A Century of Chess: Milan Vidmar (from 1910-1919)

In Bill James’ Historical Baseball Abstract — which is one of the leading inspirations for this series — James, as part of his entry on the itinerant third baseman Darrell Evans, has a long essay on what makes somebody underrated. Put Darrell Evans and Milan Vidmar in a room together and it’s difficult to know what they would find to talk about, but they were alike in this respect — with Vidmar as one of (if not the most) underrated players in chess history. In Vidmar’s case, the mechanics of being underrated would take in something like the following criteria: he never won an major international tournament outright; he was from a small country; he had a positional style; he didn’t have a colorful personality and no legends attached themselves to him; he was an amateur player who competed at a very high level while keeping a steady job. 

I knew that Vidmar was underrated, but I was shocked, when I crunched the numbers for this decade, to realize just how good he was, coming in fourth place in head-to-head statistics against the world’s leading players. Thinking of Vidmar’s tournament record, though, it really shouldn’t be such a surprise. He finished in second at the super-elite San Sebastián 1911 tournament. He had a +5 score at Karlsbad 1911. He was second at the interrupted Mannhiem tournament. He won a quandragular tournament in Berlin in 1918, coming ahead of Rubinstein and Schlechter. But San Sebastián was Capablanca’s spectacular début; it was very easy to overlook Vidmar’s impressive performance. And Mannheim — remembered for the outbreak of the war — is associated with Alekhine.

Vidmar was born in 1885 in Slovenia. He studied electrical engineering and eventually became a professor and dean at Ljubijana University. In addition to his chess successes, he also wrote one of the best books of this era — The Golden Age — which, as befitting Vidmar’s tendency to be overlooked, has never, so far as I can tell, been translated into English. (Simaginfan translates one of the game annotations here.) 

Other players had a tendency to be a bit disparaging towards Vidmar. Alekhine described him as having “a good-natured rustic slyness characteristic of his Slovene countrymen.” Nimzowitsch wrote of his “many flashes of peasant humor" and his "unusually primitive directness of thought and sensibility." Capablanca said that he was grateful that Vidmar gave him the opportunity to play so many brilliancies against him. But Capablanca, at a moment of graciousness, also said that he was lucky that Vidmar was so torn between chess and engineering — and that otherwise Vidmar might take his crown from him. And Alekhine described him as having a “plain yet highly effective style.”

Vidmar's Style

1.Time

If Schlechter is associated with nocturnes or etudes, and Alekhine with Beethovenian intensity, Vidmar’s style can be compared to a waltz. Everything with him was balanced and elegant but great emphasis was placed on time. “In the opening he invariably seeks to obtain the initiative, that is, he aims to gain both time and space even at the cost of sacrifice,” writes Alekhine. There is a focus in his play on tempo, while, as black, he tended to wait patiently until some lapse of his opponent’s enabled him to seize the initiative. 

2.Simplification

Vidmar seemed to have a heightened conception of how dramatically apparently-equal exchanges could change the evalution of a position. That seems like the best way to understand his win over Burn at San Sebastián 1911. In an equal position, he changes off a pair of minor pieces and thereby removes the defenders to his opponent’s position. The game gives the appearance of incredible ease. 

Vidmar in the Opening

This early game of his against Duras gives some idea of his opening approach and of, as Alekhine described it, his emphasis on the initiative: an overly-excitable maneuver seems to accomplish little; but, as it turns out, Vidmar is able to base his entire strategy on the e6 square, which is loosened as a result of the maneuver. 

Sources: Vidmar is discussed by Alekhine here, by Nimzowitsch here, and by Réti here. Simaginfan has an excellent write-up of him here.