The revenge of 1961
For the third time in history, Mikhail Botvinnik became the Champion of the World. For the second time, he won the title as challenger at a revenge match. Such a victory is an outstanding event in chess history. Only once in the past, a beaten champion could have regained the title: In 1937, Alekhine won the revenge match against Euwe. Botvinnik did manage to repeat this performance twice within but three years.
The match proper consisted of only the first 16 games, after which the score was Botvinnik 10.5 – Tal 5.5. At this time it was clear that Tal could not possibly save the match. You cannot give a Botvinnik odds of 5 points in 8 games. Consequently, quite a new phase of the struggle began with different objectives and therefore with quite another pattern. In this second phase, Botvinnik was not obliged to follow such a strict line as he did in the earlier part of the match. His object was, of course, to terminate the match as soon as possible, but without too strenuous an effort. Tal, on the other hand, with no hope of maintaining the title, naturally still wanted to reduce his opponent’s lead and at least to loose with the same difference as he had won from Botvinnik the previous year (12.5-8.5). The proper measure of forces, the match itself consisting of the first 16 games, we can divide into separate parts: the odd games, in which Botvinnik had Whites, and the even games, in which Tal had the first move. These two parts are naturally interdependent, but not as much as the games of the same color.
We shall first consider games 1,3,5, etc., in which Botvinnik played White. In these games, Botvinnik scored 7.5 points out of 8. It is needless to say that this overwhelming result is the basis of Botvinnik’s victory. Here he could make use of his most powerful weapon against Tal: simplification, and in most cases, the simplest form of simplification – the exchange of Queens. We shall consider these 8 games in light of this factor.
In game 1, things were not so clear. The Queens were exchanged on the 11th move, but certainly, the position wasn’t in favor for Botvinnik at that point. On the contrary, Tal had a free game for his Rooks and minor pieces, and it looked for some time as if Tal would score a clear advantage. This, however, was more appearance than reality. Analysis after the game showed that Botvinnik was never in serious danger. Tal played somewhat carelessly, and Botvinnik improved his position from move to move, and once having attained an advantage, he did not give the opponent the slightest chance. Notwithstanding the innocuous start of this game, Tal thought that the lesson to be derived from it was it is unwise to exchange Queens against Botvinnik unless absolutely necessary. Tal applied this precept as early as the 3rd game. He avoided the exchange of Queens which was offered by Botvinnik between the 19th and 22nd moves and once again at the 25th move. To be sure, if Tal had gone along with Botvinnik’s plans, he would have reached a slightly inferior ending, but as things went in the actual game, he did not even reach the ending. He was overwhelmed after a powerful K-side attack by the challenger. Certainly, Botvinnik had great merit in having beaten Tal in a game on the full board, but both in this game, and in many others. Tal had to battle after having made a clear concession by not exchanging Queens. In the 5th game, the exchange of Queens was made on the 22nd move. Botvinnik got what he wanted, and Tal was forced into a field, which his opponent was considered stronger. Tal then had a hard job. He lost a Pawn on the 35th move, but by putting up the strongest resistance, he managed to reach a draw at the 73rd move. This was one of Tal’s best performances, and if he had played the whole match or even just his Black games with the same tenacity, he would never have lost the title. However, it is understandable that after having undergone such a long ordeal, during which the position seemed hopeless at several points, the prospect of repeating such torment was not very inviting. In the 7th game, Tal did not take the opportunity of exchanging Queens on the 12th move, thereby accepting a minimal disadvantage, but instead, as, in the 3rd game, he risked a direct battle wit unequal weapons and consequently died the early death of a hero in 33 moves. The 9th game was still worse.
From the start, Tal played for the initiative, which entails very risky methods, when one has the Black pieces. True, Botvinnik had to use his full defensive powers to carry the assaults of his opponent, but once having done this, he emerged in an ending with a clear advantage which he was able to transform into a slow but definite win. Strangely enough, the exchange of Queens was not offered for a long time and took place only after the decisive point of the game had been reached, but indirectly, the possibility of this exchange remained as the shadow on the background. The 11th game represents simplification par excellence: the Slav exchange variation, which is known as a drawish continuation, the exchange of Queens in the 13th move, apparently not much life in the game – and these are just the positions in which Botvinnik is most dangerous. Only six moves later, Botvinnik won a Pawn, and after a strong ending, he decided the game after the 40th move. This 11th game should be considered as one of the deciding blows landed by Botvinnik. In the 13th game, Botvinnik again demonstrated his ability in simple positions. It was characterized by an exchange of Queens at the 8th move and by the equal position with no object of attack. In such positions, Tal is not at his best, and it is not surprising that he went wrong around the 20th move. Once having the lead, Botvinnik did not relax and won without difficulty through precise play. The 15th game was very much alike the 13th. After an exchange of Queens at the 18th move, Tal stood neither better nor worse. But ten moves later Botvinnik had a decisive advantage.
In these eight games in which Botvinnik scored 7.5 points, we note a great variety of openings such as Nimzo-Indian, the King’s Indian, the Slav Defense, and the Sicilian in reverse.
In sharp contrast with this variety, we see in the even games practically one opening – the Caro-Kann, which was played seven times – and the French Defense once (by mistake). Considering that Botvinnik knows the Caro-Kann very well, this meant a new victory for Botvinnik in that he was able to direct the game into the field he wished.
Certainly, Tal could have easily avoided getting into this special domain of Botvinnik by simply playing 1. d4 or any more other than 1.e4. But obviously, Tal had not prepared his repertory of openings in directions other than 1. e4, nor it would have been necessary for him to consider a switch, had he not scored such a catastrophic result in his Black games. After all, Tal’s first eight White games gave him a slight advance (5-3), but this was insufficient by far to neutralize the unfavorable showing he had made when playing Black. The Caro-Kann games of this match teach one important theoretical fact, namely, that after 1.e4-c6 2.d4 d5 3. e5, Black’s 3… Bf5 is far superior to 3…c5, which Botvinnik used in his 4th, 6th, and 8th games, (the second game was a classical variation of the Caro-Kann in which Tal did not get anything out of the opening, but Botvinnik then played too cautiously, made some inferior moves, and Tal scored a surprising win in a Queen ending, scoring only 1 point out of 3. In this 10th game, he played the sound move 3… Bf5 just at the right time, for Tal, discouraged by his lack of success in his black games (the score was now Botvinnik 5.5 – Tal 3.5) thought the time had come to take greater risks, hoping to overwhelm his opponent as he had done so many times during the first match. However, the way in which he created the complications was absolutely unsound, and after some twenty moves, his positions was in ruins, and one can admire Tal only for the fact that he kept on playing his hopeless position for some twenty moves more.
The score was Botvinnik 6.5- Tal 3.5.
It is at this point in the match that the psychological relationship between the White and the Black part of the match becomes evident. Tal had lost his 10th game more or less because of his bad experience in the 9th game, and Botvinnik, after having won the 11th game as well (Botvinnik 7.5 – Tal 3.5), became overconfident – the only time during the first 16 games of the match. He now played the very line of the French Defense with which he had scored his first loss in the 1960 match. This variation is not too bad and theory considers chances for Black at least equivalent to chances for White, but this type of game is made to order for Tal, and the World Champion did not have the slightest difficulty in gathering in the harvest. The score was now Botvinnik 7.5 – Tal 4.5. The 14th game was a normal Caro-Kann in which Tal tried hard but in vain to refute Botvinnik’s 3… Bf5. This variation is quite sufficient for an even game and perhaps for more if the opponent plays too sharply and disregards his own safety. This time Tal was cautious, but he could not attain more than a draw, and since he had lost his 13th game, his handicap remained 4 points. The 15th game was another loss for Tal. The 16th game was constituted the decisive point of the match, partly because Tal failed to win with the White pieces, but especially because after six or seven moves Tal already had a theoretical won game (Botvinnik had overlooked a simple answer by his opponent) and the fact that a player of the tactical skill of Tal could not win a won game must have demoralized him more than the fact that he scored only a draw. This is evident in dragging along a dead draw Queen ending from the 50th to the 90th move. The actual decision in the match now been reached. After 16 games, the score was Botvinnik 10.5 – Tal 5.5. There now began a new phase which, as a matter of fact, had little to do with the match proper. Certainly, there was a struggle, but there was no rivalry. The players contended for the game rather than for the match. As already mentioned, these last five games constituted a re-evaluation of all previous values. To begin with, in the 17th game of the match, Tal scored his first victory with Black. It was a fine game on the part of Botvinnik, who with some enterprising moves and a deeply calculated sacrifice of the exchange brought his opponent to the edge of the precipice. But then, being short of time (Botvinnik’s great handicap in the 1960 match), he failed to take advantage of the situation and after a long endgame, Tal scored a fine victory. New hopes for Tal! In the 18th game, for the nth time, Tal had to solve Botvinnik’s Caro-Kann variation with 3… Bf5. Tal stormed against Botvinnik’s solid bulwark, lost a pawn, and did get the least chance. The score was now Botvinnik 11.5 – Tal 6.5. The 19th game constituted a further surprising change. Tal scored his second successive win with the Black pieces – and what circumstances! Botvinnik had his ideal situation here: an exchange of Queens on the 13th move and simplification in the center. But Botvinnik carelessly allowed his Pawn position to be weakened, he lost a pawn and after a long struggle, he capitulated on his 75th move. The score was Botvinnik 11.5 – Tal 7.5. The 20th game also went in favor of Tal. He won a Pawn in 50th move but then Botvinnik put up such a resistance that even 121 moves did not open for Tal the possibility of scoring a win. This was the longest game in a match for the World Championship and one of the longest games in chess history. The score was Botvinnik 12 – Tal 8. The 21st game was the last of the match.
Botvinnik, playing with the White pieces, needed only a half point, and Tal, therefore, undertook a very risky, irresponsible, and defiant development. Botvinnik did not lose his head. He simply played sounds moves, and around the 20th move, he already had a won game. One the 33rd move, when Tal was bound to lose a whole piece in the ending, the World Champion laid down his King. The final score was Botvinnik 13-Tal 8. The chess throne exchanged hands. The chess world had witnessed a most in the psychological domain than on the sixty-four squares.
There is no doubt that Tal did not play at his best. He possibly neglected or underestimated the importance of rigorous training. Also, his state of health was at the beginning of this year far from being satisfactory. These facts must not, however, be taken as an explanation of the “surprising” issue of the revenge match. Botvinnik played in a manner like he did in his best years. He has proven that the age of fifty means in chess nothing to abandon the chess career. Botvinnik is a great chess strategist, perhaps, the greatest one in chess history. He was the foremost representative of the Soviet Chess School that does not represent any special style of play but a method of solving the chess problems in a creative way either over te chess board or by careful preparations through analytical studies, which letter – especially by merits of Botvinnik and other Soviet masters -has reached the level of a scientific work.
Mikhail Botvinnik has proven, thirteen years after he has won the world’s highest title for the first time, that he was still the world’s best chess-player. He has also demonstrated that modern chess, a game combining the elements of science and art, takes on a still more important place, in the cultural activities of mankind. The victory of Mikhail Botvinnik in spring of 1961 remained forever inscribed in the Golden Book of Chess History as one of the most outstanding events.
Game 1
Game 2
Game 3
Game 4
Game 5
Game 6
Game 7
Game 8
Game 9
Game 10
Game 11
Game 12
Game 13
Game 14
Game 15
Game 16
Game 17
Game 18
Game 19
Game 20
Game 21
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | Total | ||
| Botvinnik M | 1 | 0 | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 0 | 1 | 0 | ½ | 1 | 13.0 | |
| Tal M | 0 | 1 | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | 1 | 0 | 1 | ½ | 0 | 8.0 |
The Press Conference of the World Champion Michail Botvinnik took place in the USSR Central Chess Club on the 13th of May. The Grandmaster answered many questions of the Soviet and foreign journalists:
“Physically I was not prepared to the match, said the World Champion. This winter was really bad and I almost was not skiing. But every day I did morning exercises and tried to spend as much free time in the countryside as possible. Nevertheless this year physically I felt much better than last year. During the match I was keeping my usual regime.
When I was young I could not understand why my older partners drank coffee during the game. Some years ago I always drank lemonade, but I guess it did not help me, especially at the end of the round. The Chess players from German Democratic Republic I met at the Olympiad in Leipzig advised me to drink coffee. I followed their advice and, can you imagine, I was not tired even by the fifth hour of the game. After this I was always ‘armed’ with coffee and now I am thankful to the German chess players for the good advice.
Anyway it was not coffee which made Tal loose the match, but himself.
There is no doubt Tal has a great chess talent. He is very successful in the positions where the struggle is open. Tal counts the variants very well and quickly, moreover he feels the principals of playing such positions.
At the same time Tal is still a one-sided chess player. In simple positions or positions of the closed type he is not so confident.
That is why being aware of this I was striving for such positions.
Tal was not prepared well enough for the return match. Modern chess players should express themselves as practical and analytical players. I am more inclined to a research work, Tal likes practice. But this time I manage to get prepared very well both to practice and analysis, but Tal was not god as analyst.
Nothing else but a bad preparation could explain the unsuccessful Tal’s openings, especially playing with blacks. Last year Tal was not paying much attention to the openings, but that time he was in a bad form.
Tal’s experience is a warning for all the young chess players: they should work more.
In spite of the fact that the odds were in my favor in the middle of the match and at the end, I had to always play with great tension. Not a single moment was Tal psychologically broken down. I felt I won the match while analyzing the 20th round. When I was close to win, I knew I will make a draw. I also knew that Tal on the contrary was sure of his win. And I made a conclusion that in his analyses Tal did not see those stalemate possibilities which I managed to find. The round confirmed my suggestion.”
As for the possible challengers for the match with the World Champion in 1963, Botvinnik named first of all any of the Soviet grandmasters who will take part in the challengers’ tournament and also a talented American Robert Fischer and experienced Yugoslavian player Gligoric.
At the end of the press conference Botvinnik expressed his opinion to FIDE.
“The World Champion should have the right for a return match. It will help to eliminate many incidents and also will motivate the new champion not to sleep on his laurels, but perfect himself before the new event. That is why I do not support the decision of FIDE to cancel return matches.
I also think it is wrong that such a high class chess player as Smyslov is literally pushed aside from the World Championship at least for the nearest four years. Of course it is fair to make a selection at the Zonal tournaments. But it seems to me that Ex World Champions must be allowed to play in the Interzonal tournaments without any selection.”
In June 1961, Botvinnik gave a long interview which was reproduced in the FIDE Review
Q: What is your opinion on the play of Tal?
A: Tal is a great player I don’t have to confirm this but I know also the weakest points of his strategy. He is very exclusive and one of the best when the position is open with dangerous tactical threats. It is better to play against him position when calculation is not so important something quite and not too complicated. That was my strategy for the match. I believe is preparation was not as it was before. In this topic nothing new came from him during the last two years. I feel he didn’t work too much for this match. You can’t always rely on the work of your second.
Q: When did you feel you will win the match?
A: After the 20th game when I drew the game. But Tal was not psychologically broken, he fought in the last game like if it was the first game. At the end I was exhausted, a dangerous state when you play against Tal. Surely this time I played better I played against …Smyslov but we may say that Tal was not in good shape or well prepared. Before I used to commit mistake after the fifth hour of the game. This time except distractive moves on the second and the nineteenth game everything worked well.
Q: What was the theoretical contribution?
A: I was surprised that Tal didn’t play the advance variation against the Caro-Kann. It is quite clear that Black has to defend very precisely. I tried also to refute somehow with success his French lines till I blundered the game. Since the last few years the Old Indian Defense used by Tal doesn’t have a good reputation it is strange he played those lines during our encounter.
Q: What is your opinion on the revenge-match which has been canceled by FIDE?
A: I hope FIDE will reconsider because Tal and I are in favor of it. Youth players like to followed such event. Many top grandmasters are with the same strengths and we should not let anyone be champion just by hazard or by luck. The title deserves someone who dominates the chess world and can prove that he can bring something to the chess community.
Q: Why did you drink coffee during the match?
A: When I was young I couldn’t understand why my opponents were drinking coffee. When my results were not so good anymore, Furman told me to use the drink to stimulate my brain. After I started to drink it I discovered that my game was better especially when I reached the fifth hour of play.
Q: It looks you lose some weight?
A: Not sure, you lose weight when your nervous system doesn’t work properly like in the first match but not this time.
The Czech grandmaster L. Pachman, chief editor of the FIDE Review, honored the new champion:
“For the third time in history Mikhail Botvinnik became the Champion of the World. For the second time he won the title as challenger at a revenge match. Such a victory is an outstanding event in chess history. Only once in the past a beaten champion could have regained the title: In 1937, Alekhine won the revenge-match against Euwe. Botvinnik did manage to repeat this performance twice within but three years.
The question of revenge-matches for the World Championship was one of the most vividly discussed at recent sessions of the International Chess Federation. It was agreed this year’s match be the last. In future, the beaten champion will have to fight for his right in the Candidates’ Tournament. This resolution of the F.I.D.E. Congress is based upon serious reasons. From one point, however, we must regret there will be no revenge-matches in the future:
Both revenge-matches, in 1958 and 1961, were highly interesting chess events from point of view of sports and, particularly, of chess psychology became still more apparent at the second revenge match. However, the severest shortcoming of Tall’s play is the lack of exactness in the end game. Exactly in this phase of a game the elements of strategy dominate those of tactics. In some games of the second revenge-match Botvinnik. proceeding psychologically, was able to force the exchange of queens even in such positions where the exchange brought him no advantage at all. But he seized thus the initiative, earning the decisive points just in those games.
There is no doubt that Tal did not play at his best in the recent match. He possibly neglected or under estimated the importance of a rigorous training, Also his state of health was at the beginning of this year far from being satisfactory. Botvinnik played in a manner like he did in his best years. He has proven that the age of fifty means in chess nothing to abandon the chess career. Botvinnik is a great chess strategist perhaps the greatest in chess history.
Voices can be often heard that tactics to apply in tournaments widely differs from that to apply in individual matches; that a chess player successful in many first class tournaments must not invariably be successful in single matches, or vice versa. Such assertions allow for great reservations. The real faculties of a great chess player become manifest in both the tournament and the match game. There are, however, some differences resulting from the individual style of play. So. for example, Tal’s aggressive style of play would be more suitable for tournament’s play, for it enables him to safely outplay weaker opponents or such opponents who, momentarily, are not in their best form, and whose nerves cannot stand the tension. But in a match against an opponent, who is well-prepared and plays at his best, such style may fail.
It is, however, beyond any question that the World Championship must be fought out in a particular match. For in a match all fortuitous influences are restricted to a minimum. A fight “face to face” can best reveal who deserves to hold the proud title of Champion of the World, the paramount place in the world chess.”
Under the title: The Rise and Fall of Mikhail Tal, US Team captain E. Hearst analyzed in the US Chess Review the “meteor” named M. Tal:
For the past few years, writers and commentators have delighted in describing the meteoric ascent of Mikhail Tal to the chess heights. The use of the term “meteor” seemed particularly appropriate in Tal’s case, since he entered the world’s chess atmosphere with great velocity, achieved astounding results in a very short period of time, and had a style of play characterized by exceptional brilliance. Those who described Tal in this fashion can only now really appreciate the aptness of the analogy, since, like a meteor, Tal seems to have lost his sparkle very rapidly in a sudden descent down to earth.
The rise and fall of meteors can be accounted for in fairly logical ways, but how can one logically determine the reason for Tal’s crushing debacle? Before the recent match began, there were only a handful of experts who gave Botvinnik an outside chance to regain his world title. Almost all others felt a victory by Tal was merely a foregone conclusion, a surprising reversal, incidentally, from predictions of the year before when Botvinnik was the universal choice of all the prominent chess crystal gazers. Bobby Fischer, for example, no great admirer of Tal, commented before this year’s match: “I think Tal will win again, because Botvinnik adopts inferior openings with the idea of keeping the game close. Because of this, Botvinnik cannot show his best qualities. Before the first match, I felt differently, but the power of Botvinnik’s play has declined a great deal since the match with Smyslov in 1954. I have studied all of Botvinnik’s games and I believe he has lost his form. So Tal will win!”
The Australian chess writer, C. Purdy, expressed to Grandmaster Yuri Averbach his strong opinion that Tal would win again. Averbakh agreed to state that even if Botvinnik played much better than last year. Tal would not even have to improve on his play to achieve a second match victory. Miguel Najdorf of Argentina flippantly dismissed Botvinnik’s chances and stated that Tal “will win without great difficulty.” Pointing out Tal’s age advantage, last year’s decisive victory, Tal’s ability to think more rapidly than his opponent, and his more imaginative play, Russian author V. Panov predicted another decisive defeat for Botvinnik. Your Chess Kaleidoscope reported confesses, too, that he had no doubt that Tal would score another overwhelming victory.
Of the leading chess authorities, only Sweden’s G. Stahlberg expressed a contrasting view, one which he must be quite proud of now. “All say that Tal will win easily, but I am not of that opinion. The games of the first match proved nothing, since Botvinnik played quite poorly, possibly due to the serious illness of his wife at that time. This year I predict a difficult struggle, favorable to Botvinnik.” Stahlberg’s prognostication was completely vindicated, except for the fact that the struggle turned out to be not very difficult for Botvinnik at least…
The self-confident, quick Tal of last year described by many viewer “nervous,” “uncomfortable” and “continuously fatigued This year the chess clocks seemed to tick much faster for Tal than for Botvinnik, a surprising contrast from the 1960 match where Botvinnik characteristically used much more time, even hours more on occasion, than his youthful challenger. These overt physical and psychological “symptoms” in addition to Tal’s numerous errors of judgment in his сhoice of opening variations and general strategy and tactics made it appear at times that an entirely different person from last year was facing the veteran Botvinnik. And so is might have been.
The easiest way to get a chuckle out of any chess fan is to suggest that one of the match players was physically ill during the match. “Of course”, the inevitable answer is “everyone is sick when he’s losing”. In Tal’s case, however, it is certain that he was not physically at his best for this match. His condition prior to the match was so poor that his doctors had cautioned him to postpone the event and the USSR chess federation had gone so far as to forbid him to play until he had sufficiently recovered from the effects of a series of illnesses and accidents which had plagued him over the past year. In characteristic fashion, Tal went over the heads of the Russian chess officials and insisted or playing at the scheduled time. “Who’s playing this match my doctors or I?”, he insisted. It is, of course, difficult to know how large a role Tal’s health played in the final results but it cannot be discounted completely.
One thing is certain, however: Botvinnik played far better than last year. In his choice of opening variations he hardly made an error, he regulated his clock very well, and he repeatedly took advantage of Tal’s over-impulsive gambles. One critic commented that Tal seemed to be poorly prepared for the match; he played spontaneously rather than profoundly, experimented in a dubious way in comparison to the creativity and ingenuity he displayed on many occasions in last year’s contest. Some of his very impetuous pawn storms against Botvinnik’s Caro-Kann Defense elicited the соmments from a prominent master that “when a fakir dances on a bed of sharp nails and then walks away as if there were nothing to it, the audience will be very excited (last year). But when he limps away from the task with bleeding feet, one can only call the performance masochistic.”
The first game of the match was in many ways the most significant one (see Chess Life, April issue). Tal obtained an excellent game from his Nimzo-Indian Defense, but made a succession of inferior impact and lost a game he should never have lost. The psychological impact of this initial defeat must have been very great, particularly in view of Botvinnik’s obvious care in avoiding time pressure and his incisiveness once he had obtained the advantage. In the last year’s match, Botvinnik had often obtained superior positions but he was seldom able to push them through to a successful conclusion…
David Bronstein, himself a former match opponent of Botvinnik (1951) felt it safe at this point to predict Botvinnik’s eventual victory:
“The new chess generation has proclaimed that it is witnessing the birth or possibly the rebirth, or originality in chess. It is not easy to think of an accurate designation for this new style of play, but perhaps calling it the “intuitive style” will be close enough.
A representative of this approach, especially if he is a grandmaster, naturally possesses all of the attributes essential for competitive success — knowledge, technique, logical thinking, determination — but the basic source of his distinctive chess powers in a natural talent for the quick calculation of long, complicated variations with numerous branches. No one in chess history has possessed this intuition and talent in such measure as world champion Tal.
What distinguishes the play of an “intuitive” master from that of a “strategic” master? The former at any cost strives to entice his opponent into situations where the material and positional balance are disturbed in many sectors of the board, and where the popular guideposts for objective evaluation have disappeared, so that it is virtually impossible to decide upon the most crucial aspect of the position.
If one were to show a position of this type to V. Korchnoi or M. Tal, asking “What is your opinion of this position and which color would you prefer to have?”, their most likely answer would be, “The position is suitable, it pleases me, I am ready to play it; color, that does not matter!”
‘Now show the same position to Y. Averbach or to T. Petrosian, or to the leader of the “strategic” school, M. Botvinnik. A typical answer: “Unclear position. I do not want to play it either as white or black.”
The style of Tal or Korchnoi is frequently called “combinational”. Is there even one chess player who does not value highly the fascination of a beautiful combination? It is difficult, however, to believe that chess combinations can be created out of nothing, like a magician snatching a lighted cigarette out of thin air. A combination grows out of a player’s imagination, but to prepare the combination requires not just imagination but also work and care.
Tal prefers a method which demands minimum expenditure of power. The opening, he says, does “of have much significance. What is important is to retain a clear head for the moment when the game reaches a decisive stage. I must add that it is important not to find oneself at that moment in a hopeless situation!
The play in the present match indicates that Botvinnik has repeatedly succeeded in extinguishing the spark in Tal’s combinations before Tal has had the chance to kindle the fire. More than that, Botvinnik in the seventh Same employed a combinational procedure, which was prepared with brilliant strategical play in the opening and in the transition phase between the opening and middle game.
The strength and weakness of Botvinnik lie in the fact that he discovers only those combinations which logically grow out of the position and which he can accurately calculate from beginning to end. The weakness strength of Tal is that he hurls himself into a whirl of complications even when it is not possible to foresee a clear result.
Thus Botvinnik fights not only for the title of world champion but also for the reputation of the classical school of chess, the most brilliant representative of which he has been for over a decade. And inasmuch as this style seems to me more worthy and profound than the intuitive style, then Botvinnik must gain the eventual victory.”…
