Cycle 1990-1993
For this new cycle, FIDE didn’t change any regulation except the Interzonal became one single big Swiss System tournament with 64 players who had to qualify through zonal tournaments or ratings. Karpov is qualified directly to the quarter- finals.
Interzonal of Manila, VI-VII, 1990.
Announced in Spain or in Yugoslavia, the interzonal was finally magisterially organized in Manila by the Philippines chess federation and FIDE President Campomanes. With a top prize of $ 22,000 most of the world chess stars were present. The young Soviet B. Gelfand and V. Ivanchuk were leading most of the tournament and finished among the eleven players which ten of them with a rating above the magic 26000 Elo. The unluckiest was M. Gurevich, another Soviet, who needed only 0.5/2 from the last 2 rounds but score zero and left V. Anand from India, the first ever Asian who broke the 2600 Elo and the best ever English player N. Short to be among the qualifiers. Out of the qualifier list were missing the 17 years old American star G. Kamsky and the Soviet V. Salov, another clear favorite before the start, but who had to withdrew due to illness. No doubt a new fresh wave of chess players is coming. The top three are only 20 years old.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | Tot | ||||
| 01 | Gelfand B | GM | 2680 | =26 | +42 | +03 | =14 | +29 | =05 | =02 | =11 | +08 | =12 | =06 | =09 | +16 | 9.0 |
| 02 | Ivanchuk V | GM | 2680 | -54 | +41 | +43 | +21 | +08 | +48 | =01 | =06 | =12 | =10 | =05 | +17 | =03 | 9.0 |
| 03 | Anand V | GM | 2610 | =32 | +44 | -01 | +49 | -13 | =54 | +47 | =18 | =14 | +29 | +37 | +12 | =02 | 8.5 |
| 04 | Short N | GM | 2610 | +20 | -21 | -13 | =46 | +33 | +24 | +07 | -08 | +30 | +18 | =11 | =06 | +12 | 8.5 |
| 05 | Sax G | GM | 2600 | =22 | +64 | +51 | +08 | =48 | =01 | =12 | =09 | =13 | =11 | =02 | =10 | =07 | 8.0 |
| 06 | Korchnoi V | GM | 2630 | =31 | +33 | =07 | =15 | +28 | =30 | +29 | =02 | =11 | =13 | =01 | =04 | =10 | 8.0 |
| 07 | Huebner R | GM | 2585 | =38 | +62 | =06 | =16 | =17 | =18 | -04 | +19 | +48 | +21 | =10 | =11 | =05 | 8.0 |
| 08 | Nikolic P | GM | 2600 | +13 | +58 | +12 | -05 | -02 | =19 | +40 | +04 | -01 | =17 | =21 | =14 | +25 | 8.0 |
| 09 | Yudasin L | GM | 2615 | =45 | +49 | -29 | +55 | +25 | =14 | +48 | =05 | -21 | +16 | =12 | =01 | =11 | 8.0 |
| 10 | Dolmatov S | GM | 2615 | =24 | =23 | +27 | =11 | +39 | =29 | +30 | -12 | +15 | =02 | =07 | =05 | =06 | 8.0 |
| 11 | Dreev A | GM | 2615 | =44 | =32 | +22 | =10 | =21 | +13 | +14 | =01 | =06 | =05 | =04 | =07 | =09 | 8.0 |
| 12 | Gurevich M | GM | 2640 | +43 | +36 | -08 | +37 | =14 | +34 | =05 | +10 | =02 | =01 | =09 | -03 | -04 | 7.5 |
| 13 | Damljanovic B | GM | 2515 | -08 | +53 | +04 | =51 | +03 | -11 | +34 | +16 | =05 | =06 | -17 | =19 | =15 | 7.5 |
| 14 | Georgiev Kir | GM | 2580 | +57 | =16 | +17 | =01 | =12 | =09 | -11 | =31 | =03 | =15 | +28 | =08 | =20 | 7.5 |
| 15 | Ljubojevic L | GM | 2600 | +40 | =29 | =16 | =06 | =18 | =17 | =21 | +22 | -10 | =14 | +36 | =25 | =13 | 7.5 |
| 16 | Ehlvest J | GM | 2655 | +56 | =14 | =15 | =07 | =30 | =23 | +19 | -13 | +31 | -09 | +22 | +21 | -01 | 7.5 |
| 17 | Khalifman A | GM | 2615 | =33 | +31 | -14 | +24 | =07 | =15 | +23 | =21 | =29 | =08 | +13 | -02 | =19 | 7.5 |
| 18 | Seirawan Y | GM | 2635 | =42 | =26 | =30 | +56 | =15 | =07 | =31 | =03 | +40 | -04 | =27 | =24 | +22 | 7.5 |
| 19 | Shirov A | GM | 2580 | =55 | =35 | =23 | =33 | +42 | =08 | -16 | -07 | +32 | +50 | +29 | =13 | =17 | 7.5 |
| 20 | Hjartarson J | GM | 2520 | -04 | +61 | -37 | -40 | +38 | -36 | +45 | =47 | +54 | =39 | +42 | +34 | =14 | 7.5 |
| 21 | De Firmian N | GM | 2560 | +61 | +04 | =48 | -02 | =11 | +37 | =15 | =17 | +09 | -07 | =08 | -16 | =28 | 7.0 |
| 22 | Rechlis G | GM | 2505 | =05 | =28 | -11 | +27 | =47 | =25 | +46 | -15 | +41 | +48 | -16 | +37 | -18 | 7.0 |
| 23 | Spasov V | IM | 2495 | =34 | =10 | =19 | +36 | =51 | =16 | -17 | =44 | -39 | +43 | =35 | =26 | +49 | 7.0 |
| 24 | Stohl I | IM | 2525 | =10 | -34 | +45 | -17 | +58 | -04 | +43 | +39 | =50 | -37 | +44 | =18 | =27 | 7.0 |
| 25 | Adams M | GM | 2590 | +46 | =63 | +50 | -29 | -09 | =22 | =39 | =49 | +44 | =27 | +30 | =15 | -08 | 7.0 |
| 26 | Dzindzichashvili R | GM | 2560 | =01 | =18 | +38 | -30 | =31 | =46 | =63 | =34 | =36 | =42 | =39 | =23 | +41 | 7.0 |
| 27 | Ftacnik L | GM | 2550 | -51 | +59 | -10 | -22 | +64 | =32 | +57 | =37 | +34 | =25 | =18 | =36 | =24 | 7.0 |
| 28 | Gulko B | GM | 2600 | =64 | =22 | =32 | +58 | -06 | =47 | =41 | =36 | =33 | +31 | -14 | +45 | =21 | 7.0 |
| 29 | Lautier J | GM | 2570 | +60 | =15 | +09 | +25 | -01 | =10 | -06 | +50 | =17 | -03 | -19 | =39 | =35 | 6.5 |
| 30 | Lputian S | GM | 2575 | +59 | =51 | =18 | +26 | =16 | =06 | -10 | =48 | -04 | +33 | -25 | =41 | =36 | 6.5 |
| 31 | Illescas Cordoba M | GM | 2535 | =06 | -17 | =64 | +38 | =26 | +51 | =18 | =14 | -16 | -28 | =32 | +44 | =37 | 6.5 |
| 32 | Ivanovic B | GM | 2520 | =03 | =11 | =28 | -50 | =36 | =27 | =53 | =54 | -19 | +55 | =31 | =48 | +56 | 6.5 |
| 33 | Torre E | GM | 2530 | =17 | -06 | +62 | =19 | -04 | =49 | =42 | +46 | =28 | -30 | -45 | +51 | +48 | 6.5 |
| 34 | Agdestein S | GM | 2600 | =23 | +24 | +63 | -48 | +50 | -12 | -13 | =26 | -27 | +52 | +40 | -20 | =39 | 6.5 |
| 35 | Marin M | IM | 2485 | =37 | =19 | =36 | -39 | =49 | =42 | -56 | +55 | +47 | =40 | =23 | =50 | =29 | 6.5 |
| 36 | Tal M | GM | 2580 | +52 | -12 | =35 | -23 | =32 | +20 | =37 | =28 | =26 | +56 | -15 | =27 | =30 | 6.5 |
| 37 | Miles A | GM | 2595 | =35 | =55 | +20 | -12 | +43 | -21 | =36 | =27 | +49 | +24 | -03 | -22 | =31 | 6.5 |
| 38 | Sunye Neto J | GM | 2465 | =07 | =39 | -26 | -31 | -20 | =60 | =59 | +58 | =53 | +47 | =48 | =42 | +50 | 6.5 |
| 39 | Sokolov A | GM | 2570 | =62 | =38 | =54 | +35 | -10 | =41 | =25 | -24 | +23 | =20 | =26 | =29 | =34 | 6.5 |
| 40 | Popovic P | GM | 2520 | -15 | =60 | =42 | +20 | +63 | =50 | -08 | +56 | -18 | =35 | -34 | =49 | =45 | 6.0 |
| 41 | Cabrilo G | IM | 2485 | -48 | -02 | =59 | +60 | +56 | =39 | =28 | =42 | -22 | +49 | =50 | =30 | -26 | 6.0 |
| 42 | Spraggett K | GM | 2540 | =18 | -01 | =40 | +64 | -19 | =35 | =33 | =41 | +51 | =26 | -20 | =38 | =46 | 6.0 |
| 43 | Zapata A | GM | 2545 | -12 | +52 | -02 | +53 | -37 | =57 | -24 | -51 | +61 | -23 | +58 | =54 | +55 | 6.0 |
| 44 | Ye Rongguang | GM | 2525 | =11 | -03 | -49 | +62 | -55 | +58 | +51 | =23 | -25 | +57 | -24 | -31 | +54 | 6.0 |
| 45 | Lobron E | GM | 2535 | =09 | -50 | -24 | =59 | +52 | -56 | -20 | =57 | +60 | +54 | +33 | -28 | =40 | 6.0 |
| 46 | Rachels S | IM | 2475 | -25 | +47 | =58 | =04 | =54 | =26 | -22 | -33 | -57 | +62 | =56 | +52 | =42 | 6.0 |
| 47 | Petursson M | GM | 2550 | -63 | -46 | +57 | +52 | =22 | =28 | -03 | =20 | -35 | -38 | +60 | =56 | +59 | 6.0 |
| 48 | Portisch L | GM | 2590 | +41 | +54 | =21 | +34 | =05 | -02 | -09 | =30 | -07 | -22 | =38 | =32 | -33 | 5.5 |
| 49 | Rogers I | GM | 2535 | =50 | -09 | +44 | -03 | =35 | =33 | +55 | =25 | -37 | -41 | +53 | =40 | -23 | 5.5 |
| 50 | Vaganian R | GM | 2630 | =49 | +45 | -25 | +32 | -34 | =40 | +54 | -29 | =24 | -19 | =41 | =35 | -38 | 5.5 |
| 51 | Kamsky G | 2650 | +27 | =30 | -05 | =13 | =23 | -31 | -44 | +43 | -42 | =53 | =52 | -33 | +60 | 5.5 | |
| 52 | Lin Ta | IM | 2435 | -36 | -43 | +61 | -47 | -45 | +64 | +62 | =53 | =56 | -34 | =51 | -46 | +58 | 5.5 |
| 53 | Smyslov V | GM | 2570 | -58 | -13 | +60 | -43 | -57 | +59 | =32 | =52 | =38 | =51 | -49 | =62 | +61 | 5.5 |
| 54 | Chandler M | GM | 2560 | +02 | -48 | =39 | =63 | =46 | =03 | -50 | =32 | -20 | -45 | +61 | =43 | -44 | 5.0 |
| 55 | Mascarinas R | IM | 2465 | =19 | =37 | =56 | -09 | +44 | -63 | -49 | -35 | +59 | -32 | +62 | =61 | -43 | 5.0 |
| 56 | Arencibia W | IM | 2555 | -16 | +57 | =55 | -18 | -41 | +45 | +35 | -40 | =52 | -36 | =46 | =47 | -32 | 5.0 |
| 57 | Van Riemsdijk H | IM | 2440 | -14 | -56 | -47 | +61 | +53 | =43 | -27 | =45 | +46 | -44 | =59 | -60 | =62 | 5.0 |
| 58 | El Taher F | IM | 2375 | +53 | -08 | =46 | -28 | -24 | -44 | =60 | -38 | =62 | =61 | -43 | +59 | -52 | 4.0 |
| 59 | Juarez Flores C | IM | 2425 | -30 | -27 | =41 | =45 | =62 | -53 | =38 | =61 | -55 | +60 | =57 | -58 | -47 | 4.0 |
| 60 | Piasetski L | IM | 2410 | -29 | =40 | -53 | -41 | =61 | =38 | =58 | =62 | -45 | -59 | -47 | +57 | -51 | 3.5 |
| 61 | Hmadi S | IM | 2335 | -21 | -20 | -52 | -57 | =60 | =62 | +64 | =59 | -43 | =58 | -54 | =55 | -53 | 3.5 |
| 62 | Afifi A | IM | 2400 | =39 | -07 | -33 | -44 | =59 | =61 | -52 | =60 | =58 | -46 | -55 | =53 | =57 | 3.5 |
| 63 | Salov V | GM | 2655 | +47 | =25 | -34 | =54 | -40 | +55 | =26 | 3.5 | ||||||
| 64 | Thipsay P | IM | 2490 | =28 | -05 | =31 | -42 | -27 | -52 | -61 | 1.0 |
Preliminary matches
After the withdrawal of Jakarta to host all the preliminaries, the matches at short notice were arranged at different venues.
Madras, I-II, 1991.
For the first time an Indian qualified to the Candidates. His meeting with Dreev was an interesting test for the one who is probably the rapidest chess player of the world. Dreev much slower make time to adjust himself and collapsed completely once Anand decided to combine, speed, attack and tactic.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Total | ||
| Dreev A RUS | 0 | = | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.5 | |
| Anand V IND | 1 | = | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4.5 |
Sarajevo, I-II, 1991.
J. Timman vs. R. Hubner very both very experience players for such exercise. Timman better prepared playing some exotic opening like Alekhine Defense or the Scotch opening scored two decisive wins and played some “anti-chess” for the remaining games.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Total | ||
| Timman J NED | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | = | = | 4.5 | |
| Huebner R GER | = | = | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | 2.5 |
Sarajevo, I-II, 1991.
The match between the Russian B. Gelfand and the Bosnian P. Nikolic was unpredictable until the end. Boris was twice in lead but Nikolic stiked back and leveled the score to 4-4. Not too aggressive in the first tiebreak Nikolic made a wrong opening choice in the second game leaving the point and the match to the Byelorussian.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Total | |||
| Gelfand B URS | = | 0 | 1 | = | = | 1 | = | 0 | = | 1 | 5.5 | ||
| Nikolic P YUG | = | 1 | 0 | = | = | 0 | = | 1 | = | 0 | 4.5 |
Wijk aan Zee, I-II, 1991.
Korchnoi and Sax was a hard fight on and off the board!. Both players blundered some winning games but Korchnoi was the first to score the point and could even double in the 6th game after Sax gambling on a speculative sacrifice but the Swiss took too much time to find the right move and finally blundered in time trouble. In the first tiebreak Sax was winning but Korchnoi used the same strategy that Sax used in 6th game. He messed the position, sacrificed some pawn and pray for the flag to fall down. In the second game Korchnoi build a fortress and scored the necessary half point.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Total | |||
| Korchnoi V SUI | = | = | = | = | 1 | 0 | = | = | 1 | = | 5.5 | ||
| Sax G HUN | = | = | = | = | 0 | 1 | = | = | 0 | = | 4.5 |
London, I-II, 1991.
Unfortunately the two English representatives, Nigel Short and J. Speelman had once more to play together. Short used some old openings like Vienna and Four Knight defense and finally after a 4-4 the won the second tie-beak game after his opponent play very passively the ending.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Total | ||
| J. Speelman ENG | 0 | = | 1 | = | 1 | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | 4.5 | |
| N. Short ENG | 1 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | = | = | = | 1 | 5.5 |
Riga, I-II, 1991.
The match Ivanchuk-Yudasin was a real wipeout. Everything Ivanchuk did come up to roses. Ivanchuk, too kind, missed the Fischer score 6-0.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total | ||
| V. Ivanchuk URS | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 4.5 | |
| L. Yudasin URS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | 0.5 |
Wijk aan Zee, I-II, 1991.
Unpredictable was also the match Yusupov – Dolmatov, two good friends who are sharing M. Dvoresky as coach. Yusupov arrived to the match after been affected with a tragic gunshot wound during a robbery at home. After four draws Dolmatov opened the score and only during the last game Yusupov managed to level the score after magisterial play with powerful attack. Yusupov had to wait till the 11th game to take option for a ticket to the next stage.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Total | |||
| S. Dolmatov URS | = | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | = | 5.5 | ||
| A. Yusupov URS | = | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | = | 6.5 |
Quarterfinal matches
The all four matches of the Candidate Quarterfinals were organized in Brussels by Swift and its Chairman B. Kok. A usual with Bessel everything was first class and the organization was just a dream.
Brussels, VIII, 1991.
Karpov-Anand
A match between two generations, the youngest Candidate against the second oldest. In game one, a poor play y Anand allowed Karpov to obtain the upper hand. A victory of the Soviet was expected but just prior the adjournment he blundered. Anand sacrificed his Bishop for two pawns and analyses showed that draw was a clear outcome. In the second game Karpov was in time pressure twice. After the opening the Champion had two Bishops and a slight advantage. But during the time trouble Karpov fell victim to some sparking tactics and was lost. Anand missed a clear win with 43…c3 and instead allowed a blockade and opposite-colored Bishops. In game three, Anand completely outplayed Karpov. He built up to the win of a pawn and got a strong attack, but missed completely the winning move 45.Qd8 and instead had to settle for a perpetual draw. No doubt Karpov was very lucky to escape twice the defeat and as expected he punished his young opponent with a masterful performance. A very complicated game, which at first make you think that Anand was better with black pawns on c2 and b3 but after 24…Qe8? instead of Bd7, Black is forced to enter to a long and difficult middle-game which result was a loss. Anand digested fast and well his defeat and outplayed against Karpov in the fifth game. In the Advance Caro-Kann the players shuffled their pieces until Karpov committed a serious error with 29…Rb6 after which Anand has definitely the advantage. From the adjournment he played a beautiful series of moves to reach the wining a winning position but once more at the critical moment he missed the winning move 74.h5! and let Karpov to escape. The scenario was identical the next day but this time the time pressure was too strong with 6 moves in one minute and Karpov overlooked a tactic which cost him a pawn and later the game. In game seven, Karpov showed a good defense and despite a good ending Anand could not conclude with a full point. To nervous for the last game we may said it was not Anand’s day. Playing passively a Slav defense with some dubious moves, the Indian cracked completely and had to resign on move.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total | ||
| Anand. V | = | = | = | 0 | = | 1 | = | 0 | 3.5 | |
| Karpov. A | = | = | = | 1 | = | 0 | = | 1 | 4.5 |
Brussels, VIII, 1991.
Gelfand-Short
The interesting debate between the best British players and the young Belarusian star Boris Gelfand was worth to be watched. Few month before Kasparov forecasted Ivanchuk and Short as his potential successor… It was not the best start for the English player. In game one the British combined bad opening and poor middle game to lose the game in 21 moves. Quite rare at this level. However in the second game it was the turn of his opponent to play poorly the opening allowing Short to grab the initiative and make pressure on the opponent’s king. An adjournment with two extra pawns was more than enough for Short to level the score. In game three Nagel choose the Sicilian with f4, such variation play by more or less all English’s GMs. A fine pawn sacrifice 24.f5, Short went to a brilliancy combination and and fixed the score in his favour. Gelfand had a nice opening but later was outplayed by Short. In time trouble Short sacrificed the exchange but missed the best continuation 37..Bc6 which could make his opponent in trouble but instead that he had to struggle for a draw after two sessions of play. In the fifth game Gelfand, one of the best theoretical players in the world, didn’t want to try a Sicilian nice his poor experience in game three and went for the Exchange Berlin Defense. Bad day everything went wrong for him. Short maneuvered his piece over the kingside and completely wiped the Soviet off the board. Gelfand bounced back in game six with a good performance. A Queen’s Indian where Short didn’t place his piece on the right squares and had a lot of difficulties to hold leaving Gelfand to finish nicely and narrow the score. A tense struggle in game seven with the Petroff and an interesting novelty 15.hxg4 played by Short which made Gelfand in trouble. But couple of weak moves let Gelfand sacrificed his Knight to break through and to escape with a draw. A must win situation came for the Soviet in game eight. Boris got a nice advantage but was trying to hard to kill immediately his opponent instead to consolidate and build an winning position. In time trouble Gelfand went on with some horrible blunders throwing away everything and finally loosing the point and the match.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total | ||
| N. Short ENG | 0 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | 0 | = | 1 | 5.0 | |
| B. Gelfand URS | 1 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | = | 0 | 3.0 |
Brussels, VIII, 1991.
Ivanchuk-Yusupov
More or less 100 Elo points separate both players but A. Yussupov can counted on is rich experience of Candidate’s match player. Ivanchuk is definitively more talented but if anything keeps him from a match with Kasparov in 1993, it will be nerves. In game one Ivanchuk was completely winning but with 2 minutes each left on the clocks the game became a madcap blitz where Ivanchuk missed several wins. Ivanchuk agreed for a draw with a Bishop ahead but three pawns behind! Yusupov won a strategic victory in game two. With a bad opening and too much time of thinking, Ivanchuk managed to find a Bishops-of-opposite-color ending with Rooks. However once again time pressure made him lost two pawn and the game. In the game three the scenario was similar but in the favor of Ivanchuk. Yusupov could not hold his position and weakness and time pressure was the decisive factor. Yusupov had some opening problem in the next game however made impossible for Ivanchuk to build some winning strategy. Another splendid strategic effort in game 6 He exploited an opening novelty to the maximum extent. Having a nice space advantage, Ivanchuk constantly posed nagging problem for his opponent. As Yusupov’s came under pressure, so did the clock. In time trouble Yusupov overlooked a tactic and went down. Yusupov played an impressive novelty in the next game 14.d5. Ivanchuk magnificent in defense neutralize the initiative and even got an extra pawn but not enough to conclude positively the game. In game seven Ivanchuk won a pawn with good position but after 35. Qb6 he was an exchange down! Hopefully he defended well and draw was accepted after the adjournment. Yusupov was in a “must-win” situation for his game and he did so with brilliancy. He sacrificed a Rook for a strong attack then forced the “usual mistake 22… Nf6” and after Ne6 the game was more of less over. In the first play off Ivanchuk did played at his best the move 13.f4 was rather dubious but Yusupov more concern with the time manage to mess his position and suddenly left Ivanchuk with a clear winning game till he blundered by checking with the wrong Knight! Yusupov sacrificed a Rook and a Bishop and mate the Black King. In the second tiebreak, under high tension, Yusupov went for an attack. Ivanchuk defended magnificently, forcing his opponent for sacrifice the exchange but again with no time his clock the world number two couldn’t concretize his advantage and draw was concluded few seconds before his flag fell. Like in 1987 Yusupov moved to the semi-finals.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Total | |||
| V. Ivanchuk URS | = | 0 | 1 | = | 1 | = | = | 0 | 0 | = | 4.5 | ||
| A. Yusupov URS | = | 1 | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | 1 | 1 | = | 5.5 |
Brussels, VIII, 1991.
Timman-Korchnoi
V. Korchnoi the strongest player who never been World Champion vs. the final of the last Candidate Tournament. Korchnoi played the first game very passively and soon a weak isolated pawn on d5. Immovable defense kept the balance and a painless draw was the result. Timman didn’t open too well the next game but the Swiss when for a risk long castling which made the Dutch to launch a terrible attack on the king. Korchnoi didn’t play the most precisely moves and in time trouble and few blunders later Timman scored his first point. Look Korchnoi didn’t recover for game three. He went for an unusual variation of the Spanish which made him think too long and again with no time left at his clock he missed a little trick and resign few moves later. In game four with the obligation to win, Korchnoi follows a well known line of the English used by Kasparov. But instead to use the usual pattern played often by the world champion, he went on with some unclear innovation which let him with no advantage and an easy game for his opponent. In game five Korchnoi fell back on an old favorite, the Semi-Accelerated Dragon mostly discredited by the experts. Timman achieved a huge advantage but then played poorly to let his opponent to escape with a draw. It was a unexpected quick draw in game six. Twenty eight moves only and difficult to understand the Korchnoi’s strategy who now has to make two out of two! In game seven, Timman had some advantage after the opening but suddenly playing too passively, he let Korchnoi to take the initiative and develop an strong attack. The Dutch defended well and finally draw his game with right to play the next stage.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Total | ||
| J. Timman NED | = | 1 | 1 | = | = | = | = | 4.5 | |
| V. Korchnoi SUI | = | 0 | 0 | = | = | = | = | 2.5 |
