Thoughts on the old FIDE World Championship format

A while back I was reading one of IM John Watson's book review columns at The Week in Chess. This time Watson was reviewing Andre Schulz's work The Big Book of World Chess Championships; 46 Title Fights – from Steinitz to Carlsen ( 352 pages; New in Chess 2015). It's a typically lengthy review, and worth reading. (The tl;dr version of the review is that Watson found the book very enjoyable, and recommends it highly.)

Among the other bits Watson culls from the book is this "oddity", as he calls it:

“At the FIDE congress of 1955 in Gothenburg, Botvinnik had submitted several suggestions. Thus the World Champion made efforts to be allowed to play in the candidates’ tournament because he was of the opinion that the qualification cycle conferred an advantage on the challenger for the WCh match, since unlike the inactive title defender he (the challenger) was getting tournament practice."

The Patriarch had a point, but not exactly the one he claimed. In Botvinnik's case he wasn't getting much practice because he largely refused to play in anything other than World Championship matches through most of his title reign. That was entirely on him.

But when I was a young player, even before playing in my first rated tournament I noticed an interesting fact: between the time when Botvinnik won the title in 1948 and Anatoly Karpov's first title defense against Korchnoi in 1978, the reigning World Champion had only won a single match for the world title, when Petrosian defeated Spassky in 1966. (In act, when I first learned of all this history, it was Christmas of 1980, and I didn't actually know that Karpov had defended his title successfully in 1978. I learned all of this from Golombeck's Chess: A History.)

The titles & matches went as follows (defending champion listed first):

Botvinnik drew with Bronstein, 1951
Botvinnik drew with Smyslov, 1954
Botvinnik lost to Smyslov, 1957
Smyslov lost to Botvinnik, 1958
Botvinnik lost to Tal, 1960
Tal lost to Botvinnik, 1961
Botvinnik lost to Petrosian, 1963
Petrosian DEFEATED Spassky, 1966
Petrosian lost to Spassky, 1969
Spassky lost to Fischer, 1972
Fischer forfeited the title to Karpov, 1975

So the defending Champion's record in World Championship matches throughout this period was a woeful 1+, 6-, 2=, 1 forfeit. Over ten matches the Champion was as likely to forfeit the title in a fit of pique as he was to actually win a title defense. Of the six champions of this period, four couldn't win more than one match, and a fifth (Botvinnik) could only win rematches.

That led me to the conclusion in my youth, which I still mostly believe to this day, that unless the Champion is an extremely dominant player, he just can't count on winning a match as Champion. So Karpov and Kasparov were both able to win multiple World Championship matches as Champion, but Kramnik couldn't until he met Topalov, when one Champion had to lose. Anand did, which makes him unique in that he wasn't dominant as Champion, and Carlsen has now done so once, which fits the pattern.

Note too that if one looks at all of the "Classical" list of Champions (plus Topalov), almost half of them have not been able to win a match as Champion: Capablanca, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Spassky, Fischer & Topalov all failed in that quest, while Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine, Petrosian, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand and Carlsen have succeeded.

Or to quote Ric Flair, "To be The Man, you gotta STAY The Man!" And only about half of Champions have had staying power.

Some additional points to make: Steinitz, Lasker and Alekhine all had the benefit of choosing their own opponents, which helped considerably, though Steinitz was willing to play anyone and everyone. (Capablanca and Euwe also had that option, but they failed to choose wisely!) Kramnik sorta kinda had that option, as did Kasparov for a while, but both did win against duly selected challengers at some point in their careers as Champion.

Since FIDE assumed control of the title following Alekhine's death in 1946, six have failed to defend their titles while only five have succeeded. (I'm excluding Kramnik from this list.) What this has told me is that regular practice against the toughest opponents when one NEEDS to win is the best preparation for a World Championship match. Anything less leaves everything to chance.

Another ongoing discussion, this time concerning central pawn expansion in the QGD

Recently Paul Leggett and I have been discussing a plan created by Botvinnik in the QGD, in which as White he forgoes the minority attack of yore (even back then!) and instead plays for central expansion. The key line runs 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 Bg5 Be7 6 e3 0-0 7 Bd3 Nbd7 8 Qc2 Re8 and now 9 Nge2 with the plan of castling, tucking away the king, and then an eventual f2-f3 and e3-e4, gaining much space in the center and kingside. This plan was first seen, I believe, in Botvinnik-Keres, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1952. (The move order given above is a transposition.)

