Soviet Cheating in FIDE competition: Zurich 1953

Fine was also working on his Doctorate at Southern Cal.

He had played a training match with IM Herman Steiner in Los Angeles and played superbly.

Fine gave many reasons :-)

”I withdrew from the tournament because I did not care to interrupt my research. Needless to say, nobody had consulted me on whether the dates set were convenient for me”

”I was embarked on my new profession as a psychoanalyst and was unable to play”

”My own refusal to play in 1948 was motivated in part by the uncertainty about whether the Russians would come to the playing hall at all, and if so, under what conditions”

Fine stated that he decided not to compete in the 1948 championship because if he had gone to the Netherlands (the site of the first part of the event) the Russians might not have participated and he would have wasted ‘a whole year of his life in preparation. Moreover, it seemed foolish to play in such hostile circumstances.’

”I did not play because of the expense involved, most of which I was expected to pay myself; and because I considered the tournament as it was arranged to be illegal”

Etc etc 

https://en.chessbase.com/post/edward-winter-presents-unsolved-che-mysteries-9-/9

As for the three months of Soviets throwing games to each other, I don’t think there are many examples of that. There have been many World Championships and Candidates over the years, and I think the most common claims of thrown games concern Fischer’s statement about Korchnoi throwing games to the other Soviets in Curacao, and about Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in 1948. None of which have been particularly supported by proof.

Whats going on?

The relevant quotes were made 10 and 36 years after the event, and can be completed discounted. Sammy Reshevsky was in a similar situation (working as an accountant) and he still went. Fine didn't go because he had retired from professional chess about three to four years previously, and had embarked on an academic career and knew that he wouldn't have been in a position to challenge for the title, regardless of thrashing a lesser light like Herman Steiner in a match. A sad loss for chess, and at best a draw for psychoanalysis.

@BontheCat, don't you find it a bit ironic that you attack one set of quotes because they happened years after the event but ignore similar quotes from years later? 

I think it is fair to say the Soviets frequently pre-arranged results among their own players.  Bronstein pointed that out in several of his publications.

Sorry, I was writing too fast: What I meant was that the comments about the Soviets throwing games against each other etc. can be completely discounted because he made them long after the event, and before any such behaviour had even taken place (which did happen in some later qualifying later events).  Some of the other comments are simply ridiculous, he's basically implying that the Soviets were yellow, which clearly is complete BS.

The quotes made a few months after the event, in the autumn of 1948, are the ones that tell us all we need to know. He'd retired from professional chess, and embarked upon an academic/professional career.

That being said, some of Fine's quotes aren't correct. The decision to hold a tournament in 1948 wasn't unanimously agreed until the FIDE congress in the Hague in July–August of 1947. Only a provisional agreement about a World Championship tournament in 1947 (with six players) had been made at the FIDE congress at Winterthur the year before, not least due to the fact that many countries were still recovering from the war and were in no position to send delegates, and that FIDE had basically had been formed anew, having ceased to exist after the outbreak of World War II. During the Soviet v USA match in September 1946, the issue was discussed, and they all disagreed about the timing of the event. The Soviets wanted it held earlier (Spring) than the Dutch (Summer) and the Americans (Autumn). In short, Fine wasn't correct when he claimed that the date and venue of the tournament had already been settled.

Others are patently absurd: In an interview with Bruce Pandolfini on page 25 of Chess Life, October 1984 (‘Reuben Fine: The Man Who Might Have Been King’) Fine stated that he decided not to compete in the 1948 championship because if he had gone to the Netherlands (the site of the first part of the event) the Russians might not have participated and he would have wasted ‘a whole year of his life in preparation. Moreover, it seemed foolish to play in such hostile circumstances.’

So, he decided not to play at all, and wasted a whole of year of his life in preparation anyway.

Another example of this is Fine's letter on page 7 of the September 1989 Chess Life:

‘The tournament was finally arranged for 1948, to be played half in the Netherlands and half in the Soviet Union (where the safety of the foreign masters was questionable). I did not play because of the expense involved, most of which I was expected to pay myself; and because I considered the tournament as it was arranged to be illegal. TASS fabricated a story that I had had to desist because of career pressures. (In fact, I was not at that time employed; I was working on my doctorate.) The TASS story was a total fraud.’

TASS basically reported what Fine himself at the time gave as the reasons for not playing.

Yes, it did happen on some occasions (mind you, Bronstein is notoriously unreliable as a source – very often trying to show himself in the best possible light), but Fine had no notion of that when he decided to withdraw. You don't seriously think he would have withdrawn if he'd thought he had stood a fair chance of actually winning the tournament? He had already retired from professional chess in 1944–45. As I said, a sad loss for chess, and no gain whatsoever for psychoanalysis (which is humbug).

Fine and others were keenly aware of Soviet chess shenanigans.

Fine had played a training match against local IM Herman Steiner, suggesting he was preparing for the 1948 World Championship match-tournament.  I think a better explanation for his ultimate withdrawal is his distrust of the Soviet players.

The Soviets had already engineered the removal of Salo Flohr from the event, and his replacement by Smyslov.  They would later block the inclusion of Najdorf to balance the 3 Soviets.  It was a foregone conclusion that the Soviets would ensure one of their own prevailed.

Flohr was no longer a serious World Champion contender, he finished last in the 1950 Candidates, while his replacement Smyslov finished second in the 1948 World Championship. Botvinnik was just in a class of his own during the 1940s and dropped a level in the 50s. He would have won, and probably won easier than he did, in 1948 even in a field with Euwe, Fine, Najdorf and Reshevsky as only opponents. But sure, the Soviets wanted that title.

According to Chessmetrics, Najdorf was clearly the 2nd strongest player in the world behind Botvinnik in 1948.

But the Sovietphiles can tell us how the exclusion of Najdorf didn't directly benefit the Soviets. 

Not withstanding Botvinnik's prowess during 40's, he was certainly fallible.  Flohr was not going to compete with the westerners as well as Smyslov, so he was removed.

This is completely out of context with how the Candidates were determined. The Candidates in 1948 were based off the last event that had been a qualifier for the world championship before WWII, the AVRO 1938 tournament.

Alekhine and Capa had passed away, so Botvinnik and Euwe were considered the most appropriate players. They then expanded to 6, but Fine dropped out.

Edward Winter covers all this in his article, “Interregnum”, linked below. 

Winter points out that while Najdorf would have been a sensible substitute, his exclusion was not controversial at the time. 

And for those saying FIDE was under thumb of the Soviets, take a look at the board in 1948.

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/interregnum.html

no

new account so troll

Maybe same person as @DigitalWarfare

Botvinnik lost to young Ludek Pachman in the 1947  Tchigorin Memorial, and to three players at Gronigen in 1946, including Najdorf.  That was good reason to "ice" Najdorf from the Championshipmatch-tournament.  Yet Smyslov was included at the expense of Flohr.

Odd.

#53
Thank you for the Winter link: that is always a reliable source.
Bottom line: a tournament with several participants from one country is inherently flawed.
Candidate Matches are a cleaner way to determine the challenger.
Fischer was right about that.

It is the Marxist-Socialist ethos that the ends justify the means.  

Smyslov was a much better player than Flohr, had won more events, and the Soviet Union considered him second only to Botvinnik. It turns out they were right!