Novak is No Joke: Djokovic Defeats Nadal in Match for the Ages

Novak Djokovic's epic 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7 (5), 7-5 victory over Rafael Nadal in the Australian Open final dramatically demonstrated that Djokovic is still the best player in the game today. Since Nadal has accomplished so much more than Djokovic in Grand Slam events despite the fact that their careers almost perfectly overlap, it was fair to wonder if Djokovic's sensational 2011 campaign merely signified a one year wonder or in fact marked the belated rise of a true all-time great (Bjorn Borg's career--arguably still the greatest in the Open Era--was already all but over by the time he was Djokovic's age). I don't believe that one event necessarily proves or disproves a sweeping characterization of a player's career but the 2012 Australian Open certainly lends credence to the idea that soon--if not right now--Djokovic must be ranked somewhere among the all-time greats; I will refrain from making the all too common mistake, particularly among tennis commentators, of hastily proclaiming Djokovic to be the greatest player of all time, a pronouncement that seemed to follow every Grand Slam victory by Roger Federer--but it is clear that Djokovic is the greatest player of this time and the longer this time lasts the stronger a claim Djokovic will have to be ranked very highly on the all-time list.

Djokovic's triumph over Nadal is the longest Grand Slam singles final match ever, officially lasting 5:53. The play was hardly perfect--Djokovic committed 69 unforced errors while hitting 57 winners and Nadal had an even drearier ratio of 71 unforced errors to 44 winners--but it was fast, furious and tenacious, making for gripping viewing that may have been almost as emotionally draining for the spectators as it was for the players.

Djokovic has joined an elite group of men (Rod Laver, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal) who won at least three Grand Slam singles titles in a row since the Open Era began in 1968; Nadal lost to Djokovic in each of those championship matches, earning the dubious distinction of becoming the first player to lose three straight Grand Slam finals. Nadal has now lost seven straight matches overall to Djokovic, each of them a finals match. Nadal still enjoys a narrow 16-14 advantage head to head, but Djokovic has the edge in finals matches (7-5) and Grand Slam finals (3-1). This was the first five set duel in the 30 Djokovic-Nadal encounters.

Nadal is just one year older than Djokovic but has won twice as many Grand Slam Singles titles (10-5). The Australian Open is the only Slam that Djokovic has won multiple times (three) and the French Open is the lone Slam that he has yet to win; Nadal has already completed the career Slam, along the way winning a pair of Wimbledon titles and tying Borg's record with six French Open crowns. Nadal twice won the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year (2008 and 2010), coming close to equaling Borg's fantastic feat of winning both events for three consecutive years (1978-80; Borg won the French Open in 1974-75 and 1978-81 and he took five straight Wimbledons from 1976-80).

It is the beauty and agony of sports that dominance can balance on a razor's edge; in the 2007 NFL season, the New England Patriots came within three minutes of achieving unprecedented 19-0 perfection but the story of that season ultimately became not their drive for an undefeated championship season but rather the emergence of Eli Manning and the New York Giants. The story of the 2012 Australian Open ultimately is Djokovic's victory but Nadal came within two points of taking a 5-2 lead in the fifth set; if Nadal had come back from a two set to one deficit to triumph in five sets we undoubtedly would look at both players differently, even though objectively the difference between those divergent outcomes can be literally measured in inches.

Nadal survived three break points at 4-4 in the fourth set en route to winning that set in a tiebreaker and he seemed to have the match in hand when he took a 4-2 lead in the fifth set--but Nadal missed a routine backhand volley that could have put him up 40-15 in the seventh game and Nadal unraveled after that, while Djokovic managed to hit timely shots despite showing obvious signs of physical fatigue (I make a distinction between physical and mental fatigue because I think that the outcome--and those timely shots that Djokovic converted--indicates that he retained mental sharpness throughout the match even as his body began to betray him).

It is hard to take seriously the notion that Roger Federer is the greatest player of all-time for the simple reason that Federer is not even the greatest player of his time; Nadal owns a decisive 18-9 head to head advantage versus Federer, including a victory in the 2012 Australian Open semifinal that increased Nadal's margin over Federer in Grand Slam play to 8-2. Nadal has accumulated enough overall achievements to merit inclusion in the greatest player of all-time discussion; in addition to completing the career Slam, Nadal has won 10 career Grand Slam singles titles overall (tying with Bill Tilden for sixth-seventh on the all-time list) and he has spent 102 weeks as the number one ranked player (the sixth most since the ATP began using computerized rankings in 1973), finishing in the top spot in the year end rankings twice (2008 and 2010). If all Nadal had to his credit was a slight head to head advantage over Federer in a small number of matches then those head to head results would just be a bizarre historical footnote--but Nadal has beaten Federer decisively head to head in a large sample size of encounters and Nadal has not just defeated Federer due to some matchup quirk but he has also been a dominant player for quite some time. A little over a year ago, Djokovic was not even on the radar in terms of being the greatest player now--let alone the greatest player of all-time--and his recent head to head dominance against Nadal still has not wiped out the huge advantage that Nadal built up versus Djokovic in previous years. Djokovic is the best player right now but his overall career can not yet be compared favorably with Nadal's or Federer's. Instead of prematurely trying to rank and classify every player we should simply enjoy the great tennis being played by Djokovic, Nadal and Federer; the all-time rankings will sort themselves out over time, as we saw with the Chris Evert-Martina Navratilova rivalry that started out lopsided in Evert's favor before becoming even more lopsided in Navratilova's favor.

Joe Posnanski on Joe Paterno's Upbeat Spirit

Sports Illustrated's Joe Posnanski spent some time with Joe Paterno in the days before the legendary Penn State coach passed away. Posnanski reports that Paterno had a very positive outlook despite the unceremonious and shameful way that Penn State's Board of Trustees fired him and despite suffering from terminal cancer:

"In the moments after Joe Paterno died, it became common for people to write and say that he died of a broken heart. He did not. Joe Paterno died of lung cancer and the complications it caused. He did not die a bitter or broken man."

Posnanski provides several quotes from Paterno. Here are two of them:

"I made a lot of mistakes in my life. But I thought people could see that I tried my best to do the right things. I tried to do the right thing with Sandusky too."

"It doesn't matter what people think of me. I've lived my life. I just hope the truth comes out. And I hope the victims find peace."

I look forward to reading Posnanski's upcoming Joe Paterno biography and I am confident that it will be much better than the salacious book that Posnanski's fellow SI writer Jeff Pearlman wrote about Walter Payton.

Joe Paterno's Legacy

"They ask me what I'd like written about me when I'm gone. I hope they write I made Penn State a better place, not just that I was a good football coach."--Joe Paterno, 1926-2012

Joe Paterno, who led Penn State's football team with distinction and honor for 46 years, passed away on Sunday, succumbing to lung cancer at the age of 85. Paterno's legacy first and foremost is the "Grand Experiment," which Paterno once described as "not football that puts winning first, but first class football played by students who put first-class lives first." Paterno arrived at Penn State in 1950 and served as an assistant coach under Rip Engle through the 1965 season before taking the helm in 1966 after Engle retired. Penn State was lightly regarded as both an academic institution and a football program but Paterno quickly elevated Penn State's status in both categories: after posting a 5-5 record in 1966 and an 8-2-1 mark in 1967, Paterno led the Nittany Lions to twin 11-0 records in 1968 and 1969, capping off both campaigns with Orange Bowl wins. Paterno's on field success combined with strong moral character greatly raised Penn State's overall national profile and helped to enhance Penn State's reputation as an academic institution. Paterno did not just give lip service to the value and importance of education; he made sure that the vast majority of his players graduated and he worked tirelessly to help Penn State grow: Joe Paterno and his wife Sue donated more than $4 million to various departments and colleges at Penn State.

