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

🏆 Curacao Candidates (1962)

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
Soon after the ... [more]

Player: Mikhail Tal

 page 1 of 1; 21 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Petrosian vs Tal 1-0641962Curacao CandidatesA12 English with b3
2. Tal vs Keres 0-1401962Curacao CandidatesC96 Ruy Lopez, Closed
3. Benko vs Tal 1-0411962Curacao CandidatesA00 Uncommon Opening
4. Tal vs Fischer ½-½581962Curacao CandidatesB92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation
5. Filip vs Tal 0-1341962Curacao CandidatesA49 King's Indian, Fianchetto without c4
6. Geller vs Tal  ½-½271962Curacao CandidatesB48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
7. Tal vs Korchnoi 0-1351962Curacao CandidatesC83 Ruy Lopez, Open
8. Tal vs Petrosian 0-1201962Curacao CandidatesC11 French
9. Keres vs Tal ½-½231962Curacao CandidatesB49 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
10. Tal vs Benko 1-0331962Curacao CandidatesC11 French
11. Fischer vs Tal 1-0631962Curacao CandidatesB32 Sicilian
12. Tal vs Filip 0-1391962Curacao CandidatesB43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3
13. Tal vs Geller 0-1421962Curacao CandidatesA45 Queen's Pawn Game
14. Korchnoi vs Tal 0-1621962Curacao CandidatesD41 Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch
15. Petrosian vs Tal ½-½501962Curacao CandidatesA16 English
16. Tal vs Keres 0-1411962Curacao CandidatesC96 Ruy Lopez, Closed
17. Benko vs Tal  ½-½341962Curacao CandidatesA00 Uncommon Opening
18. Tal vs Fischer ½-½291962Curacao CandidatesC64 Ruy Lopez, Classical
19. Filip vs Tal  ½-½331962Curacao CandidatesE62 King's Indian, Fianchetto
20. Geller vs Tal 1-0781962Curacao CandidatesB48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
21. Tal vs Korchnoi ½-½251962Curacao CandidatesB48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
 page 1 of 1; 21 games  PGN Download 
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Tal wins | Tal loses  

TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Mar-21-17  Howard: As far as why the rematch clause was scrapped, for the next 20 years, at least two theories have been given.

One was that Botvinnik was allegedly abusing the rematch clause. When he was defending his title against Smyslov in 1957 and then Tal in 1960, he may have viewed those matches as "training" matches. If he won, great. If not, he could always try to get his title back in the rematch.

Another reason is that he may have purposely thrown his matches in 1957 and 1960, so as to allow the Soviet Union to have more world champions from that country. To put it another way, he may have purposely "loaned" the title to both Smyslov and Tal, so that the Soviets would have two additional former world champions.

Mar-21-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: Well, Botvinnik was one of the most resilient and scientific players of all time. Better than anyone, he knew how to learn from his mistakes, which meant being objective about his shortcomings and correcting them.

But there's also a psychological factor. As Petrosian explained it to himself, Smyslov and Tal both beat Botvinnik so convincingly that there was no room for doubt about the outcome. To be asked to measure up against the same guy so soon is hard to do. He felt that both of them looked past the rematch, thinking that they'd already proven their superiority to this guy, and deep down just wanted to coast through with a minimum expenditure of energy. Botvinnik, on the other hand, was the kind of guy who could get slapped silly and come back burning with energy.

There was the same kind of talk after 1960. That Botvinnik was pushing 50, and beaten so badly that he wouldn't even exercise his right to the rematch. People who thought that didn't know him very well.

Talk of Botvinnik, who mistrusted others so much that he played world championship matches without a second, to throw a match and trust the bureacracy to give him the title back are totally insane, and on the same level as those theories that Saidy threw the game to Fischer to help him finish 11-0. Wishful thinking with no evidence.

Mar-21-17  Howard: Granted, there is no evidence about what I suggested, but the theory is plausible, in my view.

Keep in mind that Botvinnik was held in high esteem by the Soviet government, so he might have very well trusted it, as far as making sure he got his "title" back during the rematch.

But, we'll obviously never know what was really going on back then.

Mar-21-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: Botvinnik's relationship with the Soviet Government was complicated. He was their Fair-Haired Boy, but also kind of their Bad Boy. They didn't even give him the Order of Lenin until he lost the title, and it would have been too embarrassing to give it to Smyslov and not Botvinnik.
Mar-21-17  Sally Simpson: The next re-match clause after Botvinik's reign was officially in the 1978 match between Karpov and Korchnoi.

The last one - I'm not sure if this qualifies as a 'return match clause', but in the 2007 World Chess Championship. There was a rule that if Kramnik did not win it (he came second) then he would play a match v the winner (Anand).

Also not too sure about the theory that Botvinnik threw in the towel to allow two more ex-World Champions for the USSR. He was not that type of guy.

He got beat fair and square. His record in World Champion matches on paper was not too impressive.

P. 7. W.2 D.2 L3

However losing the title twice and winning it back twice is a stiff record to beat, especially under the current rules.

To equal it Carlsen has to lose in two finals and qualify from two candidates to get back into the finals. Botvinnik never had to play in a candidates to get his titles back.

Mar-21-17  Howard: Here's one piece of trivia which a lot of people probably aren't aware of:

When Petrosian successfully beat Spassky for the WC in 1966, it was the first time since 1934 that a reigning world champion beat his challenger in a WC match.

I'll admit I wasn't aware of this until Petrosian died, in 1984, and was surprised...

...until I mentally reviewed all the WC matches starting with 1934, and I realized that this was indeed correct.

Botvinnik, in other words, never won a WC match in which he was the defending champion.

Mar-21-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Geoff....Botvinnik never had to play in a candidates to get his titles back.>

He had the opportunity, but chose not to play in the 1965 cycle.

Mar-21-17  althus: <Petrosianic> <Botvinnik's relationship with the Soviet Government was complicated. He was their Fair-Haired Boy, but also kind of their Bad Boy>

This is true. Sometimes I think he was their Useful Idiot, too. Let him think he's in charge, but ultimately too unimportant to bother purging.

To have survived the bonkers USSR of the 1930s to 50s as anyone of stature required a complicated relationship, to be sure.

Mar-21-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: The way I heard the Order of Lenin story was that Botvinnik "forgot" to congratulate Comrade Stalin when he (Botvinnik) won the World Championship, and in return they "forgot" to give him the Order of Lenin. But there would be no way to hide the snub if Smyslov got it and Botvinnik didn't, and they didn't want to deny Smyslov. Yeah, it is rather surprising that Botvinnik survived the Stalin era at all.
Mar-21-17  Sally Simpson: Hi althus: and beatgiant

I found a report on the on the 1959 FIDE meeting that took place from the 13th to the 24th September at Luxembourg,

CHESS Oct 24th 1959 (page 14).

The report is from Alan F Stammwitz who at the time was hon.Secretary B.C.F.

He arrived with a letter from the president of the Scottish Chess Fed saying he could vote on their behalf.

First item on the agenda. Countries excluded for not paying their FIDE fees:

Chile, Columbia, Egypt, Greece, Pakistan and SCOTLAND! (you could not make it up)

A promise was made that Scotland would send their fees before December so they were allowed back in,

I have photo-copied the relevant bit and it is here at the bottom of an old Blog. Just scroll down and you will see it. It is reading like Tal was in because he was the recently disposed Champion.

It does says 3 players max from the same nation - it does not specifically say the two who are already there (Tal and Keres) are not to be counted as the part of the maximum 3.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/chess-blo...

Mar-21-17  althus: This is good stuff! It also makes you shake your head.. Written in black and white: three players max. But those two guys Keres and Tal...? Oh don't worry, they don't count.

I guess there is no answer to the question of how the rule was truly defined. FIDE seems to have pulled things out of their ear ad hoc, then as now.

Unless this is sloppy reporting by CHESS -- but when every journalistic outlet is the same kind of sloppy, then it looks instead like the slop comes from the source.

Mar-21-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: <This is good stuff! It also makes you shake your head.. Written in black and white: three players max. But those two guys Keres and Tal...? Oh don't worry, they don't count.>

It's clear enough. Three may qualify from the Interzonal. Keres and Tal didn't count because they didn't play in the Interzonal.

Mar-21-17  Sally Simpson: Hi althus:,

OOPS! I've just had a grim e-mail.

I had a league match and forgot all about it. I was at that the Edinburgh Club when I should have been playing the Edinburgh Club at the RAF Club.

I have the bound CHESS's 1959-1960-1961-1962-1963 with me. I am going though them to see if I can uncover anything else.

I am finding loads of other good stuff..

Petrosian was given an onyx Knight after beating Botvinnik by one of his fans.

If you looked into the tiny eye of the Knight you could see the final position of Petrosian vs Botvinnik, 1963

It had been carved on a piece of rice, inserted in the eye and covered with a small magnifying glass.

Mar-21-17  althus: <Petrosianic> <It's clear enough. Three may qualify from the Interzonal.>

But Graeme, it doesn't say that. I am being all Winterian here, but darnit, there's a reason that guy exists.

<Sally Simpson> Aie! It sounds like you're a traitor on top of it all :) Isn't it past your bedtime?

Mar-22-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: And yet more than three played. So we still don't have the full picture.
Mar-22-17  Sally Simpson: Hello Again,

Chess February 1962 (page 174)

Chess are reporting on the replayed European Zonal to see who goes to Stockholm.

The first Zonal was held in Holland but Holland refused to allow Uhlmann into the country because he was an East German and East Germany was not recognised as a state. (A bit like the Arab - Israeli situation today).

So Uhlmann was left out leading to other players boycotting the event: Filip (Czechoslovakia), Szabó (Hungary), Silwa (Poland), Bobostov (Bulgaria), Ghitescu (Romania)

The event was run without these players. Time passed, letters were sent, protest held, threats issued...the usual FIDE chaos

So the whole event was run again this time in Czechoslovakia. (nowdays called the Czech Republic) with all the original players.

Whilst reporting on all of this CHESS on page 174 of the February 1962 issue state:

"The first six from the Interzonal {Stockholm], together with Tal and Keres, compete in the Candidates Tournament at Curacao in May to decide who shall challenge Botvinnik for the World Championship next year."

The first six, no mention of a USSR limit.

And then from CHESS, page 206, March 1962. CHESS are doing a report on the play off from Stockholm and they mention that only 3 players from the USSR can play at Curacao.

I have photo-copied that bit and added to the bottom of the same link: (but before going there read on.)

http://www.redhotpawn.com/chess-blo...

Interesting to note that when CHESS do their report on the Curacao Candidates they mention that many 'commentators' (not Fischer)

"...are raising the old cry of collusion."

The following month's report has the editor B.H.Wood saying the round by round games and final table:

"..tell a disturbing tale..."

Then comes more from B.H.Wood and this time he mentions:

"...under the rule that no more than five 'candidates' should be from one country.

He then mentions that the Soviets possibly did conspire to get their man through. Saying an 'outsider' will not win the title for 10-15 years. (he was right. it took 10 years.)

I have also photo-copied that bit added it to the above link.

----

One wonders if the Russians have fixed world chess seed was planted in Bobby's mind by others though the same magazine CHESS July 1962 reports on a Fischer interview given at round 12 where Fischer calls the Soviet players 'Cowards'.

"The real Soviet fighters like Smyslov, Spassky and Bronstein, aren't even here." says Fischer.

Mar-22-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Nosnibor: <Petrosianic> Thanks for your comments but Keres won the right to play whereas Geller obtained his place by concession. The playoff decided this because Geller had the better SB score in the original event.
Mar-22-17  beatgiant: Given the discrepancy in the rule for Curacao 1962 Candidates' as written (maximum 3 from same country) versus actual (3 plus the seeded players), doesn't that suggest that in the Yugoslavia 1959 Candidates also, it could have been 4 plus the seeded players?

But the rule that <seeded players don't count toward the limit> seems to have been unwritten, so maybe we'll never know.

Mar-22-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: <Nosnibor: <Thanks for your comments but Keres won the right to play whereas Geller obtained his place by concession.>

I'd disagree with the implication that the First Alternate hasn't "earned" his spot. Of course he has. But it's also true that Keres got into the 65 Candidates directly, while Geller got in because Botvinnik dropped out. My point was just that, in <hindsight>, the match decided nothing at all. If it had been known for sure that Botvinnik would play in 1965 but would not play in the 65 Candidates, this match would never have happened.

Mar-22-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Petrosianic....in <hindsight>, the (Keres-Geller playoff) match decided nothing at all. If it had been known for sure that Botvinnik would play in 1965 but would not play in the 65 Candidates, this match would never have happened.>

This is axiomatic; nor would Geller have needed to play the 1964 <Tournament of Seven>.

Mar-22-17  Sally Simpson: At the time nobody, not even Botvinnik, was sure if he would defend his title.

Salo Flohr writes at the time it was 50-50. Benko had beaten Keres in the Candidates but Keres accepted that as part of the game.

Benko losing to Geller they way he did he could not accept as it was possibly robbing Keres of his cherished dream, a World Chess Championship Final.

Flohr jokingly writes you could call the Geller - Keres match the 'Benko Match' but not within earshot of Keres who could bear to hear his name.

Flohr adds, fortunately after the match and through time Keres calmed down and you could without risk mention 'Benko' in his company.

As it was Botvinnik decided to defend his title but not play in the next candidates. So as Petrosianic says, in hindsight the match was not needed .

"Forethought we may have, undoubtedly, but not foresight."

Napoleon Bonaparte

May-28-17  Waysider: Fischer - only one drawn game in thirteen with the white pieces and that was not until the last game!
May-28-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Nosnibor: It is amazing to think that apart from Keres Benko was the next oldest player in this tournament all other players have since passed on and he remains the sole survivor at 89 years of age.
May-28-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: Benko is also the oldest surviving GM I got to play in my chequered career.
May-30-17  Howard: As far as I know, there's only living grandmaster older than Benko---Averbach.

The recently-deceased Bisguier was a year younger than Benko.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 6)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your 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 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC