Botvinnik’s Method
In 1927, Mikhail Botvinnik embarked on a chessic voyage that would take him to the World Championship. Here he outlines the beginnings of the method that served him so well. [Reprinted from Inside Chess, Volume 7, Issue 2, February 7, 1994.]
The Origin of my Preparation Method (1927-33)
by GM Mikhail Botvinnik
My method of preparation for tournament competition was not made in the quiet of my own study, but rather was developed in the fire of tournament struggle itself. I was forced to travel the long road of error before my method was fully realized. At the time I was an ordinary chess fighter. I knew some opening theory, had studied middlegame and endgame theory and was familiar with the published games of the great masters, though I myself had done little original thinking.
At the 1927 USSR Championship in Moscow I was settled in the Hotel Liverpool with A. Model. He was an experienced player, older than myself, whose main attribute was that he was an excellent analyzer. He had favorite opening systems, and after his first-round win against me, he took the time to pass his experience on to me in a generous spirit, because he wanted to help me become a master. Together we looked at my games from the event.
When I played Black against I. Rabinovich, a complicated position, stylistically unsuitable for my opponent, arose after the standard moves: 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Nf3 d5 7.0-0 c6 8.Qc2 Qe8 9.Bf4 Qh5 10.Rad1 Nbd7 11.b3 Ne4
Here followed 12.Ne5 Ng5 and then White carelessly weakened his King position by 13.h4. After several moves, 13…Ne4 14.Bf3 Qe8 15.Nxd7 Bxd7 16.Kg2 Bb4 17.Bxe4 fxe4 18.Rh1 Qh5 19.f3 Qg6 20.Kf1 e5 21.dxe5 Rxf4!, Black had a decisive attack.
But as I played Black in a French Defense, catastrophe befell me. One player had shown me an opening variation he thought to be favorable to White. I analyzed with Model and decided, to the contrary, the variation was in Black’s favor. Well, I played it against this fellow and fell into a losing trap when he deviated from what he had shown me! It became clear that it was not sufficient just to analyze, one also had to take into consideration the psychological aspects of tournament struggle.
I drew two conclusions from these events: 1) One must choose opening systems of small popularity, because the positional themes of these systems are not well known; 2) One can’t be naive when dealing with the other participants of a tournament!
Several months later I played in the Championship of the Trade Union of Metallurgists in Leningrad. For the first time I used a prepared variation. In the popular Queen’s Gambit I reached the following position:
I played 7.Bd3 here instead of the well-known 7.Rc1. After game 21 of the Capablanca-Alekhine match, a system with 7…a6 was popular against 7.Rc1. My opponent B. Yuriev played as if against 7.Rc1, not suspecting that with the Queen’s Rook on a1 after the inevitable 8.c5 c6 9.b4 a5 10.a3 axb4 11.axb4 Rxa1 12.Qxa1 b6 13.Bf4! bxc5 14.bxc5 Nh5 15.Qa7!, White achieves a won position. And one year later, in a student team match against G. Goldberg, I continued 7.Bd3 also. Here my opponent had chosen the system with …c6 (instead of …a6), but it soon became clear that this was also good for White:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.Nf3 Be7 7.Bd3 0-0 8.0-0 dxc4 9.Bxc4 b5 10.Bd3 Bb7 11.Rc1 a6 12.a4 Rc8 13.Qe2 Re8 14.Rfd1 Qb6 15.Ne5 h6 16.Bh4 Nxe5 17.dxe5 Nd7 18.Bxe7 Rxe7 19.f4 Nc5 20.Bb1 b4 21.Qc2 g6 22.Ne2 Nd7 23.Rd4 c5 24.Rd6 Qc7 25.h4 f5 26.Ba2 Kf7 27.Nd4 Nf8 28.Qd2 Qa5 29.Nxe6 Nxe6 30.Rxe6 Rxe6 31.Qd7+ Kf8 32.Qxe6 1-0
In the Leningrad Championship 1930/31 in my game against A. Batuev I played 7.Bd3 and my opponent answered 7…dxc4. After 8.Bxc4 c5 9.0-0 cxd4 10.exd4 Nb6 11.Bb3 Nbd5 12.Ne5 Nd7 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.Qe2 Nf6 15.Rfd1 b6 16.Rac1 Bb7 17.f3! Rc8 the game was decided by the surprising sacrifice of a Knight: 18.Nxf7!
Curiously, five years later at the 1936 Nottingham tournament Milan Vidmar unsuspectingly copied Batuev’s play. And here again the game was decided by the sacrifice of the Knight on f7, but not until the 20th move!
These systems were worked out both in the privacy of my study and in the white-hot crucible of tournament games. It’s clear that this is the best way to prepare, so that a maximum of time is available in the game for exact calculations.
I expended no small amount of work on learning the Nimzo-Indian Defense, particularly the then popular 4.Qb3, which I carefully studied both for White and Black. This one gave me good results in several games.
Here is a position from the game against I. Kan (Trade Union match, Moscow-Leningrad, 1930):
After 8.e4 Nd4 9.Nxd4 Bxd4 10.f3 White secures the advantage by achieving central control. But later I came to the conclusion that Black equalizes if he develops his Knight not on c6, but on a6, so as to control the central square e4 after …Nxc5. Several years later I succeeded in proving this in a game against Eliskases (Moscow, 1936). And then I decided to check the move 6.Bg5 (before Nf3). This brought success in a miniature against L. Savitsky (Leningrad, 1933). Here is the critical position:
There followed 6…h6 7.Bh4 Nd4 8.Qa4! (I had prepared this move in advance) and now the Black Queen Knight is tied to the defense of the Bishop.
8…Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Nf5 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Rc1 Qg5 12.Qa3 b6 13.Nf3 Qe7 14.g4 Nh4 15.Nxh4 Qxh4 16.Bg2 Rb8 17.Qxa7 Qg5 18.0-0 Qe5 19.cxb6 1-0
But several months later the cunning V. Ragozin improved Black’s play: 7…g5! (instead of 7..Nd4) and after 8.Bg3 Ne4 9.e3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Qf6 11.Rc1 Nxc5 12.Qc2 e5 Black stood well enough.
In the summer of 1933 I received, for my tournament victory in the Leningrad House of Scientists, a free stay at a sanatorium in the Caucasus. For the first tune in my life I rested so well that five days later I already wanted to work with my pocket chess set in preparation for the USSR Championship. Despite my efforts, I came to grief in two prepared variations. One was on the White side of a Grunfeld Defense against G. Levenfish. Several months before, Ragozin, in his game against Romanovsky, applied the new move 5.Qb3!? in the Grunfeld Defense after I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 and had gained a convincing win. During my preparations I came to the conclusion that it was more consistent to play Qb3 a move earlier. In my game against Levenfish the following position was reached after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Qb3 Bg7 5.Nf3 dxc4 6.Qxc4 0-0 7.e4 b6
Strategically the position is in White’s favor, one must merely decide on the variation 8.e5 Be6 9.exf6 Bxc4 10.fxg7 Kxg7 11.Bxc4. But in analyzing 8.Bf4, I overlooked a subtle pawn sacrifice by 8…c5. I was so confused by this that I decided to go into simplifications: 9.dxc5 Ba6 10.Qd4 Qxd4 11.Nxd4 Bxf1 12.Rxf1 Nxe4 13.cxb6 axb6 14.Be3 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Re8 16.Kd2 (the only consolation for White is that his King is in the center) 16…Nd7 and the endgame is evidently in Black’s favor. Not all that glitters, apparently, is gold.
But as a whole (from the practical point of view), I played in the Championship confidently. The rest before the tournament paid off. Sometime later I prepared for two weeks in my vacation home near Leningrad for a match against S. Flohr.
One can prepare for a match more thoroughly than for a tournament, as there is only one opponent. I systematically looked at more than one hundred of Flohr’s games, and identified his characteristic creative modes. Opening preparation was uncomplicated, because Flohr’s repertoire was limited. In the Caro-Kann Panov Attack, I prepared the new move 6.Bg5. In the first game all went as expected: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 dxc4 7.d5 Ne5 8.Qd4 Nd3+ 9.Bxd3 cxd3
After 10.Bxf6 exf6! 11.Qxd5 Bd6 Black got equal play. This heavy blow affected my play in the other five games of the Moscow half of the match.
The second half of the match was in Leningrad. I met with Ragozin and Model. Ragozin, who possessed a very delicate positional understanding, convinced us that this variation is in White’s favor, but it was crucial to find a successful tactical decision. And here Model’s analytical talent told.
We decided I should reserve it for the ninth game, at the finish of the match. In the diagrammed position I played: 10.Nf3 g6 11.Bxf6 exf6 12.0-0 Qb6 13.Re1+ Kd8 14.Qh4! and Black collapsed under insuperable difficulties. That was the first success of my new method. I concentrated my energy as follows: physical preparation (rest), an analysis of the opponent’s psychology, identifying his creative modes, analysis of his chess shortcomings, and finally the connection of opening ideas with middlegame plans.
This method of preparation is invaluable and leads to the greatest difficulties for one’s opponents. In fact, the adoption of it took me all the way to successfully competing for the World Championship.
(Translated by Igor Botvinnik.)