< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Mar-19-11|| ||keypusher: <Tigranny>
The FAQ is your friend.
<On some player pages, tournament pages, and opening pages, there is a list of Notable Games. In the case of player pages, this list highlights some important games that the player has won or drawn....
The lists of notable games are calculated by finding the games which most frequently appear in our users' game collections.
Notable games are chosen democratically by Chessgames members, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Chessgames.com staff.>
|Mar-19-11|| ||Tigranny: Sorry keypusher for my error.|
|May-06-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: I guess Petrosian just blundered ...|
|Sep-08-11|| ||Garech: This should not be given as a notable game for Bronstein!! It's a bit like Spassky's game 1 of 1972 WC match being given as one of Spassky's notable games...|
|Jan-18-12|| ||gezafan: I once played black in the following game. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 4.Nxd4 exd4 5.0-0 Bc5 6.d3 c6 7.Bc4 d5 8.exd5 cxd5 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.Re1+ Ne7 12.Nd2 0-0 13.Nb3 Bb6|
Here my opponent startled me with 14.Qg4, a move I hadn't considered. I immediately noticed that my pawn on d4 was attacked twice and defended only once so I immediately looked for ways to defend it. First I looked at 14...Nc6. Then I looked at 14...Nf5. While looking at 14...Nf5 I noticed that our Queens were on the same diagonal. Then I noticed his Queen was undefended. So I played 14...Qxg4.
It was only a rapid game though, not a slow one.
|Mar-03-12|| ||ewan14: Why not 24.... R x f2 ?
25 n X E4 ?
FOLLOWED BY TAKING THE KING'S BISHOP FILE ?
Bronstein's bishp and rook stuck on the queen side ?
|Mar-03-12|| ||Everett: <ewan> my guess is the 24..Rxf2 25.Nxe4 simply gives white a tempo and opens the f-file, which may become more useful for White than black in the long run.|
And black cannot take over the f-file because he is only playing with three pieces vs six. It is actually quite surprising he lasted long enough for Petro to blunder.
|Mar-03-12|| ||King Death: < Everett: <ewan> my guess is the 24..Rxf2 25.Nxe4 simply gives white a tempo and opens the f-file, which may become more useful for White than black in the long run.
And black cannot take over the f-file because he is only playing with three pieces vs six. It is actually quite surprising he lasted long enough for Petro to blunder.>|
Sir, if you can reason things out this far what you wrote above isn't a guess it shows good understanding.
What you say is right in my opinion. Without the pieces buried on the queenside even owning d4 (which usually gives Black at least an equal position in the KID) doesn't amount to anything because White's pieces are much more active.
|Jun-23-13|| ||zydeco: It seems like black had to try ....b6 and ....Bb7 at some point. Maybe on move 24.|
|Jun-23-13|| ||RookFile: He's in trouble then too because he's getting murdered on the dark squares. It's a strange game because 10. Qc1 telegraphs a obvious attempt to play Bh6 and get rid of the fianchettoed bishop. How about something normal like 10....Re8 to preserve the defender of the dark squares?|
|Jan-13-15|| ||Abdel Irada: Poor Petrosian.
After Black's seven consecutive moves of the same knight, he must have been so frustrated that he never considered that its eighth move would harvest his queen.
|Jan-13-15|| ||Petrosianic: Well, the story, if you don't know, is one of pure carelessness. He'd walked away from the board, came back to make a move, and just assumed what Black's move had been without looking. And he compounded the error by resigning about 2 seconds before Bronstein's flag fell. Black would never have made the time control even with the gift Queen. White had plenty of time. Pity, as the game before that had been a great positional squeeze that would have made it into every Best Game Collection.|
|Jan-13-15|| ||Abdel Irada: Agreed. The mere fact that Bronstein had been reduced to shuffling his knight around for seven consecutive moves tells us how little he felt he had to hope for in this game.|
|Jan-14-15|| ||Petrosianic: The position just before the blunder is amazing, though. Black has got almost his full army on the board, but he's almost completely paralyzed. Shuffling the Knight back and forth is just about all he can do. It reminds me a lot of this game:|
Petrosian vs Taimanov, 1955
|Jan-14-15|| ||Howard: Chess Life and Review (as it was called back then) made the comment back in 1978, that when Petrosian got back to the board....he didn't even bother to sit down. He just simply reached over, played 36.Ng5 ???....and...well, we know the rest.|
|Jan-14-15|| ||Petrosianic: That's the same way <Tigran Petrosian: His Life and Games> (which was in the USCF catalog at the time) describes it.|
But it's a famous enough blunder that other blunders want to be like it! In Ray Keene's Korchnoi-Spassky coverage, he tries to compare Korchnoi's blunder in this game to it, even though there's no real similarity except for the fact that both are Queen hangs.
Korchnoi vs Spassky, 1977
What happened in this game is that Korchnoi was so distracted by all the arguments over the Box Controversy, that he simply hallucinated, and assumed Spassky's Bishop on h7 was a pawn. It's not that he wasn't watching the board.
|Jan-14-15|| ||Howard: As I recall, the most common explanation for this inexplicable blunder was that Korchnoi had assumed after "sacrificing" his queen, that he could then deliver mate by moving his rook to h8....problem was that f7 was now available as an escape square for Spassky's king, now that the rook on f7 was no longer there.|
If the rook WAS still there, it would have been mate, then.
By the way, it might not be fair to blame the "box controversy" for this blunder. Keene and Stean's coverage of the 1977 Korchnoi-Spassky match was very biased, as I recall---and their coverage of Karpov-Korchnoi the following year, was also slanted in favor of Korchnoi.
The blunder was 90% Korchnoi's fault, in my view. Granted, this loss was the third one out of four straight losses that he suffered, but the ultimate blame should have been on him---not Spassky.
|Jan-14-15|| ||Petrosianic: <As I recall, the most common explanation for this inexplicable blunder was that Korchnoi had assumed after "sacrificing" his queen, that he could then deliver mate>|
Could be. I don't think Korchnoi has ever publicly said.
<Keene and Stean's coverage of the 1977 Korchnoi-Spassky match was very biased, as I recall>
Yeah, you're remembering right. Keene blamed the blunder completely on the distraction caused by the Box Controversy... which Korchnoi had created. Or, that is to say Spassky started playing from his box, and Korchnoi went to pieces over it. Keene admitted himself that a player like Larsen would have just shrugged his shoulders, thought his opponent was a lunatic, and kept playing.
But to be fair, Keene and Stean were Korchnoi's seconds, which everyone was aware of. There was no attempt to portray them as disinterested.
|Jan-15-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <Petrosianic: The position just before the blunder is amazing, though. Black has got almost his full army on the board, but he's almost completely paralyzed. Shuffling the Knight back and forth is just about all he can do. It reminds me a lot of this game:|
Petrosian vs Taimanov, 1955>
But for the blunder, we might class this game with Saemisch vs Nimzowitsch, 1923, the "Immortal Zugzwang Game."
|May-06-16|| ||Tigercock: Petrosian mortal game|
|Aug-30-16|| ||RookFile: With white, I would have followed up the queen blunder with 37. Nf7+. This unsound move gives check thereby limiting blacks options. Also, black would have to capture and then hit the clock with the same hand. Probably, Bronstein's flag would have fallen.|
|Sep-24-16|| ||watwinc: Botvinnik reportedly remarked that this game killed both players - Bronstein was getting totally slaughtered, Petrosian never really recovered from the blunder.|
|Feb-19-19|| ||RookFile: I guess Petrosian recovered enough to become world champion later.|
|Dec-09-19|| ||cunctatorg: With respect to this opening theory, this game shouldn't be listed as a remarkable game; it's just an impressive, unlucky moment of Tigran Petrosian's great and legendary chess career, nothing to cheer about or something... It should be listed of course in a list of games titled: "No human geniuses without weaknesses..."|
|Dec-09-19|| ||keypusher: < cunctatorg: With respect to this opening theory, this game shouldn't be listed as a remarkable game; >|
You can scroll down the page or click on the link to see why it's listed.
Petrosian vs Bronstein, 1956
Anyway, it <is> a remarkable game, by any standard, a terrific example of the opening (from White's perspective) and very well played by Petrosian, up until his last move.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·