1.d4 f5.

Alot of people don't know that Botvinnik was an early Dutch fan while he was a junior.

2.nf3 nf6 3.c4 e6 4.nc3 <b6>

This is what I love so much about this game! Botvinnik is willing to challenge Abramovic for the Long-Diagonal pointing at White's KS! He does this before white does. A very agressive move by Botvinnik.

5.Bg5 Be7 <6.e3>

White shows signs of giving up on the KS finachetto. One thing is for sure is that if White does no KS finachetto in the Dutch, he is inviting a direct attack on his KS by Black, especially no that Botvinnik has taken control of the line.

6..Bb7 7.Bd3 0-0 8.0-0 <ne4>

A natural move in the Dutch. I think here an exchange defently weakens White's position. IE-8.Bxe4 and now White can no longer challenge the Black QS Bishop which is looking powerful. Note White can't exchange 8.Nxe4 or the Bishop and knight are then forked after 8..fxe4.

9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.<Rc1>

Trying to avoid doubled pawns.

<10..na6>

10..d6 was once reccomended by one master whose name I forget, following up on the classical sytem. The 12..nd7. However this move looks fine. Black is looking at b4 which white must defend.

11.a3 <Rf6>

The beauty of Botvinniks thinking: If the f-file can't be opened, I'll move to the G-file! This is a strong move as it ready's black's rook for a possible KS attack.

<12.Qa4?>

White has invited a KS attack. Leaving the knight on f6 to be guarded by the G pawn was not such a good idea, especially with Black's rook on f6 and soon coming to g6 which will prove fatal. If you take a look at the position, White's KS is looking a bit lonely. Better perhaps was 12.Bxe4 fxe4 13.nd2, although that could lead to the same problem. 12.b5 may have been good. Or 12.ne2.

12..nxc3 13.Rxc3 Bxf3 <14.Qxa6>

Obviously trying to save the KS from disaster. If white thinks 14.gxf3 perusing blacks QS, ie-nb8 Qa6, think again: 14..rg6+ 15.Kh1 Now black has to move the Na6 right? 15..Qg5! and mate next move. All a result of 12.Qa4

14..rg6 15.g3 <Qg5!>

Good use of the pin. White is dead.

<16.re1>

thinking the obvious 16..Qh3 17.Bf1 But Botvinnik has a sneaky alternative:

<16..Qh5>

Botvinnik could have finished it there, but even though he didn't, there was no way for White to avoid it.

17.e4

and the finaly:

<17..Qxh2+!>

Now 18.Kxh2 losses to 18.Rh6+ 19.Kg1 and 19..Rh1#MATE

Well played by Botvinnik, other then move 16.

To me this game shows what can happen if White does not Finachetto KS against the Dutch, as it gives Black a direct assault.

This is one of my first full game anaylisis' here on www.chessgames.com, so go easy on me.:-)

There you have it.

Analysis, if it is really carried out with a complete concentration of his powers, forms and completes a chess player. – Lev Polugayevsky

It is useful to publish your individual analytical work. Then you are subject to objective criticism. – Mikhail Botvinnik

If you can’t take (constructive) criticism, consider taking up another game, perhaps solitaire. – Jeremy Silman

and of course Botvinnik had MUCH more to say on analysis...

It is vital to check one's analyses thoroughly, including those that have already been published. To broaden one's chess outlook it is useful to study the available game-collections of the leading chess players. To improve one's accuracy of calculation, one should solve endgame studies and analyze games abounding in tactical ideas. – Mikhail Botvinnik

I will try not to repeat what has already been said.

<4.Nc3> Better to play <4.g3 Bb4 5.Bd2 Be7 ⩲/=> Stahlberg vs Alekhine, 1936

<8...Ne4> This move seems to lead to a small advantage for White. Suggestion to further develop other pieces before playing this knight again: <8...Na6! 9.a3 c5!=> Manuel Soto Larrea - Agustin Freyria, Mexico Championship 1926 in Mexico City, round 5, 0-1.

<9.Bxe7> Here, another interesting line is <9.Bxe4 Bxe4! 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Nxe4 fxe4 12.Nd2 d5 13.Rc1 ⩲> transposing in the game Vincent Heinis - W. Müller (2325), Baden-Baden Open (Germany) 1993, round 7, draw.

<9...Qxe7> Botvinnik probably also considered the queen trade <9...Nxc3! 10.Bxd8 Nxd1 11.Be7 Nxb2 12.Bxf8 Nxd3 13.Ba3! Ba6! 14.c5 Nc6=/ ⩲>. Also in this variation, instead of 11.Be7, there is <11.Rfxd1 Bxf3> (or 11...Rxd8 12.Rac1=/ ⩲) <12.gxf3 Rxd8=/ ⩲>. All variations validated with Stockfish 8 - 64 bits POPCNT.

<10.Rc1?! Na6=> This apparently reasonable move gives Black complete equality. The only way for White to retain a small advantage here is to trade the knight <10.Bxe4! Bxe4! 11.Nxe4 fxe4 etc.> transposing in the variation given at move 9 above.

<11...Rf6?!> Despite the game result, this move is not the best. Better are:

A- <11...c5 12.Nb5 Rf6> (or 12...Rfc8 13.d5!? exd5 14.cxd5 d6!= but not 14...Bxd5?! 15.Nxa7! ⩲) <13.Nd2!=>;

B- <11...Nxc3 12.Rxc3> (or 12.bxc3 Rae8=) <c5!=>. All lines validated with Stockfish 8 - 64 bits POPCNT.

<12.Qa4?? Nxc3▢-+> This is the culprit, the losing move! White has a small advantage after <12.b4! Nxc3> (or 12...c5 13.bxc5! Nxc3! 14.Rxc3 transposing) <13.Rxc3 c5! 14.bxc5! bxc5 15.d5 ⩲> Stockfish 8 - 64 bits POPCNT.

<13.Rxc3?!> The lesser evil was <13.bxc3 Bxf3▢ 14.gxf3 Rg6+▢ 15.Kh1 Qh4▢ 16.Rg1 Qxf2-+> Stockfish 8 - 64 bits POPCNT.

<14.Qxa6> Lesser evil: 14.Rfc1 Rg6 15.g3 Nb8-+. After 14.Qxa6, White could have announced a mate in 8 moves!