Did Bronstein Choke?

    The 1951 Botvinnik vs. Bronstein World Championship match was one of the most controversial and exciting matches in world championship history. Was Bronstein forced to throw the match, and if he was, did Botvinnik know about it?

     David Bronstein (1924-2006) was born in Bila Tserkva, Ukraine and showed early promise debuting in the 1939 Ukrainian Championship at age 15. A year later his strong 2nd behind Isaac Boleslavsky in the 1940 Ukrainian Championship earned him the Soviet Master title. Four years later he qualified for the USSR Championship (1944). 

     He continued to improve, but his performance was not strong enough to achieve the Soviet Grandmaster title. FIDE still invited him, along with six other Soviets, to the 1948 Saltsjöbaden Interzonal. Surprisingly, Bronstein won and was immediately awarded the Soviet Grandmaster title. 

    He continued this excellent form and went on to tie Boleslavsky for 1st in the 1950 Budapest Candidates and won the subsequent playoff match thereby earning the right to face Botvinnik. 

    Botanist had played no chess in public since he had won the World Championship tournament in1948, but fir the upcoming match he studied the games Bronstein had played since the Saltsjobaden Interzonal. 

 

 

    Bronstein was an energetic player in contrast to the scientific Botvinnik, the patriarch of Soviet chess. In the match Bronstein opened with the Dutch Defense. Botvinnik considered himself an expert on the Dutch and had not prepared for it. He suspected that Bronstein meant to "force me tofight against my own systems," a ploy Botvinnik dismissed as naive. After scoring +0 -1 =2 with the Dutch, Bronstein abandoned it. 

    By game 22, Bronstein led by a point and needed only to win once or draw twice in the last two games to become World Champion. 

    In game 23 Botvinnik played one of his best games of the match. It took Bronstein forty minutes to convince himself that it was time to resign. The final position caused some speculation. Bronstein was a P up, but Botvinnik had two Bs against two Ns and was the strongest endgame player in the world so there was little point in playing on. I confirmed this using Stockfish when white scored 5-0 in Shootouts. 

    Bronstein could still have become champion by winning the final game, but after pressing with the white pieces for 22 moves he was without winning chances and accepted Botvinnik's draw offer. 

    Years later, Botvinnik and Bronstein spoke in less than friendly terms about the match. Bronstein complained that after the last game many journalists came to the stage and asked Botvinnik to hold a press conference and they ignored Bronstein. 

     Botvinnik accused Bronstein of "outrageous" behavior. He would make a move and quickly go behind the stage, then... suddenly dart out and disappear again. There was also laughter among the spectators and this hindered Botvinnik's play.

    Bronstein hinted that there was government pressure on him to lose the match. In a 1993 interview he explained that "There was no direct pressure... 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." 

    Some say Soviet authorities pressured Bronstein to lose in order to keep Botvinnik, a favorite of the Communist Party leadership, on the throne. Luis Rentero, organizer of the Linares tournaments, says Bronstein once told Bobby Fischer after Fischer lost to Spassky, "They forced me to lose an entire match to Botvinnik, and I didn't cry." Years later in an interview Bronstein denied having said it, but eventually conceded that he may have said something to that effect, but too much time had passed. 

    On the other hand, some historians claim that Bronstein simply "choked" and just couldn't score when he needed to. The fact is that Bronstein was not as strong as Botvinnik. The only major tournament that Bronstein ever won was the 1950 Candidates tournament. It was the tournament of his life and he was never again a serious contender for the world championship. 

    In winning the following game (game 11) Bronstein evened the score by again adopting a system preferred by Botvinnik himslef and in doing so he achieved a sound position. Botvinnik had no real prospects so he decided to sacrifice two center Pawns. He got an attack, but it really didn’t amount to much and eventually Bronstein’s counterattack prevailed.

 

[Event "World Championship, Game 11"] [Site "Moscow URS"] [Date "1951.04.08"] [Round "?"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "David Bronstein"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E17"] [Annotator "Komodo Dragon 3"] [PlyCount "78"] [EventDate "1951.??.??"] {E17: Queen's Indian Defense} 1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 b6 4. g3 {This has long been white's most popular line...white contests the long diagonal.} Bb7 { The modern line is 4...Ba3 forcing white to decide how to defend the P.} 5. Bg2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. b3 {This is rarely played. 7 Nc3 is usual because it offers the best chances to maintain a very slight initiative.} d5 8. cxd5 {One annotator said the disadvantage of this move is that it releases the tension in the center and locks in white’s dark squared B. That does not seem to be the case as black cannot really avoid playing ...c5 at some point which will allow whiter to play dxc5.} exd5 {According to Hams Kmoch capturing with the P is sound because white lacks the ability to put pressure on the c-file and the potential weaknesses on c6. Also, black's position has some potential because he will control the e-file.} 9. Bb2 Nbd7 10. Nc3 Re8 11. Ne5 Bf8 12. Rc1 {This position has been reached a few times in recent years and white has played 12.f4 which is neither better nor worse than the text. Botvinnik's P sacrifice really does not offer him much. Instead of playing it safe Botvinnik sacrifices a P in order to open up black's K-side.} Nxe5 13. dxe5 Rxe5 14. Nb5 Re7 15. Bxf6 gxf6 {Even though white has an extra P and the Ps in front of black's K have been shattered the position could not be more equal owing to black still having his dark squared B and the better center. That said, Botvinnik manages to use his pieces effectively to work up a bit of an attack.} 16. e4 {Offering a second P, but he still does not really get much, but it's the only way to justify the first sacrifice.} dxe4 17. Qg4+ Bg7 {[%mdl 32]} 18. Rfd1 {White appears to have obtained a very dangerous attack, but if he is carsul black has adequate defensive resources.} Qf8 {This is best.} (18... Qc8 19. Qf4 {with an attack on the c-Pawn. In pre-engine days it was believed that white stands better here, but the position is really no more than equal. Black has two ways to equalize.} Qf8 (19... c5 {is met by} 20. Nd6 Qc7 21. Nf5 Qxf4 22. Nxe7+ Kf8 23. gxf4 Kxe7 24. Bxe4 Bxe4 25. Re1 f5 26. f3 Rg8 27. Kh1 Bd4 28. fxe4 {with equality.}) 20. Rxc7 f5 21. Qxf5 Rd8 22. Rxd8 Qxd8 23. Rxe7 {equals. } Qxe7) 19. Nd4 {White has made a little progress. He threatens Nf5.} (19. Rxc7 {is not especially good.} Rxc7 20. Nxc7 Rd8 21. Rxd8 Qxd8 {and at least black has an extra P while white is left with nothing to show for his P minus.}) 19... Bc8 20. Qh4 f5 21. Nc6 {InterA plausible idea was the immediate 21.Bh3} Re8 22. Bh3 {An interesting position. It may appear even though white is two Ps down with the exception of the B on g7 all of black's pieces are huddles on the back rank while white's pieces look pretty aggressively positioned. Komodo Dragon 3 prefers black by a P. The conclusion is that white does have some compensation for his Ps, but just watch hoe Bronstein's pieces spring to life!} Bh6 23. Rc2 e3 {A good move that increases the avtivity of his pieces.} 24. fxe3 Bxe3+ 25. Kh1 Be6 {Things look different now. Black has open lines, the two Bs and he threatens to trade Qs with ...Qh6} 26. Bg2 {Preventing 26...Qh6} a5 (26... Qh6 27. Qxh6 Bxh6 28. Ne7+ Rxe7 29. Bxa8) 27. Bf3 Kh8 28. Nd4 Rad8 { Aiming for ...Qb4 attacking the N.} 29. Rxc7 {This is a tactical slip.} (29. Qf6+ Kg8 30. Nxe6 Rxd1+ 31. Bxd1 fxe6 32. Qxf8+ Rxf8 33. Rxc7 {White is a P down, but Bs of opposite color make a draw likely.}) 29... Bd5 {[%mdl 2048] Avoiding the trap of playing his intended ...Qb4} (29... Qb4 30. Qf6+ Kg8 31. Nxe6 Rxd1+ 32. Kg2 Rd2+ 33. Kh3 {and black can delay, but not avoid mate}) 30. Re1 {This is a real surprise...Botvinnik makes a catastrophic blunder.} (30. Rf1 {offers his best defense.} Qd6 31. Rc2 f4 32. Bxd5 Qxd5+ 33. Nf3 Rd6 { But even here white is under tremendous pressure and is more than lie=kjely going to lose...a sample line...}) 30... Qd6 {...Re4 is the threat. Black is winning.} 31. Rc2 Re4 {[%mdl 512]} 32. Bxe4 Bxe4+ {It's time to resign.} 33. Qxe4 fxe4 34. Nf5 Qb4 35. Rxe3 Rd1+ 36. Kg2 Rd2+ 37. Rxd2 Qxd2+ 38. Kh3 Qf2 39. Kg4 f6 {White resigned.} 0-1

