Cycle 1963-1966
Interzonal
In 1964 the Dutch chess federation organized the 6th Interzonal in Amsterdam and for the first time four players were declared winners. Of course Fischer in conflict with the FIDE refused to enter despite that FIDE accept to re-adjust its regulations by qualify only 3 players from the same country. The Soviets players Stein and Bronstein were the victim of those new changes for all the benefit of the Yugoslav Ivkov.
The Belgian GM O’Kelly commented: TThe Interzonal Tournament was the strongest tournament ever played in Holland. Of the 24 participants, 18 are grandmasters and 6 are international masters — participation in an interzonal automatically giving the title of international master to those, who did not already hold it.
To avoid eventual “combines” between players of the same nationality, the first round drawing was done in such a way that representatives of the same country were paired against each other. Some unexpected results of the early rounds were Darga’s win over Spassky (Darga getting his revenge for his defeat at Varna in 1962) and Bronstein’s win over Stein. Stein, in a favorable position, went in for a combinational sacrifice, which was unsound and he finished up with a Rook against a Bishop and a Knight — losing the long endgame. Larsen was awakened too late by the hotel porter and arrived with three-quarters of an hour gone on his clock, but that did not stop him from beating Pachman all the same.
From the beginning of the tournament the Danish Grandmaster Larsen had his mind made up as to which way he was going. At the outset he said that he would take 6th place and now (at the end of the 11th round) it looks as if he might be right. (Actually, his prediction was far too modest! — Ed.) However, the last five rounds will be uphill work for him because he has yet to play the five Russian grandmasters. If Larsen maintains his present form, this will be his greatest success since the 1956 Olympiad in Moscow.
The second non-Russian to make sure of his place in the Candidates is Ivkov, who, without any fuss, has quietly been collecting precious points.
Reshevsky, after a series of five draws, has started to win some games, but like Ivkov, he has so far been eating the cake because he has yet to play the Soviets. The latter are still busily occupied in playing with each other, in keeping with the idea that players of the same nationality should meet in the early rounds.
Gligoric, one of the favorites to qualify for the Candidates, has been having a rough time of it, losing three games in a row to Stein, Spassky and Smyslov. Such a thing hasn’t happened to him for many years.
The two former World Champions, Smyslov and Tal, are in good form but in the case of Smyslov fatigue makes itself felt at the end of the five-hour sessions with the result that he lost two precious half-points, drawing won games against Spassky and Pachman and taking a draw also from Fogelman, one of the weaker players in the tournament.”
Robert Wade (ENG) reported for FIDE Review: “…By instructions, the Soviets- were paired with each other as early as feasible which proved to be without the first seven rounds. With the internal struggle over, their scores between themselves were 2½, Smyslov, Spassky, Tal 2 and Stein 1½ made up on all except for the Stein—Bronstein game. None of these draws were conceded, but the desperation that might have occurred if, say Stein had met Spassky had at the end of the tournament, was lacking. Actually, if two of these grandmasters had to be eliminated there was practically no need for their early pairing.
The first aspect then of double struggle was the need of Soviet grandmasters ruthlessly round by round from round eight to score wins.
In this they came near to like precision. In round eight they scored 4 out of 5, in nine 4½ in ten 4, in eleven 5, in twelve with black—5 (the rest of the taking a fearsome punishment) in thirteen 4½. Round fourteen saw a slight relaxation—only 3! Spassky won and the others drew. Round fifteen—back to normal 4½ points and Spassky had won eight games in succession. Sixteenth- 4 points, seventeenth 4½, with Spassky beating Reshevsky, eighteenth just 3½ point-three game having been draw-the strain was beginning to tell!.
The second aspect was the struggle between the non-Soviet players. The tournament was robbed of perhaps its principal attraction to the public by the strange decision of the young American champion, Robert Fischer, not to participate and this despite the evident ambition to prove him the strongest player in the world. This surely would only be accomplished by coming ahead of players of the standard of Petrosian, Keres, Smyslov, Spassky, Tal not just once but a number of times. And surely this, with the fratricidal struggle between the Soviet great masters, was just the opportunity again.
Yet as the tournament moved steadily on day by day the regret at the absence of Fischer died and admiration passed to the emergence of Bent Larsen, the 29-year-old Danish grandmaster.
Larsen took the lead in the tournament right from the early stages. After ten rounds he headed the field with 8 points, half-a-point ahead of Ivkov. The spectators were surprised hut contented themselves by saying “Larsen still has to meet the Soviets. That will be different then.” After thirteen rounds, dropping two more draws, Spassky and Tal were ahead of him! Yet, with the Soviet machine in top gear, five rounds later Larsen is back sharing the lead, beating Rossetto in round fourteen, playing a fine win from Portisch in round fifteen, beating Quinones in round sixteen, Darga in round seventeen and drawing with Tringov in round eighteen.
Now two of our struggles interweave. In round nineteen Bronstein—Larsen in an electrifying effort turns in favor of the Dane and the Soviet five score only 3½ points. Round twenty and the Soviet group again scored 3½ points after Larsen and Tal growled (figuratively) at each other before drawing. Stein beat Larsen in round twenty-one and the Soviet grandmasters chalked up 4 points. Larsen did not seem in the least worried—he had made certain of qualifying and could play havoc with his potential Candidate rivals.
Round twenty-two saw the Soviet machine most surprisingly chalk up only two points from four draws. In a tough slogging positional game Larsen beat Spassky. Our respect for the Scandinavian was turning to awe. In the last round all five of the Soviet grand masters still stood in the shadow of the Candidates. Their fates depended on single games. Tat dispatched Tringov rapidly to place him self for the third time in the Candidates. Spassky won in straight forward manner from Quinones. Smyslov’s offer of a draw was sporned by Larsen, Stein, handicapped by that oversight to Bronstein, was held to a draw by Darga while Bronstein and Portisch exhausted their possibilities and drew. Then Smyslov by the skin of his teeth managed to hold the draw.
The other two non-Soviet places were also a matter of great tension. At about the half-way stage 7 players (Ivkov, Lengyel, Darga, Portisch, Gligoric, Pachman, Evans) were in the running and only Evans dropped out in the next quarter. Ivkov steadily remained well-placed, scored four draws against the Soviet five in rounds seventeen till twenty-one and then finished up beating Pachman and Rossetto. Reshevsky kept well up, and after 13 rounds lay 7th with 9 points; against the U.S.S.R. players he lost to Spassky and drew with the others. Then the strain and length of tournament told on his 53 years. Round nineteen saw a draw scraped with Pachman, round twenty a draw against Foguelman in a slightly inferior position, round twenty-one a very lucky escape with a draw against Gligoric. Round twenty-two and twenty-three brought wins against Porath and Perez to leave Reshevsky tied with Portisch and having to play-off for the last place in the Candidates’.
Portisch’s fight to qualify was fraught with peril. After 15 rounds he had 8 points. Then he reeled off wins against Porath, Quiñones, and Perez and had a chance. Round nineteen brought near-disaster—a loss to Darga. The next three rounds contained three more wins over Benko Tringov, and Berger and then the climax—a hard game against Bronstein with Reshevsky to face in the four game play-off match.
