|Amsterdam Candidates (1956)|
This event was played in Amsterdam and Leeuwarden from 27 March - 30 April. Ten players competed to select a challenger to the world title. As the loser of the Botvinnik - Smyslov World Championship Match (1954), Smyslov was seeded directly while the other nine were qualified from the Gothenburg Interzonal (1955).
The opening ceremony took place on 26 March in Vossius Gymnasium, Amsterdam where the chairman of the Dutch Chess Federation Hendrik Jan van Steenis and FIDE President Folke Rogard held welcoming speeches. The tournament was then formally opened by Vice Mayor de Roos, and the chairman of the Stichting Internationale Schaaktraditie Amsterdam Evert Straat thanked all the sponsors. Whereafter the former (1935-1937) World Champion Max Euwe presented the tournament program and performed the drawing of lots. Play started at 5:30 pm the next day in Minerva-paviljoen, Amsterdam - the main venue, and lasted for five weeks and 18 rounds when all the players had met each other twice (once with each color). Rounds 10 and 11 were played in Leeuwarden, where the players stayed in Hotel Lauswolt for five days (12-17 April).
As in the Zurich Candidates (1953) tournament, Smyslov won. He went on to win the Botvinnik - Smyslov World Championship Match (1957) and become the seventh World Champion. He then lost the Smyslov - Botvinnik World Championship Rematch (1958). The next qualifier cycle was the Portoroz Interzonal (1958) and the Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade Candidates (1959).
Minerva-paviljoen, Amsterdam (1-9, 12-18) and De Beurs, Leeuwarden (10-11), Netherlands, 27 March - 30 April 1956
Tournament director: Max Euwe, assisted by Haije Kramer and Wolfgang Heidenfeld.
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Pts CHF*
1 Smyslov ** ˝˝ ˝˝ 0˝ ˝˝ ˝1 11 ˝1 1˝ ˝1 11˝ 5000
2 Keres ˝˝ ** ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝1 ˝˝ ˝0 1˝ 1˝ 10 3500
=3 Szabó ˝˝ ˝˝ ** 1˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝1 0˝ ˝˝ 01 9˝ 1310
=3 Spassky 1˝ ˝˝ 0˝ ** ˝˝ ˝1 0˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝1 9˝ 1310
=3 Petrosian ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ** 0˝ 01 1˝ ˝˝ 1˝ 9˝ 1310
=3 Bronstein ˝0 ˝0 ˝˝ ˝0 1˝ ** ˝1 1˝ ˝˝ ˝1 9˝ 1310
=3 Geller 00 ˝˝ ˝0 1˝ 10 ˝0 ** 11 ˝1 1˝ 9˝ 1310
=8 Filip ˝0 ˝1 1˝ ˝˝ 0˝ 0˝ 00 ** 10 ˝1 8 650
=8 Panno 0˝ 0˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝0 01 ** 1˝ 8 650
10 Pilnik ˝0 0˝ 10 ˝0 0˝ ˝0 0˝ ˝0 0˝ ** 5 500
Tournament books: Das Kandidatenturnier für die Weltmeisterschaft 1956 by Max Euwe and Willem Jan Muhring (ten Have, Amsterdam 1956. 186 pp. Reprint 1980: Variant, Nederhorst den Berg); World Championship Candidates' Tournament: Holland 1956 by Baruch Harold Wood (Chess, Sutton Coldfield 1956. 156 pp. Reprint 2003: Hardinge Simpole Ltd.).
Daily reports in Utrechts Nieuwsblad are available at http://www.hetutrechtsarchief.nl/co.... Dates are from De Telegraaf which is available at http://resources2.kb.nl/110585000/p... (obtain day by changing the last digit in the URL). The New York Times had daily reports except rounds 10 and 11.
Photo of the players: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...
Original collections: Game Collection: WCC Index (Candidates Tournament, 1956) by User: Resignation Trap and Game Collection: Amsterdam Candidates 1956 by User: Tabanus. Thanks to User: Benzol, User: Chessical, User: Stonehenge and User: Phony Benoni for help with the sources. *Prizes in CHF or Swiss franc, Wikipedia article: Swiss franc.
| page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 90
|1. Panno vs Pilnik
||1-0||40||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||A21 English|
|2. Keres vs Bronstein
||½-½||47||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||C28 Vienna Game|
|3. Filip vs Spassky
||½-½||20||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||A05 Reti Opening|
|4. Geller vs Petrosian
||1-0||46||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||E58 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3, Main line with 8...Bxc3|
|5. Smyslov vs Szabo
||½-½||31||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||E62 King's Indian, Fianchetto|
|6. Geller vs Smyslov
||0-1||56||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||E26 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch|
|7. Spassky vs Keres
||½-½||29||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||D28 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical|
|8. Petrosian vs Bronstein
||0-1||36||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||E66 King's Indian, Fianchetto, Yugoslav Panno|
|9. Pilnik vs Filip
||½-½||57||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||C78 Ruy Lopez|
|10. Szabo vs Panno
||½-½||42||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||A56 Benoni Defense|
|11. Smyslov vs Petrosian
||½-½||53||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||E63 King's Indian, Fianchetto, Panno Variation|
|12. Panno vs Geller
|| ||½-½||19||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||A14 English|
|13. Filip vs Szabo
||1-0||19||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||E77 King's Indian|
|14. Keres vs Pilnik
||1-0||41||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||B20 Sicilian|
|15. Bronstein vs Spassky
||½-½||34||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||E63 King's Indian, Fianchetto, Panno Variation|
|16. Petrosian vs Spassky
||½-½||71||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||A15 English|
|17. Szabo vs Keres
|| ||½-½||19||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||E53 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3|
|18. Pilnik vs Bronstein
||½-½||24||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||C67 Ruy Lopez|
|19. Smyslov vs Panno
||1-0||41||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||B92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation|
|20. Geller vs Filip
||1-0||38||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||C95 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Breyer|
|21. Bronstein vs Szabo
|| ||½-½||43||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||E58 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3, Main line with 8...Bxc3|
|22. Panno vs Petrosian
||½-½||52||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||D94 Grunfeld|
|23. Spassky vs Pilnik
||½-½||73||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||A56 Benoni Defense|
|24. Filip vs Smyslov
|| ||½-½||23||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||E19 Queen's Indian, Old Main line, 9.Qxc3|
|25. Keres vs Geller
|| ||½-½||21||1956||Amsterdam Candidates||A30 English, Symmetrical|
| page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 90
TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!
|Jan-26-14|| ||WCC Editing Project: |
Vasily Smyslov recalls a nervy moment in the tournament:
<"The battle became especially fierce in the second cycle, when three rounds from the finish Keres was level with me, with Geller and Bronstein half a point behind, and Spassky and Petrosian trailing by a further half point. In this sharp situation <<<I won a very tense game against Bronstein,>>> (Smyslov vs Bronstein, 1956) then drew with Spassky, and success in the final game with Pilnik gave me victory in the tournament.">
-Vasily Smyslov, "Smyslov's 125 Selected Games" Ken Neat transl. (Cadogen 1983), pp.13-14
|Mar-07-14|| ||RookFile: Really an awesome result for Smyslov. He was at the height of his powers in these days.|
|Jun-07-15|| ||zanzibar: Here's a little contemporanous atmospherics:
|Dec-17-18|| ||Olavi: From four quite easily winning positions in rounds 2-5 Petrosian scored just three draws and a loss. As Euwe wrote in his tournament book, he really should have won the tournament - and who knows, Tal would never have become WC.|
|Dec-17-18|| ||perfidious: Tough for even the strongest character to overcome what happened to Petrosian in that second-round game, though so very easy to play armchair quarterback after the event. |
Bit surprising really that Euwe would offer up the idea that Petrosian should have come out winner; one rather suspects matters would have gone differently overall for everyone concerned.
Why Tal 'would never have become WC' is beyond my understanding, as it was only the next year that he took that critical first step by qualifying from the Soviet title event.
|Dec-20-18|| ||Olavi: <Why Tal 'would never have become WC'> is my thoughts on a possible Petrosian - Tal 24 game match in 1960. Remember that Tal scored 5˝/12 against the other Soviets in the 1959 candidates, and I'd put it beyond him to beat Petrosian at least before the 70's.
As for that opinion of Euwe's, I agree, but he was referring to how it seemed to him after the tournament ended. In 1953 Smyslov had dominated, this time, despite the gap at the end, not so, and for Euwe Petrosian had played the best chess.|
|Dec-20-18|| ||fabelhaft: <Remember that Tal scored 5˝/12 against the other Soviets in the 1959 candidates>|
He didn't lose any of his games against Petrosian, not sure if the losses to Keres say much about how Tal would have done against Petrosian.
<I'd put it beyond him to beat Petrosian at least before the 70's>
They played a dozen games up until Curacao 1962, and Tal was the only player to win between them.
|Dec-20-18|| ||Olavi: I took these things into consideration. For me, what I wrote is almost a conviction; but of course my argument is rather weak. As must any argument about the matter be, I think.|
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
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
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
- No personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No posting personal information of members.
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.
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.|
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC