< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Feb-16-12|| ||HeMateMe: Great game, pure Bronstein.
On a side note, how does the pun work? Being a pun purist, I fail to see a connection between the pun language and this chess game/players.
|Feb-16-12|| ||Penguincw: A fairly tactical game, IMO.|
|Feb-16-12|| ||KingV93: At first look I thought the Queen exchange was dubious but Bronstien does an excellend job of combining attack with protecting the vulberable back rank. Excellent and tactically accurate.(to a patzers eyes)|
|Feb-16-12|| ||kevin86: A strange game:the attack faded out,only to return...and resulted in a Browne-out.|
|Feb-16-12|| ||Archswindler: <Pawsome: Jeez <Ulhumbrus> thanks for the lecture. Very fine. Are you a GM?>|
Ulhumbrus? I'd be honestly surprised if his playing strength is any higher than about 1600 or 1700. Half the games on this site are filled with his "analysis", much of it very weak. Any game where someone moves their h or g pawn will probably have an inane kibitz by Ulhumbrus about "disturbing the kingside pawns without necessity" (this includes games where the pawn move is well established theory, such as the Keres Attack).
|Feb-16-12|| ||ewan14: Wonderful|
|Feb-16-12|| ||offramp: I think both sides are winning!!|
|Feb-16-12|| ||erniecohen: <<birthtimes>: If 27...Bxc5 then better for White is 28.Rb7+ Kg8 29.Rh1 Be6 30.Rxh6 Bf7 31.a4 Bd4 32.axb5 axb5 33.Rxb5 Bxc3 34.bxc3 Rxc3 35.Bd3 and White has 2 passed pawns with same colored bishops. Browne saw this, and decided to sac the exchange instead.>|
I don't know why Browne didn't do this. All black has to do is trade his B+P for 2P to get to a drawn ending, right?
|Feb-16-12|| ||Jim Bartle: "I think both sides are winning!!"
Wasn't it Bronstein who once said during a game he was playing, "Both sides stand badly"?
|Feb-16-12|| ||Phony Benoni: Bronstein describes this game in <The Sorceror's Apprentice>. He doesn't say specifically which position Seirawan saw in his hotel room (and which, in Seirawan's story, had Geller staring at the board in open-mouthed amazement). However, I would guess it was the one after 21.Nf5+. Bronstein does say that Browne's <21...Kh7> was unexpected, which leads me to believe his idea was the pawn-down attack that follows 21...Bxf5 22.exf5.|
|Feb-16-12|| ||keypusher: <jim bartle>
<Wasn't it Bronstein who once said during a game he was playing, "Both sides stand badly"?>
Tarrasch wrote that about the main line of the Chigorin defense to the Ruy Lopez, which he didn't care for.
|Feb-16-12|| ||Siksika: I agree with archswindler, Ulhumbrus' "analysis" displayed here is rather just a rambling move by move commentary. In truth its tedious simply because there's no value in it. If you want an authoritative commentary on attacking chess read Vladimir Vukovic's classic.|
|Feb-17-12|| ||King Death: < Siksika: ...Ulhumbrus' "analysis" displayed here is rather just a rambling move by move commentary. In truth its tedious simply because there's no value in it...>|
As far as I can tell he's on the other end of the pole from <Once> who provides entertaining commentaries. For the <Ulhumbrus> machine the word "banal" is a good description of the rambling generalities with tons of pointless twaddle. <U> read one too many Reinfeld books as a kid
but has gone as far as those will take him.
|Oct-05-12|| ||Eggman: The first new move in this game (judging by Chessgames' database) was 20.h4|
|Apr-08-13|| ||Everett: How frightening would that be: Bronstein addressing the opening like a professional.|
|Jan-24-15|| ||Conrad93: <Vladimir Vukovic's classic.>|
Terrible classic. Highly overrated.
|Jan-24-15|| ||zanzibar: <<conrad93> Terrible classic. Highly overrated.>|
Haven't heard too many people say that before. Any specific reason(s) for it's terribleness?
|Jan-26-15|| ||Wyatt Gwyon: Conrag can't support any of his conclusory statements, so don't hold your breath waiting for anything resembling chess insight on this game.|
|Jan-26-15|| ||N0B0DY: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for Conrat to post anything sensible.|
|Jan-26-15|| ||Conrad93: His idea of focal points is nonsense. In fact, his esoteric and ambiguous language just makes it more difficult for chess players to improve.|
It is similar to Pawn Power in Chess in its extremely awful commentary. Forget the fact that most of the analysis is inaccurate.
There are better books on tactics and developing an attack.
Please stop advertising an inferior book. We don't need more customers being ripped off by false promises.
|Jan-26-15|| ||Conrad93: I love how when I make a comment it must be nonsense. Bunch of sheep following popular opinion. Sad.|
|Jan-27-15|| ||N0B0DY: as I said before...|
|Jan-28-15|| ||Conrad93: Bandwagon fallacy, Nobody. I'm sure you're familiar with it.|
|Jan-28-15|| ||Captain Hindsight: Better would have been <25. Qh2! Rhd8 26. Rb6! > |
click for larger view
and White can look forward to a comfortable game.
|Jul-25-16|| ||HeMateMe: sharp, sharp, sharp. Bronstein never lets go.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·