Prior to that, 9 Nge2 had occurred in this position nine times. According to Kasparov's MGP series, Botvinnik had the following to say after the additional two-ply of 9...Nf8 10 0-0:

This continuation was unusual for that time. After Ng1-f3 White normally used to castle on the kingside, whereas when he played Ng1-e2 he would castle queenside. But in the present game a 'hybrid' variation has been employed, with the aim of making it difficult for the opponent to choose a plan. After White's kindside castling it is harder for Black to obtain active play, in which Keres always felt confident. - M. Botvinnik

(That idea of Nge2, castling queenside and then attacking the kingside with pawns still had some poison in it at the top levels into the early 1980s, by the by.)

Botvinnik-Keres, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1952

after 9 Nge2

Paul brought this up within the context of a recent game of his, which he posted on Facebook*. Later in the discussion, Paul made the following comment:

I am almost finished reading "Rubinstein Move by Move" by GM Zenon Franco (an excellent book), and what do I find towards the end of the book? Botvinnik-Keres 1952 and Kasparov-Andersson 1988, annotated in the context of Rubinstein's contribution to the QGD. These games will live forever.

To which I replied that I had just noticed the game Rubinstein-Bogoljubov, London 1922, which seemed to be heading in the direction of the Botvinnik game above, but after playing Nge2, Rubinstein then played e3-e4 followed by f2-f4. It seemed that Rubinstein was going for a direct kingside attack. (I have no idea if this game is mentioned Franco's book. I'm sure Paul can give an answer to that one.)

Alas, my abilities to visualize the action were sadly lacking. On vacation a few days ago I managed to finally get to the game, which goes as follows: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 e3 Nf6 4 Nc3 Bf5 5 cxd5 Nxd5 (a key difference in pawn structures!) 6 Bc4 e6 7 Nge2 (our star move) Nd7 8 0-0 Qh4, and now Rubinstein committed a tactical oversight and played 9 e4, which simply lost a pawn. 

But in the tournament book, Alekhine made the following comment about this position:

Rubinstein-Bogoljubov, London 1922

after 8 ... Qh4

An inoffensive reply to which White should simply play 9 f3, and if 9...Bd6 10 g3 and Black is forced to withdraw his queen to e7, for if 10...Qh3 11 e4 Nxc3 12 bxc3 Bg6 13 e5 followed by 14 Nf4 and wins. - A. Alekhine

Clearly Alekhine was looking to central expansion here, and I imagine that he believed that was Rubinstein's original intent. But that knight on d5 induced a tactical error!

It's hard to believe that Botvinnik wasn't aware of both the game and Alekhine's commentary on the game, and perhaps it inspired him. Probably not in 1952, but rather in 1938, against another one of the giants of the game. For the famous Botvinnik-Capablanca game at the renowned AVRO tournament featured Botvinnik playing 9 Nge2 with an eventual 0-0, f2-f3 and e3-e4 against Black's pawns on the a-d files and an absent Black e-pawn.

I rather imagine, sans any evidence, that this was all a chain of inspiration over time, one thing leading naturally to another. It makes for a nice story, but I have no idea how much if any validity it merits. I do know that in his book One Hundred Selected Games Botvinnik mentions as early as Black's sixth move in the Capablanca game that White's basic plan is to play f2-f3 and e3-e4, breaking through in the center. He goes on to mention after 9 Nge2 that the game recalls Lilienthal-Ragozin, Moscow 1935, but with a couple of minor differences. Clearly Botvinnik had given this strategical idea some thought! 

Those with better paper archives might find more on the genesis of the Nge2, 0-0, f2-f3, e3-e4 idea in these structures, and of Botvinnik's inspiration. (I only have three books by Botvinnik, the one mentioned which only covers games up until 1946, Championship Chess on the Absolute Soviet Championship of 1941, and a book that he sorta kinda maybe co-authored on the Grunfeld Defense in the 1970s, so I have nothing by him on his games against Keres or Larsen save what Kasparov quotes.) And those with better db skills may well turn up some stones plowing fields of data.

So for now, I leave it at that.

...

But I do have two additional comments of a tangential nature. First, the Rubinstein-Bogoljubov game, and Alekhine's notes to it, have more interesting features, which I hope to return to soon. Second, can you imagine one of the top players now writing a tournament book? Imagine Carlsen or Giri writing notes to the recent BilBao tournament, for example, which was also a six player double round robin. Come on, guys, it's only 30 games, and I'm sure your seconds will kick in a good deal of the work. Let's make tournament books great again! 

* I hope that's the correct link. Facebook is a real pain in the posterior to deal with on such matters.

A raw treat: archival footage of the 1948 Match-Tournament for the World Championship

The commentary is in Dutch, but it's still neat.