Besides Saidy, Fischer defeated Larry Evans, Pal Benko, Samuel Reshevsky, Robert Byrne, Raymond Weinstein, Arthur Bisguier, Edmar Mednis, William Addison, Robert Steinmeyer and Donald Byrne.
The question then became, come summer would Fischer enter the Interzonal at Amsterdam in order to try for a match with Tigran Petrosian? He had repeatedly stated that he would not because the Russians had an unfair advantage. True to his word, he did not go to Amsterdam even after FIDE changed the format of the eight-player Candidates Tournament from a round-robin to a series of knockout matches, which eliminated the possibility of collusion.
Instead, Fischer embarked on a tour of the United States and Canada playing simultaneous exhibitions and giving a lectures. He also declined an invitation to play for the US in the 1964 Olympiad in Tel Aviv.
The top players on the January rating list were: Robert Fischer (2685), Pal Benko, (2655), Samuel Reshevsky (2611), William Lombardy (2575), Larry Evans (2559). Robert Byrne (2545), Anthony Saidy (2512), Arthur Bisguler (2507), Donald Byrne (2500), Nicolas Rossolimo (2475), William Addison (2462), Robert Steinmeyer (2451), Edmar Mednis (2438), Arthur Feuerstein (2436), Raymond Weinstein (2434). Hans Berliner (2425) and James T. Sherwin (2407).
Back in November of 1963, Chess Life columnist Dr. Eliot Hearst wrote that if you were to tell a player that a machine had been built that could beat him in a game, he would “smile a superior smile and offer 10-1 odds at 25 cents a game" that he would beat the machine.
Hearst was speaking of a Los Alamos computer named MANIAC I from the mid-1950s, but since those days there had been a lot of improvements. There was a computer program at MIT that was programmed with the rules, principles of material value, mobility value, development, center control, checks, pins and Pawn structure. Using these values, it assigned values to the moves it considered and then played the one with the highest point value. It was estimated that could play at about the 1200 level.
In April Professor Arpad Elo published the second international rating list (the first was in 1962) that rated players from 1880 onward. Between the years 1961 and 1963 the top rated players were Petrosian and Fischer (2690), Keres (2670), Botvinnik and Geller (2660), Spassky and Korchnoi (2650), Tal and Polugayevsky (2630) and Smyslov (2620).
Hans Berliner described correspondence chess: It was for those who are perfectionists and abhor “the trials and tribulations of over-the board play.” In postal play you can ponder to your heart’s content to a clock that ticks in days, not seconds. And, you can consult opening books, end-game books, middle game books (of little
value, and receive advice from better players. Actually, that’s not quite true as advice from other players was strictly forbidden. Perhaps he was speaking of consulting better players in the form of using printed material.
Correspondence chess was like playing a tournament game that was adjourned after every move. The advantage was you could work out the correct strategies and avoid tactical pitfalls. Maybe Berliner could; most of us couldn’t, but our play was still far more accurate than OTB play.
Sonja Graf, playing her first serious chess in four years, won the US Women's Championship with a score of +8 -1 =1 by a full point ahead of defending champion Gisela Kahn Gresser even after losing her first round game to Gresser! Graf’s lone draw came against eighth place finisher Zenaida Huber. Gresser only lost one game (to third place finisher Mona Karff), but her downfall was three draws.
In April Arthur Bisguier and Pal Benko played a match to see which one of them would play in the Interzonal in Amsterdam. The match was to be for eight games with two additional games if the score was tied. If the match was still tied Bisguier would be making the trip. All those games weren’t necessary. The match only lasted for six games; Benko won 4.5-1.5.
The US reps at Amsterdam (which ended in a tie between Smyslov, Larsen, Spassky and Tal) didn’t do very well. Reshevsky tied with Lajos Portisch for eighth with a score of 14.5-8.5. Larry Evans was 14th with 10-13 and Pal Benko finished 16th with 9-14.
By the way, Benko was selling Pal Benko Chess Clocks through the USCF for $25.30 (shipping included). That’s $229 in today’s dollars. They were advertised as big, sturdy and reliable with excellent mechanisms that were unbreakable and suitable for rapid play. I bought one and truth to tell it was pretty shoddily constructed...the glass front was loose and rattled and the frame was cheap, lightweight wood. One day at tournament my opponent noticed it wasn’t running. It needed winding and after a few turns we heard the mainspring snap and unwind. The clock was guaranteed for a year, but wouldn’t you know it? I had only played in two or three tournaments, but it was over a year old and so out of warranty. Benko didn’t sell the clocks for long and they disappeared I wonder why?!
