lichess.org
Donate

Games from GM Viktor Korchnoi

It was a bit of a joke at the time that both Korchnoi and his bitter rival Karpov wrote an autobiography with the exact same English-language title "Chess is my life".

Korchnoi's book, of course, is the one we can trust to be a genuinely honest reflection because he was then newly free of the stifling bounds of being a top player in the Soviet Union having defected the previous year. And he writes very revealingly about that. The read is gripping. I read Karpov's identically titled book too but found it dry and unmemorable in comparison.

This first game that you reproduce looks like typical chaotic Korchnoi play. Always unorthodox and risky (the contrast with Karpov's play could not be more stark). I assume Korchnoi was White in this game? I'm not nearly a strong enough player to make judgments, but I hazard a guess that few players would have chosen 16.Nec3 stranding the other knight on a4 like that.

EDIT: I see now from your study that the game is Korchnoi - Taimanov, Leningrad 1973.

It was a bit of a joke at the time that both Korchnoi and his bitter rival Karpov wrote an autobiography with the exact same English-language title "Chess is my life". Korchnoi's book, of course, is the one we can trust to be a genuinely honest reflection because he was then newly free of the stifling bounds of being a top player in the Soviet Union having defected the previous year. And he writes very revealingly about that. The read is gripping. I read Karpov's identically titled book too but found it dry and unmemorable in comparison. This first game that you reproduce looks like typical chaotic Korchnoi play. Always unorthodox and risky (the contrast with Karpov's play could not be more stark). I assume Korchnoi was White in this game? I'm not nearly a strong enough player to make judgments, but I hazard a guess that few players would have chosen 16.Nec3 stranding the other knight on a4 like that. EDIT: I see now from your study that the game is Korchnoi - Taimanov, Leningrad 1973.

@Brian-E said in #2:
Thanks for your comment, appreciated.

The biography by Korchnoi was apparently written as soon as he deflected. I have not completely finished reading the text part but I found it kind of interesting how Korchnoi described the poor situation in the former USSR and how he barely survived his childhood. Perhaps this difficult past made Korchnoi the chess player he was : always fighting chess and always wanting to win.
Regarding chess, there is Korchnoi saying about Larsen - Korchnoi that 1.c4 e5 2.g3 was inferior to 2.Nc3. A few years ago I saw a glimpse of the book by GM Marin about the English opening, and Marin is writing exactly the opposite : 2.g3 is more accurate. Kind of funny, isn't it ? :)
Korchnoi also writes with his game against Robert Byrne that the King's Indian Defense is a difficult opening, and Byrne started to play other openings a few years later. Later (not in the book) I believe Garry Kasparov stopped playing the KID, but nowadays some GMs do play it still.

And thanks, I overlooked that the game info was missing in the blog post, and have added it.

@Brian-E said in #2: Thanks for your comment, appreciated. The biography by Korchnoi was apparently written as soon as he deflected. I have not completely finished reading the text part but I found it kind of interesting how Korchnoi described the poor situation in the former USSR and how he barely survived his childhood. Perhaps this difficult past made Korchnoi the chess player he was : always fighting chess and always wanting to win. Regarding chess, there is Korchnoi saying about Larsen - Korchnoi that 1.c4 e5 2.g3 was inferior to 2.Nc3. A few years ago I saw a glimpse of the book by GM Marin about the English opening, and Marin is writing exactly the opposite : 2.g3 is more accurate. Kind of funny, isn't it ? :) Korchnoi also writes with his game against Robert Byrne that the King's Indian Defense is a difficult opening, and Byrne started to play other openings a few years later. Later (not in the book) I believe Garry Kasparov stopped playing the KID, but nowadays some GMs do play it still. And thanks, I overlooked that the game info was missing in the blog post, and have added it.

@achja said in #3:

[...]
Regarding chess, there is Korchnoi saying about Larsen - Korchnoi that 1.c4 e5 2.g3 was inferior to 2.Nc3. A few years ago I saw a glimpse of the book by GM Marin about the English opening, and Marin is writing exactly the opposite : 2.g3 is more accurate. Kind of funny, isn't it ? :)
[...]

Yep, funny.
I imagine that Larsen would have taken no notice at all if he saw that comment of Korchnoi's. Larsen was someone who never felt constrained by such dogma, or even often by basic soundness of his moves. You could say that Larsen's style of play was like a reckless version of Korchnoi. Who knows, perhaps Denmark could have had a world champion if its greatest player had been a bit more circumspect with his play. But that's wild speculation.

@achja said in #3: > [...] > Regarding chess, there is Korchnoi saying about Larsen - Korchnoi that 1.c4 e5 2.g3 was inferior to 2.Nc3. A few years ago I saw a glimpse of the book by GM Marin about the English opening, and Marin is writing exactly the opposite : 2.g3 is more accurate. Kind of funny, isn't it ? :) > [...] Yep, funny. I imagine that Larsen would have taken no notice at all if he saw that comment of Korchnoi's. Larsen was someone who never felt constrained by such dogma, or even often by basic soundness of his moves. You could say that Larsen's style of play was like a reckless version of Korchnoi. Who knows, perhaps Denmark could have had a world champion if its greatest player had been a bit more circumspect with his play. But that's wild speculation.

@Brian-E said in #4:

I imagine that Larsen would have taken no notice at all if he saw that comment of Korchnoi's. Larsen was someone who never felt constrained by such dogma, or even often by basic soundness of his moves. You could say that Larsen's style of play was like a reckless version of Korchnoi. Who knows, perhaps Denmark could have had a world champion if its greatest player had been a bit more circumspect with his play. But that's wild speculation.

Haha, agreed. The words Larsen and reckless go well together. But for sure a great chess player.

Korchnoi was also a pawn grabber I'd say, and pretty good in endgames with a nice score versus Mikhail Tal. And this reminds me of something I found very remarkable in the book. Korchnoi mentions the famous blitz tourney in former Yugoslavia which was convincingly won by Bobby Fischer, but ... Korchnoi does not even mention that Korchnoi managed to win a game versus Fischer (and Fischer actually won an interesting game versus Korchnoi, with the nice Nh8 move) in that tourney.

Both games imported here :

https://lichess.org/study/W6YHcGDl/phW01ZKT#109

@Brian-E said in #4: > I imagine that Larsen would have taken no notice at all if he saw that comment of Korchnoi's. Larsen was someone who never felt constrained by such dogma, or even often by basic soundness of his moves. You could say that Larsen's style of play was like a reckless version of Korchnoi. Who knows, perhaps Denmark could have had a world champion if its greatest player had been a bit more circumspect with his play. But that's wild speculation. Haha, agreed. The words Larsen and reckless go well together. But for sure a great chess player. Korchnoi was also a pawn grabber I'd say, and pretty good in endgames with a nice score versus Mikhail Tal. And this reminds me of something I found very remarkable in the book. Korchnoi mentions the famous blitz tourney in former Yugoslavia which was convincingly won by Bobby Fischer, but ... Korchnoi does not even mention that Korchnoi managed to win a game versus Fischer (and Fischer actually won an interesting game versus Korchnoi, with the nice Nh8 move) in that tourney. Both games imported here : https://lichess.org/study/W6YHcGDl/phW01ZKT#109