The Unlucky Ones Fought Back

It seems that only recently the first international tournament in Tallinn was held, yet this year’s event was already the tenth. Time passes, but the best traditions have been preserved. As always, the organization was excellent: everything had been thought through in advance and refined down to the smallest detail. Publicity also worked well: newspapers, radio and television regularly reported on the progress of the competition. Any spectator who came to the Estonproject hall could borrow headphones and listen twice during the evening to expert commentary. Before the start of each new round, express bulletins containing the games from previous rounds were put on sale. In short, there was no shortage of praise.

Were there any problems? Of course. This year many strong grandmasters took part, and the tournament was of Category XI, with an average rating of 2507.

“Was it difficult to assemble such a strong field?” I asked Hillar Luik, director of the Paul Keres Chess House.

“What can I say? It was not easy. The main problem is that inviting participants, especially foreign players, is handled by several institutions at once. These include municipal and republican organizations, the Sports Committee, and the Chess Directorate of Goskomsport. Coordination and consultation consume a great deal of time and effort. Would it not be better if one institution—practically speaking, the Tallinn Chess House—were responsible for staging the tournament? It could negotiate directly with all participants. At present this is not accepted, at least officially. Why?”

Luik shrugged, but remained satisfied. Everything that could be done had been done. Could anything have been improved?

“Certainly. The tournament bulletin could have been produced more quickly and to a higher standard. There is money, and there are authors willing to write articles and annotate games, but there is no permission to obtain the necessary funding. That is a pity.”

Let us turn directly to the tournament. From the very beginning Vladimir Malaniuk moved into the lead. It later became clear that the Sevastopol master’s aim was not first place, but the familiar “second grandmaster norm”. After scoring four points at the start, Malaniuk drew all his remaining games, which allowed him to count on promotion in title.

By the tenth round the group of leaders was headed by Mikhail Gurevich, who eventually took first place, finishing half a point ahead of his nearest rivals.

Looking at the final results, one may note with some surprise that the places in the winners’ group were taken by recent participants in the top league—or rather, by its unlucky ones. Yet there is no reason for surprise. The strength of Psakhis, Malaniuk and Gavrikov is well known. In Minsk one of them had been out of form, another had “burned out” before a major event, and another had simply been unlucky. This time they played in accordance with their true strength.

The tournament race was highly interesting: four leaders had the same number of points, and only the final round put everyone into their proper places.

In conclusion, it should be noted that both this tournament and many other events of various levels held in Estonia form an integral part of the Chess Festival dedicated to the memory of Paul Keres. The experience of the Tallinn festivals is undoubtedly of interest both to chess enthusiasts and to tournament organizers.

A. Lysenko, master and special correspondent