McCreadyandChess

“I personally never stood out amongst my contemporaries, because I always had to progress by hard work. Tal, on the other hand, there is an example of someone who did not have to work at it.” Botvinnik

I recently stumbled upon the commemorative edition ‘ New In Chess. The first 25 years’, which was published in 2009. It offers almost 400 pages of quality reporting and interviews with the top names in chess. It begins with an interview with Botvinnik ‘The Patriarch’, who discusses amongst other things, the upcoming match between Karpov and Kasparov (their 84 match). Speaking as an ex-world champion himself and a tutor to both, he has an interesting take on affairs: ‘The match between Karpov and Kasparov will be very different from the usual title contests. From a creative standpoint, it will be the third top class match of this century.’ (pg. 15) The two preceeding matches, which he goes onto mention were Capablanca/Alekhine and Botvinnik/Tal. It’s worth asking at this point, why does Botvinnik think of chess this way when most think in terms of the calibre of participants and quality of play? He claims that the match itself won’t reveal who the better player is, but will reveal which approach to chess is more valid. (pg.13) His view rests upon a dichotomy which is, sadly, over-simplified, and in our modern age is something of an anachronism; namely, that there are two kinds of player in chess, the practical player, which includes Capablanca, Tal and Karpov, and the researcher which includes Alekhine, Botvinnik and Kasparov. Botvinnik goes on to claim that: ‘…the theorist (he interchanges this term with “researcher” throughout the interview) will always have an advantage over the practical player. Because when the researcher takes his place at the board, he knows not only himself, but his opponent inside out’ (pg.14). Once again, these comments were made well before the advent of databases in chess.

Thinking about matches in terms differences in approach to chess or clashes in style, caused me to think more deeply about the Anand/Gelfand match, which is only weeks away now. Like many others, I noted a general lack of excitement over Gelfand’s achievement, and though I am very excited about the match myself, I don’t think Botvinnik would claim it to be another top class match from ‘a creative standpoint’, as he put it. Gelfand is a solid player, Anand too, though perhaps with more attacking flair. Given the similarity in age and approach to the game, the prospects don’t bode too well for an exciting match. With this said, there are two points that need to be taken into consideration; firstly, this is surely Gelfand’s one and only chance to become world champion, so we should expect him to give it everything he’s got, and secondly, there is a strong chance that we will see sharper opening play than in the previous world championship match. In the Anand-Topalov match 1 e4 didn’t occur once, however, Anand’s results on the white side of the Sicilian (as pointed out in the following post by GM Nigel Davies http://chessimprover.com/?p=792) are very good, Anand will surely play 1 e4 at least once to see whether Gelfand is still prepared to play the Sicilian against him, as refusing to enter the Sicilian would be a psychological defeat for Gelfand in itself. Here is, excluding blitz and blindfold, the last decisive game between Anand and Gelfand, its a Sicilian Nadjorf from six years back: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1387996

Another point that Botvinnik makes which I found myself returning to with some interest, concerns a warning he gave to a young Gary (Garik) Kasparov: ‘As far as Garik was concerned, I immediately came to blows with him. For he first made a move and only then thought about it. While the proper order is, as you know, the other way around. ‘Watch out’, I used to say to him, ‘if you go on like this you’ll become a Taimanov or a Larsen. Garik’ (!?). These two were the same even when they were grandmasters -first move, then think. Now young Garik was very insulted by this, because he wanted to be an Alekhine’ (page13). I have to say, I find such remarks and reactions bemusing. Becoming either doesn’t sound like the grimmest fate in chess, that’s for sure! Here’s a hair-raising encounter between the two that may have led Botvinnik to such an assertion:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1138444

On a personal level, my own encounters with Botvinnik often involve the Dutch Defence.  There are many interesting features of the dutch. The main one, pointed out by GM Simon Williams in his book ‘Play the Classical Dutch’, is that it offers just as many winning chances for black as the King’s Indian Defence but doesn’t have the accompanying volumes of theory. One of the sadder points of that book is that once you go beyond the obligatory, Bogoljubow – Alekhine, Hastings 1922, which all books on the Dutch start with, there are almost no complete games, so we don’t see exactly how black converts the winning chances he creates.

Here’s an example I found of how Botvinnik defeated the classical Dutch with his own 7 b3 move. In this game, Kann under-estimates the danger of the a3-f8 diagonal, as well as the strength of the d5 push, the game illustrates how easily play on the flank can be defeated by play in the centre: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1031746. Lastly, Botvinnik, some 20 years on, defeats Kann once more but with the Dutch this time. Note how, unlike Kann, Botvinnik strengthens his centre before conducting activities on the flank: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1420763

“The player’s greatest art consists in exploring the possibilities of bringing the game to a position in which the normal relative values cease to exist.” Botvinnik