With Love and Bitterness
by Lev Khariton

The Chess Cafe is pleased to present the following article by Paris-
based journalist. Lev Khariton. Lev has been active in the
international chess community for many years and in many ways.
The translator of Kasparov's "Kasparov Teaches  Chess" for
Batsford, he currently is the regular chess columnist for La Pens‚e
Russe in Paris. An honary member of the St. Petersburg Chess
Academy, he also occasionally ventures into the playing arena. His
best chess performance was the 1991 Paris Championship where
he tied for fifth and sixth places with GM Yakob Murei behind
GMs Spraggett, Smirin, Khenkin and Tiviakov.

It would not be enough to say that I have always worshiped
grandmaster David Bronstein. He was the hero of my generation
and those who were a bit older. Frankly speaking, my first
acquaintance with chess was inspired by his name. In 1951 when I
was only six years old, Bronstein was playing his famous match
with Mikhail Botvinnik. Why did Bronstein lose the 23rd game?
How did it happen that the iron-clad Botvinnik lost the 21st and
22nd games? Why did the 24th game that was to clinch the match
turn out to be a bloodless draw? And one more, now hypothetical,
question how would things have shaped up for Bronstein if he had
won the match?

And that 24th game is always associated in my memory with one
episode. My father and my elder brother had one ticket to see this
game in Tchaikovsky Hall where the match was played. Finally,
after some quarrel and a "drawing of lots", it was my brother Boris
who went to see the game. However, when he entered the hall, he
saw only the last two moves and the peaceful handshake followed
by a storm of applause which either was an acknowledgment of
Botvinnik's accomplishment of having maintained his title, or was
in appreciation of Bronstein's heroic struggle with the all-mighty
champion.

Many years later I had the chance to get acquainted with Bronstein
personally. First I met him when he, from time to time, visited our
lessons in the junior chess school conducted by Alexander
Konstantinopolsky. Later I was lucky to see him on numerous
occasions during chess competitions, and even more, I visited him
in his small apartment in Moscow! Remembering these
unforgettable meetings, I even wrote a series of articles on
Bronstein in my chess column in the Parisian newspaper "La
Pens‚e Russe".

Grandmaster Bronstein has always been known for his originality
and for his creative approach to chess. An approach that has
yielded good, concrete results. It was because of him that arbiters
in chess competitions began to note time spent by chess players on
each move, which allows one to realize that a game of chess is a
complicated creative and psychological process. And today's
"active" or "rapid" tournaments? It was also Bronstein's idea! After
the publication of Bronstein's classic - his book on the Zurich
tournament - chess players understood how games should be
annotated.

But originality is good and even necessary when it helps to broaden
horizons and change reality. However, existing by itself, originality
may be detrimental, even dangerous. Reading Bronstein's interview
"The Non-conformists' Confessions" published in the magazine
"Shakhmaty v Rossii", I understood that the grandmaster, possibly
without being aware of it, went beyond the limits of objectivity. It
just so happened that before I read Bronstein's interview in the
magazine, I had bought the book "The Sorcerer's Apprentice"
written by Bronstein and Belgian journalist Tom Frstenberg. It is
a wonderful book with a biography and photographs of the
grandmaster (many facts and photographs I had never known
about), his games - well-known and recently played, even with
computers. However, some points in this book had forced me to
take a critical look at the interview in "Shakhmaty v Rossii".

For many years Mikhail Botvinnik was Bronstein's 'bˆte noire'. I
noticed a long time ago that whatever problem you are discussing
with Bronstein, everything finally boils down to Botvinnik and that
match played almost half-century ago. What irony! The match that
actually proved Bronstein's creative superiority became the tragic
counterpoint of his life. And even after the death of the 6th World
Champion Bronstein writes: "In one of his books Botvinnik says
that Goldberg helped him in the second half of his match with Salo
Flohr which started disastrously (Flohr +2) but ended in a draw, +2
-2 =8. Flohr, who used to lose on average one game a year,
suddenly lost two in one week! There must have been a reason for
this and indeed there was! Goldberg's help was instrumental in
finding a shop where Flohr could 'buy' a beautiful coat very
cheaply!" 

We can certainly take issue with Bronstein; for example,
Petrosian's losses were even less frequent than Flohr's, but playing
against Fischer, Tigran lost four games in a row! But is there any
point in arguing? Who can prove anything now that Botvinnik,
Flohr and Goldberg are gone? However, the only regret is that
Bronstein has written about his chess colleagues in such a self-
deprecating fashion!

No less upsetting is the following 'revelation' from Bronstein's
book: "During the Budapest Candidates' Tournament Boleslavsky
and I had discussed the chances of the next challenger and my
friend, who had lost seven games to Botvinnik without winning a
single one, was of the opinion that a fight against Botvinnik was
hopeless. Once he had had a chance to checkmate Botvinnik in a
few moves but missed the opportunity. Of course I had a
completely different opinion. I argued that Botvinnik was very
strong but one could still play against him successfully. I was sure
that I could demonstrate that his strategy was far from perfect.
Boleslavsky was leading in the Candidates' Tournament, but after a
talk he had with Boris Vainstein he decided to slow down to allow
me to tie for first place with him. Vainstein would try to arrange a
tournament with Botvinnik, Boleslavsky and myself for the World
Championship. Alas, it did not come about and we had to meet in a
play-off for the right to challenge Botvinnik".

How naive we were, carried away by the dramatic and exciting end
of the Budapest Candidates Tournament! In the last round
Bronstein won a game from Keres catching up with Boleslavsky.
And what a game it was! Playing with fantastic imagination,
Bronstein, in a well-known variation of the Ruy Lopez, sacrificed a
pawn to his formidable opponent. The finishing touch of this
unforgettable game was Bronstein's irresistible threat to sacrifice
his queen on h7! So, all this was just a well-prepared performance
with the kind collaboration of Keres in this tournament - he had
nothing to lose, and quite understandably, did not harbor any
sympathies for Botvinnik. But if such confessions are made by
Bronstein, the man whose sincerity cannot be doubted, what can
we expect from the champions and challengers who played for the
chess crown later? And why has Bronstein kept silent all these
years, hiding the truth? And is it really the truth? I should say - the
unwanted truth!

Following this 'logic', perhaps, was the entire Bronstein-
Boleslavsky match, including a two-game play-off with the score
standing equal (6-6); was it just a splendid show? Who knows?

Both in the interview and in the book, Bronstein says that he was
not interested in winning the World Title. Moreover, in the book he
points out that he would have felt ashamed of being the World
Champion in a society where people, living in poverty and misery,
had just gone through the most devastating war, GULAG etc. Quite
a noble position, isn't it? But why then did he play in the USSR
Championships in 1948 and 1949, winning the title of the Soviet
Champion both times? 

According to what he now says, he should have avoided winning
the championship of such a miserable country. Why did he play in
the interzonal and candidates' tournaments? Why did he agree to
play with Botvinnik? Bronstein's views are very 'original', but is
there anything shameful if someone is doing something that he
loves and achieves the well-deserved superiority in this field? Such
a person, I believe, should be praised because in demonstrating his
art - in our case, chess - he distracts people from their daily routine
and problems. I wonder if Bronstein had won the match, would he
still maintain all that he says today?!

"I should have never squeezed anything out of the World
Champion's Title", - says Bronstein. Absolutely right! The
grandmaster is too noble by his character and nature to 'squeeze'
any profit from anything. But did Botvinnik squeeze anything from
his title? To quote Bronstein, "since 1928 Botvinnik had been
aiming at the chess crown". All his life Botvinnik was working as
an engineer, first devoting his life to electro-engineering and later
to chess computers. Incidentally, Bronstein who adores chess
computers, constantly participating in competitions with
computers, forgets to mention that it was Botvinnik who was the
first to speak in the USSR about chess computers. In the 1960s
Bronstein was one of the many who was skeptical about
Botvinnik's idea that the machine one day would play against man.

As far as financial remuneration is concerned, Bronstein knows
perfectly well that World Championship matches before the
"Fischer era" brought nothing but glory. Literary work to which
Botvinnik devoted some time was poorly compensated. In those
days, in contrast to today, even outstanding authors did not publish
their books in foreign languages abroad so as to be paid in hard
currency! For many years I have been watching relatively unknown
Russian chess players (very far from Botvinnik's caliber!) earning
good money in French 'opens', never forgetting that Botvinnik his
challengers got nothing out of chess.

