< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Nov-12-02|| ||drukenknight: Famous game featuring the Falkbeer. After move 9, Keres says "the books do not approve and since Tal as we see, has no improvement in mind we may repeat the question mark which theory gives this move."|
Evans says best for black is now: " 9...BxB 10 QxB NxN 11 QxQ+ KxQ 12 PxN BxP"
[sorry for English notation]
Why not 9....Bb4
|Nov-12-02|| ||Honza Cervenka: 9...Bb4 is used quite often. See Opening Explorer|
But it seems to be that results for black playing 9...Bb4 are not very impressive.
|Oct-31-03|| ||Open Defence: Keres asked Bronstein why did you play 15g3?! Keres - "Bronstein stared at me as if I understood nothing about the position and said 'I just had to play a move like 15g3 against Tal I might not have had the chance to play such a move against him ever!' I am glad that Bronstein played 15g3 it made for a very interesting game" hehehehehehe (forgive any paraphrasing of the quoted text .... |
|Mar-23-05|| ||sipahi: Can somebody explain what was wrong with 33 Bxf6 with threat of Rxh7 mate on next move |
|Mar-23-05|| ||OJC: < sipahi > 33 ... cxd3 and the mate threat is gone with a dangerous pin on the c2 pawn |
|Aug-02-05|| ||Averageguy: Despite the early queen trade, this game is very exciting.|
|Feb-12-06|| ||Whitehat1963: What a WILD, 18th century-style game. The best defense seems to be a good counter attack in this one. Great fun.|
|Jun-26-06|| ||think: Am I correct in saying that the end would go:
44: .... Rxf4
45: Bxg2 Kxg5
White has to sac the rook for the pawn, and with the bishop guarding h1 queening square, this is a won ending for white.
|Jul-20-06|| ||KingG: <think> Yes, you are correct.|
|Dec-02-06|| ||refutor: who killed off the king's gambit at the top level? by the looks of it, it just died off with spassky and bronstein...if fedorov was able to draw guys like anand (who by rating he should have been very happy with that result), i think it's time for a revival|
|Mar-19-07|| ||labralege: fischer had the defense 3...d6 and after that it was sen less in master tournements according to wikipedia|
|Mar-19-07|| ||Tomlinsky: <fischer had the defense 3...d6 and after that it was sen less in master tournements according to wikipedia>|
He would have had a problem playing 3...d6 here as the pawn went to d5 last move.
|Nov-06-08|| ||KingG: <refutor> I'm not sure about the Bishop's Gambit, but amongst other lines, the Knight's Gambit is set some pretty serious problems by Fedorov vs Ivanchuk, 2001. I analysed this game for a while, but couldn't really come up with anything promising for White.|
|Feb-19-09|| ||alanelbaum: Does anyone know why Bronstein gives 12.Ba3 two exclamation marks? Is it something to do with 12...Bxc2 not working? For that matter, why doesn't 12...Bxc2 work?|
|Feb-20-09|| ||Gypsy: <alanelbaum: ... For that matter, why doesn't 12...Bxc2 work?>|
I venture a guess that because of <13.Rc1 Bf5 14.Rxc7...>. Black position looks ruined.
|Jan-31-11|| ||Whitehat1963: What a fun and complex battle!|
|Feb-25-11|| ||HeMateMe: What happens when fire meets fire?
Tal beat Bronstein 12-8, 18 draws. Is there any other pairing of top ten players with such a low ratio of draws to decisive games?
|Feb-25-11|| ||keypusher: <HeMateMe: What happens when fire meets fire?|
Tal beat Bronstein 12-8, 18 draws. Is there any other pairing of top ten players with such a low ratio of draws to decisive games?>
Dozens. There is nothing special about a 10:9 ratio of decisive games to draws.
|Feb-25-11|| ||Everett: <keypusher> <hemateme> Well, not these dozen. Ratio given is decisive games to draws, not reduced to avoid testing my shaky 5th grade math skills.|
I would say at the time these giants played that there is something special about their decisive games to draws ratio.
In current matters, things look different, especially when you consider the amount of rapid, blitz and blindfold that is played. In classical with a normal scoring system, however, I imagine that in the top echelon, draws will out number decisive games.
One last note.. the 1982 match between these two was, I believe, at least rapid time controls.
|Feb-26-11|| ||keypusher: <everett> <hemateme>|
Everyone in the 19th century.
Lasker against pretty much everyone in the top ten before the 1930s, except Capablanca.
I looked at one contemporary, Botvinnik (of course). Here is the ratio of decisive games to draws against various strong opponents.
Tal 24-20 (including two world championship matches)
Smyslov 53-53. Given that this included three world championship matches, it might be the most remarkable number on the list.
|Feb-26-11|| ||Everett: <keypusher> Thanks for the research.|
Yes, perhaps everyone in the 19th century, but chess seems to be played a little differently after Lasker was meeting formidable oppositions like Schlecter, Capablanca, and Alekhine. Your stats for Botvinnik, however, are more compelling, as he is more of a contemporary of Tal and Bronstein.
A better separation would be made, like most things in the chess world, pre- and post- WWII.
It seems like Smyslov and Botvinnik went insane to win each of their matches. I can understand Tal's matches being uneven, but not Smyslov's.
|Apr-17-11|| ||Doctor Aust: British GM Daniel King recently discussed the Falkbeer Counter-gambit in his occasional column in the Guardian newspaper:|
- and mentioned this game as one of the key ones to study in the line. I'm enjoying following Daniel King's King's Gambit columns, as I once lost to him playing Black in the King's Gambit Declined (with 2...Bc5) when we were junior players in the mid 1970s. Needless to say he was a far better player than me.!
BTW, Bronstein discusses this game in his famous "200 Open Games", and comments that "all the moves up to and including 12 Ba3! can be found in Savielly Tartakower's 'Hypermodern Chess' "
|Mar-03-12|| ||cionics: Once again Bronstein shows himself to be a true artist of the game.|
|Mar-04-12|| ||King Death: I'd be happy to play the KG if I could get Black to go down the old main line of the Falkbeer but these days he seems to play moves like 3...ef or 3...c6.|
<Doctor Aust> I wonder if White in this game knew about 12.Ba3: C H Alexander vs V Berger, 1937. It's the earliest game I've found with it.
|Jun-19-12|| ||DrGridlock: Bronstein discusses this game in the "40 Combinations with Explanations" section of "Sorcerer's Apprentice." Bronstein gives the position after 14 ... Bxd5, with the "solution" 15 g3!. Bronstein writes, "White was searching to make a beautiful move, hopefully decisive, and his attention was drawn to the move 15 g3. After the black Bishop took the Rook on h1 and the white pawn took the Knight on f4, White had good hopes to win in a few moves. After all, he has two strong Bishops, a Knight in an attacking position and the possibility to give a check with a Rook. What else can one hope for? Alas, in reality a long drawn-out battle took place. Credit should be paid to the move 16 ... c5. It eliminated the power of White's a3 Bishop." |
Komodo's analysis challenge's Bronstein's notion of a "!" attached to 15 g3.
click for larger view
Analysis by Komodo32 3 32bit (depth=27):
1. ² (0.51): 15.Rg1 h6 16.Nh3 Nxh3 17.gxh3 c6 18.Re1+ Kd8 19.Rxg7 Kc7 20.Bb4 Rae8 21.b3 Nf6 22.Kb2 c5 23.Bc3 Rxe1 24.Bxe1 Ne8 25.Bg3+ Kc6 26.Rg4 Nd6 27.Ra4 Ra8 28.Bf4 f5 29.h4 a6 30.Bxh6 Re8
2. ² (0.42): 15.Re1+ Kd8 16.Re7 Rf8 17.c4 Be6 18.g3 h6 19.Nxf7+ Bxf7 20.gxf4 c5 21.Re1 Kc7 22.Bh3 Rfe8 23.b3 Rxe1+ 24.Rxe1 Re8 25.Rxe8 Bxe8 26.Bxd7 Bxd7 27.Bxc5 Bf5 28.Kb2 h5 29.Bd4 g6 30.Bxa7 b6
3. ² (0.31): 15.g3 Bxh1 16.gxf4 c5 17.Re1+ Kf8 18.Bc4 Bc6 19.Nxf7 b5 20.Be6 b4 21.Nxh8 bxa3 22.bxa3 Re8 23.Nf7 Rxe6 24.Rxe6 Bd5 25.Rd6 Nb6 26.Ng5 Ke7 27.Rxd5 Nxd5 28.Nxh7 Nxf4 29.Ng5 Kd6 30.Kd2 Ke5
Indeed, Black's response of 16 ... c5 is a good defensive resource, so that White does not achieve a won position as a result of 15 g3. Further, Re1 or Rg1 appear to have been better options for White at move 15.
Bronstein's 15 g3 may have been a beautiful move, but it was not (as Bronstein had hoped) decisive.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·