Botvinnik vs. Fischer

A while ago, me and tpr were arguing in the “Karpov vs. Fischer” thread.
I thought Karpov was better and he/she thought Fischer was better.

Fast forward to today, I still believed that Karpov was better than Fischer, so an interesting thought came to my mind: “Is Fischer really better than Botvinnik?”
Sure, you could say that Fischer’s peak elo (2785) is much larger than Botvinnik’s peak elo (2630) (according to FIDE).
BUT Botvinnik’s 2630 understates his true strength because most of his prime came before official ratings.

Botvinnik-Fischer has a head-to head record of 0-1-0. 0 wins, 1 draw, 0 losses.
They’ve only played one singular match. And that match was a draw.

Another thing to note is the longevity.
Sure, his 1970–72 run may be the greatest single peak in chess history. BUT Botvinnik was a world-class player for about 28 calendar years, or roughly 23–24 years if you exclude the wartime interruption in international chess. With that information, I can comfortably say that Botvinnik clears Fischer in terms of longevity.

Conclusion: His 1970-72 run may be the greatest single peak in chess history. But based on overall career, longevity, dominance, versatility, and historical impact, not just peak strength, Botvinnik was better.

What do you guys think about this topic?

Fischer himself said he could beat Botvinnik in a match giving him 0-2 odds. Fischer did that with Spassky in 1972.
Botvinnik only stayed World Champion, because World Championship matches were fixed and Soviet players colluded in Candidates' tournaments, and because Botvinnik as World Champion was entitled to rematches against Tal and Smyslov.

@tpr said ^

Fischer himself said he could beat Botvinnik in a match giving him 0-2 odds. Fischer did that with Spassky in 1972.
Botvinnik only stayed World Champion, because World Championship matches were fixed and Soviet players colluded in Candidates' tournaments, and because Botvinnik as World Champion was entitled to rematches against Tal and Smyslov.

Round 2...
Let’s begin.
Fischer saying he would beat Botvinnik is evidence of Fischer’s opinion, not evidence that Botvinnik could not compete with him. Fischer also made many extremely confident predictions. The 1972 Spassky match proves Fischer could dominate Spassky in 1972, BUT it does not prove he would automatically dominate Botvinnik, especially since Botvinnik’s prime was roughly two decades earlier.

Botvinnik benefited from rules and perhaps from a Soviet chess environment that deserves scrutiny, but saying he ‘only stayed champion’ because of collusion and rematches is historically false. He won the title, defended it against Bronstein, retained it against Smyslov, regained it from Smyslov and Tal, and remained elite for decades. Fischer may have had the higher peak, but that is an argument for Fischer’s superiority, and not proof that Botvinnik was undeserving.

If Fischer and Botvinnik had played a match in 1972, I would probably favor Fischer. But that hypothetical result does not invalidate Botvinnik’s actual career.

A wise man once said: “One match doesn’t define an entire career.”

Actually I think it depends on how the question is asked.

If it's outcome of a Botvinnik vs Fischer game I think Fischer would win. The reason is quite simply that Botvinnik has a bit more of a dogmatic style with systems and scientific approach. This meant that for example he struggled against Tal in match he lost as he couldn't cope with wild tactics and rematch was won in part due to Tal's health problems. On the other hand Fischer was a much more universal player and played sharp lines that I doubt Botvinnik would have been comfortable facing.

As far as career goes both players have an asterisk beside their name. Fischer for his withdrawal from competitive chess at his peak and Botvinnik for accusations that Soviet state engaged in match fixing or coercion of opponents.

Overall I'd say Fischer was probably the better player but Botvinnik did pioneer many chess advances that Fischer later used.

Botvinnik planned to retire in 1970 and his friends in the Netherlands agreed to sponsor a final match against Fischer. Initially, Fischer said yes to a 16 game match and Botvinnik made a lot of effort preparing. After going through Fischer's games, he said he played like the young Smyslov.
After months of negotiation, Fischer demanded to switch the match to Steinitz type rules, winner being the first to win 6 games. The Leiden organisers were horrified - what if the match dragged on with draws, how could they commit to an unlimited format? If they'd seen into the future and seen Fischer beat Taimanov and Larsen 6-0 they'd be delighted with the proposal and the prospect of a shorter and cheaper match.
Anyway, the match fell through. To give you an idea of Fischer's high appearance fees, Leiden instead organised a 4 man tournament for the same cost with Botvinnik, world champion Spassky, Larsen and Donner.

"He won the title"

• In a tournament where his compatriots colluded to help him.

"defended it against Bronstein"

• In a rigged match. Bronstein was not allowed to win.

"Tal"

• Tal was ill for the rematch, but Botvinnik did not accept the attestation from a doctor in Riga and demanded Tal to travel to Moscow to be examined by a Moscow doctor.

Soviet cooperation may have influenced the tournament environment, and that is a legitimate criticism. BUT Botvinnik still had to score the required result against a field containing Smyslov, Keres, Reshevsky, and Euwe in the 1948 tournament. The evidence does not establish that the entire event was fixed specifically to make Botvinnik champion.

The 1951 match was controversial, and there have long been claims that political pressure affected Bronstein. But “Bronstein was not allowed to win” is clearly stronger than the evidence proves. The match ended 12–12, and Botvinnik retained the title under the published rules. If the claim is that the match was rigged, the burden is to show more than the fact that Bronstein later described political pressure.

Tal was clearly in poor health during the 1961 rematch, and that weakens the achievement. It is fair to say Botvinnik benefited from facing a compromised champion. But Tal still played 21 games, and Botvinnik won the match 13–8. The medical dispute is an ethical criticism of Botvinnik and the Soviet chess authorities, not proof that Botvinnik could not beat a healthy Tal.

I’m not claiming Botvinnik’s résumé is free from political or procedural controversy. I’m saying ‘he only stayed champion because everything was fixed’ is an overstatement. His 1951 title defense is debatable, his 1954 draw with Smyslov was legitimate, and he later regained the title from both Smyslov and Tal. Fischer may have had the higher peak, but hypothetical superiority is not the same as proving Botvinnik’s career was fraudulent.

"Smyslov, Keres, Reshevsky, and Euwe"

• Smyslov and especially Keres were compatriots. Keres was Estonian, and had played chess in nazi Germany and now had to atone by throwing games. Reshevsky had no second, Lodewijk Prins volunteered to be his second. Euwe had his opening notes confiscated by customs at the border with the USSR. Fine was entitled, but declined as he feared collusion. Najdorf wanted to play, but was refused.

"The evidence does not establish that the entire event was fixed specifically to make Botvinnik champion."

• No, but Botvinnik got unfair advantages.

"Bronstein later described political pressure."

• Look at the games.

I agree that the 1948 championship tournament was not conducted under modern standards of “competitive fairness”.
The treatment of Keres, the absence of Fine and Najdorf, Euwe’s confiscated notes, and the Soviet restrictions are all legitimate reasons to question the conditions. I’m not claiming Botvinnik won in a perfectly neutral environment.

But ‘Botvinnik benefited from serious structural advantages’ is not the same claim as ‘the tournament was fixed for Botvinnik’ or ‘he only became champion because his opponents threw games‘.

Keres may well have been under enormous political pressure, and that could have affected his play. But being Estonian and having played in Nazi-controlled Europe does not by itself prove that he deliberately lost games. The historical claim needs documentary evidence, not merely the fact that some games look suspicious.

Game analysis can identify strange decisions, but it cannot distinguish between a deliberate loss, psychological pressure, poor form, and an ordinary chess mistake, especially when the games were played under extreme political conditions. The games may support suspicion, but they do not by themselves prove collusion. (Oh wait, that rhymed :O )

The 1951 match is a separate issue from the 1948 tournament. Bronstein’s later accounts make political pressure plausible and make the match morally troubling But ‘look at the games’ still does not establish that Botvinnik was ordered to be retained or that Bronstein deliberately failed to win. The match was tied 12–12, and Botvinnik retained the title under the rules.

So I’ll grant this: Botvinnik’s championship résumé deserves an asterisk. He benefited from a Soviet-controlled chess environment, and his title defense against Bronstein was politically compromised. But that lowers the certainty of his résumé; it does not reduce him to a player who was merely manufactured by collusion.

The question is whether Botvinnik was the greatest player ever, not whether every title condition surrounding him was fair. Fischer probably had the higher peak. But Botvinnik was still an elite player before 1948, remained elite afterward, drew Smyslov in 1954, and regained the title from Smyslov. Political advantages may explain part of his championship résumé; they do not explain his entire playing strength.

Fischer has the stronger peak and probably wins a hypothetical match against Botvinnik at Fischer’s best. But Fischer’s career is much shorter. He did not defend the title, and he effectively stopped playing serious chess after 1972. So Fischer has the stronger ‘who was better at their best?’ argument, while Botvinnik has the stronger longevity and total-career argument.

Conclusion: Fischer was probably the stronger player at his peak; Botvinnik had the more sustained career. Botvinnik’s political environment complicates his résumé, but Fischer’s short career complicates his.

I strongly disagree about the rhyming of suspicion and collusion.