Tweet
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".
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".
Comment