Botvinnik Quotes
Manuela
You need to consider that Fischer's combinations were generally sound, while
Kasparov was more of a speculative player, who was not against trying things
based only upon "winning chances" and so forth.
In one game, Kasparov sac'd a whole Rook for what appeared to be an attack on
the opponent's King. But the attack was quite vaccuous, and he was just down a
Rook for a couple of spite checks. He won anyway -- after all, it was "only" a
Rook! :-) Another game saw Garry toss out a free pawn, which Karpov merely
snatched-up, and then proceeded to win routinely. Oh well -- it might have
worked, and once again he would be called a genius!
As Fischer rarely played really strong opponents in endgames, this seems to
be based on Fischer's successes in his brief, peak period.
Try to consider that Kasparov faced such giants as Karpov in the endgame,
while Bobby was facing off against players like Taimanov, who couldn't hold a
simple, drawn endgame against Bobby's mother.
I recall that Botvinnik, in his own annotations to their game between each
other, pointed out how Bobby flubbed the endgame and carelessly allowed him to
escape with a draw. He further refuted Fischer's post-game analysis of a
disputed endgame position which could have arisen from that game. Then
Kasparov (the "weak" endgame player) found another refutation of Bobby's
analysis -- though he was just a kid.
Of course, Fischer's strong analytical bias had no ill-effects on his actual
results. On the contrary, it caused him to strive for -- and often achieve --
wins where others would have settled for draws because the position was not
really favorable, though Bobby always thought he stood better.
Against the single piece of "evidence" Botvinnik gave (game 13, 1972 match
vs. Spassky) I would juxtapose their first game from that same match for a
better perspective on Fischer's reputed endgame skill.
In that game, Spassky, having correctly calculated that Fischer cound not
safely take his undefended h-pawn, moved his King toward the center. In reply,
Fischer blundered by taking that h-pawn, which he had failed to see would lead
to his Bishop becomming trapped. Duh!
This theme, of voracious pawn-grabbing, is one which ran throughout Fischer's
career. And here we see an example of the flaw affecting his endgame, though
more often it was the opening phase which suffered.
That said, Fischer was a deservedly legendary technician and feared as
such by the Soviets long before the Spassky match. There are Soviet
quotes about how Fischer "plays like a machine" in technical
positions.To name drop, I just watched Kasparov go over game 13 with the US
women's training team last week. While the early phases aren't much to
brag about, he spoke very highly of the spectacular middlegame and
endgame. Both players showed tremendous resourcefulness.It's worth noting that endgame play over the board will never again be
as strong as it was a decade ago and earlier because of the abolition
of adjournments. Just about every great endgame of the past was
adjourned two or more times and analyzed by at least one player before
each continuation period. That doesn't make them less great to analyze
now, but it makes qualitative comparisons difficult, if not useless. The quality of chess in the exhausted fifth and sixth hours of a
single session is going to be far lower than what you can do 1) after
analyzing all night and 2) coming to the adjournament rested (although
that wasn't always the case). The era of the deep and brilliantly
played endgame is over. It's all in the notes now. You still see great
moves and nice wins in the endgame, but it's more about "brilliant
enough" these days. And with the new FIDE time control you can forget
about anything other than waiting for a blunder.In some ways faster controls and no adjournments make knowing the
endgame well more important than ever. But even the greatest endgame
player can't create over the board what could be done during an
adjournment. Computers were just too much to take though.Saludos, Mig
Moulthun: For myself, this is something I do often but it depends on the position. I will usually consider the best possible continuation (that way I won't be surprised if it's played) as well as some plausible ways both sides could go wrong. I don't know why I do the second one, it's just one of my chess habits.
Ian: I read about the Soviet method of thinking positionally on my opponent's time. Since I understood early that positional chess was a waste of time ? (and in later years gave lectures on that topic), I was happy to walk around while my opponent was thinking and look at other games.
Moulthun: I think this makes sense since you don't want to tire yourself out calculating lines you don't need to. Instead you can just jot down important ideas on their turn instead. If it's a very forcing continuation though you can perhaps consider more concrete lines.
Moulthun: When things don't look critical and my opponent has many plausible options, I may only do a brief scan of tactics and playable ideas. Sometimes, I may just not be at the board altogether. However, if the position is more forceful or critical, you are more likely to find me at the board all the time.
Ian: At the 2018 Batumi Olympiad, Giang Nguyen was threatened with sanctions by the arbiter when she returned from looking at games. She was told that since the Olympiad required players who wanted to use the toilet to tell the arbiter first, she could have been illegally going to the toilet and cheating!
At an Australian Reserves Championship in Sydney in 1975/6, one player took advantage of his opponent's absence to fill in extra moves on both scoresheets, sign them and submit them as a draw by repetition!
Walking around can have its own benefits. At the 1991 Tilburg tournament Kasparov was deep in thought while Kamsky was walking around. Kasparov's wife had just left (via the arbiter) a block of chocolate for Garry at the tea and coffee area, and when Kamsky arrived there he noticed a new treat and started eating the chocolate. Kasparov's wife looked on in distress but could do nothing while Garry's chocolate disappeared. (Incidentally this was the same year that Kamsky accused Kasparov of potentially poisoning his orange juice.)
Ian: Beware. If you walk around you will not notice that you have forgotten to press your clock (or if you have a faulty clock and have pressed it without it starting). You also may not notice your opponent take back a move!
The game has been headed for a draw since the opening, although Moiseenko quite reasonably declined Ghaem's two earlier offers. Here, however, with Ghaem walking around and looking at other contests, the game took a remarkable turn.
After making this move and pressing the clock, Moiseenko calmly unpressed the clock, moved the rook to c5 and pressed the clock again. Ghaem saw nothing but luckily for him a witness, Almira Skripchenko, had seen the whole incident (and been amazed by what she had seen and reported it to an arbiter). Using an original defence, Moiseenko claimed that he had written Rc5 on his scoresheet and that he should be allowed to play this move. Moiseenko's claim was, of course, denied and the game concluded quickly.
Ian: I read about the Soviet method of thinking positionally on my opponent's time. Since I understood early that positional chess was a waste of time \uD83D\uDE42 (and in later years gave lectures on that topic), I was happy to walk around while my opponent was thinking and look at other games.
Thinking more strategically on my opponent's time helps me to conserve energy, as I'm not burning myself out calculating too many variations. Of course all this goes out the window if the position is razor sharp and the price of each move is very high. In such cases, long-term considerations often take a back seat and calculating concrete lines becomes a must. Of course, the depth of the calculation depends on the type of position. But for the vast majority of my games, going down different branches and seeing 3\u20135 moves ahead and then evaluating is sufficient.
2. In Think Like a Grandmaster (1971), Kotov quotes Botvinnik as saying \u201CBasically I do divide my thinking into two parts. When my opponent\u2019s clock is going I discuss general considerations in an internal dialogue with myself. When my own clock is going I analyse concrete variations.\u201D What do you think about this approach?
3. While Botvinnik advocated for analysing hard both during the opponent\u2019s move and your own, Smyslov said \u201CA player must walk about between moves; it helps his thinking.\u201D Do you tend to stay at the board, or walk around? Is it simply a matter of personal preference and what works best for each person, or do you think more players should stay at the board more/walk around more?
c80f0f1006