Cycle 1982-1984
Interzonal Toluca
After a poor start Portisch recovered well during the second part of the tournament scoring an important victory against B. Spassky and Y. Balashov. The Philippine player E. Torre surprised nearly everyone by finishing into the top two and qualified for the Candidates. After an amazing five wins in a row he was even playing for the first place!
Disappointment for Polugaevsky, one of the favourites like Spassky, who could not recover from his disastrous start and terrible lost against Torre.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Total | T/B | ||||
| 1 | Portisch,L | 2625 | xx | = | 1 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | = | 8.5 | 51.75 | |
| 2 | Torre,E | 2535 | = | xx | = | 0 | = | 1 | 1 | = | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 8.5 | 51.00 | |
| 3 | Spassky,B | 2610 | 0 | = | Xx | = | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 8.0 | ||
| 4 | Ivanov,I | 2505 | = | 1 | = | Xx | = | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | 0 | 1 | 7.5 | 48.00 | |
| 5 | Yusupov,A | 2555 | 1 | = | = | = | xx | = | = | = | = | 0 | = | 1 | = | 1 | 7.5 | 46.00 | |
| 6 | Polugaevsky,L | 2610 | = | 0 | = | = | = | xx | 1 | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | 7.5 | 44.50 | |
| 7 | Seirawan,Y | 2595 | 1 | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | xx | 0 | 1 | 1 | = | = | 1 | 1 | 7.5 | 44.25 | |
| 8 | Nunn,J | 2565 | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | xx | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | 7.0 | ||
| 9 | Balashov,Y | 2555 | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | 0 | = | Xx | 1 | 0 | 1 | = | 1 | 6.5 | 38.00 | |
| 10 | Adorjan,A | 2510 | 0 | = | 0 | = | 1 | = | 0 | = | 0 | xx | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 6.5 | 36.75 | |
| 11 | Hulak,K | 2495 | = | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | = | = | = | 1 | 0 | xx | = | = | 1 | 5.5 | ||
| 12 | Rubinetti,J | 2415 | 0 | = | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | xx | = | 0 | 4.0 | 27.00 | |
| 13 | Rodriguez,Am | 2480 | 0 | 0 | = | 1 | = | 0 | 0 | = | = | 0 | = | = | xx | 0 | 4.0 | 26.75 | |
| 14 | Kouatly,B | 2440 | = | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | xx | 2.5 |
Moscow, IX, 1982.
The Moscow Interzonal was the strongest one with four players possible for only two seats. The young G. Kasparov was probably lucky to survive with a draw after the unclear positions obtained against M. Tal, U. Andersson and A. Beliavsky. However he made a terrible comeback in the second part of the tournament by scoring victory after victory. After few game marathon and incredible blunders against G. Sax or R. Rodriguez, A. Beliavsky was completely exhausted when he finished the tournament but qualified thanks to a decisive victory over F. Gheorghiu.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Total | T/B | ||||
| 1 | Kasparov,G | 2675 | xx | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 10.0 | ||
| 2 | Beliavsky,A | 2620 | = | Xx | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | = | 1 | 8.5 | ||
| 3 | Tal,M | 2610 | = | 0 | xx | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | = | 8.0 | 48.00 | |
| 4 | Andersson,U | 2610 | = | = | = | xx | 0 | = | 1 | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 8.0 | 47.50 | |
| 5 | Geller,E | 2565 | = | 0 | = | 1 | xx | = | = | 0 | 1 | 1 | = | = | 1 | = | 7.5 | 46.50 | |
| 6 | Garcia Gonzales | 2500 | = | 0 | = | = | = | xx | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | = | 0 | 1 | 7.5 | 45.25 | |
| 7 | Murey,Y | 2500 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | Xx | 1 | = | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | 6.5 | ||
| 8 | Sax,G | 2560 | 0 | 1 | = | = | 1 | 0 | 0 | xx | = | = | 0 | = | = | 1 | 6.0 | 37.50 | |
| 9 | Christiansen,L | 2505 | 0 | 0 | = | = | 0 | 1 | = | = | xx | 0 | = | = | 1 | 1 | 6.0 | 34.25 | |
| 10 | Velimirovic,D | 2495 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | = | = | 1 | xx | = | 1 | 1 | = | 5.5 | ||
| 11 | Van der Wiel,J | 2520 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | 1 | = | = | xx | = | 0 | = | 5.0 | 31.25 | |
| 12 | Gheorghiu,F | 2535 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | 0 | = | xx | 1 | = | 5.0 | 29.25 | |
| 13 | Rodriguez,R | 2415 | 0 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | xx | 1 | 4.5 | ||
| 14 | Quinteros,M | 2520 | = | 0 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | Xx | 3.0 |
Once the tournament finished, Kasparov gave the following interview to the Soviet press. Gellman reported:
What Garry Kasparov’s numerous fans had been so long waiting for now finally came true – a 19-year-old grandmaster from Baku joined the Candidates’ cycle of the World Chess Championship. He did it quite self-confidently showing impressive results in the Moscow tournament – 10 points out of 13! Mikhail Tal called his opponents in this tournament “hussars”, young Garry being named a “bully” by him. The young player from Baku showed considerable aggressiveness, gaining his goal one tour before the end of the tournament and finishing 1,5 points ahead of his closest rival. Perhaps, he was just lucky at some moments, but generally his performance strongly impressed chess experts. He never hesitated or missed the chance to make use of his opponents’ errors and some grandmasters were often afraid of him. In short, his fans now have reasons to believe that he will successfully participate in the Candidates’ matches. Some sceptics may say that a match strongly differs from a tournament in its nature. However, we must remind you that even Mikhail Botvinnik had not been sure before the tournament that his disciple would be able to bear this heavy burden, but Garry proved that he was able to.
Our correspondent met with the winner. The grandmaster was in a loquacious and cheerful mood.
Q: Garry, long before the Interzonal tournament you had said that you would try to become one of the winners. Now this task is completed. What helped you? How did you prepare for this?
A: I made by far more serious and solid preparation than usually. Masters Alexander Shakarov, Evgeny Vladimirov and Valery Chekhov assisted me. We had two training sessions. The first one took place at sea in June and more attention was paid to my physical preparation. The second one was held in mountains in August. We worked 7-8 hours daily. I played a training match against my friend, an International Master.
Q:What sportive and creative aims determined your success in this tournament?
A: I have only one creative rule – I always play my chess, never breaking my own style or subordinating it to any sportive aims. Studying the results of the Interzonal Tournament brought me to a conclusion that the main point was to correctly distribute my strength. As we can see now, the victory did not come to those players who had made a quick and impressive start, first scoring many points and then thinking how to preserve their advantage, but to those players, who preserved their ability to fight at the finish, sparing their strength to make a decisive final effort. It had happened this way in Las-Palmas and Toluka and Moscow was no exception.
I tried not to bring the games to the verge of defeat and to control my emotions. I made it my rule to avoid time-trouble. There was a certain lack of time in some games, but I never had a heavy time-trouble. I almost managed to do without any postponed games.
Taking part in the Interzonal tournament for the first time made me feel pretty nervous. It had certain influence on my performance, but the correctly chosen tournament strategy helped me to overcome both nervousness and lack of experience.
Q: It is known that the ex-champion Mikhail Botvinnik was interested in the Interzonal tournament and especially the games of Kasparov. What was his advice for you?
A: I was very lucky to start playing chess under the guidance of Mikhail Botvinnik, who led me to my master’s title. One simply cannot underestimate it. I still consult with him.
We exchanged opinions on each game with Botvinnik during the tournament. He advised me to overcome my nervousness and play with a maximum responsibility in this tournament. At the same time he told me to believe in myself and remember that I had already participated in tournaments with such level of the participants. The main thing was to spare the strength. Aimed at the second place, one could get the first one, he was saying. So, that’s exactly how it came about.
Q: Which games in this tournament do you consider interesting? What is so special about them?
A: In such a tournament, where thirteen games take three years of one’s life, each game is worth talking about – three months for each game. However, each tournament has its key moments. Here it was my encounter with Tal and Anderssen. You may ask me, why I consider these two games special, while they were just draws. What’s so special for me in these games? I applied my new plan in the game against Tal. As far as I could understand, it was a big surprise for Tal. At first, my situation was favourable, but when I had to make a complicated combinational move to bring the game to the victorious end, I opted for another move, which looked quite tempting and by far more spectacular, but passed the initiative to my opponent. Fortunately enough for me this game ended in a draw, but it was some sort of psychological shock for me, anyway. I did not simply err in a game. I made a blunder in the position, where I considered myself to be in my element. It was a position, in which I could make a striking combinational blow. It was an area, where I could calculate almost anything, but it was exactly in this position that I made my mistake. One could hardly imagine my psychological state at that moment. I was trying to forget this game. I did some work to keep my mind off it. But somewhere deep in my mind I saw how I had made this blunder and it affected my next games. It just would keep coming to my mind. Even when I was attacking Beliavsky with piece sacrifice I had an uneasy feeling that I had made a mistake yesterday. So it made me believe that I could err now as well. I tried my best, but something was going wrong.
As for the game against Anderssen, I had a difficult position. What could I do? Should I have been running on the stage showing my feelings to the opponent? No. I chose the best option from the point of view of sportive struggle. I was simply sitting there and looking at Anderssen as if nothing had happened. That was my instinct of self-preservation, I guess. I remember how my self-control helped me in the encounter against Jan Timman in Bugoino when I was simply left without a rook. Timman was waiting for me to surrender as I had no rook, but I kept on playing as if everything was all right with me. So, I finally managed to get Timman into a well-hidden trap taking his Queen.
So, I finally had a feeling that I found a way out in this game with Anderssen. I felt it was a small magic did not let me lose. This game helped me out of my depression. Then I had a finish, which was not difficult. I thought it was high time to start winning, there was no place for escape. From this moment on I started playing normally.
Q: During this tournament one sports edition opined that it was a pity that you could not construct positions to your taste, while being in your element and playing well. What do you think about this opinion? On the whole, what’s your attitude towards criticism?
A: It is always better to make critical remarks to oneself. They always prove to be more effective, especially in chess. However, the remark, which you have mentioned, was true. It was true not only for this tournament, but for chess on the whole. A chessplayer must be able to construct his positions even in the heaviest chess tournament. In the present state of the openings’ theory and efficient defensive techniques one can win only by imposing one’s will on the opponent. It is possible if one makes the opponent go the planned way, where one feels confident and knows every nuance and detail. Practically, that’s already half a victory.
I did not always succeed in this at the Interzonal tournament. I tend to explain it by the lack of experience and my nervousness. I had to go to the unknown area of my opponent, which was very difficult for me. It meant that I had missed something during my preparation for the tournament. Thus, I still had something to work on.
Q: Which was your best game in this tournament?
A: It’s difficult for me to say. From the point of view of wholeness and consistency, it could be my game against the Hungarian grandmaster Sacks.
Q: What can you tell about the performance of other players at the tournament?
A: Exactly as I had supposed, the Soviet grandmasters and the Swedish GM Ulf Anderssen were my main rivals in the tournament. The Cuban player Gillermo Garcia also managed to get into the list of my rivals. Thus, six of us got into the final stage.
The Moscow tournament was very exhausting, more competitive and tense in the sporting respect than the two other Interzonals. Running such distance in a sharp struggle without any breaks proved to be very difficult for Geller, for example.
The same reason as well as a good start – 3,5 out of 4 points – had its lullaby effect on the results of Tal. Perhaps, he thought that the main thing had already been done, but the game against Beliavsky proved to be crucial for him. Thereafter he did not have enough strength for a break-through at the finish.
To my mind, an excessive rationality harmed Anderssen.
As for Beliavsky, I think what he did was a heroic deed. He had so many worries during the tournament! Three defeats! Just look at his game against Van der Viel, where he made use of an extra rook… In the case of his victory he could fight for the golden medal. Next morning he lost a knight to Rodriguez. A heavy blow again. I could not find another chessplayer, who would stand this. In fact, Beliavsky had to fight in the following ten games for the right to become a candidate. After such blows he managed to win in the game against Georgiu. He had also managed to gain a planned victory against the Hungarian grandmaster in an international tournament. Then something else had been at stake though – he had intended to catch up with Spassky in the struggle for the first prize. Here there were whole three years of his life. What a nervous stress those two game must have been for Beliavsky!? Only he himself knew how hard it had been. In spite of all that, he managed to seize control of himself and get ready for the further struggle. That was a heroic deed in sports. So, Beliavsky deserved his right to become one of the candidates for the world chess champion title.
Q: What’s your opinion about the existing system of the Interzonal tournaments?
A: Extremely negative. The system, which makes 14 people fight for two places, creates such tough competitive conditions that any fortuity can become appropriateness. No matter how absurd it may be, competition has an accidental nature as its foundation in this case. This is unacceptable. I managed to pass through this selection, but it does not mean that the system is fair. Anything can happen in this system. The previous system was more accurate and fair.
Q: Now you will take part in the Candidates’ matches. How do you feel about it? It must be like climbing the Everest.
A: So far, we should talk only about the quarterfinals, although deep in my soul I hope to pass through the further selection. However, I don’t have any match experience. Now it is time to stop, look around, take a closer look at the other candidates and evaluate one’s merits and drawbacks. I can tell you for sure that I will make a thorough preparation for the quarterfinal match. If I overcome this barrier, I will prepare for the next one. No matter what will be the result of these matches, they will give me an invaluable experience. One can’t win the chess crown without going through a severe match struggle.
Playoff for reserve place in Candidates matches was organized in Sweden. The match finished with the even score of 3-3 but Tal with a better coefficient was declared the winner.
Malmo, –, 1983.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Total | ||
| Tal M | 1 | = | = | = | = | 0 | 3.0 | |
| Andersson U | 0 | = | = | = | = | 1 | 3.0 |
Las Palmas, VII, 1982.
The Ukrainian Tukmakov was the first leader of the tournament with 5.5/7 but was completely KO after he lost to Pinter, Psakhis and Timman.
Hungarian Z. Ribli’s win is the high-point of his career so far. V. Smyslov, at 61 years the oldest player to qualify for the Candidates Matches, provided yet another star in his considerable crown. His long career las already yielded him virtually every honour the chess world bestows.
Tenth-ranked M. Suba was the unexpected winner of a clear third, hiving beat Bent Larsen in the last round, He matched Smyslov’s tally of six wins, the most won of the event.
Tieing fot 4th/5th were Tukmakov (7 ½-6½) and Petrosian. After Tukmakov finally won his adjourned game against Smyslov, and after his 7th round draw against Psakhis, he was a full point ahead of the pace. However, his losses after Rounds 8 and 9 to Pinter and Ribli presaged his ultimately mediocre showing.
Eighth place for back-to-back Soviet champ Psakhis was a particular disappointment as he failed to achieve the 8 points required for a GM norm. Below the first seven GMs and six IMs, in fourteenth place, was five-time US champion Walter Browne. This was surely the most disappointing result of his GM career.
Finally, the three favourites — Timman, Petrosian, and Larsen — all failed to qualify for the Candidates Matches, which is the next step in determining the challenger for the 1984 World Champion ship match. The reason may be that with the new system of three lnterzonals, introduced this year, so few rounds are played that chance becomes an important variable in the results of excellent players.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Total | T/B | ||||
| 1 | Ribli,Z | 2580 | xx | 1 | = | 1 | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | = | 9.0 | ||
| 2 | Smyslov,V | 2565 | 0 | xx | 1 | 0 | = | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 8.5 | ||
| 3 | Suba,M | 2525 | = | 0 | xx | 0 | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 0 | 8.0 | ||
| 4 | Tukmakov,V | 2555 | 0 | 1 | 1 | xx | 1 | = | = | 0 | 1 | = | 0 | = | = | 1 | 7.5 | 48.00 | |
| 5 | Petrosian,T | 2605 | = | = | = | 0 | xx | 1 | = | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | = | = | 7.5 | 47.00 | |
| 6 | Timman,J | 2600 | = | = | 0 | = | 0 | xx | = | 1 | 1 | = | 0 | = | = | 1 | 6.5 | 39.25 | |
| 7 | Larsen,B | 2595 | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | = | xx | 0 | 0 | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6.5 | 37.50 | |
| 8 | Pinter,J | 2550 | = | = | 0 | 1 | = | 0 | 1 | xx | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | 6.0 | 39.25 | |
| 9 | Mestel,A | 2540 | = | 0 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | 1 | xx | 0 | 1 | = | 0 | 1 | 6.0 | 36.00 | |
| 10 | Psakhis,L | 2615 | = | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | = | 1 | xx | = | = | = | 1 | 6.0 | 35.00 | |
| 11 | Karlsson,La | 2505 | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | = | 1 | 0 | = | 0 | = | xx | = | = | = | 5.5 | 35.25 | |
| 12 | Bouaziz,S | 2360 | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | = | = | xx | = | 1 | 5.5 | 32.75 | |
| 13 | Sunye Neto,J | 2500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | = | 1 | = | = | = | xx | 1 | 5.5 | 31.25 | |
| 14 | Browne,W | 2590 | = | 0 | 1 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | xx | 3.0 |
Quarterfinal matches
Moscow, March, 1983.
Played at the “Sport Hotel” in Moscow this match between the two rising stars brought a huge interest among the Moscow chess fans. Kasparov was the first to break the level score by winning the second game with black color. Playing a surprising Tarrasch Defense, he improved a line played by Spassky in 1969 and stood already much better after 15 moves. Beliavsky won game four after a brilliant rook sacrifice on move 23. In game 5 Beliavsky try to avoid the simplification of the position and had suddenly to face a deadly King-side attack. After two easy draws Beliavsky lost his nerve in the game 8 missing a drawish continuation 36. cb5. The last game was just a formality for Kasparov as Beliavsky under heavy pressure was committed to win to stay alive in the match. After 18 moves Kasparov was better and 14 moves later the game and the match was over.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Total | |
| Kasparov G | = | 1 | = | 0 | 1 | = | = | 1 | 1 | 6.0 |
| Beliavsky A | = | 0 | = | 1 | 0 | = | = | 0 | 0 | 3.0 |
“SIX MINUTES AFTER THE VICTORY” was the title of an interview with Garry Kasparov published in the Soviet press.
Q: So, this is your first candidates’ match in your life… You must be full of bright impressions?
A: The main difficulty was that it was the first match in my life. An absolute lack of match experience did not allow me to make forecasts as to the match struggle. Perhaps, I must have taken rest at some moment, when I could draw… Well… In short, that was new for me and therefore it was very hard.
Still, it seems to me that I succeeded in choosing the right opening strategy and successfully distributed my strength on this distance. I would like to thank all those people who helped me. This is not my own victory. I owe it to each one of those people, who put all their efforts into this match in order to help me.
Q: If one took a detached view, all seemed to be going smoothly and without any complications?
A: It often looks easy, while it is actually not. That was the case here, as Alexander Beliavsky is particularly dangerous in a match struggle. He is highly efficient at the chessboard and he is always well prepared. Being a wonderful practical chessplayer, he is able to create maximum difficulties for his opponents. It is not easy to play against such an opponent day by day.
I can give another explanation of my successful opening strategy. The matter was that both Beliavsky belong to those chessplayers, who prefer to play with White. That was why we had devoted our pre-match preparation to Black, considering it a decisive factor in this match. It was decided to vary the openings, thus, avoiding Beliavsky’s preparations and trying to surprise him and make him spend much time.
By the way, Beliavsky had a tough time-trouble in those three games, which I won…
Q: What do you consider to be the critical moment of this match?
A: I lost game initiative in the 3rd and 4th games. My opponent also managed to equalize after the 4th game. It was a hard game, we both made mistakes, but Beliavsky managed to take an upper hand in the ending. At that moment I simply had to pull myself together, analyse the beginning of the match and distribute my physical resources for the rest of the match. The time-out, which I took thanks to my mother, did a lot of good to me. I think that the 5th and 6th games were decisive ones. I managed to deprive my opponent of his main armour in the 5th game, giving him a heavy blow in the opening. Then I succeeded in defending with Black in the 6th game. I took the lead in the match, which I already did not lose.
Q: Did you have any doubts about successful outcome of the match, when Beliavsky managed to equalise?
A: I had some doubts after the end of the 4th game. Next day I already forgot about my defeat and took to planning my strategy. Thus, those doubts did not have enough time to root in my mind.
Q: Now, shortly after the match, what of your personal features are you content with?
A: It’s hard to tell. It seems to me that the match brought some new features to the surface. I showed high persistence in some games, which I had not seen before in my chess practice. I am content with resourcefulness, which helped me to win several times and made me self-confident.
Q: What do you think: was it a good lesson for you?
A: Of course, it was.
The experience I got in those nine games was simply invaluable for me. It will help me to better prepare for the next match.
Q: In the 9th game you had an opportunity to simplify the position and get a better and calm play. Why did you still opt for a sharp play, while a draw was enough for you to win?
A: First of all, I was sure I was making the strongest moves. Secondly, experience shows that one should opt for a draw only being in a stronger position. Besides, there was a factor of a personal nature – my mother had a birthday and I wanted to make a present for her…
Q: You have played only in tournaments before. Everyday there’s a new opponent and new impressions. Here you had to face the same opponent day by day, the same manner of competitive struggle. Wasn’t it depressing for you?
A: Perhaps, it was in the beginning of the match, but then I got used to it. The matter was that each new game brought new impressions. Besides, I generally think that one has to play against White or Black king, not one’s opponent.
Q: What kind of schedule did you have during the match?
A: It was a strict one, because both my teacher Mikhail Botvinnik and I think that it can result in a successful tournament and especially match play. There’s nothing new in my daily schedule. I just take some sleep during daytime.
Q: Do you walk according to Botvinnik’s recipe?
A: If weather is fine and I feel good, I go outside with pleasure. Breathing some oxygen on a fresh air outside seems to be crucial before the game!…
Kasparov became the first 20-year-old semi-finalist of the candidates’ matches in the whole chess history. This young man had already become of five world’s strongest grandmasters. Still, he did not seem to be satisfied with this fact…
Candidates’ quarter-finals
Velden, March-April, 1983.
This match was really a big fight. Smyslov won the 4th game after a master play attack on the German King and Hubner equalized in game 9 after emerging from a difficult end-game. With the score at 5-5 the players fight for another 4 games without any success. Then as per regulations, the tie was broken by a golden ball being spun in the casino with Smyslov taking red and Hubner black. Amazing the first spin of the wheel threw up zero! On the second one the former World Champion saw red come up.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Total | |||
| Huebner R | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | = | 7.0 | ||
| Smyslov V | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | 7.0 |
Alicante, April, 1983.
This match was rather quite compare with the others played. The victory of Ribli was mainly due by the mistakes and the lack of experience of his Asian opponent.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Total | |
| Torre E | = | = | = | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | = | = | 0 | 4.0 |
| Ribli Z | = | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | 0 | = | = | 1 | 6.0 |
Bad Kissingen, March-April, 1983.
The match was more or less over after 4 rounds when Portisch was already 3-0 down. The way that Korchnoi played and won the 3rd games with a fantastic improvement on move 11, showed that Korchnoi returned to his best level. Sure about his success he even released his second two rounds before the end!
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Total | |
| Korchnoi V | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | = | = | = | 0 | 1 | 6.0 |
| Portisch L | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | = | = | = | 1 | 0 | 3.0 |
Korchnoi: “First of all, it’s worth nothing that I was buried by the critics before the match began. It seemed that the lack of good competition had affected my play, and I found myself an underdog.
I played Portisch in the Soviet Union vs. the Rest of the World match, but s I wasn’t able to concentrate. The match was such a spectacle! One was tempted to watch Fischer and the players. I played e4 against Portisch and in one of the games, a Ruy-Lopez, I actually forgot to play c3 and allowed my King’s bishop to be trapped by his Knight!
My assessment of Portisch is that he is a player who plays well as long as things are going his way. When playing over the games, one watches him slowly improving his position, according to plan, while his opponent is apparently doing nothing, a mere spectator. So I felt that my goal against him was to upset the apple cart, to force him out of his accustomed path. And it seems I succeeded.”
Candidates’ Semi-finals
On June 1st 1983 FIDE has decided to award the Candidates semi-finals to USA ($100,000) and UAE. Immediately the USSR Chess federation rejected both venues saying “too hot and too far…Despite the fact that the only coincidence in the lists of Kasparov and Korchnoi was Rotterdam ($ 100,000) and Las Palmas ($ 25,000), the FIDE President contrary to the rules, chose Pasadena, not mentioned as top choice by either participant. The USSR Federation rejects as invalid the attempt to justify the decision by propagandatory factors for chess and the sum offered by the USCF…” Pending a resolution of these matters the Soviets GMs reserve the right to determine their further course of action as regarding participation into the semi-finals matches.” Tone between FIDE and USSR CF became bitter:” The FIDE President urges the USSR CF to reconsider its provocative stand” and USSR CF to reply :”…reject all the arguments stated unfairly and tactlessly…Finally Campomanes maintained his decision for the match Korchnoi-Kasparov but Abu Dhabi surprised everyone by withdrawing their offer, saying that it had only been made on the assumption that the interest parties would agree to play there. So on the August 6th Korchnoi sat down in Pasadena and played his first move 1.d4. Kasparov chair was empty and an hour late Korchnoi was formally winner of both game and match.
The American PCN wrote: “Viktor Korchnoi and Zoltan Ribli were declared winners by default as Gary Kasparov and Vassily Smyslov failed to appear for their scheduled matches in Pasadena and Abu Dhabi. Smyslov was technically forfeited when the USSR Chess Federation did not respond to a FIDE overture to hold his match with Ribli in Europe after the Abu Dhabi organizers canceled their match, On August 6, Korchnoi appeared at the Pasadena City College Auditorium, played 1 d4 and waited an hour as Kasparov’s clock ran out.
Speculation has raged since the double forfeiture on why the Soviet Chess Federation would take this action. Some theorize that the Soviet Sport Committee were afraid that Soviet participation in Pasadena would tip their hand regarding participation in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. Others have speculated that the Soviets were upset about U.S. travel restrictions placed on Soviet officials traveling to the Los Angeles area. Some have even suggested that Karpov influenced the decision to thwart Kasparov’s bid for the World Championship.
FIDE President Florencio Campomanes was asked in Pasadena during the U.S. Open about the circumstances that surrounded the forfeitures and the discussions he had with Soviet Sport officials to save the matches. Campomanes flew to Moscow July 20 to meet with Sport Committee Chairman Gramov, Vice Chairman Ivonin, Nikolai Krogius, Soviet Chess Federation Chairman Sevastianov, Victor Baturinsky, World Champion Anatoly Karpov, Gary Kasparov and Smyslov. During the discussions the soviets pressed him on such issues as security, climate, and players’ wishes. Kasparov himself pressed the security issue, asking for “guaranties of security” from either the Governor of California or the Mayor of Pasadena. Smyslov apparently was quite willing to play in Abu Dhabi and the Soviets offered to go forward with the Ribli—Smyslov match if Campomanes would agree to switch the Kasparov—Korchnoi match to a European venue. Campomanes declined this offer. The Soviets finally gave up trying to turn Campomanes around and placed their hopes on the emergency session of FIDE where their demands for replacing the selected sites, and reprimanding Campomanes were voted down 8—2.
During the emergency session, Gramov and Campomanes became involved in a very heated discussion. At one point, referring to American chess organizers, Gramov said, “You serve them well.” Campomanes responded “That remark is not well taken, Mr. Chairman.”
The upshot of this entire episode still not clear. Attention is now focused on the Hungarian Chess Federation which protested the manner by which Ribli won. Will they let Ribli play Korchnoi? Will Karpov play the winner of Ribli—Korchnoi? He stated in a Tass interview that he would not play such match.
As for FIDE, it is in its biggest crisis since its founding. The Soviets forfeitures may well lead to a split of Eastern block countries away from FIDE. Throughout the crisis Campomanes remained consistent with his statement “No member, however powerful, shall stand above FIDE.”
In U.S. after been declared winner Korchnoi answered few journalists. PCN, an American chess newspaper reported:
Q: Were you surprised that Kasparov didn’t show up for the match in Pasadena?
A: Surprised is too mild a word — I was astonished.
The action runs counter to the usual Soviet policy of using sports events as vehicles for enhancing the political status of the Soviet Union. By withdrawing from the World Championship cycle, they cast a shadow over Karpov’s title, damage the career of Kasparov, and risk their prestige in the chess world.
Nevertheless I see at least four reasons for this action. First, in my opinion most crucial, the Soviets are involved in a leadership struggle with FIDE. They view Campomanes as a threat to their power within the organization. Second, this action may be related to a possible boycott of the Olympic games in Los Angeles in 1983. Third, I believe that by this action they aim to set back American chess, which would have benefited from this event. And finally, it is clear that the Soviet authorities are not fond of Kasparov.
I think it has become clear to all that Kasparov is not well liked by his political superiors. But allow me to provide some evidence. Recent Soviet chess periodicals have featured many of Kasparov’s games, as well as theoretical articles on some of his favorite openings such as the King’s Indian. This material was extremely useful to me in my preparations for the match with Kasparov! If the Soviets were truly on Kasparov’s side they would not have made it so easy for me to prepare for him.
In an article in Soviet Sport published about a year ago, Kasparov stated that the winner of the current Candidates Cycle would be a member of the younger generation, which we can take to mean himself. But the rest of the Soviet press has stated that a member of the older generation would win the Candidates. Who can they mean? Smyslov? I belive they must mean . ..Korchnoi! Thus it appears that the Soviet press would prefer even me as the Candidate instead of Kasparov.
When I played Karpov for the first time in 1974 I was still a Soviet citizen. After I lost the match, I was hauled before a tribunal and confronted with my “crimes.” It was pointed out to me that I had claimed I would win the match, and so on. I am afraid Kasparov may be in for something similar. Don’t believe that Kasparov’s fantastic chess genius would save him from such treatment. A comparison can be drawn with Tal. Despite Tal’s gaining of the World Title, despite his tremendous popularity in the chess world, despite his brilliant play, Tal has suffered harassment from the authorities.
Q: Why do the Soviets prefer Karpov over Kasparov?
A: Karpov is trusted by the politicians. He has the proper diplomatic attitude. The politicians know he will play along with them, with their desire to reap the maximum propaganda value from their accomplishments. In return, Karpov is permitted privileges beyond the comprehension of an ordinary Soviet citizen. For example, it is my understanding that he is permitted to openly possess bank accounts in the West. He has half a million stashed in one bank, half a million in another.
Q: To what extent do you feel Karpov is behind the Soviet withdrawal from the Semi-final Matches?
A: It is difficult to know for certain, but I believe that it is largely Karpov’s doing. It is evident from a close reading of the Soviet press that Karpov and Kasparov dislike each other. Karpov has a good deal to say about what goes into the Soviet chess press.
You know, Karpov knows Campomanes very well. They have had close contact over the years, as for ex ample during my match with Karpov in the Philippines, during the lengthy negotiations carried on by Campo in trying to arrange a Fischer—Karpov match. It may be that Karpov led the Soviets on, telling them that Campomanes would back down eventually, all the time knowing Campo well enough to realize that he wouldn’t back down.
Karparov’s basic crime is … he’s too strong!
Q: Who do you think is better Karpov or Kasparov?
A: Recently an English journalist went to Moscow and polled the Soviet grandmasters. Their opinion was that Kasparov would crush Karpov! But as for myself, I am not convinced. It is true that Kasparov has a fantastic, incredible imagination. He can calculate variations extremely impressively. But Karpov has his strengths as well. He is extremely tough in defense. He is very solid at the board; it is impossible to fluster him. He has excellent nerves. His home preparation is good.
Kasparov is like a boxer with one great punch. This punch is colossal, stupendous; but if you can withstand the blow, then you are al He has the mentality of an artist, not of a sportsman. He creates fantastic games, but if things are not going his way, if his opponent withstands his big punch, then he is vulnerable. For instance in our encounter in Lucerne, after his in credible wallop in the middle game, still I almost survived.
Karpov is a great fighter, and has proved his endurance in long matches. It remains to be seen how Kasparov will fare in a long, difficult match.
Q: Any further comments about recent actions by the Soviet Chess Federation?
A: Yes. I was very hard on Baturinsky (former president of the Soviet Chess Federation) in my book, but even so I think that Krogius (the current president) is stupider.
Q: What is the status of the boycott against you?
A: It is still very much in effect, though I have heard that the Soviets may be willing to drop their boycott of me, in return for support in their actions against Campomanes!
In the main time European federations made a strong pressure on the FIDE President to reverse his decision. Before FIDE Congress, which was scheduled in Manila, the President of the Soviet Chess Federation Mr. Sevastianov made a statement conceding that Campomanes had acted in accordance with the rules in his choice of match site…Financial compensation may be paid. In return Campomanes may agree to re-schedule the Candidates semi-finals. Korchnoi and Ribli agreed to (re)play the semi-finals conditional (for Korchnoi) that all boycott against his participation in tournament will be lifted.
From PCN: “Just after FIDE and USSR Chess Federation had come to an agreement to revive the semi-final matches Korchnoi issued a set of demands that could upset the new plan. Korchnoi has demanded:
1) The prize fund for any new match with Kasparov must the prizes scheduled at the Pasadena match
2) A written agreement from the USSR Federation not to boycott tournaments to which Korchnoi is invited
3) A written apology to Korchnoi from the USSR Chess Federation for their actions leading up to the Pasadena forfeiture.
FIDE president Florencio Campomanes called Korchnoi’s demands “a bit stiff”.
But finally the Soviets agreed to a fine of $ 210,000. Some money was paid to Korchnoi as compensation for his cancelled victory, and some went to reimbursing the costs of the organization match in Pasadena and covering FIDE’s financial and moral damages.
When passions cooled off, Campomanes suggested instead to pay money that USSR CF held chess seminars for CACDEC countries and Korchnoi was given a promise that the boycott of tournaments in which he took part, initiate in 1976, would cease.
In the same time Kasparov scored an impressive victory in Niksic, Yugoslavia. He remembered: “The tournament has remained in my memory not only for the chess: it was also the first occasion in which I was able to display my organizational skills. It was a matter of saving the matches, and that took some doing: I had to organize a letter from the grandmasters to FIDE and negotiate with Korchnoi.
I was strengthened in my resolve after talking with my fellow chess players in Niksic. I asked those taking part in the tournament to sign a letter demanding that the semi-finals be held. The desire to see those matches was universal. It was especially apparent in the brief interviews which kept appearing in the local papers: all the grandmasters without exception said the matches must be held as soon as possible. Here is the text of the document:
The participants of the international tournament in Niksic, Yugoslavia, consider it important that the FIDE congress should do everything possible to organize and hold the Kasparov—Korchnoi and Ribli—Smyslov semi-final matches. We are guided by the interest of chess.- B. Spassky, T. Petrosian, J. Timman, M. Tal, Y Seirawan…
This was quite possible the first petition in chess history to be sign by almost all the world leading grandmasters…”
On October 27th the British Chess Federation announced he secured the venue for both Candidates’ Match.
In Moscow Karpov talked about FIDE, Candidates and system. He said: ‘‘The first group of the Candidates Matches was stronger. Before the matches I said: We have two main candidates, Gary Kasparov in the first group and Zoltan Ribli in the second group. It seems that they will play in the final match. As for me it is the same who becomes the Challenger. Everyone who wins the Candidates Matches deserves to play with the Champion. As regards to the publicity interest, the most stimulating match would be between myself and Kasparov. But more interesting would be a match against Timman. Unfortunately Timman played badly at the Interzonal and did not qualify. Of course a match against Fischer would be most interesting”
Q: What about Gary Kasparov, is he dangerous?
A: He is a big talent and has the best chances of the young Grandmasters.
Q: You mentioned Fischer — do you believe that he will play a match against Timman?
A: It is very difficult to make an agreement with Fischer. He always changes his opinion. I would be very glad if he played a match against Tim-man, or against me, or that match with Gligoric, but frankly speaking I give only 1—4 on his comeback. In my meetings with him I had a feeling that we could not come to an agreement. He always insisted on playing a match for ten wins. I told him that it might last six months, but he answered: ‘Well, we shall take a rest and continue the match.’
Q: Korchnoi repeated his statement from Meran that he would not play against you even if he became the Challenger.
A: I am wondering in that case why Korchnoi is playing in the Candidates Matches at all. If he comes to the final it seems that I will play against the other player from the final.
Q: It seems that a third match against Korchnoi would be very boring.
A: Yes, but I must say that both our matches were very interesting. My best period in Baguio was between the 14th and 27th games: The best period for Korchnoi in Baguio was the first seven games. As for Meran he did not have any successful period. Because of my big mistake in the sixth game he got an impression that we had a serious fight.
Q: Which is better Candidates Matches or a Candidates Tournament?
A: I do not take part in that competition and also I do not intend to play because I hope that I will keep the title, and so I do not think about that. But when I was a Candidate I preferred matches in spite of the fact that I did not have experience. The matches are more difficult, but more real. Take for instance the Candidates Tournament in Yugoslavia in 1959. Tal won that tournament nicely, but he lost the match against Keres in that tournament 1—3. Tal got the advantage because of his victories against Fischer, Olafsson and Benko, but if he had played the match against Keres it would have been more difficult for him.
Q: You are already nine years World Champion. Lasker was 27 years Champion. Do you think that you will be like Lasker?
A: In this era it is impossible. During Lasker’s leadership there were eight years of war, but still he is fantastic with 19 years. As for me I can tell you that I am second to Lasker in longevity as Champion because Botvinnik was losing his matches and regained the title twice. I will try to save the title but when I lose I will not stop playing chess. It will not be the end of my career.
London, November-December, 1983.
The most impressive chess event in Britain in post-war began on November 19 at the Great Eastern Hotel in London. The purse for the match was SFR 100,000. Acorn Computers and the BCF were the main sponsors of the event.
Kasparov started with White playing a Queen’s Indian which after 11 moves became a kind of Gruenfeld with 2 tempi extra for White! However Kasparov was too in hurry to fix the square e5 and after a curious but necessary pawn sacrifice Korchnoi could claim to have excellent compensations for it. Surprisingly with only five minutes to play 16 moves, Kasparov didn’t choose the best continuation and soon had to play a rook end-game with a pawn less. Technique and precision made the rest and Korchnoi score the first point. Game two and three were draw without too much tense. The 4th game was also draw, a Catalan when Korchnoi didn’t want to risk too after exchanging the Queens on move 21. Korchnoi lost game 6 playing over-ambitiously and blundered in endgame. The same situation repeated in game 7 when with good drawing chances Korchnoi misplace one of his Rooks with immediate effect of struggle for the rest of game and finally another lost game. Korchnoi was also over-played in game 9 but came back into the match with an excellent position on game 10 and probably a winning move like 38. Qc2 that unfortunately for him he missed. The night before the last game, walking in the street, Korchnoi was robbed passport and money and with no more willingness and energy he played the last game without any conviction. Having a lost position only after 19 moves, he capitulated 12 moves later.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Total | ||
| Kasparov G | 0 | = | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | = | 1 | 7.0 | |
| Korchnoi V | 1 | = | = | = | = | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 4.0 |
After the last game, Kasparov’s comments were expected big a number of representatives of the international press. A large article appeared in the bulletin: ‘I am glad it is all over. It was bad for chess.’ he says. But he does accept that it was upsetting to his preparation, although not critical. But he reckoned he had to prove him self. In that respect, the top grandmaster tournament at Niksic was important.
That was where the real battle started. ‘I had something to prove,’ he says. And so he did by wiping the floor with most of the opposition.
He feels that his wonderful performance which set the world talking once again about actual chess played a big part in getting the match with Korchnoi back on the agenda.
Then came his bombshell. Talking about his preparation, he revealed: ‘I fully expected that Korchnoi would dictate the match given his experience. I knew he would try to steer the games into positions that he thought were uncomfortable for me.
So it was vital I put a lot of preparation into my endgame. I studied the best practical endgames over the past twenty- five years. My seconds would show me positions that were actuall and leave me to work out my own continuations and com pare them with the actual games they were taken from.
Like the rest of the public, Korchnoi wrongly evaluated me as a chess player.
But what about the psychological aspects? Wasn’t Kasparov worried with his miniscule match experience, meeting the king of them all when it came to blowing opponents’ minds as well as their chess with his unpredictable and fiery behavior.
‘Oh, yes, says Kasparov, we put a lot of emphasis on psychological preparation.’
When it comes to explaining this, Kasparov admits it is difficult patience and peace of mind at the board as well as brilliance, to concentrate on the job in hand and not be put off by any of his opponent’s famed sideshows.
As it happens no off-the-board fireworks exploded, for which one gets the impression that Kasparov was eternally grateful.
He was edgy enough when he arrived in London a few short days before the match. This late arrival proved to be a big mistake and could have been fatal.
Kasparov admits: ‘When I am about to play in an important event I like everything to be in order so that I can establish a routine. This was clearly impossible given the short time between touchdown at Heathrow and take-off at the Great Eastern Hotel. ‘There were many things still unresolved,’ recalls Kasparov, ‘I was also not used to my surroundings. ‘As a result I did not sleep at all properly during the first four games.’
Whatever the reasons, the hot favorite Kasparov was trounced in the first game. What made it even more devastating was that he had the white pieces and had employed his famous a3 to the Queen’s Indian.
Things could hardly have been worse. But as Kasparov says: ‘Thanks to my good psychological training, I did not fall apart after the first game. If I had lost another game, then it would have been disastrous.
I was quite happy to play the quiet positions until I regained my form. I was not going to be lured into double edged positions.’
If only Korchnoi had known that Kasparov was so well prepared for a technical struggle. The question that must now be left to the chess historians was if he had, would he not have been better forcing the issue after the first game when he had his opponent against the ropes?
When asked this Kasparov merely smiles. As he puts it: ‘Korchnoi wasn’t to know. The cards were still face down.’
How does Kasparov fancy his chances against Smyslov? Does he not fear the older man’s great chess psychology which came so much to fore in his match against Ribli?
Certainly Kasparov does not underestimate Smyslov. But he points out: ‘Ribli allowed Smyslov his calm, he gave him no problems. But with me it will be different.I believe my age will be a big advantage.”
Although Kasparov is duly modest, he is clearly looking forward to his match with Karpov.
Karpov had said that Kasparov’s weakness was that he was too well prepared and thus lacked intuition and could be at sea in unfamiliar positions.
‘He should talk about preparation.’ Kasparov says sharply ‘Look at his performance in Baguio . .
In an interview at the end of the match Korchnoi admitted: “ After game six I lost faith in my technique and my seconds. The score was equal, but psychologically he match was lost. My pre-match impression of Kasparov as a player with one big punch was wrong. Kasparov is very practical for his age. He takes risks only when he is one hundred percent sure they are justified.”
In assessing Karpov, the crown prince is mostly full of praise and accepts that his task against the world champion will be a lot more difficult.
He agrees with Korchnoi’s view that Karpov will not give him the same chances as Viktor.
But in Karpov’s greatness he sees a weakness. ‘His style of play is very dry. He does not like losing, and thus does not take risks.’
On Korchnoi the champion was very sharp: “Korchnoi is a man of the past…like an emperor without clothes… ’
