Sep-23-07
 | | keypusher: <The principles of the positional school, expressed in simple instructional form by Tarrasch, became inviolable axioms of chess to many of his contemporaries. And thus came the misconception, which persists to this day, of the "consistent" game, in which one player carries out, from beginning to end, his logical plan, almost as if he were demonstrating a theorum of geometry. In the annotations of such an "ideal" game, one player always appears as the keeper of principle, the other as its transgressor. The "good" player then accumulates his positional advantages and places them in a vault, much as if he were saving to buy a motorcycle. Having accumulated the proper amount, he then launches a combinative attack, winding it up with an instructive mate, or with a still more instructive win of the exchange. And just what, you may ask, was his opponent doing all this time? Why gazing phlegmatically at his backward pawns and poorly-placed pieces, shrugging his shoulders, and then finally: "Black resigns."> -- David Bronstein, "In Lieu of a Preface," _Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953_. This game approximates Bronstein's half-mocking description, except that it is White who resigns. Some minor inaccuracies lead to a bad IQP formation for White -- 14. dxc5? Qb7. After that it's just relentless technique, as Tarrasch leaves White with a terrible bishop to go along with his isolated pawn, and eventually -- instructively! -- he wins the exchange. Fritz doesn't like 16....e5, perhaps because it opens a diagonal for the White KB. Not sure if its evaluation is justified. Other than the sixteenth move, Fritz finds absolutely nothing wrong with Black's moves. Tarrasch had an unmatched faculty for games like this, which indeed seems more like a demonstration of a theorum than a contest between two players. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 56...Rxf2