Boris Spassky’s

Best Games 1
By

Tibor Karolyi

Quality Chess
www.qualitychess.co.uk
 Contents

Title Page

Key to Symbols used 4

Preface 5

The Early Years 9

1948 13

1949 23

1950 29

1951 31

1952 37

1953 49

1954 59

1955 71

1956 83

1957 95

1958 111

1959 123

1960 137

1961 165

1962 191

1963 211

1964 227

2
1965 249

1966 267

1967 311

1968 323

Epilogue 338

Game Index 339

Name Index 342

3
 Key to symbols used
? a weak move
?? a blunder
! a good move
!! an excellent move
!? a move worth considering
?! a move of doubtful value
† check
# mate

6
Preface

7
Spassky at the Amsterdam 1956 Candidates tournament

8
To become a World Champion is one of the most difficult things a person can achieve. In no field of
human endeavour is this more true than it is for chess. After Wilhelm Steinitz became the first official
World Champion in 1886, more than a hundred years passed with only twelve other players achieving
the highest title in chess. My guess is that no other game or sport produced so few World Champions
over such a timespan.

Few nations can boast of having a World Chess Champion. Those that can are rightly proud of them,
and their inhabitants respect these champions a lot. Many of them are regarded as national heroes. In
1969, Boris Vasilievich Spassky became the latest in a long line of Soviet players who earned the
highest title in chess, but he also became known as the World Champion who lost the country’s title
to Fischer, which came as such a blow to the pride of Russia as well as the wider Soviet Union. Thus,
in my estimation Boris Spassky is the most underappreciated World Champion in all of chess history.
I also believe playing style to be an important factor which affects the way that different champions
are perceived by the chess public. Many World Champions had highly distinctive characteristics: Tal
sacrificed wildly, Kasparov’s dynamic attacks and opening preparation were lethal, Capablanca
excelled at positional play, Botvinnik was a great strategist, Karpov is renowned for his endgame
masterpieces, and so on. Spassky was a superb attacking player with a fluent and elegant style, but he
never really became known as the ultimate paradigm of a particular style of chess in the way that
many other World Champions did.

When I was analysing the games of my book Fischer – Spassky 1972, I came to appreciate what a
great player Boris Spassky is. I hope that after reading my two books, the chess public will feel the
same. There are some obvious game highlights that most players have already seen: for instance,
Spassky’s rook sacrifice against Larsen is one of the most famous combinations in the history of
chess. However, Spassky also produced many gems which are nowhere near as well known as I think
they deserve to be. Take the following example, which I did not find published in any other book
about Spassky.

Boris Spassky – Ratmir Kholmov

Yerevan 1962

9
23.Bxf6!
Spassky begins a grand strategic concept with this surprising exchange.

Over the next twelve moves, Spassky systematically exchanged certain pieces until the following
position was reached:

35.Na3!
The knight threatens to capture on b5, and Black has no good defence. Though I cannot be
certain, I reckon Spassky visualized this stunning idea twelve moves earlier when he exchanged on f6
– and possibly even earlier, when he placed his bishop on the g5-square.

10
You will, of course, find full details of this previously unnoticed masterpiece in this book, beginning
on page 208.

How this Book Originated

My 2021 book The Road to Reykjavik documented Bobby Fischer’s life and career up to the end of
1971. My next book, Fischer – Spassky 1972, covered the historic Reykjavik 1972 match, as well as
the 1992 rematch, from both Fischer’s and Spassky’s perspectives. It therefore felt natural to begin
Fischer – Spassky 1972 with a proper introduction to Spassky. The problem was that I found so many
brilliant games of his which I felt should be included, which meant that before I knew it, the
“Introduction” on Spassky had grown far too big to include as part of the 1972 book. Fortunately,
Quality Chess agreed with me that Spassky’s beautiful games deserved to be treated as a separate
project, which subsequently evolved into a two-volume work.

Overview of Spassky’s Career

Although I have already written a book about it, I cannot discuss Spassky’s unique career without
touching on his 1972 World Championship match against Fischer. Played during the height of the
Cold War, it attracted the greatest media attention of any event in all of chess history, as the
representatives of the world’s two superpowers clashed over the board. The extreme propaganda of
the ruling communist party in the Soviet Union raised the stakes to an unprecedented degree. Fischer
was under strain as well, but the pressure on the Soviet representative must have been even greater.
Despite losing his title in Reykjavik, Spassky was the first World Champion to become truly wealthy
through chess, as opposed to just financially comfortable.
After losing the world title, Spassky remained a top-ten player for two more decades. In these years
he still produced some fantastic results, such as tying for first place with Karpov at the Bugojno super
tournament of 1978. Spassky was overtaken in playing strength by younger stars like Karpov and
later Kasparov, but he still produced more brilliant games than one might think.

In this book and the forthcoming companion volume, we will journey through Spassky’s career, re-
examining some well-known games but also enjoying many little-known masterpieces. One of the
surprising things I discovered about Spassky’s games is that he had a knack for making breathtaking
knight manoeuvres, so you can look forward to some beautiful games in which he treated his knights
brilliantly. The following position occurred against a great player in a Candidates semi-final match
for the World Championship.

Lajos Portisch – Boris Spassky

Geneva (14) 1977

11
 Would you believe that only nine moves later, the knight on c8 will land on b1, by which time
Black will be winning? It happened without Portisch making any blunder or other glaring mistake.
Full details can be found in the second volume.

***

This two-volume work covers Spassky’s life and career, from childhood up until his last recorded
game in 2009. It will include his World Championship matches of 1966 and 1969 (with minimal
coverage of Reykjavik 1972, since I expect most readers will already have my book on that match),
as well as Spassky’s World Championship Candidates matches, Olympiad gold medals, Soviet
Championship victories and many other ups and downs of his career.

By the way, Spassky is unique among the post-World War II World Champions, being the only one
of them who did not publish at least one book of his selected games. Dear Reader, if you wish to learn
more about an underappreciated World Champion and enjoy his amazing masterpieces, this
biography of Boris Spassky is for you.

Tibor Karolyi
Soltvadkert, Hungary
July 2023

12
Spassky analyses with Larsen at Beverwijk, 28 January 1967
See the comments to Game 88 for the full game

13
 The Early Years

Boris Vasilevich Spassky was born in Leningrad on January 30 1937. His father, Vasili
Vladimirovich Spassky, was a construction engineer and served in the military. His mother, Ekaterina
Petrovna Spasskaya, was an elementary school teacher. Boris had a brother named Grigory, who was
three years older. Spassky’s paternal grandfather was a Russian Orthodox priest, and both of his
parents were religious. It meant a certain dislike for the Soviet system, and may have sowed the seeds
of Spassky’s future disdain for communism.

I consulted various sources regarding Spassky’s youth, including Soltis, plus the English and Russian
versions of Wikipedia, as well as Spassky’s interviews with Leonard Barden and in Kingpin
magazine. There are some slight discrepancies between sources concerning certain details, but most
aspects of the story seem fairly clear.

World War II broke out in 1939, and the siege of Leningrad began in September 1941. In 1942,
Spassky’s mother was evacuated with her two sons to the city of Perm in the Urals, approximately
1,500 kilometres east of Leningrad. His father had to stay and fight to defend the city. Spassky recalls
that people were evacuated using trains, and they were “incredibly lucky” to escape on the second of
them, as the first and third train were both struck by bombs.

In the Kingpin interview from 1998, Spassky said:

“I was lucky to survive; the people in Leningrad, as you know, were starved to death. On the way
to the Urals our train was heavily bombed several times. Finally, we arrived at Perm where I was
placed at an orphanage, an extremely beautiful building on the site of an old convent. Years later
the convent was pulled down on the order of Khruschev. Nobody taught me to play chess there. I
was just watching other people playing chess. At that time I was only five years old.”

The English version of Wikipedia states that Spassky learned chess while actually on the train
evacuating Leningrad, but Spassky’s own words suggest that his introduction to the game came after
they arrived in Perm. Spassky later recalled that, as a young boy, his favourite piece was the rook. It
is therefore fitting that he would go on to play arguably the most famous rook move of all time,
against Larsen in 1970.

Vasili Vladimirovich Spassky survived the conflict in Leningrad. By 1943, the Spassky family had
reunited and was living close to Moscow. Unfortunately, whether due to stresses caused by the
trauma of war or some other reason, Spassky’s father left the family the following year, when his
mother was three months pregnant. Ekaterina Spasskaya gave birth to a girl, Iraida Spasskaya, in
1945. From then on, Spassky would only see his father once or twice per year. He continued playing

14
chess from time to time.

Barden shares some additional information about Spassky’s mother:

“Boris’ mother was the stronger character, a woman with firm, uncomplicated emotional beliefs.
She was a Komsomol leader when a young teacher, likes revolutionary songs, yet is also
puritanical and religious. “She has the deepest beliefs that everything is very good in the world,”
Boris told me, “and that a human being must take a very calm attitude to life.” Mrs. Spassky has
a stubborn streak, and it is stubbornness which Boris singles out as his own outstanding
characteristic as a chessplayer.”

Although the siege of Leningrad had ended early in 1944, and World War II ended in 1945, life for
the single-parent Spassky family remained tough. Later in the Barden interview, Spassky said:

“My mother had a very difficult position; she was alone in Moscow with three children and she
could not work after she was forty, as she had strained herself lifting a heavy weight. My father
couldn’t do anything for his family, and friends helped my mother to get by.”

Ekaterina Spasskaya moved back to Leningrad with her three children in 1946. Spassky and his
brother found a chess pavilion in the Kirov park. Soltis cites Spassky:

“I was seeing a fairy tale world… I lost my sense of reality… A wild passion took possession of
me.”

For about two weeks, the young Boris was content to watch others play and be “delighted by the
movement of the pieces.” But once he started to play, he could barely stop. Spassky recalls that he
would go to the pavilion every day and play for hours.

“Looking back I had a sort of predestination in my life… I understood that through chess I could
express myself and chess became my natural language.”

As the weather became colder in 1946 the pavilion closed, so the young Boris, who was not yet nine
years old, went to the Leningrad Pioneer Palace. Taimanov recalls:

“…the fair-haired nine-year-old showed up one day and asked shyly, “I want to sign up for chess
circle – can I?””

Spassky’s First Chess Trainer

Vladimir Grigorevich Zak became Boris’s trainer at the Pioneer Palace. Born in 1913, Zak became a
candidate master in 1938. He lost his mother in 1939 and his father in 1941 in the siege of Leningrad.

15
Zak was a soldier of the Red Army during the war, and received an award for his service. Those years
must have been traumatic, but they may also have made him a stronger man.

Zak was a good player, but not outstanding – especially in a city that had, prior to the war, been home
to players such as Botvinnik, Levenfish, Tolush, Ragozin, Ilyin-Zhenevsky, Rabinovich, Lisitsin,
Sokolsky and Romanovsky. Zak faced several top-class players in his career, usually losing to them
but scoring the occasional upset. In 1945 he lost to Ragozin in the Leningrad Championship. In 1947,
Zak had to play a match for the master title against Averbakh. At the start of the match it appeared
that Averbakh did not take him seriously enough, as he played a dubious line against the Ruy Lopez,
and Zak beat him convincingly. But from then on, Averbakh played better chess and Zak made only
five draws and five defeats. I believe Zak’s convincing defeat against Averbakh was fortunate for his
pupils, and especially for Spassky, as Zak must have realized at the age of thirty-four that he would
never be able to compete with the very best players, and probably focused more on training his
pupils. Still, Zak continued to play at a respectable level. His best victory came against Lilienthal in
1951. You can find the games on pages 49-50, in the notes to Spassky – Smyslov.

Zak was an active attacking player, who knew his openings well. According to Krogius, Zak
possessed a good overall knowledge of chess. He liked to work on chess systematically, and to
emphasize the logical aspect of the game. Krogius also calls Zak a somewhat dry and pedantic trainer
who always took the lessons seriously, even in the way he dressed for them.

Zak quickly recognized the special talent of his young pupil. According to Spassky, Zak trained him
for the next five years or so. The young Boris liked combinational play, but Zak, despite being an
attacking player himself, influenced him to concentrate more on strategy. Boris fully and
unconditionally trusted his trainer. When Spassky looked back, he considered himself rather weak in
1946. After roughly a year with Zak and the other trainers in the Pioneer Palace, he became a first
category player – at the time the youngest ever Soviet player to achieve it.

Spassky always spoke warmly of Zak in later interviews. Although Spassky does not specifically
describe Zak as a father figure, it seems quite plausible that he filled that role to some extent. Zak
cared about his pupils and tried to help them in other ways besides chess. Spassky recalls that during
those hard times when his family had little food, Zak would sometimes invite him to his house, where
his wife would cook them a meal before they worked on chess.

The Estonian player Kalle Kiik told me that when he was a young player at a junior team event in
Leningrad, he met Zak and had a conversation with him. Kalle said he could no longer remember
what they talked about, but he strongly remembers his overall impression that Zak was a good person.

I will give one more quote from Spassky to summarize his relationship with the game of chess during
that period of his childhood:

“I got quite passionate about chess when I was very young, up to the age of nine or ten. After that

16
 the emotion diminished and chess became a day-to-day habit. Probably love between people
develops the same way. As a young boy, I never thought that I should become a strong
chessplayer or a professional player. I used to play for perhaps five hours a day between 1946
and 1950.”

Comparison with Fischer’s Childhood

Bobby Fischer was born in 1943, six years and a few months after Spassky. The two future
champions both grew up without a father. Their mothers, Regina Fischer and Ekaterina Spasskaya,
were both somewhat opposed to the authorities of their respective states. The young talents both
benefitted from growing up in huge cities with vibrant chess scenes. Regina Fischer was a chess
parent who did everything possible to fight for Bobby’s chess. I asked grandmaster Sosonko, who
also lived in Leningrad, whether he knew Ekaterina Spasskaya, but he said he had never met her. It
suggests that she did not get involved in her son’s chess. Interestingly, both Spassky and Fischer
would go to live in faraway countries later in life, albeit under totally different circumstances.

Compared with the average American, Fischer did not have an easy childhood, but his was in no way
comparable to the level of hardship that Spassky had to experience at an extremely young age. After
fleeing a city under siege and narrowly avoiding bombs on a train, the Spassky family went for long
periods with little food, and having to sleep in near-freezing temperatures. Still, such hardships can
forge the toughest fighters. It may also change one’s attitude to risk. When one has already survived
through mortal danger in wartime, it might change one’s perspective on the ‘danger’ of taking a risk
to try and win a chess game.

17
 1948

Spassky’s first games in the database are three games from 1948. Sadly no scoresheet survived from
the earlier years. Spassky turned eleven years old on 30 January 1948, and he already showed a
reasonable level at that young age.

Spassky would later tell Krogius that this was a world of tears, resentfulness and overexcitement for
him. He lost to Smyslov in a simul in 1948, after making a big mistake as Black in a Dragon. The
young Boris resigned after Smyslov’s 21st move, when he was about to get checkmated. Boris burst
into tears but later promised never again to cry after a loss.

In another notable game from the same year, Spassky faced Valeev in the last round of the semi-final
of the Russian Republic Junior Championship in 1948, in a battle to decide first place. Boris got a
decent position but became tense and started to play passively, after which his opponent made a
counterattack and won the game. Spassky often offered draws at a young age because he found it hard
to bear the tension. Still, he played a lot of tournaments and kept raising his level.

Spassky’s first ever tournament away from his home city was in Minsk, the Belorussian capital.

Game 1

Boris Spassky – Shman

Minsk 1948

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.e3

Blocking the dark-squared bishop is hardly the most dangerous way of approaching the position.

5…Nbd7 6.Bd3 0-0 7.0-0 a6

7…b6 is more natural.

8.b3 b6 9.Bb2 Bb7

They reached an e3 Queen’s Indian variant with Black having played …a6, which would make
sense with the bishop on d6 but is unnecessary with the bishop on e7.

18
10.Qc2
Spassky plays a somewhat unusual move to prepare e3-e4. In these positions the queen usually
goes to e2. White could also consider 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Ne5.

10…c5

11.Ne5
Spassky goes forward.

11…Bd6
11…cxd4!? 12.exd4 dxc4 13.bxc4 Rc8 would result in a complex position.

12.f4 h6 13.Qe2 Ne4?!

13…Qe7!? is stronger.

14.Rad1
Spassky plays a somewhat automatic move, which is not the best.

14.Bxe4! dxe4 15.Nxd7 (15.Rad1 is also promising) 15…Qxd7 16.Na4 would have given White
some advantage.

14…cxd4!
Black preserves the knight on e4.

15.exd4 f5! 16.Bxe4 fxe4?

19
 Shman chooses the wrong capture, probably missing Spassky’s idea. Instead 16…dxe4! would
have led to a balanced position.

17.Qg4!
White wins a pawn.

17…Re8 18.Nxd7?!
Spassky wins a pawn, but not in the best way, as he increases the power of Black’s two bishops.

18.cxd5! would have enabled White to win the pawn while keeping the attack at the same time.
18…Nf6 (18…Qe7 19.Qxe6† does not help Black) 19.Qg6 Bxd5 (19…exd5 loses to 20.Qf7†)
20.Nf7 Qd7 21.Nxh6† Kf8 22.f5 and White wins.

18…Qxd7 19.cxd5 Qe7

19…e3!? was worth considering, although 20.Ne4! would keep a slight edge for White. (Instead
after 20.Rd3 Bb4 21.Rxe3 Bxc3 22.Bxc3 Bxd5 White can do little with the extra pawn.)

20.dxe6 Qxe6
White ended up a having an extra pawn, but Black’s bishop pair makes the material advantage
difficult to convert.

20
21.f5!
Spassky looks for an attack.

21…Qf6 22.Na4
Spassky wants to unleash the bishop on b2.

On 22.Rfe1 Black can exchange queens by 22…Qg5; but Black can also play 22…e3 23.Rd3 e2
24.Rxe2 Rxe2 25.Nxe2 Re8 when Black can survive the two-pawn deficit, as the f5-pawn will soon
fall. For example, 26.Ng3 Bxg3 27.Rxg3 (Black is also okay after 27.Qxg3 Bd5 or 27.hxg3 Rf8)
27…Re1† 28.Kf2 Re7 and Black should not lose.

22…e3!?
Shman plays fluently. 22…Rad8 is possible as well.

23.d5 Be5
Black could swap queens as well: 23…Qg5!? 24.Qxg5 hxg5 25.f6 gxf6 26.Rxf6 e2 27.Re1 Bf4
28.Rg6† Kh7 29.Rg7† Kh6 30.Rxb7 Be3†! and the position would be equal.

24.Qe2?!
Avoiding 24.Bxe5 Rxe5 25.Nc3 b5 when the position would be balanced.

21
24…b5
Shman opts for the most obvious move which regains the pawn.

24…a5! is a powerful idea which would put White on the defensive. For instance, 25.Bxe5 Rxe5
26.Nb2 Bxd5 27.Nc4 Bxc4 28.Qxc4† Kh7 and the e-pawn makes life unpleasant for White.

25.Bxe5 Qxe5 26.Nc5 Bxd5

Black restores the material balance. Moreover, White needs to act quickly, as otherwise Black’s
bishop would become too strong.

22
27.Nd7! Qd6 28.f6!
Spassky spots his tactical chances. Instead after 28.Nb6?! Qxb6 29.Rxd5 Rad8 30.Rxd8 Rxd8
31.Re1 Re8 32.g3 White would have a worse albeit holdable position.

28…Qxd7 29.f7† Kh8??

Black goes terribly wrong in deciding what material to give up. Perhaps he missed Spassky’s 31st
move, or maybe he just failed to consider the possibility of losing his queen.

The right solution is: 29…Qxf7! 30.Rxf7 Bxf7 31.Rd3 Bh5! (31…Rac8 32.Rxe3 Rxe3 33.Qxe3 Rc2
should enable Black to hold, but the text move leads to a more comfortable endgame.) 32.Qxh5 e2
33.Rd1 exd1=Q† 34.Qxd1 Rad8 Black would have a slight edge, but since one rook has to defend the
king, White should be able to hold a draw easily enough.

30.fxe8=Q† Rxe8

31.Rd3!
The e3-pawn is doomed.

31…Qb7
If 31…Qe6 then 32.Re1 wins.

32.Rxe3!
White could also win by weakening the king by 32.g3, but Spassky’s move provides an instant
win.

23
32…Rxe3 33.Qxe3 Bxg2
Black follows through with his idea, but White can easily catch the enemy king.

34.Rf8† Kh7

35.Qe8
1–0

Even at such a young age, this was such a typical Spassky game! He built his position more or less
correctly, and obtained some advantage. Then he allowed his opponent back into the game, but in the
end he won with an attack. Even though the overall quality of his play improved over the years, he
would go on to play many more games where the evaluation would swing back and forth like this
before (usually) ending in his favour. I have written biographies of many World Champions, and my
impression is that Spassky’s games fluctuated more than any of the other champions, in terms of how
the advantage could pass from one side to the other during the course of his games.

Later in the year, Spassky took part in the Soviet Under-18 Championship. Among the strong juniors
participating in the event was Victor Korchnoi, who was seventeen years old at the time and had
already won the event the previous year. Spassky faced Korchnoi with the black pieces, and resigned
as early as the 12th move following a tactical blunder.

A few months after Minsk came a big event: the Leningrad Junior Championship. There were a lot of
strong players including master V. Kirillov who participated unofficially. The database contains one
of Spassky’s games from the event, which is worth looking at.

24
 Game 2

Vladimir Ljavdansky – Boris Spassky

Leningrad 1948

1.e4 c5 2.Ne2 Nc6 3.Nbc3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 d6

It would be interesting to know whether the young Boris was aware of the pros and cons of
starting with 6…Nf6. Maybe 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.e5 was the continuation that put him off.

7.g3 Nf6 8.h3 Bd7

Spassky looks for the standard Sicilian play on the c-file.

8…d5 looks tempting but 9.Bg2! (9.Bb5 0-0! is good for Black) 9…Nxe4 10.Nxe4 dxe4 11.Nxc6
bxc6 12.Qxd8† Kxd8 13.0-0-0† Kc7 14.Bxe4 leaves White with a tiny advantage.

9.Bg2 0-0 10.0-0 Rc8 11.Qd2 a6!?

White would have an edge after 11…Ne5 12.b3.

12.Rfd1 Qc7
12…Ne5 13.b3 followed by Nd5 is unpleasant for Black; but 12…b5!? looks the simplest way to
maintain a good position.

13.Rac1?
This mistake seriously worsens White’s position. The position would be equal after 13.a4 Ne5
14.Qe1.

25
13…Ne5!
The knight will land powerfully on c4.

14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.exd5 Nc4 16.Qc3 Rfe8 17.b3

The alternative was 17.Bf4 Qb6 18.b3 Na3 19.Qd2 Qxd4 20.Qxd4 Bxd4 21.Rxd4 Nxc2 when
Black wins a pawn, but White has chances to hold.

17…Nxe3 18.Qxe3
Black’s dark-squared bishop is a great asset. However, thanks to White’s space advantage and
lack of weaknesses, Black’s advantage is not so big.

26
18…Qc3
Spassky is ready to play with no queens on the board. Also after 18…Qa5 19.a4 Rc3 20.Qd2
Black would be somewhat better.

19.Qxc3 Rxc3 20.Ne2 Rc5 21.c4 Rec8

21…b5!? 22.cxb5 axb5 23.Rxc5 dxc5 24.d6 exd6 25.Rxd6 offers Black a slight edge.

22.Nd4 Kf8 23.Kf1?

After 23.a4 b5 24.Nc6 Black would find it hard to make progress and the position would be
equal.

23…R5c7 24.Ke2?
Bringing the king to the centre in endgames is generally a good idea, but it is too early here.
White should have preferred the solid 24.a4.

27
24…e5!
As the position opens up, the placement of the white king causes surprisingly big problems.

24…b5 25.Nc6 would be fine for White.

25.dxe6
Ljavdansky has no choice, as 25.Nc2? b5 26.Ne3 f5 would leave him positionally lost.

25…fxe6 26.Rb1
White steps out of the pin. Other moves would also result in severe problems. For instance:
26.Rc3 b5; or 26.a4 d5; or 26.Kf1 b5 27.Ne2 Ke7 28.cxb5 Bxb5 29.Rxc7† Rxc7 30.Ke1 d5, and in
all cases White faces an uphill struggle to survive.

26…Ke7?
26…b5! would give White no time to consolidate, and after 27.cxb5 axb5 28.a4 (or 28.h4 e5
29.Nf3 Bg4) 28…bxa4 29.bxa4 Ke7 White would be in big trouble.

27.f4?
Missing the chance for 27.a4! when White holds the queenside together. Black can try to creep
forward with 27…g5, but after something like 28.Kf1 White should be fine.

28
27…b5!
Opening the c-file gives Black a winning position.

28.cxb5 axb5
Also after 28…Bxd4!? 29.Rxd4 Bxb5† 30.Ke1 Rc2 31.Rd2 R8c3 Black’s advantage would be
decisive.

29.Be4 Rc3
A good alternative is 29…d5 30.Bf3 Ra8 (30…b4 also works) 31.Rb2 Rca7 and White loses
material.

30.Nf3 R8c7?
30…b4! would have given Black a winning position after 31.Rb2 Bb5† or 31.Bd3 e5.

31.Rd2
Preparing to bring a rook to the e-file with 31.Kf2! would be much better, for instance: 31…b4
(Alternatives include: 31…d5 32.Bd3 b4 33.Rd2 Kd6 34.Re1; or 31…Bc6 32.Bxc6 Rc2† 33.Rd2
Rxd2† 34.Nxd2 Rxc6 35.a4 b4 36.Nc4, and in both cases White remains in the game.) 32.Rd2 Bb5
33.Re1 White has reasonable chances to hold.

31…Ra7
Instead of this ‘automatic’ move, Black should play 31…Bh6! to exploit the unfortunate
placement of the d2-rook. After 32.Kf2 e5 33.Re2 exf4 34.Bxg6† Kf6 35.Be4 fxg3† 36.Kg2 White is
struggling, although with so few pawns on the board White might survive.

29
32.Rg1

32…Bc6?
Giving up the bishop pair gives away virtually all of Black’s advantage.

32…b4 would have been a sensible improving move. Then 33.h4! looks best, when White’s
disadvantage is not too great.

33.Bxc6 Rxc6 34.Rg2

This is playable but rather passive. The natural 34.Rgd1 is better, and after something like 34…d5
35.Kf1 Rca6 (or 35…Rac7 36.a4) 36.Rc1 White holds.

34…h6! 35.Nh4?!
This is not the best square for the knight. 35.Ne1 would result in a smaller disadvantage, but
35.h4! is still White’s best move.

35…Kf7
35…g5! 36.Nf3 Bf6 increases Black’s advantage.

36.Nf3 Ke7 37.Ne1

37.h4! would once again have been wiser.

37…Rac7 38.Nd3 Bf6 39.Kd1?! Rc3!

Spassky stops White’s plan of exchanging rooks.

30
40.Rge2?!
40.h4! d5 41.Ke2 Kd6 42.Rd1 leaves White in a passive but holdable position.

40…d5!
After this move White is almost in zugzwang.

41.Ke1
If 41.Rg2 then 41…Bd4 42.Rge2 g5! should win.

41…Kd6
41…g5? would be premature because of 42.f5.

42.Kf2
42.h4 Bd4 would be unpleasant.

31
42…g5!
Having improved his situation on the queenside and in the centre, Spassky now switches his
attention to the kingside. It is a remarkable sequence from an eleven-year-old boy.

43.Kf3 Rf7!
43…gxf4 44.gxf4 Rg7 would be objectively just as strong, but keeping the tension is perhaps
even more unpleasant for the opponent.

44.Kg4
44.Ke3 Rg7 45.Rg2 Bd8 46.Kf3 h5 should also be winning for Black.

44…gxf4
44…h5†!? is also strong, and after 45.Kxh5 gxf4 46.Nxf4 (or 46.gxf4 Rg7) 46…Be5 Black wins.

45.gxf4 Rg7† 46.Kh5!

After 46.Kf3 Rg1 47.Rg2 Rh1 48.Rg3 Re1 White’s resistance is coming to an end.

46…Ke7?
Possibly the young boy plays for a trick.

46…Bd4! would open the f-file for the rook, and after 47.h4 Rf7 48.Rd1 (or 48.Kg4 h5†) 48…Rf5†
49.Kg6 Rc8 Black wins.

47.Nf2?

32
 Possibly Boris hoped for 47.f5? Rg5† when Black wins.

47.h4! would have kept White in the game. It makes f4-f5 a threat by taking away the g5-square from
the rook. Play could continue 47…Rg3 (47…Bd4 48.f5 or 47…Kd6 48.Nf2 or 47…Kf7 48.Ne5† are
all okay for White) 48.Ne5 Rh3 49.Rh2 and White holds.

47…Rf3!
Spassky exploits the opportunity to improve the rook.

48.Rd3
If 48.Rxd5 then 48…Rxf2 wins.

48…Rxf4
Spassky not only wins a pawn but also destroys a key defender of the white king.

49.Ng4 Rf5† 50.Kxh6 Rgg5 51.Kh7 Rh5†

White’s king is caught, so Ljavdansky resigned.
0–1

Spassky won the event on tie-break ahead of V. Kirillov. Obviously it was a superb result. At the age
of eleven, Spassky set a new record as the youngest Soviet player to obtain the rank of Candidate
Master.

Later in 1948, sometime after this huge success, Zak and Levenfish arranged for Spassky to receive a
monthly stipend from the state. Botvinnik may well have indirectly helped by becoming the World

33
Champion earlier in the same year. The Soviet authorities probably realized that it was worth
investing in chess and in their special talents. By the way, this was the very first time in the Soviet
Union that a young chessplayer received regular financial backing from the state. The investment of
the communist authorities was a mixed success: they contributed to the development of the young
Spassky who would go on to become World Champion, but Boris never became a fan of the
communist system.

1948 Results
Russian Republic Junior Championship semi-final: (Full results are unknown)
Russian Republic Junior Championship final, Leningrad: (Full results are unknown)
Trudovie Reservi, Minsk: (Full results are unknown)
Leningrad Junior Championship (1st-2nd place): 11½/15 (+10 =3 –2)

34
 1949

In 1949 Spassky was selected to represent Leningrad in the Soviet Junior Team Championship. He
proved his worth, and the team would go on to win the event the same year. Only one of his games is
available from this event: he had White against Nikitin and opened with 1.c4, but played the opening
harmlessly and they agreed a draw in a dead equal position after Black’s 20th move. The Soviet
Junior Team Championship was also the event where Boris first met Tolush, who would later become
his trainer.

I had a conversation with Genna Sosonko, who was born in 1943, six years after Boris, and was also
raised in Leningrad. I asked who Spassky’s best friend was. Genna recalled that Boris had good
relations with Leningrad team-mates who were around four or five years older than him.

Most great players will speak of one or two ‘chess idols’ who influenced them in their childhood
days, but Spassky has never spoken of any such chess heroes as far as I know. I remember he said
Bogatyrchuk could have became a World Champion. (Fedir Bogatyrchuk was a strong Ukrainian
master who later became known for his staunch anti-communist views and activities.) I asked
Sosonko if he thought Bogatyrchuk could have been Spassky’s chess idol, and he was unable to say it
publicly in Soviet times. Genna told me that Spassky liked Bogatyrchuk’s political views as an adult,
but as a child he most probably did not even know his games.

The database contains three of Spassky’s games from 1949. We look at two of them. I was not able to
find out the order in which the games took place.

Game 3

Boris Spassky – Arvid Vilup

Leningrad 1949

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.e3

It would be interesting to know whether Spassky was aware of the Noteboom Variation, which
could occur after 4.Nc3 dxc4, and wanted to avoid it.

4…f5 5.Bd3 Bd6 6.Qc2 Qf6?!

This optimistic move signifies that Black hopes to attack on the kingside.

35
7.0-0 Ne7 8.b3!
This move can be useful in two different plans: one is exchanging the dark-squared bishops, and
the other is to plant the knight on e5.
8…Na6?
8…Nd7! is preferable, and after 9.Ba3 Bxa3 10.Nxa3 White’s advantage is not yet serious.

9.a3!
Spassky already knows that it is best to keep the bishop pair, as well as restricting Black’s poorly
placed knight.

9…g5?!
Such a move is asking for trouble. 9…0-0 10.Bb2 Ng6 would give Black a better position than in
the game.

10.Ne5
Spassky places the knight on a strong square. White would also keep a nice advantage with
10.Bb2 or 10.b4.

10…Ng6?!
Black misses a chance to improve his passive knight with 10…Nc5!?, and after 11.Be2 Ng6
12.f4 Ne4 White’s advantage would be smaller than in the game.

11.f4
White secures the knight on the strong outpost.

36
11…Nb8
11…Nc7 would be a slight improvement although Black’s position is still pretty bad.
12.fxg5
Spassky cannot resist opening the position, but simple development with 12.Nc3! would have
been close to winning. For instance, 12…gxf4 13.exf4 0-0 14.Be3 (14.cxd5 also gives Black major
problems after 14…exd5 15.Nd1 or 14…cxd5 15.Nb5.) 14…Nd7 15.Rf3 Black’s position is
becoming desperate.

12…Qxg5
12…Qg7? 13.cxd5 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Qxe5 15.g3 wins for White.

13.e4!?
Spassky opens up the position but the consequences are not entirely clear, since White is also
somewhat underdeveloped.
13.Nf3 Qh5 14.Nc3 was a simple way to maintain a clear advantage.

13…Qh5
Avoiding 13…Qf6? 14.exf5 Nxe5 15.dxe5 Bxe5 when White wins with 16.fxe6 or even 16.Ra2.

14.g4?!
Spassky gets carried away with the attack. He had better options:

a) On 14.exd5 Nxe5 15.Bf4 Nf7 Black would stay in the game.

b) 14.exf5 Nxe5 Opening the position is logical. Objectively it is not winning, but Black would be

37
forced to find difficult moves to stay in the game. 15.Bf4 Nf7 16.fxe6 Bxe6 17.Nc3 dxc4 18.bxc4
Bxf4 19.Rxf4 Nd7 20.Re1 (On 20.d5 the beautiful 20…Bh3!! keeps Black in the game.) 20…Qh6
21.Qf2 0-0-0! 22.Rh4 Qg5 23.Rxe6 Nc5 24.dxc5 Rxd3 Black holds.

c) The strongest continuation is: 14.Be2! Qh4 15.Nf3!! Qxe4 16.Qd1! (16.Bd3 Qg4 would leave
White with excellent compensation for the pawn after 17.Nc3 or 17.cxd5, but the text move is even
better.) 16…Nf4 (If 16…Qg4 17.Ng5 Qh4 18.g3 Bxg3 19.Nf3 White wins.) 17.Nc3 Nxe2†
18.Nxe2 White’s advantage is winning after 18…Qg4 19.Bg5 or 18…Nd7 19.h3.

14…fxg4?
Black opens the position with disastrous consequences.

14…Qh3! would have kept the outcome uncertain: 15.exd5 Nxe5 (The alternative is 15…Bxe5
16.dxe5 and now Black remains in the game after 16…Rg8 or 16…Nd7.) 16.dxe5 Bxe5 17.Bb2 Bxb2
18.Qxb2 0-0 19.Nd2 White has more than enough compensation, but anything could still happen.

15.Nxg6!
Now Black’s position simply falls apart.

15…Qxg6
15…hxg6 16.e5 wins easily.

16.e5 Qg7 17.exd6 g3

Perhaps Black stopped his calculations after 17…Qxd4† 18.Kh1 Qxa1 and did not see that White
checkmates after 19.Bb2 Qa2 20.Qf2.

38
18.h3 Qxd4† 19.Kg2 e5
19…Qxa1 20.Bb2 Qa2 is hopeless after 21.Qc3 when White forces checkmate, while 21.Nc3
would ‘only’ trap the queen.

20.Bg6†!
Spassky finishes the game in great style. Black’s king is far too open.

20…Kd7 21.Bb2 Qe3 22.Rf7†

22.Qf5†! Kxd6 23.Bxe5† Qxe5 24.c5† would have won more quickly, but the game continuation
does not spoil anything.

22…Kd8 23.Bf5 Bxf5

39
24.Rxf5
The young Boris plays practically.

24.Qxf5 Qe2† 25.Kxg3 Rg8† 26.Kh4 was the alternative. Spassky will go on to have several
impressive king marches in his career, but this time he wins more calmly.

24…Nd7 25.cxd5 cxd5 26.Qc7† Ke8

27.Rxe5†!
1–0

40
Spassky finds a pretty way to force resignation. Obviously such things can happen if the opponent
plays poorly. Still, the young Spassky’s special attacking talent was evident. The game was not
perfect, but attacking like this at such a young age shows the contour of the future maestro.

From the same Leningrad Junior Championship we have another remarkable game.

Game 4

Boris Spassky – Avtonomov

Leningrad 1949

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.Qe2

Spassky follows the main line of that time.

7…b5 8.Bb3 Nc6 9.Nc3 cxd4?

It’s dangerous to open the position so soon.

10.Rd1 Bb7?
Black should prefer 10…Be7 followed by castling quickly.

11.exd4 Nb4

41
12.d5!!
The pawn sacrifice opens the position decisively.

12…Nbxd5 13.Bg5 Be7 14.Bxf6!

Spassky destroys an important defender.

14…gxf6
Black will be left with a rotten pawn structure, but the pins along the central files meant that there
was no choice.

15.Nxd5 Bxd5 16.Bxd5 exd5

17.Nd4!
Spassky will go on to produce many masterpieces involving brilliantly treating his knights.

17…Kf8
17…Qd7 18.Qf3 is also hopeless for Black.

18.Nf5!
The knight is irresistibly powerful.

18…h5

42
19.Rxd5!
Spassky ends the game with a tactical flourish.

19…Qxd5 20.Qxe7† Kg8 21.Qxf6

Avtonomov resigned. Spassky conducted the attack really well.
1–0

It’s a pity that the database only contains six of Spassky’s games from the 1940s. When he played
these games he was no longer a beginner, and already showed well-rounded abilities. He clearly liked
to attack when possible, but also played well in the endgame considering his young age.

1949 Results
Soviet Junior Team Championship, Moscow: Team Gold (Full results are unknown)
Leningrad Junior Championship: (Full results are unknown)

43
 1950

The database does not contain a single game from Spassky in 1950. This is both strange and sad,
especially as he made an excellent score in his one documented event that year. This was the Soviet
Junior Team Championship in Moscow, where Boris played on Board 2 and scored five wins and
four draws, with no defeats. It is strange that nobody recorded and published a game from a talented
boy who achieved such a splendid score in a prestigious junior event, in a country with such a great
tradition in chess.

Interestingly, Fischer produced the Donald Byrne masterpiece at the same age. Spassky almost
certainly did not produce a game to rival that, but he must surely have played at least one game that
was good and interesting enough to publish. When I was researching my books on Karpov, I got the
impression that the authorities intentionally did not publish some of his childhood games: specifically
the ones where the future champion did not play well. Maybe this was the case regarding Spassky’s
childhood, and the authorities only wanted the world to see the games in which Spassky showed his
special talent.

1950 Results
Soviet Junior Team Championship (Board 2): 7/9 (+5 =4 –0)

44
Mayor of Amsterdam A.J. d’Ailly meets the participants from the 1956 Candidates tournament, 4 October 1956. Boris
Spassky is nineteen years old at the time. Behind them, Vassily Smyslov faces the camera.

45
 1951

We know about four of the events in which Spassky participated in 1951. First was the semi-final of
the All Soviet Chigorin Memorial tournament. Spassky scored 4/5 and finished second, but only one
game is available and I was unable to find any other details, such as who won the event. Despite 80%
seeming like a respectable score, Krogius evaluates the result as a failure.

Next was the Leningrad Young Masters. The database does not contain any games from the event, but
Spassky finished in fifth place with an unbeaten score of 8½/13. To go undefeated in a long
tournament is impressive, especially considering the level of competition. Krogius won the event;
Vladimirov and Lutikov were joint second; Artsukevich was fourth, Spassky fifth and Korchnoi was
sixth.

Spassky’s next event was the quarter-final of the Soviet Under-20 Championship, which was held in
Riga. The database contains four of his games from the tournament. He faced some top-class players
like Mikenas, as well as the legendary endgame composer Kasparian, who beat him in a wild tactical
battle. We will look at his game against Loris Kalashian of Armenia.

Game 5

Boris Spassky – Loris Kalashian

Riga 1951

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Bd3

This isn’t a serious mistake, but it’s still a somewhat surprising opening inaccuracy.

6…0-0
6…dxc4 7.Bxc4 leads to a Queen’s Gambit Accepted with an extra tempo for Black.

7.0-0 b6 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Ne5 Bb7 10.b3 Ne4 11.Bb2 f6?!

Black sends away the knight, but weakens the kingside.

11…Nd7 is safer, after 12.Ne2 White would have just a small edge.

12.Nf3 Nd7

46
13.dxc5
Spassky opts to play against hanging pawns. 13.Rc1 f5 14.Ne2 is a reasonable alternative.

13…bxc5 14.Qe2
14.Nxe4! dxe4 15.Bc4† Kh8 16.Nd2 would have given White some advantage.

14…Kh8?!
This is too optimistic.

Black should quickly strengthen his centre with 14…f5, and after 15.Rfd1 (or 15.Ba6 Qb6)
15…Ndf6 16.Ba6 Qb6 17.Bxb7 Qxb7 Black is doing alright.

15.Rfd1 Qc7?!
Black should have preferred 15…Nxc3 16.Bxc3 Qe8 (16…Qb6 is well met by 17.Nh4!) and
White would be somewhat better after 17.Rac1 or 17.Ba6.

16.Ba6
Exchanging pieces helps to increase the pressure on Black’s centre.

16.Bxe4 dxe4 17.Nd2 Qc6 18.Nc4 would also yield some advantage.

16…Nb6?!

16…Nxc3 17.Bxc3 Bc6 18.Bb5 favours White, but Black’s disadvantage would be smaller than

47
in the game.

17.Rac1 Qc8?
17…Rfd8 was necessary.

18.Bxb7 Qxb7 19.Nxe4 dxe4 20.Nh4!

Rather than taking the simple route of playing against Black’s pawn weaknesses, Spassky
somewhat surprisingly targets the black king. It takes real talent to notice that after this move White’s
attack will be powerful.

20…Rfd8
20…g6 21.Qg4 Rad8 22.Qe6 wins.

21.Nf5 Bf8

48
22.Qg4!
Spassky brings his queen into the attack and intends to advance the h-pawn next.

22…Rd3 23.Rxd3?
This careless exchange allows Black to create counterplay.

23.h4! was correct, and after 23…c4 (23…Rad8 24.h5 and 23…Qd7 24.h5 h6 25.Rxd3 exd3 26.Rd1
Rc8 27.Qe4 both give White a clear advantage) 24.bxc4 Nxc4 White has a pleasant choice: either
25.Rxc4 Qxb2 26.Rdc1 or 25.Rxd3 exd3 26.Bxf6! gxf6 27.Qxc4 leads to a big advantage.

23…exd3 24.h4 Qf7?

Missing a chance to create strong counterplay with 24…c4! 25.h5 d2! 26.Rd1 Rc8, when the
position would be balanced after 27.Qd4 Qc7 or 27.bxc4 Nxc4 28.Bd4.

25.h5 a5?
Black’s plan of attacking the queenside is too slow.

25…h6!? would offer more resistance. Still, after 26.Rd1 c4 27.Bd4 cxb3 28.axb3 Qxb3 29.Nxh6
Nd7 Black would still face a big struggle to survive.

Creating counterplay with 25…c4!? would avoid falling apart. After 26.h6 g6 27.Ng3 Black’s
position is rather loose, but 27…Bxh6 28.bxc4 d2 29.Rd1 Qxc4 gives chances to hold.

26.Rd1 Rd8

49
27.h6!
This pawn advance weakens Black’s king decisively.

27.Qf3 a4 28.h6 g6 29.Ng3 would win as well.

27…Qg6?!
27…g6 runs into 28.Qg5! Kg8 29.Bxf6 Rd7 30.Ng3 and Black loses.

28.Qf4 Nd5 29.Qf3 Nb4 30.a3!

Spassky finds a forced win.

30…Nc2 31.hxg7† Bxg7

50
32.Rxd3!
Spassky destroys the key pawn by exploiting Black’s weak back rank.

32…Rg8 33.Bc3
Spassky paralyzes the black knight. He could also invade with the rook at once.

33…Bf8 34.Rd7
1–0

This game illustrates Spassky’s attacking vision. He finished the event sharing 7th-8th place with a
score of 8½/15. Despite the respectable score against strong opposition, Krogius was not impressed. I
get the sense that he intended to indirectly criticize Zak, who had been working with Spassky up to
this point.

Spassky’s next event was the Soviet Junior Team Championship, which took place in his home city
of Leningrad. His recent run of tournaments playing against strong opposition seemed to raise his
level, as he achieved a sensational score of 8½/9 on Board 2. Unfortunately, none of the nine games
are available.

In the latter part of 1951, Vladimir Zak was replaced by Alexander Tolush as Spassky’s trainer. An
aggressive attacker and tactician, Tolush was one of the top twenty players in the world, and had
finished in equal second place in the 1950 Soviet Championship. Previously, Tolush had been Keres’
trainer for something approaching a decade. It would be interesting to know whether he stopped
working with Keres to change to Spassky, or if it was Keres’ decision to end their cooperation which
promoted Tolush to find a new pupil in Spassky.

51
Soltis writes interestingly about Tolush:

“…Alexander Kazimirovich Tolush – or “Kazimirich” as Spassky fondly called him. Tolush,

twenty-seven years older than Spassky, had survived some of the bloodiest fighting in the Nazi
onslaught toward Leningrad.”

Mark Taimanov recalled how another Leningrad master, Vitaly Chekhover, once offered Tolush a
draw in a sharp position. They were friends but Tolush was outraged:

“Why a draw? You have a decisive attack!”

“But I don’t see a forced continuation. I am afraid of miscalculation”, Chekhover replied.
“Afraid? Then you should not play chess,” Tolush said furiously. “Stay home!”

Tolush himself liked to joke about his games: “Losses don’t cost me sleep.”

According to Korchnoi, Spassky not only improved under the tutelage of Tolush, but also started to
play differently, striving for the initiative more than before.

Spassky would later comment on his changing style in an interview:

“I believed too much that Nimzowitsch’s rules of positional play is unshakable. I played…
correct chess: methodically, but dry and boring, and in my games there were almost no tactics.”

Describing his younger self as a positional player, Spassky continues:

“But when I was fourteen I understood there was something wrong with my style; I came to
understand that chess has something extra besides strategy: attacks, sacrifices, creative ideas.
There was a revolution in my style.”

It seems to me that Spassky massively exaggerated this perceived flaw in his own play at a young
age, as we have already seen several examples of Spassky’s attacking flair in his earlier years. It is
true that Tolush had even more of an attacking style than Spassky, so Spassky would naturally go on
to develop this side of his game to a greater extent in the years ahead, but the suggestion that Boris
had no attacking creativity prior to 1951 is clearly untrue.

As we will see, Tolush would guide the young Boris to much success in the next stage of his career.
Tolush’s wife would later comment that they had no children and Borya, as they affectionately knew
him, was like a son to them.

According to Soltis the change hurt Zak, who had planned to work with Boris until he obtained the
master title. Despite the termination of their working relationship, Zak’s positive influence on the

52
development of Spassky’s talent should not be underestimated. Fortunately the Leningrad chess
authorities had the good sense to employ Zak for a long time to come. He would go on to train many
young talents including Levitina, Salov, Kochiev, Kamsky, Khalifman, Yudasin and Yermolinsky.
Zak passed away in 1994, at the age of eighty-one. Two decades after his death, Spassky very fondly
remembered him in an interview.

1951 Results
Chigorin Memorial semi-final (2nd place): 4/5 (exact results unknown)
Leningrad Young Masters (5th place): 8½/13 (+4 =9 –0)
Soviet U-20 Championship quarter-final, Riga (7th-8th place): 8½/15 (exact results unknown)
Soviet Junior Team Championship, Leningrad (Board 2): 8½/9 (+8 =1 –0)

Total 70.2% (exact results unknown)

53
 1952

In 1952 we know only about two tournaments Spassky played. Maybe his schoolwork took up more
time than before. The first of those events was the Leningrad Championship, a tougher event than
most countries’ national championships, where the fifteen-year-old Boris faced several top-class
opponents. We will look at his game against Korchnoi.

Game 6

Viktor Korchnoi – Boris Spassky

Leningrad 1952

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.f4?!

This combative but objectively harmless move was first played by Cochrane, and Rubinstein
subsequently employed it three times.

5…c5!
Korchnoi was also from Leningrad, so perhaps Spassky and Tolush were aware that Korchnoi
might play this variation and prepared this logical pawn push together.

6.Nf3 Nc6 7.a3 Be7

Spassky develops but gives away a tempo. Alternatives such as 7…a6 and 7…cxd4 8.exd4 dxc4
9.Bxc4 Bd6 are roughly equally good.

8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.b4 Be7 10.Bb2 0-0

54
11.c5!?
Korchnoi plays ambitiously by gaining space on the queenside. 11.Qc2 dxc4 would lead to a
calmer game.

11…Qc7?
Spassky misses a chance to break up White’s pawn chain with: 11…b6! 12.Bb5 (12.b5? Na5
13.c6 is positionally desirable but 13…Ng4! leaves White with no good way of defending the e3-
pawn.) 12…Nb8 (12…Bd7!? 13.Bxc6 Bxc6 is also possible, as Black would do alright after 14.b5
d4! or 14.Ne5 Be8 15.c6 a6.) 13.cxb6 Qxb6 14.Qd4 Qb7 The position is balanced.

12.Bd3 Rd8?!
The rook does nothing on the d-file. 12…b6!? was still the best idea, although after 13.cxb6
Qxb6 14.Qe2 Black’s position would be difficult.

13.Qc2
13.0-0! b6 14.Nb5 was even stronger.

13…b6
Spassky finally chooses the right plan, but under much less favourable conditions than a few
moves earlier.

55
14.b5
Korchnoi creates a strong protected passed pawn. It provides an advantage, but not the biggest
possible, as he allows Spassky’s pieces to become more active.

Stronger was:

14.Nb5!
White would benefit greatly from exchanging the c6-knight before pushing the c-pawn.
14…Qb8
14…Qb7 is well met by 15.Nd6! Bxd6 16.cxd6 Rxd6 when White can either take on f6 and h7
immediately or play 17.0-0 first, with a decisive initiative in either case.
15.Ne5
15.Nbd4 Nxd4 16.Nxd4 is also extremely strong.
15…Bb7 16.Nxc6 Bxc6 17.Nd4 Be8 18.c6
White’s advantage is close to winning.

14…Na5 15.c6 Nc4?

Spassky advances the knight too soon.

15…Bc5 is an improvement, and after 16.0-0 a6 17.a4 Ng4 18.Nd1 Nc4 19.Bxc4 dxc4 Black would
be worse, but probably not lost.

16.Bxc4 dxc4

56
17.Ne5?
Defending the e3-pawn with the subtle 17.Ke2!! would give White a decisive advantage. If 17…
a6 18.a4; or 17…Rd3 18.Nd1; or 17…Nd5 18.Rhd1, and in all cases Black would be unable to shake
White’s grip.

17…Nd5?
Spassky starts improving his pieces, but goes about it in the wrong way. It would have been
better to start by taking care of the bishop with 17…Bc5 (or 17…a6 18.a4 Bc5) 18.Nxc4 a6 19.a4
Nd5 when Black’s position would be worse, but still much better than in the game.

18.Nxc4
The spectacular 18.0-0-0!! would bring the rook into play with decisive effect. For instance:
18…Bc5 (18…Nxe3 19.Rxd8† is winning; or 18…a6 19.a4 Nxe3 20.Rxd8† Qxd8 21.Qe4 Nd5
22.Rd1 and White wins.) 19.e4 Ne3 (19…Nxf4 loses to 20.Nxc4) 20.Rxd8† Qxd8 21.Qe2 Black
cannot resist.

18…Bc5?
Instead after 18…a6! 19.Nxd5 (19.a4? Nb4 is awkward for White) 19…exd5 20.Be5 Qa7! Black
would recover and reach a balanced position.

19.Nd1?
Korchnoi plays a passive move. He should have preferred one of the following alternatives:

19.Ne4! a6 20.a4 axb5 21.axb5 Rxa1† 22.Bxa1 Bxe3 23.Be5 Qe7 24.c7 Rd7 25.Bd6 Qh4† 26.g3

57
Qh5 27.Ne5 and White could press.

19.0-0-0! a6 20.a4 axb5 21.axb5 Nxe3 22.Rxd8† Qxd8 23.Qd2 and Black’s position would be
difficult.

19…a6! 20.a4
White has to keep the pawn structure on the queenside in one piece.

20…f6?
Spassky misses a chance to get active with 20…Nb4! when the knight would do enough to
confuse White. 21.Qc3 Nd3† 22.Ke2 e5! (22…f6 23.Ba3 e5 24.Nf2 axb5 25.axb5 would be complex
and unclear.) 23.Nxe5 Bb4 24.Qxd3 (no better is 24.Qc2 Bf5) 24…Rxd3 25.Nxd3 Bg4† 26.Kf2 Be7
Black would be somewhat better.

21.Qb3?!
After the superior 21.0-0! axb5 22.axb5 Rxa1 23.Bxa1 Nxf4 24.Kh1 White would be somewhat
better.

21…Ra7?
This rook move gives White time to consolidate. Instead after 21…Bb4†! 22.Kf2 Bc5 23.Re1
Nxf4 24.Kg1 the position would be balanced.

22.Nf2
22.0-0! axb5 (or 22…e5 23.fxe5 Be6 24.Rc1 and White wins) 23.axb5 Rxa1 24.Bxa1 Ne7
25.Bc3 would have put Black in big trouble.

58
22…Qf7
22…axb5 23.axb5 Rxa1† 24.Bxa1 e5 25.Ne4 Be6 26.f5 Bb4† (no better is 26…Bf7 27.0-0)
27.Bc3 Nxc3 28.Nxc3 Bxc3† 29.Qxc3 Bxf5 30.0-0 leaves White clearly better.

23.0-0-0
23.Rd1 also sees White consolidate with a winning advantage.

23…axb5 24.axb5 Qg6 25.Rhe1

25.g3 or 25.g4 would win more simply.

25…Qxg2
Black at least takes a pawn.

26.Nd3 Bf8 27.e4!

27.f5! Qe4 28.Nf4 should also win.

27…Nc7

59
28.f5
This move looks frightening, but it’s not the best.

Korchnoi was right to avoid 28.Nxb6, when 28…Ra5! gives Black strong counterplay.

28.e5! was best, when the pawn carves out an outpost on d6 for the white knight. Play could continue
28…f5 29.Rd2 Qf3 30.Nd6 h6 31.Rg1 with a crushing advantage for White.

28…Re8?
Leaving the d-file is a serious mistake. Black could have utilized his queen in one of two ways:

28…Qg5† 29.Kb1 (or 29.Kc2 h6) 29…Qh4! 30.e5 Rd5! and Black is in the game. The last move
shows why the rook should remain on the d-file.

28…Qxh2 29.e5 Rd5! 30.Qc2 Qxc2† 31.Kxc2 exf5 32.Nxb6 Rxb5 33.Nxc8 Ra8 34.Nd6 Rb6 Black
is about to take White’s last pawn, with good chances of a draw.

29.Kb1 Kh8 30.Bd4?

Korchnoi goes after the b6-pawn but weakens his king.

Going after the king with 30.e5! would have given Spassky terrible problems, for instance: 30…Nd5
(30…fxe5 31.Ndxe5 wins; and 30…exf5 loses to either 31.exf6 or 31.Nf4 followed by Nd6.) 31.exf6
gxf6 (31…Nxf6 32.Nxb6 wins) 32.fxe6 Bxe6 33.Rxe6 Rxe6 34.Nxb6 White wins.

60
30…Nxb5!
Spassky hits hard and chops a key pawn. White cannot capture on b5 due to 30…Qa2† followed
by either …Ra4 or …Ba6.

31.Bxb6?
Korchnoi should have preferred 31.Bb2 Nd6 when the position would remain complex but
balanced.

31…Na3†!
Spassky aims to reduce the number of defensive pieces around the white king.

32.Kc1
32.Nxa3? Rxa3 33.Qb2 Qf3 wins for Black.

32…Ra6 33.Rd2
White tries to gain time by attacking the black queen.

61
33…Qf3 34.Rf2 Qh3 35.Ncb2
Korchnoi tries to keep enough defenders around his king.

35…Qh5?!
It was better to activate the bishop with 35…Bd6!, and if 36.Re3 Qh6 Black wins.

35…Qh6†!? 36.Kd1 exf5 37.exf5 Qh5† 38.Kd2 Qg5† 39.Kd1 Qg4† 40.Kd2 Rxe1 was another
winning continuation.

36.Nc5?
Korchnoi keeps playing on the queenside; it wins a piece, but weakens his king decisively.

White should instead focus on the kingside and centre by playing: 36.Nf4! Qh4 (or 36…Qf7
37.Nbd3) 37.Nbd3 (37.Rd1 g5! is strong) 37…Nc4 38.Qxc4 Rxb6 39.e5 Black has an advantage, but
the position is complex and any result is possible.

36…Bxc5 37.Bxc5 Rxc6 38.Qxa3

62
38…exf5
Black wins two pawns with one capture. In the resulting position, material will be roughly equal
but the difference in king safety decides the outcome.

39.Kb1?!
Korchnoi unpins the bishop but the white king will soon face an irresistible attack.

39.e5! was a better try, when Black would need to find 39…Qh4! (39…fxe5?! 40.Nc4 enables White
to resist) 40.Rfe2 Ba6! to make the most of his chances.

39…fxe4 40.Bd4 Qd5 41.Qe3

63
41…Be6
Threatening checkmate.

42.Rc2 Ra6
42…Rec8! would finish the game instantly.

43.Kc1 Rd8 44.Rc4 Qb5 45.Rc5 Qb4 46.Bxf6

A desperate attempt to stir matters up. Korchnoi risks nothing, as his position was dead lost
anyway. Spassky could simply take the bishop and win, but he spots a quicker and prettier way to end
the game.

64
46…Ra1† 47.Kc2 Rd2†!
Facing mate next move from either the queen or the bishop coming to b3, Korchnoi resigned.
0–1

I counted eight times in this game when the advantage shifted back and forth. This can partially be
explained by the immense complexity of the position that arose in the early middlegame, but these
fluctuations in evaluation were also characteristic of Spassky’s games throughout his career. The
game was entertaining, especially with the knowledge that it was produced by two future titans of
chess.

Another notable participant in Leningrad was Semyon Furman, Karpov’s future trainer. Spassky ran
into some problems with Black in the opening in their game, but Furman let his advantage slip away.
A later mistake gave Boris a winning position, and although he did not exploit his advantage in the
best way, Furman failed to take his chance and Spassky brought him down.

Next we will look at Spassky’s encounter with Taimanov, who was already a world-class player by
this point.

Game 7

Mark Taimanov – Boris Spassky

Leningrad 1952

65
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.e4
Taimanov was ranked in the world’s top twenty, and 1952 was the year in which he was awarded
the Grandmaster title. As a resident of Leningrad, he must have been aware of the special talent he
was facing.
Taimanov had a previous game in this variation against Kapylov in 1951, when he played 7.Bd2.

7…dxe4 8.Nxe4 Nxe4 9.Qxe4 Bb4† 10.Bd2 Bxd2† 11.Nxd2

11…c5!
According to the database this move was a novelty. Black aims to get rid of White’s space
advantage in the centre without delay.

12.dxc5 Qc7 13.Be2

Taimanov reacts cautiously.

The critical continuation was 13.Qd4!? 0-0 (13…e5 14.Qd6 Qxc5 15.Ne4 Qxd6 16.Nxd6† Ke7
17.0-0-0 Nf6 would leave Black with a holdable but slightly unpleasant position) 14.b4 a5 15.a3 e5
16.Qc3 Qc6 and Black has compensation for the pawn.

13…Nxc5 14.Qe3 0-0

14…a5! would equalize with ease.

15.b4 Nd7 16.0-0 b6 17.Bf3

A logical alternative is 17.Rfd1 Bb7 18.a4 a5 19.b5 Nc5 20.Nb3 Rfd8 (or 20…Nxb3 21.Qxb3
Rfd8 with just a minimal disadvantage for Black) 21.Nxc5 Qxc5 and Black would hold.

66
17…Bb7 18.Bxb7 Qxb7

19.Ne4
White has a symbolic advantage, but Spassky had reason to be content with the opening, having
developed safely and exchanged some pieces against a world-class opponent.

19…Rfd8 20.Rad1 Ne5 21.c5

The passed pawn is not dangerous for Black.

21…Ng6 22.h4!?
Taimanov tries to attack and sacrifices a pawn.

22…Ne7?!
Spassky’s move is not the best.

If 22…bxc5 23.bxc5 h6 24.Nd6 Qc7 25.Qe4 Rab8 Black would be slightly worse.

The best option was to accept the sacrifice with: 22…Rxd1! 23.Rxd1 Nxh4 24.Qg5 (24.g3 Ng6
25.Qf3 Kf8 would be safe for Black.) 24…Ng6 25.Rd8† Rxd8 26.Qxd8† Nf8 27.Nd6 Qd5 Black
holds.

23.Nd6 Qc7 24.f4?!

Maybe Taimanov hoped to get an attack against Spassky’s king, but it will not happen. On 24.Nb5
Qb7 is perfectly fine for Black, but 24.Rd3! bxc5 25.bxc5 would have yielded White a small edge.

67
24…bxc5 25.bxc5

25…Rab8
Black has equalized fully.

26.Rb1
26.Rd3 Nd5 27.Qc1 Nf6 also leads to a balanced game.

26…Nd5 27.Qd4 Nf6 28.Rb3?

This mistake leads to problems. Instead, 28.Rfc1 or 28.Rxb8 Qxb8 29.f5 would have kept things
equal.

28…Rxb3 29.axb3

68
29…Ne4!!
Spassky finds a brilliant tactical idea, which wins a pawn.

30.Nb5 Rxd4
30…Qxc5 31.Qxc5 Nxc5 32.Nxa7 Nxb3 33.Nc6 reaches a similar endgame where White has
chances to survive.

31.Nxc7 Nxc5 32.Nb5 Rb4 33.Nxa7 h5

33…g6!? avoids pawn exchanges, and after 34.Rf3 Rxb3 35.Rxb3 Nxb3 the outcome is hard to
assess. They say that the endgame with one knight each and four pawns versus three on one side is
generally winning, but here the white pawns start out on good squares, so it’s possible that White can
hold.

34.Rb1!?
Taimanov gives Spassky the option of taking the f-pawn in the hope of mobilizing his b-pawn.

34.g3?! Rxb3 35.Kg2 Ne4 36.Rf3 Rb2† 37.Kg1 Rb6 gives Black excellent winning chances.

However, reducing the number of pawns with 34.f5! would result in an unpleasant but tenable
endgame. For instance, 34…Rxb3 (or 34…Rxh4 35.Nc6 Nxb3 36.fxe6 fxe6 37.Re1 Nc5 38.Nd8 and
White holds) 35.Nc6 (35.fxe6 leads to the same thing) 35…Ra3 (35…Rb6 36.fxe6 Rxc6 37.e7 Re6
38.Rc1 is another drawing endgame) 36.fxe6 fxe6 37.Re1 and White gets away with it.

69
34…Rxb3?!
34…Rxf4! Obtaining a two-pawn majority on the kingside is more promising, as the black knight
could block the b-pawn properly. After 35.b4 Na4 36.g3 Rc4 37.b5 Nb6 38.Rb3 Black’s advantage
should be enough to win.

35.Rxb3 Nxb3
It’s hard to evaluate the endgame with certainty, but I think White’s pawn structure is good
enough to hold. Probably in a few years’ time, a computer will be able to tell us exactly. Today, if
you have 38 terabytes and enough time, you can find out for sure whether Black can win.

36.Nc6 f6 37.Kf2 Kf7 38.Ke3

Taimanov aims to restrict the black knight.

White could also seek to exchange some pawns with: 38.Kf3!? Ke8 (after 38…Nd2† 39.Ke2 Ne4
40.Kf3 Nc3 41.g4 I think White can hold) 39.g4 hxg4† (39…g6 40.g5 looks like a draw) 40.Kxg4
Once again it’s hard to give a definite assessment, but I think White can hold it.

38…Ke8 39.Nb4 Kd7 40.Nd3 Kd6 41.Nf2 Kd5

70
42.g3?
This is a serious, possibly losing, mistake. Taimanov defends the h-pawn in advance, but he
should play more proactively, by either attacking the h5-pawn or swapping a pair of pawns:

42.Ne4 Nd4 43.Ng3 Nf5†?! (43…g6 should be preferred but 44.Kd3 gives White decent chances.)
44.Nxf5 exf5 45.Kd3 is a simple draw.
There is also 42.g4!? Nd4 43.gxh5 Nf5† 44.Kf3 Nxh4† 45.Kg4 Nf5 46.Kf3 when White still needs
to be careful, but with correct play it’s a draw.

42…Nd4 43.Ne4
Placing the knight differently would not be any better: 43.Nd3 Nf5† 44.Kf3 Kc4 45.Ne1 (or
45.Nf2 Kd4 46.Nh3 e5 47.fxe5 fxe5 48.Nf2 Ne3 and Black wins.) 45…Kc3 46.Ng2 Kd2 47.Kf2
(47.g4 also loses after 47…hxg4† 48.Kxg4 Ne3†) 47…e5 48.Kf3 Nh6 Black wins.

43…Nf5† 44.Kf3

71
44…Nd6
Spassky aims to paralyse the white knight.

Improving the king first with 44…Kd4 looks more classical. 45.Nf2 Ne3 46.Ke2 (46.Nh3 Nf1
47.Kf2 Nd2 48.Kg2 e5 wins.) 46…Nd5 47.Kf3 e5 48.fxe5 (48.Ne4 f5 49.Nd6 e4† 50.Ke2 Nc3†
51.Ke1 g6 52.Nf7 Ke3 53.Ne5 Ne2 is also hopeless for White.) 48…fxe5 49.Ne4 Nf6 50.Nd2 Kd3
Black wins.

45.Nf2 Kd4 46.g4!

White has no choice, as 46.Nh1 Ne4 or 46.Nd1 Ne4 47.Nb2 (47.Ne3 loses to 47…Nxg3 wins)
47…Nc3! both win for Black.
Reducing the number of pawns generally helps the weaker side to get closer to a draw. It also forces
Spassky to make more decisions, which means more chances to stray from the winning path.

46…g6
Spassky plays the automatic move.

46…hxg4†? would be a mistake. 47.Nxg4 Nc4 48.Nf2 The only move, but not a difficult one.
48…Ne3 49.h5 Nf5 50.Ng4 Kd3 51.Nf2† Kd2 52.Ng4 White holds.

46…Ne4!
With this finesse, Black can make White’s knight passive.
47.Nd1
47.Nh3? is refuted by 47…Nd2† 48.Kg3 Nf1† 49.Kf2 hxg4 and Black wins.
The self-paralysing 47.Nh1? also proves hopeless after 47…hxg4† 48.Kxg4 Ke3 49.f5 e5

72
 50.Kh5 Kf3 51.Kg6 Nd6 and Black wins.
47…Nd2† 48.Kg3 f5!

49.gxh5
If 49.gxf5 exf5 50.Kg2 Ke4 51.Kg3 Kd3 Black wins.
49…Ke4 50.Nf2† Ke3 51.Nh3 Ne4† 52.Kg2 Nf6 53.Ng5 Nxh5
Black wins the f4-pawn and the game.

47.Nh3
47.f5?! makes Black’s task easier after 47…hxg4† (47…gxf5 48.gxh5 Nf7 49.Kf4 Nh6 wins as
well) 48.Nxg4 gxf5 49.Nxf6 e5 50.h5 e4† and wins.

47…hxg4† 48.Kxg4

73
48…Nc4?
This move gives White a hidden, almost study-like escape.

48…Ke4!!
The black king could and should shoulder its counterpart.
49.Nf2†
White also loses after: 49.h5 gxh5† 50.Kxh5 Kf5 51.Kh4 Ne4 Surprisingly, it’s a mutual
zugzwang! 52.Kh5 Ng3† 53.Kh4 Ne2 Black wins easily.
49…Ke3 50.Nd1† Ke2
50…Kd2 51.Nb2 Ke3 52.Nd1† repeats.
51.Nc3†
51.Nb2 Ne4 52.Nc4 f5† 53.Kh3 Kf3 54.Ne5† Kxf4 55.Nxg6† Ke3 56.h5 f4 also wins.
51…Kd3 52.Na4 Ne4!

74
53.Kf3
53.h5 f5† 54.Kh4 gxh5 wins.
53…f5 54.Nb2† Kc3 55.Na4† Kd4 56.Nb6
56.Nb2 Nc3! paralyses the knight and wins.
56…Nd2† 57.Ke2 Nc4 58.Nd7 Ke4 59.Nf8 Kxf4 60.Nxg6† Kg3 61.h5 f4
Black wins.

49.h5!
White not only exchanges a pair of pawns, but also gets his king closer to the black pawns.

49…Ne3† 50.Kh4 gxh5

75
 50…Nf5† would not help after 51.Kg4 gxh5† 52.Kxh5 Nd6 (or 52…Ne7 53.Kh6) 53.Kg6 and
White draws.

51.Kxh5 Ke4 52.Kg6 Nd5 53.Kf7!

The king attacks the black pawns with great effectiveness.

53…Kf5 54.Ng1 Nxf4

55.Nf3!
The brilliant point of Taimanov’s defence becomes apparent: Black can’t hang on to both pawns.

55…Kg4
If 55…e5 56.Nh4† Ke4 57.Kxf6 or 55…Ne2 56.Nh4† Ke5 57.Nf3† and White holds.

56.Nh2†!
56.Nd2 and 56.Ne1 would draw as well, but this is the most forcing.

56…Kh3 57.Nf1 f5 58.Kf6 Kh4 59.Ne3

White is ready to destroy Black’s last pawns, so Spassky stopped trying.
½–½

On the one hand, it must have been frustrating for Spassky not to win the endgame. On the other
hand, to outplay and get close to defeating one of the best players in the Soviet Union, and indeed the
entire world, must have been encouraging and motivating.

76
Taimanov went on to win the event. Spassky finished in second place, with a superb, undefeated
score of 10½/13, two full points ahead of Korchnoi who was third.

Spassky’s other documented event of 1952 was the Soviet Junior Team Championship in Rostov-on-
Don, where he played on Board 2. The database only contains two of his games, both of which saw
him get a nice position in the opening, from which he built an attack and won. He finished with a
magnificent score of 8½/9.

***

By now, everyone in Soviet chess must have realized that the fifteen-year-old boy from Leningrad
had tremendous potential. These two sensational results in 1952 clearly impressed the officials of the
Soviet Chess Federation, as they decided to send Boris abroad for the very first time, in a tournament
scheduled early the following year. Playing in a big international tournament would showcase
Spassky’s ability and, more importantly, help him to improve.

1952 Results
Leningrad Championship (2nd place): 10½/13 (+8 =5 –0)
Soviet Junior Team Championship, Rostov-on-Don (Board 2): 8½/9 (+8 =1 –0)

Total 86.4% (+16 =6 –0)

77
 1953

The year started excitingly for Spassky, as he got an opportunity to play a top-class tournament in
Bucharest, the Romanian capital. The event took place in January. Tolush was also invited to play. It
would be interesting to know how far in advance Spassky and Tolush were informed of the decision
to send them to Bucharest. In addition to the two of them, the Soviet delegation consisted of such
great players as Smyslov, Petrosian and Boleslavsky. Laszlo Szabo was the strongest of the non-
Soviet competitors.

Spassky’s opponent in the first round was Vassily Smyslov, arguably the strongest player in the world
in 1953, who would go on to become World Champion four years later.

Game 8

Boris Spassky – Vassily Smyslov

Bucharest 1953

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bg5

Spassky almost certainly learned about the Leningrad Variation from his former trainer Zak, who
played it himself. The variation named after Spassky’s home city served him well: he would play it
with White a total of thirty-one times in his career, winning eighteen games, with twelve draws and
only one defeat. His later victims in this variation would include Keres (twice), Portisch and Short.
He also faced it twice from Black’s side, and won both of those games as well.

It would be fascinating to know how Fischer intended to meet the Leningrad Variation had Spassky
played it in Reykjavik 1972. He surely prepared deeply against it.

4…h6 5.Bh4 c5 6.d5 exd5

Spassky will face this variation three more times; winning all these games.

6…Qa5 Zak had an impressive win over Lilienthal against this move. 7.Bxf6 gxf6 8.Qc2 f5 9.g3 d6
10.Bg2 Bxc3† 11.bxc3 Qa6?!

78
12.Nf3! Zak doesn’t mind sacrificing a pawn, which is indicative of a fluent playing style. 12…Qxc4
13.Nd2 Qa6 14.0-0 Nd7 15.e4 fxe4? 16.dxe6 fxe6 17.Qxe4 Ne5 18.f4 Nf7 19.Qg6 d5 20.c4 Qd6
21.Rad1 e5 22.Qh5 0-0 23.Bxd5 Kg7 24.fxe5 Nxe5 25.Rxf8 Bg4 26.Qxg4† Nxg4 27.Rxa8 Ne3
28.Ne4 Qb6 29.Re1 Nxd5 30.cxd5 c4† 31.Nf2 Qd4 32.Rd1 1–0 Zak – Lilienthal, Baku 1951.

Let’s see how Spassky handled his favourite variation from Black’s side: 6…Bxc3† 7.bxc3 d6 8.e3
e5 9.Bd3 e4 10.Bc2 Nbd7 11.f4 Nb6 12.Bb3 Rg8 13.Ne2 g5 14.fxg5? hxg5 15.Bg3 Qe7 16.a4 a5
17.Rb1 Nbd7 18.0-0 Ng4 19.Qd2 Nh6 20.Be1 f5 21.Bd1 Ne5 22.Ng3

22…Kd8! 23.Be2 Kc7 24.Qb2 Kb8 Remarkably, Spassky also employed the same king manoeuvre
in his other game on the black side of this variation. 25.Qb3

79
25…Ra6! The rook usefully covers b6 and d6. Black stands better and went on to win in Graf –
Spassky, Germany 1988.

7.cxd5 d6

8.e3
Surprisingly, according to the database, this move was a novelty.

8…Nbd7 9.Bb5?!
This is rather a mysterious choice. Maybe Boris wanted to surprise his world-class opponent.

80
9…0-0 10.Nge2 Ne5 11.0-0 Ng6 12.Bg3 Nh5 13.Bd3 Nxg3
13…f5!? seems a good practical choice, keeping the option of exchanging on g3 while also
forcing White to consider …f4 ideas.

14.Nxg3 Ne5

15.Be2!?
The bishop keeps an eye on both flanks.

15…Bxc3?
It is a somewhat strange decision to give up the bishop pair without being provoked.

16.bxc3 Qh4?!
Smyslov’s play feels nervous and impatient. This attack has no power behind it.

17.f4!
Spassky keeps his nerve and neutralizes Smyslov’s unjustified attack.

17…Ng4 18.Bxg4! Bxg4 19.Qa4!?

Spassky plays sharply and threatens f4-f5, when Black’s bishop would be in trouble.

19.Qd3! is even stronger. For instance, 19…Bd7 20.e4 clearly favours White, or if 19…Rae8 White
can choose between 20.Rae1 and 20.f5!? with some advantage in either case.

81
19…Bc8?!
Smyslov saves the bishop, but at cost of making an anti-developing move.

19…Qe7! was better, when 20.Rae1 still favours White, but the advantage would be smaller than in
the game. Smyslov was most likely afraid of 20.f5!? Qxe3† 21.Kh1 when the bishop is in danger, but
in fact Black is not doing too badly. Play continues 21…h5 22.Rae1 Qxc3, and now either 23.f6 or
23.Qf4 would give White plenty of compensation for the two-pawn deficit, but objectively the
position would be unclear.

20.e4 Qg4?
Smyslov wants to attack with the queen almost alone, while the rest of the black pieces stand on
the back rank. Perhaps he underestimated his fifteen-year-old opponent, or maybe he was nervous and
played below his usual level.

Either 20…Qe7 21.c4 or 20…f5 21.Rae1 would leave White somewhat better.

21.Qc2 h5
21…f5 22.e5 or 21…Bd7 22.Rae1 would also clearly favour White.

82
22.Rf2
22.e5? would be premature in view of 22…h4 23.Ne4 Bf5.

22.Rf3! was strong though. For instance, after 22…Re8 23.Re1, or 22…h4 23.h3, or 22…b5 23.Qf2
Bd7 24.h3, White’s advantage would be bigger than in the game.

22…b5
Another optimistic move. 22…Bd7 was more realistic.

23.e5!?
Activating the last piece with 23.Re1! was objectively stronger, but Spassky’s choice works well
in the game.

23…h4 24.Nf1 Bf5 25.Qd2

83
25…dxe5?
Smyslov commits a losing mistake.

After 25…Rad8 26.Re1 Rfe8, or 25…Rfe8 26.Re1 Qg6 27.Ne3, Black would be only somewhat
worse.

26.fxe5 Bg6 27.Re1

Spassky dominates the centre, and he judges correctly that Black can cause him no harm on the
kingside.

27…h3 28.d6 Be4

84
29.Ne3! Qe6
Other moves lose as well. For example, 29…Qg6 30.Rf4! Bxg2 31.Rg4 or 29…Qg5 30.g3
Qxe5? 31.Nf5 and in both cases White wins.

30.Rf4 Bxg2 31.Nf5!

White has too many attacking pieces, and Black has no good defence.

31…Rfe8
31…g6 32.Rh4!? (32.Re3 wins as well) 32…gxf5 33.Rh6! f6 34.exf6 wins.

32.Re3! Rad8

85
33.Nxg7!
Black’s king is opened up. According to Korchnoi:

“And yet here is Tolush teaching Spassky: “You must fight for the initiative, you must sacrifice in
every game.” I remember he said to him: “Don’t go home until you’ve sacrificed something!” In
this game Spassky fulfilled both of his trainer’s suggestions.”

33…Rxd6
33…Kxg7 34.Rg3† Kf8 35.Rxf7†! forces checkmate.

34.Nxe6
If Black takes the queen on d2, White delivers a check on g3 followed by mate with Rh4.
Smyslov therefore resigned.
1–0

It was a sensational win for a boy who had not yet turned sixteen, against one of the absolute best in
the world. I find it comparable to Fischer’s “Game of the Century” win over Donald Byrne. Fischer’s
masterpiece was much more artistic, and he did it at just thirteen years of age. On the other hand,
Spassky beat one of the greatest players, possibly even the greatest in the world at the time. Both
games made the entire chess world take notice and recognize that they had a new young star who
might conquer the entire chess world.

Spassky continued with a draw against Ciocaltea. In the third round he obtained a promising position
against Milev, but wasted his advantage, after which the Bulgarian player gradually took over and
eventually won a rook ending. Next he made an easy, fifteen-move draw with Black against

86
Petrosian, which may have been ordered by the Soviet authorities. In the fifth round Spassky did not
play the opening well against Radulescu, but was able to create complications in an isolated pawn
position and brought down the Romanian player.

The next game shows Tolush’s effect, both in Spassky’s opening choice and in his ever-developing
tactical ability.

Game 9

Octavio Troianescu – Boris Spassky

Bucharest 1953

1.e4 e5
This was Tolush’s most common answer to the king-pawn starting move. Spassky had employed
it for the first time against Estrin in 1951, when thanks to his opponent’s mistake, he won with a
quick, crushing attack.

2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4 Nc6 4.Qe3 Be7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Bc4 0-0 7.Nge2 Ng4 8.Qd2 Bc5 9.Nd1

9…Qe7!
Other strong moves exist: for instance, 9…Nce5 10.Bb3 a5 and White would struggle. However,
Spassky’s idea is highly imaginative.

87
10.f3?
10.Qg5! was necessary, and after 10…Nf6 11.Ndc3 White has chances to survive.

10…Qh4†
Even stronger is 10…Nge5! 11.Bd5 Qh4† 12.Kf1 Nxf3 13.gxf3 Qh3† 14.Ke1 Ne5 when Black
is winning.

11.g3?
11.Ng3! was necessary, and after 11…Nge5 12.Bb3 (12.Be2 d5! 13.exd5 Nd4 is strong) 12…d6
13.Qf4 (or 13.Qg5) Black stands better, but White has chances to hold.

11…Nge5!?
11…Qe7! was simple and powerful, since 12.fxg4 Ne5 13.Qf4 Nxc4 gives Black an
overwhelming advantage.

The text move can be characterized as a mistake of an exceptionally gifted player. Black still keeps
some advantage after it, but not to the same extent as the simpler alternative noted above.

12.gxh4 Nxf3† 13.Kf1

88
13…d5!!
The beautiful point of Spassky’s idea is that he doesn’t have to take the queen immediately, but
can instead use the knight on f3 for one more move to threaten mate.

14.Kg2 Nxd2 15.Bxd5 Bg4 16.Bxd2 Bxe2 17.Nc3 Bh5 18.Bf4?! Nd4 19.Na4 Bf3† 20.Kf2 Bxh1
21.Nxc5 c6 22.Bc4

22…Ne6??
22…b6! would have kept a big advantage. For instance, if 23.Nd7 Rfd8 24.Ne5 Bxe4 25.Nxf7
Black could play 25…Bd5 or 25…Rd5.

89
23.Nxe6 fxe6 24.Ke3 Bg2 25.Rg1
By now Spassky was in big trouble, but Troianescu gradually wasted his advantage, and Spassky
subsequently managed to win the game.
…0–1

After two evenly-contested draws against Sajtar and Stoltz, Spassky faced Stefan Szabo, a remarkable
player who started playing chess at more than thirty years of age (he was forty-one at the time of the
Bucharest tournament.) Despite his late introduction to the game, Szabo became a strong player and
overcame a problematic opening to reach a promising position with Black against Spassky. However,
after missing a chance to seize the advantage, he later chose the wrong square when moving his king
out of check in an equal position, and Boris punished him by forcing a winning queen endgame,
which he duly converted. Sadly, Stefan Szabo passed away in 1954 after suffering a heart attack
during a game, at the age of just forty-two.

After a fair draw with Barcza, Spassky played two Meran Defences, one as White and one as Black.
Spassky got a bad opening in both games: he was able to turn things around against Reicher, but lost
to Sliwa. Then Boris lost a back-and-forth game against Filip. At the end of the long struggle, Boris
could have drawn a pawnless ending with a single queen against a queen and rook, but he gave a
wrong check and lost.

Spassky then drew with Boleslavsky, followed by another draw against O’Kelly, against whom he
was clearly lost. After that Spassky won three games in a row, beating Barda, Golombek and the
world-class player Laszlo Szabo. Against the last two opponents, the opening went very well for the
young Russian. In the last round Spassky quickly drew with Tolush.

Spassky finished with a score of 12/19, consisting of eight wins, eight draws and three defeats.
Tolush won the tournament with 14 points, Petrosian was second with 13 and Smyslov finished third
with 12½. Spassky finished in equal fourth place with Boleslavsky and Laszlo Szabo: a brilliant result
for the teenager against such a strong field. It’s true that Petrosian, Boleslavsky and Tolush did not try
to beat him. All three were somewhat stronger than Spassky at that time; moreover, Petrosian and
Boleslavsky agreed to quick draws with the white pieces. Still, Spassky did defeat the other two
world-class players, Smyslov and Szabo, so who’s to say how he would have fared against the other
three Soviets? In any case, Spassky obtained the title of International Master as well as Soviet Master;
it was an amazing accomplishment at such a young age in the 1950s. I believe that after such a
stunning result, it must have been clear that chess would be his profession.

I found it interesting to compare Spassky’s result in Bucharest with Fischer’s result in the Candidates
tournament of Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade in 1959. They were more or less the same age: the Bucharest
tournament took place at some point in January 1953, and Spassky turned sixteen at the end of that
month, while Fischer was sixteen at the time of the Candidates event. According to Chessmetrics,

90
Spassky’s 12/19 (63.2%) score was achieved against 2594-rated opposition, but no estimated
tournament performance rating is given. Fischer scored 12½/28 (44.6%) versus 2726-rated
opposition, for a performance rating of 2696. Spassky jumped to number 25 on the next world
ranking list, whereas Fischer, who by the way played in more events to be counted for the rating list,
was at that time ranked 14th in the world according to Chessmetrics.

Strangely, the database only contains Spassky’s games from one more event in 1953: the semi-final
of the Soviet Republics Team Championship, which took place in September. Only four games are
recorded: three where Spassky had White, and one with Black. He won all four of them, but it’s not
clear whether or not he played other games which did not make it to the database. Among the
opponents, only Boris Vladimirov was a well-known player.

One game nicely illustrates his attacking style. We join the game after 23 moves, where Black has
just played …Na8. White has obtained an overwhelming advantage and has many ways to win, but
Spassky finds the most elegant.

Game 10

Boris Spassky – Gluschtschenok

Leningrad 1953

24.Bxg5! Rb3
Accepting the offered piece would lose as well: 24…fxg5 25.f6 would be horrible, or if 24…
hxg5 25.h6 Bh8 26.Nxg5† fxg5 (26…Kg8 27.Ne6 is crushing) 27.f6† and Black could resign.

91
25.Be3 Nb6 26.g5!
Spassky could win slowly but he prefers to hunt down the black king.

26…Bxf5
26…hxg5 would lose after 27.h6 Bh8 when any of 28.Bxg5, or 28.Nxg5†, or 28.Bxc5 dxc5
29.Nxg5† would win.

27.gxh6 Bh8 28.Qc2

The rest is easy.

28…Rxd3 29.Qxd3 Qc8 30.b3 Rg8 31.Rxa6 Nd7 32.Ra7 Rg2 33.Nxf6†
1–0

Spassky started at university later in the year, and subsequently obtained a journalist diploma.
Spassky later admitted that he was a lazy student. I also cite a few of Spassky’s comments from an
interview with Leonard Barden:

“Later, when I grew up, I understood that it was necessary for me to take chess more seriously; I
don’t believe I ever considered other professions as a career. But, paradoxically, I continued to
be very lazy in my approach to chess. It’s in my nature to be like a Russian bear.”

“What do you mean, a Russian bear?”

“Someone who is very calm and lazy, and finds it an effort to spend the time to stand up.”

92
Despite being at university Boris probably played in many more chess events, but they just were not
recorded.

Interestingly, the Soviet Chess Federation sent Tolush to play in Hastings at the end of the year. He
performed modestly, finishing with only fifty percent. Maybe it even benefited Spassky, by making
Spassky’s results unconsciously more important for Tolush.

1953 Results
Bucharest (4th-6th place): 12/19 (+8 =8 –3)
Soviet Republics Team Championship, Kharkov: 4/4 (possibly incomplete result) (+4 =0 –0)

Total 69.6% (exact results unknown)

93
 1954

Spassky played the All Soviet Master and Candidate Master Tournament in Leningrad. Ten of his
games are available. As Black he struggled in the openings in most of the games, but he showed
remarkable resilience and did not lose any of them. With White he did alright in the openings and
won all the games which appear in the database.

We will look at Spassky’s game against Krogius, who would later become his trainer.

Game 11

Boris Spassky – Nikolai Krogius

Leningrad 1954

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qf3 Be7
In another game in the same tournament, Krogius played differently with: 7…h6 8.Bh4 Be7 9.0-
0-0 Qc7 10.Bg3 Nbd7 11.Bd3 b5 12.Bxb5 (after 12.e5! Bb7 13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.exd6 White’s
advantage is clear) 12…axb5 13.Ndxb5 Qa5 14.Nxd6† White had an edge in Rovner – Krogius,
Leningrad 1954.

The Rovner game appears in the database before the Spassky game, suggesting that it probably took
place in an earlier round, although the actual round numbers and exact dates of games are not given,
so it’s impossible to be certain. If the Rovner game did take place beforehand, then it would be
interesting to know how Spassky planned to improve and how deeply he prepared in general.

8.0-0-0 Qc7 9.Qg3

94
9…Nc6?!
The knight would be better placed on d7.

10.Nxc6! bxc6 11.f4

11.Be2!? e5 12.Rhf1 Be6 13.f4 also gives White some advantage.

11…h6 12.Bxf6 gxf6

12…Bxf6? is refuted by 13.e5 dxe5 14.Ne4 when White is close to winning.

13.Qg7

95
 Spassky intends to pick up the h6-pawn – or so it seems.

A good alternative is 13.Bc4 Kf8 (13…d5? 14.exd5 cxd5 15.Bxd5! wins; 13…Bb7 14.f5! is also
strong) 14.f5 exf5 15.Rhf1 and White is somewhat better.

13…Rf8 14.Bc4?!
Spassky looks for an attack, but his move is not the best.

Collecting the pawn with 14.Qxh6 and defending on the queenside with Be2 and Rd3 looks more
promising.

14…d5 15.exd5 Qxf4† 16.Kb1 Qxc4

17.d6 Qf4?
Krogius gives up the wrong bishop.

Instead after 17…Bd8! 18.d7† Bxd7 19.Rxd7 Be7 20.Rhd1 Qh4 the position would be balanced.

18.dxe7 Kxe7

96
19.h4!!
One might have expected a developing move, but Spassky’s subtle choice prevents the black
queen from using the g5-square.

19…Rb8 20.Rhf1 Qe5 21.Ka1 Rb4

22.Qxh6
Spassky’s move should be good enough to win, but it is not the strongest.

It is important to notice that 22.Rde1 is not immediately decisive because 22…Rf4! keeps Black in
the game.

97
However, 22.g4!! would have been incredibly powerful. For instance, 22…a5 (if 22…Rf4 then
23.Rfe1 Qa5 24.Qxh6 Rxg4 25.Ne4 and White wins) 23.a3! Rf4 24.Rfe1 Qc5 25.Ne2 Re4 26.Ng3
and White wins.

22…f5 23.Qg5†
A good alternative was 23.Rfe1 Qc5 (23…Qf6 24.Qd2 is winning) 24.a3 Rg4 25.Ne2 when the
knight will be powerful on f4.

23…f6 24.Qd2
Spassky aims to invade on the d-file with his queen, but doing it with the rook would have been
stronger: 24.Qg7† Rf7 25.Qh8 Rf8 26.Qh7† Rf7 27.Qh5 Qc7 (27…Qg3 28.Qe2 is also good for
White.) 28.Rd2! Black has problems, as White’s plan is to double the rooks on the d-file and play
Rd8.

24…c5
Krogius defends against Nd5† and prepares to place the rook on d4, as well as improving the
future prospects of his bishop.

24…Kf7! was a more precise defence, with the rook going to g4 if needed.

25.Rfe1 Rd4 26.Qf2?!

Better was 26.Qh6 Qg3 27.Ne2 Rxd1† 28.Rxd1 Qg4 29.Qe3 when White’s position is easier to
play.

98
26…Rxd1†?!
26…Qd6! was better, and if 27.h5 Kf7 28.h6 Rh8 Black would be perfectly safe.

27.Rxd1 Bb7?
This move is too optimistic; the bishop actually stood well on c8.

27…Rg8 28.h5 Kf7 limits White to a small edge.

28.Re1 Be4

29.g4!
Spassky softens the enemy pawn chain.

29…Qd4?
29…Rg8 was the last chance. After 30.gxf5 exf5 31.Qf1! Black’s position would be highly
unpleasant, but there are still chances to hold.

30.Qg3
30.Qf1! is the winning idea, but Spassky’s move doesn’t let the win slip away.

30…Qd6 31.Qf2 Qd4

99
32.Qf1!
After this key move, Black’s position falls apart.

32…Rb8 33.a3!
Calmly preventing Black’s threat of …Qb4 as well as the secondary idea of …Rxb2.

33…Bxc2 34.gxf5 e5 35.Qxa6 Qd7

35…Qd6 36.Qa7† Kf8 37.Rg1 wins as well.

36.Rg1 Bb3

100
 On 36…Kf7 37.Qc4† wins.

37.Ne4 Rf8 38.Rg7†

Krogius had seen enough and resigned.
1–0

Spassky did not always find the best move, but he attacked well enough to break in. In competitive
chess, scoring points is what matters and he won the game. Spassky went on to win the tournament
with a superb score of 12½/15, consisting of ten wins and five draws, with no defeats.

***

Spassky’s next event was the Soviet Junior Team Championship, which took place in Leningrad.
Only two of his games are available, including a remarkable battle against Mikhail Tal. According to
the database it was the first time these two future World Champions ever faced each other, although
it’s possible that they had earlier games which went unrecorded. By the way, Tal was born on 9
November 1936, so the age difference between him and the younger Boris was less than three
months. I would rate them as the two greatest chess talents in the world among players who were
born in the 1930s.

Game 12

Mikhail Tal – Boris Spassky

Leningrad 1954

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.d4 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5

The Benoni is generally considered a risky choice, and this is especially true against someone like
Tal who regularly plays it himself.

5…g6
The following year, Spassky would go on to employ the Benoni in a vital game in the third-from-
last round of an Interzonal tournament. That game continued: 5…d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0
9.0-0 Bg4 10.Bg5 Nbd7 11.Qd2 a6 12.a4 Bxf3 13.Bxf3 c4 14.Be2 Qc7 15.Kh1?! Nc5 16.Qe3? Rfe8
17.f3 Nb3 18.Rad1 Rab8 19.Qf2? White’s position was already difficult, but this does not help at all.

101
19…b5! 20.axb5 axb5 21.e5 Rxe5 22.f4 Ne4 23.Nxe4 Rxe4 24.Bf3 Rd4 Spassky obtained a winning
position which he duly converted in Stahlberg – Spassky, Gothenburg 1955. Following this important
victory, Spassky was able to sail home with draws in the final two rounds, which enabled him to
qualify for the subsequent Candidates event.

By the way, Spassky also had a nice win from the White side of a Benoni-like position in the round
immediately before the Stahlberg game. Let’s see how he handled the position which arose from a
Leningrad Nimzo-Indian:

Game 13

Boris Spassky – Miroslav Filip

Gothenburg 1955

102
11.0-0 Bxc3?
Interestingly, Filip makes the same type of mistake as Smyslov at the start of 1954, by
unnecessarily exchanging his bishop for the c3-knight.
12.Nxc3 Ng6 13.Bg3 Qe7 14.e4 Bd7 15.Re1 Ne5 16.Be2 g5 17.Rf1 Kh7 18.Qd2 Ng8

19.f4! gxf4 20.Rxf4 a6 21.a4 f6 22.Raf1 Rf7 23.Bh5 Rg7 24.a5 Rf8

103
25.Nd1!
We will see that Spassky will become a wizard of knight manoeuvres. I consider this the first
game in which he employs the knight brilliantly for positional reasons. Previous great knight moves
were attacking or resisting in a more concrete way.
25…Rg5 26.Be2 Ng6 27.R4f2 Ne5 28.Ne3 Rg7

29.Bxe5! dxe5 30.d6 Qd8 31.Bc4 Bc6 32.Nf5 Rg5 33.h4 Rg6

104
34.Bxg8†! Rfxg8 35.Ne7 Bxe4 36.Nxg6 Rxg6 37.h5 Rg7

38.Rxf6! Rxg2† 39.Qxg2 Bxg2 40.Rf8 1–0

It is remarkable how many times Spassky preferred a knight over a bishop in this game: in the
opening he did not try to preserve his d3-bishop from being exchanged, and later in the game he
exchanged both of his bishops for the black knights at key moments.

Let’s return to the main Tal – Spassky game.

6.Nf3 Bg7 7.Bf4 d6 8.h3 0-0 9.e3

Tal plays a solid set-up which gives Black no target.

105
9…Ne8
Spassky deviates from Tal’s play earlier in the year. That game continued 9…b6 10.Nd2 Ne8
11.Nc4 Ba6 12.a4 Bxc4 13.Bxc4 Nd7 14.0-0 Ne5 15.Be2 f5 16.Qd2 Qf6 17.a5 and White stood
better in Keres – Tal, Tallinn 1954. Tal went on to hold a draw, but he must have been suitably
impressed by Keres’ handling of the opening to adopt the same set-up himself.

10.Be2 Nd7 11.0-0 Ne5 12.Bxe5!?

Tal makes the interesting decision to cede the bishop pair in order to obtain a passed pawn.

12.e4 is a simpler way to maintain an edge.

12…dxe5 13.Nd2 f5 14.Qb3

14.Nc4 e4 15.a4 is also somewhat better for White.

14…Nd6
14…Kh8 15.Nc4 slightly favours White after 15…e4 16.Rfd1 or 15…b6 16.a4.

15.Nc4

106
15…e4
Opening the diagonal of the Benoni bishop.

15…Nf7!? would be neither stronger nor weaker, but retreating is not Spassky’s style. After 16.d6 (or
16.a4 Rb8 17.Rfd1) 16…Kh8 17.Rad1 b6 18.a4 White has an edge.

16.Nb5?
Sooner or later White must remove the d6-knight, but Tal gives up the wrong knight for it. Better
options would have been:

16.Nxd6 Qxd6 17.Nb5 Qe5 18.Nc7 Rb8 19.d6† Kh8 20.Rfd1 Rd8 21.Qf7 and White has an edge.

16.a4!? Kh8 (16…b6 is well met by 17.a5) 17.a5 Qe7 18.Rfd1 (18.Nb5!? is also possible) 18…Bd7
19.Nxd6 Qxd6 20.Bb5 and White stands somewhat better.

16…Nxb5 17.Qxb5 b6 18.d6

Such a passed pawn can become strong or weak.

Also after 18.a4 Bd7 19.Qb3 Qh4 20.Rad1 Rad8 21.d6 Kh8 Black’s chances are preferable.

18…Bd7 19.Qb3

107
19…b5?
Spassky goes forward, but the prophylactic 19…Kh8! was much stronger, and after 20.a4 Qh4!
21.Rad1 f4 White would be in serious trouble.

20.Nb6†
Also after 20.Ne5† c4 21.Bxc4† bxc4 22.Qxc4† Kh8 23.Nf7† Rxf7 24.Qxf7 White has some
edge.

20…c4 21.Bxc4† bxc4 22.Qxc4† Rf7 23.Nxa8 Qxa8 24.Qb3

Tal defends his pawn. He could also develop with 24.Rfd1!?, and if 24…Bxb2?! (24…Qe8 is
more prudent) 25.Rab1 Be5 26.Qc5 White stands somewhat better.

108
24…Be5 25.Rac1
25.Rfd1 Qe8 26.Qd5 would lead to a balanced position.

25…Kg7?
Spassky steps out of the pin, but it is too slow.

One option was to build his position on the queenside with 25…a5!? 26.Rfd1 a4, when the position is
balanced.

Black could also abort the dangerous passed pawn:

25…Bxd6! 26.Rfd1 Qf8!

A fallback option is 26…Qb8 27.Qxb8† Bxb8 28.Rxd7 Rxd7 29.Rc8† Kg7 30.Rxb8 Rd1†
31.Kh2 Rd2 32.Rb7† Kf6 when Black can hold the endgame.
Presumably Spassky rejected this variation on account of the pins along the a2-g8 diagonal and
the d-file. However, White has no clear way of exploiting it and Black only needs one or two
moves to unravel. Play could continue:

109
27.Qb7!?
27.Rd2 gets nowhere after 27…Qe7! intending …Be6.
27…f4!?
27…Ba4!? 28.Qa6 Bxd1 29.Rc8 leads to an unclear endgame where any result is possible.
28.Qxe4 fxe3 29.Qxe3 Bf4 30.Qxa7 Bg4 31.Qa6
The resulting position with three pawns versus bishop is more or less equal.

26.Rfd1 a5 27.Rc7
Tal has improved all his pieces.

27…Qe8!

110
 Spassky stays alert and avoids 27…a4 28.Qxf7†!! Kxf7 29.Rxd7† Kf6 30.Rxh7 when White has
all the chances due to the powerful d-pawn.

28.Qd5 a4
Taking the pawn would be risky:

28…Bxb2 29.Qxa5 Bf6 30.Qa7

Black only has one way to offer serious resistance:

30…Kh6!!
Finding a unique shelter. Now White has to find difficult moves to press home the advantage.
31.a4!
31.Rb1 The threat of tripling on the seventh rank looks devastating, but Black has a surprising
way of developing counterplay: 31…Qe6! 32.Qc5 (32.Rbb7 Qd5 33.Qc5 Qd2 34.Rxd7 Bh4!
35.g3 Bxg3! leads to a perpetual.) 32…Qxa2 33.Rbb7 Qe6 34.Qa7 Qd5 35.Rxd7 Qd1† 36.Kh2
Be5† 37.g3 Bxg3†! Black forces perpetual check.
31…Bg5 32.Qd4!
32.a5 f4 offers Black enough counterplay.
32…Bf6 33.Qd5 Bd8 34.Ra7 f4 35.Ra8
Black would be in serious trouble.

29.b4 axb3 30.axb3

111
30…Bf6
30…Kf6? runs into 31.Qa5! (but not 31.b4? Qe6 when Black survives) 31…Qe6 32.Rd5 Bxd6
33.Rb7 and White wins.

31.Rb7?
Tal looks to double his rooks on the seventh.

31.b4! would have been winning, as Black simply does not have time to oppose the advancing b-
pawn. For instance, 31…Qe5 (31…Qb8 32.b5 is no better) 32.b5 Qb2 (32…Qxd5 33.Rxd5 Be6
34.Rdc5 wins) 33.Qc5 Qxb5 34.Qxb5 Bxb5 35.Rb1 Rxc7 36.dxc7 and White wins one of the
bishops.

31…Qe5?!
Spassky looks to exchange White’s strong queen, but it was better to attack with 31…f4! 32.b4
(32.exf4 e3 is awkward) 32…fxe3 33.fxe3 Bh4 when Black has real counterplay.

112
32.Qc4?!
Tal will soon regret the decision to keep the queens on the board.

32.b4?! is inaccurate in view of 32…Qxd5 33.Rxd5 Bc6 34.Rxf7† Kxf7 35.Rc5 Bd7 when the
endgame is equal.

However, 32.Qxe5! Bxe5 33.b4 gives White a much better version of the endgame. The winning line
continues: 33…Kf6 34.b5 Ke6

35.Rb8! (35.b6?! Rf8 is not so easy) 35…f4 36.b6 fxe3 37.fxe3 Bxd6 38.Rd8 Black will have to
sacrifice one of the bishops for the b-pawn, leaving White with excellent winning chances.

113
32…f4 33.exf4 Qxf4 34.g3??
Presumably Tal was afraid of …Be5 with threats against h2 and f2, but in addressing this threat
Tal commits a horrible mistake and weakens his king decisively.

White should start with 34.Qe2 to cover the f3-square, and after 34…Be5 35.g3 Qf5 36.Qe3 the
position would be balanced.

34…Qf3!
Black decisively gets the queen closer to the white king, while hitting the rook on d1 and
threatening …e3.

35.Qd5
35.Rf1 e3 wins: aside from the powerful kingside threats, White also has to worry about the loose
rook on b7.

35…Bc3?!
Spassky misses the opportunity to win more quickly with 35…Be6! 36.Rxf7† Bxf7 37.Qd2 e3, or
35…Bg5! 36.Rf1 Be3!, catching White’s king at once.

36.Rf1 Kh6 37.Qc4

37.Qd1! offers more resistance. Then best play continues 37…Qf6 38.Qc1† Kg7 39.Qf4 Qxf4
40.gxf4 Kf6 41.Rc1 Bd2 42.Rc4 Kf5 43.Rcc7 Ke6 44.Rc4 Kd5 and I think Black can win, but White
can continue to fight.

114
37…Qf6??
37…Bxh3 would win instantly. Judging by the mistakes on both sides, it seems likely that both
players were in time trouble.

38.Qe2??
Tal returns the favour; he probably wanted to bring the rook in play.

The position would be equal after 38.Qxe4 Kg7 39.Qd5.

38…Bd4!
Now Black is winning again, as White is helpless on the kingside.

39.Rb4 e3 40.Qd3

115
40…Qxf2†!
40…exf2† 41.Kh2 Qe6 would win instantly as well, but Boris plays for the gallery.

41.Rxf2 exf2† 42.Kh2 f1=N†

The knight promotion is not needed, but it must have pleased the spectators.

43.Qxf1 Rxf1 44.Rxd4 Rf2† 45.Kg1 Rf3

The endgame holds no saving chances for White, so Tal resigned.
0–1

Only one more of Spassky’s games from this event is available, but his overall result has been
documented: he scored 7½/9, a superb result on Board 1 in such a tough team competition.

A few months later, in November, Spassky played in the semi-final of the Soviet Championship in
Moscow. He played twenty games, of which thirteen are available. He started with a loss, but
bounced back with three wins and a draw out of the next four games. The rest of Spassky’s
tournament consisted mostly of draws, along with three wins and only one further defeat. Many of the
draws were hard-fought; for instance, in the final round Spassky was dead lost against Shamkovich
but eventually escaped with a draw.

I noticed a familiar pattern when playing through Spassky’s games from this event. He again
struggled to get decent positions from the opening with the black pieces, and in most of his Black
games he was losing at some point. The fact that he managed to score 50% in his Black games shows
his middlegame prowess. With the white pieces, Spassky unsurprisingly reached more acceptable

116
positions out of the opening, and made a respectable plus score in those games. Most importantly, his
final score of 12/20 left him 4th out of the twenty-one competitors, which meant he had qualified for
the super-strong Soviet Championship which would take place three months later.

1954 Results

All Soviet Master and Candidate Masters Tournament, Leningrad (1st place): 12½/15 (+10 =5 –0)
Soviet Junior Team Championship, Leningrad (Board 1): 7½/9 (exact results unknown)
Soviet Championship semi-final, Moscow (4th place): 12/20 (+6 =12 –2)

Total 72.7% (exact results unknown)

117
 1955

Following his successful result in the semi-final towards the end of the previous year, Spassky took
his place in the final of the Soviet Championship. The 1955 event was one of strongest contests of all
time. Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Keres, Geller, Taimanov, Korchnoi and many other world-class
players entered. Bronstein was the only Soviet chess star of the time who did not play. The national
championship also functioned as the Soviet Zonal tournament, thus marking Spassky’s first step in
World Championship competition. This area of Spassky’s career would last a total of thirty years, as
his final World Championship event would be the 1985 Candidates tournament. Few players in chess
history can rival Spassky’s success or longevity at this level of competition. Spassky only turned
eighteen a few weeks before the start of the championship but, despite his young age, I think he
probably expected to be in contention for qualification to the Interzonal.

Spassky started well, with draws against Keres and Mikenas followed by wins over Antoshin and
Shcherbakov. He then faced Petrosian, who at twenty-five years old had already established himself
as one of the world’s best players.

Game 14

Boris Spassky – Tigran Petrosian

Moscow 1955

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qf3 h6 8.Bh4 Nbd7 9.0-0-0 Ne5
10.Qe2 g5 11.Bg3 Bd7 12.h4 Rg8 13.hxg5 hxg5 14.Nf3 Qc7 15.Qe3 Be7 16.Be2 b5 17.a3 Rb8
18.Nd4 Qc5

118
19.b4!?
Spassky plays creatively. The position is objectively equal, but Black has to be a bit more careful
due to the difference in king safety.

19…Qc7
19…Qb6!? is an interesting alternative which would prevent the plan used by Spassky in the
game.

20.Bxe5!?
Spassky gives up the bishop pair to open the d-file and ensure that Black’s king will not feel safe
for a long time.

20…dxe5 21.Nb3 Rc8 22.Rd3 g4 23.Kb1 Bc6

119
24.f3
Spassky tries to open the position.

24…g3 25.Qh6 Nd7 26.Qh7 Nf6 27.Qh6 Qa7?

Petrosian risks too much by avoiding the repetition.

28.Bd1
Spassky was a wizard at knight manoeuvres but on this occasion he missed the opportunity for a
nice one: 28.Nd1! Nd7 29.Qh7 Kf8 (29…Nf6 30.Qh3 Nd7 31.Ne3 also favours White) 30.Ne3 Bg5
31.Ng4 Nf6 32.Nxf6 Bxf6 33.Nc5 White keeps the upper hand.

28…Nd7 29.Qh7 Rg6?

Once again Petrosian should have played 29…Nf6 and been content with a draw.

30.Qh8† Bf8

120
31.f4!
Spassky cleverly brings the bishop into the attack, while also freeing the d4-square for his knight.

31…exf4 32.Bh5 Rg7

If 32…Rg5? then 33.Nd4! produces the terrible threat of Nxe6, while the flashier 33.Bxf7†!?
Kxf7 34.Rh7† also wins.

33.Nd4 Ke7

34.Nd5†!

121
 Spassky opens up the black king.

34.Qh6! is an equally powerful alternative. For instance, if 34…Rg4 35.Nxc6† Rxc6 36.Nd5† Ke8
37.Nf6† White wins.

34…Bxd5
Neither 34…exd5 35.exd5 nor 34…Kd6 35.Nxc6 Kxc6 36.Ne7† gives Black any hope of
survival.

35.exd5 Nf6 36.Re1

Spassky’s move should be more than good enough to win.

However, 36.dxe6! would get the job done in a more direct and forcing manner. The key point is that
36…Rh7 loses to 37.Nf5† Kxe6 38.Re1†! Qe3 (or 38…Kxf5 39.Rd5†) 39.Nxe3 Rxh8 40.Ng4† and
White soon forces mate.

36…e5

37.Nc6†
Spassky’s move does not spoil the win, but 37.Qh6! Rg6 38.Qxf4 would have been immediately
killing. Other more easily winning continuations include 37.Nf5† Kd7 38.Nxg7 and 37.Rxe5† Kd6
38.Rf5.

37…Rxc6 38.dxc6 Qc7!

Petrosian was renowned for his defensive skills and he fights as hard as possible.

122
39.Bf3
39.Red1! is the simplest win.

39.Qh6!? also works after 39…Rh7 40.Rd7† Qxd7 41.Rxe5† Qe6 42.Rxe6† fxe6 43.Qxf4 and White
wins.

39…Rh7

40.Qxh7?!
Spassky’s last move before the time control looks fancy, but he overlooks 40.Rd7†! Qxd7
41.Rxe5† Qe6 42.Rxe6† fxe6 43.c7! Rxh8 44.c8=Q with a fairly straightforward win.

40…Nxh7 41.Rd7† Qxd7 42.cxd7

This was Spassky’s sealed move, and they agreed to a draw without resumption.
½–½

The final position could be dangerous in practice for either side, but with best play Spassky could still
have won. Let’s see how the game might have ended if they had played it out:

123
42…Bg7
Black has no choice, as trading the e5-pawn for the one on d7 would cripple Black’s kingside
majority and leave White with an easy win. White’s next move is critical in determining the final
result.

a) 43.Rd1?
This natural-looking move should only lead to a draw.
43…Kd8

44.Bb7
44.Bc6 Ng5 45.c4! bxc4 (45…e4!? should also lead to a draw with best play.) 46.a4

124
 Shaposhnikov ended his line here, presumably with the implication that White is winning, but
46…e4 47.b5 axb5 48.a5 e3 49.a6 Bd4! 50.Rxd4 e2 51.a7 e1=Q† 52.Kc2 Qf2† 53.Kb1 Qe1†
results in perpetual check.
44…Ng5!
44…f5!? 45.Bxa6 f3 46.gxf3 Ng5 47.Bxb5 Nxf3 48.Bf1! e4 49.c4 leads to a draw in a much
more complicated way. The text move is more natural.
45.Bxa6 e4 46.Bxb5 e3
Threatening …f3.

47.Bf1
47.Re1?! Bc3 48.Rg1 Ne6 49.Rh1 f3! 50.gxf3 g2 51.Rg1 Nf4 would be dangerous for White.
47…f3 48.gxf3 Bc3 49.Ka2!
Without this, White would be in trouble.
49…g2 50.Bxg2 e2 51.Rb1 e1=Q 52.Rxe1 Bxe1
Black holds.

b) A major improvement is:

43.Bg4!

125
 As far as I am aware, this move has not been mentioned by any other commentator.
43…Kd8
43…Nf8 44.Rd1 Kd8 45.Rd6 is hopeless for Black.
44.c4!
44.Rd1 Nf6 45.Bf5 e4 gives Black enough counterplay to hold.
44…Ng5
44…bxc4 loses to 45.a4 Nf6 46.b5! axb5 47.a5! when the pawns are too fast.
45.cxb5 axb5

46.Rf1!!
A beautiful move, preventing …e4.

126
46…Bf6
If 46…Ne6 47.Bxe6 fxe6 48.Kc2 the king walks to e4 and Black can do nothing.
47.Kc2
White is winning.

It would be interesting to know what each of the players looked at during their adjournment analysis.

In the next round, Spassky faced another world-class opponent.

Game 15

Efim Geller – Boris Spassky

Moscow 1955

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3† 5.bxc3 c5 6.e3 Nc6 7.Bd3 d6 8.Ne2 b6 9.0-0 Qd7?!
Presumably Spassky rejected 9…Ba6 because he found the prospect of 10.Qa4 annoying, but
Black is doing fine after 10…Qc8 followed by …0-0. Still, we will see that Spassky has something
else in mind for his king.

10.e4 Ba6 11.Bg5

11…0-0-0!?
I wonder if anyone had ever castled long in the Sämisch Nimzo-Indian prior to this game. The

127
whole scheme is objectively dubious, but surprise value counts for a lot in high-level chess.

Incidentally, after writing books about the careers of both Fischer and Spassky, I noticed that the
American only rarely castled queenside, whereas the Russian did it slightly more often. Spassky also
left his king in the centre somewhat more often than Fischer. The difference is mostly to do with the
fact that Spassky played the Leningrad Variation against the Nimzo-Indian and the Sämisch Variation
against the King’s Indian.

12.Ng3?!
White should play on the queenside at once with 12.Nc1!, as Geller showed in a subsequent
game against Georgy Lisitsin, in round 16 of the same tournament. That game continued 12…Na5
(12…Bb7 13.a4 and 12…cxd4 13.cxd4 Nxd4 14.a4 also look highly dangerous for Black) 13.Nb3
Qa4 14.Nxa5 Qxa5 15.Qc2 h6 16.Bd2 when Black was already in a desperate situation due to the
misplaced queen in Geller – Lisitsin, Moscow 1955, and Geller went on to crush Lisitsin.

Lisitsin was also from Leningrad, so he and Spassky almost certainly prepared this variation together,
but it was far too optimistic to repeat the same dubious variation against Geller when he’d had ample
time to prepare for it.

12…h6 13.Bxf6 gxf6

14.Nh5?!
White could have kept some advantage with 14.a4, or with 14.d5 followed by Nh5.

14…cxd4 15.cxd4 Nxd4 16.Nxf6 Qe7 17.Qa4?

White can’t afford to pull the queen so far from the defence of the king. It was necessary to

128
sacrifice with 17.Nd5! exd5 (17…Qd7? 18.Rb1 or 17…Qh4? 18.g3 Rdg8 19.a4 would leave Black in
trouble) 18.cxd5 Bb7 19.Qa4 Nf3† 20.gxf3 and the position would be balanced.

17…Bb7 18.Nh5
It is too late now for 18.Nd5 as 18…Qh4 would be strong.

18…Rhg8 19.Qd1
The queen comes back too late. White would also be in serious trouble after 19.f4 f5 or 19.Ng3
Kb8 followed by …h5.

19…f5!
Now the volcano erupts, and White’s position will be swept away.

20.Re1 Qh4 21.f4 e5! 22.Rc1

22.fxe5 fxe4 would win.

22…exf4 23.Bf1

129
23…Qxe1!
Black wins an exchange while keeping a strong attack. Geller could already have resigned.

23…fxe4 or 23…Ne6 would win as well.

24.Qxe1 Nf3† 25.Kf2 Nxe1 26.Rxe1 f3 27.gxf3 fxe4 28.fxe4 Rdf8† 29.Ke3

29…Bxe4! 30.Bh3† Bf5 31.Bxf5† Rxf5

Geller had a bad day, but it was a fluent attacking game by Spassky.
0–1

130
Spassky lost with White to Kotov in the next round, then drew as Black against the World Champion,
Botvinnik, in a combative game. There followed a draw with Kan, wins over Averbakh and Simagin,
and a quick draw with Smyslov. With twelve games played, Spassky had scored eight points: a
fantastic tally against world-class opposition.

Spassky stumbled in the next round, losing to Furman, then drew against Flohr and Ilivitzky. In
Round 16 he faced Mark Taimanov, another leading player from Leningrad and one of his rivals near
the top of the tournament.

Game 16

Boris Spassky – Mark Taimanov

Moscow 1955

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 Nxb3 8.axb3 f6 9.Nc3 Bb7
10.Nh4 Ne7 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Qf3 Qd7 13.Rd1 Qe6 14.Be3 g5?
In a tricky position Taimanov tries to solve his problems in a forcing way, but he should have
preferred either 14…g6 to complete development or 14…h5!? intending …Qg4 to trade queens.

15.Nxb5!
A brilliant combination which Taimanov surely missed.

131
15…axb5
After 15…Rc8 16.Qh5† Qf7 either 17.Rd8† or 17.Nxc7† would win in a similar way as in the
game.

16.Qh5† Qf7 17.Rxa8† Bxa8 18.Rd8†!

Spassky wins the queen. Black gets a rook and two minor pieces for it, but White picks up far too
many pawns.

18…Kxd8 19.Qxf7 gxh4 20.Qxf6

Spassky already has two extra pawns and will soon pick up more. The rest is easy.

20…Rg8 21.f3 h3 22.g3 Ke8 23.Qxe5 Rg6 24.Qxb5† Bc6 25.Qb8† Kf7 26.Qxc7 Rf6 27.Bg5 Re6
28.b4 Kg8 29.Qb8 Ng6 30.Kf2 Ne5 31.b5 Be8 32.Be3 Bd6 33.Qc8 Kf7 34.b6 Rf6 35.Bf4 Bd7
36.b7 Be6 37.Bxe5 Bxe5 38.b8=Q Bxc8 39.Qxe5
1–0

In the next round Spassky was beaten by Borisenko. In the penultimate game he faced Korchnoi.
Spassky’s fellow Leningrader was not doing well in this this event, yet surely it was a vital clash. We
will skip ahead to the critical phase of the game.

Game 17

Boris Spassky – Viktor Korchnoi

132
 Moscow 1955

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.Ne2 cxd4 9.cxd4 Nc6
10.Be3 0-0 11.0-0 Bg4 12.f3 Na5 13.Bxf7† Rxf7 14.fxg4 Rxf1† 15.Kxf1 Qd7 16.h3 Qe6 17.Qd3
Qc4 18.Qd2 Qa6 19.Qc2 Nc4 20.Qb3 Kh8 21.Kg1 Nd2 22.Bxd2 Qxe2 23.Be3 Rf8 24.e5 b5
25.Rc1 a5

26.Bg5?!
Spassky’s move is almost winning, but it has a flaw.

If 26.Kh1 then 26…b4 would give Black a playable position.

The calm 26.a3! would have kept White in full control. For instance, 26…h5 (26…a4 27.Qc3 gets
nowhere for Black) 27.gxh5 gxh5 28.Kh1 and White keeps a big advantage.

26…h6?
Korchnoi misses a brilliant tactic which would have rescued the game: 26…Qf2†! 27.Kh1 Qxd4!
28.Bxe7 (28.e6 Qd6 is nothing for White.)

133
28…Bxe5!! Moving the rook from f8 would be hopeless, but both players overlooked that Black can
leave it hanging. 29.Re1 (29.Bxf8?? is impossible because 29…Qf4! threatens both mate and the c1-
rook.) 29…Qc3! Black is fine and White needs to take care to avoid being worse. (29…Qd2!? is also
good enough to hold.)

27.Bxe7 a4 28.Qd1 Qe3† 29.Kh1 Rf2

30.Qg1!
Before pushing the e-pawn, White must defend his king.

134
30…Qf4 31.a3 Kh7 32.Bc5 h5 33.gxh5 Bh6 34.hxg6† Kg7 35.Re1 Qg3

36.Bb4!
Spassky defends the rook, avoiding the premature 36.e6? Rxg2! when Black forces perpetual
check.

36…Be3 37.Qh2 Qg5 38.e6

After taking the e7-pawn, it took Spassky eleven more moves to push the passed e-pawn.

38…Bf4 39.Qg1 Qh4 40.e7 Rf3

135
41.Qh2!!
Spassky finds a stunning way to neutralize the enemy attack, which generated Korchnoi’s
resignation.
1–0

There is another spectacular winning line: 41.e8=N†! Kg8 (41…Kh6 42.Bf8† Kxg6 43.gxf3† or
41…Kh8 42.g7† Kg8 43.Nf6† would win as well.) 42.Nf6† Kg7 43.Ng4 Black runs out of attack
and loses.

In the last round Spassky faced Lisitsin and fell into serious trouble, but Lisitsin failed to finish him
off and the game was eventually drawn.

Spassky finished the championship with 11½/19, which gave him a share of 3rd-6th places with
Botvinnik, Petrosian and Ilivitzky. Geller and Smyslov finished half a paint in front, with Geller
eventually becoming Soviet Champion after winning a decisive play-off game.

At just eighteen years of age, Spassky had achieved a huge success in finishing near the top of an
incredibly strong tournament. He scored seven wins and nine draws, with only three defeats. He also
qualified to the Interzonal tournament of the World Championship qualifying cycle.

Once again, it’s interesting to compare Spassky’s outstanding results with those achieved by Fischer
at a similar age. According to Chessmetrics, Spassky’s 61% in the 1955 Soviet Championship was
achieved versus 2651-rated opposition, making his performance rating 2719. Coincidentally, Fischer
also played in his national championship at around the same age. The 1960-61 US Championship
took place a few months before Fischer turned eighteen. He scored 7/9 (78%) versus 2595-rated
opposition, for a 2715 performance rating.

***

Spassky’s next event was the Student Team World Championship in Lyon, France. Boris played on
Board 2, behind Taimanov. He achieved a superb score of 7½/8, with the lone draw coming against
Forintos of Hungary.

Next came the World Junior Championship in Antwerp. Spassky won the preliminary with six wins
and one loss, with no draws. In the final he started well, beating Schweber and Portisch before
drawing with Mednis. He then faced the Dutch representative, who would go on to become a
billionaire and sponsor of the Melody Amber event in Monaco.

Game 18

136
 Boris Spassky – Joop van Oosterom

Antwerp 1955

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 Nc6 8.Qd2 Nd7 9.0-0-0 a6 10.d5
Na7 11.g4 b5 12.Ng3 bxc4 13.h4 f6 14.h5 Qe7 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.Qh2 Kf7

17.Nf5!
The young Dutch player has handled the opening poorly and Spassky could have won prosaically
with 17.Bxc4, but he finds a more lethal and stylish way to end the game.

17…gxf5
Black has no choice, as 17…Qe8 18.Nxg7 wins.

18.Qh5† Kg8 19.gxf5 Rf7 20.Be2 Nc5

20…Kf8 21.Rdg1 Qe8 would have survived a little longer, but 22.Qh7 followed by Bh6 or Rxg7
ends things easily enough.

137
21.Rdg1 Qd7 22.Qh8#
1–0

Spassky won the rest of his games until the final round, when, with his overall victory already secure,
he took an early draw. He thus became World Junior Champion and earned the grandmaster title. At
the time, he was the youngest ever to achieve it. Krogius suggests that at that time there were around
twenty to twenty-five players in the world with the highest title in chess.

According to Soltis, Spassky asked certain questions of the accompanying Soviet people which might
have led to serious problems for him had Stalin still been alive. As it was, the questions were still
reported to the KGB, and from then on the Soviet authorities kept a closer eye on him.

Gothenburg Interzonal
Spassky played with mixed success in most of the Interzonal, a gruelling event which started in mid-
August and lasted for five weeks, for a total of twenty rounds. After sixteen games Spassky had only
50%. He lost five games, which was too many. However, in Rounds 17 and 18 he scored excellent
wins over Filip and Stahlberg respectively; both games were featured in the commentary of Spassky’s
win over Tal – see Game 12 in the previous chapter, on page 63. Spassky drew the final two games,
which was just enough to qualify for the Candidates tournament which would take place in 1956. His
final score of 11/20 was enough to finish in joint 7th-9th place, and nine players qualified. Spassky
achieved his primary aim, but he was unable to repeat his most impressive play of the Soviet
Championship.

In the autumn of 1955, the Soviet authorities gave the Spassky family an apartment within a house in

138
the historical part of Leningrad, close to the Petropavlovsk (Peter and Paul) Fortress. Previously,
Spassky’s mother and her three children had lived in a much smaller one-bedroom apartment. The
new apartment would be worth roughly 400,000 Euros today. The authorities showed their trust,
believing that Spassky would become one of the very best players in the world and that to produce
results at the highest level requires a certain quality of living conditions.

***

This is the first year of Spassky’s career in which all his results are well documented, so we can give
a more thorough summary and statistical breakdown. 1955 was a fantastic year for the eighteen-year-
old Boris. He finished equal third in one of the strongest Soviet Championship events of all time. He
achieved a huge score at the Student Team World Championship, which helped his team to win the
gold medal. He became World Junior Champion, as well as the youngest grandmaster in the world.
Finally, despite not being at his best in Gothenburg, he still qualified for the Candidates tournament
on the road to the World Championship.

1955 Results
Soviet Championship, Moscow (3rd-6th place): 11½/19 (+7 =9 –3)
Student Team World Championship, Lyon (Board 2): 7½/8, Team Gold (+7 =1 –0)
World Junior Championship Preliminary, Antwerp (1st place): 6/7 (+6 =0 –1)
World Junior Championship Final, Antwerp (1st place): 8/9 (+7 =2 –0)
World Championship Interzonal, Gothenburg (7th-9th place): 11/20 (+7 =8 –5)

Total 69.8% (+34 =20 –9)

139
 1956

Spassky started the year with the Soviet Championship final, a seventeen-round event which began
on the 11th of January and lasted for nearly four weeks. He started fast, surging to 6/8 with wins over
world-class players like Boleslavsky, Averbakh and Ragozin, as well as Tal, who was not quite on
their level yet. Then after four draws, Spassky scored consecutive wins over Taimanov, Borisenko
and Lisitsin.

With two rounds to go, Spassky was in sole first place. However, in the penultimate round he went
terribly wrong in the opening against Korchnoi and was soundly beaten. In the final round Spassky
drew against Polugaevsky after missing some chances to win the game. Possibly he became tired in
the final rounds, and nerves may also have affected him.

Spassky’s final score of 11/17 left him in a three-way tie for first place, with Taimanov and
Averbakh, both of whom he had beaten in their individual games. Korchnoi finished in fourth place,
half a point behind them. Spassky played superbly with the white pieces, winning five games and
drawing the other three. In roughly half of his games, there were considerable fluctuations in the
evaluation, but in most cases he came out on top.

The three co-winners had to compete in a play-off to determine the champion. They had a full week
to prepare for it. Spassky started badly, losing with the white pieces to Taimanov. We will look at his
second game.

Game 19

Yuri Averbakh – Boris Spassky

Leningrad 1956

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4 d6 4.d4 Bg7 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5 c5 7.d5 Qa5 8.Bd2 a6 9.a4 e5 10.g4 Ne8
11.h4 f5 12.h5 f4 13.g5 Qd8 14.Bg4 Nc7 15.Bxc8 Qxc8 16.Nf3

140
16…Nc6?!!
Spassky finds an amazing idea. I cite Saidy:

“Spassky reasons so: Black has a very cramped position with no counterplay. With normal moves
he will be squeezed to death and lose on the h-file. Positionally, he is already lost. But after
giving up the knight he at least has an open file and can get one piece to a decent square, with
Nd4.”

Taimanov later said he would rather have resigned than play this move.

17.dxc6 bxc6 18.Nh4

Averbakh writes that he had two possibilities: trying to convert his material advantage or
attacking the black king. He spent one hour on the decision.

18…Qe8 19.hxg6 hxg6 20.Qg4 Rb8 21.Nd1 Ne6 22.Ra3 Nd4 23.Rah3 Qf7 24.Bc3 Rfe8 25.R3h2

141
25…Qxc4!?
Spassky takes a second pawn. It should lose by force after best play, but it increases his chances
to hold in the event that Averbakh doesn’t find the winning combination.

If Black just waits, for example with 25…Re7 26.f3 Ree8, White has many ways to win. Transferring
the knight from d1 to d3 would be a good way to improve. Alternatively, White can force matters
with 27.Bxd4!? cxd4 28.Nf5! gxf5 29.exf5 followed by f5-f6 when Black will soon have to resign.

26.Nxg6 Re6 27.Bxd4

Averbakh’s move does not spoil anything, but he misses a forced win after:

27.Rh8†! Bxh8 28.Rxh8† Kg7

142
29.Rh7†!?
This rook sacrifice is the most stylish and effective route to victory.
The primitive 29.Rxb8 also wins, but White needs to see that the otherwise winning 29…f3 can
be met by 30.Nf4! exf4 31.Qxf3! exploiting the pin.
29…Kxh7 30.Qh5† Kg7 31.Qh6† Kf7 32.Qh7† Ke8 33.Qg8† Kd7 34.Qf7† Kc8
34…Kd8 loses to 35.Ba5†.

35.Ne7† Kb7
Black can avoid an immediate mate with 35…Rxe7 36.Qxc4, but the resulting position would be
completely hopeless.
36.Nd5† Ka8 37.Nc7† Kb7 38.Nb5† Kb6 39.Qc7#

143
27…Rxg6
From now on, Spassky plays extremely resiliently. Averbakh should still be winning by a wide
margin, but he was heading for time pressure after spending so much time earlier in the game,
especially on move 18.

28.Qf5 Qe6 29.Qxe6† Rxe6 30.Bc3

30…d5!
Black must mobilize the pawn majority before White has time for f2-f3 and Rd2.

31.f3 Rb3 32.Rh3 c4! 33.Kd2 Rg6 34.Rg1 d4 35.Ba5 Bf8 36.Rg4 Rd6 37.Kc2 Rd7 38.g6 Rdb7
39.Be1?
Averbakh must have been severely short of time, as his move serves no purpose.

39.Kc1! was the easiest way to win, intending to transfer a rook to c2. White could have done the
same thing earlier, on move 36 for instance.

39…c5 40.Rgh4

144
40…Bg7
Spassky not only defends, but creates a threat.

41.Ba5?
Unaware of having passed the time control, Averbakh blitzes out an unfortunate move which
wastes the advantage.

41.Kc1! was still winning. If Black does nothing, White will transfer the rook from h4 to c2 and win.
41…c3 is Black’s best chance but 42.Rh2! (avoiding 42.bxc3?? c4 when Black wins) 42…Rb8
43.Rc2 should win for White.

41…c3!!
Spassky sacrifices a pawn and will therefore be a full piece down, but his powerful rooks and
pawns offer full compensation.

42.bxc3

145
42…Ra3
The rook will cause problems for the white king. 42…c4!? would give enough play as well.

43.cxd4 exd4!?
Spassky avoids a likely draw with 43…Ra2† 44.Kd3 c4† 45.Kxc4 Rxa4† 46.Kd5 Rxa5† when
the arising endgame is equal, and instead plays for a win. Most players would be happy to take a draw
after having a losing position for such a long time. By the way, there is no record of the sealed move
before the adjournment. If Spassky rejected the drawing continuation in the first playing session, it
would demonstrate exceptional fighting spirit as well as ability to adapt to the new situation on the
board.

44.Rxf4 Ra2† 45.Kd3

146
45…Rb1!
Again Spassky plays for a win, avoiding 45…c4† 46.Kxc4 Rxa4† 47.Kd3 Rxa5 with a likely
draw.

46.Rh1 Rxa4 47.Kc2?

Averbakh commits a serious mistake.

47.Bd2 c4† 48.Ke2 Ra2 49.e5 would have led to an equal position after 49…c3 50.Rxd4 or
49…Bxe5 50.Re4.

47.e5!? is more complicated but should also lead to a draw. One possible finish is 47…c4†!? 48.Kc2!
(48.Kxd4? c3† wins for Black) 48…Rb3 49.Rxd4 Ra2† 50.Kc1 Bf8 51.Rd8 Ra1† 52.Kc2 Ra2† and
Black delivers perpetual check.

147
47…Rb5!
This excellent move puts Averbakh on the defensive, and provokes a further mistake. It is indeed
hard to switch from having a winning position to trying to save the game.

48.e5?
48.Be1? c4 49.Rf5 Ra2† 50.Kc1 Ra1† 51.Kc2 Rb3 also wins for Black.

48.Rf7! was necessary, when best play continues: 48…c4 49.Bc3! Ra2†! 50.Bb2 d3† 51.Kd2

51…Bd4!! (51…Bxb2 52.Ke3 is fine for White.) 52.Rd7 Raxb2† 53.Nxb2 Rxb2† 54.Kc1 Bc3
55.Rd1! Ra2 56.R1xd3! cxd3 57.Rxd3 White is not completely out of danger, but should be able to

148
hold.

48…d3†?!
Ironically, after showing his open-mindedness towards sacrificing material earlier in the game,
Spassky now jeopardizes the win by playing too materialistically. He could have won by using the
power of the connected passed pawns:

48…Bxe5! 49.Re4 c4 50.Nc3 Raxa5 51.Nxb5 d3† would win.

48…Rbxa5! 49.e6 c4 50.e7 d3† 51.Kd2 Ra2† also leaves the result beyond any doubt.

49.Kxd3 Rxf4
Despite the previous mistake, Black is still the exchange up with decent winning chances.

50.Bc3?!
More accurate is 50.Ke3! Bxe5 51.Bc3 Rb3! 52.Rh5! Bxc3 53.Kxf4 Bd4 54.Rh2! when White
narrowly holds.

50…Rxf3† 51.Ke4 Rg3 52.Kf4

149
52…Rxg6
52…Rd3! 53.Ke4 c4 wins cleanly, as White’s pieces are tied up. It would be hard to resist the
urge to capture such a pawn which made Black suffer for so long.

53.Ne3 Rb8 54.Nf5 Rf8 55.Rh5 Re8

Black is still winning, but there are considerable technical challenges due to White’s well-placed
pieces, including the king.

56.Ke4 Rg1 57.Rh3 Bf8 58.Kd5 Rd1† 59.Ke4 Rc1 60.Kd5 Rd1† 61.Ke4

150
61…Rd7?
Spassky’s move gives Averbakh more than one way to save himself. Instead 61…Rg1! looks like
the best way to keep winning chances alive.

62.Nh6†
Averbakh gives up the strong knight in order to pick off one of the two remaining black pawns.

62.Rg3† Kf7 63.Rf3 Ke6 64.Rg3 is also good enough to hold.

62…Bxh6 63.Rxh6 Rh7

63…Ra7 gives White a choice between 64.e6 and 64.Kd5 Rd8† 65.Rd6 Rxd6† 66.exd6 with a
draw in either case.

64.Rg6†
64.Rxa6! draws, as the c-pawn is likely to fall in the near future.

64…Kf7 65.Rf6† Ke7

66.Rc6?
Simply taking the a6-pawn would have drawn.

66…Kd7?
Missing the opportunity to activate the rooks with 66…Rh4†! 67.Kd5 (67.Kd3 c4†! 68.Rxc4
Rxc4 69.Kxc4 Rb8 is a winning endgame for Black) 67…Rd8†! 68.Kxc5 Rb8! when Black should
win.

151
67.Rxc5?
67.Rxa6! is drawing, but Averbakh yet again takes the wrong pawn. He must have had in mind
certain potential endgames where Black could win with a c-pawn but only draw with an a-pawn, but
on this occasion the great endgame expert was misguided.

67…Rh6 68.Kd5 Rb6

68…Ree6! was better, and if 69.Ba5? (69.Bd4 is more resilient although Black is most likely
winning with best play) 69…Rc6 70.Rxc6 Rxc6 Black wins.

69.Ba5 Rb5?
Exchanging leads to a draw, whereas 69…Rb7 would have enabled Black to continue pressing.

70.Rxb5 axb5

71.e6†!?
The endgame expert finds a flashy draw, but White has many good moves; for example, 71.Kc5
or 71.Bb4 would draw as well.

71…Rxe6 72.Kc5 Re5† 73.Kb6

Like so many of Spassky’s games, this remarkable battle fluctuated a lot. Boris played with great
strength and imagination in some parts, but some mistakes crept in as well.
½–½
Unfortunately Spassky became ill and had to forfeit his return game against Averbakh. He then lost
his final game versus Taimanov, after making a bad mistake in a promising position. Finishing third

152
in the play-off must have been disappointing, but somebody had to be last – and finishing joint top of
such a strong tournament was a great achievement to begin with.

***

Spassky’s next event was the Candidates tournament, the winner of which would go on to challenge
Botvinnik in a match for the world title the following year. The eighteen-round tournament mostly
took place in the Dutch capital Amsterdam, except for rounds 10 and 11, which were contested in
Leeuwarden, another Dutch city.

Spassky started with five draws. Among them, he was doing well against Bronstein and failed to
make the most of his chances; on the other hand, he was in desperate trouble against Petrosian and
barely survived.

In Round 6 Spassky made a terrible blunder and lost from an equal position against Szabo. In the next
game he missed a win and lost to Geller. He then faced Smyslov, who had been seeded directly into
the Candidates tournament, as he was the most recent challenger to Botvinnik’s crown. (Their 1954
match ended in a 12–12 tie, with Botvinnik retaining his title.) Smyslov had scored an unbeaten 4½/7
in the tournament thus far.

Game 20

Vassily Smyslov – Boris Spassky

Amsterdam 1956

1.c4 e6 2.g3 f5 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3 d5 7.Bb2 Bd7 8.d3 Be8 9.Nbd2 Nc6 10.a3 a5
11.Qc2 Qd7 12.cxd5 exd5 13.e3 Bh5 14.Bc3 Bd6 15.Qb2 Ra6 16.Rfc1 Kh8 17.Bf1 Rb6 18.Bg2
Qe6 19.Nd4 Nxd4 20.Bxd4 Ra6 21.b4 b6 22.b5 Raa8 23.Nf3 Bxf3 24.Bxf3 Rae8 25.Rc6 Re7 26.a4
h6 27.Qb3 Kh7 28.Rac1 g5 29.R6c2 Qf7 30.Kh1 f4 31.gxf4 gxf4 32.Rg1 fxe3 33.fxe3

153
33…Ne4?!
Spassky plays a losing but highly imaginative move in a worse position. Maybe he felt he was
lost and it was worth the risk to change the flow of the game.

33…Be5 was objectively more accurate, and after 34.Qb2 Bxd4 35.Qxd4 Qe6 36.Qf4 Rff7 White
stands better, but is not yet winning.

34.Rg7†
34.Bxe4† dxe4 35.Rg7† Qxg7 36.Bxg7 Rxg7 37.Qb1 Rgf7 38.Kg1 would win as well.

34…Qxg7 35.Bxg7 Rxf3 36.Qxd5

36.dxe4 Rxg7 37.Qd3 Kh8 is not so clear.

36…Ng5 37.Bd4 Ref7 38.Kg2?

Perhaps short of time, Smyslov misses the strongest move.

38.Qc4! would defend the d3-pawn, leaving White free to advance the e-pawn. If 38…Nh3 39.Kg2
Ng5 40.e4 White wins.

154
38…R3f5!
The rook vacates the f3-square for the knight, winning a big tempo.

39.Qa8??
The queen rarely stands well on the edge of the board, and this is even more true for the corner.
Instead of this losing move, Smyslov should have preferred one of the alternatives:

39.Qc4 Nf3 40.Rc1 (40.Re2?? Rg5† wins for Black) 40…Bxh2 and Black is in the game.

39.Qa2 is also possible, but after 39…Nf3 40.Rc1 Rg5† 41.Kh1 Rf8 Black is doing all right.

39…Nf3?
Spassky misses a surprising win.

39…Rf8! not only stops the queen from reaching h8, but also gets ready to attack. 40.Qb7 (40.Qc6
would be met in the same way.) 40…Rg8! 41.Kh1 (41.Rxc7† loses because 41…Nf7† comes with
check!)

155
41…Rf1†! (41…Nh3?? loses to 42.Rxc7†; 41…Rf7 42.Qg2! is okay for White.) 42.Kg2 Rf7!
43.Kh1 Nh3 Black wins.

40.Qh8† Kg6

41.Rc1
This was Smyslov’s sealed move, which cost the World Championship finalist forty-one minutes.
His choice is objectively playable but practically too risky. What else could he have played?

41.Qg8† Kh5 42.Kh3 is playable but not ideal, as Black can either force a draw with 42…Ng5†
43.Kg2 or try for more with 42…Nxh2!?.

156
41.Kh1! was best, and after 41…Nh4 (or 41…Ne1 42.Rg2† Nxg2 43.e4 Rf4 44.Kxg2 Kh5 when the
position looks balanced) 42.Qg8† Kh5 43.e4 Rf1† 44.Bg1 Bc5 the position should be equal after
either 45.Rxc5† bxc5 46.h3, or 45.d4 Bxd4 46.Rc1.

41…Rf8 42.Qg7† Kh5

What a square for the king!

43.Kh1 Ng5
If 43…Rg5 44.Qd7! Nxd4 45.Qh3† Kg6 46.exd4 White would get away with it.

44.h4!
This and White’s next four moves will be the only moves.

44.e4? loses to 44…R5f7.

44…Nh3 45.e4 R5f7 46.Qg2 Nf2† 47.Kg1 Ng4 48.e5 Bxe5 49.Bxe5
49.Qd5 should be equal as well.

49…Nxe5

157
50.Qe2†?
After several accurate moves, Smyslov fails to find 50.Qd5! Rf5 51.Qe6 when the position
remains equal.

50…Nf3†?
Now it’s Spassky’s turn to go wrong in the highly complex position.

Correct was 50…Ng4! 51.Qe4 (51.Qe1 loses to 51…Rf3! 52.Rxc7 and now both 52…Re3 and
52…Ne3 work) 51…Rf2!! 52.d4 R8f3 and Black wins.

51.Kh1?
Smyslov misses the chance to free his king with 51.Kf2! when Black has problems, and if
51…Kxh4 52.Rh1† White wins.

51…Rg7 52.Qf2?!
Smyslov stops …Rg3, but it allows Black’s other rook to get active.

52.Rf1! was better, for instance: 52…Rg3 53.Qe4 Rf6 54.Re1 Rg4 (Alternatively, if 54…Nxe1
55.Qe5† Kg4 56.Qxf6 Rh3† Black delivers perpetual check.) 55.Qd5† Kxh4 56.Re4 The position is
equal.

158
52…Rf4!
Spassky wastes no time in going after the white king.

53.Rc4 Rxc4 54.Qxf3† Rcg4 55.Kh2 Kxh4 56.Qf6† Kh5

56…R4g5!? 57.Qxh6† Kg4 leaves Black somewhat better. Spassky’s move should lead to a
draw, but in practical terms White is still in some danger.

57.Qf3?
One move after the second time control, Smyslov makes a mistake which allows the black king to
find better prospects. Perhaps Smyslov became short of time and was not certain that he had passed

159
the time control.
In worse endgames with this material balance, the queen either pins or tries to give perpetual check.
Smyslov should have chosen the latter option: 57.Qe5†! Kg6 (57…Kh4 58.Qe1† Kg5 59.Qe5†
repeats) 58.Kh3 Rg5 (58…h5 59.d4 does not help Black) 59.Qe6† White draws.

57…Kg5 58.Qe3†
58.Kh3 is met by 58…Rh4†! 59.Kg3 Rxa4 and Black wins.

58…Kf5!
Now the black king cannot be prevented from reaching the queenside.

59.Qf3† Ke5 60.d4†

If 60.Qe3† Kd6 61.Qxh6† Ke7 Black escapes from the checks and wins.

60…Kxd4
The black king harvests one pawn and approaches the one on a4.

61.Qd1† Kc3 62.Kh3

160
62…Kb4
The king finds a surprisingly safe shelter here.

63.Qc2 Rg3† 64.Kh4 R7g4† 65.Kh5 Rc4 66.Qd1 Rgc3

Black intends …Rc1 to force the white queen away from the defence of the a4-pawn, after which
the win becomes trivial. This was Smyslov’s only loss in the tournament.
0–1

In the last ten rounds, Spassky won two games and drew the other eight. This time the fluctuation of
the games mainly did not favour him, and the resistance of the best players of the world was too much
for Spassky to overcome. His final total of 9½/18 saw him finish in joint 3rd-7th places. Finishing so
high in the Candidates event for the World Championship was an extremely respectable result, but
Spassky and Tolush probably hoped for more. Smyslov won the tournament with 11½ points, and
would go on to defeat Botvinnik in their return match the following year. Finishing two whole points
behind Smyslov must have made Spassky and Tolush think about what areas of the game to improve
on.
According to Chessmetrics, Spassky’s performance rating was 2730 in the 1956 Candidates
tournament. Fischer was also nineteen years old when he played in the Curacao 1962 Candidates
event. His performance rating was 2744, virtually the same. Fischer’s amazing win at the Interzonal
probably made him expect more, but in 1962 a few grandmasters such as Petrosian, Keres, Geller and
the healthy Tal were still better than him. In Spassky’s case, great players such as Smyslov,
Botvinnik, Keres, Petrosian and possibly Reshevsky were still somewhat stronger than Spassky.
However, both Spassky and Fischer were incredibly strong by the end of their teenage years, and it
must have been clear that they had the ability to overtake the few chess giants who were still in front
of them at the time.

161
Taimanov’s success at the Soviet Championship must have been appreciated by the Soviet
authorities, as he was selected for the Soviet national team to play in the 1956 Olympiad, which took
place in Moscow. Such was the strength of the Soviet team that neither Spassky nor Petrosian was
selected that year, although they were at least as strong as Taimanov.

***

Spassky finished the year by playing in the semi-final of the Soviet Championship, which took place
in Leningrad. He qualified comfortably, finishing in shared 1st-5th places with a score of 11½/19. He
won seven of the games, which was decent enough for his level, but to lose three of them was a bit
too many. He performed strongly with the white pieces, with six wins and no defeats, but his
performance with Black was a cause for concern, with three defeats and only one win. Aside from
that, it looks like Spassky was content to do enough to qualify, as he made seven relatively short
draws, in contrast to Fischer who tried to win virtually every game in every event.

Krogius writes that Spassky’s style was becoming more active and dynamic around this time, but I do
not agree with that assessment. He was primarily an attacking player earlier, and he remained like
that. Of course he raised his level a lot, but his risky style of play did not change. Comparing
Spassky’s games from 1956 with earlier years, I think he showed the greatest improvements in
playing more resiliently in worse positions. According to Krogius there was only one shortfall in his
play, namely converting advantages. However, while it’s true that Spassky failed to convert winning
or highly advantageous positions in some games, I think this was mainly because he was playing
more frequently in tougher events, including against some of the elite players in the world who could
defend more tenaciously than anyone else.

1956 Results

Soviet Championship Final, Leningrad (1st-3rd place): 11½/17 (+7 =9 –1)

Soviet Championship Play-off (3rd place): ½/4 (+0 =1 –3)
Candidates Tournament, Amsterdam/Leeuwarden (3rd-7th place): 9½/18 (+3 =13 –2)
Soviet Championship semi-final (1st-5th place): 11½/19 (+7 =9 –3)

Total 56.9% (+17 =32 –9)

162
 1957

Spassky’s results in 1956 made him an established world-class player, and he was able to prove it
consistently. According to Chessmetrics, he broke into the world’s top ten in January 1956 and
remained there all year long. Spassky could have gained confidence; on the other hand, such success
brings additional pressure and responsibility, and his opponents must have taken him more seriously
than ever.

***

Like in previous years, Spassky’s first event of 1957 was the final of the Soviet Championship, which
took place in the Russian capital. He started with a loss to Klaman, but bounced back with three wins
and a draw in the next four games. His victims, Keres, Gurgenidze and Tarasov, all made a bad move
at a key moment, and Spassky convincingly punished them all. These wins did not stop him from
taking risks, and his next game from Round 6 shows his outstanding creativity.

Game 21

Boris Spassky – Ratmir Kholmov

Moscow 1957

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bg5 h6 5.Bh4 c5 6.d5 Bxc3† 7.bxc3 e5 8.Qc2 d6 9.e3 Qe7 10.Nf3
Nbd7 11.Nd2 e4 12.0-0-0 0-0 13.g4 g5 14.Bg3 Ne5 15.h3 Ng6 16.Be2 Re8 17.Rdg1 Bd7 18.h4
Rab8 19.hxg5 hxg5

163
20.Rh5?!!
Spassky’s sacrifice, which must be accepted, is bad, and possibly even losing in the absolute
sense. However, it is also highly imaginative and unpleasant to face.

A calm continuation such as 20.Kb1 b5 21.Ka1 would have kept the game more or less balanced.

20…Nxh5 21.gxh5 Nf8

Kholmov’s move is natural and it maintains some advantage, but it is not the best.

21…Nh8!! is more precise, but it is extremely difficult to see why. The key line continues: 22.Qxe4
Qxe4 23.Nxe4 Rxe4 24.Bxd6 Rc8! Now Black can defend the c-pawn under good conditions.
25.Rxg5† Kh7 26.Bd3

164
26…Kh6! Finally the point is revealed! Unlike the analogous position with the knight on f8, here
White’s rook cannot go to the eighth rank. 27.Bf4 (Both 27.Rg1 Rg4 and 27.f4 Rxe3 win for Black.)
27…Rxf4 28.exf4 f6 29.Rg1 f5 Black wins with the extra piece.

22.Nxe4!!
Having already sacrificed an exchange, Spassky gives up a piece for some pawns, even
exchanging queens along the way. According to Kasparov, Spassky spent a lot of time on this move.
Maybe he considered inserting 22.Bf4? f6 before taking on e4, and he probably also looked at
22.Bxd6? Qxd6 23.Nxe4, but he was right to avoid both of those options.

165
22…Qxe4 23.Qxe4 Rxe4 24.Bxd6 Rbe8!?
Kholmov wants to stop Spassky’s central pawns from advancing.

It was also possible to hang on to the c5-pawn with: 24…Rc8!? 25.Rxg5† Kh8 (25…Kh7?? loses to
26.Bd3 Kh6 27.Rg8 Ree8 when Black keeps the extra material, but after 28.Bf4† Kxh5 29.Be2† he
will soon be checkmated.)

26.Be5† (26.Bd3 f6! wins for Black.) 26…Rxe5 27.Rxe5 Kg7! This is stronger than Kholmov’s
suggestion of exchanging rooks, which would lead to equality. After the king move White has three
pawns for the piece, but Black stands somewhat better.

25.Rxg5† Kh8 26.Bxc5 f6

Sooner or later Black should play this move, as the check on d4 would be annoying.

27.Rg3
27.Rg1!? was worth considering, with ideas of Kd2 followed by playing on the queenside with
Rb1 and/or a2-a4.

166
27…b6?
Kholmov guards the a7-pawn with a tempo, but the white bishop will move to a better square and
Black will have to lose time defending f6.

The best move is:

27…Rh4!!
Intending to target the f2-pawn – not an easy idea to find.
28.Bd4
28.Bxa7 is strongly met by 28…Bf5! intending …Nd7, when the improvement in Black’s
coordination matters a lot more than the loss of the a7-pawn.
28…Nh7 29.c5

167
29…Rg8!
29…Rh2 is slightly premature, as 30.Bc4! Rxf2 (30…Rxh5 31.Kd2 is also okay for White)
31.h6! gives White enough activity.
29…Rh1†!? 30.Kd2 Rh2 is an attempt to improve on the above line by dragging the white king to
the second rank, but 31.Ke1 defends f2, and if 31…Rg8 32.Rg6! it’s not clear how Black will
play for a win.
30.Rg6!
30.Bf3 runs into 30…Rh3! 31.Rxh3 Bxh3 followed by …Bg2 when Black should be winning.
30…Bf5

31.a4!!

168
 Just when White seemed to be running out of ideas, the threat of a5-a6 gives Black fresh
problems to think about. The best reply is:
31…Rh2!
Hitting f2. Black stands better but White has counterplay on the queenside, and in a practical
game any result would still be possible.

28.Bd4 Nh7

29.Kd2
Spassky’s move is natural enough, but 29.f4! was more accurate, to prevent the black rook from
getting active. Best play continues 29…Rg8! 30.Rxg8† Kxg8 31.Bd3 (31.c5 is equally good)
31…Re8 reaching an unusual endgame, which looks balanced after 32.c5 or 32.e4.

29…Rg8?
29…Rh4! was again preferable, and after 30.Bd3 (30.c5? bxc5 31.Bxc5 Ra4! shows the power of
the mobile rook) 30…Rg8 31.Rxg8† Kxg8 32.c5 bxc5 33.Bxc5 Ng5 Black has some winning
chances.

30.Rg6!
What a relaxed move! It creates a threat of Bd3 followed by Rh6, targeting both h7 and f6.

30…Be8?
Kholmov challenges the rook and targets the h5-pawn, but he misses Spassky’s stunning reply.

Yet again, it was better to activate the rook with: 30…Rh4! 31.e4! A tricky reply.

169
31…Rf8! (31…Rxe4?? runs into 32.Bd3 Ree8 when the simple 33.Rh6 and the fancier 33.Rxf6! both
win for White.) 32.c5 bxc5 33.Bxc5 Rg8 34.Ke3 Rh3† 35.Kd4 Rh2 The endgame is equal.

A secondary option is:

30…Rg7!?
Ferenc Berkes analysed this rook move. Objectively it should draw, but Black must walk a
narrow path. It is worth looking at the exciting variations that follow.
31.f4!
31.Bxf6 Nxf6 32.Rxf6 looks balanced.
31.Bd3 Rh4 32.Rh6 Kg8 33.c5 bxc5 34.Bxc5 Be8 35.c4 is also equal.
31…Be8 32.Rh6
32.Rg4 Bd7 33.Rg6 Be8 is a repetition.
Alternatively, 32.Rxg7 Kxg7 33.Kd3 Re7 34.e4 Nf8 35.c5 Bb5† 36.c4 bxc5 37.Bxc5 Bxc4†
should lead to a draw.
32…Kg8 33.Bf3 Ree7 34.d6 Rd7

170
35.Bxf6
35.Bd5† Bf7 36.Bxf6 looks tempting but Black has an amazing resource: 36…Rg2†!! 37.Bxg2
Rxd6† 38.Kc2 Nxf6 39.e4! Kg7 40.e5 Kxh6 41.exd6 Bxc4 42.Bc6 The arising endgame looks
equal.
35…Nxf6 36.Rxf6 Rg3 37.Bc6 Rd8 38.Bxe8
38.Bd5†!? Kg7 39.Re6 Bxh5 40.e4 is another complicated endgame which should be drawn with
accurate play.
38…Rxe8

39.e4!
The pawns are dangerous, but Black can survive.

171
39…Rf8! 40.Re6! Rxf4 41.Re8†
41.Kc2 Kf7 42.Re7† Kf8 43.h6 should also lead to a draw.
41…Kh7 42.d7 Rf2† 43.Ke1

43…Rxa2!
43…Rh2? 44.Rh8†! wins.
44.Rh8†! Kxh8 45.d8=Q† Kh7 46.Kf1 Rag2
Black can also draw with 46…Rgg2 47.Qf6 (47.Qd4?? Rgd2 wins) 47…Rgb2 when White must
deliver perpetual check.
47.Qd4 Rg1† 48.Qxg1 Rxg1† 49.Kxg1 Kh6
The pawn endgame should be a draw.

172
31.Bd3!
Spassky is at his magical best. He gets ready to push his pawns, even at the cost of further
exchanges which will still leave him a rook down.

Kholmov mentions that 31.Bxf6? Nxf6 32.Rxf6 Kg7 would allow Black to gradually take over.

Kasparov points out that 31.Rxg8 Kxg8 32.f4 would have led to a balanced endgame.

31…Bxg6 32.hxg6 Rxd4 33.cxd4?

Spassky misses a golden opportunity.

33.exd4! would have been much stronger. 33…Nf8 (33…Ng5 34.c5 is no improvement for Black.)
34.c5 The shifting of the e-pawn to the queenside makes all the difference. For instance:

34…bxc5 35.dxc5 Nd7 36.c6 Nb6 37.c4! Black has no chance to cope with the passed pawns.

33…Nf8

173
34.c5
Spassky’s move is decent, but not the best.
34.d6!
This would have been more testing for Kholmov.
34…Kg7!
34…Rg7? 35.Bf5! wins.
34…Ne6!? is good enough to draw, but Black needs to be careful. For instance, if 35.Bf5 then
the knight must retreat to g7, rather than d8 which loses.
35.c5 bxc5 36.dxc5 Ne6 37.c6 Rd8 38.d7!
38.c7 Nxc7 39.dxc7 Rc8 should be safe for Black.

174
38…Kf8!
The king gets across just in time.
39.f4 Ke7 40.f5 Nc7 41.Bc4 Kd6 42.g7 Kxc6 43.g8=Q Rxg8 44.Bxg8 Kxd7
Black is a pawn down in the resulting endgame, but should have no problem drawing.

34…bxc5 35.dxc5 Nd7 36.c6 Nb6

37.e4
Here is the difference: if Spassky had recaptured on d4 the correct way on move 33, the same
pawn could have moved to c4 instead of e4, and the three passers would easily bring down Black’s
defence.

Kasparov mentions that 37.d6 Rd8 38.d7 Nxd7 would lead to a draw – but not 38…Na8? when
39.Kc3 wins for White.

37…Kg7 38.Ba6
38.a4 is possible, with the point that 38…Nxa4?? 39.d6 wins – but Black holds easily enough
with 38…Rd8 or Kasparov’s 38…a5.

38…Kxg6 39.a4 Kf7

Kasparov mentions that 39…Nxa4 40.c7 Nc5 41.c8=Q would lead to equality.

Kasparov also analyses 39…Na8 40.Kc3 Rd8 41.Bc4 Nc7 42.Kd4 Kg5 43.Kc5 Ne8 44.Be2 Kf4
45.Bh5 Nc7 46.d6 Na6† 47.Kd5 Nb4† 48.Kc5 with perpetual check. Kholmov’s move is fine
though.

175
40.a5 Na8 41.Bc4

41…Rd8
½–½
The game was almost certainly adjourned here, and after analysing it at home they both decided
there was no point in trying to win.

Kasparov shared their analysis: 42.f4 Nc7 43.d6† (43.Ke3 Ke7 44.Kd4 Ne6† 45.Ke3 Nc7 would
lead to a repetition.) 43…Kg6 44.e5 fxe5 45.fxe5 Kf5 46.Kc3 Kxe5 47.dxc7 Rc8 48.Ba6 Rxc7
49.Bb7 The endgame is clearly a draw.

Spassky took huge risks and kept finding fantastic ideas. It’s a pity for him that he chose the wrong
recapture on move 33, but it was still an amazing game, and Kholmov also deserves credit for putting
up enough of a fight to earn half a point.

In the next phase of the tournament Spassky made several draws, along with wins over Aronson and
Mikenas, and a loss to Nezhmetdinov. Towards the end of the championship, he faced a strong player
and Karpov’s future trainer.

Game 22

Semyon Furman – Boris Spassky

Moscow 1957

176
1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 g6 3.e4 Bg7 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nh6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Be2 f5 9.exf5 Bxd4
10.Bxd4 Nxf5 11.Bc5 d6 12.Ba3 Nfd4 13.0-0 Bf5 14.Rc1 Qd7 15.Nd5 Rf7 16.b3 Raf8 17.Bb2 e5
18.b4 Be6

19.Bd3??
A losing move in an equal position.

19…Bg4!
This superb attacking move leaves White without a defence.

20.f3
No better is: 20.Qd2 Bf3! 21.h3 Qd8! The queen aims to get to h4. (Black even has time for
21…Kg7!?, taking away the h6-square from the white queen, and after 22.b5 Bxg2! 23.Kxg2 Nf3
Black wins.) 22.Qh6 e4 23.Bc2 Nf5 24.Qd2 Nh4 25.g3 (25.Qh6 Bxg2 wins.) 25…Qd7 26.Kh2

177
26…Bg2! Black cracks open the defence.

20…Bxf3 21.gxf3 Nxf3† 22.Kh1 Qh3 23.Rf2

23.Qe2 Nxh2 24.Qxh2 Qxd3 would lead to the same result.

23…Ne1!!
This brilliant move leads to a quick checkmate, so Furman resigned.
0–1

Spassky ended the tournament with two more draws, followed by a win over Stoliar in the final

178
round. His score of 13/21 was impressive against a strong field, but it was ‘only’ good enough to
share 4th-5th place, behind Tal on 14 and Keres and Bronstein on 13½. By the way, the other player
on 13 was Spassky’s trainer, Tolush, who lost to Tal in the final round.

Despite finishing behind a few other elite players, Spassky showed his class and played true fighting
chess throughout. As usual, his games contained a lot of fluctuations in evaluation, but not to the
same extent as in his games from earlier years.

Around this time, Tolush influenced Spassky to read a lot of chess literature. According to Krogius it
was not beneficial, but Spassky’s brilliant results would appear to contradict the Russian grandmaster.
Fischer also read a lot of chess literature and believed it contributed positively to his play.

According to Spassky, he and Tolush analysed a lot of positions, but it never resulted in a clear and
precise conclusion. Spassky was not happy with the depth of their analysis. Comparing to Fischer at
roughly the same age, Spassky had a wider opening repertoire than the American, but Bobby knew
his favourite openings extremely deeply – probably more so than anybody else in his time.

***

Spassky’s next event was the Student Team World Championship in Reykjavik. It was his first visit
to the Icelandic capital which will forever be linked with his chess career. He played on Board 2,
behind Tal. Spassky won his first game, but did not play in Round 2 and then drew his next three
games, playing well below his ability. Averbakh remembered that there was a fight between the team
members, and Spassky and Gipslis were involved.

Spassky admitted in a 2003 interview:

“The trainer Tolush did not know what to do with me in my youth. I behaved recklessly,”

He added in 2016:

“There were times when I was so drunk that I had to get to home on all fours. The last time it
happened was in Bulgaria.”

The Bulgaria event would take place in 1958, but it’s quite possible that Spassky’s ‘not most
professional’ attitude affected his play in Reykjavik. Spassky was hardly the first or the last young
adult to get drunk and behave recklessly, and perhaps the sharply improved living standard from
getting a good apartment and earning more money took away some of his motivation to play his best
in certain competitions.

For the second half of the event Spassky regained his composure and only dropped half a point in five
games. Here is one of his wins.

179
 Game 23

Julius Kozma – Boris Spassky

Reykjavik 1957

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 7.Nd2 Bg7 8.g3 0-0 9.Bg2 Ne8 10.0-0
Nd7 11.Nc4 Ne5 12.Qb3 Nxc4 13.Qxc4 a6 14.Bf4 b5 15.Qd3 f5 16.Qd2 Nf6 17.Rfe1 Ra7 18.a3
Ng4 19.h3 Ne5 20.Bxe5 Bxe5 21.f4 Bg7 22.e4 Bd4†

23.Kh2?
Surprisingly, this is a losing mistake.

23.Kh1 was necessary although the simple 23…Re8! gives Black a clear advantage. (23…g5!? is
possible, but 24.Ne2 keeps White in the game.)

23…g5!!
Spassky destroys the enemy pawn chain with a brilliant move.

24.fxg5 f4!
Black has obtained decisive domination on the dark squares.

25.gxf4

180
25…Rxf4!
The game is virtually over.

26.Ne2 Rf2 27.Rf1 Raf7 28.Rxf2 Rxf2 29.Rf1 Qf8 30.Qc1

30.Rxf2 Qxf2 31.b3 Be5† 32.Kh1 Bxh3 would soon lead to checkmate.

30…Rxf1 31.Qxf1 Qxf1 32.Bxf1 Bxb2

White has survived on the kingside but the endgame is hopeless.

33.a4 bxa4 34.Nf4 a3 35.Bc4 Bd7 36.Kg3 Bb5 37.Ba2 c4 38.Ng2 c3

181
0–1

In the final round, Spassky faced a strong opponent who had finished second behind him in the World
Junior Championship two years earlier. Again we will fast-forward to the middlegame.

Game 24

Boris Spassky – Edmar Mednis

Reykjavik 1957

1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.Qg4 Ne7 6.dxc5 Nbc6 7.Nf3 Ng6 8.Bd2 Bxc5 9.Bd3 Nb4
10.0-0 Nxd3 11.cxd3 Bd7 12.Rac1 Rc8 13.Bg5 h5 14.Qh3 Be7 15.Be3 b6 16.Rfe1 a6 17.Bd2 b5
18.Ne2 b4 19.Qg3 Rxc1 20.Rxc1 Qa5

21.Nf4!
Spassky exchanges off a key defender of the black kingside.

21…Nxf4 22.Bxf4 g6 23.Bg5!

Spassky increases his advantage by swapping bishops and dominating the dark squares.

23…Bxg5 24.Qxg5 Qxa2

182
25.h4?!
25.g3! was a more precise way to create space for the king, as it will defend the f-pawn from g2.
After the further 25…Qxb2 26.Rc7 b3 27.Kg2 Qa3 28.Qf4 White is close to winning.

25…Qxb2 26.Rc7 b3 27.Qf6

If 27.Kh2 then 27…Qxf2! can be played.

27…0-0

28.Ng5!

183
 28.Rxd7 Qc1† 29.Kh2 b2 30.Ng5 b1=Q (30…Qxg5 is also fine) 31.Nxf7 Qh1† only leads to a
draw. Spassky’s move is more dangerous.

28…Qa1†! 29.Kh2 b2?

Mednis underestimates the power of the white pieces.

Defending the bishop would keep the balance: 29…Qa4! 30.f4 (30.d4 Qb5! 31.g4 b2 32.gxh5 gxh5
gives White no more than a draw; notice that there will be no chance of mating on mate on h7, as the
new queen on b1 will cover that square.) 30…b2 31.Rb7 Qc2

32.Rxd7 (32.Nxf7 also leads to a draw but White is not close to winning.) 32…b1=Q 33.Rd8 White
is almost winning, but 33…Qxg2†! forces perpetual check.

184
30.Rxd7 b1=Q
Despite having an extra queen, Black is defenceless.

31.Nxe6!
31.Nxf7 would win as well.

31…Qg1† 32.Kh3
1–0

After the lacklustre start, Spassky finished the event with an undefeated 7/9 and his team collected
another gold medal.

***

In August, Spassky was selected for the Soviet team in the European Team Championship in Austria.
He played on Board 5, behind Smyslov, Keres, Bronstein and Tal, and ahead of Petrosian, Korchnoi,
Tolush and others. He played five games, winning two and drawing three with no defeats. The Soviet
team naturally won the gold medal. Two months later, Spassky took part in a friendly USSR –
Hungary match, defeating Barcza 1½–½ in their mini-match.

Spassky ended the year with the semi-final of the Soviet Championship in his home city. He won
some games and drew others. Generally his games contained fewer fluctuations then before, but there
were some exceptions. Here is one game showing his special attacking skill.

Game 25

185
 Boris Spassky – Samuel Zhukhovitsky

Leningrad 1957

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 a6 8.0-0-0 Bd7 9.f4 Be7
10.Nf3 h6 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.f5 Qc7 13.Kb1 0-0-0 14.Bc4 Kb8 15.Bb3 Rc8 16.Ne2 exf5 17.exf5
Bxf5

18.Nc3
Spassky looks to place the knight on d5 with gain of tempo.

18…Bf8 19.Nd4?!
This gives away White’s advantage. Instead after 19.Rhf1 or 19.Nd5 Qa5 20.Qf4 White would
be clearly better.

19…Nxd4 20.Qxd4 Rg8

20…Bg6! followed by …Bg7 would equalize.

21.Qxf6?!
This capture helps Black by clearing the diagonal for the dark-squared bishop. Better was
21.Rhf1!? Bg6 22.Qf2 with an edge for White.

186
21…Bg6 22.Qf2 Bg7 23.Na4
After 23.Nd5 Qc5 the position would be equal.

23…Rge8 24.Rhf1?! Re4

24…Re6! followed by …d5 or …Rf6 gives Black the upper hand.

25.Nb6 Rce8 26.Nd5 Qc5 27.Nf4 Bd4 28.Qh4?

28.Qf3! was the only move to keep the balance.

28…Be5?

187
 28…a5! leaves White without a good move. For instance, 29.a4 (29.Qg3 Be5 is winning for
Black) 29…b5! and if 30.axb5 a4 31.Bxa4 Qb4 32.Bb3 Qxb3! White can resign.

29.g3 a5
29…Rc8! was slightly more accurate. After 30.Nxg6 Rxh4 31.Nxh4 White stands worse, but is
likely to hold.

30.a4 Rb4 31.Nxg6

Spassky has no choice but to trade his queen for some enemy pieces. Thanks to the preferable
pawn structure, White should not be in any great danger.

31…Rxh4 32.Nxh4 f6

33.Nf5
33.Rd5!? prevents the possibility in the following note, but allows 33…Qe3! when the queen has
decent prospects and may go to e4 or e2 next.

33…h5?
Zhukhovitsky wastes a valuable tempo safeguarding a relatively unimportant pawn.

33…Qb4! would have sidestepped the threat of Rd5 while creating the nasty threat of …b5. White
must be careful:

a) 34.Rd5? would be a mistake in view of 34…Rc8 35.Rfd1 (35.Rb5? Qe4 sees Black dominating,
and a subsequent …Rc5 will lead to a winning position) 35…Rc5 36.R5d3 Bxb2! 37.Kxb2 Rxf5 and

188
White faces a difficult defensive task.

b) 34.Rfe1!? has the point that 34…b5? is refuted by 35.Nd4!, but 34…Rc8! renews the threat and
leaves White in difficulties.

c) 34.Ka2!? is possible, but only because of the following trick: 34…b5

35.Nxd6! (35.c3? loses to 35…Bxc3 36.bxc3 Re2†) 35…Bxd6 36.c3 Qc5 37.Rd5! would be equal.

d) Finally, 34.Rd3!? is good enough, but only because of some remarkable tactical resources: 34…b5

35.Rfd1!! bxa4 36.Nd4! Rc8 37.c3! White appears to be okay, but Black has a counter-blow:

189
37…Rxc3!! 38.Rxc3 Bxd4

39.Rc4! Qb5! 40.Rdc1! White escapes with a draw. (40.Rxa4?! Bc5! 41.Bc2 Bb4 would see Black
maintaining some winning chances due to the horribly misplaced rook.)

34.Rd5! Qc7?!
Black should have preferred 34…Qb4! 35.Rb5 Qd2 36.Bd5 when the position is objectively
equal, but the decision to give up the b7-pawn would not be at all easy.

35.Rb5!
The rook finds a perfect square.

190
35…b6 36.Ne3 Bd4?!
Again, it was preferable to give away the b-pawn. 36…Ka7! was best, and after 37.Nc4 Rc8 or
37.Nd5 Qd7 Black has chances to hold.

37.Nd5 Qd8?!
37…Qc6! was a better try, when 38.Ka2! is most accurate. (If 38.c3 Bc5 39.Rxf6 Re5 Black
seems okay.)

38…Re4! This tricky move has the clever point that 39.c3 Bc5 40.Rxf6 Rxa4†! is okay for Black.
However, 39.Rf5! enables White to avoid the trick and maintain serious pressure.

38.Rf4!

191
 Spassky attacks precisely, without weakening his own king. Instead after 38.c3 Bc5 39.Rxf6 Re2
40.Rf7 Rf2 White’s advantage is smaller than in the game.

38…Bc5 39.Rxf6 Re2

39…Rf8! was perhaps the last chance. After 40.Rxf8 Qxf8 41.Nxb6 Bxb6 42.Rxb6† Kc7 43.Rb5
Qf1† 44.Ka2 Qh3 Black remains in trouble, but the outcome is not yet decided.
40.Rf7 Rf2 41.Rh7 Rxh2
Zhukhovitsky misses Spassky’s tactical idea, but the position was already beyond saving.

41…Rd2 avoids the game continuation but only temporarily holds back the attack, and after 42.Ka2
Rd1 43.Rf7 White wins.

42.Nxb6!
This pretty move opens up Black’s king decisively.

42…Bxb6 43.Bd5 Kc8 44.Rb7 Qe8

44…Qc7!? was worth considering, though after 45.Rxc7† Kxc7 46.c3 White should win.

192
45.R5xb6! Qe1† 46.Ka2 Rxc2 47.Ra6
The only winning move, but not a difficult one. White has to hurry before Black finds play on the
first rank.

47…Rc7

48.Rb8†!!
This extremely pretty tactical shot is the only way to win.

48…Kd7 49.Rf8!

193
 It is important to place the rook on the f-file. Instead after 49.Rg8 Qe5 50.Rxa5 Rc5 or 49.Rh8
Qe5 Black would escape.

49…Qb4
If 49…Qe5 50.Rxa5 White wins.

50.Rf7† Kd8 51.Rf4 Qd2

51…Qc5 loses to 52.Ra8†, and if the king moves then 53.Rf7 delivers mate.

52.Rf8†
White will check on f7 and then decisively capture on d6 with check, so Black resigned.
1–0

Spassky continued through the semi-final tournament winning some games and drawing others. One
of the wins was against Klaman, who had previously been a problem opponent for him, so that must
have been especially pleasing. His only defeat occurred as a result of a dubious opening experiment
after he was already certain to qualify. Spassky finished in equal first place with Tolush on 12½/19.

1957 Results
Soviet Championship, Moscow (4th-5th place): 13/21 (+7 =12 –2)
Student Team World Championship, Reykjavik (Board 2): 7/9, Team Gold (+5 =4 –0)
European Team Championship, Vienna (Board 5): 3½/5, Team Gold (+2 =3 –0)
USSR – Hungary Friendly Match, Leningrad (Board 1 vs. Barcza): 1½/2 (+1 =1 –0)
Soviet Championship semi-final, Leningrad (1st-2nd place): 12½/19 (+7 =11 –1)

194
Total 67.0% (+22 =31 –3)

195
 1958

As usual, Spassky started the year with the Soviet Championship as well, which took place in Riga.
Just as in 1955, this year’s event took on extra significance as it was the Soviet qualification event for
the Interzonal on the path to the World Championship.

After a quick draw with Black against Taimanov in the first round, Spassky faced Lev Polugaevsky,
who by the way was about two years older than Boris.

Game 26

Boris Spassky – Lev Polugaevsky

Riga 1958

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.Bc4 Qa5 8.Qd2 e6 9.0-0-0 b5

10.Bb3
Spassky plays a novelty, deviating from 10.Bxe6 which Tal played against Kolarov at the 1957
Student Team Olympiad. The two young stars probably analysed it together. Tal won the above game
but the sacrifice is not really correct, so Spassky was wise to avoid it.

196
10…Bb7 11.Rhe1 Be7 12.f4 Nc5 13.e5?!
13.Bxf6! is a more accurate move order, as 13…Bxf6?! 14.e5 puts Black in trouble while 13…
gxf6 14.Qe3 also favours White. Interestingly, Polugaevsky tried both of these paths later in 1958,
against Korchnoi and Abakarov respectively. He gained a win and a draw from those games, but the
opening was not a success for him in either of them.

13…dxe5
An interesting, speculative alternative is 13…b4!? 14.Na4, and if 14…Nfe4 (14…Nce4! would
be safer) White can and must play a remarkable sacrifice:

15.Nxc5! Nxd2 16.Ba4†! Kf8 17.Bxe7† Kxe7 18.exd6† Kf8 19.Re5! White has more than enough
compensation for the queen in this wild position.

197
14.Bxf6
White needs to insert this exchange, as 14.fxe5? Nfe4 15.Nxe4 Qxd2† gives Black a clear
advantage.

14…Bxf6?
Polugaevsky must have overlooked Spassky’s 17th move. He should have favoured 14…gxf6!
15.fxe5 0-0-0 when Black stands better and is fully safe.

15.fxe5 Bh4
Provoking White’s next move changes the tactics to a certain extent.

The difference can be felt in the following line: 15…Be7 16.Bxe6! 0-0 17.Bd5 h6 18.Bxb7 Bg5
19.Qxg5 hxg5 20.Bxa8 (20.Nc6 also gives White some advantage.) 20…Rxa8 21.Nc6 Qc7 22.Nd5
Qb7 23.Nce7† Kf8 (23…Kh7 24.Rf1 wins for White.)

198
24.Re3! With the pawn on g3 this move would not work. 24…g4 25.h3 Black is in big trouble.

16.g3 Be7

17.Bxe6!
This brilliant move, which may have still been home analysis, wins a pawn.

17…0-0
Polugaevsky finds the only way to stay in the game. Instead after 17…fxe6? 18.Nxe6 or
17…Nxe6? 18.Nxe6 Rd8 19.Nxg7† Kf8 20.Qh6 White wins.

199
17…Qd8?! is not much better than the above tries. After 18.Bxf7†! Kxf7 Kasparov analyses 19.Qf4†
in detail, but 19.Qe2! is more accurate, and after 19…Rf8 20.Ndxb5! or 19…g6 20.Rf1† Kg7 21.b4!
White wins.

18.Bb3
Spassky’s move keeps some advantage but 18.Bd5! would have been even stronger. 18…h6!?
(18…b4 19.Nf5! is winning for White.)

It’s worth checking two options from here:

a) 19.Bxb7?! Bg5 20.Qxg5 hxg5 21.Bxa8 Rxa8 22.Nc6 Qc7 23.Nd5 Qb7 24.Nce7† Kf8 would be
unclear, as the g3-pawn prevents the rook lift that we saw earlier.

b) However, 19.h4! turns the g3-pawn into a positive, and after 19…b4 20.Nf5 Rfe8 21.Ne4 White’s
advantage is close to decisive.

200
18…Rad8 19.Qf4
19.Qe3! is objectively a slight improvement, but Spassky’s move is decent and it sets up the
beautiful continuation that follows.

19…b4

20.Na4!!
This amazing idea is much stronger than 20.Nf5? bxc3 21.Nxe7† Kh8, when Black takes over
the initiative.

201
20…h6?
Polugaevsky makes a big mistake by failing to destroy White’s strong bishop.
20…Nxa4? would also be bad due to 21.Nf5 Rxd1† 22.Rxd1, and if 22…Bd8 23.e6 White
crashes through.
The best defence was 20…Nxb3†! 21.axb3 g6 when Black remains a pawn down, but with the bishop
pair and a decent pawn structure, so White would have a hard time converting the extra material.

21.Nxc5 Qxc5 22.h4 Bd5

23.Nf5!
White still has an extra pawn and Black’s king is too vulnerable.

23…Bxb3 24.axb3 Rxd1† 25.Rxd1 Rc8 26.Qe4 Bf8

202
27.e6! fxe6 28.Qxe6† Kh8 29.Qe4
Spassky is in complete control and goes on to win convincingly.

29…Qc6 30.Qd3 Re8 31.h5 Be7 32.Nxe7 Rxe7 33.Qg6 Qe8

Neither 33…Qc7 34.g4 nor 33…Qxg6 34.hxg6 Re8 35.Rd6 Ra8 36.c4 gives Black any hope of
survival.

34.g4 Re1 35.Qxe8† Rxe8 36.Rd4 a5 37.Kd2 Re5

38.c4

203
 The extra pawn easily decides the outcome.

38…bxc3† 39.bxc3 Rg5 40.c4 Kg8

41.Rf4!
Cutting off the black king puts the final nail in the coffin.

41…g6
Polugaevsky sealed this move but resigned without resumption. Black’s position is indeed
hopeless. For this splendid victory and especially the amazing 20.Na4!! move, Spassky would later
receive the prize for the best game of the championship.
1–0

In the next round Spassky suffered a setback as he lost to Geller, who played excellently. He then
faced Borisenko, in a game which showcased Spassky’s wizardry in knight manoeuvres.

Game 27

Boris Spassky – Georgy Borisenko

Riga 1958

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 b5 6.Qc2 Na6 7.Be2 g6 8.Bg5 Bg7 9.0-0-0 Bg4 10.h3

204
Bxf3 11.gxf3 Nc7 12.h4 Qb8 13.f4 Ne6 14.e5 Nd5 15.f5 Nxg5 16.hxg5 gxf5 17.Qxf5 Qc8 18.Qe4
Qe6 19.Rxh7 Rxh7 20.Qxh7 Qg6 21.Qg8† Bf8 22.Qxg6 fxg6 23.Ne4 Kf7 24.Bg4 Rd8

25.Nc5
Spassky improves his knight.

25…Nf4 26.e6†
26.Nb7! is stronger, although this evaluation depends on precise calculation and follow-up play.
The critical line continues: 26…Rb8 (26…Ra8 27.Bf3 e6 28.Bxc6 Rb8 29.Kd2 gives White a big
advantage.) 27.Na5 Rb6 28.Bf3 Nd3† 29.Kb1 (On 29.Kc2? both 29…Nb4† and 29…Ra6 would be
equal.) 29…c5

205
30.Rxd3! cxd3 31.dxc5 Rb8 32.Bb7! White is winning. (The last move is stronger than 32.Nc6 Re8
33.b4 when White only stands somewhat better.)

26…Kg8 27.Nd7
Spassky aims to paralyse Black’s kingside.

27…Nd3†?!
Black should have preferred 27…Bg7 28.Kc2 Re8 29.b3 cxb3† 30.Kxb3 a5 when neither side
can claim an advantage.

28.Rxd3!
The exchange sacrifice works because Black’s pieces are passive – especially the king and rook.

28…cxd3 29.Kd2 Bg7 30.Kxd3 c5

This gives White a strong passed pawn but Borisenko needed to free the bishop, otherwise he
would soon run out of moves.

31.dxc5 Bxb2 32.Ke4 Rc8 33.Kd5 Kg7

206
34.Be2 b4?
Allowing the white bishop to get active on the queenside is a grave error. There were two
possible ways to hold:

34…a6 35.c6 Ba3! keeps the white king out. Next the bishop can go to d6, and Black can think about
activating the rook.

Another option is 34…Bc1!? 35.Bxb5 Bxg5 when Black reduces the number of pawns and also gives
the king a chance to escape from g7. In both of these lines Black still has to be slightly careful, but it
should be a draw.

35.Ba6! Rc7
Borisenko obviously thought he had a solid blockade and would be able to counterattack with
…Bc1 next, but he overlooked White’s brilliant follow-up.

207
36.Nb8!
Spassky’s handling of the knight is magical.

36…Bc1 37.Nc6!
The knight continues its journey to off-balance the well-placed rook.

37…Bxg5?
Black has no time for taking this pawn.

The only defence is: 37…Ba3!!

208
 This would have been an extremely difficult move to find, especially since the bishop has just
moved from b2 in the opposite direction. The bishop has a hidden role on the a3-square:

a) If 38.Nd4 Rxc5†! 39.Kxc5 b3† Black secures a draw.

b) White can keep trying to press with something like 38.f3 Bc1 39.Nxb4! (39.Nd4 Be3! holds
easily) 39…Bxg5 40.c6 when it will be easy enough to win the rook for the knight, but Black should
hold the resulting endgame without much difficulty.

38.Nd4! Kf6 39.Nb5 Bf4 40.Nxc7 Bxc7

This ends the dancing of the knight, and the opposite-coloured-bishop ending is hopeless for

209
Black.

41.Kc6 Bh2 42.Kd7 g5 43.c6 g4 44.Bc4 g3 45.fxg3 Bxg3 46.c7 Bxc7 47.Kxc7 a5 48.Kd7 a4
49.Bd3
1–0

Spassky followed this win by winning a complicated battle against Furman, in which he stood worse
at various points. Next he faced Krogius, his future trainer.

Game 28

Boris Spassky – Nikolai Krogius

Riga 1958

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 c5 5.e3 0-0 6.Bd3 d5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 Ba5 9.Ne2 dxc4 10.Bxc4
Bb6 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.b4 Qxd1 13.Rxd1 Be7 14.Bb2 b6

15.Nf4!?
It is hard to appreciate the practical power of the move. What does the knight do here? Will it
move on to d3 followed by e5?

15…Bb7?!
15…Rd8! would have been much safer, and after 16.Rxd8† (16.Rac1 and 16.Rdc1 are both met

210
by 16…Bb7 when Black is fine) 16…Nxd8 Black will soon be able to neutralize White’s small
initiative.

16.Ng5!
Despite the earlier queen exchange, Spassky targets the f7- and e6-pawns with a sacrificial attack.

16…Nd8?
Krogius reinforces the aforementioned pawns but his move is much too passive.

16…Rfd8! was necessary, when White must choose which version of the piece sacrifice to go for:

a) 17.Nxf7 Rxd1† 18.Rxd1 Kxf7 19.Nxe6 Kg6! leaves White with plenty of compensation but
nothing clear.

b) 17.Ngxe6! Rxd1† 18.Rxd1 fxe6 19.Nxe6 is a slightly better version, when Black will either put the
king on the less active h8-square or defend with a move like 19…b5!? or even 19…Rb8!?. White can
continue to cause problems, for instance by advancing the g-pawn next, but Black has chances to
defend.

17.Rac1 h6?
Krogius errs again and makes a losing move.

17…Rc8 was the only chance, and after 18.Nf3 a6 (but not 18…Nc6 19.Nxe6!) 19.Ne5 White has a
clear advantage but no clear win yet.

18.Ngxe6!

211
 The sacrifice leads to a winning endgame.

18…fxe6 19.Nxe6 Rc8

Black cannot save the exchange, as 19…Nxe6? 20.Bxe6† Kh8 21.Rc7 Rfd8 22.Bd4 wins.

20.Bb3
20.Nxd8† Rxc4 21.Nxb7 Rxc1 22.Rxc1 wins as well.

20…Nf7 21.Nxf8
Spassky, just like Tal, relatively often played with a rook versus two minor pieces; they both
handled such positions successfully.

21…Kxf8 22.Rxc8† Bxc8 23.Rc1

23.Bxf7! Kxf7 24.Rc1 followed by Rc7 would have been even simpler, but Spassky opts to keep
the bishop pair.

23…Nd6

24.f3!
Spassky prepares to advance his central pawns.

24…Nfe8 25.e4! Bg5?

Krogius blunders material, but his position was already close to lost. If 25…Bd7 26.Kf2 White
would progress with Ke3 and f3-f4.

212
26.f4! Bxf4
There is no choice, as 26…Be7 27.e5 wins a piece.

27.Rf1 g5 28.g3
Black can wriggle a bit, but will soon lose a piece.

28…Bh3 29.Rf2 Nxe4 30.Re2 Nd2 31.gxf4 Nxb3 32.Re3 Bg4 33.Rxb3
Krogius has reduced the amount of material on the board and will pick up a pawn, but ultimately
White’s rook is too strong.

33…gxf4 34.Be5 f3 35.h3 Bh5 36.Bb8 a6 37.b5!

213
 The rest is fairly easy.

37…Bf7 38.Rxf3 axb5 39.Rf5 Ke7 40.Rxb5 Be6 41.h4 Ng7 42.Rxb6 Nf5 43.Rb4 Kd7 44.a4 Ne7
45.Rb7† Kd8 46.a5 Nc6 47.a6 Bc8 48.Bf4 Nd4 49.Kf2 Ne6 50.Rb8
1–0

Spassky followed this game by drawing against Gipslis. Then in Round 9 he defeated Tolush, who
performed extremely badly at this year’s championship. Previously, Spassky and Tolush had tended
to agree quick draws with each other. It would be interesting to know if they agreed before the
tournament whether they would make a quick draw or play a fighting game against each other, and in
what scenario they would do one or the other.

Spassky celebrated his 21st birthday with another fine win, this time defeating Bronstein with the
black pieces. By now he was leading the tournament, a full point ahead of Petrosian and an additional
point ahead of Tal. He continued with two draws and a win, but then suffered a loss to Gurgenidze.

In the final phase of the tournament, Spassky played more riskily. He was fortunate to draw with both
Petrosian and Bannik. In the penultimate round Spassky played poorly in the opening and was
desperately lost to Kotov, but strangely the tide turned and Kotov lost his way in the complications.
Spassky stood clearly better but then blundered and lost easily.

The last round became dramatic indeed. Petrosian and Tal were leading with 11½/17, closely
followed by Bronstein on 11 and Spassky and Averbakh on 10½. There were four qualifying places
for the Interzonal tournament. The level of public interest was so high that the most important games
of the round were shown on large demonstration boards in the Riga Philharmonic building. To make
things even more exciting, four of the five tournament leaders faced each other in the final round.
Spassky – Tal and Averbakh – Petrosian were the top two pairings, while Bronstein had White
against Korchnoi.

Petrosian played the Najdorf but, after some minor turmoil, the peace treaty was signed at move 22.
Bronstein and Korchnoi also drew relatively quickly. Thus, everything depended on Spassky’s result
against Tal. From Spassky’s perspective, he could no longer catch Petrosian, but winning the game
would give him a share of 2nd-4th places, guaranteeing his place at the Interzonal. If he drew, it
would mean a match versus Averbakh for the Interzonal place. If he lost, he would miss out on
qualification. For Tal, a win would make him the outright winner of the Soviet Championship, while
a draw would see him tie for first place and compete with Petrosian in a tie-break match. If he lost, he
would share 2nd-4th places and still qualify for the Interzonal.

Spassky opted for the Sämisch Variation against the Nimzo-Indian, and a sharp battle ensued.
Spassky made a significant error on move 12 and Tal could have obtained a big advantage, but
instead he looked for safety. The middlegame was level but Spassky played for a win. Tal missed a

214
chance to be better, and then missed a drawing line before the time control. The game was adjourned
in the following position:

Boris Spassky – Mikhail Tal

Riga 1958

Spassky sealed 46.Qf4† and surely felt confident. Regardless of the objective evaluation of the
position, one can clearly see that Black is in danger and will have a hard time defending. Play was
scheduled to resume at 09:00 the next day.

According to Kasparov, Spassky and his helpers did not find a forced win, but Spassky was still
confident that he would catch the black king. It is even said that Spassky met Petrosian before play
resumed and told him, “Today you will become Champion.”

Tal recalls that it was hard for him to get into the tournament hall the next morning because there
were so many spectators. He writes that he felt relaxed because no direct win could be seen, although
some doubts came to his mind on his way to the board. Tal got the impression that Spassky had little
sleep. Spassky confirmed this in a later interview, commenting that he “analysed incessantly”
overnight. During the second playing session, Tal also noticed that Petrosian was wearing a new suit
in anticipation of becoming the champion.

As the game went on, Tal’s king remained in danger but Spassky was unable to land a killing blow.
Koblencs mentions that Averbakh had to leave the playing hall and go for a walk through the Latvian
capital because he couldn’t stand the tension.

215
Shortly before move 60, Spassky missed a couple of chances to win with a well-timed advance of the
g-pawn. After missing his chances, he offered a draw. The position was indeed equal, but Tal, sensing
the shift in momentum, declined it. Shortly afterwards, Spassky blundered and lost. The Latvian chess
fans went wild at Tal’s surprise victory. From Spassky’s point of view, it was a tragedy to lose from
such a promising and seemingly risk-free position.

Spassky recalls the end of the game:

“When I resigned, there was a thunder of applause, but I was in a daze and hardly understood
what was happening. After this game I went on the street and cried like a child. I remembered
that in 1951 when I lost to Smyslov in his clock simultaneous it was the last time I cried, and I
promised myself then never to cry again; but after losing to Tal I couldn’t keep my word.”

Decades later, Spassky blamed this defeat on his poor nerves, but I’m not convinced that nervousness
was the real problem. The fact that Spassky rejected several drawing opportunities and played so
stubbornly for a win against a genius like Tal suggests that Spassky was not really a nervous player.
Without completely discounting the possibility that the great tension of the occasion could have been
a contributing factor, a simpler explanation is that Spassky hardly slept the previous night and made
costly mistakes while tired. As we will see, Spassky will go on to win numerous Candidates matches
as well as the World Championship itself, as well as defeating Fischer in an extremely tense game at
the 1970 Siegen Olympiad. I believe that these and other examples from Spassky’s career strongly
suggest that there was nothing particularly wrong with Spassky’s nerves.

***

Spassky defeated Bobotsov 2–0 in a friendly team match between the Soviet Union and Bulgaria,
which took place in Leningrad. Next he played in another team event: the Student Team World
Championship, which was held in Varna. Spassky played on Board 2 behind Tal. He had a lovely
finish in one of his games.

Game 29

Boris Spassky – Theodor Ghitescu

Varna 1958

216
32.Qg8†!
White has other ways to win, but Spassky’s choice is the quickest and flashiest.

32…Qxg8 33.Bxg8† Kxg8 34.c7

1–0

Spassky went on to score 6½/9 in Varna, with four wins and five draws. After this event, Tal gave an
interview at the Portoroz Interzonal in which he was asked to rank the top Soviet players (excluding
himself). Tal said that he considered Botvinnik the best, followed by Smyslov, Keres, Bronstein,
Petrosian and then Spassky as the sixth best, followed by Geller, Averbakh and Taimanov. According
to Chessmetrics, at that time Spassky was number eleven in the world. Incidentally, Fischer was
world number twenty-seven on the same list.

Later in the year, Spassky played in the semi-final qualifying event for the Soviet Championship,
which took place in Rostov-on-Don. For many years he had been somewhat too strong for such an
event, but he still had to play it. Spassky finished in equal first with a score of 10/15, consisting of
seven wins, six draws and two defeats.

Soltis shares an interesting story from this event:

“Even as a teenager, Spassky enjoyed a reputation as a ladies’ man. With grey-green eyes, wavy
hair and infectious joie de vivre, he found himself very attractive to women. And vice versa. He
told an interviewer in 2007 that love was the most important thing in life, more than chess. Did
love ever interfere with chess? Yes, he said, and recalled an incident in 1958 in Rostov-on-Don.
A Spartak sports society women’s basketball team, visiting from distant Vladivostok, was staying

217
 at the same hotel as him. He arranged a hasty rendezvous with a member of the team, hasty
because “within two hours her train was leaving.” But Igor Bondarevsky, serving as his second,
“showed me an interesting position,” he said. “I was so fascinated I forgot everything else. When
I came to my senses I ran to the train station in horror to say goodbye. In answer to my apology
the girl slashed me with her glance. I still remember her eyes. And I regret the lost encounter.””

Spassky’s final event of the year was the Moscow – Leningrad match, which took place in the
Russian capital. His opponent on Board 1 was Smyslov, and both games were drawn. In the second of
them Spassky had some winning chances in an opposite-coloured-bishop endgame, but he was unable
to break Smyslov’s solid defence.

1958 Results

Soviet Championship, Riga (5th-6th place): 10½/18 (+7 =7 –4)

Student Team World Championship, Varna (Board 2): 6½/9, Team Gold (+4 =5 –0)
Russian Republic – Bulgaria Friendly Match, Leningrad (Board 1 vs. Bobotsov): 2/2 (+2 =0 –0)
Soviet Championship semi-final, Rostov-on-Don (1st-2nd place): 10/15 (+7 =6 –2)
Moscow – Leningrad Match (Board 1 vs. Smyslov): 1/2 (+0 =2 –0)

Total 65.2% (+20 =20 –6)

218
 1959

Spassky again started the year with the Soviet Championship final. This time it was held in Tbilisi.
Spassky started the event with two wins and three draws in the first five rounds, then he won two in a
row. His opponent in the eighth round was Viktor Korchnoi.

Game 30

Viktor Korchnoi – Boris Spassky

Tbilisi 1959

1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.h3 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 Nf6 6.d4 e6 7.Bd3 dxe4 8.Nxe4 Qxd4 9.c3 Qd8
10.0-0 Be7 11.Rd1 Nbd7 12.Qg3 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 g6 14.Bf4 Qb6 15.Bc7

15…Qxb2
White has compensation for the pawns, and the position is dynamically balanced. If one was told
the name of the players but not the colours, one would most likely guess it was Korchnoi playing
Black and grabbing the second pawn.

16.Qf3

219
 In the event of 16.Rab1 Qxa2 17.Qf3 f5 18.Bxc6 bxc6 19.Qxc6 Kf7 20.Qxd7 Qa6 21.c4 Qxc4 I
think Black gets away with it.

16…Rc8 17.Rab1 Qxb1! 18.Bxb1 Rxc7

Black has more than enough material for the queen, plus a solid pawn structure.

19.Qg3 Rc8 20.Qe3 Nc5 21.h4 0-0 22.h5 Rcd8 23.Rd4 Rd5 24.hxg6?
Opening the h-file favours Black.

A better continuation was 24.g4 Rfd8 followed by either 25.Kg2 or 25.Bc2 when, if Black has any
edge, it is small.

24…hxg6 25.Bc2 Rfd8 26.Rg4?!

The kingside threats do not lead anywhere, but White was in trouble anyway.

26…Bf6 27.Kf1

220
27…Bg7
Spassky sensibly prevents White’s attacking ideas involving Bxg6 followed by Qh6.
27…Kg7! was a more accurate way of doing it, as White would then have to worry about threats with
…Rh8 on top of his other problems.

28.Rg5 Rxg5
28…Rd2! was more accurate, but it’s necessary to see that after 29.Bxg6 Rd1† 30.Ke2 R8d2†
31.Kf3 b6! White has nothing better than 32.Rxc5, when 32…bxc5 33.Be4 c4 should be winning for
Black. Spassky’s move doesn’t win quickly but it keeps control.

29.Qxg5 Rd5 30.Qe3 Bf6 31.f4 Kg7 32.g3 b6 33.Kg2 Nb7 34.Bb3

221
34…Rd6
Spassky probably just wants to make it to the time control before looking for a winning plan.

34…Rc5! looks strong, and if 35.Bxe6 (35.c4 e5 also leaves White in big trouble) 35…fxe6 36.Qxe6
Nd8 Black should win.

35.Kf3 Nc5 36.Bc2 Rd5 37.Kg2 Kf8 38.Kh3 Ke7 39.Kg2 Nb7 40.c4 Ra5 41.a4 Nd6

42.Qe2

222
 Korchnoi sealed this move.

42…Rc5 43.Bd3 Nf5?!

It is interesting that Spassky makes a committal move without first trying to tire his opponent.
Moreover, White can now hold the endgame.

43…g5!? was an interesting way of playing.

44.Bxf5 Rxf5 45.Qf3 Rc5 46.Qa3 Kf8 47.Qb4

It feels a bit risky not to keep the queen in the centre, although Black does not seem to have a
direct way of exploiting it. 47.Qd3 looks more natural.

47…Kg7 48.Kf3 Kg8 49.Qb3 Ra5 50.Qb4 Rc5 51.Qb3 Bg7 52.Kg2 Bf8 53.Kh3 Ra5 54.Kg2 Bc5
55.Kh3 Be7 56.Kg2 Kg7 57.Kh3 Bf6 58.Kg2

58…e5
After tiring the opponent for a while, Spassky changes the structure a bit.

59.Kf3 Rc5 60.fxe5

White could also maintain the tension with 60.Ke4!?.

60…Bxe5 61.g4 Bd4 62.Kg2 Bf6 63.Qb4 Re5 64.Kf3

223
64…Bg5
The game was adjourned for a second time, and this was Spassky’s sealed move.

65.Qb2 Bf6 66.Qb4 Rc5 67.Ke2 Bd4 68.Kd3 Be5 69.Qb1 Kf6 70.Qf1† Ke7 71.Qf3 Kf8 72.Qh1
Kg7 73.Qb1 Bf6 74.Qg1 Ra5 75.Qd1

75…a6
After manoeuvring for a long time, Spassky prepares to create a passed pawn.

76.Qg1 c5 77.Qd1 b5 78.cxb5 axb5 79.axb5

224
79…Rxb5
Despite Black’s slight material advantage, passed pawn and safer king, White can still hold this
endgame. Nevertheless, defending such a position is neither pleasant nor easy.

80.Kc4 Ra5 81.Qf3 Bd4 82.Kd5 Ra6 83.Qf4 Rf6

84.Qe4?
After defending accurately for a long time, Korchnoi finally makes a mistake. Unluckily for him,
it loses.

225
Instead after 84.Qd2 or 84.Qg5 White should be able to hold.

84…Kh6!!
Spassky seizes the opportunity to improve his king.

85.Qe7 Kg5! 86.Qd7 Rf4!

Now the queen can’t move.

87.Kc6 Bf2
Of course Spassky avoids 87…Rxg4? 88.Qxf7 when Black’s king is too exposed, and the
Lomonosov tablebase confirms that this endgame should be drawn.

88.Kb5 Bd4 89.Kc4 Kh4 90.Kd3 g5! 91.Kc4

91…Kg3!
The black king stands well here.

92.Kd3 Be5!
Having improved the rest of his pieces to the maximum extent possible, Spassky prepares to push
the c-pawn.

93.Kc2 c4 94.Qd5 f6
Now all black pieces are protected.

226
95.Qh1 Rf2† 96.Kd1

96…c3 97.Qg1† Rg2 98.Qe1† Kh2!

The glorious king march ends. Korchnoi did not wait to see the black pawn promoted, but
resigned.
0–1
After this win Spassky went through a crisis, scoring just one point from the next four games. His
next opponent was Geller, and they produced a thriller.

Game 31

Boris Spassky – Efim Geller

Tbilisi 1959

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Qe2 Be7 6.c3 b5 7.Bc2 d5 8.d3 0-0 9.Nbd2 Re8 10.Nf1
Be6 11.Ng5 Bg4 12.f3 Bc8 13.Ng3 h6 14.Nh3 Bc5 15.Nf2 Be6 16.0-0 Ne7? 17.d4! exd4 18.e5
Nd7 19.Qd3 f5 20.exf6 Nxf6 21.cxd4 Bb6 22.Be3 Bf7 23.Ng4 Nc6 24.Rae1 Nb4 25.Nxf6† Qxf6
26.Qh7† Kf8 27.Qh8† Bg8

227
28.Ne4?
In a complicated position Spassky makes a serious mistake; it would be interesting to know what
he miscalculated.

28.Bb1?? Rxe3 wins easily for Black.

28.Be4! was the right way to close the e-file. Best play continues: 28…Ke7! The king must vacate
the f-file so that the threat of …dxe4 becomes real; otherwise Black would have no good defence to
the threats of Nh5, a2-a3 or even just Kh1. 29.Bb1 Be6 30.Qh7 Rh8 31.Nh5 Rxh7 32.Nxf6 Kxf6
33.Bxh7 g6

228
34.Bxg6! Kxg6 35.Bd2 Bxd4† 36.Kh1 Kf7 37.Bxb4 White stands somewhat better.

28…Qg6 29.Bb3
29.Bb1 dxe4 30.fxe4† Ke7 wins for Black.

29…Kf7
29…Ke7! was more convincing, and after 30.Nc5 Bxc5 31.Bxh6† Kf8 Black would easily win,
thanks to his overwhelming material advantage.

30.Bd2

30…Bh7?!
Geller keeps some advantage after picking up the queen, but he gives White more compensation
than is necessary.

30…Bxd4†! is more accurate, and after 31.Kh1 Nd3 32.Bxd5† Ke7 33.Bxa8 Black has a few
tempting options. 33…Rxa8! keeps a decisive advantage, and collecting the queen with 33…Be6! is
also excellent. (33…Nxe1 34.Rxe1 Be6 is slightly less accurate because of 35.Bb4† Kf7 36.Nd6†!
cxd6 37.Be4 when White can at least save the queen, although Black remains clearly better here too.)

31.Bxb4 Rxh8 32.Bxd5† Ke8 33.Nc5† Kd8 34.Bxa8

229
34…Re8?
Geller misses a chance to exchange one of White’s active minor pieces: 34…a5! 35.Bd2 (Also
after 35.Ne6† Kc8 36.Bc5 Kb8 White would struggle.) 35…Qf6 36.Be3 Bxc5 37.dxc5 Kc8 The b2-
pawn is vulnerable and White does not have enough for the queen.

35.Rxe8† Qxe8 36.Re1 Qg6?

Geller blunders. He needed to play 36…Qg8! 37.Bc6 Bg6 38.b3 when the position looks
dynamically balanced.

37.Ne6† Kc8

230
38.Nf8!
Spassky forks the enemy pieces in an unusual way, while also creating mating threats. Black’s
queen does not have many options, as she needs to prevent the rook from landing on e8 with
checkmate.

38…Qf7 39.Nxh7??
Surprisingly, capturing the hanging bishop is a losing move.

39.Bc6! would have won easily, as 39…Bxd4† 40.Kh1 Kb8 41.Re8† Ka7 42.Ba5 forces Black to
give up the queen to avoid mate, leaving White with an extra piece.

39…Bxd4† 40.Kh1
Spassky has more than enough material for the queen, but his mistake on the previous move has
left his pieces too poorly coordinated.

40…c5
This weakens the black king to some extent.

Much stronger is:

40…Qc4! 41.Ba5
If 41.Bd2 Qc2 the double attack wins a piece.

231
41…Bf2!!
It turns out that Black can exploit White’s weakness on the first rank.
42.Ra1 b4
A good alternative is 42…Qc2 43.Be4 Qxb2 44.Rb1 Qxa2 when Black’s three connected pawns
should decide matters.
43.a3 Be3!
This flashy move wins most efficiently, but 43…c6 44.Bxb4 Kb8 also does the job.
44.axb4
44.Bxb4 and 44.Be4 both run into the same winning move as shown below.

44…Bc1!

232
 Threatening mate while also boxing in the rook.
45.Kg1 Qd4† 46.Kf1 Qxb2
Black wins.

40…Bf2!! is actually even more accurate, but activating the queen is more than good enough, and it’s
a much more natural move for a human to consider.

41.Ba5 Kd7?
Geller looks to trap the knight. It’s interesting that both of these legendary players erred by
playing too materialistically at key moments in this game.

41…Qxa2! 42.Bb6 Qxb2 would have seen Black capturing two valuable pawns while maintaining
decent coordination. After the further 43.Nf8 Be3 44.Rd1 Bd2 45.Be4 c4 the outcome remains
unclear, but I would prefer playing with Black because the connected passed pawns are dangerous.

42.b4!!
Spassky destabilizes the bishop on d4 and weakens Black’s king, while also swapping off his
weak b-pawn for the enemy c-pawn, which might otherwise have become a great threat. Thanks to
David Gurgenidze I can inform you that Spassky sealed this superb move.

42…Qg8
Geller rightly avoids 42…c4? due to 43.Rd1, as well as 42…Qf4 43.bxc5 Bxc5 44.Bc3 when
White’s material advantage is decisive.

It’s also worth pointing out that after 42…cxb4 43.Rd1 Qxa2 44.Rxd4† White can save all his pieces,
as Black’s king is too vulnerable.

233
43.Be4 Qxa2

44.Nf8†!
Now the knight joins the attack, and the active white pieces overpower the enemy forces.

44…Kd6 45.bxc5† Kxc5 46.Rc1† Kd6 47.Bb4† Ke5 48.Ng6† Ke6 49.h4
Giving the king an escape route is sensible and does not spoil anything, but 49.Rc6†! Kd7
50.Nf8† Ke8 51.Bg6† Kd8 52.Ne6† Kd7 53.Rd6† would soon have led to a forced mate.

49…a5 50.Nf4† Ke5 51.Ng6† Ke6 52.Nf4† Ke5 53.Nd3† Ke6 54.Rc6†
54.Bh7! would have won more quickly. For instance, 54…Kf7 (54…Kf6 55.Rc6† wins) 55.Rc7†
Ke8 56.Rc8† and White wins the queen. Nevertheless, Spassky’s win does not jeopardize the win in
any way.

54…Kd7 55.Rd6† Kc7

234
56.Rxd4!
Spassky gives up an exchange to simplify the position. Now Black has no counterplay, and
White’s three minor pieces will defeat the queen.

56…Qa1† 57.Kh2 Qxd4 58.Bxa5† Kd7 59.h5 Ke7 60.Bb4† Kf7 61.Bc5 Qd8

62.g4
All of White’s pieces are protected and there is just one obstacle to overcome: White must
coordinate his forces to capture the b-pawn.

235
62…Qg5 63.Kg3
Spassky starts improving his king.

63…Qd2 64.Ba3 Kg8 65.Bc1 Qd1

66.Kf4!!
Spassky comes up with a genius idea: he intends to win the pawn with the help of his king. The
way he uses his king strongly echoes the end of the Korchnoi game that we looked at previously.

66…b4 67.Ke5! b3 68.Kd4 Qc2

Geller can only temporarily keep the king away from the b-pawn.

69.Bb2 Kh8 70.Bc3 Qa2 71.Bb2 Qb1 72.Kc3 Qc2† 73.Kb4 Kg8 74.Ka3
The king finishes his glorious march, and Black can do nothing about White’s next move.

74…Qc4 75.Nc1
The b-pawn is doomed, and it will be trivial for White to win on the kingside. Geller therefore
resigned.
1–0

In the remaining six rounds, Spassky won two games and drew four. He showed his class by sharing
2nd-3rd places with Tal, one point behind Petrosian, who became Soviet Champion for the first time.

Aside from his impressive overall result, one aspect of Spassky’s performance shines through in the
1959 Soviet Championship: out of his six longest games, he scored 5½ points. True, he had some

236
luck in drawing against Tal, as he was worse for most of the game and probably benefited from the
fact that Tal had two other adjournments to play, and at some point the order of those adjournments
was shuffled in a way that meant Tal did not have time to analyse his Spassky game as deeply as the
other two. Nevertheless, he still needed to defend well to hold that game and he won the other five.
Not only the results but also the depth of his endgame play suggest that he had probably invested
significant work into that aspect of the game.

Spassky got married in 1959. The marriage soon ended in divorce, but in the beginning it might have
affected his chess beneficially.
In Spassky’s next event, he represented the city of Leningrad in a match versus Budapest, which took
place in the Hungarian capital. Spassky’s opponent on Board 1 was Szabo, who won the first game.
Spassky avenged the defeat in the second game, and they finished with two quick draws.

Spassky’s next event was the Chigorin Memorial tournament in Moscow. Spassky lost to Smyslov in
the second round, but recovered and step by step improved his tournament standing. Here is a pretty
finish from one of his games.

Game 32

Boris Spassky – Evgeni Vasiukov

Moscow 1959

26.Qxb7!!

237
 A simple tactic, but still a beautiful move.

26…Rf8 27.Qxc7 Qd3† 28.Kh2 Qd2

29.Ne4!!
Spassky could win prosaically, but he pleases the gallery.

29…Qxe1
29…Nxd5 30.Qxd6 Qxe1 31.Qe5 would lead to a checkmate.

30.Qe7!
Faced with the threat of mate in two as well as losing his queen, Vasiukov resigned.
1–0

Spassky finished the Chigorin Memorial in a tie for first place with Smyslov and Bronstein, with a
score of 7/11.

***

Spassky’s next event was a Leningrad – Moscow match. His opponent was Smyslov, who had
become World Champion in 1957 but lost the title in the return match versus Botvinnik the following
year. Smyslov beat Spassky in their mini-match by a score of 1½–½.

Krogius writes that Spassky won the 1959 Leningrad Championship by scoring 14/17 without a loss.
Only two of Spassky’s games from this event are available. Luckily, one of them is the following win

238
over Reshko, which Spassky would go on to describe in 1970 as his dearest game.

Game 33

Boris Spassky – Aron Reshko

Leningrad 1959

1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.h3 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 Nf6 6.e5 Nfd7 7.Qg3 e6 8.Be2 Qc7 9.f4 a6 10.b4 c5
11.b5 c4 12.Rb1 d4 13.Ne4 axb5 14.0-0 Rxa2 15.d3 Rxc2 16.Bd1 Ra2?

17.f5!
On the previous move, Black missed a chance to gain the upper hand by sacrificing an exchange
on c1. Spassky immediately punishes him by launching a decisive attack.

17…Nxe5
17…Qxe5? is impossible because 18.Bf4 wins.

18.fxe6 f6

239
19.Rxf6?!
Spassky opens up the black king in a flashy way, but his move is not the best.

The prosaic alternatives 19.Rxb5! and 19.Bh5†! should both win easily, as the black king is too
exposed.

19…gxf6 20.Nxf6† Kd8 21.Nd5

The alternative is 21.Bg5 Kc8 22.e7 Bxe7 23.Nd5 Bd6 24.Nxc7 Kxc7 when Black is living
dangerously, but in such a wild position anything could happen.

21…Qd6 22.Bg5† Kc8

240
23.Bg4!
Spassky calls this move “the point of the sacri”ce.”

23…Nxg4?
Reshko overlooks White’s brilliant reply.

He needed to find 23…Bg7! to stay in the game. Play continues 24.Ne7† (24.dxc4?! does not help
White after 24…bxc4 or 24…Nbc6!?) 24…Kc7 25.Nf5 when Black only has one decent move:

a) Spassky only considers 25…Qxe6? 26.Nxg7 Qd5 27.Bf3 when White wins.

241
b) 25…Qc5? is given by Soltis as keeping White’s edge to a minimum, but 26.Be7! wins, as both
26…Qd5 and 26…Qc6 can be met by 27.Bf3 when Black has no defence.

c) However, 25…Qa3! is playable, with …Nc6 to follow. The position is still wildly complicated but
objectively it’s equal.

24.e7!!
White can push the pawn, despite the queen being en prise.

Reshko surely expected 24.Qxg4, when he could have chosen between several options. For instance,
24…Bg7!? (24…Rxg2† 25.Qxg2 Qxe6 and 24…Bh6 25.Rxb5 Ra1† are also approximately equal)
25.Rxb5 Ra1† and Black remains in the game.

24…Bxe7
24…Qxg3? 25.e8=Q is mate.

25.Qxg4†
The rest is easy: White attacks the black king with too many pieces.

25…Nd7 26.Nxe7† Kc7 27.Bf4 Ne5

242
28.Qg7!
The move is simple enough but the geometry of it is still impressive: the queen threatens a
discovered attack from the side, while hitting the h8-rook and e5-knight along the diagonal.

28…Kb6 29.Bxe5 Qe6 30.Bxd4†

1–0

As mentioned earlier, Spassky would subsequently refer to this as his dearest game. My opinion is
that, while it was undeniably an entertaining and interesting game, it was by no means a masterpiece.
It would be interesting to know why it meant so much to him.

Spassky played for Trud in the Leningrad Team Championship. The database only contains two of his
games, both of which he won. I was unable to find out his overall score in this event.

Spassky’s next event was another team competition: the Spartakiad event in Moscow, where he
played on the top board for Leningrad. Spassky started with 4½ points from his first five games. He
was slightly lucky in one of them, as Tal outplayed him brilliantly, but then ruined the would-be
masterpiece with a blunder and lost. Spassky drew his final three games against strong opponents,
finishing on 6/8.

The next event in Spassky’s busy chess calendar was the semi-final of the Soviet Championship,
which took place in Tallinn. For the past few years, since becoming a world-class player, Spassky’s
qualification from this event was a virtual certainty, and this was reflected in his choice of openings –
especially with the black pieces. He played far more surprising and dubious openings than usual, even

243
employing the Latvian Gambit in one game. Here is an excerpt from it, shortly after the opening.

Game 34

Vladimir Muratov – Boris Spassky

Tallinn 1959

11…Nb4!
Spassky plays a risky and imaginative move, showing great self-confidence.

Most players would settle for 11…exf3 12.gxf3 Ne5, with a somewhat worse position.

12.a3 a5!!
The idea of the previous move was to sacrifice a whole piece.

13.axb4 axb4 14.Nb1 Ra1 15.Ncd2 exf3 16.gxf3

244
16…Nxd5
The position is a mess and the evaluation swung back and forth a few more times, but Spassky
came out victorious.
…0–1
It hardly needs stating that, just like in the past several years, Spassky convincingly qualified for the
Soviet Championship final. He scored nine wins, five draws and one defeat. Curiously, the loss came
against Iivo Nei, the Estonian player who would later be one of his seconds against Fischer in 1972.

Spassky finished the year with an international tournament in Riga. He started well, avenging his
recent defeat to Nei in a fluctuating game. He followed it by making a quick draw with Tolush,
indicating that their relationship was still good. After that he scored magnificently, with nine wins
and two draws from the final eleven games – including a win over Tal, who by then had earned the
right to challenge Botvinnik in 1960. Spassky’s unbeaten score of 11½/13 was a great
accomplishment. Mikenas also had a fantastic tournament and finished in second place, just half a
point behind Spassky. Tal, who had just won the Candidates event, and was possibly both tired from
that tough event and distracted by the upcoming match against Botvinnik, was a further two points
behind.

1959 Results
Soviet Championship, Tbilisi (2nd-3rd place): 12½/19 (+8 =9 –2)
Budapest – Leningrad match, Budapest (Board 1 vs. Szabo): 2/4 (+1 =2 –1)
Chigorin Memorial, Moscow (1st-3rd place): 7/11 (+4 =6 –1)
Moscow – Leningrad match, Moscow (Board 1 vs. Smyslov): ½/2 (+0 =1 –1)
Leningrad Championship (1st place): 14/17 (+11 =6 –0)

245
Leningrad Team Championship: (total score unknown)
Spartakiad, Moscow (Board 1): 6/8 (+4 =4 –0)
Soviet Championship semi-final, Tallinn (1st-2nd place): 11½/15 (+9 =5 –1)
Riga International (1st place): 11½/13 (+10 =3 –0)

Total 73.0% (+47 =36 –6)

246
 1960

The year started in a special way, with the birth of Spassky’s first child: a daughter, Tatiana
Spasskaya. Boris and his first wife would go on to divorce in 1961, and marital problems may already
have occurred. Nevertheless, the birth of their daughter must have brought great joy. It may also have
affected Spassky’s chess, in both positive and negative ways.

The annual Moscow – Leningrad match did not take place at the end of 1959 as would have been
traditional, but rather in mid-January 1960. Spassky played on Board 2 against Smyslov and won the
mini-match with a score of 1½/2.

The Soviet Championship final began late in January, a few days before Spassky’s twenty-third
birthday. In 1958 the event was held in Riga, where it was won by Tal, the local hero. In 1959 it was
held in Tbilisi, the city in which the winner Petrosian spent his childhood and felt at home. In 1960
Leningrad hosted the event. Three of the pre-tournament favourites, Korchnoi, Taimanov and of
course Spassky, were from Leningrad. Playing in front of one’s home fans can boost morale but the
weight of expectation may also cause pressure and tension. Let’s see how Spassky handled the
situation.

Spassky did not start well: after a draw against Polugaevsky, he had the white pieces for the second
consecutive game but was beaten by Bagirov. We will look at Spassky’s third game, in which he
faced his future trainer.

Game 35

Nikolai Krogius – Boris Spassky

Leningrad 1960

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Bc5 5.Nxe5 Nxe4 6.Qe2 Nxe5 7.Qxe4 Qe7 8.d4 Ng6 9.Qxe7†
Bxe7 10.Nc3 0-0 11.Bd3 c6 12.Ne2 d5 13.Nf4 Bd6 14.Nxg6 hxg6 15.Bd2

247
15…Bf5! 16.Bxf5 gxf5
Spassky has the tiniest advantage in a highly drawish position. He will not make any single
outstanding move from here until the time control, but he still manages to put his opponent under
pressure.

It’s worth noting that Spassky’s endgame skill, while excellent, was not outstanding for a world-class
player, in contrast to players such as Fischer, and later Karpov, both of whom could rely on their
endgame skill as one of the cornerstones of their tremendous playing strength.

17.Rfe1 f6 18.a3 b6 19.Rac1 Kf7 20.h3 Rfe8 21.Rxe8 Rxe8 22.Kf1 Re4 23.c3 g5 24.f3 Re8 25.Kf2
Rh8 26.a4 c5 27.b4 Rc8 28.dxc5 bxc5 29.b5 f4 30.Ke2?!
30.c4! would have stopped Black’s next move and kept things close to equal.

30…c4! 31.Be1 Bc5 32.Bf2?

248
32…Bxf2?
Both players failed to appreciate that 32…Re8†! 33.Kf1 Bxf2 34.Kxf2 Ke6! would have been
winning for Black. If White exchanges rooks, Black wins the pawn endgame by walking the king to
c5 and later a5. Meanwhile, Black threatens to walk the king to c5 anyway, leaving the white king cut
off from the queenside. If White tries 35.Ke2 then 35…d4! is the most convincing way to win.

33.Kxf2 Ke6 34.Ke2 Kd6 35.Kd2 Re8 36.Rh1 Rh8 37.Re1 Rb8 38.Kc2 Kd7 39.Rd1 Ke6 40.Re1†
Kd6 41.Kc1?!
White should still be drawing, but retreating the king is needlessly passive. Krogius sealed this
move.

41.Rh1! was more logical, making Black think about h3-h4.

249
41…a6!
Despite the missed opportunity on move 32, Spassky’s strong play has resulted in a fighting
endgame.

42.bxa6 Rb6 43.h4 gxh4 44.Rh1 Rxa6 45.Rxh4 Ke5 46.Rh5† f5 47.Rh8

47…Rxa4
Spassky bags a pawn, but White’s position should still be tenable.

48.Re8† Kf6 49.Rd8 Ra1† 50.Kc2 Ra2† 51.Kc1?

250
 A strange mistake from a strong grandmaster.

51.Kd1! was necessary, with two options for Black:

a) 51…Rxg2 52.Rxd5 Rf2 53.Rd4 Rxf3 (53…Kg5 54.Rxc4 Rxf3 is the same thing) 54.Rxc4 Kg5
55.Ke2 Kg4 56.Rc8 and since the king makes it back to the kingside, White draws easily.

b) Black should therefore try 51…Ra5 with similar play to the game continuation, but with White
having avoided the winning possibility in the next note.

51…Ra5?
Spassky misses a relatively easy win: 51…Rxg2! 52.Rxd5 Rf2 53.Rd4 Rxf3 54.Rxc4

251
54…Kg5! The only winning move, but not a difficult one. 55.Kd2 The white king is one tempo too
slow. 55…Re3! is the fastest move, cutting the king off, but other moves win too.

There is nothing too complicated about the above line, so it would be interesting to know exactly
what both of these strong players miscalculated. Perhaps Krogius played 51.Kc1 quickly and
confidently, believing he was still following his adjournment analysis but mixing up his lines
somehow, and Spassky trusted him.

52.Kb2 Ke7 53.Rh8 Rb5† 54.Kc2 Rb6 55.Rh7† Kd6 56.Rh6† Kc5 57.Rh5 Rf6 58.Kc1

58…Kd6!

252
 Spassky wisely avoids changing the structure for now. The endgame is theoretically drawing but
practically dangerous for White.

58…d4 can be met by 59.Rh4! (59.cxd4†? Kxd4 wins easily for Black) 59…d3 60.Rh8! when
White’s rook is active enough to hold. (60.Rxf4 Re6! 61.Rxf5† Kc6 is also drawing with best play,
but Black would still have some practical winning chances.)

59.Rg5 Rf8 60.Rg6† Ke5 61.Kc2?

61.Kd2! was more precise, and after 61…Ra8 White must find 62.Rg7! to hold. This way, White
avoids the winning possibility mentioned in the note to Black’s 62nd move below.

61…Ra8!
Spassky correctly avoids 61…d4? 62.cxd4† Kxd4 63.Rd6†! (but not 63.Kd2? c3† 64.Kc2 Rh8
65.Rg5 Rh2 when Black wins) 63…Ke3 and now White holds with either 64.Rg6 or 64.Kc3.

62.Kb2

62…d4?
Spassky chooses the wrong moment to change the structure. David Gurgenidze kindly sent me a
copy of the relevant pages of the bulletin, which mentions the sealed move on move 41, but no sealed
move after that. This suggests that they both played fast enough that the game was not adjourned
again.

Black could have won with:

62…Ra7!!

253
 White is placed in zugzwang by this subtle move.
63.Kc2
Other moves are no better, for instance:
a) 63.Kb1 d4! exploits the passive placement of the white king. 64.cxd4† (64.Kb2 d3 is
winning.) 64…Kxd4 65.Rd6† (65.Kc2 Ra2† 66.Kb1 Rf2 only helps Black.) 65…Kc3! 66.Rd5
(66.Rg6 Re7 is hopeless for White.) 66…Rg7 67.Rxf5 Rxg2 Black wins.
b) 63.Rg8 Kf6! The king move prepares to transfer the rook to the g-file. 64.Rd8 (Neither 64.Kb1
Rg7 nor 64.Rf8† Rf7 helps White.)

64…Rg7 65.Rxd5 Rxg2† 66.Kc1 Interestingly, after this move we have transposed to the exact
same position that could have arisen after 51…Rxg2! 52.Rxd5 as given in the note to Black’s 51st
move above. Black proceeds with 66…Rf2 and wins because White’s king is one tempo too slow
in reaching the kingside.
63…d4! 64.cxd4† Kxd4

254
 If the white king stood on either b2 or d2 White would hold; but with the king on c2, Black wins.

65.Rd6† Ke3 66.Rg6

66.Kc3 allows 66…Ra1! 67.Kxc4 Rg1 (67…Kf2? 68.Rd2† draws) 68.Rd3† Kf2 69.Kd5 Kg3
70.Ke5 Rxg2 71.Kxf5 Re2 72.Rd1 Re8 and Black wins.
66…Ra1!
This is the key move which would not be possible if the king was on b2.
67.Rg5
67.Rg8 Rg1 68.Rg7 Kf2 wins.

67…Rg1 68.Kc3

255
 68.Kb2 Kd2 wins.
68…Rc1†! 69.Kb2 Kd2
Black wins by pushing the c-pawn.

63.cxd4† Kxd4

64.Rd6†!
Krogius finds the only move.

64…Kc5
On 64…Ke3 65.Rg6! would be the only move.

65.Rg6 Re8 66.Kc3 Re3† 67.Kc2 Kd4 68.Rd6† Ke5 69.Rg6 Ra3 70.Kb2 Rb3† 71.Kc2 Kd4
72.Rd6† Ke3 73.Rg6 Kf2 74.Rg5 Rb5 75.Kc3 Rc5
Since Spassky’s mistake on move 62, Krogius has defended perfectly, and he continues to do so
until the end of the game.

256
76.Rg8 Kg1 77.Rg7 Kh2 78.Rg5 Ra5 79.Kxc4 Ra2 80.Rxf5 Kxg2 81.Kb3 Rf2
Finally Spassky offered a draw. Although he did not quite get the result he wanted, it was still
impressive that he was able to outplay and get a winning endgame against Krogius, after reaching
such a dry and almost symmetrical position early in the game.
½–½

In the next round, Spassky was pressing against Geller and had a winning position after move 40, but
he made a serious mistake a few moves later and soon had to agree a draw.

The End of an Era

Spassky’s working relationship with Tolush came to an end in 1960. The exact details regarding
when and how it happened are unclear. Tolush’s wife writes that it happened in Leningrad in 1960,
following an adjourned game in which Spassky opted for a different continuation than the one Tolush
showed him. She doesn’t mention the round number or the opponent, but she mentions that Spassky
won the game. I looked through the games that Spassky won in this event, and found that only one or
at most two of them were long enough to have been adjourned. In both of them he was clearly
winning at the point of adjournment and went on to win easily, so it’s hard to imagine either of those
games triggering the separation. Perhaps it happened after a drawn game, which might have been the
disappointing draw against Krogius or especially the one against Geller.

Regardless of the game in which it happened, Spassky was one of the strongest players in the world;
if a player at that level sees something at the board that causes him to reevaluate the assessment of the
adjournment analysis, the trainer should accept that such things can happen. The problems must have
been deeper-rooted, with the argument over the adjournment the final breaking point.

257
Spassky would later describe Tolush as “a brilliant player who loved to sacrifice pieces, and he
helped me very much.” However, he also criticized his former trainer’s schoolteacher-like manner.
When they started working together towards the end of 1951, Spassky was fourteen years old, so he
was probably used to being spoken to in a certain way by teachers. However, one can imagine that as
he matured into a man, as well becoming one of the strongest players in the world, it would have
annoyed him.
ChessBase quotes Spassky regarding this matter:

“It became hard for me, because I didn’t find a good personal contact with Tolush. He was a
rather brutal man and he liked very much to give advice to me… it was terrible!”

He continues, mimicking Tolush:

“I don’t like that position! I’ve always tried to teach you; you are a very stupid boy; you make
mistakes here, there, this time, that time; you must think, watch your step…”

One gets the impression that Spassky exaggerated the difficulties: if it had been that bad, the relation
would surely not have lasted eight years. He goes on to say:

“That man…I still had respect for him, of course….Also I made the mistake of leaving Tolush at
the time of my divorce, when I was in a very nervous state. I should have had a special meeting
with him to explain what I was doing, but instead I refused to speak to him; at the time I had to
attend five civil courts in connection with my divorce.”

Tolush would subsequently die in 1969 at the age of fifty-eight, just a few months before Spassky
became World Champion. It would be interesting to know if he would have been happy, bitter or
indifferent about the triumph of his former student.

I tried to contact Spassky in order to ask a question regarding his key trainers. My question was
whether he would agree with my observation:

• From Zak, he learned that he needed to take risks

• From Tolush, he learned how to take risks
• From Bondarevsky, he learned when to take risks

I did not receive an answer, possibly because of Spassky’s health at over eighty-five years of age.

***

Despite not being in top form, with the additional stresses of conflict with both his wife and his
trainer, Spassky could still play inspired chess, as shown in his game from Round 5.

258
 Game 36

Alexei Suetin – Boris Spassky

Leningrad 1960

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 h6 8.Bh4 Qb6 9.a3 Bd7 10.Qd2
Nc6 11.Nb3 Be7 12.Bf2 Qc7 13.Be2 b5 14.0-0 0-0 15.Rad1 Rfd8 16.Bg3 Rac8 17.e5 dxe5 18.fxe5

18…Nxe5!
Spassky comes up with an imaginative idea, taking a pawn but committing to an exchange
sacrifice.

After 18…Nh7 19.Qf4 Be8 the position would be balanced.

19.Qd4
19.Qe3 allows 19…Neg4 to be played.

19…Nc6 20.Bxc7 Nxd4 21.Bxd8 Nxe2† 22.Nxe2

259
22…Bxd8!?
Spassky raises the stakes, offering further material for the sake of piece activity.

22…Rxd8 is a good alternative, when Black maintains at least enough compensation.

23.Nc3?
The knight is too passive here.

Also after 23.c3?! Bb6† 24.Kh1 Bc6 Black would be clearly better.

Suetin should have accepted the material offer: 23.Rxf6! Bxf6 24.Rxd7 Rxc2

260
25.Kf1! (But not 25.Rd2? Rxd2 26.Nxd2 Bxb2 27.Nb1 f5 when Black has three pawns for the piece
and the b1-knight is horribly passive, so Black has good winning chances.) 25…Rxb2 26.Nc5 a5
White still needs to be careful, but the endgame should definitely be a draw.

23…Bc6 24.Rd6 Be7

Spassky’s move maintains a big advantage but 24…Kf8! looks even more accurate, improving
the king while enabling the bishop to go to b6. For instance, 25.h3 (or 25.Re1 Bb6† 26.Kh1 Ke7
27.Rd2 Bb7 when Black may exert further pressure with …Rc4-h4) 25…Bb6† 26.Kh1 Nh5 27.Ne2
Ke7 and Black is in full control.

25.Rd2 Kf8

261
26.Na2
The knight manoeuvre does not achieve much, but it is already difficult to suggest a good idea for
White.

26…Bd8 27.Nb4 Bb7 28.Nd3

28.Kh1!? was worth considering, although 28…Ke7 (28…Bb6 can now be met by 29.Rd6)
29.Re2 Bb6 30.c3 a5 31.Nd3 b4 gives Black a clear advantage, with …Ba6 coming soon.

28…Bb6† 29.Kh1

262
29…Ne4 30.Re2 Ke7 31.Rfe1 f5!
Spassky secures the knight’s outpost on e4 and makes the white rooks passive.

32.Nbc1
32.Nd2 Rxc2 33.Nxe4 Rxe2 34.Rxe2 Bxe4 leaves White in a hopeless endgame.

32…h5!
Spassky gains space on the kingside and threatens to march the pawn all the way to h3.

33.Nb3 h4 34.Nd2
34.c3 h3 wins for Black.

34…Rxc2
34…h3 also wins, but Spassky’s move is fine.

35.Nxe4 Rxe2 36.Rxe2 Bxe4

Black’s bishops are monsters.

263
37.Nf2 Bd5
A good alternative is 37…Bxf2 38.Rxf2 h3, when Black picks up a third pawn for the exchange
and wins.

38.Kg1 g5
White can do nothing against the storming pawns.

39.Rc2 g4 40.Kf1 Bc4† 41.Ke1 Bd4 42.Rd2 Be3 43.Rd1

43…g3

264
 The pawn gets close to promotion.

44.hxg3 hxg3 45.Nd3 Kf6 46.b4 f4

Finally Suetin decided he’d had enough, and resigned.
0–1

Spassky scored only five points from the next ten games, picking up wins over Sakharov (see the note
to move 4 in Game 37 below) and Shamkovich, but losing to Gufeld and Korchnoi. Thus, by the time
he faced Bronstein in Round 16 he had no chance of winning the tournament, yet he still produced
one of the most famous games of his career.

Game 37

Boris Spassky – David Bronstein

Leningrad 1960

1.e4 e5 2.f4!?
Spassky makes an interesting decision, playing the King’s Gambit against arguably the world’s
most formidable exponent of that opening. Bronstein commented in the late forties that he had played
the King’s Gambit ten times and won every single game with it. He thought the reason was that
modern masters were not used to facing the aggressive opening. Bronstein lost a few games with it in
the fifties, but his overall score with it was still highly impressive, and he continued to score well with
it throughout his career.

2…exf4 3.Nf3 d5
According to the database, Bronstein had faced the King’s Gambit only once prior to this game,
when he played 3…g5.

In the 1963 Soviet Championship play-off, which was played early in 1964, Spassky would face a
different move: 3…Be7 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 6.d4 Ne3 7.Bxe3 fxe3 8.Bc4 d6 9.0-0 0-0 10.Qd3 Nc6
11.exd6 cxd6? (11…Qxd6! was better.) 12.Rae1 Bg4 13.Rxe3 Kh8? (13…Bh5 was necessary.)

265
14.Nd5! White has a decisive initiative. 14…Bg5 15.Nxg5 Qxg5 16.Rg3 Qh5 17.Ne3 Bd7 18.Nf5
Bxf5 19.Rxf5 Qh4 20.c3 Qe7 21.Re3 Qd7 22.Ref3 Nd8

23.Qe4! Spassky forces a quick kill. 23…g6 24.Qh4! Rg8 25.Rxf7 1–0 Spassky – Kholmov,
Leningrad 1964.

4.exd5 Bd6
Bronstein must have prepared this variation, as Spassky had already used the King’s Gambit
earlier in the same tournament.

Spassky faced 4…Nf6 in the eighth round, and went on to win a beautiful attacking game: 5.Bb5† c6

266
6.dxc6 bxc6 7.Bc4 Nd5 8.0-0 Bd6 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Ne4 Be7 11.Bb3 0-0 12.d4 Nd7 13.Qe2 g5? 14.c4
N5b6 15.h4 h6 16.hxg5 hxg5

17.Nfxg5!! Bxg5 18.Bxf4 (18.Qh5!? was given as an improvement in ChessBase annotations, but
Spassky’s move is, in fact, more precise.) 18…Bf6 19.Rad1 Bf5 20.Be5! Spassky had a winning
attack which he soon converted to victory in Spassky – Sakharov, Leningrad 1960.

5.Nc3
According to the database, this was a novelty.

5…Ne7 6.d4 0-0 7.Bd3 Nd7 8.0-0 h6?!

Bronstein’s move is rather slow.

8…Nf6! would have attacked the d5-pawn while stopping the strong continuation found by Spassky
in the game. 9.Ne5 Nfxd5 10.Nxd5 Nxd5 11.Bxf4 Nxf4 12.Rxf4 Qg5! 13.Qf3 Bxe5 14.dxe5 Qxe5
15.Rf1 White’s compensation is sufficient for equality, but nothing more.

267
9.Ne4!
Spassky is ready to give up the d5-pawn and allow the exchange of his dark-squared bishop in
order to activate his pieces and pawns.

9…Nxd5 10.c4 Ne3 11.Bxe3 fxe3

12.c5!
Spassky limits the bishop’s movement.

12…Be7 13.Bc2!

268
 13.Qe2 b6 would equalize.

13…Re8
Bronstein prepares to defend with the knight on f8, but his move is not the best.
13…Nf6 14.Qd3 g6 15.Qxe3 Nxe4 16.Bxe4 Bf6 17.Rad1 Bg7 would have defended the kingside,
but after 18.b4 White has a pleasant advantage due to the active pieces and strong queenside pawns.

13…f5!?
This move looks risky, but it was worth considering gaining some space on the kingside.
14.Ng3
Another possible line is 14.Nc3 b6 15.c6 Nb8 16.Qd3 Ba6 17.Bb3† Kh8 18.Bc4 Bxc4 19.Qxc4
when Black’s position may be playable, even though Black’s queenside looks awful.
14…g6 15.Qd3

15…Nxc5!?
15…Kh7 is the alternative, and after 16.Qxe3 or 16.Rad1 White stands somewhat better.
16.Qxe3 f4 17.Qc3 fxg3 18.dxc5
Black’s kingside is somewhat loose.

14.Qd3 e2?
Bronstein has no time for this.

14…Nf8 would have been the consistent follow-up to his previous move. After 15.Rae1 b6 16.b4
White stands clearly better, but Black is still in the game.

14…f5 was possible again, although 15.Ng3 (15.Rad1!? is also interesting, as 15…fxe4? 16.Qc4†

269
Kh8 17.Ne5 is no good for Black) 15…Nxc5 16.Qc3 clearly favours White.

15.Nd6!?
Spassky plays extraordinarily imaginatively, sacrificing a rook in a romantic way. Objectively
speaking his move deserves a question mark, but it’s still a wonderful idea.

The simple 15.Qxe2! would have been close to winning. For instance, 15…Nf8 16.Rad1 Be6 (also
after 16…Bf5 17.Ne5 or 16…Bg4 17.Bb3 White is dominating) 17.Ne5 Bd5 18.Nxf7! Bxf7 19.Rxf7
Kxf7 20.Bb3† and White wins.

15…Nf8?
The sacrifice did its job and inflicted its psychological damage, as Bronstein commits a losing
mistake.

15…Nf6? 16.Nxf7! is even worse for Black than the game continuation.

15…Bxd6!? was possible, but after 16.Qh7† Kf8 17.cxd6 Black needs to take the rook on f1,
transposing to the next line below. Instead if 17…cxd6? 18.Rf2 Nf6 19.Qh8† White wins after
19…Ke7 20.Rxe2† or 19…Ng8 20.Bh7.
It was necessary to take the rook:
15…exf1=Q†! 16.Rxf1 Bxd6
White has a huge attack, but it’s only enough for a draw against accurate defence.
17.Qh7† Kf8 18.cxd6 cxd6 19.Qh8† Ke7 20.Re1† Ne5 21.Qxg7

270
21…Rg8!?
This move is good enough to draw, albeit in a rather precarious way.
21…Be6! would be a safer practical choice, and after 22.dxe5 Rg8 23.Qxh6 dxe5 (23…Rc8 is
another good move which should lead to a draw) 24.Qh4† Kf8 (but not 24…f6? 25.Nxe5!)
25.Qh6† White has nothing better than settling for perpetual check.
22.Qxh6 Qb6 23.Qh4†
23.Kh1 Be6 24.dxe5 d5 was Spassky’s suggestion, and after 25.Ba4 Qf2 White has no more than
perpetual check.
23…Kd7 24.Nxe5† dxe5 25.Rxe5

25…Kc7! 26.Rc5†

271
 If 26.Qf4 then 26…Kd8! enables Black to survive.
26…Kd6! 27.Qf4† Ke7 28.Rc7† Bd7
28…Kd8 is no better, as after 29.Rxf7 Black must play 29…Bd7 anyway.
29.Rxd7†
The game will end in perpetual check.

16.Nxf7!
Spassky opens up the black kingside while continuing to leave his rook hanging.

16…exf1=Q† 17.Rxf1 Bf5

Other moves also lose, for instance 17…Kxf7 leads to a beautiful checkmate. 18.Ne5† Kg8

19.Qh7†! What a brilliant sacrifice! (19.Rxf8† Kxf8 20.Ng6† would force checkmate more slowly.)
19…Nxh7 20.Bb3† Kh8 21.Ng6#
Black could avoid getting checkmated with 17…Qd5, but the end result will be the same: 18.Bb3!
Qxf7! 19.Bxf7† Kxf7 20.Qc4† Kg6

272
21.Qg8! Bf6 (21…Be6 22.Ne5† Kh5 23.Qxg7 wins.) 22.Nh4† (22.Ne5† also wins.) 22…Bxh4
23.Qf7† Kh7 24.Qxe8 Black’s pieces are too disorganized, so White wins.

18.Qxf5
Black has an extra exchange, but White has too many pieces within striking distance of the black
king.

18…Qd7 19.Qf4 Bf6

20.N3e5

273
 Spassky gives Bronstein no time to get organized.

20…Qe7?!
This loses quickly and easily.

A slightly better practical try was:

20…Bxe5!? 21.Nxe5 Qe7 22.Qe4 g6

23.Rxf8†!
This exchange sacrifice is not difficult, but White needs to follow it up precisely.
23…Qxf8
23…Rxf8 loses more simply: 24.Bb3† Kh7 25.Qxg6† Kh8 26.Qxh6† Qh7 27.Ng6#
The text move gives White a chance to go wrong.
24.Qxg6†!
24.Bb3†? is given in the ChessBase annotations but 24…Kh8! leaves White with no advantage.
24…Qg7 25.Bb3† Kh8
25…Kf8 26.Nd7†! wins.
26.Nf7† Kg8

274
27.Nd8†!
But not 27.Nxh6†? Kf8 when the black king escapes.
27…Kf8 28.Qf5† Ke7 29.Ne6!
The knight lands on a magnificent square and the end is close.

29…Qh8
Also after 29…Qf7 30.Qe5 or 29…Qf6 30.Qh7† Black has no defence.
30.Qe4
White wins.

275
21.Bb3 Bxe5 22.Nxe5† Kh7 23.Qe4†
White is poised to make a simple exchange sacrifice on f8 followed by checkmate, so Bronstein
resigned.
1–0

In addition to finding fame and admiration in the chess world, this game was also immortalized by its
inclusion in the 1963 James Bond film From Russia with Love, where the final moves (beginning
with 22.Nxe5†) are shown in a scene from a chess event. Curiously, whether by mistake or design,
the film scene shows a modified position with the d4- and c5-pawns removed. For the final two
moves as shown in the film, the removal of those pawns does not change the fact that White is
winning, although if the game went back any further without those pawns, it would make a big
difference.

Kasparov notes that Fischer remembered this masterpiece when he included Spassky in an article he
wrote in 1970 entitled The Ten Greatest Masters in History. I looked up the article and noticed that
Fischer shared an interesting observation about Spassky:

“He can blunder away a piece, and you are never sure whether it’s a blunder or a fantastically
deep sacrifice. He sits at the board with the same dead expression whether he’s mating or being
mated.”

Spassky scored 50% in the final three games, ending the tournament with a score of 10/19, which was
enough to share 9th-10th place with Krogius. Spassky performed disappointingly in his home city,
but the same was not true of Korchnoi, who emerged victorious ahead of Petrosian and Geller.

***

276
Spassky’s next event was in Mar del Plata. It started at the end of March, about one month after the
Soviet Championship ended. It would be interesting to know if the Soviet Federation decided before
or after their national championship to send Spassky to Argentina. Another interesting question is
whether or not they made the decision with the knowledge that Fischer would play. My guess is that
the Argentine organizer let them know that Fischer would play, and the Soviets wanted to test the
young American sensation by sending one of their most promising players. Korchnoi was quite a few
years older, Tal was about to play Botvinnik, and Petrosian was no longer a young player.

Spassky writes about the tournament:

“In Buenos Aires, straight from the airport, we had to catch the train for Mar del Plata. Nearly
all the tournament participants proved to be in the same railway car. We all quickly and
informally got acquainted and the tournament, in effect, began. It was a seven-hour journey over
a distance of 450 kilometres, ample time to discuss many subjects. The Argentineans were
particularly interested in the match between Botvinnik and Tal, which was taking place in
Moscow at that very time. Our forecasts did not fully satisfy them, since Bronstein and I had
opposite points of view on the outcome of the match. But a statement by Fischer passed ‘final’
judgment on the subject. “Botvinnik will easily beat Tal,” the US Champion declared
confidently.”

Fischer had just turned seventeen at the time. He and Spassky must have both been excited about
facing each other for the first time, each being aware of the other’s playing strength and future
potential. Both won their first games, and they faced each other in the second round. The last time
they would face each other over the board would be thirty-two years later.

We will look at the first game of the rivalry which was destined to become one of the most important
in the entire history of chess.

Game 38

Boris Spassky – Robert James Fischer

Mar del Plata 1960

1.e4 e5 2.f4!?
Hitherto, Spassky had employed the King’s Gambit five times, dropping only one draw with it.
Three of those games had taken place in the recent Soviet Championship, where he defeated
Sakharov and Bronstein, and drew against Liberzon. Spassky’s report on the Mar del Plata
tournament suggests that Fischer had not yet seen the games from the Soviet Championship.

277
However, Fischer probably knew about Spassky’s two earlier games with the King’s Gambit, in
which he defeated Tolush. It is therefore likely that Bobby prepared for it.

By the way, Spassky would go on to play the King’s Gambit in a total of twenty-seven games in his
career. His results with it were outstanding: he scored fifteen wins and twelve draws, without a single
defeat.

2…exf4 3.Nf3 g5
Fischer would later prefer 3…d6, and he wrote an article on it for the American Chess Quarterly
(1961, Volume 1).

4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.d4 d6 7.Nd3 Nxe4 8.Bxf4

White is looking for play on the f-file. This particular variation of the King’s Gambit was
relatively new and unexplored at the time. It would be interesting to know if Fischer anticipated it in
his preparation. Following this game, the variation became one of the main lines of the King’s
Gambit, but nowadays it is known to be good for Black.

8…Bg7
The database indicates that this move had been played once before. Fischer’s choice looks more
logical than 8…Qe7, which had been played a couple of times.

9.Nc3
Fischer considers this a mistake, but White has a bad position regardless.

9.c3 is a natural alternative, when 9…Qe7!? was Fischer’s suggestion for Black, while Keres
preferred 9…0-0 10.Nd2 Re8. In both cases, Black is a pawn up with a better position.

278
9…Nxc3 10.bxc3 c5!?
Fischer wastes no time and attacks Spassky’s centre. He could also have kept a clear advantage
by castling and completing development.

11.Be2
If 11.Qe2† Be6! could be played, as 12.d5? runs into 12…Bxc3†.

11…cxd4 12.0-0 Nc6

Both players develop fast.

13.Bxg4 0-0
Black’s king is slightly vulnerable, but it should not cause too many problems.

14.Bxc8 Rxc8 15.Qg4

Spassky looks for play against the black king.

15…f5!
Fischer wins a second pawn. Later he criticized his choice on the grounds that it weakens the
black king, but at this stage it should not be a problem.
15…Kh8 was suggested as an improvement by Fischer, but 16.Rab1 b6 17.Rb5! enables the rook
to get active on the kingside or on d5.

16.Qg3 dxc3 17.Rae1

17.Bxd6? Rf6 18.Bf4 Rg6 would surrender the initiative to Black.

279
17…Kh8
Fischer looks for play on the g-file; he had other reasonable options as well.

17…Qd7 18.Bxd6 Rf6 gives Black a good, active position.

The fluent 17…Qf6!? has not been suggested by any other commentator, as far as I am aware. After
18.Bxd6 Rfe8 19.Bc5 Nd4 20.Bxd4 Qxd4† 21.Kh2 Qg4 Black has a safe position with an extra
pawn. The win would still be a long way off, but Black would be the one trying.

18.Kh1?
Boris unnecessarily gives Black an extra option.

Objectively the best continuation was 18.Bxd6! Bd4† (18…Rf6 19.Bf4! is fine for White) 19.Kh1
Rg8 20.Qh2 when Black stands somewhat better, but White is still in the game.

18…Rg8
Playing on the g-file is natural and strong, although 18…Re8!? 19.Bxd6 Qf6 also gives Black the
upper hand.

19.Bxd6

280
19…Bf8!
Fischer forces the exchange of Spassky’s dangerous bishop for his knight. This is stronger than
19…Bd4, which transposes to the 18.Bxd6! line noted above.

20.Be5† Nxe5 21.Qxe5† Rg7

21…Bg7 is a reasonable alternative. After 22.Qh2! (22.Qxf5?! Qxh4† leads to an endgame with
an extra pawn for Black) 22…Re8 (the evaluation is similar after 22…Qf6 23.Re5 Rc4 24.Rf4)
23.Rxe8† Qxe8 White should be able to hold, but Black would be the one pressing.

22.Rxf5
Also after 22.Qxf5 Qxh4† 23.Kg1 Qg4 White would struggle.

22…Qxh4† 23.Kg1

281
23…Qg4
This move was criticized, but it’s actually more or less as good as the alternatives.

Spassky said in the post mortem that 23…Qg3 would have led to a difficult endgame for White, but
after 24.Qxg3 (24.Qe2? is no good because of 24…Bd6) 24…Rxg3 25.Ne5 (avoiding the threat of
…Rxd3) White’s active pieces make it hard for Black to convert the extra pawn. For example, after
25…Bc5† 26.Kh2 Re3 27.Rxe3 Bxe3 28.Kg3 White is likely to hold.

23…Qh6!? would also be somewhat better for Black. For instance, 24.Qd4 Qg6 25.Rf2 Qb6 26.Qd5
Rd8 27.Qf5 Qc7 and Black keeps an extra pawn, while White continues to resist.

24.Rf2 Be7
Fischer aims to put the bishop on h4.

The alternative is 24…Qg5 25.Qe6! (White has nothing better, since 25.Qd4?! Qd8 26.Qe5? would
lose to 26…Bd6) 25…Rd8 26.Ne5 Bc5 27.Nf7† Rxf7 28.Qxf7 when White has good chances to
hold, as Black has no passed pawn and his king is exposed to perpetual checking motifs.

282
25.Re4 Qg5
Fischer plays for a win, rather than steering towards a draw with 25…Qd1† 26.Re1 (or 26.Kh2
immediately) 26…Qg4 27.Re4 Qd1† 28.Kh2 Rc6, after which White has nothing better than forcing
a repetition with 29.Qb8† Rg8 30.Qe5† Rg7.

In his My 60 Memorable Games book, Fischer admitted:

“I started to feel uncomfortable, but little I did imagine that Black’s game would collapse in four
short moves.”

26.Qd4! Rf8??
Fischer remarks that he overlooked White’s real threat. He explains that he believed that Ne5 was
a threat, but it actually was not. For example, he could have played 26…Bf8, and if 27.Ne5 (27.Qxa7
Bd6 is fine for Black) 27…Bc5 28.Nf7† Kg8 the game should end in a draw after 29.Nxg5 or
29.Nh6†.

Black could also play a neutral move such as 26…a6, when White has several playable moves but all
of them should be equal. The key point is that 27.Re5?! is of no concern, as 27…Bf6! favours Black.

283
27.Re5!
The cold shower, which wins the game. Of course Spassky avoids 27.Ne5?? Rxf2 28.Qxf2 Bc5!
when White can resign.

Fischer comments on the game continuation:

“Incredibly, Black must lose a piece. While trying to figure out what was going on in Spassky’s
head, I blundered and lost the game!”

27…Rd8
Black has nothing better. For instance, 27…Qg6 28.Rxe7, 27…Qh4 28.Rxf8† and 27…Bf6
28.Qd6! would all lose instantly.

28.Qe4 Qh4 29.Rf4

1–0
Fischer resigned, as he must lose the bishop on e7 without any hope of counterplay.

Spassky described their first game as “a keen struggle.” He did not outplay his rival and win because
of superior chess understanding, but he prevailed in the direct confrontation.

According to Spassky, quoted in Russians versus Fischer, the players frequently visited the nearby
beach and discussed the ongoing Botvinnik – Tal match. Spassky recalls:

“On the beach, Fischer, never without his pocket chess set, would analyse the adjourned games
of the match. If Botvinnik’s position was superior, Fischer would seek to find a way to win the

284
 game. When the adjourned position was in Tal’s favour, Fischer would glance at the board and –
not return to it again.”

After their individual game, Spassky and Fischer both kept on winning. By the way, the tournament
was scheduled for fifteen rounds. Spassky raced ahead to 6/6, and in the last of those games he
showed his imagination.

Game 39

Boris Spassky – Julio Saadi

Mar del Plata 1960

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nc3 Nxc3 5.dxc3 d5 6.exd6 Qxd6 7.Qxd6 exd6 8.Bf4 Bg4 9.0-0-0
Bxf3 10.gxf3 Kd7 11.Bc4 f6 12.Rd5 Nc6 13.Rhd1 Ne5 14.Bxe5 fxe5 15.Rxc5 g6 16.Rxe5 Bh6†
17.Kb1 Bf4 18.Bb5† Kc7 19.Re7† Kb6 20.a4 a6 21.Bd7 Raf8

22.a5†!?
White has a decisive advantage, with several ways to convert it. The continuation chosen by
Spassky is objectively not the most accurate, but at the same time it shows his amazing talent.

22.h4! would have left Black without a good move. For instance, 22…Be5 (22…h5 23.Rd4 wins)
23.a5†! Kxa5 and now a stylish finish:

285
24.Rxe5†! dxe5 25.Rd6 White catches the black king and wins.

22…Kxa5 23.Bc8!!
This eye-pleasing move is the point behind White’s previous.

23…b5!
23…Rxc8? loses easily to 24.Rxb7 followed by either b2-b4† and Kb2, or Rd5† and b2-b4, with
decisive mating threats.

24.Rb7! Rxc8 25.b4† Ka4 26.Kb2

286
 The upshot of the combination is that Black must give up the rook to avoid mate.

26…Rxc3 27.Kxc3 Be5†

27…Rc8† 28.Kd3 Kxb4 29.Rb1† Kc5 would have resisted more.

28.Kd3 Rc8?
28…Kxb4 was the last chance. Both here and in the note above, White would face some
technical challenges in converting the extra exchange.

29.Rb1 Rc3† 30.Kd2

30…Ka3
Saadi heads towards a losing endgame. By now there was no choice, as after 30…Rxf3 31.Ra7
Spassky’s idea would prevail and Black would soon be checkmated.

31.f4 Bd4 32.Rxh7 Ka2 33.Rb3 Rxb3 34.cxb3 Kxb3 35.Kd3 Bxf2 36.h4 Kxb4

287
37.f5 gxf5 38.h5 Bg3 39.h6 a5 40.Rd7
1–0

Spassky drew with Black against Bronstein in Round 7, then went on another winning streak,
including the following game from Round 10.

Game 40

Boris Spassky – Alberto Foguelman

Mar del Plata 1960

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.N1e2 Nf6 8.Nf4 Bh7 9.Bc4 e5
10.Qe2! Qxd4 11.0-0 b5 12.Bb3 Bc5

288
13.Be3!
Spassky has already built up a decisive lead in development. His fluent attacking play will be a
pleasure to watch.

13…Qd6 14.Rad1 Qe7 15.Bxc5 Qxc5

Having developed his rook with gain of tempo, Spassky exchanges off one of Black’s developed
pieces.

16.Nfh5!
Now he swaps off another defender.

289
16…Nxh5 17.Nxh5 0-0 18.Qg4
Spassky threatens mate and forces his opponent to bury the bishop on h7. It can’t move to g6,
because of the pin along the a2-g8 diagonal.

18…g6 19.Rd3
Spassky has several ways to bring his opponent down. He chooses to invade on the d-file.

19…a5

20.Rfd1!
Spassky mobilizes all his pieces, and does not mind allowing his bishop to be trapped.

20…Ra7
20…a4 runs into 21.Bxf7†! Kxf7 (or 21…Rxf7 22.Rd8† Rf8 23.Qe6† with mate to follow)
22.Rf3† (or 22.Rd7†) and White wins.

21.Rd6!
Spassky threatens to take on g6.

21…Kh8 22.Nf6 a4 23.Nxh7 axb3

23…Kxh7 24.Bxf7 would lead to a quick checkmate.

24.Nxf8 bxc2
24…bxa2 allows 25.Nxg6† or 25.Qc8, winning easily in either case.

290
25.Nxg6†!
This pretty move opens up the black king.

25…fxg6 26.Rd8† Kg7?

26…Kh7 would have lasted a bit longer, although 27.Rc1 should win easily enough.

27.Rg8†!
Spassky plays for the gallery, with this rook sacrifice. The prosaic 27.Rc1 would win as well.

27…Kxg8 28.Qxg6† Rg7

291
 28…Kf8 29.Qf6† leads to a quick mate.

29.Rd8† Qf8
Black avoids getting checkmated, but without the queen he has no chance of saving the game.

30.Rxf8† Kxf8 31.Qxc2 Kg8 32.Qc5

1–0

Spassky slowed down near the end of the tournament, drawing in rounds 13 and 15. He was even a
bit lucky, as both of his opponents agreed draws in positions which were either winning or clearly
better for them. Meanwhile, after losing to Spassky in the second round, Fischer only dropped one
draw, against Bronstein, and defeated everyone else. Thus, Spassky and Fischer ended in equal first
place with an incredible score of 13½/15, two points clear of Bronstein who was third. They both
performed brilliantly, although Fischer’s result was even more impressive in the sense that he was six
years younger.

The Russians versus Fischer book contains some quotes from Spassky, regarding his impressions of
Fischer following the Mar del Plata tournament, in which he shared his early impression of the young
American:

“A few words about the young champion of the United States. Bobby is capable of playing chess
at any time of the day or night. He can often be seen playing lightning games after a fatiguing
evening session of adjournment play. The US Champion plays lightning games with pleasure and,
indeed, with a gusto. The only thing that displeases him in chess is – losing. In such cases the
pieces are instantly set up again, for a revenge. Failure to take revenge noticeably upsets
Fischer. He responds to moves hurriedly and, in an effort to calm himself, keeps repeating that he
has an easily won position.”

Spassky continues:

“Fischer is extremely knowledgeable in chess. His interest in chess literature, Soviet particularly,
is amazing. On one occasion, while in our hotel room, he noticed a bulletin of the latest USSR
Championship. This brought a glint to his eyes, and he exclaimed, “That’s just what I need!” He
asked permission to take the bulletin and immediately vanished. Fischer is one of the most
diligent readers of our chess magazines.”

Spassky also gives an example of Fischer’s play, taken from the third round of the tournament.

Robert James Fischer – Olicio Gadia

292
 Mar del Plata 1960

21.Ra1!
Spassky goes on to praise Fischer’s move, as well as sharing an anecdote from Mar del Plata:

“This by no means obvious move is the simplest way of proving that Black’s position is hopeless.
Soon after the game ended, Bronstein came up to Fischer and asked him, jokingly, how this move
of the rook had occurred to him. Fischer replied, “Tal keeps moving his rook backward and
forward. Why can’t I do the same?”“

Spassky goes on to praise Fischer’s abilities in tactics, strategy, defence and counterattack and
manoeuvring, among other attributes. One thing that shines through is that Boris had no bad feeling
toward Bobby. Despite their future rivalry, the two individuals would generally get along well for the
rest of their careers and lives.

Spassky’s divorce created a practical problem of where to live after vacating the flat he had shared
with his wife. Bondarevsky offered him a bed at his place. Bondarevsky was known to have good
relations with the Soviet authorities, so maybe he was able to exert some positive influence on the
choice of tournaments in which Spassky would play.

Spassky’s next event was a tournament in Kislovodsk, which he won with a score of 11½/15. I was
able to find the names of most of his opponents, but only two of the games, both of which saw
Spassky opting for sharp Sicilians.

Next was the Student Team World Championship, which took place in Spassky’s home city of
Leningrad. He played on the top board and did well for a long time, dropping only two draws –

293
although in both of them he spoiled his advantage after outplaying his opponents. We will look at his
game from Round 11 against Hungary.

Game 41

Gyozo Forintos – Boris Spassky

Leningrad 1960

1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 c5 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.d4 Nf6 5.0-0 e6 6.b3 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Bc5 8.Bb2

8…Bxd4!?
Spassky chooses a novelty, sacrificing the bishop pair to mobilize his centre.

9.Bxd4 e5 10.Bc5 Qa5! 11.Bd6?!

Placing the bishop on such an unstable square might enable Black to gain a tempo.

11…Be6 12.c3 h5!?

Having developed fluently so far, while also delaying castling, Spassky opts to start an attack.

13.Qc1?
Forintos underestimates the danger. He should have preferred 13.h4.

294
13…h4 14.Na3 hxg3 15.hxg3

15…0-0-0!
Castling long against the Catalan when the queens are on the board is highly unusual. I wonder
when Spassky first thought of the idea. He may have even planned it on move 8, having anticipated
the arrival of the bishop on the a3-f8 diagonal, where it would prevent Black from castling short.

16.b4 Qa4! 17.Bc5 Ne4!

Spassky conducts the attack naturally and with great power.

18.Be3 Bh3! 19.Qb2 Bxg2 20.Kxg2

295
20…d4!?
Spassky’s move is good enough, although 20…Ne7! followed by …Nf5 would have been even
deadlier.

21.cxd4 exd4 22.b5

Both 22.Bf4 g5 and 22.Bc1 Rh5 would win for Black.

22…dxe3 23.bxc6 Qxc6!

It is not too difficult to see that White’s play on the c-file does no harm. Still, one has to admire
the cold-bloodedness of Spassky’s decision to align his queen and king on the open file.

24.Rfc1 Nc5† 25.f3 Rd2 26.Qxg7 Rxe2† 27.Kg1

27…Rh1†!
A sweet finish to a fluent attacking game. The idea of castling long was lovely.
0–1

In the next round Spassky suffered a shock defeat to Lombardy, who outplayed him. To make matters
worse, the USA won the match against the USSR.

Spassky won the last two games. The end of the final round was particularly special.

Game 42

296
 Boris Spassky – Josef Marsalek

Leningrad 1960

20.Qg5
White is winning, due to the threat of taking on g7.

20…Ne4 21.Qh6!!
This most beautiful move forces a checkmate, so Black resigned.
1–0

Spassky finished the event with a score of 10/12, but the Americans took the team gold medal.
Spassky was criticized in the Soviet press for not showing enough dedication.

In Spassky’s next event, he played on the top board in a team match between the city of Leningrad
and Hungary. He played four games versus Barcza, winning the match by a good score of 3–1.
Interestingly, he drew both games with the white pieces and won both as Black.

In August 1960, Spassky played in the semi-final of the Soviet Championship, which took place in
Rostov-on-Don. As usual, Spassky was stronger than his opponents. He won eight games and drew
the same number, before losing to Igor Zaitsev in the final round. His final score of 12/17 gave him
first place in the tournament.

In October, Spassky scored 5½/8 on Board 3 in the Team Championship of the Soviet Republics. He
finished his busy year with the Moscow – Leningrad match in December, losing to Smyslov after
perhaps getting a bit too creative with his opening choices: with White he opted for 1.b4 and drew,

297
while with Black he tried Alekhine’s Defence and was beaten convincingly.

1960 Results
Moscow – Leningrad match, Moscow (Board 2 vs. Smyslov): 1½/2 (+1 =1 –0)
Soviet Championship, Leningrad (9th-10th place): 10/19 (+5 =10 –4)
Mar del Plata (1st-2nd place): 13½/15 (+12 =3 –0)
Kislovodsk (1st place): 11½/15 (+8 =7 –0)
Student Team World Championship, Leningrad (Board 1): 10/12, Team Silver (+9 =2 –1)
Leningrad – Budapest match, Leningrad (Board 1 vs. Barcza): 3/4 (+2 =2 –0)
Team Championship of the Soviet Republics (Board 3): 5½/8, Team Gold (+3 =5 –0)
Moscow – Leningrad match, Moscow (Board 1 vs. Smyslov) ½/2 (+0 =1 –1)
Soviet Championship semi-final, Rostov-on-Don (1st place): 12/17 (+8 =8 –1)

Total 71.8% (+48 =39 –7)

298
Spassky at the 1956 Candidates tournament in Amsterdam. Based on the opening moves and national flag, we can
determine that this was his Round 1 game against Czech grandmaster Miroslav Filip.

299
 1961

Spassky started the year with the Soviet Championship in Moscow, which doubled as the Zonal
qualifying tournament for the next World Championship cycle. His first opponent was Smyslov, who
had recently defeated Spassky by 1½–½ in the Moscow – Leningrad match.

Game 43

Boris Spassky – Vassily Smyslov

Moscow 1961

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 Bxc3 7.bxc3 d6 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bh4 a6 10.Bc4
Bg4 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 g5 13.Bg3 Na5 14.Bb3 Qe7 15.d4 Ne8 16.Rfd1 Nxb3 17.axb3 f6 18.h4
Ng7 19.hxg5 hxg5 20.c4 Ne6 21.c3 Rae8

22.Ra2!
Spassky improves the rook in an original way.

22…Qh7?!
Moving the queen away from the centre often carries risk, and this is no exception.

300
Either 22…exd4 23.cxd4 Rf7 or 22…Rf7 23.c5 dxc5 24.dxe5 Nf4 would have been safer for Black.

23.c5!
Spassky opens the position for the bishop.

23…Rf7
23…dxc5?! 24.dxe5 would be strong for White.

24.Rad2 Qh6?!
Smyslov plays too optimistically. He should have preferred 24…Kg7!?, and if 25.Qg4 dxc5!
26.dxe5 f5 the position would be equal.

25.Qg4 Rh7?!
It’s always tempting to threaten mate, but Smyslov is overdoing his play along the h-file.

A safer continuation was 25…Nf4 26.f3 Qh5 when Black should still be all right.

26.f3
Spassky easily avoids the mate and makes room for his king.

26…exd4
26…Nf4 27.Kf2 Qh5 28.Qf5 would lead to White’s small advantage.

27.cxd6 cxd6 28.cxd4 Ng7??

301
 Smyslov indirectly defends the hanging d6-pawn, but it’s risky to place yet another piece near the
corner.

There was a spectacular equalizing resource: 28…d5!! 29.exd5 (Both 29.Qf5 dxe4 30.Qxe4 Nc7
31.Qxb7 g4 and 29.Re1 dxe4 30.fxe4 Nxd4 31.Rxd4 f5 result in equality.) 29…Ng7 30.Qd7 Now
Black must find one or two difficult moves to stay in the game:

30…g4! (30…f5!? is also possible, due to 31.Be5 g4! when Black somehow has enough counterplay,
although White can still ask some questions with 32.Kf2!.) 31.Qxg4 We transpose to the game,
having avoided the improvement noted at move 31 below.

29.Qd7!

302
 Smyslov was ready to counter 29.Bxd6?? with 29…f5!, winning the bishop. Instead, Spassky’s
queen invasion comes with a lot of force.

29…g4 30.Qxg4 d5 31.exd5?!

31.Bf4! was stronger, and after 31…Qh4 32.Qxh4 Rxh4 33.Bg3 White is a pawn up.

31…Qe3† 32.Bf2 Qh6 33.Kf1

33…f5 34.Qg3 Qb6!

Smyslov cleverly unblocks his rook and activates his queen along the newly opened sixth rank.

35.d6!?
35.Kg1 Qh6 36.Kf1 would lead to a repetition, while 35.Bg1 Rh1 36.d6 transposes to the game.

35…Qxb3?
Possibly in time trouble, Smyslov commits a losing mistake.

He should have inserted 35…Rh1†! 36.Bg1 before playing 36…Qxb3, and after 37.Rc1 Qe3 38.Qf2
Qa3 Black should be able to hold.

303
36.Kg1!
Spassky places his king on a safe square.

36…Qd5 37.Re1?
Spassky wants to win quickly. It would have been more practical to keep control with a move like
37.Qf4, then find a winning plan after the time control.

37.d7! was an even more elegant option, and after 37…Qxd7 38.d5, or 37…Rd8 38.Rc1 Qxd7 39.d5,
Black’s position would fall apart.

37…Rxe1† 38.Bxe1 Rh6 39.Qg5

Despite the previous inaccuracy, Spassky still has a clear advantage. His last move prepares to
activate the bishop, which can grow into a monster.

39…Qxd6 40.Bg3 Qb6?

With his last move before the time control, Smyslov commits another mistake. 40…Qg6! would
resist.

304
41.Be5
The bishop is devastatingly strong.

41…Rg6 42.Rb2?
With victory within reach, Spassky commits a tactical oversight. Maybe he was not aware of
passing the time control, or perhaps he sealed this mistake. They agreed to a draw because of
42…Qxd4†! 43.Bxd4 Rxg5, which saves the game.
½–½

42.Qe7? would also spoil the win due to 42…Qb1† 43.Kf2 Qh1! with an annoying attack on g2.

However, other moves such as 42.Qh4 or 42.Qe3 would have left White on the brink of victory.
Spassky later commented that he liked the game and was pleased with his play up to this point, and
that he regretted the outcome even decades afterwards.

In the next two rounds Spassky was in deep trouble, but he escaped with two draws. Then he was
clearly worse against Furman, but managed to turn things around and win. His next opponent was
Gufeld.

Game 44

Boris Spassky – Eduard Gufeld

Moscow 1961

305
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.g3!
Spassky chooses his opening according to his opponent’s style. Gufeld was a strong tactician
whose abilities might have shone through had Spassky chosen the Sämisch against the King’s Indian.
I think the choice of opening shows Bondarevsky’s positive effect.

3…Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.0-0 d6 6.Nc3!?

Spassky plays a rare move, angling for a transposition to a Pirc.

6…Nc6

7.d5!
Spassky gains space with a tempo.

7…Na5 8.e4 c5?!

Gufeld opts for a dubious version of a Benoni with the knight on a5. Unlike the Yugoslav
Variation of the Fianchetto King’s Indian, here the knight does not attack a pawn on c4.

After 8…c6 9.Re1 Bd7 White’s advantage would be smaller than in the game.

9.Re1 e5
The blocked centre ensures Black of a long game, but he will not come close to obtaining a
balanced position.

10.a4!

306
 Spassky starts his play on the queenside.

10…Ne8 11.b3 Bd7

On 11…f5 White would gain a clear advantage with 12.exf5 gxf5 13.Ng5.

12.Bd2 b6

13.Bf1!
Spassky finds a subtle way to play on the queenside.

13…Qc8 14.Nh4!
The knight will be well placed to exert pressure on the kingside if Black tries any …f5 break, and
it also prepares a strong manoeuvre.

14…Nb7
After 14…f5 15.exf5 gxf5 16.Bb5 a6 17.Bxd7 Qxd7 18.Qh5 Nb7 both 19.h3 and 19.Nd1 would
keep some advantage.

15.Bd3 a6
Again 15…f5 does not work: 16.exf5 gxf5 17.f3 Nd8 18.Qe2 Nf7 19.Rf1 Bh6 20.Bxh6 Nxh6
21.Qd2 Nf7 22.f4 White stands clearly better.

16.Qe2 Nc7

307
17.Ng2!
Spassky surely had this manoeuvre in mind when placing the knight on h4 earlier. With the
knights on b7 and c7, Black is unlikely to achieve anything good from the …f5 advance. Moreover,
with the knight heading for e3 and possibly c4, Black must worry about the b6-pawn.

17…Nd8 18.Ne3 Ne8

Gufeld shuffles his knights to prepare to defend b6, having realized that any change in the pawn
structure would be in his opponent’s interest.

19.Reb1!?
Spassky takes an interesting decision to focus on the queenside, rather than preparing for kingside
action with something like 19.Kh1.

19…a5?
Gufeld overestimates Spassky’s play with b2-b4, and weakens his queenside decisively.
It was essential to seek counterplay with 19…f5, when play could continue: 20.b4 (White could also
keep some advantage by switching back to the centre with 20.exf5 gxf5 21.f3 followed by
transferring the rooks to the f- and e-files, with some advantage.) 20…f4 21.Nc4 Rb8 22.bxc5 Qxc5
White keeps some advantage, but Black is still in the game.

308
20.Bb5!?
Exchanging the bishop is objectively not stronger than playing on the kingside, but it was still a
good practical decision to eliminate the strong bishop of the tactically dangerous opponent.

20…Bh6?
Perhaps fearing a future endgame with a bad dark-squared bishop, Gufeld tries to activate or
exchange it. Ironically, the strong tactician overlooks a tactical refutation.

21.Nf5!
Decisively weakening the black kingside.

The slower 21.Nc4 Bxd2 22.Qxd2 Rb8 23.f4 would give White a strategically winning position, but
Spassky’s move is much more efficient.

21…gxf5
21…Bxd2? is impossible because 22.Ne7† wins the queen.

22.Bxh6 Ng7 23.Bxg7 Kxg7

309
24.Qh5 f6
Gufeld stabilizes his position for a while, but it costs him a pawn with no counterplay.

He had no choice, as 24…fxe4? 25.Qg5† Kh8 26.Qf6† Kg8 27.Nxe4 wins trivially.

25.Bxd7 Qxd7 26.exf5

White is not only a pawn up, but enjoys a positional advantage. His knight has a beautiful outpost
on e4 and the black king is somewhat weak.

26…Nf7 27.Re1 Nh6 28.g4 Rg8 29.Kh1 Qe8 30.Qh4

Spassky keeps the queens on the board, although exchanging them should win easily as well.

30…Nf7 31.Ne4 Qe7 32.c4

32.f4!? also wins comfortably. One might expect such a move from an attacking player, but
Spassky is happy to seal up the queenside and win slowly but surely.

32…Ng5

310
33.Re3
Keeping the knight would be somewhat more instructive: 33.Nd2!? Qf7 34.Qg3 Qe7 35.f4 Nf7
36.Qh4 Black would be hopelessly lost.

33…Nxe4 34.Rxe4 Kf8 35.Rae1 Qg7 36.R1e3! Ra7 37.Rh3 Qg5

38.Qh6†
Spassky could also have exchanged immediately: 38.Qxg5 fxg5 (38…Rxg5 39.Rh6 is virtually
the same as the game.) 39.Rh6 Rd7 40.Re3 Rgg7 41.Reh3 White will double the rooks on the sixth
rank, winning easily.

311
38…Qxh6 39.Rxh6 Rf7 40.Kg2
Spassky sensibly improves his king a bit.

40…Kg7 41.Rh4 Re8 42.Re3 Rh8

43.f4
Spassky gets rid of a doubled pawn and opens the position to invade.

43…h6 44.fxe5 fxe5 45.Reh3 e4

Waiting with 45…Rf6 could be met by 46.Rh5 Rhf8 47.Kf3 R8f7 48.Ke4 Rf8 49.g5 when White
wins easily, so Gufeld tries something desperate.

46.Re3 Re7

312
47.Kg3
Improving the king ends the game quickly.

47…b5 48.axb5 a4 49.bxa4 Ra8 50.Kf4 Rxa4 51.g5

1–0

Spassky continued with convincing wins over Averbakh and Bronstein, making it four wins in a row.
Then came two well-played draws.

In Round 10 he had a remarkable battle against Polugaevsky.

Game 45

Boris Spassky – Lev Polugaevsky

Moscow 1961

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 Ne4 7.Nxe4 Bxe4 8.Bf4 0-0 9.Bd3 Bb4†?!
10.Kf1 Bxd3† 11.Qxd3 Be7 12.h4 f5

313
13.Ke2!
Spassky gets ready to attack along the g-file.

13…d6 14.g4! Nd7

If 14…fxg4? 15.Ng5 Bxg5 16.hxg5 g6 17.Qe4 White’s double attack wins.

15.Rag1 fxg4?!
Polugaevsky underestimates the power of White’s play along the g-file. After 15…Qe8! White
would be better, but not winning.

16.Rxg4 Nf6 17.Rg5

Spassky’s move is not the most accurate, although White’s position remains promising.

17.Ng5!? would have indirectly defended the rook, and after 17…Qe8 18.f3 Bd8 19.Be5! dxe5
20.dxe5 g6 21.exf6 Bxf6 22.Qe4 White has a large advantage.

17…Qd7
17…Qe8! was more accurate. After 18.h5 (18.Rhg1? Nh5! would be annoying for White)
18…Rd8 19.Qc2 Kh8 Black remains slightly worse, but White has no clear way through.

314
18.h5! Ne8 19.Rg2
Kasparov suggests 19.Rg3!? with the subtle point of giving the white king additional options in
certain scenarios.

19…b5!? 20.c5
Spassky keeps the centre closed.
20.cxb5 would be strong as well. For instance, 20…Rb8 21.a4 a6 is assessed as unclear by
Moiseev, but 22.Rhg1 Bf6 23.e4 clearly favours White.

20…dxc5?
Polugaevsky has no time for this capture, which weakens the e5-square.

Black should try to organize his defence on the kingside with 20…Kh8 or 20…Bf6.

315
21.h6! Rf5
21…g6? is easily refuted by 22.Rxg6† (22.Ne5 is similarly devastating) 22…hxg6 23.Qxg6†
Kh8 24.Ne5 Qd5 25.Rg1 with checkmate to follow.

21…c4? enables White to force checkmate in beautiful style:

22.Qxh7†!! Kxh7 23.hxg7† Kg8 24.Rh8† (24.gxf8=Q† Kxf8 25.Rh8† Kf7 26.Ne5† also wins
trivially) 24…Kf7 25.Ne5† Kf6 26.Rxf8† and mate in two more moves.

22.Be5
22.Ne5 Qd8 23.hxg7 is also winning.

316
22…c4 23.Qe4 Qd5 24.Qg4 c3

25.b3! b4 26.e4
Kasparov points out that the prosaic 26.Bxg7 would win as well.

26…Qb5† 27.Ke3
Spassky moves his king for a third time; he has completely outplayed Polugaevsky.

27…Rf7 28.hxg7 Nf6 29.Bxf6 Rxf6

317
30.Rxh7!
Spassky is ready to walk with his king. His concept is both beautiful and objectively winning.

30.e5! was a simpler route to victory, as after 30…Rg6 31.Qh5 White soon forces checkmate.

30…Rxf3†!
Polugaevsky finds the only move to prolong the game. White cannot recapture with the queen
because the bishop would deliver a deadly check from g5, so the next few king moves are forced.

31.Kxf3 Qd3† 32.Kf4

Now one can see why Kasparov suggested placing the rook on the third rank: if it stood on g3,
the white king would have been able to drop back to g2 here. Obviously one could never have
anticipated this position when the choice arose on move 19, and on g3 the rook might have been more
exposed in some lines.

32…Bd6†
32…Qd2†? gives White a choice of wins: 33.Ke5 (33.Kg3 Bd6† 34.Kh3 Qd3† 35.f3 also wins
easily) 33…Bd6† 34.Kxe6 Re8† 35.Kd7 Re7† 36.Kd8 The king completes its march to the far side
of the board, and White will checkmate quickly.

33.Kg5
The king march was a speciality of Wilhelm Steinitz. Tigran Gyozalyan told me that Spassky
admired Steinitz’s play and said a few times that he would write a book on the first World Champion.

33…Kxh7

318
34.Kh5?
Spassky misses a chance to crown his brilliant play with two more beautiful king moves: 34.Kf6!
Qxd4† 35.Kf7 The king finds shelter in a most unusual way, and checkmate is unstoppable.

34…Qb5†!
Decades later, Spassky commented on this game: “I forgot about the b5-square… just forgot.”

35.Kh4
Spassky’s move leads to a rook ending, where he has to work for the draw.

35.e5
This pawn move should also lead to a draw.
35…Qe8† 36.Kh4 Be7† 37.Kh3

319
37…Kg8
The alternative is 37…Qf7 38.Kh2! Kg8! 39.Qh3 Qf4† and Black forces perpetual check.
38.Kh2!
38.Qxe6†? Qf7 39.Qh6 Qf5† 40.Kh2 Qh7 wins for Black.
38…Qf7
38…c2?? is given as best by Moiseev, but he overlooks 39.Qxe6† Qf7 40.Qh6 when White wins.
39.Qh3 Qf4† 40.Kg1
Moiseev gives 40.Kh1?? as winning for White, but misses 40…Qh4!, which leads to the opposite
result.
40…Qc1† 41.Kh2 Qf4†
With perpetual check.

35…Be7† 36.Kh3 Qg5! 37.Qxg5 Bxg5 38.Rxg5 Rd8

320
39.f4?
Presumably Spassky hoped to push the pawn to f6, but it is too slow. He was probably short of
time.

White has a number of drawing moves, of which 39.Kg4! looks simplest. White intends to use the
king actively and bring the king closer to his g-pawn. It also avoids giving the black rook a check on
the third rank. 39…Kg8 (Also after 39…c5 40.Rxc5 Rxd4 41.a3 White is not worse.) 40.Rc5 Rxd4
41.Rxc7 Rxe4† 42.Kg5! White is safe.

39…Kg8!
Now the c3-pawn is much stronger than the g7-pawn.

40.Rc5 Rxd4 41.Rxc7 Rxe4

The sealed move. According to Soltis, “Spassky believed he had drawing chances even after the
adjournment but was too depressed to ”nd them.” However, the reality is that White can no longer
save the game.

42.Kg4
42.Rxa7? c2 43.Rc7 Re3† 44.Kg4 Rc3 would see White pay the price for leaving the king on the
third rank.

321
42…e5 43.a3
43.Kf5 would not help. White can win the black rook, but the enemy pawns would be too strong.
43…Rxf4† 44.Kg6 Rg4† 45.Kh6 e4 46.Rc8† Kf7 47.Rf8† Ke6 48.g8=Q† Rxg8 49.Rxg8 e3
(49…Kf5 also wins.) 50.Re8† Kd5 51.Rxe3 c2 52.Re1 Kd4 Black wins.

43…Rxf4† 44.Kg5 a5 45.Kg6 Rg4† 46.Kf6 Kh7

47.g8=Q†
47.Kxe5 Rxg7 and 47.Rc8 Rxg7 also win for Black.

322
47…Kxg8 48.Kxe5 Rg1
Polugaevsky is about to win the b3-pawn and the game.

49.Kf6 Rf1† 50.Ke5 Rb1

Spassky resigned. He would later refer to this as the most painful game of his life, commenting:
“I was haunted by that position for years.”
0–1

Spassky scored 50% in the next five games, followed by two consecutive wins in which the
evaluation swung back and forth. With two rounds remaining, Petrosian was leading with a superb
score of 12½/17, ahead of Spassky and Korchnoi on 11, followed by Geller on 10½.

In the penultimate round Spassky faced Korchnoi. They both seemed likely to qualify, but Spassky
played too passively with the white pieces and Korchnoi smelled the chance to play for a win.
Spassky missed a chance to equalize and subsequently lost the endgame. Meanwhile Petrosian made
a quick draw, and Geller scored a crucial win to overtake Spassky. Leonid Stein drew his game and
also drew level with Spassky on 11 points.

Coming into the last round, Petrosian, Korchnoi and Geller had already guaranteed their places in the
Interzonal. As fate would have it, Spassky would play Stein in the final round, with an Interzonal
qualifying place up for grabs. The winner was guaranteed to qualify, while a draw would see them go
to a play-off contest, with the possibility of up to two other players joining them.

Regarding this period of his career, Spassky would later comment that if he lost a game, he could not
sleep. If this was the case after his loss to Korchnoi, it did not show in the cavalier way he approached
the final round – although there was a comfortable gap of three days between rounds 18 and 19, so
perhaps he was able to catch up with sleep on the second and third nights. In any case, Spassky
played the opening too aggressively and after only 18 moves he was left a pawn down in a rook-and-
bishop endgame. It’s worth seeing the very end of the game:

Game 46

Leonid Stein – Boris Spassky

Moscow 1961

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.e5 Ne4 7.0-0 d5 8.exd6 0-0 9.dxc7 Qf6
10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Re1 Bf5 13.Nc3 Rfe8 14.Nxe4 Bxe4 15.Bg5 Bxf3 16.Rxe8† Rxe8
17.Qxf3 Qxf3 18.gxf3 Bxc7 19.Rc1 Bb6 20.Rxc6 Bxd4 21.Be3 Bxb2 22.Bxa7 Re1† 23.Kg2 Kf8
24.Rc7 Ke8 25.Be3 Rd1 26.a4 Bd4 27.Bg5 h6 28.Bc1 Bb6 29.Rc2 Rd5 30.Rb2 Bc7 31.Be3 Kd7

323
32.Rb5 Rd3 33.Rb4 h5 34.Rd4† Rxd4 35.Bxd4 g6 36.Bc3 Kc6 37.h3 Kc5 38.Kf1 Kc4 39.Bd2 Bd8
40.Ke2 g5 41.f4

41…g4
Black has nothing better than this move, and Spassky sealed it. He and Bondarevsky analysed the
endgame for a long time, and they found that White could win with accurate play. Spassky was so
demoralized that he went to Stein’s room and offered to resign. Stein was confused and asked, “What
is the proposal?” Spassky repeated that he wished to resign the game.
1–0

Spassky said in a later interview that, following his resignation, he asked Stein how he was going to
continue, and was shocked to learn that Stein had not found a winning continuation. Stein was one of
the strongest players in the world: might he have analysed the endgame correctly, and then just
pretended to have made a mistake to tease his rival? Whatever the case may be, let’s see how White
should convert his advantage:

42.hxg4 hxg4 43.f5

43.a5 would also win, but White will need to push the f4-pawn at some point, otherwise …f5 will
enable Black to draw. For instance, after 43…Kd5 43…Kb5 44.Kd3 wins easily enough) 44.a6
Kc6 White must play 45.f5! (45.Kd3? f5! draws) and if 45…Kb6 46.Ba5†! Black can resign.
43…Bc7
Black can also try 43…Bh4, trying to tie the white king to the defence of f2. However, after 44.a5
Kb5 45.f3! gxf3† (45…g3 46.Kf1 Ka6 47.Kg2 wins) 46.Kxf3 Kc6 47.Ke4 Bg3 48.a6 Kb6
49.Kd5 Kxa6 50.Kc6! White wins.

324
44.a5
White can also opt for 44.f3 gxf3† (44…g3 45.Kf1 wins) 45.Kxf3, winning in a similar fashion
as in the previous note.
44…Kd5 45.Kd3 Bd6 46.a6 Kc6 47.Be3 Bc7 48.a7 Kb7 49.Ke4 Bd6 50.Kd5 Bc7
A crucial position has been reached.

51.Bd4!
It is vital to control the e5-square.
51.a8=Q†? Kxa8 52.Kc6 does not work because of 52…Kb8 (or 52…Be5! first) 53.Kd7 Be5!
when Black draws. The crucial last move prepares …f6, and if the white bishop moves to attack
f6, Black will survive by attacking f2.

325
51…Bf4
51…Bh2 allows 52.Be5 when the black bishop will be trapped.
Alternatively, if 51…Bd8 52.Kd6 the king invades.
52.a8=Q†!
Now this wins.
52.Be5 is possible, but after 52…Bg5! White must return to the previous position with 53.Bd4!
followed by promoting the a-pawn. Instead 53.Kd6? would be a mistake in view of 53…Kxa7
54.Kd7 Kb7 55.Ke8 f6 56.Bb2 Kc6 57.Kf7 Bh4! when Black holds.
52…Kxa8 53.Kc6

53…Kb8 54.Kd7 Bg5 55.f6

White wins easily.

Spassky later said of this part of his career, “I possessed poor ”ghting spirit.” Regarding this
particular Soviet Championship, he said he was too nervous, and that he offered a draw twelve times
in the nineteen games. He called it a terrible decision to resign early against Stein, adding that “It is
necessary to fight to the last drop of blood in chess.” It was around this time that Spassky’s divorce
was finalized, so the stress of it may have affected his play. He later commented that he and his first
wife were like opposite-coloured bishops.
Nikitin gave his opinion about the way Spassky ended the tournament:

“It was not the brilliant grandmaster who finished the championship, but the man who had lost
interest in playing.”

Despite the bitter disappointment of losing the final two games and failing to qualify for the
Interzonal, there were some positive aspects to Spassky’s performance. He played brilliantly in some
games, and had he converted the winning positions against Smyslov and Polugaevsky he could have

326
challenged Petrosian for first place. He was clearly still one of the strongest players in the world, and
had yet to reach his peak.

Had Spassky made it to the Interzonal, he quite possibly would have qualified for the Candidates
tournament in Curacao, and he might have done well there too. Nevertheless, the result of the
championship proved that Petrosian was the stronger player for now.

***

Spassky played on Board 2 in a Budapest – Leningrad match in the Hungarian capital. His 3½–½
score against Portisch was a super result. Three of the games were tactical affairs, and the last took a
positional course. We will look at it.

Game 47

Boris Spassky – Lajos Portisch

Budapest 1961

18…Qe4?
Portisch wants to neutralize Spassky’s plays too hastily.
18…Rd8 or:
18…cxd4 19.Nxd4 Qb6 would have been okay for Black.

19.d5!
Spassky exploits his advantage in development.

327
19…Rd8 20.Rhe1 Qxd3 21.Rxd3 0-0
After 21…exd5 22.Rde3 Rd7 23.Bxf6 gxf6 24.cxd5 Kd8 25.Nd2 Black would struggle.

22.Rd2
22.Kc2 Ng4 23.Ne5 would be strong as well.

22…Ng4 23.dxe6 Rxd2 24.Kxd2 fxe6

24…Nxf2 runs into 25.exf7† Rxf7 26.Ne5 and the rook has no good square: for instance,
26…Rf5 27.g4, or 26…Rf8 Ng6, or 26…Rf6 27.Nd3 would all win for White.

25.Rxe6
Spassky correctly judges that his bishop will be superior to Black’s knight.

25…Rxf3 26.Rxe7 Rxf2† 27.Kd3 Rf3†

Maybe Portisch was satisfied by sending the king back, but it is temporary.

28.Kc2 Rf7
In the event of 28…Ne3† 29.Kb3 Rxg3 30.Rxb7 Nd1 31.Rxa7 Nxc3 32.bxc3 White wins the
race.

328
29.Re8†!
Exchanging rooks at once would present Black with a vital extra tempo: 29.Rxf7? Kxf7 30.Kd3
g6 31.Ke4 Ke6 and Black holds.

29…Kh7
29…Rf8 can be met by 30.Rxf8† Kxf8 31.Kd3 Kf7 32.Ke4 when White’s king invades
decisively.

30.Kb3!
Spassky starts using his king with attacking intentions.

30…Nf6
Black can’t seal the queenside with 30…a6 31.Ka4 b6 because of 32.Ra8.

31.Re5 Nd7
The knight prevents an invasion, but only temporarily.

32.Rd5 Re7

329
33.a4!
Spassky prepares to gain space and take away the b6-square from the knight.

33…Kg6 34.h5†
34.a5 would win as well.

34…Kf7 35.g4
Spassky gets closer to the g7-pawn.

35…Ke8
35…b6!? was perhaps a better defensive try, although 36.g5! (but not 36.a5? Nf6) 36…hxg5
37.Rxg5 Nf6 38.a5 should still win for White after further accurate play.

36.a5 a6

330
37.g5!
White threatens to take on h6 and play Re6, so Black is forced to exchange on g5, but this will
enable the rook to put pressure on the g7-pawn.

37…hxg5 38.Rxg5 Kf8 39.Kc2!

The king gets ready to invade from another angle.

39…Rf7 40.Kd3 Rf3†

40…Re7 41.b3! would place Black in zugzwang.

331
41.Ke4 Rf7 42.Rg6 Nb8 43.Kd5
Black can do nothing against the monster white king.
43…Nd7 44.Ke6 Nb8 45.Kd6
1–0

With this convincing beating, Spassky improved his personal score against Portisch to five wins, two
draws and no defeats. I was fortunate enough to write books on the long-time number one Hungarian
player. He told me in an interview that his rivals Petrosian, Tal, Spassky and Korchnoi were raised in
big cities, whereas he spent his childhood in a town with then roughly 30,000 inhabitants. He
believed that this accounted for his poor score against them, and said that after he moved to Budapest
he was able to close the gap. (By the way, Portisch was born in April 1937, so he was just a few
months younger than Spassky and Tal.) I think Portisch’s point about the relative lack of chess
opportunities in a smaller town is valid to some degree, yet I also believe that his poor score against
Tal and Spassky was mostly because they were blessed with even greater talent.

***

Spassky’s next event was the Leningrad Championship, which doubled as the semi-final for the next
Soviet Championship. He won the tournament with an unbeaten score of 13/18. Only seven of the
games are available, consisting of two wins and five draws. Although it might sound like a super-
solid result, Spassky actually took great risks and was fortunate to remain undefeated. Here is one
example showing the kind of risky decision-making he was making during this tournament:

Game 48

Vasily Byvshev – Boris Spassky

Leningrad 1961

332
11…0-0-0!?
Playing such a move indicates Spassky’s self-confidence and creativity. The game was eventually
drawn after a complicated fight.

Another notable game from the Leningrad Championship came when Spassky faced Tolush, his
former trainer. Tolush had the white pieces and outplayed his former student, but Spassky managed to
survive.

***

The next Soviet Championship final, which took place in Baku, actually came late in 1961, rather
than early in 1962. The reason was probably because of the timing of the World Championship cycle.
Spassky started the tournament adventurously.

Game 49

Yury Kots – Boris Spassky

Baku 1961

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 d6 7.c3 Bg4 8.h3 Bh5 9.d3 Qd7 10.Nbd2

333
10…g5!?
According to the database, this move had already been played twice in 1961: by Sherwin in the
US Championship, and then by Platonov in the semi-final Soviet Championship qualifying
tournament in Kiev. It would be interesting to know if Spassky was familiar with either or both of
these games.

11.g4?
This weakens the white king. 11.d4 or 11.Nf1 would be stronger.

11…Bg6
Interestingly, the same variation occurred in Round 16 of the same tournament. In that game,
Nezhmetdinov preferred 11…b5!? and went on to defeat Bagirov in fine style.

12.Nf1 h5!
Spassky wastes no time in attacking White’s weakened king.

13.N3h2 hxg4 14.hxg4

334
14…0-0-0!
Spassky opts for long castling in a much more favourable situation than the previous example we
saw. By the way, Spassky castled long more frequently than Fischer.

15.Bxc6 Qxc6 16.Bxg5 Qd7 17.Be3

Against 17.f3 Black can attack successfully with many moves: 17…Rh3, 17…Rdg8 and
17…Nh7 18.Be3 Ng5 are all very powerful.

17…Nxg4!?!
Spassky’s move is not the only way to win, nor is it the objectively strongest, but it’s certainly the

335
most imaginative and must have come as a shock to Kots.

17…Rh3 should be good enough to win, while 17…Rdg8! 18.f3 Nxg4!! 19.fxg4 f5 was an even
stronger version of the sacrifice.

18.Qxg4
18.Nxg4? is met by 18…f5 19.exf5 Bxf5 20.f3 Rdg8 and Black wins.

18…f5! 19.exf5?
Kots needed to play 19.Qxg6 Rdg8 20.exf5 Qxf5 21.Qxg8† Rxg8† 22.Ng3 when White stands
worse, but the kingside holds together and Black would need to look for a much slower path towards
victory.

19…Bxf5 20.Qe2 Rdg8† 21.Ng3

21…Bh4
White is defenceless against Black’s huge attack.

22.Qf3 Bxd3 23.Bd2 Bxg3 24.Qxd3 Qh3

White will soon be checkmated, so Kots resigned.
0–1
In the next round Spassky defeated Gipslis, and then he faced Savon, a talented young Ukrainian
master who would go on to win the Soviet Championship in 1971.

336
 Game 50

Vladimir Savon – Boris Spassky

Baku 1961

1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 c5 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.0-0 e5 5.d3 f6 6.e4 d4 7.Nh4 Be6 8.f4 Qd7 9.Nd2

9…0-0-0
Yet again Spassky castles on the queenside, indicating his mood and his fighting nature.
Interestingly, it was not the first time that he had played this variation.

10.a4
Savon deviates from the aforementioned game, which continued 10.f5 Bf7 11.Bf3 Nge7 12.Bh5
Bg8 13.b3 Kb8 14.a4 Nb4 15.Rf2 Nec6 16.Rg2 Bd6 17.Nc4 Bc7 and Black stood slightly better in
Petrosian – Spassky, Moscow 1957. The game later became wild, and eventually ended in a draw.

10…Bd6 11.Nc4 Bc7 12.Bd2 Nge7 13.f5?

13.fxe5 was preferable. Savon’s move gives White a worse version of the game mentioned
above.

337
13…Bxc4!
Spassky makes a strong decision, after which he will be able to take over on both flanks.

14.dxc4 Ba5!
After the exchange of dark-squared bishops, White’s remaining bishop will be outmatched by the
black knights.

15.Rf2
15.Bc1? is not really an option because 15…d3! would be too strong.

15…Bxd2 16.Rxd2 Kb8 17.Qf3 Qc7

This move is slightly mysterious; perhaps Spassky wanted to prevent a4-a5.

18.Bf1

338
18…Nc8!
Spassky makes the first of many excellent knight moves in the middlegame.

19.g4 Nd6 20.Rg2 Qf7!

The queen attacks the c4-pawn, gaining a tempo to prepare Black’s next move.

21.Qe2 g6! 22.fxg6

This exchange only increases Black’s advantage, although it was already difficult to find a decent
continuation for White.

22…hxg6 23.Nf3

339
23…g5
Spassky has skilfully built an outpost on f4.

24.Rf2 Qe6
The queen steps off the f-file and gains a tempo against the g4-pawn.

25.Ne1 Rh6 26.b3 Qe7!

The queen did her duty on e6, and the time has now come to make way for the knight.

27.Nd3

340
27…Ne8!
The knight starts the next phase of its journey.

28.Bg2 Nc7 29.Re1 Ne6 30.Rf5 Rdh8 31.h3

31…Nb4!
Spassky’s exemplary strategic play prevails.

32.Ref1 Nxd3 33.Qxd3 Nf4 34.R1xf4 gxf4

The game is virtually over, but it’s still worth looking at the elegant way in which Spassky

341
converts his advantage.

35.Kf2 Qc7 36.Qd2 Rg8 37.Ke2

37…Rg5
Spassky is confident enough to make an important decision before the time control. Many players
would kill time in order to find the win in the adjournment analysis.

38.Rxg5 fxg5 39.Kf3 Qb6 40.Bf1 Qb4! 41.Qxb4 cxb4 42.Kg2

In the event of 42.Ke2 Black could crack the fortress by placing the king on c5 and playing
…Rd6, and after Kd3 then …f3 would paralyze White.

342
42…d3!
Spassky opens the route for his king to invade.

43.Bxd3 Kc7 44.Bf1 Kd6

Savon resigned. It was a strategic masterpiece. Spassky rarely won in this style.
0–1

After squandering a winning advantage against Keres, Spassky went on to score a fine win with the
black pieces against Smyslov. He then squandered another winning endgame and drew against
Kholmov, followed by a quick draw with Bronstein.

Spassky’s next opponent was Polugaevsky, against whom he suffered a most bitter defeat in the
Soviet Championship at the start of the year.

Game 51

Boris Spassky – Lev Polugaevsky

Baku 1961

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.Bg5 Bb4 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3 Ne4 9.Qc2 Bxc3†
10.bxc3 d6 11.Bd3 Nxg3 12.fxg3 g4 13.Nh4 Qg5

343
14.0-0!
According to the database Polugaevsky’s 12th move was a novelty, but Spassky was obviously
not afraid of it. He makes an excellent decision to complete development and mobilize the rooks, not
worrying about the loss of a pawn.

14…Qxe3† 15.Kh1 Nd7 16.Rf4

16.Bg6!? and 16.Bf5!? would have asked tougher questions. Spassky’s move is decent, but it
merely enables White to regain the pawn with a roughly balanced game.

16…Rg8
16…0-0-0!? 17.Rxg4 would have led to unclear play. (White should avoid 17.Raf1? because
17…Ne5! 18.Be2 f5 would be unpleasant.)

344
17.Raf1 0-0-0 18.R1f2 Qe1†
Black has no choice, as White was threatening to trap the queen.

19.Rf1 Qe3 20.Rxf7!?

Spassky has no advantage at this point, but still he decides not to accept a draw by repetition.

20…Rdf8 21.Qe2 Qxe2 22.Bxe2 h5

22…Rxf7 23.Rxf7 Be4! was a good alternative, as the rook does not cause any real harm on the
seventh rank.

345
23.Kg1
Spassky starts improving his king, which will have a key role in the endgame.

23…Be4 24.Rxf8† Nxf8

After 24…Rxf8 25.Rxf8† Nxf8 26.h3 Kd7 the position would be equal.

25.Kf2 Ng6?
Exchanging the knight increases White’s chances to invade.

25…Kd8 26.Ke3 Bc6 would have been safer for Black. Moreover, White would need to be careful to
avoid simplifying to an endgame with the knight completely paralyzed on h4.

26.Ke3
The king gets stronger and stronger.

26…Bc6 27.Rf6 Nxh4 28.gxh4 g3?!

This intermediate move helps White to improve the king. Safer was 28…Bxg2 29.Rh6 Bf3 when
the endgame would be equal.

29.hxg3 Rxg3† 30.Kf4 Rxg2 31.Bxh5 Rxa2

Black gets a passed a-pawn, but White’s h-pawn is more dangerous. Nevertheless, Black should
still be able to save the game.

32.Rxe6
White could also start pushing at once with 32.Bg4!? Kd8 33.h5.

32…a5 33.Bg4 Kd8 34.h5

The distant passed pawn poses great danger for Black.

346
34…Rh2?
Polugaevsky makes a losing move, probably missing Spassky’s zwischenzug on move 36.

He could have held with:

34…Rf2†!
The white king has a few squares to choose from, but each of them has a drawback.
35.Kg5
35.Ke3 can be met by 35…Rh2, and if 36.h6? Bd7 Black wins the h-pawn.
35.Kg3 gives Black more than one decent option: 35…Rg2† (There is also 35…Rf8 36.h6 Rh8
37.Kh4 a4 when Black should hold.) 36.Kh3 Rg1 37.Re2 (37.Re3 a4 is similar.) 37…Rh1†
38.Kg3 a4 Black is not worse.
35…Rg2!
The pin gives sufficient counterplay.

347
36.d5
In the event of 36.h6 Bf3 37.h7 Rxg4† 38.Kf6 Rh4 39.Kg7 Rxh7† Black holds.
36…Bd7 37.h6 Bxe6 38.dxe6 Rh2!?
38…Rf2 39.Bf5 Ke7 40.h7 Rh2 41.Bg6 Rxh7 42.Bxh7 Kxe6 is a simpler route to a draw.
39.Bh5

39…Rg2†! 40.Kf6!?
40.Bg4 repeats. The text move is a possible winning attempt.
40…Rf2†!
Another only move.
41.Kg7 Ke7 42.h7 Rf8

348
 After four only moves by Black, it is now White who needs to be accurate.

43.Bd1!
43.Bf7? looks tempting but 43…a4 44.Bg8 Rf1! wins for Black.
43…Rd8 44.Bb3 Kxe6
With a drawn endgame.

35.h6 Bd7
35…a4 loses to 36.Kg3 Rg2† 37.Kh4 when the h-pawn is unstoppable.

36.Kg3!
White starts forcing the rook away from the h-file.

349
36…Rh1
If 36…Bxe6 37.Kxh2 Bg8 38.Bf5 White wins the enemy bishop.

37.Bf3!
The rook is unable to remain on the h-file, and Spassky’s pawn will promote.

37…Rg1† 38.Bg2 Rc1

39.h7 Rxc3† 40.Kh2 Bxe6 41.h8=Q† Ke7 42.d5

Polugaevsky resigned. As we will see, this would prove to be a most crucial result for the overall
tournament standings.
1–0

In the next six rounds, Spassky scored two wins and four draws. He played for a win in all of them,
but without taking unreasonable risks. He then suffered a loss to Shamkovich, who played well. After
that, Spassky chose a safe opening with White against Tal. The magician played imaginatively, but
made a serious mistake in the complications and Spassky punished him. In the next two games he
played the opening safely, and was able to outplay and beat his opponents.

With two rounds to play, Spassky was leading the tournament with 13½/18, a full point ahead of
Polugaevsky. Spassky drew quickly with Black against Averbakh, while Polugaevsky closed the gap
by beating Savon. In the final round Spassky did not try to beat Vasiukov, and swiftly killed the game
to a draw. Meanwhile Polugaevsky got nothing out of the opening against Keres, and they soon
agreed a draw.

350
Thus, Spassky achieved a huge milestone, becoming Soviet Champion for the first time. The
tournament was not quite as strong as it could have been, since two of his heavyweight rivals,
Petrosian and Korchnoi, did not play. Nevertheless, Spassky still needed to outscore numerous elite
players such as Tal, Smyslov, Keres, Bronstein, Polugaevsky and Taimanov. I think the key to
Spassky’s success was not that he raised his outright chess ability, but rather his increased discipline
and more controlled risk-taking. He seemed to be able to feel in which games to take risks, and how
much to risk.

How does Spassky’s victory in the Soviet Championship compare with Fischer’s performances in the
US Championship? According to Chessmetrics, Spassky’s performance rating in Baku 1961 was
2772. Fischer won the US Championship with a phenomenal 100% score in 1963, with a rating
performance of 2830. He was still only twenty years old at the time. At his last US Championship in
1966, Fischer won with 9½/11, for a performance rating of 2745.

I was unable to find out precisely when Spassky started work with Igor Bondarevsky. They may have
started as early as 1960, but they were definitely working together regularly in 1961. Bondarevsky
would remain Spassky’s trainer and second for close to a decade. Born in 1913, the Russian
grandmaster finished equal first with Lilienthal at the 1940 Soviet Championship, ahead of Smyslov,
Keres, Boleslavsky and Botvinnik. He qualified for the 1950 Candidates tournament in Budapest, but
was unable to play due to illness. According to Chessmetrics, Bondarevsky’s best ranking was
number thirteen in the world.

Spassky would later comment:

“Bondarevsky did a lot not only for my chess knowledge and understanding of positions, but also
for my character. I admired him less as a grandmaster than I did Tolush. Bondarevsky used to be
a combinational player, but then he decided to become like Capablanca and now his chess is
rather dull. But when I first got to know him well, I was drawn to him, felt a great respect and
saw that this was a very interesting man. He has a very happy family life and he helped me very
much, because he was a man of strong character and the head of a family.”

1961 Results
Soviet Championship, Moscow (5th-6th place): 11/19 (+7 =8 –4)
Budapest – Leningrad match (Board 2 vs. Portisch): 3½/4 (+3 =1 –0)
Leningrad Championship/Soviet Championship semi-final (1st-2nd place): 13/18 (+8 =10 –0)
Soviet Championship, Baku (1st place): 14½/20 (+10 =9 –1)

Total 68.9% (+28 =28 –5)

351
 1962

Spassky started the year in Cuba at the Capablanca Memorial: a long tournament, with twenty-one
rounds. He made draws with the best players and beat most of the lesser-known players. He had an
exciting tactical ending in Round 10, which is worth looking at.

Game 52

Wolfgang Pietzsch – Boris Spassky

Havana 1962

31…Ng1†!?
Spassky makes quite a surprising check. The endgame is rather sharp, and it would be interesting
to know if either player was getting short of time.

31…d3! would have forced White to walk a narrow path to hold: 32.g5! Nf4† 33.Kh2! Ne6

352
34.Rh3! The only move. 34…Re5 35.Rf3 Kd5 36.Ng3 Nxg5 37.Rxd3† Kc4 38.Rd7 It should be a
draw, although Black still has some chances.

32.Kg3
32.Kh2 is also playable, although accurate calculation would be required: 32…d3 (32…Nf3†
33.gxf3 Re2† 34.Kg3 Rxd2 35.g5 d3 transposes) 33.g5 Nf3†! 34.gxf3 Re2† 35.Kg3 Rxd2 36.g6

36…Rd1! 37.Rh2 Rg1† 38.Kf4! White is not worse, as after 38…Rxg6 39.Ke4 the d3-pawn will be
removed. It would not be easy to see in advance that White could calmly allow the g-pawn to be
taken.

353
32…Re2!?
Spassky plays for a win, avoiding a repetition with 32…Ne2†.

33.g5!
Pietzsch sacrifices a piece to speed up the advance of the g-pawn.

33.Bf4 Rxb2 34.Rxc7† Kb6 35.Be5 Black would have an edge.

33…Rxd2 34.g6 Ne2† 35.Kg4!?

35.Kf3 Bd6 36.g7 Ng1† 37.Ke4 Rxg2 38.Rh8 should lead to a draw. It would be interesting to
know whether or not Pietzsch saw this but rejected it because he wanted to play for a win.

354
35…Nc3!
Spassky has to give up the knight to stop the g-pawn.
35…Nf4 36.Kxf4 Rxg2 37.g7 transposes to the next note. Spassky’s move gives White more to think
about, and it pays off.

36.g7?
36.Kh3! was better, and after 36…Nd5 37.g7 Nf4† 38.Kg4 Rxg2† 39.Kxf4 d3 40.Rh3 d2
41.Rd3 Black must find some only moves to survive:

41…Bd6† 42.Kf3 Rg5 43.Rxd2! Rxf5† 44.Kg4 Rf1 45.Rg2! Now Black is forced to give up his rook.
45…Rf8 46.gxf8=Q Bxf8 The endgame is a fairly easy draw, but White is the only one who could
think about winning.

36…Rxg2† 37.Kf3 Rg5

If 37…Rg1 then 38.Rh1 would be played.

355
38.Kf4??
Pietzsch defends the knight, but he steps on a mine. The king can be checked by several black
pieces on this unfortunate square.

38.Rh5! was essential. 38…Rxh5 (38…Rg1 39.Rh1 does not help Black.) 39.Nxd4† Bxd4 40.g8=Q
Rf5† 41.Kg4 Rc5 42.Qg6† Kb7 43.bxc3 White will still have to work, but he should be able to hold.

38…Rg1 39.bxc3
White takes the knight, but it brings a black pawn close to promotion.

If 39.Rh1 Nd5† 40.Kf3 Rg5 41.Ke4 Ne7 Black wins.

39…dxc3 40.Rh1
Pietzsch finds a witty resource, but it’s not enough.

356
40…c2 41.Rxg1 Bxg1 42.g8=Q c1=Q†
Black promotes with a huge check, and will easily convert his material advantage.

43.Kg4 Qd1† 44.Kg5 Qd2† 45.Kf6 Qb2† 46.Ke7 Qe5† 47.Kd8 Qxf5 48.Qxg1

48…Qf8#
One rarely gets to choose between options for checkmating in one move.
0–1

Spassky remained unbeaten and finished the tournament strongly. Let’s see his game from the final

357
round.

Game 53

Boris Spassky – Aleksandar Matanovic

Havana 1962

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 c5 4.e3 d5 5.Nbd2 Nc6 6.c3 h6 7.Bh4 cxd4 8.exd4 Be7 9.Bd3 Nh5
10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.0-0 Nf4 12.Bc2 Qf6 13.Re1 0-0 14.g3 Ng6 15.Qe2 b6

16.h4!
The opening clearly went Spassky’s way, and he obtained a significant advantage. Now he starts
attacking the black king.

16…Re8 17.Ne5!
White gains some space and, after the coming exchange, the d4-square for his knight.

17…Ncxe5 18.dxe5 Qe7 19.Nf3! a5 20.Nd4 Bd7

If 20…Ba6?! then 21.Qh5 Nf8 22.Re3 is winning for White. Matanovic wants to keep the bishop
to defend the king.

21.Bd3!?

358
 21.Qh5 is strong here too. In that case, Black would do best to sacrifice a pawn with 21…b5!? to
obtain some counterplay, although White remains clearly better.

21…Rab8

22.a4
Spassky stops Black’s play on the queenside.

22…Nf8 23.f4 Rec8 24.Kh2!

The king opens the first rank for the rooks.

24…Qe8 25.g4
Spassky attacks with a pawn storm.

25…Ng6 26.Qf2 Qe7

After 26…b5 27.h5 Ne7 28.Rg1 bxa4 29.g5 White’s attack breaks through.

359
27.h5 Nf8 28.Rg1
Spassky intends to open the g-file, and there’s not much that Black can do about it.

28…f6 29.Rae1
Spassky sacrifices the a-pawn to bring his final piece into the attack.

29.exf6 Qxf6 30.g5 hxg5 31.Rxg5 would win as well.

29…Bxa4 30.Qg3 Be8

360
31.exf6
Spassky has no more pieces to improve, so he starts opening up the black king.

31…Qxf6 32.Re5 Qf7 33.g5!

Sacrificing another pawn.

33…Qxh5† 34.Kg2
Out of the blue, White threatens to trap the queen with g5-g6.

34…hxg5
Black opens the h-file, which is tantamount to digging the earth for his own grave.

There was not really a better option available, as 34…Bg6 35.Rh1 traps the queen.

35.fxg5 Qf7 36.Rf1 Qe7

37.g6
Black’s king is fixed and the game is all but over.

37…Rc4 38.Rh5 Rxd4 39.Rxf8†

And since 39…Qxf8 40.Rh8†! would lead to a checkmate, Matanovic resigned.
1–0

Spassky smoothly and brilliantly built his attack, before finishing the opponent with some sacrifices.
Spassky’s undefeated final score of 16/21 was a good result, but not a special one for the reigning

361
Soviet Champion. He finished in equal 2nd-3rd place with Polugaevsky, half a point behind Najdorf.
Curiously, Najdorf lost his first two games but then won eight in a row, and only drew five of the
twenty-one games. Smyslov and Gligoric finished in equal 4th-5th places.

I cite Soltis:

“Miguel Najdorf found Boris Spassky lying on a sun-drenched Cuban beach, enjoying a book.
“Spassky will never become World Champion.” Don Miguel said. “He loves life too much!””

***

Next, Spassky played in the Student Team World Championship for the fifth and last time. After
resting in the first two rounds of the preliminary, he played the following interesting game.

Game 54

Laszlo Liptay – Boris Spassky

Marianske Lazne 1962

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0-0 6.Nf3 c5 7.d5 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.exd5 Nh5!?
According to the database it was a novelty.

10.0-0 Re8 11.Bd3

11.Bd2 looks preferable.

362
11…Bxc3!
Spassky carries out an interesting plan: he tries to limit the movement of White’s dark-squared
bishop.

12.bxc3 Ng7!
12…Bf5 and 12…f5 are also playable, but Spassky wants to exchange light-squared bishops
without damaging his structure.

13.Rb1 b6
Spassky insists on developing the bishop to f5.

14.f5?!
Liptay either became too optimistic about his attacking chances, or too fearful of Black’s strategic
plan.

He should have preferred 14.Bd2 Bf5 15.Bxf5 Nxf5 16.g4 Ng7 with a double-edged position.

14…Bxf5 15.Bxf5
Also after 15.Bf4 Nd7 16.Bxd6 Qf6 Black is doing well.

15…Nxf5 16.Ng5

16…Qe7!
The queen defends the kingside effectively.

363
17.Nxh7?
This sacrifice simply loses.

In the event of 17.Qf3 Nd7 18.g4 Ne5 19.Qh3 f6 Black stands better.

Also after 17.Nxf7 Qxf7 18.g4 Nd7 the black queen defends the kingside well.

17…Kxh7 18.Rxf5 gxf5 19.Qh5† Kg8 20.Bg5

20…Qe2!
Spassky calculates accurately and sees that White cannot hurt him on the kingside.

21.Qh6 Nd7
Spassky neutralizes the Bf6 threat, and is about to win with …Qg4 and …Re2, so Liptay
resigned.
0–1

In 2007 Spassky played a rapid match against Portisch in Hungary. Liptay was also present, and he
approached Spassky saying that they had played in Marianske Lazne. At first, the former World
Champion did not remember him – but when the Hungarian IM mentioned …Bxc3 and …Ng7,
Spassky immediately smiled and said he remembered the game.

The next game took place in the final.

Game 55

364
 Boris Spassky – Dragoljub Ciric

Marianske Lazne 1962

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nc3 e6 5.Nxd5 exd5 6.d4 Nc6 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.Qxd5 Qb6 9.Bc4
Bxf2† 10.Ke2 0-0 11.Rf1 Bc5 12.Ng5 Nxe5 13.Qxe5 d5

14.Qxd5!
Spassky plays a novelty.

14…Re8†?
Ciric misses Spassky’s brilliant defensive resource.

He needed to play 14…Bg4†! 15.Rf3 Rad8 16.Qe4 Bxf3† 17.Kxf3 g6 when the position would be
dynamically balanced.

15.Kf3! Qf6† 16.Kg3 Bd6†

365
17.Rf4!!
Spassky commented: “Evidently this reply was overlooked by my rival in the analysis he made at
home.”

Ciric hoped for 17.Bf4??, which would run into the winning 17…Re3†.

17…Be6 18.Nxe6
18.Qxd6 Qxg5† 19.Kf2 Rad8 20.Qb4 would win as well.

18…Rxe6 19.Qxd6!
Spassky gets too much material for his queen.

19…Qg6† 20.Rg4 Re3† 21.Bxe3 Qxd6†

366
22.Kf2
Spassky has a decisive material advantage and converts it effortlessly.

22…Re8 23.Rf4 Re7 24.Bb3 Qe5 25.Re1 g5 26.Rf3 Kg7 27.Rd1 f6 28.Kg1 g4 29.Bd4!
1–0

Spassky slowed down towards the end of the final, drawing three of the last four games – one of them
with White against Liptay, his victim from the preliminary, as we saw previously. Spassky scored
7½/9 altogether.

***

Spassky was selected to play in the Soviet national team at the 1962 Olympiad, which took place in
Varna. It must have been a proud moment, knowing that he would represent his country in the most
prestigious team event in the world. He was placed on the third board, behind Botvinnik and
Petrosian. He won his first two games in the preliminaries, then played the following game.

Game 56

Boris Spassky – Klaus Darga

Varna (Olympiad) 1962

367
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be3 a6 7.a3 b5 8.Be2 Bb7 9.f4 Nf6 10.Bf3
d6 11.0-0 Na5 12.Qe2 Nc4

13.e5!
Spassky nicely exploits his advantage in development.

13…Nxe3?!
Exchanges generally help the better-developed side, and this is no exception.

13…dxe5 was the lesser evil, although it allows White to strike with a powerful tactic: 14.Ndxb5!!
axb5 15.Nxb5 Qd7 16.Qxc4 White stands much better.

14.Qxe3 dxe5 15.fxe5 Nd7 16.Bxb7 Qxb7

368
17.Qf4!
Spassky plays purposefully.

17…Nb6 18.Rad1 Na4

This turns out badly, but Black had a horrible position anyway. For instance, if 18…Bc5? then
19.Ne4 is crushing.

19.Nxa4 bxa4 20.Kh1

20.b4 axb3 21.Nxb3 would win as well.

20…Bc5

369
21.Nxe6! fxe6 22.Qxa4† Qb5 23.Qg4
White opens the king decisively, and Black has no defence.

23…Qc6 24.Qxg7 Rf8 25.Rxf8† Bxf8 26.Qxh7 Rc8 27.Qg6†

1–0

In Spassky’s next game from the preliminaries, he showed his impressive ability with knight
manoeuvres.

Game 57

Boris Spassky – Ragnar Hoen

Varna (Olympiad) 1962

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.0-0 c6 6.c4 d5 7.Na3 Nbd7 8.cxd5 cxd5 9.Bf4 Nh5
10.Bg5

370
10…Nb8!?
Black decides to transfer the knight to c6.

11.Nb1!?
Spassky opts for the same manoeuvre!

11…Nc6 12.Nc3 h6 13.Be3 Be6 14.Na4

White keeps on exercising the knight.

14…b6

371
15.Ne5!?
Now Spassky turns his attention to his other knight, while offering to unbalance the pawn
structure.

15…Rc8
15…Nxe5!? 16.dxe5 Bxe5 17.Bxh6 Re8 was also about equal.

16.f4 Nf6 17.Nc3

The knight has done its duty by provoking …b6, so it returns to the centre.

17…Nxe5?
This careless exchange helps White.

17…Na5 should have been preferred.

18.dxe5 Ng4 19.Bd4 f6 20.exf6 Nxf6

20…Bxf6! was a slight improvement, and after 21.Re1 Bf7 22.e3 White’s advantage would be
smaller than in the game.

372
21.Qb3
White starts putting pressure on the d5-pawn.

21…Bf7 22.Rad1 e6 23.e4 Qc7?

This move allows White to gain space and make the g7-bishop passive.

After 23…dxe4 24.Be5 Qe8 Black would be clearly worse, but not yet lost.

24.e5 Nd7

373
25.Nb5!
The knight aims to get to the d6-outpost, where it will be awesome.

25…Qb8 26.Nd6 Rc6 27.Qa4 Qc7 28.Nb5

Perhaps Spassky wanted to tire his opponent.

28…Rc4 29.Qb3 Qb8 30.Qe3 Kh7 31.Nd6 Rc6 32.b4 Rc2 33.a3 Bg8

34.Rc1
Spassky takes over the c-file.

34…Rc7 35.Rxc7 Qxc7 36.Rc1 Qb8 37.Bf1!

Spassky takes the time to improve every piece.

37…Rd8 38.Ba6 Bf8

374
39.Nb5!
The knight steps back from its outpost, to enable the rook to invade.

39…Be7 40.Rc7 Bf7 41.Qc3 g5

42.Qc6
Having been completely paralysed and now facing material losses, Hoen resigned.
1–0

Spassky easily won all his games from the preliminary rounds. He slowed down a bit in the final, but

375
still performed well. He drew the first four of those games, then in the last five games he scored three
wins and two draws. One of the important wins came against Evans of the USA. This was the same
match in which Fischer had a near-winning endgame with an extra pawn against Botvinnik, but the
World Champion was able to save the adjournment.

Spassky achieved an excellent final score of 11/14, remaining undefeated throughout. According to
Chessmetrics, his performance rating was 2708. Unsurprisingly, the Soviets took the team gold
medal. Apart from being a generally excellent result for Spassky, it might have helped him in another
way: after winning the most recent Soviet Championship and now Olympic gold, he had succeeded in
two of the most important and prestigious competitions in all of chess. There was not much left to
accomplish, except for the grandest achievement of all: becoming World Champion.
Spassky’s next event was the Spartakiad in Leningrad. He was the top scorer on Board 1, with an
unbeaten 6/8. He defeated two great players in Boleslavsky and Polugaevsky. We will look at the
latter game.

Game 58

Boris Spassky – Lev Polugaevsky

Leningrad 1962

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.Be3 Nf6 8.0-0 Nxd4 9.Bxd4 Bc5
10.Bxc5 Qxc5 11.Na4 Qa5 12.c4 b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Nc3 b4 15.Nb5 0-0 16.e5 Nd5 17.a4 Bb7
18.Qh5 f5 19.Qh4 b3 20.Rfd1 Bc6 21.Qc4 Nb6 22.Qxb3 Nxa4 23.Bc4 Nc5 24.Rxa5 Nxb3
25.Rxa8 Rxa8 26.Nd6 Ba4

376
27.Bxb3!
Spassky finds a winning plan of liquidation.

27…Bxb3 28.Rc1!
White swaps the rook to reach an endgame in which the superiority of the knight over the bishop
provides a winning advantage.

28…g5 29.Rc8† Rxc8 30.Nxc8 Kf8 31.Nd6 g4

32.Kf1

377
 Spassky activates the king.

32…Ke7 33.Ke2 Kd8 34.h4

White prepares to invade on the kingside.

34…gxh3
In the event of 34…Kc7 35.Ke3 Kc6 36.Kf4 h6 (36…Kd5 37.Ne8 wins) 37.h5 White follows
up with Nf7 and wins.

35.gxh3 Kc7 36.Ke3 Kc6 37.Kf4 Kc5

38.h4!
Before attacking any enemy pawns, Spassky pushes his own pawn far up the board.

38…Kd4
If 38…Bd1 then 39.Ne8 would win.

39.h5 Bd1 40.h6 Bh5 41.b4

Black can only choose on which side of the board he will lose the game. Polugaevsky decided to
opt out of that choice by resigning.
1–0

According to Chessmetrics, this latest strong performance temporarily elevated Spassky to second in
the world rankings, behind Petrosian.

378
According to Krogius, Spassky played on Board 1 for Leningrad in the annual match against
Moscow. He faced Smyslov, who was his usual opponent in this event. The games are not in the
database, which would seem to suggest that they did not try too hard.

Spassky’s last event of the year was the Soviet Championship in Yerevan. He started disastrously,
with two losses. In both of them the opening went horribly wrong. He recovered with a win and a
draw, and then faced Mikenas in the fifth round.

Game 59

Boris Spassky – Vladas Mikenas

Yerevan 1962

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.Qe2 b5 8.Bb3 Bb7 9.Rd1 Nbd7 10.Nc3
b4 11.Na4 Qa5 12.Bd2 cxd4 13.Nxd4 Be7 14.a3 0-0 15.axb4 Qg5 16.f3 Qh5 17.e4 Bd6 18.g3
Rfd8 19.Bc3 Ne5

20.Kg2?
Having obtained a winning advantage, Spassky now makes a careless move.

20.Nc5 would have given White a clear advantage, but even stronger would have been 20.Nb6! Rab8
21.Nc4!, when Black is in huge trouble.

379
20…Nxf3!!
Mikenas creates massive complications with this witty sacrifice.

21.Nxf3 Nxe4 22.Rd4!

Spassky reacts well to the new situation.

22.Nc5 is likely to lead to a repetition. 22…Bxc5 23.bxc5 Ng5 Black will check on h3 and return the
queen to h5 to draw.

22…Ng5 23.Rf1

23…Nxf3?
Mikenas commits a mistake in a wild position.

It is easy to go wrong. If 23…Be5? 24.Rh4 wins; or if 23…Qh3†? 24.Kg1 Qh5 25.Bd1 Black has
nothing. However, there was more than one adequate continuation available.

23…Bxg3!! This sacrifice would weaken the white king enough to keep the balance. 24.hxg3 Rxd4
25.Bxd4 Qh3† 26.Kg1 Now taking on g3 would be a mistake, as White simply blocks the check and
Black has nothing. A much better move is:

380
26…Qg4!! Black wins back a piece and is doing fine. (Notice that the queen must attack the d4-
bishop as well; thus, 26…Qh5? would not work because of 27.Bd1!.)
An even more amazing idea is:

23…a5!!
Who would ever imagine that moving a pawn on the queenside would keep Black in the game?
24.bxa5
In the event of 24.b5 Nxf3 25.Rxf3 Bxf3† 26.Qxf3 Qxb5 27.Rxd6 (or 27.Rg4 Be5) 27…Qxb3
the position would be balanced.
24…Be5! 25.Rh4

381
25…Bxf3† 26.Rxf3 Qxf3† 27.Qxf3 Nxf3 28.Kxf3 Bxc3 29.Nxc3 Rxa5
Unlike in the game, Black has enough play on the queenside.

Finally, even 23…Rab8!? somehow works, but in a more obscure and less human way than the two
improvements noted above.

24.Rxf3 Be7
24…Be5 is inadequate due to 25.Rh4! Bxf3† 26.Qxf3 Qxf3† 27.Kxf3 and White should win.

25.Re4?!
Spassky’s move keeps some advantage, but it is not the best.

25.Rdf4! would have left Black without a good move. For instance, if 25…Bf6 26.Nc5 Black will
have to exchange on f3. Or if 25…Re8 26.Bc2 White threatens Be4, and Black will again be forced to
simplify.

25…Rab8
After 25…Qb5! 26.Bc2 Rac8 27.Kf2 g6 White’s advantage would be smaller than in the game.

26.Bc2 Bc6

382
27.Rc4
27.Nc5! looks more convincing. For instance, 27…Bxc5 (or 27…Rb5 28.Ref4) 28.bxc5 Qxc5
29.Rg4 g6 30.Be4 and White wins.

27…Bd5 28.Be4 Bxc4 29.Qxc4 Bf6 30.Rxf6

Spassky unnecessarily gives back an exchange. Simply stopping a check on d2 with 30.Bd3 or
30.Rf2 would have won more easily.

30…gxf6 31.Nc5 Qd1

Again Black could have caused more problems with a surprising queenside strike: 31…a5!! 32.b5
(32.bxa5?? Rxb2†! wins for Black!) 32…Qd1! White needs to find a difficult move to maintain the
advantage:

383
33.Bc6! (33.h4 Rd2†!, 33.Bf3 Rd2†! and 33.Bd3 Rxd3! all turn out okay for Black.) 33…Rd5!?
34.Bxd5 exd5 Black has chances to survive.

32.Bd3!
Spassky consolidates his position and is winning again.

32…a5!? 33.Qe4?
The simple 33.bxa5 would have left Black without a good answer.

Alternatively, if White preferred to attack the king then 33.Qf4! was the right way to do it. Black has
no good way to defend the dark squares.

384
33…Qh5 34.Qf4?
Attacking the king looks tempting, but objectively it lets Black off the hook.

34.bxa5? Qxc5 is also unsatisfactory.

34.Qe3! was the best move, defending the c5-knight. After 34…axb4 35.Bxf6 Rbc8 36.Be4 h6
37.Nd3 Rc2† 38.Nf2 White has decent winning chances.

34…axb4 35.Ne4
The alternative is: 35.Bxf6 Qd5†! (35…Qxc5? 36.Qh6 Qd5† 37.Kh3 wins easily.) 36.Ne4
(36.Kh3 Qh5† leaves White with nothing better than retreating to g2.) 36…Qxd3 Incredibly, White
has no win here. Play could continue:

37.Qg5† Kf8 38.Bg7† Ke8 39.Nf6† Ke7 40.Ne4† Ke8 The game would end in a repetition.

385
35…Qd5!
Mikenas finds the only move.

36.Bc4!
Spassky responds with a witty idea. Black cannot take on c4 because his queen will be lost to a
discovered check.

36.Bxf6 Qxd3 would transpose to the note to White’s 35th move above.

36…bxc3?
Black gives up the queen in an unfortunate way. He will get a strong passed pawn, but his king

386
will be completely defenceless. One gets the impression that this phase of the game was played in
mutual time trouble. Black had two possible ways to hold:
a) 36…Qf5! 37.Nxf6† (The alternative is 37.Bxf6 Qxf4 38.gxf4 Rdc8 and now if 39.b3? Black has
39…Rxc4!, while after 39.Bd3 h6 Black is okay.) 37…Kg7!? (37…Kf8 should also draw.) 38.Nh5†
Kg8

39.Qh6 Qg6 40.Nf6† Kh8 41.Qxg6 hxg6 42.Be5 Rbc8 Black holds.

b) Black could also have sacrificed the queen in a better way than in the game: 36…Qxe4†! 37.Qxe4
bxc3 38.bxc3 Rb2† 39.Kf3 Rxh2 White has no way to win. For example:

40.Qf4 (40.Bxe6 fxe6 41.Qxe6† Kf8 42.Qxf6† Ke8 gives White no more than a draw.) 40…Kg7

387
41.Qc7 Rdd2 (There is also 41…Rd1!? 42.Bb5 [42.Bxe6? loses to 42…Rf1†] 42…Rhh1 and Black
holds) 42.Bb5 h5 and White cannot win.

37.Bxd5 cxb2 38.Nxf6†

Taking a pawn and destroying the black king’s defences.

38…Kf8

39.Nd7†!
39.Nxh7†! would have won more quickly after 39…Ke7 40.Qf6† or 39…Ke7 40.Qc7†.
However, Spassky’s move still wins cleanly.

39…Ke8 40.Ne5
40.Qd6!? was also working, as 40…b1=Q allows 41.Nf6#. The game continuation is fine
though.

40…Rxd5 41.Qxf7†
White simply catches Black.

41…Kd8 42.Nc6† Kc8

388
43.Qe8† Kc7 44.Qxb8† Kxc6 45.Qxb2 h5
Mikenas resigned, possibly before resuming the adjournment. It was a fascinating tactical game.
Both players made mistakes, but both showed their brilliance.
1–0

As the event went on, Spassky gradually improved his standing on the crosstable. In Round 13 he
suffered a setback and lost to Korchnoi, who outplayed him. Towards the end of the event, Spassky
produced a strategic masterpiece.

Game 60

Boris Spassky – Ratmir Kholmov

Yerevan 1962

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 Be6 10.d4
Bxb3 11.Qxb3 Qd7 12.Nbd2 Rfe8 13.a4 Na5 14.Qd1 Bf8 15.b3 c5 16.d5 Reb8 17.b4 Nb7 18.a5
g6 19.Nf1 cxb4 20.cxb4 Rc8 21.Bg5 Bg7 22.Rc1 h6

389
23.Bxf6!
Spassky starts a remarkable plan. Despite having a space advantage, he opts to exchange pieces.
It is hard to anticipate why.

23…Bxf6 24.Qd2 Kg7 25.Rxc8!

It might look as if every exchange eases Black’s position, but in reality it uncovers Black’s
biggest problem.

25…Rxc8 26.Rc1 Rc7 27.Ne3 Be7

390
28.Rxc7! Qxc7 29.Qc2!
Following through with the plan – but what will be Black’s problem after further exchanges?

29…Qxc2 30.Nxc2 Bd8 31.Nd2!?

Spassky plays patiently, and waits for the best moment to unleash his wicked idea. In the game it
works perfectly, but objectively it gives Black a chance to defend.

31.Na3! would have forced Black to sacrifice either the knight or the bishop on a5, resulting in an
endgame where Black still has some defensive chances, but White would be the clear favourite.

31…f5?
This attempt to find counterplay gets nowhere.

31…Kf8! was better, and if 32.Na3 Ke7 33.Nxb5 Black can survive with 33…Nxa5!.

32.Kf1!
Spassky has time to improve his king.

32…Kf6 33.Ke2 fxe4

33…Ke7 no longer works, as 34.exf5 gxf5 35.Ne3 Kf6 36.g4! is horrible for Black.

34.Nxe4† Ke7

391
35.Na3!!
Out of the blue, Spassky threatens to take on b5. Finally the reason for exchanging all those
pieces becomes clear: with fewer pieces on the board, the horrible placement of the b7-knight
becomes a much more important element of the position. With no heavy pieces remaining, Black
cannot cope with the power of the a-pawn. I think Spassky came up with the idea of winning the
game in this way at least twelve moves earlier, when he exchanged on f6. It might even have been as
early as move 18, when he fixed the queenside structure with a4-a5.

35…Bxa5
Kholmov has no choice but to sacrifice a piece. He gets two connected passers on the queenside,
but Spassky keeps them under control and makes the win look easy.

36.bxa5 Nxa5 37.Nc2 Nb3 38.Nb4 a5 39.Nc6† Kd7 40.Kd3 a4 41.Kc3 Nc5 42.f3 a3 43.Nb4 Kc7

392
44.Nc2
The queenside pawns will soon be destroyed.

44…Na6 45.Kb3 b4 46.Nd2 Kb6 47.Nxb4 Nxb4 48.Kxb4 a2 49.Nb3 g5 50.g4 Ka6 51.Na1 Kb6
52.Nc2 Ka6 53.Kb3 Kb5 54.Kxa2 Kc5 55.Ne3 Kd4
1–0

It was sometimes said of Fischer that he never had a bad piece; so Spassky’s great strategic idea
would have been unlikely to work against the American.

Spassky had a great finish: after losing to Korchnoi, he scored four wins and two draws in the final
six games. However, it was not enough to make up for his poor start, as he finished in 5th place with
12½/19. Korchnoi won the event with 14 points – the second of four Soviet Championship victories
in his career. Tal and Taimanov were 2nd-3rd with 13½, and Kholmov was 4th with 13 points.

After winning the Soviet Championship at the end of 1961, Spassky faced mostly weaker opposition
throughout 1962. I think it affected his level, and this would explain why he started badly in the 1962
event. Away from the chessboard, according to Soltis, Spassky started to become more politically
aware around this time, and his anti-communist feelings grew.

1962 Results
Capablanca Memorial, Havana (2nd-3rd place): 16/21 (+11 =10 –0)
Student Team World Championship, Marianske Lazne (Board 1): 7½/9, Team Gold (+6 =3 –0)

393
Varna Olympiad (Board 3): 11/14, Team Gold, Individual Gold (+8 =6 –0)
Spartakiad, Leningrad (Board 1): 6/8, Team Gold (+4 =4 –0)
Moscow – Leningrad match (Board 1 vs. Smyslov): 1/2 (+0 =2 –0)
Soviet Championship, Yerevan (5th place): 12½/19 (+9 =7 –3)

Total 74.0% (+38 =32 –3)

394
 1963

Early in the year, Spassky moved to Moscow. According to Soltis, Bondarevsky suggested moving
from Leningrad, on the basis that the KGB was interested in him. Another time, the excellent
American author mentions that Spassky’s ex-wife was a source of stress to him in Leningrad. The
KGB story makes little sense to me, as moving to Moscow would hardly be a good way of getting
away from them. I asked Sosonko if he had any opinion about it, and he doubted the story.

Whatever the reason, Spassky moved to the Soviet capital. His team Lokomotiv arranged for him to
stay in a one-bedroom apartment in Ramenskoye, a town forty-six kilometres from the centre of
Moscow. Spassky remembers: “I was happy. I had a personal corner.”

***

According to Krogius, Spassky played on Board 1 for his new team Lokomotiv at the Leningrad
Team Championship. He achieved an impressive scored of 5½/6. Only one of the games is available,
in which Spassky beat Bykov convincingly.

Spassky’s next event was another team competition: the Soviet Spartakiad. Six of his eight games are
in the database. The following one features a nice finish.

Game 61

Boris Spassky – Yuri Nikolaevsky

Moscow 1963

395
31.Bf2!
Spassky defends the e1-rook with the bishop, and is now ready to simplify with Nc5.

31…Na5?
Black avoids the above idea, but placing the knight on a passive square cannot be good.

31…Ba6 32.Qf5! places Black in a desperate situation after 32…Rcd8 33.d5, or 32…d5 33.Bxc4
followed by Nd2.

31…a5! was the best chance, when 32.Qf7! is the most accurate. (In the event of 32.Nc5 Rxe1
33.Rxe1 dxc5 34.Qxc6 Bxc6 35.Bxc4 Black has chances to hold, as White does not have many
pawns remaining.) 32…Ba6 33.d5 Ne5 34.Bxa6 Qa8 35.Qf5 Qxa6 36.Nf6 Re7 37.Bg3 Black faces a
struggle to survive.

32.Qf5!
This sly move vacates the f6-square for the knight.

32…Rg8
32…Qd5 33.Qxd5 Bxd5 34.Nd2 is virtually hopeless for Black.

33.Nf6!?
Spassky chooses to win in a flashy way, rather than with the simpler 33.Rg1.

33…Rg2

396
34.d5!
Trapping the black queen. 34.Bb5! Rxf2† 35.Kd3 would win in a similar way.

34…Rxf2† 35.Re2!!
Spassky blocks the check by placing his rook en prise.

35…Nc4
Alternatives are no better: 35…fxe2 36.Qxf2 is hopeless for Black; and if 35…Rxe2† 36.Bxe2
fxe2 (or 36…Qc5 37.Nd7†) 37.dxc6 White wins.

36.Rxf2 Ne3† 37.Kd2 Nxd5 38.Nxd5 Qxd5

397
39.Qxd5 Bxd5 40.Re1
The time control has been reached and Black is a rook down, so Nikolaevsky resigned.
1–0

Spassky’s final score at the Spartakiad was 5½/8, consisting of four wins, three draws and one loss.

Spassky’s next event was the Soviet Championship semi-final. It also signified the start of the next
World Championship cycle, although the Soviet qualification process was controversially changed
this time. Previously, the national championship had served as the Zonal qualification event for the
USSR. However, at some point the Soviet authorities decided to introduce an additional Zonal
tournament, consisting of the six top qualifiers from the Soviet Championship, along with a few other
players who would be directly seeded into the tournament. Further details about the 1964 Zonal event
will follow in the next chapter.

Soltis quotes Spassky from the mid-1950s as saying, “It was evident that sooner or later I would
become World Champion.” Indeed, as we saw earlier in the book, in 1955, at the age of eighteen,
Spassky finished equal third in the Soviet Championship and subsequently qualified from the
Interzonal. The following year, he went on to achieve a plus score in the Candidates tournament.
Spassky’s performances from that period at such a young age would seem to justify such a confident
statement about his future as World Champion. However, in both 1958 and 1961, Spassky failed to
clear the first hurdle in the Soviet Union, which might have given him cause to reassess his earlier
statement.

To what did Spassky’s peers attribute his failures in 1958 and 1961? According to Soltis, Petrosian
blamed Spassky’s “psychological instability,” while Tal pointed to what he perceived as Spassky’s

398
“well-concealed nervousness.”

Whether because of those factors or something else, there is no doubt that Spassky had
underperformed at the last two Soviet Championships which doubled as Zonal qualifying events. As
we will see, the next World Championship cycle would be different. According to Soltis, at some
point Spassky suggested to Bondarevsky, “Perhaps I should become World Champion?” “Okay, let’s
do it!” his trainer replied.

Spassky turned twenty-six at the start of 1963. With Bondarevsky’s help, he was about to enter a new
phase of his career, during which his results would prove that he could adjust his work ethic and
attitude in the right way. Although Spassky deserves great credit for his subsequent successes, there
were other circumstances which helped him as well. In particular, Tal was the same age as Spassky
and had already won the highest title in chess, and he would have been an extremely formidable rival
for Spassky, but Tal’s chess level had dropped. He could still play fantastically well, but his form was
somewhat inconsistent due to his poor health, as well as volatility in his marriage. I believe that Tal’s
decline was an important factor which contributed to Spassky’s ascent towards the top of the chess
world.
Only five of Spassky’s games are available from the fifteen-round semi-final tournament. He won
four of those games and drew the other. Here is one of them.

Game 62

Boris Spassky – Yuri Averbakh

Kharkov 1963

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5
11.d4 Nd7 12.Nbd2 cxd4 13.cxd4 exd4?!
Averbakh had only played this variation a few times, not long before this game took place. His
last move is a dubious novelty.

399
14.Nb3!?
Spassky probably chose this move to avoid Averbakh’s home analysis after the more obvious
recapture on d4.

14…Bf6 15.Nxa5 Qxa5 16.Bg5 Qd8

16…Bxg5 17.Nxg5 Ne5 looks like a slight improvement.

17.Bxf6 Qxf6 18.Nxd4 Ne5?!

The knight stands decently on this square, but Black had a better move.

18…g6! covers the f5-square and bolsters the kingside, while preparing to put pressure on the e4-
pawn. For instance: 19.a4 (Also after 19.Qd2 Bb7 20.Rad1 Rad8 Black is close to equal.) 19…bxa4
20.Bxa4 Nc5 If White has an edge, it is really small.

400
19.Bb3 Bd7?!
Averbakh plays passively; it looks like he was just hoping to hold the position. Spassky probably
sensed that he could play for a win with no risk.

20.Rc1
20.Qd2! Rac8 21.Rad1 looks preferable.

20…Rac8 21.Qd2 Ng6?!

Averbakh plays with no plan. He should have preferred 21…Rxc1 22.Rxc1 Rc8 23.Rxc8† Bxc8
24.Qc3 Bd7 when Black has good chances to hold.

22.Rcd1!
Spassky corrects his small inaccuracy from move 20 and avoids unnecessary simplifications.

22…Ne5?!

401
23.f4
White also keeps a nice advantage with 23.Ne2!?, after which 23…Be6! looks like Black’s best
try.

23…Nc4 24.Bxc4 bxc4?!

Black’s pawn structure becomes too rigid after this move.

24…Rxc4 was the lesser evil, when play may continue: 25.b3 Rc5 (Also after 25…Rcc8 26.Nf3 Bc6
27.Qxd6 Rfe8 28.Ne5 Black is under pressure but has chances to survive.) 26.Nf3 Bc8 27.Qxd6
Qxd6 28.Rxd6 Rc2 29.Rd2 Black’s position is difficult but not hopeless.

25.Ne2 Ba4 26.Rc1 Rfd8

Averbakh tries to hold the position.

He could have considered giving up the d6-pawn with 26…Rfe8!?, and after 27.Nc3 Bc6 28.Rcd1 h6
29.Qxd6 Qh4 it would not be easy to convert White’s advantage.

27.Nc3 Bc6 28.Rcd1 h6

402
29.Qe3!
Spassky gets ready to double his rooks on the d-file.

29…Rb8 30.Re2 Rbc8 31.Rd4!

The rook stands beautifully on this square, attacking two black pawns while guarding the e4-
pawn.

31…Bb7 32.Red2 Qe7

33.Qg3!

403
 Spassky’s move has an effect on both the d6-pawn and the black king.

33…Kf8?
Averbakh gives up a pawn. If 33…Qc7? then 34.f5 would be strong.

Black should have tried exerting pressure on the e4-pawn: 33…Re8!? 34.Kh2!? (34.Rxd6? Bxe4!
reduces White’s advantage; or if 34.f5 Qe5 Black stays in the game.) 34…Ba8 Black is living
dangerously, but it is not easy for White to find a forced win.

34.f5 Re8 35.Rxd6 Qe5

Also after 35…Bxe4 36.f6! gxf6 37.Qf4 White wins.

36.Qxe5 Rxe5

37.R2d4
White’s position is easily winning, and Spassky will convert his advantage stylishly.

37…a5 38.Rb6 Ba8 39.Ra6 Ke8 40.Kf2!

The white king joins the fun.

40…Kf8 41.Ke3 Rec5 42.Rd7

The game must have been adjourned somewhere around here. I find it slightly surprising that
Averbakh chose to play on.

42…Bc6 43.Rda7 a4

404
44.Kd4
The king stands superbly in the centre.

44…Be8 45.Rb6 h5 46.g4 h4 47.Rbb7 R5c6 48.Nd5 Rd8

49.g5
Spassky’s pawns choke Black on the kingside.

49…Rcd6 50.Kxc4 Rc6† 51.Kd4 Rc2 52.Ke5 Rc4

405
53.g6!
Opening the seventh rank finishes the game quickly.

53…f6† 54.Nxf6 gxf6† 55.Kxf6 Rc6†

55…Rxe4 56.Rh7 wins instantly.

56.Kg5
1–0

Throughout the tournament, Spassky played in a calm and controlled manner, drawing against some
opponents and outplaying and beating others, including Suetin. He also had an attacking win against a
familiar victim from the Spartakiad.

Game 63

Boris Spassky – Yuri Nikolaevsky

Kharkov 1963

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.a4 cxd4 8.exd4 Nc6 9.Nc3 Be7 10.Be3
0-0 11.Qe2 Nb4 12.Ne5 b6 13.f4 Nfd5 14.Rad1 Bf6 15.Ne4 Bb7

406
16.f5?!
Spassky attacks hastily. Even though it works perfectly in the game, it was objectively stronger to
save the bishop first: 16.Bd2! b5!? (16…Rc8 17.f5 is extremely strong; or if 16…g6 17.Bxb4! Nxb4
18.Nxf6† Qxf6 19.Nd7 White wins an exchange.) 17.axb5 axb5 White keeps a clear advantage after
18.Bxb5 or 18.Bb3!?.

16…exf5?
Nikolaevsky misses his chance to exchange off White’s attacking pieces with: 16…Nxe3!
17.Qxe3 exf5 18.Rxf5 Bxe5! 19.Rxe5 Rc8 (19…Bd5?! 20.Qb3 is unpleasant.) 20.Qb3 Qc7 Black
holds.

17.Rxf5 Nxe3
If 17…Be7 18.Rdf1 Nxe3 19.Qxe3 Bd5 20.Nxf7 White wins.

407
18.Nxf6†!
This intermediate move destroys Black’s kingside at the mere cost of a piece. 17.Qxe3? would
transpose to the note to Black’s 16th move above.

18…gxf6 19.Qxe3 fxe5

If Black tries something like 19…b5 then 20.Ng4 wins easily.

20.Qxe5 h6 21.Rf6
21.Qf4 would win as well.

21…Kh7

408
22.Rdf1
White shifts the final piece towards the kingside, and Black is defenceless.

22…Bd5 23.Qf5† Kg8 24.Qg4† Kh7 25.Rxh6†

Nikolaevsky resigned, as 25…Kxh6 26.Rf5 leads to a swift checkmate.
1–0

Spassky scored a total of six wins and nine draws, for an unbeaten total of 10½/15. He ‘only’ finished
in second place in the tournament, but it hardly mattered because he easily qualified for the final.
According to Bondarevsky, they were already planning for Boris to go all the way towards the World
Championship. Bondarevsky’s effect could be seen in Spassky’s careful, low-risk approach. He
improved at finding weaknesses in his opponents’ play, and in anticipating their resources and tactics.

***

After the Kharkov qualifier, Spassky played in no other events until the Soviet Championship Final.
It was held in Leningrad. Spassky continued his low-risk approach from the qualifier but was perhaps
a bit too cautious, as he began sluggishly with five fairly short draws. In the next round he showed his
prowess in the opening.

Game 64

Arkady Novopashin – Boris Spassky

Leningrad 1963

409
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5
10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Be3 Bg4 16.Qd3 Rae8 17.Nd2
Re6
The Marshall Attack was still a relatively new and experimental opening at the time.

18.a4
Novopashin plays a novelty. In previous games, White either exchanged on d5 first or dropped
the queen back to f1.

18…bxa4!
Spassky reacts well; he is ready to undertake a bad pawn structure to gain a tempo.

18…f5? is worse due to: 19.axb5 f4 (Or 19…axb5 20.Qf1 Qh5 21.Bf4! and White is close to
winning.) 20.Bxf4 Bxf4 21.Rxe6 Bxe6 22.bxa6 Black would struggle.

19.Rxa4
19.Bxa4 can be met by 19…Bf4! 20.Qf1 Nxe3 21.Qxh3 Bxh3 22.Nf3 when the position would
be balanced.

19…f5 20.f4??
Novopashin misses Spassky’s devastating tactical idea.

He needed to play 20.Qf1 f4 21.Qxh3 Bxh3 22.Rxa6 fxe3 followed by either 23.fxe3 or 23.Rxe3. In
either case, White has three pawns versus a piece and the chances are balanced.

410
20…Bxf4!! 21.Bf2
21.gxf4 Rh6 22.Re2 Re8 wins for Black.

21…Rxe1† 22.Bxe1 Re8

White’s position is hopeless. If 23.Bf2 Black wins with either 23…Be2 or 23…Bxd2 24.Qxd2
Bf3; or if 23.Qf1 Be3† 24.Bf2 Bxf2† 25.Qxf2 Re2 White has no hope. Therefore Novopashin
resigned.
0–1

There followed a fairly short draw against Bronstein. We will look at Spassky’s game from Round 8.

Game 65

Janis Klovans – Boris Spassky

Leningrad 1963

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.a4
Unlike Spassky’s previous victim, Klovans avoids the main line of the Marshall.

8…Bb7 9.d3 d6 10.Nc3 Na5 11.Ba2 b4 12.Ne2 c5 13.Ng3

411
13…b3!?
Spassky finds a different way to sacrifice a pawn! His move is a novelty, deviating from
13…Bc8. Both of those moves will be popular choices in the years and decades to follow. Spassky’s
pawn sacrifice looks justified, as White’s pawn structure will be compromised and Black will obtain
play along the b-file.

14.cxb3?!
14.Bxb3 is a better move which will become the main line.

14…Nc6 15.Nf5?!
A better option was to liberate the bishop with 15.b4! Nxb4 16.Bc4, when Black’s advantage
would be minimal.

15…Nb4
Spassky paralyses White’s queenside.

16.Bb1 a5

412
17.Bg5?!
Now Black gets a chance to take over the initiative on the kingside.

Instead after 17.N3h4! Bc8 18.Nxe7† Qxe7 19.f4 Black only stands slightly better.

17…Bc8 18.Nxe7† Qxe7 19.Nd2?!

Klovans gives up his dark-squared bishop.

A better choice was 19.h3 h6 20.Bd2 Rb8 when White is rather passive, but Black’s advantage is
smaller than in the game.

19…h6 20.Be3
Wisely avoiding 20.Bh4 g5! 21.Bg3 Ne8 22.Nf1 Ng7 followed by …f5, when White is in
trouble.

413
20…g5
Spassky keeps some advantage after this move, but going after the bishop with 20…Ng4! was
significantly stronger, as it would enable Black to play …f5 more quickly. After something like after
21.h3 Nxe3 22.Rxe3 (or 22.fxe3 Qg5) 22…f5 Black stands clearly better.

21.Nf1 Ne8 22.Ng3

It was better to regroup with 22.Bd2! Nc6 (after 22…Ng7 23.Bxb4 axb4 24.Ne3 White is not
worse) 23.Ba2 Ra7 (or 23…Be6 24.Ne3) 24.b4 axb4 25.Bd5 when White is only moderately worse.

22…Ng7 23.Qd2 f6 24.Bc2

414
24…Qf7! 25.Bd1 Qg6
Spassky reroutes his queen to a better square, and is now ready to gain further space on the
kingside.

26.Be2 h5 27.Qd1 g4
Sending back the knight with 27…h4! would have been even stronger: 28.Nf1 (28.Nh5? Ne6
would leave White’s knight hopelessly trapped.) 28…f5 29.exf5 Bxf5 30.h3 Ne6 White faces a grim
future.

28.f4!
White needs to fight back on the kingside.

28…gxf3 29.Bxf3 h4 30.Nh5

415
30…Ra7!
Spassky brings his rook into the attack quickly.

30…Ne6? 31.Rc1 Ra7 32.Bg4 would lead to an unclear position where anything could happen.

31.Rf1 f5
Spassky’s move is natural, but 31…Ba6!? was another good option, and after 32.Rf2 Nxd3
33.Rd2 Nxh5 34.Rxd3 Bxd3 35.Qxd3 Black keeps the better chances.

32.Nxg7 Rxg7

416
33.exf5?
Klovans makes a serious mistake. He probably couldn’t resist opening space for his light-squared
bishop after it spent so many moves blocked behind the white pawns, but in doing so he activates
Black’s pieces and also loses an important pawn.

33.Bd2! was a better move, when play could continue: 33…h3 (An important point is that 33…Nxd3
34.Qe2! is okay for White; alternatively, if 33…f4 34.Bxb4 axb4 35.Kh1 Black has nothing special.)
34.Bxb4 cxb4 35.exf5!?

35…Qxg2†! 36.Bxg2 Rxg2† 37.Kh1 Bb7 38.Qf3! Bxf3 39.Rxf3 Rxb2 Black still has some chances,
but White should be able to hold with accurate defence.

417
33…Bxf5 34.Qd2 Bxd3
With an extra pawn and the more active pieces, Black should be winning.

35.Bh6 Bxf1 36.Rxf1 e4 37.Bxg7

37…Kxg7?
Spassky misses an instant win with 37…Rxf3! 38.Bc3 (or 38.Bh6 h3) 38…Nd3 39.Bxa5 Nf4
when White could resign. Probably both players were short of time.

38.Be2?
Klovans misses the chance to stop Spassky improving his queen.
38.Qc3†! would force the black king to move, at a time when each square has a drawback.
38…Kh7 (After 38…Kg8 39.Be2 Rxf1† 40.Bxf1 Qg7 41.Qc4† d5 42.Qxc5 White is safe.) 39.Be2
Rxf1† 40.Bxf1 Qg7

418
41.Qe1! White is okay, for instance: 41…Qd4† 42.Kh1 e3 (42…Nd3 43.Qxh4† is likely to end in
perpetual check.) 43.Qb1†! This is the drawback of having the king on the h7-square. 43…Kg7
44.Qf5 White holds.

38…Rxf1† 39.Bxf1

39…Qf6!
Improving the queen and exploiting White’s most recent error.

40.Qe2

419
 40.Qe1 Qd4† 41.Kh1 Nd3 wins.

40…Qf4
40…Qd4† 41.Kh1 Kf6 42.Qe1 (or 42.Qh5 Qf2) 42…e3 43.h3 Kg5 also wins for Black.

41.Qb5

41…Kh6!
The king steps away from the immediate checks and prepares a triumphant march towards the
centre.

42.Qe8
42.Qxa5 Qe3† 43.Kh1 Nd3 would lead to a checkmate.

42…Qe3† 43.Kh1 Qf2

White’s back rank is decisively weak, and the checks will soon run out.

44.Qh8† Kg5 45.Qg7† Kf4

420
46.g3†
After 46.Qh6† Ke5 47.Qh8† Qf6 48.Qh5† Kd4 49.Qd1† Nd3 there are no more checks and
Black wins.

46…hxg3 47.hxg3† Qxg3

Black can capture the pawn, as White will not be able to give up the bishop and queen to force a
stalemate.

48.Qh6† Kf3 49.Qd2

421
49…Kg4!
Leaving White with barely any checks remaining.

50.Bb5
After 50.Be2† Kf5! White has no further checks.

50…Nd3 51.Bxd3 exd3 52.Qxa5

Klovans resigned, rather than waiting for Spassky to force a checkmate or promote the d-pawn.
0–1

Spassky’s tournament continued with mostly draws along with wins here and there. Many of his
draws were shorter than usual. Here is one of his games which featured a flashy idea.

Game 66

Boris Spassky – Eduard Gufeld

Leningrad 1963

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 b6 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.Nge2 c5 9.d5 e6 10.0-0 Nbd7
11.Bg5 exd5 12.Nxd5 Bxd5 13.cxd5 a6 14.Rc1 b5 15.b3 Re8 16.Qd2 Qb6 17.Kh1 Rac8 18.Rfe1
Ne5 19.Bb1 b4 20.Ng3 c4 21.Be3 c3?

Any sensible queen move would have given Black a decent position with roughly equal chances.

422
22.Qxc3!!
Spassky finds a brilliant refutation of Gufeld’s last move. The tactics are not difficult to calculate,
but many players would not even consider this as a candidate.

22…bxc3 23.Bxb6 Nfd7 24.Ba5!

Unfortunately for Gufeld, the e5-knight can’t move, so White wins more material.

White must avoid 24.Bd4?? on account of 24…Nxf3! when the advantage shifts to Black.

24…Nc5 25.Rxc3 f5
Gufeld tries to stir things up.

26.exf5!
Spassky confidently takes another pawn, having correctly calculated the upcoming tactics.

26…Ng4 27.Rxe8† Rxe8 28.Rxc5!

Spassky’s choice is the most efficient, although 28.Rc1 would win as well.

28…Nf2† 29.Kg1 Bd4

423
30.Rc4!
White can easily neutralize Black’s play.

30…Ba7 31.Kf1 Nd1 32.Re4

1–0

Before the last round, Stein had the lead with 12/18. Spassky and Kholmov had 11½, while Bronstein
was half a point behind them. Bronstein strangely made no real attempt to beat Kholmov with the
white pieces, but instead killed the game to a draw. Spassky was White against Nei, and decided to
avoid mainstream theory with 1.Nf3 d5 2.b4. He obtained no advantage, and they simplified to a
position with queen, rook and opposite-coloured bishops. Spassky tried to create chances but
eventually had to accept the inevitable draw.

Meanwhile Stein obtained a promising position out of the opening against Bagirov, but then he lost
control and got into trouble. Bagirov played well and converted his advantage, which meant that the
championship ended in a three-way tie. This meant that the title of Soviet Champion would be
decided in a play-off, which would take place early in 1964.

Compared to previous years, Spassky’s chess was somewhat grey in 1963. Having played through his
games, I get the sense that he made it his sole priority to qualify for the next stage of the World
Championship cycle, possibly holding back some of his fighting instinct. We may never know
whether he did it fully intentionally, but in any case he achieved his goal of qualifying for the
Interzonal. In a way, Spassky’s chess in 1963 is similar to that of Fischer in 1969. They were both
twenty-six years old at the time, and both had a calm year in which their chess was nothing special
compared to their previous form. However, they both were able to build upon the quiet year and raise

424
their level, setting themselves up to achieve greater heights at the World Championship level.

1963 Results
Leningrad Team Championship (Board 1): 5½/6 (+5 =1 –0)
Spartakiad, Moscow (Board 3): 5½/8 (+4 =3 –1)
Soviet Championship semi-final, Kharkov (2nd place): 10½/15 (+6 =9 –0)
Soviet Championship Final, Leningrad (1st-3rd places): 12/19 (+5 =14 –0)

Total 69.8% (+20 =27 –1)

425
Spassky watches Larsen playing as Black against Klaus Darga at the 1964 Amsterdam Interzonal

426
 1964

The three winners of the Soviet Championship moved from Leningrad to Moscow for the play-off. In
the first part of the double-round-robin event, Spassky drew against Kholmov but lost to Stein after
Spassky misplayed the opening. Stein drew both of his games against Kholmov. In the second half,
Spassky defeated Kholmov; you can find the game on page 146, in the notes to Spassky – Bronstein.
Spassky tried hard to beat Stein, but he was unable to do it and had to settle for the silver medal.

***

As mentioned earlier, the Soviet authorities decided to implement an additional Soviet Zonal
qualifier. To give the full picture, Botvinnik and Keres were both seeded into the Candidates matches:
the former because he was the most recent former World Champion who had lost to Petrosian in
1963, and the latter because he finished second in the 1962 Candidates tournament, following a
victorious play-off against Geller. Tal was also seeded directly into the Interzonal.

The original plan for the Zonal tournament was to include the top six from the latest Soviet
Championship, along with former World Champion Smyslov, and finally Korchnoi, who finished in a
disappointing 10th place in Leningrad, but had won the previous year’s event. The eight players
would compete in a double-round-robin event, with the top four qualifying for the Interzonal.

Many Soviet chess figures were critical of the new qualifying format. Bondarevsky subsequently
pointed out that the Soviet Championship was already an extremely strong event, which was more
than adequate for qualifying purposes. In an article in Chess in the USSR, Spassky’s trainer pointed
out that any element of ‘randomness’ in the national championship was no more ‘random’ than the
outcome of a contest between eight of the best Soviet players. He goes on to say:

“Do the results reflect the true relative strengths in this group of chessplayers of high and even
class? It could hardly be claimed that if another tournament were to be held with the same
participants, say over the course of a month, it would lead to the same result.”

Bondarevsky argued that not only was there no advantage to the new system, but that it also subjected
all of the participants to unnecessary stress and exertion prior to the Interzonal.

To make matters worse, just a few days before the tournament was scheduled to begin, it was
announced that Smyslov would be exempted from the event and awarded one of the four qualifying
places – on top of the fact that he had not played in the Soviet Championship. According to Korchnoi,
it was Smyslov himself who thought of the idea, and he was able to get the ruling passed with the
help of his influential friends within the Soviet hierarchy. Korchnoi goes on to say:

427
 “There was no limit to the indignation of the competitors in the Zonal tournament. It was decided
to call a strike and to refuse to play. However, the strike was vetoed by Spassky (strongly
influenced by Bondarevsky).”

Spassky started by drawing as White against Bronstein, but then his tournament took a severe
downturn as he was outplayed first by Kholmov, and en by Geller. He stabilized in the next round,
drawing with Black against Stein. In the next four rounds, Spassky scored two wins (first against
Suetin, and the second against Kholmov) and two draws.

Having clawed his way back to 50%, Spassky played a pivotal game against Geller.

Game 67

Efim Geller – Boris Spassky

Moscow 1964

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.c3 Nf6 8.d4 b5 9.Bb3 Be7 10.Be3 0-0
11.Nbd2 d5 12.g4 Bg6

13.dxe5
Geller plays a novelty. In a few previous games White had taken on e5 with the knight, which is
objectively a better move.

428
13…Nxe4 14.Nb1?!
White threatens to win the d5-pawn, but at the cost of an anti-developing move. It would be
interesting to know whether Geller improvised or found this idea in home analysis.

14…Qc8
Spassky was surely out of preparation by now. His move is decent, although I think it would be
better to prepare to bring the other rook to d8 with 14…Qe8 or 14…Qd7.

15.Nd4
15.Bxd5? is simply bad because of 15…Rd8, while if 15.Qxd5 Black gets a fine game with
15…Na5! or even 15…Qe8!?.

15…Nxe5!
Spassky dares to enter complications which his opponent may have analysed in advance.

16.f4
Geller weakens his kingside with this aggressive move, but the die was cast, and White had no
choice but to go forward.

16…c5! 17.fxe5
If 17.Ne2? Nxg4 Black wins.

17…cxd4 18.cxd4 Qd7 19.Nd2

429
19…f6!
Spassky tries to open the centre. 19…Ng5!? would also offer Black some advantage.

20.Rc1 Kh8
This seems a little too cautious.

20…Rad8! 21.Nxe4 Bxe4 22.Bc2 Qe6 gives Black some advantage.

21.Bf4?
After this mistake White’s position falls apart. Geller must have missed something.

White could get close to equality with 21.Nxe4 Bxe4 22.Bc2.

21…fxe5 22.Bxe5
22.dxe5 Qa7† 23.Kg2 Bg5 wins for Black.

22…Bg5 23.Rc7
In the event of 23.Nxe4 Bxc1 24.Nc5 Be3† White could resign.

430
23…Qxc7!
The queen sacrifice is beautiful, although Geller must have been expecting it by now, because
without it Black could resign. Black obtains almost equivalent material for the queen; but more
importantly, the black pieces will swarm at the white king.

24.Bxc7 Be3† 25.Kg2 Nxd2 26.Rxf8†

26.Bxd5 would not work because of 26…Rxf1.

26…Rxf8 27.Bxd5

431
27…Rf2† 28.Kg3 Nf1†!
Spassky quickly catches Geller’s king. The finish is both clinical and lethal.

29.Kh4 h6 30.Bd8 Rf8

Geller resigned.
0–1

After two more draws, Spassky won his final game against Korchnoi. The odd number of participants
meant that one player had to take a bye in each round. In the final round it was Spassky, but he was
already in the lead with 7/12, and was guaranteed one of the three qualifying places. As it turned out,
the other results went his way and he finished in sole first place, half a point ahead of both Stein and
Bronstein. After two failed attempts in 1958 and 1961, Spassky had finally repeated what he had
previously only achieved at the age of eighteen, and qualified for the Interzonal tournament on the
road towards the World Championship.

***

The Amsterdam Interzonal looked to be far easier to qualify from than the recent Soviet Zonal.
However, in the first round Spassky played the opening poorly and reached a horrible position against
Darga. The West German player proceeded cautiously, but always kept some advantage and Spassky
eventually had to resign after a long endgame. It was important to bounce back, and Spassky did just
that in Round 2. We will fast-forward to the final phase of the game.

Game 68

Boris Spassky – Georgi Tringov

Amsterdam 1964

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5
11.d4 Nd7 12.Nbd2 cxd4 13.cxd4 Nc6 14.d5 Nb4 15.Bb1 a5 16.a3 Na6 17.b4 axb4 18.axb4 Nb6
19.Qb3 Bd7 20.Bd3 Qb8 21.Nf1 Nc4 22.Rb1 Rc8 23.Ng3 g6 24.Qd1 Nb6 25.Ng5 Rc7 26.f4 Qd8
27.Nf3 f6 28.Kh2 Na4 29.Qd2 Rac8 30.Rf1 Bf8 31.f5 g5 32.Ra1 Nb8 33.Qe2 Be8 34.Be3 Qd7?!
Tringov makes a careless move, albeit in an already lost position.

432
35.Bxg5!
Spassky exploit it nicely. The knight on e6 will be far too powerful to handle.

35…fxg5 36.Nxg5 Bh6 37.Ne6 Rc3

38.Qg4†
Spassky’s move wins, as does virtually every other sensible continuation.

38…Kh8 39.Qh4 Rxd3 40.Qxh6 Qf7

433
41.f6
Spassky bases his play on the power of his f-pawn. The immediate threat is 42.Qg7†, with mate
to follow.

White has many good options. For instance, 41.Nh5 Rc2 42.f6 (or 42.Nf6) would win as well.

41…Rxg3 42.Kxg3 Qg6† 43.Qxg6 Bxg6 44.f7 Nd7 45.Rac1 Rf8

45…Rxc1 46.f8=Q† would lead to a swift checkmate.

46.Rc6!

434
 Black has nothing left to try, as 46…Rxf7 47.Rc8† is terminal. Therefore Tringov resigned.
1–0

In the next three rounds, Spassky made three draws versus three Soviet players: Bronstein, Tal and
Stein. It would be interesting to know if any or all of these results were prearranged. This had been a
hot topic ever since the Candidates tournament of Curacao 1962, when Fischer alleged, with good
reason, that a number of the Soviet players colluded in various ways to ensure a Soviet winner. This
resulted in FIDE abandoning the format of a Candidates tournament to determine the challenger for
the world title. Instead, the final eight qualifiers would contest a single-elimination match format until
only one remained. Regarding the 1964 Interzonal, it is worth mentioning that not all of the games
between the aforementioned players ended in draws, as Stein defeated Bronstein.

In Round 6 Spassky was worse against Portisch for a long time, but the Hungarian grandmaster made
two bad moves in the endgame and Spassky punished him. In the next round, Spassky played
unambitiously against Smyslov but no quick draw was agreed. Spassky played carelessly and
gradually got into a lost position. Both players made mistakes and the evaluation swung between
drawing and losing, but Spassky eventually was able to survive.

In the next round Spassky faced Pachman.

Game 69

Ludek Pachman – Boris Spassky

Amsterdam 1964

1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.d4 d5 6.dxc5 Bxc5 7.a3 dxc4 8.Qxd8† Kxd8 9.Bxc4 Bd7
10.b4 Bd6 11.Nb5 Bb8 12.Nbd4 Nxd4 13.Nxd4 Ke7 14.Bb2 Rc8 15.Bd3 a5 16.b5 Bd6 17.Ke2
Nd5 18.Be4 Rc5 19.a4 f5 20.Bxd5 Rxd5 21.Rhc1 e5 22.Nb3 Be6 23.Rc2 Bb4 24.Ba3 Rd7 25.Nd2
e4 26.Bxb4† axb4 27.Rb2 Rc8 28.a5 Rd5 29.Nb3 Rxb5 30.Nd4 Bc4† 31.Kd2 Rbc5 32.Rxb4 Ba6
33.Rb2 g6 34.Rc2 Kd6 35.Rxc5 Rxc5 36.h4 Kd5 37.g3 Rc4 38.h5 Rc5 39.Ra3 Ke5 40.hxg6 hxg6
41.Nb3 Rc8 42.Ra4 Rh8 43.Nc5 Rd8† 44.Kc3

435
44…Rd5
44…Rc8 is met by 45.Kb4 Kd5 46.Nxa6 bxa6 47.Ra2 and White is okay. Notice that 46…Rc4†?
would lose to 47.Kb3 Rxa4 48.Nb4†!.

45.Nxa6?
Usually rook endings offer good drawing chances, but here the disparity in activity of the rooks is
a telling factor. White is not yet lost, but he is in considerable danger.
45.Nb3! would leave Black with no advantage.

45…bxa6 46.Ra2

436
46…Rb5!
This subtle move cuts off the white king and forces the rook to defend the a-pawn. In contrast,
46…Kf6 47.Kb4 would free the white rook.

47.Kc4?
After this, White’s position can no longer be saved.

It was essential to continue with: 47.Kd2! Rc5! (47…g5? 48.Kc3 is okay for White.) 48.Ke2 g5
49.f3! (After 49.Kd2 g4! 50.Ke2 Kd5 Black approaches the a5-pawn and wins.) 49…exf3† 50.Kxf3
White is not completely out of danger, but with careful defence the position is a draw.

47…Kf6!
Spassky intends to invade with his king.

48.g4
After 48.Kc3 Kg5 49.Kd2 Kg4 50.Ke2 Rc5 White would be in a lethal zugzwang.

48…fxg4 49.Kd4

437
49…Kf5
The king both defends the e-pawn, and gets ready to invade after a timely …g3. Spassky’s last
move also places White in zugzwang.

50.Rc2
White must give up a pawn, as 50.Ra1 Rb2 51.Rc1 Rd2† would win easily.

50…Rxa5 51.Rc8 Ra4† 52.Kd5

52…g3!

438
 Spassky opens the way for his king invasion.

53.Rf8† Kg4 54.fxg3 Kxg3 55.Ke5 g5

Pachman resigned, as either the g- or the e-pawn will decide the game.
0–1
This victory sparked an incredible winning eight-game winning streak by Spassky. Several of the
wins were achieved relatively easily. Fischer would later achieve an even more impressive winning
streak on the path towards the World Championship; nevertheless, Spassky’s streak was a fantastic
achievement.

The streak came to an end in Round 16 as Spassky drew as Black against Lengyel, in a game which
was close to equal throughout. In the next round Spassky faced Reshevsky – a big name who he had
yet to meet over the board.

Game 70

Boris Spassky – Samuel Reshevsky

Amsterdam 1964

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 Be7 4.Nbd2 d5 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 b6 7.c3 Bb7 8.Qc2 c5 9.0-0 h6 10.Bh4
0-0 11.Rae1 c4 12.Be2 Qc7 13.Bg3 Bd6 14.Bxd6 Qxd6 15.e4 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Nd2 b5
18.Nxe4 Qf4 19.Bf3 Rab8 20.Re3 Rfd8 21.Ng3 Bxf3 22.Rxf3 Qh4 23.Re1 Nf6 24.Ne4 Nxe4
25.Rxe4 Qe7 26.a3 Rd5 27.h3 a5 28.Rg3 Rbd8 29.Reg4 Rg5 30.Rxg5 hxg5 31.Qe2 Rd5 32.Re3 Qc7
33.Re4 a4 34.Qe3 Qd6 35.g3 Qd8 36.Kg2 Rf5 37.f3 Rd5

439
38.Re5!?
Spassky’s move does not threaten anything, but it creates tension.

38…Rxe5?
Reshevsky was prone to time trouble, and my guess is that he made this mistake with little time
remaining.

Black could continue in several ways. For example, 38…Kf8 39.Qe4 Qd7 or 38…Kh7 39.Qe4† f5
would both enable Black to equalize.

39.Qxe5 Qd5 40.Kf2?

Spassky starts a squeeze in the queen ending.

40.Qxd5!
Swapping queens would be decisive, if followed up correctly.
40…exd5

440
41.h4!!
The “anti-positional” pawn advance opens the way for the king.
41…gxh4
41…f6!? would draw if White exchanged on g5, but instead White can win with: 42.Kh3! Kf7
43.Kg4! Kg6 (43…gxh4 44.gxh4 Kg6 45.h5† Kh6 46.Kf5 Kxh5 47.Ke6 wins.) 44.h5† Kh6
45.Kf5 Kxh5 46.Ke6 White takes the d-pawn and soon promotes to a queen.
42.gxh4 g6
42…Kh7 43.Kg3 Kg6 44.Kg4 Kf6 45.h5 Ke6 46.Kg5 Ke7 47.f4 wins.
43.Kg3 Kg7

44.Kg4!

441
 44.Kf4? f6 45.Kg4 Kh6 only draws.
44…Kh6 45.Kf4
Threatening to approach and capture the d5-pawn.
45…f6 46.Kg4
Black loses thanks to a lethal zugzwang.

Spassky – Reshevsky at the 1964 Amsterdam Interzonal

40…Kh7 41.Ke3
The game was adjourned and the American legend offered a draw, which Spassky declined.

442
41…Kg6 42.Qe4† f5
This move should be fine, although Black could also have entered the pawn ending:
42…Qxe4†!? 43.Kxe4 (43.fxe4 is not dangerous after 43…f6, or 43…f5 44.exf5† exf5!.) 43…Kf6!
The only move, but not a difficult one. Black is okay, but after 44.d5 he must find 44…e5! when it
should be a draw, although both sides must avoid some pitfalls.

43.Qe5 Kf7 44.Qb8 Kf6

44…Ke7! was simpler. The point is that after 45.Qg8 Black can play 45…f4†! 46.gxf4 gxf4†
47.Kd2 (White can’t take the pawn as 47.Kxf4?? e5† wins the queen) 47…Qg5 when the draw is
close.

45.Qf8† Kg6 46.Qe7 Qc6

443
47.Kf2!!
Spassky sets a subtle trap.

If 47.h4 at once then 47…g4! would come under good conditions.

47…Qd5
47…g4!? was also playable, as after 48.hxg4 fxg4 49.fxg4 Qe4 50.Qe8† Kf6 White’s king is too
exposed.

48.h4! g4?
Reshevsky falls for Spassky’s idea. Objectively he is still not quite losing, but his position
becomes extremely precarious and practically almost impossible to defend.
He should have preferred 48…gxh4 49.gxh4, after which Black holds with a waiting move such as
49…Kh6 or 49…Kh7. (But not 49…f4? due to 50.Qe8† Kh6 51.Qf8 e5 52.Qh8† Kg6 53.Qe8† Kf6
and after the silent killer 54.h5!!, which prepares a check on g6, White wins.)

444
49.Qg5†!
The queen will help to shield the white king.

49…Kf7 50.fxg4 Qe4 51.gxf5

I think at move 47 Spassky already visualized this position and saw that he would be able to
escape the checks.

51…Qc2†
51…exf5? 52.Qh5† Kf6 53.Qe2 would win.

52.Ke3

445
52…Qc1†?
In the event of 52…exf5? 53.Qh5† Ke7 54.Qe2 White wins.

Black could still have escaped with 52…Qxb2!. It would be impossible to foresee all the details, but
Reshevsky needed to try it and hope for the best. Play could continue: 53.Qg6† (53.fxe6† Kxe6
54.Qg6† Kd7! 55.Qxg7† Kc6 leaves White with two extra pawns, but Black has enough queenside
counterplay to hold.) 53…Kf8 54.fxe6 Qxc3† 55.Ke2 Qb2†! 56.Kf1 Qc1† 57.Kg2 Qd2† 58.Kh3
Qf2 Black somehow survives.

53.Ke4 Qe1† 54.Qe3! exf5† 55.Kf4 Qb1

446
56.Qe2 g6
Reshevsky resigned as he is unable to stop the d-pawn. White could also collect the b5-pawn with
his king.
1–0

In the next four games Spassky played safely and scored 2½ points. In the penultimate round he lost
to Larsen. Ordinarily, this would not have affected his qualifying chances, as he had already scored
enough points to be guaranteed one of the six qualifying spots. However, the rules dictated that only
three of the qualifying spots could go to Soviet players, which meant that Spassky had to win his final
game to ensure his qualification without a play-off. Fortunately he faced one of the lower-ranked
players, Quinones, who got into trouble in the opening and offered little resistance thereafter.

Spassky’s final score of 17/23 gave him shared 1st-4th places along with Larsen, Smyslov and Tal.
He qualified for the final series of Candidates matches, which – as stated earlier – were brought in by
FIDE as a means of avoiding the possible collusion that could occur in a round-robin tournament.

Let’s compare Spassky’s performance at the 1964 Interzonal event with Fischer’s performances at the
same tournaments in Bobby’s mid-twenties. Chessmetrics estimates Spassky’s performance in
Amsterdam at 2768. Fischer played Interzonal tournaments at Sousse in 1967, and Palma de Mallorca
in 1970. At the former event, Fischer’s performance was 2759 when he withdrew. At the latter, he
achieved an incredible 2850 performance.

After the event Spassky complained about exhaustion. It was indeed a long and gruelling tournament,
and Spassky had to play a lot of adjournments. However, it appears that Spassky soon recovered his
energy, as he maintained a busy schedule for the rest of 1964. Fischer would later take on a similarly
active schedule in 1970 in between World Championship qualifying events.

***

Spassky played in two team events in Leningrad, versus the Yugoslavian national team. The first was
for the Soviet Union, and in the second he represented his original home city of Leningrad. Spassky
faced Ivkov in both matches. By the way, Ivkov also qualified from the recent Interzonal – he
finished in 7th place with 15/23, two points behind the leaders, but qualified (along with Portisch on
14½) because of the rule which limited the number of Soviet qualifiers, at the expense of Stein and
Bronstein who were 5th and 6th respectively. Considering the demanding nature of the Interzonal, it
is hardly surprising that Spassky and Ivkov drew all four games fairly uneventfully.

***

Spassky participated in the Chigorin Memorial in Sochi. I remember reading somewhere that his first
wife moved with their daughter to the city located in the south-west of Russia on the coast of the
Black Sea. I checked various sources and found no definite confirmation of that. However, I noticed

447
that Spassky would go on to play in Sochi many more times in his career, which would make sense if
his daughter lived there.

Spassky’s performance was below average by his standards: he finished in fourth place with 9½/15.
His one defeat came against Nezhmetdinov. Krogius was the winner, with 12 points. Perhaps Spassky
combined the chess event with seeing his daughter (if indeed she was living there) and generally
enjoying the seaside. We may recall Najdorf’s remark (see page 196) about Spassky loving life too
much to become World Champion. Fischer, in contrast, would never get distracted from chess.

Despite Spassky’s overall substandard performance, he still played some fine chess at times. Here is a
pretty finish from one of his games:

Game 71

Boris Spassky – Guillermo Garcia Gonzales

Sochi 1964

29.Ne8†!
White has other ways to win, but this lovely shot is the prettiest and most direct.

29…Kf8
29…Qxe8 30.f6† Kg8 31.Qh6 Qf8 32.Rd8 would lead to a swift checkmate.

30.f6 Qxe5 31.Ng7

448
 It is an unusual outpost for a knight – but lethally effective.

31…Bd7 32.Qh6
Checkmate is imminent, so Black resigned.
1–0

Spassky took part in a tournament in Belgrade. According to the database it was held prior to the
Olympiad, although Krogius writes that the two events took place in the opposite order. In any case,
Spassky started with two draws, but then defeated Larsen and generally seemed to switch to a higher
gear. He conceded some draws, but won a lot of games. Here is one of them.

Game 72

Boris Spassky – Laszlo Szabo

Belgrade 1964

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bg4 5.h3 Bh5 6.Bxc4 Nbd7 7.0-0 e6 8.Nc3 Bd6 9.e4 e5
This variation was fresh though not completely new at the time.

10.dxe5
10.Nb5 had been played by Khodos against Gurgenidze, not long before the present game. It
would be interesting to know if one or both players were aware of it.

449
Spassky’s improvement contains power, but 10.g4! is an even stronger move which comes close to
refuting Black’s play outright. The mostly forced line continues 10…Bg6 11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5
Bxe5 13.f4 Qd4† 14.Qxd4 Bxd4† 15.Kh2 Bxc3 16.bxc3 Bxe4 17.g5 Nd7 18.Re1 f5 19.gxf6 Nxf6
20.Bd3 Kf7 21.Rxe4! with excellent winning chances for White.

10…Nxe5 11.Be2
White could think of sacrificing his queen with 11.Nxe5!? Bxd1 12.Nxf7 Qe7 13.Rxd1 Rf8
14.Nxd6† cxd6 15.Be3 when Black’s position is rather unpleasant.

11…Nxf3†
11…Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Qe7 13.Be2 Nc6 also leaves White with some edge.

12.Bxf3 Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Qe7 14.Bf4

14.Re1! is slightly more accurate, and after 14…Be5 15.Bf4 White has a small advantage.

14…Bxf4 15.Qxf4 0-0 16.Rad1 Rfe8 17.Rfe1 Rad8

Black completes his development and the position is close to equal.

18.Qe3
Spassky hopes to get some play against Black’s queenside.

18…a6
18…b6!? was worth considering.

450
19.f4 Rxd1 20.Rxd1 Rd8 21.Rxd8† Qxd8

22.e5 Nd7?
22…Nd5! 23.Qd4 c6 would have enabled Black to hold fairly easily.

23.Qd4!
Thanks to White’s advantage in the centre, Black’s position has become quite unpleasant.

23…Qe7 24.Ne4
24.Nd5 Qd8 25.Ne3 also maintains some advantage.

24…h6 25.Qd5!?
Spassky makes a good practical move, which forces Black to make a difficult decision.

25…c6?
Szabo makes the most natural move, but it would have been better to give up material in some
way:

25…b6!? 26.Qa8† Nf8 27.Qxa6 Qb4 28.Qe2 Ne6 offers Black enough play for the pawn.

Black could sacrifice the b7-pawn as well: 25…Nf8!? 26.Qxb7 Qd7 27.Qb4 and now both 27…Qd3
and 27…Qd5 are decent. In both cases, it is hard for White to do anything with the pawn advantage.

451
26.Qd6!
The ensuing knight endgame is deceptively difficult for Black.

26…Qxd6
26…Kf8!? was worth considering, but 27.Kf2! maintains the pressure. (On the other hand,
27.Qc7 looks tempting but 27…g5! offers some counterplay, and after 28.Nd6 Kg8 Black has
chances to hold.)

27.Nxd6
The knight is fantastic on this outpost.

27…b5 28.Kf2! Nb6

28…g5 29.g3 does not help Black. For instance, 29…gxf4 30.gxf4 Nc5 31.Ke3 Na4 32.b3 Nc3
33.a3 and White will almost certainly prevail.

29.Nb7
29.Ke3! looks more convincing after 29…Kf8 30.Kd4 or 29…Nd5† 30.Ke4, with great winning
chances for White.

29…Kf8 30.Kf3 Ke7

If 30…Na4 then 31.b4! would be strong.

452
31.b4!
The pawn fixes Black’s queenside. Spassky probably already anticipated the ensuing endgame
with an extra pawn.

31…Nd5 32.a3 Nc3 33.Nc5 Nb1 34.Nxa6 Nxa3

If 34…Kd7 35.Nc5† Kc7 36.a4 White wins.

35.Nb8! Nc2 36.Nxc6† Kd7 37.Na7 Nxb4 38.Nxb5

The knight endgame with four pawns versus three on one side is usually winning, and the present
circumstances are especially favourable for White.

453
38…Ke7
In the event of 38…f6 39.exf6 gxf6 White wins with 40.Nd4 or 40.Kg4.

39.Nd4 g6

40.f5!
White’s space advantage is the centre is unbearable.

40…Nd3
40…gxf5 41.Nxf5† Ke6 42.Ke4 wins for White.

41.Ke4 Nc5† 42.Kd5 Nd3 43.f6†

43.fxg6 Nf4† 44.Ke4 Nxg6 45.g3 is also good enough.

43…Kd7 44.Ne2 Nb4† 45.Ke4 Na6 46.Nf4 Nc7 47.g4

Szabo resigned.
1–0

Spassky continued to show his superiority over the opposition, and towards the end of the event he
won four games in a row. He coasted to the end with two relatively short draws, winning the
tournament with a final score of 13/17, consisting of nine wins and eight draws with no defeats. It
was a highly impressive result, even taking into account his status as the top seed. Beating former
world championship candidates like Szabo and Benko must have made him optimistic and confident.

***

454
Spassky’s final event of the year was the Olympiad, which took place in Tel Aviv. This was the
second time he was selected for the Soviet team. Interestingly, having been placed as high as the third
board in 1962, this time he was the second reserve player – the sixth and final place in the team. In
the preliminary section, Spassky won four games virtually effortlessly. In the final he started with a
draw against Israel. In the second round, he was chosen to face Canada.

Game 73

Boris Spassky – Elod Macskasy

Tel Aviv (Olympiad) 1964

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Be3 e5 6.d5 Nd4?! 7.Nge2 Nxe2 8.Bxe2 f5 9.exf5!
Spassky follows the example of Gipslis – rather than Botvinnik, who instead played 9.f3 here and
only later took on f5.

9…Bxf5?
Macskasy gives up the e4-square.

9…gxf5 was better, although both 10.f4 and 10.Bh5† look promising for White.

10.g4! Bd7 11.h4!

Spassky’s purposeful handling of the opening gives Black no time to relax.

455
11…Nh6
11…c5 12.h5 led to another defeat for Black in a 1962 game. Macskasy’s move is new, but it
does not solve Black’s problems.

12.Ne4 Nf7 13.Qd2

13.h5 g5 14.h6 was also extremely strong.

13…h6 14.0-0-0
Castling long is perfectly natural. White already has a decisive advantage, but it is worth paying
attention to the way Spassky converts it.

14…b6 15.f3 Qe7

16.Kb1
16.Bd3 is a good move as well. However, if White follows up with Ng3 then Black can and
should get some breathing space by sacrificing the e-pawn. Objectively White would still be winning,
but Spassky makes a smart practical choice in leaving his knight on e4 for the remainder of the game.

16…0-0-0 17.b4 c5
Black has no real choice, as otherwise White would play c4-c5.

18.Qb2 Kc7 19.Qa3 Rb8

If 19…Ra8 20.bxc5 bxc5 21.Bxc5! dxc5 22.d6† White wins.

456
20.Qxa7† Rb7

21.Qa3
White has won a pawn, but Black’s position will not fall apart on its own. In the next phase,
Spassky keeps control and improves his pieces step by step.

21…Rhb8 22.Ka1 Kd8 23.Rb1 Bc8 24.Qd3 Ra8 25.Bd1 Rba7 26.Bb3 Bd7 27.Rb2 Ba4

28.Rhh2!
Spassky overprotects the a2-pawn to free up the other rook.

457
28…Bxb3 29.Rxb3 Ra4 30.Qb1!
Getting ready to invade on the b-file.

30…Ke8 31.bxc5 bxc5

32.g5!
Now Spassky paralyzes Macskasy on the kingside as well.

32…hxg5 33.hxg5 R4a7 34.Rhb2 Nd8 35.Rb6 Rd7

36.Qh1!

458
 Spassky keeps playing across the entire board; the knockout punch will arrive from the kingside.

36…Ra3 37.Bc1 Kf8 38.Rh2 Rd3

39.Rh8†! Kf7
39…Bxh8 40.Qxh8† Kf7 41.Nf6 would be over as well.

40.Qh7 Rd1
This allows mate in one, but other moves would not last for much longer, and Macskasy was
probably glad to put an end to the torture.

41.Qg8#
1–0
In his remaining games, Spassky added two more wins and conceded four draws. We will look at the
latter part of his game from the final round against Czechoslovakia.

Game 74

Boris Spassky – Vlastimil Jansa

Tel Aviv (Olympiad) 1964

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 Re8 8.Nc1 e5 9.d5 Nd4 10.Nb3 c5

459
11.dxc6 bxc6 12.Nxd4 exd4 13.Bxd4 d5 14.cxd5 cxd5 15.Bb5 Re6 16.e5 Nd7 17.f4 f6 18.Bxd7
Bxd7 19.0-0 fxe5 20.fxe5 Bxe5 21.Bxe5 Rxe5 22.Qd4 Qb6 23.Qxb6 axb6 24.Rad1 Be6 25.Rf4 Rc8
26.Rb4 Rc6 27.Ra4

27…Bf5?!
Jansa tries, unsuccessfully, to relieve the pressure by sacrificing a pawn.

The simplest continuation was 27…h5! intending …Kf7, when it will be hard to make anything out
of White’s positional grip.

Alternatively, 27…Kf7!? 28.Ra7† Kf6 was a better way to sacrifice a pawn, and after 29.Rxh7 Rc4
Black’s activity should be enough to hold.

28.Nxd5!
Spassky correctly assesses his opponent’s counterplay as insufficient.

28…Bc2
28…Rc2 29.Ra7 Kf8 30.Nxb6 Ree2 (30…Rxb2? 31.Nc4) 31.Rd8† Re8 32.Rxe8† Kxe8 33.b4
Be4 34.g3 gives White good winning chances, although it’s hard to be sure if the position is
definitively winning.

29.Ra8† Kg7 30.Ra7† Kh6 31.Rd2 Rd6!

Jansa finds the best saving chance.

Both 31…Rc5 32.Nf6 and 31…Bf5 32.Nc3 would leave Black in a desperate situation.

460
32.Rxc2 Rexd5

33.h3!
Spassky makes room for his king.

33.Kf1!? is possible but 33…b5! offers Black decent chances to hold. (33…Rd2 looks tempting but
after 34.Rac7! b5 35.a3 Black is under a lot of pressure.)

33…Rd1†?
This check surprisingly helps White. It is also worth noting that 33…b5? is no good here because
34.Rcc7 wins.
However, Black could have obtained good saving chances with:

33…Rd2! 34.Rcc7
In the event of 34.Rac7 b5 35.R7c3 R2d4 Black’s drawing chances are higher than White’s
winning chances.
Also after 34.Rxd2 Rxd2 35.b3 b5 36.h4 Kh5 37.Rxh7† Kg4 Black holds.
34…Rxb2 35.Rxh7† Kg5 36.Ra3
36.Ra4 can be met by 36…Kf6 (36…Rbd2 also works) 37.Rf4† Ke5 and Black is okay.

461
36…Rbd2!!
Black should avoid both 36…Rdd2? 37.Rg3† and 36…Kf6? 37.Rf3†.
37.Kh2
37.Rg3† Kf6 38.Rf3† gets nowhere after 38…Kg5!, and if 39.Kh2 R6d3 White has nothing.
(Compare the note to move 37 in the game below, where the same situation could be reached
with an extra tempo for White.)
37…R6d3
White can and should keep playing with an extra pawn, but Black should be able to hold without
much difficulty.

34.Kh2 R1d2

462
35.Rcc7
Spassky targets the h7-pawn and the king in front of it.

35.Rxd2 Rxd2 36.b3 also wins due to the unfortunate placement of Black’s pieces. For instance: 36…
b5 (Both 36…Kg5 37.Rxh7 Rxa2 38.Rb7 and 36…g5 37.Ra6 are hopeless for Black.) 37.h4! Kh5
38.Rxh7† Kg4 39.Rh6 White wins.

35…Rxb2 36.Rxh7† Kg5 37.Ra3

37.h4† Kg4 38.Ra3 would win as well.

463
37…Rb5
37…Rbd2 can be compared with the note to Black’s 33rd move above. Having the king on h2
instead of g1 makes a huge difference. 38.Rg3† (38.h4† Kg4 39.Rg3† also wins.) 38…Kf6 39.Rf3†

39…Ke5 (39…Kg5 would draw if the white king was on g1, but here 40.Kg3! threatens mate and
wins immediately.) 40.Re7† Kd5 41.a3 White will win the g6-pawn and the game.

38.h4†! Kf6
38…Kf4 39.Rf3† Ke4 40.Rg3 would lead to the same outcome.

39.Raa7!
Spassky prepares to go after the black king.

39…Rf5
39…Ra5 is met by 40.Raf7† Ke5 41.Rf2 Ra3 (or 41…Rd4 42.g3) 42.Re7† and White wins.

464
40.Rae7!
Spassky catches Jansa’s king.

40…Re6
Jansa avoids the checkmate, but at the cost of exchanging all the rooks.

41.Rhf7† Ke5 42.Rxf5† Kxf5 43.Rxe6 Kxe6 44.Kg3

The pawn ending wins effortlessly, so Jansa resigned.
1–0

Spassky’s total score at the 1964 Olympiad was 10½/13, consisting of eight wins and five draws.
None of his wins came against the tougher teams, but it was still a good performance which
contributed to another team gold for the Soviets.

Fischer did not play in Tel Aviv. The American produced a 2663 performance in the 1962 Varna
Olympiad according to Chessmetrics, compared to 2579 for Spassky’s performance in Tel Aviv, but
one should not read too much into this comparison because they played vastly different opposition:
many of Fischer’s opponents were world-class, whereas Spassky faced no one who was at his level,
and many of his opponents were rated far beneath him.

Sometime around the end of the year, FIDE published the pairings for the forthcoming Candidates
matches to determine the challenger for Petrosian’s title. Spassky was paired against Keres in the
quarter-finals. The Estonian was a giant of chess, who had never lost a match in his life, but he was
already forty-eight years old. The quarter-finals were scheduled for April 1965, with the winners
advancing to semi-finals and a final later the same year.

465
Qualifying for the Candidates matches was a great success, not only for Spassky but for Bondarevsky
as well. In the Barden interview, which was published early in 1970, Spassky talks about his setbacks
such as losing the first two rounds of the Soviet Zonal qualifier, as well as losing to Larsen in the
penultimate round of the Interzonal, and credits Bondarevsky with helping him to recover his spirits
and self-confidence. Timman cites what Spassky said in 2012:
“I remember all my trainers with great reverence and respect. Vladimir Zak gave me a weapon,
Alexander Tolush sharpened it, Igor Bondarevsky hardened it. With that weapon I became World
Champion.”

Spassky never really acknowledges that the communist authorities paid these excellent trainers for
several decades. I found it interesting to read Timman’s recollection of his chat with Spassky in 1976:
“I remarked that the Nazis had been the worst disaster to have visited humanity. That wasn’t
such a surprising standpoint, but Spassky didn’t agree. The communists were worse, he thought.
He argued that that they were especially dangerous because of their cast-iron organization.”

To weigh up one toxic political system against another is an emotional matter, especially for those
with first-hand experience. The communist system certainly caused widespread oppression and
hardship for those who were unfortunate enough to suffer under it. At the same time, the system also
invested tremendous resources into developing their brightest talents and making the USSR the
world’s only superpower in chess. In Spassky’s childhood, the Nazis laid siege to his home city and
inflicted unimaginable cruelty by starving its inhabitants, causing well over a million deaths over the
duration of the siege. Despite the undeniable faults of the communists, they were still the ones who
evacuated him and saved his life, while the Nazis bombed the evacuation trains.

I have personally experienced and observed similar contradictory feelings regarding communism in
Hungary. My maternal grandfather once got drunk in a pub and said some bad things about
communism, after which the authorities imprisoned him for eighteen months and took away his
house. Still, even after the move to a democratic system in 1989, my mother continued to vote for the
far left. On the other side of the fence, my mother-in-law was so poor that she had no shoes to wear as
a child, yet the communist system provided her with the conditions to obtain three degrees in
universities. Nevertheless, she remained a staunch anti-communist after 1989.

Communism was clearly a bad system for the overall wellbeing of humanity, but from the specific
perspective of developing top chess talents it was exceptionally beneficial. Fortunately for us, at this
period of his life Spassky was busy attempting to become the best player in the world. Politics would
take a back seat for chess, leading to many more masterpieces over the board.

1964 Results
Soviet Championship play-off, Moscow, vs. Stein & Kholmov (2nd place): 2/4 (+1 =2 –1)

466
Zonal Tournament, Moscow (1st place): 7/12 (+4 =6 –2)
Interzonal Tournament, Amsterdam (1st-4th place): 17/23 (+13 =8 –2)
Soviet Union – Yugoslavia match, Leningrad, vs. Ivkov: 1/2 (+0 =2 –0)
Leningrad – Yugoslavia match, Leningrad, vs. Ivkov: 1/2(+0 =2 –0)
Chigorin Memorial, Sochi (4th place): 9½/15 (+5 =9 –1)
Belgrade (1st place): 13/17 (+9 =8 –0)
Olympiad, Tel Aviv (2nd reserve board): 10½/13, Team Gold, Individual Bronze (+8 =5 –0)

Total 69.3% (+40 =42 –6)

Spassky faces Benko at the 1964 Amsterdam Interzonal

467
 1965

In a 2004 interview for New in Chess magazine, Spassky said of the year 1965:

“Probably at that time I was already the strongest in the world. I think I was better than Bobby.
Only very slightly, of course, because of the middlegame. And also better than Petrosian, also
because of the middlegame. I lost the next match to Petrosian, but that doesn’t matter for me.”

Interestingly, Spassky initially did not like the new Candidates format involving elimination matches
to determine the challenger for the world title. However, it would turn out that he would excel in the
short-match format.

***

Spassky’s first opponent in the Candidates matches was Paul Keres, one of the all-time great players.
The match took place in the Latvian capital, Riga, and was scheduled for ten games. The Estonian
grandmaster had achieved several impressive results in the past three years. Among them, he was
joint second in the 1962 Curaçao Candidates tournament, and he defeated Geller in the play-off to
ensure his qualification for the 1965 Candidates contest. In 1963, Keres shared first place with
Petrosian in the extremely strong Piatigorsky Cup in Los Angeles. In his most recent tournament
before his quarter-final match against Spassky, Keres won the Premier event at the Hastings Congress
with 8/9.

Up to now, their personal head-to-head score was one win apiece, with six draws. Keres had more
experience playing at the highest level and had never lost a match. On the other hand, he was forty-
nine years old: still capable of playing top-class chess, but his energy levels and ability to withstand
tension had surely faded at least a little.

At twenty-eight years old, Spassky had established himself as a world-class player and was hungry
for further success. He and Bondarevsky planned a strategy for each match. Against Keres, the plan
was to make it a “street brawl.”

Game 75

Boris Spassky – Paul Keres

Riga (1) 1965

468
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 Be7 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Nxe4 Bxe4
10.Be2 Qb4†

11.Nd2!?
Spassky plays a novelty, offering to sacrifice a pawn in order to fight for the initiative.

11…Bxg2 12.Rg1 Bb7 13.Rxg7 Nc6

13…Qxb2 14.Rb1 Qa3 15.c5 gives White promising compensation for the pawn.

14.c5!?

469
 14.Qc2 would be the safe and normal choice, but Spassky prefers to cut off the black queen and
fight for the initiative in an imaginative way.

14…bxc5 15.a3 Qa5 16.b4!?

Spassky continues playing fluently.
After 16.dxc5 Qxc5 White has reasonable compensation, but Black is not in any great danger as the
king can go to the queenside if necessary.

16…cxb4 17.Nb3?!
Spassky slightly overdoes it with the fluent piece play.

The best continuation was: 17.axb4! Qxb4 18.Bf3 (After 18.Rb1 Qf8 19.Rg3 Nb4 Black should not
worry.) 18…Qf8 19.Rg3 It is hard to say if White objectively has enough compensation for the two
pawns, but practically speaking he would have a decent initiative.

17…Qa4?!
The queen is rarely at its most effective on the edge of the board, and this is no exception. Keres
must have wanted to discourage Nc5. (White can actually still play it and have reasonable
compensation in the position without queens, but Keres probably guessed by this point that Spassky
was looking to attack with queens on the board.)

A better option was:

17…Qb6!
The queen steps off the a-file and will help to exchange the bishops.
18.Rb1
18.Nc5 proves inadequate after 18…bxa3 (18…0-0-0 is also reasonable) 19.Bf3 Ke7 (or
19…Rb8) when Black is close to winning.
18.axb4 invites a transposition to the game, but Black can do better with: 18…Nxb4! The knight
helps to close the queenside. 19.Nc5 (Also after 19.Kf1 Ke7 Black is doing great.) 19…Ke7
(19…a5 is also strong.) 20.Bh5 Raf8 Again Black is close to winning.

470
18…Ba6 19.Bxa6
After 19.Bh5 0-0-0 Black’s king is safe and he will soon unleash a counterattack.
19…Qxa6 20.d5 Ne5!
White’s king is more in danger than Black’s.

18.axb4 Qxb4† 19.Kf1

The king is happy to move to its safest square on the board.

19…Qf8 20.Rg3
Spassky chooses the best square for his rook. Now if Black wishes to ease the pressure by
exchanging rooks, it will improves White’s pawn chain and make his king safer.

471
20…Ne7
After 20…Rb8 21.Nc5 Ba8 the position would be approximately balanced.
20…Nb4 is also playable, when 21.Nc5 (21.Bf3!? is another idea) 21…Bc6 22.Ra5 gives White
reasonable compensation.

21.Nc5
The knight takes up a menacing post and supports White’s next move, gaining space in the
centre.

21…Bc6 22.e4! Rg8

23.Raa3?
With this and his next move, Spassky veers down a losing path.

In a later interview, Spassky said that he very much liked his play up to the present moment in this
game. He said that he sorely regretted not playing the following continuation: 23.d5! exd5 24.Qd4
dxe4

472
 Black is temporarily four pawns up, but anything could happen. After any of 25.Nxe4, 25.Rd1 or
even 25.Ra6!? White has an ongoing initiative. Any result is possible, but the position looks easier to
play as White.

23…Rxg3 24.Rxg3?
White’s only chance was to admit his previous mistake and play 24.hxg3, when Black stands
clearly better but is still a long way from victory.

24…Rb8!
Black’s rook is much stronger than its counterpart, and White is simply lost.

473
25.d5 exd5 26.Qa1
Spassky makes a desperate attempt to stir up complications, but Keres easily refutes it.

26…dxe4 27.Bh5 Rb5 28.Qd4 Ng6 29.Bxg6 fxg6 30.Nxe4 Rb1† 31.Ke2 Rb4 32.Nf6† Kd8 33.Qa1
Qc5
0–1

Spassky would later describe this as the second-most-painful defeat of his career. (The most painful
of all was his loss to Polugaevsky; see Game 45, beginning on page 172.)

Spassky recovered from the early setback and had chances to strike back in Game 2, but he allowed
Keres to escape with a draw. However, Spassky then took full control of the match, winning the next
three games in a row. Keres did not play well in any of them, and Spassky won each game
convincingly.

Keres had a chance to gain a big advantage in Game 6, but he missed it and drew. The next game was
also drawn. Keres showed his true ability in Game 8, winning convincingly after Spassky riskily
grabbed material in the opening. Spassky would later mention in the Barden interview that, having
never played in this kind of match format prior to 1965, he found it hard to adjust to the rhythm of a
head-to-head struggle, and he was surprised to find that he was already tired after seven or eight
games against Keres.

With two games remaining, Spassky had a one-point lead. In Game 9 he looked for safety with the
white pieces. Keres took risks and got into trouble, but Spassky missed a clear win, which would have
ended the match. Keres held the draw, and therefore needed to win the final game to tie the match.
Despite only needing a draw, Spassky played the King’s Indian. Keres answered with the Four Pawns
Attack and a razor-sharp position ensued, in which Keres won an exchange but Spassky gained some
initiative. Keres made a crucial mistake, allowing Spassky to take over and win the game, making it a
6–4 victory in the match.

After a nervous start, Spassky mostly played well. More importantly, Keres played well below his
usual level in some games. Still, at these high-pressure events with an enormous amount at stake, the
final result is the only thing that really matters. Spassky overcame a top-class opponent in his first
ever match of this length, and got one step closer to fulfilling his dream.
Spassky had a break of one month between the quarter-final and the start of the Candidates semi-
final, which was also held in Riga, and was also scheduled for ten games. His opponent was Geller,
who had replaced Botvinnik after the latter declined to take his place in the Candidates matches.
(Despite finishing last in the Soviet Zonal tournament of 1964, Geller was awarded the place because
it was he who finished equal second with Keres in the Curaçao 1962 Candidates tournament.) Geller
defeated Smyslov by the impressive score of 5½–2½ in their quarter-final match. In the other quarter-
final matches, Larsen beat Ivkov and Tal beat Portisch. At forty years of age, Geller was close to his

474
chess-playing prime.

Up to this point Spassky’s most frequent opponent had been Smyslov, who he had faced in nineteen
games. Geller had been another regular opponent – and with thirteen games between them already,
Geller was about to overtake Smyslov on the list. So far, Spassky and Geller had been evenly
matched, each having won three games, with seven draws between them. Geller is widely regarded as
one of the greatest players never to become World Champion. He was especially formidable as an
attacking player, and was also known as a strong theoretician.

Spassky started with the black pieces, and drew fairly comfortably. In the second game Geller
handled the Marshall Attack in an unusual way, eschewing the usual attacking plans in order to go for
positional compensation with the bishop pair. At some point he was close to equal, but then he made
a big mistake and Spassky punished him.

Game 3 was a wildly complicated affair in which Geller missed a chance to win, after which the
turbulent game ended in a draw. In the fourth game Geller won a pawn, but was unable to do
anything with it. You can see a part of it in the notes to the next game below. Game 5 was another
draw, with neither player making any big errors.

With half of the match completed, Spassky enjoyed a narrow lead, with the added benefit of being
White in three of the remaining five games. Still, given how competitive the match had been so far,
he could not afford any lapses. We will look at the sixth game.

Game 76

Boris Spassky – Efim Geller

Riga (6) 1965

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 Nd7 10.d4 Nb6
11.Nbd2 Bf6 12.Nf1 Re8

475
13.N1h2!?
Spassky finds a novelty and improves on his play from Game 4. By the way, Geller had played
this variation twice in 1961, losing both games after 13.Ng3, but it’s safe to assume he was armed
with improvements against that move.
Their game from four days prior continued: 13.Ne3 exd4 14.cxd4 Rxe4 15.Qc2 Qe8 16.Bd2 Nxd4
17.Nxd4 Bxd4

18.Qxc7 (18.Nd5! is better, and after 18…Bf5 19.Qxc7 Nxd5 20.Bxd5 Rc8 21.Rxe4 Bxe4 22.Bxf7†
Kh8 the position is equal.) 18…Be6 19.Nc2 Rxe1† 20.Rxe1 Bc5 Black stood better but it was hard to
do anything with the extra pawn being isolated in the centre, and Spassky held fairly easily in
Spassky – Geller, Riga (4) 1965.

476
13…exd4 14.cxd4 Na5 15.Bc2 c5

16.Ng4
Other moves are playable but Spassky chooses the most natural attacking continuation.

16…Bxg4 17.hxg4 cxd4 18.g5 Be7?

18…Be5 was better, and after 19.Nxd4 g6 Black is only slightly worse.

19.e5! Bf8?
Geller commits a losing mistake.

19…g6 was essential, though after 20.e6 Black would struggle.

477
20.Bxh7†!
This sacrifice decides the game. I can easily imagine that it could have been found in preparation
with Bondarevsky.

20…Kxh7 21.g6†! Kg8

21…fxg6 22.Ng5† Kg8 transposes to the game.

22.Ng5
Another winning continuation is 22.gxf7† Kxf7 23.Ng5† Ke7 24.e6 when Black’s king will soon
be caught by Nf7 and Bg5†.

22…fxg6

478
23.Qf3 Qxg5 24.Bxg5 dxe5
Giving up the queen gives no real hope. Spassky converts his advantage mercilessly.

25.Rac1 Ra7 26.Qd3 Re6 27.f4 Nac4 28.fxe5 Nxe5 29.Qxd4 Rd7 30.Qe4 Be7 31.Be3 Nbc4
32.Rcd1 Rxd1 33.Rxd1 Nxb2 34.Qd5 Kf7 35.Rb1 Nbc4 36.Bf2 g5 37.Re1
Geller has tried as hard as possible to create a fortress, but the pins are too awkward to cope with.

37…Bf6 38.Kh1 Nb2 39.Re3 Nbc4 40.Re2 Nd6 41.Bd4 Ndc4 42.g4 Ke7 43.Bc5† Kf7 44.Qb7†
1–0
This excellent win gave Spassky a 4–2 lead in the match, with only four games remaining. In Game 7

479
Geller obtained some advantage, but was not able to cause problems. It seems to me that this game
demonstrates how Spassky’s playing strength had surpassed that of Geller.

Needing 2½ points from the final three games to tie the match, Geller switched to desperation mode
and played a dubious sideline of the Dragon. His position quickly deteriorated and Spassky won
easily, thus clinching the match with a score of 5½–2½. Things went well for Spassky early in the
match, and he increased his lead. Of course when a player as strong as Geller loses by such a score, it
means he was not in good form. Nevertheless, Spassky deserves great credit: he took his chances
when they came, and defended the difficult positions when it was necessary. He thoroughly deserved
his victory, and could now look forward to the final of the Candidates matches, which was scheduled
for November. Spassky would face Tal, who won a close semi-final against Larsen.

***

Surprisingly, less than a month after the match, Spassky travelled to Yugoslavia to participate in a
match between the two Slavic nations. His play and results suggest that he was unmotivated. He
scored just 2/5 without a win, and he was lucky to achieve that.

The database contains three of Spassky’s games from different events in Moscow, but it was probably
the Trade Union Team Championship, which was played in August. He beat two lesser-known
players tactically, and managed to save a seemingly hopeless position against Keres.

Game 77

Paul Keres – Boris Spassky

Moscow 1965

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Be3 Ng4 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bc1
Nh6 11.h3 Nf7 12.Be3 Bd7 13.c5 exd4 14.Nxd4 dxc5 15.Nxc6 Bxc6 16.Bxc5 Nd6 17.Qb3† Kh8
18.Bb5 f5 19.Bxc6 bxc6 20.Rad1 fxe4 21.Nxe4 Rb8 22.Qa4 Qh4 23.Rxd6 cxd6 24.Bxd6 Rfe8
25.Bxb8 Qxe4 26.Qxe4 Rxe4 27.b3 Re2 28.Rd1 Bf6 29.a4 Rb2 30.Rd3 a6 31.Bf4 Kg8 32.Rd6 Kf7
33.Rxc6 Rxb3 34.Rxa6 Bd4

480
35.g3?
Keres spoils his winning advantage with this mistake.

35.Bg5! would preserve White’s two-pawn advantage under favourable conditions, but this superb
resource would be tough to find.

35.Kf1! is a more natural solution: White returns one of the extra pawns in order to improve the king
decisively. For instance, 35…Rb1† 36.Ke2 Rb2† 37.Kd3 Bxf2 (or 37…Rxf2 38.g3) 38.a5 Ra2
39.Bd2 and White wins easily.

35…g5!!
Spassky finds a brilliant defence to save the game. This spectacular move forces White to either
move his bishop to a worse square or enter a rook ending which Black can hold.

Keres probably expected 35…Rb2, after which 36.Be3 Bxe3 37.fxe3 Re2 38.Ra7† Kg8 39.Re7 wins
for White.

36.Rd6
If 36.Bc7 Rb2 Black holds.

36…gxf4 37.Rxd4

481
37…fxg3
…½–½

Keres continued playing for almost twenty additional moves, but with no real chance to win.

Spassky played in one other event before the all-important Candidates final match. It was the
Chigorin Memorial tournament, in Sochi. As explained previously, Spassky played in this tournament
many times, probably because it provided a convenient way to spend time with his daughter. He
started the event slowly, with one win and five draws. In Round 7, Spassky showed his endgame
technique.

Game 78

Boris Spassky – Vladimir Antoshin

Sochi 1965

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4
Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8 13.Nf1 Bf8 14.Ng3 g6 15.Bd2 Bg7 16.Qc1 d5 17.Bg5 dxe4
18.Bxe4 Bxe4 19.Nxe4 exd4 20.cxd4 Qc8 21.Nxf6† Nxf6 22.Rxe8† Nxe8 23.Qc6 Nd6 24.Re1
Qb7 25.Qxb7 Nxb7 26.Rc1 Rc8 27.Rc6 Nd8 28.Rxa6 Ne6 29.Be3 Rd8 30.Ra5 c6 31.a4 Nxd4
32.Nxd4 Bxd4 33.Bxd4 Rxd4 34.axb5 cxb5

482
35.Rxb5
Spassky wins a pawn, but the black rook is active. With correct defence, it should be a draw.

35…h5
Advancing this pawn is useful for a few reasons: it can be useful in a race, and might help to cage
the white king.

Another sensible continuation is 35…Rd1† 36.Kh2 Rd3 37.g4 h5 when Black should hold.

36.Kf1 Rd2 37.h4

Spassky makes room for his king. 37.g3 Kg7 38.Rb6 g5 would not be an improvement.

37…Kg7 38.g3

483
38…Rc2
Antoshin decides to wait.

Although the game continuation is okay, 38…f6! is a more convincing drawing continuation,
preparing active counterplay with a timely …g5. For example: 39.Ke1 Rc2 40.Rb7† (40.b4 Rb2 41.f3
Kh6 is fine for Black.) 40…Kh6 41.b4 g5 42.b5 (42.hxg5† fxg5 43.Kf1 h4 holds.) 42…gxh4
43.gxh4 Rc4 Black has time to collect the h4-pawn, with an easy draw.

39.Kg2 Rd2?!
39…f6! was still the easiest route to a draw, and after 40.Kf3 Kh6 41.Ke3 g5 Black should be
fine.

40.Kf3 Rc2 41.Rb6 Rd2??

This gives away two tempos.

41…f6! was still the best option.

Even 41…Kf8 would still be acceptable, as after 42.Rb7 (or 42.Ke3 Ke7) 42…Kg7 43.Ke3 Kf6
White cannot win – although practically speaking, the …f6/…g5 plan is a much safer way of making
a draw.

484
42.Ke3! Rc2 43.b4
White will win the ensuing race.

43…Rb2
43…f6 no longer helps after 44.b5. For instance, 44…g5 45.Rc6 Rb2 46.b6 gxh4 47.gxh4 Rb4
48.Kd3 and White wins.

44.b5 Kf8 45.Rb7!

This and the next few moves are easy for a strong player, but still highly instructive.

45…Kg7

485
46.Kd4!
White’s king can approach the passed pawn and sacrifice the one on f2.

46…Rxf2 47.Re7!
The rook aims to get behind the b-pawn.

47…Rb2 48.Kc4 Kf6 49.Re3 Kf5 50.Rb3! Rc2† 51.Kd5 Kg4 52.b6 Rc8 53.b7 Rb8

54.Ke5
Spassky goes after Black’s kingside pawns.

486
54.Kc6 f5 55.Kc7 would win as well.

54…f5 55.Kf6 f4 56.gxf4 Kxh4 57.Kxg6 Kg4

58.f5 h4
Black is just one tempo short of having an equal race.

59.f6 h3 60.f7 h2 61.Rb1 Rxb7 62.Rxb7 h1=Q 63.Rb4† Kh3 64.f8=Q Qg2† 65.Kh7 Qc2† 66.Kh8
Qc3† 67.Kg8 Qg3† 68.Qg7
1–0

Spassky also won the next three games, followed by a draw and another win. Then he made a short
draw with the white pieces against Unzicker, who was in second place, a point behind him. Spassky
settled for quick draws in his final two games. Meanwhile, Unzicker unexpectedly defeated two
Soviet players and sensationally caught up with him. The West German shared the first prize with
Spassky, with a winning score of 10½/15. For a westerner to win a tournament in the USSR was a
special result in the sixties.

***

Spassky’s next event was his most important of the year, and indeed of his entire career up to now:
the Candidates final match against Mikhal Tal, with the winner earning the right to challenge Tigran
Petrosian for the World Championship. As mentioned earlier, Tal reached the final by defeating
Portisch in the quarter-final by 5½–2½ and Larsen in the semi-final by 5½–4½. The final match was
scheduled for twelve games, as opposed to ten games for the earlier stages.

487
Hitherto, Spassky had achieved an excellent head-to-head score against the Magician from Riga, with
five wins, five draws and only one defeat. What could be the reason? Tal was a master at creating
unusual tension on the board, and at dragging his opponents “into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5”,
as Tal himself described it. More often than not, even top-class opponents would fail to cope with the
unfamiliar problems arising in such games. However, Spassky was used to playing sharp positions
and possessed plenty of imagination and creativity. He was able to battle Tal in messy positions and
outplay him in more technical ones.

Despite Spassky’s positive results so far against his Latvian rival, Tal still presented a formidable
challenge. Born just a few months before Spassky, Tal was a genius who became the youngest World
Champion in chess history at the time, in 1960. Since then, his level had dropped to some extent: he
had a lot of health problems and a turbulent personal life. He was still one of the absolute best players
in the world though. Speaking as the author of the three-volume work Mikhal Tal’s Best Games,
when I compare their games from this period I think that Tal had a slightly better instinct regarding
when to take risks and when to play safe, and I would say that Tal produced magical masterpieces a
bit more often, but Spassky was a more patient and well-rounded player. Additionally, Spassky had
been working hard with Bondarevsky, whereas Tal kept Koblencs as officially his trainer, but he no
longer really listened to him. According to Laszlo Szabo, most top players predicted that Spassky
would win the match.

Tal and Spassky were on friendly terms, and they agreed to contest the match in Tbilisi, the Georgian
capital. It was logical to contest the match far away from either of their home cities, while still within
Soviet territory.

In the first game, Spassky employed the Marshall Attack and drew without big problems. In Game 2
Tal played a Sicilian and made an interesting pawn sacrifice. Spassky could have obtained some
advantage, but he went wrong and soon found himself a pawn down. Tal beat him convincingly.
Bondarevsky suggested to Spassky that he should play on in dry, boring positions for as long as
possible. The tactic paid off superbly in Game 3, as the position was equal and heavily simplified
when Tal made a rather careless move. Spassky won a pawn and Tal was unable to save the endgame
in the adjournment.

Game 4 was a fairly uneventful draw. Game 5 was strange, as Tal obtained a solid extra pawn in a
position with rooks and opposite-coloured bishops. He could have pressed for a long time, but he
inexplicably exchanged rooks and allowed Spassky to draw with relative ease. We will look at Game
6.

Game 79

488
 Boris Spassky – Mikhail Tal

Tbilisi (6) 1965

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 a6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Qc7 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.Be3 Nf6 8.0-0 b5 9.Nxc6 Qxc6
10.a3 Bc5 11.e5 Bb7 12.Qf3 Qxf3 13.gxf3 Bxe3 14.fxe3 Nd5 15.Ne4 Ke7 16.Kf2 Nb6 17.Nc5
Bc6

The queens have been exchanged and the position is equal.

18.b4!
Spassky wants to keep the game going, in accordance with the match strategy. Safeguarding the
powerful knight is a good start.

18…d6
18…a5? would run into the strong 19.a4.

18…Rhd8 is a good alternative, and after 19.e4 d6 (19…f6 is also fine) 20.exd6† Rxd6 the position
remains equal.

19.exd6† Kxd6 20.e4

Spassky decides it is worth blocking his own bishop in order to restrict both of his opponent’s
minor pieces.

20…e5 21.Rfd1 Ke7 22.Ke3!

Another small improvement of the position.

489
22…Rhc8

23.h4!
Spassky gains a bit of space and improves his prospects on the kingside. Black can handle it, but
it’s one more thing for Tal to think about.

23…Rc7 24.Rg1 g6 25.h5 Be8

25…Nd7! looks simpler, to exchange White’s strong knight at once. Tal was not at all weak in
queenless positions, but from time to time he was not purposeful enough in preventing his opponents’
play in endgames. It cost him half a point a few times against Petrosian.

26.hxg6 hxg6

490
27.Rg5!
The rook aims to provoke a weakening.

27…f6?!
Advancing this pawn exposes Black’s position a bit.

27…Kf6! would be safer.

28.Rg2 Nd7 29.Nxd7 Rxd7 30.Rh1

The position is still close to equal, but the rook on the open file is a bit annoying for Black.

30…Rc8
30…Rad8!? would have kept everything protected.

31.Rh7† Kd6

491
32.Rh8!
Spassky plays on the unprotected c8-rook.

32…Rdd8 33.Rg1 Bf7 34.Rh7 Rd7

Tal’s move is okay, but it has the slight disadvantage that the rook blocks the a4-e8 diagonal.

34…Rc7! was a bit more precise, and if 35.a4 bxa4 the bishop would not take the a6-pawn with a
tempo. Play could continue 36.Ra1 Be8 37.Rh8 Ke7 when Black has no problems.

35.a4!? Kc6?

492
 Tal commits a serious mistake.

He should have preferred: 35…bxa4! 36.Ra1 (If 36.Bxa6 Rc3†! Black has no problems.) 36…Bc4
Exchanging the bishops helps Black. 37.Rxd7† (37.Rh6 gives Black a choice between 37…Bb5!? and
the even simpler 37…Bxd3 38.cxd3 Rc3 39.Rxa4 Kc7 when the draw is close.) 37…Kxd7 38.Rxa4
Bb5 White’s advantage is merely symbolic.

36.Ra1!
Spassky grabs the initiative on the queenside. Please notice how he has played across the entire
board: he pushed his e-pawn and placed his king in the centre, opened the h-file and exerted pressure
on the kingside, and now he attacks on the queenside.

36…Rb8 37.Rg7!
Spassky poses a dilemma: Black must either keep his bishop passively defending the g6-pawn, or
advance the pawn and render his pawn structure rigid.

37…g5 38.axb5† axb5

39.Ra5!
The rook and bishop tie Black to the defence of the b5-pawn. Spassky’s brilliant play has yielded
a large advantage, but Black is not yet lost.

39…Rb6 40.Ra8 Be6 41.Rg6 Rf7 42.Rgg8?

Virtually any normal move would maintain a big advantage, but Spassky sealed this unfortunate
mistake, which gives away White’s advantage. Spassky played superbly for more than twenty moves

493
since we joined the game, but now he squanders the fruits of his labour in one move.

42…Ra7!
Tal takes the tactical opportunity to exchange a pair of rooks, easing the defensive burden.

43.Rxa7 Bxg8 44.Ra8 Bf7!

Now Black holds easily. Spassky keeps trying, but without managing to create any real chances.

45.Rf8 Rb7 46.Kf2 Kd6 47.Kg3 Ke7 48.Rh8 Rb6 49.Rh7 Kf8 50.Kf2 Kg8 51.Rh1 Be6 52.Ke3
Rb7 53.Ra1 Kf8 54.Rh1 Kg7 55.Kd2 Rd7 56.Ra1 Rb7 57.Ra6 Bd7 58.Ke3 Kf7 59.Rd6 Ke7
60.Rd5 Bc6 61.Rc5 Kd6 62.Kf2 Rb6 63.Kg3 Bd7 64.Bf1 Rb8 65.Rd5† Ke7 66.Bh3 Bc6 67.Rc5
Kd6 68.Kf2 Rh8 69.Bf1 Rb8 70.Ke3 Rb7
½–½

Despite the anticlimactic finish, I think the period up to move 41 showed Spassky’s most impressive
chess in the entire match. Somehow this type of situation happened a few times in games between Tal
and Spassky, where one of them played superbly for a while but was unable to maintain that level for
the rest of the game.

Halfway through the match, the score was dead even. In Game 7 the Marshall worked well for
Spassky and he made a safe draw. Game 8 also simplified to a draw after the opening. In Game 9 Tal
switched to an Anti-Marshall and obtained a promising position. However, at some point in the
middlegame his play deteriorated to way below his usual level, and Spassky put him away cleanly.

Game 10 was a similar affair in some ways. Tal again got an advantage from the opening, after
Spassky chose a timid anti-Sicilian. However, Tal made some strange decisions, simplifying the

494
position unnecessarily and then losing a pawn. Again Spassky converted his advantage without much
difficulty. Tal’s play in Games 9 and 10 suggests to me that he was no longer able to stand the
pressure like he could before. His health problems were probably a factor as well, which could have
affected his energy in the later stages of the match.

We will look at the game which ended the match.

Game 80

Mikhail Tal – Boris Spassky

Tbilisi (11) 1965

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.h3 Bb7 9.d3 d6 10.c3 Nb8
11.Nbd2 Nbd7 12.Nf1 Nc5 13.Bc2 Re8 14.Ng3 Bf8 15.b4 Ncd7

16.Bb3
Tal opts to follow Petrosian’s play, rather than the main line of 16.d4.

16…a5!?
16…d5 led to an early draw agreement just seven moves later in Petrosian – Portisch, Hamburg
1965. Spassky cleverly deviates from that game, reducing the chances of running into his opponent’s
preparation.

495
17.a3 axb4 18.cxb4 h6 19.Nf5?!
Already in a desperate situation in the match, Tal understandably goes on the attack. However,
the knight doesn’t do enough on f5.

After 19.Bb2 c5 the position would be balanced.

19…d5!
Spassky plays purposefully, initiating counterplay and striking at the e4-point which White has
just weakened.

20.N3h4?
Tal continues down the doomed path.

It was not too late to switch plans with 20.Bb2!, when 20…dxe4 21.dxe4 c5 would still be equal.

20…c5!
Spassky’s move is a great practical choice, as well as being objectively strong.

20…Bxb4 would invite 21.Bxh6! Bxe1 22.Bxg7 when White objectively does not have enough
compensation, but why invite complications and expose the black king against the world’s most
dangerous attacking player?

21.Re3?
Tal makes a losing move.

The lesser evil was 21.exd5 cxb4 (or 21…Bxd5) when Black’s advantage would not be all that big.

496
21…c4!
Spassky takes over in the centre and paralyzes the b3-bishop.

22.Rg3 Kh7! 23.Bc2

23…d4!
Spassky’s exemplary play has given him complete domination in the centre.

24.Qf3 Ra6!
Spassky would later reveal that he was extremely nervous in this game, but there is nothing in his
play to suggest it.

25.Nxh6!? gxh6 26.Nf5

Tal makes a desperate winning attempt in an already lost position.

497
26…Qa8!
Not the only good move, but an excellent practical choice from Spassky. By threatening …cxd3
followed by …Bxe4, he forces Tal to take action at a moment when no good options exist.

27.Nxh6 Bxh6 28.Qf5† Kh8 29.Bxh6 Rg8

White is a piece down, with no real chance of success on the kingside. Tal keeps playing for a
while, but to no avail.

30.Bg5 Qe8 31.f4 Nh7 32.Bh4 Rxg3 33.Bxg3 Rf6 34.Qg4 Rg6 35.Qh4 exf4 36.Qxf4 f6 37.Bf2
cxd3 38.Bxd3 Ne5 39.Bf1 Ng5 40.Kh1 Nxe4 41.Rc1 Nxf2†
Tal resigned.
0–1

This brought the match to an emphatic end. Spassky’s 7–4 victory over an elite rival was highly
impressive. It’s true that Tal was far from his best. He would later reveal that “my preparations [for
the match] were ruined by medical considerations.” Certainly Tal’s preparation and overall play with
the white pieces did not serve him well: he scored three draws and three defeats without a single win.
He got nowhere against the Marshall Attack, except for one game where he obtained a one-sided
position with an extra pawn but allowed Spassky to escape with a relatively easy draw. On Spassky’s
side, the Marshall served him so well in all three Candidates matches that he and Bondarevsky joked
that a statue of the American player should be erected!

I think the biggest deciding factor in the match was that Spassky was able to withstand the huge
tension better than Tal. Regarding chess understanding they were on a similar level. Spassky and
Bondarevsky chose a brilliant match plan. Maybe during the match Tal wanted to win just as much as

498
Spassky; but since 1961 Tal was unable to concentrate on chess as much as was needed to regain the
title which he lost to Botvinnik. Spassky would later become lazy, but in the sixties he knew what he
wanted, and he and Bondarevsky were ready to invest all their efforts into achieving their objectives.

Let us wonder, for a moment, what might have happened had Fischer taken his place in the
Interzonal. He and Spassky would almost certainly have faced each other, as by the mid-sixties he
and Spassky were stronger than all the other candidates, and more or less at the same level as
Petrosian. We will never know who would have won out of Fischer and Spassky in 1965, but I’m sure
it would have been a close contest. Fischer was already great, but he was not yet at the stratospheric
level he would reach in the early seventies. Spassky was also great, as well as hungry and motivated.

***

Before the match against Petrosian, which would start in April 1966, Spassky included one more
event in his schedule; the Hastings Christmas tournament, which ran into the new year. Spassky
played well, beating six opponents and drawing with the other three. Spassky’s win over Gheorghiu
would probably become even sweeter the next year, as the Romanian player would go on to defeat
Fischer at the end of the 1966 Olympiad in Havana. Usually a score of 7½/9 would be enough for
sole first place in such a tournament, but this time Spassky had to share the prize with Uhlmann, who
performed superbly to achieve the same score.

During the event Spassky gave a comprehensive interview to Lenoard Barden, an English master and
chess writer, on the condition that it would only be published after he became World Champion. The
excellent interview would eventually be published in 1970. I found it more insightful than Spassky’s
interviews after the fall of the Soviet Union, as in my opinion he allowed his anti-communist feelings
to affect his words too much.
Interestingly, sometime after the 1966 match, Petrosian commented that Spassky should have
prepared for the match instead of playing at Hastings. However, when I researched my books on
Petrosian it came to my attention that he virtually never said anything in an interview that might help
his opponents. So who knows what he really thought? Spassky admitted in the Barden interview that
he could not work on chess systematically when he was not playing in a tournament.

1965 was a tremendous year for Spassky. He won matches against three elite opponents in Keres,
Geller and Tal, establishing himself as a worthy challenger for the highest title in chess. I quote a part
of the Barden interview, in which Spassky looked back on the full qualifying cycle:

“In the 1963-65 World Championship Zonal cycle I sometimes had the feeling that I was fated to
follow the pattern of 1958 and 1961 and I would not qualify. I remember that when I lost to
Larsen in Amsterdam I decided that it was the finish for me, because I didn’t know that Stein had
failed to beat Quinones in the same round. Also I started very badly in the Zonal tournament in
Moscow and I began to think it was the end, but Bondarevsky helped me. It was a very hard time
for both of us.”

499
Looking back on Spassky’s qualification results in 1964 and 1965, it is remarkable how often he got
off to a bad start. This was especially true in the Soviet Zonal tournament, where he started with ½/3,
with only nine more rounds to play in the tournament. He lost the first game with White against
Keres, and started with a draw followed by a loss against Tal. Only against Geller was Spassky the
one to draw first blood. I quote Spassky from the same interview:

“Some years ago I started very well in championships, but recently I developed another kind of
sickness and start badly. Probably this is psychological, because I have a very slow type of
emotions. They take a long time to rouse, but then they become steadily stronger. Other
grandmasters, Tal for instance, are quite the opposite. Bondarevsky helped me to approach this
problem in a practical way.”

1965 Results
Candidates quarter-final match vs. Keres, Riga: won 6–4 (+4 =4 –2)
Candidates semi-final vs. Geller, Riga: won 5½–2½ (+3 =5 –0)
Yugoslavia – Soviet Union match, Vrnjacka Banja: 2/5 (+0 =4 –1)
Soviet Trade Union Team Championship, Moscow: 2½/3 (+2 =1 –0)
Chigorin Memorial, Sochi (1st-2nd place): 10½/15 (+6 =9 –0)
Candidates final match vs. Tal, Tbilisi: won 7–4 (+4 =6 –1)
Hastings (1st-2nd place): 7½/9 (+6 =3 –0)

Total 67.2% (+25 =32 –4)

500
 1966

Spassky had just over four months between the end of the Hastings tournament and the start of the
match against Petrosian. Spassky later claimed that “I was poor and could not afford to properly
prepare for a World Championship match.” Personally, I find this hard to believe. If he was able to
defeat three of the all-time great players, the last two of them with ‘plus three’ scores, he must have
had the means to prepare strongly for a match.

Timman writes that before one of Spassky’s matches against Petrosian, he had a training camp with
Botvinnik. I suspect it was before the first match; perhaps Mikhail Moiseevich did it for free. I cite
Timman:

“The Patriarch advocated an iron discipline. Spassky was in the habit of sleeping late, until 9
o’clock, but at 7 o’clock Botvinnik would already be standing at his bed, saying “Boris get up!”
It wasn’t so much out of laziness that Spassky wanted to sleep. He argued that it was better for
the nervous system to sleep as long as possible. During the first match against Petrosian, around
halfway, he had woken up at seven o’clock every day.”

Spassky spoke about the preparation to Barden:

“In the last couple of years (1964-65), I played too much chess because I had to compete in all
the qualifying events. That way you lose a lot of ideas and become stale, because you are only a
practical tournament player with insufficient time for working out new systems and analysing
openings. Now, while training for the Petrosian match, Bondarevsky and I are working on some
of the ideas that have cropped up in my tournaments. For instance, we have some special sharp
systems in the Queen’s Gambit Accepted should Petrosian choose that. This question of how
much to play tournaments and how much to spend your time in analysis and preparation is a
problem for every professional player.”

The Barden interview took place at Hastings 1965, so it shows that despite playing in the Hastings
tournament, Spassky’s preparation for Petrosian was already well underway. Unsurprisingly, he
avoided playing in any other events in 1966 before the match.

Spassky and Petrosian were on friendly terms. According to Soltis:

“Towards the end of his life Petrosian reminisced with Spassky about how their friendship
survived two world championship matches. “Do you remember how we signed our [match]
contract on a window sill in Moscow’s Sophia restaurant?” he asked.”
The two men had played each other ten times before the match. Petrosian won one game and they

501
drew the other nine. I had the privilege of writing a detailed book on the Armenian champion. In my
opinion, from early 1961 until mid-1963, Petrosian was the strongest player in the world. He won the
1961 Soviet Championship, qualified from the 1962 Interzonal, won the 1962 Candidates tournament
and then defeated Botvinnik in 1963. However, after obtaining the highest title, he was not able to
live up to the expectations that come with being World Champion. He made the mistake of becoming
too picky regarding his tournaments, and avoided facing the best Soviet players. According to
Chessmetrics, Spassky was the world number one at the start of 1966 and Petrosian had dropped to
number eight, indicating that his tournament results had fallen well below the level that could be
expected of the World Champion. However, if Petrosian wanted to motivate himself then he was able
to raise his level a lot. Most experts predicted that Spassky would win the match, but they probably
did not appreciate this feature of the reigning champion.

In my opinion Petrosian’s ability to play deep strategic masterpieces exceeded that of Spassky, and
tactically they were both as brilliant as each other. Petrosian drew more games than most top players,
but that was not a disadvantage in a match. However, Petrosian had a weakness: he often struggled to
use the advantage of the white pieces to put his opponents under pressure, compared to other elite
players. Another interesting aspect is that no World Champion had retained his title in a match since
the Alekhine – Bogoljubov match of 1934. This might have given Petrosian an extra boost in
motivation.

The match took place in Moscow, with a limit of twenty-four games. The drawing of lots gave
Spassky the white pieces in the odd-numbered games. Game 1 was a Caro-Kann, which looked like it
would be a draw. Spassky made a careless move but then Petrosian missed a chance to win a pawn,
and the game ended peacefully. According to Soltis, “Spassky believed that drawing the first game of
a match is better than winning. A first round victory “always costs a lot of strength…””

In the second game Spassky equalized, but then made a careless move and got into serious trouble.
However, he managed to hold. In Game 3 Petrosian got an edge and won a pawn, but by the time
control he had wasted his advantage and could only draw. The next game was a fair draw. In Game 5
Spassky got a big advantage for the first time in the match. He failed to make the most of it, but
Petrosian still had to work for 79 moves to hold. In game 6 nobody wanted to fight.

In Game 7 Petrosian drew first blood, winning with a masterful display of strategy crowned by a
splendid tactical finish. Fischer was interviewed by a Soviet Newspaper, and said he was impressed
by this game. In the next game, Petrosian as White killed the opening into a draw. In Game 9 Spassky
was unable to gain any advantage in an isolated pawn position, and soon after they agreed to draw.

In Game 10 Spassky attacked when slightly unprepared, and Petrosian punished him. He ended the
game with a simple but beautiful tactical motif:

Game 81

502
 Tigran Petrosian – Boris Spassky

Moscow (10) 1966

30.Qh8†!
Fischer also marvelled at this masterpiece. I can’t recall any other occasions when Fischer praised
a Soviet player’s chess the way he did with these two games of Petrosian.
1–0

Already two points behind, in Game 11 Spassky sacrificed a pawn, but went wrong and had less than
full compensation. They agreed a draw in an endgame which was defensible for Spassky, but still it
was strange that Petrosian chose not to play on for a while with his extra pawn. In the next game
Spassky took great risks with an irregular and dubious opening set-up. Petrosian found a magical
combination and was winning, but an inaccuracy crept in and he had to settle for perpetual check.

After this lucky escape, the tide turned. Spassky got an edge against the Caro-Kann and Petrosian
sacrificed an exchange. Both players committed a few inaccuracies, and the following position was
reached just after the time control.

Game 82

Boris Spassky – Tigran Petrosian

Moscow (13) 1966

503
41…b6
This was Petrosian’s sealed move. Black has one pawn for the exchange, which is not quite
enough. White’s position is winning but there are only a few pawns remaining on the board, so
accurate play will be required to convert the advantage.

42.Bg1 Bd8 43.Rf1 Nf6 44.Re2 c5 45.Rf5 Kd6 46.a4! Kd5 47.Kd3 Ng4 48.Rb2 Rh8

49.a5!
Spassky opens the position for his rook; it is worth sacrificing a pawn for it.

504
49…c4† 50.Ke2 Ke4 51.Rf7 bxa5 52.Rb8
It is useful to pin the bishop.

52…a4

53.Rc8
Spassky tightens the screw.

53.Ra7 a3 54.Raa8 would be also strong. For instance, if 54…a2 55.Rxa2 Bf6 56.Rxh8 Bxh8 57.Ra4
Kd5 58.Ra5† White wins.

53…Bf6 54.Rxc4†?!
54.Rxh8! Bxh8 55.Rc7! would win more convincingly.

54…Kf5 55.Ra7
55.Rxa4 Rc8! 56.Kd2 also wins.

55…a3

505
56.Rxa3
White has removed Black’s extra pawn and is now a full exchange up. Still, Black has decent
coordination and can continue to fight.

56…Rb8 57.Rb4 Rc8 58.c4

Sooner or later White has to push this pawn.

58…Be7 59.c5 e4
If 59…Bxc5? 60.Rf3†! White wins.

60.Ra7 Bf6

506
61.Rh7!
Spassky initiates a manoeuvre to improve his rook.
An alternative is 61.Raa4 Be5 62.Rxe4 Bxg3 63.Kf3 when White should win, but it is frightening to
have only one pawn remaining.

61…Kg6 62.Rd7! Kf5 63.Rd5† Be5 64.Rb6

Spassky limits the movement of the black pieces.

64…e3
In the event of 64…Ra8 65.Bd4! Ra2† 66.Bb2! Ra5 (or 66…e3 67.c6) 67.Bxe5 Nxe5 68.Rh6!
White wins.

507
65.Kf3?
Spassky goes wrong. It looks natural enough to improve the king and defend the g3-pawn, but his
move is a mistake because Black can win that pawn anyway.

White can and should take the pawn: 65.Bxe3! Ke4 (65…Nxe3 66.Kxe3 Rg8 is also inadequate due
to 67.c6 Rxg3† [or 67…Ke6 68.Rxe5†] 68.Kf2 and White wins.) 66.Rd3 Bxg3 (66…Nxe3 67.Rxe3†
Kd5 68.Rh6 wins.) 67.Bd2 (Also afte67.Rg6 Bh4 68.Ra6 Bg3 69.Ra4† Kf5 70.Rd5† Be5 71.Bg1
White wins.) 67…Bc7 68.Rb4† Kf5 69.Rh3 Re8† 70.Be3 White is winning.

65…Nf6! 66.Rd3 Rxc5

Petrosian takes the less important pawn.

Creating a passed pawn was better: 66…Rg8! 67.Bxe3 (67.Bh2 h4 does not help White.) 67…Rxg3†
68.Ke2 Rg2† 69.Kf3 Rg3† 70.Ke2 Rg2† 71.Ke1 h4 Black has enough counterplay to hold.

67.Bxe3
With only one pawn remaining for each side, Black’s drawing chances are clearly higher than a
few moves ago. In the event of a rook exchange, if Black can swap the knight for bishop, the ensuing
endgame with bishop versus rook should be defensible, assuming Black is decently coordinated.

508
67…Rc2?!
A better defensive set-up is:

67…Rc4!
The rook stands better on the fourth rank.
68.Rb5 Ng4
68…h4? 69.Bd4 Rxd4 70.Rxd4 hxg3 71.Rd1 wins.
69.Ke2
69.Bf4 h4! leads to a draw.
69.Bd4 Ke6 also gets nowhere for White.
69…Re4
69…Ke4? 70.Bd2! helps White.
70.Kd2 Kg6!
Black must avoid 70…Nxe3 71.Rxe3 Rxe3 72.Kxe3 when White wins because the bishop is
pinned. For Black to draw this endgame, the king must reach g6 and the bishop should be ready
to check the white king when it steps on f4. Here after 72…Kf6 73.Kf3 Kf5 74.Kg2 Kf6 75.Kh3
White wins.

509
71.Bg1 Bf6!
Preparing an effective regrouping.
71…Ra4 72.Ke2 improves White’s chances slightly, although Black can still hold with careful
defence.
72.Rd6 Ne5 73.Kc2 Nc4
73…Nf3!? is also possible. For instance, 74.Kd3 Re1 75.Bc5 Ne5† 76.Kc2 Re4 77.Rbb6 Rc4†
78.Kd1 Rxc5 79.Rxf6† Kg5 80.Rf4 Ng6 and the draw is close.
74.Ra6 h4 75.Kd3 Rg4 76.gxh4 Rxh4 77.Rd5 Nb2†
Black holds.

68.Rd8?
Spassky fails to capitalize.

68.Rb5! pins the black bishop with strong effect. 68…Ng4 (68…Ke6 69.Bf4 Ng4 70.Bd2 does not
help Black.)

510
 Black’s last move threatens mate in one, but 69.Bd2 is a good antidote. After something like
69…Ra2 (69…Rc4 70.Bc3 exploits the pin along the fifth rank) 70.Ra5 Rc2 71.Ke2 White is making
good progress and Black faces a tough defence.

68…Rc3!
Pinning the opponent’s pieces is often a good idea.

69.Ke2 Rc2† 70.Kd1 Rc3

70…Rg2! Petrosian could go after the g-pawn, as the tactics work out for Black: 71.Rb5 (After
71.Bf4 Bxf4 72.gxf4 Ng4 Black is active enough.) 71…Rxg3 72.Bd4

511
72…Ng4! Black gets away with it. If White tries 73.Rdd5 then Black holds after either 73…Ke4
74.Bxe5 Ne3† or 73…Rd3† 74.Kc2 Ke4.

71.Bf2
Spassky correctly avoids 71.Bf4 Bxf4 72.gxf4 Ne4 (but not 72…Ng4? 73.Rb4) 73.Rf8† Kg4
74.f5 Rc7 when Black can handle the f-pawn.

71…Ne4?!
After 71…Bxg3? 72.Bd4 White wins.

Petrosian wants to capture White’s last pawn, but he would have done better to choose any of

512
71…Ng4, 71…Ke4 or even 71…Ra3!?, all of which should draw with correct play.

72.Rf8† Kg5??
Petrosian makes a losing mistake; it seems that his desire to eliminate White’s last pawn got the
better of him.

72…Kg4? would lose to 73.Rb4!.

72…Bf6 was a better move. For instance, 73.Rb5† Kg6 74.Be1 Re3 75.Rb7 (or 75.Rb6 Kf5) and now
both 75…Bd4 and 75…Be5 enable Black to hold.

72…Nf6!? is also possible: 73.Ra6 (73.Rfxf6† Bxf6 74.Rxf6† Kxf6 75.Bd4† Kg5! 76.Bxc3 h4!
would be an important drawing line to calculate.) 73…Rb3 74.Be1 Re3 Black seems to get away with
it.

73.Rb5!
The pin forces Petrosian to exchange rooks.

73…Rd3†
73…Nxf2† 74.Rxf2 Re3 75.Re2! wins.

74.Ke2 Rd5 75.Rxd5 Nc3† 76.Kf3 Nxd5

77.Ra8!
The rook gets ready to drag the black king away from the h5-pawn.

513
77.Ke4 would not win because 77…Nf6†! intending 78.Kxe5? Nd7†.

77…Kf5 78.Ra5 Ke6 79.Be1

Spassky’s next aim is to swap the bishop. With fewer pieces on the board, White will be able to
get closer to the h5-pawn.

79…Nf6 80.Rb5 Nd5 81.Bd2 Bg7 82.Bc1 Be5

83.Bb2
After some manoeuvring, Spassky offers an exchange which Black cannot accept.

83…Bc7
If 83…Bxb2?! 84.Rxb2 Nf6 85.Rb5 Nd5 86.Ra5 Ke5 87.Kg2 White wins easily.

84.Rc5 Bd6 85.Rc1 Ne7

Black aims to attack White’s last pawn.

514
86.Re1†!
A strong check.

86.Rh1? Nf5! 87.Rh3 Nxg3! would simplify to a draw.

86…Kf5
86…Kf7 87.Be5 Bc5 88.Rh1 Kg6 89.Ra1 wins.

87.Ra1 Nc6
87…Ke6 runs into 88.Ra6 (or 88.Ba3 Be5 89.Re1) 88…Kd5 89.Ba3 and White wins.

88.Ra6 Be5 89.Rxc6

89.Bxe5 Nxe5† 90.Kg2 also wins.

89…Bxb2 90.Rc5† Kg6

515
91.Kf4!
White wins, as the black bishop cannot send the king away.

91…Bg7
Petrosian sealed this move and resigned without resumption.
1–0

According to Petrosian, he lost the game twice. It must have been especially tough after he failed to
exploit his extra pawn in Game 11 and missed a clear win in Game 12. Had he won either of those
encounters, he would have led by three points, whereas now he only had a one-point lead.

In Game 14, after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 Spassky played 2…b5. The reigning champion played poorly and
Spassky took over in the middlegame. Spassky’s advantage was close to decisive, but he failed to
capitalize and Petrosian managed to hold.

We will join the next game in the lead-up to the time control.

Game 83

Boris Spassky – Tigran Petrosian

Moscow (15) 1966

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6.Nh3 Nf6 7.0-0 Bg4 8.f3 Bxh3 9.Bxh3 0-0 10.Be3

516
Ne8 11.Qd2 Nc7 12.Rae1 b6 13.Nd1 d5 14.Qe2 e6 15.f4 f5 16.Bc1 Rf7 17.Bg2 Qd7 18.Nf2 Rd8
19.c3 b5 20.exd5 exd5 21.Bd2 c4 22.Qf3 Ne7 23.dxc4 bxc4 24.b3 Nc8 25.bxc4 dxc4 26.Bc1 Qa4
27.Rd1 Rdf8 28.Be3 Nb6 29.Bc5 Rc8 30.Bb4 Na6 31.Bd6 Qa5 32.g4 Qxc3 33.Qe2

33…Qf6?
Having obtained an extra pawn and a clear advantage, Petrosian makes a mistake in time trouble.

33…Qb2! Offering a queen exchange was far stronger. 34.Rd2 (34.Qe3 Qb5 is also unpleasant for
White.) 34…Qb5 Black keeps some advantage. (34…Qf6!? is also worth considering, having lured
White’s rook to a worse square than in the game.)

34.Rfe1 Rd7?
Petrosian makes a further mistake which presents White with a tactical opportunity.

34…Nc7 or 34…Nc5 would have improved the wayward knight, with approximate equality in either
case.

517
35.Be7!
Spassky seizes his opportunity.

35.Be5!? is also highly tempting. It would be interesting to know how much of the following line
Spassky calculated. 35…Qf7 36.Rxd7 Qxd7 (36…Nxd7 37.Bxg7 Kxg7 38.Bb7 wins.) 37.gxf5 gxf5
38.Bxg7 Qxg7 39.Qe6† Kh8 (39…Qf7 40.Bd5! wins.)

40.Qxc8†! Nxc8 41.Re8† Qg8 42.Rxg8† Kxg8

518
43.Bb7! White appears to be winning, but 43…Nb4! 44.Bxc8 c3 45.Bxf5 c2 46.Bxc2 Nxc2 reaches
an endgame where Black can survive despite being a pawn down.

35…Rxe7!
Petrosian admits his mistake and manages to stay in the game with this exchange sacrifice.

If 35…Qf7? 36.Rxd7 Nxd7 37.Bb7! White wins.

36.Qxe7 Qxe7 37.Rxe7 Nc5 38.gxf5

519
38…c3!
Petrosian wisely avoids 38…gxf5? 39.Bh3! when White is clearly winning.

39.fxg6 hxg6 40.Re2 Rc7

41.Ne4?
Having reached a winning endgame, Spassky makes a serious mistake. Perhaps he was also in
time trouble and did not realize he had made forty moves.

41.Kh1! would have placed the king on a safer square, leaving Black without a convincing way of
doing anything with the passed c-pawn.

41.Rd6! was another strong idea, preparing Rc6.

41…Ne6!
The tactics work out for Black, and Petrosian takes his opportunity to simplify to a drawing
endgame.

41…Nd3!? also works, but the game continuation is simpler.

42.Nxc3
Spassky sealed this move.

42…Nd4 43.Re5 Bxe5 44.fxe5 Rxc3 45.Rxd4

White still has an extra pawn but Black is active enough, and the pawns on a2 and e5 are weak.

520
Moreover, there are only a few pawns remaining. Spassky keeps trying but Petrosian easily secures
the draw.

45…Kf7 46.Rd6 Rc5 47.Rf6† Kg7 48.Be4 Rxe5 49.Rxg6† Kf7 50.Bc2 Re1† 51.Kf2 Ra1 52.Rc6
Rxa2 53.h4 Nd5 54.Kf3 Ra3† 55.Ke4 Rc3
½–½

In Game 16 Spassky again played rather provocatively in the opening, but Petrosian did not do much
and the game ended peacefully. In Game 17 Spassky played a Closed Sicilian and tried to build up on
the kingside, but it was hard to make further progress. Petrosian had a slight edge, having gained
significant space on the queenside. Had Fischer obtained such a position with Black he would surely
have tried to score a full point, but Petrosian simplified to a draw.

Let me show you the opening of the next game.

Game 84

Tigran Petrosian – Boris Spassky

Moscow (18) 1966

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.a3

521
5…Bxf3?
This is a highly dubious move, but Spassky kept playing such openings as Black. Later Petrosian
had a great position, but he went astray in complications and Spassky even had chances for an
advantage for a brief period, before they simplified to a draw.
…½–½

International Master and opening expert Endre Vegh told me that Fischer talked a lot about this game
and said a good player doesn’t play a move like 5…Bxf3? in the above position. Fischer believed that
the entire game was prearranged. This seems rather far-fetched, as if the players wanted to draw, they
could have agreed a draw much more quickly. Fischer was right to point out certain instances of
collusion amongst Soviet players, the most famous being the draws between certain Soviet players at
the Curaçao candidates tournament of 1962. However, he also made a lot of wrong and utterly
unfounded claims about fixed games in Soviet chess.

It is well worth looking at the next game.

Game 85

Boris Spassky – Tigran Petrosian

Moscow (19) 1966

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Nf3 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6 7.Bf4 Bxc5 8.Bd3 f6 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.0-
0 0-0 11.Ne5 Bd7 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Qe2 Qe7 14.Rae1 Rae8 15.Bg3 a6 16.a3 Qf7 17.b4 Bd4

522
18.Be5 Bxe5 19.Qxe5 Nd7 20.Qg3 e5 21.f3

21…Qf4?!
Petrosian plays for a draw. The position will indeed remain equal for a while, but the removal of
queens slightly helps White.
21…Re7?! 22.a4! would be slightly annoying; but 21…Qf6 or 21…b5!? would both lead to pleasant
play for Black.

22.Qxf4 Rxf4 23.Rf2 g6

From now on both sides could handle the position in several ways.

24.Rd2 Nb6
24…b5 and 24…Nf6 are also reasonable.

Although the position looks peaceful, tactics are never far away. For instance, if 24…Rf6 White can
play 25.b5! axb5 26.Nxd5! Rd6 (26…Bxd5? 27.Bxb5 wins material) 27.Nc3 with some pressure.

25.Rde2 Nd7

523
26.Nd1!
It may appear awkward, but Spassky is preparing to regroup his pieces.

26…b5
26…Kg7 is more flexible.

27.c3 Rf7 28.Bc2!

The position is still close to equal, but Spassky keeps improving.

28…Kg7 29.Bb3 h5 30.Ne3 Nb6

524
31.Nc2
Spassky again moves the knight to improve another piece a bit.

31…Nd7?
Petrosian virtually offers a draw, but he should have just played the game.

31…Rfe7 or 31…Kf6 were reasonable moves.

32.Re3! h4
If 32…Rfe7?! then 33.Nd4 would be unpleasant.

33.h3 Rf6 34.Nd4!

With this and the next move, Spassky starts exerting a bit of pressure.

34…Bb7

525
35.a4!
Spassky gives his opponent no time to rest.

35…Rd8
35…Rb8! is more precise, and after 36.Nc2 bxa4 37.Bxa4 Bc6 Black would be safe.

36.Ne2 bxa4
Petrosian hopes to exchange a few pawns.

Both 36…g5 and 36…Rd6 look simpler.

37.Bxa4 Nb6 38.Bb3

526
38…e4?!
Petrosian gives up the d4-square. For a long time he did not try to change the pawn structure, so
it’s interesting that he decides to change the situation soon before the time control, rather than wait
until he had more time to assess the consequences. Maybe he got a bit impatient.

38…Re8 would allow 39.Nd4!.

38…Rf5! looks best, when play could continue: 39.Nc1 (39.g4 hxg3 40.Nxg3 Rf7 41.Rxe5 Nc4 is
fine for Black.) 39…Rc8 40.Bc2 Rg5 41.Nb3 Nc4 42.R3e2 d4 With equal chances.

39.Nd4
The knight is strong and threatening in the centre.

39…Kh6 40.Rd1
Spassky creates a threat of taking on e4 and winning the exchange with a discovered attack.

40…Rc8?
Petrosian meets a threat, but allows Spassky to improve his knight.
40…Rd7!? was a better try, although White could play 41.Rd2 and Black would not have an easy
way to relieve the pressure.

527
41.fxe4!
Spassky sealed this move. For Petrosian, he not only faced a difficult situation on the board, but
had the additional practical disadvantage of having to analyse various other possibilities.

White could also exert pressure with 41.Ra1 Re8 42.Ra5.

41…dxe4 42.Ne6!
The knight jump sets up serious threats.

42…Nc4
Petrosian chooses a reasonable continuation. Let’s see his other possibilities.

42…Na4? is a mistake due to: 43.Rd7! Ba8

528
44.Nd8!! White can hurt the black king. 44…Nxc3 45.Nf7†! Black must give up the exchange and
face a losing endgame, as after 45…Kh5 46.Rxc3 Rxc3 47.Bd1† White wins immediately.

42…a5!?
Black could try to force simplifications with this move. It leads to some amazing possibilities.
43.Rd6!
Less convincing is: 43.Nc5 Ba8 44.Rd4 (44.Nxe4 Bxe4 45.Rxe4 Rxc3 enables Black to survive,
as all the queenside pawns will disappear.) 44…axb4 45.cxb4 Re8 46.Bc2 Nc8 47.Nxe4 Rfe6
White is tied to the defence of the knight, so it will be hard to make progress.
43…Nc4 44.Bxc4 Rxc4

529
45.Nd8!
The amazing knight lands on the same surprising square as in the previous variation above! I
wonder if Spassky spotted this idea when he sealed his 41st move.
45…Rxd6 46.Nf7† Kh5 47.Nxd6 Rc7

I wonder what Spassky would have done had this position arisen. White must decide whether or
not to simplify to a pawn-up rook endgame. It’s worth considering three logical candidates.

a) We will start by checking the rook endgame, which contains some amazing nuances:

48.Nxb7 Rxb7 49.bxa5

49.Rxe4?! a4! gives Black enough counterplay to hold.
ChessBase quotes the match bulletin, which cuts the analysis here and evaluates it as winning for
White. Having analysed it more deeply and with the help of modern technology, I can confirm
that Black can, in fact, draw. I will show my abbreviated analysis.
49…Ra7 50.Rxe4 Rxa5 51.Kf2
Manoeuvring the rook behind the passed pawn does not work: 51.Re1 g5 (51…Kg5 is also good
enough to hold, but in a more difficult way.) 52.c4 Kg6 (52…g4!? also holds.) 53.Rc1 Kf6 Black
draws, as the king is close enough to stop the c-pawn, while the rook can switch to the kingside
when needed.

530
51…Ra3!
One of several ‘only moves’ that Black must find to survive.
51…g5? 52.Ke3 enables White to reorganize optimally, with the rook going to g4 and the king
supporting the passed pawn.
52.c4
52.Re3 forces 52…g5!. Then after 53.Kf3 Black has a few acceptable moves, but I think
53…Ra1! is most logical. 54.Ke4 is a good try, but after 54…g4! Black will survive.

52…g5!
Black must defend h4 and activate his king.
52…Kg5? is obviously no good because 53.Rg4† Kh5 54.Ke2 wins.

531
53.Ke2
53.Re3 forces Black to find 53…Ra2†! 54.Re2 Ra3! when the critical line continues: 55.Rc2 g4!
Another only move. 56.hxg4† (After 56.c5 gxh3 57.c6 both 57…h2 and 57…hxg2 are good
enough.) 56…Kxg4 57.c5 h3! Black is just in time to liquidate the kingside and get back to stop
the c-pawn.
53…Kg6 54.Rg4
Now Black must be precise.

54…Kf6!!
54…Kf5? 55.Kd2 Rb3 56.c5 wins.
55.Kd2
If White was to move here, then c4-c5 would win.
55…Rb3!
Amazingly, we have a mutual zugzwang.

532
56.Kc2
56.c5 Rb5 57.Rc4 Ke7! draws, and that’s why the king needed to go to f6 rather than f5 on move
54. It is also worth mentioning that if the black rook stood on a5, White would win, as shown in
the next note below.
56…Re3!
The only move.
56…Ra3? loses to 57.c5 Ra5 58.Rc4 Ke7 59.Kc3 intending Kb4 followed by Rg4. Black is
unable to defend with 59…Rb5 because of 60.Re4†! followed by Kc4.
57.c5 Re5 58.Rc4

58…Ke7!

533
 Another only move, although this one was not so difficult.
59.Kd3 Kd7
Black is safe.

b) Another tempting idea is:

48.b5!?
Keeping the queenside pawns connected is an interesting try, but not quite good enough.
48…Kg5!
Black is just in time to activate his king and create counterplay with the passed e-pawn.
49.c4 Kf4 50.Ra3 e3 51.Kf1
White appears to be close to winning, but Black has a narrow path to salvation:

51…Re7! 52.Nxb7
52.Rxa5 Bxg2†! is a drawing line, where White arguably has to be more careful than Black.
52…Rxb7 53.Ke1!
This is a tricky try, but after the accurate continuation:
53…Ke4 54.Rxa5 Kd4! 55.Ra4 g5!
White cannot win.

c) So far, we have looked at two moves which come close, but ultimately do not win against optimal
defence. However, White does have one winning continuation:
48.bxa5!

534
48…Ba8
Black needs to move the bishop, before going after the a-pawn.
49.Nxe4 Ra7 50.Nd6! Rxa5
If Black had time to attack g2, White may start to regret the decision not to eliminate the bishop.
However, White is in time to perform magic with the knight and rook.

51.Nf7!
Without this move, Black would draw comfortably. The immediate threat is Re8.
51…Rf5
Black does not have time for 51…Ra2? because of 52.Re5† and mate.
51…g5? 52.Re6 also wins instantly.

535
52.Re7!
White should win.

It would be interesting to know if Spassky and Bondarevsky looked at the above possibilities in their
adjournment analysis, and how they evaluated the three options on move 48.

43.Bxc4 Rxc4 44.Nc5

The superiority of the knight over the enemy bishop is obvious.

44…Rf7 45.Ra1 Kg5

45…Bc8! looks like a better defensive try.

536
46.Ra5!
Spassky threatens the king in an unusual way.
Winning the pawn would not be good: 46.Nxa6? Bxa6 47.Rxa6 Rd7! and Black holds.

46…Kf4
The black king might prove strong or it might become a target. A lot will depend on how well
Spassky will play.

46…Kh6!? is another idea, with a couple of possibilities:

a) Winning a pawn with 47.Nxb7!? Rxb7 48.Rxa6 is not fully convincing, as Black could resist
with 48…Kg5!. (But not 48…Rbc7? 49.Re6 Rxc3 50.Rxc3 Rxc3 51.Rxe4 when White wins.)
b) However, White does not have to force matters and can continue pressing with 47.Ra2.

47.Kf2 Bd5 48.Nb3!

Spassky improves the knight.

48…Ke5†
If 48…Bb7? 49.Nd4! White wins thanks to the threat of Ne2 with checkmate.

49.Ke2 Rc6

50.Nd2!
Spassky wins the central pawn without making any positional concessions.

50…Ke6

537
 Black does not have time for 50…Rf4? because 51.c4 wins the bishop.

51.Nxe4 Bc4† 52.Kd2 Rd7† 53.Kc2 Kf7 54.Re5 Kg7 55.Nd2 Bb5 56.Nf3 Ba4† 57.Kb2 Rd1
58.R5e4 Rf1

59.Re1!
Exchanging the rook eases White’s task. The rest is easy for Spassky.

59…Rxe1 60.Rxe1 Rf6 61.Re4 g5 62.Nxg5 Rf2† 63.Ka3 Bc6 64.Rxh4 Bxg2 65.Ne4 Re2 66.Nc5
Bf1 67.Rf4 Re1 68.h4
Petrosian resigned. Spassky played extremely well to prevail from the type of position in which
the Armenian was one of the greatest.
1–0

After a month of hard work, Spassky had equalized the score. With five games remaining, he needed
to score three points to win the title. Petrosian, as the reigning champion, had the luxury of only
needing to tie the match to retain his title. Petrosian would also have the white pieces in three of the
five remaining games. Still, the recent momentum was on Spassky’s side.

Spassky considered taking a time out before the 20th game, but he decided not to give Petrosian time
to rest. Unfortunately for Spassky, he mishandled the main-line Nimzo Indian and allowed Petrosian
to obtain a big advantage, which he duly converted. Perhaps he made a mistake in choosing not to
postpone the game, but one can never know. Karpov will do it in a similar situation against Kasparov,
and he would lose that match as well.

In Game 21 Spassky had the white pieces for the penultimate time in the match. Spassky played the

538
opening too aggressively and, after a serious mistake, he was lucky that Petrosian looked only for a
draw, which he duly obtained. In the next game Petrosian opened with 1.d4 and Spassky played 1…
b5. Petrosian carefully built his position and got an edge, but then offered a draw by a repetition.
Spassky avoided it, after which Petrosian shifted into another gear and went on the attack. Spassky
made his 35th move in a lost position, and then resigned. With that, Petrosian reached the key
milestone of twelve points, which meant he had defended his title. However, they still had to play on
to determine how the prize fund would be shared. If the match ended 12–12 then the money would be
shared equally, but if the match had a clear winner then the money would be split accordingly.
Spassky needed to win both of the remaining games to improve his prize money.

Game 86

Boris Spassky – Tigran Petrosian

Moscow (23) 1966

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.Nf3 Bd7

8.Qd2!
According to the database this move was a novelty. Spassky intends to castle long and attack.

8…Bc6 9.Nxf6† Qxf6 10.Ne5 0-0 11.0-0-0 Nd7?!

Petrosian undertakes doubled pawns. His problem is that even if he can exchange one of them,
his pawn structure will remain worse.

539
11…Rd8 is an improvement, and after 12.f4 Be8 13.Qe3 White’s advantage is smaller than in the
game.

12.Nxc6 bxc6

13.h4!
Spassky intends to develop the h1-rook in a creative way. Importantly, the bishop stands best on
f1 for the time being.

13…Rab8?
Petrosian hopes to attack, but his rook was actually better on its original square.

13…Rfd8 was better, and after 14.Rh3 e5 15.Qe3 exd4 16.Rxd4 Re8 17.Qd2 Nb6 18.Rf3 White’s
advantage would be clearly smaller than in the game.

14.Rh3 c5

540
15.Qg5!
After the exchange of queens Black’s position falls apart surprisingly quickly, as White will
invade on the queenside.

15…cxd4
Perhaps Petrosian missed that after 15…Qxf2 16.Rf3 Qg1 17.Qg3 White traps the black queen.

15…Rfd8 is also no good, as 16.Rhd3 or 16.Rc3 would win.

16.Qxf6 Nxf6 17.Rxd4 Rb7 18.Rb3

Spassky keeps exchanging, highlighting the vulnerability of Black’s queenside pawns.

18.Rc3 would also win.

18…Rxb3 19.axb3 Ra8 20.Rc4 Ne8

Also after 20…Nd5 21.Rc5 or 20…Rc8 21.Rc6 White wins.

21.Ra4 Nd6

541
22.g3! Kf8
Black also loses a pawn after 22…Nc8 23.Rc4 or 22…a5 23.b4.

23.Bg2 Rc8 24.Rxa7

White wins a pawn and keeps the more active pieces. At this level, the game is as good as over.

24…Ke7 25.Kd2 h6

26.c4
Spassky starts advancing his queenside pawns.

542
26…g5
Black’s counterplay on the kingside is too slow. Trying to restrain White’s queenside pawns
would also be hopeless though.

27.hxg5 hxg5 28.Kc3 Kd7 29.b4 Rh8

30.b5 Rh2 31.Bc6† Kd8

Petrosian resigned without waiting for 32.c5, when his position would be absolutely hopeless.
1–0

In the last game Petrosian got an advantage from the opening which turned into a near-winning
middlegame. However, he failed to capitalize and his advantage had diminished by the time they
adjourned. Petrosian still stood clearly better, but he probably lost concentration and allowed Spassky
to take over. Still, Petrosian’s disadvantage never grew too big, and he was able to hold the endgame.
Thus, the match ended 12½–11½ in Petrosian’s favour, which meant that Petrosian got the winner’s
share of the prize money in addition to retaining his title.

Both contestants had their moments in the match, but Petrosian deserved his hard-fought victory. He
was able to cast aside his relatively lacklustre tournament performances of recent years. The
Armenian grandmaster prepared diligently for the match and pulled himself together. He was strongly
motivated to retain his title, becoming the first World Champion since Alekhine to do so.

Soltis thinks Spassky’s problem was that he did not know which of Petrosian’s moves were based on
calculation and which were based on intuition, and even what he was aiming for with some of his
moves. Spassky said, “It is very difficult to play a grandmaster when you do not know what he

543
wants.”

Spassky may have fallen short in the match, but he proved that his level was extremely close to that
of the World Champion. Spassky claims that he was the best player in the world from 1964, but I
disagree – or at least point out a distinction between different types of chess competition. Petrosian
proved that he was still the best in a one-on-one match, but his results had not been so impressive in
tournaments with players of varying levels, as he was liable to concede more draws than other elite
players. In such tournaments, nobody was better than Spassky in the mid-sixties.

After this match, Spassky would never again play a dubious opening against Petrosian. However, he
would later attempt a similar tactic against Karpov in the first part of the Candidates match of 1974,
but it would backfire then as well.

***

Less than two weeks after the match had ended, Spassky participated in the Chigorin Memorial
tournament in Sochi. Presumably the main reason for the decision was to spend time with his
daughter. Perhaps he also just wanted to put the match behind him. Unsurprisingly, playing so soon
after such a gruelling contest, Spassky’s chess was far from his best. He started with a loss against the
little-known Sergievsky, and took some quick draws against players who he would normally look to
beat. He did win some games though and finished with 9½/15, sharing equal fifth and sixth places.

In mid-July, about six weeks after the end of the match, Spassky and Petrosian both played in the
double-round-robin Piatigorsky Cup in Santa Monica. The organizers wanted to make sure the World
Champion would play, so they invited both Petrosian and Spassky before the match took place. The
organizers also doubled the prize fund compared to the 1963 tournament; it now stood at $20,000 in
total. The ten-player line-up also included Fischer.

Spassky started by drawing with Black against Petrosian, before facing Unzicker in Round 2.

Game 87

Boris Spassky – Wolfgang Unzicker

Santa Monica 1966

544
33.Kg2!
Spassky gets ready to attack along the h-file.

33.Nf5! Qa7† 34.Kg2 was another way to win.

33…Qd8
Black has no defence. For example, 33…hxg4 34.Rh1† Kg7 35.Nf5†! would win, as Spassky
pointed out.

Also after 33…Rg8 34.Rh1 Bh6 35.Rh2 Kg7 36.Rbh1 Rh8 37.Nf5† White wins.

34.Rh1 Kg8 35.Rbf1 Bh6

35…hxg4 36.f4 exf4 37.gxf4 Nxe4 38.Bxe4 Rxe4 39.fxg5 Qxg5 40.Qf2 would break in.

Another possible continuation is 35…a5 36.Bd3 (36.Nf5 Bxd2 37.Qxd2 Nh7 38.Bd3 b4 39.Bb5 Rf8
40.c4 is also good enough) 36…b4 37.gxh5 Nxh5 38.Rxh5 gxh5 39.f4 and White wins.

545
36.Nf5!
This beautiful sacrifice opens up Black’s king decisively.

36…Bxd2
On 36…Bf8 Spassky gives 37.Nh6† Kg7 38.gxh5 Nxh5 39.Rxh5 (39.Nf5† wins as well) 39…
gxh5 40.f4 Kxh6 41.f5† Kg7 42.Qxh5 and White wins.

37.Qxd2 gxf5
Taking the knight allows White to catch the king, but Black is lost anyway.

Another possible line is: 37…Nh7 38.Qh6 Qf6 39.g5 Qh8 40.Nxd6 Rd8

546
41.Nf5! gxf5 42.Rxh5 Qg7 43.Qb6 Bd7 44.Rfh1 Nf8 45.Qf6 Ng6 46.exf5 White wins, as Spassky
pointed out.

38.Qh6 fxe4 39.fxe4 Bxg4

39…Nxg4 40.Qxh5 leads to a checkmate.

40.Rxf6 Qe7
40…Qc7 41.Qg5† Kf8 42.Rh6 catches the black king.

41.Qg5† Kf8

547
42.Bd1
Removing the bishop ends Black’s resistance.

42…Bxd1 43.Rxd1 Rec8 44.Rdf1 Rxc3 45.Qxh5 Rc2† 46.Kh1

1–0

Spassky drew his next four games, then scored a good win with Black against Ivkov. In Round 8 he
faced Fischer, who was surprisingly only on 3/7, having beaten Ivkov in Round 3 before losing to
Larsen and Najdorf in Rounds 6 and 7.

Game 88

Boris Spassky – Robert James Fischer

Santa Monica 1966

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5
A few months later, Larsen would try a different approach of postponing pushing the c-pawn
against Spassky. It is worth showing the entire game:

7…0-0 8.Ne2 Qd7 9.0-0 b6 10.Be3 Bb7 11.f3 Nc6 12.Rc1 Rad8 13.Qd2 Na5 14.Bd3 c5 15.Rfd1
Qa4 16.Bh6 Nc4 17.Bxc4 Qxc4 18.Bxg7 Kxg7

548
19.Ng3!?
It is hard to see the point of Spassky’s move, as the f5- and h5-squares are not available.
19…f6 20.Nf1! Qf7 21.Ne3
Was it worth transferring the knight to the centre?
21…cxd4 22.cxd4 Rd7 23.d5
Spassky advances in the centre.
23…Rfd8

24.Ng4!
It took four moves to manoeuvre the knight from e2 to g4. Seemingly out of nowhere, White has
a menacing attack and Black is already lost. Larsen did not play well, but credit to Spassky for his

549
 subtle and imaginative play.
24…h5 25.Qh6† Kg8 26.Ne3 Qg7 27.Qf4 Kh7

28.Kf2!
Another far-from-obvious move to prepare a decisive attack.
28…Qf7 29.g4! hxg4 30.Qxg4 Qg7 31.Rg1
Black is desperately lost, and Larsen is unable to offer much resistance.
31…e6 32.Qxe6 Qh6 33.Qxf6 Rf8 34.Qg5 Qg7 35.Rc2 Rdf7 36.Rg3 Rf4 37.Ng4
Black resigned in Spassky – Larsen, Beverwijk 1967.

8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0-0 10.0-0 Qc7 11.Rc1 Rd8

550
12.Qe1
Spassky deviates from his play in an older game, which continued: 12.f4 Bg4 13.f5 gxf5
14.Bxf7†? Kxf7 15.Qb3† e6 (15…Kf8! 16.Nf4 Qb6 would have been winning for Black.) 16.Nf4
Qd7 17.exf5 Na5 18.Qxe6† Qxe6 19.Nxe6 Black had some advantage in Spassky – Shishkin,
Tallinn 1959, although Spassky was able to turn things around and eventually win. Fischer had surely
checked this game and prepared accordingly.

12…e6
This move had only been played once before, by Haag, just a few months beforehand. It would be
interesting to know if Fischer was aware of the game.

Four years later at the Siegen Olympiad, Fischer would repeat the Grünfeld and Spassky would
deviate on move 12. Kasparov cites Spassky regarding the reason for his decision:

“Commenting on that game, I drew attention to 12…Qa5! with good chances of equalizing: it is
hard for White to prevent …cxd4 and the exchange of queens (for example: 13.Rad1 cxd4 14
cxd4 Qxe1 15.Rfxe1 b6 with equality – G.K). It is possible that Fischer went in for this position
with my recommendation in mind, and since I did not have anything prepared, I was forced to
seek new paths. I thought for quite a long time over my 12th move. But, being a practical player
and fearful of wasting precious time, I chose a standard plan, which did not give me any
advantage.”

We will, of course, have a detailed look at the 1979 game in the second volume.

13.f4
Spassky looks to attack on the kingside.

13.Bg5!? would have been an interesting attempt to create some confusion in Black’s position.

13…Na5 14.Bd3 f5 15.Rd1

Trying to soften Black’s kingside with 15.h4!? was also worth considering.

15…b6 16.Qf2 cxd4

16…fxe4!? would allow Black to bring the knight into play more quickly, and after 17.Bxe4 Bb7
18.Ng3 Nc4 Black would do alright.

551
17.Bxd4!
Spassky accepts a backward pawn in order to exchange the g7-bishop, which defends the king.

17.cxd4?! Bb7 would give Black a pleasant game.

17…Bxd4
17…Bb7 looks playable as well.

18.cxd4 Bb7 19.Ng3

19.d5!? fxe4 20.Bxe4 Bxd5 21.Bxd5 Rxd5 22.Rxd5 exd5 23.f5 Rf8 reaches a balanced position
where Black has an extra pawn but also a somewhat weak king.

19…Qf7?!
Fischer commits the queen slightly prematurely.

Better is:

19…Rac8!?
Developing the last piece and waiting to decide later where to place the queen.
20.d5!?
Also after 20.h4 Qg7 or 20.Rfe1 Rf8! The position would be unclear.
20…fxe4 21.Nxe4 Bxd5 22.Nf6† Kg7 23.Qh4

552
23…Qf7!
It would be difficult to find this strong defensive move in advance.
23…Nc4 24.f5! Qc5† 25.Rf2 exf5 26.Bxf5 gives White a dangerous attack.
24.Nxh7
24.Ng4 Nc6 is safe for Black.
24…Rh8 25.f5 exf5 26.Rxf5 gxf5 27.Qg5†
White can force perpetual check, but nothing more.

19…Qg7!? is another possible improvement which was suggested by Fischer. Play could continue:
20.d5!? (After 20.Bc2 fxe4 21.Rfe1 the position would be balanced.) 20…fxe4 21.Bxe4 exd5 22.Bd3
Nc4 23.Rde1 when White has attacking chances for the pawn, with f4-f5 coming next.

553
20.d5!
Spassky launches an attack. His pawns open up the black kingside, which has no defenders other
than the queen.

20.Rfe1!? fxe4 21.Nxe4 Rf8 22.g3 would also leave White somewhat better.

20…fxe4 21.dxe6 Qxe6 22.f5!

Spassky continues to play energetically, and Fischer has to play precisely to avoid serious
trouble.

22…Qf7
After 22…gxf5? 23.Nxf5 White breaks in.

Black could also have played: 22…Qe7!? 23.f6 (After 23.Bxe4 Rxd1 24.Rxd1 Bxe4 25.Re1 Rf8 the
rook comes into play in time.) 23…Qe5 24.Qe3 Qc5! (24…Rd7? 25.Nxe4 Rf8 26.Qh6 leaves Black
in trouble.) 25.Qxc5 bxc5 26.Bxe4 White has just a small advantage.

23.Bxe4 Rxd1 24.Rxd1

554
24…Rf8!
Fischer finally brings the rook into play. However, his problems are still not behind him, as his
minor pieces are a long way from the kingside.

24…Bxe4? 25.Nxe4 Qxf5 (25…gxf5 26.Rd7! wins) 26.Nf6† Kg7 27.Qb2! catches the black king.

25.Bb1 Qf6 26.Qc2 Kh8?

26…Rc8 27.Qd2 Rf8 was better, although 28.a4! gives White nice prospects. The point of the last
move is to vacate the a2-square for the bishop.

27.fxg6 hxg6

555
28.Qd2?
Spassky misses what should have been a not-too-difficult win for a player of his calibre: 28.Nh5!
Be4! (After 28…Qf7 29.Qc3† Kh7 30.Qg3! White wins by playing Qh4 or Nf4 next.)

29.Qe2! Kasparov did not notice this winning move. (29.Nxf6 Bxc2 30.Nd7 Bxd1 31.Nxf8 gives
White some chances in the endgame, but Black should be able to hold.) 29…gxh5 30.Bxe4 Material
is equal and Black’s exposed king is the deciding factor.

28…Kg7
This natural move is not the best.

556
28…Nc4! would have activated the knight just in time, and after 29.Qh6† Kg8 30.Qxg6† Qxg6
31.Bxg6 Bxg2! Black can survive.

29.Rf1 Qe7 30.Qd4† Rf6 31.Ne4

31.Be4 can be met by 31…Bc6! and Black may neutralize the pressure with …Kf7.

31…Bxe4 32.Bxe4

32…Qc5
Fischer has no choice but to enter an unpleasant ending.

If 32…Qd6 33.Qc3 b5? 34.Bd5 White has excellent winning chances.

33.Qxc5 Rxf1†?!
Exchanging rooks helps the white king to get active.

33…bxc5 was better, and if White exchanges rooks, Black’s king stands better than in the game.
Fischer must have been afraid of 34.Rc1, but after 34…c4 35.Rc3 Re6 Black should be able to hold.

34.Kxf1 bxc5 35.h4?!

Spassky’s move increases Black’s chances to exchange the g-pawn.

35.Ke2! was more critical, though after 35…Nc4 36.Kd3 Ne5† 37.Ke3 g5 Black should still hold.

35…Nc4 36.Ke2

557
 White could also try:

36.Kf2
Kasparov awards this an exclamation mark, but doesn’t analyse it further. It should also lead to a
draw.
36…Kh6!
Other moves are possible but we will focus on Black’s best defence.
37.g4 g5 38.h5 Ne5 39.Bf5 c4

40.Ke3
White also fails to win with: 40.Ke2 c3 41.Bc8 (After 41.Kd1 any of 41…Nf3, 41…Nc6 or
41…Nc4 would be fine.) 41…a5 42.Kd1 Nc6 43.Kc2 (43.a3 Nd4 is also equal.) 43…Nb4†
Black will capture the a-pawn to reach safety.
40…c3 41.Be6 a5 42.Bc8
42.a4 Kg7 is fine for Black.
42…a4 43.Ke2
After 43.a3 Nc4† the knight will remove the a-pawn, with a dead draw.
43…a3 44.Kd1 Nc6 45.Kc2 Nb4†
We again reach an endgame where White’s extra pawn will be entirely symbolic.

558
36…Ne5?
Fischer’s move may not be objectively losing, but it makes the endgame more precarious for
Black.

36…Nd6? is similarly dangerous. For example, after 37.Kd3 Black should play 37…Kf7!! to avoid
falling into zugzwang. (37…Kf6 is met by 38.g4! g5 39.h5 followed by invading with the king via
a4, with good winning chances.) 38.g4 (White is not helped by 38.g3 Kg7, 38.a4 a5 or 38.Ke3
Nf5†.)

38…Kf6! Amazingly it seems to be a mutual zugzwang! Play could continue 39.Ke3 (39.g5† Kf7 is
fine for Black) 39…g5! 40.h5 Nc4†! 41.Ke2 Ne5! 42.Bf5 Nf7! when, thanks to the above series of

559
only moves, Black holds.
36…Kh6! is a more convincing drawing continuation which was found by Averbakh. Reducing the
number of pawns is the safest drawing method. 37.g4 (37.Bd5 Ne5 38.Ke3 enables Black to liquidate
White’s kingside pawns after 38…Kh5 or 38…g5.)

37…Ne5! Black forces the bishop to retreat, and gets ready to push the c-pawn. 38.Bf3 g5 39.h5 c4!
40.Ke3 c3! Black holds effortlessly.

37.Ke3
The position is on the brink of being objectively winning for White. With modern technology, we
can see that proving a win or a draw in certain variations requires some amazing finesses, and no
human could expect to play such endgames perfectly. I will point out some of the pivotal moments
and offer some supporting lines, without getting too deep into the jungle of possible variations.

560
37…Kf6
Now 37…Kh6? would be too late, as 38.Kf4 Nf7 39.Bd5 wins.

38.Kf4 Nf7?!
Objectively this seems to be a losing move – although even with an engine, it is not easy to
understand why.

38…Ke6! is better, but after 39.Bf3 Black must be incredibly precise. It’s worth considering two
possible continuations:

a) Marking time with 39…Kf6? 40.Ke4 Ke6 will not save Black. For instance:

561
41.Bd1 Kf6 42.g4 Ke6 43.Be2 Nd7 44.Bc4† Kd6 45.Bb3 Ne5 46.h5 and White wins after
46…Nxg4 47.hxg6, or 46…gxh5 47.gxh5.

b) 39…Nf7!! is the saving move, reaching the following position:

Why does this work? It seems that Black requires this exact set-up, with the knight on f7 and king
on e6, to be able to deal with White’s winning attempts. Obviously if White was able to land the
bishop on c4 or b3 with check, the defence would collapse. Let me show a few lines to demonstrate
how Black can survive from here:
a) Firstly, I was curious to check whether or not the position would be zugzwang if White could
reach it with Black to move. If White were able to pass on move 40 and force Black to move, then

562
40…c4! would be Black’s only way to draw. If, on the other hand, Black were to play 40…Kf6?,
then 41.Bd1! Nd6 (the king can’t return to e6 because of the check on b3) 42.g4! would win. This
shows why it’s important for Black to retreat the knight to f7 only when the king stands on e6.
b) 40.g4 does not win due to 40…Ne5 when Black follows up with …c4 and gains enough
counterplay. (40…c4 followed by …Ne5 also works.)
c) 40.Be2 threatens a big check, but 40…Kd5! prevents it while preparing to push the c-pawn.
Notice how the f7-knight and g6-pawn work in harmony to stop the white king from advancing.
d) Finally, 40.Bd1 can be met by 40…c4! intending 41.Ke4 Nd6†! when the knight wins a tempo
to reach f5.

39.Ke3?!
Spassky’s move still leaves Black in danger, but it’s not the best.

39.Bd5 is quite testing, but Black can hold with: 39…Ne5! (Spassky points out that 39…g5†?
40.hxg5† Nxg5 41.Bg8 wins for White.) 40.Ke4 White threatens to transfer the bishop to d1 and play
g2-g4, but Black can narrowly survive with

563
40…Ng4 41.Bb3 Nh6! intending …Nf5. See the note to Black’s next move in the game for another
example of this defensive plan.

The incredible winning move is:

39.Bd3!!
Why this square? The main point is to prevent the defensive plan with the king on e6 and knight
on f7 that we saw previously. The bishop will remain on the f1-a6 diagonal until Black is forced
into zugzwang. For example:

39…Ne5

564
 39…g5† still doesn’t work because 40.hxg5† Nxg5 41.Bc4! dominates the knight, and after
41…Nh7 42.Ke4 the white king invades decisively.
40.Be2 Nf7

41.Bf1!! Ne5
41…Nd6 42.g4! stops the knight from reaching f5.
42.Ke4 Ke6 43.Be2
White wins; the position is practically the same as the 38…Ke6 39.Bf3 Kf6? line above.

39…g5?
Fischer’s move loses, as White’s king will easily penetrate on the queenside.
39…Ne5?! is not losing but it also doesn’t bring Black closer to a draw. After something like

565
40.Bc2 Black is still in considerable danger.
39…Nh6! is the more purposeful drawing continuation which Gligoric spotted. The knight is heading
for f5. Notice that in the winning lines that we saw above, White was always able to react with g2-g4
whenever the knight threatened to go to f5, but here it’s not possible. 40.Kf4 (Gligoric pointed out
that 40.Kd3 Nf5 41.Kc4 Ke5 42.Bxf5 Kxf5 would lead to a draw.) 40…Nf5

41.h5 (After 41.Bxf5 gxf5 Black draws by a tempo; 41.g3 c4 also leads to a draw.) 41…g5† 42.Kf3
Nh6 43.Ke3 Ke5 With the king on d3 White would be winning, but here Black is just in time to
advance the c-pawn. With further accurate play, the endgame is drawn.

40.h5

566
40…Nh6?!
Fischer fails to offer any real resistance.

In the event of 40…Nd6 41.Bc2 there is not much that Black can do to stop the white king from
walking to a4 and invading.

40…Ke5! was the best defensive try, when White would have needed to find 41.Bd3! followed by
further accurate manoeuvres to ensure victory. (41.Ba8? allows 41…c4!; or if 41.Bg6?! Nh6 42.Kd3
Ng4! Black narrowly holds.)

41.Kd3!
Spassky intends to invade on the queenside.

41…Ke5 42.Ba8!
It is clever to place the bishop far away to avoid any nasty knight check. On 42.Bb7 Nf5 could be
played.

42…Kd6
Now 42…Nf5 43.Kc4 gives Black nothing.

43.Kc4 g4

44.a4!
Spassky is in complete control, so he takes the opportunity to get his pawn closer to the
promotion square before doing anything else.

567
44…Ng8 45.a5 Nh6 46.Be4!
Next he improves the bishop before invading with the king.

46…g3 47.Kb5 Ng8 48.Bb1 Nh6 49.Ka6 Kc6 50.Ba2

1–0

It was a fighting game with some mistakes on both sides, but Spassky outplayed Fischer and deserved
his victory.

In the last round of the first cycle, Spassky got a somewhat worse position against Donner and offered
a draw, which the Dutchman accepted. Meanwhile Fischer drew an exciting game against Petrosian –
who, by the way, was having a poor event and stood on minus one. At the halfway mark, Spassky and
Larsen shared the lead with 6/9, ahead of Reshevsky on 5 points. Fischer had a shockingly low score
of 3½/9, paying the price for taking a long break between tournaments.

Spassky started the second cycle with two short draws. In Round 12 he put Reshevsky under heavy
pressure, but then made a few substandard decisions which allowed the American grandmaster to
escape with a draw. However, he then scored an excellent win with Black against Larsen, punishing
the Danish grandmaster for an error in an equal endgame.

With five games remaining, Spassky was in first place with 8½/13. Meanwhile Fischer had
sensationally won all four of his games since the halfway point, and was now in second place with 7½
points. Spassky made three relatively quick draws in the next three games, while Fischer dropped one
draw and then scored two more wins. Thus, by the time they met in the penultimate round, the two
future World Champions were jointly leading with 10/16.

We will look at their hugely important game. The Russians versus Fischer book contains a quote
from Spassky summing up his mood beforehand:

“My pessimism was fortified when the seemingly vanquished Fischer (after three losses in a row
in the first half) suddenly regained his fighting spirit in the second half and performed a feat by
collecting six-and-a-half points in seven rounds!”

Game 89

Robert James Fischer – Boris Spassky

Santa Monica 1966

568
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3
Fischer usually had no qualms about facing the Marshall Attack, although he sometimes avoided
it with 8.h3.

8…d5
Spassky employs the gambit which worked so well for him in the Candidates matches the
previous year.

9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.g3

Fischer repeats the move which he introduced as a novelty against O’Kelly at the Capablanca
Memorial in 1965. Bobby also played 12.d4 in three games, scoring two points with it.

12…Nf6
Spassky prepared this new move.

The Belgian grandmaster played 12…Bf6 against Fischer and went on to draw.

13.d4 Bd6 14.Re1 Bg4 15.Qd3

15.f3 is playable, but it’s understandable that Fischer preferred not to weaken his kingside
further.

15…c5
Spassky is ahead in development, so it makes sense to open the position.

569
16.dxc5
Fischer makes sure he will not lose; on the other hand, his winning chances will also be limited.

16.Bc2!? or 16.Bd1!? would keep more tension in the position.

16…Bxc5 17.Qxd8 Raxd8 18.Bf4

18.a4 Rfe8 also gives Black sufficient compensation for the pawn.

18…h6
Spassky plays in a relaxed manner; he has time to strengthen his position.

570
19.Na3 g5 20.Be3
Avoiding 20.Be5? Rd2! when Black takes over.

20…Bxe3 21.Rxe3 Rd2

The rook stands excellently on the second rank.

22.Nc2
22.c4 is also possible, although 22…Bd7 and 22…b4 23.Nc2 a5 are both fine for Black – and
even 22…Rb8!? seems playable.

22…Re8
Spassky exchanges Fischer’s most active piece.

22…Bh5 or 22…Rfd8 were also fine.

23.Rxe8† Nxe8 24.Ne3 Bf3

White is tied up and must mind his first rank, so Fischer has little chance to do anything with his
extra pawn.

25.Bc2
25.Bd1 Bxd1 (25…g4!? could also be considered) 26.Nxd1 Nf6 is also safe for Black.

25…Nd6 26.b3 Kf8

Also after 26…Ne4 27.Bxe4 Bxe4 28.a4 Rd3 29.Rc1 b4 Black holds easily.

571
27.a4
This does not cause Spassky any problems, but White had nothing better.

27…Ne4 28.Bxe4
28.axb5 can simply be met by 28…axb5, although Spassky points out that 28…Nxf2!? 29.Bf5
g4! is fine too.

28…Bxe4 29.axb5 axb5 30.b4 Rb2 31.g4 Kg7 32.Kf1 Kf6

33.Ra5

572
 This was effectively Fischer’s draw offer. Once Portisch offered a draw to Fischer, but the
American suggested that they show the repetition to the spectators.

33…Rb1†
Spassky settles for perpetual check.

33…Bf3 34.Ra1 would lead to the same result.

34.Ke2 Rb2† 35.Kf1

½–½

Spassky’s excellent opening preparation gave him a relatively easy draw. It would be interesting to
know why he never tried the Marshall in Reykjavik. It would also be intriguing to know what Fischer
prepared against the Marshall for their historic match.

Heading into the last round, Spassky and Fischer shared the lead with 10½/17, but Fischer had the
black pieces against Petrosian while Spassky had White against one of the bottom players, Donner.
Fischer was not able to create chances and drew after 28 moves. Let’s see how Spassky was able to
handle the pressure of the final round.

Game 90

Boris Spassky – Jan Hein Donner

Santa Monica 1966

573
28.Kh1
Spassky gets ready to attack by advancing his f-pawn.

28…Qc5?
Donner vacates the b6-square for the knight, but chooses an unfortunate square for his queen,
enabling Spassky to gain a big tempo a few moves later.

After 28…Qa5! 29.f4 Nb6 Black would be worse, but not lost.

29.f4 Nb6
29…Qa7 can be strongly met by 30.h3 followed by further play on the kingside.

30.Ne4! Qa3 31.Qg4!

Now White’s attack is winning.

31…bxc4
This capture loses, but moving the king off the g-file would also fail to save Black:

31…Kh8 32.Rd8 (32.Qg6 bxc4 33.f5 exf5 34.Nf6 also wins.) 32…Ree8 (32…Ref7 33.Nd6 is
decisive.) 33.Rxe8 Rxe8 34.Nd6 (34.Qg6 Qf8 35.f5 also works.) 34…Rf8 White has many wins,
including 35.f5, 35.Qxe6 and 35.Qg6.

31…Kh7 32.R4d3! Qb4 33.Rg3 Rd7 34.Rg1 Qe7 35.Qg6† (35.f5 wins as well.) 35…Kh8 36.Nf6
Rxf6 37.exf6 Qxf6 38.Qxf6 gxf6 39.cxb5 axb5 40.Re3 White wins, as Spassky pointed out.

574
32.Nf6†! Kh8

33.Rd8!
The mating threats are unbearable for Black.

33…Rc7
33…Ref7 loses to 34.Qg6 with threats to both h7 and f7, as Spassky pointed out.

34.Qg6 gxf6 35.Qxf6†

Donner resigned, as on 35…Kg8 36.Rxf8† Qxf8 37.Rd8 the black queen is lost.
1–0

This crucial win gave Spassky sole first place in the prestigious tournament, half a point ahead of
Fischer. The Russian versus Fischer book has an interesting quote from Spassky regarding this
tournament:
“It is hard for me to speak of myself. During the tournament I was not thinking of first place.
There were good reasons for this: first and foremost, I lacked a good arsenal of openings. My
entire stock of opening ideas had been used up in the seven preliminary stages of the World
Championship. Moreover, I still felt rather tired after my match with Petrosian, and therefore
endeavoured to play calmly and soundly, not evading draws.”

Spassky also discussed his impressions of Fischer, praising the American for playing the most
interesting chess of anyone in the tournament. He called Fischer “gifted” and compared his manner to
that of Capablanca. Spassky goes on to say:

575
 “After some of the rounds I met the American grandmaster, and we got on well together. I
realized how devoted Fischer is to chess. One even gets the impression that without chess he is
lonely…”

Winning the super-strong event was a great success for Spassky. At the same time, Fischer’s streak in
the second half of the tournament was nothing short of magical. One could not foresee how long the
thirty-seven-year-old Petrosian would maintain his level, but it would have been easy to anticipate
that Spassky and Fischer would, sooner or later, become the very best players in the world.

***

Spassky’s next event was the Soviet Team championship. He most probably was obligated to play in
it, but had no desire at all to participate. Spassky drew nine of the ten games, most of them fairly
quickly. One loss crept in against Botvinnik, who was able to grind out a win in a long endgame.

Spassky’s last event of the year was the Olympiad, which took place in Havana. He played on Board
2, behind Petrosian. In the preliminaries Spassky scored three wins and two draws, with no defeats.
He drew his first game in the final. In the second round, the Soviet team was paired against the USA.
Petrosian was rested, which meant that Spassky would once again face Fischer. The American had
won all five of his games in the preliminary, and was rested in the first match in the final.

Game 91

Robert James Fischer – Boris Spassky

Havana (Olympiad) 1966

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 h6
Spassky decides not to repeat the Marshall, and also refrains from his main weapon, the Breyer.
Still, his choice of the Smyslov Variation was probably not a big surprise to Bobby, as Boris regularly
employed it. According to the database, this was the first time that Fischer faced this variation.

10.d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8 12.Nf1 Bd7

This is more passive than the main 12…Bb7 variation.

576
13.Ng3 Na5 14.Bc2 c5 15.b3! cxd4
15…Nc6 looks preferable, when White should play 16.d5 with a slight advantage – but not
16.Be3?! exd4 17.cxd4 cxd4 18.Nxd4 d5! when Black is fine.

16.cxd4 Nc6 17.Bb2 g6

17…Qb6 and 17…a5 could be tried as well.

18.Qd2 Bg7

19.Rad1

577
 It’s clear that Fischer has won the opening battle and has some advantage.
19.d5 would be better for White as well.

19…Qb6 20.Nf1!
20.Bb1 had been played by Matanovic against Liberzon the previous year, but Fischer’s idea of
rerouting the knight to e3 is more purposeful.

20…Rad8
In the event of 20…Rac8 21.Ne3 exd4!? 22.Nxd4 Qc5 23.Nf3 Ne5 24.Nd4 Black would not
have full compensation for the isolated pawn.

21.Ne3 Qb8?!
The queen is rather passive on this square. 21…a5!? looks better.

22.Bb1!?
Fischer starts a deep strategic plan.

22.d5! Pushing the d-pawn would be strong, and the same will be true several times over the
upcoming moves. However, it was not really Fischer’s style to play with a blocked centre. Play could
continue 22…Ne7 23.Qa5! when Black has considerable problems after 23…Nh5 24.Qxa6, or
23…Bc8 24.Rc1, or 23…Qb7 24.Ba3.

22…Qb7 23.Rc1 Kh7 24.a3!?

Fischer continues his deep plan.

578
24…Bc8 25.Bc3
This was the best moment for the central advance: 25.d5! I wonder if Fischer considered this and
misjudged it in some way; or perhaps he liked his plan so much that he did not look to see if there
was something even better. Play could continue: 25…Ne7 (25…Nb8 26.a4 is nasty for Black.) 26.a4
Bd7 (26…Qd7 27.Qa5! is powerful.) 27.Ba3 White is already close to winning.

25…Bd7 26.Qb2
Fischer has found a highly original way to put pressure on the e5-pawn.

26…Qb8 27.b4!?
Fischer follows through with his plan and gets ready to deploy the bishop on a2.

27…Kg8
27…Nh5 could be met by 28.Red1 or 28.Nd5, when White maintains a nice edge.

28.Rcd1
White can also choose the other rook: 28.Red1 Rc8 29.dxe5 Nxe5 30.Ba2 Nxe4 31.Bxe5 Bxe5
32.Nxe5 Rxe5 and now 33.Qd4 or 33.Nd5 would maintain the upper hand.

28…Nh7?!
Spassky fails to find an active plan.

28…Rc8!? looks like a better try.

579
29.Ba2!
Fischer completes the regrouping he started seven moves ago, and his bishop stands superbly on
its new diagonal.

29…Ng5?!
This exchange weakens White’s control over the d4-square, but with fewer pieces on the board
White has more chances to invade.

29…Nf6 30.Nd5 would be also rather unpleasant, but better for Black than the game.

30.Nxg5 hxg5 31.dxe5 dxe5 32.Nd5

The knight stands superbly on this outpost.

580
32…Ne7 33.Nxe7† Rxe7 34.Qd2
Another strong continuation is 34.Bd2 Bf6 35.Be3 Be6 36.Bc5 Ree8 37.Bxe6 Rxe6 38.Rxd8†
Qxd8 39.Qb3 and White is about to achieve domination on the d-file.

34…Bf6 35.Qd6!
Fischer attacks the loose bishop and gets closer to the weak a6-pawn.

35…Kg7

36.Qxa6??

581
 Fischer senses that the position is ripe for him to look for a forced win. He is right, but he looks
in the wrong direction and commits a serious mistake.

36.Bxe5?! wins a pawn, but after 36…Rxe5 37.Qxb8 Rxb8 38.Rxd7 Re7 (but not 38…Rf8? 39.Ra7)
Black has excellent chances to hold, as his kingside structure is safe and White’s queenside pawns are
vulnerable.

A better move is:

36.Re3!
The rook may become strong on f3, but it may also play an important role in defending the a3-
pawn.
36…Rde8
36…Rc8 gives White a choice:
a) 37.Bxe5!? Rxe5 38.Qxb8 Rxb8 39.Rxd7 Re7 40.Rxe7 Bxe7 41.Bd5 gives White a better
version of the note above, as the rook on e3 means that 41…Rc8? runs into 42.Bb7. Nevertheless,
Black still has saving chances.
b) For that reason, transposing to the main line with 37.Qxb8! Rxb8 38.Rd6 looks preferable.
37.Qxb8 Rxb8 38.Rd6

38…g4
38…Be6?! does not help because 39.Bxe6 Rxe6 40.Rxe6 fxe6 41.Rd3 wins.
39.Red3 Rc8 40.Bd2 Rc7 41.hxg4 Bxg4 42.Rxa6 Rc2 43.Bb3 Rb2 44.Be3
White should win.

36…Rc8! 37.Rd6!

582
 Fischer deals with the main threat of trapping the queen.

After 37.Re3? Rc6 38.Qa5 Qc8 39.Rc1 Ra6 40.Be1 Qa8 41.Qc7 Bc6 Black would be winning.

37…Rxc3 38.Rxf6

38…Be6!
Fischer may have overlooked this sweet move, which traps the f6-rook.
It is worth seeing some lines after the alternative:

38…Bc8!?
Against this move, White should put the queen on either b6 or d6, both of which should lead to
equality. However, the really fascinating move is the alternative:
39.Qa5?!?

583
 I have given White’s last move an irregular punctuation mark, because it could prove to be either
a blunder or a brilliancy, depending on how Black replies. Let’s see both scenarios:

a) 39…Kxf6?? 40.Qd8!!
Threatening mate in one.
40…Rc4!?
Black could survive for longer by retreating the king to g7, but then White recaptures the rook
and should win routinely.
41.a4!!
White has time to undermine the rook.
41…Qc7 42.Qh8† Ke6 43.axb5 Kd7 44.b6! Qc6

584
45.b5!
Two little pawn pushes lead to a big demolition.
45…Qxb5 46.Rd1†! Rd4
46…Ke6?? 47.Qxc8† is Game Over.
47.Rc1!
White wins.

b) Although the above line is beautiful, Black can throw cold water on the whole idea with:

39…Be6!

It’s remarkable how Black can win by simply ignoring the hanging rook for another move! White
has no real choice but to play 40.Rxe6 fxe6, when the position is almost identical to the game, except
that here the white queen stands much worse on a5 than a6. Black should win pretty comfortably.

It would be fascinating to know if either of the players considered any of the above possibilities in
their calculations at the time.

39.Rxe6!
Fischer has no choice but to give up the exchange. Luckily for him, he will have decent drawing
chances.

39…fxe6 40.Rd1
White has a pawn for the exchange, and the pawns on b5 and e6 are vulnerable. Black’s kingside
structure is also heavily compromised.

585
40…Qb7?!
With his last move before the time control, Spassky squanders a large part of his advantage.

40…Qf8! would have given good winning chances, for instance: 41.f3 Qf4 42.Qxb5 Rc2 43.Bb1 Rc1
44.Qd3

44…Rxd1† (44…Rec7 looks scary, but after 45.Kf2! Rxd1 46.Qxd1 Rc1 47.Qd7†! White manages to
swap queens and most likely holds.) 45.Qxd1 Qe3† 46.Kh2

586
46…Kf7! The king defends the e6-pawn in advance. (46…Qxa3? 47.Qd6! would be annoying.)
47.Kg3 Qxa3 I think Black can win it.

41.Qxb7
Fischer sealed this move.

41…Rxb7 42.Bxe6
Black’s pawn structure is pretty bad, so White can hold his ending.

42…Rxa3 43.Kh2

587
 43.Rd7† Rxd7 44.Bxd7 looks simpler as the b5-pawn is about to fall.

43…Ra4

44.Rb1
Luckily for Fischer, the other black rook cannot attack the b4-pawn without giving away the b5-
pawn, and the black king cannot help as it has to defend the g5-pawn.

44…Rc7 45.f3 Ra6 46.Bb3 Ra3 47.Rb2 Ra1 48.Kg3 Kf6

49.Kg4!

588
 The white king stands well on this unusual square.

49…Rc3 50.Bd5 Raa3 51.h4!?

51.Rd2 looks simpler, as there is no obvious way for Black to break the deadlock.

51…gxh4 52.Kxh4 Ra1 53.Rd2 Raa3

53…Rb1 54.Ra2! gives White enough counterplay.

54.Kg4 Rd3 55.Re2 Rac3 56.Ra2 Ra3 57.Rb2

½–½

Both players had reasons to be both content and dissatisfied with the final result. Fischer won the
battle of the opening but subsequently squandered his large advantage; however, he then recovered
and was able to hold a difficult position. Conversely, Spassky’s opening was worrisome, but he then
showed his enormous playing strength when he was able to withstand White’s lasting pressure and
outplay his opponent tactically; but then he failed to make the most of his advantage. This was the
third time in 1966 that the two World Champions played each other, and Spassky won the duel 2–1.
Fischer used to claim that he should have been World Champion from 1962 onwards, but the above
games from 1966 indicate that his claim was not justified, and that Spassky was at least on the same
level as Fischer at this point in time. It would be four more years before their next clash.

After this draw Spassky drew five more games; he did not look fully motivated. In the last three
rounds he scored two wins and one draw, thus finishing the Havana Olympiad with 10/15 – a good
score, but nothing special for a player of his stature. The Soviets took the team gold medal, ahead of
the USA who were second. Fischer scored a magnificent 15/17 (88.2%), but Petrosian took the
individual gold medal for Board 1 with an even higher 88.5% with his score of 11½/13. The results

589
reinforced the impression that those three players were extremely close to each other in the mid-
sixties. Incidentally, Tal and Korchnoi also won individual gold medals for their performances on
Board 3 and 1st reserve respectively; no wonder that the Soviets were successful as a team, with
individual players of such calibre…

Spassky got married in 1966 for the second time; he and Larisa Solovyova met first in 1962. Her
father was a high-ranking official in the Leningrad gas industry. I was not able to find out in which
month the marriage took place. The couple would subsequently divorce in 1975.

1966 Results
World Championship Final Match vs Petrosian, Moscow: Lost 11½–12½ (+3 =17 –4)
Chigorin Memorial, Sochi (5th-6th place): 9½/15 (+6 =7 –2)
Piatigorsky Cup, Santa Monica (1st place): 11½/18 (+5 =13 –0)
Soviet Team Championship, Moscow: 4½/10 (+0 =9 –1)
Havana Olympiad (Board 2): 10/15, Team Gold (+5 =10 –0)

Total 57.3% (+19 =56 –7)

590
 1967

For the next World Championship cycle Spassky (along with Tal) was seeded directly into the
Candidates matches. Spassky had over a year in which to prepare himself for his next assault on the
chess throne. He decided to play a lot of events, starting in Beverwijk. He started well, outplaying his
opponents and conceding only two draws in his first five games. We will look at his game from
Round 6.

Game 92

Boris Spassky – Hans Ree

Beverwijk 1967

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5
11.d4 Nd7 12.Nbd2 cxd4 13.cxd4 Nc6 14.d5 Nb4 15.Bb1 a5

16.Nf1
Spassky deviates from 16.a3 which he played against Tringov in 1964, as featured in Game 68 on
page 230.

16…Na6 17.Ng3 Re8?!

591
 17…Nac5 would be stronger than this rather passive move.

18.Nf5 Bf8 19.Bg5

Spassky provokes Ree into pushing his f-pawn.
19…f6
After 19…Nf6 20.Ng3 White would have a small edge.

20.Bd2 Nac5?!
20…Ndc5 looks preferable, and after 21.N3h4 g6 22.Nh6† White’s advantage would be smaller
than in the game.

21.N3h4!
Spassky starts his attack with a creative move.

21…Nb6
21…g6? 22.Qg4 wins immediately.

22.Re3!
Spassky builds the attack beautifully.

22…Nc4
22…g5 23.Rg3 Kh8 24.Qg4 Ra7 25.Nf3 leaves Black in serious trouble.

23.Rg3 Ra7

592
 23…Kh8 24.Bc1 a4 25.Qh5 also gives White a strong attack.

24.Bc1 Bxf5
This exchange does little to ease Black’s defence.

24…Nb6 25.b3 Rc7 26.Bd2 b4 27.Bc2 Kh8 28.Qh5 also sees Black in deep trouble.

25.Nxf5 Kh8 26.b3 Nb6 27.Bc2

Spassky has time to improve his pieces before launching a thunderous attack.

27…Qd7 28.Bd2 Rc8

593
29.h4!
The pawn joins the attack as well.

29…Qb7 30.h5 Qd7 31.Qf3!

The queen takes up a menacing post.

31…Qf7 32.Bd1!
Spassky starts improving the bishop. He brings as many pieces into the attack as he can.

32…Nbd7 33.Rc1 b4 34.Nh4 Rac7

594
35.Qf5!
Spassky gradually gets closer and closer to Black’s king.

35…Nb6
35…Nxe4? 36.Rxc7 Nxg3 37.Rxd7 wins for White.

36.Bg4!
The bishop joins the attack as well.

36…Rb8

595
37.Ng6†
The knight ‘sacrifice’ is easy, but to have this possibility required great preparation.

37…Kg8 38.Qf3 Re8 39.Bf5

White has oceans of time, so he improves the bishop as well.

39…Nc8 40.Qg4 Na7

41.h6!
After building pressure for a long time, Spassky finally opens up the black king.

596
41…hxg6
Also after 41…Rd8 42.Nxf8 Qxf8 43.hxg7 Rxg7 44.Qh5 or 41…Nb5 42.Nxf8 Qxf8 43.hxg7
Rxg7 44.Qh5 White wins quickly.

42.Bxg6 Qe7 43.Qh5

The rest is simple and natural.

43…Rb8 44.hxg7 Bxg7

45.Qh7† Kf8 46.Bh6

Ree resigned rather than wait for checkmate. Spassky did not make any single spectacular move,
yet he built superbly and finished his opponent stylishly.
1–0

Spassky’s game from Round 8 is also well worth looking at.

Game 93

Boris Spassky – Theodor Ghitescu

Beverwijk 1967

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e5 4.Nc3 d6 5.e4 Be7 6.Nf3 0-0?! 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.Qe2 Ne8?!

597
9.g4!
Ghitescu played the opening badly and, after Spassky’s purposeful move which paralyzes Black
on the kingside, the Romanian player is already objectively lost.

9…g6 10.Bh6 Ng7 11.0-0-0!

Placing the king on the queenside gives White a free hand to attack on the kingside.

11…Nf6 12.h3 a6 13.Rdg1 Bd7 14.Nd2 Kh8

On 14…b5 White doesn’t have to take the pawn – although if he did take it, Black would not
have enough compensation.

598
15.h4 Ng8 16.Be3 h5 17.g5
Spassky only temporarily closes the kingside.

17…Be8 18.f4! f5 19.gxf6 Nxf6 20.fxe5 dxe5 21.Nf3 Ng4

22.Rxg4!
Spassky can win in many ways, but this exchange sacrifice is the most deadly and entertaining
continuation.

22…hxg4 23.Nxe5 Nh5 24.Nxg4!

Spassky sacrifices a second exchange.

24…Ng3 25.Qg2 Nxh1

599
26.e5!
Spassky does not bother taking the knight yet, but instead opens the diagonal of his bishop.

26…Rf7 27.Qxh1 Rh7 28.e6!

White’s central pawns are far too strong to deal with.
28…Bg5 29.Qe4 Bxe3† 30.Qxe3 Qe7

31.Ne4
White’s knights are stronger than Black’s rooks.

600
31…Rxh4 32.Nef6 Qc7 33.Be4
Spassky invests a tempo to stop a check on h1.

33…Qa5 34.Qg3 g5

35.Nxe8!
Spassky spots a forced mate.

35…Rxe8
The rook makes its first move of the game, only for Black to resign on the next move.

36.Qe5†
Ghitescu did not wait to get checkmated.
1–0

In the nine remaining rounds, Spassky won three nice attacking games and drew the other six. He
ended the event with an unbeaten score of 11/15, which gave him clear first place. Spassky did not
risk much, but when he obtained advantageous positions he exploited them powerfully and
impressively.

After the tournament in the Netherlands, Spassky played in some team events. He started in Budapest
in the Hungary – Russian Republic match. He beat Portisch 2½–1½ in their match, although he did
suffer his first loss against the Hungarian grandmaster. Spassky’s next event was a Ukraine – Russian
Republic match in Uzhhorod. He drew twice with Stein. Only one of the games is available on the
database, in which Stein risked the Dragon, but drew comfortably.

601
Spassky’s next event was the October Revolution 50 Years tournament in Moscow. According to
Korchnoi, Fischer would have been ready to play, even without a fee, but the Soviet authorities first
wanted to ask the top Soviet players if they could guarantee that Fischer would not win, so sadly a
clash between Spassky, Fischer and Petrosian did not happen.

Spassky started with a good first round.

Game 94

Boris Spassky – Ludek Pachman

Moscow 1967

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Qc2
Spassky deviates from his 1964 game against Antoshin, where he played 9.Be2.

9…g4 10.Ne5 Qxd4 11.Rd1 Qb6

Pachman plays a novelty, but it is natural, Spassky probably analysed it in advance.

Earlier 11…Qc5 was played.

12.Be2
Spassky has sacrificed two pawns, yet he develops calmly. Black’s main problem is that his king

602
will not have a safe shelter.

12…Nbd7 13.0-0 Be7

13…Nxe5? 14.Bxe5 Be7 15.b3! would be difficult for Black.

14.Nxg4 Nxg4 15.Bxg4 Bb7

15…h5! 16.Be2 Bb7 leads to a balanced position.

16.e5?!
16.Bh5! would be stronger.

16…Nc5?!
Pachman misses a chance to evacuate his king to safety with 16…0-0-0!, when 17.Ne4 h5 18.Bf3
h4 would be alright for Black.

17.Bh5!
Spassky targets the soft point of Black’s position.

17…Rd8 18.Qe2 Nd3 19.Qf3!

The queen forces Black to make an important decision regarding his king.

19…0-0
19…Rh7!? was worth considering, and after 20.Ne4 Kf8 21.Nd6 Bxd6 22.exd6 c5 23.Qe3 the
position remains unclear with mutual chances.

603
20.Ne4 Qd4 21.Rfe1 Kh8?
21…Nxe1? was suggested in the ChessBase annotations, but after 22.Qg4† (but not 22.Rxe1?
when 22…c5! favours Black) 22…Kh8 23.Rxd4 Rxd4 24.Bh4! White wins.

However, 21…f5! would parry White’s attack. Play continues 22.exf6 Bxf6 23.Qg4† Bg7 24.Qxe6†
Kh8 25.Nd6 Rxf2 when the position would be dynamically balanced after 26.Rxd3 or 26.Kh1.

22.Nd6!
White can afford to give up the exchange because the knight is incredibly powerful on d6.

22…Nxe1
22…Ba8? 23.Bxf7 wins easily.

23.Rxe1 Rxd6?
This capture loses quickly.

23…Bxd6! followed by a few precise moves would have enabled Black to fight on: 24.Qf6†
(24.exd6?! f6 would be less effective.) 24…Kh7

604
25.Bxf7! Qg4 26.exd6 Qg7 (Both 26…c5? 27.Qe7 and 26…Qh5? 27.Qxd8 win for White.)
27.Qxg7† Kxg7 28.Bxe6 White has some advantage in the endgame, but Black has chances to
survive.

24.exd6 Bf6 25.h4

Spassky opens the back rank, allowing him to concentrate exclusively on his attack.

25.d7 or 25.Rd1 would win as well.

25…Qxb2
This move loses, but Black has no defence. For instance, 25…Kg7 26.Re4 Qxb2 27.Rg4† Kh8
28.d7 wins.

605
26.Bxf7!
This beautiful sacrifice decisively opens up the black king.

26…Rxf7 27.Be5!
27.Rxe6 also wins, but Spassky’s move is more elegant.

27…Qc2
27…Qd2 28.Bxf6† Kh7 29.Qe4† wins.

27…Bxe5 28.Qxf7 Bxd6 29.Qe8† Kg7 30.Qd7† Kh8 31.Qxd6 is also hopeless for Black.

28.d7 Kg8

606
29.Qxf6!
Playing a move like this is a sheer joy.

29…Rxd7 30.Re3
1–0

Spassky suffered a setback in the next round, as he blundered and lost against Geller. He rebounded
in Round 4:

Game 95

Wolfgang Uhlmann – Boris Spassky

Moscow 1967

607
19…gxf3
Spassky correctly judges that the knight can be taken.

20.Qh6† Kf7 21.Qh7† Bg7 22.Rh3

22…Rh8!
Uhlmann resigned in view of 23.Rxf3† Qf6!! 24.Rxf6† Kxf6 25.Nxd5† Kf7 when the queen is
trapped and Black will end up with an extra piece. Spassky was awarded a prize for the most
unexpected finish.
22…Qf6! 23.Nxd5 Qg5† 24.Ne3 Na5 would win as well.

608
0–1

In the next seven rounds, he made six quick draws and one win. He followed with a win and a loss,
followed by four quick draws, and a final draw against Keres in which Spassky had to fight hard to
hold. Spassky’s final score of 9½/17 gave him joint 6th-8th place. It was a subpar performance by his
standards, with only four wins.

Next, Spassky played in the Summer Spartakiad of the Russian Republic in Leningrad. It was an
individual event, in which Spassky scored six wins and five draws, with no defeats. It was a good
performance, but only enough for second place.
The 2nd of July was a special day for Spassky, as his first son, Vasili Solovyov Spassky, was born.
He would later become a music journalist. Late in July, Spassky played in the Spartakiad team event,
on Board 1 for the Russian Republic team. In the preliminary rounds he scored four draws, including
surprisingly fluctuating games against Keres and Grigorian. In the final he continued with a fighting
draw against Gurgenidze, before facing Petrosian. The World Champion equalized, but then tried too
hard to win, and Spassky took over and beat him.

We will look at the exciting fight that took place in the next round.

Game 96

Boris Spassky – Alexey Suetin

Moscow 1967

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 e6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Qc7 6.Be3 a6 7.Nb3 Nf6 8.f4 Bb4 9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-
0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 d6 12.Rf3 e5 13.f5 d5

609
14.Rg3?
Spassky makes an imaginative attacking move, but it’s a mistake.
Objectively he should have preferred 14.Nd2 or 14.exd5, both of which lead to dynamically equal
play.

14…Kh8?
Suetin misses a golden chance: 14…dxe4! 15.Bg5 (15.Bh6 exd3 leaves White without a good
follow-up) 15…Ne7! Black keeps a decisive material advantage.

14…Ne7! is a second continuation, when after 15.Bh6 dxe4 or 15.exd5 e4 Black wins.

15.exd5 Ne7
The unusually placed knight has a lot of defensive power.

610
16.Bc5 Nfxd5 17.Qg4 Rg8 18.Rh3?
Spassky attacks a bit hastily. Against this move, Black can bring the attack to a halt.

White should bring the second rook into play: 18.Rf1 f6 (18…Nf6 19.Qh4 b5 20.Be3 Bb7 21.Rh3
gives White a dangerous attack.) 19.Rh3 g5 The position would be unclear.

18…Nf6 19.Qg5
Black would also stand better after 19.Qf3 Ned5.

19…Ned5!

611
 Suetin handles his knights superbly, and now they stand well to defend the king.

20.Rf1?!
Chess is magic: just one move later, things have changed such that White should not bring the
queenside rook into action, but rather improve the other one: 20.Rh4 b5 21.Bf2 Black’s position is
promising after 21…Bb7 or 21…Nxc3, but White is doing better than in the game.

20…b6 21.Be4 Bb7?

Suetin misses a tactical opportunity with 21…bxc5! 22.Bxd5 c4! 23.Bxa8 cxb3 and Black wins.

22.Bxd5 Bxd5?
Suetin must have overlooked Spassky’s stunning reply.

22…bxc5 23.Bxb7 Qxb7 gives Black some edge.

23.Be7!!
What an amazing surprise! Spassky places his bishop on an unprotected square.

23…Qc6
23…Qxe7 runs into 24.Rxh7†! when Black must give up the queen.

24.Rh6!!
Spassky plays another sensational move. White would be somewhat better after 24.Re1.

The next few moves are forced.

612
24…Ne4 25.Rxc6 Nxg5 26.Rd6 Bxb3 27.axb3 Ne4 28.Rxb6 Nxc3

29.f6!
By now Spassky has the upper hand,

29…Rge8 30.fxg7† Kxg7 31.Rb7 Ne2† 32.Kh1 Nf4 33.g3 Ng6 34.Bd6 Nh8 35.c4 Kg6 36.g4 Re6
37.c5 Kg5 38.h3 e4 39.Kg2 e3 40.Bf4† Kg6 41.Rb6 e2 42.Re1 Rc8 43.b4
Spassky goes on to convert his advantage.

43…a5 44.Rxe2 axb4 45.Rexe6† fxe6 46.Be5 h5 47.Rxe6† Kf7 48.Rb6 hxg4 49.hxg4 Ke7 50.Bxh8

613
Rxh8 51.Rxb4 Ke6 52.Rc4 Kd5 53.Rc1 Rg8 54.Kg3 Kc6 55.Kf4 Rf8† 56.Ke5 Rg8 57.Kf5 Rf8†
58.Ke6 Rg8 59.Rg1
1–0

In the last round Spassky scored what must have been a satisfying win over Stein, who had previously
been a problem opponent, having beaten Boris three times without a loss. In the Spartakiad the
Spassky of the late fifties returned: a world-class player who showed great imagination and
willingness to take risks.

Spassky made his traditional visit to Sochi, to participate in the Chigorin Memorial and most likely to
spend time with his daughter. He started with 3½/4, then made quick draws in almost all the
remaining games, except for the two bottom players who he beat. He finished in joint 1st-5th places
with 10/15.
Spassky’s final event of 1967 was in Winnipeg. He won only two games and drew seven, finishing in
joint 3rd-4th places.

Spassky’s chess in 1967 was a mixed bag. From time to time he played brilliantly, while at other
times he did not seem motivated. Perhaps his attention was already shifting towards the Candidates
matches, which would begin midway through the following year.

1967 Results
Beverwijk (1st place): 11/15 (+7 =8 –0)
Hungary – Russian Republic match, Budapest (Board 1 vs. Portisch): 2½/4 (+2 =1 –1)
Ukrainian Republic – Russian Republic match, Uzhgorod (Board 1 vs. Stein): 1/2 (+0 =2 –0)
October Revolution 50 Years, Moscow (6th-8th place): 9½/17 (+4 =11 –2)
Summer Spartakiad of Russian Republic, Leningrad (2nd place): 8½/11 (+6 =5 –0)
Spartakiad, Moscow (Board 1): 5½/8 (+3 =5 –0)
Chigorin Memorial, Sochi (1st-5th place): 10/15 (+5 =10 –0)
Winnipeg (3rd-4th place): 5½/9 (+2 =7 –0)

Total 66.0% (+29 =49 –3)

614
 1968

Spassky faced a year full of challenges, as he would need to win three Candidates matches to
challenge Petrosian again. Still, he won so convincingly in all three matches of the last cycle that he
must have felt confident about making it again. It is worth mentioning that Fischer was not one of the
eight Candidates, as the American grandmaster had withdrawn from the Interzonal tournament, while
leading with seven wins and three draws after ten rounds, due to a dispute with the organizers.

Spassky faced Geller in the quarter-final. Their head-to-head score stood at six wins, thirteen draws
and four losses from Spassky’s perspective. He had won their 1965 match handily; but on the other
hand, in such situations the losing player has the advantage of being able to spot what they did wrong
and make the necessary adjustments. Botvinnik had partly made his career out of adjusting to defeat
the same opponent in the rematch. Geller was still an extremely strong player, so Spassky had to be
careful. The match was scheduled for ten games, and was held in the Georgian city of Sukhumi, on
the coast of the Black Sea.

In the first game Spassky played the French Defence, an unusual opening for him, and drew easily.
According to Geller he expected it, as it was only a matter of time before Spassky played the opening
which had been a favourite of Bondarevsky in his youth. In the second game Spassky chose the
Closed Sicilian, probably trying to surprise his opponent, although Geller claims he expected this too.
One of the features of the Closed Sicilian is that a direct confrontation is not likely to happen until
later in the game, by which point Geller often tended to be short of time. It was a clever choice from
Spassky.

Game 97

Boris Spassky – Efim Geller

Sukhumi (2) 1968

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 g6 5.d3 Bg7 6.f4 Nf6 7.Nf3 0-0 8.0-0 Rb8 9.Nh4 Nd4 10.f5 b5
11.Bg5 b4 12.Nb1 Nd7 13.Nd2 Ne5 14.Kh1 a5 15.Rb1 a4 16.Nhf3 Nexf3 17.Nxf3 Nb5 18.Qd2
a3 19.bxa3 Nxa3
20.Rbe1!?
Spassky provokes Geller into winning an exchange. He could have settled for a slightly worse
position after 20.Rbc1, but instead undertakes a huge risk in order to obtain attacking chances.
Objectively the sacrifice is not fully sound, but practically it gives Black a lot to think about.

615
20…Bc3
Geller takes up the challenge: he wins an exchange, but gives up the important bishop around his
king.

Black could win a pawn with 20…gxf5 (or 20…f6 first) 21.exf5 f6 followed by …Bxf5, when the
position would be complex and roughly balanced.

21.Qf2 Bxe1
21…Kg7!? 22.Bd2 e5 would offer Black a slight edge, but Geller’s move is consistent.

22.Rxe1 f6
Black should be able to handle White’s initiative, but it is not easy to choose between the many
possibilities. Black cannot quickly open files for the rooks.

22…Rb7 23.Bh6 e5 is a good alternative, when Black should be safe.

23.Bh6 Rf7
Geller hangs on to the material. His position would be playable after many moves, like 23…Kh8
or 23…e6 or 23…gxf5 24.exf5 Bxf5.

616
24.g4!
Spassky strengthens his grip on the kingside.

24…e6 25.Nh4 g5?!

After this move it will be hard for Black to find play for his rooks.

In the event of 25…Rbb7 26.fxg6 (or 26.Rf1 Qe8) 26…hxg6 27.Nxg6 Rh7 The position looks
balanced.

26.Nf3 exf5 27.gxf5

Spassky looks for play on the g-file.

After 27.exf5 Bb7 28.h4 gxh4 29.Qxh4 Nxc2 30.Re6 the position would be roughly even.

27…Kh8
Black has several ways to organize his defence, such as 27…Bb7 28.h4 (or 28.Rg1!?) 28…g4
29.Nh2; or 27…Rbb7!?. Many options look playable, and it is hard to tell which is best. One can
easily imagine Geller burning a lot of time in this phase of the game.

617
28.h4!
Spassky softens the black king.

28…g4
Geller will likely lose the g-pawn, but he keeps the h-file closed.
He could also have opted for 28…gxh4 29.Rg1 Bb7 30.Nxh4 Qe7 31.Bh3 Rg8 and the position
would be even.

29.Nh2 g3
Geller improves his knight at the cost of the g-pawn.
Alternatives include 29…Qg8 30.Re3 Rc7 31.Rg3 Qxa2 32.Nxg4 b3, or 29…Nb5 30.Nxg4 Nd4,
either of which would be highly unclear.

30.Qxg3 Nxc2 31.Rg1 Bb7??

The bishop takes away a key square from the rook, with catastrophic consequences.

Geller needed to find:

31…Nd4!
The knight gets ready to destroy the f5-pawn.
32.Bf3 Rbb7!
Black could also play the last two moves in the opposite order.
33.Bh5

618
33…Rfc7!!
The rook allows the queen to defend the f6-pawn.
If 33…Rfd7? 34.Nf1!! c4 35.Ne3 cxd3 36.Nd5 White wins.
Also after 33…Rfe7? 34.Nf1 Bxf5 35.exf5 Nxf5 36.Qf3 Ng7 37.Qxf6 White wins.
34.Nf1 Bxf5! 35.exf5 Nxf5 36.Qf4 Nxh6 37.Qxh6
And after 37…Rg7 or 37…b3 Black would be safe.

32.Bf3!
Now the bishop joins the attack, while Black’s minor pieces do not help to defend their king at
all.

619
32…Qd7 33.Bh5! Re7 34.Ng4
The f6-pawn falls, and soon it’s all over for Black.

34…Rg8
34…Rg7 35.Bxg7† Qxg7 36.Qxd6 wins as well.

35.Qf2 Nd4

36.Nxf6 Rxg1† 37.Qxg1

Geller resigned. After 37…Qd8 White has a simple win with 38.Qg5, but 38.Be8! is a prettier
option which leads to checkmate.
1–0

In Game 3 Spassky obtained another quick draw with the French Defence. In the fourth game
Spassky repeated the Closed Sicilian. We will fast-forward to the critical moment, five moves before
the time control, by which point Geller has a winning position but little time remaining.

Game 98

Boris Spassky – Efim Geller

Sukhumi (4) 1968

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 g6 5.d3 Bg7 6.f4 Nf6 7.Nf3 0-0 8.0-0 Rb8 9.h3 b5 10.a3 a5

620
11.Be3 b4 12.axb4 axb4 13.Ne2 Bb7 14.Qd2 Ra8 15.Rab1 Qa5 16.b3 Rfc8 17.f5 Qb6 18.g4 Ra2
19.Nc1 Ra5 20.Qf2 Qc7 21.Ne2 Ra2 22.Rbc1 Qd8 23.Nf4 Qe8 24.Ng5 Nd4 25.fxg6 hxg6 26.Nd5
Nxb3 27.e5 Nxc1 28.Bxc1 Bxd5 29.Bxd5 Nxd5 30.Qh4 Nf6 31.exf6 exf6 32.Qh7† Kf8 33.Ne4
Qe5 34.Bf4 Qd4† 35.Kh1

35…Rc6??
Geller defends the d6-pawn, but chooses the most unfortunate way of doing it.
35…Rd8! was a good option, and if 36.Bh6 Bxh6 37.Qxh6† Ke7 Spassky could safely resign.
35…Ra6! would do the trick as well, and if 36.Bh6 Bxh6 37.Qh8† Ke7 38.Qxc8 Ra1 Black
should win.

36.Bh6! Bxh6 37.Qh8†! Ke7

621
38.Nxf6!!
Spassky weaves a mating net around the black king. Geller is a rook up, but has no time to use his
rooks.

38…Bf4

39.g5!!
This lovely push makes sure the knight will be protected on f6. It would be interesting to know
exactly what Geller missed when making his 35th move while short of time. My guess is that he did
not see this finesse in advance.

622
39…Ke6 40.Qe8† Kf5 41.Qxf7
The battery is lethal for Black, as now a deadly discovered check is threatened.

41…Rc7
Black has no time for 41…Ra1, because 42.Ne4† Ke5 43.Qe7† Kd5 44.Nf6† Qxf6 45.Qe4 is
mate.

Geller’s move avoids an immediate mate, but giving back the rook only postpones the inevitable.

42.Qxc7 Kxg5 43.Qe7!

The second battery! Spassky was a bit lucky to have these resources, but he did a great job of
spotting them and taking his chances.

43…Qe3
After 43…Qxf6 44.Rg1† Black must either give up the queen or allow 44…Kf5 45.Qe4 with
mate.

43…Ra1 is also insufficient, as 44.Ng8† Kh5 45.Qe2† Kh4 46.Qg4 is mate.

44.Ne4† Kh5

45.Qh7†!
Another precise check. Geller had some bad luck with the unfortunate motifs on the board, along
with an opponent who exploits them mercilessly. He pays the price for having a rook out of play.

623
45…Bh6 46.Qd7 Bf4
46…Bg5 47.Qg4† Kh6 48.h4 wins, with Rg1 coming next.

47.Nf6† Kg5 48.Nd5

The fancy 48.Ng8!? Qe2 49.Rf2! would lead to a checkmate, but why risk a miscalculation, when
the text move forces Black to lay down his arms?
1–0

Spassky thus extended his lead to 3–1. In Game 5 he was under some pressure with the French
Defence, but Geller ran extremely short of time and Spassky was able to force a draw. In Game 6,
Spassky scored yet another win with the Closed Sicilian. According to Geller, he found the right plan
for White and convinced him that his set-up with …Nf6 was flawed. Spassky won with a stylish
combination, although by that point he had multiple ways to demolish Geller’s king.

In Game 7 Spassky got into some trouble with the French, and sacrificed two pawns for some
activity. Geller was winning but yet again ran short of time, and had to settle for a draw after spoiling
his advantage. In Game 8 Geller switched to the …Nge7 set-up against the Closed Sicilian and got a
healthy position, but was unable to get more than a draw. This meant that after only eight of the ten
games, Spassky had won the match by the extremely impressive score of 5½–2½.

Geller knew that any belligerency between him and Spassky would have helped him, but he later
commented: “Boris is so pleasant to me, as a person and as a player, that I could never feel in myself
genuine sporting malice…”

A long time after their Candidates matches, Spassky said about Geller: “He had a glass jaw.”

Interestingly, after Spassky’s convincing match victories over Tal in 1965 and against Geller in both
1965 and 1968, Boris would never again manage to win a single game against either of them. He only
lost to them after losing to Fischer in 1972, by which time he was a wealthy man and less motivated
than he had been in the sixties. Nevertheless, I still found the above fact quite surprising.

Spassky’s opponent in the semi-final was Larsen, who won a close match against Portisch. In the
other quarter-finals, Tal defeated Gligoric and Korchnoi beat Reshevsky. Interestingly, the Spassky –
Geller match took place in June, while the others all finished in May, which meant that Larsen had
significantly more time than Spassky to prepare for their upcoming match. Moreover, the match was
held in Malmo, which was almost like home ground for the Danish grandmaster. Their head-to-head
score stood at three wins to one in Spassky’s favour, with three draws.

In the first game Spassky tried to kill Larsen’s chances to win by playing an Exchange Slav. Probably
it surprised the Dane, as Spassky had played more sharply against Geller. Larsen was close to equal
but in a simplified position he made a horrible knight move to the edge of the board. Spassky cleverly

624
avoided a perpetual check and scored a valuable win. We will look at the second game.

Game 99

Bent Larsen – Boris Spassky

Malmo (2) 1968

1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e3 d6 6.Nge2 h5 7.h4 Bg4 8.d3 Nf6 9.Nd5 Nxd5 10.cxd5
Ne7 11.Qb3 Qc8 12.Nc3 0-0 13.Bd2 c5 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.Qa3 Qd7 16.Ne4 d5 17.Nc5 Qd6 18.Rc1
Rfb8 19.0-0

19…e4!?
Spassky stirs things up; he could have calmly built his position with 19…a5.

20.b4?!
Larsen could have kept the position calm and even with 20.Bc3.
The Dane could also have sacrificed an exchange: 20.dxe4!? Bxb2 21.Qd3 Bxc1 22.Rxc1 Thanks
to Black’s vulnerability on the long diagonal, White has sufficient compensation.

20…a5!
Boris bites at the b-pawn.

21.dxe4?

625
 Larsen probably overlooked Spassky’s excellent reply.
After the superior 21.Qb3! Be2 (21…axb4 22.Bxb4 is fine for White) 22.Rfe1 Bxd3 23.Nxd3 the
position would be equal.

21…Be2!
The bishop heads for the queenside, where it can cause a surprising amount of trouble.

22.Qb3
After 22.Rfe1? axb4 23.Qb3 Bc4 White’s position would fall apart.

22…Bc4!
Spassky refuses to ‘sacrifice’ his bishop for a lowly rook! After 22…Bxf1? 23.Bxf1 White has
enough play for the exchange.

23.Qb1 axb4
Black is already winning.

24.Bxb4 Bxa2 25.Nd3 Bxb1 26.Bxd6 Bxd3 27.Rfd1 dxe4

27…Bb2 would win as well.

28.Bxe7

28…Ra2!
Spassky invades on the second rank.

626
29.Bf1 Rbb2 30.Bxd3 exd3 31.Rxd3 Rxf2 32.Bd6 Rg2† 33.Kf1 Rh2
Spassky must have been short of time, because 33…Raf2†! 34.Ke1 Rh2! 35.g4 Re2† 36.Kd1
Rhg2 would have won immediately; White has no good defence against …Rb2 threatening mate.

34.Kg1 Rhc2 35.Rxc2 Rxc2 36.Bf4 Bf6 37.Rd7 Kf8 38.Kf1 Ke8 39.Ra7 Be7 40.Ke1 Bb4† 41.Kf1

41…Be7!
Spassky makes a smart choice with his sealed move. By repeating the position, he avoids doing
anything committal before he has the chance to analyse the endgame at home. Evidently he learned
from an earlier experience against Tal, when he spoiled a promising position with a poor sealed
move.

42.Ke1 f6 43.Kd1 Rc5 44.Ke2?! g5 45.hxg5 fxg5 46.Bc7 Rb5 47.Ba5? Rb2† 48.Kd3 Ra2
Larsen could have defended more stubbornly, but the endgame was always going to be difficult,
and Spassky took his chance well.
0–1

Winning the first two games was already a dream start, and Spassky even managed to extend his lead
in Game 3, outplaying Larsen in a Closed Sicilian, which virtually decided the outcome of the match.
Larsen was able to strike back in Game 5, but Spassky won Game 7 and drew Game 8 to secure
another 5½–2½ victory over a world-class opponent. Spassky wrote that he expected a tougher match,
and he thought that Larsen played too many tournaments before the match.

***

Spassky’s opponent in the Candidates final match was Korchnoi, who overcame Tal by 5½–4½ in the

627
semi-final. Their head-to-head score was four wins, six draws and six defeats from Spassky’s
perspective. The match took place in Kiev in September, and was scheduled for twelve games.
Korchnoi made a risky decision in parting from Furman, who had seconded him in his previous
matches, and chose Osnos for this match.

In Game 1 Korchnoi drew fairly easily as Black in a main-line Ruy Lopez. The second game was a
complex Queen’s Gambit Declined. Korchnoi ran short of time and offered a draw. Spassky refused
it, and on the next move Korchnoi blundered and lost quickly. A dramatic game! In the third Spassky
avoided theory and got a somewhat worse position, but he was able to hold. We will look at the
fourth game.

Game 100

Viktor Korchnoi – Boris Spassky

Kiev (4) 1968

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5 4.d4 e4 5.Nd2 Nf6 6.e3 g6 7.a3 Bg7 8.b4 0-0 9.g3 d6 10.Nb3 Qe7
11.Qc2 Nd8 12.a4 Nf7 13.Ba3 Bd7 14.0-0-0 c6 15.h3 b6 16.Be2

16…a5!?
Spassky starts an interesting scheme.

There are other promising plans as well: both 16…Be6 17.Kb1 Rfc8 and 16…a6 followed by …b5
look quite testing.

628
17.bxa5?!
After 17.b5 White would have better chances to hold his position together.

17…bxa5 18.Kb1
Placing the king in the centre with 18.Kd2!? looks preferable.

18…Rfb8 19.Ka2 Ng5 20.Rb1

20…Rb4!
A brilliant long-term exchange sacrifice, which will be justified by the passivity of the white
rooks. One feels that Petrosian’s play left its mark on Spassky’s play.

21.Nd2 c5!
Spassky has obtained a clear advantage, which he maintains over the next phase of the game.

22.d5 h5 23.Nb5 Nf7 24.Rbd1 Ne5 25.Nb1 Qd8 26.Rhg1 Qb6 27.g4 hxg4 28.hxg4 fxg4 29.Nd2
Bf5 30.Bxb4 axb4 31.Kb3 Qd8 32.Ra1 Ra5 33.Ra2 Qe7 34.Nf1 Nf3 35.Rh1 Nh5 36.Qc1 Be5
37.Nd2 Kg7 38.Bd1 Kf7 39.Bc2

629
 Black can maintain some advantage with either 39…Nf6 or 39…Nxd2. Instead, the game
continued:

39…Bg7?? 40.Bb1??
Just before the time control and with seconds remaining on the clock, both players momentarily
overlook the winning possibility of 40.Nxe4!, exploiting the potential fork on d6.

40…Kf8
Now Spassky is back in control, and he remains that way for the rest of the game.

41.Bc2 Ng5 42.Bd1 Nf7 43.Be2 Ne5 44.Qg1 Ra6 45.a5 Nf6 46.Qb1 Kg8 47.Kc2 Nd3 48.Rf1 Bh6
49.Qb3

630
49…Bg5 50.Kb1 Bh4 51.Bxd3 exd3 52.Kc1 Bg5 53.Rg1 Ne4 54.Nxe4 Qxe4 55.Rg3 Bh4 56.Nc7
Bxg3 57.Nxa6 Bxf2 58.Rxf2 Qxe3†
The g4-pawn is unstoppable, so Korchnoi resigned, giving Spassky a 3–1 lead.
0–1

In the next game Spassky got no advantage and had to work a bit to ensure the draw. In Game 6
Korchnoi played sharply and Spassky responded with brilliant attacking play, but he missed a chance
to crown his play with a lovely queen sacrifice. Later he made a big mistake and Korchnoi went on to
beat him.

According to Soltis, at some point during the match Bondarevsky had a serious heart problem. Before
the seventh game Spassky took a time out.

Game 101

Boris Spassky – Viktor Korchnoi

Kiev (7) 1968

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Nc1 e5 9.d5 Nd4 10.Nb3
Nxb3 11.Qxb3 c5 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.0-0-0 Be6 14.Qa3 Ne8 15.h4 f6 16.c5 Rf7 17.Qa4 Qc7 18.Bc4
Bxc4 19.Qxc4 Bf8 20.h5 dxc5 21.hxg6 hxg6 22.Qe6 Rd8 23.Rxd8 Qxd8 24.Rd1 Qe7 25.Qxc6 Nc7
26.Qb6 Kg7 27.Nd5 Qe6 28.Bxc5 Bxc5 29.Qxc5 Nb5 30.Qe3 Qc6† 31.Kb1 Nd4 32.Rc1 Qb5

631
33.Nc7!
Spassky is a pawn up and could try to convert it slowly, but he spots a far more effective
continuation.

33…Qe2
If 33…Qd7 then 34.Nxa6 takes a second pawn for no compensation.

After 33…Qb6 34.Ne8†! Kg8 35.Rc8 Kh7 36.Qe1 Black’s king is caught.

34.Ne6†!
Spassky makes another forceful move. The knight is untouchable as Black’s queen would hang.

34…Kh7
34…Kg8 35.Rc8† would enable White to simplify to an easily winning knight ending.

632
35.Qh6†!!
The lovely queen sacrifice leads to a checkmate, so Korchnoi resigned.
1–0

In Game 8 Korchnoi did not play the opening aggressively. Spassky not only equalized, but
subsequently outplayed Korchnoi to score another valuable win. In the next game Spassky played
unambitiously and had to work hard for a draw, but he eventually achieved it. In Game 10 Spassky
equalized and could later have pressed in a simplified position, but he settled for a draw to secure
victory in the match. His score of 6½–3½ was another lopsided victory over a top-class adversary,
leaving no doubt that the right qualifier had emerged to challenge for Petrosian’s crown.

Korchnoi subsequently admitted that Spassky was stronger than him in the middlegame, but called
him “ordinary” in other areas. Spassky’s words about Korchnoi were also not entirely complimentary:

“Viktor spends his time in the opening with the white pieces putting them all in the wrong places
so he can reposition them in the early middlegame. He’s done that all his life. It’s his style.”

Spassky earned the right to challenge for the World Championship more smoothly than three years
earlier. It was a superb accomplishment. When playing through Spassky’s games against Tal three
years earlier I got the impression that things could have gone the other way, but against Korchnoi he
was bound to win. According to Chessmetrics, Spassky’s performance against Korchnoi in 1968 was
2814, compared to Fischer’s performance of 2805 in his 1971 Candidates Final victory over
Petrosian. I wonder if Spassky’s great run in the Candidates matches may even have been a factor in
Fischer’s decision to take a break of roughly a year-and-a-half from competitive chess to raise his
level.

633
***

Spassky’s next event was the Lugano Olympiad, where he played on Board 2 behind Petrosian. In the
preliminary he scored four wins followed by with a draw against Keene of England. In the final
Spassky made four draws, followed by a win, a draw, a win and one more draw. His next opponent
was Larsen.

Game 102

Bent Larsen – Boris Spassky

Lugano (Olympiad) 1968

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.d4 Be7 5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 Nbd7 7.Rc1 c6 8.h3 a6 9.a3 dxc4 10.Bxc4 b5
11.Ba2 Bb7 12.0-0 c5 13.d5 Nxd5 14.Nxd5 Bxd5 15.Bxd5 exd5 16.Qxd5 Nf6 17.Qb7 Re8
18.Rfd1 Qc8 19.Qxc8 Raxc8 20.Bd6 Kf8 21.Kf1 Ne4 22.Bxe7† Kxe7 23.Rd5

23…Rcd8
Spassky starts fighting for the only open file.

24.Rh5?!
Larsen makes a quirky move in keeping with his style, but it’s dangerous to place the rook on the
edge while ceding the d-file.

634
24…h6 25.b4 c4 26.a4
Larsen’s plan becomes apparent: he obtained the d4-square for his knight and now tries to break
up Black’s queenside pawn formation. What else could he try?

26.Nd4?! can be met by powerful prophylaxis: 26…Kf8!! 27.g3 (27.Rd1 Rd6 does not help White.)
27…g6 28.Rxh6 Kg7 29.Rh4 g5 30.Rg4 (30.Rh5? Kg6 31.g4 Nf6 wins for Black.) 30…Kg6 31.h4 f5
White would struggle.

He could improve his rook with 26.Re5†!? Kd6 27.Rf5 Re7 28.a4 g6 29.Rf4 Kc6 when Black keeps
some advantage, but White should be able to live with it.

26…Kf6!!
Spassky sets up a wicked trap.

27.axb5 g6 28.Rxh6
Also after 28.Rh4 axb5 29.Nd4 Rxd4 30.exd4 Kg7 31.Rf4 Nd2† 32.Kg1 Nb3 33.Rb1 f5 Black
could press.

28…axb5 29.Nd4??
Larsen carelessly attacks the b5-pawn.

29.Rh4! was necessary, and after 29…Rd3 (29…Nd2† 30.Ke2 Nb3 31.Rf4† is safe for White)
30.Rf4† Kg7 31.Ra1 White would be active enough to draw.

635
29…Nd2†!!
Spassky exploits the fact that the h6-rook is out of play. The white king only has one option, as
stepping onto the e-file would lose the knight on d4.

30.Kg1 Nb3!
Removing the d4-knight allows a black rook to invade.

31.Nxb3 cxb3
The b-pawn is irresistible.

32.Rb1 Re4!
Even now one could miss this move. Spotting it in advance shows the mark of an especially
gifted player.

33.g3
33.Rxb3 is impossible because 33…Kg7! traps the rook. Larsen surely checked all the direct
attempts to trap his rook, but overlooked Spassky’s clever ploy of combining that idea with threats to
the queenside.

33…Rxb4 34.Rh4
If 34.Rb2 Rc8 Black wins.

34…Rxh4 35.gxh4 Rd3 36.Kg2

636
36…Ke5
The black king simply walks to the queenside to support the b-pawn. White can do nothing as his
king is cut off from the queenside, so Larsen resigned.
0–1

Spassky finished the Olympiad with two fairly quick draws, giving him a final score of 10/14. His
performance resembled that of the 1966 Olympiad, in the sense that it was good but nothing special
by the standards of such an elite player. Perhaps he was slightly fatigued from playing three
Candidates matches, or maybe he was already focused on the upcoming match against Petrosian.

***

Many players would have taken a long rest at the end of such a busy and tiring year, but Spassky
decided to play in one more strong tournament in Palma de Mallorca. In the first four rounds he
scored two wins and two draws. In Round 5 he produced a masterful display of how to use a knight.

Game 103

Boris Spassky – Fernando Visier Segovia

Palma de Mallorca 1968

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 c6 8.Qd2 cxd5 9.cxd5 a6 10.0-0-0 b5

637
11.Kb1 Nbd7 12.Rc1 Nb6 13.g4 Bd7 14.Qf2 Rb8 15.h4 h5 16.g5 Ne8 17.Bd3 Nc4 18.Bxc4 bxc4

19.Nd1!!
This brilliant move overprotects the b2-pawn and puts pressure on the c4-pawn, while enabling
some of the other white pieces to find better squares.

19…Bb5 20.Ne2 Nc7 21.Bd2!

The bishop aims to get to a5.

21…Na8 22.Rh2 Qd7?!

22…Rb7 or 22…Qc7 would have been preferable.

638
23.Ba5!
The bishop takes away some squares from the enemy pieces.

23…Rfc8 24.Nec3 Qe7 25.Bb4

25.Ne3!? is also good.

25…Rc7
It was worth considering 25…Be8!?, if only to force White to make a decision regarding the b4-
bishop.

26.Ne3 Be8 27.Ba3 Nb6 28.Qg1

The queen makes way for the rook to operate along the second rank.

28…Kh7 29.Rhc2 Bf8 30.Ka1 Bb5 31.Qf2 Nd7

639
32.Nb1
Spassky looks to increase the pressure on the c4-pawn, but there is a better square for that knight.

32.Ncd1! would be even stronger. By contrast with the game, 32…Nc5? would now be a losing
move. (Black should settle for either 32…Nb6 or 32…Rbc8, when 33.b3 offers White a small
advantage.) 33.Nxc4 Nd3 34.Bxd6 White wins.

32…Nc5 33.Bxc5
33.Nxc4!? Nd3 34.Nxd6 (but not 34.Bxd6? Nxf2) 34…Nxf2 35.Rxc7 Bd7 would be unclear.

33…Rxc5 34.Nxc4 f6
34…Rbc8! is somewhat stronger.

35.Qe3 fxg5 36.hxg5 Qd8 37.Nbd2

37.Nba3 Be7 38.Rg1 would be balanced.

37…Rb7?
Visier Segovia misses a chance for 37…Be7! 38.Rg1 a5 when Black takes over the initiative.

640
38.b4!!
This surprising move in front of White’s own king has an unusual function.

38…Rc8 39.Na5!
The knight stands superbly on the edge of the board.

39…Rxc2 40.Rxc2 Rf7 41.Nc6 Qd7 42.Kb2!

Black is virtually paralyzed, so Spassky can recruit the king to contribute towards developing
White’s play.

42…h4 43.Kb3! Kg8 44.a4 Bxc6 45.dxc6

Black saw no reason to continue from this hopeless position.
1–0

In the next five rounds, Spassky won three games and drew the other two. In Round 12 he was White
against Petrosian, and they made a prearranged draw. One more draw followed by a win gave
Spassky a score of 11/14, with three games remaining.

In Round 15 he faced Korchnoi, who was leading with a superb score of 12/14. Korchnoi played
unambitiously with White. Spassky possibly wanted to unbalance the game, or maybe he just fell
asleep at the wheel as he made a serious mistake. Soon afterwards he had to lose a pawn. He still had
chances to hold, but Korchnoi played well and beat him. Spassky won his last two games, but
Korchnoi was still able to coast to victory with two draws. Spassky finished in equal second with
Larsen with 13/17, one point behind Korchnoi. Petrosian finished fourth, with 11½ points. Petrosian
had little success as a reigning World Champions in individual tournaments, but Spassky already

641
knew that his rival was able to raise his level when he really wanted to.

The Olympiad and Palma de Mallorca events were good but not great for Spassky. However, 1968
was primarily the year of the Candidates matches. They were the events that mattered the most, and
Spassky performed magnificently in them.

Towards the end of 1968, Spassky began working with Nikolai Krogius, who was not only a strong
grandmaster but also had a doctorate in psychology. Their cooperation would last for many years to
come.

1968 Results

Candidates quarter-final match vs Geller, Sukhumi: Won 5½–2½ (+3 =5 –0)

Candidates semi-final match vs Larsen, Malmo: Won 5½–2½ (+4 =3 –1)
Candidates final match vs Korchnoi, Kiev: Won 6½–3½ (+4 =5 –1)
Lugano Olympiad (Board 2): 10/14, Team Gold, Individual Bronze (+6 =8 –0)
Palma de Mallorca (2nd-3rd place): 13/17 (+10 =6 –1)

Total 71.1% (+27 =27 –3)

642
 Epilogue for Volume 1

When I embarked on this project, I had some general knowledge about Spassky, especially due to
having written biographies on players like Tal and Petrosian, and of course Fischer – Spassky 1972.
However, when I examined Spassky’s games in more detail, I still was surprised by the number of
elegant attacking brilliancies he produced.

This book has discussed the period from Spassky’s birth in 1937 and moved on to his documented
chess games, from the earliest in 1948 through the next two decades up to the end of 1968. During
this period, Spassky won almost everything that there is to win in chess, including the World Junior
Championship, Soviet Championship, Olympiad and European team gold medals, as well as six
Candidates matches against elite opponents vying for the World Championship. Spassky won many
other individual tournaments, including the Piatigorsky Cup, one of the strongest events of the 1960s,
ahead of Fischer. The only thing that had eluded Spassky so far was, of course, the World
Championship itself.

When we resume the story in Volume 2, we will see how Spassky fared in his second match against
Petrosian for the highest title in chess. Spassky’s match versus Fischer in 1972 was, and still is, the
event which attracted the greatest public and media attention in all of chess history. In Volume 2 of
this work I will avoid ‘recycling’ content from Fischer – Spassky 1972, and will focus on Spassky’s
many other career highlights, including his thrilling game against Fischer from the 1970 Olympiad
which was not featured in the aforementioned book. By the way, Spassky played a total of 367 games
in World Championships, including everything from qualifying events to title matches. Only
Korchnoi has played more. Spassky spent nearly forty years at or close to the top level of chess –
again one of the longest careers of any player.

Spassky will go on to produce numerous gems in the latter part of his remarkable career. Dear
Reader, join me in Volume 2, where we will see many more masterpieces from the attacking maestro!

643
 Game Index

Boris Spassky – Ratmir Kholmov, Yerevan 1962 6

Lajos Portisch – Boris Spassky, Geneva (14) 1977 7

1. Boris Spassky – Shman, Minsk 1948 13

2.Vladimir Ljavdansky – Boris Spassky, Leningrad 1948 17

3.Boris Spassky – Arvid Vilup, Leningrad 1949 23

4.Boris Spassky – Avtonomov, Leningrad 1949 26

5.Boris Spassky – Loris Kalashian, Riga 1951 31

6.Viktor Korchnoi – Boris Spassky, Leningrad 1952 37

7.Mark Taimanov – Boris Spassky, Leningrad 1952 43

8.Boris Spassky – Vassily Smyslov, Bucharest 1953 49

Zak – Lilienthal, Baku 1951 49
Graf – Spassky, Germany 1988 50
9.Octavio Troianescu – Boris Spassky, Bucharest 1953 53
10.Boris Spassky – Gluschtschenok, Leningrad 1953 56

11.Boris Spassky – Nikolai Krogius, Leningrad 1954 59

Rovner – Krogius, Leningrad 1954 59
12.Mikhail Tal – Boris Spassky, Leningrad 1954 63
Stahlberg – Spassky, Gothenburg 1955 63
13. Boris Spassky – Miroslav Filip, Gothenburg 1955 63
Keres – Tal, Tallinn 1954 65

14.Boris Spassky – Tigran Petrosian, Moscow 1955 71

15.Efim Geller – Boris Spassky, Moscow 1955 75
Geller – Lisitsin, Moscow 1955 76
16.Boris Spassky – Mark Taimanov, Moscow 1955 78

644
17.Boris Spassky – Viktor Korchnoi, Moscow 1955 78
18.Boris Spassky – Joop van Oosterom, Antwerp 1955 81

19.Yuri Averbakh – Boris Spassky, Leningrad 1956 83

20.Vassily Smyslov – Boris Spassky, Amsterdam 1956 90

21.Boris Spassky – Ratmir Kholmov, Moscow 1957 95

22.Semyon Furman – Boris Spassky, Moscow 1957 101
23.Julius Kozma – Boris Spassky, Reykjavik 1957 103
24.Boris Spassky – Edmar Mednis, Reykjavik 1957 104
25.Boris Spassky – Samuel Zhukhovitsky, Leningrad 1957 106

26.Boris Spassky – Lev Polugaevsky, Riga 1958 111

27.Boris Spassky – Georgy Borisenko, Riga 1958 115
28.Boris Spassky – Nikolai Krogius, Riga 1958 117
Boris Spassky – Mikhail Tal, Riga 1958 120
29.Boris Spassky – Theodor Ghitescu, Varna 1958 121

30.Viktor Korchnoi – Boris Spassky, Tbilisi 1959 123

31.Boris Spassky – Efim Geller, Tbilisi 1959 127
32.Boris Spassky – Evgeni Vasiukov, Moscow 1959 132
33.Boris Spassky – Aron Reshko, Leningrad 1959 133
34.Vladimir Muratov – Boris Spassky, Tallinn 1959 135

35.Nikolai Krogius – Boris Spassky, Leningrad 1960 137

36.Alexei Suetin – Boris Spassky, Leningrad 1960 143
37.Boris Spassky – David Bronstein, Leningrad 1960 146
Spassky – Kholmov, Leningrad 1964 146
Spassky – Sakharov, Leningrad 1960 147
38.Boris Spassky – Robert James Fischer, Mar del Plata 1960 152
39.Boris Spassky – Julio Saadi, Mar del Plata 1960 156
40.Boris Spassky – Alberto Foguelman, Mar del Plata 1960 158
Robert James Fischer – Olicio Gadia, Mar del Plata 1960 160
41.Gyozo Forintos – Boris Spassky, Leningrad 1960 161

645
42.Boris Spassky – Josef Marsalek, Leningrad 1960 162

43.Boris Spassky – Vassily Smyslov, Moscow 1961 165

44.Boris Spassky – Eduard Gufeld, Moscow 1961 168
45.Boris Spassky – Lev Polugaevsky, Moscow 1961 172
46.Leonid Stein – Boris Spassky, Moscow 1961 176
47.Boris Spassky – Lajos Portisch, Budapest 1961 179
48.Vasily Byvshev – Boris Spassky, Leningrad 1961 181
49.Yury Kots – Boris Spassky, Baku 1961 182
50.Vladimir Savon – Boris Spassky, Baku 1961 183
Petrosian – Spassky, Moscow 1957 183
51.Boris Spassky – Lev Polugaevsky, Baku 1961 186

52.Wolfgang Pietzsch – Boris Spassky, Havana 1962 191

53.Boris Spassky – Aleksandar Matanovic, Havana 1962 194
54.Laszlo Liptay – Boris Spassky, Marianske Lazne 1962 196
55.Boris Spassky – Dragoljub Ciric, Marianske Lazne 1962 197
56.Boris Spassky – Klaus Darga, Varna (Olympiad) 1962 199
57.Boris Spassky – Ragnar Hoen, Varna (Olympiad) 1962 200
58.Boris Spassky – Lev Polugaevsky, Leningrad 1962 202
59.Boris Spassky – Vladas Mikenas, Yerevan 1962 203
60.Boris Spassky – Ratmir Kholmov, Yerevan 1962 208

61.Boris Spassky – Yuri Nikolaevsky, Moscow 1963 211

62.Boris Spassky – Yuri Averbakh, Kharkov 1963 213
63.Boris Spassky – Yuri Nikolaevsky, Kharkov 1963 217
64.Arkady Novopashin – Boris Spassky, Leningrad 1963 218
65.Janis Klovans – Boris Spassky, Leningrad 1963 219
66.Boris Spassky – Eduard Gufeld, Leningrad 1963 223

67.Efim Geller – Boris Spassky, Moscow 1964 228

68.Boris Spassky – Georgi Tringov, Amsterdam 1964 230
69.Ludek Pachman – Boris Spassky, Amsterdam 1964 232

646
70.Boris Spassky – Samuel Reshevsky, Amsterdam 1964 233
71.Boris Spassky – Guillermo Garcia Gonzales, Sochi 1964 238
72.Boris Spassky – Laszlo Szabo, Belgrade 1964 239
73.Boris Spassky – Elod Macskasy, Tel Aviv (Olympiad) 1964 242
74.Boris Spassky – Vlastimil Jansa, Tel Aviv (Olympiad) 1964 244

75.Boris Spassky – Paul Keres, Riga (1) 1965 249

76.Boris Spassky – Efim Geller, Riga (6) 1965 253
Spassky – Geller, Riga (4) 1965 254
77.Paul Keres – Boris Spassky, Moscow 1965 256
78.Boris Spassky – Vladimir Antoshin, Sochi 1965 257
79.Boris Spassky – Mikhail Tal, Tbilisi (6) 1965 260
80.Mikhail Tal – Boris Spassky, Tbilisi (11) 1965 263
Petrosian – Portisch, Hamburg 1965 263

81.Tigran Petrosian – Boris Spassky, Moscow (10) 1966 269

82.Boris Spassky – Tigran Petrosian, Moscow (13) 1966 269
83.Boris Spassky – Tigran Petrosian, Moscow (15) 1966 275
84.Tigran Petrosian – Boris Spassky, Moscow (18) 1966 277
85.Boris Spassky – Tigran Petrosian, Moscow (19) 1966 278
86.Boris Spassky – Tigran Petrosian, Moscow (23) 1966 285
87.Boris Spassky – Wolfgang Unzicker, Santa Monica 1966 288
88.Boris Spassky – Robert James Fischer, Santa Monica 1966 290
Spassky – Larsen, Beverwijk 1967 290
Spassky – Shishkin, Tallinn 1959 291
89.Robert James Fischer – Boris Spassky, Santa Monica 1966 299
90.Boris Spassky – Jan Hein Donner, Santa Monica 1966 302
91.Robert James Fischer – Boris Spassky, Havana (Olympiad) 1966 303

92.Boris Spassky – Hans Ree, Beverwijk 1967 311

93.Boris Spassky – Theodor Ghitescu, Beverwijk 1967 314
94.Boris Spassky – Ludek Pachman, Moscow 1967 316
95.Wolfgang Uhlmann – Boris Spassky, Moscow 1967 318
96.Boris Spassky – Alexey Suetin, Moscow 1967 319

647
97.Boris Spassky – Efim Geller, Sukhumi (2) 1968 323
98.Boris Spassky – Efim Geller, Sukhumi (4) 1968 326
99.Bent Larsen – Boris Spassky, Malmo (2) 1968 328
100.Viktor Korchnoi – Boris Spassky, Kiev (4) 1968 330
101.Boris Spassky – Viktor Korchnoi, Kiev (7) 1968 332
102.Bent Larsen – Boris Spassky, Lugano (Olympiad) 1968 333
103.Boris Spassky – Fernando Visier Segovia, Palma de Mallorca 1968 335

648
 Name Index

A
Abakarov 112
Alekhine 164, 268, 287
Antoshin 71, 257, 316
Aronson 101
Artsukevich 31
Averbakh 11, 77, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 103, 119, 120, 121, 172, 189, 213, 214, 215, 216
Avtonomov 26, 27

B
Bagirov 137, 182, 224
Bannik 119
Barcza 55, 106, 110, 164
Barda 55
Barden 9, 10, 57, 247, 252, 265, 266, 267
Benko 242
Bobotsov 121, 122
Bogatyrchuk 23
Bogoljubov 268
Boleslavsky 49, 55, 83, 190, 202
Bondarevsky 122, 143, 161, 168, 177, 190, 211, 213, 218, 227, 228, 247, 249, 254, 259, 260, 265,
266, 267, 283, 323, 332
Borisenko 78, 83, 115, 116
Botvinnik 5, 11, 21, 71, 77, 80, 89, 93, 94, 121, 133, 136, 152, 156, 190, 198, 202, 227, 242, 253,
265, 267, 268, 303, 323
Bronstein 71, 89, 102, 106, 119, 121, 133, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 158, 159, 160, 172, 186, 189,
219, 224, 227, 228, 230, 231, 238
Bykov 211
Byrne 29, 53
Byvshev 181

C
Capablanca 5, 190, 191, 210
Chekhover 34
Ciocaltea 53
Ciric 197, 198

649
D
Darga 199, 230
Donner 299, 301, 302

E
Estrin 53
Evans 202

F
Filip 55, 63, 81
Fischer, R.J. 5, 6, 12, 29, 49, 53, 56, 76, 80, 94, 103, 121, 136, 138, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156,
159, 160, 182, 189, 202, 210, 226, 231, 233, 237, 238, 247, 265, 268, 269, 277, 278, 288, 289, 290,
291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316,
323, 328, 333
Fischer, Regina 12
Flohr 77
Forintos 80, 161
Furman 43, 77, 101, 102, 117, 168, 330

G
Garcia Gonzales 238
Geller 71, 75, 76, 77, 80, 89, 94, 115, 121, 127, 128, 130, 132, 142, 151, 176, 227, 228, 229, 230,
249, 253, 254, 255, 266, 318, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 337
Gheorghiu 265
Ghitescu 121, 314, 316, 341
Gipslis 103, 119, 183, 242
Gligoric 196, 298, 328
Golombek 55
Grigorian 319
Grigory 9
Gufeld 146, 168, 169, 170, 171, 223, 224
Gurgenidze 95, 119, 130, 140, 239, 319
Gyozalyan 174

H
Hoen 200, 202
I
Ilivitzky 77, 80
Ilyin-Zhenevsky 11
Ivkov 237, 238, 248, 253, 289

650
J
Jansa 244, 245, 247

K
Kalashian 31
Kamsky 35
Kan 77
Karpov 5, 7, 29, 43, 101, 138, 285, 288
Kasparian 31
Kasparov 5, 7, 96, 100, 101, 113, 120, 151, 172, 173, 174, 285, 291, 293, 294
Keres 34, 49, 65, 71, 94, 95, 102, 106, 121, 153, 186, 189, 190, 227, 247, 249, 250, 252, 253, 255,
256, 266, 319
Khalifman 35
Khodos 239
Kholmov 6, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 146, 186, 208, 210, 224, 227, 228, 248
Khruschev 9
Kiik 11
Kirillov 17, 21
Klaman 95, 110
Klovans 219, 220, 221, 222, 223
Koblencs 120, 259
Kochiev 35
Korchnoi 17, 31, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48, 53, 71, 78, 79, 80, 83, 106, 112, 119, 123, 125, 126,
127, 131, 137, 146, 151, 152, 176, 181, 189, 208, 210, 227, 230, 310, 316, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333,
337
Kotov 77, 119
Kots 182, 183
Kozma 103
Krogius 11, 13, 31, 34, 59, 60, 61, 62, 81, 94, 103, 117, 118, 119, 133, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 151,
203, 211, 238, 337

L
Larsen 5, 9, 237, 238, 247, 253, 255, 259, 266, 289, 290, 299, 328, 329, 330, 333, 334, 335, 337
Levenfish 11, 21
Levitina 35
Liberzon 152, 304
Lilienthal 11, 49, 50, 190
Liptay 196, 197, 198
Lisitsin 11, 76, 80, 83
Ljavdansky 17, 18, 21

651
Lombardy 162
Lutikov 31

M
Macskasy 242, 243, 244
Marsalek 162
Matanovic 194, 195, 304
Mednis 80, 104, 105
Mikenas 31, 71, 101, 136, 203, 204, 207, 208
Milev 53

N
Najdorf 196, 238, 289
Nei 136, 224
Nezhmetdinov 101, 182, 238
Nikitin 23, 178
Nikolaevsky 211, 212, 217, 218
Novopashin 218, 219

O
O’Kelly 55, 300

P
Pachman 231, 232, 233, 316, 341
Petrosian 49, 53, 55, 71, 72, 73, 80, 89, 94, 106, 119, 120, 121, 132, 137, 151, 152, 176, 178, 181,
183, 189, 198, 203, 213, 227, 247, 249, 259, 261, 263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274,
275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 285, 286, 287, 288, 299, 301, 303, 310, 316, 319, 323, 331, 333, 335,
337
Pietzsch 191, 192, 193
Platonov 182
Polugaevsky 83, 111, 112, 113, 115, 137, 172, 173, 174, 176, 178, 186, 187, 189, 196, 202, 203, 252
Portisch 7, 49, 80, 178, 179, 181, 190, 197, 231, 238, 253, 259, 263, 301, 316, 322, 328

Q
Quinones 237, 266

R
Rabinovich 11
Radulescu 53
Ragozin 11, 83

652
Ree 311, 314
Reicher 55
Reshevsky 94, 233, 235, 236, 237, 299, 328
Reshko 133, 134
Romanovsky 11

S
Saadi 156, 157
Saidy 84
Sajtar 55
Sakharov 146, 147, 152
Salov 35
Savon 183, 184, 186, 189
Schweber 80
Sergievsky 288
Shamkovich 70, 146, 189
Shcherbakov 71
Sherwin 182
Shishkin 291
Shman 13, 14, 15, 339
Simagin 77
Sliwa 55
Smyslov 11, 13, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 63, 71, 77, 80, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 106, 121, 122, 132, 133,
136, 137, 164, 165, 166, 167, 178, 186, 189, 190, 196, 203, 210, 227, 231, 237, 253, 303
Sokolsky 11
Solovyova 310
Soltis 9, 10, 34, 35, 81, 122, 134, 175, 196, 210, 211, 213, 267, 268, 287, 332
Sosonko 12, 23, 211
Spasskaya, E.P. 9, 10, 12
Spasskaya, I. 10
Spasskaya, T. 137
Spassky, V.S. 319
Spassky, V.V. 9, 10
Stahlberg 63, 81
Stalin 81
Stein 176, 177, 178, 224, 227, 228, 230, 231, 238, 248, 266, 316, 321, 322
Steinitz 5, 174
Stoltz 55
Suetin 143, 144, 146, 216, 228, 319, 320
Szabo 49, 55, 89, 132, 136, 239, 240, 241, 242, 259

653
T
Taimanov 10, 34, 43, 44, 45, 48, 71, 77, 78, 80, 83, 84, 89, 94, 111, 121, 137, 189, 210
Tal 5, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 82, 83, 94, 102, 103, 106, 111, 118, 119, 120, 121, 132, 135, 136,
137, 152, 156, 160, 181, 189, 210, 213, 227, 231, 237, 253, 255, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265,
266, 310, 311, 328, 330, 333
Tarasov 95
Timman 247, 267
Tolush 11, 23, 34, 35, 37, 49, 53, 55, 57, 93, 102, 103, 106, 110, 119, 136, 142, 143, 152, 181, 190,
247
Tringov 230, 231, 311
Troianescu 53, 55

U
Uhlmann 265, 318, 319
Unzicker 259, 288

V
Vasiukov 132, 133, 189
Vegh 277
Vilup 23
Visier Segovia 335, 336
Vladimirov 31, 56

Y
Yermolinsky 35
Yudasin 35

Z
Zaitsev 164
Zak 11, 21, 34, 35, 49, 50, 143, 247
Zhukhovitsky 106, 107, 109

654
Table of Contents
Title Page 4
Key to Symbols used 4 6
Preface 5 7
The Early Years 9 14
1948 13 18
1949 23 35
1950 29 44
1951 31 46
1952 37 54
1953 49 78
1954 59 94
1955 71 118
1956 83 140
1957 95 163
1958 111 196
1959 123 219
1960 137 247
1961 165 300
1962 191 352
1963 211 395
1964 227 427
1965 249 468
1966 267 501
1967 311 591
1968 323 615
Epilogue 338 643
Game Index 339 644
Name Index 342 649

655