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

David Bronstein

Photo courtesy of Eric Schiller.

DAVID BRONSTEIN (born Feb-19-1924, died Dec-05-2006, 82 years old) Ukraine PRONUNCIATION: [what is this?] David Ionovich Bronstein was born February 19, 1924 in Bila Tserkva, Ukraine.1 Chess and Checkers Club When Bronstein was six, his grandfather taught him how to play chess. Later, when his family moved to Kiev, he joined the city "Chess and Checkers Club" and soon won the Kiev "Schoolboy's Championship."1 At age fifteen he was invited to play in the 11th Ukrainian Championship in Dnepropetrovsk, where he finished 8th.2 On the strength of this result he was invited back for the 12th Ukrainian Championship in Kiev. He placed 2nd to Isaac Boleslavsky, 3 which garnered him both the Soviet national master title and a place in the USSR Championship Semifinal in Rostov-on-Don.1,4 The semifinal was never finished due to the German invasion of Russia on June 22, 1941, and Bronstein did not play any serious chess for the next three years.1 Two Grandmaster Titles By February 1944 the Germans had been driven back to the Dneiper River, and Bronstein joined the USSR Championship Semifinal in Baku.1 His 4th place finish qualified him for the final and drew the interest of Boris Vainstein, who quickly became an avid promoter of Bronstein's chess career. Vainstein was an influential member of the Soviet administration (though not an actual Communist Party member), and he managed to have Bronstein relocated to Moscow from his job rebuilding a steel factory in the ruins of Stalingrad.1 Bronstein managed only 15th place at the USSR Championship (1944), but he was hardly disgraced, since he won his game against the incumbent "Absolute Soviet champion": Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1944. 5 Bronstein's 3rd place in the USSR Championship (1945) earned him a spot on the Soviet team in international matches, where he posted good results. Though he was not yet a grandmaster, FIDE invited him to the Saltsjöbaden Interzonal (1948), which he won.6 He was immediately made a Soviet grandmaster,7 and in July 1949 FIDE awarded him the international grandmaster title.8 The World Championship Bronstein wasted no time proving that if someone wanted to unseat world champion Mikhail Botvinnik, they'd have to go through him. He shared 1st in both the USSR Championship (1948) and the USSR Championship (1949). He went on to tie Boleslavsky for 1st in the Budapest Candidates (1950), and won the subsequent playoff match. Bronstein now had the right to face Botvinnik in a championship match. Botvinnik had played no chess in public since he'd won the FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948), which Bronstein thought was a deliberate ploy to hide his opening preparation.9 Bronstein opened game one with the Dutch Defence, one of the champion's favorite systems. Botvinnik later characterized this strategem as "naive."10 The match was closely fought, and by game 22 Bronstein led by a point and needed only win once more, or draw twice in the last two games, to become world champion. The stage was set for a climactic final game in which Bronstein needed a victory, since the champion would retain his title in the event of a drawn match. This game proved somewhat controversial because Bronstein accepted Botvinnik's draw offer after only 22 moves: Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951. This engendered speculation that the Soviet government had ordered him not to beat Botvinnik. In a 1993 interview Bronstein explained that "There was no direct pressure (to lose deliberately)... But... there was the psychological pressure of the environment..." in part caused by his father's "several years in prison" and what he labeled "the marked preference for the institutional Botvinnik." Bronstein concluded that "it seemed to me that winning could seriously harm me, which does not mean that I deliberately lost."11 Cold Warrior The NKVD12 had arrested Bronstein's father in 1935 because he had "tried to