Andrey Terekhov - The Life and Games of Vasily Smyslov: Volume I - The Early Years: 1921-1948

Vasily Smyslov

Volume I

The Early Years: 1921-1948

ISBN: 978-1-949859-24-9 (print)

ISBN: 949859-25-6 (eBook)

Copyright 2020

Andrey Terekhov

All Rights Reserved

No part of this book may be used, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any manner or form whatsoever or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the express written permission from the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

Published by:

Russell Enterprises, Inc.

P.O. Box 3131

Milford, CT 06460 USA

http://www.russell-enterprises.com

Cover by Fierce Ponies

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Introduction

Vasily Vasilievich Smyslov (1921-2010), the seventh world champion, had a long and illustrious chess career. He played close to 3,000 tournament games over seven decades, from the time of Lasker and Capablanca to the days of Anand and Carlsen. From 1948 to 1958, Smyslov participated in four world championships and mounted the toughest challenge to the great Mikhail Botvinnik. Smyslov and Botvinnik played over 100 games (about 10% of all games that Botvinnik ever played in official competitions!) and their rivalry was one of the primary intrigues of the chess world in the 1950s. Smyslov finally became the world champion in the third attempt in 1957, but lost the title in the return match with Botvinnik the following year.

Smyslov continued playing at the highest level for many years and made a stunning comeback in the early 1980s, making it to the final match of the candidates cycle. Only the indomitable energy of 20-year-old Garry Kasparov stopped Smyslov from qualifying for another world championship match at the ripe old age of 63!

Smyslov retained his grandmaster class well into his 70s. In the end, it was his failing health (in particular, his deteriorating eyesight) that forced Smyslov to abandon practical play. In the last years of his life, Smyslov returned to his childhood passion, chess composition, and composed over 100 studies.

And yet Smyslov is arguably the least known of all world chess champions, despite his many achievements. It is tempting to ask oneself, why did Smyslov remain a mystery?

Perhaps the primary reason for Smyslovs relative obscurity was his character. Smyslov was a reserved and deeply private man who did not strive for the spotlight. He was highly competitive at the board but did not dominate the conversation away from it. Smyslov wielded a lot of influence, but preferred staying in the background, being somewhat of a gray cardinal of latter-day Soviet chess.

Another factor was Smyslovs playing style, which was classical and logical but not necessarily flashy. To make a comparison, both Smyslov and Tal were world champions for only one year, but Tal won millions of fans for his dashing style and remains an iconic figure to this day, whereas Smyslovs popularity largely waned after the period when he held the championship.

It is not just the amateurs who are oblivious to Smyslovs legacy. In 2004, Hikaru Nakamura gave an interview to Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam, which had the following exchange (The Day Kasparov Quit, pp. 315-316):

[Nakamura]: There are a lot of these top people who read about the previous world champions, and those before that really got good. I havent done that. I have studied some of Fischers games and of course Kasparovs games, which are probably the only two players I have studied.

[DJtG]: We show you a nice Smyslovs game and you would not have a clue

[Nakamura]: (Laughs) Probably not.

[DJtG]: Do you see this as a gap in your education?

[Nakamura]: I dont think it really matters. Some of the world champions contributions were good, some of them, such as Capablanca and certainly other ones, but some of them I dont think have had that much of an impact on the game

[DJtG]: Such as

[Nakamura]: Well, like Smyslov for example.

[DJtG]: His endgames

[Nakamura]: His endgames are good, but basically I have seen some of his games, not as many as say Fischers or Kasparovs they seem kind of boring.

Many of Smyslovs victories indeed look simple, but their simplicity is deceptive. Kasparov reflected on the power of Smyslovs play in My Great Predecessors (Part II, p. 263):

[Smyslovs] victories at the peak of his career are amazing for the lack of a clear defense for his opponents, and a careful study reveals that no one in the world could withstand Smyslovs very fine technique. His credo was as follows: I will make 40 good moves and if you are able to do the same, the game will end in a draw. But it was precisely this doing the same that was the most difficult: Smyslovs technique was ahead of his time.

Kasparov also quoted another world champions opinion of Smyslov:

[His] innate sense of harmony has helped Smyslov to break all records for chess longevity: in 1983 he reached the final candidates match and later he successfully competed in events right to the end of the century. This phenomenon was wittily explained by Spassky: Vasily Vasilievich has an incredible intuition, and I would call it his hand that is, his hand knows on which square to place every piece, and he does not need to calculate anything with his head.

Vladimir Kramnik, incidentally one of the few world champions whom Smyslov did not meet at the board, also held the seventh world champion in the highest regard (quoted from the interview by Vladimir Barsky for the e3e5.com site, January 17, 2005):

Smyslov is how to say it better the truth in chess! Smyslov is a player who plays very correctly, truthfully, with a very natural style. Why, by the way, isnt there any kind of mystic aura around him, like there was around, say, Tal or Capablanca? Because Smyslov is not an artist in chess, his style is not artistic or striking. But I like his style very much. Iwould recommend studying Smyslovs games to children who want to learn chess. Because he was playing as it must be done; his style is the closest to some virtual chess truth. He was trying to play the strongest move in any position, and it is possible that in the sheer amount of strongest moves, he surpassed many other world champions. As a professional, I appreciate that. I know that amateurs are more interested in mistakes, ups and downs. However, from a purely professional point of view, I think that Smyslov is clearly underrated.

He got all components of his playing to a very high level. Smyslov was a brilliant endgame player, and his games sometimes looked like songs. When I browse through his games, there is an impression of lightness, as though his hand is making the moves by itself, and the man does not strain himself at all, as if drinking coffee or reading a newspaper at the same time! Almost a Mozart-like lightness! No strain, no tension, everything is simple, but brilliant.

And yet, despite all the praise by the world champions, one would hardly find any books about Smyslov, other than those that Vasily Vasilievich wrote himself. Smyslovs books are brilliant and his magnum opus, Letopis shakhmatnogo tvorchestva (Smyslovs Best Games in the English translation), deserves careful study. However, his annotations were written in a different era. Smyslov wrote laconically and often left large chunks of his games without any commentary at all.