Liberation Memorial Tournament

After the third round there were still three players who had won all their games, and one who had lost all of them. In the first round, of the eight games played, only one ended in a draw. The tournament had therefore begun in a way that truly promised a high standard, serious fighting, and many exciting moments for both the public and the experts. The starts made by Keres, Szabó and Portisch justified the brightest hopes in the Liberation Memorial Tournament, organized by the Hungarian Chess Federation on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the liberation of Budapest. At the FIDE congress in Havana this event had been included, “under the aegis of FIDE,” among the specially distinguished tournaments; to organize it at the proper level, the Budapest Physical Education and Sports Council had to conduct difficult negotiations with those friendly countries that had taken part in the liberation of Budapest twenty-five years earlier.

The influenza epidemic raging across Europe endangered the success of the tournament from the very start. Grandmaster Barcza and Péter Dely, winner of the most recent Hungarian championship, fell ill. Their places were taken by Bárczay and M. Kovács. Before the tournament began, grandmaster Ratmir Kholmov also became ill, and the next day news arrived that only three Soviet grandmasters would come. In the end, however, Kholmov did arrive and, as he said, “one cannot let friends down.” At the same time a message came from Bucharest announcing the arrival of Ciocâltea in place of Florin Gheorghiu, who had been called up for military service; in the end, however, the grandmaster’s leave was successfully arranged.

In splendid spring weather, and in accordance with the plans, the contest began with players from six countries: ten international grandmasters, five international masters and one Hungarian master, the latter having earned his place through the final of the Budapest championship.

The best start was made by the favourite of the tournament, the Soviet grandmaster Paul Keres, who scored 5.5 points from six games. One should not judge his play solely by this excellent start, although in practice it secured first place for him. Even though all his remaining games ended in draws, his rivals “circled around” one another so much that no one could catch the leader, or even come within one point of him.

The tournament, especially in its second half, did not proceed normally. Among both the foreign and Hungarian players, the leading Szabó fell ill. Keres disappeared from the view of the public, as until the fourteenth round he had to play his games in his hotel. The fighting spirit of the players struggling with influenza also declined. There followed rounds in which, with the exception of one game, all the others often ended in relatively quick and bloodless draws.

Much has already been written and said about draws and about the fight against them — whether actually conducted or merely possible — but with rather modest results. Here, apart from the influenza epidemic, we would like to draw attention to two further circumstances.

The field brought together many players of roughly equal strength, and among them draws often reflected the real balance of forces. One side frequently obtained a visible advantage, but the opponent, defending stubbornly, ultimately secured the draw. As a rule, the ending was somewhat more favourable for the attacking side, and it is no accident that such an uncompromising attacking player and tactician as M. Kovács had to record six consecutive draws.

“When chess becomes work...” is the title of one of master Golombek’s articles, in which he explains how far we are from the amateur who played chess on a Sunday afternoon and for whom chess meant relaxation after everyday work. For today’s professional grandmaster, chess is daily work; and given the present development of tournament chess, it is entirely understandable that when there is little hope of disturbing the balance, a player does not force matters, but rather grants himself an extra day of rest. This is especially so when he can do it without the risk of slipping down the tournament table.

The tournament partners also advance only by half-points.

The second third of the tournament brought no change in the battle for the two leading places: Keres led, usually by half a point over Szabó. The other positions became completely mixed. Portisch unexpectedly fell back: in rounds 9–12 he was able to score only half a point from four games. All three defeats came against compatriots. The reason for the first loss, against Forintos, was poor opening handling — or rather, poor opening choice. With Black, Portisch chose a variation against which he himself likes to play with White, and after only 13 moves he already stood worse. Two rounds later, against Lengyel, he obtained a much better, almost winning position, but lost his way. Finally, against Csom, he forced an attack for which there was insufficient basis in the position. The common factor in all three defeats was an underestimation of the opponent’s possibilities — unusually so in Portisch’s case.

Another characteristic of this stage was that the lower-rated Hungarian players won several valuable games against compatriots considered stronger. M. Kovács, in a good game, deprived Lengyel of his chance for a master norm, and then Lengyel — after Portisch — also defeated Szabó, and from an inferior position. Despite all this, there can be no doubt about the sporting attitude of the Hungarian players. A somewhat negative impression was left by the fact that the resistance of the weaker Hungarian players against strong foreign opponents was not always as determined; sometimes these games ended in quick draws.

Toward the end of the tournament, the force of the epidemic weakened, most of the players recovered, and in the finish a fierce struggle again developed. As in the Liberation Tournament five years earlier, in the final rounds a third of the field had already become practically secure; this time, however, the fate of the highest places was decided in several games, and in those games there really was a fight.

This was the case in the adjourned game Suetin–Jansa, in the penultimate round in the game Szabó–Suetin — whose interesting twists were followed with great attention by János Kádár and Dr. Sándor Beckl — and in the final round in the game Suetin–Ivkov. In all three cases the attack, or the attacking side, prevailed.

Thus, in broad outline, the final result of the tournament took shape.

The Estonian grandmaster Paul Keres, extraordinarily popular not only in our country but throughout the chess world, scored 10 points and was the only undefeated player, thereby securing first place with confidence. “Naturally I am satisfied with my result, but I could have played better,” he said with his usual modesty. His illness confirmed his reputation as a “universal” player. Against Csom he won with an elegant attack; against Jansa and M. Kovács he displayed tactical brilliance in the middlegame; and against Radulov, after two adjournments, he won in the ending. His calm tournament manner, youthful appearance, and above all his result almost made one forget that he was the oldest participant in the tournament: on January 7 he had turned 54.

Second place went to grandmaster László Szabó with 9 points. This time he competed well prepared and rested. His excellent start was confirmed by three consecutive victories. He played these games actively, in an enterprising style reminiscent of his best days six years earlier. His impatience, however, hindered him not only in the game he lost, but also in the Suetin game that decided second place, where he could have strengthened his position. It was a pity that in the final round, against Jansa, he opened the position too early and fell victim to the cunning defence of the Czechoslovak master, who displayed excellent counterplay.

Third and fourth places were shared by the Soviet player Suetin and the Yugoslav Ivkov, both with 8.5 points. Suetin is one of the greatest Soviet theoretical specialists, but — as he himself said — in this tournament he could not obtain any great advantage through theory. It was one of the most difficult tournaments of his life, because not only the grandmasters but also the masters represented great playing strength. He played several games with great energy right up to adjournment, but the successful finish was missing. He could not convert a lasting initiative into victory against Jansa or Ivkov; on the other hand, he successfully saved himself from defeat from defensive positions against M. Kovács and Adorján. He too had health problems.

For Ivkov, in turn, this was perhaps his fourth most difficult tournament. This time he stood out chiefly through his modern handling of the opening, his positional sense, and the quality of his defensive play.

The next places, in the middle of the table, were occupied by the largest group of players, which shows how evenly balanced the field was. Portisch, Csom and Lengyel finished in a dead heat with 8–8. Portisch began to play really strongly only in the second half of the tournament, and his earlier losses in fact determined his final result. Lengyel this time was not in his “Belgrade form.” His result developed in an extreme way: a loss to the last-placed player, victories over two of the leaders, and many draws. Csom achieved the best result of his international career so far, and this deserves a positive assessment, because after losing to Keres in the first round he did not collapse. Unfortunately, in the eleventh round he failed to win, and after that too little time remained for a realistic pursuit of the grandmaster norm. It is as if his opening choice did not yet match his tactical and combinative talent. His time-trouble problems should also be mentioned. His fighting spirit is shown by his victory over Viszontel. Equal positions — and which positions today are not equal after 10 or 20 moves? — are not automatically offered as draws by him; he tries to make something out of them. The handling of “equal positions” is becoming an increasingly important chapter in modern chess. Some grandmasters, such as Larsen and Korchnoi, owe no small part of their success to the fact that they have acquired virtuoso knowledge in this field, especially in the most frequently occurring types of positions. In Larsen’s case, this is accompanied by considerable self-confidence. Others, however, if they have no advantage, are ready to draw their games in series.

In places 8–12, Bárczay, Averbakh, Kholmov, Gheorghiu and Jansa, also in a dead heat, scored 7.5 points each. For Bárczay it was especially instructive that he usually consumed almost an hour more on the clock. If opponents could be removed from the board as quickly as he did it, he would be more effective. His first-round victory, his only defeat in the fifth round, thirteen draws and fluctuating games provide highly varied material for the analysis of his play. Much depends on him, on his own will: whether he has the desire and patience to look for miracles at the chessboard, to think and to fight for a breakthrough in unexpected situations. Averbakh fought with full devotion in almost every game, but his longer absence from tournament play made his play uncertain and improvised. On several occasions he failed to exploit a more favourable position for this reason.

Kholmov and Jansa established their 50 percent result in the final round. Kholmov seemed to recover toward the end, while Jansa — though constantly struggling with the clock — stood out with some of the tournament’s most surprising moves and was a very dangerous tactician. Gheorghiu was primarily interested in confirming the grandmaster norm he had achieved the previous year. When he saw that there was no chance of doing so, he seemed to strive merely for an even score.

In thirteenth place, with 6.5 points, finished András Adorján, winner of the recent European Junior Cup. He began somewhat inhibited, and against Radulov he repeatedly let winning chances slip away because he did not yet have full courage. His result in this “adult” tournament is nevertheless valuable. It is as if he realized too early that, with a one-point lead over Radulov, his realistic goal — achieving a norm — justified preserving the advantage he had gained. We hope, however, that already in his next tournament he will return to an active, enterprising style of play. In addition, it is absolutely necessary for him to develop a calmer and more disciplined tournament manner. In his case, exceptional talent and exceptional diligence will surely bring the expected results.

The Bulgarian international master Radulov finished in fourteenth place. Because of poor form, he played below his capabilities, as did Forintos, who finished fifteenth, and he did not meet with success.

The position of the last-placed M. Kovács is somewhat more complicated. He began the tournament with a series of six defeats. He still plays with great willpower, and in the next four rounds he scored 3.5 points. In some games, however, he almost completely ignores the principles of strategy and positional play, and plays as though he wished to prove that his game lies deep below master level. Unfortunately, in the area of positional judgment he is not developing, and he still tries to defeat experienced opponents only by tactical and combinative means.

All things considered, the tournament, directed with expertise by László Mohácsi, passed through unusual difficulties and was the strongest tournament held in Hungary in recent years. It was a worthy opening to the jubilee year in which we celebrate the 25th anniversary of our liberation and the centenary of the birth of the great master Géza Maróczy.

Tibor Flórián

Maróczy Celebration at the Chess Federation

On March 3, the Hungarian Chess Federation held a ceremonial meeting to mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of Géza Maróczy. At the meeting, grandmaster Gedeon Barcza, in connection with the commemorative article on Géza Maróczy published in our monthly magazine, recalled several episodes based on his personal memories.

Caption: In the picture, president Sándor Szerenyi opens the ceremonial meeting. From the left: Tibor Tóth, master Várnai, deputy general secretary of the MTS; general secretary Tibor Flórián; on the right, Gedeon Barcza. In the centre of the picture can be seen the bust of Géza Maróczy.

Simultaneous Exhibitions by the Soviet Grandmasters

Four Soviet grandmasters who took part in the Liberation Memorial Tournament accepted invitations to give simultaneous exhibitions after the end of the event.

On February 27, at the Belvárosi Café, Keres faced 65 opponents divided into four groups and scored +16, =0, -1; Averbakh scored +15, =0, -1; Suetin scored +14, =2, -0; and Barcza, playing in place of Kholmov, scored +14, =1, -1.

Kholmov played against 24 opponents at the Budapest Spartacus club and scored +19, =1, -4.

On February 28, Averbakh gave a simultaneous exhibition at the club of the Hungarian National Bank and scored +22, =0, -2, while Suetin, in Újvégvár, played against 24 opponents and scored +3, =3, -3.