Sir George Alan Thomas

[Gerard Killoran]

I've had a look at the Moscow 1936 cross table.

How many Soviet or Soviet based players did worse against Botvinnik than Capablanca?

The answer is that it was only Ilya Kan, who lost both his games to Botvinnik but took a draw off Capablanca. However his fellow tailender Nickolay Riumin lost both his games to Capablanca but drew against Botvinnik - in fact he nearly won in an 80 move game where Botvinnik was holding on by his fingertips.

Did they throw their first round games then play normally in the second round? I doubt it. Levenfish drew both his games against Botvinnik.

The Olga Capablanca story is obviously false.

[Matt Mackenzie]

There is also a well-documented story from (I think) Moscow 1935, when a party functionary allegedly suggested to Botvinnik that one of the Soviet tail-enders there might be willing to "throw" the game to him. MMB was furious, and said that if there was any sign that was being attempted he would deliberately lose the game first. He may not be everybody's cup of tea, but no serious evidence has been produced that he was not completely ethical in these respects.

[John Townsend]

I don't pretend to know much about this subject, but, after reading Edward Winter's A Chess Omnibus (page 212) and C.N. 4950, I am left with the general impression that there is at least some element of truth in the story about Stalin. All the details may not be correct. Olga's account was dependent on what she had heard from Capa. She was
straightforward enough to point out that she was

" ... a bit hazy about the details, such as who had accompanied Stalin ..."
(C.N. 4950)

That observation should add to her credibility as a witness. Why would a liar mention it? We should perhaps allow for minor and unintentional distortions in her account.

In C.N. 4950, Edward Winter has emphasised that Capa's widow mentioned this
matter more than once:

"Olga Capablanca mentioned such an incident to us a number of times (in writing and
orally) ..."

Unless there is a significant element of truth in her story, either she or Capa was deliberately telling lies, which there seems no reason to think.

It appears that Capablanca was friendly with Krylenko, which does no harm to
the credibility of the story:

"In the Moscow tournament of 1935 or 1936, she said, Capablanca was friendly
with Nikolai Krylenko." (Edward Winter, A Chess Omnibus , page 212)

A happy 2014 to all forumites!

[Gerard Killoran]

The problem with believing Olga Capablanca is that in neither 1935 or 1936 did Soviet players throw games against Botvinnik to help him win the tournament. Look at the cross-tables and the game scores. According to Chessgames (yes I know) the game between Riumin and Botvinnik was in round two. Far from throwing the game, Riumin pressed Botvinnik all the way and nearly won. It takes just one fact to disprove a theory.

[John Townsend]

In C.N. 4950, one account of the events refers to a letter to the New York Times in which the Soviet players were only accused of draws - "and they get to rest". In the other version, they threw games to Botvinnik. She did say she was "hazy" about it.

[Leonard Barden]

Since previous posts above have absolved Kan, Riumin and Levenfish of any complicit actions, the kernel of truth in Olga's story, if there is one, falls on the round eight game Ragozin v Botvinnik, a 21-move draw where the pieces were swiftly hoovered off and which looks as it could have been prearranged. Ragozin was of course Botvinnik's training partner.
However, the explanation for that draw probably lies in the previous round where Botvinnik had a winning position against Capablanca (by the latter's own admission) but failed to see it and then blundered into a loss in time trouble. That lucky victory proved decisive at the end of the tournament when Capablanca finished first, one point ahead of Botvinnik.
Taking a quick draw the game after a shock defeat is quite a normal action, so Capa's reaction, if it happened, does not cast him in a particularly good light.

[John Townsend]

Interesting. Does anyone have the resources and technology to display cross-tables of Moscow 1935 and 1936 on the forum? The round-by-round scores might be even better.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Cross-tables won't give you the round-by-round scores, for that you need to know the order in which they played.

Moscow 1935 here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_193 ... tournament

I didn't realise Vera Menchik played in that. Three draws and 16 losses.

I wonder how rare the original tournament books are now?

An edition of Moscow 1936 by Cordingley and Reinfeld:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rXjdHAAACAAJ

[Leonard Barden]

Moscow 1936, complete with round order:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscol ... id=1010012

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Thanks. Those game collections are good. I can't seem to find a browsable or chronological list of tournaments, but I did find this:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/collections

The 30 pages in this collection (by the person who compiled that tournament cross-table) has a lot of tournament cross-tables:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscol ... eus+po+147

Moscow 1925 here:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscol ... id=1009928

No sign of Moscow 1935 (yet).

Hold on, here we go:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscol ... id=1007160

Superseded by:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=79233

So two formats to view it in.

EDIT: And somehow missed the tournament index, which was there all along:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/tournaments

[John Townsend]

There seem to be a lot of draws between the Soviet players. I see what Leonard meant by Ragozin v Botvinnik. Ragozin's 12.Qc5 wasn't exactly fighting talk, was it? One can imagine Capablanca feeling - shall we say? - "rooked", even if there was no collusion. Of course, Fischer made similar complaints about the Soviet players ...

[Matt Mackenzie]

Grandmaster draws don't exactly equate to "throwing" games, however - which was the original accusation.

[Tryfon Gavriel]

Grandmaster draws don't exactly equate to "throwing" games, however - which was the original accusation.

Okay it is amazing to bear great scrutiny on the Capablanca quotation. But the Moscow 1935,36 tournaments are not the only tournaments to consider. Before World War II the stakes were not as high as the "crunch tournament" in the 1948 AVRO tournament (to decide World Champion), where personally I would have like to have seen many different countries sending a maximum of 2 players, to ensure no underlying perceived threats of being sent to Siberia featured as an undertone to beating Kyrlenko's favurite player Mikhail Botvinnik. FIDE was still in its infancy, and perhaps wanted to bend over backwards to have the USSR as a major member, who previously didn't seem to care about FIDE affiliation.

Consider *during* World War II, although international tournament activity stopped, the USSR itself was still having many tournaments. Good training for Botvinnnik in preparation for his intended match against Alexander Alekhine.

Other tournaments during World War II represent unfortunately the last games of Alexander Alekhine - some of them being very controversial. Also unfortunate was the participation of Paul Keres in some of these very controversial tournaments. E.g. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=79464 - Honestly I am not sure whether to video annotate any of these games as part of my Evolution of Chess style video annotation series.

Let's not lose sight of this fundamental fact of human nature when the stakes are high, cheating becomes often rampant. That is why for example people don't do paid prize tournaments online - people would just cheat with engines. So when the stakes are high, it is important to minimise the possibility - even theoretical of any collusion or unfair bias. But history is what it is - it is unchangeable. I believe it is important though not just to have a factual understanding of history, but to try and have maximum empathy for the underlying political climate, etc.

From a technical perspective pre-1939 it can be argued though that Paul Keres was a formidable player and didn't seem to be much weaker than Mikhail Botvinnik. What happens though is when people get labelled "World champion" from an evolution of style perspective, books and magazines shed more light on those games of "World champions" than the "uncrowned kings".

Best wishes, Tryfon

[John Townsend]

I'm not sure what is meant by "the original accusation".

Ragozin draws with his countryman, Botvinnik, in 21 moves, but Capablanca has to play 57 moves to draw with Ragozin. One could understand if Capablanca felt that was unfair.

[Gerard Killoran]

So Ragozin, who was Botvinnik's training partner, didn't lose to him - and if anyone was going to take a dive surely it was Ragozin. The case for the prosecution has more holes in it than my old string vest.

ps

Botvinnik as World Champion drew with Bronstein; drew with and lost to Smyslov; lost to Tal; and finally lost to Petrosian. Not much evidence there for his colleagues' reluctance to beat him.