NEZHMETDINOV'S BEST GAMES
OF CHESS
by Rashid Nezhmetdinov
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
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: Qd5d3, 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
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).
NgS-f6
2. ...
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 f2f4. 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
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.
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.
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.
Qd8-h4+
Ne4-f2+
12. Kel-dl
3
13. Kdl-el
14. Kel-dl
IS. Rhlxel
Nf2-d3++
Qh4-el +!
Nd3-f2 mate
7. c2-c3
b7-b6
S. Nf3-eS
BcS-b7
9. f2-f4
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.
Nf6-e4!
12. BgSxe7
QdSxe7
13. 0-0-0
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
d7-d5
2. Ngl-f3
NgS-f6
3. Bc1-gS
e7-e6
4. e2-e3
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.
BfS-e7
S. Bfl-d3
0-0
6. Nbl-d2
c7-c5
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.
f7-fS
13. ...
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
4