What can we learn from studying Botvinnik's games?

Who was Mikhail Botvinnik? What was his style? What can we learn from studying his games? What made him special or stand out from the other world champions?

Fischer left him off his list of the Ten Greatest Players, possibly in part because he had a crappy match record as WCH:  +2 -3 =2. He apparently considered his title defense matches to be "training matches" for his automatically guaranteed rematch in case he lost, although by 1963 the automatic rematch clause had been rescinded.

I've read his Best Games 1931-46 and enjoyed them very much, although I'll be damned if I can think of anything I learned from them. He was an outstanding endgame player, just like every other modern champ with the possible exception of Tal so I guess you could do worse than study his endgames.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Botvinnik

http://www.amazon.com/Botvinnik-One-Hundred-Selected-Games/product-reviews/0486206203/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Fischer left the Patriarch off his list of the ten best players because he hated the Soviets and saw Botvinnik as the symbol of that system.

Botvinnik's games are extraordinarily rich in dynamism and technique. He had colossal struggles with Boleslavsky, Bronstein, Smyslov, Tal, and Petrosian. His students include Taimanov, Karpov, and Kasparov. 

Probably can't learn much by studying his games.

also Botvinnik has a way of study his own games in detail.

I can't understand how the first two paragraphs you wrote lead to that last sentence... Is this a joke?

It's called sarcasm...

Oh boy, you use that word almost correctly...

(i guess you know how to call what i said ;)

Modern as in an official champ, beginning with Steinitz. Possibly an arbitrary designation and I'm sure it's been around long before I used it.

Yes Tal was fine in endgames but in general I haven't seen him considered to be in the same class as Botvinnik, Fischer, Capablanca, Smyslov and other WCHs considered to be genuinely awesome endgame players.

Every world champion has been an exceptional endgame player. (The possible exceptions of Ponomariov, Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov highlights how misguided FIDE was in allowing that tournament format to be for an official title).

Mihail Marin included a chapter on Tal's endgames in his excellent book, Learn from the Legends. Of course, I consider Smyslov's endgame technique to be superior even to Tal's, but Tal was still an exceptional endgame technician. This fact has been lost to a generation that seems to have forgotten Tal had the longest unbeaten streak until Kramnik came along. That only happens with impeccable technical skills.

Brilliant tactics here.

Here are some of the things we can learn from Botvinnik in the opening:

• How to play the Nimzo-Indian, from both sides. Mark Taimanov devoted a chapter of his own best games to lessons he learned from Botvinnik in the NimzoIndian
• How to play the Queen's Gambit Declined Exchange variation with Nge2. This is how Kasparov played it and  Lars Schandorff recommends following in the footsteps of the Patriarch in his excellent book, Playing the Queen's Gambit.
• How to play 1.d4 d5.2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 dxc4 as Black (The QGD Botvinnik variation)
• How to play the French Winawer as Black at a world class level
• How to play the Caro-Kann as Black against Mikhail Tal and win. In fact, Botvinnik showed the world how to play against Tal!
• How to play the Dutch at a world championship level
• How to play the English as White or as Black with subtlety and graceful Knight moves....

The list of Botvinnik's contributions, just to opening theory, goes on and on!

His contributions to our understanding of dynamism, positional chess, and technique are just as monumental. There's a good reason he is known as the Patriarch in former Soviet states.

One doesn't have to like him personally to acknowledge his importance to chess.

I think the real problem with Botvinnik's games are the best variations are the one's he didn't play . . .

Amazing analysis though, I wish I could see 1/4 as much in my own games.  

Why not? Steinitz is widely considered to be the father of modern Chess theory -- the modern game started with him, and ended the romantic period. The "hypermoderns" attempted to steal his thunder, but his theories were able to endure as the basis for our current understanding of the game with minimal modification. 

Students in chess classes the world over are still taught his ideas in order ot get them started on understanding how to play the game today. 

Well, that wouldn't be the way anyone who studies the history of the game uses the term. Rather, that would be "current." "Modern" refers to an era that started with Steinitz' theory.

What I learned from looking at Botvinnik's games was elegant simplification, the idea of simplifying from a more complex to a less complex position with a gain of inevitability.  I have no idea, frankly, if that's what he was known for, but that's what I saw.  I only wish I could expect to live long enough to do it as well as he did.  :)

Botvinnik - Donner, 1963:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEWL-eDyOBU&list=UUJ7Ogp96NhyVMx6ZoRg8AfA

From his games, we can learn the art of positional chess & how to gain space....His style was...neither attack nor get attack...sounds a bit boring but his subtle positional maneuvers compensate for that may be...