Botvinnik-Smyslov Rematch (1958)

Immediately Botvinnik used his right for a revenge match. The return match took place in Moscow from March 4 to May 8, 1958, and for the second time in the history, an ex-champion regained his title.

Botvinnik has spent the past year in the most serious preparation, started with fine style and played excellent chess. Actually, he was playing better chess than he had done in any previous match. Giving up the French Defense to favor the unexpected the Caro-Kann defense mixed with a couple of Sicilian Defense he not only surprise his opponent but also eliminate his opening weakness. Smyslov was far below his best form throughout the match. Unable to find a good Defense to the English opening which was the favorite and weapon of Botvinnik with White and was persisting in trying out his early Queen-side counter attack in the three King’s Indian Defenses. In middle game he allowed Botvinnik to escape from unclear positions and missed also a couple of easy plan (5th) or winning moves (like in the 4th game). At the end, the closed score of 12.5-10.5 in favor of Botvinnik could be surprising but it is mainly due to the fighting spirit showed by Smyslov, which made Botvinnik very nervous at the end.

Botvinnik started off with a rush by winning the first three games, which we should say, made a huge pressure on Smyslov for the rest of the match. Despite few wins like round 5 or 11 never Smyslov showed his capability to recover the gap and Botvinnik’s tactic was very clear: draw without risk and finish the match as soon as possible.

 

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

Game 22

Game 23

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Total
Smyslov V 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 0 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 10.5
Botvinnik M 1 1 1 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 1 0 ½ ½ 1 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 12.5

Golombek analyzed the match for FIDE Review (1958): “The return match for the World Championship between the title-holder, Grandmaster Vassily Smyslov, and the former world champion, Grand- master Mikhail Botvinnik, took place in Moscow from March 4 to May 8, 1958, and, for only the second time in the history of the game, an ex-champion regained his title. There is no doubt that Botvinnik thoroughly deserved to emulate Alekhine’s example in defeating Dr. Euwe in 1937, and a study of the games—particularly those of the first half of the match—shows beyond any cavil that the better player won.

Like practically every World Championship match I have ever witnessed, this was a result that was vastly different from what had been forecast by most experts beforehand. Smyslov, the younger player by nearly ten years, was reckoned to have much more staying power than Botvinnik; whereas the latter had betrayed signs that his stamina was not sufficient for lengthy trials in quite a number of events for the past few years. It is, moreover, a well-known psychological (act that when a player assumes the mantle of world champion his play seems to acquire an added strength through his being champion, this probably being due to the added confidence the possession of the title gives. Conversely, when a player loses the title his faith in himself is usually sapped and ho plays worse.

Now, quite the contrary happened in this match. Botvinnik, having spent the past year in the most strenuous preparation, started in fine style and played excellent chess; whilst his very demeanor bore the stamp of a quiet confidence that had been noticeably lacking in the 1957 match. As regards quality too it can safely be said that, for the first half of the match, at any rate, Botvinnik was playing better chess than he had done! in any previous match. Having given up for the occasion his ill-fated French Defense in favor of the totally unexpected Caro- Kann, his weakness in defending the King’s Pawn openings was eliminated; his conduct of the middle game proved excellent and he produced some really beautiful endings.

Smyslov, on the other hand, was clearly far below his best form throughout the match. His openings left much to he desired. He was unable to formulate a really satisfactory defense to the English Opening which turned out to be Botvinnik’s favorite weapon with White. His handling of the King’s Indian Defense was none too sure, in particular, this ill-conceived idea of an early counter-attack on the Queen-side; and clearly he had not reckoned with the possibility of Botvinnik’s employing the Caro-Kann Defence. Small blame attaches to him for this since no one else in the world had anticipated this either, but the psychological upset due to this novel switch of defenses seemed to unsettle the title-holder in a degree quite beyond anything one: might have imagined.

In the middle game, Smyslov failed to display a quite that keen sense of seizing a favorable opportunity that has always characterized his best play. On quite a number of occasions he allowed Botvinnik to escape from seemingly parlous lights; on others in an endeavor to force wins out of level positions, he compromised his own game and had to pay the penalty. Nor was he so outstandingly proficient in the endings this time. For, in contrast to the previous year’s match he was constantly being outplayed by Botvinnik in this field.

In fact, when one weighs up all these factors one is surprised that Botvinnik only won by the score of 12½.(the same score, by the way, with which Smyslov won his match in 1957). The reason for this comparatively small margin of victory is that Botvinnik did indeed commence to Lire as the match proceeded. Smyslov, though out of form, still battled on his hard, tough way and, throughout the last ten games, the strain was clearly telling heavily on Botvinnik’s nerves.

Botvinnik started off with a rush by winning the first three games, and, looking back on it now, it seems that the issue of the match was in fact decided in these first three games. Once he had acquired the stupendous lead Botvinnik was well content to hold his own for the rest of the match. Though Smyslov strove valiantly throughout the remainder of the contest in an attempt to make up this lost ground he never looked likely to come near it. If you look at the score after the first three games you will discover that he won the majority of the point, obtaining 10½ to Botvinnik’s 8½. But these figures are a little deceptive since in the amazing fifteenth game Botvinnik had a clearly won position right up to the very moment when he lost on time.

Below is the progressive score of the match, together with the result of each individual game. Smyslov had White in the first game, this having been decided by lot at the opening ceremony a couple of days before actual play commenced.

The public interest taken in the match in Moscow was intense. The Concert Hall of the Sovietskaya Hotel in which the main sessions were played held about 800 spectators and, not only was it constantly full but the various ante-rooms contained throngs of enthusiasts. Crowds regularly assembled in the street outside, waiting to hear what was going on by word of mouth and what keenness this showed is demon strutted by the fact that in March the temperature was often quite a number of degrees below freezing point. Every day masses of telegrams and letters would arrive for the two contestants and one of the main duties of the two seconds was the opening and answering of these messages of encouragement and advice from the supporters of each side.

As in the last match, Bondarevsky was Smyslov’s second and Goldberg was Botvinnik’s. Both these experts performed their task (which was not so easy as might at first appear) to perfection and, indeed, they so identified themselves with the players that the results seemed to affect them more than the chief figures in the match. Certainly, Bondarevsky appeared more downcast at defeat than Smyslov and Goldberg much more elated when Botvinnik was victorious than his principal.

Again as last year, Grandmaster Stahlberg of Sweden was appointed by FIDE to act as chief umpire of the match, whilst I was the judge, and we can both bear witness to the fact that the players behaved throughout the match with an extreme correctness and fairness in keeping with the highest traditions of the game.

According to the rules, players were allowed to be absent three times from the games providing that the doctor of the match furnished them with a certificate of illness and both players were unfortunate enough to be forced to avail themselves of this privilege to the full. It would seem that the strain of such an encounter is so great that it inevitably tells on the nerves of the players. This, in turn, means that they are liable to fall ill at what one might term the slightest excuse and there seems a good case for shortening the world championship from a maximum number of games of 24 to, say, 20. When matches are drawn out unduly through intervals to allow the players to recover there is a tendency for the general interest to flag and since most of the cases of illness occurred towards the end of the match it is highly possible that they might have been obviated if the number of games was smaller.

What, it must be asked, was the quality of the chess played in this match and how does it compare with that of its predecessors? On the whole, to answer the last part of the question first, I believe that this match was not inferior to any of its previous counterparts and that when sufficient time has elapsed to make this event merely part of a series its true worth will be realised and it will take its rightful place in the history of world championship chess. As regards its actual quality I think too there is a popular misconception about world championship matches. Because these take place between the world’s two best players people fondly imagine that the games must inevitably be flawless. In reality, however, the strain on the two contestants is so great that quite a lot of blunders always occur in these encounters. Consequently, what one looks for in these world championship contests is good ideas, original conceptions mid beautiful pieces of play rather than a continuous whole free from errors. Both players produced a number of fine ideas, in all three fields-opening, middle and endgame, though, since Botvinnik was in distinctly better form than Smyslov, he naturally was the author of the greater part.”