Riddle solved: Smyslov could have drawn!

by Karsten Müller
12/20/2020 – In game 14 of the 1958 World Championship match between Mikhail Botvinnik and Vasily Smyslov, Botvinnik played what he called “maybe his most subtle rook ending”. Endgame specialist Karsten Müller asked our readers to help him find any mistakes that might have been made in the game. The verdict? Smyslov could have drawn!
Winning starts with what you know
The new version 18 offers completely new possibilities for chess training and analysis: playing style analysis, search for strategic themes, access to 6 billion Lichess games, player preparation by matching Lichess games, download Chess.com games with built-in API, built-in cloud engine and much more.

The drawish nature of rook endings

Mikhail Botvinnik became world champion for the first time in 1948. The Patriarch of Soviet chess defended the title twice, first against David Bronstein (1951) and then against Smyslov (1954). In 1957, he was defeated by a 33-year-old Smyslov, who obtained a clear 12½:9½ victory in Moscow. Then came the 1958 rematch. Botvinnik faced Smyslov once again in a 24-game match, and kicked off with three straight victories — he would go on to win the match 12½:10½.

We presented a riddle from the rematch, thanks to a suggestion made by JNorri, who wrote: “For the future: I would suggest the 14th game of the 1958 Smyslov-Botvinnik match. Botvinnik called it maybe his most subtle rook ending.”

Even Botvinnik’s “most subtle” rook ending was drawn almost until the end, as the ChessBase readers found out! 

Zoran PetronijevicOnce again, Zoran Petronijevic sent the best solution, explaining in detail why Black cannot defend. These were his conclusions:

  1. The position after 22...Re6 is even.
  2. The game was adjourned after 41.Rh8. Botvinnik in his comments (his latest comments on this game are from 1986) points out that he had found a deep plan for him. However, the position is still even.
  3. Botvinnik criticizes 43...Kg6, which is in fact a good move and leads to even play.
  4. According to Botvinnik, 46...Rd6 loses. In fact, it leads to a very interesting pawn endgame, which is a draw. Botvinnik thought that 46...Ke6 loses due to 47.Rd4 — Charles Sullivan pointed out that this position is still even.
  5. Very interesting is 52...f4. According to Botvinnik, the position is already lost and Smyslov tried to confuse him by making the position more complex. Mikhalchishin has a different opinion: the position is still holdable, although f4 is a dubious move. In my opinion, this was a normal move.
  6. The first real mistake in this game is 54...Kf3. This move leads to a losing position. Neither Botvinnik nor Mikhalchishin evaluate it as a mistake. After 54...Re1 Black can hold.
  7. Botvnnik was right when he wrote that 57.axb5 is a mistake. Better was 57.Rxa6. In his analyses there are some mistakes.
  8. The decisive mistake is 59...Re2. Botvinnik thought that only 59...Re1 leads to draw, and 59...Kxh3 loses. The truth is that both moves lead to draw (see analyses). 

A very complex game with a lot of small imprecisions, which are unavoidable in this kind of positions.