Did Botvinnik want to make any political capital out of his title
like the present-day champions? Never in his life! Botvinnik never
participated in any FIDE leading body, never chaired any Soviet
governmental organisation, like Karpov's Peace Fund, or any other
prestigious or profitable political institution.

In May 1948, right after winning the World Title, Botvinnik wrote
a letter in which he expressed his joy and satisfaction with the
Soviet support of the creation of the State of Israel. Certainly, the
idea to vote for the foundation of the Jewish state in Palestine was
just one of Stalin's cunning manoeuvres to annihilate Soviet Jewry
and all those who, like Botvinnik, did not hide their enthusiasm
over the decision of the Soviet government were immediately
persecuted and their letters filled the KGB files. This is what
exactly happened to Botvinnik's letter. Let us not forget that the
campaign against the 'cosmopolits' was already in full swing and
let us pay tribute to Botvinnik's courageous step. Bronstein, who
was born in Belaya Tserkov, some 100 kilometers away from
Babyi Yar ( the place of the mass extermination of Soviet Jews
during the Second World War ), whose father was a prisoner of
GULAG, should have appreciated the noble position of his chess
colleague. Botvinnik, as opposed to other Jewish celebrities in the
USSR, never tried to cash in on the privileges bestowed upon him
by the Soviet authorities. A man of great sincerity, he never
allowed himself to be compromised. 

A case in point: he turned down the 'honour' of joining the Soviet
Anti-zionist Committee, a fascist organisation that recruited many
outstanding Soviet Jews, such as Maya Plisetskaya, the world-
famous ballerina. She was an active member of the anti-Jewish
movement in the Soviet Union. Now living in the West she tells
'stories' how she hated the life in the USSR, how she was
discriminated as a Jew, how she was thwarted in her foreign tours.
But even during the liberal years of 'perestroika', when interviewed
on Soviet television, she denied that she had had any problems as a
Jew! Botvinnik was always averse to such hypocrisy.

In 1976 Botvinnik and Bronstein (as if celebrating the 25th
anniversary of their match!) were practically the only Soviet
grandmasters who did not sign the 'collective' letter against the
'traitor' Viktor Korchnoi. In a totalitarian society, those who do not
know the word 'fear' deserve admiration!

For many years Botvinnik called himself 'prima inter pares' (first
among equals). I think that by this he was referring to his chess
strength as well as the creative potential of his rivals. First of all,
he had the same rights, no more, no less, than other grandmasters.
It was not by chance that in 1952 the members of the Soviet team
voted against Botvinnik's participation in the Chess Olympiad, and
the World Champion did not go to Helsinki! After Botvinnik's loss
in the Title Match to Petrosian in 1963, FIDE called off the return
matches - undoubtedly, an unfair decision for Botvinnik, who had
twice won the 'returns', thus showing his fantastic moral and chess
strength. So, what privileges did Botvinnik achieve in Soviet
society and in the chess world?

To tell the truth, it was due to Botvinnik that a consistently
democratic system of world championship selection was created.
The basic advantage of the system was that each time, as a result of
a series of competitions, the best challenger emerged to play the
Title Match. Bronstein, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky and
Fischer were definitely the world's top chess players in their prime
years when they won candidates' tournaments and matches. 

In his interview Bronstein declared that "no one except Botvinnik
had this idea of winning the title of the World Champion - so great
was our respect for the talent and games of Capablanca, Alekhine,
Lasker". This is really Bronstein's 'interpretation' of chess history!

Is there anything bad, shameful or even vicious, if a man, feeling
his strength, wants to achieve the best in his particular field of
endeavour? In so doing he only contributes to the popularity and
development of his art. Does Bronstein mean that all chess players
were supposed to bend down like dead statues in front of the
famous champions of the past? After all, Alekhine, Lasker,
Capablanca were human, made of flesh and blood, like everyone
else! They also wanted to be champions, they also made mistakes...
And, finally, they were surpassed by the new generations of chess
players. Bronstein says that in the 1930s Botvinnik alone had the
privilege of being sent to foreign tournaments, such as  Nottingham
and AVRO... But was there any other Soviet chess player who
deserved to participate in these tournaments more than Botvinnik?
And he really proved his strength, almost always winning these
chess events. After the Nottingham tournament Alekhine called
Botvinnik the most likely candidate for the World Title. If
Bronstein has so much respect for Alekhine, let us ask him this
question: Did anybody force Alekhine to make such a forecast? 

Certainly not. The great champion felt that he had already been
surpassed. So, why should Botvinnik have abstained from his well-
founded ambition to win the World Championship?

I had the great luck and honour to know Botvinnik personally,
when, in 1974, I was asked to help him with his English. Botvinnik
was to go to the USA and Canada to meet specialists in computer
programming. Probably never before had a 'teacher' had so much
respect for his 'pupil'! I was sitting next to the living legend!
Asking Botvinnik to repeat the forms of the irregular English
verbs, I felt that the diagrams of his most famous games were just
jumping in my head! I was especially impressed by his modesty.
For example in his apartment there was nothing that gave even the
slightest hint of the accomplishments of the great man; when I told
one well-known grandmaster how much I was amazed by
Botvinnik's simplicity and modesty, he answered, "There is no
wonder - he is Botvinnik!"

In the interview with the Russian magazine Bronstein was asked to
name the best chess players of all time. The grandmaster made
quite a standard choice citing well-known names. However, he
stressed that he preferred them because they had possessed special
personal and human qualities. In other words, according to
Bronstein, they were 'personalities'. Is the grandmaster blind, or is
he pretending to be blind?

Let us start with Alekhine who was undoubtedly the greatest chess
genius who ever lived on Earth. Undoubtedly, he was an extreme
anti-Semite as testified by his articles published in "Pariser
Zeitung" in 1941. How can Bronstein like the 'personality' of the
4th World Champion? "Are the Jews as a race capable of chess?" -
asks Alekhine. And he gives the 'answer' - "So far there has never
been a genuine Jewish chess artist". Well, this question and answer
need no comment! 

There is no explanation or justification for Alekhine's beastly
hatred of the Jews. The mental, spiritual degradation, the senility of
the 'chess genius' are obvious and disgusting. More than that, he
betrays all those - Lasker, Rubinstein, Nimzovich - for whom, as
he had claimed before, he had so much admiration and respect.
Those great chess players who are so dear to Bronstein!.. "Steinitz,
the greatest jester in chess history". Dear grandmaster, do you like
this 'profound thought' of Alekhine?

Incidentally, Steinitz is not among the chess players whom
Bronstein considers as the greatest. Perhaps he is not a
'personality'? But if we follow Bronstein's logic, Steinitz, who
never tried to get any profit from chess, should appeal to Bronstein.
Steinitz did not want to play a World Championship Match with
Zukertort while the great Morphy was alive, and it was only two
years after Morphy's death, in 1886, that the first World Title
match was played. Steinitz showed the best example of
sportsmanship and ethical principles, which is easy to admire but
difficult to follow. He did not need the chess crown for the crown's
sake, as, for example, Karpov almost 100 years later!

Yes, Steinitz did not exploit his title. And this is the most
important difference between him and Lasker. Therefore it is
difficult to share Bronstein's admiration for Lasker. The 2nd World
Champion demanded high appearance fees and chose wealthy and
relatively weak opponents for the Title Matches. There were long
periods when Lasker avoided playing chess, thereby preserving his
title. After the First World War he was absolutely bankrupt, and
that is why in 1921 he went to Havana to play against Capablanca.
Actually, he knew that he stood no chance of resisting Capablanca
in Cuba, but he also knew that he was actually 'selling' the chess
crown!

It should be noted that chess historians have done a lot to create a
romantic image of Emanuel Lasker. Lasker as a great philosopher,
a great psychologist, even a great mathematician... But first and
foremost, he was extremely pragmatic and, frankly speaking,
knowing Bronstein as I do, I cannot imagine how Lasker, a
pragmatist to the bone, can appeal to such an unpractical man as
Bronstein. 

To understand Lasker's character more profoundly, we must get a
glimpse of what he was writing in the "British Chess Magazine" as
far back as 1915: "The shrewd English merchant has grasped the
meaning of possessions and their power in the world; but he has
missed the true inwardness of things, and the rapid evolution of
modern times has left him far behind. He is an egoist towards his
fellow countrymen. He will not give the masses a share in higher
things, as he wants to keep them under his sway as slaves. The
Universities of Cambridge and Oxford are reserved for the sons of
the rich. He views with suspicion our people, teeming with ideas,
eager in pursuit of science, and ready to make any sacrifice. Who
among us is not a philosopher? I know not a single German who
does not carry in his bosom something of the spirit of Faust. The
morale of the Germans is not mere theory. Mother, wife,
sweetheart, have bidden their men go forth to battle. It is the genius
of Humanity that speaks for this nation".

I ask myself when Lasker was fleeing from fascist Germany, did he
remember these naive, if not stupid, words written by him during
the First World War? Or, more probably, was Lasker just a
hypocrite disguised as the greatest truth-seeker...Certainly, his
chess career is unique, but why does Bronstein glorify his
personality? In this connection, I have made an interesting
observation. Both Botvinnik and Bronstein, people so different in
nature and in character, always admired Lasker. Botvinnik even
called Lasker, and not without admiration, a 'man without
illusions'. Such is the effect of the complete paralysis of human
conscience! 

Even more mysterious is the image of Philidor, one of Bronstein's
idols. But what do we know about Philidor except for two or three
games played with extremely weak players and his aphorism that
'the pawn is the soul of the game'? What was so astounding and
breath-taking in his personality? Bronstein could have equally
appreciated the inventor of chatrang! Nevertheless, he calls the
enigmatic Philidor a 'great head' whereas Botvinnik, with whom
Bronstein played the match of his life, began in chess as a 'quick-
minded boy'!

Bronstein dwells on the idea of setting up an international
organisation 'Green Chess'. "People will meet to analyse interesting
games, talk about chess. Chess on 100 or 1000 squares, chess
without two pieces, may be without bishops or knights! They will
not play in tournaments...Now there is an electronic line
connecting the whole world..." I think that if Bronstein's dream
comes true, it will be very sad. Chess, the game that has been so
much enriched by Bronstein's artistry, in its present-day form
would disappear! It will be sad if every patzer manipulating an
expensive computer will consider himself to be a chess player.

And why 'Green Chess'? Most likely, analogous to the political
parties existing in the West. The organisations fighting for the
ecological protection of nature, and under this pretext, trying to
purify the population ethnically, as is the case in France today.
Those people who are well-balanced and alert of the danger are
afraid of such extreme politicians.

Chess today, at the close of the 20th century, is going through a
special phase of development. On the one hand, the unprecedented
popularity of the ancient game. Big and small tournaments; a
never-ending chain of tournaments. More than that, chess is
penetrating more and more into the primary school educational
system. Chess shops are full of books and magazines. Almost
every chess player has a computer equipped with brand-new
software and the latest database. On the other hand, the world is
going through an enormous economic recession. This economic
slump and unemployment are not the monsters born out of human
imagination, but the realities of everyday life. The people insecure
of their future have to tighten their belts. Under such conditions
chess, instead of being a game perfecting and developing the
human intellect, becomes a luxury product. A 'product' which,
according to Kasparov, should be lucratively sold. This is what
Bronstein should be fighting against! 

But Bronstein, the great chess player and writer, does not praise
chess. On the contrary, he says the following: "Chess is, generally
speaking, a primitive game..." A primitive game?! Stop! Aren't we
a bit delirious? But let us quote the grandmaster again: "There is
certainly no sense in the movement of chess pieces. It is just the
confrontation of two personalities, sitting and thinking over the
same position, that matters..." Well, we'd better leave this reading
aside! And what shall we do with Bronstein's idea when these
'personalities' are on the same electronic circuit, one, let's say, in
Melbourne and the other in Norilsk? What about their
'confrontation'? Why is the grandmaster sure that only
"personalities are playing chess"? 

As we have pointed out before, chess is played brilliantly even by
people, who, even given the benefit of the doubt, are morally not
up to the mark! Undoubtedly, chess by itself, cannot save from
moral degradation. Equally true is that a bad man can become a
good chess player. The only panacea in this case is the competent
and careful word of an outstanding expert such as Bronstein or
some other remarkable player. But what Bronstein is saying today
is only to the detriment of chess. Any layman reading him now will
never send his son to a chess school!

How will chess enter the 21st century? As a worthwhile occupation
not inferior to any other art, or will chess players play, as today, in
the parks next to domino players? Will there be special chess
columns in big newspapers, or will chess articles be placed near
marriage and funeral ads? All this depends on chess players and
chess journalists!

Let us return, however to the book "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". In
almost 300 pages of the book there is not a single mention of
Alexander Konstantinopolsky who played a ground-breaking role
in Bronstein's chess career. Konstantinopolsky was David's teacher
and friend. He was the most knowledgeable expert on chess - I
would even say - an academician of chess, if such a title existed. At
the same time he was an extremely modest and kind man. This is
not only my opinion. I am sure that hundreds and hundreds of
chess players who knew Konstantinopolsky will support me. And I
really do not understand why Bronstein seems to have forgotten the
name of his great and noble chess teacher.

Konstantinopolsky was far from political games, as distinct from
Boris Vainstein to whom Bronstein is grateful even today. No
doubt, Vainstein did a lot for the young master in his difficult
years. But I am sure, knowing the high-ranking position of
Vainstein, that it was not difficult for him to help Bronstein. Nor
was it any more difficult for Vainstein to help Botvinnik settle
down in Moscow. 

Political and administrative power creates many possibilities. The
chess and human sympathies of Vainstein were evidently on the
side of David. However, the awards for the work in the KGB were
not given for nothing, and it is not by chance that Beriya, the most
awful monster in Stalin's state, once said to Vainstein"You,
Vainstein, are working very well. But if you had spent five or six
years in GULAG, you would have worked much better!" Bronstein
recalls how Vainstein, at a meeting of the Soviet Chess Section in
1945, said to Botvinnik, "I don't understand how you will shake
Alekhine's hand, covered in the blood of Auschwitz and
Maidanek". 

Today Alekhine's anti-Semitism is no longer a secret, but at that
time Vainstein's shot was a typical political stunt. He put the trump
card of a KGB agent on the table! Even Bronstein who was present
at the meeting did not like Vainstein's words. Vainstein knew that
he was right on target; Botvinnik with his honesty and firm
principles would have never agreed to take Alekhine's crown
without playing a match! It was not easy for me to write all these
bitter words about the man whom I adore since my childhood. And
I shall never change my opinion of Bronstein as a chess genius and
a remarkable and honest man.

Recently while on my regular weekly visit to the chess shop
'VARIANTES' in Paris, I again lost a blitz-game to the computer
program 'Chess Genius'. I was not upset too much by this loss. I
feel that I cannot come to grips with the program. Suddenly I asked
the shop's manager if there were any players winning against the
program. "No," he answered, "this devil is beating everyone!" And
then as if remembering something, he added, "Oh no, when
Bronstein comes to Paris and drops in at the shop, he wins against
the machine!" I thought if the grandmaster plays so well today,
how he must have played, say, in 1950!

In the book "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" Titania Boleslavskaya, the
daughter of Isaak and David's wife, wrote a very interesting
chapter. I cannot help quoting the final words of this chapter:
"When I think about Devik I realise that the majority of people are
just increasing the population in quantity. Far less those who, by
their presence, increase the quality of mankind. I sincerely believe
that he belongs in the latter category". Wonderful words!

However, although profoundly admiring this remarkable man, I
would not like to overlook the main point. Since time immemorial,
we have been taught to believe in the singularity of the truth and
diversity of lies. It may seem paradoxical, but in the long run, lies
are easily recognizable because of the lack of real diversity. But the
truth, when something important is at stake, can change - not in the
sense of concrete facts, but as regards our attitude to them. And if
we neglect the truth, we run all possible risks. But juggling with
the facts is absolutely impermissible.