L. UUBOJEVIC (Yugoslavia)
V. SMYSLOV (USSR)
1. b3 Nf6 2. Bb2 b6 3. f4 Bb7 4. e3
The young Yugoslav grandmas
ter wants to deflect his experi
enced opponent from elevated theory.
4 • . . g6 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. Be2 cS
7. 0-0 0-0 8. a4 Nc6 9. Na3 dS 10. Qel e6 1 1 . NeS d4!?
There was no compulsion to make this move, but Smyslov challenges his young rival.
12. Bf3 NdS 13. exd4 Nxd4 14. Bxd4 cxd5 1S. Qe4
Black appears to lose a Pawn without compensation, but Smys
lov had foreseen all the details:
1S. .. Ba6 16. Rfe1 Qc7 17. Qxd4 Rad8 18. g3 Rfe8!
Black plans to transfer his Bishop to f8 with the threat of Bc5.
19. Rad1?
The most natural but, as is so frequently the case, by no means the best move. Either 19. Kh 1 or 1 9. Qb2 would be correct.
DIAGRAM 7 1
1 9 .. . Bf8!
A knockout move. If 20. Qb2, then 20 . . . Qc5+ is decisive, and in the case of 20. Kg2 the win
ning line is 20 . . . Bxa3 2 1 . Ng4 Bf8 22. Bxd5 Bg7 !, with all the ensuing consequences.
20. b4 Bxb4 21 . Qa1 QcS+
22. d4 Qc3 23. Qxc3 Bxc3 The Rook on e l has no conven
ient square to which to retreat.
24. NbS Bxe1 2S. Rxel BxbS 26. · axbS Nc7 27. Bc6
Neither will 27. Nc6 Nxb5 ! 28. Nxd8 Rxd8 save the situation.
27 . • . Re7 28. c3 a6 29. Bb7
Or 29. bxa6 Nxa6 30. Rb l f6 3 1 . Ng4 Kf7 32. Rxb6 Ra7, and Black should win.
29 ... NxbS 30. Bxa6
30. Nc6 Rxb7 3 1 . Nxd8 Rd7 32. Nc6 Nxc3 is also poor.
30... Na7 31. Rb1 bS 32. BxbS Reb7 33. Bd3 Rxb1 34. Bxb1 NbS 3S. c4 Nxd4 White resigns.
And now, almost 60 years old, the veteran performs successfully in competitions. H� visits differ
ent countries, r�adily handing down his experience to young chess players, demonstrating his unfading skill .
DIAGRAM 72
l �-·
i
�
The Pacis vs. Smyslov game reached this position in the 1 980 1 0 1
tournament held in the health resort m Baguio m the Philip
pines. White attacked on the Q-side, but Black's attack directed against White's King was considerably more danger
ous.
26... h5! 27. Qc2 hxg4 28.
hxg4 Rh3 29. Qc8 Qh7 30.
Kf2
A vam effort to escape, for
White's King has no place to hide.
30... Nh4 31. Qe6 + Kg7 32. Net
If 32. Ke2, Nxf3 ! 33. Rxf3 Qxe4+ , etc.
32. Nd2 Nxf3 ! 33. Nxf3 Qxe4 is also bad.
32. .. Rh2+ 33. Kgl Ng6 34. Ng2 Qh3 35. Rc2 Nh4!
White resigns.
Chapter IX
this dynamic creativity that prompted people to describe the challengers' elimination round and qualified for a world-title match with the reigning champion Mikhail Botvinnik.Even in the challengers' tour
nament Tal' s unusual play was, indeed, astonishing. Usually par
ticipants in such tournaments showed circumspection and a
voided risks where possible. Tal, however, played with flair and verve, drawing only eight out of
the total of 28 games he played at the 1 959 challengers' tournament in Bled. Although Tal lost four 20th-century romanticist, who rose so swiftly to become world champion?
"Chess is a specific form of creativity, the chess player being author, critic and performer simultaneously," said Mikhail Tal. "What attracts me most of demonstrate individual traits of character and the clash of ideas.
To gain success in chess , one 1 03
must have great enthusiasm and first grades without special diffi
culty. And then, quite naturally, came reverses, with his oppo
nents ever stronger and more experienced.
