| Feb-21-03 | | kostich in time: Its hard to believe that Bronstiens sudden advance,f4,f5,f6!! wasnt prepared Soviet analysis, especially in light of the very similar Botvinnik-Reshevsky game |
|
| Jun-29-05 | | refutor: bronstein never seemed to be one to follow prepared analysis |
|
| Sep-01-05 | | Resignation Trap: Botvinnik had this to say in his personal notebook on Bronstein: "Nimzo-Indian with a3. It ended up the same as in [Botvinnik vs Reshevsky, 1948 ], except that 'Br' did not play Be3, but 0-0 and f4. This is apparently the simplest, since it is not so advantageous for Black to reply ...f5. Najdorf played the nightmarish ...Ba6, on f5 - ...e5, and after f5-f6 he lost without a squeak. Even so 'Br' played very accurately, although his opponent made things easy for him." |
|
| Sep-01-05 | | aw1988: Very nice- what's the losing move? |
|
Sep-01-05
 | | TheAlchemist: <aw1988> 21...resigns :-) |
|
| Sep-01-05 | | aw1988: You may be right; I see no forced win. |
|
Sep-01-05
 | | tpstar: Meeting e4 with ... Ne8 works, but only if you meet f4 with ... f5 Botvinnik vs Reshevsky, 1948 instead of 11 ... Ba6?! here. Once White advances e4 & f4 for nothing, Black dies a quick death on the Kingside. |
|
| Sep-01-05 | | Steppenwolf: After Qd7 (to protect f7), I dont see a forced win for white. If white move the bishop to attack h7 (and move the bishop where?), The black rook just goes back on g7. Seems like a draw. What am I missing? |
|
Sep-01-05
| | TheAlchemist: Well, jokes put aside, the threat is 22.Bf8 Rg7 23.Bxg7 Kxg7 24.Qh6 with mate. So, 21...Ng7 seems forced. Then, 22.Qh4 and the threat of moving the Bishop away (threatening mate) then wins a piece, as Black must interpose with 23...Nh5. Seems reason enough for resigning to me. :-) |
|
| Sep-01-05 | | aw1988: It's a strange position, probably the only Nimzo-Indian of its kind. Black's pieces are horribly cramped of course, but what can White do? Maybe g2-g4-g5-even g6? |
|
| Sep-01-05 | | aw1988: Whoa, two more kibitzes just popped up while I was typing. |
|
| Sep-01-05 | | aw1988: Very nice analysis- not even considered--!!, though ideally I never have been very accurate through "brief glances". |
|
| Sep-01-05 | | Steppenwolf: Missed Bf8! completely. Thanks guys. |
|
Sep-01-05
| | TheAlchemist: <tpstar> You are The Phantom Of Chessgames.com :-) |
|
| Sep-01-05 | | Steppenwolf: Sorry, The Alchemist, but after Ng7 Qh4, "the threat of moving the Bishop away" would (might) fail to black's h5!? So maybe Ng7 is a good move! |
|
Sep-01-05
| | TheAlchemist: <Steppenwolf> I am reposting this, as I have missed it before. So, 21...Ng7 (forced) 22.Qh4 Nb3 (for example) 23.Be3 h5 24.Qxh5 Nxh5 25.Rxh5 Kg7 26.Bh6 Kh8 27.Bf8 mate. So, Black must give the piece with 23...Nh5 and after 24.Qxh5 he can resign with a clear conscience. |
|
| Jul-20-06 | | notyetagm: Didn't Najdorf know that Capablanca had invented the idea of meeting White's e4 and f4 push in this Nimzo-Indian line with ... ♘e8 and ... f5? Maybe ... f5 was not all that desirable in this particular position but surely it must have been better than allowing 12 f5 and 13 f6, losing in 21 moves. |
|
| May-08-17 | | edubueno: 11...f5! es mucho mejor que 11...Aa6??
12...Ca5! es mucho mejor que 12...e5??
15...g6! es mucho mejor que 15...gxf6?? |
|
| May-20-22 | | cehertan: Kostich, it insults Bronstein to say that f4-f5-f6! had to be prepared. These moves meet the demands of the position perfectly. At small cost all of the play switches to the kingside where white has a huge advantage in force and space. Blacks standard queenside play against c4 becomes useless. Bronstein is a legendary attacker but a lot of strong masters would choose this idea. |
|
Kibitzing
