< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Feb-05-07|| ||wilfrid46466: Bronstein, during the Interzonal 1958 tournament, commented that some participants did not deserve to be in this elite group of players. Cardoso, being the 19th of 21 players, probably felt alluded to and took Bronstein's condescending remarks personally. That must have motivated Cardoso to fight ferociously.|
|Jun-22-07|| ||Petrosianic: >>
This game should be counted among Cardoso's most famous games, as it cost Bronstein a place in the 1959 Candidates Tournament.
It is Cardoso's only famous game, but did it really cost Bronstein a shot? I believe that under the rule limiting the number of players from the same country, Bronstein would have had to have won the game to have even a chance at the Candidates. I think even a win would have put him in a tie, requiring a playoff.
|Oct-05-07|| ||sanyas: I declare the position after 29...♖a1 as <<<<>>>Strategically Bizarre>|
|Oct-05-07|| ||Aurora: <sanyas> <<<<>>>Chess is imagination>
- David Bronstein|
|Oct-15-07|| ||plang: 9..Rb8 with the idea of..b5 would have been more active. 11 Nd1 was clever aimed at preventing Bronstein from playing ..b5. Perhaps Bronstein should have played 14..Bxe2 first and then ..h5 trying to keep the kingside closed. The pawn casrifice 18..c3 prevented Cardoso from activating his bishop with c3 and Bb1. 21 Nd1 would have maintained Cardosos advantage. After 21..g5! Bronstein was back in the game. The answer to 23 Bxg5 would have been 23..f6!. After Cardosos error 26 Bd2? (instead of 26 Kd2) Bronstein should have won which would have qualied him for the candidates tournament. However 3 consecutive errors by Bronstein turned the game back in Cardosos favor. First, 27..Rxa4 allowed Cardoso to activate his bishop. Instead, Pachman gave 27..Bxd3 28 cxd..Rxa4 29 Rc7..Rd8 as maintaining Bronsteins advantage. Second, 28..f6? was an oversight overlooking Cardosos clever reply 29 Ng7!. Pachman recommended 28..Rc4. Lastly, 29..Ra1? was just a blunder costing Bronstein the exchange and the game.|
|Mar-14-08|| ||Eyal: <Petrosianic: did it really cost Bronstein a shot? I believe that under the rule limiting the number of players from the same country, Bronstein would have had to have won the game to have even a chance at the Candidates. I think even a win would have put him in a tie, requiring a playoff.>|
I think that the rule limiting the number of players from the same country wasn't relevant in this case, because it still allowed for 3 players - as in Amsterdam 1964 (http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/646...), where Smyslov, Tal and Spassky qualified for the Candidates but Stein and Bronstein were left out even though they finished 5-6. In Portoroz 1958, Tal and Petrosian were the only Soviet players who qualified from the first 6 spots, so there was still a place left for another Soviet player if he could make it.
The final standings were: Tal 13.5, Gligoric 13, Petrosian & Benko 12.5, Olafsson & Fischer 12, with Bronstein finishing in a group of 5 players who had 11.5 points. So a draw in this game would probably have led to a 3 players playoff between him, Olafsson and Fischer (like the one between Reshevsky, Hort and Stein that took place after Sousse 1967); whereas a win would have guaranteed Bronstein a place in the Candidates and sent Olafsson and Fischer to a playoff match.
Btw, this was Bronstein's first-ever loss in an Interzonal, after 58(!) games in which he went undefeated - the 19 games of Saltsjobaden 1948 (http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/495...), 20 games of Goteborg 1955 (http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/555...), and previous 19 games of Portoroz (http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/586...). And he never made it into the Candidates again.
|Sep-20-08|| ||Amulet: <Petrosianic:
It is Cardoso's only famous game, but did it really cost Bronstein a shot?>
Here's another one:
R T Cardoso vs Fischer, 1957
|Jan-19-09|| ||alexandrovm: Because of this game Bronstein lost it's place to play a very important tournament for which Fischer played.|
|Jan-19-09|| ||Ychromosome: If 42...Nxg5 43.Bxg5+ Kxg5 44.h7 Kg6 45.h8=Q|
|Jul-17-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 42...Ndf8 doesn't give enough compensation for the Exchange|
|Jul-14-12|| ||rjsolcruz: Yesterday, this game was shown by Maestro Cardoso to Meralco junior players Jefferson Saltorio and Rhal Sol Cruz to demonstrate the principle of piece coordination.|
But the Maestro did not mention that it was the mighty Bronstein that he defeated. What a humble act!
