Report on the Maróczy Memorial Tournament

The Géza Maróczy Memorial Tournament, in which leading players from ten countries took part, headed by World Champion Botvinnik and the strongest players of the Soviet Union, was considerably stronger than any international tournament previously held in our country, including the 1950 World Championship Candidates Tournament, which was likewise played in Budapest.

For that reason alone, the organization of the event was a great success in two respects: for the sports body responsible for chess and its direction, the National Council for Physical Education and Sport, and for the Social Chess Federation. The participation of outstanding foreign players, above all Soviet players, was at the same time recognition of the efforts made and of the significant level recently achieved by Hungarian chess. We may say that, in memory of the great master Maróczy, we truly enriched the history of Hungarian and world chess with a tournament valuable in its preparation, in the conduct of the players, and in its sporting results.

Before the tournament, at least three serious questions occupied wide chess circles throughout the world. The first concerned, as noted above, the present international situation: what would be the balance of strength between the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies on the one hand, and the Western countries on the other? Which system better ensures the discovery of talent and the development of culture in this field?

Although, regarding the participation of several leading players from the Western world, it must be said with regret that first S. Reshevsky and R. Fine did not come for political reasons, and later E. Euwe, L. Prins, M. Najdorf, and N. Rossolimo were absent because of other commitments, nevertheless Ståhlberg, the pre-war World Championship candidate, O’Kelly, the Belgian international master and winner of the 1947 Hilversum European tournament, Pilnik, one of the strongest Argentine masters, and Golombek, who had earned the right at last year’s Plymouth zonal tournament to take part in the forthcoming world championship interzonal, still fulfilled the role of rivals to a considerable extent.

The second question was naturally this: how would the Hungarian masters, who in recent years had occupied leading places in domestic competitions, stand up in such an unusually strong field? This question became even more pressing because the tournament served, in a sense, as a prelude to two great tests in 1952: the zonal tournament of the people’s democracies and the Helsinki Olympiad, that is, the international team world championship. Both events could be regarded as important trials also in relation to the Maróczy Memorial.

Finally, without doubt, the performance of World Champion Botvinnik was of exceptional interest. After winning the title, he was entering tournament play for the first time, and his first such appearance, considering the situation in Soviet chess after the 19th USSR Championship, gave reason to expect more from him than from the other participants.

The tournament gave an irresistible — and by no means accidental — answer to the first question. Of the first five places, four were taken by Soviet players, while the fifth, the youngest Soviet participant, Petrosian, for whom this was his first international tournament, also won a high prize. All this represents another great victory for the Soviet chess school. Keres’s hand, Geller’s uncompromising force, Smyslov’s and Botvinnik’s great experience, which allowed them to reach the top places even after an uncertain start — these are qualities which, despite all individual differences, were formed above all under the enormous influence of the Soviet chess school. Their absence, unfortunately, was also visible among some of the Hungarian players.

It should not be concealed that the result of the Hungarian masters — though worthy of respect — was, in total, weak, even poor in comparison with expectations. A peculiar phenomenon is that while they fought bravely against the strongest participants in the tournament and on several occasions won important points, they then gave those points away to opponents from the lower half of the table. Today the general level of world chess is so high that even the strongest grandmaster can lose to a relatively unknown opponent. Even so, it is difficult to imagine an international tournament in which the easiest points are obtained from undoubtedly stronger players.

This peculiar phenomenon can be explained in several ways. The most immediate explanation, which we must nevertheless reject, would be that the Hungarian players underestimated the knowledge of some of their opponents. Rather, it was that against weaker players they did not play with the proper energy, with the necessary concentration, and with the appropriate will to win — the very qualities with which they were able to score several fine victories against the best players.

Grandmaster Ragozin is undoubtedly right when he says that the weakness of chess players of our time lies less in what position they obtain on the board than in whom they are playing against. Yet the essence of chess remains, above all, the game of chess itself.

The contest is fought and decided on the chessboard. An interesting explanation of the exaggeration of “psychological chess” was given toward the end of the tournament by Grandmaster Barcza, according to whom this results from the fact that the Hungarian masters usually play against the same opponents, whose habits, style, temperament, choice of openings, and so on they know precisely.

Here too it certainly plays a part that there is much more published material on the world’s leading players than on the others, although the latter’s games can also be found in the magazines of their countries.

Even if these explanations do not touch upon the essential causes of the phenomenon, they are undoubtedly worth our attention; indeed, perhaps we should approach the question from another angle as well, striving for a complete solution, so that cases should not recur in which masters such as Stahlberg and Keres, who play excellently against our masters, give up valuable half-points and full points against the tail-enders.

As for the third question, the performance of Grandmaster Botvinnik brought no surprise. Even before the tournament it was likely — and his result confirmed it — that Botvinnik would perform better than in the most recent Soviet Championship, but that he would not yet show the full strength of his play, because the consequences of his long break would still be evident. Of course, his situation was the most difficult, especially in a tournament where the adherents of “psychological chess” were giving away half-points and full points to weaker opponents, while throwing all their strength into games against the strongest. Against the World Champion no one has anything to lose; a draw against him is not a disgrace, and a draw or a win is double glory — all the more so because most of the participants had never in their lives played against an active World Champion.

After these general remarks, let us look in more detail at the tournament and at the results of the individual players.

Keres’s latest fine performance after the war — his fifth first prize: USSR Championship 1947, Pärnu 1947, Szczawno-Zdrój 1950 — naturally cannot be accidental. He has not lost the merits of the Soviet chess school and, with his rather one-sidedly sharp attacking play, his unexpected sacrifices, and his combination vision, developed already at a young age, he has become an experienced player in all phases and all forms of struggle. He is equally strong in attack and defence, in combinations and in positional play requiring great patience. He handles his tried-and-tested openings with confidence, especially the Spanish Game, but he does not shy away from a relatively unusual opening choice either if, for psychological reasons, he thinks it may make his opponent deviate from his prepared path and lead him onto unstable ground.

Examples include the opening of his games against Botvinnik and Barcza in the last two rounds. He gives very precise effect to his endgame advantages. Keres’s style has perhaps become less colourful, but it has certainly deepened and strengthened. Although, in round 2 against Petrosian and in round 9 against Szabó, because of a loss, he stood almost to the end below the place he occupied in the table, he fought tenaciously and evenly, and in the final rounds managed to overtake even Geller, who had become somewhat tired toward the end of the tournament.

Geller won second place, securing a decisive advantage over Keres’s chief rival this time by defeating him with a knight sacrifice. No less important was his threefold adjournment-session saving of an exchange-down ending against a bishop. The continuation of this small-positional masterpiece was later provided by Stahlberg and Smyslov’s games against him, although the former failed to convert the position into a win; after the draw was agreed, the latter, with all his pieces menacingly invading his opponent’s position, saved himself from defeat only because of time pressure.

Master Geller won the Hungarian public to a considerable extent with his colourful, sacrificial style, which, according to many, recalled Alekhine. The main content of several of his games was the sacrifice made for the attack and for seizing the initiative. At the same time, he defended with extraordinary accuracy in positions that had become difficult, but which mainly served defensive aims. He started with great momentum, scoring four victories in the first four rounds; after 16 rounds he remained the only player unbeaten in the tournament and had played the fewest games. His beautiful game against Gereben exemplifies the Soviet chess school’s inexhaustible ability to adapt to any kind of position. He conducted his victory over Barcza just as forcefully, and after the original, mutually sharpening opening both sides sacrificed almost all their bishops one after another. The young Soviet master’s great self-confidence is particularly characteristic: he often plays in time trouble, does not accept the peaceful draw offer forced by his opponent with seemingly compelling necessity — for example against Barcza and Stahlberg. Although toward the end of the tournament Geller showed some signs of fatigue and drew three times in the last rounds, his performance at this tournament was entirely successful and may perhaps be the last station before he obtains the grandmaster title.

Botvinnik, Smyslov, and Stahlberg shared places 3–5. Their placing shows that even such long and difficult battles are marked by the knowledge of grandmasters of several decades’ standing, though also by temporary failures and initial uncertainty.

For Grandmaster Botvinnik this tournament, like the Soviet Championship, was evidently an experimental event. His main aim was, above all, to practise again after a long and repeated absence from tournament play. The lack of practice showed most often in the fact that the World Champion quite frequently fell into time trouble and, as a result, lost a game against the Hungarian Szily, even though he was winning. In several games he showed uncertainty, especially at the beginning of the tournament, but against several opponents — Golombek, O’Kelly, Kottnauer — he “swept aside” the positions in truly World Champion style. His most instructive performance in this tournament was undoubtedly his theoretical draw against Szabó, where, after apparently losing positions in the middlegame, he reached a theoretical draw after the 76th move, where neither bishop nor queen would have sufficed to secure a win against a single knight.

Grandmaster Smyslov began very badly: from the first six rounds he scored only two points. His play was praised for its great fighting spirit and willpower, which enabled him to reach a relatively high placing. Smyslov is at his strongest when the position is crystallized, while this time he repeatedly showed uncertainty in unclear, confused positions — for example against Pilnik, who played into a lost position. As for the game itself, the uncertainty in Smyslov’s choice of openings was also noticeable, although during the 1948 World Championship match this had been one of his strengths. It is possible that this uncertainty was only temporary.

One of the best results of his life was achieved by Grandmaster Stahlberg, who, had it not been for his loss to Benko in the final round, would have achieved an even higher placing. He was among the leaders throughout the tournament, although he progressed relatively calmly and conservatively, and only once or twice did he have a chance even for first place. He played easily and simply, but not dangerously. Instead of the opening labyrinths that develop quickly nowadays, he preferred the safest paths, where his opponents could usually feel at home. He selected harmless lines, in which more than one opponent remained untouched — for example Kottnauer, Petrosian, and others. What most hindered Grandmaster Stahlberg from achieving an even better result, however, was chiefly his lack of a will to win. In several games he yielded important half-points which, as is usually said, were already “only a matter of technique” — against Barcza, Pilnik, and, solely through his own fault, against Keres and Geller. Some of his worse games he managed to save with good nerves and skilful defence. When, however, in the final round against Benko he lost the pawn sacrificed earlier against Szabó, such a large number of lost half-points finally weighed heavily, and he ended in a placing which, with his performance, he perhaps did not entirely deserve.

Sixth place was taken by Grandmaster Szabó. His result is not poor, especially if we consider that he scored most of his points against the best players. It must be stressed separately, however, that after his relatively poor start he regularly lost all desire to play and was unable to find himself. This time he had enough willpower, together with his full knowledge, to fight his way up to a respectable position. Unfortunately, in the middle of the tournament another period of uncertainty followed, which set him back somewhat again. He played particularly patiently and composedly in the third game, and according to his old “paper form” even more weakly against weaker opponents. For the study of his style, the period of preparation was not enough, and at the same time he almost “expects” the weaker player to lose the game by himself.

He also made several mistakes in his choice of openings, when he chose systems requiring heavy, closed, slow manoeuvring, which ran counter to his initiating, fast-developing style and, alongside his poor start, increased his opponents’ chances — against Śliwa and Geller. At the same time, one must especially mention his excellent performance against Petrosian, Stahlberg, and Keres. In these games he proved that he may face even the strongest without trepidation, and that we may look forward to his Stockholm performance with confidence, where presumably only the “best” will start.

It should also be noted that Grandmaster Szabó deals a great deal, apart from chess, with factors that may be called secondary, and at times attributes excessive importance to them. It was therefore a correct decision on his part that, separated from the other players but in good spirits, he should develop his willpower in order to eliminate as completely as possible every disturbing external circumstance.

Petrosian and Pilnik finished in 7th–8th places. Petrosian, in the second round, won against Keres in a game in his own distinctive style. In the middlegame he seemed forced to retreat with all his pieces, then with an interesting exchange sacrifice he opened the position and at once placed all his pieces in the most favourable squares. This great success then made the highly talented young player somewhat overconfident. After that his play became uncertain, and especially in his games against Szabó and Stahlberg he lost without resistance. Against Benko, however, he could not bear the mutual time-trouble tempo dictated by the opponent.

Pilnik understands attacking positions very well and combines excellently — against Petrosian and Smyslov — and skilfully exploits the opponent’s time trouble, but otherwise his style primarily resembles that of a strong, routine professional chess player.

O’Kelly, the Belgian champion, finished ninth. Whereas his style had earlier been characterized by sharp combinational play, this time he seemed to be the most peaceful member of the entire field. He began with many draws, and during the tournament his results came very slowly, but the number of points he won also grew very slowly. His finest performance was his draw against Geller in the final round, which decisively determined first place.

Benko, the second-best Hungarian player, came tenth. His 50 percent result is satisfactory. In some games Benko produced an excellent performance, above all with his victory over Stahlberg; yet he, like the Hungarian masters in general, lost several points in completely unnecessary fashion. In both his preparation and his conduct during the tournament he still needs greater seriousness and responsibility if he is to achieve a result appropriate to his abilities.

Among the other Hungarian participants, Master Szily’s play was colourful, varied, combinationally rich, and testified to an attacking style. His result was a pleasant surprise. In a certain sense, the opposite of Barcza, who began the tournament well and won his game against Pilnik after a very subtle tactical move, but then somehow began to play tactical chess alien to his style and based on short-range combinations. With the use of his characteristic style — positional manoeuvres followed by a small endgame advantage — he managed to prevail only in his game against Kottnauer. He played colourlessly, and against the stronger foreign players, so to speak, he “did not even touch the ball.” He was outstandingly ambitious against the greatest opponents and against the weaker players, such as the world-famous grandmasters. This was undoubtedly an incorrect competitive attitude.

Golombek aroused sympathy with his modest, attentive behaviour and, in several games, with his imaginative play. For the other players, however, the tournament proved noticeably strong. In one or another game they gave testimony to their knowledge and abilities, but these occasional points hardly influenced the final result of the tournament. Troianescu and Śliwa in particular did great harm to the Hungarians: the former beat four and the latter three Hungarian players. Platz began the tournament with ten consecutive defeats, which clearly shows that his knowledge was not yet adequate for participation in such a strong tournament.

Throughout the tournament there was intense interest both among Hungarian chess players and throughout the chess world. In the tournament hall we could see day after day the pioneers, the industrial apprentices, the students, the young chess players of the future, as well as our worthy masters with long pasts behind them. The newspaper of our People’s Army and our women chess players likewise visited the tournament. We could often see tourists arriving in the capital from the provinces, showing that our provincial chess players too considered it important to watch directly, at least once, the struggles of the world’s best chess players.

The press and radio regularly reported on the results of the rounds and published the most interesting games. The TASS office, the Moscow radio, Pravda, Izvestia, and several other Soviet newspapers, as well as the French, Polish, Czechoslovak Telegraph Agencies and many foreign newspapers, also regularly reported the results of the tournament.

The tournament Herald undoubtedly contributed to the worthy preservation of the event. Edited by Master Lajos Egri, it appeared very quickly and with an almost surprising regularity compared with earlier editions. It contains all the games of the tournament, among them a number of the participants’ brief analyses, as well as analyses by the foreign and Hungarian masters who were in Budapest during the tournament. In connection with its rapid publication, the number of avoidable errors would clearly have been smaller had more Hungarian masters taken an active part in the editing or production of the Herald.

Thus the great tournament came to an end. The participants from ten different countries, on returning home, will report that they took part in an excellently organized grandmaster tournament in a country developing rapidly. They will certainly find that, alongside the achievements attained in chess culture as well, the new, free Hungary has reached a high level, and that it now contributes almost regularly to the further development of relations of peace among nations. It is desirable that, before the memory of Grandmaster Maróczy, several Maróczy Memorial tournaments should follow, becoming a tradition. There is no doubt that similar tournaments will play a significant role not only in the development of chess sport, but also in strengthening friendship and peaceful cultural relations among peoples.

Tibor Flórián
International Master