Benko-Larsen - Winnipeg, 1967

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Benko-Larsen - Winnipeg, 1967

    Benko-Larsen was a controversial game in the Winnipeg Centennial GM tournament in 1967. How would this be treated
    today in a sudden-death time control situation (assuming no DGT board was being used)? Was Jack Woodbury an experienced TD?
    Did he have any experience outside of Winnipeg, or Canada? Why was he selected rather than someone like Koltanowski,
    (or maybe Phil Haley)?

    Here's a summary of the story (as told by Pal Benko and George Koltanowski in 1967 and 1968 issues of "Chess Life"):

    1) Benko had a winning game.
    2) As Benko was making his 40th move (time control) his flag fell, and Larsen pointed it out.
    Benko pressed the clock, and Larsen's flag fell.
    3) Neither player had been recording moves since about move 30.
    4) The TD (Jack Woodbury, from Winnipeg) had assigned "a boy" to watch the clock.
    5) Larsen was awarded the win.
    6) Benko protested, and an appeals committee was formed with three of the tournament players.
    7) The Appeals Committee agreed with the TD, and Larsen got the point.
    8) No players meeting had been held before the tournament to discuss the rules, etc.

    Part of a letter Paul Keres wrote to the then-Chess Life editer Burt Hochberg, dated Feb. 2, 1968:

    "The Benko-Larsen conflict in Winnipeg was a sad one, of course, and in arising the conflict a lot
    of fault lies on the tournament direction. I had already finished my game and was watching the terrible
    time trouble battle in this game. Both partners had no time left to note the moves, and suddenly Larsen
    shot: “Your flag is down.” Then the game was restored and it was stated that Benko’s flag fell on move
    40. No matter that Larsen’s flag also fell, Benko was declared lost, because after the FIDE rules the
    time control is only passed, when a player has completed his 40th move and also stopped his clock, with his flag still up.

    There should have been certainly one of the referees at the table, and here lies the main fault of the
    tournament director. But this fault does not affect the facts, and these are, that Benko had overstepped
    the time limit on move 40. When both players are in severe time trouble and cannot write down their moves,
    usually the referee tries to do so. If he fixes the flag down on one side, the game will be stopped and the
    score restored. If the flag fell after the necessary number of moves have been completed, the game will be
    played on, otherwise the player will be forfeited.

    Returning to the Benko-Larsen case, Larsen fixed the fall of Benko’s flag, and Benko agreed with the fact.
    Then the moves were restored, and again both sides agreed that the flag fell on move 40. With these facts
    in mind, there cannot be another decision than forfeit for Benko, as he overstepped the time limit on move
    40. The absence of a referee is regrettable, but it does not change the fact of overstepping the time limit.
    The complaint that there was no announcement about the fact that the tournament would be played under FIDE
    rules cannot be accepted. It is natural, the international tournaments use FIDE rules, rather than rules of
    various national federations; and if rules of a national federation are used, this should have been stated
    before the play began. I understand that this was a very distressing loss for Benko, as he had a won game
    on the board, but any other decision would have been unright and unfair towards Larsen."

    Koltanowski wrote in the January 1968 "Chess Life":

    "Pal Benko saw one of his too·close·for·com·fort time control situations backfire.
    With the White pieces in the second round against Larsen, he made his 40th
    move just as his flag fell, pressing the button, and Larsen's flag fell before he
    could make his 40th move. Tournament Director Professor J. Woodbury had a
    boy watching the clock, but he was not there himself to finish off matters. Both
    players had neglected to write down their moves. The TD verified on another
    board soon afterwards that Benko had made only 40 moves, the last while
    his flag was down, thus losing the game. " Oh no," wailed Benko, who had
    a winning position. "For days I have asked under what rules we are playing:
    Blue Book, FIDE rules, or what ?" The TD had neglected to hold a meeting
    with the players before the start of the tournament. Benko appealed. Yanofsky,
    Keres and Szabo were picked to settle the question, Benko claiming that, since
    neither player had written down the score, Black could not claim a win.

    At the wonderful party held at Abe Yanofsky's beautiful home, the decision
    was handed down: Benko loses. Then the party became alive, with Benko still protesting. The only comment I want to add
    is that I was under the impression that a FIDE tournament had to be directed by
    a FIDE judge".

  • #2
    In his book, 'Pal Benko - My Life and, Games, and Compositions', he seems to have softened somewhat. (pg 229 for those that want to take a look)
    "As I made my last move, Larsen said "Your flag is down". Out of sheer momentum, I completed the move and punched my clock, at which point Larsen's flag fell."(there is more, but much less than Hugh has indicated above)...
    "As for the game itself, Larsen should have resigned some time ago."

    Comment


    • #3
      Very unfortunate. I believe this game was included in a Yanofsky retrospective article in the magazine a few years ago. The reality is that this was Canada's first-ever GM tournament at this level, many levels stronger than anything which the country had hosted before. Organizer inexperience was certainly a factor, although I am convinced the organizers did all they could to create the best event possible. And GM Yanofsky himself was by far the most experienced Winnipeg chess person, but he was a player in the tournament, so could not direct it! And Winnipeg is a very long journey from central Canada or from Vancouver, from where there would have been more experienced chess directors available. That would have required additional expense to arrange, for the travel for that person, and accommodation, and honorarium / salary, and availability, and perhaps the money was not available for that.
      The missing score sheet moves situation is also a murky matter. At that time, FIDE rules were perhaps not fully clear on the procedure; likely this particular game served to improve the rules for future events.
      I had to serve as an appeal committee arbiter for a somewhat similar case, with respect to the score sheet situation, at CYCC G18, Ottawa 2013, in a very important game, where there were quite a few errors on both score sheets, but not a 'loss-on-time' situation. The core issue was incorrect action by the original arbiter in not recognizing what ultimately turned out to be a correct claim for 3-fold repetition. Our Committee, with Chair IA David Cohen, myself, and RTD Herb Langer, met at length, made our decision, wrote up our report, and submitted it to the organizers. As it turned out, it was appealed to the National Appeals Committee, and our decision was reversed (due primarily to ANOTHER arbiter error earlier in the game), but they would never have been able to make what ultimately turned out to be the final decision without our Committee's work in reconstructing the game. We submitted a fully correct game score with our report.
      But the eventual outcome here -- a loss for GM Benko -- seems fair: if a player's flag falls while pressing the clock button for the control move, that player loses. The flag must remain up while the move is made. That is the case today, and was in 1967 as well. Note also that GM Yanofsky subsequently qualified as an International Arbiter!
      As a player, my only loss on time in a full-length time controls CFC-rated game, in 1989, came in exactly the same circumstances: in a better, possibly winning position, I made the control move on the board, pressed the clock, my flag fell, and my opponent claimed the game, which was confirmed after we had checked to make sure the required number of moves had been made. I did not appeal the decision. I also won a game in similar circumstances a few years later; on the board the position in the game was slightly better for me when my opponent's flag fell, and I successfully claimed the win.
      Frank Dixon
      NTD, Kingston

      Comment


      • #4
        The tournament book, written by Yanofsky, records the incident somewhat differently (page 22):
        "Round 3: The highlight of this round was Benko's loss to Larsen on time. Benko outplayed Larsen in the game and obtained a winning position and his flag dropped on the 40th move. However, Larsen hadn't written down any moves since the 35th as Larsen himself was short of time, and while Larsen entered up the five moves to establish that Benko had lost on time (i.e. not completed 40 moves in the required 2 1/2 hours), Larsen's own flag fell. The Tournament Director ruled that Benko had lost on time and Benko appealed this decision. An appeal committee selected by all the players and consisting of Keres, Szabo and Yanofsky heard the appeal and the arguments submitted by both Benko and Larsen and upheld the Tournament Director's decision that Benko had lost on time. As it later turned out, this loss cost Benko a tie for first place."

        On its face, it seems clear that Benko did lose on time. His flag fell before he made his 40th move. That Larsen's flag then also fell (exactly how soon after Benko's flag is now somewhat unclear) should not matter. Larsen called the flag fall and there were witnesses.

        Comment


        • #5
          Benko-Larsen - Winnipeg, 1967

          October 19, 2020

          In Chess Life, December 1967, Pal Benko highlights the game in an article entitled Time is Money:

          Throughout my chess career, there have been many cases where I lost or drew a game I should have won. Several times it is good enough to say that my play was not good enough. But most of the time the trouble was time pressure.

          It has been said of me by no less a personage than Tigran Petrosian that I play like a genius in time trouble, seeing quite deeply into the position. Be that as it may, I do not subscribe to the belief that a player can play better in time pressure than he can when he has plenty of time. That is simply against all logic. I will agree that it can seem so sometimes, and for the following reason: every player wants to conceal his true intentions from his opponent, and for this purpose he contrives devious and complicated plans requiring a lot of time to analyse. In time pressure, however, he must make more or less direct moves, so that his play can seem to be sharper or more incisive, but this is not to say that it is better.

          I have had many unpleasant experiences which testify to the fact that I threw away many a win and failed to draw many a draw only because of time pressure, when I did not have the time to find the best continuations.

          Naturally, I do not offer this as an excuse; there is no one to blame but myself. However, there are times when I feel there is no justice in the system which allows a player to lose a game when the board shows a clear win and when his opponent, who really should have resigned long ago, similarly has no time on his own clock.

          The following game is a perfect example. Having completely outplayed Larsen, and with a dead won position, I was given a loss instead of the richly-deserved win.

          Canadian Centennial
          Winnipeg, MAN
          Round 3, Oct. 5, 1967
          Benko, Pal – Larsen, Bent
          A21 English Closed

          1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 d6 3.g3 f5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.d3 Be7 6.Nf3 O-O 7.O-O Kh8 8.b4 a5 9.b5 Nbd7 10.Ba3 Qe8 11.Rc1 Rb8 12.e3 Nb6 13.c5 dxc5 14.Nxe5 Be6 15.Qe2 Bd6 16.f4 Nbd7 17.Nf3 Nd5 18.e4 Nb4 19.Bb2 c4 20.dxc4 Nb6 21.Nd2 Rd8 22.Kh1 Bc5 23.Nd5 Bxd5 24.cxd5 Na4 25.Nb3 Bb6 26.Be5 fxe4 27.Bxe4 Nxd5 28.Qc4 Nb2 29.Qc2 Na4 30.Rfe1 Ne3 31.Qe2 Qf7 32.Bxb7 Nd5 33.Qc4 Nb4 34.a3 Qxc4 35.Rxc4 Nd3 36.Re2 Nf2+ 37.Kg2 Rd1 38.Rxf2 Bxf2 39.Kxf2 Nb6 40.Rxc7 0-1

          Position after White’s 29.Qc2

          

          Both players were already in time pressure at this point. Since I was not keeping score here, I cannot be sure whether or not the moves were repeated once, or twice.

          Position after Black’s 31….Qf7

          

          As good as anything; Black is lost anyway.

          At 37.Kg2 – Of course, I could have won simply with 37.Rxf2, followed by 38.Rxa4. There were only seconds remaining!

          Position after White’s 40.Rxc7

          

          As I made this move, Larsen said “Your flag is down.” Out of sheer momentum, however, I completed the move and punched my clock, at which point Larsen’s flag fell. Neither of us had been keeping score for the last ten or twelve moves, so we didn’t know how many moves had been made. The Tournament Director ruled that Larsen was the winner. And when I protested, he set up a committee to decide the question, and they later upheld his original ruling.

          Since my final score was only one point below Larsen’s who tied for first place, the loss of this game meant that I could not tie for first place and a loss of $450.

          As for the game itself, Larsen should have resigned some time ago as he has a dead lost game. The fact that the scoretable indicates that I lost to Larsen doesn’t prevent me from feeling that I really beat him.

          Tournament Results

          1-2 Klaus Darga, Bent Larsen 6
          3-4 Paul Keres, Boris Spassky 5.5
          5 Pal Benko 5
          6-7 Laszlo Szabo, Florin Gheorghiu 4.5
          8 Aleksandar Matanovic 4
          9 Abe Yanofsky 3.5
          10 Shimon Kagan 0.5

          https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=83284

          Comment


          • #6
            Certainly GM Benko is winning over the board during the last few moves.

            Another way of treating this situation, with both flags having fallen, would be to declare a 'double time forfeit', with BOTH players scoring ZERO! I know this was done for one game from the U.S. Championships in the late 1950s; I am just trying to run down the details of that game; when I get it, I will post it here.

            Comment


            • #7
              Not sure why this is controversial? Benko flagged first....once the number of moves is established, game over!
              Fred Harvey

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Fred Harvey View Post
                Not sure why this is controversial? Benko flagged first....once the number of moves is established, game over!
                Fred, if you're going to be logical about this then there won't be anything to talk about. :)
                "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
                "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
                "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post

                  Fred, if you're going to be logical about this then there won't be anything to talk about. :)
                  Sorry Peter, but we really need something to talk about on here until the men in white coats arrive to escort all the recent pandemic and presidential posters to a safe place.....
                  Fred Harvey

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I too was astonished at something chess related got posted (sorry Wayne - your superhuman daily posts notwithstanding...)
                    I suspect the signal to noise ratio may improve once the U.S. election is decided - even though that might be quite some time.
                    I've noticed some small effort at OTB play has begun in several locations around the globe - of course that is easier to accomplish
                    if it is for GMs and there is a sponsor with deep pockets. I think that regular OTB play might be quite far off in this area of the world
                    (Toronto, GTA, Mississauga, Oakville etc) since there isn't the money to provide plexiglass barriers and the like. Sad state of affairs.
                    I was just getting excited (after a long hiatus) about playing OTB chess in the club and was even thinking of taking on a weekend
                    Open ... oh well. One needs to have a dream.
                    ...Mike Pence: the Lord of the fly.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Please keep on topic...i don't want to see another thread infected with the Covid or Trump virus.

                      If neither player was recording their moves, how could one (or both) claim a win? Bunko said he wasn't sure if he had repeated moves or not which could have led to a disagreement on the number of moves made at the flag fall.

                      Can anyone answer my questions about Jack Woodbury's TD experience?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Hugh Brodie View Post
                        If neither player was recording their moves, how could one (or both) claim a win? Bunko said he wasn't sure if he had repeated moves or not which could have led to a disagreement on the number of moves made at the flag fall.

                        Can anyone answer my questions about Jack Woodbury's TD experience?
                        In principle the claim is not for the win, but the fact that an opponent flagged. Then the procedure goes to figure out if enough moves were done or not. If not then in general to see if the other player could still win (in theory some positions could lead to automatic draw, even checkmate by the opponent, or a simpler case - not enough material to checkmate.)

                        The arbiter and his assistant should record moves if the players stopped doing that (not enough increment) but without showing and telling how many moves were made. The arbiter also shall call the flag fall.

                        As I understand Benko even finished the move after Larsen pointed about the flag fall. That looks to me unethical and it should have been punished by a warning.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Wayne Komer View Post
                          Benko-Larsen - Winnipeg, 1967

                          The Tournament Director ruled that Larsen was the winner. And when I protested, he set up a committee to decide the question, and they later upheld his original ruling.
                          In "Pal Benko My Life, Games and Compositions" (2003) this becomes :

                          The Tournament Director ruled that Larsen was the winner. When I protested, he set up a committee (it included both Szabo and Keres, so I couldn't expect a favorable decision) to decide the question and they later upheld his original ruling.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            We have to judge this using the rules of the tournament in 1967, not today's rules. A 1989 book of the rules published by FIDE might shed some light.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X