By the way, Mang Rudy told us that Cardoso is his mother's maiden name and that his surname should have been Tan. It started when he wrote his full name as Rodolfo Tan y Cardoso, as in the old ties, and the "y" was typographically dropped and the rest is history.
|Jul-15-12|| ||perfidious: < Petrosianic: It is Cardoso's only famous game, but did it really cost Bronstein a shot? I believe that under the rule limiting the number of players from the same country, Bronstein would have had to have won the game to have even a chance at the Candidates. I think even a win would have put him in a tie, requiring a playoff.>|
That rule wasn't in force till Stockholm 1962, and even then having a playoff with Stein involved (since he couldn't qualify anyway) didn't add up. Benko and Gligoric should have played a match for the final spot in Curacao.
As Pachman pointed out, Bronstein's nerves completely failed him from moves 27-29 after he was given a second chance. A most unfortunate end to the title aspirations of Bronstein.
|Aug-30-12|| ||Everett: Of course Bronstein had some great results from '63-'65, missing another candidates berth by a hair, and a 2nd in the 64-65 USSR Championship. Also only left the top 20 after his success at Petropolis '73. His demise after this game is greatly exaggerated. It is better to describe his falling back to the arrival of some great players coming up (Spassky, Petrosian, Tal, Fischer, Korchnoi, Stein, Kholmov, Larsen) The field got more crowded with such great players.|
Even though Bronstein was a force and could beat anyone at anytime (in any opening, likely) in the 50's, I do not think he had the fight in him to defeat Petrosian or Spassky when the 60's arrived, and it is the presence of these two that really showed Bronstein that he was no longer able to climb to the top.
|Sep-10-12|| ||DrGridlock: If lightning struck at move 27, it's interesting to use Komodo to evaluate the game before the strike. At Black's move 27, Komodo finds:|
click for larger view
Analysis by Komodo32 3 32bit:
depth = 20
1. ³ (-0.68): 27...f6 28.Ng7 Bxg7 29.hxg7 Rf7 30.c3 Rxg7 31.Rh6 Rxa4 32.Be3 Bxd3 33.Bxd3 fxe5 34.Rxe6 e4 35.Bb5 Ra3 36.Bxd7 Rxd7 37.Rxb6 Kg7 38.Kd2 Rf7 39.Rc2 Nf6 40.Bxg5 Nxg4 41.Kc1 Ra1+ 42.Kb2 Raf1 43.Rb5
2. = (0.05): 27...Rxa4 28.c3 f6 29.exf6 Bxf6 30.Kd1 Ra3 31.Nxf6+ Rxf6 32.Kc2 Bc4 33.Rce1 b5 34.Kb2 Rb3+ 35.Kc2 Ra3
Bronstein had close to a won position if he had played 27 ... f6. The game continuation of 27 ... Rxa4 produced a nearly level position.
Contrary to analysis presented above, 27 Bxd3 was not an improvement, and 28 ... f6 was not an error.
|Sep-30-12|| ||wordfunph: "You see, that 'fat' point that I took from Bronstein saddened me more than any defeat at the tournament. Bronstein is my idol. Ever since I started playing chess, his games have been...(Cardoso did not continue his train of thought but simply added) That's the way that chess is. What could I do?"|
- IM Rofolfo Tan Cardoso
Source: Grandmasters in Profile by D. Bjelica
|Dec-25-12|| ||rjsolcruz: happy birthday mang rudy.|
|Feb-25-16|| ||perfidious: <TedBundy: Bronstein was never the same again after this loss.>|
Unlike you, however, he lived on for many years after his date with the executioner.
