| |
Main
Date: 19 Mar 2008 10:54:26
From: SBD
Subject: Bronstein Botvinnik 1951
|
I have been composing studies with the material N+P(s) vs. P(s), and
am interested in practical endgames with the material as well. I've
been compiling material for possible use in an article or book....
If anyone has any resources they know of that discuss the game above
that came to the following position:
3N4/1p6/8/p7/2P2k2/1KP1p3/8/8 w - - 0 1
Kb3 Nd8 c4 c3
Kf4 e3 a5 b7
such a foreign chess magazines, old articles or discussions (such as
Evans' old column), I would be interested. Here Bronstein played the
colossal blunder Kc2???, when Ne6+ would have drawn.
Also any studies or practical endgames with this material would
interest me as well.
Thanks.
SBD
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 18:29:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bronstein Botvinnik 1951
|
On 20, 8:29 pm, zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote:
> "However, moves like GM Bronstein's
> Re3 did have a point, as I discovered by
> looking over this with a computer; it's
> just that you would never know what the
> point was from looking at DB's play. "
>
> Just remember - over the board, the game is played by a human being,
> not a computer.
My computer seemed to prefer the White
side during most of the game, and I had to
reflect to figure out why: space advantage,
along with Black's chronically-weak h-pawn,
which in some lines the program snacked
on. As for humans, this bot seems to like
the long-term advantage of Black's Bishop
pair-- especially since GM Bronstein
refused to play the thematic p-f5 advance
until way too late to really matter.
You want to know what *both* of GM
Botvinnik's wins as Black had in common?
Both contained "unwise" exchange sac's
by his opponent, and both contained a
rather large number of Queen-shifts by
GM Botvinnik, the eventual winner. I think
this shows that the path to victory is to
make lots of pointless Queen moves,
then pounce when the opponent cracks.
; >D
Many of the famous wins by Emanuel
Lasker had him as Black, playing what
are often considered "ugly" moves; that
is, moves which just look wrong, create
nasty weaknesses his opponents never
seemed able to exploit, and are quite
obviously inferior to the "pretty" moves
which follow the dogmatic rules set
down by dogmatists-- you know, those
players that EL used to beat up on.
But I tend to see his winning, more as
the result of his tactical superiority than
the result of any stylistic battles, as
portrayed in books. That guy was a
tricky computer, wearing a mustasche
as a disguise; many of his opponents
were simply outclassed in the most
crucial area of the game, tactics.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 17:29:26
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Bronstein Botvinnik 1951
|
"However, moves like GM Bronstein's
Re3 did have a point, as I discovered by
looking over this with a computer; it's
just that you would never know what the
point was from looking at DB's play. "
Just remember - over the board, the game is played by a human being,
not a computer.
Emanuel Lasker, were he still with us, would have understood this
point very well. :)
Regards,
zdrakec
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 16:05:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bronstein Botvinnik 1951
|
On 20, 9:09 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Another argument for the sixth game not being evidence of chicanery
> is the fact that Bronstein later gained the lead in the match. After
> 22 games, he led +5 -4 =13, having won two games in a row. Botvinnik
> barely managed to tie the match, winning the 23rd game and drawing the
> 24th. If Bronstein was deliberately throwing the match when he
> blundered in game 6, why fight back later?
Even the lunatic-fringers cannot seem
to make a decent case; in one of his
more famous attempts, Larry Evans had
a certain Russian cast as the future
testimonial which would clinch his case;
unfortunately, when that fellow's opinion
was eventually published, it turned out
that he took a position opposite to that
LE had written for his character; the
fellow stated that the Russian state's
/favored player/ was Vassily Smyslov,
not Mikhail Botvinnik.
Still, you have to admit, it makes for
a good "story"... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 15:59:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bronstein Botvinnik 1951
|
On 20, 9:05 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > I hate to say it, but even as a non-Najdorf
> > Sicilian expert, I found GM Bronstein's handling
> > of the White side to be, well, a bit lame, and in
> > some cases, clumsy.
>
> Are you saying you are not an expert on the Najdorf, or that you are
> an expert on Sicilian lines other than the Najdorf?
I am no expert on any lines in the Sicilian,
although I play it often enough.
> And are you saying
> the game you looked at was a Najdorf Sicilian?
I went to chessgames.com, and starting
at the top, worked my way through those
games won by GM Botvinnik against GM
Bronstein, in 1951, where MB had Black.
Idunno, but if Black plays ...d6 and ...a6,
I think that's makes it a Najdorf.
> There actually was not a single Najdorf Sicilian in the whole match.
> Only one Sicilian occurred, in the 6th game, and it was a Richter-
> Rauzer Attack (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5),
> not a Najdorf (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6).
Okay, a Richter-Rauzer then.
What struck me as "lame", were moves
like Kb1, along with White's refusal to
play f5 at the first opportunity. If this were
a piece of music, the director might say
something like: "let's try it again, and this
time, *with feeling*!"
However, moves like GM Bronstein's
Re3 did have a point, as I discovered by
looking over this with a computer; it's
just that you would never know what the
point was from looking at DB's play.
Here is what I discovered: after Re3 AND
Qe2, White threatens the piece sacrifice
Nd5! If captured, two Black pieces will then
be en prise... but none of this actually
occurred, because DB shifted pieces to
and fro.
> > Out of 18 games on the site I visited, the
> > majority of games between these two were
> > drawn.
>
> That has usually been the case in world championship matches from
> 1921 on. The score of the 1951 match was +5 -5 =14.
Many of the games were from the world
championships, but not all of them. I have
no idea what the total number of games
between these two would be; people add
the games at will, so it's not like say,
chessmetrics.com, where an attempt has
been made to account for all serious
games and no skittles.
> > Perhaps I could gain a better grasp
> > of these two players by replaying the games
> > won by David Bronstein, for comparison... .
> Perhaps the clearest pattern was that Bronstein got all his wins
> within the first time control, whereas all Botvinnik's wins came after
> adjournment. This indicates several things, for example that Bronstein
> was better in the opening and/or middle game than Botvinnik, while
> Botvinnik was either better in the endgame, or better at adjournment
> analysis, or had better seconds helping him with adjournment analysis.
I believe GM Botvinnik had some help
from a correspondence world champ,
but perhaps not in those particular
games. As we know, Bobby Fischer
took a pawn from GM Botvinnik in their
only official game, but was outplayed
in the endgame and only drew. I also
detected a pattern in reading over MB's
100 Selected Games: he simply was
better than almost everybody else in
the endgame. Even GM Tal was not
ashamed to admit this was a problem,
not that he needed to; the games
themselves tell a story of their own.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 06:17:14
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Bronstein Botvinnik 1951
|
On 20, 8:09=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 19, 5:47=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19, 4:44=A0pm, zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > So...this move must surely constitute evidence that Bronstein was
> > > forced to throw this match to Botvinnik, doesn't it? I mean, no
> > > grandmaster would ever make such a bad move...
>
> > =A0 Not necessarily. Bronstein was always a bit of an odd duck,
> > something of a space case. He once thought for a half hour (or was it
> > a full hour?) before he replied to 1.e4. I tend to believe his own
> > account of this move, that he just got lost in a reverie, an
> > irrelevant tangent of thought, and touched the king without even
> > realizing what he had done.
> > =A0 Other chess masters have been like this. R=E9ti and Saemisch were
> > famous for getting distracted during games, the latter so much so that
> > he often forfeited games. I find Bronstein's explanation plausible. On
> > the other hand, I suppose if he had been pressured behind the scenes,
> > his behavior might have been the result of fear. Without more
> > evidence, this particular move neither proves nor disproves much of
> > anything.
>
> =A0 Another argument for the sixth game not being evidence of chicanery
> is the fact that Bronstein later gained the lead in the match. After
> 22 games, he led +5 -4 =3D13, having won two games in a row. Botvinnik
> barely managed to tie the match, winning the 23rd game and drawing the
> 24th. If Bronstein was deliberately throwing the match when he
> blundered in game 6, why fight back later?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I expect, Taylor, that you understand quite well what I was getting
at: that the arguments from analysis of game scores that one
grandmaster was being forced to lose are not terribly valid - even the
finest players in the world (which surely includes Bronstein) make the
most egregious errors from time to time. I was thinking, of course, of
Keres-Botvinnik :)
Regards,
zdrakec
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2008 20:10:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bronstein Botvinnik 1951
|
On 19, 2:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> "A tragic blunder which loses the game he has tried so hard to
> win.
I went looking for this game, and in the process,
replayed *two* games which GM Botvinnik won as
Black against GM Bronstein. My impression was
a match to the above comment: DB tried very hard
to "make something" of his having White, but he
could not. Many of Black's moves in this game
gave the impression of quickie moves, just
shuffling pieces to gain time on the clock,
whereas White seemed intent on finding some
"master plan", and in both games DB was far
too eager to sacrifice material, if that's what it
took.
I hate to say it, but even as a non-Najdorf
Sicilian expert, I found GM Bronstein's handling
of the White side to be, well, a bit lame, and in
some cases, clumsy. As I said, Black's play
was rather unenterprising, but less reckless. I
think it is obvious that Black was not trying
hard to win. Even in the other game, DB was
much too "generous" with his wild exchange
sacrifices; this reminds me of Tigran Petrosian,
a man who generally valued Rooks at only 4.5
pawns.
Out of 18 games on the site I visited, the
majority of games between these two were
drawn. Perhaps I could gain a better grasp
of these two players by replaying the games
won by David Bronstein, for comparison... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2008 15:47:15
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bronstein Botvinnik 1951
|
On 19, 4:44 pm, zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I have read Bronstein's own account of the move, but can't recall
> > where right now. Perhaps in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," but it's not
> > well indexed so a given quote is hard to find. However, I can give the
> > sumy of his comments from "The Even More Complete Chess Addict" by
> > Fox & James (1993), pp. 179-180:
>
> > "Bronstein sees that Ne6+ gets the draw. Fine, but then he slides
> > off into a daydream about how he should have played the opening. After
> > forty-five minutes of irrelevant musing he absent-mindedly picks up
> > his king -- and after 57.Kc2?? and Black's 57...Kg3, bang goes the
> > draw. 'Blunder of the century' is what he called it."
Compare to Boris Spassky's comments
regarding his own "one-move blunders".
> > So Bronstein's error was not the result of miscalculation, but of
> > drifting off and committing an unconscious fingerfehler. He knew
> > moving the king was fatal, but having touched it, he had to.
>
> So...this move must surely constitute evidence that Bronstein was
> forced to throw this match to Botvinnik, doesn't it? I mean, no
> grandmaster would ever make such a bad move...
In fact, there are *countless* examples
of masters, grandmasters, and even world
champions making such blunders as this
one. World champion Kramnik, for
instance, allowed himself to be mated on
the move. In view of this, you need to
come up with a whole lot more than bad
chess moves to support a theory of a
thrown game.
To me, the most convincing story would
be a player who has a stellar record
against his scheduled opponent, but who
refuses to show up, saying he received
death threats which more than outweighed
the potential prize money if he were to win,
as expected.
A fellow who was deemed by Larry Evans
to be an expert witness of sorts eventually
came out and stated that in his view, GM
Smyslov was the guy everyone ought to
have been "throwing" their games to;
contrary to the lunatic-fringer's version, it
was not GM Botvinnik that the State
preferred, but Vassily Smyslov. Of course,
such facts cannot deter the lunatics, any
more than a zombie can be deterred by
yelling "go away!"
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2008 13:44:50
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Bronstein Botvinnik 1951
|
On 19, 1:21=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 19, 1:54=A0pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have been composing studies with the material N+P(s) vs. P(s), and
> > am interested in practical endgames with the material as well. I've
> > been compiling material for possible use in an article or book....
>
> > If anyone has any resources they know of that discuss the game above
> > that came to the following position:
>
> > 3N4/1p6/8/p7/2P2k2/1KP1p3/8/8 w - - 0 1
>
> > Kb3 Nd8 c4 c3
> > Kf4 e3 a5 b7
>
> > such a foreign chess magazines, old articles or discussions (such as
> > Evans' old column), I would be interested. Here Bronstein played the
> > colossal blunder =A0Kc2???, when Ne6+ would have drawn.
>
> > Also any studies or practical endgames with this material would
> > interest me as well.
>
> =A0 Steve, that was the 6th game of the match. What exactly are you
> looking for? I have the match book by Winter & Wade. They merely
> comment "A tragic blunder which loses the game he has tried so hard to
> win. There was of course an easy draw by 57.Ne6+."
> =A0 I have read Bronstein's own account of the move, but can't recall
> where right now. Perhaps in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," but it's not
> well indexed so a given quote is hard to find. However, I can give the
> sumy of his comments from "The Even More Complete Chess Addict" by
> Fox & James (1993), pp. 179-180:
>
> =A0 "Bronstein sees that Ne6+ gets the draw. Fine, but then he slides
> off into a daydream about how he should have played the opening. After
> forty-five minutes of irrelevant musing he absent-mindedly picks up
> his king -- and after 57.Kc2?? and Black's 57...Kg3, bang goes the
> draw. 'Blunder of the century' is what he called it."
>
> =A0 So Bronstein's error was not the result of miscalculation, but of
> drifting off and committing an unconscious fingerfehler. He knew
> moving the king was fatal, but having touched it, he had to.- Hide quoted =
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So...this move must surely constitute evidence that Bronstein was
forced to throw this match to Botvinnik, doesn't it? I mean, no
grandmaster would ever make such a bad move...
Regards,
zdrakec
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2008 13:25:09
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Bronstein Botvinnik 1951
|
On 19, 1:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Steve, that was the 6th game of the match. What exactly are you
> looking for? I have the match book by Winter & Wade. They merely
> comment "A tragic blunder which loses the game he has tried so hard to
> win. There was of course an easy draw by 57.Ne6+."
> I have read Bronstein's own account of the move, but can't recall
> where right now. Perhaps in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," but it's not
> well indexed so a given quote is hard to find. However, I can give the
> sumy of his comments from "The Even More Complete Chess Addict" by
> Fox & James (1993), pp. 179-180:
>
> "Bronstein sees that Ne6+ gets the draw. Fine, but then he slides
> off into a daydream about how he should have played the opening. After
> forty-five minutes of irrelevant musing he absent-mindedly picks up
> his king -- and after 57.Kc2?? and Black's 57...Kg3, bang goes the
> draw. 'Blunder of the century' is what he called it."
>
> So Bronstein's error was not the result of miscalculation, but of
> drifting off and committing an unconscious fingerfehler. He knew
> moving the king was fatal, but having touched it, he had to.
Thanks Taylor. That was exactly what I was looking for, none of my
books had much or really anything about the blunder except that "it
happened." I don't have the match book, but am looking to buy a
copy....
And anyone with more games, studies, or comments on N+P(s) vs. Ps,
feel free to send them my way. It is a much more interesting - and
difficult- ending than I ever imagined.
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2008 14:43:55
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: Bronstein Botvinnik 1951
|
On Wed, 19 2008 10:54:26 -0700 (PDT), SBD <[email protected] >
wrote:
Bronstein simply blundered. However this match is considered one of
the greatest matches for the World title. It is a shame that there
isn't a thorough account of this match except for the games. This is
a match that definitely deserves a reprint in the books.
EZoto
|
|
