NEZHMETDINOV'S BEST GAMES

OF CHESS

by Rashid N ezhmetdinov

Translated from Russian by Karen Taylor

Edited by Dale Brandreth, Jack O'Keefe, and Richard Cantwell

Analysis checked by Richard Cantwell and Fritz 6.0

CAISSA EDITIONS YORKLYN, DE

2000

NEZHMETDINOV'S BEST GAMES OF CHESS

by Rashid Nezhmetdinov

Published by Caissa Editions a division of Dale A. Brandreth, Books

P. O. Box 151 Yorklyn, DE 19736

USA

ISBN 0-939433-55-9

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or by any information storage and retrieval systems without pennission in writing from the publisher.

© 2000 by Dale A. Brandreth

To the everlasting memory of

Rashid Nezhmetdinov

a chess star of the very first magnitude

a true chess magician

Dale Brandreth

Rashid Nezhmetdinov

PUBLISHER'S FOREWORD

To English-speaking chess devotees the name of Rashid Nezhmetdinov is not all that well known, whereas in eastern Europe and especially in the former USSR his name is synonymous with very deep combinations and fierce attacks.

In part his lack of fame outside of the former Soviet bloc is due to his having never played in the West and having played in only a few international tourneys, with the exception of Bucharest 1954 rather minor ones.

In addition, Nezhmetdinov often had rather inconsistent results, one day beating a world champion and the next day losing to a player in the bottom half of the tournament. Had he been concerned only with his tournament score, who knows how many top flight tournaments he might have won. But no, that was not Nezhmetdinov's style. He was a true seeker of truth on the chess board. Where others sought glory in point totals, he sought glory in the inherent beauty of the particular game he was playing. How else can one explain his sublime victory over Polugayevsky at Sochi in 1958? The subtlety and hidden power of his moves in that game betray the soul of a chess "magician". As with some of Alekhine's games, one senses an intuition beyond the realm of explanation. Even fast modem chess-playing programs have difficulty in finding the ultimate truth in such games.

Mark Kac, the eminent mathematician, once wrote something to the effect that if one were to rank the leading physicists of modem times, a very talented colleague might say that with proper dedication and in his best moments he could see how he might be able to achieve some of their notable results. But in the case of some, such as Richard Feynman, one must simply admit that even after the demonstration of his idea, and after prolonged thought about it, he cannot fathom how Feynman could find his way through vast complexities to reach the result. Those who conceive of the methods to attain these results are simply "magicians". Nezhmetdinov was a chess magician.

In chess, unlike nature, we at least know all the rules, and yet understanding how players such as Tal, Alekhine, and Nezhmetdinov can find their way though a maze of deeply complex positions still defies us, but sharpens our appetite for seeing such phenomenal games.

While Nezhmetdinov was inconsistent, he still did accomplish enviable overall results. He was five times the champion of the RSFSR, and a five-time finalist in the Soviet Union championships, and was a prize winner in five international tournaments. But the greatest indication of his outstanding chess talent is his record against five

world champions. Out of twenty games Nezhmetdinov won six, drew nine, and lost five.

In a recent chess column Nigel Short speaks of the tyranny of ELO-ratings and says of Nezhmetdinov: " ... he thrice defeated Mikhail Tal (in four encounters) and would wipe the floor with many contemporary grandmasters."

Nezhmetdinov was also very successful as a chess teacher and trainer. He was a consultant to Tal in his first match for the world title against Botvinnik and helped him greatly in achieving that victory. In 1962 Nezhmetdinov was awarded the title of Honored Trainer of the USSR.

The publication of this book has a rather long and convoluted history. Although the translation has been in my hands for some twelve years, there were quite a few impediments in the way of quick publication. For one, the translation needed much

checking and reworking due to its technical chess nature with specialized terms, frequent typographical errors and occasional factual errors in the original Russian text of the first edition of the book. In this work Jack O'Keefe, with his knowledge of both Russian and English and great skill in clarifying the English, did a superb job. Without his efforts I do not see how I could have come close to achieving this result. Both Jack O'Keefe and Richard Cantwell critically looked at the analysis and came up with many improvements and valuable suggestions. I am forever indebted to them for their skill and perseverance. Whatever errors and faults remain are my own. I am always eager to make improvements and will welcome suggestions from readers.

We have made a few significant revisions. Two new games and one new ending have been added and some archaic opening analysis has been deleted. The list of Nezhmetdinov's tournaments and results has been corrected and extended, but it does not include team events in which he played for the RSFSR or the Spartak Sports Club.

A longer hardback version of this book with the inclusion of all Nezhmetdinov games that could be found in the chess literature will also be published by Caissa Editions soon. The balance of the games not annotated in the text will be given without notes.

Overall the path to finally publishing this book has been a long and arduous one for all of us, but I am very proud to be able to bring Nezhmetdinov's games to the English-speaking chess world. I feel confident that those who play over these games will have an enhanced sense of the unique beauty of chess art at its finest.

Dale Brandreth Yorklyn, Delaware

MY EARLIEST GAMES (1929-1936)

In September of 1923, on the stairs of the Second Palace of Soviets on Lenin St. in Kazan, I accidentally found a piece of paper with unintelligible figures and signs on it while I was in the middle of a game of hide-and-seek. I quickly picked it up and put it in my pocket. (They were already looking for me and I needed to find a place to hide.)

That evening at home I remembered the mysterious paper. I did not know Russian well at that time and worked out its contents with difficulty. It turned out to be the chess column of the magazine Smena. In it, the rules of play and the moves of the pieces were explained. That was the "theory", but what about practice?

A few days later, I arrived quite early for a meeting of the first Pioneer group of the Communist Club. I went into the reading room to look at the pictures on the wall and (if I was successful) the magazines on the tables.

Here I noticed a group of adults bending over the tables. On the tables were the same "things" (as I called the pieces then) as on the piece of paper that I had carefully kept, and which I went over and studied almost every night.

Going up carefully to the "uncles", I stood quietly to observe what they were doing. I rejoiced when I discovered that they moved the "things" exactly as was explained on my piece of paper.

But I rejoiced even more when one of the "uncles" answered my shy question, "May I playa game with you?" with a smile: "Yes, you may." Great was the astonishment of the grownups when I won all my games with them (they were, of course, beginners).

That evening I went home filled with joy. Now I had another important piece of paper. It was a note from Samsonov, the director of the club (who had arrived toward the end of play), to the City chess club: " He shows promise; please admit him to the club."

"He shows promise"- I was proud of that description. But at the club they quickly put me in my place. There, they all won from me right up to 1927.

With no notion of theory and, on top of that, too interested in "blitz" chess, I was slow to make progress.

The turning point came in 1927. After a break of almost a year (when I took a complete vacation from chess), I achieved a Category III ranking, skipping over Category IV. That winter in the first city Pioneer championship I finished first, winning all 15 of my games.

But suddenly my aptitude for checkers also revealed itself. After learning the rules of that game in January of 1928, I took second place in the Kazan championship in February. In July I became the RARO champion (Region of Autonomous Republics and Oblasts), and in October I achieved Category I rank at the RSFSR championship in Moscow.

Chess also started to "soften up" a bit. I finished first in a minor tournament in the spring of 1929, finished first in the semifinals in the winter, and finally won the title of champion of Kazan in May of 1930.

In checkers, to be sure, improvement came more quickly. By 193] I was close to master strength.

The formation of my chess style took place from 1930 to 1936. I still paid little attention to theory, but sometimes played over games from the books of Alekhine and Capablanca.

An important influence on my game was my contact with the leading players of Odessa in 1931-1933, when I lived and worked there.

By the time I returned to Kazan in 1933, I had already learned to win regularly against average Category I players.

In 1934-1935 I was mainly occupied by the study of checkers. Only in November and December of 1936 at Rostov-on-Don did I "cross swords" for the first time with the strongest first category chessplayers: Ufimtsev, Dubinin, Kopayev, Grechkin, Bastrikov, and others. They gave me a good trouncing. My ignorance of elementary theoretical principles told on me. It was necessary to undertake a serious study of chess.

