8...Bb4? was taking the symmetry too far. Botvinnik's recommendation 8...Nd7 remains favored by theory. For a good example of that line, see Valcarcel vs Pomar-Salamanca, 1972

White punishes White's mirror-strategy by playing a move which, due to tactical considerations, cannot be mimicked. After 9.Ne5! you can see quickly that 9...Ne4? is impossible, thus Black must seek alternate methods of addressing the threat. The books say that after 9.Ne5 Black is forced to make at least a small concession, and if that's true we may assume that Black should have broken the symmetry earlier.

Pomar tried to improve upon Tal's play in this line here Botvinnik vs Pomar-Salamanca, 1966 with 12...Rc8 but after 13.c4! Botvinnik put Pomar into a horrible bind.

Why would you make that assumption? Doesnt black always have to make a small concession? In nearly every good line we see the annotator comment, that "it is somewhat cramped but black has done well considering he is black", etc.

The only question is how much of a concession is too much? To say that black has made a small concession is nothing, really. After all you just got done saying that black cannot continue the symmetry forever.

In retrospect I was too mealy mouthed when I wrote "Black must make a small concession." Perhaps more to the point: Black must degrade his position to the point where he seriously risks losing the game. I'm not enough of a theorist to defend that position--but if this game is a good example then it might very well be the case.

<It doesnt seem that Tal is doing to bad> He rarely does "bad" !! I wouldn't be surprised if it can be shown that he missed a draw somewhere in this game, but the point is that White got a very superior position due to Black's over-indulgence in mirror-moves.

Sneaky I dont think you are being "fair" to black in this case. After all it was black that attempted to break the symmetry with his first two moves.

<In the eleventh game came the opposite extreme. It is difficult to explain by anything but demoralisation my decision to play the Slav Defense, for almost the first time in my life, almost imploring my opponent to exchange on d5 and, with a lead of three points, let me off with a draw. Botvinnik fulfilled the first part of this program, but for some reason he considered his lead to be insufficient, and he adopted a continuation for White which he had prepared some 15 years before our game. Black was unable to find the correct rejoinder, and soon after the opening the game transposed into an ending highly favorable for White.>

Here's a game from the man himself and there was plenty of action.

Chess Trivia No. 327.

'Significant Moments in World History that have affected Chess.

This game was played on same day as Yuri Gagarin's first manned flight into space.

Harry Golombek relates in his book on the Fischer-Spassky match (an excellent book BTW) that a later game in the Botvinnik-Tal match started 10 minutes late because he and fellow arbiter Gideon Stahlberg were held up in traffic due to the crowds flocking to see a Gagarin celebration parade in Moscow.

Apparently this was the first time that a World Title Match had ever failed to start on time.

(next lull in the conversation when out with your new girlfriend drop this pearl in her lap. She will find you irresistible.)

------

Chess Trivia No. 328. (staying with Harry Golombek)

In Reinfeld's 'The Treasury of Chess Lore.' we read:

'Recollections of Alekhine’ by Harry Golombek.'

" I was the editor of the book Alekhine wrote on his return match against Dr Euwe in 1937. He sent me the manuscript by airmail from South America, but an accident happened to the mail and the manuscript eventually reached me with six sheets missing.

The publishers were anxious to send the copy to press as soon as possible so as not to lose the topical value of the book, and Alekhine was on tour in South America with no fixed address.

Had I written to him for the missing annotations it might be anything up to six months before I heard from him.

So I set to, and, imitating his style as best I could, annotated a game and a half myself. Alekhine never discovered what had happened and in fact reproduced my notes as his own in his second collection of games, My Best Games of Chess.

Needless to say, I am quite proud of this assimilation of my work with Alekhine’s and, looking back now, it is clear to me that I learned a great deal when editing the match book in question."

Hmmmm.......

Harry was quite the master at losing manuscripts. He first wrote his book on <Reti> in 1944, while fighting in WW2, only to see it completely destroyed by enemy fire. It would be another 10 years before he finally got round to writing it again from scratch!

Okay, a little out of place here, but mention of Reti has in turn reminded me of a brilliant passage in Tartakower's book, recounted by Harry in his Reti appreciation article of 1982;

The Reti story I like is about him being very absent minded and was always leaving his briefcase behind.