Ex- World Champion M. Botvinnik tried to guess who will emerge:
”So all 8 participants of the Challengers’ competition have been determined. Many are excited by the question as to whether Taimanov will be able to stand up to Fischer. Here one ought to point out that tournament play is different from match play. Fischer has no experience of match play and it is just here that one ought to be a subtle psychologist. Any by good training it is possible to make up for the great talent and strength of Fischer. Moreover, in the quarter—finals 10 games must be played in all.
In his time Alekhine said that I could be a challenger for the war championship as I had a sense of danger. … This is an important factor. Spassky also had this sense of danger. But it is not strong enough in Fischer. In the Interzonal tournament, Taimanov did all that he could and took the maximum possible. He knows haw to train, and or his match with Fischer he will certainly have to prepare himself better than his opponent. And so I do not consider Taimanov’s position hopeless.
As far the match between Petrosian and Huebner, if Petrosian is physically fit, the young German player will not be able to put up much opposition against his positional mastery. After all, this was the first great success for Huebner. He is young and it is still early to talk about his strength. At any rate Huebner possesses a good sporting character. Not every one is capable of winning 6 games in a row at the finish of an Interzonal tournament. And it is worth noting that at the moment the score in games between Petrosian and Huebner is 1—nil in the German’s favor. In 1965 Huebner beat the world champion during a session of simultaneous play.
One can also predict the result in the match Larsen—Uhlmann. Here one ought only to bear in mind that they are both easily carried away, and the match between them might contain same surprises.
As for the match between Korchnoi and Geller, this is on encounter of strong and equal opponents. They are both exceptionally talented players. Their match will be sure to arouse maximum interest, but I will not risk predicting its result.
This means that in the semi—finals, in all probability, Fischer will meet Larsen, and Petrosian the winner of the Korchnoi—Geller encounter, and in the final the Soviet Grandmaster will have to play one of the strangest Western players — Larsen or Fischer.”
Fischer-Taimanov
Scheduled in Milan but then fixed in Vancouver, Canada, the world awaited with great interest the first match involving Fischer and a Soviet GM. The final score of 6-0 was sensational. It was the first time at this level that a Candidate reached such performance. Yes Fischer was too strong but also Taimanov played at a very low level saying that his second and fifth games were played at the level of a beginner! The performance by Fischer may be the best in statistical terms and can be compared with the match Steinitz-Blackburne 7-0 of London 1876 or Capablanca-Kostic 5-0 of Havana 1919.
At the eve of the Candidate’s matches B. Kazic (YUG) interviewed B. Fischer for CLR:
“The program of match is “not bad” but the road to Spassky would not be an easy one.
I cannot tell you who would suit me best as an opponent. This would mean giving away my strategy to my opponents, giving them an important fact,” says Bobby.
Q: Do you think the Soviet grandmasters are afraid of you?
A: I don’t know—you should ask them.
Q: After the 1962 Candidates Tournament, you stated in Life Magazine that Soviet grandmasters play as a team in individual tournaments. Do you still think so?
A: I said so then because the tournament was really a farce. In tournaments with many players from one country the others have absolutely no chance. Look at Reshevsky in the 1953 Candidates’ Tournament. He was completely helpless with so many players from the same country. The system of matches is better. There have been no Candidates tournaments since 1962, so the situation is different now.
Q: Many believe that in the event you become the world champion, there will be great complications because of the various conditions you would make. What would you change or ask to be changed, should you become world champion?
A: First I would ask that the system of Candidates’ matches be changed so that they would really show the relative strength of the two players. I would suggest that the matches should be won by the player who first wins six games, drawn games not counting. At present the matches are short, and if a player should win a game by luck, this would be a big handicap for the other player in a short match. Also, I would suggest that the match for the world title should consist of a fixed number of victories, with draws not counting. I don’t know what the prizes are in the world championship match. Twenty-five thousand francs, all told? I think that should be increased. I would leave the Interzonal as it is. It lasts too long, but it is played only once in three years. Of course, I stand by my list of playing conditions which are already known. You have them too? Here at Palma the organization is poor, the spectators are too close to the players. But my conditions remain unchanged.
Q: Some say that you play chess for money. In Belgrade you told me that what attracts you is the fact that you can make money more easily playing chess than by doing anything else.
A: It is not true, that money is the only thing that attracts me to chess. I said that I am also attracted by travel, the atmosphere in tournaments and the play itself. Otherwise, if it were only a question of money, I could make it also in other ways—on the stock market, for instance, or by similar investments.
Q: Is it true that you received a considerable sum of money in order to participate in the Interzonal? The amount mentioned is $15,000.”
A: This is absolutely untrue.
Q: It is well known that you always play to win. This is attractive for spectators and organizers. Have you had any short draws at all? What is your best game so far?
A: Yes, I like to win. I remember I had a short draw in the U.S. Championship in 1957, 15 moves. My best game so far is the one with Donald Byrne in the U.S. Championship in 1956.”
Few years later, Taimanov himself told about his nightmare in the excellent book Russians vs. Fischer: “I found out the name of my future opponent immediately after the Interzonal Tournament in Majorca. Fischer was the obvious favorite, and when the drawing of lots pitted me against him in the quarterfinal, my friends could hardly conceal their sympathy. For my part, I was not upset at all, primarily because I am an optimist and believe in my lucky star. Secondly, I felt that once I had set my sights on the world title, an encounter with Fischer had become inevitable, and the sooner we met the better.
Few of my inner circle shared my optimism, and the press was almost unanimous in predicting the American’s victory. There were reservations how ever. Botvinnik, for one, said that there could be no question of Fischer’s certain victory. That view was shared by Tal, who said that my best chance was in a sharp play, ‘in which Fischer is not always confident enough.’
The match was six months off, and I began preparation immediately. In order to draw up an extensive and diversified pro gram I consulted Botvinnik: he had been one of my first Chess Teachers and remained an unquestionable authority ever since. I owe him a debt of gratitude for discussing the matter with me and for making many valuable and original suggestions of a practical nature.
First of all, he told me to pick my seconds carefully. Yevgeny Vasyukov, who was a friend and sparring partner, was the obvious first choice but the second candidate raised Botvinnik’s objections: it had been my intention to invite Mikhail Tal, whom I liked and respected very much. But Botvinnik took sudden and resolute exception to this. ‘Both of you are given to Bohemianism,’ said he, ‘and the atmosphere before the match may be insufficiently ascetic for you. I suggest that you take Yuri Balashov instead. Although he is young and not sufficiently experienced, he is an excellent analyst, very serious, and an authoritative ‘Fischer scholar’ into the bargain — his graduation paper at the Physical Culture Institute was devoted to your future opponent.’ I could not ignore my teacher’s counsel although, to tell the truth, I blamed myself for this before and especially during the match. I am convinced that the company and match experience of Tal, who was always full of joie de vivre, would have stood me in good stead during the trying days of the contest.
As to Fischer’s personality and style, here Botvinnik’s insights proved invaluable. A couple of years earlier he had plans for playing a match with Fischer and, in conformity with his approach to preparation, had thoroughly analyzed Fischer’s record and put together ‘a file’ on him, which he generously shared with me.
In addition to the wealth of valuable generalizations about Fischer style, his arsenal of openings, and his fighting qualities, the ‘file’ offered many insights into his favourite stratagems, endgame technique, and so on. Fortunately I still have my notes on this incisive analysis. Here they are, word for word:
In the opening:
— Prior to each tournament Fischer prepares a new variation (sometimes several). He has variations (for example in the Sicilian Defence) that he has analyzed through and through, and plays with ease and confidence.
— Playing White in the Sicilian, he frequently uses the Nc3, Nb3,, Bd3, Be3 , and Qf3 set-up.
— In several openings his preference is for Bg7, d6 and Ne5.
— In unexpected situations in the opening (especially in theoretical positions) his choices are almost always unhappy.
— Fischer does not like pawn ‘chains.’ He needs ‘room’ for his pieces.
In the middle game:
— Against opponents known to be weak he likes to advance forcefully with his K-side pawn.
— He likes clear-cut position. When he enjoys a positional advantage, he welcomes any simplifications.
— In the face of sudden changes in the character of play (e.g. from attack to defence) his responses lack confidence.
— When he loses he does so mainly in sharp positions. ‘Technical’ defeats are few in his case.
— He protects his pawn formations.
— He likes to ‘spoil’ his opponent’s pawns.
— He likes to sacrifice the exchange for central pawns.
— He likes to transfer his rooks via the third rank ( Rf1-e1-e3)
— He likes ‘long’ moves with his queen.
— He likes to advance the ‘a’ pawn against the knight on b3 or b6.
— He parts with bishops easily (frequently both Bf8-b4:c3 and Bc8-g4:f3).
In the endgame:
— He likes a knight against a bishop.
—He likes to send his king on long raids.
— He likes bishops of different colour when there are rooks on the board.
General observations:
— In the past he willingly sacrificed pawns in exchange for mobility and action. Over the years he has become ‘greedier’ toward his material.
— He likes to ‘gobble up’ pawns. In doing so, he some times ‘sells himself short.’
— He has a keen positional sense, enabling him to evaluate the negative and positive features of piece interaction.
— He does not like his opponent to have strong pieces and seeks to exchange them as soon as possible.
— He is an excellent tactician and ‘sees’ a lot.
— When a piece of his is attacked, he often replies by attacking a piece of his opponent’s (zwischenzug!).
Some additional observations:
— No material should be sacrificed to Fischer ‘on general grounds’ atone. If there exists a specific refutation, he will find it.
— Aggressive action by Fischer must be countered!
What a striking analysis! It was a great help in my preparations. All the more pity that I did not prove equal to my teacher’s advice…
All in all, I was well prepared for the match. On the eve of my departure for Vancouver I made the following statement:
‘For many Fischer is a formidable opponent. I hold him in very high esteem. I think he is an outstanding chess player maybe even a genius. But to me he is a human, not a deity. I know that bets have already been made that Fischer will win by a wide margin. I shall do everything in my power make these people lose their money…
At the beginning of May our small but tightly-knit team — Vasyukov, Balashov, the head of the delegation Kotov, and I — took off from Moscow for Canada, arriving in Vancouver almost twenty-four hours later. Fischer had arrived earlier. His team consisted of only two people: Evans, who had been invited as a second, had refused because he objected to Fischer’s two categorical demands — not to take his wife along and to refrain from journalism for the duration of the match. As a result Fischer was accompanied only by his faithful friend and wise tutor Colonel Ed Edmond son, who at the time guided his charge’s every move, except chess moves.
We met like good old friends with Bobby but were immediately drawn into organizational problems. It turned out that our hospitable hosts were inexperienced organizers and the arrangements made for the match were not quite up to the mark.
Although the hotel and other creature comforts were excellent, the mere trifle of the tournament hall left much to be desired. Aware of Fischer dislike of large audiences, the organizers had come up with a back room in the campus library, in which there was hardly enough breathing space… Al though normally I am a very obliging person, I vigorously protested.
Fortunately the matter was settled to the parties’ mutual satisfaction. Eventually Fischer even agreed to a few spectators being present. The organizers found a bigger but nonetheless cozy room seating 200, and after four days of delay the match finally began.
By today’s standards the terms of the match were more than modest. Believe it or not, but the prize money was only 3,000 dollars — two thousand to the winner and one to the loser. Today’s champions would not even agree to play in a small simultaneous exhibition for that money!”
FISCHER: “The 6:0 score does not do justice to my opponent. The struggle was far more intense than the score alone shows. It is easier to be a gentleman after winning than after losing, and therefore I want to congratulate my adversary.”
SPASSKY: “It is very difficult to play against Fischer. He confronts his adversaries with complex problems. Another important factor is the difference in a Fischer is 28; Taimanov, 45. The 6:0 score is awful. But few other contests were as rich in substance. According to expert opinion the present-day Fischer is the most probable challenger in the match with the World Champion. In my view Fischer exhibits immense chess strength. He is a magnificent grandmaster, with a pure, clear style. In recent years he has become considerably more consistent, more solid, and has begun to give fewer interviews. Fischer is a real chess fanatic.
Before the match with Fischer, Taimanov had to solve a whole series of grave problems. Taimanov is the first Soviet grandmaster who opposed Fischer. Taimanov’s chances lay in good opening preparation and being tuned up for a cruel, uncompromising fight. It is hard to play against Fischer — he poses a wide range of problems. It was also necessary to take account of the difference in age (Fischer is 28, Taimanov 45). The American grandmaster has vulnerable spots, though there are not many of them. He likes it when material is sacrificed against him. 1-le gets slightly lost when he does not see a clear strategic plan.
Taimanov’s play in the first and third games was too impulsive. He did not succeed in conducting even one encounter consistently from start to finish. Alter his loss in the third game, Where Taimanov could have played Q-KR3 and posed Fischer more difficult problems, it was all over. But such moves demand concentration, strength of will and iron nerves.
The score in the match was ‘terrible’. Even before the start of the encounter, I had to prefer Fischer’s chances, and only Botvinnik (not counting Taimanov) was optimistic — ‘if Taimanov is able to get through a great amount of work, to choose the correct path …‘ Other grandmasters, and I am one of their number, forecast a victory for Fischer. It was only such a score that was not spoken of.”
TAL: “To say merely that Fischer once again demonstrated his formidable strength would be repetitive. I would like to point out his practically faultless technique, excellent reactions, and keen eye for his opponent shortcomings and blunders. Add to this his absolutely fantastic knowledge of the openings for White. Although at first glance Fischer opts for continuations that are not the most active ones he somehow ends up in his favourite positions, in which he plays like a virtuoso. On the other hand, when he plays Black his repertoire of openings is far from reliable. But then again, nobody is infallible!
As to Taimanov, he has his nerves and his notorious optimism to blame, that is precisely what used to be his strength.”
Larry Evans, US IGM, one of the closest chess-friend of Fischer, in Sports Illustrated analyzed the match: “Admittedly Taimanov was off form, but he played steady chess and offered far stouter resistance than the final astonishing score would indicate. When the Russian had the white pieces he played dynamically, and tried consistently to force the issue and maintain the offensive. Fischer had no opportunity to display the flashy style he prefers and his games ran much longer than usual, for Taimanov would not let him attack.
The main weakness Fischer displayed was a tendency to relax when he had the advantage. In the second game, with the white pieces, Fischer was a pawn up with a winning advantage when the action was adjourned at move 44. When play was resumed he advanced a passed pawn too rapidly, lost it, and came down to the second adjournment with what now should have been an easy draw for Taimanov. In the end, after 9 1/2 hours of play, Taimanov blundered out of sheer fatigue and resigned on the 88th move. So Fischer won anyway, but he would not have against a Boris Spassky.
There were few such flukes in Fischer’s victories. Age, however, was a factor, for Fischer grew stronger as the match progressed and Taimanov, obviously tiring, requested a delay for reasons of health. In the third game Taimanov mounted a strong offensive but wasted 72 minutes on his faulty 20th move-which left him with about two minutes per move before adjournment on move 40. He was forced on the defensive, lost his queen and resigned. The fourth game was a masterly work of art by Fischer, a hammer-and-tongs affair that lasted 71 moves. It was climaxed by Fischer’s stunning sacrifice of a bishop that left Taimanov tied in knots. In the fifth game, with an almost certain draw, Taimanov suffered one of the most humiliating defeats of his career. On his 46th move he chose to take a poisoned pawn with his rook-poisoned because Fischer had merely to move his queen to put Taimanov’s king in check and simultaneously bear on the rook. It was a child’s error, for Taimanov had simply thrown away the rook. The Soviet observers sat in stony silence. Fischer left the auditorium like a man fleeing the scene of a crime.
Fischer’s string of victories cast new light on an old question: Can he become the world champion? Before the match he said modestly that he hoped he or Larsen would play for the title against Spassky. But afterward he said he would be the next champion. “The Soviets have been putting up roadblocks for me for years,” he said. “I am tired of being the unofficial champion. I should have been world champion 10 years ago.”
TAIMANOV: “The match with Fischer was unquestionably the most important and most memorable event in my long chess career. Not only because I was one of the last players who had the honor to cross swords with the legendary and most enigmatic master of modern times but also because the outcome of the match sparked a series of unpredictable events, which dramatically changed the course of my chess career and even my private life.
Whereas before the match I enjoyed the reputation of ‘a model citizen’ in the USSR, hailed not only as a prominent chess player but also as a professional pianist and journalist (this latter point was always emphasized by the press be cause officially we had no professional sportsmen), after the Vancouver defeat I suddenly found myself the target of devastating criticism from all quarters: from the communist party’s Central Committee to my own party cell.
No holds were barred. My honorary title of ‘Merited Master of Sports’ was taken away from me, I was kicked out of the USSR national team (with dire financial consequences), for almost two years I was forbidden to take part in tournaments abroad, I was not allowed to have my articles published or even to appear in concerts as a pianist. All this amounted to a ‘civic execution.
It appeared that some big shot in the Kremlin had decided that a Soviet grandmaster could not simply lose a match to an American — this was impossibility on ideological grounds alone. Ipso facto, my defeat had to be a premeditated act ‘in support of US imperialism.
Of course, the real reason for punishing me had to be camouflaged: after all, what would the rest of the world’s action be to the persecution of a prominent grandmaster just for losing a match, even to an American? So a formal pretext for my public censure was found: it was an alleged breach of customs regulations. Solzhenitsyn’s book The First Circle was discovered in my luggage by customs officials at Sheremetyevo airport, after an unusually thorough search. Although at the time the disgraced author was not yet stripped of his Soviet citizenship and was living in a Moscow suburb, for want of anything better the authorities decided to charge me with bringing ‘banned literature’ into the country (incidentally, trials of Solzhenit syn’s readers had yet to come).
The Chief of Sheremetyevo Customs, an elderly man who knew me, said: ‘You should have been more careful, Mr. Taimanov. If your score against Fischer had been better, I would be prepared to carry Solzhenitsyn’s collected works for you..:
That was not the end of the fault-finding; The FIDE President Dr. Euwe had asked me to deliver a letter and 1,100 Guilders in royalties to my friend, Grandmaster Salo Flohr. The letter ran, harmlessly enough:
Dear Salo, I am sending you the money for the articles pub lished in the Dutch journal’, followed by a few kind words making it clear that I had nothing to do with this communication or the money. Nonetheless the letter was used against me.
What followed was a Sports Committee meeting. The ranking officials in attendance had copies of the translated letter before them. By the expression on their faces I might have robbed the Bank of Canada and smuggled millions of dollars into the country. The Minister for Sports Pavlov, looking very angry, charged me with contra band and the reading of books that he would be disgusted even to touch. The ‘sentence’ you know already — 1 was deprived of everything they could deprive me of. Pavlov even tried to take away my title of international grandmaster, but stopped short, saying: ‘We cannot do that, the title was not awarded by us.
I recall the bitter joke of my old friend the great musician Rostropovich: ‘Do you know that Solzhenitsyn is in trouble (the author was living at the time at Rostropovich’s dacha)? They have found Tainianov’s The Nimzovich Defence among his belongings!’
Help came from an unexpected quarter: Bent Larsen lost to Fischer 0:6, the same score. This had a sobering effect on my persecutors: they could not dream of suspecting a Danish grandmaster of collusion with the imperialists! Although this blunted the attacks against me somewhat, for many more years I felt the effects of official displeasure.”
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Total | ||
| Taimanov M | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Fischer R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6.0 |
Finally, an urgency meeting of the USSR Chess federation was called, it was decided that strong actions should be taken immediately…:
RESOLUTION OF THE COACHES’ COUNCIL OF THE USSR CHESS FEDERATION
June 7, 1971
On the Results of the Quarterfinal Match of the World Chess Title Candidates M. Taimanov v R, Fischer,
After hearing and discussing reports by Grandmaster M. Taimanov, Grandmaster A. Kotov (head of the delegation), and the coach Grandmaster Ye. Vasyukov on the preparation and holding of the candidates’ match between Taimanov and Fischer, the Coaches’ Council states that the match ended in a totally unsatisfactory result, unprecedented throughout the many years that Soviet chess players have been competing in international events.
Taimanov together with his coaches engaged in thorough theoretical and practical preparation for the match, but morale, psycho logical and physical training were neglected.
In choosing the methods of struggle, Fischer’s strong points and exceptionally polished technique were underestimated.
It was decided to draw him into a complex tactical struggle, which required going over a large number of specific variations. This failed to take into account the fact that Taimanov was much older than his rival arid could succumb to the stress ahead of his rival, which is indeed what happened.
The articles published in our chess periodicals placed excessive emphasis on Fischer’s drawbacks as a chessplayer and his human failings, misguiding the chess community about Fischer’s playing strength and the prospects of the match, and this had a definite negative influence on Taimanov.
The Coaches’ Council was derelict in supervising the preparations for the match, relying on reports from Taimanov and Vasyukov. The latter failed to report the results of sparring games, which revealed that Taimanov was not in his best form.
After an unsuccessful start, Taimanov was psychologically disoriented, failed to exhibit proper persistence and staunchness, and made mistakes. Kotov and Vasyukov were unable to help Tai manov overcome his state of confusion. His daily regimen was not properly organized. Too much time was devoted to post-mortems of the games right after play, instead of resting.
The adjourned positions in the fifth game were poorly analyzed, and shortly after the game was resumed Taimanov made a blunder, which distorted the logical outcome of the game,
The Coaches’ Council believes that serious lessons must be drawn from the results of the Taimanov v Fischer match. Supervision of the training of Soviet chess players for important international competitions must be tightened, and coaches must be made more res ponsible for their results. The services of specialists in psychology and sports medicine must be enlisted in the preparations on a bigger scale. They may even be included in the delegations sent to the most important tournaments.
The Coaches’ Council believes that the Soviet chess players continuing the struggle for the world title must treat possible matches with Fischer with a heightened sense of responsibility and great seriousness. The Council charges M. Taimanov, Ye. Vasyukov, Yu. Balashov, and A. Kotov with submitting, by June 20th, a report on the results of the study of Fischer’s playing and the theoretical and practical conclusions to be drawn from the quarterfinal match.
A special meeting must be held in July this year to review the available material and work out recommendations on the openings, strategy, and tactics in playing against Fischer.
The Coaches Council requests the Sports Committee of the USSR to consider sending an observer to the Fischer v Larsen match for a period of 15—20 days and asks the National Physical Culture Research Institute to provide recommendations at an early date on the psychological and physical training of chessplayers.
The Coaches’ Council deems it necessary to ask chess periodicals to refrain from publishing articles that could be used by Fischer in his struggle against Soviet grandmasters.
Chairman of the Coaches’ Council
Yu. Averbach.”
In the strongest Candidate Match organized in May in Moscow, Korchnoi played the oldest Candidate E. Geller who holds well until the 5th game. The score failed to reflect how difficult the victory was. For instance, in game eight, Geller could, with a more courageous approach, claim the victory and thus reduce the score. Korchnoi often played on the inability of Geller to handle his clock and often complicate the matter to obtain unclear position on which he excelled his opponent. No doubt with Geller, 46, it was the right tactic.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total | ||
| Korchnoi V | 1 | = | = | 0 | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 5.5 | |
| Geller E | 0 | = | = | 1 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 2.5 |
Spassky commented the above match: KORCHNOI – GELLER. ”Before the beginning of the match I reckoned that the grandmasters chances were approximately equal, but both had to solve the problems of physical preparation — after all Geller is 46 and Korchnoi 40. Geller’s sporting form proved to be unsatisfactory. The main burden of the struggle was shifted to the 4th and 5th hours of play, but then strength and time were wanting.
Korchnoi’s superiority was exhibited in the very first games, and though after four encounters the score was 2-2, in the next four it was already 3½-½. The match provided much of interest in the sphere of the openings, in the Sicilian and King’s Indian Defenses.
In many respects Geller and Korchnoi are chess antipodes. Geller is purer in style, he is a chess architect. Korchnoi has more flexible playing characteristics. He can defend, he can attack, he is a destroyer of other men’s ideas, he plays the whole game with a colossal expenditure of strength, he is good at calculating variations, and he is stubborn.”
P. Keres did it also for CLR: “As expected, the games were interesting and of good fighting spirit—in the first four games neither player could get an advantage (2-2). But then Geller unexpectedly collapsed, scoring only a half-point in the next four games. What was the reason?
I cannot avoid the impression that this match was decided less on the chess board than on the clock, In almost every game at least one of the contestants was in terrible time trouble—they could hardly make the required number of moves, Of course a good blitz-player has not much to fear from time trouble, but only within reasonable limits. But Geller is already 46 and Korchnoi 40, and at this age severe time trouble usually means serious mistakes. It does not make sense to use almost all your time to find the best moves when lack of time later produces a series of mistakes which usually spoil the whole game In the distribution of time, Geller was clearly the worse in this match, and that was one of the reasons for his defeat.
In a talk after the match, Korchnoi said that Geller was the victim of the tactics Korchnoi chose. He considers Geller’s main strength at the moment to be in relatively quiet positions where he shows superb ability in realizing small advantages. But in complications, ac cording to Korchnoi, Geller has lost his previous reliability and now commits mistakes. Thus, Korchnoi tried to create complications in every game and, as a rule, succeeded. Geller could not discern Korchnoi’s point, and when he did it was too late to save the match.
It is interesting to mention that every game with White was opened by Korchnoi with 1. d4 and by Geller with 1.e4. Sicilians and King’s Indians were played exclusively except for game 5, where Geller chose the normal Queen’s Gambit. Geller scored 2-2 with the White pieces, but with Black he could get only one draw out of four games. One of the reasons for Geller’s defeat, therefore, may be his problem with Black which he could not satisfactorily solve.
In Las Palmas the match, the longest of the four quarter-finals was equilibrated but the issue could be different if in the 4th game Ulhmann with a winning position didn’t blunder. His greater steadiness with the white pieces enable him to exploit his lead and eventually to break Ulhmann’s resistence in the ninth game by a typical process of erosion in the endgame.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Total | ||
| Larsen B | 1 | 0 | = | 1 | = | 1 | = | 0 | 1 | 5.5 | |
| Uhlmann W | 0 | 1 | = | 0 | = | 0 | = | 1 | 0 | 3.5 |
Spassky commented: LARSEN – UHLMANN: ”Larsen is a very interesting chess player and man, a typical Viking, courageous, sure of himself. To the end he is convinced that he is the strongest player in alt the world. There are players whom optimism affects; there are others whom it does not affect.
Larsen is a powerful fighter, possessing an enviable peculiarity — he knows how to pose the opponent complex and unusual problems. Larsen has learned how to prepare the opening part of the game to a fine point. The Danish grandmaster is deeply engaged in chess and enjoys great authority in the chess world. He also has an Achilles heel.He is sometimes distracted, he forgets about the prosaic in chess, about the weaknesses in his own position. He may make an elementary mistake, inadmissible for one of his class. In the quarter-finals he was opposed by Uhlmann — an all-round practical player, posse ssing the entire chess arsenal. Could Uhlmann, with his almost arid, but very reliable, academic style, really standup to the somewhat tortuous’ play of Larsen? Apparently he could. Their match was in effect decided by the fourth game, which Uhlmann unexpectedly lost, and that made, as chessplayers say, a difference of two points. But in general, taking into account the relative successes of both players, the result of the match did not surprise anyone.
In Seville for his first Candidate match Huebner played most of it at the level of Petrosian. A frail, 22-year-old college student, Hubner said before the match, “My chances are absolutely nil.” They were not.
After losing the 7th game Huebner decided to withdraw the match because he couldn’t play in a noisy hall. Unfortunately for him the tournament hall was situated near a football stadium where the same afternoon a football match was scheduled…
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Total | ||
| Huebner R | = | = | = | = | = | = | 0 | 3.0 | |
| Petrosian T | = | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | 4.0 |
At one press conference after the match Petrosian said: “The match, as is well known, had an unexpected passageand an even more unexpected end. Six draws in a row, then Hubner lost the seventh game, resigned the match and went home. What was the reason for this strange finish?
In my opinion, before the match began, Hubner was convinced he would lose. To all appearances, he had come to Seville simply to draw a few games with the ex-World Champion, lose a couple, and then go home. But then the first game ended in a draw, then the next, then the next. . . and however modest a player he might be (and Hubner is a very modest chess-player), he automatically began to think in this way: ‘My powerful opponent is completely unable to defeat me. In that case, why shouldn’t I be able to beat him?’
As soon as Hubner began to think of victory, he began to get nervous as well. In the sixth game the West German player approached the judges and asked them to move the game into another room, because the conditions were ‘very noisy’. The judges rejected this, because the conditions were in fact quite normal. Besides, even if it had been very noisy, the organizers did not have any choice about the playing room. And finally, had we not looked over the hall together before the match and given our assent then? In the seventh game Hubner gained the advantage, but later on I managed to take the initiative and win the game. Now Hubner’s nerves gave way completely. After the game was over, he theatrically tore up the score sheet in front of us and quickly disappeared. Next day we learnt that he had announced his resignation to the judges and gone home.
Independent of the results of the Seville match, Hübner is a very gifted chess-player, and if he works properly at the game, he should have a big future.”
In an open letter published in few chess magazine R. Hubner explained some background to his decision: “From the very beginning, everything seemed doomed to go wrong for me in this match. During the tournament at Wijk aan Zee, this year, agreement was reached between the players and Dr. Euwe, President of F.I.D.E., that our match should commence in Holland on May 1st, but two months later I was informed that these arrangements had been cancelled and that F.I.D.E. had decided to hold the event in Seville. The German Chess Federation raised the objection that the climate in Southern Spain was unsuitable for my health during a strenuous match, but F.I.D.E. rejected this, since no other venue was available at this stage.
The day before play began the arbiter, Harry Golombek, and the players inspected the playing-room at about noon and the environment seemed suitable. However … shortly after the start of the first game, the air-conditioning apparatus created an unpleasant humming sound, and it took 2 1/2 hours to repair this fault. Perhaps I should mention now that my opponent, Petrosian, suffers from a hearing-defect which renders him incapable of picking up even normal conversation without the help of a hearing-aid, which can, of course, be turned on or off at will.
In the subsequent games 2-5, I made no complaint, although I was periodically disturbed by the noise of tramping feet marching over the pavement above the playing-room, which was situated in a cellar beneath a busy thorough fare. And then to the 6th Game — during this game, the noise from the street above became unbearable for me, due to a sudden increase in the volume of traffic. I complained three times to the Chief Judge, Mr. Golombek, that this noise prevented me from proper concentration on the problems of the game, but he was unable to improve the situation or to interrupt the game. After three hours I could no longer endure the strain and left the room for a conversation with my second, Hecht, to decide the proper course in this situation. No satisfactory solution presented itself so I eventually resolved to offer a draw in a favorable position, which Petrosian accepted without a moment’s hesitation and this despite my pre-match psychological decision not to instigate peace offers from my side.
In the evening Mr.Golombek informed me that he had decided that a meeting between players, seconds, organizers and himself should take place to discuss the matter of the continuing suitability, or otherwise, of the playing- room, and to make provision for avoidance of the repetition of this unfortunate incident. Mr.Golombek himself had confided to me after the game that he too regarded the noise in the room as quite intolerable.
This meeting occurred at noon next day (a free-day). Before the arrival of the Soviet Delegation, I requested Mr.Golombek to change the playing-room but he assured me that this would certainly not meet with the approval of the organisers and asked if I insisted on this point, which I did. When the Soviet delegation arrived, Mr.Golombek apprised them of my problems and the sugges tion that a new location should be found. Suetin, Petrosian’s second, conveyed to us that the Russians would not agree to any change, and advanced the following arguments:
At this point, Mr.Golombek proposed that the 7th game should commence under the old conditions, but that play should be transferred to a new room if the unbearable noises recurred. I, however, raised three objections to this propo sal: 1) It would be distracting to change the room while play was in progress. 2)I felt that a further attempt with the old room would be fruitless since there was no reason to expect any improvement. 3) My nerves had been frayed by the happenings of the 6th game, thus rendering me more vulnerable to any distur bances which might ensue.
Nevertheless, Mr.Golombek replied that he would stick to his own proposal, but would take any nervous state into full account. Thereupon I accepted his suggestions.
In the 7th game the noise once again arose after 1½ hours of play, during the rush-hour in Seville. I informed Mr. Golombek that I was disturbed, but he took no action. With the advantage of hindsight I think now that I should have stopped play at this point and refused to play on in the match unless the room was changed. But at this stage my position was very advantageous, so I was unable to resolve on this course. Because of the noise I consumed more time than usual and on move 39 I blundered away a piece in a drawn position. During this game Mr.Golombek passed a statement from the Organisers to my second, Hecht, which described my protest from Game 6 as an attack of hysteria, and which accused me of impolite behavior towards the organisers. In addition they claimed that my protests were without foundation. Now it became clear to me that the rather cool attitude of the Organizers from the very first towards me had been no accident (no rooms when we arrived at the hotel delay of 2 days in Seville before they made contact with me, and so on.). Since it was also clear that the organisers who do nothing to fulfill my justified demands, I decided not to play on and to leave Seville. In a final discussion I wanted to give the Organizers the opportunity to explain and excuse their behaviour, but they insisted on their previous statement and only calumniated me further.”
Spassky added: “In this match the difference in age was particularly great, but the difference in class was also very considerable. Petrosian has behind him three marathon matches for the World Championship. He is a typical match player. Petrosian tries to avoid accidents, which distort the legitimate course of the struggle, and therefore prefers a long distance. His style lulls the opponent to sleep. Petrosian is a very cunning player. It was difficult for Hubner to play against him, but, strange though it may be, it was not easy for Petrosian either. In a short match each game may be decisive. The series of six draws, sometimes short and innocuous in appearance, created a very tense situation. Both understood that with each game the denouement drew closer. In the seventh game Petrosian, attempting to avoid risk, got into a difficult situation, but the tenseness of the struggle told decisively against his opponent. Hubner lost the encounter. The fact that Hubner then resigned the match, although he still had chances of altering the result, did not surprise me. The nervous tension proved too powerful for the young grandmaster.”
Before the semis, Spassky gave his view on the cycle. Spassky said that the American Bobby Fischer has the best chance to wrest away his crown. But he added: “I am not afraid of any chess player.”
Spassky, who is 33, told Pravda: “I am only afraid of poor sporting form, of not feeling right at the time of the match.” The name of his challenger for the world title will be known in October. Saying that he felt Bobby Fischer had the best chance, Spassky said: “These chances, however, may remain nothing but chances. Fischer still has to play Bent Larsen of Denmark who is a battle-seasoned fighter. His sporting, fighting qualities are superior to those of Fischer. But Fischer has the ad¬vantage of being a chess master.” Asked which player he would prefer to meet for the title, Spassky said: “I am not averse to meeting Fischer. But, of course, I wish success to a Soviet grandmaster.” Spassky said he was impressed by the quarter-final match between Fischer and Mark Taimanov of the Soviet Union. “It seemed to me to surpass the other quarter-finals from the viewpoint of the art of chess.
The semi-final matches are bound to be very interesting. Though I certainly do not refuse to make forecasts, I must warn you that I am usually 100% mistaken.
It seems to me that it will be hard for Korchnoi to play against Petrosian, and therefore Petrosian’s chances in this match are preferable.
A very hard battle may occur in the Fischer – Larsen match, in which one foresees a sharp, desperate conflict. Both are uncompromising fighters. They play every game out to the Kings, regardless of the situation in the tournament. It may be that Larsen is a little stronger in spirit, Fischer receives fewer hammer ings. If he starts experiencing disappointments (he loses one or two games), then it is not known how he will behave in those circumstances. Larsen, it is absolutely sure, will pose Fischer a series of complex problems, particularly in the opening. But the American grandmaster will also prepare very thoroughly for the match. Fischer conforms somewhat to a pattern, but his play is essentially sound, and you experience pleasure from it. In general I shall venture to forecast a victory for Fischer; after all, he is slightly the stronger.
If one looks ahead to 1972, then I would like to play a match with Fischer. Do I fear him? Like Korchnoi, I am more afraid of myself. Lasker rightly said that a man is answerable for his labours, but not for his results. I feel well enough in myself, I have ideas, I can progress. But how one’s sporting form will turn out, whether one will be fit for decisive combats, that a chessplayer cannot say in advance. If you talk about a possible match with Fischer, then I am in a good frame of mind. The very thought of such an interesting competition must evoke a creative uplift.
Golombek was quoted in the CC June 1971: “Though the victors were those generally an-ticipated, the manner in which they won was not necessarily as expected. Petrosian, the most experienced of the contestants and a former world champion, was supposed to have an easy passage against Hubner, the youngest of the eight. In fact, this match stood in the balance for quite a time and it was possible Hubner could have won it had not his nerves given way. Korchnoi was reckoned to have a tough struggle on his hands against the formidable Geller, and so it seemed in the earlier stages of the match. But, as the contest wore on, it became apparent that Geller had no longer the stamina and fierceness which used to characterize his play and he gave way much more easily than had been thought likely beforehand. Even worse was Taimanov’s disastrous match against Fischer which he lost by a margin that must be an all-time record. Possibly he may have been upset by Fischer’s antics in continually changing the venue of the match and his outbursts against Taimanov’s walking up and down between moves. Taimanov him¬self says he was not well throughout the match and that he suffered from high blood pressure at the time. However, Fischer’s play is calculated to give any opponent high blood pressure.”
Semifinal matches
In Denver, from 6th to 20th June 1971, Fischer met Larsen and the ‘miracle of Vancouver’ reaped itself. The match was not only for related to the world championship qualification but also a prestige affair between the two leading grandmaster. Like against Taimanov Fischer was just too strong like in boxing match when a heavyweight will fight another low category. Looking to the games Larsen who showed no ability to play for a draw, played a bit like a ‘Kamikaze’ trying to win all kind of unclear or hopeless positions.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Total | |
| Fischer R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6.0 |
| Larsen B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |
Larsen in NIC few years later: I hated to play in Tijuana or something like that or Mexico City. There were no other bids. So I agree with Denver. Otherwise they might have done like they did with Taimanov, when they had the match in Vancouver but with fifty per cent of the budget being paid by the USCF So, the USCF is running the show and that is very unpleasant.
‘If you asked me about mistakes in this match I could say that I might have called the Meteorological Institute in Denmark and they would probably have helped me. I could have asked them, ‘How is the weather in Colorado just now?’ And then I would not have gone. They had the hottest summer in that place in 35 years. And very, very dry. This is not for me. I cannot sleep. It is absolutely impossible. After Round 2, I asked to see the doctor. The bad thing is that the doctor is part of the organization. He just thought that I am someone who always runs around with a high blood pressure and doesn’t believe t hat I am not. He would be ready to have me not play on this day but over the weekend they really hoped to have some spectators. They had very few spectators, of course. I met two young chess players from Denver in the supermarket and they didn’t know that the match was going on there. The United States is like that. That is why such organizers are desperate. He may postpone this game, but it is obvious that he is not going to postpone Saturday or Sunday’s game. I have to just put down my foot and leave or I have to play on. I didn’t put down my foot.
This was a very unpleasant situation and, of course, I had no help from the Danish chess federation. It was very much a question of dry air and a little lack of oxygen. Fischer could take these things better. These things are not the same for everybody, because Fischer was able to play tennis, maybe an hour, just before the game. It doesn’t sound like the best preparation for a game, but the idea is simply to get more oxygen in. He could do that and I couldn’t. These are not equal conditions.
After Game 2 I knew the match was lost. I should have won Game 2. After this game, I considered the match lost. Also that is not normal. Game 3 was played on climatically the worst of these days and I lost a pawn in the opening. All very sad, but, well, nothing to do about it.’
In visit in Moscow, the new FIDE President (elected end of 1970) and former World Champion Dr. Max Euwe answered few questions from journalist
Q: What characterized the current cycle of the world championship?
A: The matches are characterized by high tension. Special interest is aroused with the participation of Fischer, encroaching on hegemony of Soviet chess players. Everybody knew that he had played well, but nobody knew how well. His score in the match with Taimanov was absolutely not normal and that’s why it was too early to make any conclusions… However I was absolutely sure in Fischer’s victory over Larsen, while it would not be so simple. In the match Petrosian- Korchnoi everything would depend on the sportive shape and chances. The one, who does a mistake, will lose the game. Then, even if the American grandmaster won the Soviet finalists, I don’t think that he would be able to win the world championship. Most probably it would be in favor of the Soviet, as Spassky plays very solidly those days.
Q: Where the final match will take place?
A: It would take place in the participants’ countries –if they were the representatives from different countries and which would show hospitality. There were four candidates for that time – Argentina, USSR, USA and Yugoslavia. There is no point to play a short match in two countries; it would be excellent if the participant will play in the motherland of one of them. In a disputable case FIDE would prefer Yugoslavia, which more than once came to the help our federation. By the way they were preparing actively for the holding of the next World Olympiad and even building a special apartment, where a lot of spectators would be able to watch the fight on 200-300 boards.
Q: Most of our grandmasters do not like the championship match system of nowadays…
A: These circumstances make FIDE to look for other alternatives, and I am thinking about changes. Indeed, I think it was logic when ex-champion Smyslov and Tal had to prove their right to fight for the chess crown. It would be possible to avoid it by increasing of the number of places in the interzonal. From the other side it was not correct to deprive new outstanding chess players of the possibility to fight for their sportive rights. Thus it was more reasonable to hold simultaneously two interzonals where the winners of all existing zones would get in and the most deserved FIDE grandmasters would be invited personally.
Q: And what to do with next stage- candidates’?
A: There were two ways: Candidates’ Tournament, as it had been before and Candidates’ Matches as this time. I will prefer tournament. But what ever decision from the FIDE Congress it will be necessary to increase the number of candidates for the final stage. Twenty or twenty five years ago there were only 8-10 chess players who could challenge for world championship. Now Portisch and Polugaevsky, Smyslov are definitely not weaker than those who in matches fought for the right to meet Spassky. It proved that if Candidates’ tournament will be chosen it should be 14 participants, and if the matches were kept, it will be reasonable to add one more round- 1/8 final and attract 16 chess players. The semi-finalists of nowadays Petrosian, Korchnoi, Fischer and Larsen (or Spassky) would have the right to begin their way up from the candidate stage.”
In Moscow, from 5th till 26th July 1971, Petrosian kept his tactic used against Hubner by drawing the first eight games (sometime after hard play) and playing cat and mouse with his opponent. Eventually he won the decisive game of round 9. In the first half Korchnoi showed to advantage, and the pressure he built up with the white pieces in the forth game would probably account for anyone but Petrosian. The Armenian extraordinary defensive power enabled him to survive, and thereafter the match turned in his favor.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Total | ||
| Petrosian T | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | 5.5 | |
| Korchnoi V | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 0 | = | 4.5 |
In his biography, Petrosian explained his “expected” performance: In reality, how is it possible to explain this spate of draw? Imagine two chess players of equal strength, who have been participating in other tournaments together for over a quarter of a century, who know each down to the smallest detail . . . in those 25 years, out of all the games played between us, I have only managed to secure a one point advantage, and that point was scored in 1946, when Korchnoi and I met in a junior tournament. . . .
If we keep that situation in view, then it is no longer so surprising that the draws followed one another. And the struggle was in fact not that peaceful. First Korchnoi held a certain initiative, then it passed to me. Finally, I managed to win the ninth game. In the final, tenth game, I obtained a large plus, and offered a draw, but Korchnoi refused.
As it turned out, the tension of the struggle was so great that my opponent did not realize how difficult his position had become. Later on Korchnoi’s game became hopeless, and when the time for adjournment arrived, he addressed me in the following manner: ‘I could resign here or agree a draw.’ From a sporting point of view, a draw and a win in this game had the same significance, so I replied ‘Of course, a draw.’
When asked for prognoses, Grandmasters did even not mentioned Petrosian and some saw him to win the final against Spassky!
Paul Keres, USSR: “It’s hard to improve on Fischer’s results, although it must be said that his partners seem to be helping him. I think Fischer will defeat his next opponent and play Spassky for the title. The chances will then be equal. Fischer’s weakness many- be his one-sided opening repertoire which makes it easier to prepare for him. On the other hand what he knows he knows thoroughly. So his weakness is also his strength.”
Wolfgang Uhlmann, East Germany: “Sensational! Larsen should have been alerted by Taimanov’s fiasco and played less optimistically. Re is a gambler who took too great a risk in the second game trying to overcome his first loss, and then continued to compound his desperation. Fischer is obviously in colossal form and Spassky is the only opponent in the world who can give him a fight. Spassky’s great strength is his self control. Fischer must guard against overconfidence; lest his winning streak cause him to feel invincible. We still have to see what happens when Fischer has a disadvantageous position which hasn’t happened so far. His match with Spassky is equal.”
Lajos Portisch, Hungary: “Surprising. Astonishing. It’s never happened before. Fischer is probably the strongest player in the world, although I am not quite sure how he will fare against Spassky. That will be the real test. I’d rate the chances as even.”
Svetozar Gligoric, Yugoslavia: “Fischer has good chances to beat Spassky. It all depends on his emotional stability.”
Jan Donner, Holland: “To win two matches in such style is the chess player’s great dream. I’m not a Fischer fan and his play doesn’t strike me as very special. But I must admit I don’t understand his secret completely. I still think Spassky will win because he has a deeper knowledge of chess and a better understanding of quiet positions. But Spassky has a great respect for Bobby’s ability and I fear that subconsciously he may desire him to became the next world champion.”
In September 1971, the FIDE Congress in Vancouver decided that Candidates’ Matches and the final match for the World Title would be played for a fixed number of won games (and not for a fixed number of games). It was then decided that the match for the world title in 1975 will be played for 6 won games, draws not counting”
It was then agreed that in any case it would be necessary to stipulate a maximum number of games for any of the different types of matches in the cycle. This question, however, was not solved. It was decided to postpone the matter to the 1972 Congress (in Skopje). The Bureau of FIDE will formulate a proposal on the maximum number of games to be played in the Candidates’ Matches 1974 and the final match for the World Title 1975”.
Final Candidates’ match
The final match of the Candidates was organized in Buenos Aires from September 30 until October 26 1971. The world was deeply interesting to find out if Fischer would be the first non-Soviet player to reach the final stage since FIDE handled the competition. Fischer started strongly the first game but Petrosian reversed the situation in the second one and by the same occasion stopped Fischer’ counter to 20 consecutive victories. Petrosian succeeded to impose his solid style and the next three games were draw. Then Fischer wake-up and like a storm vanished Petrosian’s opposition. Four games later, Petrosian was completely KO.
In the book Russia vs. Fischer, Petrosian and Baturinsky remembered:
Petrosian: “The time had come for me to play Fischer. I fully realized whom I was up against. An all-out effort was required not only because of the outstanding practical strength of my opponent but also because of the ‘minor details’ that had to be taken into account before the match. The choice of the venue for it was particularly important.
We talk a great deal about psychology in chess, or, rather, about what it is customary to call psychology. To draw an opponent into an unfamiliar position, to spring a prepared variation upon him, and to impose upon him the tactics most distasteful to him are all now scarcely problems of chess psycho logy but, rather, aspects of a rational and practical approach to a chess struggle. In top-level chess, matters are far more complicated. And such complications have long been operating in Fischer’s favour. Long before a struggle begins, he manages to secure all the privileges and conditions he seeks.
At the same time his opponents do not and cannot secure the same privileges. A player feels at a disadvantage when he knows that he is playing in the city and the hall where his opponent wants to play, that the lighting is such as his opponent ordered, that while one of the players will receive a super- purse, the other will not… It is not that without a super-purse it is hard to play chess, but that you unwittingly begin to feel a certain discrimination, a sense of injury, almost of humiliation, All this saddles Fischer’s opponent with a certain complex, something like that experienced in the trenches by troops subjected before a battle to prolonged ‘softening up’ by the enemy’s artillery. Highly and instructive from this point of view the prolonged negotiations preceded this match with the prolonged negotiations that preceded this match with Fischer.
As always, they began with an exchange of telegrams; Max Euwe came to the Soviet Union, negotiations were conducted, and gradually the picture began to clear up. It became perfectly clear that the match would not be held either in the USSR or in the USA. Two other offers had come from Yugoslavia and Argentina…
It so happened that in Yugoslavia I had never played with real success. Naturally, I feared that everything there would serve to remind me of my setbacks. Accordingly, Yugoslavia’s offer had to be turned down. This actually left only Argentina. But nor was I inclined to travel there for a so important match. However, there seemed be no choice.”
Baturinsky: “And so, the die is cast, Buenos Aires has been selected as the venue of Candidates’ Final. On a gray autumn morning our small chess delegation set out on its distant air journey along the route Moscow—Paris—Nice—Dakar—Buenos Aires, a distance of 14 thousand kilometers…
Two days after our arrival, Fischer flew in. After terse replies to the questions of the journalists, he retired to the seclusion of his two-room hotel suite. One evening the Executive Director of the US Chess Federation Edmondson came to see us and get acquainted. He made no secret of the fact that his most cherished dream was to make Bobby the world champion. To some extent Edmond son had managed to find a common language with Fischer and to make him more communicative. The preliminary discussion and finalizing of the rules of the match on this occasion aroused no particular differences.”
With the possibility that for the first time since the begin of the century (Lasker-Marshall) a American player could reach the final stage of for the World Chess Championship, the American press and Sport Illustrated in particular reported with large articles on the match.
The audience in the Teatro General San Martin in Buenos Aires seemed mesmerized as Bobby Fischer took his seat in a leather desk chair and pushed his king’s pawn forward two squares.
One change was the chessboard: Petrosian had objected to the bright colors on the red- and-white layout, and so the red squares had been changed to a dull brown. But the audience for the ninth game was as it had been for the first: entranced with the situation and the Fischer personality. The broad panels of fluorescent lights threw the same pallid, shadowless illumination on the two immobile figures onstage-Fischer, age 28, dark blue suit, dark maroon tie, tall, thin, pale, intent; shifting hardly at all except to move his chessmen or to rest his fingers against his bony cheek or to step into the wings occasionally to take a bite of a grilled-kidney sandwich and a swig of orange juice; Petrosian, age 42, short, square-shouldered, bulky, abundant black hair over his grave Armenian features, bending over the board and peering at each of Fischer’s moves like a diamond merchant appraising a possible purchase. He too was immobile except for a rare walk to the referee’s table for a cup of coffee from his thermos bottle.
Game 1
GAME 1
Nimzo-Indian Defense
For the first game the exhibition hall was crowded for the game. The audience was over 2000 spectators. Spassky elected position of the Nimzo-Indian. In a dearly drawn position Fischer blunders his Bishops for two Pawns with 29…Bh2. It was probably the worst blunder Fischer ever made. Fischer fought on after the adjournment but the position was untenable. Spassky won.
Score: Fischer 0 Spassky 1
The next morning, Thursday, July 13th, the American delegation announced that Fischer would not play the second game unless cameras were removed from the hall. “I can’t think,” he said. “It’s distraction.” Since the film rights for Fischer, Spassky, and the Icelandic Chess Federation were integrally and intricately woven into the financial arrangements of the match, the problem seemed insoluble. Chester Fox (the film company) claimed that he had already made binding commitment to deliver a “first quality product” to various film outlets, and that the cameras must remain. Lothar Schmid cited Rule 21 of the “Rules the Match for the Men’s World’s Championship 1972” as his guideline for retaining the cameras.
Game 2
GAME 2
Fischer forfeited.
Frank Brad present at the stage commented: Spassky appeared on stage at two minutes to five, to a round of applause. At precisely 5 P.M., Schmid started Fischer’s clock, since Bobby was to play the White pieces. Back at the Loftleider, Cramer and Lombardy futilely appealed to Fischer to go to the hall. A police car, with its motor running, was stationed outside the hotel to whisk Fischer down Suderlansbrut Blvd. to the hall, should he change his mind. At 5:30 P.M., with Fischer’s clock still running, Richard C. Stein, Fox’s lawyer in Reykjavik, agreed to Davis’s suggestion that the cameras be removed just for the one game, pending further discussion. When this solution was relayed to Fischer, he demanded that clock be set hack to its original time. Schmid would not agree. As the Arbiter put it, “There must be some limits.”
When Fridrik Olafsson, Iceland’s only grandmaster and an old friend of Fischer’s, arrived at the hall, I suggested that he drive over to the Loftleider to reason with Fischer. A few minutes later, he and Gidmundur Einnarsson sped away. When Olafsson reached Fischer’s room, he was ‘allowed” in, but Fischer said: “Talk to me about everything but the match. I lost interest in it six months ago.” Fischer told Olafsson he would consider playing die game only if his clock was set back. Olafsson relayed this to the hall, but Schmid had already made his decision. When Olafsson left the room, he lamented: ‘Fischer was not very coherent. He was quite upset and he said he thought that there was a conspiracy against him by the Icelandic Chess Federation which he believed was a communist front. There was no opportunity of reasoning with him.”
At exactly 6 P.M., Schmid stopped the clock and walked to the front the stage, and announced the first forfeiture in world’s championship history. “Ladies and gentlemen, according to Rule 5 of the Amsterdam regulations, Robert Fischer has lost the game. He has not turned up within the stipulated hour of time.”
Spassky was given a standing ovation. He said to Schmid, “It’s a petty,” while someone from the audience yelled: “Send him back to the United States!” Harry Golombek added: “It’s an insult to the World Champion and the chess world in general. He seems to have spoiled what had the makings of the greatest match in chess history.”
Fischer immediately lodged a formal protest. Here are excerpts:
July 13, 1972
Mr. Lothar Schmid Chief Arbiter
World’s Championship Match Committee Reykjavik, Iceland
Dear Sir:
I must most vigorously protest your action today in starting my clock when playing conditions were grossly below the minimum standards set by the official rules … and your subsequent action in forfeiting me.
For the past four years of my tournament career I have not permitted any filming or picture-taking while play was in progress. In all events I have participated in, the organizers have agreed in writing to my letter of conditions which I send out as a matter of course to all prospective organizers of chess events who would like my participation. Some months ago I was asked about the possibilities of televising this match and of taking films, still photos and using closed-circuit television, and so on. I was skeptical because the noise, commotion, and distraction surrounding such things . . . had always proved to be an un bearable annoyance to me in the past.
However, I was assured by all parties concerned that modem technology had progressed to such an extent that they could photograph me without the least disturbance, using telephoto lenses in fixed positions behind plate-glass panels, all equipment and supporting structures and personnel and their cameras to be completely out of sight. Tentatively, I agreed, without signing any contracts, that if and when I saw and approved such equipment in opera tion at the match site, that I would allow TV and the other devices mentioned provided they were under my control at all times.
The organizers knew how strict I have always been on the matter of playing conditions. In fact, though from time to time I have compromised on money matters, I have never compromised on anything affecting playing conditions of the game itself, which is my art and my profession. It seemed to me that the organizers deliberately tried to upset and provoke me by the way they coddled and kow-towed to that [film] crew.
You had been repeatedly warned by my representative after the adjourned game and again this morning that conditions must be corrected. It can therefore have been no surprise to you that I did not appear at game time. Yet suddenly, half an hour after game time and only half an hour before the moment when I would risk a forfeit, I was informed that the cameras were being removed at last. I then had a choice of going to the hall and starting play immediately and at a considerable disadvantage in time, a condition for which I bore no fault, not to mention the fact that I could have no assurance on such short notice that thcre would be no problems in future games with camera equipment, and for that matter even during to day’s game; or of going to the hall and facing the necessity of arguing with the arbiter for the return of the clock to its starting position and obtaining a written agreement that there would be no further trouble with the cameras, all this while thousands of people waited uncomfortably in the hall for play to begin. I decided in favor of a third course, which was to allow my time to run out, to be forfeited, even though the forfeit was contrary to the rules under these circumstances, and then to protest the forfeit in writing to you and the committee, as I now do.
As you know, I have been very anxious for people in my own country, the United States, to see this event. It was for this reason that I was willing for the first time to try filming. My personal representative, Mr. Paul Marshall, was assured that the process of filming would not be evi dent to the players. While I wanted TV, and while it could mean a great deal of money to me personally, it is more important that the world chess championship be played under full professional conditions than that I make a personal monetary gain. The rules were designed so that the contestants could play the finest chess of which they are capable. They protect the players from interference with their concentration. My concentration has been dis turbed by an evasion of these rules. I only ask what I have always asked, that the rules providing for proper championship chess conditions be observed. Therefore I request that today’s ruling be reversed. When that happens, and when all camera equipment and supporting equipment has been removed from the hall, I will he at the chess board. I am keen to play this match, and I hope Game Two will be scheduled for Sunday, July 16 at five in the afternoon.
Reykjavik, Iceland
Sincerely, Bobby Fischer
The match committee overruled Fischer’s protest on the ground that he had failed to appear at the game. By FIDE regulations, contestant must make his protest of a given game within six hours after that game has ended. The committee upheld the forfeiture, but not without some trepidation and soul-searching. Notified of the decision and realizing its implications, Dr. Euwe who had returned to the Netherlands, cabled his own decision to Schmid in case Fischer refused to appear at the next game
IN CASE OF NON-APPEABANCE OF FISCHER IN THIRD GAME, PRESIDENT OF FIDE DECLARES IF FISCHER NOT IN THE FOURTH GAME, MATCH WILL BE CONCLUDED AND SPASSKY WILL BE PROCLAIMED WORLD CHAMPION
Euwe’s precedent for this is the FIDE ruling that, in a tournament, a player who forfeits three consecutive games by non-appearance, forfeits the whole tournament.
Score: Fischer 0 Spassky 2