Petrosian-Botvinnik (1963)

Cycle 1960-1963

Interzonal

In 1962 the Zonal qualifiers and the best players met at the Interzonal, which was organized in Stockholm. The Dutch Chess federation, as the original organizers had to renounce of their rights to organize the tournament because of their inability to guarantee to grandmaster W. Uhlmann of German Democratic Republic the granting of the necessary visa by the Dutch authorities.

Dr. Max Euwe analyzed the event for Chess Chat:

Bobby Fischer has become the great hero of the Interzonal Tournament. From the very outset he played rigorously for the first place in the tournament and, although this may sound strange, he was perhaps the only one who did. Most all the other prominent competitors played primarily for qualification and promotion to candidates. This fact did not make Fischer’s task any easier. He found himself in the position of the cyclist or skater who is trying to do his job in record time but who does not have the valuable stimulation of a rival. It is not without reason that in some sports they speak of a “pace maker”.

Bobby won the tournament by an enormous lead and with a fantastically high percentage (about 80%), which rarely occurs in tournaments of this level of excellence. Bobby was never seriously threatened in his race. The only dangerous moment was perhaps In the 18th round when Fischer, with six more games to go, had to play Gell who at that time was only one point behind him. The game did not develop favourably for Fischer, and for a short time just before the adjournment it looked as if Geller was going to win the game and thus equalize the score. But that did not happen. Fischer saved his life by a few skillful moves and once more exerted all his efforts to produce an imposing finish. It is also exceptional that a player can give his full energy to a contest after his goal proper has already been attained.

Fischer strength has improved by leaps and bounds. He is at least one class better than he was three years ago when he qualified for the Candidates Tournament in a far less convincing way. His type of play has broadened, and he now has the many—sidedness indispensable for world champion stature. Most remarkable for his age is his full command of the endgame stage. Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine were all fine endgame players, and Botvinnik is still a giant in this area. But the inventiveness Bobby has recently shown in the end- game together with his subtle technique and its inexorable consequences make it doubtful whether any one player either in the past or present has ever matched his height. Bobbys win against Portisch and Barcza were performances of first rank, and poor Yanofsky also experienced in a 114-move game how difficult it is to endure a continuous and well-organized pressure in an endgame, even though the endgame looks simple and drawish for a long time.

No wonder Fischer has a definite predilection for the final stage! He prefers a slightly favorable endgame to an attack with its ups and downs and its risks. This does not mean that Bobby would not he able to conduct a complicated attack. His games with German and Bolbochan reveal remarkable flexibility and capacity in this field. Fischer does not fear wild positions either in the attack or in the defense. He has complete sell-confidence under the most critical circumstances. His game with Bilek, where he permitted his naked King to be assaulted by hostile pieces, is a marvelous example of supreme control in terrible positions. True, Bobby had thoroughly analyzed the opening of this game previously, but even this fact shows great courage on his part to step into such a ‘lousy variation, in which fatal surprises are continuously peering around the corner.

Fischer does not make mistakes. This is a new quality and one which counts heavily. He is also strong in what we may call “tournament psychology He is less susceptible to disappointments – – great and smaller — because he simply plays against the board and succeeds in suppressing his optimistic or pessimistic feelings during the game — feelings which can only cause an emotional disturbance and a deviation from a clear, objective judgment. So much for Bobby Fischer, who has just celebrated his nineteenth birthday. We leave him with the observation that today there are hardly any chess experts who still have doubts that young Fischer will soon reach the highest summit in chess.

The Russian participants in the tournament did not do any more or any less than was expected. Petrosian did not lose a single game, but he drew fourteen of them, including all his Black games. This is a clear indication that Petrosian was out for qualification only.

Geller made a bad start, but in the middle of the tournament he scored six wins in succession, and for a short time he even became dangerous for Fischer. His draw with the latter discouraged him, and this discouragement led to a color less finish.

Korchnoi was a little confused in his tactics. This was his first interzonal tournament, and he was not sure whether to play for qualification only or for more.

The fourth Russian player, Stein, did not qualify and could not qualify, because not more than three players from the same country can enter the Candidates’ Tournament.

In general, the representatives from Eastern Europe did good work. Dr. Filip qualified, and Uhlmann gave signs of being able to qualify quite easily when a terrible relapse threw him from second to tenth place. During this period, Uhlmann scored only one point in six games.

Portisch also came very near his goal, but a loss against Aaron deprived him of his chances. Gligorich may still qualify, but he has to outstrip Benko in a replay with Stein as ‘Facheux Troisieme”. Benko had a good finish: 5.5 out of 7, and he played some very fine games. Pomar also played good chess, but his score in the last rounds (2 out of 6) was fatal to his chances. Exceeding the time limit against Bolbochan meant the definite end of his ambitions.

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	Total
1	Fischer,R	xx	½	½	1	½	½	½	½	½	1	½	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	½	1	1	17.5
2	Geller,E	½	Xx	½	½	½	½	1	1	1	1	0	½	1	½	1	1	1	½	½	½	1	0	1	15.0
3	Petrosian,T	½	½	xx	½	½	½	½	½	½	½	1	1	½	½	1	½	½	1	1	1	1	½	1	15.0
4	Korchnoi,V	0	½	½	xx	1	½	½	½	½	0	1	1	½	1	1	½	½	1	½	1	1	0	1	14.0
5	Filip,M	½	½	½	0	xx	½	½	1	0	½	½	½	1	1	½	½	1	½	1	½	1	1	1	14.0
6	Gligoric,S	½	½	½	½	½	xx	½	0	½	½	½	1	½	1	0	1	1	½	½	1	½	1	1	13.5
7	Benko,P	½	0	½	½	½	½	xx	½	1	½	½	0	½	½	1	1	0	1	1	1	½	1	1	13.5
8	Stein,L	½	0	½	½	0	1	½	xx	0	1	½	0	1	½	½	1	1	½	½	1	1	1	1	13.5
9	Uhlmann,W	½	0	½	½	1	½	0	1	xx	0	1	1	½	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	12.5
10	Portisch,L	0	0	½	1	½	½	½	0	1	xx	½	½	½	½	½	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	12.5
11	Pomar,A	½	1	0	0	½	½	½	½	0	½	Xx	½	0	0	1	½	1	½	1	½	1	1	1	12.0
12	Olafsson,F	0	½	0	0	½	0	1	1	0	½	½	xx	½	0	½	½	½	1	1	1	1	1	1	12.0
13	Bolbochan,Ju	0	0	½	½	0	½	½	0	½	½	1	½	xx	½	½	½	1	½	1	½	½	1	1	11.5
14	Barcza,G	0	½	½	0	0	0	½	½	1	½	1	1	½	xx	½	½	½	½	½	½	1	0	1	11.0
15	Bilek,I	0	0	0	0	½	1	0	½	0	½	0	½	½	½	xx	½	1	½	1	1	1	1	1	11.0
16	Bisguier,A	0	0	½	½	½	0	0	0	0	0	½	½	½	½	½	Xx	½	½	1	½	1	1	1	9.5
17	Yanofsky,D	0	0	½	½	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	½	0	½	0	½	xx	½	1	½	½	0	½	7.5
18	Bertok,M	0	½	0	0	½	½	0	½	0	0	½	0	½	½	½	½	½	xx	½	0	½	1	½	7.5
19	German,E	0	½	0	½	0	½	0	½	0	1	0	0	0	½	0	0	0	½	xx	½	½	1	1	7.0
20	Schweber,S	0	½	0	0	½	0	0	0	0	0	½	0	½	½	0	½	½	1	½	xx	1	½	½	7.0
21	Teschner,R	½	0	0	0	0	½	½	0	1	0	0	0	½	0	0	0	½	½	½	0	xx	1	1	6.5
22	Cuellar,M	0	1	½	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	½	0	xx	½	5.5
23	Aaron,M	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	½	½	0	½	0	½	Xx	4.0

The Candidates Tournament

Eight players, six from the Interzonal and two from the previous cycle, were qualified to play the first Candidates tournament organized outside of Europe. A small island in the Caribbean see was the venue of this prestigious event in May-June 1962.
The Curaçao Candidates’ tournament was a quadruple round robin to determine the challenger for Mikhail Botvinnik’s crown.
For Euwe, Petrosian was favorite: “ …I have sometime the feeling that Petrosian will win the contest. He is a solid player who picks up his whole and half point in quite unspectacular way. Still, it will be difficult for him to keep peace with hurricanes such as Tal unleashed in Candidates’ Tournament 1959 or Fischer in the recent Interzonal. Korchnoi is a newcomer but even with some interesting performances he should not interfere he final standing…”
Petrosian, in his biography, pointed Fischer or Korchnoi:“ The first would undoubtedly throw himself at the rest: he was extremely ambitious and after his performance in Stockholm, he did not regard himself as anything other than candidate number one. But Fischer was not nly ambitious but excessively self confident, and besides that he was also very young. Korchnoi, this cavalier without fear and reproach’ was capable of anything. He would no doubt take up an uncompromising position but I was sure that Korchnoi’s usually proud motto, ‘All or nothing’ would prove suicidal in Curacao.”

		01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	Total
01	Petrosian T	Xxx	½ ½ ½ ½	½ ½ ½ ½	½ 1 ½ ½	½ ½ 1 1	½ ½ 1 ½	1 1 ½ –	½ 1 1 ½	17.5
02	Keres P	½ ½ ½ ½	Xxx	½ ½ ½ ½	0 ½ 1 ½	½ ½ 1 ½	1 1 1 0	1 ½ 1 –	½ 1 1 ½	17.0
03	Geller E	½ ½ ½ ½	½ ½ ½ ½	Xxx	1 1 ½ 0	½ ½ 1 ½	½ ½ ½ 1	½ 1 1 –	½ 1 1 ½	17.0
04	Fischer R	½ 0 ½ ½	1 ½ 0 ½	0 0 ½ 1	Xxx	0 1 0 ½	0 1 ½ 1	½ 1 ½ –	1 ½ 1 ½	14.0
05	Korchnoi V	½ ½ 0 0	½ ½ 0 ½	½ ½ 0 ½	1 0 1 ½	Xxx	½ ½ ½ 0	1 0 ½ –	1 1 1 1	13.5
06	Benko P	½ ½ 0 ½	0 0 0 1	½ ½ ½ 0	1 0 ½ 0	½ ½ ½ 1	Xxx	1 0 ½ –	0 1 1 ½	12.0
07	Tal M	0 0 ½ –	0 ½ 0 –	½ 0 0 –	½ 0 ½ –	0 1 ½ –	0 1 ½ –	xxx	1 0 ½ –	7.0
08	Filip M	½ 0 0 ½	½ 0 0 ½	½ 0 0 ½	0 ½ 0 ½	0 0 0 0	1 0 0 ½	0 1 ½ –	Xxx	7.0

FIDE Review published the thoughts of Max Euwe on the recent Candidates’ Tournament.

“When contemplating the results of the Candidates’ tournament 1962, the phenomena leap to the eye: the failure of Bobby Fischer and the failure of Mikhail Tal. This is the first look at Tal’s case. His kidney operation shortly before the beginning of the tournament certainly may be considered as the main reason for his failure. The consequences of this operation became visible even during the contest when, during the last part of the tournament, Tal had to be taken back to the hospital. But notwithstanding Tal’s illness, one can still be surprised at his enormous jump backwards. From first place in the Candidates’ 1959 and later in the Bled Tournament 1961 to the next-to-last place in the Candidates’ 1962 is a long way indeed. From almost 80% he retrogressed to about 35%. Chess history knows of other case in which disease had a bad influence, but these were limited to, say, two or three points, which made the difference of two places on the list at most.

The explanation of the big change in Tal’s performance, which makes a much sharper contrast, must be found in his style. In the past, his overwhelming way of playing has often led to very close wins. He was usually just one move ahead of his opponent. His excellent combinations succeeded only because of minor detail in the position. Tal used to play on the razor’s edge. Such a style requires a player’s greatest energy and his fullest devotion. Tal, in his present physical condition, could never become the great World Champion with his thunder and lightning methods. We can appreciate the fact that Tal, knowing that he could not be in his full force, nonetheless did not change his style of play. The brave soldier he always has been remained true to his flag. And he was not at all discouraged by the numerous losses he suffered by adhering to hi numerous way of playing. Had he played quiet grand-master chess- and Tal certainly would have been able to do so- he would have scored draws and no losses, and his play would have been mediocre instead of bad. But one can understand and admire the fact that Tal preferred the bad to the mediocre.

He did not play the last quarter of the tournament because of a relapse, apparently a consequence of his recent operation. He was obliged to return to the hospital for almost a week. It was a wise decision on Tal’s part not to continue in the tournament. He had met all the other players three times instead of four, and withdrawing at the right moment he did not favor any of his opponents nor the contrary.

It is generally expected that Tal will soon recover and will play just as successfully as he did before this terrible débâcle. It should be noted that Tal’s decline is not the result of a psychological state of mind after having lost the World Championship in 1961. The ex-world champion proved very clearly that for him the psychological factor does not exist, for in the Bled Tournament in September 1961, only four months later, he played better than ever. For Tal it is just the chess board and the chess pieces that count. Tal uses no psychological weapons, has nothing to do with the psychological side. This consideration is important, for if psychological factors can favor the player at times, they can also work against him at other times.

Fischer’s failure is almost more surprising than Tal’s, since the Interzonal Tournament in Stockholm had shown this young genius in all his power and glory. Not a single loss against an imposing series of masters and grandmasters – no blunders – no superficiality – no decline – the hero in complete control of all weapons in the opening and middle game and especially unbeatable in the endgame. True, his opponents in the Candidates’ were a little stronger than those in the Interzonal. But this alone doesn’t explain Fischer’s inaccuracies even in the endgame, his weak moves and his outright blunders. How can one account for this change, this deterioration? We see various explanatory factors.

First of all, there is the physical side. Fischer was and still is exhausting his forces. In the Stockholm tournament he did his utmost up to the very last move, thus attaining the advance of 2½ points over his nearest rivals Petrosian and Geller. He could have scored as many as 3½ points less and still have made the Candidates’. In view of the short interval of one and half month between these two important and strenuous tournaments, Fischer must have been tired at the outset of the Candidates’, more fatigued in any event than his capable opponents Petrosian and Geller, who probably had spared their forces at Stockholm. Petrosian with 14 draws certainly did. True, a youngster of 19 had sufficient reserves to be able to stand such strenuous play, but physical exhaustion and chess exhaustion go hand in hand. To exert great effort tires one’s chess mind as well as one’s body. One then no longer sees combinations at a glance, but has to dig them out instead of the combinations coming by themselves. This must be why Fischer made oversights from time to time, and in the Candidates’ Fischer continued to exhaust his forces. He played many more moves and for more hours than did any other participant. He seldom accepted a draw in even positions. He always fought to the bitter end. His efforts can be appreciated, but such a performance takes too much out of a player.

A second factor in Fischer’s failure is of psychological nature. Fischer is too convinced of his own superiority, if one can believe the various statements made by Fischer in interviews with the press. Certainly, such statements should not be taken too literary- an interviewer after all is looking for the spectacular to a certain extent- but even if only ten percent of what has been written is factual, one can be sure that Fischer is convinced of his superiority. Overconfidence in oneself does not do too much harm. In chess history we have cases of optimistic players who have been successful just through their optimism. But while overrating oneself need not to be unprofitable one’s opponent is most dangerous and may be catastrophic. Fischer certainly must have underrated his opponents in the Candidates’, and this may partially explain his disappointing results in the tournament. However it can be expected that before too long Fischer will find his balance, and then he certainly will be a most serious candidate for the world title.

With the failure of the two youngsters, Fischer and Tal, the decision for the first place centered in a neck to neck race around of Soviet players- four, and when Korchnoi fell back, only three.

Korchnoi’s decline was very remarkable. It must have been caused by his undeserved loss to Fischer in the missing position. Soon after the game, he began to lose his usual sureness and lost to Tal, whom he had beaten on many previous occasions: this was Tal’s first good game in the Candidates’. Bad luck for Korchnoi. For him the consequences were terrible: three losses- and this eliminated Korchnoi from the list of competitors. Still, he may be proud of the fact that several rounds he was the only leader of the group. Now three top runners remained.

There was Petrosian with his subtle style, killing opponents before they were even aware of it. Petrosian is like a snake who lies in wait for his victim, preparing his deadly bite in the most insidious way. It is a rapidly working poison that Petrosian thus administer. It should be noted that his scores in the Candidates’ was nearly the same as at Stockholm, where the opponents as a whole were somewhat weaker. The different course, is that in the Candidates’ Petrosian did his utmost, while in Stockholm he was coasting most of the time. It was a good time for Petrosian that there were no 80% runners in the Candidates’ tournament. Petrosian style does not lend itself to these extra-high scores. But he is always good for between 60 and 70% even in top tournaments and therefore one usually finds him near the top.

Geller surprised the chess world by his solid style. In former years, Geller’s games were very lively; in some respect he resembled Tal in style. Keres introduced Geller to me in the Candidates’ 1956 in this way: “Here is Geller. He always plays for mate”. Geller’s games were characterized by wild attacks which resulted in superb victories or hopeless losses. Not did his games have their ups and downs but so did career as a whole. Ten years ago Geller won many games against World Champion Botvinnik, and in 1955 he gained the championship of the Soviet Union beating his co-winner Smyslov in a short match 3½-2½. After this culminating point in Geller’s career, his successes became less spectacular. It happens that the hot fire with which wild players feed their games for long periods is finally extinguished the chess world tends to forget them. Perhaps it will be inclined to forget Tal for that very reason, but they should be careful. Tal will rise again like a phoenix from his ashes. That is what Geller did. These past two years his successes have become more and more pronounced. His style has changed somehow. The interzonal shows ten wins, two losses, and ten draws for Geller. This leveling process continued in the Candidates’ where more than half of his games ended in a draw. He played very quietly, and only when success promised to be certain did the old Geller awake.

In the very last part of the tournament, Geller faltered -he lost to Fischer, who played a truly wonderful game against him. Bobby’s strong defense resulted in a clear advantage in the endgame, and with two Rooks and a passed Pawn against a Queen, he succeeded in making his resistance. Bad luck for Geller, who experience himself with draws after this unfortunate experience. As the winner of the second-third prize tied in such a strong tournament, in any case Geller has show the chess public that the he still belongs to the upper ten and perhaps even to the upper five of the world’s greatest chess players.

Thus, being the oldest of the triumvirate, had the most difficult task, even apart from his illness two weeks before the end of the tournament. His play has been just as excellent as it was three years ago in the Yugoslav Candidates’. Solid but not dull, always waiting for the opportunity to show his brilliancy, exact reserve calculations, always having surprising moves in reserve, Keres succeeded in maintaining his place among the top ranking players. How many of these admires have hoped that this time Keres would really win the Candidates’ as he should have won three years ago! The last quarter of the tournament must have request a great deal on Keres’ nerves. In sight of the harbour, he could easily stumble, and he did. To be exact, he stumbled twice each time against Benkö. He faltered in the 20^th round for the first time, Keres’ position was completely lost, but his opponent missed the chance under the pressure. In the 27^th round Benkö again got an overwhelming position against Keres, and this time he did not and let him slip out. Keres’ defeat in the next-to the-last round practically deprived this gifted player on his chance for first place. The “eternal second” came out second once again.

Petrosian won the first place. He is the proud winner of this strong contest without having lost a single game. Petrosian certainly deserves this victory- his whole career indicated that sooner or later his day would come. Tigran Petrosian was born on June 19,1929, in Armenia, and already in his youth he showed the great talent for chess. In 1947 he became champion of Armenia, in 1951 champion of Moscow. In 1952 he obtained the FIDE title of grandmaster because of his tie for the second place in the Interzonal at Stockholm. In the Candidates’ 1957 which followed, he came out fifth. It was until the Candidates’ 1956 that Petrosian ended up among the top players – not because of the result (a tie for 3^rd –7^th places), but because of his unusual deep concept of positional play. The way in which he outplayed Bronstein and Smyslov strategically indicated unmistakably a still greater future, a possible road to the highest place in chess. To attain this, development along tactical lines was still necessary and also a solid psychological front toward the problems of tournament play. This seems to have taken place in the intervening years.

As already noted, Petrosian can maintain 60-65% even against strong competition, and this makes him even more dangerous in a match. Petrosian’s age is also in his favor. Statistics show that 35 is the best age for reaching the top in chess.

Finally, a few words about the other two players. Benkö has not only scored more than anyone in the chess world had expected, but he has also played very good chess. Perhaps in the beginning some of his opponents may have underrated him, but you may be sure that after five rounds the players were aware of the fact that they should not trifle with Benkö. With his fine results, Benkö has definitely entered the special sphere of strong grandmasters.

	Petrosian	Geller	Keres	Fischer	Korchnoi	Benkö	Tal	Filip	Pts
Petrosian	— — — —	½½½ ½	½½½ ½	½1 ½ ½	½ ½ 1 1	½ ½1 ½	1 1 ½ —	½ 1 1 ½	17½
Geller	½½½ ½	— — — —	½½ ½ ½	1 1 ½ 0	½½ 1 ½	½½ ½ 1	½ 1 1 – –	½ 1 1 ½	17
Keres	½½½ ½	½ ½½ ½	— — — —	0 ½1 ½	½½ 1 ½	1 1 1 0	1 ½ 1 —	½ 1 1 ½	17
Fischer	½ 0 ½ ½	0 0 ½ 1	1 ½ 0 ½	— — — —	0 1 0 ½	0 1 ½ 1	½ 1 ½ —	1 ½ 1 ½	14
Korchnoi	½ ½ 0 0	½½ 0 ½	½ ½0 ½	1 0 1 ½	— — — —	½ ½½ 0	1 0 ½ —	1 1 1 1	13½
Benkö	½ ½ 0 ½	½½ ½ 0	0 0 0 1	1 0 ½ 0	½½ ½ 1	— — — —	1 0 ½ —	0 1 1 ½	12
Tal	0 0 ½ —	½ 0 0 —	0 ½ 0 —	½ 0 ½ —	0 1 ½ —	0 1 ½ —	— — — —	1 0 ½ —	7
Filip	½ 0 0 ½	½ 0 0 ½	½ 0 0 ½	0 ½ 0 ½	0 0 0 0	1 0 0 ½	0 1 ½ —	— — — —	7

Just after the tournament finished Petrosian was interviewed by the Soviet press:

Q: How do you appreciate your play at the Candidates’?

A: First of all I should note that the Candidates’ tournament is a special tourney where the sportive side prevails over all the rest. That’s why the tactic of the play should be special. There were some changes for the last years in the style of my play. But studying the conditions at the Curacao island, i made the conclusion that my old “petrosyan’s” tactic will be the most suitable. And it turned out to be correct. By the way, there were some other important reasons. Due to the lack of time I could not prepare well for the Candidates’. And this preparation I replace for some rest, and now I do not regret about it. After the tournament I knew out that many of chess commentators reproached me in being unnecessary peaceful.

Q: Did you hope to gain the first place?

A: I think, that every of eight participants hoped for it at heart. Otherwise there was not any necessity to take part in such a long and intensive competition. But one thing is to dream and another make these dreams come true. By the way Fischer could make himself certain in it. Three times I played in Candidates and my results improved: in 1953 I was the 5th, in 1956 shared 3-7th places, and in 1959 gained the third position.

Q: What can you say about other participants’ play?

A: This tourney proved once more that prognoses in chess are very doubtful. Tal and Fischer were favorites before the event. But even in the first round it was clear that these Grandmasters could not pretender to the throne. The reason of unsuccessful play of M.Tal is well known- he feels bad after the operation. In any case I think that if his play had another beginning , nobody would say what fight for the first place will be then. Around Fischer there was an aureole of invincible player. Without any saying an American Grandmaster is very talented, loves chess fanatically and proved that you can not joke on it. The fortune is not fair to P. Keres, this Estonian Grandmaster four times came the second, and I think that it is much more difficult than being the first once. To my opinion P.Keres has a moral right for the play in championship match. Another GM E. Geller is on the stage of his creative rise. The last tournament was played with great endurance. His finish failures might be explained by that points that in the most important moments his nerves betrayed him and he lost the feeling of measures. Korchnoi could play better, but he has not enough strength. It is impossible to play in full-out manner during all 28 games in the same good way. Korchnoi is famous as a master of counter attack. But in the Candidates nothing is given free. Thus Korchnoi had no his main trumps. Many people including me consider P. Benko to be outsider, as he has a great sportive drawback- constant time trouble. By the style he plays he is more tactician. The results of Filip are still a mystery for me. This Czech GM is always characterized by persistence and creativeness.

Q: What is your opinion on the existing system of selection for the championship?

A: Chess federation of USSR proposed to play Candidates on match system with leaving of the loser. It will a great step ahead in comparison with long-lasting game in 28 rounds. Status of Interzonals should be reviewed and it is necessary to find some other more successful forms. The organizers of the Curacao tournament did all their best for the successful play of the participants, but even new equipment could not stand the climatic conditions, which were not too much favorable.

Q: What can you say about the forthcoming match with the champion?

A: I met with Botvinnik not once. We played 5 games. Three draws we had in official tourneys, two games were training and one of them was won by me, another by him. Thus the score remains equal – 2,5-2,5. All the encounters with World Champion are of great interest for me, as I always studied and continue studying on the Chess Works of the leader of Soviet chess. Among my first textbook was the volume with collection of Botvinnik games.

Near the end of the tournament, I. Bolevslavsky, coach of the some Soviets players, gave in CR his views on some the participants:
”Tal only three years ago wore the world chess crown but is now totally unrecognizable. He has lost half of his games and the number of his wins are few. I would like for all who follow chess to realize that Tal recently experienced a serious operation and that he completely lacks the necessary strength for this struggle. As soon as he recovers his health he will once again be a threat to all players, including the world champion himself.

Benko’s play in Curacao is considerably better than in previous Candidates Tournament. He began by defeating Fischer and only two rounds ago shared fifth place with Korchnoi but the main deficiency in his play consists in the inaccurate distribution of his time and this continues to be Achilles’ heel. Benko spends almost all his time on the first 20-25 moves and consequently spoils many well played games in time pressure.

Bobby Fischer is certainly playing below his strength. After his magnificent victory in Stockholm, Soviet chess players were convinced that Fischer would be one of the main contenders for first place. For some reason, however, he was unable to put his best font forward and certain weaknesses, in evitable for his age, were apparent in almost every game.
Having discovered these weaknesses his opponents play carefully against him. However, in my opinion, Fischer should not discourage, since he has in his age a big advantage over the other participants. Fischer is only entering upon a path from which many of the other players will soon depart. He greatly improved the level of his play in the past three years and if he continues to progress at such a pace it will direly be difficult to contest his drive for primacy in the text Candidates’ Tournament. We hope that the young American champion will continue to have maximum objectivity in evaluating his own play and preserve throughout his life the Passion for the art of chess which he so clearly expresses today.

Korchnoi has long been renowned as a very strong but uneven chess player and these qualities are evident in this tournament. Leading in the first quarter of the tournament, he into bad luck in the twelfth round when he lost to Fischer after blundering in a superior position. This accident not only cost him the point but influenced his future play. The beginning of the third quarter became Korchnoi’s Waterloo—he lost three games in a row to Geller, Petrosian, and Keres and although he recovered by winning two games, the gap between him and the leaders was too great to repair during last eight games. And so there remain only three participants, namely Petrosian, Keres, and Geller fighting it out for first place. They are chess players of equally high caliber and three are in top form.

Kotov honored the new Challenger in the Soviet press:
”Petrosian’s victory in Curacao did not appear accidental: in the 68 games he played on the way to the title match, he had suffered only one defeat. The only argument against this was that he had not beaten any of his main rivals; but by the same argument they had not beaten him either, so if Petrosian was not a worthy challenger, nor was anyone else.
Tigran Petrosian has been one of the world’s leading players for about 15 years. His exceptional talent is recognized even by those who do not particularly like his style of play. Few outstanding players could show such a “level” graph of results as he has done.
Tigran did not lose a single game at Curacao: his matches with the two leaders were drawn, and he beat the remaining participants. Iron logic, elevated into a system. One important factor which enabled him to pass through 27 dangerous trials unscathed was his unfailing mastery of the opening. It is difficult to say whether this was the result of excellent preparation, or whether he managed to solve the problems at the board, but at any rate, he simply could not be caught in the early stages of the game…”

Flohr said : “If you ask Fischer what he thinks of the great chess players of the past, the young US Champion will reply, Nothing specially Fischer takes an even dimmer view of the chess player of today, that is, of nearly all of them. Nearly because there is one grand- master whom Fischer respects: it is only Petrosian whom he describes a very strong, possibly even stronger than him-self!

In Curacao Fischer did not defeat the Russians. But: the score 4:6 in their fivour seems to me a quite honorable one for him. The US Champion lost his matches 1.5:2.5 to Petrosian, Geller, and Korchnoi. It was only with Keres that he was able to draw.

Fischer, like Petrosian and Geller, scored eight wins in Curacao. Petrosian won five games with the black pieces; Fischer, seven with White! Can it be inferred from this that while Fischer is dangerous when he attacks and weak on the defensive, Petrosian attacks with insufficient vigor and is impregnable when is he is on the defensive?
I doubt it. . Both grand- masters knew how to attack when the situation requires this. In defensive play Petrosian is of course superior to Fischer. The challenger has a very special sense of danger. True, it is not so often that Petrosian is obliged to defend difficult positions, for — he just does not land in such positions. He senses danger at a distance and tries to neutralize it instantly. Botvinnik considers that Fischer has a versatile style: he attacks, counterattacks, and defends himself equally well.”

The Soviet magazines celebrated the victory with style. This is what Sharmatny said under the title….Under wonderful success…
“ A Championship match for the throne will be played again by two Soviet chess players. All these matches are the triumph of the Soviet chess school which representatives won the crown for last 15 years.

And again at Curacao, everybody could listen to the sounds of the Soviet hymn. Play of T. Petrosian was confidently and even during the whole tourney and the Grandmaster occurred to be the only player who could avoid any loss. This tournament consisted of a row of matches between participants. T Petrosian won matches from R. Fischer, V. Korchnoi, P. Benko, M. Tal and M. Filip and drew two matches against E. Geller and P. Keres.

The success of Petrosian was guaranteed by the high level of creativity, an excellent theoretical preparations, brilliant intuition, and keen psychological approach to the chess fight problems.

They say that the style of Petrosian is similar to the Cuban Grandmaster Capablanca. The have common in their play- ability to appreciate positions with exclusive precision, ability to find simple in complicated and complicated in simple. The virtual technique of play, and ability to foresee the real danger, when it seems to be insignificant make them related.

At the same time Petrosian is very unique and original player, he does not look for easy ways in chess, stands up for his opinion, sights, leads resistant fight and even his failures make him work more, to seek, analyze.

The results of the tournament were brilliant for our chess players. E.Geller and P.Kerees showed outstanding play. Each of them could easily become the opponent of Botvinnik and only the finish of the tourney defined the advantage of the winner.

We should note that it is not for the first time when Geller and Keres show the lack of strengths and nerve control, and they slacken their pace. Thus Geller and Keres shared 2-3 places, ½ points behind the winner. Korchnoi showed a very good play in the beginning, but later could not stand the intensity of fight; a bad health of Tal did not give him the possibility to play the 4^th round.

Fischer gained the 4^th place and proved that he was a strong and equal opponent for Soviet Grandmasters.

Speaking about the tournament results we should criticize the practice of holding of Candidates matches. All the leading grandmasters considered these competitions to be exhausting and to be organized in not a good way. For example, in the 4^th round of the tournament at Curacao the number of resulting games decreased, the number of mistake and blunders on the contrary increased. The participants were so tired that they were not able to lead a really creative fight.

The USSR Chess Federation proposed a new system, according to this proposal the selection before the tournament is the same. But instead of the Candidates, eight strongest grandmasters play to each other in the Olympic system (knock out system).

Immediately after the tournament, Fischer accused the Soviet players of exchanging information among themselves during the games and of ‘team play at individual tournament’. For many years abstained from taking part in FIDE competitions. The Soviets replied that the 19 young boy was just not mature enough to win the tournament and to defeat ‘extra-class Grandmasters’.

US Team Captain E. Hearst analyzed Fischer’s suspicion for CR:
”The victory of Tigran Petrosian in the Challengers’ Tournament at Curacao has not captured the imagination of the chess world. Perhaps this indifference is due to Petrosian’s rather tame style of play, but a more likely explanation is that Petrosian’s success was one of the least dramatic aspects of the Curacao struggle. chess fans have spent so much time debating Tal’s tragic misfortunes, Fischer’s uneven play, Keres’ last-minute disasters, (and the widespread suggestions of collusion among the Russians,) that by comparison, the rise of Petrosian as world champion challenger seems only a minor matter.

Possible collusion among the Russian contenders is a topic that can be argued endlessly—without any real hope of settling the matter. SPORTS ILLUSTRATED was brash enough in its issue of June 4, 1962, to describe the Russian domination of the tourney as “winning without really trying.” The author of that article pointed out the inevitability of a draw whenever the leading Russians sat down across the chess board from each other; he further declared that, by prearranging draws, the Russians had already performed the Red equivalent of drawing straws for the right to take on champion Botvinnik. Reports from Curacao indicate that an overwhelming number of the foreign correspondents and local organizers also believed that the Russians were deliberately soft on each other in order to assure a Soviet victory.

What did the Russians themselves have to say about This rash of draws? Yuri Averbach, the Grandmaster who along with Grandmaster Boleslavsky and one security agent a companied the Russian chess players to Curacao (there was no aggregation of 17-20 analysts, agents, doctors, and dentists, as some correspondents had predicted), said that “draws are a matter of style. Bobby is an aggressive player who shuns the draw, while Petrosian is not.” Averbach told the story of the game Botvinnik-Petrosian, an 11-move draw in a recent Russian Championship where the judges immediately complained about the brevity of the game. Petrosian defended himself by replying that the game was a “theoretical draw” and that he would have to compromise his position in order to win—a risk he was reluctant to take.

Averbach also recalled a 1961 Soviet chess cartoon that depicted Geller and Petrosian sawing away together at a large wooden point and ending up with numerous half-points as shavings. The caption read: “The Fruits of a Long Friendship.” Further evidence of Petrosian’s policy of non-aggression was his offers of draws to Fischer and Keres in the final rounds at Curacao, in positions in which he had a distinct advantage.

Keres, when asked about his relatively quiet play at Curacao responded: “Why should I take risks? In the 1959 Challengers Tourney, I took Chances and it didn’t work. Now I’m trying another way!”

At present, the safest comment to make is that Petrosian Keres and Geller have played a large number of draws each other in the past, and therefore the persistent draw at Curacao give no evidence of anything particularly suspicious. It’s true, also, that Fischer’s poor start, and the immediate rise of four Russians to the top of the score table, made it rather convenient for the Soviet stars to continue their point splitting course. If Bobby had won his first few draws among the Russians would have been the worst possible course for them to follow, since that procedure would place them further and further behind the American. Bobby could then have used “Russian draws” to his own advantage just as he did at Bled and Stockholm, where over 90% of the encounters between Russians also ended in draws. In any event, the Russians would certainly have been compelled to change their tactics if Bobby had gained the lead, and this would have made for a much more exciting tournament.

Grandmaster A. Bisguier, second of B. Fischer was interviewed in C&R.
Q. Since you were present at the scene of action for the entire period, and had an opportunity to observe all the contestants under every kind of conceivable pressure, do you feel there would be a different result if the tournament were replayed today?
A. Yes, I believe if the same players were involved and Fischer had the benefit of this tournament for experience, that he would probably win. As you know he got off to a poor start and compounded the evil by pressing for wins, which only cost him more points.

What do you think to beat Fischer this time? Lack of ability?
No, I think Fischer’s weakness is not lack of ability but perhaps — it’s been said before — a lack of mature understanding of the whole concept of the struggle rather than a mature understanding of chess per se, of which he is second to none, If occasionally he may lack the positional depth of Botvinnik, he’s not far from it. He’s clearly superior to all the other players at Curacao, with the possible exception of Petrosian.

Do you feel that Fischer had gained in maturity?
If he had gained in maturity he would have had a good chance to win at Curacao.

Do you feel he would have won it?
Yes . . . I wasn’t as aware of his deficiency in the last two tournaments (Bled and Stockholm) where he had the benefit of a more reasonable start. At Curacao he was over-eager, pressing, trying to overcome a poor start.

What were his personal relations with the other contestants, particularly the Russians?
Friendly enough but — he was polite but never went out of his way to cultivate them. By instinct, he’s a loner.

Does he respect their ability?
He calls them “patzers” but it may only be bluster, It’s very interesting to note that he has a wholesome respect for some Russians not included in the troupe.

For instance?
Smyslov, Stein, Bronstein, Spassky. A ticklish thing — how can I answer for Fischer?

What does Fischer say?
He says they’re patzers! That most of them don’t have the “complete” chess game.

I understand Fischer got miffed when Petrosian told him he needed to study the ending?
This happened after he got out of a bad middle game ag Petrosian, only to blunder seriously in an almost even endgame. He actually made mistakes at the end of the first session — not after adjournment — one, but that was against Keres after they were three hours deep into the second session. He claims it was fifth-hour fatigue.

That’s amazing inasmuch as Fischer is noted for his stamina and endurance.
Yes. But this bears on my other answer. He should pace himself instead of being playing every game to win, even when it’s drawn. This tired him even when he wasn’t aware of it. He was seldom in time-pressure — certainly never when it cost him anything. What is really amazing is that several of his errors were committed after the 40th move and before adjournment—when he could have sealed a move instead!

What did he do for recreation?
Usually nothing. Sometimes in the evenings he would wander into the gambling casino and play a slot machine. He never goes to movies or watches TV during a tourney — believes it’s bad for his eyes.

What was the attitude of the Russians towards Tal, and among themselves in general?
They have a profound respect for Tal. I felt they had a little pity for him and that each one of his mistakes came as a surprise. But I’m sure they were all somewhat relieved they didn’t have to play him in the last round.

There have been reports in the press that the Russians did not put forth their best efforts against each other. Fischer himself says he will never participate in another FIDE tourney like this— not only because the prizes are poor — but because they gang up and agree to draws, among other shenanigans.
You’ll have to specify what “other shenanigans.” It’s my personal belief that they agreed to draws beforehand, but I don’t know what other shenanigans he’s referring to.

All the Russians agreed to draws?
No . . . at least Fischer felt that Keres, Geller and Petrosian did, Tal and Korchnoi seemed to be outside of this-

Entente?
I wouldn’t call it an entente because I don’t know if it was a formal agreement beforehand. But it was a fact that the three players mentioned did draw all their games with each other rather quickly.

Fischer says Keres had a “hopeless” position when Petrosian offered him a draw in their 4th and last game.
Keres did not accept the draw immediately — he waited for a move, then accepted. It may have been a good act — I don’t know because I wasn’t on the scene at the time.

If Petrosian had such an easy win, what could have motivated the offer?
The Russians say that before the game Petrosian was satisfied

Do you think Fischer’s confidence in himself has diminished as a result of his showing at Curacao?
He still says he’s better than anybody — at least that he can beat anybody in the world. But just how firmly he believes it is a matter for speculation. I suspect he’s already rationalized his result completely. Some of his charges are ridiculous. Perhaps the Russians are not above some skullduggery if the occasion demands it — but there’s no evidence whatsoever to support it. They’ve never been put to that test. His score at Curacao of below 50% against them speaks for itself. What kind of fix is that? There’s no point in saying anything because he didn’t beat them. Theft draws with each other didn’t hurt him.

Bobby Fischer exploded in an issue of Sports Illustrated published after the tournament:

“The international Candidates’ Chess Tournament that ended June 28 in Curacao left me with one conviction: Russian control of chess has reached a point where there can be no honest competition for the world championship. The system set up by the Federation International des Echecs, the governing body of world chess, ensures that there will always be a Russian world champion because only a Russian can win the preliminary tournament that determines his challenger. The Russians arranged it that way. As far as I am concerned, they can keep it that way. I will never again play in one of these tournaments.”

He takes pains to explain that it is not a case of “sour grapes” and recalls how he qualified for the Candidates’ Tournament at the age of sixteen and, later, scored 3½-½ against the Russians at Bled.

“But between 1959 and 1962 the Russian dominance of the Candidates’ Tournament became much more open than it had been before. At Curacao it was flagrant. There was open collusion between the Russian players. They agreed ahead of time to draw the games they played against each other. Each time they drew they gave each other half a point. The tournament winner, Petrosian, got 5½ points of his 17½ total this way. They consulted during the games. If I was playing a Russian opponent, the other Russians watched my games and commented on my moves in my hearing. Then they ridiculed my protests to officials. They worked as a team.”

You used to have to raise money to get a match for the world championship. “Now you can’t get a match if you put up money or anything else.”

He would personally be willing to play a match with Botvinnik at any time, letting him decide the stakes, time and place (so would hundreds of other people! — Editor). “Botvinnik has been world champion too long, his reign perpetuated by the system that selects his opponents and he is no longer a chess master of championship caliber…”(!)

Bobby Fischer recalls that as long ago as 1953 the Chess Review and the New York Times had drawn attention to the possibility of collusion among Russian “candidates” to ensure a Soviet challenger.

“That was nine years ago, when I was 10 years old, so I don’t think I can be guilty of sour grapes in quoting it. In the intervening years, Russian mastery of this system of keeping in the lead has grown more skillful. At Curacao, there were five Russians out of the eight contenders. Mikhail Tal, however, the former world champion, had recently recovered from a kidney operation, became ill during the tournament and withdrew to enter a hospital, having no part in the general Soviet team effort thereafter. The other four Russians swam in the afternoons, I dressed, came to the start of the games in the chess room at the Hotel Intercontinental, dawdled at the chessboards for half an hour or so, made a few quick moves, traded off as many pieces as possible and then offered a draw. ‘Niche?’ one would ask. ‘Niche,’ his opponent would reply. They would sign their scorecards, go through the formality of turning them into the officials and then have dinner or change their clothes and go back to the pool. We played four games a week. Two other days were given over to finishing adjourned games. I played on every day set aside for tournaments. In effect, I was playing a regular schedule of six days a week. But when the Russians drew with each other, they drew early, before the time of adjournment. They thus played only four days a week. In the weeks when all four Russians happened to be playing each other and drew all their games, they really played only two days that week.”

“Geller and Petrosian drew their first game in 21 moves. They met again in the 10th round. That game lasted 18 moves. In their last meeting, they drew in 18 moves.”

“Keres and Petrosian drew in 17 moves the first time they played each other, 21 moves the second, 22 moves the third and 14 moves the last time they met. In this last game they overdid it, and while they drew, Petrosian clearly would have won if they had gone on.”

“As shown in the diagram, White’s king is permanently trapped in the center of the board. White’s queen wing is hopelessly weakened. As a matter of fact, Black wins in a few moves. But when Black had certainly won, and another move or so would make it obvious, they drew.”

“Or take Geller and Keres. They drew their first game in 27 moves, their next in 17, the third in 22 and the last game in 15.”

“The record of Victor Korchnoi, the fourth member of the Soviet team, is more complex. In the first half of the tournament he, too, drew every game he played with the other Russians. At the midpoint of the tournament, there was a five-day rest period; we all went to the island of St. Martin. The four Russians were almost tied in points for first place, and the talk was that when they came back to start the second half, one of the four was certain to begin losing to the others. Whatever happened in the Russians’ consultations at St. Martin, Korchnoi’s game certainly collapsed abruptly afterward. He lost three games in quick succession, first to Geller, then to Petrosian and then to Keres. Then, in the last time around, he drew quickly with Geller, drew with Keres and lost again to Petrosian. Anyone could draw his own conclusions from this sequence of events but, in any event, it revealed the advantage the Russian team had over Western individual players.”

“Sometimes, after their quick draws with each other, the Russians wouldn’t go back to the swimming pool. They would openly analyse my game while I was still playing it. It is strictly against the rules for a player to discuss a game in progress, or even to speak with another player during a game — or, for that matter, with anyone. I studied Russian enough to be able to read their chess books, and I could easily understand what they were saying. They would say this move is good, or that move is good — in Russian, of course.

My Russian isn’t the greatest but, believe me, they weren’t talking about the weather. If I was playing against a Russian, and one of these debates was going on right in front of us, my opponent might get up and join the discussion after he had made his move. Even if the advice they gave each other was bad — and too many chess cooks can spoil a game — it was annoying. It made me mad that they thought they could get away with it. I protested to the officials. I learned that they could get away with it. I complained a few more times, but their lead had increased to the point where they were unworried, and they then gradually stopped doing it.”

There may be the basis for an official protest if his allegations are true but they are not subject to a judicial examination when badly stated in a magazine article which also has the advantage of earning him a useful fee.

Leonard Barden commented on all this in The Hindu (Madras): “Experts who have studied the games of the last candidates’ tournament agree that the main reason for his finishing well behind the winners was his unjustified efforts to win equal positions. Probably Fischer’s own belief that he ought to wipe the floor with the Russians, coupled with his opinion that they would throw games to each other if necessary, led him to try too hard…”

It has not been unknown for Americans to manipulate “individual” contests (boxing!).

The World Championship set-up was being radically revised as he wrote. The Daily Telegraph gave a typically succinct yet comprehensive account:

“Major changes in procedure in the most important international chess contest, the Candidates’ Tournament to decide the title match for the World Chess Championship, have been introduced by the Congress of the International Chess Federation, now in session in Stockholm, under the new rules for selecting the challenger.”

“The Candidates’ Tournament will be between eight of the world’s strongest grandmasters; the victor of the Inter-Zonal Tournament and five of the 24 participants who scored highest on him, plus the previous World Champion and the runner-up to the winner of the previous contest.”

“The eight participants will draw for partners, and each of the four pairs will play 10 rounds between them in the first part of the tourney. The four players emerging with the highest number of points will qualify for the semi-finals, and the two pairs, drawn by lot, will meet for another 10 rounds.”

“The finals will take the form of a match of 12 rounds between the best two grand masters and this will determine the challenger to the World Champion”.

The USCF and Americans chess players were quite disappointed with the result and later decision of their ‘wonder boy’. I. Kashdan, as a former member of the US team and journalist, published an open letter to Fischer: “In the Aug. 20 issue of Sports Illustrated appears an article by American grandmaster Bobby Fischer entitled “The Russians Have Fixed World Chess”.

Fischer asserts that the system set up to determine a challenger for the world championship ensures that a Russian will win the preliminary tournament. Thus the match for the title will be between Russians and they can keep the title forever,

Fischer states his basic conclusion in the very first paragraph of the article:

The Russians arranged it that way. As far as I am concerned they can keep it that way. I will never again play in one of these tournaments.

As evidence, Fischer reviews some of the proceedings in the recent Candidates’ Tournament in Curacao. The three leaders Tigran Petrosian, Paul Keres and Efim Geller drew all the games they played among themselves, a total of 12.

In no case was there a real attempt to play for a win, most of these games lasting but a few minutes.

When Fischer was playing against a Russian, the others would frequently gather about the game and comment on the moves. Fischer protested several times to the referee but was disregarded. These games were all hard fought, Instead of going through this again, Fischer states that he would be willing to play a match with world champion Mikhail Botvinnik at any time, and would spot him the advantage of two points in a match of 24 games. He continues:

I could come out the victor with ease in such a competition. –

Since we regard Bobby Fischer as far and away our best hope for the world chess championship, this is a vital issue for American chess.

Dear Bobby:

I am concerned at your statement that you will never again face the Russians in challenge tournaments leading to the world championship. In your modest way, you will probably agree that you have the best chance of any American to bring the title here.

You are young enough to keep trying, even if success does not come immediately. I have never believed that the Russians are 10 feet tall, or that they are invincible in chess or anything else.

What are the problems? You state that the system of selecting a challenger must lead to a Russian victory, but you give no evidence of this inevitability, Actually, the system was worked out over a period of years by a group headed by former world champion Dr. Max Euwe of Holland, as fair-minded an individual as ever played chess.

The cycle of zonal, interzonal and candidates’ tournaments was intended to develop chess interest all over the world as well as lead to a championship match. Theoretically, a completely unknown player could go through the series and get to the top. All he has to do is win enough games.

Paul Keres one of your opponents at Curacao, recently proposed a change in the system in an article in FIDE, the magazine of the International Chess Federation. Keres would limit world championship play to grandmasters.

Would that be fairer? Under that method you would not have qualified for the candidates’ tournament in 1959, which you actually did at the age of 16.

Incidentally, that rates as the greatest achievement in chess history for anyone of that age.

Yes, more Russians get into the candidates’ tournaments than any other nationals. But let us face the fact that Russia has more fine chess players than all the rest of the world put together. This does not mean that we should give up the struggle, but it points up the need to develop more chess interest. This will not come about through changing a system of tournaments.

What about the Russians drawing so many games with each other? Do you really believe, Bobby, that this is why three Russians finished ahead of you in Curacao? Remember that every drawn game loses half a point for each player.

If the Russians wanted to be certain of victory, they should have arranged to have one of them win most of the games in their interplay, rather than to level out by drawing.

In the Stockholm Interzonal, which you won so brilliantly, part of your advantage was the same series of draws among the Russians. If you recall, you also drew six of the games against your top seven opponents. Your winning margin was an almost clean sweep against the bottom half.

In Curacao, your score against the top four Russians was 6.5 – 9.5. That accounts quite simply for your not winning the tournament. You have done better before and I am quite sure you will do better many times in the future. You make a point that the Russians consulted in their games with you, If this was done openly it indicates lax refereeing, which is certainly wrong. This is a problem that has existed for many years. There undoubtedly is strength in numbers, and again it points up our major task.

Bobby, let us resolve not to quit, but to develop more and better players so that you will have more support in your rise to the top. You can help by cooperating with American chess organizations, playing in American tournaments more frequently and in other ways working with those who would be your friends. Unfortunately, you have not always adopted this course.

Actually, American chess is in far better shape today than it was some 30 years ago when I headed several teams that went on to win the Chess Olympics four times in succession. We were a group of brash youngsters that decided that no one could beat us. I think basically you have that spirit, and my message to you is to keep going.

Forty years later the “plot” was confirmed in an interview by V. Korchnoi to NIC magazine: “I believe it was Petrosian’s and his wife’s idea to have this plant, and Geller was an essential ally. Then they recruited Keres, who was about 12 years older. When I saw one game between Geller and Petrosian ended in a draw this is normal but the next one followed and Geller also drew with Keres I understood there was a net…I did not realize that their pact was directly against all the young participant of the tournament…I was a Soviet citizen and I could not condemn them in the press for making a short draw but Fischer did it. But he only looked at it from its own perspective and thought that the whole plot directed against him personally, whereas if you look at it closely al of us, Tal, me and Fischer were enemies of those people, who were slightly older and who had different views on chess and fighting.”

After the Candidates’ Tournament and the obvious problems which had happened, FIDE at its 1962 Congress decided to reviews its regulations and proceed with major changes.

The regulations for the Men Candidates’ competition were radically changed; in the new period this competition will be carried out according to a system entirely different from the previous one, by a set of matches.

Participation will, as before, be open on the one hand to the two first players from the preceding candidate’s tournament—priority for one of these places belonging, however, to a player who has in the meantime become ex-champion of the world or to a player who has played a drawn match with the champion of the world—and on the other hand to six players from the preceding interzonal tournament. The last-mentioned players will be admitted according to a list drawn up, in principle, in conformity with the results of that tournament, with the proviso, however, that the list may not comprise more than three players from one federation.

The two first-mentioned players will be given the numbers 1 and the players coming from the Interzonal Tournament will obtain the numbers 3 to 8 according to the order of their results in that tournament. Each one of the players numbered 1 to 4 will have to meet one of the other players, according to the result of a drawing of lots, in the first system of matches, called quarter-finals; at the same time the second drawing of lots is undertaken in order to establish the pairings of the winners for the second set of matches, called semi-finals. All quarter-finals should, if possible, be played at the same place, and they should be followed there, alter a week of repose, by the semi-finals; if it is not possible to organize all the quarter-final in this way, an effort should be made to carry out at the same place at least those quarter-finals whose winners will have to meet in a semi-final. The winners of the semi-finals will proceed to a final match which ought to be terminated before the end of October in the third year of the cycle. All matches in the quarter-finals and the semi-finals will comprise 10 games and the final match will comprise 12 games. Further, the losers of finals will meet in a match of 6 games which will decide the 3^rd and the 4^th prizes.

The winner of the final match will be entitled to meet the World Champion in a match of 24 games to be organized according to the same stipulations as in the preceding period.

The new system offers in the first place the advantage that there can be no question of any “collaboration between several representatives of the same federation in the Candidates’ competition.

The final

The question of revenge match for the World Championship was also one of the most intensely discussed at recent sessions of the International Chess Federation. It was agreed this year’s match be the last. In future, the beaten champion will have to fight for his right in the Candidates Tournament. This resolution of the FIDE Congress is based upon serious reasons. From one point, however, we must regret there will be no revenge-matches in the future: Both revenge-matches, in 1958 and in 1961, were highly interesting chess events – from point of view of sports and, particularly, of chess psychology. This point settled made the final issue of the World Championship very important.

The both contenders were interviews just before the match:

Petrosian

How did you play in the Candidates’ Tourney in Curacao?

A. I believe that the Candidates’ Tourney is the kind of event where one should play “to win” rather than “creatively.” It was on this basis that I built my plans. In past years my style has somewhat changed; it has become more active. When I arrived at Curacao and became acquainted with the tournament conditions I concluded that the best principle to follow would be the old tactic: not to lose.
After the tournament, I heard that many sports commentators had accused me of being too peaceful. Some of them had advised me throughout the tourney to throw myself into combinations; that this was the only way to win. Many top masters avoid reading sports magazines during their competition. I have a different opinion. But, anyway, the Soviet sports journals arrived very belatedly in Curacao. In any event, I would have paid no attention to their advice and in the end, I was right.

Did you think you would be first?
I think all eight competitors thought they would be first. Otherwise, it would be senseless to participate in such a competition. I expected a favorable result because I had played three times in the Candidates’ and each time I did better. In 1953 I was fifth, in 1956 third through seventh, and in 1959 third.

What about your match with Botvinnik?
Against Botvinnik, I have played five times, three times in official competition (two games were practice). All games were drawn. Like many grandmasters of the middle and younger generation, I have learned from him and shall keep learning from him. One of my first chess books was a collection of Botvinnik’s games.

How will the match end?
No one will believe me if I say I don’t expect to win. Botvinnik certainly doesn’t intend to lose. We shall see.

Botvinnik
Q. To what factors do you ascribe the extraordinary reversal of scores in your two matches with M. Tal?
A. The results simply show that he who plays better wins.

What do you consider the factors in your own character which has provided the main contribution to your success?

It is impossible to attain great successes without the will to win.

What do you consider the main strengths and weaknesses of the British and American players you have met? What advice could you offer them?
In my opinion, the British masters lack all-round playing strength. R. Fischer has no longer any need of my advice.

In how many years do you think chess by electronic computers will become a serious factor in the game?
I believe the time when an electronic machine will begin to play chess well is not far off.

There has been speculation as to how much your work as an electrical engineer is a distraction from your chess? What proportion of your time do you give to each?
Perhaps my work as an engineer both hinders and helps me as a chessplayer. I have always combined the two and not without success. While I am working as an engineer I confine myself, as far as chess is concerned, to collecting information.

Who are the most promising younger players in the world?
The standard reply to this question is Fischer and of course as far as young players up to twenty are concerned he clearly excels everyone (we are not taking into consideration here Spassky since he is some years older). Other promising players are Parma and Hort. Parma should become one of the strongest Yugoslav masters and Hort will probably be as good as Filip or Pachman of Czechoslovakia.

What importance do you attach to opening theory? Has it acquired more importance than it possessed in the past? Do you think the time may come when opening theory will be completely known and hence played-out?
Every good chess player must be completely equipped and a knowledge of opening theory is part of such equipment. But in addition, every strong chess player should have something more than is published in this respect. He should have his own ideas and his own variations. Part of Petrosian’s strength is that he knows something more than the others (this remark should also be taken in relation to the next question and answer). In the past, one could just sit down and play but now theoretical preparation is essential. Statistically and mathematically opening theory is limited but in practice for mankind, it is inexhaustible.

What would you say is Petrosian’s particular strength as a player?
Petrosian’s main strength is that more than any player he knows how to play the typical middlegame positions that arise out of modern openings. He is intuitively more at home in them than any other great master.

The match was not sure until the last moment. A bad flu made the beginning unclear and the Champion asked to consider a postponement of…six months. Finally, the things went better than expected and after the green light from his doctor, the match started in Moscow on March 22, 1963 at the Estrada Theatre. The Theater contained its full 1500 spectator when play commenced on the first day and for the first twelve rounds, everything was sold out! G. Stahlberg and H. Golombek were the Arbiters.

Game 1

Nimzo-Indian

It as the first time that Botvinnik opened with such defense. A quite variation with a solid white’s position. After a bad Knight’ s development Petrosian suddenly felt in trouble. Choosing a passive defense the Challenger could not halt the Black storm on his very weak e-Pawn. The first lost didn’t affect the Challenger as long before the match begun, he had already instructed himself that in event of dropping one or two games at the start, he would not attempt to make up the difference at once.

Game 1

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Wch25-Moscow"] [Date "1963.03.23"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "1"] [Result "0-1"] [White "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "E34"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "80"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.a3 Bxc3+ 9.Qxc3 c6 10.e3 O-O 11.Ne2 Re8 12.Ng3 g6 13.f3 h5 14.Be2 Nd7 15.Kf2 h4 16.Nf1 Nf8 17.Nd2 Re7 18.Rhe1 Bf5 19.h3 Rae8 20.Nf1 Ne6 21.Qd2 Ng7 22.Rad1 Nh5 23.Rc1 Qd6 24.Rc3 Ng3 25.Kg1 Nh5 26.Bd1 Re6 27.Qf2 Qe7 28.Bb3 g5 29.Bd1 Bg6 30.g4 hxg3 31.Nxg3 Nf4 32.Qh2 c5 33.Qd2 c4 34.Ba4 b5 35.Bc2 Nxh3+ 36.Kf1 Qf6 37.Kg2 Nf4+ 38.exf4 Rxe1 39.fxg5 Qe6 40.f4 Re2+ 0-1 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 2

Queens’ Gambit Accepted

Botvinnik got a nice position with much better prospect than his opponent. White builded and attack on the King-side but had to face a meticulous defense. Tired after the fifth hour and without any idea how to break the Black’s fortress, the Championship decided to liquidate down the position to a equal Rook and Pawn ending. After the game, Euwe said: “Adopting such opening was a correct tactics. Theory indicates that with normal play it is possible without any special difficulties to obtain a draw”.

Game 2

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (2)"] [Date "1963.03.25"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "2"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [ECO "D27"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "70"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 c5 5.Bxc4 e6 6.O-O a6 7.a4 Nc6 8.Qe2 cxd4 9.Rd1 Be7 10.exd4 O-O 11.Bg5 Nd5 12.Bxe7 Ncxe7 13.Ne5 Bd7 14.Nd2 Bc6 15.Ne4 Nf4 16.Qf3 Bxe4 17.Qxe4 Nfd5 18.Ra3 Rc8 19.Rh3 Ng6 20.Bxd5 exd5 21.Qf5 Qd6 22.Rb3 Rc7 23.g3 b6 24.Re1 Ne7 25.Qf4 Rc2 26.Nd3 Qd8 27.Qg5 Nc8 28.Qxd8 Rxd8 29.a5 bxa5 30.Rb8 Rf8 31.Ra1 Ne7 32.Rxf8+ Kxf8 33.Rxa5 Rd2 34.Rxa6 Rxd3 35.Ra8+ Nc8 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 3

Queen’s Indian Defense

Petrosian played the “quietest of the quiet” variation of such defense, did not avoid simplification and went straight to the final. White was a Pawn up at the adjournment but Botvinnik’s analyze (despite he had no second for the match!) was much superior. Black in difficulty defended brilliantly and after 72 moves he secured another draw.

Game 3

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (3)"] [Date "1963.03.27"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "3"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "E17"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "172"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.c4 Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Nxe4 Bxe4 9.Ne1 Bxg2 10.Nxg2 d5 11.Qa4 c5 12.Be3 Qd7 13.Qxd7 Nxd7 14.cxd5 exd5 15.Nf4 Nf6 16.dxc5 bxc5 17.Rac1 d4 18.Bd2 a5 19.Nd3 Nd7 20.e3 dxe3 21.Bxe3 Rfb8 22.Rfd1 a4 23.Kg2 h6 24.Rd2 Rb5 25.Nf4 Nf6 26.Kf3 Rab8 27.Nd3 Nd7 28.Bf4 R8b7 29.Be3 f6 30.h4 h5 31.Rc4 Nb6 32.Rcc2 c4 33.Bxb6 cxd3 34.Rc8+ Kf7 35.Bd4 g5 36.Rc4 Rb4 37.Rxb4 Rxb4 38.Bc3 Rc4 39.hxg5 fxg5 40.Rxd3 Bf6 41.a3 h4 42.gxh4 Bxc3 43.Rxc3 Rxh4 44.Rc5 Kf6 45.Rb5 Rf4+ 46.Ke3 Rh4 47.Rb4 Ke5 48.Kd3 Ke6 49.Rb5 Kf6 50.Ke2 Re4+ 51.Kf1 Rh4 52.Kg1 Rg4+ 53.Kh2 Rh4+ 54.Kg2 Rg4+ 55.Kh3 Rh4+ 56.Kg3 Rd4 57.Kf3 Rf4+ 58.Ke3 Rh4 59.Rb8 Ke6 60.Re8+ Kf6+ 61.Kd2 Kf7 62.Re3 Rf4 63.f3 Rh4 64.Kc3 Rh3 65.Kd4 Rh2 66.b4 axb3 67.Rxb3 Ke6 68.Kc5 Kd7 69.Kd5 Re2 70.a4 Kc7 71.a5 Ra2 72.Rb5 Ra4 73.Ke5 g4 74.f4 g3 75.Rb3 Rxa5+ 76.Ke6 Ra6+ 77.Ke7 Rg6 78.Rc3+ Kb6 79.Rc1 g2 80.Rg1 Kc7 81.f5 Rg3 82.f6 Re3+ 83.Kf7 Rg3 84.Ke6 Re3+ 85.Kf5 Rg3 86.f7 Rf3+ 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 4

English Opening

Botvinnik son had an obvious advantage. At one stage Black’s position looked extremely dubious but leading the match and not willing to take the risk, the Champion agreed to draw after 24 moves when the position was already leveled.

Game 4

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (4)"] [Date "1963.03.30"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "4"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [ECO "A35"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "48"] 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.e3 Nf6 5.d4 cxd4 6.exd4 d5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Qb3 Nxc3 9.Bc4 e6 10.bxc3 Bg7 11.Ba3 Bf8 12.Bc1 Bg7 13.Bb5 Bd7 14.Ba3 Bf8 15.Bxf8 Kxf8 16.O-O Kg7 17.Be2 b6 18.c4 Qf6 19.Qe3 Rhe8 20.Ne5 Rad8 21.Rad1 Qe7 22.c5 Nxe5 23.Qxe5+ Qf6 24.cxb6 axb6 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 5

Gruenfeld Defense

Petrosian equalizes the score. Botvinnik as Black didn’t handle the opening as it should be. White took the advantage and forced an endgame with looked favorable. Carefully played White improved slowed and once he played 23.b4 which provoked Black’s Pawn weakness, the position reached gave him a decisive advantage. The way how the game was concluded surely deserved the full point.

Game 5

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (5)"] [Date "1963.04.01"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "5"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "D94"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "95"] 1.c4 g6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.e3 O-O 6.Be2 dxc4 7.Bxc4 c5 8.d5 e6 9.dxe6 Qxd1+ 10.Kxd1 Bxe6 11.Bxe6 fxe6 12.Ke2 Nc6 13.Rd1 Rad8 14.Rxd8 Rxd8 15.Ng5 Re8 16.Nge4 Nxe4 17.Nxe4 b6 18.Rb1 Nb4 19.Bd2 Nd5 20.a4 Rc8 21.b3 Bf8 22.Rc1 Be7 23.b4 c4 24.b5 Kf7 25.Bc3 Ba3 26.Rc2 Nxc3+ 27.Rxc3 Bb4 28.Rc2 Ke7 29.Nd2 c3 30.Ne4 Ba5 31.Kd3 Rd8+ 32.Kc4 Rd1 33.Nxc3 Rh1 34.Ne4 Rxh2 35.Kd4 Kd7 36.g3 Bb4 37.Ke5 Rh5+ 38.Kf6 Be7+ 39.Kg7 e5 40.Rc6 Rh1 41.Kf7 Ra1 42.Re6 Bd8 43.Rd6+ Kc8 44.Ke8 Bc7 45.Rc6 Rd1 46.Ng5 Rd8+ 47.Kf7 Rd7+ 48.Kg8 1-0 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 6

Queens’ Gambit Accepted

White built a small advantage but never could maximize it. Despites many pieces still on the board both players agreed to draw as none is willing to take any risk to lose.

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (6)"] [Date "1963.04.03"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "6"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [ECO "D27"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "54"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.O-O a6 7.a4 Nc6 8.Qe2 Be7 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.e4 Ng4 11.Bf4 Qf6 12.Bg3 Nge5 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.Nd2 O-O 15.Rad1 b6 16.Qh5 Nxc4 17.Nxc4 a5 18.Ne5 Qe7 19.Rd2 f6 20.Nd3 e5 21.Nxc5 Qxc5 22.Qd1 Be6 23.Re1 Rac8 24.h3 Qb4 25.Re3 Rc4 26.b3 Rc6 27.Kh2 b5 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 7

English Opening

Petrosian once again came out of the opening in full control of the game with a definite advantage. Black’s was in trouble by the strong White’s Bishops threatening Black’s Queen-side Pawns. At some stage, Botvinnik thought business could be less difficult if he reaches a Rook endgame. No chance the result was really hopeless.

Game 7

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (7)"] [Date "1963.04.06"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "7"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "A10"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "103"] 1.c4 g6 2.Nf3 Bg7 3.Nc3 e5 4.g3 Ne7 5.Bg2 O-O 6.d4 exd4 7.Nxd4 Nbc6 8.Nxc6 Nxc6 9.O-O d6 10.Bd2 Bg4 11.h3 Be6 12.b3 Qd7 13.Kh2 Rae8 14.Rc1 f5 15.Nd5 Kh8 16.Be3 Bg8 17.Qd2 Nd8 18.Rfd1 Ne6 19.Nf4 Nxf4 20.Bxf4 Qc8 21.h4 Re7 22.Bf3 Bf7 23.Qa5 Be8 24.c5 d5 25.Bd6 Qd7 26.Bxe7 Qxe7 27.Rxd5 f4 28.Qd2 Bc6 29.Rd3 Bb5 30.Rd4 fxg3 31.fxg3 Bxd4 32.Qxd4+ Qg7 33.Qxg7+ Kxg7 34.Rc2 Re8 35.Kg2 Kf6 36.Kf2 Bc6 37.Bxc6 bxc6 38.Rc4 Ke5 39.Ra4 Ra8 40.Ra6 Kd5 41.b4 Kc4 42.a3 Kb5 43.Ra5+ Kc4 44.Ke3 a6 45.Kf4 Kd5 46.Kg5 Re8 47.Rxa6 Rxe2 48.Ra7 Re5+ 49.Kf4 Re7 50.Rb7 Ke6 51.a4 Kd7 52.Rb8 1-0 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 8

Queens’ Gambit Accepted

This time Petrosian found the right pattern to counter the Champion. The Champion didn’t get too much out of the opening and the endgame was even if favor of the Black but the opposite color Bishops made the wining chance very small and the draw was agreed.

Game 8

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (8)"] [Date "1963.04.08"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "8"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [ECO "D27"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "109"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.O-O a6 7.a4 Nc6 8.Qe2 Be7 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.e4 Ng4 11.e5 Nd4 12.Nxd4 Qxd4 13.Na3 Bxa3 14.Rxa3 Nxe5 15.b3 Qc5 16.Ra2 Nxc4 17.bxc4 Bd7 18.Ba3 Qf5 19.Rd2 Bc6 20.Re1 h5 21.Qe3 f6 22.Qxe6+ Qxe6 23.Rxe6+ Kf7 24.Re7+ Kg6 25.a5 Rad8 26.Bd6 Rhe8 27.Rxe8 Rxe8 28.f3 Re1+ 29.Kf2 Ra1 30.Bb4 Rb1 31.Ba3 Rb3 32.Bd6 Rc3 33.Rd4 Rc2+ 34.Kg3 Bd7 35.h4 Be6 36.c5 Bc4 37.Kf4 Bb5 38.g4 Rc3 39.Re4 Bc6 40.Re3 Rc4+ 41.Kg3 Ra4 42.Bc7 hxg4 43.fxg4 Bd7 44.Bf4 Kf7 45.Rb3 Bc8 46.g5 fxg5 47.hxg5 Rxa5 48.Be3 Kg6 49.Rb6+ Kf5 50.c6 bxc6 51.Rxc6 Ra3 52.Rc5+ Kg6 53.Rc6+ Kh5 54.Kf4 Ra4+ 55.Kg3 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 9

Catalan Opening

The game was postponed for few days as Botvinnik was indisposed. A clear advantage for the Challenger after some anti-positional plans chosen by the Champion. Petrosian rush on the weakness of the Black pieces but could not break the good “active” defense. The Rook ending was slightly better for White but not enough to produce a winner. It was thanks only to the most thorough analysis at home during the adjournment that Botvinnik avoids defeat.

Game 9

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (9)"] [Date "1963.04.13"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "9"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "E08"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "110"] 1.c4 e6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.O-O O-O 6.d4 Nbd7 7.Qc2 c6 8.Bf4 Ne4 9.Nc3 g5 10.Bc1 f5 11.b3 Bf6 12.Bb2 Bg7 13.Rad1 Rf7 14.Nxe4 fxe4 15.Ne1 Nf8 16.f3 exf3 17.Bxf3 Bd7 18.Nd3 Be8 19.Qc1 Rc8 20.Qe3 Rcc7 21.Ne5 Rf5 22.Bg2 Rxf1+ 23.Rxf1 Qe7 24.Bh3 h5 25.Bg2 Ng6 26.Nd3 Bf7 27.Qf2 b6 28.e4 dxc4 29.bxc4 c5 30.dxc5 bxc5 31.Bxg7 Kxg7 32.e5 Nf8 33.Qf6+ Qxf6 34.exf6 Kg8 35.Ne5 Nd7 36.Nf3 Nxf6 37.Nxg5 Kg7 38.Re1 Rd7 39.Nxe6+ Bxe6 40.Rxe6 Rd1+ 41.Bf1 a5 42.Re3 Ng4 43.Ra3 a4 44.h3 Nh2 45.Kxh2 Rxf1 46.Rxa4 Rf2+ 47.Kg1 Rc2 48.Ra3 Rxc4 49.Rf3 Rc2 50.a4 Ra2 51.Rf4 Ra3 52.Kf2 Ra2+ 53.Ke1 Ra3 54.Rf5 h4 55.gxh4 Rxa4 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 10

Queen’s Gambit Declined

Botvinnik got again the best position after the move 13. d5 and 18. Qd2 which gave him a good advantage. However, Petrosian ingeniously sacrifices a pawn to activate his Rooks and draw without too much trouble.

Game 10

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (10)"] [Date "1963.04.15"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "10"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [ECO "D27"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "85"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.O-O a6 7.a4 Nc6 8.Qe2 cxd4 9.Rd1 Be7 10.exd4 O-O 11.Nc3 Nb4 12.Bg5 Bd7 13.d5 exd5 14.Nxd5 Nbxd5 15.Bxd5 Nxd5 16.Rxd5 Bxg5 17.Nxg5 h6 18.Qd2 hxg5 19.Rxd7 Qf6 20.Rxb7 Rad8 21.Qa5 Rd6 22.Qb4 Rfd8 23.Rf1 Rd4 24.Qb3 Rd3 25.Qc2 Rd2 26.Qc7 Qf4 27.Qxf4 gxf4 28.h4 Rc8 29.Rb4 f3 30.gxf3 Rcc2 31.b3 Rb2 32.Kg2 Rd3 33.Rb8+ Kh7 34.Rb7 f6 35.Re1 Rdxb3 36.Rxb3 Rxb3 37.Re6 Rb4 38.Rxa6 Rxh4 39.Kg3 g5 40.Kg2 Kg6 41.Ra8 Rf4 42.a5 Ra4 43.a6 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 11

Tarrasch Defense

Looks Botvinnik changed his tactic and decided to concentrate more in the middle game. Petrosian tried to build up his usual positional bind, but Botvinnik broke free by a King side counter attack and his double Rooks already on the 7^th rank compensate for a weak central pawn.

Most of the noted grandmasters interviewed by Tass sports correspondents predicted a victory for Petrosian in the current world title match. (After the eleventh game). This is what the grandmasters replied to the question as to who has the greatest chances of success in the match. Paul Keres: “At present, Petrosian is one point ahead of Botvinnik. I think that his chances of success are also one point up.” Robert Fischer: “Up to now there are hardly any interesting games in the match. I think that Petrosian will win because he is much younger than his opponent.” Vassily Smyslov: “The world champion has a great experience in responsible matches; he is able to distinguish, as though through a microscope, specific features of his opponent’s style and to make good use of his analysis. However, in the match with Petrosian, he has so far failed to find the key to the latter’s chess “safe.” At present the lead of the young challenger, who is demonstrating very high technique, is small, but it forces the world champion to launch offensives. This suits Petrosian, who is particularly strong on defence. I foresee that the struggle will become particularly tense in the last three games which may decide the outcome of the match.” Mikhail Tal: “The Botvinnik vs. Petrosian match can be called an ‘encounter of equals’ as regards content and progress. This is why I think that all the twenty-four games will be played in this titanic contest. Who will win? I think it is impossible to answer this question yet. The lovers of excitement and combinational tension will have to put up yet for quite a time with the fine positional manoeuvring of the opponents. The decisive battle, to my mind will take place in the last games.” Victor Korchnoi: “I like both participants in the match, but, objectively speaking, I believe that now Petrosian’s chances are better. The contender has prepared psychologically better for this difficult duel. He was faced with a task of winning at least one game more in the first half of the match and he has achieved this. Petrosian is now successfully forcing his tactics on his formidable rival.” Max Euwe: “Of course, the outcome of the encounter is by no means settled yet. Petrosian, it is true, is one point ahead, but he can easily lose this advantage as he nearly did in the eleventh game. Petrosian’s position is undoubtedly very strong. He is a master of the top class, a master of details and aggressive play. He often simply presses Botvinnik to the wall. Botvinnik has aroused admiration, above all, by his typical style of taking the initiative and he does so in spite of playing such a dangerous opponent as Petrosian, who virtually makes no mistakes. The Botvinnik v. Petrosian match is the strongest and most exciting chess encounter in the last ten years.”

Game 11

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (11)"] [Date "1963.04.17"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "11"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "D32"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "81"] 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.e3 d5 5.d4 Nc6 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Bb5 Bd6 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.O-O O-O 10.b3 Be6 11.Bb2 Qe7 12.Ne2 Rac8 13.a3 Rfd8 14.Ned4 Bg4 15.Be2 Ne4 16.Qd3 Bd6 17.g3 Nc5 18.Qb1 Ne4 19.Qd3 Nc5 20.Qd1 Ne6 21.Re1 Bc5 22.Nxc6 bxc6 23.b4 Bb6 24.Qa4 Qe8 25.Rad1 f6 26.Rd2 Qh5 27.Qd1 c5 28.Nd4 Bxe2 29.Qxe2 Qxe2 30.Nxe2 Ng5 31.Kg2 Ne4 32.Rdd1 cxb4 33.axb4 Rc2 34.Bd4 Bxd4 35.Rxd4 Rb2 36.h4 Rc8 37.Rxd5 Rcc2 38.Kf3 Nd2+ 39.Kg2 Ne4 40.Kf3 Nd2+ 41.Kg2 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 12

Queen’s Gambit Declined

Botvinnik tried a very active plan with 7. g4 and focalized the King’s side after protecting his King with a long castle. The Champion was clearly better but in time trouble he missed the final touch with 31.Rfg8 and a simply win of Pawn with devastating attack. Instead Black took over the center and reserved the situation. Was though Petrosian about move 40 and 41 ( Re2) is a real mystery. No doubt that after missing twice a fatal issue the champion was more than happy to share the point.

Game 12

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (12)"] [Date "1963.04.20"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "12"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [ECO "D31"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "105"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 c6 6.e3 Bf5 7.g4 Be6 8.Bd3 Nd7 9.h3 h5 10.gxh5 Ndf6 11.h6 Nxh6 12.Qc2 Nh5 13.Be5 f6 14.Bh2 Bd6 15.Bg6+ Bf7 16.Nf3 Bxg6 17.Qxg6+ Nf7 18.Nh4 Bxh2 19.Rxh2 Qc7 20.Nf3 O-O-O 21.Qg4+ Kb8 22.h4 Nd6 23.O-O-O f5 24.Qg1 f4 25.Ne5 Nf7 26.Ng6 Rhe8 27.Rh3 fxe3 28.fxe3 Nf6 29.Rf1 a6 30.h5 Ne4 31.Nxe4 Rxe4 32.Kb1 Nd6 33.Ne5 Re8 34.Rg3 Re7 35.Rf8+ Ka7 36.Rf1 Nc4 37.Nxc4 dxc4 38.Rf5 Qd7 39.Rff3 c5 40.Rf1 cxd4 41.exd4 Qxd4 42.Rd1 Qxg1 43.Rdxg1 R7e5 44.Rg5 Re1+ 45.Kc2 R1e2+ 46.Kb1 Kb6 47.Rxe5 Rxe5 48.Rxg7 Rxh5 49.Kc2 Rh3 50.b3 Rh2+ 51.Kc3 Rxa2 52.Kxc4 Rc2+ 53.Kb4 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 13

Queen’s Indian Defense

The sixth draw in succession! The journalist

are getting fed up said, R. Wade. No other world title match has as many draws one after the other. Petrosian played the opening very passively and Botvinnik gradually gets on the top in the middle game. The game endedequallyl maybe because Botvinnik lost his winning chance by exchange the Queens which relieved pressure on his opponent.

Game 13

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (13)"] [Date "1963.04.22"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "13"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "E17"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "107"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Nxe4 Bxe4 9.d5 Bf6 10.Ne1 Bxg2 11.Nxg2 exd5 12.cxd5 c5 13.dxc6 dxc6 14.Qc2 c5 15.Rd1 Qe8 16.Bf4 Nc6 17.Bd6 Be7 18.e3 Rd8 19.Bxe7 Qxe7 20.Nf4 g6 21.Qa4 Ne5 22.Rxd8 Rxd8 23.Rd1 c4 24.e4 b5 25.Rxd8+ Qxd8 26.Qxb5 Qd1+ 27.Kg2 Qf3+ 28.Kg1 Qd1+ 29.Kg2 Qf3+ 30.Kg1 Qxe4 31.Qd5 Qxd5 32.Nxd5 Nd3 33.b4 cxb3 34.axb3 f5 35.b4 Kf7 36.b5 Ne5 37.b6 a5 38.Kf1 Ke6 39.b7 Nc6 40.Nc7+ Kd6 41.Na6 a4 42.Ke2 a3 43.Nb4 Nb8 44.Kd3 Kc7 45.Kc2 Kxb7 46.Kb3 Kb6 47.Kxa3 Kc5 48.Kb3 Kd4 49.Kc2 Ke4 50.Kd2 Kf3 51.Ke1 Kg2 52.h4 Kf3 53.Nd3 Nd7 54.Kf1 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 14

Queen’s Gambit Declined

Botvinnik played vigorously until move 26 when he decided to play more positional. Petrosian played carefully and managed to simplify the position and reach and endgame which was still better for the champion because of an active Knight and King. Back had some trouble to find the right defense. Trying then to play actively they missed a logical 44… Rc1 and instead got an unpleasant position. A final blunder on move 55 with…Rf2 sealed the matter.

Game 14

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (14)"] [Date "1963.04.24"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "14"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [ECO "D31"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "113"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 c6 6.e3 Bf5 7.g4 Be6 8.h3 Nf6 9.Bd3 c5 10.Nf3 Nc6 11.Kf1 O-O 12.Kg2 cxd4 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.exd4 Nd7 15.Qc2 Nf6 16.f3 Rc8 17.Be5 Bd6 18.Rae1 Bxe5 19.Rxe5 g6 20.Qf2 Nd7 21.Re2 Nb6 22.Rhe1 Nc4 23.Bxc4 Rxc4 24.Rd2 Re8 25.Re3 a6 26.b3 Rc6 27.Na4 b6 28.Nb2 a5 29.Nd3 f6 30.h4 Bf7 31.Rxe8+ Bxe8 32.Qe3 Bf7 33.g5 Be6 34.Nf4 Bf7 35.Nd3 Be6 36.gxf6 Qxf6 37.Qg5 Qxg5+ 38.hxg5 a4 39.bxa4 Rc4 40.a5 bxa5 41.Nc5 Bf5 42.Kg3 a4 43.Kf4 a3 44.Ke5 Rb4 45.Nd3 Rb5 46.Kd6 Kf7 47.Kc6 Bxd3 48.Rxd3 Rb2 49.Rxa3 Rg2 50.Kxd5 Rxg5+ 51.Kc6 h5 52.d5 Rg2 53.d6 Rc2+ 54.Kd7 h4 55.f4 Rf2 56.Kc8 Rxf4 57.Ra7+ 1-0 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 15

Gruenfeld Defense

Botvinnik tried a new system with 10…Bg4 but was not too happy with the result as Black was always under pressure. Petrosian could finish quickly with the strong 27.f5 but instead went into a much more complicated ending still better for him which he managed to win after a long battle.

Game 15

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Moscow-Wch"] [Date "1963.04.29"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "15"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "D81"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "115"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Qb3 dxc4 5. Qxc4 Bg7 6. e4 O-O 7. Be2 Nc6 8. Nf3 Nd7 9. Be3 Nb6 10. Qc5 Bg4 11. d5 Nd7 12. Qa3 Bxf3 13. Bxf3 Nd4 14. O-O-O Nxf3 15. gxf3 Nb6 16. Qb3 Qd7 17. h4 h5 18. f4 e6 19. dxe6 Qxe6 20. Qxe6 fxe6 21. Rhg1 Kh7 22. Nb5 Rf7 23. Nd4 Re8 24. Nf3 Bh6 25. Ng5+ Bxg5 26. Rxg5 Nc4 27. Rdg1 Rg8 28. Kc2 b6 29. b3 Nd6 30. f3 Rd7 31. R5g2 Rdd8 32. a4 Nf7 33. Bc1 e5 34. Be3 exf4 35. Bxf4 Rd7 36. Rd2 Rxd2+ 37. Kxd2 Rd8+ 38. Ke2 c5 39. a5 Rd7 40. axb6 axb6 41. Ra1 Kg7 42. Ra6 Rb7 43. Ra8 Kf6 44. Rc8 Ne5 45. Ke3 Nd7 46. Rc6+ Kf7 47. e5 Nf8 48. Rf6+ Kg7 49. Ke4 b5 50. Rc6 Kf7 51. Rxc5 Ne6 52. Rd5 Ke7 53. Be3 Rb8 54. Rd6 b4 55. Ra6 Rb5 56. Ra7+ Ke8 57. f4 Kf8 58. f5 1-0 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 16

Queen’s Gambit Accepted

No doubt that Botvinnik was pleased with his position. But the strategy of simplification helped only his opponent. In time trouble the champion missed another winning move with 39. Rd4. Finally, a nice Rook ending appeared on the board and after an sharp play the game was declared draw.

Game 16

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (16)"] [Date "1963.05.01"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "16"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [ECO "D27"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "107"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.O-O a6 7.a4 Nc6 8.Qe2 cxd4 9.Rd1 Be7 10.exd4 O-O 11.Nc3 Nd5 12.Bd3 Ncb4 13.Bb1 Bd7 14.Qe4 g6 15.Ne5 Bf6 16.Qf3 Bg7 17.Qg3 Be8 18.h4 Nc6 19.Nf3 f6 20.Nxd5 exd5 21.h5 Ne7 22.hxg6 Bxg6 23.Nh4 Bxb1 24.Rxb1 Qd7 25.b3 Rf7 26.Qf3 f5 27.Qg3 Nc6 28.Nf3 Re7 29.Bf4 Re4 30.Ne5 Nxe5 31.dxe5 Re8 32.f3 Re2 33.Re1 Ra2 34.Bg5 d4 35.Bf6 Qf7 36.Rbd1 Qg6 37.Qxg6 hxg6 38.Bxg7 Kxg7 39.e6 Rc8 40.Kh2 Rcc2 41.Rg1 Rd2 42.Rde1 Kf8 43.e7 Ke8 44.Kg3 d3 45.Re3 Rab2 46.Kf4 Rxg2 47.Rd1 Rbd2 48.Rxd2 Rxd2 49.Kg5 Rd1 50.Kf6 f4 51.Re4 Rc1 52.Rd4 Rc6+ 53.Kg5 Rc3 54.Kf6 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 17

Queens’ Gambit Declined

Petrosian once more was on command in the game. In a fine position White missed the strong 27. e5 which combined with 28. d6 looked devastating. In time trouble Black avoided complication and without any trouble leveled the position.

Game 17

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (17)"] [Date "1963.05.06"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "17"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "E14"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "78"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.e3 Bb7 5.a3 d5 6.b4 dxc4 7.Bxc4 Be7 8.Nbd2 O-O 9.Rb1 Nbd7 10.O-O Rb8 11.b5 c5 12.bxc6 Bxc6 13.a4 Qc7 14.Bb2 Qb7 15.Rc1 a6 16.Re1 b5 17.axb5 axb5 18.Bd3 Rfc8 19.e4 Nb6 20.Qe2 Na4 21.Ba1 Be8 22.Rxc8 Rxc8 23.d5 Nh5 24.g3 Nc5 25.Nd4 Nxd3 26.Qxd3 Qb6 27.dxe6 fxe6 28.e5 Bb4 29.Rb1 Bg6 30.Ne4 Qb7 31.f3 Bxe4 32.Qxe4 Qxe4 33.fxe4 Bc5 34.Rxb5 g5 35.Kf1 Bxd4 36.Bxd4 Rc1+ 37.Kg2 g4 38.Be3 Rc2+ 39.Kg1 Rc4 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 18

Queen’s Indian

Sad day for an anniversary. Fifteen years early Botvinnik became world champion. Botvinnik gained a large positional advantage out of the opening, but hanged around with the attack. The long process turned in favor of Petrosian who could easily plan to counter his opponent. The complex position was adjourned but surely too tired and without second Botvinnik could find the right plan. Soon he had to face an unpleased maneuver of Knights which brought to Petrosian a fine and decisive victory.

Game 18

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "?"] [Date "1963.05.08"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "18"] [Result "0-1"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [ECO "D31"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "122"] 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. cd5 ed5 5. Bf4 c6 6. e3 Bf5 7. g4 Be6 8. h3 Nf6 9. Nf3 Nbd7 10. Bd3 Nb6 11. Qc2 Nc4 12. Kf1 Nd6 13. Nd2 Qc8 14. Kg2 Nd7 15. f3 g6 16. Rac1 Nb6 17. b3 Qd7 18. Ne2 Ndc8 19. a4 a5 20. Bg3 Bd6 21. Nf4 Ne7 22. Nf1 h5 23. Be2 h4 24. Bh2 g5 25. Nd3 Qc7 26. Qd2 Nd7 27. Bg1 Ng6 28. Bh2 Ne7 29. Bd1 b6 30. Kg1 f6 31. e4 Bh2 32. Qh2 Qh2 33. Rh2 Rd8 34. Kf2 Kf7 35. Ke3 Rhe8 36. Rd2 Kg7 37. Kf2 de4 38. fe4 Nf8 39. Ne1 Nfg6 40. Ng2 Rd7 41. Bc2 Bf7 42. Nfe3 c5 43. d5 Ne5 44. Rf1 Bg6 45. Ke1 Nc8 46. Rdf2 Rf7 47. Kd2 Nd6 48. Nf5 Bf5 49. ef5 c4 50. Rb1 b5 51. b4 c3 52. Kc3 Rc7 53. Kd2 Nec4 54. Kd1 Na3 55. Rb2 Ndc4 56. Ra2 ab4 57. ab5 Nb5 58. Ra6 Nc3 59. Kc1 Nd5 60. Ba4 Rec8 61. Ne1 Nf4 0-1 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 19

Queen’s Indian Defense

Obliged to win to stay in the match, the Champion had to attack. However after the unclear 16^th move if was Petrosian who had the better chances. The Challenger pushed back his opponent and after the powerful 27. Qb7 White took a definite option on the victory. The endgame was somehow not too easy to concretize but White’s piece activity convert the difficult job into a full point.

Game 19

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (19)"] [Date "1963.05.11"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "19"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "E19"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "131"] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.d4 Ne4 8.Qc2 Nxc3 9.Qxc3 f5 10.b3 Bf6 11.Bb2 d6 12.Rad1 Nd7 13.Ne1 Bxg2 14.Nxg2 Bg5 15.Qc2 Bh6 16.e4 f4 17.Ne1 Qe7 18.e5 dxe5 19.dxe5 Rad8 20.Qe2 Qg5 21.Kg2 a5 22.Nf3 Qh5 23.Ba3 Rfe8 24.Rd4 Nb8 25.Rfd1 Rxd4 26.Rxd4 fxg3 27.hxg3 Qf7 28.Qe4 g6 29.Qb7 Bg7 30.c5 bxc5 31.Bxc5 Nd7 32.Qxc7 Nxe5 33.Qxf7+ Nxf7 34.Ra4 Bc3 35.Rc4 Bf6 36.Bb6 Ra8 37.Ra4 Bc3 38.Bd4 Bb4 39.a3 Bd6 40.b4 Bc7 41.Bc3 Kf8 42.b5 Ke8 43.Rc4 Kd7 44.a4 Rc8 45.Nd2 Nd6 46.Rd4 Ke7 47.Rd3 Nb7 48.Ne4 e5 49.Bb2 Bb6 50.Ba3+ Ke6 51.Ng5+ Kf5 52.Nxh7 e4 53.g4+ Kf4 54.Rd7 Rc7 55.Rxc7 Bxc7 56.Nf6 Bd8 57.Nd7 Kxg4 58.b6 Bg5 59.Nc5 Nxc5 60.Bxc5 Bf4 61.b7 Bb8 62.Be3 g5 63.Bd2 Kf5 64.Kh3 Bd6 65.Bxa5 g4 66.Kg2 1-0 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 20

Queens’ Gambit Accepted

Petrosian’s strategy was resumed in one word: draw. He did it quite easily in 21 moves. Botvinnik used an idea from the last Olympiad but his rival equalized without problem.

Game 20

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Match, Moscow (20)"] [Date "1963.05.15"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "20"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [ECO "D27"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "42"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 c5 5.Bxc4 e6 6.O-O a6 7.Bb3 Nc6 8.Qe2 cxd4 9.Rd1 Be7 10.exd4 Na5 11.Bc2 b5 12.Nc3 Bb7 13.Bg5 O-O 14.Rac1 Rc8 15.Bb1 Nc4 16.Ne5 Nb6 17.Qd3 g6 18.Bh6 Re8 19.Qh3 Nc4 20.Nxc4 Rxc4 21.Ne2 Qb6 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 21 and Game 22

Were very short with nine moves for the first and ten for the second. Botvinnik had already decided that the fight was over.

Game 21

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Ch World , Moscow (Russia)"] [Date "1963.05.18"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "21"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [ECO "A15"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "19"] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.dxc3 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 Bg4 8.Be2 Nd7 9.Be3 e5 10.Nd2 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Game 22

[Event "Petrosian - Botvinnik World Championship Match"] [Site "Ch World , Moscow (Russia) "] [Date "1963.05.20"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "22"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"] [ECO "D23"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "20"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Qa4+ Nc6 5.Nc3 Nd5 6.e4 Nb6 7.Qd1 Bg4 8.d5 Ne5 9.Bf4 Ng6 10.Be3 e6 1/2-1/2 You must activate JavaScript to enhance chess game visualization.

Petrosian obviously by being prepared for the match showed in the first game that he was ready to let it be dependant on the unclear and complicated struggle, went out of an unusual defeat, which he had to face playing white, and finally came back to his usual playing style. The aspiration to achieve clear positions and to then to enter endgame was very advantageous for him. He won all 5 games in endgame! In a number of games he weakened Botvinnik’s attacks by his simplification tactic. It wouldn’t have been right and fair to state that it didn’t take Petrosian many efforts to win the match. In reality the proceedings of the match was very dramatic. Many spectators, which were attending the first game of the match were sure that Petrosian will not hold the distance. Botvinnik could easily have a winning position after 21 moves, but missed the winning variation, Petrosian blundered on move 30^th and resign ten moves later. After he lost in the first game, Petrosian overcame his depression very quickly and in games 3-7 he took the initiative. How Botvinnik could recover against someone who is losing so rarely? In games 8-14 Botvinnik seemed like striving for the victory very much, but Petrosian managed to concentrate all his strength and the loss of some games turned for him to a success, which contributed very much to the whole process of the match.

It was obvious that Botvinnik did not want to leave the fait of the match in the last games to somebody else and in the 15^th game he decided to capture the leadership. In this game Petrosian decided his earlier negative tactics was outdated and decided to play for a victory. In a Gruenfeld opening , Petronian invited Botvinnik into an extremely sharp variation. After the exchange of queens the endgame was favorable for Petrosian. His Knight went from one wing to the other. Botvinnik could not defend against the rising of threats and gave up. However, the fait of the match was not yet decided. The final decision was made by the last 16^th game. The study of this decisive game is very important for the estimation of the entire match and it clearly shows the main weakness of Botvinnik, and namely the back move of his play strength in the fifth hour of the game. Playing with White, Botvinnik had a very promising position. Black had to defend well to avoid strong the attack. At a decisive moment, Botvinnik hesitate to go for a sharp continuation and started to exchange pieces. The worst was over for Black and the game was draw. In the 17^th game Botvinnik could have won, but instead he committed some very rough mistakes and finally the game was drawn. The 17 number (game) was always fatal to him as in the last six championships he lost four times and drew twice. In the 18^th the game was adjourned with a level position but without any second and very tired, Botvinnik couldn’t analyze the position accurately. Botvinnik maneuvered extremely unsuccessfully, made few blunders and lost the point. The irony was that Botvinnik lost this 18^th game on the anniversary of his becoming world champion fifteen years early. The next few games showed that the champion was too tired and psychologically hit by his bad play. He lost also game 19^th then draw the last three. On May 20th during the last last game Petrosian offered him draw after nine moves and nine minute later, Botvinnik stretched his hand to the new champion.

Botvinnik decided to play the Match in order to retain his title once again and he probably for that decision he deserves the appreciation of the entire chess world. He had lost the Match in the final phase and obviously the exhaustion of his body and nerves played the decisive role here. However, Botvinnik had conceded in the Match to the brilliant opponent after continuous struggles for the World Champion Title and thus having reckoned up a worthy end of a very meaningful chapter in his chess and life career. What Mikhail Botvinnik had achieved in the sphere of chess is very closely connected with the development of the modern chess play. As all the great personalities in the chess history, Botvinnik had created his personal style.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	Total
Petrosian T	0	½	½	½	1	½	1	½	½	½	½	½	½	0	1	½	½	1	1	½	½	½	12.5
Botvinnik M	1	½	½	½	0	½	0	½	½	½	½	½	½	1	0	½	½	0	0	½	½	½	9.5

At the after match press conference held at the Central Chess Club, Tigran Petrosian spoke in some detail about his impressions of the Botvinnik match and about his training, in which he had stuck to the principle: “Mens sana in corpore sano.”

I have studied the style of playing of Botvinnik and his previous matches, – started his speech Petrosian, where he played against Smyslov and Tal. This helped me to form a right characteristic on my rivals play. To some extent, it differs from well-known one. For instance, Smyslov and Tal thought that Botvinnik is not that strong in tactics. This opinion turned to be wrong. I made corresponding conclusions.

During 2 months together with my assistants GM Boleslavsky and master Suetin, I worked hard on the openings. But I did not expect Botvinnik to keep limited openings. That is why I did not use many of my opening variants.

I paid much attention to the physical part of preparations. I spent a lot of time on the open air during long snow winter in the suburbs of Moscow. This year I was skiing more than I ever did in my life…

Some words about the game. I knew that Botvinnik would strive for capturing the positions from the first round. The new, unusual circumstances resulted on my playing and I lost. The second loose could be fatal. If Botvinnik would not have changed the queens, he could be close to the win. But he underestimated my play in the endgame. Using his terminology, he unsuccessfully ‘programmed’ me. It turned out that my careful tactics was unexpected for Botvinnik. Indeed, why after having lost, one should play off? The third round I played very calmly, which was the first surprise for Botvinnik.

One of the turning points was the seventh round. I was surprised that Botvinnik, being an experienced player, playing with blacks chose the doubtful opening. This led to the typical position, which Botvinnik used to win playing with whites. During the next 6 rounds, being pressed hard by a rival, I managed to escape the loose. It could sound unbelievable, but my loose in the 14^th round turned to be a great help for me. The fact is that I was analyzing the postponed position so long, that I did not sleep the whole night and was very tired during the play off. As a result, I made mistakes and lost. Then I decided that the quality of moves should not be the main point. It was more important to be fresh and have clear mind during the game…

Petrosian immediately changed his headquarters and moved to the Moscow suburb, village Sukhanovo. He walked a lot, played table tennis, billiards and almost did not play chess at all.

The 18^th round was the turning point, continued the World Champion, I felt that Botvinnik was tired and was not able to play with the same energy. He was exhausted by the sudden great number of plays off. His age could be one of the reasons of Botvinnik’s defense. Also he rarely took part in the tournaments and was not trained enough. Thus, in the positional fight, I felt better than expected. And in the endgame Botvinnik made many mistakes…

World Champion answered a lot of question. He said that FIDE was right having cancelled the return match.

The journalists got to know that in the thermos of the World Champion was an orange juice and his favorite poet is Lermontov, before the game he likes to listen to the music of Tchaikovsky. Speaking about his further plans, Petrosian noted that he was going to visit Los Angeles for the round robin event of 8 Grandmasters.

Now communication with foreign and Soviet grandmasters is very important for me, said Petrosian.

Q: How did you celebrate your victory?
A: After being very strict with myself for two years I allowed myself a little indulgence and had a small glass of Armenian brandy!

A: Whom will you have to play in 1966?
Q: It’s difficult to say. Maybe one of the Soviet chess players, and then we have to reckon very seriously with US champion Robert Fischer.

Euwe analyzed in Chess Chat the play of the new world champion:

“The struggle has come to an end. We have a new World Champion. The younger contender has won. Is he also the stronger contender? Strength is relative. Petrosian is strong in simple, clear positions. Botvinnik is strong in complicated, indistinct positions. Petrosian is the micro-specialist, Botvinnik is the high—priest. Each is almost invincible in his own field. Botvinnik’s style is more attractive, but Petrosian’s way of playing also has great charm far the insider.

Botvinnik did not get a great deal of opportunity to show his ability in this match. He could develop his full strength only in the very first game, which he won uncontested, and in the sixteenth game, which ended in a draw after a slight inaccuracy on his part. In almost all the other games, it was a wearisome tug of war, in which Botvinnik often had to pay heavily for his risky attempts to stay out of Petrosian’s special field of excellence. This was the out standing characteristic of this match. Botvinnik soon realized that he could not withstand the stone—hard Petrosian in simple, dull positions, and he therefore regularly undertook more or less risky attempts to fight. It makes little sense to ask whether in this way Botvinnik played away more points than if he had unwillingly consented to playing the strategy of his opponent. The point is that Botvinnik did not have the patience to do so. This is no question of force but of a state of mind. To play for hours, even for days, in positions which at most give a draw and in case of some slight error lead to a loss are a very ungrateful task. Botvinnik was not willing to put up with this sort of play. He preferred to take chances and thus get some possibility for a hand—to—hand fight. This means that Petrosian’s superiority in the purely positional play sometimes forced Botvinnik to give odds. Sometimes — not always — and this brings out an important factor in the handling of the openings in this match. Botvinnik had to choose ‘sharp” and lively opening variations, preferably those which did not entail too much risk. He had to play dynamically —he had to keep the struggle going. As soon as the game took on a static character, Botvinnik was threatened with the danger of alass. It was not accidental that Botvinnik repeatedly played the sharp move P—KN4 at a rather early stage of the relatively quiet exchange variation of the Queen’s Gambit. And keeping Petrosian at a distance succeeded better in sane games than others. This becomes very clear in examining the games. Succeeding or not succeeding was not a question of individual games, however, but of series of games or periods in the match. This indicates that factors other than purely technical ones also played their part in this match. There was the physical factor. Physical stamina has alternately culminating points and points of depth which may also influence one’s intellectual performance and which may mean the difference between having just enough or just too little resistance against the latent pressure of an opponent. Perhaps of still greater importance are the psychological factors, which cause duplicity in social life as well, and which are well described in the often quoted “Misfortunes seldom came singly.”

Suppose that Botvinnik could not withstand the pressure of a given game. This might induce him to undertake farced enterprises or desperate actions in the following game. It is often difficult to get out of the vicious circle thus created. The same type of reasoning might apply to the challenger. A positional victory for Petrosian in one game might well have strengthened his confidence and made him continue this sane type of play in the following encounters —— or the reverse, in case of disappointments.

In this match, then, we see successive opposite stages in which one of the players displays his advantageous side and maintains it during a number of games. Such a period may end in various ways. Misfortune or bad luck may cause a psychological factor to change. Successful defense may be instrumental in allowing a player to regain confidence. It requires great mental effort on the part of the losing player to turn the tide. To tell himself simply:

‘There must be an end to this is not sufficient. His resolution must be based on something concrete, such as on the insight, obtained from games just played, that the loss could have been avoided in some way or other. Thus a reconsideration of the tactics, mare reflection would be necessary. An attempt to surmount the fatal course by such means requires time and rest. Hence, the reports of sickness which largely inaugurated a new phase in the match. In this match, five phases can be clearly distinguished.

The first phase is short, includes only two games. This phase is characterized by the great preponderance of Botvinnik, who immediately subjected his somewhat nervous opponent to forceful and offensive fire. After Petrosian had lost the first game without any chances, he discovered just in time the danger of a rapid and total disaster if he should be in his somewhat superficial timid ploy. He pulled himself together after an excellent defense in the second game, which he had been on the brink of losing and which just ended in a draw. In the third game, quite another Petrosian appeared, one who was able to dictate the course of things. This second phase goes from the third to the ninth game inclusive. Petrosian had the upper hand throughout this phase and, except for the fourth game, he showed his superiority even in the games in which Botvinnik played White. The fact that Petrosian scored only twice in this phase may be considered as a success for Botvinnik, but naturally with this sort of success one cannot win a match. Botvinnik understood this himself. If he wanted to try to win the match, he had to play his opponent’s game, that is, he had to accept the challenge of simple positions where the games led to them.

With the tenth game the third phase began and it lasted until the fourteenth game. During this period, Botvinnik had nothing concrete to show, although he had the best of it through. It is not easy to beat Petrosian, not even if one has a clear positional or material advantage Botvinnik’s supporters, who were made up of more than seventy—five percent of the Russian and foreigners, had begun to despair, when at lost in the fourteenth game Botvinnik succeed in forcing his stubborn opponent to his knees. Score: seven each.

Petrosian had been conquered, but he was not beaten. He took a few days of sickness to b up his morale, and in the fifteenth and sixteenth games we see both players at their full strength. They understood that here is where the decision would lie. This phase of super performance from both sides was unfortunately very short and ended rather abruptly. Petrosian had won the fifteenth game with masterly play and Botvinnik was on his way to winning the sixteenth game in the same way with strong, solid and inventive play. But Caissa was not with him. Just before the game was adjourned, he made a slight inaccuracy which enabled Petrosian to avail himself of a hidden possibility to draw. Botvinnik never got over the dis appointment of this draw. In games 10 through 14, he had succeeded in retaking lost territory by a deployment of all his forces, but now he did not feel that he could repeat that tour de force.

Then the fifth and last (and for the World Champion the saddest) phase began. Alternately Botvinnik tried quiet and forcing tactics, but he did not succeed a single time. In the seventeenth game he came to the edge of a precipice. The eighteenth game led to a loss after quiet play, and in the nineteenth, Botvinnik’s build—up was too risky. With three pci behind, Botvinnik could do nothing better than resign. The remaining games ended in draw Petrosian has won after a hard struggle. He deserved his victory. He played a subtle brand of chess which proved to be better than Botvinnik. True, Botvinnik’s style is many—sided; but in matches between two contestants, his many—sidedness does not always count. Only part of these qualities enter in, and Petrosian cleverly managed to restrict Botvinnik’s display of force to his weak sides, the one’s were Petrosian himself was at his best.

The struggle was limited, it is true, to certain types of play, but this does not mean that Petrosian’s play is one—sided. A player’s style or force cannot be judged from one event. In this match, Petrosian’s combinative capacities did not show up to full advantage as did Botvinnik’s ability to play strategic chess. In the Botvinnik—Tal match, it was just the reverse. In these matches, Botvinnik lost the first time because of his shortcomings on the combinative side, while his excellent strategy was responsible for his regaining the title in the second match. Petrosian, whose style is similar in some respects to that of Capablanca, has apart from his enormous strategical capability also great tactical cleverness. The chess world knows that no unworthy master is wearing the chess crown.

It is to be hoped that Petrosian will participate in tournaments more than did Botvinnik. This will be to the benefit of chess, although it is almost sure that the new World Champion will not be successful in every tournament in which he may compete. This has happened to other World Champions as well.”

Under the title Botvinnik’s era had come to an end. Will Petrosian create a new one? L. Pachman analyzed in FIDE Review the new hierarchy in the world of chess:

The present World Championship Match is discussed among Botvinnik’s friends, whether a match of 24 games is not too tense for the age of 52; whether it would be voluntary to refuse the title and to leave the chess arena without being defeated. Botvinnik decided to play the Match in order to retain his title once again and he probably for that decision he deserves the appreciation of the entire chess world. He had lost the match in the final phase and obviously the exhaustion of his body and nerves played the decisive role here. However, Botvinnik had conceded in the match to the brilliant opponent after continuous struggles for the World Champion Title and thus having reckoned up a worthy end of a very meaningful chapter in his chess and life career. What Mikhail Botvinnik had achieved in the sphere of chess is very closely connected with the development of the modern chess play. As all the great personalities in the chess history, Botvinnik had created his personal style. In some sense his style remind those of Capablanca. However, Botvinnik’s tendency not to avoid complicated tactical and strategic problems differs him from the popular Cuban JR. Capablanca strives for the strategically clear and tactically simple positions. Botvinnik does not avoid new complicated problems. His contribution to the opening theory is immense and you can meet his ideas in almost all-modern openings, the queen gambit system bears Botvinnik’s name competently. The entire generation of the best soviet chess masters learnt by the training system for preparations for the tournaments and matches. His games still serve as examples of the chess strategy.

Namely all, these advantages for 15 years, during which Botvinnik had been the World Champion (with a short one-year pause), have created a real era in the history of modern chess. It is accepted to reproach Botvinnik that he did not participate in the big tournaments very often lately. The chess world would greet it more sincere if he would have participated in the important international tournaments at least once or twice per year. On the other hand, it is necessary to take into consideration that namely in the last 15 years the World Championship Matches for the World Champion Title were so often and so difficult as never before in the entire previous chess history. Besides, after Euwe Botvinnik is the only world champion, who except for the chess, led another important for him work.

Let us turn once again to the style of playing of the New World Champion. Petrosian also possesses an impressive tactical ability of the long ranged and quick game strategy. It is not accidental that Petrosian belongs to one of the best chess players in the world in respect of the blitz game. His obvious weakness is the defense in the tactically complicated positions. Probably it coincides with the paradox that sometimes it can be a disadvantage of his to see too much in a position, which only increases the notion of threatening danger.

Now a new important and unusual stage has started for Petrosian in his chess career. The task to go through the sieve of the qualification tournaments and to defeat the World Champion in the World Championship Match was particularly difficult. However, the task to retain the achieved title will not be less complicated. From the psychological point of view, this task is even more difficult and important. It is obviously not accidental that starting from the year of 1935 none of the World Champions, as this one, has won the only one World Chess Championship Match. Alekhine won once, Botvinnik won twice in the return matches and retained his title twice through undecided result of the match. From now on, the situation in this respect is not favorable for the World Champion, for he does not have the right for the return match any more. Such outstanding Grandmasters as Keres, Smyslov, Tal etc., who have already tested their strength in many championships on the world chess arena, will play against Petrosian in the future World Championship Matches for the Title of the World Champion, but also the best Grandmasters of the young generation, who have recently performed successfully in international tournaments and championships.

It is worth respecting that the new World Champion doesn’t simply rest on his laurels. Two months later after his victory, he fights against international chess elite in Los Angeles. The chess world will trace his successes with great interest and will be glad to see his creative achievements.

And now some remarks regarding the Match proceedings that was the central topic for various chess magazines.

In Pachman’s opinion, the outcome of this match can be characterized by two factors:

A great resistance force of the nerves and body of the challenger.
His best play conceptions and capability to adjust to this or that present course of the match.

Botvinnik is known for his firm playing conception, which he had performed at the previous World Championship Matches. His Match against Tal in the year of 1961 is very instructive in this respect. He arranged his game in such a way in order to enter the endgame also then, when there was no advantage foreseen for him, moreover playing black to achieve closed and strategically demanding positions. However, this time he lacked firmly elaborated playing conceptions. He obviously tried to use complications when he played with white and it did not bring him success in this unusual sphere and playing black he improvised too much.

Petrosian obviously by being prepared for the match showed in the first game that he was ready to let it be dependant on the unclear and complicated struggle, went out of an unusual defeat, which he had to face playing white, and finally came back to his usual playing style. The aspiration to achieve clear positions and to then to enter endgame was very advantageous for him. He won all 5 games in endgame! In a number of games he weakened Botvinnik’s attacks by his simplification tactic. It wouldn’t have been right and fair to state that it didn’t take Petrosian many efforts to win the match. In reality the proceedings of the match was very dramatic. After he lost in the first game, Petrosian overcame his depression very quickly and in games 3-7 he took the initiative. In games 8-14 Botvinnik seemed like striving for the victory very much, but Petrosian managed to concentrate all his strength and the loss of some games turned for him to a success, which contributed very much to the whole process of the match.

It was obvious that Botvinnik did not want to leave the fait of the match in the last games to somebody else and in the 15^th game he decided to capture the leadership. However, the fait of the match was not yet decided. The final decision, in Pachman’s opinion, was made by the last 16^th game. The study of this decisive game is very meaningful for the estimation of the entire match and it clearly shows the main weakness of Botvinnik, and namely the back move of his play strength in the fifth hour of the game. In the 17^th game he could have won, but instead he committed some very rough mistakes and the game was drawn.

It is not possible to state that this match consisted of too many games, which was the reason of the rough mistakes that were the consequences of the tense nervous state of the players.

Golombek, using a majestic style, gave homage to the ex and new world champion: “By 5:45 p.m. on May 20 all was over. Botvinnik had agreed his last draw in a world championship match and in consequence he had lost his last match, the tenth of his career; whereas Petrosian had won the first match he had ever played! There was a colossal display of enthusiasm by all the Armenians in the hall. They invaded, no, invaded is not the right word, they flooded the stage and clustered round their idol, the grandmaster, who had put Erevan on the chess map. So, now we have a new world champion whose throne is secure for three years at least since the right to return matches has been abolished. Who will be his opponent in 1966 — Tal, Keres, Korchnoi or Fischer? Will he maintain his position for long or are we in for an era in which the world title changes hands once every three years? The reader’s guess is as good (or possibly better) as mine. One thing is certain: — Petrosian will not be content to play rarely as his predecessor did, but he will take part in many events — which, after all, is what one expects of a world champion.

It is indeed a sad occasion to say farewell to Botvinnik, such a great figure — especially as one has the uncomfortable feeling that he lost to an inferior player and that his most formidable adversary in this match was not his over-the-board opponent but that baleful figure whom some have the temerity of referring to as Old Father Time. It seems inevitable now that youth would be served though I must confess that I was not one of those who thought Petrosian would win before the match. Curiously enough, Botvinnik’s supporters and fans in Moscow were not confined to people of his generation, but practically all the young players of Moscow were fervently in his favour. One young admirer even went so far as to say to me quite simply, “I love Botvinnik.” Why this should be seems to have two reasons: — in the first place there was the feeling that he was the home man. One world title had already gone to the Caucasus in the shape of the Women’s World Championship for Nona Gaprindaschwili of Georgia, and now the Caucasus again was reaching out to win the men’s title as well.

The other reason is based on the style of play of each contestant. Botvinnik’s is classical, deep yet clear, and such that, when he is on form (as he was not, alas, in this match), it produces beautiful chess, logical works of art from start to finish. A really good Botvinnik game bears the stamp of the highest class and takes its place among anthologies of best games with the same easy natural air as do those of Alekhine and Capablanca. Little wonder then that the chess youth of Moscow, and of Russia, admire him as the prototype and emblem of all that they themselves would like to be.

Petrosian provides an immense contrast to all this. His style is so amorphous — almost nebulous — that it defeats all attempts at classification. This at once makes his games extremely difficult to understand and, yes, I must say it, rather tedious to watch. True, he is a natural player, but this does not necessarily mean that he plays interesting chess and in fact he will always jettison elegance of idea in favour of whatever is the most workmanlike method of play. It is almost a case of “easy, natural and therefore disgusting” as Dr. Johnson so surprisingly said of Milton.

And this incomprehensibility is not confined in its effects to the average player; grandmasters too find Petrosian’s play difficult to understand and therefore repugnant. I remember once asking Tal in the Press-Room of the Estrada Theatre where the match was played what he thought of the game. “This,” he replied “is not the kind of chess I understand,” a sentiment that was echoed by many other great players, by Bronstein, by Smyslov and, by Keres, to name only a few of the more outstanding.

Hence, though one might have expected that the grandmasters as a whole would welcome the defeat of a player who had, as it were, ruled the roost in Moscow for so long, in reality they were nearly all regretful. On one occasion I was having coffee with Flohr and Mrs. Tal. “Do you know,” said Flohr to me, “that Mrs. Tal is a fervent supporter of Botvinnik’s, despite having been in the opposite camp only two years ago?” Tal’s wife, it appeared, unlike most wives of world champions, really had some knowledge of chess and was a Botvinnik supporter because of the style in which he played the game.”

And finally, IGM Salo Flohr concluded: “Before the World Championship the USSR and foreign experts answered the questions about the winner in a similar way, nothing was clear and anything may happen.

Only a few ventured to give more definite remarks. For example, Euwe wrote that chess world won’t be surprised if there are 18 rounds in the match. Ex-World Champion almost guessed. What did Euwe’s remark mean? It meant that two worthy rivals played this match: Botvinnik and Petrosian and it wouldn’t be easy for Botvinnik to defeat Petrosian, and to defeat Botvinnik for Petrosian.

Mikhail Tal was wrong having said that he knew only one thing for sure- 24 games would be played in the match. He was also wrong when saying that “old lion” Botvinnik would fight till the very end.

Who’s fault that Tal and me were wrong. It’s nobody’s fault. I will divide the match into 10 different periods, such as:

Quite successful “premiere” of Mikhail Botvinnik. Who could have predicted that in all other games Botvinnik wins only once. Who could have known then that Botvinnik wouldn’t learn to win anymore, and Petrosian wouldn’t learn to loose. Botvinnik’s fans were excited after his “premiere”. Still, it’s known that one laughs best who laughs last. That last appeared to be Petrosian.
2-5 games. Petrosian overcame starting fever, and while waiting for a suitable moment made the score equal in the 5th game.
7th game. Petrosian led and Botvinnik had to defend.
8-14 games. So much energy Botvinnik had wasted to make the score equal. He succeeded in the 14th game. As journalists say, players started the game from the “center”.
15th game. One more victory of Petrosian.
16-17 games. Struggle was going on. Grandmasters competed like “tiger” and “lion”. One thing was evident- Botvinnik was more tired- no wonder, he was 19 years senior than Petrosian.
18th game. Positions of Botvinnik got worse and worse.
19th game. The last set, as tennis players say. To win Petrosian in the last six games seemed impossible. Only miracle could save Botvinnik. But miracle did not happen. Botvinnik’s stamina was not strong enough and he lost the 19th game without any struggle.

Capitulation. Botvinnik made up with the loss and his last playing quick draws was the form of his capitulation. Hope my short descriptions of two month-contest gave the readers a right impression that till the 17th game it was really a struggle of two strongest players. Is it possible to say that Botvinnik suffered great loss, was beaten. No, it was not so. Botvinnik might be reproached that he staked his all in last games. Is it fair? Botvinnik must have thought that it was possible to gain 4 points from 5- and mentally drew the match. May be, he was not strong enough. There is no fact in chess history when a 52-year-old player successfully defended the World Champion title. But Botvinnik is always Botvinnik in chess world.

Petrosian says that his ideal is the Cuban chess phenomenon Jose Raul Capablanca. He respects him so much that he decided to become world champion like him at the age of 33. In June, 9 Petrosian celebrated his 34 anniversary- a nice age when a man if full of energy and creative ideas.

Petrosian was reprimanded several times that he played cautiously, that he did not risk much playing versus Botvinnik and won the world champion title without fireworks. But world championship is not a “performance party”, it is a contest where sport program should be fulfilled first of all. And Petrosian did it thoughtfully and convincingly. The birth of a new champion is not an event of local meaning. We can understand the pride and gay of Yerevan city, the capital of Armenia. It’s a great holiday for all Soviet chess players and the whole chess world.”

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	Total
Petrosian T	0	½	½	½	1	½	1	½	½	½	½	½	½	0	1	½	½	1	1	½	½	½	12.5
Botvinnik M	1	½	½	½	0	½	0	½	½	½	½	½	½	1	0	½	½	0	0	½	½	½	9.5

Petrosian-Botvinnik (1963)

ECHESSPEDIA

Quotes of the Day