Played in Seville, Spain, May 13th - 23rd 1971.

The players:

The favourite to win the match was Tigran Petrosian who had been the 9th World Chess Champion from 1963 until 1969.

"...if Petrosian is physically well prepared, the young German won't be able to put much of a fight up against him". (Mikhail Botvinnik) 1

Although extremely strong tactically, Petrosian tended to prefer positional maneuvering to outright combinational play. In the opinion of Max Euwe :

"Petrosian is not a tiger that pounces on its prey, but rather a python, that smothers its victim, or a crocodile, waiting for hours for a convenient moment to land a decisive blow. Petrosian is an outstanding strategist". 2

Robert Huebner was relatively unknown and had only gained his International Grandmaster's title at Palma de Mallorca Interzonal (1970) five months before.

He had come joint second with Vlastimil Hort in the Athens zonal tournament of 1969. He shared second place (behind Bobby Fischer) with Efim Geller and Bent Larsen in the interzonal tournament Palma de Mallorca Interzonal (1970).

According to William Hartston "(Huebner's) perfectionist and rather pessimistic approach, however, prevented him from reaching the very top".3 This seems particularly apt in relation to this match. Despite his evident talent, he did not seem to believe he could win the match, and said so openly.

"He is quite modest and said that he is satisfied to make a 50% score (at the Palma de Mallorca interzonal 1970 - ed). He said that he is not very well acquainted with the openings and needs more practice in the international arena...His success has not gone to his head. He does not want to become a professional chess master because he thinks that would take all the fun out of chess. He would prefer to remain a "Burger" and enjoy chess only on his vacations. <He believes that he has not very good chances in the candidates right now because of his lack of experience>". (Pal Benko) 4.

Huebner had emerged as an elite player in a short period of three years. His strength was not yet fully appreciated, partly through his own self-deprecation. In an interview with Bent Larsen and Boris Spassky in November 1970, neither named him as one of the "best younger players". Instead, both mentioned Henrique Mecking and Walter Browne as the best young western players. 5

They had only played one previous game, Huebner vs Petrosian, 1971 ; Petrosian had won a pawn but Huebner had held a long ending.

Personnel:

Arbiter Harry Golombek assisted by Carlos Flores and Alfonso Campoy. Match sponsorship was provided by the "Caja de Ahorros de Sevilla" (Seville Savings Bank).

Petrosian's second: GM Alexey Suetin (who was also his long-term trainer).6

Huebner's second: IM Hans-Joachim Hecht (who was also his long-term trainer).

The venue and the conditions:

The final location for the match was decided with only weeks to go before its commencement.

Huebner had expected to and wanted to play in Holland. Spain was a late choice and the German Federation had opposed the move. Moreover, the Soviet Federation had rejected the initial venue - a classroom in the university's Faculty of Law. 7

Although both teams checked the playing hall out prior to the match (as a result the air conditioning was serviced to quieten it down), they did not realise how much ambient noise would intrude from a busy thoroughfare outside the venue.

The playing room was beneath pavement level. The noise both from outside and from the spectators disturbed and distressed Huebner more than Petrosian. The latter had poor hearing and used a hearing aid which he could switch off.

"Petrosian was not affected by the sound but Huebner became more and more agitated and more and more distressed by the noise of the pounding feet overhead".8

Despite Hubner requesting that further games be played in another room, Petrosian refused to move. 9

The progress of the match:

"Petrosian tried to exclude risk and conquer his opponent with as little expenditure of energy as possible and by capitalizing on his vast match experience, his knowledge and his technique". (Boris Spassky) 10

Petrosian 2640 ½  ½  ½  ½  ½  ½  ½  ½ 1 ½ 5½ 
Huebner...2590 ½  ½  ½  ½  ½  ½  ½  ½ 0 ½ 4½

Game 2 Petrosian, with White, gained an advantage with pressure against Huebner's Queen-side. Huebner held on and the game was drawn at the adjournment.

Game 3 "Hubner tried to blend two systems against the Sicilian, one with <Bc4> and the other with <f4>. This was an over-ambitious programme which Hubner was not to repeat. Petrosian freed his position and even gained the initiative..." 11 Huebner extricated himself from his problems brilliantly:

click for larger view

21.Bc4!! sacrificing his Queen for a Rook and Bishop in order to create a stronghold.

Game 4 Petrosian's cautious opening resulted in Huebner achieving rapid equality, and both players were content with a peaceful draw.

Game 5 A draw in only fourteen moves after Huebner achieved nothing from the opening. Petrosian was gaining the psychological initiative in the match. He had achieved his <safety first> strategy of waiting for his opponent to make a mistake. He would successfully repeat this strategy in his next Candidates match

Game 6 A draw in fifteen moves but taking 2 hours and 47 minutes! Huebner equalised with an unexpected 8th move. During this game, Huebner was first disturbed by sounds from outside of the playing hall, as a large number of pedestrians were passing overhead on their way to a local derby soccer match. 12

Game 7 Petrosian offered a draw on move 19 which Huebner rejected. Then "Hubner offered a draw on move 25 which Petrosian rejected. Hubner in severe time trouble lost a piece on move 39 and resigned a move later". 13

click for larger view

39.Qc2?? loses the bishop, <39.Rb4> is equal.

This loss from a drawn position precipitated the sudden and unexpected end of the match.

Hubner's withdrawal:

"In the 7th game the noise once again arose after one and a half hours of play, during the rush-hour in Seville. I informed Mr.Golombek that I was disturbed, but he took no action. With the advantage of hindsight I think now that I should have stopped play at this point and refused to play on in the match unless the room were changed. But at this stage my position was very advantageous, so I was unable to resolve on this course. Because of the noise I consumed more time than usual and on move 39 I blundered away a piece in a drawn position.

During this game Mr.Golombek passed a statement from the Organisers to my second, Hecht, which described my protest from Game 6 as an attack of hysteria and which accused me of impolite behaviour towards the organisers. In addition they claimed that my protests were without foundation. Now it became clear to me that the rather cool attitude of the organisers from the very first towards me had been no accident (no rooms when we arrived at the hotel, delay of two days in Seville before they made contact with me, and so on).

Since it was also clear that the organisers would do nothing to fulfill my justified demands, I decided not to play on and to leave Seville. In a final discussion I wanted to give the Organisers the opportunity to explain and excuse their behaviour, but they insisted on their previous statement and only calumniated me further…

...I would like to say that I do not blame Judge Golombek, who was in a difficult position, exposed to severe pressure from the Organisers and from the Soviet Delegation. I have compiled a detailed list of my complaints and submitted this to F.I.D.E., and in addition I have demanded a replay of the match under fair sporting conditions".(Huebner) 14

The German Chess Federation's president Ludwig Schneider accordingly lodged an official complaint after Huebner had telephoned him about his withdrawal from the match.15

Reaction:

The Soviet view was that Huebner had no practical chance to win the match when he had withdrawn.

The Spanish newspaper "ABC", under the headline "Hubner's withdrawal has not surprised Soviet experts" quoted the Soviet international arbeiter Yakov Rokhlin . He highlighted Petrosian's "impregnable style" and stated:

"It would take phenomenal talent, nerves of steel and great experience to attempt to defeat the former champion twice in three games...young Huebner has no such qualities...His only consolation is that Hubner achieved an honourable result in a difficult creative dispute, although he is 20 years younger than his opponent". 16

Petrosian stated; "I am not convinced of the reasons given for the withdrawal of my opponent. The example of the eccentricities of the young Fischer has spread into the values of youth today". 17

Newspaper reports also stated that Golombek and the local match organisers had tried to dissuade Huebner from withdrawing but they could not change his mind. Instead, he was prepared to suffer the consequences both "moral and financial" of his abandonment of the match. 18

According to the report in "Jaque" 19 Huebner's sudden and unexpected departure was not well-received in Seville; "The regrettable stance of the German, has left a bad taste in the mouths of the numerous Seville fans who did not deserve this un-sportsmanlike way of going on".

Outcome:

Overall, however, there had been general amazement for the strength of opposition Huebner had offered to Petrosian; the match had opened the world's eyes to Huebner's strength.

Petrosian now faced Korchnoi, who had decisively beaten Efim Geller, in the Candidates Semi-Final match held in Moscow, July 1971.

Book of the match;

"Match de candidatos para el campeonato del mundo de ajedrez : Petrosjan-Hübner, Sevilla, Mayo de 1971", Federación Sevillana de Ajedrez, 1971.

Sources:

Compiled from the original games collection - Game Collection: WCC Index (Petrosian-Huebner 1971) - created by User: Hesam7

Dates for the games from contemporary newspaper reports in "ABC" and "British Chess Magazine", August 1971.

1 "Chess", vol.36, no.627-8, June 1971, p.263

2 Euwe, quoted in "Garry Kasparov on my Great Predecessors, Part 2" p.180.

3 Hartston(1996), "The Guinness Book of Chess Grandmasters", p. 200.

4 Pal Benko, "Chess Life and Review, March 1971,p.125-126.

5 "Chess", vol.36, no.617-8, December 1970, p.103

6 "Jaque", no.4, July 1971, p.2.

7 "ABC", 16 April 1971, p.65.

8 "British Chess Magazine", August 1971, No.8, Vol XCI, p.234

9 "ABC", 25th May 1971, p.69.

10 Spassky, "Chess Life and Review, September 1971, p.493.

11 Golombek, "British Chess Magazine", August 1971, No.8, Vol XCI, p.232

12 "The Canberra Times" Wednesday 30 June 1971, p.23

13 "British Chess Magazine", August 1971, No.8, Vol XCI, p. 235.

14 "British Chess Magazine", August 1971, No.8, Vol XCI p.282

15 "ABC" 25th May 1971, p.69.

16 "ABC", 26th May 1971, p.57.

17 "Edición del Wednesday", 26 May 1971, p.23

18 "Edición del Wednesday", 26 May 1971, p.23

19 "Jaque", no.4, July 1971, p.2.