< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Sep-18-06|| ||positionalgenius: One of the best WCC matches.This was the best of these two's matches.|
|Sep-18-06|| ||suenteus po 147: Funny that Smyslov is an almost infinitely better endgame player than Bronstein, and yet he achieved the same result as Bronstein! :)|
|Sep-18-06|| ||Gypsy: <Funny that Smyslov is an almost infinitely better endgame player than Bronstein...> Exept that Bronstein was (is) a great endgame player. The only time he played endgames poorly was in that 1951 Botvinnik match.|
|Sep-18-06|| ||suenteus po 147: <Gypsy> Mark Dvoretsky would seem to disagree with you.|
|Sep-18-06|| ||ClubplayerGOLD: You stopped short of Petrosian-Botvinnik WC match:(|
|Sep-18-06|| ||Gypsy: <suenteus po 147> The Dvoretsky quote I know talks only about the 1951 match.|
|Sep-18-06|| ||suenteus po 147: <ClubplayerGOLD> No, they stopped short of the second of three matches Smyslov played against Botvinnik before Petrosian-Botvinnik.|
|Sep-18-06|| ||suenteus po 147: <Gypsy> I refer to the quote <Hesam7> posted on the Bronstein-Botvinnik 1951 WC match page: <D. Bronstein is an outstanding grandmaster, but his Achilles' heel was always his endgame technique.> Meaning in general, and then followed by the most damaging example, the WC match with Botvinnik.|
|Sep-18-06|| ||Gypsy: <suenteus po 147> But the only examples of Bronstein poor play in endgames that I am aware of are from the Botvinnik match. On the other hand, there is a good number of outstanding endgames Bronstein has played and that made it into textbooks. (I have put some of those with the 1951 match; a couple of others seem to be missing from the database.)|
|Sep-18-06|| ||Plato: <suenteus po 147: Funny that Smyslov is an almost infinitely better endgame player than Bronstein, and yet he achieved the same result as Bronstein!>|
Smyslov was the better endgame player, but certainly not "almost infinitely better," and this comment ignores the fact that Bronstein had certain advantages over Smyslov, too. For one thing, Bronstein showed great originality and unpredictability in his game, which I think made him a more dangerous opponent for the scientific-minded, orthodox Botvinnik than Smyslov was (at least in this match). Both of them drew their matches, but I think that Botvinnik found his match with Bronstein the more strenuous of the two. Indeed, at the end of the Bronstein match it was Botvinnik who desperately needed to salvage the tie, while in this match Smyslov only managed to level the score with late wins in the 20th and 23rd games.
There is also some suspicion that Bronstein may have been under coercion by the Soviet authorities not to wrest the title from Botvinnik. A few historians have put forth this theory, and Bronstein himself (although only very late in life) has given some hints that this may have been the case. I am undecided on this, myself... The sixth game of their match is something of a mystery, though; why would Bronstein play the clearly losing 57.Kc2?? (and resign the next move) instead of 57.Ne6ch and 58.Nd4, drawing, a sequence so simple that most novices would not have much trouble finding it? In the final game, just after Botvinnik had equalized the score, Bronstein had the White pieces and knew that only a win would make him the new World Champion... instead, the game was drawn after just 22 moves.
I do not mean to imply that Bronstein was better than Smyslov, but I don't find it surprising that Smyslov didn't achieve more than Bronstein did in this, his first match with the great Botvinnik.
|Sep-18-06|| ||suenteus po 147: <Gypsy> Thank you for those examples and providing a different viewpoint. It's all interesting food for thought.|
|Dec-08-06|| ||thegoodanarchist: Eight!!! consecutive decisive games! Is that a record for WCC matches?|
|Dec-08-06|| ||thegoodanarchist: AND 3 wins in a row for black. Very interesting and uncommon.|
|Dec-12-06|| ||Ch3ckmate: Botvinnik must have had loads pressure on him after losing 3 games in a row and tieing the match soon later.|
|Mar-21-08|| ||Knight13: I like how a lot more games are win/loss than draws!!!|
|May-17-08|| ||brankat: This match was an all out war!|
|Feb-07-09|| ||bluberry66: no it wasn't it was death rage killing war!!!!!!! LOL|
|Feb-07-09|| ||bluberry66: I can not cream my sister I DESTROY HERRR!!@!! HARHARHAR|
|Feb-07-09|| ||Dredge Rivers: <bluberry66> I'm sure everyone found your comments just so verrrrrrrrrrry insightful!|
|Feb-25-09|| ||WeakSquare: Does anyone know of any books about this match (and other Bot-Smys matches)? They were one of the most exciting and hard fought in chess history.|
|Feb-25-09|| ||nescio: <WeakSquare> You'll need to be patient for a few months, but then an English translation of Botvinnik's classic will be available:
Acoording to the publisher it will be available in May, but even if some months later I think it may be well worth waiting for.
|Feb-25-09|| ||WeakSquare: By Botvinnik himself, cool...|
|Jul-24-09|| ||chessgames.com: <WeakSquare: Does anyone know of any books about this match (and other Bot-Smys matches)?> The Chessgames sponsor New in Chess now offers the book you've been looking for. Indeed, it was worth the wait. The link is: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/clic...|
|Jan-16-10|| ||waddayaplay: <Plato: There is also some suspicion that Bronstein may have been under coercion by the Soviet authorities not to wrest the title from Botvinnik.>|
On the other hand..
< [In the 1950 Candidates tournament] Boleslasky had been leading, a point ahead of Bronstein, but had agreed to draw his last two games to give Bronstein a chance to catch up. Soltis: “But in 64 Smyslov hints that Boleslavsky agreed to the draws after bowing to pressure from
Veinstein, the head of a GULAG department and ‘an influential man in the country’. Veinstein wanted to make sure Botvinnik was defeated, and
he knew Boleslavsky didn't have a good record against the world champion.
|Jan-16-10|| ||AnalyzeThis: There you have it. Another tournament, another round of fixed games.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·