| Feb-09-03 | | refutor: This is a great attacking game by Taimanov in the style of Morphy, sacrificing pawns in order to open lines for his other pieces. White used his trump in the Nimzo-Indian (the dark squared bishop) to bring a strong attack up the a1-h8 diagonal, and Bronstein suggest 27. ... e5 instead of 27. ... Bc6 to stop Taimanov's attack. What do you guys think? |
|
| Feb-09-03 | | mdorothy: At first glance, I think 27...e5 is inviting an immediate Rd6. |
|
| Feb-09-03 | | Spitecheck: I think f4 might be the response to e5 just as it was later on in the game, I say that without really calculating the variations. Opposite coloured bishops, the black pawns cannot stay (survive) on the black squares when underfire from bishop and pawn. The intention of e5 is to decrease the effectiveness of White's bishop, which it would except for the fact that white has other means to fight for the e5 square (and hence the black squares in the king's field). |
|
| Feb-11-03 | | judokausa1: I am thinking that the theme for the attack would be the same. lever pawns on the black squares and open lines. the h4-h5 theme is still strong and hitting the center with f4 after the exchange on g5. It seems to me white is forced to deal with the d pawn. It is too serious a threat to just ignore. |
|
| May-03-04 | | vonKrolock: Bronstein's exam is superficial: "if 29...g5, then 30.Bxf6 Rxf6 31.Qxg5 Kf7 32.h6 (...)" why, White is winning?! what about 32...Ke8! 33.Qg8 Rf8 34.Qh7 Qe7! 35.Qg6 Qf7 etc - Black is safe, and Taimanov would face a hard time trying to prove that his pawns are worth a Bishop... - to the actual: 29...gxh5 30.e4 e5 31.f4 - Bronstein's comment persuading that against Qe7 " 32.fe5 fe5 33.Rd5" is the winning method is hasty too, please look at 33...Qh4!! - Averbakh would shot an immediate perpetual if 34.Rxd7, und neither the alternative a)34.Qe3 Bc6! 35.Rxe5 Rf4!, nor b) 34.Qd2 Be6! 35.Rxe5 Kf7! leads to something; the losing move was probably 32...exf4, that loses at least the exchange. |
|
| Aug-09-07 | | heuristic: An Q+2B attack requires a defense that either
- blocks the Bishop
19...Be4 20.Bxe4 Nxe4 21.Nxd7 Qxd7 22.Red1 0.66/13
instead of
19...g6 20.g4 Qe7 21.Reb1 f5 22.Qg3 1.06/13
- trades a Bishop
21...Ne4 22.Bf1 Qd2 23.Re2 Qd3 0.28/15
not
21...Nf5 22.Bxf5 exf5 23.Red1 Rd7 0.66/16
- trades the Queen
30...Qe7 31.Bxf6 Qxf6 32.Qxf6 Rxf6 33.Rxd7 0.38/16
instead of
30...e5 31.f4 Rf7 32.fxe5 fxe5 33.Bxe5 0.63/14
33...Qg6 34.Qxg6+ hxg6 35.Be7 Be8 36.Bxf8 1.19/17
instead of
33...Rf7 34.Rd5 Rxf6 35.Qxf6 Qg6 36.Rg5 8.78/14
Just like 21...Ne4,
Averbakh finds the best defence
27...Bc6 28.Rd6 Rf7 29.h3 Bxd7 30.e4 0.22/16
not
27...e5 28.Rd6 Rf7 29.Qh3 Be4 30.Qe6 0.44/16
or 27...Rf7 28.Qh3 e5 29.Qe6 Be4 30.g4 1.06/16
vonKrolock's lines to bronstein's suggestions are correct :
29...g5 30.f4
(not 30.Bxf6 Rxf6 31.Rxd7 Qxd7 32.Qxf6 0.00/17)
30...Rf7 31.fxg5 fxg5 32.Rd6 0.84/16
the game continuation seems better :
29...gxh5 30.Qf4 Rf7 31.Qh4 h6 32.Qxh5 0.47/14
but 31...Qe7 does seem strong,
just not with bronstein's 33.Rd5.
31...Qe7 32.fxe5 fxe5 33.Bxe5
(33.Rd5 Qh4 stops White
34.Qd2 Bc6 35.Rxe5 h6 36.Re6
34.Rxd7 Qf2+ 35.Kh2 Qh4+ 36.Kg1
34.Bxe5 Qf2+ 35.Kh2 Qh4+ 36.Kg1
34.Rxe5 Qf2+ 35.Kh2 Qf4+ 36.Qxf4
all evaluate as 0.00)
33...Bg4 34.Rd5 0.81/15
instead of the game line,
31...exf4 32.Rd6 Qe8 33.Bxf6 Qg6 34.Qxg6+ 1.19/15
to conclude,
19...Be4 is a minor improvment
it blocks the Bishop
21...Ne4 is correct
29...gxh5 is correct
30...Qe7 is a minor improvement
33...Qg6 results in a endgame with drawing chances
all exchange an attacking piece
and
31...Qe7 shuts down White's attack
The Queen becomes active and keeps a pawn on e5 to block the bishop doesn't look like a strong example of a Q+B attack to me..... (all analysis with Fritz 8, 2 mins/move)
|
|
Jun-22-08
 | | plang: Bronstein and Wood were both critical of 14..Ndf6 saying that it made blacks position too static. Bronstein recommended 14..Rc7 with the idea of
..Qa8, ..Rfc8 and..Nf8. Wood mentions 14..Qe7 or even 14..f5 as alternatives. In addition to 19..Be4 Wood gives 19..Be4 and 19..f5 as possible defenses. Averbakh offered a draw after 23..Rd7 apparently underestimating the superiority of the white bishop as black is weaker on the dark squares than white is on the light squares. If 25..Bc8 then white can play 26 e4 followed either by a rook lift or a bishop redeployment to g5 via c1. In fact Bronstein points out that 25 Rad1 was not necessary and that Taimanov could have played 25 e4 at once. A beautiful variation is if
27..Rf7 28 Qh3..f5 29 Qh6..Rxd7 30 Qg7+!. |
|
Jul-27-14
 | | jbennett: I'm doing a series of videos on the Zurich 1953 tournament. For round 6 I selected this game to cover: http://youtu.be/fNs3NrG9njU |
|
Nov-29-16
 | | keypusher: Memorably (though apparently superficially, see von Krolock's post from 2004) annotated by Bronstein in the tournament book. |
|
| Apr-24-22 | | Brenin: You have to look at White's move 31 (and preferably play through to it) to understand the pun. |
|
| Apr-24-22 | | Saniyat24: hmm...! |
|
| Apr-24-22 | | daladno: Finally a cool pun that has something to do with the game itself among all these silly jokes about players' names. |
|
| Apr-24-22 | | goodevans: The final SF annotations helpfully tell us that Taimanov could have got a <+12.08> advantage with 34.Qg5+ before telling us that what he chose instead gave him a <+53.90> advantage. Go figure. |
|
Apr-24-22
 | | HeMateMe: Such an interesting attack, how white moves every pawn out of the way. |
|
| Apr-24-22 | | faulty: what a pity I cannot find the game Botvinnik-Smyslov where somewhere at move 40 Botvinnik went e2-e4, Smyslov made a mistake c7-c5, Botvinnik, I think, moved his bishop, and the black resigned. would be 'deferred Sicilian'. could someone look for it with some search system? |
|
| Apr-24-22 | | Olavi: Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1964 |
|
Apr-24-22
 | | OhioChessFan: Awesome. Thanks <Olavi> and <faulty>, |
|
Apr-24-22
 | | Aminda: Goodevans, SF does actually recommend Rd5…but 2 moves later…after “he” realizes it is the best continuation. All too human of “him” (errare humanum est). |
|
| Apr-24-22 | | areknames: A real pleasure to play through this game and such a clever pun. |
|
| Apr-24-22 | | whiteshark: "Averbakh, playing Black, tried the humorous (or very serious) psychological
ploy of playing Taimanov's own system in the Nimzo-Indian against him. But at
the twelfth move he neglected to play <... Be4> to eliminate the strong white king's
bishop, after which White seized the advantage, systematically aiming at weak
points and erupting in the center to win the game." Miguel Najdorf, "Zürich 1953", Rd 6 intro |
|
Kibitzing
