Cycle 1951-1954
At his 26th General Assembly held at Copenhagen, Denmark, FIDE decided to adjust his regulations concerning the world championship. The program for the future was released: 1951 Zonal Tourneys; 1952 Interzonal Tourney: 1953 Candidates’ Tourney; 1954 World Championship Match. The world’s playing zones were reorganized into eight spheres. The Soviet zone sends 5 players to the Interzonal, the West European 5 players, the East European 5 players. U.S.A. 2 players, Canada 1 player, Austrslasia 1 player, South America 2 players, Central America 1 player. In single country zones special tourneys are advocated.
The West European Zone consists of: England which can send 2 players to the Zonal Tourney! Holland 3, Belgium 1, Scotland 1, Ireland 1, Luxembourg 1, France 1, Spain 1, Portugal 1, Yugoslavia 3, Italy 1, Greece 1. West Germany 2, Switzerland 1, East Germany 1.
The East European Zone consists of: Sweden 3, Norway 1, Denmark 1, Iceland 1, Finland 1, Poland 1, Rumania 1, Hungary 3, Bulgaria 1, Czechoslovakia 3, South Africa I, Austria 1, Israel 1, Egypt 1.
Arrangements have been made for vacancies to be filled in all tourneys subject to conditions. All ties are to be dissolved by matches. In zonal and interzonal tourneys, travelling expenses are to be paid by the sending country, hospitality and prizes by the holding country. The President has been given power to adjust zones according to diplomatic relations existing at any time between countries.
The next Candidates’ Tournament caused the most trouble in reaching agreement. Reshevsky got a free place because he could not play the last Candidates for political reason. Euwe will also be invited. Fine who refused to plan in Budapest before the ban will not be invited.
Interzonal
The zonal tournaments which took place in 1951 themselves constituted great step forward in comparison with 1947 when the method of advancing had not then been worked out. At the same time, however, they clearly still require further perfecting. So, for example, the alternate admission of a representative of Australia and New Zealand into the inter-zonal tournament without having taken part in a zonal competition is certainly not in the spirit in which the FIDE competitions are being held throughout the world and the aim of which should be to promote interest in chess! These are of course only detail questions which do not alter anything in the fact that the method of selection accepted at the Copenhagen Congress in 1950 has proved to be successful and has made it possible this time to decide who will play in the inter-zonal tournament without difficulties arising in the Qualifying Commission and, for the most part, on the basis of results in the zonal tournaments.
The composition of the participants of the interzonal tournament this time differed considerably from the previous tournament. The reason was in part that certain participants from the 1948 tournament in Saltsjöbaden retained the right of direct entry to the tournament of candidates, but in the main that in zonal tournaments this time representatives of the younger generation participated in greater numbers so that the average age of participants was also lower.
Dominating the play from start to finish in the world championship interzonal tournament at Saltsjobaden. Sweden, Alexander Kotov of the USSR, 16 ½, captured top honors with 3 points to spare. He opened with a burst of speed by winning 7 straight games, including victories over such redoubtable opponents as Eliskases, Gligoric, and Unzicker. The lead thus quickly established was never thereafter relinquished or threatened. Kotov proceeded through the tournament undefeated, as did two of his fellow Russians, T. Petrosian, and M. Taimanov, who finished in a tie for second with 13½ points each. Fourth place went to Y. Geller of Russia, 13, and fifth to Y. Averbach, also of Russia.
A noteworthy circumstance in the Saltsjobaden affair was the pacific attitude of the Russian players toward one and other. All games among them were drawn! Kotov, for example, who fell with fury upon most of his non-Russian rivals, was content to play the shortest possible “grandmaster draws” with his compatriots: vs. Auerbach, 20 moves; vs. Geller, 15 moves; vs. Petrosian, 15 moves; vs. Taimanov, 17 moves. Since Kotov proved to be the class of the tournament, a sterner attitude on his part toward the other Russians might well have enabled an “outsider’ to squeeze into the charmed circle of qualifiers.
What should be emphasized is the splendid victory of A. Kotov, which was so convincing that it recalled the splendid achievements of Alekhine and the generally outstanding success of Soviet representatives who, on this occasion, again confirmed their clear world supremacy. The tournament showed their all-round preparedness, their profound knowledge of chess theory and of moral factors which have an important bearing on results fighting spirit, determination and perseverance.
Three other prominently placed players—Stahlberg, Szabó and Gligoric, who shared fifth place with the same number of points also confirmed their Grandmaster ranking. All three were so qualified as to be able to participate in the tournament of Candidates and only small differences in the Sonneborn-Berger tables decided in their placing.
From the other participants the young German Master Unzicker should be mentioned who, for his youth, active style of playing and real interest in chess, has great possibilities for further growth. It was expected that Argentine’s grandmaster Eliskases would gain a more favourable placing. Be had already achieved many successes in various chess tournaments which surpass the results he gained in the interzonal tournament. Julio Bolbochan of Argentina suffered a hemorrhage and was compelled with draw after the first round.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | Total | T/B | ||
| 1 | Kotov, A | xx | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16.5 | |
| 2 | Taimanov, M | ½ | xx | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 13.5 | 125.50 |
| 3 | Petrosian, T | ½ | ½ | xx | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 13.5 | 125.00 |
| 4 | Geller, E | ½ | ½ | ½ | xx | ½ | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 13.0 | |
| 5 | Averbakh, Y | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | xx | 0 | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 12.5 | 115.25 |
| 6 | Stahlberg, G | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 1 | Xx | 0 | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 12.5 | 115.00 |
| 7 | Szabo, L | 0 | ½ | 0 | 1 | ½ | 1 | xx | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 12.5 | 114.25 |
| 8 | Gligoric, S | 0 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 0 | 0 | ½ | xx | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12.5 | 105.50 |
| 9 | Unzicker, W | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | xx | ½ | 0 | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 11.5 | |
| 10 | Eliskases, E | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | xx | ½ | 1 | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10.5 | |
| 11 | Pilnik, H | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | xx | 1 | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 10.0 | 93.75 |
| 12 | Pachman, L | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | xx | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 10.0 | 92.50 |
| 13 | Steiner, H | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ½ | xx | ½ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 10.0 | 88.50 |
| 14 | Matanovic, A | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | xx | 0 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 9.0 | |
| 15 | Barcza, G | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | 0 | 1 | 1 | xx | 1 | ½ | 0 | 0 | 1 | ½ | 8.0 | |
| 16 | Stoltz, G | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | 0 | xx | 0 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 7.5 | |
| 17 | Sanchez, L | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 1 | xx | ½ | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7.0 | |
| 18 | Wade, R | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 1 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 1 | 0 | ½ | xx | ½ | 0 | 1 | 6.0 | |
| 19 | Vaitonis, P | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ½ | Xx | ½ | 0 | 5.0 | |
| 20 | Golombek, H | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | 1 | ½ | xx | 0 | 4.5 | 39.25 |
| 21 | Prins, L | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | Xx | 4.5 | 38.00 |
Candidates’ tournament
Few months before the tournament started, the Swiss organizing committee announced his wishes to invited 15 players including those like Gligoric and Szabo who were not qualified. Reshevsky who rejected the invitation said he could change his mind if he could get US$ 7,000 for appearance fee…
The Candidates tournament played at Neuhausen and Zurich from August 18th to October 24th was a unique event in the history of chess. Never before has there been a double-round tournament of such size and such strength.
The tournament ended with a new Russian victory, although a much less convincing one than in the last Interzonal Tournament or in the preceding Challenger’s Tournament. Smyslov carried the honors with a substantial two point lead. Undoubtedly he played the best chess. Except in the game he lost to Kotov, he never seemed in danger of defeat, and there can be little doubt that he could have added at least a full point to his score, had he been pressed. Reshevsky played the best chess and ran Smyslov neck to neck for two-thirds of the tournament. His first loss in 16 games was to David Bronstein, who defeated him in the final round also. In the 23rd round, Kotov unexpectedly scored when Reshevsky overreached himself; and by the 25th round, when Reshevsky faced Smyslov, the United States entry had lost so much ground that he was compelled to make a risky, all-out effort against the Russian leader. The attempt failed, and Reshevsky ultimately finished in a tie for second with the Russians Bronstein and Paul Keres, each of whom scored 16-12. His best game was extremely profound and beautiful but, as usual, he handicapped himself by his inability to keep on terms with his clock. It must to be admitted that he had one big stroke of luck when Szabo missed a mate in their second game. Bronstein after a quiet start displayed great energy in the second half, and at one time seemed to have a chance of reproducing the great spurt which carried him to the top at Budapest in 1950. A loss to Geller, however, proved fatal to his chances.
Keres made a fine score but was not quite at his best and an element of luck contributed to his success, of the younger Soviet masters, Petrosian, the ‘child’ of the tournament did best. His smooth easy style is well—adapted to so long and arduous a contest. The ex-world champion Or Euwe made a splendid start, but tired in the second half. Euwe, however, can be congratulated on having played against Geller and Najdorf two of the most brilliant games of the tournament. Kotov, after a disastrous start in which he lost his first three games, he began to play neck-or-nothing chess which him wins over both Smyslov and Reshevsky and a place within striking distance of- the leaders. In the last four rounds he faded away again. The fire was still there, but things did not turn out right for him, Najdorf and Gligoric did much as was expected but Geller was rather disappointing. Stahlberg was quite out of form.
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | Total | T/B | |||
| 1 | Smyslov, V | xx | ½ ½ | ½ 1 | 1 1 | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 1 1 | ½ 0 | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 1 ½ | 1 1 | 1 ½ | 18.0 | ||
| 2 | Bronstein, D | ½ ½ | xx | 1 1 | 1 ½ | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ 0 | ½ ½ | 1 ½ | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 0 1 | 1 ½ | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 16.0 | 224.00 | |
| 3 | Reshevsky | ½ 0 | 0 0 | xx | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 1 0 | ½ ½ | ½ 1 | ½ 1 | 1 ½ | ½ 1 | 1 1 | 1 ½ | 16.0 | 210.75 | |
| 4 | Keres, P | 0 0 | 0 ½ | ½ ½ | xx | ½ 1 | ½ ½ | ½ 1 | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 0 ½ | 1 1 | 1 ½ | ½ 1 | ½ ½ | 1 1 | 16.0 | 210.25 | |
| 5 | Petrosian, T | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ 0 | xx | 0 ½ | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 0 0 | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 1 1 | ½ 1 | 1 ½ | 1 1 | 15.0 | ||
| 6 | Najdorf, M | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 1 ½ | xx | 0 0 | 1 ½ | 1 ½ | ½ 0 | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 0 ½ | 1 1 | 14.5 | 198.00 | |
| 7 | Geller, E | 0 0 | ½ 1 | ½ ½ | ½ 0 | ½ ½ | 1 1 | xx | ½ 0 | 0 1 | ½ ½ | 0 1 | 1 ½ | ½ 1 | 0 1 | ½ ½ | 14.5 | 197.75 | |
| 8 | Kotov, A | ½ 1 | ½ ½ | 0 1 | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 0 ½ | ½ 1 | Xx | 1 0 | 1 ½ | 0 0 | 1 0 | 1 ½ | 0 ½ | 0 1 | 14.0 | 198.75 | |
| 9 | Taimanov,M | ½ ½ | 0 ½ | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 1 1 | 0 ½ | 1 0 | 0 1 | xx | 1 0 | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ 0 | 0 ½ | 1 1 | 14.0 | 191.75 | |
| 10 | Averbakh, Y | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ 0 | 1 ½ | ½ ½ | ½ 1 | ½ ½ | 0 ½ | 0 1 | xx | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 0 ½ | 1 1 | 0 0 | 13.5 | 194.00 | |
| 11 | Boleslavsky | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ 0 | 0 0 | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | 1 0 | 1 1 | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | xx | ½ 0 | ½ ½ | ½ 1 | ½ ½ | 13.5 | 185.75 | |
| 12 | Szabo, L | ½ ½ | 1 0 | 0 ½ | 0 ½ | 0 0 | ½ ½ | 0 ½ | 0 1 | ½ ½ | ½ ½ | ½ 1 | xx | 1 ½ | ½ ½ | 1 ½ | 13.0 | ||
| 13 | Gligoric, S | 0 ½ | 0 ½ | ½ 0 | ½ 0 | ½ 0 | ½ ½ | ½ 0 | 0 ½ | ½ 1 | 1 ½ | ½ ½ | 0 ½ | xx | ½ 1 | 1 1 | 12.5 | ||
| 14 | Euwe, M | 0 0 | ½ ½ | 0 0 | ½ ½ | 0 ½ | 1 ½ | 1 0 | 1 ½ | 1 ½ | 0 0 | ½ 0 | ½ ½ | ½ 0 | xx | 1 ½ | 11.5 | ||
| 15 | Stahlberg, G | 0 ½ | ½ ½ | 0 ½ | 0 0 | 0 0 | 0 0 | ½ ½ | 1 0 | 0 0 | 1 1 | ½ ½ | 0 ½ | 0 0 | 0 ½ | xx | 8.0 | ||
For the first time, the Americans (in Chess Review) questioned such tournament system where Russians could help each other… “To begin with, Reshevsky entered the tournament not at all certain that the 9 men Russian “syndicate” would be overly concerned with “bourgeois” standards of sportsmanship. At Saltsjoebaden in 1950, there had been undeniable collusion by the Russians in a move to freeze out Western competitors. Might not the same tactics be repeated at some critical stage in the present struggle if it became expedient to throw collective support to the Soviet candidate whose prospects had crystallized above those of his fellow Russians? Regarding this possibility, the Australian Chess World magazine remarked in a pre-tournament issue that “we fear the Russians would put patriotism above the canons of sport, as at Saltsjoebaden, and make things a bit easier for the top Russian.”
While we have no evidence that such collusion was either planned or practiced in Switzerland, the ever-present threat operated as a mental hazard that could not but adversely affect the play of the Western group. An indication of the peculiar Russian mentality on this point is seen in the intransigent attitude of Ragozin, official spokesman for the Russian delegation, during an interview with the American journalist and master, George Koltanowski. When George started to ask a question beginning, “If a non-Russian were to win this tournament” Rogozin brusquely interrupted “Nyet! Never! Impossible!” Why should players of the caliber of Reshevsky, Najdorf, Gligoric and so forth be ruled out summarily is difficult to see, even if we grant the undoubted capabilities of the Russian stars Was Ragozin merely voicing a personal opinion as to the probable outcome? Or was he expounding an official, a dogma that no non-Communist will ever be allowed to win a challengers’ tournament if the Russians, by hook or crook, can possibly prevent it?
Another ugly and rather astonishing blot on the tourney, according to information received from one of our observers on the scene, was unabashed consultation by the Russian contingent flagrant coaching from the sidelines. .. .and tips passed from Russian player to another during games. This was bad. enough, but worse, perhaps from the standpoint of Sammy’s practical chances, was his utter deprivation benefits from the collaborative which seems to have become part and parcel of modern matches and tournaments. He was the only contestant without the services of one or more second to help him prepare for forthcoming games or analyze adjourned positions.”
Final
On March 16, 1954 the first game of the match started in the Tchaikovsky Concert Hall, Moscow where in three years before Botvinnik drew with Bronstein in the same competition. More than 2,000 spectators gathered to see this time Smyslov to challenge the double World Champion M. Botvinnik.
Vassily Vassilievitch Smyslov was born march 24, 1921 in Moscow and learned chess from his father when he was six. At fourteen he entered his tournament and at seventeen he tied for fist in the Moscow Championship. In 1940, he finished second in the 12th Soviet Championship and was then considered one of the leading Soviet players. His second place in the 1948 World Championship Tournament was of course regarded as one of the prime contenders for the title. Quiet, charming and reserved man he excelled in en the game but also as a singer of opera!
Opocensky was nominated chief arbiter and Golombek his assistant. At the back of the stage there was a vast demonstration board on which the game was reproduced. Botvinnik had chosen Khan as second and Smyslov gave the job to Smagin.
Game 1
French Defense
As expected Smyslov played 1.e4 and Botvinnik answered with the French Defense, Winawer variation. White went then for 6. b4, a gambit introduced a few years early by Alekhine. A passive White’s play gave Black a better game and a clear advantage before the start of the last stage of the game. The Rook ending was conducted with great force and accuracy by Botvinnik and the Smyslov had no chance of saving the game.
Game 2
Nimzo-Indian Defense
Curiously Smyslov, with Black, chose a line (7…d5) which was refuted recently by Euwe! But somehow Botvinnik avoids Euwe’s continuation and found on the board another devastating plan! With three mediocre moves in succession, Black went to an immediate disaster.
Game 3
Smyslov improved game one and obtain a menacing position but unexpected Botvinnik broken the initiative with a positional sacrifice of a piece for three pawns.
Game 4
Queen’s Gambit Accepted
The game started well for Smyslov but gradually things turned against him. The draw was not in the today plan and the Challenger went for some risky 16…c5 instead of the safe Rfd8. Complications rose on the board and Black’s King was threatening. In time trouble Smyslov went to the adjournment with, according to the experts, no big hopes. Curiously Botvinnik didn’t find the right remedy to finish his opponent off immediately and after 45. Qd3 instead of 45.d6 Black was given the chance for an ultimate comeback. The Champion decided then to play with the clock. Complicated the position and wait for the ultimate mistake. A good strategy after the remarkable 51. Bxg4, Black could hold their nerves and felt immediately into the trap! Botvinnik is leading 3,5-0,5
Game 5
Slav- Meran
Both players debated the well complex Anti-Meran variation. The game played between Lilienthal and Kotov in the recent USSR ch. was followed till Smyslov played the dubious 14…Ne5 instead of 14…c5 as Kotov proved in the above-mentioned game. Botvinnik continued with the interesting 15. Qe2 with sacrificed a pawn but in the other hand open lines for pieces. On move 22, White missed a possible winning continuation with Nf3 and instead played 22. Ba7, a move which looked promising but after a precise play, Black managed to liquidate the tension and draw the game.
Game 6
Grunfeld Defense
In an emergency situation, Smyslov opted with the safe Grunfeld, an opening in which he is regarded as the world’s leading expert and which gave some troubles to his opponent in his match vs. Bronstein in 1951. Black had the usual pressing but White defensive technique proved adequate to the occasion. The Rook and pawns ending slightly better for White finished with the point shared by the two protagonists.
Game 7
French Defense
No doubt with this game, Smyslov recovered from the dramatic start of the championship. The Challenger took the advantage showing a better knowledge of the opening. Despite many exchange, Smyslov played always actively, finding also in many occasions the only move to avoid dead draw. The endgame was very technical and needed chirurgical precision. Smyslov in his best day so far didn’t give any hope of peaceful settlement to the Champion. The sealing move 41. h5 was the only one to keep the tension which convert the decision in favor of the White side after Black played 47..Kd6? an unusual blunder which provoked a rapid end.
Game 8
Queen Pawn Game
Botvinnik had the edge, but no more but in any case, Smyslov position was very defensive and sometimes very difficult to hold. On move 30 Black gave up a pawn to get his piece active however after Black’s move 34 none was anymore more ready to bet on Smyslov. 35. f4 was the right continuation for a rapid finish however with 35. Ke3? Botvinnik missed all chance for victory.
Game 9
French Defense
Smyslov surprised completely the Champion with the important novelty (recommended by Euwe) played on move 7 with Qg4, far stronger than 7. Ng5 played in game one. Psychologically shake by what was going on, Botvinnik took some time to find the resource to strike back but after he inadvertently transposed his 18th move, he allowed Smyslov to obtain a won position by a brilliant Queen sacrifice.
Game 10
Queen’s Gambit Accepted
Shocked with the devastating result of the last few days, the Champion very nervous showed the impression of being incoherent and void of the plan. For the first part of the game Botvinnik hold the advantage but on move 24 he unforeseen an elementary oversight and soon lost material and the game. With a standing ovation, Smyslov showing much more self-confidence than his opponent equalized the score and look for the first time the favorite to win the match.
Game 11
Ruy Lopez
Botvinnik abandoned the French Defense which gave him some recent disappointment and switched for the well known but complex Spanish opening which promised him nothing but failure. Black had immediately some difficult strategic problem to solve but with some low psychological state, the Champion took the wrong path. The exchange of Queens in move 15 lead White to a comfortable endgame. It was amazing to notice that after 25 moves the was lost for Black when material was even, weaknesses even and Bishop of opposite color. The White’s King marching to the Queen-side was just too strong. Smyslov is now leading 6-5.
Game 12
Slav Defense
During the round television made its first appearance in the history of the world chess championship. The game was televised and commented from 8 till 8.30 pm. In a theoretical debate on the Slav Defense, Botvinnik, playing some kind of unusual line, suddenly moved all his strength to the opponent’ King. The attack which followed was irresistible. Missing some simplification on move 28, Black’s mistake forced him a quick resignation.
Game 13
Sicilian Defense
Botvinnik showed some new pattern in the very complex Sicilian Defense, a quite rare sub-variation where White developed their Bishop on g2. Smyslov sacrificed a pawn for an attack which didn’t materialize. Once the Queens were exchanged, Black’s advantage became decisive and with great accuracy, the World Champion scored a second point in a row and took once more the lead in the match.
Game 14
King’s Indian Defense
Smyslov avoided the unmotivated 6. e3 and replaced it by 6. Nf3. Smyslov speculated on a positional sacrifice which gave to White an exchange up but to Black some good attacking chance with two powerful Bishops. The game was even but on move 21, Botvinnik overlooked a combination which gave Smyslov three minor pieces for the Queen and a theoretical win which the Challenger managed to convert in ten moves.
Game 15
Sicilian Defense
After a similar opening than the 13th game, Botvinnik obtained a superior position which he materializes by winning a pawn into the middle game. Smyslov was pushing to the corner and on move 18 the issue of the game was already clear. Later Black succeeded by breaking the King’ side and using the most energetic style forced White to resign on move 36.
Game 16
King’s Indian
The games seemed to followed the one from the round 9 until Black played a new idea with 9…Rb8 and some direct view on the Queen’ side. Botvinnik, quite easily, demonstrate that Smyslov’s plan was wrong. With the Bishops very active, White took full control of the center with 16. e4 and thus the game. After the exchange of Rooks, White’ s Knights went irresistibly to attack the weak Black’s pawns left alone on the Queen-side. Smyslov adjourned in a hopeless position and resigned 5 moves after the game resumed.
Game 17
King’s Indian Opening
Smyslov as White had the advantage of two Bishops and Black an isolated d-Pawn which help him to get some action in the middle game. Once Black saw the risk of speculation to great he decided to share the point with a perpetual check.
Game 18
King’s Indian Defense
Smyslov made an interesting improvement from his disaster game 16. He delayed 7..e5 and instead played 7…a6 followed by 8…Rb8. White blocked the Queen-side with 12.d5 and none could pretend to claim any advantage.
Game 19
French Defense
Botvinnik surprised everyone by switching the opening from Sicilian to the French defense. He deviated from game 7 with Nc6 instead of 9…Rg6. White go for an endgame with an extra pawn but no really advantage his c-Pawn is tripled. Black had some treats on the King-side but with 25…Nf4 decided to go for simplifications. A double Rook and pawn ending was agreed drawn before both players resumed the game. The score now shows 10½-8½ in favor of the champion.
Game 20
King Indian Defense
Smyslov was the first to show his card: he went directly for a King-side attack by playing the courageous move 9…h5. Botvinnik managed to stop the attack but got his piece in uncomfortable position and the challenger went on with an attack on the other side. At the critical position Smyslov made a wrong capture then the game was considered as drawish at the adjournment. In the end game, White let Black free his King Pawn and then concluded nicely and quickly.
Game 21
French Defense
Fearing some Botvinnik’s home preparation, Smyslov switched from 10. Qe3 played in game seven to 10. Qd2 but realized very soon that his new strategy was not a successful choice. Bad Bishop’s position and pawn weaknesses gave to Black an upper game. Botvinnik sacrificed a pawn and got in exchange better perspective and finally a better end-game. With a black Knight was far away better than the passive white Bishop, and it was Smyslov even with an extra pawn who had to play for a draw.
Game 22
Gruenfeld Defense
Smyslov with Black obtained an interesting attack and kept the advantage by avoiding exchange proposals often offered by his opponent. On move 22 Smyslov made the wrong strategical choice by missing 22…Ne4 and consequently gave to his opponent some resource to lunch some counter-attack with a good chance of a draw.
Game 23
Sicilian Defense
Botvinnik played the opening and middle game with great energy. Fighting for the supremacy to control the center, he created pawn weaknesses. On move 24 he missed Qd5 and gave to the White some unexpected chance to return the situation. Six moves later, Black’s position collapsed completely and Smyslov more than happy came back to level the score of the match.
Game 24
Queen Indian Defense
Like in 1951, the national interest for the championship was at his peak for the last game. The day before the game few thousands of Muscovites were queuing at the box office to get the precious ticket. The picture was clear Botvinnik could be pleased with a short draw but Smyslov needs the last victory. Of course, Botvinnik played safely with the only thinking to not give any counter-attack chance to the Challenger. With 13. Rd1 and 17.b3 White annihilated all Black’s possible treat. Was Smyslov too happy with a draw or too scare to loose? None understood why the Challenger offered to share the point after 22 moves when only one pawn and one minor piece were exchanged! Anyway, Botvinnik did not hesitate too much to shake his opponent’s hand which extended for the 2nd time in a row his title of World Chess Champion conquered in 1948.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | Total | |
| Smyslov | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | 12.0 |
| Botvinnik | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | 12.0 |
In the after match book published by Golombek, Botvinnik and Smyslov analyzed his performance:
Botvinnik: “Of course, the games of the match were far from being faultless; many strictures may be made of my play and equally my opponent committed some obvious mistakes. Nevertheless, the games were of interest and the conflict was a severe one. Only in one game did the struggle end prematurely. The reader will perhaps realize that we are referring to the twenty-fourth and last game; but it should not be forgotten that in such a competition the World Champion acts as an examiner and his challenger is the aspiring student. If then the so-called student refuses to answer at the examination (in other words, if he proposes a draw, thereby refraining from any further struggle for the World Championship), then the examiner must conclude the examination. Hence I followed the example of the examiner and stopped the examination; but it must be admitted that it was just in time for the examiner as well, since at the end of the match he was very tired.
It should also be pointed out that both in the match Botvinnik-Bronstein, 1951, and in the present encounter, the participants displayed an approximately even degree of strength, so it is not quite clear who was the examiner in these matches and who was the student.”
Smyslov concluded:
“So the match has ended in a draw with the score 12—12 and, according to the conditions of the contest, Botvinnik retains his title of World Champion. I regard this drawn outcome of a struggle that has lasted some two months as honourable enough for me. It has indeed been a most strenuous and keen battle, as appears from the fact that out of the first sixteen games only four ended in a draw. These figures well illustrate the militant spirit in which both contestants strove for victory.
Never before have I had occasion or opportunity to play a match, and the brief interval of time between this event and the arduous tournament at Zurich made it impossible for me to acquire the necessary experience of match play. Maybe this very circumstance to a certain extent explains my failures in the first part of the match.
Much material for an evaluation of the creative peculiarities in style of both contestants can be derived from the games of the match. Botvinnik showed splendid sporting form and a thorough preparedness for a struggle on which so much depended. He meticulously avoided time trouble, evidently bearing in mind the experience of his previous match against Bronstein, where in a number of cases lack time affected the quality and hence to the final result of the games.
During the whole match, I was lacking in consistency. Intermingled with the creative achievements of the ninth and fourteenth games, which I consider my best games of the match, there were moments of weak play, more especially in those in which the Sicilian Defense was played (the thirteenth and fifteenth games). Botvinnik’s best game was the twelfth.
To what extent did I manage to solve the problem of Botvinnik? One cannot consider modern match play without taking into account the psychological factors. It is therefore not surprising that both players concentrated on giving varied twists to the openings and especially devoted their efforts to turning the game on to lines most desirable to the player in question…”
Golombek, arbiter and also journalist at the match, commented for the BCM :“ Had the match lasted a games I am convinced we would have seen a new World Champion in the shape of Vassily Smyslov. It seems to me that Botvinnik’s retention of his title is due more to his character and temperament than to his actual skill as a player. In knowledge of openings and in imaginative attacking ability I rather think Smyslov is his superior; but there is no player I have ever seen who possesses so much self-discipline and such a formidable will- power as Botvinnik. Well might one onlooker say, ‘‘He will never lose a match and so he remains World Champion for ever.’’ Naturally this is a bit of an exaggeration, but you can see what he meant.”
Euwe evaluated the performance for Chess Review: “For two months, the match between Botvinnik and Smyslov has kept the title of world of chess agog. Although Botvinnik retained the lead most of the time, yet, again and again, there have best moments when it seemed Smyslov was about to capture the title.
Many felt that Smyslov’s strength grew as the snatch progressed, that he kept offering more resistance to Botvinnik’s violent style which had scored such convincing successes in the beginning. But, each time Smyslov seemed firmly in the saddle (for instance, after the eleventh and the fourteenth games), Botvinnik supplied convincing proof to the contrary by winning two games in succession. The Botvinnik supporters are certain to point out that he played only just well enough to retain the title and that, therefore, his grip on the championship was never endangered. But, however one looks at it, the frequent alternation of victories and defeats points emphatically to the great role played in two man con tests by the psychological factors.
The lack of a clear decision in both the 1951 and the 1954 match is regrettable also when we consider that the challengers had been selected from tournaments numbering many competitors. That is, we have seen that the playing strengths vary only very slightly at even the highest level. And so we may conclude that the Challengers’ Tournament at Zurich could have been won equally as well by Bronstein or by Reshevsky. Would it not be preferable then to have the world title contested in a match competition, in a tournament with few participants (six at most) but of many rounds? We could have something similar to the 1948 affair: in this case, a five round, five-cornered snatch between Botvinnik, Smyslov, Reshevsky, Bronstein and Keres.”
