Cycle 79-81
Interzonal of Rio de Janeiro, 1979.
This tournament was much more equilibrated than the Riga’s. The sponsors made good effort to hope for the qualification of the Brazilian star H. Mecking who managed already to reach the Candidate in 1976. However his state of health and physical were not good. He started the tournament with two draws then withdrew due to illness. The Hungarian Portisch and the German Huebner were leading the tournament from the middle stage so their qualifications, with couple of upset losses were more or less normal. The battle for the third and last qualify place for the Candidates between the young Dutch J. Timman and the former world champion T. Petrosian was much more exciting. With equal number of points before the last round both players needed to win their last game with Black. Timman played against Garcia and Petrosian against Ivkov, which was much of course more difficult to achieve. The story said that before the round started, Petrosian approached…Timman to agree that both players will finish their games with a quick draw but Timman refused it. Will it be funny to say that in his game Timman was winning but blundered two moves before the adjournment and Ivkov blundered an equal position to Petrosian to give him the victory and the qualification!
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Total | T/B | ||||
| 1 | Portisch,L | 2640 | Xx | = | = | = | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | = | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 11.5 | 93.00 | |
| 2 | Petrosian,T | 2610 | = | xx | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 11.5 | 92.25 | |
| 3 | Huebner,R | 2595 | = | = | xx | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 0 | = | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11.5 | 92.00 | |
| 4 | Timman,J | 2625 | = | = | = | xx | = | = | 0 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | = | = | = | 1 | 11.0 | ||
| 5 | Sunye Neto,J | 2375 | 1 | = | 0 | = | xx | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | = | = | = | 9.5 | 77.75 | |
| 6 | Ivkov,B | 2525 | 0 | 0 | = | = | 1 | xx | = | 1 | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | 9.5 | 76.00 | |
| 7 | Balashov,Y | 2600 | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | 0 | = | xx | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | 1 | 9.0 | 71.25 | |
| 8 | Torre,E | 2520 | 1 | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | = | Xx | 0 | 0 | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 9.0 | 70.00 | |
| 9 | Sax,G | 2590 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | = | 0 | 1 | xx | = | = | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9.0 | 68.00 | |
| 10 | Shamkovich,L | 2495 | = | = | 0 | = | = | 0 | = | 1 | = | xx | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | = | = | 8.5 | 71.75 | |
| 11 | Smejkal,J | 2560 | = | = | 1 | 0 | 0 | = | = | = | = | 0 | xx | = | 1 | 0 | = | 1 | 1 | = | 8.5 | 68.75 | |
| 12 | Vaganian,R | 2570 | 0 | = | = | 0 | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | Xx | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 8.0 | ||
| 13 | Garcia Gonzalez | 2490 | 0 | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | xx | 1 | 0 | = | 1 | = | 7.5 | 59.50 | |
| 14 | Velimirovic,D | 2515 | 0 | = | = | 0 | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | xx | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7.5 | 55.25 | |
| 15 | Harandi,K | 2410 | 0 | 0 | = | = | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | = | 0 | 1 | 0 | xx | 0 | = | 1 | 6.5 | ||
| 16 | Bronstein,L | 2420 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | = | = | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | Xx | = | 1 | 6.0 | ||
| 17 | Hebert,J | 2365 | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | = | = | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | = | = | xx | 0 | 4.5 | 39.75 | |
| 18 | Kagan,S | 2445 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | xx | 4.5 | 37.50 | |
| Mecking,H | 2615 | – | – | – | – | – | = | – | – | – | – | = | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1.0 |
Interzonal of Riga
Tal won convinced the 1979 Interzonal organized in his native country. Undefeated he topped Polugaevsky and the young Hungarian master Adorjan. All three were qualified for the second stage of the cycle, Disappointment with the top seated Larsen and Ljubojevic completely out of form. The other Hungarian player Z. Ribli lost all his chance in the last game losing a very complex position to the Ukrainian Romanishin. On top he lost a tie-break match versus Adorjan.
Riga, IX-X, 1979.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Total | T/B | ||||
| 1 | Tal,M | 2615 | xx | 1 | = | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | = | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14.0 | ||
| 2 | Polugaevsky,L | 2625 | 0 | xx | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | = | 1 | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 11.5 | ||
| 3 | Adorjan,A | 2525 | = | = | Xx | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | = | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | = | 11.0 | 85.75 | |
| 4 | Ribli,Z | 2595 | = | = | = | xx | 0 | 1 | 0 | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 11.0 | 84.75 | |
| 5 | Romanishin,O | 2560 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | xx | = | 1 | 0 | = | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | = | = | 1 | = | 10.5 | 83.00 | |
| 6 | Gheorghiu,F | 2540 | 0 | = | 1 | 0 | = | xx | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10.5 | 79.75 | |
| 7 | Larsen,B | 2620 | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | = | xx | 0 | = | 1 | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 10.0 | ||
| 8 | Kuzmin,G | 2565 | 0 | 0 | = | = | 1 | 0 | 1 | xx | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | 0 | 1 | 9.0 | 71.00 | |
| 9 | Tseshkovsky,V | 2560 | 0 | 1 | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | xx | 0 | 0 | = | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 9.0 | 67.50 | |
| 10 | Miles,A | 2560 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | xx | = | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9.0 | 59.25 | |
| 11 | Tarjan,J | 2525 | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | = | 1 | = | Xx | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | = | 1 | 8.0 | ||
| 12 | Gruenfeld,Y | 2430 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | = | 1 | xx | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 7.5 | ||
| 13 | Ljubojevic,L | 2590 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | Xx | 1 | = | = | 1 | 0 | 6.5 | ||
| 14 | Van Riemsdijk,H | 2435 | = | = | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | xx | = | = | = | 0 | 5.5 | 46.25 | |
| 15 | Bouaziz,S | 2420 | = | 0 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | = | = | xx | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5.5 | 40.75 | |
| 16 | Mednis,E | 2510 | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | = | 1 | xx | = | 1 | 5.5 | 39.00 | |
| 17 | Trois,F | 2415 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | = | 1 | 0 | 0 | = | = | 0 | = | 0 | = | Xx | = | 5.0 | ||
| 18 | Rodriguez,R | 2370 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | = | xx | 4.0 |
Budapest playoff, –, 1979.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ||||
| Adorjan,A | 2525 | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | 1 | = | 3.0 | |
| Ribli,Z | 2595 | 1 | = | 1 | 0 | 0 | = | 3.0 |
Quarterfinal matches
The quarter-final Candidates’matches consisted of 10 games. If at the end of it neither side has a majority of points then two games is played. If there is still equality then this process is repeated. Then the regulations say that if the match is still equal then the player who has won most game with the Black pieces is the winner.
These regulations were applied at the final stage of the batch between Spassky and Portisch. The Hungarian won the first game with Black because Spassky was too much in hurry to score his first point, and Spassky won the 9th game, a classical Caro-Kann, with White.
Mexico City, –, 1980.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Total | ||||
| Spassky B | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | = | 7.0 | |||
| Portisch L | 1 | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | 7.0 |
In Bad Lauterberg, Germany, Huebner won two Sicilian defenses, the 3rd game after a brilliant combination and the 5th in time trouble. His lost on the 6th was probably due to his choose of a wrong opening variation of the Caro-Kann.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Total | ||
| Huebner R | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | 0 | = | = | = | = | 5.5 | |
| Adorjan A | = | = | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | = | = | = | = | 4.5 |
Korchnoi and Petrosian met once again on the road for the World Championship. Played in Austria in the city of Velden it was clear that the games between the two ‘ennemies’ will not be too friendly and finished with a lot of quick draws. Korchnoi was clearly winning in game one and four but in this last one after blundered a piece for nothing he was quite lucky to see his opponent to give him back the present. Petrosian completely overplayed Korchnoi in game 5, 6 and seven but never concreted his domination. In the contrary it was Korchnoi who scored the point. Then Korchnoi control the match until the 9th game when Petrosian let Korchnoi invaded the center to eventually resign with a lost position.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Total | ||
| Korchnoi V | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | 1 | 5.5 | |
| Petrosian T | = | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | 3.5 |
Played in Alma Ata in 1980, Tal due to bad health was never in the match. Of course after losing the first two games, he had not many option than too attack his opponent. Polugaevsky was experienced enough to control the match without any problem.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total | ||
| Polugaevsky L | 1 | 1 | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | 5.5 | |
| Tal M | 0 | 0 | = | = | = | = | 0 | = | 2.5 |
Semifinal matches
Korchnoi met ‘Polu’ for the semi-final in Buenos Aires, 1980. His first win on game 4th was a great surprise. The way that Polugaevsky handled the rook-ending was not a strong publicity for level of play. Korchnoi gave him back the money in the game 6 by playing too passively. In the 8th game Polugaevsky went into a dubious opening giving a pawn for an unclear attack will eventually gave him nothing except a lost endgame. The game 12 was a better remake of the game 8 and after 12 moves Polugaevsky was just a piece and a pawn down! Okay this time he had some attack but not more to expect to share the point. Korchnoi did the rest. Finally Polugaevsky suicided himself with White in the 14th after another dubious opening.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Total | |
| Korchnoi V | = | = | = | 1 | = | 0 | = | 1 | = | = | = | 0 | = | 1 | 7.5 |
| Polugaevsky L | = | = | = | 0 | = | 1 | = | 0 | = | = | = | 1 | = | 0 | 6.5 |
In Abano Terme, Italy, Portisch missed a first chance in the 5th game when playing a good ending he gave a pawn for nothing. He slipped a second chance on game 9 when in time trouble he blundered a completely winning position. Finally in the tenth playing too passively he could not stop Huebner to catch the decisive point.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Total | ||
| Huebner R | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | = | 6.5 | |
| Portisch L | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 0 | 0 | = | 4.5 |
Candidates’ Final
Merano, XII, 1980.
After losing an easy Caro-Kann in round one Korchnoi was already on pressure. However he equalized quickly the score after winning with great conviction the following game. Blundering in time-trouble in the 4th, he gave for the second time the leadership to the German player. What happened next is a bit difficult to explain. The way that Huebner lost the 10th game is still questionable. At this level, with such winning position, missing a fork King-Rook is clearly incredible. Probably completely demoralized Huebner played without motivation and lost the following game. Finally he announced to the chief arbiter that he would not play the rest of the match due to illness. Korchnoi didn’t expect this move so fast…
Game 1
Hubner took an early lead with this first game. A Classical variation of the Caro-Kann defense with opposite castle was on the board with even chance. Korchnoi could have a dynamic play with 20…Bd4 but chosen instead the passive 20…Bb6 which gave immediately attacking chances to the German. Once White managed to push 27.g6, the threat on the Black King was too strong to have any hpe to survive.
Game 2
Korchnoi fought back at once by exploiting his favorite Maroczy bind. Korchnoi found a nice tactical move 30.e5! which gave him an uncontestable superiority.
Game 3
Both players expert in the French defense played their favorite opening without to take any risk. A logical draw was agreed on move 34.
Game 4
Korchnoi entered to unnecessary complication which consumed all his time and energy. In time trouble with 15 moves to play in a couple of minutes he lost an exchange and when into the adjournment with an hopeless position.
Game 5
A slight variation from the 3rd game didn’t give more chance of success to Hubner as Korchnoi defend accurately.
Game 6
This time Korchnoi opened with 1.d4. and reach a position already played by him against Karpov in 1978 (9). Hubner improved it but finally it was Korchnoi who got the better of it. With an exchange up Korchnoi looked winning but Hubner managed to get all the Pawns off, producing a drawn ending.
Game 7
A game which proves that luck is also part of the game. The game was another French defense which gave to the German full satisfaction. He won a Pawn after the adjournment but with reduced material the chance of victory were very small. Then the tragedy arrived on move 63 when Hubner missed a simply Knight’s fork costing him a rook and the game.
