It was Evans' contention that even though the Soviet style was "dynamic, experimental and abounding in a wealth of new ideas" the sole reason for their superiority was that they were subsidized by the government. He quoted Reuben Fine's opinion that Soviet chess was based more on counteratttack than attack which, according to psychologist Fine, was a mirror of life in Russia where individual initiative was held to a minimum.
According to Evans, the only true attacking players were Bronstien and Geller, while Keres, after becoming one of the Russians as a result of WWII, had gradually grown subdued and his games had lost their brilliant aura. Botvinnik and Smyslov were deep strategists and Petrosian and Flohr were just drawing masters. The only really dynamic players were Taimanov, Spassky and Korchnoi.
When it came to the Soviet Championship of 1955, Evans opined that one would expect the quality of the games to be high and he had to admit that on the whole they were. He also made the observation that the players were so close in ability that it wasn't a surprise when one the tailenders took an occasional point from the leaders, but that was not the case in US chess where the gap was so wide that such an occurrence would be labeled an upset.
Evans bellyached about how he was sick and tired of know-nothings raving about the quality of Soviet chess while downgrading the ability of western players. He wrote that while playing over the games from the 1955 Soviet championship he was struck by a high percentage of blunders. At the same time he admitted that on the whole the Russians committed fewer blunders than other top players.
With great glee Evans proceeded to present several positions where their leading masters committed blunders just so he could "puncture the myth of their invincibility."
In an effort to prove his point that Soviet players weren't all that superior to western players he stated that while the USCF had about 5,000 members, the Soviet Union had 100,000 players of which 18 were GMs...twenty times the players, but only 3 or 4 times the number of GMs that the US had.
I think there was a lot wrong with Evan's arguments. The Soviet players proved their superiority after WWII by drubbing every country they played in team matches and they were highly successful in international tournaments.
There wasn't any international rating lists in those days, but the Chessmetrics rating list for December 1955 shows the top ten players to be Smyslov, Keres, Botvinnik, Bronstein, Petrosian, Taimanov, Reshevsky, Geller, Korchnoi and Ivkov...8 Soviet players. Out of the remaining players rounding out the top 25, five were Soviets. It seems like the Russians really did dominate.
As for Keres' play losing its luster, after WWII when he became a Soviet player and started participating in their tournaments he began meeting much stronger opposition which would, naturally, cut down on his ability to inflict flashy, crushing defeats.
Finally, one reason the Soviets had "only" 18 GMs was that so few of their players were allowed to play abroad in international tournaments. Statistically only 1 percent (I think it is) of chess players become masters and so with 100,000 players the Soviet Union probably had 1,000 master strength players, many of whom were, no doubt, of GM strength even if they did not officially have the title. For an additional list of "Larry Evans’ innumerable
gaffes and scurrilities" I refer you to Edward Winter's collection HERE.
That USSR Championship of 1955 that Evans wrote about was held in Moscow from February 11 through March 15 and it was one of the strongest with four world champions and nine Soviet champions among the 20 players. It was also Botvinnik's last appearance in a Soviet championship.
Additionally, it was a Zonal to select representatives for the 1955 Gothenburg Interzonal.
Geller got off to a good start and stayed near the top while Botvinnik, Smyslov, and Spassky all took the lead at times with Petrosian staying close to the top. Going into the last round Geller had a half-point lead, but lost and allowed Smyslov to catch him. Geller won the playoff.
One of the games that Evans was tickled to use as an example of poor chess by the Russians was the following short game between Yefim Geller and Vladas Mikenas.
Analyzing the game at the critical point (after 11.Qb5) with Stockfish and Komodo proved to be challenging in itself as the position is quite complicated. In practical play though the onus of proof that white's P sacrifice is unsound seems to be on black and if Shootouts using both engines are any indication, white has the better chances. Ergo, Evans was incorrect in his assessment that white's P sacrifice in the opening was the result of faulty judgment.
Efim Geller - Vladas Mikenas
Result: 1-0
Site: USSR Championship, Moscow
Date: 1955.03.12
Reti Opening
[...] 1.♘f3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.g3 c5 4.♗g2 ♘c6 5.O-O e5 6.d3 ♗e7 7.b4 Apparently this was the P sacrifice that Evans disapproved of. It's interesting that after this move both Stockfish Komodo 12 give black a slight plus. However, in my database this, the second most popular move in this position, shows white winning half the games with the other half evenly split between black wins and draws. Against the most popular 7.e3 it's black who wins half the games! It shows, to use Evans' terms, that Geller was an attacker and the move is dynamic, experimental and abounding in a wealth of new ideas. 7...cxb4 8.a3 bxa3 9.♕a4
12.♘xe5 ♘xe5 Experimenting with a couple of different moves using both Stockfish and Komodo did not yeild anything substantially better for black in this position.
9.♘bd2 ♘f6 10.♕a4 O-O!11.♗xa3 ♖e8 12.♖fb1 with equal chances. Jablonicky,M (2360)-Bokros,A (2465)/ Banska Stiavnica SVK 2018
9...♗d7 10.♗xa3 ♘f6 Black has an active position 11.♕b5 Here Evans stated that he knew of few masters who would exercise such faulty judgment as to deliberately have sacrificed a P to obtain this position, yet it was the kind of thing Geller consistently did and got away with it. It was Evans' opinion that here Mikenas should have put in a little effort in finding a good continuation instead of returning the P in the worst possible way. In my database there are four games with this move, all won by white.
11.♗xe7 ♕xe7 12.♕a3 ♖b8 13.♘bd2 b6 14.♕xe7+ ♔xe7 lead to a draw. Hansen,S (2566)-Firman,N (2531)/Norderstedt GER 2012 (25)
11...O-O This got a ? from Evans. He claimed that it was in the art of elementary defense that the Soviet players were the most deficient. Komodo 12 puts white's advantage at just above the normal half a P, but subsequent play seems to indicate that Evans was correct in stating that it was not the best move.
11...♗xa3 was recommended by Harry Golombek (and Komodo 12) and it actually seem to be black's best choice. 12.♘xa3 ♕e7
12...♕c7 gets refuted by 13.♕c5 Threatening the devastating Nb5 and Nd6.
13.♕xb7 O-O with equality. 11...♕c7 This was the right move according to Evans because there was no reason for black to return the P. This was typical of Evans who would snatch a P whenever he could and then hang on for dear life. 12.♗xe7 and Evans adds that there is no way to prevent black for consolidating his material advantage with ...Rhb8, ...Kf8-b8 12...♔xe7 13.♘a3 a6
13...♖hb8 14.♕c5+ and Evans' idea is stymied leaving white with much the better of it.
14.♕c5+ and here, too, black can't castle by hand. After 14...♕d6 15.♕b6 ♖hc8 16.c5 (16.♕xb7 ♖cb8 traps the Q.) 16...♕c7 17.♘c4 ♗e6 18.♘d6 ♕xb6 19.♘xc8+ ♖xc8 20.cxb6 ♘d5 things looked unclear to me, but in Shootouts Stockfish scored +4 -0 =3 for white. 12...a6 This was Komodo's suggestion which does not seem to work out well either. 13.♕xb7 ♘xe5 14.♕xa8 ♕xa8 15.♗xa8 ♗xa3 16.♘xa3 ♖xa8 with an advantage for white. In shootouts Stockfish scored +4 -0 =3 and Komodo +2 -0 =5.
13.♕xe5 ♗xa3 14.♖xa3
14.♘xa3 Seems better. After 14...♗c6 15.♘b5 ♗xg2 16.♔xg2 a6 17.♘xd4 ♖e8 18.♕f4 Positionally white has the better of it...he has an ectra P and one P island while black has two islands and the Q-side island in immobilized and subject to attack.
14...♗c6 15.♗xc6 bxc6 16.♖e1 ♕b6 17.♘d2 ♕b4 18.♕a5 ♕d6 19.♖b3
19.♘b3 is a promising alternative. 19...♖fb8 20.♕c5 ♕xc5 21.♘xc5 ♖b2 22.♖a6
19...♖fe8 20.♖b7 ♖e5 21.♕c7 ♕e6 22.♘f3 ♖h5 23.♘xd4 ♕e8 24.♖eb1 Bound hand and foot Mikenas resigned. Powered by Aquarium
No comments:
Post a Comment