|
This qualification tournament for the 1965 Candidates matches was held 20 May - 21 June in the building of the GAK (Social Security Organization) in Amsterdam. The purpose was to select a challenger for ... [more]
|
|
Player: Alberto Foguelman
| page 1 of 1; 23 games |
 |
 |
| Game |
| Result | Moves |
Year | Event/Locale | Opening |
| 1. H Rossetto vs A Foguelman |
| ½-½ | 30 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | D91 Grunfeld, 5.Bg5 |
| 2. A Foguelman vs Larsen |
  | 0-1 | 40 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | D59 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower |
| 3. O Quinones Carrillo vs A Foguelman |
| 1-0 | 50 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | B18 Caro-Kann, Classical |
| 4. A Foguelman vs K Darga |
| ½-½ | 38 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | A60 Benoni Defense |
| 5. G Tringov vs A Foguelman |
| ½-½ | 53 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | B11 Caro-Kann, Two Knights, 3...Bg4 |
| 6. A Foguelman vs Bronstein |
| 0-1 | 21 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | D25 Queen's Gambit Accepted |
| 7. Tal vs A Foguelman |
| 1-0 | 50 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | B18 Caro-Kann, Classical |
| 8. A Foguelman vs Stein |
| ½-½ | 32 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | A57 Benko Gambit |
| 9. Spassky vs A Foguelman |
| 1-0 | 21 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | B18 Caro-Kann, Classical |
| 10. A Foguelman vs Smyslov |
| ½-½ | 40 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | D25 Queen's Gambit Accepted |
| 11. Pachman vs A Foguelman |
| 1-0 | 39 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | E27 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch Variation |
| 12. Portisch vs A Foguelman |
| 1-0 | 41 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | E61 King's Indian |
| 13. A Foguelman vs Gligoric |
| ½-½ | 63 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | E62 King's Indian, Fianchetto |
| 14. Y Porat vs A Foguelman |
| 0-1 | 54 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | E60 King's Indian Defense |
| 15. A Foguelman vs F J Perez |
| 1-0 | 31 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | C72 Ruy Lopez, Modern Steinitz Defense, 5.O-O |
| 16. Benko vs A Foguelman |
| 0-1 | 59 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | C05 French, Tarrasch |
| 17. A Foguelman vs B Berger |
| 0-1 | 40 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | E04 Catalan, Open, 5.Nf3 |
| 18. I Bilek vs A Foguelman |
| 1-0 | 44 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | C00 French Defense |
| 19. A Foguelman vs Lengyel |
| ½-½ | 17 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | B43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3 |
| 20. Reshevsky vs A Foguelman |
| ½-½ | 30 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | D81 Grunfeld, Russian Variation |
| 21. A Foguelman vs L Evans |
| 0-1 | 42 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | A57 Benko Gambit |
| 22. Z Vranesic vs A Foguelman |
| 0-1 | 20 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | D82 Grunfeld, 4.Bf4 |
| 23. A Foguelman vs Ivkov |
| 0-1 | 35 | 1964 | Amsterdam Interzonal | E23 Nimzo-Indian, Spielmann |
|
| page 1 of 1; 23 games |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-21-15
 | | perfidious: According to a source I read a time ago (perhaps Wade et al on Fischer), the FIDE Congress voted that Botvinnik's right to a return match had been cancelled. Were not those Congresses held, at least in even-numbered years, during the Olympiads, or was this practice modified in '64 due to the Olympiad being held in Tel Aviv? |
|
| Jan-21-15 | | Olavi: In Schach-Echo 3/1965 and 6/1965, it is stated that the quarter-final is Botvinnik-Smyslov, quoting Neue Zürcher Zeitung and Die Welt respectively. In Schach-Echo 8/1965 on 23.4.1965 it is reported that Botvinnik had withdrawn. |
|
| Jan-21-15 | | Olavi: Of course the simple fact that Geller played in USSR Zonal (1964)
shows that he was not seeded directly. |
|
Jan-21-15
 | | Fusilli: <Tabanus> Well... not really. It does remove the confusing sentence, but it is redundant with the first sentence, where it was already said that six players would qualify from the interzonal. At the risk of sounding stubborn, I think my suggestion was better: the first sentence says that six would qualify. The second sentence clarifies that only three from the USSR were allowed. The rest explains who exactly qualified, taking into account these restrictions. (But see <Olavi>'s post referenced below.) Alternatively, you can keep your edit, but in that case I suggest you add to the sentence you edited this bit from the first sentence at the end: "with the restriction that only three players from one country could advance to the candidates from the interzonal tournament". Then delete the first sentence. But note the posts by <Olavi>, especially this one: Amsterdam Interzonal (1964). That is worth clarifying. |
|
| Jan-21-15 | | Petrosianic: <Olavi: Of course the simple fact that Geller played in USSR Zonal (1964) shows that he was not seeded directly.> Okay, so he was already knocked out at the Zonal Stage. This is similar to how Spassky got into the 1977 Candidates. He played in the '76 Interzonal and failed to qualify, but then ended up being seeded anyway, after Fischer dropped out. Had Spassky successfully qualified from the Interzonal, there would have been only one person left from the 74 Candidates to give it to, who didn't already have a spot: Robert Byrne. |
|
Jan-21-15
 | | Tabanus: <Olavi> It's not me who wrote the intro and I have not researched this, but I think Geller was indeed 'directly seeded' from the Stockholm Interzonal (1962) after both Botvinnik and Fischer withdrew. |
|
Jan-21-15
| | Tabanus: <Fusilli> The language is bad, even I can see that! The whole thing needs a rewriting. I'll try tomorrow when rested, if not someone else will try in the meantime. |
|
| Jan-21-15 | | Petrosianic: You're right. AFTER Botvinnik withdrew (but not Fischer, he didn't figure into it, as he'd finished lower), Geller was directly seeded. It would have been interesting if Botvinnik had stayed, and we'd seen a 4th Botvinnik-Smyslov match. I assume that either Botvinnik of Smyslov would have lost to Spassky in the semifinals, but Spassky's reputation would have been greater from having bumped off another ex-world champion. |
|
Jan-21-15
| | Fusilli: <Tabanus> Thanks!
BTW, my guess is that Geller (after Botvinnik's withdrawal) was seeded from the Curacao Candidates (1962) rather than the Stockholm Interzonal (1962), which preceded it. |
|
Jan-21-15
| | Tabanus: <Fusilli> Yes that's correct, I'm too tired. Perhaps the whole thing is best explained on this page: Keres - Geller 2nd place Candidates Playoff (1962). |
|
| Jan-21-15 | | Petrosianic: <Olavi: In Schach-Echo 3/1965 and 6/1965, it is stated that the quarter-final is Botvinnik-Smyslov, quoting Neue Zürcher Zeitung and Die Welt respectively. In Schach-Echo 8/1965 on 23.4.1965 it is reported that Botvinnik had withdrawn.> This is very useful information. So, let's get the timeline straight. Late 1962: Keres-Geller playoff gave the 2nd seed to Keres. Geller is out. ??/1964: Zonal. Geller fails to qualify for Amsterdam Interzonal 05/64: Amsterdam Interzonal goes on without Geller.
04/65 or earlier: Reported that Botvinnik withdraws, replaced by Geller. 04/65: Geller-Smyslov match played.
Since the 64 Zonal was not a Soviet Championship, one can assume that Geller would not be there if Botvinnik had already withdrawn. I wonder how much time Geller had to prepare for the match? I would assume that Botvinnik with drew well before that article, but after the Soviet Zonal was played. |
|
Jan-21-15
| | Tabanus: http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/histo... p. 107: "Botvinnik will not play the WC match. The decision became known on 10 March (1965). The FIDE president Folke Rogard had asked the candidates to confirm their participation before this date. No confirmation came from Botvinnik." |
|
| Jan-21-15 | | Petrosianic: Wow, as late as that? The quarterfinal matches started in April. Geller only had one month to prepare, and all of Smyslov's preparation was wasted? Or maybe they both suspected that Botvinnik was out and had prepared for each other all along. |
|
| Jan-21-15 | | zanzibar: <Petrosianic> Are you sure the 64 Soviet Ch wasn't a Zonal in disguise? I'm a little late to the discussion, so might be amiss, but I found this great page: http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/zon...
by the ever diligent Mark Weeks. It gives some very good background on the Soviet machinations: <Quoting from Chess Review 1964-03, p73> <The tournament was formally named Championship of the Soviet Union; but, in point of fact and in view of its main purpose, it has become an integral part of the FIDE competitions for qualification to the World Championship program.[...]
The writer feels compelled to animadvert on the "elective" character of the tournament.> <4 (qualifier, USSR chp) Leningrad 1963-12 (11-23 -> 12-27)> OK, that seeded six players into the "strangely named" <Tournament of the Seven> <4 (zonal) Moscow 1964-00> = 6 seeds from USSR ch (1963) + Korchnoi As described by Korchnoi in <Chess is My Life> Smylov was supposed to be the 7th and Korchnoi the 8th, but Smylov wanted a direct seed into the Interzonal. The Federation at first refused, but were overridden by the Sports Committee. So <Zonal Tournament Moscow 1964>, aka tournament of seven, was held in January, I think. The top three finishers - Spassky, Stein and Bronstein, together with Smylov and Tal were sent to Amsterdam (May and June, 1964) to compete(*). (The Interzonals usually seeded six candidates into the Candidates, but in 1964 the "Botvinnik" rule meant that the WC had to qualify in the Candidates as well. So the IZ was supposed to seed only five candidates, with a max of 3 Soviets - Spassky, Tal and Smylov. The Wikipedia layout is very helpful to see how it all fits together and plays out (post-Zonal that is): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_... ) |
|
| Jan-21-15 | | Benzol: < zanzibar> See <Olavi>'s post earlier about USSR Zonal (1964) for the "Tournament of Seven" . |
|
Jan-22-15
| | Tabanus: I made some Quick and Dirty changes, better now?
I know it could be much better, and with more info (e. g. who was arbiter?) etc. By the way, I found that the text was mostly stolen from http://www.chess.com/groups/forumvi... |
|
| Jan-22-15 | | sneaky pete: <Tabanus> The arbiters were H.J.J. Slavekoorde and H. de Graaf. The 3 qualifiers restriction was only in effect for players from the Soviet Union, but no other federation had more than 3 representatives anyway. By the way, very clever how you detected that a game collection introduction I wrote 4 or 5 years ago was mostly stolen from a text that first appeared on another website 10 months ago. |
|
Jan-22-15
| | Tabanus: <sneaky pete> Yeah not so clever. Probably it was exactly the opposite, that Chess.com stole it from CG. Sorry! |
|
Jan-22-15
| | Tabanus: <sneaky pete> I could add the arbiters, if you gave me a reference to where they are mentioned. |
|
| Jan-22-15 | | sneaky pete: <Tabanus> The original tournament bulletin (loose leafed, published in daily installments in May and June 1964) and the June 1964 edition of <Schakend Nederland>. |
|
Jan-22-15
| | Tabanus: Added, thanks. |
|
Jan-22-15
| | Fusilli: <Tabanus: I made some Quick and Dirty changes, better now?> Great job! It's complete, accurate, and nicely written now. |
|
| Jan-22-15 | | Petrosianic: <zanzibar>: <Are you sure the 64 Soviet Ch wasn't a Zonal in disguise?> In ordinary cycles, both the US and Soviet championships served as a zonal every 3rd year. But for some reason there was a separate Soviet Zonal that year. |
|
Jan-22-15
| | perfidious: <In ordinary cycles, both the US and Soviet championships served as a zonal every 3rd year....> As was also the case in Canada; through the 1984 championship, it was held <only> in zonal years. <....But for some reason there was a separate Soviet Zonal that year.> Don't recall why, but the whole business smacked of typical behind-the-scenes political manoeuvring in Mother Russia; to wit, Smyslov's participation. |
|
| Jan-22-15 | | Petrosianic: Maybe, but Smyslov didn't play in the Zonal. Not sure how he got into the Interzonal, but he certainly justified the faith placed in him. I know there had been a lot of grumbling worldwide about his omission from the previous cycle, with people claiming he could have given Pawn and Move to the qualifiers from the Southeast Asian Zonal. |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
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