 
New ...
Open...
Share...
Layout...
Flip Board
Settings
MoveNResultEloPlayers
Replay and check the LiveBook here
Sources: 1. Botvinnik, Analiticeskie i kriticeskie raboti. Moscow FIS, 1985. The same comments are in the compilation book Tri matca, Botvinnik-Smislov, Moscow, 2004.2. Adrian Mikhalchishin, Mastering essential rook endgames. 3. Smyslov, Levenfish, Teorija ladjeinih okoncanij, FIS Moscow 1986. This position is dead even. 23.Kf3 Rc6 "Smyslov tries to win an even endgame. Dangerous. Although White has slightly weaker queenside pawns, the activity of his King compensates this slight disadvantage." Botvinnik 1. 24.Rc1 Bd4 25.e3 Bc5 26.Bb2 "Of course, after keeping Bishops, Black's Rook is limited in his scope, and for White it is easier to protect the isolated pawns. " Botvinnik (1) f5 27.Ke2 Kf7 28.h3 Be7 29.a4 "And now pawns are safe." Botvinnik (1). h5 29...Rc5 30.Kd3 Ra5 31.Ra1 Bf6 32.Bc3 Bxc3 33.Kxc3 Ke6 34.Kb4= Botvinnik 30.Kd3 h4 "When you want to win at any price the position which is drawn, it is easy to make a weak move imperceptible. Black thought that 31.g4 is impossible, because he would create a passed pawn, however this is an aberration. " Botvinnik (1). In my opinion this move isn't a mistake at all. 31.g4 Botvinnki evaluated this move "!". In my opinion it is a suspicious one in fact. The easiest way to draw is 31.gxh4 Bxh4 32.f4 31...Rc5 Botvinnik didn't like 31...fxg4 32.hxg4 However, this position is still around equality. A possible line is Bf6 33.Bxf6 Kxf6 34.f4 g5 34...Rc5 35.e4 g5= 35.Kd4 Re6= 32.Bc3 Rc6 32...fxg4 33.hxg4 According to ChessBase analyses, this position is unclear. After g5= the position is even. Botvinnik preferred 32...Bf6 keeping the possibility of Ra5 after 33.Bxf6 Kxf6 33.Rg1 Botvinnik evaluates this move with "!". In fact the position still remains even. Rd6+ 34.Kc2 Bf6 34...Ke6= 34...Rc6= 35.gxf5 gxf5 36.Bxf6 Kxf6 36...Rxf6 37.Rg5 In Botvinnik's opinion White has a "significant advantage." In fact this position is even: f4 38.e4 Rg6 39.Rf5+ Ke6 40.Rxf4 Ke5 41.Rxh4 Rg2 42.Kd3 Rxf2 43.Rh5+ Kd6 Interesting position: all White's pawns are isolated! The position is even. 37.Rg8 Rc6 Even easier play gives 37...Rd7 38.Rh8 Kg5= 38.Kc3
38.Kb3 Rd6= Botvinnik (1) . 38...a6 According to Botvinnik, this move deserves an exclamation mark - the idea is b5 (the same evaluation gives Mikhalchishin (2)). In my opinion easier is 38...Ke5 activising his king, Black can make draw relatively easy. 39.Rh8 39.Re8+ Re6= 39...Rg6 40.Rxh4 Rg2 41.Rf4 Rg1 42.a5 Ra1 43.axb6 cxb6 44.h4 Rh1 45.Kd3 45.f3 Ke6 46.Kb4 a5+ 47.Ka4 Ra1+ 48.Kb5 Rb1+= 45...Ke6 46.Kd2 a5 47.Rd4 Rh2 48.Ke2 Rh1 49.Kd3 Rf1 50.h5 Rxf2 51.Rd5 51.Rh4 Kf7 52.Rh1 f4 53.exf4 Rxf4 54.h6 Kg8 55.h7+ Kh8 56.Rh6 Rf3+ 57.Kc2 Rf2+ 58.Kc3 Rf3+= 51...Rh2 52.Rb5 Rxh5 53.Rxb6+ Kd7 54.Rb5 a4 55.Ra5 Rh3 56.Rxf5 Rh2 57.Ra5 Ra2 58.Kc3 Kc6 59.e4 a3 60.Kb4 Re2 61.Rxa3 Rxe4= Petronijevic 39.Rh8 Kg5 40.Rg8+ Kf6 41.Rh8 Sealed move. "When I was sealing the move, I knew that White stands better. Black's king is forced to protect his pawn on h5 and that is why he is more passive than White's king. White can create passed pawn in the centre, where he has more pawns, while Black has difficulties to do the same on the queenside. After a profound analysis, I had prepared a very subtle plan. This plan was so unobservable that even Smyslov (the biggest expert in endgames and in the positonal play in general) did not see it. Maybe he was simply lazy yo analyze this position?" Botvinnik (1). In fact, this position is still even. Kg5 42.Kd4 "White should prevent b6-b5. Weaker is" 42.Kb4 Rd6 Botvinnik (1). Analysis shows that the position is even in both cases. 42...Rc5 Black can equalize more easily after 42...Re6 the position is even. 43.Rd8 If White activates his King 43.Kd5 Black has Re4 44.Rc8 Re7 45.Ra8 Kf6 46.Rf8+ Kg5 47.c5 bxc5 48.Ra8 c4 49.Rxa6 c3 50.Rc6 Rd7+ 51.Ke5 Re7+ 52.Kd4 c2 53.Rxc2 Re4+ 54.Kd3 Rxa4= 43.Rc8 Re7 44.Rd8 44.Ra8 Rd7+ 45.Ke5 Re7+ 46.Kd5 Kf6 47.Rf8+ Kg5 48.c5 bxc5 49.Ra8 c4 50.Rxa6 c3= and we already know this position from previous analysis. 44...Kf6 45.Kd3 Kg5 46.Rg8+ Kf6 47.Rc8 Rg7 48.Rh8 Rd7+ 49.Ke2 Kg5 50.Ra8 Rd6 51.Rg8+ Rg6 52.Rd8 Rc6 53.Kd3 Rc5 54.Rd7 b5 55.axb5 axb5 56.cxb5 Rxb5 57.Rg7+ Kh5 58.Rxc7 Rb2 59.Rc2 Rb3+ 60.Kd4 f4 61.exf4 Rxh3= 43...Re4+ 43...Kf6 leads to a draw as well. 44.Rd7 Rc6 45.Rh7 Kg5 46.Rh8 Re6 47.Rc8 Re7 48.Kd5 Kf6 49.Rf8+ Kg5 50.c5 bxc5 51.Ra8 c4 52.Rxa6 c3= with an already well-known drawish position. 44.Kd3 Re7 45.f3 45.Ra8 Rd7+ 46.Ke2 a5 47.Rc8 Kf6 48.c5 bxc5 49.Rh8 f4 50.Rh5 fxe3 51.fxe3 Ke6 52.Rxc5 Rg7 53.Rh5 Rg2+ 54.Kd3 Ra2 55.Rxa5 Rh2 56.Rh5 Rxh3 57.a5 Rh1 58.Ke4 Ra1 59.Rh6+ Kf7 60.Kf4 Rxa5 61.Rxh4= 45...Kf6 46.Rf8+ Rf7 47.Rh8 Rd7+ 48.Ke2 Kg5 49.f4+ Kg6 50.Rg8+ 50.Rxh4 Rd8= 50...Kf7 51.Rc8 Kg6 52.Rh8 a5 53.Rg8+ Kf7 54.Rg5 Kf6 55.Rh5 Kg6 56.Rh8 Rd6 57.Rg8+ Kf6 58.Rc8 Rc6 59.Kd3 Rd6+ 60.Kc2 Re6 61.Kd2 Rd6+ 62.Ke2 Rd7= 43.Rh7 Interesting is 43.f4+ although precise play leads to a draw: Kg6 44.Rxh4 Ra5 45.Rh8 Rxa4 46.Rc8 a5 46...c5+ leads to draw as well. 47.Ke5 47.Kd5 Ra3 48.Rc6+ Kf7 49.Rxb6 Rxe3 50.Kxc5 Rxh3 51.Kd5 a5 52.c5 a4 53.c6 Rc3 54.Rb5 a3 55.Ra5 Ke7= Mikhalchishin (2). 47...Ra3 47...Rxc4? 48.Rc6+ Kh5 48...Kg7 49.Kxf5 b5 50.Rc7+ Kf8 51.Kg6 Rc1 52.f5 Rg1+ 53.Kf6 Ke8 54.Ke6 Kd8 55.Rxc5 Rg8 56.Kf7 Rh8 57.Rd5+ Kc7 58.e4 Rb8 59.e5 a5 60.e6 a4 61.Rd7+ Kc6 62.Rd1 a3 63.e7 Kc5 64.f6 Kc4 65.e8Q+- 49.Kxf5 b5 50.Rxa6 Kh4 51.Rb6 b4 52.Ke5 Rc3 52...Kxh3 53.f5 Rc3 54.e4 Kg4 55.Rg6+ Kh5 56.Rg1 b3 57.Kf4 Kh6 58.f6 Rc2 59.e5 Rf2+ 60.Ke3 Rf5 61.Ke4 Rf2 62.Kd5 b2 63.Kxc5+- Lomonosov 53.f5 Kg5 54.e4 Rxh3 55.Rg6+ Kh5 56.Rc6 Kg5 57.Rxc5+- Lomonosov 48.Rc6+ Kg7 49.Kxf5 Rxe3 50.Rxb6 Rc3 51.Rg6+ Kh7 52.Rxa6 Rxc4= Lomonosov 47.Rxc7 b5 48.Rc6+ Kh5 49.e4 bxc4 50.exf5 c3+ 51.Ke5 Rb4 52.f6 52.Rxc3 Rb5+ 53.Ke4 Rb4+ 54.Kf3 Rb5 55.Rc8 Rxf5= 52...Rb5+ 53.Ke6 Kg6 54.h4 c2 55.f7 Kg7 56.h5 c1Q 57.Rxc1 Rb6+ 58.Kf5 Rb5+ 59.Kg4 Kxf7= Lomonosov 43...Kg6 In Botvinnik's opinion this move isn't correct. This is, however, wrong. The position is even. According to Botvinnik, the correct move was 43...Rc6 44.Rd7 ChessBase suggests 44.f4+ Kg6 45.Rxh4 Rc5 This move is a mistake After the stronger 45...Rd6+ the position is even. 46.Kc3 Rd8 Mikhalchishin (2). 47.Kc2 c6 48.Kc3 Re8 49.Kd2 Ra8 50.Kd3 Rc8 51.c5 b5 52.a5 Rd8+ 53.Kc3 Re8= Rh4 is in prison. 46.Rh8 Ra5 47.Rc8± Let's continue analyzing This analysis is full of mistakes. After 47.Rg8+ White is winning: Kf6 48.h4 Rxa4 49.h5 Kf7 50.Rg5 Kf6 51.Rg1 c6 52.Rg6+ Kf7 53.Rxc6 b5 54.Ke5 Rxc4 55.Rf6+ Kg7 56.Rg6+ Kh7 57.Kxf5 Rc5+ 58.Kg4 a5 59.f5 b4 60.Rb6 Rc8 61.e4+- 47...Rxa4 48.Rxc7 b5 49.Ke5 Ra3 49...Rxc4 50.Rxc4 bxc4 51.Kd4 Kh5 52.e4 c3 53.Kxc3 fxe4 54.Kd4 a5 55.Kxe4 a4 56.Kd3+- 50.Rc6+ Kf7 51.Kxf5 Rxe3 52.Rc7+ Kg8 53.c5 b4 54.Kf6 b3 55.Rg7+ Kf8 56.Rb7 Ke8 57.h4 Kd8 58.h5 Kc8 59.Rb6 a5 60.h6 Rh3 61.Kg6 Rg3+ 62.Kf5 Rh3 63.Kg4 Rh2 64.f5 64.Rxb3 Rxh6 wins as well 64...b2 65.h7 Rxh7 66.Rxb2+- 44...Kf6 good alternative is 44...Kg6 45.Re7 a5 45...Kf6= 46.Rd7 Kf6 47.Rh7 Rd6+ 48.Kc3 Rd1 49.Rxc7 Rc1+ 50.Kd3 Rd1+ 51.Ke2 Ra1 52.Rc6+ Ke7 53.Rxb6 Rxa4 54.Ra6 Rxc4 55.Rxa5 Rc2+ 56.Kf3 Kf6= 45.Rd5 Ke6 46.Kc3 Rd6= "forcing the Rook trade, transposing to the pawn endgame which is a draw" - Botvinnik. 44.Rd7 Kf6 45.Rd5 Rc6 46.Kc3 Re6 According to Botvinnik 46...Rd6 loses. However, Mikhalchishin proves that this endgame is a draw: 47.Rxd6+ cxd6 48.Kd4 Ke6 49.f3 49.f4 a5 50.e4 fxe4 51.Kxe4 Kf6 Mikhalchishin (1) 52.Kd5 Kf5 53.Kxd6 Kxf4 54.Kc6 Kg3 55.Kxb6 Kxh3= 49...f4! 49...Ke7 50.Kd5 Kd7 51.f4 a5 52.e4+- Botvinnik 50.exf4 Kf5 51.Ke3 51.Kd5 Kxf4 52.Kxd6 Kxf3 53.Kc6 Kg3 54.Kxb6 Kxh3 55.c5 Kg3 56.c6 h3 57.c7 h2 58.c8Q h1Q 59.Kxa6= The Queen endgame is a draw. 51...a5 52.Kf2 Kxf4 53.Ke2 Kf5 54.Ke3 Ke5 55.f4+ Kf6 56.Ke4 Kg6 57.Kd5 57.f5+ Kg5 58.Kd5 Kxf5 59.Kxd6 Ke4 60.Kc6 Kd4 61.Kxb6 Kxc4 62.Kxa5 Kc5= 57...Kf5 58.Kxd6 Kxf4 59.Kc6 Kg3 60.Kxb6 Kxh3 61.c5 Kg3 62.c6 h3 63.Kxa5 h2 64.c7 h1Q 65.c8Q= Mikhalchishin According to Botvinnik (1) 46...Ke6 loses due to 47.Rd4 Charles Sullivan pointed out that in this case the position is even: Rc5 48.Kb3 Ra5 49.Rxh4 b5 50.cxb5 axb5 51.Rb4 bxa4+ 52.Rxa4 Rc5 53.Rc4 Rb5+ 54.Kc2 Ra5 55.Kd2 c5 56.Ke2 Kd5= 47.Rd4 Kg5 48.Rd7 Rc6 Good alternative is 48...f4 49.Kd4 fxe3 50.fxe3 c6 51.Rb7 b5 52.cxb5 cxb5 53.axb5 axb5 54.Rxb5+ Kh6= Lomonosov, Petronijevic. 49.Kb4 ChessBase: / \Rd8-a8. The position is still about even. Kf6 50.Rd4 Kg5 51.Rd8 Re6 51...f4 leads to a draw as well 52.Rd5+ Kh6 53.Rd4 Rf6 54.Kc3 Rf5 55.Rxf4 Rxf4 56.exf4 Kg7 57.Kd4 c6 58.f5 Kf6 59.Ke4 Ke7 60.Ke5 b5 61.cxb5 cxb5 62.a5 Kf7= Petronijevic 52.Rc8 f4!? Mikhalchishin (2) evaluates this move as a suspicious one. Chessbase: 52...c5+ 53.Kc3 f4 54.Kd3 54.Rg8+ Kh6! 54...Kf5? 55.Rf8+ 55.Kd3? fxe3 56.fxe3 Rd6+ 57.Ke2 a5= 55...Rf6 56.Rxf6+! 56.e4+? Ke5 57.Rxf6 Kxf6= 56...Kxf6 57.f3 Ke6 58.Kd3 Ke5 59.Ke2 Kd6 60.exf4 Ke6 61.f5+ Kf6 62.Ke3 Ke5 63.f6 Kxf6 64.Ke4 Kf7 65.Ke5 Ke8 66.f4 b5 67.cxb5 axb5 68.axb5+- Chessbase. 55.exf4 Re2 56.Rg2 Re4! 56...Ra2? 57.Kd3 Ra3+ 58.Ke4 Rxa4 59.f5 Rxc4+ 60.Ke5 Rc3 61.f6 Rf3 62.Ke6+- Mikhalchishin (2) . 54.e4 Rxe4 55.a5 bxa5 56.Rxc5+ Kf6 57.Rxa5 Re2= Mikhalchishin (2) . 54...fxe3 55.fxe3 a5 55...Rd6+ 56.Ke2 a5 57.Rg8+ Kf5= 56.Rg8+ Kf5 To the draw also leads 56...Kh5 57.e4 Rd6+ 58.Ke3 Re6! 58...Rd1 is a wrong line suggested by Mikhalchishin 59.e5+- 59.Rg1 Kh6 60.Rg4 Kh5= Petronijevic 57.Rg4 57.e4+ Kf6= 57...Rh6 58.e4+ Ke5 59.Ke3 Rf6 60.Rxh4 Rf1 61.Rh5+ Ke6 62.Rh6+ Ke5 63.Rxb6 Rc1= Mikhalchishin (1). Chessbase 52...Rc6 Chessbase and Mikhalchishing give "!", which isn't necessary in my opinion. 53.Ra8 to force a6-a5, but then Black can exploit the absence of the white pieces on the kingside. f4 54.e4 Rd6 55.Kc3 Rd1? Both Chessbase and Mikhalchishin give this move as the best one. In fact, it loses. Better is 55...Kf6 56.Rf8+ Ke5 57.f3 Rd1 58.Rf5+ Ke6 59.Rxf4 Ra1 60.Rxh4 Ra3+ 61.Kb4 Rxf3 62.c5 Ke5 63.Rh7 bxc5+ 64.Kxc5 Kxe4 65.Rh4+ Ke5 66.Rh5+ Ke6 67.Kc6 Rc3+ 68.Kb7 c5 69.Kxa6 Kd6= 56.Rg8+ Another mistake by Chessbase and Mikhalchishin (2). After 56.Rf8! White wins. For instance: c5 57.Rf5+ Kh6 58.Rxf4 Kg7 59.f3 Ra1 60.Kb3 Rf1 61.Kc2 Ra1 62.e5 Rxa4 63.e6 b5 64.e7 Ra2+ 65.Kd1 Ra1+ 66.Ke2 Ra2+ 67.Ke3 Ra1 68.e8N+!+- 56...Kf6∞ Chessbase, Mikhalchishin (2). The position is even. 53.exf4+ Kxf4 54.Rxc7
54...Kf3? Neither Botvinnik nor Mikhalchichin evaluate this move. In fact, it is a clear mistake which should have led to a loss. After 54...Re1! The position is even 55.Rf7+ 55.a5 Rb1+ 56.Kc3 bxa5 57.Rh7 Kg5 58.Rg7+ Kf6 59.Rg4 Rf1 60.Rxh4 Rxf2 61.Rh6+ Ke7 62.Kd4 Kd7 63.Rxa6 Rf5= 55...Kg5 56.Rg7+ Kf5 57.Rg4 Rb1+ 58.Kc3 Ra1 59.Rxh4 Rxa4 60.Rh5+ Kg6 61.Rd5 b5 62.cxb5 axb5 63.Kd3 Rh4 64.Rxb5 Rxh3+= 55.Rh7 Re4 56.Rh6 b5
56...Kg2 cannot help either: 57.Rxb6 Kxh3 58.Rxa6 Kg2 59.a5 h3 60.Rh6! 60.Rg6+? Was suggested by Botvinnik (1) referring to Averbakh. In fact, this move throws away the win: Kxf2 61.Rh6 Kg3! Botvinnik gives 61...Kg2? which is wrong and loses: 62.a6! Re1 63.c5 Ra1 here Botvinnk (1) refers to Averbakh and his line is 64.Kb5 Rb1+ 65.Kc6 h2 66.a7 Ra1 67.Kb7 Rb1+ 68.Ka8 Rc1 69.c6 h1Q 69...Rxc6 70.Rxh2+ Kxh2 71.Kb7+- 70.Rxh1 Kxh1 71.Kb7 Rb1+ 72.Ka6 Ra1+ 73.Kb6 Rb1+ 74.Kc5 Rc1+ 75.Kb4 Rb1+ 76.Kc3 Ra1 77.c7+- 62.a6 Re2 63.c5 h2 64.c6 Re4+ 65.Kc5 Rh4 66.Rxh4 Kxh4 67.a7 h1Q 68.a8Q Qc1+= 60...h2 61.a6 h1Q 62.Rxh1 Kxh1 63.a7 Re8 64.Kb5 Kg2 65.c5 Kxf2 66.c6 Ke3 67.c7 Kd4 68.Kc6+- Mikhalchishin (2). 57.axb5? Botvinnik (1) rightly criticises this move and suggests the correct 57.Rxa6! after which White wins. bxc4 57...Rxc4+ 58.Kxb5 Rf4 59.Rc6 Kxf2 60.a5+- Chessbase. 58.Rc6 c3+ 59.Kb5! 59.Kb3? A mistake in Botvinnik's analysis (1). This move leads to a draw. Kxf2 60.Rxc3 Botvinnik finished his analysis with the following evaluation: White wins. However, this is not true: Rf4 61.a5 Kg2 62.Kb2 Rf6 63.Ra3 Rf2+= Interesting is that the same mistake was made by Mikhalchichin in his book (2). The same mistake is made in ChessBase's analysis as well. 59...Re5+ 60.Kb6 Kxf2 61.Rxc3 and White is winning: Re6+ 62.Kb5 Re5+ 63.Kb4 Re4+ 64.Rc4 Re1 65.Rxh4+- 57...axb5 58.Rf6+ Kg2 59.Kxb5
59...Re2? 59...Re1! Botvinnik (2) thought that only this move leads to a draw. in fact, even Kxh3 leads to adraw (see analysis below). 60.c5 Rb1+ 61.Ka6 Kxh3 62.Rf4 62.c6 Ra1+ 63.Kb7 Rb1+ 64.Kc8 Kg2 65.f4 65.c7 h3 66.Kd7 Rd1+ 67.Rd6 Rxd6+ 68.Kxd6 Kxf2= 65...h3 66.Rg6+ Kf3 67.Rh6 Kg3 68.f5 h2 69.f6 Rf1 70.Rg6+ Kh4 71.c7 Kh5 72.Rg8 Rxf6= Botvinnik (1). 62.Rg6 Ra1+ 63.Kb7 Ra2 64.f3 Rb2+ 65.Rb6 Rf2 66.c6 Rxf3 67.c7 Rf7= Mikhalchishin (1). 62...Ra1+ 63.Kb7 63.Kb5 Rb1+ 64.Kc4 Rh1 65.c6 65.Kd3 Kg2 66.Ke2 Rc1 67.Rg4+ Kh3 68.Rg5 Kh2 69.Kd2 Rc4 70.Kd3 Rc1 71.Kd4 h3 72.Kd5 Rg1= 65...Kg2 66.Kd5 h3 67.c7 Rc1 68.Rc4 Rxc4 69.Kxc4 Kxf2 70.c8Q h2= 63...Rb1+ 64.Kc7 Rh1‼ 65.c6 Kg2= Botvinnik (1). 65...Ra1 66.Kb7 Rb1+ 67.Kc8 Kg2 68.Rxh4+- During the game Botvinnik (1) was expecting 59...Kxh3 60.c5 Re5 leads to a draw. Botvinnik expected 60...Kg2? which is in fact a mistake: 61.c6 h3 62.c7 Re8 63.Rh6 h2 64.Kc6 h1Q 65.Rxh1 Kxh1 66.Kd7+- 61.f4 Rh5!= 60.c5 Rb2+ 61.Ka6 Ra2+ 61...Kxh3 62.Rf4+- 62.Kb7 Rb2+ 63.Rb6 Rc2 63...Rxf2 64.Rb3+- 64.c6 Kxh3 65.c7 Kg2 66.Rc6 Rb2+ 67.Rb6 Rc2 68.f4 Let us finish with Mikhalchishin's (2) words: "This is one of the most complicated rook endgames from World Championship history." 1–0
  • Start an analysis engine:
  • Try maximizing the board:
  • Use the four cursor keys to replay the game. Make moves to analyse yourself.
  • Press Ctrl-B to rotate the board.
  • Drag the split bars between window panes.
  • Download&Clip PGN/GIF/FEN/QR Codes. Share the game.
  • Games viewed here will automatically be stored in your cloud clipboard (if you are logged in). Use the cloud clipboard also in ChessBase.
  • Create an account to access the games cloud.
WhiteEloWBlackEloBResYearECOEventRnd
Botvinnik,M-Smyslov,V-1–01958A16World-ch21 Botvinnik-Symslov +7-5=1114

In over 4 hours in front of the camera, Karsten Müller presents to you sensations from the world of endgames - partly reaching far beyond standard techniques and rules of thumb - and rounds off with some cases of with own examples.

In our replay board above there are a large number of functions you can use to really understand the game and the analysis. Recently we published a comprehensive tutorial plus video instructions which tells you about all the powerful features and buttons that make the ChessBase's replay one of the best replay experiences around.

One big advantage is that you can start an engine (fan icon) that will help you to analyse. You can get multiple lines of analysis by clicking the + button to the right of the engine analysis window. The "!" key, incidentally, shows you the threat in any position, which is incredibly useful in the case of unclear moves.

There is one more thing you can do. It is a lot of fun, but also a serious challenge: Click on the rook icon below the notation window. This will allow you the play the above position against Fritz, at your level of playing strength (e.g. "Club Player"), right here on the news page. Note that your analysis, in which you can delete, move or promote lines, is stored in the notation as new variations. In the end you will find the game with your analysis in the cloud. So nothing is ever lost.

Links

Karsten Müller is considered to be one of the greatest endgame experts in the world. His books on the endgame - among them "Fundamentals of Chess Endings", co-authored with Frank Lamprecht, that helped to improve Magnus Carlsen's endgame knowledge - and his endgame columns for the ChessCafe website and the ChessBase Magazine helped to establish and to confirm this reputation. Karsten's Fritztrainer DVDs on the endgame are bestsellers. The mathematician with a PhD lives in Hamburg, and for more than 25 years he has been scoring points for the Hamburger Schachklub (HSK) in the Bundesliga.

Discuss

Rules for reader comments

 
 

Not registered yet? Register

We use cookies and comparable technologies to provide certain functions, to improve the user experience and to offer interest-oriented content. Depending on their intended use, analysis cookies and marketing cookies may be used in addition to technically required cookies. Here you can make detailed settings or revoke your consent (if necessary partially) with effect for the future. Further information can be found in our data protection declaration.