The Birth of the Modern World Championship

The next game in Smyslov's Sparklers, marks the first time I've looked at the 1948 World Championship tournament on this blog. In signalling the arrival of FIDE and establishing the foundation for future World Championship cycles, the event was the most important chess tournament of the 20th century.

In Predecessors II (p.274), Kasparov introduced the Smyslov - Reshevsky round three game with the following remarks:

The means of determining the World Champion chosen by FIDE after Alekhine's death was far from irreproachable. [...] FIDE, the Soviet Chess Federation, and Botvinnik were aiming for a simple and rapid solution to the problem. A characteristic feature: when at the Congress in The Hague (1947) it transpired that Fine would not be playing in the match-tournament, they did not even bother to find a replacement, but simply reduced the number of players to five and added an extra, fifth cycle. It was unfair that Miguel Najdorf, who was playing brilliantly at that time, was not included in the match-tournament: he finished fourth in Groningen 1946, and moreover bet Flohr 500 guilders that he would defeat Botvinnik in the last round -- and won!

But why didn't they include Boleslavsky, who was runner-up in two successive USSR Championships (1945 and 1947)? 'God himself ordered that he be included,' thinks Bronstein. 'Isaak never complained to me: he also understood that he possessed some shortcomings in the eyes of Botvinnik, and perhaps, unfortunately, also of society. I am not saying that Boleslavsky, Najdorf, or I would have won the Candidates tournament, but, of course, the results would have been different. The reason why Botvinnik was in a hurry to play the match-tournament was that things had been difficult for Keres during the war, and he was all nerves, Reshevsky had played only in weak tournaments in America, and Euwe had not played chess at all.'

As for Smyslov, he was not yet sufficiently experienced to provide serious competition to his formidable compatriot in the 1948 Hague/Moscow match-tournament. But to fight for second place was well within his powers.

This portrait of Botvinnik as manipulator is not flattering. It is a recurring theme in accounts of the sixth World Champion after his death in 1995.

Even GMs Stumble on K+P Endgames

Continuing with Smyslov's Sparklers, the first diagrammed position occurred almost 20 moves after the position discussed in Which Side Is Better. Kasparov started his notes on the game here.

Euwe played 33...Bd2 and eventually lost. Smyslov gave a long analysis of the alternative 33...Bg5, trading Black's bad Bishop for a Knight. The object of the analysis was to determine if the move is sufficient to draw. After 33...Bg5 34.Kb3 Bxh4 35.gxh4 Ne7 36.Nxe7 Kxe7 37.Kc4, he reached the position shown in the second diagram.

Groningen 1946
W: Smyslov, Vasily
B: Euwe, Max
[FEN "6n1/2p2k2/3p1p1b/3PpN1p/4P1pN/2P3P1/1K3PP1/8 b - - 0 33"]
(After 33.Kc2-b2(xP))

(After 37.Kb3-c4 (analysis))

King and Pawn endgames are notoriously tricky, and the diagrammed position is no exception. Smyslov gave 37...f5! (37...Kd7 loses) 38.exf5 Kf6 39.Kb5 Kxf5 40.Kc6, and established that both 40...Ke4 and 40...g3 are insufficient to draw. He didn't discuss 40...Kf4, which looks better than the alternatives.

Kasparov copied Smyslov's analysis, but gave a different set of variations. It appears that Smyslov changed his published analysis of the position, but the English translation of his book used the original notes.

After 37.Kc4, Kasparov gave 37...f5 38.f3 (Not 38.exf5 Kf6 39.Kb5 Kxf5 40.Kc6 g3! 41.f3 e4! 42.fxe4+ Kxe4 43.c4 Ke3 44.Kxc7 Kf2 45.c5 Kxg2 46.cxd6 Kf3 47.d7 g2 48.d8=Q g1=Q. [MW: After 47...g2, Smyslov terminated his analysis with 'etc.'; Kasparov didn't say why the position is not lost for Black after 48...g1=Q. In any case, 40...Kf4 needs attention.]) 38...f4 39.Kb5 Kd7 40.c4 Kd8 41.Kc6 Kc8.

Now another curiosity appears. Kasparov continued 42.c5 dxc5 43.Kxc5 Kd7, when White wins after a sophisticated maneuver that looks like triangulation. In fact, the game is won easily after 42.fxg4 43.h5, when White promotes first and checkmates Black immediately.

Which Side Is Better?

After a long pause, I'm coming back to Smyslov's Sparklers. In the diagrammed position, which side is better?

On the earlier move 8...b7-b5, Smyslov wrote, 'This advance, which seriously weakens his Pawn formation, puts an onus on Black.' An online dictionary defines onus as 'a difficult or disagreeable responsibility or necessity; a burden or obligation.' Since Smyslov hasn't questioned any of Black's subsequent moves, White must be better.

Euwe played 14...Ne7. Here Smyslov commented:

Black brings the Knight over to the scene of coming events, but in doing so underestimates the tactical possibilities arising, after White's reply, out of the undefended state of his Knight on h5. More expedient was 14...Nf4 establishing the Knight in a strong position.

Strong Knight position indeed -- when I reach a similar position with a Knight on f4 (or f5 playing White) I'm happy; when my opponents do the same, I'm uncomfortable. So is Black better?

Smyslov gave no indication how he would have proceeded after 14...Nf4. I assume that if Euwe didn't play it, there is some feature of the position which gave him pause. One possibility is 15.a4, as played in the game. Now 15...b4 16.d4 doesn't look promising. Better perhaps is 15...Bd7 16.axb5 axb5 17.Rxa8 Qxa8 18.Ne3 Ne7, and I still can't decide which side I prefer.

Groningen 1946
Euwe, Max

Smyslov, Vasily
(After 14.Bh4-g3)
[FEN "r1b1qrk1/2p2pb1/p1np3p/1p2p1pn/4P3/2PP1NB1/PPB2PPP/R2QRNK1 b - - 0 14"]

After 14...Ne7, Smyslov continued 15.a4 and gave the move a '!'. He commented, 'The right moment! White creates tension on the Queenside and threatens to seize the a-file after a4xb5.' If 15...Bd7 16.Nxe5, or 15...Be6 16.Nxg5, both Knight moves attacking the Bishop and playing on the exposed position of the Knight.

15...Nxg3 Smyslov: 'Therefore he simplifies, resigning himself to the loss of the initiative on the Kingside.' 16.hxg3 Smyslov: 'Basically it is capturing with a Pawn plus the transfer of a Knight to f5 that kills Black's initiative. The Nf1 still has an excellent square at e3.' • The phrase 'Black's initiative on the Kingside' says to me that Black had the advantage going into his 14th move. How am I to understand that comment about 'onus'?

The game continued 16...Be6 17.d4 f6 18.Bb3 Bxb3 19.Qxb3+ Qf7 20.Qxf7+ Kxf7, reaching an instructive endgame, which I'll look at another time. To play through the complete game see...

Vasily Smyslov vs Max Euwe, Groningen 1946
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1042599

...on Chessgames.com.

The Waiting Game : Nimzo-Indian

The diagram shows the position after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3, the Rubinstein Variation of the Nimzo-Indian (ECO E40-59). This is one of several opening positions illustrating what I call a 'waiting game'. White would like to play a2-a3, forcing Black to decide the Bishop's future. Black would like to play ...Bxc3, crippling White's Pawn structure, but not before White wastes a move on a2-a3.

White's last move prepares Ng1-e2, when the Knight can recapture on c3. Playing the Knight too soon shuts in the Kingside Bishop. The opening becomes a game of chicken to see which side will act first (or react last):

• White will play a2-a3, forcing the capture.
  
• White will protect the Knight on c3 allowing the recapture with other than the b-Pawn.
  
• Black will play ...Bxc3 without being forced by a2-a3.

(After 4.e2-e3)

There are other openings that illustrate this strategy of both sides playing chicken. I'll post them from time to time.

Chess City

Today on Video Friday, I reveal the (not so) secret plans for the only pork barrel chess project the world has ever seen. Do the people of Kalmykia really like chess or do they feel obligated to like it?

Meet the President - Kalmykia (3:28) • 28 May 2007

'Al Jazeera's Jonah Hull travels to the Russian Republic of Kalmykia to meet Kirzan Ilyumzhinov, the president of the only Buddhist state in Europe.'

Not a Misprint

When I first saw the diagrammed position (in 'Petrosian's Legacy' by Petrosian, p.43), I thought it was a misprint. It wasn't indicated who was on move and I couldn't see how the position could arise by any logical sequence of moves.

Budapest 1950
Candidates Tournament
Keres, Paul

Kotov, Alexander
(After ?)
[FEN "r2q1rk1/p1p2p2/bp2p1np/n2pP1p1/2PP3B/P1P2P1N/2Q3PP/RB2K2R w KQ - 0 16"]

In fact, the position is a good exercise in retrograde analysis. White is on move and the previous moves were 14...g7-g5 15.Qa4-c2 Ne7-g6. Now Kotov played the surprising 16.Nf4! and won on the 33rd move. To play through the complete game see...

Alexander Kotov vs Paul Keres, Budapest ct 1950
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072299

...on Chessgames.com.

Félicitations Catherine & Massimo!