Of the many masters I have met, Bent is the most original. Anatoly Karpov, Bent Larsen's Best Games
[A note for my regular readers: The intro has not changed (except for a new image and accompanying caption that includes a little-known factoid). Feel free to jump to the Table of Contents or even to the Biography.]
[A note for my new readers: I believe it is useful to read the full introduction your first time. Cheers!]
Something new? Hmm...did you know he won the first ever Chess Oscar?
This blog is a celebration that leverages an outstanding concept of GMs Nielsen and Gustafsson, but offers my unique takes and different material. The two GMs produced videos and multiple lessons regarding their top 50 chess players of all time. Although I freely accept their rankings and provide a link (below) to their work, my focus is different.
How does my work differ? Well, first off, I'm not a titled player. Second, I wrote brief biographies for each player and offer limited discussion and pictures of some of their works (if they wrote). Third, if they were eminently quotable, I'll throw in a few of those! I may have found occasion to add quotes from other famous (or even unknown) chess names regarding the Hall of Famer. Fourth, I'll toss in the occasional caricature😏.
Fifth, and most difficult, I will include at least two games analyzed by the individual, if such games exist. After all, the greatest of the great should be able to explain what they were thinking during a game, shouldn't they? (Spoiler alert: perhaps, except when there is no evidence that they ever had analyses published. Also, many of them analyzed games, but the ones available to me only offer some alternative lines, with symbolic indications but no textual explanations. More about that later.)
Plus, I attempt to provide at least a few links to other relevant materials regarding these grandmasters of the game.
Jørgen Bent Larsen, the Great Dane, (4 March 1935 – 9 September 2010) was a Danish GM and six-time Danish CC, reaching the Candidates matches four times and the semifinal three times.
He played in multiple Olympiads, winning a gold-medal on board one at the 1956 Moscow Olympiad, including a draw with the World CC, Botvinnik. He played board one in all six Olympiads in which he participated and added two individual bronze medals to go with his gold.
Like Arjun Erigaisi, and unlike most elite players then and now, Bent entered an unusual number of open Swiss-style tournaments, performing incredibly well. He was an incredibly imaginative, perhaps even unorthodox, player.
One of very few GMs to play Bird’s Opening, he assayed 1.b3 so often that the opening is now referred to as either Larsen’s Opening or the Nimzo-Larsen Attack. Additionally, he explored ways for Black to seek activity in Philidor’s Defense and was the first top player to successfully use the Grand Prix Attack against the Sicilian. There is also a line in the Caro that is jointly named for Larsen and Bronstein, accepting a doubled f-pawn (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6). I spent a tiny amount of time fiddling around with this opening, and Nakamura has played it relatively frequently in blitz games.
His FIDE peak rating of 2660 and peak ranking of #4 in the world were both achieved in 1971. ChessMetrics, with their 21st century statistical approach, places his peak rating at 2755 in February 1971 and deemed him #3 globally for eight of the nine months from November 1970 until July 1971.
So, how did The Great Dane perform against his peers? Let's crunch the numbers!
Hmm...although he defeated all the World CCs in this list at least once, his overall performance was less than 50% against each of them. That 6-0 whitewash by Fischer in the Candidates quarterfinals being a particularly brutal beatdown by the man who would be king (only to give it up.) Move down one small step for chesskind, e.g., Korchnoi, and his results were what one would expect from a Top Three player.
Writings
Until starting this blog, the only book I owned from this grouping was How to Open a Chess Game, a collection of advice from multiple GMs. It was...okay. Now I have a pdf of Larsen's Best Games, published in 1969. It's written in descriptive notation. Groan! I didn't realize how out of practice I was at translating that into algebraic. Plus, what works on the written page is often difficult to translate into an e-format that makes sense. (I used his book for the analysis below, as the DB analyses were of little value, imo.)
Here is what others had to say about his writing...well, if you're willing to believe the puff pieces fellow pros provide for book covers. After all, they might want to publish a book someday as well or already did.
His chess writing is among the best, combining analysis with humour and psychological understanding of the fight. Peter Heine Nielsen, Bent Larsen's Best Games
Together with his love for and deep knowledge of chess, it is the refined humour of this outstanding player and highly cultured person that makes his comments so unique. Mihail Marin, Ibid
With a fine sense of humour Larsen explains his aggressive and unconventional approach to chess, in a way that is instructive to players of all levels. Christopher Lutz, Ibid
One of the best books in the entire history of chess. A masterpiece. Alfonso Romero Holmes, Ibid
Plenty of folks wrote about Larsen as well. He even earned a spot in Kasparov's My Great Predecessors, Part IV, but the primary focus of that volume is Bobby Fischer, so I'm not showing that cover. On the other hand, Marin is one of my favorite annotators and Lakdawala one of my favorite authors. I only own the latter's book, but I'll probably pick up Marin's now that I know it exists. Given I don't read Danish (though I find the pastry quite tasty) I probably won't pick up that third book.
Quotes
Larsen thought unconventionally, whether over the board or in his insights regarding theory, players, or the course of a game. Because he didn't make my list of 24 candidates for my Chess Quotemasters (QMs) Hall of Fame series I'll offer more than the usual one-line quote for your reading pleasure.
I think most of them study too much opening theory, and they should study more games by masters with annotations by masters. Larsen's advice to non-masters, Chess Life (December 1968, pages 435-438), Bent Larsen (1935-2010) by Edward Winter
I don’t care very much for miniatures. I don’t try to beat my opponents quickly because if they are strong, I think I should respect them. It is too risky to play sharply to beat them in 20 moves. Ibid
As you know, I always have confidence and I always try to win. I never make deals and I always compete to the end. I have the impression that I am willing to work on theory more than my opponents, particularly in the openings, but in the endgame as well. Ibid
The main thing is not to be afraid of losing. Why should I be afraid? Although chess is my profession and a very important part of my life, if I lose I know two things: first, it is only a game, and second, by taking the risks I do I will win more than I lose. For some masters losing at chess is almost like dying; for me this is absolutely not so. During an interview by C.H.O’D. Alexander, A Book of Chess (London, 1973) p. 86-94, Bent Larsen (1935-2010) by Edward Winter
... although I am famous for taking risks, I don’t usually take very much of a risk; unlike Tal – who doesn’t care whether his position is good or bad if only it is complicated enough – I don’t like bad positions. Ibid
Tal and Korchnoi were probably born with a greater gift for analysis than I was, and I was born with a greater gift than Smyslov or Petrosian; and in positional insight it is the other way round. Korchnoi is fantastic at calculating complex variations, especially when he is hard pressed; but he must analyse because his judgment when he doesn’t calculate is very bad – he has to get through a lot of variations before he knows what’s happening. Ibid
Lack of patience is probably the most common reason for losing a game, or drawing games that should have been won. Top 15 Bent Larsen Quotes - QuoteFancy
Chess is a beautiful mistress.
I find Caissa can be quite harsh as well. I wasn't aware of Larsen's quote when I wrote mine (above) for a friend.
A chess player never has a heart attack in a good position.
I often play a move I know how to refute.
A gambit never becomes sheer routine as long as you fear you may lose the king and pawn ending!
Among top grandmasters the Dutch is a rare defense, which is good reason to play it! It has not been studied very deeply by many opponents, and theory, based on a small number of ‘reliable’ games, must be rather unreliable.
For me, chess is at the same time a game, a sport, a science and an art. And perhaps even more than that,. There is someting hard to explain to those who do not know the game well. One must first learn to play it correctly in order to savor its richness.
One charming characteristic of many flank attacks I could mention is that they do not very often lead to simplification: if the attack is parried, there usually are still opportunities left for initiating action in another sector.
Had I not played the Sicilian with Black I could have saved myself the trouble of studying for more than 20 years all the more popular lines of this opening, which comprise probably more than 25 percent of all published opening theory!
Nimzovitch became then for me more or less the author of the only book which could help me get away from these Euwe books, which, I admit, are very good for the ordinary club player. But once you’ve reached a certain strength you get the impression that everything that Euwe writes is a lie.
Most of all I like “bad” lines, that is those considered bad, in my opinion unjustly, by theory. The reason for the last quotation marks is that most so-called theory is only a collection of examples from master practice.
Chess is my profession. I am my own boss; I am free. I like literature and music, classical especially. I am in fact quite normal; I have a Bohemian profession without being myself a Bohemian. I am neither a conformist nor a great revolutionary.
All chess masters have on occasion played a magnificent game and then lost it by a stupid mistake, perhaps in time pressure and it may perhaps seem unjust that all their beautiful ideas get no other recognition than a zero on the tournament table.
A draw may be the beautiful and logical result of fine attacks and parries; and the public ought to appreciate such games, in contrast, of course, to the fear-and-laziness draws.
The books say that it is not so serious to lose time in a closed position; I am lucky, since these comments have not harmed me too much.
ChessChamps.info
Here is what others had to say about The Great Dane.
Larsen is a fighter. He is always searching. I am a realist, but he is a romantic. Miguel Najdorf, Ibid
His enormous talent together with his inexhaustible optimism generated a specific, inimitable style. Garry Kasparov, Ibid
He bears an amazing resemblance to Nimzowitsch with his extremely dynamic play, conforming to a single strategic goal. Lev Polugaevsky, Ibid
His boldness and his concrete and non-routine approach to positions cannot fail to appeal to all connoisseurs of chess. Tigran Petrosian, Ibid
Larsen is one of the greatest fighters in chess, prepared to fight to death with both White and Black. Raymond Keene, Ibid
He played with enormous energy and great fighting spirit. Offering him a draw was a waste of time. He would decline it politely, but firmly. "No, thank you," he would say and the fight would go on and on and on. Lubomir Kavalek, Ibid
Larsen is one of the great players against whom it is impossible to make any kind of preparation. He plays sharply in any variation. - Miguel Najdorf, Ibid
Annotated Games
The kind of overly deep analysis that often suits my desires. It's not useful for all. Not even for me at times.
Given these are fifty of the greatest players of all time, how were they as annotators? Well, for those who wrote books we could truly explore that question in depth. But to keep the playing field even, I had been including only games taken from a DB. Why that limitation? Well, I didn't want to burden myself with transcribing comments from a book into a pgn file. Or increase my debt burden by buying books of those who did not yet offer free access to books released to the public domain. Besides, far easier and faster to look for annotated games in an online database.
Eventually, I changed my position on that for the reasons given in Hall of Fame #41: Jan Timman (The Best of the West!). There was nothing useful in the DBs I explored. So, books were now in. Then #35: Vasyl Ivanchuk forced me to revisit my thinking yet again! No DB analyses, no obscure sites providing analysis, no books available to me. Sigh. Roll the tape and go for a video review of the action!!
Though I found multiple DB games with annotations by Larsen, it was alternative moves only with no text. So, I had to succumb to personal pressure and go through the painful process of transcribing a few games from a pdf into a DB file.
Geller, Efim P - Larsen, Bent, Monaco Grand Prix-01 GM, 03.04.1967
Efim Petrovich Geller (Russian: Ефим Петрович Геллер; Ukrainian: Юхим Петрович Геллер; 8 March 1925 – 17 November 1998) was a Soviet GM, two-time Soviet CC, six-time Ukrainian CC, six-time Candidate for the World CC, and two-time World Seniors CC. In the 1972 Candidates Tournament he missed playing for the World CC, tying for second place with Paul Keres with both of them finishing a half point behind Petrosian. Representing the Soviet team in seven Olympiads, he earned three individual golds and three individual silvers. His lifetime Olympiad record saw him scoring at a 75.7% rate with 46W-23D-7L.FIDE lists his peak rating and ranking at 2620 and #8 respectively in January 1976. Considering that was only six years after FIDE adopted a rating system and almost fifty years into Geller’s career, we’ll look to ChessMetrics for a better estimate of his true strength. On that site we find his peak rating at 2765 in August 1963 while he reached #2 globally from May – July 1963.ChessMetrics estimated Geller's rating at 2746 during the month this game was played, while placing Larsen at 2712.
Svetozar Gligorić (Serbian Cyrillic: Светозар Глигорић; 2 February 1923 – 14 August 2012) was a Serbian GM, 11-time Yugoslavian CC, and former #6 globally for a total of thirteen months per ChessMetrics rankings, with a peak rating of 2743 in November 1958. FIDE only lists his peaks at 2600 and #15 in July 1971, shortly after they finally established a rating system, and past his peak years. He won both team and individual gold medals at the 1950 Olympiad, ending his career with more Olympiad medals than any other player. He also won multiple medals in the European Team CCs.
ChessMetrics estimated Gligo's rating at 2664 during the month this game was played, while placing Larsen at 2723.
Larsen's analysis was published in 1969 in Bent Larsen's Best Games of Chess. The second analysis provided below was by Szabo, conducted sometime after 2014. That's a reasonable guesstimate based on a game he referenced. Szabo pretty much confirmed the major points Larsen made in his pre-computer days, though Szabo did point out some alternatives of interest. Bottom line: Larsen's analysis was highly accurate! (That said, the publisher didn't do a great job when editing some of the notes.)
Other Links of Interest
Care for a journey down memory lane? Just pick your path!
Care for a journey down memory lane? Just pick your path! The whole purpose of this section is to address some obvious questions that might pop into your head. How come Kevin didn't talk about this? Or that? Not to mention the other thing! Well, just call me lazy! Or you could appreciate the fact I'm limiting the word count that is imposed on you😏.
Nonetheless, in the series I'll be using this little section to provide links to more fulsome discussions that revolve around some well-known and lesser-known facets of the featured chess giant. That will range from videos to links to other chess.com blogs, usually by Top Bloggers. Enjoy or skip, it's your call, as always.
Was that enough? Too much? Or did I score a Goldilocks and get it just right? Ah, well, too late now.
That's it for the 22nd installment of my own take on chess.com's 50 greatest players of all time. Hope you enjoyed the blog. The good GMs below have a full selection of videos and puzzles dedicated to each of the fifty.
Sources for this information included chess.com, wikipedia.com, ChessBase, FIDE, individuals' websites, YouTube.com, news articles, books, and other sources. Plus, my faulty memories. I mixed, matched, cut, and pasted so much that separation is implausible, and I apologize for misattributions. Particularly with quotes which are found in a thousand repositories, not to mention book covers, t-shirts, and the rantings of chess coaches of whom I've had more than a few thanks to Chess University and @AttilaTurzo (my primary instructor and co-author of three books, for different chess strengths, we are writing on how to analyze during a game and after.)
Secrets of Trapping Pieces: Anastasia's Mate First in a series of 2024 blogs on the secrets of trapping pieces with an emphasis on puzzles to test your skill at solving various mating configurations such as a Suffocation Mate, Arabian Mate, etc.
Analyze with KIMPLODES does lines! (files, ranks, diagonals)
Until starting this blog, the only book I owned from this grouping was How to Open a Chess Game, a collection of advice from multiple GMs. It was...okay. Now I have a pdf of Larsen's Best Games, published in 1969. It's written in descriptive notation. Groan! I didn't realize how out of practice I was at translating that into algebraic. Plus, what works on the written page is often difficult to translate into an e-format that makes sense. (I used his book for the analysis below, as the DB analyses were of little value, imo.)
The kind of overly deep analysis that often suits my desires. It's not useful for all. Not even for me at times.
