Really interesting. I didn't know there were three Symslov matches either lol The main thing I would change is I think 1987 needs to be in epic! That was the match that effectively decided the Karpov - Kasparov rivalry, and Kasparov winning on demand in the last game is an incredible story. It encapsulates the rivalry - they were basically equal, but somehow Kasparov just had that small edge every time it truly mattered.
Loving this series so far. Despite being a player for a few years, I don't know much about the history of chess, so this is all fascinating to me. Not sure if there's even enough content to cover a whole video on it, but a video on historical chess books, covering the history rather than purely analyzing moves would be interesting
With tournaments like Zurich 1953, the important thing from the USSR point of view was that SOME Soviet player emerge as the winner. This meant working together to fight as hard as possible against Reshevsky (the strongest Western player) and then eventually making draws with the leader, Smyslov, as he coasted to victory. I don’t think there’s evidence that Smyslov was somehow anointed before the tournament. And it’s pretty clear Keres wouldn’t play along - witness his famous game against Smyslov in the final part of the tournament, where he went all-out on the h-file. Similar story for Curaçao 1962: lots of quick draws to help fence out Fischer.
It would be nice if you could recommend the best / most interesting games from each match. Also, Jesse is entirely correct about the deficiencies of the current Candidate tournament system. It would be much better if we could return to the interzonal system or something similar.
Bruh I'm at work all day Sunday and I JUST listened to part one an hour ago and was thinking, "that was great, hopefully it won't take forever to hear the next part" and lo and behold, the algorithm does its thang
Also, Keres had spent time in Estonia under the Nazi control... some Soviets were unsure of his complicity. Keres may have been provisionally rehabilitated with conditions. Keres was very diplomatic and kept his head down. Contrast with Vladimir Petrovs who during WW2 complained of conditions in Latvia under Soviet control... he was outed by fellow chessplayers, convicted of treason, sent to Gulag and dead 4 months later.
Don't forget that Soviet Russia was a totalitarian society. People behave differently. Botvinnik had the deeper more extensive connections throughout the power structure. The book Jesse references by Sosonko is a good source of info. Sometimes have to read between the lines.
Fun watch! 👍So Jesse had Smyslow as his "sensei". Maybe should check out more of his games. For me it was Fischer and even if his games were amazing I could (almost always) figure out why he played as he did and learn from it . When Kasparov came along I sometimes found myself clueless.
I want to point out the great lengths that Jesse went to connect Botvinnik with the Soviet government, but intentionally left out the fact that Tigran Petrosian was literally a KGB agent. Great work.
For me it feels like Botwinnik definetely has some kind of privelege or advantage that was given to him by Soviet system. Не could play or not play in the tournament, but was provided everything that he needed by the system. It is impossible that he "didn't know" that he had those privileges. In fact, this privileges should be an important part of his identity as a person and as a player.
Botwinnik had his own systematic personality. He created so strict routines and disciplined training that the Soviet system must have thought that he was a person who would not surprise them with any rock star hybris like throwing a TV out from hotel room window. They did not fear that he would be bad press for USSR like Tal, who was drinking, smoking and behaving like a rock star on the chess board.
Why did Kostya conjure this notion that in other sports players do not respect, and even hate one another? It's completely innacurate. In almost all sports the competitors respect each other immensly.
Was talking more about fans of a sport -- fans often hate enemy players while there were/are many Russian fans of Fischer. Sorry wasn't referring to the players!
During the Botvinnik era there was 10 great players, but now we have players like Rapport or Daniil Dubov who struggle to fit in the Top 20. Chess is really booming.
In the 1953 Candidates Tournament, the Soviet chess authorities main concern was that Reshevsky must not win! So they wanted to make sure that "their" players didn't knock each other out of the competition.
Maybe the candidates should be the world championship. It would be very hard to prepare extensively for all the players. The best player would rise to the top and the tiebreakers would be a better way to select a classical champion instead of the ridiculous rapid, blitz, Armageddon currently used.
1:28:29 I think Fischer's point about 1984 being fixed was for those draws to force the format of the match to change, that's supposed to be the motivation. I think Spassky also agreed with Fischer but he was kind of a simp towards the man haha. Jokes aside, I think Fischer is often dismissed because of his horrible rhetoric and politics but he was not a crazy person at all, I wouldn't doubt it was actually fixed. I also don't think his demands were that outrageous, nowadays it's easier to see. Edit: I can also see the weird moves just being made out of sheer physical exhaustion. Karpov was losing weight and stuff during the months of the match, it's not unlikely that he would decline his play
I struggle to see it as fixed bc of the apparent real animosity between K+K. Do you think that was faked, or that they were able to come together on a massive scam like this while still hating each other and wanting to win the match?
