Comments on https://lichess.org/@/danthedestroyer317/blog/stahlbergs-losing-streak-in-zurich-1953/Xu61o492
Is there any information about the health of Ståhlberg then?
Such a long tournament demands physical fitness.
@tpr that's a great question. At the time of the tournament he was 45 years old so certainly not yet far past his prime.
The tournament had two bye rounds per player and he had the misfortune of having his byes in the 15th and 30th rounds so effectively he (and Gligoric who had his byes in the 1st and 16th rounds) only had one round of rest during the tournament. Still he played all 28 rounds and scored 2/3 in his final 3 games so he can't have been completely exhausted.
I noticed you mentioned Gligoric (and Taimanov, and Petrosian) Wanted to link up this BBC video on Fischer.
Before this was re-released (a few months ago) the version online was amended, and very short. This is LONG contains bits you probably haven't seen before. I love the bit where Gligoric and Bent Larsen talk about a young Bobby Fischer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzlObDyzcyU&t=1676s
"Obviously, Tigran Petrosian was at the time a future World Champion and fully capable of a positional masterpiece. But why does the masterpiece come at the worst possible time for Ståhlberg? In Bronstein’s words from the tournament book: “Curiously, not one of the annotators of this game, Ståhlberg among them, could find a single sizable error on black’s part!”
"
Instead of 33. ...Rc5, while material was still equal, Stahlberg could have tried 33. ...ef which the fish considers a bit better than what was played.
Yup, Petrosian could do that even to strong players,out maneuver them, when they had not a clue what he was doing. No errors or blunders from either layer, Petrosian's 2 "inaccuracies" to Stahglberg's 5...that is the difference.
For that game
"Obviously, Tigran Petrosian was at the time a future World Champion and fully capable of a positional masterpiece. But why does the masterpiece come at the worst possible time for Ståhlberg? In Bronstein’s words from the tournament book: “Curiously, not one of the annotators of this game, Ståhlberg among them, could find a single sizable error on black’s part!”
"
Instead of 33. ...Rc5, while material was still equal, Stahlberg could have tried 33. ...ef which the fish considers a bit better than what was played.
Yup, Petrosian could do that even to strong players,out maneuver them, when they had not a clue what he was doing. No errors or blunders from either layer, Petrosian's 2 "inaccuracies" to Stahglberg's 5...that is the difference.
For that game
Had a run of seven defeats this season... all of them Black, as it happens.