1951 World Championship

    
  David Bronstein was born on February 19, 1924 and was married three times, having a son by his first wife, Olga Ignatieva. His third wife was Tatiana Boleslavskaya, the daughter of Isaac Boleslavsky. Playing bold and intuitive chess, he was, from the end of World War II to the late 1950s, one of the top three players in the Soviet Union and among the five best in the world. 
     In 1951 Bronstein became the first to challenge Botvinnik who had won the title in 1948. The 24-game match was a seesaw affair between two who not only disliked each other, but had opposite styles. It ended in a 12-12 tie and Botvinnik retained the title. The outcome might have been different if Bronstein had not blundered in the sixth game when he had an easy draw or lost the 23rd game. 
     Ever since there was speculation that Bronstein was forced to lose so that Botvinnik, the favorite of the Soviet authorities, might retain the title. Bronstein denied it, saying he chose not to win.
     Bronstein would not have been acceptable champion to the Soviet government. Coming from a Jewish family and related to the Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky, the Bronsteins were viewed with suspicion by the Soviet authorities and on December 31, 1937 David's father, Iohonon Boruch Bronstein, was arrested as an "enemy of the people". His crime? Defending peasants against corrupt officials. He disappeared into a Gulag and was not seen again until freed seven years later because of ill-health. 
     By then the Bronstein family was living in Moscow but his father was still banned and could not live or work within the city limits. He obtained a job in a factory about 25 miles from Moscow but this was still classed as within the city limits, so he bribed the head of the local police to turn a blind eye. Dad Bronstein died in 1952. In 1955 Bronstein's mother received a letter informing her that the case against her husband was closed and that no crimes were ever committed by him.
     It was during his father's imprisonment that Bronstein established himself. Stalin had initiated his Five Year Plan for Chess with the aim of capturing the world championship from the the West. This aim was achieved in 1948 when Botvinnik won the world title in 1948, an achievement that was hailed as an example of the superiority of the Soviet system. The authorities became nervous when Bronstein became the challenger in 1951. 
     The openly anti-Semitic government found him undesirable and then there was his father's “criminal” past. Botvinnik, on the other hand, had been a perfect champion. He was a firm believer in the system, and had even sent a telegram of thanks to Stalin for providing him with inspiration after winning Nottingham, 1936. 
     In 1976, when Viktor Korchnoi defected, Bronstein was one of the few Soviet GMs who refused to sign a letter denouncing him. As punishment, Soviet officials suspended Bronstein’s monthly stipend, a wage paid to all top Soviet masters. He was also barred from competing in almost any elite tournament within the Soviet Union and from competing in the West; the ban was not lifted until the mod-1980s.
     His match with Botvinnik was tense and error-filled. In the sixth game, in a drawn position, Bronstein thought for 45 minutes before playing an appalling blunder that lost at once. In the ninth game, a complete miscalculation left Bronstein a rook behind for almost nothing, but he managed to escape with a draw. 
     After 22 games (out of the scheduled 24) Bronstein was ahead by on point and winning the title looked assured, but a loss and a draw in the last two games left the match tied and Botvinnik retained his title. 
     Many years later Bronstein wrote, "I have been asked many, many times if I was obliged to lose the 23rd game and if there was a conspiracy to stop me from taking Botvinnik's title...The only thing that I am prepared to say is that I was subjected to strong psychological pressure from various sources...I had reasons not to become the World Champion as in those times such a title meant that you were entering an official world of chess bureaucracy with many formal obligations. Such a position is not compatible with my character.”
     Bronstein claimed his goal was to show that his style of lay was just as good as Botvinnik's scientific approach. In later years he often said that he never missed holding the title of World Champion, which only lasts a few years anyway. What he regretted, he said, was not having the lifelong title of ex-World Champion. 
     In the future Bronstein kept running into the rule limiting the number of qualifiers from one nation and there was always too many countrymen ahead of him. As against Botvinnik, he also tended to cave in at the last moment. In the Interzonal at Portoroz, Yugoslavia, in 1958, a last-round defeat by the unheralded Filipino Rodolfo Tan Cardoso cost him a qualifying place and he finished in places 7-11, scoring +4 -1 =15. In the 1964 Interzonal at Amsterdam he lost to Bent Larsen. His is outstanding +10 -1 =12 was only good enough for sixth place behind Smyslov, Larsen, Spassky, Tahl and Stein. 
     In a post mortem with an English player at Hastings in 1975-76 his young opponent kept asking if he had analyzed various move to which Bronstein replied, "Young man, you do not analyze during a game; you analyze before a game and after a game. During the game, you just play." 
      Salo Flohr, who was Botvinnik’s second, recalled the adjournment of that famous 23rd game.  Flohr assumed Botvinnik had sealed the best move and spent the night analyzing the win. In the morning, Botvinnik asked Flohr to show the winning variation to his wife. Flohr was confused because Botvinnik's wife barely knew the moves. Flohr showed her the winning variations and when he went on the stage at the resumption of the game, Botvinnik told him, “You know, Salo, I sealed a different move.” 
     Flohr explained Botvinnik's strange behavior: Botvinnik expected the game to be drawn and he he was about to lose his title, but wanted his wife to think that he had a chance of winning the game. 
     Some have put forth the theory that if the match outcome was rigged then Botvinnik would have secretly (and illegally) gotten the authorities to allow him to change the inferior sealed move for the stronger one. The theory has also been put forth that Bronstein's first marriage was on the rocks and he was in love with another woman. As world champion, divorcing his first wife would have been out of the question. Also, he feared the publicity of being world champion might bring his father’s plight back to the attention of the authorities. 
      All very interesting, but there is Bronstein's famous comment to Bobby Fischer in 1960 at Mar del Plata when Fischer cried after losing a game to Spassky. Bronstein told Fischer, "Listen, they forced me to lose an entire match to Botvinnik, and I didn't cry." In a later interview Bronstein denied having said it, but eventually conceded that he may have uttered something of that nature. "Too much time has passed," he said.

Bronstein And His Match With Botvinnik

     The other day, for the first time in quite some time, I slipped Match for the World Chess Championship, Botvinnik-Bronstein by Igor Botvinnik out of the bookcase, set up a board and played over some of the games. I posted on that match and gave game 11 HERE. 
     Igor Botvinnik, an International Arbiter, was Mikhail Botvinnik’s nephew. He was a mathematician who dedicated his whole life to chess. In 1985 he graduated from the High School of Coaching and worked with children, opening a school for them that was named after his uncle. He passed away in Moscow at the age of 61 in 2011. 

Igor Botvinnik

     Of course, the World Championship in March was the big chess news of the year, but there were other important things happening around the chess world in 1951. The USCF published its first rating list and Fine (2817), Reshevsky (2770), Kevitz (2610), Dake (2598), Simonson (2596), Reinfeld (2593), Denker (2575) and Kashdan (2574) topped the list. 
     There was also another World Championship match held in June in Birmingham, England; it was for the Junior title. The Soviets and other East European countries didn’t participate, so Borislav Ivkov of Yugoslavia finished a full point and a half ahead of Malcolm Barker of England. Barker won the British Under-18 title in 1949, 1950 and 1951 then quit chess in the mid-1950s. 
     In July, Birmingham was also the venue for the FIDE and the BCF's celebration of the first tournament ever, London 1851. Gligoric won ahead of Pirc, Stahlberg and Trifunovic. In August, in Swansea, Ernst Klein won the British Championship. In September, the European Zonal at Marianske Lazne was won by Pachman who was undefeated. 19-year old Larry Evans won both the U.S. Open and the U.S. Championship. 
     In November, Najdorf won the championship of Argentina (again). The former Lithuanian master Vaitonis won the Canadian championship. In December, Keres won the USSR Championship and Zonal tournament ahead of Petrosian. 
     To continue...on the 16th of March, 1951 in the Tchaikovsky Concert Hall in Moscow the match began and it was to be one of the most controversial matches until, perhaps, more recent times. Was Bronstein forced to lose? The real answer will probably never be known. 
     The Chief Arbiter was was IM Karel Opocensky of Czechoslovakia and GM Gideon Stahlbeg of Sweden was the Controller. Botvinnik's second was GM Vyacheslan Ragozin and Bronstein's was Alexander Konstantinopolsky. 
     Virtually unknown outside of the Soviet Union, Konstantinopolsky (1910-1990) was an IM who won the first Soviet Correspondence Championship in 1951 and was five-times the champion of Kiev. He was awarded the IM title in 1950 and the correspondence IM title in 1966. In 1983 the Soviet chess federation conferred the title of Honorary Grandmaster on him. He is best remembered as a trainer of young players in Kiev at the Palace of Young Pioneers during the 1930s, including David Bronstein with whom he was a close friend. He was one of the Ukrainian pioneers who developed the K-Indian Defense and was an early advocate of the Dutch Defense before Botvinnik popularized it. 
     The match was interesting because of the two different styles and approaches to chess. Bronstein was a dynamic player who was at home in tactical situations whereas Botvinnik was a “scientific” positional player who was uncomfortable when things got out of hand. Besides the 11th game, game 17 (given below) was a tension filled and imperfect affair in which the 40-year old Botvinnik was unrecognizable. 
     After the 22nd game left Bronstein leading by a point it looked like he was going to win the match. But then came the 23rd game in which Botvinnik played one of his best games of the match. After Botvinnik's 57th move, Bronstein thought for 40 minutes and resigned. Bronstein still had a chance; he just had to win the 24th game, but after 22 moves it was clear there were no winning chances, so he accepted Botvinnik's draw offer. The match was tied at 12-12, and Botvinnik retained his World Championship. 
     While on the subject of Bronstein, if you're looking for a 5-star rated chess book, then I highly recommend The Sorcerer's Apprentice. There are no boring reams of technical analysis; instead the artist Bronstein talks about the moves in a way that's clear and to the point. 
     Botvinnik didn't take Bronstein seriously as indicated in the red notebook he kept on him. Some of his comments on Bronstein and other players are given in the appendix of Igor's book. 
    In The Rise and Fall of David Bronstein by Genna Sosonko he says Botvinnik  thought Bronstein was “neurotic and probably plagued by obsessive thoughts, but hard-working.” 
     I always thought of Bronstein as a good-natured, likable fellow, but Sosonko dispelled that image when he presents the man in an entirely different light.
     Years ago, when Bronstein visited the Atlanta Chess Center owner Thad Rogers said some pretty nasty things about Bronstein; Sosonko tells us why.
     Sosonko knew Bronstein and had a lot of conversations with him and says Bronstein told him, “I don’t like any of my books. The one they all praise, the Zurich book, it’s stupid. I didn’t actually write it….I only provided the variations and analysis." 
     Supposedly Bronstein's 1950 play-off candidates match with Boleslavsky consisted of games that both players had composed beforehand. 
     His constant referring to his loss to Botvinnik, his complaint that modern GMs are "little squirts" who want to be treated like celebrities, his belief that the FIDE should be abolished, his griping that Vladimir Nabokov (novelist, poet, translator, entomologist and chess composer) thought he was highly intelligent because he could compose a chess problem and his acetic comments about other players all made him a crotchety old man and a chronic complainer that most people preferred to avoid to the point that some organizers didn't want him in their tournaments. 
     Author Tom Furstenberg referred to him as “a slightly unhinged person.” One reviewer called Sosokno's book “a nasty and unpleasant work. Reading it left me feeling dirty.” Personally, I enjoyed the book because it gives you an insight into Bronstein the man, not the chess player. 

An Impressive Win By Bronstein

Bronstein vs. Shamkovich

     As mentioned in a previous post, there I an excellent article on Bronstein at Chessbase that gives a lot of insight to the bitter man that was almost world champion. Still, he was a top-ranked player for 30 years and was one of the greatest thinkers and innovators in the history of chess. 
     Bronstein pioneered the King’s Indian Defense, transforming it from an unknown and discredited defense into one of the most popular and dynamic openings. The was one of the first who wanted to speed up play with faster time limits and in 1973 introduced the idea of adding a time increment for each move made. 
     Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953 is a must own and is a great book and Bronstein is credited with being the author. It was something of a letdown to discover he only contributed analyses and that the rest of the book was written by Boris Vainshtein. Edward Winter has an interesting post on Bronstein which you can read HERE. It’s post 4753. 
     Vainshtein (May 19, 1907 – December 18, 1993) was from the Ukraine and was sometimes known as "Ferzberi.”  He grew up in Ukraine and Uzbekistan and moved to Moscow in 1935. Vainshtein was a high-ranking Soviet NKVD and chess official and a good player, now best remembered as a friend and supporter of David Bronstein. He also authored a number of chess books himself. For more details on his NKVD activity you can read the article The Phantom of Beria in the Moscow Times.
     After David Bronstein moved to Moscow he played in many of the city’s championships. In 1947 he tied for first with Ravinsky and Simagin who won the playoff with Bronstein finishing second. Bronstein successfully made attempts at winning the city championship in 1953 and 1957, both times by a two point margin. 
     He only finished third in 1969, then in 1961 he tied for first with Leonid Shamkovich. The genial Shamkovich (born June 1923) in Rostov-on-Don was never one of the Russian elite, but he was twice champion of the Russian Federation and qualified for the USSR championships six times. 
     In 1974 the Soviet authorities allowed him to leave for Israel but he soon settled in the US. He passed away on April 22, 2005. He defeated Shamkovich in the 1961 playoff match +2 -1 =3. The 1962 championship was an open and Averbakh and Vasyukov shared first a point ahead of Bronstein, Barcza, Lilienthal an Shamkovich. 
     I was unable to locate any games from the Bronstein-Shamkovich match in 1961, but did discover their individual game from the championship tournament and an exciting one it was. Bonstein’s mating attack with reduced material is quite impressive.

Play Online Chess

[Event "Moscow City Championship"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1961.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "David Bronstein"]
[Black "Leonid Shamkovich"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
1. e4 d5 {Known as the Scandinavian Defense, back in the day this was called
the Center Counter Defense. Although it has never enjoyed widespread
popularity among top-flight players, it is sound. } 2. exd5 Nf6 {This and
2...Nf6 (the Marshall Gambit) are almost always played. The rare 2...c6 has
been tried, but it's unsound. } 3. d4 {Normally white plays 3.Nc3.} 3... Nxd5
4. Nf3 Bf5 {This move should result in a disadvantage; better is 4...Bg5.} 5.
a3 {White usually plays either 5.Be2 or 5.Bd3. The text is a Bronstein
experiment that has no particular value. } 5... e6 6. c4 Nb6 {Black's N turns
out not to be especially well placed here and so her should have played it
back to f6. } 7. Nc3 Be7 8. Qb3 Qc8 {It's hard to explain this poor move that
allows white to play 9.c5. Correct was 8...c5. } 9. c5 N6d7 10. Bf4 Nf6 11.
Bc4 c6 12. O-O Nd5 {The fact that half of lack's moves have been with this N
says that something has gone wrong with his opening play. } 13. Bxd5 exd5 14.
Rae1 Be6 15. Bg5 Bxg5 16. Nxg5 O-O 17. Ne2 {Maneuvering his remaining piece to
the K-side. } 17... Na6 {This turns out to be a very poor choice as the N is
destined to remain here forever. Better was 17...Nd7. } 18. Ng3 h6 19. Nxe6
fxe6 20. f4 Qd7 21. Re5 {With this move Bronstein prepares for an assault on
black's K. } 21... Rf7 22. f5 exf5 23. Nxf5 Raf8 {Hindsight says that black
would have done better to try and exchange a pair of Rs with 23...Re8.} 24.
g4 {Bronstein goes for an all out attack against black's K and black's
position has become critical. Was it worth a P for black to try bringing his
misplaced N over to the defense with 24...Nc7? White could safely take the
b-Pawn or he could choose to continue his attack with 25.Rfe1. In either case
he enjoys a considerable advantage. } 24... Qd8 {Shamkovich plans to bring his
Q to the defense of his K, but didn't appreciate the danger to which it is
going to be exposed. His game soon borders on hopeless. } 25. Rfe1 Qg5
{Allowing white to win the Q, but would it be safe to do so? } 26. Qg3 {If
26.Ne7+ Rxe7 27.Rxg5 (no better is 27.Rxe7 Qxg4+) Rxe1+ followed by ...hxg5
would give black two Rs and a N against the Q which should be greatly to his
advantage. } 26... Kh7 {Black avoids the possibility of white playing Ne7 with
check.} 27. h4 {Unnecessary preparation as the sacrifice 27.Nxh6 is
immediately decisive after 27...Qxh6 28.Rh5.} 27... Qg6 28. Kg2 h5 {From the
frying pan into the fire. This loses quickly, but there wasn't anything else
available that would even come close to saving the game.} 29. Ne7 Rxe7 30.
Rxe7 {Black is the exchange down, but with his N way over yonder on a6 he
might as well be the exchange and a piece down!} 30... hxg4 31. Qe5 g3 32.
Qg5 Rf2+ 33. Kxg3 Qxg5+ 34. hxg5 Rxb2 {A cursory glance at the position might
suggest that black has managed not only to survive, but maybe has even
equalized. But, Bronstein is not done attacking with the reduced material. }
35. R7e6 Nc7 {Going after the a-Pawn with 35...Rb3+ runs into a mating attack
after white plays 36.Kg4!! threatening g6+ putting black in a mating net. As
it is, Stockfish sees white has a mate in 17 moves.} 36. Rh1+ Kg8 37. Re7 Nb5
38. Rh8+ {Black's last move gives white a mate in 6 with 38.g8. As it is
38.Rh8+ leads to a mate in 12 moves. } 38... Kxh8 39. g6 Rb3+ 40. Kg4 {Now
40,Kf4 is mate in 5 while 40.Kg4 is a mate in 9. } 1-0

David Bronstein - Author

 

    David Bronstein (February 19, 1924 – December 5, 2006) was not only a great player, but he was a great author and he is, I think, underappreciated in both categories. I have posted on Bronstein before: He Should Have Been World Champion and the 1951 World Championship.
     Bronstein also invented the Bronstein delay time control. This method adds time but unlike increment not always the maximum amount of time is added. If a player expends more than the specified delay, then the entire delay is added to the player's clock, but if a player moves faster than the delay, only the exact amount of time expended by the player is added. For example, if the delay is ten seconds and a player uses ten or more seconds for a move, ten seconds is added after the move is completed. If the player uses five seconds for a move, five seconds is added after the move is completed. The advantage to Bronstein's method is that it ensures that the base time left on the clock can never increase even if a player makes fast moves.
     Bronstein's books are all worth reading whether you want to study or just want to enjoy playing over great games.

Zurich International Chess Tournament, 1953 – Bronstein wrote this book just three years after the event. The 210 games are worthy of study by beginner, intermediate and advanced players and can serve as a textbook on how to play the middle game. Or, you can just set down and go over the games. GM Alex Yermolinsky wrote: “David Bronstein wrote a great book about the 1953 Zurich Candidates Tournament. What makes it great is absolute disregard to theorizing. He takes all the games from a super-strong tournament – uses no selection criteria, so no bias towards the author’s agenda is there – and just invites you to watch ‘em play. If I had to name one single book that helped me with my problems, not once but many times throughout my chess career, I’d know which one it is.
The Sorcerer's Apprentice is a book of his best games with interesting stories and easy-to-understand annotations.
200 Open Games - Games beginning with 1.e4 e5 amusing commentary emphasizes ideas behind moves and the resulting patterns.
Modern Chess Self-Tutor – Sort of a misnomer because what he really discusses is how GMs decide on their moves.
Bronstein On the King's Indian - puts emphasis on understanding the typical moves, maneuvers and the overall spirit of the defense.
Secret Notes - In this book he describes the chess personalities he has met and annotates 40 of his best games of the 1990s. He also recounts events from his earlier career, impressions of players such as Larsen, Spassky, and Korchnoi and expresses his views on modern chess. Interesting light reading.
Chess in the Eighties – He discusses the sport oriented nature of chess and its detriment of chess as an art. He also investigates chess psychology and the thinking processes involved in chess, the impact of computers. He coauthored this book with a psychologist.

 

    The following game was played against Najdorf in the 1954 USSR vs. Argentina match that was played in Buenos Aires and Bronstein's notes are most instructive. Bronstein sacrificed a piece for three Ps and his comments on how to evaluate the resulting position are most insightful.
     His three united passed Ps on the Q-side mutually protected each other and because there were three of them, they presented a severe obstacle to black's attempt to blockade them. In a case where three united passed Ps are pitted against a minor piece the Ps are generally superior to wither a N or B in the ending, but in the middlegame things are much more complicated because the extra piece can be used for attacking purposes before the Ps get moving. And, once Qs are exchanged, the Ps become more of a threat.
     When analyzing this game with Stockfish it found some improvements, particularly for Najdorf at move 28. But, as I have pointed out before, Jeremy Silman has made the point that when we amateurs look at master games the point is NOT to find errors, but to learn enough to appreciate the game’s beauty and learn the lessons that eventually will allow us to create that same beauty in our games. Besides that, if you're playing over games just for enjoyment, whose games would you choose? Tahl or Nezhmetdinov or Bronstein or Najdorf or the games of Petrosian or Ulf Andersson or Karpov?   As for the last three, it's more exciting watching sloths at the zoo.
 

Hastings 1953-54

Alexander

     The 29th Hastings Christmas Chess Festival was held at the end of the year 1953. After resuming annual tournaments in 1945 following World War II the Hastings club had struggled to keep the event going, but without many foreign participants the tournaments hadn't been of much interest to the public. The 1953-54 tournament was a different story.
     The Soviet Chess Federation sent David Bronstein and Alexander Tolush. Other invitees were four time Hastings winner Dr. Savielly Tartakower , C.H.O'D. Alexander, who had won the 1946-47 event, IMs Aleksander Matanovic, Alberic O'Kelly de Galway, and Robert Wade plus Fridik Olafsson, who had placed third in the 1953 World Junior Championship, Rudolf Teschner, the editor of Deutsche Schachzeitung and West German champion of 1951; and a previous Hastings participant and Dennis Horne, another British player.
     The failure of Bronstein and Tolush was an embarrassment by the Soviet Chess Federation, so the following year they Vasily Smyslov and Paul Keres. Those two did what Bronstein and Tolush failed to do; they dominated the tournament and tied for first.
     But for the 1953-54 event, it was C.H.O'D. Alexander who emerged as the hero when he scored 6.5-2.5 to tie for first with Bronstein. Plus, Alexander defeated both Soviet players. Especially notable was his 14-hour, 120-move battle with Bronstein. In the last round Alexander polished off Tolush in 28 moves. His victory prompted one magazine to comment that it was possible for a non-Soviet player to win a tournament when the deck wasn't stacked with other Soviets.
     Alexander's marathon victory over Bronstein stirred a lot of interest in the British press, especially when the multiple adjournments made an ideal day-to-day serial. Excitement was added when, after the first adjournment, Alexander defeated Tolush and so was tied with Bronstein who was adjourned in a bad position against Rudolph Teschner of West Germany.  Both Alexander and Bronstein had scores of 5.5-2.5.  What that meant was that there was a possibility that if Alexander managed to defeat Bronstein, he would capture sole possession of first place.
     In the adjourned Bronstein vs. Teschner game, Bronstein was a Pawn down and had no compensation. Shortly after resumption he had to let go of a second Pawn. When he offered a draw Teschner rightly refused, but then began to play one poor move after another and ended up losing which allowed Bronstein to tie for first.
     At Hastings 1937-38 Alexander tied with Keres for second place behind Reshevsky and ahead of Fine and Flohr. In the 1946 Anglo-Soviet Radio Match he scored a win and a loss against Botvinnik. Had it not been for the Second World War it's possible that Alexander would have reached the highest levels. According to Chessmetrics, between the years 1951 and 1956 Alexander's rating was over 2500 placing him among the top 50-60 players in the world.
     Most of the players in this tournament are familiar names with, perhaps, the exception of Dennis Horne. Dennis M. Horne (1920-2015) came into prominence while a student at Oxford University right after the war in which he served in the army. Probably the highlight of his career was his defeat of Euwe at Plymouth in 1948. At Felixstowe 1949, the first Swiss system British championship, he tied for second with Hooper behind Harry Golombek and he did quite well at the 1949-50 Hastings Premier. He was one of England's top players in the 1950s and played on the 1952 Olympiad team.
     Horne eventually became a prep school master with less time for chess and he began devoting more time to bridge. This tournament was his last major event and although he finished last, he defeated Olafsson and drew with O'Kelly. Horne did pop up again in the late 1970s when he played in the Dubai Open with mediocre results.
     Here is Alexander's crush of the very dangerous attacker Alexander Tolush. Kevin Spraggett has a good post on Tolush HERE.

 

A Fascinating Position

     In describing the following game, Irving Chernev wrote that it “floats along with ease and grace” and Bronstein’s play “charms us with its air of gay nonchalance. We derive pleasure that comes from spontaneous wit.” That’s not the language I’d use to describe it, but ever since I first saw the position after white’s 14th move in this game, it has held a fascination for me. 
     In 1954 the Soviets were unbeatable.  In March they defeated the team from Argentina 20.5-11.5. Other team victories in 1954 were: they won the Amsterdam Olympiad when they won 11 matches, lost none and drew only one (against Argentina). They crushed the US team in a match held in the Hotel Roosevelt in Manhattan by a score of 20-12. They beat teams from France 15-1 and Uruguay 19.5-0.5. 
     This game against Najdorf is especially interesting because it features three united passed Ps pitted against a minor piece. In the ending three united passed Ps are generally superior to either a N or B, but in the middlegame the situation is much more complicated. Sometimes the extra piece can be used to conduct an attack before the Ps can get moving. Once Qs are exchanged the Ps increase in value. 
     In Modern Chess Strategy, Pachman used this game, lightly annotated, as an example of how to play with passed Pawns against a piece. Irving Chernev also presented it in his book Twelve Great Chess Players and Their Best Games which contains 115 games by Capablanca, Alekhine, Lasker, Fischer, Botvinnik, Petrosian, Tal, Smyslov, Spassky, Bronstein, Rubinstein and Nimzovich.
     Everybody has praised Bronstein’s conception when he played 28.d6, but that was based more on the result than on the cold calculation of hundreds of thousands of variations that the engines can produce. And, of course, the engines found good defensive possibilities for Najdorf that are beyond the scope of humans. 

    That doesn’t take anything away from Bronstein’s play though. Thankfully, players like those 12 in Chernev’s book didn’t play like today’s GMs do!! Who wants to watch the rigor mortis brought on by too much computer analysis that prevails in today’s chess?

