|Jan-29-04|| ||Whitehat1963: Strange and complex, as you'd expect from this pair. |
|May-18-04|| ||Whitehat1963: Well-calculated exchange at 47...Rxf4! |
|May-19-04|| ||Resignation Trap: A few months earlier, these two players met at the Amsterdam Interzonal, and they produced an extremely complicated and much-analyzed game: Bronstein vs Larsen, 1964|
According to Larsen, Bronstein still had a mathematical chance to advance to the Candidates Matches after that loss, but he became disheartened, and ended the Interzonal with none of his usual flair.
Larsen attributes his victory in the present game to his earlier win at Amsterdam. "Some wins yield more than one point!"
|Apr-06-10|| ||Everett: I believe there is a draw on move 25 (or thereabouts) for white, but I forget the continuation...|
|Apr-10-10|| ||Everett: Taking a closer look at this game, I don't know why Bronstein, after getting outplayed in the opening, didn't go for some semblance of activity with <20.Rxe8 Qxe8 21.Nf3.> |
The white rook cannot be picked up so easily after <21..Bf3 (covering e7) 22.Qc2 Qc8 23.Rxf7! Kxf7 24.Qxg6+ Ke7 25.Qh7+ Ke8? <..Kd8 26.Ne6+ Ke8 27.Nc7+ with perpetual> 26.Qg8+! <26.Qg6+ is another perpetual>> and black has major coordination problems after both <26..Ke7 27.Ng6+> and <26..Kd7 27.Qe6+>.
BTW, I think the above kibitzing from <Whitehat1963> and <Resignation Trap> belongs on the following page: Bronstein vs Larsen, 1964
This game no doubt probably had much more kibitzing on it, and was accidentally gutted when cleaning up the database.
|Apr-10-10|| ||Everett: Finally, <25.dxe6> is not easy to meet for black at all. White threatens 26.e7 and if black plays <25..Qf8>, covering the rook, then <26.Nxf6 Qxf6 27.Rf7 Qg5 28.Qf3> and things are not so clear.|
What does Kasparov say about this position in his OMGP book?
|Dec-25-10|| ||ForeverYoung: I took a look at this game today with Larsen's notes on it. It is unbelievably complex! White has some drawing chances in the line which Larsen gives: 25 dxe6 Nxc4 26 Qh4 g5 27 Nxf6+ Qxf6 28 Qxc4 Re8 29 e7+ Kg7 30 Rxa7 or 29 Qe4 Re7 but the burden is on him to hold the ending.|
|Dec-25-10|| ||sevenseaman: I think Bronstein threw away a good position. At least a draw. Maybe he had an upset tummy!|
|Sep-17-12|| ||ozmikey: <I think Bronstein threw away a good position. At least a draw.>|
He sure did. After the much better alternative 25. de, Larsen's excellent and entertaining notes give 25...Nxc4 as best, with the continuation 26. e7 Rf1+ 27. Kh2! Qe8 28. Qe2! (not 28. Qe6+? Qf7) Rf5! (only move) 29. g4! (again, the obvious 29. Qxc4+? d5 favours Black) Qf7 30. gxf5 Re8 31. fxg6 Qe6:
click for larger view
Larsen claims an advantage for Black here, but when playing through the game I felt that White must have some decisive shot in this position, so I called in the silicon monster. And sure enough, the cold-blooded 32. Qf1!! wins in all variations (32...Qe5+ 33. g3 changes nothing). A lovely move but easy to miss, given the obvious instinct to keep the e4 knight protected.
Ironically enough, in his comments to Bronstein's 26th move, Larsen mentions that after the obvious 26. Nxf6+ Qxf6 27. Qxh6 Bronstein overlooked the sneaky 27...Qd4+ 28. Kh2 Qh8!, commenting that backwards diagonal moves (such as 32. Qf1!! above) are easily missed. Indeed!
|Apr-16-13|| ||david9000: <Everett> if 25. dxe6 Qf8 26. Nxf6 Qxf6 27. Rf7 can't black play Qd4+?|
In Volume IV of OMGP, Kasparov gives 25. dxe6 Qf8 26. e7 Rf1+ 27. Kh2 Qf5! 28. Qxf5 Rxf5
and says it looks like Black just remains material up, but Bronstein later discovered the tactic 29. Rxa7!!
Kasparov says this would have been "the triumph of chess fantasy!"
<White gains a draw either by the perpetual pursuit of the rook - 29...Rb8 30. Rb7! Ra8 31. Ra7-
or by an entertaining perpetual check - 29...Re5 30. e8=Q+ Rexe8 31.Nf6 Kf8 32. Nh7+ Kg8 Nf6.
(30. Nf6+!? Kg7 31. e8=Q+ Rxa7 32. Qb8 Rae7!
33. Qxb6 Kxf6 34. Qxd6+ Kf7 35. a4)> OMGP Vol IV p.162 I have no idea what's going on in that last line! haha!
I played through this game today and it took a long time...Kasparov's analysis
is very comprehensive