tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post336568472307608067..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: Predecessors VIII: Spassky-Bronstein 1960Tom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-48855777928623004682013-08-01T18:39:28.906+01:002013-08-01T18:39:28.906+01:00(Apologies to our corrrespondent, but we cannot pu...(Apologies to our corrrespondent, but we cannot publish allegations of plagiarism, or comments making such allegations, unless we can actually see the material ourselves - both the original material and the alleged copy. Even then we would proceed only with great caution.<br /><br />We appreciate your concern in this matter and if you want to communicate with us further please do so via our email address chesscomments@gmail.com. Anonymity is guaranteed. We thank you for drawing the matter to our attention.)ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-68474394729976291652013-08-01T12:22:24.338+01:002013-08-01T12:22:24.338+01:00(Incidentally, the person who sent the comment we ...(Incidentally, the person who sent the comment we received this morning may like to resubmit it non-anonymously and preferably with an explanatory link. Ta.)ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-23411505837353916332013-07-31T20:28:20.458+01:002013-07-31T20:28:20.458+01:00the legendary producers mistakenly thought there c...<i>the legendary producers mistakenly thought there could be a copyright on chess games, so changed the ending to the game</i><br /><br />I never knew that.<br /><br />So maybe Ray <i>does</i> think that if he changes a word or two, like they changed a pawn or two....ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-47096360383252322432013-07-31T18:29:51.639+01:002013-07-31T18:29:51.639+01:00Oh, come off it! Some journalists do give a F FFS...Oh, come off it! Some journalists do give a F FFS! I discovered by accident, while listening to a BBC radio documentary on the 40th anniversary of the Bond franchise, that the reason for the missing pawns was that the legendary producers mistakenly thought there could be a copyright on chess games, so changed the ending to the game - unfortunately, there was no Herr Fritzy around back then to check it all still won!<br /><br />Here's my Scotsman column from last year on the day of Bond's 50th anniversary.<br /><br /><br />5 October, 2012<br /><br />DIAGRAM: "We've been expecting you, Mr Bond."<br /><br />TODAY is Global James Bond Day, celebrating the longest running film franchise in cinematic history, as a daylong series of events marks the 50th anniversary of the release of the first James Bond Film, Dr No, on 5 October 1962. <br /><br />In Sean Connery’s second outing as 007, From Russia With Love, in 1963, there’s a famous chess scene that introduces us to the cold and calculating tuxedo-clad Kronsteen (played superbly by the Polish actor Vladek Sheybal, who was half Scottish by birth), the chief planner for the villianous organisation Spectre, just as he's about to defeat Canadian master McAdams to win the Vienna International Chess Tournament. <br /><br />For the scene, director Terence Young decided to adapt a brilliancy prize game from the Soviet Championship of 1960 in Leningrad between Boris Spassky and David Bronstein. And from today’s diagram, after playing 22 Nxe5+, Kronsteen announces, “Check” and receives a drink with a coded message ‘You are required at once’ imprinted on the bottom of the glass. He then quickly finishes off the game after 22 ...Kh7 23 Qe4+ and Black resigned. <br /><br />The only difference between the two games was that, in the Bond movie, there were no pawns on d4 and c5. This remained a mystery for 40 years until it was revealed that the legendary Bond producers, Albert “Cubby” Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, mistakenly believed there to be a copyright on chess games, so they had the pawns removed from the board. <br /><br />But this proved to be a critical error, because Black could have drawn at the end by perpetual check with 22 ..Ne6! 23 Ng6 Qc5+ 24 Kh1 Qb5! 25 Bc4 Qc6 26 Qf7+ Kh7 27 Qf5 Ng5! forcing 28 Nf8+ and Ng6+. <br /><br />B Spassky – D Bronstein<br />27th USSR Ch., 1960<br />King’s Gambit Accepted<br />1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 d5 4 exd5 Bd6 5 Nc3 Ne7 6 d4 0-0 7 Bd3 Nd7 8 0-0 h6 9 Ne4 Nxd5 10 c4 Ne3 11 Bxe3 fxe3 12 c5 Be7 13 Bc2 Re8 14 Qd3 e2 15 Nd6 Nf8 16 Nxf7 exf1Q+ 17 Rxf1 Bf5 18 Qxf5 Qd7 19 Qf4 Bf6 20 N3e5 Qe7 21 Bb3 Bxe5 22 Nxe5+ Kh7 23 Qe4+ 1-0<br />JBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16415606026231533028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-15970301055262228812013-07-31T10:44:55.933+01:002013-07-31T10:44:55.933+01:00they’re journalists FFS; of course they don’t care...<i>they’re journalists FFS; of course they don’t care</i><br /><br />Au contraire, a lot of journalists do care about this sort of thing. (The people who tell you about journalistic malpractie are, normally, other journalists.) But not necessaraily all the ones who get to be in positions of influence.<br /><br /><i>No-one would notice the difference.</i><br /><br />This is the point you made in aprevious comment, to the effect of who reads this stuff anyway? I admit that's puzzled me too, on the grounds that if anybody read it you'd think that somebody would notice.<br /><br />Which in general I think is right, and nobody much <i>does</i> read it. Although Johann Hari also got away with it for years without people noticing. Admittedly what he was doing was harder to spot, but surely not <i>that</i> hard.<br /><br /><a href="http://otiosechessnotes.blogspot.com.es/" rel="nofollow">Link</a> for Simon Spivack's blog.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-5803331310520526482013-07-31T10:34:00.558+01:002013-07-31T10:34:00.558+01:00Interesting to learn the industrial aspect is a re...Interesting to learn the industrial aspect is a recent phenomenon. I wonder if it coincides with a change of ghostwriter.<br /><br />It is strange the Times isn’t bothered. It’s not so much the plagiarism – they’re journalists FFS; of course they don’t care – as the fact that Ray’s column is such unremittingly tedious shite, and thus presumably is failing in its purpose of pulling in the punters. They’d do better, and cheaper, simply to stop paying Ray and republish the same ten games on a fortnightly cycle for the next few years, before print newspapers disappear. No-one would notice the difference.<br /><br />To be fair though that Polugaevsky-Averbakh puzzle is quite nice. Presumably stolen from Averbakh’s book, which one notes came out about that time. If I’m allowed to plug rival blogs to yours as a service to your readers, btw, Simon Spivack’s on that was quite interesting. <br />John Coxnoreply@blogger.com