On the July 1964 rating list Walter Brown was an Expert rated 2123. Back in May he had scored 6-1 to tie for second place with William Goichberg and William Fredericks in the US Amateur in Asbury Park, New Jersey. Michael Hailparn won the tournament with 6.5-0.5.
The Western Open held in July in Milwaukke was won by Albert Sandrin with 6.5-0.5 (he drew with his brother Angelo who finished 7th). A slew of players finished with 5.5 points: Stephen Popel, Curt Brasket, Paul Poschel, Charles Weldon, Alex Angos, Angelo Sandrin, Richard Verber, Brian Owens, William Martz and Edward Formanek.
The Eastern Open in Washington DC was won by William Addison with 7.5-0.5. William Lombardy, Hans Berliner and Bernard Zuckerman score 7.0-1.0
Benko finished a clear first with 10-5-1.5 in the US Open held in Boston. A full point behind him was Yugoslav journalist Miro
Radojcic and GM-candidate Robert Byrne and IM James T. Sherwin. Tied for sixth place were William Lombardy, Duncan Suttles, Arthur Bisguier andf Bernard Zuckerman.
Let’s check out Benko’s game against Robin Ault from the US Open. Benko was rated 2528 and Robin Ault who weighed in at 2128, an Expert’s rating.
As black, Ault played the Budapest Gambit. Despite its debut in 1896, the Budapest received attention from leading players only after a win as black by Milan Vidmar over Akiba Rubinstein in 1918.
Its heyday came in the early 1920s, but nowadays is rarely played. It experiences a lower percentage of draws, but also a lower overall performance for black. I used to play it, but gave it up because after sacrificing the P, your goal is to get it back and for what? Nothing.
Pal Benko - Robin Ault
Result: 1/2-1/2
Site: Boston
Date: 1964.08.20
Budapest Gambit
[...] 1.d4 ♘f6 2.c4 e5 Benko mentally gave a sarcastic snort when he saw this. He wrote, ''Now that's something,bto play the Budapest against me!" 3.dxe5 ♘g4 4.♘f3 More usual is 4.Bf4 which Benko successfully against Ragozin in the Budapest.Moscow Match, 1949. However, Benko's move is safer in that it avoids potential complications that can arise from 4.Bf4.
10...♘f6 Getting rid of the well placed white N was a good idea! 11.♘xf6 Too automatic.
15...♗xf3 16.♖g1 ♔e7 17.♖g3 ♕a5 18.♔f1 ♖ab8 19.♕c2 ♕h5 20.c5 With both players attacking there is no time to dawdle. 20...♕xh2 This looks very dangerous to white, but in fact, it's a losing move! Oddly, Benko passed over it without comment in his notes.
4.♗f4 Now black almost always plays 4...Nc6, b ut very interesting is 4...g5 This move leads to complications and was an idea of the Hungarian master Bakonyi, who beat Gligoric with it in Budapest 1948. 5.♗g3 ♗g7 6.♘f3 ♘c6 White has a choice between the solid developing move 7.Nc3 and the risky, but interesting, 7.h4.
4...♘c6 This seemingly logical move is a positional inaccuracy. Black should play 4...Bc5 forcing 5.e3 as in Benko-Bakonyi, Budapest 1950, and then play 5...Nc6. In that case white would still have a slight positional advantage. 5.♗g5 ♗e7 6.♗xe7 ♕xe7 7.♘c3 ♘cxe5 Black has recovered his P, but that's all...he has, in fact, a difficult position as Benko's next move illustrates. 8.♘d5 ♕c5 9.e3 ♘xf3 10.gxf3 After the better 10.Qxf3 black would be facing difficulties.
10.♕xf3 d6 11.♕e4 ♗e6 12.♗e2
12.b4 was better. 12...♕c6 13.♕d4 and black is having problems.
12...♘e5 13.f4 f5 14.♕d4 Farago,I (2534)-Mestrovic,Z (2315)/Bibinje CRO 2006. The chances are equal and a draw was soon agreed. 11.♖c1 was better. Then after 11...♘xd5 12.cxd5 ♕d6 13.♕d4 white stands well.
11...gxf6 Obviously white has the better P-structure, but taking advantage of it is going to be a long, difficult process...something that was well within Benko's capabilities because hw was an endgame expert. 12.♗d3
12.♕d2 a5 13.O-O-O d6 14.♕c3 ♔e7 15.♖d5 ♕b4 16.♕c2 a4 17.♕d2 ♕xd2 18.♔xd2 h5 19.h4 ♗e6 20.♖d4 c5 and a draw was agreed to in (2300)/Balatonbereny Open 1994
12...d6 13.♕b3 The only chance to complicate the game. If 13.Qc2 black plays ...Be6 and ...O-O-O. 13...♗d7 14.♕xb7 Technically 14.O-O-O was better, but against an opponent rated 400 points below him Benko willing;y goes for complications confident that he will see more than his opponent. 14...♗c6 15.♕b3 If he takes the c-Pawn he ends up with only a B and P vs. a R. Benko made a faux pas in his analysis of what happens if he took the c-Pawn. All that aside, with 15.Qb3 he has achieved his objective of preventing black from playing ...O-O-O.
15.♕xc7 ♕b4 16.♔d1
16.♔f1 In his analysis Benko gave this move which is a losing blunder as black wins after 16...♗xf3 17.♖g1 ♕d2 18.♖g3 ♕xd3 19.♔g1 ♗e4
16...♗xf3 17.♔c2 ♗xh1 18.♖xh1 ♕b6 19.♕xb6 axb6 This position is about equal, but black must be considered to have better chances. 20...d5 keeps things even. For example... 21.c6 ♕xh2 22.♗f5 ♕h1 23.♖g1 ♕h2 24.♖g3 draws.
20...♗g4 This avoids the draw, but leaves white slightly better after 21.♖c1
21.cxd6 He could also have played 21.Rxf3 immediately. 21...♔xd6
21...cxd6 and black's K gets hunted down like a dog. 22.♕c7 ♔e6 23.♗f5 ♔xf5 24.♕d7 ♔e4 25.♕e7 ♔d5 26.♕xf7 ♔c6 27.♖c1 ♔b5 28.♕d7 ♔b6 29.♕xd6 ♔b7 30.♖g7
22.♖xf3 A truly amazing move. It's hard to visualize how much damage white's Q and B can inflict. Yes, those are the only pieces white is going to be left with. 22...♕h1 23.♔e2 ♕xa1 24.♖xf6 The only way to keep up the attack, but this R is going to have to be sacrificed also. 24...♔e7 25.♖xf7 ♔xf7 26.♕xc7 After playing such a fine sacrifice he fails to find the best continuation. In his annotations Benko gave this move only one question mark since it keeps a draw in hand and gives Ault ample opportunity to go astray. As was often the case, Benko was running short of time. Had he had more he would have found 26. Qc4+ Benko challenged his readers to find a win for white after 26.Qxc7+ stating that he couldn't because black always has one good move that lets him escape. He was right.
26.♕c4 ♔e7 27.♕c5 ♔f6 28.♕f5 ♔g7 29.♕g5 ♔f8 30.♕f6 ♔e8 31.♕xh8 ♔d7 32.♗f5 ♔e7 33.♕xh7 ♔f8 34.♕h8 ♔f7 35.♕xb8 and white wins.
26...♔f6 Here Stockfish shows white has five moves that are evaluated at 0.00. Interestingly choice number six 27.b3 would lose, but I don't see how so spent some time examining the position and it's true. 27.♕d6
27.b3 ♕b2 According to Stockfish black is winning by a huge margin and did score five wins in Shootouts. The technique was to force the trade of Qs then use the Rs to win the Q-side Ps.
27...♔g7 28.♕e5 ♔h6 29.♕f4 ♔g7 The only move to hold the draw.
29...♔h5 30.♕h2 ♔g5 31.f4 ♔f6 32.♕h4 ♔e6 33.♕h6 ♔d7 34.♕g7 ♔c6 and while it is a lengthy process white is winning.
30.♕g5 ♔f7 Black has to be careful not to move his K to the back rank and allow a Q fork on his K and R. 31.♗c4 ♔e8 32.♕e5 ♔d7 33.♗e6 ♔c6 34.♕d5 ♔b6 35.♕d6 ♔b7 36.♗d5 ♔c8 37.♕c6 ♔d8 38.♕f6 ♔d7 39.♕e6 ♔d8 40.♕d6 ♔c8 41.♕c6 ♔d8 42.♕f6 Draw agreed. Both players deserve credit, but especially Ault. He wasn't intimidated by his famous opponent, played aggressively and in the end kept finding the only move. Powered by Aquarium
No comments:
Post a Comment