Botvinnik: 100 Selected Games

values.

NINETEEN TWENTY-SIX

AT the beginning of 1926 I was not exactly a novitiate in the chess world; on the other hand, my two years’ tournament experience could not be called extensive.

I managed to achieve reasonably good results in the semi-finals of the Leningrad City Championship, in which players of the first category took part.

To reach the championship final one had to take absolute first place in the qualifying tournament. In this tournament I drew one game and steadily won the others, and so for some time I occupied second place, as my rival, a first category player, had won all his games. My deciding game with him lasted some thirteen hours, and ended in his defeat. So I managed to get into the Leningrad Championship.

In the championship itself, through the inertia of others, I began well and won the first five games. But, after losing to Master I. Rabinovich, I shared second and third places with him. The Master A. Ilyin-Zhenevsky was first, half a point ahead of us.

In the autumn of 1926 a scratch team from the Leningrad Trade Unions went to Sweden to play a match with a scratch team from Stockholm. In this Leningrad-Stockholm match I had the opportunity of meeting G. Stoltz, to-day an experienced international master. At that time Stoltz was only one of many talented young chess-players, but even so the Swedes were surprised when my first game with him ended in a draw, while in the second I defeated him (see game No. 1).

in Leningrad’s favour.

In this same year, 1926, I began to collaborate in the paper Chess News (Shakhmatny Listok). I was invited by one of the paper’s organizers, Weinstein, to annotate several games.

LENINGRAD-STOCKHOLM MATCH

November

No. 1. Queen’s Gambit Declined

Capablanca frequently resorted to this defence (with the preliminary 6 . . . , P–KR3; and he was followed by Tartakower, Makogonov, and Bondarevsky. I knew it was customary to reply with 7 P×P, but in those days my chief aim in the opening was to develop my pieces.

Another course for Black would have been 9 . . . , P-B4; 10 Q–K2, BP×P; 11 KP×P, PxP; 12 B× P, so isolating the Q-pawn. The course chosen by Stoltz seems more natural.

White made his next move without stopping to think. Now perhaps I would prefer 10 B–B4, avoiding simplification and causing Black difficulties with the threat of 11 P×P, P×P; 12 B×P, Q×B; 13 Kt×Kt.

A combinative miscalculation. True, Black already has a good game, as P–KB4 cannot be prevented, e.g. 12 B–Kt1, P–KB4; 13 Kt×Kt, BP× Kt; 14 R×P, P×Kt; 15 R×B, Q–Kt4; 16 P–KKt3, Q–Kt5; 17 K–R1, R–B3; 18 R–Kt1, R–R3; 19 Q–KB1, R–R6.

When I decided on the combination I thought Black would continue 13 . . . , B–Q4; or 13 . . . , R–Kt1. In both cases White wins with 14 Kt–K5. I overlooked the simple but strong move Stoltz made.

14 B–Kt5

I thought this the best chance; but in reality the correct move is 14 B–K21, Q–Q3; 15 Q–B1, P×Kt; 16 B×P, B–R3; 17 B×R, B×R; 18 R×P, winning a third pawn for the Knight.

Black throws away all his advantage. He should have played 14 . . . , Q–Q1; 15 R×B, R×R; winning the exchange.

An attractive move, but after it Black has a lost game. 15 . . . , R–Kt1, would have been better, though even so, after 16 Q–B6, R–Q1; 17 R×P, White has three pawns for the piece and exerts strong pressure.

Position after Black’s 15th move

Black finds an ingenious defence. If 16 . . . , Q×Q; 17 B×Q, and White recaptures, keeping two extra pawns.

The whole point! If 18 Q–Q5, 18 . . . , Kt–B3; and 19 . . . , B×B. However, Black is not destined to realize his intentions.

Black is helpless, condemned to passive defence.

If 23 . . . , Kt–B4; 24 P–Q6, Kt×B; R–R8 ch, and 26 P–Q7.

And a few moves later Black resigned.

NINETEEN TWENTY-SEVEN

I STUDIED hard all the winter, as I was due to finish school in the spring. A scratch team from Moscow arrived in Leningrad for the May-day celebrations. In the Leningrad-Moscow match I had to play against N. Grigoriev, an experienced chess-player who had taken part in U.S.S.R. championships. I succeeded in winning the first game (see Game No. 2) and put up a stubborn defence to draw the second.

A month or so later I left school, and applied for permission to sit in a competitive examination for entry to a higher school, but was not successful. I was not yet 16, and one had to be turned 17. I had to reconcile myself to the idea of losing a whole school year, but on the other hand, to having more time for chess! In the summer I took part in the Leningrad tournament of Six, against very strong competition. I.was defeated by the Master P. Romanovsky, and took second place to his first.

The first big tournament in which I took part was the U.S.S.R. Championship played off in Moscow in 1927.

I took part in this championship rather by accident, as I was only one of the candidates for participation; but I was fortunate, as some of those chosen to play in the actual championship declined to take part.

My game with V. Ragozin (No. 3) may give the reader some idea of how far I was really prepared for participation in the U.S.S.R. Championship.

points, sharing fifth and sixth place.

On 20th October, 1927, I won my game with Y. Rochlin, which brought me one point above the master standard. So a group of Leningrad players (among them, if I remember aright, being A. Model, A. Perfiliev, and V. Alatortsev), took me into the next hall (the tournament was being held in the House of the Trade Unions) and celebrated the occasion by throwing me up to the ceiling. That was the traditional ceremony of initiation as a master.

The three games I played against I. Rabinovich, V. Nenarokov, and A. Ilyin-Zhenevsky (Nos. 4, 5, 6) in this championship were probably my best in the tournament.

LENINGRAD-MOSCOW MATCH

May

No. 2. Queen’s Indian Defence

This variation is often met with in tournaments. In those days I always played 3 Kt–KB3 and studied the continuations arising from this move in all their finesses.

If White plays at once 9 Kt–B3; 9 . . . , Kt–K5 follows, and Black has obstructed the White KP. But after 9 Q–B2; 9 . . . , B–K5 is followed by 10 Q-Kt3 and 11 Kt–QB3.

Black protects B4 from occupation by the Knight, and prepares the later advance of his BP.

Necessary. True, it greatly reduces the Bishop’s scope, but it completely eliminates the constant threat of Kt–Q5.

Attracted by a little trap: 17 . . . , Q–Kt2; 18 Q × Q ch, Kt × Q; 19 B × Kt, R × B; 20 P × P, winning a pawn, White is not up to the mark. The right plan is 17 Kt–R4, followed by P–B4, and White would have real advantage.

Black should have continued: 18 . . . , Kt–K3, forcing B × Kt ch. For then 19 P–Q5 is followed not by 19 . . . , Kt–Q5 (20 Kt–K2!) but by 19 . . . , Kt–Kt4! hemming in the White Queen.

19 P–Q5

Not 19 P–B4, P × QP!; 20 R × P, P–Q4.

The only way! If 20 . . . , Kt × Kt; 21 BP × Kt, Kt–B1; 22 R–QB1, and White has a won position.

A mistake leading to defeat. After 22 . . . , P–R4! and 23 . . . , Kt–B4 Black would equalize the game without difficulty.

Position after White’s 24th move

Loses the exchange, but in any case Black was lost, as the pawn on B4 is indefensible. 24 . . . , Kt–B3 would be followed by 25 Q–Kt5 ch, R–Kt2; 26 Kt × P, winning the pawn; 24 . . . , Q–K1 by 25 B × P! (25 Kt × P, R × Kt), R × B; 26 Q–Kt4 ch and wins.

If 27 . . . , Kt(B3) × P; 28 R × Kt, R × B (28 . . . , Kt × R; B–K6 ch); 29 R × QP, and Black loses.

If 28 . . . , Q × R; 29 Q × R ch. Kt–Kt1; 30 Q–B7, Kt–B3; and 31 R–Q1.

TOURNAMENT OF SIX, LENINGRAD

July

No. 3. French Defence

As is well known, here 4 . . . , P–QB4! is stronger, and gives Black an almost equal game. But in those days this was not yet known, and chess players were influenced by the Lasker-Maroczy game (New York, 1924) in which, after 4 . . . , P–QB4 White obtained the better