Boris Spassky vs Vasily Smyslov (1953)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Boris Spassky vs Vasily Smyslov
Bucharest (1953), Bucharest ROU, rd 1, Jan-??
Nimzo-Indian Defense: Leningrad Variation. Benoni Defense (E31) · 1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Annotations by Stockfish (Computer). [35437 more games annotated by Stockfish]

explore this opening	find similar games	29 more Spassky/Smyslov games
	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

THIS IS A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE. [CLICK HERE] FOR ORIGINAL.

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 · Later Kibitzing>
Oct-22-03		thekleinbottle: This game is annotated at: http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/En...

Oct-22-03		drukenknight: ....Rxf6 was just insane, I guess. It seems like Smyslov has to either put the Q on the g file or push the pawn to g3. Maybe either could work with enuf time.

Nov-10-04		Benzol: Spassky inherited this opening from his first trainer Vladimir Zak. It suprises me that it's not seen more often against the Nimzoindian.

Nov-10-04		Calli: Nxg7 is nice. The point being 33...Kxg7 34.Rg3+ Kf8 35.Rxf7+ Qxf7 (or Kxf7 Qf4+) 36.Qh6+ Anybody else find 19...Bc8 a bit strange? Qe7 followed by Bd7 looks natural.

Nov-10-04		euripides: <Calli> I guess that 19.... Bc8 is part of Black's plan to play ...Qg4 and h4, dislodging the knight; it also protects b7 without allowing Qxa7 (if Rab8) or Qc6 (if b6). Nonetheless, I agree that the whole plan does look rather baroque and slow, as if Smyslov understimated the power of White's central pawns.

Nov-10-04		Calli: <euripedes> Yes, but it seems that Smyslov winds up attacking with only a Queen and a pawn. Okay, the bishop comes in but he is still outnumbered by the white pieces. How could he expect that kind of attack to succeed? Spassky was like 16 years old at the time and may have been taken too lightly. Not after this tourney. He finished tied for 4th-6th in a very strong field.

Nov-11-04		euripides: My initial thought was that establishing the bishop on f5 was sufficient motivation for the h5-h4 idea. But in the game the threat of Ne3 forces the bishop out of f5 almost as soon as it gets there. He might have hoped for Be4 but that doesn't seem to work at any point. So I agree the whole plan looks ropey. Alexander's notes simply suggest 19...Bc8 was motivated by the fear of f5. If 19...Qe7 20 f5 Qxe3+ 21 Kg1 Qg5 22 Ne4 is interesting e.g. 22...Qe7 23 f6 or 23 Rf4 Be2 24 f6 with a promising attack.

May-26-05		Achilles87: What a blunder

Dec-25-05		shaikh123: if Rxd2 then 35.RG3+, Kh1 36.RH4#

Dec-25-05		szunzein: Hi, this is a brilliant game by Spassky, isn't it? It's amazing that he was only 16

Apr-05-06		notyetagm: One of the comments that the chess program Fritz makes is <Control the center and you control the game, my teacher used to tell me>. This comment well characterizes the board position in this game resulting after 32 ♖e3. click for larger view

Apr-05-06		notyetagm: Spassky's swinging f4- and e3-rooks remind me of Ljubojevic's swinging f4- and c3-rooks in the famous Ljubojevic vs Ulf Andersson, 1976. In that magnificent game, the following position with the swinging White rooks is reached after 24 ♖f4: click for larger view The threat in the position is 25 ♗xg7! ♘xg7 26 ♕xg7+! ♔xg7 27 ♖g3+ ♔h6 28 ♖h4#, using the swinging rooks to their maximum effect. The resulting <corridor mate> is shown in the diagram below. click for larger view

Jan-11-07		sandmanbrig: No hope for black even without the blunder.

Jun-11-08		HNP: What a brilliant game by Spassky! I wonder at what point Smyslov realized that he wasn't the one attacking... Interesting that although Black has a light-squared bishop that is not blocked by pawns, it is White who controls the light-squares owing to his active pieces and control of the centre. Once the knight penetrates to f5, it's all over.

Jan-14-09		WhiteRook48: Yikes! a two rook checkmate in the middlegame.

Sep-29-09		kooley782: Isn't 25.Ne3 playable? I think it seems pretty good for White, considering the rolling passed pawns.

Aug-07-11		kdogphs: SMYSLOV: Yay queen trade! SPASSKY: Mate in one!

Nov-12-11		Ulhumbrus: 19 Qa4!! denies Black's QB the only good square available to it, the square d7. This suggests that all that in order to place his QB well all that Black need do is to prepare the move ...Bd7. However with the move Qa4 White threatens as well the move f5! cutting Black's QB off from the square d7 and so putting the B on g4 out of play. If Smyslov hopes to place the QB on d7, he has no choice but to withdraw it to c8 before White cuts it off from that square by the move f5.

Nov-12-11		beatgiant: <Ulhumbrus> How to the tactics work out after <Calli>'s suggested 19...Qe7 20. f5? Can Black then get away with 20...Qxe3+ followed by 21...Qg5 to rescue the bishop? Or even trade the bishop for three pawns with 20...Qxe3+, 21...Bxf5, 22...Qxc3?

Nov-12-11		Ulhumbrus: <beatgiant> After 19...Qe7 20 f5 Qxe3+ 21 Kh1 Qg5 <euripides> has given 22 Ne4 Qe7 and either 23 f6 ie 23 Rf4 Be2 24 f6. On 19...Qe7 20 f5 Qe3+ 21 Kh1 Bxf5 22 Nxf5 Qxc3 White's N should be worth more than three pieces in the middle game, particularly if it is placed well, as on f5 as in this case. One interesting point is that White's N on f5 defends the d5 pawn. Why? Because the capture ..Qxd5 invites the fork Ne7+

Nov-13-11		beatgiant: <Ulhumbrus> White's position looks over-extended, and it's not easy to trap Black's bishop, so I'm still skeptical about that gambit. Among other things, have you checked 19...Qe7 20. f5 Qxe3+ 21. Kh1 <h5>?

Nov-14-11		Ulhumbrus: <beatgiant: <Ulhumbrus> White's position looks over-extended, and it's not easy to trap Black's bishop, so I'm still skeptical about that gambit. Among other things, have you checked 19...Qe7 20. f5 Qxe3+ 21. Kh1 <h5>?> Suppose we begin with 22 Rae1. If Black tries to keep White's N on g3 attacked ( so as to discourage h3) by 22...Qxc3, 23 Ne4 supports with tempo the advance f6.

Nov-15-11		beatgiant: <Ulhumbrus> 19...Qe7 20. f5 Qxe3+ 21. Kh1 h5 22. Rae1 Qxc3 23. Ne4 Qe5, and it looks like the bishop escapes, f6 doesn't accomplish much, and White's center is collapsing. Is this position really worth the two gambitted pawns?

Nov-15-11		Ulhumbrus: <beatgiant: <Ulhumbrus> 19...Qe7 20. f5 Qxe3+ 21. Kh1 h5 22. Rae1 Qxc3 23. Ne4 Qe5, and it looks like the bishop escapes, f6 doesn't accomplish much, and White's center is collapsing. Is this position really worth the two gambitted pawns?> After 24 f6 what do you suggest for Black?

Jan-03-13		bhsakar13556: i have seen some games of spassky. and in many.. opponent suddenly finds himself in an unavoidable mating net.it is just wondering to see a simple position abruptly turns into a nightmare.

search thread:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.