From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Subject: Re: Best player never to win the World Championship
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:11:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.194810.16486@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Of all the matches you mentioned, Euwe-Alekhine was the only real surprise,

	I think this is 20-20 hindsight.  Much becomes clearer after the
event -- the question is, what were magazines, assembled grandmasters,
and fans generally thinking *before* each match.

>Alekhine was a great player, not as much of a natural genius as Capa, but
>much more systematic and thoroughly prepared.

	But in 1927, Capa was "unbeatable".  Remember [well, of course
not, and nor do I, but we've both read about it!] the amazement when
Reti beat him in 1924?  Who believed *before* the event that Alekhine
could beat him six times?

>					       Botvinnik and Smyslov were of
>roughly equal strength, so it was not surprising that in three matches they
>went +1-1=1.

	The surprise was the order.  1954: tie;  1957: S wins.  OK, this is
the natural sequence, the younger man has now established his superiority,
why does B even bother with the return match?  S is now a somewhat forgotten
World Champion, perhaps better known these days as a veteran who sometimes
has amazingly good results "for someone of his age";  but in 1957, he was
thought to be a worthy Champion, and the age of Botvinnik was "over".  Then
came the 1958 match.

>	      Tal was a genius like Fischer a little later, and he had amazing
>results in the two years before he beat 49 year old Botvinnik;

	Yes, he beat all the weak players, by playing unsound sacrifices.
Yes, he'll occasionally worry even the strongest players, because of his
surprise value, but how can he win a match against "iron logic" Botvinnik?

>								on the other
>hand, the rematch was easy for the older Mikhail because the younger Mikhail's
>kidneys didn't work.

	Well, we saw in the first match that even B could be swindled!
How can an old man stand up against such natural genius?  I don't remember
*at the time* anyone pointing out that B had good chances because of T's
health;  rather the opposite, B was now too old to regain his title.

>		      Finally, Spassky was certainly a stronger player than
>Petrosian in '66,

	Right;  P "had the worst results ever for a World Champion", he had
"brought the title into disrepute";  he'd only won it in the first place by
playing an old and decrepit B;  P was so weak that he was lucky that B had
not had any right to a return match in '64.  *Of course* Spassky was going
to win.

	My point is only that on looking back we can see reasons for Tal's
rise and fall, etc., but *at the time* these various matches had strong
favourites, who all came unstuck.  There were further matches, such as
KKn, for various K and n, where strong favourites came perilously close
to coming unstuck.  I conclude that *no* modern WC match should be thought
of as pre-ordained, not even Kasparov v Short/Timman.

>I am surprised that you count Botvinnik-Bronstein as not a surprise.

	Well, it was before my time!  But my understanding is that Bronstein
had fought his way through ahead of Smyslov, Keres, Boleslavsky, etc., and
was thought a worthy opponent, whereas Botvinnik was relatively out of
practice.

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk