Talk:World Chess Championship 1963

message: * mention Fischer's (in)famous Sports Illustrated article directly (possibly with a quote)
* incorporate material from Profile of a Prodigy (good Benko quotes, e.g., "He simply wasn't the best player", and more)
* incorporate material from Jan Timman's official Curaçao retrospective tournament book
* might have some material from 1962 and 1963 Chess Life
Quale 22:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do 

message: The article says "For the last qualifying spot, there was a three-way tie between Leonid Stein (USSR), Pal Benko (USA) and Svetozar Gligorić (Yugoslavia) with 13.5 points. Stein was excluded from the Candidates on a rule which limited the number of people who could qualify from a single country."  
I'm wondering, if Stein was excluded on the basis of being the fourth player from the USSR then why was he in the three-way playoff?  Bubba73 (talk), 01:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case one of the other Soviets had to pull out due to illness or whatever. I remember reading this in Horowitz's book. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, and excellent memory for the answer: Horowitz says on p. 205, "Stein, who was simply playing to become the first alternate to the three Russians...".  I suppose if Tal had become sick before the Candidates started, Stein might have played. I'll see if I can explain that briefly in the article since it's something that might puzzle a reader.  Quale (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, Stein was the only other Soviet player in the Candidates Interzonal, so wouldn't he naturally be the first alternate?  Bubba73 (talk), 04:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Due to the 3 player rule, Stein is not advancing unless one of the other Soviets can't play, then he is.  So how he does against Benko and Gligoric doesn't matter.  And such a match opens up the possibility of cheating.  If one of the other two is deemed to be a bigger threat to the other Soviet players, Stein could play hard against him and easy against the other to try to get the lesser threat into the Candidates.  I'm certainly not saying that it happened, of course.  But Stein in the playoff with Benko and Gligoric makes no sense to me.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, now I get it.  If one of the other Soviets can't play, he won't necessarily be replaced by anothr Soviet player (i.e. Stein).  So now it makes sense.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I think the rule was only 3 from one country from the Interzonal, so Tal withdrawing would have been no help to Stein. It would have had to be one of the Soviets who qualified from the Interzonal, i.e. Petrosian, Geller or Korchnoi. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  you're right, so Stein makes the Candididates only if he is not last of the 3 AND one of the other three Soviets in the Interzonal can't play in the Candidates.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: How about saying what happened instead of trying to explain why. Something like, "Stein participated in the playoff but, due to a rule restricting a country to 3 players from the Interzonal, was ineligible for the Candidates (unless Petrosian, Geller or Korchnoi withdrew)." Peter Ballard (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is clearer and more direct.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing out that Tal's status was irrelevant to Stein.  You are right, the rules for this cycle limited the number of qualifiers from the Interzonal.  The rules for the previous cycle (1957–1960) limited the number of participants in the Candidates to 4 from any one Federation.  I expanded the description a little bit with some details from Harkness (his description of the WC matches isn't very colorful, but he gives a good description of the FIDE rules used for each cycle).  Feel free to modify it if you can make it more clear. Quale (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually now that I look over the article I see that we need to explain early in the article that FIDE organized the championship cycle.  The first mention made of FIDE in the text I added to the Structure section is dropped in out of nowhere for the reader who isn't familiar with international chess. Quale (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stein

message: I added some info about the 1960 and 1961 Zonals.  There are two oddities that ideally should be explained:
#Participants in the European zones (Zones 1, 2, and 3) often don't seem to be allocated where one would expect.  For instance, the Madrid Zonal for Zone 1 (Western Europe) included Gligoric (Yugoslavia), Portisch (Hungary), and Pachman (Czechoslovakia).  I think this was intentional to try to even out the relative strengths of the zones, but this needs a reference.
#Qualifiers for Zone 5 (USA) might best be described as confused.  Although the 1960 U.S. Championship was the Zonal, only the winner was qualified.  We have a brief description of what happened to the second place finisher at William Lombardy (retired from chess for priesthood).  Out of the four players who tied for third, only Bisguier played in the interzonal.  It would be good if we can explain why Reshevsky didn't play.  (He might simply not have wanted to.)  Benko tied for 8–11 with 4.5/11 (!) in the championship, so an explanation of why he was chosen is needed.  I seem to recall that in the confused period following the championship when the USCF was trying to assemble the qualifiers, Benko had several good results which made him a more attractive choice.  Certainly his performance in the Interzonal and the Candidates proved he was a worthy selection. Quale (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zonals 

message: I am removing Tim Krabbe's response to the collusion allegations. The reason I am doing this is that Krabbe is responding to the more serious allegation that the Soviets conspired to ensure Petrosian (rather than Keres) won. (See his article 299 here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary_15.htm ). In other words, Krabbe's response is off-topic. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collusion allegations 

message: Fischer against Korchnoi 2,5/4 and 2,5/4 ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.253.254 (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected : Korchnoi-Fischer : 2,5-1,5.--Cbigorgne (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  5th Candidates Curaçao 1962 

message: In the 5th Interzonal Stockholm table (with players Fischer to Aaaron) the table should be antisymmetric.  But according to the table,  Barcza beat Portisch, but also Portisch drew against Barcza.  Which one is correct please? Robinh (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to chessbase it was a draw, now edited. Robinh (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barcza vs Portisch

message: http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/4564/full by Dominic Lawson. Adpete (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  nice link re Fischer's allegations