Tal qualified for this event from the Tal - Gligoric Candidates Quarterfinal (1968), and Korchnoi had won the Korchnoi - Reshevsky Candidates Quarterfinal (1968). The two now squared off in this best of ten games match in the lecture hall of the Central House of the Soviet Army. Before the match, Tal had won only once against Korchnoi (Curacao Candidates (1962)), lost eight times, and drawn 11 games. Tal was seconded by Alexander Koblents and Valentin Kirillov, and Korchnoi was seconded by Semyon Furman and Viacheslav Osnos. Chief arbiter: German Fridstein.
Moscow, Soviet Union (Russia), 26 June - 14 July 1968
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
Korchnoi ½ ½ ½ 1 1 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 5½
Tal ½ ½ ½ 0 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 4½
Korchnoi advanced to the Spassky - Korchnoi Candidates Final (1968).
Korchnoi on the match
I was now faced with the semi-final match against Tal to be played in Moscow. Prior to the match the psychological situation was rather strange. After all, I had won practically every game I had played against Tal, and even the colours had made no difference. I realized that, when playing against me in tournaments, Tal took risks, trying to get even with me for the indignities suffered, and that in a match he would be much more cautious, since it was the result of the match as a whole that was important, and not just individual games. During the short time available I prepared myself as well as possible theoretically, but psychologically, as it turned out, I was not ready for a serious struggle against him. At the start of the match Tal began playing closed openings against me, in which he is not a great expert. On the other hand, the character of the play was quieter, and no doubt he wanted first of all to draw several games, so as to gain self-confidence. In the very first game I rather underestimated my opponent, and went into a very difficult pawn ending. It was amazing that Tal failed to win it. The second game quickly ended in a draw, Tal having confidently equalized. Then in the third game Tal caught me in a prepared variation. Though I thought over one move for 100 minutes (!), I nevertheless failed to find sufficient counterplay. My position started going downhill, especially since I was in time trouble right from the opening. But the miraculous occurred: Tal failed to find a winning continuation, and I was able to take play into a rook ending a pawn down. It was probably still lost, but Tal was too uncertain of his endgame technique to win such a position.
Soon after the third game, as I later found out, Tal's personal doctor arrived in Moscow. Tal certainly has troubles with his health, but to have a personal doctor - such a thing just isn't done in the Soviet Union. At the start of the fourth game, Tal was a few minutes late, and, on greeting me, appeared somewhat embarrassed. I somehow associated this moment with the arrival of his doctor. Play began. In this game I adopted one of my prepared lines. Tal did not manage to resolve things at the board, in addition thought for twenty-five to thirty minutes over each move, and was soon in time trouble. His position was very difficult, but here I had a recurrence of my old weakness, and at the first opportunity won a pawn, thus losing, as it turned out, all my advantage. A draw seemed imminent, but in time trouble Tal blundered and lost.
In the next game ... Tal attempted to pull one back. He began with his favourite 1.e4. In a Ruy Lopez he was rather slow in organizing pressure on the black position; I managed to seize the initiative and won quickly. The match seemed to be decided. I held an imposing lead, and had the white pieces in the next game. I remembered that I could and should be pressing Tal in every game. I obtained an advantage in this game, but ran short of time, allowed my opponent the opportunity to seize the initiative by an exchange sacrifice, and lost. Incidentally, during the match I had two seconds: Furman and Osnos. Just before the sixth game Furman, who was a member of the Central Army Sports Club, was unexpectedly called away to Leningrad to take part in some insignificant team event. This incident disturbed me, but at the time I couldn't think of any real reason why anyone should want to damage my chances.
The loss of that game, and the departure of my main helper - all this put the match in jeopardy. I took the decision (perhaps incorrectly) to settle for draws in the remaining games - this decision was quite in accordance with my confused state of mind at that point. At the same time I took a further step. Tal's doctor was all the time in the hall, and never took his eyes off the board at which we were playing. More accurately, he did not disturb me, but all the time kept Tal in his field of vision. I suspected that Tal was taking drugs before the game. From the point of view of the FIDE rules, there was nothing illegal in this. It no doubt helped Tal, although it is known that drugs lower a person's will-power. In view of this, I thought that the doctor was exerting a visual influence on Tal during the game, and was reassuring him. I consider that this hypothesis of mine may well have a scientific basis. Without expressing my views, I wrote a letter to the control team, with the request that the doctor, who was sitting very close to the stage, should be moved back to the eighth row. The Tal camp - his assistants and he himself - were unhappy about the action I had taken, but the control team fulfilled my request. However, there is nothing unusual in this; matches for the World Championship with the participation of Fischer were, on his demand, conducted in the same way.
