/ P. Romanovsky /

From 8 October to 3 November an international tournament in memory of Alekhine was held in Moscow.

The name of Alekhine is associated with the finest traditions of the Russian chess school. Alekhine grew up and received his fighting chess baptism in the family of Russian chess players. Many of them, including some Soviet masters, met him more than once over the chessboard, had close personal contact with him, and observed the development of his chess talent.

When in 1927, after a titanic struggle with J. R. Capablanca, Alekhine became world champion, our chess players warmly welcomed the victor, who through his creative work had demonstrated the genius of the Russian people and continued Chigorin’s struggle for creative and combinational heights in chess art.

Even after winning the highest and most honorable title in chess, Alekhine continued to improve steadily. His brilliant victories in international tournaments and matches during the period 1929–1934 form a collection of chess masterpieces that reflected the progress of chess thought in those years.

Alekhine was a remarkable commentator and chess theoretician, and he wrote a number of valuable books. Among them, notable for its finished mastery and analytical depth, is his work The International Chess Tournament, New York 1924. His annotations in this book are an unsurpassed model of analysis.

In 1946, on the night of 25 March, sudden death overtook Alekhine abroad, at the very moment when he dreamed of returning to the family of his Russian friends.

In 1956, ten years had passed since Alekhine’s death. Honoring the memory of the first Russian world champion, the All-Union Chess Section decided to organize an international tournament in his memory. This international tournament was, as it were, one of the main items in the program of the “Alekhine Days” held in Moscow. During the tournament, reports and lectures on Alekhine were delivered, materials on his creative work were published, as were recollections of him by his contemporaries.

Alekhine’s son, invited from Switzerland as a guest of the tournament, shared with Moscow chess players his memories of his father.

The “Alekhine Days” in Moscow played a major role in the further study of Alekhine’s creative legacy.

The Alekhine Memorial Tournament, whose participants represented twelve countries, was a kind of review of the level to which modern chess thought had risen. The author sees the purpose of the present essay as showing the sporting, creative, and theoretical results of the tournament from precisely this point of view.

The ceremonial opening of the tournament took place on 7 October in the Tchaikovsky Concert Hall, where the tournament struggle subsequently unfolded on the large stage.

Taimanov made the most successful start. Having won his first three games, including victories over Bronstein and Najdorf, after four rounds he had 3½ points and was a full point ahead of his nearest rivals.

Then Taimanov, unfortunately, made seven more draws in succession, which by the 10th round deprived him of the lead. Already in the 7th round Botvinnik and Smyslov had caught him, and by the 10th round they had already overtaken him. After the 14th round Botvinnik was one point ahead of Smyslov and Taimanov. The final round, however, brought surprises. Playing Black against Keres, Botvinnik chose a difficult defensive system in the Sicilian Defence, though one that he had tested more than once. The opening went badly for him and, after losing a pawn, he lost the game. Meanwhile Smyslov conducted the final phase of his struggle with Stahlberg magnificently and achieved victory. Taimanov made a quick draw. Thus first and second places were shared by the Soviet grandmasters M. Botvinnik and V. Smyslov, while third place was taken by the Soviet grandmaster M. Taimanov.

In the tournament, 10 prizes were established for the winners, along with a number of special prizes: five prizes for the best games of the tournament, a prize for the greatest number of wins, for the best result in the last five rounds, and for the best result by a master against grandmasters.

The special prizes were awarded to the following participants. For the best games: Botvinnik for his game with Padevsky, Bronstein for his game with Szabó, Unzicker for his game with Keres, and Stahlberg and Najdorf for their games with Ulmann.

The prize for the greatest number of wins went to Botvinnik, who won eight games. The prize for the best result in the last five rounds was shared by Botvinnik, Gligorić, Keres, Smyslov, Taimanov, and Unzicker. All of them scored 3½ points.

The special prize for the best result by a master against grandmasters went to Padevsky, who drew with seven grandmasters out of 11 games.

As can be seen from the table, in terms of sporting results it can be divided into two parts. The first consists of the 10 prize-winners of the tournament, among whom even the grandmasters Unzicker and Stahlberg, who shared 9th and 10th prizes, scored more than 50 percent of the points.

Grandmaster Szabó, who took 11th place, finished two points behind the last prize-winners and won only one game. The last five places were taken by masters; in 55 encounters with grandmasters they won only two games — both by Sliwa — drew 16 games, and lost 37.

Grandmaster Szabó began the competition reasonably well, but in the second half of the tournament his play became unrecognizable. As for the masters, one must acknowledge the considerable difference in playing strength between the masters and the grandmasters in this field of participants. Sliwa lost to nine prize-winners. Golombek, despite his meetings with all ten prize-winners, made two draws and lost eight games.

The grandmasters improved their scores chiefly through victories over the masters. Thus, for example, Botvinnik, Gligorić, and Smyslov won all their games against the masters. Najdorf, Taimanov, and Stahlberg scored 4½ points against the masters; Bronstein and Pachman scored 4 points each.

On the other hand, in the struggle among the grandmasters themselves there were comparatively few decisive games. Of 55 games, 39 ended in draws. In general, there were comparatively many draws: out of 120 games, 61 were drawn. However, among them there were quite a few “bloodthirsty” battles. There were, after all, only 13 draws in which the number of moves did not exceed 20.

Here a reproach should be addressed to Padevsky. As a young chess player, he should not have neglected the opportunity to play 15 full-fledged games in such a tournament.

Keres played unsuccessfully against the participants who occupied the last seven places in the tournament, scoring only 3½ points against them. The reason for this was Keres’s highly experimental opening play against Ulmann and Golombek, and a strange oversight in his game with Szabó.

The tournament contained many rich and interesting games; a considerable number of combinations were carried out, and a number of instructive endgames were played. We shall first dwell on several prize-winning games, although it must be noted that many others could compete with them.

They occurred once each: Bird’s Opening, the Four Knights Opening, the Dutch Defence, the Ragozin Defence, Ufimtsev’s Defence, the Indian Defence — 1. d4 c5 — the Falkbeer Counter-Gambit, the Accepted Queen’s Gambit, the Slav Defence, and the Old Indian Opening — the Old Indian setup for White.

In these ten games White won three: in the Old Indian Opening, Bird’s Opening, and the Ragozin Defence. Black won two: in the Four Knights Opening and the Dutch Defence. The remaining five games ended in draws.

A few words about the problem of the move 1. e2–e4. If we recall tournament practice, for example from the last quarter of the previous century, we see that this move occupied a dominant position. Thus, in the international tournament in Paris in 1878, 87 percent of all games began with e2–e4. Then, slowly but steadily, this percentage began to fall, while the percentage of games beginning with 1. d2–d4 rose.

At the Chigorin Memorial Tournament in 1909, the percentage of games using the king’s-pawn move fell to 60. Then it continued to fall. At the First International Tournament in Moscow it dropped to 38, and at the Second International Tournament to 27. After that the decline stopped, and the use of e2–e4 stabilized somewhat, fluctuating within the range of 25–35 percent. Sometimes the percentage fell a little lower, but it was never higher. Thus, in the Candidates’ Tournament of 1953 it went down to 19, but in the Candidates’ Tournament in Amsterdam in 1956 it again rose to 30.

In the Alekhine Memorial Tournament this same figure could also be observed: 30.8. The use of this move brought 12 wins and 8 losses, while 17 games ended in draws. The largest number of draws — 7 — occurred in the Sicilian Defence.

In general, in the games of the tournament White achieved a considerable advantage: 37–22. White’s advantage was achieved in all the topical modern openings.

Were there opening novelties in the tournament? In general, we regard such a term with a certain irony, and believe that it is poorly suited to defining phenomena that characterize the progress of chess thought. The reader will understand us if, having used this term once for explanatory purposes, we do not return to it again.

Chigorin had already said that games are repeated from the first to the last move only in exceptional cases; therefore, from some move onward, any game differs from previous games played in the same opening and, therefore, may be regarded as something new in the chess opening.