Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Curacao Candidates (1962) Soon after the Stockholm Interzonal (1962), eight players met from 2 May - 26 June in Curacao in order to determine the Challenger for Mikhail Botvinnik, the World Champion. The event in Stockholm selected six of the top finishers there. Due to a restriction limiting the number of players advancing from the same country to the next stage, Leonid Stein did not qualify, and Benkö took his place after the Stockholm Interzonal Playoff (1962). Both Paul Keres and Mikhail Tal qualified by virtue of their placings from the Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade Candidates (1959). This made for an eight-player quadruple round-robin, as in the previous FIDE cycle. Only 105 games were played since Tal withdrew due to illness after round 21. Keres and Geller, having finished second ex aequo, were obliged to play a match to determine who would automatically qualify for the next Candidates cycle; Keres - Geller 2nd place Candidates Playoff (1962) was held at Moscow from 11th-25th August 1962 and was won by Keres by a score of 2-1, with five draws. 1 Petrosian XXXX ==== ==== =1== ==11 ==1= 11=* =11= 17.5 =2 Keres ==== XXXX ==== 0=1= ==1= 1110 1=1* =11= 17 =2 Geller ==== ==== XXXX 11=0 ==1= ===1 =11* =11= 17 4 Fischer =0== 1=0= 00=1 XXXX 010= 01=1 =1=* 1=1= 14 5 Korchnoi ==00 ==0= ==0= 101= XXXX ===0 10=* 1111 13.5 6 Benko ==0= 0001 ===0 10=0 ===1 XXXX 10=* 011= 12 7 Tal 00=* 0=0* =00* =0=* 01=* 01=* XXXX 10=* 7 8 Filip =00= =00= =00= 0=0= 0000 100= 01=* XXXX 7 Petrosian advanced to the Botvinnik - Petrosian World Championship Match (1963). (1) Wikipedia article: Candidates Tournament. Original collection: Game Collection: WCC Index (Curacao 1962), by User: Hesam7.  page 1 of 5; games 1-25 of 105  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. Benko vs Fischer 1-0 40 1962 Curacao Candidates B07 Pirc 2. Korchnoi vs Geller ½-½ 38 1962 Curacao Candidates E60 King's Indian Defense 3. Keres vs Filip ½-½ 37 1962 Curacao Candidates B49 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation 4. Petrosian vs Tal 1-0 64 1962 Curacao Candidates A12 English with b3 5. Geller vs Fischer 1-0 40 1962 Curacao Candidates B92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation 6. Tal vs Keres 0-1 40 1962 Curacao Candidates C96 Ruy Lopez, Closed 7. Korchnoi vs Petrosian ½-½ 36 1962 Curacao Candidates C97 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin 8. Filip vs Benko 1-0 28 1962 Curacao Candidates E60 King's Indian Defense 9. Fischer vs Filip 1-0 66 1962 Curacao Candidates C98 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin 10. Petrosian vs Geller ½-½ 21 1962 Curacao Candidates E12 Queen's Indian 11. Keres vs Korchnoi   ½-½ 33 1962 Curacao Candidates D02 Queen's Pawn Game 12. Benko vs Tal 1-0 41 1962 Curacao Candidates A00 Uncommon Opening 13. Tal vs Fischer ½-½ 58 1962 Curacao Candidates B92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation 14. Geller vs Filip ½-½ 13 1962 Curacao Candidates B42 Sicilian, Kan 15. Petrosian vs Keres ½-½ 17 1962 Curacao Candidates D18 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch 16. Korchnoi vs Benko   ½-½ 59 1962 Curacao Candidates B36 Sicilian, Accelerated Fianchetto 17. Fischer vs Korchnoi 0-1 33 1962 Curacao Candidates B09 Pirc, Austrian Attack 18. Keres vs Geller ½-½ 27 1962 Curacao Candidates E61 King's Indian 19. Benko vs Petrosian ½-½ 67 1962 Curacao Candidates A00 Uncommon Opening 20. Filip vs Tal 0-1 34 1962 Curacao Candidates A49 King's Indian, Fianchetto without c4 21. Petrosian vs Fischer ½-½ 25 1962 Curacao Candidates E84 King's Indian, Samisch, Panno Main line 22. Geller vs Tal   ½-½ 27 1962 Curacao Candidates B48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation 23. Keres vs Benko 1-0 28 1962 Curacao Candidates B43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3 24. Korchnoi vs Filip 1-0 101 1962 Curacao Candidates D52 Queen's Gambit Declined 25. Benko vs Geller ½-½ 75 1962 Curacao Candidates A00 Uncommon Opening  page 1 of 5; games 1-25 of 105    REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)   < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·  Later Kibitzing> Jan-11-21    Petrosianic: Well, I don't care who wrote it. I'm not arguing ad hominem, I'm responding to the quote. The author is someone I've never met no matter who it was. Jan-11-21    AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> Geller has already taken the quick draw with Petrosian. Now, when Geller has only two games left to play, and the others get to play three, and Geller's trailing anyway, he takes a quick draw with White. And against none other than Keres, one of the two men he desperately needs to catch.