The Final Round of the Curaçao 1962 Candidates Tournament

"evidence"

In a court of law, no proof means a verdict of not guilty.
In the real world somebody can be guilty, but walk free as it is impossible to prove.
Fischer stated his position clearly in his article 'The Russians Have Fixed World Chess' and he acted accordingly by refusing to play any Candidates' Tournament again, though he qualified by winning interzonal tournaments.
FIDE kind of acknowledged Fischer's claim by changing to Candidates' Matches.
Johannes Fischer and the late Jan Timman agreed there was collusion.
You find the evidence lacking.

"evidence" * In a court of law, no proof means a verdict of not guilty. In the real world somebody can be guilty, but walk free as it is impossible to prove. Fischer stated his position clearly in his article 'The Russians Have Fixed World Chess' and he acted accordingly by refusing to play any Candidates' Tournament again, though he qualified by winning interzonal tournaments. FIDE kind of acknowledged Fischer's claim by changing to Candidates' Matches. Johannes Fischer and the late Jan Timman agreed there was collusion. You find the evidence lacking.

RuyLopez1000

@tpr said ^

Johannes Fischer and the late Jan Timman agreed there was collusion.

I addressed what Johannes Fischer wrote.

You ignored me.

Don't tell me 'I respect your investigation and your conclusion' because you don't.

You refuse to engage with the primary sources. 'Somebody said so' isn't evidence tpr.

You find the evidence lacking.

What evidence?

You have absolutely zero evidence.

Tell me how the 'Soviets' colluded against Fischer precisely.

Who are the Soviets? (are they Korchnoi and Tal for example?)

How did they 'collude', and how is it targeted against Fischer specifically

And provide actual evidence.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/HdckyB8f) > Johannes Fischer and the late Jan Timman agreed there was collusion. I addressed what Johannes Fischer wrote. You ignored me. Don't tell me 'I respect your investigation and your conclusion' because you don't. You refuse to engage with the primary sources. 'Somebody said so' isn't evidence tpr. > You find the evidence lacking. What evidence? You have absolutely zero evidence. **Tell me how the 'Soviets' colluded against Fischer precisely.** Who are the Soviets? *(are they Korchnoi and Tal for example?)* How did they 'collude', and *how is it targeted against Fischer specifically* And provide actual evidence.

tpr edited

Regarding Fischer's claim that he heard them talking to each other in Russian about his game.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032795
Botvinnik wrote about the trap 22...Ne5 23 Nxf7? Nxf7 24 Bg6 Ng3 25 Bxf7 Ne2+ or 25 Rxd8+ Nxd8:
'I positioned myself behind his back, so nobody could whisper something to my opponent. Sahovic already reached for his Ng5, then one of my competitors said in a loud voice: "You are a clever fox!". Sahovic heard it and played 23 Rh1 to draw.'

This shows that even in 1969
a) Botvinnik found it necessary to take countermeasures to prevent players of talking to his opponent.
b) Players (presumably Geller) talked nevertheless.

I do not ignore you at all. I respect your thorough investigation and your conclusion. That does not mean I agree with your conclusion. I agree it is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was collusion. However I still believe there was collusion, as Fischer wrote, and acted accordingly, and as Johannes Fischer and Jan Timman agreed, and as FIDE implicitly acknowledged by changing to Candidates' Matches. Collusion in the Soviet era was widespread, before (Moscow 1936) and after Curaçao 1962. Regarding Fischer's claim that he heard them talking to each other in Russian about his game. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032795 Botvinnik wrote about the trap 22...Ne5 23 Nxf7? Nxf7 24 Bg6 Ng3 25 Bxf7 Ne2+ or 25 Rxd8+ Nxd8: 'I positioned myself behind his back, so nobody could whisper something to my opponent. Sahovic already reached for his Ng5, then one of my competitors said in a loud voice: "You are a clever fox!". Sahovic heard it and played 23 Rh1 to draw.' This shows that even in 1969 a) Botvinnik found it necessary to take countermeasures to prevent players of talking to his opponent. b) Players (presumably Geller) talked nevertheless.

RuyLopez1000

@tpr said ^

However I still believe there was collusion, as Fischer wrote and acted accordingly and as Johannes Fischer and Jan Timman agreed and as FIDE implicitly acknowledged by changing to Candidates' Matches.

I've noticed something very interesting about your responses tpr.

You never give Fischer's own arguments for why he was being colluded against by the 'Soviets'.

Fischer wrote his article in 1962. This is like the Bible in this context, giving all his reasoning.

So why do you never reference his own arguments?

