| May-17-05 | | suenteus po 147: 41.Bc5! is a fantastic move. I bet Sammy was a little upset to see that right after making the time control. |
|
| Sep-28-05 | | who: To clarify 41.Bc5 Rxb3 42.Bf8+ Kg8 43.Bh6+ with mate next move. |
|
| Sep-28-05 | | who: Was this game adjourned? |
|
| Sep-28-05 | | who: btw sammy was doing fine right till move 40. 40...Nd3 was necessary. |
|
| Sep-28-05 | | suenteus po 147: <who: btw sammy was doing fine right till move 40. 40...Nd3 was necessary.> I don't know if the game was adjourned, but that's why I made my comment about the time control. 40...Ra3 looks initially like a quick "decent move" to avoid running out of time, but it was the worst move he could have made. I hate moves like that, because I realize all my hard work and effort has just been flushed down the drain in one stupid, quick move. |
|
| Jul-29-06 | | sahmattr: I appreciate Bronstein's Tal- like games. |
|
| Dec-17-06 | | meloncio: <suenteus po 147><I don't know if the game was adjourned,...> Bronstein wrote that, after move his rook (40... Ra3), Reshevsky offered a draw when he was sealing his next move (41.Bc5) |
|
| Sep-08-07 | | D4n: Move # 41, Be7 couldn't been the best move. |
|
| Nov-10-09 | | tonsillolith: What is wrong with <38. c4> followed by <39. Rxe4>? |
|
| Dec-12-10 | | Everett: Smyslov can thank Bronstein for bringing his full attention and strength to his games vs Reshevsky at Zurich. |
|
Feb-09-12
 | | Penguincw: Move 41, great move. Gets the rook under fire. |
|
Aug-06-13
 | | GrahamClayton: "An emotional struggle, in which the American grandmaster lost not only the game, but also any chance for first place." - Miguel Najdorf - Zurich 1953: 15 Contenders for the World Chess Championship. |
|
| Jun-22-14 | | Conrad93: Bronstein making Reshevsky look like a silly child... Hah. |
|
| Jun-23-14 | | SimonWebbsTiger: the only person looking like a silly child is you Conrad. You do realise psychiatrists have found a link between psychopathology and internet trolling, right? Get some Medical help pronto. |
|
Oct-07-17
 | | cwcarlson: 40.♗f2! ♖a2 41.♗e4 ♖f2+ 42.♔g1=. 40.♗b3?! ♖a3? 41.♗c5+-; 40...♘d3 ∓. |
|
Jan-15-20
 | | Fusilli: <suenteus po 147: ... I hate moves like that, because I realize all my hard work and effort has just been flushed down the drain in one stupid, quick move.> I see your point, but... Reshevsky got a better position *because* he thought so much. Then he was forced to make quick moves to reach time control and blundered. He did that to himself. He would routinely use way too much time and end up playing blitz to reach time control. And he virtually always did (he did calculate lots of moves and variations in advance and would play them quickly when under severe time pressure). But this was no accident and no bad luck. No matter how good you are, if you use too much time, you are bound to blunder a game now and then. *Especially* when you play strong players, who know how to create traps and make it difficult for you. |
|
Jun-14-22
 | | plang: 16 a4 was a new move; 16 g4 had been played in a game in the semi-finals of the 1952 USSR Championship. 18 g4 would have been a typical idea in this variation but Bronstein did not feel comfortable with the weaknesses created in the kingside. Bronstein's 18 g3 was a clever alternative as 18..Bxh3 19 Ng5 would have been very strong for White. 24 Nd5!? was a speculative pawn sacrifice giving White two bishops in an increasingly open position. Regaining the pawn with 27 bxc..bxc 28 Qxc4..Rc5 would have given Black too much activity. 36..Nxf2? 37 Bb3 would not have helped Black. 40 Bxf2..Ra2 41 Bxe4 would have been good enough for a draw; instead 40 Bb3? set a trap that Black fell into. With 40..Ra3? Reshevsky offered a draw (for the third time in the game) not realizing that he had blundered. Had Black tried 51..Ng3 the 52 Kxf4 would have been decisive due to the mate threat. |
|
Kibitzing