Games 1-5 below were played between 1929 and 1936.

1. White: Samsonov Kazan 1929 Vienna Game

1. e2-e4 e7-es 2. Nbl-c3

The Vienna Game. In this opening, White tries to open the f-file by f2-f4 in order to develop an attack on the black King (at f7). In case of an exchange on f4, besides the open file White gets pawn superiority in the center (d- and e-pawns vs. ad-pawn). In several variations White intends to storm the castled King by f2-f4-f5 and g2-g4-g5. Black in tum tries to hinder White's flank attack by a counter-thrust in the center (d6-d5). 2. ... NgS-f6

One of the best responses, preparing the advance d7-d5. Also possible is 2 .... Bc5, in order to take control of the center square d4 and the diagonal a7-gl. 3. f2-f4

The brilliant Russian player Alekhine preferred the continuation 3. Bc4 followed by d3 to prepare f2-f4. However, by 3 .... Nxe4, Black gets sufficient counterplay.

After 3 .... Nxe4 4. Qh5 Nd6 5. Bb3 (if 5. Qxe5+ Qe7 6. Qxe7+ Bxe7 7. Bb3 Nf5 and after c6 and d5 Black has a solid position) 5 .... Nc6 6. Nb5

2

g6 7. Qf3 f5 S. Qd5 Qe7 9. Nxc7+ KdS 1O.NxaS b6, the fight is very sharp. Black, in spite of his sizable loss of material has, apparently, the better chances since his attack is very dangerous.

The following example shows how a player unfamiliar with opening variations gets into difficulties. In a 1940 game against the Kazan Category I player Ingenol I fell into this line for the second time (the first was against Saigin in the 1939 Kazan championship, where I drew with difficulty). After long consideration, White found the following fantastic plan of mobilizing his forces: Qd5-d3, Qd3-fl, Qfl-gl, h2-h4, Qgl-h2, 0-0. White ultimately won this game, exploiting poor play by Black.

But now I would on no account want to repeat this artificial maneuver. 3 .... d7-ds

A counter-thrust in the center is the best reply to a flank attack. 4. f4xes Nf6xe4 5. Ngl-f3

5. Qf3 and 5. Qe2 are often played here. 5. ... BfS-b4

I played the opening without having any real idea of opening theory. Unfortunately, I learned the strength

of many theoretical variations by my own bitter experience ....

As is generally known,S .... Be7 and 5 .... Nc6 are good continuations.

In the latter case, the interesting variation 6. Qe2 Bf5 7. Qb5 a6 S. Qxb7 (S. Qxd5 Nb4!) S .... Nb4 9. Nxe4 de 10. Nd4 RbS 11. Qa7 Bc5 12. Qxc5 Qxd4! 13. Qxd4 Nxc2+ 14. Kf2 Nxd4 gives Black the advantage. 6. Qdl-e2

Stronger here is 6. Be2 with a good game for White. 6. ... Bb4xc3 7. b2xc3 Bc8-g4?!

Activity at all cost! This is the way I generally played at the beginning of my chess career.

This move is the beginning of a combination by Black which, if White plays correctly, leads to a draw. Black should castle, to put his King in a safe position. Then a position with about equal chances would arise. 8. Qe2-b5+

This inexact move gives Black tactical counterplay. Correct was S. Ba3!, and White gets significant chances for an attack on Black's King which is caught in the center.

I will cite one possible variation: S . ... Nc6 9. 0-0-0 Nxe5 10. Qb5+ c6 11. Nxe5! cb [Here the zwischenzug 11 . ... Qc7! foils White's line: e.g., 12. Qb4 Bxdl 13. Bd3 0-0-0 14. Nxc6 Qxc6 15. Rxdl KbS and Black remains the exchange ahead.-RSC] 12. Bxb5+ Bd7 13. Bxd7+ Qxd7 14. Nxd7 Kxd7 15. Rhfl with a marked advantage for White in the endgame. 8. ... c7-c6?

S .... Nc6 is more active; then 9. Qxb7 is risky because of 9 .... O-O!, and if 10. Qxc6? Bxf3 11. gf [Instead White should play 11. h4! though after 11. ... Bg4 Black still has the better position-RSC] Qh4+ and White loses material.

3

In this case better is 9 Be2 Bxf3 10. Bxf3 (10. Qxb7? 0-0) 10 ... 0-0 with chances for both sides. 9. Qb5xb7 Bg4xf3 10. Qb7xa8

Instead of such a straightforward attempt to win material, White should make a deep appraisal of the specific features of the position. Then he would probably have found this promising sacrifice of the exchange: 10. gf! Qh4+ 11. Kdl Nf2+ 12. Ke2 Nxhl 13. QcS+ QdS (13 .... Ke7?? leads to mate after 14. Ba3+) 14. QxdS+ KxdS 15. Bg2. In this position, Black's small material advantage is outweighed by White's large positional advantage; a strong pawn center, two active bishops, and the lack of coordination of Black's pieces are grounds for evaluating this line in White's favor.

10 .... Bf3xg2 11. Bfl-e2?

Suicide. 11. Bxg2 is correct and after 11. ... Qh4+ 12. Ke2 (worse is 12. Kdl since after 12 .... Qg4+ 13. Kel O-O! 14. Rgl Qh4+ 15. Kdl Qf2 16. Rfl Qxg2 Black has a strong attack, for example: 17. Kel Qxh2 IS. Ba3 Ng3 winning) 12 .... Qf2+ 13. Kdl O-O! 14. Bxe4 de 15. ReI Black should force a draw by perpetual check (15 .... Qf3+ 16. Re2 Qfl+ etc.). 11. 12. Kel-dl

Qd8-h4+ Ne4-f2+

13. Kdl-el 14. Kel-dl IS. Rhlxel

Nf2-d3++ Qh4-el +! Nd3-f2 mate

The first and only "smothered mate" in my career. It was only many years later that I noticed that the final attack in this game recalls the ending of a game by the famed Italian master Gioacchino Greco (1600-c.1634).

2. White: Korchmar Categories I and II Tournament Odessa 1931 Queen's Pawn Opening

1. d2-d4 2. Ngl-f3 3. Bc1-gS 4. e2-e3

d7-d5 NgS-f6 e7-e6

If White refrains from c2-c4 then he generally keeps the Queen bishop behind the pawn chain e3-d4-c3 (or develops it to b2 to control the squares d4 and e5).

To this end, White aims for the following scheme of development: d4, e3,c3, Nf3, Bd3, Qe2, Nbd2, 0-0, e4, Nxe4, in order to attack Black's castled King position.

Black, on the other hand, must keep in mind active counterplay in the center to hinder White in organizing his attack. 4. S. Bfl-d3 6. Nbl-d2

BfS-e7 0-0 c7-c5

4

7. c2-c3 S. Nf3-eS 9. f2-f4

b7-b6 BcS-b7 NbS-d7

Treating the opening in an original way, White has obtained a position rich in attacking chances. However, with the following move, Korchmar begins an incorrect plan involving queenside castling. By exploiting White's queenside weaknesses, Black is the first to organize an attack.

10. 0-0 is correct with a later transfer of the rook from f1 to h3 for an attack by the pieces. 10. Qdl-f3 Nd7xe5 11. f4xe5

This allows the following dangerous attack by Black's knight. The right move is 11. de. 11. 12. BgSxe7 13. 0-0-0

Nf6-e4! QdSxe7

13. Nxe4? does not work since after 13 .... de White loses a piece (14. Bxe4 Qh4+). After 13. Bxe4 de 14. Qe2 (14. Nxe4? Qh4+) 14 .... cd, Black also has good prospects. All the same, this was the best continuation for White. 13. ... f7-fS

Before starting queens ide oper­ations, Black firmly strengthens the position of his centralized knight and takes away any attacking possibilities by White. The tactical basis for this move lies in the fact that after 14. ef