|Feb-25-16|| ||ZonszeinP: It's funny, we always see what is done to us but never what we do to others. If Bronstein really said that some players didn't deserve to be in the "elite" group then why he showed so much "indignation" when his application to a post in Israel (in the 90s I think) was rejected based on the fact that his ELO was too low? (It really was! low) Source: Secret Notes by the great David Bronstein
|Feb-25-16|| ||Everett: <ZonszeinP: It's funny, we always see what is done to us but never what we do to others. If Bronstein really said that some players didn't deserve to be in the "elite" group then why he showed so much "indignation" when his application to a post in Israel (in the 90s I think) was rejected based on the fact that his ELO was too low? (It really was! low) Source: Secret Notes by the great David Bronstein RIP>|
I don't know, maybe because ELO is not a way to recognize Bronstein's value to a chess-based post in Israel.
|Feb-25-16|| ||Everett: Would be nice to get a source for Bronsteins quote, and if Cardoso took it personally. Makes for a good story, of course...|
|Feb-25-16|| ||ZonszeinP: Agree.
Primo: ELO is certainly "not a way to recognise Bronstein's value"..And that's exactly why he was unhappy about it
Secundo: It'd be good to know whether he really said so about other participants in the interzonal...
As far as I know, he had always been a gentleman
|Aug-16-17|| ||keypusher: A little more on the competitive background to this game. There were six slots available for the Candidates, but no more than three could be taken by Soviets.|
Going into the last round, Tal (13 points, facing Sherwin with Black), Gligoric (12.5, W against Fischer) and Petrosian (12.5, bye) were assured qualification. Benko (12, B against Neikirch) was almost certain to qualify. So, that left only two slots.
Bronstein and Fischer were at 11.5. But there were no fewer than four players at 11: Olafsson (B against de Greiff, who was at minus-10 for the tournament), Szabo (W against Panno), Pachman (W against Sanguinetti), and the fourth Soviet, Averbakh (B against Filip).
Evaluating the competitive situation from Bronstein's perspective: he had no reason to count on Glgoric going all-out against Fischer (though Gligoric did just that, and an amazing draw resulted, Gligoric vs Fischer, 1958). And Bronstein had every reason to expect that one or more of the players standing on 11 would win their game(s) and finish with 12 points.
So, a draw against Cardoso would probably net Bronstein a playoff, possibly involving Averbakh, while a win would guarantee a spot in the Candidates. His opponent Cardoso was at minus-9, and Bronstein's decision to play 1....d6 (for the first time in several years) indicates he was playing for a win from the start.
Kasparov gives an implausible account in OMGP II: <Bronstein, on hearing some applause and thinking that Averbakh had won, decided that he needed without fail to defeat an outsider...overstepped the mark and suffered a tragic defeat>. Golly, if only Bronstein had thought to get up and find out what the applause was about! Other sources say that his nerves were affected by a thunderstorm which knocked out power and held up play (see, e.g., Wade and O'Connell's Fischer collection). That makes more sense. In any case, I think Bronstein quite rationally decided before he sat down that he should play to win, not to draw.
As it happened, of the players with 11 only Olafsson won (after escaping from a lost position!). So Olafsson and Fischer took the final two Candidates slots, and there was no playoff (see Eyal's post).
|Aug-16-17|| ||Howard: Very comprehensive description !|
|Aug-16-17|| ||keypusher: < ZonszeinP: Agree.
Primo: ELO is certainly "not a way to recognise Bronstein's value"..And that's exactly why he was unhappy about it Secundo: It'd be good to know whether he really said so about other participants in the interzonal... As far as I know, he had always been a gentleman>
I think you are right that <some participants did not deserve to be in this elite group of players> doesn't sound like Bronstein. On the other hand the point is valid, whether or not he made it.
I've heard a lot of praise for the 1950s-60s FIDE championship qualification system, but it was complex, arduous, took years, and the vast majority of participants didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of qualifying. I'm sorry world championship matches are so short now, but I'm glad we don't have the whole panoply of zonals, interzonals, and candidates tournaments/matches anymore.
Also, as FSR pointed out, in this event, by drawing with Averbakh, beating Bronstein, and losing to Fischer, Cardoso played a very large role in determining who made it to the candidates. No disrespect to Cardoso, who seems to have been a gentleman, but I'm not sure it makes sense for him to have played that role.
Also, I apologize to you for being so skeptical (and rude) about Botvinnik having a role in the three (or four, or five, or whatever it was) Soviets rule.
|Aug-16-17|| ||ZonszeinP: Hello,
<keypusher>, I was missing your comments, and had just decided to remove you from my "ignore list".
Suddenly, I'm happy I did
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·