In the seventh game I chose a dubious opening variation, and straight from the opening went into a difficult ending, where for the full five hours I had to struggle for a draw by finding the only saving moves. In the eighth game I held a positional advantage, but it too ended in a draw. Again in the ninth game I chose an unpretentious opening variation. I equalized, and even gained a slight advantage, which proved insufficient to win. There remained just one game, where I had White. Tal, of course, had to play for a win, and he chose a sharp variation of the Dutch Defence. I was not at my best in that game. I gained an advantage, but avoided all complicated continuations, trying to simplify the position (in this lies the psychological vulnerability of a player who is aiming for a draw, especially if he is used to playing for a win). By move 25 I was already losing. In the time scramble Tal was insufficiently energetic, or rather he gave up a pawn without sufficient justification, and left me some drawing chances. In what was still a difficult position, I sealed a move which, as it later turned out, was not expected by Tal. True, he afterwards maintained that after the best sealed move he had no winning chances. On the other hand, I made a thorough study of the position after the move actually sealed. The two opponents spent a sleepless night analysing, and the next day came the tense, nerve-racking resumption. I had, of course, been able to analyse the position more deeply. After three hours' play we agreed to a draw, and I thus went forward to the Final Candidates' Match.
Immediately after the match, I gave an interview for the newspaper "Shakhmatnaya Moskva." Dissatisfied with my play, I also spoke disapprovingly of my opponent, calling him the 'great routine' player. There was some justification in me personally making such an assessment, especially since I had noticed the stereotyped natures of Tal's attacking play back in 1957. Tal had, and still has, many fans. His uncompromising style of play delights chess enthusiasts, and they are won over by his desire and ability to take risks and even bluff his way through. At the same time, Tal's skill in building up his game is inadequate, and is often based on routine assessments and routine methods. I consider the genuine masters of attack to be Alekhine, Keres and Spassky. (Chess is My Life pp. 61-64)
My impressions about Grandmaster Mikhail Tal were always clear enough, but only after our match I have finally witnessed his true chess make-up. First and foremost (it may even sound paradoxical for those with little knowledge of the game), Tal is a very patterned player. His strategic plans aren't too new or original. But, combining his patterns with enormous tactical talent, inexhaustible optimism and outstanding sportsman's qualities, Tal had much success in tournaments. In tournaments, but not in matches. Because in matches between two equal players, the arsenal of original strategic ideas provides decisive advantage. This doesn't mean that it's easy to defeat Tal in a match. The Riga player's style is so dynamic and active, his determination is so strong, that his partners constantly remain under very high nervous pressure. In other words, Tal spares neither himself nor his opponent. I knew that our match is going to be tough and exhausting, but I couldn't imagine exactly how much. I had to work very hard to win. I even think that it's easier to play a dozen matches with other grandmasters than to play one match with Tal. The tactical pattern of our match was dictated by Tal. And I just had to adapt to his sudden maneuvers. There were three stages in our match: Stage one: Tal holds his zone. It quickly became obvious that Tal wasn't feeling too confident in the first games. He avoided any skirmishes, played "coldly", as though inviting me to start complications. He chose openings that didn't allow him to get his trademark "Tal-ish" positions. This tactic was almost successful. I thought that the "new Tal" that aimed only for a small opening advantage wasn't dangerous. Technical mistakes that I made in the games 1 and 3 could cost me dearly. But Tal seemingly didn't even think about winning at that moment. I think that's why he couldn't convert his advantage into victories. In the game 4, Tal had finally understood that it's impossible to beat me with just positional play. He lost the fight in the opening, not getting any tactical opportunities in return. But this game showed my disadvantages as well: the old disease, pawn-eating, reared its head once again. (64, 24 July 1968)
Sources
Korchnoi, Chess is My Life. Edition Olms, 2004.
Alexander Khalifman (ed.), Mikhail Tal Games II 1963-1972. Chess Stars, 1995.
Hilary Thomas, Complete Games of Mikhail Tal 1967-1973. Batsford, 1979.
Douglas Griffin on this match at https://dgriffinchess.wordpress.com...
Original collections by User: Hesam7 and User: WCC Editing Project cloned and modified by User: Tabanus in Game Collection: Korchnoi - Tal Candidates Semifinal 1968
Kibitzing
