To be frank, there's something about the way Vasily Smyslov played that I have always found attractive from a stylistic perspective. Among the World Champions, he has to be among the most overlooked. He lacked dominance of Capablanca, despite having a similar appreciation for simplicity He wasn't as psychological as Lasker (as in, willing to play innacuracies knowingly). He didn't make a name for himself with erratic sacrifices like the crowd-pleasing Mikhail Tal. He never fathered a school of thought like Botvinnik or Steinitz.
I could go on about what he wasn't, but not for too long. As we have seen in previous forum posts, Smyslov played with the endgame goals in mind, even from the middle game. This isn't to say that he would reduce material into the endgame quickly like Max Euwe, for example. Rather, he would find ways to create passed pawns in the middlegame and, instead of saving them for the endgame, begin pushing them while material was still abound to support them. We've gone through games here wherein Smyslov creates outposts on the opponent's third rank or threatens to queen while piece play seems active. Many of his strategies embody Philidor's philosophy that pawns are the soul of chess.
This game is not one of those games. All world champions were capable of many styles and strategies, even if they preferred one over others.
This game is a positional beauty with an early piece sacrifice. Please enjoy Panov vs. Smyslov, 1940.
To be frank, there's something about the way Vasily Smyslov played that I have always found attractive from a stylistic perspective. Among the World Champions, he has to be among the most overlooked. He lacked dominance of Capablanca, despite having a similar appreciation for simplicity He wasn't as psychological as Lasker (as in, willing to play innacuracies knowingly). He didn't make a name for himself with erratic sacrifices like the crowd-pleasing Mikhail Tal. He never fathered a school of thought like Botvinnik or Steinitz.
I could go on about what he wasn't, but not for too long. As we have seen in previous forum posts, Smyslov played with the endgame goals in mind, even from the middle game. This isn't to say that he would reduce material into the endgame quickly like Max Euwe, for example. Rather, he would find ways to create passed pawns in the middlegame and, instead of saving them for the endgame, begin pushing them while material was still abound to support them. We've gone through games here wherein Smyslov creates outposts on the opponent's third rank or threatens to queen while piece play seems active. Many of his strategies embody Philidor's philosophy that pawns are the soul of chess.
This game is not one of those games. All world champions were capable of many styles and strategies, even if they preferred one over others.
This game is a positional beauty with an early piece sacrifice. Please enjoy Panov vs. Smyslov, 1940.