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

🏆
TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
Curacao Candidates Tournament

Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian17.5/27(+8 -0 =19)[games]
Efim Geller17/27(+8 -1 =18)[games]
Paul Keres17/27(+9 -2 =16)[games]
Robert James Fischer14/27(+8 -7 =12)[games]
Viktor Korchnoi13.5/27(+7 -7 =13)[games]
Pal Benko12/27(+6 -9 =12)[games]
Mikhail Tal7/21(+3 -10 =8)[games]
Miroslav Filip7/27(+2 -15 =10)[games]
*

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
Curacao Candidates (1962)

Soon after the Stockholm Interzonal (1962), eight players met from 2 May - 26 June in Curacao in order to determine the Challenger for Mikhail Botvinnik, the World Champion.

The event in Stockholm selected six of the top finishers there. Due to a restriction limiting the number of players advancing from the same country to the next stage, Leonid Stein did not qualify, and Benkö took his place after the Stockholm Interzonal Playoff (1962). Both Paul Keres and Mikhail Tal qualified by virtue of their placings from the Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade Candidates (1959). This made for an eight-player quadruple round-robin, as in the previous FIDE cycle.

Only 105 games were played since Tal withdrew due to illness after round 21.

Keres and Geller, having finished second ex aequo, were obliged to play a match to determine who would automatically qualify for the next Candidates cycle; Keres - Geller 2nd place Candidates Playoff (1962) was held at Moscow from 11th-25th August 1962 and was won by Keres by a score of 2-1, with five draws.

1 Petrosian XXXX ==== ==== =1== ==11 ==1= 11=* =11= 17.5 =2 Keres ==== XXXX ==== 0=1= ==1= 1110 1=1* =11= 17 =2 Geller ==== ==== XXXX 11=0 ==1= ===1 =11* =11= 17 4 Fischer =0== 1=0= 00=1 XXXX 010= 01=1 =1=* 1=1= 14 5 Korchnoi ==00 ==0= ==0= 101= XXXX ===0 10=* 1111 13.5 6 Benko ==0= 0001 ===0 10=0 ===1 XXXX 10=* 011= 12 7 Tal 00=* 0=0* =00* =0=* 01=* 01=* XXXX 10=* 7 8 Filip =00= =00= =00= 0=0= 0000 100= 01=* XXXX 7

Petrosian advanced to the Botvinnik - Petrosian World Championship Match (1963).

(1) Wikipedia article: Candidates Tournament.

Original collection: Game Collection: WCC Index (Curacao 1962), by User: Hesam7.

 page 1 of 5; games 1-25 of 105  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Keres vs Filip ½-½371962Curacao CandidatesB49 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
2. Petrosian vs Tal 1-0641962Curacao CandidatesA12 English with b3
3. Benko vs Fischer 1-0401962Curacao CandidatesB07 Pirc
4. Korchnoi vs Geller ½-½381962Curacao CandidatesE60 King's Indian Defense
5. Korchnoi vs Petrosian ½-½361962Curacao CandidatesC97 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin
6. Geller vs Fischer 1-0401962Curacao CandidatesB92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation
7. Filip vs Benko 1-0281962Curacao CandidatesE60 King's Indian Defense
8. Tal vs Keres 0-1401962Curacao CandidatesC96 Ruy Lopez, Closed
9. Benko vs Tal 1-0411962Curacao CandidatesA00 Uncommon Opening
10. Fischer vs Filip 1-0661962Curacao CandidatesC98 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin
11. Keres vs Korchnoi  ½-½331962Curacao CandidatesD02 Queen's Pawn Game
12. Petrosian vs Geller ½-½211962Curacao CandidatesE12 Queen's Indian
13. Petrosian vs Keres ½-½171962Curacao CandidatesD18 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
14. Geller vs Filip ½-½131962Curacao CandidatesB42 Sicilian, Kan
15. Tal vs Fischer ½-½581962Curacao CandidatesB92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation
16. Korchnoi vs Benko  ½-½591962Curacao CandidatesB36 Sicilian, Accelerated Fianchetto
17. Keres vs Geller ½-½271962Curacao CandidatesE61 King's Indian
18. Benko vs Petrosian ½-½671962Curacao CandidatesA00 Uncommon Opening
19. Filip vs Tal 0-1341962Curacao CandidatesA49 King's Indian, Fianchetto without c4
20. Fischer vs Korchnoi 0-1331962Curacao CandidatesB09 Pirc, Austrian Attack
21. Geller vs Tal  ½-½271962Curacao CandidatesB48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
22. Petrosian vs Fischer ½-½251962Curacao CandidatesE84 King's Indian, Samisch, Panno Main line
23. Keres vs Benko 1-0281962Curacao CandidatesB43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3
24. Korchnoi vs Filip 1-01011962Curacao CandidatesD52 Queen's Gambit Declined
25. Tal vs Korchnoi 0-1351962Curacao CandidatesC83 Ruy Lopez, Open
 page 1 of 5; games 1-25 of 105  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jul-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,

"Someone is lying, either Benko or Edmonson. Take your pick while considering which version makes the most sense."

Or someone else is mistaken and have drawn their own conclusions about the part these two played in this situation and wrote about it.

"Welcoming him in" would not be the words I would have used. Frank Brady in "Profile of a Prodigy...."

Frank Brady was not at the FIDE meeting. Chess L & R, 1971 page 24, gives list of those present. FIDE said Fischer could play if a vacancy arose amongst the American players already qualified and waived aside any protest.

This makes it seem like it was a FIDE idea to get Fischer in but the idea/rumour that Benko might drop out was seen in July 1970 Chess L & R page 370 with Fischer saying Benko would not cede his place for cash.

So it is obvious the 'Benko Out - Fischer In' idea was knocking months before the FIDE meeting and the Interzonal.

Jul-18-18  WorstPlayerEver: I don't think you can find the answer in chess, I am afraid.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Col...

Jul-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> So it is obvious the 'Benko Out - Fischer In' idea was knocking months before the FIDE meeting and the Interzonal.>

I have been unable to find the exact dates of the 41st FIDE Congress, so the best estimate would be around mid-September 1970 since Brady indicated that FIDE gave the USCF until November 8 (the 1970 Interzonal was scheduled to start November 9) or about 6 weeks to determine whether the USCF would change the US' representatives. Nor have I been able to find the minutes of the meeting. T

<Frank Brady was not at the FIDE meeting. Chess L & R, 1971 page 24, gives list of those present.>

You don't have to be present at a meeting to find out what went on at the meeting if you have access to the minutes of that meeting and, of course, if the minutes were accurate. And I would suspect that if the minutes were not accurate about such an important subject that there would have been well-publicized objections. And I would also suspect that Edmonson, as the USCF Executive Director, would have been at the FIDE meeting.

<This makes it seem like it was a FIDE idea to get Fischer in but the idea/rumour that Benko might drop out was seen in July 1970 Chess L & R page 370 with Fischer saying Benko would not cede his place for cash. So it is obvious the 'Benko Out - Fischer In' idea was knocking months before the FIDE meeting and the Interzonal.>

The fact that Fischer was not going to play in the 1969 US Championship and therefore not qualify for playing in the 1970 Interzonal had been suspected for a long time, since Fischer had said that he would play unless the length of the tournament was expanded from 11 to 22 games. And FIDE would never have mentioned Benko explicitly by name (which at any rate they could not have done until the results of the 1969 US Championship were known), that would have been inappropriate. However, by July 1970 C & R could explicitly mention Benko as one of the US representatives.

So I think that the idea that '<<someone> Out - Fischer In> could have been knocking months before either the 1970 FIDE meeting or the 1969 US Championship. With the proper "arrangements" Fischer could have taken the place of <any> participant who withdrew from participation in the 1970 Interzonal, including Reshevsky and Addition. Although as I've said before, given that no love was lost between Reshevsky and Fischer, I would find it difficult to believe that Reshevsky would have given up his place in the 1970 Interzonal so that Fischer could take his place. Still, stranger things have happened.

But it was certainly FIDE who made the possibility of Fischer taking someone else's place official and possible. If they had said something along the lines "No, the conditions for 1970 Interzonal participation were established by the national chess federations and, once established, they cannot be changed after those conditions have been satisfied." there might have been a very different result. But they didn't, as far as I know.

So, like many Fischer-related things, the truth will probably never come out. It may be that <both> Edmonson and Benko believed that what they said was correct but at least one of them was wrong and possibly both. Perhaps <WorstPlayerEver> was correct when he said the "I don't think you can find the answer in chess>. But the best that I think can be done is collect all the information and versions of the story from various sources and pick the one that is the most consistent and makes the most sense.

Jul-20-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,

"So, like many Fischer-related things, the truth will probably never come out."

The truth is everyone wanted him to play in the Interzonal.

After his return to chess for the Russia v ROW match and Fischer actually ceding top board to Larsen there was no end to the speculation that he might get in.

Soon Gligoric in Chess L & R started pleading that a way be found to let Fischer in. Purdy in 'Chess World' telling FIDE to cut the red tape and let Fischer in.

Even Spassky wanted him in and was at one time toying with the idea of an unofficial match. Fischer made Spassky a very rich man...twice!

FIDE's task is to promote chess and what better way than finding a loophole to let Fischer play. This decision eventually put chess on the front page of every newspaper in the world. It was the correct decision.

Fischer still had to win it and the three matches to get to Spassky.

The alternative was Spassky-Petrosian III in some Moscow theatre for a purse of $3,000. Is that what you think should have happened. Is that what you wanted to have happened?

Jul-20-18  Olavi: According to Schach-Echo 19/1970,the congress was in Siegen 20th-25th September. The idea of a 25th and 26th participant was turned down, but the USA was allowed to field Fischer instead of one of their announced men. They would have to inform FIDE 14 days before the Interzonal.

Fischer's proposal to play the candidates matches until 5 wins and 6 in the final was turned down. I guess he didn't quite get it. Well he wasn't there yet against Petrosian, so perhaps he was lucky, old Tigran would have staged a comeback.

Jul-20-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> <So, like many Fischer-related things, ...> (part 1 of 2)

<The truth is everyone wanted him to play in the Interzonal.>

Of course everyone wanted him to play in the Interzonal, including me. I don't think that issue is in dispute. The goal of the Interzonal and the Candidates Tournament is to select the best player to challenge the champion. And, since Fischer was the best player in the world at that time, at least as far as the unofficial FIDE ratings were concerned (Fischer at 2720 was ranked #1, Spassky at 2690 was ranked #2), a WCC match without Fischer as the challenger would probably have rated an asterisk (*). Similar to the Karpov - Timman FIDE World Championship (1993), Karpov - Kamsky FIDE World Championship (1996), and Karpov - Anand World Championship Match (1998) FIDE "WCC" matches that did not involve Kasparov. Had Spassky won the 1972 WCC match against a challenger other than Fischer the chess world's response would probably have been a "so what".

The only one who didn't seem to care, or not care enough, to play in the 1970 Interzonal was Fischer. His refusal to play in the 1969 US Championship because the USCF would not extend its length from 11 to 22 games because he felt that the probability was too high that the winner would be determined by chance with only 11 games seems ludicrous, given that his rating was 150 points higher than the highest player in the tournament, Reshevsky (P(Win or Draw) = 0.70). And the probability that he would not finish in the top 3 and qualify for the 1970 Interzonal was even more ludicrous. But I suppose to him anything less then 1st place in the US Championship was unacceptable. It seems that it was the same matter of pride/stubbornness he showed in 1974-1975 in the negotiations for this match with Karpov; he said what he wanted and, if he didn't get it, he wouldn't play.

And if his lack of participation in the 1969 US Championship because it was not long enough was a matter of principle, it's not clear to me why Fischer was not willing to accept an 11-game tournament because he thought that there was a high probability that the results of the tournament might be due to chance and yet 2 years later he was willing to accept a series of 12-game knockout matches to determine Spassky challenger when the probability that the results of each match would be due to chance would not be all that much lower. One thing that Fischer could be counted on was his unpredictability, such as what you pointed out about his willingness to accept 2nd board behind Larsen in the USSR vs. ROW match in 1970.

<FIDE's task is to promote chess and what better way than finding a loophole to let Fischer play. This decision eventually put chess on the front page of every newspaper in the world. It was the correct decision.>

FIDE didn't find a loophole, they didn't need to. Their stand was consistent with their direction that it was up to the national chess federations to define the rules for determining each nation's representative to the Interzonal, and they allowed the USCF up to the day before the Interzonal was scheduled to start to select the US' representatives. That seems to me to be as flexible as FIDE could have been. So it was up to the USCF to find the "loophole" and they did, sort of.

And, as I've said before, with a little bit of foresight by the USCF the whole fiasco could have been avoided had they indicated that the US's 3 representatives to the 1970 Interzonal would be the top 2 finishers of the 1969 US Chess Championship plus an at large entry selected by them. Then Reshevsky and Addison would have qualified by virtue of their top 2 finish and Fischer would have qualified as the at large entry. No different than selecting Kramnik as the at large entry in that 2018 Candidates tournament. So the results would have been the same without any drama, except that Benko would probably not have received his $ 2,000. It was therefore partly the USCF's fault but mostly Fischer's that the situation arose.

Jul-20-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> <So, like many Fischer-related things, ...> (part 2 of 2)

<Fischer still had to win it and the three matches to get to Spassky.>

So did any other potential challenger.

<The alternative was Spassky-Petrosian III in some Moscow theatre for a purse of $3,000. Is that what you think should have happened. Is that what you wanted to have happened?>

There was no guarantee that Petrosian would have been the challenger. Had Fischer not played in the 1970 Interzonal someone else would have taken his place in the 1971 Candidates Knockout matches, probably Portisch, since he had the highest tiebreak score. And Portisch might have given Petrosian a hard time; prior to 1971 they had played 11 times with the record 4-0 in Portisch's favor, with 7 draws. Yeah, I didn't know that and was surprised when I checked.

And, with Larsen playing someone other than Fischer, he might not have been eliminated in the 2nd round. For one thing, the match most likely not have been played in Denver so Larsen would have had to find other excuses for his poor reformance. Larsen vs. Petrosian was probably a toss-up; prior to 1971 they had also played 11 times with the score 5-4 in Petrosian's favor, with only 2 draws. But the games would probably have been exciting!

But these are only "what ifs."

As far as what I would have wanted to have happened, I really don't care one way or the other. Because, with the benefit of hindsight, Fischer effectively retired from chess after 1972 and we didn't see any games from him until his match with Spassky in 1992 when he was past his prime. USCF membership probably increase dramatically during 1970 – 1975 and probably reduced dramatically after 1975. I say "probably" because I haven't been able to find any historical USCF membership figures. Something similar probably happened in India following Anand's WCC title wins, and in Norway following Carlsen's WCC title wins. I haven't been able to find any historical data for India or Norway chess federation membership either.

And if Fischer hadn't played in the 1970 Interzonal he therefore would not have been Spassky's challenger in 1972 he might have continued playing chess because he had not yet achieved his goal of becoming WCC. If his turn ever came when he was older and possibly more mature and/or with a changed life perspective, he might have continued playing chess after becoming WCC (and I have no doubt that, if he had continued playing, he would have become WCC, perhaps as soon as the next WCC cycle) and we might have had a lot more wonderful games from him to admire.

Again, only "what ifs". But my alternate scenario is probably no less likely than what actually happened after his match with Spassky in 1972. How many believed that Fischer would stop playing chess after that and, for someone who struggled to increase the compensation of top-level chess players, would pass up a potential US $ 600,000 payoff (and a certain $ 400,000 payoff) because he was, once again, standing on his principle that he would not play the 1975 match with Karpov unless the match conditions included the 9-9 clause? Particularly since, like his not finishing on top or among the top 3 finishers in the 1969 US Championship, the probability of that happening was very low. That would certainly not have occurred to me.

So again, like many Fischer-related things, we'll just never know. :-)

Jul-20-18  WorstPlayerEver: Great! The Curaçao Candidates. When does it start?
Jul-20-18  morfishine: <Sally Simpson> The truth is out and has always been out

Benko is not a liar, he's always been an honorable man

So, are you going to believe Benko, or some bureaucrat?

case closed

Typically <AK> refuses to ever admit he's wrong, so he hides behind the easiest way out, that great wall: "the truth will probably never come out"

sad

*****

Jul-20-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  plang: jeez - just hold a frigging seance - or build a time machine...
Jul-20-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: Time machines are erected here at CG every day....as in, any time someone wants to put forth their stalking horse for the latest crusade.
Jul-21-18  morfishine: <perfidious> Well said
Jul-21-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<morfishine> Typically <AK> refuses to ever admit he's wrong, so he hides behind the easiest way out, that great wall: "the truth will probably never come out"

<morfishine>, you have said that you have me on your ignore list so you won't see this, but that's a laughable comment to someone who readily admits when he is wrong, apologizing for it, and has even been criticized for doing so. See, for example, Altibox Norway (Blitz) (2018) (kibitz #68), World Cup (2017) (kibitz #730), Norway Chess (2013) (kibitz #415), and World Championship Candidates (2016) (kibitz #2127).

However, sometimes I don't think I'm wrong and I present evidence as to why I don't think so. If someone can present evidence to the contrary and I agree, I will readily admit that I was wrong. but if no one can present new evidence to the contrary, I don't change my opinion just to please someone who has a different idea and can't or won't provide any information as to why they think that way. That's not the situation with <Sally Simpson> who certainly did that; in this case we're just disagreeing because of what I think the preponderance of the evidence indicates. But I might be wrong. See? I can at least admit that I might be wrong.

But I upset you for some unknown reason some time ago and you doesn't seem able to forget it. If you told me why you feel the way you do and I agreed, I would be the first to apologize for it. It could simply have been a misunderstanding. But instead you seem to take the opportunity to criticize me whenever you feel like it. Which is fine, that's your right, but I think it's too bad because we used to have constructive discussions. Heck, you sometimes even seemed to enjoy them (Team White vs Team Black, 2013 (kibitz #3452)). Oh well, some people just carry a grudge.

<case closed>

Typical. First you say that I hide out behind the easiest way out and then you try to shut-off discussion by a <tuttifrutty>-like "case closed". Like I said, the case will likely never be closed since all of the people involved have either passed away, are well advanced in age when memory naturally falters, and too many conflicting stories have been written.

<sad>

Yup, you got that right. But it's not me that the comment properly applies to.

Nov-08-18  swampdragon: When Fischer was undistracted and wasn't pouting about some real or imagined injustice, he was one of the greatest players who ever lived. Unfortunately, due to a combination of immaturity and mental illness, we did not get to see that Fischer enough times to really know what he could have done over the long haul. Is it better to be a meteor blazing in the sky for a brief period, or one of the best for 20 or 30 years like so many of Fischer's competitors in this tournament?
Nov-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <AK....So let me try to express it qualitatively. Keep in mind that by 1979 Benko was an experienced international GM; remember that he qualified for the 1962 Curacao Candidates Tournament. So he certainly had the experience of qualifying for a Candidates tournament....>

In point of fact, twice over, as he had also survived the event at Portoroz 1958.

Mar-29-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: ***

Page 150, 'The Art of Bisguier'. Bisguer is talking about how Fischer varied his openings in the '72 match (Game 11 Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 is an exception) adding in 1962 he tried in vain to get Fischer to vary his opening repertoire.

***

Sep-10-19  Arturo2nd: Every chess fan, including Boris Spassky, wanted to see Fischer competing for the championship in 1972. The Russian authorities didn't like it because they saw the chess crown as a propaganda tool. But Fischer was very popular among chess fans, even in Russia. They appreciated the quality of his play and admired him for battling their bullying and corrupt government. We were all very disappointed when he left while leading the Sousse Interzonal.
Sep-10-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <AK>

<historic USCF membership figures>

See link here:

http://www.uschess.org/images/stori...

It went from about 10,000 in 1967 to about 60,000 in 1974, then dropped back to about 50,000. It then bumped around 50,000 for a long time before beginning to rise again in the early 1990s.

There was a pretty sharp drop from about 2005-2010 -- the decline seems a little early for the Great Recession, so I don't know what was going on there. Then it began rising again.

Sep-10-19  JimNorCal: keypusher, my impression of USCF membership numbers is that a continuous stream of kids join due to participation in after school programs and other similar activities. Many or most drop out but are replaced by a new cohort.

My opinion is anecdotal and not based on number crunching. So, admittedly an opinion. But if you scan tournament listings in the US you'll see a large chunk of them are scholastic events. Many of the former tourney organizers (for adult events) have retired or passed on. New ones have not come forward.

Sep-10-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<keypusher> See link here: http://www.uschess.org/images/stori...>

Thanks. But by coincidence a friend of mine recently sent me a link to this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/enterta... about "The End of the Golden Era of Chess". What's interesting is that the article had this link: http://www.uschess.org/datapage/USC..., which in turn had this link: http://www.uschess.org/datapage/USC.... The last 2 links show the total USCF membership (and membership in various different membership types) from 1952 to Apr-2016. They each contain the phrase "These numbers are from the official US Chess membership audit and from Chess Life magazine" so I would tend to believe it.

Unfortunately there are discrepancies between these 2 links and the link you provided to the USCF 2016yearbook so I don't know which, if either, is accurate. There were no significant discrepancies until 1988 but the two links I provided above then show the total USCF membership gradually increasing to the 80K range before decreasing briefly to the 75K range before an upsurge back to the 80K range. The link you provided shows the USCF membership stabilizing in the 50K range (except for a 1-year spike to about 73K in 1994) until 2008, when it jumped from 50K in 2008 to 79K in 2009 and stabilized in the 75K to 85K range.

I have no idea why there are discrepancies between the to sets of data but I think that, in the absence of a well known event like the membership increase following Fischer's win in the 1972 WCC match, the accuracy of these sudden USCF membership increases is questionable.

I also calculated the USCF membership by year as a percentage of the US population since that seemed to make sense to me, given that the US population has been increasing steadily. The general shape of the curve is of course the same, but difference in % membership after Fischer won the WCC title in 1972 and the period after 1995 is smaller since the US population was larger. Why the USCF membership started to significantly increase since 1989 is a mystery to me.

If interested you can download the charts showing the total USCF membership from 1952 through 2015 and the USCF membership as a % of the US population from http://www.mediafire.com/file/af2ce... and http://www.mediafire.com/file/5lzz1....

Sep-10-19  ewan14: 1) Lombardy in fourth ( IIRC ) was a friend of Fischer so would probably have dropped out for him

2) If Spassky had defeated a challenger other than RJF in 1972 it would merely have confirmed his position as one of the all time greats , and his last game with RJF would have been the 1970 victory

Sep-10-19  ewan14: Who could Boris' non RJF challengers have been in 1972 ?

Spassky Petrosian part 3 - very interesting but not box office ?

Spassky Korchnoi , very very interesting

Sep-11-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  harrylime: ruskies

letz all gang oooooooop on bobby

Sep-11-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<ewan14> Lombardy in fourth ( IIRC ) was a friend of Fischer so would probably have dropped out for him>

I'm assuming that you're talking about the 1969 US Championship which was the preliminary to the 1970 Palma de Majorca Interzonal and not the 1960 US Championship which served as the Zone 5 tournament to select the 3 US representatives to the 1962 Curacao Candidates tournament. In 1960 US Championship Fischer finished 1st, Lombardy 2nd, and Weinstein 3rd. Bisguier, Reshevsky, and Sherwin finished in a tie for 4th – 6th places. So there was no need for Lombardy to drop out.

At any rate neither Weinstein, Lombardy, or Sherwin were able to participate in the 1962 Curacao Candidates, and Reshevsky declined to participate. So Bisguier was selected as the 2nd US representative and somehow Benko was selected as the 3rd even though Kalme finished in 7th place ahead of Benko who finished in a tie for 8th – 11th places with Berliner, R. Byrne, and Saidy.

I haven't been able to find out why Benko was selected as the 3rd US representative over the others, although I suspect that it was because Benko had by far the most international experience, having participated in the 1959 Yugoslavia Candidates Tournament held in Bled, Zagreb, and Belgrade. So the criteria for selection of US representatives for the Candidates Tournaments was already somewhat, shall I say, "flexible".

Sep-11-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  harrylime: <<AylerKupp: <<ewan14> Lombardy in fourth ( IIRC ) was a friend of Fischer so would probably have dropped out for him> I'm assuming that you're talking about the 1969 US Championship which was the preliminary to the 1970 Palma de Majorca Interzonal and not the 1960 US Championship which served as the Zone 5 tournament to select the 3 US representatives to the 1962 Curacao Candidates tournament. In 1960 US Championship Fischer finished 1st, Lombardy 2nd, and Weinstein 3rd. Bisguier, Reshevsky, and Sherwin finished in a tie for 4th – 6th places. So there was no need for Lombardy to drop out.

At any rate neither Weinstein, Lombardy, or Sherwin were able to participate in the 1962 Curacao Candidates, and Reshevsky declined to participate. So Bisguier was selected as the 2nd US representative and somehow Benko was selected as the 3rd even though Kalme finished in 7th place ahead of Benko who finished in a tie for 8th – 11th places with Berliner, R. Byrne, and Saidy.

I haven't been able to find out why Benko was selected as the 3rd US representative over the others, although I suspect that it was because Benko had by far the most international experience, having participated in the 1959 Yugoslavia Candidates Tournament held in Bled, Zagreb, and Belgrade. So the criteria for selection of US representatives for the Candidates Tournaments was already somewhat, shall I say, "flexible".>>

YOU ARE BONKERS 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 9)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·  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 Chessgames.com, 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 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC