World Champions from Philidor to Spassky

World Chess Network About Us · Contact Us Retrieve Password · Update My Account Welcome Membership Events Next »...

Author: Larry Parr

109 downloads 1437 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

Welcome Membership Events

Next »

Promotions Site Pros by Larry Parr

Top Players Chess News

Chess History The World Chess Championship and Champions: 1747-2001 + The Kings of Chess:

•

A 21-Player Salute · The Concept of the "World Champion" + World Title Matches

Is there a meaningful distinction between “the champion of the chess world” and “the chess champion of the world”? The answer to this often unasked question has, as we shall see, important ramifications about who does or does not belong in the pantheon of world chess champions.

and Tournaments

The conventional, though by no means universal, wisdom is that the family tree of world title holders is a mere sapling, dating Libro di giuocho di scacchi, an Italian version of Cessolis, back only to 1886, when Wilhelm printed in Florence in 1493. Steinitz defeated Johann Zukertort in “the first official match,” as the phrase goes, for the world chess championship. But in our “THE KINGS OF CHESS: A 21-PLAYER SALUTE," we extend the world championship line back to the mid18th century and Andre Philidor, thereby adding seven champions to the 14 commonly or officially recognized from Steinitz to the present-day kingpins. Next » ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!

World Chess Network™, Banter Chess™, Predict-A-Move™ © Copyright 2000 - 2005 All rights reserved. Master Games International Inc. Privacy Policy ~ Policies and Guidelines

Login

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/introduction.php17/04/05 13:09:46

·

FAQ

The Concept of the World Champion - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ

Welcome Membership « Previous « • » Next »

Events Promotions Site Pros

by Larry Parr


Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 + The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute

•

The Concept of the "World Champion"

+ World Title Matches and Tournaments

One claim often heard is that before Steinitz and Zukertort each began to call himself the world chess champion at about the time of Paul Morphy’s death in 1884, the concept of a world chess champion did not exist. Wrong. On April 14, 1859, during a banquet at the London Chess Club in honor of Paul Morphy, club president Augustus Mongredien proposed a toast to “the champion of the chess world.” When Morphy returned to the United States following his triumphs in Europe, American chess fans in Boston and New York feted him as “the chess champion of the world.” On both sides of the Atlantic, leading chess personalities stated that Morphy was either champion of the chess world or chess champion of the world. No one appeared Paul Charles Morphy (b. 1837 - d. 1884) to be making even a casuistical distinction between the two claims. Indeed, the claim World champion: 1858 to 1862 made by Mongredien on behalf of Morphy might have been made in slightly altered form for various players since the rise of modern chess in the late 15th century. From about 1475 to 1575, the leading players of Spain (say, Francesch Vicent and Ruy Lopez) were the leading players of the chess world. From 1575 to about 1650, the leading players of Italy (say, Leonardo da Cutri and Alessandro Salvio) were the leading players of the chess world. Then came a hiatus. In the 100 years following the deaths of such leading Italian players as Pietro Carrera (1647) and Giulio Polerio (1612), not to mention Salvio (c. 1640) and Gioacchino Greco (c. 1634), no player assumed a special position. Perhaps chess masters fell out of fashion in polite parlors. Perhaps the royal courts of Europe ceased picking up chessmen in favor of picking up the socio-economic pieces following the Thirty Years War (1618 - 1648), Europe’s most destructive conflict until the 20th century. Not until Andre Philidor (1726 - 1795) triumphed easily over Phillip Stamma (+8 -1 =1) in 1747, following up this triumph with the publication of his famous L’analyse du jeu des Echecs (Analysis of the Game of Chess), was there a widely recognized new champion of the chess world. Philidor became the finest player of France, which became the center of chess until nearly the mid - 19th century. Before Philidor, chess records are too scanty to distinguish among the leading masters of a given period. There is no way to argue at length or even to enjoy a brief and rollicking BS-session about the probable outcome of a match between Greco and Salvio or da Cutri and Polerio. But Philidor? We know that he was conceded a special status by nearly all players of his time. He held in spades the kind of Philidor Playing Blindfold at Parsloe's Engraving from the Sporting Magazine, 1794 “exceptional position” that Jacob Loewenthal accorded Wilhelm Steinitz more than a century later after the young Austrian triumphed at London 1872 and then later the same year destroyed Zukertort (+7 -1 =4) in their lesser known first match. “Mr. Steinitz,” opined Loewenthal, “may be fairly regarded as the present occupant of the exceptional position formerly held by Mr. Morphy.” Note the implication in Loewenthal’s statement, a notion which was apparently not widely shared at the time, that Morphy’s great feats of 1858 and 1859 had yielded by 1872 to the twin ministrations of ruthless time and another master’s subsequent, if not equally enormous, successes. The concept that time undermines every throne, chessic and otherwise, will be important when evaluating Bobby Fischer’s claim to have won the world championship in 1972 and to have defended a meaningful title in his match with Boris Spassky in 1992.

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/conceptWorldChampion.php (1 of 2)17/04/05 13:10:16

The Concept of the World Champion - Chess History - World Chess Network

Wilhelm Steinitz (b. 1836 - d. 1900): World champion: 1886 to 1894

Clearly, a case can be made for extending the title line back beyond Steinitz to Morphy and eventually to Philidor. To include players earlier than Philidor runs up against a paucity of information about the relative strengths of various masters, though there is no telling what future researches may yield. Yet there are embarrassing intellectual problems with extending the title line back beyond 1886. Why, for example, would not Zukertort figure as co-champion with Steinitz after his triumph at London in 1883? If Anderssen is to be considered world champion after winning London 1851, should not Zukertort get the same honor after London 1883, especially since Steinitz accepted him as an equal negotiating partner for their title match in 1886? And since we are here accepting Steinitz as world champion from 1866, we would logically have to accept Zukertort as co-champion from 1883 to 1886, especially since Steinitz claimed no pride of place over his opponent in their negotiations. There is no answer to the above line of reasoning except to note that Stenitiz demolished Zukertort in their 1872 match and that no one has hitherto come up with the argument given in the preceding paragraph. The conventional wisdom is that Zukertort was never world champion and that Steinitz became the first world champion in 1886. We think that there is enough minority authority to buck the conventional wisdom about 1886, but we quake at being the first to include Zukertort among the world champions. The giggle factor is too daunting.

« Previous « • ˆ Top ˆ • » Next » James H. Gelo’s magisterial 850-page work, Chess World Championships: All the Games, All with Diagrams, 1834-1998 (McFarland, 2000); Edward Winter’s dated but still useful The World Champions (Pergamon, 1981); ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/conceptWorldChampion.php (2 of 2)17/04/05 13:10:16

The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ

Welcome Membership « Previous « • » Next »

Events Promotions Site Pros Top Players

by Larry Parr

Chess News

Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001

•

The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute

· Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894

“While I cannot deny the intellectual validity of making comparisons among the … world champions,” American GM Arnold Denker has written, “I can state that it is more enlightening to argue about who is the strongest among these distinguished chess minds than about who is the weakest.” Just so. Our firmament of world champions includes those stars shining most brightly in the chessic sky — Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov, Alexander Alekhine and Jose Capablanca, Mikhail Botvinnik and Emanuel Lasker, Morphy and Steinitz — and those with far less Caissic candle power. In the royal portraits of our 21 monarchs, which appear here in this section, we will noblesse oblige be celebrating the mighty deeds of the strong rather than deprecating the lesser accomplishments of the comparatively weak.

Here is our list of 21 masters who have, if only for a moment in some cases, prompted significant segments of the chess community to recognize them as either champions of the chess world or world champions of chess:

Francois-Andre Danican PHILIDOR Alexandre Louis Honore Lebreton DESCHAPELLES

· Lasker 1894 - 1921

Louis Charles de la BOURDONNAIS

· Capablanca

Pierre Charles Fournier de SAINT-AMANT

1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937 · Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963

Howard STAUNTON Karl Ernst Adolf ANDERSSEN Paul Charles MORPHY Wilhelm STEINITZ Emanuel LASKER Jose Raul CAPABLANCA

· Smyslov 1957 - 1958

Alexander Alexandrovich ALEKHINE

· Tal 1960 - 1961

Machgielis (Max) EUWE

· Petrosian

Mikhail Moiseyevich BOTVINNIK

1963 to 1969 + Spassky 1969 - 1972 · The Concept of the "World Champion" + World Title Matches and Tournaments

Arnold Denker (far right) One of the strongest American masters during the 1940s

Vasily Vasiliyevich SMYSLOV Mikhail Nekhemyevich TAL Tigran Vartanovich PETROSIAN Boris Vasilyevich SPASSKY Robert James FISCHER Yevgenyevich KARPOV Garry Kimovich KASPAROV Alexander Valeryevich KHALIFMAN

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/WCNKings.php (1 of 2)17/04/05 13:11:29

Philidor 1747 - 1795 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ

Welcome Membership Next

Events by Larry Parr

Promotions

Francois-André Danican Philidor Engraved portrait by Bartolozzi

Site Pros Top Players Chess News

Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute

•

Philidor 1747 - 1795

· Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866

b. 1726 - d. 1795 World champion: 1747 to 1795

For over 50 years, from an 18-year-old chess student who by 1744 had surpassed his master to a 69-year-old refugee from the French Revolution living in London, Philidor dominated both chess play and chess writing. He offered draw odds (drawn games counting as losses) and took the Black pieces in every game of his match with Phillip Stamma in 1747, winning 8 - 2 (+8 -1 =1). His L’analyse du jeu des Echecs (1749) went through more than 100 editions, four in the first year. Philidor was the first chess author to explain the strategy of the game as a whole, including such concepts as blockade and positional sacrifice. His famous dictum that pawns are the very life or soul of chess was not, as some still assume, an argument for pawns being the sole of chess or an argument for the supremacy of pawn play over piece play. Philidor was making an observation that pawns were important and that ignorance of proper pawn formations was a major failing of early masters. No games remain from Philidor’s prime, the earliest recorded effort being a single game from 1780 and most of the others from the last seven years of his life. Many of these final battles were played at odds. For example: George Atwood - Philidor London, 1795 Remove Black’s f-pawn, played at odds of pawn and two moves.

1. e4 …

7. Bd3 Nh6

· Morphy 1858 - 1862

2. d4 e6

8. Qb3 c4

· Steinitz 1886 - 1894

3. f4 d5

9. Qxb6 axb6

· Lasker 1894 - 1921

4. e5 c5

10. Bc2 b5

· Capablanca 1921 - 1927

5. c3 Nc6

11. b4 Bxb4

6. Nf3 Qb6

· Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937 · Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963 · Smyslov 1957 - 1958 · Tal 1960 - 1961 · Petrosian 1963 to 1969 + Spassky 1969 - 1972 · The Concept of the "World Champion" + World Title Matches and Tournaments

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/philidor.php (1 of 3)17/04/05 13:11:55


12. cxb4 Nxb4

19. fxg5 Rf2

13. Kd2 Nxc2

20. h4 b5

14. Kxc2 b4

21. h5 b3+

15. Bd2 Ra4

22. Kb2 b4

16. h3 Rf8

23. g6 hxg6

17. g4 Nf7

24. hxg6 Ba6

18. Ng5 Nxg5

25. Rh8+ Kd7 and Black won.

From a three-board blindfold simultaneous exhibition given by Philidor: J. M. Bruhl - Philidor

ECO: C23

London, 1783

1. e4 e5

13. f4 h5

2. Bc4 c6

14. c4 a6

3. Qe2 d6

15. cxd5 cxd5

4. c3 f5

16. Qf2 0-0

5. d3 Nf6

17. Ne2 b5

6. exf5 Bxf5

18. 0-0 Nb6

7. d4 e4

19. Ng3 g6

8. Bg5 d5

20. Rac1 Nc4

9. Bb3 Bd6

21. Nxf5 gxf5

10. Nd2 Nbd7

22. Qg3+ Qg7

11. h3 h6

23. Qxg7+ Kxg7

12. Be3 Qe7



24. Bxc4 bxc4

36. Rc7+ Kg6

25. g3 Rab8

37. gxh4 Nh5

26. b3 Ba3

38. Rd7 Nxf4

27. Rc2 cxb3

39. Bxf4 Rf3+

28. axb3 Rfc8

40. Kg2 Rxf4

29. Rxc8 Rxc8

41. Rxd5 Rf3

30. Ra1 Bb4

42. Rd8 Rd3

31. Rxa6 Rc3

43. d5 f4

32. Kf2 Rd3

44. d6 Rd2+

33. Ra2 Bxd2

45. Kf1 Kf7

34. Rxd2 Rxb3

46. h5 e3

35. Rc2 h4

47. h6 f3, White resigns.

A musical composer of contemporary fame, he excelled in comic opera, though his seldom-performed music appears not to have withstood the test of time. Next George Allen, The Life of Philidor, musician and chess-player, H. Butler & Co., 1863; (facsimile edition, 1971); Yakov Neishtadt, Nekoronovannye Chempiony (Uncrowned Champions), published in Moscow, 1975; David Levy and Kevin O’Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games (Oxford University Press, 1981), containing all 78 of Philidor’s surviving games and segments of games. ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ

Welcome Membership Previous

Events

Next

by Larry Parr

Promotions Site Pros Top Players Chess News

Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795

•

Deschapelles 1800 - 1821

· La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894 · Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946


The coffee house world champion. This immortal of the Café de la Regence made his reputation by beating many of the best for stakes and at odds. Perhaps the greatest games-man in history, he was the strongest whist player in France and inventor of the Deschapelles Coup. He fought in Napoleon’s army and was left for dead at the siege of Mainz, losing his right hand. Which meant that as a stickler for republican principles, he conducted duels with his left hand, sporting a sabre-scar from eyebrow to chin. He boasted about learning enough in three days to be the best at chess. When a prospective opponent at La Regence said, “My religion forbids me to play for money,” Deschapelles responded, “Mine forbids me to be absurd.” Wrote an interviewer of Deschapelles, “M. Deschapelles is the greatest chess player in France; M. Deschapelles is the greatest whist player in France; M. Deschapelles is the greatest billiards player in France [using the stump of his right arm to push the cue]; M. Deschapelles is the greatest pumpkin-grower in France; M. Deschapelles is the greatest liar in France.” He was also the greatest character among the world chess champions. In 1821 at St. Cloud near Paris, Deschapelles gave f-pawn and two moves in a series of games against John Cochrane and his student, the rapidly rising Louis de la Bourdonnais. He beat Cochrane +6 -0 =1 and lost to his pupil 1 - 6: Cochrane - Deschapelles St. Cloud, 1821 Remove Black’s f-pawn; played at odds of pawn and two movess.

1. e4 …

13. Nxh4 Nxh4

2. d4 e6

14. Kf2 0-0

3. f4 d5

15. Kg3 Ng6

4. e5 c5

16. b4 a5

5. c3 Nc6

17. Bd2 axb4

6. Nf3 cxd4

18. Bxb4 Nxb4

7. cxd4 Qb6

19. axb4 Qxb4

· Euwe 1935 - 1937

8. Nc3 Bd7

20. Rb1 Ra3+

· Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963

9. a3 Nh6

21. Kh2 Qe7

10. h3 Nf5

22. Rxb7 Qh4

11. Ne2 Be7

23. Rxd7 Qf2+

12. g4 Bh4+

24. Bg2 Rxh3+

· Smyslov 1957 - 1958 · Tal 1960 - 1961 · Petrosian 1963 to 1969 + Spassky 1969 - 1972 · The Concept of the "World Champion" + World Title Matches and Tournaments

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/deschapelles.php (1 of 2)17/04/05 13:12:39

Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

25. Kxh3 Qh4 mate.

Deschapelles gave up chess soon after the St. Cloud contest, preferring to make much larger sums playing whist. In 1836 he staged a brief comeback, drawing a match with Saint-Amant, +1 -1 =1, while giving odds of pawn and two moves. George Walker summed up the chess status of this fantastic Frenchman, “This big chess player is the connecting link between the times of Philidor and our epoch.” Previous Yakov Neishtadt, Nekoronovannye Chempiony (Uncrowned Champions), published in Moscow, 1975; David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1996), with an interesting entry on Deschapelles; David Levy and Kevin O’Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games (Oxford University Press, 1981), containing seven surviving games of Deschapelles ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/deschapelles.php (2 of 2)17/04/05 13:12:39

Next

La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Previous



Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821

•

La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840

· Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894 · Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937 · Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963 · Smyslov 1957 - 1958 · Tal 1960 - 1961 · Petrosian 1963 to 1969


Student of and successor to Deschapelles. In a triangular match contest played near Paris in 1821, La Bourdonnais defeated John Cochrane seven-zip and beat Deschapelles 6 1, though the latter conceded odds of pawn and two moves. In 1834 La Bourdonnais scored +45 -27 = 13 in a series of six matches against English champion Alexander McDonnell. This series of 84 games was the first chess event to be followed by the general public via extensive newspaper accounts. A book of the games was issued. In the press, the games were analyzed at length by masters; and the practice began of modelling opening play on what occurred in actual games.

A rare image of La Bourdonnais - a true fighter.

La Bourdonnais was a paladin of the romantic attack, a combinative brawler whose better positional sense in the opening marked the difference between him and McDonnell, his only rival for supremacy. One of the many colorful games from the Grand Match: McDonnell - La Bourdonnais (London, 1834): McDonnell - La Bourdonnais

ECO: B32

London, 1834

1. e4 c5

20. Rac1 f5

2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nxc6 bxc6 6. Bc4 Nf6 7. Bg5 Be7 8. Qe2 d5 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 10. Bb3 0-0 11. 0-0 a5 12. exd5 cxd5 13. Rd1 d4 14. c4 Qb6 15. Bc2 Bb7 16. Nd2 Rae8 17. Ne4 Bd8 18. c5 Qc6 19. f3 Be7

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

+ Spassky 1969 - 1972 · The Concept of the "World Champion" + World Title Matches and Tournaments

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/bourdonnais.php (1 of 2)17/04/05 13:13:07

Qc4+ Kh8 Ba4 Qh6 Bxe8 fxe4 c6 exf3 Rc2 Qe3+ Kh1 Bc8 Bd7 f2 Rf1 d3 Rc3 Bxd7 cxd7 e4 Qc8 Bd8 Qc4 Qe1 Rcc1 d2 Qc5 Rg8 Rcd1 e3 Qc3 Qxd1 Rxd1 e2

La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

38. White resigns.

For nearly 20 years, La Bourdonnais was the world’s most famous chess player. In 1824 Deschapelles himself proclaimed his one-time student as the new king of chess. But La Bourdonnais’ score of 13 - 1 in 1821 against Cochrane and his teacher indicated a clear superiority at this earlier date. He is the first player to create an oeuvre of highly stylized games suggesting that chess is an art. Previous

Next

Yakov Neishtadt, NekoronovannyeChempiony (Uncrowned Champions), published in Moscow,1975; David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1996); David Levy and Kevin O’Connell, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games (Oxford University Press, 1981), containing 127 of La Bourdonnais’ games. ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/bourdonnais.php (2 of 2)17/04/05 13:13:07

Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Previous



Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840

•

Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843

· Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894 · Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937 · Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963


Wine merchant and explorer, clerk and actor, SaintAmant was, arguably, the most representative of all married world champions. A regular at the Café de la Regence, he was often summoned home by his wife (the first known hen-pecking chess widow), who would tap on the window with her umbrella. By 1834, Saint-Amant was strong enough to lead a Paris team that defeated the Westminster chess club in a correspondence match; and in 1836, he defeated George Walker and W. Fraser in matches played in London. He was widely recognized as the finest player in France after La Bourdonnais’ death in 1840, winning a short stakes match in 1843 against Howard Staunton, +3 -2 =1. Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant Last

of the great nineteenth-century French Saint-Amant’s match loss to Staunton later in 1843 masters. (+6 -11 =4) was followed by the total eclipse of French chess hegemony. (France would not have a home-grown grandmaster for about 150 years!) In 1858 Saint-Amant lost the following one-sided game in Paris to Paul Morphy:

Saint-Amant - Morphy

ECO: C54

Paris, 1858

1. e4 e5

10. 0-0 0-0

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 c3 Nf6 d4 exd4 cxd4 Bb4+ Bd2 Bxd2+ Nbxd2 d5 exd5 Nxd5


http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/saintAmant.php (1 of 3)17/04/05 13:13:47

h3 Nf4 Kh2 Nxd4 Nxd4 Qxd4 Qc2 Qd6 Kh1 Qh6 Qc3 Bf5 Kh2 Rad8 Rad1 Bxh3


19. gxh3 Rd3 20. Qxd3 Nxd3

21. Bxd3 Qd6+ 22. f4 Qxd3, White resigns.

Staunton - Saint-Amant match. Paris, 1843

Still, Saint-Amant was one of the great masters of his time as he demonstrates in the following brilliancy from his lost match against Staunton: Saint-Amant - Staunton Match

ECO: D40

Paris, 1843

1. d4 e6

13. Re1 a6

2. c4 d5 3. e3 Nf6 4. Nc3 c5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. a3 Be7 7. Bd3 0-0 8. 0-0 b6 9. b3 Bb7 10. cxd5 exd5 11. Bb2 cxd4 12. exd4 Bd6

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.


Rc1 Rc8 Rc2 Rc7 Rce2 Qc8 h3 Nd8 Qd2 b5 b4 Ne6 Bf5 Ne4 Nxe4 dxe4 d5 exf3 Rxe6 Qd8


24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Bf6 gxf6 Rxd6 Kg7 Rxd8 Rxd8 Be4 fxg2 Qf4 Rc4 Qg4+ Kf8

30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

Qh5 Ke7 d6+ Kxd6 Bxb7 Kc7 Bxa6 Rc3 Qxb5, Black resigns.

Previous

Next

David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1996); David Levy and Kevin O’Connell, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games (Oxford University Press, 1981), containing 85 of Saint-Amant’s games. ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Staunton 1843 - 1851 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Previous


Promotions Site Pros Top Players


Chess News

Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843

•

Staunton 1843 - 1851

· Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894 · Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937

Howard Staunton was “The English World Chess Champion” as he is termed in the eponymous volume by Raymond Keene and R. N. Coles. Staunton was also the only English world champion, winning the title in 1843 by defeating Saint-Amant +11 -6 =4. Moreover, most of Saint-Amant’s wins came in the second half of the match when the issue was already effectively decided after Staunton’s sizzling start of +8 -1 =1. In 1846 Staunton defeated Bernhard Horwitz (+14 -7 =3) and Daniel Harrwitz (+7) in games played without odds. Staunton labored in chess as an organizer (of the first international tournament, London 1851), as a lawgiver (publishing a proposed chess code and calling for a “Constituent Assembly for Remodelling the Laws of Chess”), as a journalist (his column in the Illustrated London News was the world’s most Howard Staunton influential), as a teacher (his Chess Player’s Handbook One of the most important and ran to over 20 editions) and as an original thinker (his controversial figures in the development of modern chess. practice of delaying the occupation of the center with pawns and of supporting an eventual strategic advance with the help of fianchettoed bishops was a harbinger of hypermodernism). “Playing over his games,” wrote Bobby Fischer, “I discover that they are completely modern.” A game in point: Staunton - Horwitz

ECO: A10

London, 1851

1. c4 e6

7. e3 0-0

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

8. Nge2 Nc7 9. 0-0 d5 10. b3 Qe8 11. Bb2 Qf7 12. Rc1 Bd7

Nc3 f5 g3 Nf6 Bg2 c6 d3 Na6 a3 Be7

· Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963 · Smyslov 1957 - 1958 · Tal 1960 - 1961 · Petrosian 1963 to 1969 + Spassky 1969 - 1972 · The Concept of the "World Champion" + World Title Matches and Tournaments

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/staunton.php (1 of 3)17/04/05 13:14:20


13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

e4 fxe4 dxe4 Rad8 e5 Nfe8 f4 dxc4 bxc4 Bc5+ Kh1 Be3 Rb1 g6 Qb3 Bc8 Ne4 Bb6 Rbd1 Na6 Qc3 Rxd1 Rxd1 Nc5 Nd6 Qc7 Qc2 Ng7 g4 Qe7 Bd4 Qc7 a4 Na6 c5 Ba5

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

Qb3 b6 Ne4 bxc5 Nf6+ Kh8 Qh3 Ne8 Ba1 Nxf6 exf6 Kg8 Be5 Qb7 Qc3 Qxd1 Rxd1 e2 Be4 Qf7 Ng1 Bd8 g5 Bb7 Nf3 Re8 Bd6 Bxf6 gxf6 Qxf6 Ng5 Qg7 Be5 Qe7 Bxg6, Black resigns.

Staunton is widely remembered as the man who ducked a match with Paul Morphy. The truth is more complicated. Although Staunton misled Morphy about his willingness to play a match, he probably did so with honest intentions. Like many thousands of scholars before and after him, Staunton underestimated the task before him, which in his case was his celebrated edition of Shakespeare with monthly installments appearing from November 1857 to May 1860, and overestimated his capacity for intellectual labor. Wrote Staunton accurately enough, “The experience, however, of some weeks, during which I have labored unceasingly, to the serious injury of my health, shows that not only is it impracticable for me to save time [to play a match], but that by no means short of giving up a great work on which I am engaged, subjecting the publishers to the loss of thousands, and myself to an action for breach of contract, could I obtain time even for the match itself. Such a sacrifice is, of course, out of all question.” All of which is not to say that Staunton could have offered meaningful resistance to Morphy by 1858 or so. “From his performance in the Birmingham tournament where, after defeating a weak player named Hughes in the first round,” writes British author David Levy, “Staunton succumbed to Loewenthal in the second, we can justly assume that in 1858 he was so far below his best form that an encounter with Morphy would



have been a massacre.” Two snippets: 1. “Howard Staunton” is most likely not this great master’s real name, which remains unknown; and 2. Staunton did not originate the design for chessmen named after him, though he did advocate the design and, for a fee, permitted a facsimile of his signature to be included with every “authentic” set. Previous

Next

David Levy, Howard Staunton (The Chess Player, 1975); Raymond Keene and R. N. Coles, Howard Staunton: the English World Chess Champion (C. M. Quarterly, No. 17, 1975), containing a biography plus 75 games and 20 positions; David Levy and Kevin O’Connell, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games (Oxford University Press, 1981), containing 520 of Staunton’s games. ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Previous



b. 1818 - d. 1879 World champion: 1851 to 1858; 1862 to 1866

Chess News

Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851

•

Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866

· Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894 · Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937 · Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963 · Smyslov 1957 - 1958 · Tal 1960 - 1961

By winning the first international chess tournament convincingly (London, 1851), Adolf Anderssen also won nearly universal regard as the chess world’s supreme player. He became the first tournament specialist in chess history, compiling a record that kept him at the tournament forefront until Vienna 1873, which marked Wilhelm Steinitz’s coming of age as a modern positional player. Anderssen’s record of 10 firsts, two seconds and two thirds in 16 events, including victories in the three greatest tournaments up through 1870 (London 1851, London 1862, Baden-Baden 1870), was definitively eclipsed only by Emanuel Lasker in the period following 1895. Anderssen never had a minus score in a tournament, winning seven first prizes in eight events from 1851 to 1870.

Adolf Anderssen A pleasant, mild-mannered German mathematics teacher who was the master of attack.

With irony typical of history, Anderssen is remembered more for his chess style and match results than for being the first great tournament player. In his early years this professor of mathematics and the German language was noted for following his chess intuition. Few sacrifices, correct or incorrect, were too wild. His “Immortal Game” against Lionel Kieseritzky, the most famous game in the 500year history of modern chess, cemented his reputation as a gambit-toting romantic rather than the positionally conscious attacking player that he later became: Anderssen - Kieseritzky (London, training game, 1851): Anderssen - Kieseritzky

ECO: C33

London, 1851

1. e4 e5

10. Rg1 cxb5

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

f4 exf4 Bc4 Qh4+ Kf1 b5 Bxb5 Nf6 Nf3 Qh6 d3 Nh5 Nh4 Qg5 Nf5 c6

· Petrosian 1963 to 1969 + Spassky 1969 - 1972 · The Concept of the "World Champion" + World Title Matches and Tournaments

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/anderssen.php (1 of 3)17/04/05 13:14:56

g4 Nf6 h4 Qg6 h5 Qg5 Qf3 Ng8 Bxf4 Qf6 Nc3 Bc5 Nd5 Qxb2


18. Bd6! Qxa1+ 19. Ke2 Bxg1 20. e5 Na6

21. Nxg7+ Kd8 22. Qf6+ Nxf6 Be7, mate.

“In this game,” wrote Steinitz, “there occurs almost a continuity of brilliancies, every one of which bears the stamp of intuitive genius, that could have been little assisted by calculations, as the combination-point arises only at the very end of the game.” As a match player, Anderssen gained moderate plaudits for defeating Ignaz Kolisch narrowly in 1861 and Johann Zukertort soundly in 1868, but he earned lasting fame for his upset loss to Steinitz in 1866 (+6 -8) and his crushing undoing by Paul Morphy in 1858 (+2 -7 =3). After Morphy’s retirement in 1859, Anderssen reasserted his position as the greatest active player by scoring 12 -1 at London 1862. No one can understand what a mighty man Anderssen was with the Evans Gambit without playing over this masterpiece: Anderssen - Zukertort

ECO: C51

Barmen, 1869

1. e4 e5

15. Kh1 Bc7

2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. 0-0 Bb6 8. cxd4 d6 9. d5 Na5 10. Bb2 Ne7 11. Bd3 0-0 12. Nc3 Ng6 13. Ne2 c5 14. Qd2 f6

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.


Rac1 Rb8 Ng3 b5 Nf5 b4 Rg1 Bb6 g4 Ne5 Bxe5 dxe5 Rg3 Rf7 g5 Bxf5 exf5 Qxd5 gxf6 Rd8 Rcg1 Kh8 fxg7+ Kg8 Qh6 Qd6


29. Qxh7+ Kxh7 30. f6+ Kg8 31. Bh7+ Kxh7

32. Rh3+ Kg8 33. Rh8 mate.

Previous

Next

Hermann von Gottschall, Adolf Anderssen (reprint edition, 1979), containing 787 games and biography; Sid Pickard and Ron Burnett (eds.), The Chess Games of Adolph [sic] Anderssen (Pickard and Sons, 1996), containing 897 games, a good attempt to find every known Anderssen game. ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Morphy 1858 - 1862 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Events

Next

by Larry Parr



Chess News

Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866

•

Morphy 1858 - 1862

The greatest player of the 19th century; the first child prodigy in chess history; probably by age 12 the best American player of his time; the Bobby Fischer of the 19th century in terms of personal celebrity; the first reasonable nominee for the title of greatest of all time. In truth, Morphy was an American Caissic F-16 in an era of European hot air chess balloons. Imagine, then, the effect on the public imagination of a 12-year-old boy, without experience against master competition, defeating a leading European grandmaster (Jacob Loewenthal, by +2 -0 =1); imagine this same boy entering his first and only tournament, which happens to be the 1857 U. S. Championship, winning it easily; imagine Paul Morphy further that this boy, who has played a total of First American world champion. 18 official games, sails for Europe, effortlessly defeating the leading masters of England and France, offering odds of pawn and move in some cases; imagine that this boy, a mere year after playing his first formal games, defeats world champion Adolf Anderssen, scoring 75 percent in a series of match and training games; and imagine, finally, that a former world champion, SaintAmant, states publicly that Morphy could successfully offer a group of great masters pawn and move and that a triumvirate of strong American players announces in 1886 that the late Morphy could have given Wilhelm Steinitz pawn and move.

· Steinitz 1886 - 1894

Such was the partially true Morphy myth. Such was the bombastic fallout from a career that lasted about 16 months -- from late 1857 to early 1859. Such was the pride of so many in his great deeds. Such would be the sorrow of so many in his estrangement from chess and public engagements, anticipating a similar path to be followed a century hence by Bobby Fischer, a fellow countrymen and a child prodigy and, arguably, the greatest player of the 20th century.

· Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937 · Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963 · Smyslov 1957 - 1958 · Tal 1960 - 1961 · Petrosian 1963 to 1969 + Spassky 1969 - 1972 · The Concept of the "World Champion" + World Title Matches and Tournaments

Still worse for the prestige of Morphy’s successors, subsequent chess results Morphy (right) playing a social game with Louis Elkin in conspired in favor of the Morphy Philadelphia in 1859 shortly before he ended his chess career. legend. Anderssen slaughtered the field at London 1862, losing only to John Owen, who finished third well ahead of Steinitz, whom he also beat. The point here is that everyone knew that a few years earlier Morphy had dismantled Anderssen and discombobulated Owen, +5 -0 =2, while giving odds of pawn and move!! In 1914 Jose Capablanca luxuriated in a compliment from Amos Burn that he played like Morphy. “The style of Morphy, they say,” wrote Capablanca, “and if it is true that the goddess of fortune has endowed me with his talent, the result [of a match with Emanuel Lasker] will not be in doubt. The magnificent American master had the most extraordinary brain that anybody has ever had for chess. Technique, strategy, tactics, knowledge which is inconceivable for us; all that was possessed by Morphy fifty-four years ago.”

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/morphy.php (1 of 4)17/04/05 13:15:34


Alexander Alekhine praised Morphy’s deep positional understanding, and Mikhail Botvinnik averred that Morphy’s mastery of open positions was so vast that little new has later been learned about such positions. Morphy’s technique in winning won positions and drawing lost positions has also been praised, but his defining edge over the competition was an understanding of the importance of time in chess. Morphy seldom wasted a tempo, developing his pieces amazingly quickly. As with Anderssen, Morphy’s most famous game was unofficial, a friendly affair played in a box at the Paris Opera that demonstrated the young American’s facility for quick development and slashing sacrificial attacks in open positions: Morphy - Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard Paris, 1858

1. e4 e5

6. Bc4 Nf6

2. 3. 4. 5.

7. Qb3 Qe7 8. Nc3 c6 9. Bg5 b5

Nf3 d6 d4 Bg4 dxe5 Bxf3 Qxf3 dxe5

10. 11. 12. 13.

Nxb5 cxb5 Bxb5+ Nbd7 0-0-0 Rd8 Rxd7 Rxd7

14. 15. 16. 17.

ECO: C41

Rd1 Qe6 Bxd7+ Nxd7 Qb8+ Nxb8 Rd8, mate.

“A popularly held theory about Paul Morphy,” wrote Fischer, “is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our best contemporary players, he would come out the loser. Nothing is further from the truth. In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today.” Debatable, yes. But the true measure of Morphy’s greatness is that this master, who was born the better part of two centuries ago, can still excite a chess mind of Fischer’s level - not to mention the chess mind of Mikhail Tal, who listed Morphy as one of his three favorite players along with Lasker and Alexander Alekhine. Here is Morphy’s win at age 12 over Loewenthal in an era before weekend Swisses, books on theory and programmed learning: Morphy - Loewenthal New Orleans, 1850


ECO: B21


1. e4 c5

12. Bxf6 Bxf6

2. f4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. exd5 exd5 5. d4 Bg4 6. Be2 Bxf3 7. Bxf3 Nf6 8. 0-0 Be7 9. Be3 cxd4 10. Bxd4 0-0 11. Nc3 Nc6

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Nxd5 Bxb2 Rb1 Bd4+ Kh1 Rb8 c3 Bc5 f5 Qh4 g3 Qg5 f6 Ne5 fxg7 Rfd8 Be4 Qxg7

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

Rc7 Kg6 Kg2 f6 Kf3 Nf5 Be4 Kg5 Bxf5 Kxf5 h4 Kg6 Rc6 Kh5 Kg3 f5 Rf6 f4+ Kxf4 Bf2 Ke4 Bc5 Rf5+ Kxh4 Rxc5 bxc5 Kd5, Black resigns.

Qh5 Rd6 Bxh7+ Kf8 Be4 Rh6 Qf5 Qxg3 Rb2 Re8 Nf6 Re6 Rg2 Qxg2+ Bxg2 Rhxf6 Qxf6 Rxf6 Rxf6 Ng4 Rf5 b6 Bd5 Nh6 Rf6 Kg7 Rc6 a5

Previous

Next

David Lawson, Paul Morphy, the Pride and Sorrow of Chess (David McKay, 1976); Philip Sergeant, Morphy’s Games of Chess (Dover, 1957); Chris Ward, The Chess Genius of Paul Morphy (Simon & Schuster, 1997), containing all 415 known games of Morphy; Frances Parkinson Keyes, The Chess Players (Farrar, Straus & Cudahy, 1960), a well-known novel.


Steinitz 1886 - 1894 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Previous




Chess News

Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862

•

Steinitz 1886 - 1894

· Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937 · Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963 · Smyslov 1957 - 1958 · Tal 1960 - 1961 · Petrosian 1963 to 1969

Born in Prague, Czechoslovakia, during the years of the Austro-Hungarian empire when there was neither Czechoslovakia nor today’s Czech Republic, Wilhelm Steinitz eventually became William Steinitz, an American citizen and the second American world champion. He defeated Johann Zukertort in 1886, +10 -5 =5, in what is often called “the first official match” for the world title. Unlike Paul Morphy, the Heaven Born whose designer genes brought instant supremacy, Steinitz achieved domination only after decades of hard labor in the long shadow cast by his predecessor - first, as an also-ran in tournaments and later as an original, if ponderous thinker. The public viewed Steinitz as a Central European plodder when compared with Morphy, an American Greek god from the New World.

Wilhelm Steinitz

As imposing as are Steinitz’s playing credentials, which included an unbroken string of 24 match victories from 1862 until losing a world title match to Emanuel Lasker in 1894 (+5 -10 =4), the Austro-American is more celebrated these days as the founder of a school of chess thinking. If, in 1866, Steinitz defeated Adolf Anderssen, +8 -6, in a match that featured King’s Gambits by Steinitz and Evans Gambits by Anderssen and King-side attacks by both, he introduced a new positional style of play at Vienna 1873, where he dominated and utterly befuddled the strongest field until that time, finishing the tournament with 16 consecutive wins. Steinitz taught that launching King-side attacks out of thin air was unsound in most instances. Because a properly played game of chess ought to end in a drew, one cannot expect to defeat an opponent by force majeure unless he has destroyed the inherent positional equilibrium by committing errors, which one should try to induce by applying pressure through artful positional maneuvers. Key Steinitzian precepts include the importance of accumulating small advantages, of using a Queen-side pawn majority when able, of avoiding pawn weaknesses and holes by moving pawns only to develop pieces and of exploiting the superior mobility of the two Bishops. He believed in the soundness of cramped positions if he could anchor at least one pawn at d5 or e5 and avoid pawn weaknesses. Lasker - Steinitz (Hastings, 1895) is an extreme example of avoiding pawn weaknesses in the hope that a cramped position will eventually explode like a released spring: Lasker - Steinitz Hastings, 1895


http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/steinitz.php (1 of 4)17/04/05 13:16:20

ECO: C75


1. e4 e5

10. Nf1 Qe8

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 d6 0-0 Ne7 c3 Bd7 d4 Ng6 Re1 Be7 Nbd2 0-0

Bc2 Kh8 Ng3 Bg4 d5 Nb8 h3 Bc8 Nf5 Bd8 g4 Ne7 Ng3 Ng8.

Against Mikhail Tchigorin in game four of their second title match, Steinitz was willing to accept (and draw!) the following position: Tchigorn-Steinitz

ECO: C52

Havana, 1892

1. e4 e5

9. Qa4 Bb6

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4 Bxb4 c3 Ba5 0-0 Qf6 d4 Nge7 d5 Nd8

Bg5 Qd6 Na3 c6 Rad1 Qb8 Bxe7 Kxe7 d6+ Kf8 Qb4 f6.

Against Joseph Henry Blackburne in their match of 1876, Steinitz scored seven-zip, thanks in large part to defending as Black another optically difficult position after: Blackburne-Steinitz

ECO: C45

1876

1. e4 e5

5. Nb5 Bb4+

2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Qh4

6. Bd2 Qxe4+ 7. Be2 Kd8.

“Place the contents of the chess box in a hat,” Henry Bird wrote, “shake them up vigorously, pour them on the board from a height of two feet - and you get the style of Steinitz.” From 1894 to 1899, in the five years after Steinitz lost the title and as his mental and physical health plummeted, he played some 150 tournament games compared with about 170 games in the 32 years from 1862 to 1894. In his prime from about 1872 to 1886, he played less than 100 tournament games. For long periods during his career, Steinitz eschewed tournament competition (from 1873 to 1882 and 1883 to 1894), and he succeeded in winning outright only one first-class tournament (Vienna, 1873). Steinitz’s most productive tournament period was during his decline, and this fact in conjunction with relative London 1873 inactivity during many of his best years, Standing, from left to right, Baron Kolisch, Bernhard when he edited chess columns and, later, Horwitz, William Norwood Potter, Johann Lowenthal, H.E. Bird, Joseph Henry Blackburne and an unidentified amateur. his wonderful International Chess Seated, Wilhelm Steinitz, H.F. Gastineau (a patron) and Magazine (1885 - 1891), has ever so Cecil De Vere. slightly depreciated his reputation as a great master. Still, his total domination in match play (vs. Anderssen: +8 -6; vs. Blackburne: 1863: +7 -1 =2; 1870: +5 -0 =1; 1876: 7-zip; vs. Isidor Gunsberg in 1890: +6 -4 =9; vs. Mikhail Tchigorin: 1889: +10 -6 =1; 1892: +10 -8 =5; vs.



Zukertort: 1872: +7 -1 =4; 1886: +10 -5 =5; etc.) left little doubt about who was the uncommon dominator. A brilliant game from Steinitz’s final period: Steinitz - Lasker

ECO: D35

St. Petersburg, 1895 - 96

1. d4 d5

8. Qc2 f5

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

9. Bc4 Nc6 10. a3 Bf6 11. 0-0-0 Kh8 12. f3 Qe7 13. Bg3 f4

c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bf4 Be7 e3 0-0 c5 Ne4 Nxe4 dxe4

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Qxe4 fxg3 hxg3 g6 Qxg6 Bd7 f4 Rf7 g4 Rg7 Qh6 Rxg4 Bd3 Rg7 Nf3 Qf7 g4 Rag8


23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

g5 Bd8 Rh2 Rg6 Qh5 R6g7 Rdh1 Qxh5 Rxh5 Rf8 Rxh7+ Rxh7 Rxh7+ Kg8 Rxd7 Rf7 Bc4, Black resigns.


Steinitz during his match with Anderssen in 1866.

In 1874 Steinitz, while writing in the third person, made a claim to be the world champion: “[P]robably little difference exists between several first-class players, [but] Steinitz, who has not yet lost any set match on even terms, and who has come out victorious in the last two international tournaments, London 1872 and Vienna 1873, could claim the title of champion.” But 20/20 historical hindsight suggests 1866, the year of Steinitz’s upset match victory over Anderssen, as the beginning of his reign as champion of the chess world. Previous Kurt Landsberger, William Steinitz, Chess Champion: A Biography of the Bohemian Caesar (McFarland, 1995), the definitive biography; Sid Pickard (ed.), Wilhelm Steinitz, First World Chess Champion (Pickard & Sons, 1995), containing 1,022 games, the most in any single volume. ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Next

Lasker 1894 - 1921 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Events

Next

by Larry Parr



Chess News

Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894

•

Lasker 1894 - 1921

· Capablanca 1921 - 1927

Supreme tactician and chess wise man, who believed that the royal game is above all else a struggle. Emanuel Lasker dominated both tournament and match play for about two decades from 1894 to 1914. After a series of match victories in 1889 and 1890 and further devastating victories in 1892 over Henry Bird (five-zip) and Joseph Henry Blackburne (+6 -0 =4), Lasker went to the United States, there annihilating a field of America’s best, 13-zip, at New York 1893. The same year he also defeated U. S. champion Jackson Showalter, +6 -2 =2. Such results led to a match with Wilhelm Steinitz, which Lasker won easily, +10 -5 =4. Lasker’s subsequent tournament results proved overwhelming, eclipsing the standard set by Adolf Anderssen in the 1860s and 1870s and, in turn, to be Emanuel Lasker (left) with his brother Berthold. eclipsed by Alexander Alekhine from 1927 to 1935. After a good third at Hastings 1895, Lasker proceeded to win or share first prize in six of his seven subsequent major tournaments during his title reign (St. Petersburg 1895-96, first by two points; Nuremberg 1896, lst; London 1899, +18 -1 =7, 4 ½ points clear; Paris 1900, +14 -1 =1, two points clear; Cambridge Springs 1904, 2nd-3rd; St. Petersburg 1909, +13 -2 =3, 1st-2nd; and St. Petersburg 1914, 1st). In match title play Lasker was still more successful. In 1896-97, he demolished Steinitz (+10 -2 =5) in a return match; in 1907 he routed Frank Marshall, the victor at Cambridge Springs, +8 =7; in 1908 he roundly beat Siegbert Tarrasch, +8 -3 =5; in 1909 he erased David Janowski, +7 -1 =2, in an exhibition match that would have been called a title match if the scores had been reversed; in 1910, he drew with Carl Schlechter, +1 -1 =8 and later the same year decapitated Janowski, +8 =3.


http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/lasker.php (1 of 3)17/04/05 13:17:00

In the nine top-flight tournaments of his title incumbency, beginning with Hastings 1895 and extending through Berlin 1918, Lasker scored +101 -17 =40 (121 - 37) for a 76.6 percent point tally. In important matches from 1892 to 1918, he scored +74 -14 =41 (94 ½ - 34 ½) for a 73.3 percent result. In important tournament and match play, during a period of 26 years, Lasker achieved a winning point percentage of 75.1 from a score of 215 ½ - 71 ½ (+175 -31 =81). How did he do it? One fact, apparently never remarked upon before, is that in Lasker’s tournaments of his championship years, the great man went undefeated only once (Berlin 1918, +3 -0 =3). Otherwise, he lost four games on one occasion (Hastings, 1895), three games in two tournaments, two games in two other events, and one game in three separate tournaments. Of Lasker, it was said that while he lost games, he never lost his head. Which is to say, he expected to lose


games given his style of seeking tactical complications relentlessly and of being willing to accommodate slightly inferior positions. He knew that his superior tactical ability and renowned endgame technique would usually bring victory in a contest that was above all, as in the title of his eponymous 1907 philosophical work, a Struggle between two wills. The finalists at St. Petersburg, 1914 From left to right, Lasker, Alekhine, Capablanca, Marshall and Tarrasch.

In 1921, at age 53, Lasker lost his title to Jose Capablanca in a match that was never close (-4 =10). For once in his long career, Lasker gave up the struggle, resigning the match after losing the 10th, 11th and 14th games. Indeed, Lasker had earlier offered to surrender the title to his young Cuban pursuer, agreeing to play only because of the enormous $25,000 prize fund raised by Capablanca, a sum not exceeded in terms of real dollars until, probably, the Kaprov - Korchnoi match of 1978 in the Philippines. Lasker played in six tournaments after losing the title. Although much is made of the 66-year-old former champion securing third prize at Moscow 1935, a half-point behind youngsters Mikhail Botvinnik and Salo Flohr, Lasker’s winning performance of 16 - 4 at New York 1924, ahead of Capablanca and Alexander Alekhine, set a standard yet to be equalled. No 55-year-old in chess history has ever finished first in a tournament ahead of his greatest contemporary rivals. At Moscow 1936 (+3 -5 =10, 6th place) and Nottingham 1936 (+6 -3 =5, 7th8th), Lasker’s age and declining health, not to mention his status of being a ruined Jewish refugee from Hitler’s Germany, began to tell. Most tellingly, Lasker scored -5 =5 against the top half of the Moscow 1936 crosstable and not much better against the leaders at Nottingham, which would prove to be his last tournament. A herald of common sense in chess, Lasker was unsuccessful in business and no better than a child of his age in New York 1924 politics. His unthinking pro-German Seated from left to right: Yates, Capablanca, Janowski, patriotism during World War I and his Edward Lasker and Emanuel Lasker. Standing Marshall, embarrassing and murky interlude in Tartakower, Maroczy, Alekhine, Réti and Bogoljubow. Moscow from 1935 to 1937 suggest that he was a wise man of chess rather than a man wise about the world. Here is a typical Lasker game featuring an unremarkable opening, some provocative thrusts in the early middlegame and perfect endgame technique: Marshall - Lasker

ECO: C65

New York, 1907

1. e4 e5

13. f3 fxe5

2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. 0-0 Be7 6. e5 Ne4 7. Nxd4 0-0 8. Nf5 d5 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. Nxe7+ Qxe7 11. Re1 Qh4 12. Be3 f6

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.


fxe4 d4 g3 Qf6 Bxd4 exd4 Rf1 Qxf1+ Qxf1 Rxf1+ Kxf1 Rb8 b3 Rb5 c4 Rh5 Kg1 c5 Nd2 Kf7


24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

Rf1+ Ke7 a3 Rh6 h4 Ra6 Ra1 Bg4 Kf2 Ke6 Kg2 Ke5 a4 Rf6 Re1 d3 Rf1 Kd4 Rxf6 gxf6 Kf2 c6 a5 a6 Nf1 Kxe4 Ke1 Be2

38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

Nd2+ Ke3 Nb1 f5 Nd2 h5 Nb1 Kf3 Nc3 Kxg3 Na4 f4 Nxc5 f3 Ne4+ Kf4 Nd6 c5 b4 cxb4 c5 b3 Nc4 Kg3 Nd2 b2, White resigns.

Previous

Next

Reuben Fine and Fred Reinfeld, Lasker’s Greatest Chess Games, 1889 - 1914 (Dover, 1965), the wellannotated cream of Lasker’s chess from his peak years; Dr. J. Hannak, Emanuel Lasker: The Life of a Chess Master (Dover, 1991), still the standard biography which needs to be superseded by a better work; Kenneth Whyld, The Collected Games of Emanuel Lasker (1998), containing probably every known Lasker game (1,390 of them); Emanuel Lasker, Lasker’s Manual of Chess (Dover, 1976), a testament of Lasker’s views on chess. ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Capablanca 1921 - 1927 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Events

Next

by Larry Parr


Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894 · Lasker 1894 - 1921

•


In the words of a chess-playing classmate, Cuban-born Jose Capablanca never “learnt to learn.” There was no necessity for him to do so, given his talent; but this failing also circumscribed the limits of his achievements, which were confined within that vast natural genius that was never extended by unremitting intellectual labor. One curious result is that Capablanca is the only modern world champion who is more remembered for what he was than what Jose Paul Capablanca he did. Sixty years after Capa’s death and his second wife Olga Chagodaev from a stroke at the Manhattan Chess Club, his figuredom predominates. His epochal gift for chess, his fit form hopping from a horse after a bracing ride at Havana’s tony Union Club, his hundreds of tuxedoed, diamond-dusted nights on luxury liners spent playing the game of life (“But he was such a caballero!” trilled Capa’s second wife, a willowy Russian strawberry blonde named Olga Chagodaev, whose face with its high cheekbones resembled that of a very young, semi-Oriental Mae West.) - these are the snapshots that come to mind rather than any specific chess results. Capa’s friends were also under the spell of his figuredom. Wrote Bernard Epstein, Capa’s roommate at Columbia University: “He was of medium height, lean, but no padding needed for his shoulders. And such pride in the posture of his head! You would know no one could dingle-dangle that man. I can visualize him so clearly, with his dark hair and large gray-green eyes. Believe me, when he took a stroll, in his black derby hat and carrying a cane, no handsomer young gentleman ever graced Fifth Avenue.”

Capablanca 1921 - 1927


Capablanca and his father.

One account from young “Cappie” has him deducing the rules and object of chess at age four after observing a game won by his army-officer father against a friend. He supposedly told his father that the latter had moved a knight incorrectly. Father and son then played their first game, which was won by Joselito. Mikhail Botvinnik, employing some fairly stratospheric standards, called Capablanca the only chess genius he had ever known. On another occasion, he wrote, “I consider Capablanca as the greatest talent of all time.” Alexander Alekhine handsomely, perhaps also ruefully, acknowledged that in no other player had he ever seen such “flabbergasting quickness of chess comprehension.”

The salient characteristic of Capablanca’s chess results, more pronounced even than his numerous first prizes in tournaments, was the near absence of defeat. He made fewer moves of the kind that lose chess games than any other grandmaster in history. By one reckoning, the great Cuban’s loss percentage is given as 5.7 percent based on a career tournament-match record of +318 -34 =251. However, if one includes in Capa’s official record his games from club matches (+9 =1), exhibition

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/capablanca.php (1 of 5)17/04/05 13:17:43


games (+37 =4) and consultation games (+21 =9) against such opponents as Efim Bogolyubov, Max Euwe, Aron Nimzovich et al., then the career total statistics read +385 -34 =265. Of 684 games, his 34 losses amount to 4.97 percent. Either figure, 5.7 percent or 4.97 percent, represents the lowest percentage of losses achieved by any player in modern competition. In 158 games played after he lost to Siegbert Tarrasch at St. Petersburg 1914 through New York 1927, Capablanca suffered but four defeats. He was regularly outplayed in only one of these games (Richard Reti Capablanca, New York 1924) - a loss that ended an unbeaten streak of 63 games. Among international-level masters, only Alekhine won more than two games against the Cuban, while in 44 games against Bogolyubov, Nimzovich, Ossip Bernstein, Reuben Fine, Geza Maroczy, and Milan Vidmar, he never lost. He had a minus score against only one great master (Paul Keres: -1 =5). Capablanca burst on the world chess scene in 1909 as an unknown who utterly demolished Frank Marshall, +8 -1 =14, in a stakes match. The Cuban’s only previous competitive experience was the Cuban Championship of 1902. Following the Marshall match, Capablanca played in two local New York tournaments. At the insistence of Marshall, Capa was invited to San Sebastian 1911 where he won a great tournament on his first try, an honor that he shares only with Harry Nelson Pillsbury. His next international event was St. Petersburg 1914 where he Capablanca and his father, 1909. finished a half point behind the then world champion, Emanuel Lasker. In 1919 he defeated Boris Kostic five-zip in a match and took first at Hastings, +10 =1. The young Cuban’s entire international career consisted of two matches (vs. Marshall and Kostic) and three tournaments (San Sebastian, St. Petersburg, Hastings) when he sat down to play Emanuel Lasker in Havana in 1921. Even so, Capa was the heavy favorite, and he won, +4 =10. The new champion reached the pinnacle without ever having studied chess seriously. Nor, after winning the crown, did he tax himself with the game, competing in only four tournaments during his reign. He took first prizes at London 1922 and New York 1927, an elite event that he won by 2 ½ points ahead of Alekhine in second place. Typically, the Cuban conceded numerous short draws rather than pressing to win by a still larger margin. In 1927, to the universal astonishment of nearly everyone, Capablanca lost the title to Alekhine, +3 -6 =25. “Perhaps the chief reason for his defeat,” Alekhine later wrote, “was the overestimation of his own powers … and his underestimation of mine.” Reti had also observed that while Capablanca looked every inch a champion, it was Alekhine who was playing like one. From 1928 to 1931, Capablanca played in 10 tournaments, winning seven first prizes, two clear seconds and a 2nd-3rd with Rudolf Spielmann at Carlsbad 1929, behind Nimzovich. He was trying (unsuccessfully) to arrange a rematch with Alekhine, staking his claim based on tournament successes. From mid1931 to late 1934, Capa went into retirement after beating a rising young Max Euwe in 1931, +2 -0 =8. His return at Hastings 1934-35 was less than overwhelming, a fourth prize, followed by another fourth prize at Moscow 1935 Capablanca, master of Speed Chess. behind Salo Flohr and Botvinnik (joint Margate, 1935 1st) and 66-year-old Lasker, an undefeated third. But in 1936 Capablanca returned to form, winning a very strong double-round robin in Moscow, undefeated and a full point ahead of Botvinnik. Then, in the same year at Nottingham 1936, an unwell Capablanca nonetheless tied for Botvinnik for first, ahead of Euwe, Fine, Samuel Reshevsky, Alekhine, Flohr, Lasker and the like. At AVRO 1938, one of the strongest tournaments in chess history, he started well and then suffered a minor stroke. A final score of +2 -4 =8 was the single tournament failure of his career. Along with Paul Morphy and Bobby Fischer, Capablanca possessed a lightning sight of the board. What an Alekhine or a Botvinnik thought about, Capa frequently intuited.



His sublime sense of position meant eliminating bad possibilities without ever having to analyze them. Capa often looked at only one or two candidate moves while lesser grandmasters had to work through a half dozen possibilities. “The way he analyzed, understood the position,” wrote Botvinnik, “in such things lay the enormous power of Jose Raul Capablanca.” As for Capa’s own view of his play: “I always play carefully and try to avoid unnecessary risks. I consider my method to be right as any superfluous ‘daring’ runs counter to the essential character of chess, which is not a gamble but a purely intellectual combat conducted in accordance with the exact rules of logic.” By all accounts, Capablanca remained supreme in lightning chess to the end. Reuben Fine, regarded by many as the outstanding speed player of the 1940s, recalls that Capablanca treated his opponents like children in fast games. The late Arthur Dake, a speed chess phenomenon of the1930s who was easily besting Alekhine as early as the Prague Olympiad of 1931, recollected an evening when fresh from a 12-0 victory in a speed tournament that included the likes of Fine, Reshevsky, Al Horowitz, Arnold Denker and virtually every other top American master, he challenged Capablanca. Capa had just shown up, fresh from a diplomatic function, and faced down a cocky Reuben Fine, who had blurted out that fast chess was for “young men” but who would not play the Cuban for money even when offered odds. Dake wanted to play and expected Horowitz, his closest friend, to back him. Instead, Horowitz grabbed Dake’s sleeve and said, “No one plays Capa at lightning chess. I won’t back you.” Many observers have argued that Capablanca, like Steinitz before him, was a piece player. He eschewed tampering with his pawns except to facilitate development. What Boris Spassky once said of Fischer’s chess at its peak - that the young American played in a “straight line” - was also true of Capablanca’s. There was relatively little dissembling or tacking to and fro, and his games in their elegant and seamless simplicity were frequently called Mozartian. Said Botvinnik in one interview, “Capablanca didn’t make separate moves - he was creating a chess picture. Nobody could compare with him in this.” Capablanca made winning appear not only effortless but, even more tellingly, inevitable. A case in point: Bogolyubov - Capablanca

ECO: D05

New York, 1924

1. d4 Nf6

6. 0-0 Bd6

2. 3. 4. 5.

7. Bb2 0-0 8. Nbd2 Qe7 9. Ne5 cxd4 10. exd4 ...

Nf3 d5 e3 e6 Bd3 c5 b3 Nc6



10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

... Ba3 Bxa3 Qxa3 Ndf3 Bd7 Nxc6 Bxc6 Qd2 Rac8 c3 a6 Ne5 Bb5 f3 Bxd3 Nxd3 Rc7 Rac1 Rfc8

20. Rc2 Ne8

22. Ne5 Qa5 23. a4 Qb6 24. Nd3 Qxb3 25. Nc5 Qb6 26. Rb2 Qa7 27. Qe1 b6 28. Nd3 Rc4 29. Kg2 Ke5 30. Nc5 Nb5 31. Re2 Nxd4 32. cxd4 R8xc5, White resigns.

21. Rfc1 Nd6

Another of those “inevitable” Capablanca wins: Edgar Colle - Capablanca

ECO: A47

Carlsbad, 1929

1. d4 Nf6

13. Qd1 Nc6

2. Nf3 b6 3. e3 Bb7 4. Nbd2 e6 5. Bd3 c5 6. 0-0 Nc6 7. c3 Be7 8. e4 cxd4 9. Nxd4 0-0 10. Qe2 Ne5 11. Bc2 Qc8 12. f4 Ba6

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.


Rf3 g6 N2b3 Nxd4 Nxd4 Bb7 Qe2 Bc5 Rh3 Qc6 e5 Nd5 Qf2 Bxd4 cxd4 Rac8 Bd1 f6 Qh4 Rf7 Bf3 Qc4


25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Be3 Nxe3 Bxb7 Nf5 Qe1 Rc7 Be4 Qxd4+ Kh1 fxe5

30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

Bxf5 exf5 fxe5 Re7 Re3 Qxb2 e6 dxe6 Rxe6 Kf7, White resigns.

Previous

Next

Edward Winter, Capablanca (McFarland, 1989), not so much a biography as an interesting collection of Capablanca’s correspondence, articles, annotations, little-known games, etc.; Rogelio Caparros, The Games of Jose Raul Capablanca (Chess Digest, 2nd edition, 1994), containing 1,206 games, the largest such collection; Dale Brandreth and David Hooper, The Unknown Capablanca (R.H.M. Press, 1975), seldom published simultaneous and exhibition games and the most complete statistical record available of the Cuban’s career; Harry Golombek, Capablanca’s Hundred Best Games of Chess (G. Bell & Sons, 1947), still the best annotated collection of Capa’s finest games. ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Euwe 1935 - 1937 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Events Promotions

Next

by Larry Parr

Site Pros Top Players Chess News


(b. 1901 - d. 1981): World champion: 1935 - 1937

Said Bobby Fischer after meeting Max Euwe, “That man is too normal. There must be something wrong with him.” The 12th figure on our list of world champions is the great and good man among chess kings - a 6’ 4” Dutchman who won the world amateur championship at The Hague in 1928 and who became an amateur world champion by defeating Alexander Alekhine in 1935. He is the last player who scaled the Everest of Chess in his spare time. Earning a mathematics doctorate in Max Euwe, Hastings 1949 1926, Dr. Euwe took up flying, boxing and swimming. Marriage, too. He fathered three daughters and wept inconsolably when one of them died relatively young. George Orwell ought to have been thinking of him when he wrote: “The fact to which we have got to cling, as to a life-belt, is that it is possible to be a normal decent person and yet to be fully alive.” In chess Dr. Euwe is remembered as The Man Who Beat Alexander Alekhine, +9 -8 =13, for the world championship. The year was 1935. Dr. Euwe himself, though aware of his myriad contributions to chess, did not balk at the description, once remarking that no one could deny him the honor of having won a long match against the greatest attacking player in chess history.

· Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894 · Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946

•

Euwe 1935 - 1937

· Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963 · Smyslov 1957 - 1958 · Tal 1960 - 1961 · Petrosian 1963 to 1969 + Spassky 1969 - 1972 · The Concept of the "World Champion" + World Title Matches and Tournaments

Dr. Euwe first attracted wide attention in 1921, when he drew a match, +2 -2 =8, with Geza Maroczy. He seemed a young comer who would soon be a major title contender. But the tempos expended on work and love caused his chess development to lag. He competed in some 60 tournaments and played 20 matches during the 1920s, but these gettogethers were small, local affairs. He averaged only one strong tournament a year during the 1920s and did not garner a major first prize until Hastings 193031, when he finished ahead of Jose Capablanca. Dr. Euwe served his long apprenticeship for the pantheon of great Réti vs Euwe, Pistyan (Czechoslovakia), 1922. masters by the novel means of losing narrowly and occasionally drawing matches against famous opponents. These matches were typically played during Christmas and Easter breaks. In 1926 - 27, he narrowly lost an exhibition match to Alekhine, +2 -3 =5; in 1928 and 1929, he lost two 10- matches to Efim Bogolyubov by a single point each; in 1931, he dropped a hard-fought match to Capablanca, -2 =8. When his tournament results began to improve -- second at Berne 1932 and Zurich 1934 behind Alekhine both times and first equal at Hastings 1934-35 ahead of Capablanca and Mikhail Botvinnik -- he became a logical challenger to Alekhine in the absence of a return match between Capa and Alekhine. “Nothing infuriates me more,” wrote GM Arnold Denker, “than to hear Max Euwe described as the ‘weakest of world champions’ … who made it to the top only because of Alekhine’s alcoholism.” Indeed, the lifetime score between these two titans was only narrowly in Alekhine’s favor, 44 - 38. As late as game 56 in their

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/euwe.php (1 of 5)17/04/05 13:18:20


lifetime competition, the score was dead even! Only when Alekhine won game seven of the rematch in 1937 did he go ahead for keeps. (Dr. Euwe lost that match +4 -10 =11, though winning the five-game exhibition match that followed, +2 -1 =2.) The two men were in approximately the same chess league. Dr. Euwe was a tactical genius who employed his gifts not to devise original stratagems a la Alekhine but to enforce general positional laws with the rigor of a trained mathematician. Hans Kmoch called him “logic personified, a genius of law and order.” Alekhine wrote, “Does the general public, do even our friends the critics realize that Euwe virtually never made an unsound combination? He may, of course, occasionally fail to take account … of an opponent’s combination, but when he has the initiative in a tactical operation his calculation is … impeccable.”

Flohr, Alekhine and Euwe at the A.V.R.O. tournament, 1938.

The 82-game Euwe-Alekhine series supports the above generalizations about Dr. Euwe’s playing style. As Alekhine once noted, if Richard Reti was interested only in the exceptions to positional rules, then Max Euwe believed “perhaps a little too much” in their “immutability.” However, in the following game from their 1937 exhibition match, Dr. Euwe displays his style as a lawgiver so vigorously that thanks to Alekhine’s stubborn resistance, the precise losing move still remains unclear: Dr. Euwe - Alekhine

ECO: D50

Exhibition Match, 1937

1. Nf3 Nf6

6. Nxd4 e5

2. 3. 4. 5.

7. Nf3 d4 8. Nd5 Nc6 9. e4 Be7 10. Bxf6 Bxf6

c4 e6 Nc3 d5 d4 c5 Bg5 cxd4



11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

b4 0-0 Bd3 a5 a3 Be6 Rb1 axb4 axb4 Be7 0-0 f6 Qc2 Kh8 c5 Ra3 Bc4 f5 Nxe7 Qxe7 Bd5 Rc3 Qd2 fxe4 Bxe4 Bf5 Bxf5 Rxf5 Rfe1 Rcxf3 gxf3 Qh4

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

Re4 Qh3 Rg4 Qxf3 Rg3 Qe4 Ra1 h6 b5 Ne7 c6 Rf8 Qb4 Re8 c7 Nd5 Qd6 Nf4 Qd8 Ne2+ Kf1 Nxg3+ hxg3 Qh1+ Ke2 Qh5+ Kd2 Qf7 Ke1, Black resigns.

Many of the Euwe-Alekhine affrays featured Dr. Euwe seeking to impose order while his Russian opponent struggled to create tactical anarchy given the tiniest opportunity: Dr. Euwe - Alekhine

ECO: A44

Radio Exhibition Game, 1934

1. d4 c5

13. Qxd3 Qc7

2. d5 e5 3. e4 d6 4. Nc3 a6 5. a4 f5 6. f4 Nf6 7. fxe5 dxe5 8. exf5 Bxf5 9. Bg5 Bd6 10. Nge2 Nbd7 11. Ng3 Bg6 12. Bd3 Bxd3

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.


Nf5 0-0 Nxd6 Qxd6 0-0 c4 Qxc4 Qb6+ Kh1 Qxb2 d6+ Kh8 Rfb1 Qxc2 Rxb7 Rac8 Rc7 Rxc7 dxc7 Ne4


24. c8=Q Nf2+ 25. Kg1 Nh3+

26. gxh3 Qf2+, draw.

Here the forces of chess Yin and Yang stayed in balance. When Dr. Euwe succeeded in imposing positional law and order on the unruly Alekhine, he often ended up defending a solid if uncomfortable position against a fiery attack that would have incinerated lesser opponents. His win over Alekhine at Amsterdam 1936, which was one of three tournaments in which Euwe finished ahead of the great Russian during his brief period as champion, is an example of a chess sheriff getting his man when he oversteps the law (36. h4?!, 42. Rc1?): Alekhine - Euwe

ECO: C49

Amsterdam, 1936

1. e4 e5

16. f3 h6

2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. 0-0 0-0 6. d3 d6 7. Ne2 Ne7 8. c3 Ba5 9. Ng3 c6 10. Ba4 Ng6 11. d4 Re8 12. Bb3 exd4 13. cxd4 Be6 14. Ng5 Bxb3 15. Qxb3 Qd7

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.


Nh3 Re6 Nf4 Nxf4 Bxf4 Bb6 Rad1 Rae8 Kh1 d5 e5 Nh7 Nf5 f6 g4 fxe5 Bxe5 Nf6 Qd3 Kh8 Rg1 Bc7 f4 Qf7 Rdf1 ...


29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

... Bxe5 fxe5 Ne4 g5 hxg5 Nd6 Nf2+ Kg2 Nxd3 Nxf7+ Kg8 Nxg5 Rg6 h4 c5 dxc5 Rxe5 Kh3 Nxc5 Rc1 Rc6 Rge1 Ne4 Rxc6 bxc6 Rc1 Nxg5+ hxg5 Re6 Kg4 Kf7

45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

Rc3 a5 Kf3 Kg6 Ra3 Kxg5 Rxa5 Kf5 a4 g5 Ra8 Re4 Rf8+ Ke5 Re8+ Kd4 Rb8 c5 b4 c4 a5 Re3+ Kf2 Ra3 Rg8 c3 Rxg5 Ra2+ Kf3 c2 Rg1, and White resigns.

After Dr. Euwe lost the title, he still performed eminent chess labors as a player (in 1939-40, he narrowly lost a match to Paul Keres, +5 -6 =3; in 1946 he finished a good second at Groningen, though later failing badly in the 1948 World Championship match tournament), as a theorist (he edited Chess Archives for many years, a fitting pursuit for someone who introduced the Scheveningen Variation of the Sicilian Defense in 1923), as an author (he wrote more books than any other world champion) and as a chess leader (he served as president of FIDE from 197078). As president of the International Chess Federation (FIDE) he visited more than 100 countries and brought in more than 30 new members. Some observers say that he acted arbitrarily to keep Fischer-Spassky 1972 and Karpov-Korchnoi 1978 from disintegrating. His motives were not self-serving, they say, but he established a precedent for arbitrary behavior that opened the floodgates for FIDE violating its own regulations as a matter of convenience.

Previous Max Euwe, From My Games, 1920 - 1937 (Dover, 1975), beautifully annotated; Max Euwe, Euwe I in the Weltgeschichte des Schachs series (Verlag Dr. E. Wildhagen, 1959). ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Next

Botvinnik 1948 - 1957 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Events

Next

by Larry Parr


Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894 · Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937

•

Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963


b. 1911 - d. 1995 World champion: 1948 - 1957

In 1948 Mikhail “Iron Mike” Botvinnik won The Hague-Moscow world championship tournament to fill the title vacancy left by the death of Alexander Alekhine in 1946. His three-point margin of victory over a field with Vasily Smyslov, Samuel Reshevsky, Paul Keres and Max Euwe showed that Soviet chess leaders had chosen the right man back in the 1930s to bring the world title to the U.S.S.R. Both his chess and personal styles have been likened to Star Trek’s Mr. Spock, who would have approved of Botvinnik’s statement that chess is the art that complements the science of logic. Mikhail “Iron Mike” Botvinnik

Although Botvinnik received unheard of competitive favors from the Soviet hierarchy (competitions were arranged to rectify less than spectacular earlier performances) and may have been the beneficiary of thrown games by Keres in the 1948 title tournament, this dour and loyal “New Soviet Man” combined an impressive talent with a revolutionary training regime of theoretical, physical and psychological preparation to produce the best tournament record of the 1940s. He was not a dominant world champion in the mould of a Bobby Fischer or an Alexander Alekhine, scoring only +36 -39 =82 in his seven title matches. Moreover, in 1955 he lost a short match to Reshevsky, -1 =3, whom Fischer once called the world’s best player from 1946 to 1956. Still, Botvinnik’s selfdescription as primus inter pares is a reasonable estimation of his status while champion.

By his own stratospheric standards, Botvinnik did not view himself as a chess genius. And true enough, unlike Paul Morphy and Jose Capablanca, he did not emerge as a chessboard Pallas Athene fully armed from the head of the chess goddess Caissa. He first had to serve an apprenticeship in numerous Soviet competitions. In 1927 he came fifth in his first attempt at the Soviet Championship, which he would eventually win seven times. After several setbacks, he won his first important event in 1930, taking first in the Leningrad Masters. By winning the Soviet title in 1931 and 1933, as well as sharing first prize in two strong master events in Leningrad in 1932 and 1933, Botvinnik became the Soviet chosen one. A match was arranged with Salo Flohr in 1933, which ended in a draw, +2 -2 =8. Botvinnik became famous overnight, and Nikolai Krylenko, Soviet chess boss who was executed by Stalin in 1938, wrote, “The Flohr-Botvinnik match … has shown that in our standard of play we have caught up with bourgeois Europe.” In truth, not yet. Botvinnik was the only Soviet master of the mid-1930s who could compete reliably against the best in the West, and his first international outing at Hastings 1934-35 found him a mere fifth equal among 10 competitors. Krylenko then organized Moscow 1935 in which Botvinnik finished first equal with Flohr ahead of Emanuel Lasker and Capablanca, and Moscow 1936, a strong double round robin won by Capablanca, a point ahead of Botvinnik, who was in turn 2 ½ points clear of Flohr in third. At Nottingham 1936, Botvinnik finished joint first with Capablanca, ahead of everyone of stature (Alekhine, Euwe, Lasker, Reshevsky, Reuben Fine et al.). The issue within the Soviet Union was who would be the anointed, financially backed challenger to the amateur Euwe or the ageing Alekhine, one of whom would obviously emerge as champion from their rematch in late 1937. When Grigory Levenfish won the 1937 Soviet Championship, which came after a good 6th-7th place

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/botvinnik.php (1 of 6)17/04/05 13:19:04


Levenfish vs Botvinnik 1937 Soviet Championship

finish at Moscow 1935, Botvinnik demanded a match to settle the question of Soviet top dog. Levenfish (b. 1889) was from the pre-Revolutionary generation and had competed at the great Carlsbad 1911 tournament, where he finished 14th-16th. Botvinnik was an enormous favorite, but the match was drawn, +5 -5 =3. In the 1940 Soviet Championship, Botvinnik finished 5th6th, scoring only 50 percent (+3 - 3 =3) against the top half of the crosstable. Botvinnik then prevailed upon Soviet chess leaders to organize an “absolute championship” of the USSR in 1941, which he won by 2 ½ points over a captive Keres, whose country had been annexed by the Soviets. “It is clear,” wrote Botvinnik afterwards, “who should play Alekhine.”

Clear? Botvinnik’s international record included not a single undivided first prize. Further, Keres and Fine had finished joint first, a point ahead of Botvinnik in third, at AVRO 1938, an unofficial qualifier to play Alekhine for the title. The story goes that Keres bought his life following World War II, after again falling into Soviet hands, by agreeing to relinquish to Botvinnik his claim for playing a match with Alekhine. The 1940s was the Botvinnik Decade: seven first prizes in seven tournaments (1941 Leningrad-Moscow USSR “absolute championship”; Sverdlovsk 1943; USSR Championship 1944; USSR Championship 1945; Groningen 1946; Moscow 1947; and The Hague-Moscow 1948). From 1951 to 1963 Botvinnik played seven title matches, winning twice, drawing twice and losing thrice. He did not win an undivided first prize in a major international tournament during his title years, his best result being equal first with Smyslov at Moscow 1956. Here is the record of his title matches: Moscow 1956 Botvinnik - Bronstein 1951

+5 -5 =14

Drawn

Botvinnik - Smyslov 1954

+7 -7 =10

Drawn


+3 -6 =13

Lost


+7 -5 =11

Won

Botvinnik - Tal 1960

+2 -6 =13

Lost

Botvinnik - Tal 1961

+10 -5 =6

Won

Botvinnik - Petrosian 1963

+2 -5 =15

Lost

Botvinnik held the world title from 1948 through 1957 without winning a championship match. His victories over Smyslov and Mikhail Tal were in revenge matches, which also means that he never won a match while defending his title. Yet his name unquestionably adorns the era from 1948 to 1963, partly the result of rules favoring the sitting champion and partly because of his enormous contributions to the art of chess. His One Hundred Selected Games, 1926 - 1946 edified two generations of chess players, both East and West; and his articles on chess preparation detailed the hard work necessary to attain excellence. He scored nearly 70 percent in his overall career total of +610 -139 =453 (a total of 1,202 games). “Iron Mike” continued to compete in tournaments during the post-championship years, scoring his best result at Wijk aan Zee 1969 with a shared first. At Palma de Mallorca 1967 and Monte Carlo 1968, he finished just behind Bent Larsen. Clearly no longer able to squelch the best in the West, Botvinnik retired from competitive chess in 1970. He spent time on programming computers to play chess (in the 1980s these efforts were swamped by the computer revolution in the West) and established the world’s most famous chess school. His most successful students were Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov. There is an outsized grandeur about Botvinnik’s 50 years in chess. His imposing figure of severe mien - the chess worker who came to every match with a thermos



bottle and a dark suit - combines with an oeuvre of heavy-duty chess masterpieces to create an heroic vision of power unleashed. The Botvinnik of, say, 1955 would not have been out of place in a socialist realist painting of steelworkers or in Ostrovsky’s novel How the Steel Was Tempered. Botvinnik’s chess style reflected the man. “Iron Mike” loved iron logic. He divided the chess world into “research players” such as himself and lesser purely practical players, talented though they might be. Rather than puttering around trying to find one-shot TNs, Reshevsky vs Botvinnik Botvinnik devised opening systems that United States vs Soviet Union, Moscow, 1955 could sustain a career. He mastered the Rubinstein Variation of the Nimzo-Indian Defense and the Winawer French as no one else has. He also produced major theoretical work in the Anti-Meran Gambit, English Opening and Gruenfeld Defense. His goal was to elaborate entire playing systems from the opening through to the endgame, typically featuring a blocked center leading to a complicated struggle with plenty of flank maneuvering. In the following game Botvinnik steamrolls his opponent’s set-up right from the opening into the ending, employing his patented g2-g4 idea to capture enormous amounts of space: Botvinnik - Smyslov

ECO: E45

World Championship Match, 1954

1. d4 Nf6

6. a3 Be7

2. 3. 4. 5.

7. Nf4 d5 8. cxd5 Bxf1 9. Kxf1 exd5

c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Ne2 Ba6



10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

g4 c6 g5 Nfd7 h4 Bd6 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 Bxf4 Bxf4 0-0 h5 Re8 Nd6 Re6 d5 Rxd6 Bxd6 Qxg5 Qf3 Qxd5

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Qxd5 cxd5 Rc1 Na6 b4 h6 Rh3 Kh7 Rd3 Nf6 b5 Nc5 Bxc5 bxc5 Rxc5 Rb8 a4 Rb7 Rdc3, Black resigns.

White played 14 pawn moves, nearly half the moves of the game. Therein lies a difference between Botvinnik and Capablanca, the premier piece player in modern chess history. In the game given in the Capablanca section (Bogolyubov Capablanca, 32 moves), the Cuban played only seven pawn moves, a majority of which were either to open lines for his pieces in the opening or to make captures. The time is long overdue in this age of computers for a piece vs. pawn move analysis of the games of the great masters. And here Botvinnik metes out essentially the same treatment to Tal: Botvinnik - Tal

ECO: E24


1. c4 Nf6

6. f3 Ba6

2. 3. 4. 5.

7. e4 d5 8. cxd5 Bxf1 9. Kxf1 exd5

Nc3 e6 d4 Bb4 a3 Bxc3+ bxc3 b6



10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Bg5 h6 Qa4+ c6 Bh4 dxe4 Re1 g5 Bf2 Qe7 Ne2 b5 Qc2 Qxa3 h4 gxh4 Bxh4 Nbd7 Ng3 0-0-0 Nxe4 Rhe8 Kf2 Nxe4+

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

fxe4 f6 Ra1 Qe7 Rxa7 Qxe4 Qxe4 Rxe4 Ra8+ Nb8 Bg3 Kb7 Rha1 Rc8 R8a7+ Kb6 Bxb8 b4 Bd6 bxc3 Bc5+ Kb5 R1a4, Black resigns.

Most players have seen Botvinnik’s famous brilliancy against Capablanca at AVRO 1938. Here is a lesser known stunner that deserves to be much better known: Botvinnik - Lajos Portisch (Monaco, 1968): Botvinnik - Lajos Portisch

ECO: A29

Monaco, 1968

1. c4 e5

9. a3 a5

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Be3 0-0 Na4 Nxa4 Qxa4 Bd5 Rfc1 Re8 Rc2 Bf8 Rac1 Nb8 Rxc7 Bc6

22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Ng6+ Kh7 Be4 Bd6 Nxe5+ g6 Bxg6+ Kg7 Bxh6+, Black resigns.

Nc3 Nf6 g3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 Bg2 Be6 Nf3 Nc6 0-0 Nb6 d3 Be7

17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

R1xc6 bxc6 Rxf7 h6 Rb7 Qc8 Qc4+ Kh8 Nh4 Qxb7

The masterpiece of Botvinnik’s maturity! Write GM Raymond Keene and Dr. Nathan



Divinsky about White’s bombshell on move 18, “What makes this sacrifice so impressive (apart from the fact of its being completely unexpected) is the brilliant explosion of combinative energy arising from quietly logical strategic play.”

Previous

Next

Victor Baturinsky (compiler), Shakhmatnoe Tvorchestvo Botvinnika (The Chess Creativity of Botvinnik), three volumes published in Moscow by the Physical Culture and Sport Press from 1965-68, containing 700 games, the definitive work on Botvinnik’s career; Mikhail Botvinnik, One Hundred Selected Games, 1926 - 1946 (Dover, 1981), a classic of objective chess, if not political, analysis; Mikhail Botvinnik, Achieving the Aim (Pergamon, 1981), an interesting biography that is not always morally pretty reading; Mikhail Botvinnik, Half a Century of Chess (Cadogan, 1996); Mikhail Botvinnik, Selected Games 1967 - 70 (Pergamon, 1981); Bernard Cafferty, Botvinnik’s Best Games, 1947 - 1970 (Batsford, 1973). ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Smyslov 1957 - 1958 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Events

Next

by Larry Parr


Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894 · Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937 · Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963

•

b. 1921 World champion: 1957 to 1958

No one has mentioned this strange fact before, but Vasily Smyslov, Caissa’s gentle giant and would-be opera singer whose 1979 autobiography was titled In Search of Harmony, owes his distinguished chess career to hard work, natural talent and American chess angel and investment banker Maurice Wertheim. For Wertheim made possible the first USA - USSR Radio Match of 1945, a double-round battle on 10 boards. Few people recall that the United States, radiant victor of four successive Olympiads during the 1930s, was an odds-on favorite to win a match in which it was crucified, 4 ½ - 15 ½! In Vasily Smyslov about 72 hours, from September 1 to 4, 1945, the Soviet Union established itself as the world’s leading chess power. On the first three boards, the Soviets scored 5½ - ½, including Smyslov’s two-zip win over Samuel Reshevsky. The Radio Match blowout legitimated Soviet chess, which included Smyslov’s impressive results in the Soviet Union during World War II. Such legitimacy was crucial for Smyslov because based only on his scanty international record before the1948 World Championship Tournament (12th13th at Leningrad-Moscow 1939, including a loss to Reshevsky; a distant third at Groningen 1946 behind Mikhail Botvinnik and Max Euwe; and a tie for 2nd-5th at Warsaw 1947, two points behind Svetozar Gligoric), he would surely never have been invited to play in the elite Hague-Moscow tournament for the world title. Smyslov came from a chess-playing family. His father once won a tournament game from Alexander Alekhine, and the son began playing at age six. Inspired by chess visits to the Soviet Union in the mid-1930s by Emanuel Lasker and Jose Capablanca, Smyslov took up the game in earnest, winning at age 16 the All-Union boys’ championship of 1938. He followed up this success in the same year by tying for first in the Moscow City Championship and found himself invited to play in the 1939 Leningrad-Moscow international where he finished tied near the bottom with an offform Paul Keres. No matter, because in the 1940 USSR Championship, he joined the chess elite of his country by finishing third, 1 ½ points ahead of Mikhail Botvinnik, who found himself in a tie for 5th-6th. After finishing third in the 1941 Soviet “absolute championship,” behind Botvinnik and Keres, but ahead of three other top Soviet players, Smyslov became the youngest Soviet grandmaster up until that time. During the war years he won the 1942 Moscow Championship and finished second behind Botvinnik in the 1944 USSR Championship.

Smyslov 1957 - 1958

The above results, combined with Smyslov’s mediocre international record and two-zip win over Reshevsky in the 1945 Radio Match, were his credentials for playing in the 1948 title tournament. By finishing a clear second, he justified his inclusion.

· Tal 1960 - 1961 · Petrosian 1963 to 1969 + Spassky 1969 - 1972 · The Concept of the "World Champion" + World Title Matches and Tournaments

From 1950 to 1958, Smyslov produced the best chess results in the world while also elaborating a serene positional style in which he often played for better or simply even endings, trusting in his Smyslov vs Keres endgame technique to provide victory. World Championship Tournment, The Hague, Moscow, 1948 His style has often been compared to

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/smyslov.php (1 of 5)17/04/05 13:19:43


Capablanca’s, though reaching an ending per se may have played a larger part in the Russian’s thinking than in the Cuban’s. Although Smyslov won the 1951 Tchigorin Memorial as well as Zagreb 1955 and Moscow 1956 (1st= with Botvinnik), Smyslov’s greatest achievements were winning two consecutive candidates’ tournaments, Neuhausen-Zurich 1953 and Amsterdam 1956, by two points and 1 ½ points, respectively. He climbed the Everest of qualification twice, which led to three matches with Botvinnik. He drew the first (1954), won the second (1957) and lost the third (1958), scoring +18 -17 =34 in these three mini-wars as well as achieving a plus score in tournament play against Botvinnik during the 1950s. Yet these titanic efforts yielded Smyslov the world title for only a year, given the regulations of that period. Smyslov’s competitive ambition was satisfied by winning the world title. He stated publicly that he did not believe he could win the 1959 candidates tournament, and he proved his view to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, finishing a gentleman’s fourth. He was twice more a title candidate, qualifying from interzonals at Amsterdam 1964 (1st-4th) and Las Palmas 1982 (2nd). At age 61 he became the oldest ever championship candidate. If in 1965, he was brutally eliminated from the cycle by Efim Geller (losing wearily, -3 =5), in 1983 he won his quarter- and semi-final matches against Robert Huebner (+1 -1 =12, decided by the spin of a roulette wheel) and Zoltan Ribli (+3 -1 =7) to meet rising young Garry Kasparov in the finals in 1984 , where he lost -4 =9.

In the more than 40 years since Smyslov lost the championship rematch, he has become best known not for his writings and not for a singleminded pursuit of the world title. He became a tournament specialist (winning eight successive tournaments in the mid-1960s; taking one first and three shared firsts in strong Moscow Central Chess Club tournaments in 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1963; and winning Havana 1965 ahead of Bobby Fischer and Monte Carlo 1969, plus numerous tournament victories in Cuba and Latin America), travelling the planet and creating a body of chess games noted for its subtle artistry. Botvinnik once claimed that in chess Smyslov did everything well, though endings were the latter’s special territory. Botvinnik ought to Smyslov - writer, world title holder and tournament know. For his great rival won games from him specialist. in every conceivable style, producing several miniatures or near miniatures as well as numerous accurate endgames. Here are two examples of Smyslov drastically abusing Botvinnik, followed by an ending of the kind that gave him the title in 1957: Smyslov-Botvinnik

ECO: C17


1. e4 e6

10. Qxh7 Nd7

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

d4 d5 Nc3 Bb4 e5 c5 a3 Ba5 b4 cxd4 Qg4 Ne7 bxa5 dxc3 Qxg7 Rg8


Nf3 Nf8 Qd3 Qxa5 h4 Bd7 Ng5 Rc8 Nd4 Nf5 Rb1 Rc4 Nxf5 exf5 Rxb7 Re4+


19. 20. 21. 22.

Qxe4 dxe4 Rb8+ Bc8 Bb5+ Qxb5 Rxb5 Ne6

23. Bf6 Rxg2 24. h5 Ba6 25. h6, Black resigns.

Smyslov-Botvinnik

ECO: D99


1. d4 Nf6

11. d5 Ne5

2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3 dxc4 6. Qxc4 0-0 7. e4 Bg4 8. Be3 Nfd7 9. Rd1 Nb6 10. Qb3 Nc6

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.


Be2 Nxf3+ gxf3 Bh5 h4 Qd7 a4 a5 Nb5 Nc8 Bd4 Nd6 Bxg7 Kxg7 Nd4 Kg8 Rg1 Qh3


21. Qe3 c5 22. dxc6e.p. bxc6

23. Qg5 c5 24. Nc6, Black resigns.

Botvinnik-Smyslov

ECO: D73


1. Nf3 Nf6

17. h4 Nc4

2. g3 g6 3. c4 c6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nc3 0-0 6. d4 d5 7. cxd5 cxd5 8. Ne5 b6 9. Bg5 Bb7 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. 0-0 e6 12. f4 Bg7 13. Rc1 f6 14. Nf3 Nc6 15. e3 Qd7 16. Qe2 Na5

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.


Bh3 Nd6 Kh2 a5 Rfe1 b5 Nd1 b4 Nf2 Ba6 Qd1 Rfc8 Rxc8+ Rxc8 Bf1 Bxf1 Rxf1 Qc6 Nd3 Qc2+ Qxc2 Rxc2+ Rf2 Rxf2+ Nxf2 Nc4 Nd1 Kf7


32. b3 Nd6 33. Kg2 h5 34. Kh3 Ne4 35. g4 hxg4+ 36. Kxg4 f5+ 37. Kh3 Bf6 38.Ne1 Kg7 39.Nd3 Nc3 40. Nxc3 bxc3 41. Ne1 Kh6 42. Nc2 Be7 43. Kg3 Kh5 44. Kf3 Kxh4 45. Ne1 g5 46. fxg5 Kxg5 47. Nc2 Bd6 48. Ne1 Kh4 49. Nc2 Kh3 50. Na1 Kh2

51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69.

Kg2 Bg3+ Kf3 Bh4 Nc2 Kg1 Ke2 Kg2 Na1 Be7 Nc2 Kg3 Ne1 Bd8 Nc2 Bf6 a3 Be7 b4 a4 Ne1 Bg5 Nc2 Bf6 Kd3 Kf2 Na1 Bd8 Nc2 Bg5 b5 Bd8 Nb4 Bb6 Nc2 Ba5 Nb4 Ke1, White resigns.

Previous Vasily Smyslov, My Best Games of Chess, 1935 - 1957 (Dover, 1972); Vasily Smyslov, 125 Selected Games (Cadogan, 1994); Vasily Smyslov, B poiskakh garmonii (In Search of Harmony), published in Moscow in 1979, an autobiography. ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Next

Tal 1960 - 1961 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Events

Next

by Larry Parr


Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894 · Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937 · Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963 · Smyslov 1957 - 1958

•

Tal 1960 - 1961

· Petrosian 1963 to 1969 + Spassky 1969 - 1972 · The Concept of the "World Champion" + World Title Matches and Tournaments


The chess story of Mikhail Tal is NOT about a 23-year-old firebrand becoming the youngest world champion until that time by defeating Mikhail Botvinnik in 1960, +6 -2 =13. The chess story of Mikhail Tal is NOT about stunning tournament results (for example, his 20 - 8 score at the great 1959 Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade candidates tournament). The chess story of Mikhail Tal, the combinational Wizard of Riga, is NOT even about the man’s oeuvre of extraordinary King-side attacking games with attendant sacrifices (Viktor Korchnoi and others have argued that Tal’s play, for all of its genial fireworks, has a stereotyped quality to Mikhail Tal Burning bright. it.). The chess story of Mikhail Tal IS about the act itself of straining against the leash of limited human imagination to create mammoth combinations on the chessboard. During his games, Tal wished to go where no chess player had ever gone before, choosing the middlegame as his metier for creative expression. He burned energy profligately. A chain-smoker and a heavy drinker, Tal pulsated nervous energy, pacing like a caged tiger in between moves. And as a young man with those famous fierce, hooded eyes and that imposing hooked nose, he bulldozed all before him. Until, that is, the return match with Botvinnik in 1961. “Iron Mike” sought closed positions and endgames in a very successful effort (+10 -5 =6) to make chess something other than ever-deeper plunges into unfathomable fantasy. “I realized that you cannot tackle him if the pieces are mobile and active,” Botvinnik later averred. “I played closed positions in which Tal could gain no advantage. Tal had no positional understanding for closed games.” Said Botvinnik in an implicit admission of the Latvian’s enormous talent, “If Tal would learn to program himself properly, then it would become impossible to play him.” Replied Tal laughingly many years later, “Botvinnik’s right! When he says such things, then he’s right. Usually, I prefer not to study chess but to play it. For me chess is more an art than a science. It’s been said that Alekhine and I played similar chess, except that he studied more. Yes, perhaps, but I have to say that he played, too.” Tal was without alibis. Suffering from kidney problems during the second Botvinnik match, he was once asked whether he lost because of poor health. “I think that I lost to him,” he answered, “because he beat me! He was very well-prepared for the second match. Botvinnik knew my play better than I knew his.” After losing the title, Tal spent the remainder of his career making fitful attempts at programming himself “properly,” widening his style to encompass positional play. But he never fully succeeded. He never played another championship match after losing the title at only age 24. Instead, he remained largely true to his sacrificial, combinative calling even when, towards the end, the pieces no longer danced. In an important sense, his later competitive setbacks at the highest level were Caissa’s gain, given the body of attractive games that he produced. He was never prepared to become a drone to add 10 percent to his point tally. “The act itself of straining against the leash of limited human imagination”? What does the phrase mean? It means trying to

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/tal.php (1 of 7)17/04/05 13:20:33


create more than the human mind can accommodate. It means expending energy while classical opponents conserve energy. It means making errors. It ultimately means sacrificing overall performance results in pursuit of a romantic vision. Here is a game from the high point of Tal’s Sturm und Drang period, a game against his friend and trainer, Alexander Koblents: Tal - Koblents

ECO: B63

Training Game, 1958

Tal vs Botvinnik World CHampionship Match, 1961

1. e4 c5

9. Nb3 Qb6

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 d6 Bg5 e6 Qd2 Be7 0-0-0 0-0

f3 a6 g4 Rd8 Be3 Qc7 h4 b5 g5 Nd7 g6 ...

at Golden Sands 1962, Tal-Dieter Mohrlock continued:

Tal-Dieter Mohrlock

ECO: B63

Golden Sands 1962

15. … fxg6

24. Rh6 Kf7

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

h5 gxh5 Rxh5 Nf6 Rg5 Ne5 Qg2 Bf8 Be2 Nc4 Bxc4 bxc4 Nd4 Rb8 Rh1 Rb7

Rh4 Qb6 Nd1 Qc7 f4 h6 Rg6 Re8 f5 e5 Nc3 Qd8 Nc6, Black resigns

and from above the conclusion of the Tal - Koblents (Training Game, 1958):

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

... hxg6 h5 gxh5 Rxh5 Nf6 Rh1 d5 e5 Nxe5 Bf4 Bd6 Qh2 Kf8


22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Qh8+ Ng8 Rh7 f5 Bh6 Rd7 Bxb5 Rf7 Rg1 Ra7 Nd4 Ng4 fxg4 Be5


29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

Nc6 Bxc3 Be3 d4 Rgh1 Rd7 Bg5 axb5 R1h6 d3

34. 35. 36. 37.

bxc3 d2+ Kd1 Qxc6 Rf6+ Rf7 Qxg7+, Black resigns.

Undeniably impressive, both games. Yet one annotator of the Tal-Mohrlock game wondered whether the attack would have gone so smoothly if defensive counterpuncher and Tal nemesis, Viktor Korchnoi, had been playng Black. And, too, one wonders what would have happened in Tal-Koblents if Korchnoi had kibitzed with the move 22. … Ke7. Mikhail Tal was not, surprising to say, a child prodigy. His moves of genius were not exclusively products of nature; they were also works of nurture and personal temperament. He started playing early, joining a chess group at age eight. But not until age 13 was he taken up by the trainer Koblents. On his third attempt in 1953, Tal won the Latvian championship, though he only finished second in the same event in 1954 and 1955. People were talking more about the fire in his games than in his early results. In the 1956 U.S.S.R. Championship, he finished 5th-7th. Then the dam burst. He won the Soviet championships of 1957 and 1958, smashed the field of the 1958 Portoroz Interzonal by 2 ½ points, took first at Zurich 1959 and then won the Bled candidates, which Harry Golombek rightly called “the fieriest tournament” ever. (But in this result, there ought to have been a warning to Tal: he finished last against his fellow Soviet participants at Bled in their microtournament among one another, winning the overall candidates only because of an astonishing 14 ½ - 1 ½ tally against the non-Soviets, who comprised the bottom half of the table.) The following year, as noted, he became at age 23 the youngest titleholder up until that time. In three years, he had achieved three levels of eminence: national champion, world championship candidate, and world champion.



Interspersed among these titanic results were appearances with Soviet student teams in which his results and, above all else, his games prompted excited talk. Immediately following the loss of his title, he rebounded with first prize at Bled 1961 after an exciting race with 18year- old Robert Fischer, who in a harbinger of themes to come defeated Tal in their individual game and scored 3 ½ - ½ overall against an elite Soviet contingent. In the three decades that followed, Tal thrice seemed on the verge of recovering his early form. He shared first prize at the Amsterdam Interzonal of 1964 and won two scintillating candidates matches against Lajos Portisch (5 ½ - 2 ½) and Bent Larsen (5 ½ - 4 ½). The “old” Tal seemed to be back, but in the finals, Boris Spassky held like a rock with Black in the Marshall Gambit of the Ruy Lopez, grinding Tal down, +4 -1 =6. Against Portisch, Tal showed what happens when an in-form attacking genius meets a highly talented hard worker: Tal-Portisch

ECO: B10

Candidates Match, 1965

1. e4 c6

9. Qxe4 e6

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Nc3 d5 Nf3 dxe4 Nxe4 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nd7 d4 Ngf6 Bd3 Nxe4


Tal and Petrosian watching Spassky record his move. Twenty-Fifth Soviet Championship, Riga, 1958

0-0 Be7 c3 Nf6 Qh4 Nd5 Qg4 Bf6 Re1 Qb6 c4 Nb4


16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Rxe6+ fxe6 Qxe6+ Kf8 Bf4 Rd8 c5 Nxd3 cxb6 Nxf4 Qg4 Nd5

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

bxa7 Ke7 b4 Ra8 Re1+ Kd6 b5 Rxa7 Re6+ Kc7 Rxf6, Black resigns.

As a rule Tal did not play fancy openings or dangerous gambits. Like Morphy before him, he strove for quick development of his pieces, using the opening as the foundation for his future fireworks. Seeded into the next candidates matches of 1968, Tal beat Svetozar Gligoric in the quarterfinals but lost to Korchnoi in the semis, +1 -2 =7. Following the removal of a kidney in 1969, he had a brief renaissance, which included shared first prize with Keres at Tallinn 1971, another Soviet title in 1972 (+9 =12) and other unbeaten results, but he failed badly at the 1973 Leningrad Interzonal. After a decade out of the candidates matches, he stormed back from the chessic cold into the candidates matches in 1979, the year in which he shared joint first with Anatoly Karpov in Montreal’s “Tournament of Stars” and then won the Riga Interzonal crushingly (+11 =6), 2 ½ points ahead of the field. But his loss to Lev Polugaevsky in a 1980 quarterfinal match (-3 =5) was completely convincing. He was outbooked and outplayed. At about this time, he went nearly 100 games without suffering a tournament defeat but then failed to become a candidate in the 1982 cycle that led to Garry Kasparov becoming the challenger. Subsequently, he won another 10 or so prizes in top-flight international play, but he never again played in candidates matches. A six-time Soviet champion (a record he shares with Botvinnik), he played in about 55 notable tournaments, winning or sharing first and second prizes 80 percent of the time. Late in his career, Tal did win another, albeit unofficial world championship: the 1988 World Blitz Championship in St. John, Canada. The 32-player field included Kasparov, Karpov and numerous other greats. Pleasantly fortified with a few drinks, Tal played nervelessly at age 51. “I did not take the tournament too seriously,” he later said. “I walked around the pressroom, smoked a few cigarettes and sacrificed some pieces.” Then he added, “I am waiting until next year when I can become a new ex-world champion.” Until the end, there were two Tals. The mature Tal certainly tried to channel his attacking genius into more positional channels, but inside the older man there remained the impish spirit of a 20-year-old who would play a sacrifice if it “looked good.” Against Robert Huebner, Tal was on his best aggressive positional behavior at the famous “Tournament of the Stars”: Tal-Huebner

ECO: B19

Montreal, 1979

1. e4 c6

11. Bf4 Qa5+

2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Ngf6

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.


Bd2 Qc7 0-0-0 e6 Ne4 0-0-0 g3 Nxe4 Qxe4 Nf6 Qe2 c5 dxc5 Bxc5 Rh4 Kb8 Bf4 Bd6


21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Rxd6 Rxd6 Ne5 Ka8 Nc4 Ne8 Rg4 Qe7 Nxd6 Nxd6 Rxg7 Nf5 Rg4 Rd8 Be5 f6 Bc3 e5 b3 a6

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

Qc4 Qe8 Rg6 Rc8 Qa4 Qd8 Qe4 Nd6 Qd3 Qc7 Bb4 Nb5 Rxf6 a5 Bd6 Nxd6 Rxd6 e4 Qd2, Black resigns.

31. Kb2 Qe6

Against Andrei Sokolov, Tal uncorks one of his vintage unclear f7-sacrifices of the kind that once caused him to say, “I thank those gods” - meaning those deities who placed the middlegame before the ending: Tal - Sokolov

ECO: E04

Brussels, 1988

1. d4 Nf6

8. Na3 cxd4

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

9. Naxc4 Bc5 10. Qb3 0-0 11. Bf4 Qc8 12. Rfd1 Rd8 13. Rac1 Nd5

c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 c5 0-0 Nc6 Ne5 Bd7



14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Nxf7 Kxf7 Ne5+ Nxe5 Bxe5 b6 Qf3+ Kg8 Qg4 g6 Be4 Be8 b4 Nxb4 Bxa8 Qxa8 Qxe6+ Bf7 Qf6 Kf8 Qh8+ Ke7 Bf6+ Kd7 Bxd8 Nc6 Bf6 Qxh8

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

Bxh8 Bxa2 e3 a5 Bxd4 Nxd4 exd4 Bd6 d5 a4 Rc6 Bc5 Rc1 Bd4 R6c4 Bxc4 Rxc4 b5 Rxd4 a3 Rd1 b4 Ra1 Kd6 Kf1 Kxd5 Ke2, Black resigns.

When all the historical dust has settled, Tal may finally be remembered as the dynamo who re-inspired the chess world. So many chessplayers derived so much pleasure from playing through his games that much of the chess world was encouraged to search more deeply and to play more adventurously. The exciting years of the 1950s and early 1960s when the Benoni, King’s Indian and Sicilian Defense came of age were the years when the play of Tal and Bobby Fischer became the images that so many tried to imitate. Previous

Next

Peter Clarke, Mikhail Tal’s Best Games of Chess: 1951 - 1960 (Bell & Sons, 1961), beautifully written, authoritatively annotated, containing 50 games; Bernard Cafferty, Tal’s 100 Best Games: 1961 - 1973 (Batsford, 1975); Hilary Thomas, The Complete Games of Mikhail Tal (Batsford, 1979 and 1980), three volumes covering, respectively, 1936-59, 1960-66 and 1967-73; Mikhail Tal, The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal (Cadogan, 1997), an enchanting autobiography in which Tal invents a journalist and interviews himself. ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Petrosian 1963 to 1969 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Previous



Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894


Tigran Petrosian has been described by Raymond Keene as the anti-hero among world champions. One wit referred to him as The Last Inaction Hero, an Arnold Schwarzenegger in reverse. Petrosian himself once said famously, "Grandmasters are not gladiators." The Caucasian-born Petrosian of Armenian parentage developed a chess style based on prophylaxis or the Tigran Petrosian anticipation of an opponent’s plans. His 19th USSR Championship, 1951 goal was to nip the buds of danger, and Paul Keres once said that Petrosian was a player who spent more time considering his opponent’s possibilities than his own. With the initiative Petrosian often played like a python, squeezing and squeezing the victim until he was almost happy to resign. When the chances were balanced, Petrosian was like a mongoose deflecting every thrust, though Larry Evans prefers the image of the Armenian as the ultimate chessic Tar Baby, who would take the best shots of pretty-boy, if that is quite the phrase, universal players such as his title opponents Mikhail Botvinnik and Boris Spassky and then enmesh them in viscous maneuvers until like Brer Rabbit, they were move-bound. Petrosian developed the exchange sacrifice into a much-feared defensive weapon that destroyed the sweet attacking dreams of many a chess virgin. For example, Denmark’s Bent Larsen may already have been toting up a full point in his mind until Petrosian’s 14th move:

· Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937 · Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963 · Smyslov 1957 - 1958

Larsen-Petrosian

ECO: C01

Havana Olympiad, 1966

1. e4 e6

9. Ng3 Nbd7

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Nf3 d5 Nc3 Nf6 exd5 exd5 d4 c6 Bd3 Bd6 0-0 0-0 Ne2 Re8

Nf5 Nf8 Nxd6 Qxd6 Ne5 N6d7 Bd2 f6 Qh5 Rxe5 dxe5 fxe5 Rfe1 e4

· Tal 1960 - 1961

•

Petrosian 1963 to 1969


Larsen failed to adjust to the loss of the initiative by shifting gears with, say, 16. f3 in the hope of eventually evaluating his small material advantage. White even went on to lose. Petrosian took to chess relatively late, becoming involved in a chess program at about age 13. His first trainer introduced the boy to the works of Aron Nimzovich, and Petrosian early on adopted a style based on the inviolability of strategic canons. Unlike other great masters, he never had a stormy youth. In 1946 he won the USSR Junior Championship with the self-explanatory score of 14 - 1. But he progressed slowly, finishing 16th and 12th-13th in, respectively, the Soviet championships of 1949 and 1950. Not until 1951 did he enter the top circles by tying with Efim Geller for 2nd-3rd behind Paul Keres in the USSR Championship of that year, ahead of the

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/petrosian.php (1 of 8)17/04/05 13:21:18


likes of Botvinnik, David Bronstein and Vasily Smyslov. This result seeded him into the 1952 Saltsjoebaden Interzonal where he again finished 2nd-3rd which advanced him into the celebrated 1953 Neuhausen-Zurich candidates tournament. In a field of 15, he finished a respectable fifth (+6 -4 =8). By the mid-1950s Petrosian was one of the world’s half-dozen top players. Petrosian grew ever stronger throughout the 1950s. His results in four successive Soviet championships, which led up to his victory in the 1962 Curacao candidates tournament, were the best indicator of this ascent (1958: 2nd, +5 =12; 1959: 1st, +8 =11; 1960: 2nd, +10 -2 =7; 1961: 1st, +9 -1 =9). Although Petrosian’s overall record in international tournaments was far from shattering (in some 40 strong international events, he won more second prizes, 15, than firsts, 11), he did do well in three events in the years before Curacao: Beverwijk 1960 (1st-2nd), Copenhagen 1960 (1st) and Zurich 1961 (2nd). His 3rd-5th at Bled 1961 was also a good result given the strength of the tournament field. Because of Petrosian’s tendency to play draws, most observers have failed to notice that he remained right near the top of world chess, either as a title candidate or as a sitting champion, for nearly three decades. He was a title candidate for a record eight times, not to mention his two title matches in which he met the winner of the 1964-65 and 1967-68 candidates cycles. In 1955 he finished fourth in the Gothenburg Interzonal (+5 =15!) and 3rd-7th in the 1956 Amsterdam candidates; in 1958 he finished 3rd-4th in the Portoroz Milan Bobotsov, Bulgarian grandmaster vs Petrosian Interzonal and third at the 1959 Bled Moscow Tournament, 1967 candidates; in 1962 he finished 2nd-3rd at the Stockholm Interzonal and first at the 1962 Curacao candidates; in 1971, he was seeded into the candidates matches, getting past Robert Huebner (+1 -0 =6) and Viktor Korchnoi (+1 -0 =9) before losing to Robert Fischer (+1 -5 =3); in 1974, he was again seeded into the candidates matches by virtue of being a finalist in the previous cycle, upsetting Lajos Portisch, an old nemesis, +3 -2 =8, but then losing to Korchnoi, +1 -3 =1; in 1976, he finished 2nd-4th in the Biel Interzonal and then lost a quarterfinal match the following year to Korchnoi, +1 -2 =9; and in 1979, he finished 1st-3rd in the Rio de Janeiro Interzonal, before losing to Korchnoi the following year in the quarterfinals, +0 -2 =7. Petrosian’s victory at Curacao 1962 was marred by Fischer’s charges of cheating. Indeed, the historical smoke has cleared, and we know that Geller, Keres and Petrosian made a draw pact in the belief that Fischer was not yet so superior as to overcome team play against him. This reckoning proved correct. But Petrosian’s world title victory over Botvinnik in 1963, +5 -2 =15, was far from fixed. The score was dead even after 14 games, and Petrosian had the satisfaction of prevailing with his own weapons. Stated Botvinnik later, “It was really hard to play Tigran. The thing is that he had a somewhat different understanding of positional play. He went deeper into it than usual, and myself, a universal player, did not completely understand Tigran’s way and depth of judgement, although I was judging all positions well.” A sample of how Petrosian squeezed a largely in-form Botvinnik: Petrosian - Botvinnik

ECO: D94


1. c4 g6

10. Kxd1 Bxe6

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

d4 Nf6 Nc3 d5 Nf3 Bg7 e3 0-0 Be2 dxc4 Bxc4 c5 d5 e6 dxe6 Qxd1+


Bxe6 fxe6 Ke2 Nc6 Rd1 Rad8 Rxd8 Rxd8 Ng5 Re8 Nge4 Nxe4 Nxe4 b6


18. Rb1 Nb4

34. Ne4 Rxh2

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

Bd2 Nd5 a4 Rc8 b3 Bf8 Rc1 Be7 b4 c4 b5 Kf7 Bc3 Ba3 Rc2 Nxc3+ Rxc3 Bb4 Rc2 Ke7 Nd2 c3 Ne4 Ba5 Kd3 Rd8+ Kc4 Rd1 Nxc3 Rh1

Kd4 Kd7 g3 Bb4 Ke5 Rh5+ Kf6 Be7+ Kg7 e5 Rc6 Rh1 Kf7 Ra1 Re6 Bd8 Rd6+ Kc8 Ke8 Bc7 Rc6 Rd1 Ng5 Rd8+ Kf7 Rd7+ Kg8, Black resigns.

A game for thin-lipped connoisseurs of old and dry, if also very fine, wine. As world champion, Petrosian seemed an unhappy man. His ambition, so it has often been said, was to fulfill his wife’s ambitions. He had done so. Yet he enjoyed relatively little respect. The chess public and a number of grandmasters berated his style, though grudgingly conceding his strength. In seven important tournaments during his incumbency, he never took clear first prize, dividing 1st-2nd with Keres at Los Angeles 1963 and Buenos Aires 1964. In other events he was an also-ran, plagued by draws and lethargy. In 1966 Petrosian met popular challenger Boris Spassky, who entered the match a big favorite. Not only had Spassky convincingly defeated Keres, Geller and Mikhail Tal in candidates matches, he had also played model chess in a universal style. Spassky seemed equally at home in the wilds of the King’s Gambit and other open games as in the thickets of the King’s Indian and assorted closed positions. At a strictly personal level, if not to the manor born, Spassky was certainly to



the gracious manner born. In the match Spassky achieved numerous promising positions only to run into a record number of exchange sacrifices and other sophisticated holding maneuvers. He thrashed about and found himself two points down after 10 games. He evened the score after game 19, but Petrosian won the 20th and 22nd games to clinch the title defense, +4 -3 =17. Petrosian’s winning title defense was the first since Alexander Alekhine defeated Efim Bogolyubov in 1934. Except for his meaningless win in game 23 after Spassky vs Petrosian Petrosian had already retained his Second World Championship, 1969 crown, Spassky did not prevail in a single game conducted in his accustomed flowing style. His wins in games 13 and 19 were grim, lengthy affairs played in the style of his opponent! A sample of Petrosian’s coils and toils: Spassky - Petrosian

ECO: D03


1. d4 Nf6

13. b4 g5

2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 d5 4. Nbd2 Be7 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 c5 7. c3 b6 8. 0-0 Bb7 9. Ne5 Nxe5 10. dxe5 Nd7 11. Bf4 Qc7 12. Nf3 h6

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.


Bg3 h5 h4 gxh4 Bf4 0-0-0 a4 c4 Be2 a6 Kh1 Rdg8 Rg1 Rg4 Qd2 Rhg8 a5 b5 Rad1 Bf8 Nh2 ...


24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

… Nxe5 Nxg4 hxg4 e4 Bd6 Qe3 Nd7 Bxd6 Qxd6 Rd4 e5 Rd2 f5 exd5 f4 Qe4 Nf6 Qf5+ Kb8

34. f3 Bc8 35. Qb1 g3 36. Re1 h3 37. Bf1 Rh8 38. gxh3 Bxh3 39. Kg1 Bxf1 40. Kxf1 e4 41. Qd1 Ng4 42. fxg4 f3 43. Rg2 fxg2+, White resigns.

When Petrosian and Spassky met again in 1969, the latter justified his status as prematch favorite by +6 -4 =13. But Spassky’s victory was far from easy with the match being tied after 16 games. When Petrosian won a positionally crunching game 20 to pull within a point of Spassky, he appeared about to salvage his title with a drawn match. But the second time around, he could not contain Spassky’s attacking game on several occasions. His win in game 11 featured yet another of his exchange sacrifices, and some observers believe that Petrosian’s punishment of Spassky’s smallest miscues of aggression was the genesis of the latter’s later caution. More of Petrosian’s coils and toils: Spassky - Petrosian

ECO: E12


1. d4 Nf6

16. Qc2 Rfc8

2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. a3 Bb7 5. Nc3 d5 6. e3 Nbd7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. Be2 Bd6 9. b4 0-0 10. 0-0 a6 11. Qb3 Qe7 12. Rb1 Ne4 13. a4 Ndf6 14. b5 Nxc3 15. Qxc3 Ne4

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.


Bb2 c6 bxc6 Bxc6 Qb3 Qd7 Ra1 b5 a5 Bb7 Ne5 Qd8 Rfd1 Qh4 g3 Qe7 f3 Ng5 h4 Ne6 f4 f6 Nf3 Nd8 Kf2 Nf7 Nd2 ...


30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

… Rc4 Qd3 Re8 Bf3 Bb4 Ba3 Bxa3 Rxa3 Nd6 Re1 f5 Raa1 Ne4+ Bxe4 fxe4 Qb1 Qd7 Ra2 Rec8 Nxc4 dxc4 d5 Bxd5 Rd1 c3 Rc2 Qh3

44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.

Rg1 Qg4 Kg2 Qf3+ Kh2 Qxe3 f5 Qc5 Rf1 b4 f6 b3 Rcf2 c2 Qc1 e3 f7+ Kf8 Rf5 b2 Qxb2 c1=Q Qxg7+ Rg5+ and White resigns.

In his post-title years, Petrosian remained a championship candidate for another decade. Interestingly, his results in international tournaments improved as he opened up his style just a bit. In 23 tournaments from 1969 to 1980, he won or shared eight first and nine second prizes, most notably first equal at San Antonio 1972, Amsterdam 1973, Las Palmas 1973 and 1978, Rio de Janeiro 1979 (an interzonal), Yerevan 1980 and outright firsts at Tallinn 1979 and Bar 1980. His second prize at Milan 1975, sharing honors with Anatoly Karpov and Ljubomir Ljubojevic just behind Portisch, was also noteworthy. As already noted, he shared second prize at the 1976 Biel Interzonal. In 1981 he finished second at Tilburg, a category 15 event. Petrosian once described his past games as “old friends,” with whom he enjoyed becoming reacquainted now and then. Here is a true Petrosian game from his classic period as a Python, which must have been a dear old friend, a game that reminds one of Fischer’s observation that Petrosian could beat you with a maneuver before you knew what was happening: Petrosian-Wolfgang Unzicker Hamburg, 1960


ECO: D30


1. d4 Nf6

14. Nc1 a5

2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 d5 4. c4 c6 5. Qc2 Be7 6. e3 0-0 7. Nc3 h6 8. Bf4 Nbd7 9. cxd5 cxd5 10. Bd3 a6 11. 0-0 b5 12. a4 b4 13. Na2 Ne8

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Nb3 Ba6 Bxa6 Rxa6 Qd3 Ra7 Rfc1 Nd6 Bxd6 Bxd6 Rc6 Nb8 Rc2 Nd7 Rac1 Nb6 Qb5 Nc4 Nfd2 Nxd2 Rxd2 Qa8 Rdc2 Rd8

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

Qxg4 Qe7 h5 Qf6 Ka2 Kg7 hxg6 Qxg6 Qh4 Be7 Qf2 Kf8 Nd2 Rb7 Nb3 Ra7 Qh2 Bf6 Rc8 Rad7 Nc5 b3+ Kxb3 Rd6. f5 Rb6+ Ka2, Black resigns.

Rc6 g6 g3 Kg7 Kf1 Kg8 h4 h5 R1c2 Kh7 Ke1 Kg8 Kd1 Kh7 Kc1 Kg8 Kb1 Kh7 Qe2 Qb7 Rc1 Kg7 Qb5 Qa8 f4 Kh7 Qe2 Qb7 g4 hxg4

Shortly after Petrosian’s death in 1984, Arthur Bisguier wrote a moving tribute to the great Armenian. Mention was made of Petrosian’s enormous talent, which Larsen has also extolled. But Bisguier’s real theme was the obloquy his subject had to endure and the courage he had to summon in the service of his unique chess vision of hyperprophylaxis. Bisguier told of how in one of their games, Petrosian made a move foreign to his safe style and could only make a draw. Bisguier asked his opponent



about the uncharacteristic aggression, and Petrosian rolled his eyes in the direction of some sneering colleagues. If one considers heroism as something more than courageous grand theatrics, perhaps Petrosian was not the anti-hero that he seemed to be. “Heroism, the Caucasian mountaineers say,” wrote George Kennan, Sr. when quoting Petrosian’s countrymen, “is endurance for one moment more.” Previous

Next

Eduard Shekhtman, The Games of Tigran Petrosian (Pergamon, 1991), nearly the complete Petrosian oeuvre in two volumes; Peter Clarke, Petrosian’s Best Games, 1946 - 1963 (G. Bell & Sons, 1963), a well-written work with a carefully culled selection of Petrosian’s games; Eduard Wildhagen, T. Petrosjan 350 Partien in the Weltgeschichte des Schachs series (Verlag Dr. E. Wildhagen, 1963); Viktor Vasiliev, Tigran Petrosian: His Life and Games (Batsford, 1974), containing 50 games and a fairly detailed biography. ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Spassky 1969 - 1972 - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Events

Next

by Larry Parr


Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894 · Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946

b. 1937 World champion: 1969 - 1972

“The Noblest Russian of them all” is the inphrase these days for describing Boris Spassky. He was smart and strong enough to become world chess champion, making him a good winner who merited respect. And he was still smarter and stronger to lose gracefully, making him an even better loser, who retains our respect. When Spassky joined some 1,500 spectators in applauding Bobby Fischer’s Mozartian victory over him in game six of their 1972 world championship match in Reykjavik, Iceland, the only person surprised by this unaffected gesture was the man whom he was applauding, Fischer himself, who exclaimed wonderingly, “Did you see that? That was class.” “That” was also brilliant - a move deeper than Boris Spassky any ever made by Fischer. “Deeper,” “The Noblest Russian of them all” paradoxically, because there was no calculation behind the move. “Deeper,” personally, because the moving of Spassky’s hands in applause was not a maneuver. He was the nice guy who finished first by coming second in the most celebrated chess competition in the 1,500-year history of the royal game. Boris Spassky was born in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) in 1937, the second of three children. He and his family were among the lucky evacuees before the Nazis encircled St. Petersburg (Viktor Korchnoi would bury his parents there), spending World War II in the Kirov region of the Urals where he learned the moves of chess at age five. Showing talent straight off, he entered the chess section of the Leningrad Palace of Young Pioneers in the autumn of 1946, where he worked five hours a day on the game with the trainer, Vladimir Zak.

· Euwe 1935 - 1937 · Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963 · Smyslov 1957 - 1958 · Tal 1960 - 1961 · Petrosian 1963 to 1969

•

Spassky 1969 - 1972

· A Handy Trainer · I, Chess Claudius · Peace vs Pieces · The Concept of the "World Champion"

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/spassky.php (1 of 7)17/04/05 13:21:52

On more than one occasion, Spassky has said that youth programs were the single redeeming feature of the Soviet state. In the Young Pioneers he found a warm home away from a cold hovel where his divorced mother struggled to support her family amid conditions of general starvation. This child prodigy - along with Garry Kasparov and Gata Kamsky, one of only three to emerge from the famed Soviet chess machine - became a member of what is in the West a subculture and what was in the Soviet Union the ueber culture. In 1948 Spassky finished fifth in the Leningrad junior championship, which made him a firstcategory player, and in 1951 he finished second in the Russian junior championship, which made him a candidate master. Then, in 1952 at the age of 15, he came second in the Leningrad Championship, catching the eye of an impressed Mikhail Botvinnik, who praised highly both his practical


result and the quality of his games. Botvinnik probably played a role in Spassky, a mere 16-yearold who had yet to compete in even a semi-finals of a Soviet championship, being sent to play in the 1953 Bucharest international, where he tallied 12 7. He finished tied for 4th - 6th behind Alexander Tolush with 14 points, Tigran Petrosian at 13 and Vasily Smyslov with 12 ½. In addition to getting his international master title with this result, he also hit a home run in his first time at bat by winning this watershed game in the first round of his first international tournament:

+ World Title Matches and Tournaments

Boris Spassky - Vasily Smyslov

ECO: E

Bucharest, 1953

1. d4 Nf6

9. Bb5 0-0

2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4

10. Ne2 Ne5 11.0-0 Ng6 12. Bg3 Nh5 13. Bd3 Nxg3 14. Nxg3 Ne5 15. Be2 Bxc3 16. bxc3 Qh4 17. f4 Ng4 18. Bxg4 Bxg4 19. Qa4 Bc8 20. e4 Qg4 21. Qc2 h5 22. Rf2 b5 23. e5 h4 24. Nf1 Bf5 25. Qd2 dxe5 26. fxe5 Bg6 27. Re1 h3 28. d6 Be4 29. Ne3 Qe6 30. Rf4 Bxg2

4. Bg5 ...

Spassky in his youth.

From the beginning of his career in international chess, Spassky loved this long move by the Queen’s Bishop - what one German writer called his “Lieblingsvariante” in the Nimzo-Indian. He later played this aggressive sally with such success in his matches and in several tournament games that it is now called the Spassky Variation. 4. … h6 5. 6. 7. 8.


Bh4 c5 d5 exd5 cxd5 d6 e3 Nbd7


31. Nf5 Rfe8

32. Re3 Rad8?

33. Nxg7! Rxd6 Played in lieu of 33. … Kxg7 34. Rg3+ Kf8 35. Rxf7+! 34. Nxe6, Black resigns A great way to begin a chess career!

One of the chess books that most wants writing is a work about the influence of teachers and seconds on great players. Siegbert Tarrasch learned his chess lessons from the writings and games of Wilhelm Steinitz, while Mikhail Tchigorin looked to the romantics for inspiration. Both Akiba Rubinstein and Alexander Alekhine were classical players in the Tarrasch mold. Others such as Emanuel Lasker, Jose Capablanca and Bobby Fischer were sui generis, cut from cloth that they themselves wove. Among the great post-WWII Soviet grandmasters, Tigran Petrosian came under the influence of Archil Ebralidze, for whom the Father, Son and Holy Ghost of chess were Aron Nimzovich, Capablanca and the Caro-Kann Defense. Ebralidze soon had Petrosian reading Nimzovich’s Chess Praxis, and a celebrated genius of strategic chess was born. Spassky’s first trainer, Vladimir Zak, yielded in 1952 to chess caveman Alexander Tolush, who had once defeated Botvinnik by venturing the Spassky vs Petrosian Center Game. He showed Spassky that World Championship Match, 1969 chess was not merely an exercise in strategy but was also filled with, in Spassky’s words, “attack, sacrifice, creative ideas.” During the 1950s and early 1960s, Spassky became a knight of the King’s Gambit, playing numerous remarkable games, which earned what one writer described as “ecstatic” praise from Bobby Fischer. Here, for example, is Spassky’s “Bonded win” over David Bronstein, which is so named because a Russian master spy was shown making the move, 15. Nd6!!?, in the film, From Russia with Love: Boris Spassky - David Bronstein Leningrad, 1960

1. e4 e5

8. 0-0 h6

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

9. Ne4 Nxd5 10. c4 Ne3 11. Bxe3 fxe3 12. c5 Be7 13. Bc2! Re8 14. Qd3 e2

f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 exd5 Bd6 Nc3 Ne7 d4 0-0 Bd3 Nd7


ECO: C36


15. … Nf8?

Bronstein overlooks what follows. He had to try 15. … Bxd6, which leads to an unclear position after 16. 16. Qh7+ Kf8 17. cxd6 exf1=Q+ 18. Rxf1 cxd6 19. Qh8+ Ke7 20. Re1+ Ne5 21. Qxg7 Rg8 22. Qxh6 Qb6 23. Kh1 Be6 24. dxe5 d5

16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21. 22. 23.

15. Nd6!!? Spassky leaves a Rook en prise with check while also threatening checkmate and a Knight sacrifice on f7. But how good is the move, really? Ilya Kan once remarked that a Rubinstein or a Capablanca would have continued with 15. Rf2, securing a positional advantage.)

Nxf7!! exf1=Q+ Rxf1 Bf5 Qxf5 Qd7 Qf4 Bf6

N3e5 Qe7 Bb3 Bxe5 Nxe5+ Kh7 Qe4+, Black resigns

Although Spassky respected Tolush’s fighting profundity, he needed more than a trainer. Given his inconsistent results in the late 1950s and early 1960s, he needed a new lease on chess life. And a friend. Perhaps, too, a surrogate father. “I had no one to turn to at this time,” he later said, “except my mother.” And so, Spassky turned to Igor Bondarevsky, who became his trainer in 1961. Bondarevsky, who won the 1940 Soviet Championship, broadened Spassky’s style, disciplined his play and provided emotional support. He was the catalyst that ignited Spassky’s spectacular drive toward the world championship. About which, more anon. Spassky’s chess story followed an interesting, if typical script. Having been noticed by Botvinnik and having then done well at Bucharest 1953, the 16-year-old comer appeared poised to sweep all before him. He tied for 3rd - 6th in the 1955 Soviet Championship, equalling the scores of Botvinnik and Petrosian and, in the process, qualifying for the Gothenburg interzonal. He then won the 1955 World Junior Championship. At Gothenburg 1955, he tied for 7th - 9th (+7 -5 =8) which was just good enough to scrape into the Amsterdam candidates tournament of 1956. Only 18 years old, Spassky was a grandmaster and a candidate for the world chess championship.



At Amsterdam, Spassky did very well, though no better than that, by scoring +3 -2 =13 and tying for 3rd - 7th with Efim Geller, Laszlo Szabo, Bronstein and Petrosian. He finished two points behind the winner Smyslov, but only a half-point below Paul Keres in second place. Surely, here was a 19-year-old with a good chance to become the youngest-ever world champion in the next title cycle - a possibility that seemed far from farfetched after he tied for 1st - 3rd in the 1956 Soviet Championship. But then came …. Nothing. Nine years — 1956 to 1965 - would separate Spassky’s first and second appearances in candidates competitions. What went wrong?

What went wrong is what went right. Chess is arguably the ultimate sport or art of the double-edged sword. Spassky’s strengths were his weaknesses. He played brilliantly against the best but could lose to the less than best. His results were littered with fine play against the top half of tournament tables and too many defeats against the bottom half. Some of his very best games - including the From Russia with Love bite of Bronstein — were played in tournaments in which his final score was modest. Two tournaments, the Soviet championships of 1958 in Riga and 1961 in Moscow, were mini-Waterloos for Spassky. Both events were interzonal qualifiers for, respectively, Portoroz 1958 and Stockholm 1962; and both times Spassky failed to make the cut. Like Napoleon at Waterloo and in Russia, Spassky began his two major career disasters well. In Riga he led the field after 13 rounds and then lost to a lesser light. He was still set to make the trip to Portoroz, building up a winning position against Tal, but he then missed a win and later tossed away a draw. In Moscow the collapse was Napoleonic in scope, except that it was Spassky who scorched his own earth. Leading after eight rounds and virtually assured of a qualifying position after 17 rounds, Spassky tore up his ticket to Stockholm by losing his final two games. Among horse handicappers, Spassky would have been touted as a sprinter rather than a stayer - a fast starter and a slow finisher. But that weakness was obvious to everyone. The real issue was Spassky, Tal and Petrosian 25th Soviet Championship, Riga, 1958 why there were mixed results from one tournament to another. Why so many good starts, so many good games against the greats, and why so many poor ends, so many dreary losses against the less than great? After all, sandwiched between his failures in the Soviet championships of 1958 and 1961 were radiant successes. Spassky eviscerated his opponents at the Riga international of 1959, scoring 11 ½ 1 ½, finishing 2 ½ points in front of Tal. At Mar del Plata 1960, he and Bobby Fischer were a two-player stampede, trampling the field into the Argentine pampas, each scoring 13 ½ - 1 ½. Another great Spassky result during this period was a tie for first with Smyslov and Bronstein at Moscow 1959, a super-GM tournament. Clearly, Spassky had world-title talent. Clearly, too, his chess style, though unusually active, was universal. Unlike Tal, Spassky seldom imposed his personality on positions. When he wished to play positionally, he adopted openings congenial with this desire. When he thought the moment ripe for blazing tactics, he let loose with the King’s Gambit. Bobby Fischer once placed the early Spassky among the 10 greatest masters in chess history, writing that he “sacrifices with complete abandon” and noting that when a pawn down, he conducted many attacks with the serenity of someone a pawn up. In truth, Spassky rarely played speculative sacrifices. Bent Larsen said that the difference between the sacrificial particularist Tal and the sacrificial universalist Spassky was that when the former pitched a piece, one might usefully fight on, whereas when the latter donated material, one might as well begin preparing for the next round.



Here are two more early Spassky games - the first an example of the young Russian sacrificing with something approaching “complete abandon” and the second a sample of sacrificing with complete calculation: Boris Spassky - Vladas Mikenas

ECO: D08

Riga, 1959

1. d4 d5

6. f5! Nxe5

2. 3. 4. 5.

7. Nf3 Bb4+ 8. Nbd2 Nc6 9. Bd3 g4

c4 e5 dxe5 d4 e4 Nc6 f4 g5

Chess has its nits and wits. One writer called this line the Fischer Defense to the Albin-King’s Gambit.

10. 0-0!!? Paul Keres wrote wryly that Spassky was playing the Muzio Gambit, an opening that the latter frequently essays in simultaneous and clocked exhibitions. 10. … gxf3 11. Nxf3 Bd6!? Another test of the sacrifice would be 11. … f6. 12. a3 Bd6 13. b4.

Boris Spassky - Lothar Schmid Varna Olympiad, 1962


12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

e5! Nxe5 Re1 f6 c5 Be7 Nxe5 fxe5 Rxe5 Nf6 Bg5 0-0 Qb3+ Kh8 Rae1 Bxc5

20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

Rxc5 Qd6 Rce5 Ng4 Bf4 Bd7 Bg3 Bc6? R5e4, Black resigns

ECO: A43


1. d4 c5

13. e5 dxe5

2. d5 d6 3. e4 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Be2 Nf6 6. Nc3 Na6 7. 0-0 Nc7 8. Re1 0-0 9. a4 a6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bf4 Bd7 12. Qd2 b5

14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Bxe5 b4 Bxf6 Bxf6 Ne4! Bg7 Nxc5 Bxb2 Rad1 Bf5?!

The correct move is: 18. … Bg7. 19. Qxh6 Bg7 20. Qh4 Qd6 21. Ng5 Rfe8

22. Bd3!! Qxc5 23. Bxf5 Nxd5

24. Be6!, Black resigns

Genius + Universal Style = Interzonal Qualification. But this equation did not balance for Spassky. To be sure, Spassky had personal difficulties - with his trainer Tolush and with his first wife. “We were like bishops of opposite color,” he said after they were divorced in 1961. But the core problem was why Spassky fell off the pace during key chess competitions. He once spoke of craving creativity in his chess, which did not mix well with a work regime that never exceeded five to six hours a day - though it did fit well with his frank self-analysis as a dreamy guy without gobs of the get-go. His favorite description of himself is that of a lazy Russian bear with the large, strong hands of a torpid peasant. The bit about the hands is ironic because the verdict on Spassky by 1961 was that he needed hand-holding by another trainer and some polishing of his style so as to use his limited energy more efficiently. Continue... ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Spassky - A Handy Trainer - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

Previous by Larry Parr

·

FAQ

Next

Page Two


Grandmaster Bondarevsky, as already mentioned, did the hand-holding and helped with the buffing. His account of Spassky’s revival in B. Spassky Storms Olympus (B. Spasskij shturmuet Olimp: Kaluga, 1966) stressed the effort to combine Spassky’s genial tactical sharpness with unremitting positional discipline. There followed five excellent results that vaulted him into the candidates matches. In late 1961, he won the Soviet Championship for the first time by gutsily overcoming a late-round loss to Leonid Shamkovich, demonstrating a new toughness in adversity. Then, in the Soviet Championship played in Leningrad in late 1963, which was a qualifier for an elite zonal tournament, Spassky had a bump-free ride, +5 =14, to tie for 1st - 3rd. To reach the candidates matches, Spassky had to clear two remaining high hurdles, which he did rather paradoxically by playing sound, low-jump chess. He won the fearsome double round robin 1964 Moscow zonal, +4 -2 =6, ahead of Leonid Stein, Bronstein, Korchnoi, Geller and the like. Then at Amsterdam 1964, a 23-round interzonal, he tied for 1st- 4th, scoring +13 -2 =8. Following this qualification for the first-ever cycle of candidates matches, he turned in an undefeated 13 - 4 at Belgrade 1964 to finish 1 ½ points clear of a field that included Korchnoi, Larsen et al. Outstanding, occasionally undefeated, tournament triumphs had for the first time become a norm for Spassky. On the eve of the 1965 candidates matches, Spassky was feared for his fearlessness and respected for a new-found solidity. His opening preparation was no longer an object of attention because of occasional gambit speculations but because of deep research in mainstream variations. At the chess board he replaced Keres as Caissa’s consummate poker-face, typically sitting sideways at the table with legs crossed, cigarette in right hand, head held back and eyebrows arched. He gave an impression of slightly bored detachment. The luck of the draw went against Spassky for the 1965 candidates matches. He would have no easy opponents, instead having to overcome the cream of the Soviet grandmasteriat. Spassky’s first opponent was Paul Keres, and the know-it-all scribblers were right for once when they wrote that the winner of this quarterfinal would likely go all the way. Keres was in fine form, winning the most brilliant game of a match that was not decided until the 10th and final game. Yet Spassky prevailed, +4 -2 =4, thanks to extremely exact play in several Ruys and a refurbishing job for White in the Leningrad or, as it later became known, the Spassky Variation of the Nimzo-Indian. His second opponent was Geller, who enjoyed a plus score against Spassky before their match. Once again, Spassky’s opponent was in form. The difference - +3 -0 =5 in Spassky’s favor - proved to be Geller’s inability to hold as Black in the Ruy Lopez and Spassky’s use of a smooth-flowing Tarrasch Defense in the Queen’s Gambit to neutralize the enemy’s serve with White. Spassky’s third opponent was Tal, who like Keres, won the most brilliant game of the match when he took the lead in game two. This finals match is remembered for Spassky popularizing the Marshall Variation of the Ruy by drawing three times with the Black pieces and for the happenstance that Black won four of the five decisive games. After eight games the battle was tied, +1 1 =6, whereupon Spassky won the last three games. Crunch time came in game nine, when Tal’s nerve broke. Seven years earlier at the key moment in the 1958 Soviet Championship and zonal, Spassky had been the one to collapse against Tal. The difference was Spassky’s superior physical and emotional conditioning, not to mention his development of a nearly universal style. He seemed to do everything

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/spassky2.php (1 of 8)17/04/05 13:22:29


well, combining sober positional judgment with fearlessness in attack. In three candidates matches, Spassky lost only once with Black, while losing twice as White because of overly frisky play. In most games as the second player, he held quite easily, demonstrating an impressive solidity and some path-breaking opening preparation. Overall, his scores with Black and White were identical on the plus side. As White he scored +6 -2 =6, and as Black he tallied +5 -1 =9. His play seemed to be in perfect balance, and he became a hot favorite to defeat Petrosian in their upcoming title match in 1966.

Spassky, the handsomest hunk of chess humanity since Jose Capablanca, looked like a world champion. Still better, against Keres, Geller and Tal, he appeared to play like one. The single cavil was that twice or thrice over three matches, this irresistible force played a bit - well - playfully and fell behind at the beginning of his matches with Keres and Tal, though he proved able to recoup against his less patient opponents. Spassky’s bad luck or, more accurately, ill fate was having to face Petrosian. For in the entire chess universe there is nothing more patient than an immovable object. Petrosian - a short, swarthy Armenian with a Nixonesque five o’clock shadow - had one of the lowest centers of chess gravity ever known. His match strategy was to squat on the world title much as an amateur wrestler spreads his arms and legs on a mat and challenges his opponent to dislodge him. After six draws opening the match, Spassky lost patience and undertook some pawn thrusts in game seven that would not have passed the Capablanca Positional Purity Test. He lost. In game 10 he rushed in once again and had the carpet yanked from beneath him. Two points down at the end of 10 games, Spassky won games 13 and 19 to equalize. But photographs taken following game 19 showed Spassky with a blue chin line devoid of flesh, looking unshaven and more unkempt than his famously inelegant opponent. The effort to catch up had clearly been immense. Just as Botvinnik had flailed at Petrosian in 1963 and then run out of wind, so Spassky did the same in 1966. Petrosian suddenly rebounded by winning games 20 and 22 to retain his title by reaching 12 points in the 24-game match. Spassky won game 23 to narrow the final losing margin, +3 -4 =17. When Botvinnik analyzed his match loss to Petrosian, he described how the Armenian conserved his strength like a mongoose, doing just enough along the way to stay even. Keres said that Petrosian spent more time considering an opponent’s moves than his own, thereby further honing an already uncanny sense of danger. The message to Spassky was that if he wished to budge Spassky vs Botvinnik Petrosian in a second match, he Annual Soviet Team Championships, 1966 would have to create uncertainty without permitting the Armenian Iron Pants any winning chances. As a practical matter, Spassky would have to win as Black, which he had been unable to do in the 24 games of their first match. Between 1966 and 1969, Spassky grew stronger. Not only did he finish an undefeated first, +5 =13, at Santa Monica 1966, a half-point ahead of Bobby Fischer, but he also turned in an undefeated first (+7 =8) at Beverwijk 1967 and an undefeated 1st-2nd (+5 =10) at Sochi the same year. Spassky had ascended to a level of positional and tactical control reached by such other great masters as Alekhine and Capablanca, Petrosian and Fischer - a career phase when a rare defeat is nearly always the result of overreaching rather than being outplayed. The following win against Fischer was conducted with the supreme confidence of a great master at or near his peak - a cutting-edge opening, a flawless middlegame and an ending smoother than a summer’s sea, though conducted in the face of stormy opposition: Boris Spassky - Bobby Fischer Santa Monica, 1966


ECO: D87


1. d4 Nf6

13. f4 Na5

2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Bc4 c5 8. Ne2 Nc6 9. Be3 0-0 10. 0-0 Qc7 11. Rc1 Rd8 12. Qe1 e6

14. Bd3 f5 15. Rd1 b6 16. Qf2 cxd4 17. Bxd4 Bxd4? Possibly the losing move. The position appears equal after:

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

d5! fxe4 dxe6 Qxe6 f5! Qf7 Bxe4 Rxd1 Rxd1 Rf8 Bb1 Qf6 Qc2! Kh8 fxg6 hxg6 Qd2! Kg7 Rf1 Qe7 Qd4+ Rf6 Ne4 Bxe4 Bxe4 Qc5 Qxc5 Rxf1+ Kxf1 bxc5

35. h4! By fixing Black’s g-pawn and making it a target, White achieves a winning endgame. 35. … Nc4


17. … Bb7. 18. cxd4 Bb7 19. Ng3 Qf7

36. Ke2 Ne5 37. Ke3 Kf6 38. Kf4 Nf7 39. Ke3 g5 Played at the cost of giving White a passed h-pawn. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

h5 Nh6 Kd3 Ke6 Ba8 Kd6 Kc4 g4 a4 Ng8 a5 Nh6 Be4 g3 Kb5 Ng8 Bb1 Nh6 Ka6 Kc6 Ba2, Black resigns


Welcome

Against Alexey Suetin, the future world champion played the kind of sacrificial attack that only perfect foresight permits:

Membership Events

Boris Spassky - Alexey Suetin

ECO: B48

Moscow, 1967

Promotions

1. e4 c5

10. 0-0 Bxc3

Site Pros

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

bxc3 d6 Rf3 e5 f5 d5 Rg3! Kh8 exd5 Ne7! Bc5 Nfxd5 Qg4 Rg8 Rh3 Nf6 Qg5 Ned5 Rf1 b6

42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

Re1 Rc8 b4 a5 Rxe2 axb4 Rexe6+ fxe6 Be5!


Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795 · Deschapelles 1800 - 1821

Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Qc7 Be3 a6 Nb3 Nf6 f4 Bb4?!

This Bishop belongs on the Kingside for defense. A tougher-minded idea is 8. … d6. 9. Bd3 0-0 An interesting alternative to this committal move is 9. … Na5.

· La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840 · Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894 · Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937 · Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963 · Smyslov 1957 - 1958 · Tal 1960 - 1961 · Petrosian 1963 to 1969 » Spassky 1969 - 1972

•

A Handy Trainer

· I, Chess Claudius · Peace vs Pieces · Philidor vs Stamma London, 1747 · La Bourdonnais vs McDonnell London, 1834

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Be4!! Bb7 Bxd5 Bxd5 Be7!! Qc6 Rh6! Ne4 Rxc6 Nxg5 Rd6 Bxb3 axb3 Ne4

Black has survived the worst threats, and White has still a battle to win. 28. 29. 30. 31.

Rxb6 Nxc3 f6 Rge8 fxg7+ Kxg7 Rb7 Ne2+


White overcomes the final obstacle beautifully. The emerging Rook-and-pawn ending will be easily won. 46. … h5 47. 48. 49. 50.

Rxe6+ Kf7 Rb6 hxg4 hxg4 Ke7 Bxh8 Rxh8


· Saint-Amant vs Staunton London, 1843 · Staunton vs SaintAmant Paris, 1843 · Staunton vs Horwitz London, 1846 · London 1851 · Morphy vs Anderssen Paris, 1858

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

Kh1 Nf4 g3 Ng6 Bd6 Nh8 c4 Kg6 g4 Re6 c5 Kg5 h3 e4 Kg2 e3 Bf4+ Kg6 Rb6! e2

51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

Rxb4 Ke6 Rc4 Kd5 Rc1 Rg8 Kg3 Kc6 Kf4 Rf8+ Ke5 Rg8 Kf5 Rf8+ Ke6 Rg8 Rg1, Black resigns

· London 1862 · Steinitz vs Anderssen London, 1866 · Steinitz vs Zukertort London, 1872 · London 1883

In the candidates matches of 1968, Spassky was in even more devastating form than in 1965. His victories over Geller (+3 =5), Larsen (+4 -1 =3) and Korchnoi in the finals (+4 -1 =5) were still more lopsided that the one-sided scores suggest. Spassky jumped out to a three-zip lead against Larsen, drew game four and gave the impression of falling asleep in game five, which was his only loss. Versus Korchnoi, he led 3 ½ - 1 ½ before losing game six - a loss in which he offered and then muffed one of the most brilliant piece sacs of the 1960s: Korchnoi - Spassky

ECO: D31

Candidates Matches, 1968, Game Six

1. d4 d5

8. f3 Na6

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

9. e4 Nb4 10. Qb3 Be6 11. e5 Nd7 12. a3 a5!! 13. axb4 axb4 14. Nb1 c5, etc.

c4 e6 Nc3 Be7 cxd5 exd5 Bf4 c6 Qc2 g6 0-0-0 Nf6

The point was that Spassky had all of the dynamic ideas. Take, for example, Spassky’s pushy, tactically alert play in game seven: Boris Spassky - Viktor Korchnoi

ECO: E83

Kiev, 1968

1. d4 Nf6

20. h5 dxc5

2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 0-0 6. Be3 Nc6 7. Nge2 a6 8. Nc1 e5 9. d5 Nd4 10. Nb3 Nxb3 11. Qxb3 c5 12. dxc6 e.p. bxc6 13. 0-0-0 Be6 14. Qa3 Ne8 15. h4 f6 16. c5 Rf7 17. Qa4 Qc7 18. Bc4 Bxc4 19. Qxc4 Bf8

21. 22. 23. 24. 25.


hxg6 hxg6 Qe6 Rd8 Rxd8 Qxd8 Rd1 Qe7 Qxc6 Nc7

26. Qb6 Kg7? Black should have tried to make counterplay with 26 … c4. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

Nd5 Qe6 Bxc5 Bxc5 Qxc5 Nb5 Qe3 Qc6+ Kb1 Nd4 Rc1 Qb5 Nc7 Qe2


34. Ne6+ Kh7

35. Qh6+!!, Black resigns

Against Geller in game six of their match, Spassky played a brutally direct attack - an attack, in truth, that had all the refinement and power of a sledgehammer smashing a finger: Boris Spassky - Efim Geller

ECO: B25

Sukhumi, 1968

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 g6 5. d3 Bg7 6. f4 Nf6 7. Nf3 0-0 8. 0-0 Rb8 9. h3 b5 10. a3 a5 11. Be3 b4 12. axb4 axb4 13. Ne2 Bb7 14. b3 ... Earlier in this match, White tried 14. Qd2 successfully. The point behind the text move is to adopt the plan of moving the Queen to e1 and h4. 14. … Ra8 15. Rc1 Ra2


16. g4 Qa8?! Spassky’s intentions in the Closed Sicilian are no more subtle than the offense of Vince Lombardi’s Green Bay Packers. Geller knows what is coming, just as the opponents of the Packers knew what was coming. But he cannot stop it, just as they could not. The issue is no more complicated than who will get there fustest with the mostest: Black on the Queenside or White on the Kingside. Black could have improved his chances with 16. … Nd7. 17. Qe1 Qa6 18. Qf2 Na7? This counterplay is too slow. Alexander Kotov suggested 18. … c4 as an alternative, while others have pronounced 18. … Nd7 as the last chance to keep fighting. In defense of Geller, only hindsight is 20 20. Black certainly still appears to be in the game.


23. Rxf6!! exf6 24. Qh7+ Kf8 25. Nxf7!! Rxc2 Black gets overrun after 25. … Kxf7 26. Bh6 Rg8 27. Nf4 26. Bh6 Rxc1+

19. 20. 21. 22.

f5 Nb5 fxg6 hxg6 Ng5 Na3 Qh4 Rc8

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

Nxc1 Kxf7 Qxg7+ Ke8 g5 f5 Qxg6+ Kd7 Qf7+ Kc6 exf5+, Black resigns

In 1969, on his second try for the world title, Boris Spassky beat Tigran Petrosian through force majeure, backing him up against the chess wall until the champion’s systems against 1. e4 collapsed. After losing in game one, Spassky notched victories in games four and eight as Black, thanks to energetic play with the Tarrasch Defense. These two wins, taken together with a famous win in game five involving a Queen sacrifice, gave Spassky a two-point lead after nine games, +3 -1 =5. If Spassky had failed to win as Black in 1969, as he did in 1966, then Petrosian would ultimately have kept his title on a tie, +4 -4 =16. In the actual match, Petrosian evened the score with wins in games 10 and 11. After 16 games, the match stood tied at 8 - 8 (+3 -3 =10). But if in 1966 Spassky was the player who pooped out after playing catch-up ball, then in 1969 Petrosian found himself without a good answer to 1. e4 by game 17. In quick succession he lost as Black in games 17, 19 and 21 - two Sicilians and a Ruy Lopez - while answering with a fine win as White in game 20. After draws in games 22 and 23, Spassky became world champion, 12 ½ - 10 ½ (+6 4 =13). The games from the two Spassky - Petrosian gladiatorial contests suggest that Petrosian won in 1966 because he did a Cassius Clay rope-a-dope job on Spassky, who became arm weary from pounding his short sword against the little Armenian’s shield, while Spassky won in 1969 because he beat down Petrosian, who finally stumbled and fell backwards after repeated blows on that same shield. The key difference in 1969 was that Spassky came prepared as Black with the active Tarrasch Defense to the Queen’s Gambit and did not permit Petrosian to dictate the tempo of the match with a long series of initial draws. In each match Petrosian won four games, setting Spassky the task of breaching that number, which he managed to do the second time around.



The final verdict on the well-played Spassky Petrosian matches, in which the former had an overall plus of +9 -8 =30, is that each match had a winner rather than a loser. In 1966, Petrosian controlled the match tempo, doing what he wanted to do; in 1969, Spassky ruthlessly battered down his opponent, doing what he had to do. Continue...

Spassky vs Petrosian World Championship Match, 1969

ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Spassky - Peace vs Pieces - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ

Next


Page Three


Spassky was a happy man scaling the Everest of Chess. “My best time was when I was moving to become champion,” he said. Even the defeat against Petrosian in 1966 had the effect of prolonging an exciting challenge rather than crushing a questing ambition. An ambition? Spassky, as already mentioned, has often likened himself to a lazy Russian bear, describing his large hands as those of a simple, strong, stolid muzhik. Yet this self-deprecation does not account for the evident drive that he had to reach the top, though it does explain perfectly his divided emotions about being champion and the limits of his ultimate ambitions. For having perched himself upon the peak, he was unwilling to endure further storms of heroic exertion to stay there. He discovered that opponents played more strongly against him because as world champion he was, by definition, the choicest of all chess scalps. He became dismayed when fans continued to expect supreme results befitting his exalted station. Later he averred feelingly, “I don’t want ever to be champion again.” Spassky has described his championship years from 1969 to 1972 as the unhappiest of his adult life. “In my country, at that time,” he once said, “being a champion of chess was like being a King. At that time I was a King … and when you are King you feel a lot of responsibility … but there is nobody there to help you.” Desolate, indeed, can be the head that wears the crown - and no one appeared more morose at public chess meetings in the ex-Soviet Union than the Spassky pictured in old chess magazines. As he sat on stage after stage at get-togethers celebrating such tournament wins as Leiden 1970 (+2 =10) and Amsterdam 1970 (+8 =7) or his psychologically important brilliancy against Bobby Fischer at the Siegen Olympiad of the same year, he understood that the fulsome praise could turn into snarling attacks if the world chess title were to pass westward during his watch.

Welcome

And, too, there were the unpleasant politics. Spassky despised the Communist Party, which a post-Soviet court would rule to have been a criminal conspiracy. As he said to one American audience, “Politics, I dislike them. They would come to me and say, ‘Comrade Spassky: sign a petition for the defense of Angela Davis!’ and I would reply, ‘No, no, no.’ I had to get rid of the Soviet Chess Federation because I could not change my nature.”

Membership Events Promotions Site Pros Top Players Chess News

“Could not change my nature”? Even the nurture Spassky received in the old Soviet Union could not crimp his expansive sporting spirit. Fischer said that Spassky was one of the few “real” Soviet chess “fighters.” The American was perceptive. Spassky was indeed a true fighter, which is the only reason why Fischer - Spassky 1972 finally flew. For in the dramatic early days of this most famous of chess jousts - at a moment in mid-July 1972, when Moscow ordered Spassky to walk away with a 2 - 0 forfeit win - he refused to leave Reykjavik, remaining to play the fateful, fatal third game. The year leading up to Fischer - Spassky 1972 was filled with extraordinary chess drama. In three candidates matches played in 1971, Fischer scored 18 ½ - 2 ½ or nearly 90 percent against super-GMs Bent Larsen and Tigran Petrosian and world title candidate GM Mark Taimanov. One calculation in the days before rating inflation put Fischer’s performance at 2939 for these matches. Against Larsen he played chess at a 3060 clip. His score of 9 ½ - 3 ½ in two matches against the unbeatable Petrosian embarrassed stalwart Fischer Haters. His performance in the Herceg Novi




world blitz championship in April 1970, where he scored 19 - 3 to finish 4 ½ points clear of the strongest speed field ever assembled, and his evisceration of a strong contingent in the Manhattan Chess Club Blitz Tournament in August 1971, where he scored an extraordinary 21 ½ - ½ - well, these two results with a combined score of 40 ½ - 3 ½ led to a lot of head scratching. Tal called Fischer “the greatest genius to have descended from the chessic sky.” Period. Others said that the American chess he-man was running up simul-style scores against the likes of Bronstein, Korchnoi, Larsen, Petrosian, Smyslov, Tal and so on. One wit recollected Hans Kmoch’s congratulations to Larry Evans for winning the 1963-64 U. S. Championship with a score of 7 ½ - 3 ½ and his further felicitations to Fischer, who scored 11 - 0 in the same tournament, for winning the “exhibition.” Suddenly, Bobby was punishing all players - including the giants of the international arena - as he would amateurs on exhibition tours. All players, that is, except Boris Spassky. The Soviets hoped that they had a champion with a sound, thoroughly universal style - a player who could defeat Fischer. Spassky’s pre-match score against Fischer was +3 =2, including a relatively fresh win from the 1970 Siegen Olympiad. Perhaps Fischer would prove to be another Larsen - a player who could cannibalize his lessers to achieve impressive triumphs in mixed tournaments but who could not stand up to an opponent setting problems on every move over an extended number of games.

· Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894 · Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937 · Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963 · Smyslov 1957 - 1958 · Tal 1960 - 1961 · Petrosian 1963 to 1969 » Spassky 1969 - 1972 · A Handy Trainer

•

I, Chess Claudius

After many hilarious misadventures, Fischer arrived in Reykjavik almost as if by accident. Spassky, the man whom he would play, resembled the victim of an accident. Having put on weight over the past two years, Spassky could be glimpsed chain-smoking and chain-circling match headquarters at the Hotel Loftleidir. The agony of his anxiety - would Fischer end up in Reykjavik or go to Kalamazoo? - was culminating in a tobacco-frenzy of despair. Like the refugees in Casablanca, he was waiting. And waiting. And waiting. Fischer arrived. The match started. Two knights - one sans reproche, the other errant - charged each other, lances raised. “[Bobby] was an individual,” Spassky later said, “and so was I. Today, these players have coaches, physicians, cooks, psychologists, parapsychologists. The championship has become a fight between two big collective farms.” The result of the collision between these two gallants - a collision that symbolized for many the clash between American individualism and Soviet collectivism - was that Spassky lay unhorsed in the dust. Fischer won by the lopsided score of 12 ½ - 7 ½ (+7 -2 =11) in games actually played. To his credit, Spassky preferred the dust to dishonest victory. The key moment of the match came before game three when Fischer demanded to play in a private room with neither cameras nor audience. The Soviet government, as noted, ordered Spassky home. Spassky stayed and played. The game itself was the most celebrated Benoni Defense of the 1970s: Boris Spassky - Bobby Fischer

ECO: A77

Reykjavik, 1972

· Peace vs Pieces

1. d4 Nf6

19. a4 b6

· Philidor vs Stamma London, 1747

2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c5 4. d5 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. Nc3 g6 7. Nd2 Nbd7 8. e4 Bg7 9. Be2 0-0 10. 0-0 Re8

20. Rfe1 a6

· La Bourdonnais vs McDonnell London, 1834 · Saint-Amant vs Staunton London, 1843 · Staunton vs SaintAmant Paris, 1843 · Staunton vs Horwitz London, 1846 · London 1851 · Morphy vs Anderssen Paris, 1858

11. Qc2 Spassky could have kept the lid on the position with 11. a4. 11. … Nh5!? Fischer sacrifices his pawn


21. Re2 b5 Black has a Queenside pawn roller, and White has Kingside weaknesses. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

Rae1 Qg6! b3 Re7 Qd3 Rb8 axb5 axb5 b4 c4 Qd2 Rbe8 Re3 h5 R3e2 Kh7 Re3 Kg8 R3e2 Bxc3


structure for active play with the two Bishops — an aggressive, edgy positional idea typical of his style.

· London 1862 · Steinitz vs Anderssen London, 1866 · Steinitz vs Zukertort London, 1872 · London 1883

12. Bxh5 gxh5 13. Nc4 Ne5 14. Ne3 Qh4!

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

15. Bd2

39. Qe3 Qc2+

White can battle for the initiative with the much better 15. f3. 15. … Ng4! 16. Nxg4 hxg4

Qxc3 Rxe4 Rxe4 Rxe4 Rxe4 Qxe4 Bh6 Qg6 Bc1 Qb1! Kf1 Bf5 Ke2 Qe4+

40. Qd2 Qb3 41. Qd4? White wilts. Much more stubborn is 41. Ke1. 41. … Bd3+ White resigns

17. Bf4 Qf6 18. g3? White weakens the light squares, committing what is probably a fatal positional error. Better is 18. Bg3. 18. … Bd7

“Back in the USSR,” to borrow the title of a Beatles song, people did not know how lucky they were. Said Soviet GM Yuri Averbakh, “At home they don’t understand. They think it means there’s something wrong with our culture.” The first line of Soviet defense was to charge that electronic emissions or exotic exudations were attacking Spassky. Following game 17, Efim Geller asked that the playing site, including Fischer’s famous fancy chair, be inspected. Icelandic police found two unexplained dead flies, which led one deranged American Maoist writer to demand autopsies. Some were amazed that Geller did not so demand. The second line of defense emerged immediately following the match. At the Moscow State University chess club, Geller delivered one of the most preposterous and, perhaps, personally humiliating lectures in chess history, suggesting only half-facetiously that Spassky must have been the victim of an imperialist intelligence operation. No other explanation sufficed for how a single American could humble the Soviet School of Chess. The final line of defense was to blame Spassky, who was accused by a specially convened investigating commission of neglecting Soviet training methods. Political fallout fell on him, and he was forbidden from playing abroad. Spassky himself eschewed the gobbledygook. This no-alibi guy stated, “When I played Bobby Fischer, my opponent fought against organizations - the television producers and the match organizers. But he never fought against me personally. I lost to Bobby before the match because he was already stronger than I. He won normally.” That’s all. Continue... ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


Spassky - I, Chess Cladius - Kings of Chess - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

·

FAQ


Page Four


Spassky may have lost the chess war and quite a few pieces to Fischer, but he won the peace. Freed from the burden of defending a title that ultimately meant little to him, Spassky became a congenial performer on the chess after-dinner circuit, while Fischer descended into his own personal heck. Fischer’s heckdom, however, is the subject for another time. In the 28 years since he lost the world title, Boris Spassky has probably given more lectures than he has played tournament and match games. A gifted mimic who will answer virtually any question tossed at him and who has gained lasting fame as Fischer’s quondam opponent, he demands and gets good money for visiting chess clubs, conducting simuls and, most of all, for just being himself. There are more pictures of Spassky standing before audiences of chess enthusiasts, who are rocking backwards in their chairs with delighted laughter, than there are of him sitting at a chessboard. He can act the clown while maintaining a dignified reserve - a gift unique among the humorless lot in the chess world. Over the board, Spassky slipped from being a special player to being a great player. Which meant that tournament successes continued but not match victories against determined opposition. He won the extremely strong 1973 Soviet Championship (+7 -1 =9), a point ahead of Anatoly Karpov, Gennady Kuzmin, Korchnoi and Petrosian, thereby confirming not only his own continuing strength but the extraordinary power of the man who dismantled him the year before in Reykjavik. Other tournament successes in the post-title years included first equal with Karpov at Bugojno 1978 and outright first ahead of Karpov at Linares 1983, a victory that brought some essentially meaningless retaliation from Soviet authorities for daring to upstage their champion. He also finished first at Montilla 1978 and shared first with Alexander Beliavsky at Baden 1980. As former world champion, Spassky was seeded into the 1974 candidates matches. He played impressively, +3 =3, against Robert Byrne to advance from the quarterfinals. But in the semi-finals against Karpov, he collapsed after taking an early lead. The final score: +1 -4 =6. At the time, excuses were made for Spassky. His second marriage was rocky, and he was in distinctly bad odor with the Soviet authorities. But although he reached the finals three years later in the next set of candidates matches in 1977 and 1978, his play showed an obvious decline from a decade earlier. He struggled to defeat Vlastimil Hort, +2 -1 =13, in the quarterfinals; and he looked like losing against Hungary’s Lajos Portisch in the semis, trailing by a point after eight games. He rallied for three wins in the final seven games to finish with +4 -2 =9. In a wild finals against Korchnoi, he showed none of the positionally disciplined attacking chess of their first match in 1968, losing by three points (+4 -7 =7). His last candidates match to date was against Portisch in 1980, a dreary drawn result, +1 -1 =12. Portisch went through because of a typically artificial FIDE tiebreaking system. Spassky’s personal match and tournament results against Portisch tell a lot about his descent from the extra-class to the front rank. A player of genius, Spassky began his competition against Portisch, a master of high talent, by completely outclassing the hard-working Hungarian. In the Leningrad-Budapest match of 1961, he not only beat Portisch, 3 ½ - ½, but he also abused him by making his three wins look easy. Here is a dynamically magnificent game that shows the gap:



Lajos Portisch - Boris Spassky (Budapest, 1961): Lajos Portisch - Boris Spassky

ECO: C64

Budapest, 1961

1. e4 e5

21. c4 f5

2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. 0-0 Nd4 5. Nxd4 Bxd4 6. c3 Bb6 7. d4 c6 8. Ba4 d6 9. Na3 Nf6 10. Bc2 Be6 11. Bg5 h6 12. Bxf6 Qxf6 13. d5 Bd7 14. Nc4 Bc7 15. Qd3 cxd5 16. exd5 g5 17. a4 0-0-0 18. b4 Kb8 19. Rfb1 Rc8 20. Nd2 Qg7

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

c5 e4 Qb3 g4 Nc4 f4! Bxe4 Rce8 Qd3 g3 hxg3 fxg3 fxg3 Qg4 Re1 h5 c6 Bc8 cxb7 Bd7 b5 h4 b6 hxg3! bxc7+ Kxc7 Nd2 Qh4 Kf1 Qf4+ Qf3

… Bg4!!, White resigns

The vanquished in the above game became the ultimate workhorse, stretching his talent as far as it would go. Portisch’s win against Tal at Oberhausen 1961 was a case in point - a massive piece of opening preparation in the French that was decisive in itself. It was the kind of game that Spassky seldom won and, most likely, did not enjoy winning when he did.

