SC Week 1/2: Botvinnik - Szilagyi, Amsterdam 1966 (Introduction)
"Why is Black lost? Material is equal and White hasn’t got a piece beyond the second rank. The answer lies in the pawns. White has two beautiful squares on c4 and d5 plus a mobile pawn roller on the left flank, whereas Black’s pawns constrict his own pieces terribly, particularly the bishop."
Michael Stean
Notes and Observations
Aside from 18 Bg5, Botvinnik got induced the light-square weaknesses in Black’s position by simple well-timed pawn advances (16 b5, 21 a5, 26 a6).
He is playing for a win but he’s happy to trade off all the rooks - to reduce opportunities for counter play? The superior minor piece becomes increasingly relevant the fewer pieces on the board?
Botters has no interest in the open d-file. He doesn’t occupy it when he has the chance and doesn’t challenge Black after 27 … Qd7.
- no entry points? Doesn’t want the queens off?
An anonymous contribution from yesterday's post went as follows:-
ReplyDelete"My three stand outs from day 1. Game: Botvinnik v Szilagyi 1966.
1. What does a "fixed center" really mean?
2. The idea of "expansion" is not something that I have considered enough but I probably should.
3. Stean emphasizes that the activity of ones pieces is THE most important feature of a chess position, which is accomplished through pawn structure. Evaluating a position (accurately) has always been difficult for me so this bit of advice will, I hope, begin to help me understand and play more effectively."