| |
Main
Date: 24 Aug 2008 15:45:35
From: Chvsanchez
Subject: Kramnik on Botvinnik
|
I have never heard this anecdote:
I am not like Botvinnik =96 before his match with Bronstein he made a
list of what results he should make in each game: first game draw,
second game he wins, third game draw, fourth game draw, fifth game he
wins... And finally according to his plan he was something like plus
seven by the end of the match. (Kramnik)
Have anyone seen it in books?
Regards,
Christian
|
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2008 06:14:39
From:
Subject: Re: Kramnik on Botvinnik
|
On Aug 27, 1:50 am, Chvsanchez <[email protected] > wrote:
> > In any case, unless the match was a
> > very long one, a plus-seven score would
> > be quite remarkable.
>
> Maybe I should have quoted Kramnik's last sentence this way:
>
> 'And finally according to his plan he was something like plus
> seven by the end of the match.' (with irony and smiles)
>
> >It is definitely not mentioned in any of Botvinnik's books I have
> >read, such as his autobiography, nor in Bronstein's "The Socerer's
> >Apprentice."
>
> Perhaps we should think about Tal-Botvinnik, 1961.
That sounds much more plausible than Bronstein in 1951. Botvinnik
went +5 in the Tal rematch, fairly close to the +7 of this alleged
plan. And Botvinnik tended to plan more carefully for a rematch than
when he played a challenger the first time.
> I recall a book on
> it edited by Igor Botvinnik. (?)
Of those two matches, I only have Tal's book on the 1960 match. 1961
was such a downer, with a sick Tal unable to prevent the Stalinist
fogey from restoring the Old Guard's supremacy.
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2008 00:43:12
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Kramnik on Botvinnik
|
Chvsanchez wrote:
> Maybe I should have quoted Kramnik's last sentence this way:
>
> 'And finally according to his plan he was something like plus
> seven by the end of the match.' (with irony and smiles)
In my fantasies, I win every game (all of
them miniatures). I think the inclusion of
so many draws in grandmaster fantasies
tells us something.
> Perhaps we should think about Tal-Botvinnik, 1961. I recall a book on
> it edited by Igor Botvinnik. (?)
Igor? That sounds familiar; isn't he the
guy who aided Dr. Fraankensteen in his
now-famous experiments?
> >This is nonsense.
Well, yes. But the film was profitable.
> Nimzowitsch advised something similar when playing a long tournament.
> You must try to win in the first third, rest in the second third, by
> playing short games (even drawing with white), and then try to win in
> the last third of the competition.
All well and good if the tournament is
evenly divisible by three. Where I play,
there are often five rounds in a single
day, and it just doesn't pay to rest
*during* the one-day event. But one
strategy is to take a half-point bye in
the first round, then enter the fracas
"fresh" at round two, a half-point back
of the leaders.
A few people tried this, but when
they faltered it became apparent that
they would not even be in the running
for first place. Thus far, only one
player has managed to "rest" during
play, and he did so by polishing off
most of his opponents swiftly, like a
grandmaster. Come to think of it, he
/was/ a grandmaster.
Now, as for strategies useful for the
top GMs in major tournaments where
they only play one another, I think
physical training is in order; build up
the endurance so you don't need to
rest during the event. Another idea
is to not get old, for old players tend
to have trouble with such grueling
competitions. For this, there is HGH:
the same hormone used by American
ball players, in conjunction with who-
knows-what else. You can't argue
with success... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2008 22:50:07
From: Chvsanchez
Subject: Re: Kramnik on Botvinnik
|
> In any case, unless the match was a
> very long one, a plus-seven score would
> be quite remarkable.
Maybe I should have quoted Kramnik's last sentence this way:
'And finally according to his plan he was something like plus
seven by the end of the match.' (with irony and smiles)
>It is definitely not mentioned in any of Botvinnik's books I have
>read, such as his autobiography, nor in Bronstein's "The Socerer's
>Apprentice."
Perhaps we should think about Tal-Botvinnik, 1961. I recall a book on
it edited by Igor Botvinnik. (?)
>This is nonsense.
No, I think it's called 'match strategy'.
Nimzowitsch advised something similar when playing a long tournament.
You must try to win in the first third, rest in the second third, by
playing short games (even drawing with white), and then try to win in
the last third of the competition.
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2008 18:22:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Kramnik on Botvinnik
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Did this "+7 plan" come from something Botvinnik actually wrote,
> some private notebook not published in the West, or is this just the
> Russian equivalent of Morphy's shoes?
For the record, Paul Morphy did own shoes,
and he did arrange them in a semi-circle in
his room. Where the trouble starts is when
hacks get a hold of this kind of information,
and allow their imaginations to run amok;
the shoes morph into "women's shoes", and
the bedroom changes to the bathroom, etc.
A Dr. Fine might decide that this showed
evidence of a fetish, for instance, while a
Mr. Evans might "recall" that it happened
in, say, 1949, or in the bathroom near the
tub, where he was found slumped over a
chair with a piece of meat stuck in his
throat... .
---------------------------------------------------------
In any case, unless the match was a
very long one, a plus-seven score would
be quite remarkable. For instance, when
Mr. Capablanca defeated Mr. Lasker
/without the loss of a single game/, his
score was not that high, I don't believe.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2008 06:20:39
From:
Subject: Re: Kramnik on Botvinnik
|
On Aug 26, 12:08=A0am, Chvsanchez <[email protected] > wrote:
> > =A0 It is definitely not mentioned in any of Botvinnik's books I have
> > read, such as his autobiography, nor in Bronstein's "The Socerer's
> > Apprentice." Where did you see this?
>
> You can hear Kramnik's latest interview here:http://www.chessbase.com/new=
sdetail.asp?newsid=3D4859.
>
> >This "anecdote" sounds like something
>
> <invented to lend support to one of the
> <conspiracy theories which cast everyone
> <as victimized by Mr. Botvinnik, who was
> <so weak he had to compel everyone to
> <"throw" their games to him
>
> No. The point of the anecdote is that Botvinnik's preparation was so
> deep that his aim before the match was drawing the first game, winning
> the second, drawing the third, fourth and fifth, winning the sixth,
> etc.
I would really like to know what Kramnik is basing this statement
on. On page 12 of his "Best Games 1942-1956," Botvinnik sounds quite
the opposite of the over-confident planner Kramnik describes:
"The situation in our match was favorable for him, since ... for
three years I had not played a single tournament game. One should not
be surprised that Bronstein, who was inferior to me in experience and
positional understanding, did not lose the match, but should rather
ask the question: why did he not defeat his out-of-practice opponent?"
Did this "+7 plan" come from something Botvinnik actually wrote,
some private notebook not published in the West, or is this just the
Russian equivalent of Morphy's shoes? The interviewer should have
followed with further questions here, but he just lets it pass with no
comment.
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2008 22:20:44
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Kramnik on Botvinnik
|
Chvsanchez wrote:
> >This "anecdote" sounds like something
> <invented to lend support to one of the
> <conspiracy theories which cast everyone
> <as victimized by Mr. Botvinnik, who was
> <so weak he had to compel everyone to
> <"throw" their games to him
> No. The point of the anecdote is that Botvinnik's preparation was so
> deep that his aim before the match was drawing the first game, winning
> the second, drawing the third, fourth and fifth, winning the sixth,
> etc.
This is nonsense. One can only predict
the outcome in this way if every one of the
following is true:
1) the opponent always plays the same
opening lines, much like an automaton;
2) the opponent never surprises you, but
you always surprise him;
3) your opening surprises always work in
your favor-- you accurately saw everything;
4) you always win your won games,
never making typical human errors.
Now, while number one above is true for
some players (I used to be one of them),
it certainly does not fit Mr. Bronstein (or
does it?).
Let's take the famous game between
Mr. Botvinnik and Mr. Fischer as an
example. In this game, Mr. Botvinnik
was surprised in the opening, and in no
way can it be said that he was in
complete control of the progress of the
game. This happened in spite of the
fact that BF was among the more
predictable players.
Now, if I were to delude myself into
thinking I had complete control in this
way, I think I could go the next step
and delude myself all the way; I might
decide that I could win *every game*
as White, for instance, and at least
draw every game as Black. Why not?
The idea of deliberately "allowing"
draws when one has White is silly, if
one is in complete control and is the
superior player and has White.
Generally speaking, I see the stuff
emitted by Mr. Bronstein as typical
psychological "justifying"; he says he
lost because he did not really want to
win, but rather, to be creative. This is
a false dichotomy; many of the most
beautiful and creative games of all
time were wins; this is common
knowledge!
A more realistic view of what such
players really thought is to be found
in their predictions before these
matches; afterward, there seems to
be much "data-fitting" in the
comments.
On the issue of (openings) prep-
aration I would like to point out that
in many games, Mr. Botvinnik was
seen to be superior in the middle
game and/or endgame. The idea of
his winning purely on the basis of
superior openings preparation is,
well, bunk.
Look at the famous tourney in
which America's Mr. Reshevsky
played several of the Russian's top
players: over and over, such talents
as Paul Keres, for instance, gained
big advantages, but blew it later in
the game because they were not
quite up to snuff in the middle and
endgames.
One needs to look at Mr. Kramnik's
comments in the context of "what is
he trying to do"; justify some recent
loss? Or what, exactly?
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2008 21:08:01
From: Chvsanchez
Subject: Re: Kramnik on Botvinnik
|
> =A0 It is definitely not mentioned in any of Botvinnik's books I have
> read, such as his autobiography, nor in Bronstein's "The Socerer's
> Apprentice." Where did you see this?
You can hear Kramnik's latest interview here:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3D4859.
>This "anecdote" sounds like something
<invented to lend support to one of the
<conspiracy theories which cast everyone
<as victimized by Mr. Botvinnik, who was
<so weak he had to compel everyone to
<"throw" their games to him
No. The point of the anecdote is that Botvinnik's preparation was so
deep that his aim before the match was drawing the first game, winning
the second, drawing the third, fourth and fifth, winning the sixth,
etc.
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2008 02:51:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Kramnik on Botvinnik
|
[email protected] wrote:
> It is definitely not mentioned in any of Botvinnik's books I have
> read, such as his autobiography, nor in Bronstein's "The Socerer's
> Apprentice." Where did you see this?
This "anecdote" sounds like something
invented to lend support to one of the
conspiracy theories which cast everyone
as victimized by Mr. Botvinnik, who was
so weak he had to compel everyone to
"throw" their games to him. (A careful
examination of the man's games shows
the exact opposite is true.) If so, then
searching in any of the books written by
Mr. Botvinnik could prove pointless;
likewise with Mr. Bronstein, unless he
was brave enough to make such a bold
accusation.
But what about the many lunatics who
proliferate this kind of stuff routinely?
Now there is a likely source. Enter a
host of lunatic-fringers, any of whom
could conceivably have been read by
Mr. Kramnik -- if in fact he ever said
this, which is questionable and perhaps
ought to be verified before expending
great efforts to locate any text.
If Mr. Botvinnik did in fact write this,
he seems a bit "off" to me; would this
be an attempt to pretend that he
somehow "knew" the result in advance,
like a psychic? Or that he, and he
alone controlled his own "destiny",
achieving his aim by force of will and of
course, superior intellect? Well, if he
was so smart, then why did he get only
a tad farther than Sanny has in his
efforts with regard to computer chess?
True, Mr. Botvinnik's chess computer
would likely dice GetClub like beets,
but suppose something goes wrong--
one of the vacuum tubes fries? Then
it's anybody's match. I say the results
are unpredictable-- just as the results
of the match between GMs Bronstein
and Botvinnik were unpredictable at
the time.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2008 17:14:25
From:
Subject: Re: Kramnik on Botvinnik
|
On Aug 24, 6:45=A0pm, Chvsanchez <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have never heard this anecdote:
>
> I am not like Botvinnik =96 before his match with Bronstein he made a
> list of what results he should make in each game: first game draw,
> second game he wins, third game draw, fourth game draw, fifth game he
> wins... And finally according to his plan he was something like plus
> seven by the end of the match. (Kramnik)
>
> Have anyone seen it in books?
>
> Regards,
>
> Christian
It is definitely not mentioned in any of Botvinnik's books I have
read, such as his autobiography, nor in Bronstein's "The Socerer's
Apprentice." Where did you see this?
|
|
