|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-12-10 | | Petrosianic: 1958 was Botvinnik's re-match. 1957, while a return match wasn't really a "re-match", as it didn't come automatically. Smyslov had to go back and earn another match. However, I think cg.com calls the 1981 match a re-match, even though Korchnoi earned that one again too, so the usage isn't always consistent. |
|
| May-12-10 | | I play the Fred: <1958 was Botvinnik's re-match. 1957, while a return match wasn't really a "re-match", as it didn't come automatically. Smyslov had to go back and earn another match.> A rematch, to me, is the one that isn't automatic. I think of 1957 as the rematch of 1954 (similarly, the 1994 Super Bowl was a rematch of the 1993 Super Bowl, as both teams had to earn their spots in it.), whereas 1958 was the return match required by rule. <However, I think cg.com calls the 1981 match a re-match, even though Korchnoi earned that one again too, so the usage isn't always consistent.> I guess that's what I was getting at: consistent usage. The term "return match", I believe, should be in use when the rules mandated it. IIRC, Kasparov-Karpov III (1986) was a return match, and perhaps the last one we'll see. |
|
| May-12-10 | | Petrosianic: Usage may vary. To me, a rematch suggests one which IS automatic. Either way is fine though, as long as the terms are used consistently. I don't see any way to say that 1981 was a rematch but 1957 wasn't. But that's the way they have them labeled. There were also people who questioned whether or not the Anand-Kramnik match should have been called a rematch. It was a return "contest", but the first actual "match" between them. Thefreedictionary.com (which tends to use such words informally), defines rematch as "A second contest between the same opponents." (without distinguishing between Automatic or Earned, or between Match or Tournament). Was Anand-Kramnik a rematch even under that definition? Unclear. Anand and Kramnik were two of the "same opponents" from Mexico City, but not everyone from Mexico was there. But since the two that mattered (the guy who lost the title and the guy who won it) were both present, I think of Bonn as a "rematch", (automatic chance to get title back) even though Mexico City hadn't been a match at all. |
|
Jun-16-14
 | | offramp: I like the picture at the top of the page.
Why weren't wax mats allowed in the playing hall? |
|
Jun-16-14
 | | OhioChessFan: I am trying to find a hidden message in the no waxmat sign. There's got to be some reason all the letters are mirror images. Maybe it's a negative instead of the real pic and the letters are backwards....tamxaw on......nope. Maybe an anagram.....woman tax.......maybe. I will work on this mystery. |
|
Dec-23-14
 | | Check It Out: < Udit Narayan: actually it says ПО ШАХМАТ Feb-25-09 TheChessGuy: Po shakhmatui, meaning, "Of chess."> |
|
| Dec-20-18 | | siggemannen: It's probably saying: "World Championship Of Chess", in Russian |
|
| Oct-08-19 | | King.Arthur.Brazil: Today, I recognize that Botvinnik had a strong chess, mainly in the middle and endgame, like Capablanca, for example. However, I would like to point something strange in this match. Sometimes you see Smyslov appearently beginning an attack, then suddenly he comes back and turn some "Petrosian" player, making defensive moves, the pieces disconnected, and the attack is simply abandonned. Once more time I must say, this is not the Smyslov we used to see. Including the many combinations and prepared tatics, you see few in this games, almost none. The Smyslov wins are quite simple, then I make the question, have they made some agreement of not playing tatic games? It is clear that Botvinnik overlooked several moves in some games, where he could win directly. The age and the tiredness counts too. They changed the pieces constantly, going almost directly to endgame. Why, if Smyslov could have best possibilities in tatics, in that time? I guess the he was forced to act this way. The change of his attacks and plans in several games, contrasts with his games against others. Nevertheless, you see the same thing, in his defeats against Geller, for the Soviet Championship Crown match, where his best chess had disappear. Unexplainable. That's why I still wonder if there were some political members controling the match development, among other things, to guarantee the result that USSR government would like. Unhappily, such a kind of things were common that time. Including, the genius Bronstein seemed blocked to go further, and you see that Keres, Geller, Bronstein, couldn't become the challenger. Look at 1957 games, in the beginning, it doesn't seem that Smyslov would win. So Smyslov became world chess champion, this was not what was expected by somebody in charge, and I feel this rematch like a direct way to bring the crown back to Botvinnik. This is the only way I can explain so different behavior. Some wins of Smyslov in this rematch are so easy and simple, that anyone could ask "why don't you play this way, on the remainning of games"? Some comments about the many uneasies that Bronstein had faced in his chess life, among other players is the basis of my view. Who could leave the USSR? Who could do anything, if the comunist party didn't allow? You see? I know that it was so good if chess (among other sports) doesn't have this componnent of politics inside. We'll never know what really happened, however, Smyslov went on his life, with his one year championship, and could participate in several worldwide tournements. Maybe, he knew that he got the topmost position once, and that this would never become real again. Sorry, if someone disagree. |
|
Oct-09-19
 | | keypusher: <King.Arthur.Brazil> <Look at 1957 games, in the beginning, it doesn't seem that Smyslov would win. So Smyslov became world chess champion, this was not what was expected by somebody in charge, and I feel this rematch like a direct way to bring the crown back to Botvinnik. > At the midpoint of the 1957 match, Smyslov was leading by two. That was April 2. The match ended on April 27. Your theory is that "somebody in charge" somehow failed to notice that Smyslov was winning for the entire month of April. Sorry, but that's completely asinine. (I guess "somebody in charge" also slept through the entirety of the first Tal-Botvinnik match, where Tal took the lead in the first game, and the second half of the Petrosian-Botvinnik match.) You have a theory that it was forbidden to beat Botvinnik. But reality is not in accordance with your theory, since in fact Botvinnik was beaten. So you simply make crap up to save your theory. Unfortunately, the crap you make up is, well, crap. |
|
| Oct-09-19 | | BUNA: <King.Arthur.Brazil: .... Who could leave the USSR?>
Look, you can't have it both ways. In one thread people are complaining that Reshevsky had to work for a living while top soviet players like Smyslov were financially supported by the state. And in the next thread people are complaining that Smyslov didn't leave the USSR. Other soviet top GMs had the same opportunities as Korchnoi to leave the USSR. Keres for instance was more than one time even accompanied by his wife to tournaments in the west - for the first time in 1948 during the WCC tournament in the Hague (Netherlands). (Another time I definitely know of was in Curacao 1962)
He didn't leave so maybe he didn't want to?
Furthermore Botvinnik and Tal had talked about explicit proposals to support their possible defection (the Israelis were interested). But: "Who could leave the USSR?"
Boris Spassky left in 1976 for France. He continued to play for the USSR but changed federation (and probably citizenship) in 1982 after he wasn't nominated for the soviet olympic team in 1980. Leonid Alexandrovich Shamkovich left in 1974.
Women WCC Candidate Alla Kushnir left in 1974.
Vladimir Mikhailovich Liberzon left in 1974.
Anatoly Lein left in 1976.
Roman Dzindzichashvili emigrated in 1976.
Boris Gulko emigrated in 1986.
Anna M Akhsharumova emigrated in 1986.
Maxim Dlugy emigrated in 1977 but he wasn't a professional chessplayer at the time. |
|
| Oct-09-19 | | BUNA: Yacov Isaakovich Murey emigrated in 1976. In 1978 he acted as one of Korchnoi's seconds during the WCC and took part in the Moscow Interzonal 1982 as israeli citizen. |
|
| Oct-09-19 | | DWINS: <King.Arthur.Brazil:> Holy wall of words, Batman! Paragraphs are your friend. Use them! |
|
| Apr-03-20 | | ewan14: They might check out from the USSR but they could never leave ! Thank you , thank you !
Seriously I could not see any chess players escaping when Stalin was alive |
|
Apr-03-20
 | | beatgiant: <ewan14>
The following came to mind immediately as chess players who left the USSR when Stalin was alive:Alexander Alekhine Efim Bogoljubov Fedor Parfenovich Bohatirchuk Also there was the case of Emanuel Lasker, who took Soviet citizenship in 1935 but left the USSR for the USA in 1937. Should I look for more examples, or will you revise your claim? |
|
Jul-23-21
 | | Eggman: Andrew Soltis mentions in his latest book (https://www.amazon.ca/Smyslov-Brons...) that Smyslov came down with pneumonia during this match. I had never heard this! |
|
Jul-23-21
 | | MissScarlett: Botvinnik’s opponents had a habit of getting sick or worse. |
|
Jul-23-21
| | keypusher: <MissScarlett> <or worse> What are you babbling about? <Eggman> Don’t believe everything Andy Soltis tells you. Smyslov claimed to be sick at the beginning (as you can read on this page) but I don’t think he claimed pneumonia. The rules allowed for postponements. I assume there is some explanation for why Smyslov didn’t take one. |
|
Jul-23-21
| | MissScarlett: I’m talking about Pyotr Izmailov - and those are just the bodies we know about! |
|
Jul-23-21
 | | jessicafischerqueen:
<MissScarlett> lol ok, but you have to admire his conviction eh? <What are you babbling about?> |
|
Jul-23-21
| | MissScarlett: When the <Earl of Oxford> wrote <The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers>, people naturally assumed he was joking. He was deadly serious! This is how they used to prosecute cases in Tudor times: https://youtu.be/C0aLrrnyDhg |
|
Jul-23-21
| | jessicafischerqueen:
<MissScarlett> ROBERT BOLT's "A Footballer for All Seasons." Well played.
I wonder if <keypusher> can mount a response to English football legend and Shakespearean actor Paul Scholes in that magnificent Bolt drama. The line on point: <"keypusher... don't you know it doth not profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? But for Wales, keypusher, for Wales..."> |
|
Jul-24-21
| | MissScarlett: <keypusher> finds himself in a world of Hurt. |
|
Jul-24-21
| | keypusher: < MissScarlett: I’m talking about Pyotr Izmailov - and those are just the bodies we know about!> That <is> the sort of fool-born jest that might appeal to an Oxfordian |
|
Jul-24-21
 | | HeMateMe: I'm thinking Scarzzy might have been "the Sixth man", another homosexual British traitor, had he been born in another era... |
|
Jul-24-21
| | jessicafischerqueen:
<MissScarlett> Yes, but there are few better places to be than that. From Richard Rich to Joseph Merrick, and so many other memorable roles. Lesser known outings of note include the mistakenly optimistic chap in Stephen Frears' <The Hit> and the unlikely psychopath in Nick Cave's <The Proposition>. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
