< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 38 OF 38 ·
|Apr-14-12|| ||Everett: How great will it be to compare two great books on Zurich '53?|
|Jul-04-12|| ||drnooo: Fischer once said that Reshevsky might have been the best in the world in the 50s.
Well, it might well have been ole Dave.
At least until Tal came along.
They were brothers under the skin.
Not sure when Bronstein had reached his peak, will leave that to others to decide but my guess is from 48 to around 56 and maybe a little later
|Jul-04-12|| ||King Death: <drnooo> Then there was the interview where Botvinnik said that Smyslov was the best player in the world in the 50s. In spite of <RookFile's> rants on other pages that Reshevsky was (in the face of any reason) I like Smyslov for that, 2 clear Candidates wins and a title make a man pretty damn tough.|
Bronstein was a great imaginative player and I like his style a lot but he didn't maintain that high level the way that Smyslov did.
|Jul-04-12|| ||Everett: <King Death> I agree from '56 on that is the case, but Zurich '53 is strange, and Bronstein missed a couple of wins while making Smyslov look silly in the beginning of the tournament. Smyslov vs Bronstein, 1953 If he had played 14..Ba3, the game would have gone down as one of the greatest ever miniatures.
And Gothenburg '55, the qualifier for the candidates in '56, saw Bronstein literally destroy the competition.|
But in '56, not only Smyslov, but Petrosian also was becoming an absolute beast. Petrosian outplayed Bronstein in both their games, gaining an easy draw as Black and famously blundering his Q in a crushing position. As far as Smyslov/Bronstein head to head, I feel this game shows Smyslov at his very best, where Smyslov had to play a perfect game to win. It is annotated in OMGP II
Smyslov vs Bronstein, 1956
As far as Smyslov being the best of the 50's, I give him only a few years. And after the maturation of Petrosian and Spassky, both Bronstein's and Smyslov's days were numbered. And even Petro and Spassky had to wait for Tal to cool his jets.
And this is ignoring Keres, Reshevsky, and Geller.
|Jul-04-12|| ||talisman: KGB in Zurich in 53: "do you really think we are here to watch chess?"|
|Aug-06-12|| ||Joshka: I know there must be a book about the 1951 match with Botvinnik, or maybe a few? Any suggestions? thanks in advance|
|Oct-01-12|| ||Conrad93: 200 Open Games is a little disappointing.
I expected more commentary.
He's obviously a great writer, but he could have mentioned a bit more about each game.
|Oct-14-12|| ||Conrad93: Magnus Carlsen gets thousands of replies, but a genius like Bronstein gets only 36?|
This is pathetic.
|Oct-14-12|| ||Gypsy: <Joshka: I know there must be a book about the 1951 match with Botvinnik, or maybe a few? Any suggestions? thanks in advance > |
Search for Vainstein (or some variation of this name) and 'Chess Improviser David Bronstein'.
Vainstein was Bronstein's seccond of sorts and (ghost) co-author of some of Bronstein's writing. 'Chess Improviser' is a book about the 1951 match. (Vainstein apparently also wrote an insightful book on Tarrasch and perhaps other stuff.)
|Oct-14-12|| ||parisattack: World Chess Championship: 1951 by William Winter and R.G. Wade.|
I believe the Brits have reprinted this as paperback - but you can still find nice hardback/dust jacket copies for $30-$40 on Ebay & ABE from time-to-time.
Wade also did the 1963 match which remains one of my ATF chess books. Golombek did 1948, 1957 and 1958.
|Oct-15-12|| ||TheFocus: <parisattack>< World Chess Championship: 1951 by William Winter and R.G. Wade.>|
I have this book. In paperback, though. Very good book.
|Oct-15-12|| ||Eggman: <<Petrosian outplayed Bronstein in both their games, gaining an easy draw as Black and famously blundering his Q in a crushing position.>>|
Blundering counts. It's no good saying "so-and-so was the best except he blundered." Infrequency of blunders is one of the things that separates a World Champion from the pretenders.
|Oct-16-12|| ||Everett: <Eggman: <<Petrosian outplayed Bronstein in both their games, gaining an easy draw as Black and famously blundering his Q in a crushing position.>>|
Blundering counts. It's no good saying "so-and-so was the best except he blundered." Infrequency of blunders is one of the things that separates a World Champion from the pretenders.>
Of course, I'm not saying otherwise. I, a Bronstein fan, am merely noting that there is evidence that Bronstein was on a slow decline compared to the rise of Petrosian, Spassky, Tal, etc., by the late 50's, and indicated the flow of his games with Petrosian as examples of this.
Petrosian did outplay Bronstein in these games. The result is only part of the picture.
|Nov-20-12|| ||Cemoblanca: BEFORE THE FIRST MOVE
The position you see in the diagram is like an empty canvas standing on an easel. If you have any aptitude, talent or, no less important, desire, then boldly take up your brush and paints, decide upon the necessary colour and embark upon your creative work. But how should one begin? I cannot say what feelings artists experience at that moment, but, whenever I have to start a game with an 'empty' chess board in front of me, I cannot stop thinking that today, right now, I have the very fortunate possibility of playing the most beautiful, the most fighting, and the most profound game since the time of my birth and since long before it. ~ David Bronstein :)
|Apr-02-13|| ||Gottschalk: In chess as in life,
fortune smiles once.
Game132(Petrosian 1x0 Gligoric)of this book Zurich International Chess Tournament, 1953.
|Apr-05-13|| ||Gottschalk: Don't cry, my boy!
They not permited me to be a world champion,
but I don't cried.
to a desolate Bobby Fischer, crying hunched over the tableboard,
after the draw with Botvinnik
|Apr-05-13|| ||BUNA: Was Bronstein even in Varna in 1962? At least he wasn't part of the team (Botvinnik, Petrosian, Spassky, Keres, Geller, Tal).|
And Fischer had already left the board when a smiling Botvinnik was still shaking hands. :)
|May-24-13|| ||kamalakanta: It amazes me that, even after his death, Bronstein is not given the respect he deserves. His biography on this page is painfully short!|
|May-24-13|| ||Check It Out: <kamalakanta> I agree. Try posting to the biography bistro page; I'm sure they'll snap at a chance to write the bio of one of the most creative chess players of all time.|
|May-24-13|| ||brankat: Bronstein's Bio is not the only one. There are many other great masters with Bios consisting of just few lines. |
But, it has been getting considerably better, lately. I know for fact that CG.com Bios writers have been hard at work.
So,... patience :-)
|Jun-12-13|| ||lakers4sho: If we're going by number of Kibitzing pages here in CG, there's only one person worth mentioning in the annals of chess, and the rest aren't even close.|
|Aug-25-13|| ||Everett: In my chess life, I have played through and analyzed closely, with my amateur brain, a handful of players. These include Seirawan, Bronstein and Karpov. Strangely, the latter two hold some resemblance.|
<resignation traps> posts of Botvinnik's red notebook on Bronstein's style, where the WC states over and over again how Bronstein was a player of 2-3 move operations, who didn't allow counterplay, who "schemed." In essence, the competitive Bronstein sounds a lot like Karpov, who Kramnik described as someone who calculated short lines precisely. So how can there chess look so different, if they have the same skill-set, and even a similar nose for prophylaxis?
Here are two linked reasons IMO, based on optimism and the initiative.
Karpov is famous for not valuing the initiative as much as others, and this was due his supreme confidence in defense. He would be willing to suffer temporary pressure to ensure future positional gains. His amazing assessment and calculation allowed him to play this way. He would let his opponents get what they "wanted" only to realize that they had nothing at all, while Karpov oozed over the entire position. Here are two games for your consideration.
Stein vs Karpov, 1972
Karpov vs Kamsky, 1992
Bronstein is the opposite in this regard. He was much more optimistic in attack, and would willingly pitch material, double his pawns, etc., for activity. Conversely, the pragmatic Bronstein would also prefer a safe king, safer even than Karpov's. This is why Bronstein preferred the KID so much; the likelihood of getting mated was minimal and the opportunity for activity was immense.
I Aloni vs Bronstein, 1956
Pachman vs Bronstein, 1946
So why the Kings Gambit, if Bronstein preferred a safe king? Well, one is Bronstein is also a trickster, a risk-taker, and is not always practical. Secondly, he seems to have actually done some study of the KG back in the 40's, and used this rare (for him) opening prep to take the risk out of the lines for White. So, in essence, even the KG matches his sensibilities. Thirdly, it was always a surprise weapon, never his main go-to kings pawn opening.
|Nov-19-13|| ||Penguincw: Quote of the Day
< "The most powerful weapon in Chess is to have the next move." >
This weapon happens to go around every other half-move/opponent.
|Nov-20-13|| ||Penguincw: Quote of the Day
< "The quality of a game lays in how much originality, fighting spirit, beauty the player brings--not technique." >
Looks like it's Bronstein's turn to have a bunch of quote.
|Nov-23-13|| ||harrylime: Bronstein in my mind was a world champion even if the records say he was'nt... |
He was the best player in the world in the early 50's ..
Only because the then Soviet regime held the then chess regime by the balls did he not become world champion.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 38 OF 38 ·