defend peasants... who were put under pressure by corrupt officials."13 His father was released after serving seven years in a gulag, and only pardoned for any wrongdoing in 1955. Bronstein never joined the Communist Party, nor any organisations associated with it, such as the Communist Youth Party, the USSR Writer's Union, or the USSR Journalist's Union.13 Nevertheless, for decades Bronstein remained a prominent member of the Soviet chess team. He played in four successive chess olympiads, winning the bronze medal on 3rd board in Helsinki 1952, the silver medal on 3rd board in Amsterdam 1954, and the gold medal on 4th board in both Moscow 1956 and Munich 1958.14 In the USSR - USA Radio Match (1945) Bronstein faced Anthony Santasiere on 10th board, scoring +2 -0 =0 in a 15½ - 4½ Soviet rout of the Americans. In a 1946 USSR-USA match in Moscow, the Soviets won again, with Bronstein splitting a pair of games against Olaf Ulvestad on 10th board. He again helped defeat the USA in two ideologically charged matches in 1954 and 1955. The first was slated for New York in 1953, but Cold War politics got in the way. The Soviet team were on the verge of boarding a ship from Cherbourg when a jittery US State Department abruptly tightened their visa restrictions. Moscow declared this a "violation of all the rules of international hospitality and civility," but the Soviets did manage to play the Americans the following year in New York, and again in Moscow 1955.15 In New York Bronstein played 2nd board and beat Arthur William Dake in one game, and then proceeded to win three straight from Dake's replacement, Arnold Denker. In Moscow he faced Larry Melvyn Evans on 3rd board, scoring +1 -0 =3. The USSR won both events.16 Golden Age Although Bronstein never again played a world championship match, he enjoyed a long period of success in strong chess events.1 He came close to a title rematch with Botvinnik when he finished shared 2nd at the Zurich Candidates (1953), two points behind Vasily Smyslov. Bronstein wrote a book about the event, which has become a classic in chess literature: Zurich International Chess Tournament, 1953. He won the Gothenburg Interzonal (1955) in fine style, but finished behind Smyslov and Paul Keres in the Amsterdam Candidates (1956). He would never compete in another candidates event, though he did play in the Portoroz Interzonal (1958), Amsterdam Interzonal (1964), and the Petropolis Interzonal (1973). After 1949 he appeared in fifteen more USSR Championships, with his best results coming in 1957 (2nd to Mikhail Tal) ; 1958 (3rd to Tal); Nov-Dec 1961 (3rd to Boris Spassky) ; and 1964/1965 (2nd to Viktor Korchnoi) . He won or shared 1st in the Moscow Championship in 1946, 1947, 1953, 1957, 1961, and 1968.17 Bronstein also won or shared 1st in a series of international tournaments, including Hastings (1953/54), Belgrade 1954, Gotha 1957, Moscow 1959, Szombathely 1966, East Germany 1968, Sarajevo 1971, Hastings 1975/76, and Jurmala 1978.18 Chess Theory Bronstein made many contributions to theory in openings such as the Ruy Lopez, King's Indian, and Caro-Kann (e.g. the Bronstein-Larsen variation 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.♘c3 dxe4 4.♘xe4 ♘f6 5.♘xf6 gxf6). He helped revive the King's gambit,1 and also wrote a popular book on one of his favorite weapons: Bronstein On the King's Indian. Although Bronstein preferred some systems over others, the following recollection from biographer Tom Fürstenberg is worth keeping in mind: "David explained many times that he doesn't play openings - he just starts to create an attack... from the first move! ...That is why he does not have a specific opening repertoire. He just plays everything!"1 Devik Bronstein, known affectionately as "Devik" by his friends, married three times, but it was his third marriage to Isaac Boleslavsky's daughter Tatiana in 1984 that seems to have given him the most lasting and satisfying partnership.19 In her memoir, she recalls meeting him several times as a young girl, noting his humour, generosity and, "above