Korchnoi - Tal Candidates Semifinal 1968

White's advantage is obvious. The simple 21. Nf4 with subsequent 22. Rad1 or 22. Rfd1 (depending on circumstances) didn't leave any hope for Black. But I couldn't resist the temptation to capture a pawn, and after 21. Bxa5? Rg6 22. Ng3 d4! 23. Qxg5 Rxg5 24. Bb6 Ra1 25. Rxa1 Tal could probably draw after 25... d3!, because White can't play 26. Ra8 due to 26... d2, and 26. Rd1 Rb5 27. Bd4 Nxd4 28. exd4 Rxb2 gave Black good counterplay. Tal, nevertheless, didn't use this "gift" and played 25... dxe3?, which led to a hopeless position for Black after 26. Ra8 Ne7 27. fxe3 Rd5 28. b4. So, after 4 games, I took the lead, and Tal hadn't showed his trademark playing style yet. He did it in the game 5. Stage two: Tal's confidence grows
The defeat in game 4 made Tal change his strategy. In the game 5, he played 1. e2-e4 for the first time in our match. He was clearly playing to win, and it showed clearly in the next position:

Game Five

White to move 27.???

No doubt that any chess player would play 27. Bxf7 Qxf7 28. Qxc3 with a small advantage for White. Of course, Tal saw that too. But he was against simplifications, he wanted to create tactical complications, whatever the price, and so he played 27. Rec1. His plan was along these lines: if Black replies with 27... Rc8, then the position after 28. Bxf7 Qxf7 29. Rxc3 Rxc3 30. Qxc3 is much better for him, because after the exchange of one Rook pair, it's easier for his pieces to invade the Black's camp. And what if Black replied 27... b4? Tal prepared a devious trap: 28. a3 a5 29. axb4 axb4 30. Ra7 Ne2+ 31. Kh2 Qxc1 32. Qxe2 Qf4+ 33. g3 Rd2 (this seems to be the end for White, but...) 34. gxf4 Rxe2 35. Bxf7!, and White wins one of the two black Rooks. Of course, not all Black's moves in this variant were forced. But other continuations also gave Tal the game he wanted. Nevertheless, there are still spots on the sun! And Tal, this combinational wizard, sometimes makes tactical mistakes. After 27... b4 28. a3, he overlooked a simple refutation of his plan: 28... e4! 29. axb4 Rd3 30. Qe1 e3!, and White remained defenseless. After 31. Bc2 Rd2 32. fxe3 Ne2+ 33. Kh1 Ng3+ 34. Kg1 Re2 35. Qd1 Qb7 36. e4 R8xe4 White resigned. Two defeats in a row could dishearten anyone but Tal. He came to the sixth game with a very concentrated and determined look. I had a two-point advantage and, of course, could choose a more conservative tactic. But I played White, and the temptation of essentially finishing the match immediately was too great. If I won my third game, I more or less won the entire match. I played this game very nervously and made a mistake in the following position:

Game Six

White to move 18.???

White's advantage is clearly visible: not only because of the c7 pawn's weakness, but also because of Black Queen's very uncomfortable position. With 18. Rd1, I could present very serious problems to Tal. How were Black supposed to save their Queen after h2-h3, g3-g4 and Nc4-e5? And so I gleefully decided to catch the Queen immediately: 18. h3?, giving Tal an opportunity to sacrifice an exchange 18... Rxd4! and seize the initiative. Of course, I still shouldn't have lost after that, but I hadn't noticed the tide of psychological struggle turning. The score was 3.5-2.5, and the match wasn't very comfortable anymore. Of course, I was still ahead, but could lose the advantage in any moment. The third, last stage of the match began. Stage three. Tal is always Tal!
Yes, that's how the Riga grandmaster looked at the match's final stage: he was the true Tal, with all his advantages and disadvantages - brilliant, confident tactician and a hesitant "technician" who sometimes made unfathomable positional mistakes.

Game Seven

White to move 20.???

That's a position from game 7. Black's game is seemingly lost. Any player of Tal's class should have found a simple way to win: move the a- and b-pawns forward. Instead, Tal first exchanged his active rook: 20. Rxd7? Bxd7 21. Rd1 Be8, and then threw away his queenside advantage with 22. c5?, which destroyed any chances of success after 22... Kf8 23. f4 b6 24. cxb6 axb6. Despite the occasional mistakes, Tal clearly had initiative at the match's finish. He played with colossal force, at his full strength, as in the years of his greatest sporting successes. I could only beat him off. During the struggle, I did have better chances at times (for instance, in games 8 and 9), but they didn't change the main battle's character. The 10th game was the pinnacle of the match. If Tal won, it would have been impossible to predict the winner. I'm not sure if I could withstand the strain of further struggle. Of course, I should have played for a draw in game 10. But I don't like and just can't specifically play for draw. Tal greatly exploited this disadvantage of mine. He got one of his favourite positions and devastated me utterly. 20 minutes before the time-out, my position was completely hopeless.

Game Ten

Black to move 32...???

The simplest way for converting the advantage for Black was the maneuver Nh6-g8-f6, attacking the d5 pawn and threatening Nh5+. But this was a strategic solution, and that's why Tal, who strategizes only when he's forced to, preferred a tactical strike 32... g5? that ultimately achieved nothing. After 33. fxg5 Rg8 34. Kf2 Rxg5 35. bxc5 dxc5 36. Qxc5 White won a pawn and retained enough resources for defence. The danger of losing has passed. Afterword
I did manage to defeat Tal. But the match's games didn't give me much creative satisfaction. I'm content only with some opening improvements I've used, for instance, in games 4 and 8. But I was plagued by technical flaws during the entire match. My technique is considered very good. Yes, in the last few years, I won many "bloodless" games. But against Tal, a very inventive and resourceful practician, simple technique is not enough, you need very sophisticated technique, which I failed to deliver. My only consolation is that Tal made even more technical mistakes than me. The match against Tal was a tough test for me. The positive balance of our previous encounters put much more pressure on me than on Tal. I won't hide the fact that precisely because of that, I felt obliged to defeat the Riga player. Now, before the match against Spassky, I don't worry much. I undestand that Spassky is stronger than Tal and probably stronger than me, but that's why I'm going to play him less nervously.

############################

Tal:

-<Mikhail Tal, "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal" (Cadogan 1997), pp.343-347>

(p.343) I returned to Moscow, and exactly half an hour later Victor Korchnoi, who was to be my opponent in the Candidates Semi-final Match, flew in from Amsterdam, where he had beaten Reshevsky.

In our match, the Leningrad Grandmaster was considered by chess correspondents to be the undisputed favourite. The score of our previous encounters appeared in the press, and it was recalled tht, in the last tournament where we had both participated (Wijk ann Zee), Korchnoi had finished 3 points ahead of me. I was confronted by the following problems: firstly, to make myself forget about our previous games, and secondly, to force myself to play as reservedly as possible, since Korchni is at his most dangerous in positions of a counter-attacking type, and feels less confident in situations where he himself has to take the initiative.

Therefore we decided at the start of the match to give preference to 1.d4, since previously I had always opened with my king's pawn against him.

Game 1

The very first game fully confirmed all our expectations. I began extra calmly, then came simplification, and straight from the opening the game went into an ending which I could not have lost if I had tried. Korchnoi could have gained (p.344) approximate equality, but he was completely discouraged by the way the game had gone, and made two anti-positional moves. A pawn ending was reached which was lost for him, although this still had to be proved.

Game one- White to move 28.???

Here I wrongly made the mistake of not believing myself. At first I wrote down the winning move 28.e5, but then decided to work out all the variations to mate. To do this proved not at all easy. It was only several days later that a detailed analysis appeared, confirming tht, by avoiding many false paths, White could win by force. Being unable to find all this at the board, I rejected 28.e5, subsequently again played inaccurately, and Korchnoi found the only moves to force a draw.

The most amusing thing is that I was not at all upset: the game had shown that the match tactics we had planned were quite correct.

Game 2

In the second game I again avoided all the sharp conitnuations into which my opponent tried to provoke me,

Game 3

and in the third game once again chose the quiet opening variation which had been psychologically so unpleasant for Korchnoi in the first game. Here, and this doesn't happen often, my opponent fell into a prepared opening trap, and I obtained a completely won position with an extra pawn. I allowed myself to relax a little, which you can't afford to do against Korchnoi, and first made my task more complicated, and then in time-trouble lost all my advantage.

I realised that there was no cause for panic, and that this game would have played on Korchnoi's nerves no less than on mine, but my heart bgan to be tormented by doubts: one game I had not won, now a second. I was already somewhat softened up when I arrived for the next game.

Game Four

Korchnoi very keenly sensed this, played the first part of the game very energetically, adpoting an interesting theoretical innovation and obtained a clearly (p.345) superior, if not winning position. In addition, I was also dispirited by the fact that over the first 15 moves I had spent a mass of time, and Korchnoi practically none.

To avoid the worst I decided to get some play at the cost of a pawn, which, of course, Korchnoi should not have taken, but a recurrence of his old illness- a tendency to capture pawns of 'any quality'- almost allowed me to save the game. For the pawn Black's pieces came strongly into play, and only severe time-trouble 'led' me past a continuation which would have made Korchnoi fight for the draw. However, I blundered, lost a piece and the game.

Game Five

My good intentions were immediately abandoned, and after a lengthy discussion with my second, I decided to return to my old ways, and play 1.e4, although it had previously been unsuccessful against Korchnoi. In reply to this, Korchnoi chose a quiet variation of the Ruy Lopez, which he had played only rarely, promising White an active and superior game. I did not play the best way, and Korchnoi practically equalised. Of course, if I had not been burdened by the thought of my loss in the fourth game, and the chances missed earlier, I would have gone in for the quiet position planned by Black, but my nervious decision, taken on the spot, gave Korchnoi the chance to shine with a typical counter-attack.

Everything seemed to be settled. By tradition, the match against Korchnoi was lost, for I would never make up the difference of two points in the remaining five games, in three of which I would have Black, and

Game Six

I went along quite calmly to the sixth game. Korchnoi evidently considered even three draws to be a luxury for me, and went all out to 'finish me off.' Indeed, he obtained the better position, while I was once again in time-trouble, and took my only chance: to sacrifice the exchange for a pawn. The position became considerably sharper, but Korchnoi was evidently unpreparted for such a change, and when the time control had been reached it was clear tht, despite being the exchange ahead, White was lost.

The fate of the match once more hung in the balance, and Korchnoi's self-confidnce was markedly shaken. In the last games of the match he tended, uncharacteristically, to aim only for a draw. It became easier for me to play in such a situation, but not once was I able to realise any advantage I gained.

Game Ten

I began the 10th game very calmly. A loss and a draw were equally worthless to me, but there could be no question of any unjustified risk. In the first half of the game Korchnoi played unsurely; in a Dutch Defence I seized the initiative, and gained a winning position.

(Diagram on p.346) Black to move 32...???

But here nerves came into the act. After all, in the event of a win, the psychological wind would be in my favour, and a sudden-death play-off would disturb Korchnoi's equilibrium. Intead of 32...Qg7 or 32...Qf8, followed by the knight manoeuver... Ng8-f6-e4, I sacrificed a pawn for an attack: 32...g5 33.fxg5 (p.346) Rg8 34.Kf2 Rxg5 35.bxc5 dxc5 36.Qxc5 Qh5 37.Qe7+ Rg7 38.Qf6 Rg6 39.Qe7+ Rg7 40.Qf6 Rf7. Here the game was adjourned in the following very sharp position.

White to move 42.???