Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

David Bronstein

Photo courtesy of Eric Schiller.

DAVID BRONSTEIN (born Feb-19-1924, died Dec-05-2006, 82 years old) Ukraine PRONUNCIATION: [what is this?] David Ionovich Bronstein was born February 19, 1924 in Bila Tserkva, Ukraine.1 Chess and Checkers Club When Bronstein was six, his grandfather taught him how to play chess. Later, when his family moved to Kiev, he joined the city "Chess and Checkers Club" and soon won the Kiev "Schoolboy's Championship."1 At age fifteen he was invited to play in the 11th Ukrainian Championship in Dnepropetrovsk, where he finished 8th.2 On the strength of this result he was invited back for the 12th Ukrainian Championship in Kiev. He placed 2nd to Isaac Boleslavsky, 3 which garnered him both the Soviet national master title and a place in the USSR Championship Semifinal in Rostov-on-Don.1,4 The semifinal was never finished due to the German invasion of Russia on June 22, 1941, and Bronstein did not play any serious chess for the next three years.1 Two Grandmaster Titles By February 1944 the Germans had been driven back to the Dneiper River, and Bronstein joined the USSR Championship Semifinal in Baku.1 His 4th place finish qualified him for the final and drew the interest of Boris Vainstein, who quickly became an avid promoter of Bronstein's chess career. Vainstein was an influential member of the Soviet administration (though not an actual Communist Party member), and he managed to have Bronstein relocated to Moscow from his job rebuilding a steel factory in the ruins of Stalingrad.1 Bronstein managed only 15th place at the USSR Championship (1944), but he was hardly disgraced, since he won his game against the incumbent "Absolute Soviet champion": Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1944. 5 Bronstein's 3rd place in the USSR Championship (1945) earned him a spot on the Soviet team in international matches, where he posted good results. Though he was not yet a grandmaster, FIDE invited him to the Saltsjöbaden Interzonal (1948), which he won.6 He was immediately made a Soviet grandmaster,7 and in July 1949 FIDE awarded him the international grandmaster title.8 The World Championship Bronstein wasted no time proving that if someone wanted to unseat world champion Mikhail Botvinnik, they'd have to go through him. He shared 1st in both the USSR Championship (1948) and the USSR Championship (1949). He went on to tie Boleslavsky for 1st in the Budapest Candidates (1950), and won the subsequent playoff match. Bronstein now had the right to face Botvinnik in a championship match. Botvinnik had played no chess in public since he'd won the FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948), which Bronstein thought was a deliberate ploy to hide his opening preparation.9 Bronstein opened game one with the Dutch Defence, one of the champion's favorite systems. Botvinnik later characterized this strategem as "naive."10 The match was closely fought, and by game 22 Bronstein led by a point and needed only win once more, or draw twice in the last two games, to become world champion. The stage was set for a climactic final game in which Bronstein needed a victory, since the champion would retain his title in the event of a drawn match. This game proved somewhat controversial because Bronstein accepted Botvinnik's draw offer after only 22 moves: Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951. This engendered speculation that the Soviet government had ordered him not to beat Botvinnik. In a 1993 interview Bronstein explained that "There was no direct pressure (to lose deliberately)... But... there was the psychological pressure of the environment..." in part caused by his father's "several years in prison" and what he labeled "the marked preference for the institutional Botvinnik." Bronstein concluded that "it seemed to me that winning could seriously harm me, which does not mean that I deliberately lost."11 Cold Warrior The NKVD12 had arrested Bronstein's father in 1935 because he had "tried to defend peasants... who were put under pressure by corrupt officials."13 His father was released after serving seven years in a gulag, and only pardoned for any wrongdoing in 1955. Bronstein never joined the Communist Party, nor any organisations associated with it, such as the Communist Youth Party, the USSR Writer's Union, or the USSR Journalist's Union.13 Nevertheless, for decades Bronstein remained a prominent member of the Soviet chess team. He played in four successive chess olympiads, winning the bronze medal on 3rd board in Helsinki 1952, the silver medal on 3rd board in Amsterdam 1954, and the gold medal on 4th board in both Moscow 1956 and Munich 1958.14 In the USSR - USA Radio Match (1945) Bronstein faced Anthony Santasiere on 10th board, scoring +2 -0 =0 in a 15½ - 4½ Soviet rout of the Americans. In a 1946 USSR-USA match in Moscow, the Soviets won again, with Bronstein splitting a pair of games against Olaf Ulvestad on 10th board. He again helped defeat the USA in two ideologically charged matches in 1954 and 1955. The first was slated for New York in 1953, but Cold War politics got in the way. The Soviet team were on the verge of boarding a ship from Cherbourg when a jittery US State Department abruptly tightened their visa restrictions. Moscow declared this a "violation of all the rules of international hospitality and civility," but the Soviets did manage to play the Americans the following year in New York, and again in Moscow 1955.15 In New York Bronstein played 2nd board and beat Arthur William Dake in one game, and then proceeded to win three straight from Dake's replacement, Arnold Denker. In Moscow he faced Larry Melvyn Evans on 3rd board, scoring +1 -0 =3. The USSR won both events.16 Golden Age Although Bronstein never again played a world championship match, he enjoyed a long period of success in strong chess events.1 He came close to a title rematch with Botvinnik when he finished shared 2nd at the Zurich Candidates (1953), two points behind Vasily Smyslov. Bronstein wrote a book about the event, which has become a classic in chess literature: Zurich International Chess Tournament, 1953. He won the Gothenburg Interzonal (1955) in fine style, but finished behind Smyslov and Paul Keres in the Amsterdam Candidates (1956). He would never compete in another candidates event, though he did play in the Portoroz Interzonal (1958), Amsterdam Interzonal (1964), and the Petropolis Interzonal (1973). After 1949 he appeared in fifteen more USSR Championships, with his best results coming in 1957 (2nd to Mikhail Tal) ; 1958 (3rd to Tal); Nov-Dec 1961 (3rd to Boris Spassky) ; and 1964/1965 (2nd to Viktor Korchnoi) . He won or shared 1st in the Moscow Championship in 1946, 1947, 1953, 1957, 1961, and 1968.17 Bronstein also won or shared 1st in a series of international tournaments, including Hastings (1953/54), Belgrade 1954, Gotha 1957, Moscow 1959, Szombathely 1966, East Germany 1968, Sarajevo 1971, Hastings 1975/76, and Jurmala 1978.18 Chess Theory Bronstein made many contributions to theory in openings such as the Ruy Lopez, King's Indian, and Caro-Kann (e.g. the Bronstein-Larsen variation 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.♘c3 dxe4 4.♘xe4 ♘f6 5.♘xf6 gxf6). He helped revive the King's gambit,1 and also wrote a popular book on one of his favorite weapons: Bronstein On the King's Indian. Although Bronstein preferred some systems over others, the following recollection from biographer Tom Fürstenberg is worth keeping in mind: "David explained many times that he doesn't play openings - he just starts to create an attack... from the first move! ...That is why he does not have a specific opening repertoire. He just plays everything!"1 Devik Bronstein, known affectionately as "Devik" by his friends, married three times, but it was his third marriage to Isaac Boleslavsky's daughter Tatiana in 1984 that seems to have given him the most lasting and satisfying partnership.19 In her memoir, she recalls meeting him several times as a young girl, noting his humour, generosity and, "above all, his gentle smile."19 She also ruefully explains that although Bronstein's patron Boris Veinshtein was indeed a powerful man, he could do nothing to prevent the Soviet Chess Federation from banning him from almost all foreign tournaments for thirteen years.19 Bronstein was banned after Viktor Korchnoi defected in 1976, and Bronstein refused to sign a group letter condemning him. Despite the fact that Boris Gulko, Spassky, and Botvinnik also refused to sign this letter, it was only Bronstein who received this draconian punishment. Foreign tournaments were prized by Soviet masters as a crucial source of income, because they generally paid out prizes in "hard currency." Bronstein had to support himself during this period by writing for "Isvestiya."1 He believed his punishment was so severe because he had helped Korchnoi during the Karpov - Korchnoi Candidates Final (1974). 20 In 1990, after the Soviet Union collapsed and the borders opened, Bronstein contracted cancer, but an operation proved successful, and he lived another sixteen years. He spent much of this remaining time touring Europe, glorying in his new freedom by traveling from tournament to tournament, meeting old friends and making new friends. In his typically light hearted manner, Bronstein explained that "...amazed that I was still alive, chess clubs began showering me with invitations"21 He died on December 5, 2006.22 A Magical Fire "The art of a chess player consists in his ability to ignite a magical fire from the dull and senseless initial position."23 --David Ionovich Bronstein Notes 1 David Bronstein and Tom Fürstenberg, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" (Cadogan 1995), p.263-271 2 Rusbase [rusbase-1] 3 Rusbase [rusbase-2] 4 Rusbase [rusbase-3] 5 Though Cafferty and Taimanov do not recognize the USSR Absolute Championship (1941) as a bona fide USSR Championship, the winner Botvinnik was nonetheless considered the Soviet champion at the time. Bernard Cafferty and Mark Taimanov, "The Soviet Championships" (Cadogen 1998), pp.48-51 6 Kotov and Yudovich, "Soviet Chess School" (Raduga Publishers 1982), pp.77-78 7 "Tidskrift för Schack" nr.8-9 (Aug-Sept 1948), pp.180-181. Translation by User: Tabanus 8"Tidskrift för Schack" nr.7-8 (July-Aug 1949), p.159. Translation by User: Tabanus 9 Bronstein and Fürstenberg, pp.16-17 10 Mikhail Botvinnik "Match for the World Championship- Botvinnik Bronstein Moscow 1951" Igor Botvinnik ed. Ken Neat transl. (Edition Olms 2004), p.16 11 "Revista Internacional de Ajedrez" (Mar 1993), pp.38-42. In Edward Winter, Chess Note 4753: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 12 The NKVD (Peoples Commissariat for Internal Affairs) was a predecessor of the KGB. 13 Bronstein and Fürstenberg, p.269 14 "Men's Olympiads" http://www.olimpbase.org/ 15 Andrew Soltis, "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" (McFarland 1997), pp.221-227 16 Gino Di Felice, "Chess Results 1951-1955" (McFarland 2010) pp.422, 522-23 17 1946 [rusbase-4] 1947 [rusbase-5] 1953 [rusbase-6] 1957 [rusbase-7] 1961 [rusbase-8] 1968 [rusbase-9] 18 <Hastings 1953-1954> (Di Felice, "Chess Results 1951-1955," p.317); <Belgrade 1954> (Di Felice, "Chess Results 1951-1955," p.333); <Gotha 1957> (Di Felice, "Chess Results 1956-1960," p.129); <Moscow 1959> (Di Felice, "Chess Results 1956-1960," p.342); <Szombathely 1966> (Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967," p.429); <East Germany 1968> (Di Felice, "Chess Results 1968-1970," p.12 <Sarajevo 1971> (http://www.365chess.com/tournaments... <Hastings 1975/76> http://www.hastingschess.com/previo... -<Jurmala 1978> (http://archive.today/JMAt) 19 Bronstein and Fürstenberg, pp.19-24 20 David Bronstein and Sergey Voronkov, "Secret Notes" Ken Neat, transl. (Edition Olms 2007), pp. 14-15 21 Bronstein and Voronkov, pp.12-13 22 Leonard Barden, David Bronstein obituary in "The Guardian" (7 Dec 2006) http://www.theguardian.com/news/200... 23 Bronstein and Voronkov, p.34 Wikipedia article: David Bronstein Last updated: 2020-07-15 20:30:04

Try our new games table.

page 1 of 97; games 1-25 of 2,411  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. Bronstein vs I Zaslavsky 1-0 25 1938 Kiev C43 Petrov, Modern Attack 2. Y Polyak vs Bronstein 0-1 36 1938 Kiev D10 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav 3. B Vainshtein vs Bronstein 1-0 15 1938 Kiev 000 Chess variants 4. Y Lembersky vs Bronstein 0-1 37 1939 URS C25 Vienna 5. L Kanevsky vs Bronstein   0-1 34 1939 Soviet Union C46 Three Knights 6. Bronstein vs I Lipnitsky 1-0 26 1939 Kiev Championship C19 French, Winawer, Advance 7. Bronstein vs Y Kaem 1-0 28 1939 Ukrainian Championship C71 Ruy Lopez 8. Bronstein vs A Gaevsky   1-0 48 1939 Ukrainian Championship C66 Ruy Lopez 9. Bronstein vs B Ratner 1-0 35 1939 Ukrainian Championship B20 Sicilian 10. B Goldenov vs Bronstein   1-0 32 1939 Ukrainian Championship A54 Old Indian, Ukrainian Variation, 4.Nf3 11. R Gorenstein vs Bronstein   ½-½ 19 1939 Ukrainian Championship C46 Three Knights 12. S Kotlerman vs Bronstein   1-0 64 1939 Ukrainian Championship C01 French, Exchange 13. Bronstein vs R Gorenstein ½-½ 15 1940 Kiev C29 Vienna Gambit 14. Bronstein vs L Morgulis 1-0 34 1940 ? C26 Vienna 15. Bronstein vs R Piatnitsky 1-0 15 1940 Kiev jr C41 Philidor Defense 16. Bronstein vs S Zhukhovitsky 1-0 32 1940 Ukrainian Championship C98 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin 17. I Appel vs Bronstein   0-1 28 1940 Ukrainian Championship A85 Dutch, with c4 & Nc3 18. Efimov vs Bronstein 0-1 12 1941 Kiev URS C34 King's Gambit Accepted 19. Bronstein vs E Kuzminykh 0-1 41 1941 Ch URS (1/2 final) C79 Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense Deferred 20. S Belavenets vs Bronstein 0-1 24 1941 Ch URS (1/2 final) E64 King's Indian, Fianchetto, Yugoslav System 21. Bronstein vs V Mikenas 1-0 25 1941 Ch URS (1/2 final) C40 King's Knight Opening 22. Bronstein vs Boleslavsky ½-½ 22 1944 Kiev C16 French, Winawer 23. A Sokolsky vs Bronstein 1-0 27 1944 Kiev C52 Evans Gambit 24. V Makogonov vs Bronstein 1-0 42 1944 Kiev E90 King's Indian 25. Bronstein vs Flohr   ½-½ 53 1944 Kiev B10 Caro-Kann  page 1 of 97; games 1-25 of 2,411

REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Bronstein wins | Bronstein loses

< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 45 ·  Later Kibitzing> Mar-22-04    Gypsy: .... When I got to the game with Geller, I saw that he was very pale. He didn't realy consent to loose, did he? Only later I learned that he got strong orders from Bondarevsky to win, thus punishing me for my "greed". So while I was pushing wood in my own teritory "playing dull, drawish chess", Jewfim was methodically strenghtening his position. Of course, I should have pay more attention, but I simply overlooked a pawn and lost. I was bummed---not because of the loss (anyone could loose to Geller with black), but because I spent two hours defending his chess fate while he served me such a bitter pill! After the tournament, while we were returning from our Bern-Consulate reception to Zurich, dejected Geller suddenly joined me (also quite drunk) and asked why I had failed to even greet him these last ten days. I told him all about the arm-twisting that preceded our game. He got extremely upset: "Aaargh, that swine Bondarevsky!" Immediately, Igor Zacharevich [Bondarevsky] appeared, took Geller under his arm and said sternly: "Lets go, lets go!" And took him away. ..... (David Bronstein) Mar-22-04    ughaibu: Thanks. The first half is as I have it, the second part I hadn't seen. Mar-22-04    ughaibu: The problem with Bronstein's claims is that in a few years time they'll be accepted as the truth as is the case with Fischer and Curacao even though by now everyone should realise what kind of nonsense Fischer is capable of. There is a general assumption, that has arisen from a few unexpected or unwelcome results, that Soviet officials were manipulating tournament and match results whereas even by Bronstein's own account Keres after several hours of attempted persuassion simply ignored the request of the officials and played according to his own aims. In reply to Bronstein's article in "64" Smyslov submited an article in which, among other things, he suggested that the result of the first candidates tournament had been "fixed" in Bronstein's favour, this is nonsense. The situation with two rounds to go was that Boleslavsky was two points ahead of Bronstein, in the penultimate round Bronstein beat Stahlberg, if the Soviet officials could fix Stahlberg then they had nothing to worry about, they could likewise fix Reshevsky or Fischer or whoever. In the final round Bronstein beat Keres, Keres is an interesting case, in 1948 he's painted as the compliant victim, here he's the accomplice, in 1953 he's the rebel and in 1962 he's back to being the accomplice. And why would the officials fix it for Bronstein to qualify if they then later had to fix Bronstein to draw his match with Botvinnik? Boleslavsky would've been a much more suitable challenger as he'd never won against Botvinnik. Further, had they wanted to keep Bronstein from winning the title they had a much better opportunity to fix him in the candidates play-off, a much less public and shorter event that the title match. In short I dont give much credence to Bronstein's hints about being coerced into drawing his match with Botvinnik. I think Smyslov only proposed this scenario for the first candidates as an example of how any unexpected run of results is open to such accusations, however I have read on at least one site that this was Smyslov admitting that fixing did go on, so his humourous attempt to point up the absurdity of such accusations backfired. In fact can anyone think of a case in which a player voluntarily damaged their own results to further the progress of a compatriot in a chess event? Of course they can, Benko resigned his qualified place in the 1970 interzonal so that (unqualified) Fischer could play, then later in the same event when the Soviets could have legitimately claimed the title they didn't do so, preferring to play chess, so why the general belief that the Soviets were up to all sorts of manipulation? In fact the accusations appear to come mainly from two players and their supporters, Fischer and Bronstein. Mar-22-04    ughaibu: I hadn't thought about this aspect of Bronstein before this but let's look at what he said about Zurich 1953. He initially mentions Smyslov as somewhat periferal in involvement though central to the officials' aims but later asserts that Smyslov was privy to and had no objection to the entire affair and it's details, "the affair" being the plot to ensure that Smyslov won the tournament. At first it seems strange that he mentions the Keres-Smyslov game as Keres refused to follow the instructions and that game was played before the Bronstein-Smyslov game so Bronstein himself must have known he also could refuse, he seems to be implying with his mention of the Keres-Smyslov game that Keres was a victim of sorts and that his loss of this game wasn't the natural result. The most interesting game is Geller-Bronstein, according to Bronstein he was playing under the impression that Geller intended to lose, though he himself was trying to draw out of compassion for Geller's plight. This is clearly untenable, as Geller could at any point make a losing blunder the only way for Bronstein to draw would be to offer a draw, if Geller refused then Bronstein would have no choice but to play for a win. Bronstein could have resigned this game before he did and Taimanov recounts visiting Bronstein in his room after this game and finding him in tears, Bronstein obviously did not want to lose this game. Bronstein can say what he likes but the reality is that this loss put him out of realistic contention, of course he was upset, he'd been the pre-tournament favourite. Then there's the Bronstein-Smyslov draw, Bronstein hints that he could have won had he tried. So if we now adjust the scores to Bronstein's supposed reality we find Smyslov has one point less, a draw with Keres and a loss to Bronstein, while Bronstein has a point and a half more, wins against both Geller and Smyslov, in short Bronstein "really" won the tournament by half a point or to put it another way, classic sour grapes. Bronstein rubs in the point by reminding us that he was the only player to win both games with Reshevsky, somehow he dresses this up as a complaint that he was ordered to win, I'm puzzled that he didn't request similar orders before every game. However this is probably the weakest point in his entire story, he says he adjourned against Reshevsky with a "slight advantage" but he found a clever trick to win. Think about it, these are Soviet players known for helping each other with adjournment analysis yet in this game critical for the success of the plot he's analysing alone. False memories are interesting, Bronstein says Zurich 1953 has been like a "splinter in my heart for 50 years", a man who has been obsessed with his disappointment for fifty years is no longer a reliable informant. Mar-22-04    Gypsy: Your faith in basic decency and fairness of men is admirable. (On a personal note: It was actually a sense of basic decency and kindness I got from Bronstein's writings that initially won me over to his books and games. When I was growing up, my ultimate hero was Botvinnik; I wanted to have nothing to do with that "crazy Tal, Bronstein, crap"! I wanted logic, not immagination.) Fischer and Bronstein are definitely not alone in their dark view of the role of Kremlin and KGB in championship chess. Misgivings and/or testimonials had been offered by many notable grandmasters: Reshevsky, Fine (Fine refused to play in tournaments he thought destined to be rigged), Suetin, Spassky, Korchnoy, Tolush,... Here is a few sources: The chief of our delegation, Postnikov, summoned up Keres before his game with Smyslov. Postnikov declared that Keres had no right to play to win as the beneficiary would be Reshevsky. According to Keres' second, Tolush, Smyslov hardly knew about it. The sordid conversation lasted several hours. Keres resolutely refused to play contrary to his conscience, but he was threwn of his poise. His play for a win ended up in a loss. ... (Alex Suetin, 1998) In Bucharest, 1953 (January) I completed my IM norm. It is laughable, but Soviet Might came to my aid! The tournament started with a blodbath ammong soviet chessplayers. As a consequence, sometime about 7th Round, Laslo Szabo of Hungary was in the lead. Immediately, we got a telegram from Moskow: "Stop all craziness, start making draws ammong each other!" Of course, I benefited as I already got a point from Smyslov, but, considering my inexperience, to get draws from Boleslavsky and Petrosian might have been a tall order. But we all bucked down to Kremlin's orders. .... (Spassky, 1997) It has also been firmly established from the transcripts of the Supreme Commitee of Sports that Korchnoy was traded two tournaments abbroad to let Petrosian face Fischer before the Spassky match. (USSR-Fischer) Finaly, let me bring up one more notorious case where it seems that Bondarevsky was either returning or trading favors. It is the close of the Stein-Spassky, 1961 USSR Ch game: "The following position has been a subject of contraversy for many years. Neither of the players tended to annotate games for magazines; public opinion was bandoned in deep confusion. The game was played in the last round of the championship and had a crucial importance for the qualification to the Interzonal (Spassky was satisfied with a draw, while Stein needed to win). The game was adjourned and Spassky sealed move 41-g4, but on the next day resigned without resuming. This decision raised a strong wave of criticism; most annotators considered Spassky's resignation premature. Four years later, in an article published in the Soviet newspaper Izvestia, Bronstein claimed that the decision had been also unnecessary: Spassky could have have saved himself. Another year passed until Spassky trainer, Igor Bondarevsky, gave an accurate verdict in the book "Spassky Storms the Olympus" but his analysis was so conscise that it did not have the desired impact. Much later, in a book about Leonid Stein (1980) Gufeld tried to put the missing piecess togetger in Bondarevsky analysis, but the only thing he managed was to mess things up. In a book dedicated to the Fischer-Spassky match, Polichroniade and Stefaniu mention the episode, ending with a Stein's confession that he hadn't found a win. However this looks like speculation on the basis of the general confusion created around the whole matter." (Marin, 2003, "Secrets of Chess Defense") Mar-22-04    ruylopez900: Wasn't David Bronstein known as a kind of encyclopeia player, knowing all sorts of book variations and positions? Mar-22-04    Gypsy: If you mean book knowledge, then no. If you mean contribution of ideas into the most varied openings, then yes. As an inovator, he ranks right there with Nimzovich. But rather then in concrete variations, Bronstein's key contributions are thematic. His main strength was in the transitional phase from the opening into some (often original) middle game theme. (He is also known for sometimes thinking for 30 minutes to an hour before making his first move.) Mar-23-04    ughaibu: Gypsy: Thanks for posting those stories. I'm meaning to reply but since last night I've had the most appalling symptoms of a cold so please give me a day or two in which to recover a degree of ability to think. Mar-23-04    Gypsy: Just do get well, ughaibu. It has been a pleasure to read your comments all over these pages. Apr-03-04    ughaibu: Gypsy: Naturally I accept that some attempts at manipulation went on, as shown by the Keres-Smyslov game complicity in this was at the discretion of the player. The Spassky at Bucharest case is interesting but doesn't say much to me. The most interesting is this "It has also been firmly established from the transcripts of the Supreme Commitee of Sports that Korchnoy was traded two tournaments abbroad to let Petrosian face Fischer before the Spassky match. (USSR-Fischer)", what are these sources specifically that I can look them up myself? The likes of Korchnoi and Bronstein dont carry much weight with me. The Stein-Spassky case is also interesting, why would the officials prefer Stein over Spassky? What did Spassky in later years say about this? I'll look for the game. Apr-03-04    Gypsy: I do not know why. But did Spassky just decided to let go of the Interzonal or was Bondarevsky returning or trading favors? (Of course there can be yet another inocent explanation, but I can not think of it and none was ever offered.) Apr-03-04    ughaibu: Wasn't Bondarevsky Spassky's trainer at this point? Surely he would've been promoting Spassky not Stein. Apr-03-04    Gypsy: Yes, Bondarevsky was Spassky trainer. He would be in Spassky corner, unless horsetrading had to be done. (He dropped Spassky shortly before the Fischer match.) Apr-05-04    unsound: <I dont understand the desire by various players to insult the play of their peers . . . perhaps that's one of the reasons that I no longer play chess.> That seems very sad, <ughaibu>. I've just come back to chess, and have found so far more players agreeable than otherwise. Perhaps that's because I play in the lower echelons of tournaments? Apr-06-04    ughaibu: Unsound: I'm sure that's generally the case and I hope you continue to have for the most part good experiences. As you point out level is a factor, a player isn't usually going to become one of the world's top handfull unless that player is very strongly motivated, sufficiently so that they can put in hours of studying openings and hours of playing routine, boring or inferior positions and still feel they're engaged in a worthwhile and rewarding exercise. Even among these players at the very top there are some who stand out for their unusual and probably morbid attitudes to the game, Morphy, Steinitz, Alekhine and Fischer are the obvious examples. Bronstein is conspicuous as the only world championship candidate other than Fischer who I've heard of physically crying tears of distress after losing a game. That Bronstein's emotional attatchment to chess was so strong is suggestive and it shouldn't be such a surprise that his reaction to "failure" turns out to be so similar to Fischer's. I'm a fan of Bronstein's chess and in general approve of his ideas of what makes a game worthwhile so I find his so called revelations quite disappointing. In more recent years Bronstein has argued that the world championship should be decided by rapid games, maybe six games in a day, the implication apparently was that he would still have been world champion during the Karpov-Kasparov period. This is as pathetic as Fischer's claim that all Karpov-Kasparov games were faked. Apr-08-04    ughaibu: Hungapiece: Again your authority is Bronstein, why do you believe Bronstein and not, for example, Smyslov? Apr-22-04    nikolaas: Another Bronstein game: Porreca-Bronstein Belgrade 1954 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nh3 Bh7 8.Bc4 Nf6 9.Nf4 Nbd7 10.0-0 Qc7 11.Re1 Bg8 -really a funny move- 12.Nd3 e6 13.Bf4 Bd6 14.Bxd6 Qxd6 15.Nf5 Qf8 16.Qf3 0-0-0 17.Ng3 Bh7 -there is he again- 18.a4 Bxd3 19.Bxd3 Qd6 20.a5 a6 21.Ra3 g5 22.h5 Qf4 23.Qe2 Kc7 24.c3 Rhe8 25.Ne4 Nxe4 26.Qxe4 Qxe4 27.Bxe4 Nf6 28.Bf3 g4 29.Bd1 Rg8 30.Re5 Rd5 31.Ra4 Rg5 32.Bb3 Rdxe5 33.dxe5 Nd7 34.Bd1 Nxe5 35.Re4 Rxh5 36.Bxg4 Nxg4 37.Rxg4 Rxa5 38.Rg7 Rf5 39.g4 Rf6 40.Kg2 Kd6 41.Kg3 e5 42.Rg8 Kd5 0-1 May-17-04    OneBadDog: To all Iron Chef fans, I wonder if the Soviet Chess Machine had the equivalent of a Chairman Kaga? Jun-15-04    PizzatheHut: I have a question for everyone: Who was stronger in their prime, Geller or Bronstein? Also, are their games worthy of study, or would someone else's games be more beneficial? Jun-15-04    ughaibu: PizzatheHut: Try these of games between the two: Bronstein vs Geller, 1955 Bronstein vs Geller, 1961 Geller vs Bronstein, 1968 Geller vs Bronstein, 1973 It's difficult to say which was the stronger but personally I find Geller's play is generally more interesting. Jun-15-04    PizzatheHut: <ughaibu> Thanks for the games. I found them all very interesting. You're right, they are two very creative players. Their creativity and originality remind me of Petrosian, except Geller and Bronstein are attacking players, whereas Petrosian is a defender. Jun-15-04    Franz the Stampede: I dont know too much about chess game history after second world war so thanks to ughaibu and gypsy for posting this stuff! Jul-17-04    madlydeeply: In Bronstein's Zurich 1953 tournament book, he goes into a great deal in some analyses about strong and weak color complexes. I can sort of see them when the board is full of pawns, but he shows some open games with weak color complexes, when it looked to me like open files were the main feature. It is a very educational perspective for a middling player such as myself...I am wondering if weak and strong color complexes are the reasons behind some of Bronstein's "odd" moves...was he trying to set up color complexes and save the best pieces for future positions? Was he one of the first to delve into this aspect of the game? Aug-13-04    Swindler: I'm thinking about getting Bronsteins book on the Zurich 1953 tournament, I've heard it's good, even a classic. What is so good about it? Will it deepen my understanding of the game? Aug-13-04    acirce: <Swindler> I think it is very good and instructive. It being a classic has little to do with it imo. There was a little discussion on it at the Stahlberg vs Boleslavsky, 1953 page where I quoted some annotations at length. Surely it depends on your strength and current understanding, it's not exactly for beginners, but as for you specifically, I think it should be helpful. Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 45) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 45 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines: No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members. Nothing in violation of United States law. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members. No trolling. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times. See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator. NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific player only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC