Moscow, I-II 1974.
Throughout the match the young Leningrad grandmaster’s undisputed superiority could not have been more obvious. Not only did he dominate in all the strategies and tactics used, but he also revealed an incomparably higher level of psychological mobility and preparedness.
This was unexpected, for Polugaevsky’s vast experience of almost fifteen years of play at top-level chess events simply could not compare with Karpov’s, a novice with three to four years standing in the world of contemporary chess stars.
The match was a great disappointment to Polugaevsky fans. Not only did it end ahead of time but it also never left any doubt as to Karpov’s lead and superiority.
After a quite start the players went into the dramatic fourth game. Polugaevsky’s intuition for the position failed him. After several mistakes, he lost the balance and lapsed into critical position. Karpov launched then a terrible attack on the Queen side with his Pawns. When one of them reached the seventh rank, Polugaevsky’s defense collapsed. Karpov considered his sixth game as the best. The position was difficult and Polugaevsky could not find the right continuation. White then build up an invincible attack and scored a second point. Karpov scored a third point but Polugaevsky was already psychologically dead.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total | |
| Polugaevsky L | = | = | = | 0 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 2.5 |
| Karpov A | = | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | = | 1 | 5.5 |
Karpov commented in his book co-written with A. Roshal: “Chess is my life”.
“After the match Polugaevsky admitted: Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I see very clearly the errors I made in preparing for the match. I devoted much time to purely chess work, and did not concentrate sufficiently on correct psychological preparation”. After the match Karpov stated, very generously I would say, that the convincing score in no way reflected the genuine relative strengths, but more likely the psychological state of his opponent. This is possibly true, but the sixth game, the best in the match, showed that in the purely chess sense too, the future World Champion was clearly superior to his strong opponent.
As a resumé to this Candidates’ Quarter-Final clash, I think it would be appropriate to present the conclusions drawn by grandmaster Aleksey Suetin: “I do not wish to say that neither Polugayevsky’s psychological condition, nor his opening repertoire, did not have any influence on the result of the match. Of course they did. But the main reason for such a crushing defeat was the play of the winner. Karpov has an amazing technique, which he utilizes in a sound, practical way. He plays effortlessly and quickly, and has an accurate positional sense, of which one gains the impression that it is more acute than that of his opponents. It has frequently been pointed out that Karpov has had little experience. This is true. But observe how quickly the grandmaster gains this experience. Karpov the student, while playing, is all the time learning. And the teacher, when he resigns, gives him a high mark.”
Tal gave some analyses of the match in the Pravda:
“I was present at several games of the Karpov-Polugaevsky match. The most vivid impression was self-confidence of Anatoly Karpov on the background of an outwardly visible feeling of doom on the part of Lev Polugaevsky. We should have expected more from the person with such huge chess talent. But his nerves let him down again. The 4th and 5th games were the turning point of the match. The destiny of the match was resolved in those games. However, both those games could have brought chances for victory to another chessplayer in case of their logical completion. There is no need to dwell on their chess content in detail. The games were published with detailed commentaries and they would be analysed many times. They just have the key for understanding of what have happened in Moscow. So, let’s look at the fourth game. After the 29th move Black (Polugaevsky) had overwhelming advantage. Five more moves and White’s troubles were already behind. Well… anything could happen in chess. But Polugaevsky already had no strength to switch over. He continued to play for a win. Now it was already connected with risk and required more energetic activity. Exactly at that moment the Muscovite decided not to urge events, counting on home analysis. Alas, he should have been looking for a draw right there at the chessboard. Several uncertain moves followed and the game was postponed in the position, which was lost for Black. The next day Karpov quickly won.
Now, let’s take a look at the fifth game. If one looked at the stage, not knowing who played White or Black, one could get an impression that Karpov had quantity. He played and behaved as if he had been long moving to this position, as if he was content with it. In short, it seemed that he hadn’t felt so good for quite a long time. On the contrary, Polugaevsky was looking more and more diffident and confused with every move. We know the outcome of this game. At the last moment, thanks to his outstanding tactical resourcefulness, the Muscovite found a way to draw.
In no way do I want to belittle Karpov’s success. He is a very strong chessplayer progressing with every tournament. He deserved his victory, but he won without struggle. Still, his performance in the 6th and 8th games greatly impressed us. Those were sound and elegant victories of a mature master.”
Palma de Majorca, I-II, 1974
After four expected draws, Petrosian took the lead after a brilliant endgame technique showed in the fifth game. Y. Averbach said: The nineth and tenth games present a mystery which can only be solved with assistance of a psychologist. Portisch misjudged the position in the ninth and gave to his opponent the easiest way to score a second point. However in the tenth he recovered and played with great uplift which gave him an undisputable victory. The come the thirteenth, after few strategical inaccuracies the Hungarian was forced into defense. In a slightly worse endgame, Portisch played the incredible 24…Nb4 instead of Nb2 which could lead to a draw.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | Total | |
| Petrosian T | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | 1 | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | 7.0 |
| Portisch L | = | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | 1 | = | 1 | 0 | 6.0 |
Tal gave also his views on the match:
Yes, there were no turning points in the games in Palma de Majorca. There was only one decisive game – the 13th. The situation had looked quite intriguing before the match. Tigran Petrosian had not won a single game playing against Lajos Portisch. The Hungarian grandmaster had celebrated his victory four times. However, strange was it might have seemed, nobody considered this fact decisive. The authority of the ex-champion is very high. He is particularly dangerous in matches. So, the reality coincided with the forecasts here. The match proved that those people were right, who had not taken into account the score in the previous encounters and who had thought that Petrosian had better chances for victory. It also confirmed the forecasts of the experts, who had predicted that the struggle would be equal. The Soviet grandmaster was true to his favourite trick of lulling his opponents to sleep. He made quick draws with White. With Black he defended and drew. It looked like Portisch was coming for the 5th gaming counting on another day of leisure. The punishment followed immediately. Having sent his opponent to the knockdown, the ex-champion was again in a peaceful mood and ready to draw. The half of the distance is already behind, the score is 1:0 in favour of Petrosian and if no urgent measures are taken, the rest of the games will be drawn as well. There had been a lot of such examples in Tigran’s practice. Let me remind you of the previous qualification cycle, when, having won two games, he defeated R. Huebner and V. Korchnoi. So, Portisch decided to play for a win with Black in the 9th game. The ex-champion firmly repelled unprepared attack and counterattacked. Portisch lost a piece and soon surrendered. It seemed that everything was already clear. But the Hungarian grandmaster, as if answering the question how to play in such an emergency, made the strongest return blow in the 10th game – 2:1. Petrosian took time-out. Then he made a quick draw with White, but his favourite tactics did not bring him success. The 12th game brought 1 point to Portisch. In a difficult endgame Petrosian mixed the order of moves, found during the analysis.
Who would be the first to win? The 13th game answered this question.
Portisch was putting his hopes into his last move 21. … Qf6-f4. Queen seemed to be untouchable and it was placed ideally. But Petrosian looked further: the stunning “22.gf4!!” followed and after forced 22. … K:f4+; 23.Kg3 K:d3; 24.Rc3 Kb4; 25.a3 Ka6; 26.b4 it turned out that despite an extra pawn, endgame for Black was extremely hard. Such sudden change disappointed the Hungarian and he lost the decisive game, showing no proper resistance. The match was over!
There was an interesting detail: only one game was decisive out of the first 8 games. As for those 5 games left, they brought 4 decisive games.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, I, 1974.
Spassky’s important victory at the Soviet Championship (October 1973) was taken by many experts as a sure sign that he had overcome his crisis and deep shock following his loss of the title to Bobby Fischer. Spassky’s renaissance made him a big favorite in the match with Byrne, who had not recorded as great a success in his chess career as had the world champion. Some of his statements show that Boris himself believed in his chance to reach another final. “I firmly believe that I will play against Fischer again”, said Spassky in Dortmund, several months after the match in Iceland. “It is my duty to depose Fischer from the chess throne”.
In an interview to the CBS television network (a few days prior to the match in San Juan), R. Byrne said that he was meeting a Spassky stronger than when Fischer played the match in Reykjavik. Byrne obviously had in mind that Spassky had learned a lesson from his defeat against Fischer and had made thorough the preparations for a new attack on the world title.
After two draws in the first two games, Spassky broke the score in the third game after a nice Queen’s sacrifice for 2 pieces. Byrne lost the fourth game without too much resistance. Leading 2-0 Spassky had no problem to control the event. The former champion concluded magisterially the match by winning the sixth game exploiting an endgame position that many considered as a draw.
After the match Byrne himself said that in many ways his preparations had missed the mark. Another interesting point is Byrne’s own comparison of his game in the match against Spassky and at the Interzonal Tournament in Lenin grad. “Here, in San Juan, the play was entirely different”, says Byrne in his statement carried by the Soviet weekly 64. “In Leningrad I knew that after my defeat by Korchnoi I could win games against Cuellar or Torre, but in San Juan I had Spassky in front of me today, Spassky in front of me tomorrow, and Spassky in front of me the day after. And I knew that I could do nothing, for he sees more than I, knows more, and assesses positions more profoundly”.
Byrne’ s (unofficial) Second Lubosh Kavalek stated to Washington Radio that Spassky’ s convincing victory can be explained not only by the fact that he objectively surpassed his partner in all phases of the game but also that he was better prepared for the match.
Spassky said that he was naturally pleased with the victory. “The match went smoothly, there were no disputes with the opponent”, said the former world champion to a TASS correspondent: ”I should add that for me the match was of great importance. This is an important stage in the struggle for earning the right to the match with Fischer. I think that the semi-final match will be difficult, more difficult than the one I have played against Byrne. With respect to the match against Fischer, naturally, I would like very much to play him but it will not be easy to reach the finals”.
Spassky’ s second Grandmaster Bondarevsky cautiously stated that he is satisfied with the result, but that the quality of Spassky’ s game did not fully satisfy him. Bondarevsky also observed that Byrne fought within the limits of his possibilities. It is difficult to expect much more when he is over the age of 45. Robert Byrne, who writes in the chess column of the New York Times, which is reprinted in another fifteen or so papers, also spoke of the match with Spassky: “Spassky, who seems to have learned quite a valuable lesson from the match in Reykjavik, revealed himself in San Juan as a refined psychologist in selecting variations for opening and, at least twice in the initial phase of the game, led me into a hopeless position”
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Total | |
| Byrne R | = | = | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 1.5 |
| Spassky B | = | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 4.5 |
In March 1974, the Commission set up at the Congress in Helsinki met in Amsterdam with the participation of representatives from the Soviet Union, United States, Hungary and the President of FIDE. A majority vote adopted a draft regulation procedure for the 1975 match which was to be submitted to the Congress in Nice for final decision. Fundamental disagreement continued, however, between the Americans and Soviets concerning certain basic points, i.e. whether to play for 10 wins (as requested by Fischer) or for 6 wins (as decided at the Congress in Vancouver), whether to limit the number of match games or accept Fischer’s formula for a 9 : 9 result.
Semifinal matches
The first with four wins will be declared winner.
Korchnoi: “Prior to the matches, Petrosian declared in the press that in his opinion the winner of the Candidates’ cycle would be one of the other pair. Such hypocrisy provoked me into protesting, and I declared that the winner of our match would win the Candidate cycle. My reasons for saying this were purely to do with chess. Both Petrosian and I were superior to Karpov in our understanding, and ‘n particular our experience of the game, and, all other things being equal, should have been able to beat him. In passing, I emphasized that, as regards erudition and knowledge of opening theory, I was superior to Karpov, Petrosian and Spassky taken together! I wasn’t far from the truth, but at that time I had no idea what forces I would have to measure my knowledge against in the near future.”
The relation between both is an old story dated of 1971, Petrosian and Korchnoi don’t like each other and in Odessa, Petrosian retired from the match after 5 games. Of course with Korchnoi winning all games with white color made hard for Petrosian to level the score… Few weeks later Petrosian complained to FIDE and asked to…reverse the score!
Korchnoi remembered the last moments of the match: “Petrosian did not turn up for the resumption. Instead, he wrote a statement demanding that the result of the match be annulled (I should remind the reader of the score — 3—1 with one game drawn), and that he should be awarded a win on the grounds that I was stopping him playing! It was an unusual situation. The match was being held under the auspices of FIDE, and no one, neither Brezhnev nor Euwe, could annul the result, never mind a FIDE congress. Petrosian utilized every possible opportunity. He phoned Euwe, but he was enjoying a safari in Africa. He sent a 290-word telegram to the Central Committee of the USSR Communist Party, the ruling Organ of the Soviet Union, and, in anticipation of a reply, forced me to take a postponement. The matter became an object of investigation by an arbitration committee under the chairmanship of the Mayor of Odessa; from Moscow came the Chairman of the All-Union Controllers’ Team, and from Leningrad they also sent an official representative of the Sports Organization to help. A meeting was arranged, to which we were both invited. Petrosian demanded an apology from me. Since, by speaking to my opponent during the game, I had broken one of the letters of the chess code, I said that I was prepared to apologize. ‘Apologize?’ cried Petrosian, ‘but who is going to return my lost points?”
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total | |
| Korchnoi V | 1 | = | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3.5 |
| Petrosian T | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1.5 |
The end of the match in Odessa evolved under a certain veil of secrecy, according to some of the reporters which covered it. TASS’s brief statement says nothing of what went on behind the scenes in the turbulent dispute which arose among the players. It appears that even the intervention of the highest chess officials failed to smooth out the wrinkles in this unexpected “family dispute”. After the fifth round Petrosian and later Korchnoi himself asked for time out. Both actually needed to gain in time and to have the possibility of reaching a compromise through negotiation.
We can approximately deduce what happened from what Korchnoi and Petrosian themselves said later. True, each side in this dispute has his own version, and their narrations resemble a kind of chess Roshomon.
“The dispute began in the very first game”, says Korchnoi. ”Petrosian has a habit of tapping his feet during the game. The floor of the stage where the match was being played was poorly nailed, for this was an old theatre, and the tapping of his feet was transmitted to the chess table. During the game I drew his attention to this. In response to my directly approaching him during the game he lodged a written complaint with the referee. The tense situation continued. The culmination occurred in the fifth game, when I told him that he wants to make unfair use of his last chance. After that he asked all the games of the match to be annulled”.
Petrosian laughed at Korchnoi’s version of the story when he was told. In his opinion the dispute was a more serious matter. “I could not imagine such a lack of consideration. Korchnoi presents the disturbance during the game too naively. There were insults. And the invections in the last game? I think that everything began with Fischer. Then others followed in his footsteps, craving for money in chess”…
Leningrad, IV-V, 1974.
Before their encounter Karpov and Spassky were interview in the Pravda
Spassky: “It’s hard to judge the quality of the games so far: they must be attentively analysed first. As for the match in general, I started quite nervously then I calmed down.”
Karpov: “I am very content with my game against Polugaevsky both in sportive and creative respect. However, the score 3:0 does not reflect the true balance of our strengths. It is rather a mirror of the psychological state of my opponent. I was not satisfied with the progress of separate games, especially the first ones. It can be explained by the fact that I did not at once enter the rhythm of the tournament and also by the lack of experience in such kind of duels. The 5th game, which the opponent was to win, became crucial. After that draw I understood that I had good chances to qualify for the semi-final.”
Q: Are you “content” with your next opponent or would you prefer another one?
Spassky: I am absolutely satisfied in a match against Karpov.
Karpov: They say, that any match with Spassky is one of the most difficult matches one can ever play…
Q: Please, tell us few words about your future opponent…
Spassky: Anatoly Karpov needs no advertisements or recommendations.
Karpov: Boris Spassky has a huge experience in matches at the highest level. I have played in match only once. Such a difference may play an important role in such a match
Spassky was not the same player anymore after he lost to Fischer in 1972. Of course he won the USSR championship in 1973 but clearly the young star Anatoly Karpov was already superior to him.
R. Byrne reported: “Not to be able to deal with the immensely important psychological factors in such a contest as this must lead to defeat—and so it did for Spassky. True, it was a terrible blow for him to learn that Efim Geller, the brilliant opening analyst who had worked with him on the championship match In Iceland, had now gone over to Karpov camp. It Is difficult to understand how the Soviet Chess Federation could permit such a move, which al lowed Spassky’s deepest secrets and opening plans to be turned over to his opponent.
Spassky did make some attempt to accommodate him self to the dismal situation by trying defenses that run counter to his classical style, namely the King’s Indian Defense of game 3 and the Dutch Defense of game 7. However, he played them like a duck out of water and was lucky to give up only 1½ points in the two games. Moreover, Spassky played do-nothing continuations against Karpov’s Caro-Kann Defense in games 2, 4, and undoubtedly fearing unpleasant theoretical surprises.
He told me afterward that after easy win in the first game he became so overconfident that he could not concentrate for the rest of the mach. Karpov does not display any better psychological quirks but comes to the board with an objectively appraising eye. When he got into trouble in games 5, 6, and 8 he never lost his head, but up outstandingly good defenses. His positional play in the third and ninth games, both of which he won was excellent. When Spassky finally confronted I with one of his old favorite defenses In game 11, it was Boris who went astray, not the smooth-running Karpov.”
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Total | |
| Karpov A | 0 | = | 1 | = | = | 1 | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | 7.0 |
| Spassky B | 1 | = | 0 | = | = | 0 | = | = | 0 | = | 0 | 4.0 |
In the magazine 64 M. Tal reported about both matches:
“The semi-final Candidates’ Matches are now over. The strongest Soviet Grandmasters took part – B. Spassky and A. Karpov, T. Petrosian and V. Korchnoi. The results of these encoun¬ters are not what many specialists had predicted. Why did this happen? To this question, “64” correspondent Alexander Roshal sought ex-World Champion Mikhail Tal’s answer. Here follows the discussion:
Both Korchnoi and Petrosian are chess players with a so-called realistic outlook (that is to say, they would rather take than sacrifice). They are both brilliant defenders, they both calculate variations well, they both play the endgame splendidly, quite splendidly.
But at the same time, they are completely different chess players. Why? Because they approach the result in a completely different manner. I will try to clarify.
Once Korchnoi won an international tournament with a record score, allowing only one draw. As usual, the journalists approached him for an interview. On these occasions the winner usually talks about the good result and his own excellent form. But Korchnoi angrily pointed out that he played poorly, and that he should have won his only drawn game, in proof of which he started reciting variations. The reporters were simply shocked. That is one pole, and now the other.
Petrosian in the tenth game of his match with Korchnoi from the last World Championship cycle … I am describing this incident precisely, as I am familiar with the accounts of both Korchnoi and Petrosian – they coincide word for word. Anyway, Petrosian writes down the strongest move in the last game of the 1971 match. And … offers a draw! Korchnoi declines. Petrosian makes this essentially winning move on the board. The control passed, the game is adjourned. Viktor thinks and thinks, and asks “What now? A draw, or I resign.” Tigran answers “Draw”.
And they’re both right. To each his own.
That match was Petrosian-ish, this one turned out to be Korchnoi-ish. Viktor, even before the start, stated publicly in Leningrad that he would play every game “for the King” (i.e. for mate). Taking into account Petrosian’s sporting and physical shape, “playing for the King” would be even more unpleasant than usual. Though, it is necessary to point out that, under normal circumstances, cut to the quick, Tigran really can engage in close hand to hand combat with success. But in Odessa such was not the case. For example, how much is the move 7 … BxN in the third game worth?! Petrosian took a pawn that even Korchnoi wouldn’t dare to take. Korchnoi’s victory was quite deserved. Viktor played too well for his victory to be questioned. Together with this, Petrosian was ruined by many objective causes. Health … I am able to speak about this cause more, shall we say, comfortably than the other causes: I know this thing only too well. A person catches cold, is put to the test by an indisposition, cannot sleep easily, and finally … But the peak of complications arrives only on the last day – this is the organism’s reaction. This explains exactly Petrosian’s sickness during the very time of the match. The conditions in Odessa were extremely nervous. I was not present myself at the match, but I can judge about this from the voltage of the tension created by Korchnoi on the board. In this respect, I would like to contrast the two Korchnois, one who played with Mecking and the other with Petrosian. Especially in openings attitude. The Brazilian has a young, unobstructed memory. He has gone over hundreds and even thousands of Korchnoi games, and has established that in game, shall we say, No. 1437, the Leningrad Grandmaster played thusly in the Opening, and now he can prepare some sort of surprise for him. Korchnoi, evading these “surprises”, tried to rush by the opening phase as fast as possible. Especially playing White (with Black this is dangerous, as it’s a hard job to improve a reeking position).
In a word, the opening advantage was of less interest to Korchnoi in the quarter-finals.
Early I figured out that Korchnoi always remains true to himself. But here with Mecking he played as if his second or third assistant were Sergei Mikaelyan, producer of the film “Grandmaster”. There Korchnoi splendidly took on the role of an outstanding chess practitioner, a man of reasonable, unavoidably sharp, necessary decisions, a man who knows where to stop, where to slow down, where to agree to a draw. To what end should Korchnoi (!) offer Mecking, offer this mere boy (in his eyes) a draw? Inconceivable! And what is stranger: in two of the three games he won in the quarter finals against Mecking, he offered the young Brazilian draws.
A completely different Korchnoi played against Petrosian. Here the very hero of the film “Grandmaster” took part. A sharp and irreconcilable Khlebnikov, I would even say an arch Khlebnikov, or Ultra-Khlebnikov. Such a person does not offer draws. (By the way, I am convinced that such a metamorphosis is not random, but deeply thought out.) We often talk about the “metamorphoses” of Spassky. He has always changed himself with regard to with whom he played: with Larsen or Korchnoi, with Geller or Tal … Even more striking is the change in Korchnoi’s present tactics. I am deeply convinced that for Korchnoi the match with Petrosian was not only the semi-finals of a competition, or even the road to Fischer. The match with Petrosian was for Korchnoi a means to distinctive self-achievement. Why is quite clear: the chessical black cat between them has run by long ago, and they have always confessed to different chess religions. They were always at antipodes. However, it seems that I have returned to the beginning of our conversation…
So, in my opinion, there are two main reasons which explain the Odessa result. The first reason is, indisputably, Korchnoi himself. Frankly, I have never seen before Korchnoi play as he did in this match (and I’ve studied him quite a bit). Unrestrained, as usual, but at the same time more reasonable and prudent than ever before.
The former, unrestrained, Korchnoi could have taken the “Poisoned” Pawn which Petrosian took in the third game: The unrestrained-prudent Korchnoi offered the very same sacrifice, prepared at “home” … (to the 14th move!). On the other hand, Tigran made a serious psychological error in playing like Korchnoi (even Viktor himself isn’t always successful at this). In the 1971 match, Petrosian thrust this tactic on Korchnoi, things turning out differently at that time.
The second reason for the Odessa result: I don’t believe that under a normal turn of events Petrosian could lose five games in a row with black in two matches – even with Portisch and Korchnoi. Such a thing could happen to me or to anybody, but not to Petrosian! The diagnosis should be made not only by chess specialists, but, unfortunately, by medics. Here’s how it all fits together. He was not feeling well at the end of the match in Spain, then after a short recovery became sick in Moscow, and was not able to prepare properly for the next match and, to crown it all, became sick and nervous in Odessa.
Even forecasters of immense experience erred in their predictions concerning the results of the semi-final matches. Nevertheless, if the matches were repeated after a period of time there would remain quite a few oracles who would not recant their previous “errors”. I also erred in my prognosis, but this definitely does not mean that Korchnoi is stronger than Petrosian, just as the ex-Champion’s victory in 1971 did not mean that he definitely surpassed Korchnoi. It’s just not possible to say such things about extra-class chess players. One can only compare them on a “day to day” basis, which is to talk about their sporting form, about the fortune under which they abide. One can say with surety that Spassky is stronger than Byrne, but it is not possible to say that Karpov is stronger than Spassky (although he defeated the ex-champion by the same margin as the latter beat Byrne).
To talk about the match in Leningrad is easier, but at the same time more complicated: I saw the battles with my own eyes, but there was something I didn’t succeed in conveying in the commentaries to the games.
Karpov’s victory over Spassky, for many reasons, was even more impressive for me than Korchnoi’s win over Petrosian. Earlier I mentioned that in the Odessa match a lot would depend on who grasped the initiative in his hands, on who could stick to his own manner of conducting the battle. In the Leningrad meeting, the most interesting question for me was how Karpov, not accustomed to receiving zeros, though not being immune to losses, would take his first defeat.
And here we have the very first game. It lasted quite a few moves, but Karpov in this game was hardly visible. A faint silhouette of him appeared only at the end; Spassky won with amazing ease. Besides this an unfortunate cold forced a time-out. Frankly, I thought, in spite of all his outward show of composure that Karpov began to “go to pieces”. In the word “show” no offence is meant – Karpov is always in the public eye, and that, believe me, is not easy. (I believe that when he said he would not win the present Candidates’ Matches, he was inwardly hoping he was mistaken).
I thought: “Well, Karpov is a good defender, he began to rest, but anyway after such a loss he’ll lose the match for sure.” Then come the second game, then the third. First the Caro-Kann Defence, then 1. d4. This is already the showing, not of a boy, but of a man. I remember my match in 1965 with Spassky. They told me somewhere after the fifth game “Throw away 1. e4. Change the record. Turn it off.” But I was then already “wound up”. But Karpov, though he is younger than that Tal, didn’t “wind up”.
Karpov’s Opening repertoire is such that, were it a voice, it would be that of a very musical bird. And he takes care of it. When Tolya played me in the last USSR Championship, he was probably afraid that I might play the Najdorf Sicilian (I do that quite often), and refrained from 1. e4. The solution is quite simple. In front of Karpov stood the quarter-final match with Polugaevsky, in whose Opening repertoire the Sicilian Defence is well established – so why show your cards? By the way, he acted similarly all the time. In that game with Karpov I was thinking of how to conduct the black pieces, as I assumed at home that my opponent would go with the King’s Pawn.
In any case I decided to play the Slav Defence. They say he wants to make a draw – let him trade on d5. But if he doesn’t …? I have played this position about five times in my life (the last, it appears, in 1952), but he will play it for the first time. Karpov brought the opening to me, just like Furman did with Kuzmin. Most of his openings – the Nimzo-Indian, and King’s Indian Defences – resemble strongly those of Furman. In this stage the young chess player believes his tutor quite implicitly. This belief, moreover, is not spurious. Semyon Abramovich has an exceptional feeling for the openings and is generally fantastic in his understanding of the play.
But what about Boris? In any elementary directive about psychology it is said that success should be exploited. How could it be otherwise! Spassky won the first game, but in the second practically withdrew from battle. Well, OK, his opponent played the Caro-Kann – that’s a surprise. But is there really no choice for white to gain the initiative than to vary from the approved schemes? It is clear that the Caro-Kann didn’t appear in Karpov’s repertoire by chance, that Spassky’s games showed – well you can draw the conclusions yourself. Boris played in such a way that Karpov did not have to find even one difficult move to equalise the position. And Spassky’s treatment of the King’s Indian Defence in the third game? Not the way that variation should be played.
Here’s what’s interesting. At the beginning of the match with Polugaevsky, Karpov’s play was either successful or unsuccessful, sometimes he made a daring move, and sometimes he missed something. Exactly the same with Spassky. And then, an explosive finish, which I am inclined to explain by a move-by-move strengthening in self-confidence. The end of the ninth game made a tremendous impression on me. When a chess player finds the only move (all the others lose), he deserves two exclamation marks. This is quite under¬standable. But how do you evaluate when a player, from many good continuations, chooses one after which it becomes clear that only that line wins!
In the press room we see a pawn sacrifice for Spassky, we show that it is insufficient, and that, overcoming all difficulties, white can still win, but Karpov makes a move after which black not only has no sacrifice, but has nothing at all. No more questions. The ending of the ninth game creates an indelible impression. It’s usually quite difficult to amaze me, but Tolya did just that, spending five minutes on his eight or ten beautiful finishing moves.
I will comment briefly on the tenth and eleventh games of the match. The eleventh is a close copy of the twenty-first game between Fischer and Spassky in Reykjavik. There Boris conducted the final meeting with some sort of wringing, with anguish. He tried and tried and tried … but he did not succeed! No, he didn’t give up the result as hopeless, he was showing his colours. Spassky, most likely, wanted to continue playing with all his strength – he is one of those chess players who never gives up. This happens subconsciously…
Please excuse me for the forced, sweeping parallels and generalisations which I don’t seem to be able to shake off. But I am acquainted with Spassky’s fortune. It was with me in the twenty-first game of my revenge match with Botvinnik. While I sat at the board, I figured that, God willing, I would win this, the twenty-first, the twenty-second with white, which brings us up to the twenty-third, with still some play left in the twenty-fourth. Nevertheless, I played that twenty-first game as if I were a schoolboy, and was meted out a well-deserved execution. Probably, had I won that one, I would have played the following better. But I didn’t! And Spassky didn’t, neither against Fischer, nor against Karpov.
The present match was practically finished with the eighth game, when Spassky couldn’t win. Personally, I didn’t for a second entertain the thought that Spassky’s attack, started with 24. P-R6, would be so quickly put to an end. But after the move 25 …, N-B3 (Karpov played this quite quickly), we found no win. This blow is even greater than any loss. When these positions are not won, one begins to lose confidence. All sorts of devilry like “Is it possible to beat him?” lie about in one’s head. It’s not surprising that Spassky lost the next game. To my taste, the best game of either match was the ninth in Leningrad.
It is amusing that Karpov and Korchnoi did such a good thing for the players in the Leningrad Interzonal. For example, it was uncomfortable for me to say that the Leningrad Interzonal was considerably stronger than the second Interzonal in Petropolis. I didn’t understand Larsen’s attitude, and still don’t. If a person wants to become the World Champion, he shouldn’t be afraid of not making the top three, and shouldn’t protest against too strong a field. But you can’t get away from the facts. When the two winners of the Leningrad Interzonal Tourna¬ment meet in the final Candidates’ Match, well, you know…
It would be interesting to go over a few strange coincidences. Korchnoi first came ahead of Karpov in the USSR Championship and then behind him in the Alekhine Memorial. But then they tied for first and second in the 1971 – 72 Hastings Tournament, first and second in the Leningrad Interzonal, and second to fourth in the last USSR Championship. Everywhere -together! At the drawing of lots for the Candidates’ Matches they were “forcibly separated”. One was placed in the more privileged quartet, the other “slightly lower”. But they are once again together they are again eyeing a battle, already in the finals of the Candidates’ Matches. The score between them, by the way, is 2:2 with one draw. Karpov has a tiny moral advantage, as he played black in all the decisive games. But is it worthwhile to talk about such trifles when a match like this lies ahead?
Final match
The match was a battle between two generations. Karpov achievement was as faster that the other young prodigies Fischer, Tal or Reshevsky and since 1967 he always met the expectation. Korchnoi, in the ’business’ since 1950, had many exceptional success but despite of winning many top tournaments, gold medals… he never to successfully in the world championship cycle and if he never reached the final of Candidates maybe it was just because he is not a match player.
What the players thought about the coming match:
Jan Timman (Netherlands) mentioned that, as before, Korchnoi still gets into time trouble. Karpov on the other hand, plays easily, with a big reserve on his clock, and never experiences time shortage. In the opinion of the Dutch grandmaster, this gives Anatoly Karpov the advantage. The Swede Ulf Andersson, as well as the Hungarian Lajos Portisch, considered the two players’ chances to be roughly equal, while the Czech grandmaster Vlastimil Hort (drew attention to Karpov’s consistently good form But at the same time, Hort thought that in Nice (Olympiads) Korchnoi husbanded his strength somewhat, on seeing that the Soviet team would be first, even without his “extra points”. Hort declared that the Final Match would be a “war of nerves.” The highly experienced Argentinean grandmaster Miguel Najdorf expressed his preference for Karpov… Many Soviet grandmasters, while readily assessing the strong points of both Candidates, were nevertheless cautious about expressing any definite conclusions. Lev Polugaevsky noted that on Karpov’s side were his age, consistency of results, and constant, steady progress (“He played considerably more strongly against Spassky than he did against me). Evgeny Vasyukov saw an uncontestable advantage for Karpov in his constantly good form. Eduard Gufeld: “Before each of Karpov’s matches I have given preference to his highly- experienced opponents, and.., have been wrong. Perhaps I will be wrong again”. Mark Taimanov, while respecting the stability of Karpov’s play and his growing strength, did not in general want to speak about a possible winner, and limited himself to this assertion: “In my opinion, sooner or later Karpov will be World Champion”. Incidentally, this pronouncement was to a certain extent similar to the opinion expressed by the famous Dane, Bent Larsen—his sympathies were with Korchnoi, but the voice of reason told him: “Karpov”.
David Bronstein thought that everything was already long-since determined by the comparative degree of preparation of the two players, about which nothing had been said. “Yes, the future is known best of all by the players in the match themselves, and after all Karpov has said that this will not be his cycle”, remarked Ex-World Champion Vasily Smyslov with a smile. Mikhail Botvinnik, formerly so categorical in his assessments, declined to give a reply.
The match started in Moscow on September 16, 1974. The rules said: will be declared winner the first player to win five games. If after 24 games neither player has won 5 games, the winner will be the one who leads at this stage. If the scores are level then drawing of lots will be preceded. The winner will become the challenger of Fischer and if Fischer will not defend his title, he will be declared World Champion…
The venue, the Dom Soyuz hall can hold 1,375 people, was not enough to meet demands. At the formal opening on September 15, the hall was filled to capacity. Karpov and Korchnoi were on stage. Speeches were made then came the relatively complicated procedure which determines the colors of the pieces in the first game of the match. Grandmaster Korchnoi drew the box with white pieces from the hand of Chief Arbiter O’Kelly.
Immediately afterwards, during an intermission in the ceremony, Korchnoi again displayed self-confidence during a television interview, stating that he will win the match. Karpov, however, refused to say anything. They say he is “superstitious” and that he gives no interviews or autographs during a competition.
Game 1
English opening
The first game (September 16) started off with an unusual opening which had already been played until the 17th move in an Uhlmann—Furman game (Madrid, 1973). (Furman, together with Geller, was Karpov’s second in the match in Moscow). Korchnoi gained positional advantage in the opening but somewhere after the 20th move lost the initiative. Former world champion Botvinnik thinks that Korchnoi should have played 22.b3, which would have given him a “strategically probable winning position”. The game was later evened out and in the end Korchnoi offered a divided point.
Game 2
Sicilian Defense
The second game was a fiasco for Korchnoi in the opening. In fact, there was no real play. “Korchnoi fell victim to a prepared variation”, said his seconds V. Osnos and Dzindzidashvili. The first 15 moves had already been played on several occasions (for example in the Geller—Korchnoi game in 1971), and the new variation with the 16th move had been proposed in an article by E. Chumakov in the “Shahmatny Byuleten” (no. 10 for 1972). Instead of 19. d5, as suggested in the article, Karpov made a quiet but highly poisonous move, 19. d3. The purpose of this new move is to leave square d5 free for the White Knigh will come via f4 and at the same time to protect the Knight on c3. Suddenly, Black proved to have a faulty defense. Korchnoi tried, but Karpov appeared to have everything thoroughly prepared. In an effective attack, Karpov scored the t win.
Game 3
English opening
Korchnoi again wanted to return to the opening of the first game, but in the third game Karpov gave him only until the 7th move and then steered for quieter waters. In the tenth move Korchnoi withdrew his furthest Pawn back by two, intimating a strong assault on the Black King, but this proved to be badly prepared. Karpov was the first to come to expression and Korchnoi realized the danger, hurrying to ease the position with the change of pieces. Karpov was also a hurry (with 23rd and 27th move) it was clear when the game was adjourned that Korchnoi could preserve a draw, but only through precise play. In the continuation the new change of pieces facilitated his task.
Game 4
French Defense
Expectant interest prevailed as to whether Korchnoi would again play the Sicilian Defense in the fourth game (as in the second one). This time he returned to another one of his favorites, the French Defense. Karpov played a variation (with 10. Bg5) which had brought him success before, but in which Moscow champion Gulko had found a good defense system for Black (Qb6). This game provided no surprises, no combinations, but it was an interesting manoeuveral and positional struggle. The position seemed to be even. Masters and grandmasters in the press centre held diverse opinions as to who was doing better, who was playing to win and who to draw. Korchnoi took the initiative in manoeuveral play and adjourned the game in a better position. Although he spent 26 minutes thinking about his 42nd move, he failed to seal 42. . . g5, which would unquestionably have given him far better outlooks for playing to win. Karpov later voiced the conviction that in that case he would have been able to preserve a draw. This way it was much easier.
Game 5
Queen’s Indian
The classic rule that an attack from the centre is more dangerous than one from the wing was confirmed in the fifth game of the match. During long manoeuveral operations Korchnoi’s breakthrough came as a result of his attack from the centre. He sacrificed quality and Karpov again rushed to reinstall it in the game, realizing that White’s attack was becoming more and more dangerous. Korchnoi’s second (Osnos) felt that his man should not have given Karpov such an opportunity in the 34th move. Korchnoi committed a new oversight in the 39th move. In the adjourned position Karpov had an extra Pawn, but was in a considerably poorer position, and yet, in the continuation, he found a highly effective way to maintain a draw, bringing his King into the centre of battle and taking advantage of the fact the White King had not reached the battlefield in time. In this game Karpov revealed a highly developed ability in defense. This exciting game, with three sacrifices in quality, and played down to “bare” Kings, was one of the most attractive of the match.
Game 6
Petroff Defense
In the sixth game, Korchnoi intended to provide his young partner with a surprise. He chose the Russian Defense, which does not rank among one of his favorite openings. He contemplated for so long in the opening, however, that it was evident that he himself was surprised by the variation chosen by Karpov. Korchnoi spent 39 minutes contemplating his 11th move, and used up almost all his available time in the first 15 moves. Even had he been in a winning position he would have found it most difficult to play out all the moves. He was short of time when he needed it most. Korchnoi overstepped the time limit but the position was lost anyway. Karpov later stated that he was surprised by Korchnoi’s choice of an opening. On an earlier occasion Karpov had played 9.c4, but this time, as he puts it, he decided to play it more cautiously and opted for a modest continuation. This seems to have caught Korchnoi by surprise, and he failed to find compensation for a sacrificed Pawn.
Some called this game Karpov’s successful concert (as the “Mozart of chess”) performed in the “Tchaikovsky Hall. Others felt that the game had “Korchnoi playing against Korchnoi”, that it was a “suicidal” game, as B. Spassky put it. This was one of the poorest games of the match, but it won Karpov a crucial point.
In his book Korchnoi, Chess is my life, 1978, p.108, Korchnoi said: “In the sixth game I again adopted an experimental opening which I prepared all by myself just before the game. Already I did not particularly trust my seconds (Osnos and Dzhindzhidhashvili). But, at home by myself, I had looked into the position insufficiently deeply. The idea was correct, but involved a pawn sacrifice which I wasn’t keen on. At home it seemed to me that I could solve the problem while keeping material equality. But at the board I realized that the line I had prepared contained a flaw.
In order to overcome my inner resistance, my unwillingness to sacrifice a pawn, I obtained a promising position, but could still not rid myself of a feeling of mental uncertainty. From an excellent position I lost literally within a few moves. Though few remember this game in the Petroff and practically no one pays it serious attention, I can testify that Karpov really earned his victory at the board.”
Game 7
English opening
In the seventh game Korchnoi again tried to strengthen the play in his interpretation of the English opening, but in the 14th move he carelessly permitted Karpov to turn the game to his own advantage by making a “small” but strong move. During the first twenty or so moves, on four occasions Korchnoi used his Queen. This is contrary to the classic principle that the same piece should not be over-played in the opening. But perhaps this is a “modern tune” which classical music lovers do not understand? Around the 30th move, the situation turned bleak for White. There were those who felt that it was then that Karpov missed his strongest continuation, giving Korchnoi the chance to adjourn in an equal position by making simple defensive moves. The continuation lasted for only eight minutes and then the truce was signed.
Game 8
French Defense
The first 11 moves of the eighth game were identical to the fourth game of the match. Once again Korchnoi spent 30 minutes on his 12th move. While some grandmasters, such as A. O’Kelly, say that the Taraschev variation in the French Defense should be banned because it only leads to a draw, the fact is that Karpov is a great master of this variation and it would be illogical to expect him to reject this continuation. On four occasions in the course of the game Korchnoi offered several “sacrifices”. Many wondered why Karpov did not take the Pawn in the 24th move. Finally, Karpov took the Pawn, but then experts said that this was “premature”. Karpov adjourned the game with an extra Pawn, but this was only a temporary situation, for the Black King was in the centre of events. Once again, the continuation provided a short road to a draw.
Game 9
English Opening
Grandmaster Polugaevsky said that the ninth game produced “chess typical of what will be played in the 21st century by computers: it was cold, lifeless, logical, ending in an inevitable division of a point”. Even more interesting is the fact that not a single Pawn was exchanged throughout the game. In the second move, Karpov already set out on the established roads of the English opening which we witnessed in the Korchnoi—Mecking match. In the end, however, the tune of yet another draw was playing in our ears.
During the long manoeuveral struggle, neither Korchnoi nor Karpov wanted to take any risks. Ultimately, Korchnoi had to maintain the existing position with several extremely passive moves. Only one move was played in the continuation and this was the result of a misunderstanding. That morning, Korchnoi had offered to divide a point without any continuation. Karpov’s people said that he was sleeping and that an answer would be forthcoming in two hours. Korchnoi asked for the reply after only an hour, and then left his hotel room. Later, Karpov requested that Korchnoi offer him a draw, in other words he accepted the offer, but Korchnoi was not to be found. And thus, there was a continuation, which also entailed the extra costs of renting the hail.
Game 10
French Defense
For the first time one of the participants requested “time out” prior to the tenth game. Due to illness Korchnoi asked for the game to be postponed. The first 12 moves resembled the eighth game. There was a recurrent struggle over the isolated Pawn. There is a dispute as to whether such an isolated Pawn is a weakness or whether the free play of pieces is sufficient compensation. The beginning of this game was quiet enough, and a quick draw was expected. In the ending, however, Karpov was slow to recognize danger and found himself in a weaker position. For the first time Korchnoi had an extra Pawn without it being clear whether his opponent had won sufficient compensation for it. In the continuation it emerged that the two Knights and the uncertain position of the Black King had provided White with the opportunity of maintaining a draw.
Game 11
Queen’s Indian Defense
The eleventh game provided a small sensation with Korchnoi playing 1 .d4 instead of 1 .c4 in the first move. Despite the changed order of moves, however, the game entered the “normal waters” of the Queen’s Indian Defense. The struggle centered on the “hanging Pawns” and Korchnoi decided to break them up and create isolated Black Pawns in the centre. Faced with a difficult situation, Karpov defended himself superbly. Korchnoi missed a real opportunity and failed to score yet another victory. Both in terms of time and the number of moves this was the longest game of the match so far. Its only weak point was that it ended in a draw.
Game 12
French Defense
The twelfth was one of the shortest, but at the same time most sparkling games of the match. Korchnoi resorted to the French Defense as a safeguard against the move 1 .e4 which had earned Karpov two victories at the beginning of the match. Black discovered an interesting opportunity to sacrifice a piece and thus preserve a draw. The White King was left without the protection of the Pawns and could not avoid a check without material losses. On the other hand, Korchnoi could organize an attack with only his Queen, and he had no time to bring his other pieces into play. The game lasted for only two hours.
This was the tenth draw in the match, which only aroused even greater interest in the duel, while intimating that the struggle would go on until the maximum number of 24 games. Karpov probably did not want to take any risks for he was leading the match. Each new draw only brought him closer to his goal. Korchnoi had to play to win, but he could not allow himself too many risks, for a new defeat would mean 3:0 in favor of his opponent and this would practically mark the end of the match. Former world champion Mikhail Tal believes that the large number of draws in such a situation is the result of the system according to which matches are played. But the opponents would probably apply the same tactics even were the match to be played for a certain number of games.
Game 13
Queen’s Indian
The thirteenth game produced a kind of “chess curiosity” in terms of its marathon duration, Korchnoi’s desperate struggle to score his first victory, of which he had dreamed for so long, and Karpov’s feverish defense. The game started off quietly, according to the “established pattern”, as Spassky called it. But as the manoeuvering progressed, Karpov, clearly playing to win, was short for time. With both players in a crunch for time, there were both—sided errors. Karpov’s second, grandmaster Geller, regretted that Karpov had not played 26… d3 in the 26nd move, while Korchnoi’s fans saw his chance in the move 34. Qb3 etc. In the ending, the roles were reversed and Korchnoi adjourned the game with better outlooks. In the continuation he even succeeded in winning a Pawn, but he failed to find the hidden road to victory. After 96 moves and 11 hours of play, when the game was adjourned once again, Karpov said with relief that now it would be easy to maintain a draw. In the opinion of many, this was a crucial game in the match. Korchnoi was in dire need of a win, and it had seemed so close. He had little time and became more and more nervous with each passing game. For Karpov this marked the affirmation of his ability to defend difficult positions, as well as a step closer towards his goal.
Game 14
French Defense
After the storm the heroes were tired. Many expected Korchnoi to postpone the fourteenth game. This did not occur, but this game was one of the quietest in the entire match. For the fifth time in this duel Korchnoi played the French Defense. In a simple ending Karpov proposed to divide the point.
Game 15
Reti opening
The Reti opening was used for the first time in the fifteenth game and it was hoped that this would break the monotony of both practically the same openings from game to game and the ever-present draws. These hopes, however, were not to be realized, and this only marked the beginning of a series of lower-quality games. At the crucial point in the game, instead of a direct attack on the King’s flank, Korchnoi opted for an indecisive manoeuvering of his Rook and an exchange of Queens. This gave Karpov time to consolidate his position. Only one move was made in the continuation.
Game 16
French Defense
Once again, the sixteenth game saw the French Defense. The positions were equal, but in the 36th move Korchnoi committed an error which lost him a Pawn. Karpov adjourned the game with good outlooks for increasing his lead. Karpov’s sealed 41st move gave rise to polemics among the grandmasters and experts. Many favored 41. Nd1. Karpov himself stated that this move would have saved his Pawn, but would not have brought him a victory. “The sealed move 41. Bb5 was good, but in the 50th move I should have played Ra1”, said Karpov. And so the game ended in a tenth consecutive draw, which probably set a record for matches of this level.
Game 17
Catalan opening
After a four-day pause (Karpov again postponed the game which was played on October 30th instead of 28th), Korchnoi, playing White in the seventeenth game, was expected to start the decisive finish. The beginning of the game held promise for Korchnoi. The drama developed in the final minutes of play, when Korchnoi had five minutes to make 12 moves. He made a crucial error in the 30th move, and Karpov is not someone to overlook errors. He had a 20 minute advantage over his opponent, and he chose a continuation which was least likely to accommodate his partner who was facing the agony of playing against the clock. He took two Pawns and then began a direct attack on the White King. Korchnoi recovered from his time-trouble in the 42nd move, when it was already impossible to put up a solid defense against a checkmate. The prevailing opinion is that this was the crucial game of the match. Prior to the match, Korchnoi predicted that it would last 17 games. Obviously, he did not foresee this outcome, but he was right with respect to the turning point in the match.
Game 18
French Defense
After the drama of the previous game, the players seemed to seek a cooling-off period. For the seventh time in the match, the French Defense was witnessed in the eighteenth game. Playing White, Karpov found a better system for developing play and his edge was noticeable. He may have even had better outlooks for the continuation, but the match had clearly entered a routine, “technical” phase in which Karpov endeavored simply to preserve his lead in the match. He suggested dividing the point, when it was already evident that there was no sense in playing any further.
Game 19
Bishop’s opening
Finally, after seven weeks, Korchnoi scored his first win! In his entire chess career, Korchnoi, renowned as a player who “always plays to win”, had never before been in a situation where he had not recorded a single victory in 18 roux This barren play is one of the enigmas of the match. Many saw the nineteenth game as Korchnoi’s “final battle” and last chance to attempt to amend the result. He used a new opening, castled, and made it clear that he was going on the offensive. Karpov, however, once again proved to be a “magician” in defense. He attained a very good position, with perhaps only a slight edge, and with the prospect of achieving an easy draw. In the fifth hour of play, as on earlier occasions, the positions assumed a sharper tone during the long tacking which took place. Karpov was careless and the’ match was adjourned with Korchnoi in a better position. The continuation was highly dramatic. During the extremely difficult end-game, Korchnoi’s precise play brought him his first victory in the match. This was Karpov’s second defeat in the Candidates’ Matches.
Karpov’s defeat in the 19th game was the subject of considerable commentary. Many thought that he had committed an oversight in the 54th move by not playing 54. . . g2. Immediately after the game, however, Korchnoi said that this continuation is also a losing one. Karpov later agreed with him. This was clearly the result of a faulty analysis on the part of Karpov’s seconds.
In the nineteenth game Korchnoi complained to the judge that his opponent was staring at him. Allegedly Karpov does this when it is his opponent’s turn to make a move, and Korchnoi says that this distracts him. During a brief discussion during the game, Karpov accused Korchnoi of doing the same and said he could prove this by photographs showing that this was so.
After this game Korchnoi resorted to some kind of “protection” from his opponent’s staring, and appeared at the following g with dark glasses! It was generally known that during the Candidates’ Tournament in 1959 P. Benko played the game against Tal, wearing dark glasses, for there were rumors that Tal hypnotized his opponent with his penetrating dark eyes. Maliciously, Tal thought of how to disprove his opponent’s allegations on the spot, and he himself wore dark glasses which he had borrowed in the meantime from Petrosian!
Game 20
Spanish opening
Once again Korchnoi asked for time out, and instead of November 6, the game was played on November 8. Now both sides had postponed games twice. As the match drew to a close, Korchnoi was pressed for time. It was he who had to assume the offensive. In the twentieth game he tried to surprise Karpov with a rarely played variation of the Spanish game. The fact that he contemplated his 11th move for almost 30 minutes reflects the difficult position he was in. He decided to return his Pawn in order to remove his King from the centre. The game which had started out so dramatically, however, ended with Korchnoi hovering over an abyss and Karpov not wanting to complicate matters. In the end, Karpov had an extra Pawn. Only six moves were played in the continuation with the younger player proposing a draw, the 16th in the match.
Game 21
Queen’s Indian Defense
A sensation was created when Karpov lost the twenty-first game in only 19 moves, after only one hour of play. Suddenly, the match took on suspense, even though Karpov was still in the lead and was to play White twice in the three remaining games. Believing that he ad set up a “reinforcement” with respect to the fifth game of the match, Karpov played the Queen’s a Indian Defense according to the suggestions given by several commentators. Black’s ninth move already proved to be shaky and by the 13th move an important oversight was made. A sacrifice was made and Black’s defense was suddenly broken. And so Korchnoi was given hope and the practical chance to fight to save both the match and his honor.
Game 22
Catalan opening
As a rule, games are usually postponed after a defeat or in expectation of an extremely important game. Karpov fulfilled both these conditions when he decided to postpone the twenty-second game and thus make maximum use of the player’s right to postpone a game three times in the course of the match for .reasons of illness”. For the first time in the match, Karpov did not open the game with King’s Pawn. He played tranquilly, taking no risks and thus posing no obstacles for Black to even out the game. A truce was signed at Karpov’s proposal, but this did not seem to quite satisfy either player. Now, the last two games were to decide the match.
Game 23
Queen’s Indian Defense
Korchnoi, playing White and with a chance to save the match, did not make use of his “match-ball” in the twenty-third game. “I didn’t find the right opening; I lost a great deal of time with my Knight. I played poorly, and now I have little chance of saving the match”, said Korchnoi after the game.
Game 24
Gruenfeld Defense
And so it was all to be decided in the last, twenty-fourth game of the match. Korchnoi, playing Black, had to try and rescue what he could. Karpov had already ensured at least a tied score. This was the game of Korchnoi’s life, of his entire chess career. Although he had at first said that he would not make use of the possibility to postpone the game, in the end he decided to ask for his last “time-out”. The course of the game, however, showed that it had been illusory to expect any real feat. Karpov played quietly, methodically, leaving his opponent to take the risks. In the end, Korchnoi opted for a combination which did not work out in his favor. He was left with one pawn less. He pondered for a few seconds, and then offered a draw which brought Karpov victory. Korchnoi extended his hand to his opponent and then left the stage. This may have marked the departure of a fine veteran of world chess. The large audience greeted young Karpov’s victory with ovations. His fans rushed to the stage with bouquets of flowers. Karpov threaded his way through the crowd to the side exit. People were waiting for him in the streets in elation, as if to mark the birth of a new chess star, the backbone of Soviet chess who would return the world title to the Soviet Union.
In their morning editions, Soviet papers gave Karpov’s victory wide publicity, as he became, next to Mikhail Tal, the youngest world title challenger in postwar match playing. They wished him luck in his match against Robert Fischer.
After the match in Moscow Karpov told journalists in an interview that Korchnoi had tried to create “tension” but that he (Karpov) had tried (and succeeded) not to take any notice. Korchnoi in his turn said his opponent’s behavior irritated him, not that there were any major incidents, but just “minor” details which bothered him.
Several prizes were awarded at the final ceremony. The prize fund in this match was 4.000 Rubles, of which Karpov got 2.500 and Korchnoi 1.500 Rubles.
Victor Korchnoi considers that the match was highly militant and strenuous, but that the quality of the games was poor. He considers that he played no worse than Karpov during the match.
“Right up to the 17th game I believed I should win the match although my opponent was in the lead. After the unfortunate defeat in the 17th game, I realized that I should lose the match. I am sorry about that 17th game. After winning in the 19th and 21st game I had some practical chances”, said Korchnoi. However, he went on to say that in the 23rd, decisive game, he did not make an adequate opening and so lost his last chance of achieving a draw in the match.
Korchnoi is not impressed by his partner’s playing and does not predict a great future for him, even during the match with Fischer. He does not think that Karpov is better than the other grandmasters, but admits that he has unbelievable stubbornness and great willpower which help him to beat his opponents.
It is interesting that Korchnoi considers Fischer is right in demanding that the number of games should not be limited during a match. “With techniques as they are today, one can always play for a draw and maintain a minimum lead”, says Korchnoi.
Anatoly Karpov, the official challenger of the world champion, believes his match with Fischer will take place. Karpov is not willing to compromise on any of the basic conditions of the match (number of games and number of wins), but he is ready to meet Fischer to discuss organizational problems and the venue of the future match.
“I think my match with Fischer will be played, says the young Soviet grand- master. I hope that FIDE will not change its decisions. Such changes might be rash or made under pressure from various national federations. I do not think this is in the interest of world chess. FIDE should have fixed rules and regulations and a firm system of matches, this should be its “constitution” which cannot be altered, even by the President, or any one in fact. These are laws which should be respected, no matter who is President of FIDE or world champion.
I do not think Fischer’s conditions are good. If he is the most powerful chess player, as he claims, it is hard to understand why he should insist on a match being played until ten wins and not six. Why should he want a match to be played with no limit on the number of games, why does he prefer this? That is not clear. Perhaps he thinks this suits him better, because he is stronger, physically. Perhaps he is stronger, but he is not tougher than I am. In my opinion playing a match of 50 games means having had enough chess for a lifetime”.
Karpov says that he does not approve of FIDE-s decision in Nice to change its previous ruling, and agree that the match be played to ten wins, with a restriction on the number of games, the maximum being 36. “There was no point in changing the earlier decision to play to six wins. That is what I am for — six wins, and the maximum number of games 30”.
Karpov does not approve of the formula of the match laid down by the FIDE congress, but h respects this decision. Fischer’s proposals on the basic conditions of the match, he considers unacceptable and he will not compromise on this with Fischer.
“His conditions do not suit me at all, they are unacceptable. Asking for two point’s advantage is not a serious request when coming from a world champion”.
During an interview with Karpov in the Hotel “Rossiya” journalists asked him whether he would like to meet Fischer and talk to him.
“I would gladly agree to such a meeting. I should like to consider all problems during a friendly talk; I should like us to discuss the venue of the match and other questions. But I would not be prepared to discuss the basic formula of the match which has already been adopted at the congress. There can only be compromises on other questions. I would be willing to have a meeting with Fischer in some neutral country”
Q: What are your views on Fischer?
A: He is a chess genius. All his victories were convincing, he deserves to be the world champion. He has faults both as a player and as a man. It is important to find out what a player’s weaknesses are, and then one should know how to take advantage of them later. The former is possibly the more difficult.
Q: All in all, what are the chances of the match being played?
A: I think the match should take place. I must believe that it will, otherwise I shall lose. To believe that the match will not be played is very dangerous. It might mean defeat. I must prepare myself, even if there is no match eventually.
Q: What are your chances in the future match?
A: I think that in the first place I need a rest, and then sound preparations. If I can neutralize Fischer’s strength in the theory of opening and if I make sound preparations, I think I have a chance of winning the match. But it will be the most difficult match I have ever played. As to Reykjavik, it is easier for me than for Spassky, for I have his experience in the match with Fischer in Reykjavik.
Q: Why did you say earlier that this was not your cycle, was that just bluff, or were your opponents weak?
A: It was no bluff. In principle, in view of the objective situation as a whole, I was not a favorite in this cycle of Candidates’ Matches, mostly because of insufficient experience. Take my match with Spassky. I only had a short experience in matches and he had already played two cycles, and three matches for the world champion title, to boot. On the other hand, taking each of my opponents individually, I could count on success, I had a chance with every grandmaster, and this is what happened.
Korchnoi was Karpov’s most formidable opponent in the Candidates’ Matches which he had this year. Karpov gave a detailed analysis of the match just played.
“It was a difficult match, it was hard fighting in each game, and we played literally to the last breath, and in several games down to “bare Kings”. That is how chess ought to be. With the exception of my two mistakes (analysis of the continuation of the 19th game and the opening in the 21st game) there were no gross faults in the match. There were minor mistakes and faults on both sides however”.
Karpov then gave his views on the quality of the game and on the large number of draws during the match.
“I think the quality of the games was at a high level. We both proved to be better in the defense. Defense overshadowed attack. This stubborn defense is the explanation of so many draws. Karpov says that Korchnoi could have won the 17th game, but that he should not have won the nineteenth. In that game one might say I did my best to lose” says Karpov laughing. “Otherwise he considers that the second game was the most effective and that the 13th was the best, actually the most profound”.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | Total | |
| Korchnoi V | = | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 0 | = | 1 | = | 1 | = | = | = | 11.5 |
| Karpov A | = | 1 | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | = | 12.5 |
In one of his interview after match Karpov comments to Damsky some moment of the match
Q: Could you divide the match into stages?
A: Yes, I can do that. Apparently, it could be divided into four stages. The first one was the first 6 games. The second was the next 10 games, from the 7th till the 16th. The third one was from the 17th till the 21st and the fourth stage started with the 22nd game and finished with the 24th game.
Q: How could you characterise those stages?
A: At first I was playing quite confidently and gained two wins. Then the series of draws followed. However, all draws were gained in battles. Neither Korchnoi, nor I could take an upper hand. The 17th game could be considered a decisive; it was a crucial moment of the match. By the way, that very game ultimately resolved the outcome of the whole match. But in the course of the match, that game had more influence on me, rather than on Korchnoi. Therefore I had a bid advantage in the 18th game, but I failed to bring it to the victorious end. Then I lost the 19th game and there followed a catastrophe in the 21st game… At the last stage of them match I managed to take hold of myself and concentrate my energy left by that moment. I managed to play the next three games at comparatively high level. I had only small insignificant inaccuracies in those games, which were hard to make use of in normal conditions, to say nothing of the third month of the match…
Q: How could you explain the 21st game, which was surprising and even incredible?
A: That was a fantastic mistake in the analysis! I could not understand how all three grandmasters looking at that position could be so blind. Perhaps, the matter was in the recently formed group of coaches. I t also might have been a simple lack of attentiveness… So, they overlooked the move K:h7.
In his biography, Korchnoi described some background sides of the match:
“During the match, Karpov and I had been engaged in an obscure psychological struggle, the initiator of which was my psychologist friend. From the stage Karpov had immediately discerned him as an enemy, whom he thought was trying to exert influence on him from hall, to hypnotize him. He requested help, to his assistance was summoned no less a person than one of the best psychologists in the country, working in a centre on the outskirts of Moscow with the Cosmonauts. I would not say that he disturbed me; the task of this Doctor of Sciences was to render harmless my assistant, who by comparison with him was a modest amateur. My psychologist, Z, suggested that I utilize Fischer’s experience and try turning up late for the start of the game by five or six minutes. It worked: Karpov was as angry as the devil. But it is not in the character of Karpov to forgive anybody for anything. He also began arriving late, mainly for the adjournment sessions and here he broke my record. For the adjournment session of the fifteenth game, he arrived thirteen minutes late, just so as to agree to a draw! There were also psychological nuances at the start of the games, when one of us approached the board and shook hands with the other. In life, if I am not mistaken, it, is considered that a young person should show respect to an elder. But not in this match. By his behaviour Karpov gave me to understand that he was the favourite, and that he was permitted to do anything he pleased. At the end of the match he no longer stood up when I arrived to shake hands with him.”
And Korchnoi continued with the closing ceremony:
“The closing ceremony took place. There were speeches, they called Karpov a genius. There were special prizes, of which some came my way. The prize for ‘The will to win’ was of course awarded to Karpov. With one accord, the press broke into praise of Karpov’s brilliant victory. The chess press was less loquacious. A few heavy tears of emotion were shed on the pages of 61 by Petrosian and Gufeld.
In his interviews Karpov, as was customary, demonstrated the logical nature of his victory, and his complete confidence in himself over the whole course of the match. They tried not to recall the name of his opponent. Karpov had won brilliantly, he had simply dragged things out a little, but then what reason was there for hurrying! No one asked me for my thoughts!…”
A long analyse of the match by Korchnoi was published… in Karpov’s biography:
“The match has concluded with the score 3—2 in favour of Karpov. But in the creative, chess, sense, in my opinion, I showed myself to better advantage than Karpov. The course of the match should have given a different result—3—2, 4—3 or 5-4 in my favour. But what turned out to be important was the stress factor. In my opinion, Karpov does not possess the powerful arsenal of other leading grandmasters, but he is a person of exceptional will-power, and is able to impose it during play. Karpov outplayed Polugaevsky, because Polugaevsky was overwhelmed by his will-power… I underestimated this strong-willed characteristic of Karpov, and it would have been better to overestimate it. But not to overestimate it as much as Polugaevsky did…
In the first half of the match Karpov as White played to win in every game. When I managed to equalise after the opening, I thought: well, the position is equal, a draw should now be agreed, since for both sides it is dangerous to take a risk. But here Karpov would sit, and after due thought, would find a way of complicating the position and of creating difficulties for me, forcing me to struggle on, and then after adjourning the game, would try to wear me out. Such an ability to force a struggle provoked in me well respect. This caused both Polugaevsky and Spassky a great deal of trouble—they were both overwhelmed by his will-power.
Probably before the match I, like Spassky, underestimated his strong-willed characteristics. If I had been fully aware of these characteristics of his, then perhaps I wouldn’t have given him a ‘start’ at the beginning of the match, as I allowed myself to. At the start of the match I, almost intentionally, placed myself under attack. But at the beginning of the match I did not attach great significance to the results of individual games. Well, a point more, a point less, I thought, 1 the same it’s the first to win five games. And so I allowed myself in the second game to play extremely risky Dragon Variation, which I had analysed for several years, and which I knew was dubious. Perhaps if from the very start I had held onto him as tightly as he did me later, he would not have been himself. The mutual pressurizing began only when the score vas 0—2, and until then the pressurizing had been all one way…
Before the match I paid particular attention to my physical preparation. And indeed, the match turned out to be long and nervy. As regards nervous strain, perhaps the only one to compare with it was the Spassky—Fischer match, in which there were no short draws. But even so, the average length of the games in our match was probably longer than in that one, and demanded greater physical exertion. And so, I paid attention to my physical preparation, and physically. I was in the main able to last out. Although to be frank, by the twenty-second game, when I was close to levelling the score, my strength was nevertheless on the wane… When in 1971 I played against Petrosian (that same Petrosian who does not allow you to take a fight of it), I was able to draw some conclusions, and I felt that I was now able to breach such a style. And here I came up against a similar style—Karpov would not allow a close-range fight—and again I failed to breach it, and only expended massive efforts on the approach.
I would divide the match into three parts. In the first part the young pretender did all the pressing, and this lasted roughly from the first to the tenth game. He pressed and pressed in each these ten games. Then came the stage of fatigue, which perhaps affected my opponent more than me. It is no accident that between the eleventh and eighteenth games Karpov twice called for a postponement… And, finally, the third part of the match, when we were both tired, and although I began to catch up, I didn’t have sufficient strength left. I repeat, although in the chess sense I had the advantage, I had insufficient strength to crack my opponent’s resistance. The quality of his play at this point was very negative—anything, so long as he could keep me bay. At any rate, that is the way it appeared to me, although perhaps from the side it appear different.
Before the start of the match I assessed my chances as sixty—forty. Even now I would change my opinion. Regarding my assertion that the match would only last seventeen games, in this there was, of course, an element of boasting. I thought that the struggle would be livelier.
Why did I lose the sixth game? On that day I was simply not in the mood for a fight. Ever player has days when he is not in the mood. Fischer, during the most fighting stage of his mate against Spassky, failed to win with an extra pawn in the seventh game. The only way I can explain this is that on that day he was not in the mood for a fight. In exactly the same way, or that day I would have lost any game, and I was lucky that I hadn’t played the French, since then I would have been simply crushed in the match, by being deprived of my main opening weapon. On losing the sixth game I sensed that things were going to be difficult for me, and that I would be unable to win the match in seventeen games. I started to do the pressing, and held the advantage and winning chances in the tenth, eleventh, thirteenth, fifteenth and seventeenth games. But this only ended with me losing one game, and not winning any. The thirteenth was perhaps the turning point. Before that too things had been distressing. But then the thirteenth… When I failed to win it, I was visibly upset. After all, I had been pinning my hopes on the second half of the match, assuming that physically I was stronger than my opponent. But here I sensed that I myself was beginning to tire, and for the first time began to have doubts about the possibility of me winning. And when I lost the seventeenth game, I decided that the match was over, and that I didn’t deserve any other result.
But even when I thought that the match was over, I did not give in. I managed to win a couple of games, but this did not change my conviction. I no longer had sufficient physical strength, and I was unable to make the decisive break-through. I was in low spirits, although I had not lost the will to win. I was further tired because in the middle of the match I had had to do a great deal of research work myself—I had been unable to persuade a single grandmaster to act as my second…”
More opinions:
Max Euwe: “The Final Match just concluded was without doubt an encounter worthy of those seeking the title of World Champion. It took the course of a difficult, exhausting struggle. The match was interesting, in my opinion, in the sense of a psychological duel between two very evenly- matched opponents”.
Boris Spassky: “This was Anatoly Karpov’s cycle. All his matches—against Polugaevsky, against me, and against Korchnoi—he won well. At the present moment Karpov is objectively without doubt the strongest player.
In its duration the Final Karpov—Korchnoi Match was equivalent to previous matches for the World Championship. Karpov’s play was, so to speak, technically powerful; he did not fully disclose his creative potential. Such a strategical plan appears to me to have been the correct one. It has to be borne in mind that it was Karpov who was the first to have to endure the increased strain of the new regulations for the selecting of the challenger.”
Tigran Petrosian: “I have taken part in many Candidates’ events. I have also played matches for the World Championship. The experts and the players are normally of the opinion that such high-level events do not justify the creative hopes expected of them. I think that one can make the following comparison: in studying and improving himself a player as it were accumulates capital, but when it comes to an event towards the World Championship, he only uses up this capital. There is nothing surprising about this. Everything is subordinated to one aim—that of attaining victory.
Someone said that the Karpov—Korchnoi match did not live up to its hopes in the creative sense, and was uninteresting. But this is a superficial point of view. There were a number of excellent games in the match. For instance, irrespective of whether Karpov found the variation at the board or whether it was the fruits of home analysis, the idea of the attack which he carried out in the second game, in the Dragon Variation, with its sacrifices on the fifth rank, could serve as a creative rehabilitation of the entire match. And to demand from grand- masters who are fighting for the World Championship that their games should be only creative discoveries, is unjust”.
On the match and Karpov, the great Mikhail Botvinnik gave an interview in Moscow in January 1975
Q: Mikhail Moiseevich, every qualification cycle is at the same time similar and not quite similar to the previous candidates’ competitions. What were the peculiarities of the recently finished cycle?
A: Of course, the main peculiarity was the new match regulations. They have been much written and spoken about, so there is no need to repeat. I should only note that if Fischer had to play 21 games three years ago in a similar contest, Karpov played 43 games. Thus, it was more difficult for Karpov.
Q: Experts, when trying to foretell the outcome of the match, say a well-known phrase before the end of the match: “Let the strongest win”. Can one assert that Karpov is the strongest grandmaster in the world after the world champion?
A: I think so. Facts and statistics are a good proof of that. He beat Polugaevsky and Spassky comparatively easily with a convincing score. As for the final match, we should closely look at its progress. Karpov was always leading. When it seemed that everything was solved – 18 games were behind, the score was 3:0 – the young grandmaster lost the feeling of danger and had to pay for it immediately. After Korchnoi’s victories in the 19th and 21st game, the score gap became minimal and the veteran had real chances for saving the match. At this moment, in a difficult situation Karpov showed his strong sportive features. He played the last three games nearly without mistakes, leading the match to the victorious end. It seems to me that there is no other chessplayer no, except Fischer, of whom we could say: “He is stronger than Karpov”.
Q: As we have already started talking about Karpov-Korchnoi match, maybe you could somehow characterise this match? We would like to know whether both opponents had approached the match in their best sportive shape?
A: We should ask the participants about it. I personally think that Karpov was in a better shape when he met with Boris Spassky. As for the creative side (I already wrote about it), it seemed to me that neither of the opponents was well prepared. Korchnoi would stubbornly repeat the New Indian Defence with White, which did not bring him any profit. Karpov, also without any good reason, would opt for the French Defence, which suited his opponent. It looked like both of them were not properly prepared to play with White. Apparently this fact somehow spoilt the creative component of the match. However, this match gave us a series of very interesting games. These games were played on a very high level.
Q: Mikhail Moiseevich, it is known that you estimate the probability of the Fischer-Karpov match for the world champion title as very problematic. Could you explain, what is the basis of your conviction in that the match expected so much by the chess public would not take place?
A: I can explain my opinion. Chess players have not seen Fischer for a very long period of time. Since September 1972 he has not played a single game. No one has an opportunity to talk to him. Perhaps, only those people, who are close to him, still have this opportunity. Most likely, something is wrong with him and he has some problems with health. If it is so, he will hardly be able to stand the tension of an exhausting match. That is the main reason, which makes me feel sure about it. Anyway, all chess players should hope that this match would take place. It is hard to overestimate the significance of such match between two outstanding grandmasters for further development of chess. Karpov needs this match. It will enrich his chess outlook and give him a huge creative impulse to accelerate his growth.
Q: We would like you to dwell on the issue, which is interesting for many of us. People say various things about Fischer. Very often one can even hear contradictory judgements. Sometimes these judgements are nonsense. What’s your opinion of Robert Fischer as a person?
A: He is very impulsive, which makes him look different from what is supposed to be a normal person. Sometimes, Fischer has a difficulty in making absolutely evident solution. He is very strange. I have a second edition of his biography. It comes abruptly to an end precisely after his victory in the world championship match. One could see well, how a cheerful boy was first turning into a worried young man. In 1972 this face became morbid. But those, who saw Fischer at the chessboard and during analysis, can say, how pleasant and nice he can be. He can be simple and natural. He loves chess fanatically; he is endlessly devoted to it. Chess is his life.
Q: Mikhail Moiseevich, if the match still takes places, what are the chances of the opponents?
A: Nobody knows this. First of all, nobody knows how the challenger would play. He can excellently program himself for a next competition. Besides, Karpov is quickly progressing. He will become much stronger in half a year. What is not clear is the sportive shape and physical state of the champion. I have already said that he has not played a single game for three years. Fischer has an exceptional ability to prepare himself for a tournament. However, such a log period of idleness would surely have a negative effect on him. Anyway, even if he would be not a bit weaker than in Reykjavik, he would have to face the most difficult task.