Gedeon Barcza:

Reflections on Chess Virtues and Faults at the Tungsram Liberation Memorial Tournament

More than half a century ago, Dr. Árpád Vajda began his report on the 1934 international tournament in Újpest in the columns of Magyar Sakkvilág with the following words: “The Újpest Chess Circle, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of its foundation, organized the finest, most interesting and most memorable tournament ever held in Hungary, in the Tungsram works’ cultural hall in Újpest, Váci út 77. The contest was beautiful because of the constant Hungarian leadership. Réthy and then Lilienthal did not let the lead slip from their hands. Lilienthal’s first-class play and his victory, which had repercussions throughout the whole chess world, were also beautiful. It was beautiful, too, as a demonstration of local patriotism and by illuminating the alien guests, that he also defeated the leading grandmasters. It was interesting because of the clash of the old and the new guard...”

Forty-four years have passed since then. Újpest, once an independent industrial town, has now enriched Budapest’s 4th district for a quarter of a century; and now, on the thirtieth anniversary of our liberation, the Tungsram works’ management, by supporting another significant international chess tournament, once again made a gift to Hungarian chess life.

The idea for the new tournament arose from the presence and revival of the traditions of chess. Simultaneous displays — although some regard them as mere productions — in fact effectively refresh the circulation of Hungarian chess life as a whole. For several months, the same masters who were active participants or at least witnesses of the ancient spirit of progressive chess traditions toured the factories. Thus Grandmaster Lilienthal, winner of the 1934 Újpest tournament, last year, at his simultaneous display held at Tungsram, not only gave chess lessons, but also recalled with such charm and youthful energy the competition of four decades ago that he was moved to say he had not seen a chess event of similar international character in Újpest since then. This recollection prompted Béla Dienes, Tungsram’s general director — himself once a first-class player, now a supporter and patron of chess — to be the initiator and backer of the Tungsram tournament organized for the thirtieth anniversary of our liberation.

The 1965 and 1970 Liberation Memorial tournaments were organized by the Építők. The Budapest Chess Federation supported Tungsram’s large-scale enterprise as co-organizer this time, while the presidency of the Hungarian Chess Federation assisted with obtaining foreign players and with the necessary help. As a result of careful organization, by the afternoon before the start the entire field was already together. The foreign participants were accommodated and provided for in the Hotel Buda Penta on the Buda side of the Chain Bridge. This was indeed rather far from Tungsram IV, Váci út 77, the literary house beneath which they opened the battlefield each day, but the difficulty was overcome by a special bus. Good organization and a smoothly running tournament dispelled every concern.

At the opening ceremony held at noon on March 18, Elemér Baumgarten, deputy general director of Tungsram, gave the welcoming address, and then László Mohácsi, secretary of the Budapest Chess Federation, explained the conditions and the order of play. The games took place on March 18–21, 23–27, 29–31, April 2–3 and 5, from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m., with adjourned games played on the intervening days. The grandmaster norm was 9 points, the international master norm 6.5 points. On behalf of the Hungarian Chess Federation, László Navarovszky, secretary-general, greeted the participants. After that the drawing of lots took place:

1. Smejkal, Jan (Czechoslovak) GM; 2. Poutiainen, Pertti (Finnish) master; 3. Pintér, József, master; 4. Faragó, Iván, GM; 5. Kirov, Nino (Bulgarian) GM; 6. Ribli, Zoltán, GM; 7. Hulak, Krunoslav (Yugoslav) IM; 8. Holm, Sejer (Danish) master; 9. Espig, Lutz (GDR) GM; 10. Adorján, András, GM; 11. Sax, Gyula, GM; 12. Bilek, István, GM; 13. Szabó, László, GM; 14. Mariotti, Sergio (Italian) GM; 15. Polugaevsky, Lev (Soviet) GM; 16. Portisch, Lajos, GM.

The majority of the participants were of a fighting disposition, so it was to be hoped that the struggle between opposing minorities would only rarely proceed along narrow paths. Unfortunately, this hope was not often realized. The overall strength of the field promised a lively struggle, and this expectation became reality in many of the games. It proved unjustified, however, that the interestingly confused positions, of which several newspapers began reporting with the title “Five draws in the first round”, would remain undecided in that way. True, the audience was so angered by the annoyingly quick agreements to draws that afterwards it was relatively consoling to learn that in reality even among the two 20-move draws, one, between Faragó and Szabó, resulted from a very strong move repetition by Black, while the other, Kirov–Bilek, arose from mutual indecision characteristic of a complicated position. The very first round brought the most eventful struggle of the whole tournament: the 40-move draw between Smejkal and Portisch. But there was also the most colourful struggle of the round between two young players. The young Finnish master Poutiainen played a calm game and held the balance until move 40 against Grandmaster Polugaevsky, who kept trying to increase the tension to the end and thereby also achieved the dynamic draw with Pintér and Mariotti.

We awaited with particular interest the performance of the Adorján–Ribli–Sax trio. For them, this tournament was a good opportunity both to prepare for zonal events and to gain experience. It was pleasing that Ribli’s and Sax’s meetings against each other were not influenced by their personal friendship. In struggle they showed themselves worthy of victory. The result of a mistake-filled round was a full point, and the lesson was a warning about the depth of danger.

András Adorján also began with great enterprise. However attractive his early exchange sacrifice may have appeared, his attacking momentum was broken by Hulak’s energetic counterplay, and on move 35 he was forced to resign. By weakening the dark squares in White’s camp, Espig won against Holm in a unified and beautiful game.

If the spectators found the three games that decided the first round too few despite the eventful struggle, the score of the second round — five wins, one loss and two draws — could satisfy the most bloodthirsty among them. It is worth noting how, by reviving an old, solid line of the Queen’s Indian, the later winner of the tournament used very simple means to bring the otherwise theoretically and tactically strong Kirov to collapse.

It was striking that in the second round the only victory achieved with the black pieces was scored by Espig against Portisch. Our top-ranked grandmaster handled the middlegame with surprising uncertainty, and in addition, when sealing his move, he exchanged the envelopes. Instead of the correct 41. f3–f4!, he made an erroneous move and lost an — undeniably handsome — exchange-sacrifice combination.

The sensation of the fourth round, which ended with a score of +2, –2, =4, was Grandmaster Portisch’s defeat — again with the white pieces — against Adorján. The game will be published later, with an evaluation of the victory.

The fifth round, following the completion of the adjourned games, initially produced a favourable score for the players with the black pieces.

The tournament standings after the fifth round, which closed the first third, were as follows: Espig, Polugaevsky, Ribli and Szabó 3.5; Adorján, Poutiainen and Smejkal 3; Bilek, Hulak, Kirov and Sax 2.5; Mariotti and Portisch 2; Faragó, Holm and Pintér 1 point.

The most important phenomenon of the second third was the surge of Polugaevsky and Ribli, who advanced neck and neck, with identical +3, =2 scores. In the seventh round Ribli produced another complete victory by excellently applying the strategy of ad hominem play. Against the Finnish master’s Dutch Defence he revived a variation popular more than half a century earlier, deliberately created only a moderate amount of theory, and then let his opponent “ruin himself as best he could”.

Sax, on two occasions, immediately on the following day, made up for the point lost the previous day with a victory. In the sixth round, however, he had a chance to avenge on Bilek his defeat suffered against Portisch, and to do so in a threefold way. But when he already had a winning position, he began moving too quickly, missed the possibility of leaving the game adjourned, and even within the five-hour playing session spoiled it into a draw. Did a fit of Hungarian illness take hold of him? Thus the equalization was left for the ninth round, but then — against Mariotti — it succeeded all the more beautifully.

While Ribli’s play in this tournament was dominated by an almost playful ease, in Polugaevsky’s case success was most often brought about by profound, sometimes bitter struggle with the mysteries of the position. His best game is considered to be the following victory from the eighth round.

In the final third, two diagrams in particular prompted reflection on the subjective causes of mistakes. The first reminded me vividly of the teaching of Dr. Lajos Asztalos: in unclear positions, one must examine every possible move that could be considered. I might add that while the patzer, “when he sees a check, gives it”, the master merely examines it — but he must examine it without fail.

The standings after the tenth round were as follows: Polugaevsky and Ribli 7.5; Smejkal 6.5; Szabó 6; Kirov 5.5; Adorján, Espig, Mariotti, Portisch, Poutiainen and Sax 5; Bilek 4.5; Hulak 4; Pintér 3.5; Faragó 3; Holm 2 points.

The first two rounds of the final third brought a surprising turn in the race between the two leaders. While Ribli scored only two draws against Portisch and Hulak, Polugaevsky first defeated Bilek and then Szabó as well. His first victory arose from a rather shaky position, but the latter was all the more convincing.

The most abundant and most exciting struggle of the whole tournament also took place in the twelfth round. We do not deny that the main representative of the romantic school was the young Italian Mariotti. This time, however, Grandmaster Portisch began the dance. True, Mariotti briefly — even if only by force — sacrificed an exchange and, with his inexhaustible ingenuity, created new chances one after another.

The order after the twelfth round was thus modified as follows: Polugaevsky 9.5; Ribli 8.5; Smejkal 8; Kirov 7; Portisch 6.5; Adorján, Espig, Mariotti, Poutiainen, Sax and Szabó 6; Hulak 5; Bilek and Faragó 4.5; Pintér 4; Holm 2.5 points.

At this point everyone regarded Polugaevsky’s final victory as certain. However, as can be seen from the final crosstable, the last three rounds brought another turn. Yet the description of the tournament’s exciting finish, as well as the assessment of individual performances, must be postponed; we can provide them only in our next issue.

* * *

After Difficult Days...

Our editorial committee held a conversation with Dr. Max Euwe, former world champion and president of FIDE, who visited Budapest on April 5–8. We present our questions and his answers below.

Professor, FIDE has gone through difficult times in recent months. We think that now, in a calmer atmosphere, we can review what happened.

Indeed, the Fischer question caused us a great deal of trouble, but fortunately it is now over. It was a difficult, very difficult case, because I stood face to face with two camps. In my view — and I received much criticism for this from both sides — the Soviets insisted that something like Reykjavik should not happen again, and they were therefore quite justified in their criticism both before and after the Milan–Manila affair. Let me state clearly that I was forced to convene the extraordinary assembly, since one third of the members supported it. This is a legal question. Otherwise, the president has no right to change the rules of the general assembly.

Did you try to contact Fischer personally? Was there any question of your visiting the world champion?

I considered visiting him, but I was talked out of it. First of all by Campomanes, president of the Philippine Chess Federation, who assumed that the world champion might not receive me. I therefore confined myself to telephone calls, but I tried by telephone repeatedly, even at the last moment. Once I received such information from Fischer’s secretary that I could call again in an hour. That happened, but the result was again negative. I did not manage to speak with him.

As for the 9:9 score, Fischer remained unyielding...

In this connection, a friend of Fischer’s suggested by telegram that at a possible 9:8 score Karpov should play another six games. According to this, if Fischer won one of the six games, the match would be drawn and Fischer would retain the world championship title. Naturally, we could not regard this as an official proposal, since we considered it only the private initiative of a private individual.

We Hungarian chess players also do not doubt that, after Fischer’s withdrawal, Karpov is the rightful holder of the world championship title. But the failure of the match is regrettable. Does FIDE have any plans for organizing major world tournaments?

We have three plans. According to one, we would organize a tournament in Manila with the participation of the world’s 16 strongest players. Karpov would participate, as would the players from the Candidates’ matches and the grandmasters next in line after them according to the Élő ratings. It would be a major chess event and would contribute to clarifying the order of strength. Naturally, we would also invite Fischer, although I doubt that he would sit down at the board.

According to another idea, a double-round match tournament in Yugoslavia would pit the former world champions against one another. Finally, Bronstein is urging a tournament of grandmasters over the age of 50.

We think the introduction of the Élő rating system has proved successful. But among the grandmasters there are still very many players.

Yes, the introduction of the moving rating scale has proved useful. But in my opinion the requirements for the grandmaster title are still quite low. In addition to performance, the awarding of the title could perhaps be tied to a certain rating as well. In my view this threshold could be 2550 Élő points. Such tightening would also be useful because if young players acquire the title too easily, their ambition may perhaps decline.

We should also consider creating a higher class of grandmasters, that of the super-grandmasters, as they are called in the absence of a better term. Only the very best would actually belong to this class, perhaps the first ten or fifteen. I would set its threshold at 2620 points.

Many criticize the world championship system. Do you consider the present form correct?

The present regulations were, of course, worked out only for the current cycle. In my opinion, the system of Candidates’ matches is not bad. However, in a match it would be more reasonable to win by six victories. In the Karpov–Korchnoi match, 19 of the 24 games were drawn, and that is very tedious. We cannot want such a match to last for months.

Professor, you were a pupil of Maróczy and are a friend of Hungarian chess even today. What advice would you give our young players to increase their fighting spirit? They are still too numerous in the tournament.

The draw complex is a difficult question. In the past, the 30-move rule did not bring the desired result either. Other measures, for example that a draw should be worth only one third of a point, would require too long a period of testing. Nevertheless, the matter could be worked on.

Incidentally — and this also applies to team competitions and Olympiads — a great deal depends on the players’ mood. As in football: players must be made to give everything. This is a psychological problem, and therefore it is also worth seeking psychological advice and placing emphasis on psychological training.

Thank you for the conversation.