Cycle 1948-1951

According to FIDE’s plan approved in 1947, the first Interzonal was scheduled for 1948. Among the participants included the winners of the Zonals: O’Kelly (BEL), Kashdan (USA), Yanofsky (CAN) and BOOK (FIN). The list will be completed with an invited player list, which was lead by Najdorf(ARG), Boleslavsky (URS) and Stahlberg (ARG). Twenty players with the top five to have right to play a final tournament in 1949 with Smyslov, Reshevsky, Keres, Euwe and Fine.

Interzonal

The tournament opened on July 16 in Salsjbaden near Stockholm with the expected participants excepted O’Kelly (BEL) and Eliskases (ARG) who were replaced by Pirc (YUG) and Lundin (SWE).

In the opinion of many , his tournament was one of the strongest competition played until then despite that many players qualified like the American could not arrive due to…financial difficulties.

At mid-stage or after 10 rounds, Szabo from Hungary and Bronstein from USSR were leading with 7 points following by Lilienthal (HUN) and Najdorf 6½. Szabo took sole the lead from the next round and kept it until round 18 when again Bronstein came back to share the pole position. At the final round, Szabo was paired with Lundin who was the weakest player of the tournament. Incredibly, the Hungarian with a better position made a faulty combination and lost a lot of material when at the same time Bronstein concluded brilliantly against the French Tartakover. Bronstein called “little David” was born in 1924 near Kiev. He didn’t win so far major tournament but can claim a plus score against Botvinnik, Smyslov and Keres! This first great victory was also his first tournament outside of USSR.

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	Total
1	Bronstein, D	Xx	1	½	1	½	½	½	½	½	½	1	½	½	1	½	1	½	1	1	1	13.5
2	Szabo, L	0	Xx	½	½	1	½	1	½	½	1	½	1	1	1	½	1	½	½	1	0	12.5
3	Boleslavsky, I	½	½	xx	½	½	½	0	1	½	1	½	½	1	½	½	½	1	1	1	½	12.0
4	Kotov, A	0	½	½	xx	½	½	½	½	½	½	1	½	½	½	½	1	1	1	1	½	11.5
5	Lilienthal, A	½	0	½	½	xx	1	1	½	½	½	0	½	½	½	1	½	1	½	½	1	11.0
6	Bondarevsky, I	½	½	½	½	0	xx	½	½	1	0	½	1	½	0	½	½	1	½	1	1	10.5
7	Najdorf, M	½	0	1	½	0	½	xx	½	½	1	0	1	½	0	½	1	½	½	1	1	10.5
8	Stahlberg, G	½	½	0	½	½	½	½	xx	½	0	½	1	1	½	½	½	½	1	½	1	10.5
9	Flohr, S	½	½	½	½	½	0	½	½	xx	½	½	½	½	½	½	½	1	½	1	1	10.5
10	Trifunovic, P	½	0	0	½	½	1	0	1	½	xx	½	½	0	1	½	½	1	½	1	½	10.0
11	Pirc,V	0	½	½	0	1	½	1	½	½	½	xx	½	½	0	1	0	½	1	½	½	9.5
12	Gligoric, S	½	0	½	½	½	0	0	0	½	½	½	xx	1	½	1	1	1	½	0	1	9.5
13	Book, E	½	0	0	½	½	½	½	0	½	1	½	0	xx	½	½	½	½	1	1	1	9.5
14	Ragozin, V	0	0	½	½	½	1	1	½	½	0	1	½	½	xx	0	0	½	0	½	1	8.5
15	Yanofsky, D	½	½	½	½	0	½	½	½	½	½	0	0	½	1	xx	0	½	½	½	1	8.5
16	Tartakower, S	0	0	½	0	½	½	0	½	½	½	1	0	½	1	1	xx	0	½	½	½	8.0
17	Pachman, L	½	½	0	0	0	0	½	½	0	0	½	0	½	½	½	1	xx	1	½	1	7.5
18	Stoltz, G	0	½	0	0	½	½	½	0	½	½	0	½	0	1	½	½	0	Xx	½	½	6.5
19	Steiner, L	0	0	0	0	½	0	0	½	0	0	½	1	0	½	½	½	½	½	xx	½	5.5
20	Lundin, E	0	1	½	½	0	0	0	0	0	½	½	0	0	0	0	½	0	½	½	xx	4.5

The FIDE Congress was also scheduled in Saltsjobaden. Both Argentina and Hungary bided for the Candidates’ Tournament but the each one with one condition. The Hungarian could no cover the player’s traveling expenses and the Argentinean want Najdorf and Stahlberg to play. Despite the fact than the majority of the members preferred the South American choice, the Soviets made huge pressure on the Assembly saying that they were doubtful about the willingness of their players to travel so far…! Passion took over and treats of break-up FIDE was even declared. Finally, the assembly approves a presidential’s proposal to set up a commission in view to settling the matter. It was also decided to increase the number of participants to the Candidate’s Tournament to 14. So the first nine of the Interzonal were qualified.

Despite the announcement of FIDE begin of 1949 to hold the Candidates’ Tournament in Buenos Aires, the Soviets imposed a vote of confirmation in the FIDE 1949 Congress which was held in Paris. Curiously (mainly because of the threat than no Russian will attend the tournament) the previous decision was outvoted and Budapest became the official venue to select the winner to play Botvinnik in 1951.

An elaborate system of rules has been governing future world championship arrangements:

(i) Every third year, a competition either a match or a tournament- will be organized for the world championship.

(ii) The winner of the FIDE Candidates’ Tournament is entitled in the forthcoming year to play a match against the world champion for the championship.

(iii) If the world champion cannot or will not defend his title the year following the candidates’ tournament, the match will be played instead between the two masters who, in the candidates’ tournament, have won the first and second places.

(iv) If the winner of the candidates’ tournament does not use the right to challenge the champion, the player who won second place has the right.

(v) If the champion and the challenger cannot agree about the match terms, a tournament will be arranged between the champion, ex-champion and the players who won the first and second place in the candidates’ tourney.

Decisions (vi) and (vii) apply to rights of ex-champions.

(viii) Applies to absent candidates.

(it) If the world champion ties in a championship match, or shares first place in a championship tourney, he retains the title.

(x) The right to organize a world championship competition is, in the first instance, the right of the federation of the champion’s country if the champion himself participates.

(xi) In a world championship match, 24 games shall be played. When one of the players reaches 12½ points, he shall be declared the winner. A world championship tournament shall consist, with four participants, of six rounds (one round consists of one game against each participant) and with three participants, ten rounds.

(xii) In a world championship competition, 3 games a week should be played in such an order that the adjourned games can be continued the following day. For the first 40 moves, 2½ hours each shall be allotted and the game shall be adjourned after a total playing time of 5 hours. Adjourned games shall be played at a rate of 16 moves per hours each.

(xiii) Illness right is defined.

(xiv) Each contestant in a world championship competitor shall have the right to have a second. Only a second has the right to assist n analyzing adjourned games.

(xv) In a championship match, the victor shall have an honorarium of US$ 5,000 and the opponent US$ 3,000.

First Candidates’ Tournament 1950

The first Candidates’ Tournament was held in Budapest in April-May 1950. For different reasons Reshevsky, Fine and Euwe canceled their participations. For Euwe, it was because for teaching duties and for both Americans players because the US Department of State banned US citizens from entering to Hungary.

With the Americans forced to abstain, C&R published in March 1950 an article on the Russian to control FIDE decisions: “…The Russian have argued that they should have the principal voice in determining the choice of the site and presumably thereafter of playing conditions. Such an outcome would be manifestly unfair. The roll of contenders is heavily weighted with Soviets players…

FIDE had once more to readjust the number of entries with the top nine of the last Interzonal without Bondarevsky ill, plus Smyslov and Keres who were qualified by regulations.

(BCF) At Budapest, this was enormous thousands of spectators attending every day. From the first, it was evident that the Russian contingent not only outnumbered but also outclassed the remaining three players. Though Stalhberg twice struck shrewd blows against two of their leaders by boating Bronstein and Smyslov, he could not keep up this form consistently. Here I should add that, however regrettable from the sporting point of view was the absence of the two R. Fine and Reshevsky, I doubt very much whether their presence would have affected the final result a great deal. For stern, hard practice against the formidable opposition is essential for success in a tournament of this caliber, and it is exactly this that the U.S.A. players lack. Mystical talk about the affinity for chess, of the Slav temperament is quite unnecessary. The great strength of Russian chess derives from the iron-hard practice their players get; theirs truly is a fortunate, rather than vicious, circle in which strength breeds strength in ever increasing degree. . –

Boleslavsky started with an Impress powerful victory against Flohr played in the massive style that characterizes him when at top form. His sureness of touch never once deserted him and It was no accident that he was the only player to go through the tournament without a loss. Bronstein, on the other hand, adopted quite a different policy. In marked contrast to his cautious pIay at Stockholm, 1948 he threw discretion to the winds, took chances with, indeed, success, and despite a loss to Smyslov in Round 2 was one of the three leaders at Round 7, with 4½.

The third was Keres who had been playing with great circumspection in an attempt to banish the bogy of uncertain form that has been afflicting him of recent years. With rare brilliant exceptions, he built up his position with immense care, winning an endgame and for the rest being content to let the draw come when it would. Such a plan of campaign demands, not only immense patience but great physical stamina, and it was this that let Keres down towards the end.

In the 8th round, Boleslavsky assumed the sole lead by a crushing victory over Kotov, whilst Keres could do no more than draw with Lilienthal and Bronstein was beaten by Stahlberg. This lead he enjoyed to the very last round. He had a wonderfully successful run from the 6th to the 14th round during which he scored 6-points. Even more remarkable, however, was the finishing run of Bronstein, who extracted 7 points out of the last 8 rounds, and by a brilliant victory over Keres in the very last round just managed to overhaul Boleslavsky. This tie means that sometime this year there must be a match between the two winners to decide who shall meet Botvinnik next year.

Smyslov’s third place, though achieved by rather up and down form, is still a most creditable achievement and Keres would have been a great challenge for the two leaders if he had been able to stay the pace. Najdorf never looked like a real menace to the top players, being apparently content to attain a satisfactory position and to avenge himself thoroughly for losing a brilliancy prize game to Lilienthal at Stockholm, 1948, by twice trouncing that unfortunate grandmaster here.

Kotov seems to be developing into the Frank Marshall of Soviet chess and is just as likely to lose as to win brilliantly. He is almost too aggressive for consistent success. Stahlberg played some beautiful games but lacked that powerful sureness that was so marked in Boleslavsky and like Najdorf never seemed a challenger for the top place. Lastly, we come to the unhappy three tailenders.

Very surprising was Szabo’s weak form. He seemed to lose heart early on and then to succumb repeatedly in a wretched style quite aliens to his normal self. I believe this is only a temporary lapse and that he will yet show how -truly formidable he is in future tournaments. The same cannot be said for either Flohr or Lilienthal both of whose stars are now quite clearly on the wane.

Confirmation of what has been said above about the various styles of the players can be found by studying their scores. Bronstein won the most games—eight—an astonishing number in such a tournament. Keres drew most—thirteen—just noting Flohr out of his usual place by one; whilst it was Szabó’s not a very invidious distinction of losing most seven.

At the end of the first half of the tournament, the Magyar Sakkvilog interviewed various competitors who made co remarks about the tournament organization. Here are two of the interviews, translated from that magazine.

Stahlberg: “I am thoroughly satisfied with everything, even with my own play. I was a little lucky against Bronstein and Lilienthal, but on the other had rather bad luck against Keres and Najdorf. In general, the players seem nervous, and the last half hour of the session is usually a desperate rush in time trouble, but despite the numerous draws, the play has been interesting and adventurous, and there has been no dull wood shifting.

“Boleslavaky’s success is well deserved; with the exception of his game against Keres he has never stood in any danger, and almost always held the advantage. Keres has played solidly and risked little but has given a glimpse of his combinational talents in his game against Kotov. Bronstein plays the most aggressively, perhaps here and there a little too much so. So far Smyslov has not been in his best form, we can expect more from him in the second half. Najdorf is playing very nervously and inconsistently. Kotov has shown some good ideas, whilst Szabó has been a disappointment he has played sharply and risked too much. Also, Lilienthal and Flohr have not shown their best sides, though Lilienthal has pulled up a good deal towards the end.”

Najdorf: “The arrangements are wonderful, the chess players are surrounded by the utmost peace and calm, though, unfortunately, they do not often play accordingly. The reason for this resides in the fact that there is really only one high prize the right to play against Botvinnik for the world championship. This circumstance is a novel one and renders everybody nervous, and I believe that nobody has quite played up to the expected form.

‘For example, Smyslov has committed numerous blunders, even big ones. This arises from the numerous fighting games that can be observed, despite a large number of draws, and in such games, it is easy to blunder. Boleslavsky has committed the least mistakes and has, therefore, merited his first place so far. Bronstein has played the most aggressively but has not been favored by fortune since he lost to Stahlberg in a better position.

“Szabó, also a candidate for the first place, has been a disappointment in his hometown. He is really a very great player but unfortunately, cannot endure losses. In his very first game, he was crushed by Bronstein, and this demoralized him; hence both against me and Lilienthal, he failed to show his tried capabilities.

‘Alas. I myself have not played well, perhaps I will do better in the second half. My openings have been well played and I have often attained a winning position, which, nevertheless, I have been unable to win: this shows I am not in form. flj In the two games I lost to Bronstein and Smyslov was below criticism, but the tournament is, of course, not yet finished.”

Total

Bronstein, D

½ ½

0 1

½ 1

1 1

1 ½

0 1

½ ½

1 ½

½ 1

12.0

Boleslavsky, I

½ ½

1 ½

½ ½

1 ½

½ ½

½ 1

1 1

12.0

Smyslov, V

1 0

0 ½

½ ½

1 ½

½ 1

0 1

½ 1

½ ½

10.0

Keres, P

½ 0

½ ½

1 0

1 ½

½ ½

½ 1

½ ½

9.5

Najdorf, M

0 0

½ ½

0 ½

½ ½

1 1

½ 1

½ ½

9.0

Kotov, A

0 ½

½ 0

0 1

½ ½

½ 1

1 0

1 ½

8.5

Stahlberg, G

1 0

½ ½

1 0

0 ½

½ ½

½ 0

½ ½

8.0

Lilienthal, A

½ ½

½ 0

½ ½

0 0

0 1

½ ½

1 0

½ ½

7.0

Szabo, L

0 ½

½ 0

½ ½

½ 0

0 1

½ ½

0 1

1 0

7.0

Flohr, S

½ 0

0 0

½ ½

0 ½

½ ½

0 1

7.0

Playoff

So by regulations, the two first winners of the Interzonal Boleslavsky and Bronstein and Boleslavsky went to play a match in Moscow to decide the winner of the cycle. The best twelve games had been intended but when these had been completed the score was still even. FIDE had provided that, in the event of a tie, two more games has been completed and if the players remained equal, the match would continue until one player will score a win. The thirteenth game was a draw but in the next Bronstein with that flash of psychological genius which has, on many occasions, served him in good stead, played a move in the French defense condemned by all the analysts. Boleslavsky taken by surprise failed to find the right reply and Bronstein emerged triumphantly. Bronstein managed to win the match 7.5-6.5 and to become the official challenger to play M. Botvinnik for the World championship title.

In his biography published in 1995, Bronstein remembered the Candidates’ tournament:” During the Budapest Candidates’ Tournament Boleslavsky and I had discussed the chances of the next challenger and my friend, who had lost seven games to Botvinnik without winning a single one, was of the opinion that a fight against Botvinnik was hopeless Once he had had a chance to checkmate Botvinnik in a few moves but missed the opportunity.

Of course, I had a completely different opinion. I argued that Botvinnik was very strong but one could still play against him successfully. I was sure that I could demonstrate that his strategy was far from perfect.

Isaac Boleslavsky was leading in the Candidates’ Tournament but after a talk, he had with Boris Vainstein he decided to slow down to allow me to tie for first place with him. Vainstein would try to arrange a tournament with Botvinnik, Boleslavsky and myself for the World Championship. Alas, it did not come about and we had to meet in a play-off for the right to challenge Botvinnik.

The whole atmosphere in the Soviet chess world was that Botvinnik was the best player during the last two decades and he deserved the title of World Champion. One was almost afraid to take it away from him!

In the match with Isaac Boleslavsky, I was successful in the first and in the seventh games. I also had an easy win in the fifth game but made some weak moves after the adjournment and the game ended in a draw. It was in the sixth game that I played the famous Marshall Attack in the Spanish Opening and managed an easy draw with Black. Then I started to play less strongly and after 12 games, the score was 6-6. We played a very sharp 13^th game and while playing through the moves it should be clear that neither of us was too much concerned about the final result. I did not care about Black’s passed pawns and Black very freely sacrificed his Queen for my Knight. The match was decided in game 14 after Boleslavsky repeat the sacrifice of the pawns from game 12; in the meantime had fond the refutation in a home analysis.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	Total
Bronstein, D	1	½	½	½	½	½	1	0	½	½	0	½	½	1	7.5
Boleslavsky, I	0	½	½	½	½	½	0	1	½	½	1	½	½	0	6.5

The Final

When the time came to defend his title against David Bronstein in 1951 he had not played in a tournament for three years. But his serious approach to his task remained the same. Botvinnik took a good six months’ leave of absence — to prepare himself. This time, however, he was facing a dedicated artist who knew nothing of ‘spare time’ and devoted himself to chess more than any other of Botvinnik’s rivals. Days of analysis and nights of ‘unprofitable’ play had made Bronstein a formidable exponent. In other words, Bronstein, winner of the first Candidates’ Tournament, was the better prepared.

Botvinnik underestimated the danger of this meeting with Bronstein. In fact, he hadfacedg him in an exceptionally experienced player and a daring psychologist. Bronstein had aroused the enthusiasm of the chess world by his astonishingly rapid rise and his creative imagination.

David Bronstein was the youngest of the Soviet grandmasters. Born in Kiev in 1924, he scored his first major victory in the Moscow championship of 1946 ahead of Bondarevsky, Kotov, Lilienthal and Smyslov and he followed this up by taking third place in the All-Union Championship. In the next two championships he finished equal first with Kotov and Smyslov respectively. Personally Bronstein is a likeable and highly cultured young man entirely lacking I foibles that it is a real pleasure to play against or to meet socially. He is a student in English literature and a lover of Shakespeare.

The match commenced on March 15th at the Moscow at the Tchaikovsky Salle in Maikovsky Square.

Bronstein was the first leader. After 4 draws he won game 5. However Botvinnik recovered very well by winning the next two games and take the lead. At the middle stage Botvinnik was still plus one. Then his play became very disappointing. The fact that Botvinnik didn’t play any top tournament since he won in 1948 had something to do with his performance. Bronstein played at his best but he shows great weakness in ending like for instance in game 19th or in the 23rd game when he missed 43…Na7 with good chance to draw.
In the last two games Botvinnik leveled the score by winning a decisive 23th game. The final result was a tie, 5-5 with 14 draws. As per regulations (like in 1910 wiht the match Lasker-Schlechter) the champion retained his title.

For the statisticians Black won six games to White’s four games. The Dutch Defense were used 7 times and proved to be very reliable. 1.e4 was play only three times. The shortest game (24th) was a draw in 22 moves and the longest (16th) was 75 moves.

At the concluding press conference, Botvinnik declared that he was going to study the games deeply as he was not satisfied with his play. “I came to the game badly prepared, lacking in ideas and the ideas I produced came as result of arduous time-consuming thought over the board.”

Game 1

Dutch Defense.

Like Euwe did it to Alekhine in 1935, David Bronstein as Black turned to a defense favored by World Champion Botvinnik who sprang a new move 6. e3. He had Botvinnik under severe pressure but finally resorted to repetition of move rather than risk loss himself under the time-limit, to draw in 29 moves.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Ch World , Moscow (Russia) (1)"] [Date "1951.03.16"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "1"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "David Bronstein"] [ECO "A91"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "57"] 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nc3 O-O 6.e3 d6 7.Nge2 c6 8.O-O e5 9.d5 Qe8 10.e4 Qh5 11.exf5 Bxf5 12.f3 Qg6 13.Be3 Nbd7 14.Qd2 cxd5 15.cxd5 Bd8 16.Rac1 Ba5 17.g4 Bd3 18.Rfd1 Bc4 19.Qc2 Qxc2 20.Rxc2 Nb6 21.Rcd2 Ba6 22.Bf2 Nc4 23.Rc2 Bb6 24.Bxb6 axb6 25.Re1 Ne3 26.Rd2 Nc4 27.Rc2 Ne3 28.Rd2 Nc4 29.Rc2 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 2

Gruenfeld Defense.

Bronstein once more outplayed the Champion. As White he tried a comparatively little-analyzed sub-variation. Bronstein obtained a superior position on move 15 and Botvinnik lost considerable time in planning a defense and so got into trouble. Bronstein missed a Rook’s sacrifice for a centrally posted Knight which gave him a strong counter-play. After a questionable 37^th move White decided to go for draw.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "2"] [Date "1951.03.18"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "2"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "David Bronstein"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "D87"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "97"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.Ne2 O-O 9.O-O Nd7 10.Bg5 h6 11.Be3 Qc7 12.Rc1 a6 13.Qd2 Kh7 14.Bd3 b5 15.Nf4 e5 16.Nd5 Qd6 17.dxc5 Nxc5 18.c4 Nxd3 19.Qxd3 Rd8 20.c5 Qc6 21.Rfd1 Be6 22.Rd2 Rd7 23.Rcd1 a5 24.a3 Rad8 25.Qb3 Rb8 26.f3 Rdb7 27.Qb2 b4 28.Nb6 Bf8 29.axb4 axb4 30.Rc1 b3 31.Nd5 Bg7 32.Rd3 Rb5 33.h4 R8b7 34.Kh2 f5 35.Rcc3 fxe4 36.fxe4 Rb4 37.Nxb4 Rxb4 38.Rd6 Qxe4 39.Bf2 Qf4+ 40.Bg3 Qf5 41.Rf3 Qg4 42.c6 g5 43.c7 Rc4 44.Rxb3 e4 45.Qf2 gxh4 46.Bf4 Rxc7 47.Rxe6 Qxe6 48.Bxc7 Qxb3 49.Qf5+ 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 3

French Defense (Tarrasch Var.)

Botvinnik pressed Bronstein with Black for the first time, despite some no consequence inaccuracies but the game went to an endgame Knight vs. Bishop which slightly better for White. Finally the Champion messed up and the game was draw in 63 moves.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Moscow"] [Date "1951.03.20"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "3"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "David Bronstein"] [ECO "C07"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "134"] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 exd5 5.Bb5+ Bd7 6.Qe2+ Be7 7.dxc5 Nf6 8.Ngf3 O-O 9.O-O Re8 10.Nb3 Bxc5 11.Qd3 a6 12.Bxd7 Nbxd7 13.Bg5 Bf8 14.Rad1 Qc7 15.c3 h6 16.Bh4 Re4 17.Bg3 Qb6 18.Nfd2 Ree8 19.Qc2 Rac8 20.Nf3 g6 21.Rfe1 Bg7 22.Rxe8+ Rxe8 23.Bf4 Bf8 24.h3 Kh7 25.Nh2 Ne5 26.Be3 Qc7 27.Bd4 Ne4 28.Bxe5 Qxe5 29.Ng4 Qf4 30.Qc1 Qd6 31.Qc2 Nf6 32.Nxf6+ Qxf6 33.Qd3 Rd8 34.Qe3 Bg7 35.g3 h5 36.Kg2 Rd6 37.Nd4 Rd7 38.Nf3 Bh6 39.Qd4 Qxd4 40.Nxd4 Bg7 41.Nc2 a5 42.a4 Rd8 43.Kf3 Bf6 44.Nd4 Kg7 45.Nb5 Kf8 46.Nc7 d4 47.c4 Be7 48.Nd5 Bc5 49.Ke2 Re8+ 50.Kd3 b6 51.g4 Kg7 52.Rh1 h4 53.g5 Re5 54.Rg1 Kf8 55.f3 Kg7 56.f4 Re8 57.Kd2 Re6 58.Re1 Rxe1 59.Kxe1 Kf8 60.Ke2 Ke8 61.Kd3 Kd7 62.Ke4 Kd6 63.Nf6 Ke6 64.Kd3 Kf5 65.Nd5 Ke6 66.Ke4 d3 67.Kxd3 Kf5 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 4

Slav Defense

Botvinnik with Black adopted an old variation of the Slav played often by Flohr and soon got into unpleasant passive position. The Champion hold firm and simplify the complex position to reach an endgame of opposite color Bishops which was concluded as a draw in 47 moves.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "4"] [Date "1951.03.23"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "4"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "David Bronstein"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "D15"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "94"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 g6 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Bf4 Bg7 7.e3 O-O 8.Be2 Nc6 9.h3 Ne4 10.Rc1 Be6 11.O-O Rc8 12.Nd2 Nxd2 13.Qxd2 Qa5 14.a3 a6 15.Ra1 Bf5 16.Rfd1 Rcd8 17.b4 Qb6 18.Na4 Qa7 19.Bc7 Rd7 20.Bb6 Qb8 21.f4 Na7 22.g4 Be6 23.Bxa7 Qxa7 24.Nc5 Rd6 25.Nxe6 Rxe6 26.Rac1 Qb8 27.Kg2 Rc8 28.Bf3 Rd6 29.Rc5 e6 30.Rdc1 Rxc5 31.Rxc5 Bf8 32.Qc2 Rd8 33.Rc3 Bd6 34.h4 Kg7 35.Qc1 h6 36.Rc2 g5 37.fxg5 hxg5 38.h5 Kh6 39.Qe1 Rf8 40.e4 dxe4 41.Qxe4 Rc8 42.Bd1 Rxc2+ 43.Bxc2 Qh8 44.Bd3 Qg7 45.Kf3 a5 46.bxa5 Bxa3 47.Kg2 Bd6 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 5

Nimzovich Defense.

The first decisive break came as Bronstein (Black) picked up a Pawn and the advantage later in the game. Botvinnik over-estimated his chance and went into serious trouble after 30. Rd1 instead of 30.Ke7 following by 31. Nd5 with equality. Bronstein didn’t missed the opportunity and after 30…Re8!! he catches the advantage and brilliantly went to win in 39 moves.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (5)"] [Date "1951.03.25"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "5"] [Result "0-1"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "David Bronstein"] [ECO "E47"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "78"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 c5 6.Nf3 b6 7.O-O Bb7 8.Na4 cxd4 9.a3 Be7 10.exd4 Qc7 11.b4 Ng4 12.g3 f5 13.Nc3 a6 14.Re1 Nc6 15.Bf1 Nd8 16.Bf4 Bd6 17.Bxd6 Qxd6 18.Bg2 Nf7 19.c5 Qc7 20.Rc1 Rae8 21.Na4 b5 22.Nc3 f4 23.d5 fxg3 24.fxg3 exd5 25.Qd4 Nf6 26.Nh4 Re5 27.Rxe5 Qxe5 28.Qxe5 Nxe5 29.Nf5 Nc4 30.Rd1 Kh8 31.Re1 Nxa3 32.Nd6 Bc6 33.Ra1 Nc2 34.Rxa6 d4 35.Ncxb5 Bxg2 36.Kxg2 Ng4 37.Nf5 d3 38.Rd6 Rxf5 39.Rxd7 Nce3+ 0-1 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 6

Sicilian Defense.

Botvinnik as Black held firm through the first session as Bronstein was by far the most active player but could not claim a decisive advantage. In the second, Botvinnik was a pawn down but got an active King, Bronstein took a lot of risk and tragically blundered in a totally equal position. He immediately resigned alter his 57th move.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "6"] [Date "1951.03.26"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "6"] [Result "0-1"] [White "David Bronstein"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "B63"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "114"] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 h6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.O-O-O a6 10.f4 Bd7 11.Kb1 Be7 12.Be2 Nxd4 13.Qxd4 Qa5 14.Rhf1 h5 15.Rf3 Qc5 16.Qd2 Bc6 17.Re3 Qa5 18.Bf3 O-O-O 19.Qd3 Rd7 20.h4 Kb8 21.a3 Bd8 22.Ka2 Qc5 23.Re2 a5 24.a4 Bb6 25.b3 Rc8 26.Qc4 Qxc4 27.bxc4 Rh8 28.Kb3 Rdd8 29.Rd3 Bg1 30.Red2 Kc7 31.Ne2 Bf2 32.Rd1 Bc5 33.Ng3 Rdg8 34.Ne2 Rh7 35.f5 e5 36.Nc3 Bd4 37.Rxd4 exd4 38.Rxd4 Rhg7 39.Ne2 Rxg2 40.Bxg2 Rxg2 41.Nf4 Rg3+ 42.Kb2 Rg4 43.Nxh5 Rxh4 44.Nxf6 Kb6 45.Rxd6 Kc5 46.e5 Rd4 47.Rxd4 Kxd4 48.Ng4 Bxa4 49.e6 fxe6 50.f6 Be8 51.Kb3 e5 52.c3 Ke4 53.Nh6 Kf4 54.f7 Bxf7 55.Nxf7 e4 56.Nd8 e3 57.Kc2 Kg3 0-1 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 7

Catalan System.

Bronstein didn’t recover the tragic outcome of the previous game and Botvinnik as White wore down once more Bronstein. He challenger stood well in the Dutch defense used already in game 1 but after h reached a drawish position he lose his patience Intent on the Queen side, he lets a Kings-side Pawn fall for no obvious reason. At some stage Botvinnik took a Pawn the wrong way but Bronstein overlook that fact and went to a second session with a hopeless Knight and Pawn endgame in which he finally resigned after 66 moves.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (7)"] [Date "1951.03.30"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "7"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "David Bronstein"] [ECO "A94"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "131"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.g3 f5 5.Bg2 Nf6 6.O-O Be7 7.b3 O-O 8.Ba3 b6 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Ne5 Bb7 11.Nd2 Nbd7 12.Nxd7 Nxd7 13.e3 Rac8 14.Rc1 c5 15.Qe2 Nf6 16.cxd5 Bxd5 17.Bxd5 exd5 18.Nf3 Rc7 19.Rc2 Rfc8 20.Rfc1 Ne4 21.Ne5 Nf6 22.Qd3 g6 23.Qa6 Kg7 24.Qe2 Qd6 25.a4 Ne8 26.Qd2 Nf6 27.Qc3 Ne4 28.Qd3 cxd4 29.exd4 a5 30.Kg2 Nf6 31.Qe2 f4 32.gxf4 Nh5 33.Rxc7+ Rxc7 34.Rxc7+ Qxc7 35.Qg4 Nf6 36.Qe6 Nh5 37.Qd7+ Qxd7 38.Nxd7 Nxf4+ 39.Kf3 Nd3 40.Nxb6 Nb4 41.Kf4 Kf6 42.Nd7+ Ke7 43.Ne5 Ke6 44.Ke3 Kf5 45.f3 g5 46.Kd2 h5 47.Nd3 Na6 48.Nc5 Nb4 49.Nd3 Na6 50.h3 Nc7 51.Ke3 Na6 52.Ke2 Ke6 53.Kd2 Ke7 54.Kc3 Kd6 55.b4 axb4 56.Nxb4 Nc7 57.a5 Nb5+ 58.Kd3 Ke6 59.Ke3 Na7 60.a6 Nb5 61.Nc6 Nc7 62.Nb4 Kf5 63.a7 Ke6 64.Kf2 h4 65.f4 gxf4 66.Kf3 1-0 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 8

Queen Pawn Opening.

Botvinnik defended as Black in a theoretical Slav-Meran defense, Bronstein has the usual better game with two connected Pawns flying on the Queen-side. Black balanced with a strong center and watching any Pawn advance. Draw was reached after simplification. (40 moves).

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Moscow-Wch"] [Date "1951.04.01"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "8"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "David Bronstein"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "D49"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "81"] 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5 8. Bd3 a6 9. e4 c5 10. e5 cxd4 11. Nxb5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 axb5 13. Qf3 Bb4+ 14. Ke2 Rb8 15. Nc6 Bb7 16. Bf4 Bd6 17. Nxd8 Bxf3+ 18. Kxf3 Rxd8 19. Bxb5+ Ke7 20. Bd2 Rb8 21. a4 Nd5 22. b3 f5 23. Rhc1 e5 24. Ke2 e4 25. Rc6 Rhc8 26. Rac1 Rxc6 27. Rxc6 Rb6 28. Rxb6 Nxb6 29. a5 Nd5 30. a6 Bc5 31. b4 Ba7 32. Bc6 Kd6 33. Bb7 h6 34. h4 g5 35. hxg5 hxg5 36. Bxg5 Nxb4 37. Bc8 Ke5 38. Bd2 Nd5 39. Bb7 Nc3+ 40. Bxc3 dxc3 41. g3 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 9

Dutch Defense.

Botvinnik as White pressed Bronstein into time-trouble and picked up a full Rook for one Pawn. Instead to consolidated his position the Champion squandered material and arrived at an endgame in which his extra Bishop is nullified. Then missing chances he took only a disappointing draw in 42 moves.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Ch World , Moscow (Russia) (9)"] [Date "1951.04.03"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "9"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "David Bronstein"] [ECO "A91"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "82"] 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nc3 O-O 6.d5 Bb4 7.Bd2 e5 8.e3 d6 9.Nge2 a6 10.Qc2 Qe8 11.f3 b5 12.Qb3 Bc5 13.cxb5 Bd7 14.Na4 Ba7 15.b6 Bxa4 16.b7 Bxb3 17.bxa8=Q Bb6 18.axb3 Qb5 19.Nc3 Qxb3 20.Rxa6 Nxa6 21.Qxa6 Nxd5 22.Qa4 Qxa4 23.Nxa4 Bxe3 24.Bf1 Ra8 25.b3 Bxd2+ 26.Kxd2 Kf8 27.Bd3 g6 28.Rc1 Rb8 29.Nc3 Nb4 30.Be2 Ra8 31.Na4 c6 32.Rc4 Rb8 33.Bd1 Ke7 34.Nb2 d5 35.Rh4 h5 36.g4 hxg4 37.fxg4 f4 38.g5 Rf8 39.Rh7+ Kd6 40.Rg7 e4 41.Rxg6+ Ke5 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 10

Dutch Defense.

Not much reported except that Bronstein missed his 29^th move and the blunder which could decide on the issue of the game was not exploited by his opponent who missed 30..Nxf4 wining pawn and maybe the game. A draw after 55 moves.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (10)"] [Date "1951.04.06"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "10"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "David Bronstein"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "A84"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "109"] 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 Nf6 5.e3 O-O 6.Bd3 d6 7.Ne2 c5 8.a3 Bxc3+ 9.Nxc3 Nc6 10.dxc5 dxc5 11.b3 Bd7 12.Bb2 Ne5 13.Be2 Bc6 14.f3 Nh5 15.Nd1 Ng6 16.Qc3 Qg5 17.g3 e5 18.Nf2 Rad8 19.Rg1 Qe7 20.Rd1 Nf6 21.Rd2 a6 22.Kd1 b5 23.Kc1 b4 24.Qc2 Rxd2 25.Qxd2 Rd8 26.Qc2 f4 27.gxf4 exf4 28.e4 a5 29.Nd3 Nd7 30.axb4 axb4 31.Ba1 Ndf8 32.Rd1 Ne6 33.Ne5 Nxe5 34.Bxe5 Qg5 35.Rxd8+ Qxd8 36.Qd2 Qxd2+ 37.Kxd2 g5 38.Kd3 Kf7 39.Bf1 h5 40.Be2 Ke7 41.Bf1 Bd7 42.Bh3 Nd8 43.Bxd7 Kxd7 44.h3 Ke7 45.Bg7 Kf7 46.Be5 Ke7 47.Bg7 Nb7 48.Bh6 Kf6 49.Bf8 Kf7 50.Bh6 Kg6 51.Bf8 Kf6 52.Ke2 Kf7 53.Bh6 Kg6 54.Bf8 Kf6 55.Kd3 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 11
Queen’s Indian Defense.

Bronstein, though Black (neither wins with White!), evened the match by defeating Botvinnik, apparently in less than 40 moves. He chose an opening usually use by his opponent and got soon an unassailable position. White sacrificed two central Pawns to secured an attack which vanished once the Challenger decided to launch a successful and devastating counter-attack.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "11"] [Date "1951.04.08"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "11"] [Result "0-1"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "David Bronstein"] [ECO "E17"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "78"] 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.b3 d5 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bb2 Nbd7 10.Nc3 Re8 11.Ne5 Bf8 12.Rc1 Nxe5 13.dxe5 Rxe5 14.Nb5 Re7 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.e4 dxe4 17.Qg4+ Bg7 18.Rfd1 Qf8 19.Nd4 Bc8 20.Qh4 f5 21.Nc6 Re8 22.Bh3 Bh6 23.Rc2 e3 24.fxe3 Bxe3+ 25.Kh1 Be6 26.Bg2 a5 27.Bf3 Kh8 28.Nd4 Rad8 29.Rxc7 Bd5 30.Re1 Qd6 31.Rc2 Re4 32.Bxe4 Bxe4+ 33.Qxe4 fxe4 34.Nf5 Qb4 35.Rxe3 Rd1+ 36.Kg2 Rd2+ 37.Rxd2 Qxd2+ 38.Kh3 Qf2 39.Kg4 f6 0-1 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 12

Dutch Defense.

The pattern of this game was similar to the 11^th. Bronstein as White sacrificed 2 Pawns to build an attack but good defense by the Champion push back all hopes of concretization. Bronstein subsequently tried to maintain his attack by more sacrifice and Botvinnik readily accepted two Pawns and the exchange to win easily and retake the lead.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (12)"] [Date "1951.04.10"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "12"] [Result "0-1"] [White "David Bronstein"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "A84"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "80"] 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nc3 d5 5.Nh3 c6 6.Bd2 Bd6 7.Qc2 O-O 8.O-O-O Qe7 9.f3 dxc4 10.e4 fxe4 11.Nxe4 b5 12.Nxd6 Qxd6 13.f4 Na6 14.Be2 c5 15.Bf3 Rb8 16.Bc3 Nb4 17.dxc5 Nxa2+ 18.Kb1 Nxc3+ 19.Qxc3 Qxc5 20.Rhe1 h6 21.Re5 Qc7 22.g4 Bb7 23.Bxb7 Rxb7 24.g5 Nd5 25.Rdxd5 exd5 26.Qd4 c3 27.b3 Qd7 28.Nf2 c2 29.Kc1 hxg5 30.Rxg5 Qe6 31.Re5 Qd6 32.Kxc2 Rc7+ 33.Kd2 Qc5 34.Qxc5 Rxc5 35.Nd3 Rc6 36.Rxd5 a6 37.h4 Rh6 38.h5 Rhf6 39.b4 Rf5 40.Rd6 R8f6 0-1 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 13

Nimzo-Indian Defense.

Like in game 5 but this time with the Knight in e2, both players debated an opening which gives an usual little plus for the white pieces. Black was cleaver to simplify at the right time and after 20 moves the tension vanished completely and even the white’ extra Pawn had no value to claim for a win. Draw in 56 moves.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "13"] [Date "1951.04.13"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "13"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "David Bronstein"] [ECO "E44"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "112"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 5. Nge2 Bb7 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.Nxc3 O-O 8.Bd3 c5 9.d5 b5 10.O-O bxc4 11.Bxc4 exd5 12.Nxd5 Nc6 13.b3 Nxd5 14.Bxd5 Rb8 15.Bb2 Ne7 16.Qg4 Ng6 17.Bxb7 Rxb7 18.b4 a5 19.Bc3 axb4 20.axb4 cxb4 21.Bxb4 Re8 22.Bc3 Qh4 23.Qf3 Rc7 24.Bd4 Nf8 25.Ra5 Ne6 26.Be5 Rc6 27.Bg3 Qc4 28.Rd5 Nc5 29.Rd4 Qe6 30.Qd5 h6 31.h3 Ra8 32.Rfd1 Qxd5 33.Rxd5 Ne4 34.Rxd7 Nxg3 35.fxg3 Ra2 36.R1d2 Rxd2 37.Rxd2 Kf8 38.g4 Ke7 39.Kf2 Rf6+ 40.Ke2 Ra6 41.Rd5 Ra2+ 42.Kf3 g5 43.Rf5 Kf8 44.Rf6 Kg7 45.Rd6 Rb2 46.g3 Ra2 47.h4 Rh2 48.Rd1 Kf6 49.e4 Kg6 50.h5+ Kf6 51.Rd6+ Kg7 52.e5 Rh1 53.e6 fxe6 54.Rxe6 Rf1+ 55.Ke4 Re1+ 56.Kd5 Rd1+ 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 14

Tchigorin Defense

Slow start with a completely closed position when the first exchange occurs at move 17 and the first pawn to go came at move 22. Botvinnik was like a fish in water. At the right moment after a careful preparation he stroked on the Queen-side and emerged with an extra apwn. Not enough however to avoid a later draw.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (14)"] [Date "1951.04.15"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "?"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "David Bronstein"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "A07"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "131"] 1.Nf3 e6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 c5 4.O-O Nc6 5.d3 g6 6.e4 Bg7 7.Qe2 Nge7 8.e5 Qc7 9.Re1 h6 10.c3 Bd7 11.Na3 a6 12.Rb1 Nf5 13.Nc2 Rc8 14.h4 Qa5 15.a3 Qd8 16.Bf4 O-O 17.Ne3 Nxe3 18.Qxe3 Kh7 19.Nh2 Ne7 20.Ng4 Ng8 21.Qd2 Bc6 22.d4 cxd4 23.Qxd4 Bb5 24.b3 a5 25.a4 Ba6 26.Qd2 Qe7 27.b4 Bc4 28.bxa5 Ba6 29.Bf1 Qc5 30.Bb5 Qxc3 31.Qxc3 Rxc3 32.Bxa6 bxa6 33.Rb6 Rc4 34.Nh2 Ne7 35.Rxa6 Nc6 36.Nf3 Nb4 37.Rb6 Nd3 38.Ra1 Nxf4 39.gxf4 Rxf4 40.Kg2 g5 41.hxg5 hxg5 42.Nxg5+ Kg6 43.Nf3 Rg8 44.Ra3 Bf8 45.Rd3 Rxa4 46.Kf1 Ra1+ 47.Ke2 Ra2+ 48.Rd2 Rxa5 49.Rb8 Rh8 50.Nd4 Bg7 51.Rxh8 Bxh8 52.f4 Ra6 53.Rd1 Ra2+ 54.Kf3 Ra3+ 55.Kg4 Bg7 56.Kh4 Bf8 57.f5 exf5 58.Rg1+ Kh7 59.Nxf5 Ra6 60.Rg5 Bh6 61.Rg3 Re6 62.Rf3 Rxe5 63.Nxh6 Kxh6 64.Rxf7 Kg6 65.Rf4 Rf5 66.Kg4 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 15

French Defense

Similar scenario to the third game, Bronstein decided to retain his King Bishop and heads for the endgame. The weakness of an isolated pawn made him in uncomfortable situation. When the time came to pick up this weak Pawn, the Champion overlooked a tactical finesse and has to take a draw.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Haag"] [Date "1951.04.17"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "15"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "David Bronstein"] [ECO "C07"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "65"] 1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 exd5 5.Ngf3 Nf6 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8.O-O Be7 9.dxc5 Nxc5 10.Nd4 Qd7 11.N2f3 O-O 12.Ne5 Qc8 13.Bg5 Re8 14.Nd3 Nxd3 15.Qxd3 Qg4 16.Be3 Bc5 17.h3 Qg6 18.Qxg6 hxg6 19.Rad1 Re4 20.c3 b6 21.Nc2 Rd8 22.Rd3 Kf8 23.Rfd1 Ke7 24.Kf1 Kd7 25.Bg5 Kc6 26.b4 Bf8 27.Ne3 Re5 28.f4 Re4 29.f5 Re5 30.Bf4 Re4 31.Bg5 Re5 32.Bf4 Re4 33.Bg5 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 16

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (16)"] [Date "1951.04.20"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "16"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "David Bronstein"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "A91"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "149"] 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nc3 O-O 6.e3 d5 7.Nge2 c6 8.b3 Bd6 9.O-O Qe7 10.Qc2 Ne4 11.Nd1 Na6 12.Nb2 Bd7 13.c5 Bc7 14.Nd3 Be8 15.b4 Nb8 16.Bb2 a5 17.a3 Nd7 18.Ne5 Nef6 19.Nc1 g5 20.f3 g4 21.Ncd3 gxf3 22.Bxf3 Ne4 23.Rae1 Ndf6 24.Nf4 Kh8 25.Re2 Ng5 26.Bg2 Rg8 27.Bc3 Nge4 28.Be1 axb4 29.axb4 Nh5 30.Nfd3 Nhf6 31.Qb1 Bh5 32.Rb2 Be8 33.Ra2 Rxa2 34.Qxa2 Bb8 35.Qb2 h6 36.Nf4 Kh7 37.Kh1 Ng4 38.Nxg4 Rxg4 39.Bh3 Rg5 40.Qa1 Bf7 41.Bg2 Rg8 42.Bf3 Nf6 43.Qb2 Ng4 44.Qe2 Nf6 45.Rg1 Ne4 46.Rf1 Qe8 47.Qd3 Bxf4 48.exf4 Bh5 49.Qa3 Bxf3+ 50.Rxf3 Rg7 51.Kg2 Qd8 52.Kf1 Qf6 53.Rd3 h5 54.h4 Rg8 55.Rd1 Qg7 56.Qf3 Kh6 57.Kg2 Ra8 58.Rd3 Ra2+ 59.Kf1 Ra1 60.Qg2 Qg4 61.Qh2 Qg8 62.b5 Qa8 63.Qb2 Qa5 64.Re3 cxb5 65.Re2 Qa4 66.Kg2 Rd1 67.Bf2 Qc4 68.c6 Qxc6 69.Qb4 Qe8 70.Rc2 Rd3 71.Be1 Qg8 72.Qe7 Rxg3+ 73.Bxg3 Qxg3+ 74.Kh1 Qe1+ 75.Kh2 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 17

Nimzo-Indian Defense

Another Black victory for the Challenger. This time he win a fine positional play. He put pressure in the center and advance his King-side Pawns to break through Botvinnik’s defense. The Champion missed some counter-chances and instead choose and entire hopeless line. His subsequent blunder simply shortens the game.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "17"] [Date "1951.04.22"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "17"] [Result "0-1"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "David Bronstein"] [ECO "E45"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "70"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 5. Nge2 Ba6 6.a3 Be7 7.Ng3 d5 8.cxd5 Bxf1 9.Nxf1 exd5 10.Ng3 Qd7 11.Qf3 Nc6 12.O-O g6 13.Bd2 O-O 14.Nce2 h5 15.Rfc1 h4 16.Nf1 Ne4 17.Nf4 a5 18.Rc2 Bd8 19.Be1 Ne7 20.Qe2 Nd6 21.f3 g5 22.Nd3 Qe6 23.a4 Ng6 24.h3 f5 25.Bc3 Bf6 26.Re1 Rae8 27.Qd1 Rf7 28.b3 Rfe7 29.Bb2 f4 30.Ne5 Bxe5 31.dxe5 Nf7 32.exf4 Nxf4 33.Nh2 c5 34.Ng4 d4 35.Nf6+ Qxf6 0-1 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 18

Slav- Meran Defense

A tiring game which ended after 57 moves. Botvinnik tried to avoid to open lines and positions where Bronstein excelled in it and therefore commit himself to passivity. White got his chance near the end of the middle game with a sacrifice he obtained few dangerous passed Pawns. But in a very complex position and uncertain about the issue of his game, White eventually has to settle for a perpetual check.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (18)"] [Date "1951.04.24"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "18"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "David Bronstein"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "D45"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "115"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.e3 a6 6.Bd3 b5 7.b3 Nbd7 8.O-O Bb7 9.c5 Be7 10.a3 a5 11.Bb2 O-O 12.Qc2 g6 13.b4 axb4 14.axb4 Qc7 15.Rae1 Rfe8 16.Ne2 Bf8 17.h3 Bg7 18.Ne5 Nf8 19.f3 N6d7 20.f4 f6 21.Nf3 Re7 22.Nc3 f5 23.Ra1 Ree8 24.Ne5 Rxa1 25.Rxa1 Ra8 26.Qb1 Qc8 27.Bxb5 Nxe5 28.fxe5 Bh6 29.Bc1 cxb5 30.Nxb5 Nd7 31.Nd6 Rxa1 32.Qxa1 Qa8 33.Qc3 Bf8 34.b5 Bxd6 35.exd6 Qa4 36.Qb2 Kf7 37.Kh2 h6 38.e4 f4 39.e5 g5 40.Qe2 Kg7 41.Qd3 Nb8 42.h4 Qc4 43.Qh3 Qxb5 44.hxg5 hxg5 45.Qxe6 Qd3 46.Qf6+ Kh7 47.Qf7+ Kh8 48.Qf6+ Kh7 49.Bxf4 gxf4 50.Qf7+ Kh8 51.Qe8+ Kg7 52.Qe7+ Kh8 53.Qe8+ Kh7 54.Qe7+ Kh8 55.Qf8+ Kh7 56.Qf7+ Kh8 57.Qxb7 Qg3+ 58.Kh1 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 19

Neo-Gruenfeld Defense

Another speculative win from Botvinnik. Once more Bronstein showed some accuracy in his endgame play. It is not clear to explain how he missed a so easy way to draw the game when the move 42…Nxa4!! was expected by most all the attendance. Instead he went on into hopeless line and finally gave up after 60 moves.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Moscow"] [Date "1951.04.27"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "19"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "David Bronstein"] [ECO "D74"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "119"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Nf3 O-O 7.O-O c5 8.e4 Nf6 9.e5 Nd5 10.dxc5 Nb4 11.Nc3 N8c6 12.a3 Nd3 13.Be3 Bg4 14.h3 Bxf3 15.Qxf3 Ndxe5 16.Qe4 Qd3 17.Qa4 Qc4 18.Rad1 Rad8 19.Bd5 Qxa4 20.Nxa4 e6 21.Ba2 Nf3+ 22.Kg2 Nfd4 23.g4 h6 24.Rd2 Kh7 25.f4 f5 26.Nc3 e5 27.fxe5 Bxe5 28.Nd5 fxg4 29.hxg4 Rxf1 30.Kxf1 Rf8+ 31.Rf2 Rxf2+ 32.Bxf2 a6 33.Kg2 Kg7 34.Bc4 Ne6 35.b4 Bb2 36.a4 Ne5 37.Be2 Bd4 38.Bg3 a5 39.bxa5 Nxc5 40.Nc7 Nc6 41.a6 bxa6 42.Nxa6 Ne4 43.Bc7 Nc3 44.Bf3 Ne5 45.a5 h5 46.g5 Nc4 47.Nb4 Nb5 48.Bd8 Kf8 49.Nc6 Bc5 50.Be2 Ne3+ 51.Kf3 Nd4+ 52.Nxd4 Bxd4 53.Bd3 Ng4 54.Bxg6 Ne5+ 55.Ke4 Nc6 56.Bb6 Bxb6 57.axb6 h4 58.Bf5 Ke7 59.Kf4 Kd6 60.Be4 1-0 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 20

Reti Opening

Bronstein with white didn’t produce too much and could be happy that black’s initiative didn’t concretize into a full point. Hopefully he managed to simplify the position to enter into an even ending which was easy to hold.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "20"] [Date "1951.04.29"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "20"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "David Bronstein"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "A14"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "91"] 1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.O-O Be7 6.b3 O-O 7.Bb2 d5 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Qc2 Re8 10.e3 Nbd7 11.d3 Bf8 12.Nc3 a6 13.Rad1 b5 14.a4 b4 15.Ne2 c5 16.Nd2 Ne5 17.Nf4 Rc8 18.Qb1 a5 19.Rfe1 Rc7 20.d4 Ng6 21.Nxg6 hxg6 22.dxc5 Bxc5 23.Qa1 Qe7 24.Rc1 Ng4 25.Bd4 Rec8 26.Nf3 Nf6 27.Bh3 Bxd4 28.Nxd4 Rxc1 29.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 30.Qxc1 Ne4 31.Bc8 Nc3 32.Bxb7 Qxb7 33.f3 Kf8 34.Qf1 Qc8 35.Kg2 g5 36.g4 g6 37.Qe1 Qe8 38.Qd2 Qe5 39.Qd3 Qf6 40.Nc2 Ke7 41.Qd4 Qxd4 42.Nxd4 Nd1 43.Nc2 Nb2 44.Nd4 Nd1 45.Nc2 Nb2 46.Nd4 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 21

King’s Indian Defense.

Bronstein with Black was delight to play his favorite opening and therefore perform a masterpiece. He deviated from the usual line which see Black attacking the King-side and instead launch his assault on the Queen-side. White very passive could avoid a Black rollup and gave up the advantage, a pawn and the game in 64 moves.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "21"] [Date "1951.05.04"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "21"] [Result "0-1"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "David Bronstein"] [ECO "E69"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "128"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.g3 g6 6.Bg2 Bg7 7.O-O O-O 8.e4 c6 9.h3 Nh5 10.Be3 Qe7 11.Nh2 Kh8 12.Re1 a6 13.a3 Rb8 14.Bf1 Nhf6 15.Qd2 b5 16.cxb5 axb5 17.Rad1 Nb6 18.Bh6 Bxh6 19.Qxh6 Be6 20.Nf3 Bb3 21.Rd2 Nfd7 22.Qe3 Bc4 23.Bg2 f6 24.Rc2 Bb3 25.Rce2 Nc4 26.Qd3 Na5 27.Rd2 Nb6 28.Qb1 Nbc4 29.Rde2 b4 30.axb4 Rxb4 31.h4 Nb6 32.Na2 Bxa2 33.Qxa2 Nbc4 34.h5 Rfb8 35.hxg6 hxg6 36.Qb1 Kg7 37.dxe5 fxe5 38.Qc1 Nxb2 39.Qc3 Na4 40.Qc1 Rc4 41.Qg5 Qxg5 42.Nxg5 Nb3 43.f4 Nd4 44.Ra2 Rb2 45.Rxb2 Nxb2 46.Kh2 Nd3 47.Re3 Rc3 48.Bf1 Rc2+ 49.Kh3 Nf2+ 50.Kh4 Rc1 51.Bg2 Rg1 52.Bh3 Rh1 53.fxe5 dxe5 54.Ra3 Kf6 55.Nh7+ Ke7 56.Ng5 Kd6 57.Nf7+ Ke7 58.Kg5 Kxf7 59.Ra7+ Ke8 60.Bd7+ Kd8 61.Kxg6 Nxe4 62.g4 Rf1 63.Bf5 Nxf5 64.gxf5 Ke8 0-1 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 22

Dutch Defense

The game was a pretty much repetition of the game 16 but with two improvements by Bronstein. The home work made Botvinnik into serious difficulties with his f-pawn and his King-side weakness. Playing very precisely Bronstein maximized his advantage with 34. Bh4 and buried his opponent with 37. Bg3 threatening mate in two or three moves. One point ahead, Bronstein need two draws to win the title

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (22)"] [Date "1951.05.06"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "22"] [Result "1-0"] [White "David Bronstein"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "A91"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "75"] 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nc3 O-O 6.e3 d5 7.Nge2 c6 8.b3 Ne4 9.O-O Nd7 10.Bb2 Ndf6 11.Qd3 g5 12.cxd5 exd5 13.f3 Nxc3 14.Bxc3 g4 15.fxg4 Nxg4 16.Bh3 Nh6 17.Nf4 Bd6 18.b4 a6 19.a4 Qe7 20.Rab1 b5 21.Bg2 Ng4 22.Bd2 Nf6 23.Rb2 Bd7 24.Ra1 Ne4 25.Be1 Rfe8 26.Qb3 Kh8 27.Rba2 Qf8 28.Nd3 Rab8 29.axb5 axb5 30.Ra7 Re7 31.Ne5 Be8 32.g4 fxg4 33.Bxe4 dxe4 34.Bh4 Rxe5 35.dxe5 Bxe5 36.Rf1 Qg8 37.Bg3 Bg7 38.Qxg8+ 1-0 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 23

King Indian Defense

This game will stay long in the chess history. Bronstein never play for draw and his lack of experience at such level made him probably to lose a potential title. Were some external pressures involved? No sure however what it was clear as we could see in the games so far played is that the endgame was the part of the game where he could claim superiority on Botvinnik. The chose of the opening was not questionable however the strategy used asked questions. Living Botvinnik into a endgame with two Bishops was like a nice gift for the champion. The Champion excelled in such endgame and once more he proved that in endgame two Bishops are more than often superior to two Knights. With great skill Botvinnik equalized and probably safe his title.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "Ch World , Moscow (Russia) (23)"] [Date "1951.05.08"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "23"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "David Bronstein"] [ECO "E60"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "113"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4.Bg2 d5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Nh3 Bxh3 8.Bxh3 Nc6 9.Bg2 e6 10.e3 O-O 11.Bd2 Rc8 12.O-O Nd7 13.Ne2 Qb6 14.Bc3 Rfd8 15.Nf4 Nf6 16.Qb3 Ne4 17.Qxb6 axb6 18.Be1 Na5 19.Nd3 Bf8 20.f3 Nd6 21.Bf2 Bh6 22.Rac1 Nac4 23.Rfe1 Na5 24.Kf1 Bg7 25.g4 Nc6 26.b3 Nb5 27.Ke2 Bf8 28.a4 Nc7 29.Bg3 Na6 30.Bf1 f6 31.Red1 Na5 32.Rxc8 Rxc8 33.Rc1 Rxc1 34.Nxc1 Ba3 35.Kd1 Bxc1 36.Kxc1 Nxb3+ 37.Kc2 Na5 38.Kc3 Kf7 39.e4 f5 40.gxf5 gxf5 41.Bd3 Kg6 42.Bd6 Nc6 43.Bb1 Kf6 44.Bg3 fxe4 45.fxe4 h6 46.Bf4 h5 47.exd5 exd5 48.h4 Nab8 49.Bg5+ Kf7 50.Bf5 Na7 51.Bf4 Nbc6 52.Bd3 Nc8 53.Be2 Kg6 54.Bd3+ Kf6 55.Be2 Kg6 56.Bf3 N6e7 57.Bg5 1-0 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 24

The shortest game of the match but Bronstein tried hard to get the point. He sacrificed two Pawns with the idea to overthrow the Black fortress. The Champion defended well without to give a single inch of chance to his challenger. Finally with a Pawn up and a solid position the Champion offered a draw that Bronstein accepted immediately.

[Event "Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match"] [Site "24"] [Date "1951.05.11"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "24"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "David Bronstein"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "D44"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "43"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.Bg5 dxc4 6.a4 Bb4 7.e4 c5 8.Bxc4 cxd4 9.Nxd4 h6 10.Be3 Nxe4 11.O-O Nf6 12.Qf3 O-O 13.Rad1 Qe7 14.Rfe1 Nc6 15.Qg3 Kh8 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Bd4 Rd8 18.Rd3 Bb7 19.Ree3 Rxd4 20.Rxd4 Bc5 21.Rd1 Bxe3 22.Qxe3 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

	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
Botvinnik, M	½	½	½	½	0	1	1	½	½	½	0	1	½	½	½	½	0	½	1	½	0	0	1	½	12.0
Bronstein, D	½	½	½	½	1	0	0	½	½	½	1	0	½	½	½	½	1	½	0	½	1	1	0	½	12.0

In his biography, Bronstein gave some though about the outcome of the match: “Playing for the title of World Champion is the dream of every chess player but deep inside me, subconsciously, I must have had no real ambition to win. Otherwise I can not explain why I did not win the match when, only two games from the end, all the odds were in my favour.

After the match Botvinnik himself gave evidence to this opinion despite the result of 12-12 and the obvious fact that he saved his title only in the last game, he simply explained his ‘bad’ result like this: ‘I have not played chess for three years. This is why I played below my normal strength but my opponent is a good player. He is particularly strong when the game is transforming from the opening to the middlegame and in addition he conducts an attack against the enemy king very well.’

Botvinnik did not explain why, during almost two months of play, he did not succeed in winning a single game during the first five hours of play. Four out of his five wins were achieved after the adjournment. I lost three completely even end- games as a result of bad homework. On the other hand he lost four games before the first time control.

Anyhow, even if I had won this match, I am not sure that I would have been able to call myself World Champion for long be cause the rules, created by Botvinnik, gave him the right to join the next World Championship contest and play for the title in a tournament with three participants; the present World Champion, his new challenger and Botvinnik himself I think that if you cannot defend your title in the same way that you get it you’re not a real World Champion.

By not winning the title I have put a shadow on my chess career and it is a little sad that I have had to read and hear for more than 40 years that I am not a good player.”

Long time after the match Bronstein said that he won his match before the adjournment whereas Botvinnik won after adjourning.

World Champion Botvinnik who since then had not too much sympathy for Bronstein wrote in his biography (My best games from 1925-1970): “Taking the fact I din’t play the last three years into account, the question should not be why Bronstein, who is inferior to me in both experience and positional understanding, did not lose the world championship match, but why he wasn’t able to beat an untrained player like me.”

In 1952, the Champion explained in CHESS the reason of his disappointed performance: “The main reason for my relative ‘reverse’ in this contest is the strength of my opponent. Bronstein successfully beat back my offensive in many games of the match and towards the end himself went over the active operations. Two games before the finish he gained the lead and, as a matter of fact, a draw in the 23^rd, penultimate, game would have given Bronstein the title.

(About this 23^rd game) For many moves that game proceeded without any particular advantage for either side, but shortly before the recess my adversary was over-hasty to win a awn and found hiself in a tight spot. Let me say when I adjourned the position at move 42, White’ advantage lies in the long-range power of his Bishops and the passivity of the Black’s Knights. The continuation is obvious enugh, and it was clearly seen by many of the chess fans who filled the Tchaikovsky Hall. 42. Bb1 fe4, 43 fe4 de4, 44.Be4 Kg7, 45 Bb7! wins. However I decided to try something more stronger and to make the whole maneuver more dangerous. I wrote down the move 42. Bd6. But as soon I returned home after the game I noticed Black now had a simple defense with 42… Nc6, 43 Bb1 Na7 intending to meet 44. ed5 ed5, 45. Ba2 b5 and Black can made good use of his doubled pawns with dangerous counter-chances which made me feel rather uneasy. At 5 p.m. play was resumed. After a sleepless night, it was an effort for me to concentrate, but Bronstein was so taken aback by the weak move I had seal, that he thought a full 40 minutes before making a move. This gave me the time to marshal my thoughts. The game continue 42…c6, 43.Bb1 Kf6? I have a sight of relieve my opponent didn’t find Na7!. I then made the move which was the culmination of my long night analysis 44. Bg3! and later won the game.”

In 1995 G. Sosonko Russian born and Dutch grandmaster and also chess historian published in NIC published and masterpiece interview on the “Patriarch” (nickname given to the oldest World Champion still in life). About his relation with Bronstein he said: “The first whom I severed all contact was Bronstein, after our match-he behaved outrageously. In the auditorium, directly opposite the stage, was the box of KGB, Dynamo, and all his supporters sat there. So when he sacrificed something, or on the contrary won a pawn, they all applauded,. And himself would make a move and quickly go behind the stage, then he would suddenly dart out and again disappear. In the auditorium there were laughter, and this hindered my playing. After the match we continued to say hello, he for me ceased to exist.”

Tom Furstenberg, a close friend of Bronstein and also co-author of his biography gave a interesting picture on what was happen around the controversial 23^rd game: “The match was held in March, April and May 1951 and David surprised everybody, except himself, by more than holding his own against the considered ‘unplayable’ Botvinnik , the cool, hardworking, totally concentrated player who saw the opponent as the enemy to be overcome in the subsequent struggle.

Bronstein, utterly in love with the game, Chess Artist, romantic at heart, always looking for brilliant combinations and fantastic positions.

With the uncanny talent of being able to judge a position within a split-second David did not always need to calculate as much and as deeply as other grandmasters but usually intuitively found the right move in a specific position. During his match with Botvinnik the first thing he did in the morning was to go out and buy a newspaper to see the variations he was supposed to have seen! Often he bluffed, in similar fashion to but contrary to Tal’s combinations; David’s were usually correct, as subsequent analysis proved.

Many years later David wrote about this match: ‘I can never agree with the idea of fostering a hostile attitude to your opponent on the grounds that this will help you beat him. Of course, I, like any other player, strive to win and I am very happy if I succeed in overcoming my opponent by logic, fantasy, ingenuity, knowledge or sometimes even deep evaluation.

David prepared well for this match and surprised Botvinnik by playing the very openings Botvinnik himself liked to play! Tension during the match was high and became almost unbearable towards the end. With only two the scheduled 24 games remaining, David was leading by one point. It was then that he was summoned to the KGB’s private room at the theatre where the match was held. General Victor Abakumov, head of the KGB and also a member of the Dynamo Sports Club, introduced David to his wife and congratulated him with his beautiful win in the 22nd game. It was obvious t the majority of the chess fans wanted David to win the match because they all admired his beautiful and creative new style of chess.

The next morning David went, as had been his routine for every day of the match, for talk with Lydia Bogdanova, whom he had met some time before through a wonderful trick.

He had bought two tickets to the Bolshoi theatre, and on the evening of the performance, which was always sold out, he searched amongst the people who had no tick but wanted to go until he found a beautiful girl to go with him. He fell in love almost instantly! During their walk he indicated to her that it seemed that he was now very it to becoming the next World Champion. Would she like that? He was completely unnerved by her answer: ‘I really don’t care.’ It shocked him and in that state of mind he came to play the 23rd game, During that game David was obviously pre-occupied by what Lydia had told him. What did she mean? Did she really not care? It was hard to be but yet that is what she had said. In that confused state of mind David lost the game. Probably this was Lydia Bogdanova’s mistake which brought into question their intended marriage. Of course she wanted very much to be the wife of a famous chess player, yes, even the new World Champion.

However, the last game was a draw. The score was level and David became ‘Co-World Champion’ as Dr. Euwe put it…”

The pressroom was full with grandmasters and journalists few of them gave their views which were published in Chess 4/1951. R.G. Wade from New Zeeland: “There have been two outstanding characteristics an almost unparalleled determination by both contestants to play for a win, and the really difficult positions that both players seem to conjure up even in the games’ earliest stages. Some 20 years ago Capablanca, a famous world champion, complained that under its present rules chess was becoming easy for a Master to obtain a draw. I wish he lived to-day. Five games out of 12 had a definite result four have been won by Black. Further, due to the unusual stress of play, wins have been missed in at least two of the other games. Both players were typically well-trained beforehand. That is necessary, to endure a struggle lasting a couple of months. And yet already the constantly recurring difficulties set by the opponents have noticeably taken much out of the players.’’

Kotov grandmaster from Russia added: ‘‘That Black has won four times to White’s once only, shows the contestants’ high level of skill in defense and also their great theoretical preparedness, by which they were able to neutralize the advantage of the initial move, The games have contributed to chess theory suffice it to recall Bronstein’s Gruenfeld Defense innovation in the second game, or Botvinnik’s in the eighth, in the Slav Defense.’’
Keres: ‘‘Botvinnik is a player of profound strategic plant which he carries through with consistency, paying attention to all the subtleties and peculiarities of a position. Bronstein, on the contrary, is more inclined to tactical struggles, to acute positions fraught with unexpected combinations and sudden threats, Analyses of the games shows that the tactical struggle is prevailing this explains the unevenness,’’ Keres says that of all the games played so far, the eleventh impressed him the most. Botvinnik showed a high level of technique in the concluding stage of the seventh and Bronstein gave a model of stubborn defense in a difficult situation in the third.”
Gligoric: “Dr Botvinnik played with less assurance than Mr. Botvinnik. Bronstein was in no way pleasing to Botvinnik. In many ways they had very different natures. Botvinnik rarely appeared in public and always prepared himself in the peace of his own home. Bronstein enjoyed the turmoil of a chess club, playing lightning chess every evening. One was serious and concentrated, the other all nerves and fiery imagination. The outward manifestations of Bronstein’s vivacity were displeasing to the tranquil Botvinnik — Bronstein’s habit of standing and watching the board after every move he made, suite unconscious of the apparent condescension of his position far from the board, even the manner in which Bronstein drank his tea, holding his cup in both hands. Photos of the match show that at difficult moments Botvinnik frequently shaded his eyes with his hands so as not to see his opponent on the other side of the table, lest his appearance or behaviour disturb his concentration.
The match was transformed into an intensely complex struggle. Botvinnik had an iron will and great energy. He used his colossal experience and subtle strategy as well as he could, but none the less these unforeseen complications greatly exhausted hint The time-trouble, in which Bronstein was like a fish in water, and the psychological tactics, in which Botvinnik was faced with systems he himself used, brought him to the brink of catastrophe. But Bronstein showed certain levity and played poorly in the endgames, which cost him important points. By a supreme effort Botvinnik equalized the score with an endgame of genius in which he sacrificed a pawn without obvious purpose in order that much later — when a draw hovered over his head like the sword of Damocles — he could prove the advantage of his pair of bishops over his opponent’s knights. Only thus did he succeed in preserving his title.”

Botvinnik-Bronstein (1951)

First Candidates’ Tournament 1950

Playoff

The Final

ECHESSPEDIA

Quotes of the Day