Among those falling by the way side was the Yugoslav grandmaster, Gligoric, who, like Portisch, faced a stern chase. After 14 rounds Gligoric had 7½ If he had scored the expected win against Reshevsky in round twenty-one he might have tied for 8th place.
Dr. Max Euwe, Organizer and Chief Arbiter published also his comments on some important decisions and outcomes of the tournament:
Soviet grandmasters proved their chess fame in Amsterdam, three of them together with Danish Larsen finished in the top three. Two other Russian grandmasters gained the 5th and 6th places in a minimal margin.
This wonderful result had to give a complete satisfaction.
Two moments demand more attentive and close examination: “Fischer” and so-called “Numerus Closius”.
Let’s begin with Fischer. Why did he refuse to play in Amsterdam? There was no somehow a satisfactory explanation and explanation at all. Fisher confined himself with a shot- “no comments”.
Let’s try to explain his behavior ourselves. May be it was because of financial difficulties? It is true that the financial conditions of all FIDE tournaments are not satisfactory. The first prize in the interzonal is 1500 Swiss franks and that’s only 350 rubles. And it is the first prize. You can easily imagine what the other prizes are. The world-known grandmaster should strain every nerve for such sums.
It is high time for FIDE to reconsider radically financial conditions and increase amount of prizes three or four times as much. For Fischer mentioned financial difficulties did not play any role, and the point is not money and fear. What’s the reason- there should be some explanations while having the unstable character of the young USA champion nobody can claim firmly, that there is some concrete reason. I believe that the reason is the following: Bob Fisher accepts for the first turn his own opinion and may be only his.
Robert Fischer said that there was a world chess union which establishes the regulations of the gaining of the World Champion title that was not bad, but much more important what he-Robert Fischer- considered to be correct. If the chessplayer surpassed more, much more a middle level of achievement than there was no reason to take into account usual rules. He does not need to climb the stairs of competitions to the championship match persistently. He can be strictly allowed to compete to the encounter of such kind. But of course his achievement should correspond to it
What about Fischer’s achievements from Fischer’s point of view?
Everybody knows that each chess player without any exceptions is inclined to measure the strength of his play with his successes and vice versa slightly shade his failures, explaining them with special circumstances –illnesses, unluckiness, insomnia, etc. If we take in account all this, then Fischer’s achievement look like this: in 1962 he scored a great victory in the interzonal at Stockholm- in several points margin from great Russian grandmasters. At the end of 1962 he gained an indisputable victory in the USA Championship. At the end of 1963 he reached unprecedented 100% result in the US Championship. Such triumph had given Fischer the right without any difficulties to fight against world champion. But what about the not outstandingly good result at Varna? It can be explained that it had been a team tournament. Usually at such tournaments chess players make experiments and it is permissible to have failures.
What about his failure in Curacao?
Fischer had to play 40 hours per week, while his opponents spent only 15-20 hours on the chess board. As a rule, Fischer’s games demand intensive adjournment and his task was incomparably heavier.
That was Fischer’s logic. Speaking only about Curacao-with his final result of 14 points out of 27 games Fischer could hardly appeal to be the main candidate for the championship match.
However he is ready to adduce some additional arguments. As it is known he had proposed to organize the match between him and one of the strongest 5 Soviet chess players. Several times he noted that that match did not have anything common with world championship match. And again- Fischer hopes in the case of possible victory to find out new arguments for straight encounter with world champion and again Fischer wants to avoid the ways accepted by FIDE, as he does not consider them correct in this case. It is not known if the mentioned match would take place, but it looks clear that in the nearest championship match Fischer would not play as a challenger.
That was the Fischer’s problem on close detailed examination.
As for “Numerus Closus”- under this term, Euwe means the position in which only a certain number of representatives of one country could participate (half plus one). The purpose of this arbitrary position is to stand in the way of transformation of the candidates’ tournament into one strongest country’s chess tournament what might lead to decreasing of chess interest on the international scale.
At the same time, this position hides something not real and unjustified. In 1962 at Stockholm grandmaster Stein was ahead of grandmaster Benko, however, the last one got into Candidates’ and Stein didn’t. In the interzonal at Amsterdam 1964, Stein and Bronstein gained higher places than Ivkov and Portisch did. And again the last ones got into the Candidates. Euwe considered it be unfair and incorrect. I do not think that the Curacao Candidates’ might have been less interesting if Soviet grandmaster Stein played instead of Benko. He believed that the match championship which was held each three years did arise all-world interest, while two Russians were fighting between themselves.
He continued that thus in next Candidates’ Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov, Tal, Spassky and Larsen, Ivkov and Portisch would play. Everybody can imagine that the tournament with seven Russian participants and one Larsen indeed would be somehow one-sided show. Larsen would be found to be in a quite difficult position, as it had happened to him at the end of the interzonal, when he had to meet with Russian chess players in a row. But conducting of the Candidates’ tournament had changed completely two years ago fundamentally. Candidates’ that time had not been a tournament at all – it consisted of row of matches and it was hardly to see any sense in “Numerus Closus”. Before the first session there would be 4 encounters: Botvinnik-Smyslov, Keres-Spassky, Tal-Portisch, and Larsen-Ivkov; in usual tournament, I would see the difference if Larsen played against Stein instead of Ivkov, Tal played against Bronstein instead of Portisch. If nothing special happened we would see only Russian opponents. If FIDE really intended to keep international chess world in tension till the end, it would be possible to consider the question of holding simultaneously two Candidates’ competitions – series of matches for chess players and a row of matches for Soviet participants. In accordance with established procedure the point of “numerus closus” declined. Then it would be unimportant how many winners were in the interzonal.
The whole FIDE system is directed on giving possibility for each chess player to improve himself and move forward on the way to the chess throne. Zonal tournaments winners of which had right to play in the interzonal was a good idea, but it is not fair that interzonal was losing its value because of non-equal staff of participants.”
Amsterdam, V-VI, 1964.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | Total | ||
| 1 | Smyslov,V | Xx | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 17.0 |
| 2 | Larsen,B | ½ | xx | 1 | ½ | 0 | 1 | 0 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 17.0 |
| 3 | Spassky,B | ½ | 0 | xx | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 17.0 |
| 4 | Tal,M | ½ | ½ | ½ | xx | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 17.0 |
| 5 | Stein,L | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | Xx | 0 | 1 | ½ | 0 | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16.5 |
| 6 | Bronstein,D | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 1 | xx | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16.0 |
| 7 | Ivkov,B | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | xx | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 15.0 |
| 8 | Reshevsky,S | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | Xx | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14.5 |
| 9 | Portisch,L | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | xx | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14.5 |
| 10 | Gligoric,S | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | xx | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14.0 |
| 11 | Darga,K | 0 | 0 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 0 | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | xx | 0 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | 13.5 |
| 12 | Lengyel,L | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | 1 | xx | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13.0 |
| 13 | Pachman,L | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | xx | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 12.5 |
| 14 | Evans,LM | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | xx | 1 | ½ | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | 10.0 |
| 15 | Tringov,G | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | Xx | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 9.5 |
| 16 | Benko,P | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | xx | ½ | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 9.0 |
| 17 | Rossetto,H | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ½ | xx | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8.0 |
| 18 | Foguelman,A | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 1 | ½ | xx | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8.0 |
| 19 | Bilek,I | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | 1 | xx | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 8.0 |
| 20 | Quinones,O | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | xx | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 7.0 |
| 21 | Porath,Y | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | 1 | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ½ | xx | 0 | ½ | ½ | 5.5 |
| 22 | Perez,F | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | xx | 1 | 1 | 5.0 |
| 23 | Berger,B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | xx | 0 | 4.5 |
| 24 | Vranesic,Z | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | 1 | xx | 4.0 |
Quarterfinal matches
FIDE’s Congress accepted the Soviet proposal to introduce an important change in the holding of the final competition of candidates for the world championship. The advantage of matches rather than tournament was mainly to avoid third party influence and to provoke a direct battle.
The results of those matches were according to the logic. Spassky and Geller had no problem against the old Soviet generation. Tal, when he is in good shape, showed that he is still part of the best world player and Larsen was nearly at his best.
Moscow, IV, 1965.
Geller justified quite easily his position as the favorite of the match. The former champion looked without energy. Smyslov never won a game and always appear to be struggling.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total | |
| Geller E | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 5.5 |
| Smyslov V | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 2.5 |
Bled, VI-VII, 1965.
Larsen won the first game and Ivkov could never recover after that. He could ever increase the lead after game three but incredibly blundered the winning position. Ivkov scored a fine victory in game seven but was surpised with the Alekhine defense played by the Dane in the eighth game. On move 15, Larsen sacrificed his Queen for three pieces and scored his finest victory of this match.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total | |
| Larsen B | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | 0 | 1 | 5.5 |
| Ivkov B | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 1 | 0 | 2.5 |
Riga, IV, 1965.
Before the match, Spassky was honored by his prestigious opponent who said: among all the Candidates, Spassky is surely the strongest. Despite a bad start, Spassky was not scared to enter into lines used with success in the past by his opponent. A strategy which paid him with some fine victories
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Total | |
| Spassky B | 0 | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | 1 | 6.0 |
| Keres P | 1 | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | 0 | 4.0 |
Bled, VI-VII, 1965.
Portish had great difficulties with Black. In each game, he tried another defense but managed to score only half point out of four. With such outcome, Tal’s strategy became very easy: hold and draw.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total | |
| Portisch L | ½ | 0 | 1 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | 2.5 |
| Tal M | ½ | 1 | 0 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 5.5 |
Tal: ‘‘It was a surprise for me that lvkov lost. Before the match I said that I would rather play against Larsen than Portisch, With Larsen I would have more fun Portisch tailed off.’’
Portisch: ‘‘I was unlucky to have to play Tal. He is better now than I have ever seen him. He played like a champion. He would beat anybody.’’
Ivkov: ‘‘I cannot find words to explain the result, Never in my life have I made so many weak moves. Larsen played well but Tal would easily beat him. In preparation for the match, I analysed about 150 of Larsen’s games.”
Larsen: ‘‘I prepared for the match very thoroughly, going through about 300 of lvkov’s games of the last ten years. Maybe the first game decided, I will beat Tal by 5½-4½. I shall make the same score against Spassky though it will be more difficult with him.”
Semifinal matches
In Tal’s match, the final decision came at the last stage. Tal won the last game after an intuitive and dubious Knight’s sacrifice on move 16 combined with a bad reaction of his opponent which missed a winning Nc5 few moves later. Spassky’s victory was easier with three wins and undefeated.
Riga, V-VI, 1965.
Thorough the match, Spassky’s strategy was to avoid drawish position but better goes into complications in which he felt more superior. In game one Spassky failed to equalize but Geller not ready to take risk at this early stage of the match left his opponent to escape and to draw without undue difficulty. In the second game Geller tried the Mashall Attack with which …Spassky had already achieved some known success. Using some unusual line, Geller drifted into trouble loss the exchange and let Spassky score his first point. In the sixth game Spassky scored another victory helped by the weak defense used by this opponent. On the eighth game, a Sicilian defense, Spassky launched a terrible attack on the opposite King’s side. To avoid an early disaster, Geller had to spoil his pawn structure. The rest of the game was just a matter of technique.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total | |
| Geller E | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | 2.5 |
| Spassky B | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 5.5 |
Bled, VII-VIII, 1965.
The match was a real struggle and the fight went on until the last game. Larsen opened the first game with an interesting novelty with gave him a decisive advantage. Larsen was also better in the second game but misjudged the move 32…Nd5 which costed him straight away the game. A nice tactical struggle was played in the third game however after some accuracies both players agreed to draw. In the fourth, Tal gave up a pawn in the middle game but got good attacking chance. Larsen defended well and went with an extra-Pawn to the adjournment but fail to turn this advantage into a win. A fine game from Larsen in the fifth; the Danish showed great energy with White piece and as expected scored the point. In the next game, the Alekhine defense which has not a good reputation in such encounter. The closed position which resulted gave some good inspiration to the former world champion, who placed an interesting sacrifice on move 16 and emerged with an irresistible attack. In the ninth, Tal went into difficulty right after the opening but managed to build a strong center. Larsen, like in game four, could never materialize the advantage. The tenth game was the decisive and the most dramatic. Tal made a magnificent positional sacrifice on move 16th and finished this opponent and the match with a second one!
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Total | |
| Larsen B | 1 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 4.5 |
| Tal M | 0 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 0 | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 5.5 |
Playoff for 3rd place, Copenhagen, III, 1966.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Total | |
| Larsen,B | 1 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 0 | 1 | 5.0 |
| Geller,E | 0 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 0 | 4.0 |
Final Candidates’ match
Michael Tal – Boris Spassky
A great battle. Despite two points down Tal tried a magisterial firework the 11th game by sacrificing 2 pieces in three moves! But Spassky defended masterfully and score the decisive point.
With the score after eight games of their match still four-all, he blitzed Tal in the 9th, 10th and 11th games in succession to make the score 7-4 and the twelfth game unnecessary. Tal was frequently in time- trouble—this same Tal who used to race two hours ahead of his opponent within a five hours’ session !—and he could not school himself to play quietly, sacrificing and complicating in quite unsuitable situations.
Kotov wrote in the Izvestia the following article:
Tal is ungovernable!
Tal is headstrong, impetuous, and ungovernable. He cannot be persuaded to play quiet chess. His trainer Alexander Koblentz knows this well enough. He has given up trying to restrict Tal’s spirit. The start of the match in Tiflis has shown us the old Tal in his power, his brilliant talent, his zest for conflict and devotion to his art.”
Spassky had revealed himself as an unsure starter in the 1964 Zonal Tournament when he lost his first two games. He lost his first game against Keres in the World Championship Quarter-finals earlier this year but won the match. So his supporters were still hopeful.
Gligoric said that the last performances of Spassky and Tal gave the possibility to suppose that Spassky would be a winner. But Gligoric could not consider Spassky’s result as premature. He added that Tal had been a world champion, and he liked it, and then he had been so close to the aim.