Play Online Chess

[Event "USSR vs. Argentina"]
[Site "Buenos Aires"]
[Date "1954.3.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "David Bronstein"]
[Black "Miguel Najdorf"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Sicilian Najdorf} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5
e6 7. Qf3 Nbd7 8. O-O-O Qc7 9. Qg3 b5 {Usual and less critical is 9...Be7.}
10. Bxb5 {Engines don't like this move, but Bronstein is going to get three Ps
for the piece and as he pointed out, it's wrong to judge the position based on
material alone. He will be able to neutralize the activity of black's pieces
without much trouble, but the mobilty of the passed Ps will be more difficult
to handle. He also observed that Najdorf did not take full advantage of his
opportunities.} 10... axb5 11. Ndxb5 {This position has been reached many
times since this game was played and in the database I am using, white has won
half, drawn a quarter and lost the rest, so the position is highly favorable
for white.} 11... Qb8 {In annotating this game in Twelve Great Chess Players
and Their Best Games, Irving Chernev wrote that like it or not, black has to
play this and trade Qs or else he won't be able to breath. Pachman, on the
other hand, gives it a question mark and recommends 11...Qa5 as was played in
the game Kotov-Lilienthal, Moscow 1942. As Pachman points out, Najdorf's move
eases white's task for the reason mentioned in the introduction...once Qs are
exchanged the Ps increase in value.} 12. Nxd6+ Bxd6 13. Qxd6 Qxd6 14. Rxd6 h6
{ Causing a disagreement between GMs. Bronstein wrote that his B is extremely
strong and it would be a pity to exchange it for a N. Pachman went so far as
to give the move a question mark and claimed Bronstein overestimated its
value. Instead, he recommended 15.Bxf6 as in Fichtl-Dolezal, Czech
Championship 1954 (the same year as this game) where white was soon able to
use his united passed Ps. Who is right? In the database white scores much
better with Bronstein's move which is also recommended by Stockfish.} 15. Bd2
Bb7 16. f3 { As Pachman now points out, black's next move is the losing move.
With 16... O-O-O his K would be able to help hold up the three passed Ps and
at the same time he could launch a counterattack by advancing his K-ide Ps
with ...g5-g4. In that case, black would have had some chances. Stockfish
prefers Chernev's alternate suggestion of 16...Ke7 (gaining a tempo by driving
back the R) and then ...Rhc8.} 16... O-O 17. b3 Rfc8 18. Kb2 Nc5 19. Be3 e5
{Questioned by Chernev. The intention is to create a square for the N, but it
also creates a weak square on d5 which is quickly utilized by Bronstein. Black
should probably try to rectify his mistake in castling by playing 19...Kf8.}
20. Rhd1 Ne6 21. Rb6 Bc6 22. Nd5 {An obstreperous N, says Chernev. I had to
look that one up...it means noisy and difficult to control. Black's in a
pickle... he can't allow the N to remain on d5 in view of the fork on e7 as
well as Nxf6 and Bxh3.} 22... Bxd5 23. exd5 {White now has four connected
passed Ps...too many for a piece to handle.} 23... Nc5 24. Rb5 Nfd7 25. c4 e4
{The Ns have succeeded in holding up the advance of the Ps so now Bronstein
eliminates one of them. Bronstein also has in mind a plan to sacrifice a P to
aid in the advance of the others.} 26. Bxc5 Nxc5 27. fxe4 Nxe4 {Bronstein's
next move has been universally, and incorrectly, praised because Najdorf erred
in grabbing the a-Pawn. Correct was first 28.Rd4 attacking the N. Then if
28...f5 and only now 29.d6. In that case, Shootouts using Stockfish only
produced one win and four draws at 15-23 plies. I would suggest setting up
this position and playing through all the possibilities with an engine.} 28.
d6 {Stockfish suggests 28.Rb6 and then a6. With 28.Rb6 the possibility of a
sacrifice on 2 and the fork on c6 are eliminated and white keeps his four Ps.
In that case white would have had a sure win.} 28... Rxa2+ {This is the actual
losing move. Correct was 28...Rc6!! then if 29.d7 and once again Shootouts
resulted in only one win for white and four draws.} 29. Kxa2 Nc3+ 30. Ka3
Nxd1 {While black is losing time with his N, white advances his Ps.} 31. c5
Nc3 32. Ra5 Nd5 33. c6 Nf6 34. Ra6 Kf8 35. b4 Ke8 36. b5 Nd7 {Both sides were
in extreme time pressure so Najdorf is simply trying to complicate. It would
be wrong to take the N and break up his Ps.} 37. Ra7 Rb8 38. Rxd7 Rxb5 {White
has a mate in 12 with 39.Re7, but it takes 23 move with 39.Ra7...not that it
matters.} 39. Ra7 {White intends d7} 39... Rb8 40. d7+ Ke7 41. d8=Q+ Kxd8 42.
c7+ {Mate in 18 after this.} 1-0

He Should Have Been World Champion

David Bronstein came close when he drew the 1951 match for by a score of 12-12 with Mikhail Botvinnik.

The lead swung back and forth several times and every game was played hard to a clear finish. The quality of play was very high in the entire match. Bronstein led by one point with two games to go, but lost the 23rd game and drew the final game to tie the match and allow Botvinnik to keep the championship.

It has been alleged that Bronstein was forced by the Soviet authorities to throw the match to allow Botvinnik to win. Also in the 1953 Candidates' Tournament it has been speculated that there was pressure on the top non-Russian Soviets, Keres and Bronstein, to allow Smyslov to win. And of course during the Candidates tournament in Curacao, 1962, Bobby Fischer made claims that the Soviets cheated by agreeing to the outcome of individual games against each other. But that’s another story.

Bronstein never confirmed these rumors in his public statements or writings, admitting only to 'strong psychological pressure' being applied. In his final book, however, published in 2007 after his death, Bronstein wrote that Smyslov was favoured for Zurich 1953 by the Soviet Chess Federation, and that other Soviet representatives were pressured to make this happen.

In the really great book, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Bronstein wrote "I have been asked many, many times if I was obliged to lose the 23rd game and if there was a conspiracy against me to stop me from taking Botvinnik's title. A lot of nonsense has been written about this. The only thing that I am prepared to say about all this controversy is that I was subjected to strong psychological pressure from various origins and it was entirely up to me to yield to that pressure or not."

He also added “I had reasons not to become the World Champion, as in those times such a title meant that you were entering an official world of chess bureaucracy with many formal obligations. Such a position is not compatible with my character.” And he later wrote that it was likely better that he didn't win the world title, since his artistic personality would have been at odds with Soviet bureaucracy.

But that’s not the reason for this post. The reason is that many years ago I came across the game Zita-Bronstein from the Prague-Moscow match in 1946. In that game Bronstein played the fantastic exchange sacrifice 17…Rxa1 and I never exactly understood the reason why. It was only when I purchased The Sorcerer’s Apprentice that I found a satisfactory explanation which I give here. I was even more amazed to discover that earlier he had played the same move in a slightly different position against Pachman. I am giving both positions with Bronstein,s explanations in this post. For anybody that’s interested in playing over some truly fantastic games and reading a little history of Soviet chess in the days of yesteryear, I can highly recommend this book.

I urge you to follow Bronstein’s explanations of these two positions; he makes chess sound simple!