Joe Paterno is a unique figure in major college sports history and we will never see someone like him again: no one will have his amazing combination of longevity, on field success and off field integrity. Bobby Knight consistently won at the highest level of college basketball while emphasizing academics but he is also a boorish bully who acted abusively toward his players, staff members, referees, media members and anyone else within earshot; Knight stood for much that is right about college sports but he also is a deeply flawed person. John Wooden perhaps comes closest to matching Paterno in terms of maintaining high standards on the field/court and off the field/court but Sam Gilbert's shady dealings helped Wooden to acquire many of the talented players who built Wooden's UCLA dynasty. Ohio State once hoped/believed that Jim Tressel stood for both victory on the field and integrity off of it but that fictional facade barely lasted a decade before completely crumbling. Perhaps Duke's Mike Krzyzewski comes closest to matching Paterno's standards but I doubt that Krzyzewski will equal Paterno's longevity.

No, I am not forgetting or ignoring the elephant in the room--but when a great man dies, the first words uttered about his legacy simply must describe his decades of good work molding the character and lives of thousands of young men while playing a crucial role in helping to build a little known small town school into an internationally respected academic institution. Joe Paterno was not flawless and he freely acknowledged--perhaps too freely in a soundbite driven media age that abhors context or any semblance of intellectual depth--that "in hindsight" (emphasis added) he wishes that he had done more to stop Jerry Sandusky, the longtime Penn State assistant football coach who has been accused of child sexual molestation. Paterno was not close with Sandusky off the field and in 1999 he made it clear to Sandusky that Sandusky would not succeed Paterno because (in an irony whose full horror is only now apparent) Sandusky was too devoted to his Second Mile charity, the organization that Sandusky founded and apparently used as a convenient source of vulnerable victims.

Only Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary know what McQueary told Paterno on that fateful and now infamous night in 2002 but the grand jury that indicted Sandusky believed the testimonies provided by both Paterno and McQueary. Paterno informed Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley and Penn State Vice President Gary Shultz (who was in charge of the school's campus police) that McQueary had observed Sandusky engaging in questionable conduct with a young boy. McQueary subsequently met with Curley and Schultz and provided them with graphic details of what he saw. The grand jury did not find Curley or Schultz to be credible witnesses and thus indicted both men.

Paterno benched key players before big bowl games if they violated rules. "Success with honor" was not just a catchphrase for Paterno but a way of life. It is vile for anyone to suggest that Paterno deliberately and knowingly covered up Sandusky's alleged crimes in order to protect the Penn State football program, particularly since all of the evidence demonstrates that Paterno immediately reported McQueary's concerns to the appropriate authorities. Curley and Schultz dropped the ball (forgive the sports analogy) in this matter. Should Paterno have followed up to see what Curley and Schultz did and/or should Paterno have confronted Sandusky? Those are certainly valid questions but I think that what Paterno was most guilty of is that he trusted Curley and Schultz too much. Sandusky was no longer on Paterno's staff and it should not have been up to Paterno to interrogate Sandusky. What do Paterno's critics think would have been the result of that? Do they think that Sandusky have broken down and confessed? This was not an episode of Perry Mason or Law & Order.

The bottom line regarding Paterno's role in the Sandusky sex abuse case is that Sandusky's alleged crimes did not occur on "Paterno's watch." They happened on Curley and Schultz' watch and on the watch of the Penn State Board of Trustees--and that Board revealed itself to be, individually and collectively, a bunch of clueless cowards and blowhards; the Board members admitted that they had been completely in the dark about the Sandusky matter during the grand jury proceedings but as soon as a media firestorm erupted in the wake of the indictments of Sandusky, Curley and Schultz the Board wasted no time seeking out, finding and executing (I choose this word most deliberately, because the Board in essence hit Paterno with the death penalty) the most convenient and vulnerable scapegoat: Joe Paterno, the public face (and ailing body) of Penn State University. The Board wiped out six decades of "success with honor" with a hastily held meeting culminating in a message to Paterno to call a phone number to find out that he had been fired. Paterno's declining physical health--even before the public revelation that he had the cancer that would ultimately end his life just months later--made it unlikely that he would have been capable of coaching the team for much longer and Paterno had already announced his intention to retire after the 2011 season but the Board could not stand being upstaged nor resist the heat being applied by yellow journalists demanding blood. The Board transformed a Sandusky-Penn State scandal into a Joe Paterno scandal; we hardly heard a word from Penn State University President Graham Spanier (who the Board rightfully fired) or from Curley and Schultz and the Board members admitted that they did not know anything more about Paterno's actions than the information contained in the indictment (which cleared Paterno of any wrongdoing) but the Board terminated Paterno immediately, ensuring that Sandusky's dreadful alleged crimes will always be associated in the public mind with Paterno. Sandusky will get his day in court, as will Curley and Schultz. The Board of Trustees should have, at the very least, met face to face with Paterno to communicate their concerns directly to him. The best solution would have been for the Board to graciously accept Paterno's offered resignation while expressing sincere appreciation for his decades of service.

The media witch hunt not only contributed to Paterno's demise but the media also prematurely reported his death, a despicable lapse of journalistic ethics that has become increasingly common (an article in USA Today called this trend of premature death reporting "obiticide"--a word coined by Craig Silverman of the Poynter Institute--and noted that previous victims included Pope John Paul II and Bob Hope). Let it be clearly noted that CBSSports.com--which led the way by incorrectly reporting Scottie Pippen's bankruptcy (Pippen is not broke and has sued 10 media outlets, including CBS)--not only committed obiticide against Paterno but committed plagiarism in doing so, relying on (but not acknowledging) an unverified (and incorrect) report from a student-run news organization. During journalism's free fall from grace it is hard to top a national news network falsely reporting a person's death by relying on an unconfirmed (and unmentioned) item provided by an amateur media outfit staffed by students.

Hopefully, with the passage of time cooler heads will prevail and Paterno will be remembered first and foremost for the "Grand Experiment" (the Big Ten Conference could make one move in that direction by reversing the hasty decision to remove Paterno's name from the Conference's football championship trophy). Joe Paterno was a shining light in the increasingly murky cesspool of college sports.

Although Joe Paterno should be most remembered for the "Grand Experiment," it should not be overlooked that a good case can be made that he is the greatest and most accomplished coach in college football history. Here is a partial list of his achievements during his 46 year career at Penn State:

1. Most wins in Division I/Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) history: 409 (409-136-3 record overall)
2. Most bowl wins and most bowl appearances: 24-12-1 bowl record overall
3. First coach to win Orange, Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Cotton Bowls at least once each
4. Five undefeated, untied seasons: 1968, 1969, 1973, 1986, 1994; only the 1986 team was officially crowned as the national champion but each of the other four squads also won major bowl games (the first three each won the Orange Bowl, while the 1994 squad defeated Oregon 38-20 in the Rose Bowl)
5. Two National Championships: 1982, 1986
6. Three Big Ten Championships: 1994, 2005, 2008
7. Posted a winning record in 38 of 46 seasons, breaking Paul "Bear" Bryant's record (Bryant had 37 winning seasons in his 38 year career)
   
8. Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year: 1986
9. Five-time American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) Coach of the Year: 1968, 1978, 1982, 1986, 2005
10. In 2009, the Sporting News ranked Paterno 13th on their list of the 50 all-time greatest coaches (MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, college basketball, and college football)

**********
Further Reading:

Cowardly Lions: Penn State Acted Slowly on Sandusky Allegations but Swiftly Made Paterno a Scapegoat (November 10, 2011)

Christine Flowers Blasts Penn State for Hastily Firing Joe Paterno (November 11, 2011)

Joe Posnanski Criticizes the Media's Coverage of the Sandusky Scandal (November 11, 2011)

Members of Penn State's Board Attempt to Justify Abrupt Paterno Firing (January 19, 2012)

Members of Penn State's Board Attempt to Justify Abrupt Paterno Firing

There has been mounting criticism of the manner and swiftness with which the Penn State Board of Trustees fired Coach Joe Paterno, so 13 of the 32 members of that Board spoke with The New York Times to try to justify their actions. It has almost been an afterthought that prior to firing Paterno the Board also fired Penn State President Graham Spanier but it should be abundantly clear why that decision was not in any way controversial: Spanier kept the Board largely uninformed about the grand jury investigation of former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for multiple charges of child abuse and then when the story became public Spanier immediately issued a statement defending Athletic Director Tim Curley and one of the school's former Vice Presidents, Gary Schultz; the grand jury charged Curley and Schultz with failing to report Sandusky's alleged crimes to the authorities and with committing perjury when testifying to the grand jury.

Whether or not Spanier, Curley and Schultz are criminally guilty, it is obvious that Penn State should want to sever ties with those men. However, the grand jury found Joe Paterno's testimony to be credible and the grand jury concluded that Paterno fulfilled his responsibilities by informing Curley and Schultz--who was then in charge of, among other things, Penn State's campus police--about what Mike McQueary had told him regarding Sandusky's suspicious conduct with a young boy in the Penn State locker room shower area. McQueary did not explicitly tell Paterno that Sandusky had committed sexual assault and thus Paterno understandably turned the matter over to his superiors with the expectation that they would take whatever action was appropriate and necessary. The fact that Curley and Schultz failed to do so is why the grand jury indicted both men.

Paterno has a sterling record not just as a field general but also as a contributor--both in the literal sense of financial contributions and also in the sense of the standards he set for his players--to the Penn State community. Scientists often say that extraordinary theoretical claims require extraordinary proof; that kind of standard should have been applied when the Board of Trustees met to decide Paterno's fate: firing Paterno would place a large taint on his good name and such a decision should not be taken lightly or made hastily. The 2011 football season was almost over and it was pretty obvious that Paterno's physical condition would not permit him to coach the team much longer. Rather than publicly disgracing a man who had served so well for so long, the Board could have and should have permitted Paterno to finish out the season before retiring. Instead, the Board took the quick and easy path, dismissing Paterno with a dismissive phone call; the Board members were too cowardly to even deliver the news face to face.

It is easy for people to say that if they had been in Paterno's shoes they would have handled the situation better. For instance, several ESPN employees made that assertion on the air but their commentaries ring hollow in light of the fact that ESPN and other media outlets suppressed for nearly a decade an audio tape Bernie Fine accuser Bobby Davis made of Fine's wife admitting knowledge of Fine's homosexual/pedophilic proclivities and activities. Unlike ESPN, Paterno did not cover up anything; McQueary made a vague report of alleged improprieties to Paterno and Paterno immediately informed his superiors about what McQueary had said. Sandusky was not a member of Paterno's coaching staff at that time and there really is nothing more that Paterno could have or should have done. On what basis could Paterno have gone to the police based on what he knew? It was up to Curley and Schultz to investigate the situation and decide upon an appropriate course of action. Perhaps Paterno should have followed up with Curley and Schultz to find out what they did but I suspect that Paterno had a great degree of misplaced trust that those men would handle things the right way.

The Penn State Board of Trustees was asleep at the switch for a long time and when the Sandusky charges woke them up they decided to make Paterno a high profile scapegoat for their own inadequacies and for the allegedly criminal conduct of two men (Curley and Schultz) employed by their university.

**********

Further Reading:

Cowardly Lions: Penn State Acted Slowly on Sandusky Allegations but Swiftly Made Paterno a Scapegoat (November 10, 2011)

Christine Flowers Blasts Penn State for Hastily Firing Joe Paterno (November 11, 2011)

Joe Posnanski Criticizes the Media's Coverage of the Sandusky Scandal (November 11, 2011)

Can Tim Tebow's Denver Broncos Outduel Bill Belichick's New England Patriots?

Tim Tebow has had a magical 2011 season, posting a 7-1 record as a starter and leading the Denver Broncos to several seemingly miraculous come from behind wins, but New England Coach Bill Belichick has specialized in devising defensive schemes to torture and confuse young, inexperienced quarterbacks. New England officially ranks last in total defense, yielding 416 yards per game, but that statistic is very misleading: the Patriots opportunistically force turnovers and thus rank a respectable 14th in points allowed (21.0 per game). The Patriots score 30.5 points per game so, much like Green Bay and New Orleans, in a very real sense their offense is their defense; it is unlikely that the Broncos can beat the Patriots by laying low for 50-55 minutes and then putting up a couple late scores to win a 13-10 nailbiter.

In terms of NFL betting, TopBet Sportsbook likes the Patriots by nearly a touchdown but Fox Sports' Peter Schrager thinks that the Broncos will win outright. The fascinating thing about Tebow, as ESPN's Tom Jackson has mentioned, is that Tebow's critics focus relentlessly on what they think Tebow cannot do but are seemingly unwilling to acknowledge the significant role he has played in Denver's victories; Jackson noted that the critics first said that Tebow could not win a game, then they said that he could not win consistently, then they said that he could not win a shootout and now they are saying that he cannot win a playoff game. Jackson half jokingly noted that if Tebow leads the Broncos to a Super Bowl victory then Tebow's critics will have to resort to saying that Tebow surely cannot lead a team to back to back championships.

Yes, Denver's defense has played well, the offensive line has blocked well for a flourishing running game and kicker Matt Prater has come through in the clutch but the Broncos were not expected to be very good this year (USA TODAY ranked Denver last in the AFC West, as did Sports Illustrated's Peter King) and the Broncos were just 1-4 before Tebow took over for Kyle Orton. Tebow has had a direct impact on the running game and the ability to control the clock has surely helped out Denver's defense as well--but in addition to those obvious tangibles it is foolish to discount the equally obvious but harder to measure intangible ways that Tebow's leadership, demeanor and poise have inspired his teammates: Tebow has a fierce will to win but he is quick to diminish the importance his own efforts in order to praise his teammates and that also surely has affected how the Broncos play on both sides of the ball. Contrast a Tim Tebow soundbite after a Denver win with one of LeBron James' infamous soundbites from last season (including such gems as "taking my talents to South Beach," boasting that he would win "not one, not two, not three" championships and dismissing critics because they would have to return to their dreary lives while James would still get to live his glorious life) and you can vividly see and hear the difference between being a real leader as opposed to simply puffing out your chest before your team has accomplished anything significant.

I expect that the Patriots will "sell out" at the line of scrimmage to force Tebow to pass the ball quickly and that the Patriots will stick to this defensive game plan for all 60 minutes, not just 50 or 55 minutes; Tebow will probably hit one or two long passes against New England's suspect secondary but if the Patriots shut down the run completely and force a couple timely turnovers then they will ultimately put up too many points for the Broncos to match.

Uncrowned Champion: Viktor Korchnoi

This article was originally published in the March/April 2009 issue of the Ohio Chess Connection.

Viktor Korchnoi, who lost World Championship matches to Anatoly Karpov in 1978 and 1981, is still going strong today; the 77 year old Grandmaster competes regularly and ranks among the top 230 players in the world! In September 2006, Korchnoi won the World Senior Chess Championship and as recently as 2007 he was still on FIDE’s top 100 list.

Jeff Sonas' Chessmetrics ratings are calculated slightly differently than FIDE ratings. According to Sonas' reckoning, Korchnoi was the number one chess player in the world from September 1965-December 1965. After briefly dropping as low as sixth on Sonas' list, Korchnoi was the second highest rated player in the world from August 1967-July 1970. Sonas ranked Korchnoi between second and eighth in the world for the next four years but Korchnoi then held on to the second spot on Sonas' list from September 1974 until December 1981. Korchnoi remained in Sonas' top ten through January 1983, dropped as low as #17 in July 1983 and then returned to Sonas' top 10 from February 1984 until March 1988. Korchnoi's last top 10 appearance in Sonas' rankings came in October 1990 when Korchnoi was 59 years old.

Korchnoi's one year peak rating in Sonas' system ranks 13^th best all-time. Considering his remarkable durability, it is not surprising that Korchnoi's ranking goes up when one examines longer time frames; his best 20 year peak average ranks fifth all-time behind only Garry Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, Emanuel Lasker and Alexander Alekhine, impressive company for a player who never won the World Championship.

Much like Paul Keres and David Bronstein faced certain pressures from Soviet authorities when they battled Mikhail Botvinnik for the World Championship, Korchnoi's path to the ultimate title was made more difficult--if not outright blocked--by the Soviets, who clearly preferred Karpov, an ethnic Russian and proud Communist party member, over Korchnoi, a player with Jewish ancestry who was hardly a Communist party loyalist even before he defected to the West.

In addition to the 1978 and 1981 World Championship matches, Korchnoi also lost the 1974 Candidates' Final match to Karpov; that turned out to be a de facto World Championship match after reigning World Champion Bobby Fischer forfeited the title to Karpov in April 1975. Karpov won his 1974 encounter with Korchnoi by the score of 12.5-11.5 (3-2, with 19 draws). The match was played in Moscow and Karpov enjoyed the full weight of Soviet support: he had the best trainers--Semyon Furman and Efim Geller; Furman had worked with Korchnoi in the past and thus was keenly familiar with his strengths and weaknesses. Meanwhile, other strong players were discouraged and/or prevented from offering any assistance to Korchnoi.

After the match, the Soviet authorities decided to punish Korchnoi for a host of "crimes" that he had committed in recent years, including various public statements that they considered to be unpatriotic; they forbade him from traveling abroad for a year, reduced his salary and denied him opportunities to write about chess or appear on television to talk about the game. In his 1978 autobiography Chess is My Life, Korchnoi wrote (p.119), "Strong pressure was being brought to bear on me, but there was also the feeling that they were awaiting for an appropriate moment, when I should begin playing less strongly, to bring me down completely." Understandably, Korchnoi defected from the Soviet Union in 1976, seeking asylum after sharing first place with Tony Miles in a tournament in Amsterdam. Although the Soviet authorities no longer directly controlled Korchnoi, they still put tremendous psychological pressure on him because his wife and son were now essentially prisoners of the state, forbidden to go live with him in the West.

In the next World Championship cycle, Korchnoi defeated former World Champions Tigran Petrosian and Boris Spassky to earn the right to face Karpov again. Prior to the match with Karpov, Korchnoi wrote an open letter to Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev: "Soviet leaders have declared more than once that sport must be separated from politics. It is self-evident that those states should also adhere to this principle who will participate in the World Sport Olympiad destined for Moscow in 1980. I appeal to your political common sense, my dear General Secretary: In order to ensure that this match for the World Chess Championship should take place under normal conditions, without political complications, I beg you to allow my family to depart from the Soviet Union."

Needless to say, the Soviets rejected Korchnoi's plea; they had already tried to get him banned from participating in the Candidates cycle and when that failed they found other ways to attack him politically and psychologically but--even though he ultimately fell just short of his goal--Korchnoi displayed his great fighting spirit in his match with Karpov. In the first 12 games, the players battled to a standstill (one win each, 10 draws) but Korchnoi had squandered several promising positions. Karpov then took what seemed to be a decisive lead by winning three of the next five games. Needing only two more wins to retain his crown--the match winner would be the first player to win six games, draws not counting--Karpov faltered, failing to win for nine straight games (eight draws, one Korchnoi win).

Karpov finally achieved his fifth win but then Korchnoi remarkably struck back with three victories in the next four games to tie the match at 5-5 (plus 21 draws). Karpov won game 32, ending one of the most rancorous matches in World Championship history. It is worth remembering that in addition to the political and psychological factors which favored Karpov in this match he also had Father Time on his side: the champion was 27 years old, while the challenger was 47.

The 1978 World Championship match seemed like a last hurrah at the top level for Korchnoi but he confounded the doubters, once again battling through the Candidates cycle to earn the right to challenge Karpov for the World Championship. Korchnoi's family was still trapped behind the Iron Curtain and in 1981 Karpov had a much easier time versus Korchnoi, winning 6-2 with 10 draws. Korchnoi made it to the semifinal round in the next Candidates cycle before losing to Garry Kasparov, the young titan who would ultimately end Karpov's reign. Korchnoi advanced to the Candidates round three more times (1985, 1988, 1991) but never again seriously challenged for the title.

Korchnoi has long been renowned for his defensive prowess but early in his career he understood that to contend for the World Championship he would have to change his style. As he explained in Chess is My Life (p. 51), "There came a time when I realized that the ability to defend was--for a good chess player--insufficient. You can't be dependent upon your opponent's will, you must try to impose your will on him...I would put down my successes in the 1960s, and my rise in stature as a chess player, to the fact that I learned how to fight for the initiative and maintain it." Here is an example of Korchnoi at his attacking best:

Efim Geller - Viktor Korchnoi [B03]

27th USSR Championship, 1960

1.e4 Nf6 Korchnoi needed a victory to retain any serious chances of winning the tournament, so he chose a sharp opening that Geller had not yet faced in serious tournament play. 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 Bf5 6.Nc3 dxe5 7.fxe5 e6 8.Nf3 Be7 9.Be2 0–0 10.0–0 f6 "By undermining the opponent's center, Black solves his opening problems, although White retains a certain advantage in space" (Garry Kasparov). 11.Bf4?! Kasparov criticizes this move, saying that in this structure the B belongs on e3, supporting the d pawn. Since Geller only needed a draw to clinch at least a tie for first place, Kasparov adds, "The line that best corresponded with White's tournament objective was 11.exf6 Bxf6 12.Be3 Nc6 13.Qd2 Qe8 14.Rad1 Rd8 15.Qc1." In that case, Kasparov gives White a slight edge, but Korchnoi had played this position before, so from his perspective the opening had already been a success: "I had some experience with it, in contrast to Geller, who knew of the position only by hearsay. My choice of opening had been correct! Now it was just a matter of playing well." 11...Nc6 12.exf6 Bxf6 13.d5 Na5 14.Ne5 Bxe5 Korchnoi says of this move, "A mistake, typical of the early period of my chess career: in striving to win material as soon as possible, I underestimated the opponent's tactical possibilities." However, Kasparov concludes that Korchnoi's suggested improvement, ...Qe7, is in fact not objectively any stronger than the text: 14...Qe7 15.g4! Bxe5 16.Bxe5 exd5 17.Bg3 Be6 18.cxd5 Rxf1+ 19.Bxf1 Nxd5 20.Nxd5 Qc5+ 21.Bf2 Qxd5 22.Qxd5 Bxd5 23.Rd1 c6 24.b4 Nc4 25.Bxc4 Bxc4 26.Rd7 and White has sufficient counterplay for his material deficit. 15.Bxe5 Naxc4 16.Bxc4 Nxc4 17.Bxg7! Korchnoi admits that he overlooked this move but Kasparov praises "the very interesting possibility of counterplay" that Korchnoi found. 17...Ne3 17...Kxg7 18.Qd4+ Rf6 19.Qxc4 and White has the initiative (Kasparov). 18.Qe2!? 18.Qd4 Qg5 19.Rf2 Nc2 20.Rxc2 Qxg7= (Korchnoi). 18...Nxf1 19.Bxf8 Nxh2! 20.Bc5 20.Kxh2? Qh4+ 21.Kg1 Qd4+ (21...Rxf8 22.Qe5 is less clear [Kasparov].) 22.Kh2 Rxf8 23.Rd1 Qf4+ 24.g3 Qg4 and Black is better. However, after 20.dxe6 Ng4 21.e7 Qd6 (21...Qd4+ 22.Kh1 Qf4 23.g3 Qxg3 24.Rf1 Bd7 25.Qc4+ Kh8 26.Bg7+ Kxg7 27.Qf7+ Kh6 28.Qf8+ and White has a perpetual.) 22.Qf3 Be6 23.Ne4 Qh2+ 24.Kf1 Qe5 25.Kg1 White can hold. 20...Ng4 21.dxe6 Qh4 22.e7 Qh2+ 22...Re8?? 23.Qc4+ Kg7 24.Qf4± (Korchnoi). 23.Kf1 Qf4+ 24.Kg1 24.Ke1 "would have quickly led to the draw that White so desired" (Kasparov): 24...Qg3+ (24...Re8 25.Nd5 Qh2 26.Nxc7 Rxe7 27.Qxe7 Qg3+ 28.Kd2 Qd3+ 29.Ke1 Qg3+ with an equal position) 25.Kd1 Kf7 26.Qc4+ Kg6 27.Rc1 Ne5 28.Ne2 Qd3+ 29.Qxd3 Nxd3= 24...Re8 25.Qf3 Qh2+ 26.Kf1 Qh5 27.Qd5+? "In his career, Geller played and won many decisive games. When he needed to win, and his opponent was satisfied with a draw, he would calmly break down his opponent's resistance. He rarely found himself in the opposite situation--of fighting for a draw. And in this game his nerves let him down. Incidentally, similar situations also occurred with me and I did not always emerge with honor from a difficult situation" (Korchnoi). After 27.Kg1! Black has nothing better than forcing a repetition: 27...Qh2+ 28.Kf1 Qh5 (28...Qh1+?? 29.Ke2 Qxa1 30.Qxf5 Qxb2+ 31.Kd3+-) 27...Kg7 28.Qd4+ After 28.Re1 Bd3+ 29.Qxd3 Qxc5 30.Qg3 h5 White cannot play 31.Qh4?? because of 31...Qc4+ 32.Kg1 Qd4+ 33.Kf1 Ne3+ 34.Rxe3 Qxh4–+, but Kasparov points out that 31.Qf4 Rxe7 32.Rxe7+ Qxe7 33.Nd5 Qf7 34.Qxf7+ Kxf7 35.Nxc7 Ne3+ 36.Kf2 Nd1+ 37.Kg3 Nxb2 38.Nb5 would have led to a draw. 28...Kg6 29.Ne2 29.Qd8 Qh1+ 30.Bg1 Ne3+ 31.Ke2 Qxg2+ 32.Bf2 Kf7 33.Kxe3 Qg5+ 34.Kf3 Qg4+ 35.Ke3 Rxe7+–+ 29...Qh1+ 30.Ng1? 30.Qg1 Qxg1+ 31.Kxg1 b6 32.Ba3 Ne3 offers more resistance (Korchnoi). 30...b6 31.Qd8 Nf6 32.Ba3 Be4 33.Qd2 c5 34.b4 c4 35.b5 Bd3+ In the wake of Korchnoi's success in this tournament, David Bronstein wrote, "The play of the new USSR champion is characterized by amazing tenacity in defense, resourcefulness in attack and virtuoso mastery in the endgame." Famed Grandmaster and trainer Vladimir Simagin added, "In the field of tactical mastery, Korchnoi, in my view, is not inferior to Tal." In a career that has spanned six decades and counting, this still remains one of Korchnoi's favorite games: "This is a special game, one that is closest to my heart. Played towards the end of a difficult tournament, it is full of fighting spirit from start to finish." 0–1

This win helped Korchnoi to clinch the first of his four Soviet Championship titles. Although Korchnoi clearly proved that he could be a devastating attacker, he will forever be remembered mainly for his durability and for being a tenacious, opportunistic and resourceful defender. In Chess is My Life (p. 40), he recalled at least three occasions that he drew games after being down a minor piece, concluding, "It is evidently all a question of optimism. If a player believes in miracles, he can sometimes perform them."

Bernie Fine Case Reveals Double Standards

As soon as the grand jury released its report about alleged pedophile Jerry Sandusky, ESPN and other media outlets essentially formed a lynch mob demanding Joe Paterno's head, a demand that the Penn State Board of Trustees eagerly met; while the media applauded the Board of Trustees' action, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office was less than impressed: spokesman Nils Hagen-Frederiksen said, "We have a cooperating witness [Paterno], an individual who testified, provided truthful testimony but two others who were found by a grand jury to commit perjury whose legal expenses are being paid for university. One is on administrative leave. Very interesting development. It's certainly curious and [has] not been explained yet. Speaking as a prosecuting agency, we have a cooperating witness who has not been charged, while two individuals accused of committing crimes continue to be affiliated."

Sandusky had not been on Coach Paterno's staff for more than a decade by the time the grand jury report came out--but Syracuse assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine was literally Jim Boeheim's right hand man for the past 36 years, during which time Fine allegedly abused at least three children, including two Syracuse ball boys. While Paterno expressed sympathy for Sandusky's alleged victims and remorse that he had not been able to do more--even though the grand jury found that Paterno had not committed any wrongdoing--Boeheim called Fine's accusers money-hungry liars while sanctimoniously declaring, "I'm not Joe Paterno. Somebody didn't come and tell me Bernie Fine did something and I'm hiding it. I know nothing. If I saw some reason not to support Bernie, I would not support him. If somebody showed me a reason, proved that reason, I would not support him. But until then, I'll support him until the day I die." Boeheim certainly is "not Joe Paterno"--Paterno has a much better resume as an educator, philanthropist and coach than Boeheim does. There is also no indication that Paterno had direct knowledge of Sandusky's conduct, while at least one of Fine's accusers states that Boeheim saw him staying in Fine's hotel room on the road (it is unusual for ball boys to travel with a team, let alone stay in the same hotel room with an assistant coach).

After the evidence against Fine piled up--including a tape of Fine's wife admitting that she knew about Fine's conduct--Syracuse fired Fine on Sunday and Boeheim went into a full backpedal, apologizing for attacking the integrity of Fine's accusers and stating that victims of abuse should not hesitate to come forward. It is not yet clear exactly what Boeheim knew about Fine's alleged misconduct but Boeheim certainly was in a greater position to know about what Fine was doing--and had a greater responsibility to keep tabs on his right hand man--than Paterno was in position to know about the actions of someone who had not been on his staff for more than 10 years. I am not saying that Boeheim should be fired but at the very least he should be formally reprimanded for the irresponsible comments he made right after the Fine investigation became publicized; obviously, if any evidence comes to light that Boeheim in any way covered up for Fine then Boeheim should be fired (I have the same opinion about Paterno--the reason I object to his firing is that Paterno was fired without any evidence that he did anything wrong).

Meanwhile, the same ESPN that littered the airwaves with high-minded commentary about Paterno's supposed moral failings suppressed for nearly a decade the tape that Fine accuser Bobby Davis made of Fine's wife admitting knowledge of Fine's homosexual/pedophilic proclivities and activities. Why didn't ESPN turn that tape over to the authorities? How many children did Fine abuse after ESPN had reason to believe that he is a sexual predator? ESPN and other media outlets insisted that Paterno deserved to be immediately fired even though a grand jury found that he committed no wrongdoing and had no knowledge of Sandusky's conduct; applying that reasoning, how many ESPN executives and reporters should be immediately fired for not alerting the police about the Davis tape?

Joe Posnanski Criticizes the Media's Coverage of the Sandusky Scandal

The most striking thing about ESPN's seemingly around the clock coverage of the Sandusky Scandal is that Jerry Sandusky's name is hardly mentioned at all. ESPN and other media outlets have made Joe Paterno the face of this scandal--and Penn State's Board of Trustees piled on by unceremoniously firing Paterno instead of letting him retire after his contract expired at the end of this season.

Joe Posnanski, who has been working on a biography of Paterno for the past two years, strongly believes that the voracious appetite of the 24 hour news cycle has unfairly chewed up and spit out the good name of a fundamentally decent man. Here is an excerpt from Posnanski's take on Paterno's firing:

I’m not saying I know Joe Paterno. I’m saying I know a whole lot about him.

And what I know is complicated. But, beyond complications--and I really believe this with all my heart--there’s this, and this is exclusively my opinion: Joe Paterno has lived a profoundly decent life.

Nobody has really wanted to say this lately, and I grasp that. The last week has obviously shed a new light on him and his program--a horrible new light--and if you have any questions about how I feel about all that, please scroll back up to my two points at the top.

But I have seen some things in the last few days that have felt rotten, utterly wrong--a piling on that goes even beyond excessive, a dancing on the grave that makes me ill. Joe Paterno has lived a whole life. He has improved the lives of countless people...

I am sickened, absolutely sickened, that some of those people whose lives were fundamentally inspired and galvanized by Joe Paterno have not stepped forward to stand up for him this week, have stood back and allowed him to be painted as an inhuman monster who was only interested in his legacy, even at the cost of the most heinous crimes against children imaginable.

Shame on them.

And why? I’ll tell you my opinion: Because they were afraid. And I understand that. A kind word for Joe Paterno in this storm is taken by many as a pro vote for a child molester. A quick, “Wait a minute, Joe Paterno is a good man. Let’s see what happened here” is translated as an attempt to minimize the horror of what Jerry Sandusky is charged with doing. It takes courage to stand behind someone you believe in when it’s this bad outside. It takes courage to stand up for a man in peril, even if he stood up for you...

...the way Joe Paterno has lived his life has earned him something more than instant fury, more than immediate assumptions of the worst, more than the happy cheers of critics who have always believed that there was something phony about the man and his ideals. He deserves what I would hope we all deserve--for the truth to come out, or, anyway, the closest thing to truth we can find.

I don’t think Joe Paterno has gotten that. And I think that’s sad.

Christine Flowers Blasts Penn State for Hastily Firing Joe Paterno

When I criticized Penn State's Board of Trustees for firing Joe Paterno I realized that I was swimming against a tidal wave of public opinion but I simply felt that someone has to speak truth to power regardless of how controversial that stance might be; no matter how many people say otherwise, it is not justified to fire Joe Paterno without clear cause nor does that summary action realistically bring comfort to Jerry Sandusky's alleged victims. It is heartening to find that at least one other writer is not afraid to speak an unpopular truth: a Philadelphia Daily News column by Christine Flowers brilliantly makes it clear that it is possible--and indeed quite reasonable--to feel full compassion for Sandusky's alleged victims while also believing that Penn State's Board of Trustees acted in a cowardly and disgraceful fashion toward Paterno. Flowers' entire piece is worth reading but her conclusion is particularly stirring:

I'm seething with anger that Penn State decided to fire Paterno before letting the legal system wind its way through the normal processes. This is a man who gave unerringly of himself to the college, who built Penn State and who didn't deserve to be kicked to the side of the road for appearances sake.

Was it too much to ask for a little introspection before trashing his legacy?

It's not a simple case of blind loyalty, nor does it mean that we're ignoring the plight of the abused kids. Clearly, there is evidence that heinous crimes were committed. But, why is it only when the accuser is a child or a woman that the usual presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" is exchanged for "hang 'em high"?

And the fact that the board of trustees didn't even have the decency to tell the greatest coach of the last half-century, in person, that he was being fired is a disgusting example of cowardice.

Pliny once wrote, "It is generally much more shameful to lose a good reputation than never to have acquired it."

JoePa definitely acquired it. But the shame is ours.

The Penn State Board of Trustees claims to be acting in the best interests of Penn State University and most media members are blindly parroting that idea but the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office--which presumably knows more about this case than ESPN's talking heads and the various other commentators who apparently delight in bashing Paterno--has a completely different take: spokesman Nils Hagen-Frederiksen said, "We have a cooperating witness [Paterno], an individual who testified, provided truthful testimony but two others who were found by a grand jury to commit perjury whose legal expenses are being paid for university. One is on administrative leave. Very interesting development. It's certainly curious and [has] not been explained yet. Speaking as a prosecuting agency, we have a cooperating witness who has not been charged, while two individuals accused of committing crimes continue to be affiliated."

The way that Penn State has handled this entire matter is a joke but not a very funny one. Why did Penn State muzzle Paterno (by cancelling his regularly scheduled news conference prior to firing him), not bring forth any administrator to publicly speak about the scandal and then send out interim head coach Tom Bradley to face questions that he cannot--and should not have to--answer? What possible sense does it make to fire Paterno and yet retain the services of Mike McQueary, the person who witnessed--and did nothing to stop--a criminal act? Why did Penn State initially indicate that McQueary would be on the sidelines during Saturday's Nebraska game and only after much public outcry then switch gears and say that--allegedly for his own protection--McQueary would not in fact be on the sidelines? If the idea behind firing Paterno was to prevent the Nebraska game from becoming an unseemly spectacle it is fair to say that the Board of Trustees completely failed--and that this failure was quite foreseeable.

The Board of Trustees acted with but one goal in mind--turning Paterno into the public face of and scapegoat for the Sandusky Scandal; the Board is despicable and most of the media coverage of Paterno's firing is equally despicable.

Cowardly Lions: Penn State Acted Slowly on Sandusky Allegations but Swiftly Made Paterno a Scapegoat

Penn State University officials acted very slowly regarding allegations that former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky sexually abused children--so slowly, in fact, that two high ranking Penn State officials have been charged with perjury and with failing to report child abuse. Now that Sandusky faces a 40 count indictment, Penn State has decided to act quickly--not to punish the aforementioned two officials but to zero in on the biggest name tangentially associated with this case and transform him into the scapegoat for the university's sins. Joe Paterno, the winningest coach in major college football history and a respected figure with an exemplary record on and off the field during his 46 year tenure as the face and voice of Penn State Nittany Lions football, was unceremoniously fired on Wednesday night via a hastily arranged phone call. The 84 year old Paterno, whose name scarcely appears in the 23 page Grand Jury report about Sandusky and who was absolved of any wrongdoing--unlike former Penn State Athletic Director Timothy Curley and former Penn State Senior Vice President Gary Schultz--offered to retire at the end of this season (when his contract expires) but rather than allow the legend to bow out gracefully the Board of Trustees shamed and embarrassed a man who has devoted his life not just to the school's football program but also to upgrading the school's academics.

Above and beyond Paterno's numerous on-field accomplishments, Paterno donated and raised tens of millions of dollars for Penn State's library and for the school's various colleges/academic departments. Paterno certainly valued winning but he emphasized doing things the right way; he suspended star players Curtis Enis and Joe Jurevicius for the 1998 Citrus Bowl for infractions that probably would have been ignored at most other big-time college programs. In 2000, Paterno caught some flak for not suspending starting quarterback Rashard Casey, who was charged with assault but later found not guilty. Those two snapshots from Paterno's career demonstrate his character: when he knew that star players had committed wrongdoings he kicked them off of the team even though that could have cost Penn State a big win but when he believed that his player was innocent he stood behind that player despite receiving a lot of very public and very harsh criticism. Jerry Sandusky, Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz have been charged with crimes but the Penn State Board of Trustees would like to turn Paterno into the public face of this scandal, make him the official scapegoat and then run him out of town, presumably carrying the bulk of the filth from this mess on his back.

The press conference announcing Paterno's firing was surreal. John P. Surma, the Board's vice chairman and the designated spokesman for the evening, could not provide one specific reason that Paterno had to be fired immediately. Surma admitted that he and the Board did not have all of the facts of the case and did not know anything beyond what appears in the Grand Jury's report. Surma would neither confirm nor deny that Penn State is paying the legal fees for Curley and Schultz. All Surma could do was mindlessly repeat the mantra that firing Paterno was "in the best interest" of Penn State University. That would certainly be true if, in fact, Paterno had committed a crime or if there were good reason to believe that he had been grossly negligent--but based on the publicly available information, it could be argued that the most that Paterno is guilty of is having too much faith in the ability/willingness of his superiors to properly handle the situation that he had brought to their attention, namely that (according to Paterno's testimony, which the Grand Jury found to be credible) in 2002 Mike McQueary had told Paterno that he saw Sandusky engaging in some kind of "horseplay" in a shower with a 10 year old boy. McQueary now says that he saw Sandusky sodomize the boy but there is no evidence or testimony that he communicated that important detail to Paterno; thus, Paterno immediately passed on what he knew--that McQueary had seen Sandusky conduct himself in a questionable manner--to Curley, who did not pursue the matter in 2002 and who provided testimony that the Grand Jury considered to be false. Why is there not more anger directed at McQueary? If McQueary, then a 28 year old adult, truly witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a boy in a shower why didn't McQueary immediately take physical action to prevent the crime and/or call the police? Surma indicated that no action has been taken to fire McQueary, who is now Penn State's recruiting coordinator/receivers coach. Why is it apparently so important to fire Paterno but not important to fire McQueary?

Much has been made by the media about Paterno's recent statement that he wishes he had done more but, as ESPN's Rece Davis astutely pointed out, the full quote from Paterno is that "in hindsight" Paterno wishes he had done more; Davis noted that there is a big difference between saying that in hindsight one wishes that one had done more and saying that one believes that he did not do enough based on what he knew at the time. I would hope that in hindsight each person associated with this sordid case wishes that he had done more but the Board of Trustees owed it to Paterno to let Paterno clearly state what he knew and when he knew it before just ending his career in such an impersonal and abrupt manner. Paterno wanted to answer questions about the Sandusky scandal but Penn State cancelled Paterno's regularly scheduled Tuesday press conference. Paterno abided by the university's wishes that he not speak publicly but that just seemed to make the situation worse; various media members took the absurd position that Paterno must be fired now because it would supposedly be an untenable situation for Paterno to answer questions about Sandusky for the first time after this Saturday's Nebraska game. Instead of cancelling Paterno's press conference and then firing him for not talking, wouldn't it make more sense to simply let Paterno talk? Unless, of course, the Board of Trustees is more interested in creating a scapegoat than really finding out exactly who was negligent back in 2002.

I don't care if people would be rioting to get Paterno fired or rioting for him to keep his job, the Board of Trustees should make decisions based on facts--not on emotion and not on perceived public relations/crisis management considerations. You don't fire a good man because this may create a favorable soundbite or reduce the media crush. The Board should have met with Paterno face to face and given him an opportunity to explain what he did or did not know and what he did or did not do regarding whatever McQueary told him in 2002. If Paterno could not satisfactorily explain his conduct then it certainly would make sense to fire him--but in the absence of clear evidence of Paterno's guilt or complicity how can the Board justify dismissing him without even giving any cause? In the absence of overwhelming evidence, decades of devoted service should not be obliterated by a brief, impersonal phone call. The sad, perverted irony is that Sandusky will get more of an opportunity to plead his case in court than the Board of Trustees gave Paterno to salvage his good name.

I don't know if Sandusky is guilty of some or all of the heinous charges against him but has everyone forgotten the Duke lacrosse scandal and the Kobe Bryant case? Public opinion vociferously spoke out against the Duke lacrosse players and against Bryant but in both instances the criminal charges were ultimately dropped. Sandusky will get his day in court and it makes sense for Penn State to suspend or fire various officials who face criminal charges and/or clearly did not perform their basic duties but it is unfair and unjust to fire Paterno without ascertaining the basic facts--and Surma stated that the Board has not ascertained those basic facts.

Paterno's "Grand Experiment"--the idea that academic achievement, integrity and high level athletic accomplishment are not mutually exclusive goals at major colleges--has now ended with Penn State humiliating and betraying a man who made so many contributions not just to his football program but to his school. The Penn State Board of Trustees voted unanimously to immediately fire Paterno; I hope that they are damn sure that he is as culpable as everyone will assume him to be in the wake of the disgrace that they have heaped upon him and his good name, because terminating Paterno's career in this abrupt manner has placed a permanent stain on his legacy.

The stark reality is that Paterno is either a basically good man who has been taken down by a Board that has been pressuring him to retire off and on for several years or he is to some degree complicit in horrifying acts of abuse against defenseless children. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I believe that the former is the case--but, regardless of what will come out in the ensuing days, weeks and months, Paterno's "Grand Experiment" has ended ignominiously and its demise may very well be the death knell for any hope of salvaging the integrity of collegiate sports: the whole infrastructure of major collegiate athletics needs to be reconfigured, most likely by reorganizing it as various minor leagues that are partially, if not completely, separated from the academic mission of our nation's universities; the unholy marriage of higher education with big-time sports seems to be irredeemably corrupt on multiple levels, resulting in an endless parade of scandals, criminal charges and broken lives.

Cardinals Seek to Crown their Improbable 2011 Season

The 2011 World Series has had more twists and turns than a Dean Koontz novel: three of the first six games have been decided by one run, including St. Louis' 11 inning, 10-9 Game Six win over Texas in which the Rangers twice were just one strike away from claiming their first World Series title. Now the Cardinals have a chance to win their second World Series in six years and the franchise's 11th overall (the Cardinals are already second on the all-time leaderboard, trailing only the Yankees' 27 titles).

The World Series has seen an abundance of heroes, goats and bizarre occurrences. In St. Louis' 16-7 Game Three win, Albert Pujols cracked three home runs to tie a single game World Series record set by Babe Ruth (twice) and Reggie Jackson--but Pujols did not get another hit until he delivered a clutch double in the bottom of the ninth inning of Game Six. Jayson Stark hailed St. Louis Manager Tony LaRussa as the second coming of Anatoly Karpov after LaRussa "checkmated" the Rangers in Game One but the "Can you hear me now?" bullpen fiasco in Game Five put at least a slight dent in LaRussa's genius reputation, with the St. Louis savant seeming less like an International Grandmaster and more like a patzer (or an "International Grandmother," the self-deprecating line that Ben Finegold once used to describe his less than inspired play in a chess game). In Game Six, various players exchanged the goat's horns as the teams combined for five errors. After David Freese--who eventually hit the game-winning home run--dropped a routine pop-up, Fox commentator Tim McCarver cracked that, unlike ground balls, fly balls do not take strange bounces.

In a few hours, we may be lauding Pujols for being the 21st Century Mr. October--or we may be looking at his Game Three outburst as nothing but an aberration in an otherwise subpar series. LaRussa may be certified as a baseball genius with three World Series titles on his resume--or he may be critiqued for being a highly decorated manager with just a 2-4 record on MLB's biggest stage. Freese may go down in history with Bucky Dent as a role player who hit a crucial postseason home run for the eventual World Champions--or Freese's Game Six blast may be just a memorable footnote a la Carlton Fisk's 1975 shot. This is not to say that any such snap judgments will be right or fair but that is the nature of the media beast and that nature has only been amplified with the proliferation of social media and the apparent insatiable need that many people have to render an instant, irrevocable historical verdict about whatever has just happened.

On the Texas side of the ledger, bazooka-armed catcher Mike Napoli is hitting .375 with 10 RBI, placing him in striking distance of Bobby Richardson's World Series record of 12 RBI set in 1960; Richardson's Yankees famously lost to Pittsburgh in Game Seven courtesy of Bill Mazeroski's home run but Richardson's big bat enabled him to become the only World Series MVP who played for the losing team. Nelson Cruz collected 13 RBI in the ALCS--surpassing Richardson (and John Valentin)--for the most RBIs in any postseason series and even though he has been relatively quiet versus St. Louis a big Game Seven performance could enable him to grab MVP honors. Adrian Beltre and Ian Kinsler are each hitting over .300 in the World Series heading into Game Seven.

The last road team to win game seven on the road in the World Series is the "We are Family" Pittsburgh Pirates in 1979; that stat--and the Cardinals' Rasputin-like ability to repeatedly escape death--suggests that the Cardinals will triumph tonight.

MLB betting is the place to look for odds on who will game seven.

Rashid Nezhmetdinov: "Grandmaster of Chess Beauty"

"Players die, tournaments are forgotten but the works of great artists are left behind them to live on forever."--Mikhail Tal

Rashid Nezhmetdinov never received the Grandmaster title but former World Champion Max Euwe called Nezhmetdinov--who won numerous brilliancy prizes for his sparkling victories over many elite players--"Grandmaster of chess beauty." Here is the first of a three part video series celebrating Nezhmetdinov's great career (you can access the second and third parts at the end of the first video):

Uncrowned Champion: David Bronstein

This article was originally published in the January/February 2009 issue of the Ohio Chess Connection.
 
Of all the Uncrowned Champions, David Bronstein (1924-2006) came closest to winning the World Championship: in 1951, he led his match with World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik 11.5-10.5 before losing game 23 and drawing game 24, enabling Botvinnik to retain the title with a 12-12 tie.

Just like Paul Keres' quest for the World Championship was likely blocked by Soviet malfeasance during the 1948 World Championship Tournament, there have long been rumblings that the Soviets strongly encouraged Bronstein not to defeat Botvinnik. Here is what Bronstein, in his book The Sorcerer’s Apprentice (1995), said about this issue: "I have been asked many, many times if I was obliged to lose the 23rd game and if there was a conspiracy against me to stop me from taking Botvinnik's title. A lot of nonsense has been written about this. The only thing that I am prepared to say about all this controversy is that I was subjected to strong psychological pressure from various origins and it was entirely up to me to yield to that pressure or not. Let’s leave it at that. I had reasons not to become the World Champion as in those times such a title meant that you were entering an official world of chess bureaucracy with many formal obligations. Such a position is not compatible with my character."

Bronstein later explained why he played in the FIDE World Championship events even though winning the title was not his primary goal: "In those days there were very few international tournaments, and if one wanted to be respected by the Chess Federation, it was necessary to play to prove that you are amongst the best."

Not surprisingly, Botvinnik and Bronstein were on less than amicable terms for a while after that tightly contested match. Botvinnik said that he had been out of form due to a prolonged period of chess inactivity; he did not play any serious tournament or match games from 1948 (when he won the World Championship) until 1951, when he placed fifth in the Soviet Championship (four points behind Keres, who finished clear first). Bronstein offered this rebuttal to Botvinnik's excuse: "Also I think that it is not fair of Botvinnik to mention year after year that he did not crush me in the match only because he did not play a single game during the preceding three years and that he was rusty. I am convinced that he did not play because he did not want to reveal his opening secrets to his challenger and wanted to save his energy."

While many people emphasize the sporting aspect of chess, Bronstein had a great and nuanced appreciation for the artistic aspect of chess and he even suggested hopefully that some day chess games would not be recorded as wins, losses or draws but rather simply played for the enjoyment of the participants and the spectators. It is easy to see why someone with that temperament may not have been best suited to be the World Champion. Bronstein said, "Chess on the highest level is not only a board game. It is much more. It is part of human civilization. Both Dr. Emanuel Lasker and Dr. Max Euwe have described chess mainly as a fight…I am proud of the fact that I am not known for fights off of the chessboard but only on it."

On the other hand, Bronstein had enough ability and fighting spirit to draw a 24 game match with a fiercely competitive player who retained the title off and on for a 15 year period so it is certainly possible to envision Bronstein being a fine World Champion who would have brought a unique perspective to that role and been a great ambassador for the game.

According to Jeff Sonas' Chessmetrics ratings, Bronstein was the strongest player in the world from October 1950 to December 1951. His one year peak rating (attained from January-December 1951) is the 20^th highest of all-time; the only players with a higher one year peak rating in the post-World War I era who did not win the World Championship are Viktor Korchnoi and Vassily Ivanchuk. You may recall that in my previous Uncrowned Champions article I mentioned that by Sonas' reckoning Keres had the 24^th highest single year peak rating of all-time but that Keres' ranking increased over longer time frames; Keres' 20 year peak rating is the seventh best all-time. Bronstein's one year peak rating is higher than Keres' but Bronstein's 20 year peak rating ranks 15^th on Sonas' all-time list. These numbers suggest that Bronstein at his absolute best was slightly stronger than Keres at his absolute best but that Keres retained a high position among the elite players longer than Bronstein did; Keres was still a top 10 player well into his 50s and at the time of his death in 1975 at age 59 he placed 36^th on Sonas' list for that year, while Bronstein exited the world top 10 at the age of 35 and during the year that he turned 50 he dropped from 25^th to 50^th in the world, never again ranking higher than 27^th.

Despite coming agonizingly close to dethroning Botvinnik in 1951, Bronstein never played in another World Championship match. In the next championship cycle (1953), Bronstein finished in a three way tie for second with Sammy Reshevsky and Keres (behind Vasily Smyslov) at the Zurich Candidates Tournament. However, for someone who placed such a value on the aesthetic side of chess it is most fitting that Bronstein's name will forever be associated with that event due to his wonderful book titled Zurich International Chess Tournament, 1953, an all-time classic that every chess player should own (and read!). Bronstein explained his goal for the book: "I started from the premise that every full-bodied game of chess is an artistic endeavor arising out of a struggle between two masters of equal rank. The kernel of a game of chess is the creative clash of plans, the battle of chess ideas, which takes on its highest form in the middlegame."

Bronstein disliked the practice of citing reams and reams of variations, believing that the higher truth can be lost while wading through such minutiae: "Variations can be interesting, if they show the beauty of chess; they become useless when they exceed the limits of what a man can calculate; and they are a real evil when they are substituted for the study and clarification of positions in which the outcome is decided by intuition, fantasy and talent."

Bronstein also wrote 200 Open Games (a wonderful exploration of games that all began with 1.e4), Sorcerer's Apprentice and Secret Notes. Throughout all of these works, his love of the game and generous spirit are on full display. That generous spirit was put to the test in 1976 when Viktor Korchnoi—another "Uncrowned Champion"—defected from the Soviet Union. Bronstein was one of the few Soviet GMs who did not sign the official letter denouncing Korchnoi. As punishment for his brave stand, the Soviet authorities took away Bronstein's stipend and greatly limited his opportunities to play the game that he loved so much. Here is a game between the two "Uncrowned Champions"; the opening is nothing special but the finish more than makes up for that:

David Bronstein - Viktor Korchnoi [C83]

Moscow-Leningrad Match, 1962 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3 Be7 10.Bc2 (10.Nbd2 is more commonly seen in top level chess today) 10...0–0 11.Qe2 f5!? Fritz prefers White after this move and suggests that 11...Nc5 is a stronger choice. 12.exf6 Bxf6 13.Nbd2 Bf5 14.Nxe4 Bxe4 15.Bxe4 dxe4 16.Qxe4± Black does not have much compensation for his sacrificed pawn. 16...Qd7 17.Bf4!? 17.Be3 looks safer. 17...Rae8 18.Qc2 Bh4 Thanks to the unprotected B on f4, Black could have regained his pawn by playing 18...Bxc3. 19.Bg3 Bxg3 20.hxg3 Ne5 21.Nxe5 Rxe5 22.Rfe1 Rd5 23.Rad1 c5 24.a4 Rd8 25.Rxd5 Qxd5 26.axb5 axb5 27.Qe2 b4 28.cxb4 cxb4 29.Qg4 b3 30.Kh2 Qf7 31.Qg5 Rd7 32.f3 h6 33.Qe3 Rd8 34.g4 Kh8 35.Qb6 Rd2 36.Qb8+ Kh7 37.Re8 Qxf3?? In Sorcerer's Apprentice, Bronstein suggested that Black should have played 37...Qd7 38.Rh8+ Kg6 39.Rxh6+! 

In "New in Chess 2007/1," Bronstein wrote, "Korchnoi remained unruffled. He wrote down my move on his scoresheet and began carefully studying the position. I think it seemed incredible to him that White could sacrifice his last rook (I myself could not believe my eyes!). And only when he had convinced himself, did he stop the clocks. These are the variations: A) 39... Kf7 40.Qc7+ Kg8 41.Qc8+ Kf7 42.Qe6+ Kf8 43.Rh8 mate; B) 39... Kg5 40.Qe5+ Kxg4 41.Rg6+ Kh4 42.Qg5 mate; C) 39... gxh6 40.Qg8+ Kf6 41.Qf8+; D) 39... Kxh6 40.Qh8+ Kg6 41.Qh5+ Kf6 42.g5+!"

David Bronstein was a first rate chess artist and an engaging writer. As a theoretician, he will always be remembered for playing the King's Gambit against the strongest competition and for helping to develop the King's Indian Defense into a powerful weapon. GM Yasser Seirawan declared, "I consider David Bronstein to be the single most inventive chess grandmaster ever. Full stop, end of story."