Najdorf x Najdorf

Najdorf

x

Najdorf

by

Liliana Najdorf

Foreword and Annotated Games

by

Jan Timman

2016

Russell Enterprises, Inc.

Milford, CT USA

Najdorf x Najdorf

© Copyright 2016

Liliana Najdorf

All Rights Reserved

ISBN: 978-1-941270-39-4 (print)

ISBN: 978-1-941270-40-0 (eBook)

No part of this book may be used, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any manner or form whatsoever or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the express written permission from the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

Published by:

Russell Enterprises, Inc.

P.O. Box 3131

Milford, CT 06460 USA

http://www.russell-enterprises.com

info@russell-enterprises.com

Cover design by Janel Norris

Translated from the Spanish by and special thanks to Taylor Kingston

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Annotation Symbols and Abbreviations

Dedication

Foreword by Jan Timman

Prologue

Translator’s Preface

Chapter One

Chapter Two

Chapter Three

Chapter Four

Chapter Five

Chapter Six

Chapter Seven

Chapter Eight

Chapter Nine

Chapter Ten

Chapter Eleven

Chapter Twelve

Chapter Thirteen

Chapter Fourteen

Epilogue

The Polish Immortal

Selected Games Annotated by Jan Timman

Appendix 1

Timeline

Appendix 2

Errata and Revisions

Index of Games and Game Fragments

Annotation Symbols and Abbreviations

Dedication

To my mother, because she taught me to love women, myself included.

To Mirta, my accomplice and indispensable partner in the arduous task of being daughters of this father.

To Dina, for her constant presence.

To all three, for their unfailing love and confidence.

To Facundo and Cheche, because the privilege bestowed on me, of being the mother of these children, never ceases to amaze and surprise me.

Foreword

As a player, Miguel Najdorf is often bracketed together with Samuel Reshevsky: two top players who were not from the Soviet Union, but from the Americas. There was an obvious difference, however. Reshevsky was a child prodigy who was already giving simuls before Najdorf had mastered the rules of the game. Najdorf was a late bloomer. He was born in 1910, a year before Botvinnik, Lilienthal and Reshevsky. Still, he never played a tournament game against Alekhine. He did play one game against Capablanca, but only because he was a last minute substitute for the tournament in Margate 1939.

In pre-war Poland, Najdorf hardly ever competed against strong opposition. A notable exception were his games against his mentor Tartakower, whom he beat in a training match in 1935. In that year Chessmetrics puts him in 39th place on the World Ranking List. In the period before he had no rating, although he was already considered to be one of the strongest players in Warsaw in 1930. Somehow results and games were not disclosed in a proper way in pre-war Poland. The database has only 10 games of Najdorf before 1935, including the gem against Glücksberg in which he sacrificed all his minor pieces to deliver mate. The games against Tartakower, played in the Italia chess café in Torun, are missing.

Nowadays, a 25-year old player is at the top of his game. Najdorf had just begun his international career at that age. Still, there was no breakthrough in the following years. It seemed as if Najdorf had difficulties focusing on chess; other things in life seemed more important to him. So, when he left for the Olympiad in Buenos Aires in August 1939, he barely made it to the top 50, again according to Chessmetrics. During the Olympiad, Najdorf’s life took a dramatic turn. While he was playing against the Dutchman Cortlever, he was informed that the Nazis had invaded Poland; the Second World War was about to start. In the game against Cortlever, Najdorf had an edge in the early middle game. The upsetting news caused him to make a bad mistake. Now he was slightly worse, although Black’s advantage did not amount to much. Then Najdorf resigned. He simply could not play anymore, he was devastated. Najdorf decided to stay in Argentina. Apart from the enormous impact on his personal life, it improved his chess abilities. Now he had the focus that he lacked before.

Najdorf had an enterprising style in which strategy and tactics balanced each other. He was also helped by a healthy dose of optimism. His memory was excellent, enabling him to give his famous blindfold simuls in Rosario and Saõ Paulo. But above all, he was a practical player. While Reshevsky often spoiled complicated positions in severe time pressure, Najdorf managed to steer away from this. He only got in time pressure when the position was crystal clear. This explains why he turned down draw offers from Capablanca and Smyslov (Groningen 1946), although he had less than a minute on his clock for several moves. He simply did not expect difficulties in technical positions and relied on his great abilities as a blitz player.

In 1944 Najdorf took up Argentine citizenship. By that time he was steadily ranked fourth on the Chessmetrics list, after Alekhine, Botvinnik and Keres. Najdorf played only in tournaments in Argentina. This was a complicating factor in measuring his real strength. It was hard to compare his results with other top players who mostly played in Europe. Anyway, on the July list of 1946 he climbed to second place, right after Botvinnik, just ahead of Keres. Chessmetrics is not always accurate, but it is certain that Najdorf belonged to the absolute elite of that time.

Alekhine died in March 1946; the title was vacant. A six-player quadruple round-robin tournament would decide who would become the new world champion. Najdorf was not among the players invited to play. It is true that all six players – Botvinnik, Smyslov, Keres, Reshevsky, Fine and Euwe – had proven themselves in top tournaments in the past; it would still have been a good idea to include a newcomer, although in Najdorf’s case he would have been the second oldest after Euwe. Even when Fine refused his invitation in early 1948, he was not replaced by Najdorf. The English player Harry Golombek wrote in his book on the 1948 World Championship Match/Tournament:

The omission of Najdorf from the six chosen players was a blunder of considerable magnitude by the FIDE: Najdorf is a great master with a wealth of original ideas and the strong will power that all world champions must possess.

The Argentine Grandmaster Hector Rossetto has provided an explanation for Najdorf’s absence. In Groningen 1946, Najdorf had put a $500 bet on his last round game against Botvinnik. He was confident that he would win. He had been overjoyed after he had indeed beaten the tournament winner and future world champion. Botvinnik was outraged by his opponent’s behavior. Adam Feinstein wrote in New in Chess magazine 2015/1:

Botvinnik began cursing the man he called ‘the capitalist pig’ and instructed the Soviet delegation to do all in their power to prevent Najdorf playing for the world title.

Thomas Lissowski, co-author of Najdorf: Life and Games, disagreed. He told Feinstein:

In 1948 Botvinnik was – in my opinion – not in a position to dictate his wishes to the whole chess world. That would be a major exaggeration. The six players apparently did not want to share the honors with anyone else. None of those six voted for Najdorf, who, as the winner of the tournament in Prague, did have some right to be there. But in any case, they were stronger than Najdorf in 1948.

I disagree with Lissowski’s view that Najdorf was weaker than the six contenders. It is true that Botvinnik was clearly the best, but Reshevsky, for example, had not played any tournament games in 1947 and 1948, apart from the world championship. As for Euwe, Najdorf won tournaments in Buenos Aires 1947 and Venice 1948 with tremendous scores. In both events he had 3½ points more than Euwe.

The main question is: who is right about Botvinnik’s influence, Rossetto or Lissowski? To answer the question, we need to investigate the selection procedure for the world championship. During the war, FIDE had been inactive; no membership fees were collected and the organization had almost become defunct. In July 1946, representatives of FIDE came together in Winterthur to discuss matters concerning the world championship. It was decided that the format would be a seven-player tournament: apart from the six selected players, the winners of the upcoming tournaments in Groningen and Prague would play a match for the seventh place, unless one of the six contenders won one of the tournaments. In that case, no match was needed. Botvinnik won in Groningen, Najdorf in Prague. It seemed to be clear that Najdorf would be the seventh player on the basis of these results. Things, however, took a different turn. Najdorf may have foreseen this. He gave an interview for the January issue of El Ajedrez Español in which he stated:

I believe that I am inferior to none of the players who are to participate in the next world championship…None of those has a better record than I.

Najdorf may have been right about this and his statement is in keeping with his famous phrase: Bin ich nicht genial? [Am I not awesome?] Still, there was no reason to say this if Najdorf had been confident about his participation. Later that year, FIDE reversed its decision. As the chess historian Jacques Hannak wrote in the foreword for the Dutch tournament book of the 1948 world championship:

The Prague tournament that was envisaged with splendid resources came to nothing. For this reason – in the letter unlawfully – Najdorf did not come into consideration for admission to the tournament.

The decision to keep Najdorf out was indeed unlawful. Apart from that, it was clearly taken under pressure by the Soviet Chess Federation which had become a member of FIDE in 1947. In those days, Botvinnik often acted as the spokesman for his federation, so it is likely that he was personally responsible for Najdorf’s exclusion.

It was not part of Najdorf’s character to take legal steps against FIDE. Instead, he started to write a series of articles for Mundo Argentino under the heading: I will be the next world champion. Najdorf was never, throughout his long career, plagued by false modesty. In one of the articles he wrote;

If the world champion has to be a complete man, capable of dominating all styles of play, then I can become world champion.

He had a point. Najdorf was a versatile player who did not shy away from complications or long maneuvering games. Still, it was unlikely that he would have stood a chance against Botvinnik in a long match, despite the good effort in Groningen.

Najdorf won a total of 52 international tournaments. In The Oxford Companion to Chess, the authors David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld claim that he won no strong tournaments. This is not true. The tournament in Amsterdam 1950 boasted a strong field, despite the absence of Soviet participants. Najdorf started the tournament with a modest 2½ out of 4. Then he came in full swing: in the next fourteen rounds he ceded only three draws. Two quiet draws in the final rounds sufficed to stay a full point ahead of Reshevsky. Najdorf may have been at his peak around that time. He scored only 50%, however, in the Candidates Tournament earlier that year. Apparently he had problems with the unique tension of the world championship cycle. He did much better in private tournaments. At the end of the 1950s, he decided to refrain from qualification tournaments for the world championship altogether.

Najdorf was not renowned for a vast knowledge of opening theory; he relied on his skills in the middle game. In Mundo Argentino he had written:

I concede that my future opponents have the upper hand in the opening. But I play my own lines and have my very own openings. I am studying and there will be some surprises in store. I have novelties which I am keeping for the right moment.

There is obviously no comparison with today’s opening theory where novelties may be found after move 20. It was just important for every top player to have his own repertoire that fit well with his preferences in the middle game. In the post-war period, important novelties were found in various openings. Bronstein and Geller discovered new strategies in the King’s Indian Defense. Najdorf contributed his share by propagating a new way in the Sicilian Defense: the Najdorf Variation. The variation was first played in Loman-van den Bosch, The Hague 1927. Najdorf himself adopted it 11 years later against the Dane Poulsen in the Buenos Aires Olympiad. Although he won that game after a long endgame, he did not repeat the variation in the years after. In the early forties the Czech player Opocensky was the main advocate of the variation. Only after the war, when he got his ambitions for the world title, did Najdorf start developing ideas in the variation named after him.

Najdorf was an avid adept of the Sicilian Defense; throughout his long career he seldom played anything else against 1 e4. For a long time, the Scheveningen and the Richter-Rauzer Variation were the two main lines in the Sicilian Defense. The Najdorf had the advantage of being more flexible. In the Richter-Rauzer, the queen knight is compelled to go to c6, while in the Scheveningen, there is no option any more for the push e7-e5. In the Najdorf, Black keeps his options open; he can develop his knight to d7 and he has the choice of moving his e-pawn one or two squares, depending on White’s set-up. A good example of Najdorf’s fresh ideas in the variation is his game against Olafsson.

Najdorf has played his variation 67 times (not counting transpositions). In later years he often opted for the Scheveningen and sometimes the Kan Variation. There was a clear reason for this: theory in the Najdorf had expanded in an unprecedented way. Especially in the lines with 6.Bg5, the play was very sharp and concrete. It was hard to keep up with all the new developments. It is no coincidence that both Fischer and Kasparov often played the Najdorf; they were renowned for their vast analytical work at home, their impressive preparation.

Nowadays the Najdorf is by far the most popular variation in the Sicilian. Both in the 6.Bg5 and in the 6.Be3 lines there is a flow of new ideas. The computer is not always capable of seeing variations to the end, so there is scope for refinements on both sides.

Najdorf’s playing strength did not diminish significantly when he got older. The Dutch writer Harry Mulisch has thought up the concept of a greybeard prodigy: someone performing well at an old age. Najdorf was such a greybeard prodigy. In 1962, he won the Capablanca Memorial in Havana and in 1979 he tied for second in the 2nd Clarín Tournament in Buenos Aires, together with Spassky, ahead of Petrosian. His performance as a 69-year old was impressive: he won three games and made ten draws. In the 1960s, Najdorf was still considered to be one of the strongest players outside the Soviet Union. This is underscored by the fact that he was invited for both Piatigorsky Cup Tournaments, in 1963 and 1966. His victory over Fischer in the second tournament is impressive. In 1970 he was selected for the Rest of the World Team against the Soviet Union. On that occasion he beat Tal in a convincing way. His overall score in the mini-match against Tal was 2-2. This way he repaired his score against Tal who had beaten him twice during his reign as world champion.

Najdorf played a total of 73 games against seven world champions, ranging from Euwe to Fischer. He won 7 games, lost 19 and drew 47. This is certainly not a bad score, if you take into account that practically all these games were played when Najdorf was over 40. Petrosian and Fischer were difficult opponents for him. He beat Petrosian in their first encounter in Zürich 1953, but later he lost six times. Apparently Najdorf had problems with the refined positional style of the great Armenian. Against Fischer, he lost five and drew four, apart from the win in Santa Monica. Surprisingly, Najdorf played only four games against Botvinnik, who played few tournaments during his reign. Apart from the win in Groningen, Najdorf lost two. He did best against Euwe, Smyslov and Spassky. Smyslov beat him back in 1950, the other eleven games ended in draws. Najdorf had an even score against Euwe and Spassky: against Euwe two wins each with nine draws; against Spassky one win each with eight draws.

He even played a few games against the world champions who were born after the war. Against Karpov, he played three games of which two ended in a draw. In the third game, in Mar del Plata 1982, he stood better for a long time and was clearly playing for a win. Then, plagued by fatigue, he erred and lost. Najdorf even played one game against Kasparov. With Black he survived the opening and early middlegame and was in no danger of losing. Then, on move 21, he made the wrong rook move and went under. Najdorf was the only one to have played both Capablanca and Kasparov. For decades, Najdorf was the strongest Argentine player and he became the symbol of Argentine chess. He still played on board one for his country in the 1976 Haifa Olympiad.

As I have pointed out, Botvinnik, Lilienthal and Reshevsky were one year younger than Najdorf. I have never played against the first two and played only two games against Reshevsky. I played Najdorf seven times. I won four, lost two, with only one draw in which we were fighting to the last pawn. We encountered each other all over the world: Netanya, Reykjavik, Haifa, Wijk aan Zee, Buenos Aires, Mar del Plata and Bugojno.

In the third Clarín Tournament, I lost in a dramatic way:

Najdorf-Timman

Buenos Aires 1980

Position after 32.Bxe5

I had liquidated into this endgame, since I believed it was winning. Without much thinking I played…

32…Rxb3??

Najdorf did not hesitate with his answer. He bashed out…

33. Bd6!

…and got up from the board. Tangible tension was in the air. The 70-year old exuded an enormous energy. It felt like Tal who in his early years had just executed one of his daring sacrifices.

Later in the tournament I saved a difficult game against Larsen by a brilliant, hidden maneuver. When Najdorf saw this, he exclaimed:

Timman will be the next world champion.

He always spoke his mind freely. I also had the feeling that he wanted to console me for the unfortunate loss against him.

Najdorf was a striking personality in the social sphere because of his conversational skills. He was always in a good mood and full of interesting stories. Despite the more than 40-year age difference, we got on extremely well. In Buenos Aires, Najdorf had the habit of taking out the other participants for dinner; copious meals with lots of red wine. Right before my game against Karpov, he grabbed my arm and said:

I gave Karpov two bottles of wine to drink last night. You have your chance to beat him now.

I knew that Najdorf was exaggerating. Karpov probably consumed half a bottle. Still, I won the game. Two years before I had beaten the world champion for the first time, in the first Bugojno Tournament. Najdorf was present as an honored guest. That evening we went out for dinner and drank several bottles of Dingač. I did not feel very fresh the next day, but I beat Balashov anyway; you can take a lot when you are young. Najdorf was beaming.

Good red wine, eh? he said. I couldn’t disagree.

In Mar del Plata 1982, he often invited Seirawan, me and a few others for dinner in the harbor area. One evening I went there with Najdorf alone. We ate fresh fish and drank red wine. Afterwards, when we strolled back to the car, we passed a ship.

What do you think, Jan, we can take this ship and go to Holland, he remarked. It was a very romantic thought and I was touched by it.

He was a rich man. Sometimes he seemed to believe that everything was for sale. During the 1992 Alekhine Memorial in Moscow, Najdorf and I were standing in front of the souvenir shop of the Oktiabrskaya Hotel, where we were staying. We were not really interested in the souvenirs, but more in the young lady who sold the items. Over 80 years old, Najdorf was still charmed by beautiful women.

You come to Amsterdam, you come to Buenos Aires, I’ll give you a million dollars, he said. That was typical of Najdorf: no beating about the bush. The young lady responded in a soft, but resolute voice:

It is not enough. I am not sure if Najdorf heard it. His attention was already on something else.

On an earlier occasion, during the Haifa Olympiad in 1976, we were playing each other, when cakes were put on our table. Then a waiter removed them, for unclear reasons. When Najdorf saw this, he was visibly upset. He got up from his chair, took a handful of bank notes out of his pocket and pursued the waiter, in attempt to get his cakes back. This effort fell short of the mark as well. Najdorf did not seem to mind. He hardly ever lost his temper when things did not go his way. He could be very emotional. In July 1976, Israeli commandos carried out a successful raid at Entebbe Airport in order to free hostages from a hijacked Air France flight. Najdorf and I were playing a tournament in Reykjavik at the time. When the news about the raid reached us, Najdorf was in a jubilant mood. He started embracing and kissing everyone around.

After Najdorf’s death, Bill Hartston wrote in an obituary for The Independent:

Anyone passing through the Press Room of a world championship match in the 1970s or 1980s would have noticed that one table always attracted the strongest grandmaster visitors and produced the most animated discussions. And when an aged and podgy hand banged a piece down, accompanied with a gravelly cry of Chess, easy game, and a raucous laugh, everyone knew that the center of attention was Miguel Najdorf, one of the most successful and respected figures of post-war international chess.

Najdorf was not just a kibitzer during those matches: he wrote reports for the Argentine newspaper Clarín which also sponsored the tournaments in Buenos Aires and Mar del Plata. He had a serious attitude towards his work. I remember him discussing a game with Anand during the Alekhine Memorial. Anand had just played against Karpov and Najdorf had analyzed the game. He incorporated