all, his gentle smile."19 She also ruefully explains that although Bronstein's patron Boris Veinshtein was indeed a powerful man, he could do nothing to prevent the Soviet Chess Federation from banning him from almost all foreign tournaments for thirteen years.19 Bronstein was banned after Viktor Korchnoi defected in 1976, and Bronstein refused to sign a group letter condemning him. Despite the fact that Boris Gulko, Spassky, and Botvinnik also refused to sign this letter, it was only Bronstein who received this draconian punishment. Foreign tournaments were prized by Soviet masters as a crucial source of income, because they generally paid out prizes in "hard currency." Bronstein had to support himself during this period by writing for "Isvestiya."1 He believed his punishment was so severe because he had helped Korchnoi during the Karpov - Korchnoi Candidates Final (1974). 20 In 1990, after the Soviet Union collapsed and the borders opened, Bronstein contracted cancer, but an operation proved successful, and he lived another sixteen years. He spent much of this remaining time touring Europe, glorying in his new freedom by traveling from tournament to tournament, meeting old friends and making new friends. In his typically light hearted manner, Bronstein explained that "...amazed that I was still alive, chess clubs began showering me with invitations"21 He died on December 5, 2006.22 A Magical Fire "The art of a chess player consists in his ability to ignite a magical fire from the dull and senseless initial position."23 --David Ionovich Bronstein Notes 1 David Bronstein and Tom Fürstenberg, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" (Cadogan 1995), p.263-271 2 Rusbase [rusbase-1] 3 Rusbase [rusbase-2] 4 Rusbase [rusbase-3] 5 Though Cafferty and Taimanov do not recognize the USSR Absolute Championship (1941) as a bona fide USSR Championship, the winner Botvinnik was nonetheless considered the Soviet champion at the time. Bernard Cafferty and Mark Taimanov, "The Soviet Championships" (Cadogen 1998), pp.48-51 6 Kotov and Yudovich, "Soviet Chess School" (Raduga Publishers 1982), pp.77-78 7 "Tidskrift för Schack" nr.8-9 (Aug-Sept 1948), pp.180-181. Translation by User: Tabanus 8"Tidskrift för Schack" nr.7-8 (July-Aug 1949), p.159. Translation by User: Tabanus 9 Bronstein and Fürstenberg, pp.16-17 10 Mikhail Botvinnik "Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951" Igor Botvinnik ed. Ken Neat transl. (Edition Olms 2004), p.16 11 "Revista Internacional de Ajedrez" (Mar 1993), pp.38-42. In Edward Winter, Chess Note 4753: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 12 The NKVD (Peoples Commissariat for Internal Affairs) was a predecessor of the KGB. 13 Bronstein and Fürstenberg, p.269 14 "Men's Olympiads" http://www.olimpbase.org/ 15 Andrew Soltis, "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" (McFarland 1997), pp.221-227 16 Gino Di Felice, "Chess Results 1951-1955" (McFarland 2010) pp.422, 522-23 17 1946 [rusbase-4] 1947 [rusbase-5] 1953 [rusbase-6] 1957 [rusbase-7] 1961 [rusbase-8] 1968 [rusbase-9] 18 <Hastings 1953-1954> (Di Felice, "Chess Results 1951-1955," p.317); <Belgrade 1954> (Di Felice, "Chess Results 1951-1955," p.333); <Gotha 1957> (Di Felice, "Chess Results 1956-1960," p.129); <Moscow 1959> (Di Felice, "Chess Results 1956-1960," p.342); <Szombathely 1966> (Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967," p.429); <East Germany 1968> (Di Felice, "Chess Results 1968-1970," p.12 <Sarajevo 1971> (http://www.365chess.com/tournaments... <Hastings 1975/76> http://www.hastingschess.com/previo... -<Jurmala 1978> (http://archive.today/JMAt) 19 Bronstein and Fürstenberg, pp.19-24 20 David Bronstein and Sergey Voronkov, "Secret Notes" Ken Neat, transl. (Edition Olms 2007), pp. 14-15 21 Bronstein and Voronkov, pp.12-13 22 Leonard Barden, David Bronstein obituary in "The Guardian" (7 Dec 2006) http://www.theguardian.com/news/200... 23 Bronstein and Voronkov, p.34 Wikipedia article: David Bronstein Last updated: 2020-07-15 20:30:04

Try our new games table.

page 1 of 97; games 1-25 of 2,405  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. Bronstein vs I Zaslavsky 1-0 25 1938 Kiev C43 Petrov, Modern Attack 2. Y Polyak vs Bronstein 0-1 36 1938 Kiev D10 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav 3. B Vainshtein vs Bronstein 1-0 15 1938 Kiev 000 Chess variants 4. Bronstein vs I Lipnitsky 1-0 26 1939 Kiev Championship C19 French, Winawer, Advance 5. Y Lembersky vs Bronstein 0-1 37 1939 URS C25 Vienna 6. L Kanevsky vs Bronstein   0-1 34 1939 Soviet Union C46 Three Knights 7. R Gorenstein vs Bronstein   ½-½ 19 1939 Ukrainian Championship C46 Three Knights 8. Bronstein vs Y Kaem 1-0 28 1939 Ukrainian Championship C71 Ruy Lopez 9. Bronstein vs A Gaevsky   1-0 48 1939 Ukrainian Championship C66 Ruy Lopez 10. S Kotlerman vs Bronstein   1-0 64 1939 Ukrainian Championship C01 French, Exchange 11. Bronstein vs B Ratner 1-0 35 1939 Ukrainian Championship B20 Sicilian 12. B Goldenov vs Bronstein   1-0 32 1939 Ukrainian Championship A54 Old Indian, Ukrainian Variation, 4.Nf3 13. Bronstein vs R Piatnitsky 1-0 15 1940 Kiev jr C41 Philidor Defense 14. I Appel vs Bronstein   0-1 28 1940 Ukrainian Championship A85 Dutch, with c4 & Nc3 15. Bronstein vs R Gorenstein ½-½ 15 1940 Kiev C29 Vienna Gambit 16. Bronstein vs L Morgulis 1-0 34 1940 ? C26 Vienna 17. Bronstein vs S Zhukhovitsky 1-0 32 1940 Ukrainian Championship C98 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin 18. Efimov vs Bronstein 0-1 12 1941 Kiev URS C34 King's Gambit Accepted 19. S Belavenets vs Bronstein 0-1 24 1941 Ch URS (1/2 final) E64 King's Indian, Fianchetto, Yugoslav System 20. Bronstein vs E Kuzminykh 0-1 41 1941 Ch URS (1/2 final) C79 Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense Deferred 21. Bronstein vs V Mikenas 1-0 25 1941 Ch URS (1/2 final) C40 King's Knight Opening 22. V Makogonov vs Bronstein 1-0 42 1944 Kiev E90 King's Indian 23. Bronstein vs Boleslavsky ½-½ 22 1944 Kiev C16 French, Winawer 24. Lilienthal vs Bronstein   1-0 58 1944 Ch URS (1/2 final) E67 King's Indian, Fianchetto 25. A Sokolsky vs Bronstein 1-0 27 1944 Kiev C52 Evans Gambit  page 1 of 97; games 1-25 of 2,405

REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Bronstein wins | Bronstein loses

< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 45 ·  Later Kibitzing> Dec-05-03    Sneaky: Why didn't they just change his name, like they did with Garry Weinstein? Dec-05-03    Reisswolf: Was that Kasparov's real name? Oh right! I vaguely remember reading something about Kasparov taking his mother's name. Apparently, he initially lpayed as "Garik Kasparov." Dec-05-03    OneBadDog: I wish that some one would do a quality reprint of "The Chess Struggle in Practice." The Dover version is too hard to read. Dec-05-03    Calli: Has Kasparov written on the matter? I've read it both ways - the Soviets changed it or that Garry and his mother changed it after his father died in a car accident. Actually Garri would tranlate to Harry in english. Hmm, Harry Weinstein - sounds like a Hollywood agent. Feb-20-04    AdrianP: It was David Bronstein's 80th birthday, yesterday. Mar-16-04    unsound: I find this personal account of an elderly Bronstein rather touching. I also follow and approve of his advice concerning the King's Gambit. http://www.geocities.com/bprice1949... Mar-18-04    Gypsy: Bronstein may be my all-time chess hero. Here is my recap of the man: He was probably the strongest player of the early 50-ties. Perhaps he did not dare to beat Botvinnik while Stalin was alive; perhaps he was not allowed. (Who knows, Stalin might suddenly recall that Trockij's original civil name was Bronstein...) After Stalin died, Bronstein was pushed asside anyway: At the Zurich 1953 tournament Bronstein was 'asked' to throw a game or two and was generally pushed aside afterwards. So he turned his imagination to writing and created the most thought provoking chess books. He also mentored Korchnoy to the gates of the World Championship. And he showed a most extraordinary civic spine when he alone of the top Soviet GMs refused to condemn Korchnoy after Korchnoys defection to West. I believe that when Bronstein realized that the Championship was probably not in the stars for him, he decided to become the most creative grandmaster of all times. He became exactly that: the most creative grandmaster of all times! Mar-18-04    ughaibu: At Zurich 1953 Bronstein lost two games, one to Geller and one to Szabo, do you think he intentionally lost these games? Mar-18-04    Gypsy: Bronstein's loss to Geller was a part of the whole 'deal'. Other parts of the 'deal' were Bonstein's draw with Smyslov, Keres' loss to Smyslov, and, curiously, also Bronstein's wins over Reshewsky (Bronstein was ordered to play Reshewsky for a win at any cost, even with Black pieces and without regard to any tournament strategy he may have had.). The masterminds of these shanigans was apparently KGB's own Igor Bondarevsky, a very strong grandmaster of his own right, Mosincev, and aparatchik Postnikov. The story is quite convoluted and Brostein is finally coming clean in his new book: David agaist Goliah. (Do not know if there is an English version out.) In short, the officios of the soviet contingent were petrified of the possibility of Reshewsky getting a shot at Botvinnik. So they pressed, especially on Bronstein and Keres, to go easy on Smyslov who was leading, but physically and mentally seemed at the end of his reserves. Keres refused (confirmed by Tolush and Suetin) played wildly mad, did not take a draw when his attack was vaning and lost. Bronstein-Smyslov drew Exchange Spanish. Bronstein was to be 'compensated' by Geller. Bronstein refused to take such a point but aggreed to play for a draw. In the mean-time Geller was secretly pushed by Bondarevsky to play for a win. As usual in such circumstances, Geller indeed won. There are other aspects of the story: You may have noticed that only Bronstein of the soviet delegation was without a second. Bronstein was actually very concerned over Vainsteins well being: This was the time when Stalin died, Beria went to the gallows, and Vainstein, tainted by some previous work for Beria, was refused exit visa and was kept home fearing for his own life. Throughout Zurich 1953, Bronstein was mindful not to bring additional wrath upon Vainstein. Reshewsky apparently caught on to the 'deal' as soon as Bronstein played 4Bxc6 in the Smyslov game. In many of his books, Bronstein drops---between the lines---hints about these (and other) events. But reading between the lines is a difficult art and so, finally, he spelled the history of this particular 'deal' out. Other hints, real or immaginary, will probably forever remain unconfirmed. One (possible) hint I recently noted are Bronstein's repeated explanations of his game plan for the match with Botvinnik: Bronstein realy feared Botvinnik's home preparation, so he resolved to constantly improvise (during a World Ch Match??!!) over the board (eg, see 200 Open Games). I always thought that this was just a Bronstein idiosyncracy, something like his long opening thoughts, something that can do only those sooo good that they instinctively have to make things harder on themselves by style and purity points. But recently I was struck by the strange way Bronstein said it. And when Bronstein sais things funny, he is often droping between-lines hints. So, how thorough could have Botvinnik's preparation actually been? Were Bronstein and Vainstein afraid of actual KGB spying on the bahalf of Botvinnik? Bugging of rooms and all? Who knows. Botvinnik was the 'favored son' of Stalin and Suslov (see Sosonko); he could have profited from KGB help without him even knowing. This mystery I do not realy expect to be revealed. Mar-18-04    ughaibu: Taimanov backs-up Bronstein's claims, saying that particularly it was "taboo" to win against Kotov yet Taimanov himself won one of his games with Kotov, Boleslavsky won both of his. If Keres could so easily refuse why didn't Bronstein? Especially considering Keres' shaky position compared with Bronstein who as a pal of Vainstein is said to have had the result of the first candidates tournament fixed in his favour. I dont find Bronstein very convincing about this. Mar-18-04    ughaibu: I've had a look at the last few rounds at Zurich to see how much sense this makes. In round 25 Keres had the bye so the most important games were Smyslov-Reshevsky and Geller-Bronstein. Geller had been having a very bad tournament so his win over Bronstein would have been unexpected, Smyslov also won against Reshevsky, this put Smyslov a point and a half ahead of Reshevsky, two points ahead of Bronstein and two and a half points ahead of Keres. There were still five rounds to go but as Bronstein and Reshevsky were still to have their byes the tournament was pretty much decided in this round. Bronstein says that Reshevsky coughed sarcastically when he saw Bronstein play 4.Bc6 against Smyslov in round 26, but Reshevsky must've been familiar with Lasker-Capablanca 1914. In round 26 Reshevsky was playing Keres, a game that was just as critical to the standings as was Bronstein-Smyslov, the Bronstein game is viewed suspiciously because it was a short draw (21 moves) but the Reshevsky game was an even shorter draw, only 14 moves. After their defeats in the previous round they were now playing for second place, Reshevsky had the bye in round 27 and in round 28 Bronstein had white against Reshevsky, the last critical game for these two (Keres was still behind until winning against Gligoric in round 28) so there was nothing strange about the draws of either Bronstein or Reshevsky in round 26. Mar-19-04    Legend: No, Keres didn`t answer anything when he was asked to lose...He was just very mad about it, but stayed quiet and then went to play...Smyslov seeing that Keres face was all red and that he was clearly not in playing condition, first thought that maybe Paul is angry at HIM for something...lol! So only duaring the game they all realised Keres` plan. Mar-19-04    ughaibu: Legend: Are you saying that Keres lost to Smyslov on purpose? If not, what are you saying? Mar-19-04    Legend: No, he was trying to win! That is what suprised everyone, who ordered him to lose... They thought that as Keres was quiet then and didn`t say anything, then he agreed with them, that yes he will lose....But when the game started Keres started attacking Smyslov wildly, clearly playing to win...But he was risking too much in the game and lost.... Mar-19-04    ughaibu: Legend: How do you know this and why do you think Keres played draws in 14 and 20 moves in his next two games? Mar-19-04    Legend: I read about it in Garry Kasparov`s book "On My Great Predecessors" vol.2, it`s the game 251. there and after the analysis he writes about it... I just checked it over again...and yes i was a little wrong before...Keres actually did say NO straight out! He then played to win Smyslov, but lost because of the blunder on move 20. Mar-19-04    ughaibu: Thanks, I'll look into it. Mar-19-04    Gypsy: ughaibu: I presume you never lived under the communists, have you? That is a rhetorical introduction---no need to aswer. We, Gypsies, however, do get around. Thus, based on my life experiences, I give a great credence to Bronstein's account. One bit of Bronstein's account I left out is this: Bronstein and Vainstein had agreed on a secret signal---an inocuous telegram---to let Bronstein know whether Vainstein was still free. But Vainstein was too afraid to send it and Bronstein thus assumed that Vainstein got caught in purges of Beria henchmen and other associates. Bronstein was therefore even worse positioned to refuse cooperation than Keres was: He assumed that he could literalily tighten the noose around his pal's neck. I do know that Taimanov claims that at a turnament was a 'hands of Kotov' policy, but I think that (if true) it was the 1952 Interzonal, preceding Zurich 1953. (That was the best turnament of Kotov's life.) A typo or a misunderstanding could easily turn that into Zurich 1953. Bronstein describes that the armtwisting started in earnest during the break before the Round 24. I do not think that move 20 in Keres-Smyslov was a mistake, I think that it was a conscious decision to go down fighting. He already put fire to the ship. By this time Keres knew that Bondarevsky/Postnikov/Mosincev were twisting arms on Smyslov's behalf. Smyslov had the following lineup: Keres, Reshevsky, Bronstein, Gligoric, Taimanov, Najdorf, Petrosian. At least three of these were influencable---so to speak. Thus Keres' only chance, however slim, was to win and mix things sufficiently up. Smyslov's win over Reshevsky was fair and square, of course. The only help may have been a greater peace of mind. Bronstein describes this order from Postnikov: "You play Smyslov after Geller. Keep in mind that he needs a peace of mind before his game with Reshewsky. He needs to know that you will give him a quick draw..." The games Bronstein-Smyslov and Reshevsky-Keres were played concurently (in Round 26). As soon as Bronstein played 4Bxc6, both Keres and Reshevsky knew that the path to Botvinnik was closed. In that sense, candidates tournaments are winner takes all. Had there been a Bronstein-Smyslov fight, there would have been also a Reshevsky-Keres fight. Next two games to put side by side are the Bronstein-Smyslov and Bronstein-Reshevsky games. Both of them are Spanish, but only the second one is played in the complex style Bronstein used to play for win. Of course, everyone knows Lasker-Capablanka 1914, but everyone also knows why it worked then. You can not give Smyslov two bishops, open the game, and hope to win. If you are Fischer, you may play 5)0-0, keep things closed and win. But after 5)d4 or 6)d4 you only have a draw due to the better pawn structure against better pieces play. Smyslov would have to play timidly (like Capa did in 1914) and let the position be closed up again for you to entertain thoughts of even having a real horse race. Mar-19-04    Gypsy: You also bring up the 1950-51 round of world champiship. It is not clear what was the role of Vainstein in all of it. Botvinnik's alegations are definitely damning (see Sosonko). But Botvinnik will in one sentence condemn Bronstein for his ties to Vainstein, while in the next sentence he brags about the favors he (Botvinnik) enjoyed from Stalin himself. Leaving Vainstein out of all this, I see the the following chess landscape: In late 1940s, Bronstein and Boleslavsky were arguably two strongest players in the world. They penetrated deeper than anyone before into the nuances of chess dynamics and figure play. (Their resurection of King Indian and Boleslavsky's innovations in Sicialian are just two concrete manifestations of their deeper insights.) Botvinnik hated them both. First he hated Boleslavsky more, but after the 1951 match, Bronstein became his most hated nemesis. (Botvinnik had to be paranoid; he always hated those he perceived as his closest home rivals: Bondarchuk, Levenfish, Boleslavsky, Bronstein, Tal, Petrosian... He brags that he remained on speaking, though not friendly, terms with Smyslov.) Now, according to what I heard about Boleslavsky, he was rather a friendly, likeable figure, throughly enjoying the camaraderie and team spirit of team events, of joint analyses and of joint intelectual pursuits in general. In fact, he was a good friend and mentor to Bronstein and, I believe, he later even became Bronstein's father-in-law. Boleslavsky subsequently coached the entire soviet team and was a personal coach to Petrosian. Boleslavsky would fight like a lion for his teams, analyse like a lion for his charges, and analyse like a lion when his pet opening variations were challenged. But he was reported to lack the motivating selfishness when it came time to push others aside and claim world championship for himself. Thus it does not suprise me that it was Bronstein who came up against Botvinnik. It may even been agreed between the two. But I never heard of any alleged inapropriaties against Smyslov or Keres during the 50-51 cycle. To close this off. It is much more fun to just analyse the games. I do not want my former hero's slowly destroyed as time goes (Botvinnik). But on the other side, sometimes it is hard to understand the moves on the board without the context. Mar-19-04    Gypsy: My sincere apology for my clumsy English and all sorts of typos. (For some reason, I see these defects only after several hours goes by.) I also switched two names: The first great nemesis of Botvinnik was Bogatyrchuk not Bondarchuk. Mar-20-04    ughaibu: 75% success with the exchange Lopez: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... Who told Reshevsky and Keres to play a draw in round 26? In the interzonal of 1952 all the games between all the Soviets apart from Taimanov-Averbach were short draws. Despite this handicap Kotov won the tournament with the record percentage, yet even after such a performance other Soviets were "allowed" to win against him in the candidates tournament, this in direct contradiction to one of the major witnesses. Mar-20-04    Gypsy: OK ughaibu, this is my last comment on the topic. It is begining to feel to me that I am arguing with you, which would be furthest from my intentions. So, please, take this only in the spirit of a joint analysis. (1) If you mode out weaker players from your statistics, you get only 50%. Play through them, you will see that that they are very different games. (Bronstein considers the conclusion of the Gligo game the best he ever played.) More important statistics, of course, is what record black Smyslov has in the variation. (Btw., Bronstein's 200 Open Games gives his views of the 'Exchange'.) (2) I never said that Kotov was a patzer! Hew was known as "The killer of Champions". It was quite common for him to win againts the two winners of a tournament, but loose points to the tourmmament's tail. He just got tired by playing uncompromisingly all the time. If there were "draw orders" from Kremlin, saved energy would benefit Kotov perhaps most. (3) I thought I explained my understanding of the 26-th Round yesterday. I must have made it confusing. Again, play though the Reshevsky-Keres game, it's a weird one. Think of Reshevsky situation, for instance. I think it is consistent. He has a better position, but is playing Keres. Keres is playing weird, but he is Keres. Weird things just happened in last two rounds. You fully expect that Soviets will arrange things if they must. And then you see what seems like an arranged game.... (Sorry, but I just ran out of time. Got to run.) Mar-20-04    ughaibu: The point of Bronstein's draw with Smyslov is meant to be so that Reshevsky couldn't catch up yet at this point Reshevsky was 1.5 points behind Smyslov with 4 games to go while Smyslov had 5 games to go, in short if Reshevsky won his last four games while Smyslov drew his last five they would tie. Smyslov also has to play two non-Soviets so in order to guarantee a Smyslov win it would be necessary for at least Bronstein, as he was to play first, to lose to Smyslov. The logical justification claimed by Bronstein is flawed. Smyslov had a significant lead, both Bronstein and Reshevsky could have opted to challenge for that lead at this point but would've been unlikely to succeed however second place has it's own value as it means skipping the next interzonal. Both Bronstein and Reshevsky would surely have wanted to maintain their energy for the coming critical game between them so there is no explanation required for Bronstein drawing with Smyslov. I dont understand the desire by various players to insult the play of their peers, in this case Bronstein's insult of Geller, perhaps that's one of the reasons that I no longer play chess. Mar-22-04    Gypsy: In that case I am pleased to put your mind at ease at least on this one point: After you get a chance to read Bronstein's own account, you will see that Geller comes out of it all "smelling like a rose". (In fact, I have checked at least a dozen other references of Bronstein's about Geller: Bronstein always held Geller in a very high regard!) Mar-22-04    ughaibu: Gypsy: Thanks, that's good to know. From what I've read concerning the "64" article Bronstein claimed to be the victim of a "double-cross" and this accounted for his loss to Geller, can you say anything about that? I'm planning a fairly long post about these things and it would be nice if you can counter point from Bronstein's side. Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 45) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 45 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines: No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members. Nothing in violation of United States law. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members. No trolling. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times. See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator. NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific player only. To discuss chess or this site in general, 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 ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC