| Jan-07-04 | | ughaibu: I'm surprised that Bronstein resigned here, can anyone confirm that the game finished at this point? |
|
| Jan-07-04 | | AdrianP: <ughaibu> 20 Rxb4 followed by 21. Rxb7+ is going to be crushing. If 20... b3? 21. Qa6! with the decisive threat of 22 Rxb6! axb6 23. Qa8+ and Qb7#. |
|
| Jan-07-04 | | ughaibu: AdrianP: I dont doubt that Bronstein would lose in any event but I've seen him play on in worse positions, eg 20.Rb4 Rc8 21.Rb7 Qb7 22.Bb7 Kb7 and black can connect his rooks and move his king behind his pawns. |
|
| Jan-07-04 | | AdrianP: <ughaibu> continuing your line:- 23. Rb1+ Kc7 (23...Ka8?? 24. Qf3+ and mate follows) 24. Qa7 Kd8 (I can see nothing better) 25. Rb7 then (a) 25...Rh5 26. Qa5+ Ke8 27. Qxa7 wins the bishop (Bf8?? Qa4+ will be mate)
(b) 25...Ke8 Qxa7 is the same
(c) most other moves allow something similar. |
|
| Jan-07-04 | | ughaibu: AdrianP: Instead of 24....Kd8 it's natural to play Kd7 to follow up with Rc7 and bringing over the KR. As I said, I'm not disputing that Tal would win but remember it's Tal's move and not a position in which he was likely to have spent half an hour thinking, so, did Bronstein really resign at the point given in the score is my only concern. |
|
| Jan-07-04 | | AdrianP: <ughaibu> 24...Kd7 25. Rb7+ Rc7? leads to a nice forced mate 26. Qb5+ Kd8 27. Rb8+ Rc8 28. Rxc8! Kxc8 29. c6!! (no way to stop mate on d7...!). But I take your point, none of this is particularly obvious. At move 20, though, Bronstein knows he will be material down with an exposed K and no compensation, so resignation is not necessarily too premature. |
|
| Jan-07-04 | | ughaibu: Thanks for pointing out that nice finish. It occured to me that in the games that I've seen Bronstein play out in positions that I would've resigned, it may have involved a potential time factor. Still, it'd be nice to know if there's a story behind this resignation. |
|
| Mar-15-04 | | Whitehat1963: Tal gives a quick, crushing defeat in Bronstein's pet line. Bronstein's first loss in this line, according to the database. |
|
Mar-15-04
 | | Honza Cervenka: After 20.Rxb4 Rc8 white can play also 21.Rfb1 Rc7 (21...b6 22.Rxb6+ axb6 23.Qa6  ) 22.Qa6 Kc8 (what else?) 23.Qxa7 Kd8 24.Rxb7 etc. |
|
| May-07-04 | | Everett: WIth the white kingside fianchetto, the c6 pawn should stay put. Pushing e5 instead, and only c5 after d5 makes more sense, blocking the bishop diagonal. |
|
| Oct-21-04 | | themindset: this is what fritzy says:
1. (8.10): 20.Rxb4 a5 21.Rxb7+ Qxb7 22.Bxb7 Rxd4 23.Qa6 Rhd8 i would consider that pretty crushing. |
|
| Oct-22-04 | | Everett: themindset
You would consider 8.10 pretty crushing, or you would consider the position yourself pretty crushing? |
|
| Oct-22-04 | | Saruman: About; 12.c5? I agree with Everett that pawn c6 should stay there. Tal's 13.b4! blasts the position open, after which there is no return. |
|
| Oct-26-04 | | themindset: <everett> both. |
|
Apr-12-11
 | | perfidious: In the twenty or so serious games I played with 5....gxf6, I never faced the variation with 7.Nf3 and 8.g3; the only time I ever saw it was against Tal in a 5-2 blitz game many years ago. As in this game, he got a nice attacking position, but somehow I hung on to win on time. |
|
| Jul-23-13 | | Edeltalent: It's worth noting (maybe also somewhat explaining the early resignation) that this game was part of an exhibition match in which Tal and Bronstein played against each other on eight boards simultaneously. These are the other games: Tal vs Bronstein, 1982
Tal vs Bronstein, 1982
Tal vs Bronstein, 1982
Bronstein vs Tal, 1982
Bronstein vs Tal, 1982
Bronstein vs Tal, 1982
Bronstein vs Tal, 1982 |
|
| Aug-10-22 | | ytroitsky: Tal got onto the attack and never got off. One has the impulse to say 'typical Tal'. Bronstein saw that 20.Rxb4 would be completely crushing because of the overpowered g2-bishop. I have to take my hat off to Tal for the brilliant game. |
|
Kibitzing