> Perhaps Geller was conserving his energy for the post-tournament party? Jan-11-21    Sally Simpson: *** Hi guys. You are not quoting me. People following on will think it is my quote. *** Jan-11-21    Petrosianic: All right, well it's too late to edit my post, but if you want me to agree that it's not your quote, then I agree. Jan-11-21    Sally Simpson: *** Just fed up with the way I get misquoted because I happen to post frequently. I was reminded today whilst looking for something else. Curacao Candidates (1962) (kibitz #189) ...where I quoted Aylerkupp who said: ""Someone is lying, either Benko or Edmonson. Take your pick while considering which version makes the most sense." (I offered alternatives to Benko lying.) A few posts later and suddenly it's me who said Benko was lying. Curacao Candidates (1962) (kibitz #197) I just ignored it then (I like Morf) but New Years Resolution No.32 is if I get misquoted then do even read the post - just remind them I never said it. I am now bound resolution 32. You will have to re-post correctly. *** Jan-11-21    Petrosianic: <I am now bound resolution 32. You will have to re-post correctly. > Okay, but I didn't actually <say> you authored the words. I just addressed you by putting your name in French <brackets>, since I was responding to your post. However, some of my phrasing probably implied authorship. Jan-11-21    Sally Simpson: *** Hi Petrosianic, Hopefully you can understand my predicament. If I was anonymous here I would not mind but I am known, I reveal my identity in the first sentence of my profile. I am currently writing my chess memoirs: Not 'Chess is My Life' but 'My Life is Chess' where I blow the whistle on the fixing that went on in a League Division 6 match between the Old Meadowbank Ladies and The Wheel Tappers and Shunters Club. People coming here after Morf will think I'm going around calling dead chess grandmasters liars. This will affect book sales and..er...invites to chess tournaments. *** Jan-11-21    Petrosianic: Yes, I understand, and if this was Facebook I could just edit my post indefinitely. To repost, though, I'm going to have to go through it again and make sure that the phrasing is correct all the way through it. I'm not sure what's the best way to post a quote and make it clear that it is a quote. The brackets are usually used specifically for quoting from the post you're replying to. Regular quotation marks don't stand out enough. Sometimes I've tried prefacing a quote with the name of the speaker in all caps, like... BOBBY: "The King's Gambit is busted." Jan-11-21    Z4all: You can request <CG> to delete old posts - they have the ability to do so, and sometimes have in the past. Jan-11-21    Petrosianic: Okay, maybe I'll do that, if it will help. Jan-11-21    Sally Simpson: *** Hi Petrosianic, I've read the post. The most famous (or infamous) pre-arranged in the UK draw never actually happened. In the last round of Luton 1975 Tony Miles and Stewart Rueben agreed to a last round draw. The were very open about it and decided what was the point of hiding it and played no moves. The arbiter gave them both 0 points - That ran and ran in the late 1970's ink wars. I'm sure all the OTB players have seen last round deals in their own tournaments. (it has almost become accepted.) But these are small fry compared to a Candidates. Or is it? Steal £1.00 and they call a thief. Steal £1 million and they make you a king. Think we can all come up plausible guilty/not guilty 'KGP' theories. There is are accusations they did (Korchnoi and the UK press), the quick draws support these claims but by no means prove it. FIDE changed the rules to stop it from 'ever possibly ' happening again. That shift was difficult for FIDE to make. instead of 8 player in a hotel and one venue you now need 8 different hotels and four different venues. Not a financial decision taken lightly. (all that without the Fischer rant which brought it to the worlds attention but no way did an outburst by a teenager change things. The 'KGP' deal or the possibility that a deal appeared to take place saw to that.) Me: I think it happened to save energy in those conditions. Then it was up to each other to see who could make the best score v the other players. Geller (one of my heroes) comes out this rather well. He had to go for a win v Keres in their last game but due to the gentleman's agreement before it started, he never reneged. See the Eggman's post: Geller vs Petrosian, 1962 (kibitz #25) The Eggman posted that. Not me.... ... I am not the Eggman (but I could be the Walrus!) *** Jan-11-21    Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson> The Book of Chess Lists contains a great draw from a Portuguese Junior Championship that they pre-arranged and didn't care who knew it. What the two players did was to reverse their armies. That is White moved his pieces and last rank, while Black did the opposite, and set them up as if for a new game, on the opposite side of the board. I once played a 3 move draw in the last round of a tournament. It wasn't pre-arranged, though. What happened is that I was in 2nd and stood to win some decent money. A win would mean a little more money, but a loss would mean a huge reduction, maybe nothing at all. So, when Black (who was higher rated) played the French, I played the Exchange Variation, hoping that he'd want to win and try too hard to beat me. No such luck. When he saw 3. exd5 he offered a draw. Since my whole winning strategy was based on him trying to win, which he just signaled he wasn't going to do, I figured there was no point continuing, and took the draw. I never pre-arranged a draw, but I did once pre-arrange the first 11 moves of a game. What we each did was to move our Queen Knights to KN1, and and our King Knights to QN1, and then played a real game from there. It was funny because we were both using Descriptive Notation, and wrote down all the moves correctly. For instance, at one point I had a Bishop on g4, while Marcus had Knights on f3 and b1. Before playing it, he wrote the move KN-Q2 on his scoresheet (meaning Nbd2, NOT Nfd2, which is what it looks like. A friend of mine who knew what was going on, walked by, saw KN-Q2 written down and said "Oh, BxQ!" At the time I thought this was perfectly innocent, since we did play a real game. However, it occurred to me later that it wasn't totally kosher, since we had sort of screwed with the time control by giving ourselves 11 free moves. These days even writing down the move before playing it would be improper, but it was legal then. Technically it's <almost> okay to pre-arrange a draw if white suggests it because the player on the move can offer a draw. (But he's not technically "on the move" before the clock starts.) The Benko-Reshevsky business was rather shady, though, because it wasn't just a case of both players wanting a draw. There was a subtle bribe involved. Reshevsky told Benko that if Rogoff lost, that he'd be playing to win, to try to get into the interzonal, AND that if that happened, Reshevsky would want Benko as his second. But if Rogoff didn't lose, neither one of them would have anything to play for. Reshevsky took this as meaning that he and he alone could play for a win. As it happened, though, Benko didn't want a draw. He wanted a win to get out of last place. So he refused Reshevsky's draw offer after Rogoff drew. He built up a winning position, but Reshevsky kicked up such a fuss that he blew the win and only drew. But in addition to the draw offer, Reshevsky had given Benko an incentive to lose the game by promising him a job as Reshevsky's second in the interzonal. Reshevsky never told him to lose, but he did give him a reason to. Jan-11-21    Sally Simpson: *** Hi Petrosianic, if this turns into a 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone' thread then I fear it will be endless. My dirty deed involved a club tournament running over the Summer. You arranged to meet your opponent on any date and usually the winner put the result on noticeboard. I won loads but never recorded all my wins on the noticeboard. So at 23:59 on the closing date it looked liked Mark Lockwood Condie had won. It appeared his lead was so big Mark never bothered playing his last few games. At 00:01 (one minute past the closing date) I added on 5 or 6 genuine wins. (games I played and won but 'forgot to add to the board'...on purpose) I won by ½ point! Not my finest moment but I did not throw a game or anything like that. I just tampered with the outskirts of the game. Not the game itself which I will always hold sacred. OK Perfidious your turn! *** Jan-11-21    perfidious: <Geoff....Steal £1.00 and they call a thief. Steal £1 million and they make you a king....> This droll bit brings to mind the epigram from Stalin on the topic of one death being a tragedy and all that. Classic stuff. As to prearranged games, never did that, though there were times where I was not averse to taking a quick draw, given the tournament situation. Jan-11-21    Petrosianic: The USCF rules say that it's unethical to agree to a draw at all before a serious fight has begun, or some such. But it's very subjective, of course. I remember the only time a TD ever questioned me on a draw. It was in the last round of a tournament. I and another guy were tied for first, and we played this game (I was White): 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 c5 6. O-O Be7 7. Nc3 d5 8. Ne5 cxd4 9. Qxd4 Bc5 10. Qd1 O-O 11. cxd5 Nxd5 12. Nxd5 Bxd5 13. Bxd5 Qxd5 14. Qxd5 exd5 1/2-1/2 The TD got wind that we'd drawn quickly, decided to be a bit hard-nosed, and wanted to see the game to be sure it was legit. It wasn't pre-arranged (In fact, I barely knew the other guy). The game is equal, but obviously we <could> have kept playing and trying for something. But we were very close in rating and neither one of us wanted to take the risk. So, was there anything "unethical" about this game? Well, if there was, clearly I'm more at fault than he was, just because I was White. Eliot Hearst's Glossary of Chess Terms describes a Grandmaster Draw as "a peaceful conclusion due to mutual fear", and I think this game fit that definition. On the other hand, there are two great loopholes in the USCF definition. First of all, the term "serious fight" is subjective. In my 3 move draw, I went into the game with a very definite winning plan: To go into a holding formation and let the higher rated player over-extend himself. But he crossed me up by not being in a winning mood either. With my plan busted, taking the draw was totally legit. Another loophole in the rule is that, although the rule says it's unethical to <agree> to a draw without a serious fight, there's nothing to stop players from repeating moves. So if in the game I just showed, the TD had decided that the game wasn't good enough and we should go back out there and keep playing, we could have just repeated moves and claimed a draw by repetition. Nothing in the rules says a word about that. I remember one time two friends of mine agreed to a draw in a position that was equal, yes, but there was play left. A Senior Master walked by, looked at the game, and innocently asked "Why is this a draw?" One of my friends defensively insisted "Well, HE offered it!" Jan-12-21    Sally Simpson: *** On the subject ot 'fixing' how about a no fix going in but a few people thinking there has. I recall this last round winner takes all game. S Arun Prasad vs M Panchanathan, 2009 A draw and a whole of host of last round winners can catch them with something like an 8/9 way tie. So rumours of a last round deal, one loses and splits the winnings, were going about. - there always are in such situations, it's as if they are expected. There were grumbles and mumbles going around about Black's 11 move which effectively lost the game and White took the top pot. click for larger view Black played 11...cxd4? and walked into a version of the the Monticelli trap. Game Collection: The Monticelli Trap I saw 11...cxd4 getting played. I could not quite believe it. White looked more shocked than Black. Imagine being innocent in such a situation, you will be thinking everyone will be saying this game is rigged. Then thoughts of the substantial prize money being withheld drift into your mind. White, now in this predicament of having a shadow cast over him, eventually with an air of 'what else am I supposed to play' played the obvious 12.Ng5. A few of the crowd around the board smiled knowingly, others shook their heads. A TD arrived. If after 12.Ng5 Black had resigned then it would have been bedlam. My stance amongst the after game grumbles was if Black wanted to toss the game then there are much better ways to do it than such an obvious blunder which was bound to attract attention. But a few drowned out boos still went up at the prize giving. My verdict - a genuine blunder which other players before and since have made in the same position. The Prize giving also gave rise to this amusing incident for which I give good advice. Fan Zhang (kibitz #2) *** Jan-12-21    Petrosianic: One move I don't understand in that game is 45. Rh7 instead of Rxh6, which was played a move later. Of course in a situation like this two players wouldn't have to go so far as to have one of them throw the game. They could simply agree to split the prize money regardless of the outcome, then go out and play a genuine game with some opening like a Danish Gambit or a Muzio, or something with very low odds of a draw. That seems ethically shady too, but obviously not nearly as bad as throwing a game. Anderssen is supposed to have had a deal like that at London 1851, though what benefit there is to it in a Knockout Tournament, I'm not sure. Capablanca fell into that trap twice against Euwe, once deliberately, and drew both times. Euwe vs Capablanca, 1931 Euwe vs Capablanca, 1931 Jan-12-21    AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> You are not quoting me. People following on will think it is my quote.> You're right. I followed you and I thought it was your quote. Upon checking more carefully (as a "defense" I will say that I made my post before I had my first cup of coffee) I see that you were quoting <Eggman>. And for that I apologize. Which made me think, always a bad thing. If you quote someone in one of your posts, does that sort of make it "your" quote? After all, I was referring to your post, not <Eggman>'s. While trying to find out what the "rules" were I came across this interesting tidbit (which only tangentially has to do with the topic) that if you are quoting within a quote, there are different styles depending on whether you are American or British, see https://www.thepunctuationguide.com.... American style calls for using a single quote mark (') for the inner quote and a double quote mark (") for the outer quote while British style calls for using a double quote mark for the inner quote and a single quote mark for the outer quote. Another example of "two nations divided by a common language". And <Petrosianic>'s post is somewhat problematic since in Curacao Candidates (1962) (kibitz #283) he wrote a fragment of your earlier post with a double quote mark after Checkmate without an opening quote. I suppose that if he had followed American style he should have written ' " What else could this be but collusion? The controversy is over. The argument is won. Checkmate." '. And if he had followed British style he should have written "' ' What else could this be but collusion? The controversy is over. The argument is won. Checkmate. ' ". But he muddied the waters by posting a syntactically incorrect quote with only one set of quote marks. I vote for the American style as being more correct, or at least more consistent, since the initial quote was clearly surrounded by double quote marks. So, if you are quoting that, then it seems more appropriate to surround it with single quote marks. In the British style you would change the original double quote marks to single quote marks and then surround it with a set of double quote marks. Kind of like drinking warm beer. Or you could just avoid the whole thing and always use double quote marks, where the only criteria for correctness would then be if the number of quotes is balanced at the beginning or the end. Kind of ensuring that, like in a formula, the only thing that's really important (aside from the formula's correctness, of course) is whether the left and right parenthesis are balanced or not. Just consider this suggestion of always using double quote marks, perhaps separating each consecutive set of double quote marks with a space to make it clearer, as another small step for man but a giant leap in unifying the two common languages. The article is silent as to what the style is (or should be) if someone quotes someone else who in turn quotes yet another person. Is there such a thing as a triple quote mark ( ''' )? <Just fed up with the way I get misquoted because I happen to post frequently.> I think there's a lesson in there for all of us. So the next time you get fed up just drink a pint of warm beer, the feeling will soon go away. :-) Jan-12-21    Petrosianic: In other words, next time you're fed up, drink up? Jan-12-21    AylerKupp: <Petrosianic> Of course. And, the more you're fed up, the more you need to drink up. It won't resolve what you're fed up about, but you just won't care (or at least don't care as much). It's always worked for me. Jan-12-21    Petrosianic: I'll drink to that. Jan-12-21    harrylime: <<Petrosianic: I'll drink to that.>> You're not a COMMIE BOT then ?? lol Jan-12-21    harrylime: BOBBY against the WORLD The James Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen of Chess He came. He saw He conquered Jan-12-21    harrylime: Anybody who thinks the USSR regime and the FIDE regime at this time were not afraid of Robert Fischer is a ... <Petrosianic> lol lol Jan-12-21    Petrosianic: <harry david chapman> You said the other day that the idea of not going near a celebrity with a gun was "wierd" [sic]. Do you still feel that way, harry? I'm trying to save you from the biggest mistake of your life here, and that's saying something. You don't have to thank me, however much I may deserve it. Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 12) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·  Later Kibitzing> NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion. Please observe our posting guidelines: No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members. Nothing in violation of United States law. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members. No trolling. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times. See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator. NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café. Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes! Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC