The Match of All Time: The Inside Story of the Legendary 1972 Fischer-Spassky World Chess Championship in Reykjavik: A Review

The Match of All Time: The Inside Story of the Legendary 1972 Fischer-Spassky World Chess Championship in Reykjavik, by Gudmundur G. Thorarinsson

https://www.newinchess.com/media/catalog/product/cache/d8e09cdef69dd873ff7ff5e76a338998/2/0/20220430_thorarinsson_the_match_of_all_time_x500_2.jpg

is an excellent book, which is, however, marred by 64 pages devoted to three needless chapters. The first is a Prologue. The fourth chapter is entitled, Prologue to the match of 1972. The book would have been better if it had started with the fourth chapter. The second chapter is titled The Origins of Chess. Not one word concerning Greco, the father of modern Chess, can be found concerning the origins of Chess. When apprised of this fact, the Legendary Georgia Ironman replied, “Shame, shame, shame.”

The title of the third chapter is: World Chess Champions from unofficial to official. The reason for all these needless pages could be all the ‘newbies’ entering the world of Chess recently. Nevertheless, the book concerns the 1972 World Chess Championship, which would have been better served without a very short overview of the history of the World Chess Championship. There are sixty four pages to get through prior to actually getting to what Brian McCarthy would have called “the meat” of the book. (https://xpertchesslessons.wordpress.com/2021/04/24/brian-mccarthy-r-i-p/) Books attempting to serve two masters often serve neither. This book is an exception. The main part of the book is so good I forgot all about the chaff. Frankly, the book simply could not be put down.

On the second page of chapter 4, Prelude to the match of 1972, there was a copy of “Bobby Fischer writing about Tigran Petrosian at the start of the first game of the 1970 match Soviet Union vs. The Rest of the World.” In Bobby’s handwriting there is written, “He looked scared!”

Bobby Fischer writing about Tigran Petrosian at the start of the first game of the 1970 match Soviet Union vs. The Rest of the World: ‘He looked scared!’ David (https://zoboko.com/text/e9m50316/the-match-of-all-time-the-inside-story-of-the-legendary-1972-fischer-spassky-world-chess-championship-in-reykjavik/33)

Like a freight train the book began picking up steam!

A few pages later there is a picture of GM Bent Larsen,

Bent Larsen was often referred to as ‘the great Dane’. (https://zoboko.com/text/e9m50316/the-match-of-all-time-the-inside-story-of-the-legendary-1972-fischer-spassky-world-chess-championship-in-reykjavik/36)

whom I first met when working the wall boards at the Church’s Fried Chicken Chess tournament in San Antonio in 1972.

It is written, ‘He (Larsen) was asked: “How come you decide now at this stage in your studies to become a professional chess player?’ He answered,: ‘Denmark has many great engineers but only one good chess player.”

A few pages later one reads, “Demonstration boards had been put up for every game of the tournament and the young lads working the demo boards were busy transferring every move made to the boards.” Reading that caused me to smile, while remembering those wonderful days in San Antonio ‘working the boards’ half a century ago…

Anatoly Karpov and Bent Larsen in round 3 of Church’s Fried Chicken International Chess Tournament, November 21, 1972 (https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/chess–580260733213601135/)

It continues, “As we were watching the positions a sign was put on a board showing the game between Raymond Keene

Back-cover inscription by Korchnoi on one of our copies of Karpov-Korchnoi 1978 by R. Keene (London, 1978).
In addition to writing ‘the traitor’, Korchnoi signed the title page. The book was obtained from Korchnoi
in Cape Town on 16 May 1979 by a collector of sports memorabilia. (https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/cuttings.html)

and Leonid Stein. A draw-the sign stated. Fischer’s face was transformed into utter disbelief, almost disgust. “This position is completely lost for Stein, that is the way they do it, offering draws in lost positions’, he said and walked out. The day after I drove him to the airport and on the way I asked him: ‘Are you sure that Stein’s position was lost.’ He then picked up the pocket chess he carried with him everywhere he went, put up the position and showed me a few moves. The he said: ‘Stein is without defence.’ Initially Fischer had looked at the position for only a few seconds.”

Raymond Keene vs Leonid Stein
Reykjavik (1972), Reykjavik ISL, Feb-??
Gruenfeld Defense: General (D80) · 1/2-1/2

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bg5 Ne4 5. Bh4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. e3 c5 8. cxd5 Qxd5 9. Nf3 Nc6 10. Be2 cxd4 11. exd4 Qa5 12. O-O Qxc3 13. Rc1 Qb4 14. Rb1 Qd6 15. Bg3 e5 16. Nxe5 Qxd4 1/2-1/2
   https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1554962

A comparison of the two players, Boris Spassky and Bobby Fischer, was made by the author that was striking: “They both opposed the inner workings of the society they were brought up. This was evident by their public statements. They were outspoken in political matters never hesitating to criticize ruling governments. At times they would disregard the advices of experienced trainers. In short, they both had at least a slight attitude problem. They both became fugitives from their homeland, the most bizarre aftermath of the match in Reykjavik.”

Bobby was a well-known night owl. It is written, “After midnight he would turn on the radio and, according to Eidinow and Edmonds in Bobby Fischer Goes To War, (A tremendously good book! AW). The Temptations

and The Four Tops

were among his favorite bands, but he also liked jazz and heavy-metal rock.” Bobby, my Man!

antiquesportsbooks.com

Was Bobby a genius?

“I once stated in a newspaper article that Fischer was a genius capable of being a recipient of the Nobel prize in any chosen field. Much later a reporter asked Fischer: ‘Are you a chess genius?’ Fischer answered: ‘I am a genius, but by the winds of fate I started to play chess.’

The Lady At The Bar

The author writes, “After a very long and difficult session on energy-prices I was in my hotel room near midnight, tried to go to sleep but without success…” “So I left my hotel room and headed straight to the bar and ordered a double cognac. At the bar there was a small gathering of people. A middle-aged woman approached me, sat by my side and asked: ‘Aren’t you this guy Mr. Thorarinsson.’ This surprised me-but not altogether. I had been asked the same question a few times in Kastrup and at some other airports…” I answered: ‘Yes.’ Then the new-found acquaintance said to me: ‘I want to give you an advice. I have worked as an interpreter in the negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union in the attempts to restrain the arms race in strategic ballistic missiles with nuclear weapons. When the Soviets suggest or demand something you may never say no. If you do that you have terminated the meeting. You just always have to say: ‘Yes, but… I would really like to accept your proposal and I do agree on most of your points of view, but my circumstances are such that it is not entirely up to me.’

The author continues, “To me this advice sounded funny and I guess that I appeared thankful without giving her words too much thought.” This comes into play later. Diplomacy is so damn disingenuous. Can part of the problem be that diplomats do not say what they want, or needs to be said? The only Democratic POTUS spoken of fondly by my parents generation was Harry Truman, because he had a reputation of speaking frankly.

The Poisoned Pawn

“Some of the journalists who had been sent in haste to Iceland to cover the match did not know much about the game. An amusing incident happened in the Icelandic Chess Federation office when the match had finally got under way. A foreign journalist came in and told us that he had been sent to Iceland to cover the match: ‘My problem is that I do not even know how to play chess’, he said. ‘Can anyone teach me how to play the game?’ he asked. We arranged for a staff member to instruct him. When they sat down and our employee started to explain a few things, the journalist exclaimed: ‘Stop, Stop. Before we begin you must tell me which piece on the board is the poisoned pawn.’ Clearly, some people believed that a certain pawn was called the poisoned pawn. The news had been broken all over the world that in the endgame of the first game Fischer had captured a pawn on h2, but this bishop got locked in and was lost. This was reported as Fischer ‘capturing the poisoned pawn’. The incident was so well known that the journalist concluded that it was the first priority in his education to learn which pawn on the board was the poisoned pawn.”

goodreads.com

Slater to the rescue

“Fischer received an unexpected offer on 3 July. A British multimillionaire by the name of James D. Slater