Welcome Membership Events Promotions Site Pros Top Players Chess News

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Portisch labored unremittingly, gaining a reputation as Caissa’s ultimate anal retentive - the Herr Sitzfleisch of Chess. In 1965 he could not keep pace with Tal in a quarterfinal candidates match, +1 -4 =3, because he still could not keep a lid on the tactics. Just as Tal pitched pieces at Portisch during their chess riot of a draw in the 1964 Amsterdam Interzonal, so he sacrificed material repeatedly in their match. Against Bent Larsen in the 1968 candidates quarterfinals, Portisch did better, though he lost narrowly, +2 -3 =5, because he could not quite stanch the flow of tactics. A decade later, he had toughened. He thrashed Larsen, +5 -2 =3, in their 1977 candidates quarterfinal, refuting his opponent’s uninspired inspirations in businesslike fashion. In the semifinals, as mentioned above, he lost to Spassky by two points, but he led the match after eight games and appeared at that point to have overcome the talent deficit thanks to superior preparation. Yet in the end, Spassky prevailed with some heavy duty Kingside attacks. Only by 1980, after 20 years of steady, unspectactular improvement, could Portisch contain, if not defeat, Spassky in their quarterfinal candidates match. The 7 -7 final score would have been an unimaginable result between the two young men who met in that Leningrad-Budapest match played, quite literally, a chess life earlier. “I am playing very professional chess just now,” Boris Spassky said in a 1986 speech, “and I don’t like my play much. I need romantic release.” Which did not mean, as Spassky hastily told his audience, that he planned to play more romantically. Quite the opposite, in fact. During the past 15 years, Spassky has earned the reputation of being a peacenik among grandmasters. One writer described his tournament play as being “littered with the debris of numerous colorless draws.” Spassky himself said, “In general, I’ve lost my motivation. I am now rather peaceful.” True enough. Yet when this great, hibernating Russian bear is awakened or, for whatever reason, feels that he ought to win, then his chess claws can rip out flesh. When Garry Kasparov became frisky, Spassky scored +2 =2 in four games. When Spassky needed a win to stay in contention at the 1985 Montpellier candidates tournament (he missed qualifying by a half point), he came out roaring with his old favorite, the King’s Gambit:



Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 » The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · Philidor 1747 - 1795

Boris Spassky - Yasser Seirawan

ECO: C34

Montpellier, 1985

1. e4 e5 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

f4 exf4 Nf3 Ne7 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Ng6

· Deschapelles 1800 - 1821 · La Bourdonnais 1821 - 1840

7. h4 Qe7? Spassky obviously judged Seirawan, one of the great positional players of this era, as being ripe for the golden oldie of gambits. “Yasser likes to play comfortable positions,” Spassky once said, “but chess is not always very comfortable.”

· Saint-Amant 1840 - 1843 · Staunton 1843 - 1851 · Anderssen 1851 - 1858; 1862 - 1866 · Morphy 1858 - 1862 · Steinitz 1886 - 1894 · Lasker 1894 - 1921 · Capablanca 1921 - 1927 · Alekhine 1927 - 1935; 1937 - 1946 · Euwe 1935 - 1937 · Botvinnik 1948 - 1957; 1958 - 1960; 1961 - 1963 · Smyslov 1957 - 1958 · Tal 1960 - 1961 · Petrosian 1963 to 1969 » Spassky 1969 - 1972 · A Handy Trainer · I, Chess Claudius

•

Peace vs Pieces

· Philidor vs Stamma London, 1747 · La Bourdonnais vs McDonnell London, 1834 · Saint-Amant vs Staunton London, 1843 · Staunton vs SaintAmant Paris, 1843 · Staunton vs Horwitz London, 1846

8. Kf2! In eight moves White has a winning position using an old-fashioned opening against one of the most infashion grandmasters. 8. … Bg4 9. h5 Nh4 10. Bxf4 Nc6 11. Bb5 0-0-0 12. Bxc6 bxc6 13. Qd3 Nxf3 14. gxf3 Bf5 15. Qa6+ Kb8 16. Nc5 Bc8

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

Qxc6 Rxd4 Rae1! Rxf4 Qb5+ Ka8 Qc6+ Kb8 Rxe7 Bxe7 Rd1 Rf6 Nd7+ Bxd7 Qxd7 Rd8 Qb5+ Kc8 Rxd8+ Bxd8 Qa4 g5 Qxa7 Rf4 Qa6+ Kb8 Qd3 Be7 Qxh7 g4 Kg3, Black resigns

· London 1851 · Morphy vs Anderssen Paris, 1858 · London 1862

On September 2, 1992 - on the Yugoslav resort island of Sveti Stefan just off the coast of Montenegro - Boris Spassky returned to chess center stage for the first time in 20 years. He played and lost a 49-move Ruy Lopez, which was game one of



· Steinitz vs Anderssen London, 1866

Fischer - Spassky II - a curious affair that was billed by the Serbian sponsors as a rematch for the real world championship.

· Steinitz vs Zukertort London, 1872

In that first game, Fischer looked great. In several subsequent losses, however, he would play less like his old self and more like an old man. Spassky, on the other hand, belied his 2560 pre-match rating and No. 101 ranking among the world’s masters. For the first time in nearly a decade, he played fighting, uncompromising chess. Spassky gushed with evident delight, "Bobby pulls me out of oblivion. He makes me fight. It's a miracle." Fischer ultimately prevailed, +10 -5 =15, though Spassky led after game six, +2 -1 =3.

· London 1883

Fischer - Spassky II was a match that resonated with historical and political echoes. For 20 years, Fischer had demanded a title match with the victor being the first to win 10 games and with the champion keeping the title on a 9 - 9 tie, draws not counting. Suddenly, the winds of war raking the remnants of the former Yugoslavia created the conditions for such a match. Suddenly, Fischer agreed to give Spassky the long-promised rematch. Suddenly, the two old rivals were playing chess for $5 million. Suddenly, Fischer, but not Spassky, became a “criminal.” Yet it takes two to tango and two to tangle in a chess game. Even the Fischer King in his solipsistic self-absorption never argued that a contest between him and himself would constitute a legitimate title match. He needed an opponent, and he chose Spassky. Yet public obloquy for playing a match a mere 110 kilometers from the Bosnia of horror and gore fell only on Fischer. Spassky escaped condemnation for two reasons. First, he broke no law when agreeing to play for big bucks, whereas at the press conference opening the match, Fischer spat on a U. S. Treasury Department “Order to Provide Information and Cease and Desist Activities.” (Most members of the media never questioned whether such an order is constitutionally valid law.) Secondly, a lot of people understood that Spassky and Fischer were chess artists each trying to paint the Mona Lisa while grabbing at the other’s brush - and a lot of people were willing to accept the idea that just as Rembrandt was not a criminal for painting the portraits of princes fine and foul, so Spassky and Fischer were not criminals for creating art, though they were helping, in effect, to break the U.S.-led commercial blockade of the rump Red regime in Belgrade. The difference in the treatment that the two men received came down to their mouths. Spassky kept his mouth shut, except to talk a bit of chess. He seconded Fischer’s charge that Kasparov and Karpov had fixed their match games, citing the admittedly strange conclusion of game 19 in the Lyon leg of KK - V in 1990. Fischer, on the other hand, committed semanticide. When asked about his being an anti-Communist, he responded with a sneer, “Soviet Communism is basically a mask for Bolshevism which is a mask for Judaism.” When asked about being an anti-Semite, he answered with the perennial pat idiocy, “I’m definitely not anti-Arab, OK?” He claimed to have been blacklisted by world Jewry for 20 years, and he undoubtedly still wanted to ride Jews out of the chess world on a rail. “Yeh,” he said to Ralph Ginzburg in the famous Harper’s article of January 1962, “there are too many Jews in chess. They seemed to have taken away the class of the game.” And so, in a New York Times editorial of September 2, 1992, Fischer became an object of moral scorn, whereas Spassky was referred to almost affectionately as the American’s “old rival.” Intoned the Times: “Think of Bosnia overrun by Serbianbacked militias. Then think of the chess genius Bobby Fischer violating United Nations sanctions, and decency itself, to play a chess match for profit in Serbia against his old rival Boris Spassky.” Think, also, continued the Times, whether the time had come to punish this “eccentric,” “reclusive” and “ardent purveyor of antiSemitic dogma”: “[E]ccentrics, too, are subject to the law. If Mr. Fischer plays, it is only right to make him pay.” Somehow, though, this play-and-pay punishment idea was not quite so “right” if applied to Spassky. At least, no one — not even some hydrophobic New York magazine writers — suggested imprisoning the Russo-Jewish Spassky. Chess people also got into the Bobby bashing. The scoffers luxuriated in Fischer’s bad play from games two to six. They slavered about the match being nothing more than a bout between two ancient lungers who were tossing roundhouse punches while stumbling hideously around the chess ring. Kasparov hissed contemptuously about a battle between a couple of old men and exulted, “The legend of the best player of chess has been destroyed.” However, this obituary — so obviously dripping with envy — was premature, given a recent important poll of chess opinion putting



Fischer ahead of Kasparov as the player of the millennium. Spassky indirectly bolstered Fischer’s reputation by narrowly losing a match, 4 ½ - 5 ½, to young super-GM Judith Polgar, shortly following his heavier defeat against Bobby. Fischer - Spassky II, though widely accepted as a match for one version of the world chess title, was a letdown. Which is because Bobby, all 60 extra pounds of him, let us down. He played better than initially admitted, and he played better than anybody else would have after a 20-year layoff. But this bearded, bloated, bejowled altecocker was not the beardless, bony, boyish cock-of-the-walk who slammed the chess door behind him 20 years earlier. He was the flattest of all flat tires: a punctured myth. Wrote one Chess Life reader about Fischer and, by extension, Fischer - Spassky II, “Fischer is back! It’s an event we have all eagerly awaited for 20 years. And now that he’s back, I already wish he would go away again.”

Speaking of going away, Spassky got away from Yugoslavia grazed rather than scathed by the media bullets. He left that country with his $1.6 million loser’s swag and resumed the sleepy, Volga-like flow of his life. That life or, more precisely, how Spassky has lived it, is why he lived down the embarrassment of playing chess in a pariah state. He had accumulated moral capital. Naturally friendly, always polite, Spassky was popular. Even the way he left the Soviet Union during the dark days of the Brezhnev regime and attached himself to France during the mid-1970s bespoke a pacific disposition. He resided in France but continued to play in Olympiads for the Soviet Union. His was a slow-moving disengagement that he described as political castling or exchanging one life for another en passant. He spoke about his peaceable disposition. “Viktor Korchnoi is different - he’s a man of system …. He’s a fighter and a defector. I am not. I stayed in France because I wanted to have peace with everyone - with the Soviet Union, China, England.” The art in Spassky’s elegant chess conceptions seemed to be complemented by the artfulness of his elegant life. We chess people admired Spassky for having integrated personality with lifestyle, a rare accomplishment among our number. This cool, classical European intellectual led a cool, classical life. Married since 1975 to a French diplomat, he said on one occasion, “I live in a beautiful French home with my wife, a beautiful French lady.” This image — the chess grandmaster as gentleman, parfaitement gentil — reflects faithfully what Boris Spassky happens to be. The Cary Grant of the 64 Squares. Previous Boris Spassky, Spassky in the Weltgeschichte des Schachs series (Verlag Dr. E. Wildhagen, 1972); Bernard Cafferty, Spassky’s 100 Best Games (Batsford, 1972), well-annotated games and a decent biography. ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


World Title Matches and Tournaments - Chess History - World Chess Network

About Us

·

Contact Us

Retrieve Password

·

Update My Account

Welcome Membership Events

« Previous «

Promotions Site Pros by Larry Parr


Chess History » The World Chess Championship and Champions: 17472001 + The Kings of Chess: A 21-Player Salute · The Concept of the "World Champion" World Title Matches and Tournaments · Philidor vs Stamma

•

London, 1747 · La Bourdonnais vs McDonnell London, 1834 · Saint-Amant vs Staunton London, 1843 · Staunton vs SaintAmant Paris, 1843 · Staunton vs Horwitz London, 1846 · London 1851 · Morphy vs Anderssen Paris, 1858 · London 1862 · Steinitz vs Anderssen London, 1866 · Steinitz vs Zukertort London, 1872 · London 1883

The concept of a world chess championship extends back beyond the match in 1886 between Wilhelm Steinitz and Johann Zukertort, a battle that Steinitz won, +10 -5 =5. References to Paul Morphy as a world chess champion or as the champion of the chess world were numerous in the late 1850s and early 1860s. Steinitz himself spoke of being “champion” in the early 1870s. What follows is an annotated list of matches and tournaments that have been interpreted by chess scholars as having something to do with determining who was world chess champion at a given moment. In the case of, say, the match between Alexander Alekhine and Jose Capablanca in 1927, chess writers are unanimous in considering the match to be for the world chess championship. In the case of, say, the second match between Howard Staunton and Pierre Saint-Amant in 1843, only those chess writers who extend the title line back further than Steinitz-Zukertort 1886 would include this event as being for the world title. Here, then, is our list of the world title canon with the match winner listed first:

Andre PHILIDOR

vs

Phillip Stamma

London, 1747: +8 -1 =1

Louis Charles de La BOURDONNAIS

vs Alexander London, 1834: +45 -27 =13, in a series of six matches

Pierre Saint-Amant

vs

Howard Staunton

London, 1843: +3 -2 =1

Howard Staunton

vs

Pierre Saint-Amant

Paris, 1843: +11 -6 =4

Howard Staunton

vs

Bernhard Horwitz

London, 1846: +14 -7 =3

LONDON 1851 Paul Morphy

vs Adolf Paris, 1858: +7 -2 =2

Anderssen

LONDON 1862 Wilhelm Steinitz

vs

Adolf Anderssen

London, 1866: +8 -6

Wilhelm Steinitz

vs Johann London, 1872: +7 -1 =4

Zukertort

LONDON 1883 Wilhelm Steinitz

vs Johann Zukertort New York, St. Louis, New Orleans, 1886: +10 -5 =5

Wilhelm Steinitz

vs Mikhail Havana, 1889: +10 -6 =1

Wilhelm Steinitz

vs Isidor New York, 1890-91: +6 -4 =9

Wilhelm Steinitz

Tchigorin

Gunsberg

vs Mikhail Havana, 1892: +10 -8 =5

Tchigorin

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/matchesAndTournaments.php (1 of 3)17/04/05 13:34:04

McDonnell

·

FAQ


Emanuel Lasker

vs Wilhelm Steinitz New York, Philadelphia, Montreal, 1894: +10 -5 =4

Emanuel Lasker

vs Wilhelm Moscow, 1896-97: +10 -2 =5

Steinitz

Emanuel Lasker

vs Frank Marshall New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, Chicago, Memphis, New York, 1907: +8 =7

Emanuel Lasker

vs Siegbert Tarrasch Duesseldorf, Munich, 1908: +8 -3 =5

Emanuel Lasker

vs Paris, 1909: +7 -1 =2

David Janowski

Emanuel Lasker

vs Carl Schlechter Vienna, Berlin, 1910: +1 -1 =8

Emanuel Lasker

vs Berlin, 1910: +8 -0 =3

David Janowski

Jose Capablanca

vs Emanuel Havana, 1921: +4 -0 =10

Alexander Alekhine

vs Jose Buenos Aires, 1927: +6 -3 =25

Lasker

Capablanca

Alexander Alekhine

vs Efim Bogolyubov Several cities in Germany and The Netherlands, 1929: +11 -5 =9

Alexander Alekhine

vs Efim Bogolyubov Several cities in Germany, 1934: +8 -3 =15

Max Euwe

vs Alexander Alekhine Played in 13 cities in The Netherlands, 1935: +9 -8 =13

Alexander Alekhine

vs Max Euwe Played in several cities in The Netherlands, 1937: +10 -4 =11 or, including games from the “exhibition match,” +11 -6 =13

THE HAGUE - MOSCOW, 1948 Mikhail Botvinnik

vs David Moscow, 1951: +5 -5 =14

Bronstein

Mikhail Botvinnik

Smyslov

vs Vasily Moscow, 1954: +7 -7 =10

Vasily Smyslov

vs Mikhail Moscow, 1957: +6 -3 =13

Botvinnik

Mikhail Botvinnik

vs Vasily Moscow, 1958: +7 -5 =11

Mikhail Tal


Smyslov

Botvinnik

Mikhail Botvinnik


Tigran Petrosian


Tigran Petrosian

vs Boris Moscow, 1966: +4 -3 =17

Boris Spassky

vs Tigran Moscow, 1969: +6 -4 =13

Tal

Botvinnik

Spassky

Petrosian

Robert Fischer

vs Boris Spassky Reykjavik, 1972: +7 -3 [one win by forfeit] =11

Anatoly Karpov

vs Viktor Moscow, 1974: +3 -2 =19

Korchnoi

Anatoly Karpov

vs Viktor Korchnoi Baguio, The Philippines, 1978: +6 -5 =21

Anatoly Karpov

vs Viktor Korchnoi Merano, Italy, 1981: +6 -2 = 10

Anatoly Karpov

vs Garry Kasparov Moscow, 1984 - 85: +5 -3 =40



Garry Kasparov

vs Anatoly Moscow, 1985: +5 -3 =16

Karpov

Garry Kasparov

vs Anatoly Karpov London and Leningrad [St. Petersburg], 1986: +5 -4 =15

Garry Kasparov

vs Anatoly Seville, Spain 1987: +4 -4 =16

Karpov

Garry Kasparov

vs Anatoly Karpov New York City and Lyon, 1990: +4 -3 =17

Robert “Bobby” Fischer

vs Boris Spassky Sveti Stefan and Belgrade, Yugoslavia, 1992: +10 -5 =15

Garry Kasparov

vs Nigel London, 1993: +6 -1 =13

Short

Anatoly Karpov

vs Jan Timman Zwolle, Arnhem, Amsterdam and Djakarta, 1993: +6 -2 =13

Garry Kasparov

vs Viswanthan New York, 1995: +4 -1 =13

Anand

Anatoly Karpov

vs Gata Kamsky Elista, Kalmykia, 1996: +6 -3 =9

Anatoly Karpov

vs Viswanathan Anand Lausanne, Switzerland, 1998: +4 -2 =2, including two wins by Karpov in a speed chess playoff

Alexander Khalifman

vs Vladimir Las Vegas, Nevada, 1999: +2 -1 =3

Akopian

Vladimir Kramnik

vs Garry Kasparov London, October 2000: +2 -0 =13

Viswanathan Anand

vs Alexei Tehran, December 2000: +3 -0 =1

Shirov « Previous «

ChessCentral - Chess Sets, Chess Software, Chess for Kids and much more!


Login


World Champions from Philidor to Spassky

Learn from the New Champions

The Modern Philidor Defence

Ordinary Champions

Stakeholder Champions

Fischer Vs. Spassky: World Chess Championship Match, 1972

World English: From Aloha to Zed

The World from 1450 to 1700

The World from Beginnings to 4000 BCE

The World from Beginnings to 4000 BCE

Breakfast of Champions

Breakfast of Champions

Champions of the Force

Myriador - Trial of Champions

Champions of the Force

Made For Two Champions

The Seven Champions

Stanford: Home of Champions

Champions of the Force

Breakfast of Champions

Breakfast of champions

Of Chiefs And Champions

Champions of the Force

Champions Body-for-LIFE

Champions of the Force

Champions of the Force

Breakfast of Champions

World Champions from Philidor to Spassky

Learn from the New Champions

The Modern Philidor Defence

Ordinary Champions

Stakeholder Champions

Fischer Vs. Spassky: World Chess Championship Match, 1972

World English: From Aloha to Zed

The World from 1450 to 1700

The World from Beginnings to 4000 BCE

The World from Beginnings to 4000 BCE

Breakfast of Champions

Breakfast of Champions

Champions of the Force

Myriador - Trial of Champions

Champions of the Force

Made For Two Champions

The Seven Champions

Stanford: Home of Champions

Champions of the Force

Breakfast of Champions

Breakfast of champions

Of Chiefs And Champions

Champions of the Force

Champions Body-for-LIFE

Champions of the Force

Champions of the Force

Breakfast of Champions

Recommend Documents