The Time of Smyslov and his Underated Chess Career

Smyslov has to be one of the most solid and defensive player in all of chess history, even better than petrosian and others even in the modern day. I see him as the person that if his opponent brought 4 pieces, he would somehow get all 8 to defend his position. He is a better represenatation of the Unstoppable force and the immovable object, and many people forget about him because he was such as drawn(drawish) grandmaster and wasn't often talked about. 

But what many don't seem to remember is that he still was the 7th world champion in the world, and he still held the title for a year, and although he didn't hold it for too long, many forgotten his true potential and what he could do if he would've just came out of his shell. However the reason he stayed in his shell was because he was comfortable in his shell like, and the shell is refering to his playstle of being defensive, positional, active when needed, but passive mostly in the positions that he made such as the old steinitz defense. So in a sense this man was the man you were either forced to lose to, or get a draw with for most of the time. Only in some exceptions is this not true, however again he didn't become world champion for no reason, as he did beat Mikail Botivinik who was a dominant force at the time and had a good run with Kasparov still showing fight in his old age with Kasparov's 8 1/2 to his 4 1/2 in his world championship game in 1985. This shows just how good he was even in his old age, as his playstyle was a playstyle he could keep continually play with, unfortunatley the same cannot be said for Mikhail Tal who later in his life changed from a tactical warmongerer to a positional player.

Anyway this is what I personally said about Vasily Smyslov in my own words: 

Vasily Smyslov: "Was the type of Grandmaster that was just positionally and defensivley dominant, this man was more than happy with draws and it is stated that if you would've attacked him you would lose as his defense was more powerful than the offense of most players such as Mikhail Tal(in exception to some games), Bobby Fisher, Mikail Botivinik and others. This guy was just someone you wouldn't come with 4 pieces as if you would have 4 pieces, he has 8 pieces defending his position, that was just how good he was defensivley and that is also how he became a champion in his time. However due to his playstyle although it was consistent most of the time he would get draws as since he was a brick wall and wouldn't move, neither would his opponents unless they wanted to lose, and this was seen for the majority of the time . So a lot of draws defined his career and that is why he wasn't maintained as the world champion as though he wasn't losing he also wasn't winning, and in order to be world champion you have to win constantly and consistently to have a long reign. Unfortunatly though this was the case for Smyslov but still he was a great player, even though many people seem to have forgotten about him."

With this personal description I made about him it tells his career about chess and what he  was really about, truly he was on such a good level, however due to his playstyle he didn't go for the gold and played for less. But can we blame him? Why play out of your style and lose, the point of the game is to enjoy it, and it must've been a plus for him since he was world champion and his name is still in the history books, so honestly I still don't understand why people underestimate his playstyle and his career as sure it may have not been the most interesting, but I still find it more respectable and cool considering all the different variables and different things that happened in his day. 

RIP Smyslov, and hopefully this was very informative and even some of you can relate to your playstlyes or to the knoweldge that was given.

Thank you for the info!

Np @Mink78, always glad to share information and give good stories!

Yes, Smyslov's longevity speaks to his high quality of play.  Very underrated.

Smyslov once said that the game that gave him the greatest aesthetic satisfaction of his entire career was the 14th game of his 1954 World Chess Championship match with Botvinnik.

@SeniorPatzer, it is true that he was underrated, I mean I don't even understand why...

He did have a long career though and he was known as the drawn master, so that is why I am assuming he was so underrated, but even with this it makes me wonder as to why as he was no joke, he was still one of the top contendors in the world during his time, and he was also World Champion, so it is just funny how his legacy faded away.

Perhaps we will never know why his is not known like others truly, but these are the conclusion I drew to meet the connections.

Nice conversation @SeniorPatzer, was nice someone understood what Smsyslov was known as... At least someone else is on the same page for this topic, for once it seems!

@bleemu

This game shows some of the potential Smyslov had in his prime and honestly it is arguable to think Smyslov even had a prime when he was a GM past 2500-2620 because he was very consistent and he was very good within his playstyle. But like I said this was just something that was the true strength of what he could be. But I guess it is important to know he wasn't a player that could do that every game, and this is another one of my conclusions because if he could play like this every game and dominate, why not? However knowing that he was a drawn Master and didn't mind draws unless he had to go for the win, showed that he was comfortable in his playstlye and that is probably why he didn't go so far to play as he may not have had the energy nor the avaliability to do it, and sadly with World Championship play you have to continue winning, however since Smyslov was known as a drawn Master winning wasn't something he could always achieve, or not neccessarily he couldn't achieve but he didn't want it because he was fine with accumulating draws as that was just what he was known for and good at during his time, in which is very respectable.

Yeah Smyslov is very underrated. He was like around the top 15-20 for 40 years, from like the early 1940s all the way to the mid 80s. That is just such extraordinary longevity. He had respectable life scores against many players of his time and he won countless tournaments.