British multimillionaire James Slater knew that money can talk and offered to double the prize-fund. ‘Now come out and play, chicken.’ (https://zoboko.com/text/e9m50316/the-match-of-all-time-the-inside-story-of-the-legendary-1972-fischer-spassky-world-chess-championship-in-reykjavik/58)

ordered to double the prize fund the Icelandic Chess Federation had guaranteed, i.e. add 50,000 pounds. He said: ‘Fischer jas said money is the problem. Well, here it is.’ Slater was aware of the dispute about the player’ share of the gate money, and decided to step in to solve matters. And Slater was quoted as saying: ‘Now come out and play, chicken.’ Slater was a renowned financial wizard who specialized in acquisitions of struggling companies to optimize the operation and then divest. England did not have a single grandmaster at this time, and by the end of the year Slater promised the first Briton who became an International Grandmaster, an incentive of 5000 pounds. In 1976 Anthony Miles won the Slater Prize.”

I could write all day and deep into the night about this magnificent book, but this must suffice, because it is, after all, only a review. The last part above ends on page 123. The book contains another one hundred magnificent pages.

Addendum

A day after writing the above I perused the January 2023 issue of Chess (www.chess.co.uk) magazine. The section, Off the Shelf, by Sean Marsh, contains a short review of the book, in which it is written, “In fact, the first 110 pages look at the origins of chess, the world champions and the prelude to the match, all of which provide valuable context.” To each his own. Mr. Marsh needlessly includes the fourth chapter, Prelude to the match of 1972 with the first three chapters. The book should have started with the fourth chapter. Nevertheless, the book was enjoyed immensely. In addition, the reader may want to check out: The Match of All Time: The Inside Story of the legendary 1972 Fischer-Spassky World Chess Championship in Reykjavik, which was found at: ZOBOKO.COM (https://zoboko.com/text/e9m50316/the-match-of-all-time-the-inside-story-of-the-legendary-1972-fischer-spassky-world-chess-championship-in-reykjavik/1)

Take the Money and Run

A Danish museum lent an artist $84,000 for his work. He kept the cash and named the art ‘Take the Money and Run.’

By Jaclyn Peiser

When the staff at Kunsten Museum of Modern Art in ​​northern Denmark opened boxes last week from artist Jens Haaning, they expected to see pieces featuring the half-million kroner they lent him for the works of art, the director told a Danish radio show host.

Artist Jens Haaning kept over 500,000 kroner lent to him by the Kunsten Museum of Modern Art in Aalborg, Denmark. The money was supposed to be displayed in two recreated works of art. (Google Street View)

Instead, the museum — which had commissioned Haaning to re-create two of his older pieces that were made with cash — found two empty frames.

The new name for the artwork: “Take the Money and Run.”

Now, the museum in ​​Aalborg, Denmark, is accusing him of breaking their legal agreement and demanding the artist return the 534,000 kroner, the equivalent of over $84,000. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-danish-museum-lent-an-artist-2484000-for-his-work-he-kept-the-cash-and-named-the-art-e2-80-98take-the-money-and-run-e2-80-99/ar-AAOUgEQ)

The Wesley So Forfeit

The St. Louis Chess Club AND Scholastic Center was in its infancy when I played in the St. Louis Open there in the spring of 2009. In the second round I faced a young boy, Kevin Cao, who was an expert at the start of the tourney. Playing my favorite Bishop’s opening the boy did not take advantage of the opportunities my play afforded, putting him in a difficult position. My opponent had been keeping score on a gizmo called “Monroi.” When the going got tough my opponent pulled the hood of his jacket over his head and placed his gizmo on the table, eschewing the actual chessboard in order to focus only on the chessboard on his gizmo. Since this violated the rules of chess, I lodged a protest with the TD’s. The rule is simple and clear: 11.3 a) During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard. (https://chess24.com/en/read/news/us-champs-r9-so-forfeited-amid-family-turmoil)

The tournament director’s did not see it that way. Since the Monroi was a USCF “approved” gizmo they had trouble ruling the only way they should under rule 11.3. They decided to “compromise” by asking my opponents father have his son not use the gizmo as a chessboard the rest of the game. I agreed to this, and so did the father, albeit reluctantly. This was done because I was playing a child. If my opponent had been an adult I would not have agreed, but insisted he be forfeited because the rule is clear. Things change dramatically when a child is involved.

After a few more moves my opponent’s position deteriorated, and he was in also in time pressure which happens with a G/2 time control. His father, seeing this while constantly hovering over the board, told his son to do go back to using his gizmo. The boy then pulled his hood over his head and placed his gizmo on the table and again eschewed the actual chessboard. I protested, the clocks were stopped and into the TD room we went. This time things became, shall we say, heated. Actually, the father went ballistic. Some time later the USCF issued a ruling castigating the father for “reprehensible behaviour.” The father took his son home and when his time ran out, I was declared the “winner.” The young boy dropped back into the “A” class because of the loss. He is now rated 2300+.

This was written about and discussed on the forum of the St. Louis Chess Club AND Scholastic Center, which no longer exists, and some have said it is no longer in existence was because of what was written on it, none of it positive toward me. Simply put, I was vilified. Much was written on the USCF forum at the time, where I was also excoriated unmercifully.

I closely followed the recent US Championship tournament, the one now called the “Open” tournament, as opposed to the one called the “Women’s” tournament. GM Wesley So is obviously a supremely talented chess player. I found the interviews with him intriguing, to say the least. After the interview early in the tournament,maybe the very first round, the one in which he mentions playing weakly in the middle game after not seeing his foster mother for some time, (She had been with Jeanne Sinquefield he said) I told the Legendary Georgia Ironman something was obviously “not right” about Mr. So. I could not put my finger on it, but knew something was wrong.

Much has been written about Wesley being forfeited, and I have read everything found on the interweb. I would like to share some of it with you, then share a few comments of my own.

“Akobian complained that this distracted him”!? What is the motive behind this statement? To me it looks like a “sucker punch” from Akopian to get an easy win. Chess referees should according to the rules always apply common sense. And the nature of this incident considering the actual writing of So does not by any means amount to such a serious offence that So should forfeit his game against Akopian.” – thomas.dyhr (Thomas Dyhr, Denmark)

“This decision is absolutely ridiculous I take it So has been writing on his scoresheet sometimes which would show on his copy handed in and is against Fide rules ok and Rich told him this.
He gets a blank piece of paper instead to write some thought positives and Akobian complains to Rich who forfeits So.
Akobian if he was distracted by So’s actions should have asked him to stop first.
Rich should have seen that this was not writing on a scoresheet which he warned him about and if he was not allowing So to write on blank paper as well told him to stop immediately and if So complied let the game continue.
Akobian and Rich do not come out of this with any credit and Akobian should be ashamed of himself as a man of integrity.” – Gilshie (Thomas Gilmore, United Kingdom)

“I guess they wanted to guarantee that an American wins the US Championship…” – Shtick (Nick Daniels, Canada)
(All of the about quotes from: https://chess24.com/en/read/news/us-champs-r9-so-forfeited-amid-family-turmoil)

“PS: editorial comment to myself

Many chess writers and commentators seem to have little better to do this weekend than to talk about a silly forfeit incident in the US championship, so I will throw in a few of my own observations.
The first is that even though some tournament rule might give the tournament arbiter, Tony Rich, the POWER or the AUTHORITY to forfeit Wesley So , no rule –just because it is written–gave Tony Rich the RIGHT to forfeit Wesley So for doing what he did. So offended no one nor did he disrespect his opponent; he caused no disturbence, nor did he cheat. Wesley So’s actions were not designed to give him anything other than peace of mind and a calm spirit.
Please understand that I am not saying that Akobian–who is a perfect gentleman– acted wrongly when he drew to the arbiter’s attention So’s actions. Nor am I saying that Tony Rich acted incorrectly when he decided to act according to the written rules. And especially I am not saying that So was right when he lashed out when interviewed afterwards…there were CLEARLY better ways to have handled the situation.
What I am trying to say is that once more the game of chess DESERVES to be belittled because of this incident. ONCE MORE, mainstream media will target and make fun of us. Chess LOST some prestige on that day. When Jon Stewart recently did a humorous skit on the USCF trying to recruit F.Caruana for the national team, many–including ChessBase–thought it was also a bit insulting to the game of chess. Perhaps it was a bit insulting, even though it might not have been intended to be insulting…
But until the day we (the chess community) STOP allowing silly and poorly written rules to hurt and denigrate the noble game of chess in the eyes of normal and intelligent onlookers (and let us not forget about potential sponsors and patrons), then we deserve to be insulted a little bit more each time…” – Grandmaster Kevin Spraggett
(https://kevinspraggettonchess.wordpress.com/2015/04/12/it-took-a-really-long-time-but/)

“Guess my point is – even if he warned So, forfeiting is a staggering over-reaction. Threaten with forfeit = fine. Actually doing it = insane” – GM Jon Ludvig Hammer (Also from the aforementioned chess24 article, and if you click on this, you will find more comments, including this one by IM Mark Ginsburg, “Correct. Time penalty first. This action was wildly disproportionate as GM Hammer points out. Bad call.”)

GM Emil Sutovsky, President at Association of Chess Professionals, wrote this on his Facebook page (taken from the aforementioned chess24 article) “The arbiter’s decision to forfeit Wesley So for writing down irrelevant notes on his scoresheet during the game seems weird to me. Indeed, that can be seen as a violation of rules: ” 8.1 b. The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data.” And arbiter has repeatedly urged Wesley to stop it. But awarding a loss is way too harsh a punishment for such a minor sin. Yes, it can be disturbing for the opponent, and the arbiter could and should have deducted the time on Wesley’s clock for disturbing the opponent. And to keep deducting it (2 minutes each time), if needed after each move (warning Wesley, that a forfeit will come after 2nd or 3rd deduction). That was the most painless and logical decision. Unfortunately, the arbiter has preferred the most brutal solution. These things should not happen.”

It should be obvious from the above that the TD, Tony Rich, and the St. Louis Chess Club AND Scholastic Center have not come out of this sordid incident in a favorable light. As GM Spraggett says, once again chess has suffered a black eye. I agree with Kevin when he writes, “…no rule –just because it is written–gave Tony Rich the RIGHT to forfeit Wesley So for doing what he did.” The reputation of the St. Louis Chess Club AND Scholastic Center has been sullied.

The punishment should fit the crime. As GM Kevin Spraggett writes, “So offended no one nor did he disrespect his opponent; he caused no disturbence, nor did he cheat. Wesley So’s actions were not designed to give him anything other than peace of mind and a calm spirit.”

Contrast this with how I was treated at the St. Louis Chess Club AND Scholastic Center. My opponent violated the rule in order to gain an ADVANTAGE! GM Wesley So did no such thing. He is one of the elite chess players in the world and has no need to gain an advantage against any other player in the world.

If one closely examines the rule, “11.3 a) During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard,” it is clear the meaning is that a player cannot use any “NOTES, sources of information or advice,” to help, or assist him in regard to making his MOVES. A player cannot utilize a book, or gizmo containing chess information, or any “advice” from another person. There is no ambiguity here.

I was not there and do not know EXACTLY what Tony Rich said to Wesley, but from what I heard on the broadcast, and have now read, GM So was under the impression he could not write on his scoresheet, so he wrote on another piece of paper. How culpable is Tony Rich in this matter? Did he make himself COMPLETELY understood? Besides, as “Najdork” (Miguel Najdork, from Nepal) commented, “Also I would like to point out how from rule 8.1 you are allowed to write on the scoresheet any “relevant data”, and that is so vague that I guess you could write almost anything.” Who defines what is “relevant?” Your relevant may differ from what I consider “relevant.” For example, what if your opponent in a Senior event wrote on his scoresheet, “Take heart medication at 3 PM.” Who, other than GM Varuzhan Akobian, would complain? And who, other than Tony Rich would forfeit the man? I know Tony Rich. As Tony reminded me in 2009, I won our game at the Missouri State Championship in 2002 in Rollo. He was nice to me then, and has been every time I have encountered him, such as at the US Open in Indiana a few years ago. I liked Tony until he lost his mind. What could possibly have motivated the man to issue this stupid ruling, which will have lasting repercussions? If you were Wesley So would you join the American team at the Olympiad?

“In love with this rule: “12.2 The arbiter shall: b. act in the best interest of the competition.” Common sense.” – GM Jon Ludvig Hammer.

The forfeit defies common sense. “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rule; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.” – John Roberts, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court to the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2005. (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/when-the-umpire-is-playing-for-the-other-team/262429/)
No one watches a chess tournament to see the TD. In lieu of watching Wesley So play GM Akobian, the world was instead subjected to a TD try and explain his “logic.” As many a TD has proven over the years, the less involved they are, the better the outcome.

None of this made any sense to me until reading this, “In the final reckoning Wesley So’s forfeit had no effect on the top three standings. Even a win against Akobian would only have tied So with Ray Robson on 7.5/11, and since he lost against Robson he would still have finished third. The person who has a real cause for complaint seems to be Gata Kamsky, who was edged out of 5th place – his goal in order to qualify for the World Cup later this year – by Akobian.” (https://chess24.com/en/read/news/nakamura-and-krush-are-2015-us-champions)

There it is, the reason for this whole debacle. It always comes down to “Who profits?”

The whole affair is disgusting, and sickening. It proves only that a TD has only one rule by witch to abide: Do What Thy Wilt! There should be some kind of punishment for a TD who oversteps his bounds. I have seen far too many tournament director’s puff out their chest while strutting around singing, “I’ve got the power,” such as Richard Crespo, the former TD spending his days in prison after abducting a woman and shooting it out with police in San Antonio, Texas a decade ago.
I am embarrassed, and ashamed, to be an American involved with chess. This putrid affair rivals anything I have written about FIDE and the nefarious Russians. United States chess has reached a new low. Tony Rich has now made everyone forget about L. Walter Stephens, the TD who awarded Sammy Reshevsky a win against Arnold Denker in the 1942 US Championship even though it was Sammy who lost on time. The game will die before the shock waves emanating from this debacle subside. The St. Louis Chess Club AND Scholastic Center touts itself as the US Capital of Chess. Knowledgable players and fans know that three of the players in the Championship, Sam Shankland, Sam Sevian, and Daniel Naroditsky, cut their chess teeth in the San Francisco Bay area, home of the oldest chess club in America, the venerable Mechanic’s Insitute Chess Room. If any area should be acknowledged as the “Capital of US Chess,” it is San Francisco, in lieu of the neuveau rich, faux chess club AND scholastic center in St. Louis, which has now been tarnished. No longer can it be considered a “leading light,” or “shining example.”

I can only hope this affair does not dessiccate Wesley So’s desire. If one watches the interviews with Mr. So during the US Chess Championship he will see a dramatic change in Wesley as the tournament progressed. Hopefully, this will fire him up and prod Wesley to play the kind of chess of which he is capable culminating in a match for the World Chess Championship.

Commie Chess

After the penultimate round of the recently concluded European Championships in Israel the Russian player Evgeniy Najer had eight points, half a point more than the two players tied for second place, David Navarra, of the Czech Republic, and another Russian, Denis Khismatullin. The two Russians were paired in the last round, while GM Navarra was paired the Bulgarian Ivan Cheparinov, who had scored seven points, half a point less than the two aforementioned players tied for second place. The pairings for the final round were Khismatullin vs Najer, and Navarra vs Cheparinov. These are dream pairings for a chess fan! Khismatullin needed to win and had the White pieces, and the same could be said for the board two battle. This is the game “played” by the two Russians:

GM Denis Khismatullin (2653) – GM Evgeniy Najer (2634)
16th ch-EUR Indiv 2015 Jerusalem ISR 2015.03.08
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c6 5.a4 Bf5 6.Nh4 Bc8 7.Nf3 Bf5 8.Nh4 Bc8 9.e3 Bg4 10.Nf3 e6 11.h3 Bh5 12.g4 Bg6 13.Ne5 Nbd7 14.Nxc4 h5 15.g5 Ne4 16.h4 Bb4 17.Bg2 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Bxc3+ 19.Bd2 Bxd2+ 20.Qxd2 O-O 21.O-O f6 22.f4 Nb6 23.Na5 Qe7 24.Qe2 Rae8 25.Bf3 Qf7 26.Kh2 e5 27.fxe5 fxe5 28.Qa2 ½-½

I do not need a 3300 rated chess program to inform me something was rotten in Denmark. If a student showed me this game I would have to question why he played 17 Bg2. It is incomprehensible that Najer did not take the Rook in lieu of the Bishop on move 19. All chess players with four digits after their name would question the move made by Black, 19…Bxd2+. This game brought to mind the famous article in the August 1962 issue of Sports Illustrated by Bobby Fischer, The Russians Have Fixed World Chess. My next thought was that a new chapter on chess should be included in a revised issue of, The Fix Is In: The Showbiz Manipulations of the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and NASCAR, by Brian Tuohy. Then I thought of a chess player of yesteryear, Oscar Al Hamilton, who believed, “Everything is rigged.”

What have the “mainstream” chess websites had to say about the collusion conclusion of the European Championships? The first article, dated March 10, appeared on the chess24.com website, Najer is European Champion, by IM David Martínez, who wrote, “Russian Grandmaster Evgeniy Najer has won the European Individual Championship in Jerusalem after drawing with compatriot Denis Khismatullin in the final round. After a fine tournament he could afford to offer a draw on move 28 in a very favourable position and still finish half a point clear of the field on 8.5/11.” (https://chess24.com/en/read/news/najer-is-european-champion)

A day later an article appeared on the Chessbase website, Evgeny Najer is 2015 European Champion, by by Albert Silver. He writes, “The fresh European champion for 2015 is Russian GM Evgeny Najer! In the final round having a better position he accepted a draw offer by his compatriot Denis Khismatullin to secure the desired championship title though not before making sure that David Navara, the other runner-up, wouldn’t achieve more than a draw against Bulgarian Ivan Cheparinov.” (http://en.chessbase.com/post/evgeny-najer-is-2015-european-champion)

Bobby Fischer was proven right and the commie collusion continues to this day. It will not stop as long as the Russians who still think, and act, like communists are in control of FIDE. The day after the tournament ended saw this headline, Putin just awarded a medal of honor to the chief suspect in one of Russia’s most notorious political murders, by Jeremy Bender, dated March 9, 2015. “Russian President Vladimir Putin has just awarded the chief suspect in one of the past decade’s most notorious political assassinations a medal of honor, AFP reports.

The Kremlin honored Andrei Lugovoi, a member of Russia’s lower house of parliament, for his “great contribution to the development of the Russian parliamentary system and his active role in lawmaking.”

Lugovoi is still wanted in Britain as one of the two chief suspects in the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. Litvinenko, a defector from the FSB, Russia’s leading intelligence service, died after being poisoned with radioactive polonium-210 in London.

After Litvinenko’s defection from the FSB, he moved London where he became an outspoken critic of Putin and his regime. British intelligence believes that Lugovoi personally slipped the polonium into Litvinenko’s tea during a meeting at the Millennium hotel in London in November 2006. Twenty-three days later, Litvinenko died in a London hospital.

Lugovoi was cleared of wrongdoing after a questioning by a British polygrapher in Moscow following the murder. However, the polygrapher has admitted to skewing the results and said that Lugovoi actually failed a portion of the test in which he denied having ever handled polonium-210, the Guardian reports.

Putin giving an award to Lugovoi might be aimed at undermining Britain specifically during its ongoing investigation into the 2006 assassination. London is currently holding public hearings as part of an inquiry into Litvinenko’s death.

Lugovoi is being honored less than two weeks after the murder of prominent Russian dissident Boris Nemtsov. Nemtsov, an opposition activist and former deputy prime minister during Boris Yeltsin’s presidency, was shot to death on a bridge just 200 yards from the walls of the Kremlin on February 27. (http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-gave-medal-to-litvinenko-poisoning-suspect-2015-3)