Copyright © 2019 2020 Victor Ciobanu, All rights reserved.

This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any
manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher
except for the use of brief quotations in a book review.

First paper edition August 2019.

ISBN 9798630282347 (Paper)

E-Mail: VictorCiobanu94@gmail.com

2
 Table of Contents
About methods of preparing for competition
How am I preparing for competitions?
THE BORN OF THE METHOD OF PREPARATION (1927-1933)
FORMATION OF THE METHOD OF PREPARATION (1934-1941)
THE TRIUMPH OF THE METHOD (1942-1948)
Botvinnik and Kasparov
JUNIOR SCHOOL OF CHESS
THE DESTINY OF CHESS
THE BOTVINNIK’S NOTEBOOK
THE BOTVINNIK’S NOTEBOOK (II)
The recordings of the plan (1937): Preparing for a match with
Levenfish
The following notebook opens with the plan: match tournament in
1941
MATCH-TOURNAMENT IN SVERDLOVSK 1943
Preparing for the XIII championship and other comments
USSR CHAMPIONSHIP 1944
THE NOTEBOOK OF 1945
XIV USSR CHAMPIONSHIP
RADIO-MATCH USSR – USA (1 and 3 September)
A method for opening preparation
Instead of Epilog

3
 About methods of preparing for
competition

In the eleventh championship, I set some mainly sport tasks. For

example, now, I try to play calmly, don't let my nerves get me down yet this
mind-set is not so easy to achieve. I had always to remind me about this
during the game.
My head works well only when I am calm, therefore, during the
tournament, I intentionally trained this aspect and I am satisfied with the
results that I achieved. Next, I tried to get rid of the time trouble. Frankly
speaking, completely getting rid of them is impossible. During the game,
there are moments when you have to carefully study the position, to spend
the extra 20 - 30 minutes to check it, and to do some quickly moves to reach
the overtime. This is a “normal” thing - time trouble, I do not intend to refuse
that. But it often happens that a chess player is wasting precious time during
the game, choosing bad candidate moves to calculate variations or in a way
cannot refuse the seductive wish to play unfavorable continuation. I trained
myself to economically spending my time during the chess game, I solved
this problem in a convenient way. Sometimes even intentionally reducing the
quality of my play. How to teach myself to save the precious time? There was
no other way.
The third task, which I tried to resolve was to preserve the strength for
the entire tournament. Usually, in almost all big events I quickly scored
points at first, exhausted myself, and then I was barely holding it together
until the end. Between the 12th and 15th round, I almost always lost the
games.
Of course, you should not spend your energy like this, it is better to
keep all in a balance, then there will be no failures at the end and, in general,
the tournament will require less stress.
In this tournament I was able to achieve uniform energy consumption
and I saved my strength all the way to the end. However, though I had to
make a lot of draws, I did not lose a single game for the entire tournament.
I am not completely satisfied with my tournament conditions. After

4
breakfast, I walked an hour and then prepared for the game for 25-30
minutes, then took a break from chess. At 3:30 - dinner and then for about an
hour I lay. Lying down before the game is very useful, then you feel fit and
crisp, and most importantly you are not distracted by intense thoughts and
overthinking. After relaxing, I've walked all the way to the tournament. I was
very fortunate that the tournament room was not far from me, and so I walked
additionally 20-25 minutes before the game. The game ends at 10:30 pm, I
have dinner at 11:00 and at 12:00 went to bed. My mistake was that I
analyzed the game before going to bed and disturb my sleep. I did not fall
asleep earlier than 3 A.M, and, as a result, I was not fully recovered.
Now during competitions, I never analyze the chess game before
going to bed. This mistake will not repeat ever again.
When to analyze unfinished games? A way is after the morning walk,
you can analyze it for about 40-45 minutes. Another way is to do it on the
day the game was played. You should aim at a minimum of unfinished
games, only in that case, you will be able to save strength all the way to the
tournament finish.
So, the 4 task - the correct organization of the tournament conditions;
I have not been resolved it quite satisfactorily.
And the last task was - to win the USSR championship.
I am quite happy with the result, but I have noticed a significant
disadvantage in my games - the poor technique of advantage realization. In
many games, I was not able to convert my advantages into a win. Probably, it
may be explained by the aspiration to spend time and energy wisely, as I have
said before, but one thing is clear: I have to focus the attention on that side of
my game. However, the other side was a pleasant surprise for me, I finally
learned how to play with black pieces. In eight games played with black
pieces, I scored 6½ points and could score even more. From this
circumstance, we can make a rather interesting conclusion.
In almost all of the reviews of my game, I had to read about the “opening
erudition” with the help of which I defeated my opponents. I have always
believed that these reviews, had no clear justification. I had previously
believed that these “reviews” were unreasonable, and treated them ironically.
It’s true that I usually won a number of games in the opening, but every chess
player wants to finish the game quickly! This championship completely
disarmed my “critics”: by playing with black pieces, such a result cannot be
achieved with just “opening erudition”, because, whatever erudition you may

5
have, you will not get an advantage with black pieces in the opening stage in
every game. So, I outplayed my opponents in the middlegame. My opening
knowledge was not to blame, and our chess journalists will have to find
another explanation for my successes.

6
 How am I preparing for competitions?
This has never been a secret. As soon as I mastered the technique of
preparation, I set out my method in the book Flohr – Botvinnik Match 1933.
Then I once gave a special lecture to Leningrad chess players of the first
category, to which, unfortunately, only 15 students gathered.
First of all, before a competition, you need to think about your health,
because only with a good health you can count on the success. And for this it
is best to spend 15-20 days on the fresh air, outside the city. Unfortunately,
our athletic organizations, realizing that football players need physical
training, usually become surprisingly dull when it comes to elementary
leisure for chess players before important competitions.
I begin my chess training by reviewing the literature accumulated
from the time when I stopped following it. This is necessary in order to get
acquainted with new interesting games; looking through the literature, I take
notes on subjects that interest me. At the same time I mark all the games of
my future opponents in the contest in which I am going to participate. I study
the features of the game of these masters, their favorite opening variants and
systems - this should be useful when you are preparing for each game during
the tournament.
Next, I prepare those opening schemes that I intend to apply in the
upcoming competition. It should be noted here that a chess player cannot and
should not, in my opinion, play all openings that are known in theory. For
one match, it is quite enough to have 3-4 opening systems for White and the
same number for Black. But these systems must be well studied.
If the master does not have such systems in his arsenal, he can hardly
count on a good sports result. Conversely, if a master plays only one opening,
this is also very disadvantageous: first, his opponent will be well prepared for
the game, and second, the most important thing is that the master’s chess
knowledge will be too narrow, in many positions he will “swim”.
So, the schemes have been worked out, but this is still not enough.
Some of them, those in which the author of the schemes is not sure, should be
tested in training session games. Of course, these games must be played with
a partner who will keep them in secret, otherwise all future opponents will

7
knew these schemes as well as their author, and the opening preparation will
be useless.
These training games should be used not only to test opening
schemes, but also to train yourself. I have long advised our masters, who are
systematically get in time trouble, how to combat this disease. Unfortunately,
they did not take advantage of my advice.
It is necessary to play training games and at the same time pay
attention primarily to the clock, and not on the quality of the game or its
result. To continue these exercises until the skill is developed. It is advisable
to manage the time, managing to count all the necessary variants. I think that
this method would have completely cured 90 percent of those suffering from
“time trouble”, except, of course, “hopelessly sick.”
This method should be treated other disadvantages too. During special
training games, you should pay attention monthly to this problem - until it
disappears.
As a result of such training, the player can finally determine his
opening repertoire that has been tested in practice for the competition. After
that, it remains only to prepare for each game separately.
In that case, if the master is weak in the endgame, he can only follow
the example of Chekhover, who has recently worked a lot on the endgame,
and especially on chess studies, and has achieved notable success. At the
same time in the training games one should attempt for the endgame, which
will help to gain relevant experience. The same method can be used to fill
gaps in the middle game, although the topic here is more complicated.
And finally, five days before the tournament, all sorts of chess training
must be stopped. We must give ourselves rest, and most importantly, it
necessary in order not to lose the taste for the chess struggle.
Not to mention about other possible improvements that I've always
wanted to use. What is the art of chess master? Mainly in the ability to
analyze chess positions; however, the master sitting at the board, should be
able to analyze fairly quickly and without moving the pieces, but in the
conclusion → to calculate variations for estimating the position - this is the
art of analysis.
Home analysis has its own specific features: the master is not limited by
time and can move pieces. Despite these differences, there is also much in
common between analysis and practical game. It is known that almost all
outstanding chess players were excellent analysts.

8
 The conclusion is: who wants to become an outstanding chess player,
must improve his chess analysis.
And one more thing to mention at difference between the analysis and
the practical game: if during the game your analytical work is continuously
encountered by a critical replay from your partner, then during a home
analysis you can easily become biased. In order to fight poor quality of
analysis, it is useful to make individual analytical work publically available.
That makes possible to hear objective criticism. In other words, a published
analysis, or, simply, commenting games for the press, is the surest way of
improvement.
Of course, comments on the game, written “In a hurry,” for 1-2 hours,
can in no way be considered an analysis. Such an “analysis” plays only a
negative role, because it can turn into a bad habit.
Unfortunately, some of our chess players are still neglecting their home
analysis. At one time, I proposed to Leningrad first category chess players to
create a special circle for commenting chess games. About 15 people even
signed up for this circle, but for some reason it did not go any further.
Here are all the recommendations that I can give and that I myself try
to follow. It is possible that for some chess players these recommendations
are less suitable; each master must approach them carefully and apply them
taking into account their individual characteristics and habits.

9
 Autograph M. Botvinnik.
Record of the game with I. Mazel, 1938

10
 THE BORN OF THE METHOD OF
PREPARATION (1927-1933)
This method of preparation for the competition was not born in the
quiet atmosphere - it was born in the fire of tournament struggle. I had to go a
long way of mistakes and errors before I decided to adopt the method.
I was an ordinary chess player, I knew the theory of openings, I
studied the endgame, as well as the middle game - according to the published
games of great masters. However, I did not invent anything.
And here we are, Moscow, 1927, USSR Championship. They settled
me in the same room of the Liverpool Hotel together with Alexander
Modelem. He was older than me and had experience, but most importantly -
was an excellent analyst. He had his favorite opening systems, and after he
defeated me in the first round, he cared about my success in a fatherly way
(he wanted me to win the title of master) - he passed on to me his experience.
First time (Dutch Defense - Stonewall variation) I passed successfully. In
the game, with Ilya Rabinovich after standard moves. 1. d4 e6 2.
c4 f5 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. Nc3 O-O 6. Nf3 d5 7. O-O c6 8.
Qc2 Qe8 9. Bf4 Qh5 10. Rad1 Nbd7 11. b3 N e4 was created a complicated
position not in the style of my partner. 12. Ne5 Ng5 here white carelessly
weakened castling position after:13. h4 Ne4 14. Bf3 Qe8 15. N:d7 B:d7 16.
Kg2 Bb4 17. B:e4 f:e4 18. Rh1 Qh5 19. f3 Qg6 20. Kf1 e5 21. d:e5 R:f4!
Black got a decisive attack.
But in the second case of the French Defense – I have suffered a loss.
One participant of the tournament (through mutual friends) “threw” me the
opening variation that is beneficial for White. We analyzed with A. Modelem
and decided that this variation lead to Black’s advantage. So I played “by
analysis”, and got into a trap!
It became clear that not only it is necessary to analyze, but also take
into account psychological aspects of tournament struggle. From these two
episodes, conclusions were drawn: to apply in opening not popular variations,
because positional subtleties of these systems are not well known.

11
 And you cannot be naive - the participants of the tournament without
hidden goals do not share their "analyses". A few months later in Leningrad
there was a “Metal Workers” union championship. There I already managed
to apply prepared systems. In the Queen Gambit instead of the famous move
7. Rc1, I played 7. Bd3.
After 21 games of the match Capablanca – Alekhin, the system with a
move 7. … a6 was very popular. My partner B. Yuriev played it and did not
suspect that in position with queen’s rook on a1 after forcing sequence: 8.c5
c6 9.b4 a5 10.a3 ab 11.ab R:a1 12.Q:a1 b6 13. Bf4! bc 14. bc Nh5 15.
Qa7! White get a winning position.
And a year later in command student match in a game with G.
Goldberg I also continued:
→7. Bd3; my partner chose a system with c6 (together), but it turned out
that here I was well prepared. And in the championship of Leningrad 1930/31
in a game with A. Batuev, I also played
→7. Bd3 (see the diagram above). My partner answered 7. ... de; and
after 8. B:с4 с5 9.0-0 cd 10. ed Nb6 11. BcЗ Nbd5 12. Nе5 Nd7 13.B:е7
N:е7 14.Qе2 Nf6 15. Rfd1 b6 16. Rас1 Bb7 17.f3! Rc8 game was solved by
the unexpected sacrifice of knight 18. N: f7.
It is curious that five years later in the tournament in Nottingham M.
Vidmar (hardly suspecting about this) before the 11th move copied 13 game
move A. Batuev. And here the game was also decided by the sacrifice of the
knight on f7, but only on move 20!
These systems were studied both in the office silence and in
tournament struggle - it is clear that this led to the economical use of thinking
time, and there remained forces and time for accurate calculation of options.
A lot of work was done to study the Nimzowitsch Defense - a variant
with the popular back then move 4.Qb3 (for both white and Black). This has
produced results in several games. At first, I developed the knight (Nf3) and

12
when Black developed his queen's knight on c6. For example, in the position
of the game with I. Kan (trade union match Moscow - Leningrad, 1930);

After 8.e4 Nd4 9.N:d4 B:d4 10.f3 White secured the advantage
achieved in the center. But later on I came to the conclusion that Black
equalize the game, if they develop their knight not on c6, but on a6, after
Nc5, to control the central e4 square. After years, I managed to prove it
(form the Black side) in the game with Elikazes (Moscow, 1936).
And then I decided to check the move 6. Bg5 (before the move Nf3).
This brought success to the miniature game with L. Savitsky (Leningrad
1932).

Here followed 6. ... h6 7. Bh4 Nd4 8. Qa4! (This tricky move was
prepared in advance), the Black queenside knight is now bound by the
protection of a dark-squared bishop. 8. ... B:сЗ+ 9.b6 Nf5 10.B:f6 Qf6
11.Rс1 Qg5 12.QаЗ b6 13.Nf3 Qе7 14. g4! Nh4 15. N:h4 Q:h4 16.Bg2 Rb8
17.Q:а7 Qg5 18.0-0 Qе5 19.cb and black resigned.
But after several months V. Ragozin significantly improved the black
game: 7. ... g5! (Instead of 7. ... Nd4), and after 8. Bg3 Nе4 9. еЗ B:сЗ+ 10.
bc Qf6 11. Rc1 N:c5 12. Qc2 e5 and Black are quite solid.
And then came the summer of 1933. For the victory in the tournament
of Leningrad Scientists House, I got a free ticket to the sanatorium in the
Caucasus. For the first time in my life I am resting like this - after five days I

13
wanted to work with pocket chess, and began my preparation for the USSR
championship.
I prepared as best as I could, and in two prepared variation I suffered
a fiasco - in the Grunfeld Defense (white) against Levenfisch; and with
Freiman - in Slav (black).
A few months before, Ragozin in the game with Romanovsky applied
(with White) in Grunfeld Defense next variant: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5
4. Nf3 Bg7 a new move 5. Qb3 and gained convincing victory. During
preparation I came to the conclusion Qb3 is good to play a move early. And
in the game with Levenfish the position turned out to:

From strategically point of view position is in White favor and White

should play this continuation: 8. e5 Be6 9. ef B: с4 10. fg N:g7 11. B:с4. But
in the analysis after 8. Bf4 I looked through the sacrifice of the pawn 8. ...c5.
This confused me so much that I decided to make simplifications: 9. dc Ba6
10. Qd4 Q:d4 11. N:d4 B:f1 12. R:f1 N:e4 13. cb ab 14. Be3 N:c3 15. bc
Rc8 16. Kd2 (the only advantage for white is the king in the center) 16. ...
Kd7 and the endgame is clearly in Black’s favor.
Unfortunately, the opening phase of the game with Freiman has not
been preserved. But even there I had to struggle with great difficulties. The
first pancake is always a bit tricky.
But in general (from a practical point of view) in the championship I
played confidently, the rest before the tournament certainly affected my well.
The match with Flohr was coming up later, I was preparing two weeks for the
match in the rest house near Leningrad.
You can prepare for the match more thoroughly than to a tournament
because the opponent is one. I have systematized more than one hundred
games of Flohr, and made his creative characteristic.
Opening preparation was uncomplicated since the Flohr’s repertoire
was limited in area of openings. And in the Caro-Kann Defense: Panov
variation (1. е4 c5 2. d4 d5 3. ed cd 4. c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6) I prepared a new

14
move 6. Bg5. In the first game all went as ordered: 6. ... de 7. d5 Nе5 8. Qd4
Nd3 + 9. B:d3 cd.

And after 10. B:f6 ef 11. Q:d3 Bd6 Black got an equal position. It
was a hard blow for me, and the remaining games of the Moscow Match, I
played doubtfully.
The second half of the match was in Leningrad. A meeting was held
between Ragozin and Model. Ragozin (he had a very thin positional
understanding) convinced us that this variant is with advantage for white, we
just need to find a successful tactical solution. Here the analytical talent of
Model had said its word.
It was decided not to use the whole variation in the seventh game, but
to save it for the ninth game - at the finish of the match. And in the ninth
game followed:

10. Nf3 g6 11. B:f6 ef 12. 0-0 Qb6 13. Re1+ Nd8 14. Qh4! and black
faced insurmountable difficulties.
This was the first success of the emerging method. A lot of things
were concentrated here: physical preparation for the competition (rest),
consideration of the opponent’s psychology, study of his creative
characteristics, analysis of the shortcomings of his chess “weapon”, and
finally, connection of the opening ideas with the plans in the middlegame.
This leads to a favorable environment for the person who owns this
method and to the greatest difficulties for the partner. The basis of the method
was laid, but in order to master it completely, there was still a lot of work to

15
be done.

16
 FORMATION OF THE METHOD OF
PREPARATION (1934-1941)
The first test was in the ninth game of the match with Flohr. And
there were further successes - for example, in the game with R. Spielmann
(Moscow, 1935). After the game with Flohr, the master Reifirzh proposed a
move 6. ...Qb6 (after 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. ed cd 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5)
and published an extensive analysis where he argued that the move 6. Cg5
does not give White an advantage.
Grandmaster Spielmann believed in the analysis of the Czech master;
I was preparing for the tournament taking some fresh air near Leningrad, and
came to somewhat different conclusions. Six more moves were made - 7. cd
Q:b2 8. Rc1 Nb4 9. Na4 Q:a2 10. Bc4 Bg4 11. Nf3 B:f3 12. gf and Black
stopped resisting due to inevitable material losses. Yes, in the coming years,
the method was tested in the fire of tournament battles. And it was found that
deviations from the method invariably led to tournament failures.
So, in December 1934, without any preparation, I went to my first
international tournament - in Hastings. From Moscow to London, I travelled
by train (with five transfers!). In Hastings I arrived two hours before the start
of the game. In the end – such a failure at the beginning of the competition.
Three years later, there was a relative setback in the match with Levenfish.
And then the work on the Ph.D. thesis was a dubious preparation for the
match.
But the main task was to improve the analysis of opening systems and
the connection of the opening with the plan in the middlegame. It took
several years.
An important element in the solution of this problem was the training
games. But for this, it was necessary to find a talented partner who,
moreover, knows how to keep his mouth shut. My friend Slava Ragozin has
become such a partner for me.
During the preparation, you always had to take into account the
psychological factor. In this perspective, the curious story was associated
with the well-known variant of the English opening - 1. c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6
3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 ed 5. N:d4 Bb4 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bh4 B:c3+ 8. bc.

17
 Next, in the game my opponent, V. Nenaro-Cove (Leningrad, 1933)
could play
15. ... Ne5

Introducing the knight into the game with approximate equal position. After
the same 15. ... Bd7 16. f4! The knight from g6 was turned off from the
game and white got an advantage.
Next year in competition with the participation of M. Euwe (Leningrad,
1934) Levenfish decided to beat white with the same arms and in a game
with me applied the same system.

But I have not repeated the mistakes of Nenarokov and played 13. ... Ne5,
calmly turned the game in a draw which ensured the victory in the
tournament.
Six years later in the USSR championship (Moscow, 1940) in a game
with the same Levenfish, I met the same variant of English opening.

But here I was well prepared. Realizing that the essence of the
position is to control the central e5 square, I did not lose time on the

18
development of the pieces and immediately played 13. f4. All this carefully
was prepared in the quit cabinet environment. After 13. ... Qe7 14.Kf2,
Levenfish naturally played 14. ... Nf8 to transfer the knight on c5 is similar to
a maneuver, which I played at our game in 1934. But it followed unexpected
tactical strike 15. c5! And after 15. ... de 16.Bb5 + Nd7 17. Nf5 Qf6 18.
Rad1 White got the strong attack.
But we should not think that I was the first who was preparing for
competitions; sometimes these weapons were tested on me. The great A.
Alekhin was the master of preparation. I read with admiration his article in
the collection of games of the match tournament in New York (1927) - where
he told how he prepared for the match with Capablanca. I became convinced
of Alekhin's skill in 1936.
I studied the Sicilian game the monograph by A. Becker. With whom
successfully applied this Defense (Dragon variation) in the famous games
with V. Rauzer 1933. And in 1936 on the international tournament in
Moscow, Kan unexpected applied the move of P. Rabinovich.

10. g4
Here I did not find the strongest replay, and after 10. ...Na5 11. g5
Ne8 in case of 12. Bd4 - White could get an advantage. Naturally, in a later
game of the same tournament, Levenfish again applied the move of P.
Rabinovich against me. In this time I answered with a counterstrike in the
center, and after 10. ... d5 11. e5 d4 12. N:d4 N:d4 13. B:d4 N:g4 - Black
already had an advantage.
And now, a month later, in Nottingham, Alekhin used in the game
with me the same move of P. Rabinovich. Of course, I was wary, because I
understood that Alekhin had prepared some kind of game reinforcement.
And, indeed, after 10. ... d5 was followed by 11. f5 Bc8 12. ed Nb4 13. d6!
Unexpected and graceful blow. Now in case, 13. ...ed 14. g5 followed by f5-
f6, White get a lot of pressure. I had to think about it and, finally, salvation
was found: 13. ... Q:d6 14. Bc5 Qf4. The easiest way - with the sacrifice of

19
two knights, Black achieve a draw with a perpetual check: 15. Rf1 Qh2 16.
B: b4 N: g4 17.B: g4 Qg3+ 18. Rf2 Qg1+.
Starting with the Milner-Berry - Botvinnik game (Hastings, 1934/35),
I adopted the French Defense with variant 3. ... Bb4. This system leads to a
diverse and difficult fight in the middlegame. Therefore the one who well
studied this variation turns out to be in a good position. After 1. e4 e6 2. d4
d5 3. Kc3 Bb4. e5 c5 5. a3 B:c3+ 6. bc Ne7 white usually continued 7. Nf3.

In the USSR Championship (Leningrad, 1939) my opponents three

times (I. Rabinovich, S. Belacrown, I. Pogrebissky) tried to refuse Black
plans. Only I. Rabinovich because of my random slip managed to get a
promising game. But in the game with Pogrebysky, where 7. ... Nc6 8. Bd3
Qа5 9. Qd2 с4 10. Bе2 Qа4 (with I. Rabinovich I played weaker: 10. ... Bd7
and after 11. a4 White managed to activate their Queen's bishop), the error
was fixed: 11. 0-0 Bd7 12. Ng5 h6 13. Nh3 0-0-0 14. f4.

Typical mistake, f4 pawn restricts not only the Bishop on c1, but
also a knight on h3; Black take advantage of it. I should continue with 14.
Nf4. As already noted, Black game plans in the system varied. So, with I.
Rabinovich and Pogrebysky, Black castled long side, and in the game with
Belavenzthey castled short and made a good game. Later V. Smyslov joined
my opponents (Leningrad, 1941). With his characteristic swiftness, he began
an energetic attack by h2-h4-h5 followed by g2-g4. But here, Black also
got a promising game.
But I prepared an antidote against French Defense (for White) in the
variant:

20
 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2.
It was applied in two games with I. Boleslavsky (Leningrad-Moscow,
1941). Continuation was 3. ... с5 4. ed ed 5. Bb5 + Nе6 6.Nf3 Bd6 7. de
B:c5 8. 0-0 Nge7 9.Nb3 Bb6.

Here White made a very thin positional move 10.Be3. The struggle is
for the possession of a weak d4-square; so in White advantage is to exchange
dark-square bishops. In the first game after 10. ... B:e3 11. fe 0-0 12. Qd2
Qb6 13. a4 Bf5 - White did not get an advantage. The bottom line was that
instead of 11. fe I didn’t play 11.B:c6+, assuming that in this case after 11. ...
N:c6 12. Re1 d4 - Black get rid of the isolated central pawn. During the
game, I did not see 13. Nf:d4 with an extra pawn for White.
Of course, Boleslavsky liked his position in our first meeting. Great
was his disappointment when the second time followed: 11. B:c6 +! bc
(forced) 12. fe 0-0 13.Qd2 Qb6 14. QсЗ Rb8 15. Rab1 and instead of one
weak d4-square, Black got a complex of two weak squares - d4 and c5.
Much work has been done on Nimzowitsch Defense in variation 4. e3
(1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4). That is why I managed to succeed in the
famous games against Capablanca (AVRO tournament, 1938). I analyzed
Nimzowitsch Defense for Black, however, not always successfully. So, in the
game against V. Mikenas (Moscow, 1940) after 4. Qc2 d5 5.cd ed 6. Bg5 h6
(back in 1931, I continued in the game with P. Lebedev 6. ... c5 7. Nf3 cd 8.
N:d4 Qb6, but 6. ... h6, of course, more solid) 7. Bh4 c5.

Here Mikenas made the position sharper by playing 8. 0-0-0, and after
Black timid answers 8. ... 0-0, White got an advantage. Everyone believed

21
that Mikenas is essential to improve the game for White side in the game
Kotov-Botvinnik from the same championship was also 8. e3.
Soon this variant was tested in the game Belavenets -Simagin
(Moscow, 1941), where after 8. 0-0-0 was played 8. ...B:c3 (important
reinforcement) 9. Q:c3 g5 10. Bg3 Nе4 and White still got a good game.
The analysis has shown that Simagin’s idea is correct, only to avoid
the move 10. ... Nе4. Meanwhile, P. Keres in the game with me (Leningrad,
1941), being impressed by the success of White in games Mikenas -
Botvinnik and Belavenets - Simagin, carelessly made a long castling. Black
instead of 10. ... Ne4 opened the "c" file by 10. ... cd, and after 11. Q:d4 Nc6
12. Qa4 Bf5 received a strong attack.
In the late 30s, I drew attention to the game Sabo - Euwe (Hastings,
1938/39) and the Schelting - Grunfeld (1940), the Queen’s Gambit variation
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 de 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5
9. N: g5 hg 10. B:g5.

Preparing for a match tournament 1941, I dared to take this system

into service, and in one of the training games with Ragozin, we experienced
it. But in the match-tournament I failed to apply the prepared continuations
since opponents have heard of my analytic research. And only in the
championship of Moscow (1943) insufficiently experienced A. Zhivtsov
decided to find out what was prepared and quickly lost. It was the first game
played by this system, but far from the last one! My partners, having
familiarized themselves with the new procurement and based on the usual
positional representations, they considered this system incorrect and willingly
went in this variation, like ... moths on the light!
But let us give a training game with Ragozin (1941), where for the
first time the variant was tested at the board:

22
 10. ... Nd7 11. ef Bb7 12. Be2 Qb6 13. 0-0 0-0-0 14. h4 . Only
contributes to the attack on the White king. 14. ... Bh6 15. а4 B: g5 16. hg b4
17. Nе4 с5 18. а5 Qc7 19. Ng3 Nе5 20. ab Bc6 21. Qc1 R:d4 22. Rdh4 and
Black won by a direct attack on the king.
This opening system made it possible to take an important new step in
preparation for the competition. I often played with Black 1. ... e6 (in
response to d4), after which my opponents, depending on the circumstances,
had a choice: to switch to the French or Dutch, to the Meran variant or to the
system just reviewed (by the game with Ragozin), or, finally, to the
Nimzowitsch Defense.
My opponents from the very first move were supposed to be involved
in a tense struggle over the board. For all these openings, I had updated
systems supported by painstaking analyses and tested in training games with
Ragozin. Before these games, I did not inform my friend about the prepared
analyses, but only gave the initial position. This was necessary in order to test
on the partner the effect of shock or surprise that my opponents would
experience in the tournament. And only after the training game we analyzed
together. On the way, of course, were checked the inclination to time troubles
and endurance, and the habit for tobacco smoke, noise effects etc
S. Furman was well acquainted with this system of training (he was
her follower). We played training games with him at the end of the 50s.
Indeed, chess is immense, you will not analyze everything. But the master,
not knowing where the danger awaits him, as a rule, meets the greatest
danger...
So, the preparation method has been completed. In match tournament
(Leningrad - Moscow, 1941) it got its real birth.

23
Mikhail Botvinnik. Approximately 1930

24
 THE TRIUMPH OF THE METHOD
(1942-1948)
In 1941, the Soviet Union was subjected to a Hitler invasion. The
country was in a critical situation, and, of course, there was no time for chess.
And yet, when I went with my family to the Urals evacuation, I took with me
a chessboard, chess clock and some books, including match tournament
bulletins (Leningrad - Moscow, 1941).
In order not to lose the art of analysis, in the evenings (after work),
sitting on the bed and at the table (a family of 6 people lived in one small
room), I analyzed match tournament. Work continued for several months.
When the book was published in 1947, it became clear that it was my best
analytical work.
After the victory at Stalingrad, began the restoration Soviet chess life.
In the spring of 1943 was held two-round masters tournament in Sverdlovsk.
Perm authorities approved my request (in accordance with the method of
preparation) and provided the opportunity during two weeks to prepare for
the tournament outside the city.
All this time I devoted to the analysis of a variant from the game
Boleslavsky - Ragozin (1940): 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5.
O-O N:e4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. d:e5 Be6 9. c3 Bc5 10. Nbd2 O-O 11. Bc2
f5 12. Nb3 Bb6 13. Nbd4 N:d4 14. N:d4 B:d4 15. c:d4 f4 16. f3 Ng3 17.
h:g3 f:g3 18. Qd3 Bf5 19. Q:f5 R:f5 20. B:f5 Qh4 21. Bh3 Q:d3 22. Kh1
Q:e5 23. Bd2 c5 24. Rae1 Q:b2 25. Bf4 …

25. ... d4 26. B:g3 d3 27. Be5 Q:a2 28. Bd6 Qb2 29. Be6 + Kh8 30. Be5
Qd2 31. f4 c4 32. f5 and I got a clear advantage. In the future, he could mate
me in two moves, but he did not notice this...
It was the only game in the tournament where I was close of losing. In
a fantastic endgame - four connected passed pawns against two bishops. I
was lucky to exchange these pawns for Bishops and to draw the game! So in

25
the analysis (in preparation), I failed; but in other games of old prepared
systems (French, Meran variant, etc.) contributed to the tournament success.
The same was confirmed in the Moscow Championship (1943—
1944), where I played as a Permian, out of the competition. I was preparing
new continuation in the same open variant of Spanish game with 9. ... Bc5. I
analyzed the move 11. ... N:f2 in accordance with recommendations
published in the "Chess" magazine.

For Smyslov, this move was unexpected. But, he possesses an

amazing analytical skill and during the game, he completely outplayed me;
this was my only defeat in the tournament.
However in other games, the previously prepared systems gave
results, and in the game with A. Zhivtsov for the first time in my tournament
practice, I met well-prepared "Botvinnik system", proven in a training game
with Ragozin two years ago (see the chapter “THE BORN OF THE
METHOD OF PREPARATION”). Instead of developing a Bishop on e2
followed by a short castling, Zhivtsov played 11. Qf3 and castled to the long
side.

Yes, the surprise affected my partner and in a new situation he did not
understand what was going on the board. After the obvious 14. ... Qа5 15.
Kb1 Nb6 16. h4 b4 17. Ne4 с5 18. 13 cЗ! 19. Bе2 Bd5 20. аЗ Nа4 and the
game was finished by a direct attack on the king.
In the remaining games of the tournament, the prepared systems also
provided an advantage. The war came to an end and since 1944, USSR
resumed Championships. In the next championship, an attack began in

26
"Botvinnik system". Lilienthal made a new move 11. g3, for which I was
unprepared and therefore fell into a difficult situation.

In the same way, Mikenas tried to refute this opening system. And I
also had a hard time. However, both of my partners are entangled in
complications. This, apparently, scared other masters, and for a while,
"Botvinnik system" was left alone. Others openings (French, Grunfeld
Defense, Nimzowitsch Defense, Spanish game) brought already in opening
difficulties for my partners.
Needless to say that before each championship was a special
preparation for new partners, preparing both opening systems and plans in the
middlegame; training sessions were held with V. Ragozin, and all this was
outside the city, in the fresh air, which contributed to good physical
condition.
In the radio match of the USSR - the USA (1945) my partner A.
Denker tried the "Botvinnik system." Amazing how until the move 14,
Denker "copied" Ragozin's game in the training season of 1941. The game
which he, naturally, did not see!

Followed 14. a4 b4! 15. Nе4 с5 16. Qb1 Qс7 17. Ng3 cd 18.B:c4
Qc6 19. f3 d3!! And Black’s attack is irresistible. Curious that open Black
king is untouchable and covered with pawns White king is unsafe.
In the future, the theory of "Botvinnik system" grew. Instead of move
9. N:g5 Ragozin put into practice 9. ef. D. Bronstein imitated him in a game
with me (USSR Championship, Moscow, 1951), but did not succeed. In
1954, V. Smyslov preferred variation 9. N:g5 hg 10. B:g5 Nbd7 11. ef Bb7

27
12. g3 Qb6 13. Bg2 0-0-0 14. 0-0 Ne5 15. Qe2, and the game ended in a
draw. It was subsequently proven that the queen sacrifice: 15. de Rd1 16.
Rf:d1 promises a good prospects for White, and the Botvinnik system was
out of fashion.
But a miracle happened: V. Kramnik and A. Shirov in our days took
the "Botvinnik system" into service, and not without success!
In 1946, V. Smyslov proposed a new system in the Grunfeld Defense
- 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3 dc 6. Q:c4 0-0 7. e4 Bg4.

In the game Botvinnik - Smyslov (Groningen, 1946) followed 8. Be3

Ne6, and White after 9. d5 got a clear advantage. However, a year and a half
later (The Hague, 1948) V. Smyslov strengthened the black game by 8.
...Nfd7! and achieved equal play.
To our rematch with Smyslov (Moscow, 1958) I prepared a
continuation 9. Be2 Nc6 10.Rd1 Nb6 11. Qc5 Qd6 12. h3 B:f3 13. gf Rfd8
14. d5 Ne5 15.Nb5 Qf6 16. f4 Ned7 17. e5 and was sure that it was in White
favor.

However, Smyslov peculiarly prepared for the match with me: he

avoided opening systems where I could prepare strong continuation, - so I did
not succeed in refuting the Smyslov variation in a rematch.
But at the Olympics in Golden Sands (1962) R. Fisher without
hesitation "went" to my analysis (see the last position), and played 17. ...
Q:f4, after which White won a pawn. True White has maintained a good
position, but I was so upset by my bad analysis and got into a lost position. In
1939, I researched one branch of Meranian variation: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3

28
Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nc3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 d:c4 7. B:c4 b5 8. Bd3 a6 9. e4 c5 10. e5
c:d4 11. N:b5 a:b5 12. e:f6 Qb6 (look at the position) 13. f:g7 B:g7 14. O-O
…

14. O-O …
Here I found the right plan for White in the middlegame - to take
control of central square e5, to exchange the light pieces, then Black can
castling on kingside or queenside, in both cases White will have a dangerous
attack. As always, I did not tell Ragozin about this plan before our training
session; he found a witty continuation 14. ... Ba6 15. b4! (Turning off from
the game the bishop on a6 and the knight on d7) 15. ... 0-0 16. Re1 Bb7 17.
Bf4 f5 18. a4! (Activating the bishop on d3) 18. ... ba 19. Bc4 Bd5 20. B: d5
ed 21. Re7 Rf7 22. R: f7 K: f7 23. QаЗ, and White's attack is irresistible.
This prepared plan in the variant with move 12. ... Qb6 remained in
reserve for 9 years, and finally, in 1948 in Moscow (World Championship
match-tournament) Max Euwe decided to try the fate: 13. fg B: g7 14. 0-0
Nc5 (dangerous move, because Black weaken control over the central e5-
square) 15. Bf4 Bb7 16. Re1 Rad8 17. Rc1 Rd5 18. Be5! B: e5 19. R: e5 R:
e5 20. N: e5 N: d3 21.Q: d3 f6 22. Qg3! fe 23. Qg7 Rf8 24. Rc7 and White
won. So, I managed to play my best game in this tournament.
We give another example of home analysis. In the game Botvinnik -
Keres (Leningrad, 1941) was the famous variant of the Queen’s Gambit
Accepted, a favorite at the time of A. Rubinstein. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 de 3. Nf3 ab
4. e3 Nf6 5. B:c4 e6 6. a4 c5 7. 0-0 Nc6 8. Qe2 Be7

Here I continued 9. Rd1 Qc7 10. h3, but received no advantage. Five

29
years later in a game with Euwe (Groningen, 1946) I continued 10. Nc3 0-0
11. b3, and also Black achieved an equal game. Subsequently, I came to the
conclusion that stronger is: 9. de, and in case 9. ... Ne4 10. Rd1 Qc7 11. Nd4
B: c5 12. B:c6 bc (12. ... Q:c6 13. Bb5 ab 14. ab R:a1 15. be R:b1 16. b4
R:b4 17. Ba3) 13. b4 - White has an initiative.
But when I went to this continuation, my partners avoided the move
9. ... Ne4. So did T. Petrosian - in the 8th game of our match (Moscow,
1963). He continued 9. ... B:c5 and got into a difficult position because of
another prepared plan: 10. e4 Ng4 11. e5 Nd4 12. N:d4 Q:d4 13. Na3!
However, after 20 years from our game with Petrosian, I proved that
in variant 9. ... Ne4 10. Rd1 Qc7 11. Nd4 N:c5 12. N:c6 Q:c6 13. Bb5 ab
14. ab R:а1 15. be R:b1 16. b4 R:b4 17. Ba3 Black with a prosaic move 17.
... Rb6 retain a material advantage and the whole analysis turns out to be
doubtful.
Yes, sometimes it happened. My partners feared about my analyses
when they could not be afraid. And in conclusion - another example on the
same topic - from exchange variation of the Slav Defense 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3.
cd cd 4. Nc3 Nf6. Nf3 Nc6 6. Bf4 Bf5 7. e3 e6 8. Bb5.

This system was prepared by me in 1947. But in the games of the last
round (Moscow, 1947) with P. Trifunovich, when I have already secured a
victory in the tournament, I made a standard move 8. QbЗ, trying not give
out secrets and quickly achieved a draw. But then, many years later, in the
11th game of the rematch with M. Tal (Moscow, 1961) after 8. ... Bh4 9. Ne5
Qa5 10. B: c6+ bc 11. 0-0 B: c3 12. bc Q: c3 13. Qc1! and Black had worse
endgame.
Five years later (Amsterdam, 1966) A. Pomar tried to improve Tal's
game: instead of 12. ... Q:c3 he played 12. ... Rc8, but after 13. c4! 0-0 14.
g4! Bg6 15. c5 White advantage is obvious. However, later it was proved that
after 8. ... Nd7 9. Qа4 Rc8 10. B: c6 R: c6 11. Q: a7 Qc8 Black get a
dangerous initiative.

30
31
 Botvinnik and Kasparov
It would be a mistake to think that this method was used only by me.
In general, the method was published in 1939. Each master used this method
to the best of his abilities, but there were masters of great talent who applied
this method with great skill. First of all, the names of I. Boleslavsky and E.
Geller should be mentioned. Then you can ask why they did not become the
world champion?
The strength of a chess player is determined by four factors: talent,
character, health, and training. Boleslavsky clearly had health problems,
and his character was peaceful. Geller? He was let down by his own character
that was quite militant, but Geller could not fight with his penchant for
Epicureanism. Apparently, to become a world champion, it is useful to be a
little flexible. Perhaps, of all the world champions that came after me, this
method of preparing, G. Kasparov mastered the best.

Kasparov and Botvinnik[1]

“The scientific approach allowed Botvinnik to create an
unprecedented system of preparation for events, involving fundamental work
on the opening, the systematic study of the styles of his opponents
(psychological approach) and analysis of his own games.
This art of preparation with the efforts of Kasparov himself resulted
in a genuine breakthrough. His aggressive style, position understanding,
natural talent, hardworking and youth were decisive factors that allow him

32
to develop Botvinnik’s method on the new level. “

In those years, when the method of preparation was created and

operated, there were no computers where information could be stored. My
entire reference library consisted of large shared notebooks and small
notebooks. In a notebook, I pasted the texts of the initial stage of the game
(before the 20th move), according to the openings that I was interested in - if
there was anything new there. All this was systematized in the openings, and
the same type of variations I stroked with a colored pencil. Therefore, to
navigate in such a library was easy.
In preparation for the competition, the material for analysis has
already been collected, and the results of the analysis were attached to what
was analyzed earlier. And my whole personal theory began to be entered into
a small notebook that easily fit in my pocket and travelled with me to
competitions. Maybe this method was better than interacting with a
computer!
I think that with the advent of computers, the considered method of
preparation has somewhat dimmed. Now chess art is going through hard
times. But the day will come when everything will return to normal, and then
this method will be paid tribute again.

33
 JUNIOR SCHOOL OF CHESS
Easier was to work on the method of preparation for the competition
than on a lessons for young chess players. In the first case, I dealt with my
nature; in the second - we had to deal with the organizers, coaches, parents
who often had their own group interests and made problems.
But it all started not with juniors. In the mid-1930s, the House of
Scientists in Lesnoy was organized by the former Polytechnic Institute (in
Leningrad, now Saint-Petersburg). It was located in a separate mansion in the
park of the institute; there you could have a good time, a tasty meal at a
restaurant, and also to play chess. Friends from polytechnic asked me to
conduct classes with them.
I quickly realized that I was not satisfied with this. My "disciples"
were adult chess players with low qualification.
Then I was persuaded to conduct similar classes in the House of
Scientists, which was located on the Neva Embankment in the Grand-Ducal
Palace. The house was very cozy, and, as I recall, classes were held in the
"Don Quixote room" (there was a metal sculpture of the hero of Cervantes).
This time, the students were more qualified chess players, but still - adults ...
I only remember that I did not give them a course on the theory of openings,
the middle game or endgame, but I tried with them an independent analytical
work. For formed chess players, this was a difficult task.
And so, at the end of the 30s, the city authorities of Leningrad decided
to transfer the pioneers (the so-called organization of schoolchildren) in
Anichkov Palace, located on Nevsky Prospect. The Council of Assistance to
the Palace of Pioneers was formed, which included prominent representatives
of science, culture, art, and literature - I was among them, and I was assigned
to take care of the chess club.
This club was given the office of Tsar Alexander III, as well as a
small adjacent room, the walls of which were decorated with Karelian birch.
It was in this room that I had to conduct classes with young chess players
every Sunday of 1940–41. The composition of the school was quite strong:
Taimanov, Anufriev, Steinsapir and others.
Here I was groping for chess education, but the basic principle

34
remained the same - to teach pupils to self-analysis. Everyone got an
individual task. To perform the task, it was necessary to analyze. Listeners,
standing at the demonstration board, reported work on the task and subjected
to severe criticism by other players in the club. Each could test his ability in
the art of analyze. From December 1940 I began preparing for the title match
tournament of absolute champion of the USSR. And here I cheated: my
openings schemes were given to students for analysis (without, of course,
disclosing harvested secrets). By analysis and perception, these young chess
players could guess that will be the reaction to these opening variants from
my future opponents (Keres, Smyslov, Boleslavsky, Lilienthal, and
Bondarevskogo). As a result, I managed to accumulate good analytical
luggage.
Shortly after the match, the war began, and the school was closed.
After two decades in 1963, G. Ravinsky in the Central Chess Club on Gogol
Boulevard in Moscow suggested me to conduct classes with the strongest
young players. We pay tribute to Master Ravinsky - he gathered a brilliant
group: Karpov, Balashov, Razuvayev, Rashkovsky, Timoschenko. Dubinsky,
Zlotnik.
The method of study was about the same as in the Palace of Pioneers
in Leningrad. The only change was we met every Sunday, then this time we
met once in three or four months - after all, Karpov and Rashkovsky lived in
Ural and Balashov and Timoschenko in Siberia.
Young chess players demonstrated their games, commented on them
and criticized them, and to check their progress, they participated in a game
session with a clock. I remember two games: how lucky I was to make a
draw against 12-year-old Karpov (there was a material advantage on his side)
and how I had to capitulate to 14-year-old Balashov, who brilliantly attacked
the black king in the Grunfeld Defense.
We trained for a year and a half. All students were from Russia, and
the school was from the USSR Chess Federation. The Russian Chess
Federation was dissatisfied with this, and organized its own school, that my
students did not have the opportunity to continue their studies at the All-
Union school.
And only in 1969 my friend master G. Goldberg proposed to resume
the school within the framework of the Russian trade union sports society
"Trud". Goldberg was a power-loving person; he removed me from the
recruitment of students and included in the school pupils according to the

35
principle of “as numerous and as cheap as possible”. As a result, the school
did not bring the best result of its ability. But gradually the weak students
dropped out, new ones came, and the school methodology was finally
determined.

1. To accept in school boys and girls about 11 years old.

Qualifications, as a rule, are candidates for masters. Sufficient
success in a comprehensive school was also required. Each applicant
sent a list of his tournament successes and four games played in the
last tournaments (two with white, two with black; two won, one
draw and one lost). Only after that, a preliminary decision was made
to enroll in school.

2. In addition, a petition from a local chess organization was

required. She directed the student and his coach (sometimes the
coach was replaced by one of the parents) for a ten-day school
session, which took place two or three times a year. Pupils and
coaches during the session enjoyed full hospitality.

3. The number of boys in school was up to ten; girls - up to three.

The qualifications of the boys, if possible, were the same. If
someone was weak, it had a negative effect on the quality of classes.
There were no such strict requirements for girls.

4. We all worked together. At the end of the lesson, each student

received an individual task, and at the next one, he stood at the
demonstration board. In addition, he commented on his four played
games.

5. The main purpose of the classes was to penetrate into the chess
soul of the student. Since the commented parties could not
contribute to this completely, during the lesson the audience was
divided into two teams. The team meeting held two rounds game.
These games were very important. They were also commented by
students, but here you don’t have to pick up the games specifically,
and you can see how the chess player leads himself during the game:
how he is focused, how he manages time if he is correct enough,

36
 whether he is talkative ...

6. Now it was possible to finally make a "diagnosis" and give

recommendations - how to get rid of the shortcomings and develop
the strength of the game. There was also a correspondence game
with students between sessions.

That is the whole method of work.

Usually, classes were held in rest homes in Dubna, Podolsk, and

Novogorsk (near Moscow), in a pioneer camp “Eaglet” (near Tuapse) on the
Black Sea coast. Guys not only with enthusiasm engaged in chess but also
physical-culture strengthened health. There was also creative discipline. With
time talented masters and grandmasters appeared. I can mention G. Kasparov,
A. Yusupov, S. Dolmatov, A. Sokolov, J. Elvest, E. Rosentalis, A. Nenashev,
A. Kharitonov, S. Ionov, and among the girls N. Ioseliani, E.
Akhmylovskaya, A. Akhsharumova, L. Zaitsev ...
As an example of an independent analytical work of students, one
characteristic episode can be mentioned. In his books "60 memorable games",
R. Fisher tried to refute my analysis of our rook ending with him (Olympiad,
Varna 1962). A few years later, I published a new analysis (but rather a
complex one) that questioned Fisher's refutation. However, there was a
feeling that the truth has not yet been found. So I suggested to the students to
check these analyses in 1976.

A letter had come from Baku after 2 weeks. The 13-year-old Garik
Kasparov pointed the simple but elegant way to draw, completely refuted
Fisher's analysis. Here Fisher offered 67. Qf8+ Ka2 and came to the
conclusion is that the "white king cannot find shelter from the hail of deadly
checks". However, the clever Garik found the move 67. Rc4 !! And after 67.
... Rb3+ 68. Rc3 Qe1+ 69. Kd3 Qf1+ 70. Kd2! (not 70. Ke3 Qh3+!) 70. ...
Q:f2+ 71. Kd3 and in the queen (or pawn) endgame, White easily make a

37
draw.
But this school was doomed. When my chess players "grew up", they
won the right to represent the Soviet Chess Federation in international
competitions. And the question arose: with which coaches to send them? It
was a crucial moment. Each of our students had their own local trainer (who
came to the session with him), who from an early age taught him wits (theory
of principles, middle game and endgame). The coach knew his ward well and
was a true friend. I have always supported such trainers, I have never been a
“competitor” to them; believed that only when a student at a competition is
accompanied by his regular coach, one can hope for a successful result. But
the USSR Chess Federation had a different opinion. It had its own coaches
"on-duty" to accompany young chess players on the international
competitions. It led to the failure of my students. Therefore (in 1978) I
refused to lead the school.

Kasparov and Botvinnik (B. Aterman in the middle)[2]

Years passed, Kasparov became the world champion. I had a hope of
continuing the school; I myself have already found it difficult to conduct
classes, both by age and by sight, and only because I have not played chess
for fifteen years. But can I give this school to a new champion? After all, our
methodology Kasparov knew as well as I did! We quickly reached agreement
with Kasparov on this subject, and in March 1986 the first session of the
school was held in the Pestovo rest hause (near Moscow). Igor Botvinnik
became the organizing coach. With it, recruitment of new listeners was
provided: V. Akopyan (Yerevan), B. Alterman (Kharkov), G. Serper
(Tashkent), M. Oratovsky (Tiraspol), K. Sakaev (Leningrad), A. Shirov
(Riga) , S. Tivyakov (Krasnodar),V. Kramnik (Tuapse), A. Sofiyev (Baku),
K. Landa (Omsk), A. Iashvili (Tbilisi), V. Belikov (Voronezh) ... I. Botvinnik
steadily followed the performance of both chess and all-sports methods of the

38
school.
To what was used earlier, were added sessions with the clocks against
the world champion. Which, of course, was quite important. I participated in
five sessions, the last one - in March 1988. And I decided that I had enough.
Next, I let the school led by the champion. Unfortunately, soon Kasparov also
left the school, and my hopes were not justified.

[3]
But back in June 1988, at the request of B. Koka, I held a special
session for Master I. Piket (Netherlands). Again, I. Botvinnik was my
assistant, and A. Shirov was invited as the second coach - even then I was
very respectful of his talent and knowledge. Grandmaster G. Sosonko
(Amsterdam) also participated in the session. Besides, during the session,
Shirov was a sparring partner of Piket. The result of our ten-day classes was
the "diagnosis" and "treatment" recorded in the workbook of the session (in
Russian). It was translated into English and delivered to Picket, but the
English text was not recorded in the notebook.
Six years have passed since then, and now Grandmaster Piket is the
second chess player of the Netherlands. We give the text of what was written
in the workbook.

39
 Diagnosis:
1. Picket tends to open (semi-open) active game. He puts the game
well. The modern theory - according to "Informator", "Encyclopedia", "New
in Chess" - knows, but does not know the history, the old games, the old
analyses, and this makes it difficult to draw up plans in the middle game.
2. He sees his tactics well, but does not see well opponent’s tactics. In
complications, the depth variants are not counted, but he plays by instinct.
3. In the endgame he plays uncertainly, he is not familiar with typical
endings.
4. He drops in time trouble, the reason is that the midgame plan is
poorly prepared.
5. Too many tournaments, he does not have time to analyze his own
game. Therefore, there is practically no opportunity and time to prepare for
the competition.
6. There is no doubt that he is a talent. He can look to the future with
hope.
Treatment:
1. To study the endgame on the games of Rubinstein, Botvinnik,
Fayn's book "Basic Chess Endings".
2. To develop the count skill on games of Alekhin, Tal, Fisher,
Kasparov.
3. To solve chess studies[4] - for the development of the count ability
and objectivity.
4. To eliminate time-trouble:
a) To play training games, paying attention only on the time.
b) Trying to make the first 15 moves in a game in 30 minutes - this
requires good preparation in the opening and connection with plans of the
middlegame.
5. Trying to play less, to have time for homework.
6. Have a strict daily routine (including doing morning exercises).
From this record, in the workbook, you can understand the method
that was used in school classes. Apparently, these studies were able to benefit
- hardly the first three prize winners in Linares 94 at various times engaged in
the school.

40
 [5]
The famous game Botvinnik - Fisher (Varna, 1962)
So now there is no school, but will it be again? Now the method is
published and in sufficient detail. It is only a matter of finding a strong chess
player with good positional and tactical understanding, be able to penetrate
the youthful chess soul, having pedagogical talent. If there is such a school, it
could act.

41
 THE DESTINY OF CHESS
Chess is an ancient game. For a long time, chess was the usual
"board" game, like cards. People played to enjoy the excitement of struggle,
and indeed the excitement of winning. It is no coincidence that the Catholic
Church forbade a chess game as well as a card game. Yes, here was not the
mass distribution of chess; the privileged strata of society played chess, the
people who looked at chess as entertainment. They did not give their soul to
chess.
So, for a long time, chess remained a “simple game” - but the essence
of chess, their logical beauty remained unknown. We will not belittle the role
of the East (apparently India) in the birth of chess, as well as the Arabs, who
together with the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula brought the chess game to
Europe. But, of course, Europe has played a decisive role in the knowledge of
chess, as in other areas of culture; Changes in the fate of chess, apparently,
were associated with the Renaissance.
We note, first of all, that several centuries ago the rules of a chess
game were firmly established, and this allowed us to start a serious study of
the game. But there were a few strong chess players just as competitions
were. And only in the 17th century, the algorithm of the chess game was
mastered and began to be worked out.
V. Smyslov and M. Botvinnik several years ago received the
Gioachino Greco Award ("Life for the sake of chess") in Rome; it was a very
honorable prize. Greco was the first strong chess player who really began to
learn the game of chess. He discovered the logical beauty of the sacrificial
combination, but, of course, could not hold combinations in each game,
because the game is the product of the struggle of two individuals. And then
Greco began to make elegant combination games in order to sell them to the
rich chess players. The demand was high, Greco earned well and, apparently,
became the first professional among chess masters.
Chess became more popular. Commoners began to play chess. And
after a century, the next step was taken in the knowledge of the game;
Francois Philidor established that "pawns are the soul of chess." Translated
into modern language, this means that pawns determine the position

42
structure. This laid the foundation for the positional struggle.
Competitions, as well as chess players, became more and more. Note
the first ever international tournament in London in 1851. And soon the star
of Paul Morphy rose; He demonstrated how the general principles of
positional struggle can be used in open positions. Morphy combinations are
logically derived from general principles.
And after 2-3 decades, Wilhelm Steinitz combined all this in his
principles of positional play in closed positions. It is characteristic that in the
first match of the world championship (1886) Steinitz initially lost to
Johannes Zukertort with a score of 1: 4 - while he chose an open game in the
style of his opponent. In the next 15 games, Steinitz was aiming for a close
game, and Zukertort was helpless; in these games, the score was 9: 1 (with
five draws) in favor of Steinitz. The chess master algorithm has been formed.
Since then, over the course of a century, this algorithm has undergone
changes, improved, but basically remained the same. And when chess
masters play at the board, then most likely, they compete as well as their
algorithms.
Chess has two sides - game and logic. What is the main one? Of
course, their logical beauty. It was chess, who ensured popularity, it was this
game who won the minds and hearts of chess lovers. Otherwise, chess would
not be different from other games. The game side of chess forces the master
to gain insight into their depth in order to achieve victory. But the game side
also provides the masters with the earnings, makes them professionals, and
makes it possible to devote their lives to chess.
Although ordinary people play chess, as soon as they become masters
in their field, they become intellectuals. Yes, chess is associated with
intellectual work, with books, magazines, lectures ... And in chess literature is
displayed logical beauty of the game. Here is the end of the game
Bogolyubov- Capablanca (New York, 1924).

After 31. ... N:d4! 32. cd R8:c5! White have stopped resistance in case of

43
33. de (33. R:e6 fe 34. Q:e6+ Qf7) Q:c5+ with inevitable material losses. In
this example, intertwined and sacrificial combinations and forklift attacks.
All this has an imprint Capablanca's elegant style of play which did not have
separate moves - all moves were closely related.
But not all masters gave their soul to chess; some played chess only to
earn money -they were no longer professionals, but artisans ... And these two
trends in chess have coexisted peacefully for decades. It went so until the
Soviet period of chess development.
But then came the October Revolution in Russia. We will not relate to
the political, ideological and economic consequences. But chess gave the
opportunity to illiterate people to join education and culture - dramatic
changes took place in chess life. Since chess is a cheap and generally
accessible part of the culture, the younger generation quickly became chess
lovers; it happened in the early 20s, as soon as the civil war was gone, as well
as famine and devastation. The support of the state and trade unions also
played a significant role, for the first time in the history of chess.
It takes about 10-15 years to educate a chess fighter, and by the end of
the 30s, a new generation of young masters appeared. Soviet people at that
time had little contact with the outside world. Strangely enough, this had a
positive effect on the achievements of the Soviet masters. Their earnings
were modest - from lectures, simultaneous play sessions, literary work (there
were almost no prizes). But competitions and preparations for them were
provided by the state and the trade unions. The young Soviet masters had no
choice but to study chess deeply and be excited about the tournament
struggle. It then took place the formation of the method of preparation, which
ensured for many decades the leading role of Soviet masters in the chess
world.
Yes, not only the growth of a chess player takes time, but the loss of
the strength with the age is slowed down. And now, although all these are a
thing of the past, little has changed on the chess Olympus. Recall that at the
last tournament in Linares (In 1994). Only the young J. Lautier (who studied
Russian and spoke with his colleagues from Russia) was able to join the first
five winners - the Soviet grandmasters.
But let's not close our eyes to the fact that the strongest chess players
of the world in creative terms are not the same as they were before. They are
no longer so professional, for them, chess is not the main thing. The main
thing for them is to make money. Therefore, they play in tournaments of any

44
kind, if only the “starting prizes money” would be bigger. They are no longer
engaged in commenting games, do not publish analyses and books (this is
unprofitable). Their game already has an imprint of handicraft. Chess life fell
apart not only in the former Soviet Union. It disintegrates on a global scale.
Tournaments with serious regulations are hardly ever held - Linares is just an
exception. They play “active” chess, when limited time is given for the whole
game - creative achievements in the endgame are no longer possible here;
with such regulations, young masters cannot learn to play the endgame.
And sometimes active chess is unacceptably accelerated! This is the
profanation of the creative side of the game. It refers to the fact that different
sponsors will not fund the competition, and such tournaments still contribute
to the popularity of chess. Contribute, but only among those who do not play
chess, and the number of genuine chess lovers will inevitably decrease.
Unfortunately, both FIDE and leading chess players hardly
understand where chess is going, on the contrary, they contribute to this
process. Characteristically in this regard was the performance of one
outstanding chess player (fool around his name) at the Congress of Russian
chess players (March 18, 1993, in Protvino, near Moscow). “Now,” he said,
“everything is decided by money, also in chess.” And, turning to me, he
continued: “Of course, Mikhail Moiseevich hurts it all to hear ...” The hall
froze. “Come on”, - that was the answer, - “I listen with pleasure”. The hall
has laughed and there were more than a hundred of Congress delegates.
Not for the first year, the Soviet chess school was attacked. The
"critics" are especially indignant that Soviet chess had state support.
Therefore, state leaders did this for political purposes. So, with similar
charges made two years ago, the weekly The Economist (London). On
September 1, 1993, the BBC television broadcast the film Red Squares,
where it was argued that Soviet chess and the KGB are inseparable, and the
Russian media (television, "Chess Herald", "64", etc.) try to "keep up". In this
regard, it is appropriate to recall the letter published by R. Wade in the British
magazine "Chess", where a few decades ago he expressed the opinion that
those governments that support chess should not be condemned. We also note
that in this anti-chess campaign, its ideologists themselves pursue transparent
political goals!
So, is the situation hopeless? No, there is hope for better times. In
1944, the twenty-eight-year-old mathematician Claude Shannon became
acquainted with a chess game. And he was amazed at its complexity and

45
logical beauty. When, a few years later, the future member of the US
National Academy of Sciences became interested in the problem of solving
the multiple problems, he decided to find a solution method using computer
chess programs to solve the problem of constructing and analyzing the
variants tree.
And mathematicians have been working on this problem for decades -
it seems that it will be solved (although it is not known when); the method of
solving multiple problems will be found, and along the way, a computer will
understand chess at the human level. Since a computer has immeasurably
greater resources than a person, an artificial chess player will be able to
surpass a human chess player. And when this happens, the computer will not
play either active chess or blitz, it will play real serious chess, demonstrating
their depth, their topical beauty - for this reason artificial chess player was
created. What will grandmasters do? They will have to compete with worthy
opponents - computers and return to serious chess. Apparently, that is the
hope of a turn for the better fate of chess. And maybe our goddess Kaissa will
help restore order in the chess world.

Botvinnik and S. Reshevsky at the Manhattan Chess Club

(New York, 1983).

46
 THE BOTVINNIK’S NOTEBOOK
For the first time about the preparation of the chess master Mikhail
Botvinnik thought in Teberda in 1933 - while preparing for the championship
USSR. Botvinnik Notebooks show which way passed the training method,
which essentially became the basis of the Soviet chess school. In 1994, in a
series of articles, Botvinnik last talked about this method. What is stored in
notebooks is a kind of method technology.
So, let’s look at the first notebook. Here is the preparation for the
match with Flohr (1933), the masters' tournament with the participation of
Euwe (1934), the tournament in Hastings (1934/35).
All of Flohr’s games of the last three years are analyzed (103 in
total). In each game is devoted one line for: partner’s last name, color,
opening, and result. In the game with Marotti, the remark was- Flohr's rook
endgame was well. That shows the opening statistics of the Flohr games.
Mikhail Moiseevich believed that the master should have his own
opening theory. At school in the second half of the 80s, he admonished the
young: “You can avoid what everyone knows, try to know what everyone
does not know”.
He gave advice tested by himself - when he prepared in Caro-Kann
Defense in the match with Flohr was born the Botvinnik system. Here are the
analyses recorded in the notebook:
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e:d5 c:d5 4. c4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Nf3
Be7 8. c5±; 6. … d:c4 7. d5 Na5 8. b4! ±; 7. … Ne5 8. Qd4 Nd3 +9. B:d3
c:d3 10. B:f6! e:f6 11. Q:d3 ±.
The system has undergone reconstruction during the match, in the ninth
game, in the last variant, the move 10. Nf3! g6, and then 11. B:f6 ef 12. 0-0
Qb6 13. Rfe1+ Kd8 14. Qh4.
Noticed in the French Defense is very short: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nbd2 =?
3. Nc3 - everything is clear. Immediately note: find out if the Raiser French
variation is not refuted by the Model's game method.
An analysis was also prepared in the Queen's Gambit Accepted:
1. d4 d5 2. c4 d:c4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. B:c4 c5 6. O-O-O Nc6 7.
Qe2 a6 8. Rd1 b5 9. d:c5 Qc7 10. Bd3 B:c5 11. a4 b:a4 12. R:a4 ±.

47
An opening action plan was developed:
Me – white.
1. d4 Start with d4.
2. e4 Take advantage
3. c4 To force e4, after to play for a win (с6)
4. d4/e4 In 3 or 4 game to go e4.
5. c4
6. d4.
The numbering refers to the six white parties of the game. But Botvinnik
played the first game 1. e4.
Me – black on d4.
1. Krause attack
2. Grunfeld Defense
3. Dutch Defense Bb4 or Be7 and Ilyin-Zhenevsky Variation.
4. Queen's Indian Defense?
5. Dutch Defense
On e4 – Sicilian Defense, French Defense
On c4 – Dutch Defense?

There are no details in the preparation, but there is a daily schedule.

Schedule
9 h. 30 m. Wake up, gymnastics, warm shower
10 h. Breakfast
10 h. 15 m. - 12 h. Analysis or preparation
12 h. - 1 h. Walk
1 h. - 2 h.Analysis or rest
2 h. 30 m. - 3 h.Dinner
3 h. - 4 h.Sleep
4 h. - 5 h.Rest or other activities
5 h. Milk
6 h. - 11 h.Game
11 h. - 1 h. Dinner and analysis, gymnastics and shower

Preparing for the tournament against Euwe:

1. Magazines review. Opening notes. Program.
a) Relishtab (player),
b) Nd2,

48
 c) Na6 e4 - Slave,
d) Dutch - Ilyin-Zhenevsky Variation, Bf4,
e) Sicilian: "Dragon", „Scheveningen Variation ", "Bg5". Caro Kann.
A precise preparation for each participant. White and Black. In fact,
these are the first steps in the compilation of the chess-psychological
characteristics of the partners. The column contains the names of the
participants, in the three columns on the right, the answers to the questions:
that they play with White, Black on d4 and e4. One page is entitled
"Preparing for Euwe". Here are the analyses of the Meranian variant.
For Relishtab.
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nc3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 d:c4 7. B:c4 b5 8.
Bd3 a6 9. e4 c5 10. e5 c:d4 11. Nxb5 N:e5 12. N:e5 a:b5 13. O-O Qd5 14.
Qe2 from here:
14. …Ba6 15. Bg5 h6 16. Bh4 Be7 17. f4 O-O 18. Rf3 Rfc8 19. Rg3
14. …Rb8 15. Bg5 h6 16. Bh4 Be7 17. f4 O-O 18. Rf3 b4 19. Rg3
14. …Ba6 15. Bg5 Nd7 16. f4 Bc5 17. Kh1 O-O 18. N:d7 Q:d7 19. Bf6
The second notebook contains a record of the tournament in Hastings
games and plans for preparing for the Second Moscow International
Tournament. It is curious that, like for the tournament with the participation
of Euwe, a plan of results. In opposite the names of the participants there are
two columns of figures - in the left column there is a planned result, in the
right column there is a real result.
In addition to the usual plan of opening classes with dates (for
example, “Grunfeld? Lili [Lilienthal], Euwe 25-26, Queen Gambit Accepted?
Flohr, 27"). An endgame lesson plan has been compiled: work with books by
I. Rabinovich, Berger, magazines. And finally, individual training:

1. Characteristics of a chess player.

2. The motivation for the opening and game plan is, of course,
tentatively.
3. Outline of the general plan of action.

In the daily routine, skis, skates, and a disciplining record appeared: put
the theoretical notes in order.
The following is the most interesting - the characteristics of the
participants:
Romanovsky

49
 Combinational style chess player (tricks). He understands the position
well, but, due to his inclination to tricks, often spoils the position with bad
moves.
In the opening: with Black, he plays passively; with White, he does
not seek to play with initiative, he plays calmly.
White I play: e4. The most likely Spanish. Russian game?
Black: on d4 - Nimzowitsch, e4? Nf3-Nf6, b6, g6.
Levenfish
The same, only not with tricks, but combinations, not such a cunning
tactician.
I can't play e4 with him - to play d4.
Black: Dutch.

I. Rabinovich
Slim positional chess player. Unbeatable in calm positions when
kings are out of the way.
Perfectly knows the theoretical subtleties.
White: c4.
Black: Grunfeld Defense?

Bogatyrchuk
A good tactician, he plays very carefully, loves solid openings with
sharp lines.
On e4 answer e5.
White: d4 or c4.

Ryumin
He plays very well in the difficult positions. Excellent tactician. But
simple, calm position and endgames play without any pleasure.
White: e4.
Black: Nimzowitsch.

Alatortsev
Excellent active chess player. In passive defense is weak.
Occasionally effective combinations.
Black: Nimzowitsch.
White: d4 or e4 (French e5).

50
 Lisitsyn
Unusually strong, cautious chess player. He plays very well simple
positions. He plays equal difficult positions without a plan.
Black: on Nf3 - Nf6, b6, g6, as a game Lis - Rauser.
White: e4 (Sicilian)? or d4.

Chekhover
Uses Combinations and he understands only active position. Is weak
in the endgame.

Black: Dutch.
White: c4.
Ragozin
Is confused. It spoils him. All stages of the game he plays equally
well. He plays poor closed position.
Black: Nimzowitsch or Grunfeld.

Kahn
A calm positional player. He does not withstand the tension of the
game.
White: d4 or c4.
Black: Grunfeld, Queen Indian?

Goglidze
A strong positional chess player. Tricky moves.
White: d4.
Black: Dutch.

Capablanca
A calm, very subtle positional chess player.
Black: Nimzowitsch to play for a draw.
White to play d4 or c4.
Flohr
White to try e4.
Black - a draw line?
Dutch?

51
 Lilienthal
Black: Grunfeld.
White: d4.

Spielmann
White: c4. To learn 1).
Black: Grunfeld.

Pirc
Unknown?
What does he play with black on d4, e4?
White: d4, e4? To check. To learn 2).
Black: Nimzowitsch.

Stalberg
The same as Pirc. To learn 3).

Black Grunfeld.
White (no record).

Em. Lasker
White: c4. To learn 4).
Black: Spanish? French? Nimzowitsch.
With concrete examples, it is shown how the technology of the great
master training was formed. The technology reached its peak in 1941.

52
 THE BOTVINNIK’S NOTEBOOK (II)
The Notebook was started in 1936. The preparation for the III
Moscow International Tournament contains statistical studies of the
opponent's games and an outline of openings for the upcoming battles.
The participants of the Nottingham tournament have undergone a
deeper study. The training plan is outlined briefly. Individual training:
a) characteristic
b) opening selection
Openings check: 1) Accepted Queen’s Gambit
1.d4 d5 2. c4 dc 3.Nf3 a6 (an d6) 4. e3 Bg4 5. B:c4 e6 6. Qb3 Nc6 7.
d5 – Endgame.
For each future partner is given one page. Attitudes towards partners
are different - probably, depending on the available information and previous
studies.

1. Euwe
Black: Nimzowitsch
White: Nf3
2. Alekhin
Eight games from the tournaments in Warsaw and Bad Nauheim are
marked. White: Nf3
Black: e4 c5 or e6; e4 – Nimzowitsch
3. Capablanca
Marked 7 games from the tournament in Martet.
Black: Nimzowitsch. Better Grunfeld?
White: e4
4. Em. Lasker
Black: Scheveningen or e6.
White: d4
5. Flohr
A very careful chess player, who plays the original opening. Prefers
solid but closed positions.
There are studied 14 parties (Warsaw, Hastings, Marget).
White: e4.

53
 Black: 1. d4. Grunfeld and the mark “to play for a win – Dutch”.
6. Bogolyubov
Studied 8 parties.
Black: on e4 - c6, on d4 - Nimzowitsch.
White: Nf3 (crossed out), d4.
Excellent theorist. Extremely dangerous in attack.
7. Reshevsky (Rzheshevsky precisely spelling)

I learned 4 games from the US Championship. Excellent, active,

universal chess player.
Black: on d4 I will respond c6, Dutch.
White: d4.

8. Fayn
I studied 11 games. He has a good defensive skill and knows very
well theory.
White: e4?
Black: Nimzowitsch
9. Tartakower
I studied 10 games. He is a old experienced wolf and never lose the
presence of the spirit.
Black: on e4 – c5.
White: d4.
10. Vidmar
2 Games. Dangerous positional wolf.
Black: d4, Nimzowitsch.
White:Nf3 (creased out), d4.
11. Thomas
9 games.
White: Nf3.
Black: on e4 – c5.
12. Winter
6 games.
Black: d4 – Dutch.
White: e4?
13. Taylor
Balck: Grunfeld.

54
 White: Nf3 (creased out), d4.
14. Alexander
4 games.
Black: on e4 c5; on d4 Nf3 – Grunfeld.
White: d4.

Expected result: 11 out of 14, Achieved: - 10 points.

55
 The recordings of the plan (1937):
Preparing for a match with Levenfish

1. From 17 to 23 July – Reading literature:

“64”, “Chess in the USSR”, “Foreign Magazines”, “Tournament
game collections”.
All Levenfish’s games are marked. (80 games in total)
2. Opening preparation:
a) From 25 July to 5 August - work on the notes and on new
variation.
b) Verification of some old openings – (Alekhin Defense),
(Relishtab /Meranian Variation), 2 – 3 new systems in Dutch (5 – 15
August)

c) To ordering opening preparation and results.

d) To choose the openings line and variation based on all games of the
Levenfish. Rook endgame N.D. (N.D. – N.D. Grigoriev).
3. Practical training:
Six games with I. Rabinovich (15 – 25 August), time control - 2h
30m for 40 moves.
Gymnastics in the morning and in the evening. Weekend - a
complete rest days.
September: sport, work on opening and endgame, (20 -30
September) with Ganochka (wife) in a sanatorium.
October 1 in Moscow.
Some notes.
1) French Bd2 (game Alekhin – Flohr).
2) Sicilian Keres, Dragon Variation with Cg5, c3 Geneva.
3) Nimzowitsch: game with Euwe, Rauser game - 2 rooks.
1) Grunfeld - Gotgilf.
2) Recall the Sicilian g4.
This completes the preparation for Levenfish.
The opening summary contains analyses of the accepted and declined

56
queen’s gambit. Here is one of the variation: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3
Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Rc1 c6 8. Bd3 d:c4 9. B:c4
Nd5 10. B:e7 Q:e7 11. O-O N:c3 12. R:c3 e5 13. Qc2 e:d4 14. e:d4
Nf6 (14 ... Nb6 game Bondarevsky - Rabinovich 1938 ) 15. Re1 Qd6
16. Ng5 Bg4 17. N:f7 R:f7 18. B:f7 + K:f7 19. Qb3+ Kf8 20. Q:b7
Rb8 21. Q:a7 Rx:b2 22. R:c6 …
In the same notebook are the tables and the party of 1938-1940.
There are no plans for preparation. It is curious that the AVRO 1938
chess tournament is tagged. Max Points - 11 of 14, min points - 10 ½.
As you know, Botvinnik scored 7 ½ in the AVRO tournament, and the
winners (Fine and Keres) —8 ½.

57
 The following notebook opens with the
plan: match tournament in 1941
Objectives: 1) Win all matches;
2) Take 1st place (doubtful);
3) Do not lose.
The method of performing the task (1, 2 and 3):
a) White play with all the energy - but if the game will take an unclear
turn (for example, the last games with Ragozin, Gerstenfeld), then
calmly simplify the position - do without the expenditure of effort
and energy.
b) With Black to play on the simplification, and did not set problems,
but carefully, to parry the enemy’s plans (up to 20-25 moves) to
completely equalize the game. This task can be accomplished with
the Nimzowitsch (Schelting - Grunfeld), French, Open Spanish
Game and so on. Players strength not always come from opening
preparation, here is something else: the style, perseverance, and
ability to calculate variants. This is my weakness. I overthink that
someone will say about the quality of the game, but I need to score
points and ½ also. I have to remember that the strongest will win.
c) To play 4 games with Levenfish and 4 games with Ragozin. To start
in the process of preparation. You cannot first prepare, and then play
without practice, training session is necessary.
d) Opening Preparation:

1. For Black: Nimzowitsch (Keres) de and Qc2,

Grunfeld Be6 on Nf3,

Game Schelting – Grunfeld,
Spanish open game with Bc5,
Chigorin,
French Nbd2, Nf3,
Sicilian – Scheveningen Variation?
Two knights opening – Ng5.

58
2. For White: To think about it.

e) At the beginning, to see all of the opponent’s games. The main task
is to prepare so, that in each game to keep the opening initiative.

To decline – to analyze. Keres and Smyslov: Nimzowitsch with Nc6, d6.

For Keres – Reti?
After the plan, follows the characteristics - the most complete portraits of
opponents.
1) Boleslavsky
An active chess player style - gives pawns a secondary role.
Sometimes he is miscalculated, plays quickly, and saves energy till the
time trouble. Slippery and agile. Plays White only e4 - Spanish, and
Black - Old Indian and on e4 - French (?).
2) Smyslov
He is a beast. Straight, rapid chess player. In terms of time
consumption and game in time trouble, he is not inferior to Boleslavsky.
Technique is great. Never lost his concentration - he sees everything. He
prefers clarity. He plays White e4 - Spanish, French with Nc3. Black on
e4 - Sicilian (dragon) and Caro-Kann, on d4 - Nimzowitsch with d6 and
Old Indian Defense. As Black plays with him one game French and one
game Open Spanish game with Bc5 - probably, it will be new (one
should beware of intermediate a4 - according to Keres). White: one with
d4 - one with e4. Basically he is prepared for the Nimzowitsch Defense
and Caro-Kann.
3) Bondarevsky
Excellent technician, persistent and energetic. The shapes the play
very well. In the positional aspect has no experience and weak. He
plays d4 for White and is happy to switch on Slav with Nbd2.
Occasionally plays e4 - but has no experience. Slightly cowardly -
ready to agree to a draw in unclear positions. He knows very well 2
systems: Exchange variation of French, and in Queen’s Gambit
Declined – Tartakower Defense. This circumstance allowed him to
achieve practical results.
Black on e4 – the answer?
On d4, it makes sense to play the Grunfeld in order to achieve a
draw. Not bad to bring Meran variation.

59
4) Lilienthal
Master of a curly game - the master of great experience and
endurance. Defends perfectly. "Theory" knows still weakly. With
White, he plays mostly d4 with a hope to the New Indian Defense.
With Black - on d4 - Old Indian Defense (maybe only with weak
players?). And on e4 (as they usually play with him) - Spanish or
Russian opening. Perhaps it makes no sense to play 1. c4. Lilienthal's
main weakness is his play with black pieces.
5) Keres
Basically - Romanovsky in the best years. Subtly understands the
position - does not make anti-position moves. Romanovsky -
because he deftly waits, inventing chances, is very slippery in
Defense. With Black – to play d4 against Nimzowitsch with Nc6, d6
from (Schlechter – Grunfeld). On e4 he always plays always e5 -
Spanish. With White, he plays both e4 and d4.
Black: to play on e4 - French (Nd2?), And on d4 -?
White - no notes.
When he prepared for the match in 1941, Botvinnik's skill in
composing chess-psychological portraits of opponents reached
perfection. In the future, such detailed characteristics of these chess
players do not occur - apparently, as partners, they were clear to
Botvinnik.

60
 MATCH-TOURNAMENT IN
SVERDLOVSK 1943

1. Boleslavsky
2. Kotov
3. Levenfish
4. Makogonov
5. Liliental
6. Smyslov
7. Flohr

It must be remembered that the chess game consists of separate moves.

With each move may change the situation. The strength of Euwe, Smyslov,
Lisitsyna, etc., is based on this. Therefore, hard work during the game and
more counting variants! (Shorter!). A chess player is a scout crossing a
swamp — every step counts.
Wartime made adjustments to the composition of participants: instead of
Kotova, Levenfish, Lilienthal and Flohr played Kahn, Zagoryansky, Ragozin
and Constantinople. Characteristics were compiled for the original list. The
portraits of Smyslov, Boleslavsky and Lilienthal were prepared for the match
tournament of 1941, and in preparation for the Sverdlovsk competition only
small marks were made with ink of a different color.

1) Boleslavsky
White: e4 – probably, Sicilian. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 c:d4 4.
N:d4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. f4 ⩲ *
Black - open variation of the Spanish game? Check with Ragozin.
2) Smyslov
To the phrase “This is a beast,” the question: “Is he not Euwe?”
Note: “With Black to play only French in principle!”
White: e4.
The opening feature of Smyslov in Sicilian Dragon variation with e5 is
added, and on d4 - the Grunfeld defense.

61
 3) Lilienthal
Psychological Characteristics supplemented by an opening game
plan.
Black: on d4 (Shelting – Grunfeld).
On e4 - Open Spanish - to check with Ragozin.
White: Kf3 or e4.
4) Levenfish
An experienced chess player, good in positional play, combines.
Respectful to novelties.
White: d4.
Black: Nimzowitsch.
5) Kotov
Likes to play with a lot of pieces on the board, quite capable,
infected by the maneuvering and is a dangerous partner.
Black: (Shelting – Grunfeld).
White: e4 - Sicilian Scheveningen.
6) Makogonov
Dumb chess player. Counts short. Prefers a comfortable position,
regardless of preconceived opinions. If shot down in the opening, it
plays badly. Understands the position not bad.
White e4 - Caro-Kann Be2 or (Tartakower's variant?).
Black - Nimzowitsch.
7) Flohr
Slim positioning master with great experience. Cowardly, slow.
What to play?
White: d4.
Black: Ragozin Defense (Nimzowitsch).

After the match tournament in Sverdlovsk follows a record dated

7.8.1943.

62
 Preparing for the XIII championship and
other comments
Without stopping work on the opening, in the coming year to study
the endgame in detail. (Material: Rabinovich, Berger, journal articles in
“Chess in the USSR” [all years] and yearbook). In preparation for the
tournament, adhere to the following budget policies:
1) Prepare individually for the strongest - be sure to break them in the
tournament!
A list of these strongest.

1. Flohr,
2. Smyslov,
3. Lilienthal,
4. Bondarevsky,
5. Boleslavsky,
6. Makogonov,
7. Levenfish,
8. Kotov

(The latest two are united by a curly bracket to which the question
mark is supplied).
2) To have 3-4 systems for Black and the same for White.
3) In these systems (preferably newer) check all weaknesses.
Then outline a plan to study the endgame and then make several
games of the match tournament. This is a commentary on the matches of the
1941 matches of the mat union games - about the analytical work that was
supposed to preserve Botvinnik's practical strength during the war - despite
the forced break in the performances.
What was done:

1. Reti – Lisitiin
2. Meran, to check Qf3 Bb4+, Ne2 Rb8, Bf4 Bd6
3. Dutch: neverminde about Makagonov.

63
4. Sicilian (Boleslavsky) - Bc4 (Sozin), game : (Sozin – Botvinnik
1931)
5. I pointed out tha in Spanish it is necessary to study for black d6!!!
6. Nimzowitsch: (Keres - dc) Qf6!
7. Two Knights: e:f and Bg4

8.8.43. Mark: to play with a cheerful, good, ironic mood. Two or three
scribes are devoted to each of the strongest opponent - reflections on the
choice of opening. An additional note to Kotov, an attentive opening drawing
should provide an advantage.
The plan for studying the endgame:

1. Rook endings.
2. Queen endings.
3. Two knights against a pawn.
4. Rook and bishop against the rook.

The following analysis is also given here: Reti's opening (Rubinstein

variation):
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. e3 Nc6 4. e:d4 Nxd4 5. N:d4 Q:d4 6. Nc3 e5 7. d3 Nf6
8.Be3 Qd8 9. Be2 Be7 10. O-O-O 11. Kh1 and f4!
The Moscow Championship of 1943-1944 - participation in it was not
planned in advance, and therefore there are no records of any preparation.
There is a table filled on a half, in the column “Botvinnki” there are all the
results, except one. Indicated and the position of the leaders after 7, 10, 11
and 12 rounds. Last entry: Botvinnik - 9 out of 11, Smyslov - 9 out of 11,
Lisitsyn - 8 ½ out of 12.
Several pages are given to record the games, but there is nothing but the
names of the opponents. Unfortunately, many games of Botvinnik from this
tournament are gone. Michal Moiseevich himself explained it this way: “I
was a chess player already known, my games were published, and the need to
keep a record disappeared”. The tournament organizers lost the game.
Botvinnik most of all regretted the game with Lisitsyn - that was a very good
analysis of the ending: He remembered that he had commented on it for a
newspaper or magazine, had seen it printed, but the searches did not give any
results.

64
65
 USSR CHAMPIONSHIP 1944
Seventeen surnames of opponents are located in a column with
opening basting (white and Black). Note: to clarify the color and intended
result.
Before the tournament:
1) With weak Spanish, closed version. With strong - French, when I
was satisfied with a draw.
2) Challenge: 9 wins and 8 draws.
3) After the draw, to take into account the psychological state and
energy of both your own and your opponents.
After determining the color, the new table looks like this: surnames of
the opponents (there are sixteen of them - Romanovsky is absent) and two
columns of numbers - planned results and real result. Estimated result - 13
out of 16 (without defeat) with remark, you can make one more draw. Real
result - 12 ½ (with two losses).
Curious remarks (Botvinnik describe his feelings): after the victory over
Lilienthal in the second round - time and anger!!! After the victory over
Ravinsky in the round of tours - the same!!! After losing the game with
Bronstein, time and energy savings.
After the 4th round - comments. All 4 games are bad. There is no
harmony, no real pressure, and pleasure, no ability to concentrate. After Flohr
- Fatigue towards the end of the game is evident. There is no real anger and
stupid striving for simplifications.
To prepare for the XIII championship should be attributed additionally
two sheets pulled out of a notebook with opening analyzes. Both have the
same date 5.5.1944.
Page 65
Queen’s Gambit:
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bg5 O-O 6. e3 h6 7. B:f6
B:f6 8. Rc1 c6 9. h4 g6 10. g4 Bg7 11. Bd3 Nd7 12. c:d5 c:d5 (12... ed 13.
h5) 13. Bb5 a6 14. B:d7 B:d7 15. g5 h5 16. Ne5 ±

Queen’s Gambit Accepted:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 d:c4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 c5 5. Bxc4 e6 6. OO a6 7. a4 Nc6

66
8. Qe2 Be7 9. Rd1 Qc7 10. Nc3 O-O 11. b3 b6 12. Bb2 Bb7 13. d5 e:d5 14.
N:d5 N:d5 15. B:d5 ±
Nimzowitsch:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O – O 5. Bd3 c5 6. a3 B:c3+ 7.
B:c3 Nc6 8. Ne2 d6
(8. ... e5 9. de! ±) 9. e4 e5 10. d5 Na5 (10. .. Ne7 11. h4 ±) 11. Ng3 b6 12.
O-O Ba6 13. Nf5 Ne8 14. Ne3
4. … c5 5. Ne2 cd 6. ed d5 7. a3 Be7 8. c5 =
4. Bg5 c5! 5. dc Bxc3+! 6. bc Qa5
Now the reader has a complete understanding of the technology of the
method. This method allowed Botvinnik to be invincible during 1941-1948.
And further, thanks to the method, the power of the Botvinnik's play was
preserved for many years.

67
 THE NOTEBOOK OF 1945
This notebook stands out among the rest. There is no familiar opening
repertoire, there is no file on opponents. There is something that has not been
seen anywhere else.
Before the game, Botnvinnik sets himself up to fight and writes it all into
a notebook; after the game - also comments in a notebook, with an
assessment of what happened. You can call this procedure autogenic
training. Impressive ruthless, objective criticism of himself. And this is
despite the fact that in the championship Mikhail Moiseevich showed a
phenomenal result - 16 points in eighteen games (after the 3rd round S. Flohr
left out). Official results:

1. M. Botvinnik - 15 out of 17,

2. Boleslavsky - 12,
3. D. Bronstein - 10 points, etc.

The champion made draws only with V. Ragozin, D. Bronstein, V.

Alatortsev and A. Kitov.
In the short notes after the games, the numbering of the moves is not
indicated (as in the original source). The reader will easily establish the
truth, having at hand a text of games.

68
 XIV USSR CHAMPIONSHIP
Before Flohr
Do not play d4 (do not get the Slav variation), and do not reveal your
cards too early (exchange variation). Play Nf3 and try to repeat the old
variation - in extreme cases, return to Slav. Pay attention to the time and
check the options twice: play with the maximum pressure, avoid
unreasonable exchanges, do not rush - let them be nervous. Remember that
Flohr needs to spoil the chances! Forward!
After
I played to avoid repetition of d4. Thank God, it turned out to Queens
Gambit Accepted. I count variation well. I overlooked the piece sacrifice. The
time - it does not matter.
Before Tolush
To play Shelting opening (1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3.c3 c5) or Nimzowitsch
Defense, French or (Sicilian?). Keep track of time. Play with full view of all
errors; receiving the initiative. Do not avoid simplifications. Play with a mad
energy, count and count variations. Forward!
After
Everything was OK. I overlooked only that the b4 pawn would not be
protected, but he could not use it. The thought was unclean when I played
Qh4-f6, etc. Time - decent.
Before Koblenz
To play d4. The main thing is good and double to count variations. In
each move to invest a specific meaning. Koblenz must be crushed. Play with
a mad head and with full concentration till the end. Keep track of time.
Forward!
After Ragozin
I did not record before the game and after the game with Koblenz. From
game Koblenz: in general, I played not badly, but I overlooked Bxe5 and
Qb4. I also played Ragozin well at first, but then an error Rb8 (delayed - I
overlooked Nb3 and in a exchange variation - Rd1. I was saved by a
miracle).
Before Smyslov

69
 Last games showed that the main disadvantage is that I do not go deep
enough in the position, I overlooked some variants and do not manage time
very well.
Therefore, run less - sit more - no talking. Count variants 2 times, not
missing a single move! Each move to weigh, do not give up the initiative.
Each move with the exact meaning - do not make any “delays”. Remember
that this game must definitely win! We must step over it! Then he will not be
a competitor! Forward! Watch the clock. Play with maximum pressure, do
not rush!
After
I played well.

Before Chekhover
This is the most difficult moment of the tournament. He must be won
by Black. To Play mad pressure. To play closed game. Count variations three
times. Every move is important! Do not force the game – analyze deep the
position. Watch the clock. Do not run, do not talk. This is a decisive day!
Forward! To leave the game with an extra pawn in a pinch! This is the only
way to break away from Bondarevsky and Kotov. More energy!
After
I played well until a certain point, I spent too much time. Chatter. I
made an error in the time trouble, but he played poorly.

Before Alatortsev
Time, count variants and check variants. Do not go to for
simplification. Play with all energy - every move with meaning. Do not run
or chat. Forward! Crush Bardeleben! (Bardeleben is the Alatortsev’s
nickname).
After
Errors – I went for simplification, there was no consistent
implementation of the plan.

Before Romanovsky
To play harder; avoid simplifications - Sicilian or Shelting opening.
Play like the beast, every move with an idea and count, count, count!
Forward. Time!
After

70
 I played poorly, badly with time, but in the critical moments my head
worked well.

Before Bronstein
To play Nf3 - then the Old Indian Defense will probably come. Time!
Count and count. Play with easy head. Forward!
After
Novelty is wrong. Nevertheless, I outplayed him, but not without real
anger.

Before Ratner
Play either Grunfeld or Meran (with a6). Play with rage, count and
time! Forward!
After
I played well.

Before Boleslavsky
Play e4. Play with real anger. Count and time. Resolute party.
Forward!
After
The thought was unclear. Error Bc2. Then I played bad until the last
moves before the time trouble - then again the head worked poorly. Tired,
apparently.

Before Lilienthal
Play with complete peace of mind, saving power, with real anger.
Count and time. On d4 - Shelting, on e4 - to think. Forward!
After
I played it right, only h5 was better than Rhd8.

Before Bondarevsky
Play with complete peace in mind, saving energy, with real anger and
recovery. Count the moves with meaning and time. Play e4. Forward! (1.d4
was played in the game).
After
I played as needed. In time I took off my jacket.

Before Rudakovsky

71
 Remember that he is from Konskih company. (Konskih - so playfully
called Constantinople). Play with complete peace in mind, save energy, with
real anger and recovery. Count the variations with meaning and time.
Forward!
After
It was bad with time and allowed overviews. Re8 (Be3), Qb5 (instead
of winning a piece), Qc4 (Rc4!).

Before Kotov
Play with meaning, count and check, keep track of time, play Nf3 - do
not play Meran. Remember who Kotov is! Play with easy head and save
power! Forward!
After
I played like the last … (a bad word), with a wild tension. I don't have
enough energy.

Before Goldberg
I feel bad, so play with meaning, but with easy hand. The main thing
is time. Save power; to play the Grunfeld. Forward.
After
He played very bad.

Before Kan
Keep health and play as soon as possible. In good time! Don’t lose!
After
Goldberg apparently advising him, but everything ended well.

Before Constantinople
Play quietly and quickly. Count and time.

72
 RADIO-MATCH USSR – USA
(1 and 3 September)
After training (Bondarevsky)
I played opening well. Carried away with the wrong idea (d5). I was
even a little worse. Bondarevsky was tired, spit out the position and lost. It
was terrible with time. The head worked unclear.

Before the first batch with Denker

Keep track of time. Eat every 3 hours (Tea with something). On occasion,
lie down. Try to seize the initiative and do not give it up. Make a move when
there is complete clarity. To play Shelting opening or Nimzowitsch?
Grunfeld? Check variants twice. Play with maximum pressure. Count and
count! Deeper! Time! Forward! Do not talk. Forward! Remember that my
points will ensure the victory of the team!
After Denker
Played as needed.
It doesn't matter about time. Before the second game with Denker to play
Nf3 or d4. Eat. The initiative to seize and don’t give it up! To make a move,
when there is a complete clarity. Check variants twice! Play with maximum
pressure. Do not talk. Count and count deeper! Keep track of time. Forward!

***
In 1993, Botvinnik toured Germany. He lectured at universities;
visited his old friend grandmaster Lothar Schmid in Bamberg. Gave Lothar
an informant notebook (see chapter “The Triumph of the Method”) for his
famous chess museum. He lectured classes in his own way with a young
German chess player. When the session was over and two days you could rest
easy (classes were held in a quiet boarding house) - with all the energy he
took up a new variant of the algorithm for the chess program.
This amazing work ability in combination with the talent and a
scientist ability allowed Mikhail Moiseievici Botvinnik to become a
phenomenon of national culture. His last wish was that the work on the chess
program “Chess computer sapiens”, which he dedicated to the last decades
of his life, to be completed.
Lack of funding does not yet allow to fulfill his will...

73
74
 A method for opening preparation
It's not difficult to guess that by choosing the opening system, a strong
chess player, in fact, plans to get one of several positions familiar to him. He
has studied and analyzed these positions in advance, checked them in training
games and knows therefore what approximate plans were used in them. His
confidence in the correctness of the decisions making is due to the fact that
during the preparation of his opening repertoire he was guided by a reliable
and proven method that allows him to deeply know the subtleties.
For an inexperienced chess player, this method will be very useful.
Not knowing how to study openings, many chess players read a numerous
monographs and reference books on the topic and following the path of least
resistance. Which means that they begin mechanical memorization of the
variants that end after 15-25 moves. Knowledge, of course are good but are
useless without understanding. And turns out to be superficial and usually
brings negative results. Disappointing consequences come mainly in two
cases:
1) When the opponent applies a non-theoretical move, i.e. not
considered by the opening theory, but a good move;
2) When the opening variant ends and a middlegame begins, in which
the young chess player does not navigate well enough.
Such failures can be avoided if during the home preparation one uses the
debut study method widely known to chess masters:

1. Enter a common notebook and, looking through the periodical

literature, rewrite 70-80 games played by the chosen debut.

2. Disassemble the selected games slowly, paying attention to

strategic plans and individual tactical and technical techniques.
Remember that chess ideas can repeat themselves. Try to learn the
most characteristic of them.

75
3. After getting acquainted with the opening in general and learn
the possible ways of development of the game in both the
middlegame and the endgame. You will determine if the positions
that arises in the opening suits your style.

Now you can refer to the literature to supplement your knowledge

with specific variants. It is always necessary to remember that all
recommendations of theorists should be checked by analytical work.

4. Any theoretical knowledge requires practical verification. In

your case, this goal can be achieved in training games with a clock
and note. The played games must be analyzed, carefully looking for
the omissions and mistakes for both sides. Such exercises and
conclusions will deepen and consolidate the acquired knowledge and
make it possible to apply the studied opening in practice.

5. It should not be forgotten that the evaluation of the opening

variants may change due to new developments. Therefore, taking on
a certain opening, constantly follow it on materials published in the
chess press, each time subjecting a thorough analysis of the games
you are interested in with theoretical notes.

The described technique allows you to deeply comprehend the features

and possibilities of positions typical for the chosen opening. The opening is
seen not as something complete, isolated, but is connected with the strategy
and tactics of the upcoming fight in the middlegame and endgame.
When the Masters and Grandmasters are preparing for competitions,
they seeking to find in their own ways original variants in the opening. It is
true that they constantly subject to analytical tests actual and refuted earlier
opening systems, and count on surprise factor to put the opponent in an
extremely difficult position. At the same time, fascinating theoretical duels
often flare up, especially in matches. In such cases, the grandmaster, who
failed in one game, prepares a surprise for the opponent in the next game.

76
77
 Instead of Epilog
“Botvinnik's example and teaching established the modern approach to preparing for
competitive chess: regular but moderate physical exercise; analyzing very thoroughly a relatively
narrow repertoire of openings; annotating one's own games, those of past great players and those of
competitors; publishing one's annotations so that others can point out any errors; studying strong
opponents to discover their strengths and weaknesses; ruthless objectivity about one's own strengths
and weaknesses”. - Vladimir Kramnik

The young Soviet Champion first shared his system of preparation in

1933 during his match against Flohr. In contrast to Euwe and Alekhin, who
only resorted to comprehensive preparation methods for World
Championship matches, Botvinnik adopted them as a weapon on a permanent
basis. At the same time, he would take into account every detail, every
individual feature of his future opponent.
Botvinnik was the first to use training games seriously as preparation
for events - and not only for trying out chess ideas. During those games, he
simulates possible situations. Back then was permitted to smoke during
games - Botvinnik would get someone to blow cigar smoke at him. He
switched a radio on at top volume so he would not react to spectator noise in
the tournament hall. During tournaments, his daily routine was broken-down
literally by the minute. He studied the route to the tournament hall: it had to
pass through quiet streets and take 20 - 25 minutes. Nutrition was an
important element of preparation. Particular attention was paid to
phosphorus, essential for intense mental activity.
Theoretical preparation was also raised to a new level: he carefully
studied not only openings and the middlegame positions arising out of them,
but also typical endgames. The 1948 match-tournament produced not only a
new world champion, the second and the third place were also considered the
Soviet Champions - Smyslov and Keres. Both rose to prominence before the
war, but soon new names from the Soviet Union began to appear as if on a
conveyor belt: first Bronstein and Boleslavsky, then Geller, Petrosian,
Averbakh, Taimanov. The first candidate tournament in 1950 also ended with
a comprehensive victory of Soviet chess players, who occupied the top four

78
places. The next game was played between the winners, who fought for the
right to take on the World Champion.

However, Botvinnik's system of preparation can be considered the first

manual for professional chess players.
- This book is not a law or a rule; you must find out that is better for
you
- Knowing yourself (Advantages and Weaknesses)
- Be curious and take out from this book everything useful for you
- Take attention to preparation aspects:

Analysing your own games

Opening preparation (Connecting opening plan with
middlegame)
Endgame study
Psychological side
Physical (sport)
Time trouble and how to cure them

I wish you good luck.

VICTOR CIOBANU

79
[1] From Botvinnik School 1973 [www.alamy.com]
[2] Botvinnik School Session in 1986
[3] From www.clubpoker.net
[4] 150 CHESS STUDIES by Leonid Kubbel
[5] From chessgames.com

80
Table of Contents
About methods of preparing for competition 4
How am I preparing for competitions? 7
THE BORN OF THE METHOD OF PREPARATION
11
(1927-1933)
FORMATION OF THE METHOD OF PREPARATION
17
(1934-1941)
THE TRIUMPH OF THE METHOD (1942-1948) 25
Botvinnik and Kasparov 32
JUNIOR SCHOOL OF CHESS 34
THE DESTINY OF CHESS 42
THE BOTVINNIK’S NOTEBOOK 47
THE BOTVINNIK’S NOTEBOOK (II) 53
The recordings of the plan (1937): Preparing for a match with
56
Levenfish
The following notebook opens with the plan: match tournament in
58
1941
MATCH-TOURNAMENT IN SVERDLOVSK 1943 61
Preparing for the XIII championship and other comments 63
USSR CHAMPIONSHIP 1944 66
THE NOTEBOOK OF 1945 68
XIV USSR CHAMPIONSHIP 69
RADIO-MATCH USSR – USA 73
(1 and 3 September) 73
A method for opening preparation 75
Instead of Epilog 78

81