Jun-04-04
 |
| Gypsy: Botvinnik missed a fine finnish here: 23.Nd4!! immediately wins. Black is too weak on the 7-th and 8-th rows. I. 23...cxd4 24.Bd5+ Kh8 25.Re7 Nxe7 26.Rxe7 Qd1+ (26...g5 27.Be4) 27.Kg2 Qh5 28.Rxh7# II. 23...cxd4 24.Bd5+ Rxd5 26.Re8! 1:0
III. 23...cxd4 24.Bd5+ Rf7 26.Re8+ 1:0
IV. 23...Nxd4 24.Bd5+ Rxd5 25.Re7 1:0
V. 23...Nxd4 24.Bd5+ Kh8 25.Re7 1:0 |
 |
| Jun-04-04 |
| Owl: Ya thats is true Gypse.
At move 30, looking at Smyslov positions and being one pawn ahead and lossing this game. It comes as a shock to me. He totally messes up here. |
|
Jun-05-04
|
| Gypsy: In 1958, Smyslov was forced to play most of the match with flu. That may explain his dreadful peformance here. You are right, around move 30, Botvinnik had only partial compensation for his pawn deficit. Smyslov declined repetition of moves right before the time control. For this, he returned his extra pawn. And then Smyslov started droping pawns left and right.... |
|
| Jan-15-05 |
| chessiscool: What about 23.Nh4? threat-Be4-xg6 |
|
| Jan-15-05 |
| PivotalAnorak: Yes, it is well known that Botvinnik missed 23.  d4, and also that, in the actual game continuation, Smyslov missed 26...  d2 with unavoidable mate (if 26... d2 27.  e6+ f7 28. xf7+  xf7 and White gets mated). |
|
| May-09-06 |
| CHEG: Rd2 is still tricky.
If
26...Rd2 27 Be6+ Kg7 28 Qxe5+ Rf6 29 R3e2 and no threat of checkmate? However
26...Rd2 27 Be6+ Rf7 28 R3e2 Rxe2 29 Qd8+ Kg8 30 Bd6 blocking mate but giving up too much material for a win (Qd2) |
|
May-09-06
 |
| Pawn and Two: In "Soviet Chess" by R.G. Wade, after White's 26th move, it states: < Now Smyslov stared at the position for eight minutes before going 26...Rde8, which should have been good enough for at least a draw, Botvinnik had been prepared to resign if Smyslov had played 26...Rd2!.> |
|
May-10-06
 |
| pawn to QB4: Another desperately bad mistake from Smyslov: I almost think Wade shouldn't allow himself a ! for 26...Rd2, because it's staring at anyone with a 1000 rating. Maybe a slightly better player doesn't play it because of 27. Be6+, but way below Smyslov level we spot that doesn't work, in much less than 8 minutes. Compare Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958, 28.Ne5?? for another howler that helped Botvinnik overturn all predictions - and there'd been many years of common sense that Smyslov was Botvinnik's natural successor and would enjoy as long a reign. The ending too, coming from the greatest endgame player of the time, suggests VVS came in with plague rather than 'flu. Strange that these mistakes have received less publicity and sympathy than those Bronstein made in '51: maybe we feel sorrier for DIB, but I'd have thought VVS had a stronger claim to have been a better player than Botvinnik. |
|
May-10-06
|
| Pawn and Two: <Gypsy> I agree 23.Nd4! is a winning move. However, your variation IV, 23.Nd4 Nxd4 24. Bd5+? Rxd5 25.Re7 allows Black to keep an almost equal position with 25...Ne2+. Fritz 9 evaluation (.05) (19 ply) with an indicated continuation of: 26.Kg2 Rf7 27.Re7xe2 Qxe2 28.Rxe2 Bc6. Instead, 23.Nd4 Nxd4 24.Re7 is immediately winning for White. |
|
Aug-08-10
 |
| Peligroso Patzer: <Gypsy: In 1958, Smyslov was forced to play most of the match with flu. That may explain his dreadful peformance here. *** > I was not aware of that. Smyslov's play certainly was disappointing in this match. He lost rather decisively despite gift points from Botvinnik in games #5 (Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958) and #15 (Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958). I originally looked up this game to point out the win Botvinnik missed (both during the game and in his notes) with 23. Nd4!!, but you were six years ahead of me, <Gypsy>. (See first comment in this thread.) |
|
