|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
Boris Spassky: Master of Initiative Reviewed by Michael Jeffreys
“I
was probably the best in chess for about 6 years - sometime before 1965 and
1971.” Previously here at Chessville I have reviewed two other Everyman Chess books in “The Masters” series:
I looked up this game in Mega Base 2007, as I had to see how a young Spassky toppled the mighty Smyslov. The game began as a Nimzo-Indian, and here is the position after move thirty; Smyslov has just played bishop on e4 captures pawn on g2:
Spassky-Smyslov, Bucharest, 1953 Here, Junior 10.1 suggests the natural 31.Nxg2, with a +/- 1.27 advantage for White. However, Spassky came up with the very imaginative (and deep) 31. Nf5! The funny thing is that at first Junior only gives this move a .87, however the longer you let Junior think the more it likes Spassky’s move until it eventually lands at 1.27! Here are the final moves of the game along with Ftacnik’s notes: 31.Nf5! Rfe8 [31...g6 32.Re3 (32.Rh4!? …33.Dh6 32...gxf5 33.Rh6! f6 34.exf6‚ +-) 32...Rfe8 33.Ne7+ Kg7 34.Rf6 …35.Tg3] 32.Re3 Rad8? [32...g6] 33.Nxg7! Rxd6 [33...Kxg7 34.Rg3+ Kf8 35.Rxf7+ Kxf7 (35...Qxf7 36.Qh6+ Qg7 37.Qxg7#) ] 34.Nxe6 [34.Nxe6 fxe6 35.Rg3+ Kh7 36.Rh4#] 1–0 Although the bio by Raetsky and Chetverik is only nine pages long, it does an adequate job of giving you the highlights of Spassky’s illustrious career. Chapter Two is called Warming Up and consists of 20 puzzles. Each puzzle has one sentence of commentary, followed by two page numbers (one takes you to a tip and the other takes you to the solution). Here is Puzzle 1: Ivkov-Spassky, Santa Monica 1966
Black to play
I think the title for this section is appropriate, as these are indeed nice puzzles to warm-up with. In the diagram above, this is the kind of tactic you should see pretty quickly, especially in a blitz game. Chapter Three is called Greater depth and it’s exactly that; puzzles more in-depth than the previous chapter. Here is Puzzle 21: Spassky-Fischer, Siegen 1970
White to Play
I should mention that some players aren’t going to like the little comments under the diagrams (such as the one above) arguing that they don’t want any help because in a real game there is no one giving you clues (at least there shouldn’t be!). However, for the most part these comments are pretty banal and lower rated class players might like them as they sort of point you in the right direction without giving away too much. However, the “tips” are often quite generous and if you don’t want a big hint toward solving the puzzle I would recommend not looking at them. Chapter Four is called, It’s Time to Calculate and features puzzles where the solution is much longer and therefore more difficult. Take a look at this position: Somers-Spassky, Antwerp 1955
Black to Play Black has a completely winning position and Spassky again found a classy way to finish. (A long variation, but all forced. Solution at end of review.) Pretty much the rest of the book continues along this line of presenting interesting positions from Spassky’s games and asking you to find the knockout blow. I think the authors have done a nice job of providing both fairly “easy” puzzles for the novice to solve as well as some sections where the answers are quite detailed and would be appropriate for masters on up. By the way, before I wrap up I should mention that I found something strange in Chapter 9, which is titled Missed Opportunities. Raetsky and Chetverik say that this chapter includes positions where one side or the other missed a winning shot. Okay, so far so good. However, the second example they give is from the game J.Polgar-Spassky, Budapest 1993. Here is the diagram they give:
White to Play
And if you turn to the solution you find this: "Spassky has badly mixed up his move order in this Ruy Lopez. The game actually returned to normal lines after 12Nf1? Bb7, but 12Bxf7+! Would have won instantly, since 12…Kxf7 13Ng5+ Kg8 14Ne6 traps Black’s queen." Now, my first thought was that this was a very nice tactic. However, my second thought was A), how could Spassky allow this? And B), if he did, how on earth could Judit Polgar have missed this relatively simple winning shot? (After all, she is one of the greatest tacticians on the planet!) Well, I went back to my Mega Base 2007 and pulled up all 10 games from their 1993 Budapest match. Judit was White in all the even games. Of those five games where she was White, only games 2,8, and 10 have relevance here, as games 4 and 6 followed a completely different move order. And here is the EXACT move order of the Ruy Lopez that games 2,8, and 10 followed: Game 2: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0–0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8 13.Nf1 Game 8: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0–0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8 13.Nf1 Game 10: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0–0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8 13.Nf1 Notice anything? Yep, Spassky did indeed play the correct 11…Bb7 in all three games! Thus, he never “mixed up” the move order and played 11...Re8? as the authors state and so no 12.Bxf7 winning tactic was actually possible! Now, it would be one thing for them to say this position “could have happened” as I’ve seen in other puzzle books, but the premise of this chapter is actual missed shots. What to make of this? Well, considering that the rest of the material that I have looked over seems fine, one could chalk this up to the authors somehow getting a bad game score. (Incorrect game scores are more prevalent than you think, as often in a blitz scramble the “sensory board” can’t keep up and will simply “guess” at what it thinks was played. Occasionally these “incorrect” game scores make their way into databases. However, I don’t think this applies here, as the move in question happens very early in the game.) I guess the lesson here is that it’s a good idea not to take everything any author says as gospel, but instead investigate it yourself to make sure 2 + 2 really does add up to 4! The Bottom Line
One of the things I like about this book is that Raetsky and Chetverik don’t just give you the answers to the puzzles, but often the complete game scores. This allows you to play through the entire game and see exactly how the “knock-out” position came about. Although I came across a few typos (e.g., when discussing Spassky’s rematch against Fischer in 1992, the authors write about Fischer’s IRS troubles by saying, “He refused to play (sic) taxes to the American Treasury…”), overall they were minimal.
Many players of today’s generation aren’t as familiar with Boris Spassky’s
games as perhaps they should be. If you fall into this group, here is
your chance to learn about and study the winning combos from one of the true
legends of our game. On a scale of 1-10, Boris Spassky:
Master of Initiative gets an 8. Solutions to puzzles 1) Ivkov-Spassky, Santa Monica 1966: 1…Qxf4! 0-1 (2.gxf4 Ne3+ and 3…Nxd1)
2) Spassky-Fischer, Siegen 1970: 1.Re8+ Kf7 2. Rf8+ 1-0 (2…Kxf8 [2…Ke6 3.Qe4+ Ne5 4.Qxe5+ Kd7 5.Qe8#] 3.Qh8+ Kf7 4.Nxc7)
3)
Somers-Spassky, Antwerp 1955: 1…Rh4+! 2.Kxh4 [2.Kg2 Qe4+ 3.Kf2 Rf3+
4.Kg2 Rff4#] 2...Qh7+ 3.Kg5 f6+ 4.Kg4 f5+ 5.Kg5 Kg7! 6.Nh2 Qh6+ 7.Kxf5
Qg6# 0–1
|
The
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
In
this review we will look at their latest publication in this series:
Boris Spassky: Master of Initiative. The book is basically a
puzzle book, made up of combos played by the 10th World Champion,
Boris 
Despite
this apparent gaff in the Polgar-Spassky puzzle, I still like this book very
much. Studying the winning tactics and combinations played by a world
champion is without a doubt one of the best ways to improve your game.
Everyman Chess has made it easy for you by collecting some of World Champion
Boris Spassky’s best combos and putting them into one book.
