IM Michael Basman

[John Saunders]

Why was Basman, second reserve, playing in that match? I can see that Clarke seems to have been out of sorts, but why was Penrose absent?

Golombek doesn't explain Penrose's absence. Here is the text which I scanned and sent to Peter Doggers for inclusion in his Chess.com obituary. It comes from Harry Golombek's report in the December 1968 BCM, page 339-340.

Basman, after establishing a won game at an early stage, disdained a draw by perpetual check and eventually lost.

As it happened, this last result was a turning point in the history of the whole group as regards qualifying for the top final section. It is ironic to think that a more timid player than Basman would have taken the draw by perpetual and thus ensured our qualifying for the top final section; but then, a more timid player would not, in all likelihood, have achieved a position against Smyslov in which he could force a draw by perpetual. No blame, in any case, attaches to Basman since at the time he disdained the draw he had good winning prospects.

The match brought about an amusing contrast in the way in which offers of a draw were received. “Are you playing for a win!” said Spassky to Keene and the words were hardly out of his mouth before the Streatham and Brixton player was shaking him heartily by the hand. Basman, at a later stage in the game, offered Smyslov a draw. There was no reply, so, clutching him fiercely by the coat, Basman repeated his offer and got a simple “No” in reply.

BH Wood in CHESS gives not much more...

Keene’s play was so good in the early rounds, that it possibly overimpressed team-captain Alexander who proceeded to play him in all seven of the preliminary rounds, engineering the white pieces for him in five of the games.

Keene was the only one to score against the U.S.S.R. with an excellent draw against Spassky. Basman had the better opening against Smyslov and could have forced a draw at one stage, but, going for more, not unnaturally lost. Penrose rested for this match, came back with his fifth win in the next round, but the story of the preliminaries had a sad end for England.

The rest is speculation (Golombek's report in the Times gives no clue to team selection, nor does Leonard's report in the Guardian). Before this match Penrose had scored 4/4 (having rested in round 1) and perhaps the selection argument was that the USSR match was likely to be a loss whoever played, so he might as well give it a miss and rest before the more important Philippines match in the last preliminary match. (His fourth game vs Israel had gone to an adjournment and 51 moves.) A second reason to do this would be to tee him up for a possible GM norm. In the end Penrose scored +10, =5, -0 for the board one silver medal while Keene managed +9, =8, -0 for the bronze on board four.

[David Sedgwick]

but why was Penrose absent?

Hugh Alexander gave talks to the Cambridge University Chess Club every so often. The explanation as to why Penrose didn't play was to avoid denting his confidence by losing to Petrosian, also to give the younger players Keene, Lee and Basman a go at the Soviets.

Keene said the same to me many years later.

Does that make sense? It may have cost England a place in the leading final group.

It might, but only if you assume that Penrose playing would have enabled England to get a better result than ½-3½.

Penrose's subsequent results at Lugano go a long way to confirming Alexander's judgment.

I imagine that Alexander assumed that England would be able to get the result which they needed in the last Preliminary Group match against the Philippines. Losing that match 1½ - 2½ was an upset and a disappointment.

[JustinHorton]

It might, but only if you assume that Penrose playing would have enabled England to get a better result than ½-3½.

I think most people would assume that including your best player and omiting your weakest would improve your chances of getting a better result

Penrose's subsequent results at Lugano go a long way to confirming Alexander's judgment.

Not unless he was anticipating Penrose having Final B opposition to contend wirth rather than Final A, which I doubt.

[James Pratt]

I spoke to Michael Basman 3 or 4 years ago and he mentioned playing Smyslov. He said that the great Vasily had offered him a draw and he went to find Alexander, as non-playing Captain, to get permission to accept. [Incidentally, would this ever happen today?]. Hugh Alexander said "Sit down!" and thus new enthroned Smyslov moved and the offer was voided.

[John Clarke]

I can see that Clarke seems to have been out of sorts, but why was Penrose absent?

What puzzles me is why Kottnauer was present, not just for this match but in the team at all. He'd had a pretty dismal Clare Benedict (+0=3-2) earlier in the year, and was clearly past his best, confirmed shortly after by an equally unsuccessful showing at Hastings (+2=3-6). Where was Hartston? Or even Whiteley? It all shows how shallow England's chess talent pool was then, with the "Explosion" still a few years away.

[Roger de Coverly]

Where was Hartston?

Hartston was President of the Cambridge University Club in my first year (1968-69). He was in his fourth year taking what was known as Part III of the Mathematics Tripos. Supposition perhaps, but taking five weeks out of a one year course might have been unacceptable. Ray Keene on the other hand was only in his second year, so absence for most of a University term was evidently allowable.

There again he may just have been dropped in favour of Basman.

[Roland Kensdale]

Sensible opening, but...!

[Event "Christmas Congress 1974/75-50 Premier"] [Site "Hastings"] [Date "1975.01.09"] [Round "11"] [White "Andersson, Ulf"] [Black "Basman, Michael J"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E18"] [PlyCount "106"] [EventDate "1974.12.28"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "15"] [EventCountry "ENG"] 1. Nf3 b6 2. g3 Bb7 3. Bg2 e6 4. O-O d5 5. c4 Nf6 6. d4 Be7 7. Nc3 O-O 8. Ne5 h6 9. Bf4 a6 10. Rc1 Ra7 11. cxd5 exd5 12. Qb3 Ba8 13. Rfd1 Kh7 14. h3 Kg8 15. Kh2 Kh7 16. g4 Kg8 17. Bg3 Bb7 18. e3 Ba8 19. a3 Bb7 20. f4 Ba8 21. Rd2 Qd6 22. f5 Qd8 23. Bf4 Bb7 24. Rg1 c6 25. Bf3 Nh7 26. Rc1 Bd6 27. Na4 Bc7 28. Kg3 Nf6 29. h4 Nfd7 30. Nxd7 Nxd7 31. Re2 Re8 32. Kh3 Bxf4 33. exf4 Rxe2 34. Bxe2 Qe7 35. Bf3 b5 36. Nc5 Bc8 37. Qd3 h5 38. gxh5 Qf6 39. Kg3 Nxc5 40. Rxc5 Bxf5 41. Qc3 Bd7 42. Qd3 Ra8 43. Rc1 Re8 44. Qc3 c5 45. Qxc5 Qf5 46. Qxd5 Qh3+ 47. Kf2 Qh2+ 48. Bg2 Qxf4+ 49. Bf3 Bg4 50. Rc3 Qh2+ 51. Bg2 Qxh4+ 52. Kg1 Re1+ 53. Bf1 Bh3 0-1

Danny King analyses the game and gives his own tribute to Mike at https://youtu.be/7eMG140x4eE

He plans to add further Basman games.

I never met Mike and have little to contribute, but I remember a witty comment. Someone had described Basman as a player from the south-east, and the response (sorry don't know who or when) was that his origins were in Armenia 'so very much to the south and east'.

One of the pantheon of British chess heroes many of us learnt of as we were growing up.

[Simon Rogers]

Sad news about Michael.
He did so much for junior chess.
I met him briefly at the Northern Gigafinal one year that was held in Manchester.
Over the board, I have faced Basman's Defence just once in a club game at Poulton-le-Fylde.
I think it was against Steven Gardner.
RIP Michael.

[Neville Twitchell]

One point about Mike's chess which has not been mentioned in any of the posts so far, I think, was that in simuls he sometimes took the Black pieces!
He is (was) the only master strength player I know of who did (does) this. I don't know if this was habitual or regular on his part, but certainly on the one occasion I faced him in a simul (sometime in the early 1980s) he announced at the outset of proceedings that he would take Black on odd numbered boards (or possibly even - I can't remember but 50% at any rate of all the boards). This of course might have been a bit galling for some players, unaware of this predeliction of his, who had prepared exhaustively for playing the Black pieces, but I doubt very much that it was gamesmanship on his part but rather an indication perhaps of his egalitarian outlook and adventurous spirit. For the record, though I cannot at present locate the score of the game, I think I had Black anyway and won after he blundered.

[Paul Habershon]

One point about Mike's chess which has not been mentioned in any of the posts so far, I think, was that in simuls he sometimes took the Black pieces!
He is (was) the only master strength player I know of who did (does) this.

Not sure it's that unusual. I played v Bent Larsen in a simul where he took alternate colours. Generous fellow, he sat down v the last survivor, beat him and then was willing to analyse even though it was around midnight.

[Neville Twitchell]

Interesting. Larsen of course was a similarly maverick character.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Not sure it's that unusual. I played v Bent Larsen in a simul where he took alternate colours."

I played him in a simul and he not only allowed you the choice of colour, but the choice of opening position. I chose black and 1.e4 c5, 2.Nf3 e6, 3.d4 cxd4, 4.Nxd4 Bc5 (neatly getting back on topic...) to which our hero said, "Ah, there is a Swedish player who plays this line and he is not so bad".

[Andrew Zigmond]

At Harrogate we have hosted two displays across a decade by the excellent Keith Arkell who was happy to let opponents choose what colour they wanted.

[Keith Arkell]

Thanks Andrew. That's been my policy for every simul I have ever given - about 230 of them.

I also allow up to 3 passes per player, and when there are 3 games left we bring in clocks so that my opponents are not under ever increasing pressure to move quickly.

[Nick Ivell]

I wish Karpov had done that! There were two of us left and having to move quickly against a world champion was pressure I didn't need (not that I ever took simuls very seriously).