Ståhlberg's Losing Streak in Zürich 1953

Having recently suffered a run of terrible results OTB, I found myself looking for chess-related motivation. I have accumulated a good library of chess books over the years and one of them is David Bronstein's classic "Zurich International Chess Tournament, 1953".

In the book, Bronstein (who himself finished in 2nd place in the tournament) analyzes all 210 games of the marathon 30-round Candidates tournament. I had already analyzed a number of games from the book but now found myself drawn to the games of the Swedish Grandmaster Gideon Ståhlberg who finished in last place on 8/28.

Ståhlberg was for more than two decades the best Nordic player in the world. Swedish and Nordic Champion for more than ten years, he was a two-time Candidate for the World Chess Championship and was one of the inaugural recipients of the Grandmaster title from FIDE in 1950.
In Zurich 1953 however, he had a difficult time. Entering the 23rd round of play, he was mired at the bottom on 6/21 (with one bye). For this round, he would play the white pieces against 30-year-old Serbian master Svetozar Gligoric.

What can be learned from this game? There are a few themes present in Ståhlberg’s play that are common during a run of poor form: first, his opening play is very careful and timid. He plays prophylactic moves like 7. h3 and retreating moves like 14. Ne1 instead of going for direct confrontation in the center. Ultimately, this allows his opponent to take control of the center of the board and dominate the game. Then, after finding himself in a losing position, he goes for active play far too late with 19. Nd5.

Often when we have had a bad run of results, we tend to be overly careful – we don’t want to lose again so we try to avoid taking risks. But this just allows a strong opponent to take control of the game. Then, we realize we are lost and that we have to do something – which tends to make matters worse in chess.

In the next round, Ståhlberg had black against the Soviet player Mark Taimanov.

This game shows another common trait of play during a losing streak: flip-flopping between two plans without committing to either and ultimately failing to achieve both. Ståhlberg plays 6... a6 in the opening, which should logically be followed by b5 or perhaps first Rb8 and then b5. Instead of playing 7... b5, he plays 7... Bd6, with the intent of Qe7 and then e5. But, when the moment to play e5 arrives, he switches back to the first idea and plays 10... Rb8, finding himself in a very difficult position for the rest of the game.

The confident player who is in form tends to choose a plan and execute it: after all, even a bad plan is usually better than no plan at all.
The end of the game is a long and difficult defense, which Ståhlberg ultimately loses. This is another important point about losing and low self-confidence at the chess board: the player in a run of bad form does not want to lose – often he tries twice as hard to win. Lack of confidence is not the same as the lack of will or desire to win.

In Round 25, Ståhlberg plays white against the legendary Miguel Najdorf. This game is easily the most painful loss during the streak: the Swedish Grandmaster plays brilliantly, sacrificing the exchange for a strong passed pawn. Indeed, the plan is completely winning but what happens when we try to execute even a very good plan during a poor run of form?

17. Rxf1 is a very counterintuitive inaccuracy. Simple chess principles would tell you that it’s better to capture with the bishop and keep the rook behind the passed pawn. But when we are full of self-doubt we no longer see the simple principles and tend to over-think things, choosing a sub-optimal continuation.

Finally, in Round 26 we see another common phenomenon: “when it rains, it pours.” We’ve all been there – we think we’re playing pretty well but somehow our opponent has transformed into prime Magnus for the afternoon and is making zero inaccuracies.

Obviously, Tigran Petrosian was at the time a future World Champion and fully capable of a positional masterpiece. But why does the masterpiece come at the worst possible time for Ståhlberg? In Bronstein’s words from the tournament book: “Curiously, not one of the annotators of this game, Ståhlberg among them, could find a single sizable error on black’s part!”

Importantly, even after all this, Ståhlberg didn’t give up and went on to win a fine game against Averbakh in the following round.

So there you have it – I certainly found analyzing this losing streak enlightening and I hope it may help you with the inevitable tough times in your own chess career. In the words of Alfred, Lord Tennyson “Tis’ better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all.”