PDA

View Full Version : Zurich 1953 was a big FARCE



Javier Gil
30-11-2007, 07:49 PM
Bronstein only admitted it after his death in his postume book "Secret notes".

http://www.chessnia.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1799

Axiom
30-11-2007, 07:59 PM
Bronstein only admitted it after his death in his postume book "Secret notes".

http://www.chessnia.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1799
does the term "conspiracy" come up ?
if so, i dont think many here would be interested ! :hmm: :doh: :lol:

Garrett
02-12-2007, 12:29 PM
Would be interesting to read the book.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2007, 01:22 PM
Most unlikely. Smyslov was playing brilliantly. And if there was any throwing of games, it's hard to explain why arch-communist Kotov beat him, just as he beat Botvinnik at Groningen 1946 when B was in a tight race with Euwe. Similarly, there is insufficient evidence that Keres threw games to Botvinnik in the World Championship Match Tournament of 1948; Botvinnik had by far the best record of any of the participants.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2007, 01:37 PM
MADRID. The most imaginative player who has ever lived died a year ago. He managed to draw a match against Bovtinnik, although only 2 rounds before the end of the match, David Bronstein was 2 points ahead.
No, only one point. And that was after Bronstein had won two in a row in good style. Getting easily checkable things like this wrong does little for credibility. See Match cross-table (http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/4951$wix.htm).


Then, something incredibly odd happened: one of the best players in the world made a very misterious child's mistake in the last round,
No he didn't. It was the second-last round where he won a pawn but at the cost of allowing 2B v 2N. The last round was a draw with Botvinnik in a better position. See move 35 of the game (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032203). The audience applauded when Bronstein won the pawn, so how childish was the error? But after seeing Botvinnik's happy expression, Bronstein waved them to silence.


However, just recently a new book has seen the light: "Secret notes", which David Bronstein co-wrote with Sergey Voronkov and only wanted it to be published after his death. In it, Bronstein unveils that the Kremlin forced the soviet players to fix their games and thus prevent a foreigner to win the event.
Then why did Kotov, ever eager to push the Soviet line, beat Botvinnik and Smyslov when they were fighting intensely for leadership against non-Soviets, as pointed out above?


At the time, nobody believed him, but Bobby Fisher was right when he accused the Soviet Grandmasters of helping each other...
Keres' response to Fischer after Curaçao 1962 was very cogent. After all, Fischer's best chance of catching up after early losses was for his main rivals to drop half points against each other. Korchnoi also said that he was incapable of being the sacrificial lamb, and as Keres said, Korchnoi's first blunder in a winning position was against Fischer himself.


Bronstein was the only Soviet GM who didn't sign a condemnation letter against exhiled GM Victor Kortchnoi, and that earned him the cancellation of his passport for 13 years.
No he wasn't. Botvinnik and Gulko also did not sign.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-12-2007, 02:23 PM
There were some rumors of fix-ups (mostly prearranged draw) between Soviet players. Many indicate that Keres, Geller and Petrosian agreed not to play each other at Curasao in 1962.

Bronstein found himself without a coach in Zurich in 1953. Given how much resources were thrown in chess at that time, it does not seem as accident
Yet forcing someone to deliberately lose would stretch it even for USSR. I can believe that Bronstein found himself under some pressure and disadvantaged and soviet officials favored Smyslov, but Iwill never beleive that he was told to deliberately lose or something like that.

The article itself has a lot of inaccuracies (most picked by Jono), which makes it less credible.