< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 36 OF 38 ·
|Jul-03-11|| ||Everett: <drnooo> An interesting take, yet I would figure that Bronstein, of all people, would have written about your suggestions more explicitly in his various writings, to be printed posthumously.|
Though I have to say, to all those naysayers regarding conspiracy theories, history has proven more sordid things to be true. And Wikileaks is just the tip of the iceberg.
|Jul-03-11|| ||keypusher: <He did and in the most blatant way, whethere by accident or design committed one of the worst blunders in the history of the final deciding game of a so called world championship. >|
Conspiracy theorists should have at least a nodding acquaintance with the facts.
Botvinnik-Bronstein World Championship Match (1951)
You've got a long way to go, <drnooo>. Start by learning to distinguish games 6, 23, and 24.
|Sep-22-11|| ||Albertan: The most powerful weapon in chess is to have the next move. - David Bronstein|
|Oct-03-11|| ||Karpova: Mikhail Tal: <[...] and my first ever game against my idol Bronstein, whose play has always been for me an example, and - if you like - a yardstick.>|
Source: Page 63 of Tal, Mikhail: "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal", London 1997
The game: Tal vs Bronstein, 1957
|Nov-17-11|| ||bronkenstein: From Russian article with intriguing name <Bronstein replied : `Botvinnik`> (http://www.google.rs/url?sa=t&rct=j...) , somewhat bizarre and also bit hard to believe , anyway translating it won`t hurt:|
<To put it mildly , Botvinnik`s attitude towards Bronstein wasn`t too friendly. Anyway , this story is not so well known:
In the end of 2006 , on December the 5th , lying in the hospital , David Bronstein came back to consciousness for the last time in his life ; his wife tried to verify David`s sanity by asking him 2 chess questions. On first of them , `Who was the best King`s Indian player?` he said `Geller`, and on second , `Who had the greatest influence on the development of chess? ` he replied `Botvinnik`. 5 minutes later he passed away.>.
|Nov-17-11|| ||knighterrant999: <bronkentstein> Do Bronstein's answers indicate sanity or insanity?|
|Nov-17-11|| ||bronkenstein: <Do Bronstein's answers indicate sanity or insanity?> Good question , I was thinking of that too . You probably have in mind that , since his faithful wife was Boleslavsky`s (one of the originators and leading KID experts ) daughter , he could , lessay, vary a bit on the first question.|
|Nov-17-11|| ||drnooo: as for his writing about throwing the last game, what does he say? I threw it. Then what. You have those chime in, yeah yeah,sure you did. At a certain point, you decide, well I did what I had to do to save my dad and that's it.
As for reading the tea leaves of certain games ala keypusher what the hell does that mean when your dad can be sent off to the Gulags.
Sure, he could have lost the match straight up, but my own hunch is he took matters to the brink, did just he said, saved face by saying I just wanted to prove he was not a God, and quietly went back to playing the game that they would let him.
And went on being, in my opinion, the second best player in Russia behind Keres, who was in even greater danger.|
|Nov-17-11|| ||drnooo: Having said that, then the argument can be reasonably raised that he was even strong than Keres. The only reason I put Keres ahead of him is that Keres was able to beat the greater number of players (and spare me K vrs B, that has already been thrashed to rags) but head to head he might have, only might have, lets say far away from the river Neva and with both along the, say, overlooking the Hudson, beaten Keres in a fifteen, twenty game match. Point being that after the Bomb and the soviets had their finger on the Button, things got so skewered in Chess, we will never know, never, the relative strengths of the top five or six of their best.
Even Tal apparently was kept from the best doctors. In the west, with the right ones, best care, who knows. He certainly would have gone on drinking and smoking and had the same deviltakethehindmost attitude, but he sure as hell never even came close to getting decent doctoring, by design.|
|Nov-17-11|| ||keypusher: <drnoo>
He didn't blunder in the last game. He didn't even lose the last game. He blundered terribly in the sixth game. He lost the 23rd game, though without any blunders.
Because you didn't know any of that, your earlier post was drivel.
<Even Tal apparently was kept from the best doctors.>
Source? Tal says exactly the opposite in his autobiography.
|Nov-17-11|| ||Everett: <drnooo> I think you can just leave it at ...<we will never know, never, the relative strengths of the top five or six of their best...>|
Too many variables to consider. What is certain is that there were political machinations in chess at almost every single point in its storied history, and the pull of the WC warps the chess world like the mass of a star in space-time.
Regarding Bronstein and sanity; after reading most of Secret Notes, it seems clear that these political machinations in general and his forced stay in the USSR from '76-'89 deepened some of his eccentricities. For instance, he managed to be insulted by no less than 8 people in the book, two of them Kramnik and Ivanchuk, for what in my eyes were relatively benign comments. He comes off as very bright, curious but also extremely sensitive.
This is not surprising, since Bronstein was always trying to keep his chess child-like in its experimental and playful way. He ultimately grew weary and perhaps resentful, sooner than most, of the results-based work and drudgery of top-level chess.
Near the end of the book, Voronkov mentions the three things that Bronstein strongly recommended years and years ago to improve the chess world: Eliminate the difficulty to become WC and thus minimize its pull on the chess world, abolish adjournments, and finally, speed up play.
It seems like all three have arrived or are on their way. For the better?
|Dec-13-11|| ||Penguincw: Quote of the Day
< "The most powerful weapon in Chess is to have the next move. " >
|Dec-14-11|| ||Penguincw: Quote of the Day
< "The quality of a game lays in how much originality, fighting spirit, beauty the player brings--not technique." >
Back to back from Bronstein.
|Dec-18-11|| ||kingscrusher: I totally like Bronstein and what I am reading about his views on "Active chess" and abolishing adjourments.|
Currently reading the "Sorcerer's apprentice". Expect several of my Chessbase radio shows on Tuesday to start covering Bronstein games. Videos will be on Youtube.
|Dec-21-11|| ||Everett: <kingscrusher> oh I will look for them! Thank you so much for taking the time. I'm sure you will find something deeply human in Bronstein's chess; playfulness, curiosity and even beauty. It is why I return to them time and again, especially in these days of comp evals and rating cynicism.|
|Feb-19-12|| ||Penguincw: R.I.P. David Bronstein.|
|Feb-19-12|| ||talisman: Happy Birthday David and R.I.P.|
|Feb-19-12|| ||brankat: Happy Birthday.|
|Mar-15-12|| ||Dr. Yes: Brankat, are you sure that Bronstein didn't make a blunder that lost the 23rd WCC match game with Botvinnik? I've heard that it is an impossibility to lose a chess game without having made a mistake. I'm sure that at least Smyslov would agree with the above statement.|
As for the game itself, most annotators say they thought Bronstein had a win, but then 'threw' it. Has new chess analysis, perhaps by computers proved otherwise?
|Mar-15-12|| ||ughaibu: Not all mistakes are blunders, so even if it were true that it's impossible to lose a game without having made a mistake, there would be no implication that Bronstein had blundered. However, it's quite easy to lose a game without making a mistake, a player can resign at will, any time.|
|Mar-15-12|| ||keypusher: <Dr. Yes>
<As for the game itself, most annotators say they thought Bronstein had a win, but then 'threw' it.>
|Mar-15-12|| ||brankat: <Dr.Yes> Actually I don't remember saying that. It was probably <keypusher> :-) |
As for the blunder in the 23rd game, or a blunder in general, one needs to start with a definition of "blunder". Usually it implies something quite blatant, obvious, something that shouldn't be. as if the player was experiencing a temporary blackout. So, as <ughaibu> pointed out not every "mistake" is a blunder.
In the 23rrd game I'd say Bronstein simply got outplayed by a player endowed with stronger will, better nerves, more experience and more fighting spirit. In a word, by a stronger master.
|Mar-15-12|| ||ughaibu: One problem with the claim that Bronstein intentionally lost the 23rd game, is explaining why he was in the lead at that point. After all, he was only in the lead twice in the match, going into the 6th game and going into the 23rd. So, conspiracy theorists really need to give an interesting story explaining his win in game 22. Particularly as he could easily have pretended to miss his decisive thirty seventh move.|
|Mar-15-12|| ||brankat: Just as it was earlier with 1948 tournament/match, and later with Curracao candidates tournaments, conspiracy theorists have not had a case.|
|Mar-15-12|| ||RookFile: Absolutely. There's no reason to believe Reshevsky and Bronstein about '53, for example. They played in the tournament and saw first hand what happenned, so there's no reason to believe their statements.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 36 OF 38 ·