chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian vs David Bronstein
Amsterdam Candidates (1956), Amsterdam NED, rd 2, Mar-28
King's Indian Defense: Fianchetto. Yugoslav Variation Exchange Line (E66)  ·  0-1
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 36 times; par: 52 [what's this?]

explore this opening
find similar games 32 more Petrosian/Bronstein games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: Some games have photographs. These are denoted in the game list with the icon.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE.  [CLICK HERE]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-18-11  Tigranny: I don't think Tigran blundered much throughout his career, or did he?
Mar-19-11  Tigranny: Also, why is this a notable King's Indian Defence, Fianchetto, Yugoslav Variation game? It's just a mistake.
Mar-19-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Tigranny>

The FAQ is your friend.

<On some player pages, tournament pages, and opening pages, there is a list of Notable Games. In the case of player pages, this list highlights some important games that the player has won or drawn....

The lists of notable games are calculated by finding the games which most frequently appear in our users' game collections.

Notable games are chosen democratically by Chessgames members, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Chessgames.com staff.>

Mar-19-11  Tigranny: Sorry keypusher for my error.
May-06-11  LIFE Master AJ: I guess Petrosian just blundered ...
Sep-08-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Garech: This should not be given as a notable game for Bronstein!! It's a bit like Spassky's game 1 of 1972 WC match being given as one of Spassky's notable games...

-Garech

Jan-18-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  gezafan: I once played black in the following game. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 4.Nxd4 exd4 5.0-0 Bc5 6.d3 c6 7.Bc4 d5 8.exd5 cxd5 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.Re1+ Ne7 12.Nd2 0-0 13.Nb3 Bb6

Here my opponent startled me with 14.Qg4, a move I hadn't considered. I immediately noticed that my pawn on d4 was attacked twice and defended only once so I immediately looked for ways to defend it. First I looked at 14...Nc6. Then I looked at 14...Nf5. While looking at 14...Nf5 I noticed that our Queens were on the same diagonal. Then I noticed his Queen was undefended. So I played 14...Qxg4.

It was only a rapid game though, not a slow one.

Mar-03-12  ewan14: Why not 24.... R x f2 ?

25 n X E4 ?
FOLLOWED BY TAKING THE KING'S BISHOP FILE ?

Bronstein's bishp and rook stuck on the queen side ?

Mar-03-12  Everett: <ewan> my guess is the 24..Rxf2 25.Nxe4 simply gives white a tempo and opens the f-file, which may become more useful for White than black in the long run.

And black cannot take over the f-file because he is only playing with three pieces vs six. It is actually quite surprising he lasted long enough for Petro to blunder.

Mar-03-12  King Death: < Everett: <ewan> my guess is the 24..Rxf2 25.Nxe4 simply gives white a tempo and opens the f-file, which may become more useful for White than black in the long run. And black cannot take over the f-file because he is only playing with three pieces vs six. It is actually quite surprising he lasted long enough for Petro to blunder.>

Sir, if you can reason things out this far what you wrote above isn't a guess it shows good understanding.

What you say is right in my opinion. Without the pieces buried on the queenside even owning d4 (which usually gives Black at least an equal position in the KID) doesn't amount to anything because White's pieces are much more active.

Jun-23-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  zydeco: It seems like black had to try ....b6 and ....Bb7 at some point. Maybe on move 24.
Jun-23-13  RookFile: He's in trouble then too because he's getting murdered on the dark squares. It's a strange game because 10. Qc1 telegraphs a obvious attempt to play Bh6 and get rid of the fianchettoed bishop. How about something normal like 10....Re8 to preserve the defender of the dark squares?
Jan-13-15  Abdel Irada: Poor Petrosian.

After Black's seven consecutive moves of the same knight, he must have been so frustrated that he never considered that its eighth move would harvest his queen.

Jan-13-15  Petrosianic: Well, the story, if you don't know, is one of pure carelessness. He'd walked away from the board, came back to make a move, and just assumed what Black's move had been without looking. And he compounded the error by resigning about 2 seconds before Bronstein's flag fell. Black would never have made the time control even with the gift Queen. White had plenty of time. Pity, as the game before that had been a great positional squeeze that would have made it into every Best Game Collection.
Jan-13-15  Abdel Irada: Agreed. The mere fact that Bronstein had been reduced to shuffling his knight around for seven consecutive moves tells us how little he felt he had to hope for in this game.

Jan-14-15  Petrosianic: The position just before the blunder is amazing, though. Black has got almost his full army on the board, but he's almost completely paralyzed. Shuffling the Knight back and forth is just about all he can do. It reminds me a lot of this game:

Petrosian vs Taimanov, 1955

Jan-14-15  Howard: Chess Life and Review (as it was called back then) made the comment back in 1978, that when Petrosian got back to the board....he didn't even bother to sit down. He just simply reached over, played 36.Ng5 ???....and...well, we know the rest.
Jan-14-15  Petrosianic: That's the same way <Tigran Petrosian: His Life and Games> (which was in the USCF catalog at the time) describes it.

But it's a famous enough blunder that other blunders want to be like it! In Ray Keene's Korchnoi-Spassky coverage, he tries to compare Korchnoi's blunder in this game to it, even though there's no real similarity except for the fact that both are Queen hangs.

Korchnoi vs Spassky, 1977

What happened in this game is that Korchnoi was so distracted by all the arguments over the Box Controversy, that he simply hallucinated, and assumed Spassky's Bishop on h7 was a pawn. It's not that he wasn't watching the board.

Jan-14-15  Howard: As I recall, the most common explanation for this inexplicable blunder was that Korchnoi had assumed after "sacrificing" his queen, that he could then deliver mate by moving his rook to h8....problem was that f7 was now available as an escape square for Spassky's king, now that the rook on f7 was no longer there.

If the rook WAS still there, it would have been mate, then.

By the way, it might not be fair to blame the "box controversy" for this blunder. Keene and Stean's coverage of the 1977 Korchnoi-Spassky match was very biased, as I recall---and their coverage of Karpov-Korchnoi the following year, was also slanted in favor of Korchnoi.

The blunder was 90% Korchnoi's fault, in my view. Granted, this loss was the third one out of four straight losses that he suffered, but the ultimate blame should have been on him---not Spassky.

Jan-14-15  Petrosianic: <As I recall, the most common explanation for this inexplicable blunder was that Korchnoi had assumed after "sacrificing" his queen, that he could then deliver mate>

Could be. I don't think Korchnoi has ever publicly said.

<Keene and Stean's coverage of the 1977 Korchnoi-Spassky match was very biased, as I recall>

Yeah, you're remembering right. Keene blamed the blunder completely on the distraction caused by the Box Controversy... which Korchnoi had created. Or, that is to say Spassky started playing from his box, and Korchnoi went to pieces over it. Keene admitted himself that a player like Larsen would have just shrugged his shoulders, thought his opponent was a lunatic, and kept playing.

But to be fair, Keene and Stean were Korchnoi's seconds, which everyone was aware of. There was no attempt to portray them as disinterested.

Jan-15-15  Abdel Irada: <Petrosianic: The position just before the blunder is amazing, though. Black has got almost his full army on the board, but he's almost completely paralyzed. Shuffling the Knight back and forth is just about all he can do. It reminds me a lot of this game:

Petrosian vs Taimanov, 1955>

Fully agreed.

But for the blunder, we might class this game with Saemisch vs Nimzowitsch, 1923, the "Immortal Zugzwang Game."

May-06-16  Tigercock: Petrosian mortal game
Aug-30-16  RookFile: With white, I would have followed up the queen blunder with 37. Nf7+. This unsound move gives check thereby limiting blacks options. Also, black would have to capture and then hit the clock with the same hand. Probably, Bronstein's flag would have fallen.
Sep-24-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  watwinc: Botvinnik reportedly remarked that this game killed both players - Bronstein was getting totally slaughtered, Petrosian never really recovered from the blunder.
Feb-19-19  RookFile: I guess Petrosian recovered enough to become world champion later.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 5)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
Game 55
from Timman's Titans (Timman) by Qindarka
Strategic battles
by TheDestruktor
Amsterdam Candidates 1956
by Tabanus
The trick is to move the same knight eight times in a row...
from yKnights Add Spice w/Rice IV Fredthebear by fredthebear
Petrosian Blunders in a Won Position Against Bronstein
from Positional Chess Wins! by sorokahdeen
KID Yugoslav Exch (E66) 0-1 Petro returned to table, blundered
from Petrosian Games Only by fredthebear
36.Ng5?? sacrificing his own queen :)
from Greatest blunders of chess masters by yonikeren
Round Two, Game Ten - Blunder of the Century?
from WCC Index [Candidates Tournament, 1956] by Resignation Trap
Anit-hero KID
by Joe Stanley
36. ?
from Amaurosis Scacchistica by Scardini
Game 33
from Think Like a Grandmaster (Kotov) by isfsam
estrategias 2 de suetin
by LESTRADAR
Think Like A Grandmaster
by JoseTigranTalFischer
36.Ng5!!
from Anonymous Blunderers Club by TheAlchemist
Positional masterpiece that could have been...
from Memorable games from World Championship qualific by CaradhrasAiguo
36. Ng5?? is very strange from the former champ
from MorphyMatt's world of the weird by MorphyMatt
Worldchampions are humen to!
from Bad Blunders by nikolaas
Power Chess - Bronstein
by Anatoly21
Oops!!!
by Morphischer
Oops...!
from Some of my Favorite Games by scolley
plus 38 more collections (not shown)


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC