'From the very beginning, everything seemed doomed to go wrong for me in this match. During the tournament at Wijk aan Zee, this year, agreement was reached between the players and Dr.Euwe, President of F.I.D.E., that our match should commence in Holland on May 1st, but two months later I was informed that these arrangements had been cancelled and that F.I.D.E. had decided to hold the event in Seville. The German Chess Federation raised the objection that the climate in Southern Spain was unsuitable for my health during a strenuous match, but F.I.D.E. rejected this, since no other venue was available at this stage.

The day before play began the arbiter, Harry Golombek, and the players inspected the playing-room at about noon and the environment seemed suitable. However ... shortly after the start of the first game, the air-conditioning apparatus created an unpleasant humming sound, and it took 2 1/2 hours to repair this fault. Perhaps I should mention now that my opponent, Petrosian, suffers from a hearing-defect which renders him incapable of picking up even normal conversa­tion without the help of a hearing-aid, which can, of course, be turned on or off at will.

In the subsequent games 2-5, I made no complaint, although I was periodically disturbed by the noise of tramping feet marching over the pavement above the playing-room, which was situated in a cellar beneath a busy thorough­fare. And then to the 6th Game -

During this game, the noise from the street above became unbearable for me, due to a sudden increase in the volume of traffic. I complained three times to the Chief Judge, Mr.Golombek, that this noise prevented me from proper concentration on the problems of the game, but he was unable to improve the situation or to interrupt the game. After three hours I could no longer endure the strain and left the room for a conversation with my second, Hecht, to decide the proper course in this situation. No satisfactory solution presented itself so I eventually resolved to offer a draw in a favourable position, which Petrosian accepted without a moment's hesitation, and this despite my pre-match psycho­logical decision not to instigate peace offers from my side.

In the evening Mr.Golombek informed me that he had decided that a meeting between players, seconds, organisers and himself should take place to discuss the matter of the continuing suitability, or otherwise, of the playing­ room, and to make provision for avoidance of the repetition of this unfortunate incident. Mr.Golombek himself had confided to me after the game that he too regarded the noise in the room as quite intolerable.

This meeting occurred at noon next day (a free-day). Before the arrival of the Soviet Delegation, I requested Mr.Golombek to change the playing-room but he assured me that this would certainly not meet with the approval of the organisers and asked if I insisted on this point, which I did. When the Soviet delegation arrived, Mr.Golombek apprised them of my problems and the sugges­tion that a new location should be found. Suetin, Petrosian's second, conveyed to us that the Russians would not agree to any change, and advanced the following arguments:

1)- Hubner cannot protest against the playing-room because he agreed to the conditions before the 1st game started.

2)- The room is all right for Petrosian.

3)- If one fulfilled Hubner's wish there would be the danger he would ask for a new playing room after every game.

4)- In fact Hubner was disturbing Petrosian by consulting the arbiter all the time when it was not his move.

As to 1)- I would say that our pre-match visit did not reveal the noise disadvantages of the room, and any agreement on my part would only be binding if the conditions remained the same: i.e. as they were before the match.

2)- , of course, I would agree with, but 3)- is pure sophistry, putting psychological pressure on me quite extraneous to the matters on the chessboard. The same goes for 4)-. Had the conditions been rectified I would have had no need to consult the arbiter. I certainly had the right to see Mr.Golombek whenever difficulties with the playing conditions arose.

At this point, Mr.Golombek proposed that the 7th game should commence under the old conditions, but that play should be transferred to a new room if the unbearable noises recurred. I, however, raised three objections to this propo­sal: 1) It would be distracting to change the room while play was in progress. 2) I felt that a further attempt with the old room would be fruitless since there was no reason to expect any improvement. 3) My nerves had been frayed by the happenings of the 6th game, thus rendering me more vulnerable to any distur­bances which might ensue.

Nevertheless, Mr.Golombek replied that he would stick to his own proposal, but would take any nervous state into full account. Thereupon I accepted his suggestions.

In the 7th game the noise once again arose after 1 1/2 hours of play, during the rush-hour in Seville. I informed Mr.Golombek that I was disturbed, but he took no action. With the advantage of hindsight I think now that I should have stopped play at this point and refused to play on in the match unless the room were changed. But at this stage my position was very advantageous, so I was unable to resolve on this course. Because of the noise I consumed more time than usual and on move 39 I blundered away a piece in a drawn position. During this game Mr.Golombek passed a statement from the Organisers to my second, Hecht, which described my protest from Game 6 as an attack of hysteria and which accused me of impolite behaviour towards the organisers. In addition they claimed that my protests were without foundation. Now it became clear to me that the rather cool attitude of the organisers from the very first towards me had been no accident (no rooms when we arrived at the hotel, delay of 2 days in Seville before they made contact with me, and so on.). Since it was also clear that the organisers would do nothing to fulfill my justified demands, I decided not to play on and to leave Seville. In a final discussion I wanted to give the Organisers the opportunity to explain and excuse their behaviour, but they insisted on their previous statement and only calumniated me further.

According to Lawson in The Inner Game: 'His main professional pursuit was the decoding of ancient Egyptian papyrus texts, for which he was justifiably renowned. As a hobby he translates and publishes Finnish satirists into German. For good measure, he was also the only European to compete in the Chinese chess world championships, and was a regular visitor to Peking for this annual event.'

The last I heard of Hübner were his arguments for the non-existence of God in the pages of New In Chess, a few years ago.