A few games of Robert Hubner
I've tracked his name when exploring variations of the Nimzo-Indian defense. The line 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5 5. Bd3 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 d6 is called Hübner or Huebner, a variation with a closed center pawn structure.
"The idea was not entirely original. Indeed a conceptual debt is owed to Nimzowitsch, and a number of experiments in the line had already been made by Hungarian players and the Russian, Moiseev, in the 1950s and '60s. But Hubner's successes were to lead to an unprecedented burst of popularity for the variation. Fischer used it in his famous victory in the 5th match game against Spassky in Reykjavik in 1972." [from Chess World Title Contenders and Their Styles by Danny Kopec & Craig Pritchett, 1980, p. 123].
Looking in the databases I've seen mostly the names of Alberic O'Kelly de Galway & Lajos Portisch playing it sometimes before, but Hubner maybe was the first who had some steadily positive results with it in the late 60s & 70s. His win against Najdorf within Wijk aan Zee 1971 is following. Liked it as it gives the potentiality for long castling. The maybe most famous game of this variation, the 5th of the Spassky-Fischer championship 1972, comes after in the multi pgn.
-
Robert Hübner, born in Cologne of West Germany in 1948, and receiving his doctorate on papyrology in 1976, was never a fully professional chess player, according to William Hartston. However, after winning the West German chess championship of 1967, at the age of 18, he evolved into a leading chess player during the 70s & 80s. He played in many strong tournaments and was a constant participant in the Interzonals of this period - four times advancing to the knockout phase of the Candidate cycle. "His perfectionist and rather pessimistic approach, however, prevented him from reaching the very top." [from William Hartston, The Guinness Book Of Chess Grandmasters, p. 200].
Many of his games are great but three attracted my attention more, for different reasons each...
-
-
-
... and three of his finishes in puzzle form [3, 2 & 4 movers respectively]. The vs Korchnoi ending can be considered truly brilliant!
-
-
-
Don't know, but if I would like to give a subtitle for the previous games and puzzles, it would be something like "Hubner is of Philidor's school"! In most of them, pawns are a decisive winning factor, and not just for promoting! Maybe a little stereotypical, but it's really intense. Anyway...
Looking around the web for Hubner, I've tracked some worthy to be mentioned info.
Firstly an article in German chessbase under the title "Von der Willkür der Dopingkontrollen", where Hubner was expressing his opposition to the FIDE antidoping policy and tests, suggesting that dopping is impossible in chess. Then, I've read in some pages around a Hubner's unsuccessful try to establish copyright of one of his games back in 1993 [check Gibt es ein Urheberrecht an Schachpartien? by W. Unzicker & E. Bedau pdf in https://www.schachbund.de/extras.html & also https://deacademic.com/dic.nsf/dewiki/1189893 //both in editable German].
But my attention was attracted more by his weird relationship with the knockout phase of the Candidates tournaments. At three out of four cases, his elimination can be considered as out of the usual.
-
The Candidates tournaments
Against Petrosian in the 1971 Candidates quarter-final match
Advancing from the Palma de Mallorca Interzonal of 1970, where he earned his GM title, he meets at the stage of 8 the former world champion Tigran Petrosian. First 6 games were drawn. Hubner resigned at the 7th game after a terrible blunder at the 39th move. Then surprisingly, he abandoned the whole match and so Petrosian advanced to the next stage.
Spanish chess magazine Jaque [4/1971] called it an unsportsmanlike behavior while Swedish Tidsskrift för Schack [5/1971] published an article under the title Nervkollaps för Hubner, explaining his attitude as a result of nerves and lack of confidence. In the Spanish newspaper El Mundo Deportivo of 26/05/1971 the following was published:
google translation a little modified:
SPECTACULAR CHESS
HUBNER WITHDRAWAL
After six consecutive draws with Petrosian and a defeat in the seventh game .... Abandons!
It is not necessary to go to "The chess player", by Stefan Zeiwg, to understand the psychological drama of the young German international master Robert Hubner, who managed during the knockout match, that was played in Seville between him and the Russian great master Tigran Petrosian, to draw in the first six games, then to lose the seventh and leave, returning to his homeland in spite of all the offers made by the organizers, according to the Russian.
International arbiter and commentator Rojlin believes that the withdrawal is a declaration of inferiority, stating: 'It would take phenomenal talent, nerves of steel and great expertise to try to beat former world champion Petrosian in two of the three games that were missing; Hubner does not have these qualities.'
Hubner complained about noises: Petrosian is deaf and was disconnecting his device; the German Federation is rumored to raise a protest; Petrosian, for his part, thinks: 'I am not convinced of the reasons for my rival's abandoning. The example of the eccentricities of the young Fischer has spread among the young values of today'.
The organizers have stated that according to Petrosian and the arbiter, Mr. Golombeck, they offered: change premises and even a postponement of several days for Hubner to recover. Hubner refused, and declared himself ready to pay the moral and economic damages that he caused ..., but he left.
Some years later, in Dec 1996, Hubner, during an interview to Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam at The Hague, inter alia answered [can be found in The Day Kasparov Quit by Jan ten Geuzendam]:
- Your next chess activities that made the international press took place in Seville in 1971, where you abandoned your Candidates' match against Petrosian while trailing 4-3 because of the noise in the playing hall. A tough lesson?
'Perhaps in a sense it was a lesson. I went there and wanted to play chess. Didn't we all want that? Chess, that was what it was all about and if there is something that disturbs the chess we will try to eliminate this disturbance. Right? But there it became clear to me that this was not the case at all, that the goals of many people were quite different. So I left. I thought, this is a different world, I have nothing to do with this. Perhaps that was a bit weak, but I was young and had no support. I didn't see any other solution.'
- Did you blame Petrosian for this untimely end to the match?
'Yes, I did. In his publications afterwards he also lied about what had happened, although I have to say that he only exploited the occasion. He had not planned anything in advance, but it was bad sportsmanship. Someone like Tal would never have done this.'
- He could turn off his hearing-aid.
'Let's say he had an advantage.'
However this wasn't Hubner's last chess fight against Petrosian. He will meet him over the board again at the 20th Chess Olympiad, Skopje 1972. There, Hubner wins the golden medal for his individual performance at 1st board. And Petrosian experiences by Hubner his only defeat in Chess Olympiads. Probably lost on time, in a position that was a draw. Kasparov wrote that "he was so angered by this that, according to an eye-witness, ‘in a fit of temper he almost knocked the chess clock off the table.’ (Other reports suggest that this was because he lost on time and thought the flag- had fallen early. — Translator)", from Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors - Part III, p. 117.
Four years later they played at Biel Interzonal of 1976, on the penultimate 18th round. Hubner lost the game after missing a forced win - a Q or mate! If things had gone otherwise, he would have been advanced to the next knockout phase, instead of Petrosian.
The three aforementioned games...
-
These three were the only decisive games I've seen between them. The rest were draws.
-
Against Korchnoi in the 1980-81 Candidates final match
Maybe Hubner's greatest success! Advancing from the Rio de Janeiro Interzonal of 1979, and after defeating Andras Adorjan & Lajos Portisch, he faced Korchnoi in the Candidates' final. The winner would play with Karpov for the championship.
After 6 games Hubner was ahead with +2=3-1. But on 7th game and after 63 moves, he blundered a rook in a more or less equal position. The eighth was lost again. Ninth started on Jan 6, 1981, and was adjourned at an equal endgame position. Tenth started next day, and before resuming the previous ninth game. This was also adjourned after 43 moves in a middlegame position that according to what I've read, could be considered slightly better for Korchnoi, if not equal. But surely with a lot of struggle ahead - each side had Q+2Rs+B+N+6p on the chessboard, and 6 games more to be played.
-
However, in the morning of Jan 9, two days after the adjournment of the 10th game, Hubner left Merano [the games' site], abandoning the match. Something that was confirmed officially in the evening. As it would be expected many were written on the possible reasons. Stress, publicity, dispute among Hubner's seconds, also Hilgert's [head of Hubner's delegation] personal attack to Korchnoi's team.
Footnoting in more detail: In the Dutch press I've tracked "tensions" & "dispute with both of his seconds" in Het vrije volk of 10-01-1981. But also a picturesque scene between him and Folkers, the chief arbiter, where was written that Hubner said: 'I cannot play under these circumstances. I am a chess player and not a professional' - a statement related with some pressing publicity of the match [in 4 newspapers of 10.01.1981 Leeuwarder courant, De Telegraaf, Algemeen Dagblad, Nieuwsblad van het Noorden// a communication that possibly took place via a letter: Trouw of 10-01-1981]. Spanish El Ajedrez [14 Feb 1981] blamed stress connected with noise and extreme publicity. In Der Spiegel 3/12.01.1981 was published an article under the subtitle "Disputes in their own delegation and a nerve war, which his manager stoked, caused the German Robert Hübner to capitulate...", while in previous and a next issues more details had been given mainly on this Hilgert's nerve war & attack to Korchnoi's team [in 52/22.12.1980, 53/12/29/1980 & 4/19.01.1981]. But in Tidsskrift för Schack 1/1981 was written that 'there has been no psychological conflict between the challengers camps', though some provocation by Hilgert was mentioned.
Hubner gave an interview to Der Spiegel [5/26.01.1981] where he clarified that his resignation was due to private reasons, that hadn't been and wouldn't be shared. Reasons that made him unable to play at the level he expected. However, he underlined some paragraphs below the pressure of the mass media and the publicity.
-
Against Smyslov in the 1983 Candidates quarter-final match
This time Hubner was qualified as a contender of the previous candidates final of 1981. The regular match ended as a tie with +1=8-1, and four rapid games followed all drawn. After this, no other games were played. But a casino roulette would decide the player that would advance. The ball [according to Jaque 139/1983, a golden one especially brought from Vienna] preferred Smyslov.
This somehow weird decision, to let chance decide the fate of a match, was probably taken with the players' collaboration. I hadn't tracked any, let's say, official report, but according to many newspapers, this was decided by the arbiters in consultation with the representatives of the players [Nieuwsblad van het Noorden of 20-04-1983, Algemeen Dagblad of 20-04-1983, Canberra Times of 21-04-1983]. In De Volkskrant of 20-04-1983, actually, was written that it was Hubner who first suggested something similar [=Hübner was de eerste die de mogelijkheid van een beslissing per lot ter sprake bracht]. Anyway...
However this way to decide a match was criticized [Robert Byrne in NY Times of 08.05.1983].
.... thanx for reading
