|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Mar-26-08 |
| M.D. Wilson: I think that's about right. Tal may or may not have been sick. Still, Botvinnik played very strong chess and deserved to win. |
 |
Mar-26-08
 |
| Eyal: <even when he was healthy, we saw Keres beat him 3 out of 4 by playing closed, positional chess.> I would hardly describe 2 of those 3 Keres wins (in the "mini-match" of the 1959 Candidates Tournament) that way. In Keres vs Tal, 1959 (from round 3), Tal played a great combination involving a piece sacrifice (28...Nxe3!) which should have led to a winning position, but he missed the win due to a tactical miscalculation a few moves later (with 35...Rxc1?). And in Tal vs Keres, 1959 (from round 10), Tal played a wild sacrificial game and Keres managed to hold off the attack. The importance of imposing a certain type of game when playing against Tal is demonstrated more clearly in his games with Smyslov, I think. For example, compare Smyslov vs Tal, 1959 (from round 1), where the game develops in a clear and logical way that exactly suits Smyslov, who very smoothly converts his advantage into a win in the endgame - with the famous Tal vs Smyslov, 1959 (from round 8), where Tal completely forces <his> favorite kind of play, and wins by creating tactical chaos on the board. It's not that Tal of that period couldn't play great games in a more "normal" or "quiet" positional style - as game 11 of the 1960 match (Tal vs Botvinnik, 1960) demonstrates; but overall that wasn't his strongest suit, or the thing that gave him the edge over his strongest opponents. |
|
| Mar-26-08 |
| M.D. Wilson: Tal was quite capable of playing positional games. However, it was in his nature to sacrifice, to risk, to get the adrenaline pumping. This type of play worked against much of the chess elite; Korchnoi, Keres and Spassky were some notable exceptions. |
|
Mar-26-08
|
| Eyal: <Korchnoi, Keres and Spassky were some notable exceptions.> As well as Polugaevsky. In his notes on game 3 of the 1960 match (Tal vs Botvinnik, 1960), Botvinnik writes about 15.Qd2: <Tempting Black into the line 15...Bxh4 16.Rxh4 Qxh4 17.Bg5 Qh2 18.Qb4. When you are playing Tal, looking at such lines is just a waste of time. Even if objectively poor, these lines would favor him subjectively.> And Dvoretsky, in an article on this game, comments: <The World Champion's logic is understandable, but not indisputable. Such players as Viktor Korchnoi and Lev Polugaevsky – outstanding calculators themselves – did not believe Tal's calculations, tested them, and sometimes found mistakes, which they then successfully exploited. Not accidentally, both players had terrific plus scores against him.> |
|
| Mar-26-08 |
| M.D. Wilson: Yes, Polugaevsky as well. Polugaevsky's games are well worth looking at. |
|
Mar-26-08
|
| Eyal: Btw, here's an amusing passage from Tal's "Life & Games" about the negotiations for the 1961 re-match: <In particular, the question of where the match was to be held was heatedly discussed. In Riga they very much wanted to see, if not the whole event, then at least half of it. One of the points in the regulations announced by FIDE (in 1960; subsequently I somehow never came across them again) was that the match should take place in the World's Champion home country.Botvinnik, on the other hand, expressed the following point of view: the return match should, as far as possible, be an exact copy of the first match [which was held in Moscow], though of course it was not essential that the result should be the same.> |
|
| Mar-26-08 |
| Petrosianic: <In Keres vs Tal, 1959 (from round 3), Tal played a great combination involving a piece sacrifice (28...Nxe3!) which should have led to a winning position, but he missed the win due to a tactical miscalculation a few moves later (with 35...Rxc1?).> Yeah, I'd forgotten that one. That certainly wasn't positional. |
|
Jun-21-08
 |
| Some call me Tim: <Offramp> That is a great point--Botvinnik had 6 wins by game 11. That is almost Lasker-Janowski level. His play in the rematch was totally different than the original match. Just as he took the rematch clause to his advantage in 1958 (which showed the unfair advantage it gave the Champion who could then be guaranteed a rematch in one year without playing a single game to earn it) he prepared for Tal and figured him out well enough to win this one before they were really out of the gate. Yes Tal was ill but he could have postponed but didn't, and to his credit never used illness as an excuse except obliquely when he pointed out Botvinnik's scurrilous challenge to his claim of ill health. By 1962 Tal was so sick he had to bow out of the candidates' at Curacao part way through. I doubt anyone demanded an examination by a Moscow physician. He explains in his book he needed to have one kidney removed and when that was done he was fine, for a time. Any erratic results in the several years thereafter rode on his playing ability (and perhaps his lifestyle) alone. |
|
Jun-21-08
 |
| euripides: <Tim> small medical point: from what I recall of his book the doctors took his appendix out at Curacao and the kidney trouble, although it may already have started, settled down and was not diagnosed until later. |
|
| Jan-27-09 |
| M.D. Wilson: From my understanding, that was indeed the case. If Tal had Botvinnik's constitution, just imagine the heights he could have climbed. |
|
| Jan-27-09 |
| Paraconti: <M.D. Wilson><If Tal had Botvinnik's constitution, just imagine the heights he could have climbed.> If Tal has Botvinnik's constitution, he would not have been Tal! |
|
| Jan-27-09 |
| M.D. Wilson: I don't think kidney disease helped Tal's chess career. |
|
| Jan-27-09 |
| grkoste: slomarko--
Garbage-disposal is an essential duty on this blog. Nicely done. |
|
| Feb-06-09 |
| M.D. Wilson: <Paul123:> <There is a real difference between match play and tournament play. As evidenced by the latest World Championship (Kramnik vs Topalov). Botvinnik is probably the greatest match player to hold the title. (Kasparov imo probably is the greatest tournament player….)> I regard Karpov as the greatest tournament player of all time. His results speak for themselves. Kasparov (and Karpov for that matter) were far better match players than Botvinnik. Botvinnik, like Fischer, was a great challenger. |
|
Feb-25-09
 |
| WeakSquare: Tal claimed he discovered a refutation of Caro-Kann before this match. What did he have in mind? 3.e5 with 4.h4 ? |
|
Feb-25-09
 |
| talisman: <WeakSquare> Yep. that was it....these too... kamsky vs. topalov and willy loman vs. the world, "what's the annnnswer?"? |
|
Mar-06-09
|
| WeakSquare: <talisman> Why worry about the present when such important things happened in the past? |
|
| Apr-15-09 |
| James Demery: Why was this rematch played so soon after Tal became champion? I seem to recall Tal having health problems ( his heart or kidneys ) Why didn`t Tal get 3 years to recover? Championship history might have been different. |
|
Apr-15-09
 |
| blacksburg: i don't know the specifics, but Tal was never known to be a manipulator of the authorities. guys like Botvinnik, Fischer, etc, knew how to get what they wanted from the organizers. Tal just played. i suspect that if Botvinnik had been in such a condition, he would have found a way to postpone the match. |
|
Apr-15-09
 |
| Open Defence: well, Tal being Tal might have also let his health deteriorate, he wasnt the disciplined nose to the wheel type He seemed first and foremost an artist, his ideas needed to flow and not be carefully prepared He was certainly capable of very high technique but his hall mark was his artistic bent of play so I think in some ways his reign would be like a comet, He demolished the greats over the board but I dont think he was so focussed on titles, if he was he wouldnt be Tal |
|
Apr-15-09
|
| Open Defence: <so please people stop spreading these myths that Botvinnik was a great match player. he was not, not anywhere as good as Kasparov anyway.
> well I think Botvinnik was great at preparing for a known opponent, and of course Kasparov no doubt built on some of Botvinnik's methods the strongest thing about Botvinnik is how he took defeats, many do not like to face their nemeses but Botvinnik seemed to relish the chance for revenge |
|
Apr-15-09
 |
| acirce: <At any event, the sixth world champion [i.e. Botvinnik] showed himself to be virtually the greatest match player in the entire history of chess. After all, in the early 1950s the game was developing in complexity at a furious pace - this was the era of serious qualitative changes, and the new generations were setting Botvinnik problems that he had previously not encountered. He now had to play an 'alien' form of chess. Nevertheless, thanks to his enormous talent, will-power and capacity for work, he was able to adapt, acquire his own place in the renovated game and, while retaining his style, give an adequate reply to the challenges of the times.> -- Kasparov |
|
Apr-15-09
|
| Open Defence: thats another thing I admire about Karpov, he was far from crushed by the loss of his title |
|
| Jun-29-09 |
| Everett: <virtually the greatest match player in the entire history of chess> Typical Kasparov hyperbole, except, in this case, he's plain wrong. Maybe it's because Kasparov doesn't care about getting crushed in initial matches but making good in the do-over, just like his two game hole (once 5 game hole) in 84-85. Of course, Kasparov himself, outside of being an inferior player in '84, is the greatest match player in the history of chess. |
|
| Aug-24-09 |
| kooley782: I like how Botvinnik played this match. Apparently before the match he said he wanted to "keep the struggle of a closed nature, the board split into different sections, the pieces not too mobile." Tal had a completely different perspective on how Botvinnik played this match-he said that Botvinnik played extremely self-disciplined and aggressive, never afraid to go into stormy complications if they seemed to favor his side. I like Tal's description, because that's exactly how I aspire to play one day. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Tal-Botvinnik World Championship Return Match (1961)
