|Jul-22-04|| ||Gypsy: "Once I was lucky and created my own pearl ..." (David Bronstein, 200 Open Games) |
After Black 28-th move, Bronstein describes 7 different tactical notions that ran through his head as if at different valences of playing strength: (1) Qxg7 to mate (unrated player); (2) Q-h5-e8 (1300); (3) rooks to back rank (1500); (4) rooks to seventh rank (1700); this needs a clever bluff (1900); (5) sac the pride N on d4? (expert); (6) pull that Black knight away, it defends too much (master); (7) bait with rook, and aim for c8 (IM).
But, I guess, it takes the whole Bronstein to put it all together.
Bronstein: "From the educational point of view, moves 29-40 can be divided into three independent parts: (i) the trap 29-34; (ii) the combination 35-36; and (iii) the forced follow-through 36-40 and 40...Nd6 41.Rxd6+ Ke4 42Rxd4#."
|Jul-23-04|| ||Honza Cervenka: 39.Qd8# would have been more accurate finish.
What about 33...Nc5? It looks like a very unpleasant counterblow.
|Jul-23-04|| ||Gypsy: I am always amased by all you see <Honza>. Bronstein does not mention your <39.Qd8#> in his book and I surmise that time-pressure had him blindly follow his precomputed line to the longer check-mate. In fact, that precomputed line probably set in a long-term "blind spot". |
As for the intermezzo <33...Nc5>, I think that 34.Rxd7 Rxg4 35.Bxc5 gives White good winning chances. For instance, 35...Rge4 36.Rd8 Re8 37.Rxe8 Rxe8 38.Bxf8 Kxf8 39.Kf1 leaves White in a good spot.
Of course, Bronstein would have been anoyed to no end to miss on his combination. All of this is in the preparatory, trap stage of the combination (31.h3 looks like a prep for Nc5). Objectively, 33...Nc5 is better for Black than the game. But I am sure Gligoric had high hopes for the position after 33...Qd5. (I certainly would.)
|Jul-23-04|| ||Honza Cervenka: Well, 33...Nc5 was not bad idea (definitely better than Gligoric's 33...Qd5) but it doesn't work well enough. 33...Nc3 is another candidate move for improvement of black's play, although after 34.Rxd7 Rxg4 35.hxg4 Ne2+ (After 35...Rxe3 36.fxe3 Ne2+ 37.Kf2 Nxc1 38.Rd2 it is not easy to liberate the Knight, for example 38...g6 39.Kf3 a5 40.Ke4 a4 41.bxa4 b3 42.axb3 Nxb3 43.Ra2 Nc5+ 44.Kd5 doesn't look much promising for black.) 36.Kf1 Nxc1 37.Bxc1 Ra5 38.Rd2 h5 39.f3 hxg4 40.hxg4 g6 41.Rf2 Kf7 white has still some advantage. |
|Jul-23-04|| ||Gypsy: Nice variations <Honza>; good improvement for Black. (There is a small typo, I think, ... 39.f3 hxg4 <40.fxg4> ...) |
|Jul-26-04|| ||Honza Cervenka: <Gypsy> Of course, it was a typo. 40.fxg4 is correct. |
|Jul-26-04|| ||Gypsy: With typos like that, I never know whether to point them out and look like a pedant, or whether to knowingly let such a minor flaw persist. Damn if you do, damn if you don't... |
|Jul-26-04|| ||suenteus po 147: <Gypsy: Damn if you do, damn if you don't...> LOL It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. Very clever of you :) |
|Jul-27-04|| ||Gypsy: Well, <damned> felt so ... biblical ... so I thought it deserved a bit of "modernization". In general, < suenteus po 147>, English and I keep each other rather amused. Fortunately, English is a durable language. :-) |
|Jul-27-04|| ||Benzol: <Gypsy> You and <Honza> type (and probably speak) English very well. I doubt very much that I could type or speak your language at all! |
|Jul-27-04|| ||Gypsy: Thanks <Benzol> for your support. Honza, of course, is a classy act throughout. |
|Oct-19-05|| ||Averageguy: In The Sorcerers Apprentice, Bronstein points out that 33...Nc3 wins for black.|
|May-16-10|| ||tstavernman: In his book "The Chess of Gligoric" David N.L. Levy quotes Gligoric (who cooperated with the book's publication):
"I came to play Bronstein. He is a very good friend of mine. A round earlier he made a short draw with Smyslov with White. Then he played me with White, and he tried to beat me. He made me work. I sacrificed a pawn because I was in trouble and somehow I had the better game. Then he offered me a draw. At any other time I would have accepted because I didn't want to risk anything,
but at that moment I was a little bit angry because he had made me suffer for such a long time and I refused. He was in time trouble. I had no reason to refuse because I had no winning position. At that point I underestimated him--he made a beautiful combination and mated me. That was my first loss and I was very upset. Then I lost three more games, one from a winning position against Stein."|
|Feb-03-11|| ||wordfunph: Bronstein-Gligoric
click for larger view
Bronstein missed a mate-in-one with 39.Qd8#
|Jan-12-12|| ||Llawdogg: Wow! Nice combination. And Wow! David Bronstein missed a mate in one.|
|Jun-09-12|| ||screwdriver: How do you know he missed the mate in 1? #1, He may not have even looked for it since he had a forcing winning variation with Re6#. #2, He may just want to see his opponent suffer since his opponent didn't resign at a reasonabe time. #3, If Bronstein's game fell apart after his 39th move, then one can say he missed the mate in 1.|
|Apr-23-13|| ||engmaged: It is more surprising that Kotov in his book "Chess Tactics" (diagram 30) missed also 29.Qd8#?!
If Bronstein missed it OTB how could Kotov missed it in a book!
I think he was not thinking like a grandmaster by then!:p|