My Games with Fine

by ISAAC BOLESLAVSKY

   When it was decided that I was to play in the radio match at the third board against Grandmaster Reuben Fine, one of the strongest chessplayers in the world, I was somewhat awed. It was more than I expected. At the same time I appreciated the honor and set about preparing for the engagement.
   I was acquainted with Grandmaster Fine's style and knew  many of is games. When I was preparing for the 13th USSR Championship Tournament I decided to brush up on some openings, particularly the Grunfeld Defense. I used Fine's article on this defense published in the magazine Chess in the USSR in 1940 as one of my main sources/ In recent years I examined Fine's games in important contests and made a particular study of his games at the Amsterdam Match Tournament of 1938 (AVRO) where he divided first and second prizes. I also studied the games he played in the USSR.
   Unlike Ragozin and Bronstein who knew nothing of their opponents Seidman and Santasiere, I was fairly well acquainted with my opponent. Nevertheless, I knew only his old games. To me he was the Fine of the Amsterdam Tournament. I must add, however, that knowing your opponent is of course an undecisive factor. The outcome of a game depends on what takes place on the board.
   In the first game, in which I played Black, I chose the King's Indian Defense which I know well. At the very beginning I sought to complicate the game. At one stage I failed to grasp all the implications of the position and at the 25th move found myself in rather dire straits. My attempt to attack on the Queen's side only aggravated the situation. At the 32nd move I thought my position was almost hopeless. At this point Fine, in my opinion, made the mistake of prematurely launching an attack on my King's side. If he had continued his positional pressure Black could hardly have escaped defeat. White's attack was very dangerous but I managed each time to reply to the immediate threats. When the game was adjourned Black was two pawns ahead but White's position was much superior. When the game resumed Fine played exceptionally well, but he only succeeded in regaining the sacrificed Pawns . The game was drawn on the 51st move in a quite simplified position.
   In the second game I managed to obtain a considerable advantage in the opening stage. This was the result of a serious blunder made by Fine on the ninth move of the Duras Variation which I used in that game. Fine put up a strong defense, trying to relieve his position by exchanges, but the configuration of Pawns on his Queen's side prejudiced his position beyond repair. The Knights' end-game which developed after thirty moves proved hopeless for Black.
   I think that in both games I had a stroke of luck. There is no doubt in my mind that in future contests Grandmaster Fine will certainly manage to force a win in a position such as he had in the first game and won't give me the opportunity to get the position I had in the second game.
   This was my first chance to play in an international contest. I am naturally pleased with the result.

CHESS REVIEW, October, 1945

The Radio Match

by MIKHAIL BOTVINNIK

   It was with interest and approval that Soviet chessplayers learned of the suggestion made in the November 1943 issue of CHESS REVIEW that a Radio Match be arranged between teams representing the United States and the Soviet Union. It may be taken for granted that not only American and Soviet chessplayers looked forward to such a match but all true chess lovers throughout the free world.
   At last the match has taken place. It coincided with the termination of the second World War and the triumph of the United Nations. It was thus the first international affair of the post-war period.
   There was good reason for the general interest in this contest between the United States and the Soviet Union. America gave us such eminent masters as Morphy, Pillsbury and Marshall. Capablanca also was associated with the United States as a chessplayer. Russian chess, on the other hand, developed under the influence of Tchigorin's traditions and Soviet masters have considerably improved on those fine traditions.
   As to the result of the match, it seems to me that it can be at least partly explained by the fact that our American friends underrated the strength of our Soviet team.
   Another reason is that in several games the Americans obviously had bad luck. Take, for example, the first game between Smyslov and Reshevsky. The first eighteen moves were identical with the moves in the game Duras-Maroczy played at Ostend, 1906. Reshevsky, who of course knew this game and also Tchigorin's subsequent analysis of it, followed Maroczy's example in sacrificing the Knight. In the Moscow Championship Tournament of 1942, however, Boleslavsky, playing White against Ragozin, found a continuation which proved that Maroczy's idea was unsound. I later examined the Boleslavsky-Ragozin game and spent several days and nights trying to find a continuation which would prove better than Ragozin's. In 1943, at Sverdlovsk, I applied my "improved  continuation against Boleslavsky. This time the game ended in a draw but my position was inferior. This game definitely proved that Boleslavsky had the right idea. Obviously, Reshevsky could not have studied these games. They were published in an issue of the magazine Chess in the USSR (which resumed publication in May 1945) but this issue was not available in the United States at the time of the match. Smyslov, who applied Boleslavsky's discovery, spent only nine minutes on the first twenty-five moves and won the game.
   In the second game between Arnold Denker and myself, Denker also got into difficulties in the opening. But this should not have been the case in our first game. It is possible, of course, that Denker did not know my games with Master Mikenas and Grandmaster Lilienthal in the USSR Championship of 1944. But those were not quite original. Games using the variation I employed in my first contest with Denker were published in 1940 and 1941.