Larsen said that it was difficult to analyze the reasons of his supposition but he would say that the winner would be Spassky. If he begins properly weighing of all the facts in Spassky or Talfavors, thanmay be Tal would outweigh. His estimation is very subjective.
Euwe said that Tal was stronger but a physical preparation must turn out to be decisive in the encounter of these two outstanding chess players of nowadays. And in thiscasethe advantage will be in Spassky favor.
Botvinnik: “It will be a fight in store between two different inagewhich can be measured precisely and I think apparently in talent while the talent can not be measured and not equal in health, a physical state. This is an encounter of chess players, extraordinary one-sided developed Tal and a chess player of universal style Spassky. I can not say how the match will end,struggle is struggle.
Fischer said that the prediction was always difficult. Most people think that Spassky’s chances were more preferable. But it was known that Tal was veryresistant,when it would come to do a real fight.
Tbilisi, XI, 1965.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Total | |
| Tal M | ½ | 1 | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.0 |
| Spassky B | ½ | 0 | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7.0 |
After the Candidate’s final match Spassky was interviewed by the Soviet chess magazine 64:
Q-What can you say about the match and its participants?
A-It was the hardest match out of all, in which I had to play. Tal and I were rather well prepared for this match. The psychological struggle of the participants was maybe the most interesting in the match. Up until the 9th round, using the language of boxing looked like a real pressing. However, neither Tal nor me were accustomed to such manner of playing. There was a moment when I was going through a real breakdown. It happened after the 5th round. The reason was in the nervousity ad tenseness of the start. The 9th game turned out to be a turning point. That match once again showed that when two equal rivals are playing against each other-the most important is tactics and especially nerves.
Q-What can you say about the coming match with Petrosian?
A-The only thing I can say is that I want to do my utmost to play as good as it is possible.
Before the Match according to Tal, Petrosian’s chances were not better than 50/50. Petrosian, he said, has often been accused of being overly cautious, but his style is a magnificent example of flexible technique and coldly accurate appreciation of all types of position. Tal recalled that over the past ten years, Petrosian has not had any bad results from the numerous tournaments in which he played. He described Petrosian as an extremely subtle positional player – a virtuoso of defense and a profound psychologist – a player in whose armor it is difficult to find the chink. Petrosian estimated that Tal in his match against Spassky had lost his nerve and had tried too quickly to force events.
Spassky, interviewed after a simultaneous display at London University was asked why, in his opinion, Tal had collapsed in his last three games against him. After a long pause Spassky said:
“I think that that match was a bitter disappointment to all amateur chess players. The match was very interesting from a psychological point of view and psychology plays a big part in any match against Tal. My position was made more difficult in that I knew that all the amateurs wanted Tal to win.” This is evidently a popular point of view: the sharp style of Tal has contributed enormously to the present-day popularity of the game. Spassky also remarked that, as far as preparation of the openings went, he felt he had the edge on Petrosian. His questioner did not press that point.”
Final (April 9-June 9 1966)
Tigran Petrosian was born on the 19th of June 1929, Boris Spassky on the 30th of January 1937. You have to go back to the Alekhine-Bogolyubov matches in the middle thirties to find a smaller margin there was only three years between those two.
Age is important. Physical stamina plays a compelling role. Players are normally at their best between 25 and 35. Though, of course, people vary enormously, the exceptions are rare.
The official opening of the match, on April 9th, preceded the start of play by a couple of days.
After speeches from the deputy mayor of Moscow, a member of the government and the president of the Soviet Chess Federation (deputising for the President of F.I.D.E. who was unable for health reasons to travel from Stockholm), the ex-wor Champion Dr. Max Euwe, who had come to assist in connection with the first two games of the match, conveyed to the Soviet Chess Federation the good wishes of the world’s amateurs. Finally, the Belgian grand master A. O’Kelly as the Chief Arbiter with his assistant the Czech grandmaster Filip, spoke in Russian extolling the role of chess in the world today and the personalities of the two grand masters who were now to vie with each other for its highesthonorr.
This ceremony took place in the Variety Theatre, which seats 1350 and where world championship matches have been held twice before. Seats for the public ranged from 50 kopeks to 1 rouble 80 kopeks.
Game 1
Caro-Kann Defense
Spassky chose the same variation that brought him victory against Matanovic. No problem for Black as they quickly equalized. Spassky diverged first but got no advantage.
Game 2
Queen’s Gambit
After a cautious opening, instead of simplifying Spassky took some unnecessary risks. Petrosian maneuvered into a favorable endgame. To avoid worse, Spassky had to sacrifice a pawn. But short of time Petrosian let slip the greater part of his advantage and the Challenger managed to solve his problem without too much trouble.
Game 3
Caro-Kann Defense
Petrosian kept Spassky under pressure for a long period of time. To get some relieve, Spassky had to sacrifice a pawn. With a possible winning position, the Champion then committed a series of inaccuracies, but still maintained good winning chances. However, in time trouble Petrosian could not find the right plan to concretize his superiority. Once more Spassky escaped from the defeat.
Game 4
Catalan Opening
Spassky adopted a close system of defense by which Black confronts White with a brick wall. A hard positional struggle ensued with Petrosian controlling more of the board. An inaccuracy on Petrosian’s part enabled Spassky to develop some pressure but not enough to claim any decisive advantage.
Petrosian said: “The first four games showed Spassky’s excellent practical preparedness, Failing into bad position, mainly due to inaccurate opening play, he then found the best practical chances available.”
Game 5
Caro-Kann Defense
Spassky at least gained the initiative and established a powerful position. In view of the threats of inexorable suffocation, it was Petrosian’s turn to sacrifice a awn, in order to free his game. For many analysts the position looked hopeless. Petrosian decided then to play his last card and launched an attack on the opposite King. Instead to exploit his extra pawn, Spassky had to resort to desperate measure to extricate his King from the attack. With Black’s pieces threatening dangerously White’s position, the win was not too easy to find. Home analyses were helpful for Petrosian; Black managed to find the right defense and draw was agreed after 79 moves.
Five successive draws have never previously opened any World Championship match. It was a news record!
Game 6
Queen’s Gambit
Tired from the day before, both players agreed not to play at full strength. Spassky didn’t want to go into complication and Petrosian was not in mood to force things. After fifteen moves with the Queens already off the boards, Petrosian agreed a draw.
Botvinnik, who pay his first visit to the championship said: “Petrosian would never have beaten me if he had played like that in 1963”
Bjelicka interviewed Tal after the sixth game:” In the first three games, Petrosian had winning chances. But Spassky also gave his supporters reason for optimism. Petrosian dictated the openings.”
Max Euwe, who attended the start of the match:. “lf we believe in statistics, then Petrosian has only a 20% chance because champions nearly always lose. But as an English proverb says, ‘there are lies, damned lies—and statistics’.”
David Bronstein: “In my opinion, the world champion in 1975 will be Larsen. Before him, in 1972, Korchnoi and about 1969 Robert Fischer who will win the title from Boris Spassky in 1966.”
Why are you so definite?
“Of course, the International Chess Federation may affect the chances by altering the system. All human beings are unpredictable. I would like to see the championship decided by a tournament of the best grandmasters of the world. That would be the best system.
I said Spassky, then Fischer, then Korchnoi, then Larsen, because of the number— nine! It took nine years for Botvinnik, Smyslov and Petrosian, in turn, to climb from the candidates’ tournament to the world championship. The four grand masters I’ve named may follow the same road.”
Game 7
Colle System
Before the opening stage was over, Spassky went in for an aggressive line of play which achieved nothing but a weakening of one of his pawn. Petrosian combined threats to this pawn. By sacrifice an exchange, he obtains threatening united pawns. He broke through in the center and finally an avalanche of his pawns crashed down on Spassky’s helpless King.
In the after match press conference Petrosian said:“ The Knight sacrifice was the most energetic, the most decisive and as it happened, the best continuation.
Game 8
English Defense
Once idmar said: “After an upsetting defeat the best psychology for the next game is a placid draw.” Spassky went for a symmetrical defense but avoid complication by playing 8…d6 which produced a couple of exchanges and a dead draw game after 24 moves. Boring enough to make Tal said: “To think I could have watched an excellent football match instead!”
Game 9
Caro-Kann Defense
In the Panov attack, Petrosian preferred to play this time 5…e6 instead of g6 in game three. Spassky got a small advantage but soon vanished after 20 ..Bf8.
Game 10
King’s Indian Defense
Petrosian sized a little initiative but a strong Black center made the position difficult for any rapid conclusion. Move 20 was critical. Instead of 20…Rxf4 Spassky played Rf6 and missed 21. Ne3 which after a magnificent exchange sacrifice gave to White an irresistible attack. With a lead of 6-4 in favor of the Champion, Spassky’ s position looked extremely difficult because until then he did not find any weakness to reverse the score.
Game 11
French Defense
For the first time, Petrosian dropped the Caro-Kann for a very safe French. Spassky tires o force the events, instead of contenting himself with quiet durable pressure. Spassky went into dubious Queen’s maneuver and offered a draw once he saw things were not as expected. Petrosian refused it but missed the best continuation and finally proposed himself the draw.
Game 12
Hippopotamus Defense
Not very frequent in such event! Spassky played too precipitately once again; quieter play would have set his opponent more difficult problems. After thirty moves, Petrosian had already 2 hrs 17 min on his clock. White both Bishops ‘en prise’, Petrosian brilliantly sacrificed the exchange and a potential lost suddenly became a potential win. With only five minutes remaining on his clock, Petrosian managed to find a position which he repeated three times. It was clear that without the time factor Spassky would never escape the defeat.
Euwe: “The World Champion is not only excelling Spassky, it even himself. We already know Petrosian as a deep strategist, an excellent defender, an expert in the end game. But I this match we are seeing a new Petrosian. He sacrifices, counter-attacks, attacks. In other words, a dangerous tactician has appeared.”
Tal: “On the eve of the match all the chess critics, estimating the chances of rivals, underlined that Petrosian only makes clever strokes and has good tactics of defense, whereas Spassky can do almost everything. Though Spassky did not pay much attention to these words, nevertheless, when the match started, he offered the rival to choose ‘the weapon’ to his taste.
Petrosian proved the words of his colleagues’ journalists. He really prefers positional avoiding to tip-and-run attack, a better endgame to vague middlegame, in short, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. That is why having taken the offered initiative; the World Champion was playing simply, calmly and good. Spassky also was playing simply and calmly…
After nine rounds Petrosian has one good win and as minimum 2 wins by the score. Spassky has only one missed possibility to knock-out in the 5th round. It was clear that the World Champion had an advantage over Spassky. I hope Boris and his fans will forgive me, but looking at the rivals I remembered the lecture of Ostap Bender in Vasuki:
– What do we see, comrades? We see that the dark-haired man plays good, and the man with blonde hair plays bad…
I would like to note that the notions ‘good’ and ‘bad’ have completely different meaning when I am talking about two strongest chess players of the world. On the other level, it would sound like ‘brilliant’ and ‘good’. That is why I can say that during first nine rounds Spassky was playing good and Petrosian played brilliantly.
Some people can ask where this famous universality of Spassky is. First of all, let’s make it clear what is universality in chess. Of course, mainly it is the ability to play positions of any type in the range of Ima Sumak.
But this is so to say ‘passive universality’. It is good for flattering reference, which is not always of real benefit. Last three matches of Spassky, when he was just a challenger, proved that he is a chess player of ‘active universality’. Playing with three absolutely different by style grandmasters, he played in a different way with each of them. He played against Keres in the most unpleasant for him complicated in strategy manner of Botvinnik, playing against Geller he was always bothering him with the tactics attacks to which he was most sensitive, playing with me he was playing very unexpectedly (at least for me) as an experienced technician, as Petrosian did.
Maybe this match bestowed a doubtful benefit upon Spassky? Maybe he did not notice that the rival had changed and kept on playing automatically… against me?
But soon it turned out that Petrosian is not a chess player who makes technical mistakes.
This or that way, in the first nine rounds of Petrosian – Spassky match, the challenger was demonstrating the ‘passive universality’. In the beginning, I formed the opinion that Spassky was satisfied with this situation because World Champion could not succeed in the positions which he used to win automatically. If this situation would continue, the Spassky’s tactics could be considered as a success, as every missed possibility was a psychological micro-infraction.
In the fifth round, Spassky managed to obtain a strong position and turned to be in Petrosian’s situation, who could not realize the odds in his favor in the previous rounds. This round brought self-confidence to the World Champion, who passed the crisis of the start fever. It was supposed that it would have a great impact on Spassky, because lately he got accustomed that only his rivals made mistakes.
Nevertheless, Spassky continued playing in his own way. The seventh round does not look like the rest of the rounds: various castling, mutual attacks of pawns on the flanks… This round is the best achievement of the World Champion; it was purely Petrosian’s round.
The World Champion showed his ability to find simple solutions in the most complicated situations. Having the hard positions with mutual attacks, he managed to get the simple position with the attack, but not mutual. The chess world did not see such an attack with pawns in the seventh round since the match Labourdonnais – McDonnel.
The sixth, eighth and ninth rounds differs from previous ones, because such an exhausting match had an impact on the participants’ mood, they were tired.
We will note the openings used by the participants of a nine-round match. The age of openings is considerably higher than the age of both rivals. Some opening positions could be analyzed by Steinitz when he was preparing to his match with Zukertort.
In this opening, Black had very limited aims – to manage to be equal. The old opening did not do a bad: in the first nine rounds, blacks won with the score 5:4.
Such a play brought success to Petrosian, and Spassky decided to change the tactics and started with the ‘Old Indian’ opening of the 10th round.
From this moment the return match started, which was not envisaged by FIDE rules. The only term was that Spassky was to score 8.5 points out of 15.
While three rounds were played Spassky’s task got more complicated. The World Champion won with the total score 2:1.
In two rounds of this return match, when Spassky was playing with blacks, he used the new opening without a name.
Petrosian used Rubinstein’s system in the 11th round in French defense. Openings can tell about the tactics and so called psychological mood of the rivals.
Petrosian’s way of playing did not change. His chess credo was such a success that his way of playing proved to be the right one and there was no necessity to change his line.
As for Spassky, he has a new tendency to strive for the aggravation of the game. To play with whites means to directly attack, to play with blacks means to preserve as many figures on the board as possible. It is not possible to call an immediate crisis with blacks. Thus, in the 10th round instead of the planned attack, Spassky strove for the immediate crisis. Petrosian had no choice but to sacrifice quality. The second time he sacrificed quality was a success and then he successfully sacrificed the queen.
The 10th and 12th rounds proved that Petrosian has also strong tactics. Of course, such games take a lot of energy, strength, and nerves. It is hard for Petrosian to play the game based on a definite calculation. He had only 3 such rounds, but they have 12 rounds ahead and who knows how much of them will be bloody.
It is clear to me that the main rounds will follow. The return match has just begun. Usually, all the return matches finish to the loser’s favor. But Spassky task is very difficult. In the remaining 12 rounds, he will have to win 3 points more than his rival. But if he could do this in our match with him, why isn’t this possible with Petrosian? Nevertheless, the World Champion will have to work a lot.”
Bjelicka published in Chess an interview of Botvinnik made at the half stage of the championship.
Q: Why did you decline to play in the Candidates’ Tournament?
A: Because it would have taken up too much of my time. To regain my championship under the new conditions might have involved me in more than fifty games.”
Q: Do you find life very different as an ex- world champion from being the champion?
A: It is nice to be at the top but the championship entails many obligations.
Q: Do you think the system of world championship qualification is good; if not, what alterations would you propose “
A: The system is not a good one. I proposed in the F.I.D.E. congress, as long ago as 1949, a tournament of six players, each playing each of the others four times. F.I.D.E. took my proposal into consideration but has done nothing about it since. I still feel today that it would be the best way of choosing the challenger.
We started to speak about the current match. It had just reached the half-way stage. Botvinnik said “I did not expect this sort of score and I am surprised how carefully Petrosian avoids fighting games. He has been very skilful in roiling Spassky’s every attempt to achieve anything positive.”
Q: How will it finish?
A: Spassky must discover himself. The real battle is yet to come. In previous matches, the 12th to 22nd games have brought the decision and I think they will here, too.
I remarked that many grand masters were disappointed with the number of draws. “What do you think about all these draws?
A: The draws themselves are not the trouble. Other matches have had many drawn games but in this one there are too many games without any real fight at all.”
Q: Who is responsible?”
A: Possibly Petrosian’s style of play is the cause, If he does not feel like playing on; he thinks he has every right not to play. So he agrees on a draw.
Q: Bronstein says that within the next 12 years Spassky, Fischer, Korchnoi and Larsen are going to be world champions.
“I think he was joking. It is almost impossible to say which of these great players will be world champion, it depends on so many factors; health; even world events. Who can forecast so far ahead?”
Q: Do you think the world championship is going to stay in the U.S.S.R?
A: I believe that it will go outside our land within these twelve years, Apart from Spassky and Tal, we do not seem to have any young grand masters of sufficient promise.
Q: And who will the new champion be?
A: Bobby Fischer has the best prospects.”
Q: You think he is going to be world champion?”
A: He certainly has the best chances among non-Russians. I don’t think Larsen, lvkov and Portisch will be angry with me if I state that in my opinion Bobby is the strongest player outside the Soviet Union.
Q: Among the hundreds of games you have played, which was the most difficult?
A: Probably the 23rd game of my world championship’s match with Bronstein, which I had to win to retain my world championship.”
Q: Which of the nine world champions you met made the biggest impression on “
A: It is very difficult to say which played the best, but from my personal encounters it seemed to me that Jose Raoul Capablanca had the greatest natural talent, It is a pity he gave so little time or application to chess.”
Game 13
Caro-Kann
The players followed the variation played in game one but Spassky surprises his opponent with 8.h5 and obtained a precious advantage. To avoid complete passivity, the Champion combined an attack on the Queen-side a sacrifice of Rook for a Knight. Few moves later the position was adjourned but experts were unanimous to declare it as a clear lost. On resuming, Spassky was not able to find the right continuation but with few second on its clock, Petrosian blundered, allowing Spassky gradually to encompass, his downfall which finally came on move 91. It was the first ever win of Spassky over Petrosian!
Game 14
Irregular Opening
Petrosian played the 14th game very nervously. He was completely unrecognizable. This was perhaps his weakest game in the match. Maybe like the first game in 1963 with Botvinnik but here Spassky allowed him to escape. Petrosian failed to find the right answer to the original opening played by his opponent. Soon in deep trouble, it is only by a miracle that the Champion saved his head.
Game 15
Sicilian Defense
Spassky continued to apply the all-out attack strategy used since game 12. Avoiding the well-analyzed lines, he kept the position blocked with eventually went to Spassky’s favor. The Challenger moved with authority into the center and force Petrosian to a sixth sacrifice since the match started. After that, Black’s position was lost but at the move before the adjournment Spassky eased his opponent’s task. Petrosian was so lucky once more with a draw.
After the match, Petrosian said: “This game might well have proved decisive, if I had lost the fifteenth game I am not at all sure that I would have been able to withstand the tension anymore.”
Game 16
Hippotamus Defense
After bringing out most of his piece to sound if not aggressive posts, Spassky started to push in the center; the situation was soon blocked and the game turned slightly in favor of the Challenger. After the game resumed none of the players were willing to take any risk and the draw was agreed.
Game 17
Sicilian Defense
Once again Petrosian turned his back on theory to complicate and confuse the game at all costs. White managed to create some danger on the King-side but a sudden push in the center brought a general clarification and general exchanges make draw inevitable.
Game 18
Queen’s Indian Defense
After only eight opening moves, Spassky found himself strategically lost. By few clever moves, Petrosian increased his advantage but could not find the right approach to conclude victoriously the show. Those hesitations allowed Spassky to set up counter-threats which inevitable destabilized the Champion. Without any delay, the Champion went for a general liquidation of forced and a draw. No doubt that nervousness and tension had played a great deal in the outcome of the game.
Game 19
French Defense
Petrosian tried the French for the second time. Spassky chose an unknown line which gave only a plus to his opponent. Dreaming only of draws, Petrosian decided to simply with 21…Qf4. A blunder! Suddenly he came out with few hanging Pawns which are going to be immediately under enemy fire. Petrosian’s time trouble helped Spassky to adjourn the game with winning prospect.
Game 20
Nimzo-Indian
Never played before in this match, this opening is generally quite popular among the grandmasters. Petrosian as White secured some advantages with a good initiative on the Queen-side. An weak move (28) probably due to the tension over the chess-board gave his opponent unexpected counter-chance. Things looked very complicated then and it was obvious that one player will soon or later make a fatal mistake. With 32…Rc2 Spassky missed a clear draw which he could have obtained with R7a5. Two moves later it was really the end.
Game 21
French Defense
Spassky selected a very well analyzed variation which was already used in game 19. On move 15, Spassky spent 30 min to find out which side to castle. Petrosian didn’t hesitate a second to force an immediate endgame with Bishops of opposite color which reduce any chance of victory.
Game 22
Polish Defense
Petrosian with White got the best position after the opening. He was not forcing the matter and seemed ready to steer the game to a draw. Maybe he was just waiting for Spassky to take some risk. On the twenty-fifth move, the so-called three-time repetition occurred on the chess-board. Petrosian thought it was safe to take the draw and let Spassky call the arbiter but he knew that if Spassky refused to continue repeating moves, his position could only worse. Spassky though for some time and finally decided… to make a move which alters the position on the chessboard. The hall applauded his courageous gesture. After a few moves, Black’s game was hopeless.
Petrosian thus obtained the 12 points which were all he needed to remain World Champion. A tremendous ovation from the public greeted his victory and Spassky was the first to congratulate him.
Game 23
French Defense
After pre- celebration it was, of course, difficult for Petrosian to keep the same mental force. It was the same situation in 1937 when Alekhine got back his title long before the end of the match and both players played some ‘exhibition game’ to please the gallery. Petrosian took only 36 min to play the game. On move 17 Petrosian lost a Pawn by force and the endgame which resulted was not worse to be commented.
Game 24
King’s Indian Defense
To avoid sharing the first prize (£1600), Petrosian decided to play the game as he did during the previous weeks. In the middle game, a complicated position rise on the chess-board but White managed to take the upper hand due to misplaced of Black’s pieces. On resumption next day, Petrosian have relaxed again and missed a clear winning line, make several inexact moves and soon was himself in danger of losing. The Champion had to show his best with the precise defense to avoid another upset result. Finally, after eliminating all danger, he offered a draw to his opponent, which was immediately accepted.
Chief Arbiter and IGM A. O’Kelly reported the championships in few newspapers:“The final games in the Tigran Petrosian vs Boris Spassky match were played to packed audiences. The atmosphere was charged with extreme tension. ‘The champion retained his title but at no mean price. Spassky proved his sporting mettle and morale even when it was already clear that the champion would retain the title.
This duel of the two best chessmen in the world has demonstrated the excellent ground work of the Soviet school, of which Mikhail Botvinnik is rightfully regarded to be the founder.
The tournament should be divided into four stages. The first ended with game 6. Throughout this time the adversaries did not go all out to win, but were just flexing their muscles. The second stage started with Spassky losing game 7 – it was the only time he started with the Queen’s Pawn. He took too great a risk and at once paid the penalty by a swift pawn attack with brought defeat. The 10th game was for him a tough one too. The double sacrifice of Rooks for lesser pieces was the highlight of the game. A very effective Petrosian attack followed and Spassky’s defenses crumbled. That was the end of the first half of the match. In the 12th game the champion again exchanged his Rook for a lesser piece (Petrosian does that quite often) but Spassky managed to scrape through by repeating the moves.
The 3rd stage lasted from game 13 to 18. Spassky won the first game inflicting heavy damage to the Caro-Kann. The partners made 91 moves, played a total of 11 hours in two days. After that game Petrosian gave up the Caro-Kann defense and it disappeared from his repertoire. In the 14th game, Spassky was already on the verge of evening out the score but Petrosian, slippery as an eel, managed to elude defeat. The challenger’s effort was gradually reducing and the champion continued playing at ease, and steadily improved his position. He had regained confidence. But this also led to self-satisfaction, which proved fatal in the 19th, when Spassky put through a brilliant strategic plan. Then the “`Tiger” was roused and dealt a telling blow, recovering the supremacy he had lost in the previous game. And that already meant that he’d keep the world title.
A much undecided Spassky failed to grasp the initiative playing White in the 21st game. Petrosian had already chalked up 11 points and one more in the three remaining games would leave him with the title. But Spassky was bent on winning and refused to repeat a move in a hopeless situation, and 10 moves later was obliged to capitulate. To all intents and purposes that was the end.
One can hardly call Petrosian’s success commonplace. In 32 years of’ chess history there never was a single occasion when the champion beat his challenger. There were draws, but more often the title changed hands. Petrosian broke the tradition. His results were excellent.
Once finished the applause of the numerous fans of both chess giants died down. There was a bit of a break at the Press Center and only the Grandmasters went on summing up the results. Most Grandmasters agreed that Petrosian played a better game than Spassky. He was in better form, stronger psychologically and much better versed in theory than his opponent. The match was one of the tensest played in the last decade.
Petrosian gave an excellent example of how one should train for a match. He studied his adversary thoroughly, read up all the articles and books written on Spassky and during the match made good use of all this knowledge. Petrosian’s superiority was felt throughout those two months. There were few theoretical improvements since the challenger did not follow the trodden path. Spassky very often violated the principles and laws of theory and paid dearly for it. Many people are disappointed with Spassky’s play. At times he was overcautious, sometimes too reckless, but the “Iron Tigran” never gave his adversary any chance of success. Spassky’s performance surprised some leading GM’s, who thought he would do much better. The outcome, however, was decided’ by Petrosian’s greater experience. Spassky is a talented player, but has little experience and is too young. But he will show his worth at some future time.
Meanwhile, Tigran Petrosian again won the gold medal and the laurel wreath of world champion.”
Moscow, IV-VI, 1966.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | Total | |
| Spassky | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 1 | ½ | 11.5 |
| Petrosian | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 0 | ½ | 12.5 |
Averbach met Tigran Petrosian the next day after the 22nd game of his world chess title match with Boris Spassky. The series was still on, but the main thing had already become clear: Petrosian would wear the world chess crown for another three years.
I called on Tigran in the morning when he and his trainer Isaac Boleslavsky were getting ready for game 23. When these preparations were over, the world chess sovereign turned towards me and said: “O.K., shoot with your questions.
Q; “The commentators observed that you were well prepared for the title defense. Could you give some details about this?
A: I began training long before the match was supposed to start. Spassky had not yet sat down to play with Tal in the last elimination match when Boleslavsky and I drew up a detailed plan of preparations. The first stage was devoted to the study of my games from all angles. I made a special trip to Tbilisi to watch my rivals, Spassky and Tal, in their knockout round. When it grew clear that Spassky would win, I returned to Moscow and began analyzing his games. This took up a considerable amount of time, only after that did I begin training for the approaching 24 game marathon match with the aspirant to the world throne. Boleslavsky and I elaborated the opening systems and also the tactics I would employ. I quit all chess training about a month before the World Series to give myself a good rest.
Q: ‘Ex-world champion Mikhail Botvinnik once remarked that the challenger is always better prepared in practice than the world title defender. Do you agree?
A: I agree that the challenger who earns the right to face the world champion does acquire good and envious practical training, but, at the same time, he wears himself out physically and mentally. I realized that I could find myself in worse playing form than Spassky, and, therefore, competed in the Yerevan international tournament, Moscow-Leningrad match, Moscow team championships, and a specially-organized Grandmasters’ tourney. In all of these fixtures, I pursued the needed training purposes and tried to find out my weak spots.
The two games with Victor Korchnoi in the Moscow-Leningrad match rendered me a great service in this respect. They forced me to give serious attention to my training, to pull myself together for the coming title clash.
Unfortunately, these games had a bad effect on Korchnoi; they gave him a wrong impression of his ability.
It is important, during a five-hour battle on the chessboard, to have a fresh mind throughout, not to overwork your self. Therefore, if you want to win, you must know how to save your physical nervous energy, to last out till the end, we know of many highly-talented players who have failed to show their true ability because of their poor distribution of strength and energy.”
Q: What can you say about your match with Spassky?”
A: I missed a wonderful chance of gaining the lead in the very first game, and this upset me so much that I was too nervous in the next two games. The ending of the second game wasn’t as simple as it seemed to certain commentators, I want to point out that Boris displayed great perseverance and ingenuity in defense.
I regard the seventh game as my best achievement in the match. It demonstrates my views—the rival’s limited possibilities, the strategy of play everywhere on the board, and the encircling and gradual tightening of the ring of encirclement around the rival King.
There were two crucial moments for me in the match. The first came up after the 12th game, where I launched a beautiful combination, but didn’t carry it out to the end. I wish to explain that the ending of this game proceeded in deep time trouble, and I forgot about the possibility of repeating the same position three times. Naturally, this blunder affected me, and, probably, this was the cause of me later suffering a sore throat. I had to ask the judges for a time-out but evidently, while I was receiving treatment, Spassky was able to pull himself together after those unpleasant moments for him in the first half of the match; he came back to beat me in the 13th game.
Setbacks by themselves don’t worry me very much. What worries me more is how I lost. I lost the 13th game twice. I was able to regain a drawn position upon resumption of the adjourned game, but got into time trouble and made a second mistake.
Needless to say, I was demoralized when I sat down to play the next game, which took place the following day. The threat of a new defeat forced me to pull myself together. The 14th game was a difficult one, but it made me believe in my strength and ability once more.
The second crisis occurred after the 19th game, which I lost when experiencing time trouble. To a certain extent, it was a chance defeat. Although the situation grew tense in the match, this defeat affected me in a good way: it forced me to concentrate for the concluding, decisive games.
Q: What would you like to say about Spassky?
A: The commentators believe that he didn’t show his full ability in this match, or as Botvinnik put it: ‘Boris didn’t program himself properly for Petrosian.’ True, Botvinnik also failed to do this himself in his time. A title match is a clash of two personalities, and programming’ doesn’t depend only on one of them.
I agree with Botvinnik that Spassky’s journey to the Hastings Christmas Congress wasn’t the best way to prepare for the world title match. I also believe that the results of the Challengers’ Rounds were to blame for Boris’s underestimation of the games with me. He believed in his lucky star after his brilliant victories over Keres, Geller, and Tal, and thought that things would continue to move on by inertia, so to say.
Q: Are you very tired after the match?
A: I certainly am, but I think that I was much more worn out after the world title match with Botvinnik. Or, perhaps, it’s simply that rye is grown accustomed to match play.
Q: What’s your opinion about Spassky’s experiments in the opening stages of games in the latter half of the match?
A: “It’s possible to play this way, too, but whether it’s necessary is another matter. Spassky, evidently, felt that he had to do something to change the tide. He began avoiding the popular opening systems. Once he took to this course, it was necessary for me to take this into account. You may be Interested to know that Boleslavsky and I foresaw a possible reply by Spassky with 1…b5 to 1. d4.”
Q: Do you agree with some of the commentators, who declared that defense proved stronger than attack in this match?
A: Not altogether. This is a feature of contemporary chess. In our day highly effective methods of defense have been worked out—a prevention of attack, a timely retreat to impregnable positions, different ways of relaxing tension on the board, sacrifices of Pawns with transitions to drawn endings, etc. Defeating an equal player in our day calls for enormous preliminary work and thoroughly-conceived battle tactics.”
Spassky was not too sad after the match: “I am not because I lost; it is my first title match and I gained a lot of experience. I was optimistic up to the very last moment. I believe all time I could do it but in the 22nd game it suddenly became clear to me that everything had gone with the wind.”
Later in Sharmatny CCCP, Petrosian talk about his preparation and Spassky
Q: What can you say about your preparation to the match?
A: I began my preparation long before the match. Spassky did not play yet the final match to Tal, and together with my coach, we had worked out the detailed plan of the preparation. On the first stage, we studied my games trying to have a look from outside. When the match Spassky-Tal was held at Tbilisi I went there to watch my future opponents. Having returned back to Moscow, I began studying Spassky’s creativity. After all, I began the preparation for the forthcoming 24 games. I worked out the repertoire and the tactic of the match. One month before I stopped my chess studies, had a rest and went in for sport.
Q: Botvinnik wrote, that the challenger is always better prepared than a champion. Do you agree with such opinion?
A: I do, a challenge passes a good practical schooling and gets an enviable training getting the right for the championship match. But at the same time, he is exhausted physically and morally. I understood that I might be less trained and “played” than Spassky. With training purpose, I participated in Yerevan International Tournament, in the match Moscow-Leningrad, in the Team Championship of Moscow and specially organized Grandmasters’ tournament. It is very important during 5 hours to keep your head fresh, not to overwork. That’s why you have to be rational to play easier, to keep strengths to avoid big time troubles.
Q: What can you say about the match?
A: At the start, Spassky were entering into our playing shapes. But already in game 1, I lost an excellent chance to get an advantage. It influenced me a lot and as a result of next two games, I played extra nervously under the impression of my blunder. Game 7 I consider being the best achievement of the match. It demonstrates my creative outlooks – a limitation of possibilities of the opponent, strategy of play on the board and constant seizing the ring around opponent’s King. I had two critical moments. The first happened after game 12, in which I did not bring to the end a good combination. The final was held in a great time-trouble, and I forgot about the possibility of a thrice-repeated position. It shocked me. I’ve taken a time-out. But by this time Spassky came to his senses after the unpleasantness of the first half of the match, and in game 13 he defeated me. The losses themselves do not worry me a lot, I worry much more on the way I lose. And this game I lost twice. Thus game 14 held next day I was playing demoralized. Only under the threat of a new defeat, I managed to pull myself together and to keep balance in the adjourned game. This game recovered my belief in my strengths. The second crucial moment was after game 19, I lost in a time-trouble, and partially it was an occasional defeat. And while the situation in the match sharpened, the loss made me gather all my strengths together.
Q: What do you think about Spassky?
A: The viewers said that Spassky did not show all his possibilities. Speaking with Botvinnik’s words he could not “programmed” himself for playing with Petrosian. A match is a collision of two persons. And I think that a correct programming depends on both players. I agree with Botvinnik’s opinion, that the Spassky’s participation at the Hastings tournament was not the best kind of preparations. I think that results of the candidates’ matches played an important role in the underestimation of the preparation. Having won brilliantly Keres, Geller, and Tal, Spassky evidently believed in his fortune, having decided that everything would be continued by force of inertia. But of course, I should render Spassky due to his remarkable creativity and his wonderful sportive courage.”
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | Total | |
| Spassky, B | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 1 | ½ | 11.5 |
| Petrosian, T | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 0 | ½ | 12.5 |
