Reported by special correspondents Yuri Noskov and Vladimir Rozhdestvensky, with comments by Grandmaster Mikhail Tal

On the Composition of the Tournament

Chess players enjoy playing in Tallinn and appreciate the excellent organisation. Yet assembling a representative international tournament has become increasingly difficult. Events are held continuously in many countries, and even Grandmaster Paul Keres had to work hard as an organiser before the tournament could begin. The geographical range of the participants extended from the United States to Mongolia.

While I was in Krivoi Rog for one of my exhibitions, I was asked whether Fischer would play in Tallinn. The question had been prompted by a report in Man and the Law. Negotiations with Fischer had indeed been under way for some time. Keres, who was actively involved in organising the tournament, spoke by telephone with Mr Edmondson, president of the United States Chess Federation, who in turn contacted Fischer in Spain.

At first the negotiations developed successfully. Fischer apparently wanted to play and put forward nine conditions. Most of them were familiar to tournament organisers. Only two points were unusual: he personally did not object to photographs being taken during play, but if any participant protested, he would support that player; and he referred to FIDE rules concerning move recording. The American grandmaster did not object to a score sheet completed after the move rather than before it.

Unfortunately, Fischer eventually declined to play, sending a polite message through his representative. Instead, the Americans delegated two players to Tallinn: Grandmaster David Bronstein’s opponent, the master Seidy, and another representative. The tournament nevertheless remained highly representative and was assigned Category I-A. In practical terms, it offered an immediate opportunity to fulfil both a grandmaster norm and an international master norm.

My own experience with Tallinn had been interrupted. The previous tournament in which I had played here was a mixed event, with young masters competing against grandmasters. This time the field was again exceptionally strong: eight grandmasters faced eight Soviet and foreign masters.

The Public and the Atmosphere

Among the sixteen participants only Vooremaa and Daskalov had no international title. The play was generally calm and disciplined. Tallinn spectators were also notably disciplined. At first we were puzzled by a faint buzzing noise that appeared in the hall at regular intervals. On closer inspection, it turned out that many spectators were wearing hearing aids. The hall was radio-equipped, and master Lembit Vahesaar commented on the most interesting struggles after each round.

The tournament was interesting and combative. There had not yet been a single completely bloodless draw. Even the game between “fellow countrymen” Furman and Stein, who shared a room, ended peacefully only after more than four hours of play.

The Early Leaders

There were two leaders at first. Bronstein and Zaitsev began successfully. In the opening round Bronstein had to devote considerable effort to his game with Nei. The encounter attracted particular attention because it featured both modern and somewhat old-fashioned opening ideas and led to an extremely sharp position. Bronstein conducted the game with marked determination.

Alongside Bronstein in the standings was Alexander Zaitsev, who surprised the public with the speed and energy of his play. In his first three games, the Far Eastern player orientated himself rapidly in sharp positions and used his centralised pieces effectively.

After half the tournament, the main struggle appeared likely to involve five Soviet grandmasters: David Bronstein, Alexander Zaitsev, Paul Keres, Leonid Stein and Mikhail Tal. The group was tightly packed at the top. Although the results were high — between five and seven points from seven games — it was still too early to speak of anyone having a decisive advantage. Iivo Nei, who stood only half a point behind, also remained in contention.

The struggle among the leaders was still ahead. In the penultimate round, two of the most celebrated participants, Bronstein and Keres, were due to meet, while the final round included Stein–Bronstein and Keres–Furman.

Important Games and Setbacks

Sporting results do not always reflect the actual balance of play. American grandmaster Bisguier, for example, often displayed a cheerful and inventive style, but at times allowed unnecessary complications. Hungarian grandmaster Gedeon Barcza also took part in several miniature games. In one of them he lost a piece by move ten.

The thirteenth round was unlucky for Alexander Zaitsev. Several days earlier he had begun an adjourned game with Keres. It was his first meeting with the celebrated grandmaster. Zaitsev’s opening experiment in a sharp variation of the Spanish Game was risky and did not justify itself. Keres demonstrated that the idea was not yet ready for practical use.

Later, Zaitsev admitted that before the tournament he had been rereading exactly those pages of his opening book. The game proved educational: in some positions Black’s attack could not be made to work, while in others White’s defence was much easier than expected.

The number of contenders for first place gradually decreased. Stein’s position also worsened after he failed to save an adjourned game with Westerinen. The tournament fate of the Kyiv grandmaster was then strongly influenced by his encounter with Bronstein. Yet Stein’s position in that game remained unclear until the final phase.

Bronstein himself did not manage to win any of his final-round games, although he remained one of only two undefeated participants. He fell just short of the grandmaster norm.

Keres and the Final Round

The last round was extremely tense. Before it, Keres stood alone at the top of the table. I managed to defeat Daskalov, gaining an extra exchange by move thirty-nine. At the same time Furman defended stubbornly in a difficult position against the Estonian grandmaster.

The game was the only one still unfinished in the final round. Keres tried to convert his positional advantage, but by move fifty-nine, after using all practical possibilities, he had to agree to a draw. First place was therefore shared by two players.

It should be noted in fairness that Keres was probably the best player in the event in terms of overall quality. At any rate, his performance rating was slightly higher.

Stein finished fourth. A victory in the final round could have allowed him to catch Zaitsev, but he met Nei, and in Tallinn one needs more than determination to defeat the local master. Their tense encounter ended in a draw.

The final question — which of the foreign participants would finish highest — was not settled until round fifteen.

Conclusion

The tournament in Tallinn was held under excellent conditions. At the closing ceremony many participants expressed the hope — and the organisers did not object — that it would become a regular traditional event.