Kitty Chan
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 20 |   |
Karma: 0
|
re:Lev Khariton: Korchnoi - professional rights or political co - 2006/12/05 06:10
So fatr so good, say in 95%. However that remaining 5% is very important!
But he, Korchnoy, and his family were!
Korchnoy's professional rights were a symbol of human rights, of the human freedom and dignity.
The general, abstract ideas make sense only when they translate into things like the freedom to travel, the artistic freedom, the right to work in your profession, ... (also freedom of speech, etc).
Sure. But it only shows that Korcznoy doesn't hold a grudge like a perfectly programmed computer, that he is a human being, that despite the repute he has, he needs friendliness and similar nice thingies.
Observe that he was not making those few friendly gestures for the sake of any business. He was just nice, perhaps unwisely nice. At one time he even played bridge with Karpov, after which Korcznoy felt disgusted with himself for associating with someone as low as Karpov.
For a contrast, Kasparov was making deals with Campo to gain something by political means in the chess world.
And that was immoral! Fischer was perhaps always sick, but Fischer was principal and Kasparov was/is not.
There is a world of difference between human gestures, perhaps even weakness--but a sympathetic waekness of Korchnoy, and the cynical Kasparov's dealings with Campo and even with FIDE for the past few years. (True, the situation in chess is a mess, but Fischer would act in a profound way in place of Kasparov, while Kasparov acts "pragmatically").
Thus it is Kasparov and not Korchmoy, who lost in my eyes that nice, idealistic image.
Does he? Can you quote Korcznoy exactly? So that I can interpret his words myself. Korchnoy had to know that: 1.Botvinnik was never on Karpov's team; 2.Botvinnik was one of very few top chessplayers who had refused to condemn Korchnoy (Stein was another one; also Spassky, but Spassky was already in France,
was among those who did sign the condemnation. And Tal was on
Karpov's team during that champinship match in Fillipines;
in general, Tal played a good Karpov's friend, and I could only think about Tal's desperate dependence on the Soviet regime, especially because of Tal's pure health and alcoholism--especially alcoholism made Tal extra vulnerable).
Botvinnik's political stand late in his life was amazing, very uplifting for those who want to believe in the human nature.
For this reason I would like to extrapolate backward, I would like to believe that Botvinnik himself was not abusing his chess position to get "free" games from Keres or Bronstein. Such extrapolation is not really justified in general, but everything specific that I know about Botvinnik indicates that he never wanted any "chess gifts" from political rulers. In this he was very different from Karpov, who would, who cooperated, who wanted and demanded such "gifts".
Summary: Lev, you are playing false tunes, both in 1.interpreting
Korchnoy and 2.philosophically.
1. It is very modesdt and nice that Korchnoy does not play a disident. In those years being a disident had meant more than opposing the soviet regime just in your mind. It meant to participate in some dissident activities like passing around forbiden literature (political, literary, religious), or even better, to publish some (even by making hand written copies). It meant meating similarly minded people to organize some protest action, to sign some petitions, etc.
All those actions were heavily punishable by the regime, they were very risky, people who did them were true heros, were brave to the degree that otherwise thery could be called crazy.
It says something nice about Korchnoy, that he is honest, that he doesn't want to make a false impression, he doesn't want to show himself as a hero, he doesn't want an undeserved credit.
On the other hand, he Korchnoy is still a hero. Those who had supported him have nothing to be sorry for, they still should be proud of themselves for those actions. As I have written above, the freedom etc translates into concrete rights like being free from being controlled by Soviet apparatchiks, e.g.
one should have right to voice his opinion about Fischer being better than any Soviet GM at the time. If more Soviet GMs would voice that opinion, the Fischer versus Soviets+Karpov+FIDE negotiations would look a bit different.
Those who supported Korchnoy should had done it exactly for these reasons: for the right to travel, to voice opinions, etc.
And that and similar things had meant to defy the Soviet rule!.
---------
A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues.
Popular posts by Kitty Chan
"Nick" "Bourbaki&quo...
Lev Khariton:Kasparov Goes to Wa...
Using a computer to get back int...
|
post new topic
[from 64]