30 Jun 18
1 edit
Consider all of the world champions for a minute. None of them ever did it like Botvinnik. 3 time world champion. When he lost the title he fought to get it back not just once but twice. I consider him to be the strongest of the world champions. Lasker being a close second due to his 27 year reign.
30 Jun 18
Originally posted by @nevareYou can't really make comparisons between the players of old and the modern game.
Consider all of the world champions for a minute. None of them ever did it like Botvinnik. 3 time world champion. When he lost the title he fought to get it back not just once but twice. I consider him to be the strongest of the world champions. Lasker being a close second due to his 27 year reign.
The modern players have access to databases and engines that just weren't there in the old days and the game has changed so much over the years anyway.
It's the same with sports.Cricket for example.Don Bradman has the best test record of all batsmen but you just can't say how he would have fared in the modern game.
01 Jul 18
Originally posted by @nevareIn the 3 World Championship matches played between Botvinnik and Smyslov, guess who won the most games total?
Consider all of the world champions for a minute. None of them ever did it like Botvinnik. 3 time world champion. When he lost the title he fought to get it back not just once but twice. I consider him to be the strongest of the world champions. Lasker being a close second due to his 27 year reign.
One clue: His name doesn't begin with "B".
Originally posted by @buzz-meeksAutomatic rematches? The vanquished King gets a rematch by rights you ignorant ass. Try to think what they go through. They are the best and then lose? I can't even begin to imagine what they go through.
His "fighting back" is less impressive when you know that he got automatic rematches without having to play anyone else in between if he didn't want to. Plus Tal was sick and Bronstein probably shoved aside to make room for the modern Soviet man.
01 Jul 18
Originally posted by @paul-leggettI'm so dunk...I be back in a bit
In the 3 World Championship matches played between Botvinnik and Smyslov, guess who won the most games total?
One clue: His name doesn't begin with "B".
01 Jul 18
The Botvinnik Rematch Rules.
In 1949, a year after Botvinnik became would champion. A clause was added that
should Botvinnik (or any other future world champion) lose the title then he and
the new candidate and the new World Champion would play in 3 player tournament.
So if Bronstein won the 1951 final, Smyslov the 1953 candidates we would have
had a three player mini tournament. It never happened the format was not laid out.
The same thing would have happened if Smyslov had beaten Botvinnik in 1954.
A Smyslov-Botvinnik- and the winner of the 1956 candidates mini tournament.
In 1956 FIDE wanted to limit the number of Soviet players in a candidates.
The Russians were having not of it. But Botvinnik came up with a solution.
Botvinnik suggested that if he lost the title he would get a re-match with just the
the new world champion. If FIDE agreed then they could limit the Russian qualifiers
in a candidates to 4. The Russians tabled the motion, FIDE agreed and that was that.
(you got 5 Russians in a candidates because the losing finalist never had to qualify.)
There was no return-return match. Neither Smyslov nor Tal were given a return match for losing the title,
that was not in the rules. So to be world champion you basically had to win two matches back to back.
The rule was not abolished in 1963. Botvinnik declined his rematch v Petrosian.
When Botvinnik refused his re-match FIDE shelved the idea. It was not in place
for any of the two Spassky-Petrosian title matches nor in Fischer-Spassky 1972
The rematch clause was introduced for the Karpov - Korchnoi matches then dropped again.
This bartering with FIDE may sound odd but at the same FIDE meeting in 1956 Tal
was given the GM title even though he had not met all the necessary requirements.
Although Tal becoming a G.M. was forgone conclusion. The USA mumbled and grumbled so
to even things up Arthur Bisguier was also given a GM title without the necessary requirements.
Source:Yuri Averbakh remembers Mikhail Botvinnik
https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/yuri-averbakh-remembers-mikhail-botvinnik
In 1949, a year after Botvinnik became would champion. A clause was added that
should Botvinnik (or any other future world champion) lose the title then he and
the new candidate and the new World Champion would play in 3 player tournament.
So if Bronstein won the 1951 final, Smyslov the 1953 candidates we would have
had a three player mini tournament. It never happened the format was not laid out.
The same thing would have happened if Smyslov had beaten Botvinnik in 1954.
A Smyslov-Botvinnik- and the winner of the 1956 candidates mini tournament.
In 1956 FIDE wanted to limit the number of Soviet players in a candidates.
The Russians were having not of it. But Botvinnik came up with a solution.
Botvinnik suggested that if he lost the title he would get a re-match with just the
the new world champion. If FIDE agreed then they could limit the Russian qualifiers
in a candidates to 4. The Russians tabled the motion, FIDE agreed and that was that.
(you got 5 Russians in a candidates because the losing finalist never had to qualify.)
There was no return-return match. Neither Smyslov nor Tal were given a return match for losing the title,
that was not in the rules. So to be world champion you basically had to win two matches back to back.
The rule was not abolished in 1963. Botvinnik declined his rematch v Petrosian.
When Botvinnik refused his re-match FIDE shelved the idea. It was not in place
for any of the two Spassky-Petrosian title matches nor in Fischer-Spassky 1972
The rematch clause was introduced for the Karpov - Korchnoi matches then dropped again.
This bartering with FIDE may sound odd but at the same FIDE meeting in 1956 Tal
was given the GM title even though he had not met all the necessary requirements.
Although Tal becoming a G.M. was forgone conclusion. The USA mumbled and grumbled so
to even things up Arthur Bisguier was also given a GM title without the necessary requirements.
Source:Yuri Averbakh remembers Mikhail Botvinnik
https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/yuri-averbakh-remembers-mikhail-botvinnik
01 Jul 18
Originally posted by @nevareVery true. Though the chess world was smaller back then, and he had the benefit of state backing from the old Soviet Union, his persistence and work ethic is quite impressive.
Consider all of the world champions for a minute. None of them ever did it like Botvinnik. 3 time world champion. When he lost the title he fought to get it back not just once but twice. I consider him to be the strongest of the world champions. Lasker being a close second due to his 27 year reign.
It's just I read a lot of chess books and if see something interesting
I follow up on it. A lot of the knowledge comes from the net.
Notice I did not disagree with you about Botvinnik as a great player. He was.
Yes he was the States favourite son and he used his position to get his own way
but he did ruffle feathers and if he felt he was being shown favouritism he struck back.
There is the story, in his own words where he was told it could be arranged for a player
to lose against him. Botvinnik replied if he suspected anything like that then he would resign.
01 Jul 18
Originally posted by @greenpawn34Awesome. When I was in prison their was a guy I knew who wanted to set up a chess match for money and everyone knew I was good compared to them but he wanted me to lose so we would make more money. I said I would never disgrace chess and I stopped talking to him.
It's just I read a lot of chess books and if see something interesting
I follow up on it. A lot of the knowledge comes from the net.
Notice I did not disagree with you about Botvinnik as a great player. He was.
Yes he was the States favourite son and he used his position to get his own way
but he did ruffle feathers and if he felt he was being ...[text shortened]...
to lose against him. Botvinnik replied if he suspected anything like that then he would resign.