|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-28-05 | | who: Was this game adjourned? |
|
| Sep-28-05 | | who: btw sammy was doing fine right till move 40. 40...Nd3 was necessary. |
|
| Sep-28-05 | | suenteus po 147: <who: btw sammy was doing fine right till move 40. 40...Nd3 was necessary.> I don't know if the game was adjourned, but that's why I made my comment about the time control. 40...Ra3 looks initially like a quick "decent move" to avoid running out of time, but it was the worst move he could have made. I hate moves like that, because I realize all my hard work and effort has just been flushed down the drain in one stupid, quick move. |
|
| Jul-29-06 | | sahmattr: I appreciate Bronstein's Tal- like games. |
|
| Dec-17-06 | | meloncio: <suenteus po 147><I don't know if the game was adjourned,...> Bronstein wrote that, after move his rook (40... Ra3), Reshevsky offered a draw when he was sealing his next move (41.Bc5) |
|
| Sep-08-07 | | D4n: Move # 41, Be7 couldn't been the best move. |
|
| Nov-10-09 | | tonsillolith: What is wrong with <38. c4> followed by <39. Rxe4>? |
|
| Dec-12-10 | | Everett: Smyslov can thank Bronstein for bringing his full attention and strength to his games vs Reshevsky at Zurich. |
|
Feb-09-12
 | | Penguincw: Move 41, great move. Gets the rook under fire. |
|
Aug-06-13
 | | GrahamClayton: "An emotional struggle, in which the American grandmaster lost not only the game, but also any chance for first place." - Miguel Najdorf - Zurich 1953: 15 Contenders for the World Chess Championship. |
|
| Jun-22-14 | | Conrad93: Bronstein making Reshevsky look like a silly child... Hah. |
|
| Jun-23-14 | | SimonWebbsTiger: the only person looking like a silly child is you Conrad. You do realise psychiatrists have found a link between psychopathology and internet trolling, right? Get some Medical help pronto. |
|
Oct-07-17
 | | cwcarlson: 40.♗f2! ♖a2 41.♗e4 ♖f2+ 42.♔g1=. 40.♗b3?! ♖a3? 41.♗c5+-; 40...♘d3 ∓. |
|
Jan-15-20
 | | Fusilli: <suenteus po 147: ... I hate moves like that, because I realize all my hard work and effort has just been flushed down the drain in one stupid, quick move.> I see your point, but... Reshevsky got a better position *because* he thought so much. Then he was forced to make quick moves to reach time control and blundered. He did that to himself. He would routinely use way too much time and end up playing blitz to reach time control. And he virtually always did (he did calculate lots of moves and variations in advance and would play them quickly when under severe time pressure). But this was no accident and no bad luck. No matter how good you are, if you use too much time, you are bound to blunder a game now and then. *Especially* when you play strong players, who know how to create traps and make it difficult for you. |
|
Jun-14-22
 | | plang: 16 a4 was a new move; 16 g4 had been played in a game in the semi-finals of the 1952 USSR Championship. 18 g4 would have been a typical idea in this variation but Bronstein did not feel comfortable with the weaknesses created in the kingside. Bronstein's 18 g3 was a clever alternative as 18..Bxh3 19 Ng5 would have been very strong for White. 24 Nd5!? was a speculative pawn sacrifice giving White two bishops in an increasingly open position. Regaining the pawn with 27 bxc..bxc 28 Qxc4..Rc5 would have given Black too much activity. 36..Nxf2? 37 Bb3 would not have helped Black. 40 Bxf2..Ra2 41 Bxe4 would have been good enough for a draw; instead 40 Bb3? set a trap that Black fell into. With 40..Ra3? Reshevsky offered a draw (for the third time in the game) not realizing that he had blundered. Had Black tried 51..Ng3 the 52 Kxf4 would have been decisive due to the mate threat. |
|
| Oct-22-23 | | Olavi: <plang> <With 40..Ra3? Reshevsky offered a draw (for the third time in the game) not realizing that he had blundered> No, Reshevsky offered a draw because he realized he had blundered, trying to trick Bronstein (who might not know they'd made 40 moves). |
|
Oct-22-23
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi Olavi,
Bronstein mentions in 'Chess Struggle and Practice' that Sammy offered a draw whilst he sealing his 41st move. It's possible that as Bronstein was putting the sealed move in an envelope Sammy might might have been doing a bit of sealed move fishing. If Bronstein had played say 41. Bxf2 then he may agreed a draw there and then. When Bronstein said 'No' Sammy would have feared the worse and known he had sealed 41.Bc5. |
|
| Oct-23-23 | | Olavi: <Sally Simpson> Jim Marfia's translation, 'Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953' (second, corrected Russian edition in 1960, for what it's worth): (On 40...Ra3) "With this move - while I was still writing it down, in fact - Reshevsky offered a draw (for the third time this game)." That makes it sound like the envelope wasn't there yet, and why would it be, clearly the five hours weren't up yet; but probably I'm wrong in supposing that Bronstein might not have known they had made the 40. |
|
Oct-23-23
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Olavi,
I've only have the Batsford 1980 edition. I was reading it as Bronstein would have signaled his intention to seal, the arbiter brings across an envelope, Bronstein writes down his move prior to popping it in the envelope, it was here Sammy offered a draw for the 3rd time. |
|
| Oct-23-23 | | Olavi: <Sally Simpson> Either way it's a fine specimen of a Reshevsky draw offer. |
|
Oct-24-23
 | | perfidious: Typically ethical behaviour from Reshevsky, and what we call angle-shooting in poker. |
|
Oct-24-23
| | Sally Simpson: We could give him the benefit of the doubt by saying he missed 41.Bc5 after all he did play 40...Ra3 and missed it then. But it does appear after making time control he saw what he had done and offered a draw. |
|
| Jan-10-25 | | FM David H. Levin: <<D4n>: Move # 41, Be7 couldn't been the best move.> 41...Be7 might look strange but appears to be the best move. If 42. Bxe7?, then 42...Rxb3 would be playable because on 43. Bf8+, Black would have 43...Kf6. On the game's 42. Bxa3 Bxa3, Black limited the material loss to an exchange. |
|
| Jan-10-25 | | ewan14: Was this the game the Soviet chess authorities ordered Bronstein to win ? |
|
| Jan-10-25 | | Muttley101: <ewan14: Was this the game the Soviet chess authorities ordered Bronstein to win ?> The instruction the Soviet players were under was to ensure that Reshevsky didn't win the candidates, and so qualify to play Botvinnik. I'm not sure about specific games, you'd have to research that a bit more. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
