There are many candidates for the title of ‘the best chessplayer never to win the world championship’. I think I first heard Keres given that title, and he was the second-highest-rated player at some point (according to Jeff Sonas’ ChessMetrics website http://www.chessmetrics.com ). Other second-highest-rated players include Chigorin, Zukertort, Blackburne, Nimzowitsch, Tarrasch, Schlechter, Najdorf and Ivanchuk. In fact, there are a number of players who were the highest-rated in Jeff’s lists at some point but who never became World Champion: Pillsbury, Maroczy, Kolisch, Gunsberg, Janowsky, Rubinstein, Reshevsky, Bogoljubow… and Viktor Korchnoi. Korchnoi was primus inter pares for the last quarter of 1965, following a dominating tournament win
http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSSWS067916000000111000000000016610100
He competed strongly in Candidates’ Matches in the 1967 cycle, but didn’t qualify for a Championship match until 1978, when his actual rating was rather higher.
“I have heard so many times that Korchnoi had the great misfortune of meeting me when his best playing was already behind him. Nothing of the sort! Korchnoi’s best years arrived exactly at the time he battled me”
— Anatoly Karpov
In the end, Korchnoi was a Candidate in 10 of the 11 cycles held between 1962 and 1991, and a Challenger in 1978 and 1981. His Candidates’ Final match with Karpov in 1974 turned out to be a Championship match in effect, when Fischer could not agree terms to defend his title, and forfeited it.
Korchnoi’s style is … complex! He seems to make life as difficult for himself as his opponent, relishing the role of defender — or rather, counter-attacker.
“I like to coax my opponents into attacking, to let them taste the joy of the initiative, so that they may get carried away, become careless, and sacrifice material”
For this reason, Korchnoi’s style is also exciting, not to say nerve-wracking, to watch… Perhaps for these or other reasons, he was often in time trouble.
“It is a gross overstatement, but in chess, it can be said I play against my opponent over the board and against myself on the clock”
The drama and political intrigue of his life are every bit as rich and compelling as his chess, but here I will take a few moments from his battles over the board.
Opening
I’ve always liked this example of Korchnoi’s play. His counter-attacking style seems ready-made for the Grunfeld, where White is invited to set up an ‘ideal’ centre, while Black has fluent development without weaknesses, and can strive to undermine it.
Here’s a quote about Korchnoi, rather than from him directly:
“Viktor Korchnoi was always saying: if you want to make progress, you have to learn new openings all the time. If such a person gives you such an advice, you should listen to it” Boris Gelfand
Korchnoi’s annotations to this game made a strong impression on me: surely Grandmasters know everything, or at least, know everything that they play? The unknowable nature of chess that was revealed was somehow more alluring than the prospect of a knowable nature.
Middlegame
Korchnoi is the great sceptic of chess. He is never overly impressed with an opponent’s attacking ideas, not even when they are conjured up by the magician from Riga. Korchnoi had a large plus score against Tal; here he wins as Black when Tal was at the height of his powers.
Korchnoi also has an awesome record with White against the King’s Indian. Here is one example from hundreds: in his seventh decade, he plays blindfold in the very double-edged Mar del Plata variation. Black cannot do much about White’s Queen’s-side attack, but can instead start a dangerous attack against the white King.
And a fine example of Korchnoi’s brave counter-attacking style, the first game in Simon Webb’s [em]Chess for Tigers[/em]
“A good illustration of how to play on your opponent’s weaknesses is provided by the way Korchnoi tackled Geller in their semi-final match in the 1971 World Championship Candidates’ series. He knew that he couldn’t outplay Geller positionally (as he frankly admitted after the
match); so he deliberately aimed for complicated and unclear positions, in which he believed Geller would be uncomfortable. This approach paid off handsomely. Geller continually became short of time trying to fathom
the complications which Korchnoi produced, failed to find the right answers, and lost 5.5-2.5. Indeed he lost 3 of the 8 games on time. ” — Webb
Endgame
Nunn’s awesome attacking talent and theoretical knowledge are tamed by accepting a small disadvantage in what looks like a technical endgame. Korchnoi does not intend to swap everything and draw, however, but increases the tension over the whole board, and White can’t quite hold it together. A game quite in the style of Lasker — whom both players admire.
Lastly, a terrific win against Karpov. Neil McDonald has written about how he was perplexed by Korchnoi’s choice of plan — surely you are supposed to play the minority attack in such positions? But Korchnoi has other ideas.