Mikhail often did well at Riga schoolboys' chess tournaments, although reverses also did occur when he became too excited, and overestimated the potential of his position.
In 195 1 the Riga schoolboy
played against masters and candi
date-masters for the first time.
The entrants to the Riga cham
pionship included two masters, six candidate-masters and 1 3 first-grade players, Mikhail being one of the latter. Mikhail finished excitable, tended to underesti
mate the resources of his oppo finished runner-up, while third place went to Tal's rival in many junior chess competitions-Aivar Gipslis, now an international grandmaster. against master Vladimir Saigin from Byelorussia, who had more than once won Byelorussian
championships. First one player,
The tournaments and matches in which Mikhail Tal appeared in 1 955, when he took part for the first time in trials for the USSR individual championship, were a decisive test of everything he had so far accomplished.
The zonal of the USSR cham
pionship in Vilnius involved the best players from the Baltic area, Byelorussia and the Karelian Au
tonomous Republic. Of the total tournament, overestimating the potential of his position, and he was still playing an unconvincing endgame.
Towards the end of 1 955 Mikhail Tal scored his first major
success, emerging victorious in one of the three groups of the in an international competition in 1 956. A member of the Soviet students' team, he played at the world student chess champion
ship. The USSR team came first.
Tal, playing on Board 3, scored four points out of a possible five.
And now for one of his games.
King's Indian Defence
M . TAL (USSR)
The position requires vigorous counterplay, continuing 1 1 ...
Tal attacks simply and energeti
cally. It would be most persistent for Black here to play 16 . . . Nd6;
but instead:
105
16 ... Nf6 17. Qc2 Nxe4 (or 1 7 . . . h6 1 8 . Ne2, after which the Rook occupies the g-file)
18. Bxe4 Qd6 (if 1 8 .. . h6, then 19. d6! Rb8 20. d7 and so on)
19. Bxh7 + Kh8 20. Be4 a4 21. g.S Black resigns.
The year 1 957 brought major competitive chess successes and wide recognition to Mikhail Tal . From 20 January to 22 February the 24th USSR Championship was held in Moscow, with Tal (nine games won, two lost and ten drawn) winning the USSR title.
An appreciable rise in the stan
dards of Tal' s play was evinced, among other things, by the fact that of the eight grandmasters , who took part in the tournament, five lost their games to the new champion of the Soviet Union.
And now for the end of his game with Alexander Tolush, playing Black. The swift smash
ing of the Black King's position has become a classical example of attack.
DIAGRAM 74
Tal's spectacular move 30. e5!, came as a surprise to all who werefollowing the game. The breakthrough in the centre is indeed beautiful. Indeed, White strikes in a sector of the board where Black is strong. The e5-Pawn is threatened with capture by four chessmen simultaneously, and the g5-Bishop is also about to perish.
The game developed as fol
lows: 30. . . Rxe5 (if 30. . . fxg5 then 3 1 . Bxg6 hxg6 32. Qh8+
Kf7 33. Rh7 + ) 31. Bxg6 Rb7 (if 3 1 . . . hxg6; 32. Qh8+ Kf7 33. Rh7+ clinches matters . 3 1 . . . Rxg5 32. Bxh7+ Kf7 33. Ne4 is equally bad) 32. Ne4! fxg6 33. Rfl Rxe4 (the only possible way of forestalling a catastrophe on f6) 34. Bxe4 Rg7 35. Rf6 Bxg4 (or 35 . . . Ng6 36. Rxg6) 36. Rfl Nd7 37. Rxd6 Qe8 38. Rxa6 Kh8 39. Bxh7! (without giving Black even a moment's respite) 39 . . . NbS 40 . Bf5 + Kg8 41 . Be6 + Bxe6 42. Rxe6 Black resigns.
Mikhail Tal 's performance at the USSR championship brought him the title of grandmaster. He
terzonal tournament in Portoroz, Yugoslavia, and again the best individual results at the 1 3th Chess Olympiad in Munich;
The year 1959 brought him first place at the international tourna
ment in Zurich and at the marathon challengers' tournament (Bled, Zagreb and Belgrade);
Competition history has witnes
sed but very few examples of chess players making such tre
mendous progress in so short a time!
In all these tournaments and matches Tal distinguished himself by spectacular, unusual and reck
less play, at times excessively risky, but always interesting and bold .
Tal astonished the chess world by his attempts always to gain the initiative, to attack. Nothing would stop him from this, neither positional weaknesses, nor the consequent need to sacrifice ma
terial.
Mikhail Tal's games involve sacrifices galore. Tal was very
inventive when it came to chess combination, and this endears him to all chess connoisseurs.
DIAGRAM 75
This is a position from the Tal vs. Smyslov game played at the
1958 challengers' tournament.
The game continued as follows:
14. Qh4!?
The exclamation and question marks mean that even now, many years after the encounter, com
mentators have not managed to determine whether Tal's sacrifice was a correct one.
delay (as a result of spending too much time on pondering one's moves) may mean death."
1 4 .. . bxc4 1 5 . Qg5 Nh5 (If 1 5 . . . g6? then 16. Nh6+ Kg7 1 7 . Bc3 Qxa2 1 8 . Nh4 Qal + 1 9. Kd2 Qa6 20. N4f5 + Kh8 21 . Ke2 ! with White's attack becoming irresisti
ble) 16. Nh6 + Kh8 17. Qxh5 Qxa2 (as analysis has shown, Black should have defended him
self by playing 17 . . . Bf6 !) 18. Bc3 Nf6 (a very dangerous continua
tion is 1 8 . . . f6 19. Rhe 1 gxh6 20. Qxh6 Rg8 2 1 . Ng5 and so on) 19. Qxf7! Qa1 + ( 1 9. . . ReS 20. Qg8+ and 2 1 . Nf7 + + ) 20. Kd2 Rxf7 21 . Nxf7 + Kg8 22. Rxa1 Kxf7 23. Ne5+ Ke6 24. Nxc6 Ne4+ 25. Ke3 Bb6 + 26. Bd4 Black resigns.
At that same challengers' tour
nament, Mikhail Tal beat Robert Fischer in all his four games with him .
What lies behind Tal's succes
ses and what has he contributed to chess?
Even connoisseurs disagree in their views on Tal's play . There has been a persistent note of disbelief in some commentators' notes in the legitimacy of the victories gained by the Riga grandmaster, with critics pointing out the numerous instances when Tal found himself in a difficult position, the many times he could have lost, if this or that had not happened.
The point is that chess means a struggle-the struggle of plans and ideas; it tests the opponents' wills.
Tal's strength lies in the fact that he is not afraid of complica
tions, indeed actively seeks them,
and is ready to take risks. Tal fights whether his position is good or bad, creates difficulties for his opponent, finding latent potential .
Tal's answer to a reporter's question as to whether he had taken "unjustified risks" in his games at the challengers' tourna
ment tells us a great deal .
"Everything depends on what one regards an unjustified risks . I was not sure of the correctness of the decision I took only in the game with Smyslov. Although at a certain point I should have forced a draw, I relied on the fact that my opponent was in time trouble. Analysts will, perhaps, find quite a few such points in my games. I'll add that in such company it is generally difficult to play without taking risks ."
DIAGRAM 76
This position arose in game 17 of the challengers' tournament.
Tal here continued 12. 14?! This is how he commented himself on
this move: '"An awful, anti
positional, incredible move',- the words all commentators without exception have used describing the move. One might conclude that White had never read a chess text-book, because it is common knowledge that 12. f4 weakens White's black-squared periphery, immobilises the Bishop, and places his King in jeopardy.
"I do not think the reader will hold me immodest if I say that I was concerned with all these considerations during the game.
Yet, it is a fact that the horrible advantage White had possessed at the opening stage. Still, by play would have been inconsistent;
exchange on f6 is absolutely senseless ; defending the Bishop by playing Qc I is passive. The felt somewhat awkward, because the demerits of this move were most conspicuous. Its merits were less obvious, but they were still present, though they lay, so to speak, not entirely on the chess plane.
"First, this move needs to be refuted, which involves the
possi-bility of a tactical struggle on
Logical reasoning? There can be no doubt that it is. The reader will now see from the game that ensued how all of Tal's clever calculations were justified, even - though White was on the brink of
vinnik, world champion Mikhail Tal led the USSR team at the 14th Chess Olympiad, held in 1 09
1-�
�;: �
�
�Leipzig, scoring 1 1 points out of 15.
Tal's encounter with Fischer, leader of the US team, attracted the attention of both the spec
tators and competitors. Larry Evans, Fischer's coach, said that the game, the first between the rivals after Tal had won the world title, proceeded in the man
ner of past masters . The aggres
sive-minded Fischer quickly sec
ured a winning position. He was imprudent enough, however, . to allow Tal to embark upon a senes of brilliant sacrifices. The storm lasted for seven moves and ended in perpetual check.
And now for this interesting game.
French Defence
R. FISCHER M. TAL
1 . e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 BaS (the usual 5 . . . Bxc3 i s more reliable) 6 . b4 ! (this bold move was recommended by Alexander Alekhine, and that is
recommendation enough) 6 ...
cxd5 (we know that 6 . . . cxb5 enables White to launch a strong attack after 7 . Nb5) 7. Qg4 Nge7 (7. . . Kf8 would have been ans
wered by 8. bxa5 dxc3 9. a4! , opening the way for the Bishop from c 1 to a3) 8. bxa5 dxc3 9. Qxg7 Rg8 10. Qxh7 Nbc6 11. Nf3 Qc7 (but not 1 1 . . . Qxa5 , because of 1 2 . Ng5 Rf8 1 3 . f4, and his centre strengthened , Wh
i
te would start pushing his h-Pawn squard 12. Bb5 Bd7 ( 1 2 . . . Rxg2 is ineffective, in view of 1 3 . Kfl ! Rg8 1 4 . Rg1 Rxg1 1 5 . Kxg 1 , and the way i s open again for the advance of the h-Pawn) 13. 0-0 0-0-0 (more promising is 13 . . . Nxe5, as Tigran Petrosyan suggested after the game) 14. Bg5?Fischer wrote in his notes that the · correct move here would have been 14. Bxc6, giving the following sequence: 14 . . . Bxc6 (if 14 . . . Qxc6, 1 5 . Bg5 d4 1 6. h4!, or 14 . . . Nxc6 1 5 . Re i , with the sub-sequent Bg5 and h4) 1 5 . Qxf7 d4 ( 15 . . . Rxg2+ 16. Kxg2 d4 17. Kgl Rg8+ 1 8 . Ng5 is incor
rect) 16. Qxe6+ Bd7 ( 1 6 .. . Kb8 17. Ng5) 1 7 . Qxe7 Rxg2 1 8. Kxg2 Bh3 + 19. Kxh3 Qxe7 20. Bg5, and White is bound to win.
14 • . . Nxe5!
DIAGRAM 78
The beginning of a series of spectacular moves. Fischer ad
mitted that he thought Tal was just trying to complicate the game.
15. Nxe5
Fischer wrote that he had at
first intended to play 1 5 . Bxd7 + ,
Smyslov , was strikingly different from the 1 960 Botvinnik-Tal match. This time it was Botvinnik who dictated his will, calmly re
pulsing Tal's reckless attacks . By the end of the 1 2th game, Botvin
nik was three points ahead, which predetermined the outcome of the whole affair. The return match ended in a 5-point lead for Bot
vinnik. In the year of his 50th birthday, Mikhail Botvinnik scored another major victory in a return match , this time over the young chess player distinguished by his outstanding talent for com
binational play.
This time Botvinnik countered Tal's impulsive performance with his scientific, analytical method of play, and by preparing for the match by thoroughly analysing his opponent's merits and de
merits.
"Improvisation is the great thing in Tal' s style of play," the initiative. This lop-sidedness in his style somewhat detracts nevertheless declining steadily , which disappointed his numerous fans and admirers.
Tal was obviously living through a serious crisis. Would I l l
he manage to regain his former
Their conclusions were once again proved premature. Towards the end of that same year, I %9, Tal came first at an international tournament in Tbilisi.
"I was perfectly aware," wrote White's pieces approach Black's King)
17. Bh6! Nxe5 (The best move here is 1 7 . . . Bf7, but the Dutch master has already fallen prey to Tal's combinational play and treacherous traps)
DIAGRAM 79
18. Rxe5! fxe5 19. Ng5 Bf6 20. Nxe6. Black resigns.
"How do you manage to rout your opponents so quickly?"