Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

🏆 Stockholm Interzonal (1962) Chess Event Description
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: Arturo Pomar Salamanca

 page 1 of 1; 22 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Uhlmann vs A Pomar Salamanca  1-0381962Stockholm InterzonalD48 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav, Meran
2. A Pomar Salamanca vs Teschner  1-0411962Stockholm InterzonalD16 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
3. Benko vs A Pomar Salamanca  ½-½391962Stockholm InterzonalA38 English, Symmetrical
4. A Pomar Salamanca vs M Aaron  1-0291962Stockholm InterzonalE95 King's Indian, Orthodox, 7...Nbd7, 8.Re1
5. Portisch vs A Pomar Salamanca  ½-½411962Stockholm InterzonalA38 English, Symmetrical
6. A Pomar Salamanca vs I Bilek 1-0461962Stockholm InterzonalB06 Robatsch
7. G Barcza vs A Pomar Salamanca  1-0501962Stockholm InterzonalD78 Neo-Grunfeld, 6.O-O c6
8. A Pomar Salamanca vs Bisguier  ½-½201962Stockholm InterzonalD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
9. Fischer vs A Pomar Salamanca ½-½771962Stockholm InterzonalB29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein
10. A Pomar Salamanca vs Gligoric  ½-½391962Stockholm InterzonalE97 King's Indian
11. S Schweber vs A Pomar Salamanca  ½-½451962Stockholm InterzonalB29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein
12. A Pomar Salamanca vs Yanofsky  1-0401962Stockholm InterzonalE72 King's Indian
13. E German vs A Pomar Salamanca  0-1631962Stockholm InterzonalB73 Sicilian, Dragon, Classical
14. A Pomar Salamanca vs M Cuellar Gacharna  1-0441962Stockholm InterzonalE70 King's Indian
15. F Olafsson vs A Pomar Salamanca  ½-½371962Stockholm InterzonalA04 Reti Opening
16. A Pomar Salamanca vs Stein  ½-½411962Stockholm InterzonalE72 King's Indian
17. Petrosian vs A Pomar Salamanca 1-0411962Stockholm InterzonalD43 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
18. A Pomar Salamanca vs Geller 1-0291962Stockholm InterzonalE79 King's Indian, Four Pawns Attack, Main line
19. Korchnoi vs A Pomar Salamanca 1-0411962Stockholm InterzonalA08 King's Indian Attack
20. A Pomar Salamanca vs Filip  ½-½551962Stockholm InterzonalC34 King's Gambit Accepted
21. Julio Bolbochan vs A Pomar Salamanca 1-0341962Stockholm InterzonalD11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
22. A Pomar Salamanca vs M Bertok  ½-½191962Stockholm InterzonalD27 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
 page 1 of 1; 22 games  PGN Download 
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Pomar Salamanca wins | Pomar Salamanca loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< 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.
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: It's noticeable that Geller did better against the top 10 than Fischer did. +4, -1 for Geller, +2 for Fischer.
Premium Chessgames Member
  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.
Premium Chessgames Member
  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.
Premium Chessgames Member
  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.

Premium Chessgames Member
  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?

Premium Chessgames Member
  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.
Premium Chessgames Member
  kingscrusher: Fischer had been apparently sponsored by an American Millionaire to go and play in this event. The sponsor went with him - Isaac Turover
Premium Chessgames Member
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.

Premium Chessgames Member
  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.

Premium Chessgames Member
  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 a boss.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Karne: Fischer was 18 when he won this tournament.
Premium Chessgames Member
  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.
Premium Chessgames Member
  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.

Premium Chessgames Member
  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.

Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: Just sour grapes on Bobby's part. Curacao just wasn't Bobby's time.
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any gratuitous name-calling of any members—including Admin and Owners—or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us

Copyright 2001-2020, Chessgames Services LLC