From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Best player never to win the World Championship
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:38:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.121130.8021@maths.nott.ac.uk> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.194810.16486@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>					       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?

If he had been a quitter, he would never have become a WC.

>  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".

That sounds ridiculous. If your address didn't show "uk", I'd think you 
relied on the information from the American press... In 1957, Botvinnik was
46 years old, younger than Korchnoi in 1978 (OK, nobody could have known that
in '57) and only 3 years older than Alekhine in '36, when he regained the
title. Not to mention Lasker... I don't think that in the '50s a player in
his mid-forties was considered over the hill.

>
>>	      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,

Yes, exactly. He became the USSR Champion twice by beating weak players...

He BEAT the strongest players. He CRUSHED the next-strongest (like the young
Bobby Fischer).

> by playing unsound sacrifices.

Being refuted after several days of analysis doesn't make a sacrifice
unsound. Nobody ever became WC by playing "unsound sacrifices".

>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;

Perhaps it was not known at the time. Yet, it is undisputable that Tal was
severely handicapped by his illness.

>  rather the opposite, B was now too old to regain his title.

You are funny. One year, he can't lose to Tal; the next year, he's too old
to beat him, even if Tal is ill? Come on...

>
>	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.

I appreciate that you are sa fair to Petrosian as not to claim that you
would have beaten him with knight odds.

>
>	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.

No. It was known that Tal was ill. If you relied on information spread by
those who did not know that, it does not mean that no one was informed
enough to make a correct prediction.

It was also very well known in the 50s that Botvinnik was very persistent,
that he studied the style and psychology of every opponent and was capable
of great comebacks.

>  There were further matches, such as
>KKn, for various K and n, where strong favourites came perilously close
>to coming unstuck.

It happened only once, in Seville 1987. Other K-K-K (oops!) matches either
weren't close or had no strong favorites.

>  I conclude that *no* modern WC match should be thought
>of as pre-ordained, not even Kasparov v Short/Timman.

I advise you to take a look at Kasparov's tournament record. Then you'll
understand the meaning of his ~2800 rating. Barring an illness or some
other catastrophe, S|T beating K would be the biggest WC upset ever.

	Sven

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess