Cycle 73-75
In October 1972, the FIDE Congress in Skopje received proposals from the FIDE President for the 1974 Candidates’ Matches and Men’s World Championship Match 1975 (with the suggestion that the match be played for six wins, while limiting the number of match games to 30). However, he withdrew the proposal concerning the Men’s World Championship match 1975 in view of the time-consuming discussions in the Central Committee about the regulations for the Candidates’ Matches 1974 and taking into account that there is still time enough to arrange the match for the Men’s World Championship 1975. . . In 1973 the General Assembly will decide on regulations for the Men’s World Championship Match 1975.
During the year there were increasing numbers of those who were dissatisfied with the marathon-length interzonal tournament. Also there were increasing numbers of those who expected to take part in this important competition. This induced FIDE President Dr Max Euwe to move that the interzonal tournament be played in two groups in the new system of competitions for the world championship, with 18 participants in each, the three top-placed being entitled to take part in the Candidates Matches.
Thus, in 1973 for the first time, the interzonal tournament was divided into two groups, or rather two tournaments, one of which was held in Leningrad, the other at Petropolis, Brazil. Under the new system introduced by the FIDE Congress, six participants in the previous candidates competition, eight players directly chosen by a special expert commission, and finally two youth world champions were entitled to direct participation. The Zonals produced 20 players for the interzonal. This time the number of Soviet players was much larger, which considerably increased the strength of both tournaments.
It was an extremely delicate matter to divide the players into two groups of equal strength. This task was undertaken by the FIDE President with a group of experts, who were guided by the rating of the players on the Rating List. But, before the tournament had got under way, there had been much polemic as to which was the stronger group: that in Leningrad or that in Brazil. Moreover, Grandmaster Larsen addressed a sharp objection to the FIDE President considering that the division was unfair and that the Leningrad group was much stronger. He based this on the fact that the strongest Soviet players were inserted in that group (with the largest number of points accord ing to Elo), which included participants in the previous Candidates Matches. In other words, although the aggregate rating of each group was approximately the same, a greater number of ‘distinct favourites’ played in Leningrad.
Larsen’s objections were discussed also by the FIDE Bureau a few days before the beginning of the Interzonal at Leningrad, views were divided, but it was the consensus that it was already too late and dangerous to make any changes in the schedule.
Owing to this dispute Larsen’s participation in Leningrad hung in the balance until the last moment.
There were various views both before and after the two tournaments as to which of them was the stronger. To mention some: Korchnoi, in the weekly 64, stated that the Leningrad Tournament was ‘much stronger’. ‘In the first place on the basis of the objective facts: both the champion and the vice-champion of the Soviet Union and the winner of the United States Zonal played in the Leningrad group. Secondly, the participants in the Leningrad group were much younger than those in Brazil.’
W. Kuhnle-Woods wrote on the same subject in Chess Express, having been acting Chief Arbiter in Leningrad and Chief Arbiter in Petropolis. ‘Maybe in Leningrad there were more ‘better-known’ players, whom one considered to go forward to the Candidates. Karpov, Tal, Korchnoi, Larsen and Hubner in one tournament was certainly a big- sized concentration, and Petropolis could hardly muster anything similar. But, upon termination of both tournaments, the difference was not that great as was assumed before.’
The head of the Soviet delegation, V. Baturinsky, back from Brazil, stated that the tournament at Petropolis was more equable than that in Leningrad. Boris Spassky once stated that which was the stronger group was ‘a matter of taste’.
Thus the tournaments started in the wake of polemics — first in Leningrad, and seven weeks later at Petropolis.
Leningrad June 3—28, 1973
The tournament was launched with the mighty assault discharged by I amen, who like a whirlwind raked in 5 points in the first six games! Many thought that he was already at the goal, but as the tournament proceeded Larsen rapidly flagged after the eighth round in which he was defeated by Korchnoi. In the second part of the tournament he was not even the shadow of his old self. After his failure in the championship of Leningrad, Korchnoi gave an excellent showing, and in the opinion of many was the hero of the tournament. He won the greatest number of games (11). He had given up smoking before the tournament, he stuck to a rigid regimen of physical preparations, and not even for his birthday, he stated, did he touch a drop.
The young Anatoly Karpov, the hope of Soviet chess, was the only unbeaten participant in the tournament.
A surprise was served up by Grandmaster Robert Byrne from the United States, who achieved the greatest success in his chess career in this tournament, in his forty-fifth year of age. He played a sound smooth game, and statisticians have found that he was most rational also in regard to the number of moves he played. He had the least adjourned games, and in seventeen games he made 560 moves (an average of thirty-three per game).
Thus Korchnoi, Karpov and Byrne attained their ambitions, having won three top places and the right to take part in the Candidates Matches. It was as though everything else was soon forgotten. According to the general consensus, the three main surprises of the tournament were M. Tal’s failure, R. Byrne’s success and Larsen’s collapse.
But what happened to the former World Champion, M. Tal, one of the main favourites of the tournament? In the second and third rounds he suffered two sensational defeats — against Torte and Estevez. Before this, at various tournaments he had played eighty-four games and was undefeated. in Leningrad his health betrayed him. And so the hope fell through that a Fischer-Tal match would take place, which many had been longing to see.
Petropolis, July 23— August 17, 1973
Here also there were difficulties before the tournament started, øne of them came after the tragic death of Grandmaster L. Stein (USSR). Differences broke out as to who should take part in the tournament in his place. The FIDE President, having consulted members of the Bureau, resolved upon I Bronstein. Thus, following fifteen years’ absence from FIDE competitions, Bronstein returns to the Interzonal Tournament.
Like Larsen in Leningrad, the young Yugoslav Grandmaster Ljubojevic shone at the beginning like the brightest star. He had 5 points after the tenth round, but this fighter of the lion heart, as Mecking called him, collected only 4 points in the remaining seven rounds.
Mecking (Brazil) played a wise game and was the first through the finish, having won first place without a game lost. This was a great triumph for Brazilian chess, which heralds the birth of a new great talent.
In most of the forecasts Portisch was favoured, but by being beaten in the last round by Polugaevsky he let slip a ‘sure’ chance. The uncertainty in regard to the remaining two places had to be resolved in a subsequent three-cornered match between Portisch, Polugaevsky and Geller.
In comparing the two interzonal Tournaments, we shall see that in Leningrad two rounds before the end the situation was clear in regard to the placement of the top three. At Petropolis the mystery remained yet after the tournament was over. The winners in Leningrad won a high percentage of the points (79.4%), a higher percentage was won at in Interzonal Tournament only by R. Fischer (at Palma de Majorca — 80.4%). At Petropolis the tournament winner had about 70%. The age of the participants at Petropolis averaged 36, of those in Leningrad 14 years. The youngest participants at Petropolis were Hug and Mecking (21), the oldest Reshevsky (62). in Leningrad the youngest were Torre and Karpov (21), the veteran was Cuellar (56), who failed to win a single game.
Leningrad, VI, 1973.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Total | |||
| 1 | Korchnoi,V | 2635 | Xx | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13.5 |
| 2 | Karpov,An | 2645 | = | xx | = | 1 | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13.5 |
| 3 | Byrne,R | 2570 | 0 | = | Xx | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12.5 |
| 4 | Smejkal,J | 2570 | = | 0 | = | xx | 0 | 0 | = | = | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11.0 |
| 5 | Huebner,R | 2600 | 0 | = | = | 1 | xx | 0 | = | 1 | 1 | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | = | = | 0 | 1 | 10.0 |
| 6 | Larsen,B | 2620 | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | 1 | xx | 1 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 10.0 |
| 7 | Kuzmin,G | 2565 | = | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | xx | 1 | 0 | = | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 9.5 |
| 8 | Tal,M | 2655 | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | 1 | 0 | xx | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8.5 |
| 9 | Gligoric,S | 2595 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | xx | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8.5 |
| 10 | Taimanov,M | 2595 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | Xx | = | 1 | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | = | 8.5 |
| 11 | Quinteros,M | 2480 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | = | 1 | = | 0 | = | = | xx | 0 | 0 | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | 7.5 |
| 12 | Radulov,I | 2510 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | xx | 1 | 1 | = | = | 1 | 1 | 7.5 |
| 13 | Uhlmann,W | 2550 | = | 0 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | = | = | = | 1 | 0 | xx | = | = | = | = | 1 | 7.0 |
| 14 | Torre,E | 2430 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | = | 1 | 0 | = | = | 0 | = | xx | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7.0 |
| 15 | Rukavina,J | 2460 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | = | 0 | = | = | = | = | xx | 0 | 1 | = | 6.5 |
| 16 | Tukmakov,V | 2560 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | = | 0 | = | = | 0 | 1 | xx | = | 1 | 6.0 |
| 17 | Estevez,G | 2385 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | = | xx | 1 | 4.5 |
| 18 | Cuellar Gacharna | 2400 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | xx | 1.5 |
