A Crackerjack Game By Tal

     Merriam-Webster defines "crackerjack" as either a candied popcorn confection or a person or thing of marked excellence. Today's game is an example of the latter definition. 

     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. 

 

[Event "World Championship Match, Moscow"] [Site "?"] [Date "1960.03.29"] [Round "7"] [White "Mikhail Tal"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B18"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "103"] [EventDate "1960.??.??"] {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. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. N1e2 Nd7 {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. Nf4 Bh7 9. Bc4 Nf6 10. Qe2 Bd6 11. Be3 Nbd7 12. Ngh5 Nxh5 13. Nxh5 Rg8 {with equality. The game was eventually drawn. Tal-Botvinnik, 5th game.}) 7. h4 (7. Nf4 {allows black easy equality after} e5 8. Nxg6 hxg6 9. dxe5 {and black can play either 9...Nxe5 or 9...Qa5+ and 10...Qxe5+}) 7... h6 8. Nf4 Bh7 9. Bc4 (9. Bd3 {This would diminish some of the value of the break ...e5, but black continue as usual with ...e6, ...Ngf6, etc} Bxd3 10. Qxd3 e6 11. Bd2 Ngf6 { 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 Ngf6 11. O-O Nb6 12. Bb3 Nbd5 13. Nxd5 Nxd5 { is equal. Mamedov,R (2667)-Kovchan,A (2563) Aix-les-Bains FRA 2011}) (9... Ngf6 {is favorable to white.} 10. O-O e6 {Had they reached this position Tal thought the sacrifice on e6 would decide the game.} (10... Nb6 {is safer, but not quite satisfactory.} 11. Bb3 a5 12. a3 a4 13. Ba2 e6 14. Re1 {White has the better prospects. Sedina,E (2320)-Zelcic,R (2460) Turin 1994}) 11. Nxe6 fxe6 12. Re1 Bg8 13. Bxe6 Bxe6 14. Rxe6+ Kf7 15. Qe2 {Actually, here the position is equal, but it's the kind Tal liked and Botvinnik disdained.}) 10. Qe2 {Tal was already thinking about the ending and believed he would have a slight advantage in it.} (10. Nd3 {is an interesting possibility suggested by Tal.} exd4 11. O-O Qxh4 12. Re1+ Be7 13. Qf3 Ngf6 14. Bf4 Nb6 15. Bd6 O-O { A most interesting position. White is slightly better after 16.Bxe7} 16. Bxf7+ {This is not quite correct.} (16. Bxe7 Nxc4 17. Bxf8 Rxf8 {and white has a R vs B+2Ps}) 16... Rxf7 17. Rxe7 Rxe7 18. Bxe7 Nbd5 19. Re1 {and black is better. }) 10... Qe7 11. dxe5 Qxe5 12. Be3 Bc5 13. Bxc5 Qxe2+ 14. Kxe2 Nxc5 15. Rhe1 Nf6 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. Kf1+ Kf8 17. b4 Nce4 18. Nxe4 Bxe4 19. Bd3 Bxd3+ 20. Nxd3 g5 21. Re5 gxh4 22. Rae1 Re8 23. Rxe8+ Nxe8 {Draw agreed. Mikhail Tal-Georgy Ilivitsky Riga 1955}) 16... Ncd7 17. Kf1+ Kf8 18. Bb3 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. Nh3 Rg8 21. Red1 {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.} Rxa5 23. Rd6 Ke7 24. Rad1 Re5 {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. Nh5 {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} Bg6 {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... Bf5 {This results in a sharp position after} 26. Nxf6 Nxf6 27. Nxg5 Rxg5 28. f4 {with equal chances.}) (25... Rg6 {is tamer and white has a number of options. One is} 26. Nxf6 Nxf6 27. R6d2 (27. Nxg5 {doesn't work.} Rexg5 {with a decisve advantage.}) 27... g4 28. Nf4 Rh6 29. Kg1 Bf5 {Here, too, the chances are even.}) 26. Rxd7+ {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. Nxf6 {is the safer course...too wimpy for Tal.} Nxf6 27. f3 Bf5 28. Nxg5 Rxg5 29. f4 Ne4 (29... Bg4 {is also playable.} 30. fxg5 Ne8 31. R6d4 Bxd1 32. Rxd1 Rxg5) 30. fxe5 Nxd6 31. exd6+ Kd7) 26... Nxd7 27. Rxd7+ Kxd7 {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. Nf6+ {[%mdl 32]} Kd6 29. Nxg8 {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.} Rc5 30. Nh6 f6 (30... Bxc2 {would be a mistake because after} 31. Nxf7+ (31. Bxc2 Rxc2 {and the outcome is not clear.}) 31... Ke7 32. Nfxg5 {and the two passed Ps are likely more than the R cn handle.}) 31. Ng4 {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.} Bxc2 {Eliminating as many Ps as possible is the best way of putting up resistance.} 32. Nxf6 Bxb3 33. axb3 {And now Ne4+ would win.} (33. Ne4+ {is tempting, but it doesn't lead to anything.} Kd5 34. Nxc5 Bc4+ 35. Ke1 Kxc5 36. Nxg5 Bxa2 {draws. For example. ..} 37. Kd2 b5 38. g4 Kd5 39. f4 Bb1 40. Kc1 Bg6 41. Nf3 Ke4 42. Ne5 Be8 43. Kc2 Kxf4 44. Nd3+ Kxg4 45. Kc3 Kf5 46. Kd4 Ke6 47. Kc5 Kd7 48. Nb4 Kc7 49. Na6+ Kb7 50. Nb4 Bd7 51. Nc2 Ka6 52. Nb4+ Ka5 53. Na2 Bf5 54. Nb4 Be4 55. Na2 Ka6 56. Nb4+ Kb7 57. Na2 Ka7 58. Nb4 Bd5 59. Nc2 Ka6 60. Nb4+ Ka5 61. Nc2 Ka4 62. Nb4 Be4 63. Na2 Kb3 64. Nb4 Ka3 65. Na6 Kb3 66. Nb8 Bg2 67. Na6 {black can make no progress.}) 33... Rb5 {Well played! The the fact that white can't defend his Q-side Ps looks ominous!} 34. Nxg5 {Now white's Ns are now excellently placed to escort the Ps.} Rxb3 {[%mdl 8192] 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... Rxg5 {loses quickly after} 35. Ne4+ Kd5 36. Nxg5) (34... Ke5 {The K.s presence on the K-side is absolutely vital for the defense.} 35. Nfe4 Rxb3 {Five Shootouts from this position were drawn.} ) 35. f4 {Thanks to the absence of black's K this P practically marches through.} Rb1+ {Although it matters little because black is lost, this aids white by enabling him to activate his K.} (35... Rb5 {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. Nfe4+ Ke7 37. g4 c5 38. f5 c4 39. f6+ Kf8 40. Nh7+ Kg8 41. f7+ Kxf7 42. Nd6+ Kg6 43. Nxb5 Kxh7 44. Kf2 Kg6 45. Kf3 Kg5 46. Kg3 b6 47. Nc3 Kg6 48. Kf4 Kf6 49. g5+ Kg6 50. Kg4 Kg7 51. Kf5 Kf7 52. g6+ Kg7 53. Kg5 Kf8 54. Kf6 Kg8 55. g7 {and it's a mate in 4.} Kh7 56. Nd5 (56. Kf7 Kh6 57. g8=Q) 56... c3 57. Ne7 c2 58. g8=Q+) 36. Ke2 Rb2+ 37. Kf3 Rb3+ 38. Kg4 Rb2 39. g3 b5 {Black advances this P because it's the more distant one.} 40. Nfe4+ Kd5 41. f5 b4 42. f6 Ra2 43. f7 Ra8 44. Nh7 {A nice finishing touch.} b3 (44... Kxe4 {At first glance, this seems to win, but that's not the case.} 45. Nf6+ Ke3 46. Ne8 {and the f-Pawn queens.}) 45. Nd2 b2 46. Kf3 {This is the only move that wins!} (46. f8=Q Rxf8 47. Nxf8 Kd4 { Watch this...} 48. Kf5 Kd3 49. Nb1 Kc2 {White has to take the draw with 50. Na3+ so as to keep b1 covered.} 50. Na3+ Kb3 (50... Kc1 {loses} 51. Nd7 { and black has no way of avoiding the loss.}) 51. Nb1 {etc.}) (46. Kf5 {This doesn't work either.} Kd4 47. Nb1 (47. g4 {loses} Kd3 48. Nb1 Kc2 49. f8=Q Rxf8+ 50. Nxf8 Kxb1 {and the P queens}) 47... Kd3 48. f8=Q Rxf8+ 49. Nxf8 Kc2 50. Na3+) 46... Kd4 47. Ke2 {White's K guarding the N makes all the difference. } c5 48. f8=Q Rxf8 49. Nxf8 c4 {Black's Ps are nothing more than a harmless demonstration.} 50. Ne6+ Kd5 51. Nf4+ Kd4 52. Nb1 {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. Nb1 Ke4 (52... Ke5 53. Kf3) 53. Kf2 Kf5 54. Kf3) 1-0