UNDER THE MICROSCOPE - EFIM GELLER
by GM Kevin Spraggett
To the younger generation of chess players today, Efim
Geller is not a particularly familiar name.
Perhaps some might have seen the late grandmaster’s name in opening
manuals dealing with topical systems such as the Sicilian, the Spanish or the
King’s Indian. Or maybe others might
have heard his name mentioned in the story of Bobby Fischer’s meteoric rise to superstar
status in 1972, when Geller was chief analyst on the defending World Champion
Boris Spassky’s team in the historic
However, I would be surprised if I could find today even one in ten
young masters who would be able to show me, by heart, any Geller game, win or
loss. Or be able to tell me even one
tournament that he had ever won. This is
not meant as a criticism, of course, but merely a cynical reflection on our
fast paced times, where it seems that history and tradition are fighting an
increasingly desperate battle to avoid being displaced from what we consider to
be our culture. (I remember a number of
years ago speaking to some young boys about hockey and who their favourite
players and teams were. Should I have
been surprised to learn that none of them had ever heard of the great Bobby
Orr? I was ! Maybe I am just getting too old…)
While it is true that Geller never played a match for the World Championship
title, it is no less true that much of what is best today in modern chess
has origins in his contributions, both as a player and analyst.
Geller belonged to that uniquely gifted generation of Soviet masters
who emerged after the Second World War and
whose utter domination of world chess for the next 25 years help to establish
the mighty myth of the ‘Soviet School of chess’.
Such a generation of uniquely talented chess masters will unlikely
ever be produced again: the list includes legends such as
Spassky, Tal, Polugaevski, Korchnoi, Stein ,Petrosian, and Bronstein .
Geller was born in 1925 in the
His style of play may best be described as a sort of dynamic classicalism :
sound plans based on deep positional motifs, executed with unerring precision
and seemingly boundless energy and determination. His games seem to have that golden aura of
harmony about them that attracted fans.
While Geller developed a reputation for being an outstanding attacking
player –which no doubt he deserved (he checkmated so many of his
colleagues)—his style of play was in fact very much like a modernized Capablanca; always searching for chess truth in any
position, an uncanny ability to exploit the smallest of advantages and a deadly
endgame technique.
Especially with white, his focus on modest but concrete strategic
objectives was clear from his opening repertoire. For example, against the Sicilian he had a
strong preference for developing his king bishop on e2:
1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cd4 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6. Be2
Up until his arrival on the scene 6.Be2 was not considered very
dangerous, but
Geller single handedly turned 6.Be2 into a
much feared weapon. He found plans for
white that brought out the hidden energy and potential from such an unassuming
piece configuration in the opening. His
games would write the theory of this line for a quarter of a century. Fischer suffered more than once in this line
against Geller in individual competition. Later Karpov
eagerly took up this line. (Curiously, for a number of years Geller even worked
as trainer for Karpov).
And in the Spanish (one of Geller’s favourite openings with either
colour) Geller favoured a simple approach to the very popular Zaitsev variation:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.OO Be7 6.Re1 b5
7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 OO 9.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8
(Diagram)
Instead of the more theoretical 12.a4 ,
which has been debated in countless Kasparov vs Karpov games
(without any clear conclusion), Geller preferred the modest bishop retreat 12. Bc2, following up with d5, b3 and c4, blocking out the black bishop
on b7. Hardly something that
would scare many of the defenders of the black position, but nevertheless a
very concrete approach, causing some
impediment to black achieving his strategic goals, not to mention being
slightly irritating in a practical sense.
Today many modern grandmasters are turning to this approach pioneered by
Geller as the 12.a4 system is failing to make much of a dent in Black’s set-up.
With hard work Geller became a very well rounded player, capable of
playing all types of positions with great skill. Like the other leaders of his generation, (especially
Spassky, Stein, Tal and Korchnoi) he developed a marked aptitude for playing
complex opening systems that lead to sharp and uncertain play, and he did much
research that helped to develop what would later become modern chess
theory. His opening knowledge and
analytic skills would put him into a class by himself, and even Fischer had
remarkable trouble to keep up with him in theoretical disputes.
Geller played every game to win, regardless of opponent or colour or even
tournament situation. And against any
opponent he would always remain faithful to his style and chess values: he
would play the same way against everyone.
The fact that he had a plus score against the World Champions also
speaks to his remarkable skills: not counting draws, his personal score against
Botvinnik was 4 to 1; against Smyslov
10 to 7; against Petrosian 4 to 2; against Fischer 5
to 3 (even more remarkable, he crushed Fischer twice in the late ‘60s with
black, one game going 25 moves and the other only 23 moves!); against both Euwe and Karpov he had an even 1
to 1 score. Against Tal
(4 to 6) and Spassky (6 to 9) he had negative
scores. (He also had a 0 to 1 score
against Kasparov, but was almost 60 years old at the time!) A
truly remarkable record.
Certainly, Geller was one of the strongest players never to become
World Champion. To players of my
generation Efim Geller’s name is synonymous with
chess greatness. He died in 1998 at age
73, still an active tournament player and trainer.
Why did Geller never become World Champion?
© Kevin Spraggett