You often say 'Fischer said so', but what about the specific reasoning he has for saying so

What Fischer wrote in 1962 has all his reasoning, based on his own experience. That article stands on its own and so the arguments must stand on its own.

Fischer didn't know that FIDE would change the Candidates format, that Johannes Fischer and Jan Timman would agree with him etc.

So his 1962 reasoning should stand on its own.

Capablanca, Johannes Fischer, Jan Timman, FIDE etc. - These are the list of people who apparently persuade you.

But never Fischer himself.

So why do you never give Bobby Fischer's own words as a basis for your belief

(Not a rhetorical question, I really want to know why).

Collusion in the Soviet era was widespread, before (Moscow 1936) and after Curaçao 1962.

This is false. And if it was so 'widespread' then why can't you give any evidence for it happening at Curaçao. Surely you aren't suggesting that making draws can stop a competitor from simply winning games and overtaking the drawers. And where are Korchnoi and Tal in this devilish conspiracy? (I guess they are Western players now).

Regarding Fischer's claim that he heard them talking to each other in Russian about his game.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032795
Botvinnik wrote about the trap 22...Ne5 23 Nxf7 Nxf7 24 Bg6 Ng3 25 Bxf7 Ne2+ or 25 Rxd8+ Nxd8:
'I positioned myself behind his back, so nobody could whisper something to my opponent' Sahovic already reached for his Ng5, then one of my competitors said in a loud voice: "You are a clever fox!". Sahovic heard it and played 23 Rh1 to draw.'

This shows that even in 1969
a) Botvinnik took countermeasures to prevent players of talking to his opponent.
b) Players (presumably Geller) talked nevertheless.

One of the most absurd arguments I've heard from you. So someone saying "You are a clever fox!" in a 1969 tournament proves that the Soviets were talking about Fischer's games?

You're fond of believing in things without evidence.

And why would they need to talk about Fischer's games? He was never contesting the tournament.

Neither Benko, nor Korchnoi supported Fischer's claims.

Benko outright stated that the reason that Fischer didn't win the Candidates is because 'He's simply not the best player!"

Fischer is only person who ever said the Soviets were speaking about his games.

If it happened then why has no one corroborated his claim?

As I said, you're fond of believing in things without evidence.

Please answer these questions @tpr. I find it strange how you refuse to answer them.

Tell me how the 'Soviets' colluded against Fischer precisely.

Who are the Soviets? (are they Korchnoi and Tal for example?)

How did they 'collude', and how is it targeted against Fischer specifically

And provide actual evidence.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/hfqtxlon) > However I still believe there was collusion, as Fischer wrote and acted accordingly and as Johannes Fischer and Jan Timman agreed and as FIDE implicitly acknowledged by changing to Candidates' Matches. **I've noticed something very interesting about your responses tpr.** You never give Fischer's own arguments for why he was being colluded against by the 'Soviets'. Fischer wrote his article in 1962. This is like the Bible in this context, giving all his reasoning. So why do you never reference his own arguments? You often say 'Fischer said so', *but what about the specific reasoning he has for saying so* What Fischer wrote in 1962 has all his reasoning, based on *his own experience*. That article stands on its own and so the arguments must stand on its own. Fischer didn't know that FIDE would change the Candidates format, that Johannes Fischer and Jan Timman would agree with him etc. So his 1962 reasoning should stand on its own. *Capablanca, Johannes Fischer, Jan Timman, FIDE etc.* - These are the list of people who apparently persuade you. **But never Fischer himself**. **So why do you never give Bobby Fischer's own words as a basis for your belief** (Not a rhetorical question, I really want to know why). --------------- > Collusion in the Soviet era was widespread, before (Moscow 1936) and after Curaçao 1962. This is false. And if it was so 'widespread' then why can't you give any evidence for it happening at Curaçao. Surely you aren't suggesting that making draws can stop a competitor from simply winning games and overtaking the drawers. And where are Korchnoi and Tal in this devilish conspiracy? (I guess they are Western players now). --------------- > Regarding Fischer's claim that he heard them talking to each other in Russian about his game. > https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032795 > Botvinnik wrote about the trap 22...Ne5 23 Nxf7 Nxf7 24 Bg6 Ng3 25 Bxf7 Ne2+ or 25 Rxd8+ Nxd8: > 'I positioned myself behind his back, so nobody could whisper something to my opponent' Sahovic already reached for his Ng5, then one of my competitors said in a loud voice: "You are a clever fox!". Sahovic heard it and played 23 Rh1 to draw.' > > This shows that even in 1969 > a) Botvinnik took countermeasures to prevent players of talking to his opponent. > b) Players (presumably Geller) talked nevertheless. One of the most absurd arguments I've heard from you. So someone saying "You are a clever fox!" in a 1969 tournament proves that the Soviets were talking about Fischer's games? You're fond of believing in things without evidence. And why would they need to talk about Fischer's games? He was never contesting the tournament. Neither Benko, nor Korchnoi supported Fischer's claims. Benko outright stated that the reason that Fischer didn't win the Candidates is because 'He's simply not the best player!" Fischer is only person who ever said the Soviets were speaking about his games. If it happened then why has **no one** corroborated his claim? As I said, you're fond of believing in things without evidence. ---------------- **Please answer these questions @tpr. I find it strange how you refuse to answer them.** Tell me how the 'Soviets' colluded against Fischer precisely. Who are the Soviets? (are they Korchnoi and Tal for example?) How did they 'collude', and how is it targeted against Fischer specifically And provide actual evidence.

tpr

"You never give Fischer's own arguments for why he was being colluded against by the 'Soviets'."

Of course the 1962 article by Fischer and his subsequent refusal to play Candidates' Tournaments are at the core.

"What Fischer wrote in 1962 has all his reasoning, based on his own experience."

Yes.

"That article stands on its own and so the arguments must stand on its own."

Yes.
Some people like you later believe Fischer was wrong, some like Johannes Fischer, Jan Timman, FIDE (i.e. Euwe), me later believe Fischer was right. If we were both in a jury, then you would vote not guilty of collusion and I would vote guilty, based on the same direct and circumstantional evidence.

"So his 1962 reasoning should stand on its own."

Yes, but Johannes Fischer, Jan Timman, FIDE later explicitly or implicitly acknowledged he was right.

"Fischer himself"

His writing and actions are the core. Jan Timman, Johannes Fischer, FIDE explicitly or implicitly agreed he was right.

"Bobby Fischer's own words"

Of course they are the basis. He accused the Soviets of collusion. The others sustained that.

"Collusion in the Soviet era was widespread, before (Moscow 1936) and after Curaçao 1962. This is false."

This is true. There are many accounts of that: Capablanca, Kochnoi, Bronstein... Chess was a matter of national prestige, just like Gymnastics, or Space Travel.

"making draws can stop a competitor from simply winning games and overtaking the drawers."

That is not the point. See Capablanca and Keres. Saving energy with quick draws is beneficial in an exhausting tournament.

"someone saying "You are a clever fox!" in a 1969 tournament proves"

That the Soviets (presumably Geller) was used to talking about ongoing games in a tournament and that Botvinnik found it necessary to take precautions to avoid it.

"Why would they need to talk about Fischer's games?"

They talked to each other about Fischer's games at Curaçao 1962 to help each other, as Fischer heard.

"Neither Benko, nor Korchnoi supported Fischer's claims."

Why would they? Korchnoi could not go against his compatriots. Benkö was on bad terms with Fischer.

"Benko outright stated that the reason that Fischer didn't win the Candidates is because 'He's simply not the best player!""

Benkö was right. If Fischer would have had his later strength, then he might have won Curaçao 1962 despite collusion.

"Fischer is only person who ever said the Soviets were speaking about his games."

I gave the Botvinnik 1969 example.

"If it happened then why has no one corroborated his claim?"

They had to a) overhear it, and b) be willing to speak out.

"Tell me how the 'Soviets' colluded against Fischer precisely."

As Fischer said.

"How did they 'collude', and how is it targeted against Fischer specifically"

Maybe Reshevsky too.

"You never give Fischer's own arguments for why he was being colluded against by the 'Soviets'." * Of course the 1962 article by Fischer and his subsequent refusal to play Candidates' Tournaments are at the core. "What Fischer wrote in 1962 has all his reasoning, based on his own experience." * Yes. "That article stands on its own and so the arguments must stand on its own." * Yes. Some people like you later believe Fischer was wrong, some like Johannes Fischer, Jan Timman, FIDE (i.e. Euwe), me later believe Fischer was right. If we were both in a jury, then you would vote not guilty of collusion and I would vote guilty, based on the same direct and circumstantional evidence. "So his 1962 reasoning should stand on its own." * Yes, but Johannes Fischer, Jan Timman, FIDE later explicitly or implicitly acknowledged he was right. "Fischer himself" * His writing and actions are the core. Jan Timman, Johannes Fischer, FIDE explicitly or implicitly agreed he was right. "Bobby Fischer's own words" * Of course they are the basis. He accused the Soviets of collusion. The others sustained that. "Collusion in the Soviet era was widespread, before (Moscow 1936) and after Curaçao 1962. This is false." * This is true. There are many accounts of that: Capablanca, Kochnoi, Bronstein... Chess was a matter of national prestige, just like Gymnastics, or Space Travel. "making draws can stop a competitor from simply winning games and overtaking the drawers." * That is not the point. See Capablanca and Keres. Saving energy with quick draws is beneficial in an exhausting tournament. "someone saying "You are a clever fox!" in a 1969 tournament proves" * That the Soviets (presumably Geller) was used to talking about ongoing games in a tournament and that Botvinnik found it necessary to take precautions to avoid it. "Why would they need to talk about Fischer's games?" * They talked to each other about Fischer's games at Curaçao 1962 to help each other, as Fischer heard. "Neither Benko, nor Korchnoi supported Fischer's claims." * Why would they? Korchnoi could not go against his compatriots. Benkö was on bad terms with Fischer. "Benko outright stated that the reason that Fischer didn't win the Candidates is because 'He's simply not the best player!"" * Benkö was right. If Fischer would have had his later strength, then he might have won Curaçao 1962 despite collusion. "Fischer is only person who ever said the Soviets were speaking about his games." * I gave the Botvinnik 1969 example. "If it happened then why has no one corroborated his claim?" * They had to a) overhear it, and b) be willing to speak out. "Tell me how the 'Soviets' colluded against Fischer precisely." * As Fischer said. "How did they 'collude', and how is it targeted against Fischer specifically" * Maybe Reshevsky too.

RuyLopez1000

@tpr said ^

"That article stands on its own and so the arguments must stand on its own."

Yes.
Some people like you later believe Fischer was wrong, some like Johannes Fischer, Jan Timman, FIDE (i.e. Euwe), me later believe Fischer was right. If we were both in a jury, then you would vote not guilty of collusion and I would vote guilty, based on the same direct and circumstantional evidence.

Ah. The classic 'more people agree with me' argument.

For those who don't want the truth.

"So his 1962 reasoning should stand on its own."

Yes, but Johannes Fischer, Jan Timman, FIDE later explicitly or implicitly acknowledged he was right.

What Timman, FIDE say are absolutely irrelevant.

"Fischer himself"

His writing and actions are the core.

You say with all seriousness while never giving Fischer's own arguments.

Jan Timman, Johannes Fischer, FIDE explicitly or implicitly agreed he was right.

Here you again ignoring what Fischer's reasoning was.

"Bobby Fischer's own words"

Of course they are the basis.

For you they are clearly not because you have never referenced Fischer's reasoning.

He accused the Soviets of collusion. The others sustained that.

'The others sustained that?? What is this nonsense. What sustains Fischer's claims is the evidence not what someone said.

"making draws can stop a competitor from simply winning games and overtaking the drawers."

That is not the point. See Capablanca and Keres. Saving energy with quick draws is beneficial in an exhausting tournament.

So now your position is that it's just Petrosian, Geller and Korchnoi saved some energy (against the whole field, not just Fischer).

And that this 'saved energy' from 3 out of the 5 Soviet players counts as Soviet collusion to prevent Fischer from winning.

That's a long, long way from what Fischer said.

" Russian control of chess has reached a point where there can be no honest competition for the world championship. The system set up by the Fédération International des Echecs, the governing body of world chess, insures that there will always be a Russian world champion because only a Russian can win the preliminary tournament that determines his challenger. "

Keres: "And the reproach that the culprits benefited by extra rest days and swimming comes pretty badly from the mouth of a youth not yet twenty years old. the only player in the tourney who had his own personal trainer."

Fischer's excuse is terrible.

Btw your 'Capablanca anecdote' is a complete farce. Never happened.

You are fond of these little anecdotes.

"someone saying "You are a clever fox!" in a 1969 tournament proves"

That the Soviets (presumably Geller) was used to talking about ongoing games in a tournament and that Botvinnik found it necessary to take precautions to avoid it.

Irrelevant.

"Why would they need to talk about Fischer's games?"

They talked to each other about Fischer's games at Curaçao 1962 to help each other,

Help each other beat someone who was not a threat at all lol.

"Neither Benko, nor Korchnoi supported Fischer's claims."

Why would they? Korchnoi could not go against his compatriots.

Korchnoi wrote his book in 1978 after he defected tpr.

Benkö was on bad terms with Fischer.

Are you insinuating that Benkö withheld information about the Soviets talking about Fischer's games?

Wow.

You live in a fairy tale world.

Everyone is lying!

"Fischer is only person who ever said the Soviets were speaking about his games."

I gave the Botvinnik 1969 example.

A complete non-sequitur.

"If it happened then why has no one corroborated his claim?"

They had to a) overhear it, and b) be willing to speak out.

You believe in something with no evidence. That is delusion.

"Tell me how the 'Soviets' colluded against Fischer precisely."

As Fischer said.

What did Fischer say tpr? (You never actually say lol, probably because you know that I would then simply refute everything like I did in my blog).

"How did they 'collude', and how is it targeted against Fischer specifically"

Maybe Reshevsky too.

You avoided the question, as expected.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/IgrGioin) > "That article stands on its own and so the arguments must stand on its own." > * Yes. > Some people like you later believe Fischer was wrong, some like Johannes Fischer, Jan Timman, FIDE (i.e. Euwe), me later believe Fischer was right. If we were both in a jury, then you would vote not guilty of collusion and I would vote guilty, based on the same direct and circumstantional evidence. Ah. The classic 'more people agree with me' argument. For those who don't want the truth. > "So his 1962 reasoning should stand on its own." > * Yes, but Johannes Fischer, Jan Timman, FIDE later explicitly or implicitly acknowledged he was right. What Timman, FIDE say are absolutely irrelevant. > "Fischer himself" > * His writing and actions are the core. You say with all seriousness while never giving Fischer's own arguments. >Jan Timman, Johannes Fischer, FIDE explicitly or implicitly agreed he was right. Here you again ignoring what Fischer's reasoning was. > "Bobby Fischer's own words" > * Of course they are the basis. For you they are clearly not because you have never referenced Fischer's reasoning. >He accused the Soviets of collusion. The others sustained that. 'The others sustained that?? What is this nonsense. What sustains Fischer's claims is the evidence not what someone said. > "making draws can stop a competitor from simply winning games and overtaking the drawers." > * That is not the point. See Capablanca and Keres. Saving energy with quick draws is beneficial in an exhausting tournament. So now your position is that it's just Petrosian, Geller and Korchnoi saved some energy (against the whole field, not just Fischer). And that this 'saved energy' from 3 out of the 5 Soviet players counts as Soviet collusion to prevent Fischer from winning. That's a long, long way from what Fischer said. " Russian control of chess has reached a point where there can be no honest competition for the world championship. The system set up by the Fédération International des Echecs, the governing body of world chess, insures that there will always be a Russian world champion because only a Russian can win the preliminary tournament that determines his challenger. " Keres: "And the reproach that the culprits benefited by extra rest days and swimming comes pretty badly from the mouth of a youth not yet twenty years old. the only player in the tourney who had his own personal trainer." Fischer's excuse is terrible. Btw your 'Capablanca anecdote' is a complete farce. Never happened. You are fond of these little anecdotes. > "someone saying "You are a clever fox!" in a 1969 tournament proves" > * That the Soviets (presumably Geller) was used to talking about ongoing games in a tournament and that Botvinnik found it necessary to take precautions to avoid it. Irrelevant. > "Why would they need to talk about Fischer's games?" > * They talked to each other about Fischer's games at Curaçao 1962 to help each other, Help each other beat someone who was not a threat at all lol. > "Neither Benko, nor Korchnoi supported Fischer's claims." > * Why would they? Korchnoi could not go against his compatriots. Korchnoi wrote his book in 1978 after he defected tpr. >Benkö was on bad terms with Fischer. Are you insinuating that Benkö withheld information about the Soviets talking about Fischer's games? Wow. You live in a fairy tale world. Everyone is lying! > "Fischer is only person who ever said the Soviets were speaking about his games." > * I gave the Botvinnik 1969 example. A complete non-sequitur. > "If it happened then why has no one corroborated his claim?" > * They had to a) overhear it, and b) be willing to speak out. You believe in something with no evidence. That is delusion. > "Tell me how the 'Soviets' colluded against Fischer precisely." > * As Fischer said. What did Fischer say tpr? (You never actually say lol, probably because you know that I would then simply refute everything like I did in my blog). > "How did they 'collude', and how is it targeted against Fischer specifically" > * Maybe Reshevsky too. You avoided the question, as expected.

tpr

Maybe the original poster ought to conclude if the Soviet players colluded or not.

Bobby_Tal_Greatest

Ah yes, can't go one post without slandering Fischer ay? Must be nice, calling him a nutcase when you haven't educated yourself to his level of knowledge.

Aliojin1892 edited

The soviet that were colluding are: Keres, Petrosian and Geller. They are colluding against Korchnoi, not Fischer. Fischer was too young to be a threat.

Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

The Final Round of the Curaçao 1962 Candidates Tournament