free chess game

Free Chess Game

Classify and you will find!
Funny name, real matters
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
bluebabygirl 56 ( +1 | -1 )
was Bronstein ---------- ordered or pressured by soviet government to not win his world title match against Botvinnik????/????It ended a 12/12 tie . it has been rumoured thsat this is true . however i have never seen where Bronstein has confirmed or denied it !!!!! my dad says back then soviet government did too much medddling in chess and often told its players to loseto another player to control who won ?? true or false ????? please reply im very curious about this one yes most curious !!! being that i dearly love BRONSTEIN !!! again yours bluebabygirl
myway316 67 ( +1 | -1 )
It's unproven... ...that Bronstein was ordered to "tank".However,his 6th game "blunder" in a winning position is very suspicious. But,it's no secret that Soviet GM's have been ordered to throw games,or buy them,when needed. Korchnoi has claimed he was ordered to throw games at Curacao,1962,to help Petrosian and Keres,while Keres was forced to throw his first 4 games vs.Botvinnik at the World Champ.Tourney in 1948,It's also well known that Taimanov bought his last rd. game vs. Matanovic at Palma,1970 for $300 to insure his advancement to the Candidates matches. He should have saved his money:he was shut out 6-0 by a fellow named Booby Fischer!
More: Chess
bluebabygirl 49 ( +1 | -1 )
WOW !!!!!! myway316 again you supply such revealing information !! so you say it is a well known fact about the cheating that was done by them !! then must be true they conspired to cheat fischer like he said ?? but just maybe it wasnt as widespread as you stated yes ? or no?? and can anyone cite any more specific facts concerning if BRONSTEIN WAS INDEED ORDERED TO LOSE!!???? again thanks and i hope for more revealing replies to this both PRO and CON !! THANKS myway316,,,,,,,,,, yours bluebabygirl
myway316 126 ( +1 | -1 )
If I remember right... ...Bronstein addresses the subject in his wonderful book The Sorcerer's Apprentice,but he claims he wasn't pressured. While Bobby's rantings about Soviet "cheating" at Curacao were mostly sour grapes on his part,it is true that most of the Soviet GM's games against each other were quick draws. Fischer's complaints did result in two very important changes in the qualification process for the World title:The Candidates event was changed from an 8 man Round Robin to indivdual matches,to prevent collusion. Also,in the Zonals and Interzonals,players from the same country had to face each other in the early rds. Cheating at chess,especially for prizes,titles,and norms,is nothing new,and continues to this day,and always will.There's a very funny story about such an incident:The Yugoslav GM Bora Kostich had just died,and as was the custom,his countrymen were holding a memorial tnt. in his name. An American and a Yugoslav were running neck and neck for 1st place. The American complains to the organizers that the Yugoslav player is having all his games thrown to him,and what were they going to do about it? The answer was:"Nothing.That makes it a fitting memorial. Old Kostitch never was above buying or selling a game!"
More: Chess
atrifix 115 ( +1 | -1 )
To my knowledge In the Introduction to The Sorcerer's Apprentice: "I have been asked many, many times if I was obliged to lose the 23rd game and if there was a conspiracy against me to stop me from taking Botvinnik's title. A lot of nonsense has been written about this. The only thing that I am prepared to say about all this controversy is that I was subjected to strong psychological pressure from various origins and it was entirely up to me to yield to that pressure or not."

Not very convincing. The co-author (Tom Furstenberg) adds: "Of course David succumbed to that pressure, albeit not voluntarily. However nobody, not even David himself, knows what went on subconsciously in his mind."

From what I know Keres was one of the only people who absolutely refused to fix games in the USSR's interest, which some have attributed as the cause of his never becoming world champion.

And, of course, while Fischer's rantings were overexaggerated (as they always are), there's little doubt that the Soviets fixed games at Curacao--just about everyone admits this. Whether to stop Larsen, or Fischer, or whomever, is open to question.
ughaibu 112 ( +1 | -1 )
Curacao 1962 Was made notorious by the draws among the top
three players, this includes Keres, along with Geller
and Petrosian. The arrangement didn't exist from the
outset but came about due to poor results by other
players. To my mind this is normal tournament
practice and I cant imagine that either Geller or
Keres wanted Petrosian to win the tournament. Bear
in mind also that a draw loses half a point just as
much as it gains one, if Fischer had been capable of
dominating as Tal had in 1959 we would never have
had any complaints. Also think about Fischer's
results in 1971, basically in 1962 Fischer was no
where near strong enough. The Soviets are always
painted as the bad guys but they probably suffered
from FIDE rules more than anybody, for example
Spassky was excluded in the 61-63 cycle, Stein
never played in a candidates, both of these
circumstances arose because of limits on the
numbers of participants from any one country, an
idea which in itself is nonsense as far as trying to
find the world's strongest player goes.
bluebabygirl 64 ( +1 | -1 )
to atrifix thanks much for that info . bronstein statement about certain pressures and up to him to yield or not .. this pretty well says it all , does it not ?? obviuosly he was hinting at the truth but not ready to expose it . could it be because of his pension that he draws is controllled by soviets ??? about FISCHER'S ALLEGATIONS of being cheated , i say it must be true if they cheated amongst themselves to control which of them won tournaments and or even which played for title , naturally they wanted their great hero BOTVINNIK to retain the title a few more years , just so to make greater his name and fame ?? yours bluebabygirl
atrifix 88 ( +1 | -1 )
IMHO It's quite possible that Fischer would have beaten Botvinnik in 1963, or at least made an exciting match out of it, if he were allowed the luxury of skipping the zonals and Candidates. The fact that Fischere ultimately grew so strong in 1971-2 that no one in the world could stop him doesn't mean that he couldn't have beaten Botvinnik in 1963. His results in his match against Reshevsky had shown that he was capable of winning match games.

And the short draws in Curacao weren't 'normal' tournament practice in the traditional sense. If a Ponomariov-Kramnik game ends in a 9-move draw, spectators may be disappointed, but nobody accuses them of collusion. The draws in Curacao were specifically prearranged among Soviet players (possibly with the exception of Keres), although it was largely denied for some 30+ years following the tournament.
tonlesu 10 ( +1 | -1 )
Curacao 1962 atrifix---They certainly didn't fix games to stop Larsen, he wasn't even there.
bluebabygirl 33 ( +1 | -1 )
to atrifix well what is your assesment given bronstein,s answer you cited from :SORCERORS APPRENTICE ""?: assuming you agree that his very answer hints at the truth of such implied presssure yes or no was he (forced to not win) do you care to answer ?? yours bluebabygirl and thanks for your comments too as always very welll said
ughaibu 33 ( +1 | -1 )
Atrifix There were probably half a dozen players who could
have beaten Botvinnik given the luxury of avoiding
qualifying. Fischer liked to play to win in every game
he therefore was receiving a handicap from those
players who burdened themselves with half points,
yet he still failed to qualify.
desertfox 17 ( +1 | -1 )
BBG Go to chessBase.com - Chess. There is an article there called: "Bronstein's Fateful 23rd game". That article has the answer to your question I think.

Desertfox
atrifix 165 ( +1 | -1 )
OK Certainly the Soviets didn't draw games in Curacao to stop Larsen :) What I meant was that the standard accepted "the Soviets were afraid of Fischer" is at least open to question. I heard one account given by a former Soviet who openly admitted to collusion (I forget whom; possibly Korchnoi, but I'm not sure), who claimed that they didn't draw games so much to stop Fischer as simply to stop non-Soviets (Reshevsky, Fischer, Benko, Larsen, Najdorf, etc.).

And, yes, there were probably half a dozen players who could have beaten Botvinnik :) However, the Soviets had the advantage of being able to glide through other Soviet games and save their energy for their contests with Fischer (or Benko), whereas Fischer had to make a fight of it in almost every round.

As for Bronstein--any answer I give will be pure speculation. Although he lost a drawn position at the end of the 23rd game, the win was very difficult to foresee and Botvinnik played brilliantly. However, it would stand to reason that psychological pressure would have adverse affects on anyone's chess-playing ability, whether they were aware of it or not. But, quite honestly, only Bronstein knows what was going on in Bronstein's mind.

One final humorous case of collusion: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nc3 Bf5?? 6. Nxe4?? and the game ended in a quick draw. Anand tried the same line a year later against Zapata, probably without double-checking the analysis and unaware that the players had agreed to a draw before the game, and resigned immediately after 6. Qe2! (6... Qe7 7. Nd5).
ughaibu 65 ( +1 | -1 )
Atrifix Fischer finished 3 points behind Geller and Keres, 3.5
behind Petrosian, he was completely outclassed,
draws really had nothing to do with it. Petrosian also
won half his games against both Korchnoi and Tal,
Geller and Keres too had plus scores against the
weaker Soviets so it's difficult to see this as Fischer
(in this case) being blocked out by Soviet collusion,
three of the players were in a class of their own to
such an extent that they didn't need to exert
themselves against each other, they could make do
with picking off the rabbits, that's what I meant by
normal tournament tactics.
ughaibu 74 ( +1 | -1 )
I've just had a look at the results of the various
candidates tournaments. The only time that the
winner scored over 70% was 1959 when Tal was
victorious. Petrosians 17.5 from 27 is about the
same as Smyslov's 18 from 28 at Zurich 1953, in
short Petrosian's performance was worthy of a
successful championship candidate. It's worth
pointing out that Fischer's 2.5 point victory in the
1961 interzonal was less than Kotov's 3 point victory
in the 1952 interzonal yet we never hear about
Kotov being done out of his right to challenge
Botvinnik or that he deserved to bypass the
formality of a candidates tournament. It would be
nice to know why there is this lack of objectivity
where Fischer in concerned because it does get very
tiresome.
calmrolfe 95 ( +1 | -1 )
Bronstein Bronstein was a chess genius, no doubt about it. However, his reputation will forever be tarnished by his actions in Zurich in 1953 when he manipulated his results to assist Smyslov, whom the Russian Chess Authorities had decreed should be triumphant. Bronstein was also party to the concerted attempt to prevent Reshevsky from triumphing at the Tournament.

Keres refused to bow to the pressure exerted upon him and he remained true to his chess principles, a true chess gentleman. It cost him whatever chance he had of becoming World Champion.

Because of doubts over many of the Inter-Soviet games you can never be sure whether Bronstein won his games fairly, or whether his opponent had played weakly under instruction.

I know that the Bronstein's book on the 1953 Inter-Zonal at Zurich is one of the greatest classics of all time, but it will never find a place on my book shelf as, in my opinion, the whole Tournament was a sham.

Kind regards,

Cal
jean-marc 95 ( +1 | -1 )
Couldabeens... There are a lot of conspiracy theories flying around on this forum. I wonder, are we trying to rewrite history ? Surely, it couldn't be Soviet bashing, the cold war is over, now...
I'm sure we'll find lots of ex-players selling books talking about what could have been if... 40 or 50 years after the event.
I suggest we should give Botvinnik the benefit of the doubt and not discount his record as a great player of his time. After all, he lost his title three times (regained it twice). Can't really say that the KGB told his opponents to take it easy on him.
It's easy to cast doubts on past players. I could make a statement to the effect that the great Bobby Fisher was scared stiff of young Karpov and preferred to run away using any excuse, rather than face him. I won't, I promise (he was just nuts !), but imagine for one minute what would have been said if Karpov had been American and Fisher Russian...
ughaibu 55 ( +1 | -1 )
Zurich 1953 Can someone explain to me how Bronstein drawing
games puts Reshevsky at a disadvantage? Smyslov
finished two points clear, his only loss was to a
Soviet player (Kotov), he beat three players in both
their games, Euwe, Geller and, you guessed it,
Keres. If Bronstein was cheating on Smyslov's behalf
the only way to do so would be by losing to Smyslov
but in fact both their games were drawn. Calmrolfe,
I dont know how you arrive at your conclusion but I
suggest you are denying a great achievement by
Smyslov and impoverishing your bookshelf.
r_lawrence 37 ( +1 | -1 )
I think people are missing .. .. a very important point. Those kinds of tournaments place a tremendous amount of strain, physical and mental, on the participants. They are long, and hard. By planning ahead for an easy draw (or four!), you've just gotten some great rest (mental and physical) for the games against 'those other guys' (the ones NOT from your country).
ughaibu 25 ( +1 | -1 )
As I've pointed out, at Curacao, the only case
where this has been an issue, it wasn't about
countries it was about tournament standing.
Presumably even non-Soviets have friends, so they
too could arrange some restfull draws.
tonlesu 50 ( +1 | -1 )
Of course Botvinnik was playing other Russians when he lost the title. It sounds logical to me that the USSR didn't really much care who won as long as two Russians were playing for the title but let an outsider approach than the Soviets drew their wagons in a circle.

Yes, non-Soviets had friends but they didn't come in large blocs controlled by the state. Even FIDE got the picture when they changed the process to candidates matches instead of candidates tournaments.
calmrolfe 101 ( +1 | -1 )
easy By agreeing draws before play commences with Reshevsky's next opponent the player is neither stressed nor tired. By playing out every game with Reshevsky to the bitter end Sammy eventually becomes tired and less able to meet each "fresh" opponent.

Also, let it be remembered that poor old Sammy was on his own, he had no second with him, whilst each Soviet player had his own GM second to take some of the overnight analysis strain off him.

Bronstein himself recounts that he had a lakeside stroll with Smyslov where Smyslov apologised to him and tried to explain that he was not the one pressurising Bronstein into letting him win, that it was not his fault that he had been chosen to win the Tournament.

Full credit to Keres (and Kotov) for standing up to the Soviet Authorities. It comes as no surprise to see that the two went on to jointly author chess books together.

The shame of it is that Bronsteins book of the Zurich Tournament was an absolute masterpiece at the time it was published, now, I would use it only as a firelighter.....

Kind regards,

Cal
ughaibu 58 ( +1 | -1 )
Well, who do you think ordered Taimanov and Larsen
to lose to Fischer? Why would Korchnoi be told to
lose to Keres and Petrosian? Keres was Estonian,
Petrosian was Armenian. Look at the tournament
tables, think about it and get a grip. Phrases like
"controlled by the state" are too entirely ridiculous,
a quote from Tal, "the state against vodka? I'll be on
the side of vodka." They decided Tal should win? He
was Latvian. Bronstein and Smyslov's game was
violent, original, tense and exciting, the second was
a 20 move draw, at this point Smyslov was already
almost uncatchable. I dont believe it.
atrifix 44 ( +1 | -1 )
Well not touching Zurich 1953 for now, but the USSR stripped Taimanov of his powers of travel when he lost 6-0 to Fischer. After Fischer repeated the feat against Larsen they were reinstated. And as for why Korchnoi might have been told to lose to Petrosian, perhaps the USSR thought that Petrosian would able to defeat Fischer, whereas Korchnoi would not. At least, I do believe that is Korchnoi's claim.
ughaibu 20 ( +1 | -1 )
Korchnoi beat Fischer twice at Curacao, Petrosian
only beat him once. Surely if this had been their
thinking they would have made Geller the champion?
brucehum 71 ( +1 | -1 )
Why does everyone diss the classics? "Bronsteins book of the Zurich Tournament was an absolute masterpiece at the time it was published, now, I would use it only as a firelighter"

Well, strangely enough, it is still considered one of the best books ever! It is wonderful, and you can learn a lot from it. Today's books with computer assisted analysis and informatese comments are better? Computers don't make plans! They only calculate. Yes, the exact variant may be more 'precise' nowadays, but, the plans, the ideas, are great!

A book that is a chess masterpiece when it comes out, it is still a very good book 50 years later!

You can learn chess from Capablanca's "Fundaments". The opening theory section is a bit outdated, that is all. The same with the other classics.
calmrolfe 53 ( +1 | -1 )
whoa there bruce !! I am not dissing the classics. I have a chess library of over 250 chess books, going right back to the 1850's and they are priceless and invaluable to me. I am only singling out the Zurich book on the grounds that the results of the tournament were fixed, therefore the book is tarnished in my eyes.

The game of chess is a noble enterprise and when standards fall below the chivalrous levels that I expect of my chess heroes then I cast an unforgiving eye upon the perpetrators.

kind regards,

Cal (now...where did I leave my matches...)

:)
brucehum 69 ( +1 | -1 )
ah, tarnished by fixed results Yes, that explanation, tarnished results, would be an acceptable reason. Even then, I still think it is a good book.

In other threads people have been bashing the classics, from books to players, so that induced me to post.

I've been reading the Lucena classic recently. It is old, very old, true. Is it completely outdated? Can't I get something good from it? Yes, I can. It has plenty of goodies and it is a good book!

Most classic books, the only section you have trouble with is openings. Even so, studying the classics is good to learn about openings. No matter that now in move 12 something else is played. Concepts, ideas, all that are good to know.
bluebabygirl 101 ( +1 | -1 )
re- to all this thread seems to be my best discussed one yet and the one with the most controversy!! i just want to say , it never does any harm to discuss such issues , to bring them out into the open and maybe shed a little light on them . after all how can the younger players (that are basically ignorant of the great chess history and most ancient famous player ) ever get exsposed to the things , being that they seem to only want to begin chess knowledge going no further back than beginning of FIDE and or their own date of birth!! i am proud that my father puts very great emphasis on chess history and the past great chess players , not just those being hailed today as modern heroes !1 oh yes I DO ADMIRE MANY OF THE MODERN GREATS ALSO . i want to thank all that have commented here and say that I learn so much from all you guys every time .!!! A great thanks , yours bluebabygirl
tonlesu 55 ( +1 | -1 )
ughaibu If you think "controlled by the state" is ridiculous---you really should read a chess book once in a while. Or, you could pay attention to the forums. Did you not hear atrifix say the state stripped taimanov of his ability to travel because of his poor results against Fischer? They also paid the masters a stipend which they could reduce or deny anytime they felt like it. This is common knowledge sir.

bruce--you've been reading the lucena classic, the oldest book on practical play ever published (1497)?
brucehum 108 ( +1 | -1 )
Yes, but 'new' edition So many people had been criticising old books and players, that I decided to mention Lucena's classic as having interesting stuff, as it is the oldest book I could think about that I've seen. It was published in october 1497!

I had some parts of Lucena (came in 6 parts, this edition), but it is a 'new' edition from around 1900, in Spanish. I gave it to a friend, from my chess club, as a present. It is in a bag now, as the paper has gone completely brown and it is in that state of old books that you have to be extremely careful if you open it or you risk it falling to pieces. And I must say it does have some interesting stuff!

I got it for a very good price, I think the seller had no idea what they had on their hands. I got it at an 'old paper' faire!

One of the main points of interest is that it has both old chess and new chess. Note: new chess in 1497 !!

So people have an idea about Lucena, this are the openings they have:

1.e4 c5 2.Cf3 f6 Damiano defense.
1.e4 e5 2.Cf3 Cc6 Giuoco Pianissimo
1.e4 c5 2.Cf3 d6 Philidor
1.e4 e5 2.Cf3 Cf6 Petroff
1.e4 d5 Scandinavian
1.e4 e6 2.d4 French
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Sistema Lengfellner
1.e4 e5 2.Ac4 Bishop opening
1.e4 e5 2.Cf3 Cc6 3.Ab5 Ruy Lopez
1.e3 e5 2.d4 Van Kruijs
1.e4 e5 2.Ac4 c6
1.b3 2.Ab2 3.g3 4.Ag2
ughaibu 18 ( +1 | -1 )
Tonlesu Thanks for the advice. I've read a lot of nonsense
on various fora, commonality of belief doesn't
transmute it to knowledge. About books; I've had
my major reading period, now I prefer to think.
tonlesu 2 ( +1 | -1 )
ughaibu Hey Buddy, are you for real?
ughaibu 0 ( +1 | -1 )
Tonlesu Yes.
tonlesu 73 ( +1 | -1 )
travel From the chess archeology site


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unknown Games of Mikhail Tal
by Tomasz Lissowski

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although Riga, the capital of Lettland (Latvia), lies only three hours flight from Warsaw, Mikhail Tal, the “Wizard from Riga,” was seen only three times in Poland by the local lovers of chess. Two major reasons may explain this absence. The first was the lack of great tournaments with prizes in “hard” currency held in Poland. The second involved the rules governing the Soviet Chess Federation. That organization’s leaders had in their hands a powerful tool to exert pressure on chessplayers, i.e. the power to give permission (but more often not to give!) for a trip abroad.
ughaibu 14 ( +1 | -1 )
Tonlesu I guess it was a bit like the USA refusing to let
Fischer play in Havana and even 25 years later
trying to stop him playing in Yugoslavia. Grow up.
jean-marc 14 ( +1 | -1 )
Good point ughaibu ! Had forgotten about that one ! Not to mention the Moscow Olympics boycott (1980, those naughty Russians had just invaded Afghanistan)...
ughaibu 9 ( +1 | -1 )
Jean-marc Thanks, I was beginning to think I was the only one
not suffering from fischerpsychosis on this site.
jean-marc 57 ( +1 | -1 )
No,I always enjoy your comments ughaibu... I always enjoy reading your comments. Not sure about "fischerpsychosis", but there seems to be a lot comments on this forum which seem to indicate that we're still fighting the cold war. It's refreshing to read a different view. I'm guessing that the majority of GT players come from the USA, so it's not surprising that they'd be Fisher fans. Good on them, too, but let's not get into systematic character assasination of the old USSR masters, I say... Doesn't mean you're always right, but good on you for having the b...s (oops, almost wrote the "B" word) to speak up against the majority.
ughaibu 4 ( +1 | -1 )
J-M Thanks for those kind words.
tonlesu 4 ( +1 | -1 )
jean-marc My estimation of you just dropped a notch!
tonlesu 9 ( +1 | -1 )
ugabu hey stupid, Fischer played in the Havana tournament 1965, he finished second to smyslov.
ughaibu 12 ( +1 | -1 )
Tonlesu I'm a bit perplexed by your last message, you know
the circumstances of the famous Denker-Botvinnink
game(?) so what are you trying to say?
tonlesu 51 ( +1 | -1 )
ugabu I can see you've been doing some research the last couple of days. What do you mean by the famous Denker-Botvinnik game? Are you referring to the 1945 USA-USSR radio match, if so why not call it by its correct designation. Itm wasn't just Denker- Botvinnik. There were many GMs on both sides.

Let me be very blunt with you. spending five minutes talking to you seems like five years. How about this---gain a hundred points on your IQ and then come back and we'll talk.
ughaibu 22 ( +1 | -1 )
Tonlesu On the question of research, investigating the
spelling of my username shouldn't be so taxing. Why
dont I call it what it was? Because I'm writing from
memory, naturally I knew it was a team match.
Anyway, please answer the point.
tonlesu 23 ( +1 | -1 )
Ugabu Did you ever see the movie "Dumb and Dumber?" You're beginning to make those guys look smart. Just sitting here talking to you I can feel my brain cells evaporating.

How can I make you understand---look at my lips---go away!
mettlesome 136 ( +1 | -1 )
Oh come on... Oh come on Tonlesu....the world doesn't really work like that! Don't like what someone says so tell them to go away.!? If you really aren't interested just don't read this thread and stop posting.....

As for 'revising' soviet players, personally I love those guys!! Here in the year 2003 I really think we've got NO IDEA what is what like to live as a Soviet. I'm far from being convinced that life was all roses and cream.

It's funny how at the beginning of this thread people said that Bronstein consciously (or not) may have cracked under the pressure of resisting "instructions" from the authorities, but no one talks about the pressure on Soviet players to perform. (I think Spassky was a clear example of someone who "let his side down"). If Fischer lost a game or a tournament he let himself down, if Korchnoi or Botvinnik (my least favourite Soviet player personality-wise) or Petrosian lost they risked a lot (according to all the theories jumping around on this thread....)...that these guys still played such great chess (and such risky, artistically uncompromising chess) is really a tribute to their love of the game. Bronstein ranks up there with the best for me, he is someone who LOVES chess and he's halped a lot of us to learn.....it's really easy to knock him 50 years on....

Mettlesome
tonlesu 8 ( +1 | -1 )
Well mettlesome since you joined in this really is a worthless thread---adios
ughaibu 18 ( +1 | -1 )
Mettlesome Very well balanced post.
Tonlesu
Twice you've refused to answer my point, I accept
that as naturally comrehendable, third time means
you have no answer.
trachess 48 ( +1 | -1 )
was Bronstein. No!!!!! If you read the book Sorcereer's Apprentice written by Bronstien and Furstenberg you can tell Bronstein viewed the match was an chance to be consider the greatest player of all time. Alos he is quite critical of Botvinnik lack of playing any games for a 3 year period. Throughout the introduction of this very good chess book his words written in 1995 clearly indicates that Bronstein was above politics acros the chess board. Good luck and good chess!
calmrolfe 58 ( +1 | -1 )
WOW !! Just how many times can tonlesu lose his posting privileges during the course of just one thread ?

Sorry to lose tonlesu's input for a month as he is a very interesting and knowledgeable writer.....even if I don't always agree with him !

trachess
YES !! There were later revelations after the publishing of the book you mentioned. Bronstein himself admitted he was party to the intrigue at Zurich in the effort to stop the US player from winning.