<Botvinnik played the whole of this game with youthful energy. What was characteristic was the following: prior to the return match I had never before adopted this system, and it could have been expected to have some surprise value, since in our preparation the possibility of the Saemisch Variation had been taken into account. However, White's tenth and eleventh moves (undoubtedly planned beforehand by Botvinnik) showed that my opponent had studied not only everything that thad already occurred, but everything that might occur.>

I've never seen any game with this hyper-aggressive variant of the Nimzo-Indian for White.

No finesse here,just raw power.

Brutal game.

Botvinnik was one of the greatest players of all time, and his career accomplishments exceed Tal's and most other world champions. Hate him all you want, but there was no one who ever played chess that Botvinnik <couldn't hold a candle to.>

"He was ill, you say? But he was ill all his life. And what in fact happened? Romanov called me to say that the match was to be postponed - Tal was ill. Is there an official doctor's statement? What doctor's statement? He says, he is ill. 'But there is a rule', I said, 'there must be a certificate'. We began shouting at each other. In the evening Romanov phoned me to say that the match was on. He had called Tal in Riga, to say that he should be officially examined, and Tal had refused. 'In general, after their matches with me, Bronstein, Smyslov and Tal no longer showed their former strength. I am to blame for this, since it was I who unclosed them, and then everyone understood how to play against them."

Tal, also, did himself no favors. Everyone says he had poor health, but he also is reported to have smoked and drank heavily. Seems he could be implicated in his own health. I find it remarkable that many chalk Tal's health to "bad luck," when humans time and again have proven to make their own.

Finally Botvinnik never had to win a match to become champion. At least Karpov had to defeat Korchnoi over 24 games in '74.

<Finally Botvinnik never had to win a match to become champion.> I am interested in the numerous observations about this that I have read. Botvinnik for some reason was a poor match player. He lost more matches against top players than he won, and lost more games in those matches than he won. In spite of his marvelous tournament performances in the 1940s that bespeak of his greatness as a chessplayer, there is reason to believe that had the World Championship Event in 1948 been a series of matches, Botvinnik would have been in real trouble.

Qd7 is fine. I think you've got it right, Tal figured it was best to keep the queens on vs. Botvinnik.

It seems to have been a combination of both. Apparently Tal’s health was a matter of concern for his family when he was still a child and there was a lot of hovering, maybe too much. The smoking and drinking didn’t help, of course. It’s possible Tal came to the conclusion early on that he wasn’t going to make old bones no matter what he did and decided to enjoy his vices while he could.

To the point, many would consider smoking and drinking as NOT the thing to do when someone has organ issues. This was Tal's choice, and this can serve as a lesson and/or as an object of pity. I find it interesting that many do the latter with no indication of Tal's own role in it.

From 1941 through 1948 he dominated chess the way Lasker did in the late 1890s or Alekhine did in the early 1930s -- he won every event he played in, generally by large margins, and had a plus score against almost every leading master he faced. Generally between 1945 and 1948 chessmetrics rates him 80-110 points higher than anyone else, which is the kind of lead Capablanca had in 1921 and just shy of the lead Fischer had in 1971. It just so happened that he played no set matches in those years. But I see no reason why Botvinnik's dominance would not have been expressed as clearly in matches as it was in tournaments. Indeed two of his greatest successes (the Absolute Championship in 1941 and the world championship in 1948) were match-tournaments.

Match strength for Botvinnik before '51 is mere speculation. From '51-'63, only the favorable system saved him from embarrassment.

And what is this "embarrassment" you speak of? Without the rematch clause Botvinnik would have been dethroned in 1957 by Smyslov (though he possibly could have been thrown into a three-way match tournament in the early 1950s -- see some old Petrosianic posts for details). He would have lost the title in his late 40s after nine years. Many a GM would love to be "embarrassed" in that fashion. I wouldn't count him out in subsequent Candidates events, either, if he chose to participate.

One point you did get right is that he would not be embarassed for long. He would have left the scene after two draws and a loss in his only three matches as WC, thus confirming that, at least in his later years, he showed no superority in match play.

This general discussion about the players, while interesting, would be more appropriate for the match page Tal-Botvinnik World Championship Return Match (1961) or the Botvinnik page Mikhail Botvinnik.