Währung:
Sprache:
Toggle Nav
Tel: (02501) 9288 320

Wir beraten Sie gern!

Wir sind für Sie da

Versandkostenfrei

Innerhalb Deutschlands ab 50 €

Warenkorb Warenkorb
Artikelnummer
RLXBOTWCMBTM1961

Botvinnik - Tal, Moscow 1961 / reduziert

Return Match WCC / Transport-/Lagerschaden
Eigenschaften

128 Seiten, kartoniert, Olms, 1. Auflage 2004

Aus der Reihe »Progress in Chess«

17,95 €
Inkl. 7% MwSt., zzgl. Versandkosten

When Mikhail Botvinnik lost the World Championship in 1960 to the dazzling attacking player from Riga, Mikhail Tal, there seemed little chance of him regaining his title. Yet in the Return Match one year later, with a surprising demonstration of aggressive chess, Botvinnik completely outplayed his young opponent and ran out the easy winner. All 21 games of the match are deeply annotated.

The Botvinnik-Tal Return Match is not I as well known as their first encounter for the world chess crown. Both players acted in the same manner as in their 1960 match. Tal played very riskily, sometimes even recklessly, in accordance with his style. Botvinnik also upheld his conceptions. He played uncompromisingly, but endeavoured to take play into the endgame. I cannot agree with the widely-held opinion that Botvinnik supposedly exchanged the queens and won - at any event, many saw this to be the basis of his victory in the match. Quite often he also outplayed Tal in the middle-game, after which the subsequent endgame would be a matter of technique. Nevertheless, Botvinnik was superior in the endgame, although at times Tal was also successful in the technical stage of the game. Thus he won the 19th game, and in the 2nd encounter he converted an apparently minimal advantage into a win.

It seems to me that in this match Botvinnik and Tal exchanged roles - Botvinnik was in very good form, but this cannot be said about his opponent. Hence the diametrically opposite result of the return match. Whereas in 1960 Tal gained a confident victory, here it was Botvinnik. Whereas in 1960 Tal was able as though to lure his opponent onto his own territory and outplay him, here it was all exactly the opposite. Botvinnik, well trained and in good form, achieved 'his' positions and outplayed Tal.

It was evident that during the intervening year Botvinnik had prepared thoroughly for the return match, whereas during this time Tal had been relaxing more than working. Botvinnik often 'caught' Tal in the opening,

and the latter was no longer able to do anything in the subsequent play. Moreover, at times Botvinnik gained a big advantage even with Black. In the opening stage Tal suffered a fiasco in the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th games. Tal played 4-5 games at his former level, but on the whole he was clearly inferior to Botvinnik, who played simply splendidly. Botvinnik's opening set-ups were very deeply worked out - not even in the sense of any specific moves, but in the general strategic conception: everything was venomous, and well perceived and regulated by him. In the opening Tal frequently employed rather risky experiments, apparently hoping in this way to divert Botvinnik from his preparations. But for the most part this did not happen - Botvinnik also proved to be ready for this possible turn of events. In order to play 'his' chess at that time, Tal needed an enormous amount of energy - to constantly maintain the tension on the board and calculate a mass of variations. And simply physically one senses that the store of energy, that Tal had in 1960, was lacking on this occasion. Generally speaking, it can be said that, whereas in the year between the two matches Botvinnik had obviously improved his play, Tal had at best stood still. And, of course, this told.

Of the games from the match that appeal to me, I should mention in particular the fourteenth. It ended in a draw, but both sides played very resourcefully. Botvinnik conducted the next game excellently. Tal played well in the second and seventeenth games. But practically all the games won by Botvinnik have a distinctive, logical thread from beginning to end.

In general, I would say that Tal endeavoured to play in the endgame, as he did in the middlegame - constantly sharpening the play, seeking tactical features. This indicates a lack of psychological strength. A constant striving for sharpening, for forcing variations, is a bad sign, vividly demonstrating a lack of confidence and strength to play a prolonged game.

From the chess view point it would have been very interesting to see how the return match would have proceeded, had the two players been in equally good form. I am convinced that this would have been an incredible encounter, possible one of the most interesting matches in the entire history of chess - to bring together the Tal of 1960 with the Botvinnik of 1961. Unfortunately, history decreed otherwise.

Vladimir Kramnik

World Champion

When Mikhail Botvinnik lost the World Championship in 1960 to the dazzling attacking player from Riga, Mikhail Tal, there seemed little chance of him regaining his title. Yet in the Return Match one year later, with a surprising demonstration of aggressive chess, Botvinnik completely outplayed his young opponent and ran out the easy winner. All 21 games of the match are deeply annotated.

The Botvinnik-Tal Return Match is not I as well known as their first encounter for the world chess crown. Both players acted in the same manner as in their 1960 match. Tal played very riskily, sometimes even recklessly, in accordance with his style. Botvinnik also upheld his conceptions. He played uncompromisingly, but endeavoured to take play into the endgame. I cannot agree with the widely-held opinion that Botvinnik supposedly exchanged the queens and won - at any event, many saw this to be the basis of his victory in the match. Quite often he also outplayed Tal in the middle-game, after which the subsequent endgame would be a matter of technique. Nevertheless, Botvinnik was superior in the endgame, although at times Tal was also successful in the technical stage of the game. Thus he won the 19th game, and in the 2nd encounter he converted an apparently minimal advantage into a win.

It seems to me that in this match Botvinnik and Tal exchanged roles - Botvinnik was in very good form, but this cannot be said about his opponent. Hence the diametrically opposite result of the return match. Whereas in 1960 Tal gained a confident victory, here it was Botvinnik. Whereas in 1960 Tal was able as though to lure his opponent onto his own territory and outplay him, here it was all exactly the opposite. Botvinnik, well trained and in good form, achieved 'his' positions and outplayed Tal.

It was evident that during the intervening year Botvinnik had prepared thoroughly for the return match, whereas during this time Tal had been relaxing more than working. Botvinnik often 'caught' Tal in the opening,

and the latter was no longer able to do anything in the subsequent play. Moreover, at times Botvinnik gained a big advantage even with Black. In the opening stage Tal suffered a fiasco in the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th games. Tal played 4-5 games at his former level, but on the whole he was clearly inferior to Botvinnik, who played simply splendidly. Botvinnik's opening set-ups were very deeply worked out - not even in the sense of any specific moves, but in the general strategic conception: everything was venomous, and well perceived and regulated by him. In the opening Tal frequently employed rather risky experiments, apparently hoping in this way to divert Botvinnik from his preparations. But for the most part this did not happen - Botvinnik also proved to be ready for this possible turn of events. In order to play 'his' chess at that time, Tal needed an enormous amount of energy - to constantly maintain the tension on the board and calculate a mass of variations. And simply physically one senses that the store of energy, that Tal had in 1960, was lacking on this occasion. Generally speaking, it can be said that, whereas in the year between the two matches Botvinnik had obviously improved his play, Tal had at best stood still. And, of course, this told.

Of the games from the match that appeal to me, I should mention in particular the fourteenth. It ended in a draw, but both sides played very resourcefully. Botvinnik conducted the next game excellently. Tal played well in the second and seventeenth games. But practically all the games won by Botvinnik have a distinctive, logical thread from beginning to end.

In general, I would say that Tal endeavoured to play in the endgame, as he did in the middlegame - constantly sharpening the play, seeking tactical features. This indicates a lack of psychological strength. A constant striving for sharpening, for forcing variations, is a bad sign, vividly demonstrating a lack of confidence and strength to play a prolonged game.

From the chess view point it would have been very interesting to see how the return match would have proceeded, had the two players been in equally good form. I am convinced that this would have been an incredible encounter, possible one of the most interesting matches in the entire history of chess - to bring together the Tal of 1960 with the Botvinnik of 1961. Unfortunately, history decreed otherwise.

Vladimir Kramnik

World Champion

Weitere Informationen
Gewicht 325 g
Hersteller Olms
Breite 16,9 cm
Höhe 23,7 cm
Medium Buch
Erscheinungsjahr 2004
Autor Michail Botwinnik
Reihe Progress in Chess
Sprache Englisch
Auflage 1
Seiten 128
Einband kartoniert

007 Preface by Vladimir Kramnik

009 Botvinnik about Tal

010 From Mikhail Botvinnik's Memoirs

012 Revenge

013 M.Tal (a brief assessment)

014 From the Regulations for the Return Match

015 Match Table

016 Game 1 Botvinnik-Tal (Nimzo-lndian Defence)

018 Game 2 Tal - Botvinnik (Caro-Kann Defence)

020 Game 3 Botvinnik - Tal (Nimzo-lndian Defence)

023 Game 4 Tal - Botvinnik (Caro-Kann Defence)

027 Game 5 Botvinnik - Tal (Nimzo-lndian Defence)

030 Game 6 Tal - Botvinnik (Caro-Kann Defence)

033 Game 7 Botvinnik - Tal (Nimzo-lndian Defence)

036 Game 8 Tal - Botvinnik (Caro-Kann Defence)

039 Game 9 Botvinnik - Tal (English Opening)

043 Game 10 Tal - Botvinnik (Caro-Kann Defence)

045 Game 11 Botvinnik - Tal (Slav Defence)

048 Game 12 Tal - Botvinnik (French Defence)

052 Game 13 Botvinnik - Tal (King's Indian Defence)

055 Game 14 Tal - Botvinnik (Caro-Kann Defence)

059 Game 15 Botvinnik - Tal (King's Indian Defence)

062 Game 16 Tal - Botvinnik (Caro-Kann Defence)

066 Game 17 Botvinnik - Tal (King's Indian Defence)

070 Game 18 Tal - Botvinnik (Caro-Kann Defence)

072 Game 19 Botvinnik - Tal (King's Indian Defence)

076 Game 20 Tal - Botvinnik (Caro-Kann Defence)

082 Game 21 Botvinnik - Tal (King's Indian Defence)

085 Botvinnik's Diary Notes during the First Match with Tal

086 Mikhail Botvinnik's Opening Course

087 First Notebook

103 Second Notebook

119 Press Conference by Mikhail Botvinnik

125 Translator's Notes

Die Edition Olms, längst bekannt für ihre Reprints vergriffener Schachklassiker, hat nun bislang zwei relativ wenig beachtete Weltmeisterschaftskämpfe in ihrer ongoing-Serie herausgebracht, nämlich den Wettkampf 1951 zwischen Botwinnik und Bronstein und den Wettkampf 1961 zwischen Botwinnik und Tal. Beide Wettkämpfe waren lange Zeit komplett weitgehend nur über alte Schachzeitungen oder Antiquariate zugänglich (vom 1951-Kampf gibt es einen Band von H. Müller, vom 1960er-Wettkampf habe ich ein Wettkampfbuch aus der Reihe Weltgeschichte des Schachs, ein solches gibt es meines Wissens auch zum 61er-Wettkampf, außerdem ein Büchlein von H. Stern), während einzelne Partien natürlich in diversen Biographien und Partiensammlungen zu finden waren. 1972 und später 1986 in bearbeiteter Zweitausgabe wurden dann diese Wettkämpfe komplett im Sammelband World Chess Championship von Wade, Whiteley und Keene (Batsford) herausgegeben und in unserem 21. Jahrhundert sind sie in der dreibändigen Fide-Anthology der World Chess Championship Matches abgedruckt. Eigene, leicht erhältliche Bücher über diese Wettkämpfe mit vielen Anmerkungen Botwinniks liegen uns aber nun ja dank der Edition Olms vor.

Nun zur Besprechung des Buches über den Wettkampf 1961, in dem Botwinnik mit 13:8 deutliche Revanche nahm für die im Jahr zuvor erlittene klare 8,5:12,5-Niederlage gegen den jungen Tal. Nebenbei, der Wettkampf 1960 war bislang besser dokumentiert als der 1961er, vor allem durch Tals tolles Wettkampfbuch, das von Hannon W. Russell ins Englische übersetzt 1977 bei RHM Press (New York) erschien.

Der Band beginnt mit einer interessanten Einleitung Vladimir Kramniks, der versucht, mit leichtfertigen Einschätzungen solcher Art wie "Botwinnik musste gegen Tal nur das Endspiel anstreben, um siegreich zu sein" aufzuräumen. In der Tat zeigte Tal in beiden Wettkämpfen auch sehr gute Endspielleistungen. Als Hauptgründe für Tals Niederlage sieht er einmal die schlechtere Vorbereitung, zum anderen die gute Form und Einstellung Botwinniks sowie die schlechte Form Tals. Ein Wettkampf zwischen einem Tal mit der Form von 1960 und einem Botwinnik mit der Form von 1961 wäre sicher ein großartiger gewesen, den jedoch die Geschichte nicht zuließ. Im Übrigen sieht auch Tal selbst ähnliche Gründe für seine Niederlage wie Kramnik, das kann man jedenfalls in Tals Biographie "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal " (RHM Press, New York 1976, S. 176 ff) nachlesen. Außerdem bedauerte Tal, dass der Wettkampf in Moskau und nicht in der Heimat des Weltmeisters stattfand, obwohl Riga stark interessiert an der Austragung war. Ein weiterer Punkt mag gewesen sein, dass Tal gesundheitlich nicht in bester Verfassung war. Viele wissen von seinen starken gesundheitlichen Problemen und einer Operation vor dem Kandidatenturnier 1962, doch im Olms-Band finden sich in Botwinniks Notizen auf S. 11-12 Hinweise darauf, dass schon der Weltmeisterschaftskampf 1961 wegen einer Krankheit Tals verschoben werden sollte, was Botwinnik, jedenfalls ohne klare Beweislage, ablehnte und, was das Turnierbuch verschweigt. Tal musste nach seiner siegreichen 8. Partie, mit der er zum 3,5:4,5 verkürzte, zwei Timeouts nehmen, ehe er wieder antrat, seiner Meinung sogar zu früh, er hätte lieber auch das dritte mögliche Timeout riskieren sollen, statt ohne Fitness anzutreten. Jedenfalls verlor Tal die 9., 10., 11. und 13. Partie und damit faktisch den Wettkampf. Eine interessante Notiz, ohne allerdings Botwinniks gute sportliche und kreative Leistungen schmälern zu wollen.

Nach einigen Seiten mit diversen Anmerkungen Botwinniks, den Wettkampfregularien und der Wettkampftabelle folgt der Hauptteil, die insgesamt 21 Partien des Wettkampfes, auf ca. 70 Seiten ausführlich kommentiert von Botwinnik (11, davon eine mit Flohr), Sveshnikov (3), Smyslow (2), Aronin, Ragozin, Kotov, Razuvaev und Tolush.

Anschließend geben 33 Seiten mit Eröffnungsnotizen über die Wettkämpfe 60 und 61 einen historisch interessanten Einblick in Botwinniks theoretische Vorbereitung, ehe sechs Seiten mit der Pressekonferenz vom 13. Mai 1961 und eine Seite Anmerkungen des Übersetzers Ken Neat mit computergestützten Verbesserungsvorschlägen bei diversen Partiekommentaren folgen.

Insgesamt also ein detailreiches und interessantes Wettkampfbuch, das zwar nicht komplett aus der Feder des Weltmeisters Mikhail Botwinniks selbst stammt, sondern eine Zusammenstellung von Igor Botwinnik darstellt, aber wegen der vielen verwendeten Originalquellen von Mikhail Botwinniks dennoch zurecht den gewählten Verfassernamen tragen kann.

Aus schachhistorischer und eröffnungstheoretischer Sicht ist allerdings eines zu beklagen, nämlich das fast völlige Fehlen von Quellenangaben. Insbesondere im Partienteil wäre es doch interessant gewesen, zu erfahren, wann der Autor die Partie kommentiert hat, ob sie neu kommentiert ist oder gar schon mehrfach publiziert. Schließlich enthalten einige Partien nur Referenzpartien aus den 50er- und 60er-Jahren, andere auch neueres Material. Eine ordentliche Weiterverwertung des Materials oder eine Einordnung in das Gesamtwerk Botwinniks ist somit unnötig erschwert. Dennoch füllt das Buch vom Thema und Inhalt her eine bislang schmerzlich empfundene schachhistorische Lücke aus.

PS: deutsche Übersetzung erscheint im Nov. für 19,95 €

Helmut Riedl - Rochade Europa Nr. 10 Oktober 2004