The Stage

The Challengers

Botvinnik had successfully defended his title already in 1951 against David Bronstein (12-12), Vasily Smyslov in 1954 (again, 12-12) before losing it to Smyslov in 1957 (12½-9½) only to regain his title the following year in the mandatory rematch (12½-10½).  Tal was the next grandmaster to unseat the champion, winning the title in 1960 (12½-8½), but once again Botvinnik successfully regained the title the following year (13-8).

Petrosian wrote of the failures in the return matches:

It seems to me that the main mistake of both Smyslov and Tal, in the period before the return match, was what one might call 'moral disarmament'.  After their victories, which in neither case could be regarded as anything but fully deserved, they were both somehow unable to accept that there was any justification for their having to meet Botvinnik again.  They were under the impression that the return match would just be a repetition of what had gone before, whilst they forgot how much work had gone into that victory, and now they wanted to win without any effort.  Both suffered a sharp disappointment."

The Difference

This time there would be a difference, two differences to be exact.  First was the elimination of the mandatory rematch clause, nicknamed the 'Botvinnik Rule', a controversial feature to say the least.  Petrosian would later write of this rule "Admittedly, the logic or appropriateness of the return match right is highly debatable, since it is really just a further barrier in the path of the challenger."  This return match right controversy would later play a part in the negotiations between Kasparov and Karpov, but that is a story for another time...

The second, and most significant difference, was the opponent.  Petrosian was known for a playing style of almost impenetrable defence, which emphasized safety above all else.  Spassky observed that in his opinion Botvinnik had not understood Petrosian's style.  Although as noted by Igor Botvinnik, it took Spassky himself two championship matches (1966 and 1969) to "solve the Petrosian Problem."

The Match

The match was a see-saw affair from the very beginning, which saw the champion win game one, and the challenger even the score in game five.  Petrosian took the lead in the match for the first time in game seven, but Botvinnik in turn evened things up again in game 14.

Game 15 was the turning point, which saw Petrosian take a match lead he would not relinquish.  After losing again in back-to-back encounters in games 18 and 19, the champion 'threw in the towel', finishing the match with games of 21, 10 and 10 moves respectively.  Caissa had moved on, now smiling on a younger generation.

The Games

New In Chess has stitched together a fascinating compilation of all 23 games from this match.  Edited by Igor Botvinnik, nephew of the three-time World Chess Champion Mikhail Botvinnik, the games are annotated by a variety of individuals: seven by the match loser, Botvinnik, but only two by the winner and new World Champion - Tigran Petrosian.

Five more games were annotated by Vladimir Akopian.  Vasily Panov commented on the final two mini-games, while the remainder of the games were annotated by (one game each): Alexander Kotov, Mark Taimanov, Salo Flohr, Viktor Korchnoi, Vladimir Bagirov, and from his titanic book My Great Predecessors Part III, another World Champion - Garry Kasparov.

I must admit that, reading and playing through the games, the change back and forth from one annotator to another did provoke a sense of discontinuity.  On the other hand, who can ask for a greater selection of commentators?

The Rest

After the games we are treated to a 10-page essay from the new world champion, along with a much shorter (2 pages) essay by the vanquished champion, "Why did I lose the match?"  A pair of excerpts:

I had earned the right to play Botvinnik.  But it was well-known that when he emerged from the Polytechnic Museum, after beating Tal in the return match, Botvinnik said something to the effect that, if a Soviet player won the next candidate's event, he might decide not to defend his title.

Was the champion fully invested then in this match?  Was he motivated to prepare properly, and to fight to the fullest to defend his hard-won title?  Was Petrosian's title to be devalued thus, because the champion had not been sufficiently motivated?  Botvinnik writes:

There can be many reasons for a defeat in an even contest, but the most significant is perhaps the mood of a player, of the form in which he finds himself.  One has Periods of good form, and also of bad...

Why such periods occur is another question, but the fact is they do!  I prepared for the 1963 match in accordance with all the rules...yet still, no good came of it...

Is this the answer then, to the fall of the champion?  I'm not telling - you have to buy the book and read the rest of the essay for yourself.  (See, the Publisher will appreciate this.)

Additionally the editor has included "a symbolic game" from later in 1963, Taimanov-Botvinnik, III USSR Peoples' Spartakiad, Moscow, won convincingly by Botvinnik, along with all the other games played between Petrosian & Botvinnik outside of the world championship match.  Also present are the annotated games from the training match Botvinnik-Furman, played out in January/February of 1963.

Finally we are offered a glimpse into Botvinnik's famous notebooks, indeed into his 'final' notebook, containing observations, analysis, and opening ideas.

From the Publisher's website:
     Download a sample of this book (in PDF format).

Chessville
logo by
ChessPrints
 

Ranked #1 by Google
"largest chess database''

The
Chessville
Chess Store

The
Chessville
Weekly
Newsletter

Subscribe
Today -
It's Free!!

The
Chessville
Weekly
Archives
 

Advertise
with
Chessville!!

Advertise to
thousands
of chess
fans for
as little
as $25.

Single insert:
$35
x4 insert:
@ $25 each