@@chesscomdpruess I said I wouldn't doubt it was fixed. I really don't know, but I don't doubt it. I understand your point, but God only knows how many variables, including politics, played into that situation, too.
Botvinnik, at least the Botvinnik of the 1930's and 40's, was passionate supporter of Stalin and the Soviet system. Most of the Soviet masters were pretty apolitical, but not Botvinnik! This is one of the reasons that he was "the chosen one."
Look I'm from USSR and I was living the most part of my life there. The discussion of Botvinnik- Bronstein match proves me that chess players can look like absolute idiots. They have no idea about life in the USSR and make some conclusions about based on rumors. I can understand when schoolboys say that but they look like quite mature people
@@j-mo3129 Botvinnik and Bronstein were both jewish guys. Both from USSR. Why did somebody somewhere decide not allow Bronstein to win the match? Tal was jewish guy too. Yes, from Riga. So what? He was allowed to win? Where is a logic? Everything Jesse says is a garbage. Taken from the books like written by Sosonko. I was not a professional chess player , but when my company send me to chess tournaments, the company saved my salary, paid my flights to/from, paid my hotel, and gave me extra money for meals. The tournament was considered as my job, though I was an air traffic controller. That was the reason why sport (not only chess) was highly developed in the USSR. I could tell much more about life in the USSR, but sorry I can't do this here.
And one more. Jesse is a GM and obviously much stronger than me in chess. I;m CM. I'm ready to listen him when he speaks about chess. When he starts speaking about politics.. I don't know.. read my previous post
@@VassiliyVins Thanks for sharing! I also found when I did a small amount of research for this show that the 'Bronstein was forced to lose' idea did not make sense.
I strongly agree that Karpov vs. Korchnoi 1974 deserves to be rated as a world championship match. Bobby Fischer had retired from chess even though he had not officially announced it. The winner of the Karpov vs. Korchnoi match was going to be world champion. It was a full 24 game match, and it was an epic match between the two best active players of the time.
@kylen6430 Great job being unpleasant for literally no reason. He expressed his agreement. Someone might disagree. You can do that in the comment section. That's why it exists.
@@gicko2338 so, to summarize: you think I’m being unpleasant for no reason. He agrees, some people don’t, and that’s what the comment section is for. How’d I do?
Tal wins: "He crushed Botvinnik! A new era!" Tal loses: "Oh Tal was sick, he wasn't in his best form"...Way to show your impartiality Jesse and Kostya and your wonderful demonstration of how little you know Botvinnik👏👏👏👏
@@simonkim8646 That's perfectly ok. My point is that they should have also said they disliked Botvinnik instead of arguing from a position that essentially parroted historic inaccuracies and leaned into hyperbole (Tal may or may not not have had health concerns... but also never ending parties(?))
Kosta has no clue. He's recently researched the topic and he still thinks Botvinnik won the first Botvinnik vs. Smyslov match. (No one called him on it either.) Forget "chess culture"; there's no such thing. It's how many puzzles in how many seconds that makes you a man.
Let's do a ranking of the best tournaments of all time!!
Not in particular order. Hastings 1895, Saint petersburg 1914, Nottingham 1936, AVRO 1938, 1953 Zurich.
Perhaps to narrow it down, a separate tier list would be "best world championship candidates cycles". That zonal-interzonal system was pretty heavy.
@@wreynolds1995 Imo Leningrad interzonal was very strong. 1973. I think 1970 also, because Fischer.
Love these guys. Quality vids but also posts often. One of the only channels to give historic content too!
Really interesting. I didn't know there were three Symslov matches either lol
The main thing I would change is I think 1987 needs to be in epic! That was the match that effectively decided the Karpov - Kasparov rivalry, and Kasparov winning on demand in the last game is an incredible story. It encapsulates the rivalry - they were basically equal, but somehow Kasparov just had that small edge every time it truly mattered.
Loving this series so far. Despite being a player for a few years, I don't know much about the history of chess, so this is all fascinating to me. Not sure if there's even enough content to cover a whole video on it, but a video on historical chess books, covering the history rather than purely analyzing moves would be interesting
With tournaments like Zurich 1953, the important thing from the USSR point of view was that SOME Soviet player emerge as the winner. This meant working together to fight as hard as possible against Reshevsky (the strongest Western player) and then eventually making draws with the leader, Smyslov, as he coasted to victory. I don’t think there’s evidence that Smyslov was somehow anointed before the tournament. And it’s pretty clear Keres wouldn’t play along - witness his famous game against Smyslov in the final part of the tournament, where he went all-out on the h-file. Similar story for Curaçao 1962: lots of quick draws to help fence out Fischer.
It would be nice if you could recommend the best / most interesting games from each match.
Also, Jesse is entirely correct about the deficiencies of the current Candidate tournament system. It would be much better if we could return to the interzonal system or something similar.
Darth Victor was great. Hate fuels the dark side. The sunglasses alone were epic.
😂
🔥
Bruh I'm at work all day Sunday and I JUST listened to part one an hour ago and was thinking, "that was great, hopefully it won't take forever to hear the next part" and lo and behold, the algorithm does its thang
Bruh
Leon Trotsky's family name was Bronstein. It would not have been favorable to the Stalin regime to have that name celebrated.
Also, Keres had spent time in Estonia under the Nazi control... some Soviets were unsure of his complicity. Keres may have been provisionally rehabilitated with conditions. Keres was very diplomatic and kept his head down. Contrast with Vladimir Petrovs who during WW2 complained of conditions in Latvia under Soviet control... he was outed by fellow chessplayers, convicted of treason, sent to Gulag and dead 4 months later.
Don't forget that Soviet Russia was a totalitarian society. People behave differently. Botvinnik had the deeper more extensive connections throughout the power structure. The book Jesse references by Sosonko is a good source of info. Sometimes have to read between the lines.
Dang Jesse's stories about omerta and conspiracies are really interesting would love to have a podcast dedicated to such stories
Fun watch! 👍So Jesse had Smyslow as his "sensei". Maybe should check out more of his games. For me it was Fischer and even if his games were amazing I could (almost always) figure out why he played as he did and learn from it . When Kasparov came along I sometimes found myself clueless.
Kasparov himself said he thinks he played his best chess in the 1986 match and that this was the best of his five encounters with Karpov.
Just great ! thanks :)
Karpov vs Korchnoi 1978 gotta be epic tier, no doubt about that, come on now.
I want to point out the great lengths that Jesse went to connect Botvinnik with the Soviet government, but intentionally left out the fact that Tigran Petrosian was literally a KGB agent. Great work.
I was checking to see if you guys had already posted this 😅
Great job!
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it! 😁
Amazing series❤❤❤
Glad you enjoy it!
The dojo is great, also endgame studies has many nice problems, thanks fo getting me at least 200 elo
Congrats!
@@ChessDojoalso botvinnik was born in modern day finland so he was not really russian, i dont know why he would be favoured
When Fischer dropped out of the 1967 Interzonal, he was leading the tournament with 8.5-1.5 and had already defeated Stein, who was his major rival.
Ii was wating for this
For me it feels like Botwinnik definetely has some kind of privelege or advantage that was given to him by Soviet system. Не could play or not play in the tournament, but was provided everything that he needed by the system. It is impossible that he "didn't know" that he had those privileges. In fact, this privileges should be an important part of his identity as a person and as a player.
In that case (I’m not saying you are right or wrong, just asking), what is the explanation for him playing two matches v. Smyslov without a second?
Botwinnik had his own systematic personality. He created so strict routines and disciplined training that the Soviet system must have thought that he was a person who would not surprise them with any rock star hybris like throwing a TV out from hotel room window. They did not fear that he would be bad press for USSR like Tal, who was drinking, smoking and behaving like a rock star on the chess board.
Keres was too much of a free thinker for the system to trust him with the influence of a champion.
There's a fabulous book called "Russians versus Fischer" that covers the Soviet chess establishment's reaction to the rise of Fischer.
The 78 match was the most epic match. I guess you had to be there. LOL
enjoying this series, especially the loose definition of what a world championship match is 😂
😂
Why did Kostya conjure this notion that in other sports players do not respect, and even hate one another? It's completely innacurate. In almost all sports the competitors respect each other immensly.
Was talking more about fans of a sport -- fans often hate enemy players while there were/are many Russian fans of Fischer. Sorry wasn't referring to the players!
Valentino Rossi would like to have a word with you. IMO, raw hatred is a far more common motivator than you might think.
During the Botvinnik era there was 10 great players, but now we have players like Rapport or Daniil Dubov who struggle to fit in the Top 20. Chess is really booming.
In the 1953 Candidates Tournament, the Soviet chess authorities main concern was that Reshevsky must not win! So they wanted to make sure that "their" players didn't knock each other out of the competition.
Maybe the candidates should be the world championship. It would be very hard to prepare extensively for all the players. The best player would rise to the top and the tiebreakers would be a better way to select a classical champion instead of the ridiculous rapid, blitz, Armageddon currently used.
“They gotta cancel it because he’s dead!” 😂
1:28:29 I think Fischer's point about 1984 being fixed was for those draws to force the format of the match to change, that's supposed to be the motivation. I think Spassky also agreed with Fischer but he was kind of a simp towards the man haha. Jokes aside, I think Fischer is often dismissed because of his horrible rhetoric and politics but he was not a crazy person at all, I wouldn't doubt it was actually fixed. I also don't think his demands were that outrageous, nowadays it's easier to see.
Edit: I can also see the weird moves just being made out of sheer physical exhaustion. Karpov was losing weight and stuff during the months of the match, it's not unlikely that he would decline his play
I struggle to see it as fixed bc of the apparent real animosity between K+K. Do you think that was faked, or that they were able to come together on a massive scam like this while still hating each other and wanting to win the match?
@@chesscomdpruess I said I wouldn't doubt it was fixed. I really don't know, but I don't doubt it. I understand your point, but God only knows how many variables, including politics, played into that situation, too.
Botvinnik, at least the Botvinnik of the 1930's and 40's, was passionate supporter of Stalin and the Soviet system. Most of the Soviet masters were pretty apolitical, but not Botvinnik! This is one of the reasons that he was "the chosen one."
Jessie is being a complete bully / asshole in ignoring David's take on 1961. (Jessie does this quite frequently.)
🔥
I hate that every time fisher comes up, you only talk 10 seconds about him and go for the next one. Fischer deserves more screen tiime!
But then we get accused of "American bias" 😅😅
They did one called 50 years on since 1972, also Jesse has a deep dive with John Donaldson.
I started playing chess in 1972. The Fischer boom was real.
Look I'm from USSR and I was living the most part of my life there. The discussion of Botvinnik- Bronstein match proves me that chess players can look like absolute idiots. They have no idea about life in the USSR and make some conclusions about based on rumors. I can understand when schoolboys say that but they look like quite mature people
What are you reacting to? I would be interested on your take on the subject.
Elaborate? For educational purposes...
@@j-mo3129 Botvinnik and Bronstein were both jewish guys. Both from USSR. Why did somebody somewhere decide not allow Bronstein to win the match? Tal was jewish guy too. Yes, from Riga. So what? He was allowed to win? Where is a logic? Everything Jesse says is a garbage. Taken from the books like written by Sosonko. I was not a professional chess player , but when my company send me to chess tournaments, the company saved my salary, paid my flights to/from, paid my hotel, and gave me extra money for meals. The tournament was considered as my job, though I was an air traffic controller. That was the reason why sport (not only chess) was highly developed in the USSR. I could tell much more about life in the USSR, but sorry I can't do this here.
And one more. Jesse is a GM and obviously much stronger than me in chess. I;m CM. I'm ready to listen him when he speaks about chess. When he starts speaking about politics.. I don't know.. read my previous post
@@VassiliyVins Thanks for sharing! I also found when I did a small amount of research for this show that the 'Bronstein was forced to lose' idea did not make sense.
I strongly agree that Karpov vs. Korchnoi 1974 deserves to be rated as a world championship match. Bobby Fischer had retired from chess even though he had not officially announced it. The winner of the Karpov vs. Korchnoi match was going to be world champion. It was a full 24 game match, and it was an epic match between the two best active players of the time.
Great job rehashing all the points they already made.
@kylen6430 Great job being unpleasant for literally no reason. He expressed his agreement. Someone might disagree. You can do that in the comment section. That's why it exists.
@@gicko2338 so, to summarize: you think I’m being unpleasant for no reason. He agrees, some people don’t, and that’s what the comment section is for.
How’d I do?
@kylen6430 you did great!
@@gicko2338 great, glad we agree
Tal wins: "He crushed Botvinnik! A new era!" Tal loses: "Oh Tal was sick, he wasn't in his best form"...Way to show your impartiality Jesse and Kostya and your wonderful demonstration of how little you know Botvinnik👏👏👏👏
Jesse boosted Smyslov's win higher because he liked him more. It ain't that serious
@@simonkim8646 That's perfectly ok. My point is that they should have also said they disliked Botvinnik instead of arguing from a position that essentially parroted historic inaccuracies and leaned into hyperbole (Tal may or may not not have had health concerns... but also never ending parties(?))
Kosta has no clue. He's recently researched the topic and he still thinks Botvinnik won the first Botvinnik vs. Smyslov match. (No one called him on it either.) Forget "chess culture"; there's no such thing. It's how many puzzles in how many seconds that makes you a man.
Botvinnik did win the first match in 1954 though?
@@ChessDojo No.
Yeah, the more i'm listening this GM about Putin and so on... I have no words... He looks so stupid