| Sep-13-05 | | Resignation Trap: Here is what Botvinnik wrote on this inconsistent game: "Nimzo-Indian Defense with a3. Smyslov employed a new plan, ...Nh5, ...g5, and ...Nf4 - 'Br' became completely rattled, stupidly played 14. d5 instead of Be3 and after this began to scheme. Generally speaking, if 'Br' had not allowed 32...f5, Vasya would not have had anything clear - but after ...f6-f5-f4 things became hopeless for White, even despite the harmless trick with the knight sacrifice on b4. Smyslov incorrectly took the knight and handed the initiative to 'Br'. With his 40th move Smyslov blundered a knight and on the resumption 'Br' very subtly squeezed Vasya. 'Br' posted his knight well at f5, cleverly sacrificed a piece, and conducted the resumption accurately - the rest was coffee house-like and weak." |
|
| Jul-29-10 | | Everett: Funny, I've always found Botvinnik's notes on Bronstein to be "coffee-house and weak." Also interesting is his characterization of Bronstein's mistake (stupidly) compared to Smyslov's mistake (incorrectly). One thing is for sure; despite all this study, he failed to discover the true strength and depth of Bronstein's play. |
|
| Jul-09-12 | | Resignation Trap: Photo of this game during opening stage:
http://chess-school2008.narod.ru/Sm... |
|
| Jun-02-13 | | zydeco: Weird game with the blocked center. Very well played (notwithstanding what Botvinnik says). Bronstein's brilliant at messing up positions where he's in trouble (35.Nb4!!?). I guess Smyslov's supposed to just keep rolling with his kingside attack (maybe 35.....gxf3 36.Qxf3 Qg4 or 35.....h4). Black's king is better on c7 than d8 at the end of the time control: 40....Rb5 (to kill any ideas of b5 and Bb4+) 41.cxd6+ Kxd6 42.Rxc6+ Ke7 43.Raxa6 Rxa6 44.Rxa6 h4 and black has to be better. |
|
| Jan-10-14 | | celsochini: Resignation Trap Where did you find the Botvinnik's notes on Bronstein ? Tks Celso from Brazil |
|
Apr-17-14
 | | WCC Editing Project: <celsochini>
Botvinnik's notes on every single game Bronstein played from the Saltsjöbaden Interzonal (1948) running up to the Botvinnik-Bronstein World Championship Match (1951) can be found here: Mikhail Botvinnik "Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951" Igor Botvinnik ed. Ken Neat transl. (Edition Olms 2004), pp.103-113 |
|
| May-21-22 | | cehertan: In human terms the move 35.Nb4! ought to be given about a zillion exclamation marks.
click for larger view Before this move black has all the play, but understandably his equilibrium was completely disturbed and the unlikely sacrifice of the knight for just a pawn in this closed position proved incredibly strong when accepted. 35..h4! 36.fxg4 Nf6 should be considered but one just cannot say enough about Bronsteins creative genius and outright scary strength during this period. |
|
| May-22-24 | | VictorVonDoom: <cehertan> That's what you think, but actually, it's not a sacrifice. It's a mistake by Bronstein. The position during the 35th move was actually winning for black. White's kingside is getting demolished. During the 35th move, black is threatening to play gxf3. The g2 pawn cannot capture back as it is pinned. But of course the rook could capture the pawn. But after this comes the killer move Nf6. Now, there is absolutely nothing that white can do to protect the e4 pawn. But maybe this could be avoided if the queen had captured the pawn. Not. I was thinking maybe Qxf3 Nf6 Re1 to protect the e4 pawn. But now, white is finished as black pulls out the move Rb2 attacking both the knight and bishop. Looking back, that was the main threat in the position. b2 is a weak square. So, maybe white should have protected that sqaure with the rook which would have been so much better. But of course maybe the double attack could have been avoided by playing Nb4, but actually it loses a tempo by wasting material. Maybe that knight could have come to e2 is the future and protected the king later. Now, the variation I'm thinking Bronstein could have played is 35. Ra2 gxf3 36. Qxf3 Nf6 37. Re1 and the position does not look so bad to me 
click for larger viewBronstein was only able to win this game because of the blunder made by Smyslov on move 40. 
click for larger viewSmyslov played Kd8. Why. Because prevoiusly Rc1 was played and cxd6, discovered attack is coming king takes pawn, Rc6 Ke7 Re6, and the rook has infiltrated my position Oh no! This is probably what Smyslov was thinking. So, he moved his king out of the way. Now, the pawn advances and black loses the knight. This is NOT better than whatever Smyslov was thinking. Smyslov on move 40 has nothing to worry about. He is a piece up. When you are up material, you should always exchange pieces quickly so that the endgame would be easy to exploit. A few moves after Kd8 Smyslov plays Rb5. He could have played it on move 40. The rooks would have been exchanged, the other rook's file would have been opened, Nf6 is a great move here, after which the rook would get to the last rank and finish off the game. This could have happened and Smyslov would have got an easy point. But no, he played Kd8 a blunder loses his knight, allowing the a6 pawn to be taken eventually, a5 passed pawn and the game is pretty much over. So yeah, I disagree that Nb4 was a brilliant move. |
|
| May-23-24 | | Olavi: <VictorVonDoom> Nb4 was a brilliant sacrifice. Bronstein had no illusions about it's objective value, he was sure White is lost after that. But the game value of the move was great. Similarly 16...Nc6 is the best move here: Averbakh vs Spassky, 1956 |
|
| Jun-22-25 | | PaulPetrovitj: What was characteristic of Bronstein was his resourcefulness and inventiveness. Here, as Olavi points out, he started complications by Nb4 when Smyslov was approaching time trouble. This unexpected turn of events decided the game in White's favour. In this respect, the game is quite instructive, and also reminds you of many of Mikhail Tal's games where he managed to create complications which he usually mastered better than his opponent.
In this Candidate's tournament, Smyslov was not in the same shape as in the match tournament of 1948 but he would show his strength in the 1953 tournament. |
|
Jun-22-25
 | | perfidious: As Alekhine wrote:
<Chess is not <only> knowledge and logic!> From an objective point of view, Bronstein was losing the strategical battle and was well aware of that fact. He understood that 35.Nb4 was the only practical chance to muddy the waters. Had it existed in 1950,<fishie> would doubtless have conjured up some superhuman line of defence and escaped with a whole skin, but live chess is played between two opponents, an ineluctable fact that appears lost on <VictorVonDoom> as he rushes to flay comments made by a strong master while providing nothing beyond 'You're wrong!' by way of refutation. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 37.Qf2
