Hungarian Successes at Balatonfured

The international tournament organised in memory of Dr Lajos Asztalos was held for the third time, this year in Balatonfured, in the ceremonial hall of the SZOT holiday resort. Two international grandmasters, four international masters and six national masters took part.

The field had originally been planned for five international and seven Hungarian players, but because the Italian Paoli was unexpectedly prevented from coming, the number of participants was reduced to eleven. Paoli's withdrawal was announced only on the evening of the first round. Navarovszky arrived in his place, while the originally designated reserve, a master from Veszprem, joined the tournament as the eighth Hungarian player. Thus, in the end, five Hungarian players faced seven foreigners instead of the originally intended 4-8 ratio. As a result of this change, the international-master norm rose from six points to six and a half.

The tournament began on 5 June under the direction of international arbiter Laszlo Balogh and was opened by Gyula Cigoj, a member of the Presidential Board of the Hungarian Chess Federation. The rounds were played between 4 and 9 p.m., except for the last two, which began at 9 a.m. Adjourned games were resumed the following morning, while the last two playing days ended in the afternoon. Rest days were held on 6 and 13 June, although the previously announced Navarovszky-Damjanovic game was played during the first of them. At the closing banquet on 17 June, Zoltan Gabor, president of the Hungarian Chess Federation, delivered a speech.

The most pleasing feature of the first third of the tournament was Bilek's sequence of four victories. His hundred-per-cent score against the Drimer-Kluger-Navarovszky-Sliwa quartet showed, almost astonishingly, how much imagination the Hungarian master could bring to bear in the middlegame. It would be a pity to burden such fantasy with the shackles of simple combinational logic.

After the fourth round Bilek was already one and a half points ahead. The Hungarian championship leader appeared to have outshone his own shadow. Yet Bilek then forgot the laws of competition and, to his misfortune, the requirement of economical use of time - not only the clock, but the time available during the whole event. An eighteen-move draw in the fifth round was followed by an adjournment during the resumed game on the next playing day.

After tragic defeat vs Damjanović, Bilek became a shadow of his former self. Fear took control of his play and he settled for three draws averaging only eighteen moves. His difficult draw against Flohr, reached in severe time trouble, also showed that his sense of reality had abandoned him.

The opportunities wasted by Bilek can best be appreciated by comparing them with the calm but equally purposeful play of Honfi.

Honfi began with a draw against the eventual winner, then continued with two difficult victories over Flohr and Lilienthal. Against Sofrevski he ruined a better position, while against Drimer he again reached a more favourable game, but this too ended in a draw. He did not lose a single game. Nor did he achieve any spectacular victories.

After the sixth round Honfi caught Bilek. The real test, however, was still to come.

Bilek reached two quick and cautious draws against Zita and Sofrevski. Damjanovic, half a point behind them, defeated Flohr in a fighting game and then won another sharp encounter against Sofrevski. Honfi, meanwhile, did not allow himself even one day of rest: he lost to Sliwa and Lengyel.

The two leaders suffered. Was it really wise to maintain such a relentless pace? Naturally, according to the "wise men", one should not resign, but should always be ready both to give and to receive. Yet there is something to be said for the inner command: "I cannot do otherwise," even when it brings defeat upon one's head.

The reward was not long in coming. In the ninth round Damjanovic finally lost. Honfi remained half a point behind Bilek, level with Damjanovic. It was already certain that only two draws were needed for Bilek to complete the 5.5 points required for the international-master norm. Yet even victory, or another point and a half, still seemed possible.

Honfi chose to fight rather than take risks thoughtlessly. Against Zita he carefully exploited every opportunity after the latter had obtained a rook and two pawns for a queen. After an eight-and-a-half-hour struggle lasting 72 moves, the game was adjourned again in a winning position. Meanwhile Damjanovic defeated Drimer, while Bilek drew with Lilienthal. Thus three players were still in contention.

The final round brought the Bilek-Honfi encounter. It was a fine and difficult game, full of chances for both sides. After fluctuations in the position it ended in a draw. This result confirmed the practical truth that a chess game is often drawn when neither player commits a decisive error.

With the victory over Kluger Damjanovic joined the group of winners. He had also fulfilled the international-master norm. Although he fought with youthful energy, his style became confused when he failed to obtain the initiative; against Honfi, by contrast, his tactical courage at times became almost excessive.

Apart from the Bilek-Honfi-Damjanovic trio, Lengyel also had temporary chances of first place. After the eighth round he was only half a point behind Honfi. Yet from his final three games - against Drimer, Kluger and Navarovszky - he would have needed at least one victory and another draw to become joint winner. When he lost to Drimer, his chances were reduced to scoring one and a half points from the remaining two games. Instead of equalising in a complicated opening, he chose a quick draw with the international-master norm already secured.

Indeed, Lengyel's path to the norm was interesting and ambitious, even if his method cannot be described as entirely faultless. Honfi's fighting spirit, without any bargains, nevertheless appears more attractive.

Kluger had difficulty finding his form. After the seventh round he was still at only fifty per cent. He then defeated Navarovszky and Sliwa and, taking advantage of Lengyel's severe time trouble, won again. His final-round victory over Damjanovic made his performance a significant success.

The final prize was shared among three players, much like the previous year. Flohr played in a distinctly fighting style after his sixth-round draw: one victory, one defeat, one victory, one defeat - four decisive games in succession. Thus, like Drimer, he finished with fifty per cent, although he suffered two defeats, while Drimer lost four games.

Drimer's performance is noteworthy because he reached only two draws in six games with White and lost four times. With Black, however, he won two games and did not lose once. This distribution clearly shows that his strategic approach to building positions still requires modification.

Among the players who scored fifty per cent, Sliwa and Sofrevski displayed markedly different characters. The Polish international master played energetically and sometimes even wildly. The Yugoslav master, at twenty-five the youngest participant, became the tournament's "draw king": six of his ten draws lasted only 21 moves or fewer. Later, fate punished this excessive willingness to split the point. Accustomed to systematic self-restraint in fighting, he was startled whenever he obtained some advantage and could have achieved a more significant result. Therefore no one should claim that Sofrevski did not love chess. He played quick draws with his mouth, while sighing inwardly without stopping.

Lilienthal's unbeaten finish and lower placing were among the greatest surprises. It is remarkable that only one of his nine draws exceeded twenty moves - and that one by only two moves. His position-building, apart from the game against Lengyel, was generally light and easy, and in most cases he entered the opening with better prospects. Yet those advantages disappeared astonishingly quickly, not because of his opponent's ingenuity, but because of indecision and weak initial choices.

Zita's recurring conclusion in his post-game analyses was "a total draw". I would dispute that description, since not one of his games seemed truly dull. As an extremely fighting competitor who "does not bite" unless provoked, he played with great passion. Only his game against Damjanovic was an exception.

Navarovszky's play revealed the uncertainties of a competitor who lacked regular tournament practice. His disappointment after three defeats was understandable. What is harder to understand is why, having no chance of achieving even the international-master norm, he did not try to exploit his abilities more fully, at least in one special test. His quick draws spared him from the serious practical work that would have been necessary for rebuilding his play.

The III Asztalos Memorial provided opportunities for players seeking both competitive achievement and promotion through individual performances. The varied styles of the participants produced a colourful and enjoyable tournament.

Particularly gratifying was the fact that the event brought further Hungarian successes. Not only did it end with a joint Hungarian first place and two of the top five places being occupied by Hungarian players, but two of our non-international masters also fulfilled the international-master norm. Honfi and Lengyel obtained their first such results. The award of the title still depended on repeating the norm, but there was good reason to hope that they would not have to wait long.

The III Asztalos Memorial can therefore rightly be regarded as an important preparatory stage in the development of Hungarian chess.

Gedeon Barcza

Flohr and Lilienthal simultaneous exhibitions

After the Asztalos Memorial, grandmasters Flohr and Lilienthal gave several simultaneous exhibitions in Budapest and elsewhere.

On 17 June they played in Veszprem on 38 boards, alternating colours. They won 34 games, lost two and drew two. Flohr subsequently gave exhibitions in Szekesfehervar, Budapest and other locations, while Lilienthal played in Szekesfehervar, Budapest, Szolnok and several additional venues.

In total, each grandmaster won seven simultaneous displays without losing a single match. Only three of their games ended in draws.