The Botvinnik-Tal match of 1960 was played in Moscow in the spring of 1960 and what a match it was! There was the famous 6th game in which Tal, right after the opening, sacrificed a Knight. Yasser Seirawan explains the game on YouTube HERE...check it out!
In that game Tal was pacing back and forth on the stage and when Botvinnik's clock showed only a few minutes left the arbiters Stahlberg and Golombek had to move the game backstage because the spectators were so excited and noisy! Botvinnik's efforts at refuting the sacrifice were in vain...Tal won the game, and in spite of Botvinnik's stubborn resistance, he went on to win the match.
The match was from March 15 to May 7, 1960, and after 21 games, and at the age of 23, Mikhail Tal became the 8th World Champion.
Tal often sacrificed material for the initiative and those intuitive sacrifices created complications that were often difficult, if not impossible, to solve over the board. Post-game analysis, and these days analysis with engines, may find flaws, but who cares?!
In the following game, for the second game in a row, Botvinnik lost when he played what was considered a gross blunder.
This game (the 7th) featured a Caro-Kann and the same variation that was played in the fifth game, but this time Botvinnik adopted a line that led to an exchange of Queens. Tal could have avoided doing so, but at the expense of incurring a weak center Pawn.
The main feature of this game is that it's an example of two minor pieces against a Rook. Examination of the notes by Hans Kmoch and Peter Griffiths, a strong British master who was active from the 1960s until 1989, shows that their notes contained errors, but they were written before today's powerful engines. What is more important is that they both pointed out some practical guidelines that it's important to be aware of.
If you are interested in general principles on two minor pieces against a Rook then you might want to check out Larry Kaufmann's excellent article on page 6 in the March 1999 issue of Chess Life. If your not interested in principles, just play over the game for enjoyment.
Mikhail Tal–Mikhail Botvinnik1–0B18World Championship Match, Moscow729.03.1960Stockfish 15
Caro-Kann 1.e4 c6 Tal wrote that there was no reason to suppose that
Botvinnik would change his tactics which, in four out of six games, had given
him a playable game and so the Caro-Kann was his most suitable choice. 2.d4 d5 3.c3 dxe4 4.xe4 f5 5.g3 g6 6.1e2 d7 This move prepares ...e5.
More cautious is 6...e6 as played in game 5. After that game Tal had
considered the possibility of sacrificing a N on e6 should they reach the same
position again. Probably Botvinnik had also given it some thought and so he
played a different line. In any case, Botvinnik took 12 minutes to decide to
play this move which gives white a slight edge and indicates he had some
concerns about what course to take. 6...e6 This is safer. 7.h4 h6 8.f4 h7 9.c4 f6 10.e2 d6 11.e3 bd7 12.gh5 xh5 13.xh5 g8 with
equality. The game was eventually drawn. Tal-Botvinnik, 5th game. 7.h4 7.f4 allows black easy equality after e5 8.xg6 hxg6 9.dxe5 and black can
play either 9...Nxe5 or 9...Qa5+ and 10...Qxe5+ 7...h6 8.f4 h7 9.c4 9.d3 This would diminish some of the value of the break ...e5, but black
continue as usual with ...e6, ...Ngf6, etc xd3 10.xd3 e6 11.d2 gf6
equals 9...e5 Tal wrote that black doesn't have much choice and this move
is practically forced. Tal was still speaking of the possibility of a N
sacrifice on e6. 9...e6 10.c3 gf6 11.0-0 b6 12.b3 bd5 13.xd5 xd5
is equal. Mamedov,R (2667)-Kovchan,A (2563) Aix-les-Bains FRA 2011 9...gf6 is favorable to white. 10.0-0 e6 Had they reached this position Tal
thought the sacrifice on e6 would decide the game. 10...b6 is safer, but
not quite satisfactory. 11.b3 a5 12.a3 a4 13.a2 e6 14.e1 White has
the better prospects. Sedina,E (2320)-Zelcic,R (2460) Turin 1994 11.xe6 fxe6 12.e1 g8 13.xe6 xe6 14.xe6+ f7 15.e2 Actually, here the
position is equal, but it's the kind Tal liked and Botvinnik disdained. 10.e2 Tal was already thinking about the ending and believed he would have a
slight advantage in it. 10.d3 is an interesting possibility suggested by
Tal. exd4 11.0-0 xh4 12.e1+ e7 13.f3 gf6 14.f4 b6 15.d6 0-0
A most interesting position. White is slightly better after 16.Bxe7 16.xf7+ This is not quite correct. 16.xe7 xc4 17.xf8 xf8 and white has a R
vs B+2Ps 16...xf7 17.xe7 xe7 18.xe7 bd5 19.e1 and black is better.
10...e7 11.dxe5 xe5 12.e3 c5 13.xc5 xe2+ 14.xe2 xc5 15.he1 f6 16.b4 When Tal annotated this game he completely forgot that he had
played this opening before! Against Illivitsky he played the equally good 16.
Kf1+ 16.f1+ f8 17.b4 ce4 18.xe4 xe4 19.d3 xd3+ 20.xd3 g5 21.e5 gxh4 22.ae1 e8 23.xe8+ xe8 Draw agreed. Mikhail Tal-Georgy Ilivitsky
Riga 1955 16...cd7 17.f1+ f8 18.b3 g5 After this move Botvinnik had
used an hour and 20 minutes for 18 moves and Tahl only half that time!
Botvinnik has achieved an active position, but the clock is now going to be a
factor. 19.hxg5 hxg5 20.h3 g8 21.ed1 White has some initiative and and
in order to maintain it he wants to keep as many pieces on the board as
possible and this move avoids the exchange of Rs on the e-file. a5 22.bxa5
This is white's best chance as the separation of Q-side Ps is not serious. xa5 23.d6 e7 24.ad1 e5 Kmoch claimed that this move was not the best
and his next move permitted a simple but beautiful tactical sequence with two
temporary sacrifices of the exchange. Soviet Maste Vasily Panov agreed.
Neither Stockfish 15 nor Komodo 12 find any fault with the move and evaluate
the position as equal. 25.h5 A pretty and trappy move but no it's really
threat. All that Tal has achieved so far is equality as he has no tangible
advantage. [However, Botvinnik is beginning to get into time pressure.
Actually, a more solid continuation for white would have been to reposition a
N witn Ng1-e2 g6 The general consensus of opinion (for example Hans Kmoch
and Peter Griffiths) claimed that with this move Botvinnik walked into the
trap. Kmoch suggested the idea of dislodging the N with 25...Bf5(!) or even 25.
..Rg6 was playable. The text, while it results in equality, allows Tal to
force an extremely sharp and interesting ending which also takes advantage of
Botvinnik's time pressure not to mention that Botvinnik found positions in
which he was forced to walk a tightrope distasteful. 25...f5 This results
in a sharp position after 26.xf6 xf6 27.xg5 xg5 28.f4 with equal
chances. 25...g6 is tamer and white has a number of options. One is 26.xf6 xf6 27.6d2 27.xg5 doesn't work. exg5 with a decisve advantage. 27...g4 28.f4 h6 29.g1 f5 Here, too, the chances are even. 26.xd7+ The results in white getting two pieces vs. a R. While technically the result
is equal chances, in view of Botvinnik's time pressure and the fact that he
disliked these types of unclear position, Tals' choice is absolutely the
correct one. 26.xf6 is the safer course...too wimpy for Tal. xf6 27.f3 f5 28.xg5 xg5 29.f4 e4 29...g4 is also playable. 30.fxg5 e8 31.6d4 xd1 32.xd1 xg5 30.fxe5 xd6 31.exd6+ d7 26...xd7 27.xd7+ xd7 The R comes into its own in the ending so that winning with two minor pieces
against a R is much harder here than it would be in the middlegame. At this
point, in his book on endings, Griffiths stated that Botvinnik has walked into
a trap that lost two Ns for a R, but "lost" is probably too strong. That said,
the resulting position is harder for black to handle and so the position
certinly favors Tal. 28.f6+ d6 29.xg8 Tal's problem here is
that his pieces are scattered and are not working together. If you have the
two minor pieces the essential points to remember are 1) coordinate them and 2)
security; a R on the rampage can do a lot of damage. c5 30.h6 f6 30...xc2 would be a mistake because after 31.xf7+ 31.xc2 xc2 and the
outcome is not clear. 31...e7 32.fxg5 and the two passed Ps are likely
more than the R cn handle. 31.g4 Kmoch wrote that white has a winning
advantage, but the technical difficulties he has makes the task difficult.
That's wrong; white does not have a winning advantage; in fact, he has no
advantage at all. In 5 Shootuts white scored 5 draws. xc2 Eliminating as
many Ps as possible is the best way of putting up resistance. 32.xf6 xb3 33.axb3 And now Ne4+ would win. 33.e4+ is tempting, but it doesn't lead
to anything. d5 34.xc5 c4+ 35.e1 xc5 36.xg5 xa2 draws. For example.
.. 37.d2 b5 38.g4 d5 39.f4 b1 40.c1 g6 41.f3 e4 42.e5 e8 43.c2 xf4 44.d3+ xg4 45.c3 f5 46.d4 e6 47.c5 d7 48.b4 c7 49.a6+ b7 50.b4 d7 51.c2 a6 52.b4+ a5 53.a2 f5 54.b4 e4 55.a2 a6 56.b4+ b7 57.a2 a7 58.b4 d5 59.c2 a6 60.b4+ a5 61.c2 a4 62.b4 e4 63.a2 b3 64.b4 a3 65.a6 b3 66.b8 g2 67.a6 black can
make no progress. 33...b5 Well played! The the fact that white can't
defend his Q-side Ps looks ominous! 34.xg5 Now white's Ns are now
excellently placed to escort the Ps. xb3 A surprising error by
Botvinnik a this capture loses without much of a fight a fight. He had to
prevent white from promoting a P. 34...xg5 loses quickly after 35.e4+ d5 36.xg5 34...e5 The K.s presence on the K-side is absolutely vital
for the defense. 35.fe4 xb3 Five Shootouts from this position were drawn. 35.f4 Thanks to the absence of black's K this P practically marches
through. b1+ Although it matters little because black is lost, this aids
white by enabling him to activate his K. 35...b5 Puts up a tougher
defense, but in the end white is able to force the win. There are many
variations, but here is just one example... 36.fe4+ e7 37.g4 c5 38.f5 c4 39.f6+ f8 40.h7+ g8 41.f7+ xf7 42.d6+ g6 43.xb5 xh7 44.f2 g6 45.f3 g5 46.g3 b6 47.c3 g6 48.f4 f6 49.g5+ g6 50.g4 g7 51.f5 f7 52.g6+ g7 53.g5 f8 54.f6 g8 55.g7 and it's a mate in 4. h7 56.d5 56.f7 h6 57.g8 56...c3 57.e7 c2 58.g8+ 36.e2 b2+ 37.f3 b3+ 38.g4 b2 39.g3 b5 Black advances this P because it's the more
distant one. 40.fe4+ d5 41.f5 b4 42.f6 a2 43.f7 a8 44.h7 A nice
finishing touch. b3 44...xe4 At first glance, this seems to win, but
that's not the case. 45.f6+ e3 46.e8 and the f-Pawn queens. 45.d2 b2 46.f3 This is the only move that wins! 46.f8 xf8 47.xf8 d4
Watch this... 48.f5 d3 49.b1 c2 White has to take the draw with 50.
Na3+ so as to keep b1 covered. 50.a3+ b3 50...c1 loses 51.d7
and black has no way of avoiding the loss. 51.b1 etc. 46.f5 This
doesn't work either. d4 47.b1 47.g4 loses d3 48.b1 c2 49.f8 xf8+ 50.xf8 xb1 and the P queens 47...d3 48.f8 xf8+ 49.xf8 c2 50.a3+ 46...d4 47.e2 White's K guarding the N makes all the difference.
c5 48.f8 xf8 49.xf8 c4 Black's Ps are nothing more than a harmless
demonstration. 50.e6+ d5 51.f4+ d4 52.b1 The Ps are stopped and
black can't get to the g-Pawn. An amazing game by Tal and theoretically
correct or not his 26.Rxd7 was a crackerjack move that was largely responsible
for winning the game. 52.b1 e4 52...e5 53.f3 53.f2 f5 54.f3 1–0
No comments:
Post a Comment