On May 6, 11:10=A0am, ttk5...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 6, 12:20=A0am, help bot <nomorech...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On May 4, 3:33 pm, ttk5...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > > =A0 You then interpret this to mean "Es decir, Botvinnik controlaba
to=
da
> > > la informaci=F3n en el ajedrez ruso de la =E9poca y de forma
privilegi=
ada
> > > seg=FAn sus intereses." (That is to say, Botvinnik controlled all
> > > Russian chess information during this period in a privileged manner
to=
> > > serve his own interests.)
> > > =A0 This is undoubtedly true to some extent, but I do not think that
w=
as
> > > the only meaning of Bronstein's statement. There was, I think, also
> > > genuine admiration for and acknowledgement of Botvinnik's deep study
> > > of the openings, which was accomplished to a great extent by hard
> > > work, not just by controlling information.
>
> > =A0 Is there any information on just how all this was
> > supposedly accomplished? =A0I would imagine (but
> > have no way of knowing) that controlling ALL such
> > information was a daunting task, worthy of a small
> > army of men; apparently, Mr. Botvinnik was a real
> > "one-man army", in more ways than one.
>
> =A0 I know for sure of two ways in which Botvinnik "controlled
> information" about his opening repertoire, though neither could be
> considered at all unethical. One, he simply did not play publicly for
> long periods of time. For example, he did not play a single serious
> public game between winning the world champion****p in 1948, and his
> first defense of the title against Bronstein in 1951, nor between
> losing the title to Smyslov in 1957 and reclaiming it in 1958. Two, he
> would often have secret training matches, the games of which would not
> be published.
> =A0 Bronstein believes Botvinnik avoided playing in 1948-51 "because he
> did not want to reveal his opening secrets to his challenger."
> Perhaps, though Botvinnik simply says he was busy working on his
> doctoral dissertation, and that rather than reaping any advantage from
> the layoff, the lack of practice hurt him in the match (see
> "Botvinnik's Best Games," vol 2, pp. 11-12).
> =A0 Even allowing, for the sake of argument, Bronstein's interpretation
> of 1948-51, I don't see anything unethical in this. However, what the
> Spanish writers seem to be implying, or believe that Bronstein is
> implying, is that Botvinnik used his position and connections to gain
> preferential access to others' games, and perhaps limit publication of
> his own games, or suppress Soviet publication of games Botvinnik
> considered im****tant, e.g. TNs he might use from foreign games. I'm
> sure the former is true, the latter I don't know.
> =A0 Again, I would not consider the former course unethical, any more
> than I'd consider it unethical for a wealthy American player to buy
> more chess books and magazines than a player with little money could.
> The latter kind of action runs counter to Western ideals of a free
> press and free circulation of information, but wouldn't bother a
> Soviet mind-set like Botvinnik's. Heck, probably wouldn't bother many
> Western players, if they had the power. But whether Botvinnik actually
> excercised that kind of control, I couldn't say.
>
> > =A0 The one thing which all these Botvinnik-bashers
> > cannot ever seem to do, is "fit" his powerful chess
> > moves into their biased accounts in a way that
> > makes any rational sense. =A0For instance, the
> > dregs who maintain that all the other Soviet
> > players were "ordered" to throw their games, fail
> > to account for the fact that non-Soviets were also
> > losing to him at the very same time. =A0When that
> > sort of heavy bias creeps in, logic and reason go
> > out the window.
>
> =A0 There is no doubt that Botvinnik was a great player in his own
> right. The question is whether he would have risen quite so high for
> so long without state sup****t, preferential treatment, and unethical
> behind-the-scenes dealings (e.g. pressure on Keres).
>
> =A0 Here's a fairly relevant article by Edward Winter from 2003:
>
> =A0http://www.ches****story.com/winter/extra/pachman.html
A particularly relevant quote from the Winter article is this,
written by Bohatirchuk in 1949:
"[Botvinnik's] trainer (now perhaps a whole retinue of trainers)
works out theoretical novelties for him and tests them in play with
other masters; publication of these trial games is forbidden until
Botvinnik uses that particular variation."
This, from a Soviet defector, sup****ts the notion that Botvinnik
was, at least to some extent, controlling chess information in Russia.
It also jibes with what I said about secret training games.
|
