|
Held from January 27 until March 6, 1962, the Interzonal tournament in Stockholm was a 23-player round robin, with six players qualifying for the ... [more]
|
|
Player: Fridrik Olafsson
| page 1 of 1; 22 games |
 |
 |
| Game |
| Result | Moves |
Year | Event/Locale | Opening |
| 1. Petrosian vs F Olafsson |
  | 1-0 | 34 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | A46 Queen's Pawn Game |
| 2. F Olafsson vs Geller |
| ½-½ | 24 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | A10 English |
| 3. Korchnoi vs F Olafsson |
| 1-0 | 37 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | D71 Neo-Grunfeld |
| 4. F Olafsson vs Filip |
| ½-½ | 20 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | A36 English |
| 5. Bolbochan vs F Olafsson |
| ½-½ | 21 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | A49 King's Indian, Fianchetto without c4 |
| 6. F Olafsson vs M Bertok |
| 1-0 | 43 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | B93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4 |
| 7. Uhlmann vs F Olafsson |
| 1-0 | 51 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | E79 King's Indian, Four Pawns Attack, Main line |
| 8. F Olafsson vs R Teschner |
| 1-0 | 40 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | A11 English, Caro-Kann Defensive System |
| 9. Benko vs F Olafsson |
| 0-1 | 26 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | A14 English |
| 10. F Olafsson vs M Aaron |
| 1-0 | 20 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | B92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation |
| 11. Portisch vs F Olafsson |
| ½-½ | 46 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | E51 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3 |
| 12. F Olafsson vs I Bilek |
| ½-½ | 13 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | B43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3 |
| 13. Barcza vs F Olafsson |
| 1-0 | 35 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | E63 King's Indian, Fianchetto, Panno Variation |
| 14. F Olafsson vs A Bisguier |
| ½-½ | 35 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | E46 Nimzo-Indian |
| 15. Fischer vs F Olafsson |
| 1-0 | 33 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | B88 Sicilian, Fischer-Sozin Attack |
| 16. F Olafsson vs A Pomar |
| ½-½ | 37 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | A04 Reti Opening |
| 17. Gligoric vs F Olafsson |
| 1-0 | 93 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | C92 Ruy Lopez, Closed |
| 18. F Olafsson vs S Schweber |
| 1-0 | 40 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | B93 Sicilian, Najdorf, 6.f4 |
| 19. Yanofsky vs F Olafsson |
| ½-½ | 41 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | B48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation |
| 20. F Olafsson vs E German |
| 1-0 | 37 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | D37 Queen's Gambit Declined |
| 21. M Cuellar Gacharna vs F Olafsson |
| 0-1 | 99 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | E54 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3, Gligoric System |
| 22. F Olafsson vs Stein |
| 1-0 | 32 | 1962 | Stockholm Interzonal | B84 Sicilian, Scheveningen |
|
| page 1 of 1; 22 games |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-27-12 | | ozmikey: Small correction to the intro: the Amsterdam interzonal was in 1964. |
|
| Sep-09-13 | | jerseybob: This I.Z. was originally set for 1961, but international tensions(Cuba, Berlin Wall) set it back. The number 2 and 3 American competitors were originally set to be Lombardy and Weinstein, based on their finish in the 1960-61 U.S. Chp. By the time the tourney was finally played, they had been supplanted by Benko and Bisguier. A missed chance there for American chess. Not to downgrade Benko; he did after all qualify for the Candidates, but Lombardy and Weinstein were exciting young players who would never again reach this height. |
|
Sep-09-13
 | | offramp: It's noticeable that Geller did better against the top 10 than Fischer did. +4, -1 for Geller, +2 for Fischer. |
|
Sep-09-13
| | offramp: Petrosian was unbeaten here and at the following Candidates' Tournament in Curaçao.
