"The Zukhar dispute had bee quietly simmering during the last few games. THe main development was Ms. Leeuwerik's new habit of trying to distrct him by kicking his shins and jabbing the small of his back with a pen. This paproach was less successful than the more subtle Gulag Archipelago Gambit she had adopted earlier and Ms. Leeuwerik's only success was to make an exhibition of herself.

Now the dispute really boiled over again. At the beginning of the game Korchnoi objected violently to Zukhar's presence and threatened to evict him by physical violence if necessary. Eventually Campomanes agreed to move him back but warned that this would be the last time.

The 17th game was yet another tragedy for Korchnoi. Following the familiar pattern he built up a won position with White after improving on his play in game seven. His position in the early middle game was so good that he retained winning chances even after a number of inaccuracies in the later middle game. But he no longer had winning chances when disaster struck: Korchnoi allowed an elegant but obvious mate in three. His resignation was greeted by singing and screaming from thirty tourists who had fortuitously arrived from Russia that day. This must have taken korchnoi's mind back to the partisan crowds who watched his 1974 match against Karpov in Moscow.

Korchnoi had wasted 13 precious miutes on his clock by this fulminations against Zukhar at the start of the game. Perhaps forgetting this he commented after the game: "I dont know where my time went I thought I was moving quickly." WOuld the extra 13 minutes have been enuf time to alows Korchnoi to have won his overhwelming position? 13 seconds should have sufficed..

The Spassky thing was recounted in Keene's book similar to what JGD said.

The Soviet delegation responded to the charges re: Zukhar w/ a letter Aug 5, 1978, which said in part:

"In connection with this we feel ourselves obliged to remind of the fact that many matches with Mr. Korchnoi's participation were accomanied by scandalous situations. For instance, 1968 matches with Mr. Reschevsky and M. Tal, 1974 matches with Mr. E. Meking, T. Petrosian, A Karpov, 1977-78 match with B. Spassky...."

My question is what scandalous situations are they talking about with Reshevsky and Tal?

Keene thought white was winning from about move 16 to move 27.

One of Keenes suggestions is 23 Rb8+ Kf7 24 Rb5 which is interesting but I dont think korch's move is bad either. Keene says Korch. did not even considere Rb8+. oh well.

27 Rb5 is said to be a blunder. Keene prefers 27 Nxd4 which given the time problems he had, would be simpler and better.

30 Nf3 was castigated. Murei (another advisor) preferred 30 Bf8 KxN 31 Bxp Ne4 getting a better deal R+ pawns for 2 Ns. Panno suggested 30 Nc2 NxB 31 Bf8 which looks okay.

Keene doesnt really explain the end much. He says 34 Rf4+ is a mistake and prefers 34 Rf7.

Okay now at the end, there are two mating combinations that may be helpful to play out. One is the way it happened and the other is, if 39 h4 Rc1+ 40 Kh2 Nf1+ 41 Kh4 Nf2#

Okay so the only move is 39 f4 (not sureabout f3) and if 39..Nf3+ 40 RxN KxR and black cant force mate even if the pawns are gone.

But you are right to focus on all those checks. it seems that Korchnoi is trying to both attack the K and grab material.

He does this on moves 33/34; grabbing a pawn and then checking and on move 36/37.

All of which I think is survivable but look at move 37. There are a number of moves I am looking at, but maybe best is 37...Re7

"If this game does not teach Korchnoi to stay out of time trouble, he will never learn. He lost a position it seemed impossible to lose. What is the use of absorbing all the little details at move 13; what is the use of all your brilliant planning at move 26, when you overlook a mate in 3 at move 39?"

17. f4 exf4

(17...e4 18. f5 e6 19. xc6 xf5 20.
xa8 xa8 (1.85/13))

18. xf4 e6 19. e2 fe8 20. exd4 xe2

(20...f7 21. f1 xb5 22. cxb5 xd4 23. b2 (1.77/13))

(20...xd4 21. xe6+ xe6 22. b2 xb5 23. xd4 cxd4 24. cxb5 (1.82/15))

Karpov's 39...Nf3+ was a real shocker of a move.

39. Ra1 is so not understandable. It's already really good on a3, being very active. Why move back? 39. h3 or h4 would've started the pawns rolling.