Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Curacao Candidates (1962) Less than two months after the Stockholm Interzonal (1962) ended, eight players met in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, from 2 May - 26 June to determine the challenger to World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik. The top five finishers from the Interzonal - Robert James Fischer, Efim Geller, Tigran V Petrosian, Viktor Korchnoi, and Miroslav Filip - qualified for Curacao straightaway. Leonid Stein, Pal Benko, and Svetozar Gligoric tied for sixth, necessitating a playoff to determine which one of them would qualify for Curacao. Stein won the Stockholm Interzonal Playoff (1962), but was deemed ineligible because of a FIDE rule restricting the number of players from the same country who could qualify from the Interzonal to three. So Benko, who had finished second in the playoff, advanced to Curacao. The seventh and eighth places were filled by Paul Keres and Mikhail Tal, who had qualified by finishing first and second at the Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade Candidates (1959). The eight players would compete in a quadruple round-robin, as in the previous FIDE cycle. Korchnoi led after the first cycle with 5/7, but faltered thereafter, scoring six losses and only one win in the next 11 rounds. Fischer, who had won the Stockholm Interzonal by 2.5 points, got off to a terrible start, losing his first two games and scoring only 2/7 in the first cycle. Tal withdrew due to illness after the end of the third cycle. Heading into the last cycle, Keres led with 14.5 points, followed closely by Petrosian and Geller at 14. In Round 23, Geller played an unsound sacrifice and lost to Fischer, Geller's first (and it turns out only) loss of the tournament. In the same round, Petrosian caught up with Keres by destroying Korchnoi in just 21 moves. In the penultimate 27th round, Benko shockingly beat Keres, who had won their previous seven games. This gave Petrosian a half-point lead over Keres heading into the final round. Petrosian surprisingly took a quick draw as White against Filip, the tail-ender. This gave Keres a chance to tie by beating Fischer. Although Keres had the advantage, he erred and allowed Fischer to escape with a draw. Benko was winning against Geller in a queen and pawn ending, but lost on time! The upshot was that Petrosian eked out a tournament victory by just half a point over Keres and Geller, thereby advancing to the Botvinnik - Petrosian World Championship Match (1963). Keres and Geller played a match to determine which of them would automatically qualify for the next Candidates cycle. The Keres - Geller 2nd place Candidates Playoff (1962) was held at Moscow from 11th-25th August 1962. Keres won, scoring 2-1 with five draws. Petrosian, Keres, and Geller drew all twelve of their games against each other; only one lasted over 22 moves. The median length of these games was 18 moves, the mean 19.1 moves. This led to widespread speculation that they had agreed in advance to draw their games against each other. Later in 1962, Sports Illustrated and the German magazine Der Spiegel published Fischer's article "The Russians Have Fixed World Chess." As a result, FIDE thereafter stopped having Candidates tournaments, switching to a series of knockout matches between the top-qualifying players. 1 Petrosian XXXX ==== ==== =1== ==11 ==1= 11=* =11= 17.5 =2 Keres ==== XXXX ==== 0=1= ==1= 1110 1=1* =11= 17 =2 Geller ==== ==== XXXX 11=0 ==1= ===1 =11* =11= 17 4 Fischer =0== 1=0= 00=1 XXXX 010= 01=1 =1=* 1=1= 14 5 Korchnoi ==00 ==0= ==0= 101= XXXX ===0 10=* 1111 13.5 6 Benko ==0= 0001 ===0 10=0 ===1 XXXX 10=* 011= 12 7 Tal 00=* 0=0* =00* =0=* 01=* 01=* XXXX 10=* 7 8 Filip =00= =00= =00= 0=0= 0000 100= 01=* XXXX 7 (1) Wikipedia article: Candidates Tournament. Original collection: Game Collection: WCC Index (Curacao 1962), by User: Hesam7.  page 1 of 5; games 1-25 of 105  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. Benko vs Fischer 1-0 40 1962 Curacao Candidates B07 Pirc 2. Korchnoi vs Geller ½-½ 38 1962 Curacao Candidates E60 King's Indian Defense 3. Keres vs Filip ½-½ 37 1962 Curacao Candidates B49 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation 4. Petrosian vs Tal 1-0 64 1962 Curacao Candidates A12 English with b3 5. Geller vs Fischer 1-0 40 1962 Curacao Candidates B92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation 6. Tal vs Keres 0-1 40 1962 Curacao Candidates C96 Ruy Lopez, Closed 7. Korchnoi vs Petrosian ½-½ 36 1962 Curacao Candidates C97 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin 8. Filip vs Benko 1-0 28 1962 Curacao Candidates E60 King's Indian Defense 9. Fischer vs Filip 1-0 66 1962 Curacao Candidates C98 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin 10. Petrosian vs Geller ½-½ 21 1962 Curacao Candidates E12 Queen's Indian 11. Keres vs Korchnoi   ½-½ 33 1962 Curacao Candidates D02 Queen's Pawn Game 12. Benko vs Tal 1-0 41 1962 Curacao Candidates A00 Uncommon Opening 13. Tal vs Fischer ½-½ 58 1962 Curacao Candidates B92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation 14. Geller vs Filip ½-½ 13 1962 Curacao Candidates B42 Sicilian, Kan 15. Petrosian vs Keres ½-½ 17 1962 Curacao Candidates D18 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch 16. Korchnoi vs Benko   ½-½ 59 1962 Curacao Candidates B36 Sicilian, Accelerated Fianchetto 17. Fischer vs Korchnoi 0-1 33 1962 Curacao Candidates B09 Pirc, Austrian Attack 18. Keres vs Geller ½-½ 27 1962 Curacao Candidates E61 King's Indian 19. Benko vs Petrosian ½-½ 67 1962 Curacao Candidates A00 Uncommon Opening 20. Filip vs Tal 0-1 34 1962 Curacao Candidates A49 King's Indian, Fianchetto without c4 21. Petrosian vs Fischer ½-½ 25 1962 Curacao Candidates E84 King's Indian, Samisch, Panno Main line 22. Geller vs Tal   ½-½ 27 1962 Curacao Candidates B48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation 23. Keres vs Benko 1-0 28 1962 Curacao Candidates B43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3 24. Korchnoi vs Filip 1-0 101 1962 Curacao Candidates D52 Queen's Gambit Declined 25. Benko vs Geller ½-½ 75 1962 Curacao Candidates A00 Uncommon Opening  page 1 of 5; games 1-25 of 105    REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)   < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·  Later Kibitzing> Jan-11-21    Petrosianic: The USCF rules say that it's unethical to agree to a draw at all before a serious fight has begun, or some such. But it's very subjective, of course. I remember the only time a TD ever questioned me on a draw. It was in the last round of a tournament. I and another guy were tied for first, and we played this game (I was White): 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 c5 6. O-O Be7 7. Nc3 d5 8. Ne5 cxd4 9. Qxd4 Bc5 10. Qd1 O-O 11. cxd5 Nxd5 12. Nxd5 Bxd5 13. Bxd5 Qxd5 14. Qxd5 exd5 1/2-1/2 The TD got wind that we'd drawn quickly, decided to be a bit hard-nosed, and wanted to see the game to be sure it was legit. It wasn't pre-arranged (In fact, I barely knew the other guy). The game is equal, but obviously we <could> have kept playing and trying for something. But we were very close in rating and neither one of us wanted to take the risk. So, was there anything "unethical" about this game? Well, if there was, clearly I'm more at fault than he was, just because I was White. Eliot Hearst's Glossary of Chess Terms describes a Grandmaster Draw as "a peaceful conclusion due to mutual fear", and I think this game fit that definition. On the other hand, there are two great loopholes in the USCF definition. First of all, the term "serious fight" is subjective. In my 3 move draw, I went into the game with a very definite winning plan: To go into a holding formation and let the higher rated player over-extend himself. But he crossed me up by not being in a winning mood either. With my plan busted, taking the draw was totally legit. Another loophole in the rule is that, although the rule says it's unethical to <agree> to a draw without a serious fight, there's nothing to stop players from repeating moves. So if in the game I just showed, the TD had decided that the game wasn't good enough and we should go back out there and keep playing, we could have just repeated moves and claimed a draw by repetition. Nothing in the rules says a word about that. I remember one time two friends of mine agreed to a draw in a position that was equal, yes, but there was play left. A Senior Master walked by, looked at the game, and innocently asked "Why is this a draw?" One of my friends defensively insisted "Well, HE offered it!" Jan-12-21    Sally Simpson: *** On the subject ot 'fixing' how about a no fix going in but a few people thinking there has. I recall this last round winner takes all game. S Arun Prasad vs M Panchanathan, 2009 A draw and a whole of host of last round winners can catch them with something like an 8/9 way tie. So rumours of a last round deal, one loses and splits the winnings, were going about. - there always are in such situations, it's as if they are expected. There were grumbles and mumbles going around about Black's 11 move which effectively lost the game and White took the top pot. click for larger view Black played 11...cxd4? and walked into a version of the the Monticelli trap. Game Collection: The Monticelli Trap I saw 11...cxd4 getting played. I could not quite believe it. White looked more shocked than Black. Imagine being innocent in such a situation, you will be thinking everyone will be saying this game is rigged. Then thoughts of the substantial prize money being withheld drift into your mind. White, now in this predicament of having a shadow cast over him, eventually with an air of 'what else am I supposed to play' played the obvious 12.Ng5. A few of the crowd around the board smiled knowingly, others shook their heads. A TD arrived. If after 12.Ng5 Black had resigned then it would have been bedlam. My stance amongst the after game grumbles was if Black wanted to toss the game then there are much better ways to do it than such an obvious blunder which was bound to attract attention. But a few drowned out boos still went up at the prize giving. My verdict - a genuine blunder which other players before and since have made in the same position. The Prize giving also gave rise to this amusing incident for which I give good advice. Fan Zhang (kibitz #2) *** Jan-12-21    Petrosianic: One move I don't understand in that game is 45. Rh7 instead of Rxh6, which was played a move later. Of course in a situation like this two players wouldn't have to go so far as to have one of them throw the game. They could simply agree to split the prize money regardless of the outcome, then go out and play a genuine game with some opening like a Danish Gambit or a Muzio, or something with very low odds of a draw. That seems ethically shady too, but obviously not nearly as bad as throwing a game. Anderssen is supposed to have had a deal like that at London 1851, though what benefit there is to it in a Knockout Tournament, I'm not sure. Capablanca fell into that trap twice against Euwe, once deliberately, and drew both times. Euwe vs Capablanca, 1931 Euwe vs Capablanca, 1931 Jan-12-21    AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> You are not quoting me. People following on will think it is my quote.> You're right. I followed you and I thought it was your quote. Upon checking more carefully (as a "defense" I will say that I made my post before I had my first cup of coffee) I see that you were quoting <Eggman>. And for that I apologize. Which made me think, always a bad thing. If you quote someone in one of your posts, does that sort of make it "your" quote? After all, I was referring to your post, not <Eggman>'s. While trying to find out what the "rules" were I came across this interesting tidbit (which only tangentially has to do with the topic) that if you are quoting within a quote, there are different styles depending on whether you are American or British, see https://www.thepunctuationguide.com.... American style calls for using a single quote mark (') for the inner quote and a double quote mark (") for the outer quote while British style calls for using a double quote mark for the inner quote and a single quote mark for the outer quote. Another example of "two nations divided by a common language". And <Petrosianic>'s post is somewhat problematic since in Curacao Candidates (1962) (kibitz #283) he wrote a fragment of your earlier post with a double quote mark after Checkmate without an opening quote. I suppose that if he had followed American style he should have written ' " What else could this be but collusion? The controversy is over. The argument is won. Checkmate." '. And if he had followed British style he should have written "' ' What else could this be but collusion? The controversy is over. The argument is won. Checkmate. ' ". But he muddied the waters by posting a syntactically incorrect quote with only one set of quote marks. I vote for the American style as being more correct, or at least more consistent, since the initial quote was clearly surrounded by double quote marks. So, if you are quoting that, then it seems more appropriate to surround it with single quote marks. In the British style you would change the original double quote marks to single quote marks and then surround it with a set of double quote marks. Kind of like drinking warm beer. Or you could just avoid the whole thing and always use double quote marks, where the only criteria for correctness would then be if the number of quotes is balanced at the beginning or the end. Kind of ensuring that, like in a formula, the only thing that's really important (aside from the formula's correctness, of course) is whether the left and right parenthesis are balanced or not. Just consider this suggestion of always using double quote marks, perhaps separating each consecutive set of double quote marks with a space to make it clearer, as another small step for man but a giant leap in unifying the two common languages. The article is silent as to what the style is (or should be) if someone quotes someone else who in turn quotes yet another person. Is there such a thing as a triple quote mark ( ''' )? <Just fed up with the way I get misquoted because I happen to post frequently.> I think there's a lesson in there for all of us. So the next time you get fed up just drink a pint of warm beer, the feeling will soon go away. :-) Jan-12-21    Petrosianic: In other words, next time you're fed up, drink up? Jan-12-21    AylerKupp: <Petrosianic> Of course. And, the more you're fed up, the more you need to drink up. It won't resolve what you're fed up about, but you just won't care (or at least don't care as much). It's always worked for me. Jan-12-21    Petrosianic: I'll drink to that. Jan-12-21    harrylime: <<Petrosianic: I'll drink to that.>> You're not a COMMIE BOT then ?? lol Jan-12-21    harrylime: BOBBY against the WORLD The James Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen of Chess He came. He saw He conquered Jan-12-21    harrylime: Anybody who thinks the USSR regime and the FIDE regime at this time were not afraid of Robert Fischer is a ... <Petrosianic> lol lol Jan-12-21    Petrosianic: <harry david chapman> You said the other day that the idea of not going near a celebrity with a gun was "wierd" [sic]. Do you still feel that way, harry? I'm trying to save you from the biggest mistake of your life here, and that's saying something. You don't have to thank me, however much I may deserve it. Mar-17-23    FSR: Of course Petrosian, Geller, and Keres agreed in advance to draw all their games. Petrosian and Geller agreed to draws after 21, 18, 16, and 18 moves. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che... Petrosian and Keres drew in 17, 21, 22, and 14 moves. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che... Keres and Geller drew in 27, 18, 22, and 15 moves. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che... Twelve games, all drawn, median length 18 moves, only one in more than 22 moves. As Fischer said in Sports Illustrated, "The Russians have fixed world chess." The time and energy they saved by virtue of not having to play real games against each other, and not having to prepare for those games, benefited them greatly. They finished bunched together at the top of the cross-table, three points above Fischer, the top non-cheater. Oct-19-23    FSR: It is striking that almost every game <not> played between two of the Petrosian-Geller-Keres trio was longer than almost every game played between two of them. Start with the propositions: 1. Every game of 22 or fewer moves was played between Petrosian and Geller, Petrosian and Keres, or Geller and Keres. 2. Every game of 23 or more moves was NOT played between any of the three pairs specified above. Out of the 105 games in the tournament, there are only 7 (6.7%) for which these propositions do not hold: Filip vs Petrosian, 1962 (1/2, 14) ; Geller vs Korchnoi, 1962 (1/2, 20) ; Tal vs Petrosian, 1962 (0-1, 20) ; Keres vs Geller, 1962 (1/2, 27) ; Geller vs Filip, 1962 (1-0, 22) ; Petrosian vs Korchnoi, 1962 (1-0, 21) ; Petrosian vs Filip, 1962 (1/2, 14). Oct-21-23    FSR: At the outset, this was a tournament that six of the eight contestants could plausibly win: Tal, the former world champion (provided his health held up, which it didn't); Fischer, who had dominated the recent Stockholm Interzonal (1962), winning by 2.5 points; Geller and Petrosian, who had tied for second; perennial superstar Keres; and Korchnoi. They occupy six of the eight top spots on Chessmetrics' May 1962 "rating list." http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... (1. Petrosian 2782, 2. Botvinnik 2772, 3-4. Korchnoi and Tal 2769, 5. Fischer 2761, 6. Spassky 2757, 7. Keres 2743, 8. Geller 2741.) Petrosian, Keres, and Geller, by entering into their illicit compact, must have figured that they would thereby gain a big advantage over the other three. And so they did. Tal experienced a health crisis, which put him out of the running. The cheating three finished bunched together in the top three spots. Keres and Geller finished 3 points ahead of Fischer, and 3.5 ahead of Korchnoi. Oct-21-23    perfidious: Korchnoi actually led after the first cycle with 5/7, but would win one game in the next eleven rounds, against six losses. Oct-22-23    FSR: Benko did much better here (-3) than his -12 shellacking at Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade Candidates (1959). Maybe he had more time to prepare. And of course he could have had -2 if he hadn't flagged in Geller vs Benko, 1962. Jan-23-25    Petrosianic: <And of course he could have had -2 if he hadn't flagged in Geller vs Benko, 1962.> Minus 1, as Benko probably would have won if he hadn't flagged. Jan-23-25    Petrosianic: A lesser-known story about Curacao. Since it appeared <in> Chess Review, it should maybe be taken with a grain of salt, but it's a good story if true. <The players and seconds at Curacao were each given a handsome attache case. Bisguier and Averbakh particularly, perhaps because they were seconds, sported theirs on all occasions. When they put them down - as the cases were identical - they could not tell which was whose without examining the contents. So then it was revealed: Ihe top items in Bisguier's case were Russian chess magazines, the top in Averbakh's were Chess Reviews!> Jan-23-25    perfidious: If the story is true, wonder whether Averbakh brought <CR> back to Moscow or left his in Curacao; perhaps they were about as welcome in Mother Russia as Trotsky would have been. In the case of Shakhmatny Bulletin et al, Fischer would probably have squeezed each number till it squealed, having already taught himself Russian so as to glean everything he could from 'the enemy'. Jan-24-25    Petrosianic: The story reminds me of an old Get Smart gag, from a show at a track meet: <"Well, that leaves only two contestants in the pole vault-- Smith and Kascaczekovicz." "Oh, I hope Smith makes it." "You'd better hope Kascaczekovicz makes it. He's on our team, Smith is the Russian."> Jan-24-25    Sally Simpson: Hi Perfidious, Bobby probably had them already, did he not frequent a Russian bookshop in New York and pick them up from there. I have seen pictures of him reading a Russian chess book/bound mags in a book store. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/25220... Also suspect Averbach would have been OK. He could have told the authorities that this material contained opening TN's that the decadent West were planning to use against Mother Russia's players. I picked up Russian notation fairly easily when I started getting Shakhmatny from CHESS Sutton Coldfield in the 70's. Then with a English/Russian dictionary I could make out the players names (though some were quite easy to figure.) Jan-24-25    Petrosianic: He wouldn't have to tell them anything because they wouldn't ask. Chess books were no problem. It's not like Averbakh had a Solzhenitsyn book in there, or anything. Jan-29-25    Petrosianic: Eliot Hearst's Curacao pre-tournament predictions. There's some very well-thought-out analysis here, but in the end he badly underestimated Fischer's limited supertournament experience. Ironically, the other day I saw Gotham Chess wholeheartedly recommending the 3. e5, 4. h4 line that Hearst criticizes Tal for here. His analysis of Benko's chances seems spot-on, but in the end Benko vastly exceeded expectations. <HEARST BENKO It's usually best to work in reverse when making predictions, or so the baseball Commentators declare , so let's eliminate first those who have no chance to capture first prize at Curacao. Paul Benko, the ex-Hungarian freedom-fighter, now a combination grandmaster and investment broker from New York, cannot be considered a serious threat for the title. Benko has achieved some fine results in past years-qualifying for the Challengers' Tourney two consecutive times is a tremendous achievement in itself-but he lacks constant practice against grandmasters and has neither the time nor the inclination to keep abreast of the latest advances in chess theory, a major disadvantage when faced with seven other well·prepared opponents. In addition, Benko is saddled with a seemingly incurable compulsion to get into time pressure in even the simplest positions, and this failing cost him dearly in the last Challengers' Tourney where he finished eighth. Benko laughs about bis chances at Curacao and I think he himself will be surprised if he finishes in the top six! FILIP Because of a serious illness, Grandmaster Miroslav Filip of Czechoslovakia did not participate in very many major chess events between 1958 and 1960. He has the reputation of being an extremely solid player, very difficult to defeat, who almost always is willing to accept a quick draw against any worthy opponent. One American international master told me recently that Filip belongs to a group of grandmasters who "enjoy the life and prestige of a chess master and are content merely to demonstrate their equality, not superiority, with the best of the world; they never go all-out to win against any of their professional associates!" In view of Filip's attitude toward the game, it is hard to imagine him as a threat to the leaders in Curacao, but he'll probably draw at least two of his four games with each of the other seven competitors. KORCHNOI AND GELLER All we have left to dispose of now are five Russians and Fischer. Of the Russians, Victor Korchnoi and Ewfim Geller seem to be the two with the least chance for first prize. Both are extremely imaginative, ambitious, and adventurous - a combination of qualities which frequently leads to erratic results and has actually done so in the past for these Soviet stars. Korchnoi probably is the best player in the world in the sphere of counter attack and aggressive defense, but on occasion he has permitted much weaker opponents to obtain overwhelming attacks against him and has lost to players who have finished last in tournaments he has won. His terrific plus score against Tal (no losses, five wins) signifies that he is capable of outstripping the world's best, but over the course of 28 games in Curacao his provocative style is likely to cost him too many valuable points to win the tournament. Geller is an attacking player par excellence, who has in the past held his own with the best in the world, but his performances since 1956 have not matched those of the earlier years. Russian grandmaster Kotov, the "party spokesman" for Russian chess, has recently criticized Geller for his traits of character which make him not a serious enough student of theory; Kotov thinks that Geller should be much more demanding of himself ("Geller could learn a lesson from Alekhine who said, 'With the help of chess, I developed my character!'") Apparently the Soviet chess leaders do not consider Geller a threat at Curacao, either.> Jan-29-25    Petrosianic: <KERES Paul Keres, the veteran of the tournament at 46, is the unknown quantity - the long shot - in the tourney. In 1959 he was, in Tal's words, the moral victor of the Challengers' event, since he was acknowledged to have played the best chess and actually won three out of his four games against winner Tal. Keres first was recognized as world-championship timber back in 1938 when he won the AVRO tourney ahead of Fine (who tied with him in game points but lost the tiebreak), Botvinnik, Alekhine, Euwe, Reshevsky, Capablanca, and Flohr. He has competed in every Challengers' Tourney since the new qualifying procedure was instituted in 1950 and has finished second three times and fourth once. Keres is certainly capable of winning the Curacao tourney and is the sentimental favorite of many because this may be his last chance for the world championship at the game to which he has devoted his life. However, his age may prove to be a decisive disadvantage in such a long and grueling event as the Curacao meeting. THE FINAL THREE Our crystal ball (or are we supposed to be looking through a kaleidoscope?) illuminates Petrosian, Fischer and Tal as the three main contenders for the right to challenge Botvinnik. Petrosian has been in the thick of the fight for the title since 1953, but he has always been kept back by his prudent style of play and the numerous half.points that follow his name in the scoretable. Tigran is not a tiger; V. Vassilev In "Chess Silhouettes" tries to trace the origins of Petrosian's cautious style to the privations of his early family life, the difficulties of the wartime, and the endless Georgian snows, which developed the qualities of aversion-to-risk and avoidance-of·the·unanalyzable in the young chess expert. Whether or not Vassllev's analysis is valid, there is no doubt that Petrosian must play more aggressively than heretofore if he is to win the honor of playing Botvinnik. Since chess styles which have evolved over many years are very difficult to change, it is likely that Petrosian will draw too many games to win the Curacao tourney. If he does win the tourney, he'll be a tough man for Botvinnik to face in a match, since Petrosian's style seems ideally suited for match play. Who is the choice between Fischer and Tal? Tal made his comeback after the Botvinnik debacle by winning the powerful Bled Tournament ahead of Fischer, Gligorich, Petrosian, Keres and Geller, but he lost for the first time to Fischer in that event. Fischer has scored 6-2 (without a defeat) against Russian opposition (Tal, Petrosian, Geller, Korchnoi, Keres, and Stein) in the last six months and has just secured his greatest triumph by a 2½ point margin, in the Interzonal Tournament at Stockholm. Tal has been world champion and has had a tremendous desire to make up for his failure against Botvinnik; he is not so much the chess adventurer he was three or four years ago, but he is still very stubborn about certain variations and favors some lines which almost everyone else thinks are inferior (for example, 3. P·K5 and 4. P·KR4 vs. the Caro·Kann). Fischer is only 19 years old and his critics state that he has not "the maturity of outlook that the other competitors possess"; but his chess style is almost as mature as Capablanca's. Our choice-of course not influenced by sentimental or nationalistic factor is - BOBBY FISCHER! Who do you think will win the match between Botvinnik and Fischer?> Apr-01-25    MarcusBierce: <Leonid Stein, Pal Benko, and Svetozar Gligoric tied for sixth, necessitating a playoff to determine which one of them would qualify for Curacao. Stein won the Stockholm Interzonal Playoff (1962), but was deemed ineligible because of a FIDE rule restricting the number of players from the same country who could qualify from the Interzonal to three.> Because of this rule, Benko was not given the opportunity to play, and potentially defeat, Gligoric to tie Stein in the Stockholm Interzonal Playoff (1962) Would have been interesting to see if another playoff, this time between Stein and Benko would have ensued. Certainly would have been interesting to see Stein in the mix here: One of two Candidates cycles when the rules worked against him. Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 13) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·  Later Kibitzing> NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion. Please observe our posting guidelines: No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members. Nothing in violation of United States law. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members. No trolling. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times. See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator. NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café. Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes! Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC