpov. but still a very good record. Euwe is the world champion who lost most often. Petrosyan (1963-1969): 18. 1 936). With 3� losses per year. Of course. Spassky (1969-1972): 3. Belying his reputation of invincibility. Karpov (1975-1985) 23. Tal (1960-1961): 1. Petrosyan was second only to Euwe in being the most often beaten world champion. Timman (3x Karpov. One against 67-year old Lasker (the famous blunder in Nottingham. Fischer (1972-1975): 0. Korchnoi (3x Petrosyan.the latter scored 2-0 against him in an inter-city match. 1958-1960 and 1961-1963): 15.1957. Capablanca is still. the least-beaten world champion. two against Lupi. Larsen beat Petrosyan and Karpov twice. Four losses against Bogoljubow and. Three losses against Geller. He lost 5 games against lvanchuk (the greatest number of losses of a world champion against one single player) and three against Kramnik. considering how much he played. and he certainly is the weakest to beat a world champion twice. Botvinnik (1948. 1 x Spassky). Fischer never played a serious game while being world champion. 1 x Kasparov). Three losses against Timman. Geller beat Botvinnik three times. Geller. The other players who committed regicide more than once are : Four times: Pillsbury (4x Lasker). Euwe (1935-1937): 7. 1 x Karpov). Kasparov (1985-2000) 27. With only half a lost game per year. Portisch (3x Petrosyan. This Portuguese player may have been the weakest ever to beat a world champion. 1 965. The player who beat a reigning world champion most often is Bogoljubow with 6. 307 . if we measure by this criterion. 4 against Alekhine. Topalov (2x Kasparov). i\'hS �e7 19.lc8 10.e3 bS 1 1. 23. Lautier (2x Kasparov).lxb2 efforts to win. Among the players who never beat a reigning world champion. followed by 0-0.lxb2 J.g3 Ad2 21. 29 .4)g6+ �d6 26:l. Smyslov (2x Botvinnik) . it is still surprising to see who they are: Capablanca. Fine (2x Alekhine). The first cannot even be found in databases. he should have been more careful with �e7.4)c3 4)c6 6. a few months before the death of the 5 1 -year old White player. Van Hoorn: "Almost all spectators thought White was losing.\!ta4+ Jl.0-0 Ab4 But here. Twice: Blackbume (2x Lasker).Af4 AfS 7.d7 9. In the prewar years. Fischer and Kasparov.thb8 Black still had an easy draw with 22 .4)f3 4)f6 4. Leiden..d4 dS 2. Gligoric (2x Petrosyan). Anand (2x Kasparov).gS i\'aS 16.4)f4 J. E.� xb6 B ut he thinks the passed c pawn that he will create offers good chances.c4 c6 3.t xf7 \!tc7 27:l. behind Euwe and Van den B osch. Karpov). 2S. Van Hoorn-Euwe. but here are three relatively obscure ones. sometimes even historic games."tt c 2 J.Histt�ry Three times: Tai manov ( 2x Botvinnik. In reality it is White who has the initiative now. �b6? Even now.tb6 22. underestimates his opponent." c3 28.lfb1 J. and goes too far in his 1S.cxdS cxdS S. . Even if their eminences offered them fewer chances than ordinary players. It was played in a small national tournament in the Netherlands. 13. Of course most regicides are well known.4)e2 J.t xf6 �b7 would still have given Black 308 .bxc3 -'l. coming third in the 1 933 Dutch championship. Kramnik (3x Kasparov). B lack is now better. c3 23.J. .\!td1 4)c4 12.xc3 24. Lupi (2x Alekhine). lx Kasparov). Torre (2x Karpov).\!txh7 � x b2 24.4) xd7 �xd7 18.""ttf8+ �c6 29.tb8 20..Jl. 1937: 1. a pattern is visible that logically also shows in other losses of world champions against lesser gods : the champion avoids a draw. there are three world champions. In the following ten moves.4)eS+ drawing chances.Axf6 gxf6 17.Axc4 bxc4 According to Van Hoorn. Van Hoorn was a player of some national prominence.\!tb3 4)aS 8. Keres (2x Botvinnik). the only time he competed. Seirawan ( l x Karpov.J.4)eS e6 14.
Report "Heroic Tales - The Best of Chesscafe.com 1996 - 2001-Part 8"