Botvinnik's world championship return matches.

[Roland Kensdale]

Euwe was praised by Alekhine for immediately announcing there would be a return match as he accepted the World championship. I don't think anyone expected Alekhine to play Euwe yet again in a further rematch after he regained the world title.

After Alekhine's death control of the title eventually passed to FIDE and some proper regulation. Botvinnik benefitted twice from a return match, first with Smyslov in 1958 and then Tal in 1961 with Botvinnik winning each time. The return match right had been removed when Botvinnik lost to Petrosian in 1963.

My query is how was this right worded? Presumably Botvinnik was considered the 'true world champion' until defeated twice in a row, but others were only temporary holders, otherwise you would have had a ping-pong of return matches until someone won twice in a row. Wikipedia ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik) says: Viktor Baturinsky wrote: "Now came Botvinnik's turn to defend his title in accordance with the new qualifying system which he himself had outlined in 1946." Regarding Botvinnik's first title defence in 1951.

'The rematch rule had been nicknamed the "Botvinnik rule" ' (Wikipedia).

Another wikipedia entry ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_C ... ampionship ) just says: 'In 1956 FIDE introduced two apparently minor changes which Soviet grandmaster and chess official Yuri Averbakh alleged were instigated by the two Soviet representatives in FIDE, who were personal friends of reigning champion Mikhail Botvinnik. A defeated champion would have the right to a return match'. But only a return match for the 'true world champion'?

Just curious!

[Roger de Coverly]

A defeated champion would have the right to a return match'. But only a return match for the 'true world champion'?

The Soviet Union might in practice have attempted to rewrite the rules, but at least in principle had Smyslov defeated or drawn with Botvinnik in 1958, then he would have faced Tal in 1960, assuming Tal had been able to overcome the possible challenge from Botvinnik in the Candidates. If Smyslov had lost, he also would have had the right to a return match.

[Matt Mackenzie]

A defeated champion would have the right to a return match'. But only a return match for the 'true world champion'?

The Soviet Union might in practice have attempted to rewrite the rules, but at least in principle had Smyslov defeated or drawn with Botvinnik in 1958, then he would have faced Tal in 1960, assuming Tal had been able to overcome the possible challenge from Botvinnik in the Candidates. If Smyslov had lost, he also would have had the right to a return match.

Though he may not have contested that event at all (as was indeed the case post-1963)

[Jonathan Rogers]

Euwe was praised by Alekhine for immediately announcing there would be a return match as he accepted the World championship. I don't think anyone expected Alekhine to play Euwe yet again in a further rematch after he regained the world title.

After Alekhine's death control of the title eventually passed to FIDE and some proper regulation. Botvinnik benefitted twice from a return match, first with Smyslov in 1958 and then Tal in 1961 with Botvinnik winning each time. The return match right had been removed when Botvinnik lost to Petrosian in 1963.

My query is how was this right worded? Presumably Botvinnik was considered the 'true world champion' until defeated twice in a row, but others were only temporary holders, otherwise you would have had a ping-pong of return matches until someone won twice in a row. Wikipedia ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik) says: Viktor Baturinsky wrote: "Now came Botvinnik's turn to defend his title in accordance with the new qualifying system which he himself had outlined in 1946." Regarding Botvinnik's first title defence in 1951.

'The rematch rule had been nicknamed the "Botvinnik rule" ' (Wikipedia).

Another wikipedia entry ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_C ... ampionship ) just says: 'In 1956 FIDE introduced two apparently minor changes which Soviet grandmaster and chess official Yuri Averbakh alleged were instigated by the two Soviet representatives in FIDE, who were personal friends of reigning champion Mikhail Botvinnik. A defeated champion would have the right to a return match'. But only a return match for the 'true world champion'?

Just curious!

Only a return match for the original champion, yes (how else to avoid the ping pong that you mention?) - I don't know the exact wording though.

I have been trying to recall how the rule was (temporarily) resurrected. It would have been covered in detail in Kasparov's books (many of them!). I think - but might be wrong - that it was not part of the original open-ended KvK match that started in 1984; but when that was abandoned and they were to play a 24 game match, Karpov insisted on the return right (according to Kasparov that seemed to be his main bargaining objective in the spring of 1985). And in due course that match (the return, after Karpov's defeat) would be played too.

But when Karpov no longer needed it, nor apparently did FIDE! Kasparov defended his title in 1987 (a new match altogether, Karpov having now qualified to play again) without a return match clause, and very nearly suffered for it. He did not stipulate the right when negotiating with Kramnik in 2000, which he might have done, FIDE having no control anymore. He later regretted this, saying variously that he had not foreseen how unwilling Kramnik would be to play him again by mutual agreement, and that a return match might have been defensible for that particular match because Kramnik, unlike previous challengers, had not qualified to play him through any competitive means.

Fun though London 1986 was, I don't think there is much enthusiasm amng the public for return matches.

[Roger de Coverly]

I have been trying to recall how the rule was (temporarily) resurrected.

Fischer didn't demand a return match in 1975, but did want a challenger to only take the title by being two points ahead. I don't recall, if I ever knew, whether this was in the context of a match of finite duration, or an unlimited one.

[Jonathan Rogers]

it was to be unlimited, first to ten (!!)

[David Sedgwick]

A defeated champion would have the right to a return match'. But only a return match for the 'true world champion'?

The Soviet Union might in practice have attempted to rewrite the rules, but at least in principle had Smyslov defeated or drawn with Botvinnik in 1958, then he would have faced Tal in 1960, assuming Tal had been able to overcome the possible challenge from Botvinnik in the Candidates. If Smyslov had lost, he also would have had the right to a return match.

Though he may not have contested that event at all (as was indeed the case post-1963)

Botvinnik's stated reason for not playing in 1965 was that he objected to the Candidates Tournament being replaced by Candidates Matches. So he might have played in 1959 and / or 1962.

[Roland Kensdale]

A defeated champion would have the right to a return match'. But only a return match for the 'true world champion'?

The Soviet Union might in practice have attempted to rewrite the rules, but at least in principle had Smyslov defeated or drawn with Botvinnik in 1958, then he would have faced Tal in 1960, assuming Tal had been able to overcome the possible challenge from Botvinnik in the Candidates. If Smyslov had lost, he also would have had the right to a return match.

I hadn't realised Smyslov and Tal had draw odds when playing Botvinnik in his return matches. So at least they were treated as bona fide champions, if only until the rematch. 2 of Botvinnik's matches ended in ties so the result was quite possible.

[Matt Mackenzie]

One oddity of the Candidates matches was that one of those due to play in the 1977 series was none other than a certain R J Fischer.

(of course, he didn't, and his predecessor Spassky took his place)

[Roger de Coverly]

I hadn't realised Smyslov and Tal had draw odds when playing Botvinnik in his return matches.

I'm guessing that was the case. They were the World Champions, if only for a brief period and Botvinnik had already benefited twice from the "champion has draw odds" rule.