Tal qualified for this event from his victory in the Tal - Larsen Candidates Semifinal (1965). Gligoric qualified from his shared 3rd finish in the Sousse Interzonal (1967). Tal and Gligoric now squared off in a best of ten games match, hosted by the palatial Belgrade Trade Union Hall.

Photo: http://www.slike.4t.com/Beograd/PT-...

Belgrade, Yugoslavia 22 April - 14 May 19681,2

Tal, Mikhail        0 = = = = 1 1 = 1   5.5
Gligoric, Svetozar  1 = = = = 0 0 = 0   3.5

Gligoric had embarked on a long term preparatory plan as early as 1967, when he employed a new second, Dragoljub Velimirovic, to whip him into shape for the <Sousse Interzonal>. According to Gligoric, "Velimirovic treated me like a novice in international chess. He forced me to break my regular habits and to spend 2-3 hours each morning in preparation for the game in the afternoon." In March 1968 Gligoric scored +3 -0 =7 in a training match against Jan Hein Donner, who later complained that he would never again play the Yugoslav grandmaster, because he couldn't beat him and he couldn't understand his playing style. <Levy; Di Felice 1968-1970, p.96>

In game one Tal decided to open 1.e4 in order to test his "secret weapon." Gligoric obliged by playing the Smyslov defence, and in three minutes they rattled off the first 21 moves in the variation. Tal then uncorked his surprise, 22.Ra3?!

click for larger view

If Gligoric took the bait by snapping off the rook with his bishop, white would quickly obtain a won game. After a 40 minute think, Gligoric declined the poison rook and found the correct continuation. Tal later tried to force the issue and blundered, allowing Gligoric to take a 1-0 lead.

Game two was adjourned in an equal position. On resumption of play the next day, Tal and Gligoric agreed they would rather attend the France-Yugoslavia soccer match, and agreed to a draw. In game three Tal opened with 1.d4, hoping to catch Gligoric with a prepared line against his pet King's Indian. Tal tried 9.Nd5, a strategem recently favored by Bent Larsen, but upon playing it Tal suddenly remembered he had already adopted this variation against Borislav Ivkov in a 1961 tournament Gligoric had also attended. Indeed, Gligoric seemed familiar with the position and easily found a drawing line.

Game four resulted in a short draw in exactly the same variation of the Nimzo-Indian Tal had played in game two, and Game five was drawn in the same Smyslov variation of the Ruy Lopez that had been played in game one. Some of the Belgrade press now began to criticize the "monotony of the duel," featuring "the same variations again and again. This unsettled Gligoric, who was also feeling harried by a constant stream of well-meaning visitors to his house, which happened to be across the street from the playing hall. At the beginning of game six, Gligoric said he surprised himself by playing 3.Nf3, "which I hadn't even looked at. That spontaneous decision knocked me off balance." Tal noticed his opponent playing "inconsistently, making first a safe move, and then an active one," and capitalized on this desultory play to level the score 1-1. Tal seized on this shift in momentum to win the next game as well, taking the lead for the first time in the match.

Despite the shift in fortune, Gligoric had not given up. He had worked hard with Velimirovic to prepare a winning line against the same Nimzo-Indian set up Tal had played twice already. Tal, however, had his own surprise ready: "my sense of danger came into operation... In the eighth game I decided to avoid repeating the variation..." Gligoric never got the chance to try his new idea. Game 9 was adjourned with advantage to Tal. Overnight, famed violinist David Oistrakh joined Tal and Koblents to prepare an 18 move winning variation, which was played out with "lightning speed" the next day.

Tal had eliminated Gligoric, and would now go on to face Victor Korchnoi in a candidates semifinal match.

"Indeed, the following game, the 9th, turned out to be the last. In it I adopted the move order chosen by Korchnoi in the 2nd game of his match with Reshevsky, which was proceeding at the same time in Amsterdam. I did not, of course, expect Gligoric to bludner away a pawn, as Reshevsky had done, but this almost happened. True, at the last moment Gligoric realised the danger, but he was able to ward it off only at the cost of two tempi. They proved sufficient for tthe game to be adjourned in a position which, although complicated, saw White the exchange ahead.

A lively and highly significant part in the analysis of the adjourned position was played by the world-famous violinist David Oistrakh, and old and faithful lover of chess, who had arrived in Yugoslavia for a concert. INcidentally, the analysis was quite complicated, and we analysed the position roughly 18 moves ahead, avoiding a number of false paths. It was the main variation of our analysis that occurred in the game. The resumption therefore proceeded at practically lightning speed. The match concluded and I set off to visit Petar Smederavac, my son's godfather."

#######################

Tal adopts a position that had recently been favored by Larsen, 9.Nd5- with the idea of castling Queenside:

"In the third game, another misfortune befell me, and rather an amusing one. In preparing for the match, we knew that in reply to 1.d4 Gligoric played the King's Indian Defence 90 times out of 100, and I decided to play a system often chosen by Larsen. It was only when I played it that I immediately remembered that I had already adopted the same variation as Black against Ivkov at Bled, in 1961, when Gligoric was present. The Yugoslav naturally neutralized my whole set-up, and in a slightly superior position offered a draw."

Ivkov vs Tal, 1961

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

#########################

Wijk aan Zee 1968 (9-28 Jan) Shared 2d with Hort and Portisch, behind Korchnoi, ahead of Gheorghiu, Ciric, Matanovic, Ivkov, Ree and Bobotsov, with +5 -2 =8. Di Felice, "Chess Results 1968-1970" (McFarland 2013), pp.92-93;

In preparing for this encounter, Koblents and I realised that a duel was likely to develop in one or ore topical opening schemes, since the theoretical preparation of the Yugslav Grandmaster has always been notable for its thoroughness and soundness. There was no discussion about where the match should be held: I readily agreed to play on my opponent's 'home ground' in Belgrade. In the first game I had the white pieces, and at the start I was subconsciously unwilling to refeal my secret weapon immediately. On the other hand, success would mean the immediate destruction of Gligoric's favourite and main drfence against 1.e4. The second consideration outweighed, and after spending some three minutes on the opening, I made the preparatory move 11.Ra3

---

Gligoric: 10 game training match vs Jan Hein Donner

Game Collection: Gligoric-Donner Training Match 1968

#######################

-<Seconds>: Alexander Koblents (Tal); Dragoljub Velimirovic (Gligoric)

Famed violinist David Oistrakh assisted Tal on the analysis of the adjourned position in game 9.

-<Conditions> Apart from the final, all candidates matches (including 3rd place match) were 'best of 10 games'. The final was 'best of 12 games'. http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.ph...

####################################

game 1 <euripides> "Tal and Gligoric played the position after White's 21st three times in 1967-8; the other two were drawn. Levy, in his book on Gligoric, suggests that this sequence put 15.a4 out of business in grandmaster chess. Juding from the 'similar games' page, that seems to be roughly true, but there has been one recent revival of the line:"

-<What Levy actually wrote:>

"Because of these two games from the match, the move 15.P-QR4 (a4) has more or less been superceded by 15.P-N3 and 15.B-Q3." (p.172)

Position after 15.a4 d5!

click for larger view

Position after 22.Ra3

click for larger view

===

Game 2

Tal and Gligoric sat down to play out this adjourned position (black to move):

click for larger view

and decided they would rather agree to a draw, and go to the <France vs. Yugslavia> soccer game together.

===

Game 3

click for larger view

After 9.Nd5 Rd7 10.0-0-0 Nc6 11.Bd3, Gligoric neutralizes with 11...Ng4

click for larger view

Followed by 12.Bc5 Nd4!

click for larger view

Tal:

"In the third game, another misfortune befell me, and rather an amusing one. In preparing for the match, we knew that in reply to 1.d4 Gligoric played the King's Indian Defence 90 times out of 100, and I decided to play a system often chosen by Larsen. It was only when I played it that I immediately remembered that I had already adopted the same variation as Black against Ivkov at Bled, in 1961, when Gligoric was present. The Yugoslav naturally neutralized my whole set-up, and in a slightly superior position offered a draw."

Ivkov vs Tal, 1961

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

===

Game 4

Draw agreed in this position:

click for larger view

Tal: "Only the fourth game gave me a certain cause for optimism. I once again won the theoretical duel in the Nimzo-Indian Defence, and this time, with the slightly better game, I offered a draw 'from a position of strength.' For almost the first time in my life, the sober voice of reason suggested that for the moment it was not worth declining draws, but was better to get into form and attempt to decide the match in the 3rd, 4th, and should the opportunity arise, 5th 'White' games."

===

Game 5

Ruy Lopez- the same position reached as in game 1:

click for larger view

Tal: "But nothing came of the 5th game, and many of the reporters in the Yugoslav press began to express their preference for Gligoric. They said that he had a point in hand, that he had three 'White' games to come against my two, and that he was fit and well prepared physically. However, I sensed that I was 'beginning to play', and felt that in the fifth game I had seen quite a lot at the board."

===

Game 6

Gligoric blunders a piece in an already poor position, with 33.g4?

click for larger view

Tal:

"Gligoric, meanwhile, was in something of a dilemma. On the one hand he realised that it would be good to increase his advantage with a win, but on the other hand he began playing with an extra degree of caution, so as to maintain that which had already been achieved. This indecision only hindered him. At any rate, in the sixth game he played inconsistently, making first a safe move, and then an active one. It is not impossible that Gligoric was disturbed by my playing an opening which I had never played before. Be that as it may, the score in the match was levelled, and besides, I had noticed earlier that Gligoric before a defeat, and after one are two entirely different players."

===================

Gligoric:

"I was really unlucky: the tournament hall was across the street from my house. Friends from all over Belgrade would drop in to talk to me, and I couldn't say no. And then I also made a terrible mistake: during the match I read what the papers were writing. After the first five games I was leading: I'd won one game with black quite a game! and made four draws. Tal couldn't do a thing, and he later told me he was sure he'd lose the match. But on the eve of the 6th game I read a comment by a journalist who declared that he was bored watching us choose the same variations again and again. And then the game started, and I surprised myself on the 3rd move by deciding that instead of 3. Nc3, which I'd been playing up until then, I'd play Nf3, which I hadn't even looked at. That spontaneous decision knocked me off balance. I was shocked and couldn't understand why I'd done it. I lost the game with white. After that the whole atmosphere of the match began to weigh on me and I wanted it to end as soon as possible. I lost another two games – and it was all over."

-"Analysing by the riverside with Bobby Fischer" by MISHANP on JUNE 23, 2010. In "Chess in Translation- Russian chess news and interviews in English." http://www.chessintranslation.com/2...

===

Game 7

Tal:

"In the seventh game I held the initiative, and managed to take the lead, so that both the score, and the mood of the opponents, had changed in my favour."

===

Game 8

Tal deviates from the Nimzo Indian line he played in games 2 and 4, with 5...d5

click for larger view

Tal:

"Gligoric had two 'White' games remaining, and here my sense of danger came into operation, though when it arose in me I do not know. In the eighth game I decided to avoid repeating the variation with which twice had been successful. With what was I to replace it? I decided to 'borrow' from Larsen, who at that time was playing his match with Portisch in Zagreb (incidentally, late every evening we would watch on television both a commentary on my game with Gligoric, and a description between the Dane and the Hungarian) and chose the variation with which he was adpoting in the Nimzo-Indian Defence.

The decision proved to be a correct one, since later Gligoric told me that it was before the 8th game that he and Velimorovic had found an important improvement, which effectively put out of business the variation which I had played in the 2nd and 4th games. The fact that I myself diverged noticeably distressed the Yugslav Grandmaster. I quickly obtained at least an equal game, but despite having the better prospects, offered a draw, since I very much wanted to be in time to watch the televising of the football match between the USSR and Hungary. Gligoric thought for some 25-30 minutes, until midway through the first half, and declined. I felt just a little bit angry, but even so, when withing 5 or 6 moves Gligoric in turn offered a draw, I did not try to gain revenge for the missed football: besides, I sensed that Svetozar had already cracked."

===

Game 9

Adjourned position, after 42...dxe5

click for larger view

Tal:

"Indeed, the following game, the 9th, turned out to be the last. In it I adopted the move order chosen by Korchnoi in the 2nd game of his match with Reshevsky, which was proceeding at the same time in Amsterdam. I did not, of course, expect Gligoric to bludner away a pawn, as Reshevsky had done, but this almost happened. True, at the last moment Gligoric realised the danger, but he was able to ward it off only at the cost of two tempi. They proved sufficient for tthe game to be adjourned in a position which, although complicated, saw White the exchange ahead.

A lively and highly significant part in the analysis of the adjourned position was played by the world-famous violinist David Oistrakh, and old and faithful lover of chess, who had arrived in Yugoslavia for a concert. INcidentally, the analysis was quite complicated, and we analysed the position roughly 18 moves ahead, avoiding a number of false paths. It was the main variation of our analysis that occurred in the game. The resumption therefore proceeded at practically lightning speed. The match concluded and I set off to visit Petar Smederavac, my son's godfather."

################################

Tal: "(Wijk aan Zee 1968) was my last test before the start of the Candidates matches, and showed that, to put it mildly, I was not in my best form. This was... confirmed by the start of my match with Gligoric. In preparing for this encounter, Koblents and I realised that a duel was likely to develop in one or ore topical opening schemes, since the theoretical preparation of the Yugslav Grandmaster has always been notable for its thoroughness and soundness. There was no discussion about where the match should be held: I readily agreed to play on my opponent's 'home ground' in Belgrade. In the first game I had the white pieces, and at the start I was subconsciously unwilling to refeal my secret weapon immediately. On the other hand, success would mean the immediate destruction of Gligoric's favourite and main drfence against 1.e4. The second consideration outweighed, and after spending some three minutes on the opening, I made the preparatory move 11.Ra3 in the overcrowded hall of the Palace of Syndicates (Trade Union Hall), where we were playing, the noise level rose: whether it was a joke or not, the rook had placed itself en prise to the black bishop. Gligoric sank into thought, and after 40 minutes found the correct way to neutralise White's innovation: 22.bxa4 23.Rxa4 Rab8. Subsequently I could have obtained an ending with an extra pawn, but this would have been practically equivalent to agreeing a draw. Preferring a sharp game, I avoided this, then at some point blundered, and in the adjourned position Gligoric found a precise way to win.

The second game again featured a theoretical duel, this time in the Nimzo-Indian Defence where we had prepared an improvement in Gligoric's favourite variation. As a result, Gligoric immediately offered a draw as White, but I had to try to win one back and began attempting to obtain more from the position than was justified. Suddenly I saw for White an excellent combination (however, analysis later showed it to be incorrect). To avoid it, I moved my knight away from the dentre, and nervously offered a draw myself, but the advantage was now with Gligoric. Only in the -scramble did I manage to win the exchange, which, however, did not give any real winning chances. The following day, when the game was to be resumed, there was an important international football match in Belgrade, which was clearly not worth missing for the sake of such a position. So, after agreeing to a draw, Gligoric and I went together amicably to the match between Yugoslavia and France.

In the third game, another misfortune befell me, and rather an amusing one. In preparing for the match, we knew that in reply to 1.d4 Gligoric played the King's Indian Defence 90 times out of 100, and I decided to play a system often chosen by Larsen. It was only when I played it that I immediately remembered that I had already adopted the same variation as Black against Ivkov at Bled, in 1961, when Gligoric was present. The Yugoslav naturally neutralized my whole set-up, and in a slightly superior position offered a draw.

Only the fourth game gave me a certain cause for optimism. I once again won the theoretical duel in the Nimzo-Indian Defence, and this time, with the slightly better game, I offered a draw 'from a position of strength.' For almost the first time in my life, the sober voice of reason suggested that for the moment it was not worth declining draws, but was better to get into form and attempt to decide the match in the 3rd, 4th, and should the opportunity arise, 5th 'White' games.

But nothing came of the 5th game, and many of the reporters in the Yugoslav press began to express their preference for Gligoric. They said that he had a point in hand, that he had three 'White' games to come against my two, and that he was fit and well prepared physically. However, I sensed that I was 'beginning to play', and felt that in the fifth game I had seen quite a lot at the board.

Gligoric, meanwhile, was in something of a dilemma. On the one hand he realised that it would be good to increase his advantage with a win, but on the other hand he began playing with an extra degree of caution, so as to maintain that which had already been achieved. This indecision only hindered him. At any rate, in the sixth game he played inconsistently, making first a safe move, and then an active one. It is not impossible that Gligoric was disturbed by my playing an opening which I had never played before. Be that as it may, the score in the match was levelled, and besides, I had noticed earlier that Gligoric before a defeat, and after one are two entirely different players.

This was also confirmed in our match. In the seventh game I held the initiative, and managed to take the lead, so that both the score, and the mood of the opponents, had changed in my favour.

Gligoric had two 'White' games remaining, and here my sense of danger came into operation, though when it arose in me I do not know. In the eighth game I decided to avoid repeating the variation with which twice had been successful. With what was I to replace it? I decided to 'borrow' from Larsen, who at that time was playing his match with Portisch in Zagreb (incidentally, late every evening we would watch on television both a commentary on my game with Gligoric, and a description between the Dane and the Hungarian) and chose the variation with which he was adpoting in the Nimzo-Indian Defence.

The decision proved to be a correct one, since later Gligoric told me that it was before the 8th game that he and Velimorovic had found an important improvement, which effectively put out of business the variation which I had played in the 2nd and 4th games. The fact that I myself diverged noticeably distressed the Yugslav Grandmaster. I quickly obtained at least an equal game, but despite having the better prospects, offered a draw, since I very much wanted to be in time to watch the televising of the football match between the USSR and Hungary. Gligoric thought for some 25-30 minutes, until midway through the first half, and declined. I felt just a little bit angry, but even so, when withing 5 or 6 moves Gligoric in turn offered a draw, I did not try to gain revenge for the missed football: besides, I sensed that Svetozar had already cracked.

Indeed, the following game, the 9th, turned out to be the last. In it I adopted the move order chosen by Korchnoi in the 2nd game of his match with Reshevsky, which was proceeding at the same time in Amsterdam. I did not, of course, expect Gligoric to bludner away a pawn, as Reshevsky had done, but this almost happened. True, at the last moment Gligoric realised the danger, but he was able to ward it off only at the cost of two tempi. They proved sufficient for tthe game to be adjourned in a position which, although complicated, saw White the exchange ahead.

A lively and highly significant part in the analysis of the adjourned position was played by the world-famous violinist David Oistrakh, and old and faithful lover of chess, who had arrived in Yugoslavia for a concert. INcidentally, the analysis was quite complicated, and we analysed the position roughly 18 moves ahead, avoiding a number of false paths. It was the main variation of our analysis that occurred in the game. The resumption therefore proceeded at practically lightning speed. The match concluded and I set off to visit Petar Smederavac, my son's godfather.

-Mikhail Tal, "My Life and Games" ( ), pp.339-243

#################################

Levy:

Before playing tal in the first round of the Candidates, Gligoric had a ten game training match against Donner. The Dutch giant failed to win a single game and admitted after the match that he would never play Gligoric again, because he couldn't beat him and couldn't understand him as a player, 'He said that he understood much better Larsen and Botwinnik, who are more complicated than I am as a player.' The match with Tal was 'unfortunately' in Belgrade.

'I think I should have won that match if my nerves had been better. But after qualifying at Sousse I wasn't ripe to play in the Candidates, because I had spent all my energy on Sousse. Probably I needed another year. I ripen very slowly in life and in everything. I only reached my peak, for example, when I was 33. I should have won easily. He was completely defeated within himself. He told me that.' (160)

=============

-David Levy, "The Chess of Gligoric- Svetozar Gligoric's Chess Career 1945-1970" (World Publishing 1972), p.160

##############################

Gligoric:

"When I went to Sousse in 1967, nothing spectacular was to be expected from me. At that time, I had some new ideas for a safe opening repertoire and intended, as usual to rely on my intuition during play. My plan was not to lose a single game and to gain the minimum number of wins necessary for qualification- and that I thought I could do.

I was 44 and it surprised me when my new second, young Velimirovic, treated me like a novice in international chess. He forced me to break my regular habits and to spend 2-3 hours each morning in preparation for the game in the afternoon. It was like a prophecy of how chess players behave nowadays, where preparation can offer a 90% guarantee of success.... My tactics were like balancing on the brink of a threatening abyss- if I lost a single game. It did happen in my next match with Tal who, in 1968 said that for several reasons Belgrade as a playing site was a handicap to me. I was leading after five games and both Tal and his second Koblentz believed that I was going to win the match. Then in the 6th game, stupidly irritated by journalistic comments on the 'monotony of our duel,' I shocked myself witha sudden decision at the board to make a 3rd move as White for which I was unprepared. After that defeat I collapsed. If one could explain it- I must have been tired of the situation with no tranquility. among other things, the playing hall was across the street where I lived downtown with my wife and this was like an open invitation to benevolent visitors to frequent our place. However I was fortunate with my temperament and I did not regret one bit my lost chance.

-Svetozar Gligoric, "I Play Against Pieces" Biljana and Zoran Hic, transl. (Batsford 2002), p.11

##############################

Tal advanced to the Korchnoi-Tal Candidates Semifinal 1968

Notes

1 Di Felice, "Chess Results 1968-1970," p.95

2 Game order and dates from Alexander Khalifman, ed. "Mikhail Tal Games 1963-1972" (Chess Stars 1995), pp.203-209

Original collection by User: Hesam7; introduction and game dates by User: WCC Editing Project