From 22 to 31 August, the 3rd Montilla-Moriles International Wine Tournament was held in Montilla. This year it reached Category 10 within the scale established by FIDE, which represented a clear improvement over the two previous editions. Along the same lines, the tournament was limited to titled players: three grandmasters and seven masters. To obtain a grandmaster norm it was necessary to score 60% of the points, that is, 5.5 points.

The organization, frankly praiseworthy in every detail, is determined to establish the Wine Tournament definitively within the world chess calendar. For next year, Soviet participation is expected, and the tournament may reach Category 13, which would be a truly extraordinary event, without precedent in our country.

The only “but” that can be raised against the tournament is, of course, something entirely beyond the organizers’ control: the enormous heat, even greater than usual this summer, which made one more inclined to splash about in the hotel swimming pool than to make the mental effort required by competitive games. Perhaps this circumstance also influenced the limited fighting spirit shown by the participants.

Technically and sportingly, the tournament was both a success and a failure. A success because it is very rare — and will surely be a record — for four masters in the same event to achieve a grandmaster norm. For Mecking and Quinteros, given their previous results, this allowed them already to claim the higher title. For Pfleger, despite his high Elo rating, it was his first norm; and for me it was the second, added to the one I obtained in Olot 1972. I therefore have until March 1975 to try to obtain the third norm, from the 18 games in which I have achieved them so far up to the minimum required 25.

From another point of view, however, the tournament was a failure because of the enormous percentage of draws: 62.22%, many of them agreed quickly or very quickly. This is the essential point I wanted to develop. Pedro Lezcano complained in this same magazine only a few months ago that the number of draws was increasing alarmingly in all tournaments and blamed the players. The first point is clearly true, but the second requires some qualifications.

In my opinion, the main blame should be laid on the system adopted by FIDE, because in grandmaster tournaments these players, as good professionals, pay close attention to their Elo rating, where a steep drop can cause them serious financial damage. Thus, with few exceptions, they take no risks in games among themselves and limit themselves to trying to win, always without risk, the odd game against players of lower category. With this tactic, the curious thing is that one can win the tournament in question perfectly well. No examples need be cited.

And if this happens in grandmaster tournaments, it is all the more likely in tournaments such as Montilla, where several masters had well-founded hopes of obtaining the coveted grandmaster norm. Bear in mind that to do so it was enough to win two games and draw the other seven. And when draws, without any effort, are within reach, why would you “kill yourself” by playing all the games flat out? If after a correct opening you offer or are offered a draw, and it is agreed out of mutual respect or mutual convenience, is this attitude of the players open to criticism? Is it not more comfortable and more human to try to achieve the objective by limiting yourself to fighting in only two games? Is there anything blameworthy here? Let the chess enthusiast judge for himself.

In Montilla it was clear from the beginning that Westerinen and Forintos, who had started badly, could be possible victims, one or the other, and that Prins was completely out of training. In those circumstances, Hecht, Quinteros and I, by tacit agreement, already had our plan, which we carried out in every respect.

As for Pfleger, after losing to Kavalek, he had to fight a little more, and it worked out well for him, as he shared first place. But his aim was also to obtain the precise 5.5 points, as he showed in the penultimate round — in the last he was playing Hecht — by offering Prins a draw in the very opening. When Prins refused it, he had no choice but to win.

Among the other players not mentioned, Kavalek was the main favourite for overall victory, which he indeed achieved, although perhaps infected by the prevailing atmosphere, he did not show the fighting spirit that is usual for him. Robatsch devoted himself to practising what he himself called “chess tourism”, though from time to time he tried to achieve something positive. Westerinen, by contrast, for one reason or another, could not enjoy the tourist side of the trip and was by far the player who played and adjourned the most complete games. Forintos was quite disappointing, given his record; of course, he began with two zeros, and in a short tournament that is too heavy a handicap. And O’Kelly continues to show his solidity and knowledge, but now plays without any ambition.

/ IM Jesús Díez del Corral, Revista Ajedrez Canario N°28, Nov 1973 /