Eyal: In his <Life and Games>, Tal writes about this game:
<I played the opening very light-heartedly, quickly exchanged several pieces, but failed to make an accurate, very essential move. I offered a draw immediately after this. Olafsson declined. Only then did I look more deeply into the position, and realized that my offer of a draw had been somewhat tactless. In short, my opponent adjourned the game in a completely won position… We… began looking through the possibilities in the quiet, dull rook ending against the Icelander, every minute becoming more and more convinced that things were very, very bad.
In the end we hit upon an idea which at first sight seemed completely absurd, whereby I simply moved my king away from the enemy’s passed pawn, but where we found some ways for my opponent to go wrong. In the alternative case my opponent would have to demonstrate some elementary technical knowledge, whereas here I could lose much more quickly, but Olafsson would also have the chance to make a mistake.
Koblents and I showed our analysis to Lev Abramov, the leader of our delegation, and asked him what he, a chess master, would do in such a case. He unhesitatingly opted for the second possibility… I resumed my game against Olafsson, and tried to play as confidently as possible, especially since Olafsson, as was his habit, had thought for a long time over his sealed move – 45 minutes – and had relatively little time left. Of course, in normal circumstances this would have been sufficient to win, but Olafsson also became nervous. When I led my king away from his pawn, he sank into thought, and used up a further six minutes. His first move was correct, his second also, but on the third move he went wrong, and a drawn position was reached by force.>
Can someone point out where exactly did Olafsson go wrong?