World championships and books

Which world championship contests are your favorites, and which do you not find interesting? Which books about these contests do you like? My old favorite is 1972, although the 1969 match was very exciting. The 1963 match is underappreciated. Lasker's crushes before 1910 did not interest me. I did not care for the knockout events at all. Tal's book about the 1960 match may the greatest chess book ever, or is at least one of the best.

I find the candidates matches more interesting than the actual champ matches - therefore Zurich 53, Curacao by Timman and San Luis 2005 are my favorite books.

do you think in terms of chess quality or drama?

Originally posted by nimzo5
I find the candidates matches more interesting than the actual champ matches - therefore Zurich 53, Curacao by Timman and San Luis 2005 are my favorite books.

I would ditto this, but for me personally, the 1987 playoff between Nunn and Portisch after the Szirak Interzonal was a big deal, as I was really pulling for Nunn.

It's been 25 years, and I'm still bummed that he lost.

There are several tournaments/matches I love (that is, I am sentimentally connected to, due the fact I had read of them when I started to play chess in the club.

Bled, Zagreb, Belgrade candidates tournament 1959. I have a tournament book. Amazing how Fischer was stubborn with this variation against Caro Kann.

Interzonal tournaments Palma de Mallorca 1970
Interzonal tournament Portoroz 1958

Candidates matches 1971 and 1977

Fischer-Spasky 1972
Karpov-Korchnoi 1978

Candidate match Korchnoi-Polugaevsky 1977 (I still remember Raymond Keene's comment after one game:: "That's how it's done when you eat 100 gr caviar before the game!"😉

Tal's book on the 1960's championship match is great,as is Timman's book on Curacao 1962. The greatest tournament book ever is Bronstein's book of the 1953 Candidates Tournament,which is practically a one game manual on how to play the middlegame and how to play the KID. Najdorf's book on that tournament is soon to be translated into English,and by all accounts,will be better than the Bronstein book. Worst book of this kind-Petrosian-Botvinnik 1963, a real snooze fest because the games were all boring beyond belief. Tournament that needs a book(redone) about it:Amsterdam 1964.

1972 of course but the K v K 1978 envounter was good and full of interest and drama.

Anatoly Karpov - The Road to the World Chess Championship by R. Byrne is good.
It was effect the candidates that led to the winner becoming world champion.

You get all the games with light notes from the maches:
Byrne v Spassky
Mecking v Korhnoi
Karpov v Polugaevsky
Portisch v Petrosian

Then the semi's

Karpov v Spassky
Korchnoi v Petrosian

and the Karpov v Korchnoi final.

Zurich 1953 is good.....but it was not all Bronstein.

In an interview with Antonio Gude in 1993, Bronstein states:

"Most of the nice words and elegant expressions in the book overall are the work of
Vainstein, who writes very well…

Of course the analysis and technical concepts are mine, as are the views on my
rivals, but it may be said that a large part of the text is by Vainstein.

Also, it is a book for which I do not have a particular affection because it reminds
me of a tournament that was very special in a negative sense.
Things happened there that I should like to forget…

We shall discuss that another time. I do not wish to be more specific for the moment."

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Things happened there that I should like to forget…

We shall discuss that another time. I do not wish to be more specific for the moment."[/b]

/[quote /t has been alleged by some that Bronstein was forced by the Soviet authorities to throw this match, and to allow Botvinnik to win. Similarly, in the 1953 Candidates' Tournament at Neuhausen and Zürich, it has been speculated that there was pressure on the top non-Russian Soviets, Keres and Bronstein, to allow Vasily Smyslov to win. Even in the wake of glasnost, however, Bronstein only partially confirmed these rumors in his public statements or writings, admitting only to 'strong psychological pressure' being applied, and that it was up to Bronstein himself whether to decide to give in to this pressure. Bronstein's father was sometimes secretly in the audience during the 1951 title match games, at a time when he was not officially permitted in Moscow. In his final book, however, published in 2007, shortly after his death, Bronstein more strongly implied that Smyslov was favored for Zurich 1953 by the Soviet Chess Federation, and that other Soviet representatives were pressured to make this happen./end of quote/

link>>> http://www.supreme-chess.com/famous-chess-players/david-bronstein.html


Here one can add Fischer's accusations for fixing some games in Curacao 1962.

That Botvinnik abused his reputation as very important engineer was rumoured in free minded chess world outside Iron Curtain already in 1950's.

...
Here is a game between Petrosian (White) and Olaffson from Candidates tournament in Bled 1959.
game is amazing becaus White won after 37 moves and he never ever crossed the opponent's half ot the table! It looks like Olafsson committed suicide/

(Okay, Whit did play Bxh5 at one point, but it was ONLY time he crossed the half of the board!)

Originally posted by greenpawn34
1972 of course but the K v K 1978 envounter was good and full of interest and drama.

[b]Anatoly Karpov - The Road to the World Chess Championship by R. Byrne is good.
It was effect the candidates that led to the winner becoming world champion.

You get all the games with light notes from the maches:
Byrne v Spassky
Mecking v Korhnoi
Karpov v ...[text shortened]... t…

We shall discuss that another time. I do not wish to be more specific for the moment."[/b]

It is a pity more top GM's don't collaborate with a writer who can find a more elegant word than "pressurize".

Originally posted by watchyourbackrank
do you think in terms of chess quality or drama?

For drama, I love Bouwmeester's "Het Schaak der Wrake" ("Vengeance Chess"), about Karpov-Korchnoi '78. For chess-technical, or (it's Bouwmeester, after all) even factual accuracy, I am not willing to vouch for it. But for sarcastic comments on the politics and manias of chess, it is both hilarious and eye-opening.

Richard