He only lost 2 games in the march v Botvinnik. He must be one of the toughest men to beat in history. |
|
Feb-18-14
| | offramp: Interzonals were strange things. It was not essential to win them. The idea was to qualify; to finish in the top 5. So if a player had enough points to qualify and there were three rounds to go, he might ease up in the last three rounds. Fischer - as almost ever - played to win and won the tournament by a big margin. But he then seemed certain that the 1963 World Championship match was going to be between he and Botvinnik. So when he lost his first two games at Curaçao he was devastated! |
|
| May-29-14 | | Bartacus: It has often been said that Fischer's "weak" performance at Curacao was due to overconfidence from his triumph at the Stockholm Interzonal. I wonder though...I read not too long ago that Fischer missed a connecting flight for the start of the Candidate's Tournament. Perhaps he arrived unsettled and began the tournament in poor form. |
|
May-29-14
 | | perfidious: <offramp: Interzonals were strange things. It was not essential to win them. The idea was to qualify; to finish in the top 5.> Top six qualified, not top five. |
|
May-30-14
| | offramp: < perfidious: <offramp: Interzonals were strange things. It was not essential to win them. The idea was to qualify; to finish in the top 5.>
Top six qualified, not top five.>
What? All of them? |
|
May-30-14
| | perfidious: Yes--except when they didn't. |
|
| Jun-21-14 | | jerseybob: Bartacus: I'd never heard that story. If true, Fischer hadn't yet mastered the art of recovering from a poor start, as he did 4 years later at Santa Monica. But even so, his games in this tourney are very spotty: some good, some bad. And that goes for the openings he played too, which didn't yet have the laser sharpness of his championship drive. |
|
| Jun-21-14 | | jerseybob: Bartacus: When I say "this tourney" I meant Curacao. |
|
Sep-30-14
 | | kingscrusher: Fischer had been apparently sponsored by an American Millionaire to go and play in this event. The sponsor went with him - Isaac Turover |
|
Sep-30-14
| | kingscrusher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isador... |
|
| Sep-30-14 | | Petrosianic: <If true, Fischer hadn't yet mastered the art of recovering from a poor start, as he did 4 years later at Santa Monica.> He sort of did. He "won" the final cycle, with a +2 score. His problem wasn't shellshock so much as not being quite ready to beat the best of the best yet. And overconfidence. He didn't quite grasp that he was the only one trying to win Stockholm, while the others were just trying to qualify, and save energy for the Candidates. |
|
| Sep-30-14 | | TheFocus: Also remember that at Curacao, Fischer was facing seven of the strongest GMs in the world. At Stockholm, there were some weak players. Some were probably IMs. Does anyone have the breakdown on the number of GMs vs. number of IMs at Stockholm? |
|
| Sep-30-14 | | Petrosianic: Not offhand, but remember that in addition to GM's and IM's, there were also untitled players at Stockholm. Offhand, I believe there were 13 GM's at Stockholm, or about half the field, but I'm not certain, and may have missed some. Some of them, like Bisguier and Barcza were not front line GM's, of course. According to Chessmetrics, Fischer's opposition at Stockholm averaged 2615, while his Curacao opposition averaged 2727. That's the difference in a nutshell. |
|
Sep-30-14
| | perfidious: Thirteen GMs sounds right, for Bilek and Pomar were only awarded their titles at the FIDE Congress held later that year and Yanofsky in 1964. |
|
| Jan-02-15 | | SpiritedReposte: Fischer wins the tournament without a single loss...like a boss. |
|
| May-08-15 | | Karne: Fischer was 18 when he won this tournament. |
|
May-08-15
 | | AylerKupp: <<Petrosianic> According to Chessmetrics, Fischer's opposition at Stockholm averaged 2615, while his Curacao opposition averaged 2727. That's the difference in a nutshell.>
I don’t agree. After all, 6 of the 8 players at Curacao 1962 were also at Stockholm 1962 and were playing the same opposition. If a lower average rating in Stockholm vs. Curacao was the difference in Fischer winning the tournament, then the other 5 players that were both in Stockholm and Curacao would have also scored higher in Stockholm than they actually did. Of course, these are just 2 tournaments consisting of 22 games per player (Stockholm) and 28 games per player (Curacao, except for those who did not play Tal in the 4th round because of Tal's withdrawal) so the difference in player results are probably not statistically significant. I think that overconfidence (which the bad luck of losing his first 2 games should have cured) was more of a factor. Because of his relative inexperience he just didn't figure out the difference in effort that the other players would put out in Curacao given that at Stockholm it was sufficient to finish only in the top 6 to advance and in Curacao you had to come in 1st. But maybe the loss of those first 2 games had more of an impact on his confidence that he cared to admit or even realize. |
|
| Oct-09-15 | | Marmot PFL: Fischer plays his best but should have drawn a few more games and saved his best lines for the candidates. |
|
| Oct-09-15 | | diceman: <offramp: It's noticeable that Geller did better against the top 10 than Fischer did. +4, -1 for Geller, +2 for Fischer.> What's noticeable is he was the only one. |
|
| Jul-28-16 | | todicav23: While most of the people do not agree with me, I think Fischer was strong enough around 1962-1963 to become world champion. And this tournament shows that. A few things happened in Curacao. It is clear that the soviet players prearranged their games among themselves. Fischer was probably over-confident that he will win, based on the victory in this tournament. Unfortunately for him he had a bad start and he realized what the soviet players are doing. That was too much for him and he was not able to fight for the first place. People can say "well, if he was strong enough, he should have won all or most of his games and there was nothing the soviets could do". I don't think people realize that it was a big disadvantage for Fischer. Fischer had to fight in every game while Petrosian had 8 draws in 22 moves or less against Keres and Geller! I'm not saying that Fischer was the best player in the world at that time. He was part of the elite, along with Botvinnik, Petrosian, Tal, Keres or Geller. At that time there was no player clearly superior. Fischer also had the chess knowledge, the skills, the energy and even the experience to become world champion. |
|
Jul-28-16
 | | keypusher: <todicav>
This again? Sorry, but Fischer lost the first two games and was never in contention. Not the Soviets' fault. And he didn't have to win all or most of his games, or anything like that. He had to do better than +8 out of 27 games. He managed +1. Incidentally, Petrosian didn't just play short draws against Keres and Geller. He also played 25- and 23-move draws with...Bobby Fischer. Petrosian vs Fischer, 1962
Petrosian vs Fischer, 1962
Way to fight in every game, Bobby!
Petrosian also played a couple of 14-move draws with Filip and a number of short games against other opponents. Fischer played (by his standards) a number of short games. Bottom line, which I cannot stress strongly enough: it was a terrible tournament, and we're wasting our time arguing about it. |
|
| Jul-28-16 | | TheFocus: Just sour grapes on Bobby's part. Curacao just wasn't Bobby's time. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
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.
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!
Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
